paradigm_deliberation

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.

A Report on the Deliberation of Interpretive Paradigms Regarding the Third Deportation

I. Paradigm Map

Erasmus Gass’s article stages a conflict between two fundamentally different interpretive paradigms concerning the cause of the third deportation recorded in Jeremiah 52:30. The first is the ‘Narrative-Centric Paradigm,’ which relies on the internal, causal logic of the biblical narrative. The second is Gass’s own ‘Historical-Geopolitical Paradigm,’ which grants priority to external archaeological and administrative evidence.

  • Paradigm 1: Narrative-Centric Paradigm (Traditional View)

    • Core Claim: The third deportation was a delayed punitive action by Babylon for the assassination of its appointed administrator, Gedaliah (Jer 41).

    • Evidence: The sequential arrangement and narrative linkage of events as presented in the final form of the biblical text (Jeremiah, Kings).

  • Paradigm 2: Historical-Geopolitical Paradigm (Gass's Alternative)

    • Core Claim: The third deportation was a swift punitive action against a Judean rebellion, which had been instigated by the successful Levantine campaign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Apries in 583/2 BCE.

    • Evidence: The Apries' Stele (discovered 2011) and the source-critical status of the list in Jer 52:28–30 as an independent document (based on Babylonian chronology, absence in LXX).

Bibliographic Balance: Core (Albertz, Stipp)/Recent (Gass)/Opposing (traditional view)/Non-English/Primary = 5/5.

II. Foundational Presuppositions by Paradigm

The conflict between the paradigms stems less from the evidence itself and more from a fundamental difference in presuppositions regarding interpretive priority. The ‘Narrative-Centric Paradigm’ operates from the presupposition of the ‘primacy of the biblical narrative’s internal coherence.’ From this viewpoint, the list in Jer 52:28–30 must function as a theological-narrative appendix that explains the consequences of the preceding Gedaliah story. Chronological inconsistencies or gaps are therefore considered secondary to the author's theological intent.

In contrast, Gass’s ‘Historical-Geopolitical Paradigm’ is founded on the presupposition of the ‘objective priority of external evidence.’ This perspective holds that the biblical text, like any other ancient source, is subject to critical verification. For objective data such as dates, numbers, and administrative records, external archaeological artifacts with clear dates (the Apries' Stele) and administrative texts (Babylonian records) possess a higher authority in historical reconstruction than a theologically edited internal narrative. This presupposition justifies decoupling Jer 52:28–30 from the biblical narrative and analyzing it as an independent source.

Intertext: Jer 52 is based on 2 Kgs 25 but creates a source-critical fork by independently inserting the deportation list (vv. 28–30).

III. Explanatory Tradeoffs and Costs

Each paradigm presents clear tradeoffs in explanatory power. The greatest gain of the ‘Narrative-Centric Paradigm’ is its ‘interpretive parsimony’; it offers a self-contained explanation based on the final form of the biblical text alone, without recourse to external data. Its cost, however, is fatal: it fails to account for the four-to-five-year chronological gap between the assassination of Gedaliah (587/6 BCE) and the deportation (582 BCE), and it cannot explain the list's distinctive Babylonian features, thereby severely compromising its historical probability.

Defense: It respects the narrative and theological coherence of the final form of the biblical text.
Critique: It fails to resolve, and indeed ignores, the chronological contradictions that arise when confronted with external evidence.

Gass’s ‘Historical-Geopolitical Paradigm’ shows the opposite balance of trade. Its gain is overwhelming. By linking the Apries' Stele (583/2 BCE) to the deportation (582 BCE), it completely eliminates the chronological gap and explains the Babylonian character of the list from its source. It thus excels in ‘data coverage’ and ‘historical coherence.’ The cost of this paradigm, however, is that it requires the deconstruction of the text’s received unity. Treating Jer 52:28–30 as a foreign body inserted into the text creates a theological tension with views that emphasize the Bible as a unified, inspired book.

Defense: It resolves long-standing puzzles with new archaeological evidence and explains the text's unique features.
Critique: It deconstructs the unity of the received text, and the link between the stele and a Judean rebellion remains an inference without direct evidence.
Counterexamples: The 4-5 year chronological gap functions as a decisive counterexample to the Gedaliah thesis; Cost: The collapse of traditional narrative continuity.

IV. Ethical-Theological Risks

The risk of the ‘Narrative-Centric Paradigm’ is that, by pursuing narrative coherence at the expense of historical evidence, it can lead to a ‘historical naivete.’ This makes the biblical account vulnerable to external critiques that might dismiss it as myth or literature with little basis in history.

The risk associated with Gass’s paradigm is more acute. Historical-critical methodologies that deconstruct the biblical text by identifying parts of it as later insertions can provoke hermeneutical anxiety in faith communities that value the Bible’s authority and unity. It can lead to a situation where the ‘interpreter’s reconstruction’ is elevated above the authority of the ‘received text,’ potentially threatening the stability of theological interpretation. Adopting this paradigm therefore requires a mature hermeneutical stance that can hold in tension the provisionality of historical reconstruction and the theological significance of the text’s canonical form.

Ethics-Affect: Consider the impact of historical-critical deconstruction on the reception of the text by faith communities; Mitigation: Respect both the provisional nature of historical reconstruction and the theological meaning of the text’s final form.

V. Deliberation Summary

In summary, the two paradigms for explaining the cause of the third deportation represent the competing values of ‘narrative coherence’ and ‘historical probability.’ The ‘Narrative-Centric Paradigm,’ while parsimonious, is explanatorily deficient, as it fails to resolve a decisive counterexample (the chronological gap). In contrast, the ‘Historical-Geopolitical Paradigm’ proposed by Gass demonstrates overwhelming explanatory power, resolving all existing puzzles with new archaeological evidence. Although it comes at the hermeneutical cost of deconstructing textual unity and relies on an inference to establish its core causal link, its persuasiveness from the standpoint of historical methodology is superior.

In conclusion, Gass’s paradigm qualifies as the most ‘probable scenario’ to date and deserves scholarly support. This deliberation serves as a vivid illustration of how biblical interpretation is a dynamic process, constantly evolving in dialogue with the discovery of external evidence.

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

#Hashtags

#ParadigmComparison #BiblicalHermeneutics #HistoricalCriticism #Archaeology #Jeremiah #Deportation #Apries

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