Comparison between Ezekiel’s visionary temple and Neo-Babylonian temples shows similar organization of space and personnel. These formal similarities stem from a similar root purpose: maintaining strict standards of sanctity.
Heinrich, Die Tempel und Heiligtümer, pp. 284-285(with city plan of Babylon on plate 382); C. Waerzeggers, The Ezida Temple of Borsippa: Priesthood, Cult, Archives (Achaemenid History 15; Leiden, 2010), pp. 14-15.
Waerzeggers, Ezida, pp. 11-13. For references to similar locations in other temples, see cadšutummu (Š3, pp. 413-414). For discussion of archeological remains, see Heinrich, Die Tempel und Heiligtümer, pp. 287 (Esagil), 291 (Ezida) and 297 (Ur temple complex).
George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, p. 91. The gate lists include: George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, Nos. 6-8 (pp. 92-98; of Esagil) and the reverse of No. 31 (pp. 210-211; of Eanna). For other fragmentary gate lists, see George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, p. 91.
See Waerzeggers, Ezida, pp. 47-48with references to the same ranking in other temples in n. 252. Note that both groups underwent the same ritual induction by shaving, and were thus separate from other groups, like the minor craftsmen, who did not (Waerzeggers, Ezida, pp. 49-56).
Waerzeggers, Ezida, pp. 52-53. For more in-depth study of the initiation process see C. Waerzeggers and M. Jursa, “On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests,” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008), pp. 1-36. Waerzeggers and Jursa make passing comparisons with the biblical materials without specifically referring to Ezekiel.