Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Download Free PDF
paper cover icon
Download Free PDF
paper cover thumbnail

“The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History: Yasmaḫ-Addu’s Letter to Nergal (ARM I 3) and Adad’s Message to Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968)” (in print ARAM 2014)

“The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History: Yasmaḫ-Addu’s Letter to Nergal (ARM I 3) and Adad’s Message to Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968)” (in print ARAM 2014)

Profile image of Daniel BodiDaniel Bodi

The paper will present and analyze the Amorite view of history as found in the eighteenth century BCE Mari text (ARM I 3), a letter sent by Yasmaḫ-Addu to the god Nergal, reflecting the power-struggle between two Amorite clans, the Benjaminite Addu clan pitted against the Bensim’alite Līm clan. In this text, the ruler of Mari,Yasmaḫ-Addu, recapitulates the historical events related to the protracted conflict between two reigning dynasties: the members of the Līm clan (Yagid-Līm, Yaḫdun-Līm, Sūmū-Yamam) against the Addu clan (Ilā-Kabkabū, Šamšī-Addu, Yasmaḫ-Addu). The former were the ancient rulers of Mari and belonged to the Bensimʾalite or northern Amorite tribes. The latter were part of the Benjaminite or southern tribes. The end of the power struggle between these two clans is reflected in the prophetic letter relating the message of the god Adad from Aleppo to the last ruler of Mari, Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968). The god Adad’s influence stretches beyond the city of Aleppo in northern Syria since he claims to have given the rule over Mari to the warlord who reveres him. These Mari documents represent a veritable philosophy of history with an ideology based on the operation of divine retribution. The view of history as the outworking of a retributive principle is common to all the major cultures of the Mediterranean seashore. It is found in Mesopotamia in several epochs (from the Legend of Narām Sîn to the the Poem of Erra), in the Hurrian-Hittite text concerning the fall of Ebla, in Egypt, in Greece, and in the Hebrew historiographic tradition. The Mari evidence coming from the Northwest Semitic domain to which the Hebrews also belonged could, therefore, be considered as one of the precursors of the theologico-historiographic genre, reflecting an ideology anticipating the one attributed to the redactor of the Deuteronomistic historiography. This hermeneutical principle is a common ancient Near Eastern way of interpreting history which the Hebrew tradition shares.

Related Papers

“The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History: Yasmaḫ-Addu’s Letter to Nergal (ARM I 3) and Adad’s Message to Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968),” ARAM 26/1&2 (2014), 285-300

Daniel Bodi

This article analyzes the Amorite view of history as found in the 18th century BCE Mari text (ARM I 3), a letter sent by Yasmaḫ-Addu to the god Nergal, reflecting the power-struggle between two Amorite clans, the Benjaminite Addu clan pitted against the Bensimʾalite Līm clan. In this text, the ruler of Mari, Yasmaḫ-Addu, recapitulates the historical events related to the protracted conflict between two reigning dynasties: the members of the Līm clan (Yagid-Līm, Yaḫdun-Līm, Sūmū-Yamam) against the Addu clan (Ilā-Kabkabū, Šamšī-Addu, Yasmaḫ-Addu). The former were the ancient rulers of Mari and belonged to the Bensimʾalite or northern Amorite tribes. The latter were part of the Benjaminite or southern tribes. The end of the power struggle between these two clans is reflected in the prophetic letter relating the message of the god Adad from Aleppo to the last ruler of Mari, Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968). The god Adad’s influence stretches beyond the city of Aleppo in northern Syria since he claims to have given the rule over Mari to the warlord who reveres him. These Mari documents represent a veritable philosophy of history with an ideology based on the operation of divine retribution. The view of history as the outworking of a retributive principle is common to all the major cultures of the Mediterranean seashore. It is found in Mesopotamia in several epochs (from the Legend of Narām Sîn to the the Poem of Erra), in the Hurrian-Hittite text concerning the fall of Ebla, in Egypt, in Greece, and in the Hebrew historiographic tradition. The Mari evidence coming from the Northwest Semitic domain to which the Hebrews also belonged could, therefore, be considered as one of the precursors of the theologico-historiographic genre, reflecting an ideology anticipating the one attributed to the redactor of the Deuteronomistic historiography (HDtr). This hermeneutical principle is a common ancient Near Eastern way of interpreting history which the Hebrew tradition shares.

View PDF
Fleming, Daniel E. “Mari and the Possibilities of Biblical Memory,” in Les traditions amorrites et la Bible. J.-M. Durand and B. Lafont, eds. Revue d'Assyriologie (RA) 92 (1998): 41–78.

Daniel Fleming

View PDF
Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East: Mantic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World

2012 •

Matthew Neujahr

View PDF
The Problem of Theodicy - The Mesopotamian Perspective in Colères et repentirs divins Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 278 2015

Yoram Cohen

View PDF
Literary Conventions Connected with Antediluvian Historiography in the Ancient Near East

Isaac M . Kikawada

This study focuses primarily on the primaeval portions of the Ancient Near Eastern historiographic traditions seen in the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis and in other parts of the Bible, in the Akkadian Epic of Atrahasis, in the Sumerian Deluge Story, in the Sumerian King List and in the cuneiform Lists of Sages. Secondarily, it includes a brief discussion of Indo-European antediluvian traditions which provide provocative points of contact with Mesopotamian and Biblical materials. All these specimens include the story of the Great Flood, or its equivalent, for it is that historiographically significant story which furnishes the focal point for the basis of comparison. Rhetorical Criticism is the basic method employed in this study. This method is first defined, then it is applied to the first eleven chapters of Genesis; this example establishes the basic pattern and design of the Ancient Near Eastern Primaeval Historiography. The latter part of the study is concerned with adducing the Mesopotamian and Biblical as well as Indo-European parallels to the Genesis model .

View PDF
"Predicting the Past, Remembering the Future: Vaticinia ex eventu in the Historiographic Traditions of the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East”

Brian R. Doak

**Note: This paper is being published in a forthcoming (2014) volume on Fakes, Forgeries & Issues of Authenticity in Classical Literature (Universidad de Oviedo), and I will have it posted here as soon as it appears. This essay is an attempt to explore some historiographic and literary implications specifically pertaining to the use of vaticinia ex eventu (Lat. "prophecies after the event") in a series of enigmatic and highly-debated Mesopotamian cuneiform documents (sometimes called "prophecies" or, more recently, "literary predictive texts"). This literary technique, whose religious purposes and social-psychological effects and motivations remain mostly obscure, was apparently widely known and used in the ancient Near East, from Egypt to Mesopotamia, as early as the 2nd millennium BCE, and post-event predictions have found a place in many of the world's religious traditions. The questions surrounding the purpose of the ex eventu phenomenon has implications not only for the Assyriologist, but also for scholars of the Bible as well, where putative vaticinia ex eventu occur in several texts. Interestingly, those who have commented on the purpose of the ex eventu technique—for both the Mesopotamian and biblical materials—have mostly been content to note that such prophecies primarily serve to bolster the "legitimacy" or "credibility" of the document in which they appear. This view, while widespread, is fraught with difficulties, some of which we will explore here. It is my contention that we should not continue to speak about vaticinia ex eventu in terms of "propaganda," "legitimation," or even of sheer "optimism," but rather as a complex religious phenomenon that engenders important Mesopotamian and Biblical religious traditions regarding the nature of time, the power of prediction, and the authority of inspired interpreters in the present to speak about the future and the past. Toward these ends, the so-called "Marduk Prophecy" will be examined in detail, and a comparison will be made between the literary and religious tactics used in the Akkadian documents and some biblical materials (e.g., Isa. 4, 1 Kgs 13, and Dan 11).

View PDF

J. B. Lippincott & Co

A Manual of the Ancient History of the East to the Commencement of the Median Wars: Comprising the history of the Israelites, Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians Vol 1 -FRANCOIS LENORMANT (Archaic Biblical reading)

1869 •

Alexander T H E L I B R A R Y C A T (New Alexandria library of Texas)

Phoenician art, intermediate between that of Egypt and Assyria, has been revealed to us, and invaluable treasures have been recovered from the catacombs. Bold explorers, too, have made us acquainted with the traces of all the various nations so closely packed in the narrow territory of Asia Minor. Cyprus with its strange writing and the sculptures of its temples ; Lycia with its peculiar language, its inscriptions, coins, sepulchral grottoes; Phrygia with its great rock, sculptured bas-reliefs, and the tombs of the kings of the family of Midas ; Arabia contributes to science ancient monuments of times anterior to Islamism, texts engraven by pilgi-ims on the rocks of Sinai, and the numerous inscriptions which abound in Yemen. Nor let Persia be forgotten with the remains of its kings, Achaemenid and Sassanian Nor India, where our knowledge has been entirely renewed by the study of the Vedas. But it is not only the length of the coui'se that has been increased, the progress of science has been so great that its domain is now also widely extended. Everywhere, by new routes, enterprising and successful pioneers have pushed their researches, and thrown light into the darkest recesses. Europe in our age takes definite possession of the world. What is true of the events of tlie day, is also true in the region of learning ; science regains possession of the ancient world, and of ages long forgotten. This resuscitation of the earliest epochs of civilisation commenced with Egypt. The hand of Champollion has torn down the veil which concealed mysterious Egypt from our eyes, and has added lustre to the name of France by the greatest discovery of our age. Thanks to him, we have at last the key to the enigma of the Hieroglyphs. And henceforth we may tread boldly on solid and well-known ground, where those who preceded us wandered among swamps and pitfalls. Champollion's discovery has been the starting point for those learned and ingenious researches to which we owe the restoration of Egyptian History. Through the whole extent of the Nile Valley the monuments have been examined, and in reply they have told us all the deeds of the kings who governed Egypt from the most ancient times. Science has penetrated the dark catacombs where sleep the Pharaohs, and has restored to us many dynasties whose only traces were to be found in some mutilated remains of the old historian Manetho. At the commencement of the present century, we knew little beyond the names of a few sovereigns, whose reigns were far apart and connected with but a small number of events, distorted by the statements of credulous Greek travellers, or magnified by national vanity. We now know nearly the whole series of monarchs who reigned over Egypt during more than 4,000 years ( higher today) CONTENTS BOOK I.—PRIMITIVE TIMES. Chap. I. — The Bible Narrative. Section I. The Human Race before the Deluge i ,, II. The Deluge 5 „ III. The Confusion of Tongues 7 Chap. II. — Traditions parallel to the Bible Story. Section I. The Creation. The Fall and the Antediluvian Patriarchs 8 ,, II. The Deluge 13 ,, III. The Cradle^ of Postdiluvian Humanity ig ,, IV. The Tower of Babel 22 Chap. III. — Material Vestiges of Primitive Humanity. Section I. Remains of the Archreolithic Epoch 24 ,, II. Remains of the Neolithic Epoch 30 ,, III. Chronology of these two Epochs 35 ,, IV. Prehistoric Archaeology of the Bible 39 Chap. IV. — Human Races and their Languages. Section I. The Unity of the Human Race and its Varie- ties 48 ,, II. The Four Great Races of Mankind 54 III. The Descendants of Noah according to llie Book of Genesis 57 ,, IV. The Principal Families of Languages 65 ,, V. The Semitic Languages 70 ,, VI. The Indo-European Languages 73 BOOK II.—THE ISRAELITES. Chap. I. — The Patriarchs—The Israelites in Egypt —Moses. Section I. Abraham 79 „ II. Isaac and Jacob 85 ,, III. Joseph in Egypt ... 89 ,, IV. The Israelites in Egypt and the Exodus 91 ,, V. The Israelites at Sinai 96 ,, VI. The Law of Moses 98 „ VII. The Tabernacle 103 ,, VIII. Sojourn in the Desert 105 ,, IX. Conquest of the Country East of the Jordan... 10 ClIAl\ TT. —KSTAHMSHMENT OK THE ISRAELITES IN TLand—The J u hoes. Saliou I. Conquest of llie Land of Canaan—Josluia IIO' ,, IL Period of Repose—l"'irst Serviliulc—Commencement of the Judges 114 ,, in. Ehud, Shamgar, Deboiali, Gideon, Barak ... 1 19, IV. Eli and Sanniel 123 Chap. III.— Kingdom of Israel—Saul, David, Solomon.Section I. Establishment of Royalty—Saul 130,, II. David 136,, III. Solomon 142 Chap. IV.—Separation of the Ten Tribes—Kingdoms OF Israel andJudah—Fall of Samaria and Jeru.salem. Section I. Rchoboam and Jeroboam—Separation of the Ten Tribes 147, II. Disorders and Reverses in the Kingdom ofIsrael 153,, III. Ahab, Jehoshaphat and their Sons 156 ,, IV. The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel from the reign of Athaliah to the death of Azariah... 165,, V. Intervention of the Assyrians in Palestine — Decline of the Kingdom of Israel and Fall of Samaria 171 ,, VI. The Kingdom of Judah from the Capture of Samaria to the Battle of Megiddo 176 VII. Last Days of the Kingdom of Judah —Nebuchadnezzar—Capture of Jerusalem 185 BOOK III.—THE EGYPTIANS. Chap. L—Egypt—The Nile and its Inundations— The Kings of the Old Empire. Section I. Physical Geography of Egypt—The Nile, its Inundations 193,, II. Principal Sources of the History of Egypt ... 195 ,, III. Foundation of the Monarchy—First Dynasties 201 ,, IV. Fourth and Fifth Dynasties—Age of the Great Pyramids 205 „ V. From the Sixth to the Eleventh Dynasty — Temporary Decline of Egyptian Civilisa- tion 210 Chap. II. — The Middle Empire. Section I. Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasties—The Laby- rinth and Lake Moeris 213 ,, II. Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties 217 ,, III. Invasion and Dominion of the Shepherds 219 ,, IV. Expulsion of the Shepherds 223 CiiAr. III. — The Great Conquerors of the New Em- pire—Foreign Influence of Egyi'T. Section I. Eighteenth Dynasty—First Successors of Ahmes—Seventeentli Century n.c 226 ,, II. Continuation of tlic Eighteenth Dynasty — Thothmes III 229 ,, III. Last Kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty—Re- hgious Troubles 236 ,, IV. Commencement of the Nineteenth Dynasty — .Seti I. —Fifteenth Century B.C 240 ,, V. Ramses II. (Sesostris) 245 ,, VI. End of the Nineteenth Dynasty—Foreign Invasions—The Exodus 259 ,, VII. Commencement of the Twentietli Dynasty —Ramses III 264 Chap. IV. —Decline and Fall of the Egyptian Empire. Section I. End of the Twentieth Dynasty—Twenty-first Royal Family 269 ,, II. Twenty- second, Twenty-third and Twenty- fourth rjynasties 273 ,, III. Ethiopian Dynasty 277 ,, IV. The Dodecarchy—The Saite Kings 281 Chap. V. —Civilisation, Manners and Monuments of Egypt. Section I. Social Constitution 289 ,, II. Political Organisation and Administration ... 294 ,, III. Laws 299 ,, IV. Manners and Customs 301 , , V. Writing 302 ,, VI. Literature and Science 307 ,, VII. Religion 317 ,,VIII. Arts 327 , , IX. Principal Monuments 330 BOOK IV.—The ASSYRIANS AND BABYLONIANS. Chap. L—The Primitive Chaldean Empire. Section I. The Tigro-Euphrates Basin 339 ,, II. The Primitive Population of Chalda^a 341 ,, III. Origin of the States of Assyria and Chaldaea —Nimrod—The First Cushite Empire ... 347 ,, IV. Dynasties of the Chalda;an Empire according to Berosus 351 ,, V. Royal Names supplied by the Inscriptions ... 353 ,, VI. Monuments of the Primitive Chaldean Empire 357 ,, VII. Period of Egyptian Preponderance and of the Arab Kings 360 Chap. II. — The First Assyrian Empire. Section I. Foundation of the First Assyrian Empire — Fabulous Stories about that Empire — Ninus and Somiramis 364 ,, II. First Assyrian Dynasty 370 ,, III. First Kings of the UjTiasty of Belelaras Asshurnazirjial 376 ,, IV. From Sliahiianeser IV. to Binlikhish and Samniuramat (Semiramis) 379 V. Asshur-hk-liish or Sardanapalus—Fall of the First Assyrian Empire 384 >> f Chap. III. — The Second Assyrian Empire. Section I. Reign of Phul—Re-establishment of the As- syrian Empire 387 „ II. Sargon 392 ,, III. .Sennacherib 398 , , IV. Esarhaddon and Asshur-bani-pal 404 ,, V. End of the Second Assyrian Empire—Final Fall of Nineveh 415 Chap. IV. — Civilisation, Manners and Monuments of Assyria. Section 1. Political and Social Organisation 417 ,, II. IManners and Customs 426 1— »5 III. Writing 431 IV. Literature and Science /i/|/| V. Religion 452 VI. Arts 456 Chap. V.—The New Chaldean Empire. Section I. Survey of the History of Babylon under the Supremacy of the Assyrians 468 ,, II. Nabopolassar 472 ,, III. Nebuchadnezzar 476 V. The Successors of Nebuchadnezzar—Fall of the Babylonian Empire 4S7 J5 Chap. VI. — Manners and Religion of Babylon. Section I. Manners 492 ,, 11. The Caste of the Chaldceans 493 ,, III. Commerce of Babylon 495 ,, IV. Religion 497 ,, V. Cosmogony 500 „ VL Arts 505 Index 509 List of Scripture Texts Quoted 533 List OF Passages from Herodotus Quoted 535

View PDF
THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES REVISITED1

1992 •

Albert Naccache

View PDF

Revue biblique 117.2

History and the Hebrew Bible: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography, by Hans M. Barstad

2010 •

Kris Sonek

View PDF
al-Makīn Ǧirǧis Ibn al-ʿAmīd, Universal History. The vulgate recension. Part 1, Section 1, from Adam to the Achaemenids

2023 •

Martino Diez

The chronography of al-Makīn Ibn al-ʿAmīd (1206–1293) is a major work in the Copto-Arabic historiographical tradition. Its importance is twofold: on the one hand, its author, a high-ranking official in the Ayyubid and Mamluk administration, drew from different sources, some of them still close to late antiquity, to present an orderly picture of the events from Creation to his own time. On the other hand, his summary of Biblical, Graeco-Roman, and Islamic history attracted the interest of various readerships. It enjoyed widespread popularity among Oriental Christians, in Arabic-speaking communities but also in Ethiopia. It was consulted and quoted by several Mamluk historians, including Ibn Ḫaldūn and his pupil al-Maqrīzī; and finally, it was translated into Latin as early as 1625 by the Dutch Arabist Erpenius, providing early modern Europe with the first clear exposé of Islamic history. Thus, Ibn al-ʿAmīd’s chronography proved influential upon different audiences in various epochs; at the same time, it also constituted a major instance of Christian-Muslim intellectual interaction in the pre-modern era. This critical edition covers the section from Adam to the end of the Achaemenids (ch. 1–91). The text was established on 25 of the 29 known manuscripts and is accompanied by an annotated English translation and an introduction covering the author’s life, the genre of late antique and medieval chronographies, the different recensions in which Ibn al-ʿAmīd’s work has been transmitted, its sources, and its afterlife.

View PDF
1 “The Retribution Principle in the Amorite View of History: Yasma -Addu’s Letter to Nergal (ARM I 3) and Adad’s Message to Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968)” (in print ARAM 2014) Daniel Bodi University of Paris 8 Abstract: The paper will present and analyze the Amorite view of history as found in the eighteenth century BCE Mari text (ARM I 3), a letter sent by Yasma -Addu to the god Nergal, reflecting the power-struggle between two Amorite clans, the Benjaminite Addu clan pitted against the Bensim’alite Līm clan. In this text, the ruler of Mari,Yasma -Addu, recapitulates the historical events related to the protracted conflict between two reigning dynasties: the members of the Līm clan (Yagid-Līm, Ya dun-Līm, Sūmū-Yamam) against the Addu clan (Ilā-Kabkabū, Šamšī-Addu, Yasma -Addu). The former were the ancient rulers of Mari and belonged to the Bensim alite or northern Amorite tribes. The latter were part of the Benjaminite or southern tribes. The end of the power struggle between these two clans is reflected in the prophetic letter relating the message of the god Adad from Aleppo to the last ruler of Mari, Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968). The god Adad’s influence stretches beyond the city of Aleppo in northern Syria since he claims to have given the rule over Mari to the warlord who reveres him. These Mari documents represent a veritable philosophy of history with an ideology based on the operation of divine retribution. The view of history as the outworking of a retributive principle is common to all the major cultures of the Mediterranean seashore. It is found in Mesopotamia in several epochs (from the Legend of Narām Sîn to the the Poem of Erra), in the Hurrian-Hittite text concerning the fall of Ebla, in Egypt, in Greece, and in the Hebrew historiographic tradition. The Mari evidence coming from the Northwest Semitic domain to which the Hebrews also belonged could, therefore, be considered as one of the precursors of the theologico-historiographic genre, reflecting an ideology anticipating the one attributed to the redactor of the Deuteronomistic historiography. This hermeneutical principle is a common ancient Near Eastern way of interpreting history which the Hebrew tradition shares. Introduction In order to reconstruct the wars and power-struggle between the two rival clans, the Benjamine Addu or southern Amorite clan, against the Sim alite Līm, or northern Amorite clan, one has to cull data from texts which, at first sight, have nothing to do with historiography. The first document is found in ARM I 3, and belongs to a very particular genre called “Letters to Gods” which can be subsumed under a larger category called “Divine Correspondence” where humans write to gods and gods answer through “a respondent” whose oracular message is written down by human intermediaries, or obtained by other means. The historical information concerning the final outcome of the conflict between the Addu and Līm clans can be further culled from a text which belongs to a so-called “prophetic letter” (A. 1968) which informs us how Zimrī-Līm took over Mari from his opponents, the Addu clan. Both texts offer rather 2 subjective interpretations and points of view on that protracted power-struggle for the control of Mari. Success in ruling or recovering the lost reign depends on the ruler’s relationship with and faithfulness to the gods Nergal in Mari and Adad of Aleppo, respectively. Those gods manage these cities and territories beyond the city range and give power and rule only to those who uphold their cause. Humans fight but the ultimate outcome is decided by the gods. 1. The Genre and the Sitz im Leben of the Letter (ARM I 3) It is a letter addressed to the god Nergal by Yasma -Addu. The main reproach which Yasma -Addu, of the Addu Benjaminite or southern clan makes to Sūmū-Yamam of the Līm Sim alite northern clan in this text is that the latter has committed a sacrilege. In a way he misappropriated or embezzled sacred property. He took Nergal’s temple in Mari and transformed it into a dwelling for one of his wives. Therefore, the suggestion made by Charpin and Durand that the origin of this letter is a reply by Yasma -Addu to a previous letter sent by the god Nergal to him through the intermediary of a cultic personnel or an āpilu where Nergal complained that his temple was not yet rebuilt seems quite probable. Indeed, one finds an eponymal year of Yasma -Addu where this son of Šamšī-Addu whom the father appointed as ruler of Mari marks this event as the most significant one of that year: “the year Yasma -Addu (made) Nergal enter his temple,” (ARM VIII 40 and ARM VIII 54,8ˊ mu ia-ás-ma-a d IM dnè-iri11-gal ana é-šu i-ru- bu). In another article I have analyzed the genre of letters to the gods which I subsumed under the broader category of divine correspondence.1 W. Hallo had suggested to find the origin of this genre in the Sumerian “letter prayers” found at the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE.2 Letters were written to divinized and dead Sumerian kings who were addressed as “my god.” We should probably follow J. J. A. van Dijk’s cautious stance who suggested that some letters were indeed addressed to gods but others were part of fictional school exercises. Thorkild Jacobsen mentions that in the course of an archaeological excavation in the Diyala region a tablet was found in its envelope and placed next to a divine statue. On the envelope was written the name of the god as the only address. Ancient Mesopotamians were D. Bodi, “Les différents genres de la correspondence divine,” Ktèma 33 (2008), pp. 245-58. This article tries to bring greater precision in defining the genre of the letters to the gods, something that is less than clear in B. Pongratz-Leisten, Herrscahftswissen in Mesopotamien. Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. Und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., (SAAS 10; Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 1999), pp. 202-209, “’Échange de letters avec les dieux’ in der Mari-Zeit.” 2 W. W. Hallo, “Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition,” JAOS 88 (1968), pp. 71-89 (75-89). 1 3 literally writing letters to gods depositing them at the foot of the divine statues and receiving answers through various cultic personnel and their scribes. 2. The Historical Situation The name of the most prominent representative of the Addu clan, Šamšī-Addu means something like, “the god Addu is my sun (patron, protector).”3 He was a famous warlord of Amorite origin belonging to the Benjaminite clan. The members of this clan felt close to another great ruler of the Benjaminite Amorite stock, ammurabi of Babylon. In fact, when Šamšī- Addu’s son, Išmē-Dagān, lost the Realm of Upper Mesopotamia which his father bequeathed to him, he took refuge in Babylon with his kinsmen ammurabi. The father, Šamšī-Addu achieved such prestige as a warrior, that Assyrian kings were proud to include him among their dynastic ancestors in the Assyrian King-list. In his inscriptions he calls himself king of Ekallātum (meaning “palaces”), a city located on the Tigris a few kilometers north from Aššur.4 From there, with constant successful warring he carved himself a huge territory in upper Mesopotamia, comprised between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, conventionally called by Assyriologists as the “Realm of Upper Mesopotamia.” His reign, however, must be studied from documents found in other cities of his realm, Mari (Tel Hariri), Šubat-Enlil (“Enlil’s abode,” modern Tell Leilan), and Šušarra (Tell Shemshara), since Ekallātum has not yet been located. As ARM I 3 and other Mari documents reveal, Šamšī-Addu succeeded his father IlāKabkabū and his brother Aminum around 1836 BCE. Eighteen years later, around 1818, he fled to Babylon because of the advance of Narām-Sîn, king of Ešnunna (Tell Asmar), who captured Ekallātum and Aššur in his campaign to the upper abur. The choice of Babylon as a place of refuge may be explained by the close bond uniting the two dynasties which were both of a common Benjaminite Amorite stock.5 3 The political history of Mari and of its Bedouin kings, with abundant bibliography, is found in D. Charpin and N. Ziegler, Mari et le Proche-Ori˹nt à l’époqu˹ amorrit˹ (Mémoires de NABU 6; Florilegium marianum 5; Paris: SEPOA, 2003). Here we follow the dates proposed by these authors. For Mari Archives, see J.-M. Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari I (LAPO 16; Paris: Cerf, 1997), pp. 25-40: “Les archives des rois de Mari”; D. E. Fleming, D˹mocracy’s Anci˹nt Anc˹stors: Mari and Early Coll˹ctiv˹ Gov˹rnanc˹ (Cambridge: University Press, 2004). 4 Nele Ziegler, “Le royaume d’Ekallâtum et son horizon géopolitique,” in D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand (eds.), (Mémoires de NABU 7; Florilegium marianum 6; R˹cu˹il d’étud˹s à la mémoir˹ d’A. Parrot, Paris: SEPOA 2002), pp. 211-74. The article analyses different proposals for the site of Ekallātum. Tell Heykhal suggested by W. W. Hallo, “The Road to Emar,” JCS 18 (1964), pp. 57-87, was rejected due to the absence of shards from OA times. 5 D. Charpin, Hammu-rabi de Babylone (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2003), p. 43. 4 After Narām-Sîn’s death Šamšī-Addu’s exile ended and he returned to Ekallātum around 1811. Three years later he conquered Aššur where, according to the Assyrian Kinglist, he reigned thirty-three years. He proceeded to conquer the eastern abur region, where he captured Še na, renamining it Šubat-Enlil, which means “Enlil’s Abode.” Probably prompted by economic reasons he carried out the expansion of his kingdom westward.6 The foothills of the Tur-Abdin contained rich pasture and agricultural land, and from there one could control one of the main trade routes of the ancient Near East linking the Euphrates Valley in north-west Syria to Anatolia in the north and to the Tigris Valley in the east. However, that region was already taken and governed by a warlord of the Sim alite clan, Ya dun-Līm who reigned in Mari (his kingdom is called A Purattim “banks of the Euphrates” in ARM I 3,12ˊ and elsewhere) and from there controlled the middle Euphrates Valley, the lower Bali , the lower abur, and a region called Ida-Maraṣ (meaning, “the difficult side or region”). The clash between these two clans, the house of Addu against the house of Līm, and their respective empire-building efforts led to a conflict which lasted during three generations.7 While Sūmū-Yamam expelled his father Ya dun-Līm, he nevertheless proved to be an ephemeral successor, and he was assassinated during a palace conspiracy (circa 1798) and Mari fell into Šamšī-Addu hands. With these conquests, Šamšī-Addu had extended his realm to all of upper Mesopotamia and could claim as he does in several of his inscriptions, to be “the one who united the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates.” He was then completing the fourth decade of his reign and must have been considered old, yet he lived ten more years after the conquest of Mari. “The difficulties encountered by an aging ruler in the administration of such vast territories no doubt prompted his decision to elevate his two sons as co-rulers during the last part of his reign.”8 He placed one son Yasma -Addu as ruler over Mari and another one Išmē-Dagān over Ekallātum. The publication of texts found in Ešnunna in MARI 5 shows that the dynasty of ŠamšīAddu and the Dynasty of Ya dun-Līm, though the first were southerners and the latter the P. Villard, “Shamshi-Adad and Sons: The Rise and Fall of an Upper Mesopotamian Empire,” in J. M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2000), vol. 1-2, pp. 873-83 (874). 7 In a way, the Realm of Upper Mesopotamia carved out by Šamšī-Addu and his sons was a “family business” and could be compared to the Ur III dynasty which was also something of a family affair spreading on three generations of long reigns (or five generations if one includes the shorter ones) from Ur-Nammu who reigned 18 years (21122095), Šulgi 48 years (2094-2047) and Ibbi-Sîn 25 years (2028-2004) without counting the shorter reigns of AmarSîn 9 years (2046-2038) and Šu-Sîn 9 years (2037-2029), basically three or fourth successor before it disappeared. 8 Villard, “Shamshi-Adad and Sons…” p. 874. 6 5 northerners, were sharing the same religious outlook. They have the same religious metaphors, they venerate the same gods, have same objects of worship and share the same worldview based on the operation of divine retribution.9 The Amorite kings of Mari in the 2nd millennium BCE (so-called middle chronology) Ya dun-Līm ca. 1810-1794 (Līm) Sūmū-Yamam ca. 1793-1792 (Līm) Šamši-Addu I ca. 1792-1782 (Addu) Yasma -Addu 1782-1775 (Addu) Zimrī-Līm 1775-1762 (Līm) Mari was burned by ammu-rabi in 1762 3. The Retribution Principle in Mari Texts 3.1. A Letter to Nergal (ARM I 3) The letter ARM I 3 found at Mari is important both because of the information it contains about the early history of the Šamšī-Addu dynasty and because of its form. It is a letter addressed to a god, probably Nergal, by Yasma -Addu, son of Šamšī-Addu, in which the writer is at pains to exonerate himself and his family from any blame for treacherous and sinful conduct and to place all responsibility for the breach of an original alliance on the former, conquered dynasty at Mari personified in the rulers Yagid-Līm and his son Ya dun-Līm. This Mari letter places the rivalry between the two clans before the god Nergal, whose temple was desecrated and proper worship denied. Previous treatments of this important Mari letter were based on a rather fragmentary text which prevented scholars from fully grasping its importance for the understanding of the Amorite view of history.10 The translation offered below follows the new collation of the tablet, by J.-M. Durand and D. Charpin, which significantly improved our understanding of this important yet rather damaged text. ARM 1 311 : 9 J.-M. Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari III (LAPO 18; Paris: Cerf, 2000), p. 74. F. Thureau-Dangin, “Iasma -Adad,” RA 34 (1937), pp. 135-39. G. Dossin, Corr˹spondanc˹ d˹ Šamši-Addu (ARMT I; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1950), pp. 24-27 (I 3) (cuneiform text published in 1946). W. von Soden, “Zu den politischen Korrespondenzen des Archivs von Mari,” Or n.s. 21 (1952), pp. 75-86 (76 commenting on a few words). B. Landsberger, “Assyrische Königsliste und ‘Dunkles Zeitalter,’” JCS 8 (1954), pp. 31-45 (34 commenting on ARMT I 3, 8-11). J.-R. Kupper, Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari (BFPLUL – Fascicule 142; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1957), p. 207. G. Dossin, “Archives de Sûmum-iamam, roi de Mari,” RA 64 (1970), pp. 17-44 (18-19 commenting on ARMT I 3,5ˊ-7ˊ). 11 Photograph of the tablet, cuneiform text of the reverse, transcription and French translation in D. Charpin and J.M. Durand, “La prise du pouvoir par Zimri-Lim,” MARI 4 (1985), pp. 293-43 (339-42). New edition with the 10 6 (1) [a-na dnè-iri11]-gal pa-al- i-im ša k˹-em iq-bé-em [To Nerg]al, the revered one, who thus spoke to me, (2) [qí-bí]-ma say, (3) [um-m]a ia-ás-ma-a -dIM Thus Yasma -Addu, (4) ìr-ka ù pa-li-i -ka-a-ma your servant and worshiper: (5) iš-tu ṣí-ti-ia ma-am-ma-an “Ever since I was born, whoever (6) [š]a a-na AN ú-ga-a[l]-li-lu ú-ul i-ba-aš-ši sinned12 against the god existed no more/perished (7) ka-lu-šu me-a ša AN-ma ú-ka-al all observe divine instructions.13 (8) pa-na-nu-um i-la-kab-ka-bu-ú Previously, Ilā-Kabkabū (9) ù ia-gi-id-li-im ni-iš AN dan-na-am and Yagid-Līm swore a strong oath of the god (10) i-na bi-ri-ti-šu-nu ìz-ku-ru-ma between them. (11) [m]i-la-kab-ka-bu-ú a-na ia-gi-id-li-im Ilā-Kabkabū against Yagid-Līm (12) [ú]-ul ù-ga-al-li-il5 committed no wrong (13) [m][ia-gi]id-li-im a-na i-la-kab-ka-bu-ú but it was Yagid-Līm who, against Ilā-Kabkabū (14) ù-[ga]-al-li-il5 te-el-qé-e-ma ta-ša-al-šu committed the wrong; Upon finding (this) out, you called him into account!14 (15) [ù a-na] i-di i-la-kab-ka-bu-ú ta-al-li-ik-ma You walked on the side of Ilā-Kabkabū. (16) m[i-la-ka]b-ka-bu-ú bàd-šu iq-qú-ur Ilā-Kabkabū destroyed his fortress, (17) [ù dumu-š]u ia-a -du-li-im ik-šu-ud [and] captured [the son] of Ya dun-Līm. (18) [ù aš-šum] qu-ul-lu-ul-ti ia-gi-id-l[i-i]m [Or, in spite] of the wrong which Yagīd-Lim (19) [ša a-na i-l]a-kab-ka-bu-ú ù-[ga-al-li-lu] d[id] against Ilā-Kabkabū, (20) [i-nu-ma] dutu-ši-dIM i-[na giš-gu-za é a-bi-šu] [when] Šamšī-Addu [acceded to his father’s throne], (21) [i-ru-bu a-na i]a-[g]i-i[d]-li-im against Yagid-Līm (22) [ú-ul ù-ga-al-li-il5] he did no wrong… (lacuna of 3 ll. on the side and 5 ll. on the reverse] (1ˊ) [aš-šum gu-ul-lu-ul-ti š]a a-na dutu-ši-d[I]M (2ˊ) ú-[ga-al-li]-lu (3ˊ) ù [ša fx-x]-i-na-ša ša AN ú-ka-al-lu [On account of the wrong] which he committed against Šamšī-Addu, and the fact that he detained dame [fx-x]-inaša who belonged to the god, (4ˊ) m[a?-ru-šu su]-mu-ia-ma-[a]m [i]a-a -du-li-im h[is son] Sūmū-Yamam expelled Ya dun-Līm (5ˊ) [i]š-t[u] m[a]riki i[d]-k[i]-šu from Mari. (6ˊ) msu-mu-ia-ma-am qa-tam [š]a a-bi-[š]u-ma Sūmū-Yamam continued to act exactly like his father (7ˊ) mia-a -du-un-li-im ir-ṭ[ú-u]b i-[t]e-[e]p-pu-ša-am Ya dun-Līm (8ˊ) ù la ši-na-ti i-na qa-ti-š[u i-pu-úš]-ma and with his hands did outrageous things: (9ˊ) é-ka ša lugal-meš pa-nu-ut-tum i-[pu-šu] your temple which former kings made, iq-qú-ur é dam-ni i-pu-úš he destroyed and made it into a house for his wife. (10ˊ) ta-al-li-ik-ma ta-ša-al-[š]u ù ìr-meš-šu-ma Upon finding (this) out you called him to account (11ˊ) i-du-ku-šu and his servants killed him. (12ˊ) te-el-qé-ma a-a i7-buranun-na k[a-l]u-[š]a You undertook to give the totality of the banks of transcription of the last lines 24ˊ-29ˊ from the photograph by J.-M. Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari III, LAPO 18, pp. 72-74. 12 The term gullulum means “to commit a sin, sacrilegious act” (against someone). In Mari Akkadian there is no strict respect of voiced ga and emphatic qá, hence gullulum in D-stem “to sin, to commit sacrilege” and qalālum in D-stem “to despise, humiliate, dishonor.” 13 I follow Durand-Charpin’s translation. Grayson’s rendering, “Since my birth there has been no one who has sinned against the god. Everyone has observed the god’s ordinances,” makes an incredible statement and is therefore less probable, A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. From the Beginning to Ashur-resha-ishi I (2 vols.; Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1972), vol. I, p. 27; kalû II “all totality”; me=parṣu “rite, prescription” ukâl from kalûm V CAD K, p. 101 “to keep available,” “to hold back, detain,” maybe “to hold to”; Grayson, “observed”; CAD M/2, p. 156c describes the syntagm as atypical: kalušu m[e-]ša ilimma ukâl and render it with, “everyone obeys thee, orders of the deity.” 14 For the analysis of this key phrase see J. M. Sasson, ‘Yarim-Lim’s War Declaration’, in J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper (eds.), Miscellanea Babylonica. Mélanges offerts à M. Birot (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), pp. 237-53 (242) 7 the Euphrates into the hand of Šamšī-Addu. In view of Sūmū-Yamam’s sin which he committed against Šamšī-Addu you gave into his hand (i.e. of Šamšī-Addu) [the city of Mari] and the banks of the Euphrates. (17ˊ) [a-na qa-ti-šu tu-ut]-te-er i[l]5-t[e]-qé-e-ni-ma He took me and (18ˊ) [a-na šar-ru/ša-pí-ṭú-u]t ma-riki iš-ku-na-an-na established me as [king/judge]15 of Mari. (19ˊ) [iš-tu a-na šar-ru/ša-pí-ṭú-u]t ma-riki iš-ku-na-an-na Once he established me as [king/judge] of Mari, (20ˊ) [a-na-ku ………šu-ma-a]m da-re-e-em [I], (acquired) a lasting [name] (21ˊ) [ù ………...b]i-it a-wi-lu-tim and founded a noble dwelling, (22ˊ) [……………………...]-x-kum .... [m]yself. (23ˊ) [i-na-an-n]a dumu* it-ti-ia mi-nam [te-el-qé-e] Now, why did you take away my son?16 (24ˊ) pa-nu-ut-tum ma-tam ra*-pa*-aš*-tam* Previous (rulers) asked you for a large realm (25ˊ) [it-ti-ka-ma i]-ri-šu i-na-an-na a-na-ku now, as for me (26ˊ) [it-ti-ka na]-pí-iš-tam ù pé-er- a-am//e-ri-iš I ask you for life and a sprout/progeny.17 (27ˊ) [a-na ša i-ba]-al-lu-ṭú i-né-ka la ta-na-//aš-ši Don’t take those that are (still) alive! (28ˊ) ma -a- tum-ma la ba-[la-at] The land should not be without. (29ˊ) x i-na an-n[i?-tim]..., i-na e-li?... (13ˊ) [a-na q]a-at dutu-ši-dIM tu-ut-t[e-e]r (14ˊ) [ak-ki-m]a gu-ul-lu-ul-[ti] s[u-m]u-ia-m[a-a]m (15ˊ) [ša a-na d]utu-ši-dIM ú-ga-al-li-lu (16ˊ) [a-al ma-riki] ù a-[a] i7-buranun-na X In this letter Yasma -Addu draws lessons from the past conflicts between the two Amorite clans in order to elaborate a particular philosophy of history. The ruler is assured divine blessing, success and lasting reign if he respects the alliances he concluded, shuns cultic sins and sacrilegious acts, and obeys divine will. Though obviously tendentious, writing an apologia pro domo, probably whitewashing the acts of his fathers’ house, Yasma -Addu derives from this general ideology of the operation of divine retribution the explanation why the previous rulers from the Līm clan lost Mari and why his own Addu clan obtained to rule over Mari and the Realm on the banks of the Euphrates. Here one gains an insight of an early form of a similar ideology which permeates the later Hebrew historiography which depicts all the rulers of Judah and Israel basically according to the same schematic pattern, starting with the house of Saul pitted against the house of David. The term šāpiṭum is well attested in OB times in Mari. According to A. Marzal, “The Provincial Governor at Mari: His Title and Appointment,” JNES 30 (1971), pp. 186-217, the notion of “judging” precedes that of “governing.” J.-R. Kupper, “Les pouvoirs locaux dans le royaume de Mari,” in A. Finet (ed.), Les pouvoirs locaux en Mésopotamie et dans les régions adjacentes (Colloque organisé par l’Institut des Hautes Etudes de Belgique 2829 janvier, 1980; Bruxelles, 1982), pp. 43-53 (45-46). D. Charpin, “Les mots du pouvoirs dans les archives royales de Mari (XVIIIe s. av. J.-C.),” Cahiers du Centre G. Glotz II (1991) pp. 3-17 (12-14). H. Niehr, Herrschen und Richt˹n, Di˹ Würz˹l špṭ im Alt˹n Ori˹nt und im Alt˹n Testament (Forschung zur Bibel, 54; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986). The term is attested in Ugarit, H. Cazelles, “mtpṭ à Ugarit,” Or 53 (1984), pp. 177-182. S. Lafont, “Le juge biblique,” in J. M. Carbasse and L. Depambour-Tarride (eds.), La conscirence du juge dans la tradition juridique européenne (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2000), pp. 19-48. 16 For the reconstruction of these last lines we follow Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari III, LAPO 18, p. 73, n. 2, based on a photo of the tablet in MARI 4. 17 Cf. Isa. 11:1 the “stem” ḥṭr and 11:10 the “root” šrš of Jesse. 15 8 Using the same hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, the following text A. 1968 brings the conflict between the Addu and the Līm clan to its close by showing how the Addu clan forfeited the rule and the Līm clan regained it. However, it pushes the demonstration to an even higher level by attributing the discourse to the divinity itself, the god Adad of Aleppo, in a message transmitted to Zimrī-Lim by a prophet. 3.2. A Proph˹tic L˹tt˹r o˺ Adad to Zimrī-Līm (A. 1968) (A. 1968)18 (1) a-na be-lí-ia qí-bí-ma To my lord say, (2) um-ma Nu-úr-dSuen ìr-ka-ma thus Nūr-Sîn, your servant: (3) mA-bi-ia a-pí-lum ša dIM be-el a-la-a[b] Abiya, the respondent of Adad, lord of Aleppo (4) il-li-kam-ma ki-a-am iq-bé-e-em came to me and spoke to me as follows: (5) um-ma-a-mi dIM-ma ma-a-tam4 ka-la-ša Thus says Adad, “The land, all of it, (6) a-na Ya-a -du-Li-im ad-di-in to Ya du-Līm I had given. (7) ù i-na gištukulmeš-ia ma- i-ra-am ú-ul ir-ši and thanks to my weapons he had no rival, (8) i-ia-tam i-iz-ib-ma ma-a-tam ša ad-di-nu-šum me he had abandoned and the land I had given to him (9) a-na Sa-am-si- dIM ad-[di-i]n to Šamšī-Addu I gave. (10) [….]Sa-am-si- dIM [….] Šamšī-Addu (long break, text continues on the reverse) (1ˊ) ú-t[e-e]r-ka a-na gišg[u.za é-a-bi-ka] I brought you back (i.e. Zimrī-Līm) to the t[hrone of your father] (2ˊ) ú-te-er-ka gištukul[meš] I brought you back.19 The weapon[s] (3ˊ) ša it-ti te-em-tim am-ta-a -ṣú with which I fought with the Sea (Têmtum) (4ˊ) ad-di-na-ak-kum ì ša nam-ri-ru-ti-ia I gave to you. With the oil of my bitter victory20 (5ˊ) ap-šu-úš-[k]a ma-am-ma-an a-na pa-ni-ka I anointed you, and no one before you (6ˊ) ul iz-[zi-iz a]-wa-ti iš7-te-˹t ši-me could sta[nd]. My one word hear! (7ˊ) i-nu-ma ma-am-ma-an ša di-nim When someone who has a lawsuit (8ˊ) i-ša-as-sí-ik um-ma-[a]-mi cries out to you saying, (9ˊ) [a-ab-t]a-ku i-zi-iz-ma di-in-šu di-in ‘I have been robbed!’ stand up and judge his lawsuit.21 (10ˊ) [i-ša-r]i-iš a-p[u-ul-šu] [Ju]stly ans[wer him] (11ˊ) [an]-ni-tam ša it-ti-ka e[-er-ri-šu] This is what I d[esire] from you (12ˊ) i-nu-ma gi-ir-ra-am tu-u[ṣ-ṣú-ú] When you go out on a campaign, (13ˊ) [b]a-lum te-er-tim la tu-u[ṣ-ṣí] do not go out without an oracle, (14ˊ) [i]-nu-ma a-na-ku i-na te-[e]r-ti-i[a] When I [step forth] in my oracle, Photo of the cuneiform tablet: J.-M. Durand, L˹ Cult˹ d’Addu d’Al˹p ˹t l’a˺˺air˹ d’Alahtum (Florilegium marianum 7; Mémoires de Nabu 8; Paris: CEPOA, 2002), p. 133. Hand-copy of the cuneiform tablet by Brigitte Lion in J.-M. Durand, “Le Mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la Mer,” MARI 7 (1993), pp. 41-61 (44). English translations in J. J. M. Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Collected Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), ch. 14, pp. 157-253, “The Mari Prophetic Texts in Transliteration and English Translation,” and in M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, with contributions by C. L. Seow and R. K. Ritner (ed. P. Machinist; Writings from the Ancient World, 12; Atlanta, GA., Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), pp. 21-22 (A. 1968). 19 In lines (1ˊ-2ˊ) the first sign can be read either ú no 318 or 537 lu, since in Mari they are interchangeable. 20 In line (4ˊ) addin-ak-kum šamna ša namrīrutī-ya “I have given you the oil of my bitter victory.” Although CAD N/1, p. 237, transaltes namrirrū with “supernatural, awe-inspiring luminosity,” deriving the verb from nūr “light,” we prefer Durand’s derivation from the root mrr “bitter.” A similar idea is reflected in Ps 23:4 “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies, you anoint my head with oil...” 21 CAD , p. 9, abātu A 1. To rob, take away by force, 2. To commit a robbery, 3. To snatch, hence the translation, “I am robbed”, Dossin: “je suis pillé,” Durand: “quel scandale!” 18 9 (15ˊ) [az-za-az-zu] gi-ir-ra-am ta-ṣí you will go out on a campaign. (16ˊ) šum-ma [la k]i-a-am-ma ba-ba-am If I do not, out of the gate (17ˊ) [la] tu-[u]ṣ-ṣí an-ni-tam a-pí-lum iq-bé-em you will [not] g[o].” This is what the respondent said to me. (18ˊ) a-nu-um-[ma šar-ra-at a-pí-lim] Now [the lock of hair of the respondent] (19ˊ) ù sí-[sí-ik-ta-šu a-na be-lí-ia] and the h[em (of) his (garment) I have sent] (20ˊ) [uš-ta-bi-lam] [to my lord]. The final stage of this conflict between two Amorite clans which spanned three generations brings us to the time of Zimrī-Līm, the last occupant of Mari. In this prophetic Mari letter a respondent states in the name of the storm god Adad that the latter decided to give the rule of Mari back to the Līm clan. This oracle of the god Adad to Zimri-Lim is full of stereotypical motifs which are almost all found in the Hebrew tradition as well: a.) The requirement to stick to the Adad only party is comparable to the demands of the Yahweh only party.22 A. 1968 is a letter from Nūr-Sîn to Zimrī-Līm who conveys an oracle from Abiya, an āpilum a respondent of the god Adad of Aleppo. The etymology of this G-stem active participle suggests a transmitter of divine answers to human inquiries. In this prophetic letter Adad retells the history of the way he gave the whole country first to Ya dun-Līm ca. 1810-1794 of the Līm clan. He however, forfeited his allegiance to god Adad “he abandoned (the god’s) cause” so the god gave the land to Šamšī-Addu, of the Addu clan. There unfortunately follows a break and when the texts picks up, Adad says that he restored Zimrī-Līm to the throne of his father’s house, and gave him the weapons with which Adad fought with the Sea Têmtu. b.) The storm god Adad defeats the mythological forces of chaos as Yahweh does in Ps 29. The northern Syrian storm-god Adad mentions anointing Zimrī-Līm, and claims to have given him his divine weapons with which Adad defeated the sea in the mythological combat against the forces of chaos.23 The confrontation between the god who established the order of the world, the god Marduk who has assimilated some storm-god elements over the primordial chaos called Ti amtum in the Babylonian Creation Epic ˹nūma eliš dating from the end of the Kassite period 22 The study of the Yahweh alone party started with M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971) who placed it in the Persian period. H. V. Bennett, Injustice Made Legal: Deuteronomic Law and the Plight of Widows, Strangers, and Orphans in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2002), ch. 5, where the author attempts to place the birth of the Yahweh alone movement in the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. 23 J.-M. Durand, “Le Mythologème du combat entre le Dieu de l’orage et la Mer,” MARI 7 (1993), pp. 39-61. Compare Ps. 89:21-26 for similar motifs of Yahweh’s anointment of David and David’s participation in Yahweh’s continuing victory over Sea and River. 10 but in use in the 7th century BCE is a late development in respect to the origin of this feature as found in this Amorite text. The Hebrews are doing something comparable in Ps 29, one of the oldest psalms in the Psalter. The original name of the storm god Ba al was expunged and replaced with the name of Yahweh in order to sing the supremacy of Yahweh over the world. Yahweh too reigns over the mabbul, the destructive forces of the deluge as in Ps 29:10 Yhwh lammabbûl yāšāb. c.) Anointing with the oil of victory, the act of anointing the king being attested in Ebla, the Amorite, Hittite, El-Amarna and the Hebrew traditions (1 Sam. 10:1 on Saul and 1 Sam. 16:13 on David) but not in Mesopotamia proper.24 d.) The demand for social justice calls to mind another hallmark of Hebrew prophetic message to the Israelite kings. The oracle ends with a lengthy exhortation to Zimrī-Līm to exercise social justice. As M. Anbar put it,25 it was the moral demand placed on the chieftain akin to the moral demands placed on Hebrew rulers some centuries later. e.) The operation of the retribution principle in the enfolding of events is common both to the Amorite and to the Hebrew view of history. As stated in ARM I 3, in the past, Yasma -Addu’s grandfather Ilā-Kabkabū,26 the Benjaminite, and Yagid-Līm, the Bensim alite, had exchanged binding oaths, which means that they had contracted an alliance. However, since Yagid-Līm broke his word, the god had given his backing to Ilā-Kabkabū, who destroyed the fortress of his former ally, Yagid-Līm, and apparently captured his son, Ya dun-Līm (l. 17). f.) ARM I 3 points out that outraging god’s representative equals outraging his god. Ya dunLīm committed perjury and other cultic “sins,” like detaining a woman whose name is incomplete. It is stated that she belonged to the god, meaning that she was probably a highpriestess. Harming such a woman was equal to outraging the god whom she served. S. Lafont, “Le roi, le juge et l’étranger à Mari et dans la Bible,” RA 92 (1998), pp. 161-81. Idem, “Nouvelles données sur la royauté mésopotamienne,” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 73 (1975), pp. 473-500. 25 Commenting on a Mari text in (A.1121+A.2731, ll. 46-62), M. Anbar, “Aspect moral dans un discours ‘prophétique’ de Mari,” UF 7 (1975), pp. 517-18 (518). Anbar’s article should now be updated. For the cuneiform text with transcription and translation see B. Lafont, “Le roi de Mari et les prophètes du dieu Adad,” RA 78 (1984), pp. 7-18 (11-11). To the tablet (A. 1121), J.-M. Durand joined another fragment containing the beginning and the end of the same text (A. 2731). J.-M. Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, LAPO 18, p. 132. Idem, Le Cult˹ d’Addu d’Al˹p ˹t l’a˺˺air˹ d’Alahtum (Mémoires de NABU 3; Florilegium marianum 7; Paris: SEPOA, 2002), pp. 137-40, no 39, with a very clear photographs of the tablet. “…Le dieu d’Alep, n’était pas intéressé aux biens temporels mais uniquement à la pratique de la justice” (p. 3). 26 Ilā-Kabkabū would mean, “The Star (i.e. the king) is powerful.” The daughters of Zimri-Lim address their father with “my star.” On Amorite personal names see M. P. Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit (AOAT 271/1; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), p. 313. 24 11 One finds similar thinking in Ezekiel who states that the one who harms Judah outrages the god Judah serves. In the so-called “Ezekiel’s oracles against the nations,” because various nations despised the people of Judah and plundered their land they implicitly scorned Yahweh their God. Therefore, the latter threatens these nations with revenge and utter annihilation. Ezek. 25:6-7 (an oracle against the Ammonites): “For thus says Yahweh God. Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet and rejoiced over the land of Israel with such utter scorn (bekōl šā’ṭekā ben˹p˹š ʾ˹l ʾadamat yisrāʾēl), therefore, behold, I have stretched out my hand against you, and will hand you over as spoil to the nations; and I will cut you off from the peoples and will make you perish out of the countries; I will destroy you ( ašmîdekā).” One finds the same threat based on the retribution principle hurled against the Philistines and the Cherethites (another subgroup of the Sea Peoples which came from Crete) in Ezek. 25:16-17. The phrase (beše’āṭ ben˹p˹š) “with scorn in the soul,” which is itself another Akkadian and Hebrew literary topos, also found in the ninth century BCE Poem of Erra as l˹qû šēṭūtu (“holding in contempt”), connects this oracle with the earlier Ammonite one. 27 The same principle is applied in the oracle against Edom in Ezek 36:5. g.) The motif of repeating evil acts of one’s father is shared by the Amorites and the Hebrews. In the Mari letter to the god Nergal, as a punishment for the sacrilege he committed, Ya dun-Līm’s son, Sūmū-Yamam, rebelled against his father and took his throne. The text further states something very important, saying that Sūmū-Yamam, however, acted in the same manner as his ancestor, walking in a perverse manner like his father. One phrase in the text states the guilty behavior pursued from one generation to the next: ARM I 3 (6ˊ) Sūmū-Yamam qātam [š]a abī-[š]ū-ma (7ˊ) Ya dun-Līm irṭ[u]b i[t]eppuša-am (8ˊ) u lā šināti ina qātī-š[u īpuš]ma “Sūmū-Yamam continued to act exactly like his father Ya dun-Līm and with his hands did outrageous/improper things.” Here, the Akkadian uses the idiomatic expression qātam ša abī-šū-ma irṭub it˹ppuša-am “to continue to act according to the hand of his father” or “in the same way as his father.”28 The 27 D. Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 101; Fribourg, Switzerland, Universitätsverlag, 1991), pp. 69-81 (“Features unique to the Book of Ezekiel and present in the Poem of Erra: Hebrew šeʾaṭ and Akkadian l˹qû šēṭūtu “to show contempt.”) 28 Rat/ṭābu CAD R, p. 217, “to proceed to do something, to begin an activity” (OA, Mari, Rimah, Bogh.); Von Soden, AHw, p. 963, connects it with Hebrew rdp “to pursue”; qātu CAD, Q p. 193, no 8. “in idiomatic uses” no. 9 “in adverbial uses” meaning “the same way.” Here the same way as his father; lā šināti CAD Š/3, p. 40, “improper actions or words, falsehoods.” 12 corresponding Hebrew expression is to walk in one’s father’s ways. In 1 Sam. 8:3,5 the sons of the old prophet Samuel are said not to have walked in their father’s ways, welōʾ hālekû bānāyw biderākāw.29 In the so-called Deuteronomistic evaluation of Israelite kings, this phrase corresponds to the statement “he walked in the way of his father, or of Jeroboam.” 1 Kgs. 22:52, Ahazia, son of Ahab “walked in the way of his father, in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam” wayyēl˹k bed˹r˹kʾābîw); 2 Kgs. 21:21 (Amon, son of Manasseh “walked in all the way in which his father walked” wayyēl˹k bekol-had˹r˹k ʾa š˹r hālak ʾābîw).30 h.) The motif of committing a sacrilegious act triggering divine retribution is another feature that ARM I 3 shares with the Hebrew tradition. Yagid-Līm committed a perjury but Sūmū-Yamam, too, committed a sacrilegious act. Instead of reconstructing a temple of the god Nergal, he refurbished it as a dwelling for one of his numerous wives.31 ARM I 3 (9ˊ) “Your temple which former kings made, he destroyed and made it into a house for his wife. (10ˊ) Upon finding (this) out you called him to account and his servants (11ˊ) killed him.” Upon finding this embezzling of sacred property, the god Nergal presumably irritated on account of such an outrageous and sacrilegious act, let him be assassinated by his servants.32 Note that we are not given here the real political or family reasons why Sūmū-Yamam was assassinated. The text offers only ideological, religious reasons. The power-struggle between the Bensim alite Līm-clan and the Benjaminite Addu-clan continued until the time of the last ruler of Mari, Zimrī-Līm. By leading military campaigns and fighting against Išmē-Dagān, the son of Šamšī-Addu I, Zimrī-Līm continues the conflict and rivalry between the two dynasties. This rivalry resembles the one that occurred seven centuries later between two Hebrew tribal chieftains, David of the tribe of Judah and Saul of the tribe of Benjamin. The first Hebrew tribal chieftain and warlord, Saul, lost his reign on account of a hubristic act. As he was awaiting Samuel’s divine instructions on how to deal with the invading enemy, he began to grow impatient. With all eyes on him, Saul precipitously went ahead and 29 The Qere is in the plural, followed by the Targum, the Syriac and the Vulgate versions. The Ketib is in the singular, followed by the Septuagint. 30 1 Kgs. 15:3 (Abiam in Jerusalem); 15:26 (Nadab in Samaria); 15:34, 16:2 (Basha in Samaria); 16:19 (Zimri of Samaria); 16:31 (Omri in Samaria); 22:43. 31 In the case of Solomon, the biblical tradition accuses him of having done something similar. Beside the temple of Yahweh which he built, he also built numerous cultic sites for his wives and concubines, and they beguiled him into worshiping their gods, divinities other than Yahweh. 32 As noted by G. Dossin, “Archives de Sûmum-Iamam, roi de Mari,” RA 64 (1970), pp. 17-44 (18). 13 made a sacrifice to Yahweh, something which was not part of his prerogatives. The tribal prophet, Samuel, returned, rebuked Saul for committing a sacrilegious act and prophesied that Yahweh would raise up another leader, from another clan, in his place (1 Sam. 13:6-14).33 This Mari letter is important as one of the earliest statements in the North-West Semitic cultural area that hubristic acts lead to tragedy and demise, an ideology that will be found as late as the Herodotus Histories in the Greek milieu in the fifth century BCE. More than a millennium before the Greek historian, the North-West Semites incorporated the theological principle of retribution into their view of history. 4. Th˹ ‘R˹tribution Principl˹’—An Ideology Common to Peoples of the Mediterranean Shoreline The idea of divine retribution operating in the affairs of the world is not a specifically biblical nor Hebrew invention. It is found in Akkadian, Hittite, Greek and Egyptian sources and seems to have been a way of viewing and interpreting historical events shared by most of the peoples inhabiting the Mediterranean shoreline. It is found in literary compositions dating from the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE and continues to be present down to the second half of the 1st millennium BCE and beyond. One should start with Akkadian sources, which provide the oldest evidence for the existence of this worldview among the West-Semitic Bedouins and furnish the most abundant material showing the use of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. 4.1. Th˹ Kutha L˹g˹nd o˺ Narām-Sîn Chronologically, the oldest attestation of the outworking of divine retribution as a punitive response to a ruler’s hubristic act is found in the so-called Kutha Legend of Narām-Sîn (22542218 BCE), the ruler of Akkad.34 The legend belongs to the genre of narû-literature, imitating the style of royal inscriptions and commemorative stelae (narû). The Kutha Legend of NarāmSîn attempts to show the folly and disastrous consequences of hubris and impious selfconfidence. Narām-Sîn’s fatal error shows some similarity with that of the Hebrew tribal chieftain, Saul, more than a millennium later. Both rulers committed hubristic acts at a moment 33 But David too would be a victim of the principle of divine retribution on account of ordering the murder of Uriah the Hittite in order to take away his wife Bathsheba, see D. Bodi, The Demise of the Warlord: A New Look at the David Story (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010). 34 For extensive bibliographic references on the Narām-Sîn legend see D. Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1991), pp. 148-51. 14 of political crisis. Facing the rampaging hordes of the Anubanini invaders after Narām-Sîn failed to receive a positive answer from the gods, he is sceptical about the practical value of piety and omen-seeking and decides to act with self-assertive autonomy.35 The result of this arrogance is that the three huge armies he sent out without the approval of the gods “in the good pleasure of his own heart” are almost totally annihilated, and the invaders destroy the cities of the Mesopotamian plain: v 15-16 ālānī ubbutū tilānū sapnū ubūr māt[im] ut˹qqī-ma iktabas “The cities were obliterated, the tells were swept away. The tumult of the land is brought low and trampled.”36 The human enemy is described metaphorically as a devastating storm. The Narām-Sîn legend conveys a particular moral: “Man must trust in his gods, not in himself, (ina ramānī-šu).” The Kutha Legend of Narām-Sîn is particularly important for our demonstration on account of its wide geographical and chronological distribution, attesting to the knowledge of this text and its underlying ideology in the Babylonian, Assyrian and Hittite cultures. Besides the Old Babylonian version already quoted, there are Akkadian texts found at Sultantepe,37 four fragments from the Aššurbanipal library and a fifth Neo-Assyrian fragment from Sultantepe (seventh century BCE).38 There exists a Hittite version as well, showing the cross-cultural spread of this particular ideology.39 4.2. The Retribution Principle in the So-Called Weidner Chronicle Parallels to the Deuteronomistic retribution principle, in respect to the behavior of kings whose duty was to uphold cultic purity and moral and social rectitude, are found in other pieces of Akkadian literature, such as the so-called “Weidner Chronicle.”40 The case of the Weidner O. R. Gurney, “The Sultantepe Tablets IV. The Cuthaean Legend of Narām-Sîn,” AnSt 5 (1955), pp. 93-113 (1023), ll. 8-82: “What lion ever observed omens? What wolf ever inquired of a dream interpreter? I will go like a bandit in the good pleasure of my own heart (m˹gir libbī-ya).” 36 For the cuneiform text with transliteration and translation see J. J. Finkelstein, ‘The So-Called ‘Old Babylonian Kutha Legend,’” JCS 11 (1957), pp. 83-88 (86). 37 O. R. Gurney and J. J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets I (London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1957), no 30. 38 H.-G. Güterbock, “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200, I,” ZA 42 (1934), pp. 1-91 (19-24 and 65-76). 39 H.-G. Güterbock, “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern II,” ZA 44 (1938), pp. 45-145 (49-67); H. H. Hoffner, “The Hittites,” Or 49 (1980), pp. 283-332 (319). 40 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS V; Locust Valley, N. Y.: J. J. Augustin, 1975), ch. 5: “Two Chronicles Concerning Early Times: i) Weidner Chronicle: Chronicle 19” (43-45; 145-151 with bibliography). In presenting data on the Weidner Chronicle, I draw on Grayson’s analysis and commentary. E. Osswald, “Altorientalische Parallelen zur deuteronomistichen Geschichtsbetrachtung,” MIFO 15 (1969), pp. 28696. 35 15 Chronicle is particularly apt for a comparison with the biblical Deuteronomistic historiography on account of similar chronological and historical problems. The Weidner Chronicle narrates events of great antiquity, which began at least as early as the Early Dynastic period of Sumerian history (first half of the 3rd millennium BCE) and, in the preserved portions of the text, ends by the close of the 3rd millennium, as far down as the reign of king Šulgi (2094-2047 BCE). Although probably originally written during the first dynasty of Babylon, the extant text is preserved in three late copies, one from Neo-Assyrian and two from Neo-Babylonian times41. The document is unique in several respects in comparison to other Mesopotamian texts. First, it concerns a period of time much earlier than that dealt with by the majority of chronicles. Second, the Weidner Chronicle makes use of direct speech when divine beings talk. This is similar to the Poem of Erra, which is presented almost entirely as dialogue between gods concerning the events happening in Babylon and in other Mesopotamian cities. Third, in so far as the text is preserved, it is exclusively concerned with the importance of the city of Babylon and its patron god, Marduk. Fourth, the major feature of the narrative is the use of the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution. It attempts to show that those rulers who neglected or insulted Marduk or failed to provide fish offerings for the temple Esagil had an unfavorable or ruinous end, while those who did concern themselves with these matters fared well. Not all rulers from the Early Dynastic period are mentioned, a fact presumably related to the author’s theory about the Esagil cult. Fifth, although the texts refer to historically attested rulers and their reigns, the hermeneutical principle used turns it into a piece of propaganda written as an admonition to future monarchs to pay heed to Babylon and the purity of its cult. The Weidner Chronicle is not useless as a source for historical research however. As pointed out by Grayson, “Leaving aside this fanciful portrayal of the history of the cult of Esagil, there is no indication that the author has departed from historical facts” (p. 44). Sixth, a further pertinent feature is the manner of describing reigns as “good” or “bad,” not common in chronicles and comparable to the “Akkadian Prophecies,” a literary genre in which this is usual.42 Scholars have suggested Akkadian Prophecies as direct precursors to biblical apocalyptic texts like Ezek. 41 The most complete text is found on the Neo-Assyrian tablet, but even here the state of preservation is very poor, the obverse being practically illegible. The period when the text was written is unknown. Grayson (p. 44) thinks that it cannot be any earlier than the first dynasty of Babylon, eighteenth century BCE. Babylon and its chief temple Esagil were not sufficiently important before the first dynasty of Babylon to merit such special attention from Mesopotamian rulers. 42 A. K. Grayson and W. G. Lambert, “Akkadian Pophecies,” JCS 18 (1964), pp. 7-30. 16 37 and Dan. 2 and 4, where world history is presented in periodizations. Lines 38-41 of the Weidner Chronicle describe the attitude of Puzur-Nirah, king of Akshak, towards the fish cult of Esagil, and although the passage is poorly preserved, it is apparent that he is guilty of mistreating the cult.43 In contrast, it is next stated in ll. 42-45, that Ku-Baba fostered the cult, with the result that Marduk granted this ruler sovereignty over all lands. Seventh, a particularly pertinent feature, offering a striking similarity with the biblical Deuteronomistic presentation of the offenses, is the evaluation of a ruler’s career, which is described as being originally good and ending badly. In ll. 46-48, a ruler, Ur-Zababa, ordered Sargon to alter the provisions for the Babylonian Esagil cult. Sargon refused to obey the order, and the god Marduk, therefore, granted him sovereignty over the world. The remainder of Sargon’s career, however (ll. 49-52a), was not so blessed. He is accused of having erected a duplicate of Babylon in front of his capital, Agade. As a result, Marduk turned against Sargon, his subjects rebelled and he was inflicted with insomnia. (46) Ur-Zababa c[ommanded] Sargon to exchange (šupili) the libations of wine for Esagil…(47) Sargon did not exchange (ušp˹l) (them). (Instead) he was careful to [deliver with h]as[te (the fish)] to Esagil. (48) Marduk, ‘son of the temple’ of Apsu, looked with joy upon him and gave to him sovereignty over the Four Quarters (kibrat arbaʾi) (50) He (Sargon) dug up the dust of its pit (the pit of Babylon and) (51) in front of Agade he made (another) city and [cal]led it Babylon. (52-52b) [because of] the wrong he (Sargon) had done, he (Marduk) became hostile towards him (Sargon). They (his subjects) rebelled against him from east to west. He was inflicted with insomnia.44 Sargon’s career pattern resembles that of Saul, the Hebrew tribal chieftain who had a good beginning and a tragic end. 4.3. The Retribution Principle in Hittite Texts 4.3.1. The Hurrian-Hittite Text on the Fall of Ebla Cuneiform tablets of a bilingual Hurrian and Hittite text have been found in 1983 during the archaeological digs on the site of the upper city of Hattuša.45 The etiological story of the fall of Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, p. 147, ll. (38) “In the reign of Puzur-Nira , king of Akshak, fisherman of Esagil….[…] (39)…they used to catch fish for the meal of the lord of the fish (bēl nūnē probably Marduk) (40) The kings’ inspectors took away the fish.” 44 Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, pp. 148-149. These lines have been taken and copied in another text, Chronicle 20, ll. 18-23. 45 These texts have been published by H. Otten and Chr. Rüster, Die hurritisch-hethitische Bilingue und weitere Texte aus der Oberstadt (KBo XXXII; Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1990). E. Neu, Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung I. Untersuchungen in einem hurritisch-h˹thitisch˹n T˹xt˹ns˹mbl˹ aus Hattuša (StBo 32; Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1996), pp. 479-83. Idem, “Knechtschaft und Freiheit. Betrachtungen über ein hurritisch-hethitischen Textensemble aus Hattuša,” in B. Janowski, K. Koch, G. Wilhelm (eds.), Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen 43 17 the ancient city of Ebla is a major component of these tablets. The Hittite translation dates from 1400 BCE. It provides the only information concerning the reasons for the fall of Ebla. However, these reasons are entirely presented according to the ideology of divine retribution. A few words about the genre and the Sitz im Leben of this text should be said. The colophon of the tablet mentions in Hittite SÌR parā tarnumar “the song concerning the liberation” which translates the corresponding Hurrian term kirenzi. This led one of the editors of this text, Erich Neu, to suggest the practice of generalized liberation of debts and slaves, wellknown in OB Mesopotamia and Mari under the term andurārum as the probable Sitz im Leben of this text. The Akkadian term andurārum is known among the Hittites by the corresponding Sumerogram AMA.AR.GI4 which literally means “return to the mother,” or “return to the original condition.”46 For example, in the Akkadian version of the “Autobiography of Hattušili I,” the king states what he did, i-na ša-pal ša-me-e AMA.AR.GI4-šu-nu aš-tá-kán “under the skies I have established the liberation [of the slaves]” (KBo X 1 Rs 1). In the Hurrian-Hittite bilingual text, the storm god Teššub of Kummi, the supreme god of the Hurrian pantheon, addresses directly the King Mēgi who is also called the “Star of Ebla.” As already noted above, calling a ruler “star” is a common feature in Mari where one finds IlāKabkabū from the northern Sim alite Addu clan and later the Benjaminite warlord Zimrī-Līm addressed as “star” by his daughters. The god Teššub demands the liberation of slaves captured in wars led by the city of Ebla. The slaves in question stem from the city of Ikinkališ; they are called the “sons of Ikinkališ,” and the god requests the liberation of one specific prisoner whose name is Purra. The god states that Ebla will obtain victory over her enemies only if she liberates these slaves. However, the ancients of the city of Ebla refused to free their slaves. A man whose name is Zāzalla speaks on behalf of the elders objecting that if they liberate the slaves there wouldn’t be anyone left to do the household chores and other hard work in their stead. The slaves in question are in charge of preparing the food and drinks, serve at the tables, cook and do the washing. They are excellent workers in the production of various textiles, which is a major source of revenues for the city of Ebla. As a consequence of their refusal to liberate their zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament (OBO 129; Fribourg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag, 1993), pp. 329-61. 46 D. Charpin, “Les décrets royaux à l’époque paléo-babylonienne, à propos d’un ouvrage recent,” AfO 34 (1997), pp. 36-44 (37-38). Idem, “L’andurārum à Mari,” MARI 6 (1990), pp. 253-70. J.-M. Durand, “Le dossier de l’ andurārum,” Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari III, LAPO 18, pp. 256-58. 18 slaves, in his wrath, the god Teššub gave the city of Ebla over into the hands of her enemies who destroyed it. This Hurrian-Hittite text on the fall of Ebla based on the ideology of divine retribution linked to the refusal to free the slaves shows a remarkable resemblance with the biblical story of the slaves of Jerusalem in Jer. 34:8-22 where the Hebrew term derôr occurs three times (Jer. 34:8,15,17). The Hebrew term is a calque of the Neo-Assyrian durāru. Here too the destruction of Jerusalem is announced as an outworking of the divine retribution on account of the duplicity of its rulers who first liberated their slaves and once the Babylonian threat was over enslaved them again.47 In both the Hurrian-Hittite text and in the biblical one the displeasure of the patron god comes as an expression of the divine retribution on account of the mishandling of slaves. 4.4.2. The Hittite Plague Prayers Based on the Retribution Principle In the fourteenth century BCE, the Hittite king Muršili II composed four “Plague Prayers” to the gods of Hatti concerning a catastrophic plague that had ravaged the Hittite Empire during the reign of his father, Šuppiluliuma I. The plague decimated the population of Hatti for more than two decades. Šuppiluliuma I himself and his eldest son, Arnuwanda II, apparently died of it, and the task of investigating the reasons for the calamity were left to the young king Muršili II. One of the reasons listed for the outbreak of the plague was the breach of a peace treaty between the Hittites and the Egyptians. In spite of the treaty, the Hittites committed perjury. Breaking the oath of the gods, they attacked a city of Amqa in the Biq a plain, in Egyptian territory. Moreover, the death of one of Šuppiluliuma’s sons on his way to Egypt to be married to an Egyptian queen led to another war against Egypt, during which many Hittite prisoners were taken. The plague first broke out among those prisoners and was carried by them into Hatti. The prayer sees the catastrophic plague as divine retribution for the breach of the peace treaty.48 Whether introduced by Egyptian prisoners or not, Muršili’s diagnosis was See D. Bodi, “La révolte des travailleurs en Mésopotamie et dans la Bible et la resolution du conflit par un retour à l’état antérieur andurārum akkadien et derôr hébreu,” in J.-M. Durand et A. Jacquet (eds.), Centre et périphérie: approches nouvelles des Orientalistes (Actes du colloque organisé par l’Institut du Proche-Orient Ancien du Collège de France, la Société Asiatique et le CNRS-UMR 7192, les 31 mai et 1er juin 2006 ; Paris, 2009, CIPOA), vol. I, pp. 83-100. 47 A. Goetze, ‘The Plague Prayers of Mursilis’, ANET, 1969, pp. 394-96, and A. Malamat, ‘Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and Biblical Historiography: A Parallel’, VT 5 (1955), pp. 1-12; Transliterated Hittite text with comments by E. O. Forrer, ‘The Hittites in Palestine, II’, PEQ 69 (1937), pp. 100-15 (104). 48 19 to consider it to be merely the instrument of divine retribution.49 The hidden causes, however, had to be discovered through a process of oracular consultation in which various sins weighing on the collective social and political conscience were suggested to the gods, who were expected to respond by divinatory means. The results pointed toward various sins committed by Šuppiluliuma I. One Plague Prayer (no 11) mentions two major sins, one cultic and another political—the neglect of an offering to the Mala (Euphrates) River (no 11, § 3) and the violation of the Kurustama Treaty, binding the men of Hatti and the Egyptian by the oath of the Stromgod of Hatti. The Hittites attacked twice the land of Amqa on the Egyptian northern frontier (no 11, § 4 and § 7). Another prayer (no 12) concerns a dynastic crime—Šuppiluliuma’s murder of the legitimate heir to the throne, Tud aliya the Younger. ‘Since Tud aliya the Younger was their lord in Hatti, the princes, the noblemen, the commanders of the thousands, the officers [the corporals?] of Hatti and all [the infantry] and chariotry of Hatti swore an oath to him. My father (Šuppiluliuma I) also swore an oath to him’ (no 12, § 2).50 The reference of the oath to the king reminds us of the troubled relationship between Saul and David. The latter was reluctant to kill Saul, according to the two versions of the account in 1 Sam 24 and 26. Saul pursued David as an outlaw, someone who had broken the oath. Although these prayers turn around a profoundly religious worldview based on the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution, these confessions add invaluable historical information on the age of Šuppiluliuma I, which complements other sources, on the political relationship between Egypt and the Hittites and on dynastic crimes in the Hittite Empire.51 4.3. The Retribution Principle in the Poem of Erra The author of the ninth century BCE Babylonian Poem of Erra conveys the teaching that the network of human history must be seen through a spiritual and visionary eye. Beyond the horizons of the phenomenon one must recognize that the “Ruler of History” is the deity. The way the author directly attributes the devastation of Babylon to the god of war and pestilence, Erra, and its subsequent reconstruction to the patron god, Marduk. It represents a religious way of interpreting a particularly troubled period of Mesopotamian history. One could speak of an 49 Here we follow the analysis suggested by I. Singer, Hittite Prayers (Writings from the Ancient World 11, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), pp. 47-49. All references to numbered prayers and paragraphs are from Singer’s translation. 50 Singer, Hittite Prayers, p. 61. 51 H. G. Güterbock, “Mursili’s Accounts of Suppiluliuma’s Dealings with Egypt,” RHA 66 (1960), pp. 57-63. 20 elaborate religious transposition of the historical reality. According to J. Bottéro, the author has produced a “theology of history.”52 The god Marduk left his seat in his temple in Babylon because the people there had committed a cultic offense. They did not take proper care of his divine statue, whose appearance was tarnished. As a retribution for this cultic misdeed, war and destruction, incarnated in the plague god, Erra/Nergal, devastated Babylon and other major Mesopotamian cities.53 The author of the Poem of Erra, Kabti-ilāni-Marduk, offered a religious explanation of why the illustrious city of Babylon, seat of the patron deity Marduk, and ‘navel’ of the whole world, had suffered such a devastation and humiliation. Using his knowledge of the previous history of Babylon, he pointed out a number of reasons for the unleashing of divine retributive justice: the neglect of Marduk’s cultic statue; the scorn the inhabitants of the city showed for Erra and for his divine warriors, the Seven or Sibitti; the irreligious arrogance and negligence of the humans toward the gods expressed by the terms ubūru and rigmu “din, clamor.” This last motif was taken from the eighteenth century BCE Atra asīs Epic, where it is used to explain why the gods sent the Flood on the Mesopotamians—the excessive din of the humans perturbed the sleep of the gods who lived in their temples on earth among humans and prompted the divine council to send the Flood and make the clamor subside.54 The Flood is the instrument of divine retribution both in the Atra asīs Epic and in Gen. 6-9. In the ninth century BCE, the Poem of Erra incorporates both the use of the term ubūru, relating it to human offenses against the gods and the idea, already a millennium older, of divine retribution from the Atra asīs Epic. This theological way of thinking is a recurring and well-established feature of Akkadian literary works. 7. The Retribution Principle in Greek Texts The retribution principle appears quite early in Greek classical literature. For example, in his work The Persians, 807-812, Aeschylus (525-456 BCE), who fought against the Persians as a Greek soldier in Salamis and Plataea, explains the defeat of the Persian king Xerxes as divine punishment for sacrilegious acts he committed by burning Greek temples and destroying their J. Bottéro, “Antiquités assyro-babyloniennes, l’Épopée d’Erra,” Annuaire EPHE IVe section (1977-78), pp. 10764 (148). 53 Bodi, The Book of Ezekial and the Poem of Erra, ch. 2. 54 For a detailed discussion of this motif, see Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra, pp. 131-44: “ ubūru and rigmu in the Atra asīs Epic.” 52 21 altars and divine statues.55 Aeschylus sets his play, The Persians, in the court of Susa, where dreams and visions occur. The successful repulsion of Xerxes’ superior armies by the numerically smaller Greek resistance forces and the thwarting of Persian plans to subdue the Greek heartland, which occurred a decade earlier (480-479 BCE), is attributed to the operation of the retribution principle and to the gods’ “ferocious punishment on anything that is unduly great, whether physical or mental.”56 Retributive justice is known in Greek historical and literary traditions as nemesis. This hubristic understanding of the fatal Persian error has been adopted by Herodotus who, in his History 3:28-29 (Cambyses wounding the Apis bull); 64 and 66 (Cambyses’ gangrened thigh),57 saw the consequence of his supposed sacrilegious act in the tragic death of the Persian king Cambyses. According to the legend, Cambyses committed an act of impiety in Egypt when he killed, with his own sword, the bull, a symbol of the god Apis in Memphis. Cambyses died of a wound that he accidentally inflicted on his thigh with his own sword, that is, at the same spot and with the same weapon with which the bull of the god Apis was slain.58 The story of the murder of the Apis bull by Cambyses might be an invention. In the Memphis cemetery, the place where dead Apis bulls were buried in different sarcophagi, archaeologists have found precisely the Apis bull buried at the time of Cambyses. It appears that Cambyses proceeded with the traditional embalming and burial of the Apis bull according to the rules and the ceremonial in vogue in the Saite times.59 Nevertheless, to give some credit to Herodotus, one may point out that he attributes the burying of the Apis bull to the Egyptians priests who did it without Cambyses’ knowledge (3:29). 8. The Retribution Principle in Egyptian Texts 55 D. J. Conacher, Aeschylus. The Earlier Plays and Related Studies (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996). The Persians by Aeschylus, translated with commentary by A. J. Podlecki (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970). H. D. Broadhead, The Persea of Aeschylus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960). 56 Aeschylus, Persians, Eng. tr. J. Lembke and C. J. Herington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), p. 9. L. Spatz, Aeschylus (Boston: Twayne, 1982), p. 20: “The constant reference to the immensity and extravagance of Persia, symbolized by the abundant gold, create a picture of an entire society which possesses more than its allotted portion (moira).” 57 Herodotus, The History, Eng. tr. by D. Grene (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). 58 According to historians, Herodotus is transmitting a mere legend. N. Grimal, Histoir˹ d˹ l’Égypt˹ anci˹nn˹ (Paris: Fayard, 1988), p. 474: “These texts simply transcribe the nationalistic propaganda that developed not so much under the Persian domination but later; when the Greeks vanquished the Persians and became the new lords of the land, they carefully maintained this other form of damnatio memoriae of their ancient rivals.” 59 P. Briant, Histoir˹ d˹ l’Empir˹ p˹rs˹ (Paris: Fayard, 1996), pp. 67-68. 22 The Ptolemaic Demotic Chronicle attempts to explain Egyptian history, from 404 BCE down to the time of its composition, through the operation of the law of divine retribution. Only the kings (pharaohs of the 27th to the 30th dynasties) who lived in accordance with the will of the gods could prosper. Catastrophes, such as foreign invasions, were explained as a consequence of disobedience to the will of the gods. Deliverance from such evils, however, is prophesied in the form of a messiah from Herakleopolis who will fulfill divine law and thereby embody the ideal of a perfect and just rule. At 3:16 one reads, ‘Rejoice over the ruler who will be; for he will not forsake the law’.60 Conclusion A. Malamat’s argument that Hittite historiography and doctrine of retribution influenced Hebrew historiography through the Jerusalemite “Hittite” connection is not convincing.61 The Hittite population of Davidic Jerusalem belongs to the “Neo- or Late Hittites,” who were unrelated to the Anatolian ones. The issue should not be explained as an example of direct borrowing. Rather, as we have tried to show, the principle of divine retribution is an element common to all major cultures and civilizations of the Mediterranean shoreline. The above enumeration of various ancient Near Eastern texts dealing with the retribution principle has revealed a significant overlap in viewing and writing about history between the various peoples and cultures of the Mediterranean over 2 millennia. Particular similarities have been found between the ideological perspective found in the two eighteenth century BCE Mari texts and the ideological depiction of the outcome of the power-struggle between Saul and David. These two Hebrew warlords are traditionally placed in the tenth century BCE. Another significant similarity has been found between the fourteenth century BCE Hurrian-Hittite text explaining the fall of much older city of Ebla and the seventh century BCE prophetic text about the fall of Jerusalem in the time of Jeremiah. In both cases the fall of the city is explained in a similar vein. Such juxtapositions show how pervading was the ideology of divine retribution and how exceptionally conservative and enduring it was. The origin of this manner of thinking should probably be sought in common human observation that every act provokes a definite outcome. In his original study of this topic, instead of using the theologically charged term 60 61 A. B. Lloyd, “The Inscription of Udjaḥoresnet* A Collaborator’s Testament,” JEA 68 (1982), pp. 166-80 (174). A. Malamat, “Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and Biblical Historiography,” VT 5 (1955), pp. 1-12 (1, n. 2). 23 “retribution,” K. Koch62 speaks of “Tat-Ergehen Zusammenhang,” saying that the natural order ensures an act-consequence relationship, found as a basic teaching in the Proverbs. The Mari documents (ARM I 3 and A. 1968) represent a veritable philosophy of history based on the operation of divine retribution. They could, therefore, be considered as precursors to the theologico-historiographic genre, reflecting an ideology anticipating the one attributed to the redactor of the Deuetronomistic historiography. The Mari letters place the rivalry between the two clans before the god Nergal, whose temple was desecrated, and proper worship denied. In the Hebrew Bible, the redactor of Deuteronomistic historiography accuses different kings of Israel and Judah of having acted in an impious manner, walking in the steps of their equally impious predecessors who offended the national deity, Yahweh. These sins have provoked divine retribution, the loss of the city of Jerusalem and the deportation of the people into Babylonian exile. K. Koch, ‘Gibt es ein vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?’, ZThK 52 (1955), pp. 1-42 (p. 39, on the role of the LXX in the elaboration of this doctrine); idem, ‘Is there a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?’ in J. L. Crenshaw (ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1983), pp. 57-87. He finds the elaboration of religion as a legal concept of justice (Hebrew nqm ‘vengeance’ rendered with dikē in Greek, cf. dikaiosunē) only under the influence of the Septuagint translation. 62

RELATED PAPERS

Studia Historyczne

„O sztuce cukrowej”, czyli dlaczego piętnastowieczni aptekarze włoscy wytwarzali słodycze?

2022 •

Rafal Hryszko

View PDF
Le parole di Lavinia

Donato Pirovano

View PDF

In Esotericism and Deviance [Aries Book Series, Volume 33]. Edited by Manon Hendenborg White and Tim Rudbøg. Leiden: Brill

Confessions of a Persian Opium Smoker: Sadegh Hedayat, Esotericism, and The Blind Owl

2023 •

Kurosh Amoui

View PDF

Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of of Israel Finkelstein

“English Lady Owns Armageddon”: Rosamond Templeton, Laurence Oliphant, and Tell El-Mutesellim

2017 •

Eric H Cline

View PDF
Derecho penal especial

Pablo Guti

View PDF

Bangkok Post

"Asian Century's Geopolitics Mapped" Bangkok Post (13 December 2023) p. 9

2023 •

Prabhakar Singh

View PDF

Studia Historica Nitriensia

Záhradkárske osady, chatári a chalupári ako fenomény urbanizácie

2016 •

Zuzana Beňušková

View PDF
Piet Mondrian’s neo-plastic compositions (1917-1944) and his six principles of neo-plasticism: An analysis of his aesthetic ideas based on a study of his essays and paintings / Ali Fallahzadeh

2020 •

Dr. Ali Fallahzadeh

View PDF

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit

Der Streit zwischen Barbarossa und dem Erzbischof Konrad I. von Mainz – Die Spuren der Versöhnung im büdingischen Kloster Konradsdorf

2005 •

Waltraud Friedrich

View PDF
FELÂTUN BEY AND RÂKIM EFENDI - reviews

Monica Ringer, Melih Levi

View PDF

Judaica Librarianship

Current Practices and Standards of Cataloging Hebraica in RLIN

1994 •

Heidi Lerner

View PDF

Tatra mountains mathematical publications

Cca-Secure Key Encapsulation Mechanism Based on Factoring Assumption

2012 •

Gyöngyvér Márton

View PDF
Long Period Analysis of Construction Skills Supply in Zambia

michael mulenga

View PDF
Smoke Removal and Image Enhancement of Laparoscopic Images by An Artificial Multi-Exposure Image Fusion Method

2021 •

khan khan

View PDF

Defence Science Journal

Algebraic Construction and Cryptographic Properties of Rijndael Substitution Box

2012 •

Chaman Arya

View PDF
Development of Students’ Worksheet Based Guided Inquiry to Train Science Process Skill in Simple Harmonic Motion Material

2018 •

Risma Melati

View PDF
学历认证书国外《KCL毕业证书成绩单-学位等级硕士》176555708微信【伦敦国王学院入学offer,学位证，文凭证书,学历认证留信网】造假学士毕业证

hkjgfh khhffgf

View PDF
Perceptual modelling and processing of reverberant speech

2017 •

Hamza Javed

View PDF

Russian Journal of Bioorganic Chemistry

Behavior of Doxorubicin Lipophilic Conjugates in Liposomal Lipid Bilayers

2018 •

Roman Efremov

View PDF

Nutrition Journal

Cesarean section and increased body mass index in school children: two cohort studies from distinct socioeconomic background areas in Brazil

2013 •

Heloísa Bettiol

View PDF

RELATED TOPICS

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near EastAmoritesRetributionHebrew Bible/Old Testament