> "And does it really need to be retranslated? "
> Slightly miffed that you haven't read any of my
> stuff here,
I've read quite a bit of your stuff and what I said was meant to be dry humor having nothing to do with you, but rather the absurdity of ancient values compared to modern sensibilities.
> even if I don't expect you to buy the
> book which gives the full re-translation of this,
> one of our most ancient texts. The answer to your
> question is yes. There are many points I could add
> to this, but don't have the time. One point is
> that the translation uses the term "you should
> not" approximately 70 times in the first 70 or so
> lines. There is no such pattern in the original
> transliteration - this you can check without even
> having to understand the symbols _ so that's
> highly questionable. Another point to be made is
> that, in the Sumerian King List, Shuruppak is
> given as a city. In this text, the name morphs
> into that of the wise father with the usual
> mysoginistic and frankly weird advice to his son.
It seems "weird" to us today, hence my attempt at dry humor, but this is the world they lived in. There are many passages in the Bible, for example, with similar type pearls of wisdom based on value sets that seem completely alien to us in the modern world. They seriously had to keep telling people not to screw animals. From the Bible written 2,000yrs after the Instructions of Shuruppag:
Exodus 22:19: Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.
Leviticus 18:23: Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
Leviticus 20:15-16: If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Deuteronomy 27:21: Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.
After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah Lot's daughters thought the reasonable thing to do was get their father drunk and have sex with him so they could repopulate the world.
"Weird" to us, but perfectly reasonable to ancient peoples.
> Thus begins my translation, The Story of Sukurru.
> It may not be a 100 percent perfect reproduction
> of the original, but it's certainly a damn sight
> closer than the academic version. You'll find a
> reference to the flood and to Shuruppak/Sukurru at
> around line 31 of the King List.
By day, the deluge. That distant day, the deluge. By night, the deluge. That endless night, the
deluge. In that age, the deluge. That bygone age, the deluge.
In those days, in those far remote days, in those nights, in those faraway nights, in those years, in those far remote years, at that time the wise one who knew how to speak in elaborate words lived in the Land; Curuppag, the wise one, who knew how to speak with elaborate words lived in the Land.
> "they just haven't been found yet." Don't hold
> your breath!
I was reffering specifically to an older version of the Epic of Gilgamesh and Eridu Genesis prior to 2100BC.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07-Oct-17 03:17 by Thanos5150.