I do not necessarily see your logic, if the Pentateuch were written 1200 BC, that does not mean that is when the stories were incorporated into the Hebrew traditions.
Thats the same with any ancient civilization. Oral tradition comes long before it is written. The task is to try to look at the little information we have and gather timelines and create highly speculated guesses as to when certain beliefs existed under what political powers. This is a problem for both Hebrew and non-Biblical religious views alike. Anything one side can say, the other can say right back.
One thing that bothers me about some of the assumptions that are being made, after living in Egypt for 500 years and admittedly worshiping their gods, why do we not see a parallel between Hebrew/Egyptian mythologies, indeed these two mythologies as they are called are strikingly dissimilar, but why is that?
Because the similarities are from the civilizations that surrounded the Israelites during the authorship of the Pentateuch (Canaanite, Assyrian and friends). Any egyptian influence would have faded for the more influencial and present cultures.
And what understandings have been gleaned from ANE cultures to help us to understand the OT?
Let's start outside Genesis.
The typical ancient near eastern myth had the high god (we’ll use Babylonian mythology for this example) Marduk, and the god of death Mot, in a constant war and struggle. The high god would often lose to mot in battle, which is when winter came, and come back to life to fight again in the spring.
One of Mot’s (or any god of death’s) primary attributes was the image of him “swallowing” people down into his pit. The notion of death swallowing somebody is very common in the Old Testament. Just search the term swallow in the NASB on Biblegateway.org and you will see many examples of how death and descent into hell is put into words of being “swallowed up”. This is also the way that the death god usually kills the high god.
Now pay particular attention to the imagery in Isaiah 25:7-8a. “On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever.” In this prophesy, we see Yahweh doing what no other god in the ancient near east could…. Defeating death permanently. Marduk and Ba’al always succumbed to death and would rise again, temporarily defeating death only be killed again and again and again. But Yahweh swallows up death itself FOREVER!
This connection is nothing new, and has been used in commentaries on the passage for years, by both creationists and noncreationists alike. Why can’t we look at Genesis 1 in the same way?
We can also understand the context of Elijah and Elisha's narratives in Kings much better with the unearthing of the library under Ugarit, because of the wealth of Baal worship documents there, most notably the Baal Epic (a story of Baal's rise to power in the pantheon) and a variety of ritual texts pertaining to Baal.
I can provide full detail on this if you would like, but in short, we see the Elijah/Elisha narratives a push not just against Baalism, but against the entire Ancient Near Eastern pantheon. THere is no polytheism. There is only Yahweh who completely transcends the ANE stereotype god.
Of most significance in the narratives is the theophanies on Mt. Horeb in 1 Kings 19, where the fire, wind, and quake pass by, but Yahweh ends up being in none of those, but in the still small voice after. THanks to ANE scholarship, we know that fire, wind, and quake are classic storm god theophanies. In the context of the passage and looking at the culture of the area closer, we can see that Yahweh is declaring his transcendance outside the storm god profile, and outside mere functionality in the real world as all other gods were defined.
We no longer need to force a view of either a crocodile or a dinosaur onto the Leviathan creature found in Job, or Rahab found in Psalms and Job, and we see the actual power of Yahweh being displayed is on a whole new level. They are modeled after ANE sea monsters that, at the time, pretty much the entire biblical world thought existed and feared greatly. The sea was associated with chaos and the sea god and his minion and monsters were evil and usually the main enemy of the high god's rise to power (some have the high storm god fight just the sea, like babylon, while others like canaanite religion have the high god fight both the sea and death before he establishes his rulership). Leviathan matches the classic descriptions of the sea monster, and we see that the claim of the book of Job is that Yahweh has the power to control the most epic and dangerous creature in mythical lore! Thats right. The most dangerous creature ever imagine by mankind (although they thought he was real) was nothing compared to Yahweh. And while Rahab him/herself doesn't get much description, we see the ways Yahweh deals with him/her to be similar to the ways the high god defeats the sea god.
Do you want some more? Or more detail on any of those? I rambled in my mind and didn't proof read any so its very possible that in the middle there I got completely incomprehensible.
These things we learn are not new doctrine or powerful waves of theology that mankind cannot be saved without. Rather they are helpful to rekindle some of the emphasis in the narratives lost over the years. The post-enlightenment era gave a new wave of criticisms that attacked the validity of the Bible. I don't think it is coincidence that we uncovered these ancient documents when we did, because they go to great lengths to address the issues and problems that secular scholars lobby against the texts.
I don't mean to say that all Christians must learn about ANE culture and religion before they can understand the Bible. As somebody who has taken Greek and currently taking Hebrew, I would want make a parallel in benefits between learning the original language and learning the original cultures. Neither are needed in getting the overarching themes and messages, and you won't end up a heretic for not having them; however, those they work to clear up those little confusions, to answer nagging questions, and help avoid the bias of our own language and culture (although no approach is without bias, the goal is to keep it to a minimum or at least be self aware of your bias)
