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. The word names an office before it names a holder. 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. The title is the constant; the god beneath it changes with the fortunes of cities. A reader who asks “who was Bel?” has already asked the wrong question, or rather the second question — the first is “Bel of where, and when?”

The office and its first holder

In the older period the lordship belonged to Enlil, the storm-god of Nippur who held the kingship of the gods through the third and early second millennia. Enlil sat in the cosmic triad with Anu, the remote sky-father, and Enki–Ea, the god of the sweet waters and of cunning; of the three it was Enlil who governed, who carried the ellil-ship — the active rule of heaven and earth — and to whom kings owed their mandate. His temple at Nippur, the Ekur, the “mountain house,” was the central sanctuary of the Mesopotamian world, the place where the decrees that fixed destinies were thought to be issued. To call Enlil bēlu, “Lord,” was less an epithet than a recognition: he was the one in whom rule was vested, and the word attached to him as a title attaches to a throne. For long stretches of the third millennium, “the Lord” in a hymn or a royal inscription meant Enlil of Nippur and needed no further specification.

That the supreme god should be addressed simply as Lord is itself characteristic of the system. Mesopotamian theology worked through honorifics and through the layering of names: a god accreted titles as a city accreted walls, and the highest of these honorifics — Lord, King, the one who decrees — were portable. They could be lifted from one divine holder and set upon another. This portability is the whole mechanism of what follows.

The southward shift and the fusion Bel-Marduk

As the political weight of Mesopotamia shifted south to Babylon, so did the title. The first millennia of Mesopotamian history are in large part the history of which city held the center, and the gods rose and fell with their cities. When Hammurabi made Babylon the leading power of the land early in the second millennium, the city’s once-minor patron, Marduk, began the long ascent that would carry him to the head of the pantheon. The prologue to Hammurabi’s law code already foreshadows the change: it has Anu and Enlil determine that Marduk should receive the ellil-ship, the rule once held at Nippur. The grant is made in the older gods’ own voices — the device by which a new supremacy is given the authority of the old.

By the time of Babylon’s full ascendancy, Bel attached above all to Marduk, 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 attributes followed the title. The decreeing of destinies, the kingship of the gods, the guarantee of the cosmic order — all migrated to Marduk, and Enlil’s Ekur was to some degree left in shadow. The word did not weaken in the moving; it concentrated. By the first millennium, in Babylonian usage, Bēl unqualified meant Marduk as surely as it had once meant Enlil, and the great spring festival of Babylon, the akītu, was the festival of Bel.

The claim told as story: Enūma eliš

The Babylonian creation epic, the Enūma eliš — “When on high,” from its opening words — makes the claim in narrative form, raising Marduk to the head of the pantheon after his victory over the chaos-sea Tiamat. Preserved on seven tablets recovered chiefly from the library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, the poem is by scholarly consensus a theological charter for Babylon’s god. It tells of the primordial mingling of the waters, Apsu the sweet and Tiamat the salt; the birth of the younger gods and the turmoil they cause; Ea’s defeat of Apsu; and then the rising of Tiamat in vengeance, with her host of monsters, against which the assembled gods are helpless. Marduk alone will face her — on one condition. The gods must grant him kingship, the right to decree, the supremacy that none may revoke. They agree; he goes out; he splits Tiamat and from her divided body fashions the ordered world, setting the stars in their stations, fixing the year and the months, and establishing Babylon and its temple Esagil at the center of things. The poem closes with the recitation of his fifty names, a litany in which the powers and titles of the older gods are gathered into the single figure of Marduk. The fifty names are the theology of the transfer made explicit: what was scattered among many lords is now spoken over one.

The epic was not merely read but performed. It was recited during the akītu, the New Year festival, when the act that founded heaven and earth was understood to be done again over the god, and the king knelt before Bel and rose confirmed in his rule. Cosmology, kingship, and the calendar were bound together in the one ceremony, and the title Bēl sat at its center — not a name among names but the office that the whole rite existed to reaffirm.

The cognate word travels west: baʿal

The same instinct, and the same root, traveled west. The cognate Northwest Semitic word baʿal, “lord,” names the storm-and-fertility gods of Canaan and Syria — Baal of the Ugaritic poems, rider of the clouds and slayer of the sea-god Yam, and the many local baʿalim of the Levantine towns. It is this western “Lord,” Baal, who is denounced throughout the Hebrew Bible as the chief rival of the God of Israel, his altars thrown down, his prophets confronted, his name made a byword for the foreign god. The eastern Bel and the western Baal are the same word doing the same work in two related languages: the chief god addressed as Lord. They are not, on that account, a single deity worshipped under one name across the Near East — the storm-god of Ugarit and the city-god of Babylon have distinct mythologies, distinct cults, distinct biographies. What they share is the grammar of supremacy, the habit of a Semitic-speaking world that named its highest god by his lordship rather than by a name that could be parochial. The movement of the word is itself a study in syncretism: not one god spreading, but one title proving translatable, attaching wherever a people had a highest lord to address.

”Belus” in Greek and Roman writers

Greek and Roman writers used “Belus” loosely, and in two registers at once. In one, Belus is simply the great god of Babylon — the deity whose vast temple Herodotus describes, the Bel-Marduk whom the Hellenistic world knew as the god of the Chaldeans. It was as a “priest of Bel” that Berossus, the Babylonian who wrote a history of his land in Greek for the Seleucid court around the early third century BCE, presented himself; his title in Akkadian, Bēl-rēʾû-šunu, even carried the god’s name. In the other register, “Belus” is a legendary eastern king — euhemerized into a founder-figure, made the father of Ninus the legendary builder of Nineveh, woven into Greek genealogies of the dynasties of the East. The same syllable, Bel, served the Greeks for a god, for a deified king, and for the half-historical memory of Babylon’s antiquity, with the boundaries between the three left comfortably blurred. The looseness is the point: by the Hellenistic period, “Bel” had become less a precise theological term than a name that meant the ancient lordship of the East, available to whoever wished to invoke it. In this same atmosphere the Babylonian astral lore that Greek writers credited to the “Chaldeans” passed westward and seeded the technical astrology of the Hellenistic world — another inheritance carried, like the title itself, under the prestige of Babylon’s name.

The name in scripture: Bel and the Dragon

It is in this borrowed and somewhat faded 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 Daniel exposing the priests of Bel as frauds. The Persian king sets before the idol each day a great ration of flour, sheep, and wine, and points to the empty vessels each morning as proof that the god is alive and eats. Daniel scatters ashes across the temple floor by night, the doors are sealed, and in the morning the footprints of the priests and their families — who have entered through a concealed door to carry off the food — are printed across the ash for the king to read. The idol is destroyed; in the companion tale that follows, a living “dragon” or great serpent venerated as a god is killed by Daniel without sword, and the deception of the cult is shown a second way.

The story is a polemic — a Jewish satire on idol-worship, with the Babylonian “Lord” as its target — and modern scholarship reads it as a literary composition of the Hellenistic period rather than a record of Babylonian rite. It survives in two distinct Greek forms, the Old Greek of the Septuagint and the later version associated with Theodotion that became the standard text, and it stands among the additions to Daniel that the Greek Bible carried and the Hebrew did not — which is why its canonical standing came to differ across the later traditions, a question that belongs to the wider history of the disputed books rather than to the god. Its sharpness is aimed not at a living cult but at the idea of one: the god who must be secretly fed because he cannot feed himself, the priests who profit from a divine appetite they themselves supply. By the time the tale was written, the cult of Bel was an emblem more than a rival, and the satire works on the emblem. It is the form in which the name reached medieval and later Christian Europe, long after the rite at Esagil had ended — a Babylonian Lord remembered chiefly as the idol a Hebrew prophet unmasked.

Scholarship and texts

The history of Bēl as a movable title runs through the standard treatments of Mesopotamian religion. Thorkild Jacobsen’s The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (Yale University Press, 1976) traces the shifting sovereignty of the high gods and the logic by which rule passed from one divine holder to another. The fullest modern account of the poem that performs Marduk’s elevation is W. G. Lambert’s Babylonian Creation Myths (Eisenbrauns, 2013), the critical edition of the Enūma eliš, which sets out the evidence for Marduk’s rise from a minor city-god to the lord of the fifty names; Paul-Alain Beaulieu’s A History of Babylon, 2200 BC – AD 75 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2018) places that rise in its full political frame. For the older synthetic treatments, in the public domain and valuable as documents in the history of the field, see Morris Jastrow Jr.’s The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Ginn, 1898; Project Gutenberg) and George Smith’s The Chaldean Account of Genesis (1876; Project Gutenberg), both written in the first decades of cuneiform decipherment.

The Babylonian narrative of the lord and the dragon — Marduk and Tiamat — was edited for the British Museum by E. A. Wallis Budge under the title The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight Between Bel and the Dragon (1921), whose phrasing deliberately echoes the biblical addition; it remains available in full at the Internet Sacred Text Archive. The scriptural “Bel and the Dragon” itself is carried in R. H. Charles’s standard collection, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913), hosted in the Library; the critical commentary of reference is Carey A. Moore’s Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions in the Anchor Bible series (Doubleday, 1977), which treats the two Greek recensions and reads the tale as Hellenistic-period anti-idolatry narrative. Recent work continues to refine that reading — for instance, studies of the redactional layers of the Bel story in the Journal for the Study of Judaism, which argue that the polemic against the foreign priests was sharpened in the Old Greek.

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.

→ In the library: Charles (ed.) — The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913), incl. Bel and the Dragon

→ Related: Mesopotamia · Marduk · Babylon · Nippur · Baal · Canaan · Book Of Daniel · Daniel · Deuterocanonical Books · Hellenistic Period · Syncretism · Atargatis · Sabazius · Astrology