scholarly_argument_reconstruction

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 Reconstruction of Erasmus Gass's Scholarly Argument

I. Argument Map: Core Claims, Warrants, and Evidence

Erasmus Gass's argument unfolds by deconstructing the traditional explanation for the third Judean deportation (Jer 52:30) and constructing an alternative geopolitical hypothesis based on new archaeological evidence. The argument's core proceeds in three stages: (1) elevating the problematic text (Jer 52:28-30) from the biblical narrative to the status of an independent source; (2) exposing the chronological contradictions of the conventional cause (the assassination of Gedaliah); and (3) presenting a new historical scenario that fills the resulting vacuum with external evidence (the Apries' Stele).

Claim 1: The ‘deportation list’ in Jer 52:28–30 is not a theological addendum but an independent source document derived from a reliable Babylonian administrative record.

  • Evidence: The list employs Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years according to the Babylonian dating system, not those of a Judean king. Furthermore, it is absent from the Septuagint (LXX) and records the number of deportees with high specificity (3,023, 832, 745) using the term næfæš.

  • Warrant: When a document inserted within a biblical text exhibits a distinct chronological system, terminology, and text-historical lineage from its surrounding narrative, it suggests the incorporation of an external, independent source.
    Anchor: Jer 52:28–30 (MT); Babylonian Chronicle (BM 21946); Septuagint (LXX) of Jeremiah.
    Defense: This claim offers the most parsimonious explanation for the list’s unique features, thereby liberating the text from the constraints of the theological narrative and establishing a basis for its analysis as a historical source.
    Critique: The possibility that the totals (4,600) or the year number (23) are symbolic cannot be entirely dismissed, and the Babylonian origin thesis still rests on circumstantial evidence.
    Conclusion Strength: Probable (The list’s internal features strongly align with the character of a Babylonian administrative text, a conclusion reinforced by the external evidence of its absence in the LXX).

Claim 2: The traditional hypothesis—that the third deportation was a reprisal for the assassination of Gedaliah—is historically weak.

  • Evidence: Biblical records (2 Kgs 25:8, 25) and agricultural cycles suggest Gedaliah’s tenure likely lasted only a few months in 587/6 BCE. A chronological gap of four to five years therefore exists between his assassination and the deportation in 582 BCE. Evidence for his status as a ‘king’ is also scant.

  • Warrant: An empire’s punitive measures are typically executed in a relatively timely manner following a direct provocation like a rebellion; a delay of several years, without special explanation, diminishes the probability of a causal link.
    Anchor: 2 Kgs 25:8, 25; Jer 41:1.
    Defense: This critique directly targets the weakest point of the established hypothesis—its chronological inconsistency—and powerfully establishes the need for an alternative.
    Critique: One cannot entirely rule out the possibility of unknown political factors that may have delayed Babylon's response.
    Conclusion Strength: Probable (The chronological gap is a significant burden for the traditional hypothesis to bear, and there is no additional evidence to support it).

Claim 3: The Apries' Stele, discovered in 2011, provides the most plausible historical context for the third deportation.

  • Evidence: The stele records a successful military campaign in the Levant by the Egyptian Pharaoh Apries in his seventh year (583/2 BCE), a major geopolitical event immediately preceding the third deportation (582/1 BCE).

  • Warrant: In the political dynamics of the ancient Near East, a military success by a regional power (Egypt) against an empire (Babylon) would typically embolden vassal states (Judah) in the vicinity to revolt.
    Anchor: The Apries' Stele (Tell Defenneh, 2011).
    Defense: This claim resolves the long-standing chronological puzzle with entirely new archaeological evidence, perfectly aligning the biblical record with an external source.
    Minority: An alternative view, following Josephus, could attribute the deportation to a Babylonian campaign against Ammon and Moab, but Gass critiques Josephus’s account as a later reconstruction of biblical texts.
    Conclusion Strength: Hypothetical (As the stele does not explicitly mention a Judean rebellion, the causal link between the two events remains a compelling inference based on circumstantial evidence).

II. Hidden Premises (Enthymemes)

Gass's argument relies on several crucial hidden premises. First, ‘external, archaeologically dated sources take precedence over chronologically ambiguous internal narratives in historical reconstruction.’ He uses the clear date of the Apries' Stele (583/2 BCE) as a lever to invalidate the ambiguous timeline of the Gedaliah narrative. Second, ‘the geopolitical logic of power dynamics operates as a universal constant in the ancient Near East.’ He thus presumes as self-evident the causal link that Egypt’s military success would have triggered a Judean rebellion. This serves as a powerful interpretive framework that allows him to assert historical probability even in the absence of direct textual evidence.

III. Steelman Opposition

The strongest counter-argument to Gass’s thesis would prioritize the ‘internal coherence of the biblical narrative.’ From this perspective, the assassination of Gedaliah was a traumatic event that destroyed the remnant community’s center of gravity, and the authors of Jeremiah and Kings felt an internal necessity to account for its theological and historical consequences. Reading the third deportation as part of this narrative arc respects the final form of the text. The four-to-five-year gap could be explained by a complex, unrecorded political process (e.g., a prolonged struggle between pro- and anti-Babylonian factions). One could argue that the biblical author prioritized the causal connection over strict chronological precision.

IV. Counterexample Handling

The most significant counterexample to Gass's argument is that ‘the Apries' Stele does not mention Judah.’ The link between the Egyptian campaign and a Judean rebellion is therefore inferential, not direct. Gass addresses this counterexample not by refuting it directly, but by self-moderating the strength of his own claim, labeling his scenario as merely ‘possible.’ He implicitly argues that while this connection is inferential, its interpretive cost is far more acceptable than the glaring chronological contradiction of the traditional hypothesis.

Counterexamples: The Apries' Stele does not mention Judah; Cost: Gass’s scenario remains a ‘hypothesis’ based on circumstantial evidence, not a confirmed fact.

V. Actionable Improvements

While Gass's argument is very strong, it could be enhanced through the following measures. First, his hypothesis could be substantiated with material evidence by searching for archaeological strata from the early Babylonian period in Judah that show signs of destruction or instability around 583-582 BCE. Second, even minor corroborating evidence from contemporary Babylonian administrative texts that hints at military or administrative action in the Levant during this period would elevate his scenario beyond a hypothesis. Third, a strengthened intertextual analysis, linking the anti-Egyptian rhetoric in other prophetic books (e.g., Ezekiel) to this specific historical moment, would add further depth to the argument.

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

#Hashtags

#ArgumentReconstruction #ErasmusGass #Deportation #Gedaliah #ApriesStele #BiblicalHermeneutics

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