The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria Part 45

Among other names a.s.signed to him are 'the one who knows the heart of the G.o.ds,' 'who gathers the G.o.ds together,' 'who rules in truth and justice.' In allusion again to his contest with Tiamat, he is called 'the destroyer of the enemy and of all wicked ones,' 'who frustrates their plans.'

With the help of a pun upon his having 'pierced' Tiamat; he is called Nibir, _i.e._, the planet Jupiter.[764]

Nibir be his name, who took hold of the life of Tiamat.

The course of the stars of heaven may he direct.

May he pasture all of the G.o.ds like sheep.[765]

But the climax is reached when, upon hearing what the Igigi have done, the great G.o.ds, father Bel and father Ea cheerfully bestow their own names upon Marduk.

Because he created the heavens and formed the earth 'Lord of Lands'[766] father Bel called his name.

When he heard of all the names that the Igigi bestowed Ea's liver rejoiced That they had bestowed exalted names upon his son.

"He as I--Ea be his name.

The control of my commands be entrusted to him.

To him my orders shall be transmitted."

The historical background to this transference of the name of Bel has been dwelt upon in a previous chapter.[767] This "Marduk hymn" is to justify the transference of the role of the older Bel of Nippur to the younger G.o.d Marduk. Throughout, the tablet describing the contest of Marduk with Tiamat, Marduk is called Bel,[768] and while this name is used in the generic sense of "lord," the transference of the name of Bel to Marduk is evidently introduced to account for his a.s.suming the prerogatives belonging to another G.o.d. The original 'lord' was En-lil of Nippur. The sacred significance of ancient Nippur made its patron deity the most important rival of Marduk. Bel could not be disposed of as Ea, who by virtue of his mythological relations.h.i.+ps to Marduk--a solar deity--could be retained as the father of Marduk. There was nothing left but for Marduk to take the place of Bel. The constant introduction of the epithet 'Bel' into the Tiamat story points to an older version in which Bel was the hero. In popular traditions, Bel continued to be pictured as armed with mighty weapons,[769] and, though ready to inflict severe punishment for disobedience to his commands, he engages in contests for the benefit of mankind. The earth being his special sphere of action, what more natural than that he should have had a prominent share in adapting it as a habitation for mankind. He would be directly interested in fighting the powers of darkness.

In the weapons that Marduk employs, particularly the lightning and the winds which belong to an atmospheric G.o.d rather than a solar deity, we may discern traces of the older narrative which has been combined with the Marduk-Tiamat nature myth.[770] It may be that Kingu represents Bel's particular rival. In the narrative, it will be recalled, the contest with Tiamat is sharply separated from that with Kingu and his a.s.sociates. The division that thus suggests itself between Marduk and Tiamat, on the one hand, Bel and the monsters with Kingu at their head, on the other, may certainly be termed a natural one. The solar deity Marduk disposed of the storms and rains of the winter, whereas, a G.o.d of "that which is below,"[771] _i.e._, the earth and the atmosphere immediately above the earth, would appropriately be represented as ridding the earth of the monsters in order to prepare it as a habitation for mankind. Ea was not such a serious rival to Marduk as the older Bel.

Political rivalry between Nippur and Babylonia probably contributed towards the disposition to have Marduk completely absorb the role of Bel, whereas, this rivalry being absent in the case of Eridu (the original seat of Ea wors.h.i.+p) and Babylon, the mythological relations between Ea and Marduk led, as already pointed out, in a perfectly natural way to making Marduk the son of Ea. Still, while cheerfully acknowledged by Ea as his equal, it is evident that in older traditions Ea was far superior to Marduk, and the latter replaces Ea as he does Bel. The real creator of mankind, according to certain traditions, is Ea, just as in all probabilities a third tradition existed which arose in Nippur giving to Bel that distinction. It is necessary, therefore, for Ea to declare that Marduk's name (_i.e._, his power) is the same as Ea. The alteration of the traditions is thus justified by a harmonistic theology. Marduk has triumphed over Bel and Ea. The G.o.d of Babylon reigns supreme, his sway acknowledged by those whom he supplants.

Marduk's declaration that in the event of his vanquis.h.i.+ng Tiamat he will a.s.sume authority over all the G.o.ds is thus formally confirmed. The epic closes grandiloquently:

With fifty names, the great G.o.ds According to their fifty names, proclaimed the supremacy of his course.

The compiler has added to the epic what Delitzsch appropriately designates an 'epilogue,'--a declaration of affection for Marduk. The epilogue consists of three stanzas. All mankind--royalty and subjects--are called upon to bear in mind Marduk's glorious deeds, achieved for the benefit of the world.

Let the wise and intelligent together ponder over it.

Let the father relate it and teach it to his son.[772]

To leader and shepherd[773] be it told.

Let all rejoice in the lord of G.o.ds, Marduk That he may cause his land to prosper and grant it peace.

His word is firm, his order irrevocable.

What issues from his mouth, no G.o.d can alter.

Marduk's anger, the poet says in closing, terrifies even the G.o.ds, but he is a G.o.d upon whose mercy one may rely, though he punishes the evil-doer.

Bearing in mind the general nature of the creation epic we have discussed, we must of course in our conclusions distinguish between those elements in it which reflect the intent of the compiler or compilers to glorify Marduk at the expense of other G.o.ds and such parts as bear the stamp of being generally accepted beliefs. Setting aside, therefore, the special role a.s.signed to Marduk, we find that the Babylonians never developed a theory of real beginnings. The _creatio ex nihilo_ was a thought beyond the grasp even of the schools. There was always _something_, and indeed there was always a _great deal_--as much perhaps at the beginning of things as at any other time. But there was no cosmic order. Instead of a doctrine of creation, we have a doctrine of evolution from chaos to the imposition of eternal laws. The manifestation of these laws was seen first of all in the movements of the heavenly bodies. There was a great expanse, presenting the appearance of a stretched-out curtain or a covering to which the stars and moon were attached. Along this expanse the wandering stars moved with a certain regularity. The moon, too, had its course mapped out and the sun appeared in this expanse daily, as an overseer, pa.s.sing along the whole of it. This wonderful system was the first to be perfected, and to the solar deity,[774] which seemed to control everything, was ascribed the distinction of having introduced the heavenly order. This notion we may well believe was of popular origin, though elaborated in the schools to conform to a developed astrological science.

The stars and moon never pa.s.sed beyond certain limits, and, accordingly, the view was developed which gave to the canopy of heaven fixed boundaries. At each end of the canopy was a great gate, properly guarded. Through one of these the sun pa.s.sed in rising out of the ocean, through the other it pa.s.sed out when it had run its course. Learned speculation could not improve upon this popular fancy. As the heavens had their limitations, so also the great bodies of water were kept in check by laws, which, though eternal, were yet not quite as inexorable as those controlling the heavenly bodies. The yearly overflow of the Euphrates and Tigris was too serious a matter to be overlooked, and we shall see in a following chapter[775] how this phenomenon was interpreted as a rivalry between Bel and Ea, deliberately caused by the former in anger toward mankind. Still, as a general thing, the 'deep,'

presided over by Ea, kept within the limits a.s.signed to it. The waters above the canopy were under rigid control, and the lower waters flowed around the earth and underneath it, and bordered the canopy of heaven at its two ends.

The earth itself was a vast hollow structure, erected as a "place of fertility" under the canopy of heaven and resting on the great 'deep.'

Its vegetation was the gift of the G.o.ds. 'Fertility' summed up the law fixed for the earth. Much as in the Book of Genesis, "to multiply and increase" was the order proclaimed for the life with which the earth was filled.

The creation of mankind was the last act in the great drama. a.s.signed in some traditions to Ea, in others as it would seem to Bel, the transfer of the traditions to Marduk is the deliberate work of the schools of theological thought. The essential point for us is that mankind, according to all traditions, is the product of the G.o.ds. In some form or other, this belief was popularly held everywhere. Its original form, however, is obscured beyond recognition by the theory which it is made to serve.

A second version of the course of creation[776] agrees in the main with the first one, but adds some points of interest. In this version, likewise, Marduk is a.s.signed the most important role--an evidence that it was produced under similar influences as the larger epic. So far as preserved, the second version differs from the first in its brevity and in the prominence given to such themes as the development of animal life and the growth of civilization. It fills out to a certain degree the gaps in the first version, due to the fragmentary condition of the fifth tablet and the loss of the sixth. The brevity of the second version is due in part to the fact that it is introduced into an incantation text, and, what is more, incidentally introduced.

It begins as does the larger epic with the statement regarding the period when the present phenomena of the universe were not yet in existence, but it specifies the period in a manner which gives a somewhat more definite character to the conception of this ancient time.

The bright house of the G.o.ds was not yet built on the bright place, No reed grew and no tree was formed, No brick was laid nor any brick edifice[777] reared, No house erected, no city built, No city reared, no conglomeration[778] formed.

Nippur was not reared, E-Kur[779] not erected.

Erech was not reared, E-Anna[780] not erected.

The deep[781] not formed, Eridu[782] not reared.

The bright house, the house of the G.o.ds not yet constructed as a dwelling.

The world[783] was all a sea.

Again it will be observed that neither popular nor scholastic speculation can picture the beginning of things in any other way than as an absence of things characteristic of the _order_ of the universe.

The bright[784] house of the G.o.ds corresponds to Eshara and the canopy of heaven in the first version. The G.o.ds are again identified with the stars, and it is in the heavens--the bright place--that the G.o.ds dwell.[785] The reference to the absence of vegetation agrees closely with the corresponding pa.s.sage in the larger creation epic. The limitations of the cosmological speculations of the Babylonians find a striking ill.u.s.tration in the manner in which the beginnings of human culture are placed on a level with the beginnings of heavenly and terrestrial phenomena. Nippur, Erech, and Eridu, which are thus shown to be the oldest religious centers of the Euphrates Valley, were indissolubly a.s.sociated in the minds of the people with the beginning of order in the universe. Such was the antiquity of those cities as seats of the great G.o.ds, Bel, Ishtar, and Ea, that the time when they did not exist was not differentiated from the creation of the heavens and of plant life. This conception is more clearly emphasized by the parallelism implied between Eridu and the 'deep.' The 'formation' of Apsu corresponds to the 'structure' made by Marduk according to the first version, as the seat of Ea. The waters were not created by Marduk, but they were confined by him within a certain s.p.a.ce. In a vague way, the 'deep' itself rested in a vast tub. The waters flowed freely and yet not without limitation.

The contest with Tiamat is not referred to in this second version, and this may be taken as an indication that the 'nature' myth was not an ingredient part of cosmological speculations, but only introduced into the first version because of its a.s.sociations with Marduk.

The appearance of dry land is described somewhat vaguely as follows:

There was a channel[786] within the sea.

At that time Eridu was erected, E-Sagila[787] was built, E-Sagila in the midst of the 'deep,' where the G.o.d of the glorious abode[788] dwells.

The mention of the channel appears to imply that the waters were permitted to flow off in a certain direction.

The conception would then be similar to the view expressed in Genesis, where the dry land appears in consequence of the waters being 'gathered'

into one place.[789] The temple at Eridu is regarded as synonymous with the city, as the temples E-Kur and E-Anna are synonymous with Nippur and Erech respectively. Eridu at the head of the Persian Gulf, which for the Babylonians was the beginning of the great 'Okeanos' surrounding the world,[790] is the first dry land to appear and hence the oldest place in the world. At this point in the narrative a line is interpolated which clearly betrays the lateness of the version. The mention of E-Sagila suggests to a Babylonian, naturally, the great temple of Marduk in the city of Babylon--'the lofty house.' Local pride and the desire to connect Babylon with the beginning of things leads to the insertion:

Babylon was reared, E-Sagila built.

With this mention of Babylon, the connecting link is established which leads easily to the glorification of Babylon and Marduk. The thought once introduced is not abandoned. The rest of the narrative, so far as preserved, is concerned with Marduk. Eridu alone is beyond his jurisdiction. Everything else, vegetation, mankind, rivers, animals, and all cities, including even Nippur and Erech, are Marduk's work.

The Anunnaki[791] he[792] created together And bestowed glorious epithets upon the glorious city, the seat dear to their heart.

The 'glorious city' is Eridu, though the compiler would have us apply it to Babylon.

With the founding of Eridu, a limit was fixed for the 'deep.' The rest of the dry land is formed according to the theory of the writer by the extension of this place.

Marduk constructed an enclosure around the waters, He made dust and heaped it up within the enclosure.[793]

The _navete_ of the conception justifies us in regarding it as of popular origin, incorporated by the theologians into their system.

But this land is created primarily for the benefit of the G.o.ds.

That the G.o.ds might dwell in the place dear to their heart.

Naturally not all of the G.o.ds are meant,--perhaps only the Anunnaki,--for the great G.o.ds dwell in heaven. The creation of mankind is next described, and is boldly ascribed to Marduk.

Mankind he created.[794]

In the following line, however, we come across a trace again of an older tradition, which has been embodied in the narrative in a rather awkward manner. a.s.sociated with Marduk in the creation of mankind is a G.o.ddess Aruru.

The G.o.ddess Aruru created the seed of men together with him.[795]

We encounter this G.o.ddess Aruru in the Gilgamesh epic,[796] where she is represented as creating a human being,--Eabani; and, curiously enough, she creates him in agreement with the Biblical tradition, out of a lump of clay. It has already been pointed out that according to one tradition Ea is the creator of mankind,[797] and the conjecture has also been advanced that at Nippur, Bel was so regarded. In Aruru we have evidently a figure to whom another tradition, that arose in some district, ascribed the honor of having created mankind. The Gilgamesh story is connected with the city of Erech, and it is probable that the tale--at least in part--originated there. It becomes plausible, therefore, to trace the tradition ascribing the creation of man to Aruru to the same place. A pa.s.sage in the Deluge story, which forms an episode of the Gilgamesh epic, adds some force to this conjecture. After the dreadful deluge has come, Ishtar breaks out in wild lament that mankind, her offspring, has perished: "What I created, where is it?"[798] She is called 'the mistress of the G.o.ds,'[799] and if Jensen is correct in an ingenious restoration of a defective text,[800] Aruru is given the same epithet in a lexicographical tablet. The Ishtar occurring in the Gilgamesh story is the old Ishtar of Erech. I venture to suggest, therefore, that Aruru and Ishtar of Erech are one and the same personage. Ishtar is, of course, as has been pointed out, merely a generic name[801] for the 'great G.o.ddess' wors.h.i.+pped under many forms.

The more specific name by which Ishtar of Erech was known was Nana, but Nana again is nothing but an epithet, meaning, as the Babylonians themselves interpreted it, the 'lady' _par excellence_. Have we perhaps in Aruru the real name of the old G.o.ddess of Erech? At all events, the occurrence of Aruru in this second 'creation' story points to her as belonging to the district of which Erech was the center. In this way, each one of the three most ancient sacred towns of Babylonia would have its 'creator,'--Bel in Nippur, Ea in Eridu, and Aruru in Erech. The chief deity of Erech, it will be recalled, was always a G.o.ddess,--a circ.u.mstance that supports the a.s.sociation of Aruru with that place.