Four great kings self-identified as ‘son of a nobody’ – or was this just the one mighty ruler?
by
Damien F. Mackey
Here,
I have selected four names, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nabopolassar and
Nabonidus, whom I have identified in various articles as only one king. For
example:
Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel
(2) Aligning
Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel
and:
Nabopolassar a
great king if only one could find him
(2) Nabopolassar a
great king if only one could find him
Specifying
status as ‘Son of a nobody’
Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for these king-names
would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be
elevated to kingship.
Thus I had previously introduced
Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not
expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”.
Now, Esarhaddon is presented by Mattias Karlsson, as a likely ‘son of a
nobody’, in his article:
The Expression "Son of a Nobody" in Assyrian Royal
Inscriptions
2016
https://www.academia.edu/24256060/The_Expression_Son_of_a_Nobody_in_Assyrian_Royal_Inscriptions
…. Esarhaddon may be the "son of a nobody" in question. Regarding this epithet, we here have another attestation of it
as carrying a positive meaning. It is said of this "son of a nobody", which probably alludes to
Esarhaddon (or at least to this king’s irregular ascent to the throne), even though he was of royal
descent (Roux 1992: 324-25), that he "[will come out and se]ize [the
throne]; he will restore the temples [and establish sacrifices of the gods; he
will provide jointly for(all) the temples.]" ….
Who was the actual father of this composite king of ours?
If we turn to consider him with regard to his alter ego, “Nabonidus”,
then:
https://emahiser.christogenea.org/watchman-s-teaching-letter-59-march-2003
"His father was a certain Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, who is called the
‘wise prince’, though actually he seems to have been the chief priest of the
once famous temple of the moon-god Sin in Mesopotamian Harran".
My tentative comment: It is not entirely impossible, I think, that, with Nabonidus as
Nebuchednezzar:
“Nebuchednezzar”
of the Book of Daniel
(2) "Nebuchednezzar" of
the Book of Daniel
then this Nabu-balatsu-iqbi could be the prophet Daniel himself, possibly
known as “father” to the Babylonians as the shrewd Haman would become known as “our
father” to the Persians according to the Book of Esther (13:11).
Daniel’s Babylonian name, “Belteshazzar” is not a Bel name, like e.g.
Belshazzar, as is commonly thought. King Nebuchednezzar himself tells us
(Daniel 4:8): “Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream.
(He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god)”. Thus we would expect
Daniel to have a Nabu (Nebu) name, like King Nebuchednezzar himself.
“Belteshazzar” could then be a Grecized version of the element balatsu-:
“In his inscriptions, Nabonidus refers to his father Nabu-balatsu-iqbi
as a "learned counsellor",[1] "wise prince", "perfect
prince" and "heroic governor".[2] Nabonidus never elaborates more on his
father's origin and ethnicity, just maintaining that he was courageous, wise
and devout.[3] No person named Nabu-balatsu-iqbi who can
reasonably be identified as Nabonidus's father appears in documents prior to
Nabonidus's reign, making his father's status and position unclear”.
As for Ashurbanipal, generally considered to have been the son of Esarhaddon
- but, according to my first article above, he was Esarhaddon - the
reason why he (and logically, then, his alter egos) did not expect to
become king was that he was by no means the first in line to the succession.
First came one Sin-iddina-apla, who died untimely:
“Ashurbanipal had initially not been expected to succeed his father,
Esarhaddon [sic], as king, since he had an older brother, Sin-iddina-apla. When
this brother died in 672 BC, Ashurbanipal was made his father’s heir.
Since Ashurbanipal was not originally intended to inherit the kingship
prior to his elder brother’s death, he was free to indulge in scholarly
pursuits. As a result of this, he was able to read and write, and mastered
various fields of knowledge, including mathematics and oil divination. It is
perhaps due to this that Ashurbanipal had his royal library built after he had
stabilized his empire. ….
But apparently Ashurbanipal was not even next in line after
Sin-iddina-apla.
For, at presumably the same time as Sin-iddina-apla, the oldest in line,
had been appointed Crown Prince of Assyria, one Shamash-shum-ukin, he also
older than Ashurbanipal, was appointed as the ruler of Babylon”.
This Shamash-shum-ukin was, therefore, presumed to have been superior to
Ashurbanipal.
My comment: I do not,
however, believe that this Shamash-shum-ukin was the brother of Ashurbanipal,
but was his son:
Fitting
Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme
(2) Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so
called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme
However, that is apparently not how Ashurbanipal wanted history to know
of the relationship. As explained by: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44088732.pdf
ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMASH-SHUM-UKIN: A TALE OF TWO BROTHERS FROM
THEARAMAIC TEXT IN DEMOTIC SCRIPT: PART 1
Author(s): Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims
Source: Revue Biblique (1946-), Vol. 92, No. 1 (JANVIER 1985),
pp. 60-81
Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin were the two sons of Esarhaddon [sic]
who, at their father's behest, divided his realm between them - the former
becoming king of Assyria, and the latter, king of Babylon(ia). Although the two
were, in theory, "equal brothers," [sic] Ashurbanipal assumed full
control of Babylonia's foreign policy and even meddled in Babylonia's internal
affairs. …. It was perhaps to rationalize this usurpation of the authority
granted to Shamash-shum-ukin by his father that Ashurbanipal claimed to be the
one who had appointed Shamash-shum-ukin to the kingship of Babylon. ….
“In ancient Assyrian sources, the phrase "son of a nobody"
(akk| | mār lā mamman) is used to indicate a king of disreputable origins. Usurpers, lowborns, immoral rulers, and foreign kings were
all commonly referred to as a “son of a nobody”.[1]
….
In the time of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the
king Nabopolassar strikingly referred to himself as a “son of a
nobody” in his own inscriptions, something that no previous Neo-Babylonian
usurper king had done.[6]”
Comments