The most crucial text on the theodicy issue in Akkadian literat-ure is no doubt the Babylonian Theodicy, traditionally assigned to the late second millennium, in the aftermath of the Kassite
24Lambert, ‘A Further Attempt’, 190:26.
25Lambert, ‘A Further Attempt’, 192:62-65, cf. Van der Toorn, Family Religion, 107.
period.26 This text gives voice to a rising scepticism concerning the retribution doctrine as well as the anthropomorphic vision of divinity that informed it. Though the text has repeatedly been discussed in studies on the problem of divine justice in ancient Near East literature,27 it merits a reassessment on account of both the significance of its message as well as the problems con-cerning its date and author.
4.1 Date and Author
The Babylonian Theodicy is in at least one respect a literary tour de force as the beginning of its lines form an acrostic yielding a phrase of self-introduction: ‘I am Saggil-k¯ı[nam-u]bbib, religious specialist, worshipper of god and king.’28 It looks like a kind of signature, a sophisticated way of the author of identifying himself.
What do we know about this man, and just how reliable is this claim of authorship?
Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib is not unknown in the first millennium cuneiform tradition. He is mentioned in the List of Sages and
26Edition: Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 21-62, 343-5. For ad-ditions see D.J. Wiseman, ‘A New Text of the Babylonian Poem of the Right-eous Sufferer’, AnSt 30 (1980), 101-107; A.R. George, F.N.H. al-Rawi, ‘Tab-lets from the Sippar Library, VII: Three Wisdom Texts’, Iraq 60 (1998), 187-206, esp. 187-201. For studies and translations see B. Landsberger, ‘Die babylonische Theodizee’, ZA 43 (1936), 32-76; G. Buccellati, ‘Tre saggi sulla sapienza mesopotamica, III: La teodicea: Condanna dell’abulia politica’, Or-Ant 11 (1972), 161-78; W. von Soden, ‘Der leidende Gerechte’, TUAT, Bd.
3/1, G¨utersloh 1990, 110-35; S. Denning-Bolle, Wisdom in Akkadian Liter-ature: Expression, Instruction, Dialogue, Leiden 1992, 136-58; Foster, Before the Muses, vol. 1, Bethesda 1993, 308-25; Sitzler, ‘Vorwurf gegen Gott’, 99-109; S. Ponchia, La palma e il tamarisco e altri dialoghi mesopotamici, Venice 1996, 73-82 (translation), 101-8 (transliteration), 131-42 (commentary).
27See, in addition to the literature mentioned in the previous note, J.J.
Stamm, Das Leiden des Unschuldigen in Babylon und Israel (AThANT, 10), Zurich 1946, esp. 19-25; Von Soden, ‘Das Fragen nach der Gerechtigkeit Gottes’, 41-59, esp. 51-5, reprinted in: H.-P. M¨uller (ed.), Bibel und Alter Ori-ent: Altorientalische Beitr¨age zum Alten Testament von Wolfram von Soden (BZAW, 162), Berlin 1985, 57-75; H.-P. M¨uller, ‘Keilschriftliche Parallelen zum biblischen Hiobbuch: M¨oglichkeit und Grenze des Vergleichs’, Or 47 (1978), 360-75, esp. 366-8; M. Weinfeld, ‘Job and its Mesopotamian Paral-lels: A Typological Analysis’, in: W. Claassen (ed.), Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham (JSOT.S, 48), Sheffield 1988, 217-26, esp. 222-5; Mattingly, ‘The Pious Sufferer’, 305-48, esp. 325-7.
28a-na-ku sa-ag-gi-il-ki-[i-na-am-u]b-bi-ib ma-´aˇs-ma-ˇsu ka-ri-bu ˇsa i-li ´u ˇsar-ri = an¯aku Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib maˇsmaˇsˇsu k¯aribu ˇsa ili u ˇsarri.
66 K. van der Toorn
Scholars for having been the chief scholar in the reigns of Ne-buchadnezzar I (1125-1104) and Adad-apla-iddina (1068-1047).29 We know this list only, however, from a copy written in the 147th year of the Seleucid era, i.e., ca. 170 bce. At first sight, the historical reliability of this piece of information concerning Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib would seem to be doubtful, seeing that the list dates several other scholars to a time to which they patently did not belong.30 On the other hand, the list is correct in connecting Ahiqar with Esarhaddon (lines 19-21); also, the linking of the scholar Esaggil-k¯ın-apli with a Kassite or early post-Kassite king (line 16)31is corroborated by a Neo-Assyrian catalogue,32 which identifies the king in question as Adad-apla-iddina.33 Irving L.
Finkel concludes that ‘one might hazard that Esaggil-k¯ın-apli was Adad-apla-iddina’s first appointed umm¯anu, but that he died in office and was replaced by Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib.’34 Alternatively, the tradition may have confused the two scholars.35
Independently of the later tradition, the name Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib provides an indication of the time in which the man that
29The text was first published by Johannes van Dijk in: H.J. Lenzen, XVIII.
Vorl¨aufiger Bericht ¨uber die . . . Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Berlin 1962, 44-52, Tafel 27. See also I.L. Finkel, ‘Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kin-apli, and the Series SA.GIG,’ in: E. Leichty et al. (eds), A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, Philadelphia 1988, 143-59, esp. 144.
30Line 12 turns Sin-l¯eqi-unninni, the alleged editor of the Gilgamesh Epic according to the List of Texts and Authors (see previous note), into a con-temporary of Gilgamesh; line 13 puts Kabtu-ilani-Marduk, the author of the Epic of Erra and Ishum, in the reign of Ibbi-Sin.
31On the basis of evidence mentioned below, one would expect the name Adad-apla-iddina, but the traces seem to exclude this reading, see Van Dijk, op.cit., 51.
32See Finkel, ‘Adad-apla-iddina’ (see note 29), esp. 148-50. Note the occur-rence of Esaggil-k¯ın-apli as editor of ¯aˇsip¯utu-texts in the so-called Vademecum of the Exorcist, see M.J. Geller, ‘Incipits and Rubrics’, in: A.R. George; I.L.
Finkel (eds), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W.G. Lambert, Winona Lake 2000, 225-58, esp. 248, line 27.
33Cf. also the SA.GIG colophon quoted by Finkel, ‘Adad-apla-iddina’, 144 and note 14.
34Finkel, ‘Adad-apla-iddina’, 144.
35In Finkel’s tentative reconstruction one has to suppose that Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib served as chief scholar under Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104), lost his position under the latter’s successors, to be reappointed sometime during the reign of Adad-apla-iddina (1068-1047). Off and on, his career as the national scholar would have spanned over 50 years – which is hard to believe.
bore the name lived. Like k¯ın-apli (short for Esaggil-muk¯ın-apli?),36Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib is a theophoric name of three elements in which the temple name Saggil (for Esaggil, the temple of Marduk in Babylon) stands metonymously for Marduk:37 ‘Saggil-cleanse-the-loyal-one!’38 Both names fit the late Kassite or early post-Kassite period;39a more specific date for Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib would be conjectural.
Assuming that the historical Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib was active around 1100 bce, it does not follow automatically that the Theo-dicy is from that period, too. It could be that we are dealing with a work of pseudepigraphy: under the cloak of a famous scholar from the past, whose devotion to God and the King was beyond doubt, the real author would have the freedom to express views that were not entirely in line with the orthodoxy of his times. Al-though the possibility of the Theodicy being a pseudepigraphon has rarely been raised explicitly,40a number of scholars have sug-gested it by implication.41 Wolfram von Soden argues that lin-guistic characteristics as well as the acrostic prohibit a date prior to 800 bce.42 As it is, however, style, grammar, and phraseo-logy are notoriously moot criteria for dating;43on the very same
36See J.J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung (MVAG, 44), Leipzig 1939, 85 for the occurrence of the name Esaggil-muk¯ın-apli. In view of the word order the name is probably not a request or an injunction (‘Esaggil confirm the heir!’) but a wishful observation (‘Esaggil confirms the heir’), cf.
the discussion of the name Sin-leqi-unninni by P.-A. Beaulieu, ‘The Descend-ants of S¯ın-l¯eqi-unninni’, in: J. Marzahn, H. Neumann (eds), Assyriologica et Semitica: Fs. J. Oelsner (AOAT, 252), Munster 2000, 1-16, esp. 2-3.
37Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung, 85, 91.
38Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung, 172-3, 239-40.
39Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung, 172, with reference to A.L. Op-penheim, ‘Die akkadischen Personennamen der “Kassitenzeit” ’, Anthr. 31 (1936), 470-498, esp. 482, where Oppenheim stresses the importance of judi-cial themes in theophoric names from the Kassite era.
40For a brief discussion of the issue, without a firm conclusion, see Sitzler,
‘Vorwurf gegen Gott’, 100.
41Irving L. Finkel is hesitant about Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib’s authorship, see Finkel, ‘Adad-apla-iddina’, 144: ‘probably [my italics, KvdT] the author of the Babylonian Theodicy’. Benjamin R. Foster puts the Theodicy in ‘the Late Period’, i.e. after 1000 bce, see Foster, Before the Muses, vol. 1, 806-14, cf. the observation on acrostics on p. 698.
42W. von Soden, ‘Religion und Sittlichkeit nach den Anschauungen der Babylonier’, ZDMG 89 (1935), 143-169, esp. 166 n. 1; W. von Soden, ‘Die babylonische Theodizee’, TUAT 3/1, G¨utersloh 1990, 143.
43On the hazards of dating by style see W.G. Lambert, ‘Literary Style in
68 K. van der Toorn
grounds, Wilfred G. Lambert pleads in favour of a date around 1000 bce.44
The principal reasons that would make one suspicious of the claim that the historical Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib wrote the Theodicy are related to the acrostic. All the other Akkadian acrostics we know are from the first millennium;45 generally speaking, the acrostic is a characteristic of Akkadian literature in its later stages.46 The main effect of the acrostic, moreover, is a claim of authorship, which stands in contrast to the anonymity of the bulk of Akkadian literature. Only the Epic of Erra and Ishum, written by Kabti-ilani-Marduk, and the Gula hymn of Bullutsa-rabi refer to their presumed author, the former directly,47 the latter indirectly.48The self-reference of Bullutsa-rabi in the Gula hymn occurs in passing; the mention of his name is not designed to enhance the authority of the text. The reference to Kabti-ilani-Marduk in the Erra Epic, on the other hand, means to authorise the text in view of its credibility with the audience, which pur-pose is also served by the reference to the nocturnal revelation the author received. The ingenious reference to Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib seems to aim at a similar effect: it lends authority to a text that otherwise might not have gained general acceptance.
The principal argument against the hypothesis of the Theodicy being a pseudepigraphon is the fact that Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib’s sole claim to fame is the presumed authorship of the poem.
The mention of Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib as author of the Theodicy in the Neo-Assyrian List of Works and Authors depends on the Theodicy itself, as does the occurrence of his name in the Seleu-cid List of Sages and Scholars. One would imagine an
anonym-First Millennium Mesopotamia’, JAOS 88 (1968), 123-32, esp. 124 n. 2.
44Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 67.
45On Akkadian acrostics see Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 67;
R. Sweet, ‘A Pair of Double Acrostics in Akkadian’, Or. 38 (1969), 459-60, and for the text in question see Lambert, ‘Literary Style’, 130-2; W.G.
Lambert, ‘Nabu Hymns on Cylinders’, in: B. Hruˇska, G. Komoroczy (eds), Fs Lubor Matouˇs, Budapest 1978, vol. 2, 75-111, esp. 76; W.M. Soll, ‘Babylonian and Biblical Acrostics’, Bibl. 69 (1988), 305-23.
46See Foster, Before the Muses, vol. 2, 698.
47L. Cagni, L’Epopea di Erra (SS, 34), Rome 1969, 126, tablet V 42-44;
see also Lambert, ‘A Catalogue of Texts and Authors’, JCS 16 (1962), 59-77, esp. 64 text III, lines 1-2 (reconstructed), commentary pp. 70-1.
48W.G. Lambert, ‘The Gula Hymn of Bullutsa-rabi’, Or. 36 (1967), 105-32, esp. 128, line 199; see also Lambert, ‘A Catalogue’, 66 v 3-5 = vi 1-2.
ous author in search of a great name from the past to come up with someone less obscure. A case in point are the Instructions of Shuruppak, allegedly originating with the famous sage of that name from antediluvian times.49
On the evidence available at present it is impossible to pro-nounce the definitive verdict on either the author or the date of the Babylonian Theodicy. The arguments laid out above put the burden of proof upon those who suggest a date between 850 and 750 bce, thereby implying that Saggil-k¯ınam-ubbib is not the real author of the Theodicy. As the matter stands, there are insufficient grounds to dismiss the more traditional view accord-ing to which the Theodicy was written sometime around 1100 bce. Considering the doubts surrounding both dates, however, it is extremely hazardous to invoke a specific historical context, be it the Babylonian society in 1100 bce or in 800 bce, as a key for interpreting the text – unless, of course, the historical con-text furnish details so specific to the Theodicy that it settles the question of its date.
4.2 Form and Content
The Babylonian Theodicy presents itself as a dialogue between a sufferer and his friend. Built up of 27 stanza’s, each one con-sisting of 11 lines, the poem totals exactly 297 lines, some 200 of which can be reconstructed on the basis of the recovered cop-ies of the text. Most of the lines of the stanzas come in pairs, a pair consisting of two lines which express the same thought in a slightly different way. Note the following examples:
Where is the wise man of your calibre?
Where is the scholar who is your equal?
(Theodicy, 5-6) The corn of my fields is far from satisfying [me,]
My beer, the sustenance of humankind, is not nearly enough.
(Theodicy, 31-32)
This form of synonymous parallelism is a well-known device in Semitic poetics, much used in the Biblical Psalms as well. As a stanza numbers 11 lines, each stanza has one line that stands
49See Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 92-5.
70 K. van der Toorn
on its own. Due to its singular position, this unpaired line has a particular force. Its position within the stanza varies.
Both the sufferer and his friend are obviously learned men with a predilection for ornate and literary language. They address each other as ‘sage’50and ‘scholar’51and repeatedly refer to each other’s wisdom.52Since the sufferer recalls his scribal training,53 the wisdom claimed by the speakers is a wisdom acquired by schooling. The most likely setting for their discussion is the school or the academy. The fact that the author used the technique of an acrostic shows that he aimed to reach an audience of literati.
The acrostic needs the reading eye in order to be appreciated.
The existence of a Late Babylonian commentary, written for the instruction of beginning students,54 shows that the Theodicy did indeed find its way into the scribal community. It became part of the curriculum of the schools.55
The form of the dialogue suits the setting of the discussion in the schools; it reminds one of the older Edubba-dialogues.56 The dialogue has the additional advantage of allowing the author to advance certain unorthodox views without assuming responsib-ility for them. The dialogue is an adequate vehicle of critical reflection.57
50Babylonian Theodicy, 1 (¯aˇsiˇsu); 5 (b¯el pakku); 254 (li’ˆu); 254, 289 (palkˆu).
51Babylonian Theodicy, 6 (m¯udˆu); 7 (mundalku).
52Babylonian Theodicy, 45 (m¯ı[riˇska]); 57, 200, 213 (n¯emequ); 78 (r¯aˇs uzni ); 199, 254 (taˇs¯ımtu); cf. 35, 147 (pakku).
53Note lines 205-207: [. . . ]. ˇsukamm¯ı, [. . . ] mih
˘is.taˇsu upattanni, [kamm¯ı edl¯uti ul ] upattˆa pan¯ıˇsu, ‘[. . . ] my stylus, [. . . ] its cuneiform writing he ex-plained to me, but he did not disclose to me (the meaning of) the incompre-hensible cuneiform tablets.’ For the reading of line 207, see CAD E, 34a.
54B. Landsberger, ‘Die babylonische Theodizee’, ZA 43 (1936), 32-76, esp.
37.
55The Late Babylonian commentary text from Sippar (BM 66882+76506, see Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Pl. 26) seems to be designed for apprentice scribes, see Landsberger, ‘Die babylonische Theodizee’, 37. This would suggest that the Theodicy was read and copied primarily as training material, perhaps on account of the acrostic – an excellent learning device.
56See D.O. Edzard, ‘Literatur, par. 3.6.2. Schulstreitgespr¨ache’, RLA, Bd.
7, 44-5.
57K. van der Toorn, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Literary Dialogue as a Vehicle of Critical Reflection’, in: G.J. Reinink, H.L.J. Vanstiphout (eds), Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East, Leuven 1991, 59-75. Note the difference with the dialogue in the Book of Job in which the protagonist has three or four interlocutors. In Job, the dia-logue serves a judicial purpose: the friends are witnesses `a charge, Job stands
On the surface, the message of the Babylonian Theodicy is hardly revolutionary. Throughout the composition the sufferer tries to make the point that his various misfortunes are unmerited and thus contradict the view according to which the gods rule the world on the principles of justice as humans understand them.
Each pair of stanzas raises a particular issue. The first stanza is put in the mouth of the sufferer, the second contains the reply of his friend. The subjects range from personal complaints to observations on social injustice in general. Insofar as the text can be reconstructed the discussion revolves around he following themes: the disadvantages of being orphaned at an early age (i-ii); the insecurity of prosperity (iii-iv); the prosperity of those that do not practise religion (v-vi); the uselessness of devotion (vii-viii); the temptation of the nomadic lifestyle (xiii-xiv); the instability of domestic bliss (?, xv-xxvi); the sudden reversals in the social hierarchy (xvii-xviii); the concealment of knowledge (xix-xx);58the opulence of the wicked (xxi-xxii); the advantages of juniors over their seniors (xxiii-xxiv); and the morally blind infatuation of the public with the powerful (xxv-xxvi).59
For all his acknowledged wisdom, the friend of the sufferer has little to offer in the way of a solution. His answer to the various problems raised by his colleague in distress is above all an invitation to resignation and surrender to the inscrutable plan of the gods. Things are as they are, because the gods, in their wisdom, have decided that this is how they should be. There is a striking note of fatalism to the maxims advanced by the sage.
Our fathers are indeed destined to go the way of death, They have been ordered long since to cross the river Hubur.60
(Theodicy, 16-17) on trial, and Eloah is both adversary of Job and supreme judge.
58This interpretation is based on the data furnished by unpublished du-plicates to stanza xix quoted in CAD E, 34 and CAD K, 445-6. They allow a tentative reconstruction of lines 205-208: ‘. . . my stylus, [. . . ] its cuneiform writing he explained to me, but he did not disclose to me (the meaning of) the incomprehensible cuneiform tablets. Evidently my good luck is rapidly coming to an end.’ (see also note 53). I assume that the flattering remark in line 200 (‘You have mastered the totality of wisdom, you counsel the people’) implies the suggestion by the sufferer that his friend does have access to the ultimate secrets of knowledge, whereas his own education did not reach the pinnacle of wisdom.
59See also the judicious summary by Landsberger, ‘Die babylonische The-odizee’, 39-42.
72 K. van der Toorn
Wealth and poverty have been assigned long since.
(Theodicy, 198)61 (The gods) gave perverse speech to the human race, they endowed them for ever with lies and falsehood.
(Theodicy, 279-280)
The friend incarnates the voice of reason as the academics of the time saw it. At no point in the dialogue does he deny the reality of the problems raised by the sufferer. He teaches accept-ance, enduraccept-ance, steadfast devotion, and submission to the will of the gods; should the sufferer adopt that attitude he is bound to experience the kindness of the gods.62
Throughout the speeches of the friend runs the persistent notion that the gods are not what the common man would expect or like them to be. They have ordained death as the fate of every human being, irrespective of vice or virtue (lines 16-17); they delay retribution for what seems a disproportionately long time (vi); they distribute wealth and poverty at their whim (xviii, esp.
line 198); they have instituted that the second in line is oftentimes stronger than the first one (xxiv); and they have made humans such that the latter attach less importance to truth and justice than to the opinion of the rich and powerful (xxvi).
The principal point the Babylonian Theodicy wants to drive home is that, in their dealings with humankind, the gods are motivated by considerations that are impossible for humans to penetrate. This insight finds expression in a number of charac-teristic sayings, all voiced by the sufferer’s friend:
You are a mere child, the design of the god is as remote as the netherworld.63 The strategy of the god [is inscrutable] like the innermost of
, 72, The decree of the goddess cannot be understood:
, 72, The decree of the goddess cannot be understood: