Religious and moral ideas in Babylonia-Assyria

BiDikal ana
Oriental Series

RELIGK)US AND
MORAL IDEAS IN
BABYLONIA AND
ASSYRIA

MERCER

MAR -2S 1920

BR 45 .B52 v. 2 i

Mercer, Samuel A. B. b. |

1880.
Religious and moral ideas in
Babylonia and Assyria |

Biblical and Oriental >rie$

SAMUEL A. B. MERCER, General Edit>

RELIGIOUS AND MORAL IDEAS IN
BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA

i

iblical and Oriental Series

SAMUEL A. B. MERCER, General Editor

The object of this Series on the Bible and
Oriental Civilization is to make the results of
expert investigation accessible to laymen. Some-
times these results will be presented in the form
of daily readings, and sometimes in that of con-
tinuous discussion. Specialists in every case will
be employed, who will endeavor to present their
subjects in the most effective and profitable way.

The Book of Genesis for Bible Classes and
Private Study
By Samuel A. B. Mercer (non> read^).

The Growth of Religious and Moral Ideas
IN Egypt

By Samuel A. B. Mercer (non> ready).

The Book of Isaiah for Bible Classes and
Private Study

By D. Roy Matthews (in preparation).

Religious and Moral Ideas in Babylonia and
Assyria
By Samuel A. B. Mercer (noiv ready).

Morehouse Publishing Company

RELIGIOUS AND MORAL IDEAS

IN

BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA

SAMUEL A. B. MERCER, Ph.D., D.i3r '

Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament in the Western Theological

Seminary, Chicago; Rector of the Society of Oriental

Research, and Editor of its Journal; Editor

of the Anglican Theological Review

MOREHOUSE PUBLISHING CO.
MILWAUKEE, WIS.

A. R. MOWBRAY & CO.
LONDON

COPYRIGHT BY

MOREHOUSE PUBLISHING CO.
1919

TO
THE MEMORY OF

SIR HENRY RAWLINSON

PIONEER ASSYRIOLOGIST

PREFACE

The names of mighty Babylon and proud Assyria
will never be forgotten, and their memory will never
cease among men. So long as modern civilization
lasts ; so long as Christianity sways men's hearts ; and
so long as the Bible is read. Babylonia and Assyria,
Nineveh and Babylon will be names to conjure with.
The excavations begun in the mounds of the Tigris-
Euphrates valley not more than a century ago have
revealed many things about these ancient peoples.
Much more remains to be done. There are still
many problems to be solved, many gaps to be filled,
and many phenomena to be interpreted.

This little book, by a student and lover of these
ancient peoples, can give only a glimpse of one of the
most fascinating problems of Semitic culture. The
religious and moral ideas in Babylonia and Assyria,
not only because of their close and unique relation to
the Old Testament, and through it to the New Testa-
ment and to Christianity, but also because of them-
selves, are second to none in human interest.

The author has assumed a certain ls:nowledge of
the history of Babylonia and Assyria on the part of
the reader, but he has endeavoured to make what he
has to say as readable for the layman as possible.
In order to assist the reader in fonning an historical
background for his study, the author has prefixed a

vii

viii Religious and Moral Ideas

chronological outline ; and, to avoid overcrowding the
pages with references and footnotes, he has appended
a selected bibliography. But be it noted, in order to
inspire due confidence in our study, that no assertion
has been made, and no conclusion has been drawn,
which cannot be thoroughly substantiated by reference
to the original texts. So that our study, while aiming
at a modern presentation of Babylonian and Assyrian
religious and moral ideas, has never once consciously
departed from facts deducible from the monuments.

On account of the limitations of our plan, much
detail has had to be omitted. No discussion of the
astrological theories of Winckler and Jeremias has
been offered, nor have the relations between Baby-
lonian and Assyrian religious thought and that of the
Old Testament been discussed. These subjects be-
long to fuller treatments. But this plan, it is hoped,
has permitted a clearer and more connected exposi-
tion of the ideas of God and Man, of Mediation and
the Future, and of Morality, in Babylonia and
Assyria, than could have been gained in a more
detailed study.

It only remains to be said that the author hopes
that this little essay, with all its imperfections, will
add to the growing interest in the past, and especially
in those great culture lands, which are the cradle of
the world's best thought and noblest ideals.

Samuel A. B. Mercer.
Hibbard Egyptian Library
Western Theological Seminary, Chicago
April 4, 1919

CONTENTS

I. — Chronological Outline of Baby-
lonian AND Assyrian History . xi

11. — Introduction 1

III. — The Idea of God in Babylonia and

Assyria 6

IV. — The Idea of Man in Babylonia and

Assyria 34

V. — The Idea of Mediation in Baby-
lonia AND Assyria 61

VI. — The Idea of the Future in Baby-
lonia AND Assyria 90

VII. — The Idea of Morality in Babylonia

AND Assyria 96

VIII. — A Selected Bibliography . . . 125
IX.— Index 127

IX

CHRONOLOGICAL OUTLINE OF
BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN HISTORY

PERIOD OF SUMERIAN SUPREMACY, 3400*-2225 B. C.

3400-2225 B. C. Southern and Northern Babylonia, that is,
Sumer and Akkad, were divided among
many city-states. This gave rise to various
dynasties, the chief of which are: Dynasty
of Kish, 2750-2650; Dynasty of Akkad,
2650-2600; Dynasty of Lagash, 2650-2300;
Dynasty of Ur, 2450-2300; Dynasty of
Nisin, 2300-2115; Dynasty of Larsa, 2335-
2069.

3400-2750 " During this period, before the rise of the
Dynasties of Kish, Akkad, and Lagash,
there were many kings in Kish, Opis, Akkad,
Lagash, Umma, Uruk, and Ur, the chief of
which were Utug, the first king of Kish,
about 3400 B. C; Mesilim of Kish, shortly
after Utug; Lugalshag-engur, in Lagash, a
contemporary of Mesilim; and Lugal-zag-
gisi, king of Erech and Sumer, about 2800,
the first great empire-builder of Babylonia.
From about 2950-2800 a line of important
kings, beginning with Eannatum, reigned
in Lagash.

2750-2650 " Sharru-Gi founded the Dynasty of Kish.

♦ These early dates are approximate.

xi

xii Religious and Moral Ideas

2650-2600 B. C. During this short period two of the most
famous kings of Babylonia ruled, namely,
Sargon and his son Naram-Sin. They
formed the dynasty of Akkad.

2650-2300 " Dynasty of Lagash. This dynasty num-
bered many great rulers, among them being
Ur-Bau and Gudea.

2450-2300 " Dynasty of Ur, whose first king was Ur-
Engur, who was immediately succeeded by
the famous rulers, Dungi, Bur-Sin, Gimil-
Sin, and Ibi-Sin.

2300-2115 " Dynasty of Nisin, which ran down into the
period contemporaneous with the First
Babylonian Dynasty.

2335-2069 " Dynasty of Larsa, contemporaneous with
the Dynasty of Nisin. Its greatest kings
were Warad-Sin, Rim-Sin, Hammurapi, and
Samsu-iluna, the last two of whom reigned
in Babylon also.

During this period great centres of wor-
ship had developed in both north and
south, and the cult had assumed a form
which changed very little in later times.
Due, however, to the different centres of
political power, and the consequent lack of
national unity, no progress was made in
the way of religious centralization.

PERIOD OF BABYLONIAN SUPREMACY, 2225-732 B. C.

2225-1926 B. C. First Babylonian, or Hammurapi, Dynasty.
Babylon's great antagonists were Nisin and
Larsa. Nisin was captured in 2115, and
Hammurapi defeated Rim-Sin, and sub
dued Larsa in 2092. Henceforth, there was
no question about the supremacy of Baby-
lon. With the defeat of Rim-Sin Babylon
became the centre, and its god, Marduk, be-
came head of the pantheon. There arose

Chronological Outline xiii

a tendency to supplant all the great gods
of former times by Marduk. Poems that
were written in honour of other gods were
now accommodated to Marduk. Imperialism
was afoot in both religion and state. More
organization in religion was done in this
period than at any other time in the history
of Babylonia and Assyria. And not only
in religion, but also in all spheres of human
activity, Hammurapi was the great or-
ganizing genius. He built stately temples,
overthrew mighty kings, and drew up a
Code of Laws, such as the world had never
seen before. Nor were the priests idle.
They found leisure to make a profound
study of the heavenly bodies, and system-
atized an astrological theory of religion
which remained down to the very end of
Babylonian and Assyrian religious life, and
then it converted itself into a scientific
astronomy which was inherited and further
developed by the Greeks.
1926-732 B. C. Second to Ninth Babylonian Dynasties.
The eight Dynasties of Babylon which suc-
ceeded the Hammurapi Dynasty never du-
plicated what that first golden era had
accomplished. Babylon and Babylonia re-
mained strong in the power of its unity
and centralization till the period of Assyr-
ian domination.

PERIOD OF ASSYRIAN OVERLORDSHIP, 732-606 B. C.

732-606 B. C. Assyria arose about 2100 B. C, and soon
became the rival of Babylonia. But she did
not accomplish much in the way of usurping
power over Babylonia till 732, when Baby-
lonia, under her weak kings, fell an easy
prey to her more virile northern neighbour.

xiv Religious and Moral Ideas

During Assyria's supremacy, the great god
of Ashur, namely, Ashur, became supreme
in Assyria, though Marduk retained his
grandeur in Babylon. Assyria always
looked upon Babylonia as the great mother-
land, and home of culture, and was proud
of her association with her. But religious
ideas and customs during this period did
not escape the militaristic colouring of the
warlike country of Assyria.

One of the most important Assyrian
kings was Ashurbanipal, 668-625, who built
one of the world's great libraries. It is
from the ruins of this library that thou-
sands of our finest inscriptions have been
excavated. Ashurbanipal caused copies to
be made of the most important literature
of Sumeria and Babylonia.

NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD, 625-538 B. C.

625-538 B. C. Neo-Babylonian Empire. According as
Assyria weakened, during the last fifty
years of her existence. Babylonia became
strong, until, in 625, Nabopolassar pro-
claimed his independence. He was followed
by the great Nebuchadrezzar, and it seemed
for a time as if the old glory of Babylon
was about to be restored. He, however,
was followed by a series of weak kings,
until the weakest of them all, from a mil-
itary point of view, was easily dethroned
by the forces of the virile Persian king,
Cyrus. Thus ended the Babylonian empire.
Persian kings ruled in Babylon till the
capture of that city by Alexander in 331
B. C.

INTRODUCTION

In the great temple of the world's religious
thought, Babylonia and Assyria form one of the most
important and interesting pillars. How clear and
sharp that temple stands out in the history of the
world's culture ! There is the great, bright, solemn
temple, where men worship the gods. Its doors are
open; its windows tempt the sky. There are many
things there that have to do with such a temple.
The winds come wandering through its high arches.
The children roam across its threshold, and play for
a few minutes on its shining floor. Banners and
draperies bedeck its walls. Poor men and women,
with their burdens and distress, come in and say a
moment's prayer, and hurry on. Stately processions
pass up the nave, making a brief disturbance in its
quiet air. Generation after generation comes and
goes and is forgotten, each giving its place up to
another; while still the temple stands, receiving and
dismissing them in turn, and outliving them all. All
these are transitory. All these come into the temple
and then go out again. But the day comes when

I

2 Religious and Moral Ideas

the great temple needs enlargement. The plan which
it embodies must be made more perfect. It is to grow
to a completer self. And then they bring up to the
doors a column of cut stone, hewn in the quarry for
this very place, fitted and fit for this place and for no
other; and bringing it in with toil, they set it solidly
down as part of the growing structure, part of the
expanding plan. It blends with all the other stones.
It loses while it keeps its individuality. It is useless
except there where it is; and yet there, where it is,
it has a use which is peculiarly its own, and different
from every other stone's. The walls are built around
it. It shares the building's changes. The lights of
sacred festivals shine on its face. It glows in the
morning sunlight, and grows dim and solemn as the
dusk gathers through the great expanse. Generations
pass before it in their worship. They come and go,
and the new generations follow them, and still the
pillar stands. The day when it was hewn and set
there is forgotten; as children never think when an
old patriarch, whom they see standing among them,
was bom. It is part of the temple where the men so
long dead set it so long ago.

Such is the story of the pillar — the Babylonian
and Assyrian religion — in the great temple of the
world's religious thought. Long, long ago, in times
now forgotten, a mountain people moved westward
into the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates.
They settled there and worshipped their gods, some
of whom had come with them, and others of whom
had revealed themselves to their worshippers in their

Introduction 3

new home. A new pillar in the great universal temple
of divine worship was brought in, to go "no more
out''. Later another wave of migration entered these
fertile plains. This came from the western home
of the Semites, and brought its gods and religious
customs with it, adding beauty and form to the
great pillar already established. A great state was
set up at Kish, which later became an empire under
the first Sargon, taking the name of the Empire of
Akkad. Other centres were formed at Ur, ITnik,
Lagash, etc. For many years independent dynasties
arose here and there, from north to south, till finally,
sometime before 2000 B. C, Babylon arose as a
great centre and her kings, especially Hammurapi,
swayed the whole valley. About the same time, in
the north, a seed was sowm, which was destined to
become a mighty empire, whose unity was unique in
the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Its centre was at the
city of Ashur, and the country was called Assyria.
This country was founded by immigrants from Nina,
a part of the city of Lagash, in the south. They
brought their goddess Nina, who was later called
Tslitar, and she became the consort of the proper
god of the land, Ashur. Thus new embellishments
were added to the stately pillar of Babylonian and
Assyrian religion. But Assyria remained compara-
tively weak till the time of Tiglath-pileser I, about
1117 B. C. Meanwhile Babylon had fallen before
the Hittites, and into the hands of the Kassites who
ruled till about 1200 B. C, after w^hich a series of
weak kings occupied the throne. Assyria had grown

4 Religious and Moral Ideas

great, and in the reign of Tiglath-pileser I the once
proud and mighty city of Babylon fell into the hands
of the Assyrian kings. However, although the dynas-
ties in Babylonia and Assyria were different, and
their policies divergent, their religion was the same,
and they worshipped the same gods. The pillar in
the great temple was the same, only further polished
and decorated. And so when the Assyrian kings
marched into the city of Babylon they did not
destroy it; rather they came as if to pay their
respect to Marduk, the great city-god, and to "take
his hand", in recognition of his supreme authority in
all things Babylonian. Assyrian religion, as well
as her general culture, her art and architecture, her
science and commerce, her literature and laws, were
borrowed from Babylonia. Assyria fell in 606 B. C,
when all life and religion centred in Babylon, and
the N'eo-Babylonian empire inherited what was com-
mon and peculiar to both Babylonia and Assyria.

Small and great religions as well as small and great
men must all stand before the standard, or test, or
source, of religious or individual judgment. In the
temple of the world's religion, the pillar representing
the religion of Babylonia and Assyria stands. Though
the mighty empires of Babylonia and Assyria have
long passed on into oblivion, their religious as well
as their cultural influence still lives, yea, is immortal.
But this influence is judged in the light of a universal
religious standard. The pillar is strong or weak, fine
or inferior, in accordance with its comparative worth
and importance in the whole structure. When the

Introduction 5

mighty gods called to Babylonia and Assyria their
challenge did not always receive the highest response.
Shallow often responded to deep, instead of deep to
the call of deep. In spite of their mighty accomplish-
ments; in spite of the vision of god which Babylonia
and Assyria saw and gave to the world; in spite of
their contributions to human knowledge and science;
and in spite of their deep, keen, penetration into the
realities of moral law; their failure to relate time to
eternity, to translate this world with its sufferings
and distress into terms of universal realities, has
marred the perfection of their pillar in God's temple.
But, excepting this serious blemish, the contribution of
Babylonia and Assyria to the bulk of the world's best
treasures is one of the grandest which any race can
claim.

II

THE IDEA OF GOD IN BABYLONIA
AND ASSYRIA

The world has always been man's greatest problem.
We not only love its landscape with all the power of
our bodily senses ; but we also store up its associations
with us, its joys and its delights, and we love it with
all our heart. Nor do we stop there, for we not only
respond to that in the world which appeals to our
reverence and gratefulness, and so love the world
with all our soul; or to that which appeals to our
power of working, and so love it with all our strength ;
but we also respond to that desire, common to all
humanity, to solve the great problems which start
out from the earth and from the sky to tempt us.
Scenes in nature cry out to us to come and admire
them, to come and work on them, or to come and
study them. And immediately a series of questions
arises to the baffled but determined mind. What
hangs the stars in their places and swings them on
their way ? How does the earth build the stately tree
out of the petty seed? How does the river feed the
fields? What built the mountains, and spread out
the plains? These and many other similar ques-

6

Idea of Cod 7

tions, some simpler, some more profound, have always
been asked by man. They leap out from nature, and,
pressing in past our senses and emotions and prac-
tical powers, never rest till they have found out our
intelligence. They appeal to the mind, and the mind
responds to them — not coldly, as if it had nothing to
do but just to find and register their answers, but
enthusiastically, loving the nature out of which they
spring. And so we love the world in which we live
with all our mind.

This has always been the experience of man. In
this respect the early Babylonian and Assyrian were
no exceptions. But the greatest of all problems that
presented itself to early man, including the Babylo-
nians, was the question of motion, which he inter-
preted as a sign of life. What caused the rivers to
flow and the leaves to grow, the wind to blow and the
storms to rage? Why did the sun, the moon, and
the stars cross and recross the heavens? In short,
what is that which seems to be the cause of all the
sounds, and signs, and motions, which are continually
in evidence ? What else but life, the power of causing
motion and noise ? Man himself was free to move, to
make signs, and to utter sounds, and his power to do
so consisted in his being alive. It was his life which
was the all pervading force in his actions. It was an
easy step for the primitive man to make, when he
transferred this same power, life, to every object — to
all objects — for every object was capable of manifest-
ing power. Thus the early Babylonians endowed every
object with a zi, life or spirit.

8 Religious and Moral Ideas

The world was full of spirits. There were river-
spirits and stream-spirits, rock-spirits and mountain-
spirits, vegetation-spirits and storm-spirits, and many
others. The ways of some spirits were understood
more thoroughly than those of others. But none of
them were understood completely. They were always
more or less undefined, and so the various spirits were
always more or less mysterious. Those spirits who
were considered powerful and friendly were gods, and
those who were unfriendly and less powerful were
demons and indifferent spirits.

The early Babylonians lived in small groups —
families or small clans — separated from one another.
Each such group recognized various gods, represent-
ing the different living objects in its neighbourhood.
But that one living object which impressed itself upon
the attention of the group with most intensity became
the manifesting medium of that spirit, which became
the god of the group. Thus a social group living in
the neighbourhood of a large body of water would
have a water-god, just as the community at Eridu, on
the Persian Gulf, worshipped Ea, a water-god. But
it would recognize the existence of many other gods.
The number of possible gods was almost limitless. A
nomadic group would develope a very large pantheon ;
and would change its gods from time to time, its chief
god being the specific god of the location where it was
temporarily settled. In fact, such moving groups were
apt to interpret its deity as a goddess, in keeping with
the necessarily matriarchal character of its constitu-
tion. In moving groups the mother is the permanent

Idea of Cod 9

element in family life, a fact which often gave rise to
a belief in a goddess as head of a group of gods. This
consideration will probably explain the power and in-
fluence of Ishtar among the early Semitic Babylonians,
who were a nomadic people. It will also account for
the fact that Ningirsu, "lady of Girsu", god of Lagash,
was originally a goddess. In settled and agricultural
groups a male deity was the centre of divine life, with
whom was associated a female consort. Thus Ea's
consort was Damkina, the "faithful spouse", and
Enlil's was Ninlil, "lady of the storm".

Primitive people ask of their gods that they be as
familiar as possible, that they have to do with daily
life, that they seem to issue from the heart of common
things and clothe those things with light which
makes them radiant. They dread mystery. They
hate to be bidden to lift up their eyes and look far
away. They desire their gods to be near, and they find
them in all affairs of life, domestic and public, social
and political. Consequently, when a group grew and
became powerful, the god of the group likewise grew
and became powerful. If the group added to itself
other groups or absorbed them, the god of the group
added to himself the gods of the added groups or
absorbed them. In this way groups of gods or pan-
theons arose.

In Babylonia the earliest centres of such enlarged
groups — towms which added to themselves and ab-
sorbed all villages and towns in their vicinity —
were Eridu, Ur, Uruk, Nippur, Kutha, Opis, Kish,
Agade, and Sippar. There were others, such as La-

1 0 Religious and Moral Ideas

gash, Babylon, Ashur. The god of such a centre
became the chief deity and around him were assem-
bled, among others, the gods and goddesses of the
united and absorbed communities. Thus at the
dawn of history we find Enlil of Nippur, Ea or Enki
of Eridu, and Anu and Ishtar or Nana of Erech
worshipped as heads of great groups of peoples. In
fact, there is reason to believe that each of these
great centres held sway over a large portion of the
country at different times; Enlil of Nippur, for
instance, receiving homage from gods of distant cen-
tres, which were themselves centres of great groups
of people. That is, the more powerful a great city
or state became, the more extended the sway of its
chief god was. This was also true of Ningirsu of
Lagash, Nana and Anu of Uruk, Sin of Ur, and
Shama?h of Larsa, and of Sippar.

It sometimes happened also that the god of an
absorbed town became the chief god of the absorbing
city. This is true of Ningirsu of Lagash, who was
originally lord, or lady, of Girsu, a town which
undoubtedly became amalgamated into Lagash. Then
around Ningirsu of Lagash gathered a whole pantheon
of deities. The chief of these was Bau, his consort,
besides deities of irrigation, of weapons, of musical
instruments, of flocks and herds, of fishes, and of
streams, of household duties, and of cattle. And
deitie= of surrounding towns were granted a place in
the central temple, or a quarter in the city, of Lagash.
Such were the goddesses Gatuiiidug. Nina, and
Innina. In later times Marduk of Babylon and his

Idea of God 1 1

consort Sarpanit grouped around thomselves such
powerful deities as Ea and Damkina of Eridu, Nabu
and Tashmit of Borsippa, Nergal and Allatu of
Kutha, Shamash and Ai of Sippar, and Sin and
Ningal of Ur. This was due to the extraordinary
greatness of Marduk's city, Babylon. Nor did the
tendency end there, for the characteristics and
achievements of the absorbed and associated gods were
very often assumed by the absorbing god. Thus Mar-
duk replaced Enlil in the creation story in the same
way that he himself was absorbed by Yahweh, in later
times, in the Hebrew references to creation.

In the very earliest times divine manifestations
were seen in the commonest phenomena, in the
streams and rivers, rocks and mountains, vegetation,
and forces of nature. But according as men began to
be more interested in the vast cosmic forces, so their
attention became centred in such phenomena as the
sky, the earth, and the ocean.

The sky was personified as Anu. The Semitic word
anu is derived from the Sumerian ana, which means
"heaven". The deity Anu was supposed to be
enthroned in the heavens, and as such was the highest
of all gods, and king of the gods. Why the centre
of the worship of Anu was Uruk is not known. It
seems that the inhabitants of that city happened to be
the first to give prominence to the sky-god. In Assyr-
ian times the god had a home at Ashur. Ann's
worship can be traced back to the very beginning of
history in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. He was the
supreme dispenser of all events, especially of those

12 Religious and Moral Ideas

which related to the earth, and his consort was Anatu,
who was sometimes regarded as an earth goddess.

Enlil (or Ellil) was the "lord of lands", and the
personification of the earth. At a very early time
he gained great eminence in Babylonia, for such
great gods as Sin of Ur and Ningirsu of Lagash
were called his sons. He is thought to have been
the chief god of the Sumerian people, and as Nippur
may have been the first settlement of the Sumerians
in southern Babylonia, an explanation of Nippur as
the seat of this god would be thus explained. He is
sometimes called the "great mountain", an epithet
which would point to his origin among the Sumerians
before they migrated west from their original moun-
tain home. This would account for the name of his
temple in Nippur, which was E-Kur, "mountain-
house", a sanctuary built probably on an artificial
mound to represent the original home of the god.

Enlil has been called the older Bel. His consort
was Ninlil, called also Belit-matate or Belit-ile, "lady
of the lands" and "lady of the god", respectively.
Being a mountain-god, he also associated with storms,
in the same way that the Hebrew god, Yahweh, was
associated with Sinai, and was known as a storm-god.

The deity which personified the great waters of the
world was Ea, whose seat was at Eridu on the Persian
Gulf, an appropriate place for a water-deity. He is
comparable with Osiris of Egypt. Being the water-
deity, and water being associated with exorcism, Ea be-
came, at a very early date, the chief deity of exorcism,
and, as father of Marduk, he retained that distinc-

Idea of Cod 13

tion until the latest times in Babylonia and Assyria.
He was consequently the god of wisdom also, and as
such the adviser and helper of mankind. His consort
was Damkina, a shadowy counter-part, who, like most
Babylonian goddesses, never played any important
role in any form of human and divine relationships.

The most attractive natural phenomena, and the
most mysterious, have always been the sun and the
moon. They have been deified by all ancient races. In
Babylonia the moon was deified primarily by those who
lived near the desert, and whose experiences asso-
ciated them with desert life. Nomadic tribes, who
roam the desert, live continually in fear of conflict
with other tribes. Their time of greatest activity is
during the night when light is not too intense, and
when they can elude the pursuit of a possible enemy.
But the moon's light on such an occasion is a veritable
blessing. It furnishes just enough light to make
movement easy, but not enough to make detection
probable. Hence the deification of the moon among
races who are or were nomads. In Babylonia the
moon was worshipped by those who lived in western
parts, just on the border of the desert.

To those peoples who lived a settled, agricultural
life, who appreciated the part which the sun plays
in the growth of the necessities of life, and who
enjoyed its warmth, although sometimes dreading its
intense heat, the sun has always appeared as a god.
The sun is the great mysterious being which sails
across the heavens every day, returning each night
to the beginning of its course.

14 Religious and Moral Ideas

The sun was personified as Shamash by the Semites,
but as Ud, "light", or Babbar by the Sumerians. His
chief centre of worship was at Sippar, though he was
also closely identified with Larsa, the latter being
the oldest residence of Shamash. His sanctuary was
called E-Babbar, "shining house", and his chief char-
acteristics were Justice and righteousness, of which
he was the source and dispenser.

Besides Shamash, the sun was thought to be mani-
fested in the form of other deities. The sky-god Anu
was, in the minds of his worshippers of Uruk, a
solar deity, as also were Ninib at Nippur, and later
Marduk at Babylon and Ashur at Ashur in Assyria.
In short there grew up a regular cycle of solar deities.
At Lagash, Ningirsu was a solar deity, as were also
Nergal of Kutha and Zamama of Kish, as well as
the fire-god Nusku. At a later time priestly attempts
were made to differentiate these sun-gods. Ningirsu
and Ninib were called sun-gods of the springtime or
of the morning, while Nergal was assigned to the
midsummer or high noon.

Shamash, the supreme judge and giver of oracles,
was not only celebrated as the brother of Ishtar and
the consort of Ai, but he was also the father of Kettu,
"justice", and Mesharu, "rectitude". With the mys-
tery of Shamash, the god of light, were bound up
the cleverness and fairness of justice and righteous-
ness. The sun was full of mystery to the early Baby-
lonians and Assyrians. The nearer they approached
him the more mysterious he became. But just as
he had the power lo penetrate into all corners and

Idea of Cod 15

crevices of daily life, so his word had the power of
detecting unfair dealings among men. The Baby-
lonians, who had a genius for business, soon developed
that sense of right proportion in human relationships,
which was the result of deep insight into business
principles, and which they associated with that divine
being whose character it was to bring everything to
the test of the light of day.

On the other hand, the sun was sometimes con-
sidered an agent of destruction. His rays could warm
and comfort, but they could scorch and burn also.
And the seasons of intensest heat were also those of
destruction, of lightning and thunderstorms. There
came, therefore, to be associated with Shamash and
other solar-deities, gods of destructive storms. Thus,
with Shamash was associated Adad, who was likewise
associated with Anu. But the benificent character
of the solar-deities was that which primarily appealed
to the Babylonians and Assyrians.

Just as the sun was the favourite heavenly body
among agricultural peoples, so the moon always ap-
pealed to the nomad. On the western border of Bab-
ylonia, in the neighbourhood of the great desert, the
moon was personified as Sin at two great centres, Ur
in the south and Harran in the north. At Ur, his
temple was called E-Kishshirgal, ^Tiouse of light", and
his own Sumerian name was En-Zu, "lord of knowl-
edge"; among the Semites he was also known as
Nannar, "illumination". As lord of knowledge, Sin
was the god of oracles, and the well-disposed father
of mankind. He was considered a most powerful god

1 6 Religious and Moral Ideas

from the beginning of his career, for Shamash was
called his son and Ishtar was his daughter. His
consort was Ningal, "the great lady", "the queen".

Powerful as Sin was he never gathered around
him a cycle of di\^ne beings as did Shamash. He
was inclined to keep his own councils and jealously
to watch for the allegiance of his own worshippers.
He is primarily interesting to modern students be-
cause of his chief cities Ur and Harran, both of
which are associated with the name of the Hebrew
patriarch, Abraham, and especially because of the
effect which his cult had upon the Hebrew god,
Yahweh, who was associated with Sinai, the mountain
of Sin, and whose relationship with the followers of
Sin has left its lasting mark not only upon Judaism
but upon Christianity as well. Our custom of divid-
ing time into weeks of seven days each is eloquent
testimony to the power and influence of the ancient
Babylonian god Sin. And not only in this particular
matter but in many other ways our modern culture
bears not a few marks of Babylonian moon-worship.

Because of Ishtar's identification with the star
Venus, the goddess should be discussed here, although
she was probably at first a personification of fertility
in human, animal, and plant life. As such she be-
came the great mother-goddess. She always main-
tained an independent existence. Her oldest seat was
Uruk, though she was associated with many other
places during her career, such as Akkad, Nineveh, Ar-
bela, and Kidmurru. As Nana she is called the
daughter of Anu, but she is also known as the daugh-

Idea of Cod 1 7

ter of Sin. This would lead to the conclusion that in
her character were absorbed other deities, and this is
precisely what happened. In fact, she absorbed all
other goddesses in the pantheon, becoming the goddess
par excellence. In Assyria she became the consort of
Ashur.

Having absorbed many other goddesses, Ishtar was
possessed of many attributes. She was associated with
Gilgamesh, a solar deity, and her lover was Tammuz,
a personification of the sun of springtime. As the
great mother-goddess, she was associated with the fer-
tility of nature and of man, and became the goddess of
love, and of sexual impulse. In her character of love-
goddess her fame and worship spread to the land of the
Hittites, as well as to Phoenicia, where she was known
as Ashtart, to Canaan, where she was called Ash-
toreth, and to far-off Greece and Eome, where she
was worshipped under the familiar name of the Mater
Magna.

In Assyria, especially, she became the patron of
battles, as was her Assyrian consort Ashur. And as
the war-like Ishtar her symbol was the lion. She was
also symbolized by the dove, but this was in her
character as goddess of justice and righteousness, the
goddess "judging the cause of man with justice and
righteousness". In this role she was associated with
all that is ethically true, being commemorated in
hymns and psalms with considerable ethical content.
Thus she is addressed by a penitent who says :

"I, thy servant, full of sighs, call upon thee;
The fervent prayer of him who has sinned do thou accept.

1 8 Religious and Moral Ideas

If thou lookest upon a man, that man lives.

O all-powerful mistress of mankind,

Merciful one, to whom it is good to turn, who hears sighs ! "

The most powerful Bab^donian god was Marduk,
the city-god of Babylon. He was originally a clan-
god, but when his people developed Babylon to the
supreme place in Babylonia, Marduk, from being a
comparatively obscure deity, became the head of the
pantheon. Consequently, there arose a tendency to
group all gods around him, and to ascribe to him the
attributes of such great gods as Enlil, Ea, Shamash,
Nergal, Adad, and Sin. His power became so supreme
that the ceremony of "taking the hand of Marduk"
was essential to a candidate for the throne of Baby-
lonia.

Marduk was a solar deity, and son of Ea of Eridu.
His temple in Babylon was E-sagila, "lofty house",
and his wife was Sarpanit. The neighbouring god of
Borsippa, Nabu, though himself very powerful, be-
came Marduk's son. According as Marduk became
more and more powerful and influential, so he usurped
the place of other deities and subordinated them
and their rights to himself. From Nabu he took over
the attribute of "arbiter of destiny"; he became the
"healer" of mankind instead of Ea; he assumed the
role of creator god instead of Enlil ; and prayers and
hymns were interpolated and glossed in order to give
him the greater glory. He became the lord, Bel, pa?-
excellence, his consort being named Belit, and the
great New Year feast became his, making him the

Idea of God 19

lord and giver of life, the sun, from whom and in
whom all things exist.

Nabu was the neighbour of Marduk, the god of
Borsippa, and was much more powerful and influ-
ential before than after the rise of Babylon. His
temple was E-zida, "house of wisdom", and his eon-
sort was Tashmit, though Nana and Nisaba were also
associated with him in that capacity.

Although a god of vegetation, his chief attribute
was that of arbiter of destinies. He was the god of
wisdom, of writing, and of prophecy, and it is prob-
able that he was so closely associated with wisdom,
as an element in prophecy, that his name penetrated
into western Semitic lands and became the title of
those men in Israel who were, previous to the time of
Samuel, called seers. The Hebrew word for prophet,
nabi, is most likely to be traced to the name of this
god.

Ninib, or as his name is probably now to be read,
Ninurasa, was the god of Nippur, the first-born of
Enlil, the great physician and god of healing, and the
god of the chase. His consort was Gula. He was
especially connected with war, as the "mighty hero",
and personified the spirit of battle and conquest.

Nergal was the god of Kutha. His temple was E-
shitlam, and his consort was Ereshkigal. Originally a
vegetation god, he became the benevolent protector
of the fields. But he is famous as a god of plague and
fever, similar to the pestilence-god Ira, and especially
as a war-god. When he married Ereshkigal, queen
of the underworld, he became god of the dead and

20 Religious and Moral Ideas

of their realm. As a result of this, his city, Kutha,
became a poetic designation of the great gathering-
place of the dead, and his s}Tiibol was the fierce lion,
greedy for human victims.

ISTusku was a god of light, and was usually asso-
ciated with Enlil of Nippur, though he was also
knowTi as son of Sin at Harran. As light or heat
god he was the destroyer of all evil, and the promo-
ter of all good. His counterpart was Gibil (or
Girru), a personification of fire, and god of the smith-
craft and of holy sacrificial fire. His province was
to destroy e%dl by means of purifying fire. Both gods,
because of their association with purifying and de-
stroying fire, were ethical in character.

Tammuz holds an unique position among the great
Babylonian gods. His Sumerian name is Dumuzi,
"real child", but an older name made him Dumuzi-
zuab, "real child of the watery deep". As such he
was associated with Ea of Eridu, and became identi-
fied with all green plant-growth and with spring, the
season of beginning of vegetation. In fact, he became
the god who revives in spring and dies in summer,
like the Egyptian Osiris. With him were asso-
ciated festivals of mourning and festivals of joy, for
his death and resurrection. He was never intimately
associated with any one centre, for he became pop-
ular and democratic, even, in a sense, an universal
god in Babylonia. With him was associated Ishtar
the great mother-goddess, who personified fertilization.
He was her husband and lover both, and with them
was connected his sister Geshtinanna, who plays a

Idea of Cod 21

similar part to that taken by Nephthys in Egypt.
His cult became most popular and extended to Israel,
where it was very prominent at the time of Ezekiel.
His worship might have become very powerful and
enduring if there had been similar conditions to those
in Egypt, which would have served as soil in which
the seed could have grown. But the Babylonians were
a sterner people than the Eg^^ptians, to whom the joy-
ful note in the character of Tammuz could not make a
lasting appeal; and they had never developed a con-
ception of the future which was capable of rendering
the Tammuz-resurrection idea influential, necessary,
and attractive.

There were many other Babylonian gods, each of
whom was connected with some place or person. They
were so nmnerous that two general terms were applied
to them, namely, the Igigi, or earth-deities, and the
Anunnaki, or heaven-gods. It is felt by some students
of Babylonian and Hebrew^ religion that even the god
of Israel, Yahweh, was for some time at least asso-
ciated with the Babylonian pantheon, his name being
found in such combinations as Ya-u-um-ilu of the
Hammurapi period and Ya-u-bani of the Kassite pe-
riod ; the former being equivalent in constmction and
meaning to the name Elijah, "Yahweh is my god";
and the latter to the name Asahiah, "whom Yahweh
created".

Assyria inherited the religion of Babylonia, although
she breathed into it her national warlike character,
and her pantheon coincided with that of Baby-
lonia, except in the case of Ashur and Adad. Ashur

22 Religious and Moral Ideas

was a solar deity, and patron-god of the city of Ashur,
where his cult can be traced to a very primitive
time. The antiquity of Ashur's settlement in Ashur
is indicated by the fact that when x\nu was recognized
there with Ashur, he was god of Uruk. In fact, a
common etymology connected Ashur with Anu, by
deriving the name Ashur from An-shar. From the
first, Ashur became head of the Assyrian pantheon,
around whom, as around Marduk in Babylon, all the
gods were grouped. All roles of the great Babylonian
gods were ascribed to him and a creation myth arose,
a trace of which still survives, in which Ashur is the
creator. The two great gods Ashur and Marduk were
supreme in their own political and religious spheres,
and became rivals only when Babylonia gave the
Assyrians trouble. Then the statue of Marduk was
carried off to Assyria, by Sennacherib, who besieged
and destroyed Babylon in 689 B. C. But when Ash-
urbanipal came to the throne he returned the statue
from Nineveh to Babylon and "took the hand of
Bel".

The Assyrians were a warlike people, and Ashur
their god became primarily a war-god. He was sjm-
bolized by a winged-disk, with a man with a bow and
arrow within the disk. His solar character is indicated
by the disk ; and it is interesting to note that his cult
was devoid of statues, although there is no evidence
that it was more spiritual than that of Baby-
lonian gods. His supreme aloneness in Assyria is
due to the great unity of the country, geographically
and politically, where he had no rival, and to the fact

Idea of Cod 23

that the Assyrians were almost always absorbed in
war and conquest, and Ashur was their great leader.

But other deities were recognized and worshipped,
chiefly Sin, Shamash, Adad, Marduk, Nabu, Ishtar,
Ninib, Nergal, Nusku, as well as the three great gods
Anu, Enlil, and Ea.

The other great Assyrian god was Adad or Eam-
man, a god of storms and rains. He gave rains in
time of drought, and was, accordingly a beneficent
deity; but he also withheld rain and brought on
drought and famine, and was, therefore, a god of
destruction also. He had no special place of worship
in Assyria, being a foreign god, who came from the
west lands, although he shared a sanctuary with Anu
at Ashur, called the Anu-Adad temple. He was sym-
bolized by the thunderbolt and by an ox, types of his
strength and character as a weather-god; he was in
many ways the counterpart of Enlil; and his wife
was Shala.

The goddess Ishtar retained her power and popu-
larity in Assyria. She was closely associated with
Ashur, as war-goddess, and was differentiated in a
threefold way as Ishtar of Nineveh, of Arbela, and
of Kidmurru. This threefold differentiation w^as
probably due to the fact that the name Ishtar had
become a generic term for goddess, and was con-
sequently ascribed to different deities. This would
be all the more probable when we consider the fact
that Babylonian and Assyrian goddesses were never
more than shadowy counterparts of the gods, with
the exception of just the same goddess, whose name

24 Religious and Moral Ideas

became a designation of all goddesses. That is^, when-
ever a goddess, such as those of Nineveh, Arbela,
and IvidniTirru, became powerful, they adopted the
name Ishtar, as symbol of independence and power.

The other goddesses of Babylonia and Assyria
remained from first to last mere reflections of their
consorts. Such were, for example, Ninlil, Ningal,
Damkina, Shala, Sarpanit, Tashit, Antum, Gula, and
Ereshkigal, consorts of Enlil, Sin, Ea, Adad, Marduk,
Nabu, Anu, Xinib, and Nergal, respectively.

The Neo-Babylonian empire possessed a national
unity and character that was altogether unknown
in early Babylonia. As a result, everything centred
around the national god Marduk, although there were
other gods. It was a period of national consciousness,
and the ideal was the greatness of the past. This
resulted in a great religious revival, and an attempt
to imitate the past in art and culture. It was not un-
like the Saite age in Egypt, and resulted in the same
political impotency. Because Nabonidus was more
interested in archaeology and the past, Babylon fell
an easy prey to the more modern and alert Cyrus.

When Jacob said, "If God will keep me in the way
that I go and will give me bread to eat and raiment to
put on, so that I come again to my father's house in
peace, then shall Yahweh be my God," he was merely
being true to the early Semitic ideal. Each man re-
served the right to approach his god on any and all oc-
casions. The gods were to be worshipped and appealed
to, nor did any undue fear or dread hold the Babylo-
nians and Assyrians back from the exercise of these

Idea of Cod 25

rights. In fact each man had a personal god, and
called himself the "son of his god", duniu dingir-ra-ni,
or mar ili-su. Sometimes a god would desert his cli-
ent, and then demons would come and attack the man.
And so the earnest desire of each person was to keep
on good terms, especially with his patron-deity, in
order to insure his continual protection.

In the early Sumerian period, between about 3200
and 2800 B. C, there was no national religion. The
national unit was the city-state, and each city-state
had its own chief god, with, sometimes, other divine
adherents. There was, however, a tendency to recog-
nize any god who became very powerful; thus, be-
cause of the greatness and power of Nippur, its god,
Enlil, became very prominent, and was widely rec-
ognized and worshipped. Nevertheless, Enlil never
became a national god. Each centre of organized
government had its own great god — Enki (Ea) at
Eridu, Nannar (Sin) at Ur, Anu and Nana (Ishtar)
at Uruk, Enlil at Nippur, Nergal at Kutha, and
Zamama at Kish.

During the first Akkadian or Semitic period, from
about 2800 to 2400 B. C, there arose a tendency
to systematize theological thinking. The Sumerians
never seemed inclined to systematization. They were
content to live in small isolated groups, and to think
in an isolated theological way. But the Semites were
different. They had the genius of democratic amal-
gamation. The theological result was an attempt to
relate the gods one to another. This took shape in
the formulation of divine triads, the first probably

26 Religious and Moral Ideas

being Anu, Enlil, and Enki (Ea), but with further
organization a double triad was created; namely, one
centring in Uruk and Nippur, resulting in Anu,
Ninib, Enlil (later Ea, Enlil, Ninib), and the second
centring in Eridu, resulting in Ea, Nabu, Marduk
(later, Ea, Marduk, Nabu). In very ancient times
there may have been a duad, such as Anshar and
Kishar, god of the upper and god of the lower region,
but this is doubtful, and may be later speculation.

With the increase of Sumerian power during the
dynasties of Ur and Nisin, from about 2400 to 2100
B. C, theological speculation and organization again
became dormant, but with the rise of the First Dy-
nasty of Babylon, about 2100 B. C, a Semitic race
of rulers, theological organization again came into its
own. Other triads were now constructed, the chief
being, Ea, Marduk, Nabu ; Ea being the father, Mar-
duk the son, and Nabu the grandson. Under the
influence of the same impulse, triads sprang up all
over the land. Thus, at Haran, Sin became the head
of a divine family. Sin, Ningal, Ishtar, the third
member being sometimes Nusku. This triad became
popular in the reign of Hammurapi, as Sin, Shamash,
Ishtar, due to astrological speculation.

It was during the First Babylonian Dynasty that
the heavens, the sun, moon, and stars, were closely
studied, and there arose a school of priestly astrologers
or astronomers. The sun was Shamash, the moon Sin,
and the star Venus was Ishtar. This resulted in the
triad, Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar. The priests thought
they had discovered a close link between the move-

Idea of Cod 27

ments going on in the heavens and occurrences on
earth. This led to an identification of the chief deities
with the heavenly bodies, and to assignment of the
seats of all the divine beings to heaven. Besides the
identification of Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar, with the
sun, moon, and Venus, Marduk was identified with
Jupiter, Nergal with Mars, Nabu with Mercury, and
Ninib with Saturn. The old triad Anu, Enlil, Enki
(Ea) took on new life as Anu, Bel, Ea, the power-
ful heaven-god, the earth-god, and the water-god,
respectively.

The priests proceeded to further elaboration, using
popular belief in the dependence of earthly circum-
stances upon heavenly phenomena, and developed a
regular system of astrology, and an elaborate method
of divining the future. Even liver divination, which
will be described in another place, the oldest form of
divination, was brought into connection with this as-
trological system. Ea and his son Marduk became the
great lords of divination and incantation, and all signs
in the heavens as well as on the earth were referred to
them.

This whole priestly system of astrology is thus com-
paratively late. There is no evidence at all that
Marduk, Nabu, Ninib, and Nergal were originally
connected with the stars, nor is there any convincing
evidence that the astral idea reached back as far as
Sumerian times. Astrology grew gradually but stead-
ily, but became to a large extent official, for there
is no proof that the fortunes of individuals were fore-
told from the study of the stars till Greek times.

28 Religious and Moral Ideas

N'or did astrology pass from a purely religious dis-
cipline to a scientific study till the Neo-Babylonian
and Persian periods.

The favourite triad of the Kassite period, lasting
till 1750 B. C, was Sin, Shamash, Ishtar. The
Assyrians did not lay any emphasis upon the formu-
lation of triads, for they were sufficiently confident
in their god Ashur. In them, as Semites, we see the
power of concentration at its highest, except in later
days in Israel. Ashur was not the only god, but he
was all about whom it was necessary to worry. Other
gods were his assistants. He was the lord and mas-
ter, the protector, and leader of his people. But the
Neo-Babylonians retained their triad which usually
took the form of Sin, Shamash, Adad ; Sin, Shamash,
Ishtar; or Nergal, Adad, Ishtar. Their pantheon,
however, remained very large, the chief deities being
Marduk, Nabu, Ishtar, Shamash, and Sin.

The ideal at all times has been to make things
according to the pattern in the mount. The perfect
workman needs a perfect pattern. All things, before
they are brought into being, exist in the mind of the
gods. The perfect workman translates them into
material realities. But the converse has always been
true with the seekers after God. The pattern of God
has been found in the idealism of man. Gods have
ever been created in the image and likeness of men.
The gods were thus enlarged human beings, to whom
were ascribed human actions, except that there was
always a tendency to ascribe the best to them. They
were ordinarily considered invisible and more mighty

Idea of Cod 29

^ than mankind, otherwise they were not sharply differ-

entiated in attributes and characteristics from men.
They had wives, sons, and daughters, and were born
and died just like mortals. In short the gods were
thoroughly anthropomorphic, and the product of
human imagination.

But the Babylonians and Assyrians ascribed the
best they knew to the gods. Thus the gods were holy,
righteous, pure, faithful, just, truthful, piteous, and
merciful, according to the highest current conceptions
of these ideas. Their abodes were places of holiness ;
they were the authors of law ; they directed mankind,
and determined its destiny; they loved peace; and
they cursed and destroyed the wicked. They were
not, however, even in those times, considered abso-
lutely perfect. The doing of wrong and evil was
ascribed to them, and they were considered subject
to repentance.

The people felt themselves directly dependent upon
the gods, and divine worship played an important
role. Temples were built and offerings were con-
stantly made.

It is probable that the holiness ascribed to the gods
may have been partly ritual and partly ceremonial;
yet as far as the people understood true moral holi-
ness, so they ascribed it to their gods. The oath,
for example, was sacred. It was a guarantee of truth,
and as such was taken in the name of the gods.

The gods could always be counted upon to be pro-
pitious to their suppliants. They were the hearers of
prayers ; they gave "waters of freedom" ; and bestowed

30 Religious and Moral Ideas

care upon pious deeds; they were the source of
righteousness ; and they loved to bless their own.

Above everything else the Babylonians and Assyr-
ians loved to think of their gods as righteous and
true. From the time of Sargon to that of Ashurbani-
pal, kings delighted in the title shar misharim, king
of righteousness, and took pleasure in ascribing that
attribute to all the gods, and especially to Shamash
and Adad. They themselves gave directions to "hate
evil and love right", and ascribe the same desire to
the gods. Of course, the Babylonian and Assyrian
words may not always have the same content as our
words "righteousness" and "truth", but the words
kittu and misharu, which we render by "righteousness"
and "truth", are derived from kanu, "to be firm", and
esliem, "to be straight", respectively; and, judging
from what was considered "right" and "true", or Icittu
and misharu, there is no reason for doubting that
the standard was very high. This we shall show in
the chapter on Morals.

The Babylonians and Assyrians were polytheists,
or at most henotheists. They believed in the existence
of innumerable gods and goddesses, all of whom pos-
sessed superhuman power and knowledge, but none of
whom were omniscient or omnipotent. Each social
group believed its own chief deity to be the greatest.
This is what is called henotheism. But monotheism,
the belief in one universal god, was never reached by
the Babylonians and Assyrians, much less ethical
monotheism, the belief in one universal, righteous,
and holy god.

Idea of Cod 31

There is a composition preserved in a Neo-Babylo-
nian copy of an older text, which reads as follows :

"Ea is the Marduk of canals;
Ninib is the Marduk of strength;
Nergal is the Marduk of war;
Zamama is the Marduk of battle;
Enlil is the Marduk of sovereignty and control;
Nabu is the Marduk of possession;
Sin is the Marduk of illumination of the night;
Shamash is the Marduk of judgments;
Adad is the Marduk of rain;
Tishpak is the Marduk of the host;
Gal is the Marduk of strength;
Shukamunu is the Marduk of the harvest."

This text has been taken as a proof that Marduk
was considered by the Babylonians as the only god, all
other deities being merely manifestations of him.
This might be granted if we knew nothing more
about the background of culture and religion out of
which this composition arose. But, at the same time
that men were reading it, the Babylonians were offer-
ing prayers and sacrificing to innumerable deities, all
distinct, independent, and often rivals of Marduk.
The text does nothing more than reflect the political
supremacy of Marduk, and remind us that Marduk
was the greatest of all Babylonian gods from the time
of Hammurapi on. It may even be said to indicate a
tendency toward that which resulted in a conception
of true monotheism, but the tendency did not go very
far.

There is probably to be found in Assyria a pro-
founder understanding of the idea of monopoly in the
god-head than in Babjdonia. Ashur did not stand

32 Religious and Moral Ideas

alone. There were other deities. But Ashur towered
so far above the others; his sway was so much more
coterminous with his own country, at least; his cult
was so much more independent of external and mate-
rial representations than that of other deities ; and he
became so much more transcendentalized, at least in
the minds of his people, than was the case with other
deities ; that if monotheism had been at all developed
in Babylonia and Assyria, the chances are that it
would have occurred in the latter country. But Baby-
lonians and Assyrians, from the first to the last, were
far too nationalistic, far too narrow, far too religiously
undeveloped, and far too morally limited, to arrive
at any adequate idea of the oneness, perfection,
omniscience, and omnipotence of God.

Eeviewing the idea of God as we have found it
among the Babylonians and Assyrians, it may be said
that they continually lifted up their eyes unto the
hills from whence their help came; they were not
content with peering into the valleys, nor even with
appealing to their fellow-men, to nature, or to pleas-
ure; but they felt the necessity of seeking help from
the highest source of which they were conscious.
They wanted help only from the best and noblest.
They believed that the spirits which permeated all
natural phenomena held in their power the destinies
of men ; they believed them to be gods, to be endowed
with the highest qualities of which they themselves
were conscious. They pinned their faith to them and
propitiated them in every possible manner. They loved
to think and dream about them, about their character

Idea of Cod 33

and manner of living. They ascribed the best they
knew to them. But just as the world in which these
Babylonians and Assyrians lived consisted of various
and diverse national groups, so there were various and
diverse gods. They had never arrived at an idea of
the world, sufficiently unified to lead them to any idea
of the unification in the being of the gods. They de-
veloped a remarkable material civilization; their art
and architecture, their language and literature, are
unsurpassed, in many ways, by those of any ancient,
and many modem peoples ; and their commercial and
legal ideas and institutions have become the common
heritage of modern civilization. A higher conception
of legal justice has never been developed anywhere.
The Code of Hammurapi, the innumerable contracts,
and the supremely just commercial transactions which
have been preserved to us from Babylonian and Assyr-
ian civilization would put many of our modern Wes-
tern institutions to shame. But, contrary to Eenan's
famous dictum, they were not monotheists, nor were
they physically constructed, geographically placed,
mentally equipped, morally endowed, or spiritually in-
spired to arrive at such a conception. Culturally they
were highly talented, commercially and legally they
were unsurpassed in the ancient world, but their moral
and religious horizon was considerably limited. The
gift of monotheism to humanity came from another
source — a politically insignificant, but religiously in-
spired people — but the world's art and architecture,
commerce and law are deeply indebted to the genius
of the Babylonians and Assyrians.

Ill

THE IDEA OF MAN IN BABYLONIA
AND ASSYRIA

When Balak wanted Balaam to curse the Israelites
who were approaching the domain of Moab, he tried
to cheat himself into thinking that if Balaam did
not see the whole of the forces of Israel he would be
induced to venture a malediction. And so Balak said
to Balaam, "Come, I pray thee, with me unto another
place, from whence thou mayest see them. Thou
shalt see but the utmost part of them, and shalt not
see them all ; and curse me them from thence." But it
was a vain expedient. The blessing came still pour-
ing forth more richly than before. The first thing
which strikes one in this story is the narrowness of
Balak's vision and its lack of absoluteness. There is
an absolute truth about everything, something which
is certainly the fact about that thing, entirely inde-
pendent of what people may think about it. No man
on earth may know that fact correctly — but the fact
exists. It lies behind all blunders and all partial
knowledge, a calm, sure, unfound certainty, like the

34

Idea of Man 35

great sea beneath the waves, like the quiet sky behind
its clouds. The infinite God knows it. It, and the
possession of it, makes the eternal difference between
perfect and partial knowledge.

The Babylonians and Assyrians were Balaks, not
intentionally, but on account of conditions and cir-
cumstances over which they had no control. In like
manner, all primitive peoples are Balaks. The truth
of man and the world in which he lives exists, but
primitive man's understanding of it is exceedingly
limited. Nevertheless, human nature insists upon
knowledge even though it be limited and imperfect.
The point where the Babylonians and Assyrians stood
gave but a partial view of the world and man. But
they rightly insisted upon the view, and upon an
expression of it.

Our knowledge of what the Babylonians and As-
syrians believed about the universe and the beginnings
of the race is derived chiefly from a poem of about
a thousand lines, called, in the Babylonian language,
Enuma Elish, and, by modern students. The Epic of
Creation; and partly from the Greek writings of a
late Babylonian priest, called Berossus.

According to them we learn that the Babylonians
and Assyrians believed that in the beginning there
existed a great primitive watery chaos. It consisted
of three elements, which were personified as Apsu,
Tiamat, and Mummu, namely, father, mother, and
son. This chaos gave rise to Anshar and Kishar,
heaven and earth, the ancestors of the gods Anu, Enlil,
and Ea. Tiamat quarrelled with the gods. Open

36 Religious and Moral Ideas

warfare ensued. Accordingly, Tiamat created eleven
monsters of chaos, headed by Kingu, whom she made
her husband, and to whom she entrusted the Tablets
of Destiny. Ea and Anu succeeded in disposing of
Apsu and Mummu, but were unable to seize Tiamat.
Marduk of Babylon then intervenes and offers his
services against Tiamat, on the condition that if
he is victorious he be made chief of the gods. This
was agreed upon, and Marduk entered the list against
Tiamat, whom he soon vanquished. According to
the later form of the story, Marduk cut the corpse
of Tiamat in two, out of which he made heaven and
earth. Then follow the several acts of creation, the
last of which being the creation of man. The Su-
merian version makes Aruru, the earth-goddess, the
creator of man. She took the blood of Tiamat and
mixed it with earth, the result being man. Another
account makes Ishtar the creator, and still another
makes the Word of Marduk the creative agent. The
Epic of Creation, as we have it, closes with a hymn
to Marduk as the creator-god. This account evidently
arose after the establishment of the supremacy of
Babylon and its god, Marduk. A shorter account,
and perhaps the earlier, knows nothing of a battle
between Marduk and Tiamat, but represents the world
as rising out of the ocean without conflict and in a
peaceful manner.

Such were the attempts of the early Babylonians
to account for the origin of the world and man. It
is imperfect and limited, coming from a point in time
and place where only a partial view was possible.

Idea of Man 37

But it was an earnest attempt, and as such must be
respected.

The Babylonians and Assyrians believed that there
existed an order of beings semi-human and semi-
divine. The most important and interesting of these
was Gilgamesh, whose exploits have been handed down
to us in a poem which we call the Gilgamesh Epic.

Gilgamesh was a semi-divine ruler of Uruk. His
people tire of him, and pray to the earth-goddess
Arum, who creates Enkidu (Eabani) as a companion
for him, who will entice him to leave the city. Enkidu
succeeds in his mission, and he and Gilgamesh go on
an adventure to the Cedar Mountain in the East.
There Ishtar dwells with her servant Humbaba. En-
kidu and Gilgamesh look upon Humbaba as unneces-
sary to their plans, so they slay him. After being rec-
onciled to the death of her bodyguard, Ishtar falls in
love with Gilgamesh, and offers her hand in marriage.
But Gilgamesh refuses. This enrages the goddess,
and she persuades Anu to create an ox to do battle
with Gilgamesh; but Gilgamesh with the aid of En-
kidu kills the ox. After this, Enkidu makes the
mistake of taunting Ishtar about her love affair with
Gilgamesh, which results in his death. Gilgamesh,
now left alone, bethinks himself of the hero who was
rescued from the flood, Utnapishtim, and goes to
seek him. He passes over the lofty mountain Mashu,
and crosses the great wild steppes, finally reaching
the paradise of the gods, situated on the shore of the
sea, where he finds the goddess Sabitu sitting on her
throne. He makes himself known to her and relates

38 Religious and Moral Ideas

to her his desires. She is friendly, and directs her
ferryman to row him over the "water of death".
Finally, Gilgamesh reaches the abode of Utnapishtim,
who tells him all about the Flood. While there,
Gilgamesh seeks and discovers the plant of life, but
on his way home from Utnapishtim a serpent meets
him and snatches the plant away. Gilgamesh reaches
Uruk a saddened man, but succeeds in getting into
touch with his former companion Enkidu, from whom
he learns about the realm of the dead.

Another king-story may be seen in the Etana Myth.
Etana is a primeval hero, and founder of kingship
on earth. He desires to set up a king, and applies,
on advice of Shamash, to an eagle for help to
bring from heaven a medical herb which shall secure
safe birth to the expected king. The eagle consents,
and Etana is carried to heaven, but on their return
both fall to the ground. However, the child is safely
bom and becomes king. Another story tells about
ten primeval kings between the time of Creation and
that of the Flood.

Thus the Babylonians and Assyrians, as well as
other primitive peoples, saw in kingship a link be-
tween gods and men. At first, the gods themselves
reigned over the men on earth, but they were succeeded
by semi-divine rulers, who, in turn, were succeeded
by a line of human kings. The same conception may
be seen back of the account of the antediluvian an-
cestors in the Book of Genesis.

The essential connection between the life of the gods
and the life of man is the gi'eat truth of the world, for

Idea of Man 39

"the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord". And
just as the candle obeys the fire, the docile wax ac-
knowledging the subtle flame as its master, so every
faithful follower of the gods gives them a chance
to utter themselves. There must therefore be a cor-
respondency of nature between the two, man must be
in cordial obedience to the gods. The gods are the
fire of the world, its vital principle, a warm, pervading
presence everywhere. And of this fire the spirit of
man is the candle. That is, man is of a nature which
corresponds to the nature of the gods, and just so far
as man is obedient to the gods, their life, which is
spread throughout the universe, gathers itself into
utterance. When the fire of the gods has found the
candle of the gods, the candle burns clearly and
steadily, guiding and cheering instead of bewildering
and frightening.

The Babylonians and Assyrians believed as firmly
as did the Hebrews that the blood thereof is the life
thereof. And when they represented man as created
out of the blood of the gods, they meant that he
partook of their life. The first man, who was also
a king, was semi-divine : he was made of earth mingled
with the blood of the gods. The Sumerian word for
soul, zid, "rush of the wind", and its Babylonian
equivalent napishtu, "breath", both refer to the breath
as the seat of the self, even as the Hebrews did, using
the same word, nepJiesh, as the Babylonians. But
neither the Hebrews nor the Babylonians and Assyr-
ians deny the current belief that the life of man was
in his blood.

40 Religious and Moral Ideas

However, man was created mortal. It was believed
to be possible to attain immortality, but only for ex-
ceptional persons, such as Utnapishtim and his wife.
Adapa received from Ea a high degree of wisdom,
but not the gift of immortality. He desired to attain
to eternal life, and would have done so had he eaten
of the food and water of life that were presented to
him by Anu. But, on refusing to do so, he lost that
great prize. Immortality was a possession of the gods
which they guarded with great jealousy.

The Babylonians and Assyrians had no theory of
the origin of sin. There is nothing to be found in
their literature w^hich corresponds to the Paradise
story of the Old Testament or the yetzer theory of
later Judaism. The interest of these people was prac-
tical rather than metaphysical. They recognized and
realized the existence of evil, and assumed, without
debate, that it came from the world of spirits which
surrounded them. They would not accuse their gods
of being the origin of sin ; but besides gods there were
numerous demons, spiritual and unseen beings from
whom came sickness and death, and to whom were
ascribed all evil. The "evil eye" was the malevolent
glance of a demon. In this respect they were the fore-
runners of Persian thought. Gods could not originate
evil, man did not, but the demons did. When Moses
descended from the mountain and found that his
brother Aaron had made a golden calf, which the peo-
ple were worshipping, he became very angry with him
and took the calf and destroyed it. Aaron, smarting
under the severe reprimand of his brother, does his

Idea of Man 41

* best to shift the blame from himself to something else

— the fire ; and he said to Moses that, having taken the
gold and having cast it into the fire, "there came out
this calf. The tendency to shift blame and responsi-
bility is a universal one; nor were the Babylonians
and Assyrians immune. The blame for the origin
of sin was shifted to the shoulders of demons and evil
spirits.

These early peoples were conscious, however, of the
fact that sin brought misfortune, and they did all
in their power by way of sacrifice, incantation, and
magic to remove it. The Flood is an instance of mis-
fortune due to sin. The gods behold the sinfulness
of mankind, and decide to send a flood. Ea, the lover
of man, reveals the decision of the gods to Utnapish-
tim, and commands him to build a ship for his safety
and the safety of his creatures. Utnapishtim obeys
just in time, for the flood breaks forth, the gods them-
selves flee to heaven for protection, and the mother of
the gods and Ea pray for a cessation of the tempest.
On the seventh day the storm ceases, and the waters
abate, and the ship rests on Mount Nasir. After seven
days more, Utnapishtim sends forth from the ship
a dove, and then a swallow. Both return. Then he
sends forth a raven, which does not return. Dry land
appears, and Utnapishtim disembarks and sacrifices
to the gods ; but not to Enlil who brought on the flood,
and who wishes utterly to destroy mankind.

The point to be noted in connection with the Flood
story is that it was considered the result of sin, for
all suffering resulted in sinfulness. This was an

42 Religious and Moral Ideas

accepted Babylonian and Assyrian dogma. The sin
was not necessarily what we call "moral", it was some
act or deed which resulted in the displeasure of the
gods and oppression by demons. Demons sent sin.
They also sent punishment. But man was to resist
the sin which was sent by the demons. Failure to
resist it resulted in punishment. But man had the
necessary power of resistance. He possessed free will
and self respect. These he never surrendered. He
was humble in the presence of his gods, listening to
what they had to say. He was willing to prostrate
himself before them, and to signify his readiness to
receive what they should tell him by the complete
disowning of anything like worth or dignity in him-
self. But there is another picture with another truth.
There comes a time when a man must stand on his
feet; not in the attitude of humiliation but in the
attitude of self respect; not stripped of all strength,
and lying like a dead man waiting for life to be
given him, but strong in the intelligent conscious-
ness of privilege, and standing alive, ready to coop-
erate with the gods who speak to him.

There is reason to believe that many a Babylonian
and Assyrian took this attitude in the presence of his
gods, and insisted upon his own dignity. But between
him and the demons and evil spirits, the source of all
sin and evil, and the bearers of punishment and suf-
fering, there was an endless conflict. And the only
assurance of final victory was in the help and protec-
tion of the gods.

Individuality was not greatly emphasised in Baby-

Idea of Man 43

Ionia and Assyria — at any rate, the average indi-
vidual did not receive much attention at the hands of
the scribe. The mass of extant literature deals with
the people as a whole or with certain special individ-
uals, such as the king and the prince, the priest and
the exorcist. We know that each man had a personal
protective deity, and had developed a somewhat keen
sense of his relationship to his god, and of his individ-
ual right in commercial matters ; but what the details
of his rights and privileges, his customs and manners,
his ambitions and ideas, were, we are unable to re-
construct with certainty.

It is comparatively easy, however, by the aid of
legal and contract literature, to gain a fairly complete
view of Babylonian and Assyrian every-day life. Ac-
cordingly, we find the family to have been the basis
of all social life and activity, and begun with the
marriage of two persons. Preparatory to the marriage
it was customary to draw up a legal contract; and,
before the contract could be entered into, the consent
of the parents was required. Without this contract
marriage was illegal, for "if a man takes a wife and
does not execute contracts for her, that wife is no
wife".

Monogamy seemed to have been the ideal, and to
a large extent the standard; but man was permitted
to have as many ^dves as he desired. Concubines
and slave-wives were very common at all periods.
The marriage relationship could be interrupted in
various ways, chiefly by divorce. In the earliest
periods the right of divorce belonged only to the man.

44 Religious and Moral Ideas

but as early as the First Babylonian Dynasty the
woman also could bring about a divorce.

The father was the head of the family, and at
all periods in Babylonian and Ass3Tian life held all
kinds of extraordinary powers over the members of
his family, although they were to some extent re-
stricted. He could divorce his wife at will, often
by mere repudiation; he could sell his children, boys
as well as girls ; and he could disinherit any of them
at will. But, on the other hand, he was responsible
for the support of his wives and children, and if he
divorce the former or disinherit the latter he was
liable to full or partial support of them. He could
adopt children at will, and name them as his heirs
in case of dispute with his own children. But he
was generally kind and loving, and assumed the re-
sponsibility of family life with earnestness and in
good faith.

The wife, on the other hand, had certain rights
which she was not slow in demanding. She could
repudiate a worthless husband and take her dowry
back to her father's house, and if she was viciously
slandered she could exact very severe penalties.

Children owed definite duties to their parents, and
especially in the case of loyalty, for which if they
were found wanting they were severely punished.
The Babylonians and Assyrians abhorred filial in-
gratitude. They were very often responsible for the
debts of their parents. But they possessed definite
rights of their own. They could claim a patrimony
which proceeded from gifts made by the father, and

Idea of Man 45

of which they could dispose freely. If in any way
they felt themselves unjustly treated, they had the
legal right to protest and to make claims. Orphans
were often well provided for, there being evidence
that they sometimes received a pension equal to the
mother's allowance while she was living.

Obligations of superiors to inferiors and of inferiors
to superiors were not neglected. The ideal servant
was one who was full of respect for his master, and
who always did what was becoming. Even the slave
had his rights, and it was permissible for him to enter
a lawsuit against his master and to assert his rights.
On the other hand, as Urukagina's reform shows,
there was often the need of a champion of the weak
against the strong, and the fact that this ruler was
such shows the keen realization of the rights of the
inferior as against the exactions of superiors.

Babylonian and Assyrian society consisted of three
classes: the amelu, which included the king, the chief
officers of state, and landed proprietors ; the mushkenu,
which included the bulk of the subject population;
and the ardu or slave. At the head stood the king
as representative of the gods. In the case of Ham-
murapi we have an example and model of the ideal
king. From the Epilogue and Prologue to his Code
we are reminded that he is "the perfect King", "a
ruler who is like a real father to his people", he was
the doer of right, "the king of righteousness", whose
"scepter is righteousness", "who made justice prevail
and who ruled the race with right", who "made right-
eousness to shine forth on the land", who "established

46 Religious and Moral Ideas

law and justice in the land and promoted the welfare
of the people", whose ideal was a "peaceful country"
and "pure judgment", and who "brought about plenty
and abundance". In short, the king was considered
perfect and as such was honoured with titles which
actually related him to the gods. He was, thus, the
son of the god, and sometimes, as in the case of Ham-
murapi, was supplicated and revered almost like a
god. Hammurapi was undoubtedly an exceptional
king, who was not only himself a righteous ruler,
but who also expressed the wish that his successors
would be as righteous and as vigilant in rooting out
the wicked and evildoer from the land as he was.

The king was the fountain of all law, and from him
radiated the power which set in motion the machinery
of the state. He gave directions for the levying of
taxes and tribute and through him the state controlled
business and commerce.

The king was the champion of the oppressed in-
dividual, and was ever active in righting any wrong
that may have been done to him. He opposed the
oppression of the weak by the strong, and he held
his officials to the duty of observing the same standard
of righteousness. He set his face against official cor-
ruption, against greed in business, and against rob-
bery and theft. To assist him in the administration
of the state he created an army of officials whose
benefices were inalienable from the official line.

The state likewise took an interest in the individual,
and ransomed a man if neither he himself nor the
temple could do so. The state was in such matters

Idea of Man 47

an agent of the king, just as the temple was. This
interest was a duty to which the individual was fully
alive. In fact, the individual in Babylonia and As-
syria was as much alive to his personal interests as
at any other period of the world's history.

The individual though strictly classified was never-
theless carefully guarded in his rights. Thus if a
rich man stole, the deed was punished in the light
of his riches, that is, he had to pay more in compen-
sation than if a poor man stole. Yet if a poor man
had nothing to pay for such an offence he was to be
put to death. In like manner, the fine for a quarrel
between two nobles was larger than if it had been be-
tween two poor men; but it should also be noticed
that if a man of noble class made an assault upon a
poor man he was taxed less than if the assault had
been upon one of his own class. If a member of the
middle class made an assault upon a noble the assault
was punished by being publicly beaten.

The individual was treated in every way as thor-
oughly responsible. He was free to make gifts, with,
of course, the consent of those interested ; he had the
right to protest against injustice; and his slanderer
was punished with death. On the other hand, the
individual was held responsible for his acts. A royal
official who secretly hired a substitute when he was
sent on an errand was put to death, and the substitute
received the office. The law was the great safeguard
and ruled that important statements must be made
on oath in the presence of witnesses, and if witnesses
could not be produced the man was assumed to be a

48 Religious and Moral Ideas

liar. Even contracts to guard against falsehood were
drawn up.

The Babylonians and Assyrians were primarily a
law-abiding people. The will of the gods was ex-
pressed in the law of the land, and the king was its
guardian. The law was assumed to be righteous, be-
cause it was so bound up with the idea of the right-
eousness of the gods. And so it came about that the
court was usually the temple where lawsuits were tried
and contracts were made. And yet injustice was
sometimes known in the very courts of law, although
whenever discovered it was punished. The judge
rendered judgment according to royal law, but once
the judgment was rendered it could not be changed
without incurring severe punishment. There were
different grades of judges, but the chief distinction
was between civil and temple judges. The former
could not receive an affidavit; this was due to the re-
ligious character of the oath. Bribery was often
attempted but it was always punished. But in case
a man was not satisfied with the decision rendered
against him he had the right to appeal to the king.

Although the settlement of a dispute may be
made out of court, lawsuits before legally constituted
judges were the rule. Three witnesses were always
necessary, an oath was taken, and rewards and punish-
ments directed. Punishments were often exceedingly
severe and out of proportion to the offence. Thus,
death was the penalty for: perjury in a capital
suit, false accusation of killing, theft of things
belonging to the temple or the palace of a king, buy-

Idea of Man 49

ing property of a man without witnesses or contracts,
or recei\'ing such property on deposit, failure to pay
fines for theft or to make restitution, theft and sale
of stolen goods, false accusation of stealing, house-
breaking, brigandage, theft, kidnapping a free-born
child, negligence if ending in death, allowing a palace
slave to escape or sheltering him, detaining an escaped
slave, causing a barber to mark a slave wrongfully,
procuring a substitute, in the case of a soldier, fraud
on the part of a district governor, oppression, failure
of a woman who sold wine to capture a criminal, open-
ing a wine house by a devotee, accepting a low tariff
by a wine woman, infidelity and incest, remarrying
on the part of a woman while her husband was absent,
repudiation of her husband by a disreputable woman,
inability to pay by a tenant farmer, and falsely accus-
ing a man of laying a spell upon another.

Severe mutilation was legally infl.icted. Thus, a
boy's tongue was cut out who denied his parents, a
son's eye was put out who abandoned his foster par-
ents, a nurse who substituted a child for the one who
died while in her care lost her breasts, a son who
struck his father lost his hand, and a slave who struck
a freeman's son lost his ear.

The lex talionis was very common, especially for
injuries inflicted unintentionally. It was appealed to
chiefly as a preventative. The ordeal by water was
practised.

Babylonian and Assyrian justice has a commercial
aspect in our judgment, e. g., a patrician had to pay
three times as much in case of theft as a plebeian,

50 Religious and Moral Ideas

but the penalty for injuring a patrician was more
than that for injuring a plebeian. Although the fact
that a surgeon's fee was greater for a patrician than
for a plebeian seems thoroughly modern.

Much care was taken to fix and define ownership
of property. Property rights were possessed by all
classes of people and by women and children as well
as by men. The law controlled buying and selling,
renting and letting, redeeming and sharing, but a
royal charter could dispense from various obligations.
A sharp distinction was made between real and per-
sonal property.

Trade and business were placed on a firm legal
basis. Sales, purchases, endowments, commissions,
loans, inheritance, wills, settlements, gifts, and all
kinds of contracts, were legal transactions usually
made in the presence of witnesses and often accom-
panied by an oath. Business companies were legally
formed, who commissioned agents and carried on for-
eign as well as domestic trade. Exact accounts were
kept and profits were strictly shared and distributed,
and the power of attorney was recognized. Orders
were honoured and legal receipts were given. A debt
was legally binding, the lender possessing the right of
cancellation, except where the debt was due to storm,
flood, or drought, when there was an automatic abate-
ment. Goods could be accepted in lieu of money or
com for debt. Eates of sale and storage were often
settled by law, and neglect to make satisfaction in
business matters was promptly punished.

The bulk of labour in Babylonia and Assyria was

Idea of Mart 51

done by slaves, although there were freemen, espe-
cially freed slaves, who were labourers. Slaves were
acquired by gift or inheritance, by capture or by
purchase. They were treated as property, sold, hired,
loaned, acquired by inheritance or gift, and listed
like other property. The wages of a slave were always
paid to his master. A female slave (a-ma-at) was ac-
quired in the same way as a male slave and could
be sold and exchanged and given or taken in marriage.
She could become the wife of a freeman, in which
case the children were free, and her marriage was a
legal one.

A freeman was responsible for the support of his
slave. A slave could be adopted as a son, the cere-
mony being a religious one with an elaborate ritual.
The names of the real parents of a slave are never
given. Slaves were often freed, when they assumed
all the rights of a freeman. The freeing of a slave
was a religious ceremony. One word translated "to
free", u-da-am-mi-ku-si-ma, means purified; another
expression is pu-zu u-li-il, '^cleanse his forehead". A
captive slave if brought home is freed from his slavery.
A freed slave was obliged to support his father during
his lifetime, but after that the children of the master
had no claim upon the former slave; a freed female
slave could enter a convent and be dedicated to a god.

If a freed slave repudiated his foster father he was
punished as a freeman, but if a slave repudiated his
master, he lost an ear. If a slave wife repudiated
her husband's mother, the mother could brand her and
sell her.

52 Religious and Moral Ideas

The penalty imposed upon a slave for injuring a
freeman was severe, in one instance his ear being
cut off, but still more severe was the penalty imposed
upon a man who abducted a slave.

The lot of the slave was hard, but, as we have seen,
he had certain well-defined rights, and he could engage
in business by agreeing to pay a fair percentage of
his profit to his master.

It has always and everywhere been considered
greatly to the advantage of a nation to be at peace
with its neighbours, and to this end treaties were often
made. At the very dawn of Sumerian history there
is evidence of a treaty between the chiefs of neighbour-
ing states, and throughout Sumeria's history there are
many references to the formation of treaties, one of
the most famous being that described on the Stela of
the Vultures between Lagash and Umma. The power
of treaty making was considered always to belong to
the deity. The chiefs made the treaty, but it was
always in the name of their gods.

An essential part of the ritual of a treaty was the
oath which was taken in the name of the gods and
sometimes in that of the king. The oath was a con-
ditional malediction, and violation of a treaty entailed
not only a curse, but was also visited with severe pun-
ishments.

Wars were of very frequent occurrence in early
Sumeria, because of the many small and independent
city-states which were so near to one another that
their interests were always clashing. An interesting
example of almost continuous conflict between two

Idea of Man 53

such states is that of Umma and Lagash. The con-
queror was very often cruel and gloried in leaving the
bones of the enemy to bleach in the open field.

All wars were religious, for the Sumerians always
believed that they fought under the direction and ad-
vice of their gods. When one city made war upon an-
other it was because their gods were at feud. The
destruction of the enemy was often ascribed to the
actual agency of their deity, and plundering was car-
ried out at the god's command. The foe was consid-
ered unconsecrated and ritually unclean, and a foreign
land was a wicked one. Yet, they could be merciful,
if the dead seen on the Stela of the Vultures be not
only their own but also those of the enemy.

There is practically nothing known about how the
Sumerians treated an individual stranger or foreigner,
like the gei- among the Hebrews. From the foreigner's
point of view, exile was never contemplated with any
degree of pleasure, but that would be natural.

Between Babylonia and surrounding countries there
was a good deal of peaceful intercourse. It was
the boast of Kudur-Marduk of Elam that he had
never done evil {mi-im-ma) to Larsa and to Emutabal
but did what pleased Shamash. It was the desire of
all Babylon kings to carry on peaceful trade and com-
merce with foreign peoples, for they desired nothing
more than an opportunity to develope their material
resources. On the other hand, warlike relations be-
tween nations were the normal state of affairs. Even
Hammurapi who was a lover of the peaceful arts
was often involved in war, especially with his fa-

54 Religious and Moral Ideas

mous contemporary, Eim-Sin of Ur, and each king
appealed to his gods for aid against his opponent.

Levies were made especially upon labourers to carry
on foreign wars, and the punishment was death for
a person to harbour a slacker. These wars were the
source of much plunder, especially of foreigners, who
were sold as slaves, and large sums of money were
paid by the opposing sides for the redemption of im-
portant prisoners.

Eesident aliens, however, were usually treated with
consideration and could become citizens, being under
no disabilities.

In Assyria's warlike literature there is little room
for peaceful sentiments, although there is no trace
of political disability on the part of foreigners in
Assyria, and oaths that bound Assyria to a foreign
country in treaty were inviolable. However, Assyria
was a great war-like country. She gloried in her
armies and conquests. Her great war-gods, Ashur and
Ishtar, gave her all victory. All war was religious.
It was to enhance the power of the gods, and to ex-
tend their boundaries.

The army was recruited from all ranks, especially
from serfs and slaves, the military unit being the
bowman and his pikeman and shield-bearer. There
is abundant evidence to show that the Assyrian kings
and their armies were exceedingly cruel in battle.
Corpses of enemies were mutilated, their lands were
sowed with salt, heads of the slain were exhibited in
piles outside the cities, and gathered to be counted
hj royal officials. Although the kings were sometimes

Idea of Man 55

merciful, they loved to boast of great cruelties and
inhumanity. Assyria was militaristic to the core,
she exulted in conquest and in all the cruelties which
were believed to be capable of striking terror into
the hearts of her enemies.

In Babylonia and Assyria men believed in the ex-
istence of numerous gods, some more powerful than
others, some good and some bad. The great gods
were considered, as a rule, favorable to man, but
the Igigi were most hostile. The king was the pro-
tege of the gods, being defended by them ; and from
them, the source of all Justice, he derived his author-
ity. The gods not only created man, but they were the
source of all stability. Their mouths were pure and
could not "be altered". The gods were the real judges,
kings and human judges being their representatives.
The greatest of all the divine judges was Shamash,
the establisher of right and justice, the judge of
heaven and earth, and with him was associated Adad.

The gods were very anthropomorphically conceived,
and were created as well as human beings; they had
their jealousies and other limitations and were sub-
ject to decay and death.

Faith in the gods was universal, and men contin-
ually appealed to them. There is considerable evi-
dence that the individual Babylonian appealed directly
to his god or goddess. Such expressions as "thou
from whom cometh the life of all people" are not
to be taken as evidence of monotheism, but only as
examples of the confidence which individuals had in
the particular deity to whom they were for the time

56 Religious and Moral Ideas

being directing their supplications. Very often in just
such expressions, the suppliant shows his conscious-
ness of the existence of other gods, e. g., one prays,
"0 Sin, as the first-bom of Bel, no equal hast thou."
Nor is the expression, "who can comprehend the ways
of god", to be taken as monotheistic. The most
powerful or most popular god was often addressed as
if he were "god" without implying thereby the non-
existence of other deities.

The gods were not only supplicated, they were also
adored and praised as the source of all help, comfort,
compassion, and strength.

There was a very close and intimate relation ex-
isting between king and gods. In most ancient times,
it was believed that the gods really reigned as kings
on earth, and so, in later times, they were often
addressed as "king". Then the time came when the
king was considered the very offspring of the gods,
but by the first Babylonian dynasty such a belief was
considered fictitious, the king being the servant of the
gods. Hammurapi believed that he was called by
the gods to enlighten the land and to further the wel-
fare of the people, to prevent the strong from oppress-
ing the weak, to destroy the wicked and the evil, and
to cause justice to prevail in the land. He was the es-
pecial protege of Shamash, who endowed him with
justice and to whom he was obedient. He, however,
was pious and suppliant to all the great gods, being
their faithful servant and worshipper, and to whom
he ascribed all his might.

In return for divine favours, the Babylonian and

Idea of Man 57

Assyrian kings assumed a supreme interest in the
temple and its worship. Hammurapi brought abun-
dance to Egissirgal and made prosperous the shrines
of Malkat. Sometimes the temples were called upon
to ransom a man who had been taken captive, and
sometimes the king forced loans from the temple,
but the latter was considered wrong, and the former
was done only because of the great wealth possessed
by the temples, in itself a proof of their popularity.
The house of the god was the home of justice and
the place of prayer, of sacrifice, and of praise. Any
violation of the temple's rights was looked upon with
displeasure, and theft therefrom was punished with
death. This was, however, the punishment for all
burglary.

As the gods were the source of all justice, so in their
name were all oaths taken and maledictions uttered.
The sinner was in constant dread of the gods who
hated sin and punished wrong.

It is, however, just the ordinary man of whom we
should like to know more, for he has his own peculiar
interest. He is significant because of his insignifi-
cance. He interests us because he presents the type to
which we almost all belong. He ought to be interest-
ing also because he represents so much the largest ele-
ment in universal human life. The average man is by
far the most numerous man. The man who goes be-
yond the average, the man who falls short of the
average, both of them, by their very definition, are ex-
ceptions. They are the outskirts and fringes, the capes
and promontories of humanity. The great continent

58 Religious and Moral Ideas

of hiiman life is made up of the average existences, the
mass of two-talented capacity and action. The great
multitudes of men are neither very rich nor very
poor. The real character and strength of a com-
munity lies neither in its millionaires nor in its pau-
pers but in the men of middle life, who neither have
more money than they know how to spend nor are
pressed and embarrassed for the necessities of life.
The same is true in the matter of joy and sorrow.
The great mass of men during the greater part of their
lives are neither exultant and triumphant with de-
light, nor are they crushed and broken with grief.
They do not go shouting their rapture to the skies,
and they do not go wailing their misery to the S3rmpa-
thetic winds. They are moderately happy. Or if we
consider mental capacity, most men are neither sages
nor fools. Or if we think about learning, few men
are either scholars or dunces. Or if we consider pop-
ularity and fame, those whom the whole world praises
and those whom all men despise are both of them ex-
ceptional. We can count them easily. The great mul-
titude whom we cannot begin to count, who fill the
vast middle-ground of the great picture of humanity,
is made up of men who are simply well enough liked
by their fellow-men.

And when we come to the profounder and the more
personal things, to character and religion, there, too,
it is the average man that fills the eye. Where are
the heroes? We find them if we look, ^liere are
the rascals? We find them too. "WTiere are the
saints? They shine where no true man's eye can

Idea of Man 59

fail to see them. But as to the great host of men, we
know how little reason they give us to expect of them
either great goodness or great wickedness.

These are the men of Babylonia and Assyria of
whom we should like to know more — men whose lot
was not the highest, nor whose misfortune was the
greatest, but the rank and file of their day. We can
imagine them obedient to their over-lords, kind to
their families, and reverent to their gods. Into that
busy commercial life so characteristic of Babylonia
and Assyria we should like to get a peep. Those men
who fought their battles with so much vigour, did their
business with so much method, and served their gods
with so much elaboration, we should like to study.
Perhaps the future has more surprises in store for us.
Less than a hundred years ago men could not imagine
the vast areas of human endeavour upon which the
work of the archaeologist and student of culture and
religion have thrown light. Little was known of
Babylonia and Assyria then, and far less of Sumeria.
Now we can trace their military campaigns, read
their poems, study their laws, and contemplate their
religious visions. With the passage of Mesopotamia
into the hands of a responsible and sympathetic
government, and with the careful sifting of the sands
of the Babylonian and Assyrian deserts, it is not pos-
sible to limit the extent of further information, about
these ancient peoples, that may be forthcoming.

But in spite of our fragmentary information, we
know enough to be able to state that the ideal of the
early inhabitants of the Tigris-Euphrates valley was

60 Religious and Moral Ideas

a very high one. They considered themselves offspring
of the gods, endowed with high mental and spiritual
capacities, responsible for the welfare of the race, and
possessed of the capacity for endless development.
Such was man as he laboured and toiled, sowed and
reaped, loved and hated, thought and dreamed in the
mighty empires that were once Babylonia and Assyria.

IV

THE IDEA OF MEDIATION IN BABYLONIA
AND ASSYRIA

The consciousness of wrongdoing is, and has always
been, a universal experience among men. The belief
that wrongdoing is an offense against the gods is its
corollary. In fact, wrongdoing is an offense only
because it is displeasing to the gods. When David
said, "I have sinned against the Lord", or when the
Babylonian penitent enumerated all the wrongdoings
he could think of in order to locate the cause of his
god's displeasure at him, he testified to the truth of
this principle that all sin is an offense against god, yea,
even is sin just because it is an offense against god.
All this assumes that man believes in the existence of
the gods, and in his necessary relationship to him.
And with that assumed, the first step in the conscious
relationship between man and god is the expression of
merit or fault on the part of man in respect to god.
The next step is the full acknowledgment of the
true moral character of the relationship. And then
follows the full acknowledgment that merit or fault
is pleasing or offensive to god.

61

62 Religious and Moral Ideas

With the consciousness of a moral relationship with
the gods, and of a necessary dependence upon them,
and obligation toward them, man immediately be-
comes concerned with the problem of mediation, that
is, with the question of how he is to be represented
in the presence of the gods. Now there are two ele-
ments involved in the idea of mediation. They are,
gods and man — man conscious of his relationship to
and dependence upon the gods, desirous of help ; and
the gods, presumably able, ready, and willing to help.
Between these two elements comes the mediatorial
power, for the ancient never trusted himself to appear
directly before his god. He believed in the necessity
of a mediator.

Among the Babylonians and Assyrians the chief
mediator between man and god was the king. This
was so because the kings were believed to be the off-
spring of the gods. In fact, the first earthly king
was a veritable god, and represented the great gods
upon earth. Such a role was probably played by Ea
of Eridu, and by the prophet-god Nabu. The per-
sistence of this idea in later times is seen in the
insistence of some penitents to appeal to specific gods
to intercede for them to other gods. When the gods
retired to their heavenly home, they left as their rep-
resentatives certain semi-divine beings, who were rul-
ers of men, and mediators between men and the gods.
Such semi-divine rulers were Gilgamesh of Uruk,
two-thirds god and one-third man, who was a great
and energetic ruler; Azag-Bau, queen and founder
of the city of Kish; Sargon of Agade, whose mother

Idea of Mediation 63

was a priestess, but whose father was a god; and
others, such as Adapa, Etana, and probably Tammuz.

The rule of these semi-divine kings was followed
by human dynasties. But all the characteristics, privi-
leges, and obligations of these rulers were transferred
to their successors. The fundamental duty of a semi-
divine ruler was mediation, and that became the first
obligation of his human successor. The Babylonian
and Assyrian monarch was primarily a representative
of the gods upon earth ; he often took the title dingir,
or ilu, god ; he was the "son of god" ; he was at first
the only offerer of gifts, of sacrifices, to the gods;
and he was the sole priest and only mediator.

The Babylonians and Assyrians had never developed
a belief in angels and demons, as mediators. They
believed in good and evil spirits. There were good
and evil spirits. There were good spirits, or minor
protective deities, called ilu amelu, personal god, ilu
hiti, house god, and ilu ali, city god, and every house
had its sliedu and lamassu, protective spirits. All
these acted as protectors against the spirits of evil.
Demons were sometimes inferior gods, the spirits of
the unburied dead, disembodied ghosts, or semi-divine
creatures or goblins. They were often represented
in groups of seven. But neither demons nor good
spirits ever acted as mediators between gods and men.
The evil spirits were the source of all suffering and
sickness, and the office of the good spirits was to
counteract them. A man may be possessed by a good
spirit, when health and happiness and prophetic
power results; but he was also subject to possession

64 Religious and Moral Ideas

by a demon, in which case, sickness and suffering re-
sulted. In fact, sickness was thought of in terms of
demoniacal possession, and there was a demon for
almost every phase of sickness, just as in modern days
there is a germ for every type of disease.

Nor did the tendency in Babylonia to personify
the word of the gods, as creative power, result in a
mediator. The only line of mediatorial power was
through divine beings, semi-divine beings, and the
king as "son of god", and as priest and representative
of the people. But with the creation of larger groups
of people into national life, and the multiplication of
kingly duties, the king's office as priest had to be
delegated to representatives. This resulted in the
establishment of priests and of a priesthood. But
still the king remained priest par excellence. This
statement is borne out by many facts as well as by
the title which designated the king, namely patesi,
or "priest prince". The king was primarily a priest
{patesi is the Sumerian equivalent of the Semitic
word islisliakhu, from which the word shangu, priest,
is derived) and representative of the gods to mankind.
The representatives of the priest-prince were priests.

The light of the body is the eye, and the eye of
the human soul is that which enables man to see god.
The one appointed channel through which man and
the gods, the two halves of the universe, came into
contact was the priesthood. The priesthood, as a
power of mediation between man and god, was the
eye of the soul. Without the physical eye the world
might still be real ; but it will be forever unknowable

Idea of Mediation 65

to the man sitting in his prison of sightlessness, where
all the glory cannot reach him. But let the window
of his eye be opened and it all comes pouring in;
runs through his frame and finds out his intelligence ;
says to his brain, "Here I am, know me !" ; says to
his heart, "Here I am, love me!" To such a man
the whole bright world has sprung to life; and the
window of his prison, the gateway of the entering
glory, the light of the body, is the eye.

So with the unseen, invisible, spiritual world. That
world, too, must and can testify itself, report itself to
the human intelligence through its appropriate chan-
nel of communication and mediation, just as the world
of visible nature manifests and reports itself through
the organ of the eye. Now it is just the existence
of that spiritual world, and the possibility of man's
being in communication with it, intelligently know-
ing it, intelligently loving it — that it is about which
man's profoundest hopes and fears have always clus-
tered, about which they are clustering to-day, perhaps
more anxiously than ever. It is a world which has
always been conceivable. All man's mental history
bears witness that he can picture to himself a world
in which the gods dwell. The bridge, then, which was
thought capable of connecting the world of gods with
the world of men, the eye through which man could
see god, was the mediatorial power of the priesthood.

The development of kingship, the title of the early
Babylonian kings, and the regalia of the king, espe-
cially his tall tiara or mitre with long, flowing cords,
all point to the priestly office and character of the

66 Religious and Moral Ideas

king. But with the development of commiimty life
it was physically impossible for the king to perform
all the required priestly rites. He consequently del-
egated his priestly power, without surrendering any
of his own priestly rights, to a class of men, who w^ere
given the title of the same meaning and content as
that which he himself bore, namely shangu, "'^priest".

With the passage of time this class of men waxed
numerous and powerful, and were divided into many
orders with many titles. \ATien a strong king sat on
the throne, the power and influence of the priesthood
were held in check, but w^ak kings were often the mere
puppets of the priests, who gained more and more
power, and established more and more priestly prece-
dents. At last they became hereditary, the office
descending from father to son ; they were highly edu-
cated; they usurped political power; and sometimes
became very corrupt, politically, insomuch that Uru-
kagina, for example, was forced to bring about a
sweeping reform of the priesthood.

At the head of any local priesthood stood the high
priest, sJiangu rahu, shangu dannu, or shangu maliJiu,
He was called ^^ord", and was invested by the king
himself. In subordination to him were many orders,
chief of which were: the MasJiu or Masliashu, whose
duties were primarily connected with ritual and cere-
monies, a kind of master of ceremonies, and the Uru-
galhi, a master of ceremonies for evening services;
the Pashishu, or anointers, with a minor order called
the Kisallah; the Nam, the musician priest par excel-
lence, a kind of canon-precentor, and the 8urru, a

Idea of Mediation 67

chief canon-precentor; the Bai'u, or seer, with his
assistant, the Aharakku; the Ashipu, the incantation
priest, an order which became very powerful, who held
the sacred books of incantation lore, and who derived
their wisdom from Ea, the god of wisdom; and their
assistant, the Asu priest who specialized in water in-
cantations ; the Kalu priest, who directed lamentations
and prepared astrological reports; the Shailu, or in-
terpreter of dreams; and the Sukkallu, messenger or
deacon. Then there w^as the Galldbu, or priestly ton-
sure cutter ; and there were other minor orders. There
were also priestesses — as many as twenty orders, two-
thirds as many orders as that of the priesthood — and
in addition, there were many classes of persons devo-
ted to and engaged in the service of the gods. There
were vestal virgins; there were teachers; there were
priestly judges ; there were astrologers and physicians ;
and there were priestly scribes. In short, there was
no profession of influence and importance which had
not at some period or other come under the sway of
the priesthood.

Many of these orders demanded that a candidate
for the priesthood must be of noble birth, of priestly
blood, perfect in bodily growth, and learned in all
branches of science. Before ordination, the candidate
was clean shaven, as a part of the rite, the king some-
times performing this important act; and was pre-
sented with a tiara, the symbol of his priestly office.
After ordination, the priest was obliged to wear a
distinct dress — a fringed cloak, reaching to the feet,
with right arm uncovered — ^he was to go barefooted.

68 Religious and Moral Ideas

and to assume the tonsure. A special tithe was in-
stituted for the priesthood, and fees were demanded
for all important services.

Man rarely appears before his god empty-handed.
He generally desires something, and in order to be
sure of the good will of his god he presents a gift.
The gift usually took the form of an animal — some-
times, on very serious occasions, a human being —
which was killed, and either completely consumed by
fire, or roasted and eaten, the gods receiving a share.
This was called a sacrifice. Thus the regular accom-
paniment, or means of mediation, became a sacrifice.
And, when the office was delegated to the priesthood,
sacrifice was the means of operation.

The earliest idea of a sacrifice was that of com-
munion. Men and their god joined together in a
sacred meal, and partook of a sacred animal, in whose
veins had run the blood common to gods and man,
that is, the life of gods and man. The object of the
sacred meal was to strengthen that bond of relation-
ship between man and the gods by partaking of the
common life. It was only later that the idea of sac-
rifice as a gift to the gods arose, and still later the
idea of a gift was translated into terms of a temple
due.

The chief materials used in sacrifice were: oxen,
sheep, domestic-animals, fowl, fish, wild-animals,
bread, wine, water, mead, honey, butter, milk, oil,
grain, fruit, flour, cane, myrtle, and cedar and cypress
wood.

Many elaborate sacrificial services were developed.

Idea of Mediation 69

and liturgies to correspond with them. One of the
most important forms of sacrifice was the sin-offering,
which was considered very efficacious. The special
gods to whom this offering was made were almost
always Ea, Shamash, and Marduk. The ceremony
was later connected with the Shiptu, or incantation
ceremony. The rite was very elaborate, the chief
feature being cleansing. An altar was erected in
the open air, a lamb was sacrificed, with dates, meal,
honey, butter, and wine, and incense was freely used.
Manual acts w^re numerous, including bowings and
prostrations. The so-called sacrifice to the dead was
the Kispu, from the verb kasapu, "to leave remains
of food for the dead". This rite was a gift-offering
to the spirits of the dead, and not a sacrifice in the
strict sense of the term. The dead were not wor-
shipped, the purpose being merely to furnish them
with food. Associated with this last rite were services
of lamentation and mourning for the dead, which were
purely ritual exercises without any element of worship.
The great central act of worship was the sacrifice,
and the bond, which was renewed, was that life
common to man and to the gods. This was no mere
symbolism, at least to the earliest Babylonians and
Assyrians. There was no doubt in their minds about
the reality of the divine relationship between men,
animals, and the gods. The same blood ran through
the veins of all of them. In the blood was life, and
the partaking thereof, and of that in which the blood
existed, the flesh, constituted a partaking of the
common life, and a strengthening of that common

70 Religious and Moral Ideas

bond. To the Babylonian and Assyrian mind a sac-
rifice was a great and solemn reality. Even the meal-
sacrifice was interpreted in the same way, but was not
considered as worthy. The reason for Yahweh's dis-
crimination between Cain and Abel was that Abel
offered an animal sacrifice, while Cain's was a meal-
sacrifice. But the sacrifice was the central act of
worship, and the normal mode of mediation between
gods and men.

Nor were these sacrifices offered in a gloomy silence,
as if the people were doing a hard duty which they
would not do if they could help it; but with a burst
of jubilant joy and with songs of gladness which
rang down through the crowded courts of the temple,
the host of the Babylonians and Assyrians claimed
for themselves anew their place in the obedience of
their gods. The act of sacrifice was done amid a
chorus of delight.

To us such a sacrifice, beautiful and inspiring as
it may be, would be only a symbol, because the things
which the childhood of the race values are the symbols
or types of the things which the manhood of the race
learns to value. The man does not want the boy's
sports because he has found in the serious work of
life the true field for those emulations and activities
which were only practising and trying themselves in
the play-ground. The man can do without the boy's
perpetual physical activity, because he has come to
the pleasures of an active mind which the restlessness
of the child's body, in his pleasure in mere move-
ment, anticipated and prophesied. It seems as if

Idea of Mediation 71

the change from boyhood into a true manhood could
not be more justly described than as an advance from
dealing with symbols to dealing with realities. And
if, then, every progress in life is a change from
some new boyhood to some yet riper manhood ; if every
man is a child to his own possible maturer self ; may it
not be truly stated that all the spiritual advances of
life are advances from some symbol to its reality, and
that the abandoned interests and occupations which
strew the path which the world has travelled are the
symbols which it has cast away because it had grasped
the realities for which they stood ? Even so, although
there are now no more smoking altars or bleeding
beasts among civilized men, we can nevertheless look
back to the childhood of the race, and see how real
those things were to them, w^hich we now look upon
as mere symbols of the true. They were the school-
masters leading mankind to higher things.

The most naive conceptions of prayer are possible
to polytheists, who can have no doubts about the
efficacy of prayer, for no such problems arise as those
with which monotheists are troubled. Where there
are many gods it is reasonable to suppose that one
may be able to outwit or over-rule another. But even
so, many Babylonian and Assyrian prayers gave ex-
pression to a very elevated and noble religious and
ethical point of view. Lugalzaggisi, king of Sumer,
about 2800 B. C. prayed thus to his god Enlil : ''0
Enlil, king of lands, may Anu to his beloved father
speak my prayer; to my life may he add life, and
cause the lands to dwell in security." Nebuchadrezzar,

72 Religious and Moral Ideas

king of Babylon, about 585 B. C. addressed his god
Marduk with the following beautiful prayer :

"0 eternal prince! Lord of all being!
The king whom thou lovest, and
Whose name thou hast declared
To be pleasing to thee —
Do thou lead aright his name,
Guide him in a straight path.
I am thy prince, thy favourite,
The work of thy hand;
Thou hast created me, and
Hast entrusted me
With dominion over all people.
According to thy favour, 0 Lord,
Which thou dost bestow
Upon all people,

Cause me to love thy exalted lordship.
And create in my heart
The worship of thy divinity.
Grant me whatever is pleasing to thee,
Because thou hast fashioned my life."

In this prayer the ideal has surely been reached.
The king prays not that his will be done, but that
his god might grant him "whatever is pleasing to
thee". Sometimes a prayer takes the form of a peni-
tential psalm rich in beauty and worship, and deep
in ethical thought. Thus a suppliant prays to Ishtar :

"I, thy servant, full of sighs, call upon thee.
The humble prayer of him who has sinned do thou accept.
If thou lookest upon a man, that man liveth,
O mighty mistress of mankind.
Merciful one to whom it is good to turn, who accepts sighs."

Perhaps the best of these psalms is an anonymous

Idea of Mediation 73

prayer to be addressed to any deity. It is full of
rich religious sentiment and high moral discernment :

"The anger of the lord, may it be appeased.

The god that I know not, be appeased.

The goddess that I know not, be appeased.

The god, known or unknown, be appeased.

The heart of my god, be appeased.

The heart of my goddess, be appeased.

The anger of the god and of my goddess, be appeased.

The god, who is angry against me, be appeased.

A transgression against a god I knew not, I have com-
mitted.

A transgression against a goddess I knew not, I have com-
mitted.

A gracious name, may the god I knew not, name.

A gracious name, may the goddess I knew not, name.

A gracious name, may the god known or unknown, name.

The pure food of my god have I imwittingly eaten.

The clear water of my goddess I have unwittingly drunken.

The taboo of my god I have unwittingly eaten.

To an offense against my goddess I have unwittingly
walked.

0 lord, my transgressions are many, great are my sins,

My god, my transgressions are many, great are my sins,

0 goddess, known or unknown, my transgressions are

many, great are my sins,
The transgression that I have committed, I know not,
The sin that I have wrought, I know not.
The taboo, that I have eaten, I know not.
The offense, into which I walked, I know not.
The lord, in the wrath of his heart, has regarded me.
The god, in the anger of his heart, has surrounded me.
The goddess, who is angry against me, hath made me like

a sick man,
A god, known or unknown, hath oppressed me,
A goddess, known or unknown, has wrought me sorrow.

1 sought for help, but none took my hand,

74 Religious and Moral Ideas

I wept, but none came to my side,

I cried aloud, and there was none that heard me.

I am full of trouble, overpowered, and dare not look up.

To my merciful god I turn, I utter my prayer,

The feet of my goddess I kiss, I touch them,

To the god, known or unknown, I turn, I utter my prayer.

To the goddess, known or unknown, I turn, I utter my

prayer.
0 lord, turn thy face to me, receive my prayer.
0 goddess, turn graciously to me, receive my prayer.
0 god, known or unknown, turn thy face to me, receive

my prayer.
0 goddess, known or unknown, turn graciously to me,

receive my prayer.
How long, 0 my god, let thy heart be appeased.
How long, 0 my goddess, let thy heart be appeased.
0 god, known or unknown, let thy heart's anger return to

its place.
0 goddess, known or unknown, let thy hostile heart return

to its place.
Mankind are foolish, and there is none that knoweth.
So many are they — who knoweth aught?
Whether they do evil or good, no one knoweth.
0 lord, cast not away thy servant.
In the waters of mire he lies, seize his hand!
The sins, that I have done, turn to a blessing.
The transgression, which I have committed, may the wind

bear away.
My manifold transgressions strip off like a garment.
0 my god, my transgressions are seven times seven, forgive

my transgressions.
0 my goddess, my transgressions are seven times seven,

forgive my transgressions.
0 god, known or unknown, my transgressions are seven

times seven, forgive my transgressions.
0 grddess, known or unknown, my transgressions are

seven times seven, forgive my transgressions.
Forgive my transgression, for I humble myself before thee.

Idea of Mediation 75

Thy heart, like a mother's, may it return to its place,
Like a mother that hath borne children, like a father that
hath begotten them, may it turn again to its place."

Prayers were both private and public. In public
services prayers became rather liturgical and stereo-
typed. They were usually written for the occasion,
and were chanted or sung by priests and people. The
following is a verse of a typical liturgical prayer:

"Oh, heart, repent; oh heart, repose, repose.
Oh, heart of Anu, repent, repent.
Oh, heart of Enlil, repent, repent."

But individual prayers, sometimes liturgical, but
more often private, said on all occasions — for the
Babylonians and Assyrians were a very pious people
— developed from a primitive form of divine adula-
tion, to a high place of noble religious and ethical
expression. Although they are surcharged with petty
worldly interests, and gross magical conceptions,
they very often show a penetration into ethical dis-
tinctions and a deep sense of the goodness, justice,
and holiness of the gods that is quite remarkable.

There were also hymns, remarkable for their relig-
ious and ethical teaching, although many of them
were marred by pure magical formulae. This class
of religious composition is very hard to date, though
the best hynms are certainly comparatively late.
Hymns were addressed to the various gods, usually
to one specified deity at a time. The great gods, such
as Sin, Shamash, Marduk, and Nabu, are the most
frequently supplicated deities in this class of liter-

76 Religious and Moral Ideas

ature. Sometimes hymn, prayer, and incantation
are blended into one, for example, a hymn to Ishtar,
in which beautiful religious thought passes into magic
and incantation:

"I pray unto thee, sovereign of sovereigns, goddess of god-

Ishtar, queen of all men, directress of mankind.

0 Irini, 0 exalted one, mistress of the Igigi,

Thou art mighty, thou art queen, thy name is exalted.

Thou art the light of heaven and earth, O valiant daughter
of Sin,

Directing arms, establishing combat,

Framing all laws, bearing the crown of dominion.

O lady, thy greatness is majestic, exalted above all the
gods.

Star of lamentation, who makest hostility among brethren
at peace.

Making them abandon friendship

For a friend. 0 lady of victory, making my desire im-
petuous.,

0 Gushea, who art covered with battle, who art clothed

with fear,
Thou dos-t perfect destiny and decision, the law of earth

and heaven.
Sanctuaries, shrines, divine dwellings, and temples worship

thee.
Where is thy name not heard? Where not thy decree?
Where are thy images not made? Where are thy temples

not founded?
Where art thou not great? Where art thou not exalted?
Anu, Bel, and Ea have exalted thee, among the gods have

they increased thy dominion.
Thou judgest the cause of men with justice and right.
Thou regardest the violent and destructive, thou directest

them every morning.

1 invoke thee, I, sorrowful, sighing, suffering,

Idea of Mediation 77

Look upon me, 0 my lady, and accept my supplication.

Pity me in truth, and hearken unto my prayer.

Speak deliverance unto me, let thy heart be appeased.

How long shall my body lament, full of troubles and dis-
orders ?

How long shall my heart be afflicted, full of sorrow and
sigh ing ?

How long shall my omens be sad, troubled, and confused?

How long shall my house be troubled, pouring forth com-
plaints?

Put an end to the evil bewitchments of my body, that I
may see thy clear light.

How long, O my lady, shall the ravenous demon pursue me ?

This shalt thou do .... a green bough shalt thou sprinkle
with pure water ; four bricks from the midst of a ruin
shalt thou set up;

A lamb shalt thou take; with carlatu wood shalt thou fill
the censer, and thou shalt set fire (thereto) ; sweet
scented woods, some upunta plant and some cypress
wood,

Shalt thou keep up; a drink offering shalt thou offer, but
thou shalt not bow thyself down. This incantation
before the goddess Ishtar

Three times shalt thou recite .... and thou shalt not
look behind thee.

0 exalted Ishtar, that givest light unto the four quarters
of the world."

But the greatest of all hymns handed down to us
from Babylonian and Assyrian religious literature
is an address to Shamash:

"The mighty mountains are filled with thy glance,
Thy holiness fills and overpowers all lands.
Thou dost reach the mountains, dost overlook the earth;
At the uttermost points of earth, in the midst of heaven,

thou dost move.
The inhabitants of the whole earth thou dost watch over,

78 Religious and Moral Ideas

All that Ea, the king, the prince, has created thou dost

watch over,
All created beings thou dost shepherd together.
Thou art the shepherd of all above and below,
Thou dost march in order over heaven's course,
To lighten the earth dost thou come daily.
The waters, the sea, the mountains, the earth, the heaven.
How .... orderly dost thou come daily.
Among all the Igigi there is not that giveth rest, but thee;
Among all the gods of the Universe, there is none that

exceeds thee.
At thy rising all the gods of the lands assemble together.
Who plans evil — his horn thou dost destroy,
Whoever in fixing boundaries annuls rights.
The unjust judge thou restrainest with force.
Whoever accepts a bribe, who does not judge justly — on him

thou imposest sin.
But he who does not accept a bribe, who has a care for the

oppressed,
To him Shamash is gracious, his life he prolongs.
The judge who renders a just decision
Shall end in a palace, the place of princes shall be his

dwelling.
The seed of those who act unjustly shall not flourish.
What their mouth declares in thy presence
Thou shalt burn it up, what they purpose wilt thou annul.
Thou knowest their transgressions; the declaration of the

wicked thou dost cast aside.
Every one wherever he may be is in thy care.
Thou directest their judgments, the imprisoned dost thou

liberate.
Thou hearest, 0 Shamash, petition, prayer, and appeal.
Humility, prostration, petitioning, and reverence.
With loud voice the unfortunate one cries to thee.
The weak, the exhausted, the oppressed, the lowly,
Mother, wife, maid appeal to thee.
He who is removed from his family, he that dwelleth far

from his city."

Idea of Mediation 79

There are other beautiful hymns extant which show
the extent to which the sense of the reality of the
gods had penetrated into the thoughts of the people.
They do credit to Babylonian and Assyrian piety,
and, though they are very sadly outnumbered by
magical compositions, they are sufficient evidence of
the vitality of religious and moral thinking among
these ancient people.

The most popular Babylonian and Assyrian feast
was that of the New Year. It was called the Zagmug,
and was celebrated, at first, on the first day of Nisan,
at the end of the spring equinox in honour of Tam-
muz. Later it was connected with the worship of
Marduk, and was celebrated with great pomp. There
was a great procession, during which the image of
Marduk was borne in a ship-car, accompanied by
images of other gods. It then extended from the
first to the tenth of Nisan, and on the eighth, Marduk
proceeded out of E-Sagilla to celebrate his marriage
with Sarpanit. During the great festival there was
a solemn conclave of all the gods, in the presence of
Marduk to determine the destinies of the New Year.
Religious ceremonies, of course, held the chief place,
in which hymns were sung, incantations were chanted,
and prayers were offered.

Another great festival was the Shapattum or Sha-
batum — a feast of the full-moon, celebrated on the
fifteenth day of each month. It was a day of pacifica-
tion. It is to be differentiated from a festival which
took place on the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first,
twenty-eighth, and nineteenth of each month. This

80 Religious and Moral Ideas

latter was called by the Babylonians the TJhnlgallum,
and the days on which it was celebrated were evil
days, or times of taboo. It has been confused with
the Shapattimi, because of the fact that it was
connected with the phases of the moon, and was,
therefore, a moon-festival; and, secondly, because
the Hebrew word Sabbath has been connected
with the same days of the month — even with the
nineteenth day, since that is seven weeks of days
from the first day of the preceding month — and is
itself probably related in etymology with the Baby-
lonian Shapattum. There were many other feast
days, such as : the feast of Tammuz, at the summer
solstice, in the month of Tammuz; the Ishtar feast,
in the month of Ab, a counterpart of the Tammuz
feast; the feast of Nubattu, on the third, seventh,
and sixteenth of each month, celebrating the mar-
riage of Marduk and Sarpanit; the Abab feast of
Nabu, on the fourth, eighth, and seventeenth of each
month ; the feast of Sin and Shamash, on the twen-
tieth; that of Shamash and Ramman on the twenty-
third; of Enegal and Ninegal on the twenty-fourth;
of Gur on the twenty-seventh; the Bubbulu feast of
Nergal on the twenty-eighth; a special feast of Sha-
mash on the seventh of Nisan, and on the fourth of
lyyar, the festival of the marriage of Nabu and Tash-
mit; the Akitu moon-feast, on the seventeenth of
Sivan ; and another Shamash feast, on the fifteenth of
Adar. In short, festival days were as numerous as
they used to be in imperial Russia, spring and harvest
festivals being the most numerous and popular. They

Idea of Mediation 81

are evidence of the deep religious character of the
people, and of their sense of dependence upon the
gods, for the feasts were all religious.

The temples were the holiest spots of all the earth
to the Babylonians and Assyrians. They were the
home and abode of the presence of the gods. By
rite and symbol, by decoration and image, the sign
was given everywhere in them that the gods were
there. The architecture and decoration, the myste-
rious lights and shadows of the holy of holies, were
not what made its awfulness. It was that the gods
were there. There they shone in all their glory.
There they declared their will. There they forgave
sins. There they bestowed their blessings. There
they gave their commandments. The gods were
known there as they were known nowhere else; and
it was that supremely manifested presence of the
gods there, which made the temples, as no other places
on earth could be, sanctuaries and homes of the
mighty gods. And these sanctuaries were to be
found in all parts of the land.

In the very earliest times a mere stone or altar,
or image, could constitute a temple, or even a room
in a tent. But as time passed, a special room or tent
or hut was set apart for the worship of the gods, in
which was set up an image of the special god wor-
shipped. The spot where the image was set up was
the ^"holy of holies", to which only kings and priests
had access. Connected with the "holy of holies", in
later times, was a long hall or court for worshippers,
and a second court where business transactions were

82 Religious and Moral Ideas

carried on. Grouped around these two courts were
scJiools, archive rooms, and priest's apartments. The
most conspicuous part of a Babylonian and Assyrian
temple of later times was a large brick tower, con-
sisting of from two to seven super-imposed stages,
about one hundred and fifty feet high. This tower
was called a zikkurat, and had a shrine at the top,
and a winding ascent leading from bottom to top.

Temples were numerous. Every city-god had his
chief sanctuary, at his special seat of worship. Some-
times there were as many as thirteen temples in the
same city, as at Lagash, but all stood within the sacred
area of the city-god. The temple was the center of
commercial, social, and intellectual life. There the
gods were worshipped, the law was dispensed, and
goods were bought and sold.

The impression made by these great temples was
lasting upon foreigners as well as upon the natives.
The particular type of temple which we speak of as
Babylonian was Sumerian in origin and arose among
a mountain-people. The zihkurat represented the
mountain where the god's shrine was located, and the
shrine at its top retained the memory of the moun-
tain shrines of the early Sumerian people. In this
connection it is interesting to note that the temple
at Nippur, a Sumerian settlement, was called E-kur,
"mountain house". The remembrance of the Baby-
lonian ziJvkurats reflected itself in the Hebrew story
of the Tower of Babel. Nor did it stop there, for
it inspired the Mohammedan minaret, and Christian
campanile and tower.

Idea of Mediation 83

What we have been so far thinking of in connection
with the idea of mediation in Babylonian and Assyr-
ian religious thought is the official religion, the
religion of the kings and priests and rulers. But
while the masses of the people were related to the
official religion in the closest possible way, yet there
were many and various forms of religious expression,
which were very popular at all times, and which held
a tight grip upon the people. For instance, magic,
though finding a place in the official cult, had
endeared itself to the masses of the people in their
earnest and determined effort to control the demons
and to influence the gods. It is manifestly hard to
know where religion ends and magic begins, but it
may be stated, as a working hypothesis, that magic is
an attempt to control the gods, while religion appeals
to them. Consequently, magic is to be found wher-
ever there is a firm belief in the existence of minor
deities or demons, for men rarely presume to control
the great gods, while their only dealing with demons
is to try to overpower them and to use them. Baby-
lonian and Assyrian magic consisted in attempts to
control and use unseen demoniac powers, rarely to
coerce the great gods. Their conception of sin, as a
state of bodily disorder, arising from demoniac pos-
session, led them to be deeply concerned with any
power that could control the source of sin.

A^arious were the rites in seeking to control the
cause of sin and sickness. In studying these rites
we must not mistake the reality for the symbol. A
rite is of value either as a symbol of sompthing or as

84 Religious and Moral Ideas

a means of something. Laughter is the S3^mbol of
joy, but as we laugh our laughter reacts upon the joy
and heightens it. A rite is a sjrtnbol of some relig-
ious belief, and as we practise it the religious belief
becomes more and more intensified. The rites prac-
tised in freeing from demoniac possessions were use-
ful only as they symbolized the desired relief from
unwholesome and sinful conditions. They were
worthless in themselves, and merely temporary insti-
tutions. No doubt many, perhaps most, Babylonians
and Assyrians failed to see beyond the symbol, but
we can trust the genius of any religion to be able to
distinguish between essentials and non-essentials.
The essential was to be free from sickness and sin,
the transitory symbol was the rite performed in
attaining that end.

The rite of exorcism was performed in order to
deliver from the power of demons. It was a symbolic
ritual, in which fire and water played a prominent
part. Images of the demons, whose expulsion was
sought, were made of clay, or pitch, or wax, and
were cast into fire to be destroyed. Or, in the case
of the water ritual, the person to be delivered was
sprinkled with pure water mingled with aromatic
woods, which resulted in the desired deliverance.
Usually the two acts, the use of fire and water, were
combined. For just as the sun rose from out the
primeval watery abyss, so the two elements of fire
and water were effective, when used in connection
with the power of water and light deities, such as
Ea and Marduk, who were the patrons of exorcism

Idea of Mediation 85

par excellence, Ea the water-god, and Marduk the
solar-deit}^ The ceremony was called the ashapu,
and was usually held on the bank of a river. Many
other minor points of ritual were added to the rite
from time to time, such as the use of amulets, the
chanting of magic formulae, symbolic gestures, and
burning of different objects.

Exorcism was used not only in case of individual
sin and suffering, but also whenever a temple was to
be erected or the statue of a god to be dedicated.
There developed an extensive incantation literature,
consisting of magical poems to be used on all kinds
of special occasions. Some of the most important
collections of such texts are: the Maqlu ("burning")
and the Shurpu ("burning") series, the Labartu
(name of a demon) and the Tiu ("headache") texts.

Magic and exorcism are related, both expressing
man's relationship to demons. Magic seeks to con-
trol them, and exorcism attempts to expell them.
They are man's means of defending himself against
demons and evil spirits.

But man not only desires to strengthen himself
against demoniac influence; he also feels the need
of learning the will of the gods. This need expressed
itself, among the Babylonians and Assyrians, in very
definite religious rites, such as divination and sooth-
saying, the most elaborate being the former.

Divination is a desire and attempt to know the
future, which can best be accomplished by learning
the will of the gods, who hold the destinies in their
power. The officer in charge of all acts of divination

86 Religious and Moral Ideas

was the priest, and the most common ritual of divina-
tion was the inspection of the liver of a sacrificial
sheep. As we have already learned, gods, men, and
animals were all related. Now the seat of life was
the blood, and the bloodiest organ is the liver, which
was therefore thought to be the specific seat of the
soul. AVhen an animal was sacrificed it became iden-
tical with the gods, and its liver the mirror of the
gods. The sheep was the typical sacrificial animal,
its soul or life was located in its liver, and therein
was reflected the soul or life of the gods.

It was the business of the divining priest, or haru,
to inspect the liver, and to make decisions. On the
basis of observations as to its shape, size, and other
conditions of the different lobes and ducts of the
liver, decisions as to the will and intention of the gods
were made. The ceremony of "liver inspecting", a
phrase which became the regular term for divination,
became quite elaborate. The officiating priest was
obliged to perform introductory lustrations for him-
self and for those assisting, with anointings. Special
garments had to be worn, and special prayers were
offered to Shamash, or Shamash and Adad ; Shamash
being the god of di^dnation par excellence. The sac-
rificial sheep had to be without blemish.

The oldest form of divination, however, consisted
in the pouring of oil upon water or water upon oil,
and watching its movements; or the observation of
the flight of birds; or the interpretation of dreams.
But liver divination can be traced back as early as
the first Sargon, about 2650 B. C, and it lasted till

Idea of Mediation 87

the latest times. It was passed on to the Hittites,
who in turn handed it on to the Etruscans, from
whom the Romans learned it, with variations, using
the heart as well.

Another form of divination consisted in the obser-
vation of abnormal phenomena in the life of man,
or in that of animals; another in the interpretation
of dreams ; and still another in the shooting of arrows.

But next in importance to divination by liver obser-
vation was what has been called astrology, an observa-
tion of the heavenly bodies. Priestly scholars had
developed a theory that this world is an exact dupli-
cate or reflexion of the world of the gods. All phe-
nomena and events in this world correspond to
heavenly phenomena and events. In heaven the will
of the gods is expressed, and if man can read the
will of the gods in the heavens he will consequently
know what is happening and what will happen in
this world. In the heavens the stars play the chief
part in the representation of the god's will, and there-
fore the study of the stars, and of other heavenly
bodies, became the divine science. This has been
called astrology.

The science cannot be traced much earlier than the
First Babylonian Dynasty, although the system was
perfected about 2000 B. C. Then the heavenly bodies
were associated with the great gods of the Babylonian
pantheon. Shamash was the sun, Sin was the moon,
Ishtar was Venus, Marduk was Jupiter, Ninib was
Saturn, Nabu was Mercury, and Nergal was Mars.
The chief of these gods was Sin, "the Lord of Wis-

88 Religious and Moral Ideas

dom" (En-zu). The &arw-priests observed eclipses,
and all other heavenly phenomena, and interpreted
them in terms of divine intention. This means of
divination became highly developed. Other stars
besides the planets were studied and their peculiari-
ties noted. Constellations were traced along the eclip-
tic, and the twelve signs of the zodiac were marked.
The first stars to be identified by the Babylonians
were Jupiter and Venus, the former because of its
brilliancy, and the latter because of its occurrence as
an evening star one part of the year and as a morning
star during the other part. It was left to Greek
astrologers to map out the heavens to correspond to
the lands, mountains, seas, and rivers of the earth,
but the Babylonians had begun the study.

Babylonian astrology had very little to do with the
individual. Its interests centred on affairs of state.
Individual concerns were served by the simpler forms
of divination such as the observation of abnormal
animal and human phenomena, or by the observation
of phenomena in nature, and by the interpretation
of dreams. The decline of astrology set in at the
close of the Assyrian period, when it began to
pass out of the astrological stage into the stage of
astronomy.

There were other means, public as well as private,
which were devised in the attempt to come into rela-
tionship with the gods. Oracles were granted by the
priests, especially after the seventh century; pilgrim-
ages were made to learn the will of certain important
deities, as when Ashurbanipal journeyed to Arbela

Idea of Mediation 89

to consult Ishtar; and individuals claimed the power
of prophetic insight into the ways of the gods. But
whatever means were adopted the officiating person
was a priest. As a representative of the king, at
least in early thought, he developed into the standard
mediator in all matters that involved the gods and
men. The means and modes of his mediation were
numerous and varied, but the central idea was that
man's happiness and success always depend upon the
will of the gods, upon the relationship between gods
and men, and upon the success with which mediation
was negotiated. This idea is, and has always been,
practically universal. It is the heart and core of all
religion, and the essence and power of Christianity.

V

THE IDEA OF THE FUTURE IN
BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA

Every true life has a goal to which it is always
looking forward. A life cannot be really considered
as having begun to live until that far-off city in
which its destiny awaits it, where its work is to be
done, where its problem is to be solved, begins to
draw the life towards itself, and the life begins to
know and to own the summons. Very strange is
this quality of human nature which decrees that
unless a man feels a future before him he does not
live completely in the present. Mankind has groT\m
so used to it that he does not realize how strange it
is. It seems to be necessary. But the lower natures,
the beasts, do not seem to have anything like it. And
one can easily picture to one's self a human nature
which might have developed in such a way that it
never should think about the future, but should get
all its inspiration out of the present things. But that
is not human nature. Human nature must always

90

Idea of the Future 91

look ahead. The thing which it liopes to become is
already a power and decides the things it is.

The Babylonians and Assyrians too had a goal to
which they were always looking forward. But it was
located primarily in this life. For the next world
they cared very little. Nevertheless they did have an
idea of an immortal life, though it was very limited,
and never developed to any considerable extent. Nor
did it exercise any influence upon the manners and
ways, the ethics and ideals, of this life.

This limitation in Babylonian and Assyrian out-
look was due primarily to a trait common to all early
Semitic peoples. The Semites were exceedingly slow
in developing an adequate conception of individual-
ity. To them everything centred in the community
and in its life. Individual demands and desires were
rarely considered. Attention was concentrated on
the state. This was also true among the Hebrews.
Until the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, no real con-
ception of individual consciousness had developed,
and consequently no real conception of the future
beyond this world. There was thought in plenty
about the nation's future, its destiny among the other
nations of the world. But there seemed to be no
necessity for a consideration of what happened in a
world other than this. A nation does not die with
the Individual; but new individuals are born that
compose the nation of the future. Of course, the
individual died, and his death was noted, and there
was a general idea as to what happened to him. But
very little thought was ever concentrated upon the

92 Religious and Moral Ideas

subject. The same was true of the Babylonians
and Assyrians. Only, whereas the Hebrews developed
beyond that stage of thought, the Babylonians and
Assyrians never did. And the failure to do so, in
spite of their other accomplishments, contributed
largely to their final decay and downfall.

At death the body and soul separated. The body
was committed to the earth — never cremated except
in the earliest period — sometimes in a brick vault;
more often it was placed upon a slightly raised plat-
form of bricks, provided with a reed-mat over which
was a large cover. Ordinarily, however, the body was
placed in a baked-clay coffin in capsule form, or in
a coffin made by fitting together two deep bowls, or in
a huge vase, or in a coffin of bath-tub shape, of flask-
shape, or slipper-shape. The place of burial was
usually the temple court. The departed soul, edimmu,
was spoken of as having gone to its fate. It was
thought of as a wind or breath, napislitu, and was
believed to take a lively interest in the body which
it left behind.

In order to guarantee rest for the soul, the body had
to be cared for by being supplied with food and imple-
ments. The soul was thus enabled to continue what
was really an earthly existence in the next world.
Offerings, anag, were made for the repose of the soul.
They were either burned or consumed as a family
meal, or both, and in later times the custom of pour-
ing a libation, in connection with the meal, was
common.

The departed soul continued to live in a conscious

Idea of the Future 93

or semi-conscious state, in a life inferior to the pres-
ent. It was considered a minor deity, gidim, and was
often propitiated, but was thought to be deprived of
all pleasure.

The home of the departed was kno^^^l by different
names, the chief of which was Arallu. Sometimes
it was called Irsii la tari, "land of no return", but
it was also called "the mountain house of the dead",
the "vast city", the "prison house", and the "house
of Tammuz". The Poem of Ishtar's descent into
Arallu furnishes us with the most complete account
of what the abode of the future was like. It was a
large dark cavern under the surface of the earth, full
of dust, where souls passed a miserable existence of
inactivity and gloom, and subsisted on dust. The
approach to it was in the western region of the earth,
where seven gates guarded by sentinels gave entrance.

The ruler of the reahn of the dead was the goddess
Ereshkigal, also called Allatu. The god tergal
descended into Arallu and married Ereshkigal. Being
a god of pestilence and death, identified later with
Mars, his cult centre, Kutha, became a designation of
Arallu. Ishtar was also associated with Arallu,
which she visited in order to restore her lover Tam-
muz. Xergal and his consort employed demons as
their messengers, the chief being Belit-seri and
Namtaru.

Ishtar's "descent into Arallu" is probably a poetic
version of an old vegetation myth, the disappearance
of Ishtar being the death of nature, when all growth
on earth ceased. But it throw^s interesting light upon

94 Religious and Moral Ideas

the popular conception of Arallu. At every one of
the seven gates, Ishtar was compelled to part with
an article of clothing until she appeared naked before
Ereshkigal, who ordered her servant Namtaru to
imprison the goddess. Ea interposed on behalf of
Ishtar, whereupon Ereshkigal commands Namtaru
to sprinkle Ishtar with "water of life" and to release
her. Ishtar departs and receives her clothes as she
passes each of the seven gates.

There is also an echo in Babylonian literature of an
"Island of the Blest", situated at the confluence of
the streams, where Utnapishtim and his wife were
led, after the flood, but it seems to have been only for
special individuals. There is, however, nothing def-
initely known about the future of such heroes.
Enkidu (or Eabani) also goes to Arallu, but when
he appears to his friend Gilgamesh he has no definite
information to impart, other than that Etana and
Ereshkigal were there.

To the Babylonians and Assyrians, death was an
unmitigated evil, with which no ethical considera-
tions were connected. Once a soul departed to Arallu,
his fate was unalterable and permanent. There was
no belief in transmigration or resurrection. There is
only one instance of a soul rising from Arallu, besides
the goddess Ishtar, and that was Enkidu; yet he did
not gain deliverance, but, like the shade of Samuel,
returned again.

Such was the future of the Babylonians and Assyr-
ians. There was no "Kingdom of God" in the
future for them. Their best vision was confined to

Idea of the Future 95

this world, and that was not very inspiring. The
Hebrew dream of a Messianic Kingdom, of a city of
God, was "unknown to them. When we think of the
dreariness in outlook of the Babylonians and Assyr-
ians, of the absence of that power which could have
consecrated their nationalism, their patriotism, their
wealth, their glory, and their individual sacrifices,
it is a real wonder that they ever accomplished any-
thing. They had no dream of an ideal spiritual king
and an ideal spiritual nation to realize; they were
thrown back upon their native, natural will to live,
for their inspiration. And when we contemplate the
great things they accomplished, their art and archi-
tecture, their military grandeur and their mighty
empire, their literature and science, their deep sense
of piety and their fine moral distinctions, we are sur-
prised at any limitations to the dream of more
favoured nations, who have had all the stimulus and
inspiration of a glorious spiritual future, a moral and
religious city and kingdom of God.

VI

THE IDEA OF MORALITY IN BABYLONIA
AND ASSYRIA

Many hundreds of years ago a Hebrew poet wrote,
"In thy light we shall see light". The poet saw men
all around him running hither and thither seeking
light. The poet sympathized with them, for he too
thought light the most precious thing in the world.
But he saw a great fallacy in the search for light of
his time. Men appeared to be questioning this thing
and that thing, as if the secret of its being, its power
to be understood and comprehended, the light with
which it ought to shine, were something it carried in
itself. He declared this to be wrong. To him every-
thing is comprehensible and capable of being under-
stood only as it exists within the great enfolding pres-
ence of God. To him it is only in their relations to
the perfect nature that all other natures can become
intelligible. Only within the elements where they
belong, only as they are held inside the atmosphere
of larger natures to which they bear essential and
96

Idea of Morality 97

sacred relationships, can the finest and truest natures
of many things be understood. The beauty of the
flower or the majesty of the mountain can only truly
be seen in the radiance of the glowing sun.

When we turn to study Babylonian and Assyrian
morals, it must be held inside the atmosphere of
Babylonian and Assyrian life and customs. We must
learn to judge the Babylonians and Assyrians in the
light of their o\\ti time. Their heredity, environment,
and social traditions must limit our decisions. We
must not forget that they lived many hundreds of
years before the rise of Christianity. It is only in
the light of their time that we can hope to cast
light upon their moral realities and ideals.

The origin of moral ideas reaches back into prehis-
toric times. The earliest historic man habitually
differentiates between good and bad. His "good"
and "bad" doubtless differed from ours, having been
probably more confined and narrower. We say that
"good" is that which favours human progress, and
"evil" that which impedes it. But the Babylonians
and x\ssyrians, because of their known piety, would
probably have defined "good" as that which is pleas-
ing to the gods and "evil" as that which incites the
anger of the gods. "Good" and "evil" may originally
have been purely ritual and ceremonial, but in his-
toric times we shall find that, although ritual right
and wrong still prevailed to a certain extent, a posi-
tive moral distinction was made. Our o^vn moral
distinctions are based upon what we consider to be
the will of God and upon what has become customary.

98 Religious and Moral Ideas

The same is true of Babylonian and Assyrian morals.
What their gods willed was right, what they dis-
proved was wrong; what was customary was right,
and what was not customary was wrong.

Of course the gods will what we thinlc they will.
We think God wills justice, righteousness, purity, etc.
The Babylonians and Assyrians thought he willed the
same, though their idea of justice, purity, and right-
eousness may have been different from what ours is.
They may have conceived sin, for example, in a more
ceremonial way than we, and may have considered
it and "sickness" to be equivalent. This we must
take into consideration in our evaluation of Baby-
lonian and Assyrian morals.

Every human act is done for some end or purpose.
The end is always regarded by the agent in the light
of something good. If evil be done, it is done as
leading to good, or as bound up with good, or as itself
being good for the doer under the circumstances.
The standard of moral judgment is that which is
considered good or bad, wrong or right. But what is
considered good or bad, wrong or right, depends upon
people and time. To the Babylonians and Assyrians,
human acts were right or wrong, good or bad, not
according as they were useful or hurtful, nor yet
according as their consequences made for or against
the end of social happiness, but according as they
were pleasing or displeasing to the gods. The Baby-
lonians and Assyrians aimed at material blessings,
prosperity, success in war and in private undertak-
ings; but they also aimed at tranquility of soul; and

Idea of Morality 99

most of all their greatest concern was to please the
gods.

In examining the subject matter of Babylonian and
Assyrian morals, allowance must be made for a wide
gap between the ideal and the real. We must be
careful not to confuse what were actual practices with
what were merely ideals, although the ideals will be
valuable as an indication of what the Babylonians
and Assyrians knew to be best and of what they tried
to attain.

In this gap between the ideal and the real, man is
always standing; between their visions and tasks all
men are standing always. For every man has visions,
glimpses clearer or duller, now bright and beautiful,
now clouded and obscure, of what is absolutely and
abstractly true; and every man also has pressing on
him the warm, clear lives of fellow men. There is
the world of ideals, of truths, on one side, and there
is the world of reality, of men, upon the other.
Between the two stands man; and these two worlds,
if man is what he ought to be, meet through his
nature.

In attempting to gain an idea of the morals of
any people or age a standard of judgment must be
assumed. The most convenient criterion is the moral
standard of our own age. By using this standard of
judgment we can compare the moral ideas of any
people or age with those of our own age, and decide
whether they were higher or lower than ours. We
may thus commend or condemn the morals of the
people or age under consideration. But this criterion

100 Religious and Moral Ideas

cannot be used to commend or condemn the morals
of any individual of another people or age than our
own. The individual must be commended or con-
demned on the basis of the morals of his own times —
as to whether he has been true or false to the moral
ideals of his own people and time.

In order to compare the morals of the Babylonians
and Assyrians with our own, our first task will be to
find what their moral ideas were, and what was the
content of their moral ideas. We shall, therefore, try
to discover their Moral Ideals, their idea of Moral
Evil, their moral determinants, whether they were
conscious of a freedom of will or not, and what their
Moral Sanctions were.

The Babylonians and Assyrians always ascribed the
best they knew to their gods. If we can learn what
that was we shall be in a position to state what their
moral ideals were. The chief endeavour of the Baby-
lonians and Assyrians was to please their gods, and
in order to do that it was necessary that they should
know what the will of the gods was. The Babylonians
and Assyrians saw the will of the gods in the customs
and laws of their time, for the authorship of all law
and precedent was ascribed to the gods. To obey
the gods, then, was to be obedient to the custom and
law of the time. The Law, therefore, was the moral
ideal.

But what did Babylonian and Assyrian law consist
in, or by what was it characterized? It consisted
in justice, righteousness, truthfulness, etc. But what
was the content of justice, righteousness, truthful-

Idea of Moraliiyf 101

ness, etc.? Their content must necessarily have
depended upon the customs and legal decisions of
those times. The customs and legal decisions of
the times, then, will define the moral ideals of the
Babylonians and Assyrians.

We shall, therefore, examine the customs and legal
decisions of the family, social, international, trans-
cendental, and personal life of the Babylonians and
Assyrians in order to determine what the content of
their moral ideals was. And we shall begin by noting
what ideals they ascribed to their gods.

The Babylonian and Assyrian referred to his god as
the ^'^sovereign of justice", the "perfect" one, the lord
of "righteous" command; with him they associated
such qualities as faithfulness, purity, goodness, and
uprightness; and he was considered the punisher of
the wicked. The deities were particularly associated
with law both as originators and as administrators.
They possessed law as their own, and there was a
tendency to ascribe all law to them. As a rule, what-
ever was ascribed to the gods was "perfect", "right-
eous", and "just". Therefore, all law was just,
because it belonged to and came from the gods. The
numerous legal contracts, representing the Babylonian
and Assyrian periods, illustrate the important role
which law played in the every-day life of these
peoples. The law of the gods was, in short, the
moral ideal of the people. It was their standard of
all "perfection" and "justice".

Now, the just law of the gods, as the moral ideal,
consisted in speaking the truth, which was often

1 02 Religious and Moral Ideas

guaranteed by an oath, especially in contracts. The
many Babylonian and Assyrian contracts show how
great was the dependence npon a promise, which the
contracting parties accepted as true. The moral ideal
consisted also in what was right, which likewise was
guaranteed by an oath, usually in the name of the
gods ; e. g., a true servant is he who does what is right
or good. It consisted in the recognition of honesty;
e. g., the home-transgressor is rewarded for his hon-
esty in owning his wrong. It consisted in the love
of justice, and the abhorrence of wickedness.

But did the Babylonians mean the same thing by
ka-gi-na, zi, dug, etc., as we mean by "to speak jus-
tice", "righteousness", "good", etc. ? Ideally, they did.
Gudea tells us that during a religious festival in his
time the maid was equal to her mistress, the master
and the slave consorted together, the powerful and
humble lay down side by side, the rich man did not
wrong the orphan, the strong did not oppress the
widow, and the sun shone justice and Babbar trod
injustice under foot. In general, the ideal required
that law be the same for the poor as for the rich.

The actual laws and customs of the times, however,
will teach us how near in practice the Babylonians
and Assyrians really approached this ideal. Their
actual practice in these matters as compared with our
own will determine their moral status as a people.

It is true that we have evidence in inscriptions that
there was a great deal of freedom and real harmony,
e. g., in family life, and that the husband showed a
real sense of duty even to a divorced wife — which,

Idea of Morality 1 03

however, may have been more the result of the pres-
ence of law — but it is evident that clemency was the
father's prerogative. He could divorce his wife at
will, and inflict the severest punishments upon the
members of his family. In short, the father of a
family had rights which no one else possessed.

To a certain extent the mother shared the father's
authority and rights. Children owed obedience to
her as well as to the father, and she, as well as the
father, had the power of disinheritance. Both parents
shared the family responsibilities. They were obliged
to care for their children, and care for orphans was
always demanded.

On the other hand, the power of the father always
tended to be restricted by legal decisions, which
became established law, e. g., marriage was a legal
contract; the right of the father to sell wife, son,
or daughter was in time restricted to a sale which
was valid only for three years; the wife's definite
rights increased, e. g., a man could not take a con-
cubine without a valid excuse ; a slave wife could not
be sold if she bore children; and children had legal
property rights. The father's control over servants
was even greater than that over his wife and children,
yet servants had their rights, and were treated in
such a way that in turn they often showed real
respect for their master.

In Babylonia and Assyria, as in all society, efforts
were continually made to bring about reforms in
family law, but down to the end of Babylonian and
Assyrian civilization the head of the family enjoyed

1 04 Religious and Moral Ideas

peculiar rights — rights which would be called -unjust
when judged by the standard of modern family
customs.

In social life, the king was always revered by his
subjects ; he was the righteous shepherd of his people,
and regulated all decisions; he was full of wisdom
and devotion, and by him, as the standard of justice,
as well as by the gods, oaths were sworn. The ideal
king was not extortionate, and took care that taxes
were as light as possible; and he was merciful in
battle. It was a common practice to make votive
offerings for a ruler — a practice which showed real
devotion to the king.

The relation between individuals demands good
deeds, truthfulness, justice, and mercy. The relation
of the individual to established law was that of obe-
dience, for the established law was meant to be just,
being the gift of the just gods; nor should the just
decisions of the gods ever be changed.

The Babylonians and Assyrians had a keen sense
of property rights, and it was here that their sense
of legal justice was most highly developed. Agree-
ments were made in all property transactions and
contracts were duly drawn up in legal form, and
sworn to by the name of the gods and that of the king
before witnesses in the presence of proper legal offi-
cials. E. g., law protected the owner or tenant
from any unfair treatment. The Babylonians and
Assyrians were very painstaking and exact in all
business affairs, and preserved painstaking inven-
tories of all details. Receipts were given and always

Idea of Morality 1 05

acknowledged in a regular legal fashion. The moral
ideal in business life, therefore, was strict justice,
truthfulness, and honesty.

Free labourers were hired in a legal way and had
their definite rights, and salaries were paid according
to a legal scale at set times. Even the king felt
keenly his responsibility to the labouring class. Slaves,
however, were not treated as freemen, but were con-
sidered the property of their master. Slaves were
bought and sold just like cattle. Yet they were sup-
posed to be morally truthful and were expected to
take an oath and to act as witnesses; and they had
the right to appear in a lawsuit in their own favour.
They also had a certain independence, for they could
contract marriage with women in the service of other
masters, and could dispose of the property of their
masters. The more humane rulers, such as Uruka-
gina, from time to time tried to establish as much of
liberty to all men as possible, but slavery was always
the rule.

The Babylonians and Assyrians made repeated
efforts to better social conditions, as the reforms in
the reign of Urukagina show. He restored sacred
lands that had been taken by a former king, reduced
the number of unnecessary secular officials, deposed
officials condemned for bribery, reduced the scale of
exorbitant priestly fees, punished theft, and put a
stop to forced labor.

Peace was the international and moral ideal, and
many treaties were made to obtain it. They were

106 Religious and Moral Ideas

secured by oath in the name of the gods, and hence
were established upon justice and truthfulness. The
violation of a treaty was to be punished severely.
Yet, in spite of treaties, wars were very frequent ; but
slaughter was excused as having been commanded by
the gods, for wars were holy. Great care was accord-
ingly taken to treat the dead in a proper manner.

The transcendental moral ideal of the Babylonians
and Assyrians may be said to have been piety. Their
gods were holy, righteous, just, truthful, pure, good,
perfect, compassionate, merciful, mighty; and the
right attitude towards such beings was one of obe-
dience, love, and worship. The state as a whole rec-
ognized these obligations, as did also the individual.
The gods were not only the protectors of the just,
but they were also the punishers of the wicked. The
temples and shrines of the gods were always thronged
with devout worshippers, and the gods were the
source of protection, and by their oracles their wor-
shippers were guided.

The king's relation to the gods was of a special
nature, for his distant ancestors were the very sons of
the gods, and each king loved to call himself the son
of his god or goddess. Moreover, they were the
prophets of the gods, the intermediary between them
and mankind. They were also the chief priests, and
offered sacrifices and gifts for themselves and people
to the gods. All the king's power was a gift from
the gods, and the gods chose him and crowned him,
and in return the king built temples, groves, canals,
statues, shrines, etc., and dedicated them to his god.

Idea of Morality 1 07

The kings were often considered sinless, because of
their devotion to the gods and to the welfare of their
people.

The individual's relation to the deity was that of
true obedience and pious reverence. His true atti-
tude was "to cast down the face" before his god.
Although he feared his god, he also had absolute
confidence in him, as the many Babylonian and Assyr-
ian names, expressive of this sentiment, would show.
Each person had his own god to whom he especially
prayed and from whom he received blessings, but all
the gods were the object of personal love, reverence,
and adoration.

Truth may be said to have been the personal moral
ideal of the Babylonians and Assyrians. Its asso-
ciation in the mind of these people with justice is
apparent, and it may owe its great development to
their keen sense of justice. Next to veracity is piety
which is so characteristic of the Babylonian and
Assyrian individual, and here again the idea is
wrapped up with that of justice which belongs in
essence to the gods. Finally, obedience to the gods
was a universal ideal, and this again is intimately
associated with the idea of justice. The Babylonian
and Assyrian, indeed, was most decidedly a law-abid-
ing individual. The righteous man is always he
who is true, pious, and obedient; he also was brave,
but that was not an essential. The evil man was
always despised and subject to malediction and
punishment.

Nor is the moral ideal an external one, as might

1 08 Religious and Moral Ideas

be expected from an ancient people. The Babylonians
and Assyrians, perhaps, laid a great deal of stress
upon external requirements in religious matters, but
their moral ideal is decidedly an internal and high
one. The law must be obeyed not merely (although,
perhaps, primarily) because the gods gave it, but in
order that the heart may feel satisfaction. The word
azag, meaning "clean", though often used in a way
which would appear to indicate an external or ritual
idea of "cleanness", is nevertheless often used in an
internal and moral way. The Babylonians and Assyr-
ians developed a keen sense of truth and obedience,
and their piety sprang out of a true love of the gods
and of things pertaining to them. They loved to fre-
quent the temple of the gods, not because they were
forced to do it, but because of their real inward piety.

The moral ideals of the Babylonians and Assyrians,
then, may be said to have been expressed in terms of
the just law of the gods, and of obedience to it. The
moral attitude necessary to the realization of the ideal
was obedience to the gods. The moral ideal in family
life consisted in truth, justice, and righteousness; in
political or social life it consisted in justice, honesty,
righteousness, truth, and mercy ; in international life
it consisted in peace; in transcendental life in piety,
obedience, love, and worship; and in personal life in
truth, piety, and obedience.

Thus the moral ideals of the Babylonians and
Assyrians consisted in doing the will of their gods.
They were their gods' battlements and not their own.
Their own battlements were their own desires.

Idea oi Moralliy 109

These had to be taken away and annihilated, but the
will of the gods was irrevocable.

On the other hand, human battlements gave proof
of neglect of the gods. Moral evil was disobedience
to the gods, and lack of faith in them. Man's life
should have abundant supply for all its needs, should
be rich enough, safe enough, strong enough; and yet
all this abundance is not to come by or in itself, but
is to be man's portion, because he is himself part and
parcel of the divine life, held closely and constantly
upon the bosom of the life of the gods. Man does
not carry his sufficiency in himself ; it is to be found
in the gods. The opposite of all this is impiety,
lack of faith, disobedience of the law of the gods,
moral sin.

Moral evil was primarily regarded as consisting in
the transgression of the law of the gods. The law
of the gods was seen in the customs of the times as
well as in actual codified law. Babylonian and
Assyrian family custom or law was very severe upon
sexual impurity; in adultery, both participants were
thrown into the river ; the punishment for fornication
with a betrothed girl was the death of the man; even
abduction was punished with death; incest of all
forms was hated; and the harlot was considered
unholy.

Truthfulness was at a premium, as the many oaths
in the name of the gods show. The Babylonians and
Assyrians were so exacting in this matter that often
the veracity of the witnesses in a lawsuit was ques-
tioned and a new process was undertaken to get at

1 1 0 Religious and Moral Ideas

the truth. A lie was not permitted to go unnoticed ;
and the slanderer was severely dealt with, often by
being branded.

Moral sin was believed to offend the gods because
it was against their commands, and it was natural
that the sinner should ask his gods for their forgive-
ness. The gods took cognizance of sin, and expected
their clients to acknowledge it. One man prayed thus :
"My queen knoweth what I have done, oh, conceive
compassion; forgive my sins, lift up my counte-
nance"; another says: "Of him who hath sin thou
dost receive the petition." The gods were full of
mercy.

Social moral evil consisted in oppression and
cruelty. Cruelty was undoubtedly common, especially
towards enemies, the king being sometimes depicted
in the act of driving an arrow into the neck of a
captive pleading for mercy, and oppression was com-
mon in the reign of unscrupulous kings who levied
unjust revenues and heavy tribute. Personal rela-
tionship frowned upon stealing, robbery, falsehood,
and slander, all of which were severely punished.
The suppression of justice and bribery was common,
but always condemned. Deceit in business was
severely handled. Urukagina's reforms give us a fair
idea of the unfavorable condition which sometimes
prevailed in Babylonia and Assyria, and also of what
a king like Urukagina considered socially wrong.
He tells us that before his time in Lagash, excessive
taxes were levied, and the taxgatherers billeted them-
selves on the people; that the patesi used to appro-

Idea of Morality 1 1 1

priate the property of the temple for himself and
that the sacred oxen were used to plough the land
of the patesij that the priests grew rich at the expense
of the temple and plundered the people; that they
entered the garden of the people and cut trees and
carried off the fruit for themselves ; that they used to
keep on good terms with the palace by dividing the
spoil; that they oppressed the people by confiscating
their property; and that they used forced labor and
misused the laborers by means of force. These condi-
tions prevailed, but they were reformed by Urukagina,
who felt their great injustice. Yet it was certainly
thought that sin was not confined to ceremonial,
ritual, or external wrong ; but was morally conceived ;
for sin resulted in disgrace.

International moral evil has always been cruelty
and it is not surprising to find evidence of such in
Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions, though there is
not a great deal of it.

The moral evil in Babylonian and Assyrian trans-
cendental life is that which arouses the anger of the
gods. It is not clear what that was, but disobedience
or irreverence may be assumed. When the deity is
vexed, devastation, murder, etc., prevail. Prayer for
forgiveness and compassion was then in order.

Personal moral evil consisted in disobedience to the
customs and laws of the time.

As already seen, punishments were often very se-
vere, especially in the case of sexual sins. This may
indicate a rather external, material, or ritual idea of
the conception of sin. For example, a man was put

1 1 2 Religious and Moral Ideas

to death for committing fornication with a betrothed
girl. This may be because such an act would cause a
depreciation in the value of the girl in the eyes of her
father, who expected to receive the bride price from
her future husband. Even adultery is not punished
with any such severity. But this is another instance
of the relation of the father to the family, and the law
was made or the custom arose with his interests in
view. The same is probably the explanation of the
severe punishment of an abductor.

The Babylonians and Assyrians believed that suf-
fering always brought its owtl reward. One suffers
what he deserves, and the gods see to it that the sinner
is punished by being cursed. Suffering was considered
a mental as well as a material thing.

There is no doubt, on the other hand, that sin was
not always morally considered. The breaking of a
ritual or ceremonial law was often considered quite as
blamable as an offence against a moral law. The con-
secrated woman was punished with death if she ever
took part in secular business, because of her ritual
holiness, and she evidently was never permitted to
bear children to a man who became her husband, for
the same reason. The many references to the uncon-
secrated, and to unclean hands, likewise point to a
ritual idea of sin.

As to a theory of the origin of moral evil, there is
nothing to be found in Sumerian inscriptions which
is equivalent to the Paradise story of the Old Testa-
ment or the yetzer theory of later Judaism. The in-
terest of the Babylonians and Assyrians was practical

Idea of Morality 1 1 3

rather than metaphysical. They realized the existence
of evil, and assumed, without debate, that it came
from the world of spirits which surrounded them.
They would not accuse their gods of being the origin
of sin ; but besides gods there were numerous demons,
spiritual and unseen, beings from whom came sick-
ness and death and to whom were ascribed all evil.
The "evil eye" was the malevolent glance of the
demon.

Moral evil in Babylonia and Assyria consisted pri-
marily in a violation of the customs and laws of the
gods and was expressed in sexual sin in family life;
in oppression and cruelty, falsehood and injustice, in
social life; in cruelty in international life; and per-
haps in disobedience and irreverence in transcendental
and personal life.

With the idea of a sense of moral evil must go a
feeling of free will. Evil cannot be considered blam-
able unless there is a certain freedom of the will. If
a man has no choice but to do evil, he cannot be held
accountable for the evil which he has no power to
avoid. The Babylonians and Assyrians had a sense
of moral evil as distinguished from ritual and cere-
monial "wrong" or incorrectness. They differentiated
moral right from moral wrong. They felt themselves
morally responsible. This their numerous contracts
are sujBBcient to show. "The house-usurper was cog-
nizant" that what he had done was wrong ; and that he
had consciously and wilfully done an evil deed.

On the other hand, as in the Old Testament and
later Jewish literature, there is evidence in inscrip-

1 1 4 Religious and Moral Ideas

tions to show that the Babylonians and Assyrians
believed to a certain extent in predestination. They
spoke of the "tablets of fate of the gods", and of one
being inscribed into the book of life. In the word
nam-tar-tar-ri-e-ne, the use of the plural e-ne shows
that the Sumerians, and following them, the Baby-
lonians and Assyrians, considered the fates to be
deities. The gods were believed to have the power of
directing the world and each man's destiny was in a
broad and general way prescribed by them. This did
not, however, prevent them from believing at the same
time that each man had the personal power, with the
help of the gods, of directing his immediate acts.
Nor did they feel any incongruity in these two seem-
ingly opposite ideas. The belief in prayer to the gods
assumed a belief in freedom from predetermined
destiny.

Moral determinants may be enumerated as, heredity,
environment, social tradition, and personal initiative.
These forces always condition a people's morals.

Let us, then, examine Babylonian and Assyrian cus-
toms in the light of these forces. The family was, we
know, patriarchal, at least in historical times. The
father was head and owner of the family. He owned
wife and child just as he did sheep or oxen, and had
the legal right to dispose of them. Patriarchal rights
were handed on from generation to generation, and
though from time to time decisions were made limit-
ing that right, and these decisions gradually became
law, yet the patriarchal rights among the Babylonians
and Assyrians were to a great extent hereditaiy. The

Idea of Moralit}} 1 1 5

environment of society was such that it tended to
accentuate the right of the pater familias. The gov-
ernment was monarchical, each city at first having its
own prince or king. The family was a government
in miniature, and the necessity of the preservation of
family integrity demanded a leader and head in which
all family life and forces could centre. That leader
was necessarily the strong one of the family; as a
rule, the father.

Every society is conditioned ah extra by an envi-
ronment or atmosphere which we call social tradition,
and in the case of the Babylonians and Assyrians this
further tended to emphasize the established nature
of the family as a group of individuals looking to the
father as head.

There were, however, always those stronger persons
who possessed sufficient force of character to disregard
by personal initiative certain social customs, and this
is how we account for certain definite progressive
strides in ancient civilization. It likewise explains
how that in Babylonian and Assyrian society the
father of the family was often forced to recognize the
rights of inferior members of the family. But he-
redity, environment, and social tradition were so
strong in the family life that to the end the father
remained virtually dictator of family affairs, and
personal initiative never played much of a role.

The same may be said of the effects of heredity,
environment, social tradition, and personal initiative
in social, international, transcendental, and personal
life. The actions of a king, or state, or individual.

1 1 6 Religious and Moral Ideas

were conditioned by heredity, even as they were by
environment and tradition, and yet there was always
a place for personal initiative. These circumstances
must always be taken into consideration in the deter-
mination of the nature of the morals of any people
or age.

There is all through the best and most earnest
thought and life of men the vision of a great attain-
ment. That man, the individual man and the uni-
versal man, is what he is only in preparation for
something far vaster and more perfect than he is —
this is the practical doctrine of all earnest and re-
ligious men. It appears in all religions — this doctrine
of the great attainment, the belief in the lofty some-
thing which it is possible for man to become, although
no man, purely man, has become it yet.

But though the Babylonians and Assyrians shared
with all mankind this lofty ideal, its power as a moral
sanction was greatly limited, because of their inability
to allow its extension into the idealism of a life be-
yond the grave. Their moral sanctions, consequently,
lacked that driving power, which otherwise would
have been realized had they not been foreshortened
by the limitations of mere mortal existence.

Moral sanctions or considerations which give force
and authority to moral laws may be either external
or internal. They may refer to rewards and punish-
ments imposed from without, or to consequences of
conduct which arise spontaneously from within. The
Babylonians' and Assyrians' respect for the just law
of the gods is the nearest approach we find to an in-

Idea of Morality 1 1 7

ternal moral sanction in their religion. It is true,
disobedience to the law called forth punishment, and
in that respect, was an external moral sanction,
but obedience to the law had become hereditary and
traditional and the virtue of keeping the law was
perhaps its own reward. The moral ideal was per-
fection or sinlessness, and that state could be arrived
at only through obedience to the law.

The most potent Babylonian and Assyrian moral
sanction, however, consisted in rewards and punish-
ments imposed from without by an external author-
ity in the present, that authority being either divine
or a constituted legal authority. The gods became
angry with the sinful and punished them ; and estab-
lished law provided punishment for the offender.

Unlike the Hebrews there was no appeal to future
rewards and punishments in Sumerian thought. The
Babylonians and Assyrians believed in the survival of
the soul (edinifnu) in the future, in Arallu, the land
of the dead ; but Arallu was a "place of desolation".
Offerings were made for the dead, but primarily for
the purpose of keeping them from harming the living.
In the Babylonian and Assyrian conception of life
after death, the moral factor was entirely absent. Nor
did the gods ever concern themselves with the dead,
who lived in a gloomy and silent habitation. What
happiness a man may desire must be secured in this
life, and hence moral standards were completely adap-
ted to the present needs, without any reference to
the future. The future, therefore, did not hold any
moral sanction for the Babylonians and the Assyrians

1 1 8 Religious and Moral Ideas

as it did for the Hebrews. It was in this life that
moral sanctions were to be found, and they were
found chiefly in the fact that the gods demanded
obedience to just laws — adherence to moral standards.

In conclusion it may be well to enumerate the
main features of Babylonian and Assyrian morals,
and to make an estimate of them. In making this
estimate we must be careful to distinguish between
national and individual morals, for while the morals
of a nation may be commended or condemned in
comparison with the morals of our own time, indi-
vidual morals must be judged in the light of the
customs of the age of the particular individual under
consideration.

Our study of the morals of the Babylonians and
of the Assyrians as a nation has revealed certain
defects. Their idea of the deity was far inferior to
ours, for while they considered the gods to be the
source of all justice, truth, righteousness, etc., yet
their justice, truth, and righteousness were national
and not international. Moreover their gods were con-
ceived in a very anthropomorphic way, and were sub-
ject to the need of change and repentance just as
men are. In short their moral conception of their
gods was a limited one, but very high within these
limitations. Again, their idea of the rights and priv-
ileges of the head of the family was inferior when
considered in the light of the twentieth century, but
its limitations were due to the customs and traditions
of the time. "Convention is king over all," says Pin-
dar, and according as convention changed, so the

Idea of Morality \ 1 9

rights of the father were more and more limited.
Another defect was noted in connection with the sub-
ject of punishment. Many of the punishments reg-
ulated by the law were far too harsh in our judgment,
but they again were regulated by custom and tradition,
for certain punishments which are considered just in
the twentieth century may be considered equally harsh
in the thirtieth century. The lex talionis and capi-
tal punishment serve not only to show how compara-
tively cruel the Babylonians and Assyrians were, but
they may also be taken as an indication of the great
abhorrence felt by them for certain types of sin.
Slavery was another national defect, but that again
was in order among all ancient peoples. That the
slaves enjoyed certain very definite rights was a step
in that direction which finally led to the banishment of
slavery; but not till many thousands of years had
passed. There were other defects, if we judge these
people by our twentieth century standards; e. g., the
people apparently had very little share in the govern-
ment ; magic controlled much of the religious life, and
sin was likely to be very physically conceived. But
here again we must keep in mind the moral determi-
nants of the age, e. g., heredity, environment, and
social tradition.

On the other hand, our study has revealed to us
much evidence of real moral strength in the character
of the Babylonians and Assyrians. We have seen
that their moral ideals were very high, and that their
practice often very nearly approximated their ideals.
The moral ideal in family life, we have seen, was

1 20 Religious and Moral Ideas

truth, justice, and righteousness; in political or social
life it was justice and righteousness, truth and mercy ;
in business life it was justice, truthfulness, and hon-
esty; in international life it was peace, established
upon justice and truth; in transcendental life it was
piety, consisting in obedience, love, and worship ; and
in personal life it was truth. In short, justice and
truth were the great fundamental moral ideals of the
Babylonians and Assyrians. Nor was the moral ideal
merely external, consisting in a materialistic mo-
rality; it was certainly also internal, being persisted
in out of a desire for real heartfelt satisfaction.

Their idea of moral evil was a very discriminating
one. Moral evil generally consisted in a transgression
of the laws of the gods. In family life it consisted
chiefly in injustice and immorality ; in social and po-
litical life, in oppression and cruelty ; in international
life, in cruelty ; in transcendental life, in irreverence ;
and in personal life, in disobedience. These moral
evils were strongly detested and severely punished. In
short, moral evil consisted in the violation of the laws
and customs of the times, or in other words in the
violation of the will of the gods. Sin was often
considered ceremonially, but it was certainly also
considered from a purely moral point of view.

Moral sanctions have also been considered, and we
found that here also there was not lacking a real in-
ternal sanction, though the predominating one was
external.

The individual Babylonian and Assyrian cannot be
judged in the light of the twentieth century. He
must be commended or condemned according as he

Idea of Moraliiyf 1 2 1

obeyed or disobeyed the laws of his time. He was,
as is every individual of every age, controlled by cer-
tain moral determinants, such as heredity, environ-
ment, and social tradition. All these must be taken
in^o consideration in our estimation of his morals.
We have, accordingly, found that the Babylonian and
Assyrian was a truthful, just, and pious individual;
he was conscious of a certain amount of free will;
he was accustomed to weigh motives and intentions;
and yet he felt that his life and destiny were in a
way controlled by the gods.

In short, our study of Babylonian and Assyrian
morals has led us to believe that as a people they may
be said to have been especially characterized by their
devotion to justice and truthfulness; and in spite of
the presence of much materialism in their social life,
and of much regard for ceremonial in their religious
life, their moral ideals were singularly high. Judged
by a twentieth century standard they were as a nation
on a much lower level, generally, than the nations of
the Western world. On the other hand, there is noth-
ing to show that the individual Babylonian and Assyr-
ian, judged as he must be by the moral standards of
his own time, was anything else than a truthful, just,
law-abiding, and pious subject of his king and gods.

As we look back over our study of the religious and
moral ideas of the Bab3donians and Assyrians, and re-
call their exalted piety and reverence for their gods,
the consciousness of their continual dependence upon
them, and the ideals which they ascribed to them ; as
we recall their doctrine of man and his relationship to

1 22 Religious and Moral Ideas

the gods, his dependence upon them, and his effort
to emulate them ; as we think of the system they had
developed to preserve intact a continual communi-
cation between themselves and the gods ; and especially
as we contemplate the height of moral purpose and
the depth of moral insight to which they had attained,
we can well be puzzled by the barrenness of their
faith in the future. Their faith in the gods, in man,
in the power of mediation, and in moral goodness,
was a great force in their daily life. They seemed
to gather living force, wisdom, and faith, out of
every experience, and to apply them to this faith in
the gods and in man, in mediation, and in morality.
But the accumulation of faith stopped short at this
point. They were like the peevish and complaining
Israelites, who, in spite of Jehovah's care for them in
the past, could not believe that he could give bread
also, and flesh for his people.

The S5rmmetry of their religious and moral life
was destroyed by their lack of faith in the future.
They had developed the height of their mystic relig-
ious city. Its reach towards the divine had made
excellent progress. They had developed its breadth,
its outreach laterally. They understood human na-
ture, and had made great strides along the lines of so-
cial and national development. They had built up
great and reliable institutions of commerce, trade, and
law. But the length of their mystic city of religious
thought was miserably dwarfed. It practically ended
with this life. There was no reaching forward with
eagerness to a future life. Their religion remained a

Idea of Moralityf 123

mundane one; their morals did not reckon with the
future.

This was the limitation which blighted the Baby-
lonian and Assyrian religion. The debt which the
world owes Babylonia and Assyria in science, com-
merce, art, literature, morality, and especially law,
is deep and lasting. The science of astronomy was
born in the cradle of Assyrian astrology; the tech-
nique of commerce was developed and perfected in
the shops and market-places of Babylon and Nine-
veh, with great merchants, such as the "House of
Murashu and Sons"; art, especially of the plastic
type, was perfected in Babylonia over two thousand
years before Christ; literature had made mighty
strides before history in Greece was born; morality
seems to have been native in a high form with the
earliest Babylonians; and the Code of Hammurapi
not only surpassed the laws of Manu and of the
Eoman Twelve Tables, but antedated them by many
hundreds of years. The institutions of Western civi-
lization are permeated through and through with
Babylonian and Assyrian culture. We cannot reckon
time without doing so in terms of Babylonian math-
ematics ; we cannot make out a receipt without signing
it in a Babylonian way; we cannot seal a letter with-
out using an Assyrian patent ; we cannot think of the
creation of the world or of the catastrophies which the
glacial period left in its trail without making use of
Babylonian and Assyrian cosmological ideas : we can-
not draw up a code of ethics without using Assyrian
and Babylonian models ; and we cannot draw up a legal

124 Religious and Moral Ideas

contract, in legal terms, without the use of Babylonian
technical phraseology.

No race has more profoundly impressed the world's
civilization in these matters than the Babylonians
and Assyrians. But their primitive conception of
the future became so encrusted, so hardened, that no
influences from without were ever able to reach it.
Nor was the cnist ever broken. That crust finally
crippled all religious effort. A religion and morality
which had the possibilities of so much within them
became diseased at the core mth a malady which
caused their death. The Babylonian and Assyrian
religion is a sad example of a one-sided religion,
whose inevitable outcome is decay. Mighty Babylon
and Assyria's grandeur have not left themselves
without excellent witnesses of their priceless gifts to
human endeavour, but their temple of religious in-
sight must always remain a ruin, albeit an interesting,
instructive, and grand one.

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dhorme, p., La Religion Assyro-Bahylonienne, Paris, 1910.
Farnell, L. R., Greece and Babylon, Edinburgh, 1911.
Habpeb, R. F., Code of Hammurabi, Chicago, 1904.
Hopkins, E. W., The History of Religions, chap. XVIII,

New York, 1918.
Jastkow, M., Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in
Babylonia and Assyria, New York, 1911.
Cimlization of Babylonia and Assyria, Philadelphia,

1915.
Hebrew and BabylonioM Tradition, New York, 1914.
Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, Giessen,
1905-12.
Jeremias, a.. Die babylonisch-assyrischen Vorstellungen

vom Leben nach dem Tode, Leipzig, 1897
Johns, C. H. W., An Assyrian Doomsday Book, Leipzig,
1901.
Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Let-
ters, New York, 1904.
King, L. W., A History of Sumer and Akkad, New York
(n. d.).
A History of Babylon, London, 1915.
Annals of the Kings of Assyria, London, 1902.
KoHLER, J., AND Ungnad, A., Assyrische Rechtsurkunden,
Leipzig, 1913flf.
Hammurabi's Gesetz, Bd. I-V, Leipzig, 1904-11.
Langdon, S., "Babylonian Eschatology" (in Essays offered
to C. A. Briggs, New York, 1911).
Babylonian Liturgies, Paris, 1913.
Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms, Paris, 1909.

125

126 Religious and Moral Ideas

Mercer, S. A. B., The Oath in Babylonian and Assyrian
Literature, Paris, 1912.
"Early Babylonian Morals", Journal of the Society

of Oriental Research, 2, Chicago, 1918.
"Sumerian Morals", ih., 1.
"Malediction in Cuneiform Inscriptions", Journal of

the American Oriental Society, 1915, No. 3.
"Emperor Worship in Babylonia", ih., 1917, 360-80.
"Mediation in Religious Thought", Constructive

Quarterly, March, 1919.
"War and War-Gods", "Water and Water-Gods",
Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.
Moore, G. F., History of Religions, I, New York, 1913.
MoRGENSTERN, J., "The Doctrine of Sin in Babylonian
Religion", Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1905.
Paffrath, T., Zur Gotterlehre in den althalylonischen

Konigsinschriften, Paderborn, 1913.
Radau, H., Sumerian Hymns and Prayers to Ninih,

Munchen, 1913.
Rogers, R. W., A History of Babylonia and Assyria, I-II,
New York, 1915.
The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, New York,
1908.
Streck, M., Assurbanipal, Leipzig, 1916.
Thureau-Dangin, F,, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen

Konigsinschriften, Leipzig, 1907.
Ungnad, a., Bahylonische Briefe aus der Hammurapi-

Dynastie, Leipzig, 1914.
Zimmerx, H., "Babylonians and Assyrians", Encyclopaedia
of Religion and Ethics.

INDEX

Adad, 23.
Allatu, 93.
Anag, 92.
Anu, 11.
Anunnaki, 21.
Arallu, 93.
Arum, 36f.
Ashapu, 85.
Ashtart, 17.
Ashtoreth, 17.
Ashur, 2 Iff.
Assyrian gods, 23.
Astrology, 27f., 87f.
Astrologers, 26f.

Ea, 8, 12f.
Enlil, 12.
Enuma Elish, 35.
Ereshkigal, 19, 93f.
E-sagila, 18.
Etana, 38.
Exorcism, 85.

Father, 44.
Feasts, 79f .
Flood, 41.
Foreigner, 53f.
Freewill, 113.

B

Baru, 86.
Bel, 18.
Burial, 92.

Children, their duties, 44.
Communion, 68.
Creation, 35ff .

Divination, 85flF.

Geshtinanna, 20f .
Gibil, 20.
Gilgamesh, 37f.
Girru, 20.
Goddesses, 24.
Gods, 53ff.

H

Henotheism, 30.
High priest, 66.
Hittites, 3.

Hymns, to Ishtar, 76f.
to Shamash, 77f.

127

128

Religious and Moral Ideas

I

Igigi, 21.
Immortality, 40.
Individual, 47.
Ishtar, 16ff., 23f.

Judge, 48.
Justice, 49f .

N

Xahi, 19.
Nabu, 18f.
Nergal, 19f., 93.
Nina, 3.
Ningirsu, 9, 10.
Ninib, 19.
Ninursa, 19.
Nusku, 20.

K

Kassites, 3.
King. 46.
Kingship, 38f.
Kittu, 30.

Law, 48.

M

Magic, 85.
Marduk, lOf., 18f.
Marriage, 43f.
Misharu, 30.
Monotheism, 30fr.
Moon, 13.

Moral determinants, 114.
Moral evil, origin of, 112f.
Moral sanctions, 116f.
Moral sin, llOf.
Morals,

family, 102ff.

international, lOof.

social, 104f.

transcendental. 106.

Oath, 52.
Oracles, 88f .

Peace, 53f.
Polytheists, 30.
Prayer, 7 Iff.
Predestination, 114.
Property, 50.
Priesthood, 64ff.
Punishments, severe, 49.

Ramman, 23.

S

Sacrifice, 68ff.
Shamash, 14f.
Shangu, 66.
Sin, 15f., origin of, 40.
Slave, 45. 5 If.
Society, 45.
Solar deities, 14.
Sun, 13f.

Index

129

Tammuz, 17, 20f.
Temples, 8 If.
Trade and business, 50.
Treaties, 52.
Triads, 25ff.

U

Utnapishtim, 37f.

W

War, 53ff.

Wife, her rights, 44.

Yahweh, 12, 16, 21.

Z
ZiTcJcurat, 82.

I'i'lll I III I ^"11°!',?'.'?,^.' Sem.nary-Speer Library

1 1012 01145 3554

Date Due