An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic Part 16

[1] See for further details of this royal library, Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and a.s.syria_, p. 21 _seq_.

[2] _Das Babylonische Nimrodepos_ (Leipzig, 1884-1891), supplemented by Haupt's article _Die Zwolfte Tafel des Babylonischen Nimrodepos_ in _BA_ I, pp. 48-79, containing the fragments of the twelfth tablet. The fragments of the Epic in Ashurbanapal's library--some sixty--represent portions of several copies. Sin-liki-unnini--perhaps from Erech, since this name appears as that of a family in tablets from Erech (see Clay, _Legal Doc.u.ments from Erech_, Index, p. 73)--is named in a list of texts (K 9717--Haupt's edition No. 51, line 18) as the editor of the Epic, though probably he was not the only compiler. Since the publication of Haupt's edition, a few fragments were added by him as an appendix to Alfred Jeremias _Izdubar-Nimrod_ (Leipzig, 1891) Plates II-IV, and two more are embodied in Jensen's transliteration of all the fragments in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_ VI; pp. 116-265, with elaborate notes, pp. 421-531. Furthermore a fragment, obtained from supplementary excavations at Kouyunjik, has been published by L. W. King in his _Supplement to the Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum_ No. 56 and _PSBA_ Vol. 36, pp. 64-68. Recently a fragment of the 6th tablet from the excavations at a.s.sur has been published by Ebeling, _Keilschrifttexte aus a.s.sur Religiosen Inhalts_ No. 115, and one may expect further portions to turn up.

The designation "Nimrod Epic" on the supposition that the hero of the Babylonian Epic is identical with Nimrod, the "mighty hunter"

of Genesis 10, has now been generally abandoned, in the absence of any evidence that the Babylonian hero bore a name like Nimrod. For all that, the description of Nimrod as the "mighty hunter" and the occurrence of a "hunter" in the Babylonian Epic (a.s.syrian version Tablet I)--though he is not the hero--points to a confusion in the Hebrew form of the borrowed tradition between Gilgamesh and Nimrod. The latest French translation of the Epic is by Dhorme, _Choix de Textes Religieux a.s.syro-Babyloniens_ (Paris, 1907), pp. 182-325; the latest German translation by Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_ (Gottingen, 1911), with a valuable a.n.a.lysis and discussion. These two translations now supersede Jensen's translation in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, which, however, is still valuable because of the detailed notes, containing a wealth of lexicographical material. Ungnad also gave a partial translation in Gressmann-Ranke, _Altorientalische Texte and Bilder_ I, pp. 39-61. In English, we have translations of substantial portions by Muss-Arnolt in Harper's _a.s.syrian and Babylonian Literature_ (New York, 1901), pp. 324-368; by Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and a.s.syria_ (Boston, 1898), Chap. XXIII; by Clay in _Light on the Old Testament from Babel_, pp. 78-84; by Rogers in _Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament_, pp. 80-103; and most recently by Jastrow in _Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East_ (ed. C. F. Horne, New York, 1917), Vol. I, pp. 187-220.

[3] See Luckenbill in _JAOS_, Vol. 37, p. 452 _seq._ Prof. Clay, it should be added, clings to the older reading, Hammurabi, which is retained in this volume.

[4] _ZA_, Vol. 14, pp. 277-292.

[5] The survivor of the Deluge is usually designated as Ut-napishtim in the Epic, but in one pa.s.sage (a.s.syrian version, Tablet XI, 196), he is designated as Atra-hasis "the very wise one." Similarly, in a second version of the Deluge story, also found in Ashurbanapal's library (IV R2 additions, p. 9, line 11). The two names clearly point to two versions, which in accordance with the manner of ancient compositions were merged into one. See an article by Jastrow in _ZA_, Vol. 13, pp. 288-301.

[6] Published by Scheil in _Recueil des Travaux_, etc. Vol. 20, pp. 55-58.

[7] The text does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, as the colophon, differing from the one attached to the Epic, shows.

[8] _Ein altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos_ (_MVAG_ 1902, No. 1).

[9] On these variant forms of the two names see the discussion below, p. 24.

[10] The pa.s.sage is paralleled by Ecc. 9, 7-9. See Jastrow, _A Gentle Cynic_, p. 172 _seq._

[11] Among the Nippur tablets in the collection of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. The fragment was published by Dr. Poebel in his _Historical and Grammatical Texts_ No. 23. See also Poebel in the _Museum Journal_, Vol. IV, p. 47, and an article by Dr. Langdon in the same Journal, Vol. VII, pp. 178-181, though Langdon fails to credit Dr. Poebel with the discovery and publication of the important tablet.

[12] No. 55 in Langdon's _Historical and Religious Texts from the Temple Library of Nippur_ (Munich, 1914).

[13] No. 5 in his _Sumerian Liturgical Texts_. (Philadelphia, 1917)

[14] See on this name below, p. 23.

[15] See further below, p. 37 _seq_.

[16] See Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, No. 1, and Jastrow in _JAOS_, Vol. 36, pp. 122-131 and 274-299.

[17] See an article by Jastrow, _Sumerian and Akkadian Views of Beginnings_ (_JAOS_ Vol. 36, pp. 274-299).

[18] See on this point Eduard Meyer, _Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien_ (Berlin, 1906), p. 107 _seq_., whose view is followed in Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and a.s.syria_, p. 121. See also Clay, _Empire of the Amorites_ (Yale University Press, 1919), p. 23 _et seq_.

[19] See the discussion below, p. 24 _seq_.

[20] Dr. Poebel published an article on the tablet in _OLZ_, 1914, pp. 4-6, in which he called attention to the correct name for the mother of Gilgamesh, which was settled by the tablet as Ninsun.

[21] _Historical Texts_ No. 2, Column 2, 26. See the discussion in _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123, _seq._

[22] See Fostat in _OLZ_, 1915, p. 367.

[23] _Publications of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Babylonian Section_, Vol. X, No. 3 (Philadelphia, 1917). It is to be regretted that Dr. Langdon should not have given full credit to Dr. Poebel for his discovery of the tablet. He merely refers in an obscure footnote to Dr. Poebel's having made a copy.

[24] E.g., in the very first note on page 211, and again in a note on page 213.

[25] Dr. Langdon neglected to copy the signs _4 su-si_ = 240 which appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word _su-tu-ur_ in the colophon which he translated "written," taking the word from a stem _sataru_, "write." The form _su-tu-ur_ is III, 1, from _ataru_, "to be in excess of," and indicates, presumably, that the text is a copy "enlarged" from an older original. See the Commentary to the colophon, p. 86.

[26] _Museum Journal_, Vol. VIII, p. 29.

[27] See below, p. 23.

[28] I follow the enumeration of tablets, columns and lines in Jensen's edition, though some fragments appear to have been placed by him in a wrong position.

[29] According to Bezold's investigation, _Verbalsuffixformen als Alterskriterien babylonisch-a.s.syrischer Inschriften_ (Heidelberg Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.-Histor. Kla.s.se, 1910, 9te Abhandlung), the bulk of the tablets in Ashurbanapal's library are copies of originals dating from about 1500 B.C. It does not follow, however, that all the copies date from originals of the same period. Bezold reaches the conclusion on the basis of various forms for verbal suffixes, that the fragments from the Ashurbanapal Library actually date from three distinct periods ranging from before c. 1450 to c. 700 B.C.

[30] "Before thou comest from the mountain, Gilgamesh in Erech will see thy dreams," after which the dreams are recounted by the woman to Enkidu. The expression "thy dreams" means here "dreams about thee." (Tablet I, 5, 23-24).

[31] Lines 100-101.

[32] In a paper read before the American Oriental Society at New Haven, April 4, 1918.

[33] See the commentary to col. 4 of the Yale tablet for further details.

[34] This is no doubt the correct reading of the three signs which used to be read Iz-tu-bar or Gish-du-bar. The first sign has commonly the value Gish, the second can be read Gin or Gi (Brunnow No. 11900) and the third Mash as well as Bar. See Ungnad in Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 76, and Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123.

[35] So also in Sumerian (Zimmern, _Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit_, No. 196, rev. 14 and 16.)

[36] The sign used, LUM (Brunnow No. 11183), could have the value hu as well as hum.

[37] The addition "father-in-law of Moses" to the name Hobab b. Re'uel in this pa.s.sage must refer to Re'uel, and not to Hobab. In Judges 4, 11, the gloss "of the Bene Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses" must be separated into two: (1) "Bene Hobab," and (2) "father-in-law of Moses." The latter addition rests on an erroneous tradition, or is intended as a brief reminder that Hobab is identical with the son of Re'uel.

[38] See his _List of Personal Names from the Temple School of Nippur_, p. 122. _Hu-um-ba-bi-tu_ and _si-kin hu-wa-wa_ also occur in Omen Texts (_CT_ XXVII, 4, 8-9 = Pl. 3, 17 = Pl. 6, 3-4 = _CT_ XXVIII, 14, 12). The contrast to _huwawa_ is _ligru_, "dwarf" (_CT_ XXVII, 4, 12 and 14 = Pl. 6, 7.9 = Pl. 3, 19). See Jastrow, _Religion Babyloniens und a.s.syriens_, II, p. 913, Note 7. Huwawa, therefore, has the force of "monster."

[39] Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 111 _seq._

[40] Ungnad, 1. c. p. 77, called attention to this name, but failed to draw the conclusion that Hu(m)baba therefore belongs to the West and not to the East.

[41] First pointed out by Ungnad in _OLZ_ 1910, p. 306, on the basis of _CT_ XVIII, 30, 10, where En-gi-du appears in the column furnishing _phonetic_ readings.

[42] See Clay _Amurru_, pp. 74, 129, etc.

[43] Tablet I, 2, 39-40; 3, 6-7 and 33-34; 4, 3-4.

[44] Tablet I, 2, 1 and IX, 2, 16. Note also the statement about Gilgamesh that "his body is flesh of the G.o.ds" (Tablet IX, 2, 14; X, 1, 7).

[45] _BOR_ IV, p. 264.

[46] Lewin, _Die Scholien des Theodor bar Koni zur Patriarchengeschichte_ (Berlin, 1905), p. 2. See Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 83, who points out that the first element of GLMGVS compared with the second of GMYGMVS gives the exact form that we require, namely, Gilgamos.

[47] Tablet I, col. 2, is taken up with this episode.

[48] See Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123.