Comparative Analysis

Eng Erasmus Gass, "A possible scenario for the third deportation"

Source Citation

Gass, Erasmus. "A possible scenario for the third deportation in 582 BCE." ZAW 135, no. 3 (2023): 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaw-2023-3002.

Comparative Analysis of Hypotheses on the Cause of the Third Deportation in 582 BCE

I. Targets and Scope

This analysis centers on Erasmus Gass's article, "A possible scenario for the third deportation in 582 BCE," to compare two core hypotheses concerning the cause of the third Judean deportation in 582 BCE, as recorded in Jeremiah 52:30.

  1. Hypothesis 1 (Traditional View): The Gedaliah Assassination Thesis. This hypothesis posits that the deportation was a retaliatory measure by Babylon in response to the assassination of Gedaliah, the administrator appointed after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 41).

  2. Hypothesis 2 (Gass's Alternative): The Apries Campaign Thesis. This hypothesis, based on the Apries' Stele discovered in 2011, argues that the deportation was a punitive action against a Judean rebellion that was incited by a successful Egyptian campaign in the Levant in 583/2 BCE.

The objective of this comparison is to evaluate which hypothesis demonstrates greater historical probability by examining three axes: claim-evidence concordance, conflicts in interpretive frames, and explanatory power versus cost.

Bibliographic Balance: This analysis primarily engages with Gass's article and its cited literature (e.g., Albertz, Lipschits, Knauf, Stipp), reflecting the mainstream of critical scholarship on the topic.

II. Claim-Evidence Concordance

The 'Gedaliah Assassination Thesis' is grounded in the narrative sequence of the biblical text itself—a logical inference that a significant political event like the assassination would be followed by a Babylonian military response. However, this claim suffers from a critical lack of direct evidentiary concordance. As Gass points out, Gedaliah’s tenure likely lasted only a few months in 587/6 BCE, creating an unexplained chronological gap of four to five years between the assassination and the deportation in 582 BCE. To sustain this hypothesis, one must assume Gedaliah’s rule continued until 582 BCE, an assumption for which there is no direct evidence.

In contrast, Gass's 'Apries Campaign Thesis' demonstrates a high degree of concordance between its claim and evidence. The core evidence, the Apries' Stele, provides a clear date of 583/2 BCE, which is chronologically apposite as a direct cause for the deportation that followed in 582/1 BCE. This hypothesis also lucidly explains why the deportation list (Jer 52:28–30) employs a Babylonian dating system: the list is not a record of internal Judean affairs but rather an administrative document related to the empire's military activities. This is a powerful example of new archaeological evidence providing a compelling explanatory model for a longstanding biblical problem.

Intertext: Allusion (source-critical)—Gass reframes the list in Jer 52:28–30 not as an appendix to 2 Kgs 25 but as an independent Babylonian archival document, a move that enables his interpretive shift.

III. Terminology and Frame Conflicts

The most fundamental conflict between the two hypotheses arises from the interpretive frame applied to the text of the deportation list (Jer 52:28–30). The traditional view treats this list as an integral part of the larger literary and theological narrative of Jeremiah and Kings. Within this frame, the list’s historical information is interpreted as subordinate to the context of the surrounding narrative, namely the story of Gedaliah.

Gass, however, shifts the frame to that of an ‘independent Babylonian administrative document.’ Grounded in the list’s unique linguistic (Babylonian chronology, use of næfæš) and text-historical features (its absence in the LXX), he deliberately decouples it from the biblical theological narrative. This frame shift obviates the need to connect the list to the Gedaliah story and instead opens a path to interpret it within a broader context of coeval international politics—specifically, the administrative and military activities of the Babylonian empire. This conflict in frames ultimately produces a fundamental difference in perspective: one centered on a local event (an assassination) versus one centered on an imperial event (a war).

IV. Convergence and Divergence Points

Both hypotheses converge on the point that Jeremiah 52:30 reflects an actual historical event that occurred in 582 BCE and that Babylon was the agent. Thus, there is agreement on the reality of the event and the identity of the actor.

The decisive point of divergence is the causal trigger. The Gedaliah thesis locates the cause in internal Judean political strife, whereas Gass's hypothesis finds it in an external factor: the geopolitical conflict between Egypt and Babylon. This divergence stems from the different nature of the evidence each prioritizes. The former relies on the internal narrative logic of the biblical text, while the latter gives precedence to external archaeological and administrative data. Gass's argument proceeds by highlighting the chronological inconsistencies within the biblical narrative to expose the weakness of the traditional view, and then uses external evidence to fill the resulting vacuum.

Counterexamples: The circumstantial evidence suggesting Gedaliah's tenure was brief (e.g., the agricultural cycle) functions as a strong counterexample to the thesis that his assassination was the cause of the 582 BCE event.

V. Hypothesis Arena Summary

Evaluating the two competing hypotheses based on data coverage, parsimony, and the cost of counterexamples yields the following:

  • Hypothesis 1 (Gedaliah Assassination Thesis): Parsimonious in its reliance on the biblical narrative alone, but it fails to resolve the critical counterexample of the four-to-five-year chronological gap and carries the burden of unresolved text-critical issues regarding Gedaliah's status. It lacks any connection to external evidence.

  • Hypothesis 2 (Apries Campaign Thesis): It resolves the chronological gap perfectly with new archaeological evidence (the Apries' Stele) and comprehensively explains the list's Babylonian features. While it relies on inference to link the stele's events to a Judean rebellion, its cost in counterexamples is significantly lower and its explanatory power is far superior.

Verdict: The ‘Apries Campaign Thesis’ demonstrates higher probability.

Hypothesis Arena: Hypothesis 1 (internal cause/narrative-based) vs. Hypothesis 2 (external cause/archaeology-based) → Verdict: Hypothesis 2 ‘Probable’ (superior in resolving chronological gaps and in its comprehensive evidentiary coverage).

VI. Summary and Recommendations within Scope

Erasmus Gass's argument is an excellent case study of how a new archaeological discovery can fundamentally alter an existing biblical interpretive frame. By re-evaluating the deportation list as an independent source and connecting it to the Apries' Stele, he successfully resolves the chronological difficulties of the ‘Gedaliah Assassination Thesis’ and presents an alternative scenario with much greater historical probability.

The result of this comparative analysis suggests the methodological importance of re-evaluating the source-value of administrative lists and chronological data within the Bible through comparative verification with independent, external sources, rather than reflexively subordinating them to their surrounding narratives. The organic integration of archaeological finds with textual criticism, in particular, is recommended as an essential approach for future research in the history of ancient Israel.

This report is for Evaluation purposes only and does not contain forecasts, scores, or internal system terminology.

#Hashtags

#ComparativeAnalysis #Jeremiah #Deportation #Gedaliah #Apries #HypothesisTesting #Archaeology

This report was generated by the MSN AI Theological Review System (v8.0).