There are very few hermeneutic variations across the sources. Two of the variants catego-
rised as hermeneutic actually reflect differences in cardinal numbers (G54 and G 132).
The recording of numerals in cuneiform has been shown to be readily corruptible, so little
significance may be attributed to these variants.^674
There is some uncertainty about the nature of the variant at G104. While the text is dam-
aged in all of the sources, there seems to be little doubt that there is some degree of dif-
ference in meaning between the sources. In tablet J (and probably tablet C as well) the
reaction of the pantheon to the destruction of humanity by the Deluge is described as sit-
ting in grief. In contrast to this, tablet T appears to have the entire pantheon lamenting
along with the mother goddess, probably Bēlet Ilī, as she bemoans the death of her crea-
tion. While J and T do not contradict each other at this point, there does seem to be some
difference in hermeneutic between the sources as we have them.
An interesting, but also enigmatic, variation in hermeneutic occurs at G209, again involv-
ing tablet J. In this instance tablet b has it that the deity Ea brings forth Ūta-napišti from
the boat after the Deluge has subsided, while tablet J has the acting deity as Enlil.^675
There may be some theological reason behind this variation (cf. H2 and H132). It can be
noted that the domain of Ea is traditionally the apsû, the subterranean waters into which
the Deluge subsides, while Enlil’s domain is the terrestrial sphere, where Ūta-napišti was
to disembark from his boat and accept his gift of eternal life. In this sense there may be
(^674) See the discussion in note.
(^675) A.R. George, Gilgamesh, 717, notes that b is corrupt.