Berossus and Genesis

[Secret Alias]

That's the weakness of his theory. The Pentateuch is about Gerizim. Joshua is about Gerizim. And yet 'Judaism' is about Jerusalem. How is that to be explained? Well the Jews like any people are about themselves. They think they're right. Fine. Great. But the plain explanation the one that requires less difficulty is that Judaism is a sect of Samaritanism. Why? Because the Pentateuch takes place at the Samaritan holy mountain of Gerizim and doesn't mention 'Jerusalem.' It's not just about 'the land' as the Jews say, it's about the land around Gerizim, where God lives. The Gospel of John goes out of its way to attack this Gerizim-centered universe of the Samaritans.

[Secret Alias]

To be a Jew you have to think that Jacob seeing 'God's house' and God descending from a ladder doesn't have literary/liturgical/memorial significance. That it was meant to be forgotten and not to be venerated as a geographical locale. Not so.

[StephenGoranson]

Dead Sea Scrolls include some Torah copies closer to SP than to MT. Might count against a late split.

[Secret Alias]

The question is whether the Torah wanted the locales mentioned in the document were meant to be memorialized as physical realities/places. Judaism introduces Jerusalem a place not mentioned in the Pentateuch and not memorialized in Joshua. Judaism is a late heresy. A religion about 'other things' other than the memorialization of the places mentioned in the Pentateuch. The obvious reason for this is that the places mentioned in the Pentateuch are in northern Israel outside of the control of 'Jews.'

[rgprice]

SA, you are going to have to cite some specifics, because as far as I can see, there is no mention of Gerizim in Genesis 1-11. Nor is the Garden of Eden described as a mountain or being at the base of a mountain.

From the Samaritan Pentateuch: https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=SP ... ions=VNHUG

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made heavens and earth 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12And the gold of that land is good very: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Nothing about a mountain. The first mountain mentioned is mount of Hararat in Gen 8, where the Arks lands.

[Secret Alias]

I see. So God is like Donald Trump and has many penthouse apartments. Many residences.

[rgprice]

So you contend, SA, that Gen 1-11 can't be a late addition to the Pentateuch because of this:

11And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. 12And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. 13And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; 14And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 15And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. 16And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. 17And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. 18And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. 19And he called the name of that place Beth-el: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.

I fail to see any connection between this and Gen 1-11...

[Secret Alias]

So God having a house and a pardes being a garden in front of king's house isn't obvious enough. It has to be spelled out explicitly in a sacred book in order for you to 'accept it.' Well that's not the way the Samaritans read the text. Oh, but tradition can be ignored when it doesn't fit with a conspiracy theory that non-Hebrew speakers are attracted to because it simplifies things. Ok I get it. As long as we streamline things in one direction.

I am not getting why Berossos citing older 'traditions' in written form is one thing. But Samaritan exegesis is 'modern'? Marqe mentions the concepts. Marqe is the source.

[Secret Alias]

And what's the difference with the gospel? There is a gospel secret. Not everything is 'explicit.' In every tradition there are oral and literal traditions. Sacred books are rarely like cookbooks where everything is spelled out to the point of banality. The sacredness of Gerizim was not made explicit but implicit. Are you saying the Samaritans aren't a legitimate tradition? The Jews do the same thing with Jerusalem. They say 'Jerusalem' is not there in the text but 'there' in spirit. But the text agrees with the Samaritans. It all takes place or mostly takes place near Gerizim. The Christians argue that it wasn't Gerizim and Jerusalem. But surely the Samaritans were always about the sacredness of Gerizim. Is that up for debate? But you were a former Christian and read the text as something other than about geography. That's your bias. The Jews and Samaritans on the other hand agree the Torah is ALL about THE LAND. Aren't you being influenced by your heritage to decide against them? I think so and modern atheism is just a continuation of this Christian abnegation of established tradition. The Torah is about the Land. For the Samaritans a specific 'piece of land' mentioned throughout.

[rgprice]

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'?

But yet, Deuteronomy shows no knowledge of Gen 1-11. In fact, Deuteronomy opens with knowledge of Genesis 12. Given that many agree Deut was written after the rest of the Torah, as a sort of recapitulation of the narrative and its laws, the fact that it makes no references to Gen 1-11 is telling.

In fact, there is virtually no mention of Adam, Eve, or Noah in any of the Old Testament scriptures outside of Gen 1-11. Its basically just Genesis 1-11, Isaiah, and 1 Chronicles.

Yet, by the second century BCE, we find abundant evidence of a lot of interest and writings about Noah and Adam. Clearly these were figures of interest, yet they go entirely unmentioned in the entire Samaritan corpus outside of Gen 1-11 and practically all of the Jewish cannon.

These cannot be figures that were deeply imbedded in Semitic culture prior to the writing of the Pentateuch.