W. S. Gilbert - "The Bab Ballads"

Emile Zola - "Le Docteur Pascal"

by Alfred Russell Wallace - "The Malay Archipelago Volume 1"

Courtney Ryley Cooper - "The White Desert"

Annual Bibliography of Commonwealth Literature 2007
This paper argues that discourses of love in Ghanaian market literature for youth offer a view into complex negotiations of agency and empowerment. Drawing on Deborah Durham's notion of youth as "social `shifters'" and Francis Nyamnjoh's conception of the "interconnectedness" of agency, I take Ghanaian market literature as one specific case of how African literature for youth foregrounds questions of continuity and change as African societies enter into increasingly complex global relations. In this literature for youth, received notions of love, often constructed out of impressions from American pop and hip hop music, carry new notions of agency that compete with existing "domesticated" forms. Authors like Ike Tandoh and Evelyn Tay employ discourses of love to offer youth alternative avenues for empowerment in a context of socio-economic disenfranchizement. In a creative process of "straddling", this writing both reveals and reproduces the contradictions that obtain in youth configurations of agency.

The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria

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




A direct borrowing from the Babylonians has not taken place, and while
the Babylonian records are in all probabilities much older than the
Hebrew, the latter again contain elements, as Gunkel has shown, of a
more primitive character than the Babylonian production. This
relationship can only be satisfactorily explained on the assumption that
the Hebrews possessed the traditions upon which the Genesis narrative
rests long before the period of the Babylonian exile, when the story
appears, indeed, to have received its final and present shape. The
essential features of the Babylonian cosmology formed part of a stock of
traditions that Hebrews and Babylonians (and probably others) received
from some common source or, to put it more vaguely, held in common from
a period, the limits of which can no longer be determined. While the two
Babylonian versions agree in the main, embodying the same general
traditions regarding the creation of the heavenly bodies and containing
the same general conception of an evolution in the world from confusion
and caprice to order, and the establishment of law, the variations in
regard to the terrestrial phenomena must not be overlooked. According to
the first version, mankind appears as the last episode of creation; in
the second, mankind precedes vegetation and animal life.

If we now take up the two versions of creation found in Genesis, we will
see that the same differences may be observed. According to the first,
the so-called Elohistic version,[803] mankind is not created until the
last day of creation; according to the second,[804] the so-called
Yahwistic version, mankind is first created, then a garden is made and
trees are planted. After that, the beasts of the field and the birds of
heaven are called into existence.

The resemblance of the second Babylonian version to the Yahwistic
version extends even to certain phrases which they have in common. The
opening words of the Yahwist--

And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of
the field had yet sprung up--

might serve almost as a translation of the second line of the Babylonian
counterpart. The reference to the Tigris and Euphrates in the second
Babylonian version reminds one of the four streams mentioned in the
Yahwistic version, two of which are likewise the Tigris and Euphrates.
Again, Tiamat is mentioned only in the first Babylonian version, and
T'hom similarly only in the Elohistic version; while, on the other hand,
the building of cities is included in the Yahwistic version,[805] as it
forms part of the second Babylonian version. The points mentioned
suffice to show that the Elohistic version is closely related to the
larger creation epic of the Babylonians, while the Yahwistic
version--more concise, too, than the Elohistic--agrees to an astonishing
degree with the second and more concise Babylonian record.

The conclusion, therefore, is justified that the variations between the
Babylonian versions rest upon varying traditions that must have arisen
in different places. The attempt was made to combine these traditions by
the Babylonians, and among the Hebrews we may see the result of a
similar attempt in the first two or, more strictly speaking, in the
first three chapters of Genesis. At the same time, the manner in which
both traditions have been worked over by the Hebrew compilers of Genesis
precludes, as has been pointed out, the theory of a direct borrowing
from cuneiform documents. The climatic conditions involved in the Hebrew
versions are those peculiar to Babylonia. It is in Babylonia that the
thought would naturally arise of making the world begin with the close
of the storms and rains in the spring. The Terahites must therefore have
brought these cosmological traditions with them upon migrating from the
Euphrates Valley to the Jordan district.

The traditions retained their hold through all the vicissitudes that the
people underwent. The intercourse, political and commercial, between
Palestine and Mesopotamia was uninterrupted, as we now know, from at
least the fifteenth century before our era down to the taking of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and this constant intercourse was no doubt
an important factor in maintaining the life of the old traditions that
bound the two peoples together. The so-called Babylonian exile brought
Hebrews and Babylonians once more side by side. Under the stimulus of
this direct contact, the final shape was given by Hebrew writers to
their cosmological speculations. Yahwe is assigned the role of
Bel-Marduk, the division of the work of creation into six days is
definitely made,[806] and some further modifications introduced. While,
as emphasized, this final shape is due to the independent elaboration of
the common traditions, and, what is even more to the point, shows an
independent _interpretation_ of the traditions, it is by no means
impossible, but on the contrary quite probable, that the final compilers
of the Hebrew versions had before them the cuneiform tablets, embodying
the literary form given to the traditions by Babylonian writers.[807]
Such a circumstance, while not implying direct borrowing, would account
for the close parallels existing between the two Hebrew and the two
Babylonian versions, and would also furnish a motive to the Hebrew
writers for embodying _two_ versions in their narrative.

FOOTNOTES:

[680] The so-called Elohistic version, Gen. i. 1-ii. 4; the Yahwistic
version, Gen. ii. 5-24. Traces have been found in various portions of
the Old Testament of other popular versions regarding creation. See
Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-114, 119-121.

[681] Gunkel, _ib._ pp. 28, 29. What Sayce (_e.g._, _Rec. of the Past_,
N. S., I. 147, 148) calls the 'Cuthaean legend of the creation'
contains, similarly, a variant description of Tiamat and her brood.

[682] Published by Pinches, _Journal Royal Asiat. Soc._, 1891, pp.
393-408.

[683] Complete publication by Delitzsch, _Das Babylonische
Weltschoepfungsepos_ (Leipzig, 1896) with elaborate commentary.

[684] See Zimmern in Gunkel's _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 415, 416, and
on the other side, Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 20.
Zimmern's doubts are justified.

[685] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ vi. 7.

[686] _Zeits. f. Assyr._ viii. 121-124. Delitzsch, in his _Babylonische
Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 61-68, has elaborately set forth the principles
of the poetic composition. See also D. H. Mueller, _Die Propheten in
ihrer urspruenglichen Form_, pp. 5-14.

[687] _I.e._, did not exist. To be 'called' or to 'bear a name' meant to
be called into existence.

[688] _I.e._, of the waters.

[689] _I.e._, of heaven and earth.

[690] The word used is obscure. Jensen and Zimmern render "reed."
Delitzsch, I think, comes nearer the real meaning with "marsh." See
Haupt's translation, _Proc. Amer. Oriental Soc._, 1896, p. 161.

[691] Delitzsch supplies a parallel phrase like "periods elapsed."

[692] Supplied from Damascius' extract of the work of Berosus on
Babylonia. See Cory, _Ancient Fragments_, p. 92; Delitzsch,
_Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 94.

[693] The _o_ is represented in Babylonian by _a_, and the ending _at_
in Tiamat is an affix which stamps the Babylonian name as feminine.
T'hom in Hebrew is likewise a feminine noun, but it should be noted that
at a certain stage in the development of the Semitic languages, the
feminine is hardly distinguishable from the plural and collective.

[694] Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-82, 379-398.

[695] For our purposes it is sufficient to refer for the relations
existing between Damascius and the cuneiform records to Smith's
_Chaldaeische Genesis_, pp. 63-66, to Lenormant's _Essai de Commentaire
sur les fragments Cosmogoniques de Berose_, pp. 67 _seq._, and to
Jensen's _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 270-272.

[696] The names are given by Damascius as _Apason_ and _Tauthe_.

[697] Suggested by Professor Haupt (Schrader, _Cuneiform Inscriptions
and the Old Testament_, p. 7).

[698] Hommel, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, xviii. 19.

[699] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 224, 225.

[700] Agumkakrimi Inscription (VR. 33, iv. 50); Nabonnedos (Cylinder,
VR. 64, ll. 16, 17).

[701] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.

[702] See above, pp. 198, 199.

[703] See above, pp. 198, 199.

[704] I avoid the term "Sumerian" here, because I feel convinced that
the play on Anshar is of an entirely artificial character and has no
philological basis.

[705] See below, pp. 421-423.

[706] IIR. 54, no. 3.

[707] For a different interpretation of the phrase, see Jensen,
_Kosmologie_, pp. 273, 274.

[708] See p. 107.

[709] _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 94.

[710] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.

[711] An epithet descriptive of Tiamat. "Ummu" is "mother" and "khubur"
signifies "hollow"; "mother of the hollow" would be a poetic expression
for "source of the deep," and an appropriate term to apply to Tiamat. It
has nothing to do with Omoroka. The latter, as Wright has shown, is a
corruption of "O Marduk" (_Zeits. f. Assyr_. x. 71-74).

[712] The word used is Lakhami, the plural of Lakhamu.

[713] This scene, the description of the monsters and the installation
of Kingu, occurs four times in the 'Epic.' See p. 424.

[714] Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 25.

[715] Cory, _ib._ p. 92.

[716] "The chamber of fates" where Marduk sits on New Year's Day and
decides the fate of mankind for the ensuing year. Jensen and Zimmern
read _upshugina_, but see Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos,_
p. 135.

[717] The deity is mentioned by Sennacherib (Meissner-Host,
_Bauinschriften_, p. 108). See above, p. 238.

[718] In the first tablet, in the second in connection with the mission
of Anu, and twice in the third in connection with Marduk's visit.

[719] Tiamat's presence.

[720] Called Nudimmud. Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p.
99, questions the identity with Ea, but his skepticism is unwarranted,
though the title is also used of Bel.

[721] Here used to comprise the army of Tiamat.

[722] _I.e._, thy power is equal to that of Anu.

[723] Exod. iv. 2-8; other parallels might be adduced.

[724] _I.e._, far off.

[725] _I.e._, that a wind might not carry her off.

[726] Adding three to the ordinary winds from the four directions.

[727] For the explanation of the term used in the
original--_kirbish_--see Delitzsch's excellent remarks, _Babylonische
Weltschoepfungsepos._ pp. 132-134.

[728] Lit., 'storm,'--perhaps the thunderbolt, as Delitzsch suggests.

[729] Marduk.

[730] She lost her reason.

[731] Gasping, as it were, for breath.

[732] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 49.

[733] Lit., 'places,' here used as a synonym for 'heavens,' as an
Assyrian commentator expressly states. See Delitzsch's remarks
(_Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 147) against Jensen's and
Zimmern's interpretation.

[734] _I.e._, Ea. See above, p. 424, note 3.

[735] The complete proof is brought by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp.
246-253.

[736] To render the word used as "Palace" (so Delitzsch), while not
incorrect, is somewhat misleading.

[737] _Kosmologie_, p. 199.

[738] _Magie und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer_, p. 163.

[739] See the illustration in Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pl. 3.

[740] The word used also means "cities." A Babylonian district is naught
but an extended city.

[741] See p. 429.

[742] Gen. viii. 22.

[743] See above, p. 370, and chapter xxii.

[744] _I.e._, for each of the great gods.

[745] _I.e._, of the gods.

[746] A particular group of stars--the _mashi_ stars--is mentioned, but
the term seems to be used in a rather general sense. I cannot share
Delitzsch's extreme skepticism with regard to the interpretation of the
fifth tablet. Jensen seems to have solved the chief difficulties.

[747] Jensen and Zimmern interpret "he drew the pictures," referring the
phrase to the contours of the stars; but the parallelism speaks in favor
of connecting the words with the "year." The divisions of the year or
seasons seem to be meant.

[748] _I.e._, the planet Marduk, or Jupiter.

[749] _I.e._, with Nibir.

[750] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 354. George Smith already interpreted
the passage in this way.

[751] _I.e._, of the heavens. Delitzsch renders "Schwerpunkt."

[752] Text _elati_. Jensen, Zimmern, and Halevy translate "zenith," but
Delitzsch questions this.

[753] The moon-god.

[754] _I.e._, the moon.

[755] Published by Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesestuecke_ (3d edition), p.
94.

[756] See the proof as put together by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 293,
294.

[757] Line 15.

[758] So Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 19, 20.

[759] Following Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 20,
21. I pass over two fragments which Delitzsch adds to our 'epic.' They
are not sufficiently clear to be utilized for our purposes. Delitzsch
may be right with regard to no. 20, but if so, it forms part or another
version of the Marduk-Tiamat episode. No. 19, treating of the bow of
Marduk (?), does not seem to belong to our series.

[760] A standing phrase for "favor" in general.

[761] To prayer.

[762] The gods or the Igigi.

[763] See p. 486 and Gunkel's note, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 26.

[764] See above, p. 434. The play is between Nibir (as though from the
stem _eberu_) and _itebbiru_ ("he pierced"), a form of _eberu_, and
meaning 'to pass through.'

[765] This metaphor is carried over into astronomical science. The
planets are known as "wandering sheep." See p. 459.

[766] _Bel matate_.

[767] See p. 118.

[768] Similarly in another version of the contest published by
Delitzsch, _Assyr. Woerterbuch_, p. 390.

[769] See p. 54.

[770] Tiele (_Gesch. der Religion im Alterthum_, I. 176) assigns to
Marduk a double character, making him both a god of light and a god of
storms, but I venture to think that the latter attribute represents the
transference of En-lil's power to Marduk.

[771] So Bel is called in contrast to Anu. See p. 53.

[772] One is reminded of the Biblical injunction with regard to the Laws
of Yahwe, Deut. vi. 7: "Thou shall teach them to thy sons and speak
constantly of them."

[773] _I.e._, to the kings who are frequently called 'shepherds' in the
historical texts.

[774] Or, according to the earlier view, to an atmospheric god.

[775] "The Gilgamesh Epic."

[776] First published by Pinches, _Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society_, 1891, pp. 393-408.

[777] Clay, it will be recalled, was the building material in Babylonia.

[778] The word in the text is generally applied to "a mass" of animals,
but also to human productions. See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_,
p. 467.

[779] Bel's temple at Nippur.

[780] Temple of Ishtar at Erech or Uruk.

[781] _I.e._, Apsu.

[782] City sacred to Ea at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

[783] Lit., 'totality of lands.'

[784] Zimmern's rendering (Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 419)
"sacred" (instead of 'bright') misses the point.

[785] _Cf._ S. A. Smith, Miscellaneous, K. 2866, l. 8, "the great gods
dwelling in the heaven of Anu." The reference, therefore, cannot be to
"the gathering place of the gods," where the fates of mankind are
decided.

[786] The original has _ratum_. Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p.
663, compares Hebrew _rahat_, "trough." Zimmern (Gunkel, _Schoepfung und
Chaos_, p. 419) translates "Bewegung," but on what grounds I do not
know. The passage is obscure; the text possibly defective.

[787] If the reading E-Sagila is original. It is here used as the name
of Ea's temple in Eridu, but it is of course possible that E-Sagila has
been deliberately introduced to enhance the glory of Marduk's temple in
Babylon.

[788] Ea.

[789] Gen. i. 9.

[790] See Haupt, _Wo lag das Paradies_, p. 7 (_Ueber Land und Meer_,
1894-95, no. 15, Sonderabdruck), who furnishes numerous illustrations of
the indefinite geographical notions of the ancients.

[791] The group of celestial beings.

[792] _I.e._, Marduk.

[793] Read _a-ma-mi_.

[794] Zimmern purposes to connect this line with the preceding, but the
sense in that case is not at all clear.

[795] _I.e._, with Marduk.

[796] Haupt's edition, p. 8, l. 34.

[797] See above, p. 437.

[798] Haupt, _ib._ p. 139, l. 116.

[799] _Ib._ l. 111.

[800] _Kosmologie_, p. 294, note 1.

[801] See p. 82.

[802] _Zerbanitum_, as though compounded of _zer_ (seed), and _bani_
(create). See p. 121.

[803] Gen. i. 1-ii. 4, embodied in the "Priestly Code."

[804] Gen. ii. 4 and extending in reality as far as iv. 25.

[805] Gen. iii. 17.

[806] See Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 13.

[807] On the acquaintance of Hebrew writers of the Babylonian exile with
cuneiform literature and on the influence exercised by the latter, see
D. H. Mueller, _Ezechielstudien_.




CHAPTER XXII.

THE ZODIACAL SYSTEM OF THE BABYLONIANS.

Planets, Stars, and Calendar.


It will be appropriate at this point, to give a brief account of the
astronomical system as developed by the Babylonian scholars. The system
forms a part of the Babylonian cosmology. The 'creation' narratives we
have been considering are based upon the system, and the omen literature
is full of allusions to it. Moreover, the understanding of some of the
purely religious doctrines of the Babylonians is dependent upon a proper
conception of the curious astrological speculations which from Babylonia
made their way to the Greeks, and have left their traces in the
astronomy of the present time.

The stars were regarded by the Babylonians as pictorial designs on the
heavens. A conception of this kind is the outcome of popular fancy, and
has its parallel among other nations of antiquity. We pass beyond the
popular stage, however, when we find the stars described as the 'writing
of heaven.'[808] Such a term is the product of the schools, and finds a
ready explanation if we remember that the cuneiform script, like other
scripts, was in its first stages pictorial. The Babylonian scholars not
only knew this, but so well did they know it that writing continued to
be regarded by them as picture drawing. The characters used by them were
'likenesses'[809] long after they had passed beyond the stage when they
bore any resemblance to the pictures they originally represented. The
expression 'writing of heaven' was, therefore, equivalent to 'picture of
heaven.' The heavens themselves being regarded as a fixed vault, it
followed that the movements observed there were caused by the stars
changing their position; and the regular characters of these movements
within certain periods led to speaking of the movements of the heavenly
bodies as their 'courses.' It was furthermore apparent, even to a
superficial observer, that some of the stars seemed fixed to their
places, while others moved about. A distinction was thus drawn between
wandering stars or planets and fixed stars. Groups of stars, the single
members of which appeared in a constant relationship to one another,
were distinguished partly by natural observation and partly as a
convenient means of obtaining a general view of the starry canopy. It
was such a group that more particularly justified the view which
regarded the stars as pictorial designs. A line drawn so as to connect
the stars of the group turned out to be a design of some sort. On omen
tablets, geometrical figures are often found[810] and interpreted as
omens, and it is plausible to suppose that the outlines presented by the
stars of a group first suggested the idea of attaching significance to
combinations of lines and curves. To connect these outlines with the
pictures that formed the starting-point for the development of the
script was again a perfectly natural procedure, although a scholastic
one. The investigations of Delitzsch have shown that the more than four
hundred cuneiform characters in use can be reduced to a comparatively
small number of 'outlines' of pictures--to about forty-five. The
subjects of these 'outlines' are all familiar ones,--sun, moon, stars,
mountain, man, the parts of the human body, animals, plants, and
utensils.[811] Association of ideas led to giving to the outlines
presented by the groups of stars, a similar interpretation. The factor
of imagination, of course, entered into play, but it is also likely that
the comparison of these heavenly figures with the pictures of the script
was the controlling factor that led to identifying a certain group of
stars with a bull, another with a scorpion, a third with a ram, a fourth
with a fish, still another with a pig, and more the like. That animals
were chosen was due to the influence of animistic theories, and the
rather fantastic shape of the animals distinguished led to further
speculations. So, eleven constellations, that is to say, the entire
zodiac with the exception of the bull--the sign of Marduk--were
identified with the eleven monsters forming the host of Tiamat. The
passage in the Marduk-Tiamat myth[812] which speaks of the capture of
these monsters through Marduk appears to have suggested this
identification, which, fanciful though it is, has a scholastic rather
than a popular aspect. Jensen (to whom, together with Epping and
Strassmaier,[813] most of our knowledge of this subject is due) has
shown[814] that of the twelve constellations in our modern zodiac, the
greater number are identical with those distinguished by the
Babylonians; and while it is probable that two or three of our
constellations are of occidental origin, the zodiacal system as a whole
is the product of the Babylonian schools of astronomy. From Babylonia
the system made its way to the west and through western, more
particularly through Greek, influence back again to India and the
distant east. The number of constellations distinguished by the
Babylonian astronomers has not yet been definitely ascertained. They
certainly recognized more than twelve. Further investigations may show
that they knew of most of the forty-eight constellations enumerated by
Ptolemy.

The general regularity of the courses taken by the sun, moon, and
planets made it a comparatively simple matter to map out the limits
within which these bodies moved. These limits impressed the Babylonians,
as we have seen, with the thought of the eternal and unchangeable laws
under which the planets stood. The laws regulating terrestrial
phenomena, did not appear to be so rigid. There were symptoms of
caprice, so that the order of the earth has the appearance of being an
afterthought, suggested by the absolute order prevailing in the heavens.
Comets, meteors, and eclipses alone seemed to interrupt this absolute
order. As science advanced, it was found that even eclipses fell within
the province of law. The course of astronomical science was thus clearly
marked out--the determination of these laws.

The path taken by the sun served as a guide and as a means of
comparison. Anu being both the chief god of heaven and the
personification of heaven,[815] the sun's ecliptic became known as the
'way of Anu.' The division of this ecliptic into certain sections,
determined by the constellations within the belt of the ecliptic, was
the next step. The course of the moon and planets was determined with
reference to the sun's ecliptic, and gradually a zodiacal system was
evolved, the perfection of which is best exemplified by the fact that so
much of the astronomical language of the present time is the same as
that used by the ancient astronomers of the Euphrates Valley.

The sun and moon being regarded as deities, under the influence of
primitive animistic ideas,[816] the stars would also come to be looked
upon as divine. The ideograph designating a 'star' and which is prefixed
as a determinative to the names of stars, consists of the sign for god
repeated three times;[817] and in the case of those stars which are
identified with particular deities, the simple determinative for god is
employed. To regard the stars in general as gods is a consequence of
animistic notions; but the further steps in the process which led to
connecting the planets and certain other stars with particular deities
who originally had nothing to do with the stars, fall within the
province of scholastic theory.

As the jurisdiction of gods originally worshipped in a limited district
increased, a difficulty naturally arose among the more advanced minds as
to the exact place where the deity dwelt. This difficulty would be
accentuated in the case of a god like Marduk becoming the chief god of
the whole Babylonian Empire. His ardent worshippers would certainly not
content themselves with the notion that a single edifice, even though it
be his great temple at Babylon, could contain him. Again, the
development of a pantheon, systematized, and in which the various gods
worshipped in Babylonia came to occupy fixed relationships to one
another, would lead to the view of putting all the gods in one place.
The sun and moon being in the heavens, the most natural place to assign
to the gods as a dwelling-place was in the region where Shamash and Sin
(as every one could see for himself) had their seats. The doctrine thus
arose that the great gods dwell in the 'heaven of Anu.' A doctrine of
this kind would be intelligible to the general populace, but it is
doubtful whether a belief which involved the establishment of a direct
connection between the most prominent stars--the planets with the chief
gods--ever enjoyed popular favor in Babylonia. The association is marked
by an artificiality and a certain arbitrariness that stamps it not only
as the product of theological schools, but as a thought that would
remain confined to a limited circle of the population. Jensen
suggests[818] that the planets may at one time have been merely regarded
as standing under the influence of the great gods, and that a planet
from being regarded as the star _controlled_ by Marduk, became
identified with Marduk. It seems more plausible that the association
should have been direct. Even though the Babylonians may not have had
any knowledge of the relative mass of the planets, in some way Jupiter
must have appeared to them as the largest of the planets, and for this
reason was identified with the head of the Babylonian pantheon, Marduk.
In the creation epic, as we have seen, Jupiter-Marduk, under the name of
Nibir, is represented as exercising a control over all the stars.
Mythological associations appear to have played a part in identifying
the planet Venus with the goddess Ishtar. A widely spread nature
myth,[819] symbolizing the change of seasons, represents Ishtar, the
personification of fertility, the great mother of all that manifests
life, as proceeding to the region of darkness and remaining there for
some time. The disappearance of the planet Venus at certain seasons, as
morning star to reappear as evening star, suggested the identification
of this planet with Ishtar. From these two examples we may conclude that
the process which resulted in the identification of Saturn with Ninib,
Mars with Nergal, Mercury with Nabu rested similarly on an association
of ideas, derived from certain conceptions held of the gods involved. In
regard to Ninib and Nergal it is of some importance to bear in mind
that, like Marduk, they are at their origin solar deities, Ninib
representing in the perfected theological system the morning sun, Marduk
the sun of the early spring, and Nergal the mid-day sun and summer
solstice.[820] The position of the planets Saturn and Mars, accordingly,
with reference to the sun at certain periods of the year, may well have
been a factor in the association of ideas involved.

Copyright (c) 2007. topboookz.com. All rights reserved.