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

[50] See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 476-87.

[51] See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 476-87.

[52] So in the inscription of Rim-Sin (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 97).

[53] Perhaps the knob of a sceptre. _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ viii. 68.

[54] _E.g._, Hammurabi (_Revue d'Assyriologie_, ii. col. i. 21); but
also Gudea and a still earlier king.

[55] So Amlaud; and there seems some reason to believe that the name was
used by the side of Utu, though perhaps only as an epithet.

[56] Compare _birbiru_, 'sheen,' and the stem _baru_, 'to see,' etc.

[57] See _Keils Bibl._ 3, I, 100. Reading of name uncertain.

[58] Suggested by Rawlinson, ii. 57, 10. See Schrader, _Zeits. f.
Assyr._ iii. 33 _seq._

[59] On Sippar, see Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, etc., 168-169, who finds
in the Old Testament form "Sepharvayim" a trace of this double Sippar.
Dr. Ward's suggestion, however, in regard to Anbar, as representing this
'second' Sippar, is erroneous.

[60] _E.g._, in Southern Arabia. See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion
of the Semites_, I. 59.

[61] In Rabbinical literature, the moon is compared to a 'heifer'
(Talmud Babli Rosh-hashana 22 _b_).

[62] That the name of Sin should have been introduced into Mesopotamia
through the 'Arabic' dynasty (see above, p. 39) is less probable, though
not impossible in the light of recent discoveries.

[63] Innanna may be separated into _In_ = lord or lady, and _nanna_;
_in_ and _nanna_ would then be elements added to "lady," conveying
perhaps the idea of greatness. See Jensen's remarks, _Keils Bibl._ 3, I,
20, note 4.

[64] _Rec. of the Past_, N.S., ii. p. 104.

[65] _Keils Bibl._ 3, I, 16. See Jensen's note on the reading of the
name.

[66] The fame of this temple outlasts the political importance of the
place, and as late as the days of the Assyrian monarchy is an object of
fostering care on the part of the kings.

[67] That the name is Semitic is no longer seriously questioned by any
scholar. The underlying stem suggests etymological relationship with the
god Ashur. If this be so, Ishtar may mean 'the goddess that brings
blessing' to mankind, but all this is tentative, as are the numerous
other etymologies suggested.

[68] The ideographs for 'country' and 'mountain' are identical Assyrian.
The alternation in the title of Ishtar must not be taken to point to a
mountainous origin of the goddess.

[69] A full account of this epic will be given at its proper place.

[70] Again, in the incantation texts she appears only as the daughter of
Anu, cooerdinate with Sin and Shamash.

[71] _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 72, note. Some scholars, as Hommel (_Gesch. d.
alt. Morgenlandes_, p. 68), propose to identify this place with the
Assyrian Nineveh, but the conjecture lacks proof and is altogether
improbable.

[72] _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. pls. 30, 31. (See now Peiser,
_Keils Bibl._ 4, pp. 64-66.)

[73] Questioned by Peiser, _ib._

[74] Among many nations the moon is pictured as a horned animal. See
Robert Brown's interesting monograph on _The Unicorn_, pp. 27 _seq. et
passim_; also above, p. 76.

[75] Simply the sign AN (= god, heaven) and the phonetic complement
_na_.

[76] See above, p. 59.

[77] Written An-na, without the determinative for deity. De Sarzec,
_Decouvertes en Chaldee_, pl. 37, no. 8.

[78] The second element may also be read _dar_. See Jensen, _Keils
Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 24, note 1.

[79] Inscription B, col. ii. 19.

[80] See Hommel, _Semitische Kulturen_, p. 389.

[81] For the sacred character of the swine among the Semites, see W.
Robertson Smith's _The Religion of the Semites_, pp. 201, 272, 332, 457.
Rawlinson, iii. 68, 22, occurs a deity, 'swine of the right hand,'
_i.e._, propitious.

[82] Rawlinson, ii. 59, 23. The second element in Pap-sukal is the
common Babylonian word for 'servant,' or 'messenger;' other deities
therefore standing in a subsidiary position are also called Pap-sukal.
So _e.g._, Nebo and Nusku. See further on and compare Hommel, _Semiten_,
pp. 479, 480.

[83] Inscription B, col iii. 2.

[84] Uru-kagina, earlier than Gudea (de Sarzec, pl. 32), appears to have
built a temple to Dun-shagga, but the passage is not altogether clear.
The element also appears in the name of the ruler of Ur, _Dungi_,
_i.e._, 'the legitimate hero,' as Sargon is the 'legitimate king.'

[85] Signifying, according to Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 25,
'fighting-place'.

[86] Published by Delitzsch, _Beitraege zur Assyr._ I. 301-311.

[87] So also Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 14, note 3.

[88] So Anu appears to have concubines.

[89] See above, pp. 92, 93.

[90] Inscription C.

[91] De Sarzec, pl. 37, no. 5; _Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ vi. 279.

[92] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 127, proposes to read Umun-pauddu.

[93] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2, no. 93. The name
also appears in syllabaries as Shul-pa-ud-du-a. For the element
_pa-udda_, see p. 103. In Nergal's name Shid-lam-ta-uddu-a (p. 65), the
same final elements are found which appear to be characteristic epithets
of solar deities. The first element in the name has also the value Dun
(as in Dun-gi).

[94] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 125, 126.

[95] See _Journal Asiatique_, September-October, 1895, p. 393.

[96] De Sarzec, pl. 8, col. v. ll. 8-12.

[97] IR. pl. 2, no. 4.

[98] Jensen regards Pa-sag as a possible phonetic form, but his view is
hardly tenable.

[99] See Zimmern, _Busspsalmen_, pp. 60, 61.

[100] Cylinder A, cols. iv. and v. Amiaud read the name _Nirba_.

[101] Just published by Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2,
pls. 38-47. _Cf._ p. 52

[102] VR. col. i. 48.

[103] See at close of chapter vi.

[104] Hilprecht, _ib._ no. 87, col i. 30.

[105] _Ib._ i. 32. Hilprecht reads Nin-a-gid-kha-du, but this can hardly
be correct.

[106] The two ideas, 'water' and 'incantation,' are correlated. The
'waters' meant are those used for purification purposes in connection
with the magic formulas.

[107] De Sarzec, pl. 32, col. ii. 9-11.

[108] _Records of the Past_, N.S., i. 59. Amiaud reads the second name
Im-ghud-ena and the third Gim (or Ur)-nun-ta-ena. The publication in De
Sarzec favors my readings.

CHAPTER V.

THE CONSORTS OF THE GODS.

Attention has already been directed to the comparatively small number of
female deities that appear in the inscriptions of the first period of
Babylonian history. We must, however, not conclude from this, that such
deities did not exist in larger numbers. On the contrary, we may feel
certain that every god had his consort, and in some cases more than one.
Several instances of such consorts have been furnished in this chapter;
but if the consorts of the larger number of these gods are unknown, it
is because of the insignificant role that these consorts played. The
goddesses of Babylonia, with few exceptions, become mere shadowy
reflections of the gods, with but little independent power, and in some
cases none at all. They owe what popularity they enjoyed to their
association with their male companions. In consequence of this inferior
role played by the female deities, the tendency becomes more pronounced,
as we pass from the first to the second period of Babylonian history, to
reduce by assimilation the small number that have independent
attributes, until we reach a condition in which we have practically only
one goddess, appearing under many forms. It is only in the religious
texts, and in some phases of the popular beliefs, that goddesses retain
a certain degree of prominence. So, a goddess Allat, as we shall see,
plays an important part as the chief goddess of the subterranean cave
that houses the dead. Allat appears to have been originally a consort of
the famous Bel of Nippur, but through association with Nergal, who
becomes the chief god of the lower world, almost all traces of the
original character of the goddess disappear. Again, Gula, the consort of
Nin-ib, while occasionally mentioned in the historical texts of the
second and third period, and under the form Ma-ma, as an element in a
proper name belonging to the oldest period,[109] is more frequently
invoked in incantations as the healer of disease. The same is the case
with other goddesses; so that we may conclude that from the earliest
times, the Babylonian religion shared the trait so marked in all Semitic
cults, of a combination of the male and female principle in the
personification of the powers that controlled the fate of man. In part,
no doubt, the minor importance of women, so far as the outward aspects
of social and political life were concerned, is a factor in the
altogether secondary importance attaching to the consorts of the gods;
but we may feel certain that there was no god, however restricted in his
jurisdiction, or however limited in the number of his worshippers, who
had not associated with him a female companion, who follows him as the
shadow follows the substance.

FOOTNOTES:

[109] According to Hilprecht, _ib._ p. 48, note 6. For _Ma-ma_ and
_Me-me_, as names of Gula, see chapter viii.

CHAPTER VI.

GUDEA'S PANTHEON.

Gudea manifests a fondness for giving to his pantheon as large a compass
as possible. In this respect, he follows earlier examples, and also sets
an example which is followed by many of the rulers of Babylonia and
Assyria, who felt that the larger the number of gods invoked by them,
the more impressive would their own position appear in the eyes of their
subjects. Moreover, by incorporating in their pantheon the gods
associated with districts that they controlled, they would not only
secure the protection of these deities, but would emphasize their own
claim to an extended sovereignty. The beginning and the close of
dedicatory and commemorative inscriptions were the favorite
opportunities, seized upon by the kings, for parading the list of the
powers under whose patronage they wished to appear. These lists are both
interesting and valuable, as furnishing in a convenient form a summary
of the chief gods included in the Babylonian pantheon at the various
historical periods. At the close of one of his inscriptions,[110] Gudea
furnishes a list of no less than eighteen deities. In rapid succession
he enumerates Anu, En-lil (Bel), Nin-khar-sag, En-ki (Ea), En-zu (Sin),
Nin-girsu, Nina, Nin-si-a, Ga-tum-dug, Bau, Ninni, Utu (Shamash),
Pa-sag, Gal-alim, Dun-shagga, Nin-Mar, Dumuzi-zuaba, Nin-gish-zida.
These deities may be taken as indicative of the territorial extent of
Gudea's jurisdiction. They are called upon to punish him who attempts to
alter the decrees of the ruler, or to efface the memory of his deeds.
Again, at the beginning of one of his inscriptions, he appeals to
Nin-girsu, En-lil, Nina, Bau, Ga-tum-dug, Gal-alim, and Dun-shagga. He
recounts what he has done to promote the cults of these deities, and
upon his conduct he grounds his hope that they will aid him in his
undertakings. The lists, as will be observed, vary in the number and in
the order of the gods enumerated. In the second list, the position of
Nin-girsu at the head is due to the fact that the inscription
commemorates the dedication of a sanctuary to that god. But Nin-girsu,
despite his rank as the chief god of Lagash, belongs to a second class
of deities. Standing far above him is the triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, the
gods that personify, as we have seen, the great divisions of the
universe,--heaven, earth, and water. These gods, accordingly, take
precedence of Nin-girsu in the first list. In a succeeding chapter, the
significance of this triad for the Babylonian religion will be fully set
forth. For the present, it is sufficient to note that the
systematization of popular beliefs, involved in the distinctions thus
emphasized in the groupings of deities into classes, begins at so early
a period. This systematization, however, has not yet assumed final
shape. True, the moon-god has already been given the place, immediately
following upon the triad, that he will hold in the developed form of
Babylonian theology; but while, as we have seen, Sin properly takes
precedence of the sun-god, the latter should follow in the wake of his
associate. Not only, however, does Nin-girsu precede, but two other
deities who are closely related in general character to the 'warrior
deity' of Gudea's dominion. Then, the two great goddesses, Bau and
Ninni, are introduced, and it is not until they are disposed of that the
sun-god, together again with Pa-sag as a kind of lieutenant,[111] is
invoked. In the arrangement of the five remaining deities, no special
principle can be recognized. They, evidently, occupy a minor rank. It is
possible, then, to distinguish no less than four classes in the old
Babylonian pantheon: (1) the great triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea; (2) a second
group, as yet incomplete, but which will eventually include Sin,
Shamash, and Ramman, representing the great powers of nature--moon, sun,
and storm; (3) the great gods, the patron deities of the more important
political centers of the country; and (4) the minor ones, representing
the local cults of less important places. Naturally, the dividing line
between the two last-named classes is not sharply marked, and in
accordance with the ever-varying political kaleidoscope, local deities
will rise from the rank of minor gods to a higher place in the pantheon;
while such as once enjoyed high esteem will, through decline in the
political fortunes of their worshippers, be brought down from the higher
to an inferior rank.[112] It is this constant interaction between the
political situation and the relationship of the gods to one another,
that constitutes one of the most striking features of the religion of
Babylonia and Assyria. In the course of time, as an organized pantheon
leads to greater stability in the domain of theological speculation, the
influence of the politics of the country on the religion becomes less
marked, without, however, disappearing altogether. The various classes
into which the gods are divided, are definitely fixed by the schools of
theology that, as we shall see, take their rise in the Euphrates Valley.
The rivalry, on the one hand, between the Babylonian empire united under
one head, and the Assyrian empire on the other, alone remains to bring
about an occasional exchange of places between the two gods who stand at
the head of the great gods of the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon
respectively. The attempt has been made by Amiaud[113] to arrange the
pantheon of this oldest period in a genealogical order. In Gudea's long
list of deities, he detects three generations,--the three chief gods and
one goddess, as the progenitors of Sin, Shamash, Nin-girsu, Bau, and
others. The gods of this second division give rise to a third class,
viewed again as the offspring of the second. Professor Davis, taking up
this idea of Amiaud, has quite recently maintained[114] that the family
idea must form our starting-point for an understanding of the pantheon
of Lagash. The theory, however, does not admit of consistent
application. There are gods, as Amiaud recognized, who cannot be brought
under his scheme, so far at least as present testimony is concerned; and
others can only by an arbitrary assumption be forced into accord with
the theory. Moreover, we should expect to find traces of this family
idea in the later phases of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. Such,
however, is not the case. A more reasonable and natural explanation of
the relationship existing between many--not all--of the gods of Gudea's
pantheon has already been suggested. In part, we must look to the
development of a theological system of thought in the Euphrates Valley
to account for the superior position accorded to certain gods, and in
part, political conditions and political changes afford an explanation
for the union of certain deities into a family group. So far, indeed,
Amiaud is correct, that the relationship existing between the various
deities, was as a rule expressed in terms applicable to human society.
The secondary position occupied, _e.g._, by Sin when compared with a god
whose domain is the entire 'lower regions,' would be aptly expressed by
calling the moon-god the eldest son of En-lil or Bel; and, similarly, a
goddess like Bau would be called the daughter of Anu. It is a mistake,
however, to interpret the use of 'daughter' and 'son' literally. Such
terms are employed in all Semitic languages in a figurative sense, to
indicate a dependent position of some sort. Again, we have seen that the
union of a number of cities or states under one head would be followed
by a union of the deities proper to these cities or states. That union
would be expressed, according to circumstances, either by placing the
deities on a footing of equality--in which case they would be consorts,
or brothers and sisters, _offsprings_ therefore of one and the same
god--or, the superior rank of one patron god would be indicated by
assigning to the god of a conquered or subordinate territory the rank of
offspring or attendant.

In studying such a list as that presented by Gudea, we must, therefore,
make due allowance for what may be called local peculiarities and local
conditions. It is only by comparing his list with others that we can
differentiate between the general features of Babylonian cults and the
special features due to political and local associations. We are in a
position now to institute this comparison for a period which is
certainly some centuries earlier than Gudea. The date of the reign of
Lugal-zaggisi, king of Uruk, who has been several times referred to in a
previous chapter, is fixed by Hilprecht at _c._ 4500 B.C., but it is
doubtful whether so high an age will be accepted by scholars. The
chronology for the period beyond Gudea is still in a very uncertain
condition. Lugal-zaggisi, in a long list of deities at the beginning of
an important inscription, enumerates in succession Anu, the goddess
Nisaba, the gods En-lil (or Bel), En-ki (=Ea), En-zu (Sin), Utu (the
sun-god), the goddess Ninni (or Nana(?)), Nin-khar-sag, Umu, and
Nin-akha-kuddu. As for Anu, the king introduces the name, as Ur-Ningirsu
of Lagash does (see above, p. 90), in calling himself 'priest of Anu,'
and which, according to the explanation suggested, means simply 'divine
priest.'

Bel, Ea, Sin, and Shamash (or Utu) are common to Gudea and
Lugal-zaggisi. These constitute, then, the great gods whose worship is
no longer limited to any particular district. They have become common
property, in part through the sanctity attached to the places where the
gods were worshipped, in part through the antiquity of these places, and
in part, no doubt, as the result of a political development lying behind
the period under consideration. The prominence given by Lugal-zaggisi to
Nisaba is rather surprising. He calls himself and also his father,
'hero' of Nisaba. If, however, it be borne in mind that of the goddesses
at least two, Umu and Nin-akha-kuddu, are of a local character, the
conclusion appears justified that Nisaba was a goddess associated more
particularly with the district in which Uruk lay. The goddess Ninni
(written simply as 'the goddess') is no doubt identical with the great
Nana of Uruk, and Nin-khar-sag is introduced as the consort of En-lil.

As a result of this comparison, we may note the tendency towards a
general recognition of certain great gods, which is more fully developed
in the period of Hammurabi. At the same time, the loyalty of the rulers
to the gods, peculiar to their own district, is manifested by the
prominent place assigned in the several cases to gods who otherwise play
an insignificant role, and who eventually are absorbed by others; and
lastly, as between Lugal-zaggisi and Gudea, the observation may be made
of the disposition to emphasize local gods, less for their own sake,
than because of the eclat furnished by the enumeration of a large
pantheon, which shall be coequal in extent and dignity to the district
claimed by the rulers and to the rank assumed by them.

FOOTNOTES:

[110] Inscr. B, cols. viii. ix.

[111] See above, p. 101.

[112] See Winckler's excellent remarks on the relationship between the
city and the god in ancient Babylonia (_Altorientalische Forschungen_,
III. 232-235).

[113] _Records of the Past_, N.S., i. 57-59.

[114] In a paper on "The Gods of Shirpurla," read before the American
Oriental Society in April, 1895. (_Proceedings_, ccxiii-ccxviii.)

CHAPTER VII.

SUMMARY.

We have thus passed in review the old Babylonian pantheon, so far as the
discovered texts have revealed their names and epithets. The list does
not claim to be exhaustive. That future texts will add to its length, by
revealing the existence at this early period of many known to us at
present only from later texts or from the religious literature,[115] is
more than likely. The nature of the old Babylonian religion entails, as
a necessary consequence, an array of gods that might be termed endless.
Local cults would ever tend to increase with the rise of new towns, and
while the deities thus worshipped would not rise to any or much
importance, still their names would become known in larger circles, and
a ruler might, for the sake of increasing his own lustre, make mention
of one or more of them, honoring them at the same time by an epithet
which might or might not accurately define their character. As long as
the various districts of Babylonia were not formally united under one
head, various local cults might rise to equally large proportions, while
the gods worshipped as the special patrons of the great centers, as
Lagash, Ur, Uruk, Nippur, and the like, would retain their prominence,
even though the political status of the cities sacred to them suffered a
decline. The ruler of the district that claimed a supremacy over one
that formerly occupied an independent position, would hasten to
emphasize this control by proudly claiming the patron deity as part of
his pantheon. The popularity of Sin at Ur suffered no diminution because
the supremacy of Ur yielded to that of Uruk. On the contrary, the god
gained new friends who strove to rival the old ones in manifestations of
reverence; and when, as happened in several instances, the patron
deities were personifications of natural phenomena, whose worship
through various circumstances became associated with particular
localities, there was an additional reason for the survival, and,
indeed, growing importance of such local cults, quite independent of the
political fortunes that befell the cities in which the gods were
supposed to dwell.

As a consequence, there are a considerable number of deities who are met
with both at the beginning and at the end of the first period of
Babylonian history--a period, be it remembered, that, so far as known,
already covers a distance of 2,000 years. These are of two classes,
(_a_) deities of purely local origin, surviving through the historical
significance of the places where they were worshipped, and (_b_)
deities, at once local in so far as they are associated with a fixed
spot, but at the same time having a far more general character by virtue
of being personifications of the powers of nature. The jurisdiction of
both classes of deities might, through political vicissitudes, be
extended over a larger district than the one to which they were
originally confined, and in so far their local character would tend to
be obscured. It would depend, however, upon other factors, besides the
merely political ones, whether these cults would take a sufficiently
deep hold upon the people to lead to the evolution of deities, entirely
dissociated from fixed seats, who might be worshipped anywhere, and
whose attributes would tend to become more and more abstract in
character. Such a process, however, could not be completed by the silent
working of what, for want of a better name, we call the genius of the
people. It requires the assistance, conscious and in a measure pedantic,
of the thinkers and spiritual guides of a people. In other words, the
advance in religious conceptions from the point at which we find them
when the union of the Babylonian states takes place, is conditioned upon
the infusion of the theological spirit into the mass of beliefs that
constituted the ancient heritage of the people.

On the other hand, various circumstances have already been suggested
that cooeperated, already prior to the days of Hammurabi, in weeding out
the superfluity of deities, at least so far as recognition of them in
the official inscriptions of the rulers were concerned. Deities,
attached to places of small and ever-diminishing importance would, after
being at first adopted into the pantheon by some ruler desirous of
emphasizing his control over the town in question, end in being entirely
absorbed by some more powerful god, whose attributes were similar to
those of his minor companion. Especially would this be the case with
deities conceived as granting assistance in warfare. The glory of the
smaller warrior gods would fade through the success achieved by a
Nin-girsu. The names and epithets would be transferred to the more
powerful god, and, beyond an occasional mention, the weaker would
entirely pass out of consideration. Again, the worship of the moon or of
the sun, or of certain aspects of the sun,--the morning sun, the noonday
sun, and the like,--at localities of minor importance, would yield to
the growing popularity of similar worship in important centers. As a
consequence, names that formerly designated distinct deities or
different phases of one and the same deity, would, by being transferred
to a single one, come to be mere epithets of this one. The various names
would be used interchangeably, without much regard to their original
force.