Unsucky English, Lecture 6: Gilgamesh and the Dawn of Man
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 Clay Burell 
Print This Post
Gilgamesh - the Earth's Oldest Epic. Stephen Mitchell's fine 2004 adaptation.
[The Unsucky English Gilgamesh series so far: 1: Dangerous Questions ~ 2: The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job ~ 3: Adam and Eve, Backwards ~ 4. The Seven Deadly Sins, Backwards ~ 5. Good, Evil, Nature, and the Hero, Backwards ~ This post ~ 7. A Goddess Prays 8. The Modern Mischief of the Gilgamesh Poets]1
Since the last “lecture” five long months ago, I’ve left Gilgamesh and Enkidu stuck at the gates of Uruk, ready to journey to the Cedar Forest to kill the “evil” – or, depending on which god or mortal you listen to, “sacred” – monster Humbaba. Life got in the way since then. Click the footnote if you’re curious how.2
Since I need to ease back into this world after such a long hiatus, let’s pause to catch an idea regarding that “evil or sacred” detail before it flits away. It’s worth lingering on.
One Pleasure of Polytheism
That Humbaba could be considered “sacred” by the god Enlil, but “evil” by the sun-god Shamash and the goddess Ninsun (who is also Gilgamesh’ mother), suggests that religious dogmatism and absolute certainty about questions of good and evil, right and wrong, did not plague polytheistic religions the way they do religions with only one god – especially ones claiming, moreover, to possess the divinely-authored book. Nobody claimed divine authorship of Gilgamesh, as far as I know. So the Sumero-Babylonians must have felt a nice bit of intellectual freedom to dispute it and discuss it as a result.
I’m not denying that rabbis, theologians, and imams have endlessly disputed their texts too, of course. I’m just saying that there’s still a difference between a religious text acknowledged to be the work of humans, like Gilgamesh, and one attributed to the godhead itself, that seems to make an essential difference in how a culture relates to it.
Me? I’d prefer the Sumerian option. Whoever the first priest in history was to come up with the claim that “these are God’s very words,” or “God wrote this book,” was, wittingly or not, a political genius. Look at the power that gives members of our priestly classes to this day. People are more comfortable disputing an Einstein or a Darwin than they are their humble neighborhood preacher. It’s mind-boggling, really. (And, come to think of it, literally.)
Anyway, before leaving Uruk, I want to linger on a couple more details from Book III that I didn’t mention in the last installment. They happen after Gilgamesh announces his plan to kill Humbaba to Enkidu, and before he and Enkidu leave. They’re minor, but interesting enough – especially in light of what comes later.
I’ll try not to be a spoiler.
The Birth of Something New
We left Gilgamesh justifying his decision to commit, in Enkidu’s view, a sacrilege by arguing that, on the contrary, his act was heroic. In lines that Achilles would echo in the Iliad a thousand years later, Gilgamesh articulates the classic heroic answer to the classic existential question, “What’s it all about, Alfie?”
We are not gods, we cannot ascend
to heaven. No, we are mortal men.
Only the gods live forever. Our days
are few in number, and whatever we achieve
is a puff of wind. Why be afraid then,
since sooner or later death must come?
So since immortality is impossible, what’s the next best thing in life? An immortal name. In other words, that thing we call “fame.”
I will make a lasting name for myself,
I will stamp my fame on men’s minds forever.
The Greeks would call this pure hubris – another great man thinking he’s a bit too great, and setting himself up for a tragic lesson thereby. As it turns out, the people of Uruk seem to see things this way too. First Enkidu, in tears, and then the city elders called to Gilgamesh’s throne to hear the announcement, ask Gilgamesh the same pointed question:
How can any man, even you,
dare to enter the Cedar Forest?
Who among men or gods could defeat [Humbaba]?
Everybody is counseling Gilgamesh to live his life restrained by traditional religious piety – Humbaba is Enlil’s guardian, thus holy; don’t defy the gods. They advise prudence instead of passion; humility, instead of hubris.
Moreover, none of them believes Gilgamesh can achieve the goal he’s set for himself.
And when the elders finish their pleas, what is the King’s response? First, in another instance of that “double that balances” motif, since Enkidu is crying at his side: laughter. And after that, no response at all, other than a “Let’s get moving” to Enkidu. Gilgamesh has chosen bravery over cowardice, fame over oblivion, the chance of greatness over mediocrity. He’s chosen free human will over traditional religious fear.
This just might be the first written example of Humanism in the history of our species. And the court poets who polished this story over 2,000 years have several “wtf twists” about this in store for us yet.
More soon. I promise.
- This series based on the beautifully poetic 2004 Stephen Mitchell translation of Gilgamesh. [↩]
- I got sucked into the presidential campaign first, then into interviewing for a radio job and a writing job over six weeks or so after that (I got them both, thank goodness), and then into applying and interviewing for a new teaching job beginning this summer (which worked out well too – I’ll be in Singapore by July to settle in and begin teaching Asian history there). On top of that, we’re still dealing with mourning in my family over my mother-in-law’s passing, and with the ominous mood of the global meltdown. Strange times. [↩]
- Unsucky English Lecture 7: Gilgamesh: A Goddess Prays
- Unsucky English, Lecture 4: The Seven Deadly Sins, Backwards (Gilgamesh, Book Two)
- Good, Evil, Nature, and the Hero – Backwards: Unsucky English, Lecture 5 (Gilgamesh, cont’d)
- Gilgamesh and the Original “Original Sin”: Unsucky English Lecture 9 (part one)
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: books, Gilgamesh Print This Post
No. 1 — February 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
[...] Next: 2: The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job ~ 3: Adam and Eve, Backwards ~ 4. The Seven Deadly Sins, Backwards ~ 5. Good and Evil, Nature and the Hero – Backwards ~ 6. Gilgamesh and the Birth of the New Man [...]
No. 2 — February 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
[...] [The Unsucky English Gilgamesh series so far: 1: Dangerous Questions ~ 2: this post ~ 3: Adam and Eve, Backwards ~ 4. The Seven Deadly Sins, Backwards ~ 5. Good and Evil, Nature and the Hero - Backwards ~ 6. Gilgamesh and the Birth of the New Man.] [...]
No. 3 — February 17th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
[...] The Gilgamesh Series So Far: 1. Gilgamesh: Dangerous Questions 2. The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job 3. Adam and Eve, Backwards 4. The Seven Deadly Sins, Backwards 5. Good and Evil, Nature and the Hero – Backwards 6. Gilgamesh and the Birth of the New Man [...]
No. 4 — February 17th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
[...] [The Unsucky English Gilgamesh series so far: 1: Dangerous Questions ~ 2: The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job ~ 3: this post~ 4. The Seven Deadly Sins, Backwards ~ 5. Good and Evil, Nature and the Hero - Backwards ~ 6. Gilgamesh and the Birth of the New Man] [...]
No. 5 — February 17th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
“People are more comfortable disputing an Einstein or a Darwin than they are their humble neighborhood preacher.” — I’ve been struck by this more than once attending a friend’s funeral and hearing that the only true gate to eternity is the door of the preacher’s church.
By the way, I hadn’t known about Apture before visiting your site. Cool app. Very cool.
Clay Burell Reply:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
It’s a striking thing, isn’t it Bob? Loved the sauce in your added twist.
And Apture is indeed a nifty tool.
No. 6 — February 18th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Nice to see Gilgamesh back, Clay. A couple of things occurred to me as I read your post.
The first after reading this: “religious dogmatism and absolute certainty about questions of good and evil, right and wrong, did not plague polytheistic religions the way they do religions with only one god.”
How can we get back there? I’ve been having a case of the churchy heebeejeebees lately as the church I am vacationing from (as a Roman Catholic married to a Jew) has been doing its best to further alienate me (ecumenical conversation pointless; Holocaust denying priests reinstated, blah blah, blah). One of my facebook ‘friends’ from high school posted this status update: “P-B- is I love going to church. Seriously, it is one of the awesome things in life.”
And then there was this comment on her status: “A-B-E- I feel the same way, and can you imagine how much people like us will LOVE heaven?!”
I can’t even begin to describe how uncomfortable/frightened/nauseous that makes me –
Point 2: You remind us that Gilgamesh was advised to be prudent not passionate; humble instead of proud. And no one believes that he can do what he says he is going to. He chooses “bravery over cowardice, fame over oblivion, the chance of greatness over mediocrity…free human will over traditional religious fear.” Well, I teach American Literature and in this I see the characters of Hester Prynne, Sethe, Dick Hunter (from Ragged Dick by Horatio Alger) Jay Gatsby, Daisy Miller, Huck Finn, Tom Joad, as well as Henry David Thoreau! Gilgamesh seems to be the the ur-hero of all protagonists.
No. 7 — February 18th, 2009 at 9:37 am
@ Clay
The question of the problem of evil is perhaps one of the most intriguing out there. For me the Christian answer lead to my faith taking on an adult form. The answers to the problem are either: atheism, polytheism, idealism, or perhaps biblical theism. Atheism denies God so no problem, polytheism attributes good to the good gods and evil to the bad gods, and idealism pretends evil doesn’t exist. The Christian answer is much more complex but perhaps one of the most overlooked passage in the New Testament was Luke 13 and Jesus’ comment on the tragedy of the tower of Siloman. Perhaps a conversation for another time.
@ Kate
I would agree the branch of ecumenism seems to be bending in a disturbing way as of late.
Charlie A. Roys last blog post..Watching Web 2.0 Deepen Learning
Kester Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Don’t forget Discordianism. I think there might be a future for something called “Ismism” which would be, I suppose, belief in belief?
Kesters last blog post..κύκλος κλαν
Clay Burell Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Charlie, I’d love to hear your take on how the Tower analogy applies to theodicy. My ears for Luke 13, which I just re-read, must not be long enough. It didn’t speak to me. Why is “repenting or perishing” a key to the existence of evil? (And that’s assuming we agree that this seems to be the thrust of both the Galileans’ executions and the Siloman tower analogies.)
Speroni Reply:
February 19th, 2009 at 12:14 am
@Charlie
Morality (ideas of right and wrong or good and evil) really have little to do with religion, even though religion. If we were to take the bible at face value, we would still have slaves and women would be 3rd class citizens, the fact is morality continues to grow, even though God’s word stagnates. I like this explaination of morality better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Also, food for thought:
http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html
@Kester
Don’t forget Pastafarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
@Gilgamesh
Man you have a chip on your shoulder. Already king of the first and greatest city and you have to go around killing innocent evil monsters to prove a point. Hubris, as it has been mentioned, shall be your downfall.
Speronis last blog post..We are indeed
Clay Burell Reply:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
@Speroni, that “Stages of Moral Development” link is a keeper. Thanks for dropping it.
(Sorry your comment was stuck in the spam queue for so long. Chalk it up to an insane backlog.)
Kester Reply:
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Speroni,
I considered Pastafarianism, but I’m prone to nightmares. Speaking of mares, if I were to stray from my current beliefs, I think I’d become a worshiper of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. (http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu/home.html) In addition to being more friendly, it’s also invisible (so as not to cause aforesaid nightmares).
Regarding morality and the relationship to religion, let me twist that a bit. For some theists, our religion is not so much adherence to a religion, but the end of a search for Truth. Think less Inquisition and more Socrates. In that sense, religion has quite a bit to do with morality.
[Spoiler redacted - Clay] (Sorry, Kester!)
I thank you for the links as well. Food for thought.
Kesters last blog post..κύκλος κλαν
Clay Burell Reply:
February 24th, 2009 at 1:14 am
@Speroni, @Kester,
Do you guys mind if I edit out the parts of your comments that play “spoiler” for those who haven’t read the full story?
A weird question, I know
Speroni Reply:
February 24th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Sorry about that, you can rescind the last comment.
Speronis last blog post..We are indeed
Kester Reply:
February 24th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Clay, feel free to delete this if it is a spoiler (you might be going to flesh out this idea later, even though it’s already happened in the text you’ve covered). But you had hinted at Enkidu as Gilgamesh’s lover. I had wondered about that myself, because it says they embraced “as a husband embraces a wife”. I wonder what exactly that means. Does it mean physical or emotional intimacy?
Also, Clay, I will respond to your comments soon. Need to ponder them some more.
Kesters last blog post..κύκλος κλαν
Clay Burell Reply:
February 24th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Hi Kester,
The possible homosexuality is as ambiguous to me as it is to you, I think. I normally respond to the question with a shrug anyway, because it seems pretty clear that sexual norms change dramatically in space and time. Were Achilles and Patroclus lovers in the Iliad? Jonathan and David in the Old Testament? I don’t know.
I’ve never had much interest in the question until now, though, so thanks for bringing it up.
Because if not only non-marital/non-monogamous heterosexual activity, but also homosexual, are suggested as normative in this text, it supplies us with another interesting possible causative argument for the pretty harsh anti-homosexuality in so much of the Jewish Law in the Torah.
If Eve is an example of Hebrew ressentiment of the Goddess-culture surrounding it – and especially that of Judea’s Babylonian conquerors – then maybe the “abomination” of homosexuality is similarly what Joseph Campbell calls a “mythic inversion” of an enemy’s culture.
It’s possible. Not sure how plausible. Thoughts?
Kester Reply:
February 25th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Hey, Clay.
Given Greek culture, I’d be willing to bet that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers. Women seemed, at best, vessels for procreation to them. Given Jewish culture, I’d say no for Jonathan and David, despite David’s assertion that Jonathan’s love was “better than the love of a woman.” But I wouldn’t be surprised, either. Perhaps the myriad commands regarding it (although there aren’t quite as many as I once thought) are evidence that it was rather common.
But I don’t know enough about Mesopotamian culture in that regard to hazard a guess. It seems that, for the Greeks, the homosexuality went hand in hand with a denigration of women. Only a male could be an equal, thus, only a male could be a true lover. There seems to be a similar denigration of women in Mesopotamia if the Cuneiform Codes and even “Epic of Gilgamesh” can be taken as evidence. I note that especially when Enkidu seeks a “true friend” which he apparently can’t find in Shamat. And I definitely sense an attitude of “if it feels good, do it” (or him).
I’m never sure what to make of homosexuality in the Bible. It’s only mentioned once, and in a glancing way, in the NT. In the OT, it’s mentioned several times, but in the same lists as “disobedient to parents”, touching dead people and such. Unclean or disruptive to the community, not evil. Even Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t seem to be about homosexuality as Ezekiel 16 lists their sins as the following: pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. Sounds more like the U.S. than anything.
If I were to guess, it seems like the OT connects marriage with procreation. Don’t “spill your seed” or get it on with a dude ’cause it won’t make babies. But that’s a guess. Most of the things labeled as “serious” sins make sense to me. That one … I just don’t get it.
Also, if it were “mythic inversion,” I would think it would be more associated with Egypt than Babylon. Abraham had come from Ur, but Israel hadn’t been established in Canaan yet when the majority of the Torah was written.
Regardless, I think it entirely plausible that Gilgamesh and Enkidu found physical pleasure with one another. The Celts did it before battles. The Bushido has codes regulating homosexual relationships. Now that I think of it, I’d kind of be surprised if they didn’t. But it’s hard to base it on hard evidence because I just don’t know what “embraced like a husband embraces a wife” might have meant 5,000 years ago.
More on Eve in another response.
Kesters last blog post..κύκλος κλαν
No. 8 — February 18th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
This is a general response to the entire series so far. You have several premises which I would like to address. These will be very brief, although I may flesh them out later in my own blog.
1. Civilization is good.
I don’t see how this is supported by the text. On the one hand, one could argue that Gilgamesh showing off his walls to the boatman supports it, but it seems that the wooing of Enkidu, making him “fit” for civilization, also robs him of his power and innocence. That is, to be civilized is to be separate from and feared by nature.
2. Sex is good.
Again, I don’t see how the text supports this. First, Shamat uses sex, basically, to rob Enkidy of vitality and power (taking his breath/life with her kisses). Second, Enkidu initially curses her for corrupting him as he is dying. Third, even when he is blessing her, one of his blessings is that she will steal the husband of the wife who has seven children. Even if they thought it was good then for prostitutes, even temple prostitutes, to do this, I hope we would disagree!
3. How the Bible is A) derivative and B) substandard
I absolutely agree that the Bible is obviously influenced by the cultures in which the Hebrews sojourned. “Job” is a monotheistic retelling of “The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer.” “Ecclesiastes” reads like a longer version of “The Babylonian Theodicy.” And the 10 Commandments are a shortened version of the 42 Laws of Ma’at. I would argue that shows their unfolding understanding of their God.
Further, I would argue that you do the Bible a disservice. Some random observations (attempting to limit my observations to the Old Testament):
- The Bible is more feminist. In Gilgamesh, Enkmidu never considers Shamat as a potential friend. It must be a male. In the Bible, Adam’s mate is a woman.
- In the contest between Dumuzi (Tammuz) and Enkmidu (which reflects Cain and Abel), Ishtar chooses Dumuzi (the shepherd) over Enkmidu (the farmer) like God chooses Abel (the shepherd) over Cain (the farmer). Although Ishtar did prefer Enkmidu initially. But, later in the Bible, Cain kills Abel and then makes the first city. I think that’s important. The first city, with walls and pollution and war and such was made by the first murderer.
- This isn’t from Gilgamesh, but why did the Mesopotamian pantheon make humans? Why, as their slaves! To work for them, make food for them, and give them an easier life. Why did the God of the Bible make humans? To put them in paradise, to love them, to make them happy.
- In both Gilgamesh and the Bible, the woman gives “the fruit” to the man. But it is significant that, in the Bible, it is only when the woman AND the man have eaten that their “eyes are opened.” In Gilgamesh, the woman is, basically, the snake … the tempter (or “ress”).
I could go on, but moving on to your claims in this post:
4. Polytheism isn’t dogmatic
First, polytheistic priests are every bit as dogmatic as monotheistic ones. Hammurabi didn’t hem or haw in his Code (given by Shamash). Anu didn’t give a waiver. So don’t blame God if monotheists are assholes. Second, so what if they argue about what is right and wrong? They’re petty and they play games with humans, from Gilgamesh to the Iliad to … ummmm … some other famous polytheistic text, the gods are worse than my students. Third, as Socrates would say, if there are gods, and the gods are not in agreement, then there must be a higher Good to which they aspire. It is that Good that I, and other monotheists, worship and hope to emulate. It is in our attempt to force others to follow our interpretation that we fail, not in our attempt to follow Truth.
5. Gilgamesh is a humanist.
He might be. He certainly defies the gods and his own mortality. But, like Odysseus, he is dashed against the immovable rocks of gods and fate. If anything, the poem says, “Try as you might, you will fail. Maybe, if you’re lucky, and especially pathetic, you’ll be remembered.” Even Odysseus became a priest of Poseidon in the end.
So, there you go. I think you are confusing God with His followers. We’re raging assholes. Please don’t blame Him for us. And, for all its failings, I must laud the Old Testament for this. It takes the hopelessness of Mesopotamian mythology and philosophy and the aristocracy of Egyptian religion and changes it into something much more humanist, hopeful and plebeian.
All that said, I love Gilgamesh and many, many thanks for pointing me to the Mitchell translation. Wow! Excellent read (which most Gilgamesh renderings are not).
Clay Burell Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Kester, real quick – excellent challenges and extensions. I love it. If only authoritative books made space for readers challenges in the same way.
I’ll respond more soon. No time right now. Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time, and again. More soon.
Kester Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Thanks for responding and I look forward to hearing more. Two quick notes. Pardon my “Enkidy” typos and “The Babylonian Theodicy” is supposed to be “Dialogue of Pessimism.”
Kesters last blog post..κύκλος κλαν
Clay Burell Reply:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
@Kester, okay, as promised (and hurried!):
1. I think I’ve said on several occasion that civilization is given a very ambiguous treatment in my view. I’m tracing it, and won’t wrap it up until I wrap the series up.
2. I’ve already talked about sex being complex in this work too. I’m not going to get ahead of the series by addressing parts of the text I haven’t reached yet, so stay tuned. But I hope you’ll meet me at least on the contrast of sex and gender seen in Gilgamesh/Shamhat in comparison with Genesis/Eve, and Sumero-Babylonian culture v. ancient Hebrew?
3. We agree the Bible is derivative of the more ancient culture of Mesopotamia. “Substandard” is a value judgment, and can’t be applied in a blanket manner. I’ll continue trying to qualify any comparisons that way as I go. But since you subscribe to the Biblical belief system, it seems, and I don’t in many ways, we’re bound to disagree about a lot.
4. I was making a simple observation: in a polytheistic system in which god A says “x is good,” and god B says “x is bad,” it seems individuals within that context have little choice but to reflect and decide which god they believe is right. In a monotheistic system in which there is nothing but single dictates by a single god, I argue there is less room for such moral deliberation.
I don’t think we should attribute Platonic idealism to Socrates. That came in Plato’s later dialogues, long after Socrates’ death and Plato’s departure into abstractions we have no evidence Socrates entertained. Socrates is a mouthpiece in the later dialogues for Plato’s unfolding philosophical journey. (I don’t buy Plato, either, fwiw. Neither did Aristotle.)
5. I’m not finished with my take on the lessons of the epic re: Gilgamesh’s “humanist revolt.” It’s not so simple, I agree, and will argue as I go.
Love your humble and salty close. I don’t find it so easy to exculpate religious texts from their consequences in human society, though.
I do agree that the Old Testament did advance Middle Eastern social ethics in several admirable ways – but you have to grant that those advances were ultimately racist and authoritarian, insofar as they only applied to “the Chosen,” and still demanded unquestioning obedience from those Chosen.
Peace out for now.
Kester Reply:
February 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
OK, Clay, here we goooooo ….
1 & 5. Will reserve judgment on civilization and “Gilgamesh as humanist” for now … but would like to throw in that, if my Cain/Abel theory holds, whatever might have been meant by “fill the earth and subdue it” is NOT what we have done.
(Skipping 2 for a moment)
3. We probably will disagree about the Bible, although I definitely don’t idolize it as many Christians do, nor do I think God dictated it word for word. The “Brick Testament” does a fine job of pointing out some of the idiocy in the pages. (http://www.thebricktestament.com/) That said, I think almost all religious works are derivative, especially polytheistic ones. Also, I would say that, because the Hebrews were OF the ancient culture of Mesopotamia, it is their culture as well. It’s not derivative if it partially belonged to you in the first place.
4. I might agree that Polytheism is kind of an ancient version of post-modernism, except the texts don’t back it up. When one didn’t properly obey a given god, that god would show you who is boss ’till you did and you were sunk unless some other god came to your aid. Thus, it was less about human decision-making and more about which god was the most powerful.
I agree about Platonic Idealism and Socrates. However, it is generally agreed that, of all Plato’s works, the “Apology” (in which Socrates made the argument that there must be a higher good than the gods) is a fairly accurate representation of Socrates’ thought moreso than Plato’s.
(On a related note, I wrote a children’s book meant to be the first in a series to introduce the ideas and personages of philosophy to kids so as to better teach it in middle and high school. I’d love to get your response to it.)
But I will agree on this. Whether polytheist or monotheist, it seems that the human ultimately becomes arbiter of what s/he believes to be true. In a post-Hume world where even basic cause-and-effect relationships can be questioned, it must be so. And I’m willing to concede that polytheistic gods, while more petty about taking offense, seem to give more leeway about right and wrong.
2. Regarding sex and gender in Mesopotamian vs. Hebrew culture, I can agree there is a difference, but I think that Hebrew wins out. I’ll limit my answers to the parts of the text you’ve already covered:
- Eve vs. Shamat: Eve succumbs to the tempter and tempts her husband. Only when he eats is innocence lost. Shamat IS the temptress, sucking the life from Enkidu and taking his innocence. The OT serpent says “you will be like God …” Shamat says, “you are like the gods…” Enkidu, realizing that she has taken his innocence, is angry with her even then, long before … what happens later.
- As I’ve already mentioned, Eve is the partner for Adam. Enkidu seeks another male. Why is Shamat not good enough?
- In both the OT and the Cuneiform Codes, women can be considered 2nd or 3rd class citizens. I certainly wouldn’t say the OT was any worse.
- Mesopotamian religion certainly seemed more laissez faire about sex in general. But that attitude seemed tied in with a certain disdain for women, an objectification I find disconcerting. Gilgamesh orders Shamat to lure Enkidu. I’m not a statist regarding prostitution (really, about anything); but it bothers me. It makes me wonder how many of the “sisters of the gods” at the temples chose their vocation willingly. I don’t like the fear and disgust at menstrual cycles in the Bible, but I am at least as disturbed by the way women seem to be receptacles of male lust in Gilgamesh.
- Will hold off on Ishtar as represented in the text. But you know what I mean.
Regarding religious texts and their influences on society, I agree. But I see that with almost any text. Marx led to Stalin. Nietzsche led to Hitler. Both of those were devoid of God. Mohammed led to Bin Ladin. Bible led to Bush. Aztec mythology led to a veritable assembly line of human sacrifice. The only reason the Bible seems worse is because the Christian Church ended up on the top of the heap for a long time.
That said, I hold Christians more accountable than the others. They are more culpable… WE are more culpable if only because we had an Example to live up to, and we failed miserably. What’s worse, we stamped His name on our racism, our genocide, our intolerance and our wars. If I believe in Truth, then I have to be honest about the bad stuff, too.
Thanks for engaging me on this. If I sound like a jerk, it’s more because I’m really interested and passionate. And I know you have a billion other responses to get to as well. (I’m jealous.) Take your time.
Kesters last blog post..κύκλος κλαν
No. 9 — February 20th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Clay,
I didn’t analyze or deeply ponder this little essay, just followed the shiny words in delight. Humanism – yes! How wonderfully attainable and…human.
dianes last blog post..Five Changes to Education–A new Meme
Clay Burell Reply:
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Thanks Diane. I can’t wait for life to slow down so I can speed up.
No. 10 — February 27th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
[...] Blog: Beyond School tagged with: education Post: http://beyond-school.org/2009/02/17/gilgamesh-6-the-new-man/ [...]
No. 11 — March 10th, 2009 at 9:17 am
[...] School Unsucky English, Lecture 6: Gilgamesh and the Dawn of Man 2 weeks [...]
No. 12 — March 16th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
[...] [The Unsucky English Gilgamesh series so far: 1: Dangerous Questions ~ 2: The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job ~ 3: Adam and Eve, Backwards ~ 4. The Seven Deadly Sins, Backwards ~ 5. Good, Evil, Nature, and the Hero, Backwards ~ 6. Gilgamesh and the Dawn of Man]1 [...]
No. 13 — March 16th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
FYI, number 7 is up: A Goddess Prays
No. 14 — March 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Number 8 is up: The Modern Mischief of the Gilgamesh Poets
No. 15 — June 26th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Lecture 9 is up: Gilgamesh and the Original “Original Sin”.
No. 16 — July 4th, 2009 at 9:23 am
[...] no human could succeed at this task against the gods’ will, Gilgamesh laughs possibly the first atheist’s laugh in history – or literature, anyway – and off he and Enkidu go to slay the [...]
No. 17 — May 27th, 2010 at 1:01 am
I don’t have time to read all the comments, but I see the subtitle of that book is The Earth’s Oldest Epic. Didn’t Inanna come first? I love the book Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth, by Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer, which translates the Sumerian stories. (Just looked it up on Wikipedia. It’s hard for me to tell which came first.)