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.
13
THE ISRAELITE-JUDAHITE STRUGGLE
formation of the Ashurbanipal Library, in which the entire corpus of
Mesopotamian texts was assembled, its scope and systematization
surpassing all Babylonian tablet collections before or since 34. This
initiative, too, was indicative of the Assyrian efforts to gain the
upper hand in the religious-cultural struggle with Babylonia for the
prize of controlling the heritage of ancient Mesopotamia.
The Assyrian-Babylonian Kulturkampf has not escaped the
attention of scholars, and Peter Machinist defined it as follows 35 :
“ These were in large measure over political identity, indeed,
cosmological identity: which state, which capital — Babylon, Assur,
Nineveh — would be the cosmic center? Put another way and
focusing on the Assyrian ruling elites specifically, we may say that
Babylonia was for these elites not simply a military or political
problem of governance; it was also a problem of ownership of the
cultural patrimony of Mesopotamia ... for Sennacherib what was
ultimately at stake was the neutralization of the cultural/cosmic
imperium that Babylon represented and its transfer to Assyriaâ€.
Political Policy: Esarhaddon’s Return of Marduk to Babylonâ€, Religious
Transformations and Socio-Political Change. Eastern Europe and Latin
America (ed. L. MARTIN) (Berlin 1993) 9-24; VERA CHAMAZA, Die
Omnipotenz Assurs, 168-242; M.P. STRECK, “Der Wiederaufbau Babylons
ˇˇ
unter Asarhaddon und Assurbanipal in Briefen aus Niniveâ€, AoF 29 (2002)
205-233 ; M. NISSINEN – S. PARPOLA, “Marduk’s Return and Reconciliation in
a Prophetic Letter from Arbelaâ€, Studia Orientalia 99 (2004) 199-219.
O n the scope and contents of Ashurbanipal’s library, see
34
A.L. OPPENHEIM, Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization
(Chicago, IL 1964) 15-24; S. PARPOLA, “Assyrian Library Recordsâ€, JNES 42
(1983) 1-29; idem, “The Royal Archives of Ninevehâ€, Cuneiform Archives and
Libraries (ed. K.R. VEENHOF) (Leiden 1986) 223-236; S.J. LIEBERMAN,
“ Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Understanding of
Ashurbanipal’s Personal Tablet Collectionâ€, Lingering over Words. Studies in
Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran (eds.
T. ABUSCH – J. HUEHNERGARD – P. STEINKELLER) (Atlanta, GA 1990) 305-
3 3 6 ; G.B. L A N F R A N C H I , “The Library at Ninevehâ€, Capital Cities,
J.G. WESTENHOLZ (ed.) 147-156; G. FRAME – A.R. GEORGE, “The Royal
Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet
Collecting â€, Iraq 67 (2005) 265-284. For the late date of the extant copies of
the letters available for research, see FRAHM, “On Someâ€, 43-46.
P. MACHINIST, “Final Response: On the Study of the Ancient Language,
35
Writing and the Stateâ€, Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures (ed.
S.L. SANDERS) (Chicago, IL 2006) 296.