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 history of E-Kur, so intimately bound up with political events, may
be taken as an index of the fortunes that befell the other prominent
sanctuaries of Babylonia.

The foundation of the Shamash temple at Sippar, and known as E-Babbara,
'the brilliant house,' can likewise be traced as far back as the days of
Naram-Sin. At that time there was already a sanctuary to Anunit within
the precincts of E-Babbara. Members of the Cassite dynasty devote
themselves to the restoration of this sanctuary. Through a subsequent
invasion of the nomads, the cult was interrupted and the great statue of
Shamash destroyed. Several attempts are made to reorganize the cult, but
it was left for Nabubaliddin in the tenth century to restore E-Babbara
to its former prestige. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal, who pay homage to
the old Bel at Nippur, also devote themselves to Shamash at Sippar. They
restore such portions of it as had suffered from the lapse of time and
from other causes. Nebuchadnezzar is obliged to rebuild parts of
E-Babbara, and the last king of Babylonia, Nabonnedos, is so active in
his building operations at Sippar that he arouses the anger of the
priests of Babylon, who feel that their ruler is neglecting the
sanctuaries of Marduk and Nabu. It is through Nabonnedos[1421] and
Nabubaliddin,[1422] chiefly, that we learn many of the details of the
history of E-Babbara during this long period.

Of the other important temples that date from the early period of
Babylonian history, we must content ourselves with brief indications.

The temple to Shamash at Larsa, while not quite as old as that of
Sippar, was quite as famous. Its name was likewise E-Babbara. It is
first mentioned in the inscriptions of Ur-Bau (_c._ 2700 B.C.), and it
continues to enjoy the favor of the rulers till the Persian
conquest.[1423]

The two chief places for the moon-cult were Ur and Harran. The name of
Sin's temple[1424] at the former place was E-Gish-shir-gal, 'the house
of the great light'; at the latter, E-khulklul, 'the house of joys.'
Around both sanctuaries, but particularly around the former, cluster
sacred traditions. We have seen that the moon-cult at an early period
enjoyed greater importance than sun-worship. The temples of Sin were
centers of intellectual activity. It is in these places that we may
expect some day to find elaborate astronomical and astrological records.
Harran, indeed, does not appear at any time to have played any political
role[1425] (though it was overrun occasionally by nomads), so that the
significance of the place is due almost entirely to the presence of the
great temple at the place. It is Nabonnedos,[1426] again, who endeavors
to restore the ancient prestige of the sanctuary at Harran. E-anna, 'the
lofty house,' was the name of Ishtar's famous temple at Erech. The
mention of this temple in one of the creation narratives[1427] and the
part played by Ishtar of Erech in the Gilgamesh epic are sufficient
indications of the significance of this structure. Historical
inscriptions from the earliest period to the days of Ashurbanabal and
Nebuchadnezzar come to our further aid in illustrating the continued
popularity of the Ishtar cult in E-anna. The Ishtar who survives in
Babylonia and Assyria is practically the Ishtar of Erech,--that is,
Nana.[1428]

Passing by such sanctuaries as E-shid-lam, sacred to Nergal at Cuthah,
and coming to E-Sagila and E-Zida, the two great temples of Babylon and
Borsippa, respectively, it is of course evident from the close
connection between political development and religious supremacy, that
Marduk's seat of worship occupies a unique position from the days of
Hammurabi to the downfall of Babylonia. While the history of E-Sagila
and E-Zida cannot be traced back further than the reign of Hammurabi,
the temples themselves are considerably older. Previous to the rise of
the city of Babylon as the political center, the Nabu cult in E-Zida
must have been more prominent than the worship of Marduk in E-Sagila.
Marduk was merely one solar deity among several, and a minor one at
that, whereas the attributes of wisdom given to Nabu point to the
intellectual importance that Borsippa had acquired. The Nabu cult was
combined with the worship of Marduk simply because it could not be
suppressed. At various times, as we have seen,[1429] Nabu formed a
serious rival to Marduk, and it will be recalled that up to a late
period we find Nabu given the preference to Marduk in official
documents.[1430] The inseparable association of E-Sagila and E-Zida is a
tribute to Nabu which, we may feel certain, the priests of Marduk did
not offer willingly. But this association becomes the leading feature in
the history of the two temples. To pay homage to Marduk and Nabu meant
something quite different from making a pilgrimage to the seat of Bel or
presenting a gift to the Shamash sanctuary at Sippar. It was an
acknowledgment of Babylonia's prestige. The Assyrian rulers regarded it
as both a privilege and a solemn duty to come to Babylon and invoke the
protection of Marduk and Nabu. In E-Sagila the installation of the
rulers over Babylonia took place, and a visit to Marduk's temple was
incomplete without a pilgrimage across the river to E-Zida. The
influence exerted by these two temples upon the whole course of
Babylonian history from the third millennium on, can hardly be
overestimated. From the schools grouped around E-Sagila and E-Zida, went
forth the decrees that shaped the doctrinal development of the religion
of Babylonia and Assyria. In these schools, the ancient wisdom was
molded into the shape in which we find it in the literary remains of the
Euphrates Valley. Here the past was interpreted and the intellectual
future of the country projected. The thought of E-Sagila and E-Zida must
have stored up emotions in the breast of a Babylonian and Assyrian, that
can only be compared to a pious Mohammedan's enthusiasm for Mecca, or
the longing of an ardent Hebrew for Jerusalem. The hymns to Marduk and
Nabu voice this emotion. There is a fervency in the prayers of
Nebuchadnezzar which marks them off from the somewhat perfunctory
invocations of the Assyrian kings to Ashur and Ishtar. An appreciation
of the position of E-Sagila and E-Zida in Babylonian history is an
essential condition to an understanding of the Babylonian-Assyrian
religion. The priests of Marduk could view with equanimity the rise and
growth of Assyria's power. The influence of E-Sagila and E-Zida was not
affected by such a shifting of the political kaleidoscope. Babylon
remained the religious center of the country. When one day, a Persian
conqueror--Cyrus--entered the precincts of E-Sagila, his first step was
to acknowledge Marduk and Nabu as the supreme powers in the world; and
the successors of Alexander continue to glory in the title 'adorner of
E-Sagila and E-Zida.'[1431] With the same zeal that distinguishes a good
Babylonian, Antiochus Soter hastens to connect his reign with the two
temples by busying himself with their enlargement and beautification.
There was no better way in which he could indicate, at the same time,
his political control over the country.

One more factor contributing to the general influence of the Babylonian
temples remains to be noted. In the course of time, all the great
temples in the large centers became large financial establishments. The
sources whence the temples derived their wealth were various. The kings
both of Babylonia and Assyria took frequent occasions to endow the
sanctuaries with lands or other gifts. At times, the endowment took the
form of certain quantities of wine, corn, oil, fruits, and the like, for
which annual provision is made; at times, the harvest derived from a
piece of property is set aside for the benefit of the temple. In other
ways, too, the temples acquired large holdings, through purchases of
land made from the income accruing to it, and from the tithes which it
became customary to collect. This property was either farmed through the
authorities of the temple for the direct benefit of the sanctuary, or
was rented out to private parties under favorable conditions. We learn
of large bodies of laborers indentured to temples, as well as of slaves
owned or controlled by the temples. These workmen were engaged for
various purposes,--for building operations, for service in the fields,
for working raw material, such as wool, into finished products, and much
more the like. But, more than this, the temples engaged directly in
commercial affairs, lending sums of money and receiving interest. In
some sanctuaries, a thriving business of barter and exchange was carried
on. Crops are sold, houses are rented by the temple agents, and there
was scarcely an avenue of commerce into which the temples did not enter.
An active business was also carried on in the manufacture and sale of
idols, votive offerings, amulets, and the like. A very large number of
the legal documents found in the Babylonian mounds deal with the
business affairs of the temples.[1432] Such a state of affairs naturally
contributed towards making the temples important establishments and
towards increasing the influence of the priests over the people.

The temples of Assyria play a minor part in the religious life of rulers
and people. True, grand structures were reared in Ashur, Calah, Nineveh,
and Arbela, and no important step was taken by the kings without
consulting Ashur, Ishtar, or Ramman through the mediation of the
priests. The great cities of Assyria also become intellectual centers.
The priests of Arbela created a school of theological thought, but all
these efforts were but weak imitations of the example furnished by the
temples of the south. Even Ashurbanabal, whose ambition was to make
Nineveh the center of religious and intellectual progress, failed of his
purpose. His empire soon fell to decay, and with that decay Nineveh
disappears from the stage of history. Babylon and Borsippa, however,
remain, and continue to hand down to succeeding generations, the wisdom
of the past.

The Sacred Objects in the Temples,--Altars, Vases, Images, Basins,
Ships.

The earliest altars were made of the same material as the zikkurats and
sanctuaries. One found at Nippur at an exceedingly low level was of
sun-dried bricks.[1433] How early this material was replaced by stone,
we are not in a position to say. Gudea, who imports diorite from the
Sinai Peninsula to make statues[1434] of himself, presumably uses a
similar material for the sacred furnishings of his temples, though
custom and conventionality may have maintained the use of the older clay
material for some time. In Assyria, altars of limestone and alabaster
became the prevailing types. The shape and size of the altars varied
considerably. The oldest known to us, the one found at Nippur, was about
twelve feet long and half as wide. The upper surface was surrounded by a
rim of bitumen.[1435] Assyrian altars now in the British museum are from
two to three feet high. The ornamentation of the corners of the rim of
the altar led to giving the altar the appearance of horns.[1436] The
base of the altar was either a solid piece with a circular or oblong
plate resting on it, or the table rested on a tripod.[1437] The latter
species was well adapted for being transported from place to place by
the Assyrian kings, who naturally were anxious to maintain the worship
of Ashur and of other gods while on their military expeditions. Much
care was spent upon the ornamentation of the altars, and, if we may
believe Herodotus, the great altars at Babylon were made of gold.[1438]
In front of the altars stood large vases or jars of terra cotta, used
for ablutions and other purposes in connection with the sacrifices. Two
such jars, one behind the other, were found at Nippur. They were
ornamented with rope patterns, and the depth at which they were found is
an indication of the antiquity and stability of the forms of worship in
the Babylonian temples. It may be proper to recall that in the Solomonic
temple, likewise, there were a series of jars that stood near the great
altar in the large court.[1439]

A piece of furniture to which great religious importance was attached
was a great basin known as 'apsu,'--the name, it will be recalled, for
'the deep.' The name indicates that it was a symbolical representation
of the domain of Ea. In Gudea's days the symbol is already known,[1440]
and it continues in use to the end of the Babylonian empire. The
zikkurat itself being, as we saw, an attempt to reproduce the shape of
the earth, the representation of the 'apsu' would suggest itself as a
natural accessory to the temple. The zikkurat and the basin together
would thus become living symbols of the current cosmological
conceptions. Gudea already regards the zikkurat as a symbol. To make the
ascent is a virtuous deed.[1441] The thought of adding a symbol of the
apsu belongs, accordingly, to the period when this view of the zikkurat
was generally recognized. The shape of the 'sea' was oblong or round. It
was cut of large blocks of stone and was elaborately decorated. One of
the oldest[1442] has a frieze of female figures on it, holding in their
outstretched hands flagons from which they pour water. In Marduk's
temple we learn that there were two basins,--a larger and a smaller one.
The comparison with the great 'sea' that stood in the court of Solomon's
temple naturally suggests itself, and there can be little doubt that the
latter is an imitation of a Babylonian model.

Another sacred object in the construction of which much care was taken
was the ship in which the deity was carried in solemn procession. It is
again in the inscriptions of Gudea[1443] that we come across the first
mention of this ship. This ruler tells us that he built the 'beloved
ship' for Nin-girsu, and gave it the name Kar-nuna-ta-uddua, the ship of
'the one that rises up out of the dam of the deep.' The ship of Nabu is
of considerable size, and is fitted out with a captain and crew, has
masts and compartments.[1444] The ship resembled a moon's crescent, not
differing much, therefore, from the ordinary flatbottomed Babylonian
boat with upturned edges. Through Nebuchadnezzar[1445] we learn that
these ships were brilliantly studded with precious stones, their
compartments handsomely fitted out, and that in them the gods were
carried in solemn procession on the festivals celebrated in their
honor.[1446] A long list[1447] of such ships shows that it was a symbol
that belonged to all the great gods. The ships of Nin-lil, Ea, Marduk,
Sin, Shamash, Nabu, Ninib, Bau, Nin-gal, and of others are specially
mentioned. A custom of this kind of carrying the gods in ships must have
originated, of course, among a maritime people. We may trace it back,
therefore, to the very early period when the sacred cities of Babylonia
lay on the Persian Gulf. The use of the ships also suggests, that the
solemn procession of the gods was originally on water and not on land,
and it is likely that this excursion of the gods symbolized some homage
to the chief water-deity, Ea. However this may be, the early
significance became lost, but the custom survived in Babylonia of
carrying the gods about in this way. In Assyria, less wedded to ancient
tradition, we find statues of the gods seated on thrones or standing
upright, carried directly on the shoulders of men.[1448] In Egypt sacred
ships are very common, and it is interesting to note as a survival of
the old Babylonian and Egyptian custom that an annual gift sent by the
khedive of Egypt to Mecca consists of a tabernacle, known as Mahmal,
that presents the outlines of a ship.[1449] The ark of the Hebrews
appears, similarly, to have been originally a ship of some kind.

The ships of the Babylonian gods had names given to them, just as the
towers and sanctuaries had their names. The name of Nin-girsu's ship has
already been mentioned. Marduk's ship was appropriately known as
Ma-ku-a, 'the ship of the dwelling.'[1450] Similarly, a ship of the god
Sin was called 'ship of light,' reminding one of the name of the great
temple to the moon-god at Ur, 'the house of the great luminary.' The
ship of Nin-gal, the consort of Sin, was called 'the lesser light.'
Bau's ship was described by an epithet of the goddess as 'the ship of
the brilliant offspring,' the reference being to the descent of the
goddess from father Anu.[1451] These illustrations will suffice to show
the dependence of the names of the ships upon the names of the temples,
with this important difference, however, that the names of the ships are
chosen from a closer association with the gods to whom they belong. So a
ship of En-lil was known simply as 'the ship of Bel,' and the ship of
Naru,[1452] the river-god, was called 'the ship of the Malku (or royal)
canal'[1453]--an indication, at the same time, of the place where the
cult of Naru was carried on.

The Priests and Priestesses.

At a certain stage in the religious development of a people, the
priesthood is closely linked to political leadership. The earliest form
of government in the Euphrates Valley is theocratic, and we can still
discern some of the steps in the process that led to the differentiation
of the priest from the secular ruler. To the latest times, the kings
retain among their titles some[1454] which have reference to the
religious functions once exercised by them. The king who continued to be
regarded as the representative of a god, nominated by some deity to a
lofty position of trust and power, stood nearer to the gods than his
subjects. In a certain sense, the king remained the priest _par
excellence_. Hence the prominent part played by the ruler in the
religious literature of the country. A large proportion of the hymns
were composed for royalty. The most elaborate ritual dealt with the
endeavor to secure oracles that might serve as a guide for the rulers.
Astronomical reports were made and long series of omen tablets prepared
for the use of the royal household. The calendars furnished regulations
for the conduct of the kings. A ceremonial error, an offence against the
gods on the part of the kings, was certain of being followed by
disastrous consequences for the whole country.

But even the smallest sanctuaries required some service, and it was not
long before the religious interests were entrusted into the hands of
those who devoted themselves to administering the affairs of the
temples. The guardians of the shrines became the priests in fact, long
before the priesthood of the rulers became little more than a theory;
and as the temples grew to larger proportions, the service was divided
up among various classes of priests.

The general name for priests was _shangu_, which, by a plausible
etymology suggested by Jensen,[1455] indicates the function of the
priest as the one who presides over the sacrifices. But this function
represents only one phase of the priestly office in Babylonia, and not
the most important one, by any means. For the people, the priest was
primarily the one who could drive evil demons out of the body of the
person smitten with disease, who could thwart the power of wizards and
witches, who could ward off the attacks of mischievous spirits, or who
could prognosticate the future and determine the intention or the will
of the gods. The offering of sacrifices was one of the means to
accomplish this end, but it is significant that many of the names used
to designate the priestly classes have reference to the priest's
position as the exorciser of evil spirits or his power to secure a
divine oracle or to foretell the future, and not to his function as
sacrificer. Such names are _mashmashu_, the general term for 'the
charmer'; _kalu_, so called, perhaps, as the 'restrainer' of the demons,
the one who keeps them in check; _lagaru_, a synonym of kalu; _makhkhu_,
'soothsayer'; _surru_, a term which is still obscure; _shailu_, the
'inquirer,' who obtains an oracle through the dead or through the gods;
_mushelu_, 'necromancer'; _ashipu_ or _ishippu_, 'sorcerer.'[1456] These
names probably do not exhaust the various kinds of 'magicians' that were
to be found among the Babylonian priests. In the eighteenth chapter of
Deuteronomy, no less than eleven classes of magic workers are
enumerated, and there can be little doubt but that the Pentateuchal
opposition against the necromancers, sorcerers, soothsayers, and the
like is aimed chiefly against Babylonish customs. We have seen in
previous chapters how largely the element of magic enters into the
religious rites and literature of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion and
how persistent an element it is. For the masses, the priest remained
essentially a _mashmashu_. But we have also names like _ramku_ and
_nisakku_, 'libation pourer,' which emphasize the sacrificial functions
of the priest; and in an interesting list of temple servitors,[1457]
'the dirge singers' are introduced as a special class, and appropriately
designated as _munambu_, 'wailer,' and _lallaru_, 'howler.' Of some
terms in this list, like _asinnu_, it is doubtful whether they indicate
a special class of priests or are terms for servitors in general,
attached to a temple; in the case of others, like _nash pilakki_, 'ax
carrier,' we do not know exactly of what nature the service was.[1458]
Lastly, priests in their capacity as scribes[1459] and as judges[1460]
formed another distinct class, though it should be noted that in Assyria
we meet with scribes occasionally who are not priests.[1461]

The range thus covered by the temple service,--magic, oracles,
sacrifices, the lament for the dead, and the judiciary,--is exceedingly
large. The subdivisions, no doubt, varied in each center. In the smaller
sanctuaries, those who offered the sacrifices may also have served as
soothsayers and dirge singers, and the judicial functions may likewise
have been in the same hands as those who performed other services. On
the other hand, in a temple like E-Sagila the classes and subclasses
must have been very numerous. Of the details of the organization we as
yet know very little. There was a high priest, known as the
_shangam-makhu_,[1462] and from the existence of a title like
_sur-makhu_,--that is, the chief _surru_,[1463]--we may conclude that
each class of priests had its chief likewise. With the natural tendency
in ancient civilizations for professions to become vested in families,
the priests in the course of time became a caste; but there is no reason
to believe that entrance into this caste was only possible through the
accident of birth. That instruction in the reading and writing of the
cuneiform characters, and hence the introduction into the literature,
was open to others than the scions of priests is shown by the presence
in the legal literature of formal contracts for instruction between
teachers and pupils who belong to the 'laity.' These pupils could become
scribes and judges, and their standing as 'priests' represented merely
the Babylonian equivalent to a modern university degree. For such
service as the bewailing of the dead and as musicians, persons were
initiated who were taken from various classes and likewise for the
menial duties of the temples, and it is only when we come to the more
distinctive priestly functions, like the exorcising of evil spirits,
securing an oracle, or performing sacrifices, that the rules limiting
these privileges to certain families were iron bound. As among the
Hebrews and other nations, stress was laid also upon freedom from
physical blemishes in the case of the priests. The leper, we learn, was
not fit for the priesthood.[1464] In the astronomical reports that were
spoken of in a previous chapter,[1465] there are references to the
'watches' kept by the astronomers. These watches, however, were probably
not observed for astronomical purposes alone, but represent the time
division, as among the Hebrews, for the temple service. There were three
night watches among the Babylonians,[1466] and, in all probability,
therefore, three day watches likewise. Relays of priests were appointed
in the large sanctuaries for service during the continuance of each
watch, and we may some day find that the Hebrews obtained their number
of twenty-four priests for each 'watch' from a custom prevailing in some
Babylonian temple.

An interesting feature of the Babylonian priesthood is the position
occupied by the woman. In the historical texts from the days of
Hammurabi onward, the references to women attached to the service of
temples are not infrequent. Gudea expressly mentions the 'wailing
women,' and there is every reason to believe that the female wailers,
like the male ones, belong to some priestly class. Again, examples of
women as exorcisers and as furnishing oracles[1467] may be instanced in
Babylonia as well as in Assyria, and we have also references to female
musicians as late as the days of Ashurbanabal. A specially significant
role was played by the priestesses in Ishtar's temple at Erech, and
probably at other places where the cult of the great mother goddess was
carried on. The Ishtar priestess was known by the general term of
Kadishtu,--that is, 'the holy one,'--or Ishtaritum, 'devoted to Ishtar';
but, from the various other names for the sacred harlot that we come
across,[1468] it would appear that the priestesses were divided into
various classes, precisely like the priests. That in the ceremonies of
initiation at Erech, and perhaps elsewhere, some rites were observed
that on the surface appeared obscene is eminently likely; but there is
no evidence that obscene rites, as instanced by Herodotus, formed part
of the _regular_ cult of the goddess. Except in the case of the Ishtar
worship, the general observation may be made that the position of the
priestess is more prominent in the early period of Babylonian history
than in the days when the culture and power of Babylonia and Assyria
reached its zenith.