Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch. By Russell E. Gmirkin. Berossus and. Download Citation on ResearchGate | On Feb 6, , John Van Seters and others published Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic. Colofón Texto a dos col. Port. con esc. xil. del arzobispo Juan Martínez Siliceo Marca tip. al fin Enc. Perg. Sign.: *7, [infinito]8,.·.8, ¶6, A-Z8, a-o8, p Read more.
|Published (Last):||13 September 2016|
|PDF File Size:||15.80 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Yet this volume is an intriguing read because it challenges us at every turn to think about source-critical questions and to ask about the direction of literary dependence.
A lot of research went into this book, but, I suggest, faulty methodology and odd framing of questions led the work astray, to quite implausible conclusions about the origin of the Torah and its Greek translation. And when Moses was called a lawgiver, that’s explained away as a non-writing variety lawgiver, despite a long-functioning temple. Problematic within his presentation of the documentary hypothesis, though, is how broadly he gensis it.
Even in Gmirkin’s internally-inconsistent book, in some pages, the Bible did not “start” when other pages insist. Rather, they take berossys the text critically on their own.
Follow me on Twitter
Not surprisingly, no one before Gmirkin has ever supposed that Berossus is the direct source for the authors of Genesis 1—11, especially since the hypothesis implies that learned Jews of the third century BCE chose an inferior literary work on Babylonian history, written in poor Greek Burstein, p. Citing articles via Web of Science 1. He falls back on his exdus that gives him and only others like him the legitimacy to speak authoritatively about the Bible.
Who influenced who and when and where? Amazon Second Chance Pass it on, trade it in, give it a second life.
On pages Gmirkin attempts to reassign wnd that shows awareness of written Torah away from Hecataeus of Abdera, who most scholars agree wrote this; but that attestation, by itself, disproves Gmirkin’s proposal by predating his imagined composition time.
Learn more about Amazon Prime. Sign In Forgot password? See all 6 reviews. Gmirkin mentions the snake in the Epic of Gilgamesh who stole and ate the plant of life that would keep Gilgamesh eternally youthful p. Sign in via your Institution Sign in. anv
Teaching, Rhetoric, and Reception. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime.
Other than human speech, there is no resemblance between the snake of Genesis and the half-fish-half-human monster of Berossus pp. I was not persuaded that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible were “composed in their entirely about BCE” in Alexandria. This book has a bold thesis and detailed argumentation: The simplicity of this model is stressed p. Learn more about Amazon Betossus.
Thus, he underlines the importance of distinguishing statements of Manetho from those of Josephus who identified the Hyksos with the Jews on the basis of the similarities between the Israelites of the Exodus story and the Hyksos of Manetho pp. Momigliano’s earlier complaint about another work: Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Some of these parallels are so precise that there is no wiggle room for evading the beerossus borrowing. Pages with related products.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Review of Russell Gmirkin’s Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus
I’d like to read this book on Kindle Don’t have a Kindle? Gmirkin’s dismissal of Linguistic Dating of Texts p. Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Even if it is true that Manetho did not have the Exodus story in mind p. If they do, they are shouted down or ignored away by the Churches that grant the authority.
He points out that the many texts that would have to have been consulted to produce such a history probably were available only there. Top Reviews Most recent Top Reviews. Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: The primary evidence is literary dependence of Gen. In his argument, he attempts berossuus destabilize the documentary hypothesis in order to create a space to construct his argument.
Gmirkin seems to me to use two standards of proof. Real scientific critics are not allowed to enter the biblical field. MacDonald, but that’s off-topic here. Further, there is exxodus duplication of the genealogy of the patriarchs and the Persian-Median royal house, the most striking of which exist between the figures of Moses and King Xerxes.
Notify me of new comments via email. I’m reminded of A. Gmirkin does not consider the possibility that Babylonian and Canaanite literary sources lie behind the Exodus story.