2017/01/01 by Johannes Haubold · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · #Ancient Near East History #Linguistics and language evolution #Linguistics and Cultural Studies #Linguistics #Spelling #Grammar #Interpretation (philosophy) #Context (archaeology) #Akkadian #Philosophy #Reading (process) #Reflexive pronoun #Syntax #Prima facie #Literature #History #Art
paper · doi:10.5615/jcunestud.69.2017.0221
openalex publication_date 2017/01/01 · openalex created_date 2017/05/12 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
This article makes two main points. First, the transmitted text of Enūma eliš can be more reliably construed than has hitherto been assumed, provided we take seriously the spelling of the manuscripts and the rules of Akkadian grammar. If we do this, and that is my second point, we can also make progress at the level of interpretation. To illustrate these claims, I look at two passages that have caused difficulties to modern readers. In Enūma eliš I.1–10 we encounter some forms that seem prima facie to defy the normal rules of Akkadian grammar. Through careful analysis of spelling, syntax, and poetic context I show that the text as it stands can in fact be securely construed. I then turn to a passage that the poet himself introduces as a masterpiece of verbal craft. In Enūma eliš II.61–70 the god Ea soothes the excited Anšar by reassuring him that he has the situation under control. I argue that existing translations misconstrue the personal pronoun šâši and consequently misinterpret the climactic final couplet of the speech. Clarifying the grammar of the passage enables us to establish not only what the text says, but also to appreciate it better.