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.
10 NADAV NA’AMAN
removed the statue of Marduk from Esagil to Ashur and celebrated
the Akitu festival there in honour of Marduk, thereby introducing
the Babylonian cult-tradition to Assyria. He elevated the god Ashur
over the Babylonian Marduk as the “Assyrian Enlilâ€, and adopted
several new epithets and titles of Babylonian origin in his
inscriptions. He transported a rich collection of Babylonian
scholarly texts to Assyria in a bid to make it a centre of learning 26.
Finally, Assyrian scribes composed original literary works that
creatively reworked Babylonian themes and structures, the most
remarkable of which is the Tukulti-Ninurta Epos 27.
In response, Babylonian scribes composed propagandist works
presenting Assyria as a subordinate kingdom of Babylonia, and its
rulers as lacking talent and respectability 28. This “war of the tabletsâ€
clearly indicates that the Assyrian-Babylonian struggle was not only
for political and military superiority, but also over hegemony over
their shared religion and culture.
However, Tukulti-Ninurta’s attempt to shift the political, cultic
and cultural centre from Babylonia to Assyria did not last long.
After his death, Assyria weakened and Babylonia regained its
independence. Nebuchadnezzar I’s military success consolidated
Babylonia’s political position and it regained its position as the
centre of cult and scholarship in Mesopotamia for a long time to
come.
Bible â€, CBQ 38 (1976) 455-477; idem, The Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta I. A Study
in Middle Assyrian Literature (PhD Dissertation; Yale University 1978) 509-
531; idem, “The Assyrians and Their Babylonian Problem: Some Reflectionsâ€,
Jahrbuch des Wissenschaftskollegs zu Berlin (ed. P. WAPNEWSKI) (Berlin 1984-
1985) 361-362; M. LIVERANI, Prestige and Interest. International Relations in
the near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C. (Padova 1990) 156-159.
For the series of tablets brought to Ashur, see MACHINIST, Epic of
26
Tukulti-Ninurta, 28-129, 366-373.
For a recent translation of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epos, see B.R. FOSTER,
27
Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, MD 32005)
298-317.
J. LLOP – A.R. GEORGE, “Die babylonisch-assyrischen Beziehungen und
28
die innere Lage Assyriens in der Zeit der Auseinandersetzung zwischen
Ninurta-Tukulti-Assur und Mutakkil-Nusku nach neuen keilschriftlichen
ˇˇ
Quellen â€, AfO 48-49 (2001-2002) 1-23; E. FRAHM, “On Some Recently
P u b l i s h e d Late Babylonian Copies of Royal Letters †, Nouvelles
Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2005, no. 43, with earlier literature.
FOLLOW US