Syncretization at Egypt

In Egyptology, syncretization has a special usage, and for this reason

Egyptological examples of religious syncretism should be considered carefully before we apply them as comparative examples for Assyrian or Israelite religions. According to the

OxfordEncyclopediaofAncientEgypt, “syncretism” is the coexistence or cooperation of two or more gods for either political or theological reasons,2 which includes conceptually different forms of “syncretism” than those discussed in Greco-Roman religious traditions and from those discussed in Assyriological and biblical scholarship. Originally coined by Plutarch,3 “syncretism” (συγκρητισμός) described the cooperative effort of the Cretans when facing a common enemy:

Then this further matter must be borne in mind and guarded against when differences arise among brothers: we must be careful especially at such times to associate familiarly with our brothers’ friends, but avoid and shun all intimacy with their enemies, imitating in this point, at least, the practice of Cretans, who, though they often quarreled with and warred against each other, made up their differences and united when outside enemies attacked; and this it was which they called “syncretism” (Moralia 490:19, “On Brotherly Love,” W. C. Helmbold’s translation, LCL).

Thus, the term suggests a sort of reconciliation of differences, which resembles Desiderius Erasmus’s usage of “syncretism” during the Renaissance and George

1 _{G. Beckman, “Ištar of Nineveh Reconsidered,” JCS 50 (1998): 4; Porter 2004, 44 n. 16; H. Lloyd-Jones,} “Ancient Greek Religion,” in APSP 145 (2001), 462; E. Bevan, HolyImages: AnInquiryintoIdolatryand Image-WorshipinAncientPaganismandinChristianity (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1940), 20.

2 _{U. h. Luft, “Religion,” in TheOxfordEncyclopediaofAncientEgypt (ed. D. Redford; Oxford: Oxford} University Press, 2001), 3:142.

3 _{M. Pye, “Syncretism and Ambiguity” Numen 18 (1971): 83; R. Shaw and C. Steward, editors,} “Introduction: Problematizing Syncretism” in Syncretism/anti-syncretism: thePoliticsofReligious Synthesis (New York: Routledge, 1994), 3.

Calixtus’s usage during the Reformation.4 Then, in the nineteenth century C.E., J. G. Droysen reintroduced the word as another term for Hellenistic culture, describing the mixing of peoples from the east and the west as a result of the policies of Alexander the Great and his successors.5 Droysen’s definition has become the standard academic definition for “syncretism” today,6 and it works particularly well when used in

scholarship on the mixing of classical religion in the Mediterranean. Though the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians had different names for deities with similar attributes, the ancients recognized that each culture was appealing to the same divine entity: Zeus and Hera were understood by the ancient Romans to be as Jupiter and Juno, while Herodotus equated Aphrodite with the Egyptian goddess Hathor, along with several other

goddesses.7 Likewise, most Assyriological discussions about syncretism deal with deities with similar attributes originating from different pantheons that are equated with each other by members of those cultures. For example, numerous scholars continue to identify

4 _{Pye 1971, 83; Shaw and Steward 1994, 4. Erasmus used the term to describe classical influence on} Christianity, whereas Calixtus used it to unite the divergent Protestant denominations on doctrinal matters. In the wake of the Reformation, theologians used the term pejoratively to describe the mixing of these various Protestant religious traditions.

5 _{M. H. Luther, “Of Religious Syncretism, Comparative Religion and Spiritual Quests,” MTSR 12 (2000):} 277; M. H. Luther, “Syncretism, Historicism, and Cognition: A Response to Michael Pye,” MTSR 8 (1996): 215. According to Luther, Droysen’s definition first appeared in his GeshichtedesHellenismus, in 1836, and is the standard academic notion behind “syncretism” today (Luther 1996, 216). Luther suggests that the modern usage of “syncretism” may alternatively derive from the Greek verb synkerannumi, meaning “to mix together” and that its literal translation from Greek to Latin is confusio.

6 _{In subsequent modern biblical and theological discussions, “syncretism” is typically used to contrast} Greco-Roman paganism with (proto-)orthodox Christianity. According to Pye, the term is often used pejoratively, serving as a euphemism for religious disorder, when scholars and theologians discuss non- normative Christianity (M. Pye, “Syncretism versus Synthesis,” MTSRReligion 6 [1994]: 220). Unfortunately, this view of syncretism as religious disorder complicates our usage when applying it to discussions of official and nonofficial religious systems in ancient Mesopotamia and Israel.

7 _{Herodotus equates Aphrodite with Hathor in (Herodotus I 2.41.5c), but in later periods Aphrodite is more} often equated with Isis (S. L. Budin, “A Reconsideration of the Aphrodite-Ashtart Syncretism,” Numen 51 [2004]: 127 n. 79). T. Harrison notes that Herodotus identified Aphrodite with the Arabian Alilat, the Assyrian Mylitta (Mullissu), the Persian Mitra (perhaps a result of Herodotus or one of his sources mistaking the graphic and phonetic similarities of the male deity Mithra/Μίτρα with Mother/Μήτρα, i.e., “mother” Merkelbach), and the Scythian Argimpasa (T. Harrison, DivinityandHistory: TheReligionof Herodotus [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000], 209 and nn. 8-9).

Aššur, the Assyrian chief deity of the second and first millennia, with Enlil, who was the chief deity of the Sumerian pantheon of the third and second millennia.8

Within Egyptological discussions, however, the two (or more) gods involved in syncretism are often native Egyptian gods. The syncretism of Re with Atum, forming Re- Atum, is the earliest attested example of this form of syncretism, dating to the 4th Dynasty (ca. 26-25th centuries B.C.E.).9 This form of syncretism is considered temporary – even if “temporary” represents hundreds or thousands of years of Egyptian religious history – and each god retains his or her original characteristics.10 J. Baines notes that these

syncretisms can been see as creating new deities, but more commonly this phenomenon is used to express particular aspects of existing deities.11 When two deities have been

paired, the second-named deity typically outranks the first, but the iconography of this new deity, as well as the mode of address to the new deity, is based upon the first deity named.12

8 _{A. Livingstone, “New Dimensions in the Study of Assyrian Religion,” in Assyria1995 (1997), 167;} Menzel 1981, 1:65 and 2:64* n. 812; A. George, BabylonianTopographicalTexts (OLA 40; Leuven: Department Orientalistiek, 1992), 185-186; A. Annus, TheGodNinurta intheMythologyandRoyal IdeologyofAncientMesopotamia (SAAS 14; Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002), 39; and B. Landsberger, and K. Balkan, “Die Inschrift des assyrischen Königs Īriṣum, gefunden in Kültepe 1948,” Belleten 14 (1950): 251. As is discussed in chapter 4, A. Annus is quick to identify numerous Sumerian and Semitic deities with each other, especially as they pertain to the god Ninurta.

9 _{E. Hornung, ConceptionsofGodinAncientEgypt: TheOneandtheMany (trans. J. Baines; Ithaca:} Cornell University Press, 1982), 92. The combined divine name Re-Atum, which J. Allen translates as “Sun Atum” (J. P. Allen, TheAncientEgyptianPyramidTexts [ed. P. Der Manuelian; SBLWAW 23; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005], 442), appears several times in “The Resurrection Ritual,” a segment of the Pyramid Texts of Unis, the last king of the Fifth Dynasty (ca. 2353-2323), which was located in the burial chamber and south side passage of the pyramid: “Sun Atum will not give you to Osiris: he will not claim your mind, he will not have control of your heart. Sun Atum will not give you to Horus: he will not claim your mind, he will not have control of your heart” (p. 32 §148) and “Sun Atum, this Unis has come to you—an imperishable akh…” (p. 33 §150).

10 _{J. Baines, “Egyptian Deities in Context: Multiplicity Unity and the Problem of Change,” in OneGodor} Many? (2000), 33.

11 _{Baines 2000, 31.}

12 _{Baines 2000, 32. Baines notes that the sun-god Re is the most commonly syncretized Egyptian deity, so} his name is typically the second name of a newly paired syncretization. He does note other syncretizations wherein these patterns do not hold; for instance, in the triple-deity syncretization Ptah-Sokar(-Osiris), Ptah is the primary deity of import.

This form of syncretism becomes more common during the Middle Kingdom, with additional examples including “Sobek-Re and Khnum-Re, and, the most familiar, Amon-Re the new state god Amon in his solar and creator aspect as Re.”13 According to E. Hornung, the clearest example of this form of syncretism comes from the Ramessid period tomb of Nofretiri. The iconography of both deities, Re and Osiris, is represented in the form of a ram-headed mummy, and the accompanying inscription says, “Re enters into Osiris and Osiris enters into Re daily, and the combination is dissolved again daily” (Theban Tomb 290).14

Hornung describes this syncretization of Egyptian deities as “inhabiting”:

These syncretisms may be interpreted as meaning that Egyptians recognize Re in all these very different gods as soon as they encounter them as creator gods…It is also clear that every deity whom another deity “inhibits” acquires an extended nature and sphere of action. But all these formulations are no more than initial attempts to grasp the meaning of syncretism.15

Hornung suggests that scholarly terms common to other fields of religious studies (e.g., “equating,” “fusing,” or “identifying”) should be rejected since they lack the specialized nuance that “inhabiting” provides.16 Those other terms suggest a phenomenon too permanent for Hornung’s interpretation of the phenomenon given that inhabitation can cease at any moment. The term “inhabiting” is better understood in contrast to other relationships the ancient Egyptians imagined held between their deities. These include kinship and the “occasional complicated theological statements about the union of two gods”17; however, a third type of relationship between deities includes statements that

13 _{Hornung 1982, 92}

14 _{Hornung 1982, 95. A reproduction of the Re-Osiris iconography is provided on p. 94.} 15 _{Hornung 1982, 92.}

16 _{Hornung 1982, 91. Here Hornung is refining a discussion on inhabiting originally proposed by H. Bonnet} in “Zum Verständnis des Synkretismus,” ZÄS 75 (1939).

17 _{Hornung 1982, 93. These occasional statements are, with one exception, about Re and Osiris, but the} exact nature of their relationship is intentionally (i.e., which is the god with superior status) ambiguous with

one deity is the “image” of another deity, a phenomenon that strikingly resembles

inhabiting. According to Hornung, any ancient Egyptian accepted that a deity’s true form is “hidden” and “mysterious.”18 Any pictorial representation of a god, including the motif of representing a gods’ head with an animal head, simply expresses attributes of that god. For example, the falcon represents two attributes in Egyptian symbology: sky and

kingship. Because the falcon can fly, it is associated with the sky and can represent being “above,” and because of this height and the bird’s perceived majesty, the falcon also represents the ideal of kingship.19 Because of these associations, both Re and Horus may be depicted as falcons. Just as a god’s image ultimately reveals his characteristics or attributes rather than his actual physical form, so too do a god’s inhabitation practices highlight his or her characteristics and attributes. For this reason, both Re and Horus may be said to inhabit falcons. Likewise, Re may inhabit Atum or Amon, and by doing so his nature is revealed through the characteristics of an inhabited deity. Moreover, following Hornung’s and Baines’s interpretation, both of whom follow H. Bonnet, since inhabiting is about revealing the nature of the deity’s character and attributes and not about his existence at a particular time or place, there can be multiple inhabitations independent of each other. Entities invoked as Amon-Re, Min-Re, Khnum-Re, or Re-Atum may be thought of as coexisting alongside Re without any conflict,20 and Re could be said to simultaneously to inhabit a falcon alongside these multi-named entities, as well.

conflicting statements: “this is Re when he has come to rest in Osiris” and “This is Osiris when he has come to rest in Re” (“Litany of Re” I, 178 and II, 83).

18 _{Hornung 1982, 117 and 124f.}

19 _{D. Silverman, “Divinity and Deities in Ancient Egypt,” in ReligioninAncientEgypt: Gods, Myths, and} PersonalPractice (ed. B. Shafer; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 25 and 68.

20 _{Baines 2000, 33; H. Bonnet, “On Understanding Syncretism,” trans. J. Baines, Or NS 68 (1999): 189.}

Because syncretism in discussions of ancient Egyptian religion represents a vastly different phenomenon than it does in Mesopotamian religion, a more thorough

investigation of Egyptian syncretism is not necessary at this time. Instead, we may turn to other religious traditions that have been proposed by various scholars as comparative models for Mesopotamian and Israelite religions. These include the traditions from classical Greek religion and Hinduism, as well as from ancient and modern Catholicism. Each of these traditions has been proposed because each contains traditions wherein a supernatural entity is addressed by various names and epithets or is described as taking on various forms. The relevance and applicability of each tradition to ancient

Mesopotamian divine names and epithets are evaluated below. The survey begins in the east with a brief treatment of Hinduism and its formulation of the avatāra and gradually moves westward. Classical Greek traditions and treatments of Zeus’s numerous epithets in the ancient Mediterranean are examined, and finally, this survey concludes with an examination of treatments of Mary in modern Catholic tradition.