Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh

Contents

1 old talk 2 removed relevant bit 3 Dubious deletions concerning Gilgamesh 4 homosexuality claims

old talk

This bit about an untranslated tablet believed to be the twelfth tablet of Gilgamesh... where does the information come from? How come the tablet is "believed to contain" something when it's untranslated? Can anyone provide a link to a more informative news story? _________________________________________________________

I read that the 12th tablet had been translated and does not contain the 12th chapter of the epic. It contains a separate poem about Gilgamesh. In contrast to the first 11 tablets it includes both Shumerian and Akkadian texts.

Moved the passage about the Akkadian versions to the main part, as it did not belong to the 'Sumerian legends'. --Oop 11:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________

Although the epic itself was lost for millennia, Hittite versions of it existed. Some people think that it has had an indirect impact on Western literature through the Biblical story of Noah and the flood, a suspected retelling of a portion of the Gilgamesh epic.

I'm a bit confused about the Hittite referrence since the most complete version we have of the Gilgamesh epic comes from the 7th century BC, long after the Hittite empire but also contemporary with the writing of the Bible. I'm going to go ahead and delete that part for now (someone may wish to revert and provide clarification). Grice 06:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some serious criticism is needed to find out which versions of Gilgamesh epic have influenced the Old Testament the most. So, I would not dare to claim a special status for the Hittite version. While it may have been an important source for the Greek loans, I also would not say the genuine epic was lost for the time whilst Hittite version would have been dominant, as the passage above seems to suggest. Maybe it is only a question of bad wording, of course. --Oop 21:30, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

removed relevant bit

this got tossed out with the "trivia" section and could later be re-introduced into a more detailed version (if correct):

The Great flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh describes a cube-shaped vessel some 60 meters long on each side that was built in only seven days.

dab 19:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The purpose of mentioning this is to claim that the bible account is entirely different.

It is important to note that the trivia section failed to mention the similarities.

If the description goes back in then the similarities must be added as well. To fail to do so is not applying NPOV.

There is an article Great Flood which discusses the details of the flood account in the Epic of Gilgamesh. That article is where such detail belongs, if anywhere. And addition to that article also requires the addition of details of the similarities to be an NPOV addition. CheeseDreams 19:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and your point is? the "trivia" section was not mine, and I considered deleting it before. You will note that I only cite the Gilgamesh bit, not the Genesis bit that was there also. Since this article is about the Epic of Gilgamesh, a more detailed summary of the action could eventually include this information. At the moment though, it was, I agree, just trivia. dab 19:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dubious deletions concerning Gilgamesh

Please refrain from your habitual deletions on the Gilgamesh articles regarding homosexuality. I am sure this is a misunderstanding. If you view the Epic of Gilgamesh entry and click on the link entitled "Is gay marriage older than the Bible?" you will see all requested information and sources. If you have any questions be sure to bring them up. Thanks. 67.41.186.237 02:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding dubious information to wikipedia. The link is dead. In general, websites are not reliable source if info and in absense of more solid data are disregarded. On my website I may post an article that Gilgamesh is my grandfather and send you to hell. I am perfectly aware that homosexuality was widesplead in ancient world, e.g., in Greece and East, but this is the case that requires solid confirmation, not some sensationalist article circulating in blogs. thank you. mikka (t) 02:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[1] (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/074326164X/qid=1117939600/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0050009-3545756) This is hardly sensationalist. Not some personal blog but an acclaimed scholar. Here is a new link since the old one is out of use. 67.41.186.237 02:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The key phrases in a review are he admits he doesn't know Akkadian and Given the incomplete condition of the original, he has not hesitated to fill in some gaps. Feel free to write a wikipedia article about this book. mikka (t)

that review is by a person not a scholar, that fact still stands that a previously untranslated portion of the 12 tablet contained male homosexuality, that is undisputed 67.41.186.237 02:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and the ref. to he filled in the gaps is concerning story line not sexuality, you should read the book 67.41.186.237 03:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding unverified information, otherwise you will be blocked from editing. Feel free to write an article about the controversial book. mikka (t)

this information is verified, you will be blocked for persistent vandalism. it is ibviously verified, a source is given, and this scholar is acclaimed, your edits are contraversial 67.41.186.237 03:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The scholar does not know the language, he cannot be acclaimed as translator. You are violating the 3-revert rule. You may be blocked for this. mikka (t) 03:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai is an arrogantly vapid twat who needs to check his facts. Try actually reading the book, dipshit. 131.111.195.8 18:37, 6 June 2005 (GMT)

the facts are checked. The book is written by a person who admits he does not know the language of the origin. Hence his work is a pure fiction, a translation from English to English. As for dipshit, watch the way you want to insult: isn't it better applicable to those who dip their dicks into shit? mikka (t) 17:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

homosexuality claims

"Some claim" will not do at all. By a long way. What exactly are the claims, and who published them, when and where? I would be interested to have even oblique references to homosexuality in Gilgamesh, but let's keep this up to academic standards. The more outlandish your claim, the better references you will need. Also, anon, at the stage when you think it necessary to begin calling people names like "dipshit", you probably need to sign up so people have a username to respond to. dab (ᛏ) 16:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is in the reference Mitchell, Stephen (2004). Gilgamesh: A New English Version.

The guy decided that traditional academic translations are very dry, and he decided to translate it into "modern English" (BTW, he confessed he does not know Akkadian. So you may imagine what academic quality this book is.) It amounted to spreading erotism and sex all over the text AFAIK. the rumors that Tablet 12 was suppressed because of homosexy in it is bull. Ancient pederasty has been pretty well known; and it was not suppressed in academia; rather it was not brandished at every possible occasion. mikka (t) 01:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no, no, I mean a publication where the text is actually discussed, word by word, so that we can quote the actual phrase, with competing reconstructed readings, and their translations, so that we can judge what the allegations are based on. Just saying "there was homosexuality in tablet 12" without discussing the actual text is worthless of course. dab (ᛏ) 08:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)