The First Pair of Deities in the Sefire I God-List Author(s): Michael L.

Barre Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 205-210 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/544906 Accessed: 27/09/2008 12:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

THE FIRST PAIR OF DEITIES IN THE SEFIRE I GOD-LIST

MICHAEL L. BARRE, St. Patrick's Seminary, Menlo Park, California

IN 1974 S. Parpola published a paper whose title would hardly have attracted the attention of Aramaists: "The Alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Irregular verb *nassand the Assyrian Sound Change s> s."' Yet, buried in a footnote in that article was a brief observation which proves to be of significance for the study of the first Aramaic inscription from Sefire (KAI222). Since the grapheme <s> had come to be pronounced /s/ in the Assyrian dialect of Akkadian, Parpola observed that the hitherto unidentified divine name mli (KAI 222 A 8) is equivalent to Assyrian *Mullissu, an epithet of the great goddess Ninlil.2 The name derives ultimately from Enlil as it appears in the Emesal dialect of Sumerian-Mullil--with the addition of the Akkadian feminine ending -tu.3 Since -It- becomes -ss- in Neo-Assyrian,4 Mulliltu would become *Mullissu, pronounced /mullisSu/ as Parpola has shown. Thus in the Sefire treaty, the name is spelled mls in West Semitic script. As a theophorous element in Neo-Babylonian personal names it is written -mul-la/le(-e)-su,5 which appears to correspond exactly to the West Semitic pronunciation. Hence mls will be transcribed Mulles in the remainder of this paper. But Parpola's observation leads to more than the identification of mls. It also makes it possible to fill in the divine name that comes just before Mulles. Previous attempts to fill this blank, such as M. Noth's suggestion of an otherwise unknown deity 'ngt6 and J. C. L. Gibson's more recent proposal 'nrt (= Ninurta),7 reveal (as we shall see) a fundamental misunderstanding of the arrangement of ancient Near Eastern treaty god-lists and hence must be judged unsuccessful. A large share of the credit for supplying the missing name goes to S. Dalley, who pointed out that the name must be either Assur or Enlil.8 She noted that three pairs of deities are named at the beginning of the list, and since the second two pairs (Marduk and Sarpanitum, Nabu and Tasmetum) are Mesopotamian, the preceding pair ([X] wml?) must be Mesopotamian as well.9 But the matter may be stated more precisely. Each of these pairs consists of the name of a Mesopotamian god followed by the name of his consort. Given this pattern, it is reasonable to conclude that the missing name
I S. Parpola in Assur 1/1 (1974): 1-10. 2 Ibid., p. 4, n. 13. 3 For the name Mulliltu (Mul-lil-tu), see K. L. Tallqvist, Akkadische Gitterepitheta, Studia Orientalia edidit Societas Fennica, no. 7 (Helsinki, 1938), p. 411. 4 W. von Soden, GAG ? 34d. 5 See A. Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum (Rome, [JNES 44 no. 3 (1985)] ? 1985 The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2968 / 85/ 4403-0004$1.00.

1914), p. 181. 6 M. Noth, "Der historische Hintergrund der Inschriften von SefTre," ZDPV 77 (1961): 165; but see also J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, Biblica et Orientalia, no. 19 (Rome, 1967), pp. 33 and 55. 7 J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 2, Aramaic Inscriptions (Oxford, 1975), p. 36. 8 S. Dalley, "dNIN.LIL = mul(l)is(s)u, the Treaty of Barga'yah, and Herodotus' Mylitta," RA 73 (1979): 177-78. 9 Ibid., p. 178.

205

206

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

before Mulles must not simply be the name of a Mesopotamian deity-it must be the name of a Mesopotamian god, specifically the consort of Mulles. Only Assur or Enlil would answer to these specifications. Dalley leaves open the question of which of these is to be paired with Mulles in the Sefire inscription. The purpose of the present paper will be to resolve this dilemma.

The Sefire I God-List Part 1 [qdm xxx] (8) wmls wqdm mrdk wzrpnt wqdm nb' wt[smt wqdm 'r wns](9)k wqdm nrgl wls wqdm sms wnr wqdm s[n wnkl wq](lO)dm nkr wkd'h wqdm kl lIhyrhbh w'dm[. . . wqdm kl 'Ihy rhbh wdm[. . . wqdm hdd h](l l)lb wqdm sbt Part 2 wqdm 'I w'lyn wqdm Smy[n w'rq wqdm ms](12)lh wm ynn wqdm ywm wlylh

The first task will be to restore what is missing in the break at the end of line 7, which contained the missing name of the god. How large a restoration should be made, and, more importantly, how many divine names should be restored? Judging from the amount of material plausibly restored at the end of lines 8-14, where the inscription breaks off at the same distance from the margin, we should expect a restoration of approximately 7-13 letters.'0 The next step is to establish the minimal restoration in line 7. There can be no doubt that the last two letters of Bir-Ga'yah's name are to be filled in. Moreover, since the god-list begins in the break at the end of this line, the word qdm ("in the presence of") followed by at least one divine name must also be restored. Thus the minimal restoration would look like this:

10 This estimate is based on the recent standard editions of the Sefire I stela: A. Dupont-Sommer and J. Starcky, "Les Inscriptions arameennes de Sfir6 (Steles I et II)," Memoires presentees par divers savants a l'Academie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres, no. 15 (Paris, 1958), p. 17; J. J. Koopmans, Aramdische Chrestomathie: Ausgewahlte Texte (Inschriften, Ostraka und Papyri) bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr., pt. 2, Aramaische Texte in Umschrift (Leiden, 1962), pp. 7-8; H. Donner and W. Rollig, KAI 222, p. 41; Fitzmyer, Aramaic

Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 12; F. Rosenthal, An Aramaic Handbook, pt. I/ 1, Texts, Porta Linguarum Orientalium, n.s. 10 (Wiesbaden, 1967), p. 3; Gibson, Aramaic Inscriptions, p. 28. In line 9 DupontSommer, Koopmans, and Rosenthal restore two letters but indicate by ellipsis points that a larger number of letters are to be filled in; E. Lipifiski (Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, no. I [Louvain, 1975], p. 26) would restore twelve letters here.

THE FIRST PAIR OF DEITIES IN THE SEFIRE I GOD-LIST

207

..

... br g[yh qdm 'sr/ ll]" wmls Bir-Ga'[yah in the presence of Assur/ Enlil] and Mulle?

This restoration involves eight letters, whether one restores the name of Assur or that of Enlil.'2 Is a more extensive restoration likely or possible? Filling in another pair of divine names before [X] wmls would hardly be feasible, for that would mean restoring at least 9-11 additional letters, so that 17-19 letters would have to be squeezed in at the end of the line.13 On the other hand, to judge from considerations of space alone, it might be possible to read a single divine name (preceded by qdm) before [(w)qdm X]
wmls: ... br gL[yh qdm xx(x) wqdm xxx] wmls

Even in this case the number of letters to be filled in is rather large, though it would seem to lie within the limits of possibility. But in the last analysis, this restoration also is improbable, as may be seen from the overall structure of the god-list.'4 The list can be divided into two major sections: (1) up to and including wqdm sbt (lines 7-11) and (2) from wqdm 'I w'lyn through wqdm ywm wlylh (lines 11-12).'5 The predominant pattern throughout is X w-Y. This pattern appears without variation in the second
I' The names Assur and Enlil would be written :sr and 'l/, respectively, in West Semitic script during this period. A. Assur. In the Neo-Assyrian period this name, though written dA-sur, dAJ-sur, etc., was pronounced /assur/, reflecting the s > s sound change in Assyrian (see Parpola, "Assyrian Sound Change," pp. 2, 4, n. 13). This is evident from West Semitic transcriptions of the theophorous element Assur in proper names. I cite by way of illustration the following names in Aramaic texts from Assyria: 'srslmh/srslmh = Assur-gallim-aha (KAI 235:2; 234:2); mng'sr = Mannu-kT-AsSur(KAI 234:4, 6); sb'sr = Sepe-AsSur (KAI 235:3); slm'sr = SilimAssur (KAI 236 Rev 1). Compare the name of Esarhaddon (Assur-aha-iddin) as it appears in other Aramaic sources: 'srh'dn (A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. [1923; Osnabriick, 1967], p. 212: Ahiqar 5, 10, 11, etc.); and in biblical sources: 'srhdn (2 Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:38; Ezra 4:2). Note, however, that in these Aramaic texts from Assyria, the divine name Samas is written sms (as in smsdlh = Samas-dala [KA 236:7]) and Sin, sn (as in the place-name drsn = Duir-Sin [KA 1233:15])-just as they appear in the Sefire I god-list. The divine name Assur was distinguished in Aramaic script from the place-name, consistently written 'swr (KAI 215:7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18; 233:16, 18)and later 'twr (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 212: Ahiqar 3, 4, 8, etc.). See also Lipiiski, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions, p. 86. B. Enlil. Though usually written dEN.LiL in Akkadian texts, the name came to be pronounced Ellil or Illil (see W. von Soden, A Hw.,

pp. 203-4). In Greek it was transcribed IkktvoS (see D. O. Edzard, WdM, p. 59). As a theophorous element in proper names it appears as '// in Aramaic transcription; see W. J. Hinke, A New Boundary Stone of Nebuchadrezzar I. from Nippur, The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series D: Researches and Treatises (Philadelphia, 1907), p. 161. 12 On the restoration in line 7, Dupont-Sommer and Starcky note: "Apres [;r]lI''3, il reste la place d'environ 9 signes avant la fin de la ligne" ("Les Inscriptions arameennes," p. 30). I should point out here that Gibson's restoration of sm in the lacuna (Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 28-29: br g'[yh sm qdm-- ], "Barga'yah... [he has set up in the presence of... ]"; so also F. Rosenthal, ANET, 3d ed., p. 659) is wrong. The term "in the presence of" in ancient Near Eastern treaties-qdm in Sefire I, ina IGI/mahar in Neo-Assyrian treaties, Evavriov in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia (Polybius Histories 7.9.2-3)-never refers to the act of setting up the treaty document but always to the act of concluding the treaty while the gods look on as witnesses; see my book, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: A Studi in Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Treati' Tradition, The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies (Baltimore and London, 1983), p. 23. 13I.e. ... br g'L[h qdm xx(x) wxx(x) wqdm Dsr/ '/l]. 14 See p. 206 above. 15 See my God-List, pp. 24-27.

208

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

section from beginning to end. In the first section it appears in the first eight out of eleven entries and begins to break down only toward the end of this section with wqdm kl 'Ihy rhbh w'dm [.. .] (line 10). Note that even in this line the X w-Y format is continued, though rhbh and 'dm[h?] are probably names of geographical areas rather than of deities.'6 After this entry, which marks a minor division in the list,'7 the pattern breaks down altogether until the end of the section. These observations strongly suggest that the first section also began with the same X w-Y pattern. Thus in all likelihood, the minimal restoration proposed above supplies all the missing words in the break. In other words, only one divine name is missing, the name paired with Mulles; hence this god's name would be the first in the list-a view that accords with the restorations proposed by virtually all who have dealt extensively with this text.'8 This conclusion is significant insofar as it means that the names of Assur and Enlil cannot both be restored in line 7. We must now decide which god was listed as the consort of Mulles here, that is, which name appeared first in the god-list. As will become evident from the following considerations, the missing name is that of Assur. The first reason for this assertion is based upon the structure of treaty god-lists from the ancient Near East. Analysis shows that in such lists from Hatti, Babylonia, and Assyria-and even in the much later list in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia (215 B.c.)-the name of the supreme deity of the superior party's state pantheon always occurs in first place, often followed by that of his consort.'9 Since all the other names in this first section of the Sefire list are those of deities in the first-millennium Assyro-Babylonian pantheon (with the possible exception of the unidentified kd'h),20 it is evident that this section consists of gods from either the Assyrian or the Babylonian pantheon. Enlil was head of neither pantheon during this period. Thus the first-named deity in the Sefire god-list must be Assur-not simply by process of elimination but because he alone meets the requirements for first place in the list by virtue of the fact that he is (1) the supreme deity of the Assyrian pantheon and (2) the consort of Ninlil/ Mulles.21
16See Dupont-Sommer and Starcky, "Les Inscriptions arameennes," p. 33; Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 36. 17See my God-List, pp. 24-25. 18As far as I have been able to determine, no commentator proposes a restoration of more than one divine name at the end of line 7. Several explicitly state that the deity preceding Mulles is the first in the god-list: Dupont-Sommer and Starcky, "Les Inscriptions arameennes," p. 30; Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 33; Gibson, Aramaic Inscriptions, p. 36. 19See my God-List, pp. 22, 40. Recognition of the fact that in these treaty god-lists first-named deity is the supreme deity leads to the conclusion that the suggestions of Noth and Gibson with regard to the first deity in the list (see p. 206 above) cannot be correct. Noth's 'ngt is not only not a supreme deity in the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon but an unknown god; and Gibson's 'nrt (= Ninurta), though well known, was never exalted to this position. DupontSommer and Starcky had suggested hid rb', "the Great Haldi" ("Les Inscriptions arameennes," p. 30). Haldi was, it is true, a supreme god but of the Urartian pantheon. But this suggestion too is misguided, since the rest of the divinities in the first section of the Sefire list are Assyro-Babylonian, not Urartian; and Haldi's consort was Bagbartu, not Mulle? (see Edzard, WdM, p. 133). 20 In line 10 we encounter the entry [wq]dm nkr wkd'h. Elsewhere (God-List, p. 24) I have presented evidence for the identification of nkr with *Nikkar, i.e., the Assyro-Babylonian healing-goddess Ninkarra(k)/ Gula. Since kd'h is paired with this AssyroBabylonian deity, it is most probably either the name of a deity closely associated with this goddess or an epithet of Nin-karra(k). The ending -h (-ah?) would seem to suggest a feminine deity. 21 On the consort relationship between Assur and Ninlil see Edzard, WdM, pp. 43-44. During the was read as Neo-Assyrian period the name dNIN.LiL *Mullissu in all likelihood; see B. Menzel, Assyrische

THE FIRST PAIR OF DEITIES IN THE SEFIRE I GOD-LIST

209

Other clues also point to Assur as first-named god, in particular the indications of the specifically Assyrian provenance of this section of the list. Perhaps most significant is the fact that the list includes the Sebetti (sbt, line 11). These seven warrior-gods were venerated both in Babylonia and Assyria in the second millennium B.C. In Babylonia during the Old Babylonian period they were not mentioned "in any of the rather numerous royal inscriptions or in any other document of an official or public nature," and their cult was largely limited to the sphere of popular religion.22 Even in the Neo-Babylonian period they were never elevated to the rank of gods of the official pantheon in Babylonia.23But matters were different in first-millennium Assyria. There these gods were not only "mentioned together with the great gods of the pantheon in the inscriptions of nearly all Neo-Assyrian kings"24but were actually designated "great gods" (ilini rabuti),25 something never done in Babylonia. Hence the Sebetti are mentioned in a number of Neo-Assyrian treaty god-lists, where they always mark the end of the list of Assyrian deities.26 Thus not only the very presence of the Sebetti in the Sefire god-list but, even more, their terminating function there marks the list as specifically Assyrian in character. A second significant entry is Hadad of Aleppo, named just before the Sebetti. Though only the last two letters of the name are preserved ([wqdm hdd h]lb), virtually
all commentators and translators agree on the restoration of this name in lines 10-1 1.27

It is erroneous, however, to regard this entry as marking the beginning of a new "Canaanite" section of the list as a number of writers do.28 Although it is true that this god was venerated in the West Semitic area-Ugarit, Yamhad, Mari29-he appears as an oath-god in treaties from a much wider area: in Hatti and even Egypt during the second millennium30and in Assyria during the first millennium.31Thus in the Sefire treaty he is invoked not because he was a Canaanite deity but because he was an oath-god known in Assyria, where he was worshiped up to the Neo-Assyrian period.32
Tempel, Studia Pohl, Series Maior, vol. 10/1 (Rome, 1981), p. 117; J. N. Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents (Warminster, 1976), p. 216. 22 S. Graziani, "Note sui Sibitti," AION39 (n.s. 29) (1979): 683. 23 Ibid., p. 687. 24 Ibid., pp. 674-75. 25 Ibid., p. 677; see also L. Cagni, The Poem of Erra, Sources and Monographs on the Ancient Near East, vol. 1/3 (Malibu, California, 1977), p. 19, n. 64. 26 In the treaty between Assur-nirari V and Mati'el of Arpad (see E. F. Weidner, "Der Staatsvertrag Assurniraris VI. [sic] von Assyrien mit Mati'ilu von Bit-Agusi," AfO 8 [1932-33]: 23 and n. 52; see also my God-List, pp. 19, 130, 132, 146, n. 35); between Esarhaddon and Ba'al of Tyre (see R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Konigs von Assyrien, AfO Beiheft 9 [1956; Osnabruck, 1967], ? 69 [p. 109];and my God-List, pp. 20, 45-46, 134-36); between Esarhaddon and his (chiefly) Median vassals (see D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon [London, 1958 = Iraq (1958)], pt. 1, p. 64; and my GodList, pp. 21, 130-34).
27 One of the few exceptions is R. Dussaud, "Nouvelles inscriptions aram6ennes de Sefir6, pres d'Alep," CRAIBL 1931, p. 316, who reads "[les dieux de(l l)Ha]lab." The restoration of the name hdd was first suggested by H. Bauer, "Ein aramaischer Staatsvertrag aus dem 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Die Inschriftder Stele von SudschTn," AfO 8 (1932-33): 5, and has been followed in all the standard editions of the Sefire I stela (see the editions cited in n. 10 above). 28 H. Donner, "Zur Inschrift von Sudschin Aa 9," AfO 18 (1957-58): 391: "Beginnt damit die Aufzahlung syrischer Gottheiten"; similarly, Fitzmyer notes that the Sebetti have been "inserted in the second half of the list of gods, where the Canaanite deities appear"; see The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, p. 37; see also Gibson, Aramaic Inscriptions, p. 36. 29 See H. Klengel, "Der Wettergott von Halab," JCS 19 (1965): 87-89. 30 Ibid., pp. 88, 90-92. 31 Ibid., p. 92. 32 Klengel (ibid.) relates that Shalmaneser III (858-24 B.c.) offered sacrifice to this god just before

210

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

The fact that he is named after a series of Assyrian deities and before the Sebetti is also evidence that his name here merely continues the enumeration of oath-gods derived from Assyrian treaty tradition. The strongest evidence for this, however, is that in the contemporary treaty between Assur-nirari V and Mati'el, he is named in almost the same position as in the Sefire list (i.e., two entries before the Sebetti).33 Hence the inclusion of Hadad of Aleppo in this section of the Sefire god-list also points to an Assyrian origin. Finally, attention should be given to the striking similarity between the contents of the first section of the Sefire list and those of the list in the Assur-nirari treatytreaties, it should be noted, with the same individual as vassal party (Aramaic mt"l
= Akkadian mMa-ti-'-DINGIR = mMa-ti-'i[lu]). Not only Hadad of Aleppo and the

Sebetti but all of the deities named in this part of the Sefire god-list (with the possible exception of kd'h) are also found in the Assur-nirari list.34This close correspondence thus further supports the argument that lines 7-11 of the Sefire list consist of Assyrian deities. The evidence presented above leads to the conclusion that the name of Assur-not Enlil-is to be restored at the head of the god-list in line 7. Thus we would read: [qdm 'sr] wmls wqdm mrdk wzrpnt. .. [In the presence of Assur] and MulleS, In the presence of Marduk and Sarpanitum...
contemporary treaty A[ssur-nirari]/ M[ati'el]." These remarks need to be revised in light of the present discussion only insofar as I now identify [DN] wmlS as [Assur] and Mulles, both of whom are listed in the Assur-nirari god-list (Mulles appears under the name dNIN.LiL [see n. 21 above]); nr is either an epithet of Aya, consort of Samas, or more likely an epithet of Samas himself (see God-List, pp. 26, 150, n. 75); both Samas and Aya are named in the Assur-nirari list. Nin-karra(k) (nkr in Sefire I A 10) appears in Assur-nirari under the name Gula (on the equation of these goddesses, see Frankena, Takultu, p. 106).

the battle of Qarqar (853 B.c.). (H)adad of Aleppo is also listed in the "Addressbook of the Gods" (see R. Frankena, Takultu: De sacrale maaltijd in het assyrische ritueel: Met een overzicht over de in Assur vereerde goden [Leiden, 1953], p. 124, line 116); the principal recension of this text dates from the time of Sennacherib (704-681 B.c.) (ibid., p. 122). 33 See Weidner, "Staatsvertrag," pp. 22-23; E. Reiner, A NET, 3d ed., p. 533. 34 See my God-List, p. 25: "With the exception of the supreme gods ([DN] wmls), nr, and possibly kd'h, all the deities named in Sfl (Sefire I treaty) up to and including the Sebetti are also listed in the