Now, is it possible or even probable that portions of Torah are based on an earlier Akkadian script and language ("Eastern Semitic"), heck, yea!
That's the way with oral tradition.
The parallels between just Gilgamish and Genesis are notable. Yes, "stories and other source material within Genesis predate Genesis". Afterall, part of the book details how Abraham (the root of all "Central Semitic" peoples) separates himself from his Akkadian (Ur) stock and subsequently how the Arabs and Jews (seed of abraham) separated.
Which shows a development subsequently.
The Gilgamesh parallel is telling. Look at the gods in Gilgamesh — they're dependent upon man, and starving to death, descending upon the altar like a ravenous flock!
But the story is the quest for immortality, and the sting in its tail is that it is a hopeless endeavour.
Now read the Hebrew version, the metaphysic is of an entirely different order! It's a startling reworking of an ancient mythology.
But that is different than claiming "Genesis was actually written in an earlier language", which is something totally different. Why would an earlier language (presumably Akkadian) be used to record the separation of "Central Semites" and, later, "Arads" and "Hebrews" from their (the Hebrews') point of view?
Good question! And this highlights the error. 'Genesis' is a Hebrew account of a various mythological strands illuminated by spiritual experience, the history of humanity in light of the Covenant.
So I would argue that whilst the strands predate Abraham (obviously), and we can assume they go back into the mists of time, the Book of Genesis as such does not predate Abraham, in fact the Book as we have it is the result of that illumination, which is not a one-time event, but a dynamic continuum.
A problem with people when they look at Scripture, is they see it as static, as history (in the modern, materialist and empirical sense), whereas it should be read as fluid — it is, after all, a spiritual text, and as such a
live text — Nick and others make the mistake of reading it like dead history, assuming that nothing has changed from a supposed pre-Hebrew tradition, whereas the text itself makes it blindingly obvious that Abram moved away from the tradition of his forebears.
Did Abram — or Abraham as he became — believe in a monotheist deity? I think he was moving in that direction, although I would allow that his monotheism was probably somewhat inchoate and would take generations to develop. This ascent can be seen in the J-E-P-D traditions ... which again people hunt though looking for 'errors' or 'faults', which shows how little they see — Scripture truly is a 'dead letter' to such people.
Of course, the Theosophical Association has its agenda, that it alone possess the truth, and thus every other sacred text is a flawed or falsified version of a text which, surprise surprise, unavailable for critical analysis.
But this is all by-the-by, the Theosophical Association is unable to validate its claims — that they know what early Jews and Christians actually believed (such as the lie that Origen preached reincarnation), and that the text was knowingly falsified by the scribes of the traditions — no scholarship of any worth supports it, it's a 'Piltdown Man' of religion.
And this from a doctrine that once declared 'There is no religion higher than truth'. Shame on them all.
God bless,
Thomas
