THE PANTHEON IN THE DAYS OF HAMMURABI.
Marduk.
The immediate result of Hammurabi's master-stroke in bringing the
various states of the Euphrates Valley under a single control, was the
supremacy secured for his capital, of the city of Babylon over all other
Babylonian cities, and with this supremacy, the superior position
henceforth assumed by the patron deity of the capital, Marduk.[116] It
is needless for our purposes to enter upon the question as to the age of
the city of Babylon,[117] nor as to its political fortunes prior to the
rise of the dynasty of which Hammurabi was the sixth member. That its
beginnings were modest, and that its importance, if not its origin, was
of recent date in comparison with such places as Eridu, Nippur, Lagash,
Ur, and the like, is proved by the absence of the god Marduk in any of
the inscriptions that we have been considering up to this point. The
first mention of the god occurs in the inscriptions of Hammurabi, where
he appears distinctly as the god of the city of Babylon. No doubt the
immediate predecessors of Hammurabi regarded Marduk in the same light as
the great conqueror, so that we are justified in applying the data,
furnished by the inscriptions of Hammurabi to such of his predecessors,
of whom records are still lacking. It is to Marduk, that Hammurabi
ascribes his success. The king regards himself as the beloved of Marduk.
The god rejoices his heart and gives him power and plenty. Even when
paying his homage at the shrines of other deities, he does not forget to
couple the name of Marduk with that of the deity whose protection he
invokes. So at Sippar, sacred to Shamash, and where the king deposits a
cylinder recording the improvements that he instigated in the city, he
associates the sun-god with Marduk, whereas in contradistinction to the
rulers of the old Babylonian cities or states, when addressing Marduk,
he does not find it necessary to make mention at the same time of an
entire pantheon. Marduk's protection suffices for all purposes. This, of
course, does not exclude the worship of other gods. A reference has
already been made to the king's care for the city of Shamash. In this
respect, he was but following the example of his predecessors, who,
while regarding Babylon as their capital, were zealous in doing honor to
ancient centers of worship. So one of these predecessors, Zabu, restores
the temple of Shamash at Sippar, and that of Anunit at Agade. Hammurabi,
besides his work at Sippar, builds a temple to Innanna at Hallabi.[118]
Babylon, however, is the beloved city of Marduk, and upon its
beautification and improvement Hammurabi expends his chief energy. Such
are the endearing terms in which he speaks of his god, as to give one
the impression that, when thinking of Marduk, the king for the moment
loses sight of the existence of other gods. The most striking tribute,
however, that is paid to Marduk in the period of Hammurabi is his
gradual assumption of the role played by the old En-lil or Bel of
Nippur, once the head of the Babylonian pantheon. This identification is
already foreshadowed in the title _belu rabu_, _i.e._, 'great lord,'
which Hammurabi is fond of bestowing upon Marduk. It is more clearly
indicated in an inscription of his son, Samsu-iluna, who represents Bel,
'the king of heaven and earth,' as transferring to Marduk, the
'first-born son of Ea,' rulership over 'the four regions,'--a phrase
that at this time had already assumed a much wider meaning than its
original portent. In the religious literature of this age, which
reflects the same tendency, Bel expressly transfers his title 'lord of
the lands'[119] to Marduk, while Ea likewise pays homage to his son,
declaring that the latter's 'name' shall also be Ea. The transference of
the name, according to Babylonian notions, is equivalent to a
transference of power. As a consequence, Bel and Marduk are blended into
one personage, Marduk becoming known as Bel-Marduk, and finally, the
first part of the compound sinking to the level of a mere adjective, the
god is addressed as 'lord Marduk,' or 'Marduk, the lord.' The old Bel is
entirely forgotten, or survives at best in conventional association with
Anu and Ea, as a member of the ancient triad.
It has been satisfactorily shown[120] that Marduk was originally a solar
deity. His association with Babylon, therefore, must be viewed in the
same light as the association of Sin, the moon-god, with the city of Ur,
and the association of Shamash, the sun-god, with Larsa and Sippar. Just
as in the latter places, other cults besides that of the patron deity
prevailed, so in Babylon it was merely the prominence which, for some
reason, the worship of the sun-god acquired, that led to the closer
identification of this particular deity with the city, until he became
viewed as the god _par excellence_ of the city, and the city itself as
his favorite residence. As long as Larsa and Sippar retained a
prominence overshadowing that of Babylon, the sun cult at the latter
place could attract but little attention. Only as Babylon began to
rival, and finally to supersede, other centers of sun-worship, could
Marduk be brought into the front rank of prevailing cults. It may appear
strange, in view of this original character of Marduk, that neither in
the inscriptions of Hammurabi, nor in those of his successors, is there
any direct reference to his qualities as a solar deity. However, in the
ideographs composing his name, which are to be interpreted as 'child of
the day,'[121] and in the zodiacal system, as perfected by the
Babylonian scholars, there lurk traces of the god's solar origin, and
beyond this, perhaps, in certain set phrases, surviving in prayers
addressed to him. The explanation for this absence of solar traits is to
be sought in the peculiar political conditions that resulted in bringing
Marduk into such prominence. Hammurabi was preeminently a conquering
king. He waged war on all sides, and carried on his campaigns for many
years. When he finally succeeded in bringing both North and South
Babylonia under his sway, it still required constant watching to keep
his empire together. His patron god, therefore, the protector of the
city, whose jurisdiction was thus spread over a larger extent of
territory than that of any other deity, must have appeared to Hammurabi
and his followers, as well as to those vanquished by him, essentially as
a warrior. It is he who hands over to kings the land and its
inhabitants. The fact that he was a solar deity would become obscured by
the side of the more potent fact that, as god of the city of Babylon,
his sway was supreme. He therefore became Marduk, the 'great lord.' The
epithets bestowed upon him naturally emphasized the manner in which he
manifested himself, and these epithets, therefore, referred to his
power, to his supremacy over other gods, to his favor shown to his
worshippers by granting them unprecedented glory; and since the
political supremacy remained undisputed for many centuries, no
opportunity was afforded for ever reverting to the attributes of the god
as a solar deity. He remained--if one may so express it--a political
deity. The political significance of Babylon permitted only one phase of
his nature to be brought forward.
In the religious texts, however, preserving as they do the more
primitive conceptions by the side of the most advanced ones, some traces
of other attributes besides prowess in war are found. By virtue of his
character as a solar deity, Marduk, like the orb personified through
him, is essentially a life-giving god. Whereas Shamash is viewed as the
'judge of mankind,' Marduk becomes the god who restores the dead to
life, though he shares this power with Shamash, Gula, Nebo, and Nergal.
But after all, even in the religious texts, his more prominent role is
that of a ruler,--a magnified king. He protects the weak, releases the
imprisoned, and makes great the small. He controls by his powerful hand
the mountains and rivers and fountains. He is the counsellor who guides
the decrees, even of the great gods, Anu and Bel. On his head rests a
crown with high horns, as the symbol of rulership. As the supreme ruler,
life and death are in his hands. Blessings flow from him; and of
awe-inspiring appearance, his wrath inflicts severe punishment on the
evil-doer.
It is a noteworthy circumstance, and characteristic of the phase of the
Babylonian religion which we are considering, that the extension of
Marduk's political sway did not lead to the establishment of Marduk
cults outside of Babylon. One reason for this was that, in accordance
with the political conceptions, dwelt upon in the introductory chapter,
the empire of Babylonia was regarded simply as an extension of the city
of Babylon. Babylonia, therefore, being identified in theory with the
city of Babylon, there was no need of emphasizing the power of Marduk by
establishing his cult elsewhere. Within the limits of Babylon, however,
there might be more than one shrine to Marduk, and accordingly, when the
city was extended so as to include the place known as Borsippa, a temple
to Marduk was also erected there. The temple on the east side of the
Euphrates, known as E-Sagila, 'the lofty house,' was the older, and
dates probably from the beginnings of Babylon itself; that in Borsippa,
known as E-Zida, 'the true house,' seems to have been founded by
Hammurabi.[122] While it was not in accord with the dignity attaching to
Marduk that his cult should be established outside of the precincts of
the city of Babylon, it would only add to his glory to have the worship
of other deities grouped around his own sanctuary. Such a course would
emphasize the central position of Marduk among the gods, and
accordingly, we find that the chief gods of Babylonia are represented by
shrines within the sacred precincts of his great temples at Babylon and
Borsippa. First among these shrines is that of Marduk's consort,
Sarpanitum.
Neither Hammurabi nor his immediate successor make mention of
Sarpanitum, and at no time does she appear independently of Marduk. The
glory of Marduk did not permit of any rival, and so his consort becomes
merely his shadow,--less significant than most of the consorts of the
male deities. Her name, signifying the 'silvery bright one,' evidently
stands in some connection with the solar character of her consort.
Popular etymology, by a play upon the name, made of Sarpanitum (as
though Zer-banit) the 'offspring-producing' goddess. She had her shrine
within the precincts of the great temple E-Sagila, but we are not told
of any special honors being paid her, nor do we find her invoked to any
extent in incantations or in votive inscriptions. Agumkakrimi, or Agum
(as he is also called), who rules about five centuries after Hammurabi,
speaks of having recovered the image of Sarpanitum, and that of Marduk,
out of the hands of a mountainous people living to the northwest of
Babylonia, in the district between the Bay of Iskenderun and the
Euphrates. The capture of the statues of the patron gods points to a
great humiliation which Babylon must have encountered. Upon receiving a
favorable omen from the sun-god, Agum undertakes the task of bringing
Marduk and Sarpanitum back to their seats. Their temples, too, at
Babylon appear to have suffered damage during the invasion of the city,
and accordingly the statues are placed in the temple of Shamash pending
the restoration of E-Sagila. Agum dwells at length upon the handsome
garments and head-dress, studded with precious stones, that he prepared
for the god and his consort. In all this description, one feels that it
is Marduk for whom the honors are intended, and that Sarpanitum is of
less than secondary importance,--shining merely by the reflected glory
of her great liege, whose presence in Babylon was essential to a
restoration of Babylon's position.
There are reasons for believing, however, that Sarpanitum once enjoyed
considerable importance of her own, that prior to the rise of Marduk to
his supreme position, a goddess was worshipped in Babylon, one of whose
special functions it was to protect the progeny while still in the
mother's womb. A late king of Babylon, the great Nebuchadnezzar, appeals
to this attribute of the goddess. To her was also attributed the
possession of knowledge concealed from men. Exactly to what class of
deities she belonged, we are no longer able to say, but it is certain
that at some time, probably about the time of Hammurabi, an amalgamation
took place between her and another goddess known as Erua,[123]--a name
that etymologically suggests the idea of 'begetting.'[124] She is
represented as dwelling in the temple of E-Zida at Borsippa, and was
originally the consort of Nabu, the chief god of this place.[125] A late
ruler of Babylon--Shamash-shumukin--calls her the queen of the gods, and
declares himself to have been nominated by her to lord it over men.
A factor in this amalgamation of Erua and Sarpanitum was the close
association brought about in Babylon between Marduk and a god whose seat
was originally at the Persian Gulf--Ea. The cult of this god, as we
shall see, survived in Babylonia through all political vicissitudes, and
so did that of some other minor water-deities that belong to this
region. Among these was Erua, whose worship centered in one of the
islands in or near the gulf. Wisdom and the life-giving principle were
two ideas associated in the Babylonian mind with water. As inferior in
power to Ea, Erua appears to have been regarded as the daughter of Ea,
and such was the sway exercised by Ea over men's minds, that even the
Babylonian schoolmen did not venture to place Marduk over Ea, but
pictured him as Ea's son. Erua, however, was not prominent enough to
become Marduk's mother, and so she was regarded as his consort. In this
capacity she was associated with Sarpanitum, and the two were merged
into one personality. It rarely happens that all the links in such a
process are preserved, but in this case, the epithets borne by
Sarpanitum-Erua, such as 'lady of the deep,' 'mistress of the place
where the fish dwell,' 'voice of the deep,' point the way towards the
solution of the problem involved in the amalgamation of Erua and
Sarpanitum.[126]
Nabu.
The god Nabu (or Nebo) enjoys a great popularity in the Babylonian cult,
but he owes his prestige to the accident that, as god of Borsippa, he
was associated with Marduk. Indeed, his case is a clear instance of the
manner in which Marduk overshadows all his fellows. Only as they are
brought into some manner of relationship with him do they secure a
position in the pantheon during this second period of Babylonian
history. Since Nabu's position in the pantheon, once established, incurs
but little change, it will be proper, in treating of him, to include the
testimony furnished by the historical records of the Assyrian kings. The
most prominent attribute of Nabu, at least in the later phases of the
Babylonian religion, is that of wisdom. He is the wise, the all-knowing.
He embodies in his person all the wisdom of the gods. To him the
Assyrian kings are particularly fond of ascribing, not merely the
understanding that they possess, but the thought of preserving the
wisdom of the past for future ages; and in doing this the Assyrians were
but guided by examples furnished by the south. Wisdom being associated,
in the minds of the Babylonians, with the watery deep, one is tempted to
seek an aqueous origin for Nabu. Such a supposition, although it cannot
be positively established, has much in its favor. It is not necessary,
in order to maintain this proposition, to remove Nabu from Borsippa. The
alluvial deposits made by the Euphrates yearly have already demonstrated
that Babylon lay much nearer at one time to the Persian Gulf than it
does at present. The original seat of Ea, whose worship continued
through all times to enjoy great popularity at Babylon, was at Eridu,
which, we know, once lay on the Persian Gulf, but does so no longer. The
similarity of the epithets bestowed in various texts upon Ea and Nabu
point most decidedly to a similar starting-point for both; and since in
a syllabary[127] we find the god actually identified with a deity of
Dilmun,--probably one of the islands near Bahrein,--there are grounds
for assuming that a tradition survived among the schoolmen, which
brought Nabu into some connection with the Persian Gulf. Sayce[128] has
already suggested that Borsippa may have originally stood on an inlet of
the Persian Gulf. Nabu is inferior to Ea, and were it not for the
priority of Marduk, he would have become in Babylonian theology, the son
of Ea. Since this distinction[129] is given to Marduk, no direct
indication of an original relationship to Ea has survived.
But besides being the god of wisdom and intelligence, Nabu is a patron
of agriculture, who causes the grain to sprout forth. In religious and
historical texts, he is lauded as the deity who opens up the
subterranean sources in order to irrigate the fields. He heaps up the
grain in the storehouses, and on the other hand, the withdrawal of his
favor is followed by famine and distress. Jensen[130] would conclude
from this that he was originally (like Marduk, therefore) a solar deity.
This, however, is hardly justified, since it is just as reasonable to
deduce his role as the producer of fertility from his powers as lord of
some body of water. However this may be, in the case of Nabu, there are
no grounds for supposing that he represents the combination of two
originally distinct deities. A later--chiefly theoretical--amalgamation
of Nabu with a god Nusku will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.[131]
Hammurabi and his immediate successors, it is noteworthy, do not make
mention of Nabu. A sufficient number of inscriptions of this period
exists to make it probable that this omission is not accidental. This
dynasty was chiefly concerned in firmly establishing the position of
Marduk. Other deities could, indeed, be tolerated at his side, provided
they were subservient to him; but Nabu, the god of a place so near
Babylon, might prove a dangerous rival because of this proximity. The
city on the west bank of the Euphrates was probably as old as that on
the east, if not, indeed, older. It did not seem consistent with this
devotion to Marduk that Hammurabi and his successors should also
recognize Nabu. Policy dictated that Nabu should be ignored, that the
attempt must be made to replace his worship, even in Borsippa, by that
of Marduk. Viewed in this light, Hammurabi's establishment of the Marduk
cult in Borsippa assumes a peculiar significance. It meant that Borsippa
was to be incorporated as part of Babylon, and that Marduk was
henceforth to take the place occupied by Nabu. In order to emphasize
this, Hammurabi actually transfers the name of Nabu's temple in
Borsippa, E-Zida, to the one erected by him at that place to Marduk. Did
he perhaps entirely suppress the worship of Nabu at Borsippa? It would
almost appear so from Agum's utter omission of Nabu. Only the statues of
Marduk and Sarpanitum seem to have been robbed by the Hani. Not a word
is said as to Nabu. Either there was no statue at the time at Borsippa,
or the cult was of such insignificance that the capture of the god was
not considered of sufficient moment to occupy the thoughts of the enemy,
as little as it did that of the rulers of Babylon at the time. In the
inscription in which Hammurabi recounts the building of E-Zida in
Borsippa, there are certain expressions which go to substantiate the
proposition that Nabu is intentionally ignored.[132] He calls Marduk the
lord of E-Sagila and of E-Zida; he speaks of Borsippa as the beloved
city of Marduk, just as though it were Babylon. Taking unto himself the
functions of Nabu, he even appears to play upon the name, which
signifies 'proclaimer,' and styles himself the _nabiu Anu_, 'the
proclaimer of Anu.' However this may be, the attempt to suppress Nabu
did not succeed,--a proof that in early times he had gained popular
favor. He had to be readmitted into the Babylonian pantheon, though in a
subordinate position to Marduk. He took his place in the theological
system as the son of Marduk, and on the great festival--the New Year's
day--celebrated in honor of the great god of Babylon, the son shared
some of the honors accorded to the father. In time, his sanctuary at
Borsippa was again recognized. The former rivalry gave way to a cordial
_entente_. Nabu was even granted a chapel in E-Sagila at Babylon, to
which likewise the name of E-Zida was given. Every New Year's day the
son paid a visit to his father, on which occasion the statue of Nabu was
carried in solemn procession from Borsippa across the river, and along
the main street of Babylon leading to the temple of Marduk; and in
return the father deity accompanied his son part way on the trip back to
E-Zida. In this way, due homage was accorded to Marduk, and at the same
time the close and cordial bonds of union between Babylon and Borsippa
found satisfactory illustration. E-Sagila and E-Zida become, and remain
throughout the duration of the Babylonian religion, the central
sanctuaries of the land around which the most precious recollections
cluster, as dear to the Assyrians as to the Babylonians. The kings of
the northern empire vie with their southern cousins in beautifying and
enlarging the structures sacred to Marduk and Nabu.
In view of the explanation offered for the silence maintained by
Hammurabi and his successors regarding Nabu, we are justified in
including Nabu in the Babylonian pantheon of those days. In later times,
among the Assyrians, the Nabu cult, as already intimated, grows in
popularity. The northern monarchs, in fact, seem to give Nabu the
preference over Marduk. They do not tire of proclaiming him as the
source of wisdom. The staff is his symbol, which is interpreted in a
double sense, as the writer's stylus and as the ruler's sceptre. He
becomes, also, the bestower of royal power upon his favorites. Without
his aid, order cannot be maintained in the land. Disobedience to him is
punished by the introduction of foreign rule. Political policy may have
had a share in this preference shown for the minor god of Babylon. The
Assyrian kings were always anxious to do homage to the gods of Babylon,
in order to indicate their control over the southern districts. They
were particularly proud of their title 'governor of Bel.'[133] On the
other hand, they were careful not to give offence to the chief of the
Assyrian pantheon,--the god Ashur,--by paying too much honor to Marduk,
who was in a measure Ashur's rival. In consequence, as Hammurabi and his
successors endeavored to ignore Nabu, the Assyrian rulers now turned the
tables by manifesting a preference for Nabu; and obliged as they were to
acknowledge that the intellectual impulses came from the south, they
could accept a southern god of wisdom without encroaching upon the
province of Ashur, whose claims to homage lay in the prowess he showed
in war. Marduk was too much like Ashur to find a place at his side. Nabu
was a totally different deity, and in worshipping him who was the son of
Marduk, the Assyrian kings felt that they were paying due regard to the
feelings of their Babylonian subjects. The cult of Nabu thus became
widely extended in Assyria. Statues of the god were erected and
deposited in shrines built for the purpose, although the fact was not
lost sight of that the real dwelling-place of the god was in Borsippa.
At the end of the ninth century B.C. this cult seems to have reached its
height. We learn of a temple at Calah, and of no less than eight statues
of the god being erected in the days of Ramman-nirari III., and the
terms in which the god is addressed might lead one to believe that an
attempt was made to concentrate the cult in Assyria on him.[134] This,
however, was an impossibility. As long as Assyria continued to play the
role of the subduer of nations, Ashur--the god of war _par
excellence_--necessarily retained his position at the head of the
Assyrian pantheon. The popularity of Nabu, which continued to the end of
the Assyrian empire, and gained a fresh impetus in the days of
Ashurbanabal, who, as a patron of literature, invokes Nabu on thousands
of the tablets of his library as 'the opener of ears to understanding,'
reacted on his position in the Babylonian cult. In the new Babylonian
empire, which continued to so large a degree the traditions of Assyria,
it is no accident that three of the kings--Nabupolassar, Nebuchadnezzar,
and Nabonnedos--bear names containing the deity as one of the elements.
While paying superior devotion to Marduk, who once more became the real
and not merely the nominal head of the pantheon, they must have held
Nabu in no small esteem; and indeed the last-named king was suspected of
trying actually to divert the homage of the people away from Marduk to
other gods, though he did not, as a matter of course, go so far as to
endeavor to usurp for the son, the position held by the father. It is
probably due to Assyrian influence that even in Babylonia, from the
eighth century on, Nabu is occasionally mentioned before Marduk. So
Marduk-baladan II. (721-710) calls himself the "worshipper of Nabu and
Marduk," and similarly others. In official letters likewise, and in
astronomical reports, Nabu is given precedence to Marduk, but this may
be due to Nabu's functions, as the god of writing and the patron of
science.
The Neo-Babylonian kings are not sparing in the epithets they bestow on
Nabu, though they emphasize more his qualities as holder of the
'sceptre' than as lord of the 'stylus.' So Nebuchadnezzar declares that
it is he 'who gives the sceptre of sovereignty to kings to rule over all
lands.' In this capacity he is 'the upholder of the world,' 'the general
overseer,' and his temple is called 'the house of the sceptre of the
world.'
His name signifies simply the 'proclaimer,' or herald, but we are left
in doubt as to what he proclaims,--whether wisdom or sovereignty.
Sometimes he appears as the 'herald' of the gods. In this role he
receives the name of Papsukal (_i.e._, supreme or sacred messenger), and
it may be that this function was a very old one. But, again, as god of
fertility he could also be appropriately termed the 'proclaimer.' The
question must, accordingly, be left open as to the precise force of the
attribute contained in his name. Finally, an interesting feature
connected with Nabu, that may be mentioned here, is that in the name
borne by a famous mountain in Moab, Nebo, where Moses--himself a
'proclaimer'[135]--died, there survives a testimony that the worship of
this popular deity extended beyond the Euphrates and the Tigris, to
Semites living considerably to the west. To Nabu, as to Marduk, a
consort was given. Her name was
Tashmitum.
The name Tashmitum appears for the first time in the days of Hammurabi.
Attention has already been called to the king's ignoring of the god of
Borsippa. While his attempt to suppress the cult of Nabu was not
successful, he did succeed in causing the old consort of Nabu to
disappear. This consort appears to have been no other than Erua. It will
be recalled that up to very late times the tradition survived that her
dwelling-place was Borsippa.[136] This is never said of Sarpanitum.
Despite, therefore, the amalgamation of Sarpanitum and Erua, the
association of the latter with Nabu's dwelling-place remains impressed
upon the memory of the Babylonian scholars, at least. Nabu's consort
having thus been transferred to Marduk, a new mate had to be found for
the former, when once his rivalry was no longer to be dreaded, and his
cult again rose to prominence. 'Tashmitum' is an abstract noun in
Assyrian, signifying 'revelation.' As such, it is bestowed in historical
texts upon Nabu himself, who is called _itu tashimeti_, 'god of
revelation.' Nabu is, above all, a 'revealing' god,--revealing
knowledge, the art of writing, and the method of ruling. The appellation
is therefore a most appropriate one, and there seems little reason to
question that Tashmitum was originally nothing but one of the terms by
which Nabu was designated, just as he was called Papsukal in his role as
'messenger' of the gods,--the messenger of his father Marduk and of his
grandfather Ea, in particular. But Tashmitum, being feminine in gender,
as an abstract noun, seemed appropriate as the designation of a goddess.
It would appear, then, that 'Revelation,' from being so constantly
associated with Nabu, was personified, dissociated from him, as it were,
through the conception of a distinct goddess bearing the name of
'Tashmitum.' This process of thought, in giving rise to a new goddess,
may have been, in part, a popular one. The translation of a metaphor
into reality is a phenomenon that may be observed in almost all
religions of antiquity. But the process, whatever its course in detail
may have been, was not uninfluenced by the theological dogma whereby a
god was supposed to have a 'reflection' who was pictured as his consort.
Through this conception, as we have already seen, many a goddess once
ruling in her own right, and enjoying an independent existence,
degenerated into a mere shadow of some male deity, though, on the other
hand, it must be borne in mind that these female deities would have
disappeared altogether but for the opportunity thus afforded them of
becoming 'attachees' to some male deity. This theory of the
_quasi_-artificial character and origin of Tashmit finds support in the
manner in which the mention of her name is entwined with that of Nabu.
Sarpanitum, bound up as the goddess is with Marduk, has at least a
shrine of her own, and occasionally she is spoken of in the texts
without her husband Marduk.[137] The mention of Tashmitum, however,
invariably follows that of Nabu. It is always 'Nabu and Tashmitum,' and
it is never Tashmitum without Nabu. While the creation of Tashmitum may
be a product of Babylonian religious thought, it is in Assyrian texts
that her name is chiefly found. The great Ashurbanabal, in the
conventional subscript attached to his tablet, is particularly fond of
coupling Tashmitum with Nabu, as the two deities who opened his ears to
understanding and prompted him to gather in his palace the literary
treasures produced by the culture that flourished in the south. Tashmit
has no shrine or temple, so far as known, either in Borsippa or in any
of the places whither the Nabu cult spread. She has no attributes other
than those that belong to Nabu, and, what is very remarkable, the later
Babylonian kings, such as Nebuchadnezzar II., when they deem it proper
to attach a consort to Nabu call her Nana,[138] _i.e._, simply the lady,
and not Tashmitum, a proof, how little hold the name had taken upon the
Babylonian populace. If to this it be added, that in by far the greater
number of instances, no reference whatsoever to a consort is made when
Nabu is spoken of, an additional reason is found for the unreal, the
shadowy character of this goddess.
Ea.
In treating of the position occupied by Ea in the oldest period of
Babylonian history (see above, pp. 61-64), it has already been mentioned
that he grows to much larger proportions under the influence of a more
fully developed theological system. Indeed, there is no god who shows
such profound traces of having been submitted to a theological
treatment, and indirectly, therefore, furnishes so distinct a proof of
the existence of theological schools in the ancient centers of
Babylonian culture, as Ea. The question may with propriety be here
discussed, to what period we are to attribute the completion of the
process, which, to summarize his position, made Ea the special god of
humanity, the father of Marduk, the third in a great triad, of which the
other two members were Anu, the god of heaven, and Bel, the god of
earth. Already, in the days preceding the union of the Babylonian states
under one head, we have had occasion to see traces of an attempt to
systematize the relations existing between the gods. A high degree of
culture, such as the existence of a perfected form of writing, an
advanced form of architecture, and commercial enterprise reflect, cannot
be dissociated from a high degree of activity in the domain of
philosophic or religious thought. Accordingly, we are in no danger of
attributing too great an antiquity to the beginnings of theological
speculation in Babylonia. Be it remembered that from the earliest to the
latest days, the priests were the scribes and that in their capacity as
writers of the texts, they would be enjoying the advantages of an
intellectual impulse. But they were also the composers of the texts, as
well as the writers, and the prominence given to the gods in texts of
whatever description, would inevitably lead their thoughts to
speculations regarding the attributes of the gods. The attempt would at
an early period be made to find some unifying principles in the tangled
mass of gods. By the time that Hammurabi appears on the scene, we have
every reason to believe that some of the ancient libraries of the south,
whither Ashurbanabal sent his scribes, were already well stocked, and
that a goodly portion of the Babylonian literature known to us already
existed. What these portions were, we will have occasion to point out
when we come to discuss the literature of Babylonia. On the other hand,
this literature would not only necessarily increase as long as any
degree of intellectual activity existed in the country, but this
activity would also manifest itself in transforming this literature, so
as to adapt it to the thoughts and aspirations of a later age.
Especially would this be the case in the purely religious divisions of
literature. The ancient traditions, legends, and myths, once committed
to writing, would serve as a point of departure for further
speculations. The existence of a text to which any measure of value is
attached, is bound to give rise to various attempts at interpretation,
and if this value be connected with the religion of a people, the result
is, invariably, that the ancient words are invested with a meaning
conformable to a later age. Each generation among a people characterized
by intellectual activity has a signature of its own, and it will seek to
give to the religious thoughts of the time its own particular impress.
Since, however, the material upon which any age works is not of its own
making, but is furnished by a preceding one, it follows that much of the
intellectual activity of an age manifests itself in a transformation of
its literary or speculative heritage. This process was constantly going
on in Babylonia, and had we more material--and older material--at our
disposal, we would be able to trace more clearly than we can at present,
the various stages that led to the system of theology, as embodied in
the best productions of the ancient Babylonian schoolmen.
The days of Hammurabi, as they were politically of great importance,
also appear to have ushered in a new era in the religious life of the
people. Stirring political events are always apt to bring in their wake
intellectual movements, and in a country like Babylonia, where politics
react so forcibly on religious conditions, the permanent establishment
of the supremacy of the city of Babylon would be fraught with important
consequences for the cult. The main change brought about by this new
epoch of Babylonian history was, as we have seen, the superior position
henceforth accorded in the pantheon to Marduk as the patron deity of
Babylon; but this change entailed so many others, that it almost merits
being termed a revolution. In order to ensure Marduk's place, the
relations of the other deities to him had to be regulated, the legends
and traditions of the past reshaped, so as to be brought into consistent
accord with the new order of things, and the cult likewise to be, at
least in part, remodelled, so as to emphasize the supremacy of Marduk.
This work, which was an inevitable one, was primarily of an intellectual
order. We are justified, then, in looking for traces of this activity in
the remains that have been recovered of ancient Babylonian literature.
We know from direct evidence that the commercial life of Babylonia had
already, in the period preceding Hammurabi, led to regulated legal forms
and practices for the purpose of carrying out obligations and of
settling commercial and legal difficulties. The proof has been furnished
by Dr. Meissner[139] that syllabaries prepared for the better
understanding of the formulas and words employed in preparing the legal
and commercial tablets, date, in part, from the period which we may
roughly designate as that of Hammurabi,--covering, say, the three
centuries 2300 to 2000 B.C. With this evidence for the existence of
pedagogues devoted to the training of novices in the art of reading and
writing, in order to fit them for their future tasks as official
scribes, we are safe in assuming that these same schoolmen were no less
active in other fields of literature. If, in addition to this, we find
that much of the religious literature, in the shape that we have it,
reflects the religious conditions such as they must have shaped
themselves in consequence of the promotion of Marduk to the head of the
pantheon, the conclusion is forced upon us that such literary
productions date from this same epoch of Hammurabi. This influence of
the schoolmen while centering, as repeatedly pointed out, around the
position of Marduk, manifests itself in a pronounced fashion, also, in
the changed position henceforth accorded to the god Ea. It will be
recalled that in the earliest period of Babylonian history, Ea does not
figure prominently. At the same time we must beware of laying too much
stress upon the negative testimony of the historical texts. Besides the
still limited material of this character at our disposal, the
non-mention of a deity may be due to a variety of circumstances, that
may properly be designated as accidental. The gods to whom the kings of
the ancient Babylonian states would be apt to appeal would be, in the
first instance, the local deities, patrons of the city that happened to
be the capital of the state; in the second instance, the gods of the
vanquished towns; and thirdly, some of the great deities worshipped at
the sacred centers of the Euphrates valley, and who constituted, as it
were, the common heritage of the past. Ea, as the god of the Persian
gulf, the region which forms the starting-point of Babylonian culture,
and around which some of the oldest and most precious recollections
center, would come within the radius of the third instance, since, in
the period we have in mind, Eridu no longer enjoyed any political
importance. We may be sure, then, despite the silence of the texts, that
Ea was always held in great esteem, and that even the absence of temples
in his honor, did not affect the reverence and awe that he inspired. As
for the epoch of Hammurabi, the historical spirit that is never absent
in a truly intellectual age would be certain to restore Ea to his proper
prestige, assuming that a previous age had permitted him to fall into
neglect. Next to Marduk, there is no deity who is given such distinction
in Babylonia, after the union of the Babylonian states, as Ea. In the
religious literature, moreover, as reshaped by the schoolmen of the
time, his role is even more prominent than that of Marduk. As a
water-god, and more particularly as the god to whom the largest body of
water known to the Babylonians was sacred, Ea was regarded as the source
and giver of wisdom. Fountains everywhere were sacred to him; and so he
becomes also the giver of fertility and plenty. Berosus tells us of a
mystic being, half man, half fish, who spent his nights in the waters of
the gulf, but who would come out of the waters during the day to give
instruction to the people, until that time steeped in ignorance and
barbarism. This 'Oannes,' as Berosus is said[140] to have called him,
was none other than Ea. As the great benefactor of mankind, it is
natural that Ea should have come to be viewed as the god whose special
function it is to protect the human race, to advance it in all its good
undertakings, to protect it against the evil designs of gods or demons.
In this role, he appears in the religious literature--in the epics, the
cosmogony, and the ritual--of Babylonia. There is no god conceived in so
universal a manner as Ea. All local connection with Eridu disappears. He
belongs to no particular district. His worship is not limited to any
particular spot. All of Babylonia lays claim to him. The ethical import
of such a conception is manifestly great, and traces of it are to be
found in the religious productions. It impressed upon the Babylonians
the common bond uniting all mankind. The cult of Ea must have engendered
humane feelings, softening the rivalry existing among the ancient
centers of Babylonian power, and leading the people a considerable
distance, on the road to the conception of a common humanity. When the
gods decide to destroy mankind, it is Ea who intercedes on behalf of
humanity; when the demon of disease has entered a human body, it is to
Ea that, in the last resort, the appeal is made to free the sufferer
from his pain. Ea is the god of the physicians. Nay, more, it is Ea who
presided at the birth of humanity, so that his protection reaches far
back, beyond even the beginnings of civilization, almost to the
beginning of things. Lastly, as the god of civilization, it is to him
that the great works of art are ascribed. He is the god of the smithy,
the patron of the gold and silversmiths, of workers in lapis-lazuli, and
all kinds of precious stones. He is the god of sculpture. The great
bulls and lions that guarded the approaches to the temple and palace
chambers, as well as the statues of the gods and kings, were the work of
his hands. Furthermore, he is the patron of weavers, as of other arts.
This conception may have been perfected in a general way, and in all
probability was perfected before the days of Hammurabi, though perhaps
not prominently brought forward; but important modifications were
introduced into it, through the compromise that had to be arranged
between the position of Ea and that of Marduk. Of course, neither the
rulers nor the priests of Babylon could have permitted the reverence for
Ea to have gone to the length of throwing Marduk into the shade. Many of
the functions assigned to Ea seemed to belong of right to Marduk, who,
as the patron of Babylon, presided over the destinies of what to the
Babylonians was the essential part of mankind,--namely, themselves.
Moreover, Babylon being the seat of culture as well as of power, in the
period following upon Hammurabi, Marduk was necessarily conceived as
possessing the same wisdom that distinguishes Ea. As a consequence, the
attributes of Ea were transferred in a body to Marduk. An amalgamation
of the two, however, such as took place in the case of other deities,
was neither possible, nor, indeed, desirable. It was not possible,
because of the antiquity of the Ea cult and the peculiar position that
he, as a common heirloom of all Babylonia, occupied; nor was it
desirable, for to do so would be to cut off completely the bond uniting
Babylon to its own past and to the rest of Babylonia. The solution of
the problem was found in making Ea, the father of Marduk--the loving and
proud father who willingly transfers all his powers and qualities to his
son, who rejoices in the triumph of his offspring, and who suffers no
pangs of jealousy when beholding the superior honors shown to Marduk,
both by the gods and by men.
Ea and Marduk.
The combination of the two gods is particularly frequent in the
so-called incantation texts. Marduk becomes the mediator between Ea and
mankind. The man smitten with disease, or otherwise in trouble, appeals
to Marduk for help, who promptly brings the petition to his father Ea.
The latter, after modestly declaring that there is nothing that he knows
which his son Marduk does not know, gives Marduk the necessary
instructions, which in turn are conveyed to the one crying for divine
succor. It is clear that these texts have been reshaped with the
intention of adding to the glory of Marduk. They must, therefore, have
been remodelled at a time when the Marduk cult was in the ascendancy.
This was after the days of Hammurabi, and before the subjugation of
Babylonia to Assyrian rule. The limits thus assigned are, to be sure,
broad, but from what has above been said as to the intellectual activity
reigning in the days of Hammurabi, we need not descend far below the
death of the great conqueror to find the starting-point for the
remodelling of the texts in question. Not all of them, of course, were
so reshaped. There are quite a number in which Ea is alone and directly
appealed to, and these form a welcome confirmation of the supposition
that those in which Ea is joined to Marduk have been reshaped with a
desire to make them conform to the position of Marduk in the Babylonian
pantheon. Again, there are incantations in which the name of Marduk
appears without Ea. Such are either productions of a later period, of
the time when Marduk had already assumed his superior position, or what
is also possible, though less probable, old compositions in which the
name of Ea has been simply replaced by that of Marduk. An especially
interesting example of the manner in which ancient productions have been
worked over by the Babylonian theologians, with a view to bringing their
favorite Marduk into greater prominence, appears in one of the episodes
of the Babylonian cosmogony. Prior to the creation of man a great
monster known as Tiamat had to be subdued. The gods all shrink in terror
before her. Only one succeeds in conquering her. In the form of the
story, as we have it, this hero is Marduk, but it is quite evident[141]
that the honor originally belonged to an entirely different god, one who
is much older, and who stands much higher than the god of Babylon. This
was Bel,--the old god of Nippur who was conceived as the god of earth
_par excellence_, and to whom therefore the task of preparing the earth
for the habitation of mankind properly belonged. How do the Babylonian
theologians, who stand under the influence of the political conditions
prevailing in Babylonia after the union of the Babylonian states,
reconcile this older and true form of the episode with the form in which
they have recast it? The gods who are called the progenitors of Marduk
are represented as rejoicing upon seeing Marduk equipped for the fray.
In chorus they greet and bless him, "Marduk be king." They present him
with additional weapons, and encourage him for the contest. Upon hearing
of his success the gods vie with one another in conferring honors upon
Marduk. They bestow all manner of glorious epithets upon him; and, to
cap the climax, the old Bel, known as 'father Bel,' steps forward and
transfers to him his name, _bel matati_,[142] 'lord of lands.' To bestow
the name was equivalent to transferring Bel's powers to Marduk; and so
Marduk is henceforth known as _Bel_. But Ea must be introduced into the
episode. It is not sufficient that Bel, the original subduer of Tiamat,
should pay homage to Marduk; Ea also greets his son, and bestows his
name upon him,[143]--that is, transfers his powers to his son. There is
a special reason for this. The overthrow of Tiamat is followed by the
creation of man. This function properly belongs to Bel, both as the god
of earth and as the subduer of Tiamat. According to one--and probably
the oldest--version of this part of the Babylonian cosmogony which was
embodied in the work of Berosus[144], it is Bel who creates mankind. The
substitution of Marduk for Bel necessitated the transference of the role
of creator to Marduk likewise, and yet the latter could not take this
upon himself without the consent of his father Ea, who had become the
god of humanity _par excellence_. Ea could interpose no objection
against Bel being replaced by Marduk in vanquishing the monster, but
when it came to drawing the conclusion and replacing Bel by Marduk also
in the creation of man, the case was different. If Bel was to be
replaced, Ea had a prior claim. Marduk could only take the new functions
upon himself after receiving the powers of Ea. That is the force of Ea's
saying that Marduk's name also shall be Ea just as his. This
transference of the name of Ea to Marduk is in itself an indication that
there must have existed a second version in Babylonia--probably of later
origin than the other--of the creation of man, according to which Ea,
and not Bel, was the creator. We shall have occasion to see, in a future
chapter, that there were at least two different versions current in
Babylonia of the creation of the gods and of the universe. The opening
chapters in Genesis form an interesting parallel to show the manner in
which two different versions of one and the same subject may be
combined. There is, therefore, nothing improbable in the supposition
that a later version, reflecting a period when Bel had sunk into
comparative insignificance, made Ea the creator of mankind instead of
Bel, and that still later a solution of the apparent inconsistency
involved in transferring only part of Bel's powers to Marduk was found
by securing Ea's consent to the acknowledgment of Marduk not merely as
creator of mankind but of the heavenly vault as well. Jensen[145] has
brought other evidence to show that Ea was once regarded as the creator
of mankind. One of his titles is that of 'potter,' and mankind,
according to Babylonian theories, was formed of 'clay.' Moreover, in a
Babylonian myth that will be set forth in its proper place, Ea expressly
figures in the role of creating a mysterious being, _Uddushu-na-mir_,
whose name signifies 'his light shines.' Such a proper name, too, as
"Ea-bani," _i.e._, 'Ea creates,' points in the same direction.
In other literary productions of Babylonia, such as, _e.g._, the
so-called Izdubar epic, Ea again appears without Marduk, showing that
this story has not been remodeled, or that the later version, in which
the traces of a recasting may have been seen, has not been discovered.
In the deluge story, which forms part of the Izdubar epic, Ea alone is
the hero. It is he who saves humanity from complete annihilation, and
who pacifies the angered Bel. Marduk's name does not appear in the
entire epic. We have found it necessary to dwell thus at length upon
these evidences of the recasting of the literary products of ancient
Babylonia under the influence of changed conceptions of the gods and of
their relations to one another, for upon the understanding of these
changes, our appreciation of the development of religious beliefs in
Babylonia, and all connected with these beliefs, hinges. The epoch of
Hammurabi was a crucial one for Babylonia from a religious as well as
from a political point of view.
Damkina.
The consort of Ea figures occasionally in the historical texts of
Hammurabi's successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Ea and Damkina, asking these
gods, who 'dwell in the great ocean' surrounding the earth, to grant him
long life. In addition to this, the antiquity of the literary
productions in which her name appears justifies us in reckoning her
among the gods of Babylonia of Hammurabi's time. Her name signifies
'lady of the earth,' and there is evidently a theoretical substratum to
this association of Ea, the water-god, with an earth-goddess. The one
forms the complement to the other; and Marduk, as the son of water and
earth, takes his place in the theory as the creator of the world. In
this form the 'natural philosophy' of Babylonia survived to a late
period. Nicolas of Damascus still knows (probably through Berosus) that
Ea and Damkina[146] had a son Bel (_i.e._, Marduk). The survival of the
name is a proof that, despite the silence of the historical texts, she
was a prominent personage in Babylonian mythology, even though she did
not figure largely in the cult. She appears in the magical texts quite
frequently at the side of Ea. In a hymn[147] where a description occurs
of the boat containing Ea, Damkina his wife, and Marduk their son,
together with the ferryman and some other personages sailing across the
ocean, we may see traces of the process of symbolization to which the
old figures of mythology were subjected.
Shamash.
Passing on, we find Hammurabi as strongly attached to the worship of the
old sun-god as any of his predecessors. Next to Babylon, he was much
concerned with making improvements in Sippar. The Temple of Shamash at
Larsa also was improved and enlarged by him. Hammurabi's example is
followed by his successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Shamash as 'warrior of
heaven and earth'; and it is likely that the precedent furnished by
these two kings, who considered it consistent with devotion to Marduk to
single out the places sacred to Shamash for special consideration, had
much to do in maintaining the popularity of sun-worship in Babylonia and
Assyria. Kara-indash, of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1450 B.C.), restores
the temple of Shamash at Larsa, and Mili-shikhu, two centuries later,
assigns to Shamash the second place in his pantheon, naming him before
Marduk. Foreign rulers were naturally not so deeply attached to Marduk
as were the natives of Babylon. In the Assyrian pantheon Shamash
occupies the third place, following immediately upon the two special
deities of Assyria. One of the greatest of the northern kings erects a
temple in honor of the god, and the later Babylonian kings vie with one
another in doing honor to the two oldest sanctuaries of Shamash, at
Sippar and Larsa. Perhaps the pristine affinity between Marduk, who, as
we saw, was originally a sun-deity, and Shamash, also had a share in
Hammurabi's fondness for coupling these two gods. When describing his
operations at Sippar he speaks of himself as 'doing good to the flesh of
Shamash and Marduk.' Hammurabi felt himself to be honoring Marduk,
through paying homage to a deity having affinity with the patron
protector of Babylon.
Innanna.
We have already come across a deity of this name in a previous
chapter.[148] Hammurabi tells us, in one of his inscriptions, that he
has restored the temple in honor of Innanna at Hallabi--a town near
Sippar.[149] Innanna, or Ninni, signifying merely 'lady,' or 'great
lady,' appears to have become a very general name for a goddess, hence
the addition 'of Hallabi,' which Hammurabi is careful to make. At the
same time the designation 'lady of Hallabi' points to her being a
consort of a male deity who was the patron of the place. May this have
been the moon-god again, as in the case of the other Innanna? Our
knowledge of this goddess is confined to what the king tells us about
her. For him she is the mistress whose glory fills heaven and earth, but
when he adds that she has placed in his hands the reins of government,
this only means that the goddess recognizes his right to supreme
authority over the Babylonian states--not that he owes his power to her.
It is after he has succeeded in making Babylon the capital of a great
kingdom that he proceeds to improve the temple of Innanna.
Bel and the Triad of Babylonian Theology.
Among the literary remains of Hammurabi's days we have a hymn in which
the chief gods worshipped by the king are enumerated in succession. The
list begins with Bel, and then mentions Sin, Ninib, Ishtar, Shamash, and
Ramman. We should expect to find at the head of the list Marduk. The
hymn may be older than Hammurabi, who, perhaps, is quoting or copying
it, and since the Bel who is here at the head of the pantheon is the god
of Nippur, the hymn may originally have belonged to the ritual of that
place. For Hammurabi the highest 'Bel,' or lord, is Marduk, and there is
hardly room for doubt that in using this hymn as a means of passing on
to singing his own praises, with which the inscription in question ends,
Hammurabi has in mind the patron god of Babylon when speaking of
Bel.[150] It is this amalgamation of the old Bel with Marduk that marks,
as we have seen, the transition to the use of Bel's name as a mere title
of Marduk. Elsewhere, however, Hammurabi uses Bel to designate the old
god. So when he calls himself the proclaimer of Anu and Bel[151] the
association with Anu makes it impossible that Marduk should be meant. At
times he appears to refer in the same inscription, now to the old Bel
and again to Bel-Marduk, under the same designation. When Kurigalzu, a
member of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1400 B.C.), speaks of 'Bel, the lord
of lands,' to whom he erects a temple in the new city, Dur-Kurigalzu--
some forty miles to the northeast of Babylon--it is the old Bel who is
again meant. While acknowledging Marduk as one of the chief gods, these
foreign rulers in Babylonia--the Cassites--did not feel the same
attachment to him as Hammurabi did. They gave the preference to the old
god of Nippur, and, indeed, succeeded in their attempt to give to the
old city of Nippur some of its pristine glory. They devoted themselves
assiduously to the care of the great temple at Nippur. There are some
indications of an attempt made by them to make Nippur the capital of
their empire. In the case of Hammurabi's immediate successor, as has
been pointed out, the equation Bel-Marduk is distinctly set down, but,
for all that, the double employment of the name continues even through
the period of the Assyrian supremacy over Babylonia. The northern rulers
now use Bel to designate the more ancient god, and, again, merely as a
designation of Marduk. Tiglathpileser I. (see note 1, below) expressly
adds 'the older' when speaking of Bel. When Sargon refers to Bel, 'the
lord of lands, who dwells on the sacred mountain of the gods,' or when
Tiglathpileser I. calls Bel 'the father of the gods,' 'the king of the
group of spirits' known as the Anunaki, it is of course only the old
Bel, the lord of the lower region, or of the earth, who can be meant;
but when, as is much more frequently the case, the kings of Assyria,
down to the fall of the empire, associate Bel with Nabu, speak of Bel
and the gods of Akkad (_i.e._, Babylonia), and use Bel, moreover, to
designate Babylonia,[152] it is equally clear that Marduk is meant. In
the Neo-Babylonian empire Marduk alone is used.
The continued existence of a god Bel in the Babylonian pantheon, despite
the amalgamation of Bel with Marduk, is a phenomenon that calls for some
comment. The explanation is to be found in the influence of the
theological system that must have been developed in part, at least, even
before the union of the Babylonian states.[153] Bel, as the god of
earth, was associated with Anu, as the god of heaven, and Ea, as the god
of the deep, to form a triad that embraced the entire universe. When,
therefore, Anu, Bel, and Ea were invoked, it was equivalent to naming
all the powers that influenced the fate of man. They embraced, as it
were, the three kingdoms of the gods, within which all the other gods
could be comprised. The systematization involved in the assumption of a
triad of gods controlling the entire pantheon can hardly be supposed to
have been a popular process. It betokens an amount of thought and
speculation, a comprehensive view of the powers of nature, that could
only have arisen in minds superior to the average intelligence. In other
words, the conception of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea is again an evidence
of the existence of schoolmen and of schools of religious thought in the
days of the ancient empire. So far, however, as Hammurabi is concerned,
he only refers to a duality--Anu and Bel--which, for him, comprises all
the other gods. He is the 'proclaimer of Anu and Bel.' It is Anu and Bel
who give him sovereignty over the land. In the texts of the second
period the triad does not occur until we come to the reign of a king,
Mili-shikhu, who lives at least eight centuries after Hammurabi. Ea, in
fact, does not occur at all in those inscriptions of the king that have
as yet been discovered. If any conclusion is to be drawn from this
omission, it is certainly this,--that there are several stages in the
development of the ancient theological system of Babylonia. At first a
duality of kingdoms--the kingdom of what is above and below--was
conceived as comprising all the personified powers of nature, but this
duality was replaced by a triad through the addition of the god who
stands at the head of all water-deities. Of course the assumption of a
duality instead of a triad may have been due to a difference among
existing schools of thought. At all events, there seems to be no
political reason for the addition of Ea, and it is difficult to say,
therefore, how soon the conception of a triad standing at the head of
the pantheon arose. We have found it in Gudea's days, and it must,
therefore, have existed in the days of Hammurabi, without, perhaps,
being regarded as an essential dogma as yet. A direct and natural
consequence of Bel's position in the triad was that, by the side of
Bel-Marduk, the older Bel continued to be invoked in historical
inscriptions. Since Anu and Ea were appealed to by themselves, the
former occasionally, the latter more frequently, there was no reason why
a ruler should not at times be prompted to introduce an invocation to
Bel, without the direct association with Anu and Ea. The confusion that
thus ensues between the two Bels was not of serious moment, since from
the context one could without difficulty determine which of the two was
meant; and what we, with our limited knowledge of ancient Babylonia, are
able to do, must have been an easy task for the Babylonians
themselves.[154] It is tempting to suppose that the first command of the
Decalogue (Exodus, xx) contains an implied reference to the Babylonian
triad.
Anu, Bel, and Ea.
The theory of the triad succeeds in maintaining its hold upon Babylonian
minds from a certain period on, through all political and intellectual
vicissitudes. To invoke Anu, Bel, and Ea becomes a standing formula that
the rulers of Babylonia as well as of Assyria are fond of employing.
These three are the great gods _par excellence_. They occupy a place of
their own. The kings do not feel as close to them as to Marduk, or to
Ashur, or even to the sun-god, or to the moon-god. The invocation of the
triad partakes more of a formal character, as though in giving to these
three gods the first place, the writers felt that they were following an
ancient precedent that had more of a theoretical than a practical value
for their days. So among Assyrian rulers, Ashur-rish-ishi (_c._ 1150
B.C.) derives his right to the throne from the authority with which he
is invested by the triad. Again, in the formal curses which the kings
called down upon the destroyers of the inscriptions or statues that they
set up, the appeal to Anu, Bel, and Ea is made. Ashurnasirbal calls upon
the triad not to listen to the prayers of such as deface his monuments.
Sargon has an interesting statement in one of his inscriptions,
according to which the names of the months were fixed by Anu, Bel, and
Ea. This 'archaeological' theory illustrates very well the extraneous
position occupied by the triad. The months, as we shall see, are sacred,
each to a different god. The gods thus distinguished are the ones that
are directly concerned in the fortunes of the state,--Sin, Ashur,
Ishtar, and the like. Anu, Bel, and Ea are not in the list, and the
tradition, or rather the dogma according to which they assign the names
is evidently an attempt to make good this omission by placing them, as
it were, beyond the reach of the calendar. In short, so far as the
historical texts are concerned which reflect the popular beliefs, the
triad represents a theological doctrine rather than a living force. In
combination, Anu, Bel, and Ea did not mean as much, nor the same thing,
to a Babylonian or an Assyrian, as when he said Marduk, or Nabu, or
Ashur, or Sin, as the case might be. It was different when addressing
these gods individually, as was occasionally done. The Assyrians were
rather fond of introducing Anu by himself in their prayers, and the
Babylonians were prompted to a frequent mention of Ea by virtue of his
relationship to Marduk, but when this was done Anu and Ea meant
something different than when mentioned in one breath along with Bel.
Belit.
One might have supposed that when Bel became Marduk, the consort of Bel
would also become Marduk's consort. Such, however, does not appear to be
the case, at least so far as the epoch of Hammurabi is concerned. When
he calls himself 'the beloved shepherd of Belit,' it is the wife of the
old Bel that is meant, and so when Agumkakrimi mentions Bel and Belit
together, as the gods that decree his fate on earth, there is no doubt
as to what Belit is meant. In later days, however, and in Assyria more
particularly, there seems to be a tendency towards generalizing the name
(much as that of Bel) to the extent of applying it in the sense of
'mistress' to the consort of the chief god of the pantheon; and that
happening to be Ashur in Assyria accounts for the fact, which might
otherwise appear strange, that Tiglathpileser I. (_c._ 1140 B.C.) calls
Belit the 'lofty consort and beloved of Ashur.' Ashurbanabal (668-626
B.C.) does the same, and even goes further and declares himself to be
the offspring of Ashur and Belit. On the other hand, in the interval
between these two kings we find Shalmaneser II. (860-825 B.C.) calling
Belit 'the mother of the great gods' and 'the wife of Bel,' making it
evident that the old Belit of the south is meant, and since Ashurbanabal
on one occasion also calls the goddess 'the beloved of Bel,'[155] it
follows that in his days two Belits were still recognized, or perhaps it
would be more accurate to say two uses of the term,--one specifically
for the consort of the Babylonian Bel, the god of the earth, with his
ancient seat at Nippur; the other of a more general character, though
still limited as 'lady' to the consort of the _chief_ gods, just as
'Bel,' while acquiring the general sense of 'lord,' was restricted in
actual usage to the _greatest_ 'lords' only. An indication of this
distinction, somewhat parallel to the addition of Dagan to Bel, to
indicate that the old Bel was meant,[156] appears in the sobriquet 'of
Babylonia,'[157] which Ashurbanabal gives to the goddess in one place
where the old Belit is meant. Under the influence of this Assyrian
extension of the term, Nabopolassar, in the Neo-Babylonian period,
applies the title to the consort of Shamash at Sippar, but he is careful
to specify 'Belit of Sippar,' in order to avoid misunderstanding.
Besides being applied to the consorts of Ashur and of Shamash, 'Belit,'
in the general sense of 'mistress,' is applied only to another goddess,
the great Ishtar of the Assyrian pantheon--generally, however, as a
title, not as a name of the goddess. The important position she occupied
in the Assyrian pantheon seemed to justify this further modification and
extension in the use of the term. Occasionally, Ishtar is directly and
expressly called 'Belit.' So, Ashurbanabal speaks of a temple that he
has founded in Calah to 'Belit mati,'[158] 'the Belit (or lady) of the
land,' where the context speaks in favor of identifying Belit with the
great goddess Ishtar. Again Ashurbanabal, in a dedicatory inscription
giving an account of improvements made in the temple of Ishtar,
addresses the goddess as Belit 'lady of lands, dwelling in
E-mash-mash.'[159]
Anu and Anatum.
In the second period of Babylonian history the worship of the supreme
god of heaven becomes even more closely bound up with Anu's position as
the first member of the inseparable triad than was the case in the first
period. For Hammurabi, as has been noted, Anu is only a half-real figure
who in association with Bel is represented as giving his endorsement to
the king's authority.[160] The manner in which Agumkakrimi introduces
Anu is no less characteristic for the age of Hammurabi and his
successors. At the beginning of his long inscription,[161] he enumerates
the chief gods under whose protection he places himself. As a Cassitic
ruler, he assigns the first place to the chief Cassite deity, Shukamuna,
a god of war whom the Babylonian scholars identified with their own
Nergal.[162] Shukamuna is followed by the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea. Marduk
occupies a fifth place, after which comes a second triad, Sin, Shamash
"the mighty hero," and Ishtar[163] "the strong one among the gods." The
inscription is devoted to the king's successful capture of the statues
of Marduk and Sarpanitum out of the hands of the Khani, and the
restoration of the shrines of these deities at Babylon. At the close,
the king Agumkakrimi appeals to Anu and his consort Anatum,[164] who are
asked to bless the king in heaven, to Bel and Belit who are asked to fix
his fate on earth, and to Ea and Damkina, inhabiting the deep,[165] who
are to grant him long life. As in the beginning of the inscription, the
thought of the triad--Anu, Bel, Ea--evidently underlies this interesting
invocation, but at the same time the association of a consort with Anu
brings the god into closer relationship with his fellows. He takes
on--if the contradiction in terms be permitted--a more human shape. His
consort bears a name that is simply the feminine form to Anu, just as
Belit is the feminine to Bel. 'Anu,' signifying 'the one on high,'--a
feminine to it was formed, manifestly under the influence of the notion
that every god must have a consort of some kind. After Agumkakrimi no
further mention of Anatum occurs, neither in the inscriptions of
Babylonian nor of Assyrian rulers. We are permitted to conclude,
therefore, that Anatum was a product of the schools, and one that never
took a strong hold on the popular mind. Among the Assyrian kings who in
other respects also show less dependence upon the doctrines evolved in
the Babylonian schools, and whose inscriptions reflect to a greater
degree the purely popular phases of the faith, we find Anu mentioned
with tolerable frequency, and in a manner that betrays less emphasis
upon the position of the god as a member of the triad. Still, it is
rather curious that he does not appear even in the inscriptions of the
Assyrian kings by himself, but in association with another god. Thus
Tiglathpileser I. (_c._ 1130 B.C.) gives an elaborate account of an old
temple to Anu and Ramman in the city of Ashur that he restores to more
than its former grandeur.[166] This dedication of a temple to two
deities is unusual. Ramman is the god of thunder and storms, whose seat
of course is in the heavens. He stands close, therefore, to Anu, the
supreme god of heaven. In the religious productions, this relationship
is expressed by making Ramman the son of Anu. From a passage descriptive
of this temple it would appear that the old temple founded by King
Samsi-Ramman, who lived several centuries before Tiglathpileser, was
dedicated to Ramman. It looks, therefore, as though the association of
Anu with Ramman was the work of the later king. What his motive was in
thus combining Anu with Ramman it is difficult to say, but in his
account of the restoration of the sanctuary, he so consistently mentions
Anu and Ramman together,[167] designating them unitedly as 'the great
gods my lords,' that one gains the impression that the two were
inseparable in his mind, Ramman being perhaps regarded simply as a
manifestation of Anu. The supposition finds some support in the closing
words of the inscription, where, in hurling the usual curses upon those
who should attempt to destroy his monuments, he invokes Ramman alone,
whom he asks to punish the offender by his darts, by hunger, by distress
of every kind, and by death.
Elsewhere Anu appears in association with Dagan, of whom we shall have
occasion to speak in the chapter on the Assyrian pantheon. Suffice it to
say here that Dagan in this connection is an equivalent of Bel. When,
therefore, Ashurbanabal and Sargon call themselves 'the favorite of Anu
and Dagan,' it is the same as though they spoke of Anu and Bel. Apart
from this, Anu only appears when a part or the whole of the Assyrian
pantheon is enumerated. Thus we come across Anu, Ramman, and Ishtar as
the chief gods of the city of Ashur,[168] and again Anu, Ashur, Shamash,
Ramman, and Ishtar.[169] Finally, Sargon who names the eight gates of
his palace after the chief gods of the land does not omit Anu, whom he
describes as the 'one who blesses his handiwork.' Otherwise we have Anu
only when the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea is invoked. Once Ramman-nirari I.
(_c._ 1325 B.C.) adds Ishtar to the triad. After Sargon we no longer
find Anu's name at all among the deities worshipped in Assyria. On the
whole, then, Anu's claim to reverence rests in Assyria as well as in
Babylonia upon his position in the triad, and while Assyria is less
influenced by the ancient system devised in Babylonia whereby Anu, Bel,
and Ea come to be the representatives of the three kingdoms among which
the gods are distributed, still Anu as a specific deity, ruling in his
own right, remains a rather shadowy figure. The only temple in his honor
is the one which he shares with Ramman, and which, as noted, appears to
have been originally devoted to the service of the latter. One other
factor that must be taken into account to explain the disappearance of
Anu is the gradual enforcement of Ashur's claim to the absolute headship
of the Assyrian pantheon. Either Anu or Ashur had to be assigned to this
place, and when circumstances decided the issue in favor of Ashur, there
was no place worthy of Anu as a specific deity. Ashur usurps in a
measure the role of Anu. So far as Babylonia was concerned, there was
still in the twelfth century B.C. a city 'Der' which is called the 'city
of Anu.' The city is probably of very ancient foundation, and its
continued association with Anu forms an interesting survival of a local
conception that appears to have been once current of the god.
In the religious literature, especially in that part of it which
furnishes us with the scholastic recastings of the popular traditions,
Anu is a much more prominent figure than in the historical texts. From
being merely the personification of the heavens, he is raised to the
still higher dignity of symbolizing, as Jensen puts it,[170] the
abstract principle of which both the heavens and earth are emanations.
All the earliest gods conceived of by popular tradition as existing from
the beginning of things are viewed as manifestations of Anu, or of Anu
and Anatum in combination. He gives ear to prayers, but he is not
approached directly. The gods are his messengers, who come and give him
report of what is going on.[171] He is a god for the gods rather than
for men. When his daughter Ishtar is insulted she appeals to her father
Anu; and when the gods are terrified they take refuge with Anu. Armed
with a mighty weapon whose assault nothing can withstand, Anu is
surrounded by a host of gods and powerful spirits who are ready to
follow his lead and to do his service.
Ramman.
With Ramman we reach a deity whose introduction into the Babylonian
pantheon and whose position therein appears to be entirely independent
of Marduk.
The reading of the name as Ramman (or Rammanu) is provisional. The
ideograph _Im_ with which the name is written designates the god as the
power presiding over storms; and while it is certain that, in Assyria at
least, the god was known as Ramman, which means 'the thunderer,' it is
possible that this was an epithet given to the god, and not his real or
his oldest name. It is significant that in the El-Amarna tablets (_c._
1500 B.C.), where the god _Im_ appears as an element in proper names,
the reading _Addu_ is vouched for, and this form has been justly brought
into connection with a very famous solar deity of Syria,--Hadad. The
worship of Hadad, we know, was widely spread in Palestine and Syria, and
there is conclusive evidence that Hadad (or Adad), as a name for the god
_Im_, was known in Babylonia. Professor Oppert is of the opinion that
Adad represents the oldest name of the god. Quite recently the
proposition has been made that the real name of the deity was
_Immeru_.[172] The ideograph in this case would arise through the
curtailment of the name (as is frequently the case in the cuneiform
syllabary), and the association of _Im_ with 'storm' and 'wind' would be
directly dependent upon the nature of the deity in question. The
material at hand is not sufficient for deciding the question. Besides
Immeru, Adad, and Ramman, the deity was also known as _Mer_--connected
apparently with Immeru.[173] So much is certain, that Ramman appears to
have been the name currently used in Assyria for this god. Adad may have
been employed occasionally in Babylonia, as was _Mer_ in proper names,
but that it was not the common designation is proved by a list of gods
(published by Bezold[174]) in which the _foreign_ equivalent for _Im_ is
set down as Adad. We may for the present, therefore, retain Ramman,
while bearing in mind that we have only proof of its being an epithet
applied to the god, not necessarily his real name and in all
probabilities not the oldest name.
We meet with the god for the first time in the hymn to which reference
has already been made,[175] and where the god is mentioned together with
Shamash. If the suggestion above thrown out is correct, that the hymn is
older than the days of Hammurabi, Ramman too would be older than his
first mention in historical texts. However, it is worthy of note that in
this hymn each of the other gods mentioned receives a line for himself,
and that Ramman is the only one who is tacked on to another deity. It is
not strange that in making copies of older texts, especially those of a
religious character, the scribes should have introduced certain
modifications. At all events, the god does not acquire any degree of
prominence until the days of Hammurabi; so that whatever his age and
origin, he belongs in a peculiar sense to the pantheon of Hammurabi
rather than to that of the old Babylonian period. The successor of
Hammurabi, Samsu-iluna, dedicates a fort, known as Dur-padda, to Ramman
whom he addresses as his 'helper', along with several other gods.
Despite this fact, his worship does not appear to have been very firmly
established in Babylonia, for Agumkakrimi, who follows upon Samsu-iluna,
does not make mention of Ramman. During the reign of the Cassite
dynasty, however, the worship of Ramman appears to have gained a
stronger foothold. Several kings of this dynasty have incorporated the
name of this deity into their own names, and in an inscription dealing
with events that transpired in the reign of one of these kings, Ramman
occupies a prominent place. Immediately after the great triad, Anu, Bel,
and Ea, there is enumerated a second, Sin, Shamash, and Ramman, and only
then there follows Marduk.[176] More than this, Ramman is introduced for
a second time in conjunction with Shamash, as in the hymn of Hammurabi.
The two are appealed to as 'the divine lords of justice.' The conqueror
of the Cassites, Nebuchadnezzar I., also holds Ramman in high esteem.
For him, Ramman is the god of battle who in companionship with Ishtar
abets the king in his great undertakings. He addresses Ramman as the
great lord of heaven, the lord of subterranean waters and of rain, whose
curse is invoked against the one who sets aside the decrees of
Nebuchadnezzar or who defaces the monument the king sets up. While
acknowledging the supremacy of Marduk, upon whose appeal he proceeds to
Babylonia to rid the country of its oppressors, Nebuchadnezzar
nevertheless shows remarkable partiality for Ramman, perhaps as a matter
of policy to offset the supposed preference shown by Ramman towards the
previous dynasty. Ramman with Nergal and Nana are also enumerated as the
special gods of Namar--a Babylonian district which caused the king
considerable annoyance, and which may have been one of the strongholds
whence the Cassitic kings continued their attacks upon Nebuchadnezzar.
In order to determine more precisely the nature of this deity, it is
necessary to turn to Assyria, where his worship dates from the very
earliest times, and where he appears consistently in a single
role,--that of the god of storms, more particularly of thunder and
lightning. The oldest Assyrian ruler known to us is Samsi-Ramman (_c._
1850 B.C.), whose name, containing the god as one of its elements,
points to the antiquity of the cult of Ramman in the north. Another king
who has frequently been mentioned, Ramman-nirari (_i.e._, Ramman is my
helper), bears evidence to the same effect, and Tiglathpileser I. speaks
of a temple to Ramman whose foundation carries us back several centuries
beyond the period of these two kings--almost to the days of Hammurabi.
The theory has accordingly been advanced that the worship of Ramman came
to Babylonia from the north, and since the cult of this same god is
found in Damascus and extended as far south as the plain of Jezreel, the
further conclusion has been drawn that the god is of Aramaic origin and
was brought to Assyria through Aramaic tribes who had settled in parts
of Assyria. The great antiquity of the Ramman cult in Assyria argues
against a foreign origin. It seems more plausible to regard the Ramman
cult as indigenous to Assyria; but reverting to a time when the
population of the north was still in the nomadic state of civilization,
the cult may have been carried to the west by some of the wandering
tribes who afterwards established themselves around Damascus. Up to a
late period Aramaic hordes appear from time to time in western Assyria;
and in a higher stage of culture, contact between Aramaeans and
Assyrians was maintained by commercial intercourse and by warfare. Since
the earliest mention of Ramman's cult is in the city of Ashur, it may be
that he was originally connected with that place. As already intimated,
he was essentially a storm-god, whose manifestation was seen in the
thunder and lightning, and the god was known not merely as 'the
thunderer,' but also as Barku, _i.e._, lightning. Perhaps it was because
of this that he was also brought into association with the great light
of heaven,--the sun-god. In many mythologies, the sun and lightning are
regarded as correlated forces. At all events, the frequent association
of Shamash and Ramman cannot have been accidental. This double nature of
Ramman--as a solar deity representing some particular phase of the sun
that escapes us and as a storm-god--still peers through the inscription
above noted from the Cassite period where Ramman is called 'the lord of
justice,'--an attribute peculiar to the sun-god; but in Assyria his role
as the thunder-and storm-god overshadows any other attributes that he
may have had.
There are two aspects to rainstorms in Babylonia. The flooding of the
fields while committing much havoc is essential to the fertility of the
soil. Ramman is therefore the carrier of blessings to the cities, the
one who supplies wells and fields with water; but the destructive
character of the rain and thunder and lightning are much more strongly
emphasized than their beneficent aspects. Even though the fields be
flooded, Ramman can cause thorns to grow instead of herbs. The same
ideograph _Im_ that signifies Ramman also means distress. When the
failure of the crops brings in its wake hunger and desolation, it is the
'god of the clouds,' the 'god of rain,' the 'god of the overflow,' whose
wrath has thus manifested itself. It is he who (as a hymn puts it) 'has
eaten the land.' No wonder that the 'roar' of the god is described as
'powerful,' and that he is asked to stand at the right side of the
petitioner and grant protection. When Ramman lets his voice resound,
misfortune is at hand. It was natural that he who thus presided over the
battle of the elements should come to be conceived essentially as a god
of war to a people whose chief occupation grew to be conquest. As such
he appears constantly in the inscriptions of Assyrian kings, and to such
a degree as to be a formidable rival, at times, to the head of the
Assyrian pantheon. The final victory of the Assyrian arms is generally
attributed to Ashur alone, but just before the battle and in the midst
of the fray, Ramman's presence is felt almost as forcibly as that of
Ashur. He shares with the latter the honor of invocations and sacrifices
at such critical moments. In this capacity Ramman is so essentially an
Assyrian god that it will be proper to dwell upon him again in the
following chapter, when the specially Assyrian phases of the religion we
are investigating will be taken up. The consort of Ramman also, the
goddess Shala, will best be treated of in connection with the Assyrian
phases of the Ramman cult.
Of the other gods whose names occur in the inscriptions of Hammurabi,
but little of a special character is to be noted. The attributes that he
gives them do not differ from those that we come across in the texts of
his predecessors. It is sufficient, therefore, to enumerate them. The
longest list is furnished by the hymn which has already been referred
to. The text is unfortunately fragmentary, and so we cannot be sure that
the names embrace the entire pantheon worshipped by him. The list opens
with Bel (who, as we have seen, is the old Bel of Nippur); then follow
Sin, Ninib, Ishtar, Shamash, Ramman. Here the break in the tablet begins
and, when the text again becomes intelligible, a deity is praised in
such extravagant terms that one is tempted to conclude that Hammurabi
has added to an old hymn a paean to his favorite Marduk[177]. To Bel is
given the honor of having granted royal dignity to the king. Sin has
given the king his princely glory; from Ninib, the king has received a
powerful weapon; Ishtar fixes the battle array, while Shamash and Ramman
hold themselves at the service of the king. With this list, however, we
are far from having exhausted the pantheon as it had developed in the
days of Hammurabi. From the inscriptions of his successors we are
permitted to add the following: Nin-khar-sag, Nergal, and Lugal-mit-tu,
furnished by Samsu-iluna; Shukamuna, by Agumkakrimi; and passing down to
the period of the Cassite dynasty, we have in addition Nin-dim-su,
Ba-kad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli, Shumalia.[178]
During the Cassitic rule, Marduk does not play the prominent part that
he did under the native rulers, but he is restored to his position by
Nebuchadnezzar I., who, it will be recalled, succeeds in driving the
Cassites out of power. But besides Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar invokes a
large number of other deities. For purposes of comparison with the
pantheon of Hammurabi, and of his immediate successors, I give the
complete list and in the order mentioned by him in the only inscription
that we have of this king. They are Ninib, Gula, Ramman, Shumalia,
Nergal, Shir, Shubu, Sin, Belit of Akkad. Moreover, Anu is referred to
as the especial god of Der, and a goddess Eria[179] is worshipped in
Elam. Passing still further down, we obtain as additional names, Malik
and Bunene, from the inscription of Nabubaliddin (_c._ 883-852
B.C.).[180]
We may divide this long period from Hammurabi down to the time that the
governors of Babylonia became mere puppets of the Assyrian rulers into
three sections: (1) Hammurabi and his successors, (2) the Cassite
dynasty, (3) the restoration of native rulers to the throne. A
comparison of the names furnished by the inscriptions from these three
sections shows that the gods common to all are Marduk, Bel, Shamash,
Ramman. But, in addition, our investigations have shown that we are
justified in adding the following as forming part of the Babylonian
pantheon during this entire period: Sarpanitum, Belit, Tashmitum, Sin,
Ninib, Ishtar, Nergal, Nin-khar-sag, and the two other members of the
triad, Anu and Ea, with their consorts, Anatum and Damkina. All these
gods and goddesses are found in the texts from the first and third
section of the period, and the absence of some of them from texts of the
second section is simply due to the smaller amount of material that we
have for the history of the Cassite dynasty in Babylonia. Some of the
deities in this list, which is far from being exhaustive,[181] are
foreign, so _e.g._, Shukamuna and Shumalia, who belong to the Cassitic
pantheon; others are of purely local significance, as Shir and
Shubu.[182] As for Sin, Ninib, and Ishtar, the worship of none of these
deities assumes any great degree of prominence during this period. No
doubt the local cult was continued at the old centers much as before,
but except for an occasional invocation, especially in the closing
paragraphs of an inscription, where the writers were fond of grouping a
large array of deities so as to render more impressive the curses upon
enemies and vilifiers, with which the inscriptions usually terminated,
they do not figure in the official writings of the time. Of Sin, it is
of some importance to note that under the Cassite dynasty he stands
already at the head of a second class of triads which consists of Sin,
Shamash, and Ramman, or Ishtar (see note 3 on page 152), and that
through the inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I., we learn of an additional
district of Babylonia,--that of Bit-Khabban, where in association with
Belit of Akkad, the consort of the older Bel, he was worshipped as the
patron deity. Nebuchadnezzar himself does not enumerate Sin among the
chief gods. Ninib appears in the familiar role as a god of war. After
Hammurabi he is only mentioned once in inscriptions of the Cassitic
period and then again in the days of Nebuchadnezzar I., who assigns a
prominent place to him. It is Ninib who, with the title 'king of heaven
and earth,' leads off in the long list of gods whose curses are invoked
upon the king's opponents. Similarly, the belligerent character of
Ishtar is the only phase of the goddess dwelt upon during this period.
While for Agumkakrimi, she still occupies a comparatively inferior rank,
coming seventh in his list, Nebuchadnezzar places her immediately after
Anu and before Ramman and Marduk. This advance foreshadows the superior
role that she is destined to play in the pantheon during the period of
Assyrian supremacy. The cult of Nergal does not figure prominently
during this period. In fact, so far as the historical texts go, he
disappears from the scene till the time of Nebuchadnezzar I., when he is
incidentally invoked in a group with Ramman and Nana as the gods of a
district in Babylonia known as Namar. Exactly where Namar lay has not
yet been ascertained. Since Nergal, as was shown in the previous
chapter, was the local patron of Cuthah, it may be that the latter city
was included in the Namar district. At all events, we may conclude from
the silence of the texts as to Nergal, that Cuthah played no conspicuous
part in the empire formed of the Babylonian states, and that the cult of
Nergal, apart from the association of the deity in religious texts with
the lower world, did not during this entire period extend beyond local
proportions. Lastly, it is interesting to note that Samsu-iluna, the son
of Hammurabi, refers to Belit of Nippur as Nin-khar-sag, which we have
seen was one of her oldest titles.
FOOTNOTES:
[116] The name is also written Ma-ru-duk, which points to its having
been regarded (for which there is other evidence) as a compound of
_maru_, 'son,' and an element, _duk_(_u_), which in religious and other
texts designates the 'glorious chamber' in which the god determines the
fate of humanity. Such an 'etymology' is, however, merely a play upon
the name, similar to the plays upon proper names found in the Old
Testament. The real etymology is unknown. The form Marduk is Semitic,
and points to an underlying stem, _rdk_. Marduk appears under a variety
of names which will be taken up at their proper place. See Schrader's
_Assyrisch-Babyl. Keilschriften_, p. 129; and the same author's
_Cuneiform Inscrip. and the O. T._ (p. 422) for other etymologies.
[117] Hommel's view that Gish-galla, in Gudea's inscriptions, is Babylon
lacks convincing evidence, but the city may be as old as Gudea's days
for all that.
[118] Near Sippar.
[119] _Bel matati_.
[120] Sayce, _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_, pp. 98 _seq._;
Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, p. 88.
[121] So Delitzsch, _Beitraege sur Assyriologie_, ii. 623. The first part
of the name is also used to designate the 'young bullock,' and it is
possible, therefore, that the god was pictured in this way, as both Anu
and Sin are occasionally called 'bulls.'
[122] Louvre Inscription II, col ii. ll. 12-17.
[123] There is also a goddess _Eria_ worshipped in Elam, who may be
identical with Erua. The scribes in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (_c._
1140 B.C.), at least, appear to have thought so, for they associate her
with Bel, just as Sarpanitum is associated with Del-Marduk. (See the
Inscription VR. 57, col. ii. ll. 11, 12.)
[124] Whether, however, this was the real meaning of the name is
doubtful, for the name of the goddess is also written Aru and Arua,
which points to a different verbal stem.
[125] See below under Tashmitum.
[126] There are indications also of an arrested amalgamation of
Erua-Sarpanitum with Tashmitum, the wife of Nabu. (See Sayce, _Hibbert
Lectures_, p. 112.)
[127] Rawlinson, ii. 60, 30.
[128] _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 117.
[129] See further on, _sub_ Ea.
[130] _Kosmologie_, p. 239.
[131] _Sub_ Nusku, chapter xiii.
[132] Tiele, _Geschichte d. Religion i. Alterthum_, i. 171 and 188, is
of the opinion that Nabu is a late deity whose worship dates from a
period considerably subsequent to Hammurabi. This conclusion from the
non-occurrence of the god in early inscriptions is not justified. There
is no reason why Nabu should have been added as a deity in later times,
and in general we must be on our guard against assuming new deities
subsequent to Hammurabi. It is much more plausible to assume the
restored popularity of very old ones.
[133] Bel being Marduk, the title was equivalent to that of 'governor of
Babylonia.'
[134] So, Tiele, _Geschichte d. Religion i. Alterthum_, i. 191.
[135] The Hebrew word for prophet, _nabi_, is of the same stem as the
Assyrian Nabu, and the popular tradition is placing the last scene in
the life of Moses on Mt. Nebo is apparently influenced by the fact that
Moses was a _nabi_.
[136] See above, p. 123.
[137] So in the cylinder of Shamash-shum-ukin (Lehmann's publication,
pls. viii. _seq._).
[138] _E.g._, in the so-called Grotefend Cylinder, col. ii. 34.
[139] _Wiener Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde d. Morgenlandes_, iv. 301-307.
[140] We only know the name through Eusebius' extract from Alexander
Polyhistor's digest of Berosus. The form, therefore, cannot be vouched
for. The various modern attempts to explain the name have failed (see
_e.g._, Lenormant's _Magic und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer_, 2d German
edition, pp. 376-379). There may be some ultimate connection between
Oannes and Jonah (see Trumbull in _Journal of Bibl. Liter._ xl. 58,
note).
[141] For fuller proof, see the chapter on "The Cosmology of the
Babylonians."
[142] This, it will be remembered (see above, p. 118), is one of the
titles of Marduk in one of Hammurabi's inscriptions,--an important point
for the date of the episode in its present form.
[143] Literally, 'Ea shall be his name, his as mine.'
[144] According to Syncellus. In cuneiform texts the old Bel is at times
invoked as the creator of mankind.
[145] _Kosmologie_, pp. 293, 294.
[146] _Aos_ and _Dauke_.
[147] Rawlinson, iv. 25.
[148] See p. 79.
[149] See Jensen, _Keils Bibl._. 3, 1, p. 108, note 5. Tiele, _Gesch._
p. 126, apparently identifies Innanna of Hallabi with Tashmit, but, so
far as I can see, without sufficient reason.
[150] Here written En-lil, as the Bel of Nippur.
[151] Attached to the name here (Rawlinson, i. 4, no. xv-9), which is
written ideographically En-Lil, is the designation _da-gan-ni_, which
has occasioned considerable discussion. See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp.
449-456. It seems to me that the addition which emphasizes this identity
of Bel with another god, Dagan, is to indicate that the Bel of the
triad, and not Bel-Marduk, is here meant. Somewhat in the same way
Tiglathpileser I. (Rawlinson, i. 14, vi. 87) distinguishes the older Bel
by calling him 'Bel latura,' _i.e._, 'Bel the older.'
[152] 'Governor of Bel' for governor of Babylonia, and 'subjects of Bel'
for subjects of Babylonia.
[153] See p. 89 and chapter vii.
[154] Occasionally a king (so _e.g._ Nabubaliddin, _c._ 883 B.C.)
associates Anu with Ea, and omits Bel (Rawlinson, v. 60, ii. 21), as
though with the intent of avoiding confusion.
[155] Rassam, Cylinder ix. 75.
[156] See chapter xii., "The Assyrian Pantheon," p. 208.
[157] Rassam, Cylinder viii. 98, 99. 'Belit of Babylonia, honored among
the great gods.'
[158] _Annals_, iii. 135.
[159] The name of the temple. See IIR. 66, ll. 1 and 10. The title
'belit matati,' 'lady of the lands' is evidently introduced in imitation
of 'bel matati,' 'lord of lands,' belonging to Bel and then to Marduk.
[160] Sayce's view (_Hibbert Lectures_, p. 186), according to which Anu
was originally the local god of Erech, is erroneous.
[161] VR. pl. 33.
[162] Delitzsch, _Die Kossaer_, pp. 25, 27.
[163] The omission of Ramman here, though invoked at the close of the
inscription, is noticeable. Ishtar takes the place that in the more
developed system belongs to the god of storms, who with the moon-god and
sun-god constitutes a second triad. See p. 163.
[164] Written with the sign _An_, and the feminine ending _tum_, but
probably pronounced Anatum. The form Anat (without the ending) is used
by many scholars, as Sarpanit and Tashmit are used instead of Sarpanitum
and Tashmitum. I prefer the fuller forms of these names. Anum similarly
is better than Anu, but the latter has become so common that it might as
well be retained.
[165] VR. 33, vii. 34-44.
[166] IR. pl. 15, col. vii. 71-pl. 16, col. viii. 88.
[167] No less than nine times.
[168] Tiglathpileser I.
[169] Ramman-nirari I.
[170] _Kosmologie_, p. 274.
[171] See the list IIIR. 68, 26 _seq._
[172] Thureau-Dangin, _Journal Asiatique_, 1895, pp. 385-393. The name
of this deity has been the subject of much discussion. For a full
discussion of the subject with an account of the recent literature, see
an article by the writer in _The American Journal of Semitic Languages
and Literatures_, xii. 159-162.
[173] Arising perhaps after _Im_ came into use as the ideographic form.
[174] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, xi. 173-174 and pl. 1, col. i. 7.
[175] See p. 145 and also p. 161.
[176] Belser in Haupt and Delitzsch, _Beitraege sur Assyriologie_, ii.
187 _seq._, col. vi. i. 3 _seq._
[177] The character of this part of the hymn is quite different from
that which precedes.
[178] For further notices of these gods, see chapter x.
[179] See above, p. 122.
[180] One might include in the list also Nin-igi-nangar-bu,
Gushgin-banda, Nin-kurra, Nin-zadim (from Nabubaliddin's Inscription),
but these are only so many epithets of Ea or various _forms_ under which
the god came to be worshipped. See p. 177.
[181] We may now look forward to finding many more gods in the rich
material for this period unearthed by the University of Pennsylvania
Expedition to Niffer.
[182] See chapter x.