Published: 2023-12-221

The King as Shepherd in the Old Babylonian Royal Inscriptions (20th – 17th cent. BC)

Abstract

There is a tendency to interpret various phenomena of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures in their parallelism with traditions based on the Bible, continually known in Europe since ancient times. One of these important traditions is the symbol of the king as shepherd who is usually interpreted as a caring guardian and leader of his people. The most important figures in ancient Israelite tradition are pictured as such from Abraham through Moses and David to Jesus, who started, and thus belongs to a new, Christian tradition. Also in Mesopotamia, many leaders, i.e. kings are alluded to as shepherds. Crucially, they are named this way in their own numerous inscriptions. This is especially relevant for the Old Babylonian Period, to which more than 60 such mentions are dated, and there are almost 30 titles of shepherd-king which can be found there. The titles are extended expressions which allude the shepherdship of the king. Seemingly, they are a clear parallel with the Biblical phenomenon. However, an analysis of these titles shows that the king in early Mesopotamian tradition is not meant as a caring guardian of his people, but the servant of the gods, concerned with satisfying their needs. The aspect of caring for the people is clearly secondary in these texts, and it is not the one which determines the basic understanding of the ideology of the king. The shepherd-king is thus rather a cattle breeder for cultic purposes and not the guardian of the people. This clear conclusion is supported by the iconography of the Old Babylonian seals. Hence, there is an important difference between the Biblical and Mesopotamian traditions in understanding the symbol which must be noted.

Keywords:

Babylon, Old Babylonian Period, Royal Ideology

Download files

Citation rules

Tyborowski, W. (2023). The King as Shepherd in the Old Babylonian Royal Inscriptions (20th – 17th cent. BC). Theological Yearbook, 65(2), 151–185. https://doi.org/10.36124/rt.2023.08

Cited by / Share