PROBLEMS WHICH THE STUDY OFFERS
Monotheism.
As the matter of Babylonian monotheism has been publicly touched upon
by Fried. Delitzsch in his "Babel und Bibel" lectures, a few words
upon that important point will be regarded in all probability as
appropriate. It has already been indicated that the giving of the
names of "the gods his fathers" to Merodach practically identified
them with him, thus leading to a tendency to monotheism. That tendency
is, perhaps, hinted at in a letter of Aššur-banî-âpli to the
Babylonians, in which he frequently mentions the Deity, but in doing
so, uses either the word /îlu/, "God," Merodach, the god of Babylon,
or Bêl, which may be regarded as one of his names. The most important
document for this monotheistic tendency, however (confirming as it
does the tablet of the fifty-one names), is that in which at least
thirteen of the Babylonian deities are identified with Merodach, and
that in such a way as to make them merely forms in which he manifested
himself to men. The text of this inscription is as follows:--
". . . is Merodach of planting.
Lugal-aki-. . . is Merodach of the water-course.
Nirig is Merodach of strength.
Nergal is Merodach of war.
Zagaga is Merodach of battle.
Bêl is Merodach of lordship and domination.
Nebo is Merodach of trading(?).
Sin is Merodach the illuminator of the night.
Šamaš is Merodach of righteous things.
Addu is Merodach of rain.
Tišpak is Merodach of frost(?).
Sig is Merodach of green things(?).
Šuqamunu is Merodach of the irrigation-channel."
Here the text breaks off, but must have contained several more similar
identifications, showing how at least the more thoughtful of the
Babylonians of old looked upon the host of gods whom they worshipped.
What may be the date of this document is uncertain, but as the
colophon seems to describe it as a copy of an older inscription, it
may go back as far as 2000 years B.C. This is the period at which the
name /Yaum-îlu/ "Jah is God," is found, together with numerous
references to /îlu/ as the name for the one great god, and is also,
roughly, the date of Abraham, who, it may be noted, was a Babylonian
of Ur of the Chaldees. It will probably not be thought too venturesome
to say that his monotheism was possibly the result of the religious
trend of thought in his time.
Dualism.
Damascius, in his valuable account of the belief of the Babylonians
concerning the Creation, states that, like the other barbarians, they
reject the doctrine of the one origin of the universe, and constitute
two, Tauthé (Tiawath) and Apason (Apsu). This twofold principle,
however, is only applicable to the system in that it makes of the sea
and the deep (for such are the meanings of the two words) two
personages--the female and the male personifications of primæval
matter, from which all creation sprang, and which gave birth to the
gods of heaven themselves. As far as the physical constituents of
these two principals are concerned, their tenets might be described as
having "materialistic monism" as their basis, but inasmuch as they
believed that each of these two principals had a mind, the description
"idealistic monism" cannot be applied to it--it is distinctly a
dualism.
And Monism.
Divested of its idealistic side, however, there would seem to be no
escape from regarding the Babylonian idea of the origin of things as
monistic.[*] This idea has its reflection, though not its
reproduction, in the first chapter of Genesis, in which, verses 2, 6,
and 7, water is represented as the first thing existing, though not
the first abode of life. This divergency from the Babylonian view was
inevitable with a monotheistic nation, such as the Jews were,
regarding as they did the Deity as the great source of everything
existing. What effect the moving of the Spirit of God upon the face of
the waters (v.2) was supposed by them to have had, is uncertain, but
it is to be noted that it was the land (vv. 11, 12) which first
brought forth, at the command of God.
[*] Monism. The doctrine which holds that in the universe there is
only a single element or principle from which everything is
developed, this single principle being either mind (/idealistic
monism/) or matter (/materialistic monism/). (Annandale.)
The future life.
The belief in a future life is the natural outcome of a religious
belief such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, and many of the surrounding
nations possessed. As has been shown, a portion of their creed
consisted in hero-worship, which pre-supposes that the heroes in
question continued to exist, in a state of still greater power and
glory, after the conclusion of their life here upon earth.
"The god Bêl hates me--I cannot dwell in this land, and in the
territory of Bêl I cannot set my face. I shall descend then to the
Abyss; with Aa my lord shall I constantly dwell." It is with these
words that, by the counsel of the god Aa, Ut-napištim explained to
those who questioned him the reason why he was building the ship or
ark which was to save him and his from the Flood, and there is but
little doubt that the author of the story implied that he announced
thereby his approaching death, or his departure to dwell with his god
without passing the dread portals of the great leveller. This belief
in the life beyond the grave seems to have been that which was current
during the final centuries of the third millennium before Christ--when
a man died, it was said that his god took him to himself, and we may
therefore suppose, that there were as many heavens--places of
contentment and bliss--as there were gods, and that every good man was
regarded as going and dwelling evermore with the deity which he had
worshipped and served faithfully during his lifetime.
Gilgameš, the half-divine king of Erech, who reigned during the
half-mythical period, on losing his friend and counsellor, Enki-du, set
out to find him, and to bring him back, if possible, from the underworld
where he was supposed to dwell. His death, however, had not been like
that of an ordinary man; it was not Namtaru, the spirit of fate, who
had taken him, nor a misfortune such as befalls ordinary men, but
Nerigal's unsparing lier-in-wait--yet though Nerigal was the god of
war, Enki-du had not fallen on the battlefield of men, but had been
seized by the earth (apparently the underworld where the wicked are is
meant) in consequence, seemingly, of some trick or trap which had been
laid for him.
The gods were therefore prayed, in turn, to bring him back, but none
of them listened except Êa, who begged him of Nerigal, whereupon the
latter opened the entrance to the place where he was--the hole of the
earth--and brought forth "the spirit (/utukku/) of Enki-du like mist."
Immediately after this come the words, "Tell, my friend, tell, my
friend--the law of the land which thou sawest, tell," and the answer,
"I will not tell thee, friend, I will not tell thee--if I tell thee
the law of the land which I saw, . . . sit down, weep." Ultimately,
however, the person appealed to--apparently the disembodied
Enki-du--reveals something concerning the condition of the souls in
the place of his sojourn after death, as follows:--
"Whom thou sawest [die] the death(?) [of][*] . . . [I see]--
In the resting-place of . . . reposing, pure waters he drinketh.
Whom in the battle thou sawest killed, I see--
His father and his mother raise his head,
And his wife upon [him leaneth?].
Whose corpse thou hast seen thrown down in the plain, I see--
His /edimmu/ in the earth reposeth not.
Whose /edimmu/ thou sawest without a caretaker, I see--
The leavings of the dish, the remains of the food,
Which in the street is thrown, he eateth."
[*] (?)"The death of the righteous," or something similar?
It is naturally difficult to decide in a passage like this, the
difference existing between a man's /utukku/ and his /edimmu/, but the
probability is, that the former means his spiritual essence, whilst
the latter stands for the ghostly shadow of his body, resembling in
meaning the /ka/ of the Egyptians. To all appearance the abode
described above is not the place of the punishment of the wicked, but
the dwelling of those accounted good, who, if lucky in the manner of
their death, and the disposal of their bodies, enjoyed the highest
happiness in the habitation of the blest. The other place, however, is
otherwise described (it occurs in the account of Ištar's descent into
Hades, and in the seventh tablet of the Gilgameš series--the latter
differing somewhat):--
"Upon the land of No-return, the region of . . .,
[Set] Istar, daughter of Sin, her ear.
The daughter of Sin set then her ear . . .
Upon the house of gloom, the seat of Irkalla--[1]
Upon the house whose entrance hath no exit,[2]
Upon the path whose way hath no return,
Upon the house whose enterers are deprived of light,
Where dust is their nourishment, their food mud,
Light they see not, in darkness they dwell,
Clothed also, like a bird, in a dress of feathers.
Upon the door and bolt the dust hath blown."
[1] One of the names of Nergal.
[2] Or "whose enterer goeth not forth."
Seven gates gave access to this place of gloom, and the porter, as he
let the visitor in, took from her (the goddess Ištar in the narrative)
at each an article of clothing, until, at the last, she entered quite
naked, apparently typifying the fact that a man can take nothing with
him when he dieth, and also, in this case, that he has not even his
good deeds wherewith to clothe himself, for had they outweighed his
evil ones, he would not have found himself in that dread abode.
On the arrival of Ištar in Hades, Erêš-ki-gal commanded Namtaru, the
god of fate, to smite Ištar with disease in all her members--eyes,
sides, feet, heart, and head. As things went wrong on the earth in
consequence of the absence of the goddess of love, the gods sent a
messenger to effect her release. When he reached the land of
No-return, the queen of the region threatened him with all kinds of
torments--the food of the gutters of the city were to be his food, the
oil-jars of the city (naptha?) his drink, the gloom of the castle his
resting-place, a stone slab his seat, and hunger and thirst were to
shatter his strength. These were evidently the punishments inflicted
there, but as the messenger threatened was a divine one, they were
probably not put into execution, and he obtained his demand, for Ištar
was set free, receiving back at each gate, in reverse order, the
clothing and ornaments which had been taken from her when she had
descended thither. It is uncertain whether Tammuz, for whom she had
gone down, was set free also, but as he is referred to, it is not
improbable that this was the case.
WORKS BEARING UPON THE RELIGION OF THE BABYLONIANS AND ASSYRIANS
Hibbert Lectures, 1887. The Religion of the Ancient Babylonians, by
Professor A. H. Sayce.
The Religious Ideas of the Babylonians, by the Author, 1895 (Journal
of the Victoria Institute, also separately).
The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, by Morris Jastrow, jun., 1898.
(German edition, vol. i. 1905, vol. ii. in progress.)
Babylonian Religion and Mythology, by L. W. King, M.A., 1899.
Gifford Lectures, 1902. Religions of Egypt and Babylonia, by Professor
A. H. Sayce.
The O.T. in the Light of the Records of Assyria and Babylonia, by the
Author, 1903. (The portions referring to Babylonian Mythology.)
The Hymns to Tammuz in the Manchester Museum, Owens College, by the
Author, 1904.
ARTICLES UPON THE ASSYRIAN AND BABYLONIAN DEITIES,
AND THE RELIGION OF THREE NATIONS, IN
Dictionary of the Bible, edited by Dr. James Hastings, and
Encyclopædia Biblica, edited by Professor Cheyne.