DOCSLIB.ORG

A Fresh Start Comes from God: Theological, Historical, and Sociological Background of the Clean-Slate Acts of Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Fresh Start Comes from God: Theological, Historical, and Sociological Background of the Clean-Slate Acts of Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 A Fresh Start Comes from God: Theological, Historical, and Sociological Background of the Clean-Slate Acts of Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 Von der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Leipzig angenommene D I S S E R T A T I O N zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades DOCTRIX PHILOSOPHIAE (Dr. phil.) vorgelegt von SandyJo Dorothea Rogers geboren am 15.08.1979 in Fort Huachuca, Arizona, the United States of America Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Schüle Dr. habil. Takayoshi Oshima Tag der Verteidigung: 11. Mai 2020 ii Selbständigkeitserklärung Hiermit erkläre ich, die vorliegende Dissertation selbständig und ohne unerlaubte fremde Hilfe angefertigt zu haben. Ich habe keine anderen als die im Schriftenverzeichnis angeführten Quellen benutzt und sämtliche Textstellen, die wörtlich oder sinngemäß aus veröffentlichten oder unveröffentlichten Schriften entnommen wurden, und alle Angaben, die auf mündlichen Auskünften beruhen, als solche kenntlich gemacht. Ebenfalls sind alle von anderen Personen bereitgestellten Materialien oder erbrachten Dienstleistungen als solche gekennzeichnet. I hereby declare that I have completed the present dissertation independently and without unauthorized assistance. I have not used any sources other than those listed in the bibliography and I have marked as such all passages of text taken literally or in spirit from published or unpublished writings and all information based on oral information. All materials or services provided by other persons are also marked as such. Leipzig, am 30.01.2020 SandyJo Dorothea Rogers Abstract The clean-slate acts of the Hebrew Bible, i.e., the Year of Jubilee in Leviticus 25 and the Šemittah Year and the Law of Slave Release in Deut 15:1-18, are a part of the tradition of clean-slate acts in the ancient Near East. In these acts, those who have become indebted and have loss land and freedom, are given a fresh start. Through comparing the biblical clean-slate acts with the evidence of clean-slate acts in ancient Mesopotamia including the existing Edict of Ammiṣaduqa and fragments of an edict from Samsuiluna, the Holiness Code’s Year of Jubilee and Deuteronomy’s Šhemittah Year and the Law of Slave Release are brought into sharper focus. The goal of this book is to use the lens of the ancient Near Eastern clean-slate acts to better understand not only the biblical acts but the role they play within their respective law codes. Through the clean-slate acts, both the Holiness Code and Deuteronomy set economic justice as a corner stone of their theology. They serve as a culmination of what it means to be the people of YHWH. Analyzing the biblical clean-slate acts in light of the larger tradition shows that the Year of Jubilee and the Šemittah Year and the Law of Slave Release call the people of Israel to be participants in renewal, blessing, and providing justice for the community. Table of Contents Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... vii A Note on the Spellings of Names ........................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 General Tendencies of the Research ........................................................................................................ 2 Leviticus 25 ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Deuteronomy 15:1-18 ........................................................................................................................... 5 The Relationship between Lev 25 and Deut 15:1-18 ............................................................................ 8 Lev 25 and Deut 15:1-18 and the Ancient Near East .......................................................................... 12 Ancient Near Eastern Literature and the Hebrew Bible ......................................................................... 15 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2: From Freedom to Slavery. ......................................................................................................... 20 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Causes of Debt in the Hebrew Bible ....................................................................................................... 21 Loans ................................................................................................................................................... 22 Taxes and Corvée ................................................................................................................................ 23 Consequences of Debt in the Hebrew Bible ........................................................................................... 25 Oppression of the Poor in the Literary Prophets .................................................................................... 27 Debt in Ancient Mesopotamia ................................................................................................................ 32 Interest-Bearing Loans ........................................................................................................................ 33 Taxes and Corvée ................................................................................................................................ 36 Consequences of Debt in Ancient Mesopotamia ................................................................................... 38 Loss of Land ......................................................................................................................................... 38 Loss of Freedom .................................................................................................................................. 39 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 43 ii Excursus 1: Debt in Ancient Egypt .............................................................................................................. 44 General Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 44 Debt-Slavery under Joseph - Genesis 47:13-26 ...................................................................................... 45 Chapter 3: Economic Justice and Clean Slate Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia .................................... 47 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Ur-Namma (regnal years: 2112-2095 B.C.E., Ur): .................................................................................... 49 Lipit-Ištar (regnal years: 1934-1924 B.C.E., Isin) ...................................................................................... 51 Ur-Ninurta (regnal years: 1923-1896 B.C.E., Isin) .................................................................................... 53 Sumulael (regnal years: 1880-1845 B.C.E., Babylon) ............................................................................... 54 Sabium (regnal years: 1884-1831 B.C.E., Babylon) .................................................................................. 54 Hammurabi (regnal years: 1792-1750 B.C.E., Babylon) ........................................................................... 55 Samsuiluna (regnal years: 1749-1712 B.C.E., Babylon) ............................................................................ 58 Abiešuḫ (regnal years: 1711-1684 B.C.E., Babylon) ................................................................................. 63 Ammiditana (regnal years: 1683-1647 B.C.E., Babylon) .......................................................................... 63 Date and Attribution Uncertain .............................................................................................................. 64 Ammiṣaduqa (regnal years: 1646-1626 B.C.E., Babylon) ......................................................................... 64 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 71 Chapter 4: Esarhaddon’s Neo-Assyrian Clean-Slate Acts ............................................................................ 73 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 73 Sennacherib and Babylonia ..................................................................................................................... 73 Esarhaddon’s Restoration of Babylon ..................................................................................................... 77 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 84 Chapter 5: Dating the Holiness Code and Deuteronomy ...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parashat Korach 5773 June 8, 2013
    Parashat Korach 5773 June 8, 2013 This week’s Dvar Tzedek takes the form of an interactive text study. We hope that you’ll use this text study to actively engage with the parashah and contemporary global justice issues. Consider using this text study in any of the following ways: • Learn collectively. Discuss it with friends, family or colleagues. Discuss it at your Shabbat table. • Enrich your own learning. Read it as you would a regular Dvar Tzedek and reflect on the questions it raises. • Teach. Use the ideas and reactions it sparks in you as the basis for your own dvar Torah. Please take two minutes to share your thoughts on this piece by completing this feedback form . Introduction Parashat Korach opens with a scene of intense political drama in which a coalition of disgruntled Israelites challenges Moses and Aaron’s leadership. An analysis of this rebellion and the motivations of its leaders provides an opportunity to explore questions of politics, power and leadership—our associations with them, why they are important and how we might be able to utilize them to achieve the justice that we seek for our communities and the world. The Torah describes the opening of the showdown between Korach’s coalition and Moses and Aaron, as follows: במדבר טז:א ד, ח יא Numbers 16:1 ---4, 8 ---111111 ַוִ ַ ח ֹקַרח, ֶ ִיְצָהר ֶ ְקָהת ֶ ֵלִוי; ְוָדָת Now Korach, son of Izhar son of Kohat son of Levi, took, along ַוֲאִביָר ְֵני ֱאִליב, ְואֹו ֶ !ֶ לֶת ְ נֵי —with Datan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Pelet ְרא%ֵב.
    [Show full text]
  • Parshat Korach 5770 by Guy Izhak Austrian June 12, 2010
    Parshat Korach 5770 By Guy Izhak Austrian June 12, 2010 “We will keep the victims and their families in our prayers.” So said President Barack Obama after the devastating earthquake in Haiti last January, before concluding with just such a prayer: “May God bless the people of Haiti and those working on their behalf.”1 At the same time, the Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Judaism distributed a “Prayer for Haiti” by Rabbi Naomi Levy,2 and no doubt, many other Americans prayed as well. Given all of the options for taking action after a crisis in a developing country—donating, organizing and volunteering—why do the President, a rabbi in Los Angeles and ordinary people across the U.S. feel compelled to pray for the victims? What impact can these prayers have? We can find a clue in the haftarah for Parshat Korach, a passage from the First Book of Samuel.3 There, Samuel bids farewell to the Israelites, and he rebukes the people for insisting on being ruled by a king. Yet Samuel promises that though he is no longer their prophet and judge, he will continue to pray for them: “Moreover as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you.”4 Samuel juxtaposes his own prayerful support of the people with his prophecy, in an earlier passage, of the king’s coming oppression. The king, he says, “yikach”—will take—your children, vineyards and olive groves, your servants and livestock.5 In contrast, Samuel asks rhetorically, “Whose ox have I taken … from whom have I taken a bribe…?” and the people affirm, “You have not taken anything from anyone.”6 Samuel suggests that a righteous leader prays for the people, while an exploitative leader such as a king will only take.
    [Show full text]
  • Parshat Korach Weekly Dvar Torah for the Sake of Heaven
    Parshat Korach 3 Tammuz 5778 /June 16, 2018 Daf Yomi: Zevachim 64; Nach Yomi: Isaiah 24 Weekly Dvar Torah A project of the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL SPONSORED BY THE HENRY, BERTHA AND EDWARD ROTHMAN FOUNDATION ROCHESTER, NY,CLEVELAND, OHIO, CIRCLEVILLE, OHIO For the Sake of Heaven Rabbi Naphtali Burnstein Mara D'atra, Young Israel of Greater Cleveland In Pirkei Avot, Chapter 5, Mishna 20, we are reminded of the difference between a machlokes sh’le L’Shem Shamayim ─ “a dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, and a machlokes sh’eino L’Shem Shamayim ─ a dispute not for the sale of Heaven.” In giving us the examples of each, the Mishna chooses that of Hillel and Shammai as that of a machlokes sh’le L’Shem Shamayim, and that of Korach and his entire community as that of a machlokes sh’eino L’Shem Shamayim. The question is asked why the two examples given in the Mishna do not seem to be comparablel. In the first example, Hillel and Shammai are the ones chosen as having disputes for the sake of heaven, and in the latter example, rather than choosing Korach together with Moshe and Aharon, Korach and his community are chosen. Did Korach indeed dispute with his followers or with Moshe and Aharon? Many suggestions have been offered; perhaps the most well-known approach is the following: The Mishna, mentioned above, points out that a machlokes L’Shem Shamayim will have a constructive outcome, whereas a machlokes sh’einoL’Shem Shamayim will not. The reasoning for this striking difference is in the motivation behind each.
    [Show full text]
  • A Life of Holiness a D’Var Torah on Parashat K’Doshim (Leviticus 19:1 – 20:27) by Sarah B
    A Life of Holiness A D’var Torah on Parashat K’doshim (Leviticus 19:1 – 20:27) By Sarah B. Schweitz “K’doshim tih’yu ki kadosh ani Adonai Eloheichem.” “You shall be holy for I, Adonai, your God, am holy.” Greek translators named the third book of the Torah “Leuitikon,” and the Latin name “Leviticus” was adopted.1 Called Vayikra (“and He called”) in Hebrew, Leviticus is the core of the five Books of Moses and contains some of the most important passages of the Bible. Much of Leviticus is devoted to matters such as instructions for sacrifice and rules of ritual defilement and purification. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the laws of sacrifice no longer functioned;2 sacrifices were abandoned and later replaced by prayer. At the center of Leviticus is Parashat K’doshim. The first 19 verses of Parashat K’doshim are known as the Holiness Code (K’doshim), a tower of spirit and morality among religious writings of any generation. K’doshim is equal in importance to the Ten Commandments and worthy of being read aloud on Shabbat and Yom Kippur afternoon in order to teach us how to behave. The Hebrew root of K’doshim is Kadosh, which we translate as “holy,” but which embodies the idea of a spiritual separation between divine perfection and human imperfection.3 Some derivatives of Kadosh are4: Kodesh – “holiness” Kiddush – “sanctification,” applied to hallowing the Sabbath and Festivals over a cup of wine K’dushah – “holiness,” “sanctity,” or “sanctification,” as used for a series of liturgical responses Kadosh – “holy” K’doshim – “holy beings” Kiddushin – “betrothal” or formal engagement Mikdash – a place of worship Kodesh Kodashim – the innermost shrine of the Temple; the Holy of Holies 1 “Introducing Leviticus,” a commentary by Rabbi Bernard J.
    [Show full text]
  • Concept in Ancient Israel As Depicted in Deuteronomistic
    BERITH AS A SOCIO-POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REGULATORY MECHANISM IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND TRADITIONAL ÈGBẠ́ -YORÙBÁ SOCIETY ___________________________ OLUGBEMIRO OLUSEGUN BEREKIAH MAT. NO. 124391 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY AUGUST 2014 i BERITH AS A SOCIO-POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REGULATORY MECHANISM IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND TRADITIONAL ÈGBẠ́ -YORÙBÁ SOCIETY BY OLUGBEMIRO OLUSEGUN BEREKIAH MAT. NO. 124391 OND,(Bida) Dip.Th, Dip.RS, B.A.HONS, M.A. (Ibadan) A Thesis in the Department of Religious Studies, Submitted to the Faculty of Arts in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY of the UNIVERSITY OF ÌBÀDÀN UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY AUGUST 2014 ii Abstract Berith, a concept similar to ìmùlè ̣ among the Ègbạ́ -Yorùbá of South-Western Nigeria, is a pact ratified by oath, binding two or more parties in a relationship of moral commitment to certain stipulations. It was used to regulate socio-political and economic life in ancient Israel. Previous studies on Berith have focused on its legal aspect, neglecting its moral basis as a means of effectively regulating and controlling socio-political and economic aspects of human society in ancient Israel and its relevance to the traditional Ègbạ́ -Yorùbá sociocultural context with shared experiences. This study, therefore, examined the effectiveness of berith as a means of regulating socio-political and economic life in ancient Israel as replicated by ìmùlè ̣ among traditional Ègbạ́ -Yorùbá. The work was premised on Manus’ intercultural hermeneutics which relates the Bible to African socio-cultural situations. The historical-critical method was used to analyse relevant texts (2 Kgs.22:8-23:3; Exod.20:22-23:33; Deut.6:1-28:69), taking the Leningrad Codex as the vorlage.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Disambiguating Moses' Book Of
    2 DISAMBIGUATING MOSES’ BOOK OF LAW Efforts to delineate the contents of Moses’ book of the law face the chal- lenge of a variety of ambiguous terms and references. The phrase “this law” -occurs nineteen times in Deuteronomy, five times in con ( ַה ָ תּוֹרה ַהזּ ֹאת) and once in connection with 85( ֵסֶפר) ”nection with the word “book ,The terms “law” and “book” are themselves ambiguous 86.( ֲאָבִנים) ”stones“ can mean “instruction” or “teaching” in addition to the law and ָ תּוֹרה since can denote any written surface, from an ancient scroll to engraved ֵסֶפר stone (Barton 1998:2, 13). In 31:9, the narrator reports that Moses wrote “this law” and handed the document over to the Levites and elders with instructions for periodic reading. A little later, the narrator reports that Moses wrote “the words of this law” in “a book” which he consequently handed over to the Levites for deposition beside the ark of the covenant (31:24). Added to the polyvalent terminology and multiple reports of writ- ing are the ancillary terms “testimonies,” “commandments,” “statutes,” and “ordinances” (e.g., 4:44-5). Scholars have resorted to various means to delineate a document bur- dened so with diverse signification. In the process, some scholars have fallen into debate over the swept volume of a plastered stele so that they might better determine whether the entire Deuteronomic (sic) text (chs. 1- 34) could have been etched on its surface (cf. 27:3). While Eugene H. Merrill argues that a plastered stele could not have contained the entire Deuteronomic text, (1994:342), Jeffrey H.
    [Show full text]
  • Cities of Refuge
    Calvary Baptist Theological Journal 14.1 (Spring, 1998) 1-25 Copyright © 1999 by Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, cited with permission; digitally prepared for use at Gordon College] Cities of Refuge Preston L. Mayes Much of the Mosaic legislation contained in the Pentateuch seems foreign to the modern reader. The laws concerning the priesthood, the sacrificial system, and the religious holidays are neither practiced nor paralleled in the dispensation of the church. Though they do have didactic and illustrative value as types of the work of Christ, they are often rushed over or skipped altogether in personal Bible study. The Old Testament legislation concerning so-called moral law has received greater attention. Since it addresses many issues which are also social problems in the twentieth century, it is frequently lifted from its Old Testament context and applied to contemporary society. Provisions for dealing with cases of adultery, homosexuality, theft, and murder in Israel are a few of the regulations which commonly receive such treatment. Several minority political/religious groups even advocate a complete return to Old Testament-style political regulations and policies. It is within the context of this debate that the Old Testament legal provisions concerning the city of refuge should be studied. These cities were designated locations to which one who was guilty of accidental homicide1 could flee in order to receive legal protection and a fair trial. They were part of the ancient legal system which recognized the right and even the l This paper will refer to an accidental homicide as manslaughter and a deliberate homicide as murder.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Samuel 6:10 – 7:2 July 15, 2018 Faith Presbyterian Church – Morning Service Pr
    “Dwelling with Imminent Transcendence” 1 Samuel 6:10 – 7:2 July 15, 2018 Faith Presbyterian Church – Morning Service Pr. Nicoletti We’ll be looking at 1 Samuel 6:10-7:2 this morning. It could be helpful to recap again where we are at in the story in 1 Samuel. In 1 Samuel 4 the Israelites went to war with the Philistines. Because they were not being faithful to their God, the Christian God of the Bible, identified in the Hebrew by the name Yahweh, the maker of heaven and earth – because they had not been faithful to him, he did not help them in battle, but allowed them to be defeated. Then, rather than reflecting on their sin, on their failure to live in the ways God had called them to, the Israelites instead took the Ark of the Covenant, the special box kept in the holiest part of the sanctuary, which was understood to be God’s throne, which represented his special presence, and they brought it into battle with them, as an attempt to force God’s hand to fight for them. They tried to manipulate God rather than renew their faithfulness to him from the heart. God then responded by allowing an even greater defeat and allowing the Philistines to carry the ark into exile. Yahweh was of course not restricted or bound to the ark, but since it was a symbol of his special presence he continued to be specially present with it, even when it went into exile. In Philistia Yahweh, the God of Israel, then defeated Dagon, the god of the Philistines, and he brought judgment on the Philistines through plague and infestation, until they finally decided, after seven months, to just send the ark away, back to Israel, while also making offerings to Yahweh that were intended as a way of asking for his pardon, so that he might end his judgment on them.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Old Babylonian Texts from MARAD ( Wana Wa AL Sodum ) Dr
    2012م/1433هـ (ADAB AL-RAFIDAYN, VOL.(63 Two old Babylonian Texts from MARAD ( Wana wa AL_Sodum ) Dr. Saad.S. Fahad * & Dr Abbas.A. AL-hussainy تأريخ التقديم: 32/5/3122 تأريخ القبول: 3122/6/8 Preface:- The site of Marad(Sumerian MARDA, modern Tell wana wa al-sodum) was an ancient Sumerian city situated on the west bank of the western branch of the Euphrates river, west of Nippur and roughly 50 km southeast of kish, on the Aratu river, it was established ca.2700 B.C during the Sumerian Early Dynastic II period. The site of Marad covered on area of less than 124 hectares(50 acres),it was excavated by a team from Al- Qadisiya university in 1990 led by Dr. Nael Hannon, and in 2005 and 2007 led by Dr. Abbas,A., al-hussainy, publication of the last two seasons is in progress(1). During the Archaeological excavation on second season 2005 a number of cuneiform texts were found in different points in the site. After a primary study for these cuneiform texts it was cleared that many of them belong to the old Babylonian period, while there were few number of them belong to a more modern period(new Babylon period). the subjects of these texts, were various according to the variety of the daily life at that time, but one can say that the general Dep.of Archaeology/ College of Arts 38 Two old Babylonian Texts from MARAD (Wana wa AL_Sodum) Dr. Saad.S. Fahad& Dr.Abbas.A. AL-hussainy pattern of these texts were like the contract type of texts(contracts of buying lands).These texts contain date formula and the names of local kings who ruled at that place,
    [Show full text]
  • Marten Stol WOMEN in the ANCIENT NEAR EAST
    Marten Stol WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Marten Stol Women in the Ancient Near East Marten Stol Women in the Ancient Near East Translated by Helen and Mervyn Richardson ISBN 978-1-61451-323-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-61451-263-9 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0021-3 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 License. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. Original edition: Vrouwen van Babylon. Prinsessen, priesteressen, prostituees in de bakermat van de cultuur. Uitgeverij Kok, Utrecht (2012). Translated by Helen and Mervyn Richardson © 2016 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Cover Image: Marten Stol Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: cpi books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Table of Contents Introduction 1 Map 5 1 Her outward appearance 7 1.1 Phases of life 7 1.2 The girl 10 1.3 The virgin 13 1.4 Women’s clothing 17 1.5 Cosmetics and beauty 47 1.6 The language of women 56 1.7 Women’s names 58 2 Marriage 60 2.1 Preparations 62 2.2 Age for marrying 66 2.3 Regulations 67 2.4 The betrothal 72 2.5 The wedding 93 2.6
    [Show full text]
  • THE FORBIDDEN ANIMALS in LEVITICUS* Mary Douglas
    [JSOT 59 (1993) 3-23] THE FORBIDDEN ANIMALS IN LEVITICUS* Mary Douglas 22 Hillway, Highgate, London N6 6QA Introduction An anthropologist hardly needs to apologise for trying a new approach to the dietary laws in Leviticus. For one reason, the various interpretations offered so far are not agreed. For another, these rules are generally interpreted as rules of purity, whereas they are unlike any purity rules in the anthropological record. Third, the explanations offered in the book itself are ignored, for lack of interest in its rhetorical structure. A general lack of interest in the priestly work may be attributed to a long-established anticlerical tradition, which puts the priests in an unfavourable light compared with the prophets. The editors of Leviticus have the reputation of being engrossed by themes of material, especially bodily, defilement. This has entered into some of the comparisons between the priestly tradition and that of the prophets, the former being regarded as desiccated bureaucrats of religion, obsessed with material definitions of impurity, and the latter concerned with nobler spiritual teachings. The priests were evidently so focused on externals that they transformed the religion from what it was in the eyes of the prophets. Isaiah 1.10-17 is a natural point at which to divide the two alleged­ ly opposed modes of religious thought. The prophet delivers the mes­ sage that the sinful nation has forsaken the Lord, thus he (the Lord) does not want their 'vain offerings'; he rejects their burnt offerings and prayers, because their hands are full of blood (Isa. 1.15-16).
    [Show full text]
  • A PRELIMINARY STUDY of the SUMERIAN CURRICULAR and LAMENTATIONAL TEXTS from the OLD BABYLONIAN CITY of KISH by Joshua A. Bowen A
    A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE SUMERIAN CURRICULAR AND LAMENTATIONAL TEXTS FROM THE OLD BABYLONIAN CITY OF KISH by Joshua A. Bowen A dissertation submitted to the Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland February, 2017 © 2017 Joshua A. Bowen All Rights Reserved Abstract The collections of Sumerian and Akkadian tablets that have been excavated at various Old Babylonian sites have been surveyed and subjected to corpus-based analysis, including the tablets from prominent cities such as Nippur, Ur, Sippar, Isin, and Uruk. However, until very recently, attention has not focused on the important northern city of Kiš. Although many of the literary and liturgical duplicates from Kiš have been translated and discussed, neither the curricular nor the lamentational corpora have been treated as a whole. The goal of my dissertation, therefore, is to survey and analyze the entirety of the Old Babylonian (ca. 2000-1600 BCE) curricular and lamentational textual material from Kiš in order to identify local features or traditions that were unique to these genres. The survey of the curricular textual material will seek to accomplish two goals. First, it will identify the curricular compositions that were used in scribal education at Kiš during the OB period. Second, it will determine the ways in which the Kiš scribal curriculum deviated from the curricula that are known from other OB cites, such as Nippur, Ur, and Sippar. The latter investigation will reveal two patterns at Kiš. First, it will demonstrate that, although several curricular duplicates varied from manuscripts found at the major scribal center, Nippur, there is evidence to suggest that there were lines of textual transmission that connected the OB Kiš lexical tradition to those that were found in the MB and the first millennium.
    [Show full text]