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.
8 NADAV NA’AMAN
lower Mesopotamia was not, therefore, echoed in the status of its
god. Although Nippur had lost its important political position many
years earlier, Enlil’s position at the head of the Babylonian pantheon
remained firm until the 12th century BCE 19.
The decisive stage in the rise of Marduk to the head of the
Babylonian pantheon came about following developments in the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104) 20. Details of the historical
events, as well as the textual evidence for the literary-theological
conflict between the priests and authors of Babylon and Nippur in
the late 12th century, are beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to
say that Nebuchadnezzar’s successful campaign to bring the statue
of Marduk back from Elam helped him and his elite in their efforts
to elevate their city’s god in the Babylonian pantheon to a status
befitting that of Babylon’s primacy in the kingdom 21.
Inevitably, the question arises as to the time of the composition
Enuma elis — the Babylonian creation epic depicting Marduk’s
¯ ˇ
elevation to the top of the Babylonian pantheon, and by extension,
Babylon as the navel of the world (positions previously occupied by
Enlil and Nippur, respectively). The earliest copies of the work date
from the first millennium BCE, and most scholars agree that it is a
W.G. LAMBERT, “Studies in Mardukâ€, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 47 (1984) 1-9; T. ABUSCH, “Mardukâ€, Dictionary of Deities
and Demons (eds. K. VAN DER TOORN – B. BECKING – P.W. VAN DER HORST)
(Leiden 1999) 543-549, with earlier literature.
GEORGE, “Bondâ€, 132-133.
19
W.G. LAMBERT, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in
20
the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religionâ€, The Seed of Wisdom. Essays
in Honor of T. J. Meek (ed. W.S. MCCULLOUGH) (Toronto 1964) 3-13; idem,
“ Studies in Mardukâ€, 2-5; SOMMERFELD, Der Aufstieg Marduks, 182-189;
A.R. GEORGE, “Marduk and the Cult of the Gods of Nippur at Babylonâ€,
Or 66 (1997) 65-70.
J.A. BRINKMAN, A History of Post Kassite Babylonia (1158-722 B.C.)
21
(AnOr 43; Rome 1968) 104-116, 325-329; idem, “Nebukadnezar I. â€, RLA 9
(1998-2001) 192-194; J.J.M. ROBERTS, “Nebuchadnezzar I’s Elamite Crisis in
Theological Perspectiveâ€, Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob
Joel Finkelstein (ed. M. DEJONG ELLIS) (Hamden, CT 1977) 183-187;
ˇ
V.A. HUROWITZ, “Some Literary Observations on the Sitti-Marduk Kudurru
(BBSt. 6) â€, ZA 82 (1992) 39-59; G. FRAME, Rulers of Babylonia. From the
Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157-612 BC)
(RIMB 2 ; Toronto 1995) 9-35, with earlier literature.
FOLLOW US