H. Grimme, “Babel und Kohelet-Jojakhin,” Orientalische Literaturzeitung 8 (1905): 432-438. See J. de Savignac, “La sagesse du Qôhéléth et l‘épopée de Gilgamesh,” Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978): 320-321; W. H. U. Anderson, “Ecclesiastes in the Intertextual Matrix of Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually, ed. K. J. Dell and W. Kynes (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 157.

H. Grimme, “Babel und Kohelet-Jojakhin,” Orientalische Literaturzeitung 8 (1905): 432-438. See J. de Savignac, “La sagesse du Qôhéléth et l‘épopée de Gilgamesh,” Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978): 320-321; W. H. U. Anderson, “Ecclesiastes in the Intertextual Matrix of Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually, ed. K. J. Dell and W. Kynes (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 157.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Grimme, “Babel und Kohelet-Jojakhin,” 432.

Grimme, “Babel und Kohelet-Jojakhin,” 432.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See C. Uehlinger, “Qohelet im Horizont mesopotamischer, levantinischer und ägyptischer Weisheitsliteratur der persischen und hellenistischen Zeit,” in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie, ed. L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, bzaw, Bd., 254 (Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 183-188; also van der Toorn, “Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Book of Qohelet?” 503-514; and R. Kelly, “Sources of Contention and the Emerging Reality Concerning Qoheleth’s Carpe Diem Advice,” Antiguo Oriente 8 (2010): 117-134. The recognition that the similarities are due to common sapiential traditions could potentially explain as well the seemingly parallel features seen in Egyptian sources, although space does not allow for a full discussion. See S. Burkes, Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999). The most productive approach is to recognize thematic similarities between the two works, such as T. Bolin, “Rivalry and Resignation: Girard and Qoheleth on the Divine-Human Relationship,” Biblica 86 (2005): 256-258. See also the discussion of Loretz’s work (Qohelet und der Alte Orient) by Uehlinger (“Qohelet im Horizont altorientalischer Weisheitsliteratur,” 163).

See C. Uehlinger, “Qohelet im Horizont mesopotamischer, levantinischer und ägyptischer Weisheitsliteratur der persischen und hellenistischen Zeit,” in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie, ed. L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, bzaw, Bd., 254 (Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 183-188; also van der Toorn, “Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Book of Qohelet?” 503-514; and R. Kelly, “Sources of Contention and the Emerging Reality Concerning Qoheleth’s Carpe Diem Advice,” Antiguo Oriente 8 (2010): 117-134. The recognition that the similarities are due to common sapiential traditions could potentially explain as well the seemingly parallel features seen in Egyptian sources, although space does not allow for a full discussion. See S. Burkes, Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999). The most productive approach is to recognize thematic similarities between the two works, such as T. Bolin, “Rivalry and Resignation: Girard and Qoheleth on the Divine-Human Relationship,” Biblica 86 (2005): 256-258. See also the discussion of Loretz’s work (Qohelet und der Alte Orient) by Uehlinger (“Qohelet im Horizont altorientalischer Weisheitsliteratur,” 163).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

B. Meissner, “Ein altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos,” Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Geselleschaft 7 (1902): 1-15. The fragment is one of two from the same tablet, reportedly from Sippar. See the discussion in T. Abusch, “Gilgamesh’s Request and Siduri’s Denial, Part i: The Meaning of the Dialogue and Its Implications for the History of the Epic,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda, Md.: cdl Press, 1993), 1 n. 1. For a more recent edition of this tablet, see A. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 272-286, specifically lines 6-15. All subsequent citations of the Gilgamesh epic will follow George’s edition.

B. Meissner, “Ein altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos,” Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Geselleschaft 7 (1902): 1-15. The fragment is one of two from the same tablet, reportedly from Sippar. See the discussion in T. Abusch, “Gilgamesh’s Request and Siduri’s Denial, Part i: The Meaning of the Dialogue and Its Implications for the History of the Epic,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda, Md.: cdl Press, 1993), 1 n. 1. For a more recent edition of this tablet, see A. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 272-286, specifically lines 6-15. All subsequent citations of the Gilgamesh epic will follow George’s edition.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Van der Toorn, “Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Book of Qohelet?” 504. Among the contributions that van der Toorn notes are those of Jastrow and Clay, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic, 79-80. See notably the comparison with Eccl 4:9-12, first suggested by S. N. Kramer (“Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1 [1947], 40), and subsequently expanded upon by Aron Shaffer (“The Mesopotamian Background of Qohelet 4:9-12,” Eretz Israel 8 [1967], 246-250; idem, “New Light on the Threeply Cord,” Eretz Israel 9 (1969), 159-160); cf. Samet, “The Gigamesh Epic and the Book of Qohelet,” 379-382. See also, Savignac, “La sagesse du Qôhéléth et l‘épopée de Gilgamesh,” 318-323; and Anderson “Ecclesiastes in Ancient near Eastern Literature,” 170-173.

Van der Toorn, “Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Book of Qohelet?” 504. Among the contributions that van der Toorn notes are those of Jastrow and Clay, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic, 79-80. See notably the comparison with Eccl 4:9-12, first suggested by S. N. Kramer (“Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1 [1947], 40), and subsequently expanded upon by Aron Shaffer (“The Mesopotamian Background of Qohelet 4:9-12,” Eretz Israel 8 [1967], 246-250; idem, “New Light on the Threeply Cord,” Eretz Israel 9 (1969), 159-160); cf. Samet, “The Gigamesh Epic and the Book of Qohelet,” 379-382. See also, Savignac, “La sagesse du Qôhéléth et l‘épopée de Gilgamesh,” 318-323; and Anderson “Ecclesiastes in Ancient near Eastern Literature,” 170-173.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

T. Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 43-47. The genre, narû, is described as “fictional” or “pseudo-autobiography” because it is written for didactic purposes, and it is historically detached from the purported speaker.

T. Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 43-47. The genre, narû, is described as “fictional” or “pseudo-autobiography” because it is written for didactic purposes, and it is historically detached from the purported speaker.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

C. L. Seow, “Qohelet’s Autobiography,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. A. B. Beck, et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 275-287. Memorial inscriptions, however, lack the instructive element that is so prevalent in narû (and apparent also in Qoheleth).

C. L. Seow, “Qohelet’s Autobiography,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. A. B. Beck, et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 275-287. Memorial inscriptions, however, lack the instructive element that is so prevalent in narû (and apparent also in Qoheleth).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Abusch, “Development and Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh,” 617-618. If Abusch’s reading of the Siduri episode in the ob Gilgamesh is to be followed, the addition of the Utnapishtim account would render her carpe diem (as the epic’s denoument) redundant; see idem, “Gilgamesh’s Request and Siduri’s Denial, Part I,” 12. Cf., however, George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 273 n. 137. See also the more recent suggestion about the original ob Gilgamesh Epic in Fleming and Milstein, Buried Foundation of the Gilgamesh Epic. This work shows that the Sippar tablet and the Penn tablet are likely related, and hence part of a larger epic, thus indicating that the tavern keeper and her words to Gilgamesh play an important role in the early epic; see ibid., 38-42.

Abusch, “Development and Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh,” 617-618. If Abusch’s reading of the Siduri episode in the ob Gilgamesh is to be followed, the addition of the Utnapishtim account would render her carpe diem (as the epic’s denoument) redundant; see idem, “Gilgamesh’s Request and Siduri’s Denial, Part I,” 12. Cf., however, George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 273 n. 137. See also the more recent suggestion about the original ob Gilgamesh Epic in Fleming and Milstein, Buried Foundation of the Gilgamesh Epic. This work shows that the Sippar tablet and the Penn tablet are likely related, and hence part of a larger epic, thus indicating that the tavern keeper and her words to Gilgamesh play an important role in the early epic; see ibid., 38-42.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Tigay, Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 105-107. Gilgamesh’s association with death and the realm of the dead is evident already in third millennium sources; see Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, 209-211. Eckart Frahm (“Nabû-Zuqup-Kenu, das Gilgamesch-Epos und der Tod Sargon II,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51 [1999], 73-90) has suggested that the inclusion of Tablet xii was motivated by the death of Sargon ii in 705 bce.

Tigay, Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 105-107. Gilgamesh’s association with death and the realm of the dead is evident already in third millennium sources; see Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, 209-211. Eckart Frahm (“Nabû-Zuqup-Kenu, das Gilgamesch-Epos und der Tod Sargon II,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51 [1999], 73-90) has suggested that the inclusion of Tablet xii was motivated by the death of Sargon ii in 705 bce.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Abusch, “Development and Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh,” 614-622. The epic hero’s identity is rooted in the (distant) historical memory of a third millennium king of Uruk. Separate from the epic traditions, this memory is most notably found in the Sumerian King List. Here Gilgamesh is also association with divinity, as his name is marked with the determinative for deity (diĝir).

Abusch, “Development and Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh,” 614-622. The epic hero’s identity is rooted in the (distant) historical memory of a third millennium king of Uruk. Separate from the epic traditions, this memory is most notably found in the Sumerian King List. Here Gilgamesh is also association with divinity, as his name is marked with the determinative for deity (diĝir).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Abusch, “Development and Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh,” 618.

Abusch, “Development and Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh,” 618.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Tigay, Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 144-146.

Tigay, Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 144-146.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Moran, “The Gilgamesh Epic,” 2331. George (The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Vol. 1, 446) translates marṣāti “misfortune.” The choice of “difficulties” here is intended to reflect the process of grief experienced by Gilgamesh, which underscored his journey (see also Tablet x, line 26); cf. cad M, s.v., marṣu 2. Seow (Ecclesiastes, 65) also points to both words, mānaḫti and marṣāti, as descriptors of Gilgamesh’s eventful life. Keep in mind, however, that the poetic imagery of the epic is polyvalent and can apply broadly to the events and actions of the hero.

Moran, “The Gilgamesh Epic,” 2331. George (The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Vol. 1, 446) translates marṣāti “misfortune.” The choice of “difficulties” here is intended to reflect the process of grief experienced by Gilgamesh, which underscored his journey (see also Tablet x, line 26); cf. cad M, s.v., marṣu 2. Seow (Ecclesiastes, 65) also points to both words, mānaḫti and marṣāti, as descriptors of Gilgamesh’s eventful life. Keep in mind, however, that the poetic imagery of the epic is polyvalent and can apply broadly to the events and actions of the hero.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Again see Longman, Book of Ecclesiastes, 17-20. See also A. George, “The Epic of Gilgameš: Thoughts on Genre and Meaning,” in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria, ed. J. Azize and N. Weeks (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 53-57.

Again see Longman, Book of Ecclesiastes, 17-20. See also A. George, “The Epic of Gilgameš: Thoughts on Genre and Meaning,” in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria, ed. J. Azize and N. Weeks (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 53-57.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Loretz, Qohelet und der Alte Orient, 62-63; Seow, “Qohelet’s Autobiography,” 279-284. For a general overview, see Koh, Royal Autobiography in the Book of Qoheleth, 73-143.

Loretz, Qohelet und der Alte Orient, 62-63; Seow, “Qohelet’s Autobiography,” 279-284. For a general overview, see Koh, Royal Autobiography in the Book of Qoheleth, 73-143.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Green, “I Undertook Great Works,” 297-304.

Green, “I Undertook Great Works,” 297-304.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Fox, Qoheleth and His Contradictions, 183. The ambiguity of 2:12b is also due, in part, to the fact that it is bracketed by statements regarding the contemplation of wisdom and folly in 2:12a and 2:13, as noted by Weeks, Ecclesiastes and Scepticism, 30, n. 39. Within this literary context, 2:12b is an odd fit.

Fox, Qoheleth and His Contradictions, 183. The ambiguity of 2:12b is also due, in part, to the fact that it is bracketed by statements regarding the contemplation of wisdom and folly in 2:12a and 2:13, as noted by Weeks, Ecclesiastes and Scepticism, 30, n. 39. Within this literary context, 2:12b is an odd fit.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

K. A. D. Smelik, “A Re-Interpretation of Ecclesiastes 2, 12b,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, ed. A. Schoors, betl(Leuven: University Press: Peeters, 1998), 388-389. Although the translation is dependent upon emending the Hebrew text of the mt, it is appealing in that it takes the king in the previous clause (v. 12bα) as the antecedent subject. Smelik’s reading becomes a bit more tenuous in his translation of the beginning of v. 12bβ as “If . . .” His basis is the interchange of עִם for אֵת אֲשֶׁר found in 2 Chron 6:22 and its synopsis of 1 Kg 8:31. Aron Pinker (“Qohelet 2,12b,” Biblische Zeitschrift 53 [2009]: 98-104) rejects Smelik’s interpretation and instead amends כי מה to יכםה, which he paraphrases as: “should he desire a person that comes after the king . . .” (v. 12bα). Pinker’s translation is difficult both in its reconstruction and reading. The suggestions of both Smelik and Pinker, however, are notable in that they stress the problem of succession.

K. A. D. Smelik, “A Re-Interpretation of Ecclesiastes 2, 12b,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, ed. A. Schoors, betl (Leuven: University Press: Peeters, 1998), 388-389. Although the translation is dependent upon emending the Hebrew text of the mt, it is appealing in that it takes the king in the previous clause (v. 12bα) as the antecedent subject. Smelik’s reading becomes a bit more tenuous in his translation of the beginning of v. 12bβ as “If . . .” His basis is the interchange of עִם for אֵת אֲשֶׁר found in 2 Chron 6:22 and its synopsis of 1 Kg 8:31. Aron Pinker (“Qohelet 2,12b,” Biblische Zeitschrift 53 [2009]: 98-104) rejects Smelik’s interpretation and instead amends כי מה to יכםה, which he paraphrases as: “should he desire a person that comes after the king . . .” (v. 12bα). Pinker’s translation is difficult both in its reconstruction and reading. The suggestions of both Smelik and Pinker, however, are notable in that they stress the problem of succession.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

F. M. Fales, “Kilamuwa and the Foreign Kings: Propaganda vs. Power,” Die Welt des Orients 10 (1979): 6-22; Green, “I Undertook Great Works,” 120-121.

F. M. Fales, “Kilamuwa and the Foreign Kings: Propaganda vs. Power,” Die Welt des Orients 10 (1979): 6-22; Green, “I Undertook Great Works,” 120-121.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Suriano, “The Historicality of the King,” 9-10.

Suriano, “The Historicality of the King,” 9-10.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 36-37.

Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 36-37.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

A. Lo, “Death in Qoheleth,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 31 (2009), 88-89.

A. Lo, “Death in Qoheleth,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 31 (2009), 88-89.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

For this label, see Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 68-91.

For this label, see Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 68-91.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation