The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria Part 68

Jensen would add Etana to the list of G.o.ds of vegetation who form part of Allatu's court. While the etymology he proposes for the name is not acceptable, there is no doubt that to Etana, like Gilgamesh, the character of a solar deity has been imparted. His presence in the nether world is due to the story of his flight with the eagle and the fall.[1231] If he falls from heaven, he naturally enters the realm of Allatu, and it is possible that the story in its original form was suggested by a myth ill.u.s.trating the change of seasons. The question, however, must for the present remain an open one.

A G.o.d a.s.sociated with the nether world who again appears to be a solar deity is Nin-azu. His name points to his being 'the G.o.d of healing.' A text states[1232] that Allatu is his consort. Such a relationship to the chief G.o.ddess of the nether world may be regarded as a survival of the period when Nergal had not yet been a.s.signed to this place. The introduction of a distinctly beneficent G.o.d into the pantheon of the lower world, and as second in rank, shows also that the gloomy conception of the lower world was one that developed gradually. Tammuz, Nin-gishzida, and the like are held enthralled by Allatu, and remain in the nether world against their will; but if Allatu chooses as her consort a 'G.o.d of healing,' she must have been viewed as a G.o.ddess who could at times, at least, be actuated by kindly motives. The phase of the sun symbolized by Nin-azu is, as in the case of Tammuz and others, the sun of the springtime and of the morning. If it be recalled that Gula, the great G.o.ddess of healing, is the consort of Ninib,[1233] it will be clear that Nin-azu must be closely related to Ninib--and is, indeed, identified with the latter.[1234] With Nergal in control, Nin-azu had to yield his privilege to be the husband of Allatu. The subst.i.tute of the fierce sun of the summer solstice for the sun of spring is a most interesting symptom of the direction taken by the Babylonian beliefs, regarding the fate of the dead. It may be that in the earlier period, when more optimistic views of Aralu were current, Gula, who is called the one 'who restores the dead to life,' may have had a place in the pantheon of the lower world; not that the Babylonians at any time believed in the return of the dead, but because the living could be saved from the clutches of death. Ninib and Gula, as G.o.ds of spring, furnished the spectacle of such a miracle in the return of vegetation. In this sense, we have seen that Marduk, the G.o.d of spring, was also addressed as 'the restorer to life.' But while the revivification of nature controls the conception of G.o.ds of healing, like Nin-azu, Ninib, and Gula, the extension of the idea would lead, naturally, to the a.s.sociation of these G.o.ds with the ruler of the nether world, at a time when it was still believed that this ruler could be moved by appeals to loosen her hold upon those whom she was about to drag to her kingdom. But it is important always to bear in mind that beyond this apparent restoration of the dead to life, the Babylonians at no time went.

In the Ishtar story[1235] a G.o.d Irkalla is introduced. Jeremias[1236]

takes this as one of the names of Allatu, but this is unlikely.[1237]

From other sources[1238] we know that Irkalla is one of the names of the nether world. It is in some way connected with Urugal,[1239] _i.e._, 'great city,' which is also a common designation for the dwelling-place of the dead. Hence, Irkalla is an epithet describing a deity as 'the G.o.d of the great city.' The Babylonian scholars, who were fond of plays upon words, brought the name Nergal, as though compounded of Ne-uru-gal (_i.e._, 'ruler of the great city'), into connection with Uru-gal, and thus identified Irkalla with Nergal. But, originally, some other G.o.d must have been meant, since Allatu appears as the sole ruler of the lower world in the Ishtar story, unless, indeed, we are to a.s.sume that the name has been introduced at a late period as a concession to Nergal.

It is more plausible that a G.o.d like Nin-azu was understood under 'the G.o.d of the great city.' Besides these G.o.ds, there is another series of beings who belong to Allatu's court,--the demons who are directly responsible for death in the world. Of this series, Namtar is the chief and the representative. As the one who gathers in the living to the dark abode, it is natural that he should be pictured as guardian at the gates of the great palace of Allatu. But by the side of Namtar stand a large number of demons, whose task is similar to that of their chief. A text[1240] calls the entire group of demons,--the demon of wasting disease, the demon of fever, the demon of erysipelas,[1241] and the like,--'the offspring of Aralu,' 'the sons and messengers of Namtar, the bearers of destruction for Allatu.' These demons are sent out from Aralu to plague the living, but once they have brought their victims to Aralu, their task is done. They do not trouble the dead. The latter stand, as we have seen, under the direct control of the G.o.ds.[1242]

The story of Ishtar's descent to the lower world[1243] shows us that the group of spirits known as the Anunnaki, also, belong to the court of Nergal and Allatu. Ramman-nirari I. already designates the Anunnaki as belonging to the earth,[1244] though it is an indication of the vagueness of the notions connected with the group that in hymns, both the Anunnaki and the Igigi are designated as offspring of Anu,--the G.o.d of heaven.[1245] They are not exclusively at the service of Nergal and Allatu. Bel, Ninib, Marduk, and Ishtar also send them out on missions.

Evidently, the fact that their chief function was to injure mankind suggested the doctrine which gave them a place in the lower world with the demons. The distinction between Anunnaki and the Igigi is not sharply maintained in the religious literature. Though Ramman-nirari places the Igigi in heaven, it is not impossible that a later view transferred them, like the Anunnaki, to the lower world. There were, of course, some misfortunes that were sent against mankind from on high--Ramman was a G.o.d who required such messengers as the Igigi, and besides the Igigi, there were other spirits sent out from above. But, as in the course of time the general doctrine was developed which made the G.o.ds, on the whole, favorably inclined towards man, while the evil was ascribed to the demons[1246]--as occupying the lower rank of divine beings--we note the tendency also to ascribe the ills that humanity is heir to, to the forces that dwell under the earth,--to Nergal and Allatu and to those who did their bidding. Probably, Lakhmu and Lakhamu were also regarded, at least by the theologians, as part of Allatu's court, just as Alala and Belili[1247] were so regarded.

The confusion resulting from the double position of Nergal in the religious literature, as the deity of the summer solstice and as the chief of the nether-world pantheon, raises a doubt whether some G.o.ds who are closely a.s.sociated with Nergal are to be placed on high with the G.o.ds or have their seats below with Nergal. Among these, three require mention here: Dibbarra, Gibil, and Ishum. Of these, the first two are directly identified with Nergal in the systematized pantheon[1248], while Ishum is closely a.s.sociated with Nergal, or appears as the attendant of Dibbarra[1249]. These G.o.ds, symbolizing violent destruction through war and fire, are evidently related to the Nergal of the upper world,--to Nergal, the solar deity; but in the later stages of the religion, the Nergal of the lower world almost completely sets aside the earlier conception. It is, therefore, likely that deities who stand so close to the terrible G.o.d as those under consideration, were also regarded as having a position near his throne in the lower world.

The pantheon of Aralu thus a.s.sumes considerable dimensions. At the same time, we observe the same tendency towards concentration of power in this pantheon as we have seen was the case in the pantheon of the upper world[1250]. As in Babylonia there are practically only a few G.o.ds,--Marduk, Nabu, Ishtar, Shamash, and Sin,--who exercised considerable control; and, as in a.s.syria we find this tendency still more accentuated in the supreme rank accorded to Ashur, so in the lower world Nergal and Allatu are the real rulers. The other G.o.ds, and, naturally, also the demons, occupy inferior positions. As messengers, guardians, spies, or attendants, they group themselves around the throne of the two rulers. A noticeable feature, however, in the pantheon of the lower world consists in the high position held by the consort of the head of the pantheon. Allatu does not sink to the insignificant rank of being merely a pale reflection of Nergal, as do the consorts of Marduk, Shamash, Ashur, and the like[1251]. As a trace of the earlier supreme control exercised by her, she continues to reign with her husband. In the popular mind, indeed, despite the influence of theological doctrines, Allatu continues to be more prominent than Nergal. Nergal is obliged to abide by the compact he made with Allatu. He rules _with_ her, but not over her. The theology of the schools did not venture to set Allatu aside altogether; and this limitation in the development of the doctrine that elsewhere gave the male principle the supremacy over the female, may be taken as a valuable indication of the counter-influence, exercised by deeply rooted popular beliefs, over the theoretical elaboration of the religion at the hands of the religious guides.

The Tombs and the Burial Customs.

Our knowledge of the customs observed by the Babylonians and a.s.syrians in disposing of their dead leaves much to be desired. Most of the graves discovered in the ruins of Babylonian cities belong to the Persian or to the Greek period. In some cases,[1252] where we have reason to believe that older graves have been found, it is almost impossible to estimate their age. Recently, the expedition of the University of Pennsylvania to Nippur has unearthed remains that appear to belong to an older period, though nothing can be dated with any degree of certainty earlier than 2500 B.C.[1253] Still, with proper caution, even the material belonging to a later period may be used for the older periods. Burial customs, as has already been emphasized, const.i.tute the most conservative elements in a religion. Such rites are much less liable to change than the cult of the G.o.ds. Foreign invasion would not affect the funeral rites, even where other religious customs are altered. Even so violent a change as that produced by the introduction of Mohammedanism into Mesopotamia has not removed traces of the old Babylonian religion. Dr. Peters has shown that the district in the Euphrates Valley selected by the modern Arabs and Persians for the interment of their dead[1254] derives its sanct.i.ty from the days of the old Babylonian kingdom, and many of the customs observed by the modern Moslems tally with the funeral rites of ancient Babylonia.[1255] That the dead were always buried, and that cremation was practically unknown, may now be regarded as certain. The conception of Aralu, which, we have seen, belongs to the most ancient period of religion, is only intelligible upon the a.s.sumption that burial was the prevailing custom. On one of the oldest monuments of Babylonian art,--the stele of vultures,--earth-burial is represented.[1256] A few years ago, some German scholars[1257] claimed to have furnished the proof that the Babylonians cremated their dead. But, in the first place, the age of the tombs found by them was not clearly established; and, secondly, it was not certain whether the charred remains of human bodies were due to intentional burning or accidental destruction by fire, at the time that the city explored by the German scholars was destroyed.

The fact that, as the explorers themselves observed, the bodies were not completely burned argues in favor of the latter supposition. The explanation offered by Koldewey[1258] for this peculiar condition of the remains--that the burning was symbolical, and, therefore, not complete--is unsatisfactory in every particular. There can be no doubt that some, at least, of the tombs discovered at Warka by Loftus[1259]

belong to the period before the conquest of the country by Cyrus, and this is certainly the case with many of the tombs discovered at Nippur.

Nowhere do we find traces of burning of bodies.[1260] If it should turn out that cremation prevailed for a certain period, the fashion, we may feel certain, was due to foreign influences, but it is more than questionable whether it was ever introduced at all. Certainly, earth-burial is the characteristically Babylonian (and general Semitic) method of disposing of the dead.

The characteristic feature of the Babylonian tombs is their simplicity.

The dead body, which was often covered with palm woods, was placed generally on the side--though occasionally on the back--on a board of wood, or wrapped in a mat of reeds or palm fibers, and covered with a tub-shaped clay dish. On the dish there was frequently an ornamental design, but beyond this, there was no attempt at decoration. The body was frequently pressed together in order to be brought within the compa.s.s of the dish. Sometimes, the knees were pulled up or the body placed in a semi-sitting posture, and there are indications that the bodies were often divided into two or three parts prior to burial. On the stele of vultures,[1261] representing the triumph of Eannatum over his enemies, attendants are seen building a mound over the symmetrically arranged bodies of the king's soldiers slain in battle. The monument belongs to the most ancient period of Babylonian history, and we are justified, therefore, in regarding this method of earth-burial as the oldest in vogue. The dead, it would seem, are placed on the ground, or near the surface, and covered with a mound. This custom would account for the use of a dish to cover the body after it became customary to place the dead in small houses or vaults built for the purpose. The shape of the dish, or tub, recalls the earth-mound over the dead, and the tenacity of conventional methods is apparent in the modern custom, even among Western nations, of raising a mound over the grave, even though the body is placed at a depth of six feet and more below the surface. A modification of the form of coffin was the jar into which the body was forced. To do this, still greater violence had to be employed.

Instead of one jar, two were also used, the body placed partly in one, partly in the other, and the two were then joined with bitumen. In the Persian period, a slipper-shaped coffin was used, into which the body was inserted through an aperture at one end; but there is no evidence that the Babylonians employed this method. With the bodies, various objects were interred, many of which had a special significance. Except, perhaps, at a very early period[1262] the dead were not buried naked, but covered with a garment. The seal cylinder, which, as Herodotus tells us,[1263] every person of position carried about his person, and which, when impressed on a clay tablet, served as his signature, was buried with the dead as an ornament that had a personal value. The staff which the man was in the habit of carrying is found in the grave, and also such weapons as arrowheads and spears. Various ornaments of copper, iron, gold, and stone, rings, necklaces or bands of gold were probably placed with the dead as a sign of affection, not because of any belief that the deceased needed these objects. Toys, too, are found in the graves, and we may a.s.sume that these were placed in the tombs of children. The frequent presence of sh.e.l.ls in the tombs is still unexplained. On the other hand, remains of food, dates, grain, poultry, and fish, that have been found in graves belonging to various periods, may be regarded as a proof for the existence of the belief that the dead could suffer pangs of hunger. The closing lines of the Gilgamesh epic,[1264] where the fate of the neglected dead is portrayed, confirms this view. But such remains are more frequent in the early graves than in those of a later time. Animal sacrifices at the grave appear to be very old.[1265] Offerings of food and water were made to the dead, not only at the time of the burial, but afterwards by surviving relatives.

The son performs the office of pouring out water to the memory of his father.[1266] The close of the legend of Ishtar's journey suggests that the festival of Tammuz was selected as an 'All-Souls' day. The weeping for the lost Tammuz served as an appropriate link for combining with the mourning for the G.o.d the lament for the dead. The water jar is never absent in the old Babylonian tombs, and by the side of the jar the bowl of clay or bronze is found, and which probably served the same purpose as a drinking utensil for the dead. How early it became customary to bury the dead together we do not know. It may be that at one time they were buried beneath the dwellings that they occupied when alive, under the threshold or in the walls;[1267] but the conception of Aralu as a great gathering-place of the dead would hardly have arisen, unless the 'city of the dead' by the side of the 'city of the living' had become an established custom. We are, therefore, justified in a.s.suming that as the villages grew into towns, the huddling together of the living suggested placing the dead together in a portion of the town set aside for the purpose. In comparison with the elaborate constructions in the Egyptian cities of the dead, the Babylonian necropolis was a shabby affair.

Vaults, rarely more than five feet high, served as the place where the dead were deposited. These vaults were constructed of bricks, and an extended series of them gave to the necropolis the appearance of little houses, suggestive of primitive mud huts. This simplicity, due in the first instance to the lack of stone as building material in Babylonia, corresponded to the very simple character which the dwelling-house retained. The one-story type of dwelling, with simple part.i.tions, prevailed to the latest period. It was only in the temples and palaces that architectural skill was developed. In a.s.syria, although soft stone was accessible, the example of Babylonia was slavishly followed. It is due to this that so few traces of private houses have been found in the Mesopotamian explorations,[1268] and the almost primitive character of the graves--more primitive, by virtue of the strength of the conservative instinct in everything connected with the dead, than the dwellings of the living--readily accounts for their nearly complete destruction. Simple as the houses of the dead were, they were yet carefully guarded against the invasion of air and dust; and even after centuries of neglect the contents are found to be perfectly dry.

The explorations at Nippur show that the tub and bowl forms of the coffin continued to be used during the period extending from Hammurabi to Nabonnedos. In later times, it would appear, the custom of placing food and drink with the dead fell into disuse.[1269] We may perhaps find that, as was the case in Egypt, symbolical representations of food--a clay plate with the food modeled in clay--took the place of the old custom. Fewer utensils, too, are found in the graves of the later period; but, on the other hand, ornaments increase, until, when we reach the Persian and Greek periods, mirrors are quite common, and golden veils are placed over the dead, while handsome earrings, breastpins, and necklaces indicate the growth of this luxurious display. The clay coffins, too, are beautifully glazed and ornamented with elaborate designs. A trace of foreign--perhaps Graeco-Egyptian--influence may be seen in the human head modeled on the coffin. Naturally, at all times the different ranks occupied by the dead involved more or less modifications of the prevailing customs. The rich were placed in more carefully built vaults than the poor. The coverings and ornaments varied with the station of the deceased; but in general it may be said that, during the earlier periods of Babylonian-a.s.syrian history, simplicity was the rule, and the objects placed in the tombs were more carefully chosen with reference to the needs of the dead and the career that he led while living, while the tendency in later times was away from the religious beliefs that gave rise to the funeral customs, and in the direction of luxury and display. This development, however, is independent of _proper_ burial, upon which, as we have already had occasion to see, great stress was at all times laid. The greatest misfortune that could happen to a dead person was for his body to remain overground, or to be removed from the tomb and exposed to the light of day. In the early monument of Babylonian art,--the 'stele of vultures,'[1270]--already referred to, the dead foes are punished by being stripped of their clothing and exposed to the attack of vultures, who are seen carrying off human heads, legs, and arms. To emphasize the contrast, the king's soldiers are portrayed as being buried in symmetrical rows, the head of each body being covered by the feet of the body in the row above. When the Babylonian and a.s.syrian kings wish to curse the one who might venture to destroy the monuments set up by them, they know of nothing stronger than to express the hope

That his body may be cast aside, No grave be his lot.[1271]

The kings punished their enemies by leaving their bodies to rot in the sun, or they exposed them on poles as a warning to rebels. Ashurbanabal on one occasion speaks of having scattered the corpses of the enemy's host 'like thorns and thistles' over the battlefield.[1272] The corpses of the Babylonians who had aided in the rebellion against the king were given 'to dogs, swine, to the birds of heaven, to the fish of the sea'

as food.[1273] The same king takes pleasure in relating that he destroyed the graves of Elamitic kings and dragged the bodies from their resting-place[1274] to a.s.syria. Their shades, he adds, were thus unprotected. No food could be tendered them and no sacrifices offered in their honor. Sennacherib, after he has crushed a rebellion that broke out in Babylonia, takes a terrible revenge upon the instigator of the opposition, Mardukbaliddin, by removing the bodies of the latter's ancestors from the vaults wherein they were deposited. The bones of an enemy are enumerated by Ashurbanabal among the spoil secured by him.[1275] The mutilation of the dead body was also a terrible punishment to the dead,[1276] and we are told that the person who disturbed a grave is not to be permitted to enter the temple. The desecration of the grave affected not only the individual whose rest was thus disturbed, and who, in consequence, suffered pangs of hunger and other miseries, but reached the survivors as well. The unburied or disentombed shade a.s.sumed the form of a demon,[1277] and afflicted the living.

Of the ceremonies incidental to burial, the bronze tablet above described affords us at least a glimpse. The dead were placed on a bier and wrapped in some kind of a cover. Priests were called in to perform rites of purification. One of the priests, it will be recalled,[1278] is clad in a fish costume. The fish is the symbol of Ea, the G.o.d of the deep, who becomes the chief deity appealed to in incantations involving the use of water. The priest a.s.sumes the role of Ea, as it were, by the symbolical dress that he puts on. The rites appear to consist of the burning of incense and the sprinkling of water. It does not of course follow that everywhere the same custom was observed, but we may at least be certain that the priest played an important part in the last honors paid to the dead. The purification was intended to protect the dead from the evil spirits that infest the grave. The demons of disease, it is true, could no longer trouble him. They had done their work as messengers of Allatu. But there were other demons who were greedy for the blood and flesh of the dead. Though the dead had pa.s.sed out of the control of the G.o.ds, the latter had at least the power to restrain the demons from disturbing the peace of the grave.

In the earlier days, when the bodies were placed on the ground or only a short distance below it, the building of the grave-mound was a ceremony to which importance was attached. In the stele of vultures, attendants are portrayed--perhaps priests--with baskets on their heads, containing the earth to be placed over the fallen soldiers.[1279] These attendants are bare to the waist. The removal of the garments is probably a sign of mourning, just as among the Hebrews and other Semites it was customary to put on the primitive loin-cloth[1280] as a sign of grief. In somewhat later times, we find sorrowing relatives tearing their clothing[1281]-- originally tearing off their clothing--and cutting their hair as signs of mourning.

The formal lament for the dead was another ceremony upon which stress was laid. It lasted from three to seven days.[1282] The professional wailers, male and female, can be traced back to the earliest days of Babylonian history. Gudea speaks of them.[1283] It would appear that at this early period persons were engaged, as is the case to this day in the Orient, to sing dirges in memory of the dead.[1284] The function is one that belongs naturally to priests and priestesses; and, while in the course of time, the connection with the temple of those who acted as wailers became less formal, it is doubtful whether that connection was ever entirely cut off. The 'dirge singers, male and female,' referred to in the story of Ishtar's journey[1285] were in the service of some temple. The hymns to Nergal[1286] may be taken as samples of the Babylonian dirges.

The praise of Nergal and Allatu was combined with the lament for the sad fate of the dead. Gilgamesh weeping for his friend Eabani[1287]

furnishes an ill.u.s.tration. Gilgamesh is described as stretched out on the ground. The same custom is referred to in the inscriptions of Cyrus,[1288] and it is interesting to note that a similar mode of manifesting grief still prevails in the modern Orient. In the Babylonian dirges, it would seem, the references to the virtues of the deceased (which are prominently introduced into the dirges of the present day) were few. The refrain forms a regular feature of these dirges,--an indication that, as is still the case in the Orient, there was a leader who sang the dirge, while the chorus chimed in at the proper moment. The principle of the stanza of two lines, one long and one short, that, as Budde has shown,[1289] controls the wailing songs in the Old Testament (including the Book of Lamentations, which is based upon this very custom of lamenting the dead), may be detected in the Babylonian compositions. The accompaniment of musical instruments to the dirges also appears to be a very old custom in Babylonia. In the story of Ishtar's journey the wailers are called upon to strike their instruments. What kind of instruments were used in ancient times we do not know. In the a.s.syrian period, the harp and flute appear to be the most common.[1290]

At the time that food and drink were placed with the dead in the grave, some arrangements must have been made for renewing the nourishment.

Entrances to tombs have been found,[1291] and Koldewey[1292] is of the opinion that the clay drains found in quant.i.ties in the tombs, served as well to secure a supply of fresh water for the dead. The wailing for the dead took place not only immediately after death, but subsequently.

Ashurbanabal speaks of visiting the graves of his ancestors. He appears at the tomb with rent garments, pours out a libation to the memory of the dead, and offers up a prayer addressed to them. We have every reason to believe that the graves were frequently visited by the survivors. The festival of Tammuz became an occasion[1293] when the memory of those who had entered Aralu was recalled.

While there are many details connected with the ceremonies for the dead still to be determined, what has been ascertained ill.u.s.trates how closely and consistently these ceremonies followed the views held by the Babylonians and a.s.syrians regarding the life after death. Everything connected with death is gloomy. The grave is as dark as Aralu; the funeral rites consist of dirges that lament not so much the loss sustained by the living as the sad fate in store for the dead. Not a ray of sunshine illumines the darkness that surrounds these rites. All that is hoped for is to protect the dead against the attack of demons greedy for human flesh, to secure rest for the body, and to guard the dead against hunger and thirst.

It is almost startling to note, to what a degree the views embodied in Old Testament writings regarding the fate of the dead, coincide with Babylonian conceptions. The descriptions of Sheol found in Job, in the Psalms, in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and elsewhere are hardly to be distinguished from those that we have encountered in Babylonian literature. For Job,[1294] Sheol is

The land of darkness and deep shadows.

The land of densest gloom and not of light.

Even where there is a gleam, there it is as dark night.[1295]

The description might serve as a paraphrase of the opening lines in the story of Ishtar's journey. The Hebrew Sheol is situated, like the Babylonian Aralu, deep down in the earth.[1296] It is pictured as a cavern. The entrance to it is through gates that are provided with bolts. Sheol is described as a land filled with dust. Silence reigns supreme. It is the gathering-place of all the living, without exception.

He who sinks into Sheol does not rise up again.

He does not return to his house.

His place knows him no more.[1297]

It is, clearly, 'a land without return,' as the Babylonians conceived it. The condition of the dead in Sheol is sad, precisely as the Babylonians pictured the life in Aralu. The dead are designated by a name[1298] that indicates their weak condition. They can only talk in whispers or they chirp like birds. Their gait is unsteady. In general, they are pictured as lying quiet, doomed to inactivity. Death is lamented as an evil. The dead have pa.s.sed out of the control of Yahwe, whose concern is with the living. Yahwe's blessings are meted out in this world, but not in Sheol. These blessings consist chiefly of long life and plenty of offspring. The dead need not praise Yahwe.

Ecclesiastes--although a late composition--expresses the old popular view in the summary of the fate of the dead,[1299] when it is said that the dead know nothing of what is going on. Their memory is gone; they neither love nor hate, and they are devoid of any ambition. There is no planning, no wisdom, no judgment in Sheol.

Like the Babylonians, the Hebrews also believed that the condition of the individual at the time of death was an index of the condition in store for him in Sheol. He who goes to Sheol in sorrow is pursued by sorrow after death. Jacob does not want to go down to Sheol in sorrow,[1300] because he knows that in that case sorrow will be his fate after death. To die neglected by one's family was fatal to one's well-being in Sheol. Life in Sheol was a continuation, in a measure, of the earthly existence. Hence, the warrior is buried with his weapons; the prophet is recognized by his cloak; the kings wear their crowns; the people of various lands are known by their dress.[1301] Even deformities, as lameness, follow the individual into the grave. On the other hand, while the dead were weak and generally inactive, although capable of suffering, they were also regarded by the Hebrews as possessing powers superior to those of the living. As among the Babylonians, the dead stand so close to the higher powers as to be themselves possessed of divine qualities. Schwally aptly characterizes this apparent contradiction by saying 'that the dead are _Refa'im_ (weak), but, at the same time, _Elohim_, _i.e._ divine beings.'[1302]

Yahwe has no power over the dead, but they receive some of his qualities. They are invoked by the living. The dead can furnish oracles, precisely as Yahwe can. They not only appear to the living in dreams, but their shades can be raised up from Sheol. A certain amount of worship was certainly paid to the dead by the ancient Hebrews.

Naturally, these popular views were subjected to considerable modification with the development of the religion of the Hebrews. While many features remained, as is shown by the occurrence of the primitive conception of Sheol in comparatively late productions, in one important particular, more especially, did the spread of an advanced ethical monotheism lead to a complete departure from the Babylonian conceptions.

While, in the popular mind, the belief that there was no escape from Sheol continued for a long time, this belief was inconsistent with the conception of a Divine Being, who, as creator and sole ruler of the universe, had control of the dead as well as the living. As long as Yahwe was merely one G.o.d among many, no exception was made of the rule that the concern of the G.o.ds was with the living; but Yahwe as the one and only G.o.d, could not be pictured as limited in his scope. He was a G.o.d for the dead, as well as for the living. The so-called song of Hannah[1303] expresses the new view when it praises Yahwe as the one 'who kills and restores to life, who leads to Sheol, and who can lead out of it.' Such a description of Yahwe is totally different from the Babylonians' praise of Ninib, Gula, or Marduk as the 'restorer of the dead to life,' which simply meant that these G.o.ds could restrain Allatu.

The power to s.n.a.t.c.h the individual from the grasp of Sheol was also ascribed to the national G.o.d, Yahwe. Elijah's restoration of the widow's child[1304] to life is an instance of this power, and Jonah,[1305] who praises Yahwe for having delivered him when the gates of Sheol already seemed bolted, may not have had anything more in mind than what the Babylonians meant; but when the Psalmist, to indicate the universal rule of Yahwe, exclaims

If I mount to heaven, thou art there, If I make Sheol my couch, thou art there,[1306]

the departure from the old Hebrew and Babylonian views of the limitation of divine power is clearly marked. The inconsistency between the view held of Yahwe and the limitation of his power was not, however, always recognized. Hence, even in late portions of the Old Testament, we find views of the life after death that are closely allied to the popular notions prevailing in the earlier productions. It is not, indeed, till we reach a period bordering close on our era that the conflict between the old and the new is brought to a decided issue in the disputes of the sects that arose in Palestine.[1307] The doctrines of retribution and of the resurrection of the dead are the inevitable consequences of the later ethical faith and finally triumph; but the old views, which bring the ancient Hebrews into such close connection with the Babylonians, left their impress in the vagueness that for a long time characterized these doctrines, even after their promulgation. The persistency of the old beliefs is a proof of the strong hold that they acquired, as also of the close bond uniting, at one time and for a long period, Hebrews and Babylonians. What applies to the beliefs regarding the dead holds good also for the rites. Many a modern Jewish custom[1308] still bears witness to the original ident.i.ty of the Hebrew and Babylonian methods of disposing of and caring for the dead.

There is but one explanation for this close agreement,--the same explanation that was given for the ident.i.ty of traditions regarding the creation of the world, and for the various other points of contact between the two peoples that we have met with. When the Hebrew clans left their homes in the Euphrates Valley, they carried with them the traditions, beliefs, and customs that were current in that district, and which they shared with the Babylonians. Under new surroundings, some new features were added to the traditions and beliefs, but the additions did not obscure the distinctive character impressed upon them by Babylonian contact. We now know that relations with Babylonia were never entirely broken off by the Hebrews. The old traditions survived all vicissitudes.

They were adapted to totally changed phases of belief, but the kernel still remained Babylonian. Beliefs were modified, new doctrines arose; but, with a happy inconsistency, the old was embodied in the new. Hence it happens, that in order to understand the Hebrews, their religion, their customs, and even their manner of thought, we must turn to Babylonia.

Further discoveries beneath the mounds of Mesopotamia and further researches in Babylonian literature will add more evidence to the indebtedness of the Hebrews to Babylonia. It will be found that in the sacrificial ordinances of the Pentateuch, in the legal regulations, in methods of justice and punishment, Babylonian models were largely followed, or, what is an equal testimony to Babylonian influence, an opposition to Babylonian methods was dominant. It is not strange that when by a curious fate, the Hebrews were once more carried back to the 'great river of Babylon,'[1309] the people felt so thoroughly at home there. It was only the poets and some ardent patriots who hung their harps on the willows and sighed for a return to Zion. The Jewish population steadily increased in Babylonia, and soon also the intellectual activity of Babylonian Jews outstripped that of Palestine.[1310] The finishing touches to the structure of Judaism were given in Babylonia--on the soil where the foundations were laid.

FOOTNOTES:

[1112] See above, p. 448.

[1113] See pp. 487, 489, 511, 512.

[1114] Or Arallu.

[1115] IIR. 61, 18. Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 220, takes this as the name of a temple; but, since Aralu was pictured as a 'great house,' there is no reason why the designation should not refer to the nether world.

[1116] See the admirable argument in Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 185-195.

[1117] Or, more fully, Kharsag-gal-kurkura, 'great mountain of all lands.'

[1118] See above, p. 458.