pages: WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE  Writings from the Ancient World Theodore J. Lewis, General Editor Associate Editors
  Billie Jean Collins Daniel Fleming Martti Nissinen William Schniedewind Mark S. Smith Emily Teeter Terry Wilfong
  Number 29 Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  by Yoram Cohen
  Edited by Andrew R. George
  Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta <fig rect=[76.03569793701172, 131.83599853515625, 373.9691467285156, 149.55474853515625]></fig>
  <fig rect=[120.1615982055664, 216.98257446289062, 329.87005615234375, 228.05679321289062]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 243.87368774414062, 389.3583068847656, 308.8304138183594]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 331.8666076660156, 250.47764587402344, 341.8334045410156]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 377.7201843261719, 387.2071838378906, 514.208984375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[69.03900146484375, 553.2125854492188, 383.20196533203125, 574.1773681640625]></fig>
  <fig rect=(214.31979370117188, 582.2798461914062, 235.67979431152344, 603.7198486328125)></fig> C ontents
  Series Editor’s Foreword  vii Preface   ix Acknowledgements   xiii Abbreviations   xv Part 1 – Introduction  1.1 A General Overview of the Compositions and Their Sources   3 1.2 Definitions and Approaches  7 1.3 The Historical and Social Contexts   21 1.4  The Archaeological and Archival Contexts   37 1.5  The Curricular Context: The Place and Role of Wisdom  55
  Part 1 – Introduction 
  Literature within the Scribal-School Curriculum  Part 2 – Late Bronze Age Wisdom Compositions  2.1  Šimâ Milka  or The Instructions of Šūpê-amēli    81 2.2  The Ballad of Early Rulers  129   2.3  Enlil and Namzitarra   151 2.4  The Righteous Sufferer   or A Hymn to Marduk from Ugarit  165
  
  v vi  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE 2.5  The Date Palm and the Tamarisk     177 2.6  Proverb Collections from Ḫattuša   199 2.7  An Akkadian-Hurrian Bilingual Proverb Extract   207 2.8  Proverbs and Proverbial Sayings in Letters: The Mari Letters  213   and Late Bronze Age Correspondence Bibliography    233 Index of Sources  249 Index of Names  252
  and Late Bronze Age Correspondence s eries  e ditor ’ s  F oreword
  Writings from the Ancient World is designed to provide up-to-date, readable  English translations of writings recovered from the ancient Near East. The series is intended to serve the interests of general readers, students, and  educators who wish to explore the ancient Near Eastern roots of Western civi- lization or to compare these earliest written expressions of human thought and  activity with writings from other parts of the world. It should also be useful to  scholars in the humanities or social sciences who need clear, reliable translations  of ancient Near Eastern materials for comparative purposes. Specialists in par- ticular areas of the ancient Near East who need access to texts in the scripts and  languages of other areas will also find these translations helpful. Given the wide  range of materials translated in the series, different volumes will appeal to differ- ent interests. However, these translations make available to all readers of English  the world’s earliest traditions as well as valuable sources of information on daily  life, history, religion, and the like in the preclassical world.  The translators of the various volumes in this series are specialists in the  particular languages and have based their work on the original sources and the  most recent research. In their translations they attempt to convey as much as pos- sible of the original texts in fluent, current English. In the introductions, notes,  glossaries, maps, and chronological tables, they aim to provide the essential  information for an appreciation of these ancient documents. The ancient Near East reached from Egypt to Iran and, for the purposes of  our volumes, ranged in time from the invention of writing (by 3000  <sub>b</sub> . <sub>C</sub> . <sub>e</sub> . ) to the  conquests of Alexander the Great (ca. 330  <sub>b</sub> . <sub>C</sub> . <sub>e</sub> . ). The cultures represented within  these limits include especially Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Hit- tite, Ugaritic, Aramean, Phoenician, and Israelite. It is hoped that Writings from  the Ancient World will eventually produce translations from most of the many  different genres attested in these cultures: letters (official and private), myths,  diplomatic documents, hymns, law collections, monumental inscriptions, tales,  and administrative records, to mention but a few. Significant funding was made available by the Society of Biblical Litera - ture for the preparation of this volume. In addition, those involved in preparing 
  vii viii  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  this volume have received financial and clerical assistance from their respective  institutions. Were it not for these expressions of confidence in our work, the ardu - ous tasks of preparation, translation, editing, and publication could not have been  accomplished or even undertaken. It is the hope of all who have worked with the  Writings from the Ancient World series that our translations will open up new  horizons and deepen the humanity of all who read these volumes.
  Theodore J. Lewis The Johns Hopkins University P reFaCe
  This book presents a collection of Mesopotamian wisdom literature composi- tions and proverbs recovered in archaeological excavations of the Late Bron- ze Age sites of Ḫattuša, Emar, and Ugarit (ca. 1500–1200  <sub>b</sub> . <sub>C</sub> . <sub>e</sub> . ). Among the  compositions included here are some of the major works of Mesopotamian  literature of this period, such as The Ballad of Early Rulers,  Šimâ Milka  (Hear  the Advice), The Righteous Sufferer and The Date Palm and the Tamarisk, as  well as some shorter compositions and proverbs. The final chapter of the book  is dedicated to proverbs and aphorisms appearing in contemporary or near- contemporary letters. Many of the wisdom pieces brought together in this book are attested al- most exclusively in the archives and libraries of Ḫattuša, Emar, and Ugarit, yet  they are Mesopotamian creations. If not for the copies recovered at these sites,  these wisdom compositions would have almost completely disappeared from  the record, their only trace their titles, preserved in Mesopotamian literary cata- logues. Hence Late Bronze Age manuscripts of Mesopotamian wisdom litera- ture—or to put it more simply, Late Bronze Age wisdom compositions, a term  we will use throughout this book—are crucial in our reconstruction of Meso- potamian literature. Specifically they further our understanding of the content,  scope and distribution of Mesopotamian wisdom literature. These compositions, generally thought to have been composed during the  Post Old Babylonian period or the early Kassite period (the sixteenth–four- teenth  <sub>b</sub> . <sub>C</sub> . <sub>e</sub> . ), constitute a missing link between wisdom literature of the Old  Babylonian period (twentieth–seventeenth centuries  <sub>b</sub> . <sub>C</sub> . <sub>e</sub> . ) and wisdom pieces  that were composed at the end of the second millennium or the beginning of  the first millennium in Mesopotamia. To explicate, Late Bronze Age wisdom  compositions complete for us a literary sequence (although at times still poor- ly represented) that begins with the Old Babylonian wisdom literature corpus  in Sumerian and ends with well-known Akkadian wisdom compositions, such  as  Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi  (I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom) or The Babylonian  Theodicy, of the Kassite and post-Kassite periods. As will be demonstrated 
  ix x  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  throughout this book, Late Bronze Age wisdom compositions stand as witnes- ses to a long and complex process of transmission and reception of Mesopo- tamian literature, wisdom literature included, in Babylonia and the surrounding  regions (those west of Babylonian collectively referred to as the western peri- phery). Part 1 of the book is an introductory essay that discusses definitions, key  themes and approaches for understanding the form and function of wisdom li- terature. It introduces the sources and briefly discusses current scholarly views  of what constitutes Mesopotamian wisdom literature. It then offers a few ap- proaches through which wisdom literature will be explored. It continues by  examining the archival and archaeological contexts where Late Bronze Age  wisdom literature manuscripts were found. On this basis it evaluates the role  of wisdom literature in the curriculum of cuneiform scribal schools. The aim  of part 1 is to expose readers to a variety of compositions situated within par- ticular historical and social contexts in order to sharpen their appreciation of  wisdom literature and highlight the position of this genre within Mesopotamian  literary and scholarly creativity. Part 2 consists of eight chapters devoted either to single works or to a few  sources that together constitute a single subject. The wisdom compositions are  presented in their original languages (mostly Akkadian and occasionally Su- merian or Hittite). Each composition is provided with an introduction to the  main theme of the work and its sources. Then come the text edition and its  translation, followed by an extensive discussion. An appreciation of the rela- tionship between Late Bronze Age wisdom compositions and the wider circle  of Mesopotamian literature is given throughout. Since most of the manuscripts  presented in the book were found outside the Mesopotamian core areas (i.e.,  Babylonia and Assyria), at times the degree of local influence upon the Late  Bronze Age wisdom compositions is questioned. In this respect the ways in  which Akkadian and Sumerian compositions were understood and occasionally  translated by local scribal circles are also considered.
  Late Bronze Age cuneiform texts deviate from the Old Babylonian or Stan- dard Babylonian Akkadian dialect with which nonspecialist students of Akka- dian are usually familiar. For example, they make use of a different syllabary  from that encountered in Old Babylonian compositions. They are also full of  aberrant spelling, textual errors, and nonstandard vocalization of Babylonian  Akkadian (and sometimes Sumerian). This requires a careful reworking of the  primary sources that leads to a certain degree of compromise. Thus the transcri- PREFACE   xi
  bed or normalized texts presented here cannot be considered full critical edi- tions. However, the outcome, so it is hoped, is the presentation of lucid and yet  reliable text editions that readers can navigate without great difficulty. These  editions allow readers to appreciate the literary and at times the poetic quality  of the compositions, enabling them to assess the choice of vocabulary by re- course to the standard dictionaries (such as the  Chicago Assyrian Dictionary ,  Concise Dictionary of Akkadian ,  Akkadische Handwörterbuch ,  Chicago Hittite  Dictionary , and the  Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary ). For those  seeking more detailed editions of the primary sources I have provided relevant  bibliography at the end of each chapter. The editions and translations in this book derive from my own textual recon- struction based on autograph copies and photographs (where available) of the  original tablets. I have benefited from previous editions, discussions, and trans - lations. Mention is to be made here of one of the important recent publications  used in this collection: Arnaud’s 2007 book  Corpus des Textes de Bibliothèque  de Ras Shamra—Ougarit (1936–2000) , which includes improved text editions  of wisdom works from Emar and Ugarit. Among its pages are also found two  previously unpublished manuscripts of  Šimâ Milka  from Ugarit. These new ma- nuscripts allow a reconstruction and translation of this composition that are ful- ler than any published before. On occasions where I adopted the readings and translations of Andrew R.  George, the academic editor of this book, I have acknowledged his contribu- tions (noted as ARG in the textual notes). Throughout the discussion I have  made reference to individual studies or editions, but because of the format of  this series, I have avoided the use of footnotes. As a consequence, one runs the  risk of conveying the impression that one is the author of certain ideas when  one is not; certainly that was not my intention, therefore apologies are extended  in advance to those who may feel they have not been given sufficient or ade - quate credit. And contrariwise, when I have tried to articulate my own ideas and  conclusions, I have attempted to make clear that responsibility for the contents  expressed lies with me. My hope is that I have not falsely attributed to anybody  ideas not his or hers. Travels to fields other than Assyriology have been ventured here and there.  The occasional comparisons to biblical verses or the citation of a proverb or  two from the Sayings of Ahiqar, however, are merely illustrative, neither criti- cal nor comprehensive in their scope. Hopefully more competent scholars than  myself will see in this study an opportunity to continue and explore the rela- tions between Mesopotamian wisdom literature and other wisdom corpora. xii  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  This book will have more than fulfilled its purpose if it succeeds in writing  a chapter in the history of Mesopotamian literature that secures a place for Late  Bronze Age wisdom compositions alongside better known works, such as The  Instructions of Šuruppak found in Alster’s magisterial  Wisdom of Sumer  (2005)  or The Dialogue of Pessimism made famous by Lambert’s classic  Babylonian  Wisdom Literature  (1960). a Cknowledgements
  This book started as a collaborative research project “Wisdom Literature  of Israel and Ancient Syria” conducted with Ed Greenstein and supported by  the Israel Science Foundation (Grant no. 621/08) during the years 2008 to  2010. My thanks to Ed for his continued support, encouragement, and guidance  throughout our research project and in years since. It was he who suggested that  the outcome of my part of the research be published as a book in the SBL Writ- ings from the Ancient World   series and for that I am also grateful. The research  fellows of our collaborative project deserve my gratitude: Shirly Yulzari for  collecting the research materials and preparing the databases for this book; and  Sivan Kedar for administrating the project. I was very fortunate to have Andrew George as the academic editor of this  book. His commitment to the success of this endeavor was without compro- mise. It is due to his meticulous reading and observant comments that the book  is in its present form; it is also my duty to acknowledge his crucial contribution  to the understanding of this book’s major composition  Šimâ Milka . Special thanks are offered to Takayoshi Oshima for sending me a preprint  version of his book on prayers to Marduk; and to Amir Gilan and Itamar Singer  for the precious time they spent reading with me the Hittite materials in the  book and offering numerous improvements on my translations. To my great  sorrow Itamar passed away on September 2012. My colleagues Abraham Win- itzer and Shai Gordin commented on particular parts of the manuscript and for  that I am in their debt. Large parts of this book were written in London during sabbatical leave  (2010–2011). I thank Mark Geller and Andrew George for hosting me in their  institutes, respectively, the Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, UCL,  and the Department of the Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle  East, SOAS. I was fortunate to have Mark Weeden and Martin Worthington  as close friends who were willing to discuss many an obscure proverb during  lunch breaks in the SOAS cafeteria.
  xiii xiv  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  The introduction to the book was written during summer 2012 at the Institut  für Alterumswissenschaften, Würzburg, and the Bibliothèque d’Assyriologie,  Collège de France, Paris. Warm thanks are offered to Daniel Schwemer and  Jean-Marie Durand for ensuring that I enjoyed smooth and productive research  periods. Annie and Daniel Attia are to be thanked for their hospitality in Paris.  Financial support for the formatting and editing of the book was graciously  offered by the Israel Science Foundation, the Young Foundation, The Faculty  of the Humanities, and the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology,  Tel Aviv University.  The formatting and indexing of the manuscript were expertly provided by  Sivan Kedar.  My sincerest gratitude goes to Theodore Lewis and the editorial board of  the Writings from the Ancient World   series for accepting my manuscript for  publication and to Billie Jean Collins for her care and concern throughout the  production process from manuscript to printed volume. 
  Tel Aviv  September 2012 a bbreviations
  A.  Tablet signature of texts from Mari ABD   Anchor Bible Dictionary . Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols.  New York, 1992 ABL  Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik  Collections of the British Museum . Edited by R. F. Harper. 14  vols. Chicago, 1892–1914 AfO  Archiv für Orientforschung ANESSup  Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement AnOr  Analecta Orientalia AnSt  Anatolian Studies AOAT  Alter Orient und Altes Testament AoF  Altorientalische Forschungen ARG  Andrew R. George ARM  Archives royales de Mari ARMT  Archives royales de Mari, transcrite et traduite AS  Assyriological Studies ASJ  Acta Sumerologica AuOr  Aula Orientalis AuOrSup  Aula Orientalis Supplementa BWL   Wilfred G. Lambert,  Babylonian Wisdom Literature . Oxford,  1960 CAD   The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the Uni- versity of Chicago . Chicago, 1956–2010 CHANE  Culture and History of the Ancient Near East CM  Cuneiform Monographs CUSAS  Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology EA   El-Amarna Tablets . According to the edition of J. A. Knudt- zon.  Die el-Amarna-Tafeln . Leipzig, 1908–1915. Reprint,  Aalen, 1964. Continued in A. F. Rainey,  El-Amarna Tablets ,  359–379. 2nd revised ed. Kevelaer, 1978
  xv xvi  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  ETCSL  The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature; online at  http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk FAOS  Freiburger altorientalische Studien FRLANT  Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen  Testaments GMTR  Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record HANE/M  History of the Ancient Near East: Monographs HO  Handbuch der Orientalistik HSCP  Harvard Studies in Classical Philology HSS  Harvard Semitic Studies JANER  Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion JANES  Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society JAOS  Journal of the American Oriental Society JCS  Journal of Cuneiform Studies JMC  Le Journal des Médicines Cunéiformes JNES  Journal of Near Eastern Studies JSOTSup  Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Se- ries KAR  Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts . Edited by E. Eb- eling. Leipzig, 1919–1923 KBo  Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi . WVDOG 30, 36, 68–70, 72– 73, 77–80, 82–86, 89–90. Leipzig, 1916–1923, Berlin: Gebr.  Mann, 1954–. KUB  Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi. Berlin: Akademie,  1921–. LAPO  Littérature Ancienne du Proche-Orient MAOG  Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft MARI  Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires MC  Mesopotamian Civilizations MRS  Mission de Ras Shamra NABU  Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires OBO  Orbis biblicus et orientalis OIS  Oriental Institute Seminars OLA  Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta OLP  Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Or  Orientalia ORA  Orientalische Religionen in der Antike PIHANS  Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlan- dais de Stamboul (Leiden) ABBREVIATIONS   xvii
  RA  Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale RlA  Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäol- ogie RS  Ras Shamra (excavation number) SAA  State Archives of Assyria SAACT  State Archives of Assyrian Cuneiform Texts SBLSymS  Symposium Series SBLWAW  Writings from the Ancient World SBLWAWSup  Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series SEL  Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico SMEA  Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici StBoT  Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten THeth  Texte der Hethiter TUAT  Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments UF  Ugarit-Forschungen VT  Vetus Testamentum VTSup  Vetus Testamentum Supplement Series WO  Die Welt des Orients wr.  written WVDOG  Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient- gesellschaft ZA   Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie <fig rect=[61.220176696777344, 65.02508544921875, 82.18497467041016, 198.0]></fig>
  <fig rect=[176.32693481445312, 426.298828125, 189.61599731445312, 444.0]></fig>
  <fig rect=(65.5301513671875, 209.94000244140625, 386.4698181152344, 600.0599975585938)></fig> P art  1 I ntroductIon 1.1  o vervIew   of   the  c o and  t heIr  s ources
  a G eneral  o vervIew   of   the  c omPosItIons  
  This study includes five major wisdom compositions, three shorter works of  proverbs (that lack any narrative frame), and a selection of proverbs deriving  from letters. They are briefly described here so that the reader can appreciate  from the very start of the book the nature and scope of the corpus. The num - bers given below to each composition or group of proverbs will continue to  designate these works throughout the book. First to be surveyed are the major  wisdom compositions: 1.  Šimâ Milka  or Hear the Advice (sometimes called The Instructions of  Šūpê-amēli) is the longest composition in the book, with over 150 lines.  It deals with the two themes present in Late Bronze Age wisdom compo - sitions, namely, practical wisdom and skeptical wisdom. The first theme  is presented by a person called Šūpê-amēli, and the second theme, in the  form of a reply to the first, is delivered by his son, who is not named in  the composition. 2. The Ballad of Early Rulers is a composition extending a little over twen - ty lines. A string of sayings about the futility of life opens the composi - tion. It then goes on to list early rulers of the past, such as Gilgameš and  Etana, who, in spite their glorious deeds, are now dead. 3. Enlil and Namzitarra is a short story concerned, like The Ballad of Early  Rulers, with the futility of life. The theme is introduced in a dialogue  between the god Enlil and a priest called Namzitarra. Once the main  composition ends, a string of proverbs, very poorly understood, follows.  4. The Righteous Sufferer from Ugarit is a prayer to the god Marduk. Al - though in and of itself it is not a wisdom composition, it deals with  one of the chief concerns of Mesopotamian wisdom literature, namely,  divine retribution. This prayer is usually considered to be in one form  or another a forerunner of the great Babylonian wisdom composition, 
  3 4  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi , “I will Praise the Lord of Wisdom,” also known as  “The Babylonian Job.” 5. The Date Palm and the Tamarisk is a debate poem, a subgenre of wis - dom literature. The two contestants, the date palm and the tamarisk tree,  engage in a lively debate as to who is more beneficial to civilization.
  The other materials lack narrative frames (as far as can be judged from the  remains of the compositions today; the only exception is 6 B, for which see  below), but are simply collections or assemblages of proverbs without a con - necting thread between one saying and the next. 6. Proverb collections from Ḫattuša include two (unconnected) sources.  The first source (6 A) is a collection of Akkadian proverbs, some of  which are in very poor condition. There is no apparent relation between  one proverb and the next. The second source (6 B) is written in Hittite  (it is a translation of an Akkadian column, now mostly broken away).  It includes a proverb followed by a short speech discussing the impor - tance of the study of wisdom. The speech perhaps offered a summation  of a longer composition, now lost. 7. The Akkadian-Hurrian proverb extract is an exercise tablet containing  two proverbs in Akkadian provided with a Hurrian translation. 8. The last chapter in this book is dedicated to proverbs and colloquial  sayings found in the Mari letters and Late Bronze Age correspondence  including the famous Amarna letters. Over twenty-five proverbs and  sayings from various social and historical contexts are presented. 
  The languages represented in our corpus are Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite,  and Hurrian. The Akkadian language features in all our compositions, either  alone (in 1 [the Emar and Ugarit sources], 4, 5, 6 A, and 8), as a translation or  paraphrasing of the Sumerian (2 and 3), or as the language translated into the  target languages Hittite and Hurrian (1 [the Ḫattuša source] and 6 B into Hit - tite; 7 into Hurrian).  The sources at our disposal derive mainly from three sites—Ugarit, Emar,  and Ḫattuša. They are occasionally supplemented by sources deriving from  elsewhere and dating to different periods. The richest site in wisdom-literature  finds is Ugarit, followed by Emar and then Ḫattuša. The count of manuscripts  from each site results in the following figures: Ugarit boasts of ten manu - scripts, Emar seven, and Ḫattuša three; note that some manuscripts are very  fragmentary. The distribution of the manuscripts according to wisdom compo - sitions is as follows (included within this count are fragmentary manuscripts  of wisdom compositions that are not treated in this book; see further below).  1.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW   5
  Ugarit  Emar  Ḫattuša 1.  Šimâ Milka  3  1  1 2.  Ballad of Early Rulers  3  2  – 3.  Enlil and Namzitarra  1  1  – 4.  The Righteous Sufferer  1  –  – 5.  Date Palm and Tamarisk   –  2  – 6.  Proverbs from Ḫattuša  –  –  2 7.  Akkadian-Hurrian Extract  1  –  – (other) (The Fowler)  –  1  –
    (The Fable of the Fox)  1  –  –   TOTAL  10  7  3
  Only one composition,  Šimâ Milka ,   was found at all three sites. In spite of its  popularity in the Late Bronze Age, it has not been recovered in the Mesopota - mian core areas. Two compositions, The Ballad of Early Rulers and Enlil and  Namzitarra are known from two sites each—Ugarit and Emar. The rest of the  works were recovered at only one site. 
  As noted above, sometimes our sources can be supplemented from  manuscripts from elsewhere. Perhaps the most popular piece, to judge by its  distribution (although this might be coincidental), is The Date Palm and the  Tamarisk. Recovered from only one Bronze Age site (Emar), it is however rep - resented in addition by two fragmentary Old Babylonian manuscripts (of the  same tablet) from Tel Harmal in Babylonia, two Assyrian manuscripts from  Assur (one dated to the Middle Assyrian period, the other possibly to the early  Neo-Assyrian period), and a fragment from Susa.  Next comes The Ballad of Early Rulers. It is not represented at sites other  than Ugarit and Emar during the Late Bronze Age, but is known from a Neo- Assyrian fragment. A Sumerian version of the composition dating to the Old  Babylonian period is represented by a few manuscripts.  Enlil and Namzitarra is known in its bilingual version only from Ugarit  and Emar, but it is found in seven monolingual Sumerian manuscripts dating to  the Old Babylonian period.  The Righteous Sufferer was found only in Ugarit. However, its literary  heritage is indirectly reflected in  Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi , known from later Meso - potamian sources. The rest of the works we will encounter are known only in  Late Bronze Age manuscripts. Proverbs are quoted in letters from Mari, El Amarna (but written in the  cities of Canaan and Lebanon), Ḫattuša, and elsewhere. They do not attest  directly to the spread of wisdom literature in learned contexts, that is, schools  6  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  and archives, but they may reflect something of the spread of wisdom through - out the region in more or less the time period we are interested in. I have specified what this book includes but a word is needed on what was  excluded and on what grounds. Three wisdom compositions were left out of  this collection mainly because of their poor preservation. The Fowler and His  Wife is a wisdom piece or Sumerian morality tale (following Alster’s defini - tion; see Alster 2005: 371–72) known from chiefly Old Babylonian sources;  it is represented by two very poorly preserved fragments from Emar (Arnaud  1985–1987, no. 768). Not enough of the piece remains to merit its reproduc - tion here and afford it a suitable discussion. It does however feature in 1.5  where I discuss wisdom literature and its role in the Emar curriculum.  Another piece excluded is a fragment of unknown provenance of The  Instructions of Šuruppak. It is a bilingual piece written in two columns, Akka - dian and Hurrian. It has been suggested that the fragment comes from Emar  but this cannot be verified. It is in a rather pitiful state, but nonetheless sense  can be made out of it by comparing the remains to parallel passages in the  Sumerian version. Since a commendable result has been achieved by B. Alster  and G. Wilhelm (for the Hurrian column), the reader is referred to their work  (in Alster 2005).  The final wisdom work excluded is The Fable of the Fox, represented by  two pieces from the House of Urtenu in Ugarit (Arnaud 2007, no. 51; Yon  and Arnaud 2001, no. 29). Because the remains are not well preserved and  the composition itself is only poorly known elsewhere (see Kienast 2003;  BWL  186–209; Vanstiphout 1988; Alster 2005: 346–51), I decided to omit it.  It deserves additional investigation much beyond the scope of this book. I will  briefly mention it when I assess the remains from the House of Urtenu in 1.4. 1.2 
  d efInItIons   and  a PProaches
  When dealing with a collection of works brought together under the rubric of  wisdom literature, there is no escape from the question, what is wisdom litera - ture? Since the compositions in this book originated in Mesopotamia (regard - less for the present of whether or not they underwent any editorial changes or  modifications on their transmission route to or reception at Late Bronze Age  sites), I will revise the question to, what is Mesopotamian wisdom literature?  In the first part of this chapter, I will try to examine the different ways in which  scholars have responded to this question in the past. As we will discover, the  question revolves around the issue of genre. The changing understanding of  what genre is and whether it is useful in discussing ancient literature has affect - ed the definition of Mesopotamian wisdom literature. The second part of this  chapter will introduce three methodological approaches by which our question  can be addressed: examining the Mesopotamian view of wisdom literature, re - evaluating key themes in the compositions, and adopting a contextual approach  in the study of wisdom literature. 
  I will focus here primarily on the opinions of ancient Near Eastern schol - ars who have studied wisdom literature extensively, for a review of the whole  range of opinions on what Mesopotamian wisdom literature is and whether  genre is a useful category in the discussion of ancient Near Eastern literature  is beyond the scope of this short presentation. Likewise, it must be made clear  from the outset that this short introduction does not pretend to redefine the  genre of wisdom literature, but rather to present in a critical way already exist - ing definitions and offer a few approaches for its further investigation.
  d <sub>efInItIons</sub> h wisdom liter e has been defi 7
  Like many studies concerned with wisdom literature, this book begins by briefly  sketching how wisdom literature has been defined and redefined, categorized,  8  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  and studied in modern scholarship; and like many studies, it too will begin  with Lambert’s now classic 1960 magisterial edition, translation, and commen - tary of Babylonian wisdom compositions known at that time. We will see how  Lambert attempted to define Babylonian wisdom literature in his book; then  observe how, with the spate of new Mesopotamian literature compositions from  the mid-twentieth century onwards, a reevaluation of Mesopotamian wisdom  literature was required; and, finally, consider the questioning by recent scholar - ship of the very usefulness of such a literary category or genre as wisdom. 
  “‘Wisdom’ is strictly a misnomer as applied to Babylonian literature.”  Thus the first sentence in Lambert’s introductory chapter to  Babylonian  Wisdom Literature . As Lambert explains, wisdom as a literary genre is applied  to the Biblical wisdom books, Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet. He stresses that,  “though this term (i.e., wisdom literature) is thus foreign to ancient Mesopota - mia, it has been used for a group of texts which correspond in subject-matter  with the Hebrew Wisdom books, and may be retained as a convenient short  description.” Hence the implication is, if one chooses to recognize an apol - ogetic tone in Lambert’s words, that although Babylonian wisdom literature  shares its subject matter with biblical wisdom books, “real” wisdom is inherent  in biblical literature. The unease Lambert felt in using the term “wisdom” was  because this category, taken from biblical studies, defines a group of books that  are in essence very different from ancient Near Eastern sources in their theo - logical view of wisdom, if one takes, as an example, Proverbs 1 or 8.  But perhaps more than apologetic—if one may venture to read deeper in  to Lambert’s pronouncement—in a sense his view was a reaction against the  strained relationship between biblical studies and Assyriology, which continues  to this day (a heritage of pan-Babylonianism and the Babel-Bibel controversy;  Holloway 2006; Chavalas 2002). To illustrate this claim, one may look at Lang - don’s  Babylonian   Wisdom  of 1923. In its introduction it is said to bring together  “fragments of the books of Babylonian Wisdom,” including an edition of  Ludlul  Bēl Nēmeqi , recognized almost since its initial publication at the end of the nine - teenth century  <sub>c</sub> . <sub>e</sub> .  to be of special relevance for the book of Job. Langdon’s  treatment of  Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi  was, so he himself writes, “inspired by a desire  to complete the profound system of Sumero-Babylonian theology in its ethical  aspects.” Langdon spoke of the “books” of Babylonian wisdom, which he held  to be as profound as the wisdom found in the biblical books and which were a  crucial ethical component in Mesopotamian theology. However, Lambert asserts  that the term wisdom when applied to Mesopotamian writing should be used with  caution lest it be abused: Babylonian culture should be studied on its own merit.   For lack of a better criterion by which to include compositions under the  title of wisdom literature, Lambert borrowed (with some apparent unease)  1.2. DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES   9
  a definition foreign to Mesopotamian categories. He chose works that were  deemed to be within the sphere of “what has been called philosophy since  Greek times though many scholars would demur to using this word for ancient  Mesopotamian thought” ( Lambert 1960: 1 ). That is as far as Lambert was prepared to go in defining Babylonian  wisdom literature. The rest of his introduction avoids any discussion of the  form or structure of the genre. However, although the book on the whole  refrains from providing an explicit definition of the genre, Lambert’s collection  de facto defined the genre (Clifford 2007: xii). Surely, his choice and arrange - ment of the materials were individual and consciously subjective, because, in  his words, “there is no precise canon by which to recognize them (i.e., wisdom  compositions).” Nonetheless, it is obvious that his collection of compositions  was influenced, like van Dijk’s book  La Sagesse suméro-accadienne  (1953),  by earlier compilations of ancient Near Eastern literature, such as  Altorien- talische Texte zum alten Testamente  (Gressmann 1909),  Cuneiform Parallels  to the Old Testament  (Rogers 1912) and the first edition of  Ancient Near East- ern Texts Relating to the Old Testament  (= ANET ; Pritchard 1950). They all  included “wisdom” literature within their pages. Whatever the influences on Lambert,  ANET  in its third edition (1969) was  already citing his  Babylonian Wisdom Literature . Lambert’s book instantly  became canonical: it is an exemplary work of Assyriological philology; it  remains one of the most read books in the field of ancient Near Eastern stud - ies; its influence on Bible studies was immeasurable; and, most importantly for  the present discussion, it is the yardstick by which all anthologies of wisdom  literature are measured—it was and still is  the  canon. However, the usefulness  of Lambert’s loosely defined genre of wisdom literature was soon questioned,  as change was on the horizon. After the Second World War, serious efforts, spearheaded by Samuel  Kramer and Edmond Gordon, were made to collect and better understand  Sumerian literature. Since then, the corpus of Sumerian literature has grown  significantly, constantly augmented by a flow of editions and studies by Bendt  Alster, Miguel Civil, Jacob Klein, Herman Vanstiphout, and the ETCSL team  led by Jeremy Black, as well as others.  In addition, the corpus of mostly Akkadian literature found outside of  Mesopotamia also substantially expanded, with new discoveries at Ḫattuša,  and particularly at Ugarit (published by Nougayrol 1968), and later Emar (pub - lished by Arnaud 1985–1987).  In short, Mesopotamian literature vastly expanded in the number of new  compositions and in their scope. For lack of a precise generic definition,  a multitude of new works, which were difficult to define, differing in struc - 10   WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  ture as well as in form, themes, style, and language, jumped on the “wisdom  literature” bandwagon: Sumerian proverbs, debate poems, school compo - sitions, humorous or satirical works, and others were placed in the category  of “wisdom.” The strain on Lambert’s (as well as others’) loose definition of  wisdom literature was beginning to be felt. The result, many scholars thought,  was a genre that had become so broad that it lost any useful meaning (see  George 2007a). In the words of the Assyriologist Niek Veldhuis ( 2003: 29 ),  wisdom literature had become “a mixed bag.”  Perhaps awareness of this problem is what drove Hallo and Younger to  choose a new category in which to place wisdom literature with all its new  Sumerian and Akkadian compositions. As editors of  The Context of Scripture   (a three-volume book that successfully replaced  ANET  as a modern anthol - ogy of ancient Near Eastern texts in English; 1997–2003), they included in  the first volume (Canonical Compositions)  Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi  and The Bab - ylonian Theodicy under the header “Individual Focus” (one of three such  categories, the other two being “Divine” and “Royal”). But under the same  category as  Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi  and The Theodicy came proverbs, instructions,  disputations, and even Sumerian School Dialogues, which are short humorous  works describing life at the scribal school. It seems that Lambert’s definition  of wisdom literature was simply replaced by another definition even broader  than his. Was Hallo and Younger’s “Individual Focus” to have any meaning if  works as profound as  Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi , dealing with the concept of divine  retribution, were included under the same category as the Sumerian School  Dialogues, which are concerned with students skipping school and lazy pupils  not preparing homework?  The all-inclusive approach adopted by  The   Context of Scripture  was one  alternative. Exclusion of compositions from the genre of wisdom was another.  One of the major wisdom compositions I will deal with here is The Ballad  of Early Rulers (2.2). In Foster’s  Before the Muses  (2005, 3rd edition) it is  relegated to a lesser rank. The Ballad, one of the most-widely distributed  compositions in the ancient Near East, can boast of a long literary history  ranging from the Old Babylonian to the Neo-Assyrian period. And yet it is  placed under the nondescript header “Miscellaneous Expressive Composi - tions,” together with The Monkey Man, a rather insignificant spoof of a legal  document of no known literary history. (Later, we will see what a distinguished  position the Mesopotamians themselves gave to The Ballad of Early Rulers: It  was considered to be a part of series of wisdom compositions compiled by a  Mesopotamian sage; see 1.5.) Excluded from the genre of wisdom literature,  The Ballad of Early Rulers, according to Foster, is considered no more than  an “Akkadian drinking song,” pushed far away from Lambert’s anthology of  1.2. DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES   11
  texts belonging to “what has been called philosophy.” As expected, however,  Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi , as well as its “forerunner,” The Righteous Sufferer from  Ugarit (2.4), and other wisdom compositions are collected in  Before the Muses   under the heading “Wisdom and Experience”; but so are minor wisdom com - positions, as well as proverbs retrieved from letters. How do these lesser works  fare in comparison to The Ballad of Early Rulers?  In the book  Akkadian Literature of the Late Period  (2007), meant to serve  as an annotated guide to the Mesopotamian textual record, Foster located  wisdom literature under the general header “Human Experience” and then  rather thoughtfully placed one or several compositions in subcategories such as  Ancient Wisdom, Human Plight, Fables, Debates, Humorous Stories, Parody  and Satire, and so on. The Ballad of Early Rulers, a work surely within the  timeframe of Foster’s Late period (since it is known from the Late Bronze Age  as well as the Neo-Assyrian period), is however not mentioned at all. Was it  because this work was already considered trivial in Foster’s  Before the Muses ? All of this is meant neither to offer a critique of Foster’s choices (although  I disagree with them) nor to defend the place of The Ballad of Early Rulers  with the Mesopotamian tradition of wisdom literature (I will do this later in  the book). The intention is to demonstrate how genre very much defines our  understanding of an ancient text, its meaning, purpose, and importance in  Mesopotamian literary history (and see here Longman 1991: 16–19; George  2007a).  As the examples of  The Context of Scripture  and  Before the Muses  dem - onstrate, genre as a category was breaking down. However, this breakdown  was not only caused by too many new compositions that nobody knew what  to do with; it was a sign of the times. The last two decades of the twentieth  century saw a sustained and prolonged attack intent on the disintegration—or  deconstruction if one prefers this term—of canon and genre. Western canon,  including the Classics and the Bible, was understood as an oppressive political  and social mechanism whose aim was to appropriate, colonize, and marginal - ize non-Western cultures (among, so to speak, its many other victims).  Wisdom   in Mesopotamian wisdom literature, a loaded term taken from biblical stud - ies, simply became too difficult to employ: Using the term wisdom foreign to  ancient Near Eastern categories implies an appropriation of ancient Near East - ern literature and, implicitly, its eventual marginalization in comparison to the  biblical canon (and see here the remarks of Annus and Lenzi 2010: xxxv). As  discussed, real wisdom was thought to lie within the books of Proverbs, Qohe - let, and Job. Was wisdom not after all a misnomer in Lambert’s words because  only the biblical books contained revealed wisdom? The terms  genre  and even  literature  were now deemed inadequate, imposed by a modern western system  12  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  of thought, foreign to the Mesopotamians who themselves had no definitions of  such categories. In Andrew George’s words (2007a:53), the notion of wisdom  literature in ancient Mesopotamia had come under attack. Some views were reductionist to the extreme, others more moder - ate. Buccellati (1981) denied outright any identification of a literary genre  with wisdom. Vanstiphout (1999a; 1999b), although much informed about  Mesopotamian literature, and as a consequence more willing to recognize a  Mesopotamian understanding of genre, even if not explicitly defined, none - theless concluded his evaluation of our genre with the words: “Exit ‘Wisdom  Literature’” (1999a: 713). In his eyes, there is simply too much of it for  “wisdom literature” to have been meaningful to an ancient Mesopotamian  scribe, hence, as a category meant to designate a group of texts, it is worthless.  Alster (2005), to conclude this brief survey, was perhaps less harsh,  although he too wished to abandon the category of wisdom as genre. Like  others, he saw “wisdom literature” as a harmful, outdated, and unusable genre  designation. Alster (2005: 25) writes in the conclusion to the introduction of  his monograph  The Wisdom of Sumer :
  It must be admitted that “wisdom” can be regarded as a relic from the early  days of oriental scholarship, when the wisdom of Zarathustra had already  become a common cliché. “Wisdom,” indeed, was one of the literary topics  that first aroused interest when Babylonian and Assyrian literature started to  become available to scholarship around the turn of the twentieth century. Today,  using the designation “wisdom” would make sense only if this is refined and  restricted to a much narrower group of texts. 
  How ironic that Alster critiques the use of the term wisdom in Mesopotamian  wisdom literature as something not far removed from orientalism, only to call  his own book  The Wisdom of Sumer , in the same pattern of the topical “ The  Wisdom of… ” book title, common, as he points out, in the early days of schol - arship.  In the next section (under Key Themes) I consider how Alster, like others,  tried to redefine and restrict the corpus of wisdom literature.
  a <sub>PProaches</sub>  
  As we have seen, recent scholarship came to regard Mesopotamian wisdom  literature as an empty literary category. This was the result of two trends, the  first the ever-growing accumulation of different types of works all conveniently  dumped under the rubric of wisdom literature, the second the result of postmod - 1.2. DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES   13 ern intellectual trends at the end of the twentieth century. Despite, or perhaps as  a reaction to, such a hypercritical evaluation, scholars attempted to reconsider  the worth of Mesopotamian wisdom literature as a useful independent category  of genre from different points of view. 
  I use three different approaches that I believe can contribute to this study.  The first approach examines closely the Mesopotamian view of the literary  genre of wisdom; the second reevaluates key themes in wisdom literature; and  the third adopts a contextual approach to the study of wisdom literature. I will  briefly elaborate on all three because they are the methodological underpin - nings upon which this book is based (note however that fuller presentations  of the data will be found in the rest of part 1 and throughout the book). As we  will see, these approaches do not solve all the problems I have identified. At  best, they allow a renewed appreciation of wisdom literature and point out the  significance of key themes or intellectual trends found in wisdom compositions  and additional Mesopotamian literature. 
  t <sub>he</sub>  m <sub>esoPotamIan</sub>  v <sub>Iew</sub>   <sub>of</sub>  w <sub>Isdom</sub>  l <sub>Iterature</sub>
  Many scholars writing on Mesopotamian literature and specifically contend - ing with Mesopotamian wisdom literature face a rather frustrating situation.  Outside of technical genres such as omens or incantations, and other than per - formative designations, such as  song ,  lament , Mesopotamian literature lacks  explicit native categories of genre. The result is first and foremost an absence  of a defined or regulated canon of compositions, as Lambert was already aware.  However, we are not totally in the dark regarding the Mesopotamians’ under - standing of genre, including wisdom literature. As will be discussed in greater  detail here and throughout this study there are a few clues that permit us to  gather indirectly how wisdom literature was understood by its ancient students  and compilers. 
  Recent scholarship has looked carefully at the way Old Babylonian student  exercises were compiled. It was seen that they consisted of a few consecu - tive texts, which arguably were studied one after the other. When individual  wisdom compositions are found together in such a way on  Sammeltafeln  or  collective or compilation tablets, it can be implied that some connection (the - matic or other) was understood to exist between them.  Another group of texts that has been under the spotlight recently are the  so-called Old Babylonian library catalogues. Regardless of the various opin - ions about their exact function, the catalogues provide us with groupings of  various texts. Sometimes, the reasoning for grouping particular texts together  14  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  escapes us, but it is clear that when wisdom compositions are arranged thus,  some type of connection is to be assumed between them. With all due reserva - tions, it can be argued that the connection is one of genre, even if not explicitly  defined as such by the ancient compilers.  A more explicit definition of wisdom literature can be reconstructed from  loose strings of related data, such as catalogues, commentaries, and other  learned texts, mostly dated to the Kassite or post-Kassite period. By piecing  this information together, it can be demonstrated that wisdom literature as such  was understood by Mesopotamian scholars to be a select corpus (like other tex - tual corpora such as omens). This corpus transmitted a written legacy that was  valuable because of its antiquity. It was considered to have been compiled or  composed by learned figures of old, who were associated with famous kings.  More will be said at the close of 1.5 about the importance of these sources  for appreciating the Mesopotamian definition, or at least the understanding of,  wisdom literature.
  K <sub>ey</sub>  t <sub>hemes</sub>
  A major contribution of Alster’s  The Wisdom of Sumer  (2005) to the questions  discussed here is his identification and elucidation of two basic key themes,  which bring about a sharpened appreciation of a particular group of wisdom  compositions. Alster studies a group of wisdom compositions (comprising the  bulk but not all of his book), which he divides into two categories: a traditional  or conservative outlook and a critical approach. In the steps of the biblical  scholar Michael Fox, one can term these categories as  positive  wisdom and  negative  wisdom. Fox (2011) uses these terms to define wisdom in two of the  biblical wisdom books, namely, Proverbs (positive) and Qohelet (negative).
  Positive, or traditional, wisdom offers a model for attaining success in life,  either material or ethical. The preservation of one’s wealth, marrying prop - erly, behaving adequately in the company of others, acting with fairness will  provide one with a good and fulfilled life. This view is articulated in some  Sumerian proverbs found in the Sumerian Proverb Collection (Alster 1997),  and notably in The Instructions of Šuruppak, a wisdom composition already  known from mid-third millennium manuscripts but mainly reconstructed on  the basis of Old Babylonian sources (Alster 2005). There, father instructs son  on how to achieve a proper life.  This kind of wisdom is also seen in our collection. In the first part of  Šimâ  Milka  (2.1), the sage Šūpê-awīli offers this kind of practical or positive wisdom  to his son, telling him for example, how to behave in a tavern, whom to marry,  and where to avoid digging a well in order to ensure the success of one’s field.  1.2. DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES   15
  Similar attitudes inform the collection of proverbs from Ḫattuša (2.6) and the  Akkadian-Hurrian proverb extract (2.7). Many of the proverbs found in letters  (2.8) also convey positive instructions, hence they share the same attitude in  regards to wisdom. The reversal of this key theme is negative wisdom, or to use Alster’s defi - nition, a critical approach. It expresses two intertwined notions: 1) nothing is  of value, hence 2) enjoy life while you can before eternal death. These ideas  are reflected in several short Old Babylonian Sumerian compositions begin - ning with the lines “Nothing is of value, but life itself should be sweet-tasting.”  The first sentence is defined by Alster as the vanity theme and the second the  carpe diem  theme. In the Late Bronze Age collection of wisdom compositions, we find neg - ative wisdom in The Ballad of Early Rulers (2.2) and Enlil and Namzitarra  (2.3), and again in  Šimâ Milka   through its second part—the son’s response  to his father. The son tells his father that instructions such as his (i.e., posi - tive wisdom) are worthless because life is short and beyond it there is only  death. Worth pointing out in relation to our discussion about genre is that both  key themes are found in the same text,  Šimâ Milka . Their presence shows that  the Mesopotamian scribe who wrote this piece consciously recognized the  two distinct wisdom traditions. Ingeniously he combined them both in one  single composition. This is certainly something important to think about when  coming to evaluate the Mesopotamian sensitivity to genre or literary type even  when not openly declared. As Alster clearly demonstrated, both positive and negative key themes are  common to many literary works. The positive key theme finds expression, as  seen, already in the very first wisdom literature available—the mid-third mil - lennium manuscripts of The Instructions of Šuruppak. The negative key theme  or critical approach also boasts of a long history, beginning in the Old Babylo - nian period.  Wherein lie the origins of the critical perspective in wisdom composi - tions? It is not necessary to assume that this critical view arose as a result of a  particular social or political event. It simply may be looked upon as part of a  literary trope that began to be articulated more and more forcefully from the  Old Babylonian period onwards, as part of an intellectual trend that had come  to reflect on the limits of mortal life as opposed to the gods’ eternal life. Such  a trend is seen in a variety of epic stories about mortals that end in disaster,  failure, or irresolution (see the observant remarks of George 2007a: 50). In  wisdom compositions, this intellectual trend finds its articulation in the vanity  theme, which is always expressed by mortals and not divine beings. How could  the immortals ever understand death? 16   WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  The tension between positive wisdom or traditional values and negative  wisdom or critical values existed not only within the domain of wisdom com - positions such as The Ballad of Early Rulers or  Šimâ Milka .   It can also be  recognized, for example, in The Epic of Gilgameš, which underwent a devel - opment from a story concerned with a hero’s glorification to one reflecting on  the futility of life. According to George (2007a: 54; 2003: 32–33), it was the  achievement of Sin-lēqi-unninni (traditionally considered as the author of the  Standard Babylonian version of the epic) to reinforce the pessimistic tone in  the epic, following the literary fashion of the day, as seen in the Kassite and  post-Kassite pessimistic or critical poems. The vanity theme, however, was  already present in the Old Babylonian versions of the epic. Here it is expressed  by Gilgameš who encourages Enkidu to do battle with Huwawa:
    mannu ibrī elû šam [ ā’ī ] ilūma itti šamšim dāriš uš [ bū ] awīlūtumma manûma ūmūša mimma ša īteneppušu šāruma
  Who, my friend, is the one to go to the sky? Only the gods dwell forever in the sunlight. As for mankind—its days are numbered. Whatever it will chose to do—it is but the wind. (The Epic of Gilgameš, Yale Tablet, col. iv, ll. 140– 143; George 2003: 200–201)
  c <sub>ontextualIzInG</sub>  w <sub>Isdom</sub>  l <sub>Iterature</sub>
  Adopting a contextual approach to the study of wisdom literature demands that  the search for an all-inclusive or precise definition of wisdom literature be put  aside while wider issues concerned with the historical, social, and intellectual  background of these compositions are brought to the fore. A temporary position  may consciously be adopted, such as viewing wisdom literature as  philosophi- cal  (George 2007a, following Lambert),  existential , or  intellectual  (so Alster  2005). This study prefers to avoid such loaded terms and recommends (follow - ing Beaulieu 2007) an intuitive understanding of wisdom literature based on  common humanistic traditions; this will suffice to allow readers to recognize  elements current in ancient Near Eastern literature that mark out certain com - positions as wisdom literature, even if on a provisional basis.  1.2. DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES   17
  A contextual approach, although not defined as such at the time, was at  the heart of Lambert’s introduction to  Babylonian Wisdom Literature . Surely  a source of disappointment for many, the introduction refrained from speaking  at all about formal characteristics of Babylonian wisdom literature but moved  on to discuss in a somewhat general way the development of thought and  literature in ancient Mesopotamia. The introduction, apart from the opening  section (which we have discussed above), is rather ignored nowadays because  it is long outdated, its historical and social observations questioned if not dis - missed. However, what is worth noticing is Lambert’s attempt to speak of the  social and political contexts out of which the texts he studied emerged. An updated social and partly political approach, inevitably more sophis - ticated and subtle, is undertaken also by Beaulieu (2007). Taking for granted  the existence of the genre of wisdom literature, he moves on to examine its  intellectual milieu (especially in the Kassite and post-Kassite periods). He dis - cusses the growing role of the professional exorcist, who becomes involved  as a protagonist in wisdom compositions and whose own area of expertise in  composing prayers or incantations comes to be reflected in wisdom composi - tions (see 2.4). He demonstrates the connections sought by these professional  scholars between wisdom, Mesopotamian kingship, and the learned world of  sages from before the flood. This was the outcome of an intellectual move - ment that sought to grant to scholars more standing in the sociopolitical world  of their times, thus granting them a superior status. As Beaulieu concludes,  wisdom literature was one particular form of scholarly expression, relatively  minor amongst others of much greater importance (chiefly omens and rituals),  but all relating to a broader theological purpose, that is, understanding the will  of the gods so that the king’s fate be divulged.  Beaulieu refrains from generic definitions but understands that especially  after the Old Babylonian period wisdom literature was a form of expression  within a larger system of thought. I have spoken above of some of such intel - lectual trends and am tempted to see a connection between the development  of the critical or negative wisdom on the one hand and the rise of scholars  to prominence in court on the other, as has been suggested repeatedly in the  scholarly literature, but this is a topic beyond the purposes of our study.  Another, somewhat similar, contextual approach, although narrower  and more focused in its investigation, has been advocated by Niek Veldhuis  (2004). He suggests that Mesopotamian literature (and for that matter wisdom  literature) should be viewed from a social-functional approach, which looks  at literature from the “perspective of the institutional context in which liter - ary texts were produced and consumed” (2004: 43). Hence, wisdom literature  should be seen in the context of additional compositions that then should all  18  WISDOM FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE
  be assessed with respect to where, by whom, and for what purposes they were  produced, copied, and studied. Naturally Veldhuis was thinking about the Old  Babylonian scribal school, students and teachers included, as the setting in  which this comprehensive investigation is to be conducted. We have to shift  however to another timeframe and geographical area, for the focus here is  wisdom compositions of the Late Bronze Age. With all due limitations of the  data, as will be seen, I will try to form questions similar to those put forward  by Veldhuis.  The rest of my introduction will be devoted to examining in greater detail  the historical and social contexts of Late Bronze Age wisdom compositions  (1.3). I will then proceed to discuss the archaeological and archival contexts  (1.4), and finally the curricular context of Late Bronze Age wisdom literature,  namely, how it was used in schooling environments and for what educational  purpose (1.5). In doing so, I will apply some of the approaches I have intro - duced here for the study of wisdom literature.
  The understanding of what is wisdom literature has gone through many  twists and turns since Lambert’s canonical  Babylonian Wisdom Literature . The  influx of new compositions, Akkadian as well as Sumerian, challenged Lam - bert’s loose definition, stretching the limits of the genre beyond what the label  could bear. The result as we saw was almost a complete rejection of  wisdom   from Mesopotamian wisdom literature. But the stream of new compositions  also brought about a renewed interest in the genre, especially with the publi - cation of Akkadian wisdom literature from Ugarit and Emar. All these works  have greatly expanded our view of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature and  with it, biblical wisdom. Let us just look briefly at two significant examples  from the Late Bronze Age. Šimâ Milka  fills in a gap in the father-to-son instructions tradition which  stretchs from The Instructions of Šuruppak to The Sayings of Ahiqar (although  properly speaking the latter is an uncle-to-nephew instruction) and even Prov - erbs (e.g., 23:19). And The Ballad of Early Rulers highlights the continuity of  the vanity theme from its rise in the Old Babylonian period to its fullest expres - sion in the great pessimistic works of the late Kassite or Isin II period, later to  become fully developed in The Dialogue of Pessimism (Lambert 1995). The  relationship of these works to biblical wisdom has long been noted.  
  In his return to the subject of wisdom literature many years after the publi - cation of  Babylonian Wisdom Literature  Lambert (1995) again made no direct  attempt at defining Mesopotamian wisdom. According to his article’s title  “Some New Babylonian Wisdom Literature,” in a volume dedicated to wisdom  1.2. DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES   19
  in ancient Israel, he seems to have been satisfied with the genre he himself did  much to establish and define. One may also claim that Lambert felt more at  ease to offer a place of honor for Babylonian wisdom literature side by side  with biblical wisdom literature, without any qualms or disclaimers. After all,  to paraphrase Lambert (41), Qohelet was only presenting in an Israelite garb  the old old Mesopotamian vanity theme found in The Ballad of Early Rulers  and other works. In this respect, is  wisdom  in Mesopotamian wisdom literature  indeed a misnomer? I leave it for the reader of this book to decide.