An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic

21Historical 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.

23Publications 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 šú-si = 240 which appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word šú-tu-ur in the colophon which he translated “written,” taking the word from a stem šaṭâru, “write.” The form šú-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.

26Museum 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 ḫu as well as ḫum.

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

38 See his List of Personal Names from the Temple School of Nippur, p. 122. Ḫu-um-ba-bi-tu and ši-kin ḫu-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 ḫuwawa is ligru, “dwarf” (CT XXVII, 4, 12 and 14 = Pl. 6, 7.9 = Pl. 3, 19). See Jastrow, Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, II, p. 913, Note 7. Ḫuwawa, 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 Ḫu(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-dú 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 gods” (Tablet IX, 2, 14; X, 1, 7).

45BOR 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 גלמגוס compared with the second of גמיגמוס 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.

49 See Poebel, Historical Texts No. 2, col. 2, 26.

50 Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions I, 1 No. 26.

51 Delitzsch, Assyrische Lesestücke, p. 88, VI, 2–3. Cf. also CT XXV, 28(K 7659) 3, where we must evidently supply [Esigga]-tuk, for which in the following line we have again Gish-bil-ga-mesh as an equivalent. See Meissner, OLZ 1910, 99.

52 See, e.g., Barton, Haverford Collection II No. 27, Col. I, 14, etc.

53 Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum, p. 95.

54CT XII, 50 (K 4359) obv. 17.

55 See Barton, Origin and Development of Babylonian Writing, II, p. 99 seq., for various explanations, though all centering around the same idea of the picture of fire in some form.

56 See the passages quoted by Poebel, Historical and Grammatical Texts, p. 126.

57 E.g., Genesis 4, 20, Jabal, “the father of tent-dwelling and cattle holding;” Jubal (4, 21), “the father of harp and pipe striking.”

58 See particularly the plays (in the J. Document) upon the names of the twelve sons of Jacob, which are brought forward either as tribal characteristics, or as suggested by some incident or utterance by the mother at the birth of each son.

59 The designation is variously explained by Arabic writers. See Beidhawi’s Commentary (ed. Fleischer), to Súra 18, 82.

60 The writing Gish-gi-mash as an approach to the pronunciation Gilgamesh would thus represent the beginning of the artificial process which seeks to interpret the first syllable as “hero.”