V.
Now before taking up the significance of the additions to our knowledge of the Epic gained through these two tablets, it will be well to discuss the forms in which the names of the two heroes and of the ruler of the cedar forest occur in our tablets.
As in the Meissner fragment, the chief hero is invariably designated as dGish in both the Pennsylvania and Yale tablets; and we may therefore conclude that this was the common form in the Hammurabi period, as against the writing dGish-gì(n)-mash[1] in the Assyrian version. Similarly, as in the Meissner fragment, the second hero’s name is always written En-ki-dũ[2] (abbreviated from dúg) as against En-ki-dú in the Assyrian version. Finally, we encounter in the Yale tablet for the first time the writing Ḫu-wa-wa as the name of the guardian of the cedar forest, as against Ḫum-ba-ba in the Assyrian version, though in the latter case, as we may now conclude from the Yale tablet, the name should rather be read Ḫu-ba-ba.[3] The variation in the writing of the latter name is interesting as pointing to the aspirate pronunciation of the labial in both instances. The name would thus present a complete parallel to the Hebrew name Ḫowawa (or Ḫobab) who appears as the brother-in-law of Moses in the P document, Numbers 10, 29.[4] Since the name also occurs, written precisely as in the Yale tablet, among the “Amoritic” names in the important lists published by Dr. Chiera,[5] there can be no doubt that
- ↑ This is no doubt the correct reading of the three signs which used to be read Iz-tu-bar or Gish-du-bar. The first sign has commonly the value Gish, the second can be read Gin or Gi (Brünnow No. 11900) and the third Mash as well as Bar. See Ungnad in Ungnad-Gressmann, Das Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 76, and Poebel, Historical and Grammatical Texts, p. 123.
- ↑ So also in Sumerian (Zimmern, Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit, No. 196, rev. 14 and 16.)
- ↑ The sign used, LUM (Brünnow No. 11183), could have the value ḫu as well as ḫum.
- ↑ The addition “father-in-law of Moses” to the name Ḫobab b. Re’uel in this passage must refer to Re’uel, and not to Ḫobab. In Judges 4, 11, the gloss “of the Bene Ḫobab, the father-in-law of Moses” must be separated into two: (1) “Bene Ḫobab,” and (2) “father-in-law of Moses.” The latter addition rests on an erroneous tradition, or is intended as a brief reminder that Ḫobab is identical with the son of Re’uel.
- ↑ See his List of Personal Names from the Temple School of Nippur, p. 122. Ḫu-um-ba-bi-tu and ši-kin ḫu-wa-wa also occur in Omen Texts (CT XXVII, 4, 8–9 = Pl. 3, 17 = Pl. 6, 3–4 = CT XXVIII, 14, 12). The contrast to ḫuwawa is ligru, “dwarf” (CT XXVII, 4, 12 and 14 = Pl. 6, 7.9 = Pl. 3, 19). See Jastrow, Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, II, p. 913, Note 7. Ḫuwawa, therefore, has the force of “monster.”
