Abstract
On the basis of apparent standardization, as well as insights into authorship provided by various literary and scholarly texts, some form of canonicity has been generally held to be a characteristic of the genres of cuneiform literature, in particular, of the divination corpus. Since neither a process of canonization nor anything regarding a Babylonian notion of canonicity can be recognized in cuneiform sources, a cuneiform "canon" proves difficult to define. This chapter focuses on the more specific problem concerning the nature of an ahǔ text exemplar from Enūma Anu Enlil and the relationship between the category ahǔ and its counterpart. The problem is approached in terms of whether or not these two classifications of texts may be distinguished on the basis of the criteria that have been used to claim the existence of a canonical tradition of scholarly texts, namely standardization, serialization, and authority.Keywords: ahǔ text; canonicity; cuneiform texts; Enūma Anu Enlil
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
