"The time for the worship of the gods was my heart's delight,The time of the offering to Ištar was profit and riches,"
sings Ludlul the sage, and all the people of his land were one with him in that opinion.
It is noteworthy that the offering of the Chaldæan Noah consisted of vegetable produce only, and there are many inscriptions referring to similar bloodless sacrifices, and detailing the ritual used in connection therewith. Sacrifices of animals, however, seem to have been constantly made—in any case, offerings of cattle and fowl, in list-form, are fairly numerous. Many a cylinder-seal has a representation of the owner bringing a young animal—a kid or a lamb—as an offering to the deity whom he worshipped, and in the inscriptions the sacrifice of animals is frequently referred to. One of the bilingual texts refers to the offering of a kid or some other young animal, apparently on behalf of a sick man. The text of this, where complete, runs as follows:—
"The fatling which is the 'head-raiser' of mankind—He has given the fatling for his life.He has given the head of the fatling for his head,He has given the neck of the fatling for his neck,He has given the breast of the fatling for his breast."
Whether human sacrifices were common or not is a doubtful point. Many cylinder-seals exist in which the slaying of a man is depicted, and the French Assyriologist Menant was of opinion that they represented a human offering to the gods. Hayes Ward, however, is inclined to doubt this explanation, and more evidence would seem, therefore, to be needed. He is inclined to think that, in the majority of cases, the designs referred to show merely the victims of divine anger or vengeance, punished by the deity for some misdeed or sin, either knowingly or unknowingly committed.
In the Assyrian galleries of the British Museum, Aššur-nasir-âpli, king of Assyria, is several times shown engaged in religious ceremonies—either worshipping before the sacred tree, or about to pour out, apparently, a libation to the gods before departing upon some expedition, and priests bringing offerings, either animal or vegetable, are also represented. Aššur-banî-âpli, who is identified with "the great and noble Asnapper," is shown, in bas-reliefs of the Assyrian Saloon, pouring out a thank-offering over the lions which he has killed, after his return from the hunt.
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.
Hibbert Lectures, 1887. The Religion of the Ancient Babylonians, byProfessor 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 ProfessorA. H. Sayce.
The O.T. in the Light of the Records of Assyria and Babylonia, by theAuthor, 1903. (The portions referring to Babylonian Mythology.)
The Hymns to Tammuz in the Manchester Museum, Owens College, by theAuthor, 1904.
Dictionary of the Bible, edited by Dr. James Hastings, andEncyclopædia Biblica, edited by Professor Cheyne.