Berossus and Genesis

[rgprice]

As I've said above, there are no mentions of Noah, Adam, Eve or other figures from Genesis 1-11 throughout the rest of the Torah. Maybe these early figures just weren't relevant you say? But what about Abraham?

If indeed the works of the Torah originally started with a history that began with Abraham then we should expect to find mentions of Abraham throughout the Torah. Indeed that is exactly what we do find!

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... n=NASB1995

Yes, the writer of Exodus, Leviticus, etc. did find occasion to refer back to Abraham.

So yes, the writers of the rest of the Torah did draw on material from Genesis, just not on material from Genesis 1-11.

[Secret Alias]

The original understanding is that Gerizim is the center of the universe and on its summit (now withdrawn into heaven or the heavens) is pardes in the shape of a Persian garden. This is the belief of the man or people who wrote the Tetrateuch https://books.google.com/books?id=pzo6K ... im&f=false

Then you have someone else who wrote in slightly different Hebrew another document which ends with a reference to eshdat lamo another Persian term.

Then you have this Pentateuch again adapted to incorporate Joshua.

Then you have Judges, etc.

Then perhaps at the same time as these later developments the idea that Jerusalem not Gerizim is the proper place of worship.

The 'Jews' had nothing to do with the writing of the Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, Hexateuch. I'd estimate the 'Jews' only emerge at the time of Alexander as a politic force in the region. Until then the religion of the Torah was dominated by Samaritans and Gerizim-based worship.

Certain Samaritan religious practices resemble Persian ones especially their interest in sacred fire. Come on. It's obvious, like really obvious, that the Tetrateuch and Pentateuch embodied, constituted, epitomized - whatever the word is - a religious practice developed in the Persian period. Spend a few months researching the liturgical aspects of Samaritanism.

[rgprice]

SA, I'm not sure what you are even talking about. I haven't said anything about the dating of Gen 12-Deut. According to what's been laid out in this thread, Gen 12-Deut could be dated to the 5th century or earlier. I'm not even considering any of that. This is only about Gen 1-11.

I'm saying that the case for Gen 1-11 being dependent on Berossus is quite strong. In addition the case for Gen 1-11 being the last addition to the Torah is also quite strong. None of the rest of the Pentateuch material shows any knowledge of Gen 1-11.

It makes a lot of sense that the Pentateuch originally started with a history that began with Abraham.

The fact that the Samaritan Pentateuch includes Genesis 1-11 of course points to a Samaritan split after the addition of that material, putting that split at some point in the 3rd century or later. But I don't see how anything about the Samaritans can dispute the conclusion that Gen 1-11 was a late addition that could not have occurred until after the writing of Berossus's Babyloniaca.

[Secret Alias]

SA, I'm not sure what you are even talking about. I haven't said anything about the dating of Gen 12-Deut. According to what's been laid out in this thread, Gen 12-Deut could be dated to the 5th century or earlier. I'm not even considering any of that. This is only about Gen 1-11.

I'm saying that the case for Gen 1-11 being dependent on Berossus is quite strong. In addition the case for Gen 1-11 being the last addition to the Torah is also quite strong. None of the rest of the Pentateuch material shows any knowledge of Gen 1-11.

It makes a lot of sense that the Pentateuch originally started with a history that began with Abraham.

But you're biasing the research by excluding the most critical detail to contextualize the Tetrateuch - the lack of mention of Jerusalem. How did 'Jews' write a document that doesn't mention 'Jerusalem' their most sacred city and which makes the rival cultic center of Gerizim as the center of the religion? All these other points are irrelevant. The document can't be described in any way as 'Jewish.' They are, because of the same stupid selfish worldview that argues that Berossos and Manetho 'influenced' this same document. You have to stop being egoistic and assuming that what we know is the limit of knowledge. Berossos and Manetho had sources and those sources may have had a relationship with the Hebrew documents written in the Persian period. But there is no evidence of a direct causal relationship between Berossos and Manetho and the Samaritans who wrote the Tetrateuch, Deuteronomy and the book of Joshua. We only think that because of stupidness and selfishness is allowed to go unchecked.

[andrewcriddle]

Ezekiel 28:13

You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.

which is probably pre-Hellenistic, seems to know some of the traditions related to the early chapters of Genesis.

Andrew Criddle

[rgprice]

Ok, forget the word Jewish.

The evidence is quite clear that Gen 1-11 was written after Gen 12-Deuteronomy, that the writers of Gen 12-Deuteronomy had no concept of the ideas put forward in Gen 1-11, and that Gen 1-11 is dependent on the Greek work Berossus's Babyloniaca, which was produced in the first quarter of 3rd century BCE.

That's all there is to say. None of this disputes other Persian influences on the Pentateuch.

It doesn't matter who the Tetrateuch or Pentateuch was written by, whether by Samaritans, "Jews", Greeks or Egyptians. Whoever wrote Gen 12-Deuteronomy had no knowledge of Gen 1-11. Whoever write Gen 1-11 did have knowledge of Berossus's Babyloniaca.

[Secret Alias]

The likely source of the epithet "Adamantius."

[Secret Alias]

The evidence is quite clear that Gen 1-11 was written after Gen 12-Deuteronomy, that the writers of Gen 12-Deuteronomy had no concept of the ideas put forward in Gen 1-11, and that Gen 1-11 is dependent on the Greek work Berossus's Babyloniaca, which was produced in the first quarter of 3rd century BCE.

I don't find this convincing and does nothing to blunt the OBVIOUS evidence that the "Torah" was developed over centuries rather than as a mountainman conspiracy theory.

[Secret Alias]

My laptop is charging. Genesis 1 - 10 was not written after the Book of Deuteronomy. This is silly. The Hebrew of Deuteronomy is different.

[rgprice]

The evidence is quite clear that Gen 1-11 was written after Gen 12-Deuteronomy, that the writers of Gen 12-Deuteronomy had no concept of the ideas put forward in Gen 1-11, and that Gen 1-11 is dependent on the Greek work Berossus's Babyloniaca, which was produced in the first quarter of 3rd century BCE.

I don't find this convincing and does nothing to blunt the OBVIOUS evidence that the "Torah" was developed over centuries rather than as a mountainman conspiracy theory.

But nothing that you quoted there from me even disputes the proposition that, "the 'Torah' was developed over centuries". Simply, Gen 1-11 was the last step of the development, and it was added in the 3rd century BCE.