Reading akkadian PRayeRs & Hymns An Introduction

INTRODUCTION
BaghM 34 (2003), 181–99. {An important structural analysis of Akkadian shuillas.}
Idem. Die Kunst des Betens: Form und Funktion, Theologie und Psychagogik in
babylonisch-assyrischen Handerhebungs-gebeten zu Ištar. AOAT 308. Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2003. {A detailed analysis of the psychological and theological function of the
prayer texts of all known Akkadian shuillas to Ishtar.} Idem. “Für Sinne, Geist und
Seele: Vom konkreten Ablauf mesopotamischer Rituale zu einer generellen Systematic
von Ritualfunktionen.” Pages 25–46 in Ritual und Poesie: Formen und Orte religiöser
Dichtung im Alten Orient, im Judentum und im Christentum. Edited by E. Zenger.
Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2003. {An assessment of Akkadian shuillas, addressing
their psychological and social effects upon the participants as well as the effects they
were understood to have had upon the deities.}
Whether one studies Mesopotamian prayers primarily within their own cultural
contexts or for comparative purposes, one will likely encounter shuillas.
The term shuilla is derived from a Sumerian rubric meaning “lifted hand(s)” that
functioned as a classifier of ritual-prayers. 61 Subscriptions to copies of such
prayers may include a shuilla-rubric, and both ritual instructions and descriptions
of ritual enactments may employ it to indicate the recitation of prayers of
this class. Gestures of lifted hands taken to express prayer or greeting are common
in Mesopotamian figural art, and such gestures are attested in terms besides
those corresponding to this rubric. 62 Texts identified by a shuilla-rubric constitute
the best attested single category of Mesopotamian ritual-prayers. The term
“shuilla” refers to such ritual-prayers and the term “shuilla-prayer” refers explicitly
to the texts to be recited. The present book includes eleven of them. Yet,
despite more than a century of modern scholarly investigation of texts bearing
this rubric, several fundamental problems bedevil the use of this term among
scholars and therefore require detailed attention. This introductory treatment
discusses each of the following, in turn:
(1) While three major classes of shuillas have been identified, scholars do not always
specify the one to which they are referring. This section offers a brief overview of the
evidence for these classes.
(2) Concerning the best attested of these classes, the Akkadian shuillas of the āšipu,
“exorcist,” a fundamental disagreement has arisen about whether the term shuilla
should be applied to texts not actually bearing this rubric but considered similar to
them. Because of this, it is often not apparent to what group of texts a given author
intends the term to refer. This section offers a summary of arguments on both sides of
the issue.
(3) Also concerning this best-attested class of shuilla, scholars disagree as to its pur-
61
This rubric, šu.íl.la(2), combines the Sum. terms šu, “hand,” íl, “to lift,” and the nominalizing
element –a.
62
Various combinations of šu and íl (in some cases mu) and their corresponding Akkadian terms
qāta, “hand,” našû, “to lift,” and šuʾillakku, “lifted hands,” express a gesture of greeting/prayer
predicated of humans toward deities. Other idioms for such a gesture may be addressed to humans
as well as to deities, e.g., ultu imittu karābu, “to greet with the right (hand),” and qāta elû,
“to raise the hand.”
25