2.1 The History of Religions
2.2 Structural Comparison
2.3 Mesopotamian Religion as a Research Model
2.4 "Before Philosophy"
2.5 The Mesopotamia / Bible Polarity
2.6 The "Bible"
2.7 Cohesion and Coherence of Cultural Tradition
2.8 A Structural Vision in a Synchronic Sense
2.9 Analysis and Awareness
2.10 The Historical Plot
2.11 Culture and Nature
2.12 Space and Time
2.13 Mesopotamia, Syria, and Syro-Mesopotamia
2.14 Ancient Israel
2.15 The Interlocutors
2.16 The Presence of the Past
ERRORS in databases:
- "Boson1918Assiriologia.d": duplicate bibliography "Boson1918Assiriologia" for site "Akk-lg".
- "Bottero1992Reasoning.d": duplicate bibliography "Bottero1992Reasoning" for site "Mes-rel".
- "Buccellati1972Teodicea.d": duplicate bibliography "Buccellati1972Teodicea" for site "Mes-lit".
- "Cauvin2000Birth.d": duplicate bibliography "Cauvin2000Birth" for site "Mes-rel".
- "DMB.d": duplicate bibliography "DMB" for site "Mes-rel".
- "Edzard2003Sumerian.d": duplicate bibliography "Edzard2003Sumerian" for site "Mes-rel".
- "Oshima2014Sufferers.d": duplicate bibliography "Oshima2014Sufferers" for site "Mes-rel".
- "Trinkaus1983Shanidar.d": duplicate bibliography "Trinkaus1983Shanidar" for site "Mes-rel".
2.1 The History of Religions
On human origins: (Facchini 2002 Origini).
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2013]
See Geertz 1973 Religion Cultural System for an influential interpretation of religion, distinct from Buccellati’s.
– [ Jonah Lynch, January 2021]
For the history of religions, see Brelich 1976 Prolegomeni, pp. 36, 54-55: text in Brelich 1976/Excerpt. Cf. section 6. History of the Discipline (by Jonah Lynch).
– [ Marco De Pietri, May 2021]
2.2 Structural Comparison
Puhvel, Comparative Mythology.
– [March 2020]
For a discussion about comparative method and structural approach in the analysis of Biblical, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian religions, see Buccellati 1966 Bibbia.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For a discussion about structural comparison between Mesopotamian and Biblical religions, see Buccellati 1972 Beatitudini.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For a structural comparison about ‘faith’ in the Bible and in Mesopotamian culture, see Buccellati 1973 Adapa.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For a ‘structural approach’ on the comparison of the Bible and ancient Mesopotamian religion, see Buccellati 2014 Time, p. 74: text in Buccellati 2014/Excerpt.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For a structural comparison on the ‘absolute’ between Bible and Mesopotamian religion, see Buccellati 2012 Trinità.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
The comparative approach is a fruitful way to better understand religious thoughts in antiquity: e.g., Sayce 1902 Religions displays two sections including lectures of both Egyptian (Part 1) and Babylonian (Part 2) religions. The author rarely stresses apertis verbis specific comparisons between the two systems, even though the reader can easily recognise assonances and discordances in the two different religious thoughts.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For an example of comparative approach between Mesopotamian and biblical texts, see e.g. Geller 1980 Incantations, about šurpu incantations and Leviticus.
– [ Marco De Pietri, September 2020]
See Pongratz- Leisten 2011 Revolutionary for an extended examination of Assmann’s hypothesis of “revolutionary monotheism”.
– [ Jonah Lynch, January 2021]
For a structural approach in the comparative history of religions, see Brelich 1976 Prolegomeni, pp. 36, 54-55: text in Brelich 1976/Excerpt.
– [ Marco De Pietri, May 2021]
2.3 Mesopotamian Religion as a Research Model
For a discussion about structural comparison between Mesopotamian and Biblical religions, see Buccellati 1972 Beatitudini.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For an example of Mesopotamian religion as a case of study, see Buccellati 1981 Wisdom.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
The comparison of Biblical religion with those of Syro-Mesopotamia is the main topic of the present volume. For an introduction to religion and religious practices in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria-Palestine, see Holland 2010 Gods, mostly focusing on the nature of gods in these religious systems.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
On the comparison of Biblical religion with the Mesopotamian one, see the introduction to religion and religious practices in ancient Mesopotamia in Jacobsen 1976 Treasures, describing the notion of religion in Mesopotamia (Jacobsen 1976/Excerpt), the pantheon (Jacobsen 1976/Excerpt), and displaying the main mythological texts from the 4th to the 2nd millennium BC.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
G. Buccellati presents in this section ancient Mesopotamian religion as one of the first historically attested (together with the Egyptian one). A worthy discussion about the basilar features of Mesopotamian religion can be found in Oates 1978 Religion, dealing with the definition of ‘religion’ and the description of Mesopotamian ritual (specifically funerary) practices.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
Taking ancient Mesopotamian religion as a model of study in the analysis of the divine, it is not possible to avoid mentioning the most ancient religious system attested in Mesopotamia, i.e. that of Sumerians. For an overview on Sumerian religious system and beliefs, see Pettinato 2007 Sumeri, presenting the main features of Sumerian religion, adding some useful notes on methodology to be applied in the analysis of such ancient culture.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
The conception of the ‘absolute’ as a ‘matrix’ can be compared with the Sumerian notion of cosmic ‘order’, established by the gods at the creation of the world; on this topic, see specifically Jestin 1976 Sumer.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For a specific description of the basic traits and features of Sumerian religion, see Jestin 1976 Sumer.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For a specific description of the basic traits and features of Babylonian religion, see Nougayrol 1976 Babylon.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
«A second reason why the Mesopotamian religion is of deep interest to us today is its continuity with our cultural and religious traditions. On the one hand, certain fossils have survived in their specific reality, such as, astrology. But the influence on the very structure of our way of thinking is far more significant than these specific details, because it affects the social and intellectual sphere as a whole» (G. Buccellati, Chapter 2, Section 3). This idea can be supported by § 9 in Nougayrol 1976 Babylon, where the author recognises influences and survivals of Babylonian religion on coeval and later cultures.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
2.4 "Before Philosophy"
See Scotti Muth 2012.
– [March 2020]
For the existence of a philosophy ‘before philosophy’, see mainly Frankfort 1949 Before: excerpts on speculative thought from Introduction in Frankfort 1949/Excerpt.
On the same topic, cf. also Van De Mieroop 2016 Philosophy.
For the possibility of retracing ‘implicit mythological intuitions’ of religious phaenomena, later further elaborated by classical philosophy, see Cornford 1957 Philosophy, Preface, p. v., excerpted in Cornford 1957/Excerpt.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
See for instance Frankfort’s affirmation at the beginning of Before Philosophy: «In the first place, we find that speculation found unlimited possibilities for development; it was not restricted by a scientific (that is, a disciplined) search for truth. In the second place, we notice that the realm of nature and the realm of man were not distinguished. The ancients, like the modern savages, saw man always as part of society, and society as imbedded in nature and dependent upon cosmic forces. For them nature and man did not stand in opposi- tion and did not, therefore, have to be apprehended by different modes of cognition.» (p. 4) See Frankfort 1949 Before
– [ Jonah Lynch, October 2020]
2.5 The Mesopotamia / Bible Polarity
[See my articles on the rural class.]
– [March 2020]
[Address the question of phenomenology here.]
– [March 2020]
For a discussion about comparative method and structural approach in the analysis of Biblical and Mesopotamian religions, see Buccellati 1966 Bibbia.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For a discussion about structural comparison between Mesopotamian and Biblical religions, see Buccellati 1972 Beatitudini.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For the role of ‘faith’ in the Bible and in Mesopotamian culture, see Buccellati 1973 Adapa.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For polarity and structural comparison between Bible and Mesopotamian religion, see Buccellati 2012 Trinità.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For the ‘polarity’ between the Bible and ancient Mesopotamian religion, see Buccellati 2014 Time.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
«Mesopotamia was the great cultural matrix within which the history of ancient Israel developed. While Mesopotamian civilization developed without any reference to Israel, the opposite is not true: the Palestinian reality of Israel meant that the confrontation with the Mesopotamian matrix was always operational. The self-perception that Israel has of its beginnings is emblematic: Abraham starts from Mesopotamia». About this passage of G. Buccellati, and on the topic of relationships and points of contacts between the Bible and Mesopotamia (together with the influence of Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures on the Old Testament), see Keller 1956 Bible, where the author tries to prove the historical truthfulness of the Bible on the base of a comparative approach based on archaeological data and textual sources from the Near East and Egypt.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For Abraham and his origins, see Berlyn 2005 Abraham; on his spiritual features, see Buccellati 2015, with video.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
2.6 The "Bible"
[Landsberger Eigenbegrifflichket; “motori centrali dell’esperienza” = engendering experience of Voegelin; see “realta’ spirituale iniziale” 13.16]
For a discussion about the concept of “Bible” and its historical development, see Bowley Reeves 2003 Bible.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
The Bible as a ‘canon’ can be recognized in the standardization of the Old Testament with the fixation of the ‘Masoretic Text’, based on a precise methodology called ‘Massorah’.
The MT is fully available on Sefaria, on Bi Hu, or on Tanakh, the latter offering the Hebrew text according to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the English translation following the King James Version.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
Buccellati’s approach in juxtaposing the Mesopotamian and Biblical traditions as possessing inherently structural differences can be contrasted to Levine’s assertion that the origin of Biblical tradition is solely a form of response from, and reactionary to, the socio-political configurations of the Assyrian empire. Levine neglects to address philosophical disparities, arguing that ideologies are conceived in reaction to historical events. Conceptions of the absolute, for Levine, have no real meaning beyond their relationship to political institutions. See Levine 2005 Assyrian Israelite Monotheism.
– [ Iman Nagy, August 2020]
See Lambert 1957 Ancestors on the question of canonicity.
– [ Jonah Lynch, January 2021]
2.7 Cohesion and Coherence of Cultural Tradition
For a treatment of the “central concerns” of Mesopotamian religion, see Jacobsen 1963 Central Concerns.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2020]
For the analysis of ancient cultural traditions, see Brelich 1976 Prolegomeni.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
Buccellati describes Mesopotamian religion as «a system of perceptions and interactions that are historically documented for specific times and places, from which a central fulcrum of spirituality can be deduced» (§2.7). This feature of Mesopotamian religion led people to a cultural sharing of identity and solidarity, to cohesion and mutual exchange. Buccellati also recognizes that in Mesopotamian religion there are at the same time a ‘temporal coherence’ and a ‘substantial development’, meaning that Mesopotamian religion needs to be analysed both synchronically and diachronically. A similar topic is discussed in Jacobsen 1976 Treasures, where the author stresses how Mesopotamian religion must be investigated in its historical development (e.g. on p. 25, Jacobsen 1976/Excerpt).
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
2.8 A Structural Vision in a Synchronic Sense
[Approccio sincronico; see Carbajosa, Voegelin article, part 2 about Childs]
In general, for a debate on the longue durée theory, see the editorial paper in Annales 70/2.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
The historical figure here mentioned is specifically that of Hammurapi of Babylon, king of the Old-Babylonian kingdom (First Babylonian Dynasty), reigning ca. 1792 BC to c. 1750 BC (Middle chronology).
For specific information, see Bryce 2016 Atlas, pp. 100-102. Cf. Liverani 2014 History, pp. 240-255.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
See Harsgor 1978 Annales on the concept of longue durée.
– [ Jonah Lynch, January 2021]
2.9 Analysis and Awareness
[Analisi e consapevolezza; Oppenheim, Why a history of Mesopotamian religion; Jacobsen, Towards the Image…]
For this ‘analytical research model’, implying a fragmentation or dissection of a structure into its basilar components, cf. G. Buccellati’s approach in the linguistic analysis of Akkadian grammar, specifically in Buccellati 1996 Grammar.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On the question of method and the superposition of modern mental categories on ancient humans, see Frankfort in Before Philosophy: «We shall find that if we attempt to define the structure of mythopoeic thought and compare it with that of modern (that is, scientific) thought, the differences will prove to be due rather to emotional attitude and intention than to a so-called prelogical mentality. The basic distinction of modern thought is that between subjective and objective. On this distinction scientific thought has based a critical and analytical procedure by which it progressively reduces the individual phenomena to typical events subject to universal laws. Thus it creates an increasingly wide gulf between our perception of the phenomena and the conceptions by which we make them comprehensible. […] Primitive man cannot withdraw from the presence of the phenomena because they reveal themselves to him in the manner we have described. Hence the distinction between subjective and objective knowledge is meaningless to him. Meaningless, also, is our contrast between reality and appearance. Whatever is capable of affecting mind, feeling, or will has thereby established its undoubted reality.»
– [ Jonah Lynch, October 2020]
2.10 The Historical Plot
For an investigation on Israel’s exile in Babylon, see Buccellati 1960 Israeliti.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For an investigation on Israel’s exile in Babylon, see Buccellati 1960 Israeliti.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
The book here mentioned about the Origins and Growth of the State is specifically Buccellati, Giorgio 2013, Alle origini della politica, Jaca Book = Buccellati, Giorgio (forth.), At the Origins of Politics, Routledge (a website provides the reader with bibliography and notes on this book).
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
On slavery, note the nuances mentioned by Oppenheim: «There are no laws known to protect slaves against maltreatment by their masters, nor are such cases ever mentioned. Runaway slaves, however, were rather rare. The custom of adopting slaves who were to be manumitted at the death of their elderly adoptive parents after they had taken care of them in their old age and buried them properly, suggests that the relationship between master and slave was one of trust with mutual obligations.» (chapter 2) in Oppenheim 1964 Mesopotamia.
– [ Jonah Lynch, October 2020]
The opposition between systems of control that seek to domesticate the absolute, and the recognition of powerlessness in the face of an unpredictable absolute, underlies the argument of the entire present work. In the biblical world, the theme can be connected to the phrase the “living God” as referred to YHWH. The unpredictability of God is at the heart of more recent readings of the Bible. See for instance S. Kierkegaard and K. Barth.
– [ Jonah Lynch, October 2020]
See Michalowski 1983 History for considerations regarding history and chronology.
– [ Jonah Lynch, January 2021]
See Michalowski 1983 History for considerations regarding history and chronology.
– [ Jonah Lynch, January 2021]
2.11 Culture and Nature
For the relationship between culture and nature (and influence of the latter on the former), see Brelich 1976 Prolegomeni.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
2.12 Space and Time
For the concept of ‘time’ in the Bible and ancient Mesopotamian religion, see Buccellati 2014 Time.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
2.13 Mesopotamia, Syria, and Syro-Mesopotamia
[Mesopotamia, Siro-Mesopotamia; O’Callaghan, Aram-Naharain; Finkelstein in JNES; show picture of Nippur from Drehem; give map with indication of dry farming - my three region slide]
For cultic activities at Ebla, an example of Mesopotamian religiosity, see Bonechi 1989 Ebla.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For a discussion about Mesopotamian and Egyptian religions (compared with the Bible), see Buccellati 1966 Bibbia.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For a discussion about structural comparison between Mesopotamian and Biblical religions, see Buccellati 1972 Beatitudini.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For the history of Mesopotamia, see C A H, and Buccellati, Giorgio (forth.), At the Origins of Politics, Routledge (a website provides the reader with bibliography and notes on this book); cf. entry: Liverani 2014 History.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For a brief historical overview on Mesopotamian history, see Meyers 1997 O E A N E, Vol. 3, pp. 476-489.
Cf. also the Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses website (A M G G) for a chronological table and maps.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Greek origin of the term ‘Mesopotamia’, see LSJ, from μέσος, “between” and ποτᾰμός, “river”.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
For the Akkadian expression kibrāt arba’īm, see CAD 8 = K, pp. 331-336.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
2.14 Ancient Israel
Origins of the Jewish religion: Whatham 1899 Poly.
– [ Jonah Lynch, March 2020]
For a discussion of the term ‘People of the country’ (‘m h’rṣ) in the Bible, see Buccellati 1959 B O 3.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For an investigation on Israel’s exile in Babylon, see Buccellati 1960 Israeliti.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For an investigation on Israel’s exile in Babylon, see Buccellati 1960 Israeliti.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
Buccellati here retraces the origins or ethnogenesis of patriarchal traditions back to the period of the Amorites (for which see e.g. Meyers 1997 O E A N E, Vol. 1, pp. 107-110; cf. Buccellati, Giorgio 1963-1966b on Urkesh.org/e-Library (with review by Mario Liverani on Urkesh.org/e-Library). The text referring to this topic is available on Buccellati 2021/Excerpts.
On this topic, it is noteworthy to recall a passage in Liverani 2009 Oltre, p. 60 [2005 English edition] (text in Liverani2005/Excerpt), where the author, contra Buccellati, recognizes in the exilic and post-exilic period the very moment when (through genealogies) Israel established its ethnogenesis (cf. infra 6.6).
On the patriarchal traditions of Israel and Judah, see Buccellati 2004 Second.
– [ Marco De Pietri, May 2021]
2.15 The Interlocutors
For an example of ‘procession’ as a ‘ritual journey’ in the Mesopotamian text The Descent of Inanna, see Buccellati 1982 Descent.
– [ Marco De Pietri, June 2020]
For the šema` Yisra’el (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל), the fundamental Hebrew prayer, see here.
The text comes from Deut. 6, 4.
– [ Marco De Pietri, July 2020]
See descriptions of Mesopotamian processions in Jacobsen 1975 Religious Drama.
– [ Jonah Lynch, October 2020]
For the concept of broken tradition, see here.
– [ Jonah Lynch, October 2020]
See Bettini 2014 Polytheism for a sympathetic reading of polytheism in the contemporary world.
– [ Jonah Lynch, October 2020]
2.16 The Presence of the Past
[Presenza del passato; Oppenheim, Portrait; Voegelin “dei inframondani” nell’introduzione di Opitz al volume 1, p. xxxviii]