Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] The Garden of Eden has been found!!!!!

Expand Messages
  • Tory Thorpe
    ... In an earlier thread I proposed Berossus as a possible source for the (Hellenistic) tradition of the four rivers at Gen. 2:14. Tory responded: You are
    Message 1 of 33 , Jun 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- RUSSELLGMIRKIN@... wrote:

      In an earlier thread I proposed Berossus as a possible
      source for the (Hellenistic) tradition of the four
      rivers at Gen. 2:14.

      Tory responded:

      You are suggesting that a literary source such as the
      Babylonaica in Greek, but written by a native of
      Mesopotamia, somehow influenced the composition of
      the Hebrew text of Gen. 2:14. But it is Tigris that
      appears in the description of the prologue of
      Berossus' lost work: "He begins by saying that the
      land of the Babylonians lies between the Tigris and
      Euphrates rivers" (FGrH 273). So this is not a likely
      source for Hiddekel in the Hebrew text.

      As a footnote to that discussion, I was reading Pliny
      today and I came across the following interesting
      passage: "But some statement about the Tigris itself
      may also be suitable here. The source of the Tigris
      is in a region of Greater Armenia, and is clearly
      visible, being on level ground; the name of the place
      is Elegosine, and the stream itself in its
      comparatively sluggish part is named Diglitus, but
      where its flow accelerates, it begins to be called
      the Tigris, owing to its swiftness - tigris is the
      Persian word for an arrow" (NH 6.31.127).

      This passage combines references to Tigris and Diklit
      in a Graeco-Roman source. (Pliny was of course Roman,
      but utilized many Greek historians and geographers.)
      Pliny here is likely drawing on several sources. One
      major source used by Pliny for this region (and
      extensively throughout book 6) was Juba of
      Mauretania, who wrote about this area in books on
      Arabia (which included portions of Mesopotamia) and
      Assyria. The latter book in turn drew directly on
      Berossus. Besides the Babylonians, the Babyloniaca
      also dealt with the later Persian kings, customs and
      such. So there is a case to be made that the mention
      of Tigris (with its Persian derivation) and Diklit in
      Pliny came from Berossus by way of Juba of Mauretania.


      Best regards,
      Russell Gmirkin


      Regardless how 'Diglitus' found its way into Pliny,
      and your theory, in my opinion, seems reasonable but
      speculative, it is important to note that the Hebrew
      Hiddekel with initial laryngeal would seem to preserve
      the earliest form of the name (IDIGNA in Sum., Idiqlat
      in Akk.) whereas deqlat in Aramaic, for example, does
      not. So without further speculating that Berossos used
      the earlier form but Juba drawing upon Berossus did
      not, therefore Pliny drawing upon Juba did not, the
      evidence available at present does not support that
      Berossos was ultimately the source of the Hebrew name.


      Tory Thorpe
    • Tory Thorpe
      ... In an earlier thread I proposed Berossus as a possible source for the (Hellenistic) tradition of the four rivers at Gen. 2:14. Tory responded: You are
      Message 33 of 33 , Jun 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- RUSSELLGMIRKIN@... wrote:

        In an earlier thread I proposed Berossus as a possible
        source for the (Hellenistic) tradition of the four
        rivers at Gen. 2:14.

        Tory responded:

        You are suggesting that a literary source such as the
        Babylonaica in Greek, but written by a native of
        Mesopotamia, somehow influenced the composition of
        the Hebrew text of Gen. 2:14. But it is Tigris that
        appears in the description of the prologue of
        Berossus' lost work: "He begins by saying that the
        land of the Babylonians lies between the Tigris and
        Euphrates rivers" (FGrH 273). So this is not a likely
        source for Hiddekel in the Hebrew text.

        As a footnote to that discussion, I was reading Pliny
        today and I came across the following interesting
        passage: "But some statement about the Tigris itself
        may also be suitable here. The source of the Tigris
        is in a region of Greater Armenia, and is clearly
        visible, being on level ground; the name of the place
        is Elegosine, and the stream itself in its
        comparatively sluggish part is named Diglitus, but
        where its flow accelerates, it begins to be called
        the Tigris, owing to its swiftness - tigris is the
        Persian word for an arrow" (NH 6.31.127).

        This passage combines references to Tigris and Diklit
        in a Graeco-Roman source. (Pliny was of course Roman,
        but utilized many Greek historians and geographers.)
        Pliny here is likely drawing on several sources. One
        major source used by Pliny for this region (and
        extensively throughout book 6) was Juba of
        Mauretania, who wrote about this area in books on
        Arabia (which included portions of Mesopotamia) and
        Assyria. The latter book in turn drew directly on
        Berossus. Besides the Babylonians, the Babyloniaca
        also dealt with the later Persian kings, customs and
        such. So there is a case to be made that the mention
        of Tigris (with its Persian derivation) and Diklit in
        Pliny came from Berossus by way of Juba of Mauretania.


        Best regards,
        Russell Gmirkin


        Regardless how 'Diglitus' found its way into Pliny,
        and your theory, in my opinion, seems reasonable but
        speculative, it is important to note that the Hebrew
        Hiddekel with initial laryngeal would seem to preserve
        the earliest form of the name (IDIGNA in Sum., Idiqlat
        in Akk.) whereas deqlat in Aramaic, for example, does
        not. So without further speculating that Berossos used
        the earlier form but Juba drawing upon Berossus did
        not, therefore Pliny drawing upon Juba did not, the
        evidence available at present does not support that
        Berossos was ultimately the source of the Hebrew name.


        Tory Thorpe
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.