Prophecy, Gastronomic Ghosts, and Oracular Flatulence: On the Substance of Spirit in Ancient Israel and Mesopotamia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main thesis of this study is unsupported by evidence cited.  The author fails to note the role of metaphor in this sources but takes all metaphors literally.   His central idea that 'wind' in both Akkadian and biblical Hebrew is moist or wet remains unsubstantiated.  The author's assumption that we 'must envision' breath as moist is based on the modern evidence for the amount of moisture in the human body, something which ancient scholars would know nothing about.  The role of flatus as 'gastric' was obvious to ancient physicians, but the cited Greek term 'gasteres' for 'bellies' has no relevance to the question, or the related term referring to 'sounds produced by the stomach.'  The author misrepresents the idea of 'wind' (Sumerian IM) as 'divine in origin', since Sumerian for the storm god was ISHKUR (the reading of the sign IM when applied to the deity).  The reference to the 'mouth' of the anus is misunderstanding the semantics of the word 'mouth' as 'opening'.   The idea that wind was associated with ghosts is a misunderstanding of the Atrahasis epic passage, but the presumed connection between ghosts and wind is not clearly explained.  Demons are not equated with wind, as claimed, and the 'hand of the ghost' in medical contexts is a technical term for a symptom, which can be associated with flatulence in medical recipes.  The connection between Akkadian terms for 'wind' and 'rain' is another non-sequitur, since there is no evidence for this.   The fact that Hittites practiced 'fish divination' is another non-sequitur.  I could go on and on regarding Mesopotamian evidence.  Biblical Hebrew evidence is more solid, but here again metaphors from prophetic books are interpreted literally, rather than as figurative language.  The author is attempting to find supporting evidence for a modern idea of the liquid character of expiration which has no traction in ancient literature, either in incantations or in medical recipes which deal with treatments for symptoms. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a highly original and well-researched exploration of the materiality of spirit in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia. By arguing that divine spirit (ruaḥ in Hebrew, šāru in Akkadian) was not merely conceived as an abstract, immaterial force but rather as a moist, vaporous, and even gastric phenomenon, the author opens new avenues for understanding the embodied dimensions of prophecy and divine communication in the ancient Near East. Drawing on an impressive range of sources—biblical, cuneiform, Greek, and comparative traditions—the paper advances a provocative yet textually grounded thesis: that ancient peoples may have perceived wind emerging from the body, including through flatus, as potential carriers of divine messages.

The manuscript's strengths are considerable. It exhibits exceptional philological command and a rare breadth of cross-cultural engagement. The author integrates data from medical and magical texts, ritual practices, and mythological narratives, all while maintaining a clear and coherent argumentative structure. The writing is lucid and scholarly, and the paper makes a significant contribution to the study of ancient religion, spirit belief, and the phenomenology of prophecy. Its innovative focus on "oracular flatulence" is not merely sensational; it is rooted in careful textual analysis and biological observation, offering a compelling case for a more embodied understanding of spiritual agency in antiquity.

That said, there are areas where the manuscript could benefit from revision. First, a brief methodological statement would help frame the paper’s interdisciplinary approach, especially for readers unfamiliar with embodiment theory or material religion. Second, while the Mesopotamian evidence for gastric prophecy is convincing, the biblical parallels are more suggestive than explicit. Acknowledging this more clearly would enhance the argument’s credibility. Third, the author may wish to engage with recent scholarship that also explores the material or affective dimensions of ruaḥ, if only to distinguish the present study’s unique contribution. Additionally, though the paper’s title and terminology are intentionally provocative, a slightly more neutral tone—particularly in the title—might help the work reach a broader audience without diminishing its impact.

Overall, this is an intellectually bold and meticulously argued study that deserves publication. With minor revisions to clarify its framing and temper certain claims, the manuscript stands to make a lasting impact in the fields of biblical studies, ancient Near Eastern religion, and the anthropology of spirit and divination.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf