Isn't this what is at the heart of everyone's objection to Gilgamesh?
I am certainly not objecting to engaging in a discussion on the Epic of Gilgamesh. I have read the "poem" numerous times by different translators and am quite familiar with its content. In fact, I love the Epic.
My point is, as I have stated upstream, that the "poem" was never a poem as such, but is a narrative cobbled together from a number of disconnected parts - broken cuneiform tablets. It is far older than 1800BC and Babylon. It may have originally been only an oral narrative. It is also obvious that there are numerous correspondences with the Old Testament and even to the New.
Furthermore, one cannot cherry pick information from a document, or reframe it, to suit one's theory.
My contention is that the Epic is a mystical revelation which has been handed down over centuries. It seeks to explain the Meaning of Life and Death, and how to ascend to a higher plane. Everything in the Epic occurs within the human body. It is the forerunner of most ancient spiritual practices. It is not to be read as an historical or quasi-historical document. The events in the Epic never occurred in real life.
A discussion on the ancient origins of Baalbek will not profit by linking with the Epic as a source document for the purposes of location. However, the practices, which may have been carried on at the ancient Temple of Baal, could be incorporated into such a discussion.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-18 23:15 by Barbelo.