Then once again... your point was totally irrelevant. This barely tangential lecture does not improve on your error in any way shape or form. I repeat, the early OT books stemmed from Oral Tradition. This little teledoth cuneiform sideshow does not support the argument you were originally positing when you first introduced it.
the information i gave was relevant because it shows that there is really no need for oral tradition to have played much of a role in the composition of the old testament...
imagine you have a family of ancient middle eastern people...influenced by sumerian and akkadian cultures...and they keep a record of their family history in the style that they are most familiar with... the record expands as later members of the family append their own history to the record...
what would you expect the result of this process to look like? something like this...
a story of someone's life...followed by a 'toledoth' statement referencing the main player in the story...a story of another person's life...another toledoth statement referencing the main player in that story...and so on repeatedly...
guess what? that is -exactly- what most of the first thirty-six chapters of genesis looks like!
most of genesis looks -exactly- like a middle eastern record of the dealings of a family that has been supplemented by various family members over time...
realizing this...there is no reason to introduce unnecessary speculation about oral tradition in the problem of the origin of the book of genesis...
moreover...moses wrote the torah...and aside from genesis and the very end of deuteronomy...all of the events described took place within moses' lifetime...so again there is no reason to speculate needlessly about oral tradition being involved...moses wrote an eyewitness account...
the same is true of nearly all of the old testament...there are even many old testament books that reference -by name- other written records that we no longer have...