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

The Neo-Babylonian kings are not sparing in the epithets they bestow on
Nabu, though they emphasize more his qualities as holder of the
'sceptre' than as lord of the 'stylus.' So Nebuchadnezzar declares that
it is he 'who gives the sceptre of sovereignty to kings to rule over all
lands.' In this capacity he is 'the upholder of the world,' 'the general
overseer,' and his temple is called 'the house of the sceptre of the
world.'

His name signifies simply the 'proclaimer,' or herald, but we are left
in doubt as to what he proclaims,--whether wisdom or sovereignty.
Sometimes he appears as the 'herald' of the gods. In this role he
receives the name of Papsukal (_i.e._, supreme or sacred messenger), and
it may be that this function was a very old one. But, again, as god of
fertility he could also be appropriately termed the 'proclaimer.' The
question must, accordingly, be left open as to the precise force of the
attribute contained in his name. Finally, an interesting feature
connected with Nabu, that may be mentioned here, is that in the name
borne by a famous mountain in Moab, Nebo, where Moses--himself a
'proclaimer'[135]--died, there survives a testimony that the worship of
this popular deity extended beyond the Euphrates and the Tigris, to
Semites living considerably to the west. To Nabu, as to Marduk, a
consort was given. Her name was

Tashmitum.

The name Tashmitum appears for the first time in the days of Hammurabi.
Attention has already been called to the king's ignoring of the god of
Borsippa. While his attempt to suppress the cult of Nabu was not
successful, he did succeed in causing the old consort of Nabu to
disappear. This consort appears to have been no other than Erua. It will
be recalled that up to very late times the tradition survived that her
dwelling-place was Borsippa.[136] This is never said of Sarpanitum.
Despite, therefore, the amalgamation of Sarpanitum and Erua, the
association of the latter with Nabu's dwelling-place remains impressed
upon the memory of the Babylonian scholars, at least. Nabu's consort
having thus been transferred to Marduk, a new mate had to be found for
the former, when once his rivalry was no longer to be dreaded, and his
cult again rose to prominence. 'Tashmitum' is an abstract noun in
Assyrian, signifying 'revelation.' As such, it is bestowed in historical
texts upon Nabu himself, who is called _itu tashimeti_, 'god of
revelation.' Nabu is, above all, a 'revealing' god,--revealing
knowledge, the art of writing, and the method of ruling. The appellation
is therefore a most appropriate one, and there seems little reason to
question that Tashmitum was originally nothing but one of the terms by
which Nabu was designated, just as he was called Papsukal in his role as
'messenger' of the gods,--the messenger of his father Marduk and of his
grandfather Ea, in particular. But Tashmitum, being feminine in gender,
as an abstract noun, seemed appropriate as the designation of a goddess.
It would appear, then, that 'Revelation,' from being so constantly
associated with Nabu, was personified, dissociated from him, as it were,
through the conception of a distinct goddess bearing the name of
'Tashmitum.' This process of thought, in giving rise to a new goddess,
may have been, in part, a popular one. The translation of a metaphor
into reality is a phenomenon that may be observed in almost all
religions of antiquity. But the process, whatever its course in detail
may have been, was not uninfluenced by the theological dogma whereby a
god was supposed to have a 'reflection' who was pictured as his consort.
Through this conception, as we have already seen, many a goddess once
ruling in her own right, and enjoying an independent existence,
degenerated into a mere shadow of some male deity, though, on the other
hand, it must be borne in mind that these female deities would have
disappeared altogether but for the opportunity thus afforded them of
becoming 'attachees' to some male deity. This theory of the
_quasi_-artificial character and origin of Tashmit finds support in the
manner in which the mention of her name is entwined with that of Nabu.
Sarpanitum, bound up as the goddess is with Marduk, has at least a
shrine of her own, and occasionally she is spoken of in the texts
without her husband Marduk.[137] The mention of Tashmitum, however,
invariably follows that of Nabu. It is always 'Nabu and Tashmitum,' and
it is never Tashmitum without Nabu. While the creation of Tashmitum may
be a product of Babylonian religious thought, it is in Assyrian texts
that her name is chiefly found. The great Ashurbanabal, in the
conventional subscript attached to his tablet, is particularly fond of
coupling Tashmitum with Nabu, as the two deities who opened his ears to
understanding and prompted him to gather in his palace the literary
treasures produced by the culture that flourished in the south. Tashmit
has no shrine or temple, so far as known, either in Borsippa or in any
of the places whither the Nabu cult spread. She has no attributes other
than those that belong to Nabu, and, what is very remarkable, the later
Babylonian kings, such as Nebuchadnezzar II., when they deem it proper
to attach a consort to Nabu call her Nana,[138] _i.e._, simply the lady,
and not Tashmitum, a proof, how little hold the name had taken upon the
Babylonian populace. If to this it be added, that in by far the greater
number of instances, no reference whatsoever to a consort is made when
Nabu is spoken of, an additional reason is found for the unreal, the
shadowy character of this goddess.

Ea.

In treating of the position occupied by Ea in the oldest period of
Babylonian history (see above, pp. 61-64), it has already been mentioned
that he grows to much larger proportions under the influence of a more
fully developed theological system. Indeed, there is no god who shows
such profound traces of having been submitted to a theological
treatment, and indirectly, therefore, furnishes so distinct a proof of
the existence of theological schools in the ancient centers of
Babylonian culture, as Ea. The question may with propriety be here
discussed, to what period we are to attribute the completion of the
process, which, to summarize his position, made Ea the special god of
humanity, the father of Marduk, the third in a great triad, of which the
other two members were Anu, the god of heaven, and Bel, the god of
earth. Already, in the days preceding the union of the Babylonian states
under one head, we have had occasion to see traces of an attempt to
systematize the relations existing between the gods. A high degree of
culture, such as the existence of a perfected form of writing, an
advanced form of architecture, and commercial enterprise reflect, cannot
be dissociated from a high degree of activity in the domain of
philosophic or religious thought. Accordingly, we are in no danger of
attributing too great an antiquity to the beginnings of theological
speculation in Babylonia. Be it remembered that from the earliest to the
latest days, the priests were the scribes and that in their capacity as
writers of the texts, they would be enjoying the advantages of an
intellectual impulse. But they were also the composers of the texts, as
well as the writers, and the prominence given to the gods in texts of
whatever description, would inevitably lead their thoughts to
speculations regarding the attributes of the gods. The attempt would at
an early period be made to find some unifying principles in the tangled
mass of gods. By the time that Hammurabi appears on the scene, we have
every reason to believe that some of the ancient libraries of the south,
whither Ashurbanabal sent his scribes, were already well stocked, and
that a goodly portion of the Babylonian literature known to us already
existed. What these portions were, we will have occasion to point out
when we come to discuss the literature of Babylonia. On the other hand,
this literature would not only necessarily increase as long as any
degree of intellectual activity existed in the country, but this
activity would also manifest itself in transforming this literature, so
as to adapt it to the thoughts and aspirations of a later age.
Especially would this be the case in the purely religious divisions of
literature. The ancient traditions, legends, and myths, once committed
to writing, would serve as a point of departure for further
speculations. The existence of a text to which any measure of value is
attached, is bound to give rise to various attempts at interpretation,
and if this value be connected with the religion of a people, the result
is, invariably, that the ancient words are invested with a meaning
conformable to a later age. Each generation among a people characterized
by intellectual activity has a signature of its own, and it will seek to
give to the religious thoughts of the time its own particular impress.
Since, however, the material upon which any age works is not of its own
making, but is furnished by a preceding one, it follows that much of the
intellectual activity of an age manifests itself in a transformation of
its literary or speculative heritage. This process was constantly going
on in Babylonia, and had we more material--and older material--at our
disposal, we would be able to trace more clearly than we can at present,
the various stages that led to the system of theology, as embodied in
the best productions of the ancient Babylonian schoolmen.

The days of Hammurabi, as they were politically of great importance,
also appear to have ushered in a new era in the religious life of the
people. Stirring political events are always apt to bring in their wake
intellectual movements, and in a country like Babylonia, where politics
react so forcibly on religious conditions, the permanent establishment
of the supremacy of the city of Babylon would be fraught with important
consequences for the cult. The main change brought about by this new
epoch of Babylonian history was, as we have seen, the superior position
henceforth accorded in the pantheon to Marduk as the patron deity of
Babylon; but this change entailed so many others, that it almost merits
being termed a revolution. In order to ensure Marduk's place, the
relations of the other deities to him had to be regulated, the legends
and traditions of the past reshaped, so as to be brought into consistent
accord with the new order of things, and the cult likewise to be, at
least in part, remodelled, so as to emphasize the supremacy of Marduk.
This work, which was an inevitable one, was primarily of an intellectual
order. We are justified, then, in looking for traces of this activity in
the remains that have been recovered of ancient Babylonian literature.
We know from direct evidence that the commercial life of Babylonia had
already, in the period preceding Hammurabi, led to regulated legal forms
and practices for the purpose of carrying out obligations and of
settling commercial and legal difficulties. The proof has been furnished
by Dr. Meissner[139] that syllabaries prepared for the better
understanding of the formulas and words employed in preparing the legal
and commercial tablets, date, in part, from the period which we may
roughly designate as that of Hammurabi,--covering, say, the three
centuries 2300 to 2000 B.C. With this evidence for the existence of
pedagogues devoted to the training of novices in the art of reading and
writing, in order to fit them for their future tasks as official
scribes, we are safe in assuming that these same schoolmen were no less
active in other fields of literature. If, in addition to this, we find
that much of the religious literature, in the shape that we have it,
reflects the religious conditions such as they must have shaped
themselves in consequence of the promotion of Marduk to the head of the
pantheon, the conclusion is forced upon us that such literary
productions date from this same epoch of Hammurabi. This influence of
the schoolmen while centering, as repeatedly pointed out, around the
position of Marduk, manifests itself in a pronounced fashion, also, in
the changed position henceforth accorded to the god Ea. It will be
recalled that in the earliest period of Babylonian history, Ea does not
figure prominently. At the same time we must beware of laying too much
stress upon the negative testimony of the historical texts. Besides the
still limited material of this character at our disposal, the
non-mention of a deity may be due to a variety of circumstances, that
may properly be designated as accidental. The gods to whom the kings of
the ancient Babylonian states would be apt to appeal would be, in the
first instance, the local deities, patrons of the city that happened to
be the capital of the state; in the second instance, the gods of the
vanquished towns; and thirdly, some of the great deities worshipped at
the sacred centers of the Euphrates valley, and who constituted, as it
were, the common heritage of the past. Ea, as the god of the Persian
gulf, the region which forms the starting-point of Babylonian culture,
and around which some of the oldest and most precious recollections
center, would come within the radius of the third instance, since, in
the period we have in mind, Eridu no longer enjoyed any political
importance. We may be sure, then, despite the silence of the texts, that
Ea was always held in great esteem, and that even the absence of temples
in his honor, did not affect the reverence and awe that he inspired. As
for the epoch of Hammurabi, the historical spirit that is never absent
in a truly intellectual age would be certain to restore Ea to his proper
prestige, assuming that a previous age had permitted him to fall into
neglect. Next to Marduk, there is no deity who is given such distinction
in Babylonia, after the union of the Babylonian states, as Ea. In the
religious literature, moreover, as reshaped by the schoolmen of the
time, his role is even more prominent than that of Marduk. As a
water-god, and more particularly as the god to whom the largest body of
water known to the Babylonians was sacred, Ea was regarded as the source
and giver of wisdom. Fountains everywhere were sacred to him; and so he
becomes also the giver of fertility and plenty. Berosus tells us of a
mystic being, half man, half fish, who spent his nights in the waters of
the gulf, but who would come out of the waters during the day to give
instruction to the people, until that time steeped in ignorance and
barbarism. This 'Oannes,' as Berosus is said[140] to have called him,
was none other than Ea. As the great benefactor of mankind, it is
natural that Ea should have come to be viewed as the god whose special
function it is to protect the human race, to advance it in all its good
undertakings, to protect it against the evil designs of gods or demons.
In this role, he appears in the religious literature--in the epics, the
cosmogony, and the ritual--of Babylonia. There is no god conceived in so
universal a manner as Ea. All local connection with Eridu disappears. He
belongs to no particular district. His worship is not limited to any
particular spot. All of Babylonia lays claim to him. The ethical import
of such a conception is manifestly great, and traces of it are to be
found in the religious productions. It impressed upon the Babylonians
the common bond uniting all mankind. The cult of Ea must have engendered
humane feelings, softening the rivalry existing among the ancient
centers of Babylonian power, and leading the people a considerable
distance, on the road to the conception of a common humanity. When the
gods decide to destroy mankind, it is Ea who intercedes on behalf of
humanity; when the demon of disease has entered a human body, it is to
Ea that, in the last resort, the appeal is made to free the sufferer
from his pain. Ea is the god of the physicians. Nay, more, it is Ea who
presided at the birth of humanity, so that his protection reaches far
back, beyond even the beginnings of civilization, almost to the
beginning of things. Lastly, as the god of civilization, it is to him
that the great works of art are ascribed. He is the god of the smithy,
the patron of the gold and silversmiths, of workers in lapis-lazuli, and
all kinds of precious stones. He is the god of sculpture. The great
bulls and lions that guarded the approaches to the temple and palace
chambers, as well as the statues of the gods and kings, were the work of
his hands. Furthermore, he is the patron of weavers, as of other arts.
This conception may have been perfected in a general way, and in all
probability was perfected before the days of Hammurabi, though perhaps
not prominently brought forward; but important modifications were
introduced into it, through the compromise that had to be arranged
between the position of Ea and that of Marduk. Of course, neither the
rulers nor the priests of Babylon could have permitted the reverence for
Ea to have gone to the length of throwing Marduk into the shade. Many of
the functions assigned to Ea seemed to belong of right to Marduk, who,
as the patron of Babylon, presided over the destinies of what to the
Babylonians was the essential part of mankind,--namely, themselves.
Moreover, Babylon being the seat of culture as well as of power, in the
period following upon Hammurabi, Marduk was necessarily conceived as
possessing the same wisdom that distinguishes Ea. As a consequence, the
attributes of Ea were transferred in a body to Marduk. An amalgamation
of the two, however, such as took place in the case of other deities,
was neither possible, nor, indeed, desirable. It was not possible,
because of the antiquity of the Ea cult and the peculiar position that
he, as a common heirloom of all Babylonia, occupied; nor was it
desirable, for to do so would be to cut off completely the bond uniting
Babylon to its own past and to the rest of Babylonia. The solution of
the problem was found in making Ea, the father of Marduk--the loving and
proud father who willingly transfers all his powers and qualities to his
son, who rejoices in the triumph of his offspring, and who suffers no
pangs of jealousy when beholding the superior honors shown to Marduk,
both by the gods and by men.

Ea and Marduk.

The combination of the two gods is particularly frequent in the
so-called incantation texts. Marduk becomes the mediator between Ea and
mankind. The man smitten with disease, or otherwise in trouble, appeals
to Marduk for help, who promptly brings the petition to his father Ea.
The latter, after modestly declaring that there is nothing that he knows
which his son Marduk does not know, gives Marduk the necessary
instructions, which in turn are conveyed to the one crying for divine
succor. It is clear that these texts have been reshaped with the
intention of adding to the glory of Marduk. They must, therefore, have
been remodelled at a time when the Marduk cult was in the ascendancy.
This was after the days of Hammurabi, and before the subjugation of
Babylonia to Assyrian rule. The limits thus assigned are, to be sure,
broad, but from what has above been said as to the intellectual activity
reigning in the days of Hammurabi, we need not descend far below the
death of the great conqueror to find the starting-point for the
remodelling of the texts in question. Not all of them, of course, were
so reshaped. There are quite a number in which Ea is alone and directly
appealed to, and these form a welcome confirmation of the supposition
that those in which Ea is joined to Marduk have been reshaped with a
desire to make them conform to the position of Marduk in the Babylonian
pantheon. Again, there are incantations in which the name of Marduk
appears without Ea. Such are either productions of a later period, of
the time when Marduk had already assumed his superior position, or what
is also possible, though less probable, old compositions in which the
name of Ea has been simply replaced by that of Marduk. An especially
interesting example of the manner in which ancient productions have been
worked over by the Babylonian theologians, with a view to bringing their
favorite Marduk into greater prominence, appears in one of the episodes
of the Babylonian cosmogony. Prior to the creation of man a great
monster known as Tiamat had to be subdued. The gods all shrink in terror
before her. Only one succeeds in conquering her. In the form of the
story, as we have it, this hero is Marduk, but it is quite evident[141]
that the honor originally belonged to an entirely different god, one who
is much older, and who stands much higher than the god of Babylon. This
was Bel,--the old god of Nippur who was conceived as the god of earth
_par excellence_, and to whom therefore the task of preparing the earth
for the habitation of mankind properly belonged. How do the Babylonian
theologians, who stand under the influence of the political conditions
prevailing in Babylonia after the union of the Babylonian states,
reconcile this older and true form of the episode with the form in which
they have recast it? The gods who are called the progenitors of Marduk
are represented as rejoicing upon seeing Marduk equipped for the fray.
In chorus they greet and bless him, "Marduk be king." They present him
with additional weapons, and encourage him for the contest. Upon hearing
of his success the gods vie with one another in conferring honors upon
Marduk. They bestow all manner of glorious epithets upon him; and, to
cap the climax, the old Bel, known as 'father Bel,' steps forward and
transfers to him his name, _bel matati_,[142] 'lord of lands.' To bestow
the name was equivalent to transferring Bel's powers to Marduk; and so
Marduk is henceforth known as _Bel_. But Ea must be introduced into the
episode. It is not sufficient that Bel, the original subduer of Tiamat,
should pay homage to Marduk; Ea also greets his son, and bestows his
name upon him,[143]--that is, transfers his powers to his son. There is
a special reason for this. The overthrow of Tiamat is followed by the
creation of man. This function properly belongs to Bel, both as the god
of earth and as the subduer of Tiamat. According to one--and probably
the oldest--version of this part of the Babylonian cosmogony which was
embodied in the work of Berosus[144], it is Bel who creates mankind. The
substitution of Marduk for Bel necessitated the transference of the role
of creator to Marduk likewise, and yet the latter could not take this
upon himself without the consent of his father Ea, who had become the
god of humanity _par excellence_. Ea could interpose no objection
against Bel being replaced by Marduk in vanquishing the monster, but
when it came to drawing the conclusion and replacing Bel by Marduk also
in the creation of man, the case was different. If Bel was to be
replaced, Ea had a prior claim. Marduk could only take the new functions
upon himself after receiving the powers of Ea. That is the force of Ea's
saying that Marduk's name also shall be Ea just as his. This
transference of the name of Ea to Marduk is in itself an indication that
there must have existed a second version in Babylonia--probably of later
origin than the other--of the creation of man, according to which Ea,
and not Bel, was the creator. We shall have occasion to see, in a future
chapter, that there were at least two different versions current in
Babylonia of the creation of the gods and of the universe. The opening
chapters in Genesis form an interesting parallel to show the manner in
which two different versions of one and the same subject may be
combined. There is, therefore, nothing improbable in the supposition
that a later version, reflecting a period when Bel had sunk into
comparative insignificance, made Ea the creator of mankind instead of
Bel, and that still later a solution of the apparent inconsistency
involved in transferring only part of Bel's powers to Marduk was found
by securing Ea's consent to the acknowledgment of Marduk not merely as
creator of mankind but of the heavenly vault as well. Jensen[145] has
brought other evidence to show that Ea was once regarded as the creator
of mankind. One of his titles is that of 'potter,' and mankind,
according to Babylonian theories, was formed of 'clay.' Moreover, in a
Babylonian myth that will be set forth in its proper place, Ea expressly
figures in the role of creating a mysterious being, _Uddushu-na-mir_,
whose name signifies 'his light shines.' Such a proper name, too, as
"Ea-bani," _i.e._, 'Ea creates,' points in the same direction.

In other literary productions of Babylonia, such as, _e.g._, the
so-called Izdubar epic, Ea again appears without Marduk, showing that
this story has not been remodeled, or that the later version, in which
the traces of a recasting may have been seen, has not been discovered.
In the deluge story, which forms part of the Izdubar epic, Ea alone is
the hero. It is he who saves humanity from complete annihilation, and
who pacifies the angered Bel. Marduk's name does not appear in the
entire epic. We have found it necessary to dwell thus at length upon
these evidences of the recasting of the literary products of ancient
Babylonia under the influence of changed conceptions of the gods and of
their relations to one another, for upon the understanding of these
changes, our appreciation of the development of religious beliefs in
Babylonia, and all connected with these beliefs, hinges. The epoch of
Hammurabi was a crucial one for Babylonia from a religious as well as
from a political point of view.