Berossus and Genesis

[rgprice]

Again, an assumption about what people did not know, the claim, as if it were certain, that all Gen 12ff people knew nothing about Gen 1-11.
Theoretically possible, but hardly demonstrated.

What do you mean "hardly demonstrated"? Please identify any references to Gen 1-11 in Gen 12-Deuteronomy. There are none that I have seen, and many obvious places where such references would have made sense, like the one in my prior post.

We can say with concrete evidence that Gen 12-Deuteronomy shows no sign of knowledge of the text of Gen 1-11, nor even of any traditions related to Gen 1-11.

[Secret Alias]

When the rabbinic literature introduces characters from the Imperial government they all 'understand' and engage with Jewish belief and practice too. Nero is a proselyte, Hadrian, 'Antoninus' are all 'Jewish' or familiar enough with Judaism to debate the 'sages.' This is because the writers themselves are concerned with these things. Hardly any different than Genesis introducing characters that 'already know' Jewish practice.

[Secret Alias]

It's a weird situation today. In former ages we used to accuse scholarship of being 'biased in favor of religion' because 'all of academia' was religious. Now there is a similar things going on with internet scholarship. We have unprofessional (for a lack of a better word) 'atheist scholarship' which has as its agenda to exaggerate the 'contradictions' of religion to essentially 'invalidate' religion. There is no or little difference between Jewish books portraying 'everyone in history' engaging with contemporary Jewish beliefs and practices even before this was likely or possible and the Queens Gambit projecting post-modern secular 'tolerance' values onto a former age.

[StephenGoranson]

There may be no references in Gen 12 ff to all sorts of things, things they knew, things that existed, things that one is free wonder why they didn't include.

[Secret Alias]

Extra-biblical evidence indicates that both Samaritans and Jews knew Berossus by about 250 BCE

This statement seems silly. That a Jew and a Samaritan knew something is one thing. But that 'Samaritans' and 'Jews' knew this universally or to the extent to be influential on 'Samaritanism' and 'Judaism' is downright ridiculous. Come on this is stupid. It's just bending the evidence to support complete nonsense.

[Secret Alias]

Hanging out at this forum you come to the conclusion that people are basically dishonest. What evidence is there that Samaritans in 250 BCE knew ANYTHING, circle jerk masturbation techniques to Berossus? NONE. There's no fucking evidence. Do you know why I know that? Because the earliest Samaritan document is from centuries later. How the hell do make definitive statements about Samaritanism based on a complete lack of evidence. I am very, very, very familiar with Samaritans and their sources. This is absolute bullshit.

[rgprice]

I don't understand this argument. You seem to be arguing that the internal contradictions in the text mean something. We have similar contradictions now when OUR WRITERS compose 'historical period pieces.' 'Everyone' seems to accept gay characters, Jews, blacks, women's rights. The characters 'know' that equality, humanity is the right path. The author of Genesis was just projecting the biases of his age in the same way that the writer of the Queen's Gambit made the main character subscribe to gay tolerance, racial tolerance etc. Human beings live in a room full of mirrors. All they can see is themselves and the biases of their age. Nothing new here.

Oh come on. Under the assumption of the DH, the traditions underlying Gen 1-11 would had to have been known to the Jews for centuries, from possibly as early as the 9th century BCE, or according to some, even earlier. So under this model stories about Adam and Noah would have been a part of Semitic culture for hundreds of years. You propose that the Pentateuch was produced in the 5th century BCE I believe. If so, and stories about Adam and Noah had been a part of Semitic culture and known to the Jewish priesthood for hundreds of years, then why aren't there any references to Adam or Noah throughout the Pentateuch, other than just in Gen 1-11?

And if you say, "Well, it wasn't relevant or of interest," then I point to dozens of other later Jewish works that certainly find significant interest in these figures. We know that from the 3rd century on, Noah and Adam featured in many Jewish narratives and stories.

But you really think its reasonable that while explaining the origin and need of laws, when laying out sacrificial protocols, when discussing the uncleanliness of women, that there would have been no occasion at all to refer back to the traditions found in Gen 1-11? Give me a break!

Seriously:

Lev 12 : 1Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying:

‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. 3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.

Really, there was no need at all to tie this back to Eve? I mean come on. With all of the talk about the uncleanliness of women in the Torah, there was not one single occasion to link this uncleanliness to Eve? Unfathomable.

[Secret Alias]

I'd even go to the extent to argue that the destruction of Samaritan documents under Commodus HELPED the conservative 'world view. There may have been Samaritan knowledge of Berossus. Sure. Why not. Maybe there was one educated Samaritan writer. Or two or three. But to extrapolate from this that 'Samaritanism' as such was influenced by this writer. Come on. At some point there has to be some context. We just don't know a lot about Samaritanism before Marqe and we know very little about Marqe. Mention is made about a 'Dositheos' But we don't know very much about him either. And now in the middle of all this historical darkness we're going to say that 'Samaritans' knew Berossos and their religion was influenced by him. This is a von Däniken level inference.

[Secret Alias]

Gen 1-11 would had to have been known to the Jews for centuries

Why? Do you hear yourself? 'Jews.' The Tetrateuch doesn't know of the existence of 'Jews' only sons of Judah. There is no Jerusalem or 'Judaism' in the Torah. Now why would a document written by Jews not mention any special interest in Jerusalem if within a generation Jerusalem is to be the center of the religion. It's fucking stupid. It took time for Judaism and Jerusalem to emerge. You just don't enough about the sources, history and the context to jump on a revisionist bandwagon like this.

[Secret Alias]

This is a stupid theory.

The Tetrateuch only knows Gerizim and assumes that on the top of the mountain is a Persian garden called by a Persian name pardes.

In what fucking universe would a bunch of Alexandrian Jews 'forget' about Jerusalem and write a text which invokes Gerizim as the center o the universe and then a massive heresy emerges where a bunch of 'Jews' pops up a generation later living in a desert monastery focused on 'Jerusalem' even though this place isn't even mentioned in the founding document. It's totally untenable. A non-starter. Bye.