The Authorship of the Book of Mormom

[Michael]

I have yet to delve seriously into the claims of Mormonism. That is why I am here. I am a Reformed Baptist and would like to move past the common Evangelical responses to the claims of the LDS church and hear what actual LDS adherents have to say about a number of topics. I hope to make some friends, learn some stuff, and hear the story from the horses mouth. I do have some experience in apologetics, but not in the area of Mormonism. My focus has been primarily on Trinitarian apologetics in light of Arianism and Modalism; to verify this, visit my site www.onenesspentecostal.net.

I stumbled upon a presentation by the late Dr. Walter Martin on the authorship of the Book of Mormon. I am certian that I am not the first to bring this issue up, and I would like to hear the LDS response to Dr. Martin's assertions regarding the topic. Is it true that there are a number of similarities between Spaulding's fictional work and that of the Book of Mormon? Is true that some of Spaulding's own writings were found to be within LDS possession in an archive with other Book of Mormon witnesses as of an unknown scribal origin? Thanks!

[Kevin Christensen]

I have yet to delve seriously into the claims of Mormonism. That is why I am here. I am a Reformed Baptist and would like to move past the common Evangelical responses to the claims of the LDS church and hear what actual LDS adherents have to say about a number of topics. I hope to make some friends, learn some stuff, and hear the story from the horses mouth. I do have some experience in apologetics, but not in the area of Mormonism. My focus has been primarily on Trinitarian apologetics in light of Arianism and Modalism; to verify this, visit my site www.onenesspentecostal.net.

I stumbled upon a presentation by the late Dr. Walter Martin on the authorship of the Book of Mormon. I am certian that I am not the first to bring this issue up, and I would like to hear the LDS response to Dr. Martin's assertions regarding the topic. Is it true that there are a number of similarities between Spaulding's fictional work and that of the Book of Mormon? Is true that some of Spaulding's own writings were found to be within LDS possession in an archive with other Book of Mormon witnesses as of an unknown scribal origin? Thanks!

In general, Walter Martin's assertions on Mormonism should not be taken seriously. He was not well informed when he was alive, and much has been published since he died.

There are some rather vague and general similarities between The Spaulding story and the Book of Mormon. A New World setting, a sea voyage, wars, fortification. However, after the rediscovery of the Manuscript Found, it was the RLDS and more recently BYU Religious Studies center that published it. You can read it yourself online. For a good introduction to the comparisons and contrasts, see:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8&chapid=66

And the claim that some of Spaulding's handwriting showed up, that claim evaporated a long time ago. The handwriting of the unknown scribe for some Book of Mormon pages also matched up with the handwriting for a section of the LDS doctrine and covenants. I have in my closet somewhere the Church News article by Dean Jesse which showed very clear photographs of the handwriting in question in comparison to the Spaulding handwriting, and it was obviously different. The handwriting experts that were originally brought in to support the claim backed off immediately. A subsequent edition of the Spaulding Theory book did not even mention the previous incarnation that had made the handwriting claim.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=584

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=21&num=2&id=778

And an array of information here:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai115.html

For something completely different, an non-LDS Old Testament Scholar had this to say about the Book of Mormon:

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[lostindc]

As far as I know the BOM as an actual event was trashed a few years back by Uncle Dale's findings. At this point, the word print study has put the nail in the coffin. Nothing can be more accurate than a word print study focused on a small group of individuals where one would be forced to be deemed the most accurate. Plus wordprint studies is a science not an art. It is scientific fact and it is backed by observable empirical evidence. Jockers and company hold the cards.

Long story short, with these facts in mind, Sidney Rigdon stole Solomon's manuscript, stuck it in a top hat and asked Joseph to read it off to a number of different individuals to compile the BOM. They all kept their mouth shut and swore to the truthfulness of the BOM till their dying breathes. Within the near future we will find the lost manuscript that composes the BOM and Jockers and company will be deemed heros.

[Vance]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Authorship_theories/Spalding_manuscript

[Michael]

In general, Walter Martin's assertions on Mormonism should not be taken seriously. He was not well informed when he was alive, and much has been published since he died.

There are some rather vague and general similarities between The Spaulding story and the Book of Mormon. A New World setting, a sea voyage, wars, fortification. However, after the rediscovery of the Manuscript Found, it was the RLDS and more recently BYU Religious Studies center that published it. You can read it yourself online. For a good introduction to the comparisons and contrasts, see:

http://maxwellinstit...kid=8&chapid=66

And the claim that some of Spaulding's handwriting showed up, that claim evaporated a long time ago. The handwriting of the unknown scribe for some Book of Mormon pages also matched up with the handwriting for a section of the LDS doctrine and covenants. I have in my closet somewhere the Church News article by Dean Jesse which showed very clear photographs of the handwriting in question in comparison to the Spaulding handwriting, and it was obviously different. The handwriting experts that were originally brought in to support the claim backed off immediately. A subsequent edition of the Spaulding Theory book did not even mention the previous incarnation that had made the handwriting claim.

http://maxwellinstit...17&num=2&id=584

http://maxwellinstit...21&num=2&id=778

And an array of information here:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai115.html

For something completely different, an non-LDS Old Testament Scholar had this to say about the Book of Mormon:

http://www.joehunt.o...arker-talk.html

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thanks for your response. After briefly examining the comparision between the two as provided by the link, is it fair to say that the author did not by any means provide a comprehensive comparison? So too, the author choose to cite comparative differences rather than mentioning similarites between the works. Some of the similarities seem to be rather pronounced. Certianly, in apologetic effort, these similarities should be met head on with a factual refutation. Is there such a refutation available?

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks for your response. After briefly examining the comparision between the two as provided by the link, is it fair to say that the author did not by any means provide a comprehensive comparison? So too, the author choose to cite comparative differences rather than mentioning similarites between the works. Some of the similarities seem to be rather pronounced. Certianly, in apologetic effort, these similarities should be met head on with a factual refutation. Is there such a refutation available?

You perhaps read only the John Gee essay. The FAIR links provide more information, if you like. One of the people who posts on this board, Uncle Dale, is a Spaulding theorist, if you want to pursue that line. Personally, I've read the Spaulding manuscript myself, and I have closely read the Book of Mormon, and I have kept up on the ongoing scholarship. I've published several articles on the topic myself. I also have a degree in English, and I'm aware that parallels are extremely common in literature. Humans do eat, drink, love, bear children, fear, build fortifications and weapons, make wars and battlefields, etc. How good a parallel really is a boat load of Roman soldiers sailing the Atlantic compared to a boat load of exiles from Jerusalem 600 BCE sailing the Indian and Pacific Oceans? You have to move several rungs up an abstraction ladder to make the parallel. And what does it mean? Hugh Nibley pointed out that the method of the renaissance scholars for discerning the authentic from the spurious involved reading the documents against the background that they claim for themselves. The Book of Mormon describes the situation in Jerusalem 600 BCE, a journey across the Arabian desert, a sea voyage, and provides a lineage history covering 1000 years. When I read the Spaulding story, I not only assess the significance of the occasional parallels, but I can also see all kinds of essential differences, things that simply do not appear in the Spaulding story, but which do in the Book of Mormon. For example, one of my own essays on the Book of Mormon compared one of the conversion stories with the findings of Near Death Experience research. I found that not only does the conversion story while "nigh unto death" contain all the elements it should, but the character in question also demonstrates all of the after effects that have been studied. This kind of thing will never show up in comparing the Spaulding Story to the Book of Mormon. For the past decade, I've been involved in comparing the Book of Mormon to a new view of First Temple Judaism. The fit is remarkable, unexpected, and largely based on information unavailable to anyone in the world in 1829. It even fits with a prophesy in 1 Nephi 13:39-41. That kind of thing would never emerge from a comparison of the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding story.

For another point, an LDS scholar recently gathered all of the Book of Mormon references to the Sidon river (the only river mentioned in the New World setting), and used those descriptions to search a satellite 3D map of the Western Hemisphere to find candidates. Only one river in the Western Hemisphere matched. This kind of thing will never show up in comparing the Spaulding story to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon can be compared against New and Old world information that was completely unknown when Joseph Smith dictated the text in 1829. The kinds of information that emerge in that kind of study will never show up in comparing the Spaulding story to the Book of Mormon. And that, of course, is part of the appeal. There is no real risk of learning anything that might be impressive. Say, the 600 BCE altars in the Arabian penninsula, or the candidate for Bountiful with all features that the 1 Nephi account depicts. (You could watch the Journey of Faith video to see for yourself.)

It's not just a matter of finding parallels, and deciding that they explain everything. Earthen fortifications with wooden palisades appear everywhere in the ancient world, including the Mesoamerica, the best fit for the internal description in the Book of Mormon. It's a matter of providing a comprehensive and coherent explanation. The Spaulding Theorists (a very small group since 1945) aren't interested in the big picture relationship. But I am, and in my view, the theory explains very little of the Book of Mormon, the ongoing findings of serious Book of Mormon scholars, and nothing about Joseph Smith and the eye witnesses to its production.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[lostindc]

Personally, I've read the Spaulding manuscript myself, and I have closely read the Book of Mormon, and I have kept up on the ongoing scholarship. I've published several articles on the topic myself.

But have you read the Spaulding manuscript that does not exist. There I think you will find your answers.

[Deborah]

Good grief. There were enough witnesses as well as those who actually dictated as the words came from Joseph. In more recent times there are evidences in the language of the book itself, including Hebraisms, etc. The authors of the BOM were ancient prophets as summarized by Mormon and translated by Joseph Smith. But the surest testimony of the book's authenticity comes from reading it.

[Deborah]

I've always found it interesting how critics try to discredit the authenticity of the BOM, yet at the time it came forth they certainly believed he had gold plates as they kept trying to steal them.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Thanks for your response. After briefly examining the comparision between the two as provided by the link, is it fair to say that the author did not by any means provide a comprehensive comparison? So too, the author choose to cite comparative differences rather than mentioning similarites between the works. Some of the similarities seem to be rather pronounced. Certianly, in apologetic effort, these similarities should be met head on with a factual refutation. Is there such a refutation available?

Michael, I don't think there is a refutation like that available. Part of the problem is that it is a very time consuming and difficult presentation to make. Part of the issue is that you can find similarities of this sort between just about any two different texts. And trying to find some common ground to deal with issues of parallels is difficult when discussing the issue with critics of the Book of Mormon. You suggest that "some of the similarities seem rather pronounced". This has been said, for example, by individuals comparing the New Testament Gospels to Homer's Greek narratives. I did a brief piece on some of this here:

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallels.htm

It's easy to find parallels, its easy to suggest that they are significant, its less easy to demonstrate how many significant parallels we expect to find between otherwise unrelated texts - that is, how many can we find that are clearly coincidental? And that is the rub. What you really ought to do, for example, is take the Spalding manuscript, and take the Book of Mormon and compare them and see for yourself - not in lists of parallels, but rather in the way that the texts relate as you read them. The results are pretty much unanimous. Nearly everyone who still holds to a Spalding authorship for the Book of Mormon hold the position that the Mansucript Found is not the Spalding Manuscript on which the Book of Mormon was based, rather it is a completely separate document. The source of the Book of Mormon by Spalding remains unknown. Similarities between the Book of Mormon and this Spalding text can't really tell us much about the relationship of the Book of Mormon to this unknown Spalding text, and arguments made by the likes of Martin become problematic.

Ben M.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As far as I know the BOM as an actual event was trashed a few years back by Uncle Dale's findings. At this point, the word print study has put the nail in the coffin. Nothing can be more accurate than a word print study focused on a small group of individuals where one would be forced to be deemed the most accurate. Plus wordprint studies is a science not an art. It is scientific fact and it is backed by observable empirical evidence. Jockers and company hold the cards.

Long story short, with these facts in mind, Sidney Rigdon stole Solomon's manuscript, stuck it in a top hat and asked Joseph to read it off to a number of different individuals to compile the BOM. They all kept their mouth shut and swore to the truthfulness of the BOM till their dying breathes. Within the near future we will find the lost manuscript that composes the BOM and Jockers and company will be deemed heros.

Yikes, I couldn't disagree more strongly. The historical evidence behind Spaulding speculations could barely be weaker. Moreover, a pretty darn solid review of the Criddle stuff is on the way.

[LifeOnaPlate]

A friend of mine pointed out an interesting parallel between the Book of Mormon and Spaulding's "Manuscript Found."

The striking parallel is found during the mud sliding race Spaulding depicts. My friend Wiki Wonka tried to determine which part of the Book of Mormon this became, but couldn't find the words "mud," "merriment," "bouncing," "lass," "quagmire," "gravity," "woefully," "velocity," "corpulent," or "damsel" in the BoM. He did, however, find the word "sunk," so he determined that this portion of the Spalding manuscript was rewritten as Alma 19: 13-14. This is from pg. 27-28 of the original Manuscript Found as read on on GospelLink:

In making this decent, six young women & five young men by a surprizing dexterity in whirling their bodies as they dcended cleared themselvs from the quagmire

[selek]

LOAP,

I'm fair certain that our friend lost was being facetious and all manner of "ironical" in his post.

I doubt his sentiment was intended to be taken seriously.

[Lamanite]

A friend of mine pointed out an interesting parallel between the Book of Mormon and Spaulding's "Manuscript Found."

The striking parallel is found during the mud sliding race Spaulding depicts. My friend Wiki Wonka tried to determine which part of the Book of Mormon this became, but couldn't find the words "mud," "merriment," "bouncing," "lass," "quagmire," "gravity," "woefully," "velocity," "corpulent," or "damsel" in the BoM. He did, however, find the word "sunk," so he determined that this portion of the Spalding manuscript was rewritten as Alma 19: 13-14. This is from pg. 27-28 of the original Manuscript Found as read on on GospelLink:

Ur killing me smalls....

This part of the BoM is always very emotional for me. The focus on the Redeemer, forgiveness, and kinship just resonates.

Then you've got some slip-n-slide nonsense from Spaulding. Nice...

You and Wonka are grounded from each other.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[lostindc]

Yikes, I couldn't disagree more strongly. The historical evidence behind Spaulding speculations could barely be weaker. Moreover, a pretty darn solid review of the Criddle stuff is on the way.

Sorry, I am being a little sarcastic, I guess I need to make my sarcasm more direct. I want it to be clear that I consider the Spaulding theory very weak, in fact entirely baseless.

[Mighty Curelom]

Michael: the Spaulding theory of production isn't really taken seriously by most of those who espouse a materialistic method of production. To see a more contemporary approach, read Dan Vogel's book on Joseph Smith. In his book, he takes a more parsimonious approach by assuming Joseph Smith was simply an imaginative man with a flare for story telling. After all, the Book of Mormon is just a book--why invent all sorts of conspiracy theories to account for the mundane act of writing a book? Sure, JS was younger than most authors when the book was produced, and he didn't have a lot of formal schooling (which, of course, isn't necessary to tell stories), and he dictated his book instead of writing it out, but there's nothing so exceptional about the Book of Mormon that fanciful stories of authorship need to be invented.

[Lightbearer]

I have yet to delve seriously into the claims of Mormonism. That is why I am here. I am a Reformed Baptist and would like to move past the common Evangelical responses to the claims of the LDS church and hear what actual LDS adherents have to say about a number of topics. I hope to make some friends, learn some stuff, and hear the story from the horses mouth. I do have some experience in apologetics, but not in the area of Mormonism. My focus has been primarily on Trinitarian apologetics in light of Arianism and Modalism; to verify this, visit my site www.onenesspentecostal.net.

I stumbled upon a presentation by the late Dr. Walter Martin on the authorship of the Book of Mormon. I am certian that I am not the first to bring this issue up, and I would like to hear the LDS response to Dr. Martin's assertions regarding the topic. Is it true that there are a number of similarities between Spaulding's fictional work and that of the Book of Mormon? Is true that some of Spaulding's own writings were found to be within LDS possession in an archive with other Book of Mormon witnesses as of an unknown scribal origin? Thanks!

Actually if you were serious you would ask of God, that is the only way to know the truth of the Book of Mormon. As for the late Dr.? Walter Martin I would lend more credibility to a Gossip tabloid in a Supermarket checkout than I would to him. Oh and the Spaulding theory is very old and very wrong, in my personal family history my father discovered the truth of this claim first hand over 50 years ago. I have already shared that experience on this board today so I will refrain from doing so here, but needless to say he read it and determined that the claims are false. No comparison between the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding Manuscript. If you would like to check on this you could go to the Oberlin College Library in Oberlin Ohio as my father did in 1951 and discover the truth yourself. What made this more interesting was he was led there in a miraculous manner in answer to his humble prayer.

[Lamanite]

parsimonious

LOL

Would that I could see even an inkling of parsimony on this board. Both sides have gold medals in mental gymnastics. A to B is no longer possible.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sorry, I am being a little sarcastic, I guess I need to make my sarcasm more direct. I want it to be clear that I consider the Spaulding theory very weak, in fact entirely baseless.

oops!~

[Wiki Wonka]

Ur killing me smalls....

This part of the BoM is always very emotional for me. The focus on the Redeemer, forgiveness, and kinship just resonates.

Then you've got some slip-n-slide nonsense from Spaulding. Nice...

You and Wonka are grounded from each other.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I admit that my expertise lies more in the area of chocolate than wordprint analysis.

WW

[Wiki Wonka]

I have yet to delve seriously into the claims of Mormonism. That is why I am here. I am a Reformed Baptist and would like to move past the common Evangelical responses to the claims of the LDS church and hear what actual LDS adherents have to say about a number of topics. I hope to make some friends, learn some stuff, and hear the story from the horses mouth. I do have some experience in apologetics, but not in the area of Mormonism. My focus has been primarily on Trinitarian apologetics in light of Arianism and Modalism; to verify this, visit my site www.onenesspentecostal.net.

I stumbled upon a presentation by the late Dr. Walter Martin on the authorship of the Book of Mormon. I am certian that I am not the first to bring this issue up, and I would like to hear the LDS response to Dr. Martin's assertions regarding the topic. Is it true that there are a number of similarities between Spaulding's fictional work and that of the Book of Mormon? Is true that some of Spaulding's own writings were found to be within LDS possession in an archive with other Book of Mormon witnesses as of an unknown scribal origin? Thanks!

Hi Michael,

You might be interested in FAIR's analysis of Walter Martin's book for the section related to Mormonism. What we did was read the book and list each critical claim with responses:

A FAIR Analysis of: The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised)

For many of the claims addressed from Index of Claims for Kingdom of the Cults, you will see that there are links to response articles elsewhere in the wiki.

WW

[Michael]

Michael, I don't think there is a refutation like that available. Part of the problem is that it is a very time consuming and difficult presentation to make. Part of the issue is that you can find similarities of this sort between just about any two different texts. And trying to find some common ground to deal with issues of parallels is difficult when discussing the issue with critics of the Book of Mormon. You suggest that "some of the similarities seem rather pronounced". This has been said, for example, by individuals comparing the New Testament Gospels to Homer's Greek narratives. I did a brief piece on some of this here:

http://solomonspaldi...P/parallels.htm

It's easy to find parallels, its easy to suggest that they are significant, its less easy to demonstrate how many significant parallels we expect to find between otherwise unrelated texts - that is, how many can we find that are clearly coincidental? And that is the rub. What you really ought to do, for example, is take the Spalding manuscript, and take the Book of Mormon and compare them and see for yourself - not in lists of parallels, but rather in the way that the texts relate as you read them. The results are pretty much unanimous. Nearly everyone who still holds to a Spalding authorship for the Book of Mormon hold the position that the Mansucript Found is not the Spalding Manuscript on which the Book of Mormon was based, rather it is a completely separate document. The source of the Book of Mormon by Spalding remains unknown. Similarities between the Book of Mormon and this Spalding text can't really tell us much about the relationship of the Book of Mormon to this unknown Spalding text, and arguments made by the likes of Martin become problematic.

Ben M.

What you have proposed between Homers works and narrative portions of the NT is problematic. Firstly, the paralells are not simply found in work, but a multiplicity of works. Secondly, being somewhat familiar with Homer's writings, the paralells are extremely general in nature. The paralells between the Book of Mormon and Spauliding's fictional work are between two works alone. These paralells seem to be relatively detailed in nature. For example:

Both works contain a messianic arrival

Both possess a war narrative between 2 civilized peoples that culminates into an armagedon like end

Both books contain a bit about the use of Elephants, and this prior to the known arrival of Elephants in North America

The fortification paralells

The bit about the lever

The paralells about the sea voyage and the mutual fear of sinking

Both books proport a prohibition on inter-racial mingling

The initial communal living arrangements; sharing of property, etc. . .

And the bit about the Sun's rotation.

[lostindc]

What you have proposed between Homers works and narrative portions of the NT is problematic. Firstly, the paralells are not simply found in work, but a multiplicity of works. Secondly, being somewhat familiar with Homer's writings, the paralells are extremely general in nature. The paralells between the Book of Mormon and Spauliding's fictional work are between two works alone. These paralells seem to be relatively detailed in nature. For example:

Both works contain a messianic arrival

Both possess a war narrative between 2 civilized peoples that culminates into an armagedon like end

Both books contain a bit about the use of Elephants, and this prior to the known arrival of Elephants in North America

The fortification paralells

The bit about the lever

The paralells about the sea voyage and the mutual fear of sinking

Both books proport a prohibition on inter-racial mingling

The initial communal living arrangements; sharing of property, etc. . .

And the bit about the Sun's rotation.

Michael,

You raise some enormously good points. It is apparent that you are well read on the subject. I have always subscribed to the theory that Joseph Smith used Witman's Leaves of Grass as one of his sources for writing the BOM. Jeff Lindsey proves this in his study on the parallels. I highly suggest you read this. At this point it cannot be more obvious that Spaulding's lost manuscript and Witman's works are the sources for the BOM.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml

Whether we look at overall themes or specific verses and stories, whether we look at events or people's names, whether we look at the very beginning, the middle, or the end, the evidence points a thousand bold fingers to one source, a source pre-eminent above all sources previously proposed for the Book of Mormon. Only one source meets the burden of proof that we can demand for the case of plagiarism if we are to be intellectually honest, and that is Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass.

While I commend other distinguished and learned scholars for their prior efforts to convince errant Mormons of the plagiaristic fraud behind the Book of Mormon, their work--though undoubtedly inspired by the noblest of intentions--has lacked the credibility and merit that was needed for the battle against error. Now, at last, the tide has turned and the battle can be won.

But you must not be complacent, not now or ever, in the fight against cults and error. This lone Web page just scratches the surface. There is much more to understand and to do to be a true warrior for truth. Don't rely on this Web page alone--you should also buy my book, The Fraud-Makers and buy (for yourself or your church) my new videos, The Fraud-Makers and The Fraud-Makers II, available for just $95 each (bulk discounts available). Bonus! Ginsu knives with the "sword of truth" logo will be included with the first 100 orders.

But don't stop there! You can reach even more souls by hiring me to speak to your group or congregation. Plus your generous cash donations of as little as $100 can help me keep this vital ministry going forward (and ask about our automatic bank account deduction program). Please, without your cash, I will not be able to complete my next soul-saving project in which I demonstrate the actual source for the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants was not Joseph Smith, but Fawn Brodie. Until now, truly no man has known her history!

[bluebell]

What you have proposed between Homers works and narrative portions of the NT is problematic. Firstly, the paralells are not simply found in work, but a multiplicity of works. Secondly, being somewhat familiar with Homer's writings, the paralells are extremely general in nature. The paralells between the Book of Mormon and Spauliding's fictional work are between two works alone. These paralells seem to be relatively detailed in nature. For example:

Both works contain a messianic arrival

Both possess a war narrative between 2 civilized peoples that culminates into an armagedon like end

Both books contain a bit about the use of Elephants, and this prior to the known arrival of Elephants in North America

The fortification paralells

The bit about the lever

The paralells about the sea voyage and the mutual fear of sinking

Both books proport a prohibition on inter-racial mingling

The initial communal living arrangements; sharing of property, etc. . .

And the bit about the Sun's rotation.

Would the tale of gilgamesh from Sumeria compared to the story of Noah and the flood be a better comparison? I'm honestly asking.

[Michael]

Would the tale of gilgamesh from Sumeria compared to the story of Noah and the flood be a better comparison? I'm honestly asking.

The period most cited by scholars for the authorship of the book of Genesis is about 1400BC. So far as the Epic, tablet eleven (the one with the flood account) dates to 1300-1050BC. So too, we do not actually know when the flood took place. Therefore the author of tablet eleven could have based his version of the account on the actual occurance, via oral tradition.

An examination of the similarities is an exercise in futility, as the flood portion of the Epic is superceded by the earlier biblical account, and may have been motivated by a cultural tradition rooted in an actual flood occurence. So, no that wouldn't be a better comparison in my opinion. Have you been reading Dan Barker? Just kidding.