Nos. 34 and 35, usually referred to as the Marduk Ordeal texts represent two different versions of what is essentially the same work, one version being known from Assur and the other from Nineveh and Calah. The work is strictly speaking not a commentary (elucidating another independent work), but an explanatory composition existing in its own right. Ritual practices and other cultic matters — some explicitly Babylonian — are given fanciful if learned interpretations. Part of the underlying theology involves the Sargonid equation of the primeval god Anšar with the Assyrian national god Aššur (see above) and the attempts referred to above to replace Marduk by Aššur in the Babylonian epic of creation, Enuma Eliš, in certain manuscripts from Assur. In certain sections, the purpose of the work is to explain Babylonian ritual practices according to Assyrian ideas. Marduk is represented as having to undergo a river ordeal. He is also made to explain that certain mythological exploits sometimes attributed to him were not done for his own glory but were favours for Aššur. At least for these sections it is probable that the historical background is the sack of Babylon by Sennacherib, and "captivity" of Marduk (in the form of his statue or symbol ) in Assyria.
The next text, no. 36, is too broken to allow confidence as to its placing, but it has been included here since it seems to combine cultic and mythological elements. No. 37 concerns a ritual in which the king was the principal participant. Individual ritual acts are recounted and in each case subjected to a mythological explanation.
It is certain that these mythological explanations do not represent the actual meaning of the ritual acts but put forward an interpretation on the parts of the ancient scholar or scholars responsible for them. There are several elements in this interpretation. In the first place, there is an element of symbolism. Individual objects in the rituals, correspond to objects in the mythological explanations. Thus a cultic oven represents a mythological fire, torches represent arrows, and a pancake represents the torn out heart of a slain god. Further, the king himself and the šangû priest represent victorious gods, while defeated gods or hostile mythological beings are represented by sacrificed animals. A deeper element probably lies in the selection of the material used.
The rituals obviously belong to the state cult, while the myths belong to, or are constructed on the model of, those myths in which a rebellious god or malignant monster is defeated and killed by a beneficent and heroic god, often with the result of saving the cosmos from threatened destruction. It is therefore at least conceivable that one purpose of the text is to express a view of the essential nature of carrying out the state cult and ritual practices, in order to ensure the correct function of the universe, and especially the prosperity of the state.
In its basic structure, no. 38 is similar, but the subject matter is the cult of the temple of Egašankalamma, either the temple of Ištar in Arbela, or alternatively, as a by-name of the Emašmaš, the temple of lštar in Nineveh. At the outset, the drive to emulate the cult practices of Babylonia (in this case of Nippur) is stated clearly. The first section involves the cult of Ištaran. Cult acts are given explanations similar to those in the preceding work. The subsequent sections are more various in character and include in particular explanations of rites of fertility. For example, in l. 39 what seems to be a fairly simple ritual of fertility — a woman is carried by certain individuals ( "the city" or "populace") on their necks and shoulders while seed is scattered in a field — is given a complex explanation. This involves the identification known from other texts of seeds in the earth with gods in the underworld. The final section concerns the cult of Tammuz, and the dates given can be associated with information in Neo-Assyrian letters concerning the dates of the ceremony, as well as other material.
No. 39, some aspects of which have already been discussed above in relation to the background of intertextuality, is more varied in content. The first section attempts to describe or depict a god by equating parts of his body with animals or objects, of which at least most had a use or function in cult. This section could thus conceivably be seen as an attempt to express a unity within the cultic scene and to read a deity into it. Between sections (obv. 24-29 and rev. 17-25) similar in content to nos. 37 and 38, various items of cosmological speculation are given, followed by etiological speculation about specific animals. The first and last parts of no. 40 belong to the same category as nos. 37 and 38, but the basis is a ritual calendar. In between these two sections there is miscellaneous theological and mythological speculation.
Alasdair Livingstone
Alasdair Livingstone, 'Mythological Texts and Mystical and Cultic Explanatory Works', Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA 3. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1989; online contents: SAAo/SAA03 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2020 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa03/natureandcontent/mythologicaltextsandexplanatoryworks/]