Bel

← Encyclopedia

Bel is not, strictly, the name of a god. It is the Akkadian word bēlu, “lord” — an honorific that several deities carried, and that came to function, in certain periods and places, almost as a proper name. To say “Bel” in a Mesopotamian text is to invoke whichever great lord the context already had in view, and the question of which one is itself part of the history.

In the older period the title belonged to Enlil, the storm-god of Nippur who held the kingship of the gods through the third and early second millennia. As the political weight of Mesopotamia shifted south to Babylon, so did the title. By the time of the city’s ascendancy under Hammurabi and after, Bel attached above all to Marduk, Babylon’s patron, until “Bel” and “Marduk” were heard as one name — Bel-Marduk — and the older Enlil receded behind it. The transfer was not an accident of language but a claim: that the lordship once held at Nippur now rested with Babylon’s god. The Babylonian creation epic, the Enūma Eliš, makes the claim in narrative form, raising Marduk to the head of the pantheon after his victory over the chaos-sea Tiamat.

The same title travelled west. The cognate Semitic word baʿal, “lord,” names the storm-gods of Canaan and Syria denounced throughout the Hebrew Bible, and Greek and Roman writers used “Belus” loosely for the great god of Babylon and for legendary eastern kings. Scholarship treats these as related by language and by a shared instinct — that the chief god is addressed as lord — rather than as a single deity worshipped under one name across the Near East.

It is in this borrowed sense that Bel enters scripture. The deuterocanonical “Bel and the Dragon,” appended to the Book of Daniel and preserved in Greek, tells of the prophet exposing the priests of Bel as frauds: the food set before the idol each night, supposedly eaten by the god, is shown to be carried off by the priests through a hidden door. The story is a polemic — a Jewish satire on idol-worship, with the Babylonian “Lord” as its target — and it is the form in which the name reached medieval and later Christian Europe, long after the cult itself had ended. Modern scholars read it as a literary composition of the Hellenistic period rather than a record of Babylonian rite.

What survives, then, is less a god than a title and the contests fought through it: a word for lordship that the priests of one city after another claimed for their own, and that the writers of another tradition turned against them. The lord changed; the word held.

→ Related: Mesopotamia · Atargatis · Sabazius