An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic
naturally, Langdon cannot translate.
16. Read _e-lu-tim_ instead of _pa-a-ta-tim_. The first sign of
the line, _tu_, is not certain, because apparently written over an
erasure. The second sign may be _a_. Some one has scratched the tablet
at this point.
18. Read _uk-la-at âli_ (?) instead of _ug-ad-ad-lil_, which gives
no possible sense!
Column 5.
2. Read _[wa]-ar-ki-sú_.
8. Read _i-ta-wa-a_ instead of _i-ta-me-a_. The word _pi-it-tam_
belongs to line 9! The sign _pi_ is unmistakable. This disposes of
note 1 on p. 218.
9. Read Mi = _salmu_, "image." This disposes of Langdon's note 2 on
page 218. Of six notes on this page, four are wrong.
11. The first sign appears to be _si_ and the second _ma_. At the
end we are perhaps to supply _[sá-ki-i pu]-uk-ku-ul_, on the basis
of the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 45, _sá-ki-i pu-[uk-ku-ul]_.
12. Traces at end of line suggest _i-pa(?)-ka-du_.
13. Read _i-[na mâti da-an e-mu]-ki i-wa_.
18. Read _ur-sá-nu_ instead of _ip-sá-nu_.
19. Read _i-sá-ru_ instead of _i-tu-ru_.
24. The reading _it-ti_ after _d_Gis is suggested by the traces.
25. Read _in-ni-[ib-bi-it]_ at the end of the line.
28. Read _ip-ta-ra-[as a-la]-ak-tam_ at the end of the line, as in
the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 37.
30. The conjectural restoration is based on the Assyrian version,
Tablet IV, 2, 36.
Column 6.
3. Read _i-na si-ri-[sú]_.
5. Supply _[il-li-ik]_.
21. Langdon's text has a superfluous _ga_.
22. Read _uz-za-sú_, "his anger," instead of _us-sa-sú_, "his javelin"
(!).
23. Read _i-ni-ih i-ra-as-su_, i.e., "his breast was quieted," in
the sense of "his anger was appeased."
31. Read _ri-es-ka_ instead of _ri-es-su_.
In general, it should be noted that the indications of the number of
lines missing at the bottom of columns 1-3 and at the top of columns
4-6 as given by Langdon are misleading. Nor should he have drawn
any lines at the bottom of columns 1-3 as though the tablet were
complete. Besides in very many cases the space indications of what
is missing within a line are inaccurate. Dr. Langdon also omitted to
copy the statement on the edge: _4 sú-si_, i.e., "240 lines;" and
in the colophon he mistranslates _sú-tu-ur_, "written," as though
from _satâru_, "write," whereas the form is the permansive III, 1,
of _atâru_, "to be in excess of." The sign _tu_ never has the value
_tu_! In all, Langdon has misread the text or mistransliterated it in
over forty places, and of the 204 preserved lines he has mistranslated
about one-half.
NOTES
[1] See for further details of this royal library, Jastrow,
_Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 21 _seq_.
[2] _Das Babylonische Nimrodepos_ (Leipzig, 1884-1891), supplemented
by Haupt's article _Die Zwölfte 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-likî-unnini--perhaps from Erech,
since this name appears as that of a family in tablets from Erech
(see Clay, _Legal Documents 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 Assur has been published by Ebeling,
_Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religiösen 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 (Assyrian 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 Assyro-Babyloniens_ (Paris, 1907),
pp. 182-325; the latest German translation by Ungnad-Gressmann,
_Das Gilgamesch-Epos_ (Göttingen, 1911), with a valuable analysis
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 _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_ (New York, 1901),
pp. 324-368; by Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (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 passage (Assyrian 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 passage 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 Assyria_, 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 sú-si_ = 240 which
appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word
_sú-tu-ur_ in the colophon which he translated "written," taking
the word from a stem _satâru_, "write." The form _sú-tu-ur_ is III,
1, from _atâru_, "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-assyrischer Inschriften_ (Heidelberg
Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.-Histor. Klasse, 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 (Brünnow 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 (Brünnow 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 passage 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_