Gods in the Desert Religions of the Ancient Near East Glenn S. Holland ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham * Boulder * New York * Toronto * Plymouth, UKROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Copytight © 2009 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, nc AI sights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in & 1 system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechs Information Available (Gods in the desor: reli ecm. Includes bibliographical ISBN 978-0-7425-9919-6 (electronic) em. I Tite 'BL.1060.H635 2009 200.9394 —de22 2oosco9s44 “The Scripture quotations used herein are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council cof Churches of Christin the U.S.A. and ate used by permission. All rights reserved, Printed in che United States of America @" The paper wed inthis publintion ees che minimum requirements of formation SclencesPemmancnc of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO 239.48-1992. Section 1 Chapter I Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Section 2 Chapter 6 (Chapter 7 we Contents List of Ilustrations List of Maps Time Line Preface Introduction: Religion and Ies Characteristic Expression Egypt Egypt: Historical Survey Egypt: The Gods and the World They Made Egypt: The King and Royal Power Egypt: The World of the Dead Egypt: The Human World Mesopotamia Mesopotamia: Historical Survey Mesopotamia: The Gods and the World They Madevi wt Contents Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Section 3 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Mesopotamia: The World of Kings and Heroes Mesopotamia: The World of the Dead Mesopotamia: The Human World Syria~Palestine ‘Syria Palestine: Historical Survey ‘Syria~Palestine: The Gods and the World They Made ‘Syria-Palestine: Kings and Prophets Syria-Palestine: Suffering and Death Syria-Palestine: The Human World ‘Conclusion: Change and Continuity in the Hellenistic Age Bi Glossary iography for Further Reading Index BI 149 167 257 Wwe Illustrations ‘The Great Pyramid at Giza Mask of Tucankhamnun Head of Hathor ‘Akhenaten and his family receiving blessings at the hands of Aten Partially reconstructed mortuary temple of Hatshepsut ‘Tutankhamun between the goddess Sekhmet and Ptah, flanked bby Horus as crowned falcon and Wadjit, goddess of Lower Egypt ‘The weighing of the heart in the Judgment Hall of Ositis. Procession of the sun bark of Ra Figure of a scribe Sargon I and the Tree of Life ‘Akkadian seal from Mesopotamia (Clay mask of Huwawa or Humbaba cruction of the Great Ziggurat at Ur of the Ishear Gate of the city of Babylon Cuneiform tablet containing part of the Flood narrative from the Epic of Gilgamesh Bronze Canaanite figure of Beal ‘View of modern Jerusalemwa List of Maps Ancient Egypt xi Ancient Mesopotamia xi Syria-Palestine in the Ninth Century BCE xiiAncient Egypt MEDITERRANEAN SEA | ? Nile Delta 4: ‘Ancient World Mapping Center at the U junc.edwawme)Persian Gulf we dew eu menpo'2un a) ie fadeyD 2e eum 89 ION Jo Aysso¥un axe swan Suuddey puoM awerouy ogi 4 A00e 39 “am ug ou ut BURSE/ed eke¢. 8300e—4000 BCE. ¢, 5000 BCE, 3500 BCE. ¢.3300 BCE. c. 3000-2686 BCE. ¢. 2900 BCE, 2686-2125 BCE. 2667-2648 BCE. 2589-2566 BCE. 2334-2279 BCE. wa Time Line Neolithic era (New Stone Age) Mesopotamia: Ubaidian culture dominant throughout the territory Mesopotamia: Sumerians enter southern Mesopotamia ‘Mesopotamia: Development of cuneiform writing in Sumeria Egypt: Archaic era—Dynasty 1 and 2 Mesopotamia: Amorites settle to the north of, Sumer Egypt: Old Kingdom—Dynasty 3-8 Egype: Djoser; career of Imhotep, later deified as the god of medicine Egypt: Khufu (Cheops) Mesopotamia: Sargon the Great of Akkadxvi we Time Line . 2200-1200 BCE. 2160-2055 BCE. 21 BCE, 2055-1650 BCE. 1985-1956 BCE. 1956-1911 BCE. 1792-1750 BCE, 1650-1550 BCE, 1650-1550 BCE. 1595-1157 B.CE, 1550-1069 B.C. ©. 1365 BCE. 1352-1336 BCE. 1279-1213 BCE. 1235 BCE. ©. 1200-800 BCE. 1115-1077 BCE. Middle and Late Bronze Ages diate Petiod—Dynasty 9-11 mia: Ur-Nammu establishes Third Dynasty of Ur Egypt: Middle Kingdom—Dynasty 11-14 Egypt: Amenemhat I Egypt: Senusret 1 Mesopotamia: Hammurabi, Babylon c great king of Egypt: Second Intermediate Period Dynasty 15-17 Egypt: Hyksos—Dynasty 15 Mesopotamia: Kassites rule Mesopotamia Egypt: New Kingdom—Dynasty 18-20 Mesopotamia: Assur-uballit I (1365-1330 BCE) frees Assyria from Hurcian domination and seestablishes it as an independent kingdom Egypt: Amenhotep IV / Ankhenat Egypt: Ramesses Il Mesopotamia: Tukulti-Ninurta (1244-1208 BCE) of Assyria conquers Babylon Dark Age in the eastern Mediterranean; incursions of the Sea Peoples into the Neat Bast, Mesopotamia: Tiglath-Pilester I, king of Assyria 1069-64 BCE. 1020-1000 BCE. ¢. 1000-961 BCE, 961-922 BCE. 922-587 BCE, 863-859 BCE. 882-871 BCE. ¢ 871-851 BCE. 858-823 BCE, ¢. 851-850 BCE. 842-814 BCE. 786-158 BCE. 785-749 BCE. 758-742 BCE. 744-727 BCE. 742-126 BCE. 740-132 BCE. 35-731 E. 726-697 BCE. Time Line wer oi Egypt: Third Intermediate Period—Dynasty 21-25 Syria 1e: Saul, king of Israel ‘Syria-Palestine: David, king of Judah and Israel Syria-Palestine: Solomon, king of Judah and Israel ‘Syria-Palestine: Separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah Mesopotamia: Assumasirpal I, king of Assyria Syria-Palestine: Omri, king of Israel SyriaPalestine: Ahab, king of Israel Mesopotamia: Shalmaneser Ill, king of Assyria Syria-Palestine: Ahaziah, king of Israel ‘Syria-Palestine: Jehu, king of Israel Syria-Palestine: Uzziah, king of Judah, Syria-Pal 1: Jeroboam II, king of Israel Syria-Palestine: Jotham, king of Judah Mesopotamia: Tiglath-Pileser IIL, king of Assyria Syria-Palestine: Ahaz, king of Judah Syria-Palestine: Rezin, king of Aram-Damascus ‘Syria-Palestine: Pekah, king of Israel 1: Hezekiah, king of Judahxvii tly Time Line 721-105 BCE. (97-642 BCE 669-627 BCE. 664-332 BCE, 604-562 BCE, 556-539 BCE, 359-530 BCE. 436-465 BCE, 336-323 BCE. 333-63 BCE, 332 BCE, 305-285 BCE. 175-163 BCE. 167-142 BCE, 165 BCE 142-63 BCE Mesopotamia: Sargon Il, king of Assyria Syria-Pal Manasseh, king of Judah Mesopotamia: Assurbanipal, king of Assyria Egypt: Late Period Dynasty 26-30, Persian rule Mesopotamia: Nebuchadnezzar Il, king of Babylon, Mesopotamia: Nabonidus (Nabu-na’id), king of Babylon Persia: Cyrus Il (“the Great”), king of Persia Persia: Xerxes, king of Persia Greece: Alexander Ill (“the Great”), king of Macedon, Hellenistic Era Persia: Alexander conquers Persian possessions in the Near East Egypt: Prolemy I Soter, first Hellenistic king of Egypt Syria-Palestine: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria, 175-163 B.CE. ‘Syria-Palestine: Maceabean re\ in Judah, Syria: in Jersualem ine: Restoration of Temple sacrifice SyriaPalestine: Jewish autonomy under Hasmonean rule world, including the first few centuries of the Christian movement wa Preface ‘This book is a product of a course chat I began teaching shortly after my ar- rival at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania, in the wanted to provide my students with a better understanding of In 2003 1 was approached by The Teaching Company to produce & series of recorded lectures based on my course about ancient religious culeutes. The lectures were released under the title “Religion in the Ancient Mediter- ranean World” in 2005. This book owes much to my research in preparation for those lei in regard to both approach and content. ‘The intention of this book is the same as the int taught at Allegheny. | want to provide not only an overview of three differ- ‘ent religious cultures—Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria-Palestine—but also through the use of primary sources to give the reader some idea of how the adherents of these different religious cultures thought about the gods, the hu- ‘man situation, creation, and the relationship between humanity and the imporvant—how they expressed those thoughts in words of the course [firstax str Preface Prefice sty xxi The approach is broadly comparative. I have divided the main portion of I the book into three sections, one devoted to each religious culture, and fur- ther divided each section into five chapters. The first chapter provides historical survey of Egypt, Mesopotamia, or Syria-Palestine, beginning in Prehistory and culminaring with Alexander’ conquest of the Near East i the fourth ing what s conquests to give the reader some sense of the general historical contexts in which these different religious cultures flourished. The second chapter in gods of the religious culture and its dominant th the place of the king and dominant cultural figures in relationship to the gods om the one hand chapter addresses beliefs about the the dead and discusses the gods of the Underworld in relation to the gods ofthe earth and heaven, and beliefs about human life and death. Fi chapter in each section examines te expres- yin discusses Alexander’ conquest of ry of the religious cultures of Egypt, the first century BCE, on the eve of ‘As always, I have depended dur ind my sons Nathani atedly validated ‘en expressed in the ancient Near East that the greatest joys found in che company of one’s spouse and children. This book is dedicated to them. Glenn §. Holland January 2009 and brings the sto Mesopotamia, and Syria—Palestine uy the Roman conquest of the Near East. Tan indebred to many people who have helped to make this book poss ble. My students at Allegheny College over more than twe spired me through their interest and their searching quest fill in more and more details of my portrayal of ancient seems to be an increasingly large canvas. My departmental colleagu the years, most notably Carl Olson and Etic Boynton, have encou! work and provided models of scholarly depth and rigor that I hope , here. [have also benefited immeasurably from the com- who have reviewed my work and offered their insights, | 1 am particularly grateful to those associated with The Teaching Com: any, past and present, whose support and encouragement dur ‘opment of my lecture series was invaluable for the creation of would like to particularly thank Virginia Mazbella, Maggie Lyons, Brien Lohrmann, and the others who have made my association with The Teach- ing Company such a pleasure. I am also indebted to Brian Romer, who first approached me about writing this book, and Sarah Stanton of Rowman & Littlefield, who has helped me bring it to completion. time I have spent in the creation of this book may be fairly charac- terized as a time of transition in my life, and transitions are by their natureaes we Introduction: Religion and Its Characteristic Expression What Is Religion? Before we begin our discussion of religion in the ancient Near East, we really hhave to ask a fundamental question: What is religion? Most of us, reasonably enough, usually begin to develop a definition of a complex human phenomenon by making a list of what seem to be its essen tial elements. We consider different examples—in this cae, different religious ‘commiunities—and try to isolate what they have in common. Then we choose those common elements that seem to be essential to the phenomenon—in | this case, religion—and put aside other elements our examples might share | with other ideas and activities that clearly have nothing to do, So we start out fea of what religion might be s essential elements. stablishing and maintaining a rel them and doing what the god or gods command. So is activities aimed at pleasing a god or gods. But not all examples of what clearly quelif jon have anything to svith gods but with spirits of some sore, and some hhave no gods of any sort. Even the general idea of *voxiv ty Introduction: Religion and Its Characteristic Expression the one hand we have to define what sort of human actions might qualify as, “worship,” and on the other, some clear any actions that conform to those we usually associate with worship. As for general idea of pleasing a god or gods, that may be done through everything we do each day can be considered “religious So we really have two problems to solve. First, how do we best describe the focus of attention for people who participate in a particular religious community, what they might conceive of as gods or spirits or powers ot @ world or concerns beyond our own? Second, how do we describe the conse- quences of sharing that focus of artention with other people, in terms of how a community responds to the focus of its attention through words, actions, and a distinctive way of life? For help in answering the fist question, we may turn co the German the- ologian Rudolf Otto (1869-1937), who devoted his 1923 book The Idea of Holy to the essential nature of the focus of attention in religious communi: ties. phasis on interior re havior. (Otto identified the focus of attention in religious communities as the “ overwhelming and avre-inspiring mystery. thing people experienced as entirely “Ocher, thing else in human experience in both order and magnitude. For Otto religion was prim experience of the Holy, human encounter with the over- wwheliming mystery that could not be understood through rational analysis, ‘Otto's idea of religion has the advantage of shifting the focus from spi tual beings or the supernatural to a more general idea of the Holy as some- thing human beings experience as both awesome and comy +hat is, completely unlike any- f; he was much less concerned with the consequences of re- che expression of religious belie in words and actions. }), an older contem- Insroduction: Religion and Its Characteristic Expression wy scxw jen—beliefs and prac- tices which unite into one single moral community called a church all those sho adhere to them” (Durkheim, ‘This comprehensive defi hhas both advantages and disadvantages. ‘Among the advantages is its inclusion of the cansequences of reli- gious belief: a community of people who share religious beliefs and practices ‘well as a distinctive way of life based on those beliefs, a religious culture. ‘This is why Durkheim calls the community created by a religion a moral com- rounicy, because it is characterized by specific forms of behavior. He also snakes it clear that the beliefs and practices typical of a given religious cul- ture are unified and systematic—in other words, they are mutually depen- | dent and mutually supportive, each related to the others in some way thar ‘The disadvantages of Durkheim's definition are perhaps mote numerous. ‘Durkheim defines a religious community asa “church,” a distinct term also implies the idea of a “gathering” or congregation, community and the religious com- gious cultures of the an- munity and the religious com- cient Near East, for example, the soc munity were the same, and did not usual je any aspects we might recognize as congregational. Durkheim's defini laces sacredness ex- clusively in “things,” erm that seems to imply sacred objects 1 even a more general concept of ‘sacred things” as shat is forbidden—an unnecessarily restrictive idea, since in some religious communities the sacred is embrace nis a useful one, and it is relatively requites a further definition of the ered a5 “that which permeates inftr ences, and relates to material reality and yet is recognized as part of another reality not subject to the limitations of the material.” This definition lacks the grace and power of Orto's definition of the Hi ‘cate more clearly how the sacred is believed to interact with the everyday re- ality of the religious communityravi why Introduction: Religion and Its Charac We will want to keep this modified version of sc to understanding ‘or holy, the essential interdependence of reli the necessity of a rel havior based on its ‘Ways of Thinking about the Sacred As the distinctive religious cultures of the ancient Near East began to emerge during the Neolithic era (8300-4000 BCE), particular ways of thinking ab the sacted arose. Fist, there was the predominant tendency to think about the sacred in terms of the divine, that is, in terms of deities who are self-conscious controllers of numinous—supematural or spritual-—power. We in the West are so used to thinking of the sacred in this way that we need to be reminded that there are other possibilities. For example, some people think of the sacred as immanent in creation, that is, as something that exists in and eheough al things. But tis dea of the sacred does not include the ides that che sacred con- sciously controls or directs its own power. Instead, it falls to human beings to act in ways that will help the sacred to bring well-being to the cosmos. Even when the sacred is thought of in terms of particular localized mani festations instead of immanent in creation, it need not be present only in be- ings such as gods. The sacred can also he present in places, places whose sa- cred nan requires that human beings behave in a particular way when they are there, or in things whose sacred nature requires thai and wse them only in certain ways. Even when the sacre; ‘terms of beings that exert an influence over human affairs, those beings may | not be thought of as making conscious choices about how ings. Their actions may be thought of as more or less autor responses to human actions; and so on are often believ behave, and all their interactions with hu: Near Eastern religious culture—along with belief in spirits, sghosts—in general, the sacred was thought of primarily in terms of deity. This ‘meant preeminently a collection of gods and goddesses. These gods and god- esses were identified with different aspects of creation or its divine govern- Many had a specific realm of divine concem, while others were essen. tially personifications of divine principles or qualities. Second, there was the tendency in the ancient Near East to think about the sacred as something different anc im’s definition of re- | us community that follows particular patterns of be- | is is how spirits, ghosts, ancestors, demons, | is found in ancient | demons, and | Introduction: Religion and Its Chat ch monism (from the Greek monos, “one and exists is based in and an expres- tures. One contrast here is material reality. Whatever its esse is believed to be manifested in myri ‘or consciousness, 0: monism this single in opposition to one andther in the flow of cos- he ancient Near East, and Wester cultures historically, have ly thought of creation as something other than a manifestation of a single or a dual divine Sreation may be ‘ought into being by a god ot gods, and other gods may be a result of the “| creative work, but the gods and the created order inhabited by them and by | human beings are generally regarded as separate but interrelated realities. | Third, following on this idea, the ancient Near East shared the idea that the sacred is transcendent over the human world and yet involved in the hur ran world by choice rather than as a matter of necesiy. In other words, the gods and goddesses chose to concer themselves with human beings and ‘what human beings do. In contrast to this idea is pantheism, a form of tonism that posits tha all creatures are merely extensions and expressions of the divine. This means the relationship between the divine and the hu- relationship of the divine to itself in the human and so a ationship, not a matter of choice. But in the ancient Near East of the their people understood the cosmos. They thought of the sacred self-conscious controllers of power, gods and goddesses. They believ controllers of sacred power were superior to and sepatate from creation and its creatures. But at they same time, they believed the gods and goddesses chose te live in relationship to creation and its creatures. Beliefs about the nature of that relarionship, however, varied from one religious culture to another. Ways of Talking about the Sacred ‘These common beliefs about the sacred in the ancient Near East are the re- sult of human beings attempting to understand and talk about the sacted and “Various ideas associated with it. But the very nature of the sacred prevents usewiil js Ingoduction: Religion and Its Characteristic Expression from having a direct way to talk about it. Human language is based on the reality we experience in everyday life. We today usually contrast our mun- dane reality with what we think of or experience as part of religious belief and practice. But this has not been the case with all people throughout his- tory. For people in the ancient world, and many people even today, the sa- czed permeates the mundane world and is part—an unseen part—of every- the day reality. But even for those people there is no direct way to talk abou sacred, because by its very nature it resists our attempts to make senst ‘way human beings can talk about things and matters related to the sacred is through metaphor, using language originally meant to describe in their conception, which is the most literal sense of the word. in 1¢ word “father” to: bby that person’s role in.a person's life ‘Christians use “father” to talk about their god, they are using the word and the idea behind it as a metaphor or analogy. God is, in certain very speci respects, comparable to a human father. But more particularly, God is ‘human father in the Jewish context of first-century Ps a Jesus used the term in reference to God and taught his The use of symbolic language when we talk about the sacred isa necessary result of our experience of the sacred being filtered through human con- sciousness. Human consciousness is structured and developed by our experi- cence of the world. But our experience of the world is in turn dependent on the historical and cultural setting in which we live our lives. So we find each culture's ideas about the sacred realm bear a strong resemblance to its own historical models of power, wisdom, relationship, and value. Whatever is prized most highly in a given culture will be attributed to the sacred realm and its inhabitants. However society is structured in a given culture will be reflected in the social order attributed to the gods, and whatever virtues set cone person apart from another will be the basis ofthe distinctions among the gods. In this way, not only language, but human cultural notms, are used sym- ‘The language of religious symbolism does not only arise from cultural con- sensus. It might also arise from in« idual consciousness or be “given,” that given symbol of the experience. But man who fillsthe | Inrroduction: Religion and Its Characteristic Expression ta ax a pavticular iral component, and arguably the by the experience. In any event, related cultures in the sort given like this, there is an undenial cultural context determines what i ‘ye might reasonably expect to find cof language and imagery used to descr For example, as noted above, we find that the divine re ‘believed to be organized on the model of human social or political organiza tion. We find that people in the ancient Near East thought of the gods as ‘arranged in a political hierarchy, with a chief god presiding over a body or | council of subordinate gods, each of them with his or her own range of con- | cems. The chief god, male or female, is accorded royal honots similar #0 ‘those given to kings and queens the people that worship the chief god. But like human kings and queens who have to contend with the com- ___peting interests of their subjects, the chief god is limited in his ot her ability to act by the competing interests of other gods. We also find the chief god. ‘exerting his or her power both by force and by persuasion, as well as by the force of his or her personal authority. The chief god will sometimes have to defend that personal authority in conflict with other gods, gaining victory through cunning or strength of arms or both. As we will see, royalty and its associated benefits and problems take on many forms inthe divine realm and ‘work out in different ways in ancient Near Eastetn religions “The relationship berween the gods who inhabi wine world and the bbe understood in a number of differ- Ifa given group of people thinks of the gods as a divine governing ‘council, for example, the question is the nature of their attitude toward the ‘human beings under their control. Human beings might be independent ac- ‘tors who owe allegiance and tribute to the gods, on the model. of political ‘vassals who owe fealty—loyalty and material support—to their overlords. Or ‘human beings might essentially be slaves created by the gods to work for them. Like slaves, human beings then must submit to the of their divine masters and put up with wharever treatmenc they might receive from the gods without complaint. Or it might be that human beings are related to the ‘gods as essentially the same sort of beings. In that case, human beings might ‘be considered as something like younger siblings who have ta grow and ma- ture to eventually become like their elders, the gods, ‘A religious culture's ideas about how human beings stand in relationship to the gods will have inevitable consequences for that culture's ideas about the human predicament. What prevents @ harmonious relationship between.and Its Characteristic Expression ‘human beings and creation on the one hand and the gods on the other? The answer will depend of rt of relationship posited between humanity and | the divine world, as do the py tions, Ifthe gods are set apart from humanity by their superior status, human ills may arise from human pride and pr somne men and fo the gods and provoke divine jealousy. we set apart from humanity by their superior moral nature, hu- ‘ay atise from human moral failings that inflice harm on other hu- ‘man beings and alienate them from the morally pure gods, apart from humanity by their superior wisdom and understan tay arise from ignorance, and the sol of wisdom. Although humanity may result of some human deficiency in compari- nature of their deficiency wi nly its resolution, but also how the resolution comes about, of humanity may reasonably expect to escape the human devermine and how muc predicament. ‘We may see, then, that there are many ways of thinking and talking about the divine world and the human world that lives Peoples of the ancient Near East made certain choi perience of the divine, and those choices have shaped their distinctive rel Hes in ways both large and small. The choices were not arbitrary; they were determined in part by the situation of the people who fist used them, and in part by the subsequent growth and evolution of the religious lture that employed them. In all events, we find the divine re ‘ed to govern human existence are inevitably conceived of in human terms, as human beings strive to give expression to their experience of the di vine in ways that make sense to them, SECTION ONE EGYPT