The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria

M >> Morris Jastrow >> The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61

[Transcriber's Note: This file was produced from images generously made
available by the Bibliotheque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
at http://gallica.bnf.fr.]

HANDBOOKS
ON THE
HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

EDITED BY
MORRIS JASTROW, Jr., PH.D.
_Professor of Semitic Languages in the University of Pennsylvania_

VOLUME II

THE RELIGION

OF

BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA

BY
MORRIS JASTROW, Jr., PH.D.
(LEIPZIG)
PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

GINN & COMPANY

BOSTON . NEW YORK . CHICAGO . LONDON

COPYRIGHT, 1893
By MORRIS JASTROW, Jr.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

35.11

The Athenaeum Press
GINN & COMPANY . PROPRIETORS
BOSTON . USA

TO

H. B. J.

MY FAITHFUL COLLABORATOR

PREFACE.

It requires no profound knowledge to reach the conclusion that the time
has not yet come for an exhaustive treatise on the religion of Babylonia
and Assyria. But even if our knowledge of this religion were more
advanced than it is, the utility of an exhaustive treatment might still
be questioned. Exhaustive treatises are apt to be exhausting to both
reader and author; and however exhaustive (or exhausting) such a
treatise may be, it cannot be final except in the fond imagination of
the writer. For as long as activity prevails in any branch of science,
all results are provisional. Increasing knowledge leads necessarily to a
change of perspective and to a readjustment of views. The chief reason
for writing a book is to prepare the way for the next one on the same
subject.

In accordance with the general plan of this Series[1] of Handbooks, it
has been my chief aim to gather together in convenient arrangement and
readable form what is at present known about the religion of the
Babylonians and Assyrians. The investigations of scholars are scattered
through a large variety of periodicals and monographs. The time has come
for focusing the results reached, for sifting the certain from the
uncertain, and the uncertain from the false. This work of gathering the
_disjecta membra_ of Assyriological science is essential to future
progress. If I have succeeded in my chief aim, I shall feel amply repaid
for the labor involved.

In order that the book may serve as a guide to students, the names of
those to whose researches our present knowledge of the subject is due
have frequently been introduced, and it will be found, I trust, that I
have been fair to all.[2] At the same time, I have naturally not
hesitated to indicate my dissent from views advanced by this or that
scholar, and it will also be found, I trust, that in the course of my
studies I have advanced the interpretation of the general theme or of
specific facts at various points. While, therefore, the book is only in
a secondary degree sent forth as an original contribution, the
discussion of mooted points will enhance its value, I hope, for the
specialist, as well as for the general reader and student for whom, in
the first place, the volumes of this series are intended.

The disposition of the subject requires a word of explanation. After the
two introductory chapters (common to all the volumes of the series) I
have taken up the pantheon as the natural means to a survey of the
field. The pantheon is treated, on the basis of the historical texts, in
four sections: (1) the old Babylonian period, (2) the middle period, or
the pantheon in the days of Hammurabi, (3) the Assyrian pantheon, and
(4) the latest or neo-Babylonian period. The most difficult phase has
naturally been the old Babylonian pantheon. Much is uncertain here. Not
to speak of the chronology which is still to a large extent guesswork,
the identification of many of the gods occurring in the oldest
inscriptions, with their later equivalents, must be postponed till
future discoveries shall have cleared away the many obstacles which
beset the path of the scholar. The discoveries at Telloh and Nippur have
occasioned a recasting of our views, but new problems have arisen as
rapidly as old ones have been solved. I have been especially careful in
this section not to pass beyond the range of what is definitely _known_,
or, at the most, what may be regarded as tolerably certain. Throughout
the chapters on the pantheon, I have endeavored to preserve the attitude
of being 'open to conviction'--an attitude on which at present too much
stress can hardly be laid.

The second division of the subject is represented by the religious
literature. With this literature as a guide, the views held by the
Babylonians and Assyrians regarding magic and oracles, regarding the
relationship to the gods, the creation of the world, and the views of
life after death have been illustrated by copious translations, together
with discussions of the specimens chosen. The translations, I may add,
have been made direct from the original texts, and aim to be as literal
as is consonant with presentation in idiomatic English.

The religious architecture, the history of the temples, and the cult
form the subject of the third division. Here again there is much which
is still uncertain, and this uncertainty accounts for the unequal
subdivisions of the theme which will not escape the reader.

Following the general plan of the series, the last chapter of the book
is devoted to a general estimate and to a consideration of the influence
exerted by the religion of Babylonia and Assyria.

In the transliteration of proper names, I have followed conventional
methods for well-known names (like Nebuchadnezzar), and the general
usage of scholars in the case of others. In some cases I have furnished
a transliteration of my own; and for the famous Assyrian king, to whom
we owe so much of the material for the study of the Babylonian and
Assyrian religion, Ashurbanabal, I have retained the older usage of
writing it with a _b_, following in this respect Lehman, whose
arguments[3] in favor of this pronunciation for the last element in the
name I regard as on the whole acceptable.

I have reasons to regret the proportions to which the work has grown.
These proportions were entirely unforeseen when I began the book, and
have been occasioned mainly by the large amount of material that has
been made available by numerous important publications that appeared
after the actual writing of the book had begun. This constant increase
of material necessitated constant revision of chapters; and such
revision was inseparable from enlargement. I may conscientiously say
that I have studied these recent publications thoroughly as they
appeared, and have embodied at the proper place the results reached by
others and which appeared to me acceptable. The work, therefore, as now
given to the public may fairly be said to represent the state of present
knowledge.

In a science that grows so rapidly as Assyriology, to which more than to
many others the adage of _dies diem docet_ is applicable, there is great
danger of producing a piece of work that is antiquated before it leaves
the press. At times a publication appeared too late to be utilized. So
Delitzsch's important contribution to the origin of cuneiform writing[4]
was published long after the introductory chapters had been printed. In
this book he practically abandons his position on the Sumerian question
(as set forth on p. 22 of this volume) and once more joins the opposite
camp. As far as my own position is concerned, I do not feel called upon
to make any changes from the statements found in chapter i., even after
reading Weissbach's _Die Sumerische Frage_ (Leipzig, 1898),--the latest
contribution to the subject, which is valuable as a history of the
controversy, but offers little that is new. Delitzsch's name must now be
removed from the list of those who accept Halevy's thesis; but, on the
other hand, Halevy has gained a strong ally in F. Thureau-Dangin, whose
_special_ studies in the old Babylonian inscriptions lend great weight
to his utterances on the origin of the cuneiform script. Dr. Alfred
Jeremias, of Leipzig, is likewise to be added to the adherents of
Halevy. The Sumero-Akkadian controversy is not yet settled, and
meanwhile it is well to bear in mind that not _every_ Assyriologist is
qualified to pronounce an opinion on the subject. A special study is
required, and but few Assyriologists have made such a study. Accepting a
view or a tradition from one's teacher does not constitute a person an
authority, and one may be a very good Assyriologist without having views
on the controversy that are of any particular value.

Lastly, I desire to call attention to the Bibliography, on which much
time has been spent, and which will, I trust, be found satisfactory. In
a list of addenda at the end of the book, I have noted some errors that
slipped into the book, and I have also embodied a few additions. The
copious index is the work of my student, Dr. S. Koppe, and it gives me
pleasure to express my deep obligations to him for the able and
painstaking manner in which he has carried out the work so kindly
undertaken by him. The drawing for the map was made by Mr. J. Horace
Frank of Philadelphia.

* * * * *

To my wife more thanks are due than I can convey in words for her share
in the work. She copied almost all of the manuscript, and in doing so
made many valuable suggestions. Without her constant aid and
encouragement I would have shrunk from a task which at times seemed too
formidable to be carried to a successful issue. As I lay down my pen
after several years of devotion to this book, my last thought is one of
gratitude to the beloved partner of my joys and sorrows.

MORRIS JASTROW, Jr.
University of Pennsylvania,
_June, 1898._

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Set forth in the announcement of the series at the back of the book
and in the Editor's Prefatory Note to Volume I.

[2] In the Index, however, names of scholars have only been introduced
where absolutely necessary to the subject.

[3] In his work, _Shamassum-ukin Koenig von Babylonien_, pp. 16-21.
Hence, I also write Ashurnasirbal.

[4] _Die Entstehung des aeltesten Schriftsystems_ (Leipzig, 1897).

CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.

[Transcriber's Note: These changes and additions are printed only here;
the main text is as it was in the original.]

Page, Line.

22. See Preface.

35, 10. Isin or Nisin, see Lehmann's _Shamash-shumukin_, I. 77;
Meissner's _Beitraege zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 122.

61. Bau also appears as Nin-din-dug, _i.e._, 'the lady who restores
life.' See Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. 2, Nos. 95, 106,
111.

74. On A, see Hommel, _Journal of Transactions of Victoria Institute_,
XXVIII. 35-36.

99, 24. Ur-shul-pa-uddu is a ruler of Kish.

102, 13. For Ku-anna, see IIIR. 67, 32 c-d.

102, 24. For another U-mu as a title of Adad, see Delitzsch, _Das
Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 125, note.

111, 2. Nisaba is mentioned in company with the great gods by
Nebopolassar (Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. 1. Pl. 32,
col. II. 15).

165. Note 2. On these proper names, see Delitzsch's "Assyriologische
Miscellen" (_Berichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kgl. saechs. Gesell. d.
Wiss._, 1893, pp. 183 seq.).

488. Note 1. See now Scheil's article "Recueil de Travaux," etc., XX.
55-59.

529. The form Di-ib-ba-ra has now been found. See Scheil's "Recueil de
Travaux," etc., XX. 57.

589. Note 3. See now Hommel, _Expository Times_, VIII. 472, and
Baudissin, _ib._ IX. 40-45.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER PAGE

I. Introduction 1
II. The Land and the People 26
III. General Traits of the Old Babylonian Pantheon 48
IV. Babylonian Gods Prior to the Days of Hammurabi 51
V. The Consorts of the Gods 104
VI. Gudea's Pantheon 106
VII. Summary 112
VIII. The Pantheon in the Days of Hammurabi 116
IX. The Gods in the Temple Lists and in the Legal and Commercial
Documents 165
X. The Minor Gods in the Period of Hammurabi 171
XI. Survivals of Animism in the Babylonian Religion 180
XII. The Assyrian Pantheon 188
XIII. The Triad and the Combined Invocation of Deities 235
XIV. The Neo-babylonian Period 239
XV. The Religious Literature of Babylonia 245
XVI. The Magical Texts 253
XVII. The Prayers and Hymns 294
XVIII. Penitential Psalms 312
XIX. Oracles and Omens 328
XX. Various Classes of Omens 352
XXI. The Cosmology of the Babylonians 407
XXII. The Zodiacal System of the Babylonians 454
XXIII. The Gilgamesh Epic 467
XXIV. Myths and Legends 518
XXV. The Views of Life After Death 556
XXVI. The Temples and the Cult 612
XXVII. Conclusion 690

[Illustration: MAP OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

(From a drawing by Mr. J. HORACE FRANK.)]

THE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

CHAPTER I.--INTRODUCTION.

SOURCES AND METHODS OF STUDY.

I.

Until about the middle of the 19th century, our knowledge of the
religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians was exceedingly scant. No
records existed that were contemporaneous with the period covered by
Babylonian-Assyrian history; no monuments of the past were preserved
that might, in default of records, throw light upon the religious ideas
and customs that once prevailed in Mesopotamia. The only sources at
command were the incidental notices--insufficient and fragmentary in
character--that occurred in the Old Testament, in Herodotus, in
Eusebius, Syncellus, and Diodorus. Of these, again, only the two
first-named, the Old Testament and Herodotus, can be termed direct
sources; the rest simply reproduce extracts from other works, notably
from Ctesias, the contemporary of Xenophon, from Berosus, a priest of
the temple of Bel in Babylonia, who lived about the time of Alexander
the Great, or shortly after, and from Apollodorus, Abydenus, Alexander
Polyhistor, and Nicolas of Damascus, all of whom being subsequent to
Berosus, either quote the latter or are dependent upon him.

Of all these sources it may be said, that what information they furnish
of Babylonia and Assyria bears largely upon the political history, and
only to a very small degree upon the religion. In the Old Testament, the
two empires appear only as they enter into relations with the Hebrews,
and since Hebrew history is not traced back beyond the appearance of the
clans of Terah in Palestine, there is found previous to this period,
barring the account of the migrations of the Terahites in Mesopotamia,
only the mention of the Tigris and Euphrates among the streams watering
the legendary Garden of Eden, the incidental reference to Nimrod and his
empire, which is made to include the capitol cities of the Northern and
Southern Mesopotamian districts, and the story of the founding of the
city of Babylon, followed by the dispersion of mankind from their
central habitation in the Euphrates Valley. The followers of Abram,
becoming involved in the attempts of Palestinian chieftains to throw off
the yoke of Babylonian supremacy, an occasion is found for introducing
Mesopotamia again, and so the family history of the Hebrew tribes
superinduces at odd times a reference to the old settlements on the
Euphrates, but it is not until the political struggles of the two Hebrew
kingdoms against the inevitable subjection to the superior force of
Assyrian arms, and upon the fall of Assyria, to the Babylonian power,
that Assyria and Babylonia engage the frequent attention of the
chronicler's pen and of the prophet's word. Here, too, the political
situation is always the chief factor, and it is only incidentally that
the religion comes into play,--as when it is said that Sennacherib, the
king of Assyria, was murdered while worshipping in the temple dedicated
to a deity, Nisroch; or when a prophet, to intensify the picture of the
degradation to which the proud king of Babylon is to be reduced,
introduces Babylonian conceptions of the nether world into his
discourse.[5] Little, too, is furnished by the Book of Daniel, despite
the fact that Babylon is the center of action, and what little there is
bearing on the religious status, such as the significance attached to
dreams, and the implied contrast between the religion of Daniel and his
companions, and that of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, loses some
of its force by the late origin of the book. The same applies, only in a
still stronger degree, to the Book of Judith, in which Nineveh is the
center of the incidents described.

The rabbinical literature produced in Palestine and Babylonia is far
richer in notices bearing on the religious practices of Mesopotamia,
than is the Old Testament. The large settlements of Jews in Babylonia,
which, beginning in the sixth century B.C., were constantly being
increased by fresh accessions from Palestine, brought the professors of
Judaism face to face with religious conditions abhorrent to their souls.
In the regulations of the Rabbis to guard their followers from the
influences surrounding them, there is frequent reference, open or
implied, to Babylonish practices, to the festivals of the Babylonians,
to the images of their gods, to their forms of incantations, and other
things besides; but these notices are rendered obscure by their indirect
character, and require a commentary that can only be furnished by that
knowledge of the times which they take for granted. To this difficulty,
there must be added the comparatively late date of the notices, which
demands an exercise of care before applying them to the very early
period to which the religion of the Babylonians may be traced.

Coming to Herodotus, it is a matter of great regret that the history of
Assyria, which he declares it was his intention to write,[6] was either
never produced, or if produced, lost. In accordance with the general
usage of his times, Herodotus included under Assyria the whole of
Mesopotamia, both Assyria proper in the north and Southern Mesopotamia.
His history would therefore have been of extraordinary value, and since
nothing escaped his observant eye and well-trained mind, the religious
customs of the country would have come in for their full share of
attention. As it is, we have only a few notices about Babylonia and
Assyria, incidental to his history of Persia.[7] Of these, the majority
are purely historical, chief among which is an epitome of the country's
past--a curious medley of fact and legend--and the famous account of the
capture of Babylon by Cyrus. Fortunately, however, there are four
notices that treat of the religion of the inhabitants: the first, a
description of an eight-storied tower, surmounted by a temple sacred to
the god Bel; a second furnishing a rather detailed account of another
temple, also sacred to Bel, and situated in the same precinct of the
city of Babylon; a third notice speaks, though with provoking brevity,
of the funeral customs of the Babylonians; while in a fourth he
describes the rites connected with the worship of the chief goddess of
the Babylonians, which impress Herodotus, who failed to appreciate their
mystic significance, as shameful. We have no reason to believe that
Ctesias' account of the Assyrian monarchy, under which he, like
Herodotus, included Babylonia, contained any reference to the religion
at all. What he says about Babylonia and Assyria served merely as an
introduction to Persian history--the real purpose of his work--and the
few fragments known chiefly through Diodorus and Eusebius, deal
altogether with the succession of dynasties. As is well known, the lists
of Ctesias have fallen into utter discredit by the side of the
ever-growing confidence in the native traditions as reported by Berosus.

The loss of the latter's history of Babylon is deplorable indeed; its
value would have been greater than the history of Herodotus, because it
was based, as we know, on the records and documents preserved in
Babylonian temples. How much of the history dealt with the religion of
the people, it is difficult to determine, but the extracts of it found
in various writers show that starting, like the Old Testament, with the
beginning of things, Berosus gave a full account of the cosmogony of the
Babylonians. Moreover, the early history of Babylonia being largely
legendary, as that of every other nation, tales of the relations
existing between the gods and mankind--relations that are always close
in the earlier stages of a nation's history--must have abounded in the
pages of Berosus, even if he did not include in his work a special
section devoted to an account of the religion that still was practiced
in his days. The quotations from Berosus in the works of Josephus are
all of a historical character; those in Eusebius and Syncellus, on the
contrary, deal with the religion and embrace the cosmogony of the
Babylonians, the account of a deluge brought on by the gods, and the
building of a tower. It is to be noted, moreover, that the quotations we
have from Berosus are not direct, for while it is possible, though not
at all certain, that Josephus was still able to consult the works of
Berosus, Eusebius and Syncellus refer to Apollodorus, Abydenus, and
Alexander Polyhistor as their authorities for the statements of Berosus.
Passing in this way through several hands, the authoritative value of
the comparatively paltry extracts preserved, is diminished, and a
certain amount of inaccuracy, especially in details and in the reading
of proper names,[8] becomes almost inevitable. Lastly, it is to be noted
that the list of Babylonian kings found in the famous astronomical work
of Claudius Ptolemaeus, valuable as it is for historical purposes, has
no connection with the religion of the Babylonians.

II.

The sum total of the information thus to be gleaned from ancient sources
for an elucidation of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion is exceedingly
meagre, sufficing scarcely for determining its most general traits.
Moreover, what there is, requires for the most part a control through
confirmatory evidence which we seek for in vain, in biblical or
classical literature.

This control has now been furnished by the remarkable discoveries made
beneath the soil of Mesopotamia since the year 1842. In that year the
French consul at Mosul, P. E. Botta, aided by a government grant, began
a series of excavations in the mounds that line the banks of the Tigris
opposite Mosul. The artificial character of these mounds had for some
time been recognized. Botta's first finds of a pronounced character were
made at a village known as Khorsabad, which stood on one of the mounds
in question. Here, at a short distance below the surface, he came across
the remains of what proved to be a palace of enormous extent. The
sculptures that were found in this palace--enormous bulls and lions
resting on backgrounds of limestone, and guarding the approaches to the
palace chambers, or long rows of carvings in high relief lining the
palace walls, and depicting war scenes, building operations, and
religious processions--left no doubt as to their belonging to an ancient
period of history. The written characters found on these monuments
substantiated the view that Botta had come across an edifice of the
Assyrian empire, while subsequent researches furnished the important
detail that the excavated edifice lay in a suburb of the ancient capitol
of Assyria, Nineveh, the exact site of which was directly opposite
Mosul. Botta's labors extended over a period of two years; by the end of
which time, having laid bare the greater part of the palace, he had
gathered a large mass of material including many smaller
objects--pottery, furniture, jewelry, and ornaments--that might serve
for the study of Assyrian art and of Assyrian antiquities, while the
written records accompanying the monuments placed for the first time an
equally considerable quantity of original material at the disposal of
scholars for the history of Assyria. All that could be transported was
sent to the Louvre, and this material was subsequently published. Botta
was followed by Austen Henry Layard, who, acting as the agent of the
British Museum, conducted excavations during the years 1845-52, first at
a mound Nimrud, some fifteen miles to the south of Khorsabad, and
afterwards on the site of Nineveh proper, the mound Koyunjik, opposite
Mosul, besides visiting and examining other mounds still further to the
south within the district of Babylonia proper.

The scope of Layard's excavations exceeded, therefore, those of Botta;
and to the one palace at Khorsabad, he added three at Nimrud and two at
Koyunjik, besides finding traces of a temple and other buildings. The
construction of these edifices was of the same order as the one
unearthed by Botta; and as at the latter, there was a large yield of
sculptures, inscriptions, and miscellaneous objects. A new feature,
however, of Layard's excavations was the finding of several rooms filled
with fragments of small and large clay tablets closely inscribed on both
sides in the cuneiform characters. These tablets, about 30,000 of which
found their way to the British Museum, proved to be the remains of a
royal library. Their contents ranged over all departments of
thought,--hymns, incantations, prayers, epics, history, legends,
mythology, mathematics, astronomy constituting some of the chief
divisions. In the corners of the palaces, the foundation records were
also found, containing in each case more or less extended annals of the
events that occurred during the reign of the monarch whose official
residence was thus brought to light. Through Layard, the foundations
were laid for the Assyrian and Babylonian collections of the British
Museum, the parts of which exhibited to the public now fill six large
halls. Fresh sources of a direct character were thus added for the
study, not only of the historical unfolding of the Assyrian empire, but
through the tablets of the royal library, for the religion of ancient
Mesopotamia as well.