‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 3

‘ANGELOLOGY’ IN THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH*

MEHMET-ALI ATAÇ

Abstract

The Epic of Gilgamesh has been interpreted by Th. Jacobsen and his followers pri-
marily as the story of a hero who struggles beyond his capacity to find immortal-
ity, gets disappointed, and finally faces the truth, maturing and turning to ‘normality’
on the premise that it is his achievements and not himself that will last. The present
paper challenges a literal reading of the plot of the Epic along these lines, and
through select comparison with the ancient Egyptian, ‘heterodox’ Hebrew, Ira-
nian, and Gnostic traditions, argues that the meaning system embedded in the
Epic can be thought to point to notions of ‘mysticism’ and ‘soteriology’, expressed
in a distinctively Mesopotamian idiom that suppresses an explicit display of such
concepts.

There have been many attempts toward interpreting aspects of The

Epic of Gilgamesh.1 Admittedly, the poem is a rather enigmatic piece
of literature, compounded by the fact that in its latest and most com-
prehensive format, the Standard Babylonian Version, it is a conglom-
eration of independent Gilgamesh tales that go back to remoter
antiquity.2 In this respect, the twelve-tablet Standard Version, even

*
My sincere thanks to Irene J. Winter for reading an earlier version of the
manuscript and sending me critical comments and detailed edit suggestions, as
well as to an anonymous JANER referee for alerting me regarding a number of
philological matters that would have otherwise escaped my attention.
1
Some examples are Jacobsen 1930, idem., 1976: esp. 218-9; Foster 1984,
Abusch 1986, idem., 1993; Cooper 2002.
2
Tigay 1997: 46. The older poems of Gilgamesh (known as Bilgames in these
poems) in Sumerian are not the same as the later Standard Babylonian Version,
but ‘separate and individual tales without common themes. They were probably
part of a long-standing oral tradition and first committed to writing under the Third
Dynasty of Ur’ (George 1999: xix). To some extent, these poems were the source
of the later Standard Babylonian Version, which is the ‘classical Epic of Gilgamesh,’
so to speak (ibid., xv, xx). This Akkadian epic acquired its original shape in the
Old Babylonian Period (Tigay 1997: 41). Its final version ‘restructured the epi-
sodes, reworded the text extensively, and added supplementary material,’ but it is
closely related to its Old and Middle Babylonian forerunners and tells the same
story (ibid., 45). ‘This version became so widely accepted in the first millennium

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 JANER 4

Also available online – www.brill.nl

janer4-3-atac.pmd 3 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 4 mehmet-ali ataç

without the controversial appending of the twelfth tablet,3 may not

be taken as a unified story that presents a coherent narrative struc-
ture in the sense that one might expect to find in a work of western
literature. I believe that the greatest drawback of contemporary
approaches to the meaning, or threads of meaning, in the poem is
in trying to see in it ‘normal’ human emotions and concerns, such
as love, sex, friendship, and transition from immaturity to adulthood.
Especially, one particular line of interpretation initiated by Thorkild
Jacobsen and taken up by his followers favors the idea that the main
theme of the Epic is Gilgamesh’s growing out of an eccentric and in
some ways childish lifestyle, and turning to ‘normality.’4 Further,
speculations on the nature of the relationship between the two he-
roes of the epic, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, have often suffered from
literalisms such as a friendship that takes the place of a normal het-
erosexual relationship, and even homosexual inclinations proper.5

that scribes were no longer able or willing to modify it in any substantial way’
(ibid.). On the Akkadian authors’ separating some of the themes of the Sumerian
poems from their original contexts and using them in the Akkadian epic in con-
structing a sequence of events, see ibid., 42.
3 Tablet XII of the Standard Babylonian ‘series of Gilgamesh’ is in fact a close

paraphrase in Akkadian of the latter half of one of the Bilgames poems in Sumerian.
Even though some have argued that Tablet XII had an indispensable place in the
Epic, most scholars would agree that the tablet was appended to the series ‘be-
cause it was plainly related material’ (George 1999: xxviii). According to Tigay,
the appendage of this tablet to the epic might be connected with the interest of
incantation priests, like Sîn-leqi-unnÌnnÊ, in Gilgamesh as ruler of the Netherworld
(Tigay 1997: 44).
4 In stating in a nutshell the main subject matter of the epic, Abusch writes: ‘It

is about nature, culture, the value of human achievements and their limitations,
friendship and love, separation and sorrow, life and death.’ (Abusch 1986: 143-4).
Abusch further indicates that in the Epic, man is addressed both as an individual
and as a social being (ibid., 144). See also Jacobsen 1976: 218-9, Foster 1984: e.g.
21-22, and Abusch 1993: e.g. 7 and 14. In his 1993 work Abusch particularly sees
the carpe diem advice of Siduri to Gilgamesh, contained in the Old Babylonian Version
of the Epic, as a suggestion that the hero should take up the normal life of a mortal
man who experiences the pleasures and bears the responsibilities of human family
and society (ibid., 14). More recently Cooper has written: ‘The Akkadian Gilgamesh
epic is about growing up, as Jacobsen came to believe, but Gilgamesh’s friendship
with Enkidu and his rejection of Ishtar were not part of a refusal to grow up, as
Jacobsen thought, but were important stages in the maturation process…’ (2002):
81-82.
5 See again Jacobsen 1976: 219 where the author writes: ‘The appearance of

Enkidu provides Gilgamesh with a ‘chum’ and allows him to remain in preadoles-
cence rather than moving on to a heterosexual relationship.’ Along similar lines,
Abusch interprets Gilgamesh’s encounter with the barmaid Siduri in the Old
Babylonian Version as Gilgamesh’s seeking in the barmaid a woman with whom

janer4-3-atac.pmd 4 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 5

My essential premise in this paper is a totally representational under-

standing of the episodes in the poem. I would submit that all the
events presented within the framework of the Epic are actually models
or representations of cosmic sagas that take place in a mythical time
frame, an anthropological proto-history that does not involve man
in the ordinary sense of the word, as we know him today, but one
that focuses on the primordial versions of the anthropos. These sagas,
however, have direct consequences in the current human condition.
Even the most seemingly human element in the poem, death and its
inevitability, can also be understood in terms of the divine’s relation
and concession to death, since Gilgamesh is partly man and partly
god.6
In the discussion that follows, I do not venture a thorough and
definitive interpretation of the poem. Rather, I would like to point
out preliminary alternative lines of approach, focusing on select as-
pects of the Epic rather than treating it as a whole. To this end, in
addition to aspects of ancient Egyptian and Iranian religion, I shall
draw on comparable themes found in the later ‘heterodox,’ or eso-
teric, religious traditions of the Near East, such as the biblical apoc-
rypha, ‘hidden books,’ works which Jewish tradition characterizes
as the ‘Outside Books,’ that is, books left out of the Scriptural canon;7
and the Gnostic tradition, ‘the first and most dangerous heresy among
the early Christians,’ with a probable ‘birth date’ after 70 AD.8

he can live and through whom he can attain immortality, to replace the dead friend
whom he grieved (Abusch 1993: 4). One can quote other opinions regarding the
relationship between the two heroes: ‘The tragedy of Enkidu begins with his at-
traction to the opposite sex, is joined by jealousy and revulsion for another of his
own sex, and is now sealed by his friendship with Gilgamesh, which has no sexual
basis at all’ (Foster 1984: 22); ‘The meaning of the dream, however, is clear from
its content. Gilgamesh sees an axe, with which he cohabits as with a woman; as
the axe is equivalent to Engidu, the dream cannot mean anything but that homo-
sexual intercourse is going to take place between Gilgamesh and the newcomer’
(Jacobsen 1930: 70). On an assessment of the suggested homoerotic connotations
in the epic, as well as the ‘evolution’ of Jacobsen’s ideas on the meaning of the
Epic, see Cooper 2002.
6 SV I 48 and IX 51.
7 Bamberger 1952: 15. Most of these books were composed in Hebrew or

Aramaic, and a few in Greek. ‘Some of these books were included in Greek manu-
scripts of the Bible, and thence were taken over by the Catholic Church as sacred
scripture’ (ibid., 15-16).
8 Filoramao 1990: 2; Couliano 1990: 29. The origins of Gnosticism are prac-

tically unknown. However, it clearly has ancient precedents of a similar nature

such as Orphism, Pythagoreanism, and the ancient Egyptian Books of the After-
life. On the controversial question of the origins of Gnosticism, see Couliano 1990:

janer4-3-atac.pmd 5 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 6 mehmet-ali ataç

In one sense, we are irremediably removed from the essence or

kernel of a very ancient civilization, while in another sense it is highly
likely that elements of that essence or kernel, manifest in different
guises, made their way to later philosophical and religious develop-
ments that occurred in the same broad geographical area, perhaps
as a result of the continuum of an intellectual tradition. The fact
that these traditions were considered ‘esoteric’ and hence left out of
mainstream scriptures, coupled by the resemblance of many of their
themes to those in ancient literature, may be taken as further indi-
cation that what we are dealing with in ancient texts like The Epic of
Gilgamesh are primarily the earlier, and perhaps more authentic,
versions of the same esoteric material. It is hence only natural that
later religious traditions that were meant to appeal to masses chose
to suppress or exclude these notions.
My domain of inquiry in this paper primarily comprises Gilgamesh’s
acts prior to the coming of Enkidu,9 the prefiguration of the coming
of Enkidu in Gilgamesh’s dreams interpreted by his mother,10 and
the nature of the relationship between the two heroes in the Epic.
In relation to the dreams that prefigure the coming of Enkidu in
terms of objects falling from the sky as well as the co-mingling of the
divine with a realm of opposite character as the central theological
problem in the Epic, I will also be referring to the myth of Ishtar’s
Descent to the Netherworld 11 in order to place matters further in an ancient
Mesopotamian context. Finally, insofar as the somewhat antagonis-
tic but in essence mystical camaraderie between Gilgamesh and Enkidu
is concerned, I will be making use of the ancient Egyptian myth of
the Contendings of Horus and Seth12 for comparisons which I hope will
further shed light on the nature of both the struggle and the friend-
ship between the two heroes.
I would like to start with Gilgamesh’s initial state presented in the
epic before the coming of Enkidu. He is depicted as an uncontrolled
man of extreme emotions, oppressing the people of Uruk over whom

28ff; Filoramo 1990: 7ff. Part of the evidence for Gnosticism’s ancient origins should
come from disentangling the codes of ancient sources themselves, especially those
of Mesopotamia and Egypt, which scholars of Gnosticism so far have not dealt
with deeply.
9 SV I 65-93.
10 SV I 245-293.
11 For an analysis especially of the Sumerian text, see Sladek 1974.
12 On this myth, see Griffiths 1960; te Velde 1977; Parkinson 1995: esp. 70ff;

te Velde 2001.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 6 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 7

he rules as king.13 Even though the precise nature of this oppression

is not entirely clear, from what the poem itself spells out, it is certain
that Gilgamesh’s acts are socially disruptive, since he ‘lets no son go
free to his father, lets no [daughter go free to her] mother, and lets
[no] girl go free to [her bridegroom].’14 Theories as to how Gilgamesh
was oppressing the citizens of Uruk include his forcing them to some
form of corvée duty, his abusing both men and women sexually, and
his again forcefully engaging them in a physically challenging and
tiring game of hockey.15 I will not here discuss any of these theories,
and will simply postulate that whatever Gilgamesh was doing in Uruk,
his super-human strength and passion were above what the stan-
dard human capacity in this particular mythical context could bear,
leading the citizens of Uruk to complain to the gods in order to find
relief from their intense agitation.16
One may immediately compare this situation to one found in the
Epic of Atrahasis, in which the first generation of humanity created
by the gods is also characterized by an analogous kind of excessive
and annoying behavior, depicted in the poem as noisiness, which
results in the gods’ decision to wipe this bothersome humanity from
the earth by means of certain catastrophes that culminate in the
Flood.17 One can talk about two further comparisons along the same
lines, one from within and the other outside the ancient Mesopotamian
tradition. First, within the Mesopotamian tradition, the antediluvian
sages, apkallus, are also said to have committed an act or acts of hu-
bris that offended the ruling gods, resulting in their punishment and
relegation from the mainstream cosmos to the Apsû as well.18 Even

13 Supra 10. Gilgamesh is further referred to in SV I 234 as Éadi-å’a-am¿lu,

translated by Foster as the ‘joy-woe man,’ which characterizes his state of being a
man of intense but agonizing emotions (Foster 1984: 29). The words are also trans-
lated as ‘joy-woe-man … i.e. of fickle mood’ in Black et al. 1999.
14 SV I 68, 72, 76 (George 1999: 3-4).
15 For a synoptic assessment of these theories with special emphasis on the hockey

game and the nature of Gilgamesh’s sexual association with the male and female
citizens of Uruk, see again Cooper 2002: 77ff.
16 SV I 92-93.
17 OB I vii; OB II i, vii; SV II iii, iv.
18 In the fragmentary texts preserved, it is not entirely clear how the apkallus

angered the gods. Erica Reiner writes: ‘It certainly seems as if the scribes deliber-
ately suppressed a cycle dealing with those human beings who, at one time or other
of history, and no doubt with the connivance of Ea, revolted against the gods and
‘brought down Iàtar from heaven into Eanna,’ or ‘aroused Adad’s anger’ by some
forgotten or perhaps unmentionable act, or ‘angered Ea’ through some form of
challenge which is still obscure to us, in spite of the three duplicates we now have

janer4-3-atac.pmd 7 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 8 mehmet-ali ataç

though texts do not specify what the hubris of the sages was, one can
think of how Gilgamesh is also a semi-divine figure who has supe-
rior wisdom, and posit that the apkallus also angered the gods on
account of an excessive manifestation of their super-human capacity.
As for the comparison outside the Mesopotamian tradition, it is the
‘apocryphal’ Book of Enoch where another group of semi-divine be-
ings, the Giants, who are the offsprings of fallen heavenly angels,
the ‘Watchers,’ and mortal women, are said to have brought wide-
spread slaughter, destruction, and moral corruption to the world.19
As is the case in both The Epic of Gilgamesh and that of Atrahasis, in
the Book of Enoch as well mankind complains to the ‘Most High’ for
release from their troubles, bringing about the destruction of the Giants
by means of the Flood.20 The story of these Giants’ presence on earth
is also alluded to in the Hebrew Bible, in the Book of Genesis (6: 1-4)
in which the beney ha’elohim, sons of God, descend from heaven and
conjugally unite with the benot ha’adam, daughters of men.21 Even

of this allusion’ (1961: 11; for a transliteration and translation of the reverse of the
relevant bilingual text/tablet LKA No. 76, see ibid., 2ff). It is clear from the Poem
of Erra, however, that these antediluvian sages were relegated to the Apsû by Marduk:
‘I dispatched those (renowned) umm§nu(-sages) down into the Apsû: I did not or-
dain their coming up again’ (v. 147, Marduk speaking to Erra, Cagni [trans.] 1977:
32). It is noteworthy that in both the apkallu tradition and the Epic of Atrahasis, it is
Enki/Ea as the god of gnosis who encourages the initial generation of humanity to
be rebellious, as is especially clear in the latter work: ‘Enki made his voice heard
/ And spoke to his servant: / ‘Call the elders, the senior men! / Start [an upris-
ing] in your own house, / Let heralds proclaim … / Let them make a loud noise
in the land: / Do not revere your gods, / Do not pray to your goddesses, / But
search out the door of Namtara’ (OB I vii, Dalley [trans.] 2000: 19).
19 I Enoch 7-9, Black (trans.) 1985: 28-30; Reeves 1992: 67. ‘Then the giants

began to devour the flesh of men, and mankind began to become few upon the
earth; and as men perished from the earth, their voice went up to heaven: ‘Bring
our cause before the Most High, and our destruction before the glory of the Great
One’’ (I Enoch 8.4, Black [trans.] 1985: 29). One can compare one of the relevant
passages in the Epic of Atrahasis: ‘600 years, less than 600, passed, / And the coun-
try became too wide, the people too numerous. / The country was as noisy as a
bellowing bull. / The God grew restless at their racket, / Ellil had to listen to their
noise. / He addressed the great gods, / ‘The noise of mankind has become too
much, / I am losing sleep over their racket. / Give the order that àuruppû-disease
shall break out’ (OB I vii, Dalley [trans.] 2000: 18).
20 I Enoch 8-9, ibid., 29.
21 Reeves 1992: 68. ‘These (leaders) and all the rest (of the two hundred watchers)

took for themselves wives from all whom they chose; and they began to cohabit
with them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them sorcery and
spells and showed them the cutting of roots and herbs’ (I Enoch 7.1, Black [trans.]:
28); ‘When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were

janer4-3-atac.pmd 8 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 9

though neither Gilgamesh’s nor the other Mesopotamian super-human

generations’ offenses are presented as abominable as those of the
Giants, the paradox here is that the Hebrew tradition may be using
a different tone of presentation in relating a mythical incident analo-
gous to the Mesopotamian ones we are looking at. For instance, the
mingling of the human and the divine in breeding super-human beings
is how heroes are generated in Greek myths. ‘The suggested mix-
ture of the two separate realms of the divine and the human, toler-
ated and even prized in Greek mythology, was abhorred by Jewish
tradition as an illicit disruption of the created demarcation between
the spheres of the sacred and the profane.’22
Furthermore, just as Gilgamesh, prior to the arrival of Enkidu, is
engaged in the practice of the jus primae noctis, or the droit de seigneur,23
so are the ancestors of the Giants, the sons of God of Genesis, said by
some commentators of the Bible to have had sexual intercourse with
mortal women in the same manner.24 Most revealing, however, is
that Gilgamesh’s name, along with a version of Humbaba’s name,
is found twice in certain fragments of the Book of Giants from Qumran
which may originally have been part of the Book of Enoch.25 The versions
of these fragments found in the oasis of Turfan in Central Asia had
a formative influence on Mani, the founder of the ‘heretical’
Manichaean sect who was brought up in Babylonia.26 ‘In fact, the
Book of Giants became a part of the canon of Mani’s faith, and perhaps
for this reason it was eventually excluded from the Jewish Book of
Enoch.’27 ‘Why Gilgamesh and Humbaba should feature as giants in
the Qumran fragments may be suggested partly from the (again)
fragmentary Anatolian version of the Gilgamesh Epic as unearthed
in Hittite cuneiform at BoÅazköy. This version dates from the mid-
second millennium BC. In it, Gilgamesh is specifically described as
a giant, 11 cubits (about 5 m) tall.’28

born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they
took to wife such of them as they chose’ (Genesis 6.1-2, Holy Bible. Revised Standard
Version).
22 Reeves 1992: 68.
23 ‘He will couple with the wife-to-be, / he first of all, the bridegroom after. /

By divine consent it is so ordained: / when his navel-cord was cut, for him she was
destined’ (OB II P 159-162, George [trans.] 1999: 15).
24 Jung 1974: 116.
25 Dalley 1997: 228.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 9 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 10 mehmet-ali ataç

Finally, in comparison to Gilgamesh’s excessive vigor, I would

mention the equally complex and enigmatic Egyptian god Seth who
also has a similar uncontrolled and exuberant male sexuality.29 Seth
is the opponent of both Osiris and Horus in Egyptian mythology.30
However, this opposition is a mystical one. ‘The Two Lords,’ Horus
and Seth, were the perennial antagonists.31 The Egyptian king was
identified with both of these latter gods but not in the sense that he
was considered the incarnation of one or the other; ‘he embodied
them as a pair, as opposites in equilibrium.’32 In Egyptian mythol-
ogy, these two gods were at first separated, but ultimately reunited
and reconciled.33
Like most of the divine or semi-divine beings such as the Giants
and the apkallus who are known to have committed acts of hubris, in
Egyptian mythology Seth also undergoes a significant degree of rel-
egation, losing his equal share over the rule of Egypt with Horus,
and becoming subject to the latter’s superiority.34 According the
Memphite Theology, even though at the beginning the two gods con-
tending for the rulership of Egypt are separated and assigned equal
shares of the country, Geb, the earth-god who acts as arbiter be-
tween them later regrets his decision and rescinds it, giving the whole
land to Horus. ‘The two crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt are now
said to ‘grow’ from the head of Horus,’35 as he is also shown in art.
In this regard, notwithstanding his negative associations, Seth is also
a god who has become the victim of an act of usurpation that per-
haps adds to his behind-the-scenes venerability. He is thus a para-
doxical divinity, on the one hand the ‘separated god,’ ‘an anti-social
god, cut off from the community of the gods,’36 but on the other
hand, a god that has his own complex sanctity. From this standpoint,
one can also remember Georges Dumézil’s emphasis on the sexual

29 te Velde 2001: 269; on the sexuality of Seth, see also idem. 1977: 39ff and

Parkinson 1995: 65 ff. On the animosity between Horus and Seth, as well as that
between Osiris and Seth, see also Griffiths 1960.
30 On the complexity created by the co-extensiveness of Horus and Osiris as

the opponents of Seth, see Tobin 1993: 100.

31 Frankfort 1948: 21.
32 Ibid.
33 te Velde 2001: 269.
34 Frankfort 1948: 25. On the original royal equality between Horus and Seth,

see also Tobin 1993: 100. On Seth’s benevolent qualities notwithstanding his overall
negative reputation, see Griffiths 1980: 11.
35 Ibid.
36 te Velde 1977: 31.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 10 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 11

excesses and offenses of Indo-European heroes as acts that are hall-

marks of these beings’ ontologies in addition to their positive quali-
ties of valor.37 Through his initial sexual violations and later fear of
death, Gilgamesh too is essentially cut off from mainstream society,
and throughout the Standard Version of the poem, he is never as-
similated to it. Rather than a lack of ‘normality,’ however, this as-
pect of Gilgamesh too is part of what the complex hero is all about,
on the one hand alien and unwanted, on the other venerable and
indispensable.

I now would like to address the arrival of Enkidu to the scene.

The primary intention of the gods in creating and sending out Enkidu
is for him to be a match to Gilgamesh’s restlessness,38 and the simi-
larity, equality, and complementarity of the two heroes are time and
again signaled throughout the poem.39 Most noteworthy, however,
is the imagery in Gilgamesh’s dreams that prefigure the coming of
Enkidu. Gilgamesh has two dreams which he relates to his mother
who in turn interprets them for him.40 Both dreams include super-
natural objects that mysteriously appear in the midst of the city of
Uruk, and both are revered by the people of Uruk who surround
and admire them.
The first dream is of greater interest for my purpose. In it, a heavenly
rock, a supernatural meteor has fallen from the sky. Gilgamesh tries

37 Dumézil 1969: 68ff. One could especially compare Seth with the Greek hero

Oedipus who on account of a sexual fault of a cosmic character is relegated, and

even banished, from Thebes where he was king (Oedipus Tyrannos), but is also ulti-
mately desired by his native city for the sake of its safety on account of the vener-
ability of his bodily presence as declared by prophecies (Oedipus at Colonus).
38 ‘They summoned Aruru, the great one: / ‘You, Aruru, created [mankind:]

/ now fashion what Anu has thought of! / Let him be a match for the storm of his
heart, / let them vie with each other, so Uruk may be rested!’’ (SV I 94-98, George
1999: 4-5).
39 ‘The band of shepherds was gathered around him, / talking about him among

themselves: / ‘This fellow – how like in build he is to Gilgamesh, / tall in stature,

proud as a battlement’’ (SV II 38-41, George 1999: 13); ‘He entered the city of
Uruk-the-Town-Square, / and a crowd gathered around. / He came to a halt in
the street of Uruk-the-Town-Square, / all gathered about, the people discussed
him: / ‘In build he is the image of Gilgamesh, / but shorter in stature, and bigger
of bone’’ (OB II P 178-185, George 1999: 15). Overall, this similarity and cosmic
complementarity between the two heroes is directly reminiscent of the Gnostic
Anthropos, or Urmensch myth: ‘This relationship … is understood as a relationship
of copy to original, i.e., the (earthly) man is a copy of the divine pattern, which
likewise often bears the name ‘man’ ’ (Rudolph 1983: 92).
40 SV I 245-272 (first dream), 273-293 (second dream).

janer4-3-atac.pmd 11 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 12 mehmet-ali ataç

to lift it, but it is too heavy for him to handle. In relating this dream
to his mother, Gilgamesh says: ‘The stars of the heavens appeared
above me, / like a rock from the sky one fell down before me. / I
lifted it up, but it weighed too much for me, / I tried to roll it, but
I could not dislodge it.’41 As for the second object mentioned in the
second dream, it is an axe, and this time Gilgamesh is able to lift it,
and set it out at his mother’s feet: ‘[In a street] of Uruk-the-Town-
Square, / an axe was lying with a crowd gathered round. / The
land [of Uruk] was standing around it, / [the country was] gathered
about it. / A crowd was milling about before it, / [the menfolk were]
thronging around it. / I lifted it up and set it down at your feet.’42
Gilgamesh’s mother interprets these objects as manifestations of
a mighty comrade whom Gilgamesh will ‘love as a wife.’43 This image
of a wife has been understood in an early article by Jacobsen as an
indication of a homoerotic connection between Gilgamesh and
Enkidu.44 In fact, these prefigurations of Enkidu introduces at the
outset the paradoxical complementarity of the two heroes. If Gilgamesh
is superior to Enkidu, as most would agree, why is then Gilgamesh
the hyperactive oppressor of Uruk unable to lift the heavenly rock?45
Was not Enkidu, however, a primitive man, a lullû, made of clay?46
Clearly, in these dreams, especially in the first one, Gilgamesh en-
counters a special manifestation of Enkidu, a superior ineffable be-
ing of a heavenly nature which he cannot fully master.
Once again, we may turn to the ancient Egyptian myth of the
Contendings of Horus and Seth in relation to this particular episode in
The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Egyptian myth is preserved on a late twelfth-

41SV I 247-250, George 1999: 10.

42SV I 277-283, ibid., 11.
43 ‘Like a wife you loved it, caressed and embraced it: / a mighty comrade

will come to you, and be his friend’s saviour’ (SV I 267-268, George 1999: 10).
See also SV I 288ff.
44 Jacobsen 1930: 70. The change in Jacobsen’s interpretation of the relation-

ship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the author’s later years is noted by Coo-
per 2002: 74.
45 In fact, as noted by Foster, in the Old Babylonian Version Gilgamesh is

able to move the heavenly rock with the help of the young men of Uruk: ‘I tried
to bear it but it was too heavy for me, / I strained but I could not move it. / While
the land of Uruk was gathered around it, / The young men did it homage, / I
even bent my brow—/ They loaded me. / At last I could raise it and brought it
off to you’ (OB I P 8-14, Foster 1984: 26)
46 ‘The goddess Aruru, she washed her hands, / took a pinch of clay, threw it

down in the wild. / In the wild she created Enkidu, the hero, / offspring of si-
lence, knit strong by Ninurta’ (SV I 101-104, George 1999: 5).

janer4-3-atac.pmd 12 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 13

dynasty fragment and comprises a sexual incident in which Seth tries

to induce Horus to take part in homosexual acts.47 Horus’ response
suggests that the act is a disreputable one that Seth would wish to
keep secret: ‘And the Person of Horus said: Watch out; I shall tell
this!’ 48 Horus describes the act to his mother Isis as: [‘…] Seth [sought]
to have carnal knowledge of me.’49 And she says to him: ‘Beware!
Do not approach him about it! When he mentions it to you another
time, then you shall say to him: It is too painful for me entirely, as
you are heavier than me. My strength shall not match/support your
strength, so you shall say to him.’50 Disregarding the sexual details
of this episode, which one should see as completely irrelevant to any
social or literal understanding of sexuality, what we have here is a
very similar configuration to the initial Gilgamesh-Enkidu dialectics,
with one side too heavy, superior, or unbearable for the other.
Even though the heavier side in the initial prefiguration of Enkidu
is Enkidu himself, it is later Gilgamesh who ultimately choreographs
Enkidu’s participation in sexual activities with the harlot Shamhat,
just as Seth tries to engage Horus in ‘pederastic’ acts.51 Hence, if we
set aside Enkidu’s prefigurations in Gilgamesh’s dreams, it is Gilgamesh
with his exuberant sexual vigor who makes arrangements with the
hunter to lead the harlot to Enkidu, and in this respect he is compa-
rable to Seth who initiates the sexual transactions between himself
and the innocent Horus.52 In both stories, in a way, a series or chain
of catastrophic events are instigated by the plots of a divine or semi-
divine being characterized by an exuberant male sexuality. In Gnos-
ticism, the instigator of such a chain of troubles is Sophia, the female
trickster, just as Seth is the male version in Egypt.53 I would argue

47 The ‘homosexual episode’ is related in a Kahun Papyrus and in The Contendings

of Horus and Seth (P. Chester Beatty I) (Griffiths 1960: 41; Parkinson 1995: 70). ‘And
then the Person of Seth said / to the Person of Horus: ‘How lovely is your back-
side! / Broad (wsñ ?) are [your] thighs [……]’ (Parkinson 1995: 70).
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 ‘Said Gilgamesh to him, to the hunter: / ‘Go, hunter, take with you Shamhat

the harlot! / When the herd comes down to the water-hole, / she should strip off
her raiment to reveal her charms. / He will see her, and will approach her, / his
herd will spurn him, though he grew up amongst it’ (SV I 162-166, George 1999:
7).
52 At the same time, however, research has also shown that a text from the

pyramid of Pepy I presents the ‘homosexual’ advances as reciprocal and names

Horus as the initiator (Griffiths 1980: 15).
53 In relation to the trickster character of the Egyptian god Seth, te Velde quotes

janer4-3-atac.pmd 13 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 14 mehmet-ali ataç

that in Gilgamesh as well we have such a figure, bit of a Seth, bit of

a Sophia, characterized by an excessive sexual involvement, mani-
fest in his practice of the jus primae noctis, his arranging for Enkidu’s
sexual union with Shamhat, and perhaps his methods of oppressing
the people of Uruk.54
A fragmentary passage in the Egyptian New Kingdom ‘Dream
Book’ describes the signs of people for whom the diagnosis is ‘the
god in him is Seth.’55 Symptoms include the fact that such a man ‘is
beloved of women through the greatness […] of his loving them,’
aggression, anti-social behavior, and that ‘he will not distinguish the
married woman from [an unmarried one(?)].’56 In Gnosticism, Sophia
claims to be whore and holy at the same time.57 In its contemporary
context the designation whore indicates an excess of eroticism, not
necessarily the practice of rapid profit from quick sex.58 Sophia, as

Kerényi: ‘Disorder belongs to the totality of life, and the spirit of this disorder is
the trickster. His function in an archaic society, or rather the function of his my-
thology, of the tales told about him, is to add disorder to order and so make a
whole, to render possible, within the fixed bounds of what is permitted, an expe-
rience of what is not permitted’ (Radin with commentaries by K. Kerényi and C.
G. Jung 1956: 185 cited in te Velde 1977: 56). Kerényi further called the trickster:
‘the spirit of disorder, the enemy of boundaries’ (ibid.). On Sophia as the female
trickster in Gnosticism, see Couliano 1992: 86.
54 The ‘abnormal’ erotic phenomena that characterized Greek heroes was

associated by Aristotle with the ‘melancholic syndrome.’ ‘The name of the syn-
drome is amor hereos or, Latinized, heroycus, as its etymology is still in doubt: it might
be derived from the Greek eros, corrupted heros (love), or directly from heros (hero),
for heroes represented, according to ancient tradition, evil aerial influences, simi-
lar to devils’ (Couliano 1987: 19). The medieval perception of this very phenom-
enon finds expression in a passage from St Hildegarde of Bingen’s Causae et curae
also quoted by Couliano: ‘Melancholics have big bones that contain little marrow,
like vipers… . They are excessively libidinous and, like donkeys, overdo it with
women. If they desisted from this depravity, madness would result… . Their love
is hateful, twisted and death-carrying, like the love of voracious wolves… . They
have intercourse with women but they hate them’ (ibid.). One can again remem-
ber from this standpoint Gilgamesh’s characterization as a ÉadÌ-å’a-am¿lu, ‘joy-woe
man’ in the Epic of Gilgamesh (SV I 234). Perhaps, what this rather obscure desig-
nation referes to is also an analogous understanding of melancholy that is both
exuberant and destructive. Finally, one can note how the Sumerian King List also
refers to Gilgamesh as the son of a lillû-demon: ‘divine Gilgames—/ his father
(was) a lillû demon / a high priest of Kullab / reigned 126 years’ (‘Critical Edition
of the Text,’ col. iii 17-20, Jacobsen 1973: 89).
55 Parkinson 1995: 67.
56 Ibid.
57 In one of the Nag Hammadi documents (NHC VI 2, 13, 16-22) she de-

clares: ‘I am the honored / and the despised. / I am the prostitute / and the re-
spectable woman’ (Rudolph 1983: 81).
58 Couliano 1992: 87. According to the cosmology of Gnosticism, which is a

janer4-3-atac.pmd 14 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 15

the last or outermost layer, or aeon, of the hierarchy of the Pleroma

(the ‘fullness’), the realm of the ‘unknown God,’ is characterized by
an uncontrolled ‘passion’ which violates the unity of this heavenly
configuration.59 As a result of ‘inexperience or because of the machi-
nations of an evil character who rapes her,’ she looks down to the lower
world, ‘which she is not supposed to do.’ ‘This action is illegal within
the constituted order of the Pleroma.’60
In the early scholarship on Gnosticism Sophia was often compared
to certain ancient Near Eastern goddess figures such as Ishtar.61 Even
though this idea may have other bases and be considered outdated
today, Sophia’s affinity to Ishtar is unmistakable given how the lat-
ter also ‘looks down’ from Heaven and covets a lower world.62 Fur-
ther affinity between Gilgamesh and Ishtar in the poem can be gleaned
through Gilgamesh’s own connection with the harlots of Uruk who
are presumably cult-followers of Ishtar herself. His sending for a harlot
to ‘initiate’ Enkidu is a clear indication that he has some power over
these women. In addition, a passage in Tablet III seems to depict
Gilgamesh’s mother Ninsun initiating Enkidu to a cult character-
ized by these women, referred to as the ‘votaries of Gilgamesh:’
‘ ‘O mighty Enkidu, you are not sprung from my womb, / but hence-
forth your brood will belong to the votaries of Gilgamesh, / the
priestesses, the hierodules and the women of the temple.’ / She put
the symbols on Enkidu’s neck.’63 In this respect, Gilgamesh’s con-
frontation with the goddess in Tablet VI of the Standard Version in

modified version of the late antique cosmic system, the earth is at the center of the
cosmos, and is surrounded by the air and the eight heavenly spheres. These eight
spheres consist of those of the seven planets and the fixed stars which close them
off. Beyond them is the the realm of the ‘unknown God,’ the Pleroma, with its own
graduated worlds, aeons (Rudolph 1983: 67).
59 Rudolph 1983: 80.
60 Couliano 1992: 87. Ultimately, Sophia is saved and reintegrated into the

Pleroma (ibid., 71). Thus, she has a dual nature, on the one hand exclusively spiri-
tual, as she also takes part in the creation of man through the implanting of the
divine spark, and on the other lower and fallen.
61 Ibid., 83.
62 The opening verses of the Sumerian poem Inanna’s Descent read: ‘From the

‘great heaven’ she has set her mind on the ‘great below’ / From the ‘great heaven’
the goddess has [set] her mind on the ‘great below’ / [From] the ‘great heaven’
Inanna has [set] her mind [on the ‘great below’] / My mistress has abandoned
heaven, abandoned earth, and is descending to the netherworld / Inanna has
abandoned heaven, abandoned earth, and is descending to the netherworld’ (vv.
1-5, Sladek [trans.] 1974: 153).
63 SV III 121-124, George 1999: 27.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 15 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 16 mehmet-ali ataç

which the hero rejects Ishtar’s proposal of marriage is in a way a

confrontation with his own exuberant libido which he now also re-
jects.64
Finally, just as in ancient Egyptian mythology the relationship
between Horus and Seth is one of antagonism followed by recon-
ciliation, Gilgamesh and Enkidu initially contend, perhaps over
possessing the right of the first night at the threshold of the bridal
chamber,65 but are later reconciled through Enkidu’s acceptance of
Gilgamesh’s superiority.66 The importance of such a reconciliation
manifests itself in ancient Egyptian kingship, with the king embody-
ing both Horus and Seth at the same time, and hence ruling over
both Upper and Lower Egypt.67 In Gnosticism, the reconciliation
comes with Sophia regretting her act of ignorance, and being re-
stored to the Pleroma on the one hand, and actively participating in
the salvation mechanism in the lower world on the other.68

64 I submit this idea notwithstanding the masterful interpretation of the epi-

sode by Abusch as Ishtar’s proposing Gilgamesh to make him a denizen of the

Netherworld (Abusch 1986: esp. 149). A comparison in Gnosticism would be the
archontic progenitor who is not only responsible for the creation of man as a copy
of the heavenly man, just as Gilgamesh is indirectly responsible for the creation
and sexualization of Enkidu, but also ‘brings concupiscence to himself right from
the beginning: this is to be identified with his female dimension, of demonic ori-
gin. Accordingly, his salvation is possible only through rejection of this female source’
(Filoramo 1990: 90).
65 ‘For the goddess of weddings was ready the bed, / for Gilgamesh, like a

god, was set up a substitute. / Enkidu with his foot blocked the door of the wed-
ding house, / not allowing Gilgamesh to enter. / They seized each other at the
door of the wedding house, / in the street they joined combat, in the Square of
the Land’ (SV II 109-114, George 1999: 16).
66 ‘After he broke off from the fight, / said Enkidu to him, to Gilgamesh: / ‘As

one unique your mother bore you, / the wild cow of the fold, the goddess Ninsun!
/ High over warriors you are exalted, / to be king of the people Enlil made it your
destiny!’ (OB II P 231-240, George 1999: 16).
67 te Velde 2001: 269; Frankfort 1948: 21. A comparable instance of the merging

or reconciliation of contending opposites of a cosmic character can be found in

Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes, between the two sons of Oedipus, Eteocles and
Polyneices. The latter is the outlawed brother who is now leading an army against
Thebes, whereas the former is the ruling king of Thebes. The analogy to Horus
and Seth respectively could not be clearer. At the end of this conflict, the two
brothers kill one another, which the poet expresses in a way so as to suggest the
merging of one to the other: ‘Shall I send forth a joyous cry, hail to the lord of
good fortune renewed? Or weep the misbegotten pair, born to a fatal destiny, each
numbered now among the slain, each dying in ill fortitude, both truly named [eteo-
klês], both men of many quarrels [polu-neikês]?’ (825-830, E.D.A. Morshead [trans.],
revised by Gregory Nagy).
68 Rudolph 1983: 81; Couliano 1992: 71.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 16 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 17

I now come back to Gilgamesh’s dream images prefiguring the

coming of Enkidu. One unmistakable comparison to these images,
surprisingly never mentioned in scholarly literature, is the phenom-
enon of the fallen angels in the Hebrew tradition, implicitly referred
to by the Book of Genesis, and more extensively found in the Book of
Enoch.69 According to this tradition, sons of God, angels, fall down
from Heavens to the lower world, and there, upon illicit sexual in-
tercourse with mortal women, not only lose their heavenly purity,
but also breed the generation of Giants already addressed above.
In this tradition, the acts committed by these angels on earth clearly
constitute an abomination. This defilement of their angelic nature
makes it impossible for the angels, or ‘Watchers,’ as they are also
called, to return to their heavenly place of origin.70 Matters are a bit
more implicit with Enkidu. First of all, as already indicated, there is
the paradoxical situation of Enkidu’s being both heavenly and earthly
at the same time. Nevertheless, the name Enkidu is always preceded
by the divine determinative dingir in the Standard Babylonian Ver-
sion, d+EN.KI.DÙ, whereas the harlot Shamhat has the ordinary
human determinative, míÉarimtu míàamÉat, used before female human
names. Hence, with Enkidu and Shamhat, we do encounter the exact
same paradigm as that found in the Jewish fallen angel tradition, a
divine man having sexual relations with a mortal woman. Further-
more, just as in the Jewish tradition the fallen angels once defiled
cannot resume their former heavenly state, so Enkidu can no longer
run with the wild animals and slowly moves toward death and the
Netherworld after his initiation into human intercourse. In fact, in
Tablet I of the Standard Version, after his sexual intercourse with
Shamhat, Enkidu is characterized as follows: ‘Enkidu had defiled his
body so pure…’.71 Further, in Tablet VII Enkidu curses Shamhat
with the verses: ‘Because [you made] me [weak, who was undefiled!]
/ Yes, in the wild [you weakened] me, who was undefiled!’72 Clearly,
the notion of miasma attached to this act is as severe a concern in the
Mesopotamian epic as it is in the Jewish Apocryphal context.
One can now ask the question: what then exactly is the role and
nature of Enkidu in the Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh? First

69 Supra 19, 20, 21. It has been suggested that the myth of the fallen angels

was inspired by the phenomenon of shooting stars (Bamberger 1952: 23).

70 Reeves 1992: 68.
71 SV I 99, George 1999: 8.
72 SV VII 130-131, ibid., 58.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 17 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 18 mehmet-ali ataç

of all, let us reiterate that he is likely of divine origin, and possibly

comparable to a fallen angel. There are further clues in the poem
that point to Enkidu’s sacred formation. His name in Sumerian means
Enki created him.73 An association with the Mesopotamian god of
wisdom may hence be thought to reveal the ‘gnostic’ role played by
Enkidu in the epic. Also noteworthy is the monster Humbaba’s over-
bearing address to Enkidu in Tablet V of the Standard Version: ‘Come,
Enkidu, you spawn of a fish, who knew no father, / hatchling of
terrapin and turtle, who sucked no mother’s milk!’74 These bizarre
attributes pronounced by Humbaba in addressing Enkidu may just
be insults, but the selection of specific creatures may again be thought
to point to a connection with Enki, inasmuch as both the fish and
turtle are animals that are part of this god’s iconography and sym-
bolism.75 The poem itself provides additional glosses on the role of
Enkidu in the Epic on two occasions, the first when Gilgamesh’s mother
interprets the dreams in Tablet I, and the second when the ‘officers’
give instructions to Gilgamesh on his journey to the Cedar Forest
with Enkidu in Tablet III. In the first episode, Gilgamesh’s mother
prognosticates: ‘a mighty comrade will come to you, and be his friend’s
savior (muà¿zib ibri),’76 and a bit later: ‘he will be mighty, and often
will save you.’77 As for the second episode, the officers entrust
Gilgamesh to Enkidu’s care on the journey to the Cedar Forest: ‘Who
goes in front will save his comrade, / who knows the road shall [guard]
his friend,’78 and again a bit later: ‘In our assembly [we place the
King in your care:] / you bring him back and replace [him in ours!].’79
What one sees in both of these instances is a clear sense of soteriology
established between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. In fact, Simo Parpola
has suggested that the Akkadian word axe, Õaææinnu, used in refer-
ence to the coming of Enkidu in Gilgamesh’s second dream may be
related to the word assinnu, the savior of Ishtar on her descent to the

73 EN.KI+DÙ (to make, to build), Parpola 1998: 318.

74 SV V 89-90, George 1999: 41.
75 Enki is the supervisor of the apkallus some of whom wear fish-skins. The turtle

is also a symbol of Enki (Black and Green 1997, s.v. ‘turtle’). Moreover, another
symbol of Enki is a Mischwesen, the suhurmaàu, which is partly goat and partly fish
(ibid., s.v. ‘goat-fish’).
76 SV I 268, George 1999: 10.
77 SV I 272, ibid.
78 SV III 218-219, ibid., 28.
79 SV III 226-227, ibid., 29. On Enkidu’s salvificatory role in the Epic, and

his designation as muà¿zib ibri, ‘savior of the friend,’ see Parpola 1998: 319, n. 14.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 18 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 19

Netherworld who is also created as a zikru by Enki/Ea,80 just as Enkidu

is created as the zikru of ‘Man.’81 If, as Parpola argues, the words
assinnu and Õaææinnu are cognate as an instance of intertextuality, we
may have here further support to the idea that Enkidu is a fallen
angel. Just as in Ishtar’s Descent an agent of the upper world has to
enter the Netherworld for the salvation of the goddess, the assinnu, a
savior is also necessary to counteract the co-mingling of the human
with the divine in Gilgamesh’s ontology.
In a way, Gilgamesh’s position as two-thirds divine and one-third
human in the mortal sphere can also be understood as the descent
of a portion of divinity into the mortal human realm.82 Just as an
entire mechanism of substitution and extraction follows Ishtar’s cap-
tivity in the Netherworld, a series of events and connections that
culminate in Gilgamesh’s encounter with Utnapishtim also accom-
pany Gilgamesh’s crisis of sexual hyperactivity and fear of death. In
contemplating the salvific function of Enkidu, Stephanie Dalley draws
a parallel between the latter and Enoch:
What has happened to Babylonian Enkidu, the wild man who was created
by the gods to become the counsellor and equal of Gilgamesh? His part is
taken in the Arabian Nights by ‘Affan, wise man of Jerusalem, who bears no
trace of wild origins, but whose role parallels that of Enkidu in that he travels
with Buluqiya to the main heroic episode, draws the magic circle, and dies as
a result of brave endeavor. Enoch himself shares certain aspects of character
with Enkidu as well as a superficial similarity in name (Hebrew Hanoch, Arabic
Ukhnukh): both come to save mankind from lustful abuse, and Enkidu’s dream
vision of entering the Underworld is comparable to Enoch’s vision.83

One final comparison with another ancient religious tradition might

further help shed light on the obscurity of this ‘angelological’ rela-
tionship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. According to one view, in
Zoroastrian angelology as well, each being has his fravarti in the
heavenly world which assumes the role of his ‘guardian angel.’84 In
the prelude to the millennia of the period of the mixture of light and
darkness, the Zoroastrian supreme deity Ohrmazd offers these an-

80 dEa ina emqi libbiàu ibt§ni zikru / ibnima AßuàunamÌr lúassinnu (‘Ea conceived a

plan in his wise heart / He created AßuàunamÌr, the assinnu’) (Sladek 1974: 258).
81 Parpola 1998: 29. SV I 95-96 can be literally translated as: ‘You Aruru created

‘Man,’ / Now create his ‘zikru’ ’ (atti dAråru tabni LÚ / eninna bini zikiràu).
82 ‘I shall die, and shall I not then be as Enkidu? / Sorrow has entered my

heart!’ (SV IX 3-4).

83 Dalley 1997: 229.
84 Corbin 1978: 29. On other expert theories on the controversial and still not

well-understood nature and role of the fravarti, see Boyce 1975: 117ff.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 19 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 20 mehmet-ali ataç

gels the choice from which their entire destiny originates: ‘they
could either live in the celestial world sheltered from the ravages of
the evil god Ahriman, or else descend to the earth in order to be in-
carnated in material bodies and struggle against the counterpowers
of Ahriman in the material world.’85 They choose the latter track,
and this, according to the aforementioned view, gives the etymology
of their name, fravarti: those who have chosen.86
In the guise of a human being, the angel, on leaving the high
ramparts of heaven, is the terrestrial person himself.87 In pondering
these matters, the Islamicist Henry Corbin asks: ‘Does he not in his
turn need some guardian angel, a celestial reduplication of his be-
ing?’88 Corbin notes that Mazdean philosophy has in fact enter-
tained this question: ‘One solution might be in some way to con-
ceive of the earthly union of Fravarti and soul as one in which the
former remains immune from all Ahrimanian contamination.’89 In
the case of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, I believe that the analogy to this
view is clear in terms of these two heroes’ being one another’s sav-
iors and guardian angels. Less clear, however, is which one of them
corresponds to the being of purity, the ‘man of light,’ who has the
ultimate immunity. Even though one need not establish a one-to-
one correspondence between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Mazdean
angelology, one nevertheless cannot overlook the fact that it is
Gilgamesh who is immune to all the ordeals that he goes through,
whereas Enkidu, perhaps as a result of his initial contamination with
the material world, is not able to do so. In this regard, the paradox
is that even though Enkidu is potentially an angelic being who is in
charge of saving Gilgamesh from the latter’s descent to the material

85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid. Corbin concludes that ‘the question is much too complex for a solu-

tion to be found in a mere philological inventory of existing texts’ (ibid., 30). This
paradox is precisely that of the ‘Redeemed Redeemer’ of Gnosticism where ‘the
redeemer (salvator) and the one to be redeemed (salvandus) belong closely together
and are sometimes hard to keep apart, since the point of view may swiftly change,
from ‘savior’ to ‘saved’ (salvandus) and vice versa. Behind this stands the concep-
tion, fundamental to gnostic soteriology, that both partners, Salvator and Salvandus,
are of one nature, i.e. from parts of the world of light. In the process redemption
they represent two poles which must indeed be kept apart, but through their
consubstantiality they have from the beginning removed or ‘unyoked’ the distinc-
tion between the two which otherwise is usual in the history of religion’ (Rudolph
1983: 122, 131).

janer4-3-atac.pmd 20 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 21

world, he is not in turn saved by any particular angelic agent. In a

way, Enkidu acts as a unilateral sacrifice for the spiritual well-being
of Gilgamesh, as in Tablet VII of the Standard Version the gods in
assembly decide that Enkidu should die rather than Gilgamesh.90
In Sethian Gnosticism, one group of tractates conceptualizes the
means of attaining enlightenment as a horizontal, temporally succes-
sive sequence of descents into this world by a heavenly savior who
reveals the upper world, while another group conceptualizes the
means of attaining enlightenment as vertical ascent through a suc-
cession of mental states in which the Gnostic is assimilated to ever
higher levels of being.91 I would suggest that in The Epic of Gilgamesh
we see parallels of both of these mystical phenomena.
The descent of Enkidu, conveyed especially by the two dreams of
Gilgamesh, instigates a soteriological mechanism through descent,
just as Inanna/Ishtar’s captivity in the Netherworld instigates first
the descent of a savior figure, the assinnu, and later that of a substi-
tute, Dumuzi/Tammuz, to that realm as ransom for the goddess’
escape.92 As for the second mode, the ascent, it is the adept who by
means of his own spiritual faculties elevates himself to higher levels
of consciousness. This Gilgamesh achieves through the alchemical
potential of his ‘typhonic’ nature, the lewd Seth or Sophia within
him so to speak, as well as the companionship he forms with Enkidu
which the gods have intended solely for this transformation. In other
words, Enkidu perhaps acts as a ladder in helping Gilgamesh attain
his higher stages of spiritual development.93
Other agents located on the way-stations of this proposed path of
the ascent of Gilgamesh are the Scorpion Beings that appear in
Tablet IX, and the tavern-keeper Siduri in Tablet X. Tzvi Abusch
notes how in the Old Babylonian Version of this episode the speech

90 This episode is in fact missing from the Standard Babylonian Version, and

is known from a fragmentary prose paraphrase in Hittite which was based on an

older version of the epic: “Enkidu began to speak to Gilgamesh: ‘My brother, this
night what a dream [I dreamed!] The gods Anu, Enlil, Ea and celestial Shamash
[held assembly], and Anu spoke unto Enlil: ‘These, because they slew the Bull of
Heaven, and slew Humbaba that [guarded] the mountains dense-[wooded] with
cedar,’ so said Anu, ‘between these two [let one of them die!]’ And Enlil said: ‘Let
Enkidu die, but let not Gilgamesh die!’” (George 1999: 55).
91 Turner 2001: 80.
92 Inanna’s Descent (Sumerian text), l. 288 ff; Ishtar’s Descent (Akkadian text), l.

126 ff.
93 In the Pyramid Texts, the ladders of both Horus and Seth are used by Osiris

in ascending to heaven (917d-e, Griffiths 1980: 11).

janer4-3-atac.pmd 21 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 22 mehmet-ali ataç

of Siduri, which consists of a number of advices given to Gilgamesh

regarding the carefree manner in which he should live his life, is
characterized by inversion and chiasmos.94 The section especially
highlighted by Abusch is as follows: ‘Let your clothes be clean, / Let
your head be washed, in water may you bathe. / Look down at the
child who holds your hand, / Let a wife ever delight in your lap.’95
What Abusch notes as ‘problematic’ in this series of advices is their
order:
In spite of its apparently straightforward meaning, the passage poses some
difficulty. The quatrain is made up of two couplets, but their arrangement is
odd. Precisely because of the common everyday meaning of the text, we are
struck by the peculiar order of its elements: in the first couplet, wearing of
clean clothes is enjoined prior to washing of head and body; in the second
couplet, relationship with a child is mentioned prior to sexual relations with
a woman. This ordering of elements contradicts the logical or, at least, a more
usual causal or temporal sequence.96

I will not continue rehearsing Abusch’s brilliant observations on

these peculiarities in the text. Suffice it to indicate that Abusch
regards the inversion and chiasmos in this particular episode of the
Old Babylonian Version as purposeful literary devices, designed to
enhance and give particular meaning to this climactic encounter in
which Gilgamesh is urged by the tavern-keeper to re-enter a ‘nor-
mal’ state of living.97 I somehow cannot help thinking, however, that
the tavern-keeper here rather speaks in riddles and equivocations,
perhaps not unlike the three witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth or the
Delphic Oracle. What Siduri is in fact trying to mean here may be
the opposite of what she says, and hence the inversion and chiasmos;
namely that Gilgamesh should not be caught up with the cares and
concerns of an ordinary man, and should rather keep at his path of
ascent.98 This idea, if true, would also further invert the whole rheto-

94Abusch 1993: 2.
95Ibid.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid., 7.
98 Comparable is Bilgames’ interrogating his servant Enkidu about the condi-

tions of the Netherworld in the Sumerian poem Bilgames and the Netherworld (vv.
255ff). Bilgames repeatedly asks his servant whom he has summoned from the dead
how the man with ‘n’ sons fare in the Netherworld, the number ranging from one
through seven. The more sons a man has, the better his condition is in the
Netherworld. For instance, while the man with one son bitterly laments, the one
with seven is seated on a throne among the minor gods, not unlike what Bilgames
himself is destined to attain after his own death (The Death of Bilgames M 120 ff).
The Sumerian mind cannot have been so naïve to think that the more children

janer4-3-atac.pmd 22 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 23

ric of ‘normality’ created by Jacobsen and his followers in the inter-

pretation of the epic.
Indeed, the nature of the advice Gilgamesh receives at these way
stations may be further clarified by what Utnapishtim tells the hero
very explicitly at their initial encounter in Tablet X of the Standard
Version: ‘Why, Gilgamesh, do you ever [chase] sorrow? / You, who
are [built] from gods’ flesh and human, / whom the [gods did
fashion] like your father and mother!’ In a way, what the survivor
of the Flood here underlines is the fact that Gilgamesh is already
prepared, or even pre-destined, for a successful, if post-mortem, as-
cent. Thus, as Coomaraswamy puts it in relation to Vedic sources,
‘one who is forearmed by initiation and sacrifice may be called
‘undying’ (amrta) ‘even though he has no hope of never dying at all,’
a hope that he could not have, beacause ‘no one becomes immortal
in the flesh’.’99
What The Epic of Gilgamesh may hence be doing is suppressing within
a native Mesopotamian idiom all overt clues that point to notions of
immortality and ascent in the visible plot of the poem, and instead
conveying these notions through codes for the initiated reader to
follow. This is somewhat in contrast to the ancient Egyptian tradi-
tion in which, even though codes still exist, the king’s ascent to
immortality is explicitly outlined by the Pyramid Texts. This differ-

one has generated in this life, the better one’s destiny will be in the afterlife. After
all, we know that Bilgames himself has not fathered any sons, and yet he is des-
tined to be among the junior deities. One should rather conceive of this question-
and-answer passage in the poem as a literary riddle which perhaps inverts its own
literal meaning.
Words of advice with the message ‘don’t worry be happy’ or ‘carpe diem’ ut-
tered by both Siduri and Utnapishtim to Gilgamesh can also be compared to maxims
of a similar tone in classical Persian poetry as can be encountered in the works of
poets such as Omar Khayyam, Rumi, and Hafiz. What is more, within the Her-
metic milieu of the Renaissance, such maxims also found their way into the works
of Marsilio Ficino: ‘All things are directed from goodness to goodness. Rejoice in
the present; set no value on property, seek no honors. Avoid excess; avoid activity.
Rejoice in the present’ (Ficino, Letters, vol. I, p. 32 [n.1]). Similarly, in the same
episode quoted above from the Old Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, Siduri also
says: ‘But you, Gilgamesh, let your belly be full, / enjoy yourself always by day
and by night! / Make merry each day, / dance and play day and night!’ (Si iii 6-
9, George 1999: 124). Again along similar lines is the advice of Enki/Ea to
Utnapishtim before the Flood hits the world in the Standard Babylonian Version:
‘O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu, / demolish the house, and build a boat!
/ Abandon wealth, and seek survival! / Spurn property, save life!’ (SV XI 23-26,
George 1999: 89).
99 Coomaraswamy 1942: 48, n. 35.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 23 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 24 mehmet-ali ataç

ence has often been understood as one reflecting the difference in

religious mentality between ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt:
whereas the former is pessimistic about promises of afterlife, the
latter is characterized by an assurance thereof.100 This perspective is
misleading, as the difference may be one in modes of presentation
rather than in elite religious consciousness.
I believe that Gilgamesh’s ability to reach the immortal Utna-
pishtim in Tablets X and XI of the Standard Babylonian Version is
already an indication of a promise of successful ascent, even though
this ascent is presented more as a descent to the Netherworld. In-
deed, the beginning of the Standard Babylonian Version of the Epic
is already clear about Gilgamesh’s mystical capacity: ‘He saw what
was secret, discovered what was hidden, / he brought a tale of
before the Deluge. / He came a far road, was weary, found peace,
/ and set all his labours on a tablet of stone.’101 We see a clear
parallel in ancient Egypt as well. The ultimate destiny of the Egyp-
tian king is to ‘go forth to the sky among the Imperishable Ones and
to go around the sky like the sun.’102 The Pyramid Texts mention the
sun, the sky-goddess Nut, Osiris, Horus and even Geb, the earth
god, as being in that region of the sky.103 The ‘Imperishable Ones’
are the circumpolar stars, the king’s brethren, about 26 to 30 de-
grees above the northern horizon in the Giza pyramid area. These
stars revolve around the celestial north pole and neither rise nor
set.104
Utnapishtim, the forefather of Gilgamesh, who found eternal life,
and who now leads an unchanging and steadfast life far away from
the earth is comparable to these stars. Gilgamesh is able to reach
and speak face to face with this immortal man. His return to Uruk
at the end of Tablet XI after his failure to find immortality in the
flesh may be thought of as analogous to this circular movement that
characterizes the Imperishable Ones, rather than an anti-climax to
the Epic. Moreover, there are significant clues as to the solar nature
of Gilgamesh’s journey, since he enters the Netherworld whence the
sun comes out everyday,105 guarded by the Scorpion Beings, them-

100 See for instance, Frankfort 1948: 5.

101 SV I 7-10, George 1999: 1.
102 Lehner 1997: 28.
103 Ibid.
104 Ibid.
105 SV IX 38-9.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 24 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 25

selves solar creatures;106 follows the path of the Sun in the Nether-
world for twelve double hours until he reaches light;107 and finally
crosses a cosmic body of water that culminates in a ‘blessed’ land of
immortality.108 One need only to hearken to one of the spells from
the Pyramid Texts to see the parallel:
My father ascends to the sky among the gods who are in the sky; he stands at
the Great Polar Region and learns the speech of the sun-folk.
Re finds you on the banks of the sky as a waterway-traveller who is in the
sky: ‘Welcome, O you who have arrived,’ say the gods. He sets his hand on
you at the zenith(?) of the sky; ‘Welcome, O you who know your place,’ say
the Ennead.
Be pure; occupy your seat in the Bark of Re, row over the sky and mount
up to the distant ones; row with the Imperishable Stars, navigate with the
Unwearying Stars, receive the freight of the Night-bark.
May you become a spirit which is in the Netherworld, may you live of that
pleasant life whereof the Lord of the Horizon lives, (even) the Great Flood
which is in the sky. ‘Who has done this for you?’ Say the gods who serve
Atum. ‘It is one greater than I who has done this for me, (even) he who is
north of the waterway, the end of the sky. He has heard my appeal, he has
done what I said, and I have removed myself from the Tribunal of the Mag-
istrates of the Abyss at the head of the Great Ennead.109
In conclusion, I would like to stress that there is much more to The
Epic of Gilgamesh than a literal reading of the plot in terms of human
relationships, sexuality as a social construct, psychological queries
ranging from transition to a mature adult life to homoeroticism, and
even the fear and inevitability of death. Underlying the plot and the
individual episodes of the poem is a complex representational struc-
ture that reveals a system of soteriology, in essence very similar to
that found in ancient Egypt, one that is centered on the king and the
stages of his safe ascent to the circumpolar stars. Part of what both
the Old and the Standard Babylonian Versions may have done is
construct this configuration of soteriology and ascent by deploying
and combining in an erudite manner the independent Gilgamesh
stories that go back to remoter antiquity. Similar structures also
characterize in various forms and guises the later esoteric traditions
of the Near East, systems such as Gnosticism or the biblical Apoc-
rypha that have not made their way to mainstream religious texts.
The utilization of aspects of these systems in understanding the

106 Wiggermann 1992: 148.

107 SV IX 138-170.
108 SV X 169 ff.
109 Pyramid Texts, Utterance 513 (= Faulkner 1969: 189).

janer4-3-atac.pmd 25 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 26 mehmet-ali ataç

codes of ancient literary works such as The Epic of Gilgamesh would

then not be a forced endeavor, since similarities are too obvious to
disregard. Comparative analyses of the ancient and these later
sources reveal not only the continuum of secret doctrines that per-
tain to the spiritual development and ascent of the adept, often
visualized in the ancient world under the guise of kingship, but also
the earliest traceable origin of these ideas.

References

Abusch, Tzvi. 1986. ‘Ishtar’s Proposal and Gilgamesh’s Refusal: An Interpreta-

tion of The Gilgamesh Epic, Tablet 6, Lines 1-79.’ History of Religions 26, Number
2: 143-187.
———, 1993. ‘Gilgamesh’s Request and Siduri’s Denial.’ In Mark E. Cohen et
al. (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo.
Bethesda, MD: CDL Press: 1-14.
Black, Jeremy and Anthony Green. 1997. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Mesopotamia.
An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds. 1999. A Concise Dictio-
nary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Black, Matthew, trans.. 1985 The Book of Enoch or I Enoch. A New English Edition.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Boyce, Mary. 1975. A History of Zoroastrianism. Leiden/Köln: E.J. Brill.
Cagni, Luigi. 1977. The Poem of Erra. Sources and Monographs from the Ancient
Near East. Volume 1. Fascicle 3. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1942. Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian
Theory of Government. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
Cooper, Jerrold S. 2002. ‘Buddies in Babylonia: Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and Meso-
potamian Homosexuality.’ In Tzvi Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places.
Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns: 73-85.
Corbin, Henry. 1978. The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism. Translated by Nancy Pearson.
Boulder, CO: Shambala.
Couliano, Ioan P. 1987. Eros and Magic in the Renaissance. Translated by Margaret
Cook. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
1992. The Tree of Gnosis. Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Modern Nihilism.
Translated into English by H. S. Wiesner and the author. San Francisco, CA:
Harper Collins.
Dalley, Stephanie. 1997. ‘from ‘Gilgamesh in the Arabian Nights’ (1991).’ In John
Maier (ed.), Gilgamesh. A Reader. Wauconda, IN: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers:
214-235.
———, 2000. Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Dumézil, Georges. 1969. The Destiny of the Warrior. Translated by Alf Hiltebeitel.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Faulkner, R. O., trans. 1969. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Ficino, Marsilio. 1975-1995. The Selected Letters of Marsilio Ficino. In 5 Volumes. Trans-

janer4-3-atac.pmd 26 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM

 ‘angelology’ in the epic of gilgamesh 27

lated from Latin by members of the Language Department of the School of

Economic Science. London: Shepheard-Walwyn.
Filoramo, Giovanni. 1990. A History of Gnosticism. Translated by Anthony Alcock.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Foster, Benjamin. 1984. ‘Gilgamesh: Sex, Love and the Ascent of Knowledge.’ In
John H. Marks and Robert M. Good, Love and Death in the Ancient Near East.
Essays in Honour of Marvin H. Pope. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing
Company: 21-42.
Frankfort, Henri. 1948. Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion
as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press.
George, Andrew, trans. 1999. The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Babylonian Epic Poem and
Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. London: Penguin Books.
Griffiths, J. Gwyn. 1960. The Conflict of Horus and Seth. From Egyptian and Classical
Sources. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
———, 1980. The Origins of Osiris and His Cult. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1930. ‘How did Gilgameà Oppress Uruk?’ Acta Orientalia 8:
62-80.
———, 1973. The Sumerian King List. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
———, 1976. The Treasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Jung, Rabbi Leo. 1974. Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan Literature.
New York: Ktav Publishing House.
Lehner, Mark. 1997 The Complete Pyramids. London and New York: Thames &
Hudson.
Parkinson, R. B. 1995. ‘‘Homosexual’ Desire and Middle Kingdom Literature.’
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 81: 57-76.
Reeves, John C. 1992. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony. Studies in the Book of
Giants Traditions. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press.
Reiner, Erica. 1961. ‘The Etiological Myth of the Seven Sages.’ Orientalia 30: 1-
11.
Rudolph, Kurt. 1983. Gnosis. The Nature and History of Gnosticism. San Francisco,
CA: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Sladek, William R. 1974. Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld. Ann Arbor, MI: Uni-
versity Microfilms.
te Velde, H. 1977. Seth, God of Confusion. A Study of his Role in Egyptian Mythology and
Religion. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
———, 2001. ‘Seth’ in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1997. ‘Summary: The Evolution of The Gilgamesh Epic.’ In John
Maier (ed.), Gilgamesh. A Reader. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers:
40-49.
Tobin, Vincent Arieh. 1993. ‘Divine Conflict in the Pyramid Texts.’ Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 30: 93-110.
Turner, John D. 2001. Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition. Bibliothèque Copte
de Nag Hammadi. Section ‘Études’ 6. Québec: Les Presses de l’université Laval;
Louvain-Paris: Éditions Peeters.

janer4-3-atac.pmd 27 11/15/2004, 9:38 AM