The prophecies in the Mari letters were primarily addressed to Zimri-Lim, an eighteenth-century-BCE king of Mari. The following excerpt (ARM 26 213) is representative of the basic literary and structural elements described in this chapter. Some key concepts are the connection of the prophetic experience to the temple, the mention of phenomena, the god's interest in threats to the king, and the attestation of the prophecy with symbols.
A letter from Sibtu to Zimri-Lim concerning an internal threat to his throne:
Spe[ak] to my lord: Thus Sibtu, your servant:
The pala[ce] is well.
In the temple of Annunitum, three days ago, Selebum went into [a] trance (immahhu) and said:
"Thus says Annunitum: Zimri-Lim, you will be tested in a revolt! Protect yourself!
Let your most favored servants whom you love surround you, and make them stay there to protect you! Do not go around on your own! As regards the people who would tes[t you]: those pe[ople] I deli[ver up] into your hands."
Now I am sending the hai[r and the fringe of the garment] of the assi[nnu] to [my lord]. 706 707
To “deliver an oracle for the well-being of [Zimri-Lim]” (ARM 26 216:8-9). The final category refers to prophets not given any title and who thus may have been private persons rather than professional prophets.
The setting and phenomena are connected, insofar as the letters generally report the occasion out of which the revelatory message arose and the means by which it was delivered. At Mari many revelations took place in temple settings, often indicated by phrases such as “In the temple of Hisamitum, a [pr] ophet called Isi-ahu arose and said. . .” (ARM 26 195:5). If a dream occurs outside the temple precincts, it is simply reported as being told to the letter
Writer by the recipient of revelation: “Iddin-ili, the priest of Itur-Mer has had a dream. He says. . .” (ARM 26 238:4). Still other dream texts indicate no context (e. g., ARM 26 235), and for all of these reports there is no extended information about what induced the dream itself. Prophets generally just report the revelation that they received, though in two cases a servant named “Shibtu” makes an inquiry of a prophet and then reports the results to Zimri-Lim (ARM 26 207; 26 212).
An extremely important issue at Mari was the authentication of prophecy. Sometimes this is implicit in the letter, such as when the prophet repeats the dream to shift responsibility to the letter writer (ARM 26 235). In other cases, one prophet may corroborate the message of another (A 1121:46-48), or a prophet may report a dream only after experiencing it a second time on the next day: “This is what he saw: ‘Thus sa[ys God]: You [pl.] may not bu[ild] this ruined house again! . . .’ On the da[y] he had this dream, he did not te[ll] anybody The next day, he had the same dream again” (ARM 26 234:1', 7'). In yet another case, the writer herself made a second inquiry to confirm the report (ARM 26 212:10'). More often, however, at the close of a letter an author will state something like, “Now I have sent a lock of his head and his garment hem to my lord” (ARM 26 215:22). These tokens of authenticity might not be necessary if the letter writer deems the prophet already trustworthy (ARM 26 233:50), but the king might also have other types of divination performed as confirmation (A 1121:13). William Moran has suggested that all of these symbols of confirmation seem “calculated to keep both the professionals and the laity from airing their inspirations too casually and to make them strictly accountable for giving them public expression.”708
In regard to the content of their messages, the extant letters present a basic structure in which the prophetic messages were couched, with expected variations and exceptions: (1) designation of the subject by profession or name; (2) the place of the prophecy; (3) a verb indicating that the prophet “arose” to speak; (4) a formulaic expression to introduce direction quotations, such as “Speak to my Lord: Thus [prophet’s name] your servant”; and (5) the quotation itself.19 The content of the messages covers two broad areas: cultic concerns and political/military matters. Concern for temples and cultic activity arises when a deity such as Dagan asks why Zimri-Lim has not sent messengers to his temple, promising that victory will come if he were to do so (ARM 26 233:23-39). The king may be asked to provide certain offerings: “Gather all the consecrated portion and [let it] be taken to the temple of Adad [in] Aleppo” (ARM 26 194:16-17 [see ARM 26 221:7-18]). In a graphic description the king hears how seriously the Temple of Annunitum has been neglected, such that the writer is living in excrement and urine (ARM 26 198:13'-14'). The king’s political and military policies are not completely separated from the cultic concerns above, but the two areas share a complex interrelationship. A letter from Nur-Sin reminds Zimri-Lim that Adad “restored [the king] to his ancestral throne,” and if the king offers his estate to Adad, the deity promises to “give him throne upon throne, house upon house, territory upon territory, city upon city. I shall give him the land from the rising of the sun to its setting” (A 1121:13-28). The servant Sibtu relates a prophecy from an assinnu about the impending threat of Babylon’s ruler, but Zimri-Lim is assured, “My lord will see what God will do to this man: You will capture him and stand over him. His days are running short, he will not live long” (ARM 26 212:1'-9'). Sometimes the god directly addresses another nation with judgment: “Babylon, what are you constantly doing? I will gather you into a net and. . . . The dwellings of the seven accomplices and all their wealth I give in the hand of Zimri-L[im]” (ARM 26 209:6-14).
Neo-Assyrian Prophecies
The second-largest set of prophetic texts from the ancient Near East was discovered during the mid-nineteenth century in the royal archives of Nineveh. The thousands of cuneiform tablets that were found contain treaties, royal records, literary texts, divination and astrology, and prophetic texts. Eleven tablets of oracles were published by Simo Parpola in 1997 and contain records of the prophecies themselves as well as collections of rewritten and edited oracles, a phenomenon that makes this corpus different from that of Mari. There are twenty-nine oracular texts and fragments, mostly addressed by the goddess Istar of Arbela to Esarhaddon (681-669 BCE), and a few to his son
19.Ibid.
And successor, Assurbanipal (668-627).709 In light of the much smaller corpus, we may focus our attention on the content of the prophecies.710
The primary impression we get from the Neo-Assyrian prophecies is the divine focus on the stability of the king’s throne, especially from the threat of domestic and foreign enemies. Prophets called raggimu (fem. raggintu) delivered oracles in the voice of the goddess herself, using language such as “I am Istar of Arbela” or “I am the Lady of Arbela.”711 Many of the messages begin with the words “Fear not,” before going on to address the potential cause of fear, namely, the king’s enemies: “I am the great Lady, I am Istar of Arbela who throws your enemies before your feet. . . . I will flay your enemies and deliver them up to you. I am Istar of Arbela, I go before you and behind you” (SAA 9 1.1.11'-24'). Usually the “enemy” (sg. or pl.) is nondescript, but in a few messages the goddess specifies places such as the Elamite or Mannean kingdoms (SAA 9 2.4.12'-15'), or she implies that the enemy is internal: “These traitors conspired against you” (SAA 9 3.3:10). With enemies vanquished, Istar assures Esarhaddon of the everlasting nature of his throne: “I will give endle[ss] days and everlasti[ng] years to Esarhaddon, my king” (SAA 9 1.6.11'-14').
World History
