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

Damkina.

The consort of Ea figures occasionally in the historical texts of
Hammurabi's successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Ea and Damkina, asking these
gods, who 'dwell in the great ocean' surrounding the earth, to grant him
long life. In addition to this, the antiquity of the literary
productions in which her name appears justifies us in reckoning her
among the gods of Babylonia of Hammurabi's time. Her name signifies
'lady of the earth,' and there is evidently a theoretical substratum to
this association of Ea, the water-god, with an earth-goddess. The one
forms the complement to the other; and Marduk, as the son of water and
earth, takes his place in the theory as the creator of the world. In
this form the 'natural philosophy' of Babylonia survived to a late
period. Nicolas of Damascus still knows (probably through Berosus) that
Ea and Damkina[146] had a son Bel (_i.e._, Marduk). The survival of the
name is a proof that, despite the silence of the historical texts, she
was a prominent personage in Babylonian mythology, even though she did
not figure largely in the cult. She appears in the magical texts quite
frequently at the side of Ea. In a hymn[147] where a description occurs
of the boat containing Ea, Damkina his wife, and Marduk their son,
together with the ferryman and some other personages sailing across the
ocean, we may see traces of the process of symbolization to which the
old figures of mythology were subjected.

Shamash.

Passing on, we find Hammurabi as strongly attached to the worship of the
old sun-god as any of his predecessors. Next to Babylon, he was much
concerned with making improvements in Sippar. The Temple of Shamash at
Larsa also was improved and enlarged by him. Hammurabi's example is
followed by his successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Shamash as 'warrior of
heaven and earth'; and it is likely that the precedent furnished by
these two kings, who considered it consistent with devotion to Marduk to
single out the places sacred to Shamash for special consideration, had
much to do in maintaining the popularity of sun-worship in Babylonia and
Assyria. Kara-indash, of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1450 B.C.), restores
the temple of Shamash at Larsa, and Mili-shikhu, two centuries later,
assigns to Shamash the second place in his pantheon, naming him before
Marduk. Foreign rulers were naturally not so deeply attached to Marduk
as were the natives of Babylon. In the Assyrian pantheon Shamash
occupies the third place, following immediately upon the two special
deities of Assyria. One of the greatest of the northern kings erects a
temple in honor of the god, and the later Babylonian kings vie with one
another in doing honor to the two oldest sanctuaries of Shamash, at
Sippar and Larsa. Perhaps the pristine affinity between Marduk, who, as
we saw, was originally a sun-deity, and Shamash, also had a share in
Hammurabi's fondness for coupling these two gods. When describing his
operations at Sippar he speaks of himself as 'doing good to the flesh of
Shamash and Marduk.' Hammurabi felt himself to be honoring Marduk,
through paying homage to a deity having affinity with the patron
protector of Babylon.

Innanna.

We have already come across a deity of this name in a previous
chapter.[148] Hammurabi tells us, in one of his inscriptions, that he
has restored the temple in honor of Innanna at Hallabi--a town near
Sippar.[149] Innanna, or Ninni, signifying merely 'lady,' or 'great
lady,' appears to have become a very general name for a goddess, hence
the addition 'of Hallabi,' which Hammurabi is careful to make. At the
same time the designation 'lady of Hallabi' points to her being a
consort of a male deity who was the patron of the place. May this have
been the moon-god again, as in the case of the other Innanna? Our
knowledge of this goddess is confined to what the king tells us about
her. For him she is the mistress whose glory fills heaven and earth, but
when he adds that she has placed in his hands the reins of government,
this only means that the goddess recognizes his right to supreme
authority over the Babylonian states--not that he owes his power to her.
It is after he has succeeded in making Babylon the capital of a great
kingdom that he proceeds to improve the temple of Innanna.

Bel and the Triad of Babylonian Theology.

Among the literary remains of Hammurabi's days we have a hymn in which
the chief gods worshipped by the king are enumerated in succession. The
list begins with Bel, and then mentions Sin, Ninib, Ishtar, Shamash, and
Ramman. We should expect to find at the head of the list Marduk. The
hymn may be older than Hammurabi, who, perhaps, is quoting or copying
it, and since the Bel who is here at the head of the pantheon is the god
of Nippur, the hymn may originally have belonged to the ritual of that
place. For Hammurabi the highest 'Bel,' or lord, is Marduk, and there is
hardly room for doubt that in using this hymn as a means of passing on
to singing his own praises, with which the inscription in question ends,
Hammurabi has in mind the patron god of Babylon when speaking of
Bel.[150] It is this amalgamation of the old Bel with Marduk that marks,
as we have seen, the transition to the use of Bel's name as a mere title
of Marduk. Elsewhere, however, Hammurabi uses Bel to designate the old
god. So when he calls himself the proclaimer of Anu and Bel[151] the
association with Anu makes it impossible that Marduk should be meant. At
times he appears to refer in the same inscription, now to the old Bel
and again to Bel-Marduk, under the same designation. When Kurigalzu, a
member of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1400 B.C.), speaks of 'Bel, the lord
of lands,' to whom he erects a temple in the new city, Dur-Kurigalzu--
some forty miles to the northeast of Babylon--it is the old Bel who is
again meant. While acknowledging Marduk as one of the chief gods, these
foreign rulers in Babylonia--the Cassites--did not feel the same
attachment to him as Hammurabi did. They gave the preference to the old
god of Nippur, and, indeed, succeeded in their attempt to give to the
old city of Nippur some of its pristine glory. They devoted themselves
assiduously to the care of the great temple at Nippur. There are some
indications of an attempt made by them to make Nippur the capital of
their empire. In the case of Hammurabi's immediate successor, as has
been pointed out, the equation Bel-Marduk is distinctly set down, but,
for all that, the double employment of the name continues even through
the period of the Assyrian supremacy over Babylonia. The northern rulers
now use Bel to designate the more ancient god, and, again, merely as a
designation of Marduk. Tiglathpileser I. (see note 1, below) expressly
adds 'the older' when speaking of Bel. When Sargon refers to Bel, 'the
lord of lands, who dwells on the sacred mountain of the gods,' or when
Tiglathpileser I. calls Bel 'the father of the gods,' 'the king of the
group of spirits' known as the Anunaki, it is of course only the old
Bel, the lord of the lower region, or of the earth, who can be meant;
but when, as is much more frequently the case, the kings of Assyria,
down to the fall of the empire, associate Bel with Nabu, speak of Bel
and the gods of Akkad (_i.e._, Babylonia), and use Bel, moreover, to
designate Babylonia,[152] it is equally clear that Marduk is meant. In
the Neo-Babylonian empire Marduk alone is used.

The continued existence of a god Bel in the Babylonian pantheon, despite
the amalgamation of Bel with Marduk, is a phenomenon that calls for some
comment. The explanation is to be found in the influence of the
theological system that must have been developed in part, at least, even
before the union of the Babylonian states.[153] Bel, as the god of
earth, was associated with Anu, as the god of heaven, and Ea, as the god
of the deep, to form a triad that embraced the entire universe. When,
therefore, Anu, Bel, and Ea were invoked, it was equivalent to naming
all the powers that influenced the fate of man. They embraced, as it
were, the three kingdoms of the gods, within which all the other gods
could be comprised. The systematization involved in the assumption of a
triad of gods controlling the entire pantheon can hardly be supposed to
have been a popular process. It betokens an amount of thought and
speculation, a comprehensive view of the powers of nature, that could
only have arisen in minds superior to the average intelligence. In other
words, the conception of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea is again an evidence
of the existence of schoolmen and of schools of religious thought in the
days of the ancient empire. So far, however, as Hammurabi is concerned,
he only refers to a duality--Anu and Bel--which, for him, comprises all
the other gods. He is the 'proclaimer of Anu and Bel.' It is Anu and Bel
who give him sovereignty over the land. In the texts of the second
period the triad does not occur until we come to the reign of a king,
Mili-shikhu, who lives at least eight centuries after Hammurabi. Ea, in
fact, does not occur at all in those inscriptions of the king that have
as yet been discovered. If any conclusion is to be drawn from this
omission, it is certainly this,--that there are several stages in the
development of the ancient theological system of Babylonia. At first a
duality of kingdoms--the kingdom of what is above and below--was
conceived as comprising all the personified powers of nature, but this
duality was replaced by a triad through the addition of the god who
stands at the head of all water-deities. Of course the assumption of a
duality instead of a triad may have been due to a difference among
existing schools of thought. At all events, there seems to be no
political reason for the addition of Ea, and it is difficult to say,
therefore, how soon the conception of a triad standing at the head of
the pantheon arose. We have found it in Gudea's days, and it must,
therefore, have existed in the days of Hammurabi, without, perhaps,
being regarded as an essential dogma as yet. A direct and natural
consequence of Bel's position in the triad was that, by the side of
Bel-Marduk, the older Bel continued to be invoked in historical
inscriptions. Since Anu and Ea were appealed to by themselves, the
former occasionally, the latter more frequently, there was no reason why
a ruler should not at times be prompted to introduce an invocation to
Bel, without the direct association with Anu and Ea. The confusion that
thus ensues between the two Bels was not of serious moment, since from
the context one could without difficulty determine which of the two was
meant; and what we, with our limited knowledge of ancient Babylonia, are
able to do, must have been an easy task for the Babylonians
themselves.[154] It is tempting to suppose that the first command of the
Decalogue (Exodus, xx) contains an implied reference to the Babylonian
triad.

Anu, Bel, and Ea.

The theory of the triad succeeds in maintaining its hold upon Babylonian
minds from a certain period on, through all political and intellectual
vicissitudes. To invoke Anu, Bel, and Ea becomes a standing formula that
the rulers of Babylonia as well as of Assyria are fond of employing.
These three are the great gods _par excellence_. They occupy a place of
their own. The kings do not feel as close to them as to Marduk, or to
Ashur, or even to the sun-god, or to the moon-god. The invocation of the
triad partakes more of a formal character, as though in giving to these
three gods the first place, the writers felt that they were following an
ancient precedent that had more of a theoretical than a practical value
for their days. So among Assyrian rulers, Ashur-rish-ishi (_c._ 1150
B.C.) derives his right to the throne from the authority with which he
is invested by the triad. Again, in the formal curses which the kings
called down upon the destroyers of the inscriptions or statues that they
set up, the appeal to Anu, Bel, and Ea is made. Ashurnasirbal calls upon
the triad not to listen to the prayers of such as deface his monuments.
Sargon has an interesting statement in one of his inscriptions,
according to which the names of the months were fixed by Anu, Bel, and
Ea. This 'archaeological' theory illustrates very well the extraneous
position occupied by the triad. The months, as we shall see, are sacred,
each to a different god. The gods thus distinguished are the ones that
are directly concerned in the fortunes of the state,--Sin, Ashur,
Ishtar, and the like. Anu, Bel, and Ea are not in the list, and the
tradition, or rather the dogma according to which they assign the names
is evidently an attempt to make good this omission by placing them, as
it were, beyond the reach of the calendar. In short, so far as the
historical texts are concerned which reflect the popular beliefs, the
triad represents a theological doctrine rather than a living force. In
combination, Anu, Bel, and Ea did not mean as much, nor the same thing,
to a Babylonian or an Assyrian, as when he said Marduk, or Nabu, or
Ashur, or Sin, as the case might be. It was different when addressing
these gods individually, as was occasionally done. The Assyrians were
rather fond of introducing Anu by himself in their prayers, and the
Babylonians were prompted to a frequent mention of Ea by virtue of his
relationship to Marduk, but when this was done Anu and Ea meant
something different than when mentioned in one breath along with Bel.

Belit.

One might have supposed that when Bel became Marduk, the consort of Bel
would also become Marduk's consort. Such, however, does not appear to be
the case, at least so far as the epoch of Hammurabi is concerned. When
he calls himself 'the beloved shepherd of Belit,' it is the wife of the
old Bel that is meant, and so when Agumkakrimi mentions Bel and Belit
together, as the gods that decree his fate on earth, there is no doubt
as to what Belit is meant. In later days, however, and in Assyria more
particularly, there seems to be a tendency towards generalizing the name
(much as that of Bel) to the extent of applying it in the sense of
'mistress' to the consort of the chief god of the pantheon; and that
happening to be Ashur in Assyria accounts for the fact, which might
otherwise appear strange, that Tiglathpileser I. (_c._ 1140 B.C.) calls
Belit the 'lofty consort and beloved of Ashur.' Ashurbanabal (668-626
B.C.) does the same, and even goes further and declares himself to be
the offspring of Ashur and Belit. On the other hand, in the interval
between these two kings we find Shalmaneser II. (860-825 B.C.) calling
Belit 'the mother of the great gods' and 'the wife of Bel,' making it
evident that the old Belit of the south is meant, and since Ashurbanabal
on one occasion also calls the goddess 'the beloved of Bel,'[155] it
follows that in his days two Belits were still recognized, or perhaps it
would be more accurate to say two uses of the term,--one specifically
for the consort of the Babylonian Bel, the god of the earth, with his
ancient seat at Nippur; the other of a more general character, though
still limited as 'lady' to the consort of the _chief_ gods, just as
'Bel,' while acquiring the general sense of 'lord,' was restricted in
actual usage to the _greatest_ 'lords' only. An indication of this
distinction, somewhat parallel to the addition of Dagan to Bel, to
indicate that the old Bel was meant,[156] appears in the sobriquet 'of
Babylonia,'[157] which Ashurbanabal gives to the goddess in one place
where the old Belit is meant. Under the influence of this Assyrian
extension of the term, Nabopolassar, in the Neo-Babylonian period,
applies the title to the consort of Shamash at Sippar, but he is careful
to specify 'Belit of Sippar,' in order to avoid misunderstanding.
Besides being applied to the consorts of Ashur and of Shamash, 'Belit,'
in the general sense of 'mistress,' is applied only to another goddess,
the great Ishtar of the Assyrian pantheon--generally, however, as a
title, not as a name of the goddess. The important position she occupied
in the Assyrian pantheon seemed to justify this further modification and
extension in the use of the term. Occasionally, Ishtar is directly and
expressly called 'Belit.' So, Ashurbanabal speaks of a temple that he
has founded in Calah to 'Belit mati,'[158] 'the Belit (or lady) of the
land,' where the context speaks in favor of identifying Belit with the
great goddess Ishtar. Again Ashurbanabal, in a dedicatory inscription
giving an account of improvements made in the temple of Ishtar,
addresses the goddess as Belit 'lady of lands, dwelling in
E-mash-mash.'[159]

Anu and Anatum.

In the second period of Babylonian history the worship of the supreme
god of heaven becomes even more closely bound up with Anu's position as
the first member of the inseparable triad than was the case in the first
period. For Hammurabi, as has been noted, Anu is only a half-real figure
who in association with Bel is represented as giving his endorsement to
the king's authority.[160] The manner in which Agumkakrimi introduces
Anu is no less characteristic for the age of Hammurabi and his
successors. At the beginning of his long inscription,[161] he enumerates
the chief gods under whose protection he places himself. As a Cassitic
ruler, he assigns the first place to the chief Cassite deity, Shukamuna,
a god of war whom the Babylonian scholars identified with their own
Nergal.[162] Shukamuna is followed by the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea. Marduk
occupies a fifth place, after which comes a second triad, Sin, Shamash
"the mighty hero," and Ishtar[163] "the strong one among the gods." The
inscription is devoted to the king's successful capture of the statues
of Marduk and Sarpanitum out of the hands of the Khani, and the
restoration of the shrines of these deities at Babylon. At the close,
the king Agumkakrimi appeals to Anu and his consort Anatum,[164] who are
asked to bless the king in heaven, to Bel and Belit who are asked to fix
his fate on earth, and to Ea and Damkina, inhabiting the deep,[165] who
are to grant him long life. As in the beginning of the inscription, the
thought of the triad--Anu, Bel, Ea--evidently underlies this interesting
invocation, but at the same time the association of a consort with Anu
brings the god into closer relationship with his fellows. He takes
on--if the contradiction in terms be permitted--a more human shape. His
consort bears a name that is simply the feminine form to Anu, just as
Belit is the feminine to Bel. 'Anu,' signifying 'the one on high,'--a
feminine to it was formed, manifestly under the influence of the notion
that every god must have a consort of some kind. After Agumkakrimi no
further mention of Anatum occurs, neither in the inscriptions of
Babylonian nor of Assyrian rulers. We are permitted to conclude,
therefore, that Anatum was a product of the schools, and one that never
took a strong hold on the popular mind. Among the Assyrian kings who in
other respects also show less dependence upon the doctrines evolved in
the Babylonian schools, and whose inscriptions reflect to a greater
degree the purely popular phases of the faith, we find Anu mentioned
with tolerable frequency, and in a manner that betrays less emphasis
upon the position of the god as a member of the triad. Still, it is
rather curious that he does not appear even in the inscriptions of the
Assyrian kings by himself, but in association with another god. Thus
Tiglathpileser I. (_c._ 1130 B.C.) gives an elaborate account of an old
temple to Anu and Ramman in the city of Ashur that he restores to more
than its former grandeur.[166] This dedication of a temple to two
deities is unusual. Ramman is the god of thunder and storms, whose seat
of course is in the heavens. He stands close, therefore, to Anu, the
supreme god of heaven. In the religious productions, this relationship
is expressed by making Ramman the son of Anu. From a passage descriptive
of this temple it would appear that the old temple founded by King
Samsi-Ramman, who lived several centuries before Tiglathpileser, was
dedicated to Ramman. It looks, therefore, as though the association of
Anu with Ramman was the work of the later king. What his motive was in
thus combining Anu with Ramman it is difficult to say, but in his
account of the restoration of the sanctuary, he so consistently mentions
Anu and Ramman together,[167] designating them unitedly as 'the great
gods my lords,' that one gains the impression that the two were
inseparable in his mind, Ramman being perhaps regarded simply as a
manifestation of Anu. The supposition finds some support in the closing
words of the inscription, where, in hurling the usual curses upon those
who should attempt to destroy his monuments, he invokes Ramman alone,
whom he asks to punish the offender by his darts, by hunger, by distress
of every kind, and by death.

Elsewhere Anu appears in association with Dagan, of whom we shall have
occasion to speak in the chapter on the Assyrian pantheon. Suffice it to
say here that Dagan in this connection is an equivalent of Bel. When,
therefore, Ashurbanabal and Sargon call themselves 'the favorite of Anu
and Dagan,' it is the same as though they spoke of Anu and Bel. Apart
from this, Anu only appears when a part or the whole of the Assyrian
pantheon is enumerated. Thus we come across Anu, Ramman, and Ishtar as
the chief gods of the city of Ashur,[168] and again Anu, Ashur, Shamash,
Ramman, and Ishtar.[169] Finally, Sargon who names the eight gates of
his palace after the chief gods of the land does not omit Anu, whom he
describes as the 'one who blesses his handiwork.' Otherwise we have Anu
only when the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea is invoked. Once Ramman-nirari I.
(_c._ 1325 B.C.) adds Ishtar to the triad. After Sargon we no longer
find Anu's name at all among the deities worshipped in Assyria. On the
whole, then, Anu's claim to reverence rests in Assyria as well as in
Babylonia upon his position in the triad, and while Assyria is less
influenced by the ancient system devised in Babylonia whereby Anu, Bel,
and Ea come to be the representatives of the three kingdoms among which
the gods are distributed, still Anu as a specific deity, ruling in his
own right, remains a rather shadowy figure. The only temple in his honor
is the one which he shares with Ramman, and which, as noted, appears to
have been originally devoted to the service of the latter. One other
factor that must be taken into account to explain the disappearance of
Anu is the gradual enforcement of Ashur's claim to the absolute headship
of the Assyrian pantheon. Either Anu or Ashur had to be assigned to this
place, and when circumstances decided the issue in favor of Ashur, there
was no place worthy of Anu as a specific deity. Ashur usurps in a
measure the role of Anu. So far as Babylonia was concerned, there was
still in the twelfth century B.C. a city 'Der' which is called the 'city
of Anu.' The city is probably of very ancient foundation, and its
continued association with Anu forms an interesting survival of a local
conception that appears to have been once current of the god.

In the religious literature, especially in that part of it which
furnishes us with the scholastic recastings of the popular traditions,
Anu is a much more prominent figure than in the historical texts. From
being merely the personification of the heavens, he is raised to the
still higher dignity of symbolizing, as Jensen puts it,[170] the
abstract principle of which both the heavens and earth are emanations.
All the earliest gods conceived of by popular tradition as existing from
the beginning of things are viewed as manifestations of Anu, or of Anu
and Anatum in combination. He gives ear to prayers, but he is not
approached directly. The gods are his messengers, who come and give him
report of what is going on.[171] He is a god for the gods rather than
for men. When his daughter Ishtar is insulted she appeals to her father
Anu; and when the gods are terrified they take refuge with Anu. Armed
with a mighty weapon whose assault nothing can withstand, Anu is
surrounded by a host of gods and powerful spirits who are ready to
follow his lead and to do his service.

Ramman.

With Ramman we reach a deity whose introduction into the Babylonian
pantheon and whose position therein appears to be entirely independent
of Marduk.

The reading of the name as Ramman (or Rammanu) is provisional. The
ideograph _Im_ with which the name is written designates the god as the
power presiding over storms; and while it is certain that, in Assyria at
least, the god was known as Ramman, which means 'the thunderer,' it is
possible that this was an epithet given to the god, and not his real or
his oldest name. It is significant that in the El-Amarna tablets (_c._
1500 B.C.), where the god _Im_ appears as an element in proper names,
the reading _Addu_ is vouched for, and this form has been justly brought
into connection with a very famous solar deity of Syria,--Hadad. The
worship of Hadad, we know, was widely spread in Palestine and Syria, and
there is conclusive evidence that Hadad (or Adad), as a name for the god
_Im_, was known in Babylonia. Professor Oppert is of the opinion that
Adad represents the oldest name of the god. Quite recently the
proposition has been made that the real name of the deity was
_Immeru_.[172] The ideograph in this case would arise through the
curtailment of the name (as is frequently the case in the cuneiform
syllabary), and the association of _Im_ with 'storm' and 'wind' would be
directly dependent upon the nature of the deity in question. The
material at hand is not sufficient for deciding the question. Besides
Immeru, Adad, and Ramman, the deity was also known as _Mer_--connected
apparently with Immeru.[173] So much is certain, that Ramman appears to
have been the name currently used in Assyria for this god. Adad may have
been employed occasionally in Babylonia, as was _Mer_ in proper names,
but that it was not the common designation is proved by a list of gods
(published by Bezold[174]) in which the _foreign_ equivalent for _Im_ is
set down as Adad. We may for the present, therefore, retain Ramman,
while bearing in mind that we have only proof of its being an epithet
applied to the god, not necessarily his real name and in all
probabilities not the oldest name.