Notes to Chapter 6. Diachronic Developments

Giorgio Buccellati, “When on High…”

August 2023

6.1 Introduction
6.2 Inferences about Prehistory
6.3 Hellenistic Interpretations of Mesopotamian "Genesis"
6.4 Inspiration in Mesopotamian Polytheism
6.5 Biblical religion
6.6 The Historical Context of Patriarchal Traditions
6.7 The Transmission of Mesopotamian elements of the Patriarchal Tradition
6.8 The Exile Hypothesis
6.9 The Evolution of the Perception of God in Monotheism
6.10 Consistency of the Referent

ERRORS in databases:

"Boson1918Assiriologia.d": duplicate bibliography "Boson1918Assiriologia" for site "Akk-lg".
"Bottero1992Reasoning.d": duplicate bibliography "Bottero1992Reasoning" for site "Mes-rel".
"Buccellati1972Teodicea.d": duplicate bibliography "Buccellati1972Teodicea" for site "Mes-lit".
"Cauvin2000Birth.d": duplicate bibliography "Cauvin2000Birth" for site "Mes-rel".
"DMB.d": duplicate bibliography "DMB" for site "Mes-rel".
"Edzard2003Sumerian.d": duplicate bibliography "Edzard2003Sumerian" for site "Mes-rel".
"Oshima2014Sufferers.d": duplicate bibliography "Oshima2014Sufferers" for site "Mes-rel".
"Trinkaus1983Shanidar.d": duplicate bibliography "Trinkaus1983Shanidar" for site "Mes-rel".

6.1 Introduction

«It is from this point of view that, as already said, I consider it legitimate to speak of “Mesopotamian religion (or civilization)” as an organic whole covering a period of three millennia» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 6, Section 1).

For a similar opinion about Mesopotamian religion and civilization, see e.g. Oppenheim 1964 Mesopotamia (see Oppenheim1964/Excerpt).

For a brief overview on the three-millennial history of Mesopotamia, see Meyers 1997 O E A N E, Vol. 3, pp. 476-489.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
The structural argument pursued by Buccellati in the volume on religion is further developed, in another area of research, in his more recent works regarding para-perception and the development of tools. See for instance Buccellati 2018 Voegelin.
– [ Jonah Lynch, October 2020]
A similar approach to the one advocated here had indeed been used by Buccellati in his A Structural Grammar of Babylonia, cf. pp. 3-4: “‘synchrony’ does not mean ‘contemporaneity’; rather, it refers to the essential need for the component elements of a system to co-function in structurally defined ways, if that system is to retain its identity.” (Buccellati 1996 Grammar)
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]

6.2 Inferences about Prehistory

The discussion on the development of religious/spiritual thoughts in early times can be stretched until prehistory (cf. entries: Hodder 2010 Emergence and Schmidt 2011 Costruirono): for a specimen of an early development of religious/spiritual thought, connected to the concept of ‘piety’ shown in burial customs, see Trinkaus 1983 Shanidar.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For the perception of ‘time’ in prehistory, see Buccellati 2014 Time.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
G. Buccellati discusses in this section the emergence of religious thoughts and cultic practices in prehistory, stressing how such an investigation is mainly based on archaeological evidence. For the emergence of religious thoughts and cultic practices in prehistorical Anatolia (one of the first specimens attested in archaeology), mostly at Çatalhöyük, see Hodder 2010 Emergence (cf. infra also Schmidt 2011 Costruirono, on the prehistorical site of Göbekli Tepe, in South-Eastern Anatolia).
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
As noted for Hodder 2010 Emergence (related to Çatalhöyük), G. Buccellati presents in this section basic questions on the emergence of religious thoughts and cultic practices in prehistory, a period not documented by textual sources but only by archaeological evidence. For the emergence of religious thoughts and cultic practices in prehistorical South-Eastern Anatolia, mostly at Göbekli Tepe (one of the earliest site in the world), see Schmidt 2011 Costruirono.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
Archaeological investigations in the Neolithic Near East can support G. Buccellati’s discourse in this section about the emergence of religious thoughts and cultic practices in prehistorical times, when first symbolic thought developed: see e.g. Cauvin 2000 Birth (on this topic, cf. entries: Hodder 2010 Emergence;Mellaart 1967 Catal, and Schmidt 2011 Costruirono).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«The validity of the choice depends on the degree of cohesion of the system that is the object of analysis. Thus, to choose an example on the linguistic level, it is valid to speak of “Babylonian” s structurally cohesive linguistic organism, even though it extends over period of two millennia» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 6, Section 2).

For this analytical and structural evaluation of Babylonian language (i.e., the variant of Akkadian spoken in the Babylonian region), see Buccellati 1996 Grammar.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«The only direct sources we have about the Mesopotamian religion in prehistoric times are Archaeological» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 6, Section 2).

For some of these studies on prehistorical times in the ancient Near East, see e.g. Hodder 2010 Emergence, Schmidt 2011 Costruirono, Trinkaus 1983 Shanidar; cf. Wynn 1989 and Wynn and Coolidge 2011 on CAR website, with G. Buccellati’s comment.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
From the term paĝar, it could be derived from the Sumerian ‘bahar’, ‘potter’; see ePSD2, with further bibliographical reference.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
From the term naĝar, it could be derived from the Sumerian ‘nagar’, ‘carpenter’; see ePSD2, with further bibliographical reference.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the ‘Proto-Euphratean’ substratum, see e.g. Edzard 2003 Sumerian, p. 4; cf. Rubio 1999 Substratum and Whittaker 2008 Euphratic, pp. 156-168. Cf. G. Buccellati, Mes-pol, 1.7.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
From the Sumerian term diĝir, ‘god’, see ePSD2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the god Enki, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
From the term laham, the Sumerian ‘lahama’ could be derived, ‘(a mythical) being’; see ePSD2, with further bibliographical reference.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
From the term lahar, the Sumerian ‘lagar’ could derive, ‘plant’; see ePSD2, with further bibliographical reference.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
From the term tiham, the Akkadian ‘tâmtu’ may derive ‘sea, ocean’ = Tiamat for which see CAD 18 = T, pp. 156-158; to be noted that also the biblical term for ‘abyss’, t^ehōm, in Gen 1,2 have the same etymology.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the goddess Tiamat, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the mythical entity Huwawa/Humbaba, see RlA, sub voce ‘Ḫuwawa/Ḫumbaba’.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the demon Pazuzu, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the Igigi gods, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For a general introduction to Atramḫasis and for its English translation, see Foster 2005 Before, pp. 227-280.

For a very recent Italian translation, see Ermidoro 2017 Atrahasis.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the Anunnaku/Anunna gods, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the etymology of the Sumerian term anunak, “seed of a prince”, see Black 1992 Gods, p. 32; cf. ‘Anunak’ in ePSD2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For an English translation of the Enūma elīš, see Foster 2005 Before, pp. 436-486.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the emergence of religious thought in prehistoric times (specifically in Georgia, at Dmanisi), see e.g. Buccellati 2014 Dalprofondo.
– [ Marco De Pietri, August 2020]
For an early attempt to organize the varied materials for an Ancient Mesopotamian religion within a meaningful temporal framework, see Jacobsen 1963 Ancient (esp. p. 474, fn. 3).
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]
Against the theory of a “protoeuphratian” or a “pre-Sumerian” substratum see, however, Rubio 1999 Substratum.
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]

6.3 Hellenistic Interpretations of Mesopotamian "Genesis"

Creation myth involving a battle between the storm god and the sea, Marduk and Tiamat: (Durand 1993 Combat) and (Jacobsen 1968 Battle).
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2020]
For Mummu, the secondary deity, vizier of Abzu, see here; for its etymology, cf. ePSD2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For Abzu, the primeval god of underground water, see Black 1992 Gods, p. 27; cf. ePSD2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For pre-Socratic philosophy, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
About the history and development of euhemerism, see e.g. Alphandery 1934 Evehemerisme.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
About the 50 names of Marduk, listed at the end of the Enūma elīš, see specifically Seri 2006 Marduk.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
Buccellati explains the philosophy of «evemerism» in relation to Mesopotamian origin stories. He relates that Mesopotamian writers of the Hellenistic period applied Greek philosophy to origin stories and concluded that they functioned to explain natural phenomena via allegory. Buccellati stresses this in relation to «polytheistic perceptions» and «reactions» to the absolute. See F Kensky 1977 Atrahasis Genesis.
– [ Iman Nagy, September 2020]
Lambert 1975 Pantheon affirms that there was an isolated attempt at numerical monotheism within Mesopotamia, which did not win out in the ancient world. It seems that this is at odds with the affirmation that each god represents (and exhausts) a distinct attribute, and is not a person bearing many attributes. However, we note that syncretism is obviously a major phenomenon, but it is, precisely, the “co-mixing” (syn-cretism) of well defined identities.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2021]

6.4 Inspiration in Mesopotamian Polytheism

On the classification of the omina: (De Zorzi 2011 Omina).
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2012]
For a contrary interpretation, in which the relation between gods and natural phenomena are understood as an evemerism: (Durand 1993 Combat).
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2020]
For a new interpretation, in which recent evidence contradicts Buccellati’s affirmation that there was no development of a “divine dimension of human beings in the grave” in Syria, see: Matthiae 2012 Cult.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2020]
For the concepts of ‘inspiration’ in Mesopotamian religion, see Buccellati 1981 Wisdom.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
«ASTRACT IDEAS. – It soon happened that the gods came to be identified with attributes corresponding to major guiding concepts for human activities» (Buccellati, §6.4, point 4). About the identification of specific attributes with specific gods/goddesses, see entry Jacobsen 1976 Treasures (Jacobsen 1976/Excerpt). Nevertheless, it is to be remarked that these features are not univocal, since the same attribute can be assigned to different gods.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the god Lahar, according to G. Buccellati deriving from a root meaning ‘marshes’ (see supra Chapter 6, Section 2), see ePSD2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
It is interesting to note that the idea of an ‘amorphous chaos’ is shared by both the Mesopotamian (with the Abzu, for which see supra 6.3) and the Egyptian culture (with the nwn/nw.w, for which see Redford 2001 O E A E, Vol. 2: G-O, pp. 557-558; cf. Leitz 2002 Lexikon, pp. 543-548).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the god Enki/Ea, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the god Marduk, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the god Assur, see vander Horst 1999 D D D, pp. 108-109.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the god Amurru, see vander Horst 1999 D D D, pp. 32-34.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«ASTRACT IDEAS. – It soon happened that the gods came to be identified with attributes corresponding to major guiding concepts for human activities» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 6, Section 4, point 4).

About the identification of specific attributes with specific gods/goddesses, see the entry Jacobsen 1976 Treasures (Jacobsen 1976/Excerpt).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the god Utu/Shamash, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the goddess Inanna/Ishtar, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the god Erra, see here. For Sumerian texts referring to Erra, see ETCSL.

Specifically, on the poem Erra and Ishum, see Foster 2005 Before, pp. 880-911.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the goddess Ninkarrak/Gula, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the god Nabu, see here. This god of writing usurped the scribal function to the earlier goddess Nid/saba.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
The practice of burying the deceased inside private houses is a phenomenon already attested in Neolithic times, for instance in the Anatolian site of Çatalhöyük, where bodies of dead people were interred under benches along the walls of the house: see e.g. Mellaart, James 1967, Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 204-209.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the Khabur river and its historical and religious significance, see e.g. Meyers 1997 O E A N E, Vol. 3, pp. 286-288.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On divinized kings in Ancient Mesopotamia see Cooper 2012 Divine.
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]
For examples of divinized geographical elements, see the takultu texts: SAA 20 38, SAA 20 40, SAA 20 42 (all these texts are available online at this link http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/saa20/corpus).
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]

6.5 Biblical religion

About the notion of ‘beginning’ in Biblical religion, see infra 6.9.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
See Liverani’s discussion on Abraham in Liverani 2009 Oltre, esp. pp. 283-293.
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]
The notion of “beginning” is crucial in the Christian reading of history. Jean Daniélou, both a historian and a theologian, dedicated many important pages in his studies to this theme. And the theologian Origen, to whom Daniélou dedicated a ground-breaking study, waxed poetic about beginnings: «This Idythius, passing beyond these things with his strong spirit, solid and sovereign, passed beyond the earth, beyond the clouds and the angels; dissatisfied with terrestrial things, flying like an eagle, he crossed the entire haze that dominates on the earth… At last he came, crossing all nature and seeking God, to a transparent and total reality, and extending himself beyond his own soul, he reached the Beginning and the Verb who is in the Beginning.» Enn. Psalm. XLI, 12.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2021]

6.6 The Historical Context of Patriarchal Traditions

Buccellati explains his reasoning in 6.6. One especially important feature is that the nomadic shepherds who left Mari to live on the steppe were the «first rural class in the ancient Near East to affirm their own identity and acquire a level of autonomy without precedent» (p. 72) because they were basically unreachable by the state powers. See de Pury 2016 Absence Colere.
– [ Jonah Lynch, April 2020]
Notice that the «touching presence» in Buccellati is literally the god who touches (lapatum) the guilty person. (See Durand 2016 Entre p. 385)
– [ Jonah Lynch, April 2020]
Note also Durand 2016 Entre p. 387 the «blind catalog» of sins that a sinner might list, hoping that one of them would correspond to his actual offense, of which he was unaware. Quite the opposite of a personal relationship in which the partner had been offended.
– [ Jonah Lynch, April 2020]
«There are conflicting conceptions about the possible relationships of patriarchal traditions as found in the biblical writing and the broader Syro-Mesopotamian context» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 6, Section 6).

About the relationship between the patriarchal tradition attested in the Bible and their possible origin from ancient Near Eastern milieu, see Keller 1956 Bible, presenting a different opinion from that expressed by G. Buccellati; while the former recognizes a stream of tradition from the Late-Babylonian culture during the period of the Israelite exile at Babylon (an idea similar to that of Liverani 2009 Oltre (cf. Liverani2005/Excerpt), who is even more radical defining the Bible as an ‘invented story’), the latter prefers to reconnect these patriarchal traditions to a previous period (ca. 19th-17th cent. BC), namely that of the peregrination of Israel in the Middle-Euphratean steppes and their consequent contacts with Amorite people (cf. supra 2.14).

About Amorites, see Meyers 1997 O E A N E, Vol. 1, pp. 107-110; cf. Buccellati, Giorgio 1963-1966b on Urkesh.org/e-Library (with review by Mario Liverani on Urkesh.org/e-Library).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«The economic independence of the agropastoralists was based on the fact that they could bring the income of their flocks to other kingdoms bordering the steppe. Their political independence stemmed from their familiarity with the steppe territory … . It was from this process, in fact, that a new model of political structure was born, the tribe …» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 6, Section 6).

For the development of agropastoralism and the origin of tribe, see e.g. Buccellati 2008, on Urkesh.org/e-Library.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
The Sumerian original text, with English translation and comment, of all the extant texts related to Gilgamesh epic, is available on ETCSL. An English revised translation can be found in George 2000 Gilgamesh.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the patriarchal traditions, see http://giorgiobuccellati.net/history/gb_history.html#Khana
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2021]

6.7 The Transmission of Mesopotamian elements of the Patriarchal Tradition

For information about Hammurapi of Babylon, see Bryce 2016 Atlas, pp. 100-102; cf. Liverani 2014 History, pp. 240-255.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For information about Amurru, see Bryce 2016 Atlas, pp. 81-84.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For information about Palmyra, see Meyers 1997 O E A N E, Vol. 4, pp. 238-244.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]

6.8 The Exile Hypothesis

The Tower of Babel re-interpreted by the Israelites in Exile: Bisi 2011 Babel.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2020]
In the biblical perspective, divine wrath is the consequence of an opposition between two wills. For Gonzalez, it also has a pedagogical meaning: Gonzalez 2015 Colere. See Bisi 2011 Babel.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2020]
It is unlikely that Mesopotamian material was imported to the Bible after the exile. First, the Mesopotamian stories are inserted into a very different narrative. It is furthermore unlikely that the Jews, who were deeply polemical with Babylon (see Ps. 137), would take foreign texts as the basis of their own religion. Thirdly, the one polemical episode (tower of Babel) fits very well with Buccellati’s hypothesis, because it would have had a positive meaning in the Babylonian context, and could be interpreted in a negative manner only if it were transposed and blurred in the memory of nomadic tribes. See de Pury 2016 Absence Colere.
– [ Jonah Lynch, April 2020]
For an investigation on Israel’s exile in Babylon, see Buccellati 1960 Israeliti.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For an investigation on Israel’s exile in Babylon, see Buccellati 1960 Israeliti.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For the description of the creation of Adam and Eve, see Gen. 1-2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the description of the Garden of Eden, see Gen. 2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Biblical account of the flood, see Gen. 6-9.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the story of the Tower of Babel, see Gen. 11.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«It is through this filter that I propose to explain the presence in the biblical tradition of the material clearly derived from Mesopotamian culture. … Since the kingdoms of Israel and Judah had no direct ties of cultural dependence on Assyria or Babylon, we can eliminate the possibility that they were borrowed at that time. The situation is different in the period of exile, when the deported populations were in constant contact with the great Mesopotamian culture … . But two concomitant observations make this explanation, in my opinion, quite improbable» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 6, Section 8).

Contra, see Keller 1956 Bible, presenting a different opinion from that expressed by G. Buccellati (cf. note supra).

On the period of the Israelite exile at Babylon, see also Buccellati 1959 B O 3 (about the ‘People of the Country’) and Buccellati 1960 Israeliti (about the difference of behaviour between people deported to Babylon and Israelites remained in Palestine).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew text of Ps. 137 and its English translation (King James Version), see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
In this section, Buccellati gives an overview of shared traditions between Mesopotamian and Biblical culture. Contrary to Frymer-Kensky’s position that the flood myths are “essentially identical”, Buccellati argues for inherent structural differences. See F Kensky 1977 Atrahasis Genesis.
– [ Iman Nagy, September 2020]

6.9 The Evolution of the Perception of God in Monotheism

For the perception of the divine in monotheism, see Buccellati 2014 Time.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For ‘beginning(s)’ in Hebrew monotheism, and specifically in the Old Testament, see the Hebrew text and its English translation (King James Version) of Gen. 1; for the Hebrew term r^e’ēšîth (‘beginning’), see DCH 7, pp. 381-383.

For a later Midrashic interpretation of the incipit of Genesis, see Bereshit Rabbah 1ff.. Specifically on Genesis, see also Neusner 1991 Confronting.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
« … there is the special role that Enki/Ea plays in myths: the god offers advice in a confidential key … (G. Buccellati, Chapter 6, Section 9).

An example of this attitude of Enki/Ea as a provider of advices can be found in the Story of Adapa: introduction and English translation in Foster 2005 Before, pp. 525-530. Cf. infra 6.9, 7.10, and 11.2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the episode of the sacrifice of Isaac, see the Hebrew text and its English translation (King James Version) of Gen. 22.

It is interesting to note the in the Jewish tradition, this episode is known not as the ‘sacrifice of Isaac’, but as the ‘binding of Isaac’ (Hebrew: עֲקֵידַת יִצְחַק, ‘ăqêdath Yīṣ^eḥaq), since the Bereshit Rabbah 56, stresses that Isaac was not actually sacrificed by Abraham, but only bound.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]

6.10 Consistency of the Referent

For the ‘tetragrammaton’ and its explanation, see the Jewish Encyclopedia.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the perception of God as Trinitarian, cf. Buccellati 2012 Trinità.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]