The myth regarding the father who was superseded by his son may account for the existence in Babylonian city pantheons of elder and younger gods who symbolized the passive and active forces of nature.

Considering the persistent and cumulative influence exercised by agricultural religion it is not surprising to find, as has been indicated, that most of the Babylonian gods had Tammuz traits, as most of the Egyptian gods had Osirian traits.  Although local or imported deities were developed and conventionalized in rival Babylonian cities, they still retained traces of primitive conceptions.  They existed in all their forms—­as the younger god who displaced the elder god and became the elder god, and as the elder god who conciliated the younger god and made him his active agent; and as the god who was identified at various seasons with different heavenly bodies and natural phenomena.  Merodach, the god of Babylon, who was exalted as chief of the National pantheon in the Hammurabi Age, was, like Tammuz, a son, and therefore a form of Ea, a demon slayer, a war god, a god of fertility, a corn spirit, a Patriarch, and world ruler and guardian, and, like Tammuz, he had solar, lunar, astral, and atmospheric attributes.  The complex characters of Merodach and Tammuz were not due solely to the monotheistic tendency:  the oldest deities were of mystical character, they represented the “Self Power” of Naturalism as well as the spirit groups of Animism.

The theorizing priests, who speculated regarding the mysteries of life and death and the origin of all things, had to address the people through the medium of popular beliefs.  They utilized floating myths for this purpose.  As there were in early times various centres of culture which had rival pantheons, the adapted myths varied greatly.  In the different forms in which they survive to us they reflect, not only aspects of local beliefs, but also grades of culture at different periods.  We must not expect, however, to find that the latest form of a myth was the highest and most profound.  The history of Babylonian religion is divided into periods of growth and periods of decadence.  The influence of domestic religion was invariably opposed to the new and high doctrines which emanated from the priesthood, and in times of political upheaval tended to submerge them in the debris of immemorial beliefs and customs.  The retrogressive tendencies of the masses were invariably reinforced by the periodic invasions of aliens who had no respect for official deities and temple creeds.

We must avoid insisting too strongly on the application of the evolution theory to the religious phenomena of a country like Babylonia.

The epochs in the intellectual life of an ancient people are not comparable to geological epochs, for instance, because the forces at work were directed by human wills, whether in the interests of progress or otherwise.  The battle of creeds has ever been a battle of minds.  It should be recognized, therefore, that the human element bulks as prominently in the drama of Babylon’s religious history as does the prince of Denmark in the play of Hamlet.  We are not concerned with the plot alone.  The characters must also receive attention.  Their aspirations and triumphs, their prejudices and blunders, were the billowy forces which shaped the shoreland of the story and made history.