In a word, no. But my acceptance is beside the point, your previous assertions are the point.

My understanding was that the EE and Genesis were more or less comtemporary, and that the sources of one were, at least in part, the sources of the other. The EB states that the Babylonian sources are in turn based on Sumerian myths going back at least to 3000BC.

Now it is hypothetical sources of sources, not specific extant myths from which Genesis was copied? Granting that you haven't had time, this is nothing like previous statements using words and phrases like "cribbed", "plagiarized" and "no original material at all, not word one". Way back in post #684 I responded to your assertion of stolen and copied (plagiarized) myths in Genesis 1-2 by writing: The fact is, there is no support for the old notion (only a notion) that the Biblical flood story was borrowed or adapted from Babylonian or Sumerian sources. There is evidence that the inclusion of the flood into the Gilgamesh story itself (which unlike the Biblical account is indeed clearly fanciful and mythological in nature) is a mishmash and adaptation of older Mesopotamian sources dating back to about 1800-2000 B.C. (the time frame of Abraham). There is evidence that Sumerian and Babylonian versions of these stories existed side by side in several variations. All of which lends itself to the idea that there was indeed a catastrophic flood of phenomenal magnitude several generations before Abraham's time. But again, there is no evidence that the Mesopotamian accounts, whether Suemrian or Babylonian, predated or influenced the Hebrew account in any way. Gilgamesh cannot be considered a source for Noah, but the opposite may be true. It is an amazing conclusion, based on nothing but assumption, that if there are pagan myths about anything whatsoever (including death and resurrection) then they must somehow be the source of the Biblical stories describing real people in real historical circumstances. And yet, again and again we find evidence that the Biblical accounts do in fact deal with real people in real historical circumstances.

Your response in post #685 was to assert again that the narrative in Genesis 1-2 "was 'cribbed' from a non-Biblical source in the first place and is clearly metaphoric in any case". Or in #687 it was Right now I am sitting in the public library in Essen, Germany, feeding Euro coins into one of their public computers. Within this very building one can read the various Sumerian and Babylonian creation legends which served as source material for Genesis 1 and 2. They are very easily dated to pre-Biblical times.

I replied in #691 with There are no existing sources for Genesis, pagan or otherwise. You have asserted before that the sources for Genesis 1-2 are known pagan myths, but it is only assertion. There are ancient pagan myths with some elements of the true creation account retained within them. We could surmise a progression of oral tradition by which the original (true) account from the testimony of God himself was distorted over time and recorded in various forms. The existence of distorted mythological accounts says nothing about the origin of the Biblical account, which must be considered on its own merits. There is no evidence for pagan or mythological sources, Babylonian or Sumerian or Egyptian or otherwise, either predating or influencing the Biblical accounts in any way. Nor is there anything like a scholarly consensus on such an assertion, even among those who reject the Bible as literal history. Nor do scholars in general regard the Epic of Gilgamesh as the source of the Biblical flood story. That presumption was only a presumption, based in the humanistic arrogance of one particular school of thought a century and a half ago. ... and Regarding Gilgamesh: Essay, have you read the myth(s)? There isn?t actually a single unified account, but several contradictory myths that existed in parallel among those sparse ancient sources now known. The differences between the simple, elegant and credible account in Genesis, and the variant stories of Gilgamesh are profound. The imaginary writer who supposedly edited the Gilgamesh mess into the Biblical account shouldn?t have wasted his time with cribbing, as you described it. He surely had the talents and the imagination to write something fresh. Or then again, maybe the simple truth that had been carefully passed along through the family of Abraham was good enough. By the way, the methodology of Historical Criticism (the whole basis of your Anchor Bible commentary on Genesis) consistently employed, should necessarily conclude that Gilgamesh came from Noah, and not vice versa. To oversimplify the methodology, it would seem to be a necessary conclusion that the embellished version develops from the terse and simple account, and not vice-versa. Simplicity and brevity do [not] develop over time and with much handling.

And in #692 essay wrote: 3. You are, of course, quite correct that there are many non-Biblical myths that parallel Biblical narratives.

Parallels, yes, but parallel is if quite different from cribbed, or copied, or adapted. The challenge is, as stated in #803: Susan, regarding supposed Sumerian-Babylonian myths as sources for Genesis 1-2, let me say again, with no hostility but in a very direct way, support it, or drop it. No evasion, no sidestepping. If you have a list, not of parallels or nuances or "some similarities," but of "cribbed" and "plagiarized" sources, let's see it. Otherwise, either acknowledge a (repeated) misstatement, or don't bother.