Berossus and Genesis

[Secret Alias]

How could creation have been added at the end? Why is that likely? Oh it helps a conspiracy theory. That's a good reason.

And just another obvious thing. The Jewish section of this site never had any traffic. Now with the introduction of a conspiracy theory it's the place to be. What changed? Did everyone suddenly develop an expertise in Hebrew and Samaritanism, Judaism or did a nice "tart" just walk into the room and everyone wants to date her? (we can substitute "him" for her for the gay crowd here).

I always tell my son life is boring. If it's exciting chances are it's illusion. Tried and true wins out nine times out of ten. Play the odds and be safe.

[StephenGoranson]

Cultures often develop foundation myths early on. Many have old roots.
DH, though technically singular, covers a wide range of proposals.
Even a small group can have big influence--Judaeo-Christian, say.
Even an individual can have big influence, say (I hope you agree), Johann Sebastian Bach.

[Secret Alias]

The attractiveness of this conspiracy theory and any conspiracy is that it allows people who have no sensitivity, no sense of nuance to think that have 'a handle' on complexity. I've said this now likely a thousand times.

1. the fragments from Qumran come from a period shortly after the proposed dating for the creation of this 'Alexandrian document.' The community is clearly rooted in a Jerusalem-cultus but the document - the Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, Hexateuch - is not. It attests to a Gerizim-based 'faith.' There isn't enough time to explain how this Qumran community managed to get its hands on a document that emerged over centuries and then adapted it for a specifically Jerusalem-based cult.
2. The Hebrew in Deuteronomy is different that the Tetrateuch. Given that Deuteronomy was written later why does it make sense to think that Genesis 1 - 10 was written 'after after'?
3. THIS IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE AGAIN THAT HAS NO FAMILIARITY OF THE NUANCES INVOLVED BUT I'VE MADE THE POINT BEFORE. Deuteronomy was written after the Tetrateuch. So much so that it literally quoted Exodus. Exodus in its original form known to the Samaritans and the Qumran community (and the two powers community) originally contained material which is now only exclusively found in Deuteromony in the MT. Someone subsequently edited Exodus to remove the overlap because I will argue it 'proved' for contemporary heretics that there were two powers. But it also proved that Deuteronomy was guilty of the same plagiarism that we see in Matthew and Luke with respect to Mark.

In light of all of this, why is the fact that no one seems to cite material from the stupidest part of Genesis (with centuries old people, 'giants' etc) outweigh the obvious evidence that Genesis and the other three books of the Tetrateuch were written before Deuteronomy and thus Genesis 1 - 10 couldn't have been added to a 'Pentateuch' which included Deuteronomy? The evidence suggests deletion from Deuteronomy 'was more real' than a 'later' addition to Genesis. It doesn't DISPROVE it. But it's less certain surely.

[Secret Alias]

To repeat:

The historical reality = 1. ten utterances. 2. Gen + Ex + Lev + Num (one book) 3. Deut (which plagiarizes from parts of Ex) 4. Josh

Then at some point the MT edited Deut and removed the direct citations/knowledge of Ex

ALL OF THIS MATERIAL IS 'GERIZIM-BASED' WITH A SET OF ASSUMPTIONS THAT GERIZIM IS HOLY.

What's more holy than placing 'God's home' a pardes at the summit of Gerizim in the shape of a Persian garden? Indeed God keeps 'walking down' from his penthouse apartment at Gerizim to eat and hang out with Abraham WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT HE LIVES AT THE TOP OF THIS FUCKING MOUNTAIN. In other words, Abraham lives in the 'basement apartment' of God's house (Bethel) which is a pardes in the shape of a Persian garden on the top of a fucking mountain. That's why Jacob sees God coming down a stairway here. You need Genesis 1 - 10 to explain the Abraham narrative and why God, Abraham's 'landlord' keeps bumping into him. Why is the best answer that this is 'later' that (3) above other than it helps a silly but interesting conspiracy theory? On the surface at least pardes and a Persian garden are in keeping with a document written in the Persian pre-Hellenstic period? Why go against the plain interpretation of the text here?

The person who wrote this conspiracy like most Biblical scholars didn't bother to investigate the Samaritan reading of the book he was explaining. Big mistake. Boom.

[rgprice]

How could creation have been added at the end? Why is that likely? Oh it helps a conspiracy theory. That's a good reason.

And just another obvious thing. The Jewish section of this site never had any traffic. Now with the introduction of a conspiracy theory it's the place to be. What changed? Did everyone suddenly develop an expertise in Hebrew and Samaritanism, Judaism or did a nice "tart" just walk into the room and everyone wants to date her? (we can substitute "him" for her for the gay crowd here).

I always tell my son life is boring. If it's exciting chances are it's illusion. Tried and true wins out nine times out of ten. Play the odds and be safe.

This has noting to do with "conspiracy theories". The work of Gmirkin is not a "conspiracy theory". It explains a hell of a lot.

If this weren't dealing with the origins of the most popular set of religions in the world, this wouldn't even be controversial. Classists have long recognized these very types of literary development in many other works. It is uncontroversial when talking about Sibylline lore, Orphism, Homeric works, etc.

Yes, Gen 1-11 is a prequel. This is not at all uncommon.

Why should it be controversial to think that "Samaratinism" or "Judaism" or whatever, originated with history that began with Abraham, and then at a later point, a prequel that covered the origin of the world was added?

The thing is, Gen 1-11 is foundational in many ways. Even if you simply look at children's books of Bible stories, a high concentration of those stories come from Gen 1-11. In many ways, Gen 1-11 steals the show of the whole collection. It is very naïve to imagine that the Torah was written sequentially from beginning to end like a novel.

Yet as attention getting as Gen 1-11 is, there isn't a single reference to any of it in Gen 12-Deut. But the writers of Exodus-Deut harken back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all the time. Is it really believable that none of the writers of Gen 12-Deut never saw any occasion to draw upon lessons from Gen 1-11? There were no lessons from Gen 1-11 to be gleaned by the writers of Gen 12-Deut? Not a single one? Nothing about women, nothing about Noah's sacrifices, nothing about which animals went onto the Ark in pairs and which by sevens, nothing about God's promise never again to destroy every living thing, nothing about God's covenant with Noah?

Gen 9 : 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.
7 “As for you, be fruitful and multiply;
Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”

8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 “Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth.

There was no reason at all for the writers of Gen 12-Deut to make any references to this? I mean come on. If these ideas were in fact an integral part of the culture that wrote Gen 12-Deut, surely they would have made some reference to them.

[Secret Alias]

Why should it be controversial to think that "Samaratinism" or "Judaism" or whatever, originated with history that began with Abraham, and then at a later point, a prequel that covered the origin of the world was added?

Because it's all a stupid story EXCEPT FOR THE GEOGRAPHY.

Genesis 1 - 2 there's this fucking place called pardes in the shape of a Persian garden where 'God lives' and man used to live.
Genesis 15f Abraham shows up at the basement of God's house and keeps bumping into this mysterious Man who is God
Genesis 28 or whatever Jacob his grandson finally sees God coming down from his pardes on the top of this fucking mountain to visit 'us'
Exodus 15 God comes from this same mountain to rescue Israel and bring him back to the same fucking mountain
Joshua Israel ends up back at the fucking mountain

I don't care about Berossos or any of this other nonsense. Genesis 1 - 10 is an integral part of the sacredness of the Bethel. There is no Jerusalem in any of this. It's all Gerizim. This is not my interpretation. It is the Samaritan interpretation. The people your conspiracy theorist claims was 'decisively' influenced by Berossos.

[Secret Alias]

'Samaritanism' isn't like Christianity. It is the adherence to the sacredness of a particular place. It is a religion of geography (hence John 4). God lives on the top of Gerizim. Why? Because Genesis tells us so. That's Samaritanism. You can't subtract Genesis 1 - 10 just because it helps a conspiracy theory trying to explain Samaritanism and loop this tradition into a stupid conspiracy theory.

A Samaritan paraphrase of the Torah.

God lives on the top of Gerizim. That's where man was made. God gathered the soil made Adam at his home on the top of Gerizim which was a pardes shaped like a Persian garden and then Abraham was brought to the 'downstairs' of this place became the friend of god and his children and descendants kept bumping into God here because they were allowed to live in God's house or property (Dositheans). Eventually the descendants of Abraham were taken into captivity in Egypt but God left the mountain to rescue them and in the Song of Exodus 15 PROMISES TO BRING THEM BACK TO HIS MOUNTAIN WHERE HIS HOUSE IS. The Hexateuch was written as if that promise to go back to Gerizim was ultimately fulfilled.

You can like a conspiracy theory better. But it has nothing to do with Samaritanism. Does not explain the development of the Jewish scriptures and the Jewish religion from this Samaritan core. Hence it's worthless as a historical explanatory tool. This process necessarily took centuries as Judaism has completely abandoned the original principles of this document (i.e. the sacredness of the mountain where God lives).

[Secret Alias]

If you read modern critical interpretations of the development of the Torah. They always assume a Samaritan core. We used to ignore the Samaritans. And Gmirkin's theory only seems to incorporate them superficially. To his detriment and the detriment of his theory. Gmirkin no less than 90% of the scholars assumes 'Jewish principles' of Biblical exegesis. The Samaritan exegesis of the Torah is so tight, so solid it necessitates the originality of Creation in that document.

When I went to Israel the first time I had this flash. The Torah is about 'the Land.' It's hard not to feel it. But the Samaritans are more precise. It's not about 'the Land' but the land around Gerizim. They are right. Just look at the stories in Genesis. They almost all take place a stone's throw from Gerizim.

[rgprice]

This is what Gmirkin has to say about the Samaritans:

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

The Samaritan Pentateuch, a local redaction of the Jewish Pentateuch tailored to
the cult of Yahweh at Mount Gerizim, is thought to date to the time of the so-called
Samaritan schism, when the Samaritans broke off (or were excluded)
from Jerusalem-centered Judaism.' The Samaritan schism has occasionally been
enlisted as terminus ad quern data for the composition of the Jewish Pentateuch.
A grave difficulty is the lack of solid historical data for the date of the Samaritan
schism. The Elephantine Papyri show the Jews of Egypt appealing both to
Jonathan the high priest of Jerusalem and Sanballat governor of Samaria to grant
permission for the rebuilding of the temple of Yeb in 407 BCE.2 This appears to
demonstrate that the Samaritans and Jews had not yet parted ways as of ca. 400
BCE. The cache of Samarian economic documents found at Wadi ed-Daliyeh,
dating to ca. 320 BCE, mention a Samaritan ruler named Sanballat, doubtless a
descendant (likely a grandson) of the Sanballat mentioned in the Elephantine
Papyri. But the Wadi ed-Daliyeh texts contain no biblical materials3 and thus fail
to bear witness to the state of the Pentateuch's development. Josephus, Ant.
11.302-24, described the Samaritan schism as having taken place in 332 BCE,
when a disgruntled priestly scion named Manasseh became high priest of the
temple at Mount Gerizim. This late account is clearly legendary and has no
historical value.4

Second Kings 17:34,41, which claimed that the Mesopotamian transplants to
Samaria introduced foreign cults there that persisted "unto this day," documents
Jewish concerns about Samarian religious practices ca. 273-272 BCE, but it is
not clear whether this referred to Samaritan Jews or to non-Jewish residents of
Samaria. There exists no reliable evidence of hostility between Samaritan and
Judean Jews before ca. 200 BCE. Simon the Just (ca. 200-180 BCE) was said to
have had difficulties with the Samaritans.5 Sirach 50:26, written ca. 180 BCE,
referred to Shechem as a city of fools, perhaps demonstrating friction between
Jews and Samaritans at that date.6 The Samaritans converted their temple on
Mount Gerizim into a Greek temple of Zeus Xenios in 166 BCE,7 some Samaritans
denying all connection to the Jews according to Josephus, Ant. 13.257-64.
The destruction of Mount Gerizim's temple in 128 BCE by John Hyrkanus
marked the definitive exclusion of the Samaritans from the Jews. Purvis dated
the Samaritan breach with the Jews to this occasion.8 Conflict between Jews and
Samaritans appears to have been a late rather than early development and thus
has little bearing on the date of the Pentateuch.

Regardless. I don't see how whether the Gerizim or Jerusalem version was first, has anything to do with the dating of Gen 1-11.

Prequels often offer explanations for elements of prior stories, even when those Prequels are written by entirely different people. Look at all of the Star Wars crap. Look at the stories about Boba Fett and Han Solo, etc. None of those were in the mind of Lucas when we wrote Star Wars.

[Secret Alias]

when the Samaritans broke off (or were excluded) from Jerusalem-centered Judaism.'

= bullshit

It's over right there. The Torah doesn't mention Jerusalem. It's over before it began.