Berossus and Genesis

[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

[andrewcriddle]

Berosus on the Flood is available here.
The various ancient flood narratives are compared here
There seem to be several parallels between the Ancient Babylonian accounts and Genesis which are not listed in Berosus. (One problem is that our account of Berosus is a precis. It is possible but IMO unlikely that there would be many more parallels between Berosus and Genesis here if we had the full text of Berosus.)

Andrew Criddle

I'm not sure why you think it is unlikely. ...

Whether unlikely or not, I am reluctant to use a basically hypothetical version of Berosus as source for the Genesis account. The Genesis account contains more ancient material than we have any evidence was present in Berosus.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

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.

[neilgodfrey]

If interested in quoting Wikipedia, compare this from the (current, not by me) article on Berossus:

"This early approach to historiography [[by Berossus]], though preceded by Hesiod, Herodotus, and the Hebrew Bible, demonstrates its own unique approach."

(By the way, Gen. 1-11 being added "later" contradicts the proposal of composition all-at-once, by more than an iota.)

One does not read everything in Wikipedia as "an authority". One turns to Wikipedia to look for sources that are cited to support various statements. One then consults and tests those sources.

[StephenGoranson]

(By the way, Gen. 1-11 being added "later" contradicts the proposal of composition all-at-once, by more than an iota.)

[rgprice]

(By the way, Gen. 1-11 being added "later" contradicts the proposal of composition all-at-once, by more than an iota.)

Not really, but also doesn't matter in this context.

This thread isn't about how the rest of the scriptures were produced, just Gen 1-11. But still, it could be that Gen 12-Deut 31 was produced in the 9th century BCE, and then Gen 1-11 was added in the 3rd century BCE, or it could be that Ben 12-Deut 31 was produced in 280 BCE, while Gen 1-11 was added in 279 BCE. Gen 1-11 is still added last in either case, but I think most would agree that the latter case would still be considered having been produced "all at once".

I know RG has put forward the proposition that the Pentateuch was produced "all at once" by a team of priests/scholars who were working separately, and thus each group didn't necessarily know exactly what the other group was writing. I don't necessarily buy into that particular model. Personally I don't feel the need to explain all of this quite so precisely as to propose exactly how it all took shape.

I also don't necessarily buy into all of the various designated sources, such as P, J, D and E. Maybe these have some utility, but it seems to me a lot like reconstructing so-called Q. I do not prescribe to the view that P, J, D, E are in fact indistinct individuals. Maybe, but it can easily be far more complicated than that as well.

Here is another issue with Gen 1-11 and Deut 32 (which also mentions "sons of God") though:

The concept of God in Gen 1-11/end of Deut and the mention of "sons of God" runs a bit counter to the rest of the Pentateuch. I've always had a bit of difficulty understanding this under the assumption that the writers of the rest of the Pentateuch, who would of course be the final editors, would have known Gen 1-11 and could have modified it before finalizing the collection. So why didn't they?

Well, this is better explained by the model in which Gen 1-11 and the end of Deut are added last by a different party, who is the finalizer of the collection, and thus has the final say. So the group or individual who finalized the Pentateuch is the one responsible for Gen 1-11. Now this is where I buy into Gmirkin's ideas about this having taken place right before the translation into Greek.

I can easily envision a scenario where some group or individual wants to translate the the collection we now call the Pentateuch into Greek. Obviously, whoever wants to do this has some interest in Greek culture and Hellenism. The fact that they want to produce a Greek version of the scriptures indicates their Greek sympathies and of course their potential interest in other Greek works. And obviously, this is some body that is familiar with Greek works.

Now, Gen 1-11 shows particular Greek sympathies, as Gmirkin has outlined in his most recent book. The person(s) who wrote Gen 1-11 was in fact introducing a new framework to the Pentateuch material, trying to push it in the Hellenistic direction. This is why we see more pluralism in it and a greater openness to polytheistic ideas. It has long been thought that Gen 1-11 is the "most ancient" material, because it relies on these very ancient Mesopotamian stories and it exhibits some polytheism with its use of "us" and "we" and "sons of God", etc. But I don't think that's what's really going on. What's really going on is that the writer of Gen 1-11 was attempting to take the religious national history that was pretty exclusively orientated toward Hebrews, without much concern for the wider world, and open it up to the Hellenistic world. Gen 1-11 orients the scriptures to a much wider audience. Gen 1-11 was written by a Hellenist, and who better than the very person or persons that were about to translate the scriptures into Greek!

"Let's make a Greek translation, but before we do, let's create an introduction that is fitting for a Greek speaking audience." (Even if the audience in mind was just Greek speaking Jews. Nevertheless, those Jews would have been Hellenized to some degree.)

[Secret Alias]

Here's an analogy. When we were all young we knew the music our parents listen to. Then our friends. Then the music we discovered ourselves. What is so particularly 'Greek' about the Pentateuch? I don't see it. But let's take Plato as an example (because of Philo). Even the ancients said Plato learned what he learned from ancient cultures. Let's exclude the Jews themselves as a source for Plato. Jewish proselytizing was VERY successful. Is that because the people in let's say Osroene were particularly 'Hellenized.' I don't think that's the reason. I think we likely have an under appreciation of Babylonian and Near Eastern culture. Again Greek is what we all learn. Greek myths. Greek philosophy. Greek language. But beneath Plato was likely Near Eastern ideas in the same way the Greek alphabet was. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/592627.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 2159BB62D1

Again throughout this discussion I've said we demonstrate our egoism. We think 'we know enough' to make decisions when in fact (like life itself) we don't. It's not just elements of Platonism but the opening material in Genesis too. It's obvious and I mean OBVIOUS that Babylonian science and knowledge generally that was being recycled by the authors of the Pentateuch not Greek so much. It's just that we see things again from the Greek perspective.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/e-bo ... _smyth.pdf

There can be no doubt about the opening lines of Genesis derive from Babylonian understanding. The case for Greek dependence is not as obvious, convincing or conclusive.

[Secret Alias]

While Bablyonian influence doesn't exclude a Hellenistic origin for the Bible surely it demonstrates that Berossos isn't necessary to explain the Pentateuch's origins? Right?

[rgprice]

While Bablyonian influence doesn't exclude a Hellenistic origin for the Bible surely it demonstrates that Berossos isn't necessary to explain the Pentateuch's origins? Right?

The whole Pentateuch's? Certainly not.

Let's say for sake of argument that the core of the Hexateuch was produced in the 5th century BCE - Gen 12-Numbers. Then at some point most of Deuteronomy was added.

If Genesis 1-11 was added after that point, indicating some time within the 4th or 3rd century BCE, what would the sources of these narratives been if not Berossos?

Again, there is no indication in the core of the rest of the Pentateuch of any knowledge of the material from Gen 1-11. Nor do we find any other external evidence of knowledge of material from Gen 1-11 in Semitic societies prior to the 3rd century. So where would these narratives come from otherwise?

[StephenGoranson]

rgprice, are you claiming that the only possible source for Genesis 1-11 is Berossus and other Greeks?