No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
The texts which narrated the episodes of the death, burial in a tomb, the sojourn in Hades, and the resurrection of Marduk, have not been recovered. The contents of this remarkable myth, which transferred the Tammuz legends to Bel-Marduk, must be reconstructed from the rituals and commentaries. On it the Babylonians based a ritual or mystery play in which the entire myth was represented. The rubrics which contained full directions of the details of this play also remain unknown. If they are ever recovered they will correspond to the directions for the zagmuk or New Year's festival at Babylon and Erech. The only sources for reconstructing this mystery play are the commentaries of the scribes on the mythical meaning of each act in this play, corresponding to one fragment of a commentary on the ritual of the zagmuk at Babylon. Two large fragments of the commentary on the Death and Resurrection of Bêl as celebrated at Assur, are published by E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts, Nos. 143 and duplicate, No. 219, both of which were used for an edition by Professor Zimmern. The writer gave an edition in his Babylonian Epic of Creation, pp. 34–49, together with two fragments from the library of Asurbanipal, Rm. 275 and K. 9138. Soon after the appearance of my book, Mr. C. J. Gadd found two more fragments of the same collection in the British Museum, K. 6330, which joins K. 9138, and K. 6359. Both fragments are published here, by permission of the Trustees of the Museum. As with the previously published fragments no connected text can be extracted from them. In my notes to the transcription, the passages in the large Assur texts which seem to be parallels have been noted; any new information on this remarkable myth and ceremony which can be gleaned from them has been indicated in the notes. At Assur the national of god Assyria replaced BS1- Marduk in the ceremony, but the texts of the commentaries were undoubtedly copied from the original tablets at Babylon. The contents leave no doubt at all but that the mystery play refers to Bel-Marduk.
page 111 note 1 Similar to those edited by Zimmern and Thureau-Dangin. See the latter's Rituels Accadiens, pp. 86–154.
page 111 note 2 K. 3476 in CT. 15, 43–4, edited by ProfessorZimmern, , Neu-Jahrsfest1, pp. 127–36Google Scholar, and analyzed in the writer's, The Babylonian Epic of Creation, pp. 29–31Google Scholar.
page 111 note 3 Neu Jahrsfest2, 2–21.
page 112 note 1 See Thureau-Dangin, , Rituels, 144Google Scholar, 515–52.
page 112 note 2 gimili dbi-šu utirru. See JRAS. 1925, 493, 1. 14.
page 113 note 1 Cf. Creat. 42, 44.
page 113 note 2 Cf. Creat. 42, 39.
page 113 note 3 Cf. Creat. 42, 40.
page 114 note 1 For urrad-šu ?
page 114 note 2 For makîtu ?, Thureau-Dangin, , Sargon, 398Google Scholar, derived from Cf. Pl. makkâtu, RA. 17, 94, 28; makkîtu, Thureau-Dangin, , Rituels, 100, 16Google Scholar; cf. ana mullê muttinni ma ak-ki-ti, Ebehng, , KAR. 362, 11Google Scholar. In all these passages the word clearly means “libation”, except in Rituels, 100, 16, where ina makkîtum ša namurtu šarri (also 11. 6 and 24) probably has the same sense.
page 115 note 1 Cf. Creat. 38, 25.
page 115 note 2 Cf. Creat. 38, 19.
page 115 note 3 Cf. Creat. 34, 9.
page 115 note 4 Cf. Creat. 38, 19.
page 116 note 1 Cf. Creat. 36, 12. A watchman is appointed over Bel's tomb and in Cutha watches over him. The parallel passage, Creat. 38, 19, has âlu bir-tu “prison-city”; here Cutha for Arallu, under-world.
page 116 note 2 Cf. Creat. 38, 18. For ip-ti-ú, perhaps read ib-ti-ú; see Johns, , Assyrian Deeds, vol. iii, 301Google Scholar, dînu dababu ubtauni; the passage seems to imply that “they sought a case against Ashur (Marduk-Bêl) and declared judgment (against him).
page 116 note 3 Cf. Creat. 78, 86 ?; 40, 30? read there it-ta-[aḫ-ru-uš] ?
page 116 note 4 Cf. Creat. 40, 37; Rm. 275 obr. 6.
page 116 note 5 Cf. Creat. 40, 32; 44, 53. The text has še-ir-i-at, clearly.
page 116 note 6 Cf. Creat. 38, 27.