by
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
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 ….
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
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
… 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment