Editing Sin (mythology) (section)

==Names==
While it is agreed that the two primary names of the Mesopotamian [[moon god]], Nanna and Sin (Suen), originated in two different languages, respectively [[Sumerian language|Sumerian]] and [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]], it is not possible to differentiate between them as designations of separate deities, as they effectively fully merged at an early date.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=360}} {{ill|Gebhard J. Selz|de}} points out this phenomenon is already attested in sources from [[Lagash]] from the [[Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)|Early Dynastic period]], where the name Nanna does not appear, and Sin is the form used in both Sumerian and Akkadian context.{{sfn|Selz|1995|p=275}} The process of conflation presumably started prior to the invention of [[cuneiform]].{{sfn|Hall|1985|p=225}} Sometimes the double name Nanna-Suen was used,{{sfn|Black|2006|p=126}} as evidenced for example by a short theological text from the [[Ur III period]] listing the main deities of the official [[Mesopotamian pantheon|pantheon]].{{sfn|George|2003|p=121}} It is sometimes used to refer to this god in modern [[Assyriological]] publications too.{{sfn|George|1993|p=79}}{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=365}}{{sfn|Groß|2014|p=149}}

===Nanna===
The precise [[etymology]] of the name Nanna is unknown,{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=360}} though it is agreed that it is not a [[genitive construction]].{{sfn|Hall|1985|p=36}} It is first attested in the [[Uruk period]].{{sfn|Hall|1985|p=33}} In earliest cuneiform texts from [[Uruk]] and [[Ur]] it was written as <sup>([[dingir|d]])</sup>[[Liste der archaischen Keilschriftzeichen|LAK]]-32.NA, with NA possibly serving as a [[phonetic complement]].{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=360}} The name of the city of Ur (Urim) was accordingly written as LAK-32.UNUG<sup>ki</sup> ({{cuneiform|𒋀𒀕𒆠}}), "residence of Nanna", per analogy with toponyms such as [[Zabalam]], [[Inanna of Zabalam|INANNA]].UNUG<sup>ki</sup>.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=361}} In later periods LAK-32 coalesced with ŠEŠ (the ideogram for "brother"), and Nanna's name came to be written as <sup>d</sup>ŠEŠ+KI or <sup>d</sup>ŠEŠ.KI, though phonetic spellings such as ''na-an-na'' are attested too, for example as glosses in [[lexical lists]].{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=360}}

In early Assyriological scholarship it was often assumed that the variant form Nannar was the standard form of the name, but further research demonstrated that it does not predate the [[Old Babylonian period]].{{sfn|Hall|1985|p=36}} The writing ''<sup>d</sup>na-an-na-ar'' is attested in Akkadian and [[Elamite language|Elamite]] texts, and was the result of linguistic contamination between the theonym Nanna and the common Akkadian noun ''nannaru'', "light".{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=360}} As an epithet, ''nannaru'' could be used to address the moon god, but also [[Ishtar]] and [[Girra]].{{sfn|Hätinen|2021|p=32}}

It is uncertain if the theonym Nanum attested in a [[theophoric name]] from [[Umma]] is a derivative of Nanna, while Nanni worshiped in [[Mari, Syria|Mari]] and in the [[kingdom of Khana]] was a female deity and might be related to [[Nanaya]] rather than the moon god.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=361}}

===Sin===
In Akkadian the moon god was called Sin (Sîn) or Suen (Su’en).{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=361}} The former is the standard reading of the name from the Old Babylonian period onward, while the latter was presumably the older [[Contraction (grammar)|uncontracted]] pronunciation.{{sfn|Hall|1985|p=40}} The etymology of this name remains uncertain.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=362}} One of the inscriptions of [[Gudea]] from the third millennium BCE refers to Sin as a god "whose  name nobody  can  explain", which might be an indication that his name was already unclear and a subject of scribal speculation during his reign.{{sfn|Fink|2015|pp=234-235}}

The name Sin was typically written in cuneiform as <sup>d</sup>EN.ZU, as possibly already attested in a text from the Uruk period, though oldest certain examples, such as entries in the god lists from [[Shuruppak|Fara]] and [[Abu Salabikh]], only date back to the Early Dynastic period.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=361}} Most likely it initially developed as a [[rebus]] meant to graphically resemble the names of gods whose names had Sumerian etymologies and contained the element [[EN (cuneiform)|EN]], for example [[Enlil]].{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=362}} Various phonetic spellings are also attested, for example ''sú-en'', ''sí-in'', ''si-in'' and ''se-en''.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|pp=361-362}} The large variety of these variants might indicate that the first [[sibilant]] was difficult to render in cuneiform.{{sfn|Hall|1985|p=40}} In early Akkadian, the sound /s/ was an affricate [ts], which would explain its initial representation with Z-signs and later with S-signs.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hasselbach-Andee |first=Rebecca |url=https://www.academia.edu/37493785 |title=Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts.}}</ref> 

A variant form of Sin's name, Suinu, is also attested in texts from [[Ebla]].{{sfn|Archi|2015|p=596}} It has been pointed out that an Eblaite lexical list with the entry ''sú-i-nu'' is the oldest available attestation of a phonetic spelling of the name.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=361}} However, the logogram <sup>d</sup>EN.ZU was also used in this city.{{sfn|Archi|2015|p=34}} Additionally, in a translation of an Akkadian text written in the [[Ugaritic alphabet]]ic script the name is rendered as ''sn'' ([[Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit|KTU]] 1.70, line 4), while in [[Aramaic]] the variants ''sn'', ''syn'' and ''šn'' are attested.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=362}} In the [[Masoretic Text]] of the [[Hebrew Bible]] Sin's name is rendered as ''san'' in the theophoric names [[Sennacherib]] (Sîn-aḫḫe-erība) and [[Sanballat the Horonite|Sanballat]] (Sîn-uballiṭ).{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=362}} Alfonso Archi argues that the [[theonym]] ''syn'' attested in a number of inscriptions from [[South Arabia]] should be interpreted as a variant of Sin's name too, and suggests vocalizing it similarly to the Eblaite form of the name.{{sfn|Archi|2015|p=596}} However, {{ill|Manfred Krebernik|de}} concludes that no certain cognates of Sin's name have been identified in other Semitic languages, and ''syn'' (or ''sn''), who according to him is only known from [[Thamudic]] inscription from [[Hadhramaut]], should instead be interpreted as Sayin, the local [[sun god]].{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=362}}

From the Old Babylonian period onward Sin's name could be represented by the logogram <sup>d</sup>30 ({{cuneiform|𒀭𒌍}}), derived from the cuneiform numeral 30, symbolically associated with him due to the number of days in the lunar month.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=361}} It was originally assumed that an even earlier example occurs in the writing of a personal name from the Ur III period, but subsequent research demonstrated that this was the result of erroneous [[collation]].{{sfn|George|2003|p=150}} In the first millennium BCE <sup>d</sup>30 became the most common writing.{{sfn|Hätinen|2021|p=29}} For example, in the text corpus from [[Neo-Babylonian Empire|Neo-Babylonian]] [[Uruk]] only a single text, a ''[[kudurru]]'' inscription of Ibni-Ishtar, uses <sup>d</sup>EN.ZU instead of <sup>d</sup>30.{{sfn|Beaulieu|2003|p=272}} Uncommonly <sup>d</sup>NANNA was used in Akkadian texts as a [[sumerogram]] meant to be read as Sin.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=361}}

===Dilimbabbar===
Next to Sin and Nanna, the best attested name of the moon god is <sup>d</sup>AŠ''-im<sub>4</sub>-babbar'' ({{cuneiform|𒀭𒀸𒁽𒌓}}).{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=362}} It was originally assumed that it should be read as Ašimbabbar, though it was subsequently proved that this depended on an erroneous collation.{{sfn|Alster|2004|p=1}} By 2016 the consensus view that Dilimbabbar is the correct reading was established based on the discovery of multiple passages providing phonetic syllabic spellings.{{sfn|Steinkeller|2016|p=615}} The name can be translated as "the shining one who walks alone".{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=363}} This meaning was originally established based on the now abandoned reading of the name, but it is still considered a valid translation.{{sfn|Steinkeller|2016|p=615}} An alternate proposal relying on homophony of the element ''dilim'' and the logogram ''dilim<sub>2</sub>'' (LIŠ) is to explain Dilimbabbar as "the shining bowl".{{sfn|Steinkeller|2016|p=616}} The term ''dilim<sub>2</sub>'' was a loan from Akkadian ''tilimtu'', "bowl".{{sfn|Steinkeller|2016|p=618}} Piotr Steinkeller notes that it is not impossible both proposals regarding the meaning of Dilimbabbar are correct, and that the scribes might have intentionally created puns depending on the well attested tradition of referring to the moon as a unique or solitary celestial body.{{sfn|Steinkeller|2016|pp=621-622}}

Dilimbabbar is already attested in the Early Dynastic god list from Abu Salabikh.{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=362}} The ''[[Zame Hymns]]'' from the same period link this title with the worship of the moon god in Urum ([[Tell Uqair]]).{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=368}} It is not certain if at this point in time it was understood as a title of Sin or as the name of a distinct deity of analogous character.{{sfn|Hall|1985|p=42}} Mark Glenn Hall notes that the absence of theophoric names invoking the moon god under this name from available sources might indicate that if Dilimbabbar was ever understood as a distinct deity this tradition disappeared very early on.{{sfn|Hall|1985|p=53}} However, Manfred Krebernik and Jan Lisman point out that in the ''[[Temple Hymns]]'' (hymn 37) Dilimbabbar is addressed as a shepherd of Sin, which they argue might be a relic of an intermediate stage between the existence of two independent moon gods and their full conflation.{{sfn|Krebernik|Lisman|2020|p=103}}

For unknown reasons the name Dilimbabbar is absent from all the other known Early Dynastic sources, as well as these from the subsequent [[Akkadian Empire|Sargonic]] and [[Ur III]] periods, with the next oldest attestation being identified in an inscription of [[Nur-Adad]] of [[Larsa]] from Ur from the [[Isin-Larsa period]], which might reflect a rediscovery of the name by scribes under hitherto unknown circumstances.{{sfn|Steinkeller|2016|p=616}} It remained in use through subsequent periods, down to the first millennium BCE.{{sfn|Steinkeller|2016|p=617}}

The Akkadian epithet Namraṣit was considered analogous to Dilimbabbar, as attested in the god list ''[[An = Anum]]'' (tablet III, line 26).{{sfn|Feliu|2006|p=237}} It can be translated as "whose rise is luminous".{{sfn|Krebernik|1997|p=363}} Steinkeller points out that it is not a direct translation of Dilimbabbar, as it effectively leaves out the element ''dilim''.{{sfn|Steinkeller|2016|p=615}} Bendt Alster assumed that the equivalence was the result of late reinterpretation.{{sfn|Alster|2004|p=3}}