Sixth and Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty links to Artapanus’ legend of Moses

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

The first Oppressor Pharaoh

 

The dynastic founding Pharaoh who began the persecution of the Israelites in Egypt, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, was Teti of the Sixth Dynasty, was Amenemes of the Twelfth Dynasty.

 

The Jewish-Hellenistic writer, Artapanus, called him “Palmanothes”, in which name can be discerned the element Amen, of Amenemes (Amenemhat), but, more especially, the element Othoes, for Teti (Manetho):

Egyptian Pharaohs : Old Kingdom : Dynasty 6 : Teti

 

Teti and Amenemes connect together nicely, sharing the throne name, Sehetepibre (‘He who satisfies the Heart of Re’) and the exact same Horus name, Sehetep-tawy (‘Horus, who pacifies the Two Lands’), as well as being the dynastic founder.

A further likely connection is that death came through assassination.

 

Artapanus tells, in his book Concerning the Jews, that “Palmanothes succeeded to the sovereignty. This king behaved badly to the Jews; and first he built Kessa, and founded the temple therein, and then built the temple in Heliopolis”.

 

What was this “Kessa”?

It is explained in an Exodus context as follows:

8. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF MOSES

“By implication, he is identified by Artapanus as the oppressive Pharaoh of Exodus 1. 11. In the Bible this particular Pharaoh is said to have built, by Hebrew slave-labor, “Raamses,” i.e. Rameses, and Pithom. The Biblical Rameses corresponds to “Kessa” in Artapanus, which is said similarly to have been built by Palmanothes. “Kessa” and “Gesse” are alternative forms of the Biblical name Goshen. The “land of Goshen” and the “land of Rameses” are synonyms in Genesis (Gen. 47. 6 and 11). Faqus, near Tell el-Dab’a, the Greek Phakousa, according to an early church source c. AD 385, was the Biblical Goshen (Gesse) and the capital of the so-called “Arabian nome” (cf. Arabs = Hyksos in Manetho). The proximity of Faqus to Tell el-Dab’a (Avaris) tends to confirm the traditional identification. The names Goshen and Rameses are used in the Bible to designate the district inhabited by the Israelites …. That was the district whose capital at the time was Avaris”. 

 

Egyptian foster mother of Moses, “Merris”

 

Artapanus continues on, telling of “Palmanothes” that:

 

“He begat a daughter Merris, whom he betrothed to a certain Chenephres, king of the regions above Memphis … and she being barren took a supposititious child from one of the Jews, and called him … (Moses) ….

 

Fittingly, the name of the wife of the (Sixth) dynastic founding king’s successor, Pepi, was Ankhesenmerire, or Meresankh, Greek “Merris” (Meres-ankh).

 

{The pair, Meresankh and “Chenephres” (Khafre/Chephren), are also to be found in the Fourth Dynasty, but here we are keeping it simple by focussing upon the Sixth and Twelfth}.

 

The second Oppressor Pharaoh

 

It follows from this that Pepi, Neferkare, was the “Chenephres” of Artapanus.

Neferkare = Khaneferre (Greek “Chenephres”).

 

In terms of the Twelfth Dynasty, Pepi Neferkare was Sesostris Neferkare.

 

“[Sesostris I]. Having revived [sic] the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”. (N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell 1994, p. 164).

 

As later with King Saul and David, there was a recurring tension between the envious “Chenephres” and the successful Moses.

Artapanus again, no doubt exaggerating the situation to some extent, tells:

 

“And this Moses … when grown up he taught mankind many useful things. For he was the inventor of ships, and machines for laying stones, and Egyptian arms, and engines for drawing water and for war, and invented philosophy. Further he divided the State into thirty-six Nomes, and. appointed the god to be worshipped by each Nome, and the sacred writing for the priests, and their gods were cats, and dogs, and ibises: he also apportioned an especial district for the priests.

 

“All these things he did for the sake of keeping the sovereignty firm and safe for Chenephres. For previously the multitudes, being under no order, now expelled and now set up kings, often the same persons, but sometimes others.

 

“For these reasons then Moses was beloved by the multitudes, and being deemed by the priests worthy to be honoured like a god, was named Hermes, because of his interpretation of the Hieroglyphics.

 

“But when Chenephres perceived the excellence of Moses he envied him, and sought to slay him on some plausible pretext. And so when the Aethiopians invaded Egypt, Chenephres supposed that he had found a convenient opportunity, and sent Moses in command of a force against them, and enrolled the body of husbandmen for him, supposing that through the weakness of his troops he would easily be destroyed by the enemy”. ….

 

Who, then, was Moses?

 

As I wrote in my article:

 

‘Chenephres’ drives Moses out of Egypt

 

(6) ‘Chenephres’ drives Moses out of Egypt

 

…. Between Teti, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, and Pepi (“Chenephres”), we have pharaoh Userkare, who I believe was Moses.

Most interestingly, as an indication of the tension that existed between Moses (Userkare) and “Chenephres” (Pepi), pharaoh Userkare was most likely erased by Pepi in a damnatio memoriæ.

 

Of further interest, Pepi had the word “desert” (to where Moses fled) inserted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userkare

 

Userkare (also Woserkare, meaning "Powerful is the soul of Ra"; died c. 2332 BC) [sic] was the second king of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt, reigning briefly, 1 to 5 years …. Userkare's relation to his predecessor Teti and successor Pepi … is unknown and his reign remains enigmatic.

 

Although he is attested in some historical sources, Userkare is completely absent from the tomb of the Egyptian officials who lived during his reign and usually report the names of the kings whom they served. Furthermore, the figures of some high officials of the period have been deliberately chiselled out in their tombs and their titles altered, for instance the word "king" being replaced by that of "desert". Egyptologists thus suspect a possible Damnatio memoriae on Pepi I's behalf against Userkare. ….

 

This Userkare was the great Moses!

 

The famous Story of Sinuhe preserves a semi-mythological account of the flight of Moses from the Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris I (my “Chenephres”). In the name, Sinuhe (or Sanehat), we may perhaps find the Egyptian name “Moses”: Sa (Son) Nu (Water), “Son of the Water”, or “Water baby”. The average Egyptian would not have known about the origins of the name and, so, may have had trouble properly representing it.

 

Moses, having abdicated after a short reign as pharaoh Userkare, dutifully served Egypt in many brilliant facets, thereby underlining the lofty description of him as given by Artapanus.

 

For one, he was Egypt’s Vizier and Chief Judge.

Exodus 2:14: ‘Who made you ruler (Vizier) and (Chief) judge over us?’

These two offices were held in the Sixth Dynasty by the highly literate Weni, and in the Twelfth Dynasty, by the official of many titles, Mentuhotep – alter egos of Moses (my reconstructions).

 

Weni (var. Uni) may be a nickname. It recurs in various of my alter egos for Moses. Thus see my article:

 

Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses

 

(1)  Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses

 

Moses, also a successful general, was likely Nysumontu of the Twelfth Dynasty, a name that may combine the theophoric, Montu (Mentuhotep) with the name of Moses, Nysu (Sa Nu). 

 

Moses was also a man of literature and writer of Instructions.

As such, he was Kagemni-Memi, a philosopher, but also, like Weni and Mentuhotep, “Chief Justice and Vizier”:

The Mastaba Tomb Of Kagemni Also Known As Memi

“In … the reign of Teti, first king of the 6th Dynasty (c. 2321-2290 B.C.) [sic], an official named Kagemni-Memi was appointed to the rank of Chief Justice and Vizier, the highest post in the bureaucracy of Old Kingdom Egypt”.

 

Exodus 11:3:

 

“… the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people”.

Yoking biblical history to an uneven Sothic Star Egyptology

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

Biblical history cannot be verified in terms of the conventional

(Sothic-Sirius) Egyptology, which is an artificial construct.

 

 

Introduction

 

When I, in 1981, with a background in ancient history (University of Tasmania), began a search for the great Hebrew patriarch, Moses, I turned for assistance to books with such seemingly relevant titles as The Bible is True (1936), by Sir Charles Marston, and The Bible as History (1964), by Dr. Werner Keller.

 

To my genuine surprise, these books were pitifully unhelpful.

There was no Moses to be found there, nor was there a decent Exodus - just, at most, a handful of families departing from Egypt.

 

Fossicking around, between Moore Theological College and the Fisher Library (University of Sydney), I eventually came across (in Fisher) Dr. Donovan Courville’s life-saving 1971 set, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (Vols. 1 and 2).

 

This pioneering work taught me exactly what I needed to know, namely that:

 

Biblical history cannot be verified in terms of the conventional

(Sothic-Sirius) Egyptology, which is an artificial construct.

 

This is what Sir Charles Marston and Dr. Werner Keller had quite failed to understand. They had attempted - that which is totally impossible - to yoke biblical history unevenly (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:14) to an artificially derived chronology of ancient Egypt.

 

Dr. Donovan Courville, on the other hand, a Christian believer in the truth of the Bible, had insisted that the text book ancient chronology must be revised and corrected if biblical events and people were to become identifiable.

 

Having taken to heart this most important instruction, and after much reading (including Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos series, and UK and US publications devoted to a revision of history), I would soon be embarking upon a post-graduate Masters thesis on this very subject at the University of Sydney. That thesis, The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar, was ultimately passed on both historical and scientific (archaeo-astronomical) grounds.

One examiner commented that, since I had exposed the inadequacies of the Sothic (Sirius)-based astronomical system of Egyptian chronology, “the way now lay open for a more acceptable alternative”. Exactly what I had had in mind all along, a work of reconstruction; but the less interesting work of deconstruction had had to be done first (thanks to advice from a non-university friend).

The whole epic story can be read in my article:

 

Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses

 

(6) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses

 

Creationists and biblical history

 

As far as I am aware, Creationists, or those closely associated with them, commendably intent upon proving that the Bible is actually a true historical record, will have sensibly rejected the Sothic chronology and have gone in pursuit of a revised Egyptology and stratigraphy.

Two interesting examples of this, for me, are the quite different types, Dr. John Osgood and Ron Wyatt (RIP), who was/is very popular amongst Creationists and evangelicals.

 

Dr. John Osgood

 

An Australian Creationist, Dr. Osgood has been working on biblical stratigraphy for 40 years or more. He has been an absolute guru for me as regards biblical archaeology. I doubt if I, myself, would ever have been able to identify the era of Abram (Abraham). Dr. John Osgood, and no other - as far as I am aware - has done just that, pinpointing Abram to Late Chalcolithic En-gedi (Hazazon Tamar) and those associated archaeologies in the Syro-Canaanite region, as well as in Egypt. 

 

I refer to his article, “The Times of Abraham (EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77–87):

j02_1_77-87.pdf

And whilst others, too, have made a case for the Middle Bronze I (MBI) nomadic peoples as the Exodus Israelites, none has done this more clearly and convincingly than Dr. Osgood, who will also, in the process, explain the tricky Jericho in a full OT context - from the Conquest to Hiel of Bethel in the days of King Ahab (I Kings 16:34).

 

Thus we learn that the Jericho sequence, in outline, is to be interpreted like this:

 

Joshua’s Conquest – MBI Israelites destroy Early Bronze III Jericho;

King Eglon of Moab – Middle Bronze IIB Jericho;

David’s brief tenure – Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze I

Hiel of Bethel – Iron Age

 

Ron Wyatt

 

An amateur US archaeologist, and Bible believer, Ron was well read in ancient history.

 

Unfortunately he, in his determination to prove the Bible to be a real history, coupled with his popularity and wide following, with money flowing in, began to doctor sites. This has been well documented. See, for instance, my article:

 

What of Ron Wyatt’s Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea?

 

(8) What of Ron Wyatt's Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea?

 

God does not need this sort of shonky ‘assistance’.

 

Some Creationists might baulk at the accusations made against them by Australian earth scientist, professor Ian Plimer, even threatening him with Judgment Day.

 

But I think that he makes a valid point.

 

Though I am hesitant to say such a thing, Ron Wyatt was a charlatan, a fraudster.

 

And his ex-wife, Mary Nell, is perpetuating his legacy.

She has written a book, Battle for the Firstborn: The Exodus and the Death of Tutankhamen (2020), based on the extensive research of Ron, and ostensibly God-inspired, in which she claims to have set out definitively how Egyptian history connects with the Old Testament.

 

In my article:

 

Reflecting on the biblical Egyptology of Ron Wyatt’s wife, Mary Nell (Lee)

 

(3) Reflecting on the biblical Egyptology of Ron Wyatt’s wife, Mary Nell (Lee)

 

I wrote, regarding the tendency of the Wyatt pair to claim divine inspiration:

 

According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible considering the intricacies of the subject.

 

This is so different from what we get from Creationist Dr. John Osgood, an honest researcher, who, no doubt seeking to do the work of God, never goes so far as to claim infallibility from divine inspiration.

 

On a more positive note, I wrote in my article above:

 

Yesterday, the eve of today’s feast-day of the Immaculate Conception (8^th December, 2025), I came across a video by Mary Nell (Lee) Wyatt on the high official, Senenmut, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty: NEW Discovery | Ron Wyatt Found Evidence For Moses In Egypt!

Prior to this, Mary Nell Wyatt was for me just a name that I had seen associated with, as his wife, the well-known Ron Wyatt. Thus I was stunned to hear her expatiate at great length and fluency on Egyptology, from the First Dynasty all the way through to the Eighteenth, in relation to her large book: Battle for the Firstborn: The Exodus and the Death of Tutankhamen (2020).

Mary Nell’s narrative, heavily based upon the research of her deceased husband, gives as plausible account as most have been able to do of biblical history, from Abram (Abraham) to Moses, in its relation to the Egyptian dynasties. And it is highly original. ….

 

Based on what I have said about the Wyatt pair, and considering also that professionals and many of their fellow evangelicals have considered them to be “fraudulent”:

How have Ron Wyatt’s claims been evaluated by professi...

 

Professional archaeologists and multiple published critiques have overwhelmingly rejected Ron Wyatt’s high‑profile claims—labeling them unscientific, unlicensed, and in many cases fraudulent—while supporters and Wyatt’s own organization continue to promote his finds without peer‑reviewed backing …. Independent examinations and institutional statements (notably from the Israel Antiquities Authority) stress that Wyatt lacked formal archaeological credentials and did not conduct legally licensed excavations, and mainstream specialists have found no verifiable archaeological evidence to support his extraordinary assertions …. [,]

 

I would suggest that God is highly unlikely to bless their efforts with a perfect Daniel-like certainty (cf. Daniel 2:45).

 

For one, the Wyatt reconstruction completely misses out on Dr. John Osgood’s essential biblico-archaeological anchor point:

 

Joshua’s Conquest – MBI Israelites destroy Early Bronze III Jericho.

 

Many of his followers will jump to the defence of Ron Wyatt whenever he is criticised, claiming him to have been a most sincere and personable type. Like most of us, though, he had that other side to him:

Ron Wyatt's personality traits, such as being stubborn and disagreeable, have been noted by those who have worked with him. Richard Rives, who accompanied Wyatt on several expeditions, described him as a sincere man who was warm to his friends but could be stubborn and ornery to those who tried to interfere with his work.

 

The strange case of Douglas Petrovich

 

He is, like Dr. John Osgood, a Creationist.

 

Again, like Dr. Osgood, he is an extremely thorough researcher.

 

And, with Dr. Osgood and Ron Wyatt, he is a firm believer in the truth of the biblical record, and he sets out to demonstrate it, but without resorting to the subterfuges of Ron Wyatt.

 

Like Ron Wyatt, but unlike Dr. Osgood, he (an ordained pastor) appears to believe that to him (as if like a new Moses) has been given divinely inspired insights.

Thus he entitles his YouTube series “Illumining the Path”.

 

Like Ron Wyatt, but unlike the gentlemanly and reasonable Dr. Osgood, he can be a prickly customer. My first very brief encounter with Douglas Petrovich was in May 2022. When I disagreed with him, and had a crack at what I called his “sloppy” research for misquoting me in a way that made an article of mine look silly, he replied in the most unexpected fashion for a scholar-academic. We saw how Creationists have threatened professor Ian Plimer with Judgment Day – well that is how he concluded with me:

 

“Let's see at judgment day whose work the Lord calls sloppy”.

 

This was like a threat from someone who believes himself to be God’s chosen instrument.

No, ‘sorry I mis-quoted you’, as I would have expected from a reasonable academic. (After all, we can all misquote someone). Instead, I am right and you are wrong!

 

What I also find mystifying is that this man, having apparently learned nothing from decades of revisionism and scholarly assaults upon the artificial Sothic scheme of Egyptology, has tried to weld the Bible to the conventional Egyptology, just as had the likes of Sir Charles Marston, long ago, and Dr. Werner Keller.

 

The results are equally fruitless.

In fact, I recently (March 2026) told him, with reference to his “Illumining the Path” series, that it was, like Seinfeld, “a show about nothing”.

 

With that hard taskmaster, Sothic chronology, dictating his every move, Petrovich will locate Joshua in the Late Bronze Age, when there was no city of Jericho to conquer; will have Moses in the Eighteenth Dynasty, but without being able identify the great man there; and will fix Joseph and the Famine during the Twelfth Dynasty, without finding either there.

 

And all this is done in such detail (he could never be called lazy) that must have the heads of his poor audience - seeking guidance along the Path, not up the garden path - spinning.

For that is the effect that it had on me.

 

Venerating the god Sin common to Nebuchednezzar’s main alter egos

 

 

480 × 360by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

Some of my major alter egos for King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’

share in common a passionate, even fanatical, devotion to the moon god, Sin.

 

Recalling my alter egos

for King Nebuchednezzar

 

In the course of various articles, now, I have proposed these alternative ‘faces’ for the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’.

 

The great king, Nebuchednezzar, so-called II, was, all at once:

 

(firstly folding Middle Babylonia into Neo Babylonia)

 

1.       Nebuchednezzar so-called I:

 

The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar

 

(3) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar

 

 

(Folding Middle Assyrian)

 

2.      Ashur-bel-kala:

 

Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal

 

(3) Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal

 

3.      Ashurnasirpal:

 

Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’

 

(3) Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’

 

4.      Esarhaddon:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

(3) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

 

 

5.    Ashurbanipal:

 

Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus

 

(3) Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus

 

6.   Nabopolassar:

 

Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

 

(3) Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

 

7.    Nabonidus:

 

Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

 

(3) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

 

Less obviously, Nebuchadnezzar was:

 

8.   Ashur-etil-ilani:

 

Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani

 

(3) Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani

 

and even:

 

9.      Cambyses:

 

Conflation of Cambyses and Nebuchednezzar

 

(3) Conflation of Cambyses and Nebuchednezzar

 

And I doubt if even all of these 9. will exhaust the list.

 

Sin Worshipping

 

Of these nine names (1-9) listed above, a fanatical worship of Sin is apparent in the case of Nabonidus, especially, and also of Esarhaddon:

 

Nabonidus’s fanatical devotion to god Sin

 

Previously I have written on this phenomenon:

 

‘God of gods’

 

Though it would be much over-stating things to claim that King Nabonidus became a monotheist, there is a definite progression in that direction in

the course of his reign.

 

 

“Monotheistic Tendency” of Nebuchednezzar

 

Charles Boutflower has advanced a strong argument in his book, In and Around the Book of Daniel:

https://archive.org/stream/inaroundbookofda00boutuoft/inaroundbookofda00boutuoft_djvu.txt

for evidence of a trend towards a Marduk (Merodach) monotheism in various inscriptions of Nebuchednezzar:

 

According, then, to this authority, No. 15 is the latest of the

inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar, and the Merodach tendency

noticed by Langdon is of necessity a monotheistic tendency, for

Merodach, who, as we have seen, is always foremost of the gods,

appears in some passages of this inscription to stand alone.

 

Now it is just in these monotheistic passages, these " inserted prayers "

and " changes of text," that we seem to see the work of the real

Nebuchadnezzar.

 

Thus, immediately after the introductory

passage, which describes the position occupied by the king with

reference to Merodach and Nebo, there follows a hymn to those

divinities, col. i. 23 to ii. 39, extracted from inscriptions 19 and

14. But in the middle of this hymn we meet with a prayer

addressed to Merodach alone : col. i. 51 to ii. 11, and this prayer,

be it noted, is an entirely original addition, not found in any previous

inscription. Jastrow remarks with reference to it, "The con-

ception of Merodach rises to a height of spiritual aspiration,

which comes to us as a surprise in a religion that remained steeped

in polytheism, and that was associated with practices and rites

of a much lower order of thought." 2 This remarkable prayer

runs thus

 

"To Merodach my lord I prayed,

I addressed my supplication.

He had regard to the utterance of my heart,

I spake unto him:

'Everlasting prince,

Lord of all that is,

for the king whom thou lovest,

whose name thou proclaimest,

who is pleasing to thee :

direct him aright,

lead him in the right path !

I am a prince obedient unto thee,

the creature of thy hands,

thou hast created me,

and hast appointed me to the lordship of multitudes of people.

According to thy mercy, Lord, which thou bestowest upon

all of them,

cause them to love thy exalted lordship :

cause the fear of thy godhead to abide in my heart !

 

Grant what to thee is pleasing,

for thou makest my life’.” ….

 

And a similar exaltation of the god, Sîn, in the case of King Nabonidus, is a central feature of Paul-Alain Beaulieu’s book, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989).

Beaulieu has interpreted Nabonidus’s exaltation of the moon god, Sîn, as “an outright usurpation of Marduk’s prerogatives”.

 

Sîn is the ilu/ilani sa ilani, “the god(s) of the gods.”

 

Whilst, by no means, would I presume to make the suggestion that, now Nebuchednezzar, now Nabonidus, ever became a pure monotheist, the religious reform implemented during this period of Chaldean dominance is certainly most idiosyncratic and confronting. 

 

According to one source:

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/whic/ReferenceDetailsPage/Reference

 

Theological Revisions

 

Yet these considerations must not lead us to treat Nabonidus as a ruler in his dotage, devoid of vision or political skill. A study of the documents associated with his reign suggests exactly the opposite. The most original aspect of his reign is his attempt to introduce a religious reform centered on the worship of Sin of Haran, thereby challenging the superiority of Marduk, god of Babylon, whose supremacy over all other gods had been a theological verity in Babylon at least since Nebuchadnezzar I, half a millennium earlier [sic].

 

Although we do not doubt that Nabonidus knowingly launched this religious reform, we remain in the dark about the catalyst for his own beliefs as well as the political motivation that set him on his reforming path. Nevertheless, a pamphlet written against Nabonidus after his downfall and dubbed by modern scholars the "Verse Account of Nabonidus" charges the king with worshiping an incarnation of the moon-god called Ilteri.

 

This is a precious piece of information, for behind the cuneiform spelling "Ilteri" is concealed the name of the West Semitic moon-god Sachar, worshiped in Syria, among Aramaeans who settled in Babylonia, and among the nomadic tribes of northern Arabia. Ilteri occurs frequently in West Semitic name formations, and there is reason to believe that Sin of Haran and Sachar were equated well before Nabonidus. What may have bothered the priests of Marduk in Babylon is not that their new king had gone beyond retaining his attachment to the god of his native city, Haran, but that he was aggressively declaring that god's superiority over Marduk.

 

This observation, however, should not obscure the Mesopotamian component in Nabonidus's religion. His devotion embraced more generally the Mesopotamian triad composed of Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar, which had enjoyed widespread popularity under the last Assyrian rulers. Nabonidus may well have espoused a tradition, not uniformly represented in Mesopotamia, that made Shamash and Ishtar the children of Sin. It is telling that of the building projects and the associated commemorative inscriptions that the king sponsored, only one is unrelated to the triad Sin-Shamash-Ishtar: restoration work on the temple of Lugal-Marada, the patron god of Marad, a city in northern Babylonia. Whenever Nabonidus lavished his patronage on the sanctuaries of specific deities, they involved Sin and his consort Ningal, Shamash and his vizier Bunene, and martial avatars of Ishtar (Ishtar of Agade, Anunitum). It is significant that the Eanna temple of Uruk, the major sanctuary of Ishtar in Babylonia, did not benefit from royal patronage, since Ishtar of Uruk was identified locally as the daughter (sometimes the consort) of the sky-god Anu.

[End of quote]

 

Whatever be the case, one finds from a perusal of to Paul-Alain Beaulieu’s book that King Nabonidus will address Sîn in words that the “Nebuchednezzar” of Daniel will use to address the God of Israel.

 

According to Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989), p. 63: “… there is no evidence that the king [Nabonidus] tried to impost the cult of Sîn as supreme deity in his early reign”.

 

But, as Beaulieu will interpret it (p. 62): “Upon his return from Arabia, Nabonidus imposed a major religious reform, resulting in the rejection of Marduk, the undisputed supreme god of Babylon of the past six centuries …”.

“In inscription 17 Nabonidus, in an accent of supreme devotion”, Beaulieu continues, “goes as far as to call Sîn ilāni ša ilāni, “god of gods”, probably the highest epithet ever given to a god in the Mesopotamian tradition”.

 

Now, was King Nabonidus, as “Nebuchednezzar”, inspired to attain to that “highest epithet” due to the extraordinary incident when Daniel recounted and interpreted the king’s Dream? Because that is just what “Nebuchednezzar” called Daniel’s God (Daniel 2:47):

 

‘Surely your God is the God of gods’!

 

The full verse reads: ‘Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery’.

 

And Nabonidus, servant of Sîn, had likewise claimed: ‘I have seen se[cret things]. …’.

Daniel had said to the king, when interpreting the latter’s first Dream (2:37-38):

 

‘Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold’.

 

And so Nabonidus, basing himself upon such high authority, can likewise say, this time addressing Marduk (Beaulieu, p. 50. Emphasis added):

 

“When Marduk, the lofty leader of the gods, the lord of the universe, brought into being a sovereign to assume rulership, he called Nabonidus the king to the function of provider. He raised his head above all kings. At his command the great gods rejoiced at his kingship”.

 

In the case of the second Dream, the words of “Nebuchednezzar” addressed to the Most High (4:35): “No one can hold back his hand or say to him: ‘What have you done?’”, are somewhat reminiscent of Nabonidus in these words to Sîn (Beaulieu, pp. 60-61): “… who does not reconsider his order, and you do not utter you command twice … without you who can do what?”

 

In Baruch 1:11, we read of prayers asked by the Jews for King Nebuchednezzar and his son, Belshazzar, for long life for them: “… pray for King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia and his son Belshazzar, that they may live as long as the heavens last. …”.

And King Nabonidus will pray to Sîn for long life for (the same) Belshazzar (Beaulieu, p. 64): And as for Belshazzar, my eldest son, my offspring, lengthen his days. May he not commit any sin”.

 

Unfortunately Belshazzar, however, now king, would hear this terrible denunciation from Daniel just prior to Belshazzar’s having his kingdom taken away from him (5:22): ‘But you, Belshazzar, [Nebuchednezzar’s] son, have not humbled yourself, though you knew all this. Instead, you have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven’.

 

Hence (vv. 30-31): ‘That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two’.

 

Esarhaddon’s obsessive devotion to god Sin

 

 

“…. Esarhaddon, the youngest of Sennacherib’s sons …

has the closest connection to Ḫarrān among all the Sargonids”.

 

Natalie Naomi May

 

 

Perhaps somewhat less known to scholars is the fact that Esarhaddon (qua Esarhaddon) was likewise obsessed with Sin worship.

I take this example from the extremely interesting new article (BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXIV N° 5-6, september-december 2017) written by Natalie Naomi May:

 

THE VIZIER AND THE BROTHER: SARGON II'S BROTHER AND VIZIER SĪN-AḪU-UṢUR AND THE NEO-ASSYRIAN COLLATERAL BRANCHES ….

 

https://www.academia.edu/37111714/THE_VIZIER_AND_THE_BROTHER_SARGON_IIS_BROTHER_AND_VIZIER_S%C4%AAN_A%E1%B8%AAU_U%E1%B9%A2UR_AND_THE_NEO_ASSYRIAN_COLLATERAL_BRANCHES_1

 

pp. 518-519:

 

…. Esarhaddon, the youngest of Sennacherib’s sons … has the closest connection to Ḫarrān among all the Sargonids.

 

The fact that King List A does not mark either Esarhaddon or any of his descendants as the “Dynasty of Ḫabi-GAL” might indicate that Esarhaddon as the youngest son of Sen-nacherib could have been perceived as the founder of his own dynasty.

….

Images of Esarhaddon and his sons [sic], evidently Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, were erected in the temple of Sîn of Ḫarrān. The king’s images flanked the divine statue and the princes’ images were installed before and behind it.

….

The images of Naqī’a were probably installed at the temple of Sîn of Ḫarrān as well … and she had donated 30 talents of silver to this city. At least a part of this sum was intended for the Sîn’s temple.

 

On his way to Egypt Esarhaddon built an akītu-house of cedar for Sîn of Ḫarrān and crowned himself with the double crown of Sîn.

….

Esarhaddon was reported about the akītu of Sîn, as was previously his grandfather ….

….

In the time of Esarhaddon Sîn of Ḫarrān raises to the status of a state god.

In SAA 10 174 the author writes to Assurbanipal about his father, who received an oracle in Ḫarrān that he will conquer the world, and he conquered Egypt.

…. This statement elevates Sîn to the level of the state god Aššur, who commands the Assyrian kings to launch their military campaigns. Sîn of Ḫarrān alone or together with his spouse Nikkal are included in penalty clauses of legal texts from Nineveh and Assur. ….

 

Ashurbanipal’s devotion to god Sin

 

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

 

Ashurbanipal renovated the Eḫulḫul and most likely took part in an akitu celebration in this city, possibly while returning from his campaign against Egypt. ….

….

It has been argued that the view that Sin was the supreme god was later particularly enthusiastically supported by the last Neo-Babylonian ruler, Nabonidus. …. In one of his inscriptions from Harran Sin is described as the "lord of the gods" who possessed "Enlilship", "Anuship" and "Eaship". …. However, Melanie Groß stresses that Nabonidus' devotion should for the most part not be treated as an unusual phenomenon, save for the fact that Harran was not the center of his empire. …. She notes that the elevation of city deities significant for specific rulers to the top of the pantheon of the respective states is well documented for example in the case of Marduk and Ashur. …. Aino Hätinen points out that in Harran similar formulas were used to refer to Sin by Ashurbanipal, and are thus not unique to Nabonidus and do not necessarily indicate elevation of this god during his reign.

 

Mackey’s comment: Her last comment loses weight, however, if Ashurbanipal was Nabonidus. Then we can re-phrase it to say: “Aino Hätinen points out that in Harran similar formulas were used to refer to Sin by Ashurbanipal, and are thus … unique to Nabonidus, his alter ego”.

 

…. She suggests both [sic] Nabonidus and Ashurbanipal relied on so-called "Theology of the Moon", a concept well attested in explanatory texts from the first millennium BCE according to which Sin possessed divine powers (Sumerian ĝarza, Akkadian parṣū) equal to these of Anu, Enlil and Ea during the first half of the lunar month. ….

[End of quote]

 

Nebuchednezzar

 

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

… sources pertaining to the worship of Sin in Ur only reappear during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II [sic], who similarly renovated Ekišnugal. …. He might have been motivated by the importance he attributed to the moon god as responsible for determining destiny through lunar omens. …. 

 

Ashurnasirpal

 

Temple of Sîn and Šamaš at Assur: a Pleiades place resource

The Sîn-Šamaš temple was excavated in 1912–13. It is unclear which Assyrian king was responsible for founding this double-temple …. It was renovated by Middle [sic] Assyrian kings Arik-dēn-ilī (1317–1306 BC) and Tukultī-Ninurta I  (1233–1197 BC) and rebuilt (on an entirely new plan) by the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II ….

 

Most likely, others will be found as well.