03_Samet_375_375_390 30/10/15 13:05 Pagina 388 388 NILI SAMET 388 unlikely that an educated Jew in Persian or Hellenistic Palestine was able to read Akkadian, given that in this period Aramaic pre- vailed even in Mesopotamia itself. We may therefore suggest that the version of the Gilgamesh epic used by the author of Qohelet was different from the so-called canonical one not only in its con- tent but also in its language, namely, that the author of the book has read an Aramaic translation of the epic. The assumption that there once existed an Aramaic Gilgamesh has been raised by sev- eral scholars 42. The role of Aramaic as a medium of spreading Mesopotamian knowledge in the Persian and Hellenistic periods is demonstrated by a number of Aramaic works which date from these periods and reflect Mesopotamian traditions. The full scope of this phenomenon cannot be revealed to us due to the perish- able materials that were used to write Aramaic texts. Yet enough has survived to exemplify this process, including such texts as Ahiqar, Tobit and the Aramaic story of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn and As- surbanipal in Papyrus Amherst 63 43. Some of these materials seem to have been written originally in Aramaic, but others may be trans- lations of earlier Akkadian texts 44. Of great importance in this regard is the Aramaic astronomical book from Qumran 45, whose close affinity to Mesopotamian astronomy led scholars to the conclusion that it is based on translations of Akkadian sources 46. A similar process may have been at play in the case of a proposed alternative 42 GEORGE, Gilgamesh, 56-59. See further W.G. LAMBERT, “Some New Babylonian Wisdom Literature”, Wisdom in Ancient Israel. Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton (eds. J. DAY et al.) (Cambridge 1995) 30-42, here 42. 43 For the latter see: R.C. STEINER, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script”, The Context of Scripture I (ed. W.W. HALLO) (Leiden 1997) 309-327, with further bibliography. For a general review of the materials see: A. SALVESEN, “Babylon and Nineveh in Aramaic Sources”, The Legacy of Mesopotamia (eds. S. DALLEY et al.) (Oxford 1998) 139-161; P.A. BEAULIEU, “Official and Vernacular Languages: The Shifting Sands of Imperial and Cultural Identities in First-Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia”, Margins of Writing, Origins of Cul- tures (ed. S.L. SANDERS) (Chicago, IL 2006) 187-216, here 201. 44 Contra BEAULIEU, “Official and Vernacular Languages”, 201. 45 See H. DRAWNEL, The Aramaic Astronomical Book from Qumran. Text, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford 2011). 46 J. BEN-DOV, Head of all Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in Their Ancient Context (STJD 78; Leiden – Boston, MA 2008) 34, 304. I am grateful to Ben-Dov for providing me with valuable comments on this issue.