Conceptualizing a Priestly World: Past, Present, and Future in Hellenistic Babylon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Global impression

This is a good, well-informed and rigorous article, which looks back at research themes, essentially Late Babylonian Priestly Literature and the astrologisation of divination, presenting them individually and linking them to rituals dating from the late Hellenistic period. The reflection is based on Frances Reynolds' study, A Babylon Calendar Treatise: Scholars and Invaders in the Late First Millennium BC. The aim was to look back at what “divination” might have meant in an intellectual world where astronomy enabled prediction, but also to reflect on the place of Babylonian scholars working for the sanctuaries at a time when the king was no longer from Babylonia. On page 3, the aim of the article is clearly expressed, and on page 11, the author sums up the purpose of his work in a few sentences: “As argued above, the Treatise draws together all the several strands of the Babylonian priests' intellectual interests from history over mythology to astronomy, instrumentalizing them for their ritualistic project of appeasing Marduk. (...)

 

A few comments

On the question of ritual writing dates and the end-of-archive phenomena

It is a fact that we possess only a few rituals, that they date from the end of the Hellenistic period, and that they undeniably incorporate many late elements, as the author clearly reminds us (see for example p. 7 above). There is, however, one point that I feel should be borne in mind: the question induced by the end-of-archive phenomena. We have no earlier documentation similar to that of the second century in Babylon that can be compared with it perhaps because archaeological funds due to this phenomenon. It is therefore difficult to know whether these texts are complete late creations or adaptations and evolutions of earlier prototypes. All the more so as we are not strictly within the framework of the iškāru and even these works were not written in the Hellenistic period as in previous ones. In fact, this does not call into question the demonstration, but readers could usefully be reminded of this point of method.

-p. 8 bottom: Pirngruber’s 2013 percentages are very interesting, but we have many more diary entries for the second century than for the third, which makes it difficult to use these results.

 

On the question of the relationship between the kings and the Babylonian sanctuaries

- p. 4: the author says ‘This royal support should not be overestimated, however, and was short-lived, seen soon, Greek-style institutions were installed in the city that took over governorship (...)". The change in institutions did not mean, however, that the servants of the sanctuaries lost all influence (see below). Moreover, the royal power relied on the sanctuaries from 331 to 169 b.c. 162, which is not a short time. Once again, this does not call into question the author's reflections, but it does show that the developments he is studying were also part of a favourable period in the history of the sanctuaries.

On the place of the servants of the Esagil after the poliadisation under Antiochos IV

- p. 2 below: social marginalization does not seem to me to have been demonstrated, since we do not know whether or not the priests of Esagil were able to integrate into the new body of citizens. As the Babylonians of the Esagil were not opposed to Greco-Macedonian culture, there is no reason to think that these people individually did not form part of the citizenry. This is, however, the opinion of R. van der Spek, with good arguments. Nevertheless, none of them is definitive especially as the scribes of the diaries deliberately placed themselves outside the two groups (Babylonians and puliṭānu) in their reporting of events. Furthermore, the question of the civic sanctuary has not been yet settled, and it could be that Esagil had this function, placing it at the heart of the new foundation's activities. What would be the point of excluding a docile local elite from the running of the cities, an elite that was well acquainted with Hellenism in terms of its relationship with power? On the other hand, the adoption of Greek-style institutions could have opened up the civic body to other elites who had hitherto had no opportunity to express themselves. Esagil lost its power but maybe not all the Babylonian priests.

note iv: the Parthian conquest should be dated back to 141, even if the Seleucids subsequently attempted unsuccessful military operations. Moreover, perhaps more than poliadisation, it was the transformation of Babylonia into a military frontier and battlefield over several decades that may have dealt a terrible blow to the power of the sanctuaries.

 

A few suggestions for further bibliography

- note viii: Briant, P. et Joannès, F. (dirs), 2006, La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques, De Boccard, Paris.

- note xi: on the use of Greek and Aramaic writings in Babylonian sanctuaries in the Hellenistic period, Clancier, Ph. 2005, “Les scribes sur parchemin du temple d’Anu”, RA 99, p. 85–104.

- note xiii : the founding article on this issue is Waerzeggers, C. 2003–2004, “The Babylonian revolts against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’”, AfO 50, p. 150–173.

- note xiv: on works on Esagil/Etemenanki during Alexander, see Monerie J. 2018, L’économie de la Babylonie à l’époque hellénistique, SANER 14, Boston – Berlin, p. 98–100 (with textual attestations).

- p. 4 bottom: for non-royal inscriptions from earlier periods, we can perhaps make a note by giving those from Šamši-ilu et Nergal/Palil-ereš for instance? (RIMA 3).

- p. 6: on the ahu-rabû and to nuance the humiliation of the king of Babylon, see SAA 20, 7, l. i. 27’–28’ where the king of Assyria suffered something close to. It should be noted, however, that the text is in a very damaged state. Debourse 2019 has revisited the question, taking the view that there is a difference in nature between Babylonian and Assyrian rituals, although this does not close the debate.

 

Details

- p. 2, n. ii: to put p. 1 first line of introduction after the first date.

- p. 4 and note xv: I think this comment is too general. It would be necessary either to demonstrate the persistence of these phenomena by listing them in a note, or to delete it.

 

Conclusion

I'd like to say that I enjoyed reading this article and thank the author.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for this review of our article “Conceptualizing a Priestly World: Past, Present, and Future in Hellenistic Babylon.” We are grateful for your insightful feedback and especially for the bibliographical suggestions, all of which we have adopted. We have also taken your note about the periodization of the Parthian period at heart.

Best wishes,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

it is an interesting and well structured paper. I only have two minor suggestions to polish it before publication:

1. In the reference list please write the complete names of the journals, e.g. Journal of the American Oriental Society instead of JAOS.
2. Endnotes make the reading rather uncomfortable. I would advise to incorporate them into the main text, especially given that some of them contain sources you quote.

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for this review of our article “Conceptualizing a Priestly World: Past, Present, and Future in Hellenistic Babylon.” Unfortunately, we are tied to the journal’s requirement to work with endnotes instead of footnotes.

Best wishes,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While I would not recommend any changes in this well-argued paper, I think the author might wish to consider, in any future studies, that the argument is based upon what we now have in terms of sources, but not on what actually existed at the time.  The priest-oriented textual record described here may represent archaeological accident, since it is certain that the bulk of cuneiform archives from Babylon remain undiscovered.  It is true that new genres were developing, such as astral medicine / magic, but whether regime change motivated these new genres is difficult to say.   It is also true that royal patronage for temples no doubt diminished in late periods under Persian regimes, but popular skeptism of traditional religious roles may have influenced some of the changes in late periods.  In any case, this is a thoughtful paper.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for this review of our article “Conceptualizing a Priestly World: Past, Present, and Future in Hellenistic Babylon.” We take your thoughtful comment about the accident of the archeological record at heart for further studies.

Best wishes,