Scholars have taken several approaches to 'translating' the epic in the time since its discovery. Because of the nature of the originals, neither approach is entirely satisfactory. From his introduction, it is clear that Jackson aims his version at the needs of the undergraduate classroom. Much material, especially the photographs, included in the edition make it attractive for that purpose. Jackson has clearly seen that King James did not write the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Serious questions remain, however.
I have refrained from using the word 'translation' for Jackson's version because it is not clear whether this is a translation or a retelling of the epic. Jackson correctly says that one problem which the epic poses for the modern student is the student's lack of familiarity with Mesopotamian culture. This is particularly troubling because there are questions about the source of some parts of the Jackson's text. Jackson organizes his work by column according, we are led to believe, to the original text. Yet comparing Jackson's work with Speiser's similarly organized text shows that Jackson includes material which Speiser does not.