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

[658] See above, p. 138.

[659] See Jevons, _Introduction to the History of Religion_, chapters
vi.-ix.

[660] Robertson Smith; _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 143, 273.

[661] Lenormant, _Choix des Textes Cuneiformes,_ no. 89; Boissier,
_Documents, etc._, p. 104.

[662] _I.e._, the ruler of the palace.

[663] Lit., 'dark colored.'

[664] 'Not,' perhaps omitted.

[665] Boissier, p. 103.

[666] By vomiting on him.

[667] Out of which one eats.

[668] _I.e._, keep away from it.

[669] See p. 182.

[670] According to Hilprecht (_Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. part 2,
p. 35), 'a goose or similar water-bird' was originally pictured by the
sign, though he admits that the picture was 'later' used for swallow.

[671] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer,_ pp. 451-55.

[672] The term used is _Unagga_, Bezold's _Catalogue of the Koujunjik
Collection_, p. 1841. See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 153.

[673] Bezold, _Catalogue_, p. 1710.

[674] Boissier, _Documents, etc_., pp. 3, 4.

[675] Bezold, _Catalogue_, pp. 1437, 1438.

[676] Bezold, _ib._ p. 918.

[677] _I.e._, over him.

[678] Chapter ii. 4-6.

[679] Chapter ii. 31-35, and vii. 2-12.

CHAPTER XXI.

THE COSMOLOGY OF THE BABYLONIANS.

Various traditions were current in Babylonia regarding the manner in
which the universe came into existence. The labors of the theologians to
systematize these traditions did not succeed in bringing about their
unification. Somewhat like in the Book of Genesis, where two versions of
the creation story have been combined by some editor,[680] so portions
of what were clearly two independent versions have been found among the
remains of Babylonian literature. But whereas in the Old Testament the
two versions are presented in combination so as to form a harmonic
whole, the two Babylonian versions continued to exist side by side.
There is no reason to suppose that the versions were limited to two. In
fact, a variant to an important episode in the creation story has been
discovered which points to a third version.[681]

The suggestion has been thrown out that these various versions arose in
the various religious centers of the Euphrates Valley. So far as the
editing of the versions is concerned, the suggestion is worthy of
consideration, for it is hardly reasonable to suppose that the
theological schools of one and the same place should have developed more
than one cosmological system. The traditions themselves, however, apart
from the literary form which they eventually assumed, need not have been
limited to certain districts nor have been peculiar to the place where
the systematization took place. Nothing is more common than the
interchange of myths and popular traditions. They travel from one place
to the other, and contradictory accounts of one and the same event may
be circulated, and find credence in one and the same place.

The two distinct Babylonian versions of the creation of the world that
have up to the present time been found, have come to us in a fragmentary
form. Of the one, indeed, only some forty lines exist, and these are
introduced incidentally in an incantation text;[682] of the other
version, portions of six tablets[683] have been recovered; while of two
fragments it is doubtful[684] whether they belong to this same version
or represent a third version, as does certainly a fragment containing a
variant account of the episode described in the fourth tablet of the
larger group. The fragments of the longer version--in all 23--enable us
to form a tolerably complete picture of the Babylonian cosmology, and
with the help of numerous allusions in historical, religious and
astronomical texts and in classical writers, we can furthermore fill out
some of the gaps.

Taking up the longer version, which must for the present serve as our
chief source for the cosmology of the Babylonians, it is important to
note at the outset that the series constitutes, in reality, a grand hymn
in honor of Marduk. The account of the beginning of things and of the
order of creation is but incidental to an episode which is intended to
illustrate the greatness of Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon.
This episode is the conquest of a great monster known as Tiamat,--a
personification, as we shall see, of primaeval chaos. What follows upon
this episode, likewise turns upon the overshadowing personality of
Marduk. This prominence given to Marduk points of course to Babylon as
the place where the early traditions received their literary form.
Instead of designating the series as a 'Creation Epic' it would be quite
as appropriate to call it 'The Epic of Marduk.'

The god of Babylon is the hero of the story. To him the creation of the
heavenly bodies is ascribed. It is he who brings order and light into
the world. He supplants the roles originally belonging to other gods.
Bel and Ea give way to him. Anu and the other great gods cheerfully
acknowledge Marduk's power. The early traditions have all been colored
by the endeavor to glorify Marduk; and since Marduk is one of the latest
of the gods to come into prominence, we must descend some centuries
below Hammurabi before reaching a period when Marduk's position was so
generally recognized as to lead to a transformation of popular
traditions at the hands of the theologians.

The evident purpose of the 'epic' to glorify Marduk also accounts for
the imperfect manner in which the creation of the universe is recounted.
Only the general points are touched upon. Many details are omitted which
in a cosmological epic, composed for the specific purpose of setting
forth the order of creation, would hardly have been wanting. In this
respect, the Babylonian version again resembles the Biblical account of
creation, which is similarly marked by its brevity, and is as
significant for its omissions as for what it contains.

It but remains before passing on to an analysis of the 'epic' to note
the great care bestowed upon its literary form. This is evidenced not
only by the poetic diction, but by its metrical form,--a point to which
Budge was the first to direct attention[685] and which Zimmern[686]
clearly established. Each line consists of two divisions, and as a
general thing four or eight lines constitute a stanza. The principle of
parallelism, so characteristic of Biblical poetry, is also introduced,
though not consistently carried out.

The epic was known from its opening words as the series 'when above.'
Through this name we are certain of possessing a portion of the first
tablet--but alas! only a portion. A fragment of fifteen lines and these
imperfectly preserved is all that has as yet been found. So far as
decipherable, it reads:

There was a time when above the heaven was not named.[687]
Below, the earth bore no name.
Apsu was there, the original, their begettor,[2]
Mummu [and] Tiamat, the mother of them all.[688]
But their waters[689] were gathered together in a mass.
No field was marked off, no marsh[690] was seen.
When none of the gods was as yet produced,
No name mentioned, no fate determined,
Then were created the gods in their totality.
Lakhmu and Lakhamu, were created.
Days went by[5] ...
Anshar and Kishar were created.
Many days elapsed[691] ...
Anu [Bel and Ea were created].[692]
Anshar, Anu (?) ...

At this point the fragment breaks off.

Brief as it is, it affords a clear view of the manner in which the
Babylonians regarded the beginning of things. Water was the primaeval
element. 'Apsu' is the personified great 'ocean'--the 'Deep' that covers
everything. With Apsu there is associated Tiamat. Tiamat is the
equivalent of the Hebrew T'hom,[693] which occurs in the second verse of
the opening chapter of Genesis, and which is, like Apsu, the
personification of the 'watery deep.' Apsu and Tiamat are, accordingly,
synonymous. The combination of the two may be regarded as due to the
introduction of the theological doctrine which we have seen plays so
prominent a part in the systematized pantheon, namely, the association
of the male and female principle in everything connected with activity
or with the life of the universe. Apsu represents the male and Tiamat
the female principle of the primaeval universe. It does not follow from
this that the two conceptions are wholly dissociated from popular
traditions. Theological systems, it will be found, are always attached
at some point to popular and often to primitive beliefs.

Tiamat was popularly pictured as a huge monster of a forbidding aspect.
Traces of a similar conception connected with T'hom are to be met with
in the poetry of the Old and New Testament.[694] The 'Rahab' and
'Leviathan' and the 'Dragon' of the apocalypse belong to the same order
of ideas that produced Tiamat. All these monsters represent a popular
attempt to picture the chaotic condition that prevailed before the great
gods obtained control and established the order of heavenly and
terrestrial phenomena. The belief that water was the original element
existing in the universe and the 'source' of everything, may also have
had its rise in the popular mind. It was suggested in the Euphrates
Valley, in part, by the long-continued rainy season, as a result of
which the entire region was annually flooded. The dry land and
vegetation appeared, only after the waters had receded. The yearly
phenomenon brought home to the minds of the Babylonians, a picture of
primaeval chaos.

In the schools of theology that arose with the advance of culture, these
two notions--water as the first element and a general conception of
chaos--were worked out with the result that Apsu and Tiamat became
mythical beings whose dominion preceded that of the gods. Further than
this the questionings of the schoolmen did not go. They conceived of a
time when neither the upper firmament nor the dry land existed and when
the gods were not yet placed in control, but they could not conceive of
a time when there was 'nothing' at all. This cosmological theory which
we may deduce from the fragment of the first tablet of the creation
series is confirmed by the accounts that have come down to us--chiefly
through Damascius--of the treatment of the subject by Berosus.[695]
Damascius explicitly places the Babylonians among those nations who fail
to carry back the universe to an ultimate single source. There is
nothing earlier than the two beings--Apsu and Tiamat.[696]

The massing together of the primaeval waters completes the picture of
chaos in the cuneiform account. From the popular side, the commingling
corresponds to the _Tohu wa Bohu_ of the Book of Genesis, but for the
Babylonian theologians, this embrace of Apsu and Tiamat becomes a symbol
of 'sexual' union.[697] As the outcome of this union, the gods are
produced. This dependence of the gods upon Apsu and Tiamat is but
vaguely indicated. Another theory appears to have existed according to
which the gods were contemporaneous with primaeval chaos. The vagueness
may therefore be the result of a compromise between conflicting schools
of thought. However this may be, the moment that the gods appear, a
conflict ensues between them and Apsu-Tiamat. This conflict represents
the evolution from chaos to order. But before taking up this phase of
the epic, a few words must be said as to the names of the gods
mentioned, and as to the order in which they occur.

There are three classes of deities enumerated. The first two classes
consist, each, of a pair of deities while the third is the well-known
triad of the old Babylonian theology. Between the creation of each class
a long period elapses--a circumstance that may be regarded as an
evidence of the originally independent character of each class. Now it
has recently been shown[698] that Lakhamu is the feminine of Lakhmu. The
first class of deities is, therefore, an illustration again of the
conventional male and female principles introduced into the current
theology. While there are references to Lakhmu and Lakhamu in the
religious texts,[699] particularly in incantations, these two deities
play no part whatsoever in the active pantheon, as revealed by the
historical texts. In popular tradition,[700] Lakhmu survived as a name
of a mythical monster.

Alexander Polyhistor[701] quotes Berosus as saying in his book on
Babylonia that the first result of the mixture of water and
chaos--_i.e._, of Apsu and Tiamat--was the production of monsters partly
human, partly bestial. The winged bulls and lions that guarded the
approaches to temples and palaces are illustrations of this old notion,
and it is to this class of mythical beings that Lakhmu belongs. The
schools of theology, seizing hold of this popular tradition, add again
to Lakhmu a female mate and convert the tradition into a symbol of the
first step in the evolution of order out of the original chaos. Lakhmu
and Lakhamu are made to stand for an entire class of beings that are the
offspring of Apsu and Tiamat. This class does not differ essentially
from Apsu and Tiamat, nor from the 'Leviathan,' the 'Dragon,' the winged
serpents, and the winged bulls that are all emanations of the same order
of ideas. Accordingly, we find Lakhmu and Lakhamu associated with Tiamat
when the conflict with the gods begins. They are products of chaos and
yet at the same time contemporary with chaos,--monsters not so fierce as
Tiamat, but withal monsters who had to be subdued before the planets and
the stars, vegetation and man could appear.

The introduction of Anshar and Kishar as intermediate between the
monsters and the triad of gods appears to be due entirely to the attempt
at theological systematization that clearly stamps the creation epic as
the conscious work of schoolmen, though shaped, as must always be borne
in mind, out of the material furnished by popular tradition. In
connection with the etymology and original form of the chief of the
Assyrian pantheon,[702] the suggestion was made that the introduction of
Anshar into the creation epic is a concession made to the prominence
that Ashur acquired in the north. We are now able to put this suggestion
in a more definite form. The pantheon of the north, as we have seen, was
derived from the south. Not that all the gods of the south are
worshipped in the north, but those that are worshipped in the north are
also found in the south, and originate there. The distinctive features
of Ashur are due to the political conditions that were developed in
Assyria, but the unfolding of the conceptions connected with this god
which make him the characteristic deity of Assyria, indeed, the only
distinctive Assyrian figure in the Assyrian pantheon, does not preclude
the possibility, of the southern origin of Ashur.

If, as has been made plausible by Hommel, Nineveh, the later capital of
the Assyrian empire, represents a settlement made by inhabitants of a
Nineveh situated in the south, there is no reason why a southern deity
bearing the name Anshar should not have been transferred from the south
to the north. The attempt has been made[703] to explain the change from
Anshar to Ashur. The later name Ashur, because of its ominous character,
effectually effaced the earlier one in popular thought. The introduction
of the older form Anshar, not merely in the first tablet of the creation
series, but, as we shall presently see, elsewhere, confirms the view of
a southern origin for Ashur, and also points to the great antiquity of
the Anshar-Ashur cult. It is not uncommon to find colonies more
conservative in matters of religious thought and custom than the
motherland, and there is nothing improbable in the interesting
conclusion thus reached that Ashur, the head of an empire, so much later
in point of time than Babylonia, should turn out to be an older deity
than the chief personage in the Babylonian pantheon after the days of
Hammurabi.

But while Anshar-Ashur under this view is a figure surviving from an
ancient period, he is transformed by association with a complementary
deity Kishar into a symbol, just as we have found to be the case with
Lakhmu. By a play upon his name, resting upon an arbitrary division of
Anshar into _An_ and _Shar_, the deity becomes the 'one that embraces
all that is above.' The element _An_ is the same that we have in _Anu_,
and is the 'ideographic'[704] form for 'high' and 'heaven.' _Shar_
signifies 'totality' and has some connection with a well-known
Babylonian word for 'king.' The natural consort to an all-embracing
upper power is a power that 'embraces all that is below'; and since _Ki_
is the ideographic form for 'earth,' it is evident that Ki-Shar is a
creation of the theologians, introduced in order to supply Anshar with
an appropriate associate. The two in combination represent a pair like
Lakhmu and Lakhamu. As the latter pair embrace the world of monsters, so
Anshar and Kishar stand in the theological system for the older order of
gods, a class of deities antecedent to the series of which Anu, Bel, and
Ea are the representatives. Besides the antiquity of Anshar and the
factor involved in the play upon the name, the prominence of the Ashur
cult in the north also entered into play (as already suggested) in
securing for Anshar-Ashur, a place in the systematized cosmology. The
Babylonian priests, while always emphasizing the predominance of Marduk,
could not entirely resist the influences that came to them from the
north. Ashur was not accorded a place in the Babylonian cult, but he
could not be ignored altogether. Moreover, Assyria had her priests and
schools, and we are permitted to see in the introduction of Anshar in
the creation epic, a concession that reflects the influence, no doubt
indirect, and in part perhaps unconscious, but for all that, the decided
influence of the north over the south. The part played by Anshar in the
most important episode of the creation epic will be found to further
strengthen this view.[705]

Kishar, at all events, forms no part of either the Babylonian or of the
active Assyrian pantheon. She does not occur in historical or religious
texts. Her existence is purely theoretical--a creation of the schools
without any warrant in popular tradition, so far as we can see. A tablet
is fortunately preserved[706] (though only in part) which enables us to
come a step nearer towards determining the character of the series of
powers regarded as antecedent to the well-known deities. In this tablet,
no less than ten pairs of deities are enumerated that are expressly
noted as 'Father-mother of Anu,' that is, as antecedent to Anu.[707]
Among these we find Anshar and Kishar, and by their side, such pairs as
Anshar-gal, _i.e._, 'great totality of what is on high,' and Kishar-gal,
_i.e._, 'great totality of what is below,' Enshar and Ninshar, _i.e._,
'lord' and 'mistress,' respectively, of 'all there is,' Du'ar and Da'ur,
forms of a stem which may signify 'perpetuity,' Alala, _i.e._,
'strength,' and a consort Belili. Lakhmu and Lakhamu are also found in
the list. While some of the names are quite obscure, and the composition
of the list is due to the scholastic spirit emanating from the schools
of theology, the fact that some of the deities, as Alala, Belili, Lakhmu
and Lakhamu, occur in incantations shows that the theologians were
guided in part by dimmed traditions of some deities that were worshipped
prior to the ones whose cult became prominent in historic times. Anshar,
Alala, Belili, Lakhmu, and Du'ar were such deities. To each of these an
associate was given, in accord with the established doctrine of
'duality' that characterizes the more advanced of the ancient Semitic
cults in general. Others, like Anshar-gal and Enshar, seem to be pure
abstractions--perhaps only 'variants' of Anshar, and the number ten may
have some mystical significance that escapes us. So much, at all events,
seems certain that even the old Babylonian pantheon, as revealed by the
oldest historical texts, represents a comparatively advanced stage of
the religion when some still older gods had already yielded to others
and a system was already in part produced which left out of
consideration these older deities. This is indicated by the occurrence
of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea as early as the days of Gudea,[708] and it
is this triad which in the creation epic follows upon the older series
symbolized by Anshar and Kishar. The later 'theology' found a solution
of the problem by assuming four series of deities represented by Apsu
and Tiamat, by Lakhmu and Lakhamu, by Anshar and Kishar, and by the
triad Anu, Bel, and Ea.

In a vague way, as we have seen, Apsu and Tiamat are the progenitors of
Lakhmu and Lakhamu. The priority, again, of Lakhmu and Lakhamu, as well
as of Anshar and Kishar, is expressed by making them 'ancestors' of Anu,
Bel and Ea. While in the list above referred to, Lakhmu and Lakhamu are
put in a class with Anshar and Kishar, in the creation epic they form a
separate class, and Delitzsch has justly recognized,[709] in this
separation, the intention of the compilers to emphasize an advance in
the evolution of chaos to order, which is the keynote of the Babylonian
cosmology. Lakhmu and Lakhamu represent the 'monster' world where
creatures are produced in strange confusion, whereas Anshar and Kishar
indicate a division of the universe into two _distinct_ and sharply
defined parts. The splitting of 'chaos' is the first step towards its
final disappearance.

The creation of Anshar and Kishar marks indeed the beginning of a severe
conquest which ends in the overthrow of Tiamat, and while in the present
form of the epic, the contest is not decided before Anu, Bel, and Ea and
the chief deities of the historic pantheon are created, one can see
traces of an earlier form of the tradition in which Anshar--perhaps with
some associates--is the chief figure in the strife.

Of the first tablet, we have two further fragments supplementing one
another, in which the beginnings of this terrible conflict are
described. With Apsu and Tiamat there are associated a variety of
monsters who prepare themselves for the fray. The existence of these
associates shows that the 'epic' does not aim to account for the real
origin of things, but only for the origin of the _order_ of the
universe. At the beginning there was chaos, but 'chaos,' so far from
representing emptiness (as came to be the case under a monotheistic
conception of the universe) was on the contrary marked by a
superabundant fullness.

Through Alexander Polyhistor,[710] as already mentioned, we obtain a
satisfactory description of this period of chaos as furnished by
Berosus. At the time when all was darkness and water, there flourished
strange monsters, human beings with wings, beings with two heads, male
and female, hybrid formations, half-man, half-animal, with horns of rams
and horses' hoofs, bulls with human faces, dogs with fourfold bodies
ending in fish tails, horses with heads of dogs, and various other
monstrosities.

This account of Berosus is now confirmed by the cuneiform records. The
associates of Tiamat are described in a manner that leaves no doubt as
to their being the monsters referred to. We are told that

Ummu-Khubur,[711] the creator of everything, added
Strong warriors, creating great serpents,
Sharp of tooth, merciless in attack.
With poison in place of blood, she filled their bodies.
Furious vipers she clothed with terror,
Fitted them out with awful splendor, made them high of stature(?)
That their countenance might inspire terror and arouse horror,
Their bodies inflated, their attack irresistible.
She set up basilisks (?) great serpents and monsters[712]
A great monster, a mad dog, a scorpion-man
A raging monster, a fish-man, a great bull,
Carrying merciless weapons, not dreading battle.

In all, eleven monstrous beings are created by Tiamat for the great
conquest. At their head she places a being Kingu, whom she raises to the
dignity of a consort.

The formal installation of Kingu is described as follows:

She raised Kingu among them to be their chief.
To march at the head of the forces, to lead the assembly.
To command the weapons to strike, to give the orders for the fray.
To be the first in war, supreme in triumph.
She ordained him and clothed him with authority (?).

Tiamat then addresses Kingu directly:

Through my word to thee, I have made thee the greatest among the gods.
The rule over all the gods I have placed in thy hand.
The greatest shalt thou be, thou, my consort, my only one.

Tiamat thereupon

Gives him the tablets of fate, hangs them on his breast, and
dismisses him.
'Thy command be invincible, thy order authoritative.'[713]

The plan of procedure, it would appear, is the result of a council of
war held by Apsu and Tiamat, who feel themselves powerless to carry on
the contest by themselves. The portion of the tablet[714] in which this
council is recounted is in so bad a condition that but little can be
made out of it. Associated with Apsu and Tiamat in council, is a being
Mummu, and since Damascius expressly notes on the direct authority of
Berosus that Apsu and Tiamat produced a son Moumis,[715] there is every
reason to believe that Mummu represents this offspring. In the
subsequent narrative, however, neither Apsu nor Mummu play any part.
Tiamat has transferred to Kingu and the eleven monsters all authority,
and it is only after they are defeated that Tiamat--but Tiamat
alone--enters the fray.