by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/2/22
Highlights:
Versions of two excerpts of his writings survive, at several removes from the original. Using ancient Babylonian records and texts that are now lost, Berossus published the Babyloniaca (hereafter, History of Babylonia) in three books some time around 290–278 BC, by the patronage of the Macedonian/Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter (during the third year of his reign, according to Diodorus Siculus [Failed verification]). Certain astrological fragments recorded by Pliny the Elder, Censorinus, Flavius Josephus, and Marcus Vitruvius Pollio are also attributed to Berossus, but are of unknown provenance, or indeed are uncertain as to where they might fit into his History. Vitruvius credits him with the invention of the semi-circular sundial hollowed out of a cubical block....
A separate work, Procreatio, is attributed to him by the Latin commentaries on Aratus, Commentariorium in Aratum Reliquiae, but there is no proof of this connection....
According to Vitruvius's work de Architectura, he relocated eventually to the island of Kos off the coast of Asia Minor and established a school of astrology there by the patronage of the king of Egypt. However, scholars have questioned whether it would have been possible to work under the Seleucids and then relocate to a region experiencing Ptolemaic control late in life. It is not known when he died.
Versions at several removes of the remains of Berossos' lost Babyloniaca are given by two later Greek epitomes that were used by the Christian Eusebius of Caesarea for his Chronological Canons, the Greek manuscripts of which have been lost, but which can be largely recovered by the Latin translation and continuation of Jerome and a surviving Armenian translation.... Pure history writing per se was not a Babylonian concern, and Josephus testifies to Berossus' reputation as an astrologer. The excerpts quoted recount mythology and history that relate to Old Testament concerns.... Lambert finds some statements in the Latin writers so clearly erroneous that it renders doubtful whether the writers had first-hand knowledge of Berossus' text.
Berossus' work was not popular during the Hellenistic period. The usual account of Mesopotamian history was Ctesias of Cnidus's Persica, while most of the value of Berossus was considered to be his astrological writings. Most pagan writers probably never read the History directly, and seem to have been dependent on Posidonius of Apamea (135–50 BC), who cited Berossos in his works....
Jewish and Christian references to Berossus probably had a different source, either Alexander Polyhistor (c. 65 BC) or Juba II of Mauretania (c. 50 BC–20 AD).... Josephus' records of Berossus include some of the only extant narrative material, but he is probably dependent on Alexander Polyhistor, even if he did give the impression that he had direct access to Berossus....
Like Poseidonius', neither Alexander's nor Juba's works have survived. However, the material in Berossus was recorded by Abydenus (c. 200 BC) and Sextus Julius Africanus (early 3rd century AD). Both their works are also lost...
The Greek text of the Chronicon is also now lost to us but there is an ancient Armenian translation (500–800 AD) of it, and portions are quoted in Georgius Syncellus's Ecloga Chronographica (c. 800–810 AD). Nothing of Berossus survives in Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius. Eusebius' other mentions of Berossus in Praeparatio Evangelica are derived from Josephus, Tatianus, and another inconsequential source... what little of Berossus remains is very fragmentary and indirect. The most direct source of material on Berossus is Josephus, received from Alexander Polyhistor. Most of the names in his king-lists and most of the potential narrative content have been lost or completely mangled as a result. Only Eusebius and Josephus preserve narrative material, and both had agendas. Eusebius was looking to construct a consistent chronology across different cultures, while Josephus was attempting to refute the charges that there was a civilization older than that of the Jews. However, the ten ante-diluvian kings were preserved by Christian apologists interested in how the long lifespans of the kings were similar to the long lifespans of the ante-diluvian ancestors in the story of Genesis....
What is clear is that the form of writing he used was dissimilar to actual Babylonian literature, writing as he did in Greek.
Book 1 fragments are preserved in Eusebius and Syncellus above, and describe the Babylonian creation account and establishment of order, including the defeat of Thalatth (Tiamat) by Bel (Marduk). According to him, all knowledge was revealed to humans by the sea monster Oannes after the Creation...
Book 2 describes the history of the Babylonian kings from Alulim down to Nabonassar (747–734 BC). Eusebius reports that Apollodorus reports that Berossus recounts 432,000 years from the first king Aloros (Alulim) to the tenth king Xisouthros and the Babylonian Flood. From Berossus' genealogy, it is clear he had access to king-lists in compiling this section of History, particularly in the kings before the Flood, and from the 7th century BC with Senakheirimos (Sennacherib, who ruled both Assyria and Babylon). His account of the Flood (preserved in Syncellus) is extremely similar to versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh that we have presently. However, in Gilgamesh, the main protagonist is Utnapishtim, while for Berossus, Xisouthros is probably a Greek transliteration of Ziusudra, the protagonist of the Sumerian version of the Flood.
Perhaps what Berossus omits to mention is also noteworthy. Much information on Sargon (c. 2300 BC) would have been available during his time (e.g., a birth legend preserved at El-Amarna and in an Assyrian fragment from 8th century BC, and two Neo-Babylonian fragments), but these were not mentioned. Similarly, the great Babylonian king Hammurabi (ca. 1750 BC) merits only passing mention. He did, however, mention that the queen Semiramis (probably Sammuramat, wife of Samshi-Adad V, 824–811 BC) was Assyrian....
Book 3 relates the history of Babylon from Nabonassar to Antiochus I (presumably). Again, it is likely that he used king-lists, though it is not known which ones he used.... A large part of his history around the time of Naboukhodonosoros (Nebuchadnezzar II, 604–562 BC) and Nabonnedos (Nabonidus, 556–539 BC) survives. Here we see his interpretation of history for the first time, moralising about the success and failure of kings based on their moral conduct.... and differs from the rationalistic accounts of other Greek historians like Thucydides.....
he furnished details of his own life within his histories, which contrasted with the Mesopotamian tradition of anonymous scribes. Elsewhere, he included a geographical description of Babylonia, similar to that found in Herodotus (on Egypt), and used Greek classifications....
he constructed a narrative from Creation to his present, again similar to Herodotus or the Hebrew Bible. Within this construction, the sacred myths blended with history....
During his own time and later, however, the History of Babylonia was not distributed widely.... his material did not include as much narrative, especially of periods with which he was not familiar, even when potential sources for stories were available.
What is left of Berossus' writings is useless for the reconstruction of Mesopotamian history. Of greater interest to scholars is his historiography, using as it did both Greek and Mesopotamian methods. The affinities between it and Hesiod, Herodotus, Manethon, and the Hebrew Bible (specifically, the Torah and Deuteronomistic History)...
Each begins with a fantastic creation story, followed by a mythical ancestral period, and then finally accounts of recent kings who seem to be historical, with no demarcations in between....
In 1498, Annius of Viterbo (an official of Pope Alexander VI) claimed to have discovered lost books of Berossus. These were in fact an elaborate forgery. However, they greatly influenced Renaissance ways of thinking about population and migration, because Annius provided a list of kings from Japhet onwards, filling a historical gap following the Biblical account of the Flood. Annius also introduced characters from classical sources into the biblical framework, publishing his account as Commentaria super opera diversorum auctorum de antiquitatibus loquentium (Commentaries on the Works of Various Authors Discussing Antiquity). One consequence was sophisticated theories about Celtic races with Druid priests in Western Europe.
-- Berossus, by Wikipedia
Josephus, who seems to have been a person of extensive knowledge, and versed in the histories of nations, says that this great occurrence [The Great Flood] was to be met with in the writings of all persons who treated of the first ages. He mentions Berosus of Chaldea, Hieronymus of Egypt, who wrote concerning the antiquities of Phenicia; also Mnaseas, Abydenus, Melon, and Nicolaus Damascenus, as writers by whom it was recorded: and adds that it was taken notice of by many others....
Most of the authors, who have transmitted to us these accounts, at the same time inform us, that the remains of the ark were in their days to be seen upon one of the mountains of Armenia. Abydenus particularly says in confirmation of this opinion, that the people of the country used to get some small pieces of the wood, which they carried about by way of amulet. And Berosus mentions, that they scraped off the asphaltus, with which it had been covered, and used it in like manner for a charm. And this is so far consonant to truth, as there was originally about the ark some ingredient of this nature. For when it was completed by Noah, he was ordered finally to secure it both within and without with pitch or bitumen....
Noah was represented, as we may infer from Berosus, under the semblance of a fish by the Babylonians: and those representations of fishes in the sphere probably related to him, and his sons. The reasons given for their being placed there were, that Venus, when she fled from Typhon, took the form of a fish; and that the fish, styled Notius, saved Isis in some great extremity: for which reason Venus placed the fish Notius and his sons among the stars....
The place where mankind first resided, was undoubtedly the region of the Minyae, at the bottom of Mount Baris, or Luban, which was the Ararat of Moses. Here I imagine, that the Patriarch resided; and Berosus mentions, that in this place he gave instructions to his children, and vanished from the sight of men. But the sacred writings are upon this head silent: they only mention his planting the vine, and seemingly taking up his abode for a long time upon the spot. Indeed, they do not afford us any reason to infer that he ever departed from it. The very plantation of the vine seems to imply a purpose of residence. Not a word is said of the Patriarch's ever quitting the place; nor of any of his sons departing from it, till the general migration. Many of the fathers were of opinion, that they did not for some ages quit this region, According to Epiphanius, they remained in the vicinity of Ararat for five generations, during the space of six hundred and fifty-nine years....
During the residence of mankind in these parts, we may imagine, that there was a season of great happiness. They for a long time lived under the mild rule of the great Patriarch, before laws were enacted or penalties known. When they multiplied, and were become very numerous, it pleased God to allot to the various families different regions, to which they were to retire: and they accordingly, in the days of Peleg, did remove, and betake themselves to their different departments. But the sons of Chus would not obey. They went off under the conduct of the archrebel Nimrod; and seem to have been for a long time in a roving state; but at last they arrived at the plains of Shinar. These they found occupied by Assur and his sons: for he had been placed there by divine appointment. But they ejected him, and seized upon his dominions; which they immediately fortified with cities, and laid the foundation of a great monarchy. Their leader is often mentioned by the Gentile writers, who call him Belus. He was a person of great impiety; who finding, that the earth had been divided among the sons of men by a divine decree, thought proper to counteract the ordinance of God, and to make a different distribution...
In the beginning of this history it is said, that they journeyed from the east, when they came to the land of Shinar. This was the latter part of their rout: and the reason of their coming in this direction may, I think, be plainly shewn. The Ark, according to the best accounts, both sacred and profane, rested upon a mountain of Armenia, called Minyas, Baris, Lubar, and Ararat. Many families of the emigrants went probably directly east or west, in consequence of the situation to which they were appointed. But those who were destined to the southern parts of the great continents, which they were to inhabit, could not so easily and uniformly proceed; there being but few outlets to their place of destination. For the high Tauric ridge and the Gordyean mountains came between, and intercepted their due course. How difficult these mountains were, even in later times, to be passed may be known from the retreat of the ten thousand Greeks, who had served under Cyrus the younger. They came from these very plains of Shinar; and passing to the east of the Tigris, they arrived at these mountains, which with great peril they got over. But in the times of which we are treating, they must have been still more difficult to be surmounted: for after the deluge, the hollows and valleys between these hills, and all other mountainous places, must have been full of slime and mud; and for a great while have abounded with stagnant waters. We know from ancient history, that it was a long time before passages were opened, and roads made through places of this nature. I should therefore think, that mankind must necessarily for some ages have remained near the place of descent, from which they did not depart till the time of the general migration. Armenia is in great measure bounded either by the Pontic sea, or by mountains: and it seems to have been the purpose of Providence to confine the sons of men to this particular region, to prevent their roving too soon. Otherwise they might have gone off in small parties, before the great families were constituted, among whom the world was to be divided. The economy and distribution assigned by Providence, would by these means have been defeated. It was upon this account, that at the migration, many families were obliged to travel more or less eastward, who wanted to come down to the remoter parts of Asia. And in respect to the Cuthites, who seem to have been a good while in a roving state, they might possibly travel to the Pylae Caspiae, before they found an outlet to descend to the country specified. In consequence of this, the latter part of their rout must have been in the direction mentioned in the Scriptures; which is very properly styled a journeying from the east. I was surprised, after I had formed this opinion from the natural history of the country, to find it verified by that ancient historian Berosus. He mentions the rout of his countrymen from Ararat after the deluge; and says, that it was not in a strait line: but people had been instructed to take a circuit, and so to descend to the regions of Babylonia. In this manner, the sons of Chus came to the plains of Shinar, of which Babylonia was a part; and from hence they ejected Assur: and afterwards trespassed upon Elam in the region beyond the Tigris....
And we may well imagine, that many of the branches of Ham were associated in the same manner, and in confederacy with the rebels; and some perhaps of every great division into which mankind was separated. To this Berosus bears witness, who says, that in the first age Babylon was inhabited by people of different families and nations, who resided there in great numbers. "In those times Babylon was full of people of different nations and families, who resided in Chaldea."
And as all these tribes are said to have been of one lip, and of the same words, that is, of the same uniform pronunciation, and the same express language, it seemed good to divine wisdom, to cause a confusion of the lip, and a change in pronunciation, that these various tribes might no longer understand each other....
I cannot proceed without taking notice of some extracts of Babylonish history, which time has happily spared us. From what has been already said, it is evident, that the history of nations must commence from the aera of Babylon: as here the first kingdom was founded; and here was the great scene of action among the firstborn of the sons of men. The history therefore of the Babylonians and Chaldeans should be the first in order to be considered. Not that I purpose to engage in a full account of this people; but intend only to consider those extracts, of which I have made mention above. The memorials are very curious; but have been greatly mistaken, and misapplied. The person, to whom we are beholden for them, was Berosus, a priest of Belus. He was a native of Babylonia; and lived in the time of Alexander, the son of Philip. The Grecians held him in great esteem: and he is particularly quoted by the oriental fathers, as well as by Josephus of Judea.
He treated, it seems, of the origin of things, and of the formation of the earth out of chaos. He afterwards speaks of the flood; and of all mankind being destroyed, except one family, which was providentially preserved. By these was the world renewed. There is a large extract from this author, taken from the Greek of Alexander Polyhistor, and transmitted to us by Eusebius; which contains an account of these first occurrences in the world. But it seems to be taken by a person, who was not well acquainted with the language, in which it is supposed to be written; and has made an irregular and partial extract, rather than a genuine translation. And as Berosus lived at a time, when Babylon had been repeatedly conquered; and the inhabitants had received a mixture of many different nations: there is reason to think, that the original records, of whatever nature they may have been, were much impaired; and that the natives in the time of Berosus did not perfectly understand them. I will soon present the reader with a transcript from Polyhistor of this valuable fragment; in which he will perceive many curious traces of original truth; but at the same time will find it mixed with fable, and obscured with allegory. It has likewise suffered greatly by interpreters: and there are some mistakes in the disposition of the transcript; of which I shall hereafter take notice; and which could not be in the original.
Other authors, as well as Alexander Polyhistor, have copied from Berosus: among these is Abydenus. I will therefore begin with his account; as it is placed first in Eusebius: the tenor of it is in this manner.1 [Eusebii Chronicon. p. 5.] So much concerning the wisdom of the Chaldeans. It is said, that the first king of this country was Alorus; who gave out a report, that he was appointed by God to be the shepherd of his people. He reigned ten fari [36,000 years]. Now a farus is esteemed to be three thousand six hundred years. A nereus is reckoned six hundred: and a sosus sixty. After him Alaparus reigned three fari: to him succeeded Amillarus from the city of 2 [Sometimes Pantibiblus, at other times Pantibiblon occurs for the name of the place. See Syncellus. p. 38.] Pantibiblus, who reigned thirteen fari. In his time a semidaemon called Annedotus, in appearance very like to Oannes, shewed himself a second time from the sea. After him Amenon reigned twelve fari; who was of the city Pantibiblon. Then Megalanus of the same 3 [It is in the original Pansibiblon: but the true name was byPantibiblon; as may be seen by comparing this account with that of Apollodorus, which succeeds; and with the same in Syncellus.] place, eighteen fari. Then Daus the shepherd governed for the space of ten fari: he was of Pantibiblon. In his time four double-shaped personages came out of the sea to land; whose names were Euedocus, Eneugamus, Enaboulus, and Anementus. After Daus succeeded Anodaphus, the son of Aedoreschus. There were afterwards other kings; and last of all Sisuthrus: so that, in the whole, the number of kings amounted to ten; and the term of their reigns to an hundred and twenty fari [432,000 years]."
This last [Sisuthrus] was the person who was warned to provide against the deluge. He accordingly built a vessel, by which means he was preserved. The history of this great event, together with the account of birds sent out by Sisouthros, in order to know, if the waters were quite abated; and of their returning with their feet soiled with mud; and of the ark's finally resting in Armenia, is circumstantially related by 4 [Syncellus. p. 38. He styles him Abydenus: but by Eusebius the name is expressed Abidenus.] Abydenus, but borrowed from Berosus.
A similar account of the first kings of Babylonia is given by Apollodorus; and is taken from the same author, who begins thus."This is the history, which Berosus has transmitted to us. He tells us, that Alorus of Babylon was the first king, that reigned; who was by nation a Chaldean. He reigned ten fari [36,000 years]: and after him Alaparus, and then Amelon, who came from Pantibiblon. To him succeeded Amenon of Chaldea: in whose time they say, that the Musarus Oannes, the Annedotus, made his appearance from the Eruthrean sea."
***
Both these writers are supposed to copy from Berosus: yet there appears a manifest difference between them: and this not in respect to numbers only, which are easily corrupted; but in regard to events, and disposition of circumstances. Of this strange variation in two short fragments, I shall hereafter take further notice.
I come now to the chief extract from Berosus; as it has been transmitted to us by 9 [Eusebii Chronicon. p. 5.] Eusebius, who copied it from Alexander Polyhistor. It is likewise to be found in 10 [Syncelli Chronograph, p. 28.] Syncellus. It begins in this wise....
-- A New System, Or, An Analysis of Ancient Mythology: Wherein an Attempt is Made to Divest Tradition of Fable; and to Reduce the Truth to its Original Purity, by Jacob Bryant, 1775
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (May 2020)
Berossus[a] was a Hellenistic-era Babylonian writer, a priest of Bel Marduk[2] and astronomer who wrote in the Koine Greek language, and who was active at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. Versions of two excerpts of his writings survive, at several removes from the original.
Life and work
Using ancient Babylonian records and texts that are now lost, Berossus published the Babyloniaca (hereafter, History of Babylonia) in three books some time around 290–278 BC, by the patronage[3] of the Macedonian/Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter (during the third year of his reign, according to Diodorus Siculus[4][5][failed verification]). Certain astrological fragments recorded by Pliny the Elder, Censorinus, Flavius Josephus, and Marcus Vitruvius Pollio are also attributed to Berossus, but are of unknown provenance, or indeed are uncertain as to where they might fit into his History. Vitruvius credits him with the invention of the semi-circular sundial hollowed out of a cubical block.[6] A statue of him was erected in Athens, perhaps attesting to his fame and scholarship as historian and astronomer-astrologer.
A separate work, Procreatio, is attributed to him by the Latin commentaries on Aratus, Commentariorium in Aratum Reliquiae, but there is no proof of this connection. However, a direct citation (name and title) is rare in antiquity, and it may have referred to Book 1 of his History.
He was born during or before Alexander the Great's reign over Babylon (330–323 BC), with the earliest date suggested as 340 BC. According to Vitruvius's work de Architectura, he relocated eventually to the island of Kos off the coast of Asia Minor and established a school of astrology there[7] by the patronage of the king of Egypt. However, scholars have questioned whether it would have been possible to work under the Seleucids and then relocate to a region experiencing Ptolemaic control late in life. It is not known when he died.
History of Babylonia
Versions at several removes of the remains of Berossos' lost Babyloniaca are given by two later Greek epitomes that were used by the Christian Eusebius of Caesarea for his Chronological Canons, the Greek manuscripts of which have been lost, but which can be largely recovered by the Latin translation and continuation of Jerome and a surviving Armenian translation.[8][9] The reasons why Berossus wrote the History have not survived, though contemporaneous Greek historians generally did give reasons for the publication of their own histories. It is suggested that it was commissioned by Antiochus I, perhaps desiring a history of one of his newly acquired lands, or by the Great Temple priests, seeking justification for the worship of Marduk in Seleucid lands. Pure history writing per se was not a Babylonian concern, and Josephus testifies to Berossus' reputation as an astrologer.[10] The excerpts quoted recount mythology and history that relate to Old Testament concerns. As historian and archaeologist W.G. Lambert observes: "Of course Berossus may have written other works which are not quoted by Josephus and Eusebius because they lacked any Biblical interest".[10] Lambert finds some statements in the Latin writers so clearly erroneous that it renders doubtful whether the writers had first-hand knowledge of Berossus' text.
Transmission and reception
Berossus' work was not popular during the Hellenistic period. The usual account of Mesopotamian history was Ctesias of Cnidus's Persica, while most of the value of Berossus was considered to be his astrological writings. Most pagan writers probably never read the History directly, and seem to have been dependent on Posidonius of Apamea (135–50 BC), who cited Berossos in his works. While Poseidonius's accounts have not survived, the writings of these tertiary sources do: Vitruvius Pollio (a contemporary of Caesar Augustus), Pliny the Elder (d. 79 AD), and Seneca the Younger (d. 65 AD). Seven later pagan writers probably transmitted Berossus via Poseidonius through an additional intermediary. They were Aetius (1st or 2nd century AD), Cleomedes (second half of 2nd century AD), Pausanias (c. 150 AD), Athenaeus (c. 200 AD), Censorinus (3rd century AD), and an anonymous Latin commentator on the Greek poem Phaenomena by Aratus of Soloi (ca. 315–240/39 BC).
Jewish and Christian references to Berossus probably had a different source, either Alexander Polyhistor (c. 65 BC) or Juba II of Mauretania (c. 50 BC–20 AD). Polyhistor's numerous works included a history of Assyria and Babylonia, while Juba wrote On the Assyrians, both using Berossus as their primary sources. Josephus' records of Berossus include some of the only extant narrative material, but he is probably dependent on Alexander Polyhistor,[citation needed] even if he did give the impression that he had direct access to Berossus. The fragments of the Babylonaica found in three Christian writers' works are probably dependent on Alexander or Juba (or both). They are Tatianus of Syria (2nd century AD), Theophilus Bishop of Antioch (180 AD), and Titus Flavius Clemens (c. 200 AD).
Like Poseidonius', neither Alexander's nor Juba's works have survived. However, the material in Berossus was recorded by Abydenus (c. 200 BC) and Sextus Julius Africanus (early 3rd century AD). Both their works are also lost, possibly considered too long, but Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria (c. 260–340 AD), in his work the Chronicon, preserved some of their accounts.
Abydenus was a Greek historian, and the author of a History of the Chaldeans and Assyrians, of which some fragments are preserved by Eusebius [c. 260/265 – 30 May 339] in his Praeparatio Evangelica, and by Cyril of Alexandria in his work against Julian. Several other fragments are preserved by Syncellus. These were particularly valuable for chronology. An important fragment, which clears up some difficulties in Assyrian history, has been discovered in the Armenian translation of the Chronicon of Eusebius.
It is uncertain when he lived, but he is to be distinguished from Palaephatus Abydenus, who lived in the time of Alexander the Great; for this Abydenus mentions Berosus, who lived at a later period.
-- Abydenus, by Wikipedia
The Greek text of the Chronicon is also now lost to us but there is an ancient Armenian translation (500–800 AD) of it,[11] and portions are quoted in Georgius Syncellus's Ecloga Chronographica (c. 800–810 AD). Nothing of Berossus survives in Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius. Eusebius' other mentions of Berossus in Praeparatio Evangelica are derived from Josephus, Tatianus, and another inconsequential source (the last cite contains only, "Berossus the Babylonian recorded Naboukhodonosoros in his history").
Christian writers after Eusebius are probably reliant on him, but include Pseudo-Justinus (3rd–5th century), Hesychius of Alexandria (5th century), Agathias (536–582), Moses of Chorene (8th century), an unknown geographer of unknown date, and the Suda (Byzantine dictionary from the 10th century). Thus, what little of Berossus remains is very fragmentary and indirect. The most direct source of material on Berossus is Josephus, received from Alexander Polyhistor. Most of the names in his king-lists and most of the potential narrative content have been lost or completely mangled as a result. Only Eusebius and Josephus preserve narrative material, and both had agendas. Eusebius was looking to construct a consistent chronology across different cultures,[11][non-primary source needed] while Josephus was attempting to refute the charges that there was a civilization older than that of the Jews.[citation needed] However, the ten ante-diluvian kings were preserved by Christian apologists interested in how the long lifespans of the kings were similar to the long lifespans of the ante-diluvian ancestors in the story of Genesis.
Sources and content
The Armenian translations of Eusebius and Syncellus' transmissions (Chronicon and Ecloga Chronographica, respectively) both record Berossus' use of "public records" and it is possible that Berossus catalogued his sources. This did not make him reliable, only that he was careful with the sources and his access to priestly and sacred records allowed him to do what other Babylonians could not. What we have of ancient Mesopotamian myth is somewhat comparable with Berossus, though the exact integrity with which he transmitted his sources is unknown because much of the literature of Mesopotamia has not survived. What is clear is that the form of writing he used was dissimilar to actual Babylonian literature, writing as he did in Greek.
Book 1 fragments are preserved in Eusebius and Syncellus above, and describe the Babylonian creation account and establishment of order, including the defeat of Thalatth (Tiamat) by Bel (Marduk). According to him, all knowledge was revealed to humans by the sea monster Oannes after the Creation, and so Verbrugghe and Wickersham (2000:17) have suggested that this is where the astrological fragments discussed above would fit, if at all.
Book 2 describes the history of the Babylonian kings from Alulim down to Nabonassar (747–734 BC). Eusebius reports that Apollodorus reports that Berossus recounts 432,000 years from the first king Aloros (Alulim) to the tenth king Xisouthros and the Babylonian Flood. From Berossus' genealogy, it is clear he had access to king-lists in compiling this section of History, particularly in the kings before the Flood, and from the 7th century BC with Senakheirimos (Sennacherib, who ruled both Assyria and Babylon). His account of the Flood (preserved in Syncellus) is extremely similar to versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh that we have presently. However, in Gilgamesh, the main protagonist is Utnapishtim, while for Berossus, Xisouthros is probably a Greek transliteration of Ziusudra, the protagonist of the Sumerian version of the Flood.
Perhaps what Berossus omits to mention is also noteworthy. Much information on Sargon (c. 2300 BC) would have been available during his time (e.g., a birth legend preserved at El-Amarna and in an Assyrian fragment from 8th century BC, and two Neo-Babylonian fragments), but these were not mentioned. Similarly, the great Babylonian king Hammurabi (ca. 1750 BC) merits only passing mention. He did, however, mention that the queen Semiramis (probably Sammuramat, wife of Samshi-Adad V, 824–811 BC) was Assyrian. Perhaps it was in response to Greek writers mythologising her to the point where she was described as the founder of Babylon, daughter of the Syrian goddess Derketo, and married to Ninus (the legendary founder of Nineveh, according to Greek authors).
Book 3 relates the history of Babylon from Nabonassar to Antiochus I (presumably). Again, it is likely that he used king-lists, though it is not known which ones he used. The Mesopotamian documents known as King-List A (one copy from the 6th or 5th centuries BC) and Chronicle 1 (3 copies with one confidently dated to 500 BC) are usually suggested as the ones he used, due to the synchronicity between those and his History (though there are some differences). A large part of his history around the time of Naboukhodonosoros (Nebuchadnezzar II, 604–562 BC) and Nabonnedos (Nabonidus, 556–539 BC) survives. Here we see his interpretation of history for the first time, moralising about the success and failure of kings based on their moral conduct. This is similar to another Babylonian history, Chronicle of Nabonidus (as well as to the Hebrew Bible), and differs from the rationalistic accounts of other Greek historians like Thucydides.
At the time of the Jewish historian Josephus (1st-century CE), the historical records contained in the third book of Berossus were still extant and which Josephus used to cite the regnal years of 6 Babylonian kings:[12]
Nabopolassar = reigned 21 years.
Nebuchadnezzar b. Nabuchodonosor = reigned 43 years.
Evil Merodach (also called Amel-Marduk) = reigned 2 years. (Josephus, elsewhere, contradicts himself, saying that Evil Merodach reigned 18 years).[13]
Neglissar (Neriglissoor) = reigned 4 years (Josephus, elsewhere, contradicts himself, saying that Neglissar reigned 40 years).[14]
Laborosoarchod (Labosordacus) = reigned 9 months.
Nabonnedus (also known as Baltasar) = reigned 17 years, in which year, Cyrus king of Persia and Darius king of Media took Babel (Borsippus) from the Chaldaeans.
The achievements of the History of Babylonia
Berossus' achievement may be seen in terms of how he combined the Hellenistic methods of historiography and Mesopotamian accounts to form a unique composite. Like Herodotus and Thucydides, he probably autographed his work for the benefit of later writers. Certainly he furnished details of his own life within his histories, which contrasted with the Mesopotamian tradition of anonymous scribes. Elsewhere, he included a geographical description of Babylonia,similar to that found in Herodotus (on Egypt), and used Greek classifications. There is some evidence that he resisted adding information to his research, especially for the earlier periods with which he was not familiar. Only in Book 3 do we see his opinions begin to enter the picture.
Secondly, he constructed a narrative from Creation to his present, again similar to Herodotus or the Hebrew Bible. Within this construction, the sacred myths blended with history. Whether he shared Hellenistic skepticism about the existence of the gods and their tales is unknown, though it is likely he believed them more than the satirist Ovid, for example. The naturalistic attitude found in Syncellus' transmission is probably more representative of the later Greek authors who transmitted the work than of Berossus himself.
During his own time and later, however, the History of Babylonia was not distributed widely. Verbrugghe and Wickersham argue that the lack of relation between the material in History and the Hellenistic world was not relevant, since Diodorus' equally bizarre book on Egyptian mythology was preserved. Instead, the reduced association between Mesopotamia and the Greco-Roman lands during Parthian rule was partially responsible. Secondly, his material did not include as much narrative, especially of periods with which he was not familiar, even when potential sources for stories were available. They suggest:[15]
Perhaps Berossos was a prisoner of his own methodology and purpose. He used ancient records that he refused to flesh out, and his account of more recent history, to judge by what remains, contained nothing more than a bare narrative. If Berossos believed in the continuity of history with patterns that repeated themselves (i.e., cycles of events as there were cycles of the stars and planets), a bare narrative would suffice. Indeed, this was more than one would suspect a Babylonian would or could do. Those already steeped in Babylonian historical lore would recognize the pattern and understand the interpretation of history Berossos was making. If this, indeed, is what Berossos presumed, he made a mistake that would cost him interested Greek readers who were accustomed to a much more varied and lively historical narrative where there could be no doubt who was an evil ruler and who was not.
What is left of Berossus' writings is useless for the reconstruction of Mesopotamian history. Of greater interest to scholars is his historiography, using as it did both Greek and Mesopotamian methods. The affinities between it and Hesiod, Herodotus, Manethon, and the Hebrew Bible (specifically, the Torah and Deuteronomistic History) as histories of the ancient world give us an idea about how ancient people viewed their world.
We learn from Manetho [Manethon], that the Egyptian chronology enumerated fourteen dynasties, the particulars of which he omitted as unworthy of notice.
In the same manner the Hindu chronology presents us with a series of fourteen Dynasties, equally repugnant to nature and reason; six of these are elapsed, we are in the seventh, which began with the Flood, and seven more we are taught to expect. These fourteen Dynasties are hardly ever noticed by the Hindus in their legendary tales, or historical poems. The rulers of these Dynasties are called MENUS [Manus]: and from them their respective Dynasty, antara, or period, is called a Manwantara. Every Dynasty ends with a total destruction of the human race, except the Menu or ruler of the next period, who makes his escape in a boat, with the seven Rishis. The same events take place; the same persons, though sometimes under different names, re-appear.
Thus the history of one Dynasty serves for all the rest. In reality, history, according to the Hindus themselves, begins with the Flood, or the seventh Menu.
-- On the Chronology of the Hindus, by Captain Francis Wilford, Asiatic Researches, Vol. V, P. 241, 1799
-- On the Chronology of the Hindus, by the President (Sir William Jones), Written in January 1788
-- Hindu Chronology and Antediluvian History, by S.R. Bonsanquet, 1880
-- A Key to the Chronology of the Hindus in a Series of Letters in Which an Attempt is Made to Facilitate the Progress of Christianity in Hindostan, by Proving That the Protracted Numbers of All Oriental Nations When Reduced Agree with the Dates Given in the Hebrew Text of the Bible, In Two Volumes, Volume I, by Alexander Hamilton, 1820
Similarities with Berossos
Most of the ancient witnesses group Manetho together with Berossos, and treat the pair as similar in intent, and it is not a coincidence that those who preserved the bulk of their writing are largely the same (Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus). Certainly, both wrote about the same time, and both adopted the historiographical approach of the Greek historians Herodotus and Hesiod, who preceded them. While the subjects of their history are different, the form is similar, using chronological royal genealogies as the structure for the narratives. Both extend their histories far into the mythic past, to give the deities rule over the earliest ancestral histories.
Syncellus goes so far as to insinuate that the two copied each other:If one carefully examines the underlying chronological lists of events, one will have full confidence that the design of both is false, as both Berossos and Manetho, as I have said before, want to glorify each his own nation, Berossos the Chaldean, Manetho the Egyptian. One can only stand in amazement that they were not ashamed to place the beginning of their incredible story in each in one and the same year.
While this does seem an incredible coincidence, the reliability of the report is unclear. The reasoning for presuming they started their histories in the same year involved some considerable contortions. Berossos dated the period before the Flood to 120 saroi (3,600 year periods), giving an estimate of 432,000 years before the Flood. This was unacceptable to later Christian commentators, so it was presumed he meant solar days. 432,000 divided by 365 days gives a rough figure of 1,183½ years before the Flood. For Manetho, even more numeric contortions ensued. With no flood mentioned, they presumed that Manetho's first era describing the deities represented the ante-diluvian age. Secondly, they took the spurious Book of Sothis for a chronological count. Six dynasties of deities totalled 11,985 years, while the nine dynasties with demigods came to 858 years. Again, this was too long for the Biblical account, so two different units of conversion were used. The 11,985 years were considered to be months of 29½ days each (a conversion used in antiquity, for example by Diodorus Siculus), which comes out to 969 years. The latter period, however, was divided into seasons, or quarters of a year, and reduces to 214½ years (another conversion attested to by Diodorus). The sum of these comes out to 1,183½ years, equal to that of Berossos.[L]ong before the ninth century the chronological system of the Hindus was as complete, or rather, perfectly the same as it is now; for Albumazar, who was contemporary with the famous Almamun, and lived at his court at Balac or Balkh, had made the Hindu antiquities his particular study. He was also a famous astronomer and astrologer, and had made enquiries respecting the conjunctions of the planets, the time of the creation of the world, and its duration, for astrological purposes; and he says, that the Hindus reckoned from the Flood to the Hejira [Muhammad's departure from Mecca to Medina in AD 622.] 720,634,442,715 days, or 3725 years.
Here is a mistake, which probably originates with the transcriber or translator, but it may be easily rectified. The first number, though somewhat corrupted, is obviously meant for the number of days from the creation to the Hejira; and the 3725 years are reckoned from the beginning of the Cali-yug to the Hejira. It was then the opinion of Albumazar, about the middle of the ninth century, that the aera of the Cali-yug coincided with that of the Flood. He had, perhaps, data which no longer exist...
Each period consists of 12,000 years, which the Hindus call divine. The Persians are not unacquainted with these renovations of the world, and periods of 12,000 years; for the bird Simurgh is introduced, telling Caherman that she had lived to see the earth seven times filled with creatures, and seven times a perfect void, (it should be six times a perfect void, for we are in the seventh period,) and that she had already seen twelve great periods of 7000 years. This is obviously wrong; it should be seven great periods of 12,000 years.
-- On the Chronology of the Hindus, by Captain Francis Wilford, Asiatic Researches, Vol. V, P. 241, 1799
Syncellus rejected both Manetho's and Berossos' incredible time-spans, as well as the efforts of other commentators to harmonise their numbers with the Bible. Ironically as we see, he also blamed them for the synchronicity concocted by later writers.
-- Manetho, by Wikipedia
In his system of chronology, accordingly, we have a series of rulers, Hebrew, Hindu, Chaldean, Persian, Chinese, and Egyptian, who reigned before the flood; in other words, the antediluvian patriarchs, in the two lines of descent from Seth and Cain, are represented as the first sovereigns of those several divisions of the east: and in this way, it will be granted that he contrives to dispose of the fourteen dynasties of ancient kings, mentioned in the Old Chronicle, by Manethon and by Berosus, which have so grievously perplexed all modern settlers of dates. From Syncellus downwards, all the compilers of chronological tables have been thrown out of their reckoning by the length of Manethon's catalogue; and we believe they have all adopted the same methods for combating the difficulties thereby presented, namely, either to reject the first fourteen dynasties, or reigns, as altogether fabulous, or, admitting them to have some ground in historical fact, to set them down as contemporary governments. Now, as Noah was the eighth from Adam, it is very plausibly inferred in the work before us, that there were six chiefs or rulers in each of the two lines of Adam's sons, making between them, including our first parent and Noah, the very fourteen reigns in question (for reign and dynasty here are admitted to be synonymous), and thereby giving an intelligible import to the otherwise unmeaning list of aboriginal kings found in the most ancient records. There may perhaps be a little imagination in the matter; but it is astonishing how successfully the author contrives to make the Hindu, Chaldean, Chinese, and Egyptian annals coincide, in their earliest details of names and sovereignties: and it is still more remarkable that both the Hindu and Chaldean historians mention in regard to the eighth king in their list, that he with his family was miraculously saved from the general destruction of the deluge by means of a ship or ark.
-- ART. V. [Book Review of:] A Key to the Chronology of the Hindus; in a Series of Letters, in which an Attempt is made to facilitate the Progress of Christianity in Hindustan, by proving that the protracted Numbers of all Oriental Nations, when reduced, agree with the Dates given in the Hebrew Text of the Bible. 2 vols. 8vo. Rivingtons. 1820. [by Anonymous, 1820], by F. and C. Rivington (Firm), The British Critic, Volumes 13-14, Editors: 1793-1813, Robert Nares, William Beloe; 1814-1825, T.F. Middleton, W.R. Lyall, and others. 1820, originally published 1792
Each begins with a fantastic creation story, followed by a mythical ancestral period, and then finally accounts of recent kings who seem to be historical, with no demarcations in between. Blenkinsopp (1992:41) notes:
In composing his history, Berossus drew on the mythic-historiographical tradition of Mesopotamia, and specifically on such well known texts as the creation myth Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and the king lists, which provided the point of departure and conceptual framework for a universal history. But the mythic and archaic element was combined with the chronicles of rulers which can lay claim to being in some degree genuinely historical.
This early approach to historiography, though preceded by Hesiod, Herodotus, and the Hebrew Bible, demonstrates its own unique approach. Though one must be careful about how much can be described of the original work, his apparent resistance to adding to his sources is noteworthy, as is the lack of moralising he introduces to those materials he is not familiar with.
Derivative works
Regarding the flood, Josephus in Antiquities Bk 1, Ch 3§6 quotes several sources including Berosus
Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs."
Pseudo-Berossus
In 1498, Annius of Viterbo (an official of Pope Alexander VI) claimed to have discovered lost books of Berossus. These were in fact an elaborate forgery. However, they greatly[16] influenced Renaissance ways of thinking about population and migration, because Annius provided a list of kings from Japhet onwards, filling a historical gap following the Biblical account of the Flood. Annius also introduced characters from classical sources into the biblical framework, publishing his account as Commentaria super opera diversorum auctorum de antiquitatibus loquentium (Commentaries on the Works of Various Authors Discussing Antiquity). One consequence was sophisticated theories about Celtic races with Druid priests in Western Europe.[17]
Notes
1. /bəˈrɒsəs/ or Berosus (/bəˈroʊsəs/; name possibly derived from Akkadian: Bēl-rē'u-šu, "Bel is his shepherd"; Greek: Βηρωσσός)[1]
References
1. The suggestion was made by Heinrich Zimmern; cf. Lehmann-Haupt, "Neue Studien zu Berossos" Klio 22 (1929:29)
2. Seneca Nat. Questiones III.29: "Berosus, qui Belum interpretatus est...", "Berossus, who expounded the doctrine of Bel/Marduk" (interpretatus) as rendered by W. G. Lambert, "Berossus and Babylonian Eschatology" Iraq, 38.2 (Autumn 1976:171-173) p. 172.
3. A. Kuhrt, "Berossus's Babyloniaca and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia," in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press) 1987:55f.
4. "Digital Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (DFHG)".
5. Diodorus Siculus, Library 3.42.1.
6. Vitruvius, De architectura, viii.8.1; in ix.2.1 he notes Berossus teaching that the moon was a ball one half luminous, the rest of a blue color.
7. Vitruvius, ix.6.2.
8. Robin Lane Fox, Travelling Heroes in the Epic Age of Homer, 2008:81, who gives his sources in note 49.
9. The authority on Eusebius' Chronicle is Alden Mosshammer The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition, 1979.
10. Lambert 1976:171.
11. "Eusebius' Chronicle (or Chronography), Translated from Classical Armenian, Public Domain Work. Eusebius, Chronicle, Table of Contents". Rbedrosian.com. Retrieved 18 October 2012.
12. Josephus, Against Apion 1:19–20
13. See Parker, R.A.; Dubberstein, Waldo H. (1956). Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75. Providence: Brown University Press. p. 28. OCLC 460027103., who put down only two regnal years for this king.
14. See Parker, R.A.; Dubberstein, Waldo H. (1956). Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75. Providence: Brown University Press. p. 29. OCLC 460027103., who put down only four regnal years for this king, and who is called by them Nergal-Shar-Usur.
15. Verbrugghe and Wickersham (2000:32)
16. Krebs, C. B. 2011. A Most Dangerous Book. Tacitus's Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich. New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 103f.
17. Morse, Michael A. How the Celts Came to Britain. Tempus Publishing, Stroud, 2005. page 15.
Bibliography
• Blenkinsopp, J. 1992. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Anchor Doubleday.
• Verbrugghe, G.P. & Wickersham, J.M. 2000. Berossos and Manetho Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
• K. Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (FHG) 2. Paris: Didot, 1841 1870, frr. 1 25.
• Burstein, S.M. 1978 [19802]. The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Malibu: Undena Publications.
• Krebs, C. B. 2011. A Most Dangerous Book. Tacitus's Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich. New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 98–104.
• Haubold, Johannes; Lanfranchi, Giovanni B.; Rollinger, Robert; Steele, John, eds. (2013). The World of Berossos. Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on "The Ancient Near East between Classical and Ancient Oriental Traditions", Hatfield College, Durham 7th-9th July 2010. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. ISBN 978-3-447-06728-7.
• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Berossus" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 3 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
External links
• Fragments of Chaldæan History, by Berossus
• An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah Into Europe, Translated by Richard Lynche in 1601