Structural Analysis

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 Structural Analysis of Jer 52:28–30

I. Edition Spec

This analysis establishes as its primary textual basis the Masoretic Text (MT) of Jeremiah 52:28–30, hereafter “the deportation list,” which is the central text of inquiry in Erasmus Gass’s article. Gass leverages its absence in the Septuagint (LXX) as critical text-historical evidence, thereby arguing for the list’s independent and later insertion. The analysis further references external sources—notably the Apries' Stele discovered at Tell Defenneh in 2011, alongside Babylonian chronicles and provisioning lists—to set the lower bounds of interpretation for the biblical text.

Anchor: Jer 52:28–30 (MT); 2 Kgs 24–25; Apries' Stele (Tell Defenneh, 2011).

II. Textual Variants and Interpretive Forks

Gass’s argument centers on resolving the interpretive forks that arise from structural discrepancies within and beyond the biblical text. The most decisive structural variant is the absence of the deportation list (Jer 52:28–30) in the Septuagint (LXX). Gass builds upon this fact to contend that the list is an independent source, not part of the original narrative of Jeremiah. This variant opens an analytical path to treat the list not as a mere theological addendum but as a source document in its own right.

A second structural discrepancy concerns the number of deportees. Whereas 2 Kings 24 records approximately 8,000 to 10,000 individuals in the first deportation, Jeremiah 52:28 provides the highly specific figure of 3,023. Gass uses this numerical variant to suggest that while the figures in Kings may be schematic or theologically motivated, the specificity of the Jeremiah list points to a foundation in administrative records. Thus, the numerical disagreement between texts functions as a key indicator for differentiating their respective genres (historical narrative vs. official document).

This structural analysis leads to the core interpretive fork regarding the cause of the third deportation. While the traditional interpretation points to an internal narrative cause—the assassination of Gedaliah (Jer 41)—Gass’s focus on the list’s independent and Babylonian character (its dating system, its terminology) allows him to decouple it from the internal narrative. This move enables him to connect the list with an external piece of evidence, the Apries' Stele, thereby generating a novel interpretive possibility. Ultimately, sensitivity to textual structure becomes the decisive catalyst for historical reconstruction.

Variant: Presence in Jer 52:28–30 MT vs. absence in LXX → emphasizes the list’s value as an independent source; Versions: 2 Kgs 24 (c. 8,000 persons) vs. Jer 52:28 (3,023 persons) → creates an interpretive fork regarding administrative precision versus narrative schematization.

III. Language, Semantics, and Discourse

Gass analyzes the linguistic features of the deportation list to reinforce his thesis of a Babylonian administrative origin. The pivotal lexical item is næfæš (נֶפֶשׁ), which, he contends, in this census-like context does not signify the theological concept of ‘soul’ but rather the administrative term ‘person’ or ‘individual,’ irrespective of gender or age. This semantic analysis provides a solution to the problem of the seemingly small numbers, as it confirms the count includes the entire population, not just heads of households or male combatants. Gass further suggests that næfæš may be a loan translation of the Akkadian term napištu (“person”), thus linking the list’s Semitic background to Babylonian administrative practice.

The most significant feature of the discourse structure is the list’s chronological system. Unlike other sections in Jeremiah, the list employs the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar according to the Babylonian accession-year system, not the regnal years of Judean kings. This serves as powerful internal evidence that the document was composed from the perspective of Babylonian imperial administration rather than Judean theological historiography. Language and discourse structure thus compel a generic reclassification of the list from ‘theological history’ to ‘administrative record.’

Conceptual Frame: ‘The deportation list’ = theological narrative (dominant view) vs. Babylonian administrative document (Gass’s position).

IV. Intertext Signals Note

In Gass’s analysis, intertextuality manifests less as literary allusion and more as a matter of source-critical relationship. The relationship between Jeremiah 52 and 2 Kings 25 is a prime example. While both texts share a nearly identical account of the fall of Jerusalem, their decisive divergence lies in the presence or absence of the deportation list (Jer 52:28-30). This is a structural signal suggesting that the editors of Jeremiah, while using the Kings narrative as a template, supplemented it with a separate, independent source.

Another crucial intertextual analysis emerges in his critique of Flavius Josephus. Gass argues that Josephus’s account of a Babylonian campaign against Ammon-Moab and the subsequent exile of Judeans is not an independent historical witness but rather a ‘narrative fulfillment’ constructed by weaving together various biblical passages (Jer 43, 46-49, and 52:30). This demonstrates how an intertextual relationship can represent a reinterpretation of existing information rather than the introduction of new data.

Intertext: Dependence (source-critical)—Jer 52 and 2 Kgs 25 share a narrative framework, but the insertion of the list in Jer 52:28–30 marks a significant source-critical divergence.

V. Summary and Limitations

Through this structural analysis, Gass’s article persuasively argues that the deportation list in Jer 52:28–30 is an independent source document, likely of Babylonian administrative origin, based on its unique textual structure (absence in LXX), numerical system (discrepancy with Kings), and linguistic features (næfæš, Babylonian chronology). By performing this work of structural stabilization, he decouples the list from its traditional internal biblical context (the assassination of Gedaliah) and connects it with external evidence (the Apries' Stele). This maneuver establishes the interpretive lower bound for a new historical scenario: that the third deportation of 582 BCE was a punitive action by Babylon in response to a Judean rebellion instigated by Egypt’s military campaign.

The limitations of this analysis are, however, clear. The scenario Gass posits remains a ‘possible’ hypothesis, not a confirmed fact. The Apries' Stele is fragmentary and does not explicitly mention Judah; the link between the Judean rebellion and the events on the stele relies on logical inference. Therefore, what this structural analysis secures is interpretive stability, not historical certainty. The conclusions at this stage are provisional and await corroboration by further archaeological and documentary evidence.

Conclusion Strength: Probable (The argument for a Babylonian origin of the list is strongly evidenced, but the historical scenario connecting it to the Apries' Stele remains inferential in nature).

---

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

#Hashtags

#StructuralAnalysis #Jeremiah52 #Deportation #TextualCriticism #Septuagint #ApriesStele #Gedaliah

---

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