The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria Part 9

Babylon, however, is the beloved city of Marduk, and upon its beautification and improvement Hammurabi expends his chief energy. Such are the endearing terms in which he speaks of his G.o.d, as to give one the impression that, when thinking of Marduk, the king for the moment loses sight of the existence of other G.o.ds. The most striking tribute, however, that is paid to Marduk in the period of Hammurabi is his gradual a.s.sumption of the role played by the old En-lil or Bel of Nippur, once the head of the Babylonian pantheon. This identification is already foreshadowed in the t.i.tle _belu rabu_, _i.e._, 'great lord,'

which Hammurabi is fond of bestowing upon Marduk. It is more clearly indicated in an inscription of his son, Samsu-iluna, who represents Bel, 'the king of heaven and earth,' as transferring to Marduk, the 'first-born son of Ea,' rulers.h.i.+p over 'the four regions,'--a phrase that at this time had already a.s.sumed a much wider meaning than its original portent. In the religious literature of this age, which reflects the same tendency, Bel expressly transfers his t.i.tle 'lord of the lands'[119] to Marduk, while Ea likewise pays homage to his son, declaring that the latter's 'name' shall also be Ea. The transference of the name, according to Babylonian notions, is equivalent to a transference of power. As a consequence, Bel and Marduk are blended into one personage, Marduk becoming known as Bel-Marduk, and finally, the first part of the compound sinking to the level of a mere adjective, the G.o.d is addressed as 'lord Marduk,' or 'Marduk, the lord.' The old Bel is entirely forgotten, or survives at best in conventional a.s.sociation with Anu and Ea, as a member of the ancient triad.

It has been satisfactorily shown[120] that Marduk was originally a solar deity. His a.s.sociation with Babylon, therefore, must be viewed in the same light as the a.s.sociation of Sin, the moon-G.o.d, with the city of Ur, and the a.s.sociation of Shamash, the sun-G.o.d, with Larsa and Sippar. Just as in the latter places, other cults besides that of the patron deity prevailed, so in Babylon it was merely the prominence which, for some reason, the wors.h.i.+p of the sun-G.o.d acquired, that led to the closer identification of this particular deity with the city, until he became viewed as the G.o.d _par excellence_ of the city, and the city itself as his favorite residence. As long as Larsa and Sippar retained a prominence overshadowing that of Babylon, the sun cult at the latter place could attract but little attention. Only as Babylon began to rival, and finally to supersede, other centers of sun-wors.h.i.+p, could Marduk be brought into the front rank of prevailing cults. It may appear strange, in view of this original character of Marduk, that neither in the inscriptions of Hammurabi, nor in those of his successors, is there any direct reference to his qualities as a solar deity. However, in the ideographs composing his name, which are to be interpreted as 'child of the day,'[121] and in the zodiacal system, as perfected by the Babylonian scholars, there lurk traces of the G.o.d's solar origin, and beyond this, perhaps, in certain set phrases, surviving in prayers addressed to him. The explanation for this absence of solar traits is to be sought in the peculiar political conditions that resulted in bringing Marduk into such prominence. Hammurabi was preeminently a conquering king. He waged war on all sides, and carried on his campaigns for many years. When he finally succeeded in bringing both North and South Babylonia under his sway, it still required constant watching to keep his empire together. His patron G.o.d, therefore, the protector of the city, whose jurisdiction was thus spread over a larger extent of territory than that of any other deity, must have appeared to Hammurabi and his followers, as well as to those vanquished by him, essentially as a warrior. It is he who hands over to kings the land and its inhabitants. The fact that he was a solar deity would become obscured by the side of the more potent fact that, as G.o.d of the city of Babylon, his sway was supreme. He therefore became Marduk, the 'great lord.' The epithets bestowed upon him naturally emphasized the manner in which he manifested himself, and these epithets, therefore, referred to his power, to his supremacy over other G.o.ds, to his favor shown to his wors.h.i.+ppers by granting them unprecedented glory; and since the political supremacy remained undisputed for many centuries, no opportunity was afforded for ever reverting to the attributes of the G.o.d as a solar deity. He remained--if one may so express it--a political deity. The political significance of Babylon permitted only one phase of his nature to be brought forward.

In the religious texts, however, preserving as they do the more primitive conceptions by the side of the most advanced ones, some traces of other attributes besides prowess in war are found. By virtue of his character as a solar deity, Marduk, like the orb personified through him, is essentially a life-giving G.o.d. Whereas Shamash is viewed as the 'judge of mankind,' Marduk becomes the G.o.d who restores the dead to life, though he shares this power with Shamash, Gula, Nebo, and Nergal.

But after all, even in the religious texts, his more prominent role is that of a ruler,--a magnified king. He protects the weak, releases the imprisoned, and makes great the small. He controls by his powerful hand the mountains and rivers and fountains. He is the counsellor who guides the decrees, even of the great G.o.ds, Anu and Bel. On his head rests a crown with high horns, as the symbol of rulers.h.i.+p. As the supreme ruler, life and death are in his hands. Blessings flow from him; and of awe-inspiring appearance, his wrath inflicts severe punishment on the evil-doer.

It is a noteworthy circ.u.mstance, and characteristic of the phase of the Babylonian religion which we are considering, that the extension of Marduk's political sway did not lead to the establishment of Marduk cults outside of Babylon. One reason for this was that, in accordance with the political conceptions, dwelt upon in the introductory chapter, the empire of Babylonia was regarded simply as an extension of the city of Babylon. Babylonia, therefore, being identified in theory with the city of Babylon, there was no need of emphasizing the power of Marduk by establis.h.i.+ng his cult elsewhere. Within the limits of Babylon, however, there might be more than one shrine to Marduk, and accordingly, when the city was extended so as to include the place known as Borsippa, a temple to Marduk was also erected there. The temple on the east side of the Euphrates, known as E-Sagila, 'the lofty house,' was the older, and dates probably from the beginnings of Babylon itself; that in Borsippa, known as E-Zida, 'the true house,' seems to have been founded by Hammurabi.[122] While it was not in accord with the dignity attaching to Marduk that his cult should be established outside of the precincts of the city of Babylon, it would only add to his glory to have the wors.h.i.+p of other deities grouped around his own sanctuary. Such a course would emphasize the central position of Marduk among the G.o.ds, and accordingly, we find that the chief G.o.ds of Babylonia are represented by shrines within the sacred precincts of his great temples at Babylon and Borsippa. First among these shrines is that of Marduk's consort,

Sarpanitum.

Neither Hammurabi nor his immediate successor make mention of Sarpanitum, and at no time does she appear independently of Marduk. The glory of Marduk did not permit of any rival, and so his consort becomes merely his shadow,--less significant than most of the consorts of the male deities. Her name, signifying the 'silvery bright one,' evidently stands in some connection with the solar character of her consort.

Popular etymology, by a play upon the name, made of Sarpanitum (as though Zer-banit) the 'offspring-producing' G.o.ddess. She had her shrine within the precincts of the great temple E-Sagila, but we are not told of any special honors being paid her, nor do we find her invoked to any extent in incantations or in votive inscriptions. Agumkakrimi, or Agum (as he is also called), who rules about five centuries after Hammurabi, speaks of having recovered the image of Sarpanitum, and that of Marduk, out of the hands of a mountainous people living to the northwest of Babylonia, in the district between the Bay of Iskenderun and the Euphrates. The capture of the statues of the patron G.o.ds points to a great humiliation which Babylon must have encountered. Upon receiving a favorable omen from the sun-G.o.d, Agum undertakes the task of bringing Marduk and Sarpanitum back to their seats. Their temples, too, at Babylon appear to have suffered damage during the invasion of the city, and accordingly the statues are placed in the temple of Shamash pending the restoration of E-Sagila. Agum dwells at length upon the handsome garments and head-dress, studded with precious stones, that he prepared for the G.o.d and his consort. In all this description, one feels that it is Marduk for whom the honors are intended, and that Sarpanitum is of less than secondary importance,--s.h.i.+ning merely by the reflected glory of her great liege, whose presence in Babylon was essential to a restoration of Babylon's position.

There are reasons for believing, however, that Sarpanitum once enjoyed considerable importance of her own, that prior to the rise of Marduk to his supreme position, a G.o.ddess was wors.h.i.+pped in Babylon, one of whose special functions it was to protect the progeny while still in the mother's womb. A late king of Babylon, the great Nebuchadnezzar, appeals to this attribute of the G.o.ddess. To her was also attributed the possession of knowledge concealed from men. Exactly to what cla.s.s of deities she belonged, we are no longer able to say, but it is certain that at some time, probably about the time of Hammurabi, an amalgamation took place between her and another G.o.ddess known as Erua,[123]--a name that etymologically suggests the idea of 'begetting.'[124] She is represented as dwelling in the temple of E-Zida at Borsippa, and was originally the consort of Nabu, the chief G.o.d of this place.[125] A late ruler of Babylon--Shamash-shumukin--calls her the queen of the G.o.ds, and declares himself to have been nominated by her to lord it over men.

A factor in this amalgamation of Erua and Sarpanitum was the close a.s.sociation brought about in Babylon between Marduk and a G.o.d whose seat was originally at the Persian Gulf--Ea. The cult of this G.o.d, as we shall see, survived in Babylonia through all political vicissitudes, and so did that of some other minor water-deities that belong to this region. Among these was Erua, whose wors.h.i.+p centered in one of the islands in or near the gulf. Wisdom and the life-giving principle were two ideas a.s.sociated in the Babylonian mind with water. As inferior in power to Ea, Erua appears to have been regarded as the daughter of Ea, and such was the sway exercised by Ea over men's minds, that even the Babylonian schoolmen did not venture to place Marduk over Ea, but pictured him as Ea's son. Erua, however, was not prominent enough to become Marduk's mother, and so she was regarded as his consort. In this capacity she was a.s.sociated with Sarpanitum, and the two were merged into one personality. It rarely happens that all the links in such a process are preserved, but in this case, the epithets borne by Sarpanitum-Erua, such as 'lady of the deep,' 'mistress of the place where the fish dwell,' 'voice of the deep,' point the way towards the solution of the problem involved in the amalgamation of Erua and Sarpanitum.[126]

Nabu.

The G.o.d Nabu (or Nebo) enjoys a great popularity in the Babylonian cult, but he owes his prestige to the accident that, as G.o.d of Borsippa, he was a.s.sociated with Marduk. Indeed, his case is a clear instance of the manner in which Marduk overshadows all his fellows. Only as they are brought into some manner of relations.h.i.+p with him do they secure a position in the pantheon during this second period of Babylonian history. Since Nabu's position in the pantheon, once established, incurs but little change, it will be proper, in treating of him, to include the testimony furnished by the historical records of the a.s.syrian kings. The most prominent attribute of Nabu, at least in the later phases of the Babylonian religion, is that of wisdom. He is the wise, the all-knowing.

He embodies in his person all the wisdom of the G.o.ds. To him the a.s.syrian kings are particularly fond of ascribing, not merely the understanding that they possess, but the thought of preserving the wisdom of the past for future ages; and in doing this the a.s.syrians were but guided by examples furnished by the south. Wisdom being a.s.sociated, in the minds of the Babylonians, with the watery deep, one is tempted to seek an aqueous origin for Nabu. Such a supposition, although it cannot be positively established, has much in its favor. It is not necessary, in order to maintain this proposition, to remove Nabu from Borsippa. The alluvial deposits made by the Euphrates yearly have already demonstrated that Babylon lay much nearer at one time to the Persian Gulf than it does at present. The original seat of Ea, whose wors.h.i.+p continued through all times to enjoy great popularity at Babylon, was at Eridu, which, we know, once lay on the Persian Gulf, but does so no longer. The similarity of the epithets bestowed in various texts upon Ea and Nabu point most decidedly to a similar starting-point for both; and since in a syllabary[127] we find the G.o.d actually identified with a deity of Dilmun,--probably one of the islands near Bahrein,--there are grounds for a.s.suming that a tradition survived among the schoolmen, which brought Nabu into some connection with the Persian Gulf. Sayce[128] has already suggested that Borsippa may have originally stood on an inlet of the Persian Gulf. Nabu is inferior to Ea, and were it not for the priority of Marduk, he would have become in Babylonian theology, the son of Ea. Since this distinction[129] is given to Marduk, no direct indication of an original relations.h.i.+p to Ea has survived.

But besides being the G.o.d of wisdom and intelligence, Nabu is a patron of agriculture, who causes the grain to sprout forth. In religious and historical texts, he is lauded as the deity who opens up the subterranean sources in order to irrigate the fields. He heaps up the grain in the storehouses, and on the other hand, the withdrawal of his favor is followed by famine and distress. Jensen[130] would conclude from this that he was originally (like Marduk, therefore) a solar deity.

This, however, is hardly justified, since it is just as reasonable to deduce his role as the producer of fertility from his powers as lord of some body of water. However this may be, in the case of Nabu, there are no grounds for supposing that he represents the combination of two originally distinct deities. A later--chiefly theoretical--amalgamation of Nabu with a G.o.d Nusku will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.[131]

Hammurabi and his immediate successors, it is noteworthy, do not make mention of Nabu. A sufficient number of inscriptions of this period exists to make it probable that this omission is not accidental. This dynasty was chiefly concerned in firmly establis.h.i.+ng the position of Marduk. Other deities could, indeed, be tolerated at his side, provided they were subservient to him; but Nabu, the G.o.d of a place so near Babylon, might prove a dangerous rival because of this proximity. The city on the west bank of the Euphrates was probably as old as that on the east, if not, indeed, older. It did not seem consistent with this devotion to Marduk that Hammurabi and his successors should also recognize Nabu. Policy dictated that Nabu should be ignored, that the attempt must be made to replace his wors.h.i.+p, even in Borsippa, by that of Marduk. Viewed in this light, Hammurabi's establishment of the Marduk cult in Borsippa a.s.sumes a peculiar significance. It meant that Borsippa was to be incorporated as part of Babylon, and that Marduk was henceforth to take the place occupied by Nabu. In order to emphasize this, Hammurabi actually transfers the name of Nabu's temple in Borsippa, E-Zida, to the one erected by him at that place to Marduk. Did he perhaps entirely suppress the wors.h.i.+p of Nabu at Borsippa? It would almost appear so from Agum's utter omission of Nabu. Only the statues of Marduk and Sarpanitum seem to have been robbed by the Hani. Not a word is said as to Nabu. Either there was no statue at the time at Borsippa, or the cult was of such insignificance that the capture of the G.o.d was not considered of sufficient moment to occupy the thoughts of the enemy, as little as it did that of the rulers of Babylon at the time. In the inscription in which Hammurabi recounts the building of E-Zida in Borsippa, there are certain expressions which go to substantiate the proposition that Nabu is intentionally ignored.[132] He calls Marduk the lord of E-Sagila and of E-Zida; he speaks of Borsippa as the beloved city of Marduk, just as though it were Babylon. Taking unto himself the functions of Nabu, he even appears to play upon the name, which signifies 'proclaimer,' and styles himself the _nabiu Anu_, 'the proclaimer of Anu.' However this may be, the attempt to suppress Nabu did not succeed,--a proof that in early times he had gained popular favor. He had to be readmitted into the Babylonian pantheon, though in a subordinate position to Marduk. He took his place in the theological system as the son of Marduk, and on the great festival--the New Year's day--celebrated in honor of the great G.o.d of Babylon, the son shared some of the honors accorded to the father. In time, his sanctuary at Borsippa was again recognized. The former rivalry gave way to a cordial _entente_. Nabu was even granted a chapel in E-Sagila at Babylon, to which likewise the name of E-Zida was given. Every New Year's day the son paid a visit to his father, on which occasion the statue of Nabu was carried in solemn procession from Borsippa across the river, and along the main street of Babylon leading to the temple of Marduk; and in return the father deity accompanied his son part way on the trip back to E-Zida. In this way, due homage was accorded to Marduk, and at the same time the close and cordial bonds of union between Babylon and Borsippa found satisfactory ill.u.s.tration. E-Sagila and E-Zida become, and remain throughout the duration of the Babylonian religion, the central sanctuaries of the land around which the most precious recollections cl.u.s.ter, as dear to the a.s.syrians as to the Babylonians. The kings of the northern empire vie with their southern cousins in beautifying and enlarging the structures sacred to Marduk and Nabu.

In view of the explanation offered for the silence maintained by Hammurabi and his successors regarding Nabu, we are justified in including Nabu in the Babylonian pantheon of those days. In later times, among the a.s.syrians, the Nabu cult, as already intimated, grows in popularity. The northern monarchs, in fact, seem to give Nabu the preference over Marduk. They do not tire of proclaiming him as the source of wisdom. The staff is his symbol, which is interpreted in a double sense, as the writer's stylus and as the ruler's sceptre. He becomes, also, the bestower of royal power upon his favorites. Without his aid, order cannot be maintained in the land. Disobedience to him is punished by the introduction of foreign rule. Political policy may have had a share in this preference shown for the minor G.o.d of Babylon. The a.s.syrian kings were always anxious to do homage to the G.o.ds of Babylon, in order to indicate their control over the southern districts. They were particularly proud of their t.i.tle 'governor of Bel.'[133] On the other hand, they were careful not to give offence to the chief of the a.s.syrian pantheon,--the G.o.d Ashur,--by paying too much honor to Marduk, who was in a measure Ashur's rival. In consequence, as Hammurabi and his successors endeavored to ignore Nabu, the a.s.syrian rulers now turned the tables by manifesting a preference for Nabu; and obliged as they were to acknowledge that the intellectual impulses came from the south, they could accept a southern G.o.d of wisdom without encroaching upon the province of Ashur, whose claims to homage lay in the prowess he showed in war. Marduk was too much like Ashur to find a place at his side. Nabu was a totally different deity, and in wors.h.i.+pping him who was the son of Marduk, the a.s.syrian kings felt that they were paying due regard to the feelings of their Babylonian subjects. The cult of Nabu thus became widely extended in a.s.syria. Statues of the G.o.d were erected and deposited in shrines built for the purpose, although the fact was not lost sight of that the real dwelling-place of the G.o.d was in Borsippa.

At the end of the ninth century B.C. this cult seems to have reached its height. We learn of a temple at Calah, and of no less than eight statues of the G.o.d being erected in the days of Ramman-nirari III., and the terms in which the G.o.d is addressed might lead one to believe that an attempt was made to concentrate the cult in a.s.syria on him.[134] This, however, was an impossibility. As long as a.s.syria continued to play the role of the subduer of nations, Ashur--the G.o.d of war _par excellence_--necessarily retained his position at the head of the a.s.syrian pantheon. The popularity of Nabu, which continued to the end of the a.s.syrian empire, and gained a fresh impetus in the days of Ashurbanabal, who, as a patron of literature, invokes Nabu on thousands of the tablets of his library as 'the opener of ears to understanding,'

reacted on his position in the Babylonian cult. In the new Babylonian empire, which continued to so large a degree the traditions of a.s.syria, it is no accident that three of the kings--Nabupola.s.sar, Nebuchadnezzar, and Nabonnedos--bear names containing the deity as one of the elements.

While paying superior devotion to Marduk, who once more became the real and not merely the nominal head of the pantheon, they must have held Nabu in no small esteem; and indeed the last-named king was suspected of trying actually to divert the homage of the people away from Marduk to other G.o.ds, though he did not, as a matter of course, go so far as to endeavor to usurp for the son, the position held by the father. It is probably due to a.s.syrian influence that even in Babylonia, from the eighth century on, Nabu is occasionally mentioned before Marduk. So Marduk-baladan II. (721-710) calls himself the "wors.h.i.+pper of Nabu and Marduk," and similarly others. In official letters likewise, and in astronomical reports, Nabu is given precedence to Marduk, but this may be due to Nabu's functions, as the G.o.d of writing and the patron of science.

The Neo-Babylonian kings are not sparing in the epithets they bestow on Nabu, though they emphasize more his qualities as holder of the 'sceptre' than as lord of the 'stylus.' So Nebuchadnezzar declares that it is he 'who gives the sceptre of sovereignty to kings to rule over all lands.' In this capacity he is 'the upholder of the world,' 'the general overseer,' and his temple is called 'the house of the sceptre of the world.'

His name signifies simply the 'proclaimer,' or herald, but we are left in doubt as to what he proclaims,--whether wisdom or sovereignty.

Sometimes he appears as the 'herald' of the G.o.ds. In this role he receives the name of Papsukal (_i.e._, supreme or sacred messenger), and it may be that this function was a very old one. But, again, as G.o.d of fertility he could also be appropriately termed the 'proclaimer.' The question must, accordingly, be left open as to the precise force of the attribute contained in his name. Finally, an interesting feature connected with Nabu, that may be mentioned here, is that in the name borne by a famous mountain in Moab, Nebo, where Moses--himself a 'proclaimer'[135]--died, there survives a testimony that the wors.h.i.+p of this popular deity extended beyond the Euphrates and the Tigris, to Semites living considerably to the west. To Nabu, as to Marduk, a consort was given. Her name was

Tashmitum.

The name Tashmitum appears for the first time in the days of Hammurabi.

Attention has already been called to the king's ignoring of the G.o.d of Borsippa. While his attempt to suppress the cult of Nabu was not successful, he did succeed in causing the old consort of Nabu to disappear. This consort appears to have been no other than Erua. It will be recalled that up to very late times the tradition survived that her dwelling-place was Borsippa.[136] This is never said of Sarpanitum.

Despite, therefore, the amalgamation of Sarpanitum and Erua, the a.s.sociation of the latter with Nabu's dwelling-place remains impressed upon the memory of the Babylonian scholars, at least. Nabu's consort having thus been transferred to Marduk, a new mate had to be found for the former, when once his rivalry was no longer to be dreaded, and his cult again rose to prominence. 'Tashmitum' is an abstract noun in a.s.syrian, signifying 'revelation.' As such, it is bestowed in historical texts upon Nabu himself, who is called _itu tas.h.i.+meti_, 'G.o.d of revelation.' Nabu is, above all, a 'revealing' G.o.d,--revealing knowledge, the art of writing, and the method of ruling. The appellation is therefore a most appropriate one, and there seems little reason to question that Tashmitum was originally nothing but one of the terms by which Nabu was designated, just as he was called Papsukal in his role as 'messenger' of the G.o.ds,--the messenger of his father Marduk and of his grandfather Ea, in particular. But Tashmitum, being feminine in gender, as an abstract noun, seemed appropriate as the designation of a G.o.ddess.

It would appear, then, that 'Revelation,' from being so constantly a.s.sociated with Nabu, was personified, dissociated from him, as it were, through the conception of a distinct G.o.ddess bearing the name of 'Tashmitum.' This process of thought, in giving rise to a new G.o.ddess, may have been, in part, a popular one. The translation of a metaphor into reality is a phenomenon that may be observed in almost all religions of antiquity. But the process, whatever its course in detail may have been, was not uninfluenced by the theological dogma whereby a G.o.d was supposed to have a 'reflection' who was pictured as his consort.

Through this conception, as we have already seen, many a G.o.ddess once ruling in her own right, and enjoying an independent existence, degenerated into a mere shadow of some male deity, though, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that these female deities would have disappeared altogether but for the opportunity thus afforded them of becoming 'attachees' to some male deity. This theory of the _quasi_-artificial character and origin of Tashmit finds support in the manner in which the mention of her name is entwined with that of Nabu.

Sarpanitum, bound up as the G.o.ddess is with Marduk, has at least a shrine of her own, and occasionally she is spoken of in the texts without her husband Marduk.[137] The mention of Tashmitum, however, invariably follows that of Nabu. It is always 'Nabu and Tashmitum,' and it is never Tashmitum without Nabu. While the creation of Tashmitum may be a product of Babylonian religious thought, it is in a.s.syrian texts that her name is chiefly found. The great Ashurbanabal, in the conventional subscript attached to his tablet, is particularly fond of coupling Tashmitum with Nabu, as the two deities who opened his ears to understanding and prompted him to gather in his palace the literary treasures produced by the culture that flourished in the south. Tashmit has no shrine or temple, so far as known, either in Borsippa or in any of the places whither the Nabu cult spread. She has no attributes other than those that belong to Nabu, and, what is very remarkable, the later Babylonian kings, such as Nebuchadnezzar II., when they deem it proper to attach a consort to Nabu call her Nana,[138] _i.e._, simply the lady, and not Tashmitum, a proof, how little hold the name had taken upon the Babylonian populace. If to this it be added, that in by far the greater number of instances, no reference whatsoever to a consort is made when Nabu is spoken of, an additional reason is found for the unreal, the shadowy character of this G.o.ddess.

Ea.

In treating of the position occupied by Ea in the oldest period of Babylonian history (see above, pp. 61-64), it has already been mentioned that he grows to much larger proportions under the influence of a more fully developed theological system. Indeed, there is no G.o.d who shows such profound traces of having been submitted to a theological treatment, and indirectly, therefore, furnishes so distinct a proof of the existence of theological schools in the ancient centers of Babylonian culture, as Ea. The question may with propriety be here discussed, to what period we are to attribute the completion of the process, which, to summarize his position, made Ea the special G.o.d of humanity, the father of Marduk, the third in a great triad, of which the other two members were Anu, the G.o.d of heaven, and Bel, the G.o.d of earth. Already, in the days preceding the union of the Babylonian states under one head, we have had occasion to see traces of an attempt to systematize the relations existing between the G.o.ds. A high degree of culture, such as the existence of a perfected form of writing, an advanced form of architecture, and commercial enterprise reflect, cannot be dissociated from a high degree of activity in the domain of philosophic or religious thought. Accordingly, we are in no danger of attributing too great an antiquity to the beginnings of theological speculation in Babylonia. Be it remembered that from the earliest to the latest days, the priests were the scribes and that in their capacity as writers of the texts, they would be enjoying the advantages of an intellectual impulse. But they were also the composers of the texts, as well as the writers, and the prominence given to the G.o.ds in texts of whatever description, would inevitably lead their thoughts to speculations regarding the attributes of the G.o.ds. The attempt would at an early period be made to find some unifying principles in the tangled ma.s.s of G.o.ds. By the time that Hammurabi appears on the scene, we have every reason to believe that some of the ancient libraries of the south, whither Ashurbanabal sent his scribes, were already well stocked, and that a goodly portion of the Babylonian literature known to us already existed. What these portions were, we will have occasion to point out when we come to discuss the literature of Babylonia. On the other hand, this literature would not only necessarily increase as long as any degree of intellectual activity existed in the country, but this activity would also manifest itself in transforming this literature, so as to adapt it to the thoughts and aspirations of a later age.

Especially would this be the case in the purely religious divisions of literature. The ancient traditions, legends, and myths, once committed to writing, would serve as a point of departure for further speculations. The existence of a text to which any measure of value is attached, is bound to give rise to various attempts at interpretation, and if this value be connected with the religion of a people, the result is, invariably, that the ancient words are invested with a meaning conformable to a later age. Each generation among a people characterized by intellectual activity has a signature of its own, and it will seek to give to the religious thoughts of the time its own particular impress.

Since, however, the material upon which any age works is not of its own making, but is furnished by a preceding one, it follows that much of the intellectual activity of an age manifests itself in a transformation of its literary or speculative heritage. This process was constantly going on in Babylonia, and had we more material--and older material--at our disposal, we would be able to trace more clearly than we can at present, the various stages that led to the system of theology, as embodied in the best productions of the ancient Babylonian schoolmen.

The days of Hammurabi, as they were politically of great importance, also appear to have ushered in a new era in the religious life of the people. Stirring political events are always apt to bring in their wake intellectual movements, and in a country like Babylonia, where politics react so forcibly on religious conditions, the permanent establishment of the supremacy of the city of Babylon would be fraught with important consequences for the cult. The main change brought about by this new epoch of Babylonian history was, as we have seen, the superior position henceforth accorded in the pantheon to Marduk as the patron deity of Babylon; but this change entailed so many others, that it almost merits being termed a revolution. In order to ensure Marduk's place, the relations of the other deities to him had to be regulated, the legends and traditions of the past reshaped, so as to be brought into consistent accord with the new order of things, and the cult likewise to be, at least in part, remodelled, so as to emphasize the supremacy of Marduk.

This work, which was an inevitable one, was primarily of an intellectual order. We are justified, then, in looking for traces of this activity in the remains that have been recovered of ancient Babylonian literature.

We know from direct evidence that the commercial life of Babylonia had already, in the period preceding Hammurabi, led to regulated legal forms and practices for the purpose of carrying out obligations and of settling commercial and legal difficulties. The proof has been furnished by Dr. Meissner[139] that syllabaries prepared for the better understanding of the formulas and words employed in preparing the legal and commercial tablets, date, in part, from the period which we may roughly designate as that of Hammurabi,--covering, say, the three centuries 2300 to 2000 B.C. With this evidence for the existence of pedagogues devoted to the training of novices in the art of reading and writing, in order to fit them for their future tasks as official scribes, we are safe in a.s.suming that these same schoolmen were no less active in other fields of literature. If, in addition to this, we find that much of the religious literature, in the shape that we have it, reflects the religious conditions such as they must have shaped themselves in consequence of the promotion of Marduk to the head of the pantheon, the conclusion is forced upon us that such literary productions date from this same epoch of Hammurabi. This influence of the schoolmen while centering, as repeatedly pointed out, around the position of Marduk, manifests itself in a p.r.o.nounced fas.h.i.+on, also, in the changed position henceforth accorded to the G.o.d Ea. It will be recalled that in the earliest period of Babylonian history, Ea does not figure prominently. At the same time we must beware of laying too much stress upon the negative testimony of the historical texts. Besides the still limited material of this character at our disposal, the non-mention of a deity may be due to a variety of circ.u.mstances, that may properly be designated as accidental. The G.o.ds to whom the kings of the ancient Babylonian states would be apt to appeal would be, in the first instance, the local deities, patrons of the city that happened to be the capital of the state; in the second instance, the G.o.ds of the vanquished towns; and thirdly, some of the great deities wors.h.i.+pped at the sacred centers of the Euphrates valley, and who const.i.tuted, as it were, the common heritage of the past. Ea, as the G.o.d of the Persian gulf, the region which forms the starting-point of Babylonian culture, and around which some of the oldest and most precious recollections center, would come within the radius of the third instance, since, in the period we have in mind, Eridu no longer enjoyed any political importance. We may be sure, then, despite the silence of the texts, that Ea was always held in great esteem, and that even the absence of temples in his honor, did not affect the reverence and awe that he inspired. As for the epoch of Hammurabi, the historical spirit that is never absent in a truly intellectual age would be certain to restore Ea to his proper prestige, a.s.suming that a previous age had permitted him to fall into neglect. Next to Marduk, there is no deity who is given such distinction in Babylonia, after the union of the Babylonian states, as Ea. In the religious literature, moreover, as reshaped by the schoolmen of the time, his role is even more prominent than that of Marduk. As a water-G.o.d, and more particularly as the G.o.d to whom the largest body of water known to the Babylonians was sacred, Ea was regarded as the source and giver of wisdom. Fountains everywhere were sacred to him; and so he becomes also the giver of fertility and plenty. Berosus tells us of a mystic being, half man, half fish, who spent his nights in the waters of the gulf, but who would come out of the waters during the day to give instruction to the people, until that time steeped in ignorance and barbarism. This 'Oannes,' as Berosus is said[140] to have called him, was none other than Ea. As the great benefactor of mankind, it is natural that Ea should have come to be viewed as the G.o.d whose special function it is to protect the human race, to advance it in all its good undertakings, to protect it against the evil designs of G.o.ds or demons.

In this role, he appears in the religious literature--in the epics, the cosmogony, and the ritual--of Babylonia. There is no G.o.d conceived in so universal a manner as Ea. All local connection with Eridu disappears. He belongs to no particular district. His wors.h.i.+p is not limited to any particular spot. All of Babylonia lays claim to him. The ethical import of such a conception is manifestly great, and traces of it are to be found in the religious productions. It impressed upon the Babylonians the common bond uniting all mankind. The cult of Ea must have engendered humane feelings, softening the rivalry existing among the ancient centers of Babylonian power, and leading the people a considerable distance, on the road to the conception of a common humanity. When the G.o.ds decide to destroy mankind, it is Ea who intercedes on behalf of humanity; when the demon of disease has entered a human body, it is to Ea that, in the last resort, the appeal is made to free the sufferer from his pain. Ea is the G.o.d of the physicians. Nay, more, it is Ea who presided at the birth of humanity, so that his protection reaches far back, beyond even the beginnings of civilization, almost to the beginning of things. Lastly, as the G.o.d of civilization, it is to him that the great works of art are ascribed. He is the G.o.d of the smithy, the patron of the gold and silversmiths, of workers in lapis-lazuli, and all kinds of precious stones. He is the G.o.d of sculpture. The great bulls and lions that guarded the approaches to the temple and palace chambers, as well as the statues of the G.o.ds and kings, were the work of his hands. Furthermore, he is the patron of weavers, as of other arts.

This conception may have been perfected in a general way, and in all probability was perfected before the days of Hammurabi, though perhaps not prominently brought forward; but important modifications were introduced into it, through the compromise that had to be arranged between the position of Ea and that of Marduk. Of course, neither the rulers nor the priests of Babylon could have permitted the reverence for Ea to have gone to the length of throwing Marduk into the shade. Many of the functions a.s.signed to Ea seemed to belong of right to Marduk, who, as the patron of Babylon, presided over the destinies of what to the Babylonians was the essential part of mankind,--namely, themselves.

Moreover, Babylon being the seat of culture as well as of power, in the period following upon Hammurabi, Marduk was necessarily conceived as possessing the same wisdom that distinguishes Ea. As a consequence, the attributes of Ea were transferred in a body to Marduk. An amalgamation of the two, however, such as took place in the case of other deities, was neither possible, nor, indeed, desirable. It was not possible, because of the antiquity of the Ea cult and the peculiar position that he, as a common heirloom of all Babylonia, occupied; nor was it desirable, for to do so would be to cut off completely the bond uniting Babylon to its own past and to the rest of Babylonia. The solution of the problem was found in making Ea, the father of Marduk--the loving and proud father who willingly transfers all his powers and qualities to his son, who rejoices in the triumph of his offspring, and who suffers no pangs of jealousy when beholding the superior honors shown to Marduk, both by the G.o.ds and by men.

Ea and Marduk.

The combination of the two G.o.ds is particularly frequent in the so-called incantation texts. Marduk becomes the mediator between Ea and mankind. The man smitten with disease, or otherwise in trouble, appeals to Marduk for help, who promptly brings the pet.i.tion to his father Ea.

The latter, after modestly declaring that there is nothing that he knows which his son Marduk does not know, gives Marduk the necessary instructions, which in turn are conveyed to the one crying for divine succor. It is clear that these texts have been reshaped with the intention of adding to the glory of Marduk. They must, therefore, have been remodelled at a time when the Marduk cult was in the ascendancy.

This was after the days of Hammurabi, and before the subjugation of Babylonia to a.s.syrian rule. The limits thus a.s.signed are, to be sure, broad, but from what has above been said as to the intellectual activity reigning in the days of Hammurabi, we need not descend far below the death of the great conqueror to find the starting-point for the remodelling of the texts in question. Not all of them, of course, were so reshaped. There are quite a number in which Ea is alone and directly appealed to, and these form a welcome confirmation of the supposition that those in which Ea is joined to Marduk have been reshaped with a desire to make them conform to the position of Marduk in the Babylonian pantheon. Again, there are incantations in which the name of Marduk appears without Ea. Such are either productions of a later period, of the time when Marduk had already a.s.sumed his superior position, or what is also possible, though less probable, old compositions in which the name of Ea has been simply replaced by that of Marduk. An especially interesting example of the manner in which ancient productions have been worked over by the Babylonian theologians, with a view to bringing their favorite Marduk into greater prominence, appears in one of the episodes of the Babylonian cosmogony. Prior to the creation of man a great monster known as Tiamat had to be subdued. The G.o.ds all shrink in terror before her. Only one succeeds in conquering her. In the form of the story, as we have it, this hero is Marduk, but it is quite evident[141]

that the honor originally belonged to an entirely different G.o.d, one who is much older, and who stands much higher than the G.o.d of Babylon. This was Bel,--the old G.o.d of Nippur who was conceived as the G.o.d of earth _par excellence_, and to whom therefore the task of preparing the earth for the habitation of mankind properly belonged. How do the Babylonian theologians, who stand under the influence of the political conditions prevailing in Babylonia after the union of the Babylonian states, reconcile this older and true form of the episode with the form in which they have recast it? The G.o.ds who are called the progenitors of Marduk are represented as rejoicing upon seeing Marduk equipped for the fray.

In chorus they greet and bless him, "Marduk be king." They present him with additional weapons, and encourage him for the contest. Upon hearing of his success the G.o.ds vie with one another in conferring honors upon Marduk. They bestow all manner of glorious epithets upon him; and, to cap the climax, the old Bel, known as 'father Bel,' steps forward and transfers to him his name, _bel matati_,[142] 'lord of lands.' To bestow the name was equivalent to transferring Bel's powers to Marduk; and so Marduk is henceforth known as _Bel_. But Ea must be introduced into the episode. It is not sufficient that Bel, the original subduer of Tiamat, should pay homage to Marduk; Ea also greets his son, and bestows his name upon him,[143]--that is, transfers his powers to his son. There is a special reason for this. The overthrow of Tiamat is followed by the creation of man. This function properly belongs to Bel, both as the G.o.d of earth and as the subduer of Tiamat. According to one--and probably the oldest--version of this part of the Babylonian cosmogony which was embodied in the work of Berosus[144], it is Bel who creates mankind. The subst.i.tution of Marduk for Bel necessitated the transference of the role of creator to Marduk likewise, and yet the latter could not take this upon himself without the consent of his father Ea, who had become the G.o.d of humanity _par excellence_. Ea could interpose no objection against Bel being replaced by Marduk in vanquis.h.i.+ng the monster, but when it came to drawing the conclusion and replacing Bel by Marduk also in the creation of man, the case was different. If Bel was to be replaced, Ea had a prior claim. Marduk could only take the new functions upon himself after receiving the powers of Ea. That is the force of Ea's saying that Marduk's name also shall be Ea just as his. This transference of the name of Ea to Marduk is in itself an indication that there must have existed a second version in Babylonia--probably of later origin than the other--of the creation of man, according to which Ea, and not Bel, was the creator. We shall have occasion to see, in a future chapter, that there were at least two different versions current in Babylonia of the creation of the G.o.ds and of the universe. The opening chapters in Genesis form an interesting parallel to show the manner in which two different versions of one and the same subject may be combined. There is, therefore, nothing improbable in the supposition that a later version, reflecting a period when Bel had sunk into comparative insignificance, made Ea the creator of mankind instead of Bel, and that still later a solution of the apparent inconsistency involved in transferring only part of Bel's powers to Marduk was found by securing Ea's consent to the acknowledgment of Marduk not merely as creator of mankind but of the heavenly vault as well. Jensen[145] has brought other evidence to show that Ea was once regarded as the creator of mankind. One of his t.i.tles is that of 'potter,' and mankind, according to Babylonian theories, was formed of 'clay.' Moreover, in a Babylonian myth that will be set forth in its proper place, Ea expressly figures in the role of creating a mysterious being, _Uddushu-na-mir_, whose name signifies 'his light s.h.i.+nes.' Such a proper name, too, as "Ea-bani," _i.e._, 'Ea creates,' points in the same direction.

In other literary productions of Babylonia, such as, _e.g._, the so-called Izdubar epic, Ea again appears without Marduk, showing that this story has not been remodeled, or that the later version, in which the traces of a recasting may have been seen, has not been discovered.

In the deluge story, which forms part of the Izdubar epic, Ea alone is the hero. It is he who saves humanity from complete annihilation, and who pacifies the angered Bel. Marduk's name does not appear in the entire epic. We have found it necessary to dwell thus at length upon these evidences of the recasting of the literary products of ancient Babylonia under the influence of changed conceptions of the G.o.ds and of their relations to one another, for upon the understanding of these changes, our appreciation of the development of religious beliefs in Babylonia, and all connected with these beliefs, hinges. The epoch of Hammurabi was a crucial one for Babylonia from a religious as well as from a political point of view.

Damkina.

The consort of Ea figures occasionally in the historical texts of Hammurabi's successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Ea and Damkina, asking these G.o.ds, who 'dwell in the great ocean' surrounding the earth, to grant him long life. In addition to this, the antiquity of the literary productions in which her name appears justifies us in reckoning her among the G.o.ds of Babylonia of Hammurabi's time. Her name signifies 'lady of the earth,' and there is evidently a theoretical substratum to this a.s.sociation of Ea, the water-G.o.d, with an earth-G.o.ddess. The one forms the complement to the other; and Marduk, as the son of water and earth, takes his place in the theory as the creator of the world. In this form the 'natural philosophy' of Babylonia survived to a late period. Nicolas of Damascus still knows (probably through Berosus) that Ea and Damkina[146] had a son Bel (_i.e._, Marduk). The survival of the name is a proof that, despite the silence of the historical texts, she was a prominent personage in Babylonian mythology, even though she did not figure largely in the cult. She appears in the magical texts quite frequently at the side of Ea. In a hymn[147] where a description occurs of the boat containing Ea, Damkina his wife, and Marduk their son, together with the ferryman and some other personages sailing across the ocean, we may see traces of the process of symbolization to which the old figures of mythology were subjected.

Shamash.

Pa.s.sing on, we find Hammurabi as strongly attached to the wors.h.i.+p of the old sun-G.o.d as any of his predecessors. Next to Babylon, he was much concerned with making improvements in Sippar. The Temple of Shamash at Larsa also was improved and enlarged by him. Hammurabi's example is followed by his successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Shamash as 'warrior of heaven and earth'; and it is likely that the precedent furnished by these two kings, who considered it consistent with devotion to Marduk to single out the places sacred to Shamash for special consideration, had much to do in maintaining the popularity of sun-wors.h.i.+p in Babylonia and a.s.syria. Kara-indash, of the Ca.s.site dynasty (_c._ 1450 B.C.), restores the temple of Shamash at Larsa, and Mili-s.h.i.+khu, two centuries later, a.s.signs to Shamash the second place in his pantheon, naming him before Marduk. Foreign rulers were naturally not so deeply attached to Marduk as were the natives of Babylon. In the a.s.syrian pantheon Shamash occupies the third place, following immediately upon the two special deities of a.s.syria. One of the greatest of the northern kings erects a temple in honor of the G.o.d, and the later Babylonian kings vie with one another in doing honor to the two oldest sanctuaries of Shamash, at Sippar and Larsa. Perhaps the pristine affinity between Marduk, who, as we saw, was originally a sun-deity, and Shamash, also had a share in Hammurabi's fondness for coupling these two G.o.ds. When describing his operations at Sippar he speaks of himself as 'doing good to the flesh of Shamash and Marduk.' Hammurabi felt himself to be honoring Marduk, through paying homage to a deity having affinity with the patron protector of Babylon.

Innanna.

We have already come across a deity of this name in a previous chapter.[148] Hammurabi tells us, in one of his inscriptions, that he has restored the temple in honor of Innanna at Hallabi--a town near Sippar.[149] Innanna, or Ninni, signifying merely 'lady,' or 'great lady,' appears to have become a very general name for a G.o.ddess, hence the addition 'of Hallabi,' which Hammurabi is careful to make. At the same time the designation 'lady of Hallabi' points to her being a consort of a male deity who was the patron of the place. May this have been the moon-G.o.d again, as in the case of the other Innanna? Our knowledge of this G.o.ddess is confined to what the king tells us about her. For him she is the mistress whose glory fills heaven and earth, but when he adds that she has placed in his hands the reins of government, this only means that the G.o.ddess recognizes his right to supreme authority over the Babylonian states--not that he owes his power to her.

It is after he has succeeded in making Babylon the capital of a great kingdom that he proceeds to improve the temple of Innanna.

Bel and the Triad of Babylonian Theology.

Among the literary remains of Hammurabi's days we have a hymn in which the chief G.o.ds wors.h.i.+pped by the king are enumerated in succession. The list begins with Bel, and then mentions Sin, Ninib, Ishtar, Shamash, and Ramman. We should expect to find at the head of the list Marduk. The hymn may be older than Hammurabi, who, perhaps, is quoting or copying it, and since the Bel who is here at the head of the pantheon is the G.o.d of Nippur, the hymn may originally have belonged to the ritual of that place. For Hammurabi the highest 'Bel,' or lord, is Marduk, and there is hardly room for doubt that in using this hymn as a means of pa.s.sing on to singing his own praises, with which the inscription in question ends, Hammurabi has in mind the patron G.o.d of Babylon when speaking of Bel.[150] It is this amalgamation of the old Bel with Marduk that marks, as we have seen, the transition to the use of Bel's name as a mere t.i.tle of Marduk. Elsewhere, however, Hammurabi uses Bel to designate the old G.o.d. So when he calls himself the proclaimer of Anu and Bel[151] the a.s.sociation with Anu makes it impossible that Marduk should be meant. At times he appears to refer in the same inscription, now to the old Bel and again to Bel-Marduk, under the same designation. When Kurigalzu, a member of the Ca.s.site dynasty (_c._ 1400 B.C.), speaks of 'Bel, the lord of lands,' to whom he erects a temple in the new city, Dur-Kurigalzu-- some forty miles to the northeast of Babylon--it is the old Bel who is again meant. While acknowledging Marduk as one of the chief G.o.ds, these foreign rulers in Babylonia--the Ca.s.sites--did not feel the same attachment to him as Hammurabi did. They gave the preference to the old G.o.d of Nippur, and, indeed, succeeded in their attempt to give to the old city of Nippur some of its pristine glory. They devoted themselves a.s.siduously to the care of the great temple at Nippur. There are some indications of an attempt made by them to make Nippur the capital of their empire. In the case of Hammurabi's immediate successor, as has been pointed out, the equation Bel-Marduk is distinctly set down, but, for all that, the double employment of the name continues even through the period of the a.s.syrian supremacy over Babylonia. The northern rulers now use Bel to designate the more ancient G.o.d, and, again, merely as a designation of Marduk. Tiglathpileser I. (see note 1, below) expressly adds 'the older' when speaking of Bel. When Sargon refers to Bel, 'the lord of lands, who dwells on the sacred mountain of the G.o.ds,' or when Tiglathpileser I. calls Bel 'the father of the G.o.ds,' 'the king of the group of spirits' known as the Anunaki, it is of course only the old Bel, the lord of the lower region, or of the earth, who can be meant; but when, as is much more frequently the case, the kings of a.s.syria, down to the fall of the empire, a.s.sociate Bel with Nabu, speak of Bel and the G.o.ds of Akkad (_i.e._, Babylonia), and use Bel, moreover, to designate Babylonia,[152] it is equally clear that Marduk is meant. In the Neo-Babylonian empire Marduk alone is used.

The continued existence of a G.o.d Bel in the Babylonian pantheon, despite the amalgamation of Bel with Marduk, is a phenomenon that calls for some comment. The explanation is to be found in the influence of the theological system that must have been developed in part, at least, even before the union of the Babylonian states.[153] Bel, as the G.o.d of earth, was a.s.sociated with Anu, as the G.o.d of heaven, and Ea, as the G.o.d of the deep, to form a triad that embraced the entire universe. When, therefore, Anu, Bel, and Ea were invoked, it was equivalent to naming all the powers that influenced the fate of man. They embraced, as it were, the three kingdoms of the G.o.ds, within which all the other G.o.ds could be comprised. The systematization involved in the a.s.sumption of a triad of G.o.ds controlling the entire pantheon can hardly be supposed to have been a popular process. It betokens an amount of thought and speculation, a comprehensive view of the powers of nature, that could only have arisen in minds superior to the average intelligence. In other words, the conception of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea is again an evidence of the existence of schoolmen and of schools of religious thought in the days of the ancient empire. So far, however, as Hammurabi is concerned, he only refers to a duality--Anu and Bel--which, for him, comprises all the other G.o.ds. He is the 'proclaimer of Anu and Bel.' It is Anu and Bel who give him sovereignty over the land. In the texts of the second period the triad does not occur until we come to the reign of a king, Mili-s.h.i.+khu, who lives at least eight centuries after Hammurabi. Ea, in fact, does not occur at all in those inscriptions of the king that have as yet been discovered. If any conclusion is to be drawn from this omission, it is certainly this,--that there are several stages in the development of the ancient theological system of Babylonia. At first a duality of kingdoms--the kingdom of what is above and below--was conceived as comprising all the personified powers of nature, but this duality was replaced by a triad through the addition of the G.o.d who stands at the head of all water-deities. Of course the a.s.sumption of a duality instead of a triad may have been due to a difference among existing schools of thought. At all events, there seems to be no political reason for the addition of Ea, and it is difficult to say, therefore, how soon the conception of a triad standing at the head of the pantheon arose. We have found it in Gudea's days, and it must, therefore, have existed in the days of Hammurabi, without, perhaps, being regarded as an essential dogma as yet. A direct and natural consequence of Bel's position in the triad was that, by the side of Bel-Marduk, the older Bel continued to be invoked in historical inscriptions. Since Anu and Ea were appealed to by themselves, the former occasionally, the latter more frequently, there was no reason why a ruler should not at times be prompted to introduce an invocation to Bel, without the direct a.s.sociation with Anu and Ea. The confusion that thus ensues between the two Bels was not of serious moment, since from the context one could without difficulty determine which of the two was meant; and what we, with our limited knowledge of ancient Babylonia, are able to do, must have been an easy task for the Babylonians themselves.[154] It is tempting to suppose that the first command of the Decalogue (Exodus, xx) contains an implied reference to the Babylonian triad.