Nadav Na’aman, «The Israelite-Judahite Struggle for the Patrimony of Ancient Israel», Vol. 91 (2010) 1-23
The article addresses the controversial issue of the formation of "biblical Israel" in biblical historiography. It begins by presenting the political-cultural struggle between Assyria and Babylonia in the second and first millennia BCE, in part over
the question of ownership of the cultural patrimony of ancient Mesopotamia. It goes on to examine relations between Judah and Israel and compares them to those between Assyria and Babylonia. It then suggests that the adoption of the Israelite
identity by Judah, which took place during the reign of Josiah as part in his cultic reform, was motivated by the desire to take possession of the highly prestigious heritage of Israel, which had remained vacant since that kingdom’s annexation by
Assyria in 720 BCE.
12 NADAV NA’AMAN
B) Sennacherib celebrated the Babylonian New Year’s festival
in Ashur and reworked the Babylonian epic of creation (Enuma ¯
elis), which formed the theological basis for the festival. The name
ˇ
ˇ
of Ashur was spelled AN.SÃR — a god who, in the Babylonian
theogony, preceded Marduk’s elevation to the top of the Babylonian
pantheon. Thus, in the new epic of creation, the god Ashur, spelled
ˇ
AN.SÃR, replaced Marduk as the creator and leader of the gods. A
copper relief was affixed to the temple gates, depicting the war and
the victory over Tiamat and the gods who assisted her. The subject
of the relief was taken from the Babylonian creation myth, but with
Ashur replacing Marduk in the role of the victorious god 31.
C) During the reign of Sennacherib, literary works were
composed to exalt the god Ashur by casting him in the image of the
Babylonian god Marduk. In some inscriptions the god Ashur bears
Marduk’s former titles, while Marduk’s own titles in these texts
reveal a striking demotion in status 32.
However, like Tukulti-Ninurta before him, Sennacherib’s efforts
to establish the city of Ashur as the successor to Babylon as the
centre of Mesopotamian religion and cult were short-lived. When
Esarhaddon succeeded him on the Assyrian throne, he abruptly
reversed his father’s anti-Babylonian policy. While details of the
Babylonian policy of Esarhaddon and of his son Ashurbanipal are
irrelevant to this discussion 33, what is worthy of note is the
Helsinki 1995) 104-105; A.Y. AHMAD – A.K. GRAYSON, “Sennacherib in the
A k i t u Houseâ€, Iraq 61 (19 9 9 ) 187-189; MAUL, “ D i e altorientalische
Hauptstadt â€, 123-124.
LUCKENBILL, Annals of Sennacherib, 139, 142; FRAHM, Einleitung, 223-
31
224 ; B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Ina Sulmi ¯rub. Die Kulttopographische und
ˇ I
ideologische Programmatik der akıtu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien
¯
im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Mainz 1994) 207-209.
See for example: LUCKENBILL, Annals of Sennacherib, 149, lines 1-6. An
32
almost identical text was published by EBELING, Stiftungen und Vorschriften, 4,
lines 7-11; FRAHM, Einleitung, 215-216, 220-221; GEORGE, “Tablet of
Destinies â€, 139, 143.
On Esarhaddon’s religious policy toward Babylonia, see W.G. LAMBERT,
33
“ Esarhaddon’s Attempt to Return Marduk to Babylonâ€, Ad bene et fideliter
seminandum. Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller (eds. G. MAUER – U. MAGEN)
(AOAT 220 ; Kevelaer – Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988) 157-174; B.N. PORTER,
Images, Power, and Politics. Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian
Policy (Philadelphia, PA 1993) ; idem, “God’s Statues as a Tool of Assyrian
FOLLOW US