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

Re: [ANE-2] : Pentateuch question

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    With a no longer existent history on which the Pentateuch and the histories are supposedly patterned being promoted I am reminded of Winston Churchill s
    Message 1 of 100 , Sep 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      With a no longer existent history on which the Pentateuch and the "histories" are supposedly patterned being promoted I am reminded of Winston Churchill's phrase "a riddle wrapped in an enigma" only here it's "a theory based on an unknown." Let's face it. We actually know less about Berossus than we know about the Pentateuch and the "histories" of the Bible. To say that they are based upon Berossus on the basis of the little secondary or even tertiary information we have concerning his work is little less (if it is indeed less) than chutzpah.

      george
      gfsomsel
      _________



      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Tory Thorpe <torythrp@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 12:10:07 PM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] : Pentateuch question

      Thanks Russell. I'm already very familiar with these.
      When you said <<Genesis-Kings is not only modeled on
      Berossus' Babyloniaca structurally. ..>> I assumed this
      meant you went a little further than S. Burstein by
      providing a newer reconstruction of the fragmenta in
      your monograph, which I hope to read soon. Without
      your book in hand one can still hear in your words
      echoes of Burstein: "the book he [Berossus] wrote ...
      became the model for all subsequent attempts by
      Hellenized non-Greeks to explain their culture to
      their Greek neighbors" (SANE 1/5 [1978], p. 6). That
      may be so, but we do not have the text or the
      structure of the actual work, only some idea of
      Polyhistor's abridgement, and this from a lost
      abridgement made by Eusebius.

      Given that Burstein couldn't resist using the word
      "Genesis" in the same volume as the title for
      Berossus' book one - I much prefer Schnabel's less
      provocative "en tei Kosmogoniai" - one should ask to
      what degree did the Septuagint and Jewish literature
      influence Polyhistor and the structure of his
      abridgement of Berossus' lost history? Since the
      original work seems to have been little read in
      antiquity, and interpolated by editors with a
      particular interest in Babylonian history, a second
      question worth asking is was the "structure" of the
      Babyloniaca re-shaped before the time it reached
      Polyhistor? Since we have no text we cannot date it.
      The Near Eastern material in the fragmenta may have
      been an integral part of the Babyloniaca or inserted
      at a late stage.

      The situation remains the same as when Olmstead
      pointed out the weaknesses and epistemological limits
      of the textual tradition (cf. J. A. Brinkman, AnOr 43
      [1968], pp. 34-5). So I remain very skeptical of using
      Berossus to shore up a theory that the Jewish Bible is
      a Hellenistic book. Berossus is definitely inferior in
      his treatment of Neo-Assyrian history anyway (eg.
      Phulos = Pul was the Assyrian name of the Assyrian,
      not Chaldean, Tiglathpileser III and the latter was
      not directly succeeded by Sennacherib) .

      Tory Thorpe

      --- RUSSELLGMIRKIN@ aol.com wrote:

      >
      > Tory,
      >
      > If you are interested in reading the collected
      > fragmenta of Berossus I will
      > refer you to the following:
      >
      >
      > FGrH 680 = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen
      > Historiker (15 vols.;
      > Berlin: Wiedmannsche Buchhandlung, 1923-1969).
      > P. Schnabel, Berossus und die
      > babylonisch- hellenistische Literatur
      > (Leipzig, 1923).
      > S. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus (SANE
      > vol. 1 fasc. 5; Malibu:
      > Undena Publications, 1978).
      > G. Verbrugghe and J. Wickersham, Berossos and
      > Manetho, Introduced and
      > Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient
      > Mesopotamia and Egypt (Ann Arbor:
      > University of Michigan Press, 1996).
      > These will give you good grasp of character,
      > outline, and sources used by
      > the Babyloniaca.
      >
      > Best regards,
      > Russell Gmirkin




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
      Tory, Both Berossus and Genesis-Kings contained a connected narrative including creation, 10 generations before the flood, a deluge account, and a history down
      Message 100 of 100 , Oct 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Tory,

        Both Berossus and Genesis-Kings contained a connected narrative including
        creation, 10 generations before the flood, a deluge account, and a history down
        to the respective fall of the Babylonians under Alexander and the Jews under
        Nebuchadnezzar. This doesn't really depend on the Babyloniaca's title of
        'Genesis' for book 1 (which I think a more likely original to the Latin
        'Procreatio') or 'Kings' for books 2 and 3.

        My only contribution to the reconstruction of the fragmenta is the
        observation that the (disputed) astrological fragments, if authentic, likely appeared
        in a section on Chaldean nomima or customs in book 1. But since the
        astrological fragments did not enter into my argument I did not discuss these matters
        in my book.

        The alleged interpolations in Berossus are a chimera. Lambert's basic
        argument was that since the Enuma Elish had the world start out in water, and both
        Genesis and Berossus had the world start out in darkness and water, and
        Berossus extensively utilized the Enuma Elish in his creation account, that the
        addition of darkness can only have been a Judaeo-Christian interpolation.
        Implicit in this argument is the faulty assumption that Genesis predated
        Berossus. Berossus has a doublet of portions of the creation account, which my book
        extensively discusses, arguing that the feature of darkness was part of the
        (second) "allegorical" interpretation, in which the Enuma Elish was
        interpreted in cosmological terms as a triumph of light (Marduk) over darkness
        (Tiamat), which leaves various traces in the Berossan account. The alleged
        interpolations are thus original to Berossus, and the fact that the Genesis account
        lies closer to Berossus than the cuneiform constitutes an important argument
        of literary dependence on Berossus.

        Best regards,
        Russell Gmirkin

        Thanks Russell. I'm already very familiar with these.
        When you said <<Genesis-Kings is not only modeled on
        Berossus' Babyloniaca structurally...>> I assumed this
        meant you went a little further than S. Burstein by
        providing a newer reconstruction of the fragmenta in
        your monograph, which I hope to read soon. Without
        your book in hand one can still hear in your words
        echoes of Burstein: "the book he [Berossus] wrote ...
        became the model for all subsequent attempts by
        Hellenized non-Greeks to explain their culture to
        their Greek neighbors" (SANE 1/5 [1978], p. 6). That
        may be so, but we do not have the text or the
        structure of the actual work, only some idea of
        Polyhistor's abridgement, and this from a lost
        abridgement made by Eusebius.

        Given that Burstein couldn't resist using the word
        "Genesis" in the same volume as the title for
        Berossus' book one - I much prefer Schnabel's less
        provocative "en tei Kosmogoniai" - one should ask to
        what degree did the Septuagint and Jewish literature
        influence Polyhistor and the structure of his
        abridgement of Berossus' lost history? Since the
        original work seems to have been little read in
        antiquity, and interpolated by editors with a
        particular interest in Babylonian history, a second
        question worth asking is was the "structure" of the
        Babyloniaca re-shaped before the time it reached
        Polyhistor? Since we have no text we cannot date it.
        The Near Eastern material in the fragmenta may have
        been an integral part of the Babyloniaca or inserted
        at a late stage.

        The situation remains the same as when Olmstead
        pointed out the weaknesses and epistemological limits
        of the textual tradition (cf. J. A. Brinkman, AnOr 43
        [1968], pp. 34-5). So I remain very skeptical of using
        Berossus to shore up a theory that the Jewish Bible is
        a Hellenistic book. Berossus is definitely inferior in
        his treatment of Neo-Assyrian history anyway (eg.
        Phulos = Pul was the Assyrian name of the Assyrian,
        not Chaldean, Tiglathpileser III and the latter was
        not directly succeeded by Sennacherib).

        Tory Thorpe







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.