Berossus and Genesis

[StephenGoranson]

Genesis 1-11 has long been regarded as providing a cosmogony, a theology, and an anthropology, prior to national stories. (No mere prequel.)
There are parallels from Mesopotamia, to which Israel is closer than Greece is.
Good that rgprice begins to see worth in comments by Andrew.
Gmirkin's 2006 book overestimated some proposed influences and underestimated Hebrew creativity. If Plato could be creative, so could Hebrews, unless one is blinded by a priori bias.
Gmirkin wrote that some in Judaea and Samaria knew Berossus by about 250, breaking his rule of being sceptical of earlier (270s) unattested suppositions.
Nations typically do not go to a foreign language Readers Digest type book (Berossus) to determine their self-identity.

Gmirkin selectively oversimplified, like some others wishing to claim a history discovery that is so new.

[Secret Alias]

The essential parts of the Torah for observant believers were the laws which governed the cultus. Stories about Noah and Abraham interest us but were not likely have been worth a 'special trip' to Alexandria as they weren't essential to the functioning of the cultus. The parts of the text which are essential for the carrying out of the cultus show little signs of Hellenism or Greek influence. I don't think Genesis does either. But that's been argued here. But the un-Greek character of what is essential to the Torah is important for determining whether or not the document as a whole can be attributed to being created 'from Greek source material.' Seems far fetched to me to see Leviticus as being influenced by Plato.

[andrewcriddle]

The biblical writer had knowledge of the Mesopotamian account of the Deluge, as seen in the detail of Noah sending birds to find land (as in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Berossus), but as the name Japhet persists he also must have had knowledge of the Greek version. In Gen 10:2-5, Japhet is the father of Ion, ancestor of the Greeks (though pronounced ‘Yavan’ by the Masoretes and ‘Yovan’ by the Septuagint, the Hebrew consonants yod-waw-nun spell ‘ION’). Ion appears in the Greek tradition as a direct descendant of Deucalion (and hence of Japhet too; see Herodotus 1,146; V, 66; Euripides’ Ion), and as the eponymous ancestor of the Ionian Greeks. The traditional Greek genealogy is compressed in Genesis, making Japhet Ion’s father. Whenever Genesis was written, these verses demonstrate that the author possessed knowledge not only of the Greeks but also of their mythical genealogies.

----

The name Japet is neither found in the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics nor in Berossus; it comes from the Greek tradition. Moreover, after coming out of the ark Noah blesses Shem and Japhet, and foretells how Japhet will expand and dwell in the tents of Shem (Gen 9:27). As discussed in the Introduction, this is a prophecy deliberately pointing to the period of the Greek conquest of the Near East. Both the prophecy and the Greek etymology of the name Japhet indicate the time of writing of Genesis in the very first chapters.

Wajdenbaum, Philippe. Argonauts of the Desert: Structural Analysis of the Hebrew Bible. London ; Oakville: Equinox, 2011. p. 75, 105

In the Greek tradition Iapetos (whom some have identified with Japhet) is an ancestor of Deucalion (the Greek Noah figure) and hence an ancestor of all Deucalion's children. The relation to the Hebrew narrative is not IMO close.

Andrew Criddle

That the same name is an ancestor in one myth and a descendant in another is an interesting variation that raises the same questions Claude Lévi-Strauss explored in works such as The Raw and the Cooked. Myths are not copied exactly from one culture or tribe to another but vary "like music" variants.

The Greek Japheth was the ancestor of all Deucalion's children, but in the Hebrew variant a non-Greek had to be the ancestor of all humanity for obvious reasons, and the Greek name reduced to one of the various tribes, as distinct from being the all-inclusive tribe. This is the kind of variation that anthropologists have observed happens when myths are copied and adapted to suit the function appropriate to the new ideology.

a/ the connection is dubious.
b/ Since Iapetos is probably Semitic in origin the direction of dependence would be unclear.
See East Face of Helicon

Andrew Criddle

[StephenGoranson]

Gmirkin 2006 claimed Genesis drew on Babylonian texts transmitted in Greek by Berossus.
Gmirkin later version--no, check that, Genesis drew on Greek not Babylonian sources, from Greek Plato.
Hard job for a parrot to switch with?

[neilgodfrey]

a/ the connection is dubious.
b/ Since Iapetos is probably Semitic in origin the direction of dependence would be unclear.
See East Face of Helicon

Andrew Criddle

East Face of Helicon is one of my favourite books:

His name seems non-Greek— as are those of most Greek gods—and moreover strangely reminiscent of the biblical Japheth. The identification has been suggested since the Renaissance. So far as phonology goes, it seems perfectly plausible. The Greek form is iapetos. The Hebrew form is Yépet, pre-pausal Yāpet, which ought to go back to an earlier *Yaptu; in Phoenician we might expect *Yap(e)t. It is possible that the name might have been taken over in Greek as Iapet-os and that in hexameter verse the initial i was lengthened metri gratia.On the other hand, it is difficult to see any significant point of contact between the Titan and the son of Noah. Until one is established, the equation must remain in doubt. (289f)

As mentioned above, I think the theory of borrowing and adaptation of myths of Claude Lévi-Strauss does open a likely connection -- not of itself, but if one accepts a Hellenistic provenance for Genesis. Of course, if one does not accept that then the whole question is moot. Hellenistic dating does not depend on the interpretation of Japheth! But that Judeans should demote the Greek figure is surely a potential explanation for what we read in the Genesis account.


------

Added later ---

I said above that the question is moot if one does not accept a Hellenistic dating of Genesis. I overstated that bit. Some scholars do posit a link while dating Genesis early -- and I think I cited at least one in my original post on this question a few pages back.

[neilgodfrey]

You don't even know what it is you are arguing against. You jump to conclusions about what you think others must be saying or motivated by

You just don't want to go where I am going.

Amen!!!

When you seriously engage with the scholarship that disagrees with your Samaritan hangups let me know.

[neilgodfrey]

It seems like Neil is now also introducing scholarship which argues against Mesopotamian influences on Genesis 1-11. This would also counter Gmirkin's case. I'm not sure I buy such arguments (or that I necessarily fully understand them at the moment).

Are you referring to the Septuagint scholars I quoted earlier -- such as Dafni?

Just in case, I should add that I don't discount the Mesopotamian influence on Genesis 1-11. But I do think that there is more than the Mesopotamian influence. I will be blogging soon on Genesis 1:26-27, the creation of humankind, and will be addressing there what I have been uncovering in the literature not only Greek influence but Egyptian, too -- as well as Mesopotamian.

Geeze -- it's good to see some other people are reading this thread. I will try to keep that in mind and just ignore the SA snd SG pesky flies who keep buzzing around here.

----

added later.....

What really piqued my interest in a potential Greek influence in Genesis 1-11 was my decision to sit down and take the time to read Plato's Laws after various comments made by Philippe Wajdenbaum in his Argonauts book. Ever since high school when I was given a free paperback copy of Homer's Iliad I have been struck by the numerous "points of contact" ("parallels") between Greco-Roman literature and the Bible, especially the OT. They are literally "everywhere". As an undergrad I did once ask my professor about one such striking "link" and he just smiled as if to say, "that's interesting, but we don't discuss such things here". I have since learned that scholars do discuss those things. But they are not always in the forefront of biblical studies courses. But I can highly recommend to anyone interested a reading of Laws -- not only for the myth of civilization's origins but even for the ethics codified throughout the Pentateuch.

[Secret Alias]

your Samaritan hangups let me know.

Case in point.

[StephenGoranson]

Wondering about influences from various sources is fair, especially if the possibility of some amount of original creativity is also in the mix, at least potentially.
Calling people one disagrees with flies may be less than helpful.
Concerning making comparisons, maybe of interest to some here is an essay by Jonathan Z. Smith, available online:
"In Comparison a Magic Dwells"
https://classics.osu.edu/sites/classics ... Dwells.pdf

[neilgodfrey]

Anyone interested in following up further discussion concerning the Japheth Greek-Genesis link, an article by Bruce Louden is currently accessible at https://sci-hub.se/10.5406/illiclasstud.38.0001 -- Louden draws findings from a range of sources to identify four connections:

• the corresponding names, Iapetus / Japheth,
• the altered sequence given of the punished sons,
• the connection with the eponymic Ion / Javan,
• and the closely corresponding wordplay.
  
  (p. 19)

Louden in part explains the similarities in terms of a shared culture, via Phoenicians, for example.