Nili Samet has compiled the parallels between Gilgamesh and Ecclesiastes-Qohelet. Samet believes that the parallels, now, have accumulated such a mass that something can be said of what version of Gilgamesh, the Teacher might have read.
Samet points out that, where Ezekiel was contemporary in time and place with Babylonian architecture and literature; the same cannot be said for Qohelet, which is fully (if idiosyncratically) Hebrew and second-Temple. I would myself compare Qohelet more with Daniel: Maccabean in both its Hebrew and Old-Greek forms, but only after pulling much lore from the post-Chaldaean Two Rivers. Samet in an aside compares the P content in Torah, whose babylonica trends closer to Berossus than to what is had from the cuneiform standard.
Samet notes further (in footnotes) that cuneiform abroad was never so standard once it got out to, say, Hattusas.
I'd say Berossus has the slight Problematic that he was passing his traditions to Greeks. Russ Gmirkin might ponder that all the tradents in Hellenistic times have altered the Gilgamesh text toward Greek. Indeed Aelian was aware of a Greek tradition, calling Gilgamesh "Gilgamos". Perhaps this is that version which has entered Ecclesiastes. Jeff Cooley had ventured into this Iraqi marsh; which you might want to read alongside Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Matthew L. Bowen, and Ryan Dahle (pdf, 182f.).
One difference: Berossus - for the Flood - preferred the Ziusudra ("Sisythrus") of the Sumerian version over the various Babylonian-version heroes, including over the Flood as quoted by Gilgamesh famously meeting an "Utnapishtim". Qohelet by contrast, where he tracks with Gilgamesh proper, is closer to the Babylonian.
We can rule out Berossus (the shadowy man or his Greek-ascribed tradition generally) as an intermediary for Qohelet. I am already fairly-sure Qohelet had little to do with the Priests in Jerusalem, be they Tabernacle or Temple. In fairness to Gmirkin I don't think that man, himself, refers to Qohelet much.
No comments:
Post a Comment