The priesthood was large. Besides the chief priests, there were elders, anointers,—who anointed the images of the gods and the vessels of the temple with sacred oil; priests who presided over the oracles and whose function it was to ascertain auspicious times for war and other prodigious undertakings, and seers, who interpreted dreams.
Revenues of the temples came from offerings and more regularly, from the tithe, a tax paid by both king and subjects. In this way, the temples controlled property. Their lands were usually rented out.
When Babylonia reached her age of greatest prosperity, the religion of the land had been greatly secularized, and the temples were important for their business significances quite as much as for their religious features. "The temple exerted an overwhelming financial influence in smaller towns. Only in certain large cities was it rivalled by a few great firms. Its financial status was that of the chief, if not the only, great capitalist. Its political influence was also great. This was largely enlisted on the side of peace at home and stability in business." Its great possessions resulted from the daily and monthly payments, from lands dedicated to the temple by devout ones, and from careful investment of revenues.
"The temple was also a commercial institution of high efficiency. Their accumulations of all sorts of raw products were enormous. The temple let out or advanced all kinds of raw material, usually on easy terms. To the poor, as a charity, advances were made in times of a scarcity or personal want, to their tenants as part of the metayer system of tenure, to slaves who lived outside its precincts, and to contractors who took the material on purely commercial terms. The return was expected in kind, to the full amount of advance, or with stipulated interest....
"The temples did a certain amount of banking business. By this we mean that they held money on deposit against the call of the depositor. Whether they charged for safe-keeping or remunerated themselves by investing the bulk of their capital, reserving a balance to meet calls, does not appear....
"In certain circumstances the king's officials might borrow of the temples.... Some kings laid hands on the treasure of the temple for their own use. Doubtless this was done under bond to repay. The cases in which we read of such practices are always represented as a wrong....
"The temple could act in all the capacities of a private individual or a firm of traders."[2]
The religion of Mesopotamia did not require the believer to preserve his dead, as in Egypt. Cremation was almost always resorted to, and for this reason we lack the tomb-finds, so elucidating in Egypt. The body was made ready for burial, with some food and other necessities, then it was partially burned, at least, and the remains entombed. The conditions of the country in Babylonia made cremation almost a necessity.
While some degree of purity was occasionally reached in Mesopotamian conceptions of religion, and far-sighted and high-minded persons lived in both countries, there was much that was degrading in connection with the worship. All Babylonian classes were grossly superstitious and believed always in the demons. The incantations used to drive these away were not only countenanced by the priesthood, but were taught as a part of the established worship. Demons were of various kinds and possessed different degrees of power. They lurked in obscure places, ready to inflict themselves upon unhappy mortals. All diseases, all misfortunes were their doings. A sufferer exclaims:
"They have used all kinds of charms
to entwine me as a rope,
to catch me as in a cage,
to tie me as with cords,
to overpower me as in a net,
to twist me as with a sling,
to tear me as a fabric,
to throw me down as a wall."