THE RELIGION OF THE BABYLONIANS AND ASSYRIANS
The Sumero-Akkadians and the Semites.
For the history of the development of the religion of the Babylonians
and Assyrians much naturally depends upon the composition of the
population of early Babylonia. There is hardly any doubt that the
Sumero-Akkadians were non-Semites of a fairly pure race, but the
country of their origin is still unknown, though a certain
relationship with the Mongolian and Turkish nationalities, probably
reaching back many centuries--perhaps thousands of years--before the
earliest accepted date, may be regarded as equally likely. Equally
uncertain is the date of the entry of the Semites, whose language
ultimately displaced the non-Semitic Sumero-Akkadian idioms, and
whose kings finally ruled over the land. During the third millennium
before Christ Semites, bearing Semitic names, and called Amorites,
appear, and probably formed the last considerable stratum of tribes of
that race which entered the land. The name Martu, the Sumero-Akkadian
equivalent of Amurru, "Amorite", is of frequent occurrence also before
this period. The eastern Mediterranean coast district, including
Palestine and the neighbouring tracts, was known by the Babylonians
and Assyrians as the land of the Amorites, a term which stood for the
West in general even when these regions no longer bore that name. The
Babylonians maintained their claim to sovereignty over that part as
long as they possessed the power to do so, and naturally exercised
considerable influence there. The existence in Palestine, Syria, and
the neighbouring states, of creeds containing the names of many
Babylonian divinities is therefore not to be wondered at, and the
presence of West Semitic divinities in the religion of the Babylonians
need not cause us any surprise.
The Babylonian script and its evidence.
In consequence of the determinative prefix for a god or a goddess
being, in the oldest form, a picture of an eight-rayed star, it has
been assumed that Assyro-Babylonian mythology is, either wholly or
partly, astral in origin. This, however, is by no means certain, the
character for "star" in the inscriptions being a combination of three
such pictures, and not a single sign. The probability therefore is,
that the use of the single star to indicate the name of a divinity
arises merely from the fact that the character in question stands for
/ana/, "heaven." Deities were evidently thus distinguished by the
Babylonians because they regarded them as inhabitants of the realms
above--indeed, the heavens being the place where the stars are seen, a
picture of a star was the only way of indicating heavenly things. That
the gods of the Babylonians were in many cases identified with the
stars and planets is certain, but these identifications seem to have
taken place at a comparatively late date. An exception has naturally
to be made in the case of the sun and moon, but the god Merodach, if
he be, as seems certain, a deified Babylonian king, must have been
identified with the stars which bear his name after his worshippers
began to pay him divine honours as the supreme deity, and naturally
what is true for him may also be so for the other gods whom they
worshipped. The identification of some of the deities with stars or
planets is, moreover, impossible, and if Êa, the god of the deep, and
Anu, the god of the heavens, have their representatives among the
heavenly bodies, this is probably the result of later development.[1]
[1] If there be any historical foundation for the statement that
Merodach arranged the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars,
assigning to them their proper places and duties--a tradition
which would make him the founder of the science of astronomy
during his life upon earth--this, too, would tend to the
probability that the origin of the gods of the Babylonians was not
astral, as has been suggested, but that their identification with
the heavenly bodies was introduced during the period of his reign.
Ancestor and hero-worship. The deification of kings.
Though there is no proof that ancestor-worship in general prevailed at
any time in Babylonia, it would seem that the worship of heroes and
prominent men was common, at least in early times. The tenth chapter
of Genesis tells us of the story of Nimrod, who cannot be any other
than the Merodach of the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions; and other
examples, occurring in semi-mythological times, are /En-we-dur-an-ki/,
the Greek Edoreschos, and /Gilgameš/, the Greek Gilgamos, though
Aelian's story of the latter does not fit in with the account as given
by the inscriptions. In later times, the divine prefix is found before
the names of many a Babylonian ruler--Sargon of Agadé,[1] Dungi of Ur
(about 2500 B.C.), Rim-Sin or Eri-Aku (Arioch of Ellasar, about 2100
B.C.), and others. It was doubtless a kind of flattery to deify and
pay these rulers divine honours during their lifetime, and on account
of this, it is very probable that their godhood was utterly forgotten,
in the case of those who were strictly historical, after their death.
The deification of the kings of Babylonia and Assyria is probably due
to the fact, that they were regarded as the representatives of God
upon earth, and being his chief priests as well as his offspring (the
personal names show that it was a common thing to regard children as
the gifts of the gods whom their father worshipped), the divine
fatherhood thus attributed to them naturally could, in the case of
those of royal rank, give them a real claim to divine birth and
honours. An exception is the deification of the Babylonian Noah,
Ut-napištim, who, as the legend of the Flood relates, was raised and
made one of the gods by Aa or Ea, for his faithfulness after the great
catastrophe, when he and his wife were translated to the "remote place
at the mouth of the rivers." The hero Gilgameš, on the other hand, was
half divine by birth, though it is not exactly known through whom his
divinity came.
[1] According to Nabonidus's date 3800 B.C., though many
Assyriologists regard this as being a millennium too early.
The earliest form of the Babylonian religion.
The state of development to which the religious system of the
Babylonians had attained at the earliest period to which the
inscriptions refer naturally precludes the possibility of a
trustworthy history of its origin and early growth. There is no doubt,
however, that it may be regarded as having reached the stage at which
we find it in consequence of there being a number of states in ancient
Babylonia (which was at that time like the Heptarchy in England) each
possessing its own divinity--who, in its district, was regarded as
supreme--with a number of lesser gods forming his court. It was the
adding together of all these small pantheons which ultimately made
that of Babylonia as a whole so exceedingly extensive. Thus the chief
divinity of Babylon, as has already been stated, as Merodach; at
Sippar and Larsa the sun-god Šamaš was worshipped; at Ur the moon-god
Sin or Nannar; at Erech and Dêr the god of the heavens, Anu; at Muru,
Ennigi, and Kakru, the god of the atmosphere, Hadad or Rimmon; at
Êridu, the god of the deep, Aa or Êa; at Niffur[1] the god Bel; at
Cuthah the god of war, Nergal; at Dailem the god Uraš; at Kiš the god
of battle, Zagaga; Lugal-Amarda, the king of Marad, as the city so
called; at Opis Zakar, one of the gods of dreams; at Agadé, Nineveh,
and Arbela, Ištar, goddess of love and of war; Nina at the city Nina
in Babylonia, etc. When the chief deities were masculine, they were
naturally all identified with each other, just as the Greeks called
the Babylonian Merodach by the name of Zeus; and as Zer-panîtum, the
consort of Merodach, was identified with Juno, so the consorts, divine
attendants, and children of each chief divinity, as far as they
possessed them, could also be regarded as the same, though possibly
distinct in their different attributes.
[1] Noufar at present, according to the latest explorers. Layard
(1856) has Niffer, Loftus (1857) Niffar. The native spelling is
Noufer, due to the French system of phonetics.
How the religion of the Babylonians developed.
The fact that the rise of Merodach to the position of king of the gods
was due to the attainment, by the city of Babylon, of the position of
capital of all Babylonia, leads one to suspect that the kingly rank of
his father Êa, at an earlier period, was due to a somewhat similar
cause, and if so, the still earlier kingship of Anu, the god of the
heavens, may be in like manner explained. This leads to the question
whether the first state to attain to supremacy was Dêr, Anu's seat,
and whether Dêr was succeeded by Êridu, of which city Êa was the
patron--concerning the importance of Babylon, Merodach's city, later
on, there is no doubt whatever. The rise of Anu and Êa to divine
overlordship, however, may not have been due to the political
supremacy of the cities where they were worshipped--it may have come
about simply on account of renown gained through religious enthusiasm
due to wonders said to have been performed where they were worshipped,
or to the reported discovery of new records concerning their temples,
or to the influence of some renowned high-priest, like En-we-dur-an-ki
of Sippar, whose devotion undoubtedly brought great renown to the city
of his dominion.
Was Animism its original form?
But the question naturally arises, can we go back beyond the
indications of the inscriptions? The Babylonians attributed life, in
certain not very numerous cases, to such things as trees and plants,
and naturally to the winds, and the heavenly bodies. Whether they
regarded stones, rocks, mountains, storms, and rain in the same way,
however, is doubtful, but it may be taken for granted, that the sea,
with all its rivers and streams, was regarded as animated with the
spirit of Êa and his children, whilst the great cities and
temple-towers were pervaded with the spirit of the god whose abode
they were. Innumerable good and evil spirits were believed in, such as
the spirit of the mountain, the sea, the plain, and the grave. These
spirits were of various kinds, and bore names which do not always
reveal their real character--such as the /edimmu/, /utukku/, /šêdu/,
/ašakku/ (spirit of fevers), /namtaru/ (spirit of fate), /âlû/
(regarded as the spirit of the south wind), /gallu/, /rabisu/,
/labartu/, /labasu/, /ahhazu/ (the seizer), /lilu/ and /lilithu/ (male
and female spirits of the mist), with their attendants.
All this points to animism as the pervading idea of the worship of the
peoples of the Babylonian states in the prehistoric period--the
attribution of life to every appearance of nature. The question is,
however, Is the evidence of the inscriptions sufficient to make this
absolutely certain? It is hard to believe that such intelligent
people, as the primitive Babylonians naturally were, believed that
such things as stones, rocks, mountains, storms, and rain were, in
themselves, and apart from the divinity which they regarded as
presiding over them, living things. A stone might be a /bît îli/ or
bethel--a "house of god," and almost invested with the status of a
living thing, but that does not prove that the Babylonians thought of
every stone as being endowed with life, even in prehistoric times.
Whilst, therefore, there are traces of a belief similar to that which
an animistic creed might be regarded as possessing, it must be
admitted that these seemingly animistic doctrines may have originated
in another way, and be due to later developments. The power of the
gods to create living things naturally makes possible the belief that
they had also power to endow with a soul, and therefore with life and
intelligence, any seemingly inanimate object. Such was probably the
nature of Babylonian animism, if it may be so called. The legend of
Tiawthu (Tiawath) may with great probability be regarded as the
remains of a primitive animism which was the creed of the original and
comparatively uncivilised Babylonians, who saw in the sea the producer
and creator of all the monstrous shapes which are found therein; but
any development of this idea in other directions was probably cut
short by the priests, who must have realised, under the influence of
the doctrine of the divine rise to perfection, that animism in general
was altogether incompatible with the creed which they professed.
Image-worship and Sacred Stones.
Whether image-worship was original among the Babylonians and Assyrians
is uncertain, and improbable; the tendency among the people in early
times being to venerate sacred stones and other inanimate objects. As
has been already pointed out, the {diopetres} of the Greeks was
probably a meteorite, and stones marking the position of the Semitic
bethels were probably, in their origin, the same. The boulders which
were sometimes used for boundary-stones may have been the
representations of these meteorites in later times, and it is
noteworthy that the Sumerian group for "iron," /an-bar/, implies that
the early Babylonians only knew of that metal from meteoric ironstone.
The name of the god Nirig or Ênu-rêštu (Ninip) is generally written
with the same group, implying some kind of connection between the
two--the god and the iron. In a well-known hymn to that deity certain
stones are mentioned, one of them being described as the "poison-tooth"[1]
coming forth on the mountain, recalling the sacred rocks at
Jerusalem and Mecca. Boundary-stones in Babylonia were not sacred
objects except in so far as they were sculptured with the signs of the
gods.[2] With regard to the Babylonian bethels, very little can be
said, their true nature being uncertain, and their number, to all
appearance, small. Gifts were made to them, and from this fact it
would seem that they were temples--true "houses of god," in
fact--probably containing an image of the deity, rather than a stone
similar to those referred to in the Old Testament.
[1] So called, probably, not because it sent forth poison, but on
account of its likeness to a serpent's fang.
[2] Notwithstanding medical opinion, their phallic origin is doubtful.
One is sculptured in the form of an Eastern castellated fortress.
Idols.
With the Babylonians, the gods were represented by means of stone
images at a very early date, and it is possible that wood was also
used. The tendency of the human mind being to attribute to the Deity a
human form, the Babylonians were no exception to the rule. Human
thoughts and feelings would naturally accompany the human form with
which the minds of men endowed them. Whether the gross human passions
attributed to the gods of Babylonia in Herodotus be of early date or
not is uncertain--a late period, when the religion began to
degenerate, would seem to be the more probable.
The adoration of sacred objects.
It is probable that objects belonging to or dedicated to deities were
not originally worshipped--they were held as divine in consequence of
their being possessed or used by a deity, like the bow of Merodach,
placed in the heavens as a constellation, etc. The cities where the
gods dwelt on earth, their temples, their couches, the chariot of the
sun in his temple-cities, and everything existing in connection with
their worship, were in all probability regarded as divine simply in so
far as they belonged to a god. Sacrifices offered to them, and
invocations made to them, were in all likelihood regarded as having
been made to the deity himself, the possessions of the divinity being,
in the minds of the Babylonians, pervaded with his spirit. In the case
of rivers, these were divine as being the children and offspring of
Enki (Aa or Êa), the god of the ocean.
Holy places.
In a country which was originally divided into many small states, each
having its own deities, and, to a certain extent, its own religious
system, holy places were naturally numerous. As the spot where they
placed Paradise, Babylonia was itself a holy place, but in all
probability this idea is late, and only came into existence after the
legends of the creation and the rise of Merodach to the kingship of
heaven had become elaborated into one homogeneous whole.
An interesting list.
One of the most interesting documents referring to the holy places of
Babylonia is a tiny tablet found at Nineveh, and preserved in the
British Museum. This text begins with the word Tiawthu "the sea," and
goes on to enumerate, in turn, Tilmun (identified with the island of
Bahrein in the Persian Gulf); Engurra (the Abyss, the abode of Enki or
Êa), with numerous temples and shrines, including "the holy house,"
"the temple of the seer of heaven and earth," "the abode of
Zer-panîtum," consort of Merodach, "the throne of the holy place," "the
temple of the region of Hades," "the supreme temple of life," "the
temple of the ear of the corn-deity," with many others, the whole list
containing what may be regarded as the chief sanctuaries of the land,
to the number of thirty-one. Numerous other similar and more extensive
lists, enumerating every shrine and temple in the country, also exist,
though in a very imperfect state, and in addition to these, many holy
places are referred to in the bilingual, historical, and other
inscriptions. All the great cities of Babylonia, moreover, were sacred
places, the chief in renown and importance in later days being the
great city of Babylon, where Ê-sagila, "the temple of the high head,"
in which was apparently the shrine called "the temple of the
foundation of heaven and earth," held the first place. This building
is called by Nebuchadnezzar "the temple-tower of Babylon," and may
better be regarded as the site of the Biblical "Tower of Babel" than
the traditional foundation, Ê-zida, "the everlasting temple," in
Borsippa (the Birs Nimroud)--notwithstanding that Borsippa was called
the "second Babylon," and its temple-tower "the supreme house of
life."
The Tower of Babel.
Though quite close to Babylon, there is no doubt that Borsippa was a
most important religious centre, and this leads to the possibility,
that its great temple may have disputed with "the house of the high
head," Ê-sagila in Babylon, the honour of being the site of the
confusion of tongues and the dispersion of mankind. There is no doubt,
however, that Ê-sagila has the prior claim, it being the temple of the
supreme god of the later Babylonian pantheon, the counterpart of the
God of the Hebrews who commanded the changing of the speech of the
people assembled there. Supposing the confusion of tongues to have
been a Babylonian legend as well as a Hebrew one (as is possible) it
would be by command of Merodach rather than that of Nebo that such a
thing would have taken place. Ê-sagila, which is now the ruin known as
the mount of Amran ibn Ali, is the celebrated temple of Belus which
Alexander and Philip attempted to restore.
In addition to the legend of the confusion of tongues, it is probable
that there were many similar traditions attached to the great temples
of Babylonia, and as time goes on, and the excavations bring more
material, a large number of them will probably be recovered. Already
we have an interesting and poetical record of the entry of Bel and
Beltis into the great temple at Niffer, probably copied from some
ancient source, and Gudea, a king of Lagaš (Telloh), who reigned about
2700 B.C., gives an account of the dream which he saw, in which he was
instructed by the gods to build or rebuild the temple of Nin-Girsu in
his capital city.
Ê-sagila according to Herodotus.
As the chief fane in the land after Babylon became the capital, and
the type of many similar erections, Ê-sagila, the temple of Belus,
merits just a short notice. According to Herodotus, it was a massive
tower within an enclosure measuring 400 yards each way, and provided
with gates of brass, or rather bronze. The tower within consisted of a
kind of step-pyramid, the stages being seven in number (omitting the
lowest, which was the platform forming the foundation of the
structure). A winding ascent gave access to the top, where was a
chapel or shrine, containing no statue, but regarded by the
Babylonians as the abode of the god. Lower down was another shrine, in
which was placed a great statue of Zeus (Bel-Merodach) sitting, with a
large table before it. Both statue and table are said to have been of
gold, as were also the throne and the steps. Outside the sanctuary (on
the ramp, apparently) were two altars, one small and made of gold,
whereon only unweaned lambs were sacrificed, and the other larger, for
full-grown victims.
A Babylonian description.
In 1876 the well-known Assyriologist, Mr. George Smith, was fortunate
enough to discover a Babylonian description of this temple, of which
he published a /précis/. According to this document, there were two
courts of considerable extent, the smaller within the larger--neither
of them was square, but oblong. Six gates admitted to the temple-area
surrounding the platform upon which the tower was built. The platform
is stated to have been square and walled, with four gates facing the
cardinal points. Within this wall was a building connected with the
great /zikkurat/ or tower--the principal edifice--round which were
chapels or temples to the principal gods, on all four sides, and
facing the cardinal points--that to Nebo and Tašmît being on the east,
to Aa or Êa and Nusku on the north, Anu and Bel on the south, and the
series of buildings on the west, consisting of a double house--a small
court between two wings, was evidently the shrine of Merodach (Belos).
In these western chambers stood the couch of the god, and the golden
throne mentioned by Herodotus, besides other furniture of great value.
The couch was given as being 9 cubits long by 4 broad, about as many
feet in each case, or rather more.
The centre of these buildings was the great /zikkurat/, or temple-tower,
square on its plan, and with the sides facing the cardinal
points. The lowest stage was 15 /gar/ square by 5 1/2 high (Smith, 300
feet by 110), and the wall, in accordance with the usual Babylonian
custom, seems to have been ornamented with recessed groovings. The
second stage was 13 /gar/ square by 3 in height (Smith, 260 by 60
feet). He conjectured, from the expression used, that it had sloping
sides. Stages three to five were each one /gar/ (Smith, 20 feet) high,
and respectively 10 /gar/ (Smith, 200 feet), 8 1/2 /gar/ (170 feet),
and 7 /gar/ (140 feet) square. The dimensions of the sixth stage are
omitted, probably by accident, but Smith conjectures that they were in
proportion to those which precede. His description omits also the
dimensions of the seventh stage, but he gives those of the sanctuary
of Belus, which was built upon it. This was 4 /gar/ long, 3 1/2 /gar/
broad, and 2 1/2 /gar/ high (Smith, 80 x 70 x 50 feet). He points out,
that the total height was, therefore, 15 /gar/, the same as the
dimensions of the base, i.e., the lowest platform, which would make
the total height of this world-renowned building rather more than 300
feet above the plains.
Other temple-towers.
Towers of a similar nature were to be found in all the great cities of
Babylonia, and it is probable that in most cases slight differences of
form were to be found. That at Niffer, for instance, seems to have had
a causeway on each side, making four approaches in the form of a
cross. But it was not every city which had a tower of seven stages in
addition to the platform on which it was erected, and some of the
smaller ones at least seem to have had sloping or rounded sides to the
basement-portion, as is indicated by an Assyrian bas-relief. Naturally
small temples, with hardly more than the rooms on the ground floor,
were to be found, but these temple-towers were a speciality of the
country.
Their origin.
There is some probability that, as indicated in the tenth chapter of
Genesis, the desire in building these towers was to get nearer the
Deity, or to the divine inhabitants of the heavens in general--it
would be easier there to gain attention than on the surface of the
earth. Then there was the belief, that the god to whom the place was
dedicated would come down to such a sanctuary, which thus became, as
it were, the stepping-stone between heaven and earth. Sacrifices were
also offered at these temple-towers (whether on the highest point or
not is not quite certain), in imitation of the Chaldæan Noah,
Ut-napištim, who, on coming out of the ark, made an offering /ina
zikkurat šadê/, "on the peak of the mountain," in which passage, it is
to be noted, the word /zikkurat/ occurs with what is probably a more
original meaning.