Abstract
Major problem of understanding the text as a whole lies in the interpretation of the relationship between the Good Gods (ilm ncmm) and the twin gods, Dawn and Dusk (šhr. wšlm). Some scholars hold that the main theme of the text is the birth of Dawn and Dusk. Others take it as the birth of the Good Gods. While “Dawn and Dusk” appears only in the second half of the text, i. e. a mythological portion, the “Good Gods” appears in both liturgical and mythological portions. In other words, it is the Good Gods who are invoked in this dramatic text.
Hence, some scholars identify Dawn and Dusk with the Good Gods. However, in the mythological portion, the birth of Dawn and Dusk is significantly distionguished from that of the Good Gods.
The interpretation of bn šrm (1. 2), which appears right after the invocation of the Good Gods, seems to be the key to the correct interpretation of the text.
There have been four possible translations of bn šrm: (1) “princes”, (2) “sons of Sharruma”, (3) “shining ones”, and (4) “singers”. The last one seems to be the best translation which is natural according to Semitic lexicography. The term bn could well be the one for guild-members, like in _??_ of _??_ _??_ (Neh. 12:28) “the singers”. Since the term ytnm (1. 3) is to be compared with _??_ (Ezra 2:43, Neh 11:21, I Chr 9:2, et al), bn šrm (1. 2) in this liturgical context should be translated as “singers”. This meaning seems to fit the general atmosphere of the drama very well.
Main theme of the text is the birth of the Good Gods, not of Dawn and Dusk, and the “singers” provide musical background for this drama.
