Mesopotamian Thought

[us4-he2-gal2]

- Mesopotamian Thought -

Hey everyone - today I'm reading through an article entitled "Conservative Mesopotamian Thought" which is an article by Paul Garelli Daedalus (American Academy of Arts & Sciences 1975). The author explores how Mesopotamian thinking and its conservative (traditional) nature, prevented a monotheistic religion from occuring there. While Garelli isn't from the usual circles in which I draw on for Assyriological information, he writes a nice article containing perspective on Mesopotamian deity and Monotheism, also perspective on the the Mesopotamian worldview and magical beliefs. In the below review, I note some discussion which touches the views of A. Leo Oppenheim, a famous Sumerologist who took a pessimistic stance about the chances of reconstructing Sumerian religion - in this view he was opposed by his own student W.W. Hallo who wrote an article entitled "The Limits of Skepticism" - for more on this please see our thread Recommended Reading, Reply number 2.



Mesopotamia as non-monotheistic/


Daedalus begins his narrative by remarking, very astutely, that if the intellectual of today wishes to understand the phenomenon of the top three world religions (all monotheistic), he must begin by understanding the very different polytheistic world in which they (beginning with Judaism) were born out of.. that is, the religious world of the Ancient Near East and specifically, Mesopotamia. Here
Daedalus considers the famous stance of the pessimistic Mesopotamian scholar A. Leo Oppenheim, who argued that because religion was experienced differently by Mesopotamian kings, priests (temple religion) and the public who were excluded from both of the above, we stand little chance of being able to speak of a coherent Mesopotamian religion in any circumstances. Daedalus immediately offers the contrary view of J. Nougayrol - of course, Nougayrol himself admitted that Mesopotamian religious devotion is a complex matter:


"In Babylonia itself one can attribute specific traits to certain local cults...Certain specialized priests choose particular gods in limited sections of the pantheon to whom they could most readily address themselves. In this sense, there existed "theologies" of the soothsayer, of the magician, of the "cantor.""



Mesopotamia as Tradition based culture/


However, Nougayrol believed that the Mesopotamian religion, for all its intricacy between the different classes and professions, had one overriding unifying factor: "It's tendency to remain static" or, in other words, it's tradition. As Daedalus explains, this is how the canon of Assurbanipal (669-630 BC) came to reflect an essential Sumerian pantheon - both Babylonian and Assyrian theologians operated with the same respect to tradition, possibly "Babylonianizing" some of the gods names, but retaining an essentially Sumerian pantheon "until the end of the empires." An important exception was the promotion of certain unimportant gods (i.e. Assur in Assyria, Marduk in Babylon) to the position of high god (originally held by Enlil). Yet, the author notes, here the Mesopotamians are simple following the example of the Sumerians, who gave precedent to Enlil only after the fading reign of the heaven god An. This fading of sovereign figures in favor of younger more dynamic personalities is a common feature of old religions, the author says, but in the case of Mesopotamia the tendency for this to happen to the national god is a somewhat unusal arrangement.


Sumerian precedent itself seems to be a uniting factor the author believes: "Apart from the facts cited, one cannot leave unmentioned the general disposition of the temples, which easily allow the Sumerian prototypes to be seen beneath their subsequent expansions: the cella that shelters the divine statue, opening onto a courtyard, surrounded by the repositories and by the private chambers. From this very fact one can deduce the permanence of a ceremonial order, and we know that Sumerian remained the liturgical language in the Assyro-Babylonian sanctuaries. The penitential palms were composed in Sumerian dialect with an interlinear translation in Akkadian. Also of Sumerian inspiration were a great number of literary forms, such as royal inscriptions, the "wisdoms," and the incantations. Finally, should not the Sumerian origin of legendary heros such as Gilgamesh and Etana be recalled?"

The author further points out that the long held notion of a struggle between Sumerian and Akkadian elements in lower Iraq has matured into a different interpretation; that the Sumero-Akkadian symbiosis had already been accomplished when the Semitic people unified Mesopotamia - that is, by the time Sargon I invaded southern Mesopotamia and established Semitic rule over the Sumerians (though his dynasty was soon overthrown), and in the intervening period until the fall of the Sumerian civilization, strong semitizing forces were already blending the two cultures in the south. It is therefore perhaps more appropriate to talk of different phases of one civilization than the influence of one over the other (Sumerians over the Semitic or vice versa.) While the Old Babylonian period was the collecting of old forms and creating of most of the version that remain extent, and while the later Assyrians added some (mostly minor) literary works of their own, it was that overriding respect for tradition that "prevented them from giving up ancestral practices."


Daedalus makes a particularly interesting comment when he notes that many of the literary pieces were written or copied by priests who had undergone scribal training - "an appreciable number of literary and religious works, such as "The Exaltation of Ishtar" and "Epic of Gilgamesh," are attributed by a catalogue of authors to the writers of laments and incantations... magic and reason could apparently live together without conflict in the same individual." The role of the priest he notes, was particularly to assure the continuity of tradition.



Magic and Religion/


And yet, certain types of narratives often proceed with apparent contradiction - often times Mesopotamian piety was such that hymns assigned strengths disproportionately to the local god of a given community, or when a national god such as Marduk absorbed attributes of other major gods "Sin is they divinity, Anu thy principality.." Is this to be seen as some sort of primitive monotheism? The author suggests instead that such inconsistencies are neither monotheistic in leaning nor untraditional divergences, but rather reflect on a fundamental aspect of the Mesopotamian worldview - that "in reality, there is no insurmountable barrier between beings, the gods, and the universe."

And so we note one incantation spell has a man reciting "Enlil is my head, the day is my face, Urash, the perfect god, is my guardian spirit; my neck is Ninlil's necklace, my arm, the crescent of western Sin." The author states that the afflicted man knows well "that he is neither god nor sky nor earth. But he assumes the strength evoked by these words, thanks to the power of the ritual performed under the required condition. He is then all of these things." In Mesopotamian there is a continual mingling of religious and magical attitudes. Indeed, in other areas of enenuru we have noted the interplay of the temple and divine purifiers used in rituals and incantations as a means of bringing together heaven and earth - of channaling the beneficial will of the gods to the sick man in need.



Israel and Monotheism/


Daedalus finally turns back to the question of Israel and the question of real monotheism: "What factors cause such different results to be produced in Mesopotamia and Isreal? One cannot invoke ethnic factors or intellectual capacities. The ancestors of the Israelites were polytheistic nomads, who wandered in the same regions as the racially related Akkadian tribes. Monotheism was born much later, after they had settled in Canaan, and it took the form of denying foreign beliefs in order to preserve national identity. One could conceive of the Akkadian nomads acting in the same manner and for the same reasons. But they were not isolated in a mountainous hinterland; they were scattered throughout the fertile plains and on the outskirts of Sumerians cities, which appeared to them as so many fascinating centers of culture. For them, the acquisition of a national identity coincided with the unification of these centers whose system of values they recognized.... The period of slow maturation of the tribes of Israel in a relatively isolated area was perhaps that "little nothing" that explains everything. The God of their forefathers watched for his chances after the conquest, and history very quickly assumed a religious dimension."