Plato’s Influence on the Bible’s Property and Agricultural Laws

14 thoughts on “Plato’s Influence on the Bible’s Property and Agricultural Laws”

1. Gmirkin, pp. 119f is rather puzzling: “the apparent absence of archaeological parallels [of boundary stones] in ancient Mesopotamia or ancient Israel and Judah. …….suggesting that the use of boundary stones in Judah was a Hellenistic Era development taken over from the Greeks.”
   The use of boundary stones is archaeologically well demonstrated in ancient Egypt, Babylonia, Phoenicia etc. long, long before the Greek/Hellenistic era!
   Hence, Judah and ancient Israel did not have to look at the Greeks to introduce the concept of boundary stones: they had already encountered the Babylonian and Egyptian culture centuries earlier.

   Regarding the absence of archaeological evidence of boundary stones in ancient Israel and Judah: Gmirkin appears to assume that boundary stones are identifiable by their inscriptions. The Tel Gezer stones fit in this category. It has been found that most boundary stones in ancient Israel and Judah (and also in Phoenicia) did NOT carry inscriptions*. Obviously, this makes it very difficult for archaeologists to identify and recover these stones as boundary stones. A clear case of ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

   This leaves us with only the parallel “Allowing passers-by to eat produce from a field”. This title is rather misleading: the Hebrew bible does not address ‘passers-by’ but the poor and foreigners living among the Israelites. Plato does clearly focus on the ‘foreigner …as he passes along the road”. No mention of the poor, or foreigners sojourning in the land. Hence the subjects of the ‘laws’ clearly differ. And the whole rationale differs too: in the Hebrew bible, the law is about sharing wealth with the poor and needy. In Plato, it is about gifts of hospitality. Scoring these passages as ‘parallels’ stretches the concept of ‘parallel’ too far for me.

   *: see e,g. https://wisdomintorah.s3.amazonaws.com/medialibrary/Standing-Stones-in-Ancient-Palestine.pdf, page 35

   Reply

   1. I also have questions about ancient boundary stones and their use, if any, in the ANE. I had thought they were a common archaeological find going back millennia, but I don’t have any confirmation of that “memory” at hand.

      I think Gmirkin is not relying so much on his own analysis of the inscriptions on the stones but rather on other scholars’ analyses and conclusions. That’s the impression I get from his very copious footnotes that are necessary to follow up in order to get to the details behind some of the statements in the book.

      I hope by presenting all the relevant evidence I cannot be accused of misleading anyone: as you yourself can see from the complete quotations I provided, the point in common between Plato and the Pentateuchal law is that the foreigner can glean from the field. Yes, other details vary. I am glad I provided sufficient information so that you at least were not misled 🙂

      Reply

   2. The paper you mentioned writes in p. 38

      “The kudurru stones of Babylon were a type of boundary stone.”

      Based on this he makes his claim.

      Gmirkin is using Slanski’s work about (kudurru)* which states this in p. 95-96:

      “Classification plays a primary role in any research, and since the time of their publication, the objects have been almost uniformly accepted as boundary stones marking the limits of royal land grants. Yet there are features of the artifacts that cannot be reconciled with their alleged function as boundary markers.”

      In Plato’s Laws, there is no poor citizen in the sense of not owning enough land to feed himself. That’s why the population must remain constant and the land always inherited by the kin. In situations of over-population people will go out to create new colonies.

      *-http://www.bu.edu/asor/pubs/jcs/52/slanski.pdf

      Reply

      1. The ‘Stele of vultures’ was discovered among the remains of the ancient Sumerian city of Girsu. It dates from around around 2450 BCE. One of the inscriptions reads: “”Let the man of Umma never cross the border of Ningirsu! Let him never damage the dyke or the ditch! Let him not move the stele!”. This is the oldest example of the use of a stele (stone, or pillar) to mark a border.

         I think we agree that the Hebrew bible and Plato/Greek laws relate to very different situations about giving food away.

         Reply

         1. If those stones are boundary stones, then Elamites expanded the territories of Babylon by moving those stones to their temple!

            See observation number 3 in Slanski p.96

            As for Plato and Laws it seems to me that the Biblical writers interpreted the free man in Laws 8.845 as poor. See 8.845b-d.

            Also in Gmirkin n. 258 is stated : ” Eusebius (Preparation for the Gospel 13.21) considered the biblical law more magnanimous, because a slave who ate premium grapes or fig was liable to a beating in Laws.”

            And indeed there is no mention of the poor in Eusebius, maybe he interpreted it this way too.

            Plato considered the poor as enemies of oligarchy. See for example : Plato and Aristotle on Tyranny and the Rule of Law – http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-26-1-plato-and-aristotle-on-tyranny-and-the-rule-of-law.html

            ” The poor will overthrow the oligarchy and set up a democracy, the rule of the people (the poor). Plato thought that democratic “life has neither law nor order.” An unquenchable desire for limitless liberty causes disorder, because the citizens begin to
            chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority and at length, . . . they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them. ”

            Now you may have to read the Versnel’s Ter Unus first chapter to understand how ” TYRANTS AGAINST TYRANNY” works. :
            https://www.academia.edu/4360430/_-_Inconsistencies_in_Greek_and_Roman_Religion_I._TER_UNUS._Isis_Dionysos_and_Hermes_Three_Studies_in_Henotheism_Leiden_1990_270_pp

            To understand how a tyrant god can be presented as a savior.

            Also it seem to me that the writers of the Hebrew Bible had a program of proselytism through slavery.

            See Gen. 17:13 and 14:9 from Maimonides’ Issurei Biah 14: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960662/jewish/Issurei-Biah-Chapter-Fourteen.htm

            This way they created laws about Israelite servants and they converted the converted to their religion, to Israelite servant.

            Reply

2. Gmirkin, p. 118:

   It was once thought that a Babylonian genre of inscriptions (“kudurru” monuments) that detailed property lines and landowner property rights granted in perpetuity by the king were Ancient Near Eastern examples of boundary stones (King 1912), but these large stone texts, found exclusively in temple archives, are now understood as records of land grants and property transfers. 250

   Endnote 250 (pp. 165f)

   Slanski 2000, 2003. Egyptian surveyors set up new boundary stones on a yearly basis after the inundation of the Nile (cf. Herodotus, Histories 2.109; Strabo, Geography 17.1.3) and Egyptian literature contained several references to the crime of moving these boundary stones. See Lyons 1926:242—4; Berger 1934. But the agricultural context in Egypt was markedly different from the biblical lands and it is difficult to see an otherwise-isolated Egyptian influence in the Deuteronomic provisions on boundary stones.

   • Berger, Suzanne, “A Note on Some Scenes of Land-Measurement,” JEA 20 (1934): 54-6.
   • King, L.W., Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum. London: Oxford University Press, 1912.
   • Lyons, Henry, “Two Notes on Land-Measurement in Egypt,” JEA 12 (1926): 242-4.
   • Slanski, Kathryn E., “Classification, Historiography and Monumental Authority: The Babylonian Entitlement ‘narus (kudurrus)’,” JCS 52 (2000): 95-114.
   • Slanski, Kathryn E., The Babylonian Entitlement narus (kudurrus): A Study in Their Form and Function. ASORB 9. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2003.

   ASORB American Schools of Oriental Research Books
   JCS = Journal of Cuneiform Studies
   JEA = Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

   Reply

3. Slanski, Kathryn E., “Classification, Historiography and Monumental Authority: The Babylonian Entitlement ‘narus (kudurrus)’,” JCS 52 (2000): 96-97:

   Yet there are features of the artifacts that cannot be reconciled with their alleged function as boundary markers. For example: one inscription relates that it is a copy of a text destroyed when a wall collapsed upon it.4 This statement clearly points to an architectural rather than an agricultural provenance. Five initial observations can be marshaled against the designation kudurru “boundary marker” for the objects:5

   1. While the Akkadian word kudurru does mean “boundary,” the inscriptions do not designate the objects with the word kudurru. Rather, the inscriptions of the objects themselves refer to the objects to as, …narü,6 the regular Akkadian term for “(stone) stele” or “(stone) monument.”7
   2. Some of the inscriptions refer to the objects having been erected “in the presence of the gods.” Combined with the passage cited above indicating architectural provenance, these references suggest that the original setting of the objects had been within temples.
   3. Approximately one-third of the objects was found in Susa, capital of ancient Elam, where they had been taken in the aftermath of Elamite raids into Babylonia. It is inconceivable that the Elamite soldiers went scavenging in the fields to pick up boundary markers and carry them home. Moreover, the objects were set up in the main Elamite temple, alongside more spectacular monuments seized in Babylonia. Archaeological and epigraphical evidence indicates that these other trophy objects—such as the Law Stele of Hammurabi8 and the Stele of Naram-Sin—were removed from Babylonian temples.’9 The original Babylonian setting for the objects under discussion should be sought alongside these other artifacts taken from the temples of Babylonia.
   4. Most of the objects have a highly polished, visually appealing surface. The objects do not have the appearance of stones left outside in the elements.
   5. Recent systematic excavations, as well as reinterpretations of earlier, less systematic excavations, have indicated that find spots for some of these objects lie within the architectural remains of ancient temples.10

   In short, these objects were not boundary markers.

   Reply

4. Slanski, Kathryn E., The Babylonian Entitlement narus (kudurrus): A Study in Their Form and Function. ASORB 9. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2003. Page 288:

   In contrast to common modern perception, however, the objects were not known to the ancient Babylonians as ‘kudurru’, ‘boundary’, or, by extension, ‘area enclosed by a boundary’, or ‘boundary marker’. Rather, they were known as narü, a word usually translated ‘stele’, but more fundamentally signifying ‘(stone) monument’. A number of factors support re-assessing the form and function of the so-called “kudurrus” and assigning them to the Mesopotamian typology of ‘monument’ rather than ‘boundary marker’.

   Reply

5. Accepting the view (proposed by Slanski and – earlier- also by others) that kudurru were monuments erected in temples (or in cities) does not establish that boundary stones did not exist in the ANE. The ‘Stele of vultures’ was found in a city, and speaks of a command not to move – another – stele. The other stele is discussed in the context of a a border, and the the dyke or the ditch that indicate the border. The dyke, ditch AND he stele were used to identify the border, hence we should identify this stele (not the stele of vultures) as a boundary stone (or monument).

   Indeed, boundary stones were known (and moved…) in Egypt as well. We can’t dismiss this evidence with a simple ‘the agricultural context in Egypt was markedly different’. What does the ‘agricultural context’ have to do with the issue?

   Slanski (or Gmrikin?) is begging the question when she/he says that ” it is difficult to see an otherwise-isolated Egyptian influence in the Deuteronomic provisions on boundary stones.” Ancient Israel and Judah had frequent contacts with Egypt, so an Egyptian influence is not unexpected.

   Reply

   1. You might be interested in Slanski’s discussion on the Stele of Vultures (Eannatum Stele) in The Babylonian Entitlement narus (kudurrus): A Study in Their Form and Function

      The Eannatum text, concerned as it is with the acquisition and maintenance of land, stresses the inviolability of the land’s borders; as such, the prominent role of borders and boundaries in the inscriptions of the Babylonian Entitlement narüs also finds a parallel in text of the Eannatum Stele. As in the case of the Babylonian Entitlement narüs, the conspicuous border-oriented passages of the inscription may have led early interpreters to think that the monument had been set up upon the field to mark the boundaries of the newly defined territory. Frankfort, perhaps guided by the prevailing misconception that the Babylonian Entitlement narüs had been set up in the fields, contended that both the Stele of Eannatum and the Entitlement narüs stood upon actual land boundaries. In his brief commentary on the Entitlement narüs (“kudurrus”) in The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Frankfort (1970: 130) wrote that:

      the custom of marking the limits of fields by reliefs naming the gods who vouchsafed the permanence of the boundary is very old; we have seen the Eannatum boundary stone set up at the limits of the field which the ruler of Lagash took again from Umma.

      The parallel drawn by Frankfort between the Entitlement narüs and the Stele of Eannatum is apt, but their actual deployment is other than what he had envisioned — the Stele of Eannatum stood in the fields no more than did the Babylonian Entitlement narüs: both were erected in temples.

      In the service of protecting borders, the Eannatum inscription recounts that the ruler of Umma was forsworn “not to transgress the territory of Ningirsu, not to shift the course of its irrigation channels and canals, not to smash its monuments” (after Cooper 1986: 35). Recall that, as noted above in Chapter Three, esp. p. 28, canals function as borders in the field descriptions of the Entitlement narüs. Thus, on the level of form, the series of first- person oaths sworn by the king of Umma is reminiscent of the series of third-person imprecations found in the imprecative divi- sion of the Entitlement narüs. The king of Umma then calls a curse down upon himself if he should break the agreement: “Whenever I do transgress, may the great battle net of GN, …, by which I have sworn, descend upon Umma!” (after Cooper 1986: 35). This formula is repeated five times with five different gods. In its spirit and repetition, the passage is reminiscent of the series of divine curses closing the inscriptions of the Entitlement narüs. (pp. 253-254)

      and concludes with

      Thus, the Eannatum stele provides parallels to the Entitlement narüs in that it is an inscribed and sculpted stone monument commemorating the acquisition of an income-producing (landed) entitlement and proclaiming the inviolability of its borders. Its inscription shares with the Babylonian Entitlement narüs a text that is grounded in legalistic justification for the situation it presents and is intended to safeguard into the future. The Eannatum Stele was set up in a temple. And, as is made explicit by the majority of the names given to the Entitlement narüs, these artifacts were intended to protect the entitlement — not by means of standing on a field boundary to mark it, but by preserving an immutable record of the entitlement’s acquisition and by furnishing divine verbal and visual representations to ensure its perpetuity. (p. 255)

      Reply

6. Slanski only cites a part of Cooper’s translation of the stele of Vultures: ” “not to transgress the territory of Ningirsu, not to shift the course of its irrigation channels and canals, not to smash its monuments”, but then ignores to discuss what is meant by ‘not to smash its monuments’. From, the context, it is clear that these monuments are related to the borders of the land.

   Indeed, in an earlier passage, the text of the stele says: “Eanatum, the man of just commands, measured off the boundary, left (some land) under Umma’s control, and erected a monument on that spot.” (translation by Cooper). I think it is very clear that this monument is erected at the border, and that it is this border monument that should not be smashed.

   The stele now resides in the Louvre. The website of the Louvre describes its texts on its website: the Louvre also interpret the stele’s texts as placing a (second) stele on the border: “Eannatum establishes the border with Umma, on which a stele is erected. But as human undertakings can only prosper by divine favor, it is the latter that is invoked to guarantee the permanence of the new order: “Let the man of Umma never cross the border of Ningirsu! Let him never damage the dyke or the ditch! Let him not move the stele!”” in http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/stele-vultures

   Reply

   1. Why would Slanski have said the stele was set up in a temple? Slanski writes on page 237:

      While the Mesopotamian landscape of the 14th century was not lacking in cultural traditions, it was largely bereft of hard stone. Soft, light-colored limestone was available in southern Mesopotamia, where local white, grey, and yellow-white varieties were used in architecture (see the recent discussion of Potts 1996: 100-2). Surviving stone monuments, however, both royal monuments and Entitlement narüs, seem rarely to be made from this native stone, and the hard stone that was used for monumental expression had to be imported.

      The foremost characteristic of hard stone is its durability and the quality of immutability it lends to inscriptions and images. In Mesopotamian culture, in which an entity is strongly identified with its image, the symbolic meaning of stone as a medium can- not be underestimated. Stone artifacts that have survived—be they vessels, foundation tablets, wall plaques, sculpture in the round, or stelae—were reserved for prominent and solemn roles as votive objects or royal monuments. Stone statuary, for exam- pie, was, according to Frankfort (1970: 45), “intended for temples; the human form was transmitted into stone for the express purpose of confronting the god.” In Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, Moorey (1994: 23) wrote:

      it is important to appreciate that stone sculptures, of whatever size, were to a degree luxuries. Terracotta, even more subject to the depreda- tious of time than stone, was the common medium for statuary and figurines from earliest times through into the first millennium BC. Even the stones most readily available in Mesopotamia, like gypsum and limestone, were overwhelmingly employed for statuary within the great organizations of court and temple; this was not a popular art.

      In other words, “(s)tone was rare and expensive in Mesopotamia and its use for inscriptions was always limited,” (Gelb, Steinkeller, and Whiting 1991: 2). . . . .

      The Frankfort reference is The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient.

      I understand no boundary stones have been found in Mesopotamia and those found in the Levant date from Hellenistic times and are quite crude with simple text markings.

      Reply

      1. Further, from Slanski (pp. 55-59):

         …. inscriptions that record the placement of the narü consistently describe it as having been set up before the gods. . . .

         Archaeological evidence

         In addition to the textual evidence, provenance of the artifacts recovered through controlled archaeological excavation also suggests the temple as their original setting. Information about the recovery of individual artifacts can be found conveniently in the catalogue of Seidl (1989: 19-66, and Nachträge, 221-29), and is summarized in this study’s Appendix 2.

         Of all known complete and fragmentary members of the corpus, including those whose inclusion is defended below in Chapter Six, 21 were found in the course of controlled archaeological excavation in Babylonia. Of these, 15 were found in temples, two were found in what were probably workshops, three were found built into later architectural constructions, and one was found in the ruins of a Neo-Babylonian residence. Not included in this reckoning are five artifacts and fragments in the British Museum that were probably, but not definitely, excavated from temples (see Appendix 2). But we should be aware of the possibility that the artifacts excavated in temples may, in fact, have been found in secondary contexts.

         Archaeological recovery of the stones found in Susa, however, also points toward Babylonian temples as their original setting. . . .

         Although it can no longer be determined precisely where in Susa the Babylonian spoils were set up, the dedication to Insusinak is unambiguous. The secondary Elamite votive inscriptions, combined with the available archaeological evidence, point to a display location associated with the temple of Insusinak.

         Regardless of precisely where they were set up in their new Elamite home, these artifacts originally had most likely been standing in Babylonian temples or temple courtyards. Certainly one copy of the Law Stele of Hammurapi had stood in the Esagila Temple in Babylon (see LH xlvii 59-78, after the edition of Roth 1997: 133-4). The critical point for this discussion is that the artifacts under investigation were found together with the larger monuments and royal sculptures taken from Babylonia to Susa. This suggests that they, too, had been removed from Babylonian temples. Gelb, Steinkeller, and Whiting (1991: 22-3) went so far as to propose that all the Babylonian trophies recovered in Susa had been removed specifically from the Ebabbar temple of Samas in Sippar. Moreover, as Seidl (1989: 73) argued in her iconographic study, it is inconceivable that Sutruk-Nahhunte’s soldiers were out gathering boundary markers scattered throughout the fields of rural Babylonia.17 Hence, we should posit central and public locations for the artifacts taken from Babylonia to Susa, and temples and associated temple courtyards and spaces are likely candidates.

         Additional points about the objects as artifacts can be raised in the context of archaeological provenance. Seidl (1989: 73) observed that only two members of the corpus could have been set into soil without obscuring the lower part of their text and/or their imagery. Many of the stones, at least those that did not experience a second career as grinding stones or door-sockets, are in remarkably fine condition. Their highly polished surfaces speak against the supposition that they could have been standing out of doors and subject to wind, sand, sun, and rain.

         Reply
7. Pingback: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible – |

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.