2. Mesopotamia. In the sister-civilization of Meso-
potamia ideas of sin and salvation differed profoundly
from the Egyptian concepts, because the Mesopo-
tamian peoples did not believe that a happy lot after
death could be achieved. For them, death irreparably
shattered the psychophysical organism that constituted
an individual person. What survived the awful change
was terribly transformed and descended into kur-
nu-gi-a, the Land of No-return, which was conceived
as an immense pit, deep down below the foundations
of the world, where the dead dwelt in dust and gloom.
All went there, great and small, good and bad; for the
gods had withheld the gift of immortality from man.
Salvation, consequently, could not be hoped for from
death and its consequences. There was, also, no expec-
tation of judgment after death, since a common fate
awaited all. The logic of this view of man's life and
destiny meant that salvation and sin were ideas that
related only to this present life. Salvation, accordingly,
was security from what threatened to harm or destroy
the enjoyment of life in this world. For such security
men turned to the gods in prayer and service, believing
that they had the power to grant long life and prosper-
ity. They believed, too, that the gods had created
mankind to serve them by building temples and offer-
ing sacrifice to them. Neglect of this service constituted
sin, and it had dire consequences. The gods would
withdraw their protection from those who so trans-
gressed, thus leaving them open to demonic attack. A
Babylonian text known as the Ludlul bel nemequi
significantly reveals the doubt and anxiety that might
beset a man, afflicted by evil, who was not conscious
of having neglected his religious duties: “I looked
backwards: persecution, woe! Like one who did not
offer libation to a god... who did not bow his face
and did not know reverence, in whose mouth prayer
and supplication ceased.” The texts of many so-called
“penitential psalms” which have been found, appear
to express a sense of contrition for sin felt towards a
particular patron-god; but their purpose was essentially
expiatory. They were doubtless recited during rituals
of atonement prompted by misfortune, or, were of an
apotropaic kind. It is improbable that they constituted
evidence of an established doctrine of sin.
That the gods were believed to have delivered laws
for mankind to keep finds graphic expression in the
famous Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon (ca.
1792-1750 B.C.). Carved at the top of the black basalt
stele on which the laws are inscribed, is a scene of
Hammurabi adoring the sun-god Shamash, from whom
he had received the laws. The laws that follow, and
penalties for their infringement, are concerned, how-
ever, only with the well-being of the state and the
maintenance of social order. In an epilogue, Ham-
murabi claims that Shamash had committed these
laws to him, and he threatens with divine punishment
any successor who might disregard them. But through-
out the Code the terms of reference relate significantly,
to life in this world; and transgression of its provisions
is to be punished by the civil authorities. Similarly
confined to this life are the forms of salvation for which
much concern is shown in Mesopotamian texts. But
when acts of saving intervention are ascribed to such
deities as Marduk or Ishtar, it is salvation from some
kind of mundane misfortune, usually sickness; for there
could be no saving from the post-mortem destiny de-
creed for mankind.
