UV;-NHLF ^B lOfl flflt, TTHE Christ of Ancient Times HUOO RADAU muxM ^3 i ^^B ^mk. ^g ^P n^^^> If^m { ! m -THE- -JOHN -FRYER- CHINESE- LIBRARY- Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/belchristofancieOOradarich BEL, THE CHRIST OF AN(;iENT .. TIMES CAiJvOi'UM HUGO RADAU CHICAGO THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY. LONDON AGENTS KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD. 1908 (S(R. /as MAIN UBRARY JOHW FRYER CHINESE LIBRARY COPYRIGHT BY THE OPEN COURT PUB. CO. 1903 PREFACE. THE following pages herewith issued in book form have appeared in The Monist, as early as October, 1903, pp. 67-119. At first it was my intention to issue together with them another paper entitled "The Baby- lonian Trinity, the Prototype of the Christian," but I have decided, upon the request of other scholars, to issue them now and wait with my other article till I have made acces- sible to the learned world a very small fraction at least of the immeasurably rich material of the Temple Library of Nippur, the discovery of which will always remain a monument to the immortal fame of Prof. Dr. H. V. Hil- precht. At present I am engaged in copying and translating some of the oldest religious texts found in the Temple Library of Nippur. To my great surprise these texts more than corroborate my contention that the Babylonian re- ligion is a purely monotheistic religion, more particularly a monotheistic trinitarian religion, patterned after the Nip- purian prototype Enlil ("Father"), Errish (or NIN-IB, "Son"), Ninlil ("Mother"), which Trinity in Unity is represented in the Old Testament by Yahveh (or Elohim, "Father"), MaVak Yahveh (or ''Angel of the Lord;' "Son"), Rnach ("Spirit," "Mother") and in the New Testament by ''Father'' "Son," "Holy Spirit," and in my forthcoming volume I shall take the liberty to refer re- peatedly to these pages. It is to be expected that in the course of five years 751594 IV BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. Assyriological science has made some progress, but though this is the case, I do not see that it has in the least affected a modification of any of my contentions here. In issuing these pages it is my hope that the prospective readers will see in the Christian Religion, as I do, the glorious culmination of the wisdom and faith of ages past. The "Light that lightens the world'' said of himself, "be- fore Abraham was I was." — He was and existed and was worshiped as "Son of the God of Heaven and Earth" under various names as early as 7000 B. C, when the mono- theistic trinitarian religion of Babylonia was systematized. Hugo Radau. Philadelphia, Pa., March, 1908. TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. THE BABYLONIAN PANTHEON. PAGE The Genealogies of Ishtar and Ntisku and Their Difficulties i Three Epochs of Babylonian Religion 4 Identification of Enlil, Marduk and Anshar 6 Solution of the Difficulty 8 Corroborations 14 Contradictions Reconciled 19 Corollaries of the Solution 22 Summaries of Results 29 II. THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE OF BABYLONIAN RELIGION. The Belief in Resurrection 31 Details 33 Origin of the Doctrine of Resurrection 38 Wedding Festivals of the Gods 42 The Resurrection of Christ 49 I. THE BABYLONIAN PANTHEON. THE GENEALOGIES OF ISHTAR AND NUSKU AND THEIR DIFFICULTIES. IT is admitted by every one who has studied the religion of the Babylonians, that it is from the first to the last polytheistic. If we were to take the trouble of counting together the Babylonian divinities occurring in the inscriptions and especially in the several '* lists of gods," we would get nearly as many as 500-1000 different gods. This state of affairs is indeed annoying for one who tries to understand such a ''theological system." The difficulty is, how- ever, still more increased, not only by the various identifications of one god with another, but especially by the so-called different gene- alogies of one and the same divinity. Take, e. g. , the goddess ishtar! She appears in one inscription as the daughter of the moon-god. Sin ; 1 in another as that of the god Afiu,'^ in a third as a child of An- shar or Ashshur,^ in a fourth as that of Bel^^ in a fifth as a child of Nin-iby^ thviS being considered not only as a daughter of Bel, but also ^ii" Ishtar (SUCH) mdrat (dumu-sal) ^^^ Sin (ESH), Ishtar's descent, Keilin- schriftliche Btbliothek (=K. B.) VI^ p. 80, 2 et fassim. 2 illik mdrat Anim ana fdn Bel abtsha = the daughter of Anu went to BSl her father. IV. R. 65, col. II. 32; Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 273. ^ Anshar (= Ashshur). . . .ba-nu-ii ildniP^ mu-al-lid ^^^ Tsh-tar = Anshar, the creator of the gods, the begetter of Ishtar. Craig, Religious Texts, Vol. I. p. 32, 16. * See note 2 above. ^ As such she is known under the name E-gl-a, which means, according to Haupt, S. A. K. T. p. 214, 11 ^= kal-la-a-tu =^ " hr'iAe.** A-gl-a dumu-sag '^^^srir IB-A: Reisner, Hymnen, pp. 132, 44: 79, 14; 56, 10; IV. R. 21, No. 2, Rev. 54; Craig, R. T., I. p. 20, 28 is therefore translated by : kal-lat mar-tum resh-ti-tum sha ^'^ Nin-[ib'\t i. e., "the bride, the principal daughter of Ninib," Reisner, loc. cit., p. 65, 13. This latter passage proves also /5 in Zimmern, Ritualtafeln, No. 26, col. III. 48, 49, where dingir jb is called i\i& gash-ru hu-kur *'« Bel {fi^s^<^BE), i. e., "the mighty, the first-born of Bel." The title kalldtu, "bride," is not only borne by (a) Ishtar but also by ip) *^^ A-a, the e-gt-a rabttu, V. R. 65, igb, who as such is identified not only with the Ishtar Annunit of Sippar, the wife of Shamash, the sun-god: V. R. 61, 56; 40^> ; 65, 35a, etc., but even with Shamash himself: II. R. 57, 15a; (c)hy Tashmetum, the wife of Nabfl ; IV. R. 59, 41&; Zimmern, Shurfu, II. 157: kal-la-tum rabt-tum, " the great bride." Here Tashmetum is mentioned in close connection with ''»* Na-na-a, who in loc. cit. 1. 156 is directly coupled with Nabfi, while in 1. 197 it is Tashmetum again who is mentioned with Nabfi. Hence Tash- metum =Nan^! (c?) Tsarpanitmn '. *^^ Tsar -fa-ni- turn be-el-tum rabt-tum chi- rat *^^ En-bi-lu-lu ka-lat *^^Nu-[giTn-niut'\, i. e., the great mistress, the wife of Enbilulu (=Marduk, see Reisner, Hymnen, pp. 53, 19; 46, 10: umun ('»-"A-fA«)56^C// = ditto (i. e.. ^^^ Nin-ib) sha ra- am-ku-ti, i. e., d^*^eir SUCH, when pronounced Tishchu, is the god Ninib of "the pouring out," or better of 'the washing, cleansing, himself" (Jensen, K. B. VI' p. 365)- * See my forthcoming article on Jahveh. ^ Hence his daughter and his wife ! ^11. R. 54, No. 3, 1. 19. 'See my Creation Story, ( = C. S.) p. 44, note i, and p. 46. * Reisner, Hymnen, pp. 137, 44 ; 134, col. I. 31. ^ See Delitzsch, Handzvb'rterbuch, p. 154a. This is the reason why Ishtar may signify almost any goddess. "^^ Nusku shurbH ilidti *i^A[nim^ tamshil abi bukur ^^^ B el {= Enlil) tarhtt apst binUt ^^'^En-an-ki : IV. R^. 49 [56], i$b, ff. See Jensen, Kosmologie, p 273. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 3 the command of the ''Enlilship," who guardeth the mystery.^ In a third he is called the ''son of the thirtieth day of the month. ^ In a fourth he is designated ''the great one, the one begotten by Dur-an-kt."'^ He is identified not only with Nergal,* the god of the nether world, whose "day of death" was celebrated on the twenty- eighth of a month, ^ but also with diiisirBIL-GI, resp. ding:trQiSB'. BAR^ etc., etc. Provoking as such genealogies might seem at the first glance, yet, we will have to admit, that they had, yes, must have had and still have a reason. If, therefore, we want to bring light into this chaos, we cannot do it by ridiculing^ these genealogies, nor by building up, first of all, a theory of our own and then try to fit and force the different gods into our theory,^ but we always and under all circumstances must maintain the accuracy of these "contradic- tory" genealogies and explain them by other passages of the Cunei- form Literature, which may help us to the right understanding of ^ Mdr {dumu-ush) E-kur shur-bu-u sha ki ma ^^^URU-Kl-ri (=Nannar-ri!) . . . .mut-tab-bil fa-ra-ats *^^EN-LIL-u-ti na-tsir pi-r\is-ti^. Craig, Religious Texts, I , p. 35, obv. 7, 8. Zimmern, Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (=K. A. T.'), p. 416, note 3, wants to find in this inscription the statement that Nusku is also the son of Sin ! The reading dlidishu, which he finds in the Rev. 1. 6 f., is — at least according to Craig's copy — not justified ! 2 IV. R2. 23. 3 f. *K. 3285, Bezold, Catalogue, p. 520: ^^^ P A -\-KU shur-bu-u i-lid-ti Dur-an-ki. * See Cosscean Vocabulary. ^IV. R. 33, 33. From these latter three references Jensen (K. B. VP. pp. 413 and 466) concludes that Nusku = Nergal, the former being the Neumondsichel, the latter the abnehmender Mond, — a conclusion which I am willing to accept with the following reserve : Nusku = Nergal is = SIN or Nin-Girsu. As Nin- Girsu was the chief messenger of Enlil, so ^^^^sir Nusku lugh-magh '^^^sir En-lil-lal (E. B. H. 223, 3), i. e., •' the exalted ambassador of Enlil," originally = Nin-Girsu, became, when Sin was made the highest god of the Babylonian pantheon, thus be- ing identified with Enlil {Creation Story, p. 50), his (Sin's) messenger. And as the mn*' '?]K!'?2 was identified with mn**, so was Nin-Girsu with Enlil, and Nusku or Nergal with Sin, — hence Nusku's worship in the temple of the moon-god at Harran, Inscript. of Nabu-nd'id, K. B. III^, p. loi, col. II. 18, 42. But the mes- senger of a god is always his son ! Hence Nusku or Nergal, the messenger of Sin, had to become also his (Sins) son. The son of Sin (or ZU) is Shamash (or UD), thus it happene*d that Nergal (= Nusku) was said to be = Shamash, see Sp. I. 131 (Zeitschri/t fiir Assyriologie, VI. p. 241) 1. 52 JBf. ; Zimmern, K. A. T^. p. 388. * As Jensen, K. B. VP. 319, 320; Kosm. 273 does it. ' As is done by Barton, Sketch of Semitic Origins. 4 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. the nature of the god in question. If in course of such an investi- gation we come to understand his nature and his essence correctly, we also will and must be able to account for his genealogy, even if it were the most contradictory. That so many different genealogies of one and the same god do exist in the religious doctrines of the Babylonians, is, no doubt, due to the various elements to be found in the Babjdonian popula- tion. The little valley between the Tigris and the Euphrates was since the '*dawn of history" the land which, on account of its fer- tility, almost all the nations of the ancient world tried to possess and actually did possess. In the inscriptions discovered in this valley we find mentioned, besides the specific Semitic-Babylonian, also Persian, Aramaean, Arabic, Hittite, Elamitic, Cossaean, Cana- anitish, and Sumerian gods. A religion of the Babylonians must, therefore, be primarily a history of their religion ; and if the inves- tigator ignores such a historic development, his results must be pronounced, from the very first, a failure. THREE EPOCHS OF BABYLONIAN RELIGION. It is not my intention to give such a history of the Babylonian religion here — the material so far accessible to scholars would pre- vent me from doing this — but I want to show by a few examples that we are still able to bring some light into the chaos, if we study the religion historically. To put it briefly, we may say that the religion of the Babylo- nians may be divided into three epochs : I. The Sumerian^ embodying the oldest so-called "Semitic- Babylonian " religious elements. What these latter are or were, we cannot tell as yet. It would seem, however, that the oldest Semitic religious ideas, as expressed in the inscriptions, were in all essen- tials and particulars the same as those of the Sumerians, i. e., the so-called Semitic-Babylonians seem to have adopted the Sumerian pantheon *' in toto " without any perceptable admixture of their own. II. The Canaanitish epoch. This began at about 3000 B. C.^ ' Shortly before the "kings of Ur and of the four quarters of the world." The inscriptions of these kings distinguish very often between the ' ' Nifpurian Enlil or Bel" and another, i. e., probably Marduk or possibly Dagan. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 5 when the Canaanltes invaded Babylonia. At the time of Hammu- rabi, at about 2200 B. C, they are masters of the whole of Baby- lonia. Their own specific god has become the god Kar i$oxrjv. These Canaanites made Babylon their capital. Their god became thus the city-god of Babylon, and when, in course of time the whole of Babylonia had been subjugated, the city-god of Babylon became the *'god of Babylonia.'* We may call, therefore, this epoch, also the Babylonian epoch. III. The Assyrian. During this time we find nearly all the characteristics, not only of the Sumerian but also of the Babylonian period, with this exception, however, that the specific god of the Assyrians is put at the head of the pantheon and worshipped in the royal capital of the Assyrian kings. The god of the first epoch was Enlil, that of the second Amar- ud or Marduk, that of the third An-shar, which name was read at this time Ashshur. As Marduk displaced Enlil, so did Anshar dis- place Marduk. Such a ^^ displacing ^""^ however, was only one in *^namej'''^ not in essence, i. e., simply the name of the new victori- ous god was substituted for that of the old conquered god. Thus it happened that the attributes, genealogy, court, servants, etc., etc., of the conquered god were added to those of the victorious god, to whose glory, power, and honor they were thought to con- tribute greatly. Thus we get the strange phenomenon, that one and the same god may have two genealogies, two different kinds of servants, etc. In a historic investigation, such a phenomenon will always have to be kept in mind, and the question will have to be asked and answered : What genealogy belongs to the god originally, and what was transferred to him? That such questions can be an- swered only by taking into consideration the historic development of the Babylonian religion, is, of course, self-evident. As times went on, the attempt was made to harmonise or better identify such two originally very different genealogies. The result of such harmonis- ing or identification was that, e. g., the father of the conquered god was made to be the same as the father of the victorious, at that ^ See also my remarks with regard to the change of the name of El-shaddai into that of Jahveh, Creation- Story, p. 58. b BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. time reigning, god, and so on. The outcome of such an attempt was finally not merely henotheism but an almost pure monotheism. IDENTIFICATION OF ENLIL, MARDUK AND ANSHAR (ASHSHUR) Not only, however, were the attributes of the Sumerian Enlil transferred to Marduk resp. Anshar or Ashshur, but even the very name "EnHl" became a title of these latter gods — a title, which, is generally transcribed and read bel, i. e., "lord," but which still betrays to us the fact that Marduk ^ as well as Anshar played the role of Enlil, nay, were in all particulars — even with regard to their respective genealogies — identified with him. In a hymn, written at the time of Ashshur-ban-apal, King of Assyria, Ashshur is addressed as follows : '-^ 1. " The great one, the hero of the gods, the omniscient, 2. " The esteemed one, the glorious one, the En-lil-lal of the gods, he who determines the fates, 3. " An-shar (=Ashshur), the great lord, the omniscient, 4. " The esteemed one, the glorious one, the En-lil-lal oi the gods, he who determines the fates 5. "[ ] An-shar, the powerful one, the hero of the gods, the lord of the lands." In the very same hymn we further learn, that Ashshur has his abode in ^-char-sag-gal-kur-kur-ra,^ i. e., in the '* house of the great mounain of the lands, or in the ^-shar-ra, i. e., ''the house of the totality."* He is "the creator of AN-NA, the builder of the for- ests,"^ "the creator of the gods, the one who begot Ishtar."^ His lordship is glorified by Anu, Enlil, Ea, Belit-ili, the Igigi, and the 'C. S. p. 69. 2 I. shur-bu-u e-ttl ildni*^'^^ mu-du-h ka-ta-ma 2. kah-tii shii-tu-qu '^« EN-LIL-LAL ildni^'^^ mu-sJiim shi-ma-a-ti 3. An-shar helu shur-bu-u mu-du-u ka-la-ma 4. kab-tu shii-tu-qu^^^ EN-LIL-LAL ildni^^^^ mu-shim shi-ma-a-ti 5. [ '\-bi An-shar dan-dan-nu e-tilildni*""^ be-el ma-ta-a-ti. Craig, Rel. Texts., I. p. 32, 1-5. ^ [ilu a]-shib E-char-sag-gal-kur-kur-ra, Craig, loc. cit., 1. 8. * [ilu al-shib E-shar-ra An-shar mu-shim shtmdti^'^^ . Craig, loc. cit., 1. 10. ^ \ilii\ ba-nu-ti shu-ut AN-[N]A {!) fa-ti-qu chur-sha-a-ni. Craig, loc. cit., 1 15. For AN-NA see below! ^ [z7w] ba nu-u ildni \^y^ mu-al-lid *^^ Ish-tar. Craig, loc. cit., \. 16. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 7 Anunnaki in the Ubshugina, i. e., the place or room of the assem- bling hand."i Similar are Anshar's titles in a prayer of Sinache- rib (?), where we read :^ 1. "To Ashshur, the king of the totality of the gods, to him who begot himself,^ the father of the gods, 2. Who prosper by his hand in the abyss,* the kzn^ of heaven and earth, 3. The lord of all the gods, to him who begot* the Igigi and the Anunnaki, 4. Who built the heaven of Anu and the "great place," who made all men,* 5. Who inhabiteth the bright heavens, the Enhl of the gods, who determines the fates, 6. Who dwelleth in fi-shar-ra, which is in Ashshur, the great lord, his lord." Not satisfied with this, the Assyrians went still a step farther. If Anshar be equal to Enlil, be indeed identical with him, then, it was quite natural for them that they should consider Ninlil, the wife of Enlil, to be also Anshar's wife. Sinacherib, when praying to Anshar, includes in his supplication also an address to the wife of Anshar, whom he calls : **Nin-lil, queen of 6-shar-ra, wife of Anshar, who created the great gods."^ These passages will suffice to prove that Anshar or Ashshur is in all respects the same as Enlil, whose name he even received. 1 \iiuA^.nu iiuEN-LIL ii^A-a ^^^Belit-ilt '«"'^ u ^^'^{Igigi u ^^"Anunyiaki^ shd An-shar ina Ub-sJiu-ka{!)-7ia-ki it-ta-a' -i-du helu {= en)-tis-su. Craig, ioc. ci't., P- 34. 6, 7- ^ I. a-na Aii-shar shar kish-shat ildni*^"^ ba-nu-u rani-?ii-shu ab{=ad) ildni^"f^. 2. shd ina apsi ish-mu-chu qat-tu-ush shar shame' u zrtsitim'i[^'\ 3. belildni"^"^^ ka-la-ma sha-fi-ik <^^ Igigi {= V-\- II.) u ^^"A-fizm-na-[ki]. 4 fa-ti-iq sa-mi^^^A-nim u ki-gal-li e-pish kul-lat da-ad-me 5. a-shib bu-ru-mu ellUti^"^ ^^-^EN-LIL ildni*^"f^ mu-shtm sJdmdti"^"'^. 6. a-shib E-shar-ra shaki-rib Ashshur {=BAL-BA TY^ beli rabt^ beli-sliu. — Craig, Ioc. cit., I., p. 83, 1-6. ^ Ashur is here without father and mother, the self-existing god. *I. e.. the Anunnaki. ^ Lit. = " poured out" =r(9C/'^ = the primeval ocean or Tiamat ; hence, if dtngirQjjii be the mother of Mr. KI, she also must have been the mother of Mr. AN. At the time when I wrote my Creation-Story, I was not aware of the fact that there was to be found in the cuneiform literature an excellent corroboration of this statement. While studying Jen- sen's Kosmologie I found that he already had mentioned two pas- sages' in which dingirQur is called the dimirdm-u-tu-AN-KI^ which name can be translated, however, oaly by **the mother that brings forth AN and KI," and not, as Jensen does, *'the mother that brings forth heaven and earth," for if dinsirQjjR be the mother of Mr. KI, and if Mr. KI be **the terrestrial ocean," it follows, that KI in the name dingir^fn-U-tu-AN-KI cannot mean *' earth. " And if KI means "the terrestrial ocean," then AN must mean "the heavenly ocean," who is a brother (achu) and as such opposed to (an achu) the ter- restrial one. This name also proves that according to the Sumer- ian conception, upon which Genesis i. is based, the world was not created but generated^ that we have to see indeed in Genesis i. a mibin (Toledoth), a ^^ generation^' of heaven and earth, a cosmogony^ which cosmogony in Sumerian is at the same time a theogony ! Mr. KI or Ea, the god of the terrestrial ocean, was considered to be the father not only of the "produce of the sea," but also of the "produce of the earth, "^ — he, therefore, is called the mum7nu or ocean,^ that builds, creates, produces {ba-an) everything (ka-la^.^ {^f*E-a ) mu-um-mu ba-an ka-la. Marduk. the son of Ea, is called (Craig Rel. Texts, I. p. 31, 23) =Tndr tnu-um-me, i. e. , the son of mumme. * " Mr." = ^w is used here in opposition to " Mrs. ' = wz'w, i. e., en is the hus- band and nin is the wife. The translation " lord " for en and "mistress" for nin does not give in this particular case the correct and intended meaning. In other words ; en = lord is the sensus litter ce, while en = Mr. is the sensus litter alis. 2 Creation- Story, p. 33 £f. ; Monist, XII. p. 600. 3 11. R. 54. No. 3, 18; III. R. No. I. 25-26. * Creation- Story, p. 37; Monist, Xll. p. 604. *Sicl Against, Jensen, K. B. "VT. p. 303: "Form." See also Delitzsch, Handzvdrterbuch, p. 41 5&. Marduk, the mdr mu-um-me is therefore the same as Marduk mdr apst. ® See above, p. 9, note 7. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. II Damascius, when explaining the name Moiimis, calls him a V077TOS Kocr/Aos, which is generally translated by "intelligible world. "^ The word for ''cosmos" in Sumerian is AN-KI. Hence Moiimis = Mummu = ocean must have consisted of an AN and a KL, i. e., of something that is "above" and "below.'* Moiimis, then, was the ocean that was " above and below" — but this he was not as yet in fact, in reality, but only in mind (^vorjro^ !). Hence Mummu = Moii- mis must have been the "heavenly and the terrestrial ocean" be- fore the actual separation or better differentiation took place, i. e., before he was considered by the Babylonians as consisting of two brothers {achu), who at the same time were opposed to each other {achu).'^ Furthermore, Damascius calls Moiimis the "/uiovoye/>ti}(!) TTtttSa," the only begotten son of Apason and Tauthe ! If, therefore, Moiimis be a vo-qros Koorfxo^, an ocean consisting "in mind" of an AN and a KI, of an "upper and lower" part, and if dingirQjjR be "the mother that brought forth the upper {an^ and the lower {ki^ ocean," and if the upper part became god AN and the lower part god KI, then Moiimis must be the common name for god AN and god KI before they had been differentiated. This god An and this god KI were — before their differentiation — "the only begotten'' oi Apsii and Tiamat, hence if Damascius says,^ that out of Tauthe and Apason be born also "another" generation, viz., Lache and Lachos, he contradicts himself/ This contradictory statement of Damascius, has led, it is strange to notice, nearly all translators, even Profes- sor Jensen, to translate lines g-io of the first tablet of the Epic as follows: (When Apsu and Tiamat their waters in one had joined together) 9 "da wurden die Gotter gebildet [ ], ro, da ent- standen \_zuerst'] Lachmu und Lachamu."* Having recognised the contradiction in Damascius's statement, we have to separate line 10 from line 9 by a "period " and begin a new sentence ! Trans- late : "When. . . .then the gods were created. Lachmu and Lach- ' Zimmern, K. A. T^. p. 490 ; Carus, Monist, XI. p. 406 f. 2 See Creation- Story, pp. 34, 64; Monist, XII. p. 601. ' K. A. T^. p. 490 : £/c 61 ruv avrav (i. e., Tauthe and Apason) d^A^yv yeveav npoel- ^eIv, AaxTjv Kai Aojov. * Jensen, K. B. VI^ pp. 2, g, 10. 12 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. amu came into existence, etc." By this translation we are left in doubt with regard to the parents of Lachmu and Lachamu, who otherwise are mentioned quite frequently in the Babylonian Crea- tion Epic. What else we learn about Lachmu and Lachamu may be classified under the following heads : B. LACHMU AND LACHAMU. 1. They are \.h.Q parents of An-shar, who therefore is the son of Lachmu and Lachamu.^ 2. They are the parents of Marduk. Marduk becomes thus, together with Anshar, a son of Lachmu and Lachamu. ^ 3. Tidmat appears as the enemy of Lachmu and Lachamu.^ 4. Lachmu and Lachamu are creators, and those whom they had created are to be found at the side of Tiamat.* 5. ^"^"La-cha-mi is one of the eleven helpers of and created by Tiamat.^ Summing up these facts we would have to distinguish — it seems — between at least the following Lachmus and Lachamus : a. the parents of Anshar and Marduk, Nos. i, 2. b. the enemies of Tiamat and creators, Nos. 3, 4. c. auvd Lachami as one of the eleven helpers of Tiamat. This confusion is increased, if we take into consideration two lists of gods,^ where ^i^Lach-ma and ^^"La-cha-ma form one pair ^ K. B. VP. p. 12, 1, II ff. : II. " Go, Gaga, present thyself to them," 12. "The command which I gave thee, make known unto them " : 13. "An-shar, your (i. e., L. and L.'s) son hath sent me." Conf. loc. cit., p. 16, 67; Carus, Monist, loc. cit , p. 414, where it is recorded that Gaga did go to L. and L., and, when he ap- peared before them, said unto them: "An-shar ma-ru-ku-nu u-ma- i-ir-ayi-ni,'' i. e., "Anshar, your son hath sent me." See, however, below sub C. i. ^K. B. VP. p. 14, 55 ; Carus, loc. cit., p. 414. Anshar dispatches his mes- senger Gaga to inform L. and L. that Anu and Nugimmut had been sent out already by him (i. e., Anshar) against Tiimat — but with no result. "Whereupon I (i. e., Anshar) commanded Marduk, the wise one among the gods, your son (to go against Tiamat)." ^ K. B. VP. pp. 16, 65; 20, 124, 125 ; cf. p. 12, 4, and see below, C. 3. *K. B. VP. p. 4, 4 below; cf. pp. 12, 17-18; 17, 76. ^K B. VII. pp. 6, 17 (= Carus, loc. cit., p. 411); 18. 89. «II. R. 54, No. 3, 9, and III. R. 69, No. i, obv. /. /. 14, 15. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. I 3 among the ''twenty-one who have An-na for their parent"^ and where they are identified with ^^^^A-nu-um and An-tum. In a third list'-* appears ^^^Lach-ma even as the ^'^^^A-nu of the totality of heaven and earth. "^ The same confusion is met with C. ANSHAR AND KISHAR. 1. The first tablet of the Babylonian Creation Epic mentions Anshar and Kishar after Lachmu and Lachamu, as children of whom? of Tiamat and Apsu? or of Lachmu and Lachamu?* Later on, however, appears Anshar as the son of Lachmu and Lachamu.^ 2. Anshar is the father of^^uA-ni{u)m.^ 3. Anshar" sends out Anu and Nugimmut against Tiamat after he had been informed of her rebellion by Ea.^ Anshar appears here evidently as the chief opponent, chief enemy of Tidmat.^ 4. Marduk, after having overcome Tiamat, put into prison her helpers, taken the tablets of fate from Qingu, had, by doing all this, ** completely established Anshar*s supremacy over the enemy. "^^ Marduk apparently is here the champion of Anshar, the enemy of Tiamat. ^1 ^See below. 211 r ^^^ j^q. 4, 7. 3 sha kish-shat AN-KT, see below ! For still other occurrences of ^^^Lachmu see, besides the places quoted by Jensen, Kosm., p. 275, also Craig R. T. I. p. 8, Rev. i: ^'^^Lac/i{=Ts3ib\)-mu, Craig, ioc. cit., p. 30, 37: ^^^ Lach-me ; Zimmern, Shurpu, VIII. 19 : ^^^La-ach-mu. *See K. B. VI^ p. 2, 12 ; Carus, Ioc. cit., p. 410. According to this passage, then, we are left in doubt as to the parents of Anshar and Kishar ! According to Damascius, however, (see K. A. T^. p. 490 : tlra av rpiTT/v ck tov avruv i. e., Tauthe and Apason, KiaaapTj Kal 'Aoaupov), were Anshar and Kishar, the sons of Tiimat and Apsfl. If this be true, then Damascius would contradict himself here again, for he expressly told us that Mummu = Moumis was the " only begotten " son of Tauthe and Apason ! ^K. B. Vr. pp. 12, 13 ; (= Carus, lac. cit., p. 413) ; 16, 68 (= Carus, lac. cit., p. 414). See already above, sub B. i. Also these passages show quite clearly that Damascius's statement cannot be true. «K. B. VI'.p. 10, 1,8, 10, 12. ^K. B. Vr.p. 14, 53,54. « King, Tablet II. 'Cf. above, B. 3, where Lachmu and Lachamu are opposed to Tiimat. ^OR. B. VP. p. 28, 125 ; Carus, lac. cit., 418. "See No. 3 and cf. B., No. 3. 14 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 5. Anshar and " Kishar are likewise to be found among the *' twenty- one who have An-na for their parent," and as such again either =^^^A-nu-um and An-tum, or ^ii^An-num ''of the totality of heaven and earth. "^ 6. An-shar is the builder of 6.-shar-ra -^ according to the fourth tablet of the Babylonian Creation Epic it is Marduk who builds it.^ 7. An-shar is, as we have seen above, the common ideographic writing of the chief-god of the Assyrians : Ashshur. CORROBORATIONS. This confusion throws a striking light upon the literary char- acter of the Babylonian Creation Epic. Taking the above-given peculiarities into account, we would have to distinguish at least the following different sources — each source being represented by its own specific god, who at one time or another was the opponent of Tiamat : 1. Lachmu (and Lachamu): B. 3. * 2. Anshar : C. 3, 4. 3. Marduk : the whole of the Creation Epic as we have it now. 4. Ashshur, whose name is only the Assyrian equivalent of the Sumerian Anshar. From this it would also follow, that these four gods were the same — at least in ''essence," if not in name: I. Anshar is = Lachmu* (and Lachamu), because both appear 1 II. R. 54, No. 3, 6 ; III. R. 69, No. i, obv. 8, 9 ; II. R. 54, No. 4, 4. 2K. 3445 -f-Rm. 396, published in Cuneiform Texts, XIII. 24 f. See also Delitzsch, Weltschdffungse^os, No. 20, p. 51 ff. ^ After the lord (i. e., Marduk) had measured the form (?) of the ocean He erected 'a great house" (esh-gal-la) like unto it; (i. e., like unto the ocean), viz., 6-shar-ra, 'The great house,' viz., E-shar-ra, which he had built as a (or : to be a) sha-ma-mu He caused *^"A-num, ^^^En-lil, and ''«^a to inhabit as their city." K. B. VI^ p. 30, 144-146 (Carus, loc. cit., p. 419). * Just as Nin-Girsu, the son of Enlil, was identified with his father, cf. among other arguments also the name : 6-ninnii-''»«^''' Im-gig-ghu-bar-bar (ninnu = Enlil!), and as the 'angel of the Lord" with the "Lord," so was Anshar, the son of L. and L. (B. 1.), with Lachmu, and ^>*A-m\u)m, the son of Anshar, with Anshar (C. 2.). BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. I5 a. as the enemy of Tiamat : C. 3, 4 ; B. 3 ; b. among the "twenty-one who have Anna for their parent"; c. are identified (a) either with ^i^A-nu-um (and An-ium), {ff) or with ii^A-num ''of the totality of heaven and earth." II. Anshar = Marduk : a. both are the sons of Lachmu (and Lachamu) : B. i; B. 2.; C. I. b. both are the builders of E-shar-ra : C. 6. c. both are the enemies of Tiamat ; Anshar : C. 3. 4 ; Marduk : the whole Creation Epic in its present literary form. III. Anshar = Ashshur : C. 7. The role of Ashshur as creator was derived from Anshar, or better: ''Ashshur the creator" can also be read "Anshar the crea- tor." Marduk the creator derived his power from Enlil, whom he displaced and whose name and attributes he received. Above we have seen, that even Anshar = Ashshur was completely identified with, and even called, Enlil. If therefore Anshar be = Enlil, and if Anshar be also = Lachmu, then Lachmu must be = Enlil too ! Enlil is the "king" of "heaven and earth," Anshar as well as Lachmu ^x^^^^^A-num "of (the totality of) heaven and earth" — hence if our identification, Enlil ■= Anshar = Lachmu, be correct, then Enlil the "king of heaven and earth" must he = ^^^Anum "of (the totality of) heaven and earth," i. e., Enlil = Anum ! This result sheds a new and unexpected light upon the hitherto completely misunderstood^ three lists of gods, mentioned above. For the sake of completeness and on account of their impor- tance I may be permitted to give them here in transcription. LIST I. : II. R. 54, NO. 3. This list arranges the "twenty-one who have Anna for their parent," in pairs. These pairs are husband and wife. The first three lines, which are separated from the rest, must contain only one out of the twenty-one names. This one name is explained ac- cording to its different meanings, which it may have when brought into relation to the following ten pairs. It reads : ^Jensen, Kosm., pp. 192 f., 272 f.; Zimmern, K. A. T^, p. 506. l6 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. I. i.» AN 2. AN, i. e.,^ An-turn?- =^ 3. AN-KP ^i'^A(\f-nu{\)^-[um] irtsitim^ ["'«] iiuA-7iu u\An-turn\ II. 4. 'i^^Sir IB^ III. 5. An-shar-gal^ IV. 6. An-sha7'^^ diugir/Slin-lIB^ dingirKi-shar- [ ^a/ ] ^° ^ The Roman numbers indicate the "pairs."' The Arabic numbers give the lines of the inscription. 'Copy gives for A-nu = ZI, but wrongly. 3 Sign GUR : S^ 239 = Brunnow, List, No. 7315. * The sign for god is wanting in order to avoid a possible misreading : ildm (= gods of) Turn. See also note to Anshargal ! ^The common "sign of separation," Brunnow, List, No. 7757. « Written KI [ ] . Notice here that AN = KI ! 'If K'I:=irtsitu=iAntum = AN, and if <^»A-nu-um be also = ^A^, then we have to see in this AN = the first ;pair ! ® According to II. R. 54, No. 4 (see below!) IB has the gloss : u-ra-ash, and according to II. R. 57, obv. C. 1. 31, that of H-ra-dsh, as such he is identical with *i^NIN-IB sha ud-da-zal-li. This latter passage shows that we should read in each and every instance the god dingir / b res^. dingirj\j^j]^.[B = diugirijyashxQ%-^. diugir Nin-urash. Zimmern, Babylonische Buss^salmen, p. 50, thinks that urash be a Semitism, it being derived from ^r^5Z!M= "entscheiden." Not from eres?iu = "entscheiden," however, but from ^res/zw= " to irrigate " (!), Delitzsch, H. W. B. p. i40^>, has urash " to be derived," This holds true not only of the ^^^^Ir-resh = erish in IV. R. 34, 516, and the *^^Ir-ri-esh ur-sag in Reisner, Hymnen, pp. 86, 8 ; 134, 25, 26, but also of the "Eresh " in the name of the goddess Eresh-ki-gal, against Jensen, K. B. VI^ p. 388, who takes eresh here in the sense of "gewaltig " Hence dingir]\i{^.iB{-= urash) is also called dingirEngar{-= ereshti) = " the irriga- tor," as such he is the god of the **l2ivvciets" = ikkarti:=e?7gar! Cf. also Ur- dit*irirNin-Girsu = ikkaru=iiz.rmer (C. S. p. 66, note). This also proves that dingir^in-Girsu '\%-=diugirEngar = dingirj\j^ij^.iB {=urash) which latter, originally masculine, was identified not only with dtngtr/B but even with dtngirj^Ji^j-IB, the TJuife of dingirJB ! ' Shar = CHI=. kishshatu = totality. The sign for ' ' god " = an is wanting before this name, because, if it had been written, one might read " dingir-dingir shar-gaV and translate " the gods of the great totality." In order to avoid such a possible reading and translation, the sign for "god " was omitted. Cf. also An- tum and An-shar. The name signifies : " the great upper totality." "^^ "The great lower totality " — as such opposed to the upper one ! " For this writing instead of dingir An-shar , see sub An-shar-gal. The name means = "the upper totality." "The lower totality." BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 17 V. 7. dingir En-shar^ VI. 8. di*^sir Du-urti VII. 9. ditto( = ./-/ditto( = Be-li-U)-alan dingirj^in-uru-ul-la^ a-a An-na-^e{\y^ 1 Either Mr. Shar ( = totality) or "lord of the totality." 2 Mrs. Shar, or mistress of the totality. These two names as well as those in 1. 13 show, that these pat'rs are husband and wife ! ^ Both these names have to be translated by "Eternal (one)"=Hebr. 1)1, and are as such Semitic names. Cf . also 1. 13. *Sign lach — LUCH, so generally. For other writings, see besides note 3 above p. 13, also dingirLach-mti, K. B. VP. pp. 2, 10 [12, 4]; 16, 68; dingirLach-cha, K. B. VI^. p. 20, 125, and Aa;fOf. ^Also written dingirEa-cha-mu, K. B. VI^ pp. 2, 10; [12, 4]; 20, 125. dingir La-cha-me, loc. cit., p. 16, 68, (In loc. cit., p. 18, 89 appears this name among the eleven helpers of Tidmat); h^axn. What these names mean, is not yet appar- ent, but cf . at the present the note of Houtsma, Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft , 1902, p. 329 ff., on ^C^, ^'"^?, and •*'^v''?^. ^ " The god of E-kur." E-kur is the temple of dingir Ey^.m Jq Nippur. Hence dingir E-kur — dingir En-lU ! "^ dingir c d-r a iot Gar-ra=Gdl-la = Pi.ssyt\2in Muallidtu=" the one who brings forth." For ^^=^a7 see Jensen, Z. A. I. 192; Strassmaier, Syll. 154. This pair is left out in the list HI. R. 69, No. i, obv., where instead of it the pair AN-\-KI\s added. *For this reading see Jensen, Kosm., 272, 2. She appears as the sister of Tammuz, who is ' ' her only brother " {a-chi e-du) as well as ' ' the paramour (Buhle) of her youth" {cha-mer tsi-ich-ru-\ti-shd\y. K. B. VI^ p. 90, 51, 55, 47. Jensen, loc. cit., p. 404, thinks it not impossible that Belilihe = Bulala, the queen of FA- AN, mentioned in II. R. 60, 27a and 26^. PA- AN he takes to be a name for " the netherworld." An identification of Belili with the Elamitic divinity Belala or Bilala he does not venture to maintain. ^ " Lord resp. Mistress of the eternal city." Cf. 1. 8. ^''III. R. 69, No. I, obv. 22 has : 21 en dm-a-a An-na-ge-ne. Am-a-a is trans- lated in IV. R. 25 f . by a-bi um-mi : 25. zi dingir En dm-a-a dingir En-lil-lal-ge ghe-:pad 26. nish he-el a-bi um-mi sha ^^^EN-LIL lu-u ta-m,a-a-ta. 27. zi dingir ^in dm-a-a dingir jYin-lil-lal-ge ghe-pad 28. nish be-el-ti a-bi um-m,i sha ^^^d\iio{ = NIN-LIL) lu-u ta-ma-a-ta, i. e., "by Bel resp. Belit the dm-a-a of Enlil resp. Ninlil mayest thou swear." This shows that dm-a-a may be applied to a male or a female god. Am-a-a lit. \T2Jis\dLiedi\s=" mother-father " the Assyrian translates it by "father-mother'' 1 8 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. Similar to the preceding is LIST II.: III. R. 69, NO. I, OBV., where the names of the single pairs are arranged — with the excep- tion of the second — not side by side, but one below the other. This list reads : I. I. AN *i^A-nu-um 2. AN An-tum II. 3- AN-Kn i^'^A-nu-um u (i, e., and) An-tum III. 4. dingirjB( = urash) ditto (i. e., *^^A-nu-um u An-tum)^ 5- dingirjsfin-IB ( = urasJi) ditto IV. 6. An-shar-gal ditto 7. dinzirfCi-shar-gal ditto V. 8. An-shar ditto 9- dingir/Ci-shar ditto IV. 10. dingirEn-shar ditto II. dingirjsfin-shar ditto VII. 12. dingirDu-UrU ditto 13- dingirDa-Uru ditto VIII. 14. dingirLach-ma ditto 15- dingirLa-cha-ma ditto IX. 16. dingirA-la-la ditto 17- dingirBe-li'li ditto (conf. also II. R. 62, 21c: AM-TU [vihxch has the gloss a-ga-ri-in in V, R. 29, ^7g'\=a-bu um-mu). It is a shorter form for dm tu-ud-da and a-a tu-ud-da: IV. R. 10, Rev. 51, and corresponds to our word "parent." The line in question may therefore be translated: "twenty-one of {ge) the lord (^w), the parent (^m- a-a) An-na they are {ne)" i. e., twenty-one who are of the lord, the parent Anna or who have Anna for their parent. If this translation be accepted, then AN-NA-ge would be a genetivus objectivus. It may be, however, also a genetivus suhjectivus. In this latter case the twenty-one would be = the " parent AN-NA" — thus leaving us in doubt with regard to the ' ' parentship " of these twenty-one gods. If the AN-NA-ge be construed as a gent, subj., the translation would be: twenty-one (sc. names) of (=for) the lord, the parent AN-NA (they are). Bat whatever trans- lation we accept — the result remains the same ! * This pair is not found in the above-given list, for there an-ki is used as a kind of introductory explanation not only to all the following pairs, but also to the pair -<4A^.' An-ki here takes the place of '''"^''^-Awr and '^»«^»*6^ditto { = Be-lz-li)-alan ditto XI. 20. ^i^^sir En-uru-ul-la ditto 2 1 . f^i^sir JSfin-uru-ul-la ditto 22. 21 {V) en dm-a-a An-na-ge-ne LIST III.: II. R. 54, NO. 4, gives us the names of the '* husbands" only. It reads I. [ ] AN iiuA ■mi-um 2. [ dingir^ {u.ra -ashflB •■'"ditto { = A -nu- um) sha ish-shim ik- ri-bP 3. [ A\n-shar-gal ''«ditto( = ^- nu-um) sha kish-shat AN-KI^ 4- [A]n-skar ,v«^. ■mi (chi.bif ditto { — sha kish-shat AN-KI) 5. \dinyirEn-shar tV» ditto 6. dingir £)-ll.UrU ilu ditto 7- dingir EdCh-ma ilu ditto 8. dingirE-kur ilu ditto 9- dingirA-ia-^^ ilu [ditto 10. rf^^^vditto { = A-la-la)-alan ilu [ ditto II. dingirEn-uru-ul-la ilu ditto CONTRADICTIONS RECONCILED. Looking over these three lists we will have to admit that the * husbands" as well as the *^ wives'' are the same ^^ among them- selves,'' for they are identified either with Anum resp. Antum or with Anum *^of the totality of heaven and earth.'* If we succeed in identifying one .husband resp. wife correctly — we ipso facto did it with all. A good starting-point is, no doubt, ding:tr_^.kury i. e., *'the god ' This writing shows that we have here also an arrangement according to fairs — or else the "ditto" in lines 18 and 19 would have to be referred to line 17 — an hypothesis which is forbidden by the first list ! Cf. List I., lines 11 and 12. 2 u-ra-ash is the gloss to IB, giving its pronunciation. See p. 18, note 2. 'I. e., "Anu who hears prayers." See also Jensen, Kosm., p. 194 and note i. * I. e. , Anu of the totality of heaven and earth. 5 chi-M=" is broken, damaged " — shows that the original from which this copy has been made, was unreadable here — the sign ''um " probably having been broken away. 20 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. of 6-kur." fi-kur is the temple of Enlil — hence '*the god of 6-kur" can be only Enlil. And if dingir^.^ur be = ^i^sir Enlil, then his wife dingir Qd-ra Hiust be dingirj^inlil. We are justified in saying : The ^^ twenty -one who have Anna for their parent '" are nothing more nor less than twenty-one different names (!) of god LIL ^'the king of heaven and earth,'' "^ the son of AN or ''heavenly ocean" — of god LIL considered either a. as a whole = AN'^ = LIL = r-pi (firmament) = "heaven and earth " = ««-{- an or an -\- ki = Anum -f- Antum. b. or as consisting of a male or female, i. e., of husband and wife : En-YA -|- Nin-\\\ = ^«-shar -j- JVin-sh.a.r = ^«-shar-gal -f- JVin-shar-gal = ^^^-uru-ul-la -|- iV/«-uru-ul-la = Anum -j- Antutn.^ c. or as "brother and sister" (i. e., achu -\- achatu) \ En-///-f Nin-///= Y.n-shar -\- '^m.-shar = 'En-shar-gal -|- '^in-shar-gai = ^n-uru-ul-la -\- Win-uru-ul-la.^ d. or as "opposed to each other" (i. e., as achu and achitu)-.^ AN-{- KI=zAn-sh.diX -\- ^/-shar = ^«-shar-gal -f ^/-shar-gaL Although we have only twenty-one (!) names, yet we are sup- posed to have, according to the arrangement of the lists, eleven (!) pairs. This difficulty would require a few words of explanation. AN is the first name, but also the first pair, for AN is not only explained by Anum and Antum, ^ but also by an = Anum and an = Antum ^=KI, i. e., = irtsitim or earth. ^ If Antum, the wife, be the *^ earth," then Anum, the husband^ must be the heaven. Hence the *C. S. p. 19, 4; Monist, XIII. p. 586. 2 See below ! ^ From this it follows that /z7= 5/zar = 5^ar-^a/=wrw-?^/-/(a = (Anum -j- Antum sha kish-shat) AN-KI, i. e., "the totality 0/ heaven a7id earth." Hence the sJiar =kishshatu = totality in Enlil's and Anshar's temple 6-shar is = the totality of heaven and earth — and the cosmic E-shar must he = heave?i and earth ! *Does our modern custom of the wife's taking the "name" of her husband go back to this oldest of historic times, when the wife was the sister — thus also of one fiesh — of her husband ? Has anyone made this point the subject of a special in- vestigation ? «*C. S. p. 2>A = Monist, XII. p, 601. * See second list ! ' See first list. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 21 name AN reveals to us the remarkable fact that it is 2, pair, con- sisting out of husband and wife : Anum -f Antum, that the husband and wife are also brother and sister : an -\- an, and that the husband is opposed to the wife : an + ki = heaven -f- earth — the husband being ''above" and the wife being ''below." Thus we find here a welcome corroboration of our statement ^ that ^^ heaven and earth^* were considered to be one. This one cos- mic quantity was called not only LIL, but also AN. AN when translated into Semitic-Babylonian becomes = shame. Shame, there- fore, must stand for ^^ heaven and earth''' too ! "Heaven and earth" are the Sumerian as well as Semitic-Babylonian and Hebrew ter- minus technicus for '^ cosmos^' — hence shame must he •= cosmos / Now we understand Hesychius's remarkable statement quoted, but mis- understood, by Jensen in his Kosm., p. 3 : ^avt] (read %avr}) 6 Koa-fioi BaySvXwvtos, i. e., "shame is the Babylonian cosmos," and Hesy- chius's gloss to BrjXos (= Marduk): ovpavo^ koI Zevs kol Iloo-etSwvo? vloq, i. e., Bel or Marduk (originally = Enlil !) is not only the ovpav6A^^^ is not only identified with dingir En-lil \n V. R. 44, 46c., but he is called — like the " twenty-one who have AN-NA for their parent" — the dumu sag AN-NA, i. e., the first-born or principal son of AN-NA ( = heavenly ocean) : Reisner, Hymnen, pp. 140, 194; 135, col. IV. I ; 88. 7. And when this dingir mAB is called in 11. R. 54, loa, ^>, the "Bel of the shamii,'' he does not, as Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 25, cf. K. B. VI^ p. 347 wants, stand for "den Punkt am Himmel, wo die verschiedenen Tei- lungslinien zusammenlaufen," but for the Bel of the ^avri\ [NAB is also == Tiamat : 83-1-18, 1332 obv. II. 22, published in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch., Dec, 1888, plate V. But Tidmat is = '^'>'-r»>-6^t/"i?, " the mother of AN and KI." GUR again is not only = a^5/?, "ocean," but also, if pronounced zikum, —shamii. Hence NAB signifies Tidmat as the mother of the afsU or ocean considered as a cosmos or shamii or AN -\- KI, i, e., of the ocean as consisting of an upper and of a lower one !] d. Possibly even AN-SHAR, who might be read also '^i^srirSHAR. SHAR, when pronounced "du," is 3.\so = shamii; hence dingir SHAR { = du) might be translated " the god of the 'Eavj], i. e , cosmos ! E-shar would accordingly be- come not so much " the house of the totality { — kishshatu) " as "the zuorld- house. See also above, p. 14, where it is said of Marduk that he had build K-shar-ra as (or : to be) a sha-ma-m,u, i. e., a ^avrj or cosmos ! This sha- ma-mu here, because it is the habitation of Anu, Bel ( = Enlil), and Ea, m-ust include the tzuo oceans — the heavenly and the terrestrial — also. This peculiarity is even adopted by the Priestcode. P.'s expression for "cosm,os" is generally =" heaven and earth": Gen. i. i, ii. i, Ex. xxxi. 17; but also "heaven and earth and the D*^," i. e., ocean : Ex. xx. 11 ! The fi-shar-ra, the world-house, is thus made = heaven and earth and ocean — a, no doubt, late conception, thus showing a tendency towards henotheism, resp. mono- theism. 28 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. c. AN ^\\\i^x z= shamil, i. e., "heaven" or = KI., i. e., ''earth.'* The former, when personified may also be called Anum or Enlil, and the latter Antum or Ninlil. That KI= earth was called Antum follows also from different other passages in the cuneiform literature, as, e. g., Reisner, ffymnen, p. 133, No. III. (sic!), 11. 10-13,1 where Antum is expressed in the Sumerian line by KI, the ideograph for irtsitu = ediYth.. Again on another place ^ this AN-NA is directly translated by shame or "heaven,'* and the KI (or Kl-a) directly by irtsitim or ''earth'* — thus proving beyond a shadow of doubt 1 dingirA-nun-na AN-NA a-ri-a-ne »'"ditto sha ri-chu-ut ^^^A-nim ri-cliu-u dingir A-nun-na AY (sic !) a-ri-a-ne »^«ditto sha ri-chu-ut Antum ri-chu-u. Instead of KI we have the correcter writing Kl-a in Reisner, loc. cit., pp. 132, 19, 20; 78, 12, 13, Cf. also IV. R. 21, No. 2, rev. i. For richMi see Jensen, K. B. VP. p. 365, 6. 2 dingivA-nun-na AN-NA mu-ush V-bi <^^ A-nun-na-ki sha shamed V shu-shi dingir/[-7iun-na Kl-a mu-ush X-bi tit* A-nun-na-ki sha irtsitim'^^ ni-e-ir-shu. Reisner, Hymnen, p, 139, 155-158. See also Reisner, loc. cit., pp. 92, 24, 25; 135, col. III. 30. With regard to the 300 ( = 5 soss!) "Anunna of heaven," and with regard to the 600 (i ner) "A- nunna of the earth," see Zimmern, K. A. T^. p. 453 ; Jensen, K. B. VP. p. 587. The passages cited in this and the preceding note are important, (i) We have here the Anunna of heaven, i. e., the Igigi and the Anunna of the earth, i. e., the Anunnaki, as they are generally called in the Assyrian inscriptions. Both classes are said to be the richut, i. e., lit. "the pouring out" = s^^<^ or 50W5 of Anu and Antum. (2) We have seen (C. S. p. 49) that the king of the storm-flood is Enlil, while the storm-flood itself is Nin-Girsu or Imgigghubarbar, the son of Enlil. Hence, when we read, that either Bel, i. e., the old Enlil, be the "lord, the king of all Anunnaki " (Tiglat-Pileser I. =K. B. I. p. 14, col. I. 3), or that Anu be "the king of the Igigi and the Anunnaki " (Shalmanassar II., Obelisk = K. B^. p. 128, 1. 2), or that Ashshur ( = Anshar) be termed "the king of the Igigi" (Adad-nirari III =K. B^ p. 188, No. 2, 11, 2, 3), we must understand these statements as above, i. e., that these kings of the Igigi and the Anunnaki are at the same time their fathers, and if so, then Enlil is = Anu = Anshar. See here also above, p. 7, where it is expressly said that Anshar is he "who begot {shd;pik = rdchil !) the Igigi and the Anunnaki " ! Where the moon-god Sin was considered to be the highest god, it is, of course, natural to find that these very same Igigi and Anunnaki should be assigned to his court, as is done in the celebrated hymn to Sin : IV. R. 9. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 29 that Anum^=AN is = heaven and Antum = KI is := earth. AN thus means indeed either heaven or (!) earths SUMMARY OF RESULTS. If we would sum up our results so far obtained they would be the following : Out of the primeval ocean, Apsu and Tiamat, the Sumerian GUR, is born mummu or Moumis, voyjto^ Koa-fio^ — which was only a ** world," i. e., an AN and a KI in mind, but not in fact. It be- came a world in fact, when AN begot LIL, who took his place be- tween AN and KI, thus not only separating the AN from the KI, but forming with them the first /riad. This LIL, the son of AN, appears in the lists above mentioned under twenty-one different names among which are also to be found Anshar and Lachmu. These names are arranged in pairs of husband and wife — the hus- ^ That one and the same ideograph should have two diametrically opposed sig- nifications is not by any means uncommon — it is simply a corroboration of Winck- ler's maxim : ' ' Jedes Ding schlagt schliesslich in sein Gegentheil um, wie es der Kreislauf der Natur vorschreibt und bedingt : Wir haben die unzertrennlichen und doch getrennten Dioskuren, Mond und Sonne = Tag und Nacht = Licht und Finster- niss= Winter und Sommer, die beiden Sonnen- und Naturhalften " (M. V. A. G., 1901, IV., Part I., p. 15, note i), and I may add the "two halves of the world" : heaven and earth. Among the different ideographs that may stand either for ' heaven " or for "earth," I mention besides AN only the two following : a. IM=heaven, Sc. i^Z;— earth, ibidem. A double IM, Briinnow, List, No. 12241, cf. No. 8502, is translated in II. R. 50, 28^ ; II. R. 48, 26a-b, by shamfl, which latter can mean here only = cosmos = heaven -|- earth. Hence the di»s^^^IM -\- IM in III. R. 67, 45^; III. R. 67, 42^, cannot signify orig- inally the god Adad (or Ramman) but Enlil or Bel, the god of " heaven and earth." Cf. here also "the gods who are above {eli) the IM and below (shapal) the IM " (Pinches, P. S. B. A., 1882, p. 164, lo-ii), i. e., beyond the firmament or "heaven and earth," which in the passage cited, p. 163, 1. 10, is called the Char-sag--kalam-ma = monni3L\n of the world ! b. U=shamit "heaven" : V. R. 36, 456 ; U, also read buru,=irtsitu : V. R. 36, /if6b and U is the ideograph for dingirEn-lil: V. R. 36, 5a. This ideo- graph therefore signifies Enlil as the god of ' ' heaven and earth " — and just as in later times Enlil became an ideographic writing for bel or lord, so U was used as an ideograph for bel. Conf, here also V. R. 37, 4c?. e,f\ burn or A-buru = 5/iam^ ruqUtum " the /"ar away heaven," and 1. 5: bum — shamtl sha^lMum "the low(er) heaven," which latter does not speak so much in favor of the ' ' different " heavens, as it proves that the ' ' lower heaven " be the earth ! 30 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. band being considered the upper and the wife the lower part. The upper part is the heaven and the lower part the earth. This gives us the most important fact of our whole investigation, which is : heaven and earth are husband and wife, as such called Anum and Antum who again are only two other names for Enlil and Ninlil — Enlil is the heaven and Ninlil is the earth when considered as hus- band and wife, but when considered as *'one flesh" Enlil resp. Ninlil is the *' heaven and earth" or "cosmos," hence may be called **king resp. queen of heaven and earth. "^ ^ Therefore Anu is called also " (the one) of the totality of heaven and earth." See p. i8, note 2. II. THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE OF BABY- LONIAN RELIGION. THE BELIEF IN RESURRECTION. IT was not without some very definite reason that we had to linger so very long over this preliminary investigation, for here we are in direct opposition to all other Assyriologists, who either take Enlil to be the ''god of the earth" or the ''god of the air." Our result is of the highest importance, not only for a right understanding of the Babylonian religion as such, but also for the religion both of the Old and the New Testament. In the latter it is especially the doctrine of the Resurrection which from our investi- gation receives a new and welcome light. The doctrine of the Resurrection, because so closely connected with the personality of Christ, is the central doctrine of the Chris- tian religion. It is the pillar upon which the Christian Church is built. With it Christianity stands and falls. Says St. Paul : "If Christ be not raised, then is our preaching vain, our faith also is vain" (i Cor. xv. 14.) And again, v. 17 : "If Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain." It is, however, here of special interest to notice what philo- sophic proofs St. Paul is able to adduce for the resurrection of Christ. His proofs are : "Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resur- rection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised. "^ * I Cor. XV. 12, 13. 32 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. The same argument is to be found also in verses 15, 16 : *'We witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised.'* Notice, St. Paul does not say: *' because Christ rose, there- fore the dead rise," but vice versa-. ''If there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ did not rise;" he wants us, however, to draw the last conclusion: ''there is a resurrection of the dead, and if there be, then did Christ rise ! " Paul, then, takes it for an in- disputable fact that the dead can and do rise, and because they can and do rise therefore Christ also could and did rise. Hence with the resurrection of the dead, the resurrection of Christ is given. The fact of Christ's resurrection is thus based, according to St. Paul's argumentation, upon the fact of the resurrection of the dead as such. If you deny the latter, you ipso facto deny the former. Everything depends upon our belief in the resurrection of the dead. If we do not believe in this, we do not and cannot believe in Christ's resurrection ! Hence, it is quite natural, that St. Paul, when adducing the arguments in favor of the resurrection of Christ, should bring in also those proofs which establish the truth of the resurrection of the dead ! And what are these? "But some one will say, how are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened, except it die : and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind. "^ The proof in favor of the resurrection of the dead is taken from natureX He compares the human bodies to ^^ grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind." The grain is put into the earth not to die and remain there, but to die and be quickened again, and thus sprout anew, rise to new life, and bear fruit. But this the grain does only in the spring ! St. Paul's argument then is this : As in the spring nature or mother earth brings forth new life, * I Cor. XV. 25. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 33 quickens the ** grain," makes it sprout again, so also the '*dead" will be quickened, be raised to new life on that great morning when the eternal spring begins ! Nature demonstrates the fact of the resurrection. This "resurrection," because a fact in nature, was transferred \.o **men" also — because they too are a part of nature! Men, as a part of nature, could not make an exception, could not upset the laws of nature, hence had to rise. But if men, as a part of nature, do rise, then Christ also had to rise, — for he be- longs to '*man." That is the argument of St. Paul. DETAILS. Having made this clear, we may now pass to the details in connection with Christ's resurrection. These are probably enum- erated best in the well-known, but most difficult, passage of i St. Peter iii. i8 ff., where we read : ''Christ also suffered for sins once. . . .being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which afore- time were disobedient .... the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."i According to this passage the specific historic facts connected with the resurrection of Christ occurred in the following sequence : I. suffering, 2. death, 3. quickening, 4. {a) going and (/^) preaching unto the spirits in prison, 5. resurrection. As Christ's suffering has nothing to do with our investigation here, we confine ourselves to facts Nos. 2-5. ** Death" according to N. T. usus loquendi is the separation of the ** life-principle" or ''soul" from the "body." The body is put into the grave while the soul continues to live as a "spirit." To * on Kal Xpiarbg arraf Trepl d/napriuv Ina'de. . . .d^avarud^elg jiev aapKi, ^uoTrocT/d^elc (It' Tip irvEVfiari ev ^ Kal rolg kv ^w/la/c^ nvevfiaai 'Kopev&elq eic^pv^ev cnrei'&TjcaGi ttote . . . .Si avaoTaaeuc 'Irjaov Xpiarov bg eariv ev Se^ig r&v ^eov, iropev&elg elg ovpavdv, imorayevTuv avTv\aKy. This prison appears here as a kind of "keeping-place," a place where the "spirits," the "souls separated from their bodies," the * And not irvevaaai or the ' ' souls separated from the body " ! 36 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. ekimmu or utukku are to be found. The ekimmu and utukku have, according to Babylonian ideas, their abode in the '* nether world" — a place which was considered to be (within) the ^' earth.^' It would therefore be natural to suppose that this place, the nether world. Hades, place of departed spirits, be also meant here. If it be, then it has to be subdivided again — according to the parable of the ''rich man and poor Lazarus" — into two subdivisions: (i) a seem- ingly comfortable place, which is called in that parable : Abraham's bosom (koXttos A)8paa/i,) ; (2) an uncomfortable one or Hades proper. In the former we find Lazarus, in the latter the rich man. Both of these men arrive in their respective abodes as soon as they die : *'And the beggar died, and.... was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom, and the rich man also died, and was buried .... and in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom ! " If the "prison" of St. Peter be the same as the Hades with its two subdivisions, the question may be asked : Did Christ go to the ''uncomfortable" or the "comfortable" part of Hades in order to preach? According to St. Peter Christ preached "unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient ^ The assumption, therefore, might seem to favor the view that he went to Hades proper, the uncomfortable place, the abode of the rich man. Granted he went to this place, and granted also that he preached the gospel to the spirits in this "place of torment" in order to give them a last chance to secure their salvation, then again we would be in contradiction to Christ's express statements, who quotes Abraham as saying : "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf (x^arfM fiiya) fixed, that they who would pass from hence to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us." In other words: there is "no getting out" any more — those that are in Abraham's bosom remain there for ever, and those that are in Hades proper cannot be transferred any more to Abraham's BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 37 bosom ! Hence if Christ had indeed preached the '* gospel to the spirits in Hades proper" he would have done something which was — to say the least — useless, for he knew that he could not help them ! From this it follows that Christ did not and could not have preached the gospel, nor did he or could he have gone to Hades proper, the uncomfortable place ! Above we saw that the verb Krjpva-a-eLv simply expresses the idea that Christ as the messenger of a higher person, heralded or pro- claimed something. This he did immediately after his ''being quickened in the spirit" — after having acquired a new (spiritual) life. With his being quickened Christ's battle against the powers of darkness : death and grave comes to an end. It is the assurance that he has become the victor, the king not only over death but also over life. As such a king over life and death it behoves him to sit in judgment over the life and death of the spirits in prison — and not only over these, but also over that of all mankind. Christ's heralding — because it cannot be a preaching of the gospel — must therefore express the idea that He as king over life and death has now also the fates with regard to the life and death of the whole of mankind and in particular of the spirits in prison in his hand. He instantly exercises the powers that belong to him : he sits in judg- ment over the fates of the spirits — he becomes what the Babylo- nians would call a mushim shimdit, i. e., *'one that determines (and destines and seals) the fates." As such a mushim shimdti he is a herald — one that acts for another person. This ''other person" is, as we shall see shortly, "the great gods," or in New Testament language "God the Father." Judgment, however, is not passed except in a place especially set aside for this purpose. This place is called here "prison" ; as such it is a house, a room in which the spirits are "kept" to await their judgment, and has, therefore, nothing to do with Hades. We shall hear more about this room when we come to speak of the Babylonian Ubshugina. If we sum up our results they would be the following : Christ died : body and soul were separated, this separation lasted for three days ! On the third day his body and soul were reunited again : 38 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. he was quickened in the spirit — acquired a new spiritual (?) life. This took place on early Easter-morning. But not only the quick- ening occured at this time but also his "showing or his proclaim- ing himself as the victor," and his resurrection. The proclaiming himself as victor took place in a room called "prison," where the departed spirits were kept, held for judgment. By this heralding \h^ fates of the spirits were sealed or determined, — Christ becomes thus a Babylonian mushim shimati, i. e., "one who determines the fates," as such he acts again as "herald," i, e., as one commis- sioned by a higher authority, which latter are the gods. After Christ had "determined the fates" of the spirits in prison, he rises. He could and did rise, because he was man. Man again can and does rise because he is part of "nature," and nature demonstrates to us every year in the spring that "the dead do rise to new life" — hence as there is a resurrection of nature, so there is and was also a Resurrection of Christ ! ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF RESURRECTION. That this doctrine of the Resurrection cannot have its source in the Old Testament is now admitted by all who made this the subject of a special investigation ; see here especially Professor Gunkel's article in The Monist for April, 1903, pp. 417-419 and 439 -440, where he considers the resurrection of Christ and his descent into Hades, inclining to the belief that these doctrmes were brought to Judaism from "a stellar religion in which it was the ideal of the faithful to be snatched away from the transitoriness of the earth and to become like unto the ever-beaming divine stars." And a little further below he says (p. 419): "It is well known that the be- lief in life af'.er death has long been present in a number of Oriental religions, for example, the Egyptian and the Persian, and that the whole Orient was filled with it at the time of which we are speak- ing. It is not remarkable that Judaism also finally adopts this be- lief, but rather is it strange that it resisted the belief so long." In- deed, it is strange that Judaism did resist this belief so long, seeing that the belief in the resurrection existed among the Babylonians as early as the time of Gudea, patesi of Shirpula, at about 3200 B. C. V,EL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 39 But some one may say that there are several passages in the Old Testament which do show that the Hebrews did believe in a resurrection, quoting especially the familiar passage in Job xix. 25: "I know that my redeemer liveth,, etc. " Professor Gunkel, when speaking of this passage, remarks quite rightly, all we can gather from this passage is that "Job thinks for a moment of the possibil- ity that God may justify him even after death "(/^^. «/., p. 417). On account of the importance of this doctrine it would seem ad- visable to examine the several passages of the Old Testament more closely and see whether we cannot detect in them at least sowe traces of a belief in a resurrection and a life after death. The several passages of the Old Testament with regard to a life after death and a possible resurrection may be divided into three classes :^ I. Those according to which the "state" after death is a con- tinuation of the life upon the earth. According to this view the dead possess a certain degree of self-consciousness, retain their power of speech and movement, ^ have knowledge, are therefore called c"*::?T = " knowing ones'*;^ they not only know what hap- pens upon the earth, but they also take an interest in the fortunes of their living brethren: "Rachel weeps for her children,"^ — as if she knew what had happened to the Jews during the time of their captivity; they know the future,^ whence they were consulted about it by the living. And because this life after death is simply a continuation of the life upon the earth, therefore it is natural to expect that the prophet should wear his garb of distinction, the mantle, even in Sheol.^ Kings appear here with crowns and sit upon thrones,^ the uncircumcised retain their foreskin, nations their national garb and customs,^ old people their gray hair,^ and those slain with the sword bear forever the tokens of a violent death. ^^ ^ Conf. for the first two classes especially Cheyne in his Encyclofcedia Biblica sub " Eschatology, " Vol. II., pp. 1340, 1341. ^Isaiah 14. ^Lev. xix. 31. *Jerem- xxxi. 15. ^ I Sara, xxviii. 13-20 : Saul and the witch of Endor. *^ I Sam. xxviii. 14. ''Is. xiv. ^ Ezek- xxxii. ^Gen, xlii. 38. '"Ezek. xxxii. 25. 40 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. Cheyne, no doubt, is right when he calls this view ^^the older.'' Of a resurrection we hear in these passages not a single word, although they clearly prove that with death life has not come to an end. 2. Those that express a later idea and are as such diametrically opposed to the former. According to these, death is destruction,^ and destruction is Sheol,^ or also called (the place of) violence,^ a place out of which ^^he that goeth down shall come up no more,^'^ a place not only where *' kings," "counsellors of the earth," and **princes" are to be found, but also where ^^the wicked cease from 'troubling, and where ^^the weary are at rest,'' where ^^ prisoners are at ease together," ^'the small and great are there, and the servant is free from his master.'^ ^ It is indeed a place for all classes and con- ditions of men ! There ^^ Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us,^' ^ — the dead therefore have absolutely no knowl- edge of what is happening or going on upon the earth ! Especially important is here the passage in Job xiv. 7 : *'For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, And that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof was old in the earth And the stock thereof die in the ground, Yet through the scent of water it will bud And put forth boughs like a plant. But man dieth, and wasteth away : Yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea And the river decayeth and drieth up, So man lieth down and riseth not: Till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, [Nor be roused out of their sleep.] What a difference between Job and St. Paul ! Both employ the same method of reasoning, — but how different are the conclu- sions reached. For St. Paul it is just the nature which proves ^ Job xxviii. 22. ^ job xxvi. 6. ^ ^ cxv. 17. *Job vii. 9. ^Job. iii. 14 ff, * Is. Ixiii. 16. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 4I conclusively that there is a resurrection, but alas ! for Job the tree, though the root thereof was old, and the stock thereof die, will bud again, but man when he dieth will never rise again ! Two argu- ments, though both based upon the phenomena of nature, lead to two diametrically opposed conclusions ! And because there is ab- solutely no hope for man after death, therefore argues Ecclesiastes (ix. 5 ff.) in his pessimistic spirit : '^Eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart ; for God hath already accepted thy works .... Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity : for that is thy portion in life, and in thy labor wherein thou laborest under the sun. Whatso- ever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might ; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goeth." Dark, very dark is the outlook indeed, which men have ac- cording to this view ! No life, no joy, no resurrection after death ! With the death everything comes to an end. 3. And yet, there are some passages in the Old Testament which do indeed betray to us a belief in a deliverance out of the grave ! All these passages, however, belong to the very latest por- tions of the whole Old Testament writings. Now it is not neces- sary to construe with Professor Gunkel {Monist, April, 1903, p. 487) such sayings as meaning that " the faithful expects in this connec- tion not the resurrection from the dead, but rather something very different, namely that God will save him in present danger and not permit his soul to go down into Sheol (the grave).'' This explana- tion might possibly hold good of such passages as : "God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol" {y^ ixl. 15). *'For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol" (j/^ xvi. 18). But it never could be applied to \\i xxxvii. 28 : '*For the Lord knoweth judgment And forsaketh not the saints 42 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. They are preserved /?r ever (2Tir?) But the seed of the wicked shall be cut off." This "for ever" clearly shows that the psalmist not only be- lieved that God could and would preserve the soul of the saints in Present danger but continually, always and always, for ever and ever, unto all eternity. Meagre and few as these passages are, yet they help us to fol- low up the path that leads us to the source whence such a view possibly might have been important. These passages, belonging to the latest portions of Hebrew literature, and as such having been written after the Babylonian captivity, point thus to Babylonia as their source. Quite recently Zimmern, in his K. A. T^. p. 638 et passim, saw fit to make the statement, "von einer Auferstehungslehre ist bis jetzt wenigstens keine sichere Spur in der babylonischen Litteratur zu finden." That this cannot be maintained any more now I hope to be able to show. WEDDING FESTIVALS OF THE GODS. We have seen above ^ that Enlil, the husband of Ninlil, was the "heaven,'* while his wife was "the earth." This "wife" had in the three lists, transcribed above, different names, among which there was to be found one, viz., dtngtrQ^.ra, i. e., Muallidtu or "the one who brings forth," — a name which is even found in Herodotus i. 131, igg under the form MvAirra-^ In our Creation-Story, p. 19, we heard that the wife of Enlil had several names even in the oldest Sumerian inscriptions — such as: {a) ^ingirj^in-tu, i. e., the divine mistress of the TU or ^^ bringing forth'' (=zalddu), therefore she is also called "the mother of the gods"; (J)) dingirjsfin-in-si-na, "the mother of the world (or people), who created the creatures of the world," but especially {/) f^^^sirBa-u, who as the wife of Enlil be- comes thus the earth. Now it happens that we read in several in- scriptions of Gudea, the patesi of Shirpurla, who lived at about 'See also C. S. p. 52. 2 See also Jensen, Kosm., pp. 294, 515. Zimmern, K. A. T^. pp. 423, 7; 428. 4. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 43 3200 B. C, of a ''wedding" of Nin-Girsu, the god of rain, thun- ders, and lightnings, and dinsir^^a-u^ This wedding was celebrated on the New- Years-day of the month called Ezen-^i^sirBa-u, i. e., " the festival of Bau." The significance of this wedding-celebra- tion becomes at once plain! // is the fructification of the earth by the rain tn consequence of which the earth is made pregnant and brings forth new life. Ba-u becomes thus not only an AM or mother, a muallidtUf one "that brings forth," but also d.'^i^sirNin-din-dug,'^ z. Sumerian name, which when translated into Assyrian would be = muballitat miti,^ i. e., ^Uhe one who quickens the dead.'' That which she quickens, restores to new life, are ^^the green things of the earth" — hence the name Ba-u, i. e., ''the giver {ba) of 2/ = green things.* Such a fructification and vivification of the earth can only take place in the spring. Hence during that time which precedes the spring the earth^ as well as Nin-Girsu must be fruitless , barren, or dead. The time that precedes the spring is the winter. In winter then both "the earth" and the "god of rain and thunder and light- ning," must be dead, must lie in the grave. Now we understand why Gudea records repeatedly in his inscriptions that he built for Nin-Girsu in the temple ^-ninnzl-'^^^^^^Im-gig-ghu- bar-bar also a so- * Gudea, Statue G. II, 1-7; III. 6v.u: Ud-zag-mu ezen Ba-u mil nam-ti-la shub-ba shag-gig-ga-ge-=-^^^ ditto na-da-at shi-;pat ba-la(l)-dt ana qi-its lib-bi, i. e., " Bau who giveth the salvina of life to the sick heart," ^ This name is also given to the goddess Gula — a name which was originally only an attribute of Ba-u, and meaning as such " the great one," rabttu, shurbutu. In the oldest texts Gula appears still used as an attribute, has therefore not the sign for god prefixed to it, see E. B. H. p. 443. ^u in this signification has according to the syllabaries (see Br. List, 6019, 6027) probably the pronunciation SHAM ; we ought to read therefore Ba-sham. This latter reading seems to be implied also in Reisner, Hymnen, p. 89, 12 ; 83, 9 (cf. 1. 28) : ugun-m,u i^i^^^Ba-u-MU, where the MU can hardly be taken as a pro- noun (="my"), but where it seems to contain the overhanging vowel = -5a- sham-mu. 5 See here especially the drastic description of the " deadness " of nature while Ishtar (= Innanna, another name for Ba-u, C. S. p. 20) is in the nether world, i. e., while she is dead, barren, while it is winter : Ishtar's descent, K. B, VI^. p. 86, Rev. 6 ff. 44 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. called Gi-gunu^ out of cedar-wood. This Gi-gunu appears in IV. R. 24, 4/^* not only in parallelism with 6-kur and with Arallu, i.e., the ''nether world," but is called there even the ashar la naplusi, i. e., ^'the place of the not-seeiiig, i. e., where one does not and can- not see = the place of darkness. Nin-Girsu then dies every year and goes to the Gi-gunu. Here he is during the winter. In winter he is dead : there are no rains, thunders, and lightnings at this time ! But in spring he is quickened and rises again, this he indi- cates by his first lightnings and thunders that even at our present times take place in the early spring. As soon as he is quickened, he rises and marries the mother earth, i. e,, Ba-u : the warm rains of the spring unite themselves with the earth, who becomes preg- nant : in consequence of this pregnancy the dead things of the earth are quickened, they rise and new life sprouts ! If this wedding could take place in the spring only, and if this was at the same time ''the New Year's day," it follows that already at Gudea's time or about 3200 B. C. the year began with the spring, with the first of Nisan, the vernal equinox,^ and that the wedding of Nin-Girsu and Ba-u is nothing but a spring festival celebrating the resurrection of nature to new life ! It is a Resurrection-festival. In view of this fact we now understand why Nin-Girsu should have become the ^^ god of vegetation'' : he it is, who by his fructifica- tion of the earth produces vegetation, he is therefore the "god of the farmers." That Nin-Girsu was = Ninib has been recognised long ere this. Our investigations,* however, force us to abandon the erroneous idea that Ninib was either the South or Summer sun^ or the East sun.^ Ninib (because = Nin-Girsu) is the god of storm, rain, lightnings, etc., as such also a god of vegetation,^ and a god ^SeeE. B. H., Index, sub buildings, and Gudea, Statue B, V. 15-19; Statue D, II. 7-III I. ' See Jensen, Kosm., p. 185. ^ This is the answer to Zimmern, K. A, T.' p. 514. * See also my forthcoming article on Jahveh. ^Winckler, Geschichte Israels, II., 79. ^Jensen, Kosm., p 457 f. ^K. 133 Rev. 20 (A. S. K. T. p 81): mit-cha-rish shumi-shu im-bu-u sham-mu (=u-mu) ana shar-ru-ti-shu-nu = with one consent the plants called his (i. e., Ni- nib's) name to a kingship over them. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 45 of the farmers.^ And just as Nin-Girsu quickens the dead, so it is said of Ninib : ''Who has been brought down into the nether world, his body thou bringest back again."' Nin-Girsu was the ur-sag, i. e., prime minister of Enlil, and as in the Old Testament the '* angel of the lord" was in course of time identified with '*the lord," so was Nin-Girsu, resp. Ninib, with Enlil ! So it happened that when the Canaanites had invaded Babylonia and made themselves masters over it, Marduk displaced not only Enlil but also his ** prime minister," — both of whose attri- butes and functions were now attributed to him (i. e., Marduk). Marduk's wife was Tsarpanitum, i. e., ''the one who shines (like silver)," as such she was again identified with Ishtar (=In- nanna, another name for the wife of Enlil). Now, it is strange to notice that the name Tsarpanitum should have become, according to the folk-etymology, Zer-bamtu, i. e., "the one who creates, pro- duces, seed ! " That this must have had a reason is, of course, evi- dent ! And what is the reason? The spring-festival of the resurrection of nature, which was conceived to be (at the time of Gudea) a wedding of Nin-Girsu and Ba-u, was transferred to Marduk who now took the highest place in the Babylonian pantheon, — it became a wedding ^ of Mar- duk and Tsarpanitu, which wedding likewise took place in the spring, in Nisan. This event was also considered to be a tabu^ or resurrection of Marduk and the beginning oi his ^^kingship'^^ w^ovi earth. These facts alone help us considerably to explain more fully the nature of god Marduk. Marduk begins his reign, his king- ship in the spring. What precedes the spring is again the winter. In winter, then, Marduk has no kingship, — he \?> powerless. In the ^ Cf . here Engar = ikkaru = farmer ; and rf'«^'> Engar = »'« Ninib. See also p. i6, note 8. 2 King, Magic, No. 2, 2i : sha ana araJU shUrudu ^agarshu tuterra! ^ I-chi-ish ana cha-da-ash-shu-tu, i. e., he [5^:. Marduk] hastened to the bride- ship. Reisner, Hymnen, p. 145, 8. *Neb. VII. 24 ; Nerigl. I. 35 ; Jensen, K. B. VI. 1 p. 306 ; Zimmern, K. A. T.^ P- 371- ^Ir-mu-u ana sharru-u-tu, i. e., he sat down for the kingship. Reisner, loc cit., 1. 9. 46 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. Spring he rises ^ during the winter he must be in the grave ^ must be dead. In the spring he ''hastens to the brideship," i. e., he weds, he unites himself with Tsarpanitu. The result of this is again that Tsarpanitu becomes a mother, is fructified and vivified, — hence the Tsarpanitu becomes a Zer-banitu, as such she brings forth seed. This she does because she takes the place of Ba-u or Ishtar (=In- nanna), the earth ! The earth by wedding Marduk is made to pro- duce the ''green things of nature," and Marduk, who causes all this, is therefore called sha miti bulluta irammu,^ i. e., he "who delights in quickening the dead," — therefore he has the name bel balati,2 "the lord of life." These ''dead,'' whom Marduk quickens can therefore be primarily only = "the dead things of nature,'" ^ but came to include, because man is a part of nature, "mankind" also. In another place* I have shown that Marduk was the god of light, — the light considered, however, not as an illuminating power, but as a /ife-giving -princ'i-ple. Marduk, the AMAR-UD, i. e., "the son of the sun," if he were an illuminator only, could never be called "dead" or "powerless" during the winter. The ''rays of the sun" — for these are Marduk — are dead or powerless in the winter, be- cause they do not give warmth.^ Marduk, the god of light, becomes thus the god of the warmth of the spring,'^ because in the spring, when he is quickened again and rises, when he begins his "king- ship" and enters into a wedlock with mother earth, the rays of the sun become to be felt,'^ — his power begins, the earth is fructified. ^Zimmern, Shurfu, VII. 84. 2 ^immern, Shurpu, VIII. 71. 3 Against Zimmern, K. A. T.^ pp. 373, 639, who thinks that miti here = Tot- kranke, Schwerkranke. But the I'Tl^iTD never means sick, but dead only \ *C. S. p. 5 f. ^Monist, XII., 572; see also Jensen, K. B. VI. ^ p. 563, cf. ibid., p. 562, and Jastrow, feivish Quarterly J^evzezu, 1901, p. 638, — both these scholars have drawn my attention to these places. 5 This against Jensen, K. B. VI.^ p. 563. * The idea that Marduk be the god of the early sun either of the day, or of the spring, or "at the beginning" when the world was created, ought now to be given up once for all, seeing that even the originator of the same, Professor Jensen, has himself abandoned it. ■^ In the winter they are 7iot felt, although the sun is shining : Marduk is in the grave, is powerless, is dead, and is as such called Nabu ! M?.rduk and Nabd represent thus the two halves of the year : summer and winter ! BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 47 brings forth fruit : the dead things of the earth are quickened, rise to new life. The fight of Marduk against Tiamat appears thus as a fight of the Hght, i. e., the warmth (the summer beginning with the spring) against the darkness, i. e., the cold (the winter, chaos, when everything is barren, dead), which fight took place not only *'in the beginning" on ''the first spring," but which repeats itself every year and which will go on ach-ra-tash nishi la-ba-rish ume^^j^ — for all eternity, for ever and ever. After having overcome his enemy, the winter, and thus made the creation possible, Marduk receives the highest honor which a god can or may receive : he is henceforth called by the name of that ancient Sumerian god, viz., En-lU, the ''king and father of the gods," the "king of the lands, "^ as such a "king" he also has the life and death of his people in his hands. He can now determine their fates, he is a mushim shi- mati. This latter point leads us over to another important event which took place in connection with this New Year's festival. The resurrection of Marduk was celebrated by the people in this way : Just as Marduk left the nether world — a place within the earth — so his statue left or went out (atsi^) of the temple Esagil and was wheeled around on a ship^ in solemn procession {mashdachu). This "wheeling around" took place on the most celebrated street in Babylon, the street Ai-ibur-shabum, i. e., probably, "not shall the dark one gain victory."* Especially sacred during this festival were the eighth to the tenth day, on which Marduk as the highest and as the spokesman of all the other great gods "determines the fates " of mankind in a place called Du-azag^ which again was in another called Ubshugina. See here especially K. B. III. 2 p. 15 ff. (=Neb. II. 54.): 1 K. B. VI. 1 p. 36, 10 f. 2K. B. VI. 1 p. 36. 13. 3 That is : the ceremonies connected with this festival were such that went against ' ' the common order of things, " — it was a festival ' ' der ausgelassensten Freude," where everything went "upside down, the veriest car-nevar'(Winckler). * Sh^bft not = "enemy " as Del, H. W. B. p. 637 wants, see Jensen, K. B. VI. ^ 335. The "dark one" is the "death," "winter," "chaos," "darkness," Tiamat, etc. 48 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. Du-azag, the "place of the destiners of fate," which is (in) Ub-shu-gin-na, the chamber of fates (=the room where judgment is given!), where at (the time of) the ZAG-MU-KU, the "New- Year," on the eighth (to the) eleventh day the "king of the gods of heaven and earth," the "lord of the gods," takes his abode (=sits down sc. for judgment), and where he, while the gods of heaven and earth reverently listen (?) and stand, doing homage to him, determines a fate of eternal days (to be) the fate of my life.^ Du-azag means "bright or holy hill," and Ubshugina the "room of the assembling hand"^ — we have, then, here a larger place within which there is a "hill." On this hill the great gods are assembled and determine under the presidency of Marduk the fates of man- kind. Whatever may be the outcome of this shimtu shimu, this "determining of fates," Marduk declares it; he appears thus as a "herald" who although the highest god acts only with the consent of the other great gods ! Taking all these facts into consideration, the sequence of the events, connected with this New- Year's festival, has probably to be conceived of as follows : 1. During the winter Marduk is powerless, i. e., dead. 2. In the spring or in Nisan, which is the beginning of the New Year, Marduk enters upon his kingship again, i. e., he acquires new power, new life ; is quickened. 3. As soon as he is quickened he rises — his quickening and his resurrection practically fall together. ^ Du-azag ki-nam-tar-tar-e-ne \ sha Uh-shu-(u)gin-na farah shi-ma-a-ti sha ina ZA G-MU-KU ri-esh sha-at-ti Hmu Vlllff^^ Hmu Xlkam dimmer Lugal-dim-me-ir-an-ki- a hel ih i-ra-am-mu-u ki-ri-ib-shu ildni shu-ut shame irtsiti ^a-al-chi-ish u-ta-ak-ku-shu ka-am su in-za-zu mach-ru-ush-shu shi-ma at ii-um da-er-u-tim shi-ma-at ba-la-ti-ia i-shi-im-mu i-na ki-ir-bi. 2 Jensen, Kosm , p. 240. translates this name by " Raum der Versammlung,' but in this translation the shu is not accounted for. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 49 4. Having thus been quickened and having risen, he unites himself with mother earth. 5. This union makes the earth "give up her dead" — the resur- rection of nature is thus conditioned by Marduk's resurrection — if Markuk had not risen, nature (vegetation) could not rise to new life ! 6. Marduk as the victor and conqueror of darkness enters in solemn procession the '*holy hill" within the ''room of the assem- bling hand" and determines here in the name of all the other great gods the fates of mankind. This festival of the resurrection of Marduk and that of nature was celebrated every Nisan while the Jews were in the Babylonian captivity. Surely we must suppose that this spring-festival was known to the returning Jews, if we do not want to maintain that they were dead, absolutely dead, to their surroundings. We saw above that we could detect in the Old Testament at least some meagre relics of a doctrine of the resurrection, which doctrine, however, in the New Testament holds almost the same place as it did in ancient Babylonia. THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. As Marduk had displaced old Enlil and his messenger, so Christ displaced Marduk. Marduk is the god of light — and Christ is the ''light of the world," he was therefore made to have been born on the 25th of December — the festival of light — when the days begin to lengthen again and thus save the world from falling into utter darkness. Marduk was the light as a "life-giving principle," he died, and was in the grave during three double-months,^ but rose again in the spring, on the first of Nisan, when he acquired new life, new strength, new power, and entered into a wedlock with mother earth, his wife, i. e., with Tsarpanitum or Ishtar. Christ, too, died, and was put into the grave, where he was for three days, but had to rise again on Easter — the festival of Ishtar. ^ ^ I. e., during the six months of the winter. 2 Easter and Ishtar are one and the same word. It has come into the English language from the Germans, who worshipped the goddess Ostara. This Ostara 50 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. By his resurrection he demonstrated that he, like Marduk, had overcome the powers of darkness (= the old dragon, the serpent !) and had entered upon his kingly rulership, and thus became the bel balati, ''the lord of life." Marduk, however, not only rose him- self, but forced by entering into wedlock with mother earth, this latter to give up her dead. Thus also Christ, if he really wanted to show that there began with his resurrection also his kingly rulership upon earth, had to force the earth to give up her dead — therefore it is said * : ''And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent ; and the tombs were opened ; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection ^ they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many ! " This passage proves, more than anything else, that there was transferred to Christ all that originally belonged to Marduk ! Al- though we hear in these verses of all the circumstances connected with the death of Christ yet it said that "many bodies of the saints were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrec- tion they entered the holy city ! According to Babylonian ideas there never could come forth the dead out of the earth at the death of Marduk. Matthew wanting to record the terrible earthquake in connection with Christ's death — an earthquake so terrible that even the graves were opened — feels that it was impossible to say that the "saints" rose while their life-giver was dead — hence he makes the addition ^^ after his resurrection.'"" With Marduk's res- urrection the resurrection of the dead was given, the dead could not rise if Marduk had not risen first — hence Matthew's statement: the dead rose after his, i. e. , Christ's resurrection ! Christ had to was brought to the Germans from the Greeks, among whom the goddess Aphrodite, = Astarte, plays the same role as does among the Germans the goddess Ostara. This Aphrodite was called by Herodotus (see above) MvA^rra and thus identified with the Hebrew Ashtoreh, who again is the Semitic-Babylonian Ishtar, and this the Tsarpanitu resp. Innanna or Bau ! ^Matth. xxvii. 53. 2 /cat l^tW&VTt^ etc royv fivijfieiuv fierd r^ tyepaiv avrov ei^Wov elf tj^ dylav irdTuv. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 5I rise first — if Christ did not rise, then the dead could not rise. ' Neither could Christ rise alone, the earth had to give up her dead ! And what a difference there is between this statement of Matthew and the reasoning of St. Paul ! According to Paul, Christ did rise, because the dead rise, and the dead rise because nature proves it that there is a resurrection every spring. Matthew's conception of the resurrection of Christ is more in accord with the teachings of the Babylonian religion. Marduk after his quickening and resurrection enters in solemn procession the <* holy hill" within the Ubshugina and "determines the fates of mankind." Christ, too, after his being quickened sets out on a journey to the so-called vXaKT^, the great ''keeping-place." That this latter cannot be the ''nether world" as such, but must be = the Ubshugina, the "room of the assembling hand," seems evi- dent enough. Christ as well as Marduk were in the nether world while they were dead, while lying in the grave, i. e., during the thre-e double-months of the winter, resp. the t/iree days that preceded Christ's quickening. During these days Christ's body was sepa- rated from the soul, — the former being in the tomb, the latter con- tinuing to live as an utukku, resp. eki'mmu, i. e. — according to the New Testament usus loquendi — as a "spirit." After these three days, i. e., after the time of Christ's being in the lower world, he goes to the "prison" not only as a "spirit" but as a "spirit re- united to its body," i. e., as a quickened one. If this "prison" were the "nether world," we would necessarily have to postulate two descents to Hades, — one while he was dead, the other while he was alive, quickened. Besides this, if Christ went to the "prison" as a quickened one, and if this latter (the prison) was the nether world, then the question would have to be answered, where was Christ's body, where was his soul during the three days of his death? We see, these difficulties force us to maintain the identity of the "keeping-place" or "prison" with the "room of the assem- bling hand." Marduk "determines here the fates of mankind," and Christ "heralds" something, — that this heralding or preaching could not have been a " proclamation of the Gospel,'' we saw above; hence the heralding can be only a proclamation of the fates of the 52 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. ''spirits" in prison. Christ appears here like Marduk as one ''who determines the fates." If this be true, then we may also venture to decide the exact nature of the Ubshugina, resp. the prison. The Ubshugina is never identified, as far as I know, with the Babylo- nian Hades. Taking all the places in consideration where we hear something about the Ubshugina, we may say at the present ^ this much : It is a room in the temple of Marduk. This temple of Mar- duk called Esagila represents as each and every temple does "the world" or "cosmos," hence Ubshugina must represent also a cos- mic quantity and as such be situated in the Cosmos. In the Ub- shugina the Anunnaki are said to live. The Anunnaki, however, play an important role in the "judgment" of the departed souls. Hence the Ubshugina is the "place or room in which the souls of the departed are assembled " and where judgment is passed upon them. This "judgment" is given by the great gods under the presidency of Marduk, who are therefore likewise assembled in the Ubshugina. While the gods thus "determine" what shall be done with this or that soul, they sit on the Du-azag^ or " holy hill " which likewise is to be found in the Ubshugina. After the judgment has been passed, the "souls" are dismissed to the nether world proper, where they enjoy, resp. do not enjoy their fates. The Ubshugina, therefore, as well as the "prison," is the Judgment hall^ for the de- parted spirits, and is as such situated likewise in the cosmos, more especially in the earth, and clearly distinct from the nether world. Christ as well as Marduk, after having overcome the powers of darkness, and thus shown that they have power over life and death, take upon themselves instantly the functions of the highest fudge J by "determining the fates." But not only this is their only reward: Marduk was made the highest god and called ^^En-lil of the gods,'' thus practically put at the head of all the other gods, so also Christ, — he was seated ^ See also my forthcoming article on Jahveh, and cf. Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 239 ff- ^ See Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 234 £f. ^ uh-shu-ukin-na-ki ki-sal fuchur ildni^"f^ a-shar di-e-ni, K. 8830, 1. 4, cited by Pinches, P. S. B. A., 1894, p. 229, note. BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. 53 *'on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; an- gels and authorities and powers — i. e., the whole heavenly world — being made subject unto him" (i Peter iii. 21). Our investigations will have shown us, I hope, the following : The doctrine of the Resurrection was known in Babylonia as early as 3200 B. C, at which time there was celebrated a spring- festival. This spring-festival was a marriage between ''the rains of the spring" and ''mother earth." In consequence of this mar- riage the earth became a mother and brought forth in due time "the green things of the earth": the vegetation. These "green things of the earth " as well as mother earth and the god of rain were also considered to be "dead during the winter,'" — Nin-Girsu therefore had a tomb or burial-place, the Gi-gunu, for his abode du- ring the time of his "death." This was again based upon the com- mon phenomena of nature : during the winter there are no rains, no thunders, no lightnings, — hence Nin-Girsu must be dead. In the spring, however, with the first rolling of the thunders,^ the people gathered that Nin-Girsu has been quickened again ! Very soon there appeared also the first rains of the spring, who fructified the earth. As Nin-Girsu is not only the god of the thunder and lightning, but also that of the rain, this "raining upon the earth" was considered to be a marriage between the "god of the rain" and the "goddess of the earth." The resurrection of nature has thus two causes : the vivification or quickening of the god of rain (and mother earth) and the marriage relation between Nin-Girsu and Ba-u. No wonder, then, that even at our present times this latter aspect should play such an important role at Easter, the feS' tival of the Ishtar, i. e., the goddess of love\ At the time when Marduk was introduced into the Babylonian pantheon, these two aspects, i. e., the quickening and the marriage — were retained, only the names of the parties concerned were changed : Nin-Girsu, the god of rain, became Marduk, the god of light, and Ba-ti became Tsarpanitum or Ishtar. Besides these two ^ Mathew's statement about the earthquake in connection with the death of Christ ought to have occurred at his (Christ's) resurrection ! Cf . the remarkable addition ''after his resurrection " ! 54 BEL, THE CHRIST OF ANCIENT TIMES. ancient features there was introduced a third one. The new life of the nature was not merely considered to be the result of a quicken- ing and a marriage^ but they were made dependent also upon 2. pre- ceding fight. The Canaanites before they could think of mastering the whole of Babylonia had first of all to fight, subdue their ene- mies. Marduk being their god, becomes thus the god who sub- dues his enemies. And as he subdued them once, so he always has and will continue to subdue them for all eternity. Marduk subdued Babylonia, conquered his enemies who lived there before him. With this subjugation the ''new life," the new forms and governments of Babylonia were made possible. For these con- quering Canaanites, Babylonia became the ''world," k^t i$oxnv, and Marduk their god, Kar Itoxqv. Just as Marduk conquered the ene- mies of Babylonia, so he also must have conquered the old, old enemy of the "world," — the Tiamat, or chaos; just as with the subjugation of his Babylonian enemies the new life and develop ment of "Babylonia" were made possible, so also was with his conquering Tiamat the life and development of the "world." Mar- duk means according to his name AMAR-UD= "son of the sun," and is, therefore, a god of light, hence if he be the light, then his enemy can be only the darkness. Marduk's fight becomes thus a fight of the light against the darkness y — after having overcome the darkness the creation of the world is possible. But Marduk is not a "light" because it illuminates but because it warms, gives life, hence his enemy, the darkness, must be the winter ! The fight of Marduk and Tiamat thus repeats itself yearly : it is the fight of the **rays 0/ the sun^' in the spring against the cold\ The "rays of the sun" gain in this fight the victory: the cold, the darkness is over- come, a new order of things is now initiated, the earth is forced to give up her dead, new life sprouts, the resurrection takes place ! Again a change of names takes place — but only of names \ Mar- duk becomes Christ, Tiamat ="M