Sunday, April 5, 2026

Four great kings self-identified as ‘son of a nobody’ – or was this just the one mighty ruler?

 



by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

Here, I have selected four names, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nabopolassar and Nabonidus, whom I have identified in various articles as only one king. For example:

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel

 

(2) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel

 

and:

 

Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

 

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

 

Specifying status as ‘Son of a nobody’

 

Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship.

 

Thus I had previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”.

 

Now, Esarhaddon is presented by Mattias Karlsson, as a likely ‘son of a nobody’, in his article:

 

The Expression "Son of a Nobody" in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

2016

https://www.academia.edu/24256060/The_Expression_Son_of_a_Nobody_in_Assyrian_Royal_Inscriptions

 

…. Esarhaddon may be the "son of a nobody" in question. Regarding this epithet, we here have another attestation of it as carrying a positive meaning. It is said of this "son of a nobody", which probably alludes to Esarhaddon (or at least to this king’s irregular ascent to the throne), even though he was of royal descent (Roux 1992: 324-25), that he "[will come out and se]ize [the throne]; he will restore the temples [and establish sacrifices of the gods; he will provide jointly for(all) the temples.]" ….

 

Who was the actual father of this composite king of ours?

If we turn to consider him with regard to his alter ego, “Nabonidus”, then:

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/watchman-s-teaching-letter-59-march-2003

"His father was a certain Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, who is called the ‘wise prince’, though actually he seems to have been the chief priest of the once famous temple of the moon-god Sin in Mesopotamian Harran".

 

My tentative comment: It is not entirely impossible, I think, that, with Nabonidus as Nebuchednezzar:

 

“Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel

 

(2) "Nebuchednezzar" of the Book of Daniel

 

then this Nabu-balatsu-iqbi could be the prophet Daniel himself, possibly known as “father” to the Babylonians as the shrewd Haman would become known as “our father” to the Persians according to the Book of Esther (13:11).

Daniel’s Babylonian name, “Belteshazzar” is not a Bel name, like e.g. Belshazzar, as is commonly thought. King Nebuchednezzar himself tells us (Daniel 4:8): “Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god)”. Thus we would expect Daniel to have a Nabu (Nebu) name, like King Nebuchednezzar himself. “Belteshazzar” could then be a Grecized version of the element balatsu-:

Nabu-balatsu-iqbi - Wikipedia

“In his inscriptions, Nabonidus refers to his father Nabu-balatsu-iqbi as a "learned counsellor",[1] "wise prince", "perfect prince" and "heroic governor".[2] Nabonidus never elaborates more on his father's origin and ethnicity, just maintaining that he was courageous, wise and devout.[3] No person named Nabu-balatsu-iqbi who can reasonably be identified as Nabonidus's father appears in documents prior to Nabonidus's reign, making his father's status and position unclear”.

 

As for Ashurbanipal, generally  considered to have been the son of Esarhaddon - but, according to my first article above, he was Esarhaddon - the reason why he (and logically, then, his alter egos) did not expect to become king was that he was by no means the first in line to the succession.

 

First came one Sin-iddina-apla, who died untimely:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/ashurbanipal-oldest-surviving-royal-library-world-over-30000-clay-tablets-007127

“Ashurbanipal had initially not been expected to succeed his father, Esarhaddon [sic], as king, since he had an older brother, Sin-iddina-apla. When this brother died in 672 BC, Ashurbanipal was made his father’s heir.

Since Ashurbanipal was not originally intended to inherit the kingship prior to his elder brother’s death, he was free to indulge in scholarly pursuits. As a result of this, he was able to read and write, and mastered various fields of knowledge, including mathematics and oil divination. It is perhaps due to this that Ashurbanipal had his royal library built after he had stabilized his empire. ….

But apparently Ashurbanipal was not even next in line after Sin-iddina-apla.

For, at presumably the same time as Sin-iddina-apla, the oldest in line, had been appointed Crown Prince of Assyria, one Shamash-shum-ukin, he also older than Ashurbanipal, was appointed as the ruler of Babylon”.

 

This Shamash-shum-ukin was, therefore, presumed to have been superior to Ashurbanipal.

 

My comment: I do not, however, believe that this Shamash-shum-ukin was the brother of Ashurbanipal, but was his son:

 

Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme

 

(2) Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme

 

However, that is apparently not how Ashurbanipal wanted history to know of the relationship. As explained by: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44088732.pdf

 

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMASH-SHUM-UKIN: A TALE OF TWO BROTHERS FROM THEARAMAIC TEXT IN DEMOTIC SCRIPT: PART 1

Author(s): Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims

Source: Revue Biblique (1946-), Vol. 92, No. 1 (JANVIER 1985), pp. 60-81

 

Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin were the two sons of Esarhaddon [sic] who, at their father's behest, divided his realm between them - the former becoming king of Assyria, and the latter, king of Babylon(ia). Although the two were, in theory, "equal brothers," [sic] Ashurbanipal assumed full control of Babylonia's foreign policy and even meddled in Babylonia's internal affairs. …. It was perhaps to rationalize this usurpation of the authority granted to Shamash-shum-ukin by his father that Ashurbanipal claimed to be the one who had appointed Shamash-shum-ukin to the kingship of Babylon. ….

 

Son of a nobody explained

“In ancient Assyrian sources, the phrase "son of a nobody" (akk| | mār lā mamman) is used to indicate a king of disreputable origins. Usurpers, lowborns, immoral rulers, and foreign kings were all commonly referred to as a “son of a nobody”.[1]

….

In the time of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the king Nabopolassar strikingly referred to himself as a “son of a nobody” in his own inscriptions, something that no previous Neo-Babylonian usurper king had done.[6]

 

No comments:

Post a Comment