Greetings,
This week we began our look at Babylonian civilization.
Babylon had many things going for it. They were the quintessential cosmopolitan city of the ancient world. Their geography funneled trade, cash, and resources towards them. Much of ancient learning concentrated itself there. This would be a city in general more tolerant, vibrant, and diverse than most other cities in the ancient world. I hope that the students remember our examination of the geographical influence of all of this. ‘Cosmopolitan’ cities throughout history have to be accessible, which usually puts them in relatively flat areas near water. One thinks of New York, London, and Los Angeles as examples. Of course, such cities not only need favorable geography, but they need to be accessible and open-minded culturally as well. Geography can bring you to water, but can’t make you drink.
But enormous cracks in the foundation lay below the surface. Babylonian creation accounts paint a bleak picture: Ultimately things “come to be” because of chaos and confusion amongst the gods. Unlike in Genesis 1, creation had no intentionality or design behind it. Nor can we say that the “good” gods triumphed over evil. Rather, one side simply emerged as the stronger. This impacted Babylonian thought in several ways:
- Humanity is an afterthought that exists to be manipulated by the gods
- Stability and order are generally absent (a stark contrast to Genesis 1).This chaos spilled over into other areas.
- Sin, at root, was not your fault, as you could be ‘jumped’ by malicious spirits (jinn) who would lead you down the wrong path
- Ishtar was their major goddess – goddess of love and marriage but also war and prostitution.
She was again, a goddess, but was often depicted with a beard. The ambiguity was reflected in the statue of her to the side, which shows her as a warrior showing quite a bit of leg for an ancient goddess. - Not surprisingly, this gender confusion spilled over into society, as Herodotus tells us of the fad among society’s elite for cross-dressing
- Not surprisingly, Babylon was known for its immorality, and notorious for its rampant temple prostitution, among other things.
A society where so much is left to chance is bound to try and find a way to explain it all, and this may have led to the Babylonian passion for dream interpretation.* A whole list of possible dreams and their meanings was drawn up, but this did not necessarily help. One tells us that if you dream that you eat meat you will have a son. Later, it says that if you have meat in a dream you will not have a son. How could one know the truth?
Or perhaps, with the mysteries of the universe completely unknowable, one might stop looking and settle for the ‘eat, drink, for tomorrow we die,’ philosophy. It is any surprise that Babylon is conquered in Daniel 5 as they are partying? Perhaps we might also surmise that Babylon’s endless possibilities led in the end to boredom. We looked at this famous Babylonian text,
Babylon’s View of Life: “The Dialog of Pessimism,” (M stands for Master, S for slave)
M “Slave, agree with me!”
S “Yes, my lord, yes!”
M “I will love a woman!”
S “So love, my lord, love!
The man who loves a woman forgets want and misery!”
M “No, slave, I will not love a woman!”
S “Love not, my lord, love not!
Woman is a snare, a trap, a pitfall;
Woman is a sharpened iron sword
Which will cut a young man’s neck!”
M “Slave, agree with me!”
S “Yes, my lord, yes!”
M “Straightaway order me water for my hands,
I will make a libation to my god!”
S “Do my lord, do! As for the man who makes a libation
To his god, his heart is at ease;
He makes loan upon loan!”
M “No slave, I will not make a libation!”
S “Make it not, my lord, make it not!
Teach the god to run after thee like a dog.”
M “Slave, agree with me!”
S “Yes, my lord, yes!”
M “I will give money to my country.”
S “So do, my lord, so do!
The man who gives money to his land,
His alms have been put in the palms of the god
Marduk himself.”
M “No, slave, I will not give alms to my land!”
S “Do it not, my lord, do it not!
Look upon the ruined mounds of
Ancient cities and look around;
Behold the skulls of those of earlier and later times.
Who is the evildoer, who is the benefactor?”
M “Slave, agree with me!”
S “Yes, my lord, yes!”
M “Now then, what is good?
To break my neck and thy neck,
To fall into the river — that is good!”
S “Yes my lord. Who is tall enough to reach up to heaven;
Who is broad enough that he might encompass the earth?
M “No slave, I will kill only you — you go first!”
S “But, you my lord, would not last three days after me!
Without relations, she conceived! Without eating, she became fat!
When I labor, they take away my reward. When I increase my efforts, who will give me anything?
The strong man is fed through the price of his hire, the weak man through the price of his child.
My feet keep walking, my knees do not tire, yet a foolish man pursues me with sorrow.
Am I not a thoroughbred steed? Yet I am harnessed with a mule and must draw a wagon.
I dwell in a fancy house, yet some clay pours over me (i.e., the roof leaks).
The life of the day before yesterday is that of any day.
You are placed in a river and your water at once becomes stinking; you sit in an orchard and your fruit becomes bitter.
Will ripe grain grow? How do we know? Will dried grain grow? Who can tell?
Very soon I will be dead. Let me eat, drink, and spend. Soon I will be well. Let me save for later!
You go and take the field of your enemy. The enemy comes and takes your field.
The fox had a stick with him. He asks, “Whom shall I hit?” He has a legal document. He asks, “Whom shall I challenge?”
No agreement can be reached when the women talk without ceasing.
Into an open mouth, a fly will enter!
The horse, after he had thrown his rider, lamented, “If my burden be like this always, soon I shall be weak!”
The dog understands: “Take it!” He does not understand. “Put it down!”
As I mentioned in class, in studying Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon–in that order–is not so much chronological but thematic in purpose. In Egypt, we see a self-contained, stable culture that highly valued stability and balance. With Assyria, we saw a culture that was ‘self-contained’ and homogeneous to a certain extent, but who highly valued movement. With Babylon, we have a a creation account that demonstrates chaos, and a geography that maximizes diversity. Each set of circumstances and beliefs creates different kinds of civilizations.
And–as long as we have ‘confusion’ as our theme, who can forget:
Many thanks,
Dave
A Stick in the Mud 
The Sumerians and Akkadians (including Assyrians and Babylonians) dominated Mesopotamia from the beginning of written history (c. 3100 BC) to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, when it was conquered by the Achaemenid Empire. It fell to Alexander the Great in 332 BC, and after his death, it became part of the Greek Seleucid Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia
Greetings, and thanks for your reply. I don’t question the facts you cite, but I am curious as to what you point you wished to make with these facts. Was it related to the Code of Hammurabi? Thanks again!
The point being that although you speak disparagingly about the civilisation due to its religion it seems to have outlasted most others. How do you support this seeming contradiction? What evidence is there to support the idea that success is dependent on the type of religion followed?
I see religions in the middle east tearing each other apart, something that has also been going on in the West for much longer.
Ah, thanks so much for your clarification. Your questions are excellent. I would say very briefly that 1) Some aspects of the religion I describe above represented perhaps an evolution from earlier beliefs, which may have grown as their knolwedge of astronomy grew. It appears to me that their knowledge of astronomy may have contributed to a growth of a fatalistic strain in Babylonian thought–but I am very far from an expert and I could be wrong about this–I will have to chew over your comment.
As to your second question, it is perhaps the best question one can ask as an historian. I would beg off a full answer in this forum, but would be happy to continue the conversation at greater length over email if you have the interest. Very briefly, if religion forms the core of our fundamental values and commitments, this would seem to me have a relationship to a civilization akin to that of a house to its foundation.
My cards on the table . . . I am a committed Orthodox Christian. But to perhaps start our further conversation, I offer the following below from Arnold Toynbee, who was not really a Christian, but I think agreed with me on this point.
Thanks so much again for your thoughts and questions. I appreciate how you have made me think about this again.
Dave
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/toynbee.html