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

Another name of the moon-god was Sin,--the meaning of which escapes us.
At the side of Ur, Harran is the place most celebrated by reason of its
moon-worship, and there is every reason to believe that the name Sin was
originally attached to Harran. The migrations of the ancient Hebrews
were connected as we now know with political movements in Babylonia.
They proceed from Ur--or Ur-Kasdim, _i.e._, Chaldean Ur--northward to
Harran, which, by virtue of its position, became a town of much
importance. This association of Ur with Harran furnishes an indication
for historical relations of some sort, existing between the two places.
It is therefore not accidental, that the patron deity of both places was
the same. As yet, no excavations have been made at Harran, and we are,
therefore, dependent upon incidental notices for our knowledge of its
history. These sufficiently show that the place continued through a long
period to preserve its sacred character. The old temple there, was one
of the many that stirred up the religious zeal of Nabonnedos; and
previous to this, we find several Assyrian kings occupied in
embellishing and restoring the structure. An interesting reference to
Harran, bearing witness to its ancient dignity, is found in an
inscription of Sargon II. of Assyria (722-706 B.C.), who enumerates
among his claims to the favor of the gods, that he restored the "laws
and customs of Harran," by which he evidently means that he was
instrumental in giving the place, the dignity it once enjoyed. A curious
feature connected with Sin, is the occurrence of the name in Mount
Sinai, in the wilderness of Sin, as well as in an inscription of
Southern Arabia. May not this be a further testimony to the association
of Harran with Sin, since it is from Harran that the departure of the
Hebrews for the west took place? What more natural than that in the
migrations which carried the Hebrews to the west, the worship of Sin
should have been transferred to Arabia?[62] Important as Ur and Harran
are as sacred towns, politically they do not retain their prominence
after the days of Hammurabi. The amalgamation of Nannar with Sin, and
the almost exclusive occurrence of the latter name in later times, does
not of necessity point to a preponderating influence of Harran over Ur,
but may be due to the greater fame which the former place acquired as
the goal of religious pilgrimages. The situation of Harran--the name
itself signifies 'road'--as the highway leading to the west, must have
been an important factor, in bringing this about. However this may be,
Sin and Nannar are as thoroughly identical in the period following
Hammurabi, as Babbar and Shamash. The attributes of the one are
transferred to the other so completely, that a separation of the two is
no longer possible.

The ideographs with which the name of Sin is written show him to have
been regarded as the god of wisdom, but while wisdom and light may be
connected, it is Nannar's character as the "illuminator" that becomes
the chief trait of the god. No doubt the preeminence of Ea in this
respect, who is the personification of wisdom, _par excellence_, made it
superfluous to have another deity possessing the same trait. It is,
accordingly, as the god of light, that Sin continues to be adored in the
Babylonian religion; and when he is referred to, in the historical texts
and hymns, this side of his nature is the one dwelt upon. Through his
light, the traps laid by the evil spirits, who are active at night, are
revealed. In later times, apparently through Assyrian influence, the
reckoning of time was altered to the extent of making the day begin with
sunrise, instead of with the approach of night; and this, together with
the accommodation of the lunar cycle to the movements of the sun,
brought about a partial change of the former conditions, and gave
somewhat greater prominence to Shamash. As a consequence, the role of
Sin is not as prominent in the hymns that belong to a later period as in
those of earlier days.

The oracles of the Assyrian kings are addressed to Shamash, and not to
Sin. Moreover, the personal factor in the case of Sin, if one may
express oneself thus, is not as strong as in that of some other gods.
His traits are of a more general kind. He is supreme; there is none like
him, and the spirits are subservient to his will. But terms of
endearment are few, while on the mythological side, comparatively little
is made of him. He is strong and he is holy. He is called upon to clothe
the evil-doer with leprosy, as with a dress. In a robe, befitting his
dignity, he stalks about. Without him, no city is founded, no district
restored to former glory. Sin is called the father of the gods, but in a
metaphorical rather than in a real sense. The only one of his children
who takes an important part in the later phases of Babylonian-Assyrian
worship is his daughter Ishtar. She seems to have taken to herself some
of the traits of right belonging to Sin, and the prominence of her
worship may be regarded as an additional factor in accounting for the
comparative obscurity to which Sin gradually is assigned. At all events,
Sin is a feature of the earlier period of the Babylonian religion rather
than of the later periods.

Innanna.

The secondary position held by the female deities in the Babylonian
pantheon has been repeatedly referred to. This trait of the religion
finds an illustration not only in the 'shadowy' character of the
consorts of the gods, but also in the manner in which goddesses,
originally distinct from one another and enjoying an existence
independent of any male consort, lose their individuality, as it were,
and become merely so many forms of one and the same deity. Indeed, as we
approach the moment when the gods of the Babylonian pantheon are ranged
into a system, the tendency becomes pronounced to recognize only _one_
goddess, representative of the principle of generation--one 'great
mother,' endowed with a variety of traits according to the political and
social conditions prevailing at different times in Babylonia and
Assyria. In the earliest period which we are now considering, we can
still distinguish a number of goddesses who afterwards became merged
into this one great goddess. These are Ninni (or Innanna), Nana, and
Anunit.

Ninni and Innanna are names that appear to have a common origin.[63]
Both embody the notion of 'ladyship.' The worship of this goddess
centers in the district of Lagash. Ur-Bau (c. 3000 B.C.), who addresses
her as 'glorious and supreme,' builds a temple in her honor at
Gishgalla, and Gudea refers to a temple known as E-anna, _i.e._,
heavenly house in Girsu.[64] For Gudea, Ninni is the "mistress of the
world." Another ruler of Lagash whose name is doubtfully read as
E-dingir-ra-na-gin,[65] but who is even earlier than Ur-Bau, declares
that he has been 'called' by Innanna to the throne. She is mentioned by
the side of Nin-khar-sag. We are still in the period where local
associations formed a controlling factor in ensuring the popularity of a
deity, and while the goddesses attached to the gods of the important
centers are still differentiated, the tendency already exists to
designate the female consorts simply as the 'goddess,'--to apply to all,
the traits that may once have been peculiar to one. As we pass from one
age to the other, there is an increasing difficulty in keeping the
various local 'goddesses' apart. Even the names become interchangeable;
and since these goddesses all represented essentially the same principle
of generation and fertility, it was natural that with the union of the
Babylonian states they should become merged into one great
mother-goddess. A 'local' goddess who retains rather more of her
individuality than others, is

Nana.

Her name is again playfully interpreted by the Babylonians--through
association with Nin--as 'the lady' _par excellence_. She was the chief
goddess of the city of Uruk. Her temple at Uruk is first mentioned by
Ur-Gur, of the second dynasty of Ur. It is restored and enlarged by
Dungi, the successor of Ur-Bau, and so thoroughly is she identified with
her edifice known as E-anna (again a play upon her name), that she
becomes known as the Lady of E-anna.[66] She appears to have had a
temple also at Ur, and it is to this edifice that later rulers of
Larsa--Kudur-Mabuk and Rim-Sin, as well as the kings of the Isin
dynasty, Gamil-Ninib, Libit-Ishtar, and Ishme-Dagan--refer in their
inscriptions.

The members of the Isin dynasty pride themselves upon their control over
Uruk, and naturally appear as special devotees to Nana, whose chosen
"consort" they declare themselves to be, wielding the sceptre, as it
were, in union with her. Already at this period, Nana is brought into
connection with the moon-god, being called by Kudur-Mabuk the daughter
of Sin. The relationship in this case indicates, primarily, the
supremacy exercised by Ur, and also a similarity in the traits of the
two deities. In the fully developed cosmology, Nana is the planet Venus,
whose various aspects, as morning and evening star, suggested an analogy
with the phases of the moon.

Venus, like the moon, served as a guide to man, while her inferiority in
size and importance to the former, would naturally come to be expressed
under the picture of father and daughter. In a certain sense, all the
planets appearing at the same time and in the same region with the moon
were the children of the latter. Sin, therefore, is appropriately called
the father of gods, just as Anu, the personification of the heaven
itself, is the supreme father of Sin and Shamash, and of all the
heavenly bodies. The metaphorical application of 'father' as 'source,'
throughout Oriental parlance, must be kept in mind in interpreting the
relationship between the gods. Still another name of the goddess is
Anunit, which appears to have been peculiar to the North Babylonian city
Agade, and emphasizes her descent from "Anu," the god of heaven. Her
temple at Agade, known as E-ul-mash, is the object of Sargon's devotion,
which makes her, with Bel and Shamash, the oldest triad of gods
mentioned in the Babylonian inscriptions. But the name which finally
displaces all others, is

Ishtar.

Where the name originated has not yet been ascertained, as little as its
etymology,[67] but it seems to belong to Northern Babylonia rather than
to the south.

In time, all the names that we have been considering--Innanna, Nana, and
Anunit--became merely so many designations of Ishtar. She absorbs the
titles and qualities of all, and the tendency which we have pointed out
finds its final outcome in the recognition of Ishtar as the one and only
goddess endowed with powers and an existence independent of association
with any male deity, though even this independence does not hinder her
from being named at times as the associate of the chief god of
Assyria--the all-powerful Ashur. The attempt has been made by Sayce and
others to divide the various names of Ishtar among the aspects of Venus
as morning and evening star, but there is no evidence to show that the
Babylonians distinguished the one from the other so sharply as to make
two goddesses of one and the same planet.

It is more in accord with what, as we have seen, has been the general
character of the Babylonian pantheon, to account for the identification
of Ninni, Nana, and Anunit with Ishtar on the supposition that the
different names belonged originally to different localities. Ishtar was
appropriately denominated the brilliant goddess. She is addressed as the
mother of gods, which signals her supreme position among the female
deities. 'The mistress of countries' alternating with 'the mistress of
mountains,'[68] is one of her common titles; and as the growing
uniqueness of her position is one of the features of the
Babylonian-Assyrian religion, it is natural that she should become
simply _the_ goddess. This was especially the case with the Assyrians,
to whom Ishtar became a goddess of war and battle, the consort, at
times, of the chief god of the Assyrian pantheon. At the same time it is
important to note that the warlike character of the goddess goes back to
the time of Hammurabi (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 113), and is dwelt upon by
other Babylonian kings (_e.g._, Nebuchadnezzar I., c. 1130 B.C.) prior
to the rise of the Assyrian power. How Ishtar came to take on so violent
a character is not altogether clear. There are no indications of this
role in the incantation texts, where she is simply the kind mother who
is appealed to, to release the sufferer from the power of the
disease-bringing spirits. In the prayers, as will be shown in the proper
place, she becomes the vehicle for the expression of the highest
religious and ethical thought attained by the Babylonians. On the other
hand, in the great Babylonian epic,[69] dealing with the adventures of a
famous hero, Gilgamesh, Ishtar, who makes her appearance at the summer
solstice, is a raging goddess who smites those who disobey her commands
with wasting disease. Starting with this phase of the goddess'
character, one can at least understand the process of her further
development into a fierce deity presiding over the fortunes of war. The
epic just referred to belongs to the old Babylonian period. It embodies
ancient traditions of rivalry between the Babylonian principalities,
though there are traces of several recastings which the epic received.
The violent Ishtar, therefore, is a type going back to the same period
as the other side of her character that is emphasized elsewhere. Since,
moreover, the Ishtar in the Gilgamesh epic is none other than the chief
goddess of Uruk, all further doubt as to the union of such diverging
traits in one and the same personage falls to the ground. In this same
epic, Ishtar appears as sympathizing with the sufferings of mankind, and
bewailing the destruction that was at one time decreed by the gods. It
is noteworthy that the violent Ishtar appears in that portion of the
epic which, on the assumption of a zodiacal interpretation for the
composition, corresponds to the summer solstice, whereas, the
destruction which arouses her sympathy takes place in the eleventh
month. It is quite possible, therefore, that the two aspects of Venus,
as evening and morning stars, corresponding, as they do, to the summer
and winter seasons, are reflected in this double character of the
goddess. We are not justified, however, in going further and assuming
that her double role as daughter of Sin and daughter of Anu is to be
accounted for in the same manner. In the Gilgamesh epic, she is found in
association with Anu, and to the latter she appeals for protection as
her father, and yet it is as the daughter of Sin that she enters the
world of the dead to seek for the waters that may heal her bridegroom,
Tammuz.[70] Evidently, the distinction between Ishtar as the daughter of
Anu and as the daughter of Sin is not an important one, the term
daughter in both cases being a metaphor to express a relationship both
of physical nature and of a political character. Of the various forms
under which the goddess appears, that of Anunit--a feminine form
indicating descent from and appertaining to Anu--attaches itself most
clearly to the god of heaven, and it may be that it was not until the
assimilation of Anunit and Nana with Ishtar that the goddess is viewed
as at once the daughter of Anu and of Sin. If this be so, there is
surely nothing strange in the fact that a planet like Venus should be
regarded in one place as the daughter of heaven and in another brought
into relationship with the moon. She actually belongs to both.

Just as in Babylonia, so in Assyria, there were various Ishtars, or
rather various places where the goddess was worshipped as the guardian
spirit, but her role in the north is so peculiar that all further
consideration of it must be postponed until we come to consider, in due
time, the Assyrian pantheon. There will be occasion, too, when treating
of the Gilgamesh epic, to dwell still further on some of her traits. All
that need be said here is to emphasize the fact that the popularity of
the Babylonian Ishtar in Assyria, as manifested by Esarhaddon's zeal in
restoring her temple at Uruk, and Ashurbanabal's restoration of Nana's
statue (_c._ 635 B.C.) which had been captured by the Elamites 1635
years before Ashurbanabal's reign, is largely due to the effected
identity with the goddess who, for the Assyrians, was regarded chiefly
as the goddess of war and strife. In worshipping the southern Ishtars,
the Assyrian kings felt themselves to be showing their allegiance to the
same deity to whom, next to Ashur, most of their supplications were
addressed, and of whom as warriors they stood in dread.

Nina.

A goddess who, while sharing the fate of her sister goddesses in being
overshadowed by Ishtar, yet merits a special treatment, is one whose
name is plausibly conjectured to be read Nina. The compound ideogram
expressing the deity signifies 'house of the fish.' The word 'house' in
Semitic parlance is figuratively extended to convey the idea of
'possessing or harboring.' Applied to a settlement, the ideogram would
be the equivalent of our 'Fishtown.' It is with this same ideogram that
the famous capitol of Assyria, Nineveh, is written in the cuneiform
texts, and since the phonetic reading for the city, Ni-na-a, also
occurs, it is only legitimate to conclude that the latter is the correct
reading for the deity as well. As a matter of course, if the goddess
bears a name identical with that of a city, it cannot be the Assyrian
city which is meant in the old Babylonian inscriptions, but some other
place bearing the same name. Such a place actually occurs in the
inscriptions of Gudea. It is, in fact, one of the three towns that
combined with Shirpurla to create the great capitol bearing the latter
name; and Jensen[71] has called attention to a passage in one of Gudea's
inscriptions in which the goddess is brought into direct association
with the town, so that it would appear that Nina is the patron of Nina,
in the same way that Nin-girsu is the protector of Girsu. In keeping
with this we find the mention of the goddess limited to the rulers of
Lagash. Several of them--En-anna-tuma, Entemena, and Gudea--declare
themselves to have been chosen by her. She is said to regard Gudea with
special favor. She determines destinies. Another king, Ur-Nina, embodies
the name of the goddess in his own, and devotes himself to the
enlargement of her temple. From the manner in which she is associated
with Nin-girsu, aiding the latter in guarding his temple E-ninnu, and
uniting with the god in granting the sceptre to Gudea, one is tempted to
conclude that the two towns, Girsu and Nina, were amalgamated before
their absorption into Lagash, so that the god and goddess acquired the
relationship to one another of husband and consort. As for the
connection between this Babylonian Nina and the late Assyrian capital,
it is quite possible that the origin of the latter is to be traced to a
settlement made by inhabitants of the former, although it should be
added that there is no positive evidence that can be adduced in support
of this proposition. It accords, however, with the northward movement of
culture and civilization in Mesopotamia. If this connection between the
two Ninevehs be accepted, the question suggests itself whether, in time,
Nina did not become merely another form of Ishtar. The Assyrian capital
is frequently spoken of as the 'beloved city' of Ishtar, and unless it
be supposed that this epithet simply reflects the comparatively late
popularity of the distinctively Assyrian Ishtar, the most natural
explanation would be to propose the equation Nina = Ishtar.

In the incantation texts, Nina is frequently appealed to as the daughter
of Ea,--the god of the deep. This relationship, as well as the
interpretation of the ideogram above set forth, points to the original
character of the goddess as a water-deity. This goddess, therefore,
would be of an entirely different form from the ones discussed in the
previous paragraphs. Instead of being a member of the heavenly pantheon,
her place is with the kingdom over which Ea presides, and whose
dwelling-place is the watery deep. In any case, Nina is originally
distinct from Ishtar, Nana, and Anunit; and she retains an independent
existence to a later period than most of the other great goddesses that
have been discussed. In an inscription of the days of Belnadinaplu (_c._
1100 B.C.), published by Hilprecht,[72] Nina appears as the patron deity
of Der,--a city of Southern Babylonia. There too she is called the
'daughter of Ea,' the creator of everything. She is 'the mistress of
goddesses.' Attached to her temple there are lands that having been
wrongfully wrested from the priests are returned upon royal command,
under solemn invocation of the goddess. How her worship came to be
transferred to Der we do not know. She appears in the inscription in
question by the side of a goddess who--following Hommel--is none other
than Bau. Der is called the city of the god Anu, and we can only suppose
that it must at one time have risen to sufficient importance to harbor
in its midst a number of deities. It is presumably[73] the place whence
Nebuchadnezzar I. sets out in the twelfth century to drive the Cassites
off the throne of Babylonia. May it be that, during the days of the
foreign rule, priests attached to the service of various of the old gods
and goddesses transferred the worship of these deities to places more
secure from interference?

Be this as it may, if our Nina has any connection with the goddess of
Nineveh, it is certain that Ishtar has retained none of Nina's traits.
The fusion in this case has been so complete that naught but the
faintest tradition of an original and independent Nina has survived in
the North.

Anu.

This god, who, from a theoretical point of view (as will be shown in a
subsequent chapter), was regarded as standing at the head of the
organized Babylonian pantheon, figures only incidentally in the
inscriptions prior to the days of Hammurabi. Ur-Gur of the second
dynasty of Ur, in invoking Nannar, calls the latter 'the powerful bull
of Anu.' The reference is interesting, for it shows that already in
these early days the position of Anu, as the god of the heavenly
expanse, was fixed. The moon appearing in the heavens, and the
resemblance of its crescent to a bull's horn,[74] are the two factors
that account for the expressive epithet used by Ur-Bau. That the worship
of the god of heaven _par excellence_ should not have enjoyed great
popularity in the early days of the Babylonian religion might seem
strange at first sight. A little reflection, however, will make this
clear. A god of the heavens is an abstract conception, and while it is
possible that even in an early age, such a conception may have arisen in
some minds, it is not of a character calculated to take a popular hold.
As we proceed in our attempt to trace the development of the Babylonian
religion, we will find the line of demarcation separating the
theological system, as evolved by the schoolmen, from the popular phases
of the religion, becoming more marked. In the inscriptions of the old
Babylonian rulers, comparatively little of the influence of the
Babylonian theologians is to be detected. Even the description of the
moon as the bull of heaven falls within the domain of popular fancy. It
is different in the days after Hammurabi, when political concentration
leads to the focussing of intellectual life in the Euphrates Valley,
with all the consequences that the establishment of a central
priesthood, with growing powers over ever-increasing territory,
involves. It is to be noted, moreover, that the manner in which in the
old Babylonian inscriptions _Anu_ is written,[75] indicates that the
abstraction involved in the conception of a god of heaven had not yet
been reached, though some measure of personification was of course
inevitable at a time when animistic notions still held sway. A direct
indication of this personification of heaven without the deification
appears in the epithet 'child of Anu,' bestowed upon the goddess Bau.
The reference to the heavens in this connection is an allusion to Bau's
position as the patroness of that quarter of Lagash known as the
'brilliant town,'[76] and where Bau's temple stood. The transference of
the quality of 'brilliancy' from the town to the goddess would be
expressed by calling the latter the offspring of that part of visible
nature which is associated in the mind with 'brilliancy.' Somewhat
mysterious, and still awaiting a satisfactory explanation, is the title
'sacrificer,' or 'priest of Anu,' which one of the rulers of Lagash,
Ur-Nin-girsu, assumes. It is scarcely possible that the god of heaven
can be meant; and, on the other hand, if we are to assume merely a
personification of heaven, we encounter fresh difficulties. It seems to
me that the use of Anu[77] here is purely metaphorical for 'high' or
'lofty,' and that the king merely wishes to emphasize the dignity of his
station by declaring himself to be the heavenly priest, somewhat as we
should say 'priest by divine grace,' or 'supreme priest.'