Religion of babylonia and assyria

Introduction, p. 5328. i Tue Sources. Indirect testimony of ancient writers now superseded by that of the monuments, p. 582, ii. EARLY History OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA. 1. A plurality of rival city-States in early times, p. 533 2. Union of northern and southern Babylonia by Ham- murabi into one empire, with Babylon as centre p. 534%, : 8. Kassite and other dynasties, p. 584>, 532 RELIGION OF BABYLONIA 4 Rise of Assyria, p. 584», 6. Marduk the patron deity of Babylon and head of the Babylonian pantheon, p. 534». 6. Similar position of Ashur in the Assyrian pantheon, , 5358, fi. RELATION oF THE CULTURE AND RELIGION OF ASSYRIA TO THOSE OF BABYLONIA. Assurbanipal’s library, 5352, iv. OriGiIN fe BaBYLONIAN OuLTURE. The Sumerian question, p. 535», v. THE BABYLONO-ASSYRIAN PANTHEON. Introduction, p. 586», A. THE CHIEF DEITIES. 1. Anu, Bel, and Ea, p. 5388, . Ishtar, p. 540>, . Sin, p. 541d, . Shamash, Ninib, Ne . 5420, Adad, p. 5440, oae . Marduk, p. 5454, . Nebo, p. 545». . Girru-Nusku, p. 5468, 9. Ashur, p. 546>, B. MINOR DEITIES. Lugal-banda, Nin-sun, Nin-mar, Nidaba, Ka-di, Bau, Dumu-zi, Shid, Nin-agid-khadu, Nin-dara, ee Nae Dun-shagga, Dumu-zi-zuab, p. 547» ff. ©. COMBINED INVOCATION OF DEITIES. 1. Inscriptions on boundary stones, p. 5498, 2, The alleged Babylonian ‘monotheism,’ p. 5503, vi. THE Revicious LirkRATURE OF BABYLONIA. . Early origin of the Religious Literature, p. 550%. . nae) ora played in Babylonian religion by demons, . a, Snchoie on rituals, p. 551, The ‘ Maklu’ series, p. 552, 4. Omens and oracles, p. 5564, 5. Prayers and hymna, p. 563>, 6. Penitential Psalms, p. 5664, 7. The Babylonian Cosmology, p. 5678. 8. Life after death: story of (i.) Adapa, p. 5738, (ii.) Nergal and Eresh-kigal, p. 574», (iif, Tahtar’s descent to the under world, p. 5758. vii. TEMPLES AND CULT, p. 5778, Summary and General Estimate, p. 581, Literature, p. 5833. At the outset of an account of the religion of Babylonia and Assyria one is impressed by the circumstance that, with the single exception of the religion of the ancient Hebrews, there is no one of the religions of antiquity known to us that enables us to trace more satisfactorily the growth of re- ligious ideas among a people, from a crude poly- theism based on nature worship and accompanied by primitive rites, to a striking approach towards a monotheistic conception of the Universe, with a highly complicated priestly organization, and an elaborated theological system. There is also no other ancient religion—not even that of Egypt— which may lay claim to having exercised so large a measure of influence over surrounding nations, shaping as it did the myths and legends of the Hebrews, Phoenicians, and Greeks alike, showing its traces also in the religion of Egypt, and con- tributing in various ways to the systems of religious thought predaced in the ancient East and West. Hardly less remarkable is the an- tiquity of the religion of Babylonia and Assyria, which became an important factor in the religious history of mankind as early at least as the third millennium B,C., and practically finished its réle before Hebrew monotheism asserted itself. These considerations fully justify the efforts put forth by the past two generations of scholars and continued by the present generation in the task of recovering for science the long-lost and forgotten sources for the study of this religion. And while ve are not yet in a position to follow in detail the history of the movement, in connexion with the general culture that took its rise in the Euphrates Valley and subsequently spread northwards to the district more properly known as Assyria, more than enough material is forthcoming to furnish ‘he basis for a satisfactory account of the pan- theon, of the doctrines and rites, and of the literary jroductions that are an outcome of the spirit per- vading the religion itself. More than this, we ‘an with measurable certainty distinguish be- twee certain periods in the history of the religion, RELIGION OF BABYLONIA and can indicate political and intellectual factors that contributed to the gradual transformation of certain doctrines, while in a general way the literary process involved in the production of rituals, epics, myths, and legends can now be determined. i. THE SouRCcES.—Until the middle of the 19th cent. our sources for the religion of Babylonia ) and Assyria were a few scattered notices in a number of classical and other authors, notably Herodotus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, and in the compilation of the Jewish Rabbis known as the Talmud, and some incidental though valuable allusions in the historical and prophetical portions of the Old Testament. Through the excavations so successfully conducted by French, English, American, and German explorers in the mounds scattered along the banks of the Tigris and in the Euphrates Valley, since the year 1842, these notices and allusions have been relegated to the rank of secondary sources, and, instead, we have now, as primary sources, the unearthed temples and palaces of Babylonia and Assyria, with their statues, furnishings, and inscriptions, and, above all, the abundant literary archives found in the mounds. The royal library, more particularly, collected by king Assurbanipal (668-625 B.C.) in his palace at Nineveh and unearthed by Layard and Rassam (1849-1854),+ contained thousands of tablets with contents of a directly religious char- acter—incantations, omens, myths, legends, hymns, prayers, and entire rituals, while the affiliation existing in Babylonia and Assyria between re- ligion on the one hand, and astronomy, medicine, and even law, on the other, also renders other pore of the library, which ranges over numerous ranches of literary activity, valuable as sources for the study of the Babylono-Assyrian religion. The library at Nineveh, though dating—at Teast for the greater part—from the days of Assur- banipal, represents a considerably older literature ; for, as the king frequently informs us in the sub- scriptions of the tablets, the collection was formed by having copies made through his scribes from originals that existed in Babylonian archives. This statement carries with it the important corollary that Assurbanipal’s library represents the remains of a literature produced not in Assyria but in Babylonia; and, in confirmation of this, many tablets have been found in the course of excavations in mounds in Babylonia proper, which are either duplicates of those in the Nineveh collection, or supplement them. The character of the writing, apart from other evidence, on some of these Babylonian ‘originals’ would justify us in carrying the literary activity of the scribes of the south back to about two millenniums before the days of Assurbanipal, while the discovery+ of extensive literary archives in connexion with the American excavations at Nippur, the tablets of which are all said to be earlier than the third millennium before our era, warrants an even earlier date for the beginnings of Babylonian literature. See the bibliographical references attached to articles Assyria and BasyLont4 in vol. i., to which must now be added (1) Rogers’ History of Babylonia and Assyria (New York and London, 1900), which contains (vol. i. pp. 1-258) the best detailed account of the excavations; (2) Hilprecht’s Haplorations in Bible Lands (Phila. 1903), pp. 3-577, supplementing Rogers in some particulars, and containing a full though severely criticised account of the excavations at Nippurs and (3) the Mittheilungen der Deutschen Orient. Gesellschaft (1898 to date), furnishing regular reports of the German excavations in and atyund the city of Babylon, which are to be extended also to other wounds in Babylonia and Assyria. + For an account of this library, see, e.g., Kaulen, Assyrien und Babylonien (5th ed., Freiburg, 1899, ch. vii.); Menant, La Bibtiotheque du Palais de Ninive (Paris, 1880); and, above all, Bezold’s invaluable catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets im the Kouyunjik Collection (London, 1889-99, 5 vols.). tSee Hilprecht’s Laplorations in Bible Lunds (Philadelphia and Edinburgh, 1903), pp. 511-532. RELIGION OF BABYLONIA Roughly speaking, all the more important literary productions in Assurbanipal’s library were in existence before the year 2000 B.c., while many are no doubt Eideatly older. In the south, where the religious literature grew up in connexion with the activity of the Baby- lonian temples, the latter formed the natural depositories for these collections, just as in the temples, as the courts of justice and as the centres of astronomical and medical science, the official legal archives and the extensive scientific col- lections were kept. It is characteristic of the general relationship of Assyria to Babylonian culture that the Assyrian monarch was not only obliged to import his literature from the south, but in doing so made the palace the depository for this foreign product instead of the temple. The zeal which animated him in sending his scribes to ransack the libraries of the south was neither literary nor religious, but due to a political and in part also to a personal ambition to emphasize, by a transfer thither of the culture of the south, the complete ascendency of Assyria as the dominant power, and as the legatee of the civilization that arose in Babylonia. Along with this civilization, the religion of the south was also carried to the north; and while, in so far as the pantheon is con- cerned, the Assyrians manifested a certain origin- ality, and while the northern scribes also made contributions to the religious literature, in all but minor details the views and doctrines em- bodied in these productions are identical with those developed in the theological and religious centres of the south. Thus for all practical purposes the religion of Assyria may be regarded as identical with that of Babylonia. This identity extends to the cult, which naturally presented variations in each centre of both the south and the north, but which was everywhere based upon the same conceptions of the relationship between man and the higher Powers, and reflected the same general religious doctrines. iii EARLY HiIsToRY OF BABYLONIA AND AssyRIA.—As a preliminary to an understanding of the religion of Babylonia and Assyria, it is essential to have clearly before us the general course taken by the history of these two countries. 1. The striking feature in the earliest period to which we can trace it, is.the frequent change in the position of the political centres. We see the Euphrates Valley at this time divided into a vary- ing number of States or principalities, at rivalry with one another, now the one, now the other exercising a certain supremacy over the whole district, without, however, bringing it into real subjection ; while, on the other hand, for indetinite periods several of these States occupy an equal position of importance and prominence side by side, and even enter into compacts with one an- other. The various States centre each around a city, and the growth of the State is essenti- ally the extension of that city. The political importance thus given to the leading towns of ancient Babylonia is further enhanced by the religious significance which is in close union with sheir political advance ; for the deity presiding over & place shares, in accordance with the general view prevailing in antiquity, the fortunes of his subjects. The god, the place of his worship, and his worshippers, are in inseparable contact. This state of affairs can now be traced back, thanks chiefly to the results of the excavations at Telloh and Nippur, to about 3500 B.c., though it should be added that the chronology beyond 2500 B.C. is still quite uncertain. Hence we can only deal in reund numbers for the earlier periods, and wndeed, according to some scholars, we are not RELIGION OF BABYLONIA 53% justified in passing much beyond 3000 B.c. for the date of the earliest inscriptions as yet found. In this earliest period known to us we find Eridu, Shirpurla (or Sirgulla), Ur, Gishban, Nippur, Erech, Larsa, and Isin (or Nisin) among the cities of southern Babylonia occupying a prominent position. In the northern portion, again, lay Kish, Cuthah, Agade, Sippar, and, youngest of all, Babylon. From the testimony of the in- scriptions no certain conclusions can be drawn as to the relative age of these centres, for naturally the oldest written document presup- poses a long anterior political history as well as a history of civilization, during which period an important réle may have been played by cities that had disappeared from the horizon before monumental evidence begins; while others that appear to occupy an inferior position may have enjoyed a high degree of supremacy at a time for which no material is as yet at our disposal. Thus we have every reason to believe that a town Eridu, which lay on the Persian Gulf, must at one time have had control over a considerable section of southern Babylonia, since the cult of the patron deity of that place—the god Ea—sur- vives all the vicissitudes of political fortunes. Down to the latest period of the Babylonian re- ligion, Ea retains in the pantheon a lace that is unique and almost inexplicable, except on the sup- position that the political importance of the place gave the god his impregnable position. Similarly, while there are other cities in the oldest period that appear to be politically more powerful than Nippur, the chief god of the latter yields to none in the honours accorded to him, He is not only invoked by the rulers of other centres, but becomes known as Bel, ‘the lord’ par excellence ; and, long after Nippur has passed into the background of Babylonian history, the old Bel retains his place as the second member in a triad that summed up for Babylonian theologians the quintessence of Divine control of the Universe in the largest sense. Unless totally different conditions prevailed in the period which is still beyond our ken, from those which characterize the relationship between poli- tical position and religious anes during the entire period for which we now have direct sources at our command, a political predominance of Nippur must likewise have preceded the fame and rank acquired by its patron deity. The precise order of supremacy exercised by the various political centres has not yet been deter- mined with that degree of certainty which would enable one to speak with perfect definiteness. It is still a matter of doubt whether the seat of the oldest Babylonian ruler at present known to us, En-shag- kush-anna, was Erech or Shirpurla, though the probabilities are in favour of the latter. The few brief inscriptions that we have from him were found at Nippur, and give expression to the king’s homage to En-lil or Bel, while his title ‘lord of Kengi’ points to control over a large district—per- haps the whole of southern Babylonia. The most serious rival to En-shag-kush-anna was the ruler of Kish in northern Babylonia, and it would appear that not long after the days of En-shag-kush-anna Shirpurla enters upon a period of dependency upon Kish ; its rulers no longer call themselves kings, but patesis, i.e. ‘governors.’ With some inter- ruptions, during which the former conditions are for a time restored, this state of things continues until Kish is obliged to yield its supremacy in turn to other places, first to a centre Gishban, situated not far from Shirpurla—one of whose rulers, Lugal. zaggisi, calls himself ‘king of the world,’ and claims sovereignty from the Persian Gulf to the Mediter- See Winckler in Helmolt’s History of the World (1998), vol. iii. pp. 8-10. e 534 RELIGION OF BABYLONIA ranean. The glory of Gishban, however, appears to have been of short duration, and we next hear of the kings of Agade, to the north of Kish, extend- ing their rule far into the south, and including in their domain both Nippur and Shirpurla in the south. The most famous of these rulers of Agade were Sargon and his son Naram-Sin, the fame of whose exploits, involving military expedi- tions to the distant West, survived to a late period, and, becoming enveloped in myth, gave to Sargon more particularly a semi-legendary character. Of the oldest history of Erech we as yet know little. The names of a few of her rulers whose date falls about or before 3000 B.c. are known, and some of their exploits, which show that this centre succeeded in maintaining its independence, without, however, attaining, within the period for which material is available, to a position of supremacy, except possibly for a short time. On the other hand, the prominence belonging to the chief goddess of the place, Nan&, who retains an independent position down to the latest Assyrian period (despite the general tendency in both Babylonia and Assyria to consolidate the various goddesses worshipped at different centres in one great goddess, who becomes known as Ishtar), is again an important testimony to the part that Erech as a centre must have played in the political life of southern Babylonia at an early period— erhaps earlier even, as in the case of Eridu and Nipper, than the date of our oldest sources. Much more satisfactory is our knowledge of another important centre of southern Babylonia, Ur, whose existence can also be traced back to about 3000 B.c. Its kings about this time secured control over Shirpurla. While the king- dom of Ur, with a frequent change of dynasties, maintains itself down to c. 2600 B.C., it was obliged at times to yield in rank to other cities— at one period to Isin, probably to the north of Erech—some of whose rulers (c. 2700-2500 B.C.) claim control over Ur, Nippur, Eridu, and Erech, and later to a centre, Larsa, which, for a short time at least (c. 2300 B.C.), succeeds in bringing the kingdom of Ur under its immediate control. 2. A new era of Babylonian history opens with the rise of a dynasty in the city of Babylon itself, of which until c. 2300 B.c. we hear nothing at all. Its position in the north is significant as pointing to the gradual shifting of the real centre of the entire Euphrates district in this direction. The sixth member of this dynasty, Hammurabi (¢. 2250 B.C.), succeeded in accomplishing the great task of uniting northern and southern Babylonia under one sovereignty, and it is only from his time onwards that we can properly speak of a Baby- lonian empire. True, efforts were made from time, to time by the southern districts—comprised under the term Chaldwa—to secure their independence, and the New Babylonian empire, which represents the last, and in some respects the greatest, effort of the Euphrates Valley to rise to a position as a world- empire, was founded by Chaldeans; but, amidst all the vicissitudes of the seventeen centuries following Hammurabi, Babylon maintains its position as the capital of the country, while the old centres, Eridu, Nippur, Ur, Erech, Larsa, Sippar, retain their im- portance as religious centres merely, or, as in the zase of Shirpurla, Kish, Gishban, Agade, and Isin, disappear from the foreground of history entirely. We are able to distinguish a large number of dynasties ruling with Babylon as a centre from c. 2400 to 539 B.c. Not all of these, however, are of Babylonian origin. Indeed, the very first dynasty to which the position of Babylon as the permanent centre of the Euphrates Valley is due, represents a foreign invasion of the country from the interior or the western coast of Arabia, and RELIGION OF BABYLONIA ee marks the triumph of a migratory movement from this direction that had probably been going on for some time before the dénowement is reached under Hammurabi, c. 2250 B.c. The successors of Hammurabi maintain their supremacy till e. 2100 B.C., when they are forced to yield to invaders who appear to have come likewise from the south. 3. About 400 years later, foreigners from the east, who call themselves Kassites, obtain posses- sion of the Babylonian throne, and maintain their supremacy for a period of 576 years (c. 1730 to c. 1150 B.C.); and, although the Kassite rulers manifest particular devotion to Nippur and its deity, Babylon still remains the political centre and the seat of government. At last the Kassites are driven out, and native Babylonians, hailing, as it would seem, from the ancient centre of Isin, mount the throne. 4. From this time onwards internal disturbances and the pressure from the north (where meanwhile a powerful kingdom had established itself, with its centre alternately at Ashur, Calah, and finally Nineveh) are the two factors that determine the changes that the south undergoes in its rulers. About the middle of the 13th cent. the relation- ship with Assyria,—as this northern kingdom was called,—which had at first been on the whole of a peaceable character, became hostile, and it was soon apparent that the more vigorous northern kingdom seriously threatened the older culture of the south. The steady advance of the Assyrian power, despite periods of retrogression, goes paré passu with the decline of Babylonia, until at the close of the 12th cent. an Assyrian ruler, Tiglath- pileser I., reduces Babylonia for a time to the rank of an Assyrian vassal, though it is significant that southern Babylonia or Chaldwa does not come under Assyrian sway. On the contrary, this latter district —divided once more into a number of States, loosely united to one another—maintains a large measure of independence, and at most is forced to pay tribute to Assyria during certain periods. On the whole, however, the political star of the south sinks behind the horizon, and only as the glory of Assyria herself is eclipsed by temporary discomfitures to her military ambitions or by internal dissensions, does Babylonia regain a portion of her former rank. If, despite this general condition of dependence upon the north, Babylonia at least enjoyed the privilege of having native rulers on the throne—with some excep- tional periods, when it became a prey to invaders from the south or east, or when the Assyrian kings forced their choice (some favourite general, or their sons or brothers) upon the Babylonians, or in some cases themselves assumed the reins of government,—this was due, in the first instance, to the intellectual and commercial superiority of the south, which could not be set aside by mere force of arms; and, secondly, to the respect inspired by the religious sanctuaries of the south, to which the Assyrians were as fervently attached as the Baby- lonians, if for no other reason than because of the disasters that they dreaded in case of any offence offered to the great gods of the south,—whose position had in the course of millenniums become independent of the political kaleidoscope. 5. The union of the Babylonian States had defi- nitely secured for the patron deity of the city of Babylon —the god Marduk—his position as the head of the pantheon ; and, though attempts were made at times to set Marduk aside in favour of some other god,—Nebo, the god of Borsippa (opposite Babylon), or the old Bel of Nippur, or Shamash, the sun-god of Sippar,—they did not succeed in doing more than temporarily eclipsing the glory of Marduk, who on the whole maintained his position down to the fall of the New Babylonian empire. It is signifi- RELIGION OF BABYLONIA cant that, when Cyrus entered Babylon in triumph in the autumn of B.C. 539, the first act of the conqueror was to pay his devotion to Marduk, as whose deputy he claims to act. This commanding position of Marduk in the pantheon is the most notable feature, from the religious point of view, of the period following upon seein It opens & new era in the religious history of Baby- lonia, and forms a convenient dividing line between the oldest and the second period in this history. That it was brought about through a political act, is an illustration of the close relationship in Babylonia and Assyria between political and seligious conditions, upon which we have dwelt. With Marduk as the-head of the pantheon, it was necessary to regulate the position of the other Sm of the great religious centres towards him. he older attempts of the theologians to systema- tize the pantheon had to be re-shaped in accordance with the state of affairs created by the acknow- tedgment of Babylon as the centre of government for the entire Euphrates Valley. The old myths and legends, which even before Auraurabis days nad been reduced to writing, were re-shaped so as to accord to Marduk the glory and rank due to him, Older gods, of whom stories were related, had to make way for Marduk, and this was done even at the risk of interfering with the original meaning of the myths, The subsequent degradation of Babylonia to a position of greater or lesser dependence upon Assyria did not affect the position of Marduk, or the theological system based upon it. The kings of Assyria, when they came to Rabyton, paid their homage to Marduk; they made no effort to put their chief deity—Ashur—in Marduk’s place, and at most ventured to place the former by the side of the latter in their invocations; and, when the New Babylonian empire was founded by Chaldeans, the rulers, though the two most important repre- sentatives of them bore names compounded with the god Nebo (Nabopolassar, Nebuchadregzar), vied with their predecessors in manifestations of devo- tion to the great Marduk. The new city of Babylon reared by them was essentially Marduk’s metropolis, 6. Turning to the north, we encounter the same close bearing of the political development upon the cult. The rulers of Assyria, the earliest of whom known to us may be placed c. 1800 B.C., set out as patesis or ‘ governors’ of the city of Ashur, situated on the Tigris; and it is the god of this place—likewise known as Ashur—who advances in rank with the progress of Assyrian arms. But, while Marduk remains attached to the place where his cult originated, Ashur follows the shifting of the capital of Assyria; and, whether the seat of government is at Calah or at Nineveh, it is Ashur who continues in the new capital his abode, as well as his guidance of the kings and of their armies. Parallel, therefore, to the supremacy of Marduk in the south, we have Ashur standing at the head of the pantheon in the north, from the earliest period to which Assyrian history can be traced back * down to the fall of Nineveh in 606 B.C. ; and just as in the south the position of the other gods is regulated with reference to Marduk, so in the north the priests of Ashur engage in a work of systematization which results in estab- lishing a court of deities grouped around Ashur as their king and leader. iii. RELATION OF THE CULTURE AND RELIGION