Sunday, June 14, 2026

Book of Tobit provides template for the geography of Job-Tobias

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

  

However, apart from the seeming advantages – but also the difficulties,

e.g. the “midway” factor – the Book of Tobit gives no indication whatsoever that Tobias had dwelt anywhere other than Nineveh, for the duration of his long life, except that he had headed to Ecbatana in Media after the death of his parents,

where he had lived out the remainder of his life (Tobit 14:12-15).

 

  

1.     Born in the land of Naphtali

 

If Tobit 1 is following a strict chronological sequence, then young Tobias was born in Naphtali shortly prior to the tribe’s captivity by Shalmaneser ‘the Great’ (who is my Tiglath-pileser, cf. 2 Kings 15:29). Thus Tobit tells in his Autobiography (1:9-10): “When I became a man I married Anna, a member of our family, and by her I became the father of Tobias. Now when I was carried away captive to Nineveh …”.

 

Tobias, who is my Job, may have been too young to have recalled much of this. 

 

2.    He travels to Media

 

Tobias, now a young man, and of marriageable age, will embark upon a journey to Ecbatana in Media, in obedience to his recently blinded father, and despite his apparent nervousness (5:2): ‘…. I don’t know how to get to Media’.

 

The Book of Tobit will not only determine the geography of the prophet Job (presuming that I am right in identifying Job as Tobias), but it also radically corrects the conventional geography.

For Ecbatana in Media, far from being to the east of Nineveh, as we all have thought, is actually to be found to be westwards of Nineveh, with Charan (Haran) said to be “in the midway” (Tobit 11:1) between Nineveh and Ecbatana.

 

This has prompted me, after much trial and error, to re-locate Ecbatana in Media to Adana (Adanya) in Cilicia, perfectly situated with Haran “midway” between Adana/ Adanya and Nineveh (see map).

 

And Richard Erickson has demonstrated, quite independently of all of this, that Elam and Media were, indeed, situated in Anatolia:

 

A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

 

(8) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

 

3.    Job’s land of Uz

 

A BIG correction now needed:

 

I, in order, to ‘save’ the western movement of the travelling party: from Nineveh to the Tigris River to Haran to Ecbatana in Media, had eagerly latched on to the Heb. Londinii version of the Book of Tobit according to which the party’s destination was, in fact, “Bathania” in “Midian”. For a long time I was happy with this as being the resolution to the apparent difficulty of a journey to Media (supposedly east) of Nineveh, actually heading westwards.

This had a further seeming advantage of enabling Tobias, as Job, eventually to dwell in Bathania (Bashan), in the fertile Hauran region – {adjacent to the original home of Naphtali} - thought to be Ausitis, that is, Uz, where very strong traditions locate the home of Job.

 

However, apart from the seeming advantages – but also the difficulties, e.g. geographically, the “midway” factor – the Book of Tobit gives no indication whatsoever that Tobias had dwelt anywhere other than Nineveh, for the duration of his long life, except that he had headed to Ecbatana in Media after the death of his parents, where he lived out the remainder of his life (Tobit 14:12-15, GNB):

 

Then Tobias and his wife moved to Ecbatana in Media, where they lived with Raguel, Tobias' father-in-law. Tobias took care of Edna and Raguel in their old age and showed them great respect. When at last they died, he buried them at Ecbatana. Tobias inherited Raguel's estate, as he had inherited the estate of his father Tobit. At the ripe old age of 117, Tobias died, having lived long enough to hear about the destruction of Nineveh and to see King Cyaxares of Media take the people away as captives. Tobias praised God for the way that he had punished the people of Nineveh and Assyria. As long as he lived he gave thanks for what God had done to Nineveh.

 

{There appears to be some confusion concerning the actual age of the prophet, Tobias,

at death, 117 years given here, with other versions of Tobit differing from that

(e.g. 127 years), and with 140 years given in the Book of Job (42:16)}.

 

The Tobit narrative, in one fell swoop, renders entirely irrelevant the identification of Bashan/Hauran (Ausitis), as Job’s “the land of Uz … of the East”, which region has figured most prominently in previous Jobian reconstructions of mine.

 

It also seems to put paid to those traditions, albeit strong (e.g. The Testament of Job) that the prophet had ruled as a king (governor) of Egypt.

 

It would now seem inevitable that Job’s “land of Uz”, his East, was much further away from Israel (than Transjordanian Bashan), in Assyria, and that that is where his trials must have occurred. That “Uz”, in this case, could not refer to the traditional Uz, say, of Jeremiah (Lamentations 4:21), “… daughter of Edom, who dwells in the land of Uz”, suggesting a possible connection or proximity to Edom, south of Israel.

South is not East.

 

Can Uz be an actual outlying ‘suburb’ of Nineveh, say Alquš?

UZ = [Alq]-UŠ.

 

            Nahum and the Alquš (Alqosh) factor

 

A complicating geographical factor for me, when writing my article:

 

A north and south geography for the major prophet Isaiah

 

(8) A north and south geography for the major prophet Isaiah

 

had been the prophet Nahum’s home (Nahum 1:1): “A prophecy concerning Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite”. 

 

Nahum, I had identified with Jonah, following the Book of Tobit’s (14:4) interchanging “Nahum” (GNT) and “Jonah” (WEB). But Nahum was also the great prophet Isaiah. This, however, was leading me into geographical complications, e.g. with Nahum being connected to Elkosh (“the Elcesite”).

 

It has long been suggested that this Elkosh was, in fact, Alqosh in Assyria.

 

Alqosh

Town 40 km. north of Mosul in Iraq. Seat of a Chald. bishopric. It now numbers around 5,000 inhabitants. Many families and individuals migrated from Alqosh to larger Iraqi cities (Mosul, Baghdad, etc.) or abroad, especially to the USA and UK. The town’s economy is based on agriculture (wheat, barley, chickpeas, lentils, beans, cucumbers, gourds, melons, grapes, and figs) and animal husbandry (sheep and goats). Traditional trades included weaving and dying cloth. Alqosh is a major spiritual center. Jews used to go on pilgrimage to the tomb believed to be that of the prophet Nahum, who, according to an interpretation of Nah 1.1, may have come from Alqosh.

Two important E.-Syr. monasteries lie close to Alqosh: the Monastery of Rabban Hormizd, founded in the 7th   cent., used to be one of the patriarchal residences of the Ch. of E., later moved to Mosul, then Baghdad, and the more recent Monastery of the Virgin, also known as the Lower Monastery or of Our Lady of the Seeds. From the 16th cent. the cultural life of the village flourished thanks to the so-called School of Alqosh. Alqosh was pillaged several times, by Murād Bey (Bar Yak) in 1508, the Pasha of ʿAmadiyya in 1740, the Persians in 1743. People sought refuge on the mountain, in the Monastery of Rabban Hormizd, but there were rapes and casualties. Around the mid-16th cent. some of the population supported Yoannan Sullaqa, the first Chald. patr. elected with official approval of Rome. In 1767, around 100 of the 500 families were Catholic. Literary sources and annotations made by European travelers record recurrent cases of pestilence and famine, caused by draught or locusts, which devastated the region during the 19th cent. In 1832 and 1842 the village was attacked and pillaged by Kurds.

 

Obviously, Nahum in his various guises (Isaiah, Jonah) could not have originated from the Assyrian Alqosh. But he could have, as the prophet Jonah, dwelt there for a period of time during his Nineveh campaign, perhaps writing his book there, and thus being known for that period of time as an “Elcesite” (Alqoshite).

 

It would have been fitting for Jonah to have spent some time with his beloved Israelite people, exiled in Nineveh.

Obviously Tobit knew of him, having made reference to Jonah/Nahum in 14:4.

And it would not be surprising if Jonah had dwelt with, or close to, this Tobit family, presumably in Uz/Alquš.

 

I had this well in mind when I wrote towards the end of my article, “A north and south geography for the major prophet Isaiah”:

 

However, in a future article, perhaps, I may entertain the possibility that Elkosh was actually the Alqosh in Assyria, near Nineveh, and that that is where Isaiah, as Jonah-Nahum, would sojourn for a time during his mission to Nineveh. 

 

There may be a further clue.

When young Tobias (Job) was returning with his new wife, Sarah, the angel Raphael (and the dog), from Ecbatana (to Haran) to Nineveh, an unknown place called Kaserin is mentioned in close proximity to Nineveh (Tobit 11:1): “As they neared Kaserin, which is close to Nineveh …”.

 

This, I now suggest, was the family’s actual place of abode at Nineveh, nearby Kaserin, Alqoš (Kas- Qosh). It may be the much sought after Jobian “land of Uz”.

 

            Comparisons of Uz and Alqosh

 

While much work can now be done on drawing comparisons between Assyrian Alqosh and Job’s “land of Uz”, I can immediately see, at least, a few obvious similarities.

 

Firstly, no one could doubt that it was to the east of the Holy Land.

 

And the above description of the town’s economy fits well with the livelihood of Job and his family:

 

The town’s economy is based on agriculture (wheat, barley, chickpeas, lentils, beans, cucumbers, gourds, melons, grapes, and figs) and animal husbandry (sheep and goats).

 

It also appears to have an abundance of caves, a feature, too, of the Book of Job (30:6).

 

 

Feasts of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

and the Immaculate Heart of Mary

 

12-13thth June, 2026

 

 

 

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Job’s ‘Behemoth’ and the wrong end of an elephant

 

 


by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“Look at Behemoth,
    which I made along with you
    and which feeds on grass like an ox.

What strength it has in its loins,
    what power in the muscles of its belly!

 

Its tail sways like a cedar;
    the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.

Its bones are tubes of bronze,
    its limbs like rods of iron.

It ranks first among the works of God,
    yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.

 

The hills bring it their produce,
    and all the wild animals play nearby.

 

Under the lotus plants it lies,
    hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

 

The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
    the poplars by the stream surround it.

A raging river does not alarm it;
    it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.

 

Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
    or trap it and pierce its nose?”

 

Job 40:15-24

 

 

 

Was ‘Behemoth’ a Dinosaur?

 

Favouring this theory, for those, who think that Job dated right back to the Ice Ages, or to the early patriarchal times, is the fact that, whereas common candidates for the Book of Job’s ‘Behemoth’ - say, the elephant or the hippo - have insignificant piggy-like tails, ‘Behemoth’ has a tail to recall the impressive Cedar of Lebanon (Job 40:17): “Its tail sways like a cedar …”.  

 

Some Creationists, for instance, think that a dinosaur was probably intended here.

Wayne Jackson, for example, referring to Creationist Dr. Henry Morris (d. 2006), will ask the question: “Why do you suppose that a dinosaur is rarely proposed as a candidate for behemoth?”

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1007-job-behemoth-and-dinosaurs

 

Dinosaur

 

Why do you suppose that a dinosaur is rarely proposed as a candidate for behemoth? The answer is very simple. As noted earlier, the common perception is that dinosaurs became extinct long before man arrived upon this planet (approximately 65 million years, it is alleged). Accordingly, behemoth simply could not be a variety of dinosaur — because the chronological disparity prohibits such. Dr. Henry Morris has addressed the matter in this fashion.

 

“Modern Bible scholars, for the most part, have become so conditioned to think in terms of the long ages of evolutionary geology that it never occurs to them that mankind once lived in the same world with the great animals that are now found only as fossils” (p. 115).

 

As we have demonstrated already, there is unequivocal biblical testimony that human beings and dinosaurs inhabited the same early environment of the earth, and there is not a shred of scientific evidence that proves otherwise. ….

 

And Mart-Jan Paul, in “Behemoth and leviathan in the book of Job”, asking, “What, then, was behemoth?”, will suggest that it may have been a now extinct apatosaur, or something akin to it: 

https://creation.com/behemoth-and-leviathan

 

What, then, was behemoth?

 

If we take extinct animals into consideration, a herbivorous dinosaur seems a more likely candidate. The apatosaur had a large tail, lived on green plants and weighed about 30 tonnes.

The ultrasaur could reach a height of 18 m and a length of 30 m, with a weight of 136 tonnes. It also was a herbivore with an enormous tail. The brachiosaur was 12 m tall, 23 m long and 60 to 70 tonnes in weight. Its tail could reach a length of nearly 6 m and a breadth of nearly 1.5 m. In the sauropods, large bundles of muscles are visible on the outside of the body of the animal. Behemoth is not only a herbivore, but more specifically it is a grass-eater. An animal that does fit this aspect is the 15 m long nigersaur, found in the Republic of Niger in Africa. ….

 

Because new kinds of extinct animals continue to be found in our time, and because the description in Job 40 is not specific enough, we cannot identify precisely which animal is described. Neither do we know whether the above-mentioned animals still lived in the time of Job, but it is useful for our exegesis to include such examples. ….

[End of quotes]

 

Allan Steel has, for his part, written an entire article on the subject, “Could Behemoth Have Been a Dinosaur?”: 

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/could-behemoth-have-been-a-dinosaur/ 

in which he concludes:

 

…. The whole passage in Job 40 concerning Behemoth certainly suggests a large animal, and no known living animal fits the passage adequately (for various reasons, including the detailed habitat presented).

 

The most natural interpretation of the key clause Job 40:17 … is that the tail of Behemoth is compared to a cedar for its great size, and there is nothing in the context which contradicts this possibility, even though the exact sense of the verb is extremely difficult to determine.

 

Consequently, the most reasonable interpretation (which also takes the whole passage into account) is that Behemoth was a large animal, now extinct, which had a large tail. Thus some type of extinct dinosaur should still be considered a perfectly reasonable possibility according to our present state of knowledge. ….

 

[End of quote]

 

These are all good, laudable attempts to make sense of ‘Behemoth’ in the Book of Job.

Given the pattern of the Book of Job, in which the Lord is holding up for Job’s consideration real animals (mountain goat, donkey, ox, horse, eagle, rooster, ibis, etc.), these attempts are far preferable, I think, to those that would attempt to make of Job’s

Behemoth’ and ‘Leviathan’ either mythical creatures, or demons.

 

I, however, have my own reasons – hopefully also good ones – for rejecting dinosaurs from the category of animals in the Book of Job.

 

For one, the:

 

Prophet Job did not belong to the Patriarchal or Judges era

 

(15) Prophet Job did not belong to the Patriarchal or Judges era

 

nor was he king Jobab:

 

Prophet Job was not the ancient Edomite, Jobab

 

(15) Prophet Job was not the ancient Edomite, Jobab

 

but lived much later than that - a good half a millennium later than that!

 

For Job was Tobias, son of Tobit, of the neo-Assyrian captivity:

 

Historical Era of the Prophet Job

 

(15) Historical Era of the Prophet Job

 

That, I think, puts paid to dinosaurs.

 

Was ‘Behemoth’ an Elephant?

 

And, secondly, I think that, by ‘’Behemoth’, the Book of Job is clearly (in hindsight) intending the elephant, an animal that is a popular choice for ‘Behemoth’ except for the mingy tail factor.

 

But I think that we may have the elephant the wrong way around.

 

Job 40:17 is not, I suggest, referring to the animal’s unimpressive posterius (tail), but, rather, to his highly impressive proboscis, swaying like a cedar.

Even looking somewhat like a cedar.

 

 

 

 

Friday, February 20, 2026

Venerating the god Sin common to Nebuchednezzar’s main alter egos

 

 


480 × 360by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

Some of my major alter egos for King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’

share in common a passionate, even fanatical, devotion to the moon god, Sin.

 

Recalling my alter egos

for King Nebuchednezzar

 

In the course of various articles, now, I have proposed these alternative ‘faces’ for the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’.

 

The great king, Nebuchednezzar, so-called II, was, all at once:

 

(firstly folding Middle Babylonia into Neo Babylonia)

 

1.       Nebuchednezzar so-called I:

 

The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar

 

(3) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar

 

 

(Folding Middle Assyrian)

 

2.      Ashur-bel-kala:

 

Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal

 

(3) Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal

 

3.      Ashurnasirpal:

 

Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’

 

(3) Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’

 

4.      Esarhaddon:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

(3) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

 

 

5.    Ashurbanipal:

 

Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus

 

(3) Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus

 

6.   Nabopolassar:

 

Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

 

(3) Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

 

7.    Nabonidus:

 

Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

 

(3) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

 

Less obviously, Nebuchadnezzar was:

 

8.   Ashur-etil-ilani:

 

Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani

 

(3) Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani

 

and even:

 

9.      Cambyses:

 

Conflation of Cambyses and Nebuchednezzar

 

(3) Conflation of Cambyses and Nebuchednezzar

 

And I doubt if even all of these 9. will exhaust the list.

 

Sin Worshipping

 

Of these nine names (1-9) listed above, a fanatical worship of Sin is apparent in the case of Nabonidus, especially, and also of Esarhaddon:

 

Nabonidus’s fanatical devotion to god Sin

 

Previously I have written on this phenomenon:

 

‘God of gods’

 

Though it would be much over-stating things to claim that King Nabonidus became a monotheist, there is a definite progression in that direction in

the course of his reign.

 

 

“Monotheistic Tendency” of Nebuchednezzar

 

Charles Boutflower has advanced a strong argument in his book, In and Around the Book of Daniel:

https://archive.org/stream/inaroundbookofda00boutuoft/inaroundbookofda00boutuoft_djvu.txt

for evidence of a trend towards a Marduk (Merodach) monotheism in various inscriptions of Nebuchednezzar:

 

According, then, to this authority, No. 15 is the latest of the

inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar, and the Merodach tendency

noticed by Langdon is of necessity a monotheistic tendency, for

Merodach, who, as we have seen, is always foremost of the gods,

appears in some passages of this inscription to stand alone.

 

Now it is just in these monotheistic passages, these " inserted prayers "

and " changes of text," that we seem to see the work of the real

Nebuchadnezzar.

 

Thus, immediately after the introductory

passage, which describes the position occupied by the king with

reference to Merodach and Nebo, there follows a hymn to those

divinities, col. i. 23 to ii. 39, extracted from inscriptions 19 and

14. But in the middle of this hymn we meet with a prayer

addressed to Merodach alone : col. i. 51 to ii. 11, and this prayer,

be it noted, is an entirely original addition, not found in any previous

inscription. Jastrow remarks with reference to it, "The con-

ception of Merodach rises to a height of spiritual aspiration,

which comes to us as a surprise in a religion that remained steeped

in polytheism, and that was associated with practices and rites

of a much lower order of thought." 2 This remarkable prayer

runs thus

 

"To Merodach my lord I prayed,

I addressed my supplication.

He had regard to the utterance of my heart,

I spake unto him:

'Everlasting prince,

Lord of all that is,

for the king whom thou lovest,

whose name thou proclaimest,

who is pleasing to thee :

direct him aright,

lead him in the right path !

I am a prince obedient unto thee,

the creature of thy hands,

thou hast created me,

and hast appointed me to the lordship of multitudes of people.

According to thy mercy, Lord, which thou bestowest upon

all of them,

cause them to love thy exalted lordship :

cause the fear of thy godhead to abide in my heart !

 

Grant what to thee is pleasing,

for thou makest my life’.” ….

 

And a similar exaltation of the god, Sîn, in the case of King Nabonidus, is a central feature of Paul-Alain Beaulieu’s book, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989).

Beaulieu has interpreted Nabonidus’s exaltation of the moon god, Sîn, as “an outright usurpation of Marduk’s prerogatives”.

 

Sîn is the ilu/ilani sa ilani, “the god(s) of the gods.”

 

Whilst, by no means, would I presume to make the suggestion that, now Nebuchednezzar, now Nabonidus, ever became a pure monotheist, the religious reform implemented during this period of Chaldean dominance is certainly most idiosyncratic and confronting. 

 

According to one source:

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/whic/ReferenceDetailsPage/Reference

 

Theological Revisions

 

Yet these considerations must not lead us to treat Nabonidus as a ruler in his dotage, devoid of vision or political skill. A study of the documents associated with his reign suggests exactly the opposite. The most original aspect of his reign is his attempt to introduce a religious reform centered on the worship of Sin of Haran, thereby challenging the superiority of Marduk, god of Babylon, whose supremacy over all other gods had been a theological verity in Babylon at least since Nebuchadnezzar I, half a millennium earlier [sic].

 

Although we do not doubt that Nabonidus knowingly launched this religious reform, we remain in the dark about the catalyst for his own beliefs as well as the political motivation that set him on his reforming path. Nevertheless, a pamphlet written against Nabonidus after his downfall and dubbed by modern scholars the "Verse Account of Nabonidus" charges the king with worshiping an incarnation of the moon-god called Ilteri.

 

This is a precious piece of information, for behind the cuneiform spelling "Ilteri" is concealed the name of the West Semitic moon-god Sachar, worshiped in Syria, among Aramaeans who settled in Babylonia, and among the nomadic tribes of northern Arabia. Ilteri occurs frequently in West Semitic name formations, and there is reason to believe that Sin of Haran and Sachar were equated well before Nabonidus. What may have bothered the priests of Marduk in Babylon is not that their new king had gone beyond retaining his attachment to the god of his native city, Haran, but that he was aggressively declaring that god's superiority over Marduk.

 

This observation, however, should not obscure the Mesopotamian component in Nabonidus's religion. His devotion embraced more generally the Mesopotamian triad composed of Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar, which had enjoyed widespread popularity under the last Assyrian rulers. Nabonidus may well have espoused a tradition, not uniformly represented in Mesopotamia, that made Shamash and Ishtar the children of Sin. It is telling that of the building projects and the associated commemorative inscriptions that the king sponsored, only one is unrelated to the triad Sin-Shamash-Ishtar: restoration work on the temple of Lugal-Marada, the patron god of Marad, a city in northern Babylonia. Whenever Nabonidus lavished his patronage on the sanctuaries of specific deities, they involved Sin and his consort Ningal, Shamash and his vizier Bunene, and martial avatars of Ishtar (Ishtar of Agade, Anunitum). It is significant that the Eanna temple of Uruk, the major sanctuary of Ishtar in Babylonia, did not benefit from royal patronage, since Ishtar of Uruk was identified locally as the daughter (sometimes the consort) of the sky-god Anu.

[End of quote]

 

Whatever be the case, one finds from a perusal of to Paul-Alain Beaulieu’s book that King Nabonidus will address Sîn in words that the “Nebuchednezzar” of Daniel will use to address the God of Israel.

 

According to Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989), p. 63: “… there is no evidence that the king [Nabonidus] tried to impost the cult of Sîn as supreme deity in his early reign”.

 

But, as Beaulieu will interpret it (p. 62): “Upon his return from Arabia, Nabonidus imposed a major religious reform, resulting in the rejection of Marduk, the undisputed supreme god of Babylon of the past six centuries …”.

“In inscription 17 Nabonidus, in an accent of supreme devotion”, Beaulieu continues, “goes as far as to call Sîn ilāni ša ilāni, “god of gods”, probably the highest epithet ever given to a god in the Mesopotamian tradition”.

 

Now, was King Nabonidus, as “Nebuchednezzar”, inspired to attain to that “highest epithet” due to the extraordinary incident when Daniel recounted and interpreted the king’s Dream? Because that is just what “Nebuchednezzar” called Daniel’s God (Daniel 2:47):

 

‘Surely your God is the God of gods’!

 

The full verse reads: ‘Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery’.

 

And Nabonidus, servant of Sîn, had likewise claimed: ‘I have seen se[cret things]. …’.

Daniel had said to the king, when interpreting the latter’s first Dream (2:37-38):

 

‘Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold’.

 

And so Nabonidus, basing himself upon such high authority, can likewise say, this time addressing Marduk (Beaulieu, p. 50. Emphasis added):

 

“When Marduk, the lofty leader of the gods, the lord of the universe, brought into being a sovereign to assume rulership, he called Nabonidus the king to the function of provider. He raised his head above all kings. At his command the great gods rejoiced at his kingship”.

 

In the case of the second Dream, the words of “Nebuchednezzar” addressed to the Most High (4:35): “No one can hold back his hand or say to him: ‘What have you done?’”, are somewhat reminiscent of Nabonidus in these words to Sîn (Beaulieu, pp. 60-61): “… who does not reconsider his order, and you do not utter you command twice … without you who can do what?”

 

In Baruch 1:11, we read of prayers asked by the Jews for King Nebuchednezzar and his son, Belshazzar, for long life for them: “… pray for King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia and his son Belshazzar, that they may live as long as the heavens last. …”.

And King Nabonidus will pray to Sîn for long life for (the same) Belshazzar (Beaulieu, p. 64): And as for Belshazzar, my eldest son, my offspring, lengthen his days. May he not commit any sin”.

 

Unfortunately Belshazzar, however, now king, would hear this terrible denunciation from Daniel just prior to Belshazzar’s having his kingdom taken away from him (5:22): ‘But you, Belshazzar, [Nebuchednezzar’s] son, have not humbled yourself, though you knew all this. Instead, you have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven’.

 

Hence (vv. 30-31): ‘That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two’.

 

Esarhaddon’s obsessive devotion to god Sin

 

 

“…. Esarhaddon, the youngest of Sennacherib’s sons …

has the closest connection to arrān among all the Sargonids”.

 

Natalie Naomi May

 

 

Perhaps somewhat less known to scholars is the fact that Esarhaddon (qua Esarhaddon) was likewise obsessed with Sin worship.

I take this example from the extremely interesting new article (BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXIV N° 5-6, september-december 2017) written by Natalie Naomi May:

 

THE VIZIER AND THE BROTHER: SARGON II'S BROTHER AND VIZIER SĪN-AU-UṢUR AND THE NEO-ASSYRIAN COLLATERAL BRANCHES ….

 

https://www.academia.edu/37111714/THE_VIZIER_AND_THE_BROTHER_SARGON_IIS_BROTHER_AND_VIZIER_S%C4%AAN_A%E1%B8%AAU_U%E1%B9%A2UR_AND_THE_NEO_ASSYRIAN_COLLATERAL_BRANCHES_1

 

pp. 518-519:

 

…. Esarhaddon, the youngest of Sennacherib’s sons … has the closest connection to Ḫarrān among all the Sargonids.

 

The fact that King List A does not mark either Esarhaddon or any of his descendants as the “Dynasty of Ḫabi-GAL” might indicate that Esarhaddon as the youngest son of Sen-nacherib could have been perceived as the founder of his own dynasty.

….

Images of Esarhaddon and his sons [sic], evidently Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, were erected in the temple of Sîn of Ḫarrān. The king’s images flanked the divine statue and the princes’ images were installed before and behind it.

….

The images of Naqī’a were probably installed at the temple of Sîn of Ḫarrān as well … and she had donated 30 talents of silver to this city. At least a part of this sum was intended for the Sîn’s temple.

 

On his way to Egypt Esarhaddon built an akītu-house of cedar for Sîn of Ḫarrān and crowned himself with the double crown of Sîn.

….

Esarhaddon was reported about the akītu of Sîn, as was previously his grandfather ….

….

In the time of Esarhaddon Sîn of Ḫarrān raises to the status of a state god.

In SAA 10 174 the author writes to Assurbanipal about his father, who received an oracle in Ḫarrān that he will conquer the world, and he conquered Egypt.

…. This statement elevates Sîn to the level of the state god Aššur, who commands the Assyrian kings to launch their military campaigns. Sîn of Ḫarrān alone or together with his spouse Nikkal are included in penalty clauses of legal texts from Nineveh and Assur. ….

 

Ashurbanipal’s devotion to god Sin

 

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

 

Ashurbanipal renovated the Eulul and most likely took part in an akitu celebration in this city, possibly while returning from his campaign against Egypt. ….

….

It has been argued that the view that Sin was the supreme god was later particularly enthusiastically supported by the last Neo-Babylonian ruler, Nabonidus. …. In one of his inscriptions from Harran Sin is described as the "lord of the gods" who possessed "Enlilship", "Anuship" and "Eaship". …. However, Melanie Groß stresses that Nabonidus' devotion should for the most part not be treated as an unusual phenomenon, save for the fact that Harran was not the center of his empire. …. She notes that the elevation of city deities significant for specific rulers to the top of the pantheon of the respective states is well documented for example in the case of Marduk and Ashur. …. Aino Hätinen points out that in Harran similar formulas were used to refer to Sin by Ashurbanipal, and are thus not unique to Nabonidus and do not necessarily indicate elevation of this god during his reign.

 

Mackey’s comment: Her last comment loses weight, however, if Ashurbanipal was Nabonidus. Then we can re-phrase it to say: “Aino Hätinen points out that in Harran similar formulas were used to refer to Sin by Ashurbanipal, and are thus … unique to Nabonidus, his alter ego”.

 

…. She suggests both [sic] Nabonidus and Ashurbanipal relied on so-called "Theology of the Moon", a concept well attested in explanatory texts from the first millennium BCE according to which Sin possessed divine powers (Sumerian ĝarza, Akkadian parū) equal to these of Anu, Enlil and Ea during the first half of the lunar month. ….

[End of quote]

 

Nebuchednezzar

 

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

… sources pertaining to the worship of Sin in Ur only reappear during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II [sic], who similarly renovated Ekišnugal. …. He might have been motivated by the importance he attributed to the moon god as responsible for determining destiny through lunar omens. …. 

 

Ashurnasirpal

 

Temple of Sîn and Šamaš at Assur: a Pleiades place resource

The Sîn-Šamaš temple was excavated in 1912–13. It is unclear which Assyrian king was responsible for founding this double-temple …. It was renovated by Middle [sic] Assyrian kings Arik-dēn-ilī (1317–1306 BC) and Tukultī-Ninurta I  (1233–1197 BC) and rebuilt (on an entirely new plan) by the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II ….

 

Most likely, others will be found as well.