So stories were changed and adapted to fit the needs of a particular audience, something considered to be a completely acceptable practice of the day. In other words, traditions, like genres, were also somewhat fluid. K. Sparks writes that “ancient Near Eastern literature reflects both a healthy respect for tradition and obvious tendencies to revise and reformulate these inherited traditions. Scholars now generally recognize that many ancient works . . . have undergone a number of changes and revisions over the course of their transmission history.”

As a result of all that has been mentioned, it was not at all unusual for anachronisms to appear in texts. That is, as stories were adapted for particular audiences, certain elements of the story—especially things such as gods, place names, and people—fit more naturally with the receiving audience than with the world of the text (appearing out of place in that world). As texts were adapted and updated as a matter of practice, the appearance of anachronism was not at all unusual or out of place.

It would be prudent, before moving on to the next section, to review the main ideas that have been covered here. The literature that will soon be studied is the result of a complicated historical process. Varied, and at times conflicting, cultural forces shaped the ideas expressed in the literature, often so much so that it becomes difficult to locate a particular idea’s origin. Stories were borrowed, recopied and adapted as necessary, and the texts that have come to us are themselves later representations of much earlier traditions. Bearing this in mind, the next section will touch on some of the more important themes to be developed in the textual examination.