Mesopotamian Wisdom

Abstract

This essay attempts to give the reader an up to date review of the corpus referred to by scholars as Mesopotamian wisdom. The following types of wisdom are presented and discussed: proverbs and instructions; vanity literature; pious-sufferer compositions; perceptive hymns; riddles; fables; disputation poems; and folktales. For each type, a full list of currently known texts is presented, along with a review of its main characteristics and its relation to the concept of wisdom.

Full text

The Wiley Blackwell Companion
to Wisdom Literature
Edited by
Samuel L. Adams
and
Matthew Goff

This edition first published 2020
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available
at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Samuel L. Adams and Matthew Goff to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in
this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit
us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that
appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no
representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and
specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written
sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product
is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that
the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may
provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not
engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable
for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware
that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written
and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other
commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data
Names: Adams, Samuel L., editor. | Goff, Matthew, editor.
Title: The Wiley Blackwell companion to wisdom literature / edited by Samuel L.
Adams, and Matthew Goff.
Description: Hoboken, NJ, USA : Wiley, 2020. | Series: The Wiley Blackwell
companions to religion | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019031710 (print) | LCCN 2019031711 (ebook) | ISBN
9781119158233 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119158257 (adobe pdf) | ISBN
9781119158271 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Wisdom literature–Criticism, interpretation, etc.
Classification: LCC BS1455 .W525 2020 (print) | LCC BS1455 (ebook) | DDC
223/.06–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019031710
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019031711
Cover Design: Wiley
Cover Image: © Swedish Marble/Shutterstock
Set in 10.5/13pt Photina by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents
Notes on Contributors viii
Acknowledgments xiii
Abbreviations xiv
Editors’ Introduction 1
Samuel L. Adams and Matthew Goff
I. Texts 11
1 Proverbs 13
Jacqueline Vayntrub
2 Job 30
Davis Hankins
3 Ecclesiastes 49
Jennie Grillo
4 Psalms 67
William P. Brown
5 Sirach/Ben Sira 87
Bradley C. Gregory
6 Wisdom ofSolomon 104
Randall D. Chesnutt

vi cont ents
7 Wisdom Texts FromtheDead SeaScrolls 122
Elisa Uusimäki
8 Proverbs, Job, andEcclesiastes intheSeptuagint (LXX) 139
Patrick Pouchelle
II. Themes 157
9 The Figure ofSolomon 159
Blake A. Jurgens
10 Female Imagery inWisdom Literature 177
Tova Forti
11 Scribes andPedagogy inAncient Israel andSecond Temple
Judaism 195
Matthew Goff
12 God inWisdom Literature 213
James L. Crenshaw
13 Jewish Wisdom intheContest ofHellenistic Philosophy and
Culture: Pseudo‐Phocylides andPhilo ofAlexandria 229
Michael Cover
14 Wisdom andApocalypticism 248
Jason M. Zurawski
15 The Orality ofWisdom Literature 267
Timothy J. Sandoval
III. Antecedents 287
16 Ahiqar and Other Legendary Sages 289
Seth A. Bledsoe
17 Wisdom Literature inEgypt 310
Samuel L. Adams
18 Mesopotamian Wisdom 328
Nili Samet
IV. Reception 349
19 Wisdom intheNew Testament 351
Benjamin Wold

cont ents vii
20 Wisdom andtheRabbis 368
Ari Mermelstein
21 The Wisdom Tradition inEarly Christianity through Late
Antiquity 389
Carson Bay
22 Jewish Sapiential Traditions intheNag Hammadi Library 412
Dylan M. Burns
23 The Sapiential Books intheLatin Middle Ages 429
Gilbert Dahan
24 The Reception History ofJob 447
Mark Larrimore
25 Wisdom fromAfrican Proverbs Meets Wisdom fromtheBook
ofProverbs 464
Madipoane Masenya (Ngwan’a Mphahlele)
26 Cinematic Wisdom: Film and Biblical Wisdom Literature 479
Matthew S. Rindge
Index 496

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Wisdom Literature, First Edition.
Edited by Samuel L. Adams and Matthew Goff.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
CHAPTER 18
Mesopotamian Wisdom
Nili Samet
Introduction
The definition and identification of wisdom literature in ancient Mesopotamia is a
complicated issue. Scholars have described wisdom as philosophical (Lambert
1960) or existential (Alster 2005) literature, but these definitions do not encom-
pass all the different texts grouped under this label. In his magnum opus on
Mesopotamian wisdom, Lambert (1960, 1) made it clear that wisdom is “a misno-
mer applied to Babylonian literature,” that is, the ancient Mesopotamians did not
recognize wisdom as a separate literary category. In the absence of a native basis for
the identification of wisdom, Lambert and some of his successors borrowed biblical
criteria to define this corpus. Thus compositions which seem to parallel, in one way
or another, the biblical books of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes were considered
wisdom.
Acknowledging the arbitrary nature of this dependence on a foreign criterion
and the extremely heterogeneous character of the texts involved, later scholars
doubted the usefulness of the label “wisdom” for understanding Mesopotamian
literature (Buccellati 1981; Vanstiphout 1999; Roest and Vanstiphout 1999;
Veldhuis 2003; George 2007). A contrary trend was presented in a recent study by
Yoram Cohen (2013, 3–77), who attempted to reclaim the legitimacy of
Mesopotamian wisdom as a genre. Among other arguments, Cohen pointed to the
scribal habit of assembling different wisdom texts on the same compilation tablet or
in the same section of a literary catalogue. One catalogue even refers to different

meso potam ian wi sdom 329
wisdom compositions as an organic literary series, reportedly created by an
esteemed sage named Sidu.
The evidence gathered by Cohen shows that Mesopotamian scribes intuitively
detected some kind of connection between several wisdom texts, but it is still far
from supplying a well‐established framework for defining wisdom as a native genre,
that is, a genre recognized by the ancients themselves. The current review takes
wisdom to be a critical genre, created by modern scholarship for the sake of con-
venience.1 In an attempt to give the reader the broadest possible picture of what is
referred to as Mesopotamian wisdom, this review adopts an inclusive approach: the
large majority of texts classified as wisdom at some point are presented here.2 The
issue of the justification of grouping these texts together remains open.
Wisdom was composed and transmitted continuously during Mesopotamian
history. However, two historical periods stand out as the most fertile sources of
wisdom compositions: the Old Babylonian period, from the twentieth to the
seventeenth century BCE, with its rich yield of Sumerian wisdom; and the Kassite
period, from the sixteenth to the twelfth century BCE, which provides us with many
important Akkadian wisdom texts.
Proverbs, Instructions, andAdmonitions
Also known as practical wisdom, this type is considered the most basic and “pure”
form of wisdom literature in the ancient Near East in general, and Mesopotamia in
particular. It consists of sayings of different types, which are focused on everyday
life of ancient Mesopotamia and show little interest in historical and political events,
cult, or theology.3 Practical wisdom includes two main sub‐types: proverbs and
instructions.
Proverb Collections
Known already from the third millennium BCE, proverb collections were a central
feature of the Sumerian scribal tradition. More than 30 different proverb collec-
tions are known to us (Alster 1997, 2005, 393–403; 2007), mostly in copies from
the Old Babylonian period (2000–1600 BCE). These collections may be considered
“canonical” in that they played a key role in the school curriculum, each following
a more or less fixed order of sayings. In addition, numerous small tablets inscribed
with a single proverb or a few proverbs are known to us. These were used in the
initial stages of scribal training, serving as material for beginners’ exercises (Alster
2007, 2–3; Veldhuis 2000a, 2000b).
Proverb collections, like other Sumerian belles‐lettres flourished during the first
half of the second millennium (Alster 1997, 2007). Scribes of later generations

330 antecedents
who wrote in Akkadian seem not to have shared the Sumerian enthusiasm for this
genre: the large majority of proverb collections were lost with the demise of the
Sumerian literary tradition. However, several bilingual Sumerian‐Akkadian collec-
tions (Lambert 1960, 222–275; Alster 2007 29–30 et passim; Frahm 2010), as
well as a few fragments of unilingual Akkadian collections (Lambert 1960, 213–278;
George and Al‐Rawi 1998, 203–206),4 demonstrate that the genre was not entirely
forgotten until late in the first millennium BCE (Frahm 2010).
Proverb collections have a mixed content. Aside from proverbial sayings per se,
which form the bulk of the collections, they also include other wisdom materials
such as instructions, fables, parables, riddles, jokes, among other types of writing.
In addition, the collections contain short quotes of different literary genres, such as
laments and hymns, and even technical expressions and formulas relating to spe-
cific professional fields (Lambert 1960, 222; Alster 1997 xvi; 2005, 391–392;
Taylor 2005; Alster and Oshima 2006; Gabbay 2011). The latter may reflect the
function of proverb collections in scribal education (Veldhuis 2000b; Taylor 2005).5
The main focus of the proverbs is the everyday life of urban Sumer. Often
characterized by humor and wit, they give us a glimpse into the lives of farmers,
craftsmen, scribes, priests, slaves, and other typical figures of Sumerian society.
The social worldview of the proverbs is often described by scholars as conserva-
tive and bourgeois (Alster 1997, xxiv–xxvii). In essence however, this characteri-
zation is better applicable to didactic instructions (see below). Unlike instructions,
proverbs are often subversive in their tone and message, representing a popular,
humoristic, and sometimes even disrespectful viewpoint on social norms and
institutions.
Quoted proverbs. Popular proverbs sometimes found their way into literary
and non‐literary sources (Lambert 1960, 280–282; Marzal 1976; Hallo 1990). Of
special interest are those that are cited in letters (Albright 1943; Moran 1992, 144:
6; Cohen 2013, 213–231), because they are likely to reflect living popular maxims.
The identification of the relevant materials as proverbial may be based on style and
context or parallels occurring in wisdom collections. In several cases we are lucky
enough to find an explicit statement regarding the proverbial nature of the relevant
verse–as in the following quote from a letter found in Ugarit: “A proverb of the men
of Hatti says: ‘A certain man was held in prison for five years, and when they said
“In the morning they will release you,” then he choked (himself)’” (Hallo 1990,
209; compare 1 Sam. 24:14).6
Instruction Collections
Whereas proverbs tend to speak of their protagonists in the third person, instruc-
tions address their young recipient in the second person. Characterized by a
moraltone and conservative message, the instructions typically teach wise, decent

meso potam ian wi sdom 331
behavior and good manners. They promote personal qualities such as cautious and
thoughtful behavior, self‐restraint, diligence, and modesty, and praise values such
as matrimonial and social peace. As for the religious aspect, some instruction
collections pay great attention to religious and cultic duties (see the Instructions of
Ur‐Ninurta and Akkadian Counsels of Wisdom below). Others more closely resemble
proverb collections in their relative lack of interest in religious issues. In some cases,
the religious focus has been shown to result from a secondary addition to the text
(Samet, forthcoming).
Mesopotamian instruction collections are normally framed as the teaching of a
father to his son, a pattern that dominates wisdom collections throughout the
Fertile Crescent. Interestingly, this framing is absent from proverb collections,
perhaps due to their diverse messages, which are much less didactically oriented.
The following Mesopotamian instruction collections are known to us:
Instructions of Shuruppak: Documented already in the twenty‐fifth century
BCE, this is probably the oldest piece of wisdom known in world literature.7 It
contains didactic advice and proverbs presented as the teachings of a “man of
Shuruppak” to his son (Alster 2005, 31–220; Samet, forthcoming). In most
versions, this man of Shuruppak is presented as the father of the famous
Mesopotamian flood survivor, Ziusudra (= Ut‐napishti). This setting lends the
Instructions the prestige of an antediluvian legacy and the authority of a royal
command to a (crown) prince.
Shuruppak’s instructions were popular among Mesopotamian scribes. Three dif-
ferent versions have been preserved: a Sumerian archaic version from the mid‐third
millennium BCE; a Sumerian classic version from the beginning of the second
millennium BCE; and an Akkadian translation currently known from the end of the
second millennium BCE, which in turn gave rise to a Hurrian translation. The con-
tent of the Instructions of Shuruppak is typical of instruction collections: they include
didactic advice regarding proper social behavior and business management, admo-
nitions against criminal activity, popular proverbs, and literary clichés from various
Sumerian genres.
The Instructions of Ur‐Ninurta: A mixed-genre Sumerian piece8 that combines a
royal hymn dedicated to King Ur‐Ninurta of Isin (1859–1832 BCE) with wisdom
instructions (Alster 2005, 221–240). The text begins with a hymnic prologue that
elaborates on the election of the king by the gods in primeval times, followed by two
wisdom sections. The first is labeled as “the instructions of the god” and the second
“the instructions of the farmer.”9 The “instructions of the god” (ll. 19–37) recom-
mend proper religious and moral behavior by contrasting the reward of the god‐
fearing with the punishment of the disobedient. The “instructions of the farmer”
include agricultural advice.10 It seems to be implied that these instructions are given
by the king to his subjects, although the connection is somewhat vague. The
instructions conclude with a section advising the king’s subjects as to how to treat
him respectfully.

332 antecedents
Following its composition by Ur‐Ninurta’s courtiers, the text seems to have failed
to gain scribal popularity. Its few surviving duplicates show formal and thematic
peculiarities that indicate their limited distribution in standard Sumerian schools
(Alster 2005, 224). Ur‐Ninurta’s instructions are one of several wisdom texts tra-
ditionally inscribed on compilation tablets next to other wisdom materials.11
Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian set of agronomic instructions presented as
an old farmer’s teaching to his son. The father describes the annual agricultural
cycle, from preparing the irrigation system to harvesting and processing the grain
(Civil 1994). The subscript ascribes the text to the farmer‐god Ninurta. Judging by
its content and style, the text could have been classified as a technical manual for
professional purposes. However, there are signs that it was authored during the
Old Babylonian period (Civil 1994, 4), when Sumerian was no longer used as a
spoken language. In this context, a Sumerian‐written manual would not have
been useful for real farmers. It may therefore be understood as a pedagogic text
designed, at least secondarily, for the instruction of Sumerian in Old Babylonian
schools.12 This setting, taken together with the father‐to‐son frame, the didactic
tone and sporadic inclusion of moralistic concerns, make this text related to
wisdom.
Sumerian Counsels of Wisdom: A fragmentary Sumerian text whose scope, integ-
rity, and content are only partially discernible. In its current state of preservation,
it begins with a description of a king who builds a palace, followed after a gap by a
series of religious and moral instructions. It is unclear whether the text was part of
the Instructions of Ur‐Ninurta or an independent piece. Nor is it clear whether in its
current state it should be read as a single composition. It may constitute two
unrelated texts (Alster 2005, 228–264).
Akkadian Counsels of Wisdom: A collection of wisdom instructions partially
reconstructed on the basis of seven manuscripts from the first millennium BCE
(Lambert 1960, 96–107; von Soden and Römer 1990, 163–68). The text may
have been composed prior to the date of the currently known copies, but in the
absence of solid data the time of composition remains a matter of scholarly
conjecture.13
Rather than the traditional short, single‐versed instructions, this text consists of
lengthier passages, referring to their addressee in the second person and including
proverbial epigrams that stress their message. Each passage is dedicated to a differ-
ent typical wisdom concern: avoidance of bad companions; proper speech (focused
on in two different passages); avoidance of involving oneself in quarrels; avoidance
of intercourse with bad women (slave girls and prostitutes); an admonition for a
vizier against acting disloyally toward his master; fulfilling religious duties such as
daily prayers and sacrifice; and loyalty in friendship. We are ignorant as to the origi-
nal content of the currently broken opening lines of the Counsels. Judging from the
appeal “my son” preserved at the beginning of line 81, the lost prologue might have
contained a typical father‐to‐son formula.14

meso potam ian wi sdom 333
Advice to a Prince: An enigmatic Akkadian piece currently known in two copies
(Lambert 1960, 110–111).15 The text consists of a series of conditional clauses
referring to the king’s proper treatment of his subjects. Each clause presents a desir-
able or an undesirable deed alongside its consequence. For instance: “He does not
listen to his counselors: his land will rebel against him”; “he takes the silver of the
people of Babylon, adding it to his own property … Marduk, the lord of heaven and
earth, will set his enemies upon him.”
While the moral content and didactic tone accord with other instruction collec-
tions, the casuistic formulation– reminiscent of omen literature – distinguishes
this text from the wisdom tradition. Similarly uncharacteristic of wisdom is the
text’s apparent particularistic agenda: many of the admonitions, which are formu-
lated as conditional statements, warn the king against violating the rights of three
specific sacred cities in Babylonia: Nippur, Sippar, and Babylon. The problems of
genre, contextualization, and interpretation are still debated; scholars suggested
mantic or prophetic literature as a possible context. Hurowitz (1998) has drawn
attention to the fact that the text consists of 60 lines, the symbolic number of the
god of wisdom, Ea. He thus posits that the text was considered Ea’s divine message
to the king.
Vanity Literature
Next to traditional, “positive” wisdom, Mesopotamian sapiential literature also
attests a critical, “negative” wisdom (Cohen 2013, 14–15). The latter type is
referred to here as “vanity literature”. Vanity texts focus, in one way or another, on
the futility of life. They typically argue, not unlike Ecclesiastes, that life is fleeting,
human deeds and achievements are worthless, and that the only valuable activity
is enjoying life to the full as long as possible. In some cases, this attitude also involves
a direct negation of traditional values and institutions.16 Aside from sharing the
vanity theme, the texts below differ from one another in origin, content, and tone.17
Yet they sometimes share common phraseology (Samet 2010) and some appear
within or next to various wisdom pieces (Samet 2015).18
Nothing is of Value (nigˆ2‐nam nu‐kal): A short Sumerian essay on the futility of life
that opens with the incipit line nigˆ2‐nam‐nu‐kal, literally: “Everything is worth-
less.” The text elaborates on the uselessness of property, wisdom, and life in general,
and recommends enjoying the good life of the moment. Nothing is of Value is cur-
rently known in 11 manuscripts dated to the Old Babylonian period. These repre-
sent different versions of the text (Alster 2005, 266–287). Interestingly, two of
these versions deviate from the original vanity message, suggesting religious devo-
tion instead of carpe diem as a solution for the problem of life’s futility. This variation
should be understood as a secondary scribal attempt to soften the original message
and accommodate it to conservative values (Samet 2015).

334 antecedents
The Ballade of Early Rulers: This poem enumerates the glorious dead rulers of the
past whose grandeur is now forgotten, arguing that humankind’s days are num-
bered and transient. Even renowned heroes of the past were not granted eternal life,
despite their glorious deeds. Human focus should thus lie on enjoying the present
and rejecting sorrow while it is still possible (Dietrich 1992; Klein 1999; Alster
2005, 288−320; Cohen 2013, 129–150). The Ballade was originally composed in
Sumerian during the Old Babylonian period and then translated into Akkadian and
transmitted in various scribal centers on the periphery of Mesopotamian culture.
The latest known copy comes from the seventh century librar y of King Ashurbanipal.
The reference to the beer goddess Sirash at the conclusion of the text has led to the
suggestion that the poem was a drinking song (Wilcke 1988).
Instructions of Shupe‐Ameli (“Hear the Advice”): This Akkadian text forms an
interesting variation on the traditional father–son instruction pattern. The compo-
sition begins with an appeal to a son to listen to the divinely inspired advice of a
father named Shupe‐Ameli. Next come the father’s instructions, which reflect a tra-
ditional view on everyday concerns such as business, marriage, and agriculture.19
Following these conformist instructions, however, comes the son’s response, which
is far from conservative. The son rejects his father’s advice, suggesting instead his
own view of life: life being short and death eternal, there is no benefit in hard work
or accumulating property. Both are worthless in the face of death. The piece con-
cludes with the subscription “This dispute the father (and) his son disputed together”
(Cohen 2013, 81–128). The text thus seems to combine three wisdom types:
instruction collections, dispute poems, and vanity literature. The message that
results from this generic mixture is probably critical of traditional wisdom, although
the extent and nature of this criticism is disputed among scholars (Seminara 2000;
Hurowitz 2007; Sallaberger 2010; Cohen 2013, 122).
Shupe‐Ameli’s instructions are also exceptional in regard to their distribution
patterns. Although the text was composed in Mesopotamia, probably during the
Old Babylonian period,20 it is presently unknown in any copy found in Mesopotamia
itself. The extant copies originate from western scribal centers outside Mesopotamia,
where Akkadian was taught as a lingua franca, including the cities of Ugarit, Emar,
and Hattusha. The latter supplies us with a bilingual Akkadian‐Hittite version.
Enlil and Namzitarra: A wisdom tale about a meeting between Enlil, the Sumerian
chief god, and Namzitarra, a priest of his temple. The tale is known to us in two
principal versions: a Sumerian version from the Old Babylonian period (Civil 1974;
Alster 2005, 327–335), and a later, reworked version in Akkadian, which reached
us from the periphery of Mesopotamian culture (Alster 2005, 336–38; Cohen
2013, 151–163). It is only in this later version that Enlil and Namzitarra can really
be classified as vanity literature. The original Sumerian version tells how going
home after finishing his shift at Enlil’s temple, Namzitarra suddenly meets Enlil
himself along the way. Enlil decides not to reveal his real identity, however, but to
appear as a raven. The disguise is probably designed to test the priest’s wisdom and

meso potam ian wi sdom 335
sophistication, as well as the degree of his intimate knowledge of his patron Enlil.
Namzitarra passes the test, immediately recognizing the disguised Enlil. Pleased
Enlil then offers Namzitarra a reward: silver, precious stones, cattle, and sheep.
Namzitarra rejects Enlil’s generous suggestion, claiming that life is short and prop-
erty is therefore useless. In response, Enlil promises him a reward of eternal value:
everlasting priesthood in his temple for his offspring. The focus of this original
version seems to be on explaining or protecting the birthright of the Namzitarra
family to a prebend (a hereditary position) in Enlil’s temple (Civil 1974). The later
Akkadian version, however, focuses on Namzitarra’s rejection of Enlil’s gifts,
putting a passionate speech into his mouth relating to the transiency of life and
worthlessness of material goods.21 In this version, after elaborating on the useless-
ness of property in the face of death, Namzitarra ends the dialogue and goes home,22
without being offered any alternative benefit. The author(s) of the late version thus
altered its main message and recreated it in the form of a sapiential vanity piece
(Cohen 2013, 151–163).
Counsels of a Pessimist: Only an excerpt of this curious Akkadian text has reached
us, in the form of a fragmentary tablet from the library of the seventh century BCE
King Ashurbanipal (Lambert 1960, 107–109).23 The preserved lines begin with a
(currently fragmentary) declaration regarding to life’s vanity: “… is dust … is fin-
ished … turns to clay … fire burns it … [does not] continue for eternity. Humankind
and its achievements alike come to an end” (Lambert 1960, 109). This vanity state-
ment is then followed by traditional advice recommending piety, diligence, and tak-
ing care of one’s livestock and family.24 The final preserved lines advise the reader
on how to avoid the anxiety caused by bad dreams. If there is an organizing princi-
ple behind these different issues, it might lie in the concern of overcoming the
depression triggered by unpleasant thoughts. In the case of thoughts on life’s van-
ity, one is encouraged to stick to soothing and confidence‐inspiring traditional prac-
tices. In the case of bad dreams, practices of cheering up are recommended
(Hurowitz 2012, 60). However, this interpretation is uncertain due to the text’s
partial preservation.
Dialogue of Pessimism: A dialogue on the meaninglessness of life (Lambert 1960,
139–149), probably composed in the eighth or seventh century BCE (von Soden
and Römer 1990, 158–163). The text elaborates on the theme of vanity via a subtle
dialogue between a master and his slave that falls into 10 short stanzas. In each
stanza, the master suggests pursuing a certain course of action–dining, falling in
love, sacrificing to the gods, etc.–for which the slave provides good reasons. The
master then abruptly changes his mind, proclaiming that he will not take the action
under consideration. The slave immediately provides equally good reasons for the
new decision. The last stanza concludes that the only valuable action is committing
suicide, but the master and slave cannot agree which of the two should take this
action first. The general tone of the dialogue is humoristic (Speiser 1954; Samet
2008), and its main message is that all is vanity, including common values and

336 antecedents
traditional social institutions. The dialogue has reached us in two versions, one
from seventh century Assur and one represented by a tablet from Seleucid period
Mesopotamia (312–63 BCE; Samet 2010, 11 n. 33).
Pious Sufferer Compositions
The texts classified under this label typically describe a sufferer who attempts to find
a theological reason for his affliction (Sitzler 1995). Most of these compositions
clearly belong to a specific literary tradition, as they closely resemble one another
thematically and structurally (Klein 2006; Oshima 2014, 19–24).
Pious sufferer compositions have often been characterized by scholars as theodi-
cies and compared to the biblical book of Job. However, some scholars have noticed
that many of them do not deny the sufferer’s sins or question divine justice. In this
respect, they are more similar to biblical psalms of complaint or even thanksgiving
(von Soden 1965; Lambert 1987; Weinfeld 1988; Bricker 2000; Foster 2005,
394).25 Several pious sufferer compositions nonetheless bear features of wisdom
literature: some tend to exhibit a didactic tone (Klein 2006) and other sapiential
traits, such as a dialogical form and proverbial language.
Sumerian Man and His God: Probably composed in the late third millennium BCE
(Klein 2006), this is the earliest Mesopotamian exemplar of pious sufferer composi-
tions known to us. The work begins with a didactic counsel expressing the piece’s
overall moral: a man should always glorify his personal god, that is, even in cases of
divine neglect, the believer must keep praising his god until his supplication is
accepted. This general lesson is followed by a story exemplifying it, which is about a
young man with social and physical afflictions. The sufferer prays and laments
before his god, pleading for mercy. His prayer includes confession of sins, both
witting and unwitting. Finally, the god accepts the sufferer’s prayer and delivers
him. In response, the young man utters a thanksgiving psalm.
The text combines different genres: while the didactic framework is sapiential in
nature, the sufferer’s prayer, which occupies the bulk of the text, is an individual
lament psalm, and his final appeal to the god should be classified as a thanksgiving
psalm (Lambert 1987; Klein 2006).26
Babylonian Man and His God: An Akkadian text from the Old Babylonian period,
currently known in a single broken manuscript (Lambert 1987). Similar in tone
and content to Sumerian Man and His God, the text tells of a sufferer who continu-
ously laments and prays before his god over his afflictions. As in the Sumerian
counterpart, here the prayer itself occupies the lion’s share of the piece, but its con-
tent is only partially comprehensible due to the tablet’s poor state of preservation.
The prayer’s better preserved parts refer, inter alia, to unwitting sins that might
have caused the suffering. The sufferer is eventually delivered by his god, at which
point the text introduces a slight innovation: unlike its Sumerian predecessor, here

meso potam ian wi sdom 337
the god speaks to his devotee in the first person. His reassuring message includes a
promise of long and healthy life and instructions for living life happily and justly.27
Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: An Akkadian pious sufferer composition named after its incipit
(in Akkadian, “Let me praise the lord of wisdom”). The sufferer, identified by the
name Šubši‐mešrê‐Šakkan, describes his suffering and salvation by the god Marduk
in the first person (Lambert 1960, 212–262; Annus and Lenzi 2010; Oshima
2014). The lengthy monologue begins with a praise to Marduk, the source of good
and bad alike. Then comes a vivid depiction of the protagonist’s sudden misfor-
tunes: Marduk decides to punish him and his fortunes change. In the social realm,
he loses his position in the royal court and his friends and family turn against him.
In the physical realm, he becomes ill with various sicknesses, which gradually grow
stronger until he lies on his deathbed. These afflictions, the sufferer claims, have
befallen him despite his strict piety and devotion to the gods. The tone of the latter
arguments seems to be more of wonderment than rebellion (Oshima 2014,
56–70).28 A turning point arrives when the almost‐dead sufferer sees a series of
dreams announcing his deliverance. Marduk then takes away all his sicknesses,
makes him go through a cleansing ritual, and probably also restores him to his for-
mer high social status (this section is broken: see Oshima 2014, 12). As part of the
process of redemption, the sufferer seems to acknowledge that his suffering origi-
nated from his cultic negligence toward Marduk’s temple, Esagil, which he subse-
quently visits on pilgrimage. As he goes through each of the gates of Esagil he
regains his lost blessings one by one, until his restoration is finally complete. He
then expresses his gratitude to Marduk by prayer, sacrifice, and public praise. Here
the monologue ends and several lines speak of Šubši‐mešrê‐Šakkan in the third per-
son, blessing him and pleading for his well‐being.
Ludlul is basically a thanksgiving psalm, probably authored around 1300 BCE
for a historical figure named Šubši‐mešrê‐Šakkan. The latter may have proclaimed
it before Marduk after recovering from a major misfortune. Later on, Ludlul became
popular in scribal circles, being copied in dozens of manuscripts during the first mil-
lennium BCE (Lambert 1960, 21–22; Oshima 2014, 14–34). Ancient scribes even
composed a commentary for the piece (Oshima 2014, 5–9).
The Babylonian Theodicy: An Akkadian dialogue between a sufferer and his friend
about divine righteousness. The sufferer argues against the concept of divine jus-
tice, while his friend defends it (Lambert 1960, 1995; Oshima 2014).
The sufferer’s principal complaints relate to social afflictions: he is an orphan
with no one to protect him and is poor despite his piety. Beyond his personal misfor-
tune, the sufferer also protests against general social injustice, pointing out that the
righteous are poor and mistreated by rich evildoers. He therefore concludes that
there is no point in worshipping or honoring the gods.29 In his responses, the friend
seeks to comfort the sufferer while insisting that piety brings wealth. The evildoers’
prosperity, he claims, is temporary, whereas divine favor for those patient enough to
maintain the rituals is eternal. He also appeals to the traditional claim that human

338 antecedents
beings cannot understand the gods. Towards the end of the dialogue, the friend
partially recognizes the sufferer’s assertions and agrees that there is a certain injus-
tice in reality because the gods have created humans as prone to injustice. The
sufferer, in response, presents his final speech, in which he abandons his harsh
accusations toward the gods and pleads for the friend’s mercy and the gods’ deliver-
ance. Hereby he seems to finally accept the friend’s position (Denning‐Bolle 1992,
150). The text concludes with a short appeal to the king for the establishment of
faith and piety (Oshima 2014, 142).
The Theodicy is probably the only known pious sufferer composition that fully
deserves to be classified as a wisdom text. Its dialogical form, contemplative tone,
and use of the individual story to represent a universal issue are all trademarks of
Mesopotamia wisdom. It is thus also the only Mesopotamian piece truly reminis-
cent of the book of Job. The Theodicy’s sufferer is also the most rebellious of all the
Mesopotamian pious sufferers: he speaks of the gods in a blasphemous tone and
occasionally suggests that he should become a criminal and abandon social and
religious norms, as the impious are rich and healthy.
The dialogue consists of 27 stanzas of 11 lines each. All the lines in each stanza
begin with the same sign, creating a 27‐sign acrostic. The acrostic presents the
text’s author in the following Akkadian sentence: “I am Saggil‐kı̄nam‐ubbib, an
incantation‐priest, the one who worships the gods and the king.” Saggil‐kı̄nam‐
ubbib probably lived and composed the Theodicy in the eleventh century BCE
(Oshima 2014, 121–125). However, the nine extant manuscripts of the text all
originate from first millennium BCE. The same is true of the text’s ancient
commentary.
Perceptive Hymns
Coined by Lambert, this term refers to hymns with sapiential content or contempla-
tive qualities.30 The two hymns included by Lambert in this category are presented
below.
The Shamash Hymn: An Akkadian hymn of 200 lines glorifying Shamash, the
Mesopotamian sun god (Lambert 1960, 121–138; Foster 2005, 536–544). As
thesource of light from which nothing is hidden, Shamash was identified by the
Mesopotamians with justice and law. Part of the hymn thus presents a moral code
for human beings, similar in tone and motifs to instruction collections. This encour-
ages judges to refuse to accept bribes, have pity on the poor, and judge justly; guides
moneylenders to treat their debtors generously; and instructs tradesmen to
usetheir scales honestly. The reward for those who follow the instructions and the
punishment for the disobedient ones, both of which are detailed in the hymn, are
similarly reminiscent of the instruction tradition. The rest of the hymn, however,

meso potam ian wi sdom 339
isnot related to wisdom, elaborating on other characteristics of Shamash–his cos-
mic function as the source of light and the daily and annual cycle, and his care of
all creatures. The hymn’s date of composition is unknown. Its extant, extensively
elaborated version might be a reworked recension, predated by earlier versions to
which we have no access (Lambert 1960, 121–138).
A Bilingual Hymn to Ninurta: Currently known from a single fragment, only an
excerpt from this Sumero‐Akkadian hymn has reached us. The hymn was dedicated
to Ninurta, the god of war and agriculture. The preserved part includes a series of
ethical admonitions warning against adultery, slander, oppression of the poor, and
trespass, all of which are well‐known motifs in instruction literature (Lambert
1960, 118–120).
Miscellaneous
Riddles
Riddles were a native Sumerian literary genre (Civil 1987). This is indicated not
only by their occasional grouping in collections but also by the use of the
Sumerian formula ki‐bur2‐bi (“its solution”) at their end, followed by the solution
itself. Like proverbs, riddles belong to the Sumerian literary tradition, while in
Akkadian they are very rarely documented (Veldhuis 2000a, 72).31 Riddles
areknown on both single-riddle school tablets and larger tablets which include
riddle collections.
Mesopotamian riddles vary in their logical mechanisms. Some are similar to
modern cryptic crosswords clues (Civil 1987, 28) while others use various types of
double meanings, puns, etc.:
When I am a child, I am the son of a furrow; when I am grown up, I am the body of a god;
when I am old, I am the physician of the country.
Its solution: linen.
This riddle was convincingly interpreted by Civil (1987, 24) as follows: “The linen
starts as flax in a field; once processed it is used for garments for the statues of the
gods; and old linen rags are used as bandages.”
We also know of riddles that are not followed by the formula “its solution” or lack
a solution clause at all. These are usually scattered throughout proverb collections
(Alster 2005, 137), although an ancient example of a collection of unsolved riddles
is also known (Biggs 1973). A unique Sumerian text suggests a morally oriented
riddle preaching against adultery (Alster 2005, 368–369). Naturally, such riddles
are more difficult to identify and classify (Alster 2007, 13 n. 55).

340 antecedents
Fables andDisputation Poems
A fable is a fictional story in which animals, plants, or other inanimate entities act
like humans. Sumerian and Akkadian proverb collections include hundreds of pro-
verbial fables (Falkowitz 1984; Lambert 1960, 213–220; Alster 2005, 342, 362–
367). Some longer fables have also been preserved outside the collections (Alster
2005, 346–351).
An important subtype of Mesopotamian fables is the disputation poem. These
poems present a debate between two rival animals, plants, or objects,32 each
attempting to establish its superiority. Debate poems typically open with a cosmogo-
nic prologue describing the creation of the two litigating entities. The prologue is
followed by a dialogue where each party boasts its virtues and stresses its adver-
sary’s weaknesses, often using a subtle and scornful tone. The disputation is then
resolved by a god or king who announces the winner. Like other wisdom types, dis-
putation poems are strongly rooted in the Sumerian scribal tradition, yet several
fragments of Akkadian exemplars of the genre are also known (Vanstiphout 1990,
1992). The following disputation poems have been discovered to date:
Sumerian: The Hoe and the Plough; The Sheep and the Grain; The Tree and the Reed;
Winter and Summer; The Bird and the Fish; Silver and Copper (ETCSL 5.3); The Heron
and the Turtle (Gragg 1973; ETCSL 5.9.2); The Herdsman and the Farmer (Sefati
1998); The Goose and the Raven (Alster 2005, 352–361); and The Upper and Lower
Millstones.33
Sumero‐Akkadian: The Date Palm and the Tamarisk (Lambert 1960, 151–164;
Cohen 2013, 177–198).
Akkadian (Vogelzang 1991): The Ox and the Horse; The Fable of the Willow; Nisaba
and the Wheat; The Fable of the Fox;34 The Fable of the Mule (Lambert 1960, 164–212);
and Hamanirru and Iškapiṣu (Bottéro 1985, 313–316).35
Disputation poems are frequently labeled by the Sumerian term a‐da‐min3 dug4‐
ga, probably meaning “a debate for two.” This may indicate that they were consid-
ered a defined group, if not a native genre.36
Scholars believe that disputation poems were originally created for court enter-
tainment, perhaps during royal banquets (Vanstiphout 1990, 1992). Later on,
theywere transmitted by school scribes who probably appreciated them as a way of
practicing the art of debate.
Folktales
Folktales are sometimes classified as wisdom literature. This has been justified by
several arguments: they may appear on compilation tablets with other wisdom
materials or be quoted in wisdom texts; they occasionally refer to wise scholars or

meso potam ian wi sdom 341
courtiers; they use humor and wit; and some have an allegedly moralistic lesson
(Alster 2005, 376, 384–385). In essence however, the connection of folktales to
wisdom is ambiguous, and the differences outweigh the similarities. Below are
references to the main folktales that have been associated with wisdom in one way
or another:
Sumerian: The Three Ox Drivers from Adab and The Old Man and the Young Girl (Alster
2005, 373–390).
Sumero‐Akkadian: The Fowler and His Wife (Alster 2005, 371–372).
Akkadian: The Poor Man of Nippur (Ottervanger 2016); Why Do You Curse Me?; The
Jester; The Bird’s Purchase (Foster 2005, 931–43).
Conclusion
This review of what scholars refer to as “Mesopotamian wisdom literature” encom-
passes a wide variety of compositions of different types, moods, attitudes, and func-
tions. If they have anything in common, it seems to be their keen interest in
everything human. Nothing human is alien to wisdom, from daily life to existential
problems. As such, wisdom texts share a timeless quality which frequently makes
them relevant to modern readers.
Notes
1 The terms “critical genre” and “ethnic genre” were coined by genre theorists and intro-
duced into the discussion of Mesopotamian literature by Tinney (1996, 11, 25).
2 There are several exceptions, the most striking of which is the group of texts describing
school life and scribal culture, including scribal dialogues (e.g. Kramer 1949; Sjöberg
1973; Civil 1985; Volk 1996; Vanstiphout 1997; Johnson and Geller 2015). This cor-
pus is sometimes considered to be related to wisdom but not considered here due to lack
of space.
3 Note that the above is a generalization. For the question of religious content in
Mesopotamian wisdom, see Taylor 2005, 20–21; Klein and Samet 2015.
4 We also know of two Akkadian proverb collections translated into Hittite (Lambert
1960, 279; Cohen 2013, 201–206) and one Akkadian‐Hurrian exemplar (Cohen 2013,
207–211). These indicate the circulation of Mesopotamian wisdom in western centers.
5 For a different explanation see Alster 2007, 6–7. Some scholars suggest that Sumerian
proverbs were artificial literary creations composed by Old Babylonian school teachers as
a pedagogical vehicle for instruction in Sumerian (Gordon 1960, 124–35; Falkowitz
1980, 4; Veldhuis 2000b, 383–399). This thesis seems far‐fetched (Alster 1997, xix–xx;
2005, 34–35, 45; 2007, 2; Klein and Samet 2015, 297–298).
6 Additional examples of similar introductory formulas can be found in CAD T, 332–333,
s.v. tēltu.

342 antecedents
7 The Egyptian Instructions of Hardjedef are ascribed to a mid‐third‐millennium prince,
but their earliest known manuscripts are much later and their time of composition
isdisputed.
8 The text is currently known from five manuscripts, three from the Old Babylonian
period and two–rather exceptionally for a Sumerian text–from the Kassite period. One
of the latter manuscripts includes Akkadian glosses (Alster 2005, 225).
9 Alster 2005, 231:37, 234:64.
10 Interestingly, the “instructions of the god” are formulated in the third person while the
“instructions of the farmer” refer to their addressee in the second person. The latter
style is more typical of the instruction tradition.
11 In two of the five known manuscripts of the text, it is followed by “counsels of wisdom.”
It is possible that other currently broken tablets, which in their present state include
only “counsels of wisdom,” originally opened with Ur‐Ninurta’s instructions (Alster
2005, 221–226).
12 The popularity of this text is indicated by dozens of Old Babylonian school copies, as
well as several references in literary catalogues (Civil 1994, 7–11).
13 Lambert (1960, 97) opined that the “tone and type of piety” suggest the Kassite period
as the time of composition. Others suggest the Old Babylonian period.
14 Lambert (1960, 96) suggested that a small fragment in which a wise man instructs his
son might constitute the beginning of Akkadian Counsels of Wisdom. This speculation
awaits further evidence.
15 One of the copies originates from Nineveh (Lambert 1960, 110–111), the other from
Nippur (Cole 1996). For the date and place of composition, see Lambert, 1960.
16 This is especially true in the case of Dialogue of Pessimism, but is also evident in Nigˆnam
and probably also in the Instructions of Shupe‐Ameli.
17 For occurrences of the vanity theme outside wisdom literature, see e.g. George 2003,
vol. I, pp. 200–201, ll. 140–43; pp. 278–279, ll. 1−15; Klein 1990, 59–60 (Marriage
ofMartu).
18 For further information regarding the occurrence of vanity texts on the same compila-
tion tablets with other wisdom materials see Alster’s discussion of the texts presented
below. See also Cohen (2013, 151, 158) for the secondary embedding of sapiential
sayings into vanity texts, which indicates that they were associated with wisdom.
19 Although referred to, religious piety does not play a central role in the instructions
(Cohen 2013, 81).
20 The work is classified in an Old Babylonian catalogue under its incipit “Hear the advice”
(Cohen 2013, 115–116). The implications of this fact for the text’s dating remain a
matter of conjecture, however (Seminara 2000; Cohen 2013, 124–127).
21 According to some commentators, it is Enlil rather than Namzitarra who utters this
speech. See Civil (1974); Klein (1990); Alster (2005, 328); Cooper (2011).
22 Alster (2005, 330) suggested that Namzitarra’s going home is a metaphor for death.
23 The date of authorship is unknown, except for the obvious fact that Assurbanipal’s days
should be taken as a terminus ante quem.

meso potam ian wi sdom 343
24 Samet (2015) suggests that the occurrence of pious and conservative instructions next
to a bold vanity statement might be the result of some form of redaction.
25 Indeed, many Mesopotamian psalms and prayers elaborate on the pious
sufferer motif. Most of them have (correctly) never been classified as wisdom
andare omitted from the current survey. The same is true for the Hymn to Marduk
from Ugarit (contra Cohen 2013, 165–175). The generic aspects of the pious
sufferer theme require further study: see Hallo (1968); Bricker (2000); Oshima
(2014, 24–28).
26 In several manuscripts, the piece is labeled–probably due to the sufferer’s prayer–as
er2‐ša3‐ne‐ša4, a Sumerian generic term for a type of supplication. This label may
indicate that the text was, at some point, used in worship (Klein 2006).
27 A two‐line appendix appears at the end which includes a further petition on behalf of
the sufferer. Its interpretation and function are debated (Nougayrol 1952; Lambert
1987; Klein 2006). Nougayrol suggests an interpretation of the entire text that differs
from that presented herein.
28 At some point, the sufferer attempts to solve the theological problem by the original
hypothesis that human ethical standards diverge from divine ones: what he considered
decent behavior was regarded by the gods as an abomination (II, 33–47). This explana-
tion should be taken as a sharper expression of the more common assumption that
human beings cannot understand the gods.
29 Interestingly, unlike other Mesopotamian sufferers the protagonist of the Theodicy does
not suffer physical illnesses.
30 For the parallel genre in the Bible, see Hurvitz 1991.
31 The few Akkadian examples of riddles bear witness to Sumerian influence: they either
appear in a bilingual Sumerian‐Akkadian version, or employ the Sumerian designation
ki‐bur2‐bi.
32 In one case (The Disputation between the Herdsman and the Farmer) the two litigants are
human, but they figure as representations of their professions.
33 No edition or translation of the latter is currently available. For a short review, see
Vanstiphout (1990, 276).
34 The latter is somewhat exceptional, having three rather than two litigants. In addition,
some of the texts listed above also deviate, to a greater or lesser degree, from the classic
formula of disputation poems (see esp. The Heron and the Turtle, The Goose and the Raven,
and The Herdsman and the Farmer). Their classification as disputation poems is thus
doubtful (Vanstiphout 1988, 1990).
35 The meaning of the litigants’ name is uncertain. It has been suggested that these are
two types of spiders. Lambert (1960, 211–212) presents another fragmentary text
which might join the list, but its state of preservation is too poor to determine its genre
and content.
36 It is, however, unclear whether this Sumerian term is intended to be a generic label. It
does not consistently appear in all of the relevant texts and occurs on occasion at the
conclusion of other texts (Falkowitz 1984, 3; Alster 1990; Vanstiphout 1990).

344 antecedents
References
Albright, William F. 1943. An archaic
Hebrew proverb in an Amarna letter
from Central Palestine. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research
89:29–32.
Alster, Bendt. 1990. Sumerian literary
dialogues and debates and their place in
ancient Near Eastern literature. In:
Living Waters: Scandinavian Orientalistic
Studies Presented to Professor Dr. Frede
Løkkegaard on his Seventy‐fifth Birthday
(ed. Egon Keck, Svend Sondergaard, and
Ellen Wulff), 1–16. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum Press.
Alster, Bendt. 1997. Proverbs of Ancient
Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb
Collections, 2 vols. Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Alster, Bendt. 2005. Wisdom of Ancient
Sumer. Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Alster, Bendt. 2007. Sumerian Proverbs in the
Schøyen Collection. Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Alster, Bendt and Oshima, Takayoshi. 2006.
A Sumerian proverb tablet in Geneva
with some thoughts on Sumerian
proverb collections. Orientalia 75: 31–72.
Annus, Amar and Lenzi, Alan. 2010. Ludlul
bēl nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem
of the Righteous Sufferer. Helsinki: Neo‐
Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Biggs, Robert D. 1973. Pre‐Sargonic riddles
from Lagash. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 32: 26–33.
Bottéro, Jean. 1985. Mythes et rites de
Babylone.
Geneva/Paris: Slatkine‐Champion.
Bricker, Daniel P. 2000. Innocent suffering
in Mesopotamia. Tyndale Bulletin 51:
193–214.
Buccellati, Giorgio. 1981. Wisdom or not:
The case of Mesopotamia. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 101: 35–47.
Civil, Miguel. 1974. Enlil and Namzitarra.
Archiv für Orientforschung 25: 65–71.
Civil, Miguel. 1985. Sur les livres d’écoliers
à l’époque paléo‐babylonienne. In:
Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts
àM. Birot (ed. Jean‐Marie Durand
andJean Robert Kupper), 67–78.
Paris:Éditions Recherche sur les
civilisations.
Civil, Miguel. 1987. Sumerian riddles: A
corpus. Aula Orientalis 5: 17–37.
Civil, Miguel. 1994. The Farmer’s
Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural
Manual. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA.
Cohen, Yoram. 2013. Wisdom from the Late
Bronze Age. Atlanta, GA: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Cole, Steven W. 1996. Nippur IV: The Early
Babylonian Governor’s Archive from
Nippur. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Cooper, Jerrold S. 2011. Puns and prebends:
The tale of Enlil and Namzitarra. In:
Strings and Threads: A Celebration of the
Work of Anne Draffkorn Kilmer (ed.
Wolfgang Heimpel and Gabriella
Frantz‐Szabó), 39–43. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Denning‐Bolle, Sara. 1992. Wisdom in
Akkadian Literature: Expression,
Instruction, Dialogue. Leiden:
ExOrienteLux.
Dietrich, Manfried. 1992. “Ein Leben
ohneFreude …”: Studie über eine
Weisheitkomposition aus den
Gelehrtenbibliotheken von Emar
undUgarit. Ugarit‐Forschungen
24: 9–29.
ETCSL (The Electronic Text Corpus of
Sumerian Literature): http://etcsl.orinst.
ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbycat.php.

meso potam ian wi sdom 345
Falkowitz, Robert S. 1980. The Sumerian
rhetoric collections. PhD dissertation.
University of Pennsylvania.
Falkowitz, Robert S. 1984. Discrimination
and condensation of sacred categories:
The fable in early Mesopotamian
literature. Entretiens sur l’antiquité
classique 30: 1–32.
Foster, Benjamin R. 2005. Before the Muses:
An Anthology of Akkadian Literature.
Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Frahm, Eckart. 2010. The latest Sumerian
proverbs. In: Opening the Tablet Box: Near
Eastern Studies in Honor of Benjamin R.
Foster (ed. Sarah C. Melville and Alice L.
Slotsky), 155–84. Leiden: Brill.
Gabbay, Uri. 2011. Lamentful proverbs or
proverbial laments? Intertextual
connections between Sumerian proverbs
and Emesal laments. Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 63: 51–64.
George, Andrew R. 2003. The Babylonian
Gilgamesh Epic, Introduction, Critical
Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford/New
York: Oxford University Press.
George, Andrew R. 2007. Theepic of
Gilgamesh: Thoughts on genre and
meaning. In: Gilgamesh and the World of
Assyria: Proceedings of the conference held
at the Mandelbaum House, the University
of Sydney, 21–23 July, 2004 (ed. Joseph
Azize and Noel Weeks), 37–66. Leuven:
Peeters.
George, Andrew R. and Al‐Rawi, Farouk N.
H. 1998. Tablets from the Sippar Library
VII: Three wisdom texts. Iraq 60:
187–206.
Gordon, Edmund I. 1960. A new look at the
wisdom of Sumer and Akkad. Bibliotheca
Orientalis 17: 124–135.
Gragg, Gene. 1973. The Fable of the Heron
and the Turtle. Archiv für Orientforschung
24: 51–72.
Hallo, William W. 1968. Individual prayer
in Sumerian: The continuity of a
tradition. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 88: 71–89.
Hallo, William W. 1990. Proverbs quoted in
epic. In: Lingering over Words: Studies in
Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor
of William L. Moran (ed. Tzvi Abusch,
John Huehnergard, and Piotr
Steinkeller), 203–217. Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press.
Hurowitz, Victor A. 1998. Advice to a
prince: A message from Ea. State Archives
of Assyria Bulletin 12: 39–53.
Hurowitz, Victor A. 2007. The wisdom of
Šūpê‐amēlı̄: A deathbed debate between
a father and son. In: Wisdom Literature in
Mesopotamia and Israel (ed. Richard J.
Clifford), 37–51. Atlanta, GA: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Hurowitz, Victor A. 2012. Proverbs, Volume
1. Tel Aviv: Magnes (Hebrew).
Hurvitz, Avi. 1991. Wisdom Language in
Biblical Psalmody. Tel Aviv: Magnes
(Hebrew).
Johnson, J. Cale, and Geller, Markham J.
2015. The Class Reunion: An Annotated
Translation and Commentary on the
Sumerian Dialogue Two Scribes. Leiden:
Brill.
Klein, Jacob. 1990. The “Bane” of
humanity: A lifespan of one hundred
twenty years. Acta Sumerologica 12:
57–70.
Klein, Jacob. 1999. The ballad about early
rulers: Eastern and Western traditions.
In: Languages and Cultures in Contact: At
the Crossroads of Civilizations in the
Syro‐Mesopotamian Realm (ed. Karel van
Lerberghe and Gabriella Voet), 203–
216. Leuven: Peeters.
Klein, Jacob. 2006. Man and his God. In:
Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies

346 antecedents
in Honor of Stip (H. L. J. Vanstiphout) (ed.
Piotr Michalowski and Niek Veldhuis),
123–143. Leiden: Brill.
Klein, Jacob and Samet, Nili. 2015. Religion
and ethics in Sumerian proverb litera-
ture. In: Marbeh Ḥokmah, Studies in the
Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving
Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz (ed.
Shamir Yona, Edward L. Greenstein,
Mayer I. Gruber, etal.), 295–322.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Kramer, Samuel N. 1949. Schooldays: A
Sumerian composition relating to the
education of a scribe. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 69: 199–215.
Lambert, Wilfred G. 1960. Babylonian
Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lambert, Wilfred G. 1987. A further
attempt at the Babylonian “Man and his
God.” In: Language, Literature, and
History: Philological and Historical Studies
Presented to Erica Reiner (ed. Francesca
Rochberg‐Halton), 187–202. New
Haven: American Oriental Society.
Lambert, Wilfred G. 1995. Some New
Babylonian wisdom literature. In:
Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in
Honour of J. A. Emerton (ed. John Day,
Robert P. Gordon, and H.G.M.
Williamson), 30–42. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Marzal, Angel. 1976. Gleanings from the
Wisdom of Mari. Rome: Biblical
InstitutePress.
Moran, William L. 1992. The Amarna
Letters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Nougayrol, Jean. 1952. Une version
ancienne du juste souffrant. Revue
biblique 59: 239–250.
Oshima, Takayoshi. 2014. Babylonian
Poemsof Pious Sufferers. Tübingen:
MohrSiebeck.
Ottervanger, Baruch. 2016. The Tale of the
Poor Man of Nippur. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Roest, Bert and Vanstiphout, Herman.
1999. Postscriptum: Generic studies in
pre‐modern traditions: Why and how?
In: Aspects of Genre and Type in Pre‐
Modern Literary Cultures (ed. Bert Roest
and Herman Vanstiphout), 129–139.
Groningen: Styx.
Sallaberger, Walther. 2010. Skepsis
gegenüber väterlicher Weisheit: zum
altbabylonischen Dialog zwischen Vater
und Sohn. In: Your Praise is Sweet: A
Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from
Students, Colleagues and Friends (ed.
Heather D. Baker, Eleanor Robson, and
Gábor Zólyomi), 303–317. London:
British Institute for the Study of Iraq.
Samet, Nili. 2008. The Babylonian dialogue
between a master and his slave–A new
literary analysis. Shnaton: An Annual for
Biblical and Near Eastern Studies 23:
99–130 (Hebrew).
Samet, Nili. 2010. “The tallest man cannot
reach heaven; the broadest man cannot
cover earth” –Reconsidering the proverb
and its biblical parallels. Journal of
Hebrew Scriptures 10.
Samet, Nili. 2015. Religious redaction in
Qohelet in light of Mesopotamian vanity
literature. Vetus Testamentum 65: 1–16.
Samet, Nili. (forthcoming). Instructions
of Shuruppak. In: The Library of
Wisdom: An Encyclopedia of Ancient
Sayings Collections (ed. Walter Wilson).
Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical
Literature.
Sefati, Yitschak. 1998. Love Songs in
Sumerian Literature: Critical Edition of the
Dumuzi‐Inanna songs. Bar‐Ilan Studies in
Near Eastern Languages and Culture.
Publications of the Samuel N. Kramer

meso potam ian wi sdom 347
Institute of Assyriology. Ramat‐Gan:
Bar‐Ilan University Press, 324–343.
Seminara, Stefano. 2000. Le Istruzioni di
Šūpē‐amēlı̄. Ugarit‐Forschungen 32:
487–529.
Sitzler, Dorothea. 1995. “Vorwurf gegen
Gott”: Ein religiöses Motiv im Alten Orient
(Ägypten und Mesopotamien). Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Sjöberg, Åke W. 1973. Der Vater und sein
missratener Sohn. Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 25: 105–169.
von Soden, Wolfram. 1965. Das Fragen
nach der Gerechtigkeit Gottes im Alten
Orient. Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Orient‐Gesellschaft 96: 41–59.
von Soden, Wolfram and Römer, Willem H.
Philibert. 1990. Weisheitstexte, Mythen und
Epen. Volume 3.1 of Texte aus der Umwelt
des Alten Testament. Gütersloh: G. Mohn.
Speiser, Ephraim A. 1954. The case of the
obliging servant. Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 8: 98–105.
Taylor, Jon. 2005. The Sumerian proverb
collections. Revue d’assyriologie et
d’archéologie orientale 99: 13–18.
Tinney, Steve. 1996. The Nippur Lament.
Philadelphia, PA: Samuel Noah Kramer
Fund, University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Vanstiphout, Herman L.J. 1988. The
importance of the Tale of the Fox. Acta
Sumerologica 10: 191–227.
Vanstiphout, Herman L.J. 1990.
Mesopotamian debate poems: A general
presentation (Part I).” Acta Sumerologica
12: 271–318.
Vanstiphout, Herman L.J. 1992. The
banquet scene in the Mesopotamian
debate poems. In: Banquets d’Orient
(ed.Rika Gyselen and Marthe Bernus‐
Taylor), 9–22. Bures‐sur‐Yvette:
Groupepour l’étude de la civilization du
Moyen‐Orient.
Vanstiphout, Herman L.J. 1997. Sumerian
canonical compositions. C. Individual
focus. 6. School dialogues. In: Canonical
Compositions from the Biblical World. Vol.1
of The Context of Scripture (ed. William W.
Hallo), 588–593. Leiden: Brill.
Vanstiphout, Herman L.J. 1999. The use(s)
of genre in Mesopotamian literature: An
afterthought. Archiv Orientální 67:
703–717.
Veldhuis, Niek. 2000a. Kassite exercises:
Literary and lexical extracts. Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 52: 67–94.
Veldhuis, Niek. 2000b. Sumerian proverbs
in their curricular context. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 120: 383–399.
Veldhuis, Niek. 2003. Sumerian literature.
In: Cultural Repertoires: Structure,
Function and Dynamics (ed. Gillis J.
Dorleijn and Herman L.J. Vanstiphout),
29–43. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
Vogelzang, Marianna E. 1991. Some
questions about the Akkadian disputes.
InL Dispute Poems and Dialogues (ed.
Gerrit J. Reinink and Herman L.J.
Vanstiphout), 47–57. Leuven: Peeters
Publishers.
Volk, Konrad. 1996. Methoden altmesopo-
tamischer Erziehung nach Quellen der
altbabylonischen Zeit. Saeculum 47:
178–216.
Weinfeld, Moshe. 1988. Job and its
Mesopotamian parallels: A typological
analysis. In: Text and Context: Old
Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C.
Fensham (ed. Walter Claassen), 217–26.
Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Wilcke, Claus. 1988. Die Sumerische
Königsliste und erzählte Vergangenheit.
In: Vergangenheit in mündlicher
Überlieferung (ed. Jürgen von Ungern‐
Sternberg and Hans‐Jörg Reinau),
113–140. Stuttgart: Teubner.

348 antecedents
Further Reading
Bottéro, J. 1992. Mesopotamia: Writing,
Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. An impor-
tant collection of essays that examine
writing and ways of thinking in ancient
Mesopotamia.
Bottéro, J. 2001. Religion in Ancient
Mesopotamia (trans. Teresa Lavender
Fagan). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. An influential treatment of
ancient Mesopotamian religion.
Jacobsen, T. 1987. The Harps that Once …:
Sumerian Poetry in Translation.
NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.
An accessible translation of ancient
Sumerian poetry.
Kuhrt, Amélie. 1995. The Ancient Near East,
c. 3000–330 BC. 2 vols. London and
New York: Routledge. A useful survey of
the history of the ancient Near East.
Oppenheim, Leo. 1964. Mesopotamia:
Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press. A classic
and influential survey of ancient
Mesopotamia.