Berossus and Genesis

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2091
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by rgprice »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:27 am The argument here seems to be (a) whether Berossos or (b) Babylonia and direct influence of other cultures in the region in which Jews/Samaritans lived should be responsible for the creation of the Torah. I am not persuaded that Berossos was a direct influence on the Pentateuch as the documents themselves where written before Berossos.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on talking about "creation of the Torah". I'm not talking about "the Torah", nor have I ever insinuated such. In fact I've been very clear that I'm only talking about Genesis 1-11. I, nor anyone that I know of, has claimed that the work of Berossos had any impact on the Torah as a whole, or any part of the Pentateuch other than Genesis 1-11.

Indeed, I'm arguing that Genesis 1-11 is disconnected from the rest of the a Pentateuch and that virtually all of the rest of the Pentateuch shows no sign of influence from Genesis 1-11. Its as if Genesis 1-11 doesn't even exist. There is nothing in Genesis 12-Deut 30 that relies on Genesis 1-11 at all. So no, I would say that Berossos would have had no impact at all on the overall development of 98% of the Torah. That's part of the point.

Genesis 1-11 is separate and distinct from everything else. Yes, Genesis 1-11 displays knowledge of the rest of the Pentateuch, but not the other way around. It is a prequel, written after the fact, to introduce the rest of the material, by someone who wanted to give the Pentateuch broader appeal and move the material beyond its narrow focus on just the Israelites. All that Genesis 12-Deuternomy really cares about is the Israelites.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by StephenGoranson »

A cosmogonic myth is found in several cultures, and not as a late afterthought.
Creation of the universe (cosmos) comes naturally before a national or tribal origin myth.
So a better word than prequel for Genesis 1-11 may be preface.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18652
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by Secret Alias »

In fact I've been very clear that I'm only talking about Genesis 1-11
Maybe it's because I am really busy at work but I'm not reading your comments this way. Let's start at the beginning. There is supposed to be a 'difference' between Genesis 1 - 11 and the rest of the Pentateuch. Fine. But THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Abraham is the start of the establishment of Israel. The Jews and Samaritans treat chapters 1 - 11 differently. They are myths essentially. No one spends a lot of time on Noah. He's of only symbolic value as are the rest of the characters in that section. I don't think they were written by different people or that anyone has seriously suggested this before.

I just see it as. Abraham is the start of the Jewish religion. We know from Hegemonius that Abraham had an independent existence from Jewish and Samaritan literary compositions. The story begins with a cult of Abraham in the Near East. I don't think the interest in Abraham at Harran was ancient https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Harran. This is an undoubted influence on the author(s) of the Pentateuch more so than Berossos.

If I was to hazard a guess. Abraham had a pre-existence at Harran. As noted "The first city built after the Flood according to a tradition recorded by the Arab geographer Yāqūt in his Muʿjam al-buldān and the place where Abraham and his family sojourned according to the Book of Genesis." So given the author wanted to establish a story of all Israelites deriving from Abraham and the pre-existent connection between Abraham and the flood he just 'worked backwards' essentially and wrote a flood narrative derived from pre-existent sources (not Berossos but his sources). The story about the destruction of Babel, Adam etc. These are all re-churnings or variations of the sources later known to Berossos.

Interestingly enough when I debate Secret Mark with SG and Andrew at the forum we go through similar arguments about whether a particular surviving writer who makes reference to something related to the Letter of Theodore was known to Morton Smith. These debates have been going on forever. I never feel they are ever decisively 'decided upon.' If you want a particular Church Father to have cited information that never reached Morton Smith's ear you believe it. If you want Morton Smith to be this omniscient 'master forger' you pretend he knew every pertinent scrap of information related to Mark in Egypt or the Carpocratians.

The bottom line is that we have to accept that there were thousands of documents and traditions perhaps tens of thousands in the case of the writing of the Pentateuch and the Book of Genesis in particular which are unknown to us. It seems to be a little simple-minded to think that the authors of the Pentateuch just grabbed a copy of Berossos hot off the shelves and used it to forge a document which quickly became the basis for the religion of at least four major sects and which involved the wide-scale sacrifice of animals. Quite the investment for these four different sects. The livestock owners must have been happy. It's mountainman for the Jewish religion.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18652
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by Secret Alias »

If there was this cult of Abraham at Harran why is Berossos the answer? I don't get this. You have to bend the timeline to fit Berossos in. Always a bad start to any enterprise.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:23 am I still see modern scholarship reference the tohu and bohu concepts (= sea monsters).
Indeed you do, we all do. And that is how it has been for quite some time now. What you don't see, unless I am mistaken, is those same references engaging with the published works that undermine them. We see this a lot in the field of biblical studies. The field is vast and unfortunately some scholars do keep on publishing writing books that appear to be oblivious to works that have long since robbed them of their foundations.

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:23 am Not only my friend Robert Cargill but too many to name https://books.google.com/books?id=V20NB ... at&f=false. You treat the sources who like as conclusively disproving the scholarships you don't like but that's not true. The original point was whether a direct connection with Babylonia is more widely accepted as opposed to an indirect link through Berossos. That point still stands.
Instead of accusing me of picking and choosing what I "like", why not try to engage with the arguments presented. I have not seen you do that. Nor have you cited scholars disputing that evidence. Ignoring is not disputing.

The evidence that we are addressing is that the the reference to tohu and bohu as sea monsters is antiquated scholarship that is simply not supported by the evidence we read in Genesis 1. Saying you have a friend who is a scholar who you claim disagrees is not an argument. Linking to a work of theology that argues that the Bible espouses the most enlightened values of the 21st century West is not an argument, either.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:23 am I still see modern scholarship reference the tohu and bohu concepts (= sea monsters). Not only my friend Robert Cargill but too many to name https://books.google.com/books?id=V20NB ... at&f=false. . . . .
You present the work you link as "modern scholarship" here. But it is theology and it is written for a non-scholarly readership, as evidenced by its description of "Tehom" as "Ms. Ocean"! and the created sea monsters on day five as "God's great 'rubber duckies' of the ocean"!!!

Now--- do you have anything that counters the actual scholarly arguments concerning the derivatives and relationships of the various words found in Genesis 1:2 that I quoted in some detail above? Surely you are not just hunting around for anything that looks like an alternative view but are, rather, seriously investigating the actual arguments presented, yes?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 6:45 am Maybe it's because I am really busy at work . . .
tsk tsk
Secret Alias
Posts: 18652
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't know if it is my mother-in-law being on life support but I don't get the underlying argument here. On the one hand you have tohu tiamat, bohu behemot. This relationship seems to be on solid foundation. What it 'is' in the end is debatable. But there is a relationship. On the other hand, we have a document WHICH IS NOT PURPORTED to be written by Moses. A narrative which describes not only the circumstances behind the giving of the Law but the future turning away from this mythical cult described in the pages. The eschatology is interesting behind it necessarily assumes that the desert tabernacle in some form 'resurfaced' in the good days which followed the 'bad days' described in the eschatological section. In other words, the 'bad days' are 'bad days' because the unnamed author knows of both 'good days' before the 'bad days' and after i.e. in the time he was writing. The Samaritans speak of good days as fanuta and rehuta (pronounced 'roota').

Bear with me. My mother in law's oxygen levels have apparently gone up from 50 to 94.

Is there any evidence of a tabernacle ever being established in Egypt? No. There is Josephus's claims of a Oniad temple at Heliopolis/Leontopolis. But there is no clear evidence for this nor a claim of animal sacrifices proscribed in the Law. Similarly there were those like the Dositheans who wanted to maintain a flimsy tabernacle at Gerizim. But anyone who is claiming that the Pentateuch was written in Egypt in the Greek period would necessarily also have to assume that the animal sacrifices proscribed in the Pentateuch were carried out in Egypt. Where did this take place? If you believe what Josephus writes the animal sacrifices must have occurred at the Leontopolis temple. However there is a problem here. The Leontopolis temple wasn't established until after the earliest fragments of the Pentateuch in Judea.
The account of Josephus in The Jewish War,[4] refers to the Onias who built the Temple at Leontopolis as "the son of Simon", implying that it was Onias III, and not his son, who fled to Egypt and built the Temple. This account, however, is contradicted by the story that Onias III was murdered in Antioch in 171 BCE.[5] Josephus' account in the Antiquities is, therefore, more probable, namely, that the builder of the temple was a son of the murdered Onias III, and that, a mere youth at the time of his father's death, he had fled to the court of Alexandria in consequence of the Syrian persecutions, perhaps because he thought that salvation would come to his people from Egypt.[6] Ptolemy VI was King of Egypt at that time. He probably had not yet given up his claims to Coele-Syria and Judea, and gladly gave refuge to such a prominent personage of the neighboring country. Onias now requested the king and his sister-wife, Cleopatra, to allow him to build a sanctuary in Egypt similar to the one at Jerusalem, where he would employ Levites and priests of his own clan;[7] and he referred to the prediction of the prophet Isaiah[8] that a Jewish temple would be erected in Egypt.[9]

According to Josephus, the temple of Leontopolis existed for 343 years,[10] though the general opinion is that this number must be changed to 243. He relates that the Roman emperor Vespasian feared that through this temple Egypt might become a new center for Jewish rebellion and therefore ordered the governor of Egypt, Lupus, to demolish it.[11] Lupus died in the process of carrying out the order; and the task of stripping the temple of its treasures, barring access to it, and removing all traces of divine worship at the site was completed by his successor, Paulinus,[12] which dates the event to c. March-August 73.[13] According to E. Mary Smallwood, Lupus is last attested in office by dated Egyptian documents in March 73, whilst Paulinus is first attested before the end of August 73 ("Josephus: The Jewish War", p. 460, note 58; ISBN 0-14-044420-3).

War i. 1, § 1; vii. 10, § 2.
II Maccabees iv. 33.
Ant. xii. 5, § 1; ib. 9, § 7.
Ant. xiii. 3, § 1.
Isaiah xix. 19.
Ant. xiii. 3, § 1.
Wars of the Jews vii. 10, § 4
Wars of the Jews vii. 10, § 2
Wars of the Jews vii. 10, § 4
The point here is that those who propose this Hellenistic Pentateuch theory have to explain how sacrifices were carried out AND WHERE THEY WERE CARRIED OUT if - as they claim - the text was written in the third century BCE. I don't think this has been considered before.

The Pentateuch isn't just a literary work. It is very much a detailed proscription of 'how to carry out' an animal sacrifice cult. The place proscribed in the work itself, the place the author(s) have in mind is clearly Gerizim. What is/are the arguments in favor of an Egyptian cultic center?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18652
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by Secret Alias »

If you argue that the Jews sacrificed animals 'out in the open' in a desert tabernacle we have to consider something else Gmirkin notes in his appendix. The Jews sacrificed rams, bulls, sheep all of which were sacred to the Egyptians and would have raised the hatred of native Egyptians against them. Are we really proposing that the 'nascent' Jewish priesthood set up their services in a make shift desert tabernacle openly slaughtering animals that were sacred to native Egyptians or what the Pentateuch a 'cook book' developed to be used at Gerizim? These are the only two possibilities right? Neither of them seem very good options.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18652
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Berossus and Genesis

Post by Secret Alias »

This is what I see Gmirkin says about sacrifice. He ignores Gerizim and assumes that Jerusalem was the intended cultic center.
Of all the four Pentateuchal sources, Deuteronomy alone insisted on a single legitimate place of worship and sacrifice (presumably Jerusalem).
Of course the Samaritans and reason itself would disagree. The Pentateuch originally had Gerizim in mind as the intended cultic center. Another bêtise:
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 socalled Samaritan schism, when the Samaritans broke off (or were excluded) from Jerusalem-centered Judaism
This is for me so silly. So the Pentateuch is written in Egypt with the intention of establishing sacrifices at Jerusalem even though Gerizim is clearly the focus throughout. I don't he's thought through things beyond a superficial attempt to attribute Hellenistic thought as the source of the Pentateuch. The book was written with having a priesthood establish sacrifices at Gerizim. No question.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Nov 02, 2022 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply