Reading akkadian PRayeRs & Hymns An Introduction

INTRODUCTION
ideas upon them initially. 21 But as the modern reader works with the texts, a
process is initiated in which one attempts to understand them with increasing
precision within their own cultural contexts. Ideally, this process will in turn
lead to improvements in the models/definitions one uses to translate and interpret
the texts in and for the contemporary sphere.
An initial foray into the subject might begin with an everyday notion of
prayer and hymn as mentioned above. A prayer, to start with, is a kind of religious,
ritual form of speech that communicates one’s concerns/petitions to a
benevolent supra-human being (or more than one being) via words; a hymn is a
similar communication with a narrower thematic focus: petition is either lacking
or very restricted while praise and adoration (the expression of a different kind
of concern) dominate the text. The boundary between the two is not hard and
fast. Despite the fuzzy boundary, these initial definitions are useful for the present
analytical purpose. But there are some aspects of the definitions that raise
important questions that deserve fuller consideration. In the attempt to answer
these questions, the definition of prayer offered above will develop toward one
that more suitably fits the Mesopotamian data.
First, what does benevolent supra-human being mean in polytheistic ancient
Mesopotamia? 22 In Mesopotamia there were a great many entities that were not
human, though characterized anthropomorphically, 23 and had powers that went
well-beyond normal human capacity. These supra-human beings included
ghosts, gods, protective spirits (e.g., lamassū and šēdū), demons, witches, certain
cult-objects, and others (e.g., the apkallū, “primordial semi-divine sages”). 24 Humans
could use ritual speech to communicate with all of these beings; descrip-
21 Although this point is a commonplace among social scientific and religious studies scholars, it
seems to be resisted by ancient historians. See classicist Sarah Iles Johnston’s review article
“Describing the Undefinable: New Books on Magic and Old Problems of Definition,” History of
Religions 43.1 (2003), 50–54, especially 54 for the same conclusion as presented above. In her
concluding remarks, she offers an important reason for imposing our own categories on the data
we study. She says that “without etic categories [that is, categories defined by the outside investigator],
however provisional, the Hellenist is unable to talk to the Assyriologist, the Egyptologist
to the scholar of Judaism.” In other words, if our work is to be meaningful and informative beyond
the insular world of our own fields of study, constructing meaningful categories that communicate
across contemporary academic boundaries is absolutely essential.
22 We could, of course, have asked something similar about our own contemporary setting in the
earlier general discussion, but such was unnecessary for our present purposes.
23 One can see the anthropomorphism even in the incantation-prayer addressed to salt (see page
189) and in the one to the horse that pulls Marduk’s chariot in W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Oracle
Questions (Mesopotamian Civilizations 13; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), no. 9, lines 15–27.
For the role of anthropomorphism in the human imagining of supra-human powers, see Stewart
Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)
generally and What Is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient
Mesopotamia (ed. Barbara Nevling Porter; Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological
Institute 2; Chebeaugue Island, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2009) for ancient Mesopotamia.
24 See Black and Green for a convenient summary of the most important of these.
9