The Perils of Omnisignificance: Language and Reason in Mesopotamian Hermeneutics

Abstract

The article discusses the Mesopotamian commentary corpus, assesses its intellectual underpinnings, explores its place within Mesopotamia’s scholarly tradition, and addresses the question of whether Mesopotamian hermeneutics should be considered a “philosophical” pursuit. It is argued that the cuneiform commentaries are characterized, on one hand, by certain limitations and, on the other, by an overabundance of interpretational opportunities, and that the answer should therefore be negative; but it is admitted that, depending on what one considers the defining features of philosophy, other views are possible.

Weather Prediction in Babylonia

“…On that account weather phenomena are explained by the astronomical configurations from which they are inferred according to predictive texts. This mode of explanation is in some sense complementary to the hermeneutical, exegetical mode which operates in the other direction by interpreting signs as if they are a form of writing (Frahm 2011: 20-22;Frahm 2018). But how can inferential statements that reflect analogical reasoning serve as explanations without being falsified all the time?…”

Commentaries from ancient mesopotamia: Texts, genres, and hermeneutics

“…There are different approaches to Mesopotamian intellectual history, and these approaches deal with many methodological problems (see Veldhuis, 2014b). In this context, Mesopotamian commentaries were also examined in light of the notions of reasoning and philosophy, resulting in different views (Van de Mieroop, 2018; Frahm, 2018; see also Viano, 2021). For future studies, it could perhaps be relevant that similar questions were also asked regarding other non‐Western commentary traditions, for example, how “philosophical” is the early Indian Mīmāṃsā commentary tradition; see Clooney, 1990, pp.…”