An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic · Chapter 5Introduction. (4)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
To sum up, there are four main currents that flow together in the Gilgamesh Epic even in its old Babylonian form: (1) the adventures of a mighty warrior Enkidu, resting perhaps on a faint tradition of the conquest of Amurru by the hero; (2) the more definite recollection of the exploits of a foreign invader of Babylonia by the name of Gilgamesh, whose home appears likewise to have been in the West;124 (3) nature myths and didactic tales transferred to Enkidu and Gilgamesh as popular figures; and (4) the process of weaving the traditions, exploits, myths and didactic tales together, in the course of which process Gilgamesh becomes the main hero, and Enkidu his companion.
Furthermore, our investigation has shown that to Enkidu belongs the episode with the woman, used to illustrate the evolution of primitive man to the ways and conditions of civilized life, the conquest of Ḫuwawa in the land of Amurru, the killing of lions and also of the bull, while Gilgamesh is the hero who conquers Erech. Identified with the sun-god, the nature myth of the union of the sun with the earth and the subsequent separation of the two is also transferred to him. The wanderings of the hero, smitten with disease, are a continuation of the nature myth, symbolizing the waning vigor of the sun with the approach of the wintry season.
The details of the process which led to making Gilgamesh the favorite figure, to whom the traits and exploits of Enkidu and of the sun-god are transferred, escape us, but of the fact that Enkidu is the older figure, of whom certain adventures were set forth in a tale that once had an independent existence, there can now be little doubt in the face of the evidence furnished by the two tablets of the old Babylonian version; just as the study of these tablets shows that in the combination of the tales of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, the former is the prototype of which Gilgamesh is the copy. If the two are regarded as brothers, as born in the same place, even resembling one another in appearance and carrying out their adventures in common, it is because in the process of combination Gilgamesh becomes the reflex of Enkidu. That Enkidu is not the figure created by Aruru to relieve Erech of its tyrannical ruler is also shown by the fact that Gilgamesh remains in control of Erech. It is to Erech that he returns when he fails of his purpose to learn the secret of escape from old age and death. Erech is, therefore, not relieved of the presence of the ruthless ruler through Enkidu. The “Man of Anu” formed by Aruru as a deliverer is confused in the course of the growth of the Epic with Enkidu, the offspring of Ninib, and in this way we obtain the strange contradiction of Enkidu and Gilgamesh appearing first as bitter rivals and then as close and inseparable friends. It is of the nature of Epic compositions everywhere to eliminate unnecessary figures by concentrating on one favorite the traits belonging to another or to several others.
The close association of Enkidu and Gilgamesh which becomes one of the striking features in the combination of the tales of these two heroes naturally recalls the “Heavenly Twins” motif, which has been so fully and so suggestively treated by Professor J. Rendell Harris in his Cult of the Heavenly Twins, (London, 1906). Professor Harris has conclusively shown how widespread the tendency is to associate two divine or semi-divine beings in myths and legends as inseparable companions125 or twins, like Castor and Pollux, Romulus and Remus,126 the Acvins in the Rig-Veda,127 Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau in the Old Testament, the Kabiri of the Phoenicians,128 Herakles and Iphikles in Greek mythology, Ambrica and Fidelio in Teutonic mythology, Patollo and Potrimpo in old Prussian mythology, Cautes and Cautopates in Mithraism, Jesus and Thomas (according to the Syriac Acts of Thomas), and the various illustrations of “Dioscuri in Christian Legends,” set forth by Dr. Harris in his work under this title, which carries the motif far down into the period of legends about Christian Saints who appear in pairs, including the reference to such a pair in Shakespeare’s Henry V:
“And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by
From that day to the ending of the world.”—(Act, IV, 3, 57–58.)
There are indeed certain parallels which suggest that Enkidu-Gilgamesh may represent a Babylonian counterpart to the “Heavenly Twins.” In the Indo-Iranian, Greek and Roman mythology, the twins almost invariably act together. In unison they proceed on expeditions to punish enemies.129
But after all, the parallels are of too general a character to be of much moment; and moreover the parallels stop short at the critical point, for Gilgamesh though worsted is not killed by Enkidu, whereas one of the “Heavenly Twins” is always killed by the brother, as Abel is by Cain, and Iphikles by his twin brother Herakles. Even the trait which is frequent in the earliest forms of the “Heavenly Twins,” according to which one is immortal and the other is mortal, though applying in a measure to Enkidu who is killed by Ishtar, while Gilgamesh the offspring of a divine pair is only smitten with disease, is too unsubstantial to warrant more than a general comparison between the Enkidu-Gilgamesh pair and the various forms of the “twin” motif found throughout the ancient world. For all that, the point is of some interest that in the Gilgamesh Epic we should encounter two figures who are portrayed as possessing the same traits and accomplishing feats in common, which suggest a partial parallel to the various forms in which the twin-motif appears in the mythologies, folk-lore and legends of many nations; and it may be that in some of these instances the duplication is due, as in the case of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, to an actual transfer of the traits of one figure to another who usurped his place.
In concluding this study of the two recently discovered tablets of the old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic which has brought us several steps further in the interpretation and in our understanding of the method of composition of the most notable literary production of ancient Babylonia, it will be proper to consider the literary relationship of the old Babylonian to the Assyrian version.
We have already referred to the different form in which the names of the chief figures appear in the old Babylonian version, dGish as against dGish-gì(n)-mash, dEn-ki-dũ as against dEn-ki-dú, Ḫu-wa-wa as against Ḫu(m)-ba-ba. Erech appears as Uruk ribîtim, “Erech of the Plazas,” as against Uruk supûri, “walled Erech” (or “Erech within the walls”), in the Assyrian version.130 These variations point to an independent recension for the Assyrian revision; and this conclusion is confirmed by a comparison of parallel passages in our two tablets with the Assyrian version, for such parallels rarely extend to verbal agreements in details, and, moreover, show that the Assyrian version has been elaborated.
Beginning with the Pennsylvania tablet, column I is covered in the Assyrian version by tablet I, 5, 25, to 6, 33, though, as pointed out above, in the Assyrian version we have the anticipation of the dreams of Gilgamesh and their interpretation through their recital to Enkidu by his female companion, whereas in the old Babylonian version we have the dreams directly given in a conversation between Gilgamesh and his mother. In the anticipation, there would naturally be some omissions. So lines 4–5 and 12–13 of the Pennsylvania tablet do not appear in the Assyrian version, but in their place is a line (I, 5, 35), to be restored to
”[I saw him and like] a woman I fell in love with him.”
which occurs in the old Babylonian version only in connection with the second dream. The point is of importance as showing that in the Babylonian version the first dream lays stress upon the omen of the falling meteor, as symbolizing the coming of Enkidu, whereas the second dream more specifically reveals Enkidu as a man,131 of whom Gilgamesh is instantly enamored. Strikingly variant lines, though conveying the same idea, are frequent. Thus line 14 of the Babylonian version reads
“I bore it and carried it to thee”
and appears in the Assyrian version (I, 5, 35b supplied from 6, 26)
“I threw it (or him) at thy feet”132
with an additional line in elaboration
“Thou didst bring him into contact with me”133
which anticipates the speech of the mother
(Line 41 = Assyrian version I, 6, 33).
Line 10 of the Pennsylvania tablet has pa-ḫi-ir as against iz-za-az I, 5, 31.
Line 8 has ik-ta-bi-it as against da-an in the Assyrian version I, 5, 29.
More significant is the variant to line 9
“I became weak and its weight I could not bear”
as against I, 5, 30.
“Its strength was overpowering,134 and I could not endure its weight.”
The important lines 31–36 are not found in the Assyrian version, with the exception of I, 6, 27, which corresponds to lines 33–34, but this lack of correspondence is probably due to the fact that the Assyrian version represents the anticipation of the dreams which, as already suggested, might well omit some details. As against this we have in the Assyrian version I, 6, 23–25, an elaboration of line 30 in the Pennsylvania tablet and taken over from the recital of the first dream. Through the Assyrian version I, 6, 31–32, we can restore the closing lines of column I of the Pennsylvania tablet, while with line 33 = line 45 of the Pennsylvania tablet, the parallel between the two versions comes to an end. Lines 34–43 of the Assyrian version (bringing tablet I to a close)135 represent an elaboration of the speech of Ninsun, followed by a further address of Gilgamesh to his mother, and by the determination of Gilgamesh to seek out Enkidu.136 Nothing of this sort appears to have been included in the old Babylonian version.Our text proceeds with the scene between Enkidu and the woman, in which the latter by her charms and her appeal endeavors to lead Enkidu away from his life with the animals. From the abrupt manner in which the scene is introduced in line 43 of the Pennsylvania tablet, it is evident that this cannot be the first mention of the woman. The meeting must have been recounted in the first tablet, as is the case in the Assyrian version.137 The second tablet takes up the direct recital of the dreams of Gilgamesh and then continues the narrative. Whether in the old Babylonian version the scene between Enkidu and the woman was described with the same naïve details, as in the Assyrian version, of the sexual intercourse between the two for six days and seven nights cannot of course be determined, though presumably the Assyrian version, with the tendency of epics to become more elaborate as they pass from age to age, added some realistic touches. Assuming that lines 44–63 of the Pennsylvania tablet—the cohabitation of Enkidu and the address of the woman—is a repetition of what was already described in the first tablet, the comparison with the Assyrian version I, 4, 16–41, not only points to the elaboration of the later version, but likewise to an independent recension, even where parallel lines can be picked out. Only lines 46–48 of the Pennsylvania tablet form a complete parallel to line 21 of column 4 of the Assyrian version. The description in lines 22–32 of column 4 is missing, though it may, of course, have been included in part in the recital in the first tablet of the old Babylonian version. Lines 49–59 of the Pennsylvania tablet are covered by 33–39, the only slight difference being the specific mention in line 58 of the Pennsylvania tablet of Eanna, the temple in Erech, described as “the dwelling of Anu,” whereas in the Assyrian version Eanna is merely referred to as the “holy house” and described as “the dwelling of Anu and Ishtar,” where Ishtar is clearly a later addition.
Leaving aside lines 60–61, which may be merely a variant (though independent) of line 39 of column 4 of the Assyrian version, we now have in the Pennsylvania tablet a second speech of the woman to Enkidu (not represented in the Assyrian version) beginning like the first one with alka, “Come” (lines 62–63), in which she asks Enkidu to leave the “accursed ground” in which he dwells. This speech, as the description which follows, extending into columns 3–4, and telling how the woman clothed Enkidu, how she brought him to the sheep folds, how she taught him to eat bread and to drink wine, and how she instructed him in the ways of civilization, must have been included in the second tablet of the Assyrian version which has come down to us in a very imperfect form. Nor is the scene in which Enkidu and Gilgamesh have their encounter found in the preserved portions of the second (or possibly the third) tablet of the Assyrian version, but only a brief reference to it in the fourth tablet,138 in which in Epic style the story is repeated, leading up to the second exploit—the joint campaign of Enkidu and Gilgamesh against Ḫuwawa. This reference, covering only seven lines, corresponds to lines 192–231 of the Pennsylvania tablet; but the former being the repetition and the latter the original recital, the comparison to be instituted merely reveals again the independence of the Assyrian version, as shown in the use of kibsu, “tread” (IV, 2, 46), for šêpu, “foot” (l. 216), i-na-uš, “quake” (line 5C), as against ir-tu-tu (ll. 221 and 226).
Such variants as
dGish êribam ûl iddin (l. 217)
against
dGilgamesh ana šurûbi ûl namdin, (IV, 2, 47).
and again
iṣṣabtûma kima lîm “they grappled at the gate of the family house” (IV, 2, 48),
against
iṣṣabtûma ina bâb bît emuti, “they grappled at the gate of the family house” (IV, 2, 48),
all point once more to the literary independence of the Assyrian version. The end of the conflict and the reconciliation of the two heroes is likewise missing in the Assyrian version. It may have been referred to at the beginning of column 3139 of Tablet IV.
Coming to the Yale tablet, the few passages in which a comparison may be instituted with the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version, to which in a general way it must correspond, are not sufficient to warrant any conclusions, beyond the confirmation of the literary independence of the Assyrian version. The section comprised within lines 72–89, where Enkidu’s grief at his friend’s decision to fight Ḫuwawa is described140, and he makes confession of his own physical exhaustion, may correspond to Tablet IV, column 4, of the Assyrian version. This would fit in with the beginning of the reverse, the first two lines of which (136–137) correspond to column 5 of the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version, with a variation “seven-fold fear”141 as against “fear of men” in the Assyrian version. If lines 138–139 (in column 4) of the Yale tablet correspond to line 7 of column 5 of Tablet IV of the Assyrian version, we would again have an illustration of the elaboration of the later version by the addition of lines 3–6. But beyond this we have merely the comparison of the description of Ḫuwawa
“Whose roar is a flood, whose mouth is fire, and whose breath is death”
which occurs twice in the Yale tablet (lines 110–111 and 196–197), with the same phrase in the Assyrian version Tablet IV, 5, 3—but here, as just pointed out, with an elaboration.
Practically, therefore, the entire Yale tablet represents an addition to our knowledge of the Ḫuwawa episode, and until we are fortunate enough to discover more fragments of the fourth tablet of the Assyrian version, we must content ourselves with the conclusions reached from a comparison of the Pennsylvania tablet with the parallels in the Assyrian version.
It may be noted as a general point of resemblance in the exterior form of the old Babylonian and Assyrian versions that both were inscribed on tablets containing six columns, three on the obverse and three on the reverse; and that the length of the tablets—an average of 40 to 50 lines—was about the same, thus revealing in the external form a conventiona1 size for the tablets in the older period, which was carried over into later times.
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-liḳî-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-ḫasis “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 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.
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 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).
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 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.
54 CT 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.”
61 See above, p. 27.
62 Poebel, Historical Texts, p. 115 seq.
63 Many years ago (BA III, p. 376) I equated Etana with Ethan in the Old Testament—therefore a West Semitic name.
64 See Clay, The Empire of the Amorites, p. 80.
65 Professor Clay strongly favors an Amoritic origin also for Gilgamesh. His explanation of the name is set forth in his recent work on The Empire of the Amorites, page 89, and is also referred to in his work on Amurru, page 79, and in his volume of Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection, page 3, note. According to Professor Clay the original form of the hero’s name was West Semitic, and was something like Bilga-Mash, the meaning of which was perhaps “the offspring of Mash.” For the first element in this division of the name cf. Piliḳam, the name of a ruler of an early dynasty, and Balaḳ of the Old Testament. In view of the fact that the axe figures so prominently in the Epic as an instrument wielded by Gilgamesh, Professor Clay furthermore thinks it reasonable to assume that the name was interpreted by the Babylonian scribe as “the axe of Mash.” In this way he would account for the use of the determinative for weapons, which is also the sign Gish, in the name. It is certainly noteworthy that the ideogram Gish-Tún in the later form of Gish-Tún-mash = pašu, “axe,” CT XVI, 38:14b, etc. Tun also = pilaḳu “axe,” CT xii, 10:34b. Names with similar element (besides Piliḳam) are Belaḳu of the Hammurabi period, Bilaḳḳu of the Cassite period, etc.