Mesopotamia and the Bible

Giorgio Buccellati – October 2023

A basic asymmetry
A deeper asymmetry
The case for symmetry
Mesopotamian and biblical spirituality
A structural contrast
Research trends

A basic asymmetry

The two areas to which the terms refer are, in and of themselves, not properly comparable. There is, we may say, a terminological asymmetry: “Mesopotamia” refers to a geographical area and to the civilization that developed in it, while “Bible” refers to a canon of texts gathered into a book. In addition, neither term stems from the native understanding, both being later Greek terms and concepts applied from without.

Beyond terminology, there is also a substantive asymmetry. “Mesopotamia” refers in a broad sense to a civilization for which we have, and will continue to obtain, countless pieces of evidence derived from archaeological excavations. The “Bible,” on the other hand, is a self-contained entity, closed to any possible addition.

We can make, however, a case for going beyond this stated asymmetry in our website, because we are exploring here only the religious dimension – and this is a dimension that is accessible as such in both cases, however different the documentary record may be.

A deeper asymmetry

There is, however, an even more basic asymmetry, one that pertains to the mode of reception of the two respective traditions.

Mesopotamia is, on the face of it, a broken tradition: there are no living carriers of its forms and values. We can rightfully claim to have a good knowledge of it, in some ways a better knowledge than he ancients had, given the fact that we have a fuller knowledge of their historical development than any of them ever had. We also claim a high degree of empathy for the human dimension of the civilization, i. e., ultimately, for their experience. But we are not claiming to be natively identified with the tradition: we do not give assent to their system of gods and rituals, however well we may think we know them.

The Bible, on the other hand, is seen by many as their living tradition: they feel they are carriers of this tradition as it extends back in time to when Mesopotamia itself was a living tradition. This entails a high degree of assent on the part of those who identify with it. Hence the rift: assent establishes a relationship with the data that cannot really be measured and factored into a standard type of analysis.

The case for symmetry

And yet. It may be claimed that the spiritual core of Mesopotamian religion is in fact still alive and present among us. I mean to attribute a specific sense to the concept, along the lines indicated above: “spiritual core” refers to the presuppositions which underlie the formal traits of religion as a system. Thus polytheism is seen as a stage in the quest to fragment the absolute as part of the effort to achieve full control over reality.

We may call it the Mesopotamian ethos. With the Egyptian, and differing from it, this is the first known formalized effort at achieving the goal just stated, and, with it, to deal explicitly with such notions as fate and death, or, even more generally, with universals and inferences. This ethos is very much present in our current sensitivity, our current ethos. And in this regard we may say that the Meslopotmian is not, after all, a broken tradition.

If so, we may identify a shared ethos not only between Mesopotamia and us, but also between Mesopotamia and the Bible. They both seek to deal with the same issues, if from radically different points of view. We should look at these two points in slight more detail, looking first at the notion of spirituality as seen in Mesopotamia and the Bible, and then at the nature of the structural contrast between the two.

Mesopotamian and biblical spirituality

Spirituality is then the key that helps us solve the problem of a double and seemingly contrasting path we need to follow when dealing Mesopotamia as a broken tradition and the biblical ethos that many claim as their own. Understood in the specific sense discussed above, spirituality gives us a key to meaningfully comparing the two traditions. Ultimately, this means that we are in effect dealing with plain and simple human experience when facing the absolute.

The biblical ethos has a very special status: it is limited in size, tied to a tradition that is very vocal in claiming essential continuity through time, and is, epseically, accessible trough a complex series of filters. As a result, the scholarly tradition is very different in approch and methods. On the one hand, Mesopotamian scholarship tends to ignore spirituality and to consder biblical scholarship as excessively obfuscated by the filters – thus tending to appear too positivistic to biblical scholars. On the other, biblical scholarship may mix levels of analysis and introduce views derived from the filters that have accrued – thus tending to appear too detached from reality to Mesopotamian scholars.

My goal is to be aware of these limits and to make explicit their import and role. Focusing on the distinctive nature of the two scholarly traditions can help enhancing a properly critical approach to both, in a converse sort of way. When dealing with Mesopotamia, the tendency is to be too shy and avoid thinking and speaking of spirituality, with what we may call an excessive positivism. When dealing with the Bible, the tendency is to be too defensive and avoid accepting what seems like an overdose of spirituality. The analysis we are undertaking of the literature in this website aims to consider both aspects, in such a way that a well tempered view of both traditions mat emerge.

A structural contrast

There is certainly no lack of comparative interest between the two traditions, but it tends to focus on surface elements such as isolated themes, individual figures or textual similarities.

A structural contrast, on the other hand, builds on the whole of the two traditions. There is of course the question of considering in a synchronic manner taditions that cover a very long span of time. But this is an issue that is certianly not limited to the field of religion. In the same way that we can and do speak regularly of Akkadian or Hebrew as coherent linguistic whole, however long may be the span of time during which gthey are attested, so is it legitimate to speak of

In this light, the contrast becomes much sharper than is generally acknowledged. It is especially in this sense that recourse to spirituality becomes relevant: spirituality is in effect a reflection of the deeper structural level at which each tradition can be seen as more truly itself. And at this level the consonance sinks to the lowest possible level – sharing, in particular, the urge towards an absolute, but disagreeing on evry other aspect of what this absolute may be.

Research trends

The emphasis on spirituality and on a structural contrast is central to the core argument that informs this version of the website. But it goes without saying that our coverage is not so restricted: we aim to discuss the full gamut of piublications dealing with Mesooptamian religion in the first place, and then with publications dealing with the biblical tradition to the extent that they have some bearing on Mesopotamia.