![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
At the beginning of the section "tablet 10" the word "alewife" is found. When I was reading, it was confusing whether this is a type of wife (like kept woman / concubine) or whether it is a typo. I found the meaning later and there is a page on Wikipedia called Alewife (trade). So please link the word to the page. Also, maybe in 2-3 words tell what alewife means. But surely please link it so that people do not misunderstand. I tried to do it myself but the page is locked.
Done. Thank you for noticing this. Dimadick ( talk) 16:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Epic of Gilgamesh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
66.230.116.7 ( talk) 00:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Dates
I have noticed that the time period of the dates are not correct. It is not BC & AD, it is now known as BCE and CE(Before Common Era and Common Era)
Is there a version anywhere that is written in Babylonian or PIE and not English? Aaronfranke ( talk) 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
As of last year 20 new lines of tablet 5 were discovered, which have important implications in the narrative, tone and perhaps moral of the poem, especially with respect to Humbaba. Thus I propose it be updated. See link. Bodha2 ( talk) 07:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One example: The main point seems to be that when Enlil granted eternal life it was a unique gift. As if to demonstrate this point, Utnapishtim challenges Gilgamesh to stay awake for six days and seven nights.
Why Enlil granted eternal life is explained by his iconography alone (the horned cap Gods were wearing). He was seen as the crown of the Gods, rather than the Gods by themselves. He (Utnapishtim and his wife) was not the only who was granted eternal life, Enkidu who was created to get rid of Gilgamesh arrogance did return from the dead (that those were add-ons or not is irrelevant). Enkidu resurrection was possible mostly because he was kept ignorant of human society (remained humble) until he learned the basic constants by Shamhat. The story is similar to Tammuz journey to the underworld and return. Yaḥyā ( talk) 23:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I just gave an example above (it can't be NPOVed, because the whole article has to be reworked), and reason I provided that example was because the whole Gilgamesh Epic revolves around his failure to be granted eternal Kingship (not life). He was seeking social immortality (him as king). The only social immortality he could have won was the mask of the Gods (Enlil) not Gods by themselves. To explain it in a language everyone could understand. Suppose that someone creates a Wikipedia account with all the bureaucratic rights and decides that this account will live on forever. After his death, that mask (account) is given to someone else, then another. That was what Enlil was, the crown (when everyone vanished by the flood, the only survivor wear it, in short for him to wear the crown for all eternity he should be the only living person (provided that he become immortal himself) on Earth :) ). This concept is even present in some current religions. The Alawis trinity separate the mask (name) and its feeder as only mean to achieve immortality. Enkidu quest was the immortality of the wild untainted man (not the same as Gilgamesh quest). For that he had to journey in the underworld and get rid of his mortal social identity (easy for him, because for most of his life he was kept isolated). Enkidu the wild man is redeemed, accepting that he won’t wear the crown. Pieces of the story were recycled in Hercules labors, [in it] Prometeus and Chiron switched… Chiron got his name written in heaven… name-immortality allowing Hercules to continue on his quest.
Don’t you see where is the problem in accepting articles just because sources can be provided? You can write about anything and it doesn't need to be making sense. Let me add another rule on Wikipedia, not only sources should be added, an article should be understandable by the common Joe or Bob in human language, not machine :). The whole article appear just to be nonsense, when what the Epic is all about still stand to this day. Yaḥyā ( talk) 00:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is not "nonsense." I do not mean to be rude in saying this, but I can think of no subtler way to put it, so I am going to be quite frank: what you just wrote is the real nonsense. What you are claiming about Enlil being a "mask" that is passed down and worn by one man after another is not scholarship; it is just outright fiction. I do not know where you are getting it from, but it is certainly not from any respectable work of Near Eastern scholarship. Movies, songs, and YouTube videos are not reliable sources by any measure. Joseph Campbell is popular with the general public, but his books are generally disregarded by serious scholars of the ancient world. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of mainstream scholarship and what you are proposing is anything but that. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I think I have identified a possible source of some of the confusion here. I use the image at right in the article Enlil to give an example of what the horned crown symbol looked like. I think you may have thought that the king shown on the seal is supposed to be the incarnation of Enlil or something like that, but that was not my intention in using that image. I was simply trying to show what the crown symbol looked like. The fact that a person is shown wearing it is simply a result of the fact that I had difficulties finding an image of the crown on Wikimedia Commons that showed the crown by itself without anyone wearing it. The crown in the image is showing that the king is vested with authority to rule from Enlil, not that he is Enlil himself. Enlil was envisioned as a typical Near Eastern anthropomorphic god, but was not shown in this anthropomorphic guise in artwork because he was deemed too holy. As it says in the article, "Enlil himself was regarded as so glorious that even the other gods could not look upon him." -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 12:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Euphrates river contains a 10ft layer layer of settlement which is approximately 1600 BC. This corroborates the great flood. And places Gilgamesh after that flood. Utnapishtim also is recorded as the participant in the flood epic.
However biblical texts also list a Chronology from Noah to Jesus. These have been scaled (according to the calendar of the day, three festival year or lunar ‘years”). The chronology now agrees with tree ring data from queens college and others. The flood appears certain to have resulted from the ereuption of the [santorini volcano] in early 1630 BC.
Thus we can now question the text date. Sediment carbon dating is dependent on water percolation through the soil. So they all appear different ages. But there is only one large layer among many small ones.
Thus Gilgamesh seems to be tabloid propaganda. Whereas the Noah account appears to precisely note the facts as they were found. But The gilgamesh date appears 400 years before. It sounds like a few decades after the flood. This would place it at about 1600 BC.
This paper accountingbthe biblical chronology is here.
Please note pirates prevent Wikipedia from seeing the author because they want to evade the law and damage the website owner. You are hacked and or corrupted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.231.253 ( talk) 16:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This whole discussion has gotten hopelessly off-topic. We have stopped talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is the subject of this article, and now we are debating the origins of the Book of Genesis, which is not directly relevant to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Unless someone wants to propose actual changes to the article, this discussion is over as far as I am concerned. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 19:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
At the beginning of the section "tablet 10" the word "alewife" is found. When I was reading, it was confusing whether this is a type of wife (like kept woman / concubine) or whether it is a typo. I found the meaning later and there is a page on Wikipedia called Alewife (trade). So please link the word to the page. Also, maybe in 2-3 words tell what alewife means. But surely please link it so that people do not misunderstand. I tried to do it myself but the page is locked.
Done. Thank you for noticing this. Dimadick ( talk) 16:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Epic of Gilgamesh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
66.230.116.7 ( talk) 00:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Dates
I have noticed that the time period of the dates are not correct. It is not BC & AD, it is now known as BCE and CE(Before Common Era and Common Era)
Is there a version anywhere that is written in Babylonian or PIE and not English? Aaronfranke ( talk) 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
As of last year 20 new lines of tablet 5 were discovered, which have important implications in the narrative, tone and perhaps moral of the poem, especially with respect to Humbaba. Thus I propose it be updated. See link. Bodha2 ( talk) 07:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One example: The main point seems to be that when Enlil granted eternal life it was a unique gift. As if to demonstrate this point, Utnapishtim challenges Gilgamesh to stay awake for six days and seven nights.
Why Enlil granted eternal life is explained by his iconography alone (the horned cap Gods were wearing). He was seen as the crown of the Gods, rather than the Gods by themselves. He (Utnapishtim and his wife) was not the only who was granted eternal life, Enkidu who was created to get rid of Gilgamesh arrogance did return from the dead (that those were add-ons or not is irrelevant). Enkidu resurrection was possible mostly because he was kept ignorant of human society (remained humble) until he learned the basic constants by Shamhat. The story is similar to Tammuz journey to the underworld and return. Yaḥyā ( talk) 23:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug,
I just gave an example above (it can't be NPOVed, because the whole article has to be reworked), and reason I provided that example was because the whole Gilgamesh Epic revolves around his failure to be granted eternal Kingship (not life). He was seeking social immortality (him as king). The only social immortality he could have won was the mask of the Gods (Enlil) not Gods by themselves. To explain it in a language everyone could understand. Suppose that someone creates a Wikipedia account with all the bureaucratic rights and decides that this account will live on forever. After his death, that mask (account) is given to someone else, then another. That was what Enlil was, the crown (when everyone vanished by the flood, the only survivor wear it, in short for him to wear the crown for all eternity he should be the only living person (provided that he become immortal himself) on Earth :) ). This concept is even present in some current religions. The Alawis trinity separate the mask (name) and its feeder as only mean to achieve immortality. Enkidu quest was the immortality of the wild untainted man (not the same as Gilgamesh quest). For that he had to journey in the underworld and get rid of his mortal social identity (easy for him, because for most of his life he was kept isolated). Enkidu the wild man is redeemed, accepting that he won’t wear the crown. Pieces of the story were recycled in Hercules labors, [in it] Prometeus and Chiron switched… Chiron got his name written in heaven… name-immortality allowing Hercules to continue on his quest.
Don’t you see where is the problem in accepting articles just because sources can be provided? You can write about anything and it doesn't need to be making sense. Let me add another rule on Wikipedia, not only sources should be added, an article should be understandable by the common Joe or Bob in human language, not machine :). The whole article appear just to be nonsense, when what the Epic is all about still stand to this day. Yaḥyā ( talk) 00:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is not "nonsense." I do not mean to be rude in saying this, but I can think of no subtler way to put it, so I am going to be quite frank: what you just wrote is the real nonsense. What you are claiming about Enlil being a "mask" that is passed down and worn by one man after another is not scholarship; it is just outright fiction. I do not know where you are getting it from, but it is certainly not from any respectable work of Near Eastern scholarship. Movies, songs, and YouTube videos are not reliable sources by any measure. Joseph Campbell is popular with the general public, but his books are generally disregarded by serious scholars of the ancient world. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of mainstream scholarship and what you are proposing is anything but that. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I think I have identified a possible source of some of the confusion here. I use the image at right in the article Enlil to give an example of what the horned crown symbol looked like. I think you may have thought that the king shown on the seal is supposed to be the incarnation of Enlil or something like that, but that was not my intention in using that image. I was simply trying to show what the crown symbol looked like. The fact that a person is shown wearing it is simply a result of the fact that I had difficulties finding an image of the crown on Wikimedia Commons that showed the crown by itself without anyone wearing it. The crown in the image is showing that the king is vested with authority to rule from Enlil, not that he is Enlil himself. Enlil was envisioned as a typical Near Eastern anthropomorphic god, but was not shown in this anthropomorphic guise in artwork because he was deemed too holy. As it says in the article, "Enlil himself was regarded as so glorious that even the other gods could not look upon him." -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 12:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Euphrates river contains a 10ft layer layer of settlement which is approximately 1600 BC. This corroborates the great flood. And places Gilgamesh after that flood. Utnapishtim also is recorded as the participant in the flood epic.
However biblical texts also list a Chronology from Noah to Jesus. These have been scaled (according to the calendar of the day, three festival year or lunar ‘years”). The chronology now agrees with tree ring data from queens college and others. The flood appears certain to have resulted from the ereuption of the [santorini volcano] in early 1630 BC.
Thus we can now question the text date. Sediment carbon dating is dependent on water percolation through the soil. So they all appear different ages. But there is only one large layer among many small ones.
Thus Gilgamesh seems to be tabloid propaganda. Whereas the Noah account appears to precisely note the facts as they were found. But The gilgamesh date appears 400 years before. It sounds like a few decades after the flood. This would place it at about 1600 BC.
This paper accountingbthe biblical chronology is here.
Please note pirates prevent Wikipedia from seeing the author because they want to evade the law and damage the website owner. You are hacked and or corrupted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.231.253 ( talk) 16:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This whole discussion has gotten hopelessly off-topic. We have stopped talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is the subject of this article, and now we are debating the origins of the Book of Genesis, which is not directly relevant to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Unless someone wants to propose actual changes to the article, this discussion is over as far as I am concerned. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 19:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)