The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia and Their Relation to Early Hebrew Exegesis
Abstract
Commentaries from ancient Mesopotamia, written in cuneiform script and in the Akkadian language, are known from the eighth century B.C.E. up to the last centuries B.C.E. The article investigates the authority of the texts about which commentaries are known, often considered canonical and divine, vis-a-vis the authority of the commentaries themselves, considered oral tradition transmitted by scholars. This is comparable to the authority of the biblical texts that serve as the base for early Jewish interpretations, and to the authority of the commentaries containing these interpretations, both in Qumran and in early Rabbinic literature. The article also surveys and analyzes various hermeneutical terms and techniques found in ancient Mesopotamian commentaries in relation to early Jewish commentaries. In addition, the article discusses the pesharim from Qumran in their divinatory context, in light of omen interpretations from Mesopotamia which use the noun pisru.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Along with a shared layout and associative strategies, lexical and certain exegetical texts are both denoted as ṣâtu in the scholarly tradition, a term whose exact meaning is uncertain.”
From New Approaches to Commentary Formation in Ancient Mesopotamia (2021) · cites this paper as Gabbay 2012: 272-73 n. 13
In the citing paper
“Before this commentary tradition existed in a written form, it almost certainly existed, and was transmitted, orally.”
From New Approaches to Commentary Formation in Ancient Mesopotamia (2021) · cites this paper as Gabbay 2012
In the citing paper
“Scholars have isolated two main factors that laid the groundwork for the advent of the commentary tradition in Mesopotamia: the institution of divination and a tradition of bilingualism typified by lexical literature.”
From New Approaches to Commentary Formation in Ancient Mesopotamia (2021) · cites this paper as Gabbay 2012: 271-74
In the citing paper
“The best evidence for this is the related phrases 'oral lore' and 'according to the scholar' (Akk. šūt pî and ša pî ummāni ; literally, 'those of the mouth' and 'of the mouth of the scholar') applied to Mesopotamian commentaries”
From New Approaches to Commentary Formation in Ancient Mesopotamia (2021) · cites this paper as Gabbay 2012
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
New Approaches to Commentary Formation in Ancient Mesopotamia
Wainer, Z. (2021) · Journal of the American Oriental Society · doi:10.7817/jameroriesoci.140.1.0143 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Gabbay, U.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Gabbay, Uri
- ORCID
- Gabbay, Uri
- Venue
- Dead Sea Discoveries
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 267-312
- ISSN
- 0929-0761 (ISSN-L)
- 1568-5179
- OpenAlex
- W2017843047
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 11.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Dead Sea Discoveries (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Near East History
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
- Keywords
- rabbinic literature, hermeneutics, cuneiform tablets, oral tradition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review