Dating the Pentateuch

[Mental flatliner]

The first one, Enki and Ninḫursaĝa, isn't that much like Genesis 2-3.

Enki figures in a Sumerian myth which is a parallel to the Hebrew story of Adam and the Garden of Eden. In paradisal Dilmun, now identified with Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, the water god lived with Ninhursaga; it was a happy place, where animals did not harm one another, and neither sickness nor old age was known. The only thing wanting had been sweet water, and this Enki provided– his union with the earth mother turned the island into a fruitful garden. A quarrel arose when Enki devoured eight plants grown by Ninhursaga. She pronounced on him the curse of death. It was effective: sickness attacked eight parts of his body, to the dismay of the other gods. Enlil was powerless to arrest Enki's decline, the situation appeared hopeless. Then the fox spoke up. It offered to bring Ninhursaga back to Dilmun, providing there was suitable reward. This happened and the earth mother created eight deities to heal her consort's afflictions.

There are obvious similarities between this myth and the biblical picture of paradise. In Genesis‘ there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole ground,’ while the eating of forbidden plants is distinctly reminiscent of the tree of life in Eden. The very idea of a divine paradise, a garden of the gods, was of Sumerian origin. Eve, Adam's spouse, and ‘the lady of the rib,’ Ninti, the goddess created to heal Enki–s side, also have something in common. We know that there was ‘planted upon Abzu’ a sacred tree, kiskanu, which acted as the central point for rituals. Though the term ‘tree of life’ does not occur in any surviving Mesopotamian text, it can be deduced from pictorial representations of ritual observances that the tree played a significant role.

The quote seems to make more of the similarities than is there... a fox instead of the serpent? I think we can categorize the similarities as vague, we can also state that they are well known.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/sum/sum07.htm might be a more concise summary of your other examples.

Rather than resorting to a non-academic web site, you should have read the myth. After all, that's what sources are for, and that's why I provided it.

In this myth, there are at least 18 similarities with Genesis 2-3 (and almost all of them occur in exactly the same sequential order in both versions). The first time these similarities were published was before WW II by people like Samuel Kramer.

One set of similarities represents a smoking gun:
1--Enki eats poisonous fruit
2--Enki comes down with an aching rib
3--A woman is created to heal his aching rib
4--That woman's name was "lady of the rib" and at the same time her name meant "lady of all mankind"
5--This woman was rewarded with being the progenitor of human beings (in the last line she was named "lady of the month", referring to the menstrual cycle)

(The reason why I didn't give you a representative for Genesis 1 is because we have never discovered any kind of cosmology written by the Sumerians. It has to be pieced together from many different sources, and many of them refer to Genesis 1, such as "when he divided the land from the waters..." or "when he divided the sun from the moon", etc.)

I forgot to give you the myth that tells how Enki formed man out of clay. If I find it you can have it.

[spin]

For example, Genesis 1-11 are demonstrably Sumerian in origin

Same banal unsupported (& unsupportable) assertion. Do try to demonstrate your claim, but I won't hold my breath as so far you've managed to substantiate nothing at all... other than your lack of substantiation.

I hope Oxford University meets your standards:

This is the Sumerian version of Genesis 2-3:
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... xt=t.1.1.1#

This is the Sumerian version of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This is a legal document that duplicates the literary style of Genesis 5 and gives a very similar timeline from creation to the flood:
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This is the Sumerian version of the flood, predating the Epic of Gilgamesh by 200 years (Genesis 6-8):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This historical document verifies life spans of over 200 years in the first paragraph (comparable in time to Genesis 11):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This Sumerian myth expresses the hope that all the earth will come to Nippur to worship in a single language (See Genesis 6):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This story describes the original migration of men into Shinar (Genesis 11):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

***************
Maybe it would be easier if you showed me which part of Genesis 1-11 is NOT Sumerian?

(Somehow I get the picture this is the first time you've ever seen the body of Sumerian literature. To claim that Sumer didn't have a capital, though, I would categorize that as self-inflicted ignorance. All empires have capitals, and from 2100-2000 BC, the capital was Ur.)

Shit, you could have just bought Kramer's "History Begins at Sumer" if you wanted to provide sources for biblical stories. The onus is on you to show that that these stories weren't passed down through the Mesopotamian literary traditions and eventually received by the Jews, not just rehearse a bunch of parallelisms. When did the Jewish appropriation of these stories happen?? Was it 3000 years ago or was it much later, for example, when the Palestinian people were taken to Mesopotamia, where they sat down and wept?

[Mental flatliner]

Shit, you could have just bought Kramer's "History Begins at Sumer" if you wanted to provide sources for biblical stories. The onus is on you to show that that these stories weren't passed down through the Mesopotamian literary traditions and eventually received by the Jews, not just rehearse a bunch of parallelisms. When did the Jewish appropriation of these stories happen?? Was it 3000 years ago or was it much later, for example, when the Palestinian people were taken to Mesopotamia, where they sat down and wept?

I've read it.

Samuel Kramer was good but he's about 50 years out of date.

I gave these links because of the obvious information not available to him, and the completeness of Oxford University's collection.

(Also, not to point out the obvious, but Samuel Kramer is not a primary source, and my links are. I make it a rule to do my own thinking. I don't abdicate my brain to anyone just because they claim to be an expert.)

***************
As for onus, I've supplied it.

Genesis 1-11 is obviously a collection of Sumerian literature.

(If you had the first clue about Bronze Age history, you'd know that the Sumerian civilization completely collapsed about 2000 BC, and there cannot have been any passing down of literature. It was buried for 3900 years.)

[spin]

Shit, you could have just bought Kramer's "History Begins at Sumer" if you wanted to provide sources for biblical stories. The onus is on you to show that that these stories weren't passed down through the Mesopotamian literary traditions and eventually received by the Jews, not just rehearse a bunch of parallelisms. When did the Jewish appropriation of these stories happen?? Was it 3000 years ago or was it much later, for example, when the Palestinian people were taken to Mesopotamia, where they sat down and wept?

I've read it.

Samuel Kramer was good but he's about 50 years out of date.

I gave these links because of the obvious information not available to him, and the completeness of Oxford University's collection.

(Also, not to point out the obvious, but Samuel Kramer is not a primary source, and my links are. I make it a rule to do my own thinking. I don't abdicate my brain to anyone just because they claim to be an expert.)

You have overlooked the general comment. You have introduced nothing to support your claim. The connections you note are old hat, as Kramer shows and if you looked at Kramer you'd see that despite it being aimed at a popular audience he supplies primary sources, translated by himself. And you can go to the journals of the era where he gets technical. All beside the point. You haven't shown anything other than a literary relationship yet. And we already knew that.

As for onus, I've supplied it.

Genesis 1-11 is obviously a collection of Sumerian literature.

Once again the assertion. What makes you think that Genesis is anything more than a collection of traditions shaped by all the hands that passed them on from culture to culture until they reached the Jews?

(If you had the first clue about Bronze Age history, you'd know that the Sumerian civilization completely collapsed about 2000 BC, and there cannot have been any passing down of literature. It was buried for 3900 years.)

Perhaps you should read a little bit rather than talking nonsense. There are traces of texts over the Mesopotamian centuries that show the epic of Gilgamesh being passed on. In fact traces of the epic have made it into the "Arabian Nights" collection of stories.

When you want to show that you have some reason for your claims, I'll read it, but so far, you've shown nothing other than a penchant for making unsustainable claims.

[Mental flatliner]

You have overlooked the general comment. You have introduced nothing to support your claim. The connections you note are old hat, as Kramer shows and if you looked at Kramer you'd see that despite it being aimed at a popular audience he supplies primary sources, translated by himself. And you can go to the journals of the era where he gets technical. All beside the point. You haven't shown anything other than a literary relationship yet. And we already knew that.

I demonstrated that Genesis 1-11 is Sumerian literature preserved in the Bible.

That's all you need.

You can't claim with one side of your face that you already knew and then with the other side pretend my claims are unsupportable. As much as I enjoy it when you collapse into obvious self-contradiction, you really need to make a point.

[spin]

You have overlooked the general comment. You have introduced nothing to support your claim. The connections you note are old hat, as Kramer shows and if you looked at Kramer you'd see that despite it being aimed at a popular audience he supplies primary sources, translated by himself. And you can go to the journals of the era where he gets technical. All beside the point. You haven't shown anything other than a literary relationship yet. And we already knew that.

I demonstrated that Genesis 1-11 is Sumerian literature preserved in the Bible.

Rubbish. You rehearsed the fact that Genesis contains some traditions that can be traced back to Sumeria. Two very different things. The Arabian Nights contain traditions that can be traced back there as well.

That's all you need.

You can't claim with one side of your face that you already knew and then with the other side pretend my claims are unsupportable. As much as I enjoy it when you collapse into obvious self-contradiction, you really need to make a point.

[semiopen]

You have overlooked the general comment. You have introduced nothing to support your claim. The connections you note are old hat, as Kramer shows and if you looked at Kramer you'd see that despite it being aimed at a popular audience he supplies primary sources, translated by himself. And you can go to the journals of the era where he gets technical. All beside the point. You haven't shown anything other than a literary relationship yet. And we already knew that.

I demonstrated that Genesis 1-11 is Sumerian literature preserved in the Bible.

That's all you need.

You can't claim with one side of your face that you already knew and then with the other side pretend my claims are unsupportable. As much as I enjoy it when you collapse into obvious self-contradiction, you really need to make a point.

You gave examples that allegedly show some vague similarities with parts of Genesis but not with Genesis 1.

The link you give for Genesis 11 - (Tower of Babel) is titled How grain came to Sumer. This is crap, it's nothing like the story, but who cares its not what we were discussing.

You claimed that Genesis 1 was written in Sumerian before the 31st century BCE.

[Mental flatliner]

You gave examples that allegedly show some vague similarities with parts of Genesis but not with Genesis 1.

The link you give for Genesis 11 - (Tower of Babel) is titled How grain came to Sumer. This is crap, it's nothing like the story, but who cares its not what we were discussing.

You claimed that Genesis 1 was written in Sumerian before the 31st century BCE.

Mistakes made in your post:
1--You didn't read the examples I gave, therefore you can't call them "vague"
2--I gave examples of almost all of the first 11 chapters represented (I even named the chapters so you could follow along)
3--The link I gave for Chapter 11 was for Genesis 11:1 (and said so)
4--I claimed that Genesis 1 as written before 3000 BC, not "in the 31st century BC"
5--I never claimed it was written in Sumerian, I said it preserved the elements of the language (therefore Genesis 1 is likely older)

You're not qualified to respond to my posts when you make this many errors.

Now for the big purple gorilla hiding in plain sight:

Nothing in Genesis 1-11 is of Hebrew origin. (I'm sure it never occurred to you that the obvious names never appear: Jerusalem, Israel, lengthy prophecies, names beginning with "je" or ending in "iah", you know, ethnic Jewish giveaways like that.)

There has to be quite a vortex between your ears to allow the obvious to escape like this.

[spin]

You gave examples that allegedly show some vague similarities with parts of Genesis but not with Genesis 1.

The link you give for Genesis 11 - (Tower of Babel) is titled How grain came to Sumer. This is crap, it's nothing like the story, but who cares its not what we were discussing.

You claimed that Genesis 1 was written in Sumerian before the 31st century BCE.

Mistakes made in your post:
1--You didn't read the examples I gave, therefore you can't call them "vague"
2--I gave examples of almost all of the first 11 chapters represented (I even named the chapters so you could follow along)
3--The link I gave for Chapter 11 was for Genesis 11:1 (and said so)
4--I claimed that Genesis 1 as written before 3000 BC, not "in the 31st century BC"
5--I never claimed it was written in Sumerian, I said it preserved the elements of the language (therefore Genesis 1 is likely older)

While most of these claims a meaningless, this last claim is obviously false. Take the Sumerian story of the woman (the ur-Eve figure). Ambiguity in the Sumerian language explains the rib connection, an ambiguity not available in Hebrew, so you get the ultimately tenuous creation of Eve from the rib without any justifiable reason in the Jewish version. What's the wind doing in the story in Gen 1:2?? You can't understand from the Jewish story. You have to return to the Enuma Elish to get the significance. For the sons of angels who are of daughters of men, you have to turn to 2 Enoch to help you understand.

I have pointed you to the fact that traditions can last a long time and that there is no reason to assume that because they do they are somehow original. You utterly fail to get serious with the material, preferring to make bald assertions on simple similarities and come up with outlandish nonsense.

You're not qualified to respond to my posts when you make this many errors.

You are hopeless hypocritical.

Now for the big purple gorilla hiding in plain sight:

Nothing in Genesis 1-11 is of Hebrew origin. (I'm sure it never occurred to you that the obvious names never appear: Jerusalem, Israel, lengthy prophecies, names beginning with "je" or ending in "iah", you know, ethnic Jewish giveaways like that.)

Obviously Donna Leon's Inspector Brunetti series of books were written by Italians because there are only Italian names!? Don't be plain silly with your assumption level. Most of the names in Gen 1-11 are based on Hebrew words, such as Adam and Seth, not earlier names.

There has to be quite a vortex between your ears to allow the obvious to escape like this.

At least something is functioning between his ears. Can't say the same for you. All you seem to have is stuffings of assumption riddled claptrap. You seem totally unaware of the relevant scholarship in biblical analysis of Genesis, totally unread in the subject. It's as though you were fed on Zondervan cornflakes as you were growing up.

[Mental flatliner]

Ambiguity in the Sumerian language explains the rib connection, an ambiguity not available in Hebrew, so you get the ultimately tenuous creation of Eve from the rib without any justifiable reason in the Jewish version. What's the wind doing in the story in Gen 1:2?? You can't understand from the Jewish story. You have to return to the Enuma Elish to get the significance. For the sons of angels who are of daughters of men, you have to turn to 2 Enoch to help you understand.

Since you don't speak Hebrew, you're not aware of the ambiguity in the Hebrew language as used in Genesis 1.
Since you've never studied Sumerian history, you're not aware that the ambiguity you claim for Sumerian had disappeared by the time this myth was written.

But your biggest error here is that you forgot to read Genesis 2-3, which clearly states the meaning of the name of Eve: "woman", because she was taken from the rib of man, and "Eve", meaning "mother of all mankind".

Because of these errors, you failed to notice that Genesis 2-3 likely predates the Sumerian myth due to the ambiguity in Hebrew and lack of in Sumerian.

(Other errors you make here: My connection between the two pieces of literature is hardly tenuous if I can name all 18 similarities and show that they appear in both texts in the same consecutive order of appearance. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are not Jewish stories. The Enuma Elish has nothing in common with either text. Sons of angels is mentioned nowhere in Genesis, and the book of Enoch was written too many centuries later to have any bearing.)

These are the errors I found in your first paragraph. No need to read further. You have a habit of altering the text you're studying, so the best you can ever hope to achieve is fiction of your own tastes.