Of assyria to those of babylonia

It will * The existence of a city and district, A-usar, identical with Ashur, which represents a later designation of the god as well as of the city and of the district, can now be traced back to the days of Hammurabi. See Scheil, ‘Code de Hammourabi,’ col. iv. 55-64 (Délégation en Perse, Mémoires, iv. (Textes Jamites-Sémitiques, ii.])

RELIGION OF BABYLONIA = 535 have become clear from the above sketch, that, corresponding to the greater age of Babylonia as compared with Assyria, it was in the south that culture was first developed, and from the south was carried to the north. As a matter of fact, despite some contributions to architecture, art, science, and literature made by the Assyrians, the civilization of Assyria is a direct importation from Babylonia, and continues to bear the impress of its southern origin.

The temples and palaces of coe bre were modelled upon those in Babylonia, with the important exception, however, that stone was far more liberally employed as a building material in place of clay—which remained the standard material in the south.

In sculptural decorations and in statues, more originality was displayed by the Assyrians than in their building constructions, and, as a great military power, it was natural that Assyria should likewise have developed her own niethods of attack and defence; but, in all that pertains to the cult and to general religious doctrines, the originality of the Assyrians mani- fests itself only in the adaptation to their own con- ditions, of the modes of worship, of the ritual, and of the theology that were the outcome of the activity of a long series of generations of priests serving in the temples of the great religious centres of the south.

When Assurbanipal, probably in imita- tion of an earlier example, resolved to collect a library in his palace, he was obliged to send his scribes to the temples of the south, in the archives of which the literary productions of the past—epies, myths, legends, collections of omens, rituals and magical incantations, hymns and prayers, as well as medical and astronomical compilations — were kept; and it does not appear that either his scribes or those of earlier days added much to this litera legacy, though, naturally, the Assyrian temples ha their own rituals, prayers, and oracles specially adapted to Assyrian political and social conditions, The relationship between the religion of Baby- lonia and that of Assyria thus resolves itself into an adoption of doctrines, cult, and rites of the south by the north, with such modifications as were called for by the different conditions prevailing in the north, and which led, in the case of the pan- theon, to the assignment to Ashur of the place and rank occupied in the south by Marduk after the union of the States of the Euphrates Valley in the days of Hammurabi.

We might also express this relationship in terms of a general extension north- ward of the religion of Babylonia, as a part of the culture that originated in we Euphrates Valley. iv. ORIGIN OF BABYLONIAN CULTURE.—A ques- tion that suggests itself at this point, and which must be considered before we advance to a con- sideration of some of the details of the religion of Babylonia and Assyria, involves the problem as to the origin of Babylonian culture.

At the earliest pete to which we can now trace back Babylonian istory we already find this culture in an advanced state, and it is safe to assume that its beginnings must be placed as early at least as 4000 B.c.— and it may turn out to be even considerably older. Scholarship is still divided on the question whether the culture is of Semitic or non-Semitic origin.

The majority of scholars hold that the earliest settlers in the Valley were non-Semites, to whom the beginnings of the culture, including the invention and development of the earliest script —an essentially hieroglyphic system —are to attributed.

To this people the name Sumerian (or Sumero-Akkadian) is given, and it is held that the Semites—the Babylonians in the later sense—upon entering the land from the south, adopted this culture, developed it still further, and adapted the script to the expression of ideas in their own Semitic £36 RELIGION OF BABYLONIA ——. tongue. This view, however, is opposed by a small but powerful minority, led by the distin- guished Prof.

Joseph Halévy of Paris, which con- tends for the Semitic origin of the entire Baby- lonian culture, including, therefore, the script. The controversy which has raged for many years cannot be regarded as definitely settled,* nor is it likely to be until ethnology is in a position to reinforce or to controvert ihe arguments drawn by either side from the evidence of language and archeology.

Meanwhile, it may be said that while, on the one hand, it seems tolerably certain that tle Euphrates Valley, admirably adapted as a meeting-ground for races of various origin, actu- ally contained in early times a population of a mixed character; on the other hand, it is no less clear that the traits of the culture, including the religion, are essentially the same in the latest days as in the earliest of which we have cogni- zance.

The gods in the earliest texts are the same as those found in the latest; nor do the methods of invoking them, or the conceptions formed of them, undergo any other changes than those due tonatural development. Nowhere is there a violent break with the past, but only, and at the most, a gradual transition. If, therefore, the later culture is to be regarded as Semitic,—and on this point there is eneral agreement,—there is no substantial reason or denying this predicate to the earliest.

Such a consideration naturally does not solve the question of origins, for it may properly be argued that the non-Semitic stratum was so thoroughly absorbed by the Semites at the period to which our material for the study of Babylonia belongs, as to obscure the original features.

With this admission, those who oceupy an intermediate position between the opposing camps are for the present content, since it justifies the contention that the Babylonian culture, so far as known to us, is of one cast, and that therefore, in a treatment of the Religion of Babylonia and Assyria it is neither necessary nor justifiable to separate Semitic from supposedly non-Semitic features.

If, therefore, there is a non- Semitic stratum to the culture which we encounter in the earliest period of Babylonian history, it belongs to a period which is, for the present at least, beyond our historical ken, and as little affects our views as to the general Semitic char- acter of the Babylono- Assyrian religion in its zarliest and latest manifestations, as the probably non-Grecian elements existing in Greek culture affect.

the essential unity of what we have been taught to regard as Greek religion. Moreover, the possibility of a non, Semitic stratum to Babylonian culture must not be con- fused with the question as to the existence of traces of a Sumerian language in the Babylonian seript and literature.

Granting the existence of such a language as Sumerian, the position to which the advocates of the Sumerian theory are led in order to account for the continued use of the ‘Sumerian’ method of writing thousands of years after a far more suitable one had been evolved by the Semitic or Semitized Babylonians, justifies an attitude of reserve towards the far-reaching con- clusions that have been drawn from the supposed non-Semitic origin of the script employed by the Babylonians; and the fact that these conclusions are brought forward in a spirit of consistency, derived by logical processes from a certain starting- point, only accentuates the difficulty of accepting the correctness of that starting-point.

Besides, the advocates of the Sumerian theory have not yet fulfilled the obligation which obviously rests *“ It will be sufficient to refer for details of this controversy to Weissbach’s monograph, Die Sumerische Frage (Leipzig, 1898), admirable as a summary but which leaves the question pretty much where it waa.

RELIGION OF BABYLONIA upon them of defining the character of the Sumerian language in a manner acceptable to philologists, and of indicating its position in the group of languages to which it belongs.

* Under these circumstances, the attitude of re- serve is still further justified on the part of those who are content to wait for ‘more light’ before committing themselves to a position which involves such far-reaching consequences as the acceptance of the Sumerian theory in its present form carries with it.

Without, therefore, encroaching upon doubtful territory, we are entitled in the treatment of our theme to assume a continued development of a religion which is to be regarded in its earliest form as Semitic, provided it be admitted that in its latest form it may be given this title.

The sketch furnished at the outset of this article as to the general development of the Babylono- Assyrian religion, so far as the relay be- tween religion and the political history of the two countries is concerned, euperete a threefold division in the History of the Religion: the first extending from the earliest period known to us (c. 3500 B.C.) to the union of the Babylonian States under Hammurabi (c. 2250 B.c.)

; the second embracing the period down to the rise of the New Babylonian or Chaldean empire under Nabopolas- sar (625 B.C.) ; the third covering the short exist- ence of this empire down to the taking of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 B.c. The Assyrian religion, in so far as it entails a separate treatment, falls within the second period, although it extends into the third—from c. 1800 B.c. down to the fall of Nineveh, 606 B.c.

A sharp separation is marked only between the first and second divisions, though the third division likewise shows traits of a special character.

—The further division of the general subject into (a) the Pantheon, (0) the Religious Literature, and (c) the Cultus, results from the char- acter of the material at our disposal for the study of the Babylono-Assyrian religion, which consists chiefly, as already intimated, of (1) the numerous historical and votive inscriptions of the rulers; (2) the extensive literary productions of Babylonia (as preserved chiefly in the copies of the royal library unearthed at Nineveh t); and (3) in the archeological results— still rather meagre—of the excavations of Babylonian and Assyrian sanctu- aries.

v. THE BABYLONO-ASSYRIAN PANTHEON.—The religion of Babylonia in the earliest form known to us may be defined as a combination of local cults with animistic conceptions of the powers of nature, with which man was either brought into immediate contact, or which affected his aims and his welfare. Each centre had its special patron deity, and this deity—in most cases conceived as masculine—was brought into association with some natural phenomenon.

The two powers most com- monly chosen were the sun and the moon, and by the side of these we find streams and stones per- * The view formerly held, that the Sumerian belongs to the Ural-Altaic group, has been emphatically set aside by Prof. O. Donner—an eminent authority on this group—in an appendix to Haupt’s monograph, Die Akkadische Sprache (Berlin, 1881).

It should also be stated that, since the appearance of Haupt’s monograph, little has been done towards elucidating the char- acter of the so-called Sumerian (or Sumero-Akkadian) speech, See Winckler’s remarkable confession : ‘ All attempts to establish an affinity with any language of the ancient world, even with the various languages of the neighbouring nations or of those still living, must be abandoned’ (in Helmolt’s History of the World (1903), vol. iii. p. 5). t The recent discovery by J.

H. Haynes of an extensive literary archive at Nippur, justifies the hope that at no distant day we may be able to study the religious literature to a large extent from ‘originals’ instead of from the copies prepared by the scribes of Assurbanipal. See Hilprecht’s account of the Nippur library in Zaplorations in Bible Lands in the J ine teenth Century, pp. 509-532. RELIGION OF BABYLONIA | wonified as gods.

The independence of the States | and, in still earlier days, no doubt, of the towns |} of the Euphrates Valley, is sufficient to account ‘| for the fact that there should thus arise a con- ‘ siderable number of sun- and moon-deities, and it was only as a result of political development that in time a sun-god worshipped in the most im- ;| rtant centre came to be the sun-god par excel- | ence, and, in the theological system, was regarded | as having absorbed the attributes and prerogatives of his former associates or rivals.

This process of concentration was not necessarily carried out with consistency ; and when, as happened, two centres acquired equal significance and sanctity, | the worship of the sun-god or of the moon-god was | maintained in both, or a compromise was effected by distinguishing between the varying action of the sun at the different seasons of the year or in the division of the day, so that, in the developed theo- logical system, we have one sun-deity particularly singled out as the sun of spring or of morning, and another as the midsummer or noonday sun.

The former, as the conqueror of the winter storms, | would be pictured as a beneficent element, a | youthful hero displaying his strength ; the latter, as bringing discomfort, drought, and disease, | would be invested with violence and destructive force—a grim warrior in the thick of battle.

; Such a division of functions, effected as a com- | promise between rival sun-deities, was the work of | the priests and theologians rather than a Weta process, and the example adduced will sutfice for the present to illustrate the importance of what may be cailed the theoretical factor in the develop- | ment of the Babylonian religion.

One of the main _ problems involved in considering the functions and traits of any particular deity is thus to distin- og between original elements and such as have | been imposed upon him (or her) by the attempts | atsystematization that begin at an early period, | and that lead to the rise of various schools of theo- | logical thought, of which traces are revealed in a | careful study of the religious literature.

At times, | naturally, it is not an easy task to differentiate | the popular conceptions connected with a deity | from those unfolded in the schools. So, when two I a are viewed as father and son—like Ea and arduk—or as father and daughter—like Sin (the moon-god) and Ishtar—or as master and servant —like Shamash (the sun-god) and Ishum, or Marduk and Nusku (the fire-god)—the process in- volved is not the same in all.

Such relationships, likewise, are expressive of compromises effected _between rival deities ; but in some instances, as in i the case of Ea and Marduk, popular thought is | involved in specifying the relationship between the two as that of father and son.

In general, however, the traces of relationship between various ‘gods indicate the absorption in some way or an- other by one god of the attributes of his former Tivals, and may be regarded as the work of the schools in their endeavour to weave the manifold ii threads of the pantheon into a single pattern.

| While, therefore, in the development of the pan- | theon there may be noted a general tendency to | ‘reduce the number of deities by the recognition of those only who had acquired a relatively superior | position, and which had its outcome in the Assyrian, ape in fixing the number of really active deities at about eleven, the numerous loca! deities, | Yanging to hundreds, do not entirely disappear.

| They survive in invocations and incantations, the | efficacy of which is supposed to be increased by the number of deities invoked: and also in proper names — particularly in Babylonia— where con- _ servative influences, emanating from the popular phases of the religion, have freer play.

Turning by way of illustration to the historical RELIGION OF BABYLONIA 537 and votive inscriptions of the oldest period, one cannot help being impressed by the circumstance that, while the number of deities that may be re- garded as belonging to the really active pantheon is not extraordinarily large—between twenty and thirty,—if we add to these the deities paraded by rulers on occasions when they wish to emphasize the extent of their sway, or when they desire to assure themselves of the protection and favour of as large a number of Divine forces as possible, the number is more than doubled.

If, again, we take into account deities entering as elements into proper names occurring in inscriptions belonging to this period, the list reaches close to one hundred. So in a text dating from the days of Manishtusu, a king of Kish, who appears to be as early as any ruler of southern Babylonia as yet known to us,* we encounter about fifty names of deities which enter as elements into the four hundred and more names of individuals enumerated.

Comparing this list with the deities introduced into the historical and votive inscriptions, it will be found that, while the five or six most prominent gods of the period are represented,—notably Sin, Ea, Ishtar, En-lil, or Bel,—by far the larger majority are such as are not found in these inscriptions at all.

This may be due in part to the still limited historical material | that we possess for this earliest period; and it is also true that a number of the gods in this text of Manishtusu, which was found at Susa, are foreign deities—notably such as were worshipped in Elam.

But, making due allowance for the possible increase of the active Babylonian pantheon of the oldest period by further discoveries, it is still safe to assume that most of the gods that appear as elements of proper names in the text in question belong to a different category, and will not, with some Eee exceptions, be encountered in his- torical inscriptions proper.

It seems certain that the deities whom we thus encounter in proper names are the old local gods, who naturally survive in the designations of individuals hailing from places where their cult was carried on; and it is equally natural that the rulers in their inscriptions should ignore all these local deities, except such as had acquired a superior rank, rendering them worthy to be invoked by a powerful chief.

If we now turn to the incantation texts, of which several series are known, we encounter the same preponderance in the number of deities invoked, over those that play a part in the active pantheon, as revealed by the historical inscriptions of any period.

To be sure, our copies of these incanta- tion series are very late; but it is quite safe to assume, as already pointed out, that the originals belong to the second millennium before our era, if not to the third; and the circumstance that many of the deities enumerated are to be found in proper names of the earliest period, is an evidence of the antiquity of the substantial elements of the texts themselves. In the ‘Shurpu’ series, as published by Prof.

Zimmern, about 150 deities are introduced, as compared with 20 or 30 in historical texts of the first period; and not only are a number of these identical with those occurring in proper names of Manishtusu’s obelisk, but, what is more, even the foreign gods in this text have also found their place in the incantations.

These incantation rituals continue in use during the ete period, when 11 great gods constitute practically the entire pantheon, and this makes the contrast to the conditions revealed by these rituals all the more striking. The explanation is again to be sought in the distinction between purely local cults and *See the evidence on the basis of which Scheil (Teaxtes Elamites-Sémitiques, i. p. 2) places this ruler before 4500 B.0.

— a date which scholars like Winckler would now reduce by about one thousand years. 538 RELIGION OF BABYLONIA the gods who, in consequence of political and other factors, rise to a superior position.

The conser- vatism attaching to religious texts, added to the natural desire in the case of incantations to appeal to as large a number of gods as possible, in the hope that one or the other will grant the desired help or relief, leads to the retention of the old local deities; and this is done without reference to the selective process that has led to singling out a small number only of these deities as powers of first-rate importance.

In proper names, accordingly, and in incantation rituals, there are revealed to us some of the popular phases of the Babylono-Assyrian religion, and, as elsewhere, these phases stand in a certain contrast to the attempts at systematization of the pantheon which are naturally the work of the priests and of the theologians.

We are thus prepared, in the historical and votive inscriptions of the earliest period and of the succeeding ones, to distinguish, on the one hand, deities of merely local significance, and those added from the desire to parade a long list of protecting powers; and, on the other hand, the really active pantheon, produced by a process of selection due in part to the natural prominence acquired by certain gods and by certain sanctuaries over others, and in part due to the attempts at systematization of the pantheon, begun by the priests in their capacity as theologians at an early period, and continued as political and social cir- cumstances demanded.

In time this systematization reacts on the popular beliefs, and modifies them considerably ; but, for all that, the popular religion always lags more or less behind the ‘ official’ form as revealed in the scien- tific literature, such as the astronomical and astro- logical texts, and in the official inscriptions of the rulers, which were naturally produced under the prevailing theological influences.

It would be idle to discuss to which of these two phases of the religion the preference is to be given. Both must be studied if we would penetrate to the core of the religion, and in the case of the pantheon it is obvious that due consideration of its systematiza- tion by the priests must be our guide in an en- deavour to obtain a clear view of its extent and of its general character. (A) THE CHIEF DEITIES.—1. Anu, Bel, and Ea.

— Perhaps the most striking feature of the theological system devised by the priests is the doctrine which places at the head of the pantheon a triad consisting of the god of heaven, the god of earth and of the avmosphere above the earth, and a god of the watery element.

These three gods, corresponding to the three divisions of the Universe, thus cover the sum and substance of Divine government; and it is hardly necessary to advance further arguments for the view that such a triad does not represent a popular belief, but is the outcome of theological speculation. Of the three gods,—Anu representing heaven, Bel the earth, and Ea the water,—Bel and Ea we know were originally deities of a local character, whose worship was centred in a well-defined locality.

Bel, written ideographically En-lil, was the chief god of Nippur in northern Babylonia, and the ee at one time of Nippur is illustrated y the title Bel, i.e. ‘lord,’ which became the common designation of En-lil. Ea belongs to the extreme south of Babylonia, whose worship was originally centred in Eridu, an exceedingly old settlement that at one time lay at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

The name ‘En-lil’ merely de- scribes the god as a powerful demon; but from other sources we know that he was conceived also as an atmospheric deity, who manifested himself in storms and other violent disturbances of nature.

Ea, on the other hand, was a water spirit ; and one =~ RELIGION OF BABYLONIA can readily understand how the character of the large body of water—the Persian Gulf, which was sacred to him, and which led directly to the shore- less ocean—should have led to making Ea the symbol of the watery element in general. As for Anu, while we find even as late as the 12th cent. B.C.

that his cult was specifically associated with a definite centre,* the process which resulted in making him the personification of heaven in general, appears to have been a purely scholastic one, and independent of any traits that may Crean have been ascribed to him.

His wor- | ship in the south was never carried on at any of | the large political or religious centres, and, what- | ever local associations he may have had, ‘ is- | appeared as early at least as the 4th millennium | before our era, when we already find Anu gener- | ally written without the usual alga before deities, — and designated simply as the ‘heavenly’ or ‘ex- alted’ one.

t One is inclined, in view of this great ‘ antiquity of the symbolization of Anu, to regard } the name, together with the conceptions associated with it, as due to scholastic i epee ts and to suppose that the association of a god Anu with any particular locality is of later origin, due to- the reaction of theoretical speculation in practical forms of belief.

However this may be, the parcelling out of | Divine manifestations among a triad representing heaven, earth, and water, belongs distinctly to a theological eh 2 and parcel of a Weltan-— schawung which could have arisen only in the | schools, and which from the schools may have — made its way tothe people.

Theimportant feature | of the ‘lads is the symbolization underlying it: | the choice of Bel and Ea to symbolize earth and | water is secondary, as is the choice of Anu to {| symbolize heaven, whatever the origin of the | name may have been.

The Bel of the triad has | in reality nothing but the name in common with | the chief god of Nippur, and, similarly, when Ea | of the triad was invoked there could have been | only a remote association in the minds of the Babylonians with the water deity of Eridu. Still, } such is the force of old conceptions that even the | theologians could not entirely keep the double | character thus resulting for Bel and Ea apart, hes !

accordingly, in the earliest occurrence of the tg dating from the days of Gudeat (c. 3000 B.C.) we | have Nin-kharsag, the consort of Bel or En-lil, | inserted between the latter and Ea. Nin-kharsag § is a title of Belit as the wife of the chief god o Nippur, and the insertion of the name in con nexion with the triad shows that the Babylonian scribes could not free themselves from the associa- tion of Bel with his original home at Nippur.

In later periods this is rarely done, and it is interesting to compare the arrangement of the triad in Gudea’ inscription with the one on a boundary stone from the llth cent., where the goddess corresponding to the old Nin-kharsag, Belit, appears as Nin- | makh, ‘the great lady ’—dissociated from the Belit of Nippur—and assigned a place behind Ea, B tween these two dates we have the inscription of Agumkakrime (c. 1650 B.C.)

, in which we find at the beginning the usual order Anu, Bel, Ha, whereas towards the close there is associated with each one of the three a consort, thus furnishing the series Anu and Antum, Bel and Belit, Ea and Damkina. Of these consorts, Belit and Damkint represent the wives of the Bel of Nippur and Ea * Dér—in southern Babylonia, Rawl. v. 55, col. i. 14. a t An=‘heaven’ + the phonetic complement na, This is the usual form ; but various others occur, e.g.

An with the deters minative for ‘god,’ and the phonetic writings An-nu-wm with and without the determinative for ‘god,’ See Radau, Story of Genesis, 17, note 2. a, t Inscription B, col. viii, 45-48. 3 y § Signifying ‘lady of the mountain.’ aN a» © 5 Jnr ae cei lee aaa %) At See ee -~ LY —, ?

nee age mas ha 5 RELIGION OF BABYLONIA of Eridu respectively, whereas Antum is an arti- ficial figure introduced into the pantheon under the influence of the doctrine which assigned to every male god a female companion. One must therefore pass down to a comparatively late period, before, in the invocation of the triad, all traces of the old association of Bel and Ea with local cults disappear, and in a certain sense the process was never entirely and consistently completed.

The assigning of the local deity of Nippur to a osition in the triad served to maintain his cult ong after Nippur had lost its political supremacy. His temple at Nippur, known as £-kur, ‘the mountain house,’ became a place of pilgrimage to which worshippers came from all sides.

In a measure this was the case with the sanctuaries in all or in most of the places that once formed political centres, but there were certain features connected with the Bel cult of Nippur that lent to it an air of uniqueness. Invoked in one of the earliest inscriptions known to us, that of En-shag- kush-annu* (c. 3500 B.C.)

, En-lil, at this time already designated as ‘king of the Jands,’ main- tains his position as the baad of the pantheon even in the case of a ruler like Lugalzaggisi, king of Erech (c. 3500 B.C.), whose capital is not at Nippur.t We do not encounter the triad at this early period, and it is all the more significant therefore to find the god of Nippur occupying a position which is not affected by the political status of the centre in which he was worshipped.

Such a condition is an important step on the road towards the differentia- tion between the local storm-god and his symboli- zation as one of the three elements of the universe.

} Even in those inscriptions of the first period of Babylonian history in which En-lil does not occupy the first place, as for example in the list found in an inscription of E-anna-tum,} and in one of Gudea,§ his supremacy is still implied, for the preference given in these inscriptions to a god Nin- girsu, who is mentioned before En-lil, is simply due to the fact that the inscriptions in question are dedicated to Nin-girsu as the chief deity of the centre to which the rulers in question belong.

Similarly, the rulers of other centres, like Agade, Ur, and Kish, present offerings and pay devotion to the Bel of Nippur; and it is not until the union of the Euphrates States under a dynasty which established its capital in the city of Babylon (c. 2300 B.C.) that we encounter an attempt to de- throne En-lil from his pre-eminent position, in favour of the chief deity of the city of Babylon, Marduk.

The political union naturally brought in its wake the assignment of Marduk to a position at the head of the pantheon, and this was empha- sized by transferring to Marduk the title Bel or ‘lord,’ and the old legends and traditions were like- wise transformed under the influence of the priests of Babylon with a view of securing for the ‘ Bel’ of Babylon the functions and deeds that properly belong to the ‘Bel’ of Nippur.

The attempt, how- ever, was not altogether successful, and, when in the 18th cent. B.C. the control of Babylonia passed into the hands of a people coming from Elam to the east, and known as the Kassites, the cult of Bel of Nippur enjoyed a renaissance. || There are good reasons for believing that the Kassites made a deliberate effort to reinstate En-lil as the head of the pantheon. For five centuries the * Hilprecht, Old Babyl. Inscr. i. 2, Nos. 90, 91. + EE prendt, wt. No. 87, col. i.

1, { Gu ea, galet A, col. i. 6, § Inscription D, col. i. 3. | See the votive inscriptions of Kassite kings published by Hilprecht (Old Babylonian Inscriptions, i., Nos. 28-82), which with few exceptions are dedicated to En-lil or his consort Nin-lil or Belit. In the ‘boundary’ inscriptions dating from this period (see Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iv. pp.

56-63), it is also sig- nificant that Marduk is mentioned after Shamash, and even the god Adad in one instance is given the preference over him. RELIGION OF BABYLONIA 538 Kassites held sway ; and, though at the end of this period the reaction begins, in the list of gods found in inscriptions of this period Marduk receives his place immediately behind the triad,* though not invariably so.

t The rise of a serious rival to Babylonia in the north, where shortly after the end of Kassite rule in the south the Assyrians acquired suflicient strength to threaten the independence of Baby- lonia, again leads to a shifting in the ranks of the gods.

In the presence of a common foe, the union between the States in the south becomes closer, and this condition finds expression in a more loyal attachment to the patron deity of Babylon — Marduk, — who in virtue of this fact henceforward holds undisturbed sway as the head of the pantheon. No more attempts are made to shake his position by playing off other gods against him.

His supremacy becomes so secure that it is not endangered by the devotion shown by the rulers of Babylonia to the cults of other gods, either in Babylon itself or in any one of the religious centres of the south.

The temple of Bel of Nippur continued to be a goal of pilgrimage down to the latest days of the Babylonian empire, and the series of sacred edifices there were an object of care to Assyrian kings as well as to Babylonian rulers; but the reverence paid to Bel was merely that due to the local deity, who had, in consequence of the earlier phases of the de- velopment of the Babylonian religion, acquired a greater prominence than the other gods.

At the same time, the position of Bel in the triad served as a factor in maintaining this reverence, and formed in a measure the justification for it, in the minds of those who had separated their conception of Bel almost entirely from his originally local limitations.

We know as yet too little of the earliest history of Eridu—the original seat of the Ea cult—to determine the course of development that led to Ea’s being singled out from among other water gods that were worshipped in early days, to become the general symbol of the watery element in the distribution of the Universe among three chief deities or power.

Analogy might suggest that Eridu,t at the time that it still lay directly at the head of the Persian Gulf, was once an im- portant oe centre like Nippur, and that its patron ae: rose into prominence in connexion with the political fortunes of the place.

There is, however, no evidence to justify the claim that Eridu ever occupied such a position ; and, since our knowledge of the early history of Babylonia now goes back to a remote period, we ought at least to have encountered some traces of a once dominating State in the Euphrates Valley with Eridu as a centre.

Such notices as we have in the old Babylonian inscriptions almost all point to the religious § but not to the political significance of the place, and illustrate the devotion of the rulers to En-ki or Ea, who is called the king of Eridu. || In the religious literature, likewise, Eridu appears chiefly as a religious centre, though, culture and religious prominence proceeding hand in hand in ancient Babylonia, Eridu was no doubt one of the oldest of the cities of the south.

To a late day the *So in the inscription of the days of Marduknadinakhe (c. 1100), Rawlinson, iii. 43, col. iii, 31. t e.g. Rawlinson, iii. 41, col. ii. 25, Marduk occupies the fourth place after the triad, being preceded by Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar. t Now represented by the mound Abu-Shahrein, situated at some distance from the mouth of the Euphrates. § Bur-Sin of the Isin dynasty, e.g. (c. 2500 B.0.), refers to the oracle-tree at Eridu (Hilprecht,, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, j. 1, No.

19, 5), and among the titles of Ur-Ninib of the same dynasty we find one which designates him (ib. No. 18, 6-7) as ‘fulfilling the commands of Eridu.’ i Inscription of Entemena (Thureau-Dangin $m Revue @ Assyriologie, ii. p. 148, col. iv. 5-7).

540 RELIGION OF BABYLONIA RELIGION OF BABYLONIA tradition survived which attributed the beginnings of culture to the instruction furnished to mankind by the water deity * who personified the Persian Gulf; and since, as a matter of fact, the course of civilization in the Euphrates Valley is from south to north, we may conclude that the prominence in culture as well as the antiquity of Eridu were the factors which led to the sanctity of the place, and, along with this sanctity, to the prominent posi- tion attained by the chief god of the place, so that his worship spread far beyond its original confines.

There is no god who in certain portions of the religious literature of Babylonia—notably in the numerous incantation texts—plays a greater réle than Ea. He is apt to be appealed to, first of all; and, where other deities fail, Ea by his superior wisdom, which is his most characteristic feature, is certain to succeed in discovering the cause of the disease that troubles a man, and in effecting a cure.

He is essentially the god of mankind, who loves the children of men, who originally taught them wisdom, and who, according to at least one cosmo- logical system current in Babylonia, was the creator of mankind.

This prominence of Ea in eee of the religious literature suggests, in- eed, that the compositions themselves originated at Eridu ; and there is distinct evidence for this in the transformation which many of the incantation texts clearly underwent in order to adapt them to the standards of the priesthood of Babylon, which was naturally jealous of anything that seemed to affect the pre-eminence of Marduk.

Just as the titles and attributes as well as the prerogatives of the old Bel of Nippur were transferred to Marduk, so the latter also assumed the réle of Ea; but he is represented as doing this with the full consent of Ea, who became in the theological system of the Babylonian priesthood the father of Marduk, roud of the achievements of his son, and rejoicing in the latter’s supremacy.

Marduk’s name is either associated in the religious texts with that of Ea, so that both are represented as performing in concert acts that were originally attributed to Ea alone; or Ea is depicted as asking his son to act for him. This re-editing and adaptation of the ancient literary productions of the Euphrates Valley thus furnishes a valuable aid in tracing the gradual development of a theological system.

A reconciliation between the claims of Ea and Marduk, respectively, having thus been brought about, the cult of Ea could be carried on without endangering the position of Marduk, and a sanc- tuary to Ea was erected in the sacred area around Marduk’s own temple in the city of Babylon. Anu is practically entirely freed from local associations, and is viewed as a god for the gods rather than for men—a deity who exercises a general supervision over all the gods.

In a sense, the conception of Anu represents the highest oint reasued in the spiritualization of the Baby- onian religion. He is the ‘lofty god,’ and it is significant that as early as the days of Ham- murabi t he is in fact designated simply ilw ‘ god.

’ At no subsequent period, either in Babylonian or Assyrian history, do we find a closer approach to a monotheistic belief than in this early con- ception of Anu, although it must be borne in mind that the actual step of regarding one god as embodying the essence of all others was not taken in Hammurabi’s days, nor was it taken in later days despite certain appearances to the contrary.

+ ‘While not entering to the same extent as did Bel and Ea into the popular religion, yet the concep- * Called Oannes by Berosus in his account of this tradition (ory, Ancient Fragments (2nd ed.), p. 57). t ‘Code de Hammourabi,’ col. i. 45, etc. (ed. Scheil, Teates lamites-Sémitiques, ii. p. 16). t See below, p. 5504, and Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 203, note 1.

tion of Anu as an outcome of the best speculative thought in Babylonia is a most important feature of the Babylonian religion, and must not be lost sight of in an estimate of the best that this religion stood for. It will thus be seen that each one of the three gods embraced in the doctrine of the triad has his peculiar origin, and retains his peculiar place out- side of the rank accorded to him in the triad itself.

The local cult of Bel of Nippur proceeds undisturbed by the admission of Bel to the second place in the triad, while the transfer of Bel’s attri- butes to Marduk marks the concession made to the new order of things which eventually gave the patron god of the city of Babylon his undisputed rank at the head of the active pantheon.

Lee Ea, rising to a place of importance through the sacred associations connected with the old city of Eridu, is stripped of local limitations to a much greater extent than is the case with Bel, and out- side of his rank as a third member of the triad is worshipped and appealed to throughout Babylonia as the god of humanity par excellence, whose chief trait is wisdom, and one of whose chief functions consists in his power of healing disease and of relieving suffering in general. 2. Ishtar.

— We have already had occasion to point out that with the gods of the triad their consorts are occasionally associated, and that, even when this is not the case, the consort of En-lil or Bel, under the form of Nin-kharsag, appears occasionally as a fourth member associated with Anu, Bel, Ea.

The association of consorts with the three gods is due merely to the influence of the eel belief, which is a part both of the popular religion and of the system devised by the priests, according to which every male deity was supposed to have a partner—who, however, is generally merely his pale reflexion. The case is different, however, in the association of Nin- kharsag with the triad.

Although bearing a name signifying ‘lady of the mountain,’ which belongs to the consort of En-lil, the chief god of Nippur, and whose chief sanctuary was known as H-kur, ‘mountain-house,’ the fact that this name is subsequently replaced by a more general one, Nin-makh, which has the force of ‘ great lady,’ and is generally added as a fourth member of the triad after Ea, is sufficient to show that we are dealing here, not with the associate of a male deity, but with some more general principle recognized by the priests at least _as a factor in the workings and divisions of the Universe.

That factor may in a general way be defined as the life-producing power manifested in the world, without which heaven, earth, and water would be a desolate waste.

The influence of this doctrine, which appears to have been formulated as early at least as the third millennium, leads to the phenomenon which, next to the constitution of the triad at the head of the pantheon, is the most characteristic feature of the Babylonian doctrine — of the gods, according to which, from a certain time onwards, only one goddess occupying an independent position is recognized. The general name by which the goddess comes to be known is Ishtar.

She is the great mother to whom vegeta- tion, as well as fertility in the animal world, is due, and she is naturally viewed also as the mother of mankind.

That in the triad she is designated as Nin-kharsag, may possibly point to the formulation of the doctrine at a time when the Bel cult of Nippur was still in the asceu tency, and when naturally the consort of this god—who was called Belit, ‘lady’ par eacellence, as En-lil was called Bel—had the distinction of representing the life-giving principle assigned to her.

However this may be, the choice of the later and specific RELIGION OF BABYLONIA RELIGION OF BABYLONIA 541 designation Ishtar, as the name of the great god- dess, is due to influences emanating again from the city of Babylon, for it is there that down to the latest days we find Nin-makh used as one of the designations of the chief goddess.

* That the name Jshtar—conveying in all proba- bility the force of ‘leading,’ ‘overseeing,’ from a stem wsdru—also originated in the city of Babylon, cannot be definitely stated, but seems likely. The honetic writing appears for the first time in the inscriptions of Hammurabi,t and it would be natural for the priests of Babylon to use the neme of a goddess eins was worshipped in the capital by the side of Marduk as the designation of the general life-producing power. That, at all events, !

they were anxious to regard the associate of Marduk as identical with Ishtar, follows from the etymology they proposed for the name of this consort, whose 1s ae Sarpanitum (or Sarpan-‘t), | 1.é., probably, the ‘shining one,’ they converted iuto Zér-banitum, ‘the seed-producing’ goddess.

Whatever the origin of Ishtar may have been, and wherever the cult of this goddess may origin- ally have been centred, she gradually absorbs the roles and the names of the other goddesses who as consorts of gods in important religious centres had, acquired a certain, though restricted, importance. an 4 o4 2!

Thus at Erech, in the extreme south, there foui- ished the cult of a goddess known as Nand, who appears to have been conceived as a deity of a violent character, punishing severely those who disobey her—a war-goddess rather than a mother of life, but who in later texts is identified with Ishtar.

Again, at another ancient centre, Shir- purla, we find the cult of a goddess Nind, who is regarded as the sister of the chief god of the place, Nin-girsu, and whose special function appears to have been the interpretation of dreams. She is called the great divining queen of the gods, and it is to her that Gudea, one of the most famous rulers of the place (c. 3000 B.C.), goes to ascertain the meaning of a dream which disturbs him.

{ Ishtar absorbs the role of both Nan& and Nina, and hence, side by side with her character as the mother of all life, she is portrayed already in the inscriptions of Hammurabi as the great war- goddess who stands by the king’s side in the midst of the fray, and to whose aid every victory is ina measure due.

This phase of the character of the goddess is naturally emphasized even more promi- nently among a people like the Assyrians, whose thoughts and activities were so largely occupied with military pursuits, and among whom all gods take on a warlike and fierce character.

While the conception of Ishtar as the great mother of mankind is also found among the Assyrians, the kings of the north more frequently speak of her as the companion of the chief god Ashur, and as co- operating with the latter to lead the Assyrian armies to victory. She is pictured as armed with bow and arrow, and it is likewise she who, like Nina, furnishes oracles and appears in dreams to encourage her favourites—the kings—by reassuring messages.

Again, a goddess Anunit, who, as the name indicates, stood in some relationship to Anu, the god of heaven, becomes a form of Ishtar; and in the same way Ishtar absorbs the réle of other of the chief goddesses of the religious and political centres of the ancient Babylonian cities, such as Bau, originally the consort of Nin-girsu, the chief *The temple erected in Babylon in honour of this goddess has recently been excavated by the German expedition. See Mittheilungen der Deutschen Orient.

Gesellschaft, Nos. 4 and 5; _ and also Delitzsch, Im Lande des einstigen Paradieses, pp. 38, 39. + See King, Inscriptions of Hammurabi, i., No. 34, 6. 9. 15. and 23, ish-ta-ra-a-tim already used in the general sense of “goddesses.” : See Thureau-Dangin’s article, ‘Le Songe de Goudéa’ (Cumptes tondus de l Académie d’ Inscriptions, 1901, pp. 112-128). deity of Shirpurla, who at one time acquired an independent position of great prominence.

The extent to which this process of concentra- tion was carried is illustrated by the common use of the term tshtar, particularly in religious texts, in the sense of ‘goddess’; and from it a plural ishtardte is formed, with the signification ‘goddesses.

’ While, therefore, the other goddesses who are merely the consorts of male deities—their pale reflexions—continue to preserve their identity, they are in reality merely so many Ishtars, with this distinction, however, that the name Ishtar as that of a specific deity is confined to the associate of the chief god—Marduk in the south and Ashur in the north.

A certain vagueness in the use of the name Ishtar, to be observed especially in Assyrian his- 1 nicat texts, followed from the attempt to con- veutrave the attributes of all the important goddesses—important by virtue of the part once played by the centres in which as consorts of male deities they were worshipped—in a single person- age.

Ishtar is not really the wife of Ashur, who indeed is essentially a god standing by himself without wife or offspring ; but as the chief goddess she takes her place by the side of Ashur, just as she does by the side of Marduk, and hence she is addressed occasionally in terms which might be taken as representing the relationship of a wife to her husband.

In the south, again, owing to Marduk’s absorption of the réle of the old Bel of Nippur, Ishtar naturally becomes the Bélit of Babylonia, though Belit was originally the consort of the Nippurian Bel; and, in so far as she takes on the traits of the older Belit, she is associated with Marduk in the relationship of consort to the chief male deity.

Yet the amalgamation is not complete until a relatively late period, and Marduk continues to have as a special consort Sarpanit, who is generally distinguished, albeit not sharply, from Ishtar.

Confusing as this double character of Ishtar, as the one great mother-goddess, the source of life, and as the consort of the head of the pantheon, may appear to us, it probably occasioned no difficulty to the Babylonian theo- logians, to whom Ishtar was essentially the goddess of life and vegetation ; nor to the Assyrian priests, among whom she took on the réle of the great war-goddess, who in company with Ashur led the armies of the kings to victory. 3. Sin.

—Next to the triad and the great mother- goddess, the worship of the two great orbs of light —the moon and the sun—is a feature of the Baby- lonian religion that clings to it from the earliest period of which we have any record, down to the latest.

It is impossible to say definitely that the cult of the one is older than the other, but the greater prominence which, so far as the evidence goes, was enjoyed by the moon cult in the earliest forms of Semitic culture, justifies the preference given to it in the order of treatment.

In a general way it may be said that the moon cult is coexistent with the nomadic grade of culture, while sun worship corresponds more to the frame of mind and to the conditions prevailing among a people that has reached the agricultural stage. This generalization, though open to the objections that attach to all generalizations, is nevertheless of value, provided it be not pushed to the extreme of denying the possibility of sun worship in the pre-agricultural period of the Semites.

The move- ments of nomads in Arabia—the home par eacel- lence of the Semites—taking place for a great part of the year at night, the moon naturally served as an important guide. The more regular changes in the orb of night and the briefer period in which these di Sree changes run their course, constituted further features that helped to emphasize the im. 542 RELIGION OF BABYLONIA ortance of the moon as a medium for the calcu- ation of time.

However this may be, two of the oldest religious centres in Babylonia were seats of moon worship—Ur and Harran (or Haran),—and the sanctuaries at both places retained their popu- larity until the days of the New Babylonian empire. Assyrian rulers vied with those in the south in paying homage to the god worshipped in these centres. The common name given to the moon-god is Sin. The meaning and etymology of this name are not yet clear; but there were numerous epithets by which he was known.

Among these is one Nannar, which, signifying ‘the one who gives light’ or ‘place of light,’* appears to have been used at one time as a genuine name and not merely as an epithet. Possibly Nannar is even an older name than Sin, which appears to have originated at Harran.

Besides the two places named, there were, no doubt, other places in Baby- lonia where the moon cult flourished, and it was merely the religious prominence of Ur and Harran that lent to their association with the moon-god a special significance. The moon-god is ordi- narily designated ideographically En-zu, which describes him as the ‘lord of wisdom,’ and this attribute is perhaps the most important of the con- ceptions connected with him.

This designation appears in one of the earliest inscriptions known to us. Lugalzaggisit enumerates En-zu among the gods serving as his protectors, and from the sequence it is evident that this ruler has in mind the moon-god of the city of Ur.

The cultivation of the science of astronomy by the Babylonian priests served to emphasize the association of wisdom with the moon, as the overseer of the starry heavens; and, since the motive predomi- nating in the development of this science was the belief in the influence of the position and movements of the stars upon the fate of the indi- vidual, the wisdom of Sin was to a large extent coextensive with the giving of oracles and the interpretation of omens.

Hence the prominence accorded to Sin in the omen literature. It is he who sends dreams. He is addressed as the lord of decisions, the god who gives counsel; and if in later times it is Shamash—the sun-god—rather than Sin who appears as the god of oracles, this is due to the greater prominence which Shamash acquired in the agricultural stage of culture, and which led to the relegating of Sin to a second- ary position.

Sin’s traits as the illuminator like- wise continue to be dwelt upon both in historical texts and in the hymns composed in his honour; and, with the tendency to lay stress on the ethical phase of the natures of the gods, the light diffused y Sin becomes a symbol of his function in reveal- ing to men the snares that are laid for them in the dark.

As a protection against the workings of the mischievous spirits who ply their trade generally at night, the ore is frequently made in the incantations to the moon-god; but here, again, there are other tendencies at work in the Babylonian religion that prevent the fullest de- velopment of the traits of wisdom and of pro- tection ascribed to Sin.

In the later periods the element of wisdom is so prominently associated with another god—Ea, who through various causes becomes the god of humanity par excellence—as to set the moon cult almost aside, while the greater attachment felt towards the sun by an agricultural population, added to the much more powerful character of the sun’s light, leads not only to Shamash becoming an oracle god in the place of Sin, but exalts the sun-god to the position of chief protector of mankind against injustice, *So Lehmann, Zettschrift fiir Assyriologie, xvi.

p. 405. t Hilprecht, Old Bab. Inscriptions, i. 2, No. 87, col. i. 21-22. RELIGION OF BABYLONIA tae the god who far above any other reveals wrong- doing and brings wickedness to light. Sin, in short, while his cult remains prominent, loses his touch, as it were, with his worshippers. The personal element is moved into the background.

As he no longer entered into the daily life of a population that became agricultural and then commercial, the later hymns to him do not breathe that spirit of genuine attachment which charac- terizes the addresses to such gods as Shamash, Ea, and Marduk.

He retains his supreme position among the gods; but, calm and oat as his light, he is not the deity to whom the people turn in their distress, and it was due chiefly to the rever- ence in which such ancient centres as Ur and Harran were held by virtue of their great antiquity that he continued to be a member of a second great triad, consisting of Sin, Ishtar, and the sun- god., 4, Shamash, Ninib, Nergal.

—We have indicated the main reason for the steadily growing popu- larity of the sun cult, which is a feature of the development both of the bepales religion and of the system of theology established by the influence of the priests.

While the worship of the sun-god, as one of the great powers of nature, is no doubt much earlier among all nations than the period when the agricultural stage was reached, it is among agricultural communities that such a cult acquires a popularity corresponding to the import- ance of the sun in the life of the people. Hence the phenomenon, which at first sight may seem strange, that the majority of the local gods wor- shipped in the cities of ancient Babylonia are solar deities.

Besides the two chief centres of sun worship—Sippar in northern Babylonia and Larsa in the southern portion—the patron deity of Shir- purla (known as Nin-girsw) is a solar deity ; a god Nergal, worshipped in another important centre— Cuthah—is likewise a sun-god ; similarly, Za-mal- mal, who belongs to an important city — Kish; while Marduk, originally merely the god of the city of Babylon, but destined, with the growin dignity of the city as the capital of the uni Babylonian States, to become the official head of the pantheon, is also distinctly a solar god.

Besides these, we have a host of other deities belonging to cities and towns of minor pereore that are distinctly solar in character.

ith that same tendency towards the systematization of beliefs which led to the concentration of the god- desses of the more important centres in the person of a single goddess Ishtar, so in the course of time these various local sun-gods came to be looked upon as so many forms or manifestations of the one great orb, though the tendency never went so far as to concentrate all the solar deities into a single one.

By the side of a god, symbolical of the sun in general, and who receives the name of Shamash, the official Babylonian pantheon continues to recognize two other solar deities—one whose name is provisionally read Ninid, and the other Nergal— exclusive of Marduk, who, although a sun-god, also acquires, as already intimated, a unique position.

The real reason existence of Ninib and Nergal is, no doubt, to be sought again in the political and religious signifi- cance of the centres in which as Pac worshipped. That centre was, in the case of Nergal, the city of Cuthah, which is first referred to in an inscription of king Dungi of Ur (c. 2800 B.c.)

As for Ninib, indications point to his identity with Nin-girsu, the chief ood of Shirpurla, the capital of one of the oldest Babylonian States ; though the origin of the writing Nin-ib and its precise relationship to the form Nin-girsu are as yet unknown to us.

In the systematized Babylonian these however the distinction between Shamash, Ninib, and or the continued independent | ee | | | RELIGION OF BABYLONIA Ner, was interpreted in such a manner, that, while Shamash was regarded as the sun-god par excellence and in general, Ninib was looked upon as the personification of the morning and spring sun, and Nergal as the sun of noon and oF the summer season.

* This differentiation was sug- gested by the two aspects which the sun as a great ower of nature presents in a climate like that of bylonia. It is, on the one hand, a beneficent power which, in the spring, drives away the rain and storms, and restores the life and vegetation of nature ; and, on the other hand, it is a destructive wer which, during the hot season, by its too erce and burning rays, brings about disease and suffering, and even causes ruin to the crops.

Confining ourselves for the moment to the ersonification of the sun in general, the name hamash, having perhaps the force of ‘servitor,’ appears to go back to the very early period when the moon cult still enjoyed a supremacy over that of thesun.

And if it be borne in mind that, both in the earlier and in the later inscriptions of Baby- lonia and Assyria,+ the moon-god is, almost without exception, accorded the preference over Shamash in an enumeration of the pantheon, the conclu- sion appears to be warranted that the ‘service’ implied in the name had reference originally to the subservient relationship in which Shamash stood to Sin.

We have, however, also had occasion to note the causes that led to the later predomi- nance of the sun cult over that of the moon, at least in the popular phase of the religion, and the influence of this phase is to be seen in the absorp- tion on the part of Shamash of attributes that once belonged to Sin. The chief centres of the Babylonian Shamash cult were, as already indicated, Sippar and Larsa, both of them cities whose foundation reaches back to a high antiquity.

Of the two, Larsa appears to have been politically the more important, whereas Sippar acquired greater religious sanctity, from whick we may perhaps conclude that it was the older of the two. That there is some historical counetion between the two places, is indicated by the identity of the name borne by the chief temple in both Sippar and Larsa, viz. L-barra (or E-babbara), signifying ‘resplendent house.

’ In the further development of the conceptions con-, nected with Shamash it is important to note the introduction of ethical ideas. Represented ideo- graphically as ‘the god of day,’ he is worshipped not merely as the symbol of light and as the beneficent power that drives away the winter storms and clothes the earth with verdure, but as the god who, among mankind, as in nature, brings about order and stability.

As his light illumines all dark places, so he is regarded as the one who can drive evil, which was pictured as ‘ dark- ness,’ out of the body of man. Shamash is there- | fore frequently appealed to in the incantation texts | as the god who can provide healing, who can se-, cure release from sufferings by driving away the _ demons and evil spirits.

The symbolical rites pre- _ scribed in these texts to be carried out in connexion with the pronouncing of certain formule are generally to be performed at daybreak, when the rule of Shamash begins. But not only cvil in the _ form of disease or bewitchment can be removed by Shamash, it is he likewise who brings hidden | crimes to light, and it is he who punishes the evil- *See Jensen (Kosmologie, \). +57f.)

, to whom the indication of this distinction is due, and whose views are more plausible than the opinion of Winckler (Geschichte Israels, ii. p. 79), who | 4s inclined to look upon Ninib as the symbol of the summer | season. + An exception appears in the inscription of Lugalzaggisi (Hilprecht, Old Bab. Inscr. i. 2, No. 87, col. i. 20); but see the see on p. 67 of the present writer's Religion Babyloniens und RELIGION OF BABYLONIA 543 doer.

His light thus becomes a symbol also of justice, and perhaps the most frequent epithet b which he is addressed both in hymns and in histor1- cal texts is that of ‘judge of heaven and earth.’ He is pictured as sitting on a throne in a court of justice, receiving the petitions of those who have been injured, and rendering a just verdict. It is significant that Hammurabi (c. 2250 B.C.)

places at the head of his famous Code of laws* a picture of Shamash, and in the body of the text the god is frequently introduced as the one who inspired Hammurabi with the project of gathering together the laws of the country for the purpose of ensuring pees and security to all the inhabitants of the and.

Among the titles that the king bestows on himself he takes special pride in designating him- self the ‘king of righteousness,’ which is precisely the réle in which Shamash himself appears in the religious literature. By the side of Shamash we not only find his consort A frequently referred to, but a group of minor deities (or spirits), who form, as it were, the court of the god.

A god Bunene is pictured as his chariot driver, and Kettwu (‘Right’) and Mesharu (‘ Justice’) as his children who are in his service. It is likely that Bunene was originally the name of the sun-god in some locality, who was overshadowed by the great Shamash, and therefore accorded a place as an attendant; while Kettu and Mesharu are clearly designations of the sun-god as the lord of justice, that have been personified as independent beings. Ninib.

—As the sun-god associated more speci- fically witu the spring and morning, it is natural to find Ninib regarded as essentially an agricul- tural deity, who presides over the fields, and who is appealed to, not merely to ensure fertility, but to protect the boundaries of the fields against un- lawful invasion or wilful interference.

A feature of Ninib which stands in close connexion with his position as an agricultural deity, is his absorp- tion of the réle of numerous other gods, who, originally local patrons of the fields, are viewed as merely so many manifestations of Ninib.

Thus we find Nin-gish-zida, Nin-shakh, Za-mal-mal, Dun-pa-uddu, Zizanu, Shedu, all once worshipped as independent gods, assimilated to Ninib in accord- ance with the same tendency that led to a concen- tration of all the independent goddesses in the great Ishtar, and which led to making Shamash of Larsa and Sippar the representative of the sun- god in general, thus Sradnally obscuring the numer- ous local sun cults that must once have flourished.

There is, however, another side to Ninib, due to his having been the chief deity in an important political centre— probably Shirpurla. As the patron of rulers whose position was due to their force of arms, Ninib (or Nin-girsu }) was naturally also a god of war, who appeared in the midst of the fray as a warrior fully armed.

In hymns com- posed in his honour, Ninib is very frequently ad- dressed as the god of battle, whose strength is irresistible, and who leads the armies of the king to victory. This violent character of the god also leads to his being invoked by the Assyrian rulers as the one who, with Nergal, presides over the sports— hunting of Jions, bulls, and stags—to which the Assyrians were devoted. Indeed, some of the Assyrian kings, notably Ashurnasirpal (B.C.

885- 860),¢ are so devoted to Ninib that he becomes the god of war par excellence, and they fairly exhaust their vocabulary in extolling him as the strong * English translation by Johns under the title, The Oldest Code of Laws in the World (Edinburgh, 1908). + See above, p. 542». t See Rawlinson, i. 17, col. i. 1-17 ; Ninib as god of hunting with Nergal, Rawlinson, i. 28, col. i. 1. 544.

RELIGION OF BABYLONIA and powerful hero who overthrows all opponents, whose victory is assured, who holds the sceptre in his hands; the lord of lords, who drives along like a raging storm. There is but little trace, in such a description, of the solar deity, though phrases are interspersed here and there which show the solar origin of the god in question.

It is natural that among the warlike Assyrians, where all the gods assume a fierce and more violent aspect, this side of the deity should have been particularly emphasized ; whereas, among the Babylonians, it is, on the whole, as an agricultural god that Ninib retains his position in the pantheon down to the latest period.

* The consort of Ninib is Gula, also designated as Nin-karrak, who, besides being very frequently associated with him, especially in the invocation of the gods at the close of the boundary inscriptions, appears in the magic tests chiefly as the ‘ great physician’ who provides healing for the sick. Nergal.

—As the symbol of the great power of nature in its destructive phase, Nergal is consist- ently regarded as a violent deity, who alternately appears as a war-god and as a god of pestilence and fevers, dealing out death and suffering on every side. Dissociated from his originally local limitations as the god of Cuthah, he absorbs the réle of other gods, who, likewise solar deities of the more violent type, were viewed as hostile to man.

Such a figure was Jra (or Gira) ;+ another was Ishum, more specifically a god of fire; a third was Namtar, the plague-god par excellence; though, instead of being directly identified with Nergal, the latter is regarded as his servitor, in which role Ira, also, appears at times.

We have seen that Nergal is also associated with Ninib as the god of war; but the most im- portant function assigned to Nerga] in the sys- tematized pantheon is as the chief of the gods who reside over the world of the dead. The Baby- onian priests, in further development of the current popular views in regard to the condition of the dead in the nether world (upon which we shall dwell in a subsequent section), set up two pan- theons—one for the living, and one for the dead.

In the course of time the differentiation between the two became so marked that it was commonly held that the gods, whom we have hitherto been considering, exercised control over the living only, who upon death passed out of their supervision.

The dangers from hostile gods an demons, how- ever, did not cease with the approach of death, and it was necessary to secure protection from the spirits that infested the graves, and that followed the dead to their abode in the subter- ranean cave in which they were popularly supposed to be housed. Such protection could be vained only by an appeal to deities more powerful than the demons ; but the gods so addressed were quite different from those who protected the living.

Nergal, as the god of fevers and pestilence—a prototype of the angel of death—was appropriately selected as the chief of this nether world pantheon. At his side was a consort, Hresh-kigal or Allatu. She is a kind of counterpart to Ishtar, and, origin- ally ruling ieee ney in the lower world, is represented as accepting Nergal as her mate.

Grouped around Nergal and Eresh-kigal are a series of gods forming the court of the Divine pair, who, besides doing their bidding, determine with them the condition of the dead. Besides Eresh-kigal, we encounter a consort, Laz, given to *A temple to Ninib, dating from the days of the New Babylonian period, has been unearthed by the German expedi- tion at Babylon (Mittheil. d. Deutschen Orient. Ges., No. 10). + The former reading, Dibbarra, is to be abandoned.

Although the correct reading is still uncertain, the probabilities are in favour of Jra, which is adopted by Zimmern, Keilinschriften w. d. Alte Testament, p. 687. RELIGION OF BABYLONIA Nergal in his position as a member of the pan- theon of the living; and just as Nergal belongs to both pantheons, so there are other aottieas like Nin-gish-zida, whom we encounter in the pantheon both of the upper and of the lower regions.

Re- membering that this latter pantheon represents largely a coed of the schools, we need not be surprised to find gods who belong to both pan- theons; and, though there is no direct evidence for the fact, it seems likely that, as among the Greel most of the gods of the lower world were regard as having their sojourn in that region for a part of the year only.

In short, the popular element in this doctrine of a lower world pantheon is repre- sented by the nature myth, which symbolizes the change of seasons by transferring the abodes of certain gods—more particularly gods of vegetation and of life in general—to the nether world during the season of rain and storms, when Nature herself seems to have succumbed to the powerful Nergal and his consort. 5. Adad.

—Shamash, Ninib, and Nergal, as we have seen, symbolize the sun in general, and in its twofold aspects as a beneficial and a harmful ower. But, besides the destruction brought about y the fierce rays of the summer sun, Babylonia and Assyria suffered from the even greater havoc wrought by the rainstorms, accompanied by de- structive winds, during the wintry season, which lasted for almost six months.

The god who, in the systematized pantheon, personifies these winter storms is Adad, who was also known, in Assyria at least, as Ramman, i.e. ‘the thunderer.’ He bears some resemblance to the old Bel of Nippur, who, as the god of the earth and of the atmo- sphere immediately above it, has also the traits of a storm-god.

Besides Adad and Ramman, there are various other names by which the god is known (apart from numerous epithets), such as Martu, Mer, and Bur, which may be taken as indications that he likewise, just as Ishtar, Ninib, and Shamash, has absorbed the rdles of other local deities who per- sonified the wind and storm.

On seals and in sculptured scenes he is depicted as armed with the thunderbolt and lightning; and, since many of the myths of Babylonia deal with the conflict of the powers of nature, Adad is rarely absen\ in them, being generally, indeed, assigned a promi- nent role. But even the destructive winter rains and storms have their favourable aspects, since they are essential to the fructification of the earth ; hence Adad is viewed also as a god who brings blessings to the fields.

It was essential, therefore, to propitiate him in order to secure oneself against his too great violence, which would result in havoc instead of blessing. His curse was particularly powerful; and, accordingly, at the close of their inscriptions, Babylonian and Assy- rian rulers alike are found invoking Adad to bring | famine and devastation upon their enemies ky a — failure of the crops. Instead of bringing forth plants, he can cause weeds and thistles to spring | up.

Woe, therefore, to him whom Adad desires to punish! The ethical element is also introduced into the conceptions concerning Adad, and he is very often associated with Shamash as the god who punishes the wrong-doer and secures Pre 4 for one who has been injured.

Shamash and Adad appear, indced, so frequently in hymns and in oracles as ‘ the lords of justice,’ the Divine judges, esc a TRIE: —_—__— ee that one is justified in interpreting this associa- | tion in terms of a doctrine forming part of the | Babylonian theology, according to which the specifically beneficial and specifically violent mani- festations of nature were combined to give ex- pression to the view that good and evil, blessings and curses, are dealt out on the basis of justice.

RELIGION OF BABYLONIA RELIGION OF BABYLONIA 545 The consort of Adad is Shala, who, however, is merely a pale reflexion of the male deity, and plays no independent part whatsoever. She is not even as frequently mentioned by the side of he as are the consorts of some of the other gods, 6. Marduk.—The p«litical supremacy acquired by the city of Babylon c. 2250 B.c., and maintained with some interruptions, notably during the Kas- site rule (c. 1730 to 1150 B.c.)

, when the attempt was made to reinstate Bel of Nippur as the head of the pantheon, brought about such important changes in the old Babylonian pantheon that one is tempted to divide the Babylonian religion into two periods—the one prior to the supremacy of Babylon, the other after this supremacy had been secured. With Babylon as the capital of the united States of the Euphrates Valley, the advance of the local deity, Marduk, to a position at the head of the pantheon naturally followed.

Origin- ally a solar deity, and symbolizing more specifi- eally, like Ninib, the sun of the spring solstice, which triumphs over the storms of the winter season, Marduk becomes ‘the lord’ par excellence ; and this supreme position is emphasized by his actually assuming the dignity and name of Bel— hitherto the designation of the chief deity of Nippur.

Such a change involved a general shift- ing in the relationship of the gods of the old Babylonian pantheon to one another, with the result that under the influence of the priests of Babylon an entirely new theological system was evolved. Ancient myths were transformed so as to accord to Marduk the place due to him.

Im- portant acts, such as the regulation of the order of the Universe and the creation of mankind— hitherto ascribed to Bel of Nippur, to Ea of Eridu, or to a goddess Aruru—were transferred to Mar- duk. The incantation rituals were to a large ex- tent altered with a view to establishing the position of Marduk as the ultimate source of healing, of protection, and of all blessings.

The gods were represented as forming a court around their chief, hailing Marduk as their leader, and paying him homage. The hymns composed in his honour and the prayers addressed to him by the rulers embody sentiments that might be regarded as an index of a decided advance towards a monotheistic concep- tion of the Universe, and unquestionably the steady growth of the Marduk cult had its outcome in giving to the Babylonian religion a far more spiritual character than it had hitherto acquired.

hile the cults of En-lil at Nippur, of Sin at Ur and Harran, of Shamash at Sippar and Larsa, and of Ea at Eridu, were maintained, and these places continued to be regarded as religious centres of the first rank, the temple of Marduk at Babylon, known as E-sagila, i.e.

‘the lofty house,’ became the central sanctuary of the land, and around the sacred area in which it stood chapels and sanctuaries were erected, as formerly at Nippur, to all the chief gods, who could thus be worshipped in one place.

True, certain concessions were made to the traditions of the past, such as making Ea the father of Marduk; but the dependence of Marduk upon Ea involved in such a relationship was cancelled by the readiness and zeal with which Ea acknowledged the superiority of his son. The Babytonian creation story in the final form in which it has come down to us may be taken as the typical illustration of the transformation of doctrines brought about through Marduk’s advance to the head of the pantheon.

Several old nature myths have been combined in this story to form a reat ‘Marduk’ epic—a grand pean sung in his onour. The overthrow of Tiamat, the monster symbolical of the chaos that rules during the