THE NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD.
When upon the fall of the Assyrian empire, in 606 B.C., Babylonia
regained her full measure of independence, Marduk once more obtained
undisputed sway at the head of the pantheon. True, so far as Babylonia
was concerned, Marduk was always the acknowledged head, but during the
period that Assyria held Babylonia in a more or less rigid form of
subjection it was inevitable that Ashur should lower the prestige of
Marduk. When the kings of Assyria paid their respects to Marduk, it was
always as second in rank to Ashur; and, what is more, they claimed
Marduk and the other gods of Babylonia as their own, and as upholders of
their own sovereignty. When the kings feel impelled to invade the
southern districts, they not only claim to be under the protection of
the Babylonian gods, but they carry these gods with them into the land
to be invaded. 'Bel and the gods of Akkad leave Assyria and go to
Babylonia' is the official term in which a campaign against Babylonia is
described.[331] In the eyes of the Babylonians such a haughty assumption
on the part of the Assyrians must have been regarded as humiliating to
Marduk, Nabu, and their associates.
The state of affairs changed when Nebopolassar at the end of the seventh
century once more claimed independent control over Babylonia. Marduk
triumphs over Ashur. He is once more the great god, lord of gods,
supreme king of the Igigi, the father of the Anunnaki--all titles that
the Assyrians were fond of heaping upon Ashur. One feels the anxiety of
Nebopolassar to emphasize the new order of things by attributing once
more to Marduk what was formerly claimed for Ashur. The successor of
Nebopolassar, the great Nebuchadnezzar, continues the policy of his
father. He neglects no opportunity for exalting Marduk as the king, the
creator, the leader of the gods, the lord of everything, the merciful
one, the light of the gods, the all-wise. Nabu shares the honors with
Marduk. Nebopolassar, indeed, accords to Nabu an equal share, and he
does not hesitate at times to place the name Nabu before that of
Marduk.[332] He does not speak of Nabu as the son of Marduk, and seems
to be at particular pains to emphasize the equality of Nabu with Marduk.
In this respect Nebopolassar presents a contrast to Hammurabi, who, it
will be recalled, made an attempt to suppress the Nabu cult.[333]
Nebopolassar, however, does not go to the extent of endeavoring to make
Nabu supersede Marduk. He contents himself with manifesting his
partiality for the former, and it is probably no accident that both his
official name and that of his son contain the god Nabu as one of their
elements, and not Marduk. One is inclined to suspect that this
popularity of the Nabu cult is a trace of Assyrian influence. But
whatever may have been Nebopolassar's intention in exalting Nabu at the
cost of Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar restores the old relationship between the
two. For him Nabu is again merely the son of Marduk, and he honors Nabu
in this capacity. Like the Assyrian Nabu, the god places the sceptre in
the king's hands, but he is, after all, only the supreme messenger of
Marduk. In the closing days of the Babylonian monarchy a more serious
attempt, it would appear, was made to displace Marduk. Nabonnedos formed
the design of replacing both Marduk and Nabu by the cult of Shamash. He
incurs the ill-will of the priests by paying much more attention to the
restoration of the various Shamash temples in Babylonia than would
appear to be consistent with devotion to Marduk. Cyrus, therefore, in
his conquest of Babylonia, sets up the claim of being the savior of
Marduk's honor.[334]
The Neo-Babylonian period may properly be designated as a religious age.
The rulers, anxious to manifest their gratitude to the gods, and
prompted in part, no doubt, by the desire to emulate the glorious
architectural achievements of the Assyrian monarchs, devote themselves
assiduously to the improvement of the great temples of the city of
Babylon, and to the restoration or enlargement of those scattered
throughout the country. Nebopolassar sets the example in this respect,
which is considerably improved upon by Nebuchadnezzar. Over forty
temples and shrines are mentioned in the latter's inscriptions as having
been improved, enlarged, or restored by him; and the last king of
Babylonia, Nabonnedos, endeavors to continue this royal policy of
temple-building. In this respect the Neo-Babylonian rulers present a
contrast to the Assyrian rulers, who were much more concerned in rearing
grand edifices for themselves. While the gods were not neglected in
Assyria, one hears much more of the magnificent palaces erected by the
kings than of temples and shrines. In fact, as compared with Babylonia,
Assyria was poor in the number of her temples. The chief sanctuaries to
which the Neo-Babylonian kings devoted themselves were, in the first
instance, E-sagila of Babylon and E-zida of Borsippa. Nebopolassar and
his successors are fond of giving themselves the title of 'beautifier of
E-Sagila and E-zida.' In these great temples sacred to Marduk and Nebo,
there were shrines to Sarpanitum, Tashmitum, Nusku, Ea and others, which
also engaged the energies of the rulers.
After Babylon came the old sanctuaries in the ancient religious centers
of the south,--the temples to Shamash and his consort at Sippar and
Larsa, the temples to Sin at Ur and Harran, to the old Ishtar or Anunit
at Agade, to Nana in Erech. Thirdly, the cities of Babylon and Borsippa,
to which the kings, especially Nebuchadnezzar, are deeply attached, were
enriched with many sanctuaries more or less imposing, sacred to a
variety of deities. So Shamash, Sin, Nin-makh,--_i.e._, the great lady,
or Ishtar,--Nin-khar-shag, Gula, also appearing as Nin-Karrak,[335] have
their temples in Babylon, while Ramman has one in Borsippa, and Gula no
less than three sanctuaries--perhaps only small chapels--in Borsippa.
Fourthly, there are sanctuaries of minor importance in other quarters of
Babylonia. Among these we find mention of the improvement of sanctuaries
to the local deity of Marad, whom Nebuchadnezzar simply calls
Lugal-Marada, _i.e._, king of Marad, to Bel-sarbi, or Shar-sarbi, in
Baz,--perhaps a title of Nergal,--to Nin-ib in Dilbat, to Ramman in
Kumari(?).
Most of these sanctuaries are referred to in the inscriptions of
Nebuchadnezzar--a circumstance which, in connection with the many other
gods whom he invokes on various occasions, points to a great revival of
ancient cults in his days. Some of these cults had never reached any
degree of importance prior to his time. Hence it happens that we come
across deities in his inscriptions of whom no mention is found
elsewhere. It is probable that such gods were purely local deities, some
of them, if not many, being at the same time personifications of the
powers or phenomena of nature, while others may be familiar gods,
masquerading under strange attributes. Unfortunately most of these gods
are written in ideographic fashion, so that we cannot be certain of the
reading of their names. Among these are Nin-lil-anna, a goddess called
by Nebuchadnezzar 'the lady who loves me,'[336] and Tur-lil-en,[337] a
god who is described as 'breaking the weapons of enemies.' As for
Bel-sarbi, or Shar-sarbi, the god of Baz,[338] they appear to be titles
rather than names. Dibbarra, Nergal and his consort Laz, and Zamama are
also included in the pantheon of Nebuchadnezzar.
In regard to none of these deities do we find any conceptions different
from those developed in the period of Hammurabi, any more than in the
conceptions of those gods who occupy a more prominent place in the
pantheon. Shamash is the judge, Sin is the wise one, Ramman the
thunderer, and so on throughout the list. It was not a period favorable
to the production of new religious thought, but only to the more or less
artificial revival of old cults.
* * * * *
With the conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus in 539 B.C., we reach the close
of the period to be embraced in a history of the Babylonian-Assyrian
religion. True, the Marduk and Nabu cults were upheld by the Persian
rulers, and the policy of the latter in not disturbing the religious
status was continued by the Greeks when they in turn succeeded the
Persians in their control of Babylonia, but the presence of strange
civilizations with totally different religious trains of thought was
bound to affect the character of the old faith, and in time to threaten
its existence. At all events, it ceases to have any interest for us.
There are no further lines of development upon which it enters. The
period of decay, of slow but sure decay, has set in. The cuneiform
writing continues to be used till almost the beginning of our era, and
so the religious cults draw out their existence to a late period; but as
the writing and the civilization yield before new forces that entirely
alter the character of Oriental culture, so also the religion, after
sinking ever lower into the bogs of superstition, disappears, much as
the canals and little streams of the Euphrates valley, through the
neglect which settled over the country, become lost in the
death-breeding swamps and marshes.
FOOTNOTES:
[331] Babylonian Chronicle B, col. iv. ll. 34, 35.
[332] _Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, II. 72, col. i. ll. 2, 3.
[333] See above, p. 127.
[334] See a paper by Tiele, on "Cyrus and the Babylonian Religion," in
the _Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy_, 1896.
[335] For the identity of Nin-Karrak and Gula, see the 'Shurpu'
Incantation Series, iv. l. 86 (ed. Zimmern), where the former is called
the 'great physician,'--the epithet peculiar to Gula.
[336] East India House Inscription, col. iv. l. 44.
[337] VR. 34, col. ii. l. 26, or simply Tur-lil (East India House
Inscription, col. iv. l. 49, not Tur-e, as Winckler, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 2,
18, reads).
[338] _I.e._, king or lord of Sarbi. Pognon (_Les Inscriptions
Babyloniennes de Wadl Brissa_), p. 46, is of the opinion that _sarbi_ is
the palm, but he fails to bring sufficient proof, and his theory is
improbable. The stem _sarabu_ means to burn, and the "fiery lord" is
certainly an epithet belonging to some solar deity.