The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible. Which came first?

Well I read the paper and frankly, it is nothing but a collection of bare assertions without support combined with almost unlimited errors in logic. They begin on page one and continue in an almost uninterrupted stream through to the end of the paper.If anyone wishes to waste time we can begin with page one and cover them item by item.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That assumption has never seemed logical to me. Saying "In those days Israel did not have Kings" does not automatically place the origin in a period after a time when Israel did have Kings.Would it not be reasonable for me to say today "In those days the US did not have a King"?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But if the US was surrounded by other nations that did have kings, would it not be reasonable for us to mention that we did not. Translation, particularly between two such different languages as english and the various semitic ones, is always fraught with uncertenty. When we are also trying to deal with great separations in time periods, there can be even more variation.Imagine the posibbilities for mistranslation even among folk of the same period speaking the same language. I'm reminded of a young girl from Leicester that moved into the apartment above me when I was a young single bachelor. When meeting her for the very first time as she carried groceries up the stairs to her apartment, she suggested that I "Knock her up some time." How disappointed I was to learn that it simply meant to call her or drop by.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

While I agree that is the most likely explanation, as I pointed out in a later post, I'm not sure it is necessarily so. It could simply be a statement of difference, made during a period when Israel was unique in not being ruled by a King.I don't think it is enough to firmly establish the later authorship or redaction standing alone. Only when combined with other indicators does it become significant IMHO.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion