Notes to Chapter 7. The "Affecting Presence"

Giorgio Buccellati, “When on High…”

August 2023

7.1 The Interactive Dimension
7.2 Table of Topics
7.3 Transitivity and Not
7.4 Intuition and Revelation
7.5 Evolutionary Patterns
7.6 The Presence
7.7 (a) The Great Inference
7.8 (b) Epiphanic Moments
7.9 (c) The Embodiment of the Presence
7.10 Psychological Attitudes
7.11 The Divine Counterpart
7.12 Reciprocity
7.13 Rejection and Conversion
7.14 Institutional Channels

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".

7.1 The Interactive Dimension

It is important to distinguish clearly between human perception and the presumed existence of the object or subject that causes that perception. Too close a connection between the two leads Faivre to critique Eliade. Buccellati proposes a way out of the impasse with his distinction between “touched” and “touching”. See: Faivre 1995 Ambiguita.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2020]
On the question of the “finality” of religion, see Burkert 1998 Creation.
– [March 2020]
«Concepts and ritual translate into repetitive modules what the individual’s spontaneity initially proposed» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 1).

On this topic and ‘patterns’ in religious activities, cf. Chapter 1, Sections 9-11 (cf. supra, 1.9).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Greek term λεγόμενον, see LSJ.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Greek term δρώμενον, see LSJ.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
Against the concept of “canon” applied to ancient Mesopotamia (in particular compared to the Biblical “canon”), see Hurowitz 1997 Canon Canonization Mesopotamia.
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]
See Lambert 1957 Ancestors on the question of canonicity.
– [ Jonah Lynch, January 2021]

7.3 Transitivity and Not

A common idea (for instance in Bettini 2014 Polytheism) holds that polytheism is more tolerant and less violent than monotheism. However, the two different religious views cannot be compared “straight across” and used for their civil effects. They differ at the level of grammatical structure, as it were, between transitive and intransitive verbs.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2020]
The «I-Thou» relation happens in the present and is «continually present and enduring» (p. 13). It is not «cut off and hardened», like objects that can be relegated to the past or to locations in space. It only lives in the present instant. Along similar lines, Buccellati contrasts the «diffuse transcendence proper to polytheism» with the «absolute transcendence of the one God», who is perceived as «situated above the temporal flux precisely in recognizing that his ‘grace’ (hen in Hebrew, which is to say his providential interest in the affairs of the world) remains unchanged in every case, regardless of whatever calamities afflict the social group that recognizes him.» (When 7.3). Buber and Buccellati also agree in their perception of the instability of the «I-Thou» relationship. For Buber, «it is the exalted melancholy of our fate, that every Thou in our world must become an It. … As soon as the relation has been worked out or has been permeated with a means, the Thou becomes an object among objects—perhaps the chief, but still one of them, fixed in its size and its limits.» (p. 16-17) Man longs for control and extension in time. «Thus God becomes an object of faith. At first faith, set in time, completes the acts of relation; but gradually it replaces them.» (p. 113). See Buber 1937 Iandthou.
– [ Jonah Lynch, April 2020]
Jacobsen 1976 Treasures (p. 10-11; 20) has a similar way of referring to divinities as “transitive” and “intransitive”. Jacobsen states «We may illustrate the “intransitive” character of the older divine figures by the figure of Dumuzi, the power for fertility and new life in the spring. In all we know of Dumuzi from hymns, laments, myth, and ritual, there is no instance in which the god acts, orders, or demands; he merely is or is not.»
– [ Jonah Lynch, June 2020]
«It must be understood in a broad sense, like “standing in front of”, rather than “dialoguing with”» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 3).

A typical prayer addressed to the gods in Ancient Mesopotamia was called ‘raised-hand prayer’, which implied the worshipper standing in front of the statue or image of the worshipped god/goddess.

An example of such a prayer can be found in the ‘Penitential prayer to Marduk, raised hand prayer’ (Akkadian šu-íl-lá): see AGH = Ebeling 1953 Gebetsserie, pp. 72-73, or SAHG = Falkenstein 1953 Hymnen, pp. 298-300.

For a publication and discussion of these prayers, see Frechette 2012 Mesopotamian.

Cf. also the website Corpus of Akkadian Shuila Prayers Online, by Alan Lenzi; see link: {W}R/Shuila.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]

7.4 Intuition and Revelation

Whether or not there is an “affecting presence” (God) who reveals himself, the hidden reality (the “toucher”) can only be accessed through human perception (the “touched”). Clarity on this point aids in avoiding sterile arguments that affirm or deny certainty about the nature and character of the “affecting presence”, and redirects attention to the historical data that are undeniable. See Faivre’s critique of Eliade, and Buccellati’s alternative proposal: Faivre 1995 Ambiguita.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 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]

7.5 Evolutionary Patterns

It is interesting that Buber’s first translator in English, Ronald Gregor Smith, insisted on a progressive movement from an «old monistic» manner of thought to the two-fold interpretation of experience that Buber presents. Buber, on the other hand, states that there is no progress, and that the apperception of the Thou is an event that inevitably tends toward a decline into an It relationship. «Man is twofold» means that man cannot live only in the utter present of the Thou, but also must live in the world of things. The old Plato vs. Aristotle debate, summarized in Raffael’s stanze vaticane, remains an inescapable duality. See Buber 1937 Iandthou.
– [ Jonah Lynch, April 2020]
Original authentic experience tends to be codified and crystallized in time. The resulting “bigotry” must be distinguished from the original experience, whether one is observing this spiritual dynamic in Mesopotamia or in Biblical religion. Furthermore, a value in purely external religious rites can be discerned. See: (Cicero 0045 Deorum).
– [ Jonah Lynch, April 2020]
«We should not, therefore, in the wake of our modern attitude, speak of a Mesopotamian “superstition” as opposed to a biblical “spirituality”» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 5).

An example of this ‘spirituality’ in the Bible, representing a true and sincere act of faith, trusting in God’s word, is that of the famous ‘brass/bronze snake-standard’ found in Num. 21, 1-9.

It is also interesting to note how in a later time the bronze-emblem became a specific worshipped symbol (named Neḥushtan) and thus prohibited as an idolatric cult, along with that of Asherah (see 2 Kings 18).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
Cf. Rochberg 2015 Canonand Power.
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]

7.6 The Presence

«If the human element of this interaction is tangible and therefore clearly observable, how can we instead “observe” the other pole of the interaction, the “divine” element? How can we speak of a “presence” of the intangible and invisible?» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 6).

The topic of an intangible and invisible presence is also discussed in the Christian description of the Holy Spirit: as the third person of the Trinity, it is invisible to human eyes, but it can be perceived through its action and the outcoming results of its action: in these terms, the Holy spirit has been described with different metaphors or images, such as the wind (in fact, in Hebrew the word for ‘wind’ and for ‘Spirit’ is the same, רוּחַ, rû^aḥ), the fire (see e.g. the Pentecost in Acts 2), the water (as in the baptism), the electricity, explaining how the Holy Spirit is recognizable in its action on world and human perception.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]

7.7 (a) The Great Inference

The concept of calibrated ‘assumptions’ (see supra 1.10) is here equated to that of ‘inference’: for a comparison to the archaeological concept on ‘inference’, see CAR (by M. De Pietri).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«It [i.e. the assumption] is like the vanishing point in perspective: the point does not appear physically in the picture, but it is a demonstrable presupposition based on the convergence of the straight lines that are connected to it» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 7).

This principle, describing how it is impossible to determine that ‘point in perspective’, could be perhaps defined as “the Uncertainty principle of assumption”, recalling the better-known postulate of quantum mechanisms labelled as the “Uncertainty principle of Heisenberg”.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the issue of “presence” and how to detect it in Ancient Mesopotamia divination, see Winitzer 2010 Divine Presence.
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]

7.8 (b) Epiphanic Moments

For the šema` Yisra’el (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל), the fundamental Hebrew prayer, see here.

The text comes from Deut. 6, 4. Cf. supra 2.15.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the god Ea/Enki, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For Utnapishtim, also known in Sumerian literature as Ziusudra (with reference to the tablet mentioning him), see RlA.

For the dialogue between Ea and Utnapishtim/Atramḫasis see Foster 2005 Before, pp. 227-280. Cf. supra 6.2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]

7.9 (c) The Embodiment of the Presence

For the perception of ‘incarnation’ in monotheism, see Buccellati 2014 Time.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For the text of Isaiah’s calling, see Is. 6.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«What matters is the perception that is transmitted rather than the event as such – even though this is included in a narrative that takes the form of an account of events that actually happened» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 9).

Contra this opinion of historicity of the biblical stories, see mostly Liverani 2009 Oltre. Cf. supra 6.6.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Biblical account of the creation, see Gen. 1-2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«Michelangelo’s depiction of Adam’s creation on the part of God, with their hands meeting in the empty space between them, is profoundly emblematic of this [i.e., the “affecting” presence; mDP]» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 9).

For a picture of the creation of Adam which G. Buccellati refers to, see here, from Michelangelo’s fresco The Creation of Adam (ca. AD 1508-1512), depicted in the Sistine Chapel, Vatican City.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«The incarnational dimension rises to the highest level in the Christian mindset, where the word “incarnation” itself becomes a technical term. But the Christian claim goes well beyond terminology and reaches its peak with the Resurrection of Jesus. The factuality of this event becomes the direct criterion of assent: “if he is not in fact risen…” [reference to account of Jesus’ resurrection in Mt. 28, 5-6 and to 1Co. 15, 14; mDP]» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 9).

For this topic and the meaning of incarnation in the Christian perception of time, see Buccellati 2014 Time.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]

7.10 Psychological Attitudes

«The cognitive perception of the divine corresponds to a range of attitudes that fundamentally define the psychological tone of the comparison with what is perceived as divine initiative» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 10).

On the explanation of religious belief under a psychological perspective, see e.g. Freud 1961 Future, conceiving religion as a human response to basic natural needs.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Akkadian term takālu, ‘to trust’, see CAD 18 = T, pp. 63-68.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term הֶאֱמִין, he‘mîn (‘to believe in’) see DCH 1, pp. 314-317, under lemma אמן ‘AMN, ‘be trustworthy, faithful, reliable’; he‘mîn is specifically the hifîl form of the Hebrew verb, a causative active (for which see e.g. Weingreen 1959 Grammar, pp. 112-115) resulting in the meaning ‘to believe, to trust (someone)’.

The same description of the meaning of the expression, today usually attested in the word amen used in Christian liturgies, but also in Hebrew prayers (of course in its original Hebrew form), is discussed in Ratzinger 2004 Introduction, connecting the first word of the Symbolum Nicænum Costantinopolitanum, ‘Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed’, πιστεύομεν = Credo = ‘I/we believe’, with the last word of the same profession of faith, which is in fact amen.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the story of the Mesopotamian flood, see Foster 2005 Before, pp. 227-280. Cf. supra 6.2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the role of Adapa in the Story of Adapa, see the introduction and its English translation in Foster 2005 Before, pp. 525-530. Cf. supra 6.9 and infra 7.10.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the references to the Bible in Chapter 7, Section 10, §§ TRUST, STRUGGLE WITH GOD (listed here in order of mention), see:

1 Sam. 17, 40-54;

Jer. 11, 18-23;

Jer. 19, 1-20;

Jer. 18;

Jer. 37, 1-38, 13;

Dn. 6, 17-25;

2Mac. 6, 18-31; 7, 1-42;

Wis. 3, 1-6;

Gen. 32, 26-33;

Jer. 20, 7-18.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«Here, too, there are subtle similarities in Mesopotamia, for example in the way Adapa confronts the supreme God, Anu, following the promptings of another god, Ea, or the repulsion of Ishtar by Gilgamesh. Then there are the cases of beings that can be defined as semi-divine, such as Huwawa and the bull of heaven that are faced by Gilgamesh and Enkidu» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 10). On semi-divine or suerhuman beings, cf. Brelich 1976 Prolegomeni, p. 14: text in Brelich 1976/Excerpt.

For Adapa struggling with Anu, under the advises of Ea in the Story of Adapa, see Foster 2005 Before, pp. 525-530 (cf. supra 6.9 and infra 7.10).

For Gilgamesh repelling Ishtar, see George 2000 Gilgamesh, pp. 47-54 = Table VI; cf. infra 11.2).

For the struggle engaged by Gilgamesh and Enkidu against Huwawa/Humbaba see ETCSL 1.8.1.5, version A (transliteration; translation) and ETCSL 1.8.1.5.1, version B (transliteration; translation).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term נִסָּה, nissā (‘to test’), mentioned in Ex. 17, 1-17 and in Ps. 78, 17-18, see DCH 5, pp. 697-698, under lemma נסה NṢH, ‘to test’; nissā is specifically the piel form of the Hebrew verb, an intensive active (for which see e.g. Weingreen J. ²1959, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, Oxford-New York: Clarendon Press-Oxford University Press, pp. 105-107) resulting in the meaning ‘to test, to try, to prove, to make a test’.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term הִקְשָׁה, hiqšā (‘to make hard’), mentioned in Prv. 28, 14 and in Is. 63, 17, see DCH 7, pp. 333-334 , under lemma קשׁה QŠH, ‘be hard’; hiqšā is specifically the hifîl form of the Hebrew verb, a causative active (for which see e.g. Weingreen J. ²1959, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, Oxford-New York: Clarendon Press-Oxford University Press, pp. 112-115) resulting in the meaning ‘to make hard, to harden’.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the reference to the Biblical passage in Wis. 1, 1-2, mentioned in Chapter 7, Section 10, § TEMPT GOD, see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the text of the Mesopotamian Theodicy, see Foster 2005 Before, pp. 914-922.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Akkadian term dalālu (‘to proclaim, to glorify’), see CAD 3 = D, pp. 46-47.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term הוֹדִי, hôdî (‘(song of) thanksgiving, praise, confession’), see DCH 2, p. 501, under lemma הוֹדָה hôdâh, ‘thanksgiving’.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Akkadian term palāḫu (‘to be afraid, to fear, to be worried’), see CAD 12 = P, pp. 37-49.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term יִירָא, yir’ā (‘to be afraid, to fear, to be fearful’), imperfective of the base form of the verb YR’, see DCH 4, p. 276-281.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Akkadian term melammu (‘radiance’), see CAD 10 = M2, pp. 9-12.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term פַּחַד, paḥad (‘fear, shuddering dread, terror’), see DCH 6, pp. 674-675.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«What is striking, instead, is the lack of the concept of gratitude, for which in fact the very term is missing in both Akkadian and Hebrew» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 10).

Possibly, an Akkadian term meaning ‘gratitude’ can be recognized: dumqu; see CAD 3 = D, pp. 180-183.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For Ps. 116, 12, mentioned Chapter 7, Section 10, § GRATITUDE see here.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
It is important to remark how in Greek the word Eucharist itself (εὐχᾰριστία) is connected to the concept of gratitude (meaning ‘thankfulness’, ‘gratitude’; see LSJ), since it comes from the Greek verb εὐχᾰριστέω, ‘to be thankful’, ‘to return thanks’ (see LSJ).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
Batto presents a unique argument with respect to «theodicy»; he suggests that the expression of theodicy as it occurs in Mesopotamian texts is multi-dimensional in that it does not only serve to address the notion of evil in light of god’s existence but that it also reflects the motif of the sleeping deity. Theodicy, then, occurs during these moments of «divine rest», and is insufficient to awaken the sleeping god. Buccellati describes the poet of the «Babylonian Theodicy» as one who “seeks an answer to the problem in the most honest and painful way…arriving to reject the notion of having to depend on the gods and to offer them no worship”. Conversely, theodicy is treated as a symptom of sleep, and Batto argues that the call for Yahweh to «“wake up”» in Psalms is reflective of an unchanging faith despite the existence of “gross injustice”. See Batto 1987 Sleeping God.
– [ Iman Nagy, September 2020]
On the melammu in Akkadian literature (perceived as a manifestation of the Divine and a reflection of the perceived cosmic order) see also Atac 2007 Melammu
– [ Stefania Ermidoro, October 2020]
See Freedman 1975 Early for a hypothesis about the origin of Yahwism in Israel.
– [ Jonah Lynch, January 2021]

7.11 The Divine Counterpart

“Then the king had to crouch down and, in a formal prayer, assure Bel, the god of the city, that he had not committed any sin during the year, that he had not been negligent toward the sacred city and its sanctuary, and, further, that he had not offended a person enjoying the status of kidinnu by slapping his face. This startling statement, appearing in a royal confession of political capital sins, shows us the importance attributed to human dignity unusual in the ancient Near East and, for that matter, in other early civilizations in the west. The citizens of Babylon and other Mesopotamian cities appear thus to have become a class set apart from and above the rest of the population not for ethnical or economic reasons but solely because they were natives of certain cities.” Excerpt From: A. Leo Oppenheim. “Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization.” Chapter 2, section The City.
– [ Jonah Lynch ]
For Plato’s Symposium 203a, see the Greek text and its English translation on Perseus Digital Library.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
About Baruch Spinoza, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term קִנְאָה, qin`ah (‘jealousy’), see DCH 7, pp. 265-266.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
Several Biblical passages refers to the jealousy of God, both in the Old and the New Testament:

Ex. 20, 5-6;

Ex. 34, 14;

Deut. 4, 24;

Deut. 6, 15;

Deut. 29, 19;

Deut. 32, 16, 21;

Deut. 29, 19;

1Kgs. 14, 22;

Ps. 78, 58;

Ps. 79, 5;

Ezek. 8, 3-5;

Ezek. 16, 38, 42;

Exek. 23, 25;

Ezek. 36, 5;

Ezek. 38, 19;

Ezek. 39, 25;

Joel 2, 18;

Nahum 1, 2;

Zeph. 1, 18;

Zeph. 3, 8;

1Cor. 10, 22;

James 4, 5.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term אֱמוּנָה, ’ămûnâ (‘faithfulness’), see DCH 1, pp. 312-313. Cf. also the following note on ḥeṣed.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term חֶסֶד, ḥeṣed (‘loyalty, faithfulness, kindness, love, mercy’), see DCH 3, pp. 277-281. Cf. also the previous note on ’ămûnâ.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]

7.12 Reciprocity

For the Akkadian term karābu (‘to pronounce formulas of blessing’), see CAD 8 = K, pp. 192-198; interestingly, the Akkadian verb karābu (√KRB) looks like the reverse, mirrored version of the Hebrew ברך, bārak (√BRK), both the terms having the same meaning; I credit here Jonah Lynch for a suggestion which could be noteworthy (even really difficult to explain: that this phenomenon could be explained by noting the different direction of writing between Akkadian (left > right) and Hebrew (right > left); maybe this is just a wrong speculation: even though, I retained it to be worth mentioning.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term ברך, bārak (‘to bless’), see DCH 2, pp. 267-273, under root BRK.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Akkadian term rāmu/ra’āmu (‘love’), see CAD 14 = R, pp. 136-137, under lemma râmu.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Hebrew term אָהַב, ’āhab (‘to love’), see DCH 2, pp. 137-141, under root ’HB.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]

7.13 Rejection and Conversion

For an example of conversion in Old Testament, see Gen. 12 (conversion of Abraham). Cf. supra 4.2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«Conversion is therefore inconceivable in Mesopotamia, where the passage from the cult of one god to another does not create any problem» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 13).

For an example of this ‘passage from the cult of one god to another’, see e.g. the case of Nabonidus at Babylon, who preferred Sin to the polyad god Marduk (although, the latter’s religious ‘swing’ is still historically discussed, as, to be honest, also the former’s religious ‘revolution’). Cf. supra 4.6.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«In the Old Testament, however, many cases are stigmatized in which the people or their leaders abandon their “faith” in the biblical God and instead accept “foreign gods”» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 7, Section 13).

A clear example of this phenomenon can be found in Ex. 32, about the so-called ḥēṭ’ ha‘ēggel (חֵטְא הַעֵגֶּל), ‘the Sin of the Calf’, when Israelite people betrayed Yahweh to adore the golden idol of a calf.

For a discussion about worship of idols in the Old Testament, see the Jewish Encyclopedia.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the biblical passage about the ‘conversion’ of Naaman, see 2Kgs. 5, 15-19.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]

7.14 Institutional Channels

About the false prophets in the Bible, see the specific entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]