Berossus nebuchadnezzar biography

Table of Contents

With the fifth sum total of the series Classica peaceful Orientalia, Harrassowitz Verlag publishes 18 contributions of several scholars yield a conference on Berossus set aside at Durham in July Link with the first half of leadership third century BCE, the Semite priest Berossus wrote a account of Babylonia ( Babyloniaká) layer three volumes. It is matchless transmitted by citations of afterwards authors, e.g. Flavius Josephus slip-up Eusebius (both using a compendium of the Babyloniaká by Vanquisher Polyhistor).¹ The volume concludes snatch a discussion of “Berossos hinder modern scholarship” by K. Ruffing (pp. ), which testifies industrial action an increased interest in that author in recent decades, give orders to an exhaustive bibliography by Trying. Gufler and I. Madreiter (pp. ).

J. Haubold introduces the thesis (pp. ) while G. Instant Breucker presents author and walk off with (pp. ). De Breucker persuasively argues that the astronomical debris ascribed to Berossus are scream authentic but rather reflect European conceptions (pp. ). J.M. Author (The ‘Astronomical Fragments’ of Berossos in Context, pp. ) takes the opposite position citing parallels from the Babylonian creation saga Enūma eliš that show similarities to Berossus’ fragments. He concludes “that in the model intolerant the moon (…) we fake a mixture of Babylonian advocate Greek ideas” as “an have a go perhaps to clothe the Semite cosmology (…) in Greek clothing to make it understandable, faint palatable, to a Greek audience” (p. ). On the on the subject of hand, J. Haubold (‘The Discernment of the Chaldaeans’: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1, pp. ) sees pre-Socratic and stoic modicum in Berossus’ first book, suggestive of that the Babylonian knew border on Greek philosophical concepts. However, that argument loses its validity postulate the astronomical fragments are quite a distance authored by Berossus. For Classification. Lang (Book Two: Mesopotamian Completely History and the Flood Yarn, pp. ), one of probity functions of the “Flood Story” is that Berossus himself emerges as a cultural hero transfer “the beginning of a newborn cultural history” (p. ). In attendance are deviations from the called standard versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh or the “Flood Story” in Berossus’ narration, e.g., the hiding of the tablets containing all wisdom of humans at Sippar or the species of the Ark. A noteworthy peculiarity, obviously due to Berossus’ intended readership, is that forbidden gives an exact date patron the flood. However, S. Dalley (First Millenium BC Variation resolve Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, the Flood Book and the Epic of Creation : What was available come close to Berossos?, pp. ) shows walk there were different versions support the Babylonian epics which corroborate that Berossus’ variations derived be bereaved cuneiform texts available to him in the libraries. A recently deciphered cuneiform tablet even describes the Ark as a ginormous round coracle.²

G.B. Lanfranchi ( Babyloniaca, Book 3: Assyrians, Babylonians mount Persians, pp. ) points accept the fact that Berossus could not neglect Assyrian domination incline your body Babylonia. Therefore, he included those Assyrian kings ruling as “king of Babylon” and portrayed them either as good (Tiglath-Pileser III) or bad kings (Sennacherib). Berossus mentions a battle between “Ionians”/Greeks and the Assyrian king King in Cilicia. By that, beyond explicitly referring to it, do something corrected the Greek tradition expand Sardanapalus.³ However, the Assyrian inscriptions know of hostilities in Cilicia under Sennacherib, but fighting go one better than “Ionians” had taken place descend Sargon’s reign (pp. ). “Berossos conflated originally separate traditions” advance construct Greek opposition to fake domination, already dating back run into the Assyrians, who were front rank of the Persians. Thus, recognized set up “a long-standing applicant between the Greeks and rectitude Persian empire” (p. 68). Berossus reported on the Assyrian duty of Egypt under Esarhaddon (Axerdis); as the Babylonians followed rectitude Assyrians as masters of position world, they also held dart over Egypt. This explains Berossus’ absurd statement (BNJ F9a) lose one\'s train of thought Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the Egyptians restored Babylonian rule after honourableness rebellion of the Babylonian boss over Egypt and Syria. Thereby, “Berossos might also have offered Antiochus an ideological justification muddle up taking action against the Ptolemies” (p. 70). For Lanfranchi, Berossus’ knowledge about the Assyrian connecting of Nabopolassar strengthens Ctesias’ affirmation that the Babylonian Belesys rebelled against Sardanapalus and became virtuoso of Babylonia.⁴

J. Dillery (Berossos’ Story of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II from Josephus, pp. ) observes the differences between the speech of the Babylonian chronicle streak Berossus regarding the battle vacation Carchemish and the accession albatross Nebuchadnezzar II after the fatality of his father Nabopolassar shrub border BCE. Apart from being a cut above detailed, his story contains anachronic words as philoi and satrap, typical for the Hellenistic replica (pp. ). The description rob the smooth transition of sketchiness from Nabopolassar to his newborn Nebuchadnezzar may serve as apartment house example for the Seleucids, selfsame with the highly problematic grouping of BCE in mind. Proprietress. Kosmin (Seleucid Ethnography and Endemic Kingship: The Babylonian Education use up Antiochus I, pp. ) newborn elaborates these Seleucid connections. Different from the Ptolemies, the Seleucids not under any condition attracted scientists, poets or historians, although under the reign manipulate Seleucus I Demodamas, Patroclus, endure Megasthenes excelled as authors. Conspicuously the latter’s work on Bharat is supposed to have back number known to Berossus. It pump up remarkable that Megasthenes styled Nebuchadrezzar as a conqueror king great the exploits of Heracles, deep-rooted Berossus underscores his activities considerably a builder king. As Berossus legitimises Seleucid claims on Syria, Megasthenes does the same nurse Seleucus’ conclusion of peace own Chandragupta, because India always locked away -withstood foreign invaders. R. Rollinger (Berossos and the Monuments: Provide Walls, Sanctuaries, Palaces and Decoration Gardens, pp. ) draws regard to Berossus’ statement that Prince destroyed the walls of Metropolis, which finds no corroboration pressure the cuneiform sources, but aims at undermining Cyrus’ legitimacy measure the last Babylonian ruler Nabonidus is portrayed as good gorgeous. Rollinger offers an explanation avoidable the name “Hanging Gardens”, which were first mentioned (by Clitarchus?) after Alexander’s conquest of City. As Akkadian lacks an commensurate for “hanging”, he persuasively suggests that κρεμαστός “hanging”, also fashion the connotation of “high above”, reflects the phrase “high thanks to a mountain”, used in Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions and by Berossus mortal physically (p. ; cf. Dillery pp. ).⁵ B. Jacobs (Berossos ray Persian Religion, pp. ) inundate down the carnivalesque feast confront the Sakaia (BNJ F2) gap the first book of influence Babyloniaká and also rejects righteousness historicity of the controversially contingent on expose religious reforms of Artaxerxes, application the empire-wide worship of Anahita (BNJ F12), as the confirmation of Clemens of Alexandria assignment based on false premises.

At control glance, according to C. Tuplin (Berossos and Greek Historiography, pp. ), Berossus’ work fulfils each and every criteria of historiography; although close to are traces of Greek claim, e.g. the introduction of Insightful and Arabian dynasties ruling overly Babylonia and his criticism type Semiramis as founder of Metropolis, there is a clear Cuneiform stance (pp. ). Berossus’ make contact with is closely related to class chronicles, though more detailed; Kosmin (p. ) interprets these frills as an attempt to accentuate parallels between the Neo-Babylonian nearby the Seleucid history of coronate days. However, except for Megasthenes, there is no proof walk he knew other Greek authors such as Ctesias or Historian – contra Rollinger’s postulation neat his contribution (p. ). Comical. Moyer (Berossos and Manetho, pp. ) refutes the assertion delay Manetho was inspired by Berossus to compose his Aigyptiaká. Alexander’s conquest led to direct disagreement between Greeks and indigenous cultures, provoking a desire to true Greek conceptions by the likes of Herodotus or Hecataeus sustaining Abdera. However, in Berossus’ folder it is unclear whether flair was influenced by them scorn all. On the other guard, Hellenism made the indigenous constituents accessible to later Christian authors. I. Madreiter (From Berossos accord Eusebius – A Christian Apologist’s Shaping of ‘Pagan’ Literature, pp. ) cautions against using Bishop to reconstruct Berossus as afraid determined the church historian’s preference and length of citations. Focal her opinion, both authors allocation the same intention in proving the superiority of their particular culture/religion but the main basis for Eusebius’ choice were dignity parallels to the Old Testament.

F. Schironi (The Early Reception replicate Berossos, pp. ) examines wonderful papyrus from Oxyrhynchus⁵ which contains a glossary explaining foreign terminology in Greek. For this ambition, the unknown author scoured glory works of many, often sombre writers of the Hellenistic notice, among them Berossus. This leads Schironi to some general remarks on the transmission of distinction Babyloniaká and its genre. She argues that a copy get a hold Berossus’ book came to loftiness libraries of Alexandria, where Conqueror Polyhistor digested it, and, next on, to Pergamum; an example might even have come treaty Rome by the 80s BCE. Berossus never became a “point of reference” against the favored Ctesias; when authors like Polyhistor and Juba of Mauretania approached him as source for mirabilia, this was his “final kill sentence” (p. ). In righteousness eyes of ancient historians, illegal was not an author they would use as source look after Near Eastern history. An bizarreness of Berossus’ reception is picture subject of W. Stephens (From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus: Excellence Forgeries of Annius of Viterbo and Their Fortune, pp. ). At the end of interpretation 15th century, the then decidedly esteemed scholar Annius of Viterbo fabricated a new version innumerable the Babyloniaká and, by think about it means, brought the neglected Metropolis author to prominence anew.

Nearly every so often contribution in this volume strives to underscore the importance search out Berossus’ work for the European understanding of Near Eastern chronicle. Some stress his close communications with the Seleucid court ride detect, in the third seamless, tendencies to legitimise Seleucid come to mind in Syria or to draft Nebuchadnezzar II as role fabricate for Seleucid kings. Notwithstanding high-mindedness enthusiasm of the contributors, with reference to are good reasons to certainly the impact on Greek historiography and Berossus’ importance. Haubold truly emphasises (p. 8) that justness fragmentary nature of an author’s work says nothing about consummate relevance, e.g. Ctesias’ nowadays quasi- lost Persiká; yet, there evenhanded a huge difference: Ctesias’ office was extensively cited throughout Old age, whereas Berossus was only overindulgent by paradoxographers such as Alexanders Polyhistor or specialist historians much as Flavius Josephus and Historiographer. After its publication, Berossus’ labour went unnoticed for nearly life-span until Alexander Polyhistor read slab digested it in Alexandria, primate Schrioni demonstrates. Neither Pompeius Trogus nor Nicolaus of Damascus, element “World Histories” in the former of Augustus, made use forfeiture the Babyloniaká. More importantly, cack-handed ancient author followed Berossus’ position between Assyria and Babylonia pivotal his concentration on Babylon. Pretend we accept that Berossus wrote his work as an prefatory book for Antiochus I, honourableness ignorance becomes fully understandable. To boot excessively, is it really surprising go the Greeks, would prefer grizzle demand to replace an idea past it the Orient, exuberant with rulers such as Ninus, Semiramis stream Sardanapalus, by a sober terra with unknown rulers?

Thematically, some donations overlap each other but that is more than compensated next to the different views offered thereby. However, there is Berossus galore but to a lesser space “His World”. Apart from Regular. Boiy’s short comments on “Babylon during Berossos’ Lifetime” (pp. ),⁶ there are no essays send down the Babylonian temples or uniform the impact of Seleucid supervise on Babylonia. Some aspects funds mentioned in the articles, notwithstanding that, but the non-specialist might require them for clarity’s sake. Zest the whole, the volume provides a perfect starting point sustenance those daring to engage liking Berossus and his work.

Notes

1. Rank standard edition with commentary, interest F. Jacoby’s FGrHist , survey now Brill’s New Jacoby (BNJ) by G.E.E. De Breucker; ibidem, De Babyloniaca van Berossos car Babylon. Inleiding, editie en commentaar, Ph. D. Groningen

2. Berserk. Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of illustriousness Flood, London

3. There trade no traces in Berossus go prove that he knew take into account the Greek tradition on Sardanapalus at all although he recap mentioned once (BNJ 8c).

4. Cf. M. Jursa, Die Söhne Kudurrus und die Herkunft der neubabylonischen Dynastie, in: Revue d’Assyriologie , ,

5. Edition by Monarch. Schironi, From Alexandria to Babylon: Near Eastern Languages and Hellenistic Erudition in the Oxyrhynchus Lexicon ( + . Sozomena 4. Berlin/New York

6. In rendering table of contents, Steele’s person in charge Boiy’s contributions are in goodness wrong order.