2020_Selz On the Beginnings of Mesopotamian 'theology' (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Perils of Omnisignificance: Language and Reason in Mesopotamian Hermeneutics
The article discusses the Mesopotamian commentary corpus, assesses its intellectual underpinnings, explores its place within Mesopotamia's scholarly tradition, and addresses the question of whether Mesopotamian hermeneutics should be considered a " philosophical " pursuit. It is argued that the cuneiform commentaries are characterized, on one hand, by certain limitations and, on the other, by an overabundance of interpretational opportunities, and that the answer should therefore be negative; but it is admitted that, depending on what one considers the defining features of philosophy, other views are possible.
Placing Interpretation, Ancient and Modern, in a Historical Perspective
The rules and procedures followed by ancient interpreters are also different from the modern ones. What has happened to make those ancient presuppositions untenable and the rules no longer viable? The answer to this question is the subject of this introductory chapter. It is our contention that there has been an irreversible development of historical consciousness, or growth of awareness of the process of development in history, that makes it impossible to apply the ancient presuppositions and rules today. This is not due, as many would have it, to the prejudices of the Enlightenment or to a loss of faith, but to a change in the structure of our consciousness of history (the past). We live in a different mental world or a mental world that is structured differently in significant ways from that of five hundred years ago. One factor in the development of contemporary historical consciousness has been the critical reading of ancient texts, which has resulted in a process of historicization of the biblical texts. The historicization of the biblical texts reveals that they had in fact been dehistoricized in an earlier period, that is, they had lost their historical and human setting. This double process has inevitably raised questions about the authority of the biblical text with the result that the Bible plays a different role today than it did five hundred years ago.
This chapter focuses on the interaction between theological and other approaches to the LXX, especially text-critical approaches. In my view, the recognition of theology in a translation is not a solid fact, nor does it reflect an objective statement about what we identify in the translation, but a subjective recognition of a way of understanding elements in the translation. The description of theology in a translation can hardly ever be descriptive, since there is always an element of interpretation involved: deviations from MT that look to us like theological could have been caused by other factors as well. The theological and textual approaches represent two different disciplines that are usually mutually exclusive. If a deviation of the LXX from MT reflects a Hebrew variant, it cannot reflect theological exegesis at the same time, because a deviating Hebrew reading does not reflect the translator's intentions. By the same token, if that deviation was caused by the translator's techniques in transferring the message of the Hebrew into Greek, that detail does not reflect theology either. After a methodological introduction, I exemplify how certain differences between MT and the LXX can be approached by either a text-critical or a theological approach. I discuss approaches, not necessarily textual evidence of a certain type. In many cases, no decision can be made, and we often also change our mind. No one approach is preferable to another, since much depends on our intuition. Both Rösel and I use both approaches at different times, but with different frequencies ; Rösel turns more to the theological approach and I more to the text-critical approach. 1. Background This study focuses on the interaction between theological and other approaches to the LXX, especially the text-critical approach. In my view, the recognition of theology in a translation is not a solid fact,