Abnormal Interests

I notice that A.R.George in The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic appears to translate mešrita very tentatively as "in(?) the pasture(?)" and adds "(i.e., merīta)?" after mešrita. Yes, it looks like this text has serious troubles and having three question marks associated with that one word isn't healthy. I don't suppose "... bring you their lives *as* wealth" is satisfactory? I have very rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian grammar anyway, so if it's totally off, let me know.

"But when one looks at 1b and 2b, one sees that the lowly women as representatives of all humanity receive benefit from Shamash while the animals devote [their] lives to Shamash. If this is understood in terms of the role of animals in sacrifice, I suppose there isn't anything too wrong with it. It might even be understandable if one reads it [in] the context of hepatomancy. But still I think there is an unexpected tension between lines 1 and 2."

I don't see any tension. From my understanding, humans (like deities) would be regarded as having souls and free will, while animals would be assumed to be soulless and inherently enslaved. Humans may be agents or patients; animals as inanimate symbols of wealth only are merely patients. So animals then can never actively offer to Shamash nor "receive benefit" in a conscious sense. They can only be passively devoted by an 'animate being'. So what's the problem here?

Just a quick question to add: Are you sure of the translation of mešrita? Some people are saying that mešritu means 'limbs'. Where does your translation, 'wealth', come from?

Glen,

There is not a question of either animal or humans souls at issue here, at least, none that I can see. I also wouldn't be too dogmatic about the relationship between Mesopotamian gods and animals. Along with other duties, the god Enbilulu had specific responsibility for animals, domesticate animals in particular. And Sumuqan looks after wild animals as well as domesticated animals. Another friend told me about a text where Shamash himself is said to be a shepherd in a context where animals are the things he shepherds. I'm trying to track it down. Of course, in most contexts "shepherd" when applied to Shamash is intended metaphorically to mean looking after people (or other gods). I haven't seen the actual text as yet so I'm not sure what it actually says.

The tension, if there is any, comes from the kind of relationship one would expect between two extended lines like 1 and 2. In many other instances, including instances within this very prayer, they both sentences would have parallel meanings that I don't quite see in this text. These lines are part of an invocation that praises Shamash by, among other things, recounting his wonderful work. Sentence 1 seems to be in that tradition; sentence 2 doesn't appear to me continue this theme. It may not continue the theme but the fact that it doesn't is part of the source of the tension.

On the question of meš-ri-ta, here is what I am tentatively saying for a more official write up on this prayer. I wrote it about a week ago

Also problematic is meš-ri-ta. Is it a variant of mašritu (AHw, 629) "riches" as adopted by Seux, 427, or is it an error for mirītu, "pasture" as suggested but not clearly adopted by CAD M2, 41? I take mešrita, on mašrû (CAD M1, 385), to be an adjective meaning "rich" or the like and modifying napšatsina, "their rich lives."

The issue is with the somewhat confusing form meš-ri-ta. What this actually means is a bit of a question. But these details tended to spoil the fun I was having.

Oddly enough, this "excrement" has got my interest piqued concerning its grammatical structure more than anything. My intuition doubts that dung is to be explicitly read here (although there are sun-dung associations in Egyptian mythos vis-a-vis Khepri, the "Becoming One", a netherworldly dung-beetle aspect of the sun) so one might meditate on that tangent perhaps.

But let's focus on the grammar. If the Akkadian phrase of the Atrahasis 'inūma ilū awīlum...' is interpreted in English as "when gods as men..." or "when gods in the role of men..." (cf. Mesopotamian poetic language: Sumerian and Akkadian (1996), ed. by Vogelzang & Vanstiphout, p.188) then am I correct in suspecting that it's not the nominative case per se in 'inūma ilū awīlum...' that expresses role, but rather it is the overall structure of any two consecutive nouns sharing the same case that expresses this?

Thus, just as 'ilū awīlum' in the nominative means "gods (as/in the role of) men" as a subject of the verb, so too then might 'napšatsina mešrita' mean "their lives (as/in the role of) riches" in the accusative as object of the verb. If I'm wrong about the grammar, feel free to shoot me down by whatever means is most expedient. Lol.

"These lines are part of an invocation that praises Shamash by, among other things, recounting his wonderful work."

Maybe we might think less of this in terms of "Shamash's wonderful work" and more in terms of the more generalized concept of "Shamash's glory". In this way, lines 1 and 2, both speak on the latter. The first line talks about how He gives warmth to the most downtrodden of society while line 2 speaks of His great wealth (in terms of herd). Maybe another, interpretation, contradictory to my first suggestion, is that the animals are somehow presenting themselves with conscious intent to Shamash, implying then that Shamash has a great animal following. But still, no matter how you slice it, the theme appears to me to be His glory in general and not necessarily solely His great acts. Does that work?

"Another friend told me about a text where Shamash himself is said to be a shepherd in a context where animals are the things he shepherds. I'm trying to track it down."

Unsurprising whether literal or not, if one understands Shamash to be the prototype of later Jesus, yet another shepherd of sorts. Both shepherds and farmers living off the land are very dependent on the sun and the seasons. Envisioning Shamash as a shepherd certainly would help followers feel more loved by a being who understands their own lifestyles because He Himself is one of them.

Glen,

In Akkadian (and many other languages) there are several options as to how two (or more) substantives with or without formal adjectives might modify each other. Your suggestion is certainly among them and your example works well in its context. It would work less well in some other contexts. But, of course, it only makes sense if we are dealing with a sentence with a finite verb. In terms of my wild speculation that the sentence (originally) lacked a finite verb, your suggestion is meaningless. Such speculation not withstanding, the sentence as we now have it does have a finite verb. Whether it is actually īttanabbalākaka, "bring you" as I read it in this post or īttanappalākaka, more like "give you" as it might also be read (generally they mean close to the same thing) confuses the whole issue somewhat. So does napšatsina, which most people, including me, render "their life." This word might be read nablāṭsina, which means something like "their healing" or "their life giving." While I rather like this way of reading the word, there are orthographic reasons that, while not ruling it out, make it less likely than napšatsina. With all these complexities in this sentence, I think it better to keep the translation of the relationship between the last two words somewhat ambiguous and address the various possibilities in notes. Even what appears to be an accusative form may be an illusion. In the form we have it, this is a rather late neo-Babylonian text. On the one hand, it shows some unexpected archaisms. On the other hand, it shows several obvious late elements including the occasional ambiguity concerning case ending. I do think we are dealing with an accusative here but in such a late text one must remain open-minded.