C lassica et O rien ta lia The World of Berossos

Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on

Herausgegeben von The Ancient N ear East between Classical
Reinhold Bichler, Bruno Jacobs, and Ancient Oriental Traditions,
Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Robert Rollinger, Hatfield College, D urham 7th- 9 th July 2010
Kai Ruffing und Josef Wiesehofer
Edited by
Johannes Haubold, Giovanni B. Lanfranchi,
Band 5 Robert Rollinger, John Steele

2013 2013

Harrassowitz Verlag Wiesbaden Harrassowitz Verlag Wiesbaden

Publication of rhis book was supported by a grant of Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissen- Table of Contents
schaft und Kultur in Wien; Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung, Abteilung lib, Wissenschaft
und Weiterbildung; Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung, Abteilung Kultur.
1. Overview
Cover illustration: Beautiful Reconstruction of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
Johannes Haubold (Durham University)
Specially painted for Wonders of the Past.
J. A. Hammerton (ed.)> Wonders of the Past - The Marvellous Works of M an in Ancient Times The World of Berossos: Introduction...................................................................................... 3
described by the Leading Authorities of To-day, Vol. I (London 1923 : The Fleetway House) 3 4 8 .
Geert De Breucker (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)
Berossos: His Life and His W ork............................................................................................ 15

2. Reading the Babyloniaca

Johannes Haubold (Durham University)

The Wisdom of the Chaldaeans: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1 .................. 31

M artin Lang (Leopold-Franzens Universitat Innsbruck)

Book Two: Mesopotamian Early History and the Flood Story.......................................... 47

Giovanni B. Lanfranchi (University of Padova)

Babyloniaca, Book 3: Assyrians, Babylonians and P e rsia n s............................................ 61

John Dillery (University of Virginia)

Berossos Narrative of Nabopolassar and
Nebuchadnezzar II from Josephus.......................................................................................... 75

B ib li o gr af is c h e I n f o r m a t i o n d e r D e u t s c h e n N a t i o n a l b i b l i o t h e k 3. Society, Religion and Culture

D ie D e u t s c h e N a t i o n a l b i b l i o t h e k v e r z e i c h n e t die se P u b l i k a t i o n in d e r D e u t s c h e n
N a ti o n a l b i b l i o g r a f i e ; d e t a il li e r t e b ib li og ra fi sc he D a t e n s in d im I n t e r n e t
Tom Boiy (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)
iib er h t t p : / / d n b . d n b . d e a b r u f b a r . Babylon during Berossos L ifetim e........................................................................................ 99

B i b l io g ra p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n p u b l i s h e d by th e D e u t s c h e N a t i o n a l b i b l i o t h e k John M. Steele (Brown University)

T h e D e u t s c h e N a t i o n a l b i b l i o t h e k lists th i s p u b l i c a t i o n in t h e D e u t s c h e
The Astronomical Fragments of Berossos in C o ntex t...................................................... 107
N a t i o n a l b i b l i o g r a f i e ; d e t a il e d b ib l io g r a p h i c d a t a are ava ilable in t h e in t e r n e t
at h t t p : / / d n b . d n b . d e .
Bruno Jacobs (Universitat Basel)
Berossos and Persian R elig io n ................................................................................................ 123

F o r fu rth e r in fo rm a tio n a b o u t o u r p u b lish in g p ro g ra m c o n su lt o u r Robert Rollinger (University of H elsinki/Leopold-Franzens Universitat Innsbruck)

w ebsite h ttp ://w w w .h a rra sso w itz -v e rla g .d e Berossos and the Monuments:
O tto H a rra ss o w itz G m b H & C o. K G, W iesbaden 2 0 1 3 City Walls, Sanctuaries, Palaces and the Hanging G arden................................................ 137
T h is w o rk , in clu d in g all of its p a rts, is p ro te c te d by co p y rig h t.
A n y use bey o n d th e lim its o f c o p y rig h t law w ith o u t the p erm issio n 4. Literary Contexts
of the p u b lish er is fo rb id d en and subject to pen alty . T h is applies
p artic u la rly to re p ro d u c tio n s, tran sla tio n s, m icro film s and storage Stephanie Dailey (Oxford University)
and processin g in electro n ic system s. First Millennium BC Variation in Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, the Flood Story
P rin ted on p e rm a n e n t/d u ra b le paper.
and the Epic o f Creation: What was Available to B ero sso s?............................................ 165
P rin tin g and b in d in g : H u b e rt & C o., G o ttin g e n
P rin ted in G erm an y Christopher Tuplin (University of Liverpool)
ISSN 2 1 9 0 - 3 6 3 8 Berossos and Greek H istoriography...................................................................................... 177
ISB N 9 7 8 - 3 - 4 4 7 - 0 6 7 2 8
VI Table o f Contents

Paul Kosmin (Harvard University)

Seleucid Ethnography and Indigenous Kingship:
The Babylonian Education o f Antiochus 1 ............................................................................ 199

Ian Moyer (University o f Michigan)

Acknowledgements
Berossos and M an eth o .............................................................................................................. 213

The editors gratefully acknowledge the support of the British Academy, Durham University,
5. Transmission, Reception, Reconstruction
and the Durham Centre for the Study of the Ancient M editerranean and the Near East
Francesca Schironi (University o f Michigan) (CAMNE). Without their support, this volume, and the conference which inspired it, would
The Early Reception o f B erossos............................................................................................ 235 not have been possible. Thanks are also due to the participants in the conference on The
world of Berossos (Durham 7th9th July 2010), and especially to Amelie Kuhrt, for her
Irene Madreiter (Leopold-Franzens Universitat Innsbruck)
challenging and encouraging response to the papers. Finally, the editors would like to thank
From Berossos to Eusebius -
Astrid Haubold, who prepared the typescript for publication with great efficiency and unfail
A Christian Apologists Shaping o f Pagan L iteratu re...................................................... 255
ing good cheer.
Walter Stephens (Johns Hopkins University) JHH, G-BL, RR, JMS
From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus:
The Forgeries o f A nnius o f Viterbo and Their F ortune...................................................... 277

Kai Ruffing (Universitat Marburg)

Berossos in M odern S cholarship............................................................................................ 291

Birgit G ufler/Irene M adreiter (University of Innsbruck)

Berossos - A B ibliography...................................................................................................... 309
1. Overview
 The World of Berossos: Introduction
Johannes Haubold (Durham University)

This volume is devoted to a man whose work is largely lost, whose life is shrouded in mys
tery, and whose real name we do not know.1What we do know is that Berossos of Babylon
was a contemporary of Alexander the Great and the first two Seleucid kings, Seleucus I
and Antiochus I, and that he wrote a work about Babylonian history and culture, the
Babyloniaca. He describes him self as a Babylonian and a priest of Bel-Marduk, the national
god o f Babylon, though in practice this may mean no more than that he was in some way
attached to the main temple of Babylon, the Esagila.2 According to Vitruvius, Berossos later
moved to the Greek island of Cos to open a school of astronomy.3 Pliny mentions a statue
which the Athenians set up to celebrate his powers of prophecy;4 and Pausanias makes him
the father of the Sibyl.5 With Pausanias we are plainly in the realm of mythmaking. W hether
Vitruvius or Pliny are any more trustworthy has been debated.6 W hatever we make of their
testimonies, it is not implausible that Berossos had connections with the astronomers of the
Esagila while in Babylon, and he must certainly have had some connection with, or at least
an interest in, the Seleucid court, because he dedicated his Babyloniaca to Antiochus I.7
We know from a cuneiform chronicle that Babylonian religious experts acted as advisors
to Antiochus I.8 Berossos may well have been one o f them, or in any case have worked in a
similar milieu.

The Babyloniaca
We can reconstruct that the Babyloniaca was a history of Babylon in three books, written in
Greek and for a Greek audience, but from a M esopotamian perspective.9 A fter an opening
section on the geography and culture of Babylonia, book 1 describes how the world came
to be. Book 2 takes the story from the first king Aloros down to N abonassar/N abu-nasir in
1 Berossos is a Greek rendering of an Akkadian name. Our best guess at the moment is that his fellow
Babylonians would have known him as Bel-re'usunu (Bel is their shepherd), but this is not certain; see
further De Breuckers contribution to this volume.
2 Beaulieu 2006b.
3 BNJ 680 T 5.
4 BNJ 680 T 6 .
5 BNJ 680 T 7.
6 E.g. Kuhrt 1987, De Breucker 2003 and his commentary in B rills New Jacoby.
1 BNJ 680 T 2.
8 Chronicle concerning Antiochus and the Sin temple: preliminary edition and translation by R. J. van
der Spek, published at www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-antiochus_sin/antiochus_sin 01.html;
for a printed edition with commentary see Del Monte 1997, 194-7. A similar encounter is reported by
Diodorus Siculus, 17.112: when Alexander returned to Babylon from India, an astronomer of the Esagila
temple called Belephantes (Akkadian Bel-apla-iddiri?), advised Alexander not to enter the city.
9 Berossos work was also known in antiquity under the alternative title Chaldaica, Chaldaean Matters,
perhaps as the result of confusion with Alexander Polyhistors Chaldaica: see De Breuckers introduc
tion to Berossos at BNJ 680.
4 Johannes Haubold
the 8th century BC. Book 3 outlines the more recent history of Babylon, from the Assyrian
king Tiglat-Pileser, or Pulu, down to Alexander. In putting together his account, Berossos
drew heavily on Mesopotamian (i.e. A kkadian and Sumerian) sources. These profoundly
shape his narrative, m aking for a varied reading experience: much of the colourful account
of book 1 is based on the Babylonian Epic of Creation (Enuma elis), while the rather arid
lists that made up most of book 2 reflect the style of Akkadian and Sumerian king lists. Book
3, finally, owes much in tone and content to the inscriptions of important Babylonian kings,
especially Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus.
Unfortunately, the Babyloniaca as a whole is lost, and all we have are fragments that are
sometimes corrupt, often difficult to interpret, and almost always at several removes from
the original text. Fragment 1 is fairly typical in this regard: today we read it in two versions,
one Greek, the other Armenian. The Greek text is an excerpt made by the Byzantine monk
Syncellus (died after AD 810) from Eusebius of Caesareas now lost Chronicle of AD 306-11.
Eusebius in turn used a paraphrase which Alexander Polyhistor (ca. 110-40BC) had made
of Berossos original text. The Arm enian is a translation of Eusebius Chronicle with some
errors and explanatory glosses.10 As this brief overview shows, Fragment 1 merely provides
us with a paraphrase at three removes from the original text. This picture is fairly typical of
our extant sources for Berossos. Indeed, we cannot even be certain that we have any verba
tim quotations from the Babyloniaca at all." The other problem illustrated by Fragment 1 is
that Berossos is transm itted in several languages. Chance would have it that the Armenian
translation o f Eusebius is our single most important witness to the Babyloniaca but frag
ments also survive in Greek, Syriac, classical Latin, and, in one case, a corrupt form of
medieval Latin translationese.12
In this already very complicated picture o f transmission, a group o f fragments dealing
with astronomical matters (in the broadest sense) pose a special set o f problems. Scholars
have long questioned the authenticity o f these fragments {BNJ F 15-22), on the ground that
they seem rather general and do not reflect cutting-edge Babylonian astronomy of the third
century. However, in the case of Berossos what might be meant by authenticity needs to be
questioned in the first place. Berossos him self insists that he faithfully transm its the ancient
archives of Babylon. Overall, he is beguilingly true to his promise, but in some cases at least
authenticity seems to have been more a m atter o f authenticating gestures calculated to im
press Berossos Greek readers. The astronomical fragments may well fall in this category:
Greeks and Romans knew that astronomy as a science had originated in Mesopotamia and
associated it with Chaldaean experts. It is therefore possible that Berossos pitched the
astronomical fragments to Greek readers who knew and cared little about real Babylonian
astronomy. Alternatively, general astronomical knowledge might have been attributed to
him at a later time because he was a Chaldaean, and was therefore expected to have dealt
with the subject.
Difficulties o f this kind turn on the question o f agency: Berossos agency as a translator
of culture, and his audiences agency in receiving his work. That Berossos was at times ca
pable of manipulating his audiences expectations is suggested by the much-discussed story
10 The translation was made in the 12th century CE; see Madreiter, this volume, pp. 255-276.
11 For a possible candidate see BNJ 680 F 3a.
12 BNJ 680 F 17. The fragment appears to confirm that Berossos discussed astronomy in book one of the
Babyloniaca (Berosus ait in Procreatione) and is thus of great importance to our understanding of the
work. Unfortunately, the text is so difficult as to render any firm conclusions hazardous.
The World o f Berossos: Introduction 5
of the Hanging Garden in book 3 of the Babyloniaca. If we believe Josephus, who is our
main source for this part of the work, Berossos told the story of how Nebuchadnezzar built
a miraculous structure, half park, half palace, called the Hanging Garden, for his homesick
Iranian wife Amyitis. Notoriously, the Hanging Garden, while a popular topic in Hellenistic
and later Greek literature, is neither mentioned in the cuneiform sources nor has it been se
curely identified in the archaeological record. Some scholars have therefore expressed doubt
about the authenticity of the story in Berossos,13 but as in the case of the astronomical frag
ments, authenticity here may reside not so much in abstract notions of what is legitimately
Mesopotamian, but rather in Berossos ability to project a plausible image of Babylon to his
Greek readers. Babylon was full of famous landmarks, and it must have been awash with
stories about them. Nebuchadnezzar him self conceived of his palace as a marvel for all
people,14 and it is unsurprising that it became the locus of much speculation and romance.
The present collection as a whole suggests that the issue of authenticity in the Babyloniaca
is far less straightforward than has often been assumed, and that the question of what is auth
entically Babylonian in Berossos is intimately bound with his attempt to engage a politically
dominant Greek readership. In the context of early Hellenistic Babylon, that was not such an
unusual project as it might seem today: the Greek language was fast becoming a lingua fran
ca after the conquests of Alexander, and a diverse range of culturally composite works soon
began to appear throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Cultural hybridity could take many
different forms, from the high-brow (auto-)ethnography of Manetho to the Creole of the
Septuagint, which was certainly not intended for educated Greeks, and seems to have been
ignored outside the Jewish community until well into the Christian era.15 The Babyloniaca
belongs near the more elevated end of the spectrum in term s of literary and political ambi
tion. It still looked fairly unusual in purely Greek term s, but there were precedents for what
Berossos was doing, both in the elusive work of Xanthus of Lydia and - perhaps more im
portantly - in the figure of the local informants evoked in the work of earlier historians such
as Herodotus and M egasthenes.16
There is also a Mesopotamian context to be considered here. Babylon was a cultural melt
ing pot, and Berossos will not have been alone in knowing four languages (Aramaic, Greek,
Akkadian, Sumerian), and possibly more. Moreover, Babylon was - and saw itself as -
the ancient centre of kingship par excellence, and in Hellenistic times had become a truly
cosmopolitan city. Alexander had intended to make it the capital of his world empire, and
treated it accordingly during his lifetime.17 Babylonian astronomers had allegedly predicted
Alexanders victory at Gaugamela, and the city had extended a public welcome to him just
as it had welcomed Cyrus after the battle of Opis.18 It is sometimes said that Babylons his
tory as a self-governing city ended in 539BC, with the conquest of Cyrus. In fact, already
13 For doubts about the authenticity of the Hanging Garden see Dailey 1994; for a different view see
Bichler/Rollinger 2005, Rollinger in this volume.
14 Nebuchadnezzar 15 col. IX.29-32 (Langdon).
15 For the reception of the Septuagint see Cook 2009.
16 On Greek historical writing about the Near East see Drews 1973, Sterling 1992, Bichler 2007, Dillery
2007, Rollinger 2008, all with further literature. It cannot be shown that Berossos knew Herodotus, and
in fact he may not have done; see Tuplins contribution to this volume, pp. 177-198. The idea of the local
informant will surely have been familiar to him.
17 For Babylon as the capital of Alexanders empire, see Strabo 15.3.9-10; for Alexanders relationship with
Babylon more generally, see Kuhrt 1990.
18 For references and discussion see Boiys contribution to this volume.
6 Johannes Haubold
in the 2nd-m illennium, the Amorite dynasty, with Hammurabi as its most famous exponent,
originated outside M esopotamia. The pattern of external rulers continues with the Kassite
kings of the Middle Babylonian period, and the Assyrian kings who ruled Babylon in the
early first millennium. Even the Chaldaeans who followed after the Assyrians were not na
tive to Babylon in the same way that Alexander was native to Macedonia, though they did
successfully present themselves as the citys legitimate rulers, and were widely perceived as
liberators from Assyrian oppression.19
All this suggests that the art o f cultural and political accommodation was highly de
veloped in Hellenistic Babylon. Berossos was only the latest in a long line o f intellectuals
whose task it was to preserve kingship by steering the city through a succession o f more
or less self-consciously foreign dynasties.20 Others had done it before him: the famous
Cyrus Cylinder and the less well-known but equally fascinating Persian Verse Account il
lustrate well the effort that went into negotiating an accommodation with Persia after the
debacle o f 539BC.21 From a Babylonian perspective, then, producing a sustainable script for
a Babylonian-Greek empire was much less unusual a task than one might think. Like the
Cyrus Cylinder and the Persian Verse Account, Berossos offers models of successful king
ship and explains what happens when a king misbehaves. And like those texts, he anchors
Babylonian kingship in the cosmic order.
Above all, and again echoing earlier cuneiform texts, Berossos emphasises the importance
of Babylon, its buildings and its wise men, the Chaldaeans. At one point in book 3, he reports
how, upon the death o f the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar, the best of the Chaldaeans
preserved the throne for his son and successor Nebuchadnezzar II.22 We know that Berossos
was fam iliar with the work of Ctesias, and he is likely to have been aware of the role that
Babylonian characters played in the overthrow o f successive empires in the P ersicaP He
thus seems to present a revisionist portrayal o f the best of the Chaldaeans ((3s?iTioto<;
airaiov) who preserves kingship for Nebuchadnezzar. In a climate where Berossos him self
was trying to w rite as a Chaldaean sage to the king, his presentation o f the Chaldaeans as
loyal wardens o f kingship seems calculated to advertise his own usefulness. Not coinci
dentally, Berossos portrays Nebuchadnezzar both as an ally of the Chaldaeans and as the
ultimate model of successful kingship.24 The idea was by no means new: at the time when
Berossos was writing, Babylonians had long seen Nebuchadnezzar as their most important
king, though he was still relatively unknown to the Greeks. He had served as a positive
model under Nabonidus and Cyrus the G reat;25 and both Babylonian rebels whom Darius
mentions in his Behistun inscription call themselves Nebuchadnezzar.26 Megasthenes finally
introduced him to a Greek audience, insisting that he was more powerful even than Heracles,
19 See sepecially Nabopolassar Nr. 4 (Langdon).
20 Preserving kingship: BNJ 680 F 8 ; for the cuneiform sources see Lenzi 2008, 76-7 and 158-9.
21 Up-to-date edition, translation and commentary in Schaudig 2001.
22 BNJ 680 F 8 .
23 Esp. Belesys at F lb 24ff. (Lenfant) and the anonymous Chaldaean at F 8 d 8 ff. (Lenfant). Both are
described as the foremost (e7iiorm 6 taro(;, Xoyid)T(XTO<;) of the Chaldaeans; for Ctesias see Wiesehofer/
Rollinger/ Lanfranchi 2011.
24 For example, he tells us that Nebuchadnezzar outshone all earlier kings of Babylon: BNJ 680 F 8 .
25 Nabonidus: 3.3 V 14 (Schaudig); cf. 3.2 II 45 (Schaudig). Cyrus: PI VI 8 11 (Schaudig).
26 DB OP par. 16-21, 49-50; for discussion see Rollinger 2010.
The World o f Berossos: Introduction 7
and pointing out that he had conquered the entire western hemisphere.27 The Seleucids would
surely have taken note of that.
Berossos too makes due mention of Nebuchadnezzars m ilitary prowess. In book 3 of the
Babyloniaca, he tells us how he campaigned in the West, bringing to heel the insubordinate
satrapies of Syria and even - historically incorrectly - Egypt. The idea of Egypt as a sa
trapy suggests a partisan political agenda in a context where the Ptolemies and Seleucids
battled for possession of Syria-Palestine. More generally, Ptolemies and Seleucids vied for
the role of hegemonic power in the Hellenistic world. W hereas the Ptolemies stressed the
prowess of earlier pharaohs whom they appropriated as their ancestors, Seleucid kings em
phasised the role of Nebuchadnezzar and other Babylonian monarchs. Berossos played to
their aspirations, and in so doing made a pitch for Seleucid commitment to his own city:
Nebuchadnezzar used the spoils of his western conquests specifically to rebuild Babylon.
The unspoken suggestion is that other good emperors (including Antiochus I) ought to do
the same.
The Babyloniaca, then, was very much a political work. However, and somewhat para
doxically, it simultaneously claimed to be of timeless value, and it is this latter claim that
largely determined the fascinating history of its reception. Readers throughout the centuries
valued Berossos for his perceived faithfulness to older literature. Josephus quotes him to
confirm the historical accuracy of the Hebrew scriptures. Much later, the Renaissance author
Annius of Viterbo pretended to quote Berossos in support of his own rather extravagant
historical claims. Among other things, Annius claimed to have discovered passages from
Berossos which proved that, shortly after the Flood, Noah and his favourite grandchildren,
the sons of Japheth, had colonized Europe.28 That is of course not in Berossos, and Annius
was soon exposed as one of the most blatant forgers in literary history. That he nonetheless
continued to be read well into the 18th century speaks for the powerful hold that Berosus,
the Chaldaean has had on the European imagination.
As a fragm entary text, the Babyloniaca lives on through the use that later readers made
of it. The case of Annius comes as a stark reminder of how fraught the interplay between
text and reception can become under such circumstances. However, we are not entirely at
the mercy of Berossos readers: when cuneiform was deciphered in the nineteenth century,
it became finally possible to compare his account with other Babylonian sources. Berossos,
we now know, was not an impostor like Annius, but he did not mechanically follow existing
cuneiform sources either. One of the most fruitful challenges in reading the Babyloniaca is
precisely to explore the space that opens up between two extremes: slavish faithfulness to
Mesopotamian tradition and servile assimilation to the dominant Greek culture. Berossos of
ten leaves the issue of cultural register in suspense. For example, he simultaneously follows
Babylonian precedent and plays to Greek expectations when he equates the ancient tribe of
the Guti with the Medes.29 Then again, he invites us to reflect on the tensions between dif
ferent cultural codes when he describes Cyrus the Great both as a philanthrope (a favourite
trope of Greek representations of Cyrus), and as a ruler who razed the walls of Babylon (thus
27 Megasthenes FGrHist 715 F la.
28 Stephens 2004.
29 BNJ 680 F5. As Lanfranchi points out in this volume (pp.61-74), Berossos wrote the Medes out of his
succession of empires after Assyria. With his equation of Guti and Medes he found a new place for them.
8 Johannes Haubold
tapping into deep-seated Babylonian anxieties about the proper exercise of kingship).30 The
point here is not to commit Berossos to a single voice, but to explore the interplay of voices,
sometimes converging, at other times strikingly dissonant, that characterise his complex
and fragile work.
The rewards are considerable, as this volume aims to show. Berossos has sometimes been
judged by the fact that his work did not survive: it has been suggested that the Babyloniaca
was in some fundamental way flawed, or that it was inherently unattractive to Greek readers.
There may be some truth in this, but claims about the stylistic qualities or otherwise of the
Babyloniaca must be treated with caution, given the precarious state o f our evidence. More
generally, arguments about survival are problematic: like Sappho, M enander and Ctesias,
Berossos was widely read and quoted (which is why we have some of his work). We should
therefore not be too quick to blame the eventual disappearance of Berossos work on its
perceived deficiencies: in truth, the vast majority of ancient authors survive in fragments or
not at all. Indeed, Berossos fared relatively well amidst the general shipwreck of Seleucid
literature, and the fact that we can still read his work at all - whatever the difficulties in
practice - is due to the fact that readers over the centuries continued to read, re-imagine and
transm it his work.
A reappraisal of the Babyloniaca
Today, we are arguably in a better position than ever before to attempt a fresh evaluation of
Berossos work. Geert de Breucker has recently put the study of the Babyloniaca on a new
footing with his edition o f Berossos with comm entary in B rills New Jacoby, and he opens
this volume with an overview of some o f the issues raised by the study of Berossos and his
work.31 There follows a bloc of four chapters devoted to the Babyloniaca itself. Johannes
Haubold argues that the hitherto neglected account o f cosmogony in Babyloniaca 1 enables
Berossos to cast him self as a Chaldaean sage and proto-philosopher, thus claiming for him
self a position o f authority vis-a-vis his Greek readers which was not otherwise available to
non-Greeks. M artin Lang studies the central Flood narrative of Babyloniaca 2 and argues
that it dramatises the survival o f Babylonian culture at a point of rupture. Lang goes on
to suggest that Berossos him self sees his task as analogous to that of the early sages, who
transm it and preserve the ancient core o f civilisation in times of crisis. If further proof was
needed that there is nothing naively native about Berossos work, Lanfranchis reading of
Babyloniaca 3 ought to provide it: Lanfranchi shows in detail how Berossos worked both
Babylonian and Greek traditions into his tapestry o f imperial history, from the Assyrians
via the Neo-Babylonians to the Persians. The final chapter in this section, by John Dillery,
investigates how Berossos interweaves Seleucid language and ideas with his account of
the Neo-Babylonian period. Dillery retrieves telling echoes of Berossos voice from the
Josephus fragments o f Babyloniaca 3, demonstrating how much can still be learned about
this elusive author through a close engagement with the extant sources.
Sections two and three o f the collection turn the spotlight on the historical and literary
context o f the Babyloniaca. The precise personal circumstances of Berossos will probably
30 BNJ 680 F9a; for the philanthropic Cyrus see Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1 and 7.5.73, with Gera 1993: 183-4; for
Cyrus destruction of the walls of Babylon see further Rollinger in this volume.
31 De Breucker in turn draws on a recent revival of interest in Berossos. Important milestones are: Drews
1975, Burstein 1978, Kuhrt 1987, Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, De Breucker 2003a, Beaulieu 2006a,
Bichler 2007, Dillery 2007, Van der Spek 2008, Schironi 2009.
The World o f Berossos: Introduction 9
never be known, but scholarship has made great strides in reconstructing his wider in
tellectual, historical and cultural context.32 Tom Boiy reconsiders the dramatic events that
shaped Berossos life, from the heady days after Alexanders conquest to the mayhem that
followed upon his death, to the Seleucid restoration which brought challenges of a different
kind. John Steele then offers a detailed investigation o f the astronomical fragments. Steele
confirms the prevailing view that none of the astronomical fragments contain any up-to-date
Babylonian astronomy, and he accepts as likely that some of them are spurious. However,
he also allows for the possibility that Berossos may have drawn from older and more widely
known astronomical and cosmological traditions. Bruno Jacobs studies another difficult
and much discussed group of fragments: those on Iranian religion, especially the notori
ous fragment BNJ F 11, which has been used to support far-reaching conclusions about the
development of religious practices under the Achaemenids. He concludes that the fragment
does not suggest radical religious reforms under Artaxerxes II. Robert Rollinger rounds
off this section with a study of Berossos portrayal of architectural monuments. He argues
that Berossos employs the m otif of the builder king as a means of characterising successive
rulers from Semiramis to Cyrus, with special emphasis given to Nebuchadnezzar II. In this
connection, Rollinger revisits the vexed issue of the Hanging Garden, arguing that Berossos
merged Greek and Mesopotamian story motifs in a bid to create a memorable and culturally
composite structure of the mind.
Section 3 is devoted to Berossos literary context. Stephanie Dailey asks what Meso
potamian narrative texts Berossos had at his disposal, and more specifically, what form they
would have taken. She cautions against the assumption that classics of Babylonian literature
such as Enuma Elis or Gilgames existed only in a single canonical version. Berossos emerges
from her study as an author who did not so much rewrite what he found but selected the
version that best suited his needs from a tradition that was already multiform and there
fore open to selective use. Christopher Tuplin looks at the Babyloniaca in the context of
Greek historiographical writing. The picture that emerges is complex: while Berossos does
make concessions to the taste of Greek audiences, he does not always do so in a way that
is characteristic of Greek historiography: indeed, some of his approaches sound more dis
tinctly philosophical. The result, according to Tuplin, in many ways departs from the norms
and expectations of Greek historiographical genres. In the following chapter, Paul Kosmin
again tackles the issue of Berossos relationship with other Greek writers but narrows the
focus to the early Seleucid court authors Demodamas, Patrocles and Megasthenes. Kosmin
argues that whereas the Seleucid court authors chart the vast outer spaces of the Seleucid
empire, Berossos makes a point of ignoring imperial geography and instead writes back to
the ancient centre of empire in Babylon.33 The result is distinctly pedagogic, even cajoling
at times: there is a sense in which Berossos curbs the exuberance of a young and excitable
Seleucid court on the move, directing its attention inward, towards Babylon as the place
32 Amelie Kuhrts work has been seminal here: see Kuhrt 1987, 1990, 1996 and Kuhrt/Sherwin-W hite
1987, 1991, and 1993. See also Beaulieu 1993 and 2006a, Boiy 2004 and 2007, Oelsner 1986 and 1992,
Van der Spek 1985, 2003, 2005, 2006.
33 Writing back acquires a different inflection here from Salman Rushdies original use of the phrase in
The Times, July 3, 1982, p. 8 . As often, the ironies of imperial space are not adequately captured by a
simple dichotomy between centre and periphery.
10 Johannes Haubold
where the empire is truly won or lost.34 Berossos treatm ent of time is of central importance
in this connection, and this is a topic taken up in Moyers contribution on Berossos and
Manetho. Moyer traces later attempts to bring Berossos and Manetho in line with universal
dating schemes. According to Moyer, one way of reading the Babyloniaca is precisely as
an attempt to elude such domestication. The exorbitant time periods which Berossos covers
(432,000 years o f pre-flood history alone) brings to mind Plato, and his famous remark that
the Greeks are forever children because they cannot see beyond the periodic breaks in their
history.35 Berossos can, and with a vengeance. Yet, as Moyer argues, we should be care
ful not to see him merely as responding to Greek concerns. The boundaries between local
and global perspectives on history are not in fact so hard and fast, least of all in the case of
Berossos, where local history is itself informed by a long-standing tradition of universal
empire.
The final section o f the collection is devoted to the reception, transmission and recon
struction o f Berossos work. There can be few authors from classical antiquity whose
work is so obviously entangled with the history of their reception as Berossos, and recent
developments in reception studies have given us much better tools than ever before to un
lock the interplay between the Babyloniaca and its ancient and modern readers.36 Alexander
Polyhistor and Eusebius are arguably our most important sources for Berossos work, and the
first two chapters of the section are devoted to them.37 Francesca Schironi builds on her 2009
commentary on the Oxyrhynchus Glossary to situate the earliest reception of Berossos in the
context o f pagan Greek paradoxography. Alexander Polyhistor himself, she argues, was less
a historian or ethnographer than a gram m arian with a strong interest in oriental mirabilia.
It was scholars like Polyhistor who, with their extracts, helped to keep Berossos outside the
historiographical m ainstream.
As it turned out, Berossos came to be invoked prim arily as an exponent of barbarian
wisdom, somebody who provided a valuable alternative to standard Graeco-Roman his
toriography. Irene M adreiter takes up the story with Eusebius quotations of Berossos.
Madreiter argues that Eusebius relationship to Berossos was complicated to the point of
paradox: on the one hand, he relies on his king lists to fill in the blank spaces in his history
of the rise of Christianity. Yet, he bites the hand that feeds him when he denounces Berossos
work as illogical and irrational. We sense here the same tendency towards splitting Berossos
into more and less acceptable strands which resurfaces in modern attempts to separate off
the authentic Berossos from the (pseudo-)Berossos of Cos (thus Jacoby). As well as brack
eting aspects of Berossos work that for whatever reason seemed troublesome, readers from
antiquity to the present day have felt tempted to invent others from scratch. The most momen
tous attempt of this kind we owe to the flawed genius of Annius of Viterbo, a Dominican
34 It is probably significant that where the Eastern periphery of the empire does come into view in our
extant fragments of Berossos, it is to describe Cyrus death in battle against the Dahae; cf. BNJ 680 F 10.
35 Plato, Timaeus 22b.
36 See in general Martindale 1993, Martindale/Thomas 2006, Hardwick/Stray 2009, Hardwick/Gillespie
2010; and on Berossos in particular: Schironi 2009 for the earliest reception; Grafton 1991, 76-103 and
Stephens 2004 for the Renaissance response. Gmirkin 2006 detects a response to Berossos in Hebrew
Scripture; Moyer 2011 discusses the parallel case of Manetho.
37 Others could have been included: Josephus would have deserved his own chapter, as would Abydenus,
the Armenian reception of Berossos, and the fascinating - though as yet elusive - role of Michael Syrus.
For a discussion of the Josephus fragments from Babyloniaca 3, see Dillerys contribution to this vol
ume, with further literature.
The World of Berossos: Introduction
friar, scholar and historian, who in his Antiquities of 1498 forged an entire work by Berosus
Chaldaeus and proceeded to equip it with a learned commentary. Walter Stephens revisits
this extraordinary Annian concoction and situates it in the context of a scholarly career where
the boundaries between genuine historical research and pure fiction had long become blurred.
The volume is rounded off with Kai Ruffings overview of scholarship on Berossos after the
decipherment of the cuneiform script. As Ruffing shows, past research on Berossos has of
ten proceeded piecemeal. The present volume features contributions by scholars working in
Classics, Ancient History, Biblical Studies, Assyriology, Iranology, Patristics, the History of
Science and Renaissance Studies.38 When they met for the first time at the Durham confer
ence from which this volume springs, their conversations proved a source of enrichment and
inspiration for everyone involved. It is to be hoped that the present volume conveys some of
that spirit of shared intellectual endeavour.
References
Beaulieu 1993
P.-A. Beaulieu, The historical background o f the Uruk Prophecy, in: M. E. C ohen/D . Snell/
D. B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: N ear Eastern Studies in H onour o f William
W. Hallo, Bethesda, MD 1993, 41-52.
Beaulieu 2006a
P.-A. Beaulieu, Berossus on late Babylonian history, Oriental Studies, Special Issue 2006, 116-49.
Beaulieu 2006b
P.-A. Beaulieu, De lEsagil au Mouseion: lorganisation de la recherche scientifique au IVe siecle
avant J.-C., in: Pierre B riant/Francis Joannes (eds.), La transition entre I empire achem enide et
les royaumes hellenistiques (vers 350300 av. J.-C.) (Persika 9), Paris 2006, 17-36.
Bichler 2007
R. Bichler, Some observations on the image o f the A ssyrian and Babylonian kingdom s within
the Greek tradition, in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Historiographic, Ethnography, Utopie. Gesammelte
Schriften Teil 1, W iesbaden 2007, 209-28.
B ichler/R ollinger 2005
R. B ichler/R . Rollinger, Die Hangenden G arten zu Ninive: Die Losung eines Ratsels?, in: R.
Rollinger (ed.), Von Sum er his H om er (FS M anfred Schretter), M unster 2005, 153-218.
Bilde / Engberg-Pedersen / H annestad / Zahle 1990
P. Bilde/T. Engberg-Pedersen /L . H annestad/J Zahle (eds.), Religion and Religious Practice in the
Seleucid Kingdom, A arhus 1990.
Boiy 2004
T. Boiy, Late A chaem enid and H ellenistic Babylon, Leuven 2004.
Boiy 2007
T. Boiy, Betw een High and Low: A Chronology o f the Early H ellenistic Period, F rankfurt 2007.
Burstein 1978
S. M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus, Malibu, CA 1978.
Cook 2009
J. Cook, The Septuagint and Reception: Essays P repared for the Association fo r the Study o f the
Septuagint in South A frica , Leiden 2009.
38 Again, other fields could have been added: the Armenian fragments, for example, are in urgent need of
expert attention.
 12 Johannes Haubold The World o f Berossos: Introduction 13

Dailey 1994 K uhrt/Sherw in-W hite 1991

S. Dailey 1994, Nineveh, Babylon and the hanging gardens: cuneiform and classical sources rec
onciled, Iraq 56 (1994), 45-58.
De Breucker 2003a
G. de Breucker, Berossos and the construction o f a N ear Eastern cultural history in response
to the G reeks, in: H. Hokwerda (ed.), Constructions o f Greek Past: Identity a n d H istorical
Consciousness from A ntiquity to the Present, G roningen 2003, 25-34.
De Breucker 2003b
G. de Breucker, Berossos and the M esopotam ian tem ple as centre o f knowledge during the
H ellenistic period, in: A. A. M acD onald/M . W. Twom ey/G . J. Reinik (eds.), Learned Antiquity:
Scholarship and Society, Leuven 2003, 13-23.
Del Monte 1997
G. F. Del Monte, Testi dalla Babilonia Ellenistica. Vol. I: Testi C ronografci, Pisa and Rome 1997.
D illery 2007
J. Dillery, G reek historians o f the N ear East. Clios other sons, in: J. M arincola (ed.),
A Companion to G reek a n d Roman H istoriography, M alden, MA and Oxford, 221-230.
Drews 1973
R. Drews, The G reek Accounts o f N ear Eastern H istory, W ashington, DC 1973.
Drews 1975
R. Drews, The Babylonian chronicles and B erossus, Iraq 37 (1975), 39-55.
Gera 1993
D. Levine Gera, X enophons Cyropaedia: Style, Genre a n d Literary Technique, O xford 1993.
G m irkin 2006
R. E. G m irkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho a n d Exodus: H ellenistic H istories a n d the Date o f
the Pentateuch, New York 2006.
Goldhill 2007
S. G oldhill, Who Needs Greek? Contests in the Cultural H istory o f Hellenism, Cam bridge 2007.
G rafton 1991
A. G rafton, D efenders o f the Text: The Traditions o f Scholarship in an Age o f Science, Cambridge,
Mass. 1991.
G reenwood 2010
E. Greenwood, Afro-G reeks: D ialogues between Anglophone Caribbean Literature a n d Classics
in the Twentieth Century, Oxford 2010.
H ardw ick/G illespie 2010
L. H ardw ick/C . Gillespie (eds.), Classics in Postcolonial Worlds, Oxford 2010.
H ardw ick/Stray 2008
L. Hardwick and C. Stray (eds.), A Companion to Classical Receptions, Oxford 2008.
K uhrt 1982
A. Kuhrt, Assyrian and Babylonian traditions in classical authors: a critical synthesis, in: H. Kuhne/
H. J. N issen/J. Renger (eds.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn, Berlin 1982, 539-53.
K uhrt 1987
A. Kuhrt, Berossus Babyloniaca and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: K uhrt/S herw in-W hite Stephens 2004
(1987), 32-56.
K uhrt 1990
A. Kuhrt, A lexander and Babylon, in: H. Sancisi-W eerdenburg/J. W. Drijvers (eds.), The Roots Sterling 1992
o f the European Tradition: Proceedings o f the 1987 Groningen A chaem enid H istory Workshop.
Achaemenid History 5, Leiden 1990, 121-30.
Kuhrt 1996
A. Kuhrt, The Seleucid kings and Babylonia: new perspectives on the Seleucid realm in the east,
in: P. B ilde/T. Engberg-Pedersen/L. H annestad/J Zahle (eds.), Aspects o f H ellenistic Kingship,
Aarhus 1996, 41-54.
K uhrt/Sherw in-W hite 1987
A. K uhrt/S . Sherw in-W hite (eds.), Hellenism a n d the East: Interactions o f Greek an d non-G reek
Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, London 1987.
A. K uhrt/S . Sherwin-W hite, Aspects o f Seleucid royal ideology: the cylinder o f A ntiochus I from
Borsippa', Journal o f H ellenic Studies 111 (1991), 71-86.
K uhrt/Sherw in-W hite 1993
A. K u h rt/S . Sherw in-W hite, From Sam arkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid
Empire, London 1993.
Lenzi 2008
A. Lenzi, Secrecy and the Gods: Secret Knowledge in A ncient M esopotamia and B iblical Israel,
Helsinki 2008.
M artindale 1993
C. Martindale, Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics o f Reception, Cambridge 1993.
M artindale/T hom as 2006
C. M artindale/R . F. Thomas (eds.), Classics and the Uses o f Reception, Oxford 2006.
Moyer 2011
I. S. Moyer, E gypt and the Limits o f Hellenism. Cambridge.
O elsner 1986
J. Oelsner, Materialien zur babylonischen Gesellschaft und Kultur in hellenistischer Zeit, Budapest
1986.
O elsner 1992
J. Oelsner, Griechen in Babylonien und die einheim ischen Tempel in hellenistischer Z eit, in:
D. C harpin/F. Joannes (eds.), La circulation des biens, despersonnes et des idees dans le Proche-
Orient ancien, Paris 1992, 341-7.
Pongratz-Leisten 1999
B. Pongratz-Leisten, H errschaftswissen in M esopotamien, Helsinki 1999.
Rollinger 2008
R. Rollinger, Babylon in der antiken Tradition - Herodot, Ktesias, Semiram is und die Hangenden
G arten, in: Joachim M arzahn/G unther Schauerte (eds.), Babylon. Berlin 2008, 487-502.
Rollinger 2010
R. Rollinger, Das medische K onigtum und die medische Suprematie im sechsten Jahrhundert
v. C hr, in: G. B. L anfranchi/R . Rollinger (eds.), Concepts o f Kingship in Antiquity, Padova 2010,
63-85.
Schaudig 2001
H. Schaudig, D ie Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und K yros des Grojien sam t den in ihrem
Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften, M unster 2001.
Schironi 2009
F. Schironi, From A lexandria to Babylon: N ear Eastern Languages and H ellenistic Erudition in
the Oxyrhynchus G lossary (P.Oxy. 1802 + 4812), Berlin 2009.
Schnabel 1923
P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig 1923.
Stephens 2003
S. Stephens, Seeing Double: Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria, Berkeley, CA 2003.
W. Stephens, When pope Noah ruled the Etruscans: A nnius of Viterbo and his forged Antiquities',
M LN 119.1 Supplement (2004), S201-23.
G. E. Sterling, H istoriography and Self-definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic H istorio
graphy, Leiden 1992.
Van der Spek 1985
R. J. van der Spek, The Babylonian temple during the M acedonian and Parthian dom ination,
Bibliotheca Orientalis 42 (1985), 541-62.
Van der Spek 2003
R. J. van der Spek, Darius III, A lexander the Great and Babylonian scholarship, in: W. F. M.
H enkelm an/A . Kuhrt (eds.), A Persian Perspective. Essays in M emory o f Heleen Sancisi-
Weerdenburg. Achaemenid History 13, Leiden 2003, 289-346.
14 Johannes Haubold

Van der Spek 2005

R. J. van der Spek, Ethnic segregation in Hellenistic Babylon, in: W. H. Van Soldt/R . Kalvelagen/
D. Katz (eds.), E thnicity in Ancient M esopotam ia, Leiden 2005, 393-408.
Van der Spek 2006
R. J. van der Spek, The size and significance o f the Babylonian temples under the successors, in:
P. Briant/F. Joannes (eds.), La transition entre I empire achemenide et les royaumes hellenistiques
Paris 2006, 261-307.
Van der Spek 2008
R. J. van der Spek, Berossos as a Babylonian chronicler and G reek historian, in: R. J. van der
Spek (ed.), with the assistance of G. Haayer, F. A. M. W iggermann, M. Prins and J. Bilbija, Studies
in Ancient N ear Eastern World View a n d Society p resen ted to Marten Stol on the occasion o f his
65th birthday, Bethesda, M D 2008, 277-318.
Van der Spek
http://w ww .livius.org/babylonia.htm l [2 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 ],
Vasunia 2001
R Vasunia, The Gift o f the Nile: H ellenizing E gypt fro m Aeschylus to Alexander, Berkeley 2001.
Verbrugghe / W ickersham
G. V erbrugghe/J. W ickersham (eds.), Berossos a n d Manetho, Ann A rbor 1996.
W iesehofer/R ollinger/L anfranchi 2 01 1
J. W iesehofer/R . R ollinger/G . B. Lanfranchi (eds.), Die Welt des Ktesias. C tesias World,
W iesbaden 2011.
Berossos: His Life and His Work
Geert De Breucker (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)
Introduction
Berossos is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating authors of the early Hellenistic period.
Being a Babylonian scholar he transformed him self into a Greek historian. In his work two
cultures - Babylonian and Greek - converge, which makes it a true product of Hellenistic
literature. In this contribution I would like to introduce the author and his work.
Berossos first life
We do not know much about the life of Berossos and many intriguing questions must re
main unanswered. Berossos 1 is the Greek rendering of the Akkadian name Bel-reu-shunu,
which can be translated as Bel (the Lord) is their shepherd.2 Tatian (BNJ 680 T2) and
Syncellus (BNJ 680 F lb) associate Berossos with the time of Alexander the Great, who ruled
over Babylonia from 331 to 323 BC. Since both testimonies use a verbal form that can be
interpreted in two ways, it remains unclear whether they mean that Berossos was born under
the Macedonian king or that he lived in his tim e .3 The Arm enian translation of the (lost)
Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea interprets the underlying Greek verbal form as signifying
that Berossos was a contemporary of Alexander (BNJ 680 T 1). Syncellus, whose testimony
also derives from Eusebius Chronicle, reports elsewhere in his work that Berossos flour
ished in the time of the Macedonian king.4 These testimonies, however, can not be used to
resolve the ambiguity, as they are both later interpretations. Schnabel assumes that Berossos
must have been born between 350 and 3 4 0 BC. He interprets BNJ 680 F lb as stating that
Berossos was in the prime of life (r|Xiida) in the time of Alexander.5 It is far more probable
that the Greek word fj^ttda is used here in its general m eaning of age and thus does not
indicate Berossos time of birth.
Berossos was a native of Babylon (BNJ 680 T 2 )6 - it is, therefore, no surprise that this
city had a prominent role in his work. We are also told that he was a priest of Belos (BNJ 680
T2), i.e. the Babylonian god Bel-Marduk, who was the patron god of Babylon and the head
of the Babylonian pantheon. This means that Berossos was in some way or another con
nected to the Esagila, the large temple complex of Bel in Babylon. It is not clear which

1 Several forms of the Greek name have been preserved, differing in the number of sigmas (one or two)
and in accentuation: Bripcoooo^, Br|pd)aoo^, Briptocaot;, Br|poo 6 <;, Br|pcooo<;, Br|p(ooo<;, Berosus and
Berosos.
2 Van der Spek 2000, 439.
3 Tatian: ycyovcbc;; Syncellus: yeveoGai.
4 Sync. 14,11. 22-3 (ed. Mosshammer).
5 Schnabel 1923, 15-16.
6 The word Baj3i>A.cbvioi; can mean from Babylon' as well as from Babylonia. Since Berossos was
a priest of Bel, the city god of Babylon, we can safely conclude that he was an inhabitant of that city.
16 G eert De Breucker
position he held. Van der Spek speculates that he might be identical with the homonymous
shatammu (high priest) of the Esagila, who is attested in cuneiform documents dating from
the period 258-253.7 Given the fact that Berossos already lived in the time o f Alexander the
Great, this identification is rather unlikely.8 His knowledge of Greek may indicate that he had
a position through which he had contacts with the Seleucid administration, which supervised
and controlled the Esagila.
As a priest Berossos belonged to the local urban elite. The term also implies that he
was steeped in the traditional Babylonian culture, which was fostered in the milieu of the
temple. He knew the cuneiform languages Sumerian and Akkadian, which both belonged
to the realm o f tradition, religion and science. In daily life A kkadian had been replaced by
Aramaic, which was the vernacular in Babylonia in Berossos time. This language was al
most certainly Berossos mother tongue.9
As was the case with other Babylonian scholars, Berossos very likely enjoyed an all
round scribal training and was acquainted with the literary canon o f Mesopotamian cul
ture.10 This canon included not only strictly literary works like epics and myths, but also
compositions like omen compendia, lexical and topographical lists.
In Berossos time the temple was the focus o f scholarly life," employing astronomers and
diviners among other scholars.12 Scholars connected to the temple copied and commented
on cuneiform texts. The temples possessed large libraries, as has been magnificently dem
onstrated by the library that has been discovered in the temple of the Sun god in Sippar,
a city north o f Babylon.13 This tablet collection, which is yet to be published in full, dates
from the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods and represents the literary canon of
M esopotamia.14 In the case o f the Esagila it is impossible to reconstruct its collection, as the
archaeological context o f most o f the tablets originating from Babylon is unknown, due to
the fact that they have come to light by illegal or unscientific digs.
In the southern Babylonian city o f Uruk, cuneiform scholarship appears to have been
limited to a few extended families or clans, which were all connected to the local temples
and their cults. We may assume that this was also the case in Babylon, for here too we can
trace several families o f scholars.15 In all likelihood, Berossos too belonged to a family of
scholars and scribes, members o f which held cultic functions.
7 Van der Spek 2000, 439.
8 Since in Babylonian onomastics papponymy was a frequent phenomenon and positions passed from
father to son, one could suggest that Berossos was the grandfather of this Bel-reu-shunu and was a
shatammu himself. This is, of course, entirely speculative.
9 Some modern scholars assume that Akkadian was still a living language in Berossos' time (Streck 1995,
xxiii-xxiv; Van der Spek 1998, 255; Westenholz 2007, 292-3). If so, it was very probably only spoken
in the temple milieu.
10 Examples of Babylonian scholars of the Hellenistic period having knowledge of several types of texts
are Iqisha (see Oelsner 2000, 797-8), Anu-Bel-shunu I and II (see Pearce and Doty 2000, 331-41) and
Shamash-etir (see Robson 2007).
11 De Breucker 2003.
12 Beaulieu 2006a, 17-23 and 2006b.
13 Pedersen 1998, 194-7.
14 The latest publication of a composition of this library is by Fadhi 1/ H ilgert 2011. Since 1990 tablets have
been edited in the journal Iraq, mainly by Al-Rawi and George.
15 Members of the clan of Mushezib were astronomers. Cuneiform sources demonstrate that this profes
sion passed down in the family for generations (from the time of Berossos to the Parthian period, see
Berossos: His Life and His Work 17
Historiography flourished in the temple environment: the Babylonian chronicles16 and the
Astronomical Diaries, which regularly contained historical information, sometimes of an
anecdotal character,17 were composed and copied by men linked to the temple. As a member
of that milieu Berossos was in the right place to compose a history, which, as he him self
says, was based on native documents.
Berossos dedicated his work, as Tatian says, to Antiochus, the third (successor) after
Alexander the Great (BNJ 680 T2), by which Antiochus I (281-261) must be meant.
According to Eusebius of Caesarea, who was citing Tatian, Berossos addressee was
Antiochus the third (successor) after Seleucus.18 This refers to Antiochus II (261-246).
This later date seems rather unlikely, as it is chronologically less compatible with Berossos
statement that he lived in the time of Alexander the Great.
It is generally assumed that Berossos made his dedication to Antiochus I after the lat
ter had become king, i.e. in the years 281-261.19 It is, however, also possible that Berossos
composed his work in the period in which Antiochus was co-regent with his father Seleucus
I (from 295-294 to 281). As a co-ruler Antiochus had the supervision of the Upper Satrapies,
the eastern provinces of the Seleucid empire, which included Babylonia. During his co
regency Antiochus visited Babylon on at least one occasion: a Babylonian chronicle de
scribes that Antiochus the crown prince came to the city and made sacrifices in two temples
of the moon god Sin.20 A fter Antiochus had become king, he probably visited Babylon too.
A cuneiform inscription found in Borsippa, a city in the vicinity of Babylon, records that
Antiochus initiated the restoration works of the Nabu temple of Borsippa and the Esagila.21
The text states that the king laid the foundations o f Ezida at the end of March 268 BC.
Since Babylon was the religious centre of traditional Babylonian culture, we can assume that
Antiochus also visited this neighbouring city during the same period.
Many modern scholars take the dedication to Antiochus as evidence that Berossos com
posed his work under the patronage, or at the request, of the Seleucids.22 This is not impos
sible, but can not be confirmed by other evidence. Other reasons for the dedication can be
put forward and should be taken into consideration too: by dedicating his work to the king
Berossos could have attempted to attract the attention of the addressee and his entourage to
Oelsner 2000, 802-11). In the Parthian period members of the family of Nanna-Utu held the position of
kalu (lamentation priest); for an overview, see Maul 2005, 89.
16 Glassner 2004, nos. 16-37.
17 See Sachs/Hunger 1988-. These Diaries, called in Akkadian regular observations, record astronomical
and meteorological observations day by day. At the end of each month additional data like supplemen
tary astronomical observations, the prices of basic commodities, the river level (in Babylon) and histori
cal notes may be given. It is almost certain that the historical sections of these texts and the Babylonian
chronicles are interconnected, but the exact nature of their interdependence is unclear.
18 Eus. PE 10.11.8.
19 E.g. Schnabel 1923, 8-10; Lehmann-Haupt 1937, 2 and Burstein 1978, 4 and 34.
20 BCHP (= Babylonian Chronicles o f the Hellenistic Period) 5. The only year number preserved on the
tablet is damaged (BCHP 5 obv. 1). It probably denotes the year 20 + x of the Seleucid Era, i.e. some
where in the period 292/1-283/2, see Van der Spek 2006a. The entry describing Antiochus visit to
Babylon deals with a subsequent year (obv. 6 ). Another chronicle, BCHP 6 , describes that the son of the
king was in the Esagila. He made sacrifices and deployed his army and elephants in order to remove the
debris of the temple. Van der Spek 2006b suggests that this prince is also Antiochus I. This is, however,
far from certain.
21 Kuhrt/Sherwin-W hite 1991.
22 Lehmann-Haupt 1937, 3; Tarn 1985, 41; Kuhrt 1987, 55; Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 14.
18 G eert De Breucker
his subject matter or to himself, e.g. with a view to obtaining a position. This is probably the
reason why Aristippus o f Cyrene, for example, composed a history of Libya and sent it to
Dionysius o f Syracuse (1st half 4th c. BC).23
Apart from being linked to the Seleucid court in one way or another, there are other
conceivable ways that might have given Berossos access to the king or the opportunity
to hand over his work to him, directly or through intermediaries. The Babylonian temple
elite had close connections with the Seleucid administration. Members of that elite acted as
representatives o f the native population towards the Seleucids. It is known that Babylonian
delegations travelled to the royal city of Seleucia on the Tigris. And as we have seen, the king
or crown prince came to Babylon and the Esagila. These visits could create good opportuni
ties to present a work like that o f Berossos.
The dedication to Antiochus I gives a rough date for Berossos work: he composed it
between 295 /4 and 261 BC. As Schnabel already pointed out, there is no indication that
Berossos composed other works.24 We have no information on how Berossos learnt Greek
and got acquainted with Greek literature and culture. Did he use assistants who helped him
with the Greek, as Josephus did for his Bellum Judaicum ?25 Berossos interest in Greek
language and culture was obviously connected to the new political constellation in which
Babylonia was reigned by Greek speaking rulers, who fostered their own Greek culture.
However, the contact o f Babylonia with Greek culture already began before the arrival of
Alexander the Great. In the Achaemenid period, Greek mercenaries, traders and artisans
travelled and dwelt in Babylonia.26 Greeks sojourned at the Achaemenid court, which period
ically resided in Babylon.27 Greek ambassadors also came to the court. After the conquest of
Babylonia by Alexander the Great in 331 BC, the contacts between Greeks and Babylonians
dramatically intensified. The M acedonian king, who was accompanied by a train of phi
losophers, scholars and artists28, stayed twice in Babylon, in 331 and 323 BC, but only for
short periods o f time. A fter Alexanders sudden death Babylon remained satrapal capital.
When it lost this position to Seleucia on the Tigris (some 60 km north of Babylon), which
was probably founded some time before 301 BC, the city remained an important regional
centre. It was garrisoned by Seleucid troops and was the residence of Graeco-M acedonian
officials, some of whom were connected to the Esagila. Babylon had a Greek theatre, symbol
of Greek city life, but it is uncertain whether the first phase of the building goes back to the
time of Berossos.29 Since Greek texts were written on perishable material such as parchment
or papyrus, it is impossible to say on which scale Greek was used in Babylonia in this early
phase o f Greek rule. We may assume that Greek, at least partially, replaced Aramaic as
adm inistrative language and was used in the contacts between the Esagila and the Seleucid
administration. This may have encouraged Berossos to learn the language of the new m as
ters o f his land and to get acquainted with their culture. Perhaps the fantastic stories Greeks
told about Babylonian history prompted him to compose a true history of his country.
23 BNJ 759 T 1.
24 Schnabel 1923, 17-19.
25 J. Ap. 1.50.
26 Rollinger/Henkelman 2009.
27 E.g. Conon of Athens in the time of Artaxerxes II (see DS 14.81.4-6).
28 Berve 1926,65-80.
29 W etzel/Schmidt/M allwitz 1957, 19.
Berossos: His Life and His Work 19
Berossos international career
Some sources suggest that Berossos had, as it were, an international career as an astronomer.
According to those sources, he left Babylon and migrated to the Greek world after the publi
cation of his history. Vitruvius states that he moved to the island of Cos and opened a school
there (BNJ T 5a-b). Vitruvius also ascribes the invention of a specific type of sundial to
Berossos (BNJ 680 T 5c). Josephus agrees with the Roman architect that Berossos propagated
Babylonian lore: he says that the Chaldaean was famed among those who were engaged in
learning, because he published for the Greeks works on astronomy and on the philosophy
of the Chaldaeans (BNJ 680 T3). Pliny the Elder presents Berossos as the most important
scholar of astronom y/astrology and adds that the Athenians honoured him with a statue with
a gilded tongue because of his divine predictions (BNJ 680 T 6).
The historicity of these biographical data is subject to debate. Burstein and V erbrugghe/
Wickersham accept the second life of Berossos as historical.30 Schwartz rejects the testi
mony according to which Berossos opened a school on Cos, because he thinks it unlikely
that the Babylonian priest would have abandoned his prebendary income in Babylon.31 Some
judge it impossible that Berossos would have migrated to an island that was under control
of the Ptolemies, bitter enemies of the Seleucids.32 These are not convincing arguments to
discard the historicity o f the biographical information. In itself, it is not impossible that
Berossos migrated to the west and taught Babylonian astronomy /astrology.
The question of historicity should, however, be connected with the question of whether
the astronomical/astrological fragments transmitted under the name of Berossos are authen
tic (BNJ 680 F 15-22).33 As Kuhrt and the present author have shown, these fragments reflect
Greek, not Babylonian doctrines and are, therefore, not authentic.34 Babylonians believed that
gods grouped the stars into constellations and gave them names, not men, as BNJ 680 F 17
states. There are no indications that they believed in a cyclical destruction of the universe
by fire or water (BNJ 680 F21), whereas this was a popular doctrine of the Stoics. Several
ancient authors ascribe a lunar theory to Berossos that explains the lunar phases and lunar
eclipses (BNJ 680 F 18-20). In short, this theory asserts that the moon has its own light and
consists of a luminous hemisphere and a dark one. It rotates around its own axis. The lunar
phases are the result of the attraction of the moons luminous hemisphere by the sun, which
depends on the distance between both celestial bodies. The closer the moon is to the sun, the
more the fiery hemisphere is attracted by the latter and is turned toward it. The moons dark
side is correspondingly turned towards the earth. So far, there is no evidence in the cunei
form sources that this theory, which other classical authors attribute to the Babylonians in
general,35 has a Babylonian background; it seems that it is a Greco-Roman creation. Finally,
no astrological cuneiform texts have been preserved that determine the maximum lifetime of
30 Burstein 1978, 5-6; Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 14-15.
31 Schwartz 1897, 316.
32 It should be noted that the Latin translation of the testimony of the Armenian historian Moses of Chorene
(in Jacobys FGrHist 680 T 4) is wrong in translating the Armenian text as if it was Ptolemy II who urged
Berossos to make a Greek translation, see De Breucker 2010a ad T 4. The text does not relate Ptolemy
to Berossos.
33 For detailed discussion see Steele, this volume.
34 Kuhrt 1987, 36-44; De Breucker 2010a, F 15-22 and 2012, F 18-23.
35 Lucretius (De rerum natura, 720-7) and Apuleius (De deo Socratis, 1.1).
20 G eert De Breucker
a human being by calculating the sum o f the rising times of the zodiacal sign in which that
person was born, and o f the two subsequent signs (BNJ 680 F22). On the other hand, it was
a popular doctrine in Greek and Roman astrology. Pliny the Elder, who mentions Berossos
calculation (BNJ 680 F22a), ascribes the origin of this theory not to the Babylonians, but to
two Egyptians Nechepso and Petosiris, themselves fictitious characters.
Since these fragments do not express Babylonian astronomical or astrological doctrines,
the obvious conclusion is that their attribution to Berossos is not genuine. In a way, this as
tronom ical/astrological material can be compared with the work which Annius of Viterbo
fabricated under the name o f Berosus Chaldaeus.36 Since these fragments are not genuine,
1 assume that the testimonies describing Berossos as an internationally renowned astro
loger are also fabricated. The creation o f a Berossos the astrologer is not a unique case in
Greek and Roman literature. The aforementioned Egyptians, pharaoh Nechepso and his sage
Petosiris, under whose names several works circulated, are merely Hellenistic creations.
Likewise, the life of the famous philosopher Pythagoras was quickly surrounded by legends:
he travelled across the Orient and was taught by native sages. A Roman tradition even held
that he taught the Roman king Numa Pompilius, who is traditionally dated some 150 years
before the historical Pythagoras, at the end of the 8th c. BC.37
The character o f Berossos the astrologer was very likely created in order to give astro
nom ical/astrological doctrines a Babylonian origin. The story of his school on Cos might
have been invented in order to explain how Chaldaean lore reached the Greek world. For
later generations Berossos the historian and the astrologer were obviously one and the same
person. This explains why Josephus mentions Berossos role in transm itting Babylonian as
tronomical and philosophical lore and continues by paraphrasing and citing from his history
(BNJ 680 T 3, F 8a and F 9a).
The reason why Berossos was chosen to become an astrologer is easy to find: he was a
Chaldaean, a Babylonian priest himself, for Greeks and Romans great experts in astronomy
and astrology. Moreover, he had w ritten a history based on arcane native sources.
Some testimonies, finally, report that Berossos was the father of the Hebrew-Babylonian
Sibyl called Sabbe (B N JT 7a-c).38 This is undoubtedly a legend. Its origin may be connected
to the insertion o f a story ascribed to the Sibyl in the epitome which Alexander Polyhistor
made o f Berossos work (BNJ 680 F4a-b). That Sibyl too can very likely be identified as
the Hebrew-Babylonian one. The inserted paraphrase in Polyhistors epitome derives from
the Third Sibylline Book, which implies that the Sibyl in Polyhistor is the same as the pseud-
epigraphic Sibylline author of this book.39 The latter can be labelled as Hebrew-Babylonian,
as she is said to be a relative of Noah and to have dwelt in Babylon after the Flood. Berossos
fatherhood o f a prophetess might also be related, in one way or another, with Plinys testi
mony that he made divine predictions (BNJ 680 T 6).
Berossos work: the Babyloniaca
Before I focus on the work itself, I first discuss the text as it has come down to us, because
this is essential for our understanding o f the work. Berossos history of Babylonia has only
been preserved in fragments. Two titles have been transmitted: Chaldaica and Babyloniaca.
36 See Stephens, this volume.
37 Panitschek 1990.
38 In the Suda this Sibyl is called Sambethe ( I 361 s.v. Chaldaean Sibvl).
39 Sih. Or. 3.97-109.
Berossos: His Life and His Work 21
It is almost certain that the latter is authentic, as this is the title used in antiquarian and lexi
cographical literature and is more in tune with Berossos subject, the history of Babylonia.40
The extant fragments have come down to us by a very complex process of transmission.
Most of them derive from Jewish and Christian authors. In this process the pagan polymath
Alexander Polyhistor played a pivotal role, as the bulk o f the fragments derives from the
epitome he made of Berossos work in Rome between 80 and 40 BC.41 This sum m ary, how
ever, also survives in fragments. Flavius Josephus (2nd half 1st c. AD) almost certainly used
it in his Jewish Antiquities and Contra Apionem. The Church Father Eusebius of Caesarea
(ca. 265-340 AD) excerpted Polyhistors epitome for the first book of his Chronicle. This first
book being lost too, the excerpts are known by an Armenian translation of the Chronicle
(after 6th c.) and by the Byzantine monk Syncellus, who inserted them in his own chrono-
graphical work (around 810). A comparison of the Armenian translation and Syncellus shows
that the Armenian text contains quite a number of corruptions and mistranslations. In gen
eral, Syncellus text is more reliable.
To these excerpts we can add the fragments transm itted under the name of Abydenus, an
obscure historian, probably living in the 2nd or 3rd c. AD (BNJ 685). Although he mentions
neither Berossos nor Alexander Polyhistor, it is clear that Abydenus did no more than rework
Polyhistors epitome of the Babyloniaca and give it an Ionic veneer. The fragments ascribed
to Abydenus have come down to us through Eusebius, either directly - in his Praeparatio
Evangelica - or indirectly - by the aforementioned Armenian translation and Syncellus, each
using Eusebius Chronicle in this case too.
Another set of fragments survived through Greek learned literature: Athenaeus (BNJ 680
F2), Hesychius (BNJ 680 F 13) and the Oxyrhynchus Glossary (BNJ 680 F23a-b). Josephus
and the Christian authors were mainly interested in Berossos work for apologetic rea
sons. They aimed to prove the veracity of the Biblical account and Old Testament chro
nology. It is, therefore, no surprise that most fragments have a link with Biblical history,
such as the Flood, the important period of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar II and the beginning of its reconstruction under Cyrus. Other fragments
deal with Assyrian and Babylonian kings mentioned in the Old Testament: apart from
Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, Tiglath-pileser III (Pulu), M erodach-Baladan II, Sennacherib,
Esarhaddon and Amel-Marduk.
Even the long excerpt on Babylonian primeval history (B N J680 F la-b), which has appar
ently no connection to Biblical history, has been transm itted for apologetic reasons - but in
another sense. Eusebius used this fabulous story in order to refute Berossos chronology of
the antediluvian period. On the one hand, Berossos number of ten antediluvian kings agreed
with that of the Biblical generations and patriarchs before the Flood - and thus confirmed
Genesis. On the other hand, Berossos chronology of 432,000 years for the antediluvian
period completely disagreed with the Old Testament and was thus problematic. In his refu-
40 BNJ 680 F2 (Athenaeus) and F23a-b (Oxyrhynchus Glosarium\ see Schironi in this volume). The title is
also given by Eusebius of Caesarea (BNJ 680 F la-b). Chaldaica is less accurate than Babyloniaca and
reflects the popular designation o f Chaldaeans for Babylonians in classical literature. It might have
been the title of the epitome Alexander Polyhistor made of Berossos work, see Kuhrt 1987, 34.
41 Tatian (BNJ 680 T2 and F 8 b) used the work of Juba of Mauretania (Augustan period), whose Assyriaca
was probably an independent reworking of Berossos (BNJ 275 F2). It is unknown whether the anti
quarians and lexicographers (Athenaeus, Hesychius, Oxyrhynchus Glossary) derive their material from
Polyhistor. Possibly, they represent a separate strand of the transmission.
22 G eert De Breucker
tation, Eusebius discredits the Babylonian chronology by pointing to Berossos account of
the primeval period, which was evidently fabulous.42 Those who accepted the Babylonian
antediluvian chronology, Eusebius pointedly suggested, should also accept this nonsense as
truth. This refutation also explains why Eusebius treats the antediluvian kings first and then
gives the excerpt on primeval times.43
Jewish and Christian users even manipulated Berossos account in order to accom m o
date it to Biblical history. Josephus claims that a Babylonian mentioned by Berossos could
be identified with Abraham (BNJ 680 F 6), which is obviously a Jewish misinterpretation.
Eusebius adduces an alleged synchronism between the Babylonian and Judean kings in
the account of Polyhistor in order to settle Old Testament chronology (BNJ 680 F 7c). It is,
however, certain that this synchronism was a later Jewish or Christian creation. The paral
lel num ber o f ten Babylonian antediluvian kings and Biblical patriarchs is very probably a
Jewish or Christian forgery too. In Mesopotamian tradition there were no more than nine
antediluvian kings, as e.g. in the Dynastic Chronicle, which was very likely an important
source of Berossos.44 Moreover, the name o f one of the kings is in fact that of a postdiluvian
ruler (Ammenon = Enmenunna). This suggests that a later user inserted a tenth name in
Berossos list in order to create the correspondence with the Old Testament tradition.
Apart from links with Biblical tradition, several fragments contain references to stories
in classical literature. Sennacheribs erection o f a monument in Cilicia and the foundation
of Tarsus (BNJ 680 F 7c // 685 F 5) recalls the classical story of the epitaph of the Assyrian
king Sardanapallos, who boasted to have built Tarsus and Anchiale in one day.45 The fall of
Nineveh and the death by fire of the Assyrian king Sarakos (BNJ 680 F 7d // 685 F 5) parallels
the end o f Sardanapallos in Ctesianic tradition (BNJ 688 F lb and lq). Berossos also gives a
version of the construction of the Hanging Gardens in Babylon (BNJ 680 F 8a), in classical
tradition one o f the Seven Wonders of the World. The close connections to classical tales
very probably explain why these stories survived in the fragments.
It must be emphasised, then, that due to the particular interests o f our main sources -
Josephus and the Christian apologists - we only have a partial and biased view of Berossos
original composition. A few fragments clearly show that Berossos work was broader in
scope than may appear at face value. Athenaeus describes a Saturnalia-like festival celebrat
ed in Babylon (B N J680 F2), which demonstrates that Berossos also wrote about Babylonian
customs. Clement o f Alexandria informs us that Artaxerxes II introduced the cult of the
Persian goddess Anaitis in Babylon (BNJ 680 F 11). This shows that Berossos treated the
Achaemenid period in some detail and did not confine him self to the brief sum m ary in
BNJ 680 F 10. The lexicographer Hesychius notes that Sarachero was the female adorner
of the spouse o f Bel (BNJ 680 F 13), but we do not know in which context Sarachero had
been mentioned.
Let us now turn to the Babyloniaca itself. Tatian states that the work consists of three
books (BNJ 680 T2). Fragments from each book have been preserved. As far as we can
judge, the contents o f the books can be outlined as follows:
42 See Karst 1911, 5-10.
43 For detailed discussion see Madreiter, this volume.
44 Glassner 2004, no. 3. The chronicle gives an overview of Mesopotamian history, mainly by listing dynas
ties, their kings names and regnal years. Copies have been recovered that very likely originated from
Babylon and date to the time of Berossos.
45 See Strabo 14.5.9; Arrian, Anabasis 2.5.2-4; Athenaeus 12.529 E.
Berossos: His Life and His Work 23
Book 1 opens with a prologue, in which Berossos presents him self and his sources. In
this prologue he probably also explained his dedication to Antiochus I. After the prologue he
describes the geography of Babylonia, the countrys fauna and flora and its multiethnic popu
lation. Berossos then proceeds to primeval history: the fish-man Oannes, in Mesopotamian
tradition Uan(na), the first antediluvian and most im portant sage, brings civilisation to hu
mankind in Babylonia in the very first year of kingship. Thereupon, the sage narrates how
the universe was created by Belos and how this god formed man (BNJ 680 F la -b and
685 F la-b).
Athenaeus testimony that Berossos describes the celebration of a festival in his first
book (BNJ 680 F2) is the only indication that this book also dealt with Babylonian customs.
Although I concluded that the astronom ical/astrological fragments preserved under the
name o f Berossos are not genuine, this does not exclude the possibility that Berossos wrote
in his work on this Babylonian science p a r excellence. As a rule, a Greek ethnographical
work, the genre Berossos followed, presents the intellectual achievements of the people
treated. If Berossos wrote on Babylonian astronom y/ astrology, Book 1 - and more specifi
cally in the section of Babylonian customs - was the most likely part o f his work to do it.
Book 2 gives an overview o f Babylonian rulers, starting with the antediluvian kings
(BNJ 680 F 3a-b - F 6 and 685 F 2-3).46 The book probably ends with the reign of Nabonassar
(747-734).47 For the most part, this section of Berossos work was very likely an enumeration
of kings, dynasties and year numbers and did not provide elaborate information - at least
for the early periods. This can be deduced from Eusebius remark that Berossos gave hardly
any information on the kings deeds or even omitted them (BNJ 680 F 3a). This very likely
reflects the dearth o f sources Berossos could rely on: many of the early rulers were no more
than names in long king lists. The overview of kings and dynasties is interrupted by the story
of the Flood and its aftermath (BNJ 680 F 4 a -c and 685 F 3a-b).
Book 3 relates the history of Babylonia from Nabonassar to Alexander the Great (BNJ 680
F 7-11 and 685 F 5-7). From this book more narrative episodes have been preserved and
although Berossos treatment of the Achaemenid period is almost completely lost, the notice
that Artaxerxes II introduced the cult of Anaitis demonstrates that Berossos elaborated on
this period too.
From Babylonian scholar to Greek historian
Berossos very probably stated in his prologue that he based his work on writings that had
been preserved in Babylon with great care. As far as we can trace his sources, it appears that
his claim was correct. Berossos used a variety of cuneiform sources and native traditions:
myths and epics, king lists, chronicles, royal inscriptions, popular tales.48 It clearly proves
that Berossos had access to cuneiform sources and was embedded in Babylonian culture.
46 Aelian gives in his History o f Animals a story about the Babylonian king Euchoros (Enmerkar in the
cuneiform sources) and his grandson Gilgamos (Gilgamesh) {HA 12.21). There is no indication that this
story derives from the Babyloniaca. Babylonian literature reached the Greek world not only through
Berossos, as is shown by the version of the Babylonian Epic of Creation Enuma Elish given by Eudemus
of Rhodes (2nd half 4th c. BC) in Damascius, De Prinicipiis, 1.322; see further Haubold, this volume,
pp. 31-46.
47 Schnabel 1923,22-3.
48 De Breucker 2010a, 2010b and 2011, 643-7 and 2012; see also Van der Spek 2008.
24 G eert De Breucker
It is not always possible to know how Berossos dealt with his sources: did he copy them
accurately or adapt them freely or even fabricate stories? The reason is twofold. On the one
hand, not all sources Berossos relied on have been - nor ever will be - recovered. Many
Mesopotamian compositions have come down to us in several versions and recensions. In the
cases in which Berossos deviates from the texts that are known to us, we have to allow for
the possibility that he used a version hitherto unknown. On the other hand, the Babyloniaca
was heavily abridged and transformed during the process of transmission. As a consequence,
the transm itted text is not always reliable. Narrative elements that can not be found in the
extant cuneiform sources may be the result o f textual corruption.
Berossos reshaped his Babylonian material in accordance with Greek forms and con
cepts. He modelled his work as a Greek ethnographical history, a genre which was unknown
in this form in Babylonian literature. The title Babyloniaca is typical in this genre. The
Babylonian scholar followed the conventional constituents o f a Greek ethnographical his
tory: 1) description o f land and people; 2) origin and primeval history; 3) overview of his
tory; 4) customs. The ethnographical works o f Hecataeus of Abdera and Megasthenes, who
were contemporaries o f Berossos, possibly served him as models.49
Berossos also accommodated his native sources to Greek concepts.50 The Babylonian
scholar was well aware that he wrote for a Greek speaking, non-Babylonian audience in the
first place. He equates Babylonian gods with Greek ones and uses Macedonian month names.
Moreover, he was acquainted with the Greek stories told about Babylonian history and he
even attempted to correct them, as in the case of Sennacheribs foundation o f Tarsus51 or, at
least in my opinion, his version o f the Hanging Garden of Babylon.52 Berossos knowledge
is plainly demonstrated by his criticism o f those Greek historians who wrongly ascribed
the foundation o f Babylon and the construction of its magnificent buildings to the Assyrian
queen Semiramis (BNJ 680 F8a). This was an attack on Ctesias, who expressed these views
in his Persica (BNJ 688 F la). Berossos was possibly also acquainted with Greek popular
philosophical concepts. He allegorically explains the primeval water, personified by Tiamat
(Babylonian: Sea), and the monsters living in it, as described in the Babylonian Epic of
Creation Enuma Elish, in terms of natural processes: water was the basic principle and living
beings came to life in it spontaneously (BNJ 680 F la-b). It must, however, remain uncertain
whether this explanation goes back to Berossos him self or to a later user.53
In sum, Berossos can truly be called a Greek historian. In modern scholarship he is usu
ally ranked among the ethnographers. As the boundaries between ethnography and local
history in Greek historiography are blurred and on many points arbitrary,54 Berossos could
also be considered a Greek local historian who wrote about the history of his hometown and
country.55 In order to appreciate Berossos as a Greek historian, he must be compared with
other Greek ethnographers and local historians, not with historians like Thucydides and
Herodotus. Their monumental works have determ ined our view of Greek historiography,
49 Hecataeus of Abdera (BNJ 264) composed a work on Egypt entiteld Aegyptiaca probably in the early
reign of Ptolemy 1. Megasthenes (BNJ 715) wrote his Indica (on India) probably between 310 and 290 BC.
50 De Breucker 2011, 647-9 and 2012; see also Van der Spek 2008.
51 Burstein 1978, 24 n. 80.
52 De Breucker 2010a, F 8 a commentary and 2012; for detailed discussion see Rollinger, this volume.
53 For a suggestion that Berossos himself interpreted the Enuma Elish allegorically see Haubold, this volume.
54 Marincola 1999 and Fowler 2001, 96.
55 For further discussion, see Tuplins contribution to this volume.
Berossos: His Life and His Work 25
but are in fact quite exceptional. A comparison of Berossos with Greek ethnographers and
local historians remains difficult, as none of the works of these authors have been preserved
in full.
Berossos undoubtedly aimed to provide his Greek speaking audience and the new ruling
elite in particular with a standard work on Babylonian history based on reliable local sources.
At the same time he wanted to impress them by showing that Babylonia had an age-old - and
thus authoritative - culture. Moreover, he intended to place Babylonian culture in the new
framework of the Hellenistic world, and to redefine it vis-a-vis the dominant Greek culture.
Together with his contemporary, the Egyptian priest Manetho (BNJ 609), who composed
an Aegyptiaca based on native sources, Berossos was the first barbarian historian of the
Hellenistic period to act in this new political and cultural context.56
It is possible that Berossos also had political purposes in mind: either to persuade the
Seleucids to pursue a Babylonia-friendly policy or to support the new Seleucid dynasty
by giving it a historically based ideological foundation.57 In any case, the impact of the
Babyloniaca appears to have been limited. It could never replace the fantastic stories on
Mesopotamia as told by Herodotus and Ctesias. The Babyloniaca expresses how a na
tive Babylonian, who was steeped in the traditional cuneiform culture, conceived the his
tory o f his country at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. As such the work is unique
in Mesopotamian literature. It was firmly based on native sources and traditions, which
were reshaped according to Greek models. The Babyloniaca is, therefore, an emblematic
product of Hellenistic literature. Its author, Bel-reu-shunu, who transformed him self from
a Babylonian scholar into a Greek historian, is an exponent of early Hellenism.
References
Beaulieu 2006a
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, De lEsagil au Mouseion: lorganisation de la recherche scientifique au IVe
siecle avant J.-C., in: Pierre B riant/Francis Joannes (eds.), La transition entre I empire achemenide
et les royaum es hellenistiques (vers 350-300 av. J.-C.). Actes du colloque organise au College de
France p a r la Chaire d'histoire et civilisation du monde achem enide et de I e mpire d A lexandre
et le Reseau international d etudes et de recherches achem enides (GDR 2538 CNRS), 22-23 no-
vembre 2004 (Persika, 9), Paris 2006, 17-36.
Beaulieu 2006b
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The astronom ers o f the Esagil tem ple in the fourth century BC, in: Ann
K. G uinan et al. (eds.), I f a Man builds a Joyful House: A ssyriological Studies in H onor o f Erie
Verdun Leichty (Cuneiform Monographs, 31), Leiden and Boston 2006, 5-22.
56 The chronological relationship between Berossos and Manetho is unclear, as the latter is linked by
ancient sources with Ptolemy I (323-283) as well as with Ptolemy II (285-246). Syncellus asserts that
Manetho imitated Berossos (BNJ 680 T 10 and BNJ 609 T 1lb). His dating of Manetho is very likely
based on the fact that he accepts that the Egyptian priest dedicated a work called the Book ofSothis to
Ptolemy II. Since this book is a forgery, the dedication can not be used to date Manetho and, as a con
sequence, Syncellus statements about the interdependency between Berossos and Manetho can not be
trusted; see also Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 97.
57 Burstein 1978, 5-6; Kuhrt 1987, 55-6; Dillery 2007, 228-9.
26 G eert De Breucker
Berve 1926
Helmut Berve, Das Alexanderreich a u f prosopographischer Grundlage, I. D arstellung, Munich
1926.
Burstein 1978
Stanley M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus (Sources fr o m the A ncient N ear E ast, 1 /5 )
Malibu, CA 1978.
De Breucker 2003
G eert de Breucker, Berossos and the M esopotam ian temple as centre o f knowledge during the
Hellenistic period, in: A lasdair A. M acD onald/M ichael W. T w om ey/G errit J. Reinink (eds.),
Learned Antiquity. Scholarship a n d Society in the Near-East, the Greco-Roman World, a n d the
E arly M edieval West, Leuven 2003, 13-23.
De Breucker 2010a
G eert de Breucker, Berossos (680), B r ills N ew Jacoby Online, 2010.
De Breucker 2010b
G eert de Breucker, Abydenos (685), B rills N ew Jacoby Online, 2010.
De Breucker 2011
Geert de Breucker, Berossos between tradition and innovation, in: Karen R adner/E leanor Robson
(eds.), The O xford H andbook o f Cuneiform Culture, Oxford 2011, 637-57.
De Breucker 2012
G eert De Breucker, D e Babyloniaca van Berossos van Babylon. Inleiding, editie en commentaar,
PhD G roningen, G roningen 2012.
D illery 2007
John Dillery, G reek historians o f the Near East: Clios other sons, in: John M. M arincola (ed.),
A Companion to G reek a n d Roman H istoriography, M alden, MA 2007, 221-30.
Fadhil / Hilgert 2011
Abduillah F adhil/M arkus Hilgert, Verwandelt meine Verfehlungen in Gutes! Ein sigu-G ebet an
M arduk aus dem Bestand der Sippar-Bibliothek in: Gojko Barjam ovic et al. (eds.), A kkade is
King. A Collection o f Papers by Friends a n d Colleagues P resented to Aage Westenholz on the
Occasion o f his 70th Birthday 15th o f May 2009 (PIH AN S, 118), Leiden 2011, 93-109.
Fowler 2001
Robert L. Fowler, Early historie and literacy, in: Nino Luraghi (ed.), The H istorians Craft in the
Age o f Herodotus, O xford 2001, 95-115.
G lassner 2004
Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles ( Writings fro m the A ncient World 19), Atlanta
GA 2004.
K arst 1911
Josef K arst, Eusebius Werke 5. D ie Chronik, aus dem Arm enischen iibersetzt m it Textkritischem
Comm entar (Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 20),
Leipzig 1911.
K uhrt 1987
Amelie Kuhrt, B erossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A m elie K u hrt/S usan
Sherwin-W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East. The Interaction o f G reek a n d non-G reek Civilisation
fr o m Syria to C entral Asia after Alexander, London 1987, 32-56.
Lehm ann-Haupt 1937
Carl Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt, Berossos, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 2, 1-17.
M arincola 1999
John M. M arincola, Genre, convention and innovation in Greco-Rom an historiography, in:
C hristina S. Kraus (ed.), The Limits o f Historiography: Genre and Narrative in A ncient H istorical
Texts, Leiden 1999, 281-324.
Maul 2005
Stefan M. Maul, Nos. 2-18: bilingual (Sumero-Akkadian) hymns from the Seleucid-Arsacid period,
in: Ira Spar/W ilfred G. Lambert (eds.), Literary and Scholastic Texts o f the First Millennium B.C.
(Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum o f Art, 2). Turnhout 2005, 11-116.
Berossos: His Life and His Work 27
Oelsner 2000
Joachim Oelsner, Von IqTsa und einigen anderen spatgeborenen Babyloniern', in: Sim onetta
G raziani (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alia m emoria di Luigi Cagni. Naples 2000,
797-814.
Panitschek 1990
Peter Panitschek, N um a Pompilius als Schuler des Pythagoras, Grazer Beitrage 17 (1990), 49-65.
Pearce /D oty 2000
Laurie E. P earce/L . Tim othy Doty, The activities o f A nu-belsunu, Seleucid scribe, in: Joachim
M arzahn/H ans N eum ann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica. Festschrift fu r Joachim O elsner an-
lafilich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997 (Alter O rient und A lter Testament, 252),
M unster 2000, 331-41.
Pedersen 1998
O lof Pedersen, A rchives and Libraries in the Ancient N ear East 1500-300 B.C. Bethesda, MD
1998.
Robson 2007
Eleanor Robson, Secrets de famille: pretre et astronom e a Uruk a lepoque hellenistique, in:
Christian Jacob (ed.), Les lieux de savoir, Volume 1: Espaces et communautes, Paris 2007, 440-61.
R ollinger/H enkelm an 2009
Robert Rollinger/W outer Henkelman, New observations on G reeks in the Achaemenid Empire,
in: Pierre B riant/M ichel Chauveau (eds.), Organisation des pouvoirs et contacts culturels dans
les pays de I e mpire achemenide. Actes du colloque organise au College de France p a r la Chaire
d histoire et civilisation du monde achem enide et de I em pire d A lexandre et le Reseau interna
tional d etudes et de recherches achem enides (GDR 2538 CNRS), 9-10 novembre 2007 (P ersika,
14), Paris 2009, 331-52.
Sachs /H unger 1988
A braham S achs/H erm ann Hunger, A stronom ical D iaries and R elated Texts fro m Babylonia.
5 vols to date (Osterreichische Akadem ie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse.
D enkschriften, 195 (1988); 210 (1989); 247 (1996), 299 (2001)), Vienna 1988-.
Schnabel 1923
Paul Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig and Berlin 1923.
Schwartz 1897
Franz Schwartz, Berossos 4), R E 3.1, 309-16.
Streck 1995
Michael Streck, Zahl und Zeit. G ramm atik der N umeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spatbabylo-
nischen (Cuneiform Monographs, 5). G roningen 1995.
Tarn, 1985
W illiam W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, 3rd edn., Chicago 1985.
Van der Spek 1998
Robartus J. van der Spek, Cuneiform docum ents on Parthian history: the Rahim esu archive.
M aterials for the study o f the standard o f living, in: Josef W iesehofer (ed.), D as Partherreich und
seine Z eugnisse/The Arsacid Empire: Sources and D ocumentation (Historia Suppl., 122), Stuttgart
1998, 205-58.
Van der Spek 2000
R obartus J. van der Spek, The satamm us of Esagila in the Seleucid and A rsacid periods, in:
Joachim M arzahn/H ans N eum ann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica. Festschrift fu r Joachim
O elsner anlafilich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997 (Alter Orient und Alter Testament,
252), M unster 2000, 437-46.
Van der Spek 2006a
Robartus J. van der Spek, Chronicle concerning A ntiochus and the Sin temple (BCHP 5),
http://w w w .livius.org/cg-cm /chronicles/bchp-antiochus_sin/antiochus_sin_ 0 1 .html [ 1 0 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 ],
Van der Spek 2006b
Robartus J. van der Spek, Ruin o f Esagila chronicle (BCHP 6 ),
http://w w w .livius.org/cg-cm /chronicles/bchp-ruin_esagila/ruin_esagila_ 0 1 .html [ 1 0 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 ].
28 G eert De Breucker

Van der Spek 2008

R obartus J. van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and G reek historian, in: Robartus
J. van der Spek (ed.), Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society, Presented to Marten
Stol on the Occasion o f his 65th Birthday, Leiden 2008, 277-318.
V erbrugghe/W ickersham 1996
G erald P. V erbrugghe/John M. W ickersham, Berossos a n d Manetho. Introduced and Translated.
Native Traditions in A ncient M esopotamia a n d Egypt, A nn Arbor, MI 1996.
W estenholz 2007 2. Reading the Babyloniaca
Aage W estenholz, The Graeco-Babyloniaca once again, Zeitschrift f u r A ssyriologie 97 (2007),
262-313.
W etzel/S chm idt/M allw itz 1957
Friedrich W etzel/E rich S chm idt/A lfred M allw itz, Das Babylon der Spatzeit ( W issenschaftliche
Veroffentlichungen der D eutschen O rient-G esellschaft, 62), Berlin 1957.
 The Wisdom of the Chaldaeans:
Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1
Johannes Haubold (Durham University)

O f the many neglected aspects of Berossos work, his account of cosmogony in Babyloniaca 1
is easily the least well understood. The outlines of the narrative are of course well known:
after an ethnographic introduction, Berossos reports how the super-sage Oannes emerged
from the Southern Ocean in year one of human history, and how he taught mankind the arts
of civilisation. Nothing new was discovered since that time. Berossos then proceeds to give a
taste of Oannes teachings by recounting the history of the world and, probably, much more
beside. How much more has been subject to debate. Some scholars have argued that Oannes
covered astronomy in Book 1 of the Babyloniaca, and that many of our so-called astronomical
fragments belong in that context. Others disagree.1 There can be no disagreement about the
cosmogonic parts o f O annes teachings because here we have Berossos Babylonian source
text, the so-called Epic of Creation or Enuma Elis. Berossos adheres closely to this source,
which is why Book 1 has always mattered to those scholars interested in Mesopotamian
literature and its reception.2 Beyond that, however, the book has not elicited much interest.
Unlike Book 3, it contains no historical information; and unlike Book 2 it tells us little about
Mesopotamian myth and literature that we did not already know from elsewhere.3 As a con
sequence, one third of Berossos work tends to be ignored, or simply forgotten. With my
chapter I aim to reverse this trend. I argue that Babyloniaca Book 1 forms a crucial part of
Berossos overall project, his signature piece, no less.

Starting points
I start with a simple question: why did Berossos see fit to open his work with the teachings
of Oannes? Why have Book 1 at all? There are several ways of answering that question:
we might, for example, point to the fact that Enuma Elis was a staple of Babylonian scribal
culture in Hellenistic times.4 It was also crucially important to Babylonian religion,5 and
to kingship as an institution: Babylonian kings answered very directly to the divine king
Bel-Marduk at the New Years Festival, where the Enuma Elis was solemnly performed on
a regular basis.6 In as much as the Babyloniaca was about kingship - and there can be little

1 See, e.g., Burstein 1978 (the astronomical fragments are authentic and belong in Babyloniaca book 1);
and Kuhrt 1987 (contra). For full discussion see John Steeles chapter in this collection.
2 Frahm 2010 is an excellent recent example; see also Frahm 2011, ch. 11.
3 For Books 2 and 3 of the Babyloniaca see the chapters by Lang, Lanfranchi and Dillery in this volume.
4 Gesche 2001, 177-8; cf. p. 35 (on Berossos use of Enuma Elis ).
5 Dietrich 2006.
6 Zgoll 2006, with further literature.
32 Johannes Haubold
doubt that it was centrally concerned with this issue7 - it also had to be about Marduk and
the story o f how he gained control over the universe.
Berossos, then, was bound to touch on the Enuma Elis at some point in his work. For
similar reasons he was also bound to mention Oannes. Oannes was a famous Mesopotamian
sage, and the author o f important texts, though not, as far as we know, the Enuma Elis}
Berossos may have done a bit o f creative tweaking here, perhaps because Oannes - or
Adapa, as he was also known was firmly associated with the art o f legitimate kingship.
Beate Pongratz-Leisten has shown that the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal
systematically claimed the wisdom o f Oannes-Adapa for themselves.9 Later, under the
Babylonian king Nabonidus, Oannes became the focus of heated debates regarding proper
royal behaviour: texts favourable to Nabonidus show him as an expert reader of O annes
supposed main work, the astrological omen collection Enuma Anu Ellil ,10 Hostile sources,
on the other hand, allege that Nabonidus boasted to know better than Oannes and that he
introduced a perverse cult unknown to the great sage." As Berossos him self points out, there
is nothing o f value that could be have been unknown to Oannes (BNJ F 1 (4)). So, by casting
him as an internal narrator, Berossos shows that his work is far more than merely a handbook
of Babylonian history and custom: it is meant as a Fiirstenspiegel, a full-blown introduction
to the art of legitimate kingship.
These are important considerations when it comes to determ ining the significance of
Babyloniaca Book 1, but they leave one question unanswered: how, if at all, did Berossos
cater for the tastes o f his Greek readers? Do we simply assume that he asked them to swal
low Babylonian literature neat, with no regard for their potentially very different horizons
of expectation? That seems prim a fa cie unlikely, given that Berossos did after all write in
Greek, not in Aramaic or Akkadian or Chaldaean (whatever that might mean) - which
raises the question o f what his Greek readers were supposed to gain from the experience,
and how Berossos went about selling him self and his culture to them. That, it seems to me,
is precisely where the cosmogony o f Book 1 becomes important.
Berossos and his audience
Berossos claimed to transm it the ancient archives of Babylon to his Greek readers, with
little input o f his own.12 And indeed, he has often been read as a (more or less) transparent
window onto Babylonian history and culture.13 Geert de Breucker has challenged this rather
beguilingly straightforward picture:
7 BNJ 680 F 1 (1) and (5); for Berossos producing a blueprint for Seleucid kingship see Kuhrt 1987,
Bichler2007, Haubold forthcoming.
8 For Oannes/Uan - Adapa in Mesopotamian thought see Streck 2003-5; for Oannes as author see n. 10.
9 Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 309-20.
10 Royal Chronicle P4 col. Ill, 2 - 5 ' (Schaudig). For Oannes/Uan - Adapa as the author o f Enuma Anu Ellil
see Lambert 1962, 64 and 70.
11 The Persian Verse Account PI col. II, 2- 5 and PI col. V, 815 (Schaudig).
12 BNJ 680 F 1(1) introduces his sources; F 1(4) emphasises that nothing else was discovered since the
time of Oannes; F3 (12) introduces primordial commentators; while F4 dramatises the transmission of
Oannes teachings and provides an aetiology of the Chaldaeans as a priestly caste entrusted with the
archive of primordial knowledge.
13 See Ruffings contribution to this volume.
The Wisdom of the C haldaeans: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1 33
Berossoss goal was a propagandistic history o f his land and culture. He claimed that what he
had done was to provide an authentic history based on very old native traditions and sources.
As we have seen, Berossos did indeed use very old (cuneiform) material. At the same time,
however, Berossos tailored his work to the G reek way o f thinking. He w rote in G reek and used
a Greek genre (historiography/ethnography). He even adopted G reek concepts, such as the
prototype of the cultural hero, G reek ideas about the East. This combination of local traditions
and G reek influences is characteristic o f all the other native w riters. It can be seen as being a
typical H ellenistic phenomenon in the sense that local and Greek elements are interm ingled .14
De Breucker rightly insists that Berossos work is culturally composite, despite his own
protestations to the contrary. However, his statement also raises a number of questions. One
concerns the idea o f the Babyloniaca as propagandistic history: the very fact that modern
scholars found it so difficult to agree on an overall interpretation of Berossos work sug
gests that propaganda will not capture the complexities of his culturally hybrid voice.15
My second worry concerns broad-brush categories such as the Greek way of thinking or
native w riters. We do not usually tolerate such degrees of generalisation when studying
other ancient authors: why should we tolerate them with Berossos? I also have a third worry,
which is this: three lines from the end of de Breuckers quote, Berossos suffers a sudden and
catastrophic loss of agency rather like an airliner that loses cabin pressure as it is about to
crash. So far it was Berossos who was seen to be making claims, using sources, tailoring his
work to audience expectation. But then, dramatically, the typical and the characteristic take
over, without warning, and without any indication of what is at stake.
De Breuckers assessment of Berossos, seems characteristic of recent scholarship on this
author. There has been much useful groundwork, and there have been plenty of good intu
itions, but scholars of Berossos have so far operated largely unencumbered by recent debates
about identity, agency and authorial voice in the A rts and Humanities. It seems to me that
Berossos relationship with his Greek audience in particular needs further thought. Scholars
have long acknowledged that it must have been complicated, indeed fraught. Reinhold
Bichler points out in a recent essay that
in the eyes of the new dynasty founded by Seleucus it must have been a tem pting idea to see
oneself in the tradition o f a world-wide kingship. And once more we may take note to what
extent Berossos was forced to respect the expectations of his Greek or rather M acedonian
audience .16
Bichler is surely right to single out the issue of audience expectations, but once again he does
not seem to me to probe carefully enough. What exactly does it mean to say that Berossos
was forced to respect the expectations of his Greek or rather Macedonian audiences? Was
he literally under duress? Or did he need to sell copy? These questions need to be brought
to the surface and tackled in a much more concerted manner than has been done so far. My
chapter aims to do some of that work. I start by asking what Berossos readers expected of
him, and how Berossos responded to their expectations. This will lead me on to the broader
question of how Berossos reads and rewrites the Mesopotamian texts on which he draws.
My aim is to move away from sweeping claims that Berossos advertised his native culture;
14 De Breucker 2003, 31-2.
15 For the range of existing interpretations see Ruffing, this volume, pp. 291-308.
16 Bichler 2007, 224.
 34 Johannes Haubold
or that he was at the mercy o f his Greek audience; or perhaps both. Instead, I want to get
a sense o f the complexity and range of Berossos voice, as he negotiates different ways of
seeing the world.
A note on method
In rethinking Berossos Babyloniaca, I have found two concepts useful that have been much
debated in postcolonial scholarship. The first is essentialism. Essentialism, according to one
definition, is the assumption that groups, categories or classes of objects have one or sev
eral defining features exclusive to all members o f that category.17 In the context o f cultural
analysis, this m anifests itself prim arily in the assumption that individuals share an essen
tial cultural identity.18 Essentialist views o f culture were wide-spread in antiquity, and are
particularly well attested among Greek-speakers. From the classical period onward, there
was a powerful strand o f Greek thought that cast non-Greeks as barbarians, people who by
virtue o f their language and culture were essentially inferior to Greeks.19 Even somebody
as intelligent as Aristotle could claim - shockingly to us - that all barbarians were slaves by
natu re.20 Similar views were held at the time when Berossos was writing. Indeed, I argue
that Berossos him self was aware o f essentialist assumptions about Babylon, and that he
responded to them in fascinating ways.
This leads me to a second concept that I have found useful in rethinking Berossos, which
is that of role play and masquerade. It has long been accepted that discourse forms a crucial
factor in the shaping of identity: we do not simply determine who we are - much as we might
like to think we do - but constantly negotiate who we are in view of who we are said to be,
might be, should be, etc. To this, postcolonial scholarship adds the notion that subaltern
groups or individuals may actively masquerade to conform to, an d /o r subvert, hegemonic
discourses.21 Babyloniaca Book 1 ,1 argue, is a case in point: its main purpose, I argue, is not
so much to inform Greek readers about Babylonian mythology and culture, but to establish a
specific authorial persona; and, on that basis, create a communicative situation which paves
the way for Books 2 and 3.
The philosopher priest
What, then, does it mean for Berossos to introduce him self as a Babylonian, and a priest of
Bel? The question may seem odd, for it suggests a choice which prima facie Berossos did not
have: was he not simply stating a fact? And yet, I shall argue that Berossos did have a choice
as to how he presented himself, and that both his profession as a priest and his self-portrayal
as a Babylonian can be read as examples o f carefully calibrated role play.
Let us first have a look at ethnicity. As a Babylonian, Berossos was a barbarian in Greek
eyes, and broadly speaking that was not an auspicious starting point. Yet, non-Greek cultures
17 Ashcroft/Griffiths/Tiffin 1998,64.
18 Ashcroft/Griffiths/Tiffin 1998,64.
19 E.g. Hall 1989, Cartledge 1993, Harrison 2001; more recent publications emphasise that there was in fact
more flexibility: Hall 2006, Gruen 2010, Moyer 2011.
20 For Aristotle on natural slavery see, among many others, Fortenbaugh 1977, Smith 1983, Garver 1994,
Schofield 1999, Heath 2008.
21 Some of the complexities of this are discussed in Ashcroft/Griffiths/Tiffin 2006, e.g. Part 6 , on
indigeneity.
T h e Wisdom o f the C haldaeans: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1 35
could also carry more positive connotations.22 By the Hellenistic period, Greek intellectuals
had become accustomed to regard barbarian priests as commanding a privileged knowledge
of history.23 Berossos very directly plays on that stereotype when he rejects the untruths
spread by Greek w riters in Babyloniaca Book 3.24 Greek readers would have appreciated
that, as a priest of Bel, Berossos was in a good position to set the record straight; though the
gesture would have had little resonance in a purely Mesopotamian context. Indeed, we now
know that from a Mesopotamian perspective there was no such thing as a priest of Bel in
Babylon, though there was of course a wide range of personnel associated with the main
temple of Marduk, the Esagila.25
Berossos, then, does not simply state a neutral fact when he introduces him self as a
Babylonian and a priest of Bel. Rather, he masquerades as a figure from Greek oriental
ising lore so as to lodge a very specific claim to cultural authority: Babylonian priests
(Chaldaeans, as they were known), were not just seen as masters of time but also as sources
of esoteric knowledge, essentially a society of proto-philosophers.26 That cliche, I suggest,
informs Berossos paraphrase of Enuma Elis in Babyloniaca Book 1.
In his account of creation, Berossos describes the universe as being created from two
main forces, Tiamat and Bel. Tiamat provides the m atter from which Bel shapes all things.
She is female, he is male; she is passive, he is active; she is chaotic, dark and watery, he is
orderly, active, bright and airy. In Babylonian terms, this is not a bad paraphrase of Enuma
Elis, though it skips over the opening genealogies and radically condenses the rest of the
narrative. Much of this work of condensation will be down to Alexander Polyhistor, the
first-century BCE excerptor who had little incentive to preserve details of Berossos account
that did not suit his sensationalist agenda.27 But even the truncated version of Babyloniaca
Book 1 which Polyhistor passed on to Eusebius still betrays signs of Berossos original ap
proach. W hat Berossos seems to have done in Babyloniaca Book 1 is to extract two cosmic
principles from the jum ble of divine characters in Enuma Elis. The resulting account of
creation strikingly resembles Stoic physics as formulated by Berossos contemporary Zeno
of Citium. For Zeno too, the universe was based on two entities, matter and god. Like Bel in
Berossos, Zenos god was active, male, the shaping principle that pervaded matter; and like
Berossos Tiamat, Stoic m atter was passive, female, waiting to be dissected and moulded.28
Sceptics may object that this convergence between Berossos and Zeno may as well be pure
coincidence; after all, there are only so many ways one can imagine a cosmogony, and the
opposition between Marduk and Tiamat was of course prefigured in Enuma Elis itself.
Clearly, we need to allow for the possibility that some of these apparent similarities are
fortuitous, just as we also need to allow for historically grown similarities between Ancient
Greek and M esopotamian thought: after all, these two cultures had long been part of the
22 Momigliano 1975.
23 Haubold, forthcoming.
24 BNJ 680 F8a(142)). For discussion see Haubold, forthcoming.
25 Ringgren 1979, 151.
26 E.g. Diogenes Laertius, Lives o f the Philosophers 1.1, Strabo, Geography 3.7. For the reception of the
Chaldaeans in classical thought see Thomsen 1988.
27 For Polyhistors treatment of the Babyloniaca see Schironi in this volume.
28 S V F 1 88 (= Chalcidius 292); cf. SVF II 300 (= Diogenes Laertius 7.134), Chalcidius 293.
 36 Johannes Haubold
same Eastern M editerranean world.29 But there are at least two reasons for believing that
Berossos really did cast him self as a philosopher in the vein of a Zeno. First, his reading of
the Enuma Elis was not the only possible one, nor was Berossos the first to isolate cosmic
principles from the poem. A generation or so earlier, A ristotles pupil Eudemos o f Rhodes
had already had access to a Greek text o f the Enuma Elis and had taken it to encapsulate the
principles o f Babylonian philosophy as follows:
Tow 8e papp&pcov eoucacn BapuXamoi piv xqv piav x&v 6A,cov ap%r|v cvyfj rcapievai, 8uo 8e
710 V
8 IV TauGsKai 'Anaa(bv, xov p.ev A7iaacbv av8pa xfj<5 Tau0e 7roi,oi)vxs<;, xai3xr|v 8s pr|xspa
08wv ovopa^ovxeq, 8^ wv povoysvrj ;iaT8a yevvr|0fivai xov Mwupiv, auxov, olpai, xov vor|x6v
Koapov sic xwv Sdsiv apxrov rcapayopsvov, sk 8e xv auxwv alhr\v ysvsav 7rpo8?i0etv, Aaxf)v
Kai Aaxov, etxa au xp(xr|v etc xav auxoov, Kiaoapfi Kai Aaacopov, s, wv yr.veaGai xpetq, Avov Kai
IAAivov Kai Aov xou 5c AoO Kai Aai)KT|^ uiov ysvsaOat xov Bfj/.ov, ov 8r|pioupyov eival (paaiv.
Among the barbarians, the Babylonians appear to pass over the idea o f a single principle in
silence and instead to assume two principles o f the universe, Tauthe (~ Tiamat) and Apason
(~ Apsu), m aking Apason the husband o f Tauthe, and calling her the m other o f the gods. O f
these was born an only-begotten son, M oum is (~ M ummu) who, it seems, brought about the
intelligible universe from the two first principles. The same parents also gave rise to another
generation, Dache and Dachos (~ Lahmu and Lahamu); and yet another, K issare and Assoros
(~ K isar and Ansar), who in turn had three sons, Anos (~ Anu), Illinos (~ Ellil) and Aos (~ Ea).
Aos and Dauke (~ Damkina) begot a son called Bel who they say is the dem iurge .30
Like Berossos, Eudemos reads the Enuma Elis as an account o f physics and singles out
two cosmic principles, one male one female. However, unlike Berossos he identifies these
principles with Tiamat and Apsu, rather than Tiamat and Bel, and focuses on the opening
genealogy of the gods rather than on tablets 4 - 6 of Enuma Elis, which describe the battle
among the gods and the creation o f the world and man. Judging by Polyhistors summary,
Berossos seems to have skipped over those early genealogies; or at least to have shifted the
main weight o f his paraphrase elsewhere. It may seem hazardous to argue from absence in a
text as badly mutilated as the Babyloniaca. However, the entire thrust of Polyhistors narra
tive, including the fram ing account o f Oannes, seems to suggest that the primordial soup of
B N J 680 F l b (6), and the monsters in it, really did come first.
There is another feature o f Berossos narrative which sets him apart from Eudemos: he
translates the names o f Babylonian deities into their Greek equivalents rather than merely
transliterating them. Unlike his forerunner, Berossos was clearly interested in making his
account accessible - and meaningful - to a wider Greek audience. This leads me to my sec
ond reason for thinking that Berossos was quite actively modelling him self on contemporary
Greek philosophers like Zeno, and that is his method of reading myth, as encapsulated in the
phrase, but he says that this amounts to an allegorical account of physics.31 The phrasing
here has been deemed late, though Demetrius, On Style, already uses similar language, and
29 E.g. Burkert 1992 and 2004, West 1997, Haubold 2002, with varying emphasis. For the succession myth
which informs both Greek and Mesopotamian cosmogonic traditions see Lopez-Ruiz 2010.
30 Eudemus fr. 150 (Wehrli) = Damascius, De Principiis 322.1-6. For discussion see Betegh 2002 and Erler
2011,231.
31 B N J680 F lb (7).
The Wisdom o f the C haldaeans: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1 37
Zenos pupil and successor as head of the Stoa, Cleanthes, may have done too.32 W hether
or not Berossos actually said dAAriyopiKwq 7t(puaioA,oyf|O0at, the sentiment is clearly his -
for he must be the one who translated O m orka/Tiam at into Greek 0aA,aoaa, hardly a fully
fledged mythological character in the Greek imagination.33 More generally, the entire thrust
of his reading of Enuma Elis seems to me to be self-evidently rationalising, and, in a rather
loose sense of the word, allegorising too.
One passage stands out in this regard. At BNJ 680 F i b (7-8) Berossos equates Bel
with Zeus, as many others must have done before him .34 Beyond that, one senses in
Ala ... S iata^ai the kind o f etymological play in which the Stoics engaged to press tradi
tional myth into the service of philosophical speculation. O f course, we cannot assume that
the late excerptor Syncellus preserves the ipsissima verba of Berossos, or even just a close
echo of them, but this particular pun fits eminently well into a Hellenistic philosophical
milieu: etymologizing play on the accusative Aia had a long tradition in Greek thought (e.g.
Hes. Op. 2-4), but became particularly popular among the early Stoics.35 Here for once,
Syncellus phrasing may well go back to Berossos, given his broadly Stoic tendencies and
his well-attested interest in the etymology of divine names.36
Berossos was hardly a card-carrying Stoic, and allegorizing, or rationalising, or even
just etymologizing myth was not exclusive to the Stoics. But by the third century BC they
were among the most prominent exponents of these techniques.37 For example, Zeno made a
reading of Hesiods Theogony in which he interpreted the name Chaos as referring to water:
Kai Zrivcov 8e xo Jtap 'HoioSooi xaoq uSoop etval (pr|(nv, oi> aim^avovxoc; iM v yiveo0ai, r\q
;tr|yvi>p8 vr|<; f] yrj axepspviouxai.
And Zeno says that Hesiods Chaos is water, from which there developed mud through conden
sation. The mud then solidified, creating the earth .38
The parallel with Berossos is striking. I am not of course suggesting that Berossos empha
sised the role of water because Zeno read Hesiod in this way. The point is rather that he ex
ploited convergences between Greek and M esopotamian thought so as to present him self as
the kind of man whom Hellenistic Greek audiences would have recognized as ao(po<;, wise,
or (piloaocpoq, a lover of wisdom. In pursuit of this goal, Berossos seems to have proceeded
eclectically, one might even say, opportunistically. His account of Tiam ats army is telling
32 Demetr. Eloc. 151, 285 (aMryyopga)), 282 (dUriyopiKoq), 243 (dMryyopiKtoi;); for Cleanthes see SVF I
526 (dJl5lriyopxK(bq),' which may, however, reflect the language of later readers. De Breucker ad BNJ 680
F ib is sceptical: d ^ y o p i a in the meaning of allegory is later in date ... Therefore, the adverb
dA.Xr|yopiKa)^ can not come from Berossos himself, but is a later addition.
33 Compare the famous reversal of personification at II. 16.33-5 (Edwards 1987, 257), where Achilles
mother Thetis is polemically equated with the sea. Most 1994 interprets the passage as the earliest extant
case of allegory in Greek poetry.
34 Hdt. 1.181 is an early example.
35 E.g. S yF II 10221 (= Diogenes Laertius 7.147).
36 Compare his etymologizing explanation of la p a ^ p to = n Koopr|ipia xrjq 'Hpr|<; (BNJ 680 F 13). We
do not know who is meant, but Berossos may have interpreted the name as a combination of Akkadian
sarahu (take pride in, make splendid) and the name of the Greek goddess "Hpt] (Hera), whom he will
have equated with Sarpanitu, the wife of Bel / Zeus.
37 For Stoic rationalising/etymologizing/allegorizing of myth see further Ramelli 2007.
38 SKFI 104; cf. 103 and 105.
 38 Johannes Haubold
in this regard. As expected, Berossos takes inspiration from the Enuma Elis?9 But he lists
many creatures that are not found in the Babylonian epic, and some at least seem specifically
added to appeal to a Greek audience.40 W hat is more, Berossos fundamentally changes the
tone and overall m eaning o f the original, transform ing the list o f Tiam ats monsters into a
piece of philosophical speculation in the vein o f Empedocles:
n o l l a (iev dmputpoooma Kai apcpicxEpva cpuEoOat,
Pouysvrj avSpojipcotpa, xa 8 p7ia^tv e^avaxeXXeiv
avSpoqyurj Pow pava, p.ptynva tfji psv a 7t avSpeov a question o f physics. And a hotly debated question at that: Empedocles always remained
xrjt 8e yuvatKocpurj oxiepoii; r|GKr|p.va yinoi<;.
(It is said that) many creatures with tw o faces and tw o chests came into being,
offspring o f cows, with human prows, and others again grow ing forth
with human physique and the head o f oxen, mixed beings, partly equipped
w ith female and partly with male m em bers .41
Berossos account offers some remarkable similarities:
yVO0ai (pr|ai xpovov, ev an to 7tav [okoxo<; Kail i)8cop elvai, Kai sv xouxan i/oa xpaxd)8r|
Kai iStocpueTq xa q ISfiat; %ovxa ^oooyovEtaOat. dvOpccmouc; yap 5i7ixepou<; yvvr|0fivai, evioik;
8e Kai xxpa7tTpot)q x a i 8v7tpoo(b7i:oD(; Kai ow p a p.v xovxa<; sv, K(paXd<; 8e 8vo, avSpsiav
xe Kai yuvaiKEtav, Kai aiSota 8e S iaaa, appsv Kai 0fjX,u- Kai sxEpoix; dvOp&moix;, xoix; pv
aiycov GK^.r| Kai KEpaxa Exovxag, xoik; 8e i7T7r67to8a<;, xoix; 8e xa o7tiaro p sv ppr| i'7t7tcov, xa
8e ji7tpoo0v dvGprojtcov, out; l7t7toKVxai3po\>q xf)v i8av Etvat. ^(ooyovr|0fjvai 8e Kai xaupouq
dv0pd)7tcov K(pa^a<; /ovxag Kai Kuvag xExpaowpaxouc;, oupac; ix0a3oq ek xcov O7UO0V pspcov
eyovxaq, Kai i'7i7i;ou<; KirvoKEcpa^oix; Kai dv0pcb7iou<; Kai Xpa ^rna KEcpa^ag pv Kai ocopaxa
ijijiwv Exovxa, o\)pa<; 8e ixOvkdv, Kai a^A,a 8e t/oa 7tavxo8a7tdjv Gripvcov poptpag Exovxa- 7ipoi; 8e
xouxok; ixOiJac; Kai epnexa. Kai ocpac; Kai a lia , ^roa 7tA,iova Oaupaaxa Kai TtapriX^aypEvaq xaq
o\|/i<; a^Xf|X,o)v sxovxa, cbv Kai m q siKovaq ev xcdi xot> Br|>.ou vaan dvaK ic0ai.
There was a time, he says, when everything was [darkness and] w ater and that in it fabulous
beings with peculiar forms came to life. For men with two wings were born and some with four
w ings and tw o faces, having one body and tw o heads, male and female, and double genitalia,
male and female. O ther men were born, some having the legs and the horns o f goats, others
with the feet o f horses. Yet others had the hind parts o f horses, but the foreparts o f men, and
were hippocentaurs in form. Bulls were also engendered having the heads o f men as well as
four-bodied dogs having the tails o f a fish from their hind parts, dog-headed horses and men and
other beings having heads and bodies o f horses, but tails o f fish and still other beings having
forms o f all sorts o f w ild anim als. In addition to these, there were fish and reptiles and snakes
and many other marvellous creatures differing in appearance from one another. Images of these
were also set up in the temple o f Belos .42
39 Enuma Elis 1.133-46.
40 Most obviously perhaps the centaur-like creatures: oDi; i7t 7ioKvxai)pot)g xf]v iSeav sivai. De Breucker ad
BNJ 680 F lb considers the possibility that the explanation was added at a later stage, but the phrasing
recalls other passages where Berossos suggests Greek equivalents for Mesopotamian objects or charac
ters: e.g. 8M/680 F lb (2), where he describes roots that have the same properties as barley (ioo5t>vapdv
5e xai; piL,aq xauxa; KpiOat;). Centaur-like creatures are attested in Mesopotamian iconography, but play
no role in Tiamats army (De Breucker ad loc.).
41 Empedocles F61 DK.
42 B N J680 F lb (6 ).
The Wisdom o f the C haldaeans: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1 39
The parallels between Empedocles and Berossos are glaring (bull-men, two-faced crea
tures, gender confusion, etc.), but can we seriously entertain the possibility that Berossos
responded to Presocratic philosophy? Allowing ourselves to contemplate this question can
be a salutary exercise, but it need be no more than that: Berossos did not have to read
Empedocles in order to learn about spontaneous generation. For that is what is at issue here:
like Empedocles and others before him,43 Berossos presents his monsters as spontaneously
sprung from primordial moisture: what was theogonic myth in Enuma Elis becomes for him
associated with the idea o f primordial monsters, but already Aristotle built it into a much
more far-reaching argum ent about purpose in nature.44 The issue had become something of
a bug-bear, as can be seen from a passage in Apollonius:
Orjpsg 8 , on 0f|pE caiv eoikoxec; (b|j,r|cxfjaiv
ouSe pev oi)8 a v S p sa o tv opov SEpaq, a lio 8 arc allatv
aupptyEEq yv0)v, kiov aOpoot, f|ux pfjA.a
ek cxaOpwv aA.t<; eictiv o7tr|Suovxa vopfjt. 675
xoloix; Kai 7tpoxpoi><; iM oq P>tdcxr|GV
X0d)v auxf] (iikio Tgiv apr|p|ivot)<; jiA,ogiv,
oi)7tco Si\|/aA.q) paA. im rjEpt 7uA.r|0Toa
ot>8 7ico a^aA ioio Po^au; xoaov fiA,(oto
iKpaSai; aivupEvou- xa 8 etu oxtxai; i^yayEV aiebv 680
auyKpivag. xdx; oi'y cpnf]v d isr o o t ejtovxo,
rjpcoai; 8 ele 0apPo<; d7ttpixov ...
[K irkes] beasts - which were not entirely like flesh-devouring beasts,
Nor like men, but rather a jum ble
of different limbs - all came with her, like a flock of sheep
w hich follow the shepherd out of the stalls. 675
Sim ilar to these were the creatures which in earlier times
the earth itself had created out of the mud, pieced together from a jum ble of
before it had been properly solidified by the thirsty air [limbs,
or the rays o f the parching sun
had elim inated sufficient moisture. Time then sorted these out by grouping [them 680
into proper categories. Sim ilarly unidentifiable were the forms which followed
and caused the heroes amazed astonishm ent , . . 45 [after Kirke
Apollonius exploits the fact that early monsters were a source of wonder (0d|ipo<;), an idea
which recalls Berossos emphasis on the miraculous nature of Tiamats creatures (TepaicbSr),
BaDjiaaid). At a fairly basic level, this kind of thing was good box office. Yet, we have seen
that primordial monsters also had a more serious philosophical point. Apart from Aristotle,
the Epicureans too grappled with the legacy o f Empedocles idea, accepting spontaneous
generation as an important part of their non-teleological account of the universe, but reject
ing some of its more extravagant implications.46 More research is needed on where precisely
43 Notably Anaximander, for whom see De Breucker ad BNJ 680 F lb (7); for further discussion see Quinn
1964.
44 Ar. Phys. 196a20-3; see further Dudley 2012, 163-98.
45 Ap. Arg. 4.672-84; for discussion of the passage see Frankel 1968, 521-4; Livrea 1973, 205-9; Fusillo
1985, 63-4; Hunter 1993, 164-6; Clauss 2000, 13-14.
46 Lucretius for one rails against Centaurs: De Rerum Natura 5.837-918.
 40 Johannes Haubold
Berossos positions him self in this debate, but that there was a philosophical debate, and that
he joins it quite deliberately, seems to me to be beyond doubt.
The creation of man
Berossos, then, exploits his subject position as a barbarian priest to enter the fray of
Hellenistic philosophical debate. So far we have seen him inscribe Greek notions o f physics
into his archive o f barbarian wisdom. Yet, Hellenistic philosophy was arguably more inter
ested in ethics, and here too Berossos has important things to say. Towards the end of Book 1
he gets an opportunity to define what makes us human, in his account of the creation of man.
Once more, philosophical - and in practice that means again broadly Stoic tendencies - come
to the fore. Unfortunately, the transm itted text is faulty at this point, and we need to pause
briefly to see whether it lends itself to meaningful analysis.
Syncellus and A rm enian Eusebius describe the creation of man twice, once in com bina
tion with that o f animals, once on its own (BN J 680 F lb (7-8)). There are several points
o f overlap between the two passages, but they are incompatible as they stand. Jacoby and
others solve the problem by bracketing one o f them as a Jewish interpolation.47 However,
they do not explain why Jewish readers would have wanted to assimilate Berossos text
to the Bible in such clumsy fashion. It seems safer to assume, with Verbrugghe and
W ickersham, that both passages are original Berossos, though the text has clearly suffered
some degree o f corruption.48
One possible solution might be that ch. 8 got displaced at some point in the transmission,
and that it (or something like it) once provided the allegorical explanation that is missing in
the transm itted text o f ch. 7. Below, I offer a tentative suggestion of what Berossos might
have meant, if not actually written: it assumes two distinct stages in the creation process, one
for humans and one for animals. I must stress that I regard this reconstruction as a heuristic
experiment, no more. It does not solve the problems o f the transm itted text, nor could it.
W hat it can achieve, I think, and what is required here, is encourage us to accept both ver
sions o f creation as genuine Berossos, however garbled they may appear at first sight. With
these caveats, let us have a closer look at the creation of humans and animals as Berossos
describes them:
( 7 ) o in to q 8 e t w v o X cov o v v s o t riKOiwv, 7tav>L06vxa B fjX ov c x i a a i T11V y u v a tK a ^ s a r |v , K ai
t o |ie v q ii ia u auxrj<; 7 to ifja a i yfjv, t o 8 e a X X o t ^ i o d o u p a v o v K ai t o e v a u x fjt ^tba a c p a v ia a i.
dXXriyopiKroi; 5 e q>r|oi x o r n o 7iE(p\)ovoX,oyfjo0ar u y p o u y a p o v x o q t o u n a v r o g , K ai ^cbcov e v au x a n
y s y ev v r ijjiv o o v , x o u x o v x o v 0 e o v [dtpeX siv x f|v g a u r o u K(paXr|v, Kai t o p u e v a i ^ a xoi)i; a X X o v g
Q e o v g (p u p a o a i ir ji yfjv, K ai S iaT i^ aoav to\)<; d v 0 p 6 7 to \)i;' 8 i o v o s p o ix ; t e e lv a v , K ai (ppovf|oecoi;
0 ia ^ fiT xsiv. (8 ) t o v 5 e B rj^ ov], o v A ia |ie 0 e p |ir |V ijo u o i, f is a o v t e h o v t o t o aK 0 T0 <; x ^ p t e a t
yrjv K ai o u p a v o v cut aXXi)Xddv, K ai S i a i a ^ a i t o v koo(j.ov, x a 5 s ^coa o\>k svE yK ovT a Tfjv to t )
(pcoToq S u v a jjiv (p 0 a p rjv a i. iS o v r a 8 e t o v BrjA.ov x ^ p a v p r ||io v Kai K apn ocp opov, K E ^ eu aai e v i
ito v 0Gov xf]v KE(pa>vf)v a y e X o v x i e a u x o u io n arcoppuE vxi a v |ia x i (p o p a o a i xr)v yrjv, K ai S iarcX aoai
[av0pw 7roui; Kai] 0 r |p ta x a S o v a ja e v a t o v a s p a cpepsiv. < t o v 8 e BrjA,ov> < d (p ^ iv xr|v E au xou
K(paA.r|v, K ai t o p u e v ai(j.a xoix; aM_ou<; Oeoix; (p u p aoav xrjt yrjv, K ai S ia r c ^ a a a i xou q avOpwTtoix;'
8i' o v o s p o ix ; t e E iv a i, K ai (ppovr|GG)<; 0ia<; (iT xeiv.>
47 De Breucker ad BNJ 680 F lb (8 ), with references and discussion.
48 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 46 n. 7 .
The Wisdom ol'the C haldaeans: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1
When the universe was in this (chaotic) state, Bel went up and split the woman in two. O ne h a lf
o f her he made earth and the other h alf sky; and he made the creatures in her disappear. But
this, he says, am ounts to an allegorical account o f physics, to the effect that, when everything
consisted o f m oisture, and creatures had come into existence w ithin it, that god, [ . . . ] whom
they translate as Zeus, cut through the darkness and separated earth and sky from each other,
and ordered the universe. But the creatures perished because they were unable to bear the force
o f the light. W hen Bel saw an em pty and fruit-bearing tract o f land, he ordered one o f the gods
to take o ff his own head, mix earth with the blood that flowed from (the wound), and form [hu
mans and] anim als that were able to endure the air. <But Bel took o ff his own head and the other
gods mixed the blood that flowed from (the wound) w ith earth and formed hum an beings. That,
he says, is why hum an beings are endowed with intelligence (voEpoix; te E iv a i) and partake in
divine understanding (K ai (ppovf)aa)c; 0iaq (ixexw) .> 49
Starting with the animals, only those that withstand light and air need creating. M aritime
creatures are already in existence and, one assumes, survive the mass extinction of the
monsters. None of this is in Enuma Elis,50 but it so happens that lack of sunlight and air
encourages spontaneous generation also in Apollonius.51 If Apollonius monsters thrive on
a surplus o f moisture, and fade once the sun has dried out the earth, it comes as no surprise
that Berossos monsters too form in water but cannot bear light and air, the two elements
which Berossos associates with post-chaotic forms o f life.52
Tiamats monsters were characterised by a m ixture of animal and human features. If my
reconstruction is broadly correct, Berossos filled the void left by their demise with separate
creation accounts for each of these categories of being. The Enuma Elis has nothing to say
about the creation of animals, but does describe human creation in some detail. Berossos
agrees broadly with its account o f human creation, though some details differ.53 Above all,
Berossos claims that Bel used his own blood to create m ankind whereas in the epic Marduk
uses that o f another god. Berossos may or may not have found this version o f events in now
lost Mesopotamian texts,54 but the question remains why he introduced it here, against the
pull o f his main source. The answer, one suspects, was once again that he was keen to cater
for the tastes of his Greek readers. In Enuma Elis, as in other Mesopotamian texts, m ankind
descends from a rebel against the emerging order o f the universe. Among other things, that
explains why we must shoulder the gods work and lead a life of misery. In Berossos, this
typically Babylonian view of human life is developed into one that would have spoken to
educated Greeks: the blood that flows in our veins is not after all that of a devil but of Zeus
no less: and so it is that we are endowed with voi)<; (intelligence), and divine (ppovr|oic;
(understanding).
De Breucker points out that Berossos is here elaborating on an idea which he found in
the Babylonian Poem o f the F lood or Atrahasis, where the god (W)e, who has intelligence
49 B N J680 F lb (7-8), with modifications.
50 There, the monsters do not die but are captured alive; cf. De Breucker ad BNJ 680 F lb (7).
51 Arg. 4.678-80.
52 Schnabel 1923, 156 suggests that okoto^, darkness, is a Jewish interpolation at BNJ 680 F 1b (4) and
(8 ). But darkness seems integral to the creation narrative and is associated with the sea also in the story
of Oannes (tou 8 e r|>aoi) Suvovxoi; to ^djov ... 5i3vai 7ta?av eiq xr)v Ga^aooav).
53 Berossos seems to be echoing the Poem o f the Flood rather than Enuma Elis when he says that humans
were created from a mixture of earth and divine blood at BNJ 680 F lb( 8 ); cf. Atra-hasis 1.223-6 and
contrast Enuma Elis V I.1-8, 23-34.
54 For a suggestion that it was, see Stephanie Daileys chapter in this volume.
42 Johannes Haubold
(Akk. temu) is slaughtered to create m an.55 This is an interesting detail, for it shows that
Berossos creatively combined diverse Babylonian sources. But he did more than merely
cut and paste what he found: in the Babyloniaca the ruling god him self gives of his intel
ligence.56 One last time, the preferred version o f the story seems chosen for its resonances
with Greek, and more specifically Stoic, thought. The Stoic god is him self voxj<;, or voepo^.57
The same must be true o f Bel in Berossos, for as recipients of his blood we too are voepol
Indeed, we are also endowed with divine understanding, (ppovr|oi<;. In allegorical terms,
Athena is (ppovT]ai^, sprung from the head o f Zeus, which may explain why decapitation
becomes an issue in Berossos whereas it plays no role in Enuma Elis or Atrahasis: the story
which describes Zeus giving birth to A thena/Phronesis from his head was much-discussed
in Stoic circles from Greece to Babylon itself.58 Berossos, it would seem, alludes to it here.
Conclusion
There is much in the Babyloniaca that will remain forever lost to us. The extant fragments
are scanty, and often do not allow us to reconstruct with certainty what Berossos wrote, or
even what he intended. That is a fact which must be accepted. But I also hope to have shown
that progress can be made; and that, through careful and sympathetic reading, we can often
gain a fairly good sense o f what Berossos was trying to achieve. I have argued that Book 1
of the Babyloniaca was in many ways Berossos signature piece. It is here that he establishes
his credentials as a conveyor of barbarian wisdom, one of the few subject positions that were
available to a non-Greek wishing to address a Greek audience. Already Aristotle thought
that the Chaldaeans were among those who invented philosophy,59 so for once Berossos had
a positive stereotype with which to work. He embraced the project with gusto, conjuring up
the super-sage Oannes, who was equally at home in water and darkness as in daylight and air
(who better to describe how these principles coalesced to form the cosmos?); and putting in
the mouth of this creature a cosmogonic myth that could literally not have been more ancient:
after all, Oannes appears in year one o f human history.
Yet, ancient as it is, Oannes logos becomes philosophically fresh when read through
Berossos rationalising lens. What is on display here is both age-old barbarian wisdom and
cutting-edge Greek philosophy, or rather, a pretence to cutting-edge philosophy. Stoic el
ements are predominant, partly because Stoicism was the best-selling brand of philosophy at
the time, and partly, one suspects, because it lent itself to the project of educating a king. But
Berossos does far more than simply default to the Stoa. He shows that he can do Empedocles
too. Above all, he throws in outrageous intellectual feats of his own, none more outrageous
than his numerical equation o f O m orka/Tiam at with Selene, the moon (BNJ 680 F lb (6)).
55 De Breucker ad BNJ 680 F lb (7), with reference to Tablet 11, v. 103 of the Late Babylonian version of
Atrahasis.
56 De Breucker suggests that the passage is corrupt, but Frahm 2010, 20 rightly allows that it is the result
of conscious manipulation on Berossos part.
57 E.g. SVF 1 102 (= Diogenes Laertius 7.135-6), SVF II 1021 (= Diogenes Laertius 7.147), SVF II 1027
(= Aetius 1.7.33).
58 For Athena = (ppovr|oii; see SVF IV, Index s. v. A0r|va (notably including references to the treatise
On Athena by Diogenes of Babylon); for cppovrioi*;/Athena springing from the head of Zeus see Fles.
Th. 886-900 with 924-6, and the long tradition of allegorical interpretations down to leading Stoics
such as Chrysippus (SVF II 908-11) and Diogenes of Babylon (SVF III 33-4).
59 Diogenes Laertius 1.1.
T h e W isdom o f the C haldaeans: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1 43
This too has sometimes been branded an interpolation,60 but it strikes me as quintessential
Berossos, precisely the kind of thing this author would do. Book 1 of the Babyloniaca was
his opportunity to shine, and he made sure he took it. Abydenos was right to summarises
the contents of the book as the wisdom of the Chaldaeans (BNJ 685 F2b). That is surely
how Berossos intended it.
References
A shcroft/G riffiths/T iffin 1998
B. A shcroft/G . G riffiths/H . Tiffin, Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies, London and New York
1998.
A shcroft/G riffiths/T iffin 2006
B. A shcroft/G . G riffiths/H . Tiffin, The P ost-colonial Studies Reader, 2nd edn., London and New
York 2006.
Beaulieu 1999
R-A. Beaulieu, The Babylonian man in the m oon\ Journal o f Cuneiform Studies 51 (1999), 91-9.
Betegh 2002
G. Betegh, On Eudemus Fr. 150 (W ehrli), in: I. B odnar/W . W. Fortenbaugh (eds.), Eudem us o f
Rhodes (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 11), New Brunswick, NJ 2002, 337-57.
Bichler 2007
R. Bichler, Some observations on the image o f the A ssyrian and Babylonian kingdom s within
the Greek tradition, in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Historiographie, Ethnographie, Utopie. Gesammelte
Schriften Teil I, W iesbaden 2007, 209-28.
B urkert 1994
W. Burkert, The O rientalizing Revolution, trans. M. Pinder and W. Burkert, Cambridge, MA 1994.
B urkert 2004
W. Burkert, Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts o f Greek Culture, Cambridge, MA
2004.
Burstein 1978
S. M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus, M alibu, CA 1978.
Clauss 2000
J. J. Clauss, Cosmos without imperium: the Argonautic journey through tim e, in: M. A. H arder/R .
F. R egtuit/G . C. W akker (eds.), Apollonius Rhodius (= H ellenistica Groningiana 4), Leuven 2000,
11-32.
De Breucker 2003
G. de Breucker, Berossos and the construction of a N ear Eastern cultural history in response
to the G reeks, in: H. Hokwerda (ed.), C onstructions o f Greek Past: Identity and H istorical
Consciousness from A ntiquity to the Present, Groningen 2003, 25-34.
De Breucker 2010
G. de Breucker, Berossos (680), B rills New Jacoby Online, 2010.
Dietrich 2006
M. L. G. Dietrich, Das Enuma elis als m ythologischer G rundtext fur die Identitat der Marduk-
Religion Babyloniens, in: The Significance o f Base Texts fo r the Religious Identity - Die Bedeu-
tung von G rundtexten fu r die religiose Identitat. Akten des Fiinften Gemeinsamen Sym posium s
der Evangelisch-Theologischen Fakultat der Universitdt Tartu, der Estnischen Studiengesellschaft
fitr M orgenlandkunde Tartu, der Estnischen Studiengesellschaft fu r Theologie Tartu und der
60 Most recently De Breucker in BNJadloc. De Breucker himself offers an important argument for retain
ing the passage; cf. Beaulieu 1999, and the references quoted there to Tiamat inside the moon.
44 Johannes Haubold The Wisdom o f the C haldaeans: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca Book 1 45

D eutschen Religionsgeschichtlichen Studiengesellschaft Munster am 3. und 4. O ktober 2003 zu Lopez-Ruiz 2010

T artu/E stland (FARG 40), M unster 2006, 135-63. C. Lopez-Ruiz, When the Gods were Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the N ear East, Cambridge,
Dudley 2012 MA 2010.
J. Dudley, Aristotle's Concept o f Chance: Accidents, Cause, Necessity, a n d D eterm inism , Albany, Momigliano 1975
NY 2012. A. M omigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits o f H ellenization, Cambridge 1975.
Edwards 1987 Most 1994
M. W. Edwards, Homer: Poet o f the Iliad, Baltimore 1987. G. W. Most, Die fruheste erhaltene griechische D ichterallegorese, Rheinisches M useum 136
Erler 2011 (1994), 209-12.
M. Erler, C haldaer im Platonism us, in: E. C ancik-K irschbaum /M . van E ss/J. M arzahn (eds.), Pongratz-Leisten 1999
Babylon. W issenskultur in Orient und Okzident, Berlin and Boston 2011, 225-38. B. Pongratz-Leisten, H errschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kom m unikation zw ischen
Fortenbaugh 1977 G ott und K onig im 2. und I. Jahrtausend v. Chr, Helsinki 1999.
W. W. Fortenbaugh, A ristotle on slaves and w om en, in: J. B arnes/M . Schofield/R. Sorabji (eds.), Q uinn 1964
A rticles on Aristotle, 2: Ethics a n d Politics, London 1977, 135-9. F. X. Q uinn, T heory o f spontaneous generation according to the ancients, Classical Bulletin 40
Frahm 2010 (1964), 52-9.
E. Frahm , Counter-texts, com m entaries and adaptations: politically motivated responses to the Ramelli 2007
Babylonian epic o f creation in M esopotamia, the Biblical world, and elsew here, O rient 45 (2010), I. Ramelli, Allegoristi d e ll eta classica. Opere efram m enti, M ilan 2007.
2-33. R inggren 1979
Frahm 2011 H. Ringgren, D ie Religionen des Alten Orients (ATD Erganzungsreihe, Sonderband), Gottingen
E. Frahm, Babylonian a n d Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins o f Interpretation, M unster 2011. 1979.
Frankel 1968 Schnabel 1923
H. Frankel, Noten zu den Argonautika des Apollonios, M unich 1968. P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig 1923.
Fusillo 1985 Schofield 1999
M. Fusillo, II tempo delle Argonautiche. U na nalisi del racconto in Apollonio Rodio, Rome 1985. M. Schofield, Ideology and philosophy in A ristotles theory o f slavery, in: M. Schofield, Saving
G a rv e r1994 the City: Philosopher Kings and O ther Classical Paradigm s, London 1999, 115-40.
E. Garver, A ristotles natural slaves: incomplete p raxeis and incomplete hum an beings, Journal Smith 1983
o f the H istory o f Philosophy 32 (1994): 175-96. N. D. Smith, A ristotles theory of natural slavery, Phoenix 37 (1983), 109-22.
Hall 1989 Streck 2003-5
E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: G reek Self-D efinition through Tragedy, Oxford 1989. M. Streck, Reallexikon der A ssyriology vol. 10, .s\ v. O annes, Berlin 2003-5.
Hall 2006 Thomsen 1988
E. Hall, Recasting the barbarian, in: E. Hall, The Theatrical Cast o f Athens: Interactions between M.-L. Thomsen, Wisdom of the Chaldaeans: Mesopotamian magic as conceived by classical authors,
A ncient G reek Dram a a n d Society, Oxford 2006, 184-224. Acta Hyperborea 1 (1988), 93-101.
Haubold 2002 V erbrugghe/W ickersham 1996
J. Haubold, G reek epic: a Near Eastern genre?, Proceedings o f the Cambridge Philological G. P. V erbrugghe/J. M. W ickersham, Berossos and Manetho: N ative Traditions in Ancient
Society 48 (2002), 1-19. M esopotamia and Egypt, A nn A rbor 1996.
Haubold forthcoming West 1997
J. Haubold, Berossus, in: T. Whitmarsh (ed.), The Romance between Greece and the East, Cambridge M. L. West, The East Face o f Helicon: West A siatic Elements in Greek P oetry and Myth, Oxford
forthcoming. 1997.
Heath 2008 Zgoll 2006
M. Heath, A ristotle on natural slavery, Phronesis 53 (2008), 243-70. A. Zgoll, K onigslauf und G otterrat. Struktur und D eutung des babylonischen N eujahrsfestes,
Humphreys 2002 in: E. B lum /R . Lux (eds.), F esttraditionen in Israel und im Alten Orient (Verdffentlichungen der
S. C. Humphreys, Classics and colonialism: towards an erotics o f the discipline, in: G. W. Most Wissenschaftlichen G esellschaft fu r Theologie 28), Gutersloh 2006, 11-80.
(ed.), D isciplining Classics - Altertum sw issenschaft als B e ru f Gottingen 2002, 207-51.
Hunter 1993
R. L. Hunter, The Argonautica o f Apollonius. Literary Studies, Cambridge 1993.
K uhrt 1987
A. Kuhrt, Berossus Babyloniaca and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A. K uhrt/S . Sherwin-W hite,
H ellenism and the East: interactions o f Greek a n d non-G reek civilizations fro m Syria to central
Asia after Alexander, London 1987, 32-56.
Lam bert 1962
W. G. Lambert, A catalogue o f texts and authors. Journal o f Cuneiform Studies 16 (1962), 59-77.
Livrea 1973
E. Livrea, Apollonii Rhodii Argonauticon liber quartus. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e
commento, Florence 1973.
 Book Two: Mesopotamian Early History and the Flood Story1
M artin Lang (Leopold-Franzens Universitat Innsbruck)

Historians constantly face two closely related problems: to make new textual material
available and to destroy generally accepted theories.
Otto Neugebauer2

Prelim inary remarks

Recent scholarship rightly portrays Berossos as a man straddling two cultural realms. On
the one hand, his work suggests familiarity with the form and content of Babylonian chrono-
graphic texts.3 Intimate knowledge of cuneiform sources is also evident in some unusal
expressions which can be explained as literal renderings of common Babylonian phrases
into Greek.4 On the other hand, Berossos is clearly fam iliar with the Greek historiographi
cal tradition and its narrative conventions.5 I take it that Berossos can only be adequately
understood if we accept that, despite declaring him self a Babylonian, he is fam iliar with
two literary traditions. Berossos position between the cultures affects not only his account
of history but also his portrayal of mythic pre-history. In this chapter, I propose to look at his
account of early human history and the Flood story in book 2 of the Babyloniaca.
The extent to which Berrossos was familiar with cuneiform literature in general, and
extant sources in particular, has been much discussed.6 I do not wish to reopen the issue
here, but rather ask how Berossos positions him self within a wider community of indigenous
Hellenistic historiographers:7 what are his aims, whom does he address, and where can we
locate the Sitz im Leben of his work? A close reading of Babyloniaca 2 will, I hope, go some

1 The final shape and content of this chapter has benefited from helpful comments and corrections made
by colleagues and friends. I would like to express my gratitude especially to Reinhold Bichler, Stephanie
Dailey, Sebastian Fink, Markham Geller, Birgit Gufler, Johannes Haubold, Amelie Kuhrt, Gianni
Lanfranchi, Robert Rol linger and Walter Stephens. O f course I alone am responsible for the contents of
the chapter.
2 Neugebauer 1950, 1.
3 Van der Spek 2008, 293.
4 Van der Spek 2008, 294-5; cf. Schnabel 1923, 29-30 and Sterling 1992, 116. It should be noted, how
ever, that Berossos apparently poor Greek often seems more inspired by Aramaic grammar than by
Akkadian. Thus, the strings of asyndetic participles which he uses seem to owe much to the phenomenon
of imposition; see Coetsem 1988. Aramaic influence could also explain the corrupt form of most of
the personal and place names, since corruption is likely to increase if a text passes through more lan
guages, and even more so if one deals with transcriptions of a syllabary into alphabetic writings without
benefit of vowels (e.g. Aramaic). (Markham Geller in an e-mail from 2010-10-31). A detailed study of
Berossos language - as far as it can be reconstructed from the fragments - remains a desideratum of
classical and semitistic scholarship.
5 Bichler 2004, 508-15; De Breucker 2003a, 26; Dillery 2002, 15-16.
6 E.g. Komoroczy 1973, and more recently De Breucker 2003b, Beaulieu 2007.
7 The characteristics of indigenous Hellenistic historiography are well set out by Oden 1978; see further
below.
48 M artin Lang
way toward answering these questions. The issue of sources will not be forgotten, however:
we shall see that some elements of Berossos narrative are certainly based on a profound
knowledge o f M esopotamian traditions, but that these are presented freely and eclectically,
and in such a way as to project a specific interpretation of inherited materials.
The structure and character of Babyloniaca 2
Placed between two other books, Babyloniaca 2 takes on the function of a narrative pivot in
Berossos work. It has connections with book one and book three, by way of recapitulation
(e.g. Oannes and the sages) and anticipation (mention of kings who are treated in book three);
and it brings into contact two fundamentally different periods in history: the mythic prehis
tory o f book 1, which is cast as a revelation transmitted by the semi-divine sage Oannes; and
the political history o f book 3, which bears out O annes revelation in a setting where gods
and humans are much more clearly separate.8 Book 2 o f Berossos Babyloniaca contains,
as far as we can tell, the history o f Babylonian kingship organised according to a very tra
ditional pattern. Broadly speaking, it comprises the ten kings before the Flood, the deluge
narrative and a concise history o f rulers down to Nabonassar.9
The structural backbone of the book is a king list, more specifically, the so-called
Sumerian King List in a version which contains sections before and after the Flood. The
time before the Flood is structured by the succession of antediluvian kings, that after the
Flood traces the reigns o f postdiluvian kings, thus forming a narrative diptych around the
central Flood narrative.10 Eusebius describes the overall effect as follows:
This Berosos narrated in his first book, and in the second he wrote ordering the kings one after
another... In collecting the names o f the kings he collects [that] alone, but he tells nothing pre
cise o f their deeds, indeed he did not consider them w orthy o f mention [ ...] ."
Berossos account o f the pre-flood era
Eusebius complaint notwithstanding, Berossos does seem to have fleshed out the skeleton
of his king list with some narrative interludes.12 For example, he inserts references to the
antediluvian sages, a peculiarity paralleled in cuneiform sources of the Hellenistic period.13
The combination o f the list itself and the Flood narrative continued unchanged down to the
first m illennium BCE and is also attested in some fragments from the Neo-Assyrian and
Late Babylonian period.14
8 The shift is exemplified in the flood narrative itself: before the flood, Kronos instructs Xisouthros on
how to survive; whereas the survivors of the flood receive instructions only from an anonymous voice
coming from the sky.
9 F3a. Cf. e.g. Drews 1975, Kuhrt 1987 and Sterling 1992.
10 The combination of a king list with a flood narrative is attested in three fragments from the Neo-
Assyrian period: Lambert 1973.
11 F3a. Text and further quotations and references according to G. De Breucker, Berossos of Babylon (680).
Brill's New Jacoby. Editor in Chief: Ian Worthington (University of Missouri). Brill, 2010. Brill Online.
Universitaetsbibliothek Innsbruck. 19 July 2010
(http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnj a680).
12 Cf. F lb; F3a and F 3b.
13 See below, p. 50.
14 Lambert 1973; Finkel 1980; Glassner 2005, 126-31.
Book two: M esopotamian early history and the Flood story 49
More specifically, Berossos connects the beginnings of humanity with the Oannes theme
from book one.15 As far as we can tell, that theme appeared twice in the Babyloniaca:'b near
the beginning of the work, Berossos introduces Oannes as the paragon of Mesopotamian
scholarly mysticism and wisdom.17 In the very first year, a fearsome beast named Oannes
appears out of the Red Sea and teaches hum ankind the arts of civilisation. In book 2, we
learn that he is only the first in a series of other such beasts (F3a). Oannes, however, is
clearly the most important: he is depicted as more than a mere culture hero but acts as some
thing very close to a creator god himself, shaping amorphous matter and turning mindless
creatures into human beings with an identity and creative intelligence. Oannes alone is
responsible for the growth of human civilisation and its manifestations in history. Moreover,
in describing his intervention, Berossos combines what in Sumero-Akkadian tradition were
known as divine acts of creation with the teachings that humanity traditionally attributed
to the apkallu, the mysterious seven sages who were created and inspired by E nki/E a, the
god of wisdom.18 Part of the reason here, I suspect, might be that Berossos tried to make
Oannes more plausible to a Greek audience by giving him some of the attributes of the
Platonic Srmioupyot; (demiurgos), who acts like a versatile artist or craftsman, creates his
work from available materials according to a predeterm ined plan (PI. Resp. 507c; 530 a;
597b ff.; PI. Soph. 265c ff.; PI. Pit. 269c ff.; 272e ff.; PI. 7V.).19 The aim is to underline the
enormous age of Babylonian culture, the beginnings o f which coincide with the dawn of all
human culture. It is significant therefore that Berossos recapitulates the Oannes theme when
he finally starts his account of human history in Babyloniaca 2.20
Berossos account o f the deluge and his treatment o f time
I now turn to Berossos account of the Flood as the central narrative of book 2. The extant
fragments contain the following elements:
- Kronos reveals the destruction of mankind in a dream
- Xisouthros is told he must bury the tablets in Sippar
- He must build a boat and embark together with family, friends, and animals
- The coming and receding of the deluge (mentioned in only one sentence)
- Bird scene
- Disembarking
- Worship and ritual offering
- Disappearance of Xisouthros, who will henceforth live with the gods
- Xisouthros friends and relatives are told (not by Kronos, but a voice) to go to Sippar and
dig up the tablets, and to hand them over to mankind.
15 See the contribution to this volume of Johannes Haubold.
16 Parpola 1993, Kvanvig 1988a, Streck 2003, Denning-Bolle 1992.
17 Parpola 1993, 19.
18 Oannes has been identified with the very first of them, u4-an (cf. Komoroczy 1973, 143-4), but there is
some confusion in other parts of the tradition: F3a (Idotidn) and F3b ( Avvr|5a)Toc;) in particular must
be reconsidered in light of the Uruk list of kings and sages.
19 Quoted according to DNP: Degani, Enzo (Bologna); Rhodes, Peter J. (Durham); Baltes, Matthias
(Munster). Demiourgos. Brill s New Pauly. Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and Helmuth
Schneider. Brill, 2010. Brill Online. Universitaetsbibliothek Innsbruck. 27 June 2010
http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnpe314830.
20 F 3a; F 3b.
 50 M artin Lang
- Landing place in Armenia, in the Korduaian mountains. The remains o f the ark are still
there, and people scrape off bitumen for magic purposes.
In Mesopotamian accounts of the deluge the Flood marks a break between a mythic prehis
tory and a history closer to the world as it is today. According to M anfried Dietrich, many
mythical texts from Mesopotamia reflect this view of history,21 whereby an embryonic phase
in the development of the world (embryonaler Status) is followed by what he calls the
Jetzt-Zeit, i.e. the present time. The extant fragments of Berossos follow the same overall
scheme. For Berossos too, the time before the Flood is a period o f revelation,22 when the
basis for all later knowledge was laid. Writings originating in this period would accordingly
have a special authority and the history which follows is the time when this revelation is
transm itted and unfolded.23
Berossos was not the first to connect an antediluvian king list with the Flood story: al
ready the Sumerian version of the Flood story mentions five primeval cities known also from
copies o f the Sumerian King List.24 Berossos own knowledge of primordial kings probably
goes back to sources that were available in Hellenistic times. The Sumerian King List itself
was still known in the Seleucid era, or rather versions of king lists that echo, structurally
and stylistically, their ancient forerunners from the early second m illenium .25 In matching
up the primordial kings with the seven sages, the apkallu, Berossos once again works in the
vein o f contemporary scholars, who demonstrably constructed lists with kings and apkallu
in order to advertise their own importance, and the primordial roots o f their knowledge, as
Alan Lenzi has recently shown.26 Yet, Berossos does not merely translate ancient documents,
but rather selects and reframes what he finds, thus constructing his own version of the past.
For a start, he locates the beginnings of kingship in Babylon and not in Eridu as the first city
of M esopotamian tradition.27 Moreover, he reckons the overall duration of pre-flood history
at 432,000 years (120 saroi = 120 x 3600 years),28 a sum that reflects the sexagesimal count
ing system of ancient Mesopotamia but which, as far as we know, is unique in Mesoptamian
tradition. 432,000, however, is no arbitrary accumulation of individual reigns, but rather
represents an astronomical great year, or an exact fraction of it.29 A great year is the period
of time it takes for all heavenly bodies to return to their original place in the sky. Berossos
evidently had at least some astronomical knowledge, and moreover was keen to display his
knowledge. Indeed, another peculiarity o f Babyloniaca 2, beside the exorbitant reigns of
the pre-flood kings, is Berossos unusual and very specific reference to a date for the Flood:
... t o v K p o v o v cnjidh kcitcx t o v U7tvov 87naT&VTa (pavat far|voc; A a ia io u 7r s |i7rcr|i Kai 8 K a ir |i xoxx;
av0pd)7toi)i; vno KaxaKXva^ov SioupOaprjaeoGai
21 Dietrich 1995.
22 Cf. Kvanvig 1988, 201-2.
23 Parpola 1993, XVIII.
24 Hallo 1971, Finkelstein 1963, Glassner 2005, Kvanvig 2011, 91-99.
25 Sachs/Wiseman 1954,203.
26 Lenzi 2008.
27 Thus, Eridu loses its role as the very first city endowed with heavenly kingship. Berossos follows a tradi
tion traceable to the latter half of the 2nd millennium B.C.; cf. George 1992, 251-3.
28 F3a; F3b.
29 Van der Waerden 1966, 116-19, De Callatay 2001, 247-249.
Book two: M esopotamian early history and the Flood story 51
Kronos stood over him in his sleep and said that on the 15th o f the month o f Daisios m ankind
would be destroyed by a flood .30
The Armenian version (F4a) supplies some explanatory glosses inserted at a later stage (in
italics):31
He says that Kronos, whom they call the father o f A ram azd and others call Time, revealed to
him in his sleep that on the 15th o f the month o f De(s)ios, which is Mareri, m ankind was to be
destroyed by the Flood.
There is no mention of a specific date in cuneiform texts about the Flood,32 yet Berossos puts
it on the fifteenth o f the month Daisios. According to the Macedonian calendar introduced
by the Seleucids, Daisios is the 8th month of the year, and comes in spring (April/M ay, Bab.
Ayyaru). Perhaps Berossos inserted a Macedonian dating in order to make it more relevant
to his readers who were familiar w ith Greek Flood narratives.33 The choice of date may not
be entirely accidental, as the Tigris and the Euphrates burst their banks in spring. However,
extant cuneiform sources link the deluge with rains and a cosmic storm rather than natural
inundations, and we may have to look elsewhere for an explanation. Seneca perhaps provides
some investigative leads by explicitly mentioning Berossos as an interpreter of Bel (Belum
interpretari),34 who assigns a date (tempus assignare) both to the conflagration and the del
uge, depending on a rare constellation of the stars:
Berosos, qui Belum interpretatus est, ait ista cursu siderum fieri. Adeo quidem affirm at ut
conflagrationi atque diluvio tempus assignet. Arsura enim terrena contendit, quandoque omnia
sidera quae nunc diversos agunt cursus in Cancrum convenerint, sic sub eodem posita vestigio
ut recta linea exire p e r orbes omnium possit; inundationem futuram , cum eadem siderum turba
in Capricornum convenerit. Illic solstitium, hie brum a conficitur; magnae potentiae signa,
quando in ipsa m utatione anni momenta sunt.
Berosos, who translated Belus, says that these catastrophes occur with the movements o f the
planets. Indeed, he is so certain that he assigns a date for the conflagration and the deluge. For
earthly things will burn, he contends, when all the planets which now m aintain different orbits
come together in the sign of Cancer, and are so arranged in the same path that a straight line can
pass through the spheres of all o f them. The deluge will occur when the same group o f planets
meets in the sign o f Capricorn. The solstice is caused by Cancer, w inter by Capricorn; they are
signs o f great power since they are the turning-points in the very change of the year .35
According to Senecas account of Berossos, the deluge an d /o r conflagration occur when
a specific conjunction of planets obtains on the occasion of a solstice, exactly as happened
at the moment of creation. According to this cyclic concept of creation and destruction the
30 F 4b.
31 A new edition of Eusebius Chronicle has been announced for the near future.
32 The only oriental source that gives any date at all is the Hebrew flood narrative. The competing dates
in Gen 6-9 cannot be reconciled and probably result from at least two different redactions of the text;
cf. Barre 1988; Hendel 1995.
33 Dillery 2002, 9-10.
34 The word interpretari has proved less troublesome to classical philologists than to assyriologists.
Cf. Lambert 1976, 172: [ ...] interpretor here is more likely to mean something beyond a simple word
for word rendering, whether it be gloss or interpretative comment.
35 Sen., Nat. Quaest. 111,29, 1; translation according to Corcoran 1971,287.
 52 M artin Lang
deluge must occur during wintertime, in the month of Tebetu, the Macedonian Peritios,36
when the planets are in conjunction in the sign of Capricorn. The time that passes between
one deluge and the next is precisely 432,000 years. Jurgen Tubach suspects the astronom i
cal series M UL.APIN as the ultimate source behind this doctrine (without linking it to the
Flood), and suggests that the original dating fell victim to a rationalizing intervention by
later excerptors or copyists of Berossos. M UL.APIN was still being studied and copied in
Hellenistic times, although in purely scientific terms it had become obsolete.37 If we are to
believe Seneca, Berossos once again seems to have used astronomy to frame his account of
early human history in a way that is not paralleled in the cuneiform literature.
The extant fragm ents o f Berossos do not give any reason for the Flood. We merely have
a laconic remark about Xisouthros dream revealed by Kronos, that xouc; dvOpcbKoix; imd
KcraxK?a)Gnoi) 5iacp0apr]OG0ai ... mankind would be destroyed by a great flood (F4b).
W hile Atra-hasis mentions the A kkadian pair rigmum (call, cry, claim) and huburum
(noise) as the reasons for Enlils wrath and his plan of ultimate destruction,38 the Gilgamesh
Epic quotes a decision made by the divine assembly to destroy mankind with a deluge. We
also hear o f Eas w arning, and the events on the eve of the deluge, but the reason itself is not
given:39 the reader has to fill this gap with his knowledge of other texts. In Berossos case we
may ask whether readers would have been able to fill the gap in this way. Perhaps, Berossos
did originally give a reason for the Flood and the Christian historiographers ignored it be
cause they themselves knew the reason for the deluge from the Old Testament40 and took
knowledge o f it for granted among their readership.41 Finally, and most hypothetically, there
is the possibility that Berossos never gave a reason for the Flood: perhaps he relinquished the
classical Babylonian idea that there was a specific trigger, under the influence of Plato and
so as to put the emphasis on astronomy.42 W ithin a Platonic framework cosmic destructions
occurred periodically, meaning that the idea o f a specific divine plan loses its necessity.43
A further peculiarity o f Berossos depiction of the Flood concerns the measurement of
the Ark. The Gilgamesh Epic mentions a cube-shaped boat with exactly defined, cosmic
dimensions revealed by the god o f wisdom, Ea himself.44 Berossos (F4a; F4b) describes an
ashlar-shaped ship, five stades in length and two stades in width. These figures demand an
explanation. Three explanations seem possible. Either Judeo-Christian authors changed the
36 Tubach 1998,119-20.
37 Hunger/Pingree 1989. Cf. the contribution by John Steele in this book.
38 Atra-hasTs II, i, 7-8: The noise (rigmu) of the mankind has become too much. 1 am losing sleep over
their racket (huburi=sina)' (ed. Lambert/M illard 1969, 72-3; translation according to Dailey 2000, 20).
For the much-discussed meaning of rigmum (clamour, call) and huburum (noise) see e.g. Moran
1987, Michalowski 1990, Lang 2009.
39 Gilg. XI, 14-47 (ed. George 2003, 704-7).
40 Biblical narrative also mentions a reason for the flood: it is a consequence of the worldwide human
behaviour called hdmas, violence/aSuda, injury LXX (Gen 6,11.13, in connection with a totality of
ra 'a h lKaida, LXX wrongdoing in Gen 6,5).
41 In almost the same manner the information about the piety of Xisouthros could have fallen victim to
the eclectic tradition of the Christian excerptors. All cuneiform sources and the Old Testament mirror a
special relationship of the flood hero to the divine realm.
42 The classical sources are collected in Caduff 1986; for the Platonic tradition see pp. 56-8; 146-53.
43 I am grateful for this suggestion to my colleague Sebastian Fink.
44 Gilg. XI, 28-31; 57-63 (ed. George 2003, 704-7). Cf. Holloway 1991 for the striking parallels in the
Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis regarding the divine revelation of the dimensions of the Ark; see also
Glassner 2002 and Lang 2009 for further bibliography.
Book two: M esopotam ian early history and the Flood story 53
text o f Berossos under the influence of the Biblical account which also mentions an ashlar
shaped box (Hebr. te b a h f Greek Ktponot;);46 or Berossos had cuneiform sources other
than Gilgamesh and Atra-hasTs at his disposal;47 or the precise measurements of the ark
were Berossos own contribution. If that is the case, he may not have had knowledge of, or
at least interest in, the esoteric information about the dimensions of the ark which we find
in the cuneiform texts.
The role of Sippar in Berossos account of the Flood
I now turn to an episode which perhaps best of all illustrates what Berossos hoped to achieve
in Babyloniaca 2, and how he transformed his sources to attain his aims.48 As has often been
noted, Berossos gives a prominent role to the city of Sippar in his account of the deluge.
Indeed, the Sippar theme forms a bracket around the entire narrative o f the kataklysmos:
A [Kronos] com m ands that all w ritings [of Oannes?] - the beginning, middle, and ending
be taken and buried at Heliopolis (the city o f the sun), i.e. in Sippar.
B First C om m and (Kronos)
C Em barkation
D Flood, Birds
C Landfall
B Second Com m and (The voice)
A The survivors o f the Flood excavate and remove the w ritings buried at the city o f Sippar
and give them [back] to humanity.
Sippar does not normally play a central role in Mesopotamian Flood narratives, but its treat
ment by Berossos can nonetheless claim a Mesopotamian precedent. In the Erra Epic we
find a brief remark that Sippar was not reached by the Flood:
sd VRVsi-par URU sa-a-ti sd d+EN KUR KUR ina a-qar pa-ni-su a-bu-bu la us-bi-'u-su 49
As for Sippar, the prim eval city, through which the Lord o f the countries did not let the deluge
pass because she was the darling o f his eyes .50
It is clear that Berossos did not simply invent the special role of Sippar, but the question
remains why he tells the story in exactly this way. One might argue that his account of the
tablets in Sippar is inserted, or could conceivably have been invented by Berossos himself,
in order to anticipate critical questions about the reliability of his information, a strategy he
45 Cf. Gen 6,15: the length of the ark has to be 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits.
46 The name for the ark in the classical tradition is not Ki(3(ox6q but M pva^ (cf. recently Lang 2009, 226).
47 See Stephanie Dailey in this volume, and Day 2011.
48 Engl, text: Verbrugghe/Wickersham 2003, 49 = Berossos FGrHist 680 F4. A usable edition of the
Armenian text is not available at present. I therefore quote the text from G. De Breucker, Berossos of
Babylon (680). B rills New Jacoby. Editor in Chief: Ian Worthington (University of Missouri). Brill,
2010. Brill Online. Universitaetsbibliothek Innsbruck. 22 June 2010
(www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnj_a680)
49 Cuneiform text according to Cagni 1969, 110, slightly modified.
50 Translation according to Cagni 1977, 52.
54 M artin Lang
uses elsewhere in his work.51 Describing Sippar as the city of the Sun-god is suggestive of
Berossos esoteric knowledge, as Samas is the Babylonian god of extispicy, a specialised
skill in Babylonian scholarship. In the battle for cultural authenticity, Berossos report of
the Sippar tablets underlines the written character of his information and supports the high
age o f his sources. Moreover, it corroborates his narrative, for how would he otherwise have
explained to his readership that he had information from before the Flood? At one level, then,
the Sippar narrative can be read as a typical case o f apologetic historiography.52 However,
it does more than merely establish Berossos credentials as a writer. The episode also allows
him to reinforce a view of cultural history, already suggested in book 1 of his Babyloniaca,
according to which human civilization is the result of discrete revelatory events and does not
unfold gradually over tim e.53 Berossos insists that the totality of literature (the beginning,
middle and end) was stored in the tablets buried in Sippar (F 4). This echoes a statement in
F 1.4 that xpovou eicetvou ou5ev alX o 7i8piooov eupeBrjvai - from that time nothing further
was discovered.54 The re-emergence of literature after the Flood55 can thus be read as a
re-revelation o f O annes original wisdom,56 after the cosmos has once again been reduced
to water. Unearthing this primordial wisdom enables Berossos to (re-)claim Babylonian
cultural hegemony in the most dramatic way imaginable.57
Indirectly, Berossos him self emerges from the story as a culture hero, someone who
transfers hidden secrets o f a sunken past into a new era. Indeed, I would argue that the
Sippar narrative can be seen as emblematic of Berossos own project in the Babyloniaca: he
too is walking in the footsteps of the ancient sages (apkallu and ummanu), partaking in the
process o f revelation by telling the story o f times from before the Flood (sa lam abub 'i).
Within M esopotamian tradition, Berossos is not alone in this project: already Ur-Ninurta
of Isin portrays him self as an inspired leader capable o f reorganizing the country after the
Flood has swept over it.58 The most famous king of the 2nd dynasty of Isin, Nebuchadnezzar I,
acquires the antediluvial knowledge of Enm eduranki;59 and the Assyrian king Assurbanipal
presents him self as being instructed in m atters sa lam abubi, from before the Flood.60 We
need not assume that Berossos knew the inscriptions of all these rulers: the Flood and the
caesura it marked in human history was a fam iliar topos in royal discourse from the early
2nd m illennium until the late Sargonid period. Berossos aim is of course not to claim royal
power for himself. However, he did write for a king, and his narrative of a new beginning
51 De Breucker 2003a, 28.
52 For the term see Sterling 1992.
53 Sterling 1992, 115.
54 For the suggestion that Berossos is here echoing Babylonian notions of canonicity, see Lambert 1957.
55 This phenomenon reminds us o f Auffindungsgeschichten composed and promulgated in order to gain
legitimacy and authority. We may compare the rediscovery of the lost book of the Law in 2 Kings 22.
See Dietrich 1977, Diebner 1984 and more generally Speyer 1970.
56 Oannes literary re-emergence in Hellenistic times corresponds to his role as the antediluvian founder of
the BTt-Res sanctuary in the city of Uruk, a new foundation in Hellenistic times. Cf. Radner 2005, 230;
Beaulieu 2003, 326-7.
57 I note that Sippar and the Aramaic root for writing share the same consonants: DDT (s-p-r). Sippar may
therefore be seen as the place where all arts connected to writing originate; cf. Knobloch 1985, Dillery
2 0 0 2 , 10 .
58 Alster 2005, 221-40.
59 Lambert 1967.
60 Streck 1916, 256 and Borger 1996, 187.
Book two: Mesopotamian early history and the Flood story 55
of cultural history in Babyloniaca 2, combined with the claim that he knew what happened
before the beginning, suggests a strategy of self-authorization which puts Berossos, accord
ing to a well-documented contemporary ideology, in a line with those sages who helped
establish kingship before the Flood.
Conclusion
Berossos compels us to interdisciplinary research. He cannot be adequately understood by
Classicists alone, nor by Historians or splendidly isolated Assyriologists. I have argued that
Berossos was truly a man between two worlds. At a general level, that puts him among the
many Hellenistic writers who produced indigenous history61 with a view to proving the
antiquity of their own cultural traditions, often by combining native with universal geneal
ogies.62 In that respect, his work is on a par with certain passages of the Old Testament, es
pecially in the Pentateuch.63 These authors articulate a subjectivity which is self-consciously
not that of the dominant Greek culture, which is seen as standing upon the shoulders of an
indigenous past. Berossos shares many characteristics with Hecataeus of Teos/ Abdera, say,64
or the late redactors o f the Pentateuch,65 Manetho and Philo of Byblos. Yet, he is not simply
one among many, and Babyloniaca 2 seems to me to be an excellent place to start if we want
to understand the specific nature o f his project. Berossos, I have argued, embeds his own
act of cultural transmission in a much larger history of cultural revelation, from Oannes
through the Flood to the present day. It seems to me that in this narrative of cultural crisis
and recuperation we detect one of Berossos most characteristic contributions to indigenous
Hellenistic historiography.
61 This type of recording history has its own characteristic features and peculiarites: see Oden 1978.
62 To cite just one native tradition, for the Hebrew Bible genealogies are not only structuring devices but
serve to weave together an account of the creation of the world and of humanity (Hess 1990, 153);
cf. Hieke 2003; Koch 1999; Renaud 1990; Wilson 1972, 137-66.
63 Russel Gmirkin exaggerates the similarities when he argues that the primeval history and ethnogenesis
in Genesis and Exodus depend almost entirely on Berossos and Manetho (Gmirkin 2006).
64 For the history of the Pentateuch in connection with indigenous Greek history see Heckl 2009.
65 Much of the Pentateuch can be interpreted as an attempt at Jewish self-definition in a Hellenistic envi
ronment by means of genealogies, patterns of historiography possibly borrowed from Greek authors and
more or less complete pieces of literature, which can be plausibly dated to the Seleucid and Ptolemaic
periods, e.g. the Joseph-novella (Gen 37-50) as a literary bridge to the book of Exodus. O f course, that
does not mean that the whole work was written in Hellenistic times; rather, it was updated and expanded
during that period. For genealogies see footnote 57, for the influence of the genre of Greek historiogra
phy cf. e.g. Van Seters 1997 and 1992; Lemche 1993, esp. 183 and for the Hellenistic character of some
passages in the Pentateuch cf. e.g. Diebner 1983, 92-3; (implicitly) Wahl 2000 and Kunz 2003.
56 M artin Lang Book two: M esopotam ian early history and the Flood story 57

Day 2011
References John Day, The flood and the ten antediluvian figures in Berossus and in the priestly source in
Abusch / H uehnergard/ Steinkeller 1990 Genesis', in: James K. A itken/G raham I. D avies/K atharine J. D ell/B rian A. M astin (eds.), On
Tzvi A busch/ John Huehnergard/ Piotr Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering Over Words. Studies in Ancient Stone and Scroll (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fu r die alttestam entliche Wissenschaft 420), Berlin and
N ear Eastern Literature in H onor o f William L. M oran, A tlanta 1990. Boston 2011, 211-24.
A itk en /D av ies/D ell/M astin 2011 De Breucker 2003a
James K. A itken/G raham I. D avies/K atharine J. D ell/B rian A. M astin (eds.), On Stone and G eert de Breucker, Berossos and the construction o f a N ear Eastern cultural history in response
Scroll. Essays in H onour o f Graham Ivor Davies (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fu r die alttestam entliche to the G reeks, in: Hero H okwerda (ed.), C onstructions o f G reek Past, G roningen 2003, 25-34.
Wissenschaft 420), Berlin and Boston, 2011. De Breucker 2003b
Barre 1988 G eert de Breucker, Berossos and the M esopotam ian tem ple as centre of knowledge during the
Lloyd M. Barre, The riddle of the flood chronology, Journal fo r the Study o f the O ld Testament 13 Hellenistic period, in: A laisdair A. M acD onald/M ichael W. T w om ey/G errit J. R einink (eds.),
(1988), 3-20. Learned A ntiquity (Groningen Studies in Cultural Change 5), Leuven 2003, 13-23.
Beaulieu 2007 De Callatay 2001
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Berossus on late Babylonian history, in: Yushu Gong (ed.), A Collection o f Godefroid de Callatay, The Presocratics and the G reat Year, in: D ietrich Papenfufi/V olker M.
Papers on A ncient Civilizations o f Western Asia, A sia M inor a n d North A frica (O riental Studies Strocka (eds.), Gab es das Griechische Wunder? G riechenland zw ischen dem Ende des 6. und der
Special Issue 2006), Beijing 2007, 116-34. M itte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Tagungsbeitrage des 16. Fachsym posium s der A lexander-von-
Beaulieu 2003 Humboldt-Stiftung, veranstaltet vom 5. bis 9. A pril 1999 in Freiburg im Breisgau, M ainz am Rhein
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Pantheon o f Uruk D uring the N eo-Babylonian P eriod (Cuneiform 2001,243-251.
M onographs 23), Leiden 2003. Denning-Bolle 1992
Beek 1973 Sara D enning-Bolle, Wisdom in A kkadian Literature. Expression, Instruction, D ialogue
M artinus A. Beek, Sym bolae Biblicae et M esopotamicae. Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre (Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch G enootschap Ex Oriente
Bohl dedicatae (Studia Francisci Scholten m emoriae dicata 4), Leiden 1973. L u x 28), Leiden 1992.
Bichler 2004 Dietrich 1995
Reinhold Bichler, Some observations on the image o f the A ssyrian and Babylonian king M anfried Dietrich, ina um i ulluti An jenen (fernen) Tagen. Ein sum erisches kosm ogonisches
doms w ithin the G reek tradition, in: R obert R ollinger/C hristoph U lf/K ordula Schnegg (eds.), M ythologem in babylonischer Tradition, in: M anfried D ietrich/L oretz Oswald (eds.), Vom Alten
Commerce and M onetary Systems in the A ncient World (Oriens et O ccidens 6), Stuttgart 2004, O rient zum Alten Testament (Alter O rient und Altes Testament 240), Kevelaer 1995, 57-72.
499-518. D ietrich/L oretz 1995
Borger 1996 M anfried D ietrich/L oretz Oswald (eds.), Vom Alten O rient zum Alten Testament. Festschrift
Rykle Borger, Beitrage zum Inschriftenw erk Assurbanipals. Die Prism enklassen A, B, C = K, D, f u r Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. G eburtstag am 19. Juni 1993 (Alter O rient und Altes
E, F, G, H, J und T sow ie andere Inschriften, W iesbaden 1996. Testament 240), Kevelaer 1995.
Burstein 1978 Dietrich 1977
Stanley M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus (Sources a n d Monographs: Sources from the Walter D ietrich, Josia und das Gesetzbuch (2 Reg. X X II), Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977), 13-35.
A ncient N ear East 1,5), Malibu, CA 1978. Dillery 2002
C aduff 1986 John Dillery, Q uintus Fabius Pictor and G reco-Rom an historiography at Rom e, in: Cynthia
Gian A ndrea Caduff, A nt ike Sintflutsagen (H ypomnem ata 82), Gottingen 1986. D am on/John F. M iller/K . S. M yers/E . Courtney (eds.), Vertis in usum (Beitrage zu r A ltertum s
Cagni 1969 kunde 161), Miinchen (2002), 1-23.
Luigi Cagni, L'epopea di Erra (Studi sem itici 34), Rome 1969. Drews 1975
C agni 1977 Robert Drews, The Babylonian chronicles and B erossus, Iraq 37 (1975), 39-55.
Luigi Cagni, The Poem o f Erra (Sources and Monographs: Sources from the Ancient Near East 1,3), Finkel 1980
Malibu, CA 1977. Irving L. Finkel, Bilingual chronicle fragm ents, Journal o f Cuneiform Studies 32 (1980), 65-80.
Coetsem 1988 Finkelstein 1963
F. van Coetsem , Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact, Dordrecht Jacob J. Finkelstein, The antediluvian kings: a University o f California tablet, Journal o f
1988. Cuneiform Studies 17 (1963), 39-51.
C orcoran 1971-72 Frahm 2010
Thomas H. Corcoran (ed.), Seneca. Naturales quaestiones (The Loeb C lassical Library 437), Eckart Frahm , Counter-texts, com m entaries, and adaptations. Politically m otivated responses
London and Cambridge, MA 1971-72. to the Babylonian Epic o f Creation in M esopotam ia, the Biblical world, and elsew here, Orient:
Dailey 2000 Reports o f the Society for N ear Eastern Studies in Japan 45 (2010), 3-33.
Stephanie Dailey, Myths fro m Mesopotamia. Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford G lassner 2005
W orlds Classics), Oxford 2000. Jean-Jacques Glassner, M esopotamian Chronicles (W ritings from the Ancient World 19), Leiden
D am on/M iller/M yers 2002 2005.
Cynthia D am on/John F. M iller/K aren S. Myers (eds.), Vertis in usum. Studies in Honor o f Edward G lassner 2002
C ourtney (Beitrage zu r Altertum skunde 161), M unich 2002. Jean-Jacques Glassner, LEtem enanki, arm ature du cosm os, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Breves et
Utilitaires 2002.
 58 M artin Lang Book two: M esopotamian early history and the Flood story 59

G m irkin 2006 Lang 2008

Russell E. G m irkin, Berossus a n d Genesis, Manetho a n d Exodus. H ellenistic H istories and the
D ate o f the Pentateuch (Copenhagen International Series 15), New York 2006
Gong 2007
Yushu Gong, A Collection o f Papers on A ncient Civilizations o f Western Asia, A sia M inor a n d
North A frica (O riental studies Special Issue 2006), Beijing 2007.
Hallo 1963
W illiam W. Hallo, Beginning and end o f the Sumerian King List in the N ippur recension, Journal
o f Cuneiform Studies 17 (1963), 52-7.
H artm an 1972
Thom as C. H artm an, Some thoughts on the Sumerian King List and G enesis 5 and 1IB \ Journal
o f Biblical Literature 91 (1972), 25-32.
Hess 1990
R ichard S. Hess, G enesis 1-2 in its literary context, Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990), 143-53.
Hieke 2003
Thomas Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis (Herders biblische Studien 39), Freiburg im Breisgau
and New York 2003.
Hokwerda 2003
Hero H okwerda (ed.), C onstructions o f G reek Past. Identity a n d H istorical Consciousness fro m
A ntiquity to the Present), Groningen 2003.
Holloway Stephen 1991
W. Holloway Stephen, W hat ship goes there? The flood narratives in the G ilgam esh Epic
and Genesis considered in light o f ancient N ear Eastern temple ideology, Z eitschrift fu r die
Alttestam entliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991), 328-55.
H unger/Pingree 1989
H erm ann H unger/D avid Pingree, MUL.APIN. An A stronom ical Compendium in Cuneiform
(Archiv fu r Orientforschung. B eiheft 24), Horn 1989.
Knobloch 1985
Johann Knobloch, Eine etymologische Fabel im Sintflutbericht bei Berossos, Glotta 63 (1985), 1.
K raeling 1947
Emil G. K raeling, X isouthros, Deucalion and the flood traditions', Journal o f the Am erican
Oriental Society 67 (1947), 177-83.
K uhrt 1987
Amelie Kuhrt, B erossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A melie K uhrt/S usan
Sherwin-W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East. The Interaction o f Greek and N on-G reek Civilizations
fr o m Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, Berkeley 1987, 53-6.
Kvanvig 1988
Helge S. Kvanvig, Roots o f Apocalyptic. The M esopotam ian B ackground o f the Enoch Figure
a n d o f the Son o f Man (W issenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 61),
N eukirchen-Vluyn 1988.
Kvanvig 2011
Helge S. Kvanvig, P rim eval History: Babylonian, Biblical, a n d Enochic (Supplements to Journal
fo r the Study o f Judaism 149), Leiden 2011.
Lam bert 1973
W ilfred G. Lambert, A new fragment from a list o f antediluvian kings and M arduks chariot, in:
Martinus A. Beek (ed.), Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae (Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae
dicata 4), Leiden 1973, 271-80.
Lam bert 1976
W ilfred G. Lambert, Berossus and Babylonian eschatology, Iraq 38 (1976), 171-3.
L am bert/M illard 1969
W ilfred G. L am bert/A lan R. Millard, Atra-hasis. The Babylonian Story o f the Flood, Oxford 1969.
M artin Lang, Floating from Babylon to Rome. Ancient N ear Eastern flood stories in the
M editerranean w orld, KASKAL. Rivista di storia, am bienti e culture del Vicino O riente Antico 5
(2008), 211-31.
Lemche 1993
Niels Peter Lemche, The Old Testament a Hellenistic book?, Scandinavian Journal o f the Old
Testament 1 (1993), 163-93.
Lenzi 2008
Alan Lenzi, The U ruk list o f kings and sages and late M esopotam ian scholarship, Journal o f
A ncient N ear Eastern Religions 8 (2008), 137-69.
M acDonald /T w om ey/ R einink 2003
A laisdair A. M acD onald/M ichael W. T w om ey/G errit J. Reinink (eds.), L earned Antiquity.
Scholarship and Society in the Near-East, the Greco-Roman World, and the Early M edieval West
(Groningen Studies in Cultural Change 5), Leuven 2003.
M arzahn/N eum ann 2000
Joachim M arzahn/H ans N eum ann, Assyriologica et semitica. Festschrift f u r Joachim O elsner
anlasslich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997 (Alter O rient und Altes Testament 252),
M unster 2000.
Michalowski 1983
Piotr M ichalowski, H istory as charter: some observations on the Sum erian K ing L ist, Journal o f
the Am erican O riental Society 103 (1983), 237-48.
M ichalowski 1990
Piotr Michalowski, Presence at the creation, in: Tzvi A busch/John H uehnergard/Piotr Steinkeller
(eds.), Lingering Over Words, A tlanta 1990, 381-96.
M ichalowski 2006
Piotr Michalowski, The strange history of Tumal, in: Piotr M ichalow ski/Herm an L. J. Vanstiphout
(eds.), Approaches to Sum erian Literature (Cuneiform monographs 35), Leiden 2006, 145-66.
M ichalow ski/V anstiphout 2006
Piotr M ichalow ski/H erm an L. J. Vanstiphout (eds.), Approaches to Sum erian Literature. Studies
in H onor o fS tip (H.L.J. Vanstiphout) (Cuneiform m onographs 35), Leiden 2006.
Moran 1990
W illiam M oran, Some considerations on form and interpretation in A tra-hasis, in: Tzvi
A busch/John H uehnergard/Piotr Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering over Words, A tlanta 1990, 245-55.
Oden 1978
Robert A. Oden, Philo o f Byblos and the Hellenistic historiography, Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 110 (1978).
Radner 2005
Karen Radner, Die Macht des Namens: Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung, Wiesbaden
2005.
Renaud 1990
Bernard Renaud, Les genealogies et la structure de lhistoire sacerdotale dans le livre de la
G enese, R evue Biblique 97 (1990), 5-30.
Rochberg 1987
Francesca Rochberg, Language, Literature, and History. Philological and H istorical Studies
Presented to Erica Reiner (American O riental Series 67), New Haven, CT 1987.
R ollinger/U lf/S chnegg 2004
Robert R ollinger/C hristoph U lf/K ordula Schnegg, Commerce and M onetary Systems in the
Ancient World. Means o f Transmission and Cultural Interaction. Proceedings o f the Fifth Annual
Symposium o f the A ssyrian and Babylonian Intellectual H eritage Project, held in Innsbruck,
Austria, O ctober 3rd -8 th 2002 (Oriens et occidens Bd. 6), Stuttgart 2004.
Sachs/W isem an 1954
Abraham J. Sachs/D onald J. W iseman, A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period, Iraq 16
(1954), 202-12.
 60 M artin Lang

Schnabel 1923
Paul Schnabel, B erossos u n d die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig and Berlin 1923.
Sterling 1992
G regory E. Sterling, Historiography a n d Self-definition. Josephos, Luke-Acts, a n d Apologetic
H istoriography (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 64), Leiden and New York 1992.
Streck 2003
Michael P. Streck, O annes, Reallexikon fu r A ssyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archdologie.
Vol 10, Berlin 2002-2005, 1-2.
Tubach 1998
Jurgen Tubach, Der Beginn der Sintflut nach B erossos, Philologus 142 (1998), 114-22.
Van der Spek 2000
R obartus J. van der Spek, The satam m us o f Esagila in the Seleucid and A rsacid periods1, in:
Joachim M arzah n /H an s N eum ann (ed.), A ssyriologica et sem itica (Alter O rient u n d A ltes
Testament 252), M unster 2000, 437-46.
Van der Spek 2008
R obartus J. van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and G reek historian, in: B ert van
der Spek (ed.), Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View a n d Society. P resented to M arten Stol
on the Occasion o f his 65th Birthday, Bethesda, M A 2008, 277-318.
Van Seters 1997
John Van Seters, In Search o f History. H istoriography in the A ncient World a n d the O rigins o f
Biblical H istory, W inona Lake, IN 1997.
Van Seters 1997
John Van Seters, Prologue to History. The Yahwist as H istorian in Genesis, Louisville, KY. 1992.
Verbrugghe /W ickersham 2003
Gerald P. V erbrugghe/John M. W ickersham, Berossos a n d Manetho. N ative Traditions in Ancient
M esopotamia a n d Egypt, A nn A rbor 2003.
W ilson 1977
Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and H istory in the O ld Testament. A Study o f the Form a n d Function
o f the O ld Testament G enealogies in their N ear Eastern Context (Yale N ear Eastern researches 7),
N ew Haven, CT 1977.
Babyloniaca, Book 3: Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians
Giovanni B. Lanfranchi (University of Padova)
When planning the Durham conference on Berossos, I was asked to discuss the third book
of the Babyloniaca from the point o f view of a historian of the Assyrian empire. 1 shall not,
however, follow the paths which might be expected from that brief. Neither shall 1 discuss
the relationship between Berossos historical account and the available N ear Eastern docu
ments: other scholars have recently offered important new insights into the question o f what
cuneiform sources were available to, and were used by, Berossos;1 how he used them; and
how accurately he quoted them.2 Nor will 1 dare to enter into the longstanding debate about
the accuracy of Berossos chronology.3 Instead, I shall concentrate on Berossos descriptions
of the Assyrian kings. 1 will discuss how he dealt with the model of a universal empire which
had prevailed until Alexander; how he related it to the historical problem of the Neo-Baby
lonian empire; and how, if at all, he adjusted it to the new Greek rulers o f the N ear East.
Berossos and Manetho, who wrote histories of their own countries at the beginning of the
Hellenistic period, were priests o f the major gods of their own lands, and scholars trained
in writing history.4 Accordingly, both represented the historical self-consciousness of their
own cultures. Both addressed their works to the new Greek dynasts who were establishing
territorial control after protracted struggles. Both wrote in Greek, and their works were con
ceived for the same public: not only the kings with their courts, but the Greek elite in gen
eral, and especially the Greek-speaking scholarly world. Finally, both wrote their national
histories not only with a view to describing in detail the culture, history and institutions of
their own countries but also, and probably more importantly, in order to extol, justify and
defend them vis-a-vis the culture, ideology and political regime of the new rulers.
Upon these premises, we might expect Berossos and Manetho to have taken the same
approach as regards the political, institutional and ideological background of the distant and
more recent past o f their own countries. Specifically, we might expect them to have extolled
and defended the continuity of their countries in term s of culture and political institutions
before the arrival of the new dynasts. This, however, while it may hold true for Manetho, is
not true of Berossos. Manetho could claim that Egypt had enjoyed uninterrupted cultural and
institutional continuity, from the most remote antiquity to the Persian conquest. Berossos,

1 For the purposes of this chapter, I have limited footnotes and bibliography as much as possible. For
further reading see Van der Spek 2008; Beaulieu 2006. All dates are BC.
2 The history of the textual transmission of Berossos work seems now reasonably well established. Here
I quote his text according to the latest English translation (V&W), and Schnabel 1923, which marked an
important turning point in the study of Berossos.
3 The latest contribution is Beaulieu 2006. Comparing Berossos dates with Mesopotamian chronology
is extremely problematic due to the long and complicated process of transmission of his text (copying,
excerpting, summarizing and translating), which allowed a series of errors, misinterpretations and even
deliberate adaptations to creep in.
4 Berossos was an expert in astronomy and astrology, like any other traditional Babylonian (and Assyrian)
scholar: V&W p. 15.
 62 Giovanni B. Lanfranchi
however, was in a much more difficult position as regards Babylonia. He knew well that
Babylonia sharply declined during the fourth quarter o f the second millennium BC, and
was afflicted by outright institutional and political chaos during the first quarter of the first
millennium. He also knew that, after king Nabonassar (747-734 BC) and until the fall of
Nineveh (612 BC), Babylonia was almost constantly under Assyrian domination, and that
many Assyrian kings and princes wore the Babylonian crown.5 Thus, he could claim that
Babylonia had political autonomy, institutional continuity and imperial dignity only from the
fall o f Nineveh to C yrus conquest o f Babylon (539 BC), a very short period of time indeed.
True, Manetho too had to acknowledge periods of Ethiopian and Assyrian domination
over Egypt. These, however, were rather short, and the Egyptian remote and recent past
had an enormous historical, institutional and ideological power, still palpable in our times:
Manetho could therefore play down the Ethiopian period, and totally ignore the Assyrian
conquest.6 From the surviving fragments o f his work we may deduce that he acknowledged
the Assyrian domination over the Near East,7 but he neither mentions an Assyrian conquest
of Egypt nor any Assyrian king wearing the Egyptian crown.
For Berossos, all this was impossible. Assyrian rule over Babylonia was protracted and
rather stable. Babylonia was autonomous only for very short periods, and many o f its most
powerful rulers were not Babylonians.8 Moreover, the Assyrian ideological model o f a uni
versal empire which had prevailed for centuries throughout the Near East survived the fall
of Nineveh. The Medes almost certainly adopted it during their own, ephemeral hegem
ony.9 So did Cyrus and the Achaemenids, albeit with obvious modifications. Worst of all
for a Babylonian like Berossos, this model was adopted even by the last Babylonian king
Nabonidus.
Nabonidus adopted the universalising Assyrian titulary, claimed an Assyrian ances
try and even Assyrian royal lineage.10 Cyrus and the Achaemenid kings too assumed the
Assyrians titulary, their royal iconography and their religious and cultural symbols o f king
ship." The power and persistence o f Assyrian imperial ideology is also attested much later,
in the Greek theory o f the three empires. Not only Herodotus, but also Ctesias, who often
criticized Herodotus, adopted the succession Assyria - Media - Persia when describing the
development o f universal rule over Asia. Both historians agreed in excluding Babylonia
from the line o f dom inant empires. Ctesias was drastically neat in obscuring the antiquity
and prestige o f Babylon: he stated that it was founded by the Assyrian queen Sem iram is.12
5 Tiglath-pileser III (728-727); Shalmaneser V (727-722); Sargon II (709-705); Sennacherib (704-703);
Sennacheribs son Assur-nadin-sumi (699-694); Esarhaddon (680-669); Esarhaddons son Samas-sumu-
ukln (667-648).
6 According to Manethos calculations the Ethiopians dominated Egypt for 40 or 44 years; Egyptian
chronology suggests ca. 90 years (V&W p. 201).
7 Manetho mentioned military campaigns conducted by Sethos Ramesses against the Assyrians and the
Medes (V&W p. 159, F 10, 99) and by S(es)ostris against the Assyrians, Chaldaeans and Persians (V&W
p. 156 F7a); elsewhere he stated that the Assyrians dominated Asia when the Jews founded Jerusalem
(V&Wp. 158 F9, 90).
8 Marduk-apal-iddina (721 710 and 703) was a Chaldaean; Bel-ibni (702700), Nergal-usezib and Musezib-
Marduk (692-689) were Babylonian puppet kings installed by Sennacherib.
9 On the Medes see in general the articles in Lanfranchi/Roaf/Rollinger 2003.
10 Lanfranchi 2003a; Schaudig 2001, 12-3 with bibliography; Beaulieu 1989, 101, 103, 139-43.
11 For Cyrus, Harmatta 1971 is fundamental.
12 Lenfant 2004, 32-8 F lb 7-9 (Diod. II, 1, 7.2-9.9); cf. Lanfranchi 2011, 198-200.
Babyloniaca, Book 3: A ssyrians, Babylonians and Persians 63
As I have suggested elsewhere, this theory was not developed according to an exclusively
Greek historiographic process. Rather, it originated from the passage into Greek political
thinking of an Achaemenid imperial model which enjoyed wide currency at the time: the
Achaemenids inherited the claim to universal dominion from the Assyrians, perhaps through
Median intermediaries, thus obscuring the role of Babylonia after the fall of A ssyria.13
Against this background, we should note three seemingly obvious facts. First, Berossos
inserted the Assyrian kings who ruled over Babylonia into his list of Babylonian kings. As
far as we can see, Berossos did not attempt to sustain two separate lists of Babylonian and
Assyrian kings, contrary to the Neo-Assyrian Synchronistic History}* Second, Berossos used
the title of king (p a o d s i^ ), and the verb to rule (as a king) (apx) of all Assyrian rulers
who governed Babylon. According to the preserved excerpts,15 Berossos did not treat Assyrian
kings any differently from Babylonian ones in this regard.16He simply assumed that Assyrian
royal tradition was identical to that of Babylonia, and did not stress any specific role for either
Babylonia or Assyria. Third, he used the title o f Assyrian king / king of the A ssyrians to
refer to some of the Assyrian kings who governed Babylon, especially Sennacherib, who is
the object of the longest preserved quotation. By doing so, he acknowledged that the Assyrian
monarchy had to some extent remained different from, and extraneous to, Babylonia even
when an Assyrian king, or a son of an Assyrian king, wore the Babylonian crown. A king
of Assyria remained a king of Assyria; Assyria was and remained distinct from Babylonia.
Accordingly, being king of Babylon did not imply that a king of Assyria lost his own national
characteristics and became a true Babylonian king.
It seems to me that Berossos acknowledged, most probably with some reluctance, that
in the eighth and seventh centuries BC Babylonia went through a period of instability and
lack o f dynastic continuity; and that it was subject to Assyria, which annexed Babylonia for
lengthy periods of time. As a m atter of fact, Babylon and Babylonia were extremely weak
before Nabopolassar and Berossos did not attempt to conceal such Babylonian weakness.
Nor could he deny or diminish the power of the Assyrian empire and its stranglehold on
Babylonia before Nabopolassar. In this, Berossos seems to have followed the historiographic
pattern inaugurated by Herodotus and accepted by Ctesias, who both reflect Achaemenid
ideology.
Nevertheless, Berossos overt acknowledgment of Babylonian inferiority also had an im
portant positive function in the structure of his narrative and in the pro-Babylonian perspec
tive which it aimed to promote. On the one hand, it allowed him to introduce the concept of
a foreign domination over Babylonia, despite apparent continuities at an institutional level.
On the other hand, it helped him plant the idea in his readers minds that foreign rule over
Babylonia was essentially a bad thing: the Assyrian occupation, like any other foreign occu
pation, was depicted as depriving Babylon of its own institutional prerogatives, threatening
its age-old traditions of kingship.
13 Lanfranchi 2003a.
14 Grayson 1975, 157-79 no. 21; the text was found in Nineveh and it is not known whether it circulated also
in other cultural centres.
15 The main source is Josephus quotation of Berossos text ( V&W p. 53 F 8 A = Jos., Ant. I u d X, 1, 4 20),
the other excerpts, stemming from Eusebius works, are Armenian translations of Greek texts.
16 As far as I know, Eusebius Armenian passages seem to depend on Greek texts which do not have terms
other than (3aoiA.ei><; for king.
 64 Giovanni B. Lanfranchi
These ideas could be usefully developed in three directions. First, Berossos could treat
the period o f Assyrian rule as preparation for Nabopolassars revolt, when a Babylonian
assumed the hegemonic role that had hitherto belonged to the Assyrians; his son and suc
cessor Nebuchadnezzar could then be portrayed as the most powerful king in Babylonian
history. At what we might call a literary level, the tribulations of Babylonia under Assyrian
rule thus created a narrative pull towards a period of liberation and empowerment under
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar.
Second, the Assyrian empire could be used as a negative model for the longest foreign
domination over Babylonia: that o f the Achaemenid kings. In the condensed excerpt deal
ing w ith the Achaemenids, the Persian kings are said to have ruled over Babylonia, like
the A ssyrian kings.17 In other words, Assyria was the negative model for the Achaemenids
domination after the collapse of the N eo-Babylonian empire. In this, Berossos substantially
followed the pattern put forward by Herodotus and Ctesias, who both had the Persians suc
ceed Assyria - with a short M edian interlude - as the rulers of all Asia.
Third, Berossos could use this pattern for depicting the Seleucid empire in a positive
light. Both Seleucus and Antiochus were crowned as kings of Babylon and Babylonia.18
They were, remained, and insisted on being, M acedonian and Greek, thus foreign rulers. But
they adopted genuine Babylonian customs, especially as regards the ideological attire of their
monarchy, as is attested by the purely (Neo-) Babylonian style of the Antiochus Cylinder.19
We do not know whether Berossos described the reign o f Seleucus, and it is unlikely that he
dealt with the beginnings o f that o f Antiochus. Nevertheless, his narrative about a foreign -
the Persian - takeover which ended the tradition o f Babylonian kingship helped Berossos de
velop useful parallels between the royal father-son pairs Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar
on the one hand, and Seleucus and Antiochus on the other. He could present both pairs as
having revived the Babylonian monarchy, whose roots reached back into remote antiquity
and indeed to the very origins of kingship as an institution.20 Moreover, he could present the
two pairs o f kings as having re-established Babylonian autonomy which had been lost under
foreign rulers: the Assyrians first, the Achaemenids later.
Let us now look in more detail at Berossos portrayal of the Assyrian kings. As reported
in the excerpts, the first Assyrian king mentioned in Berossos third book was Phulos, bet
ter known as Tiglath-pileser III.21 The excerptors barely mention him, being interested only
in the fact that he was mentioned in the Bible. The Biblical Ful, however, is designated
king o f A ssyria,22 whereas Berossos excerptors call Phulos king of the Chaldeans. This
discrepancy might be taken to imply that Berossos considered his Phulos a true Babylonian
17 y&fVp.61 F 11 (Armenian translation of Eusebius Chronicon quoting Alexander Polyhistor) = Schnabel
1923, p. 275 F 55; the sentence ruled over Babylonia is used for Cyrus, and the verb ruled is repeated
for Kambyses, Darius, Xerxes and the rest of the Persian kings.
18 A significant example can be found in Antiochus Borsippa Cylinder: Kuhrt/Sherwin-W hite 1991, p. 75,
I 1-2: (Antiochus) Great King, powerful king, king of the four quarters, king of Babylon, king of all
countries, and 1 4-5, referring to his father Seleucus: king of the Macedonians, king of Babylon.
19 Kuhrt 1987, 52.
20 Berossos history started before the Deluge, so that the most recent monarchies were connected to the
mythical beginnings of the human world; see Langs contribution to this volume.
21 V&Wp. 52 F5 (Schnabel 1923, p .267 F39 = p .268 F43, Eusebius quoting Alexander Polyhistor).
22 II Ki 15, 19 (melek Assur).
Babyloniaca, Book 3: A ssyrians, Babylonians and Persians 65
king.23 Berossos, however, knew well that Tiglath-pileser III was king o f Assyria, which
raises the question of why he did not describe him as such. In principle, we might attribute
this decision to his excerptors or even the Armenian translators -- Berossos original text
might simply have said that he reigned over the Babylonians. Yet, Berossos m ust have
known that Tiglath-pileser III ascended the Babylonian throne and participated in two akitu
festivals in Babylon as king of Babylon.24 It is very likely, therefore, that in the original text
Berossos stressed the fully Babylonian character of the last part of Tiglath-pileser Ills reign,
and presented him as a king of Babylon tout court - perhaps in anticipation of Seleucus.25
Further progress with this apparently minor issue can be made by looking at the portrayal of
Sennacherib, the Assyrian king who succeeds Phulos in Berossos narrative.
Two major excerptors of Berossos report that he portrayed Sennacherib as a king of
Assyria.26 This implies that he intentionally depicted him as a foreigner. Berossos evidently
opposed Phulos to Sennacherib in this regard: whereas Phulos was a true king of Babylon
despite originally being a king of Assyria, Sennacherib was a king of Assyria who never
acted as king o f Babylon. This chimes suggestively with the institutional history o f Babylon
as attested in the cuneiform sources: Sennacherib assumed the title of king of Babylon
only for a very short period. For most o f the time, he preferred to appoint someone else to
fill this role.27
Berossos must have presented Sennacherib as a foreign ruler who controlled Babylon,
and most probably emphasised this point. According to his excerptors, he claimed that
Sennacherib ruled over Babylon,28 which suggests that Berossos used the Greek verb ap%to,
to rule/dom inate, already employed by Herodotus to describe the Assyrian, Median and
Persian empires.29 Furthermore, Berossos states that, after deporting Belibos/Bel-ibni and in
23 According to Van der Spek 2008, 289, Berossos designated Babylonia and the Babylonians as Chaldaea,
Chaldaeans following a typically Greek usage inaugurated by Flerodotus.
24 The Babylonian Chronicle specifically mentions Tiglath-pileser III assuming the Babylons crown,
Grayson 1975, p. 72 no. 1 I 24. In his texts, Tiglath-pileser III adopts the tile o f king of Babylon (e.g.,
Tadmor 1990, p. 194 Summ. 11 1). In the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle it is stated that he took the hand
of Bel (= Marduk, the Babylonian city-god) in two consecutive years (Millard 1994, p. 45 years 729 and
728).
25 Mar Michael, quoting a passage from Eusebius (who in turn had excerpted Alexander Polyhistor),
states that, after destroying the Chaldaean dynasty at the time of Semiramis (Samiram), the Assyrians
dominated Asia with 46 kings, and that after them there was a king of the Chaldaeans named Phulos
(Schnabel 1923, p. 267 F39a). Mar Michaels excerpt corrects the text of Eusebius, where a dynasty of
Arabian kings is inserted between the Chaldaean kings and Semiramis. This proves that Berossos con
sidered Tiglath-pileser III a genuine king of Babylon.
26 Alexander Polyhistor, V&W p. 54 F 8 b (Schnabel 1923, p .269 F43, apudEus., Chron. ed. Karst, p. 13,2
14,32); Josephus, V&W p .53 F 8 a (Schnabel 1923, p.270 F46, Ant. Jud., X, 1, 4 20). In Josephus
Greek text Sennacherib is said to have been king (Paoitanj^), and to have commanded the Assyrians
(tcbv Aooupicov ripxe)- Elsewhere in the same passage, Alexander uses the term Babylonian/s (not
C haldaean/s!), showing that he clearly distinguished Assyria from Babylonia.
27 Sennacherib was king of Babylon from his ascent to the Assyrian throne (705 BC) until 703 BC. He later
enthroned an official, Bel-ibni (703-700 BC), on his behalf, and then his own son Assur-nadin-sumi
(699-694 BC), who was deported and killed in Elam (Brinkman 1984, 58-61). After Sennacheribs de
struction of Babylon (689 BC), Babylonia remained without a king until his death (Frame 1992, 52-63).
28 Ffe reigned over the Babylonians and then installed his son Asordanios as their king: V&W p. 54 F 8 b
(Schnabel 1923, p. 269 F43, Armenian translation of Eusebius Chronicon).
29 Josephus used the same verb to describe Sennacheribs rule over Babylonia (cf. note 26, above).
 66 Giovanni B. Lanfranchi
stalling his own son A sordanios/A ssur-nadin-sum i30 on the Babylonian throne, Sennacherib
returned to A ssyria:31 the point, it would seem, was to stress that Sennacherib remained
detached from Babylon and its royal institutions.
Phulos and Sennacherib, then, seem to have served as positive and negative paradigms of
kingship in the Babyloniaca: Phulos who wears the Babylonian crown is seen in a positive
light; while Sennacherib who does not wear it and keeps his distance from Babylon and its
institutions becomes a negative paradigm o f the unassim ilated foreign ruler. Unfortunately,
we do not know whether Berossos mentioned Sennacheribs destruction o f Babylon, and
if he did, how he described it. Judging from the hostility towards Babylon which pervades
Sennacheribs royal inscriptions, it stands to reason that Berossos would have presented
him as one o f the most bitter enemies that Babylon ever had. Berossos description of
Sennacheribs campaign against Cilicia seems to confirm that hypothesis.
The Alexander historians Callisthenes and Aristobulos report that, upon entering Cilicia,
Alexander pitched camp in the town of Anchiale, where he was told of a nearby statue of the
Assyrian king Sardanapallos. This statue had an inscription on it, the famous Sardanapalus
epitaph, in which the king boasted to have built the towns of Tarsus and Anchiale in only one
day. The story was popular among Hellenistic historians, and later authors preserved it in sev
eral different versions.32 Modern scholars have discussed at length the statue, its iconography
(the king is described as snapping the fingers of his left hand), and its possible author. So far,
they have mainly concentrated on the fact that in his Bellino Cylinder inscription Sennacherib
claims to have conducted a m ilitary campaign against Cilicia, with the purpose of quelling
a revolt. The revolt, led by a local official, broke out in the towns o f lngira and Tarzi, which
were taken and looted by Sennacheribs army.33 Scholars have identified lngira and Tarzi with
Anchiale and Tarsus, and since in his cylinder Sennacherib states that he set up an alabas
ter stele after his victory, the connection between Sardanapallos Anchiale monument and
Sennacheribs stele seemed unavoidable - though explaining the different royal names proved
more complicated. That, however, is not the point here. Rather, I wish to focus on the fact that,
according to his excerptors, Berossos placed Sennacheribs Cilician campaign immediately
after the long description of the measures he took for subduing Babylon.
The relevant passage o f Berossos text is preserved in Eusebius, who quotes two versions
of the episode in abridged form: one from Alexander Polyhistor, the other from Abydenus.
The two versions differ on points o f detail but agree on the basic outlines o f the narrative:
Sennacherib was informed that Greek troops had invaded Cilicia. A fter defeating them, he
had an image o f him self erected with an inscription in which he celebrated his achievements
as a memento for posterity - incidentally, a typical Assyrian m otif - and claimed to have
built Tarsus. Both versions also specify that he did this according to the plan of Babylon.34
30 The original Greek transcription was *Asornadi(n)os, turned into Asordanios through metathesis:
Schnabel 1923, p. 143. Asordanios should not be taken as the transcription of the name of king
Esarhaddon, Sennacheribs son.
31 Then he went back to Assyria, V&lVp.54 T 8 b (Schnabel 1923, p .269 F43, Armenian translation of
Eusebius Chronicon).
32 For a general survey see Lanfranchi 2003b. Unfortunately, the important (posthumous) work of Forsberg
1995 (esp. 37-80, on the Sardanapallos inscription) has gone almost entirely unnoticed.
33 Luckenbill 1924, pp. 61-2,11. 61-91.
34 V&W p. 54 F 8 b (Schnabel 1923, p.269 F43, Armenian translation of Eusebius Chronicon excerpting
Alexander Polyhistor, p. 269-70 F43a, variant version preserved in Mar Michaels Syriac text, and p. 270
F44, Armenian translation of Eusebius Chronicon excerpting Abydenus.
Babyloniaca, Book 3: A ssyrians, Babylonians and Persians 67
One can see why scholars have wanted to connect this story to the Bellino Cylinder: the
Cilician campaign mentioned in the cylinder was easily identified with that mentioned by
Berossos. However, Berossos' claim that Sennacherib built Tarsus remained a problem, since
in the cylinder there is no mention of any building activity in that town - on the contrary,
it is stated that the Assyrian troops looted it.35 As far as I know, no cogent solution has yet
been found to this problem.
The most likely explanation seems to be that Berossos criticized and corrected the version
circulated by the Alexander historians: he attributed to Sennacherib what those historians
had attributed to the semi-mythical Sardanapallos. Some scholars suggest that he could do
this because he had at his disposal a Babylonian (or even Assyrian) chronicle which sum
marised the text o f the Bellino Cylinder. (The Cylinder itself was certainly not available to
Berossos.)36 However, it seems more likely that Berossos corrected the account o f previous
Greek historians in the same way that he blamed Greek historians for assigning the foun
dation of Babylon to the Assyrian queen Semiramis. Berossos must have insisted that the
Anchiale monument did not represent Sardanapallos but Sennacherib; and that Sennacherib,
not Sardanapallos, had rebuilt (not necessarily founded or re-founded) Tarsus (and Anchiale)
after his Cilician campaign. This way of engaging with ones forerunners was common in the
Greek historiographical tradition: Ctesias corrected Herodotus,37 and Herodotus in turn had
criticized the logographers. Berossos placed him self in this tradition when he corrected the
Alexander historians by introducing a Greek invasion of Cilicia as the starting point for the
founding, the building or the re-building of Tarsus after Sennacheribs campaign.
The Greek invasion o f Cilicia is an entirely new element in the known traditions about
Tarsus: nothing similar is recorded either by the Alexander historians or by their later excerp
tors in their descriptions of Sardanapallos monument (or tomb). Thus, we may ask where
Berossos found the information about a Greek invasion of Cilicia. If the Bellino Cylinder is
to be considered the original source for the campaign, it cannot have been Berossos source,
since it does not mention the Greeks at all: the reason given for Sennacheribs intervention
is a local revolt led by a local leader. Certainly, we might suppose that another text (perhaps
by Sennacherib him self) described the Greek invasion and was available to Berossos or to
his sources;38 but this is, and must remain, a mere hypothesis. I would argue, rather, that
Berossos conflated two different sources: one that reported a Greek invasion of Cilicia, and
another one dealing with Sennacheribs Cilician campaign. It seems to me that there is no
other way o f explaining the contradiction between Berossos and the Bellino Cylinder.
If this is correct, we must ask what source might have reported a Greek invasion of Cilicia
during Sennacheribs reign. Two points should be borne in mind here. First, Abydenus men
tions a naval battle, whereas Alexander Polyhistor has a land battle. Second, no other extant
Near Eastern document attests a Greek invasion of Cilicia under Sennacherib. We may
address these difficulties by recalling that, in the Khorsabad Annals and in other inscrip
tions, Sennacheribs father Sargon II claims to have defeated the Iamnaia, i.e. the Ionians,
in a naval battle. He further states that they had been tormenting and killing Tyre and the
land of Que, which was the Assyrian name for Lower Cilicia; and he boasts that he fought
35 Luckenbill 1924, 61 and 76; for a discussion see Forsberg 1995, 65-7 and 77-80.
36 E.g. Forsberg 1995, 73-80; Beaulieu 2006. Van der Spek 2008 suggests that Berossos him self might
have been the author of one of the preserved Babylonian Chronicles.
37 Bichler 2004.
38 Forsberg 1995, 77.
 68
Giovanni B. Lanfranchi
a naval campaign against them, catching them out of the sea like fish.39 From this we may
deduce that Berossos attributed to Sennacherib an enterprise that historically belonged to
his father - Sargons naval battle against the G reeks/Ionians.
The reasons for Berossos (mis-)attribution o f the Cilician campaign may be found in
some specific historical and historiographic conditions. On the one hand, the memory of
Sargon II and his enterprises was hedged with institutional and religious taboo because of his
shocking death on the battlefield, whence his corpse was not recovered. Sennacherib swiftly
abandoned the new palace built by his father,40 and during his reign even Sargons name was
banished from the official records. A sim ilar reticence can be found also in the Bible;41 and
seems to have spread even to the Greek historians, since, apart from Ptolemy who mentions
one Arkeanos, none o f them make reference to an Assyrian king whose name might be rea
sonably compared to that o f Sargon. On the other hand, Sennacherib acted as vice-regent
of Sargon during his time as crown prince. He was probably given formal command of the
army, and it cannot be excluded that he personally commanded some m ilitary campaigns,
perhaps even the campaign in Cilicia with the naval battle against the Io n ian s/G reek s42 In
conclusion, there are good reasons for supposing that Berossos conflated Sargons naval
engagement w ith the Ionians/G reeks with Sennacheribs Cilician campaign.
At one level, this conflation can be considered a typical accident in the transmission of
historical information, especially over such a long period of time. In the particular case of
Sargon, it is likely that the damnatio memoriae which he suffered further contributed to the
confusion. However, the question arises why Berossos describes the episode in so much de
tail, allowing his excerptors to quote it at length and in different versions. The naval engage
ment with the Ionians/G reeks occupied relatively little space in the Annals of Sargon, only
one line or slightly more. Why was Berossos so interested in this minor event from Sargons
reign? The answer, I suggest, and the reason why Berossos conflated originally separate tra
ditions, was that he wished to introduce two particular elements into his historical account:
hostility between Greeks and Assyrians in general, and between the Greeks and Sennacherib
in particular. The former helped Berossos establish a fundamental opposition between the
Greeks and the universal empire represented by the A ssyrians - although he does concede
that the Greeks attacked first.43 This way, Berossos could depict the Greeks as exemplary
adversaries o f universal empire since a remote past - thus introducing an ideological model
for later history. According to both Achaemenid and Greek historical tradition, the Persian
empire was considered the legitimate successor o f the only truly universal empire of the
past, that o f the Assyrians. Consequently, this model could be used also for setting up a long
standing opposition between the Greeks and the Persian empire.
39 Fuchs 1994, 109, 117-9.
40 Brinkman 1984, 54.
41 Dailey 2001, 19-20: in Isaiah 14: 12, 18-21, he is obliquely mentioned as Daystar, son of Dawn -
Dawn in Ancient Hebrew sounds similarly to the name of the Assyrian main goddess Serua, the wife
of the national god Assur.
42 Like many other ideologically informed Assyrian royal inscriptions, Sargons official texts should not be
taken too literally. In his Annals, he boasts that he led a campaign against the Philistine town of Asdod,
fighting personally on the battlefield. In fact, the campaign was led by his turtanu, and Sargon remained
at home: Kristensen 1988, 8 6 - 8 .
43 Berossos specifies that Sennacherib was informed of the Greek attack: V&W p. 54 F 8 b (Schnabel 1923,
p. 269 F43, Armenian translation of Eusebius Chronicon excerpting Alexander Polyhistor, and p. 270
F43a, variant version preserved in Mar Michaels Syriac text.
Babyloniaca, Book 3: A ssyrians, Babylonians and Persians 69
As regards the opposition between the Greeks and Sennacherib, it is clear that Berossos
selected Sennacherib not only for the historical reasons discussed above, but also - and
above all - because Sennacherib was a hate figure in contemporary Babylonian historiog
raphy. The Babylonians certainly still remembered him as the destroyer of Babylon and its
temples, especially M arduks Esagila.44 The Bible too is extremely hostile, more so, even,
than with other Assyrian kings.45 Herodotus mentions Sennacherib in connection with his
invasion of Egypt, which ended in a disaster brought on by divine intervention - another
negative judgm ent.46 Finally, Berossos him self states that Sennacherib was killed in a con
spiracy by one of his sons, which is not only true history,47 but also recalls the lethal familial
conflicts typical of Greek tragedy.
Berossos, then, consciously used the opposition between the Greeks and the Assyrian
king Sennacherib to suggest a parallel between Greeks and Babylonians: the Greeks had
attacked the universal empire p a r excellence, whereas the Babylonians first resisted and
defeated the Assyrian empire, and then, especially under Darius and Xerxes, opposed the
Persian empire - the heir of Assyria. Moreover, Berossos could depict the Greek invasion of
Cilicia as a historical model for the Macedonian attack on the Persian empire. In this way, he
invited Antiochus, a Greek ruler of a new Babylonian empire, to repudiate the prevailing his
torical model represented by the Achaemenids. It made sense that Berossos selected Cilicia
as the stage on which to develop his opposition between Greeks and Assyrians: Alexander
forced a passage into the Persian heartlands with the battle o f Issus, in eastern Cilicia ...
As for the Assyrian kings after Sennacherib, Alexander Polyhistors excerpt is extrem e
ly abridged, though he does mention Sardanapallos and, just before him, Samoges,48 i.e.
Assurbanipals brother Samas-sumu-ukTn, king o f Babylon. Abydenus excerpt is more
detailed.49 A fter Sennacheribs assassination50 at the hands o f his son Adramelos (Arda-
Mulissi),51 a civil war broke out between the latter and Axerdis (Esarhaddon), who eventually
prevailed and ascended the throne. Axerdis then conquered Egypt and Coelesyria. Abydenus
briefly mentions Axerdis son Sardanapallos, and finally the last Assyrian king Sarakos
(Sin-sarra-iskun). Abydenus narration follows the royal succession in Assyria rather accu
rately; his conciseness, however, makes it difficult to know how Berossos interpreted it. The
mention of Samoges (Samas-sumu-ukTn) in Alexander Polyhistors excerpt might suggest
that Berossos listed Assyrian kings who wore the Babylonian crown, like Phulos, rather
44 Brinkman 1984, 67-70.
45 As well as the description of Sennacheribs sacrilegious and unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem and of his
death at the hands of his sons (2Ki 18:9-19:37, esp. 19:27-31 // Is 36:1-37:38), note also the extremely
negative portrayal in the much later passage 3Macc 6:5.
46 Hdt. II 141: Sennacherib, king of the Arabs and of the Assyrians invaded Egypt during Sethos reign;
the Egyptian god Hephaistos (Greek interpraetatio) sent mice to gnaw the leather components of the
Assyrians weapons.
47 Parpola 1980.
48 Schnabel 1923, p. 270 F47; the name appears as Hamugios in Mar Michael quoting Eusebius Chronicon
(Schnabel 1923, p.270 F43).
49 Schnabel 1923, p. 270 F44. For Alexanders text, ibid., p. 270 F43a.
50 Abydenus, who uses Alexanders text, has Nergilos as king of Assyria immediately after Sennacherib
(Schnabel 1923, p.270 F44); Schnabel (1923, 144), however, demonstrates that the sentence about
Nergilos is an erroneous later insertion.
51 See note 47, above.
 70 Giovanni B. Lanfranchi
than only those Assyrian kings who reigned in Nineveh, as is the case in the Babylonian
Chronicles. Abydenus excerpt, however, does not confirm this hypothesis.
The fact that Berossos mentions Axerdis conquest o f Egypt seems more susceptible to
interpretation: perhaps it is meant to define the geographical limits o f the ideal universal
empire(s) o f the past: the Assyrian empire included Egypt; the Achaemenid empire included
Egypt too, except for some short periods - as even Manetho had to acknowledge.52 This men
tal map, exclusively bound to the development of a model of universal empire, may lie behind
one o f Berossos more notorious, and still unexplained, anachronisms. Berossos states that
Nabopolassars governor in Egypt and in Coelesyria rebelled, and that Nabopolassar sent an
expedition under his son Nebuchadnezzar to bring the western satrapies to heel.53 In other
words, he assumes that Nabopolassar controlled Egypt. This runs counter to the historical
facts and especially Nechos reign in Egypt, and many scholars have accused Berossos of
falsifying history. Berossos, however, did not falsify history; rather, he presented an
ideologically biased reconstruction according to which the Assyrian empire - which in
cluded Egypt - was transm itted to the Babylonians rather than to the Medes, contrary to
what Herodotus and Ctesias had claimed, following the official historiography of the Persian
empire. He probably attempted to demonstrate that N abopolassar took over the Assyrian
empire in its full extent, including Egypt, and excluding the possibility that after the fall
of Assyria there was a political fragmentation which might have justified Median rule over
parts o f the former A ssyrian empire.54 On the other hand, by stressing that a truly universal
empire should have included Egypt, Berossos might also have offered Antiochus an ideologi
cal justification for taking action against the Ptolemies.
Concerning the fall o f the Assyrian empire, Abydenus excerpt is once again more de
tailed than Alexander Polyhistors, which moreover seems to have been miscopied dur
ing transm ission.55 The Assyrian king Sarakos (STn-sarra-iskun) was informed o f an attack
coming from the southern sea, and sent Bupalossoros (Nabopolassar) to quell it. During
the campaign, Bupalossoros had his son Nebuchadnezzar m arried to the Median leaders
daughter; then he moved against Nineveh. The Assyrian king was informed of the rebel
lion and eventually burnt him self in his palace. The most interesting point in this rather
romantic story is that Berossos depicts N abopolassar as a servant of the A ssyrian king, in
a position o f m ilitary leadership. Here, he agrees with Ctesias, who states that Belesys (the
name he uses for Nabopolassar) was a Babylonian general who served the Assyrian king by
patrolling the Assyrian capital.56 W hether Nabopolassar had any Assyrian connections was
strongly doubted in the past, mostly due to a general mistrust in Ctesias and scarce attention
to Berossos. More recently, however, it has been argued rather convincingly that he really
52 Manetho conceals the Assyrian domination from Esarhaddon to Assurbanipal with a list of three
Ethiopian kings ( V&W p. 201 D.XXV) and of at least three kings from Sais (V&W p .202 D.XXVI);
from Cambyses to Darius III all the Achaemenid kings are listed under the heading eight kings from
Persia (V&Wp.202 D.XXVII).
53 V&W p. 58 F9a, 135 (Schnabel 1923, p. 272 F49).
54 Beaulieu 2006, 125-6 attributes Berossos anachronism to a re-interpretation of the Babylonian
Chronicle. According to him, Berossos wished to extol the (Neo-)Babylonian empire, to present
Nabopolassar as a glorious model for the Seleucids (perhaps Nabopolassar was indeed such a model at
the Seleucid court), and to suggest that they might have some pretensions to Egypt and Coelesyria, then
controlled by the Ptolemies.
55 Schnabel 1923, p. 270 F47; for the omission of a full line of text in the excerpt see p. 147.
56 Lenfant 2004, p. 55 F lb 24 (Diod. II 1,24, I).
Babyloniaca, Book 3: A ssyrians, Babylonians and Persians 71
was an important official of the Assyrian empire long before his rebellion.57 Both Ctesias
and Berossos are evidently capable of transm itting more reliable information than has often
been assumed.
For Berossos, the Assyrian origin of Nabopolassar was evidently not an ideological prob
lem, despite his negative portrayal of Sennacherib in particular. Indeed, it was useful to him,
for he needed to demonstrate that the Assyrian empire was transferred to the Babylonians
in its entirety, and that noone else was involved in the process. According to the surviving
excerpts, Berossos did not give any importance to the Medes and to C yaxares/A zdahak in
the rebellion against the A ssyrians.58 He apparently denied the possibility that some frag
ments of the Assyrian empire were inherited by the Medes. On this point, Berossos radically
disagreed with Ctesias, according to whom C yaxares/A rbaces entrusted the possession o f
Babylon to Belesys.59 In Ctesias, the universal empire was transferred to the Medes, and it
was the Median leader who made Babylonia an independent kingdom - a kingdom, not an
empire. Consequently, Ctesias could claim that the Persians too had taken universal rule
directly from the Medes.
If universal rule was transmitted directly from Assyria to Babylonia, Berossos could dem
onstrate that Cyrus and later the Achaemenids took it directly from the Babylonians. From
a purely Babylonian point of view, this was obviously a negative development. It is highly
likely, however, that Berossos found a way of explaining and - to some extent - justifying
it. In the very condensed excerpts about N ebuchadnezzars successors, Berossos presents
some of them in a strikingly negative light: Euilmaradochos/Amel-M arduk was capricious,
Laborosoardokhos/Labasi-M arduk behaved in evil ways, Neriglisaros and Nabonnedos were
plotters.60 This seems harsh criticism indeed, and in contradiction to Berossos generally
pro-Babylonian stance. Berossos, however, needed to explain the end of the Neo-Babylonian
empire without invalidating the idea that Babylonia was worthy in principle of forming a
universal empire. Thus, he introduced a narrative of decline through the moral corruption of
Babylons kings. Such a narrative did not compromise the concept o f a universal Babylonian
empire p e r se; rather, it singled out the various kings personal failure to exert kingship ade
quately. Ctesias took a similar approach when explaining the fall of the Assyrian empire: the
Assyrian empire did not end because universal empire was illegitimate in itself, but because
of the moral decadence of the kings after Ninyas and especially of Sardanapallos.61 Likewise,
Berossos suggests that the Babylonian empire fell because of the immorality of its kings.
Meanwhile, Babylons claim to world rule remained valid in principle and was transferred
wholesale to C yrus and later to the Achaemenids. We can further speculate that Berossos
applied this model also to the end of the Persian empire: a narrative of moral decadence
would have favoured the passage of universal rule to Alexander, and hence to Seleucus. It
is easy to see that for Berossos the most able rulers o f a Babylonian universal empire were
57 Schaudig 2001, 12-3 with previous bibliography.
58 V& W p. 56 F 8 b (Schnabel 1923, p. 270 F 47, Eusebius quoting Alexander Polyhistor), cf. Schnabel 1923,
p. 271 F 48, Eusebius quoting Abydenus): in both instances Berossos does not assign any role in the revolt
to the Median ruler, who only receives troops and gives his daughter in marriage to Nabukodrossoros,
Nabopolassars son.
59 Lenfant 2004, 62-4 F lb 28 (Diod. II, 1, 28, 1-6).
60 W&V p. 60 F 10a (Schnabel 1923, p. 274 F 54 = Jos., C. Ap., I, 146-50).
61 Lenfant 2004, p. 51 F ib 21 (Diod. II, 1, 21, 1-2) on Ninyas successors; 54-5 F lb 23 (Diod. II, 1,21,
1-4) on Sardanapallos.
 72 Giovanni B. Lanfranchi Babyloniaca, Book 3: A ssyrians, Babylonians and Persians 73

Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar: a father-and-son pair which could be, and very Forsberg 1995
probably was, the central model for Seleucus and Antiochus. S. Forsberg, N ear Eastern D estruction D atings as a Source f o r G reek a n d N ear Eastern Iron Age
Chronology. Archaeological and H istorical Studies: the Cases o f Sam aria (722 B.C.) and Tarsus
By way o f conclusion, I would stress that Berossos was probably the first historian to
(696 B.C.) (Boreas 19), Uppsala 1995.
criticize the prevailing model of universal rule passing from Assyria to Media and on to Frame 1992
Persia. This model had been transm itted and defended both by the Achaemenids and by G. Frame, Babylonia 6 8 9 -6 2 7 B.C. A Political H istory (Uitgaven van het Nederlands H istorisch-
Greek historians like Herodotus and Ctesias, who were certainly influenced, in different Archaeologisch Institut te Istanbul LXIX), Istanbul 1992.
ways and measures, by Achaemenid ideology. Berossos attempted to offer to the new Greek Fuchs 1994
rulers the model o f another universal empire, which centred on Babylon, and which had its A. Fuchs, D ie Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, G ottingen 1994.
G rayson 1975
foundations in the most remote antiquity. This tradition o f empire was as worthy o f respect A. K. Grayson, Assyrian a n d Babylonian Chronicles, W inona Lake, IN 1975 (reprint 2000).
as were its antediluvian temples, had universal pretensions, and extended over the whole of H arm atta 1971
the N ear East, Egypt included. Berossos Greek patron, King Antiochus, had good reasons J. H arm atta, The literary patterns o f the Babylonian edict o f C yrus, A cta A ntiqua A cadem iae
to place him self in this tradition ... Scientiarum H ungaricae 19 (1971), 217-31.
K ristensen 1988
A. K. G. K ristensen, Who Were the Cimmerians and Where d id they Come fr o m ? Sargon II,
the Cimmerians, and Rusa I (Kongelige D anske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historiske-filosofiske
M eddelelser 57), C openhagen 1988.
K uhrt 1987
A. K uhrt, B erossus Babyloniaka and the Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A. K u h rt/S . Sherwin-
Abbreviations W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East. The Interaction o f G reek and non-G reek Civilizations fro m
2Ki K ings, Book no. 2 Syria to C entral A sia after Alexander, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1987.
3Macc M accabaeans, Book no. 3 K uhrt/S herw in-W hite 1991
FGrHist F. Jacoby, D ie Fragm ente der griechischen H istoriker, Leiden, Berlin 1923-1958. A. K uhrt/S . Sherwin-W hite, Aspects o f Seleucid royal ideology: the cylinder o f A ntiochus I from
Hdt. Herodotus Borsippa \ Journal o f Hellenic Studies 111 (1991), 71-86.
Is Book o f Isaiah Lanfranchi 2003a
Jos., C. Ap. Josephus Flavius, Contra Apionem. G. B. Lanfranchi, Imperi assiro, babilonese, persiano: continuity e discontinuity, in: D. Foraboschi/
V&W G. P. V erbrugge/J. M. W ickersham, Berossos a n d Manetho Introduced and Translated. S. M. Pizzetti (eds.), L a successione degli im peri e delle egem onie nelle relazioni internazionali,
N ative Traditions in Ancient M esopotam ia a n d Egypt, A nn Arbor, M l, 2001. Milan 2003, 27-47.
Lanfranchi 2003b
G. B. Lanfranchi, 11 m onum ento di Sardanapalo e la sua iscrizione, Studi Trentini di Scienze
storiche LX X X II, 2003, 79-86.
L anfranchi 2011
G. B. Lanfranchi, Gli A SSY R IA K A di Ctesia e la docum entazione assira, in: J. W iesehofer/
R. R ollinger/G . B. Lanfranchi (eds.), K tesia s W elt/C tesias World, W iesbaden 2011, 175-223.
References L anfranchi/R oaf/R ollinger 2003
Beaulieu 1989 G. B. L anfranchi/M . R oaf/R . Rollinger (eds.), C ontinuity o f Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia
(H istory o f the A ncient N ear E ast/M onographs V), Padova 2003.
P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign o f Nabonidus, King o f Babylon 556-539 B.C. ( Yale N ear Eastern
R esearches 10), New Haven and London 1989. Lenfant 2004
Beaulieu 2006 D. Lenfant, Ctesias de Cnide. La Perse, I Inde, autres fragm ents (Collection des Universites de
F rancepubliee sous lepatronage de I A ssociation Guillaume Bude), Paris 2004.
P.-A. Beaulieu, Berossos on late Babylonian history, Oriental Studies. Special Issue 2006, Beijing
2006, 116-49. Luckenbill 1924
Bichler 2004 D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals o f Sennacherib (O riental Institute Publications 2), Chicago 1924.
R. Bichler, Ktesias korrigiert Herodotos. Zur literarischen Einschatzung der P ersika, in: H. M illard 1994
A. R. M illard, The Eponyms o f the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC (State Archives o f Assyria Studies
H eftner (ed.), A d fontes! Festschrift fiir G erhard D obesch zum 65. G eburtstag am 15. Septem ber
2004, Wien 2004, 105-16. II), Helsinki 1994.
B rinkm an 1984 Parpola 1980
S. Parpola, The m urderer o f Sennacherib, in: B. A lster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. X X V le
J. A. B rinkm an, Prelude to Empire. Babylonian Society a n d Politics, 747-626 B.C. (O ccasional
Rencontre A ssyriologique Internationale (M esopotamia 8 ), Copenhagen 1980, 171-82.
Publications o f the Babylonian Fund, 7), Philadelphia 1984.
Dailey 2001 Schaudig 2001
H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros' des Grofien sam t den in ihrem
S. Dailey, E sth ers Revenge at Susa: from Sennacherib to Ahasuerus, Oxford 2001.
Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und G ramm atik (Alter O rient und Altes
Testament 256), M unster 2001.
74 Giovanni B. Lanfranchi

Schnabel 1923
P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig and Berlin 1923.
Tadmor 1990
H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions o f Tiglath-pileser III K ing o f Assyria, Jerusalem 1990.
Van der Spek 2008 Berossos Narrative of Nabopolassar and
R. J. Van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and a G reek historian, in: R. J. Van der
Spek (ed.), Studies in A ncient N ear Eastern World View a n d Society P resented to M arten Stol on
Nebuchadnezzar II from Josephus
the Occasion o f his 65th Birthday, Bethesda 2008, 277-318.
John Dillery (University of Virginia)

Introduction
W hat particular form of Berossos text Josephus had at his disposal, his editorial prac
tice when quoting it, and therefore Josephus reliability for determ ining the main lines of
Berossos own historical writing are all old questions fraught with great difficulty. Beyond
laying out the parameters of these technical problems and the limits they place on all inter
pretations of the narratives of Berossos that come to us by way of Josephus, it will not be my
purpose here to investigate these issues in depth. Rather, taking it as assumed that Josephus
has for the most part faithfully reported Berossos original text, 1 want to examine one nar
rative from the Babyloniaca that Josephus has preserved for us, in the hope that we can gain
thereby a better understanding of Berossos history concerning non-mythical events, indeed,
what we may loosely call events from a distinct historical period. It will be the contention
o f this chapter that the lengthy quotations o f Josephus preserve for us Berossos concep
tion of the Neo-Babylonian era as an ideal past, but one that is at the same time articulated
through the language and political structures of his contemporary world, that is, the early
Seleucid court.

Preliminaries
It has for some time been recognized that Josephus was not in possession of Berossos
Babyloniaca, but rather, a digest of it produced by Alexander Polyhistor in the first century
BC.1 Hence, when speaking of Josephus knowledge o f Berossos, we must keep in mind
that it was a sum m ary made by a third party that Josephus was drawing on for the assem
bly of his own texts. There are two narratives that come to us by way of Josephus, one of
which is also found in his Jewish Antiquities: FGrHist 680 F8, Against Apion 1.135-41
(= Ant. 10.220-226), containing the end of the reign o f Nabopolassar and the rule o f his
son Nebuchadnezzar II, and which includes the battle of Carchemish, the restoration of the
great temple of Bel-Marduk in Babylon (the Esagila), the renewal of Babylons walls, and
the construction of the Hanging Gardens; and F9a, Ap. 1.146-53, which contains the death
of Nebuchadnezzar and the reigns of the subsequent Neo-Babylonian rulers, through to the
defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus the Great and the beginning of the Persian domination of
Babylonia.
A word is in order here about why Josephus made use of Berossos in the first place.
Implied in his monumental history of the Jews, the IoudaTke Archaiologia or Jewish
Antiquities (see esp. Ant. 1.5), and explicitly stated in his treatise the Against Apion (see
esp. Ap. 1.58-60, 69-72), it was Josephus purpose to promote the history of his people and

1 Schnabel 1923, 166-7.

 76 John Dillery
specifically their great antiquity to a Gentile audience, in response to the relative silence
of Greek historians regarding them. Non-Jewish and non-Greek authorities were thus vital
to Josephus in advancing his case, as sources external to the Hebrew Scriptures that could
be used to confirm events reported in the Bible: at one point in the Against Apion Josephus
even says, when referring to his plan o f the work, that next I will cite the testimonies to
our antiquity from the writings by others (Ap. 1.59), by which he means non-Greek his
torians.2 A little later in the Against Apion, Josephus singles out his Egyptian and Tyrian
sources as perhaps the most important because they are most hostile towards the Jews and
thus their testimony the least likely to be influenced by positive bias (Ap. 1.70).3 As for
Berossos in particular, we see Josephus cite his history as proof of the biblical accounts
of the Flood, Abraham, and the Babylonian Captivity,4 even though in the last named case
Berossos evidence does not actually confirm Josephus point (see below). The intended
readership o f the Against Apion is a hotly debated issue, with some arguing for a Gentile
target group and others an internal Jewish one.5 In many ways a narrative like the one
concerning Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar could be seen as serving both audiences:
Gentile, especially Roman readers who would have found much that was fam iliar in the
historiographic feel o f the text, and Jewish ones who naturally would have been able to fit
the story into their own scriptural tradition.
Berossos Babyloniaca contained three books, and narrative survives from each of the
three: in addition to the Neo-Babylonian stories from Book 3, we have Oannes and his ac
count o f Creation in Book 1, and the Flood narrative of Book 2. I cannot hope to solve the
problem o f the transmission o f Berossos in the work o f Josephus here. Suffice it for me to
say that I think that Josephus is a relatively accurate reporter of other w riters work in the
Against Apion!6 To be sure, all that we can claim with safety is that he has preserved a text
of Berossos that had first gone under Polyhistors editorial hand. Moreover, we must feel
some alarm at Josephus control o f Berossos text when we read in his sum m ary leading
up to the Nebuchadnezzar narrative that the reader will find discussed there the destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem, a detail that is not in fact forthcoming in the quotation itself
(Ap. 1.132).7 But even with these limitations in mind, it is worth pointing out that Josephus
seems to have had before him a version o f Berossos Book 3 that was considerable in size -
or at least had indications that it had originally been large in scope and furtherm ore that
he has preserved the majority, if not entirety o f Berossos/Polyhistors account of the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar. Both o f these details are o f considerable importance. That Book 3 con
tained a lot o f material is suggested by what Josephus says at Ap. 1.142: Berossos treated
2 elxa 8 e ra<; (lapTupiaq Tfjq apxaiotriToi; etc tcov 7iap aXkov; ypann&Tcov 7rape^co.
3 Josephus use of Manetho is complicated, both formally and in substance. The formal problem is that
he seems to imply at one point that he had two versions of Manetho to work from before him, if the
relevant chapter is authentic (Ap. 1.83, a problematic section: Boeckh 1845, 120 and n. 1; Meyer 1904,
72; Thackeray 1926, 196 note a; Laqueur 1928, 1068-9; Reinach 1930, 17 n. 2; Fraser 1972, 2.731-32
n. 108). In substance, where Josephus finds Manetho to reflect positively on the history of the Jews, he
builds him up as a source (Ap. 1.73), but where the Egyptian historian presents negative information,
Josephus attacks him (Ap. 1.228-32, 254-87).
4 Ant. 1.93 (Flood), 1.158 (Abraham), and 10.219 and Ap. 1.128ff. (the Captivity).
5 See the review of views in Barclay 2007, xlv-liii.
6 Cf. Inowlocki 2005; Pucci ben Zeev 1993.
7 Cf. Gutschmid 1893, 493 ad loc.; Thackeray 1926, 215 note c; Reinach 1930, 26 n. 2. Also Barclay 2007,
81 n. 439.
B erossos N arrative o f N abopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar II from Josephus 77
not only the doings of Nebuchadnezzar, but also many [other] things in addition to these in
the Third Book of the Chaldaica (noXka npoc, xouxok; ev xfi xpixfl xwv XaXSaiioov),
specifically his rebuttal o f the Greek fiction that Semiramis founded Babylon and was re
sponsible for its m arvels (xa Bomjidaia). That we have the bulk of what Berossos wrote
about Nebuchadnezzar is suggested by what we read a little further on in the Against Apion,
at the start of the second quotation of Berossos: Nebuchadnezzar, after the beginning of
the aforementioned wall, fell ill and gave up his life, having ruled for 43 years, and his son,
Evil-Merodach, became master of the realm (Ap. 1.146). Since the aforementioned wall
construction takes up a good deal of the first quote, as well as N ebuchadnezzars other ac
tivities, it is tempting to view what Josephus has preserved of Berossos as the bulk of what
he wrote about the greatest of the Neo-Babylonian monarchs. And if this is so, we can get a
sense not only of what Berossos thought of this most important ruler, but also the scope of
Berossos treatm ent of other rulers, by being able to extrapolate from one fairly complete
record - while of course allowing for differences in scale depending on the fame of the par
ticular monarch in question.
The Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar narrative: Jos. Ap. 1.135-41
It is best to begin by translating the whole of Josephus first narrative from Berossos, after
which I will address a major textual problem, and then move on to an interpretation of the text.
I shall quote B erossos words having this form: (135) his father, N abopolassar, when he heard
that the assigned governor (o lexayjxEvot; cax p a 7rr|c;) in Egypt and the places about Hollow
Syria (ttiv lu p ta v xr]v KotXriv) and Phoenicia had become a rebel (a 7toaxaxr|<;), not able him self
to endure hardships any longer, assigned to his son Nebuchadnezzar, being in the prim e of his
life, certain parts o f his force and sent him out against him [the rebel], (136) N ebuchadnezzar
encountered the rebel, and having draw n up in battle order he defeated him and brought the
land back under their royal power. To his father, Nabopolassar, it happened at this time, having
grown w eak in the city o f the Babylonians, to give up his life; he had been king for 21 years.
(137) L earning not much later o f the death of his father, N ebuchadnezzar settled the affairs
o f Egypt and the rest o f the land, and the prisoners o f the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians and the
peoples throughout Egypt he assigned to certain ones o f his friends (xtai xcbv (piXcov) to convey
with his heaviest forces and the rem aining spoil to Babylonia, while he him self having set out
with a small force made it to Babylon through the desert. (138) Finding that m atters were being
m anaged by C haldaeans and the kingship looked after by the best o f them , he took possession
of his fathers rule in its entirety. He arranged to assign to the prisoners now present habitations
in the very best lands of Babylonia. (139) He himself, from the spoils of the war, zealously deco
rated (Koo|if)aa<; (piXoTi^ox;) the temple of Bel and the rest, and he restored anew the preexisting
city and beautified in addition another outside, and, so that no longer would besiegers be able
by turning the river against the city to raze it, put up three circuit w alls for the inner city, and
three for the outer, and o f these walls the inner ones were o f baked brick and bitum en, and the
outer from brick alone. (140) Having walled the city in noteworthy (d^uAoyax;) fashion, and
having decorated the gateways in a m anner befitting sacred space, he built next to the palace of
his father another adjoining it, the extent o f which and the rest o f its m agnificence, if one were
to describe, would be probably long, except that, though so great and splendid in its extrava
gance it was completed in 15 days. (141) In this palace, having built up lofty stone substructures
and made their appearance look very much like mountains, he planted them with all m anner
of trees, and he completed and fitted out the garden that is called hanging (xov KaX-ou^svov
K pejiaaidv 7ia p a 5 iaov), because of his w ifes desire for mountain scenery, having been raised
in the regions o f Media.
 78 John Dillery
A major textual problem occurs in section 139. Rcinach 1930, 27-8 prints the following:
. . . carrot; 8 s and xrov s k to O 7io X ,8 |io u A acp up cov t o t s B f | l o u I s p o v K a i xa Xoiko.
cpiX,OTi|aco(;, if |v te i)7 id p x o u o a v a p x fjg 710X1V < a v a K a i v i a a g > K ai eT epav
7rpoa% apiad|Li8VO(; [K a i a v a y K a a a q ] 7tpd<; t o |xr|K8Ti 5 i 3 v a c 0 a t t o u ^ 7ioX,iopKorjvTa<; t o v 7iOTa)^6v
a7ioozp(povTa<; f 7ii xf\v 7roA.iv KaiaoKva& iv f, 7repiepdA ,eT O T p etq (n ev Trjq e v 5 o v
7tpt(36A,Ol><;, Tp8i<; 5 s Tfjq s^co ...
I follow Reinach and others in accepting the insertion o f avaKaivioaq, and accept also the
deletion o f Kai avayKaoat;.8 As for the larger problem in the next line, I believe that if we
replace the nonsensical KaiaoKe\)d^eiv with a suitable verb such as KaiaoKdv(/ai,9 then sense
is not only preserved, the subsequent section also becomes a lot clearer: the detail that only
Babylons outer walls were made from baked brick and bitumen suggests that Berossos
viewed them as designed by Nebuchadnezzar to be waterproof against the possibility of the
Euphrates River being diverted against them, the bitumen being used as a w aterproof mortar,
especially in the lower courses o f the wall.10
There are three different frames of reference for this passage that need to be taken ac
count of: most obviously it treats the acme o f the Neo-Babylonian period, and Berossos was
clearly eager to represent it as such in his presentation; there is also the contemporary world
of the Seleucid court that has influenced the language Berossos has used to describe this
idealized past; and finally, it is also clear that Berossos is engaged with the legacy o f Greek
historical writing on Babylon. We have to untangle these three elements, and then put them
back together in order to come up with a comprehensive interpretation.
We must never lose sight of the crucial fact that Berossos was specifically a Babylonian
author - not simply a M esopotam ian or Near Eastern one. While Greek authors did not
distinguish between Assyrian and Babylonian rulers, Berossos was the first hellenophone
historian in antiquity to observe the difference, and this was surely no accident." The final
capture and destruction o f Babylon by the great Assyrian king Sennacherib in 689 was
a shattering and deeply traumatic event for the Babylonians, as was the subsequent per
iod o f direct Assyrian rule (indeed see Berossos F7c sections 29-30); later texts refer to
Sennacheribs rule o f Babylonia as a kingless period because o f his neglect o f the gods.12
Drews has shown that Berossos narrative o f Sennacheribs conquest of Babylon is particu
larly close to the Babylonian Chronicles treatment of the same events:13 A ssyrias victory
over Babylon was total. When finally Assyrian hegemony was thrown off by Nabopolassar
8 Proposed by Naber on the basis of a reading found in two mss. of the corresponding section in Ant.
9 It takes great effort to m ake KaiaoKeuti^eiv to mean gain access to vel sim.: no such p ossib ility is of
fered in LSJ s.v. And note, too, the use o f both TrpooKareoKeuaoev and KareoKeuaGe later in the sam e
passage, w hich may have led to the change o f KaxaaKdq/ai vel sim. to KaTaoKeua^eiv. Cf. Jos. Ap. 1.152.
10 Forbes 1936, 67-73 and 1955, 59. Cf. Wilson 2006, 942; George 1992, 356.
11 Lenfant 2004, lii n. 168. Cf. also Asheri 2007, 148-9 ad Hdt. 1.95.2.
12 See Brinkman 1979, 230 and esp. 247 n. 115: th e kingless period reflective o f the cultural shock on the
Babylonian side at the ruthless destruction of their capital city by Sennacherib; also id. 1973, 94-5.
Further, Beaulieu 1989, 106; Grayson 1991, 103; Kuhrt 1995, 2.583-6; Lanfranchi 2000, 33. Beaulieu
1989, 105 notes that the Chronicle Series speaks of Sennacherib carrying off the statue of Marduk to
Ashur where it remained for 21 years, and that it returned only in 648 with the accession of Samas-sum-
ukin. Kuhrt 1995, 2.585 cites reasons to think Sennacheribs devastation of Babylon was not as extensive
as he claimed.
13 Drews 1975, 54, comparing Berossos F 7.29 and Chronicle l.ii.26-31, Grayson 1975,77.
Berossos N arrative o f Nabopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar II from Josephus 79
in 626, Babylon entered a brief period of independence until 539, when Cyrus defeated
Nabonidus: the intervening years constituted the Neo-Babylonian period according to
K o o p f j a a i;
modern scholars, also called the Chaldaean Dynasty, the dynasty of Bit-Yakin, or the Third
8 ^ to 0 sv t
Dynasty of Sealand.14 It was this world that became for Berossos his ideal past.15
ndlecoq That this period would play such a role for Berossos was natural for several reasons. First,
it is important to think of the overall economy of text in the Babyloniaca. While Berossos can
trace history back beyond the Flood to the first kings of Babylon, and through the narrative
of the fish-man sage Oannes, even to the origins of the world, one senses that a new histori
cal horizon was detected by Berossos with the reign of Nabonassar. Much of course depends
on the problematic F 16a of Berossos,16 but if we do accept what is said there as belonging to
him ,17 and that it represents the actual state of the availability of historical texts in Berossos
time, when Berossos him self traced Babylons history back in time, the years immediately
after the Flood and before the ascendancy of Assyria would simply not have received much, if
any, coverage: the records for these had been gathered together by Nabonassar and destroyed
by him in order that the counting down of the Chaldaeans kings be from him .18 W hether
this claim was in fact true is not particularly important here. Rather, scholars are quick to
point out that a new era in Babylonia did in fact occur with the accession of Nabonassar,
specifically, that the documentation of the past received attention both unprecedented and
precise: both the Chronicle Series and Astronomical Diaries begin at this time.19 Quite simply,
when Berossos got to this epoch in Babylonian history, there was more for him to work with.
Additionally, this fact probably contributed to the formation of the view that since there was
more to work with, more in fact had happened that was worthy of record. As we read in F 3,
lines 9-12: in the Second Book [of his Babyloniaca] Berossos described the kings, one after
another, until he says Nabonassaros was king (Burstein 1978, 22, adapted). In other words,
in Berossos account of post-diluvian history, there was simply a skeletal listing of kings until
Nabonassar, then the text expanded massively.
This leads me to another point. W hile charting the past received a massive new impetus
in the eighth century in Babylonia, it underwent another significant change with the advent
of perm anent native Babylonian rule in the last quarter of the seventh. Scholars have de
tected a major reorientation in Babylonian historiography. If Assyrian annals stressed the
activity of the kings from an obvious propagandistic standpoint, the Babylonian chronicles
look objective: they record both victories and defeats; they do not add propagandistic nota
tions, literary embellishments, evaluations, or comments; they simply record events in a
disinterested way.20 The Babylonian chronicles were, furthermore, often w ritten with a
distinctly local, Babylonian audience in mind, as, for instance, when the performance (or
not) of the A kitu (New Year) festival is noted.
14 Wiseman 1991,229.
15 Cf. Kuhrt 1987, 56 and n. 43.
16 Assumed by Jacoby to be the work o f Ps. Berossos of Cos. See, e.g., Brinkman 1968,227 and n. 1433,
and cf. 35 n. 158; Kuhrt 1987, 36-44.
17 For a defense of the authenticity of the fragment, see esp. Burstein 1978, 22 n. 6 6 .
18 Syncellus Ecloga p. 245 Mosshammer: Na|3ovdoapo<; ouvayaydw xaq 7ipa^eiq t<Sv Tipo amox> Paoi>.ecov
rupavioev, ottw^ our auxoi} r) KaTapiOprjoiq yivexai tmv Xa^Saicov paodewv.
19 Brinkman 1968, 226-7; note also Liverani 2011, 45.
20 Liverani 2011, 44-5; see also Van De Mieroop 2004, 259.
80 John Dillery
Taking these two points together, the influence of Berossos native historiographic tradi
tion would have led him naturally to favor the Assyrian and especially the Neo-Babylonian
periods: it was with these periods in mind that the curating of the past was put on a new
footing in M esopotamia, and this fact would have carried great weight with Berossos. But
we should also not lose sight o f an even more salient fact. As I alluded to above, the Neo-
Babylonian period will have held a special place in the imaginations of those at Babylon
responsible for recording the past o f their city. Native rule was restored, and the physical
space of the city massively rebuilt. In general, the period was animated by a spirit of renewal,
whereby the remote past - the past of Hammurabi - was very much brought into the present:
old buildings were renewed and expanded, the citys walls restored, and historical records
discovered, or rather, in not a few cases actually invented.21 The old Babylonian past was
used to bring legitimacy and meaning to the new Babylonia. What is more, we can even read
in texts from the kingship o f Nebuchadnezzar II the hope and wish that his deeds not be
forgotten, that future kings respect his monuments and statutes, and in general that Marduk
may see to it that my name be remembered in future days in a good sense (AN E T} 307;
cf. Weissbach (1906) 34). There was thus even a charge upon men like Berossos to look after
the legacy o f this greatest period o f Babylons independent past. From Berossos perspective,
after more than two centuries of Persian rule, the relatively peaceful conquest of Alexander,
and the violent and fraught years leading up to the establishment of lasting Seleucid control,
the Neo-Babylonian epoch must have looked like a Golden Age: Babylon ascendant, inde
pendent, materially wealthy, and with a long and storied past of its own that had already built
into it a handy archaism to inspire men like Berossos.
But when we turn to the details of the Nebuchadnezzar narrative, we are immediately
confronted with a major puzzle: comparing the Chronicle version of the battle of Carchemish
reported at the start o f the fragment one is struck by a number of discrepancies between it
and Berossos account, and several linguistic details in Berossos story reveal a distinctly
Greek orientation to the narrative. Let us first take a quick look at the sections from the
Babylonian Chronicle Series that correspond to Berossos report:
Chronicle 5 Obverse (Grayson 1975, 99-100)
1 [The twenty first-year]: The king o f A kkad stayed home (while) N ebuchadnezzar (II), his
eldest son (and) the crown prince,
2 mustered [the arm y of Akkad]. He took his arm ys lead and marched to Carchemish which
is on the bank o f the Euphrates.
3 He crossed the river [to encounter the army o f Egypt] which was encamped at Carchemish.
4 [ ... ] They did battle together. The arm y o f Egypt retreated before him.
5 He inflicted a [defeat] upon them (and) finished them o ff completely.
6 In the district o f Hamath
7 the arm y o f A kkad overtook
5 the rem ainder o f the arm y of [Egypt
6 which] managed to escape [from] the defeat and which was not overcome.
7 They (the arm y o f Akkad) inflicted a defeat upon them (so that) a single (Egyptian) man
[did not return] home.
8 At that time Nebuchadnezzar (II) conquered all o f Ha[ma]th.
9 For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon.
21 See esp. Dailey 1998, 29-30, Beaulieu 2003. Note also Goossens 1948.
B erossos N arrative o f N abopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar II from Josephus 81
10 On the eighth day of the month Ab he died. In the month Elul N ebuchadnezzar (II) re
turned to Babylon and
11 on the first day o f the month Elul he ascended the royal throne in Babylon.
12 In (his) accession year N ebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Hattu. Until the month Shebat
13 he m arched about victoriously
14 in Hattu.
13 In the month Shebat he took the vast booty o f H attu to Babylon.
14 In the month N isan he took the hand o f Bel and the son o f Bel (and) celebrated the A kitu
festival ...
To be sure the correspondences between Chronicle 5 and Berossos are self-evident and
significant: Nabopolassar, unable to campaign himself, sends out his son to meet the
threat; Nebuchadnezzar scores a signal victory over the Egyptians; the old king dies while
Nebuchadnezzar is on campaign; Nebuchadnezzar returns to Babylon and assumes the
throne. But there are also profound differences: the battle site is clearly identified in the
Chronicle and it is described as being not in rebellious Egypt but on the Euphrates river;
there are two battles in the campaign, not one; there is no discussion of the capture and trans
portation of the enemy - indeed, not a single m an is left from the Egyptian army at the end
of the second battle. I do not mention that absent from the Chronicle also is any mention of
Nebuchadnezzars building program at Babylon, but it needs to be said that the format of the
two texts is different, and Berossos narrative is clearly a compressed compilation of several
years activities. As a matter of fact, later in Chronicle 5 we do hear of N ebuchadnezzars
capture of Jerusalem in his seventh year and the taking of tribute (not prisoners specifi
cally) to Babylon (Chronicle 5 Reverse 12-13, Grayson 1975, 102). But even making allow
ances for the different scope of Berossos and the Chronicle, the two accounts, while no doubt
obviously related, are still quite different.
It seems to me that in the difference we see the distinct outlines of what Berossos was
attempting to do with his narrative of N ebuchadnezzars rule. For one thing, the battle sec
tion is streamlined in Berossos. Two battles evidently were not needed or not wanted in his
account. Indeed, Berossos simplification precisely reveals an odd feature of the version of
events in the chronicle: if the first battle at Carchemish was as decisive as it is made out to
be (he finished them off completely), why was a second in Hamath needed at all, unless the
first was not the triumph it is characterized to be? Perhaps Berossos saw this very duplication
him self and the problems it raises for seeing the first conflict as decisive.
Other major differences between the two accounts need also to be noted. The Chronicle
is very clear about the location of the battles between Nebuchadnezzar and the Egyptians,
with the first being identified as Carchemish which is on the banks of the Euphrates. By
contrast, Berossos states that the battle is against the rebellious governor of Egypt and the
places about Coele Syria and Phoenicia.22 Indeed, these regions were brought back under
the power of Babylon as a result of the single victory, making it plain that they had in fact
earlier been provinces o f a Neo-Babylonian empire in Berossos conception of events.
It is hard to resist the impression that the events that Berossos imagines as taking
place in connection with the battle of Carchemish during the Neo-Babylonian empire of
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar look rather more like they are happening in the world
of the early Hellenistic kingdoms. Indeed, it is worth noting that precisely in the period
22 Cf. Wiseman 1985, 15.
 82 John D illery
immediately after the assassination of Seleucus I Nicator and contemporary with Berossos
composition o f the Babyloniaca, the Seleucid realm experienced the so-called Crisis or
Syrian War o f Succession (280-279).23 The events of this conflict are poorly understood,
but at a minimum we know from an inscription (OGIS 219) that the Seleukis,24 a region just
north of Coele Syria containing the tetrapolis of the great cities of Antioch near Daphne,
Seleucia in Pieria, Apamea, and Laodicea, rose in revolt.25 It was in precisely this same pe
riod that Ptolemy II also made inroads into the Aegean and Asia Minor by winning over key
cities and regions (Miletus, Samos, parts o f Caria). Scholars are unsure whether Ptolemy was
in fact behind the revolts that occurred after Antiochus Is accession as sole ruler in 281,26
but Will concluded that he certainly profited from the turmoil created by Seleucus Is death.27
It is tempting to see these events reflected in the story of N ebuchadnezzars victory over
the rebellious Egyptian satrap: the geography o f N ebuchadnezzars campaign in Berossos
and the Succession Revolt is similar, and the circumstances are virtually identical. Indeed,
the crucial point in both is the concept o f rebellion - a detail that is totally absent from
the Chronicles version o f events, as well as m odern discussions: the battle of Carchemish
resulted in the Pharaoh Necho IIs eventual abandonment o f Asia Minor, but obviously had
nothing to do with Egypt itself.28 On the other hand, the Chronicle Series does indeed know
of end of the reign of Seleucus and the battle of Corupedion (Chronicle 12);29 it is easy to im
agine them covering the events of the next few years with equal attention. And, of course, the
War o f Succession was just the start o f on-again off-again warfare between the Ptolemies
and Seleucids over Coele Syria; conflict between them for control o f the region would con
tinue for years, already flaring up again with the First Syrian War (274-271).30
But this suggestion is adm ittedly very speculative. We are on much firmer ground when
we turn to the vocabulary Berossos uses in the passage. It has been for some time acknowl
edged that Berossos choice of names and terminology for this episode seems likely de
rived from the realities o f Seleucid rule.31 Coele Syria (Hollow Syria; Gk. KoOo] Xvp(a)
was the technical designation in the Hellenistic period for the area roughly from Egypt to
23 See esp. Will 1979/1982, 1.139-42; Heinen 1984, 412-16; Jones 1993, 90-1.
24 Cf. Str. 16.2.4; OGIS 1.340 n. 4; Jones 1993, 77.
25 Note esp. lines 5-7: e n tr ie s [Antiochus] tag piev jr6 A.ei<; rag Ka<ra> rriv Ie|guic(8 a, Trepte/oiievaq tjtto
Kaipwv Suo^epcov Sia toix; djiooitivTCK; | icb(i 7tpay|idxcov, ei<; eipf|vr|v Kai xf|v a p /aiav ei)5ai|ioviav
KaTaoTrjoai. See also Memnon, FGrHist 434 F9.1. There is a considerable debate over the dating of
OGIS 219. Since the date of the text is established only by reference to Antiochus, son of Seleucus,
the king could also be Antiochus III: see Ma 2000, 254-9 and 217; he favors a date from the reign of
Antiochus I, as does Jones 1993.
26 See, e.g., Dittenbergers note ad loc. (OGIS 1.341 n. 6 ).
27 Will 1979/1982, 1.140.
28 Cf. Yoyotte 1958, 385; Wiseman 1991, 716-17.
29 Grayson 1975,27; 121-2.
30 Will 1979/1982, 1.146-50; Heinen 1984, 416-17. Note also Koepp 1884, Jahne 1974.
31 Burstein 1978, 25 n. 93 and 26 n. 102; Wiseman 1985, 7 and 15 n. 108; Kuhrt 1987, 56. Note also Eddy
1961, 125-6, whom Burstein follows.
Berossos N arrative o f N abopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar II from Josephus 83
Phoenicia.32 Satrap is just as significant. In origin an Achaemenid administrative term ,33 it
persisted as a word for the highest ranking regional official (governor) through the reigns of
Alexander the Great and the Diadochs,34 and well beyond, most prominently in the Seleucid
realm.35 It may be objected that Berossos could have known the term satrap directly from
the long Persian occupation of Babylon and not from the Seleucids, but in fact Achaemenid
governors of Babylonia were normally identified by the Babylonian titles LU.EN.NAM = bel
pihati or LU.NAM = pihatu, pahatu, and not satrap.36 As it happens, in the Assyrian and
Babylonian Chronicle Series, the word satrap or governor is not found in the Achaemenid
era texts. But as soon as we turn to Chronicle 10 (the so called Chronicle of the Diadochoi),
we read of the office of satrap and of the king doing battle with the satrap of Egypt
(Chronicle 10 Obverse lines 3 -4 (Grayson 1975, 115, from the reign of Philip III), where the
word used is GAL.UKK IN .37
We need also to take note of the term philoi (friends) in Berossos account. To be sure,
those certain ones of [Nebuchadnezzars] friends who are charged with bringing back the
slower parts of the princes army to Babylon may have been just that: friends. But it is
distinctly possible that another technical administrative meaning is intended here: royal
friends, that is, high ranking officials and courtiers of the king.38 It bears noting in this
connection that OGIS 219 refers precisely to the king making use of his friends in the sup
pression of the revolt,39 and they are mentioned a number of times elsewhere in the same
text, always linked with the noun dunameis (probably m eaning troops), a collocation that
is often found elsewhere in documentary texts.40 Jane Hornblower has made a similar argu
ment regarding the vocabulary of Diod. 17, namely that, inasmuch as Alexanders associates
32 For the prevailing view, see Bosworth 1974, 49 and id. 1980-, 1.225 ad Arr. An. 2.13.7; and following
him, Brunt 1976/1983, 1.172 n. 4, Bigwood 1980, 200; Hornblower 1981, 82 n. 27. Note also Welles 1934,
362; Bengtson 1937/1952,2.159-76; Bikerman 1947; Shalit 1954; Walbank 1957/1979, 1.564-5 ad Plb.
5.34.6; and Stern 1974/1984, 1.14. The phrase first occurs for certain in the Periplus of Pseud. Scylax
(104); Coele Syria is unknown to Herodotus and Xenophon. Diod. 2.2.3 = Ctesias F lb (Lenfant) could
be an earlier case if genuine. Sartre 1988 reviews the earlier scholarship and attempts to cast doubt on the
communis opinio; cf. Lenfant 2004, 233-4 n. 96. Rey-Coquais 2006, 115 proposes that Ko&ti lu p ia was
only employed systematically after the Seleucid reconquest of Syria in 200 BC; note also Rey-Coquais
2006, 104 n. 13, citing Sartre 1988 with approval. Cf. SEG 56.1882. See, e.g., OGIS 224 line 6 and 230
line 2 (now dated after 197: see Bagnall 1976, 15 n. 23 and Ma 2000, 321-3, citing earlier bibliography).
33 Chantraine 1983/1984, 2.989; Beekes 2010, 2.1310. OIran. *xsadra-pa protecting the empire. See also
Schmitt 1976; Stolper 2005, 19. Note Hornblower 1982, 145-54 and id. 2011, 75-77; Briant 2002, 65-7
for discussions of the role of the Achaemenid period satrap.
34 E.g. S/G 3 302.4 (Alexander); Welles 1934 no. 11, line 3 (Antiochus I). Note now also Klinkott 2000.
Cf. the language of Arrian An. 7.9.8 - admittedly a spurious speech of Alexander to his men, but for all
that illustrative of the associations of satrap.
35 Lehmann-Haupt 1921, 162-76; Beloch 1925/1927, 2.356-65; Bikerman 1938, 197-207; Bengtson
1937/1952, 2.12-29 and 1988, 268.
36 Stolper 1985, 58. Cf. Brosius 2000, 73-5; Briant 2002, 64-5, 484, 890.
37 Grayson 1975, 115. For further discussion, esp. of the T year of Philip III from Chronicle 10, see Boiy
20 1 0 .
38 See esp. Habicht 1958/2006; Walbank 1981, 75-7. More recently, Muller 2009, 156-9, with the relevant
bibliography listed in her notes.
39 Walbank 1981, 76, discussing the role of philoi in general in the Hellenistic period and citing OGIS 219
as a particularly illustrative case.
40 Lines 10-11: Kai <^>ap(bv oi) povov xoix; (pRouq Kai m g Suvapeiq eiq to 5iay(ovioao0ai 7tspi | ra p
7rpay(idT(ov ai)id)i 7ipo 0 i)|i<ou>g ... Note also lines 1617, 234, 46. See Jones 1993, 78 and n. 13.
 84 John Dillery
are referred to throughout that book as friends (philoi), the term must be Diodorus own
and a reflection o f general Hellenistic practice, since Clitarchus would more likely have
used the correct contemporary term com panions (hetairoi) if he had been responsible for
the passages in question.41
It is im portant at this point to ask whether Berossos deliberately employed Seleucid con
cepts and terms in describing the Neo-Babylonian exploits of Nebuchadnezzar II, or whether
this was simply the result o f his way o f viewing the world. We cannot definitively know the
answer of course. But either of the two scenarios would be deeply illuminating for an under
standing o f Berossos historical vision. In the first case, he would have meant to fashion the
most famous hero and monarch o f the Neo-Babylonian period in the m anner of a Seleucid
king suppressing a revolt in his territories, areas that included Egypt. In the second, the new
political realities of Seleucid rule in Babylonia would have become so ingrained in Berossos
society that when he thought about empire and conquest he could not conceive of these
things but in Seleucid terms.
This line o f inquiry leads me to a further set of important words used by Berossos, ones
that describe not N ebuchadnezzars m ilitary activities, but rather what he does once he re
turns to Babylon as king. As with the term s already discussed, so too these will suggest not
just the borrowing o f words but also the incorporation into Berossos narrative of concepts
and cultural values that derive from the society o f his new overlords.
Since, upon his return, Nebuchadnezzar found the affairs of state well managed by the
Chaldaeans, and the throne in particular cared for by the best of these men, all that he
needed to do was take possession o f his fathers rule in its entirety.42 Significantly, if also
mere coincidence, almost the same wording is found in OGIS 219 o f Antiochus taking up
his fathers power.43 That the kingdom should be found in such a condition, thanks to the
efforts o f the Babylonian priesthood, when the account is being written by a member of that
group, should not perhaps come as a surprise to us, but nonetheless should still be noted. O f
greater interest is the language Berossos uses in the passage that follows: from his war booty
Nebuchadnezzar decorated zealously the temple of Bel and the rest ( to xe B f|km iepov K ai
xa Xoma. KOG|if|aa(; (pitamjiooq Ap. 1.139), i.e., the other shrines of Babylon. The family of
(piA,oxi(i-words is ubiquitous in Hellenistic inscriptions and forms a central component in
the linguistic register o f euergetism.44 Furthermore, the verb Koojieo) is the mot ju ste for the
41 Hornblower 1981, 34.
42 Ap. 1.138: K upteuaai; 6AoKAf]pot) xfjq jtaxpiKfjq apxrjq. The use here of 6Aok Atipo<; is noteworthy. Normally,
the term is used in connection with soundness or phyiscal integrity and is a by-word for good health,
commonly found in Greek epigraphic texts: see Robert 1955, 97-103. Josephus uses it himself several
times elsewhere in this sense, both of sacrificial victims and priests who are (or ought to be) unblemished:
see, e.g., Ant. 3.228, 278-9, 10.207 (curiously, of the statue in Nebuchadnezzars dream, interpreted by the
prophet Daniel), BJ 1.271 (= Ant. 14.366). This sense is common too in Greek inscriptions of the Hellenistic
and Roman periods (see, e.g. SIG3 736 line 10, SEG 55.926 line 6 ). In our passage 6 AoKAr|po<; must mean
something like, in its entirety; there may be a parallel for this usage at OGIS 519 line 14.
43 Lines 8-9: dva|Kxf|oaa0ai iri|i 7raipanav apx^v.
44 Note the relevant entries from the index Res et verba notabiliora in OGIS vol. 2, p. 719: cpiAoun0 (iai
passim , cpiAonnia passim , (piAoTi|ao<; passim . Evidently, the term qnAoTijiot; was so common that it
could even become a title, and in some regions was so well known that it could be abbreviated cpiX, (pi or
simply (p: see Robert 1955, 40 and id. 1987, 225-6 with n. 14. On the development of the concept from
the Classical into the Hellenistic periods, see esp. Whitehead 1983 and id. 1986, 241-52; Hornblower
1981, 187 and n. 18. Cf. Dover 1974, 230-3 on the older sense of the concept. Note also Ma 2000, 191
and 216, who does not examine (piA.oii|iia per se, but does discuss zeal in euergetical language.
Berossos N arrative o f Nabopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar II from Josephus 85
actions of a bcnefactor who repairs or renovates temples and other cult objects (e.g. statues)
in Greek inscriptions of the period.45 A few examples will have to suffice to demonstrate the
point. An early case of both these words can be found in the same passage of an honorific
decree, R hodes/O sborne 2003 no. 46 lines 3-5, used to describe the benefactions of one
Polystratus of the Attic deme Halai Aixonides, honoured for work he sponsored on the tem
ple o f Apollo Zoster in around 360 BC:
Kai [Ai]av (ptA,OTt[ilcolc [e7t]e|oKijaKev to iepov, Kai t<x ayaA^aTa KSKoa|ariKv (xsra tcov
aip80VTO)V I K TCOV5r||iOTWV
and [Polystratus] equipped the temple in way that displayed extreme love o f honour, and has,
with those elected from the demesmen, adorned the statues ... (R hodes/O sborne trans ) 46
Another particularly illustrative text is SIG 3 1050 from Eleusis at the end of the Fourth
Century. The aptly named Tlepolemus son of A[? is thanked for his benefactions to the cult:
jtiSf| TAr|7t 6 ]|A|K)c; A [... 17 ... Ka]Aw<;Kai cpt[AoTt^coc47 Kai i)0 (3w]^ t|mv ip[a>v 7U[iAiTai
Kai t]o to[u]| I1Aoijtcovo<; tp[ov KaAco<; K]oa^r|Cv
since Tlepolem us son o f (?) ... well and zealously, and piously cares for the sacred things and
decorated beautifully the temple o f Pluto (lines 2 -6 )
O f much greater relevance, and therefore also significance, is OGIS 219 again. W hile not
about Antiochus Is upkeep of temples, nonetheless the text does employ the same sort of
language in connection w'ith his actions securing peace for the cities of the Tauric region of
Asia Minor:
|iTa Jtaorn; o 7tou 8 fj(; Kai cptAoTtfitac ajia Kai Tatq 7toAotv ir|v tpf|vr|v KaT<7 Ku|aov
with all eagerness and zeal he both secured peace for the cities ... (lines 14-15)
These examples should suffice to show that the words Berossos chose to describe
Nebuchadnezzars work on the temple of Bel and the other shrines of Babylon are familiar
from the language o f euergetism found in late classical and early Hellenistic era Greek in
scriptions, some of these even emanating from the Seleucid rulers themselves. Such language
must have pervaded the Seleucid court and thus would have been known throughout the
officialdom and elites of the empire, in which circles no doubt Berossos moved. But again,
the main point of interest is that in using these term s Berossos either deliberately character
ized Nebuchadnezzar as a beneficent Hellenistic ruler, or did so out of habit.
With the very next section of Berossos narrative of Nebuchadnezzar we run into yet
another way that we can see the historians engagement with the new dominant culture of
his land. But in this case it is not the official language of his new masters with which he is
engaged; rather, it is the Greek historiographic legacy of writing on Babylon and its marvels.
45 See, e.g., Robert 1970, 348-49 and n.l.
46 Rhodes/Osborne 2003, 232-3, while noting the texts alignment with the developments discussed by
Whitehead (see n. above), do note that the actual collocation Aiav cpiAorinox; is unique.
47 I am not unaware that (piAoiipux; here is almost entirely between square brackets (a supplement by
Hiller von Gaertringen); but given its ubiquity, and that of related forms, and their certain presence in
my other examples, the parallel with Berossos text still seems valid.
86 John D illery
The tip-off comes at the start o f Ap. 1.140, where Berossos summarizes N ebuchadnezzars
building o f Babylons walls, and then turns to his palace constructions, which culminate in
Berossos mention o f the famous Hanging Gardens. I quote again the end of Berossos first
narrative on Nebuchadnezzar, beginning with the passage in question:
(140) Having walled the city in noteworthy (d^to^oyftx;) fashion, and having decorated the gate
ways in a m anner befitting sacred space, he built next to the palace o f his father another adjoin
ing it, the extent o f which and the rest o f its magnificence, if one were to describe, would be
probably long, except that, though so great and splendid in its extravagance it was completed in
15 days. (141) In this palace, having built up lofty stone substructures and made their appearance
look very much like mountains, he planted them with all m anner o f trees, and he completed and
fitted out the garden that is called hanging (x o v K aA .ou p svov K p s p a a x o v 7 ta p a 8 io o v ), because
of his w ifes desire for mountain scenery, having been raised in the regions o f Media.
The word that catches the eye is, o f course, noteworthy (a^io^oyax;). At one level, the
word can be seen to derive from the same linguistic register of euergetism I have just been
discussing: so, in OGIS 229, at line 9, we hear o f Seleucus IPs philotim ia towards Magnesia
on the Maeander, and in lines 10-11, o f the deified Antiochus II and Stratonice honored
with noteworthy honors (tihgo|!|vod<; a^ioA,oyoi<;). But in the context here I believe
afyoXoyaq carries a special valence, one that I should add in no way has to replace the more
conventional sense, but can work alongside it. The walls of Babylon had captivated the
imaginations o f Greek authors for centuries before the time o f Berossos. The construction
of Babylons brick walls attracted Herodotus minute attention for one (Hdt. 1.178-9),48 and
his description was picked up by later authors, notably Aristophanes in his Birds of 414BC
(lines 552, 1125-41).49 Perhaps even more important for the present discussion is the fact that
the construction o f Babylons walls the nature of the bricks, the height of the walls - was
also o f great im portance to historians o f Alexander, and in particular Clitarchus (FGrHist
137 F 10 = Diod. 2.7.3-4). Greek authors often asserted that the wall, along with many of
the citys other marvels, were built by the legendary queen Semiramis, a point that Berossos
was keen to dismiss (F8 = Jos. Ap. 1.142; see also below).50 But, as will be seen below, it is
more likely that Berossos was reacting to what Clitarchus wrote. Clitarchus, too, rejected the
standard view that Semiramis was the builder o f the walls of Babylon, perhaps on Berossos
authority, which, if true, would make Clitarchus notice the first external testimonium to
Berossos Babyloniaca .5I Clitarchus seems also to have rejected Bel as the one responsi
ble for Babylons walls (cf. Curt. 5.1.24, following Clitarchus), a claim that Berossos does
not make, though he has the city present at the beginning of time (F 1 = Syncellus Ecloga
p. 29 Mosshammer), and later has the survivors of the Flood refound it (F 4 = Syncellus
Ecloga p. 32 Mosshammer). W hatever Clitarchus may have said, Babylons walls and their
48 See esp. Rollinger 1993, 67-8, 106-37, the latter section surveying modern discussions of Herodotus
treatment of Babylons walls.
49 Note esp. Fornara 1971, 28-30, but already in Wells 1923/1970, 178-9; also Dunbar 1995, 374 and 595
ad locc. For a recent endorsement of an Aristophanic parody of Herodotus on the building of Babylons
walls, see Hornblower 2006, 307 and n. 10. Asheri 2007, 51 and 199 ad Hdt. 1.179.1 expresses doubts. For
a general statement on the enduring view of Babylon as a marvel among Greek authors, esp. its walls,
see Henkelman/Kuhrt/Rollinger/W iesehofer 2011, 449; Foster 2005, 207.
50 Cf. Baumgartner 1950, 73.
51 Cf. Pearson 1960,230-1.
B erossos N arrative o f N abopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar II from Josephus 87
bituminous bricks (see above) were of great interest to Greek authors, from Herodotus on
wards, including the historians who treated Alexanders conquest of the city.52
Hence it is distinctly possible that when Berossos wrote that Nebuchadnezzar had fortified
the city of Babylon a^io^6yco<;, he may well have meant quite literally in a manner worthy
of record, acknowledging thereby the celebrity of the walls construction among later Greek
authors, as well as no doubt also in native Babylonian sources such as N ebuchadnezzars
rock cut inscription at Wadi Brissa (esp. Col. 6 lines 46ff.).53 Herodotus and others helped to
establish Babylons walls as one of the great wonders of the world.54 Presumably Berossos
had no quarrel with this estimation. In a sense, Berossos could be seen to be responding to
expectations on the part o f his Greek reader in much the same way M anetho did when he
drew notice to Souphis ... who raised up the greatest pyramid, another wonder of the world,
but who then went on to correct Herodotus (FGrHist 609 F 2 = Syncellus Ecloga pp. 63-4
Mosshammer).55 These hellenophone non-Greeks writing priestly history at the beginning
of the Hellenistic period knew what the new rulers of their lands wanted to hear about. And
what is more, we should not forget that d^io^oyo*; -ov/a^ioq, -a, -ov ?i6yoi) is a marked
historiographic term for Greek writers, signaling not just what is worthy of record, but
the competitive assertion that whatever is a^io^oyov is memorable or most memorable
despite what others say.56
Thus it is with some surprise and consternation that we read the teaser in Berossos
next sentence: [Nebuchadnezzar] built next to the palace of his father another adjoining it,
the extent o f which and the rest o f its magnificence, if one were to describe, would be prob
ably long, except that, though so great and splendid in its extravagance it was completed in
15 days. W hy the reticence, if Berossos plan was to highlight the celebrated monuments
of Babylon? The language of wonder and paradox is unmistakably in play: although a vast
addition to the urban space of Babylon, this second palace was built in only fifteen days.
The attention to the speed with which the structure was built participates in the Greek
ethnographic topos of the potentates ability to construct and manipulate fabricated space
on a massive scale thanks to the access to unimaginable levels of labor: similar are the
descriptions of enormous works in Herodotus (e.g., the inscription containing the report of
expenditures for the pyramid of Cheops, Hdt. 2.125.6-7, or Xerxes canal at Athos and bridge
across the Hellespont, the former even identified by Herodotus as built because of Xerxes
52 See Van De Mieroop 2003, esp. 265; also Sack 1982, 114-15.
53 Weissbach 1906, 26 and cf. 4. More generally, Kuhrt 1987, 53 on the engagement of Berossos with Greek
historiography.
54 The walls of Babylon were included in the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the first complete list
for which is dated to the late second century BC (Philo of Byzantium): see Brodersen 1992, 60.
55 Loucpiq ... o<; tt)v |ieyioxr|v ^yeipe 7n)pa|ji 8 a, r]v (pr)oiv HpoSotoi; imo Xeonoc, yeyovevai. Manetho cor
rected Herodotus in two ways. First, by rendering as Souphis in Greek the all-important fourth name
of the second pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, Khufu, which in the late pronunciation of Manethos day
would have been Shufu; for Egyptian hw.f-wi pronounced Shufu in Late Period, see Lloyd 2007, 329
ad Hdt. 2.124.1. Cf. von Beckerath 1999, 52. Second, Manetho placed the pyramid builders in the right
place in his king list (unlike Herodotus), and thereby created temporal space where there had been none
in Herodotus narrative.
56 Most famously at Thuc. 1.1.1 of the Peloponnesian War as the most worthy of record (d^io^oywxaTOv)
of the (wars) that had happened before. But see also Xen. Hell. 5.1.4, and, more relevant, Hdt. 2.148.2-3,
where notable (d^io^oyog) temples at Ephesus and Samos, as well as walls and public works through
out the Greek world, pale in comparison with the pyramids and esp. the labyrinth near Lake Moeris.
Cf. Bakker 2002, 25.
88 John Dillery
megalophrosyne Hdt. 7.24). There may also be something of a contrast that is meant to be
felt here too, inasmuch as this massive structure would literally take up too much space in
Berossos description if he were to report on it in detail. The enormous size o f Babylon was
proverbial in Greek circles: thus the silly stories passed on by Herodotus and Aristotle that it
was so large that C yrus capture o f its outskirts during a festival went unnoticed for a con
siderable period of time (Hdt. 1.191.6, Arist. Pol. 1276a29). Could Berossos deliberately have
chosen not to give notice to Nebuchadnezzars palace in part to play off his text against
Herodotus and others?58
O f course this suggestion is speculative in the extreme. More secure is Berossos handling
of the Hanging Gardens, yet another wonder Babylon provided the ancient world.59 They
are the one detail from N ebuchadnezzars palace complex that Berossos perm its him self to
report on in any kind o f detail: In this palace, having built up lofty stone substructures and
made their appearance look very much like mountains, he planted them with all m anner of
trees, and he completed and fitted out the garden that is called hanging (tov KaA,ou|ivov
Kpen-aoTov 7rap&5eioov), because of his w ifes desire for mountain scenery, having been
raised in the regions o f M edia. As with a^io^oyax;, I think that Ka^otijievov reveals that
Berossos means to acknowledge another feature o f Babylon that had achieved celebrity
among Greek authors. It could perhaps be argued that Berossos is being polemical through
his use o f the term KaXoti|ivo<; - that in fact the gardens in question were not really hang
ing but were called that by misinformed writers.60 This may be so, but the net effect would
be the same, if with an additional note o f criticism: the gardens were not hanging, but
planted on platforms with substructures, or even in a sunken area. But by whom were they
mistakenly called hanging if not by ill-informed Greek writers on Babylon? W hile still
noting the celebrity o f the marvel, Berossos would also be correcting.
A major issue is connected to Berossos notice of the Hanging Gardens. Stephanie Dailey
has suggested that Berossos was the first ancient authority to situate the Gardens in Babylon,
based on a misreading o f an inscription o f Sennacherib in which that king advertised his
responsibility for elaborate works at Nineveh, at a location briefly known as Babylon.61 This
proposal is in line with her larger argument that the absence of the Gardens from Herodotus
is due to the fact that they were never at Babylon, rather at Nineveh. W hile in sympathy with
her strong and often expressed support for the veracity of Herodotus,621 cannot follow her
on this point. I believe that, quite apart from the legitimately troubling issue o f the absence
of the Gardens in Herodotus, by Berossos time Greek historical writing had most assuredly
taken notice o f them and had located them in Babylon. The chief figure responsible for this
was Clitarchus.
O ur evidence comes from Diodorus. At Diod. 2.10.1 we are told that there existed
also next to the acropolis the so-called Hanging Garden which Semiramis did not build,
rather a later Syrian king, for the sake o f a mere concubine (urcfjpxe 5e Kai o Kpefxaoioc;
Kcdoi3|ivoc; Kfj7to<; Tiapa iriv aKpo^okv, oi) Sefiipd|ai5o<;, a l i a xivoq uoiepov lu p o u
57 Cf. Munson 2001, 240-1 on ethnographic bigness as a signifier of wealth and power.
58 For further discussion of Nebuchadnezzars palace, and the Flanging Garden, see Rollingers contribu
tion to this volume.
59 The first item in Philo of Byzantiums list of the Seven Wonders: Brodersen 1992, 22. Cf. Finkel 1988.
60 Cf. Foster 2005, 216.
61 Dailey 1994, 55-7; cf. Dailey/Reyes 1998, 105.
62 See esp. Dailey 1996 and 2003.
Berossos N arrative of N abopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar II from Josephus 89
Paadeax; KaiaoKEudaavxoi; xaptv yuvaiKO<; 7raAlaKfj<;).63 It has long been recognized that,
though Ctesias is the main source for Diodorus for this portion of Book 2, this sentence can
not derive from him. In our passage, Diodorus employs the term Syrian to mean Assyrian ,
just as Clitarchus had done, though elsewhere Diodorus uses Aooupioc; to mean A ssyrian;
significantly, Q. Curtius Rufus, commenting on the same circumstances of the origins of the
Gardens, speaks of a Syriae rex (Curt. 5.1.35), and he seems to be following Clitarchus as
well.64 This linguistic detail needs to be set in the larger context of Ctesias and Clitarchus
competing views on Semiramis. To judge from his fragments, Ctesias was a strong advocate
for the importance of Semiramis in Babylonian history, counting her the founder o f the city
(Diod. 2.7.2ff. = Lenfant F lb, Stronk 2010, 212-18), as well as a world conqueror. On the
other hand, as we have already noted, Clitarchus m inim ized Sem iram is role in the build
ing o f the city. This difference has led several scholars, most notably Konig, to attribute the
whole of Diod. 2.10, not just the first sentence, to Clitarchus.65
But however we decide the question of Diodorus source for the Hanging Gardens, it is
incontrovertible that they were an important topic in Greek historical writing, and what is
more, a topic of concern either a generation before the time of Berossos, or contemporary
with him, if Clitarchus is responsible for the description at Diod. 2.10.66 Thus it is distinctly
possible, even probable, that Berossos was taking part in a current debate among Greek
historians: who was responsible for the Hanging Gardens, Semiramis (Ctesias) or another
monarch (Clitarchus)? I cannot help noting in this connection that very nearly the same
phrase is used at both D iod./C litarchus 2.10.1 and Jos./B erossos Ap. 1.141 (o KpE(j,aoT6c;
Ka^oTj|isvo<; KfjTtoq/iov Ka^oufxevov Kp|a,aoxov 7capd8iaov). It is for this reason that I have
a hard time accepting Daileys argument that Berossos was him self responsible for wrongly
placing the Gardens in Babylon. Berossos could not have originated the claim that Gardens
were located in Babylon. W hat would have been his motive in inventing the Gardens if they
did not really exist? Either they really were in Babylon and Greek authors had noted them,
or they were not there but there were structures of some sort that Greek writers thought were
Hanging Gardens.
Perhaps there is a larger problem lurking in the one major difference between Clitarchus
and Berossos wording (if theirs of course): Kfj7io<; versus 7uapd5iao<;. W hile not exclusively
so, Kf|7to^ is mostly found in poetry and is a true Greek word; 7iapd6too^ is a loan word
from Persia (cf. Avestan pairi-daeza-, MIran. pardez), and was used for the first time in
Greek literature by Xenophon (e.g. An. 1.2.7), and is thereafter quite rare, occurring in
Theophrastus (e.g. HP 4.4.1), the LXX and New Testament, as well as documents, espe
cially from the Ptolemaic world (e.g. SIG 3 463 line 8, OGIS 90 (the Rosetta Stone) line 15,
63 It is worth paying particular attention to the phrase xpiv yuvomcot; nallaKX\q: yuvf) and other substan
tives can be used as attributive adjectives (Kuhner-Gerth 2.1 271-2), here emphasizing the remarkable
fact of the inspiration for such an important structure in so unimportant a person, hence my translation
mere. Note, by way of contrast, that in the corresponding section of Berossos/Josephus, the woman in
question is clearly described as Nebuchadnezzars wife (xriv yuvaiKa aiitot) Ap. 1.141).
64 Jacoby 1875, 590-1; Krumbholz 1895, 223; Schnabel 1923, 35; Schwartz 1931, 385 n. 12; Jacoby Komm.
to FGrHist 137 F 2; Pearson 1960, 230; Bigwood 1980, 199 and n. 20; Boncquet 1987, 95-6 and n. 406.
65 Konig 1972, 143 n. 1; note also Boncquet 1987, 95 and n. 405, Stronk 2010, 155 n. 8 .
6 6 See Fraser 1972, 2.717-18 nn. 3 and 4 with bibliography, for the dating of Clitarchus: probably c. 315
300 BC, though perhaps as late as 287-60, and very probably before Ptolemy Is own Alexander history.
For a recent discussion of Clitarchus date, see Prandi 2012.
90 John Dillery Berossos N arrative o f N abopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar II from Josephus 91

P.Rev.Laws 33.11, P.Cair.Zen. 33.3).67 It is clear from at least the perspective of Xenophon
in a passage from his Oeconomicus that while all paradeisoi were kepoi, not all kepoi were References
paradeisoi (Oec. 4.13); furthermore, curiously, the participle kaloumenos is also used in this A sheri 2007
D. Asheri, Herodotus Book I, in: D. A sheri/A . L loyd/A . Corcella, A C omm entary on Herodotus
passage from Xenophon, but to help account for the term paradeisos, not krem astosP The
Books I-IV . Edited by O. M urray and A. Moreno, Oxford 2007, 57-218.
Persian word denoted a park - a large space that would presumably take up a lot of room in
Bagnall 1976
an urban setting and thus be hard to miss.69 A kepos need not be so big, but could describe R. S. Bagnall, The Adm inistration o f the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt, Leiden 1976.
an orchard or garden even, that in the hands o f a later author could be exaggerated into a Bakker 2002
full-blown park. But in any case, would Berossos have really disabused the Greeks of the E. J. Bakker, The m aking of history: H erodotus histories apodexis', in: E. J. B akker/1. J. F. de
error if there was one? It seems to me much more likely he would have gone along with the Jong/H . van W ees (eds.), B r ills Companion to Herodotus. Leiden, Boston and Cologne 2002,
misunderstanding inasmuch as it redounded to Babylons credit. Saying the city had been 3-32.
Barclay 2007
founded by Semiramis was quite another matter; that did require correction. J. M. G. Barclay, Against Apion. Translation and Comm entary (Flavius Josephus. Translation and
Commentary, ed. Steve Mason, Vol. 10), Leiden 2007.
Conclusions B aum gartner 1950
Toward the end o f her magisterial article o f 1987 Amelie K uhrt canvassed several rea W. Baumgartner, Herodots babylonische und assyrische N achrichten, Archiv Orientalni 18 (1950),
sons why Berossos wrote the Babyloniaca, the last being to provide the Seleucid dynasty 69-106.
with an ideological support.70 Essentially endorsing this view, K uhrt proposed two ways Beaulieu 1989
P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign o f Nabonidus K ing o f Babylon 556539BC. Yale N ear Eastern
that Berossos could have provided this support with his narrative of Nabopolassar and Researches 10. New Haven, CT and London.
Nebuchadnezzar II in particular. As an integral element in the process o f consolidation Beaulieu 2003
of Seleucid rule in Babylonia, Berossos account in the first instance could have offered P.-A. Beaulieu, N abopolassar and the antiquity o f Babylon, Eretz-Israel 27 (2003) (H ayim and
a counterbalance to the view o f Egypts Sesostris III from Hecataeus of A bderas own M iriam Tadmor Volume), l*-9*.
Aegyptiaca as a world conqueror; not only was the magnificent rebuilding of Babylon by Beckerath 1999
J. von Beckerath, H andbuch der agyptischen Konigsnam en, M ainz 1999.
the first two Neo-Babylonian rulers stressed, but also their mastery, historically impossible
Beekes 2010
as we have seen, over Phoenicia, Coele Syria, even Egypt! But secondly, the tandem of R. Beekes, E tym ological D ictionary o f Greek. 2 vols, Leiden and Boston 2010.
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar could also have been meant to act as specific m odels Beloch 1925/1927
for the father-son team of Seleucus I and Antiochus I.71 Similarities real and imagined linked K. J. Beloch, G riechische G eschichte 4. 2 vols. Berlin and Leipzig 1925/1927.
both sets o f rulers, and in particular the fact that both were the first rulers o f new regimes Bengtson 1937/1952
H. Bengtson, D ie Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht. 3 vols.
in Babylonia needing to establish their legitimacy by m aking telling links with the past.
Mtinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 26, 32 and 36, M unich
This merging, if we can call it that, o f Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar with Seleucus I
1937/1952.
and Antiochus I goes a long way towards explaining the anachronisms of Berossos nar Bengtson 1988
rative of the first two Neo-Babylonian rulers, as well as the language the historian used to H. Bengtson, H istory o f Greece from the Beginnings to the Byzantine Era. Trans, from G erman
characterize the achievements o f Nebuchadnezzar in particular. In this context it is both edn. o f 1969, O ttaw a 1988.
instructive but not surprising to find that in the Astronomical Diary for 188/187 we see a Bigwood 1980
J. M. Bigwood, D iodorus and Ctesias, Phoenix 34 (1980), 195-207.
relic of Nebuchadnezzar (a purple garm ent Sachs/H unger 1988/1989. 2.333) prominently
Bikerm an 1947
displayed in a ceremony of homage paid by Antiochus III at the Esagila - proof that the Neo- E. Bikerman, La Coele-Syrie. Notes de geographie historique, Revue Biblique 54 (1947), 256-68.
Babylonian king was so important a personage for the Seleucid presence in Babylonia. 72 Boeckh 1845
A. Boeckh, Manetho und die H undssternperiode. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pharaonen,
Berlin 1845.
Boiy 2010
T. Boiy, Royal and satrapal arm ies in Babylonia during the Second Diadoch War. The Chronicle of
the Successors on the events during the seventh year of Philip A rrhidaeus (= 317 /16 BC), Journal
o f Hellenic Studies 130(2010), 1-13.
67 See Chantraine 1983/1984, 2.857; Beekes 2010, 2.1151; and LSJ s.v. Also Gautier 1911, 71. For further Boncquet 1987
documentary examples from the Zenon archive (early Ptolemaic Egypt): P.Lond. 2043.9 and 2164.57. J. Boncquet, D iodorus Siculus (II. 1-34) over Mesopotamia. Een historische kommentar, Brussels
68 oi 7rapa5eiooi iccdouiaevoi. See Briant 2002, 443; Pomeroy 1994, 247-8 ad loc. 1987.
69 Though for another urban paradeisos, note Xen. Oec. 4.20: tov ev XapSeoi Jiap&8cioov. Bosworth 1974
70 Kuhrt 1987, 55. A. B. Bosworth, The governm ent o f Syria under A lexander the G reat, Classical Q uarterly 24
71 Kuhrt 1987, 56. (1974), 4 6 -6 4 .
72 Sherwin-W hite/Kuhrt 1993, 97 and cf. 216.
 92 John Dillery Berossos N arrative o f Nabopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar 11 from Josephus 93

Bosworth 1980 Forbes 1936

A. B. Bosworth, A H istorical Comm entary on A rria n s H istory o f Alexander. To date 2 vols., R. J. Forbes, B itumen and Petroleum in Antiquity, Leiden 1936.
Oxford 1980. Forbes 1955
Briant 2002 R. J. Forbes, Studies in A ncient Technology. Vol. 1, Leiden 1955.
P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander. A H istory o f the Persian Empire. Trans, from French edn. Fornara 1971
1996, W inona Lake, IN 2002. C. W. Fornara, Evidence for the date o f H erodotus publication, Journal o f Hellenic Studies 91
B rinkm an 1968 (1971), 25-34.
J. A. B rinkm an, A Political H istory o f Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158-722 BC. A nalecta O rientalia Foster 2005
43, Rome 1968. K. P. Foster, The H anging Gardens o f N ineveh, Iraq 6 6 (2005), 207-20.
B rinkm an 1973 Fraser 1972
J. A. Brinkm an, Sennacheribs Babylonian problem: an interpretation, Journal o f Cuneiform P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols., O xford 1972.
Studies 25 (1973), 89-95. G autier 1911
B rinkm an 1979 L. Gautier, La Langue de Xenophon, Geneva 1911.
J. A. Brinkm an, Babylonia under the Assyrian Empire, 745-627 BC, in: M. T. Larsen (ed.), Power George 1992
a n d Propaganda. A sym posium on Ancient Empires. M esopotam ia 7, Copenhagen 1979, 223-50. A. R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts. O rientalia Lovaniensia A nalecta 40, Leuven 1992.
Brodersen 1992 G oosens 1948
K. Brodersen, R eisefuhrer zu den Sieben Weltwundern. Philon von B yzanz und andere antike G. Goossens, Les recherches historiques a lepoque N eo-B abylonienne, Revue d Assyriologie et
Texte, Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig 1992. d a rcheologie orientale 42 (1948), 149-59.
Brosius 2000 Grayson 1975
M. Brosius, The Persian Empire fro m Cyrus II to A rtaxerxes I. LACTOR 16, London 2000 A. K. Grayson, A ssyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5, Locust
Brunt 1976/1983 Valley, NY 1975.
P. A. Brunt (ed.), Arrian. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA. Grayson 1991
Burstein 1978 A. K. Grayson, Assyria: Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (704-669 BC), in: The Cambridge Ancient
S. M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus. SANE 1.5, Malibu, CA 1978. H istory 3.2 2 (1991), 103-41.
C hantraine 1983/1984 G utschm id 1893
P. Chantraine, D ictionnaire Etym ologique de la Langue Grecque. 2 vols, Paris 1983 /1984. A. von G utschm id, Vorlesungen iiber Josephos Bucher gegen Apion, in: F. Riihl (ed.), id. Kleine
D ailey 1994 Schriften vol. 4, Leipzig 1893, 336-589.
S. Dailey, Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens: cuneiform and classical sources recon Habicht, 1958/2006
ciled, Iraq 56 (1994), 45-58. C. Habicht, Die herrschende G esellschaft in den hellenistischen M onarchien, Vierteljahrschrift
Dailey 1996 f u r S o zia l-u n d W irtschaftsgeschichte 45 (1958), 1-16 = id. The ruling class in the Hellenistic
S. Dailey, H erodotos and Babylon, OLZ 91 (1996), 525-32. m onarchies, in: The H ellenistic Monarchies. Selected Papers. A nn A rbor 2006, 2 6-40.
Dailey 1998 Heinen 1984
S. Dailey, Occasions and opportunities 1. To the Persian conquest, in: S. Dailey (ed.), The Legacy H. Heinen, The Syrian-Egyptian w ars and the New K ingdoms o f Asia Minor, in: The Cambridge
o f Mesopotamia, Oxford 1998, 9-33. A ncient H istory2 7.1 (1984), 412-45.
Dailey 2003 H enkelm an/K uhrt/R ollinger/W iesehofer 2011
S. Dailey, W hy did Herodotus not mention the H anging Gardens o f Babylon?, in: P. D erow /R . W. H enkelm an/A . K u h rt/R . R ollinger/J. Wiesehofer, H erodotus and Babylon reconsidered, in:
Parker (eds.), H erodotus a n d his World. Essays from a Conference in M em ory o f George Forrest R. R ollinger/B . T ruschnegg/R . Bichler (eds.), H erodot und das Persische Weltreich. Herodotus
Oxford 2003, 171-89. and the Persian Empire. Classica et O rientalia 3, W iesbaden 2011, 449-70.
D alley/R eyes 1998 Hornblower 1981
S. D ailey/A . T. Reyes, M esopotam ian contact and influence in the Greek world 1. To the Persian S. Hornblower, H ieronym us o f Cardia, Oxford 1981.
C onquest, in: S. Dailey (ed.), The Legacy o f M esopotamia, Oxford 1998, 85-106. H ornblower 1982
Dover 1974 S. Hornblower, Mausolus, Oxford 1982.
K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the time o f Plato a n d Aristotle, Oxford 1974. Hornblower 2006
D rews 1975 S. J. Hornblower, H erodotus influence in antiquity, in: C. D ew ald/J. M arincola (eds.), The
R. Drews, The Babylonian Chronicles and B erossus, Iraq 37 (1975), 39-55 Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, Cam bridge 2006: 306-18.
Dunbar 1995 Hornblower 2011
N. D unbar, Aristophanes Birds, Oxford 1995. S. J. Hornblower, The G reek World 479323BC, Fourth ed., London and New York 2011.
Eddy 1961 Inowlocki 2005
S. K. Eddy, The King is Dead. Studies in the N ear Eastern Resistance to H ellenism 334-31 BC, S. Inowlocki, La pratique de la citation dans le Contre Apion de Flavius Josephe, Ktema 30
Lincoln, NE 1961. (2005), 371-93.
Finkel 1988 Jacoby 1875
I. L. Finkel, The H anging Gardens of Babylon, in: P. A. C layton/M . J. Price (eds.), The Seven C. Jacoby, Ktesias und Diodor, eine Q uellenuntersuchung von Diodor B. II, c. 1 34, Rheinisches
Wonders o f the Ancient World, London and New York 1988: 38-58. Museum 30 (1875), 555-615.
 94 John Dillery B erossos N arrative o f N abopolassar and N ebuchadnezzar II from Josephus 95

Jahne 1974 Prandi 2012

A. Jahne, Die Syrische Frage, Seleukeia in Pierien und die Ptolem aer, Klio 56 (1974), 501-19. L. Prandi, New Evidence for the Dating o f Cleitarchus (POxy LXX I.4804)?, Histos 6 (2012),
Jones 1993 15-26.
C. P. Jones, The decree in honor o f a king A ntiochus, Greek, Rom an, a n d Byzantine Studies 34 Pucci ben Zeev 1993
(1993), 73-92. M. Pucci ben Zeev, The reliability o f Josephus Flavius: the case o f H ecataeus and M anethos ac
K linkott 2 0 0 0 counts o f Jews and Judaism: Fifteen years of contem porary research (1974-1990), Journal ofJew ish
H. K linkott, Die Satrapienregister der Alexander- und Diadochenzeit. H istoria E inzelschriften Studies 24 (1993), 215-34.
145, Stuttgart 2000. Reinach 1930
Koepp 1884 T. Reinach, Flavius Josephe. Contre Apion, Paris 1930.
F. Koepp, Ueber die syrischen Kriege der ersten Ptolem aier und den B ruderkrieg des Seleukos R ey-Coquais 2006
K allinikos und A ntiochos H ierax, Rheinisches M useum 39 (1884), 209-30 J.-P. Rey-Coquais, Inscriptions et toponym es hellenistiques de Phenicie, Studi Ellenistici 19
Konig 1972 (2006), 99-117.
F. W. Konig, D ie Persika des Ktesias von Knidos. Archiv fur Orientforschung Beiheft 18 Graz R hodes/O sborne 2003
1972. P. J. R hodes/R . Osborne, G reek H istorical Inscriptions 404-323 BC, Oxford 2003.
K rum bholz 1895 Robert 1955
P. K rum bholz, Zu den A ssyriaka des K tesias, Rheinisches M useum 50 (1895), 2 0 5 -4 0 L. Robert, Hellenica. R ecueil d Epigraphie de N um ism atique et dA ntiquites Grecques. Vol. 10,
K uhrt 1987 Paris 1955.
A. Kuhrt, Berossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A. K u h rt/S . Sherwin-W hite Robert 1970
(eds.), Hellenism in the East. The Interaction o f G reek an d non-G reek Civilizations from Syria to L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes, A m sterdam 1970.
C entral A sia after Alexander, London 1987, 32-56. Robert 1987
K uhrt 1995 L. Robert, D ocum ents d A sie Mineure, Paris 1987.
A. K uhrt, The A ncient N ear East c. 3000-330B C . 2 vols., London 1995. Rollinger 1993
Lanfranchi 2000 R. Rollinger, Herodots babylonischer Logos, Innsbruck 1993.
G. B. Lanfranchi, The ideological and political im pact o f the A ssyrian im perial expansion on the S achs/H unger 1988/1989
Greek world in the 8 th and 7th Centuries B C , in: S. A ro /R . M. W hiting (eds.), The Heirs o f Assyria. A. J. S achs/H . Hunger, A stronom ical D iaries and R elated Texts fro m Babylonia. 2 vols, W ien
Melammu Symposia I. Helsinki 2000, 7-34. 1988/1989.
Laqueur 1982 Sack 1982
R. Laqueur, M anethon, R E 14(1982), 1061-1101. R. H. Sack, N ebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus in folklore and history, M esopotam ia 17 (1982),
Lehm ann-Haupt 1921 67-131.
C. F. Lehm ann-Haupt, Satrap, R E 2 A (1921), 82-188. Sartre 1988
Lenfant 2004 M. Sartre, La Syrie Creuse nexiste pas, in: P.-L. G atier/B . Helly/J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds.),
D. Lenfant, Ctesias de Cnide, Paris 2004. Geographie H istorique au P roche-O rient (Syrie, Phenicie, Arabie, grecques, romaines, byzan-
Liverani 2011 tines), Paris 1988, 15-40.
M. Liverani, Later M esopotam ia, in: A. F eldherr/G . Hardy (eds.), The O xford H istory o f Schm itt 1976
H istorical Writing, Vol. 1: Beginnings to AD 600, Oxford 2011: 29-52. Schmitt, R. 1976. D er Titel Satrap , in: A. M orpurgo/W . Meid (eds.), Studies in Greek, Italic
Lloyd 2007 and Indo-European Linguistics: O ffered to L eonard R. Palmer on the Occasion o f his Seventieth
A. B. Lloyd, Herodotus Book II, in: D. A sh eri/A . Lloyd/A . Corcella, A Com m entary on Birthday, June 5, 1976, Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft 16, Innsbruck 1976, 373-90.
H erodotus Books I-IV . Edited by O. M urray and A. Moreno, Oxford 2007, 219-378 Schnabel 1923
Ma 2000 P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig and Berlin 1923.
J. Ma, Antiochos III a n d the Cities o f Western Asia Minor, Oxford 2000. Schwartz 1931
Meyer 1904 E. Schwartz, Einiges tiber A ssyrien, Syrien, K oilesyrien, Philologus 40 (1931), 373-99.
E. Meyer, Aegyptische Chronologie, Berlin 1904. Shalit 1954
M uller 2009 A. Shalit, Ko&n Supta from the mid-fourth century to the beginning of the third century BC.
S. Muller, Das hellenistische K onigspaar in der medialen Reprasentation. Ptolemaios II und Scripta H ierosolym itana 1 (1954), 64-77.
Arsinoe II. Beitrage zur A ltertum skunde 263, Berlin and New York 2009. S herw in-W hite/K uhrt 1993
Munson 2001 S. Sherw in-W hite/A . Kuhrt, From Sam arkhand to Sardis. A new approach to the Seleucid empire.,
R. V. M unson, Telling Wonders. Ethnographic a n d P olitical D iscourse in the Work o f Herodotus, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1993.
A nn A rbor 2001. Stern 1974/1984
Pearson 1960 M. Stern, G reek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols., Jerusalem 1974/1984.
L. Pearson, The L ost H istories o f A lexander the Great, New York I960. Stolper 1985
Pomeroy 1994 M. W. Stolper, Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murasu Archive, the M urasu Firm, and Persian
S. B. Pomeroy, Xenophon Oeconomicus. A Social a n d H istorical Commentary, O xford 1994. Rule in Babylonia, Leiden 1985.
96 John D illery

Stolper 2005
M. W. Stolper, A chaemenid languages and inscriptions, in: J. C u rtis/N . Tallis (eds.), Forgotten
Empire. The World o f A ncient Persia, Berkeley and Los Angeles 2005, 18-24.
Stronk 2010
J. P. Stronk, C tesias Persian History. Part I: Introduction, Text, and Translation, D iisseldorf 2010.
Thackeray 1926
H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus. The Life. Against Apion. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA
and London 1926. 3. Society, Religion and Culture
Van De M ieroop 2003
M. Van De Mieroop, R eading Babylon, Am erican Journal o f Archaeology 107 (2003), 257-75.
Van De M ieroop 2004
M. Van De M ieroop, A H istory o f the A ncient N ear East ca. 3000-323 BC, M alden, Oxford and
V ictoria 2004.
W albank 1957/1979
F. W. W albank, A H istorical Commentary on Polybius. 3 vols., Oxford 1957/1979.
W albank 1981
F. W. W albank, The H ellenistic World, Cambridge, MA 1981.
Weissbach 1906
F. H. Weissbach, D ie Inschriften Nebukadnezzars II im Wadi Brisa und am Nahr el-Kelb. W VDOG
5, Leipzig 1906.
Welles 1934
C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the H ellenistic Period. A Study in G reek Epigraphy,
London 1934.
Wells 1923/1970
J. Wells, Studies in Herodotus. 1970 repr. o f 1923 edn., New York 1923/1970.
W hitehead 1983
D. W hitehead, Competitive outlay and com m unity profit: (piXoxi(ita in dem ocratic A thens,
Classica et Medievalia 34 (1983), 55-74.
W hitehead 1986
D. W hitehead, The D emes o f A ttica 5 0 8 /7 ca. 250BC, Princeton 1986.
Will 1979/1982
E. Will, H istoire Politique du M onde H ellenistique (323-30 av. J.-C .)2. 2 vols., N ancy 1979/1982.
Wilson 2006
A. Wilson, W aterproofing, in: Cambridge D ictionary o f Classical Civilization, Cam bridge 2006,
942.
W iseman 1985
D. J. W iseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. Schweich Lectures 1983, Oxford 1985.
Wiseman 1991
D. J. W iseman, Babylonia 605-539 BC , in: The Cambridge Ancient H istory2 3.2, 229-51.
Yoyotte 1958
J. Yoyotte, Nechao ou Neko, in: D ictionnaire de la Bible Supp. 6 , Fasc. 31, 363-93.
 The Astronomical Fragments of Berossos in Context
John M. Steele (Brown University)

Much about the same tim e with Eratosthenes, Berosus, a native o f Chaldea, flourished
at Athens. Josephus, in his answ er to Apion, tells us that he was much esteem ed by all
lovers o f learning for his great knowledge in astronomy, and the Chaldean philosophy;
and that he w rote many books concerning these m atters in the G reek tongue, some
of which are yet extant, w herein he affirm s that he had seen at Babylon astronom ical
ephem erides for 480 years inscribed on tyles. It has been supposed that many inven
tions, now ascribed to the later Greeks, were brought by this author from Babylon; whilst
others again contend that the G reeks owe little or nothing o f their astronom ical know l
edge to the Babylonians.
Roger Long, Astronomy, in Five Books (Cambridge 1742-84), p. 678.

These words in the eighteenth century astronomer Roger Longs Astronom y illustrate the
complexities of dealing with the astronomical fragments of Berossos.1 Ancient testimonies
describe Berossos as a great Chaldean astronomer or astrologer who settled in Cos and set
up a school to teach these disciplines in the Chaldean tradition and according to Josephus
was famed among those who are engaged in learning, because he published for the Greeks
works on astronomy and on the philosophy o f the Chaldeans.2 However, as only very small
fragments of astronomical material attributed to Berossos survive it is at first sight difficult
to know whether he lived up to his billing as the man who brought Babylonian astronomy to
Greece. Furthermore, the astronomical content of these fragments - supposedly based upon
Babylonian ideas - do not agree well with what is known from other classical sources about
Babylonian astronomy. Indeed, Long and other writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries generally did not rely on Berossos for information on Chaldean (i.e. Babylonian)
astronomy, instead basing their accounts upon Ptolemys descriptions of Babylonian astro
nomical observations, some rather general (and not always correct) statements by Aristotle,
Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, and the more technical, if brief, remarks by Geminus.3
It is only on the question of whether Babylonian astronomy significantly influenced Greek
astronomy that Long brings Berossos into the discussion. Long accepts a Babylonian origin
for several features of Greek astronomy, principally the 18-year eclipse cycle and the 19-year
calendar cycle,4 concluding that it is highly probable that they were first brought over into
Greece from Chaldea by Berosus'.5 There is, of course, no justification for this claim in any
1 Long died before finishing the final book of his Astronomy. Following his wishes, the book was com
pleted by Richard Dunthorne and William Wales. The passages under discussion here were probably
written by Dunthorne but based (at least in part) upon Longs notes.
2 T 3. Citations of the Berossos testimonies and fragments are taken from De Breucker 2010 unless oth
erwise noted.
3 Steele 2012, 52-57.
4 The Babylonian origin of the 19-year cycle (usually called the Metonic cycle) was an inspired guess for,
so far as I am aware, nothing in the classical sources provides direct evidence for this conclusion, which
has only been provided with the recovery of cuneiform sources.
5 Long 1742-84, 676.
 100 John M. Steele
o f the fragments o f Berossos, and Long is part o f a long tradition that blithely attributes to
Berossos the transmission o f any aspect o f Babylonian astronomy into the Greek world.
With the rediscovery and recovery o f Babylonian astronomy beginning in the 1880s, it
has been possible to compare the astronomy described in the astronomical fragments at
tributed to Berossos with contemporary astronomical practice in Babylon. Perhaps surpris
ingly, very little has been w ritten on this question by historians of Babylonian astronomy.
Archibald Henry Sayce in his Astronom y and astrology of the Babylonians of 1874, a work
that focuses only on texts o f celestial divination, praises Berossos as accurately represent
ing the state o f Babylonian astronomy, but the pioneers of the study of Babylonian scientific
astronomy, Joseph Epping and Franz Xaver Kugler, barely mention Berossos, if at all. The
reason is simple. The complex, mathematical astronomy they were finding in cuneiform
sources bore no resemblance to the low-level astronomy to be found in the Berossos frag
ments. In his Babylonische Mondrechnung (1900), Kugler provided for the first time direct
evidence of the transmission of Babylonian mathematical astronomy into Greece - the mean
length of the synodic month attributed by Ptolemy to Hipparchus being identical to the sixth
and final sexagesimal place (equivalent to the tenth decimal place) with the value found in
what is now called the Babylonian System B lunar theory - but it was clear that Berossos
was not the route for this transmission. As Neugebauer wrote in 1963:
That the Babylonian priest Berossos, dedicating his Babyloniaca to A ntiochus I, transm itted
Babylonian astronom y to his G reek pupils in Kos is comm on knowledge. ... The little, how
ever, that is preserved o f astronomical character in the fragm ents suffices to dem onstrate that
Berossos was totally ignorant o f the contem porary Babylonian astronomy when he was teaching
that the lunar phases were the result o f a rotation o f the moon, which he supposed to be h alf
luminous, half dark. The mathematical theory o f the lunar phases constitutes the best developed
and most sophisticated section o f Babylonian astronomy in the Seleucid period, leaving no room
for such prim itive doctrines. They were proper meat for G reek philosophers; for the transm is
sion o f Babylonian astronomy, however, Berossos can be safely ignored .6
Thus, whilst Berossos continues to feature prominently in popular accounts of ancient
astronomy,7 specialists o f Babylonian astronomy (and indeed of ancient astronomy more gen
erally) have more or less ignored him. For example, in his monumental three volume, four
teen hundred plus page A History o f Ancient M athematical Astronomy (1975), Neugebauer
mentions Berossos on seven occasions, for a total of eight sentences, all of which are dis
paraging. Hunger and Pingree in their A stral Sciences in Mesopotamia (1999), an essential
handbook for the study o f Babylonian astronomy, do not include Berossos in their index,
and I could not spot a reference to him in the main text. In my own work I have mentioned
Berossos only once, very briefly, and that was for the report that Nabonassar destroyed ear
lier historical records, rather than for his astronomy. The only scholar who would claim any
expertise in Babylonian astronomy to have written extensively on Berossos is Paul Schnabel
in his Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur (1923). Unfortunately, although
Schnabel made a useful contribution to the study o f the fragments o f Berossos, his work on
6 Neugebauer 1963, 529.
7 For example, Lawson 2005, 46, in his discussion of Babylonian astronomy, describes Berossos as the
most famous Babylonian astronomer.
The Astronom ical Fragm ents o f Berossos in Context 101
Babylonian astronomy has proved to be largely unsound, and as such his comments on the
issue of Berossoss relationship with Babylonian astronomy are not very useful.
Regarding the history of astronomy, Noel Swerdlow writes: Generally speaking, the less
said of Berossus, the better8 - a sentiment 1 find it hard to disagree with. My aim in this
paper is therefore not to try to use Berossos to help us understand Babylonian astronomy,
but rather to try to understand the so-called astronomical fragments in the context of wider
scholarly traditions in Babylonia and the Greco-Roman world. Part I outlines the content of
the astronomical fragments and discusses the question of their authenticity. Part II attempts
to place the fragments in the context of Babylonian and Greek scholarship. Finally, part III
investigates the reception of Berossos astronomical fragments, focusing particularly on how
his astronomy was presented and used by later Greek and Latin authors.
The astronomical fragments and the authenticity question
The so-called astronomical fragm ents of Berossos are twelve fragments (three o f which
are in Aetius and two in Pliny) numbered F 15F 22b by De Breucker.9 In collecting the
fragments of Berossos, Jacoby separated the astronomical (and a few other) fragments from
those he believed were part of Berossoss Babyloniaca, assigning the former to a (Pseudo)-
Berossos o f Cos.10 Unfortunately, Jacoby died before writing the commentary to this part
of his collection and so his reasons for distinguishing between the two Berossoses are not
known. The astronomical fragments can be divided into three main groups:
1. Short statements on the antiquity of Babylonian astronomy, the act of naming of the con
stellations, and the destruction of early astronomical records by N abonassar (F 15F 17).
2. Descriptions of a physical model to explain the phases of the moon (F 18F 20). O f these
three fragments, only Cleomedes (F 18) and Vitruvius (F20) provide any detail. To these
fragments should also be added a description of the same model in Lucretius, D e Rerum
Natura 5, 713-30 which contains a similar account of the lunar phases attributed to the
Chaldeans. This account is so similar to Vitruvius description of Berossos theory that
they must have a common source.
3. Astrological fragments (F21-F22b). These fragments deal with the idea of catastrophes
governed by the movement of the planets (F 21) and an astrological determination of the
maximum length of life as 116 years (F 22a-b).n
It is worth rem arking that none of these fragments are strictly astronomical in the way
the term is applied to either Babylonian astronomy of the first millennium BC or Greek
astronomy of the time of Hipparchus onwards by modern scholars. The most astronomical
of the fragments, those in group 2 above, would be better described as cosmological, whilst
those in group 1 can be seen as historical statements, akin to other parts of the Berossos
material. Grouping these fragments together and labeling them the astronomical fragments
has, I believe, skewed the discussion of this material, and in particular the question of their
authenticity. For example, because the astronomical fragments do not look like Babylonian
astronomy, this is taken to be evidence for their not being authentic, without wider consid
eration of their relationship with other aspects of Babylonian scholarship.
8 Swerdlow 1990, 2 with n. 3.
9 De Breucker 2010.
10 Jacoby 1958.
11 For the astronomy underlying the figure of 116 years, see Pingree 1997, 24.
 102 John M. Steele
The most detailed argument against the authenticity of the astronomical fragments is by
K uhrt.12 She points out that it is difficult to link any of Berossos arguments directly to any
cuneiform source and that both the notion o f astrological great years and the moon shin
ing with its own light are attested in Greek sources earlier than Berossos. Both points are
true, but do not in themselves preclude that Berossos should also discuss these issues. On
the general question o f the transmission o f Babylonian astronomy, Kuhrt also asserts that
Babylonian astronomy was not theoretically developed before the fifth century BC, and that
what transmission o f Babylonian astronomy to Greece occurred only as late as the first cen
tury BC. Recent research by Brack-Bernsen, Britton and m yself have shown that the origins
of theoretical astronomy can be pushed back to at least the early part of the sixth century
BC,13 if not earlier, and we know also that aspects of Babylonian astronomy were known in
the Greek world earlier than Kuhrt claims.14 Furthermore, whether or not we can identify
Berossos as the transm itter o f Babylonian astronomy to the Greeks - which he almost cer
tainly was not - is a separate question to whether Berossos him self knew and wrote about
astronomical topics.
An alternative opinion on the authenticity o f the astronomical fragments is given by van
der Spek.15 He notes that the so-called astronomical diaries contain in addition to astro
nomical observations reports of certain historical events, and argues that there are links
between these historical reports and the material in the Babylonian chronicles.16 In his view,
if Berossos used the material in the chronicles, it is therefore likely that he also had access to
the astronomical diaries, which suggests that some of (van der Spek acknowledges that not
necessarily all) the astronomical fragments are genuine. Against this argument, however, it
should be noted that there is no sim ilarity between the material in the astronomical diaries
(essentially records o f astronomical observations) and the Berossos fragments.
De Breucker, who elsewhere follows K uhrt in arguing against the authenticity of the
astronomical fragments, notes, that if Berossos was associated with the temple in Babylon,
as is clearly suggested by classical testimonies, he would have had access to a wide range
of Babylonian learning.17 Using evidence from the Res temple in Uruk, where much more is
known about the archaeological context o f recovered cuneiform tablet archives than is the
case for Babylon, de Breucker has noted that astronomical tablets were among the collec
tions o f the temple. The same would almost certainly have been the case in Babylon, where
we have textual evidence for the employment o f the tupsar Enuma Anu Enlil scribe (of the
celestial omen series) Enuma Anu EnliV within the temple,18 although we also know that
some tupsar Enuma Anu Enlil worked outside of a temple context and that private archives of
astronomical tablets also existed. The availability of astronomical material within the temple
archives, however, does not necessarily mean that Berossos would have had access to them.
We do not have sufficient information about the operation of the archives to know whether
12 Kuhrt 1987. De Breucker 2010 supports Kuhrts opinion that the astronomical fragments are not genu
ine to Berossos. Among those who have argued against this view are Burstein 1978 and Verbrugghe/
Wickersham 2001.
13 See, for example, Brack-Bernsen 1999, Steele 2000, Huber/Steele 2007 and Britton 2008.
14 See, for example, Pingree 1998.
15 Van der Spek 2008.
16 In reaching this conclusion van der Spek builds upon Grayson 1975, rejecting Brinkmans 1990 criticism.
17 De Breucker 2003.
18 See Rochberg 2000 and Beaulieu 2006b.
The Astronom ical Fragm ents o f Berossos in Context 103
all scribes in the temple would have had free access to anything they wished to consult.
Furthermore, even if Berossos did have access to astronomical tablets, there is no guarantee
that he could read and understand them. As I have argued elsewhere, cuneiform astronomical
texts contain technical language that I doubt would have been understood by the majority
of cuneiform scribes.19 Thus, a link between Berossos and the Babylonian temple does not
automatically imply that Berossos was conversant with Babylonian astronomy. Neither does
the connection between the chronicles and the astronomical diaries imply that Berossos
had access to the diaries, and even if he did, this does not mean he understood aspects of
Babylonian theoretical astronomy.
To conclude, we are left without a definite answer as to whether the astronomical frag
ments are genuine. As I will argue below, there appear to be links between some of the astro
nomical fragments and Enuma Elis, a work we know that Berossos drew on for his account
of the creation and the early history of Babylonia, and this suggests that part of the fragments
at least are genuine to Berossos and indeed reflect some Babylonian learning - though not, as
Neugebauer remarked, the Babylonian astronomy of his time. But let me repeat again, most
of the astronomical fragments do not contain astronomy; what they contain are either his
torical statements about things that we might think of as astronomy (naming constellations,
etc), or the cosmological topic o f how the moon shines. Berossos would not have had to
have been an astronom er to have w ritten on such topics. Nor is it necessary, or even likely,
for this material to have been included as astronom y in the Babyloniaca; the cosmologi
cal fragments discussing the moon could have fitted quite comfortably alongside the other
cosmogony in book 1, just as the description of the creation of the moon, the sun and the
constellations and their being assigned a celestial order appears in tablet 5 of Enuma Elis.
Nevertheless, whilst we might be able to trace a Babylonian origin for the some of the cos
mological material, other aspects of the content of the astronomical fragments are clearly not
Babylonian, and reflect Greek cosmological and astrological ideas and argumentation. Even
this should not automatically preclude that Berossos was their author, however. We must
allow for the possibility that Berossos was sufficiently conversant with Greek philosophy
to be able to recast Babylonian cosmological ideas using a Greek philosophical framework.
The astronomical fragments in the context of Babylonian and Greek scholarship
Babylonian astronomy of the first millennium BC was a highly advanced and multi-faceted
science that encompassed the observation and prediction of astronomical phenomena along
side astrological interpretation. Regular astronomical observations were made and recorded
on a night-by-night basis in documents known today as astronomical diaries from around
750 BC to about AD 75. By at least 600 BC, methods of predicting the beginning of the new
month (indicated by the new moon crescent) up to eighteen years in advance had been devel
oped, along with techniques for predicting the months and times at which eclipses of the sun
and moon were likely to happen, and certain planetary phenomena. By the end of the fifth
century BC, complex mathematical techniques were being applied to theoretical systems
for calculating lunar and planetary phenomena. At the same time, earlier astronomical and
astrological texts such as MUL.APIN (a compendium of star lists and schematic methods of
calculating astronomical phenomena) and Eniima Anu Enlil (the standard Babylonian collec
tion of celestial omens), as well as broader cosmological material discussing the creation and
19 Steele 2004.
 104 John M. Steele The Astronom ical Fragm ents o f Berossos in Context 105

geography o f the universe in literary works such as Enuma Elis,20 continued to be copied, 30 US (degrees), making a total of 360. Positions of a celestial body can be defined by
commentated on and used. How do the astronomical fragments attributed to Berossos com the number of degrees within a zodiacal sign - exactly equivalent to the Greek concept of
pare with the material found in these different sources? longitude - and by their vertical placement within the band within which they move - basi
The most astronomical theme in the so-called astronomical fragments is a model for the cally equivalent to latitude, though with a slightly different definition.23 The term for longi
appearance o f the moon. Cleomedes, Caelestia 2.4 introduces the model with details of the tude generally used in Babylonian astronomical texts is written using the logogram KI for
moons various motions: Akkadian qaqqaru place. Latitude is expressed by the phrase NIM u SIG, literally going
up and going down. It is interesting that in the fragment under discussion, the concept of
There have been several theories concerning the illum ination o f the Moon. Berossus actually
claimed that the Moon was h a lf fire, and that it moved with a plurality o f motions. First is the
motion in latitude is clarified by the phrase Kai vyoq Kai xa7reiva)(ia in height and depth,
one in longitude; second the one in latitude (that is, in height and depth [relative to the zodiacal almost a direct parallel to the cuneiform.
circle]), which is also seen occurring in the case o f the five planets; and third is the one around The statement that the motions of the moon are also seen for the five planets also parallels
its own center. Berossos believes that the Moon waxes and wanes as it rotates with this third Babylonian ideas. For example, the above passage from M UL.APIN continues:
motion, that is, as it turn s different parts o f itself tow ards us at different tim es, and that this
DIS K A SK A L dsin DU-ku dUTU DU-ak
rotation occurs in a tim e equal to its reaching conjunction with the Sun .21
DIS K A SK A L Asin DU-ku dsul-pa-e-a DU-ak
DIS K ASK AL dsin DU-ku ddili-bat DU-ak
The three motions assigned to the moon in this description are motion in longitude, motion DIS K ASK AL Asin DU -ku dsal-bat-a-nu D\J-ak
in latitude and rotation around its own centre. They are subdivided into two groups: motion DIS K A SK A L dsin D U -ku mulUDU.IDIM.GU4.UD sa dnin-urta DU-a/r
in longitude and latitude, which it is said are motions also of the planets, and rotation, which DIS K A SK A L dsin DU-ku dUDU.IDIM.SAG.US D\J-ak
presumably the planets do not have. Let us consider motion in longitude and latitude first.
The moon, sun and the five planets move through the sky relative to the fixed background The Sun travels the (same) path the Moon travels.
of stars. Their motions are confined to a thin band about 12 wide, known as the zodiacal Jupiter travels the (same) path the Moon travels.
Venus travels the (same) path the Moon travels.
band. In Greek geometrical astronomy, the centre of this band is the path o f the sun (the
M ars travels the (same) path the Moon travels.
ecliptic). The sun gradually moves around the ecliptic at about 1 per day, completing a full
M ercury whose name is N inurta travels the (same) path the Moon travels.
circuit o f 360 in one year. The Moon and the five planets move up and down as they go Saturn travels the (same) path the Moon travels .24
around the circuit o f the ecliptic. Distances along the ecliptic can be measured as celestial
longitude and distances perpendicular to the ecliptic are celestial latitudes. The terms used in I have argued elsewhere that a common feature of Babylonian astronomy is the extrapolation
this fragment for motion in longitude (fifjicot; literally length) and latitude (7rXaTO<; literally of arguments and models for the moon to the sun and the five planets. It is worth remarking
breadth) are common technical term s in Greek astronomy. Similar concepts are found in that the Berossos fragment compares the moons motion in longitude and latitude only with
Babylonian astronomy. For example, the early astronomical compendium MUL.APIN gives the motion of the five planets, not the sun. The reason is presumably because in (most) Greek
a list o f the zodiacal constellations through which the moon moves every month: geometrical astronomy, it is assumed that the sun cannot move in latitude. In Babylonian
astronomy, however, we know that the sun could move up and down within its path in other
DINGIRme\va ina KASKAL dsin GUBmes-ma dsin e-m a ITI ina pi-rik-su-nu DIBme5-w a TAGmeS-
su-nu-ti M U L.M UL mulGU 4.AN.NA mulSIPA.ZI.AN.NA mulSU.GI mulGAM muiMAS.TAB. words that it could have a motion in latitude.25
BA.GAL.GAL 'AL.LUL mulUR.GU.LA mulA B.SIN mu'zi-ba-ni-tu4 nni,GIR.TAB 'pa-bil-sag The fragment in Cleomedes continues by presenting the basis of the model for the phases
mulSUHUR.M AS mulGU-LA KUNme mulSIM .M AH mula-nu-ni-tu4 u mu" aHUN.GA of the moon attributed to Berossos. One half of the moons surface is covered in fire. As the
moon rotates on its axis, from our viewpoint on the Earth we see in turn none of this fire,
The gods who stand in the path o f the Moon, through whose regions the Moon in the course a thin strip of fire, half the moons surface covered with fire, the whole of the fiery side of the
o f a month passes and whom he touches: the Stars, the Bull o f Heaven, the True Shepherd of moon, and then progressively smaller amounts of fire until the lit side is facing away from
Anu, the Old Man, the Crook, the Great Twins, the Crab, the Lion, the Furrow, the Scales, the us and we once more see a dark moon. A more detailed account of Berossos model is given
Scorpion, Pabilsag, the Goat-Fish, the Great One, The Tails, the Swallow, A nunitu, and the by Vitruvius, De Architectura 9.2.1-2:26
Hired M an .22

The path o f the moon is clearly the band o f the zodiac. In later texts, the zodiacal band is
divided equally into twelve parts - our signs o f the zodiac - each of which is divided into
20 Horowitz 1998.
21 The translation is taken from Bowen/Todd 2004, 136-7, which more accurately renders the astronomical
terminology than other published translations.
22 MUL.APIN I iv 31-37; Hunger/Pingree 1989, 67-9.
23 See further Steele 2007.
24 MUL.APIN II i 1-6; Hunger and Pingree 1989, 70-1.
25 See Britton/Horowitz/Steele 2007 for a text concerning the calculation of the suns latitude, and the
further discussion in Steele 2007.
26 The philosopher of science Stephen Toulmin proposed a rather fanciful physical interpretation of
Berossos model, in which the moon moved on a rectangular orbit, and claimed that it probably repre
sented the cosmology of the common people of Babylon for which we have no contemporary evidence -
106 John M. Steele The Astronom ical Fragm ents o f Berossos in Context 107

Berossos taught as follows about the moon. It is a sphere, one half of which emits a white, glow is half. The fifteenth day shall always be the m id-point, the half of each month. W hen Samas
ing heat, while the other h alf as a dark blue color. W hen, however, it passes in its orbit under looks at you from the horizon, gradually shed your visibility and begin to wane. Always bring
the orbit o f the sun, the moon is overcome by the suns rays and the force o f its heat, and the the day o f disappearance close to the path o f Samas, and on the [29/30 ] day, be in conjunction
half o f the moon that em its a white, glowing heat turns back to the light o f day because o f the with the Sam as . 30
attraction of light to light. But when the upper parts o f the moon face the suns orbit, then the
moons lower part, which does not give off a white, glowing heat, seems to be obscured because
o f its resemblance to air. W hen the moon is perpendicular to the suns rays, all the light o f day Several similarities can be seen here. First, in both the Berossos model and in Enuma Elis
is retained on its upper part and is then called the first moon (new moon). the moon shines with its own light.31 Secondly, a scheme is presented for the phases of the
moon on the days of the month. The month begins with the new moon crescent after which
W hen the moon in its orbit is in the eastern part o f the sky, it has more freedom from the force in Enuma Elis the half-moon is reached on the seventh day, full-moon on the fifteenth, and
o f the sun, and the furthest part o f the m oons h alf that emits a white glowing heat sends its the moon disappears close to the sun (Samas) on the 29th or 30th day (unfortunately our only
glow to the earth in an exceedingly fine line. This state o f the moon is called the second moon. known manuscript for this part of Enuma Elis is damaged here). In the Berossos fragment
By the daily retardation o f its orbit, the third and fourth moon are num bered on the succes half-moon is also reached on the seventh day and full-moon is on the fourteenth. The days
sive days. On the seventh day, since the sun is in the west and the moon, halfw ay between of the lunar phases are also given in a first m illennium mystical commentary text known as
the eastern and w estern horizons, holds the middle areas o f the sky, the h a lf o f the moon that
I.NAM.GIS.HUR.AN.KI.A (unfortunately, badly damaged at this point):
emits a white, glowing heat is turned towards the earth because the moon is h alf the distance
betw een the earth and the sun. W hen there is the entire space o f the world betw een the sun and e-nu-ma TA ta-mar-t[i ... ]
the moon and when the sun in the west is opposite to the rising moon, the moon, where it burns DIS UD.7.KAM aga [ma-ds-la ... ]
most brightly, is freed from the suns rays and on the fourteenth day send forth its total light. UD.14.KAM / [ . . . ]
D uring the following days, the moon decreases daily to bring the lunar month to a close. In its sa-ba-tu4 [... ]
revolutions and orbit, the moon feels the suns wheel and rays, and then the order o f the days or UD.21.KA[M ...]
the month is com plete .27 UD.27.[KAM . . . ] s h [ ...]
UD.28.[KAM ...] i-tur [ ...]
This passage has divided historians, some seeing links with Babylonian learning, others U 4.NA[. A ... ] u-kin [ ... ]
ina [ ... ] e im -bu-u-su [ ... ]
claiming that it reflects purely Greek ideas. K uhrt writes the idea that the moon shines with
its own light may for all one knows indeed be a Babylonian idea, but it should be observed
When, from the appearance [ ... ]
that it is also attributed to Anaxim ander and Xenophanes by Aetius as well as to Berossos;
On the 7th day a [half] crown [ ... ]
further it is attested quite independently for Antiphon. In neither of these cases can one ob On the 14th day it [ ... ]
serve either a definite dependence on, or derivation from, Babylonian concepts or any clear The fifteenth day [ ... ]
attestation o f ... (this theory) forming part o f Babylonian astronomy.28 Burstein, however, The 21st day [ ...]
points to similarities between this passage and a passage in the fifth tablet of Enuma Elis, The 27th day [ ... ]
noting that this would imply that Berossos was drawing not upon contemporary Babylonian The 29th day [ ... ] it returned [ ... ]
astronomical ideas but on broader cosmological ideas that existed already in the second On the day o f its disappearance [ ... ] it established
m illennium BC.29 In [ ... ] he called him [ ... ] 32
It is clear that there are no similarities between what we think of as Babylonian astronomy
during the last five centuries BC - an observational and mathematical science without in And in a late Babylonian astrological text (again, badly damaged at this point):
terest in explaining causes - and the model for the lunar phases attributed to Berossos. If
[ ... -KAM ] Zi H A B -ra/ U4- [ ... ]
we look outside of the strictly astronomical material, however, we can find some parallels. [ ... ] U D-28-K A M U4-NA-A H A B -rat i-[ra-bi]
The clearest example, as Burstein notes, is contained in the fifth tablet of Enuma Elis. After [ ...] U 4- 8 -K AM V2 U A B -ra t U4-16-KAM H A B -ra /[ ... ]
creating the earth and the heavens, and setting up the constellations in the night sky, Marduk: [ ... H A B -ra]/ U4-28-K A m U 4-NA-A H A B -rat i-ra-b[i]
made the crescent moon appear, entrusted night (to it) and designated it the jewel o f night to
mark out the days. Go forth every month without fail in a crown, at the beginning o f the month, [... (On) the ... t]h day: h alf o f the lunar disc. (On) the [ ... th] day: [ ... ]
to glow over the land. You shine with horns to mark out six days; on the seventh day the crown [ ... ] (On) the 28th day, the day-w hen-the-m oon-disappears: the lunar disc is not [visible],
[ ... ] (On) the 8 th day: half o f the lunar disc. (On) the 16th day: the lunar disc. [ ... ]
see Toulmin 1967. See also the resounding demolition of Toulmins arguments by Aaboe and others
(which Toulmin blithely dismisses) in Isis 59, 91-4. 30 Translation based upon Dailey 1989, 256, with some modifications by the present author.
27 Translation by Verbrugghe/Wickersham 2001, 64-5. 31 Stol 1992.
28 Kuhrt 1987,40. 32 K 2164+2195+3510 Obv. 2-10. Transliteration and translations based upon Livingstone 1986, pp.22-3,
29 Burstein 1978, 16 with n.21. with modifications by the present author.
 108 John M. Steele
[(On) the ... th day: hald o f the lunar] disc. (On) the 28th day, the day-w hen-thc-m oon-disap-
pears: the lunar disc is not visib[le ] .33
Clearly there was a fairly widespread tradition o f schemes for the days of the lunar phases
during the month within Babylonian scholarship, probably beginning with E n u m a E lis, but
not consistent in the choice o f days. Indeed, it appears that the astrological text probably
had two different schemes for the days o f the lunar phases, perhaps based upon whether the
month contained 29 or 30 days (which happen with roughly the same frequency in a lunar
calendar). The existence o f these variant schemes within Babylonian sources (and there
were certainly more that are not preserved) implies that we should not seek exact agreement
between the Berossos scheme and any particular Babylonian scheme. Instead we should
focus on the similarities in the general structure of the schemes. Both the Berossos scheme
and the Babylonian schemes focus on three phases o f the moon: first half-moon, full moon
and disappearance o f the moon. Second half-moon is not considered in any of these schemes
(I.NAM .GIS.HUR.AN.KI.A may be an exception to this rule, but the text is badly damaged
at this point). Furthermore, both the Berossos scheme and the Babylonian schemes q u a n tify
the passage o f the phases o f the moon through the month by specifying the days on which
they occur - something that is in general not done in Greek works from around the time of
Berossos. The discussions o f the solar system by Aristotle, for example, are purely qualita
tive. To my knowledge, the earliest extant Greek source giving a description of the days of
the phases o f the moon is A ratus P h a e n o m e n a , probably written in the half century after
Berossos:
W hen the moon with slender horns is sighted in the west, she declares a w axing month; when
the first light shed from her is enough to cast a shadow, she says she is entering on the fourth
day; eight days she indicates at half-moon, mid-m onth when she is at full face. As she continu
ally changes her aspect with different phases, she tells which day o f the month is taking its
course .34
Thus, if Vitruvius is to be believed that Berossos specifies the days of the m oons phases,
this would represent an innovation in the w riting of a Greek text - not a very major one to
be sure as the material itself is fairly trivial - perhaps supporting the idea o f a Babylonian
origin. A word of caution must be raised here, however. The accounts of Berossos theory of
the lunar phases given by Cleomedes and Lucretius (who does not specify Berossos as the
source) are very brief and do not give the day numbers. They are only given in V itruvius
account. Vitruvius follows his discussion of Berossos with an account of Aristarchus theory
for the lunar phases which specifies the same days as he has in the Berossos theory. This
raises the possibility that Vitruvius has inserted the day numbers in the Berossos account
on the basis o f Aristarchus. Against this, however, it is worth noting that the Aristarchus ac
count includes mention o f the day o f waning half moon, which is missing from the Berossos
account and as we have seen also from Babylonian schemes.
Another similarity between Berossos scheme and E n u m a E lis is worth highlighting. On
the day of full moon, Berossos states that the sun is in the west, opposite to the rising moon.
This is clearly a reference to the moon and the sun standing on opposite horizons at sunset
33 AO 6483, Obv. 14. Sachs 1952, pp. 65-7.
34 Aratus, Phaenomena, 734-739; translation by Kidd 1997, 127.
The Astronom ical Fragm ents o f Berossos in Context 109
on the evening of the full moon, and parallels the statement in E n u m a E lis that on the day
of full moon, Samas (the sun) will look at the moon from the horizon. References to the sun
and moon being on opposite horizons at full moon are common in cuneiform texts. This
again points to a link between the E n u m a E lis tradition and the Berossos scheme writings.
However, it must also be remarked that there are also significant differences between the ac
count of the lunar phases attributed to Berossos and the Babylonian schemes. In particular,
the Berossos fragment explains the cause of the lunar phases to be the rotation of the moon
on its axis causing different amounts of the half side of the moon that is burning to face the
Earth. Nothing in Babylonian sources suggests a similar idea, whereas we know parallels
from earlier Greek sources. Similarly, the idea that the moon and sun move on orbits with
the moon below the sun is completely alien to Babylonian astronomy and cosmology, but is
standard in Greek cosmologies.
It seems, therefore, that in the model for the moon attributed to Berossos we have a mix
ture of Babylonian and Greek ideas - an attempt perhaps to clothe the Babylonian cosmology
of E n u m a E lis in Greek garb to make it understandable, or palatable, to a Greek audience.
It is worth remembering here that the lunar model attributed to Berossos is not what we
would think of as astronomy in the sense that we talk of Babylonian astronomy or even later
Greek astronomy as epitomized by Hipparchus or Ptolemy, but fits better in the philosophi
cal cosmological tradition. It seems very plausible to me that the lunar model comes out of
the cosmography of E n u m a E lis and related texts, developed either by Berossos or by later
tradition - along Greek philosophical lines. As such it would fit in with the cosmography of
book 1 of the B a b y lo n ia c a , and should not be seen as astronomy but as part of the story of
the creation of the heavens.
As de Breucker has em phasized ,35 one goal of the B a b y lo n ia c a was to promote
Babylonian antiquity and scholarship. We should see the so-called astronomical fragments
in this light, as part of his promotion of Babylonian scholarship. However, it is clear that
Berossos was not him self one of the astronomical scribes working in Babylonia. All of the
astronomy he explains has its origin not in contemporary Babylonian astronomy, but in
works such as E n u m a E lis, a literary epic that includes a brief cosmological section. He may
also have been aware of MUL.APIN, which was a widely known text both inside and outside
the small circle of astronomical scribes (many copies of M UL.APIN were found in archival
contexts quite different from the majority of Babylonian astronomical texts). But there is no
evidence that Berossos had access to or would have understood contemporary astronomical
texts. If he did, he did not include any of this material in the fragments that are preserved
to us. Indeed, including such material would probably have had the opposite effect to that
which Berossos sought: no-one in the Greek world at the beginning of the third century BC
would have been able to understand contemporary Babylonian astronomy, and, being uncon
cerned with issues of cause, it probably would have been viewed as irrelevant by astronomers
in the tradition of Plato and Aristotle. The transmission and assimilation of contemporary
Babylonian astronomy into Greek astronomy could only take place once Greek astronomy
itself had turned into a quantitative science in the second century BC.
35 De Breucker 2003a.
110 John M. Steele
The citation and use of Berossos by later classical writers on astronomy and astrology
The ancient testimonies mentioning Berossos frequently laud him for his astronomical and
astrological skill. It is interesting to ask, therefore, how Berossoss writings were presented
and used by later astronomical authors. First, it is perhaps surprising to note given the popu
lar perception presented in the testimonies that Berossos is not cited or referred to by any
of the serious, technical astronomers o f the Greco-Roman world: Flipparchus, Geminus,
Ptolemy, etc. Instead, references to Berossos are found only in works of a more general or
introductory nature. Indeed, among the authors who cite the so-called astronomical frag
ments, only Cleomedes is writing a work devoted to astronomy, and his Caelestia is not a
high-level work.
The sources o f the two main astronomical fragments, Vitruvius and Cleomedes, quote
Berossos for his theory o f the lunar phases (Cleomedes discussion of the moons other m o
tions appears as an introduction to this material). Interestingly, both these authors present
Berossos model as one o f several explanations for the moons phases and then argue against
it. Cleomedes presents three models for the lunar phases: Berossos model, a model in which
the moon is illuminated by reflected sunlight, and a third model, which he will argue is cor
rect, in which the moon is illuminated by a mingling of the suns light with the moons body.
Cleomedes dismisses Berossos model on several grounds:
His doctrine is easily refuted. First, since the Moon exists in the aether, it cannot be h alf fire
rather than being completely the same in its substance like the rest o f the heavenly bodied.
Second, what happens in an eclipse also conspicuously disconfirm s this theory. Berossus, that
is, cannot dem onstrate how, when the Moon falls into the E arths shadow, its light, all o f which
is facing in our direction at that time, disappears from sight. If the Moon were constituted as he
claims, it would have to become more lum inous on falling into the E arths shadow rather than
disappear from sight ! 36
Vitruvius contrasts Berossos model with one he attributes to Aristarchus in which the moon
is illuminated by reflected light from the sun. Vitruvius makes it clear that A ristarchus
model is to be preferred. Lucretius, presents three models: first the moon is illuminated
by reflected sunlight, second the Berossos model (attributed only to the Chaldeans), and
finally the suggestion that the moon is created anew with its own light each day. As is his
way, Lucretius does not argue for any one model over the others.
For these later authors, Berossos was useful as a rhetorical tool rather than for the details
of his astronomy. So far as we know, no later astronomer in the Greco-Roman world used
any o f Berossoss astronomy or attempted to develop it in any way. Instead, his astronomy
provided material that could be argued against in order to promote a different model. If the
alternative to the model an author wanted to promote was Berossos model, and Berossos
model was clearly problematical, then this was an implicit argument for the model the author
was promoting. Berossos astronomy was useful not in itself but for how it could be used as
a straw man in arguments for alternative astronomical models. The usefulness of Berossos
in this capacity was increased because Berossos had become a well-known name identified
with astronomical skill. Vitruvius, a few chapters after his discussion o f the illumination of
the moon, lists the inventors of various types o f sundial. Berossos is the first name in the
36 Cleomedes, Caelestia II.4; translation by Bowen/Todd 2004, 137.
The A stronom ical Fragm ents o f Berossos in Context 111
list, followed by Aristarchus, Eudoxus, Apollonius and several others (the attributions are
certainly fictitious - Vitruvius was an inveterate name-dropper). If another model was better
than Berossos, therefore, the implication is that it must be of the highest quality. W hether or
not the astronomical fragments are genuine, which I suspect they largely are, and whether
or not Berossos really understood any Babylonian astronomy, which he certainly did not,
for later authors he provided a valuable service as an authority figure, imbued both with
scientific prestige and a certain eastern exoticism, who could be argued against to promote
various astronomical models.
References
Beaulieu 2006
P.-A. Beaulieu, The astronom ers o f the Esagil temple in the fourth century B C , in: A. G uinan et
al (eds.), I f a Man Builds a Joyful House: A ssyriological Studies in H onor o f Erie Verdun Leichty,
Leiden 2006, 5-22.
B ow en/Todd 2004
A. C. B ow en/R . B. Todd, C leom edes' Lectures on Astronomy: A Translation o f The H eavens,
Berkeley 2004.
B rack-Bernsen 1999
L. Brack-Bernsen, Goal-year tablets: lunar data and predictions, in: N. M. Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient
A stronom y and C elestial D ivination, Cambridge, MA 1999, 149-78.
Brinkm an 1999
J. A. B rinkm an, The Babylonian chronicle revisited, in: T. A busch/J. H uehnergard/R Steinkeller
(eds.), Lingering O ver Words: Studies in A ncient N ear Eastern Literature in H onor o f William L.
Moran, A tlanta 1999, 73-104.
Britton 2008
J. P. Britton, Remarks on Strassm aier Cambyses 400, in: M. Ross (ed.), From the Banks o f the
Euphrates: Studies in H onor o f Alice Louise Slotsky, W inona Lake, IN 2008, 7-34.
B ritton/H orow itz/S teele 2007
J. P. B ritton/W . H orow itz/J. M. Steele, BCM A 1845-1982.2, Wiener Z eitschrift f u r die Kunde
des M orgendlandes 97 (2007), 43-54.
Burstein 1978
S. M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus, M alibu, CA 1978.
De Breucker 2003a
G. de Breucker, Berossos and the construction o f a Near Eastern cultural history in response
to the G reeks, in: H. Hokwerda (ed.), C onstructions o f G reek Past: Identity and H istorical
Consciousness fro m A ntiquity to the Present, Groningen 2003, 25-34.
De Breucker 2003b
G. de Breucker, Berossos and the M esopotam ian temple as centre o f knowledge during the
Hellenistic period, in: A. A. M acD onald/M . W. Twom ey/G . J. Reinink (eds.), Learned Antiquity:
Scholarship and Society in the Near-East, the Greco-Roman World, and the Early M edieval West,
Leuven 2003, 13-23.
De Breucker 2010
G. de Breucker, Berossos of Babylon, in: I. W orthington (ed.), B rills New Jacoby, Leiden.
Grayson 1975
A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley, NY 1975.
Horowitz 1998
W. Horowitz, M esopotam ian Cosmic Geography, W inona Lake, IN 1998.
112 John M. Steele The A stronom ical Fragm ents o f Berossos in Context 113

H uber/Steele 2007 Stol 1992

P. J. H uber/J. M. Steele, Babylonian lunar six tablets, SC IA M V S 8 (2007), 3-36. M. Stol, 1992, The Moon as seen by the Babylonians, in: D. J. W. Meijer (ed.), N atural
H unger/P ingree 1989 Phenomena: Their Meaning, D epiction and D escription in the Ancient N ear East, A m sterdam
H. H unger/D . Pingree, MUL.APIN: An Astronom ical Compendium in Cuneiform, Horn 1989. 1992,245-78.
H unger/Pingree 1999 Toulmin 1967
H. H unger/D . Pingree, A stral Sciences in M esopotam ia, Leiden 1999. S. Toulmin, The astrophysics o f Berossos the C haldaean, Isis 58 (1967), 65-76.
Jacoby 1958 Van der Spek 2008
F. Jacoby, D ie Fragm ente der griechischen H istoriker 3 C, Leiden 1958. R. J. van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and G reek historian, in: R. J. van der
K uhrt 1987 Spek (ed.), Studies in A ncient N ear Eastern World View and Society P resented to Marten Stol on
A. Kuhrt, Berossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A. K u h rt/S . Sherwin-W hite the Occasion o f his 65th Birthday, Bethesda, MD 2008, 277-318.
(eds.), Hellenism in the E ast: The Interaction o f G reek a n d non-G reek Civilizations fr o m Syria to V erbrugghe/W ickersham 2001.
Central A sia after Alexandria, Berkeley 1987, 32-56. G. P. V erbrugghe/J. M. W ickersham , Berossos and Manetho: Introduced and Translated, Ann
Kugler 1900 A rbor 2001.
F. X. Kugler, D ie Babylonische M ondrechnung, Freiburg im Breisgau 1900.
Lawson 2004
R. M. Lawson, Science in the Ancient World: An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara 2004.
Long 1742-84
R. Long, Astronomy, in Five Books, Cambridge 1742-84.
N eu g eb au er1963
O. Neugebauer, The Survival o f Babylonian methods in the exact sciences of antiquity and middle
ages, Proceedings o f the Am erican Philosophical Society 107 (1953), 528-35.
Neugebauer 1975
O. Neugebauer, A H istory o f A ncient M athem atical Astronom y, Berlin 1975.
Pingree 1997
D. Pingree, From A stral Omens to Astrology. From Babylon to Bikaner, Rome 1997.
Pingree 1998
D. Pingree, Legacies in astronomy and celestial om ens, in: S. Dailey (ed.), The Legacy o f
M esopotamia, O xford 1998, 125-37.
Rochberg 2000
F. Rochberg, Scribes and scholars: the tupsar Enuma Anu EnliT, in: J. M arzahn/ H. Neumann (eds.),
Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift filr Joachim Oelsner, M unster 2000, 359-76.
Sachs 1952
A. Sachs, Babylonian horoscopes, Journal o f Cuneiform Studies 6 (1952), 49-75.
Sayce 1874
A. H. Sayce, A stronomy and astrology o f the Babylonians, Transactions o f the Society o f Biblical
Archaeology 3 (1874), 145-339.
Schnabel 1923
P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig 1923.
Steele 2000
J. M. Steele, Eclipse prediction in M esopotamia, Archive fo r H istory o f Exact Sciences 54 (2000),
421-54.
Steele 2004
J. M. Steele, Applied historical astronomy: a historical perspective, Journal fo r the H istory o f
A stronom y 35 (2004), 337-55.
Steele 2007
J. M. Steele, Celestial measurem ent in Babylonian astronom y, Annals o f Science 64 (2007),
293-325.
Steele 2012
J. M. Steele, Ancient Astronom ical O bservations a n d the Study o f the M o o n s Motion (1691-1757),
New York 2012.
Swerdlow 1990
N. M. Swerdlow, Astronomical chronology and prophecy: Jean-Dom inique C assinis discovery
of Josephuss great lunisolar period o f the patriarchs, Journal o f the Warburg a n d Courtauld
Institutes 53 (1990), 1-13.
 Babylon during Berossos Lifetime
Tom Boiy (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Since Berossos describes him self as being of the age of Alexander (FGrHist 680 T 1) the
arrival of Alexander the Great in Babylon in 331 BC after the battle of Gaugamela is an ob
vious starting point for this chapter. The astronomical diary AD 1-330 describes the events
after the battle of Gaugamela in the historical notes concerning the month Tarltu of the
year 331 /O BC .1 On the 14th (or later?2) Alexander king of the world (sar kissati) entered
Babylon. The extant sections mention horses, equipment, Babylonians and people (of the
land?). A richer description of the arrival of Alexander in Babylon is preserved in classical
literature. A rrian Anab. 3.16.3 only reports that Alexander marched in closed battle order
to Babylon where the Babylonians together with their priests and leaders came to meet him
to surrender the city, the citadel and the treasury. A much more elaborate description can
be found in Curtius Rufus 5.1.19-23. Curtius too notes that Alexander approached Babylon
in closed battle order. He then gives a vivid description of Alexanders entry into Babylon.
A large num ber of Babylons inhabitants waited on the walls to greet their new ruler, but
even more went out from the city to meet him. Bagophanes, the head of the citadel and
the royal treasury, had the road decorated with flowers and placed silver altars for incense
and perfum es on both sides of it. Horses, cattle, lions and leopards were given as presents.
Afterwards the priests, Magi and Chaldaeans, and musicians came. The Chaldaeans ex
plained the movements of the celestial bodies. The last to arrive was the luxuriously dressed
Babylonian cavalry .3 Alexander entered the city in a war chariot and went to the palace. This
passage has often been used in the past as a sign of anti-Persian feelings, but Kuhrt 1990
convincingly showed that it was rather a staged event in a political-military situation where
resistance was no option anymore.
Alexander stayed in Babylon for 34 days, longer than any other stay during his campaign.
According to Diodorus (17.64.4), he remained that long because there was plenty to eat and
people were friendly. Curtius (5.1.36-39) is the only source to offer some further comment:
he thinks that the stay damaged the arm ys discipline because Babylon was, according to
Curtius, a most corrupt and decadent place. Fathers and husbands allowed their children and
wives to prostitute themselves for their guests. At large banquets, cherished by the Persian
kings, not only courtesans, but also mothers and young girls acted as striptease dancers.
Stories about the banquets of the Persian kings were popular in antiquity, but C urtius ac
count of mass prostitution reminds one rather o f Herodotus 1 199 on Babylonian morals and

1 AD 1-330:rev. 3 -1 5 .
2 Day 14 is mentioned in rev. 9 and Alexander only appears in rev. 11. Due to the lacunas in the text
it is not clear whether the passage in rev. 11 is to be dated to the same day or later.
3 Heller (2010, 370) interprets the cavalry as the Babylonian nobility (equites in the sense of the Roman
knights as a social class).
116 Tom Boiy
seems to have little in common with what really happened in Babylon at the end of the fourth
century BC .4
A fter one month Alexander was off to conquer new territories in the east, and he was not
to return until his soldiers forced him to leave India and turn back. Apart from A lexanders
stay in the palace in Babylon, the sources give us no information on the royal buildings
(or the elusive Hanging Gardens), but the sanctuary of Babylons main god M arduk/B el is
dealt with at some length. According to the classical sources, the sanctuary had fallen into
disrepair under the Achaemenid rulers and it was Alexander who ordered its restoration.
Diod. 17.112.3 and Strabo 16.1.5 mention the tomb of Bel that looked like a pyramid accord
ing to Strabo, which means that they probably described the ziqqurrat Etemenanki. Arrian
Anab. 3.16.4 and 7.17.1 and Josephus Contra Ap. I 192 refer to a sanctuary which may be
the temple Esagil and the ziqqurrat Etemenanki. Although this description is another exam
ple o f the tendency in classical historiography to blame the Achaemenid rulers (especially
Xerxes) and to glorify Alexander (see K uhrt/Sherw in-W hite 1987),5 it is clear from cunei
form documentation that clearing and restoration activities took place in Esagil either during
the reign o f Alexander the Great or soon afterwards: several receipts of payments intended
to clear the debris o f Esagil dated during the reign of Alexander (either Alexander the Great
or Alexander IV) have been found and the astronomical diary AD 1-321 and Babylonian
chronicles also refer to clearing o f debris from Esagil that took place or not after the death
of Alexander the G reat .6 Restoration is also attested for the reign of Antiochus I (see below).
These restoration activities cannot be used as indications that the Esagil temple was
neglected or ruined during the preceding Achaemenid period. Maintenance and regular
repairs were a necessity for all M esopotamian buildings in unbaked bricks at all times, and,
in addition, Alexander was acting as a legitimate Babylonian king by presenting him self as
a care-taker o f Babylons main temple, the Esagil. Restoring temples simply was a kings
duty, even if no major construction work was necessary - that a temple was restored at one
point does not necessarily mean that it did not function before (see also Heller 2010, 303,
383 and 391). A rrians remark that the priests o f Bel tried to stop Alexander from entering
Babylon upon his return from the east because it would become obvious that they had not
started to rebuild the temple and instead used the temples income for their own purposes
4 For Curtius tendency to moralize see Therasse 1973. From the Apocalypse and the commentaries of the
church fathers (e.g. Augustinus, De Civitate Deo XVIII 2, 22 and 27) it is clear that Babylon was often
used to describe Rome (see Uhlig 1974). It might be possible that Curtius - regardless of the exact date
of his Alexander history (see Seibert 1972, 30-1 and Atkinson 1998, 3451-5) - refers to decadence in
Rome when he described the situation in Babylon.
5 Cultic rearrangements in Babylonia took place during the reign of Xerxes after the Babylonian revolts
(see Waerzeggers 2003 and Kessler 2004), but this does not necessarily mean that Xerxes also destroyed
the Esagil temple in Babylon.
6 Payment receipts: CT 49 5 and 6 , Iraq 59 172 n 51 and AION Suppl. 77 69 (for their date see Boiy 2004,
110-11); astronomical diary AD 1-321 Rev. 14; chronicles BCFIP 3 (Obv. 25 and Rev. 13 and 31) and
BCHP 5 Obv. 5 (when Antiochus I was prince, see below). Glassner 2005, 248 (see also Heller 2010, 382)
restored the name Esagil in the lacuna of BCHP 4 1. 4 by but this does not fit the remains according to van
der Spek (see his comment on 1. 4 in http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-arses/arses_2.html).
In BCHP 3 Rev. 13 the beginning of the sign la is preserved before the text breaks off. Finkel and Van
der Spek 2006 were the first to notice this and interpreted the sentence as a negative statement (the debris
of Esagil was not removed). On the basis of this reading they also interpreted the other passages Obv. 25
and Rev. 31 as negative statements. Still, even the fact that the debris was not removed in that specific year
probably means that restoration (or preliminary works) were undertaken in other years, or at least planned.
Babylon during B erossos Lifetime 117
(Arrian Anab. 7.17.1-4) is problematic in this context. In the first place, it is unlikely that
Alexander did not receive any reports or messages concerning the situation in Babylon and
that he would not have known about a possible non-cooperation of the priests of Bel during
his absence. Secondly, the behaviour of the priests is not strange and does not need special
explanation: warning their king in case of unfavourable omens simply was one of their tra
ditional duties. Thirdly, if the payment receipts concerning tithes for removing the debris
of the Esagil temple are really to be dated during the reign of Alexander the Great, the start
of building activities is already attested for the period when Alexander the Great was in the
east. Finally, royal sponsorship was the normal practice when it came to temple building;
it is unlikely that a Mesopotamian temple could have afforded these large expenses solely
on the basis of its own income. If Alexander did not place these funds at the disposal o f the
temple and their priests earlier, it is not unreasonable that the planned restoration did not yet
go beyond clearing the rubble .7
After A lexanders death in Babylon (June 323 BC) problems arose from the lack of an
appropriate heir. Deliberations took place in Babylon and resulted in the so-called division
of Babylon. During the deliberations the Macedonian cavalry blocked grain transports to the
capital which resulted in food shortages and famine (Curtius 10.8.11-12). This action must
have had an effect on Babylons inhabitants, but since there was no siege and the standoff
ended quite quickly, the effect on the city of Babylon was probably nil.
After the next division of Alexanders empire at Triparadisus in 320 BC the satrapy of
Babylonia was awarded to Seleucus. Justin (15.4.11) and Orosius (3.23.44) mention that
he waged war against Babylon and that he captured it. The Chronicle of the Successors
(BCHP 3: Obv. 25) simply notes that the satrap of Babylonia arrived in Babylon and the
earliest possible date for this event is 10 A rahsam na of Phil.04 (14 November 320 BC). This
need not necessarily be the conquest of the city by Seleucus or his first arrival after he took
over the satrapy from Docimus. The historical notes in later astronomical diaries regularly
mention a satrap paying a visit to the city of Babylon .8
During the second Diadoch War (320-316BC) the city of Babylon is again mentioned
in the Chronicle of the Successors (BCHP 3: Obv. 33-37; TasrTtu Phil.07: October 317 BC)
in the context of a conquest involving royal troops and royal Hanu-troops. There is no
mention of this event in classical literature. To place it in its exact context it is necessary to
go deeper into the vexing chronological problems concerning the period with the so-called
high and low chronology hypotheses. According to the classical low chronology, Eumenes
wintered in Babylonia in 3 1 7 /6 BC, which means that Eumenes was in Babylonia and that
he conquered the city of Babylon. The reference to the royal troops fits with his office as
strategos of Asia and the Hanu were interpreted as the legendary Argyraspids that were
included in Eumenes troops (Smith 1924, 132 and 146-7). The high chronology hypothesis
is, however, also possible: both Eumenes and Antigonus were in Iran fighting their battles
and the classical historiographers give no information whatsoever on Babylonia. The satrap
of Babylonia Seleucus sided with Antigonus, and Antigonus might have left some of his own
troops (which could be called royal since Antigonus considered him self to be the official
strategos of Asia) in Babylonia when he took a part of Seleucus army east with him. It is
7 See also Heller 2010, 383-6.
8 The typical wording for such an event is he went from Seleucia to Babylon (see e.g. AD3-158B:
Rev. 17-18, AD3 129A, Obv. 6 and AD3-124A: Rev. 6 ).
118 Tom Boiy
now also clear that the term Hanu has nothing to do with Argyraspids so that this link with
Eumenes army is not valid anymore. What happened exactly to Babylon in October 317 BC,
and what role exactly was played by Seleucus troops and Antigonus royal troops, is not
clear (for a more detailed treatm ent of this passage, see Boiy 2010).
Not long afterwards, in 316 BC according to the high chronology, Babylon switched hands
from Seleucus to Antigonus. Seleucus welcomed Antigonus in Babylon when he returned
from Iran after his victories over Eumenes (App. Syr. 53 and Diod. 19.55.2), but quite soon
serious problems arose. W hen Seleucus punished an officer without asking the permission
of Antigonus, Antigonus demanded an account of Seleucus income (App. Syr. 53 and Diod.
19.55.3). Seleucus refused, the argument got out of hand and Seleucus fled to Egypt because
he feared for his life (App. Syr. 53 and Diod. 19.55.4-5). In Egypt he was welcomed by
Ptolemy (Diod. 19.56.1 and 86.4). Apart from a change of regime and a new satrap ,9 this
change had no immediate influence on the citys inhabitants since Seleucus flight was not
accompanied by m ilitary engagements.
In spring 311 BC Seleucus returned to Babylonia after the battle at Gaza (autumn 312 BC).
According to Diodorus 19.91.3-5 the people o f Babylon supported him and the troops loyal
to Antigonus withdrew to the citys citadel, which was subsequently besieged and conquered
by Seleucus. In the cuneiform material it is clear from the dating formulas that the change
took place in spring: CT 49 50 (from Borsippa) was still dated to Antigonus on 12 Ayaru (13
May 311 BC) whereas a tablet from Babylon is dated to Alexander I V 10 on 10 or 19 Ayaru
(11 or 20 May 311 BC; BM 22022). Concerning Babylons citadel, the Chronicle of the
Successors presents some information: BCHP 3: Rev. 6 says that he (i.e. Seleucus) was not
able to capture the palace either during the month Simanu or Duuzu, June or July 311 BC.
During the month Abu (August 311 BC), an action by Seleucus in order to capture the palace
is mentioned, but not its outcome (BCHP 3: Rev. 7)."
The classical authors, mainly Diodorus, give some further information on this episode.
Diod. 19.100.4 informs us that when the news o f Nicanors defeat (one of Antigonus gener
als, satrap o f Media and strategos o f the Upper Satrapies) at the hands of Seleucus reached
Antigonus, he immediately sent his son Demetrius Poliorcetes to Babylonia. Patrocles,
strategos in charge o f Babylonia while Seleucus was away in the east, considered his army
too small to fight against Demetrius and advised the inhabitants of Babylon to withdraw
into the desert or behind the river Tigris. When Demetrius arrived in Babylon, the city itself
was deserted and Demetrius besieged the citys citadels (Diod. 19.100.57). One o f the cita
dels was conquered and plundered by D em etrius soldiers (Diod. 19.100.7 and Plut. Dem.
VII 2). After besieging the second citadel for a few days, it was clear that capturing it would
take a long time. Demetrius therefore appointed Archelaus, one of his philoi, as strategos
of the siege, left behind 5,000 infantrym en and 1,000 cavalrymen, and took the rest of the
army west (Diod. 19.100.7). No information on the fate of the troops under the command of
Archelaus is available from the classical sources. In BCHP 3: Rev. 28 and L.E. 1 a person
9 Antigonus appointed Peithon, previously the satrap of India, as satrap of Babylonia instead of Seleucus
(Diod. 19.56.4).
10 Seleucus abandoned the new dating technique introduced by Antigonus and returned to the normal dat
ing habits by mentioning the king.
11 The chronology of the events following the battle of Gaza is debated and in this light the passage
BCHP 3: Rev. 7 has been interpreted in different ways in combination with the information from
Diodorus (for an overview see Boiy 2007, 124-8).
Babylon during B erossos Lifetime 119
called A-ri-is-ki-la-mu is mentioned (in Rev. 28 appointed as satrap) in the year 310/09 and
309/8 BC respectively. After the initial interpretation Arcesilaus, it was proposed to identify
this name as Archelaus .12 As is clear from the events mentioned by Diodorus, this period of
unrest must have had an impact on the city of Babylon and its inhabitants. And it was not
over after Demetrius left, as is clear from the Chronicle of the Successors. Antigonus him self
came with an army to Babylonia (BCHP 3: Rev. 15).13 From the month Abu until Tebetu
of AlexIV.07 (A ugust/Septem ber 310 until January/February 309BC; BCHP 3: Rev. 16)
fights between Antigonus and Seleucus are mentioned. Hostilities (weeping and m ourn
ing) in Babylonia are mentioned in the chronicle until the end of August 309 BC (BCHP 3:
Rev. 24 and 37). Babylon appears regularly in this context (went out from Babylon. He
plundered city and countryside; BCHP 3: Rev. 25). A few notes in the astronomical diary
AD 1-309 (Obv. 9 and 14), the diary concerning the month Abu of the year AlexIV.07
(A ugust/Septem ber 310BC), confirm this picture: panic in the land and the troops of
Antigonus fighting in [ ]. The text breaks off here and the editors propose the reading u[ru]
as determinative, but Geller 1990, 1 n. 3 tentatively reads re [ki!, placing the fights in Babylon.
The barley prices confirm the picture presented above: very high prices in the year
309BC attested in the astronomical diaries (A pril/M ay 3 0 9 BC: 7.5 litres for 1 seqel of
silver, 13.5 litres at the arrival of the new harvest, 9 litres in months August and September
309 BC, 9 litres until the end of the month September, then 14 litres). This high price co
incides with the last battle between Antigonus and Seleucus mentioned in the chronicle. The
Chronicle of the Successors confirms the prices (BCHP 3: Rev. 29 in the year 310/09 6 litres
of barley/seqel o f silver followed by illegal requisitioning, and the same price during some
unknown month of the following year (309/08 BC; BCH 3: Rev. 33). The high barley prices
were probably caused by the difficult circumstances (Van der Spek 2000, 301): Babylon and
the whole of Babylonia clearly suffered under the war.
The foundation of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris and the relocation of the Seleucid capital is
another event with important repercussions for the city of Babylon during Berossos life
time. Classical authors from the first century BC and first century AD (Strabo 16.1.5,
Pausanias 1.16.3, Pliny Nat Hist 6.122, Appian Syr 58) report that Seleucus forced the in
habitants of Babylon to move to the new capital and that he emptied Babylon (with the
exception of the temple of Bel and the Chaldaeans, or priests of Bel). Already at the very
beginning of the twentieth century, Pinches observed on the basis of unpublished astronomi
cal diaries (now in AD 3) that Babylon was still accepted as one of the cities of the land
(Pinches 1902, 483), yet the description in the classical sources was accepted in modern
literature until the available cuneiform evidence - historical notes in the astronomical diaries
and administrative documents - made it clear that Babylon continued to exist after Seleucus
I. Initially, confirmation of the picture drawn by the classical authors was found in a histori
cal note in an astronomical diary that was published at the end of the nineteenth century
and became well-known among ancient historians through Smiths Babylonian Historical
Texts. It is presently available as AD 1-273B: Rev. 34-3 9 and does not date from the reign
of Seleucus I, but from that of his successor Antiochus I. In the first place, it records that
12 For Arcesilaus see Geller 1990, 4 n. 19, for Archelaus see Van der Spek 1992, 249.
13 Antigonus campaign is dated securely by the Chronicle of the Successors to 310-309 BC. The campaign
of Demetrius mentioned in Diodorus is not so straightforward: despite the different leaders, it was
formerly identified with the hostilities mentioned in the Chronicle, but is now interpreted as a separate
expedition that took place in autumn 311 BC (see Boiy 2007, 124-8).
 120 Tom Boiy
the satrap o f Babylonia and royal servants (l0paqdumci sa lugal) went to the king in Sardis in
36 SE (276/5 BC) and arrived back in Seleucia-on-the-Tigris on 9 Addaru 37 SE (23 March
274 BC). They sent a letter to the inhabitants of Babylon. Its content is not revealed, but it
probably concerned their visit to the king or orders from the monarch. Afterwards, on the
twelfth day, citizens o f Babylon went to Seleucia (AD 1 273B: Rev. 34 -3 6 ). The journey
of Babylonians to Seleucia was interpreted as a deportation by orders of the Seleucid king
in order to populate the newly founded city o f Seleucia. In order to date the deportation,
Smith (1924, 155) read the sign du6 in this context, which he interpreted as the month name
TasrTtu or six months after the delegations return from Sardis. The new edition by Sachs
and Hunger (1988, 344-5) reads tattalku (the verb of the previous sentence) instead of sitri
du 6 solving the chronological problem: from the context it is now clear that the Babylonians
journey to Seleucia on day 12 did not take place six months later in TasrTtu, but three days
after the return o f the delegation from Sardis. The short period clearly indicates that it cannot
have been a large-scale deportation o f the whole population. It probably was a delegation of
a few members o f the kinistu o f Babylon (who were also called the Babylonians ) 14 bring
ing an answer to the letter sent to Babylon (see Van der Spek 1993, 97-8). Moreover, similar
formulas from the historical passages o f other astronomical diaries show that the verb eme
must not be translated as a causative, but that the basic meaning of the verb is intended: the
Babylonians were not forced to go to Seleucia, but went of their own free w ill .15
Why did the classical authors invent this story? Pausanias and Appian focus on Seleucus
and his piety; and on Seleucia (in a story about the right moment to start the work there) re
spectively. Strabo and Pliny on the other hand put the story in the context of their description
of Babylon and its history. They both present the town as a deserted place in their own time,
in contrast with Babylons magnificent past. They needed an explanation and the foundation
of nearby Seleucia was apparently the perfect solution.
The same Antiochus I was already involved in Babylon before. As crown prince he makes
offerings to Sin in Babylon according the Babylonian chronicle BCHP 5. If van der Speks
identification o f Antiochus in BCHP 6 as Antiochus I is correct, he is attested another
tim e in Babylon as crown prince, offering sacrifice on the ruins o f Esagil this time. As
king, Antiochus I is attested in the Borsippa Cylinder V R 6 6 that also attests his restora
tion works on the Esagil temple in Babylon. In addition, the historical note in AD 1-273B
concerning the year 37 SE - mentioned above in the context of traditions about the end of
Babylon - also records the moulding o f a large num ber of bricks for the reconstruction of
Esagil (AD 1-273B: Rev. 38). With the reign of Antiochus I, to whom Berossos dedicated
his Babyloniaca, and the positive statement that Babylon survived this period as a city, we
end the historical survey o f Babylon during the lifetime of Berossos.
The city o f Babylon underwent significant changes during Berossos lifetime. Despite
the loss o f its status as capital due to the foundation of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris and the stories
of mass deportation o f its inhabitants to the new centre, it remained an important place,
especially for the Babylonians. As the home to M arduk/Bel the city still had an impor
tant cultic function for all Babylonians. Apart from Esagil, several traditional temples in
Babylon (and other topographical features) appear in the cuneiform documentation from
14 For more on the kinistu of Esagil as the Babylonians, see Boiy 2004, 194-5.
15 For other examples of the use of the verb e in the historical notes of the astronomical diaries, see above
n. 8 .
Babylon during Berossos Lifetim e 121
Berossos lifetime and the later Hellenistic period (see Boiy 2004, 73-98). Etemenanki, the
ziqqurrat o f Esagil, is a notable exception: nothing is heard of it anymore after Alexanders
attempt to rebuild it. The efforts were probably abandoned after A lexanders death and
never revived afterwards. Apart from Babylons survival as a traditional Mesopotamian
city, the city also acquired some Greek features: the Greek style tiles on the royal palaces
(see W etzel/Schm idt/M allw itz 1957, 24 and 26) and the integration of a peristyle courtyard
into a traditional private house in the Merkes quarter (Reuther 1926, 148) cannot be dated
more precisely, but the earliest phase of the Greek theatre on Homera probably already dates
from the end of the fourth century BC (see W etzel/Schm idt/M allw itz 1957, 19-22).16
References
Atkinson 1998
John E. Atkinson, Q. Curtius Rufus Historiae Alexandri M agni , in: Wolfgang H aase/ Hildegard
Temporini (eds.), Aufstieg undN iedergang der Romischen Welt, II 34.4, Berlin 1998, 3448-83.
Boiy 2004
Tom Boiy, Late A chaem enid and H ellenistic Babylon (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 136),
Leuven 2004.
Boiy 2007
Tom Boiy, Betw een High and Low. A Chronology o f the Early H ellenistic P eriod (Oikumene
Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 5), F rankfurt am M ain 2007.
Boiy 2010
Tom Boiy, Royal and satrapal arm ies in Babylonia during the Second Diadoch War. The Chronicle
o f the Successors on the events during the seventh year o f Philip A rrhidaeus (=317/316BC), The
Journal o f Hellenic Studies 130 (2010), 1-13.
Finkel/V an der Spek 2006
Irvind L. Finkel/R obartus J. van der Spek, Babylonian chronicles o f the Hellenistic period, in:
M esopotamian Chronicles, http://w ww .livius.org/cg-cm /chronicles/chron00.htm l [04/11/2010],
G eller 1990
Markham J. Geller, Babylonian Astronomical Diaries and corrections o f D iodorus, Bulletin o f the
School o f O riental and African Studies 53 (1990), 1-7.
G lassner 2005
Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles (W ritings fro m the A ncient World 19), Atlanta
2005.
Heller 2010
Andre Heller, D as Babylonien der Spatzeit (7.-4. Jh.) in den klassischen und keilschriftlichen
Quellen (Oikumene. Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 7), Berlin 2010.
Kessler 2004
K arlheinz Kessler, U rukaische Familien versus babylonische Familien. Die N am engebung in
Uruk, die D egradierung der Kulte von Eanna und der Aufstieg des G ottes A nu, Altorientalische
Forschungen 31 (2004), 237-62.
16 Four building phases were distinguished for the Greek theatre in Babylon: the end of the fourth cen
tury BC, the reign of Antiochus IV 174-164 BC, the reign of Mithradates II 123-86 BC and the second
century AD. The Greek inscription that mentions the restoration of the theatre by Dioskourides, AA
1941 815-16 fig. 14, dates from the last phase and the references to the building, called bit tamarti in
Babylonian, in the historical notes of the astronomical diaries date to the second century BC and the
beginning of the first (see Van der Spek 2001 and Boiy 2004, 40 and 93-4).
 122 Tom Boiy

K uhrt 1990
Amelie K uhrt, Alexander and Babylon, in: Heleen Sancisi-W eerdenburg/Han J.W. Drijvers (eds.),
The Roots o f the European Tradition. Proceedings o f the 1987 Groningen A chaem enid H istory
Workshop (Achaemenid H istory V), Leiden 1990, 121-30.
K uhrt/Sherw in-W hite 1987
Amelie K uhrt/S u san M. Sherwin-W hite, X erxes destruction o f Babylonian tem ples, in: Heleen
Sancisi-W eerdenburg/ Amelie K uhrt (eds.), The G reek Sources (Achaem enid H istory II), Leiden
1987, 69-78.
Pinches 1902
Theophilus G. Pinches, The O ld Testament in the Light o f the H istorical Records a n d Legends o f
A ssyria and Babylonia, London 1902.
Reuther 1926
Oscar Reuther, D ie Innenstadt von Babylon (W issenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen der D eutschen
O rient-G esellschaft 47), Leipzig 1926.
Sachs/H unger 1988
Abraham S achs/H erm ann Hunger, A stronom ical D iaries and R elated Texts fr o m Babylonia.
Vol. 1 (O sterreichische Akadem ie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. D enk-
schriften 195), W ien 1988.
Seibert 1972
Jakob Seibert, A lexander der Grosse (Ertrdge der Forschung 10), D arm stadt 1972.
Smith 1924
Sidney Smith, Babylonian H istorical Texts Relating to the Capture a n d D ownfall o f Babylon,
London 1924.
Therasse 1973
Jean Therasse, Le jugem ent de Quinte-Curce sur Alexandre. Une apreciation morale independante,
Les etudes classiques 41 (1973), 23-45.
U hlig 1974
Siegbert Uhlig, Die typologische Bedeutung des Begriffs Babylon, Andrews University Sem inary
Studies 12 (1974), 112-25.
Van der Spek 1992
Robartus J. van der Spek, Nippur, Sippar, and Larsa in the Hellenistic Period, in: Maria deJong Ellis
(ed.), N ippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
Philadelphia, 1988 (Occasional publications o f the Sam uel Noah Kram er Fund 14), Philadelphia
1992,235-60.
Van der Spek 1993
R obartus J. van der Spek, The Astronom ical D iaries as a source for A chaem enid and Seleucid
history, Bibliotheca Orientalis 50 (1993), 91-101.
Van der Spek 2000
Robartus J. van der Spek, The effect of war on the prices of barley and agricultural land in Hellenistic
Babylonia, in: Jean A ndreau/Pierre B riant/R aym ond Descat (eds.), Economie antique. La guerre
dans les economies (Entretiens d a rcheologie et d'histoire de Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges 5),
Saint-Bertrand-de-Com minges 2000, 293-313.
Van der Spek 2001
Robartus J. van der Spek, The theatre o f Babylon in cuneiform , in: W. Van Soldt/J. G.
D ercksen/N . J. C. K ouw enberg/Th. J. H. Krispijn (eds.), Veenhof A nniversary Volume: Studies
presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion o f his sixty-fifth Birthday (Publications de I I nstitut
historique-archeologique neerlandais de Stam boul 99), Istanbul 2001, 443-56.
W aerzeggers 2003
Caroline W aerzeggers, The Babylonian revolts against Xerxes and the end o f archives , Archiv
f u r O rientforschung 50 (2003), 150-73.
W etzel/Schm idt/M allw itz 1957
Friedrich W etzel/E rich Friedrich Schm idt/A lfred M allwitz, D as Babylon der Spatzeit (W issen
schaftliche Veroffentlichungen der D eutschen O rient-G esellschaft 62), Berlin 1957
Berossos and Persian Religion1
Bruno Jacobs (Universitat Basel)
Berossos criticism of Greek historians, who attributed the foundation of Babylon and the
erection of its most remarkable buildings to Semiramis (BNJ 680 F 8 a = Jos., Ap. 1 142) should
be evaluated in two different ways. On the one hand such criticism is a topos, intended to
draw attention to the new work .2 Just as Ctesias (Photius, Bibl. 72 pp. 35b3536a6) and others
repeatedly accused Herodotus of errors ,3 so Dinon and Plutarch found fault in turn with
Ctesias (Plut., Artax. I 2; XIII 5 -7 ).4 Although all dismissed their predecessors as storytellers
and liars praising in contrast the quality and reliability of their own reports, it is not at all
clear that the critics were indeed better informed.
On the other hand, it has to be adm itted that, with respect to Semiramis, Berossos was
right. Compared with his Greek predecessors, his knowledge of Babylonian history was
demonstrably better 5 due in part to his sources: W hereas Ctesias only claimed to have had
access to original documents, for Berossos they were indeed available .6 Most important,
however, is that he was, as a priest of Bel in Babylon, rooted in an utterly different tradition
of knowledge ,7 when compared with Greek historians. This fact is reflected in his work, at
least as far as Babylon and M esopotamia are concerned, but how good is Berossos knowl
edge of affairs beyond this region?
Working on 'Berossos and Persian Religion one deals with three transm itted fragments
(BNJ 680, F2, F 11 and F 128), which may present relevant information or may have been
wrongly understood as doing so.
F2
The fragment, preserved in Athenaeus (Deip. XIV 639c), reads:
Berossos says in the first book o f his Babyloniaca that on the sixteenth day in the month Loos
a feast, that is called Sakaea, is celebrated over a period o f five days, during w hich it is the
1 The author is very grateful to Amelie Kuhrt for patiently and diligently amending the English version
of his text.
2 Dorati 1995, 49.
3 Lenfant 2004, 6-7, T 8 . On Ctesias treatment of Herodotus see Bichler 2004b; cf. Lanfranchi in this
volume. On ancient authors almost obligatory criticism of Herodotus see already Jos., Ap. I 16. Cf.
Murray 1972, 204-10.
4 Lenfant 2004, 9 T lid; 4-5 T 7b. Cf. Binder 2008, 97, 215-16.
5 Kuhrt 1987, 53; Bichler 2004a, 499.
6 Komoroczy 1973; Kuhrt 1987, 46; Sherwin-W hite/Kuhrt 1993, 148: ... Berossos of Babylon: almost
certainly a member of the Babylonian elite, deeply versed in Sumerian and Akkadian literature and
learning. Cf. also Tuplin in this volume.
7 Van der Spek 2008, 277-300; see also De Breucker in this volume.
8 Here the numbering of BNJ is adopted (ed. by G. De Breucker). In the edition of Verbrugghe/Wickersham
1996 the numbering is slightly different: BNJ 680, F 11 = VW F 12; BNJ 680, F 12 = VW F 13.
 124 Bruno Jacobs
custom, that the masters are comm anded by their slaves and that one o f them , whom they call
Zoganes, leads the house, w earing a robe sim ilar to that o f the king.
The only reason this passage is associated with the Persians at all is the fact that there is a
parallel record in Strabo. Referring to the so-called Sacaea, Strabo gives two explanations
placing its origins in Achaemenid times. According to one, the festival served, he says, to
celebrate a victory the Persians had won in Asia Minor, fighting the Saka (Strab. XI 8 , 4
[C511-12]). According to the other, the celebration is connected with the name of Cyrus the
Great. After having suffered a defeat against the Saka the king returned to his camp. Leaving
it equipped with supplies, in particular wine, he made a mock withdrawal. W hen the Saka
approached, they found the camp full o f food, ate and drank and became intoxicated with
the wine. Cyrus returned and was easily able to massacre the enemy who was either uncon
scious or dancing drunkenly (Strab. XI 8 , 5 [C 512]). To celebrate his victory Cyrus founded
the Sacaea, a festival during which men dressed in Scythian robes and drank together with
women. In both instances the occasion is connected with a female deity, specified in one as
Ana'itis.
Several scholars have observed that these accounts are probably based on an erroneous
etymology that related the name o f the festival to the Saka nomads .9 As this derivation is not
viable - it seems better to connect the word with A kkadian sakku = insane 10 - , the historic
context vanishes and along with it the involvement of Cyrus. The only reason not imm edi
ately to abandon a dating to the Achaemenid period is the mention of Ana'itis.
An event called festival of the Saka is also related to the Persians by Dio Chrysostom
(IV 66-67). Here the philosopher Diogenes explains the course of the celebration to
Alexander the Great: A convict was placed on the throne and invested with all royal privi
leges; afterwards he was stripped of the regalia, whipped and hanged and the legitimate king
restored to his function.
As has been pointed out this procedure is not attested as a Persian ritual." It is, in fact,
the sar puhi ritual, described an d /o r referred to in Akkadian and Hittite ritual texts of the
second and first m illennium BC that provides the setting .12 I. Huber has convincingly ar
gued that all reminiscences of rituals involving substitute kings found in Greek and Latin
sources o f Achaemenid and post-Achaemenid date are purely literary and not to be taken
as evidence that such rituals were actually perform ed .13 We should thus regard the passage
in Dio Chrysostom as a combination o f a literary m otif with descriptions of a carneval-like
inversion o f power .14 So it is only the reference to A na'itis/A nahita in Strab. XI 8,4 that ties
Berossos reference to the Achaemenid period. This is not, however, a convincing argu
ment since Athenaeus tells us that he took his information from the first book of Berossos
Babyloniaca. As far as it can be reconstructed this book dealt with the mythical past , 15
9 Briant 1991, 3; Briant 1996, 746; Boiy 2004, 280; Huber 2005, 364.
10 AHw. II 1012a s.v. sakku. On this etymology see Langdon 1924, 67; cf. Huber 2005, 364 n. 70 with
further references.
11 Parpola 1983, XX11-XXXII; de Jong 1997, 382-4; Boiy 2004, 281.
12 Bottero 1978; Parpola 1983, XXV11 no. 3 and 4.
13 Huber 2005, 368 and 380.
14 References in Huber 2005, 365 n. 74.
15 Lehmann-Haupt 1937, 4; Drews 1975, 50-1; Kuhrt 1987, 44-5; Pongratz-Leisten 1997, 580. Cf. also the
contributions of De Breucker and Haubold in this volume.
Berossos and Persian Religion 125
which means that the description o f the Sacaea should not be connected to Persian religion.
In Ctesias, too, quoted by Athenaeus in the same paragraph as Berossos, the Sacaea must
have figured in a pre-Achaemenid context, as he cites it as coming from the second book of
his Persic a }b
F12
Berossos dealt with the Persians only in the third book of his Babyloniaca (BNJ 680, F9a =
Jos., Ap. I 145; B N J 680, F 11 = Clem. Alex. V 65,2-3). This must be the source o f what has
survived in Agathias 2,24,7-8. The translation below starts with Agathias 2,24,6 in order to
make the context of the quotation clear:
6. W hen this Zoroastros or Zarades (for he is called by two names) first flourished and made his
laws is impossible to discover with certainty. The Persians o f today simply say that he was born
in the tim e o f Hystaspes, without further qualification, so that it is very obscure and im possible
to tell w hether this Hystaspes was the father o f D arius or someone else. 7. But at whatever time
he flourished, he was their teacher and guide in the rites o f the Magi; he replaced their original
worship by complex and elaborate doctrines. 8 . In ancient tim es they w orshipped Zeus and
Kronos and all the fam iliar gods acknowledged by the G reeks, except that they did not use the
same names. They called Zeus Bel, say, and Heracles Sandes, and A phrodite A naitis, and
the rest by other names, as is somewhere recorded by Berossos the Babylonian, Athenocles and
Simacus, who w rote the most ancient history o f the A ssyrians and M edes .17
Berossos is named as just one of three informants, two of which, Athenocles und Simacus,
are otherwise completely unknow n .18 Since Agathias does differentiate between his sources,
albeit minimally, we are compelled to suppose that he has compiled them on his own auth
ority .19 Analogous to the dating of Zoroaster to the time of Hystaspes, for which Agathias
explicitly refers to the Persians o f today, the prophets supposed relation to the Magi cer
tainly goes back to a very distant source of information. His relation to those priests 20 and
to magic ritual (|iaytKfi aytoiela) is certainly incompatible with the Avesta, where Magi do
not figure at all .21
Persians of the past are said to have worshipped Zeus, Kronos and other gods known to
the Greeks, although they did not use the same names. Referring to Berossos and his two
colleagues, Agathias then identifies some equating Zeus with Bel, Heracles with Sandes and
Aphrodite with Anaitis, implying that more identifications might be possible .22 The pas
sage reminds one of the well-known chapter in Herodotus (IV 59), where interpretationes
Graecae of Scythian divinities are listed.
Although Berossos is named by Agathias as only one of his informants, the equation
Belus - Zeus could have come from his Babyloniaca, because it recurs in a quotation of
Berossos by Synkellos (xov 8 s Brj)iov ov Aid (isOepjariveuouat - Bel, whom they translate as
16 Consequently Lenfant 2004, 77-8, subsumes this fragment (F4) under Divers sur 1Assyrie.
17 Trans. Cameron 1969-1970, 81-3 with slight modifications; cf. de Jong 1997, 248-9.
18 Cameron 1969-1970, 101; Kuhrt 1987, 35; Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 63 n. 54; de Jong 1997, 230,
246.
19 Cf. the fundamental statement of Cameron 1969-1970, 74: ... a hotchpotch of genuine information,
Greek tradition, technical chronography, and pure speculation and interpretation ....
20 Cf. Diog. Laert. 1 2,2.
21 Note that av. mogu.tbis (Y. 65,7) is no exception: Benveniste 1938, 6-12.
22 DeJong 1997,246-7.
 126 Bruno Jacobs
Zeus in B N J 680, F lb( 8 ) = Syncellus, Chron. p. 49,19). That the identification of Aphrodite
w ith Anaitis could definitely be from Berossos 23 is proved by the third fragment to be dealt
with here (F 11), with its mention o f statues o f Aphrodite Ana'itis.
Taken as a whole Agathias 1 statement is incoherent.24 If one takes the terms Assyrians
and Medes as general soubriquets, Belus can be connected to the first, Ana'itis to the sec
ond. Sandes however, seemingly a Cilician god, stands apart. And the information absout
Zoroasters time and his association with the Magi may rest on sources of Agathias own time.
F ll
The only piece of relevant information on Persian religion provided by Berossos is Fragment 11,
which is well-known and - in the history of research - of considerable importance .25 The pas
sage in question comes in Clement of Alexandria (V 65,3):
M any decades later, however, they (i.e. the Persians, M edes and Magoi) are said, as Berossos
explains in the third book o f his Chaldaica, to have honoured cult statues in hum an form; this is
said to have been introduced by A rtaxerxes, the son o f Darius Ochus, who was the first to have
erected the cult statue o f A phrodite A naitis in Babylon, Susa and Ecbatana and to have taught
Persians and B actrians, at Dam ascus and at Sardis to honour it.
Tempting misinterpretations
Commenting on this text, it has been pointed out repeatedly that Artaxerxes II figures here
as the initiator o f religious reform and that he, too, is the first Achaemenid who, in his in
scriptions, invokes other divinities by name besides Auramazda, among them, aside from
M ithra, only A nahita .26 It is thus unsurprising that these testimonies have been taken as
confirmation of each other and the erection o f statues, referred to by Clement, as a novelty .27
It is certainly the case that with the phrase |iexa noXkaq |xsvxoi uoxepov 7tspio 5 o\)(; -
many decades later ... - a contrast with earlier times is articulated. The erection of cult
statues is contrasted with an older, apparently aniconic form o f worship. And indeed, before
citing Berossos, Clement refers to Dinon, who in V 65,1 is quoted as saying, that they (scil.
the Persians, Medes and Magi) sacrificed under the open sky and they considered only fire
and water as divine im ages. A little later Clement continues (V 65,2): They do not, like the
Greeks, accept pieces o f wood or stones nor, like the Egyptians, ibises and ichneumons as
images o f their gods, but fire and water like the philosophers. These remarks are certainly
dependent on Herodotus 1 131,28 where one reads:
As for the habits and customs o f the Persians, I know the following: statues o f the gods, temples
and altars are not custom ary among them and they even think that people who have them are
foolish, because, as 1 see it, they do not im agine gods in human form the way G reeks do. They
have the custom o f climbing the highest m ountain tops and sacrificing there to Zeus, as they
23 For this de Jong 1997,270.
24 De Jong 1997, 230: Berossos is of course well-known as an authority on Babylonian history, but there
is nothing in Agathias description of Persian religion that can be directly attributed to him. Cf. Tuplin
in this volume.
25 Jacobs 2001.
26 A2Sa 3, A2Sd 4, A 2Ha; cf. Kuhrt 2007b, 123.
27 Frei/Koch 1984, 20; Corsten 1991, 174-9; Briant 2010, 44.
28 Jacobs 2001, esp. 90; Kuhrt 2007a, 566 n. 2; Kuhrt 2007b, 123-4.
Berossos and Persian Religion 127
call the whole circle o f the heavens Zeus. They sacrifice also to the sun, the moon, the earth,
fire, w ater and the w inds . 29
Dinon is only one of several ancient authors who picked up this passage of Herodotus.
According to Diogenes Laertius, Clitarchus was another. He reported, that the Magi ... ex
pound about the nature and origin of the gods, that they are fire and earth and water; they
condemn statues o f gods and especially those, who claim that the gods are male or female
(Diog. Laert. 1, 6 ). An unnamed author, too, cited by Strabo, followed Herodotus very close
ly in writing: Now the Persians do not erect statues or altars, but offer sacrifice in a high
place, considering the heavens as Zeus; and they worship Helius, whom they call M ithras,
and Selene and Aphrodite, and fire and earth and water; ... (Strab. XV 3,13 [C 732]).30 The
belief, that the Persians adhered to an aniconic vision o f the gods was clearly widespread; on
that assumption the erection of statues of Anahita marked a decisive break.
Berossos begins his list of the places where Artaxerxes II ordered the erection o f statues
of the goddess with Babylon, his home town, placing it before two other Achaemenid resi
dences, Susa and Ecbatana. Then he broadens his perspective to embrace the empire as a
whole, enum erating first the Persians and then areas in the far east and far west. In the west
it is Damascus and the old Lydian capital Sardis: the east is represented by the Bactrians .31
The reference to the Bactrians seems suited to give still more weight to Berossos state
ment and to amplify and strengthen the indicated reasoning. Bactria is widely regarded as
the main area affected by the teachings o f Zoroaster; here his patron Hystaspes is said to
have ruled ,32 and in later times the custom o f exposing corpses as the ideal way to treat the
deceased according to the Avesta (V. 6,45-6), is attested here (Strab. XI 11,7 [C 517]),33 once
again suggesting that Bactria was a stronghold of Zoroastrianism.
Now the Avesta linguistically consists of two parts, which differ in dialect. One of those
dialects is the language o f the Gathas, the other that o f the Yasts and the rem aining Avesta;
on linguistic grounds, the former is often called Old-Avestan, the latter Young-Avestan .34
The difference in age that is implicit in this distinction was paralleled with differences in
content, the most weighty of which is that in the Gathas Ahuro Mazda is the only god called
by name, whereas in the other parts o f the holy book numerous names o f divinities can be
found and a lot of those divinities is honoured by hymns of their own.
Among these is the AradvT Sura Anahita-Yast, which contains an extremely vivid portray
al o f the goddess A nahita (Yt. 5, 126-129). This has been taken to be a description of a cult
statue, and its existence has been associated with Artaxerxes IIs cult innovation in Bactria .35
Consequently, the reign o f Artaxerxes II has been taken as a terminus ante quem non for the
aforementioned Yast;36 and this dating would in turn seem to corroborate the chronological
29 Translation Kuhrt 2007a, 548.
30 Translation Kuhrt 2007a, 551. Cf. also Cic., Rep. 3, 9, 14.
31 On the places of erection see also de Jong 1997, 271-2; Kuhrt 2007a, 567 n. 6 .
32 Jackson 1899, 210; Christensen 1932, 119-20; cf. the collection of sources in Clemen 1920, 37-8. Of
course there are many divergent opinions: thus, Boyce 1982, 1-3, argued that Zoroaster lived in a stone-
age cultural environment in central Asia.
33 Cf. Humbach 1961; Jacobs 1992, 179-80.
34 Kellens 1983, 123; Kellens 1998, 495 and 512.
35 Windischmann 1858, 118-19; Wikander 1946, 63; Boyce 1982, 202-3; Malandra 1983, 118-19; Schmeja
1986, 213-14; Ahn, 1992, 224-5; Panaino 2000, 36-8.
36 Thus already Christensen 1926, 114-15.
 128 Bruno Jacobs
separation of Old and Young Avestan .37 This would mean that the Gathas, which only invoke
Ahuro Mazda by name, m irror the pure, monotheistic doctrine of Zoroaster, whereas the
Yasts emanate from a popular religious reaction, in which the pre-Zoroastrian gods survived.
The ensuing pagan counter-revolution resulted in the re-establishment of numerous other
gods besides Ahuro M azda .38 Finally: for those, who are convinced of the Zoroastrian faith
of the Achaemenids, the appearance o f A nahita und M ithra in Achaemenid inscriptions of
the fourth century BC indicates a simultaneous development in the west .39
This creates a seemingly conclusive picture: Berossos, the Achaemenid inscriptions and
the Avesta appear to confirm each other: During his reign, Artaxerxes II admitted other gods
besides Auram azda into the official cult. In doing this, the king followed a current also re
flected in the Avesta. The simultaneous erection of statues of Anahita throughout the empire
signals a turning away from an abstract conception of the gods and the beginning of idolatry.
Objections and an analysis of Clement of A lexandrias treatment of Berossos
This assumed development from mono- to heno- or even polytheism in Achaemenid in
scriptions and the Avesta does not, however, work as well as claimed, since the Gathas as
well as Achaemenid inscriptions predating Artaxerxes II explicitly admit the existence of
other gods .40 This means, that in both cases we have to reckon right form the start with
a henotheism, and consequently, we cannot attribute a change in practice to the time of
Artaxerxes II .41 We should also note that the thesis of divergent stages of linguistic devel
opment in the languages o f Gathas and Yasts reflecting chronological differences has been
seriously challenged. They may, in fact, have originated at the same tim e .42
Herodotus statement (I 131), too, which has been used to strengthen the contrast be
tween Artaxerxes II and the preceding period by attributing an abstract conception of
the gods to the older epoch, is unsustainable. Let us first consider the passage as a whole:
That the Persians did not have altars, as Herodotus maintains, is incorrect. This is proved
by Achaemenid court art which depicts altars on the facades of the royal tombs of Naqs-i
Rustam and Persepolis, as well as, for example, by numerous representations on seals .43
That the Persians lacked sanctuaries cannot be disproved by buildings excavated in the
Achaemenid residences or elsewhere in the heartland of the em pire .44 But temples are men
tioned in the Persepolis Fortification texts ,45 and it is possible that the sanctuary of Dahan-i
37 Thus for example Ahn 1992, 224-5.
38 Shepherd 1987, 52; Boyce 1982,216-18; Kellens 1994, 124-6.
39 In this sense for example Genito 1986, 295, who related the three altars in the court of building 3
in Dahan-i Ghulaman to Auramazda, Mitra and Anahita and dated their construction to the time of
Artaxerxes II.
40 Achaemenid inscriptions: DSt 2-3; XPb 27-8; XPc 1213 (22); XPd 1718 (26-27); XPg 12-3; XSc 4-5; 49 An earring in the Norbert Schimmel Collection (Muscarella 1974, no. 156; Settgast 1978, no. 178) and
XVa 25-6; D2Sa 3; conjectured in DSe 50-1; Avesta: Y. 31,4 et pass. Cf. Ahn 1992, 222; Lecoq 1997, 157;
Kuhrt 2007b, 122-3.
41 In the same sense Ahn 1992, 222-3.
42 Gershevitch 1995, 1-6; cf. Lecoq 1997, 156.
43 Schmidt 1957, 26-7, seal no. 20-3, PI. 7; Garrison 2008, Fig. 41-50.
44 Boucharlat 2005, 281-2; Henkelman 2008, 471.
45 Cf. the discussion of Achaemenid Elamite ziyan in Henkelman 2008, 469-73. See also the well-known
mention of to ev Xouooic; iepov (Arr. VI 27,5). A discussion of the modern definition of temple and
its relation to the function of various types of Achaemenid architecture is presented by Root 2010, esp.
170-6.
Berossos and Persian Religion 129
Ghulaman can be connected with Persians. Its architecture certainly has been compared
to Achaemenid palaces .46
These points suffice to challenge the idea that Herodotus was well informed about Persian
religion. Persian cult statues, whose existence is denied by Herodotus, are, it is true, not
attested. But the reason for that is not that the Persians did not conceive of their gods in hu
man form, because it can easily be demonstrated, that they definitely did .47 Other classical
sources, and even Herodotus himself, on many occasions start from the assumption, that
divine beings are to be imagined anthropomorphically, that they, for example, look like a tall
handsome man (Hdt. VII 12) or have feet to kick with (Aesch., Pers. 515-516). It is, however,
better to ignore these passages, because we cannot exclude the possibility that the authors
projected their own ideas on the Persians.
The half-figure in a winged disc, however, should suffice to reject Herodotus claim as
incorrect. Even the - improbable - assumption, that the figure in winged disc does not depict
Auramazda, but the Chvarnah ,48 does not negate this, because a numen is by its nature more
abstract than a divinity. Be that as it may, pieces o f jewellery 49 and especially seals and seal
impressions 50 demonstrate over and over that the Persians conceived of their gods in human
form. They make clear, as in another way do the Persepolis Fortification tablets, that the
Persians by no means sacrificed only to the sun and the moon, the earth, fire, water and the
w inds ,51 in accordance with an abstract conception of the gods.
If we leave aside Herodotus remark on the worship of Zeus on mountain tops , 52 we are
forced to realize that his statement is wrong in all details that we can check. Consequently,
there is no reason to take his claim that the Persians did not erect agalmata seriously.
But this is precisely the starting point of Clement of Alexandria, who, citing Dinon, says,
that Persians, Medes and Magoi consider fire and water alone as representations of the gods
(Protr. V 65,1). He manages to forge an agreeement among his sources by inserting a tempo
ral distinction between the situation described by Dinon and Herodotus and that o f Berossos,
introducing the latters account with the phrase many decades la te r... The particular refer
ence to the anthropomorphism of Artaxerxes Anahita statues seems to indicate that Clement
thought he knew o f a development in Persia from aniconic cult to idolatry.
46 Boucharlat 1984, 132-3; Genito 1986, 293; Boucharlat 2005, 268-9.
47 In the Indo-Iranian realm divinities were generally conceived as anthropomorphic: Jacobs 2001, 84-5.
Similarly already Boyce 1982, 179: Herodotus explanation of why the Persians made no statues seems
wide off the mark, since the Iranians, like other Indo-European peoples, in general conceived the divine
beings anthropomorphically.
48 Thus Shahbazi 1974, 138-44; Shahbazi 1980; Calmeyer 1979. But see Lecoq 1984 and Jacobs 1987; cf.
Jacobs (forthcoming b-d).
its counterpart in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (Amiet 1974, pi. 2; Tilia 1978, pi. Cl), a pair of
buttons from Susa (Tallon 1992, 251) and a torque in the Miho Museum (ONeill/Shultz 1996, no. 19;
Bernard 2000).
50 The most famous representation of a divinity is on the seal from the Nereid sarcophagus from Gorgippa
in St. Petersburg, Eremitage: Furtwangler 1900, 120 fig. 81; Minns 1913, 324-8. 410-11; Boardman 1970,
no. 878. On the iconography of the divine including many examples from the Persepolis Fortification
Archive Garrison (forthcoming), see Jacobs (forthcoming a, c, e). Other examples: Jacobs 1991, 60-1.
70-7 Abb. 1-10.
51 On the religious landscape of the Persepolis Fortification texts see Henkelman 2008.
52 Jacobs 2002,37-42.
 130 Bruno Jacobs
But as we have seen that this is untenable, we should remove the passage o f Berossos
from the supposed development into which it was placed by Clement. On the basis of his
citation, the assumption that the consecration o f statues of Anahita by Artaxerxes II was
an innovation, is not justified. Given the problems presented by the other sources and the
inappropriate nature o f the model o f religious development based on them, we are left with
nothing but a statement about the introduction o f statues by Artaxerxes II. There seems, by
and large, to be no reason to doubt this information, though one may question Berossos
assertion that a cult statue was erected in Bactria (i.e., the far east of the empire), because
so far no large scale sculpture o f pre-Alexandrine times has been found in the whole Trans-
kavirian realm .53 Nor is the information confirm ed by the description o f A nahita in Yast 15.
A. de Jong has pointed out that the portrayal o f the goddess is paralleled with that of desir
able women and girls in the Avesta (e.g. Yt. 17,10-11).54 As a literary product 55 the descrip
tion does not hint at idolatry in this area. On the other hand, once we remove A rtaxerxes
introduction o f Anahita-statues from the fictional chronological development, it becomes
possible to visualise, in the west, other Achaemenids or wealthy Persians dedicating statues,
although information about Persian statues o f divinities is extremely sparse .56
Results
O f Berossos fragments on Persian religion, only F 11 remains as usable testimony. The
notice on the Sacaea in F 2 cannot be convincingly applied to Persian customs. Fragment
F 12, dealing with Zoroaster, the Magi and Greco-Persian identifications o f divinities, is
totally muddled, and should be discarded as not providing usable information. This leaves
the information about the erection o f statues by Artaxerxes II (F 11) isolated and does not
allow us to attribute to Berossos a special interest in Persian religion, even though one might
expect a professional interest in such matters on the part of a priest. Perhaps we should ask
whether Berossos talks about the erection o f cult statues merely because one of them - the
first he mentions - was set up in Babylon, ju st as, with regard to history, he presents him self
as exclusively interested in Babylonia, for example mentioning Assyria only when Babylonia
is involved .57
There is no reason to doubt that the information about the erection of cult statues by
Artaxerxes II is basically correct. However, since the notion that idolatry was introduced by
this king many decades later does not go back to Berossos but was inserted by Clement of
Alexandria, F 11 does not provide a terminus ante quem non for the erection of cult statues
or a basis for conclusions about fundamental changes in Persian religion during the reign of
Artaxerxes II. The theory that in Achaemenid times there was a development in Persia from
an aniconic idea o f the gods to idolatry lacks any foundation.
53 Jacobs 2001, 84 with n. 4.
54 De Jong 1997, 272, argues that the different garments of the goddess which are described in the text,
point to her various functions as celestial Lady and as a river-goddess.
55 Kellens 2002-2003, 320, also denied that the description of Yt 5, 126-9, demands the existence of
a statue.
56 Plin., N.H. 33, 4, 82-3; Lucian, Jupiter Tragicus 8 ; Strab. XV 3, 15; see de Jong 1997, 351-2. An avSpidi;,
consecrated by the hyparch Droaphernes in Sardis, must, as P. Briant has demonstrated, be excluded here
(Briant 1998, 211-23; cf. Briant 1996, 696-7, 1025-6).
57 Kuhrt 1987, 45; Bichler 2004a, 508.
Berossos and Persian Religion 131
References
Ahn 1992
G. A hn, Religiose H errscherlegitim ation im achdm enidischen Iran (Acta Iranica 31), L eiden/
Louvain 1992.
Amiet 1974
P. A m iet, Lart achem enide, Acta Iranica 1 (1974), 163-70.
Benveniste 1938
E. Benveniste, Les mages dans Vancien Iran (Publications de la Societe des Etudes Iraniennes 15),
Paris 1938.
B ernard 2000
P. Bernard, Un torque achem enide avec une inscription grecque au M usee M iho (Japon),
Academie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres - Comptes rendus des seances de I a nnee 2000 (2000)
1371-437.
Bichler 2004a
R. Bichler, Some observations on the image o f the A ssyrian and Babylonian kingdom s within
the Greek tradition, in: R. R ollinger/C hr. U lf (eds.), Commerce and M onetary Systems in the
Ancient World: Means o f Transmission and Cultural Interaction - Proceedings o f the Fifth Annual
Symposium o f the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project H eld in Innsbruck,
Austria, October 3rd-8th 2002 (Oriens et Occidens 6), Stuttgart 2004, 499-518 [= R. Rollinger (ed.),
R. Bichler, H istoriographie - Ethnographie - Utopie. Gesammelte Schriften, Teil 1: Studien zu
Herodots K unst der H istorie (Philippika 18,1), W iesbaden 2007, 209-28].
Bichler 2004b
R. Bichler, Ktesias korrigiert Herodot. Zur literarischen Einschatzung der Persika', in: H. Heftner/'
K. Tomaschitz (eds.), A d Fontesl Festschrift fu r Gerhard Dobesch zum fiinfundsechzigsten Geburtstag
am 15. September 2004, Wien 2004, 105-116 [= R. Rollinger (ed.), R. Bichler, Historiographie -
Ethnographie - Utopie. Gesammelte Schriften, Teil 1: Studien zu Herodots Kunst der Historie
(Philippika 18,1), Wiesbaden 2007, 229-245],
Binder 2008
C. Binder, Plutarchs Vita des Artaxerxes - Ein historischer Kom m entar (G ottinger Forum f u r
A ltertum sw issenschaft - Beihefte Neue Folge 1), B erlin/N ew York 2008.
Boardman 1970
J. B oardm an, G reek Gems a n d F inger Rings - E arly Bronze Age to Late Classical, London 1970.
Boiy 2004
T. Boiy, Late Achaem enid and Hellenistic Babylon (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 136) Leuven/
Paris/D udely, M A 2004.
Bottero 1978
J. Bottero, Le substitut royal et son sort en M esopotam ie ancienne, A kkadika 9 (1978), 2-24.
Boucharlat 1984
R. Boucharlat, M onum ents religieux de la Perse achem enide - Etat des questions, Temples et
sanctuaires (Travaux de la m aison de VO rient 7), Lyon 1984, 119-35.
Boucharlat 2005
R. Boucharlat, Iran, in: P. B riant/R . Boucharlat (eds.), L archeologie de I em pire achemenide:
nouvelles recherches (Persika 6), Paris 2005, 221-92.
Boyce 1982
M. Boyce, A H istory o f Zoroastrianism - 2. Under the Achaemenians (Handbuch der O rientalistik
I.8.1.2.2A), Leiden 1982.
Briant 1991
P. Briant, Le roi est mort: Vive le roi! - Remarques sur les rites et rituels de succession chez
les A chem enides, in: J. Kellens (ed.), La religion iranienne a I epoque achem enide - Actes du
Colloque de Liege 11 decem bre 1987 (Iranica Antiqua - Supplem ent V), Gent 1991, 1-11.
 132 Bruno Jacobs Berossos and Persian Religion 133

Briant 1996 Henkelman 2008

P. Briant, Histoire de I e m pire perse de Cyrus a Alexandre I / I I (Achaem enid H istory X), Leiden W. F. M. Henkelman, The Other Gods Who Are - Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based
1996. on the Persepolis Fortification Texts (Achaem enid H istory XIV), Leiden 2008.
Briant 1998 Huber 2005
P. Briant, D roaphernes et le statut de Sardes, in: M. B rosius/A . K uhrt (eds.), Studies in Persian 1. Huber, Ersatzkonige in griechischem Gewand: Die Umform ung der sar /?w/?/-Rituale bei
H istory - Essays in M em ory o f D a vid M. Lew is (Achaem enid H istory XI), Leiden 1998, 205-26. Herodot, Berossos, A gathias und den A lexander-H istorikern, in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Von Sum er
Briant 2010 bis H om er - Festschrift f u r M anfred Schretter zum 60. G eburtstag am 25. Februar 2004 (Alter
P. Briant, Suse et PElam dans 1em pire achem enide, in: J. Perrot (ed.), Le palais de D arius a O rient und Altes Testament 325), M unster 2005, 339-97.
Suse - Une residence royale sur la route de Persepolis a Babylone, Paris 2010, 2 2 -48. Humbach 1961
Calm eyer 1979 H. Humbach, Bestattungsformen im VTdevdat, Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 11
P. Calmeyer, Fortuna - Tyche - K hvarnah, Jahrbuch des D eutschen Archaologischen Instituts 94 (1961), 99-105.
(1979), 347-65. Jackson 1899
Cameron 1969-1970 A. V. W illiam s Jackson, Zoroaster - The Prophet o f A ncient Iran, London 1899.
A. Cameron, A gathias on the Sassanians, D um barton Oaks Papers 23 -2 4 (1969-1970), 69-183. Jacobs 1987
Christensen 1926 B. Jacobs, Das C hvarnah - Zum Stand der Forschung, Mitteilungen der D eutschen Orient-
A. Christensen, Quelques notices sur les plus anciennes periodes du Z oroastrism e, Acta Gesellschaft 119 (1987), 215-48.
Orientalia 4 (1926), 81-115. Jacobs 1991
Christensen 1932 B. Jacobs, Der Sonnengott im Pantheon der A cham eniden, in: J. Kellens (ed.), La religion irani-
A. C hristensen, Les K ayanides (D et Kgl. D anske Videnskabernes Selskab - H istorisk-filologiske enne a I epoque achem enide - Actes du Colloque de Liege 11 decem bre 1987 (Iranica Antiqua -
M eddelelser 19-2), Copenhagen 1932. Supplem ent V), G ent 1991, 49-80.
Clemen 1920 Jacobs 1992
C. Clemen, D ie griechischen und lateinischen N achrichten tiber die p ersische Religion B. Jacobs, Der Tod des Bessos - Ein Beitrag zur Frage des V erhaltnisses der A cham eniden zur
(Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 17-1), Giessen 1920. Lehre des Z oroaster A cta Praehistorica et A rchaeologica 24 (1992), 177-86.
Corsten 1991 Jacobs 2001
Th. Corsten, Herodot I 131 und die Einfiihrung des A nahita-Kultes in Lydien, Iranica Antiqua 26 B. Jacobs, K ultbilder und G ottesvorstellung bei den Persern - Zu Herodot, H istoriae 1.131 und
(1991), 163 80. Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus 5.65.3, in: T. B akir (ed.), Achaem enid Anatolia - Proceedings
De Jong 1997 o f the First International Sym posium on Anatolia in the A chaem enid Period, Bandirm a 15-18
A. de Jong, Traditions o f the Magi - Zoroastrianism in G reek a n d Latin Literature (Religions in A ugust 1997 (Uitgaven van het N ederlands H istorisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 92),
the Greco-Roman World 133), Leiden 1997. Leiden 2001, 83-90.
Dorati 1995 Jacobs 2002
M. Dorati, Ctesia falsario?, Q uaderni di Storia 21 (1995), 33-52. B. Jacobs, Bergheiligtum und H eiliger Berg - U berlegungen zur Wahl des N em rud Dagi-Gipfels
Drews 1975 als H eiligtum s- und G rabstatte, in: J. H ahn (ed.), Religiose Landschaften (Alter O rient und Altes
R. Drews, The Babylonian Chronicles and B erossus, Iraq 37 (1975), 39-55. Testament 301), M unster 2002, 31-47.
Frei/K och 1984 Jacobs (forthcom ing a)
P. Frei/K . Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 55), B. Jacobs, A nahita, in: U eh lin g er/G raf (forthcoming).
Freiburg/G ottingen 1984. Jacobs (forthcom ing b)
Furtw angler 1900 B. Jacobs, A huram azda, in: U eh lin g er/G raf (forthcoming).
A. Furtwangler, D ie antiken Gemmen - G eschichte der Steinschneidekunst im klassischen Alter- Jacobs (forthcom ing c)
tum III, L eipzig/B erlin 1900. B. Jacobs, Figure in W inged D isc, in: U eh lin g er/G raf (forthcoming).
G arrison 2008 Jacobs (forthcom ing d)
M. B. G arrison, The uninscribed tablets from the Fortification Archive: A prelim inary analysis, B. Jacobs, K hvarnah, in: U ehlinger/G raf (forthcoming).
in: P. Briant/W . F. M. H enkelm an/M . W. Stolper (eds.), L a rchive des Fortifications de Persepolis - Jacobs (forthcom ing e)
E tat des questions et perspectives de recherches. Actes du colloque organise au College de France B. Jacobs, M a, in: U eh lin g er/G raf (forthcoming).
p a r la Chaire d histoire et civilisation du m onde achem enide et de 1e m pire d A lexa n d re et le Kellens 1983
"Reseau international d etudes et de recherches achem enides (GDR 2538 CNRS), 3 - 4 novembre J. Kellens, Die Religion der A cham eniden, Altorientalische Forschungen 10 (1983), 107-23.
2006 (Persika 12), Paris 2008, 149-238. Kellens 1994
G arrison (forthcom ing) J, Kellens, Le pantheon de I Avesta ancien, W iesbaden 1994.
M. B. G arrison, Visual representations o f the divine and the numinous in early A chaemenid Iran: Kellens 1998
Old problems, new directions, in: U eh lin g er/G raf (forthcoming). J. Kellens, Considerations sur lhistoire de lAvesta, Journal A siatique 286 (1998), 451-519.
Genito 1986 Kellens 2002-2003
B. Genito, Dahan-i Ghulaman: Una citta achem enide tra centro e periferia dellim pero, Oriens J. Kellens, Le probleme avec A nahita, Orientalia Suecana 51-52 (2002-2003), 317-26.
Antiquus 25 (1986), 287-317. Komoroczy 1973
Gershevitch 1995 G. Komoroczy, Berosos and the M esopotamian literature, Acta Antiqua Academ iae Scientiarum
1. G ershevitch, A pproaches to Zoroasters G athas, Iran 33 (1995), 1-29. Hungaricae 21 (1973), 125-52.
 134 Bruno Jacobs Berossos and Persian Religion 135

K uhrt 1987
A. K uhrt, B erossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A. K u h rt/S . Sherwin-
W hite (eds.) Hellenism in the E ast - The Interaction o f G reek a n d non-G reek Civilizations from
Syria to C entral A sia after Alexander, B erkeley/L os Angeles 1987, 32-56.
K uhrt 2007a
A. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire - A Corpus o f Sources from the Achaemenid Empire, London/N ew
York 2007.
K uhrt 2007b
A. Kuhrt, The problem o f Achaemenid religious policy , in: B. G roneberg/H . Spieckerm ann
(eds.), D ie Welt der G otterbilder (Beihefte zu r Zeitschrift fu r die alttestam entliche W issenschaft
376), B erlin/N ew York 2007, 117-42.
Langdon 1924
St. Langdon, The Babylonian and Persian Sakaea, Journal o f the R oyal A siatic Society (1924),
65-72.
Lecoq 1984
P. Lecoq, Un probleme de religion achem enide - A hura M azda ou X varnah?, A cta Iranica 23
(1984), 301-26.
Lecoq 1997
P. Lecoq, XII. La religion des Achemenides, in: P. Lecoq, Les inscriptions de la Perse achemenide
traduit de vieuxperse, de I elamite, du babylonien et de I a rameen, Paris 1997, 154-64.
Lehm ann-Haupt 1937
C. F. Lehm ann-Haupt, Berossos, in: Reallexikon der A ssyriologie 2, B erlin/L eipzig 1937, 1-17.
Lenfant 2004
D. Lenfant, Ctesias de Cnide: La Perse - L Inde - Autres fragments, Texte etabli, traduit et commente,
Paris 2004.
M alandra 1983
W. W. M alandra, An Introduction to A ncient Iranian Religion - Readings fr o m the A vesta a n d the
A chaem enid Inscriptions, M inneapolis, MN 1983.
M inns 1913
E. M inns, Scythians a n d Greeks - A Survey o f A ncient H istory a n d Archaeology on the North
Coast o f the Euxine fr o m the Danube to the Caucasus, Cambridge 1913.
M urray 1972
O. M urray, H erodotus and Hellenistic culture, The Classical Q uaterly 6 6 - N. S. 22 (1972),
200-13.
M uscarella 1974
O. W. M uscarella, A ncient A rt - The N orbert Schim m el Collection, M ainz 1974.
O N eill/S hultz 1996
J. P. O N eill /E . Shultz (eds.), A ncient A rt fr o m the Shum ei Family Collection, New York 1996.
Panaino 2000
A. Panaino, The M esopotamian heritage o f A chaemenian kingship, in: S. A ro /R . M. S. W hiting
(eds.), The Heirs o f A ssyria (M elammu Sym posia 1), H elsinki 2000, 35-49.
Parpola 1983
S. Parpola, Letters fr o m A ssyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon a n d A ssurbanipal - Part II:
Commentary and Appendices (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5 / 2), K evelaer/Neukirchen-V luyn
1983.
Pongratz-Leisten 1997
B. Pongratz-Leisten, Berossos, in: D erN eu e Pauly 2, Stuttgart 1997, 580.
Root 2010
M. C. Root, Palace to temple - King to cosmos, Achaemenid foundation texts in Iran, in: M. J. Boda/
J. Novotny (eds.), From the Foundations to the Crenellations - Essays on Temple Building in the
Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366), Munster 2010, 165-210.
Schmeja 1986
H. Schmeja, Das Bild der G ottin - Zu Yast 5, 126 und Parallelstellen, in: W. M eid/
H. Trenkwalder (eds.), Im Bannkreis des Alten Orients - Studien zur Sprach- undK ulturgeschichte
des Alten O rients u n d seines Ausstrahlungsraum es, K arl O berhuber zm 70. G eburtstag gew idm et
(Innsbrucker Studien zur K ulturw issenschaft 24), Innsbruck 1986, 213-21.
Schmidt 1957
E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis I I - Contents o f the Treasury a n d O ther D iscoveries (The University o f
Chicago O riental Institute Publications 69), Chicago 1957.
Settgast 1978
N. Settgast (ed.), Von Troja bis Am arna - The N orbert Schim m el Collection N ew York, M ainz 1978.
Shahbazi 1974
A. Sh. Shahbazi, A n Achaem enid symbol - I. A farewell to Fravahr and A huram azda
Archaeologische M itteilungen aus Iran - N eue Folge 1 (1974), 135-44.
S h a h b a z i1980
A. Sh. Shahbazi, A n Achaem enid symbol - II. Farnah (God given) Fortune sym bolized,
A rchaeologische M itteilungen aus Iran - N eue Folge 13 (1980), 119-147.
Shepherd 1987
D. G. Shepherd, The iconography o f A nahita 1, Berytus 28 (1987), 47-86.
Sherw in-W hite/K uhrt 1993
S. Sherw in-W hite/ A. K uhrt, From Sam arkand to Sardis - A new approach to the Seleucid Empire,
London 1993.
Tallon 1992
F. Tallon, Pair o f buttons, in: P. O. H arper/J. A ruz/F . Tallon (eds.), The Royal C ity o f Susa -
Ancient N ear Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York 1992, 251.
Tilia 1978
A. B. Tilia, Studies a n d Restoration at Persepolis and Other Sites o f Fars II (Istituto Italiano p er
il Medio ed Estrem o Oriente - Reports and Memoirs XVIII), Rome 1978.
U ehlinger/G raf (forthcom ing)
Chr. U ehlinger/ F. G raf (eds.), Iconography o f Deities and Demons in the A ncient N ear East. Orbis
Biblicus et O rientalis (forthcoming).
Van der Spek 2008
R. van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and Greek historian, in: R. van der Spek (ed.),
Studies in Ancient N ear Eastern World View and Society Presented to Marten Stol on the Occasion
o f his 65th Birthday, Bethesda, MD 2008, 277-318.
V erbrugghe/W ickersham 1996
G. P. V erbrugghe/J. M. W ickersham, Berossos and Manetho - Native Traditions in Ancient
M esopotamia and Egypt, Ann A rbor 1996.
W ik a n d e r1946
S. W ikander, Feuerpriester in K leinasien und Iran (Skrifter utgivna av Kungl. Humanistiska
Vetensskapsfundet i Lund - Acta Regiae Societatis H um aniorum Litterarum Lundensis 40),
Lund 1946.
W indischm ann 1858
F. W indischmann, D iepersische Anahita oder Anaitis (Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Bayerischen
A kadem ie der W issenschaften 8), Munich 1858.
 Berossos and the Monuments:
City Walls, Sanctuaries, Palaces and the Hanging Garden
Robert Rollinger (University of Helsinki /Leopold-Franzens Universitat Innsbruck)

1) Introduction
Berossos has experienced a marked revival in recent scholarship (cf. Bichler 2004; Beaulieu
2006a; De Breucker 2003a, b, 2011; Dillery 2007; Rollinger 2011b and 2012d; Schironi 2009;
Van der Spek 2008).1 There are several reasons for this development, among them the fact
that Babylonian history after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC has increasingly
become a legitimate area o f research in its own right. The period has lost the stigma of
lateness and is no longer of secondary interest as compared to earlier epochs. Yet, deal
ing with this fascinating author remains a difficult task. This is not only because his work
is only preserved in fragments. It is the fragments themselves which raise some specific
problems. In many cases the crucial question is: are they the product of a direct consulta
tion o f Berossos or do we have to reckon with intermediaries? Do they represent the con
tent of Berossos Babyloniaca or just some sort of digest made by Alexander Polyhistor (or
others)? (Cf. Schironi 2009, 15-16). These problems notwithstanding, m odern scholarship
has reached astonishing agreement in evaluating Berossos work and especially his use of
sources. He is regarded as a Babylonian scholar not only able to read cuneiform but also
with ready access to all kinds of cuneiform sources (Beaulieu 1998, 199; Beaulieu 2006a;
De Breucker 2003b, 23; Drews 1965 and 1975; Komoroczy 1973; Lambert 1976; Streck 2003;
Van der Spek 2008). Time and again, scholars have stressed the closeness of some of the
fragments in content and style to available cuneiform tablets. Some have even speculated
that Berossos could have been the author of surviving cuneiform texts such as the Dynastic
Prophecy or some of the so-called Babylonian chronicles (Van der Spek 2008; but cf. De
Breucker 2011, 645). Although weighty arguments have been adduced in support of this
view, it seems to me that one specific problem has been brushed over too quickly. 1 mean
those cases where the surviving fragments are not in agreement with the cuneiform tradi
tion. This is true, for example, o f Berossos claim that Babylon was in control o f Egypt
during the Neo-Babylonian period; or of his description of the Hanging Garden of Babylon
(cf. Bichler/Rollinger 2005),2 neither of which corresponds to the cuneiform record. Even
though scholars have not ignored these discrepancies altogether, explanations are often dis
appointing, with many opting to devolve responsibility to Alexander Polyhistor or to other

1 The fragments (Berossos and Abydenus) are quoted according to the edition in Brill s New Jacoby (BNJ),
translated with commentary by Geert De Breucker. Cf. also Burstein 1978, Verbrugghe/Wickersham
1996.
2 One may also adduce the following fragments: F7c: Berossos reports the reign of the brother of
Senikarib (Sennacherib); F7c: Berossos states that Belibos (Bel-ibni) kills Maroudach Baladan
(Marduk-aplu-iddina). Cf. De Breuckers commentary, BNJ adloc.
 138 Robert Rollinger
authors quoting Berossos text (De Breucker 2011, 643-4).3 This looks too much like a
vicious circle where the result o f the inquiry is fixed from the outset, and the findings are
explained with the expected result already in mind. In this context, Berossos portrayal of
monuments gains a particular relevance, not only because the Hanging Garden represents a
prominent and much-discussed example but also because looking at Berossos treatm ent o f
monumental structures more generally can throw fresh light on the question of his sources
and the character o f his work.
2) The monuments
Berossos treatm ent o f architectural monuments in the existing fragments can be divided
into two categories. In the first category are those monuments that are not associated with a
named patron. In the second category monuments are attributed to, and identified by, their
builders.
2.1) Unattributed monuments
All monuments in this category refer to a m ythical tim e immediately after the Deluge.
A fter the ark has landed in Arm enia and the flood-hero Xisouthros has disappeared, the
fragm ents 4a and 4b describe how the land was repopulated:
F4 a (Eusebius (Arm.), Chronographia)
And [he, i.e. A lexander Polyhistor, says] that they went and reached Babylon; that they dug in
Siparaci city, and drew out the book; and that they built many cities and constructed temples
to the gods, and once more repaired Babylon. And together with all this, the Polyhistor also
recounts the construction o f the tower in agreem ent w ith the books o f M oses, an exact likeness
even down to the syllables.
From Alexandros Polyhistor about the tower construction.
The Sibyl says; all m ankind having agreed, they built the very high tower, so that they might
ascend to the heavens; and the all-powerful god, blowing a wind, overturned the tower, and dis
tributed to each o f the men his own language; also because o f this, the city was called Babylon.
Indeed after the flood there were the Titan and Prom etheus; w hen the Titan also instigated a
struggle o f w ar against Kronos. And so much for the building o f the tower.
F 4 b (Syncellus)
(17) So, when they went to Babylon, they dug up the w ritings from Sippar. A fter they founded
many cities and established temples, they again founded Babylon anew. This previously cited
passage is from Alexander Polyhistor, quoting from Berossos, the lying author o f the Chaldaika.
It is possible for those who wish to devote them selves in the correct way to the divine w rit
ing o f Genesis and the preceding Chaldean fantasy [to see] to which extent they have differed
from one another, [[(p. 80, 17) And this is what Josephus [Josephus, Jew ish Antiquities 1.104ff.]
3 The crucial question to what extent Berossos shaped the chronographic tradition on Babylonian history
and how much and what exactly later authors like Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus drew from his
Babyloniaca has become even more pressing with the recent publication of the Leipziger Weltchronik
(Colom o/Lutz/Rucker/Scholl 2010; Luppe 2010). Col. Ill has a section on Babylonian kings ruling for
[1]68 years. Only two names of these kings are legible, Adaneites and Flyrbullos. So far, these kings are
entirely unknown, which suggests that there existed a chronographic tradition on Babylonia independent
of Berossos. See also WeiB 2010.
Berossos and the Monuments 139
said about those who lived after the flood and N im rod and about the building o f the tow er and
Babylon itself. But also Alexander Polyhistor, quoting from the Sibyl says the following, as does
Abydenus [BNJ 685 F 4]: From Alexander Polyhistor concerning the building o f the tower. Sibyl
says: W hen all people had the same language, some o f them built an exceedingly high tower
in order to climb up to the heaven. But God blew w inds upon it and overturned the people and
gave each a distinct language. For this reason the city was called Babylon. A fter the flood
Titan and Prom etheus lived. And this is what Alexander testifies about the story o f the building
o f the tow er and he him self also states that, because o f the confusion, it was called Babylon,
which they fabulously report had been reigned over many m yriads o f years before.]]
(17) eAi)6 vTa<; ouv xouxouc; eiq Ba(3iAcbva xa xe K St[a] 7tdptov ypdp,|j.axa avopu^at, Kai
7ioA,i<; noXkaq Kii^ovxa^ Kai ispa avi8pvo[j.evovq naXiv sniKrioai xf]v BapuXcova. xouxcov
5f| and AA,e^av5pou xou rioXuiaxopo^ ox; and Brjpcoaoou xou xa XaXdaiKa \|/i)8 tiyopoi)vxo<;
jipoKStpevcov, s^eaxt xotq opOcoq 87n(3aM.eiv PouXo|Xvoic; xrjt xrjq Fsvecteox; Qeiai ypa(pfjt Kai
xfjt 7tpoKt(j.vr|t XaXSaucrji xepaxo^oyiat, 7toaov aXXr\Xwv 8isvr|v6xacn .... [[(p. 80, 17) Kai
xauxa |a,ev o Ta>oTi7t 7to<; Ttept xrov ^exa xov KaxaKXuafxov Kai xov Ns(3pcb0 Kai xrjq 7tDpyo7toua<;
Kai auxrjc; BaPu^cbvoq. aXka Kai AXe^avSpoq o rioXuiaxcop d><; ek Sip-u^Ar^ xa 8 (prjai Kai
A(3u5r|v6<;. AlE^avSpou xou IloA-uioxopot; JtEpi xrjq 7xupyo7toua(;. Et(3u^Ia 86 (prjatv 6 |j,o(pri)vcov
ovxoov 7tdvx(ov avBptbjiwv xtvaq xouxcov Jtupyov i)7ip|a.y0 r| oiKoSopfjaat, ottgx; eiq xov oupavov
avapw ai. xou 86 Osou avEpouc; epqrooricavxoq, avaxpEvj/ai auxouq, Kai i5iav EKaaxcot cpcovr|v
Souvar 8 to Sfj Bapuleova xf)v 7t 6 A.iv KXx|0 rjvai. p.xa 86 xov KaxaKX.uo|a,6 v Ttxava Kai npopri06a
yVCT0at. Kai xa p 6 v xrjg 7rupyo 7roua<; AX6 ^av 8 pog xauxa (j.apxup(ov Kai auxog BaPu^wva
8ta xr)v ouyxuatv KXr|0 fjvai xf|v 7ip 6 jioAAcov (rupta8tov excov )n>0oA,oyoi>p,6vr]v nap auxoT<;
PPaatX,UKvat.]]
Two points seem worth m aking about these fragments. First, they both relate the founda
tion of many cities and the establishment of temples throughout Mesopotamia. All these
remain anonymous. Secondly, the fragments recount the resettlement o f Babylon after the
Flood. Apart from these general statements the only specific monument treated in both
fragments is the Tower of Babel. Yet, a close reading of the fragments clearly shows that the
story concerning the Tower of Babel was probably not in Berossos. Both fragments refer to
Alexander Polyhistor and point to the Sibyl as the ultimate source of the story; Syncellus
also adds a reference to Abydenus .4 This detailed story obviously reflects the account o f the
4 See also Abydenus F4 a (Eusebius (Arm.), Chronographia): This same [Abydenus] also writes about
the building of the tower, in agreement with the history of Moses, in this manner. From Abydenos about
the building o f the tower. They say there that it happened to the first men that, having become idle
through strength and stoutness of body, they even despised the gods, and fell into uselessness. They
began to erect a lofty tower, which now is called Babel. And when they brought it close to the gods in
heaven, at that point divine winds helped to push the mechanical work of the base [men] and overturn
it onto the earth; and the ground [where it was] overturned was named Babylon. Up to that point [they
spoke] the same language in one tongue, and the gods caused a clatter of multiple confusing languages
to enter into those who had cooperated. And after that Kronos and Titan waged war against each other.
F 4 b (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica): Again, when Moses tells the story about the building of the
tower and how they were confused from one tongue to many languages, the author mentioned just above
bears witness of similar events in his above-mentioned writing On the Assyrians, saying as follows:
From the writing o f Abydenos concerning the building o f the tower. (2) There are those who say that the
first men who rose up from earth became vain because of their strength and stature and indeed thought
contemptuously that they were better than the gods. So they raised a huge tower, where now Babylon is.
They were already quite near to the heaven. And the Winds, coming to the aid of the gods, overturned
 140 Robert Rollinger
Hebrew Bible on the Tower of Babel. With a high degree of probability it can be regarded as
an interpolation ,5 either in the text o f Berossos itself or in that of Alexander .6 Either way, the
story was not part o f Berossos genuine text. One may even wonder if Berossos mentioned
the Tower o f Babel at all, for Fragment 8 a (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 139-41), which
reports the titanic building enterprises o f king N ebuchadnezzar (see below), does not allude
to this structure .7 Contrary to Eusebius and Syncellus, Josephus seems to have had direct
access to Berossos work and was eager to demonstrate that the Bible could be corroborated
by ancient sources such as Berossos (cf. generally Barclay 2007, 78, 80 n. 427, 8 8 n. 504;
De Breucker 2011, 642-3),8 whereas Eusebius, and especially Syncellus often highlight the
differences between the two traditions and denounce Berossos and Polyhistor as liars. As
we shall see in the following section, there are further arguments in support of the view that
Berossos did not have much interest in the Tower of Babel.
2.2) Monuments attributed to specific figures
With only one exception, all monuments connected by Berossos to specific figures are lo
cated in Babylon. Indeed, we shall see that even this exception has a link to the famous city
on the Euphrates.
2.2.1) Monuments outside o f Babylon
Eusebius, referring to Alexander Polyhistor, reports a campaign of the Assyrian king
Senekeribos (Sennacherib) in Cilicia where he not only fought a battle against Greeks but
also erected a statue commemorating his victory and founded a new city, Tarsus:
F7c (Eusebius (Arm.), Chronographia)
W hen the news reached him that the Greeks had come and reached the land o f Cilicia to give
battle, he rushed against them, [and] drew up in battle array; and [although] many from his
own arm y had been m assacred, he vanquished the enemies in battle; and he raised up and left a
statue [as] a mem orial to his victory in that place; and he ordered that his bravery and strength
the construction around them; its ruins are called Babylon. Being up to that time of one tongue, they
received from the gods a multiform language. Afterwards, war arose between Kronos and Titan.
5 Cf. also De Breuckers commentary, BNJ 680 on F7 a, where Berossos is regarded as the father of the
Babylonian Sibyl: Berossos was very probably credited with this paternity because of the insertion of
the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel into his work.
6 Cf. the commentary by De Breucker on F4b sub Sibyl says in BNJ.
7 There remains the slight possibility that the temple of Belos (to te Belou hierorif which is mentioned
in F 8 a (Josephus, Contra Apionem 1,139) does not only refer to the Esagil-temple but included the
ziggurat Etemenanki as well. This is a practice which can be observed in cuneiform documents from
Neo-Assyrian to Late Babylonian times. Cf. George 2005/2006, 8 8 ; Rollinger 2012b, n. 8 8 ; Henkelm
an / Kuhrt / Rollinger / Wiesehofer 2011, 453-8. If this was the case, then it was not understood at all by
Josephus and others who would not have missed such an occasion to verify their Biblical stories. At any
rate, it would not change the general impression that Berossos did not pay much attention to the tower
(if he mentioned it at all).
8 See especially F 6 (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.158), where this attitude becomes evident: Berossos
mentions our father Habramos. He does not name him, but says the following: after the flood in the
tenth generation, there was a certain man among the Chaldeans, just and great and expert in heavenly
matters. Josephus does not interpolate someone or something into Berossos text but he very much aims
to interpret every single piece of evidence in Berossos according to the traditions of the Hebrew Bible.
Thus, his silence on the Tower of Babel is striking. For Josephus general attitude towards Babylon see
Inowlocki 2005.
Berossos and the M onum ents 141
be com m em orated in Chaldean script [as] a mem orial to future eras. And he says that he built
Tarson city in the likeness of Babylon, and gave it the name Tharsin.
A similar fragment is transmitted under the name of Abydenus (BNJ 685 F 5).9 Whereas there
is some agreement in modern scholarship that both Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus go
back to Berossos, there is disagreement as to whether the story reflects a historical campaign
of Sennacherib him self (Lanfranchi 2000, 24-30; Rollinger 2012c) or should be treated as
a legend, in which several historical events were amalgamated into one story and ascribed
to one king (De Breucker, BNJ, commentary on F 7c). If the latter is true, it would suggest
that Berossos does not simply quote from the cuneiform archives but also draws on other
existing traditions, and perhaps adds stories of his own. This seems to be true, in any case,
of the alleged foundation of Tarsus and the setting up of a victory monument. There is no
independent evidence for either, but the monument as well as the foundation o f the city re
calls the deeds of the legendary Assyrian king Sardanapallos as reported by classical sources
(Lanfranchi 2003; Burkert 2009; cf. Frahm 2003). Sardanapallos was said to have erected a
statue of him self in the vicinity of Anchiale together with an inscription in Assyrian letters,
which was supposed to say that he built Anchiale and Tarsus in one day. Statue and inscrip
tion are an invention of the classical tradition, probably inspired by genuine reliefs. As Geert
de Breucker has demonstrated, the foundation of Tarsus in the likeness of Babylon refers
to a Babylonian tradition whereby creating a copy of Babylon was taboo (De Breucker, BNJ,
commentary on 680 F 7c). Thus, the building m otif conveys two important layers ot mean
ing: it corrects existing Greek stories by introducing a competing (but equally legendary)
account, and it stigmatises the Assyrian king Sennacherib for his actions. This stigmatisa
tion must have something to do with his conquest of Babylon reported in the same fragment,
which turns out to have dire consequences: Sennacherib is betrayed by his son and killed
(cf. Parpola 1980, Rollinger 2012e). We may observe that monuments in Berossos work not
only take on a powerful symbolic significance but are connected to Babylon even when they
are located far away from the Babylonian heartland.
2.2.2) Babylon, its monuments and their patrons
Monuments in the city of Babylon are mentioned in two fragments: Fragment 8 a (Josephus,
Contra Apionem 1.139-42) and Fragment 9a (Contra Apionem 1.146, 150, 152). They
are connected to the activities of four rulers: Semiramis and Cyrus on the one hand and
Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus on the other hand. Apart from Tarsus (see above) there is no
other city outside Babylon where specific monuments seem to play any role .10 And, we may
note another important point: whereas Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus erect actual build
ings, the case of the two other rulers is completely different: Semiramis and Cyrus are said
9 F5 (Eusebius (Arm.), Chronographia)', Again this same man also writes a record about Sinekerib in
this manner. From Abvdenos about Sinek erim. In that time Sinekerib was finally found, the 25th of the
rulers. He subdued Babylon, and subjected it his power; and on the coast of the Cilician land he routed
a fleet of Greek sailors in a naval battle, driving them out; and he also built the temple of the Athenians,
erecting columns of copper, and they have said that he recorded his brave deeds in inscriptions; and he
built Tarsos in the form and figure of Babylon. No satisfactory explanation has yet been found for the
temple of the Athenians. Cf. De Breucker, commentary, BNJ.
10 The mention of the temple of Jerusalem in F9a (Josephus, Contra Apionem 1,145) is certainly an
interpolation.
 142 Robert Rollinger
not to have done any building (Semiramis) or even to have demolished existing structures
(Cyrus). They thus become a negative m irror image of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. Let
us first have a look at these non-builders before we turn to the two Chaldean kings.
2.2.2.1) Semiramis and Cyrus as examples o f non-builders
2.2.2.1.1) Semiramis
Semiramis is only mentioned once. In Fragment 8a-3a (Josephus, Contra Apionem I. 142)
we read:
142. Berossos gives this account about the above-mentioned king and many things in addition in
the third book o f the Chaldaika, in which he censures the Greek historians for wrongly thinking
that Babylon was founded by Sem iram is o f A ssyria and for falsely w riting that the m arvellous
constructions w ithin it were built by her.
(142) xouka fxev ouxax; iaxopr|Kv rcepi xou 7tpoetpri(j.svoi) paaiAEax; Kai noXXa npoq xouxoiq
ev xrjt xptxr|t pipXrot xcov XaASaiK&v, ev rjt |j.|a(pxai xotq 'EAAt|vikoTc; auyypacpEuatv, <w<;
^axr|v oio|ivot<; vno Lefitpd|j,C0<; xfjq Aoouptaq KxiaGrjvai xfiv BaPuAwva, Kai xa G autam a
KaxaoKuaCT0 i]vat 7tpi auxf]v im KEtvr|<; spya \|/eu5 g)<; yEypacpoci.
The fragment offers a clue as to what Berossos regarded as fact and what he took to be fic
tion. Babylon was a great city embellished with wondrous buildings (ta thaumasia erga),
and Semiramis was a historical figure, not a legendary queen (as De Breucker 2003a, 26 n. 6
holds) . 11 These are the facts. But the foundation of Babylon as well as the many thaumasia
erga o f the city have nothing to do with this Assyrian queen, Greek tradition notwithstand
ing. As has long been observed, the explicit criticism o f Greek historians is a seminal as
pect o f the fragment and may be regarded as authentic Berossos (Cf. De Breucker 2003a,
26).12 It is also generally agreed that one o f the authors who are criticized in this context is
Ctesias of Cnidus who gave Semiramis and her building activities a prominent place in his
work, and who heavily influenced later tradition in this respect. (For Ctesias see now the
contributions in W iesehofer/R ollinger/Lanfranchi 2011; for Semiramis see Weinfeld 1991,
Rollinger 2012b; for Sem iramis building activities, Jacobs 2011.) The reasons for Berossos
criticism may be sought in his Babylonian perspective on Mesopotamian history, with
Nebuchadnezzar and probably also Nabonidus playing a prominent role. By contrast, the
importance o f Assyria seems to be m inim ized (Bichler 2004, Rollinger 201 lb), and there is
implied criticism also o f the Greek tradition whereby Assyrian and Babylonian history are
intermingled and Babylonia is regarded as being part of Assyria (Rollinger 2011b, 2012d).
Thus, the Assyrian Semiramis is put in her place but her character as a historical figure is not
questioned. This, as well as Berossos critique in general, suggests the Greek perspective of
his work and may give us a clue as to his intentions. Let us now turn to Cyrus.
11 Cf. also F 5 a (Eusebius (Arm.), Chronographia), where Semiramis is referred to as one of the ancient
rulers in the country. See generally Rollinger 2010a.
12 It is the only place in the surviving fragments where other historians are explicitly criticised.
Berossos and the M onuments 143
2.2.2.1.2) Cyrus
Berossos treatment of Cyrus conquest of Babylon (F9a, Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.150-3)
has received particular interest in modern scholarship because it strikingly illustrates the
closeness of his account with the extant cuneiform sources. By the same token, his text dif
fers markedly from the fantastic account of Herodotus (1,18891), where Cyrus takes Babylon
by diverting the river Euphrates (cf. Rollinger 1993, 14866, Rollinger 2012b). It also differs
from Ctesias who does not tell us anything about the Persian conquest of Babylon (cf. Tuplin
2011, 480-1). Contrary to these two authors, Berossos account is in close parallel to the
Babylonian Chronicle: the Babylonian scholar evidently used this kind of source. Yet, one
paragraph in Josephus excerpt has received less attention. Here, Berossos seems to be at odds
with the surviving cuneiform sources:
F9a (Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.152)
152) Cyrus seized Babylon and ordered that the walls of the outer city be razed, because the city
seemed to him very formidable and difficult to capture ...
152) Kupoq 8 e BaPuAoova KaxaAaP6|j,voq, Kai a u v x at,aq xa [s^oa] xfjq < e ^cd> 7io Aecd<; xstxr|
K a x a a K a y a i Sta xo Aiav auxrai TtpayjaaxiKfiv Kai SuaaAcoxov (pavrjvat xrjv 7toA.iv,...13
It is not entirely clear what exactly is meant by the city walls of the outer city (ta tes exd
poleos teiche). In connection with F 8 a 139, where N ebuchadnezzars building activities
are reported to have focused, inter alia, on the walls of the inner as well on those of the
outer city, one may suppose that Berossos account is related to what the German archae
ologists called the Osthaken of the defence system of Babylon (Wetzel 1930; cf. now
H einsch/K untner 2011). Be that as it may be, it cannot be denied that in this particular case
the cuneiform evidence gives a different picture of C yrus activities. First, no cuneiform
source testifies to any kind of demolition measures undertaken by Cyrus (or his successors)
on the city walls of Babylon (Rollinger 2012b). On the contrary, there is broad agreement
that the opposite was the case. The Cyrus Cylinder as well as the so-called Persian Verse
Account report that Cyrus ordered repairs to the city walls of Babylon:
Verse account VI 8 11
[(Cyrus)] inclined to [(rebuild Imgur-Enlil):]
[He took up shovel and] hod and completed the wall o f Babylon;
[(He resolved)] to do gladly as N ebuchadnezzar (had done):
[(His building) he resto red , constructed a citadel on Im gur-Enlil .14
13 7ipay|^aTiKO(; is somewhat opaque in this context. Labow 2005, 152 translates (die Stadt, die ihm sehr)
zu schaffen machte. Similar Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 61: because they (the walls) presented too
strong a defence for the city, and Heinrich Clementz (who translates SuodAcoxoc; und sich als schwer
einnehmbar (erwiesen hat)). St. Thackeray (Loeb) translates redoubtable, which seems the best so
lution, (he interprets 5uadAcoioq as meaning formidable). Cf. also Barclay 2007, 8 8 , who, like De
Breucker, translates formidable and difficult to capture. Here as elsewhere, Labow 2005 is outdated
and not very useful.
14 Persian Verse Account VI 8 11. Lines 8 10 follow the translation of George 1992, 349. Line 11 fol
lows the reading of Schaudig (see next footnote). George reads the first part of the line [... ] u re-si and
translates [(He raised high)] (its) top.
 144 Robert Rollinger
(8 ) [ x x x] V SA-ba-su ub-lam-ma
(9) [ x x x t]up-sik-ku BAD TIN .TIRkl us-tak-lil
(10) [ x x x ki-m \a ldNA-NIG.GUB-URU ina m i-gir SA-bi-su e-pe-su
( 11 ) [si-pir-su u]s-tal-lim* hal-si ib-ta-ni ina im -gur-de n -lil15
The same work is recorded in the Cyrus Cylinder:
C yrus Cylinder 38-45:
(38) The wall Im gur-Enlil, the great (city) wall o f Babylon, I strove to strengthen its fortifica
tions (39) [ ... ] the baked brick quay on the bank o f the city moat, c o n stru cted ] by an earlier
king, [but not co m pleted, its work (40) [ 1... thus the city had not been completely surrounded],
so [to complete] the outside, which no king before me had done, its troops, m ustered [in all the
land, in]to Babylon (41) [... ]. I made anew [with bitum e]n and baked bricks and [finished the
work upon i]t. (42).... I installed [doors o f m ighty ceda]r clad with bronze, thresholds and door
opening[s cast o f copper in all its [gates] (43) [... 1 saw inside it an in sc rip tio n o f A ssurbanipal,
a king who came before [me ... for e]ver .16
(38) BAD im-gur-de n -lilBAD G AL-a sa TIN.TIRk[' m a-as-s]ar-ta -su* du-un-nu-nu a s-te-e -e-
ma (39) [x x x] ka-a-ri a-gur-ru sa GU ha-ri-si* sa LUGAL mah-ri i-p[u-su-ma la u-sa]k-rli-lu*
si-pi-ir-su (40) [x x x la u-sa-as-hi-ru URU] ra'-na ki-da-a-ni sa LUGAL m a-ah-ra la i-pu-su
um -man-ni-su di-ku-u\t m a-ti-su i-n a /a -n a q \e -rr e b SU.AN.NAki (41) [x x x i-na ESIR.HAD.
R A.]rA u SIGNAL.UR.RA es-si-is e-pu-us-m a [u-sak-lil si-pir-si\-in (42) [x x x ei5lGme gl5EREN
M A H ]meS ta-ah-lu-up-ti ZABAR as-ku-up-pu ii nu-ku-s[e-e pi-ti-iq e-ri-i e-m a K A meJ-i]/-a*
(43) [u-ra-at-ti x x x s]i-ti-ir (erasure) su-mu sa 'AN.SAR-DU-IBILA LUGAL a-lik mah-ri-[ia sa
qer-ba-su ap-pa-a]l-sa'* (44) [x x x ] rx x xn [x x x]-x-/z (45) [x x x ] rx x x [x x a-na dja-ri-a-ti.'1
Since both texts are staunchly pro-Cyrus and anti-Nabonidus, and since their vocabulary is
very reminiscent o f N ebuchadnezzars own accounts, their claims might be regarded with
suspicion were it not for the fact that we have chance corroboration in some administrative
documents. One o f these is a contract (Strassmaier, Cyrus 10) which originates from the
archive o f a certain Iddin-M arduk, a member o f the Egibi-family and dates from the month
of Addaru (X II) o f C yrus accession year (cf. George 1992, 349; W unsch 1993, no. 262;
Tolini 2005, 2-3.9):
15 Cf. Schaudig 2001, 572 (PI). Schaudig 2001, 577 offers the following translation: (8 ) [... ]... trug (ihm)
sein Herz zu, und (9) [ ... den T]ragkorb, die Mauer Babils vollendete er, (10) [ ... wi]e Nabu-kudurrT-
usur aus freien Stiicken zu tun, (11) [ihren Bau macht]e er heil, Festungen errichtete er an Imgur-Ellil.
16 Following the translation of Piotr Michalowski in Chavalas 2006, 429.
17 After Schaudig 2001, 554 (K2.1). Schaudig 2001, 556 offers the following translation: (38) Die Mauer
Imgur-Enlil, die groBe Mauer von Babil, ihre [W]ache zu starken suchte ich dringend (39) [... ] Der Kai
aus Backsteinen am Ufer des Stadtgrabens, den ein Konig friiherer Zeit geb[aut, doch nicht voll]endet
hat sein Werk, (40) [ ..., die Stadt (damit) nicht umgeben hatte] nach auBen hin, was ein Konig friiherer
Zeit nicht gebaut hatte, seine Truppen das Aufgebo[t seines Landes ... in/nach] Babil [hin]ein (41) [... in
Asphal]t und Backstein baute ich (sie) neu und [vollendete i]hr [Werk]. (42-3) [... gewalt]ige [Tiiren aus
Zedern] mit einer Verkleidung aus Bronze, Schwellen und Tiirza[pfen, aus Erz gegossen, befestigte ich
in all i]hren [Toren. ... Die I]nschrift Assur-bani-aplis, eines Konigs, der [mir] voranging, [die ich darin
geseh]en, (44) [... ] ...[ ... ] ..., (45) [... ] ... [... bis in E]wigkeit.
Berossos and the M onum ents 145
Strassmaier, C yrus 10 18
(1) 19 shekels o f silver for work
(2) done on the city wall at the Enlil Gate,
(3) from the 14th o f Tebetu (X)
(4) to the 6 th o f A ddaru (X II)
(1) 19 GIN KU.BABBAR a-na dul-lu
(2 ) sa BAD sa KA.GAL den-Ul
(3) sa ul-tu u 14.KAM sa "A B
(4) a-di u 6 .KAM sd illSE
Kristin Kleber has published some more documents corroborating building activities on
the walls of Babylon not only under Cyrus but also his successors Cambyses, Darius I
and Nebuchadnezzar IV (K leber 2008, 187-8). One may argue that all these texts refer to
work on the main wall of Babylon whereas Berossos only states that Cyrus demolished the
outer walls which may represent the Osthaken. But there is a second point which should
not be overlooked. Berossos argues that Cyrus aimed to weaken Babylons capacity for
self-defence. This intention at least is clearly contradicted by the cuneiform evidence. And
there is a further aspect which might be even more important. Cuneiform documents attest
to the belief that every legitimate Babylonian king had the duty to engage in restoration
work on the city walls of Babylon. This is demonstrated in a central passage of the New
Years Festival rituals originating from Seleucid times. One o f the rituals which had to be
performed by the king himself, was a negative confession of his sins, which included the
following solemn declaration:
[I paid a tten tio n to Babylon, did not destroy its (city) walls
[u-pa-a\q ana Ekl ul a-bu-ut sal-hu-su ,19
Against this background, Berossos account appears in a new light, for the demolition al
legedly ordered by Cyrus casts this king as an illegitimate ruler who did not observe the
holy statutes to which any legitimate king of Babylon should adhere .20 This becomes even
more astonishing if we compare the so-called Dynastic Prophecy, a document roughly con
temporary with Berossos, whom some scholars even regarded to be a candidate for being
18 Strassmaier 1890, Cyrus 10, 1-4. See also Wunsch 1993, no. 262; Tolini 2005, 2-3.
19 Thureau-Dangin 1921, 154 line 428 (transliteration p. 144).
20 Barclay 2007, 8 8 n. 499, who is unaware of this aspect, believes that the fragment attests to Berossus
evident admiration of Cyrus. Similar De Breucker 2011, 645. Cf. also Abydenus F 1 a, where it is said
that the primeval hero Belos fortified Babylon enclosing and encircling it with a wall; and when enough
time, having passed, had lasted, it was destroyed. Naboukodrossoros again encircled it with a wall; and
that endured, sufficing until the era of Macedonian rule, with doors made of copper (BNJ). Similar
F lb; cf. also F 5 and F 6 a / 6 b. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar proved him self to be a good king by restoring the
primordial Babylonian city walls which were still there in Hellenistic times. In passing, Berossos here
corrects Herodotus suggestion that Darius tore down the walls (3,159,1). See De Breucker 2011, 648.
Cf. Abydenos/Berossos F 6 b where, in the context of a vaticinium ex eventu, Cyrus also seems to be
characterized in a negative way: He will bring slavery (BNJ). Finally, Berossos F 10 gains seminal im
portance: Then in the plain of Daas, he (Cyrus) died while fighting another enemy. From a Babylonian
perspective, a good king should never be killed in action.
 146 Robert Rollinger
its author. In this work, Cyrus is presented as a ruler who is in perfect accordance with the
holy laws o f Babylon:
D ynastic Prophecy II 22-2 4 :
That king will be stronger than the land and
all the lands [will bring him] tribute.
D uring his reign A kkad [will live] in security .21
LUGAL su-u UGU K UR i-dan-nin-ma [(...)]
K UR.KU R.M ES ka-la-si-na bil-tum [ ... ]
i-na BAL-e su K U R U R Ikl sub-turn ni-i[h-tum TUS]
Reviewing this evidence, it becomes clear that Berossos is not only in contradiction with
the facts .22 His characterisation o f Cyrus also differs considerably from the presentation o f
the Persian king in contem porary cuneiform sources. It is difficult to explain why Berossos
opted to describe Cyrus in this particular way. May we suppose some implicit criticism
of the much more positive view o f this king prevalent in classical tradition? Or should we
understand Berossos treatment o f Cyrus in connection with his Seleucid agenda, whereby
Nebuchadnezzar II was portrayed as a proto-Seleucus (K uhrt 1987)23 and the period of
Persian rule over Babylonia was generally seen in a negative light? We simply do not know.
In any case, it is highly probable that Berossos portrayal of Cyrus was the product of con
scious choice. Moreover, Berossos exemplified his portrayal o f the Persian king by focusing
on one of the main monuments o f Babylon, the city w alls .24 The importance o f monumental
21 Van der Spek 2003, 316.
22 Furthermore, stamped bricks of Cyrus document the paving of the Eanna in Uruk as well as build
ing activities on the walls of Egisnugal in Ur: Schaudig 2001, 548-9 (K l.l and K1.2). Cf. also Kose
1998, 16. Oelsner 2002, 51 with n. 12. Cyrus seems to have pursued similar activities in the cities of
Esnunna (Jursa 1996, 209-10) and Opis (MacGinnis 1998, 210-11) Concerning his works on strongholds
and streets see Joannes 2005, 186-7. Cf. also BM 113249 (1919-6-14, 1) (29.6.3 Camb), which shows
Cambyses as a king who tries to act in perfect accordance with the ancient laws of the Babylonian
temples: Nabu-mukTn-apli, the bishop of Eanna ... said to (eleven named men), the Babylonians and
Urukeans, the temple assembly of Eanna, as follows: A messenger of the king and the governor of
Babylon (sakin tem babili) [has come who] has said as follows: Show me any inscribed stelae (a-su-mit-
tu4mei) of former kings which are being kept in Eanna. Show any old inscribed stelae that you know of to
the messenger of the king. Show everything that you remember and of which you know to the messenger
of the king. (Jursa 2007, 78; Kleber 2008, 270-1).
23 Barclay 2007, 85 n. 475 sees Berossos as making a claim for Nebuchadnezzar as an unparalleled politi
cal hero. At the same time he interprets Cyrus demolition of the city walls as a back-handed compli
ment to Nebuchadnezzar supposing that this notice might serve to explain why the once-famous walls
of Babylon were no longer extant (Barclay 2007, 8 8 n. 501). But there is no need to believe that the city
walls of Babylon did not exist anymore in Berossos lifetime. Cf. Heinsch/Kuntner 2011.
24 We should not treat the cuneiform sources as a homogenous mass representing only one tradition which
Berossos may or may not have followed (cf. above n. 3). Rather, we must reckon with locally diverse and
often competing traditions, from which Berossos was free to choose whichever version best suited his
purposes. Thus, it is clear that the almost exclusive focus on Babylon which is such a prominent feature
of Berossos account, would probably have met with hostility in other Babylonian cities. This may
especially apply to Uruk where there is some evidence for anti-Babylonian sentiment since the time of
Xerxes (Frahm 2010, 17-18). Thus, in a lament, which was written in 287 BC, exactly when Berossos
was active, Marduk is blamed for having killed Istars youthful lover Tammuz, a deity closely connected
with Uruk (Lambert 1983).
Berossos and the Monuments 147
construction for Berossos portrayal o f legitimate kingship becomes even clearer once we
turn to those rulers who, according to Berossos, contributed considerably to the building of
Babylon, i.e. Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar II.
2.2.2.2) Nebuchadnezzar II. and Nabonidus as builder kings
2.2.2.2.1) Nabonidus
In Fragment 9a (Josephus, Contra Apionem 1,149) Berossos describes the building activities
of Nabonidus:
F9a
149 ) A fter his (Laborosoardokhos) m urder those who had plotted against him met and jointly
conferred the kingdom on N abonnedos, a m an from Babylon and a m em ber o f this conspiracy.
D uring his reign the w alls o f the city o f the Babylonians alongside the river were constructed
with baked brick and bitumen.
149 ) d7toAo(j.svou 5 s i o u i o u , guveAGovxei; oi 7npouAuaavx<; anion Kotvrji xr|v paaiA,tav
7ispie0riKav Na(3ovvrj8 (M xtvi xcbv ek BaPuAoavog, ovxt ek ifjg ai)irj<; ETturoaxaaEtGc; 7ii
io ijxo d xa 7tpi xov 7ioxa(iov itxr| xfjc; BapuAcovia>v nolewq e, orcxfjq TtX-lvGou Kai aotpaAxon
KaiKOG|lT]0 r|.
Berossos account is corroborated by the cuneiform sources. Although we have no royal
inscriptions of Nabonidus which tell us about his construction work along the Arakhtu chan
nel, i.e. the river Euphrates, these activities are nevertheless documented by inscribed bricks
unearthed in situ during the German excavations (Schaudig 2001, 343 (1.10.3); Wetzel 1930,
52). The wall was traced form the south-western corner of the so-called Vorwerk to the
south-western corner o f the inner city, with excavations interrupted only by a gap o f about
315m. It was about 7,70m strong with protruding towers on both sides. Towards the water
front there was an embankment, about 3,50m wide. A total of 13 gates was detected. Like the
river walls of his predecessors Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II, the wall of Nabonidus
was built with baked bricks and bitumen (Wetzel 1930, 49-51). Although, in this case,
Berossos is in perfect accordance with the archaeological and cuneiform evidence, it must
be noted that all other building activities attested in Nabonidus inscriptions, both in Babylon
and elsewhere, are absent from Berossos account .25 W hy Berossos decided to mention the
river walls only, remains unclear. In any case, it seems highly likely that this was indeed his
choice and not that of the excerptors, for there is no plausible reason why Josephus should
have regarded these walls as being of special interest to his readers.
2.2.2.2.2) Nebuchadnezzar II
Nebuchadnezzars building activities are reported in Fragment F 8 a (Josephus, Contra
Apionem 1,139-41)
F 8a
(139) He him self (scil. N ebuchadnezzar) lavishly decorated the temple o f Belos (to te Belou
hieron) and the other temples (ta loipa) from the spoils o f war. He strengthened the existing old
25 See the overview presented by Schaudig 2001, 61-5. In Babylon, Nabonidus restored the Esangil-temple,
its gates and peribolos, the Emasdari-temple, and Imgur-Enlil, i.e. the city wall.
 148 Robert Rollinger
city (ten te hyparchousan ex arches poliri) and added another city outside the w alls (heteran
exothen). And f taking thought for the fact that besiegers should no longer be able to turn back
the river and array it against the city, he surrounded the inner city (tes endon poleds ) w ith three
walls (peribolous ) and the outer city (tes exo) with three. O f these walls, the form er were made
of baked brick and bitumen (ex optes plinthou kai asphaltou), the latter o f rough brick (ex autes
tes plinthou). (140) A fter he had fortified the city in this remarkable way and decorated the gate
ways in a way suited to their sanctity, he built in addition to his fathers palace another palace
(hetera basileia) adjoining it. It would perhaps take too long to describe its height (anastema)
and general opulence, except to say that, despite its extraordinary size and splendour, it was
completed in fifteen days. (141) In this palace (en de tois basileiois toutois) he built high stone
terraces (analemmata lithina hypsela) and m ade them appear very sim ilar to m ountains (ten
opsin apodous homoiotaten tois oresi), planting them with all kinds o f trees, thus constructing
and arranging the so-called Hanging Garden (ton kaloumenon kremaston paradeisori), because
his wife, who had been raised in the regions o f Media, longed for a m ountainous scenery.
( 139 ) avrroq 5 e aTto trov 7toAi|xo\) A,aqn>pa)v to te Bf|Aoi) iepov Kai m Xoina Koafxf|aac;
sk t o v
apxfjq 7toA.iv Kai ETEpav e ^w Oev 7tpoaxaptad|j.E vo<;, Kai
cptAoTifxcLx;, Tt|v te i m a p x o u c a v e ,
favayKaoag 7tpoq to (it |K8ti SuvaaOat Toug TtoAtopKouviai; xov 7tOTa|a6v dvaarpEtpovTag E7ti tt)v
7toAiv K araaK E ud^Etv, UTtspEpdA-ETO Tpsu; [aiv rrjq ev 8 ov noXeac; 7tptP6Aoi)<;, xpEiq 8 e ifjq e ^ oj,
zovzojv <8e> rouq nev et, 07n;fj(; 7tAtv0ou Kai daqjaArou, toix; 8 e eE, auTfjq irjg 7tXiv0ot>. ( 140 ) Kai
TEixvoaq a^toXoyax; ttiv 7toA,iv, Kai Touq 7roXa)va<; Koa(^f|aa<; ispoTtpETtax;, 7tpooKaTaKEt)aav
TOtg rtarpiKoti; PaaiAioi<; ETspa PacriAEta Exofisva ekeivcov, cov to ^iev avdarrm a Kai tt)v Aoi7tf]v
7ioAuTEAtav ^aKpov la&q e a r at, sav zig E^riyrjrat, 7tAf)v ovra ys imEpPoAriv cb<; |iyaAa Kai
imEprjcpava ci)ViAa0 ri rjnspaiq SKa7tVT. ( 141) ev 8 e xoiq PaatAtot<; t o u t o i <; dvaAj]|j.|aaTa of the king at N bk 14 II 2 2 -4 (VAB 4, 116-17). The trend towards an exclusive focus on
A10tva u\)/r|Ad avotKo8o(xr|aag, Kai tt|V 6\j/tv a7ioSoi)<; 6|aoioxdTr|v tou ; opsot, KaracpuTEijcat;
SEvSpeot TtavToSaTtotq, E^EipyaaaTO Kai K aTEaK Euaas tov KaAoufiEvov K pE jiaaT ov 7tapd8taov
8ta to tt]V yuvatKa amor) 7tt0'up.tv xfjg opeiag Sia 0 aco<;, < d x;> x0 pa|i[j.vr|v ev xoT<; Kara
tt]v Mr|8tav tottok;.
This long passage has baffled modern scholars for its closeness to N ebuchadnezzars East
India House Inscription (Langdon 1912, 120-41: N bk 15; text ST according to Da Riva
2008, 122). One point in particular finds an astonishing parallel in Berossos fragm ent , 26
namely the Babylonian kings claim to have built his new palace (known as the North Palace)
within fifteen days (VIII 6 4 -IX 2: Langdon 1912, 138-9).27 Although surviving documents
show this to be an ideologically motivated trope 28 - in reality, work on the palace took
more than a decade (Beaulieu 2005)29 - it remains a fact that Berossos concurs with the
inscription. This has led scholars to conclude that Berossos directly used this inscription
as his source: As a m atter o f fact, it must be concluded that Berossos knew the content of
N ebuchadnezzars Basalt Stone Inscription (Van der Spek 2008, 296; cf. Beaulieu 2005,
47). But how closely did he adhere to his source, and was it the only one he used? Careful
comparison between the East India House Inscription and Berossos text as transm itted by
Josephus shows close parallels but also divergences which should not be ignored. These do
26 Abydenus transmits an interesting variant of this according to which the city walls of Babylon were
erected in a period of nearly fifteen days (F 6 a)/ in fifteen days (F 6 b).
27 VIII (64) i-na 15 u4-um si-pi-ir-sa IX (1) u-sa-ak-li-il-ma (2) u-sa-pa-a su-bat be-lu-ti: In fifteen days
I completed its work and made appear as a lordly seat (Beaulieu 2005, 46).
28 Beaulieu 2005, 49 takes it as a symbolic figure.
29 The building work at the North Palace is attested over a period of ten years, from the 19th to the 29th
regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (586 to 576 BC): Beaulieu 2005, 49.
Berossos and the M onum ents 149
not only concern chapter 141 and the Hanging Garden but also other aspects o f the frag
ment. Sceptics might object that the original text of Berossos is not preserved, and that all
we have is a condensed paraphrase taken out o f context. Yet, analysing the fragment in the
wider context of Berossos work offers a different perspective. The building programme
ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar is the most extensive one reported by Berossos. And it is, in
accordance with Berossos treatm ent of the monuments, entirely focused on Babylon .30 No
other Babylonian city seems to have benefited from it. The focus on Nebuchadnezzar is eas
ily explained, if we accept that Berossos followed a Seleucid agenda, with Nebuchadnezzar
acting as predecessor and model for the first two Seleucid kings (K uhrt 1987).31 The empha
sis on Babylon must have something to do with Berossos him self and his specific outlook.
O f course, classical authors had already focused on the city of Babylon, so Berossos may
be responding to, and correcting, their reports (cf. Rollinger 2008a, Rollinger 2008b). But
there seems to be more behind his selection o f material. Berossos presents Babylon as the
city p a r excellence, and this is obviously what he intended .32 The idea is by no means new:
we find it in many cuneiform documents, chief among them the Enuma elis which Berossos
him self knew and used (See Talon 2005, Borger 2008, Haubold, this volume). We encounter
an anologous perspective in the inscriptions o f the Neo-Babylonian kings. This is not only
true o f the East India House Inscription, which insists that Nebuchadnezzar embellished
Babylon more than any other city :33 a focus on Babylon is a characteristic feature of many of
Nebuchadnezzars inscriptions. World domination with Babylon as the centre o f power is a
crucial theme in N bk 19 IX 7-9 (VAB 4, 174-5), and Babylon appears as the only residence
Babylon is said to have started with Nabopolassar: Nbk 14 I 44 -4 9 (VAB 4, 114-15), Nbk 15
VII 9-25 (VAB 4, 134-5). It thus becomes evident that there is more at stake in Berossos
text than a single reference to one single inscription. This impression becomes even stronger
when we concentrate on the main contents of the fragment itself. These are:
- The temple of Bel (to te Belou hieron)
- The other temples (ta loipa)
- The old city (= the inner city) in general
- The new city outside (= the outer city) in general
- The old city (= the inner city), and especially its city walls
30 According to Abydenus F 6 a Nebuchadnezzar also built a wall along the shore of the Red Sea [to
shield it] from the salty waves. Moreover he built the city of Teredon at the approach of the land of the
Arabians. Whether one of these walls is connected to the wall mentioned in Berossos F9a remains
an open question (cf. De Breucker, commentary, BNJ). Finally, Nebuchadnezzar is supposed to have
diverted the Armakales river (a branch of the Euphrates) and to have dug a water cistern near the City of
Sippar: Abydenus F 6 a; cf. F 6 b. De Breucker 2011, 646 accepts that the story about the water reservoir
o f Sippar originates with Berossos. Another question is whether these pieces of information in Abydenus
are a reflection of the so called Median Wall of Nebuchadnezzar, attested in his inscriptions (Da Riva
2010b), and, at least partly, corroborated by archaeological research (Gasche 2010).
31 The Neo-Babylonian kings were regarded as important historical models in Hellenistic times as can be
seen from several fragments of epics about Nabopolassar: Gerardi 1986, Tadmor 1998, Lambert 2005,
Frahm 2005. For the milieu of the Babylonian scholars during Berossos lifetime, and their need to re
assert their importance vis-a-vis the king, see Lenzi 2008, 160-5; De Breucker 2003b; De Breucker 2011,
638-42. Cf. also Beaulieu 2006b; Clancier 2009, 2011; Goldstein 2010.
32 Cf. also F 3 b (Syncellus), where Berossos presents Babylon as the first antediluvian city.
33 Nbk 15 IX 54-6 (VAB 4, 140-1).
 150 Robert Rollinger
- The new city outside (= the outer city), and especially its city walls
- The city gates
- The Old Palace (Nabopolassar)
- The New Palace (Nebuchadnezzar) in general
- The New Palace (Nebuchadnezzar), and especially its Hanging Garden
It is interesting to compare these data with the classical authors as well as with the inscrip
tions o f the Neo-Babylonian kings. With classical authors such as Herodotus and Ctesias
Berossos shares an emphasis on Babylon as the Mesopotamian city p a r excellence, a focus
on the city walls and gates and an interest in the temple of Bel. This last point, however,
requires immediate qualification: Herodotus for one pays much more attention to the temple
o f Bel than Berossos does (Rollinger 1993, 1998, 2008a, b). Perhaps the fragm entary preser
vation o f Berossos work has something to do with that, but it is unlikely that much has been
lost here: certainly, one would expect that the Jewish (and also later Christian) excerptors
would have found the Tower of Babel o f all buildings worthy of their attention. We may thus
conclude that the temple o f Bel commanded less attention in the work o f Berossos than it
did in the works o f classical authors. Equally noteworthy is Berossos focus on palaces, for
this topic was not popular with classical authors, who broadly speaking treat palaces as topo
graphical landmarks or places which illustrate how oriental kingship allegedly functioned,
with kings spending their entire life behind the walls of their palace (Rollinger 201 la). What
we do not find in the classical sources is the palace as the outstanding example o f an aston
ishing building programme. When Berossos describes N ebuchadnezzars gigantic building
projects he implicitly refutes Ctesias view that oriental kings after Semiramis were essen
tially idle (cf. Rollinger 2011a, 316-19; 2011b, 325-30). He also calls into question Herodotus
story about Cyrus conquering Babylon by diverting the river Euphrates (1,188-91). As we
learn from Berossos, this was simply impossible after Nebuchadnezzar had fortified the city.
Moreover, Nebuchadnezzars palace is in no way to be regarded as the embellished prison of
an effeminate eastern monarch, but instead exemplifies the building activities of an energetic
ruler (cf. also Rollinger 2010b, 2011a) .34
Turning to the inscriptions o f the Neo-Babylonian kings, we can again observe marked
differences with Berossos. Berossos choice o f subjects is his own, and is not determined
by any single inscription he may have used. Rocio Da Riva has recently reviewed the con
tents o f N ebuchadnezzars building inscriptions (Da Riva 2008, 110-12). She concludes that
he concentrated his building activities in Babylon but that there were nevertheless many
other cities all over Babylonia where he was active. In Babylon itself, Nebuchadnezzar was
engaged in building on all major temples o f the city. Yet, temple building in general is
not a major issue in Berossos .35 Instead, his focus has shifted to secular structures. In his
34 The king is also engaged in military campaigns as, e.g. at F 8 a (Josephus, Contra Apionem 1,131-44),
where Nebuchadnezzar marches against Egypt (1,132). The passage appears to display a characteristic
feature of Neo-Assyrian inscriptions in that Nebuchadnezzar allegedly claims to have conquered Egypt,
Syria, Phoenicia, and Arabia, surpassing in his exploits all who had reigned before him (1,133). This is
very much reminiscent of his Neo-Assyrian predecessors competitive stance. Berossos report (1,137)
that Nebuchadnezzar marched back to Babylon through the desert may also be indebted to Assyrian
models, as well as prefiguring one of Alexanders most famous deeds. For Nebuchadnezzars western
campaign see now Da Riva 2010a; on the question of continuity from Neo-Assyrian times: Rollinger
2 0 1 2 a.
35 Cf. also n. 7 above.
Berossos and the Monuments 151
inscriptions, Nebuchadnezzar him self refers to the walls and palaces o f the capital. Indeed,
these structures play a considerable role in his inscriptions, much more so than they do in the
inscriptions o f any other Neo-Babylonian king (Da Riva 2008, 110-13). Berossos shares this
focus with the famous Babylonian ruler, though once more he could have drawn inspiration
from many inscriptions, and not from a single one.
Before we move on to discussion of the Hanging Garden we may draw some preliminary
conclusions. First, critical engagement with existing classical tradition, its choice of subject
and general outline, is a characteristic feature of Berossos work. Secondly, Berossos also
has access to Babylonian texts, but he does not simply transcribe the contents of these texts.
He arranges his own narrative, consciously chooses his topics and frames them in a novel
way. But what about the Hanging Garden, the kremastos paradeisos, as Berossos calls it? I
do not here wish to review the extensive classical tradition about this monument. That has
already been done elsewhere (Bichler/Rollinger 2005). For the purposes o f this chapter, I
will rather concentrate on some important aspects which have so far been neglected.
It is clear that Berossos did not invent the Hanging Garden as a feature connected to
Babylon. When he mentions the kaloumenos kremastos paradeisos the phrasing suggests
that he picks up an already prevalent idea. We do not know for certain when this idea first
took shape. Suffice it to say that Berossos is the first secure source we have on this topic.
Herodotus did not mention the garden and with a high degree o f probability Ctesias did not
mention it either .36 Clitarchus certainly did, and most scholars now agree that he was a pre
decessor of Berossos (Bichler/Rollinger 2005). The tradition which started with Clitarchus
is visible in later excerptors such as Diodorus, Pliny and Curtius Rufus, where a Syrian
king is thought to have commissioned the monument for his Median wife. As we learn from
Fragment 7 c (Eusebius (Arm.), Chronographia) Berossos identified this lady as Amytis,
daughter of Astyages (cf. also Abydenus F 5). This seems to be a contribution of Berossos
himself, although it creates insurmountable chronological problems. In any case, the di
rect line of succession described by Ctesias, where Cyrus figures as A styages successor
(cf. Rollinger 2010b, 6 6 - 8 ), is broken in Berossos. In this respect, too, C yrus appears in a
different light than he does in Herodotus and Ctesias. But what is more im portant here is
the fact that the story again betrays a Greek outlook. This already becomes clear when we
consider the name given to the monument. Although it is obvious from Berossos account
that hanging refers to some form of tall terraced structure (see below ) ,37 the Akkadian
language has no word for a building formed on the basis of the verb suqallulu, hang .38 It
is further evident that the classical tradition about the Hanging Garden was fairly recent in
Berossos time. It seems not to have existed when Alexander was in Babylon but came into
being immediately after (Bichler/Rollinger 2005). It is also clear that this monument was
not yet part of a list o f World Wonders. Such a list was produced some time after Berossos
during the late 3rd or early 2nd century BC. But which role does Berossos play in this context?
Generally speaking, we might answer this question in two ways. First, we might regard
the Hanging Garden as a historically real monument which can be located and dated in
principle. Alternatively, we can stress the fictional character of such a construction. With
36 One can safely assume that Ctesias excerptors would have mentioned them due to their prominence
within the classical tradition.
37 Cf. also the mosque in the Coptic quarter of Cairo called Moallaqa, the hanging one, which was built
high up on a Roman gate. See Brunner-Traut 1988, 437.
38 Cf. CAD S'", 330-2.
152 Robert Rollinger Berossos and the M onuments 153

the city walls o f Babylon both aspects began to intermingle already in ancient times. The
walls did exist but not on the gigantic scale recorded in classical literature, nor were they Palace as mountain:
commissioned by a legendary queen called Semiramis. Pars pro toto the walls represent
- Nbk 14 II 15 (VAB 4, 116-17)
the outstanding status o f Babylon as a city, a phenomenon which might help us also with
- Nbk 14 III 23 (VAB 4, 120-1)
the Hanging Garden. Robartus van der Spek has made the im portant observation (Van der
- Nbk 15 VIII If (VAB 4, 136-7)
Spek 2003) that this garden is part o f the new palace which Nebuchadnezzar erected, not
- N bk 15 V III 62f (VAB 4, 138-9)
only in Berossos F 8 but in most other attestations in the classical sources. A close look at
- N bk 19 B VIII 59 (VAB 4, 172-3)
the fragment shows that the connection is even closer.
- N bk 31 5 (VAB 4, 198-9)
The Hanging Garden is associated with two motifs, high terraces {analemmata lithina
- Nbk 36 5 (VAB 4, 200-1)
hypsela) and an overall resemblance with m ountains (ten opsin apodous homoiotaten tois
- Nbk 37 5 (VAB 4, 200-1)
oresi). This observation hints at the process behind the making of the story. The comparison
- N bk 46 8 (VAB 4, 206-7)
o f buildings, towns and monuments with mountains is a well-known topos in Sumerian and
Babylonian literature which can be traced back to the third millennium BC (Rollinger 2010c). The m otif could also be applied to the city of Babylon as a whole.
Generally speaking, it is above all temples which could be linked to this motif. Yet, in Neo-
Babylonian times as documented by the Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions the image of the City o f Babylon as mountain:
mountain, which continued to be popular, came to be applied specifically to the city walls
- N bk 14 III 32 (VAB 4, 120-1)
and palaces built by Nebuchadnezzar:
- N bk 15 IX 42f (VAB 4, 140-1)
City walls as mountain: Compared to this impressive list, temples or parts of them are less often compared with
mountains in the Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions. This is particularly true of the inscrip
- N b k 4 I 2 2 f ( V A B 4 , 82-3)
tions of Nebuchadnezzar (whereas in those of Nabonidus the equation of temples with moun
- Nbk 4 III If (VAB 4, 82-3)
tains seems to have played a more prominent role):
- Nbk 5 I 18f (VAB 4, 84-5)
- N bk 7 II 20 (VAB 4, 86-7)
Temple as mountain:
- N b k 9 I 4 9 f ( V A B 4 , 90-1)
- Nbk 9 II 9 (VAB 4, 90-1) - Npl 1 III 23-25 (VAB 4, 62-5)
- N bk 13 I 5 (VAB 4, 106-7) - N bk 15 IV 13 (VAB 4, 128-9)
- N bk 13 II 24 (VAB 4, 106-7) - Ngl 2 II 22 (VAB 4, 216-17)
- N bk 13 II 34 (VAB 4, 108-9) - N bd Text 2.9, II 1 (Schaudig 2001, 386, 393)
- Nbk 14 II 34 (VAB 4, 116-17) - Nbd Text 2.17, Rs. II 3 (Schaudig 2001, 468-9)
- N bk 14 II 51 (VAB 4, 118-19) - N bd Text P4, IV 10 (Schaudig 2001, 592, 594)
- N bk 14 III 7 (VAB 4, 118-19) - N bd Text 2 .1 ,1 15 (Schaudig 2001, 346, 349) 39
- N bk 15 VI 34 (VAB 4, 134-5) - Nbd Text 2.9, II 7 (Schaudig 2001, 386, 393) 40
- Nbk 15 VIII 51 (VAB 4, 138-9)
- Nbk 15 IX 21 (VAB 4, 138-9)
Dais (du u) as mountain
- Nbk 15 IX 22-28 (VAB 4, 138-9)
- Nbk 19 B V 21 (VAB 4, 162-3) - Nbk 44 4 (VAB 4, 204-5)
- Nbk 19 B V 58 (VAB 4, 162-3)
- Nbk 19 B VI 56 (VAB 4, 166-7)
Celia (papahu) as mountain
- Nbk 20 I 63 (VAB 4, 178-9)
- Nbk 20 I 69 (VAB 4, 180-1) - Nbd Text 2.12, III 19 (Schaudig 2001, 404, 409)
- Nbk 20 II 16 (VAB 4, 180-1)
- Nbk 21 II 5 (VAB 4, 186-7)
- Nbk 21 II 26 (VAB 4, 188-9)

39 Ezida as mountain of life: sad balatu.

40 The entrance to the temple is like a mountain pass: nereb kinne.
 154 Robert Rollinger
The evidence presented above suggests that the equation o f the palace with a mountain is
a specific feature o f the inscriptions o f Nebuchadnezzar II. Gardens do not seem to have
played any role in this context ,41 although they were an integral part of ancient Near Eastern
palaces from at least the Neo-Assyrian period onwards (Stronach 1989 and 1990; Reade
1998, 85; Novak 1996, 348-50; Novak 1997, 190; Novak 2002 and 2004; Cook 2004, 58-9.
Cf. also Waetzold 2005, Jam es/van der Sluijs 2008).
Reviewing this evidence, it seems that with the m otif of the Hanging Garden, at least two
perspectives have been conflated. First, there is a Babylonian tradition of picturing the gi
gantic palaces o f Nebuchadnezzar and other kings as mountains without however mentioning
gardens as part o f these edifices (Babylonian royal inscriptions). Secondly, we grasp a Greek
tradition which betrays a fascination with Babylonian building programmes, but whose main
focus is not on the palaces themselves but rather on the city walls and, in one case, a garden
on a terrace connected to the palace. These two traditions seem to have coalesced at an early
stage, if not at the very beginning o f Greek rule, then certainly soon after. How this might
have worked in practice becomes evident, for example, when we consider the Greek charac
terization o f the garden as hanging (kremastos). This specific metaphor suggested several
different kinds o f structure. One o f them was a type of fortress, for ta kremasta in Greek
can designate a stronghold (cf. LXX Jd. 6,2 B, where such a stronghold is located in the
mountains). Yet, the word also suggests a city-like structure located high upon a mountain
and visible from afar. For example, the Thessalian town of Larisa Kremaste was situated on
a steep mountain (Stahlin 1924).
These parallels help us reconstruct how the expression Hanging Garden came into be
ing. Since the garden was part o f the palace, and since Babylonian palaces were linked to
mountains, mountain imagery also attached to the garden. Berossos is unusual for straddling
Greek and Babylonian perspectives. He interpreted the story of the Hanging Garden by
putting it in the context where it originally belonged, i.e. the palace. It is this palace which
Berossos introduces as one of the major building projects of his hero Nebuchadnezzar.
Although canonical lists o f the wonders o f the world had not yet been devised, Berossos
nevertheless presents the palace as a truly marvellous edifice, the general opulence of which
it would perhaps take too long to describe - except to say that, despite its extraordinary size
and splendour, it was completed in fifteen days. This palace Berossos combines with high
stone terraces (analemmata lithina hypsela) which Nebuchadnezzar made appear very
similar to m ountains (ten opsin apodous homoiotaten tois oresi). The notion of a palace as
mountain and wonder o f the world is already part o f Nebuchadnezzars inscriptions as the
East India House Inscription demonstrates:
I firm ly grounded its foundation on the edge o f the netherworld, and elevated its top like a
mountain. In fifteen days I completed its work and m ade appear as a lordly seat .42
41 Beaulieu argues that Berossos consistently quotes inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar, and that one of these
inscriptions did mention the building of such gardens (Beaulieu 2005, 47). This is methodologically
problematic: the hypothesis of Berossos drawing on authentic Mesopotamian sources is taken as fact
and is generalized to reconstruct the alleged contents of original inscriptions.
42 Beaulieu 2005, 46: VIII (60) i-sid-sa i-na i-ra-at ki-gal-lu (61) u-sa-ar-si-id-ma (62) re-e-si-sa u-za-
aq-qi-ir (63) hu-ur-sa-ni-is (64) i-na 15 u,-um si-pi-ir-sa IX (1) u-sa-ak-li-il-ma (2) u-sa-pa-a su-bat
be-lu-ti.
Berossos and the M onuments 155
This was not just propaganda, for the building programme o f Nebuchadnezzar has been
hailed as one o f the great achievements of the ancient world in architecture and engineer
ing, with the palaces of the Kasr area standing] out as particularly massive structures, even
considering the large size of Babylon in the 6 th century (Beaulieu 2005, 47). At the same
time, many of the inhabitants of the empire must have been aware of these activities, not only
because of the extraordinary dimensions of the buildings themselves but also because the
provinces of the empire had to contribute to the effort by dispatching work forces to Babylon
(Beaulieu 2005, 50). All this created an image of Babylon which deeply influenced the classi
cal tradition and which was still relevant in Berossos time. For Berossos, these were crucial
ingredients in the process of redefining Babylonian cultural identity (De Breucker 2011,
642). By responding to, and reinterpreting, existing traditions he shaped his distinctive new
picture of Babylon and Babylonian culture (for an example of Berossos reinterpreting a pas
sage o f the Enuma elis, cf. Frahm 2010, 19-20; Frahm 2011, 362-3). In order to accomplish
his task, he drew on Babylonian as well as Greek traditions (De Breucker 2011, 651-2). The
metaphor o f the palace as mountain and (Hanging) Garden was one important way of en
capsulating his new vision of the city of Babylon. This vision he not only connected with his
favourite Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. There was also his alleged Median wife who
was part of a tradition which came into being when the mountain m otif was separated from
the palace and attached to the garden. This development suggests a certain degree o f mis
understanding o f the natural Sitz im Leben o f this m otif within Babylonian tradition. It was
this misunderstanding which triggered the story that the Hanging Garden was erected by
an anonymous king for his (anonymous) wife due to her longing for her mountainous home
land. It is no surprise that this homeland was located in Media, for the eastern mountains
of the Zagros ranges were regarded as the mountainous area p a r excellence by any person
living in Babylonia. Berossos simply adopted the legend, identified the anonymous king as
Nebuchadnezzar and found a name and lineage for his Median wife, thus integrating Greek
popular tradition into the course o f historical events (cf. also Bichler 2004, 513). This was
pseudo-history indeed (De Breucker 2011, 646-7). Yet, the fact that we know better than
Berossos is no reason for regarding the Chaldean scholar any less highly. On the contrary,
by studying his, somewhat creative, treatment of Babylonian monuments, and especially the
Hanging Garden, we learn that he not only had access to Babylonian literature and culture
(cf. De Breucker 2011, 651-2), and replied to and corrected Greek traditions already in cir
culation, but that he also did not hesitate to form and transform existing story-patterns in a
way that seemed necessary and useful to him.
Abbreviations
CAD Chicago Assyrian D ictionary
 156 R obert Rollinger
References
Barclay 2007
John M. G. Barclay, Against Apion. Translation a n d Com m entary (Flavius Josephus. Translation
a n d Com m entary Volume 10), Leiden - Boston 2007.
Beaulieu 1998
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Bau-asTtu and Kassaya, daughters o f Nebuchadnezzar II., O rientalia NS 67
(1998), 173-201.
Beaulieu 2005
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, E annas contribution to the construction o f the N orth Palace at Babylon, in:
Heather D. B aker/M ichael Jursa (eds.), Approaching the Babylonian Economy (Veroffentlichungen
zu r W irtschaftsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. B and 2 = AO A T 330), M unster
2005,45-73
Beaulieu 2006a
Paul-A lain Beaulieu, Berossos on late Babylonian h istory, O riental Studies, Special issue 2006,
Beijing 2006, 116-49.
Beaulieu 2006b
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, De lEsagil au Mouseion: lorganisation de la recherche scientifique au IVe
siecle avant J.-C., in: Pierre B riant/Francis Joannes (eds.), La transition entre 1e mpire achemenide
et les royaumes hellenistiques (vers 350-300 av. J.-C.) (Persika 9), Paris 2006, 17-36.
Bichler 2004
Reinhold Bichler, Some observations on the image o f the A ssyrian and Babylonian kingdom s
w ithin G reek tradition, in: Robert R ollinger/C hristoph U lf (eds.), Commerce a n d M onetary
Systems in the A ncient World: Means o f Transmission and Cultural Interaction (M elammu
Sym posia V = Oriens et Occidens 6), Stuttgart 2004, 499-518.
B ichler/ Rollinger 2005
Reinhold B ichler/R obert Rollinger, Die Hangenden G arten zu Ninive - Die Losung eines Rat-
sels?, in: R obert Rollinger (ed.), Von Sum er bis Homer. Festschrift M anfred Schretter zu seinem
60. G eburtstag am 25. Februar 2004 (AOAT 325), M unster 2005, 153-217.
Borger 2008
Rykle Borger, Zur neuen Schulausgabe des babylonischen Weltschopfungsepos: M it Bemerkungen
zu neueren elektronischen K eilschrift-Fonts, O rientalia 77 (2008), 271-85.
B urkert 2009
W alter B urkert, Sardanapal zw ischen M ythos und Realitat: Das Grab in K ilikien, in: Ueli D ill/
C hristine Walde (eds.), A ntike Mythen. Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen, Berlin -
N ew York 2009, 502-15.
Burstein 1978
Stanley Mayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossos (Sources a n d Monographs, Sources fro m
the A ncient N ear East, Volume 1, fa scicle 5), Malibu, CA 1978.
Chavalas 2006
M ark W. Chavalas (ed.), The Ancient N ear East. H istorical Sources in Translation, M alden, MA
and Oxford 2006.
C lancier2009
Philippe Clancier, Les biblioth'eqes en Babylonie dans la deuxiem e moitie du Ier millenaire av.
J.-C. (A O AT363), M unster 2009.
Clancier 2011
Philippe Clancier, C uneiform cultures last guardians: the old urban nobility o f H ellenistic U ruk,
in: Karen R adner/E leanor Robson (eds.), The O xford H andbook o f Cuneiform C ulture, Oxford
2011,752-73.
C olom o/Popko/R iicker/S choll 2010
Daniela Colom o/Lutz Popko/M ichaela R ucker/Reinhold Scholl, Die alteste Weltchronik. Europa,
die Sintflut und das Lam m ', A rc h iv fu r P apayrusforschung 56/1 (2010), 1-25.
Berossos and the M onuments 157
Cook 2004
Erwin Cook, N ear Eastern sources for the palace o f A lkinoos, American Journal o f Archaeology
108, 2004, 43-77.
De Breucker 2003a
Geert de Breucker, Berossos and the construction o f a N ear Eastern cultural history in response
to the G reeks, in: Hero H okwerda (ed.), C onstruction o f G reek Past: Identity a n d H istorical
C onsciousness from A ntiquity to the Present, G roningen 2003, 25-34.
De Breucker 2003b
G eert de Breucker, Berossos and the M esopotam ian temple as centre o f knowledge during the
H ellenistic period, in: A. A. M acD onald,/N . W. Tw om e/G . J. R einink (eds.), Learned Antiquity.
Scholarship a n d Society in the N ear East, the G reco-Roman World, and the Early M edieval West,
Leuven-Paris-D udley 2003, 12-23.
De Breucker 2011
Geert de Breucker, Berossos between tradition and innovation, in: Karen R adner/E leanor Robson
(eds.), The O xford H andbook o f Cuneiform Culture, O xford 2011, 637-57.
D illery 2007
J. Dillery, Clios other sons: Berossus and M anetho, in: J. M arincola (ed.), Companion to G reek
a n d Roman H istoriography, O xford 2007, 221-30.
Drews 1965
R obert Drews, A ssyria in classical universal histories, H istoria 14 (1965), 124-42.
Drews 1975
Robert D rews, The Babylonian Chronicles and B erossos, Iraq 37 (1975), 39-55.
Frahm 2003
Eckart Frahm , Im ages o f A shurbanipal in later tradition, E retz-Israel 27 (2003), 37-48.
Frahm 2005
Eckart Frahm , O n some recently published Late Babylonian copies o f royal letters, Nouvelles
A ssyriologiques Breves et Utilitaires 2005, 4 3 -6 (no. 43).
Frahm 2010
Eckart Frahm , Counter-texts, com m entaries, and adaptions: politically motivated responses to
the Babylonian Epic o f Creation in M esopotam ia, the Biblical world, and elsew here, O rient (The
Society fo r N ear Eastern Studies in Japan) 45 (2010), 3-33.
Frahm 2011
E ckart Frahm , Babylonian and A ssyrian Text Commentaries. O rigins o f Interpretation (Guides to
the Mesopotamian Textual Record, Volume 5), M unster 2011.
Gasche 2010
H erm ann Gasche, Les defenses avancees de Babylone a l'epoque de N abuchodonosor IE,
M esopotamia 45 (2010), 113-21.
G eorge 1992
Andrew R. George, Babylonian topographical texts /"Orientalia Lovaniensia A nalecta 40), Leuven
1992.
George 2005/2006
A ndrew R. George, The Tower o f Babel: archaeology, history, and cuneiform texts, Archiv f u r
O rientforschung 51 (2005/2006), 75-95.
Gerardi 1986
Pamela G erardi, D eclaring w ar in M esopotam ia, A rchiv fu r O rientforschung 33 (1986), 30-8.
G oldstein 2010
Ronnie Goldstein, Late Babylonian letters on collecting tablets and their Hellenistic background -
a suggestion, Journal o f N ear Eastern Studies 69 (2010), 199-207.
H einsch/K untner 2011
Sandra H einsch/W alter Kuntner, Herodot und die Stadtm auern Babylons. B em erkungen zur
archaologischen Befundsituation der Landm auern, in: Robert R ollinger/B rigitte T ruschnegg/
Reinhold Bichler (eds.), Herodot und das Persische Weltreich - Herodotus and the Persian Empire
(Classica et O rientalia 3), W iesbaden 2011, 499 529.
 158 R obert Rollinger
H enkelm an/K uhrt/R ollinger/W iesehofer 2011
W outer F. M. H enkelm an/A m elie K u h rt/R o b ert R ollinger/Josef W iesehofer, Herodotus and
Babylon reconsidered, in: Robert R ollinger/B rigitte Truschnegg/Reinhold Bichler (eds.), Herodot
u n d das Persische Weltreich - H erodotus a n d the Persian Empire (Classica et Orientalia 3),
W iesbaden 2011,449-70.
Inowlocki 2005
S. Inowlocki, La reecriture du M ythe de Babel par Flavius Josephe, in: Philippe Talon/V. van
der Stede (eds.), Si un h o m m e ... Textes offerts en hommages a Andre Finet (Subartu 16), Turnhout
2005, 65-78.
Jacobs 2011
Bruno Jacobs, Ktesias und die A rchitektur Babylons, in: Josef W iesehofer/R obert R ollinger/
Giovanni B. Lanfranchi (eds.), K tesias Welt - C tesias World (Classica et Orientalia 1), Wiesbaden
2011, 141-57.
Jam es/van der Sluijs 2008
P. Jam es/M . A. van der Sluijs, Colors and planets: Rawlinson revisited, Journal o f Cuneiform
Studies 60 (2008), 57-79.
Joannes 2005
Francis Joannes, Les relations entre Babylonie et Iran au debut de la periode achemenide: quelques
rem arques, in: H eather D. B aker/M ichael Jursa (eds.), Approaching the Babylonian Economy
(Alter O rient und Altes Testament 330), M unster 2005, 183-96.
Jursa 1996
Michael Jursa, A kkad, das Eulmas und G ubaru, Wiener Zeitschrift fu r die K unde des M orgen-
landes 86(1996), 197-211.
Jursa 2007
Michael Jursa, The transition o f Babylonia from the Neo-Babylonian Empire to Achaemenid rule,
in: H arriet Crawford (ed.), Regim e Change in the A ncient N ear E ast a n d Egypt. From Sargon o f
Agade to Saddam H ussein (Proceedings o f the British A cadem y 136), London 2007, 73-94.
K leber 2008
K ristin Kleber, Tempel und Palast. D ie Beziehungen zw ischen dem K onig und dem Eanna-Tempel
im spatbabylonischen Uruk (AOAT 358), M unster 2008.
Komoroczy 1973
G. Komoroczy, Berosos and the M esopotamian literature, Acta Antiqua Academ iae Scientiarum
H ungaricaelX (1973), 125-52.
Kose 1998
A rno Kose, Uruk. Architektur IV. Von der Seleukiden- bis zu r Sasanidenzeit (AUWE 17), M ainz
1998.
K uhrt 1987
Amelie K uhrt, B erossos Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: Amelie K u h rt/S u san
Sherwin-W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East, The interaction o f G reek and non-G reek civilizations
from Syria to C entral A sia after Alexander, Berkeley - Los Angeles 1987, 32-56.
Labow 2005
D agm ar Labow, Flavius Josephus. Contra Apionem, Buch I. Einleitung, Text, textkritischer Appa-
rat, U bersetzung und Kom m entar (Beitrage zu r W issenschaft vom Alten und N euen Testament,
N. F. 7), Stuttgart 2005.
Lam bert 1976
W ilfred George Lambert, Berossos and Babylonian eschatology, Iraq 38 (1976), 171-3.
Lam bert 1983
W ilfred George Lam bert, A Neo-Babylonian Tammuz lam ent, Journal o f the Am erican O riental
Society 103 (1983), 211-15.
Lam bert 2005
W ilfred George Lambert, Historical Literature No. 44. Letter of Sin-sarra-iskun to N abopolassar,
in: Ira Spar/W . G. Lambert (eds), Literary and Scholastic Texts o f the First Millennium (Cuneiform
Texts in the M etropolitan M useum o f Art, Volume II), New York 2005, 203-10.
Berossos and the M onum ents 159
Lanfranchi 2000
Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, The ideological and political im pact o f the A ssyrian im perial expan
sion on the G reek world in the 8 th and 7th Centuries BC , in: Sanna A ro /R . M. W hiting Melammu
Sym posia I, H elsinki 2000, 7-34.
Lanfranchi 2003
G iovanni B. Lanfranchi, II m onum ento di Sardanapalo e la sua iscrizione, in: Studi trentini di
scienze storiche 82, Trento 2003, 79-86.
Langdon 1912
Stephen Langdon, Die neubabylonischen K onigsinschriften (VAB 4), Leipzig 1912.
Lenzi 2008
A lan Lenzi, The U ruk List o f K ings and Sages and late M esopotam ian scholarship, Journal o f
A ncient N ear Eastern Religions 8.2 (2008), 137-69.
Luppe 2010
Wolfgang Luppe, Korrekturen und Erganzungen zur Leipziger W eltchronik, Archiv fiir Papayrus
forschung 5 6 /2 (2010), 2 0 0 -6 .
M acG innis 1998
John M acGinnis, Ordering the house o f Samas: texts from the management o f the Neo-Babylonian
Ebabbara, Iraq 60 (1998), 207-17.
Novak 1996
Mirko Novak, D er Landschaftsbezug in der orientalischen P alastarchitektur, Altorientalische
Forschungen 23 (1996), 335-79.
N ovak 1997
M irko Novak, D ie orientalische Residenzstadt: Funktion, Entw icklung und Form , in: G ernot
W ilhelm (ed.), D ie orientalische Stadt. Kontinuitat, Wandel, Bruch (CDOG 1), Saarbnicken 1997,
169-97.
Novak 2002
Mirko Novak, The artificial paradise: programme and ideology o f royal gardens, in: S. Parpola/R .
M. W hiting (eds.), Sex a n d Gender in the A ncient N ear E ast (C R R A I47), Helsinki 2002, 443-60.
Novak 2004
M irko Novak, H ilani und Lustgarten. Ein Palast des H ethiter-Landes und ein G arten nach
dem Abbild des A m anus in A ssyrien, in: M. N ovak/F. Prayon/A .-M . W ittke (eds.), D ie
Aufienwirkungen des spathethitischen Kulturraum es. Giiteraustausch - K ulturkontakt -
K ulturtransfer (A O A T323), M unster 2004, 335-72.
Oelsner 2002
Joachim Oelsner, Babylonische K ultur nach dem Ende des babylonischen Staates, in: Reinhard
G. K ratz (ed.), R eligion und R eligionskontakte im Zeitalter der Acham eniden (Veroffentlichungen
der Wissenschaftlichen G esellschaft fiir Theologie), Gutersloh 2002, 49-73.
Parpola 1980
Simo Parpola, The m urderer o f Sennacherib, in: B. A lster (ed.), D eath in Mesopotamia,
C openhagen 1980, 171-81.
Reade 1998
Julian E. Reade, A ssyrian illustrations o f N ineveh, Iranica A ntiqua 33 (1998), 81-94.
Da Riva 2008
Rocio Da Riva, The N eo-Babylonian Royal Inscriptions. An Introduction (Guides to the M eso
potam ian Textual R ecord Volume 4), M unster 2008.
Da Riva 2010a
Rocio Da Riva, A lion in the Cedar Forest. International politics and pictorial self-representations
o f N ebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC), in: Jordi Vidal (ed.), Studies on War in the Ancient N ear East.
Collected E ssays on M ilitary H istory (AOAT 372), M unster 2010, 165-91.
Da Riva 2010b
Rocio Da Riva, Just another brick in the Median Wall, Armenian Journal o f Near Eastern Studies 5/1,
2010, 55-65.
 160 Robert Rollinger
Rollinger 1993
Robert Rollinger, Herodots Babylonischer Logos. Eine kritische U ntersuchung der Glaubwiirdig-
keitsdiskussion an H and ausgewahlter Beispiele: H istorische Paralleliiberlieferung - Argum en-
tationen - Archaologischer Be fu n d Konsequenzen fu r eine Geschichte Babylons in persischer
Zeit, Innsbrucker Beitrage zu r K ulturw issenschaft 84, Innsbruck 1993.
Rollinger 1998
R obert Rollinger, U berlegungen zu Herodot, Xerxes und dessen angeblicher Z erstorung Baby
lons, Altorientalische Forschungen 25 (1998), 339-73.
Rollinger 2008a
Robert Rollinger, Babylon in der antiken Tradition - Herodot, Ktesias, Sem iram is und die
Hangenden G arten, in: Joachim M arzah n /G u n th er Schauerte (eds.), B abylon, B erlin 2008,
487-502.
Rollinger 2008b
Robert Rollinger, Limage et la posterite de Babylone dans les sources classiques, in: Beatrice
A ndre-Salvini (ed.), Babylone, Paris 2008, 374-7.
Rollinger 2010a
R obert Rollinger, Sem iram is1, in: Reallexikon der A ssyriologie und Vorderasiatischen
Archdologie, Band 12; 5.16. Lieferung, B e rlin -N e w York 2010, 383-6.
Rollinger 2010b
Robert Rollinger, Das medische Konigtum und die medische Suprematie im sechsten Jahrhundert
v. Chr., in: G iovanni B. L an franchi/R obert R ollinger (eds.), Concepts o f Kingship in Antiquity.
P roceedings o f the E uropean Science Foundation P reparatory Workshop H eld in Padova,
N ovem ber 28th - D ecem ber 1st, 2007 (H A N E /M X ), Padova 2010, 63-85.
Rollinger 2010c
Robert Rollinger, Berg und Gebirge aus altorientalischer Perspektive, in: Wolfgang K ofler/M artin
K orenjak/Florian Schaffenrath (eds.), Gipfel der Zeit. Berge in Texten aus fiin f Jahrtausenden.
Karlheinz Tochterle zum 60. Geburtstag (Paradeigmata, B and 12), Freiburg im Breisgau - Berlin -
W ien 2010, 11-53.
R ollinger 2011a
R obert Rollinger, K tesias M edischer Logos, in: Josef W iesehofer/R obert R ollinger/G iovanni
B. Lanfranchi (eds.), K tesia s Welt - C tesias World (Classica et Orientalia I), W iesbaden 2011,
313-50.
Rollinger 201 lb
Robert Rollinger, Assur, Assyrien und die klassische Oberlieferung: Nachwirken, Deutungsmuster
und historische Reflexion4, in: Johannes Renger (ed.), A ssu r - Gott, Stadt u n d L a n d (CDOG 5),
W iesbaden 2011,311-45.
Rollinger 2012a
R obert Rollinger, H errscherkult bei Teispiden und Achaimeniden. Realitat oder Fiktion?, in:
Linda-M arie G unther/S onja Plischke (eds.), Studien zum hellenistischen Herrscherkult. Verdich-
tung und Erw eiterung von Traditionsgeflechten (Oikumene. Studien zu r antiken Weltgeschichte 9),
Berlin 2012, in press.
R ollinger 2012b
Robert Rollinger, Von Kyros bis Xerxes: Babylon in persischer Zeit und die Frage der Bewertung
des herodoteischen Geschichtswerkes - eine N achlese, in: M anfred K reb ern ik /H an s Neum ann
(eds.), Gebi(rtstagskolloquium zu Ehren von Joachim O elsner (Alter O rient und Altes Testament),
M unster 2012, in press.
Rollinger 2012c
Robert Rollinger, A ssyria and the fringes o f em pire - the far west: the Aegean w orld, in: Eckart
Frahm (ed.), Blackw ell Companion to Assyria, Malden, MA 2012, in press.
Rollinger 2012d
Robert Rollinger, A ssyria in classical sources, in: Eckart Frahm (ed.), Blackw ell Companion to
Assyria, Malden, MA 2012, in press.
Berossos and the Monuments 161
R ollinger 2012e
Robert Rollinger, A ssur, in: Michael F ieger/Jutta K rispen z/Jorg Lanchau (eds.), Worterbuch
alttestam entlicher M otive und Themen, D arm stadt 2012, in press.
Schaudig 2001
Flanspeter Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und K yros des Gr often sam t den in
ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. Textausgabe und G ram m atik (AOAT 256), M unster
2001 .
Schironi 2009
Francesca Schironi. From Alexandria to Babylon. N ear Eastern Languages and H ellenistic
Erudition in the O xyrhynchus G lossary (O.Oxy. 1802 + 4812) (Sozomena 4), Berlin - New York
2009.
Stahlin 1924
F. Stahlin, s.v. L arisa 2), in: RE 21.1 (1924), 840-5.
Strassm aier 1890
Johann Nepomuk Strassmaier, Inschriften von Cyrus, K onig von Babylon (538-529 v. Chr.) (Baby-
lonische Texte. H eft VII), Leipzig 1890.
Streck 3003
Michael P. Streck, O annes, in: Reallexikon der A ssyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archaologie,
B and 10, 1./2. Lieferung, Berlin - New York 2003, 1-3.
Stronach 1989
David Stronach, The royal garden at Pasargadae: evolution and legacy, in: L. de M eyer/
E. Haerinck (eds.), Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. M iscellanea in H onorem Louis Vanden
Berghe, vol. I, Gent 1989, 475-502.
Stronach 1990
David Stronach, The garden as a political statement: some case studies from the Near East in the
first m illennium B.C., Bulletin o f the Asia Institute N.S. 4 (1990), 171-80.
Tadmor 1998
Hayim Tadmor, N abopalassar and Sin-shum -lishir in a literary perspective, in: Stefan M. Maul
(ed.), tikip santakki mala basmu. Festschrift f u r Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. G eburtstag am 24. Mai
1994 (Cuneiform M onographes 10), G roningen 1998, 353-7.
Talon 2005
Philippe Talon, The Standard Babylonian Creation M yth Enum a Elis (SAACT 4), Helsinki 2005.
Thureau-D angin 1921
F ra n c is Thureau-D angin, Rituels Accadiens, Paris 1921.
Tolini 2005
G authier Tolini, Quelques elements concernant la prise de Babylone par C yrus (octobre 539 av.
J.-C .)\A rta 2005.003, 1-13.
Tuplin 2011
Christopher Tuplin, Ctesias as m ilitary historian, in: Josef W iesehofer/Robert Rollinger/G iovanni
B. Lanfranchi (eds.), K tesias Welt - C tesias World (Classica et Orientalia 1), W iesbaden 2011,
449-88.
Van der Spek 2003
Robartus J. van der Spek, Darius 111, Alexander the Great and Babylonian scholarship, in: Wouter
H enkelm an/A m elie K uhrt (eds.), A Persian Perspective, Essays in M emory o f Heleen Sancisi-
Weerdenburg (Achaem enid H istory XIII), Leiden 2003, 289-346.
Van der Spek 2008
Robartus J. van der Spek, Berossos as a Babylonian chronicler and G reek historian, in: R. J. van
der Spek (ed.), Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society, P resented to Marten Stol
on the Occasion o f his 65th Birthday, Bethesda, MD 2008, 277-318.
V erbrugghe/W ickersham
Gerald P. V erbrugghe/John M. W ickersham, Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated.
Native Traditions in Ancient M esopotamia and Egypt, A nn A rbor 1996.
162 Robert Rollinger

W aetzold 2005
Hartm ut Waetzoldt, Tempelterrassen und Ziqqurate nach der sum erischen U berlieferung, in:
Yitschak Sefati (ed.), A n E xperienced Scribe who Neglects Nothing. Ancient N ear Eastern Studies
in H onor o f Jacob Klein, Bethesda, MD 2005, 322-42.
Weinfeld 199\
Moshe W einfeld, Semiramis: her name and her origin, in: Mordechai C ogan/Israel Ephal (eds.),
Ah, A ssyria ... Studies in Assyrian H istory a n d A ncient N ear Eastern H istoriography, P resented
to H ayim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolym itana Volume X X X III), Jerusalem 1991, 99-103.
4. Literary Contexts
Wei 13 2010
A lexander Weifi, Die Leipziger W eltchronik - die alteste christliche W eltchronik?, A rchiv fiir
P apayrusforschung 56/1 (2010), 26-37.
Wetzel 1930
Franz Wetzel, D ie Stadtm auern von Babylon (W VD OG 48), Leipzig 1930.
W iesehofer 2011
Josef W iesehofer/R obert R ollinger/G iovanni B. Lanfranchi (eds.), K tesia s Welt - C tesias World
(Classica et Orientalia 1), W iesbaden 2011.
W unsch 1993
Cornelia W unsch, Die Urkunden des babylonischen Geschaftsmannes Iddin-M arduk. Zum Handel
m it N aturalien im 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr., G roningen 1993.
 First Millennium BC Variation in Gilgamesh,
Atrahasis, the Flood Story and the Epic o f Creation.
What was Available to Berossos?
Stephanie Dailey (Oxford University)

Introduction1

W hat cuneiform sources were at the disposal of Berossos when he wrote his account of the
Flood story and his account of a part of the Epic o f Creation? This paper explores possibil
ities for a wider variation o f two supposedly canonical narrative texts than has previously
been considered for Babylonia, finding evidence from the late second m illennium BC on
wards. Fifty years ago scholars tried to answer the question in terms of canonical texts and
the textual corruptions that allowed minor variation to develop. Their approach was rooted
in western academic tradition of single authorship and the fame of an original genius, even if
his (or her) name was lost to posterity. However, they allowed some leeway for oral transm is
sion because they thought cuneiform written literature, as opposed to legal and adm inistra
tive records, had died out by the time Seleucid rule was established in Babylonia .2
In 1850 Layard declared: It was generally admitted that, after the subjugation of the west
o f Asia by the M acedonians, the cuneiform writing ceased to be employed ,3 a view that
was not totally discarded as late as 1978 when Stanley Burstein wrote of a deliberate policy
of degrading Babylon and its shrines by Seleucid kings .4 In the same year Seton Lloyds
book The Archaeology o f Mesopotamia, and in the previous year A. L. O ppenheim s book
Ancient M esopotamia, had ended their popular accounts of ancient M esopotamian archae
ology, culture and history with the conquest o f Babylon by Cyrus. The influence of those
opinions, whether expressed or implicit, has been hard to dislodge. Even the recent account
of ancient Near Eastern history by Marc van de Mieroop ends with A lexanders conquest,
while admitting that it did not present a clear end or a new beginning in the long history of
the Near East .5

Cuneiform continuities in the Seleucid period

Joachim Oelsners great work o f 1986 assembled positive evidence for continuity of cunei
form texts into the Seleucid and early Parthian periods .6 Ten years later the paper of William
Gallagher found a close relationship between the Istanbul stela text of Nabonidus and

1 I am grateful to Christopher Tuplin and Judith McKenzie for discussion and help with bibliography.
2 This is essentially the model used by George 2003, e.g. 57-8 and 69; for questioning the authorship of
Sin-leqe-unninni, see Beaulieu, 2000, 3-4.
3 Layard 1850 vol.l, 12.
4 Burstein 1978, 5.
5 van de Mieroop 2004, 280.
6 Oelsner 1986.
 166 Stephanie Dailey
Berossos account o f Amel-M arduk and his successors, showing that Nabonidus, to avoid
the blame attached to Nabopolassar, presented him self as successor to Nebuchadnezzar and
Neriglissar, whereas Amel-Marduk and Labasi-Marduk were bad. This slant, he showed, was
echoed by Berossos .7 More recently Robartus van der Spek showed that Berossos part-trans
lated and part-paraphrased Babylonian chronicles and the East India House inscription of
Nebuchadnezzar .8 These discoveries imply that some royal inscriptions and chronicles con
cerning neo-Babylonian kings were still available and still studied in the time o f Berossos .9
Partial confirmation comes from a literary chronicle of Nabonidus achievements, which is
a Seleucid or early Parthian copy or reworking of an earlier inscription, precisely demon
strating that historical texts were still available and in use .10 Almost every other type of text
known in Babylonia before the 6 th century is now attested also from the Seleucid to early
Parthian period. We now have the excellent book o f Tom Boiy describing just how greatly
the picture o f M esopotamia in the Seleucid period has changed in recent years .11 In addition,
the palace o f Adad-nadin-ahi at Telloh, with bricks bearing a traditional type of inscription,
though in Greek and Aramaic, in the late 4th or 3rd century BC, indicates a continuing
knowledge and appreciation o f M esopotamian antiquity .12
Flood Narratives
In the Seleucid period scholarly knowledge o f core Babylonian texts included the Epic o f
Gilgamesh, one o f the two narrative texts in which the Flood story is embedded, the other
being Atrahasis. The Epic o f Gilgamesh was known in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC: a
colophon on a fragment o f the 10 th tablet shows that a copy o f some version o f the text was
made in Babylon in the lifetime o f Berossos; and another copy of the same tablet was made
in the reign of Arsaces around 130 BC, probably also in Babylon, by an astrologer attached to
Esagil .13 The Flood episode in extant versions occurs in tablet XI. The text implied by those
two fragments is assum ed to be more-or-less identical to that known from Assurbanipals
library at Nineveh, encouraging us to assume continuity in versions between Assyrian
Nineveh and Seleucid Babylon. As we shall see, this assumption may not be correct.
But Berossos account o f the Flood, in which tablets written before the Flood were
buried in Sippar, and were dug up after the Flood, does not echo known versions of either
Gilgamesh or Atrahasis. This gives at least two possibilities: either the Flood episode in
Gilgamesh tablet XI (for which we do not have a Seleucid copy) had been modified by the
3rd century BC, and inserted into an otherwise static, canonical text; or there were very
different Gilgamesh narratives in existence from which Berossos chose one to suit his par
ticular purpose. The latter hypothesis would break the model of single authorship and single
canonical text.
7 Gallagher 1996.
8 Van der Spek 2008. Note that G. de Breucker is dismissive of these similarities in BNJ.
9 Van der Spek 2006, 284-8: the Bagasaya Chronicle, 130s BC, identifying Bagasaya as probably Bacasis,
prefect of Media under Mithridates I, showing that chronicle tradition lasted through the end of the
Seleucid period.
10 Lambert 1968/69; Schaudig 2001, 590-5.
11 Boiy 2004; also 2007.
12 See Parrot 1947, 151-5; also Krecher and Muller 1975.
13 George 2003, 740.
W hat was available to Berossos? 167
As for the focus on Sippar, its neo-Babylonian temple library contained copies of the Epic
o f Atra-hasis but the preserved tablets do not include the section in which the Flood episode
is expected .14 The city appears to have suffered a rapid decline after the 2nd year of Xerxes,
the year to which the latest library text is dated ;15 and no other types of cuneiform text with
a later date have been found from there. So presumably any version of the Flood story that
promotes the prestige of Sippar, as does Berossos version, is likely to date earlier than the
reign o f Xerxes. The Epic o f Atrahasis may have been available in Seleucid Babylon, but the
two Neo - Late Babylonian tablets from Babylon do not have colophons preserved, and so
are not datable .16
We cannot tell whether it was a late version of the Gilgamesh Epic or Atrahasis or an
entirely separate narrative setting that contained the detail about Sippar. But it is certain
that such a tradition existed from before the time when the Epic o f Erra and Ishum was
composed, because Erra tablet IV 50-1 says:
As for Sippar, the eternal city, over which the Lord o f Lands Bel did not allow
the Flood to pass over because it was precious to him ....
The date of that epic and the city from which the composition arose is still uncertain; various
possibilities from the 11th to the 7th century have been proposed, but no later .17 Lambert and
Millard, discussing the Flood in the context of Atrahasis, with a basic model of single author
ship and canonical text in mind, thought this might refer to another flood. Nevertheless,
they pointed out the variation in Late Assyrian fragments of Atrahasis, and wrote: Certainly
there is diversity among them, and there was no one text, as in the case of Gilgames, that had
been thoroughly worked over and was standard in the late periods .18 In a recent study Eckart
Frahm has suggested that the Epic o f Erra and Ishum was composed to counter the view of
the universe promoted by the Epic o f Creation, by explaining why M arduks creation had
failed to result in peace and prosperity, and denigrating the great god as a powerless force
who had used the Flood weapon with the intent to destroy m ankind .19
Comparing the Flood narrative of Berossos with that o f Genesis P, John Day has noted
that they share four otherwise unique points: a precise date to the start o f the Flood; the ark
as oblong rather than cube; the landing-place of the ark in U rartu/A rm enia, and the position
of the Flood hero as seventh out of ten in the line of antediluvian kings. From those points of
similarity he deduced that Berossos and Genesis P drew upon a late Babylonian tradition
that is evidently not that of Gilgamesh or Atrahasis in their canonical or known versions .20
Andrew George pointed to the possibility of a Flood story in which Ur-sanabi was also
master of the great ark at the time o f the flood .21
14 George and al-Rawi 1996.
15 Oelsner 1986, 130; Schaudig 2009.
16 Lambert/MiHard 1969,41.
17 Frahm 2010 advocates a 9th century date.
18 Lambert/M illard 1969, 27. They note that the two Neo- Late Babylonian tablets from Babylon do not
have colophons preserved, and cannot be dated (p. 41).
19 Frahm 2010.
20 Day 2011.
21 George 2003, 151.
 168 Stephanie Dailey
Variation in the Epic o f Gilgamesh, and Flood stories
A fragment o f a neo-Babylonian school exercise tablet contains a small part of the Gilgamesh
Epic, but because it did not fit into the so-called Standard Version, Andrew George omitted
it from his edition .22 I suggest that it represents a divergent version, comparable with the
Middle Babylonian tablet that presents Gilgamesh as king of Ur, not Uruk, a major variation
which appeared too late to be discussed in Georges edition .23 He likewise om itted an Old
Babylonian tablet from Nineveh with a version o f tablet VI, because it gave a non-standard
version .24 O ur understanding of the nature o f literary tradition is at stake here. We have
been misled into regarding the so-called Standard Version of the Gilgamesh Epic as a rigid
ly canonical composition, probably because the scribal training throughout Mesopotamia
was based on a particular version (many o f the extant tablets are school excerpts), and be
cause some o f the great libraries made copies o f each others holdings; whereas there is now
enough evidence to show that variation existed, probably at all periods.
Although it might seem that the Flood story in the first millennium was chiefly embedded
in Gilgamesh and Atrahasis, it is apparent from the Ras Shamra fragment as well as a tablet
from Nippur, both dating to the Late Bronze Age, that one or two Babylonian stories existed
as independent, non-embedded texts .25 As discussed below, this is especially significant for
the Hittite reworking o f the Gilgamesh story, and for the story found in Aramaic at Qumran
which features Gilgamesh.
Since an inscription of Nabonidus seems to lie behind a passage in Berossos, it is possible
that Sippar as focus o f a Flood story was revived and promoted during his reign. Nabonidus
refers to excavating a foundation inscription o f Naram-Sin o f Agade from the Shamash tem
ple o f Sippar, which he claimed was 3,200 years old. The discovery was so im portant to him
that he includes an account o f it in no less than 8 of his extant building inscriptions. This is
perhaps a rather tenuous link between the Flood and Nabonidus discovery at Sippar. But it
comes close to rivalling the claim o f Assurbanipal that he read inscriptions from before the
Flood .26
How should we understand his claim? There is evidence that the Flood was a movable
literary topos: the 22nd year-name o f Ibbi-Sin (2028-2004) refers to a Flood decreed by the
gods which spared his city Ur thanks to the kings divine support; and in a Sumerian hymn
known in the Seleucid period, Ishme-Dagan o f Isin (1953-1935 BC) claimed that a Flood
preceded his ascent to the throne ,27 implying that a new king might invoke the Flood as a
recent event, allowing his own reign to usher in a new era. If Assurbanipal had read inscrip
tions o f a preceding king o f Ur or Isin, his claim can be justified .28
Turning back to the dates of the two colophons to tablet X of Gilgamesh, one from
Berossos lifetime, the other between 141 and 113BC, these lie within the time-frame in
which the Book o f Giants was in circulation on a scroll written in Aramaic at Qumran,
22 George 2003, 395 with n. 46. This Neo-Babylonian fragment of a school extract, Ashm. 1924.1795,
almost certainly comes from Kish.
23 George 2007/2009, 59-80.
24 George 2003, 23 with n. 62.
25 Lambert/M illard 1969, 131-3 and 138-45.
26 Livingstone 2007 and George 2003, 349.
27 Romer 1965, 46, lines 119-24.
28 Contra De Breucker 2003, 28, who suggests Berossos invented the theme.
W hat was available to Berossos? 169
containing the names of Gilgamesh, Humbaba and Ut-napishtim. The scroll was dated very
roughly around 100 BC by J. T. Milik in 1976, but later work has given an earlier and longer
range of possible dating between the late 3rd century and 164BC.29 The fragm ent 2Q26
mentions writing on a tablet LWH that was erased by washing or rinsing (HDYHW).
This presumably refers to a clay tablet of Babylonian type, not a stone tablet, waxed writing
board, papyrus or parchment, alluding to recognition that the theme was ultimately derived
from Babylonia .30
The Qumran story naming Gilgamesh, Ut-napistim and Humbaba seems to have some
features in common with the much earlier Hittite and Hurrian versions o f the Gilgamesh
story, not least in putting emphasis on Gilgamesh as a giant. As has been shown recently for
both the Hittite and the Qumran fragments, the Flood does not form part of the narrative, de
spite the appearance of Ut-napishtim .31 This implies that the Flood story, if it existed at all for
the Hittites and at Qum ran, was a separate, independent one such as we have already noted
from Ras Shamra and Nippur. We should therefore consider the third option for Berossos:
although he could have excerpted the Flood story from Gilgamesh or Atrahasis, he need not
have done so if there was one (or more) independent, separate version. It is striking that the
Flood passage quoted from Berossos is given without any link to the context of Atrahasis
or Gilgamesh.
Although Berossos use of the Sumerian name for the Flood hero Z isudra/X isouthros
could imply that he did not use a version of Atrahasis or Gilgamesh currently extant, it is
possible that he made a deliberate change in order to link up with the antediluvian kings,
since they are enumerated in his Book II shortly before the passage narrating the Flood; it
would have been an obvious move to harmonise the two sections .32
Aelian, Gilgamesh and Berossos
Among possible fragments of Berossos given by Burstein (but not by Jacoby ) 33 is a pas
sage about the early life of Gilgamesh. Paul Schnabel suggested it was taken from the
Babyloniaca Book 2 .34 The story related by Aelian, De Natura Animalium XII 21, which
has sometimes been dismissed it as a late fiction, may come from a genuine Sumerian or
Babylonian story, since in the text Gilgamesh and Akka, lines 104-106, Gilgamesh speaks
to Akka referring, apparently, to an episode in his youth: Akka, you gave me breath, Akka,
you gave me life, A kka, you took the refugee on your lap, Akka, you nourished the fleeing
bird with grain .35 On a cylinder seal of the Agade period the face of Humbaba is a part of
a scene that includes an eagle flying with a human on its back. Similarly a M itannian seal
impression from Tell Billa has an eagle carrying a person alongside the slaying o f Humbaba,
and a similar group is found on the Hasanlu beaker of roughly the 9th century BC .36 If the
29 Stuckenbruck 1997, 31.
30 Stuckenbruck 1997, 6 . Note that Seleucid scribes attached to the temple of Anu at Uruk wrote original
documents (in cuneiform?) on parchment, KUS.GiD.DA; only the copies were written on clay, according
to Clancier 2005.
31 Beckman 2003, 47.
32 See George 2003, 99, 114 and 154 with n. 90 for the use of the name in omen texts and the Poem of Early
Rulers.
33 Burstein 1978, 29.
34 Schnabel 1923,268.
35 Wilcke 1989, 562-3.
36 See Frayne 2010, 172-6; and Oman 2010, 248-9.
 170 Stephanie Dailey
grouping o f motifs is coherent, the inclusion o f Humbaba shows that the whole scene refers
to Gilgamesh, and would give a long span of time when the episode of flying on the back
of an eagle was current in some form. It is therefore worth reconsidering Aelians story in
the context o f Berossos sources, even though there is no direct evidence for a full written
account in cuneiform.
The Epic o f Creation and textual variation
In turning to Berossos account o f a Babylonian tradition of the creation, we take a similar
view o f likely variation, while emphasising the important difference: that extracts from the
Babylonian Epic o f Creation have not been found in scribal school exercises; but commen
taries are found in which there is evidence for variation .37 The version reflected in frag
mentary Late Assyrian texts which replaces M arduk with Ashur and revises the divine
genealogy, can be compared with the description of the battle scene from a version of the
epic depicted on the gates which Sennacherib had made for his New Year Festival temple,
showing him self in the role of the champion .38 Key to this is the claim to being son of
Anshar .39 A whole range o f divinities is introduced into the battle scene. They are definitely
not in the so-called standard version .40 This has been explained as an aberrant, sacrilegious
and ill-conceived short-lived alteration by Sennacherib, a very amateurish revision, but
there are good reasons to question that judgem ent, not least a likely quotation from a non
standard version from the reign o f Esarhaddon ,41 and another in a literary te x t 42 In 7th cen
tury Nineveh a hymn to Ishtar of Nineveh accorded to her powerful epithets that belong to
the champion Marduk in the Babylonian Epic o f Creation. The mention that Nabu rather than
M arduk received gifts from the gods on day 6 o f a New Year Festival indicate yet another
hero-god .43 Those texts each imply a version different from that of our so-called standard
text. Damascius named Anu, Enlil and Ea as sons of Kishar and Anshar, implying another
version (elsewhere A nshar precedes Kishar ) .44 These are definite indications for variety of
text, whether oral or written, beyond the version that is extant on clay. As with the Epic
f Gilgamesh, I suggest that a conservative tradition preserved one particular version for
schools and libraries, which was to some extent canonical but does not preclude the exist
ence o f other versions.
The Seleucid ritual texts for performance o f the New Year Festival state explicitly that
Enuma Elis was recited. We have previously assumed that this was the standard version of
the composition known to us, but Berossos, in giving the detail of Bels self-beheading ,45
implies that a different version of the epic was in use in Esagila. It incorporated an episode
known some 500 years earlier from a text linked to Assyria. When Heidel wrote, there
37 Frahm 2010.
38 Lambert 1997, 77-9.
39 Frahm 2010; Beaulieu 1997.
40 See e.g. Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 207-9 for a recent edition of the text K.1356.
41 Lambert 1997, 78 re ABL 1336 = SAA X 365, 'o f no consequence for study of the myth. Frahm 1997,
223 questions whether it is a quotation rather than a paraphrase.
42 Lambert 1997, 79 re Livingstone 1989, 85, lines 54-5 suggests 'a bogus quotation from a non-existent
text.
43 Dirven 1997.
44 Heidel 1950, 75-6 gives a translation of the relevant text.
45 Cf. Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado, Self-decapitation is an extremely difficult, not to say dangerous,
thing to attempt.
W hat was available to Berossos? 171
appeared to be no cuneiform text to back up that episode as given by Berossos .46 Now, how
ever, we have support from a commentary to the Assyrian cultic calendar in which Bel cut
off his own head, in a context of the creation story as indicated by the naming of Bel and
Qingu in previous lines. In Livingstones translation:
The 8 th day, when the king wears the crown, is (when) he took [kingship] and
sat on the royal throne. On the 9th day, having cu[t off] his head and attained [his
desire], he bat[hed] in w ater and donned the (royal) garb .47
A different version, in which Bel cut off the head of the sky-god Anu is found in the neo-
Assyrian Rites o f Egasankalama'? 8 and a criminal god is beheaded, explicitly in connec
tion with Enuma elis, in the Marduk Ordeal text .49 Egasankalama is the temple of Ishtar of
Arbela which survived into the Christian era, and Assurbanipal showed him self on a palace
sculpture at Nineveh, standing outside that very temple, with the head of the Elamite king
Te-Umman, whom he had just defeated, a likely situation for which a revision of Enuma elis
might have been undertaken .50
Thus we deduce at least three different versions of the Epic o f Creation in which the
champion resorted to decapitation, but we have no direct evidence that those Assyrian texts,
Marduk Ordeal and Rites o f Egasankalama, were extant in the Seleucid period .51 Since we
now have evidence to support Berossos version in the matter of self-beheading, the assump
tion of a standard, unique version in Babylonia (as opposed to Assyria) should be recon
sidered. Relevant to this is evidence for an Assyrian cult incorporated into Babylonia after
the fall of A ssyria ;52 and renewal of the temple of the New Year Festival in Ashur city in the
Parthian period; likewise the temple of Ishtar in Arbela continued long into the Christian era.
Babylon and Uruk were by no means the only cities in which recital of some form of the Epic
o f Creation accompanied the ritual for a New Year Festival.53 If redating to the Seleucids
rather than to Nebuchadnezzar the rebuilding of Ezida in Borsippa, can also be applied to
Babylon, Antiochus I may have rebuilt parts of Babylon in the time of Berossos.
One supposes that Berossos would have referred to the version currently used for the
ritual in Babylon.
Adaptation and variation in New Year festivals of the Seleucid period
At a crucial stage of the New Year ceremony, when some version of the Epic o f Creation was
recited, the king took the hands of Bel. Our knowledge of the ritual is mainly known from
Seleucid tablets, and Antiochus III (222-187BC) is known to have taken part in Babylon,
which has been taken to imply that the festival persisted throughout the Seleucid period .54
Soon afterwards Antiochus I of Commagene (c.86-38 BC), reputedly a direct descendant
46 Heidel 1950, 81.
47 Livingstone 1989, no.40, lines r. 1718.
48 Livingstone 1989, no.38.
49 Livingstone 1989, no.34 line 20; no.35 line 36.
50 Drawing by Boutcher from Place/Thomas 1867-70, vol. 3, pi. 41. See also Bonatz, 2004, 93-101 and
fig.4. The extreme focus on the kings head in art and text is also shown by Bahrani 2004, 115-19.
51 Discussed by Frahm 2010.
52 Beaulieu 1997.
53 See Allinger-Csollich/Heinrich/Kuntner 2010.
54 See Boiy 2004, 278.
 172 Stephanie Dailey
of Seleucus I and Antiochus I, is shown on a bas-relief sculpture at Eski Kale - Arsameia
in Commagene, clasping hands with M ithras-Helios, and on a series o f panels at Nemrut
Dagh clasping hands with Mithras, with Zeus-Oromasdes and with Heracles-Artagnes-Ares.
Presumably the king leads the gods into the newly prepared sacred area. The pose is an
iconic one characteristic o f an akitu-type o f festival, although hand-clasping took place on
any occasion when the deity was led to or from a temple .55
At Palmyra the sculpture from the temple of Bel shows the hero god (identified by
Lucinda Dirven as Nabu rather than Marduk) grappling with a snaky female creature, long
recognised as a representation o f the victory over watery chaos. A different iconographic
reference to the New Year festival in several cities o f the Seleucid empire shows the watery
force o f chaos in various forms being subdued by the victorious deity who places his or her
foot firmly on the defeated one. In the words o f the standard Epic o f Creation tablet II, the
hero is encouraged before the battle with the words: You shall soon set your foot upon the
neck o f Tiam at. The sculpture created by Eutychides for the foundation o f Antioch shows
the local river Orontes as a half-man, half-water, dominated by the Tyche whose foot rests
upon the creature in that traditional M esopotamian pose of triumph. The pose was imitated
at Dura Europus both in bas-relief and on a fresco, and at Palmyra in bas-relief, in which the
local Efca spring rather than sea or river is implied. There Gadde rather than the Greek Tyche
is used as the Semitic name o f the victorious deity, known in cuneiform from Late Bronze
Age Emar .56 The pose is referred to in the Aramaic text written on the Papyrus Amherst,
which gives the liturgy o f a New Year festival written in demotic Egyptian script, in lines
such as: [You will place] your foot on their necks (i.e. foes, col.vi), and Why has the flow
of the spring disappeared? ... It flowed and was lost, and its flow disappeared (col.xi) ,57 in
which the emphasis on control o f a water supply is evident. The text may be Achaemenid
rather than Seleucid .58
As for the half-human, half water figure on sculptures and the fresco, it has sometimes
been described as a swimmer, but this is not correct, for swimmers, both on Assyrian bas-
reliefs and in Egyptian art are always shown as a complete human form, whereas this is a
deliberately composite creature. A connection between the ruler cult and worship o f Tyche
is most clearly seen in excavations at Zeugma-Seleuceia by Birecik, where the temenos of
the ruler cult for Antiochus I of Commagene was later occupied by the sanctuary and temple
of Tyche .59
This wide distribution o f iconic themes linked to a Babylonian type of New Year festival
suggests that Berossos wrote to encourage Antiochus I to insert him self into Babylonian
kingship, to support the New Year ritual not only in Babylon but also to adapt it for use in
other provinces, to promote homogeneity and provide an impressive ceremony at which
client kings would swear oaths o f loyalty to the emperor. The extension of his policy would
mean that versions o f Enuma elis were known throughout the Seleucid empire, and would
widen the area from which Damascius could have received the tradition. Such a policy
would also help to explain the traces of astronomical material from the standard Epic o f
Creation that John Steele discusses in his contribution to this volume, implying that they
55 Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 171-4 shows that hand(s) can be singular or dual.
56 See Dirven 1999, 156 and 258, with excellent illustrations.
57 See Steiner 1997, 309-27.
58 1 am grateful to G. Vittmann for discussion.
59 Crowther/Facella 2003,61.
W hat was available to Berossos? 173
were included by Berossos not as an exposition of current Babylonian astronomical under
standing, but as part o f his compilation of very traditional, authentic Mesopotamian knowl
edge embedded in narrative literature. More generally it would present a picture of Seleucid
adaptation of ancient, traditional practices comparable to those of the Ptolemies in Egypt,
integrating the new rulers and using the rituals as their indigenous predecessors had done,
to promote loyalty and harmony. Full participation of the Seleucid emperor in the ritual may
have begun only under Seleucus III .60
In discussing the sum m ary of the Epic o f Creation given by Damascius, who was born
around AD 480, Alexander Fleidel pointed out the close match with the standard Babylonian
text o f the names o f primeval gods ,61 but for the variant giving Enlil as offspring of Kishar
and Anshar, he wrote: Damascius probably derived this information from some other cunei
form source, a wise opinion, for as we have seen, there may have been many variations,
whether in cuneiform or some other script and language, on the creation theme, one of
which might be the ultimate source for Damascius. More than that, it is clear, if we consider
Sennacheribs changes to make an Assyrianising version of the text, that changes in geneal
ogy are very significant, and should certainly not be dismissed as textual corruptions.
In conclusion, it can now be shown that there existed several versions of the Gilgamesh
Epic, Atra-hasis, the F lood Story, and the Epic o f Creation in addition to the so-called
standard epics, and they were available to Berossos. The evidence from cuneiform tablets of
the Seleucid period, combined especially with the iconography of N em rut Dagh, Antioch,
Palmyra and Dura Europus, bear the inference that Antiochus I and his successors not only
adopted the New Year festival in Babylon, with its fam iliar epic recital, but also adapted it
for other parts of the Seleucid em pire .62 This inference would provide a political motive for
Berossos writing his Babyloniaca in Greek.
References
A llinger-C sollich/H einrich/K untner 2010
W. A llinger-C sollich/S. H einrich/W . Kuntner, Babylon. Past, present, future. The project
Comparative Studies Babylon-Borsippa: a synopsis, in: Paolo M atthiae et al. (ed.), 6 th ICAANE
Rome 2008, W iesbaden 2010, 29-38.
B ahrani 2004
Zainab Bahrani, The kings head, Iraq 6 6 (2004), 115-19.
Beaulieu 1997
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The cult of A N .SA R /A ssur in Babylonia after the fall o f the A ssyrian em
pire, State Archives o f A ssyria Bulletin 11 (1997), 55-74.
Beaulieu 2000
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The descendants of Sin-leqi-unninni, in: Joachim M arzahn/H ans Neumann
(eds.), Assyriologica et semitica: Festschrift fiir Joachim Oelsner anlasslich seines 65. Geburts-
tages (Alter O rient und Altes Testament 252), M unster 2000, 1-16.
60 van Nuffelen 2004; Linssen 2004, 124-8.
61 Heidel 1950, 76.
62 See Rollinger/Niedermayr 2007.
 174 Stephanie Dailey W hat was available to Berossos? 175

Beckman 2003 Heidel 1950

G ary Beckman, Gilgam esh in H atti, in: G ary Beckm an and Richard Beal (ed.), H ittite Studies A lexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, Chicago 1950.
in H onor o f H arry A. H offner Jr.: On the Occasion o f his 65th Birthday, W inona Lake, IN 2003 K recher/M uller 1975
37-57. Joachim K recher/H ans-Peter Muller, Vergangenheitsinteresse in M esopotamien und Israel,
Boiy 2004 Saeculum 26 (1975), 13-44.
Tom Boiy, Late A chaem enid and H ellenistic Babylon, Leuven 2004. L am bert/M illard 1969
Boiy 2007 W ilfred L am bert/A lan M illard, Atra-hasis. The Babylonian Story o f the Flood, Oxford 1969.
A ssyriology and the history o f the Hellenistic perio d , Topoi 15 (2007), 7-20. Lam bert 1968/69
Bonatz 2004 W ilfred Lam bert, A new source for the reign of N abonidus, Archiv f u r O rientforschung 22
D om inic Bonatz, A shurbanipaPs headhunt, Iraq 6 6 (2004), 93-101. (1968/69), 1-8 .
Burstein, 1978 Lam bert 1997
Stanley M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus, Sources and M onographs, Sources from the W ilfred Lam bert, The A ssyrian recension o f Enuma Elis, in: H artm ut W aetzoldt/H arald
A ncient N ear East 1 /5 , Malibu, CA 1978. Hauptmann (eds.), Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten, 39th Rencontre Assyriologique 1992, Heidelberg
Clancier, 2005 1997, 77-9.
Philippe Clancier, Les scribes sur parchem in du tem ple d A nu, Revue d A ssyrio lo g ie 99 (2005) Layard 1850
85-104. Austen H enry Layard, N ineveh and its Remains, London 1850.
C row ther/Facella 2003 Linssen 2004
Charles C row ther/M . Facella, New evidence for the ruler cult o f A ntiochus o f Comm agene M arc Linssen, The Cults o f Uruk and Babylon, C uneiform M onographs 25, Leiden 2004.
from Z eugm a, in: G. H eedem ann/E.W inter (eds.), N eue Forschungen zu r Religionsgeschichte Livingstone 1989
K leinasiens, Bonn 2003, 41-80. A lasdair Livingstone, C ourt P oetry and Literary M iscellanea, State A rchives o f A ssyria III,
Day 2011 Helsinki 1989.
John Day, The Flood and the ten antediluvian figures in Berossos and in the Priestly Source in Livingstone 2007
G enesis, in: James A itken/K atharine D ell/B rian M astin (eds.), On Stone a n d Scroll: Essays in A lasdair Livingstone, Assurbanipal: literate or not?, Zeitschrift filr A ssyriologie 97 (2007),
H onour o f Graham D avies, Berlin 2011. 98-118.
De Breucker 2003 Lloyd 1978
G eert de Breucker, Berossos and the construction o f a N ear Eastern cultural history, in: Hero Seton Lloyd, The Archaeology o f Mesopotamia: from the O ld Stone Age to the Persian Conquest,
H okwerda (ed.), C onstructions o f G reek Past, G roningen 2003, 25-34. London 1978.
Dirven 1997 O elsner 1986
Lucinda D irven, The exaltation o f N abu, Welt des Orients 28 (1997), 96-116. Joachim Oelsner, M aterialien zur babylonischen G esellschaft und K ultur in hellenistischer Zeit,
D irven 1999 Budapest 1986.
Lucinda Dirven, The Palmyrenes o f D ura-Europus. A Study o f Religious Interaction in Roman O ppenheim 1977
Syria, Leiden 1999. A. Leo O ppenheim , A ncient M esopotamia. Portrait o f a D ead Civilization, Chicago 1977.
Frahm 1997 O m an 2010
Eckart Frahm, E inleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, Archiv fur O rientforschung B eiheft 26, Tallay O rnan, Humbaba, the Bull o f Heaven and the contribution o f images to the reconstruction
V ienna 1997. o f the Gilgam es Epic, in: Hans Steym ans (ed.), Gilgamesch. Ikonographie eines H elden, Orbis
Frahm 2010 Biblicus et O rientalis 245, G ottingen 2010, 229-60.
E ckart Frahm, Counter-texts, com m entaries, and adaptations: politically motivated responses to Parrot 1947
the Babylonian Epic o f Creation in M esopotamia, the Biblical world, and elsew here, O rient 45 Andre Parrot, Tello. Vingt Campagnes de Fouilles 1877-1933, Paris 1947.
(2010), 3-33. Place /T hom as 1867-70
Frayne 2010 Victor Place/F elix Thomas, Ninive et lA ssyrie Paris 1867-70, vol.3.
Douglas Frayne, G ilgam es in Old A kkadian glyptic, in: Hans Steym ans (ed.), Gilgamesch. Pongratz-Leisten 1994
Ikonographie eines H elden, Orbis Biblicus et O rientalis 245, Gottingen 2010, 165-208. Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Ina sulmi erub. D ie Kulttopographie und ideologische Program m atik der
G allagher 1996 akitu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr., M ainz am Rhein 1994.
William Gallagher, The Istanbul stela o f N abonidus, Wiener Zeitschrift fu r die Kunde des Morgen- Rollinger /N iederm ayr 2007
landes 8 6 (1996), 119-26. Robert R ollinger/H ans N iederm ayr, Von A ssur nach Rom: Dexiosis und Staatsvertrag - zur
George 2003 Geschichte eines rechtssym bolischen A ktes, in: Robert R ollinger/H einz B arta (eds.), Rechts-
Andrew George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Oxford 2003. geschichte u n d Interkulturalitat. Zum Verhaltnis des ostlichen M ittelmeerraums und E uropas' im
G eorge/al-R aw i 1996 Altertum , W iesbaden 2007, 135-78.
A ndrew G eorge/Farouk al-Rawi, Tablets from the Sippar library VI A tra-hasis, Iraq 58 (1996) Romer 1965
147-90. Willem Romer, Sum erische Konigshymnen der Isin-Zeit, Leiden 1965.
George 2007/2009 Schaudig 2001
A ndrew George, The civilizing o f Ea-Enkidu: an unusual tablet of the Babylonian Gilgamesh Hanspeter Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros des Grofien sam t den in
Epic, Revue d Assyriologie 101 (2007, published 2009), 59-80. ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 256, Munster 2001.
176 Stephanie Dailey

Schaudig 2009
Hanspeter Schaudig, The colophon of the Sippar text of the Weidner Chronicle, Nouvelles Assyriolo-
giques Breves et Utilitaires 2009/15.
Schnabel 1923
Paul Schnabel, Berossos und die Babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig 1923.
Steiner 1997
Richard Steiner, The Aramaic text in demotic script, in: William W. Hallo et al (eds.), The Context
o f Scripture vol.l, Leiden 1997, 309-27.
Stuckenbruck 1997
Laurence Stuckenbruck, The Book o f Giants fro m Qumran, Tubingen 1997.
Stuckenbruck 2007
Laurence Stuckenbruck, The early traditions related to 1 Enoch from the D ead Sea Scrolls:
an overview and assessm ent, in: Gabriele B occaccini/John Collins (eds.), The Early Enoch
L iterature, Leiden 2007, 41-63.
van de M ieroop 2004
Marc van de M ieroop, A H istory o f the A ncient N ear E ast, Malden and Oxford 2004.
Van der Spek 2006
Robartus van der Spek, The size and significance o f the Babylonian temples under the successors,
in: Pierre B riant/F rancis Joannes (eds.), La Transition entre I empire achem enide et les royaumes
hellenistiques, Persika 9 (2006), 284-8.
Van der Spek 2008
R obartus van der Spek, Berossos as a Babylonian chronicler and G reek historian, in: R. J. van
der Spek (ed.), Studies in Ancient N ear Eastern World View a n d Society p resen ted to M arten Stol
on the Occasion o f his 65th Birthday, Bethesda, M D 2008, 277-317.
van N uffelen 2004
Peter van Nuffelen, Le culte royal de lempire des Seleucides: une reinterpretation, His tor ia 53
(2004), 278-310.
Wilcke 1989
Claus Wilcke, Genealogical and geographical thought in the Sum erian King L ist, in: H erm ann
B ehrens et al. (eds.), D U M U E.DUB.BA.A, Studies in H onor o f A. W. Sjoberg, Occasional
Publications o f the Samuel Noah K ram er Fund 11, Philadelphia 1989, 557-71.
Berossos and Greek Historiography
Christopher Tuplin (University of Liverpool)
Introduction
Felix Jacoby detected five types of historiography: genealogy/m ythology; ethnography;
chronology; Zeitgeschichte and Universalgeschichte\ and local history. The first two are
first exemplified by Flecataeus (but Dionysius Persica was the first full-blown ethnography);
the third arrives with Hellanicus ;1 the fourth, prefigured in Herodotus V II-IX , is represented
by Thucydides; and the fifth was a spin-off from Herodotus. (Dionysius of Halicarnassus
offered an exact reverse scheme in Thucydides 5, with local history as the starting point,
but the developmental issue is not for present purposes that important.) All of these strands,
except perhaps Zeitgeschichte (defined as mostly concerned with the authors own time), are
represented in some measure in Berossos work, and he is duly cited by the likes of Josephus
or Athenaeus alongside a variety of historians (Hecataeus, Hellanicus, Acusilaus, Ephorus,
Herodotus, Ctesias and Megasthenes). So, broadly speaking, Berossos text cannot be faulted
as a potential example of Greek historiography; its title - Babyloniaca - is of unimpeachably
appropriate sort ,2 and, if we conceive it (perhaps not too over-simplistically) as essentially a
work about a single city, it could even be said to be of specially Hellenic character. O f course,
the content also fits perfectly well two major categories of Babylonian literature (mythical
epic and king-lists/chronicles), though the combination of both in a single literary text may
be odder in the Babylonian than the Greek context: I am not sure whether Grayson 1975,
18 = Glassner 2004, 3, which inserts a Flood narrative into a king list - i.e. something that
one could describe as analogous to Babyloniaca II - makes the entirety of Berossos project
seem norm al.
By the time Berossos wrote there was a lot of Greek historiography: over 130 authors had
written history of one sort of another in Greek by the start of the third century BC ,3 well
over half (78) of whom were in the local history category to which Berossos belongs .4 So in

1 Priestesses o f Hera in Argos. Hellanicus also does local history and several items whose titles are -ika
forms derived from topo- or ethnonyms (ten are attested).
2 Schnabel 1923, 16 (endorsed by de Breucker) opted for this title on the ground that it is the one given by
Polyhistor - the only source author whom we can believe had actually had a copy of Berossos book in
his hands. The prevalence of Chaldaica or cognate forms in the tradition presumably reflects the fact that
Polyhistor him self used that title. - Unless otherwise indicated references to Berossos use the numera
tion in Jacoby.
3 The precise figure in my current list is 134, of whom 78 belong in Jacobys categories III A C (22 of
them writing on non-Greek subjects). The formation of the list involves many imponderable questions,
but the order of magnitude must be roughly right.
4 These are among the authors collected in FGrHist III A 262-296 (Autoren iiber verschiedene Stcidte/
Lander), FGrHist II1B 297-607 (Autoren iiber einzelne Stddte (Lander)) and IIIC 608-856 (Autoren
iiber einzelne Lander) - between them much the largest single category in Jacobys vision of things.
 178 C hristopher Tuplin
principle he had numerous models to follow - or to fail to live up to. In practice, of course,
things are not quite like that.
It would be astonishing if he actually encountered more than the tiniest proportion of
these theoretical riches. Most readers o f Greek without access to the library o f Alexandria
(an institution unparalleled in Seleucid Babylonia) would have been in a similar position. And
so are we, for fragm entary survival means that most o f these 130+ authors are literary and
scientific personalities whom we can scarcely grasp at all. The project of locating Berossos
in Greek historiography is one in which the realistic comparanda are few in number.
There is also an issue about his desire to encounter lots of potential precedents. Berossos
learned Greek, but what does that imply about engagement with Hellenic p aideial We have
no way of knowing what his actual spoken or w ritten Greek was like - which rules out one
way o f deciding whether he was a true pepaideumenos. Some historians start from the so-
called Graeco-Babyloniaca and the assumption that the King communicated with every
one who mattered in Greek and deduce widespread knowledge of Greek among Babylonian
temple-personnel or scholars .5 That might be fair, but does it imply paideial The half-century
since the conquest was time for some to have discovered that the Greek language had more
to offer than administrative functionality, but it begs the question to take Berossos work
as proof that such a process had gone very far .6 John Dillery has claimed that Manetho and
Berossos used Greek because it was a prestige language (2007, 229), and that the activity was
an aspect o f competition with other members o f the native (colonial) elite. Perhaps so .7 But
does the prestige derive from entry to a new literary /cultural world or just from proximity to
the levers of power? Can we be sure Berossos engagement with Greek literature was much
more than a superficial by-product of conversations with Greeks who were properly educated?
Are the putative signs o f Stoic philosophy and Empedocles robust enough (and technically
substantial enough) to demonstrate that it was ? 8
Precedents
Three types o f Greek historiographical precedent present themselves
5 See e.g. Clancier 2007, 25.
6 Some now tell us a theatre was built in Babylon at a quite early date, perhaps affording one context for
discovery of Greek literature. But the fact that a Hellenic element had already entered Babylonian seal-
design in the fifth century (and received no further stimulus from the Greco-Macedonian conquest) is
a doubtful pointer towards exposure to or absorption o fpaideia. Postulates about Babylonian influence
on classical Greek thought might entail contexts-of-contact that could work both ways. Even before 331
a Chaldaean allegedly visited the dying Plato (Philip of Opus FGrHist 1011 FI = P.Herc. 1021, col.
III.35-V.19) and, although exactly what transpired depends on interpretation of the fragmentary papyrus
text, on one reading it included the Chaldaean reciting two Greek verses (of his own composition or from
a tragic text) which criticized barbarians for being naturally unrhythmical. Irrespective of its historical
veracity, the story might have generic validity as a comment on reciprocal cultural influence. But those
who do not think so can scarcely be accused of excessive scepticism. (It does not help that the exist
ence of another story about Plato and a Persian visitor raises the possibility that there is a confusion of
Chaldaeans and magi going on here.)
7 I would say they did it in Greek primarily because it was the rulers language; but that it would also be
read by other natives was to be expected, if appropriate literacy in Greek had some coverage in the na
tive elite, so there would be no harm in giving a particular spin that might irk or entice groups among
them - but doing so might be almost instinctive if we assume some level of campanilismo to be natural
to the Mesopotamian (and the Egyptian) environment.
8 See Johannes Haubolds chapter in this volume.
Berossos and G reek H istoriography 179
- authors writing about (some of) the same historical material: Herodotus, Ctesias, Dinon,
Heraclides and other more faintly attested writers of Assyriaca (e.g. Hellanicus) or
Persica.9
- authors w riting about different historical material but in some sense doing the same
thing, that is people doing the history/custom s of a Greek community (in principle lots
of authors) or the history /custom s of non-Greek environments: Xanthus, Megasthenes,
Hecataeus, the writers of Persica, and various other (mostly not very familiar) authors .10
- non-Greek authors writing in Greek: Xanthus but not Manetho whom I take to be later
in date."
Inspecting things at this level draws attention to some ways in which the substance of
Berossos work has not got much to do with Greek predecessors:
Assyriaca
Herodotus (1.184) writes as though he had the wherewithal for a full account of A ssyrian
history, including the reigns and deeds o f many kings. So there was in theory a Greek dis
course available about pre-Persian eastern history other than the Ctesian one, a discourse
which would at best have had the same disconcerting relation to reality as displayed in
Herodotus history of Egypt or in what he says of Semiramis and (especially) N itocris 12 -
and which would probably have been quite dissim ilar to what we find in Ctesias. But we do
not know that anyone had written such a discourse (Hellanicus is the only candidate of any
literary substance, though there are no Assyrian fragm ents'3) or, if someone had, whether
it is likely Berossos would have had access. Perhaps, if he had known of such a work, he
would have made special efforts to get hold of it. But to say even that may be to make unwar
ranted assumptions. As for the Ctesian discourse, it is has almost nothing really to do with
Babylonia, and in particular pretty much writes out of history the Babylonia encountered in
Babyloniaca III .14
9 This is assuming that Berossos did do Persian-period history in sufficient detail to make Persica writers
(and some bits of Alexander-historians) real precursors. Otherwise only those who also wrote about pre-
Persian, perhaps even pre-Median, contexts are relevant - and questions would then arise, e.g. whether
a single reference to Semiramis guarantees that Dinon was one of them.
10 Lyceas of Naucratis (613), Dalion (6 6 6 ), Tauron (710), Androsthenes (711), Demodamas (428 T l-3 ,
F2), Patrocles (712), Aristippus (759), Theocritus of Chios (760), Menecrates of Xanthus (769), Andron
(802), Mnesimachus (841), Timonax (842). The work of Aristotle and Theophrastus on Etruscans will
also belong here.
11 I assume this on the undoubtedly contentious ground that the one ancient source to address the question
explicitly (Syncellus 18.22-4 = 609 T lib; cf. 16.35 = 609 T 11c) says so (the status of his statement is
disputed: see Murray 1972, 210 n. 2; but Murray eventually accepts that Manetho is later), but sustained
also by other indications in the same direction (see Ian Moyers chapter in this volume). - In an ideal
world knowledge of Manetho might allow inferences about Berossos on the basis of assumptions about
how Manetho reacted to him. In practice, we know far too little about both for this to be likely to be a
persuasive approach.
12 Nitocris is variously held to be (mis)informed by Ada-Guppi (Nabonidus mother), Nebuchadnezzar II
or Naqia (wife of Sennacherib).
13 Hellanicus was an author Ctesias thought worth attacking: 6 8 8 F 16(62) = 4 F 184 (in a Persian context).
14 It is worth noting that, whereas Megasthenes did India (see below), no Hellenistic Greek author appar
ently ever did Babylonia/Assyria. (The scant information about Athenaeus, Athenocles and Simacus
[FGrHist 681-683] does not controvert that statement.) Perhaps it would have been different if the
180 C hristopher Tuplin
Priestly history
As an author-priest Berossos resembles some Atthidographers - Cleidemus the exegete,
Philochorus the mantis and hieroskopos (though his work would not yet be available),
Phanodemus the hieropoios and lead-man in redevelopment of the Oropian Amphiareum. But
this rather serves to point a contrast: Dillery has recently spoken o f the cult-centered char
acter of Atthidography (2005, 509) and contextualised it in what he calls sacred history -
an historiographical enterprise initiated by a priest, in part derived from priestly records,
establishing a past seen through the lens o f a religious site and its dedications (2005, 519).
But this really does not sound much like Berossos, whose text seems extremely secular and
focused on kingship, not tem ple-cult .15
Xanthus
Dionysius evocation o f pre-Thucydidean local historians (Thucydides 5) does in rather
general term s seem appropriate to Berossos, and Xanthus (whom Dionysius mentions) in
particular resembles Berossos in that he wrote an account of his homeland two to three
generations after it had lost an empire. But he was not writing in the language o f the new
overlords, and the long history o f Greco-Lydian cultural (and political) intersection makes
the situation rather different.
Megasthenes
If M egasthenes wrote as early as Bosworth 1996 thinks (and even if he did not), his work
could have been known to Berossos. M ight we wish to say that the spectacle o f a Seleucid
Greek dealing systematically with a barbarian environment tempted a barbarian to deal
with a barbarian environm ent ? 16 And there is a more specific connection. Megasthenes
(715 F 11 = Abydenus 685 F 6 ) spoke o f Nebuchadnezzar, saying that he was stronger than
Heracles, campaigned successfully against Africa and Spain and deported people thence to
the right-hand side of Pontus. That such ideas got into a work on India says something about
the visibility o f Nebuchadnezzar in early Seleucid Babylonia 17 and might have provided
Herodotean Assyrioi Logoi had existed: i.e. perhaps the problem is that - by contrast with Egypt or
India - there was an insufficient free-standing tradition of Assyriaca (Hellanicus alleged work being
an uncertain quantity and Ctesias treatment being not free-standing) to call for Greek revisitation in
the new political circumstances.
15 The stress on Nebuchadnezzars secular building is one neat illustration of this. See the chapters of
Haubold and Moyer in this volume for the views (respectively) that Babyloniaca is a sort of Fiirstenspiegel
and that its metatextual organization revolves around commemorative acts of creating, preserving, re
covering and even destroying texts that constitute a central legitimating function of kingship.
16 The putatively systematic nature of the treatment and its relationship to a well-defined polity argu
ably distinguish Megasthenes Indica from the works of Demodamas or Patrocles. But, if all were
contributing to the agenda of delineating the Seleucid realm by inspecting its outer boundaries (cf. Paul
Kosmins chapter in this volume), they might all help to inspire a delineation of the realms inner core.
17 The possibility that there was early Seleucid building at many sites in Babylon and elsewhere normally
associated with Nebuchadnezzar would entail considerable early Seleucid exposure to inscriptional evi
dence for that kings architectural activities - which would be one contribution to his high profile. But
politico-military discourse (less readily traceable now) was probably more important. It is, of course,
hard to be sure how large Nebuchadnezzar actually bulked in Megasthenes text; but Beaulieu 2006 and
Kosmin (in this volume) are inclined to take it seriously, and it is natural to identify a political angle -
reinforcement of the point that Seleucus should look west, not to the conquest of India. (On Bosworth
Berossos and G reek H istoriography 181
added stimulus for composition of a real history of Babylonia. But, at first glance any
way, M egasthenes treatment of India was not much like Berossos of Babylonia. Berossos
produced a species of diachronic history, whereas in Megasthenes there seems to be little
history between (on the one hand) Dionysus or the indigenous Heracles and (on the other
hand) the time of Alexander - except for (a) the failure of Semiramis and others to invade
it and (b) the claim (unadorned by any narrative elaboration?) that there was a dynastic link
between Dionysus appointee as first Indian king and C handragupta .18 In this respect (con
tinuous narrated history) Herodotus and Hecataeus on Egypt are arguably a more pertinent
(but also a more distant) precedent. It must be conceded that much of Berossos history also
seems to be narrative-free - but also asserted that in his work something like a real historical
record starts over 450 years in the past, whereas in Megasthenes we must essentially wait for
the authors own lifetime: that is a real difference.
Alexander historians
A significant number of historical works about Alexander appeared in the decades after his
death, many of them early enough to have been accessible to Berossos. Collectively they are
a special example of contemporary Zeitgeschichte. Individually they take a variety o f forms
(and not all of them were systematic narratives). The fact that Alexander liberated Babylon,
spent an unusual amount of time there subsequently, had dealings with Chaldaean scholars
and expired in the city might have made part of the Alexander historians record a matter of
interest to Berossos. But, in the absence of any trace of whatever Berossan treatm ent of the
M acedonian arrival in M esopotamia there may have been, the question is beyond rational
comment. (The problem is further encapsulated by the Hanging Gardens - something that
may have been in Clitarchus, but which in any case remains quite unconnected with the ac
tual story of Alexander.) The fact that these works were characteristically written by people
who were directly associated with the Alexander expedition and who in some cases later had
links with one of the diadochi (Marsyas and Nearchus with Antigonus) or (in Ptolemys case)
turned into a diadochus him self means that this is a historiography that is not necessarily
divorced from political setting. But - to take the most extreme case - even if Berossos knew
that the King of Egypt had produced his own spin on the story of the conqueror, I cannot say
that it seems very obvious that that fact had or was likely to have had much bearing upon his
own historiographic venture.
Transmission and agenda
The project of locating Berossos in relation to Greek history-writing is, of course, made
difficult by the paucity and character of the remains. The uncontentious testim onia and
fragments 19 amount to the equivalent of 15-16 pages of OCT Greek (about 15% the length
o f Herodotus II), and what we have is known through epitomes or citations of Polyhistors
epitome of the original. Moreover Eusebius epitome of Polyhistor is only known through an
dating of the text, the stress is rather on the unprecedented nature of Alexanders achievement as an
outside conqueror: cf. Bosworth 2003.)
18 715 F 12 (Arr. Ind. 8.1-3), F 14 (Arr. Ind. 9.9).
19 That is, excluding the astronomical material - some of which may, however, be a genuine part of the
account of creation in Babyloniaca I, and proved to be such in part precisely by its failure to cohere with
Babylonian scientific astronomy: see the chapters of Martin Lang and John Steele in this volume. Among
items assigned to pseudo-Berossos by Jacoby F 16a and F22 have a reasonable claim to authenticity.
182 C hristopher Tuplin
Arm enian translation and Syncellus extracts. The transmission process leaves us vulner
able to misunderstandings of genuine text, intrusion of non-genuine text - not just (perhaps)
some of the astronomica but (with varying degrees of certainty) things such as Sennacheribs
invasion o f Egypt (F7c), the Tower o f Babel (F4) or a reference to Zoroaster (F5b) - and
extremely skewed selection of material: a large proportion is preserved because of a Judaeo-
Christian historical or chronographic agenda. In these circumstances the niceties of linguis
tic or literary analysis are scarcely available: discussing the fragments of Manetho, John
Dillery felt able to say the Egyptian author used jiev and 8 e in a proper Greek manner (1999,
99). I should hesitate to speak thus o f Berossos.
Various Greek agendas have been postulated for Berossos project. Do they imply a spe
cific engagement with Greek historiography?
The assumption that the work was intended to inform or influence Greek rulers is conso
nant with the authors assimilation of him self to the persona of a Greek historian, but it hardly
requires it. This is no less true (though perhaps no more true either) if we stress Antiochus Is
special interest in Babylonian tradition - or even (perhaps wildly) conjecture on the basis of
T 4 (from Moses of Chorene) that Antiochus asked Berossos to produce the text.
Claims that (a) construction o f Nabopolassar as a successful rebellious subordinate
is intended to provide a parallel for Seleucus and, more generally, that the rise o f post-
Assyrian Babylon is a precedent for the rise of post-Achaemenid Babylon, with Nabopolassar
and Nebuchadnezzar foreshadowing Seleucus and Antiochus 20 or (b) Sennacherib and
Nebuchadnezzar are good and bad role models for Seleucid kings (Burstein 1978) or (c) al
leged Babylonian possession of Egypt is a model for Seleucid claims (Beaulieu 2006) or
(d) N ebuchadnezzars Iranian (garden-loving) wife is a precedent for Seleucus-Apame (Van
der Spek 2008) do not in themselves require Greek historiographical thinking - unless we
suppose that historical analogy and a kings sense of his relationship to his predecessors are
purely Hellenic phenomena. That would be dangerous. One may hesitate to draw a direct
analogy between the presupposition underlying the Astronomical Diaries (that m arrying as
tronomical and historical data is a worthwhile process in the interests of allowing evidence-
based consideration of the future) and Thucydidean claims about the value of historiography,
if only because the interplay of celestial phenomena and human activity rather contrasts with
the primacy in Thucydides o f to anthrdpinon. But one could imagine a more deistic version
of the Thucydidean principle; and it would seem bizarre to claim that a Babylonian was like
ly to need more than the slightest (and essentially political rather than literary) prompt to see
that his country had history that was relevant to current circum stances .21 Less grandly, one
20 Beaulieu 2006; Kuhrt 1987. There is reason to think Nabopolassar came from a pro-Assyrian back
ground (Jursa 2007; Jursa 2010, 99); and it is a point upon which Berossos and Ctesias effectively agree -
though the latter calls him Belesys and gives him a relation to the Medes that is foreign to Berossos
picture of things.
21 This is, of course, a different scale of prediction on the basis of the past than any discussion of future
flood or conflagration that Berossos may have offered. But the authenticity of F21 (in its current form)
is suspect; and if it is at least partly authentic and evidence of Berossos exposure to Stoic ideas about
ekpurosis then we are in the realm of philosophy rather than historiography. At the same time, if the
principle that the association of certain events and astronomical situations has predictive potential is
valid at all, the possibility that it might (on Babylonian principles) apply to, for example, the Flood can
hardly be precluded, whatever general views may be taken about Babylonian attitudes to cyclical his
tory (cf. Lambert 1976, 172-3, as against Drews 1975, 50-5). Any difficulty in predicting a new Flood
would be practical, viz. absence of appropriate records of the astronomical conditions at the time of
Berossos and G reek Historiography 183
may also observe that the same trick of drawing parallels between the early Neo-Babylonian
and early Seleucid eras has been detected in the so-called Dynastic Prophecy - a purely
Babylonian product .22
The suggestion that the construction of ancient history seen in Berossos and in the Uruk
King-List 23 (in both of which early kings have their associated wise men) is intended to
validate a special relationship between the likes of Berossos and Seleucid kings 24 would
have Berossos devising a role for the historian-scholar that has few prior analogues in
Greek historiography - at least outside the Macedonian monarchic environment. (I have
in mind Antipater of Magnesia, author of a historical work potentially helpful to Philip II
[FGrHist 69], or - more famously - Callisthenes, Alexanders ill-fated court historian.) Even
so, this is a long way from the Babylonian situation, which (if it is to be taken seriously) is
surely much more of a Babylonian than a Greek phenomenon - something spun out of the
necessary tendency of Greek rulers (if they cared at all) to engage with local experts on
issues of native custom, divine goodwill and forecasts o f the future. If there is the slightest
possibility that Berossos was constructing him self as a sort of culture-hero, he was cer
tainly not being constrained by a Greek historiographic model; and even if we take a less
extreme line and see him as assimilating him self to the sort of logioi to whom Herodotus
refers any consciousness o f such a model has resulted in a degree of detachment from it. 25
Authority and choice of material
It seems likely that the texts opening contained three important statements: that Berossos
was a contemporary of Alexander (T2, F lb[l]), that he was a priest of Bel (T2), and
that his sources were or included extremely antique documents (T3, F l [ l ] ) .26 About the
priesthood of Bel little more need be said: it clearly seeks to establish status and access
to sources. Contemporary with Alexander is trickier. It is not clear whether he means he
was born around the same time as Alexander (356) or in the reign of Alexander (331-323).27
The former would confer on Berossos (writing in the 280s) the authority of personal age -
perhaps with the additional twist that, being older than the Greek dispensation (old enough
to remember the world before 331), he has some special entitlement to explain Babylonia
to the Greeks. The latter would make him a man whose lifespan equated with the new dis
the first one - and provision of a calendar date for the latter may not prove that Berossos was implicitly
claiming that such records did exist after all.
22 E.g. Beaulieu 2006, 143-4. See below, p. 193.
23 Van Dijk 1962, 43-61 = Van Dijk & Mayer 1980, 89 = ANET 3 566.
24 Cf. Joannes 2000 and Kosmins chapter in this volume. The related notion that Berossos wrote in the role
of a priest educating a royal successor is articulated in Mastrocinque 2005. Some have seen Onesicritus
work on Alexander as being about the princes education, but that is far too uncertain to legitimate
speculation about an influence upon Berossos project.
25 Culture hero or logios: see the chapters elsewhere in this volume by (respectively) Lang and Kosmin.
On logioi see Luraghi 2009.
26 It is less clear whether he said that he was a Chaldaean (T3, T 5). There is some danger that the record
(here and indeed more generally in the presence of Khaldaios in the fragments) is contaminated by de
scription of his work as Chaldaica (cf. n.2) and/or Berossos association with astronomical or magical
lore. This uncertainty is sad, given the prominence of Chaldaeans in the Alexander historians treat
ment of the conquerors engagement with Babylon.
27 phesi genesthai auton kata Alexandron tou Philippou ten helikian. The use ot helikian here has no pre
cise parallel in Syncellus. References to the helikia Kekropos (pp. 74, 75) or the despotike helikia (p. 387:
apparently the Roman imperial period) are the closest and may slightly favour the second interpretation.
 184 C hristopher Tuplin
pensation; perhaps that too could be claimed as some sort o f ground for authority. Either
way he is not m aking a quasi-Thucydidean point, since he was not writing contemporary
history - and assertions about date-of-birth are not otherwise (1 think) a normal program
matic issue in Greek history-writing. As for sources: the insistence that the whole span of
Babylonian history is preserved by anagraphai (underlined by the preservation of Kulturgut
buried at Sippar during the Flood) is striking. I shall say more about one aspect of this flow
o f documentation later; here I ju st note it has a parallel in Ctesias decidedly novel claim to
have spent time working on the basilikai diphtherai ( 6 8 8 F 5) and to be able to report what
is said about Memnon in the basilikai anagraphai ( 6 8 8 F lb = Diodorus 2.22.5). There is, of
course, a notable difference - Ctesias putative documents were royal documents, presum question is open; and I cannot wholly suppress the feeling that there is a significant differ
ably taken from a palace archive, whereas no such thing is asserted (or likely to be implied)
in the Berossan case 28 - and (after all) the Babylonians actually did have (copies of) very old
records, so Berossos did not need Ctesias to make him think of such things. But the analogy
is a real one and likely to be o f some significance. Self-presentation and claim to authorial
individuality and authority is normally seen as alien to Babylonian literature (a world where
preserved names are those o f scribes, not authors). Does this mean that Berossos behaviour
is modelled on the programmatic utterances of Greek historians? Perhaps. But, since he was
in any case doing an entirely novel thing, he m ight in any case have felt a need to state his
claim to do so. He cannot be proved to have said anything very complicated (even to have
said why he was doing it); did he need Greek models to do so? 29
As preserved, Babyloniaca consists o f a diachronic history of Babylon, organised by
dynasties and kings, preceded by some observations about geography. Where in this might
we look to uncover the effect o f Greek historiography?
The geographical opening is appropriate to a Hellenic ethnographic discourse, as is speci
fication o f the crops grown and the fertility or lack of it of particular parts of the country -
not that Babylonians needed Greeks to tell them that Babylonia was fertile or that this was a
distinguishing feature o f the region or (what is presumably implicit) that it was tied up with
the two great rivers and the hydraulic system enabling their exploitation. But the prominence
o f the geography draws ones attention to the apparent absence o f other expected features
of synchronic description o f foreign places: there are no advertised thaumata (the wondrous
primeval monsters are rather different, I think) and no description of the customs of the
Babylonians. There is also (by notable contrast with earlier Greek treatments o f Assyriaca)
no description o f the city o f Babylon. Now perhaps these absences are illusory. Perhaps the
account o f O annes invention o f civilisation embraced much talk o f how things are still
done in Babylon: after all, it is asserted that nothing has been invented since O annes time.
Perhaps description o f Nebuchadnezzars building activities broadened into a description
o f the whole city as its great imperial ruler had made it. That would be a sensible enough
disposition of material. Oswyn Murray (1972, 210) suggested that, as a Babylonian, Berossos
could not distance him self enough to see his society as an outsider or (therefore) describe
28 The Moses attestation (T4) also does not specifically associate royal records with Berossos. And as a
matter of fact Berossos is plainly empowered in documentary terms by the temple rather than the palace.
29 The fiction of Berossos retiring to Cos to engage in iatromathematics (T 5) arguably presupposes a
parallel in someones mind not (or not just) with Eudoxus (cf. Kuhrt 1987, 41) but with Ctesias, a doctor-
historian from the other great medical centre, Cnidus. (Note also T 6 , giving Berossos a Hippocrates-like
status.) But that conjecture neither authorizes precise inferences about the actual relationship between
the two authors nor is invalidated by disagreements between them (cf. below pp. 180-181).
Berossos and G reek Historiography 185
its habits; that may be extreme - but, if he was not in fact consciously trying to follow a
Greek ethnographic template, he might end up not separating out the relevant material into
a self-contained section in quite the Greek manner. On the other hand, A thenaeus unique
report that the Sacaea appeared in Babyloniaca I (680 F2) confirms that fragmentation has
concealed material about nomoi that was originally there and that Book I is where such ma
terial might be; and one might in the end feel that a combination of literal geography with
everything that could have come out via the account o f Oannes meant the Book 1 functioned
as an introductory account of land and customs before continuous diachronic history started
in II .30 So perhaps, after all, the effect was not so very different from Herodotus II. But the
ence between setting out to describe more (or less) systematically some customary features
of a contemporary society and presenting a discourse about the origin of civilisation - albeit
a civilisation that still exists .31
Babyloniaca starts with mythological material but eventually deals with the deeds of
what are undoubtedly real historical figures. Under the influence of the Thucydides-Polybius
model of history-writing, we may be uncomfortable about this combination of the fabulously
unreal and the real in a single through-composed diachronic narrative. On the other hand:
- There are caesurae at the Flood and, especially, at the reign o f Nabonassar (F 16);
Berossos implicitly distinguishes the various spatia historica, so the most mythological
is well-distanced from the rest.
- Berossos does not directly narrate the creation of the world - he says Oannes narrated it:
cosmogony is thus only indirectly in the historical narrative.
- Greek histories certainly did mythology. Herodotus may spend relatively little time re
tailing myths, Thucydides might affect to reject to muthodes altogether (while, of course,
treating M inos and the Trojan War as part of a historically analysable narrative), and
Ephorus might start his universal history with the Return of the Heraclidae (at the his
torical end of mythology) and rationalize things from earlier horizons (70 FF 31-34),
but the w ider historiographical discourse had room for mythology. Some o f the earliest
historiographical prose w riting (Hecataeus, Pherecydes, Acusilaus32) deals precisely
with mythology, mythological genealogy and even cosmogony and theogony, and with
Damastes and Hellanicus at least we encounter authors who do both this sort of thing and
what we would see as more straightforward history, if not necessarily in the same works.
The first authors to articulate a history o f the western Greeks (Antiochus, Philistus) be
gan with the story o f Daedalus flight to the refuge o f King Cocalus court, while even
the rebarbatively cynical Theopompus not only described a fantasy-continent beyond
the Ocean (evidently for purposes o f moral admonition) but also put that description
into the mouth of the satyr Silenus, a mythological figure allegedly captured by King
30 Sarachero (F 13) might very well belong there too. But the Anahita statue o f F 11 explicitly belongs in
Babyloniaca III.
31 Briants hypothetical suggestion (1991, 4) that the Sacaea was connected with annual re-affirmation of
the kings right to rule alerts one to the possibility that material on customs in Babyloniaca I shared
a slant towards the issue of kingship that some feel characterised the work as a whole (cf. n. 15). But
cf. n.41 below.
32 Acusilaus claimed to know genealogies thanks to a bronze tablet left by his father (2 T 1).
 186 C hristopher Tuplin
Midas (115 FF74-75 ) . 33 And more generally, and pertinently to Berossos (at least generi-
cally), authors of local history characteristically gave a mythographic slant to community
origins. It is true that Flecataeus already said the Greeks tell silly stories (1 F 1) and
engaged in rationalisation (so Cerberus becomes a deadly dangerous snake: 1 F27); but
we should be wary o f assuming a generally sceptical /critical attitude about mythological
stories that firmly m arks Greeks o ff from the m ind-set of someone like Berossos
- O f course, there are myths and myths. Dillery 2007, 222 comments that Oannes - the
talking fish-man - is not the sort o f wonder Herodotus would be comfortable with. That
is true - he is much less happy than Ctesias with mixed-species oddities and neither of
them wants them anywhere but at the remoter edges of the oecum ene 34 - but perhaps not
quite the point. Oannes is myth, not an aspect of contemporary bio-diversity. How far can
the feeling that he is a bit outre really stand up to the fact that the various autochthonous
figures at the origins o f Athens included the half-man, half-snake Cecrops 35 or that even
Hecataeus allowed Phrixus ram to talk. And, as for the Flood, Greeks had a flood story
too: that it might be a relic of eastern cultural influence is neither here nor there
So, in the end one may have to concede that Babyloniaca did not - so far as the presence of
myth goes - represent a discourse radically unlike anything possible in Greek historiogra
phy. We may remember that Zoilus o f Amphipolis and Anaximenes o f Lampsacus (nestling
at nos. 71 and 72 in Jacobys Universal- und Zeitgeschichte) had written historical works
which, though they ended respectively with the deaths of Philip and Alexander, began with
the Birth o f the Gods. And yet: Johannes Haubolds chapter elsewhere in this volume leaves
a clear feeling that, if there is a Greek context for Babyloniaca I, it may be as much a philo
sophical as a historiographical one .36
Berossos certainly engaged directly at least once with the Greek historical tradition. F 8 a
reports that he criticised Hellenikoi sungrapheis for attributing the building of Babylon to
Semiramis. Burstein (1978, 34) additionally claimed that the statement about 45 kings in 526
years towards the end o f Book II is the remnant of a statement about the date of the real
Semiramis relative to Antiochus I, and thus part of another prong of an attack on the Ctesian
picture .37 At the same time, since Abydenus says that the Chaldaeans paid little heed to
Ninus and Semiramis, it looks as though Berossos chief strategy was to sideline Semiramis
rather than substitute a vivid alternative account of Sammuramat (if it is she). Might one say
that this shows that, while aware o f (some aspects of) Greek tradition, his project is not (in
his mind) formed by that tradition? It is simply his business to tell the truth, as he sees it
(which still does not have to be the truth as we see it). It is also, incidentally, more generally
not his business to follow the Greek vision and fill the Orient with over-powerful women.
33 Admittedly this was part of what seems to have been a sustained but perhaps clearly delimited part of
Philippica VIII on thaumasia (a word used as an alternative or sub-title by some who cite the book).
34 See Lenfant 1999.
35 Others were Ogygus (the first man), Actaeus (from whose name comes the term Attica), Erichthonius
(the child of Athenas thigh and Hephaestus sperm): Harding 2007, 184. Theban Cadmus had snake-
associations too, and there were people (Spartoi) literally born from the earth.
36 Is there a relationship between such philosophical colour and Megasthenes observation that Brahmans
and Jews anticipated Greeks in ta peri phuseds philosophoumenal Was Berossos suggesting that the
Babylonian account of origins anticipated Greek ones?
37 The suggestion is mentioned without assessment by De Breucker 2010 (on F 5a), but effectively rejected
in Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 27.
Berossos and G reek H istoriography 187
Semiramis is not the only context in which that strategy might be evident. In the case of
Sardanapalus we can see Berossos effectively denying two Greek versions: Sardanapalus
did not self-immolate in Nineveh (that was Saracus = Sin-sharra-ishkun: F 7d) and he
did not build Tarsus and Anchiale and erect a funerary monument at the latter (that was
Sennacherib - except that his was not a funerary monument, and he did it after defeat
ing some Greeks: F7c ) .38 The assumption (cf. Abydenus F 5[8 ]) has to be that in Berossos
the only Sardanapalus was indeed Assurbanipal ,39 but, as things stand, we learn absolute
ly nothing about him not even from Abydenus. This is odd: if Sardanapalus succeeded
Samoges = Shamash-shuma-ukin (F 7c), then, without prejudice to the identity or non-iden
tity o f Kandalanu and Assurbanipal, there was a long period (21 years) to be accounted for
that should have generated something in Berossos text. Could it be (again) that part of the
strategy of seeing off the Ctesian Sardanapalus was actually to assign his real counterpart
next to no history at all?
Other visible deviations from Greek tradition are more straightforward - Berossos had
an alternative version of C yrus capture of Babylon to that in Herodotus or Xenophon (and
perhaps pre-emptively ruled out the Greek version in his description of Nebuchadnezzar s
building activity40) and an alternative version of C yrus death in battle to that in Herodotus
and Ctesias, at least to the extent of naming its agents as Dahae, not as M assagetae or
Derbices or Indians. Others again are simply speculative: is the material about Pythagoras in
F7 and Abydenus 685 F 5 the remnant of some unusual attempt to associate the philosophers
engagement with Chaldaeans with the reign of Sennacherib? Was what he said about the
Sacaea plainly different from what Ctesias said (whatever that was ) ? 41 And then there is the
Hanging G arden :42 one view would make this the appropriation and corrective supplement
of a Greek story - a contribution to the greater glory of Nebuchadnezzar and the elimination
o f any claim by Iranians before Cyrus to universal domination in A sia .43 But, in any event,
whatever we make of the Hanging Garden, Berossos general celebration of Nebuchadnezzar
38 Amyntas (122 F 2) gave Sardanapalus a funeral mound and an inscribed monument (but with a different
inscription) at Nineveh. There are probably more complications in the traditions about Assyrias final
ruler than we can now disentangle. On Sennacheribs Cilician activities see also Giovanni Lanfranchi s
chapter in this volume: the defeat of Greeks is, it seems, a (creative) confusion with events under Sargon
and, at first sight paradoxically, part of a historiographical strategy intended to appeal to Antiochus.
39 This assumes that one rejects as erroneous Syncellus assertion that Nabopolassar was called
Sardanapallus in the Babyloniaca (F 7d).
40 See F 8(139): Nebuchadnezzar arranged things so that besiegers could not make any headway by turning
the river aside. In other words, what Herodotus and Xenophon said happened could not have happened.
41 6 8 8 F4. If Ctesias espoused the sort of Persian aitia encountered in Strabo 11.8.5, he was certainly
in a different place from Berossos; and the way Athenaeus 639C cites Berossos and Ctesias does not
guarantee that the latter shared the formers view of the festival. On the other hand Ctesias did mention
it in Persica II (the Assyrian, not Persian, part of his history) and Strabos explanations of its origins
might both derive from Anatolian Iranian sources. For a recent view of the Sacaea see Huber 2005: there
was a Babylonian festival (its name involving the word sakku = obtuse, half-witted, obscure [CAD]:
cf. Langdon 1924), associated with Ishtar-temples (thus Strabo) but also celebrated domestically (thus
Berossos), and belonging at the time of year indicated by Berossos. But, despite the reference to cloth
ing like the kings in Berossos and the claims of Dio Chrysostom 4.37, it had no direct link with the
Ersatzkonig ritual. Huber offers no conjectures about Ctesias treatment of the matter or, therefore, about
whether Berossos was correcting his account.
42 On which see Robert Rollingers chapter in this volume and the further literature cited there.
43 Van der Spek 2008, 302-13, esp. 311-13. Rollinger (this volume) takes a similar view.
 188 C hristopher Tuplin
is, for any reader familiar with the Ctesian tradition, a de facto corrective to that authors
complete suppression o f the Neo-Babylonian em pire .44
A ll o f this taking o f positions against other Greek views certainly fits the profile of the
Greek historian. But is Berossos doing it because he is a species of Greek historian? How
much Greek historiography did he have to know at first hand in order to do what he did?
And is every disagreem ent a conscious one? His motive for deviation is certainly substan
tive and Babylonian, not adventitious and merely literary, and I think it is at least tricky to
tell apart the inheritor o f Greek historie from the Babylonian who wants to get things (as he
sees them) right.
Hellenic colour
Let us look next at some features o f the text (or what passes for the text) as text. Is there
Hellenic colour? Did any o f it actually read like a G reek historiographical discourse?
One thing is clear: Berossos is not engaged in excavating a defunct tradition of liter
ary or chronicling activity; the Babylonian texts his work relates to were still being copied
and recopied; and Esagila has even been seen as a state-favoured scholarly centre in late
Achaemenid and early Seleucid times (Beaulieu 2 0 0 6 )45 The state of mind in which he
approaches his task can essentially be that o f a translator or interpreter (albeit a selective
one). That it was more than that is something we need to prove. The default is Babylonian
colour, as is immediately obvious, whether in the presence of fish-men as inventors of human
culture or the prodigious lengths o f documented history 46 or in the way that Babyloniaca II
recalls the Babylonian Royal Chronicle 47 (the one that mixes kings and flood narrative) or
the Uruk king-list (which shares Berossos characteristic pairing o f kings and wise-mon-
sters48) or in tell-tale traces like Sennacheribs building Tarsus as an image o f Babylon (F 7c)
or the ideologically significant contrast between the wall-building of Nebuchadnezzar and
Nabonidus and the wall-destruction o f C yrus .49 More substantively partisan points o f a
purely M esopotamian significance (and a substantial degree of opacity from the modern
historians point o f view) may well be embedded in the choices Berossos made in the ante-
and post-diluvian king lists o f Babyloniaca II.
But there is some Hellenic veneer at a verbal level - examples include post-diluvian
M edian and Arabian dynasties (F5a), the rebellious satrap of F 8 (i.e. the Egyptian king
Necho, ideologically re-interpreted as a mere Babylonian governor ) ,50 Sennacherib invading
44 See Lanfranchis chapter in this volume and also Lanfranchi 2011.
45 Beaulieu ascribes fourth century Esagila a library like Assurbanipals. It must be allowed that those ele
ments of Beaulieus argument that relate to technical astronomy belong in that bit of the scholarly world
that seems unlikely to have anything to do with Berossos.
46 432,000 years of kings; a text base covering 2,150,000 years - or 150,000: either way not really consist
ent; but we are not dealing with real arithmetic.
47 Grayson 1975, 18 = Glassner 2004, 3.
48 Though not the provision of numbers of regnal years.
49 Destroying the citys walls is a thing that the king must positively undertake not to do (Akitu festival).
Since what Cyrus destroyed (F 9[ 152]) was probably ta tes exo poleos teikhe (not as Josephus MSS have
it ta exo tes poleos teikhe), the target was precisely that creation of an extra new Babylon for which the
great Nebuchadnezzar was responsible (F 8 [ 139]). Hdt.3.159, by contrast, said Cyrus did not destroy any
Babylonian walls. See further Rollingers chapter in this volume.
50 Hellenic in the sense that it is a familiar anachronism suitable to Greek discourse about an oriental em
pire, just as Median and Arabian would be more familiar than Gutian or Amorite. If Khaldaios was
Berossos and G reek H istoriography 189
Babylon and carrying off the kings friends (instead of invading A kkad and carrying off
the great m en of the King ) , 51 Macedonian calendar dates, both the enigmatic 15 Daisios
as the date o f the Flood (F 4b) 52 and 16 Loos as the date of the Sacaea (F 2) 53 - and perhaps
in other more substantive ways: one may not wish to think that the statement that nothing
pros ten hemerdsin was been discovered after the time of Oannes buys into a familiar Greek
perspective in which barbarian wisdom lies in the (distant) past, but might it cast Oannes
as a prdtos heuretes or Platonic dem iourgosl 54 Do we get an Enuma Elish washed in Greek
philosophy? Still, as I have already remarked, philosophy o f this sort is not historiography
(and we are also some way from what people mean when they speak o f Hecataeus philoso
phizing the Hellenic reception of Egypt55) - and, more mundanely, precise calendar dates
are not a standard feature of the discourse of Greek historiography. I would also note that,
whereas Herodotus Ninus is the great-great-grandson of Heracles (1.7) 56 and Ctesias and
Manetho both engineer links with Greek myth (the Trojan War; Danaus ) , 57 there is none of
this in Berossos: there is no attempt to subordinate Greek gods or heroes (and so recorded
Greek history) to Babylon by genealogical game-playing or other means. One may also
contrast the intercutting of Egyptian and Greek myth in Hecataeus (producing weird phe
used in Berossos text (cf. n. 26), that would probably represent another piece of Hellenic colour (Van
der Spek 2008, 289) - a more remarkable one inasmuch as it affects Berossos own identity.
51 F7c. Friends in the translation of the original Armenian in Jacoby, Burstein 1978 and Verbrugghe/
Wickersham 1996 has become companions in the new translation in De Breucker 2010; for Berossos
use o f friends see also Dillerys chapter in this volume.
52 On this date see Langs chapter in this volume.
53 Van der Spek 2008 suggests that apotumpanizein in F 9(148) corresponds to the Akkadian concept of
the rack of interrogation (to his citations from four second century Astronomical Diaries add BCHP 15
rev.3 [222BC], 17.11,24 [162/1 BC]) andparatattein in F8a(136) and F9a(151) corresponds to Akkadian
kasaru, but of these only the former might count as the substitution of a familiar Greek concept in place
of an unfamiliar foreign one - and, even so, the case would be odd: although there is dispute about the
precise sense of apotumpanizein, it is clear that it is a means of killing someone, whereas application of
a rack of interrogation precedes the execution of sentence.
54 For the Platonic parallel see Langs chapter in this volume. There is also the potential analogy of
Dionysus in Megasthenes Indica (cf. Kosmin, in this volume). O f course, Dionysus is a god, and a
Greek one at that, who improved an unsatisfactory nomadic non-Greek environment, so we have here
a version of that Greek mythological colonisation of the non-Greek world that is lacking in Berossos
(see below) - a version originally driven in the early 320s at the point of a sword (Bosworth 2003). It
remains, of course, possible that Berossos Oannes is a reaction to Megasthenes model; but the lack of
proper parallel in surviving cuneiform literature for the role he ascribes to Oannes cannot confidently
be adduced in favour o f the determinative influence o f Megasthenes because it is increasingly clear that
our knowledge of the cuneiform literature available to Berossos is decidedly limited: see e.g. Stephanie
Daileys chapter in this volume.
55 Hecataeus marriage of the travellers innocent eye with local tradition and with Greek philosophy is
a renewal of Herodotus for a more sophisticated age (Murray 1972, 207). Diogenes Laertius cited
Hecataeus work as peri tes ton Aiguption philosophias (264 F 1). See in general Murray 1970. It is not
clear whether Berossos engaged in the sort of quasi-philosophical utopian idealisation of alien environ
ments that is perhaps to be seen in what Megasthenes says about slavery in India. (Murray 1972, 209
held that material of this sort in Megasthenes was a deliberate response to Hecataeus idealisation
of Egypt.)
56 And also the father of the founder of the Heraclid dynasty of Lydian king - all this on the reasonable
assumption that the Ninus of Hdt.1.7 is the same Ninus as the founder of a great city on the Tigris (2.150).
57 Post-Semiramis Assyrians in the Trojan War: Ctesias 6 8 8 F 1 = Diod.2.22.2-5. Pharaoh Armais =
Danaus: Manetho 609 F3b (p.41), 9a: cf. Dillery 1999, 95.
 190 C hristopher Tuplin
nomena such as Macedon, the son o f Osiris) or the im portant presence of Dionysus and an
indigenous Heracles in M egasthenes Ur-history of India. Greeks liked to colonize the
world mythologically; Berossos does not follow suit. Greeks may count as enemies o f bad
universal dom ination ,58 but they are newcomers to the eastern environment.
Narrative
The essential feature o f Greek historiography is historical narrative. Let us at last come to
this crucial matter.
First, this being Berossos, there is the narrative that is not there. Some absence is acci
dental, and this includes not just the general fragmentation o f Babyloniaca but specifically
tantalizing things like a direct citation o f narrative about Sennacherib and Egypt that has
dropped out o f the MSS o f Josephus A J 10.20 (F7a) or passages such as F7c (Polyhistor
again recounts several works and deeds o f Sennacherib. He also mentions his son in ac
cordance with the Scriptures o f the Hebrews and enumerates everything in detail) or F 8 a
(Berossos provided polla pros toutois on the reign of Nebuchadnezzar ) .59 More interesting
is deliberate absence. In Babyloniaca II, we are told, virtually no detailed information was
supplied about the long list o f post-diluvian kings - and we find ourselves wondering how
the pages got filled. The idea of an oriental history of huge temporal extent filled with nu
merous kings about whom there is no specific record is not unique: this was apparently true
of much o f Ctesias Assyrian and M egasthenes Indian history; and it may later have been
the case in some parts o f M anetho just as (mutatis mutandis) it had earlier been the case in
Herodotus II. But the Berossan situation is different in that it comes with a surviving and
somewhat remarkable explanation.
Nabonassar, we learn in F 16a, destroyed earlier records in order to ensure special status
for himself. There is no sign that this was standard Babylonian spin on the fact that chron
icles and astronomical diaries started in the tim e o f Nabonassar (a phenomenon significantly
nuanced but not elim inated by Waerzeggers 2012, 298); and the statement might seem both
to cohere w ith Greek stereotypes about overweening monarchs and to draw a distinction in
the Babylonian historical record vaguely rem iniscent o f that drawn by Herodotus between
Saite and pre-Saite Egyptian history (2.99,147). The claim allows Berossos to account for
the lack o f praxeis o f pre-Nabonassar kings without compromising the essential claim to
a hugely long documented history. But would it normally have occurred to a Babylonian
to think an explanation was needed? So the next question is: is it something about what
Greeks specifically required by way o f historical evidence that prompts the explanation?
Familiarity with Greek historiography would have left an ambivalent impression about docu
ments: Berossos might have had some sympathy for Josephus later observation that Greek
historians were concerned with literary style at the expense of documents. On the other hand
Herodotus intermittently claims to cite documents and Ctesias exceptionally professed to be
unloading the contents o f royal records on to his Greek readers .60 But Greek historiography
certainly likes praxeis (whether o f kings or others), and the actual state o f pre-Nabonassar
58 See Lanfranchi (this volume).
59 Josephus makes no such remark in the case of the material in F 9 .
60 Note that Ctesias F5 (Diodorus) uses polupragmonesai and ta kath hekasta of the engagement with
basilikai diphtherai - that asserts a claim to systematic effort. The Herodotean situation is pretty much
in line with what Lane Fox 2010 articulates about Thucydides. There is no working of archives going on.
It appears possible that (leaving Ctesias aside) Hieronymus of Cardia was the earliest Greek historian
Berossos and G reek H istoriography 191
Babylonian history would be an embarrassment. W7hat then emerges as remarkable is that
Berossos did not solve the problem - it seems - with inventively imaginative story-telling
or the weaving of even a few popular fables into the king-list record. Here there seems a
contrast with Manetho: did Konigsnovelle lay to his hand more readily than equivalents did
to Berossos? Is that really likely ? 61
W hat about the historical narrative in Babyloniaca III that is there? W hat survives is the
equivalent o f fewer than four pages of Herodotus, none of it in Berossos own voice. That
is not much of a basis for judgement. As it stands it is disproportionately dominated by
Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar. There must be a suspicion that a bible-defined agenda
rather than the reality of Berossos text produced this result. But, if this is not (or not wholly)
so, do we really want to say that the disproportion is the result of Berossos applying criti
cal judgem ent to an undifferentiated docum entary record and that, intellectually speaking,
there is something distinctively Greek about this? Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar would
stick out for a Babylonian for purely Babylonian reasons. And the virtually total failure of
anything to survive o f the history o f Achaemenid rulers after Cyrus might also, at least in
part, reflect purely Babylonian priorities and prejudices - though it must be conceded (in
deed, asserted) that, even if the reigns of kings from Cambyses to Darius III only figured for
their impact in Babylonia ,62 there were at least three moments when that local impact was
prim a facie so large that it ought to have generated interesting narrative: D arius accession
year (when there were two Babylonian attempts to resist the new regime), the early years
o f X erxes reign (when, it becomes increasingly clear, there is a significant caesura in the
experience of Babylon under Persian rule) and - of course - 331 BC.
One distinctive feature of Greek historical judgem ent is normally said to be a concern for
causes. There is nothing in Berossos as provocative as M anethos statement in 609 F 8 that he
has no explanation for an attack on Egypt from the east that he then proceeds to narrate .63 But
causal statements are quite rare - Nebuchadnezzar campaigns because his father is too old,
an explanation missing in the parallel chronicle text (F 8 a); Evil-Marduk was killed because
he behaved anomos kai aselgds, Labashi-M arduk was killed because he was kakoethes,
Nebuchadnezzar fortified the city to stop attacks via the river, and Cyrus destroyed walls that
made the place hard to capture (F9a) - and there is not even the slightest surviving causal
commentary on striking events such as Sennacheribs murder or N abopolassars rebellion.
Perhaps it was different in the original ,64 but as the evidence stands Berossos was not in this
respect at the supposed Greek end of the spectrum of historical narrative.
More generally and again as the evidence stands Berossan historical narrative was
fairly bald. Exceptions are modest: Sennacherib went boldly against the Babylonians,
to undertake such activity (cf. Hornblower 1981, 131-7), but his work - which stretched at least until
272 BC - was not complete when Berossos produced Babyloniaca.
61 Bichler 2004 already remarked on the few traces of real stories, of all that rich tradition of novels and
even romances.
62 Thus we hear about Artaxerxes II and Anahita (F 11) because one of the statues was in Babylon. We are
entitled to suppose that chronicle texts continued to be written, though direct evidence is exiguous and
the parsimonious efforts of surviving Persian-era astronomical diaries at recording historical (politico-
military) information only help us a little to imagine the contents o f such chronicles.
63 See Dillery 1999, 98-9, 104-5; Dillery 2007, 227. The missing explanation was doubtless that the
Egyptian king had done something that merited punishment.
64 Note Lanfranchis conjecture (this volume) that Berossos pictured the failure of Assyrian and Persian
domination as due to moral decadence. On other Greek views of these matters see Tuplin (forthcoming).
 192 Christopher Tuplin
hastened against the Greeks, ordered that his own courage and heroic deeds be in
scribed (F 7c). Saracus, dismayed at the enem ys approach, burned him self to death (F 7d).
Nebuchadnezzar was an energetic man and the more fortunate than any previous king,
and his building activity is variously ambitious, worthy and pious ( F 8 a). Cyrus treated
Nabonidus hum anely (F9a). Sometimes one can make a direct comparison with chron
icle texts. Sennacheribs boldness is absent in the relevant chronicle 65 - though for the
rest there is little to choose stylistically between he took Bel-ibni and his great ones into
exile in A ssyria as against he took Belibos prisoner together with his friends and had
them taken to A ssyria or between Sennacherib made his son Assur-nadin-sumi sit on the
throne o f Babylon and he ruled over the Babylonians and he put his son Asordanios as
king over them . The chronicle version o f N ebuchadnezzars Levantine campaign has more
geographical specificity and colour than Berossos, and the same is true of C yrus invasion
o f Babylonia .66 Contrariwise the account o f N abopolassars death and N ebuchadnezzars
subsequent actions is fuller, if still fairly colourless, in Berossos. Consideration of chroni
cle texts that do not overlap with surviving bits of Berossos gives the same mixed result.
Sometimes there are ju st occasional words that lift the record from the purely objective.
Sometimes there is more - and more than the Berossan epitome generally offers. But, of
course, it is avowedly an epitome, whereas chronicle entries are presumably in the state in
which their immediate scribe thought they were intended to be: this may not be a wholly
straightforward m atter (and some detailed chronicle texts have been thought to be prepara
tory for other less detailed ones), but by any reckoning the comparison is not of entirely com
mensurate entities and (tiresome though it is to keep saying it) what we are reading when we
read Berossos is not really Berossos. Trying to decide whether a text once had the allure o f
Greek historiography rather than Mesopotamian chronicle is intrinsically problematic when
epitomisation naturally turns historiography into chronicle. But, then, we should not only
be talking about chronicles.
- Some material plainly recalls building inscriptions.
- Berossan narratives are unlike most chronicles in that they are not of a rigorously an
nalistic, Year XXX : such and such happened, type. The manner is more like parts of
Grayson 1975, 20A = Glassner 2004, 39 (a late Babylonian report of the reigns of Sargon
o f A kkad and successors) or Grayson 1975, 22 = Glassner 2004, 45 (a late Babylonian
copy o f a chronicle o f the Cassite kings), in that they present a continuous narrative of
each king rather than a year-by-year one. (The second of these has long bits o f direct
speech and is much more elaborate in literary term s than any surviving Berossos.)
- Taking the first two points together one might feel that the Nebuchadnezzar narrative
(F 9a = Josephus In Apionem 1.135f) really recalls the sort of royal text that combines
campaign narrative with the description o f a building project.
- Context- and consequence-setting statements like Cyrus had previously come out from
Persia with a large army and, after he had conquered all of the rest of Asia, he made for
65 Grayson 1975, la = Glassner 2004, 16.
66 Grayson 1975, 5 = Glassner 2004, 24 and Grayson 1975, 7 = Glassner 2004, 26. - Van der Spek 2008
compares Nabonidus flight with a few companions (F 9a[ 151]) with the return of Nebuchadnezzar to
Babylon (F 8 a[ 137]) and with passages in the Alexander-Darius Chronicle and an Astronomical Diary
(relating to Antiochus). The same trope applies to the flight of some of Darius opponents in the Behistun
narrative.
Berossos and G reek H istoriography 193
Babylonia (F9[150]) or Cyrus gave him [Nabonidus] Carm ania as his residence and
expelled him from Babylonia; Nabonidus spent the rest of his life in that country and died
there (F 9[153]) are not characteristic of chronicles. The description of Nebuchadnezzar
as an energetic man and more fortunate than any previous king evidently derives from a
sum m arizing judgem ent, before or after the narrative o f the reign, and is not in chronicle
manner
- W hat is said of Nabonidus reign and defeat is not factually consonant with the Nabonidus
Chronicle to any great degree and actually recalls the Dynastic Prophecy.67 The statement
that Labashi-M arduk was executed because he was kakoethes is not so different in intent
(if blander in expression) from the statement that the child was untutored in proper be
haviour and placed him self on the throne against the will of the gods - but that is from
Nabonidus Babylon Stele .68
- The Aramaic story-telling forms of the names of Shamash-shuma-ukin and Assurbanipal
are a significant hint of non-Chronicle background ;69 and if we accept that the
Sennacherib-Tarsus narrative is an artificial historical confection 70 we have another rea
son to say that Berossan narrative may not be simply dictated by the chronicle model or
the contents of the chronicle series.
The question remains: how far does any o f this make Berossos text significantly Greek?
Is Berossos actually engaged in an exercise in source combination that is, after all, con
ceptually distant from just transferring Babylonian documents into Greek and presupposes
an idea of what constitutes the historical record that could only come from reading Greek
historians ? 71 I have to say that I am not convinced. Even if ones initial sense on opening
Babyloniaca III o f being in the world o f Graysons Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles is
too simple, the next or additional ports-of-call can still be non-Greek texts. And even if the
idea of constructing an account of Babylon was prompted by the existence o f an alien audi
ence and by the questions future members o f that audience put to learned Babylonians - what
happened here before we Greeks came? have you heard o f Semiramis? of Sardanapalus? -
the fact that his response in Babyloniaca III was so much dictated by the categories (and
mind-set) of Babylonian literature makes it seem most likely that the same was essentially
true throughout .72
67 A document (for which see Van der Spek 2003, 311-24) whose coverage corresponds to the post-Assyrian
phase of Babylonian history. Since one difference between Berossos and the Nabonidus Chronicle is the
role played in the formers version by Borsippa, it is tempting in the light o f Waerzeggers 2012 to wonder
whether he was drawing on a lost chronicle from the Borsippa tradition.
68 IV 37-42. In Schaudigs translation (2001, 524) the child [wollte] keine Fiihrung annehmen, which (as
Schaudig him self notes: 524 n. 813) is perhaps even closer to Berossos kakoethes.
69 I have in mind the story of the two brothers as told in P.Amherst 63 (in Aramaic written in Egyptian
Demotic characters): cf. Steiner/Nims 1985, Steiner 1997.
70 Perhaps facilitated by the possibility that Sennacherib fought on Sargons behalf as crown prince: see
Lanfranchi (this volume).
71 Kuhrt 1987, 46 remarked that the apparent coincidence of the literary style of Berossos and the chron
icles should not be over-estimated (contra Drews 1975), but did not elaborate.
72 Any lack of correspondence in detail between Babyloniaca I-II (especially on post-diluvian kings) and
cuneiform sources that happen to be available to us is not Hellenic in nature.
 194 C hristopher Tuplin
Conclusion
That Berossos wrote in Greek guarantees a Greek context for his project. He must minimally
have been aware that Greek readers consumed texts other than purely functional adm inistra
tive or political ones - in effect, that there was such a thing as Greek literature. But how far
did his knowledge o f such literature and susceptibility to its influence go? One thing that
requires stress is that there really is no p r o o f that Berossos was aware of Herodotus .73 That
being so, we should hesitate to canvass as a significant model any author remote from him in
time or subject-matter and much inferior to Herodotus in status. The fact that M egasthenes
Indica was produced within the ambit o f the Seleucid court makes it quite likely that he was
aware of it. But it also means that any such awareness does not necessarily indicate a wider
engagement with Greek history-writing and that any influence the Indica exerted may have
to be seen as a function o f Seleucid politics rather than of the impact of a Hellenic literary
genre o f more than two centuries standing. Megasthenes (like Patrocles and Demodamas)
was doing what he did - asserting an intellectual possession of India in case or because no
actual politico-m ilitary possession would ever be asserted - as a (quite important) servant
of the state, not (just) as a scholar or an artist: he doubtless had the literary education that
ensured that acting in the first capacity did not preclude acting in the second as well, but
it is precisely that assumption that we cannot casually make in the case o f the Babylonian
priest. Berossos was also evidently aware o f some aspects of the Ctesian tradition about
the history o f Asia; and if his attribution to Nebuchadnezzar o f a wife called Am ytis is a
knowing re-assignm ent o f the marital arrangements o f the Ctesian Cyrus, his awareness of
Ctesias stretched to apparent points of detail - though, lacking a text of Ctesias, we cannot
be sure that Astyages daughter Amytis was not familiar even to those with only a relatively
superficial knowledge o f it. But neither the grand narrative of Asian empires in Persica nor
the entirely ahistorical account o f the diversity of distant India in Indica provides a satis
factory structural or conceptual precedent for Berossos work, which focused on a single
polity and one that was very close to home. In that regard, Xanthus Lydiaca remains the
closest single analogy - but one that we can hardly dare to assert Berossos had ever encoun
tered. This does leave us with Megasthenes as the next best candidate. The ways in which
M egasthenes India differs from that o f the Alexander historians - the exploitation of the
Dionysiac and Heraclean associations perceived by Alexander to create an ancient historical
context for contemporary India; the greater concentration upon a single kingdom, and one
not represented in earlier texts - did produce a three-book logos with some similarities to
the one that would subsequently appear from the pen of Berossos. How far the stimulus went
beyond the basic project o f presenting the core (rather than the periphery) of the Seleucid
Empire and a general idea that such a presentation would embrace history, geography and
customs, we cannot tell: the state o f preservation o f both authors, and especially Berossos,
precludes the necessary analysis o f intertextual relations. One thing we can tell, however, is
that the close parallel between Ctesias affectation of keen engagement with royal documents
and Berossos excavation o f a Babylonian past from the most ancient anagraphai raises a
historiographical theme that appears not to have a significant profile in Megasthenes. I have
already remarked that Berossos did not need Ctesias or any Greek to tell him that Babylonia
had ancient documents, but we might nonetheless describe the Berossan project as in part a
73 The contrast with Manetho (609 FF 1,13) is to be noted. (Manetho also cited Homer: 609 F3b [p. 43]).
Berossos and Greek H istoriography 195
response to the provocative Ctesian claim that archival study validated an Asian history in
which Babylon was variously the artefact and mere pawn of foreigners. If so, it is a pleasing
irony that one crucial impact by a Greek historian upon Berossos lay in a feature that was
quite untypical of Greek historiography .74
References
Beaulieu 2006
P.-A. Beaulieu, Berossus on late Babylonian history, Oriental Studies, Special Issue (2006), 116-49.
B ichler 2004
R. Bichler, Some observations on the image o f the A ssyrian and Babylonian kingdom s w ithin the
G reek tradition, in: R. R ollinger/C . U lf (eds.), Commerce and M onetary System s in the A ncient
World: Means o f Transmission a n d Cultural Interaction, Stuttgart 2004, 499-518. (R eprinted in
R. Bichler, Historiographie - Ethnographie - Utopie: Gesammelte Schriften I: Studien zu Herodots
Kunst der H istorie, W iesbaden 2007, 209-28.)
Bosworth 1996
A. B. Bosworth, The historical setting o f M egasthenes Indica, Classical Philology 91 (1996),
122-4.
Bosworth 2003
A. B. Bosw orth, A rrian, M egasthenes and the m aking o f m yth, in: J. A. L. Ferez (ed.), Mitos en
la literatura grega helenistica e imperial, M adrid 2003, 299-320.
Briant 1991
P. Briant, Le roi est mort: vive le roi! Rem arques sur les rites et rituels de succession chez les
A chem enides, in: J. Kellens (ed.), La religion iranienne, Gent 1991, 1-11.
Burstein 1978
S. M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus, M alibu, CA 1978.
C lancier 2007
P. Clancier, La Babylonie hellenistique: aper 9 u d histoire politique et culturelle, Topoi 15 (2007),
21-74.
De Breucker 2010
G. de Breucker, Berossus o f Babylon (680), B r ills N ew Jacoby.
Dillery 1999
J. Dillery, The first Egyptian narrative history: M anetho and G reek historiography, Zeitschrift f u r
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 127 (1999), 93-116.
Dillery 2005
J. Dillery, G reek sacred history, American Journal o f Philology 126 (2005), 505-26.
D illery 2007
J. Dillery, G reek historians of the N ear East. Clios other sons, in: J. M arincola (ed.), A Com
panion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden, MA and Oxford 2007, 221-30.
Drews 1975
R. Drews, The Babylonian chronicles and Berossus, Iraq 37 (1975), 39-55.
G lassner 2004
J. J. Glassner, M esopotam ian Chronicles, Atlanta 2004.
Grayson 1975
K. G rayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, New York 1975.
74 I should like to thank the organisers for inviting me to participate in a most pleasurable and stimulating
conference. I am also very grateful to Paul-Alain Beaulieu and Bert van der Spek for sending me copies
of publications not available to me in Liverpool.
 196 C hristopher Tuplin Berossos and G reek H istoriography 197

Harding 2007 Tuplin (forthcoming)

P. Harding, Local history and A tthidography, in: J. M arincola (ed.), A Companion to G reek and C. J. Tuplin, Death o f an empire: fourth century historians on the end o f the A chaem enids,
Roman H istoriography, Malden, M A and O xford 2007, 180-8. in: G. Parm eggiani (ed.), Greek H istoriography in the Fourth Century BC, Cam bridge, MA
Hornblower 1981 (forthcoming).
J. Hornblower, H ieronym us o f Cardia, Oxford. Van der Spek 2003
Huber 2005 R. J. van der Spek, Darius 111, Alexander the Great and Babylonian scholarship, in: W. Henkelman/
I. Huber, Der Ersatzkonig in griechischem Gewand: Die U mformung der sar puhi-Rituale bei A. T. Kuhrt (eds.), A Persian Perspective. Essays in Memory ofH eleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Leiden,
Herodotos, Berossos, Agathias und den A lexander-H istorikern, in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Von Sum er 289-346.
bis H omer (Fs. M anfred Schretter), M unster 2005, 339-98. Van der Spek 2008
Joannes 2000 R. J. van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and Greek historian, in: R. J. van der Spek
F. Joannes, Le parcours intellectuel des lettres de la Babylonie recente, Revue H istorique 302 et al. (eds.) Studies in A ncient N ear Eastern World View and Society P resented to Marten Stol on
(2000), 693-717. the Occasion o f his 65 th Birthday, Bethesda, M D 2008, 277-318.
Jursa 2007 Van Dijk 1962
M. Jursa, Die Sohne K udurrus und die H erkunft der neubabylonischen D ynastie, Revue J. Van Dijk, Die Inschriftenfunde, in: Vorlaufiger B ericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in Vruk-W arka
d assyriologie et d archeologie orientale 101 (2007), 125-36. 18 (1962), 39-62.
Jursa 2010 Van D ijk/M ayer 1980
M. Jursa, Der neubabylonische H of, in: B. Jaco b s/R . R ollinger (eds.), D er A cham enidenhof J. Van D ijk/W . R. Mayer, Texte aus dem Res-H eiligtum in Uruk-Warka, Berlin 1980.
W iesbaden 2010, 67-106. V erbrugghe/W ickersham 1996
K uhrt 1987 G. P. V erbrugghe/J. M. W ickersham, Berossos a n d Manetho. N ative Traditions in A ncient
A. T. Kuhrt, Berossus Babyloniaca and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A. T. K uhrt/S . M. Sherwin- M esopotam ia and Egypt, A nn A rbor 1996.
W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East, London 1987, 32-56. W aerzeggers 2012
Lam bert 1976 C.Waerzeggers, The Babylonian chronicles: classification and provenance, Journal o f N ear
W. G. Lam bert, Berossus and Babylonian eschatology, Iraq 37 (1976), 171-3. Eastern Studies 71 (2012), 285-298.
Lane Fox 2010
R. J. Lane Fox, Thucydides and docum entary h istory, C lassical Q uarterly 60 (2010), 11-29.
Lanfranchi 2011
G. B. Lanfranchi, Gli A SSY R IA K A di Ctesia e la docum entazione assira, in: J. W iesehofer/
R. R ollinger/G . B. Lanfranchi (eds.), K tesia s W elt/C tesia s World, W iesbaden 2011, 175-224.
Lenfant 1999
D. Lenfant, M onsters in G reek ethnography and society in the fifth and fourth centuries B C E,
in: R. Buxton (ed.), From Myth to Reason: Studies in the D evelopm ent o f G reek Thought, Oxford,
197-214.
Luraghi 2009
N. Luraghi, The im portance o f being A,6 yto<;, C lassical World 102 (2009), 439-56.
M astrocinque 2005
A. M astrocinque, I magi e leducazione dei principi, in: V. A. Troncoso (ed.), D iadokhos tes
Basileias. La fig u ra d el succesor en la realeza helenistica, M adrid 2005, 177-84.
M urray 1970
O. Murray, Hecataeus o f A bdera and pharaonic kingship, Journal o f Egyptian Archaeology 56
(1970), 141-71.
M urray 1972
O. Murray, H erodotus and Hellenistic culture, Classical Q uarterly 22 (1972), 200-13.
Schnabel 1923
P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig 1923.
Schaudig 2001
H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon u n d K y ro s des Grofien, M unster 2001.
Steiner 1997
R. C. Steiner, The Aram aic text in Demotic script, in: W. W. H allo/K . L. Younger (eds.), The
Context o f Scripture I: C anonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden, 309-27.
Steiner/N im s 1985
R. C. S teiner/C . F. N im s, Ashurbanipal and Sham ash-shum -ukin: a tale o f two brothers from the
A ram aic text in Demotic script, Revue Biblique 92 (1985), 60-81.
 Seleucid Ethnography and Indigenous Kingship:
The Babylonian Education of Antiochus I
Paul Kosmin (H arvard University)

Berossos Babyloniaca was composed amidst the stabilization of a new world order. By
the time of Antiochus l s succession in 281 BCE, the chaotic and violent sparagmos of
Alexanders empire had been successfully institutionalized into a Great Power system of
recognized peer-kingdoms. Warlords had become monarchs; new dynastic capitals had been
founded; and territorial units framed and circumscribed. This process of state formation not
only required the physical establishment of a court, army and bureaucratic administration.
Alongside this, the new monarchies turned themselves into centres of cultural production.
In this paper, 1 want to examine the interests and characteristics of early Seleucid court
literature as an environment within which and against which we can read Berossos. More
generally, I want to investigate the relationship between the Seleucid kingdom as a political
entity and the literature written within it.
The Seleucid literary background of Berossos is distinctive in the profile of its authors
and the nature of their writings. The cultural production of the Seleucid court was, of course,
determined by the practices of Seleucid kingship. These were far more strongly embed
ded in Achaemenid precedent than those of Ptolemaic, Attalid, and Antigonid rulers .1 The
early Seleucid kings do not seem to have pursued a policy of direct scholarly patronage
along Ptolemaic lines. We know of no Seleucid library before Antiochus III founded one
in Antioch, under the directorship of Euphorion of Chalcis .2 Antioch received another li
brary, with Museum annex, at the end of the second century from Antiochus IX Cyzicenus .3
Seleucid kingship did not privilege the collection, codification, and editing of Old World
Greek texts ;4 nor is it associated with a particular poetic aesthetic. Seleucid kings themselves
did not engage in scholarly or literary pursuits, with the exception of Antiochus VIII Grypus,
who wrote a treatise on snakes .5 Such an impression of limited Seleucid patronage of library
scholarship and arm chair professionals is not a mere mirage, even if Seleucid court authors
have suffered more than most the general shipwreck o f Hellenistic literature. Rather, the
nature o f the Seleucid pragmata, above all the practice o f itinerant kingship and multiple
residences, inhibited the development o f a scholarly community clustered around a fixed
library. Although the court increasingly gravitated towards Antioch-by-Daphne, the city
could never claim the administrative and ideological primacy of Alexandria or Pergamum.
Instead, the intellectual world of the early Seleucid kingdom developed in two direc
tions. First, we have scrappy indications that philosophers, artists, and doctors were present

1 See e.g. Capdetrey 2007.

2 Suda s.v. Eixpopicov; see Primo 2009, 25.
3 Malalas 179, lOThurn.
4 The only exception is Aratus, who wrote a commentary on the Iliad whilst at court of Antiochus I; for
bibliography see Primo 2007, 24 n.23.
5 Pliny NH 20.264; Galen 14.185e201.
 200 Paul Kosmin
in the kings personal entourage. For example, at two moments of crisis - Antiochus Is
love for his step-mother Stratonice ,6 and Antiochus I lls manipulation by the overweening
Hermias 7 - the court doctors Erasistratus and Apollophanes respectively played significant
advisory roles. Indeed, doctors seem to be the only court intellectuals to be rewarded with
honorific decrees .8 Their prominence at the Seleucid court corresponds to the careers of
physicians like Democedes and Ctesias under the Achaemenid kings. Overall, however,
it seems unlikely that this entourage-scholar type had a meaningful impact on Berossos.
Second, and much more importantly, we find high-level royal officials who, operating in the
peripheries o f the empire on the kings behalf in a m ilitary or diplomatic capacity, wrote eth
nographic works. The reign of Seleucus I and the viceroyship of Antiochus I at the beginning
of the third century have left us the fragments o f three such authors: Demodamas (BNJ 428),
Patrocles (BNJ 112), and Megasthenes (BNJ1X5). To these court ethnographers we now turn.
Seleucid Court Ethnography
Demodamas was a citizen o f Miletus who in 300/299 and 299/8B C E sponsored hon
orific decrees in his home town for Seleucus son Antiochus and wife A pam e .9 Later he
campaigned in Central Asia during Antiochus Is viceroyship in the Upper Satrapies .10
Demodamas wrote an autobiographical account o f his m ilitary activities, which was used
by Pliny, Strabo, and Stephanus o f Byzantium. Pliny (NH 6.49) writes:
Beyond [the Bactrians] are the Sogdians and the town o f Panda, and on the farthest confines o f
their territory A lexandria, founded by A lexander the Great. At this place there are altars set up
by Hercules and Father Liber, and also by C yrus and Semiram is and by Alexander, all o f whom
found their lim it in this region o f the world, where they were shut in by the river Iaxartes, which
the Scythians call the Silis and which A lexander and his soldiers thought to be the Tanais.
Demodamas, the general of King Seleucus and King Antiochus, whom we are following chiefly
in this part, crossed this river and set up altars to Apollo o f Didyma.
Demodamas erection o f altars on the Iaxartes river is clearly a spatializing gesture, de
limiting the edge o f Seleucid sovereignty in this region and echoing A lexanders altars at
the Hyphasis in India .1 If Plinys passage, as he suggests, derives from Dem odam as own
w ritings then the Milesian general also invented a series of historical precedents for this
spatial act: Dionysus, Heracles, Semiramis, and Alexander. These great Asian conquerors
functioned in some sense as Seleucid prototypes; each will appear again in M egasthenes
Indica (see below). By this repetitive patterning o f the symbolic limits of successive king
6 App. Syr. 59-61; Plut. Demetr. 38; Val. Max. 5.7. ext. 1; Plin. HN 7.123; Luc. Syr. D. 17; Julian. Mis. 1,
17.
7 Polyb. 5.56-8.
8 OGIS 220: Ilium honours Metrodorus, doctor o f Antiochus I; OGIS 256: from Delos, Sosibius honours
Craterus, archiatros of Cleopatra Thea.
9 Antiochus: OGIS 213; Apame: 1 Didyma 480.
10 Pliny HN 6.49.
11 The Peutinger Table expressly indicates the edge of Sogdiana with a square altar labeled Ara Alexartdri'\
see Bosio 1983, 116-17. A total of five arae on the map mark historical or political boundaries: one
on the Iaxartes (Ara Alexandra), two on the Hyphasis ('Hie Alexander responsum accepit. Usque
quo Alexander), and two in Africa (Arae Philenorum fines Affricae et Cyrenensium). In Ptolemys
Geography (5.9.15), the Iaxartes altar is also considered Alexanders.
Seleucid Ethnography and Indigenous Kingship 201
doms Demodamas inscribed him self and his king in the history o f imperial dominance in
the region.
Apart from this paraphrase and a brief reference in Stephanus Ethnica we have no other
passages directly attributed to Demodamas. However, it is probable that the accounts of
Antiochus Is recolonization o f Central Asia in Pliny and Strabo, which make use o f a com
mon source, derive from Demodamas. The classical geographers list a number of Graeco-
Macedonian settlements which, having been destroyed by barbarians after A lexanders
death, were refounded, expanded, fortified, and renamed by Antiochus I .12 Wolski, Tarn, and
others, recognizing a pattern, proposed an early-third century mass nomadic invasion, razing
cities as far apart and as far South as M erv and Termez . 13 W hatever the historical events,
a clear narrative pattern emerges: Demodamas again and again emplotted Antiochus Is
settling of the Upper Satrapies as a three-stage process - royal foundation by Alexander,
nomadic destruction, royal refoundation by Antiochus - that casts the new ruler o f the East
in the ideologically potent role o f builder-king and defender o f urban civilization .14
More is known o f Patrocles. His career in the royal service spanned at least from
Seleucus coronation to Antiochus accession and covered the full expanse of imperial ter
ritory. Patrocles, having accompanied Seleucus back to Babylon in 312, was immediately
appointed general o f Babylonia .15 At some point during the joint monarchy he was assigned
an unspecified command over Bactria and Sogdiana .16 He is found in Syria by Seleucus
side in 286 advising against the kings over-generous treatment of Demetrius Poliorcetes .17
Following Seleucus m urder and Antiochus Is difficult accession, Patrocles led part of the
royal army into Asia Minor to restore Seleucid authority on the kingdoms western edge .18
During his appointment to Central Asia, Patrocles was commissioned by his royal masters
to lead a voyage o f exploration along the coastline o f the Caspian Sea ; 19 subsequently, he
published an account of this periplus geographical and ethnological discoveries. The work
proved extraordinarily influential, determining Hellenistic and Roman understanding of this
regions geography for centuries.
It is impossible to reconstruct with any certainty the duration, direction, or term inus of
Patrocles actual voyage, but three claims appear in his literary account. First and most in
fluentially, Patrocles reported that the Caspian was a g u lf open to encircling Ocean through
a narrow mouth at its northernmost point. Second, Patrocles asserted, again in error, that the
Oxus and Iaxartes rivers flowed into the Caspian Gulf; in fact, they flow into the Aral Sea
12 Antioch-in-Margiana: Pliny HN 6.47, Strabo 11.10.2; Achai's-in-Margiana: Pliny HN 6.48; Antioch-in-
Aria: Pliny HN 6.93.
13 Tarn 1940, 91; Wolski 1960; Gardiner-Garden 1987, 46-7.
14 Compare Antiochus Ills actions a century later at the opposite pole of the Seleucid kingdom. In 196
the Seleucid king refounded Lysimachia, which had been burnt to the ground by Thracian nomads (Liv.
33.38.10-4: desertam ac stratum prope omnem ruinis), providing the inhabitants with cattle, sheep, and
agricultural equipment (App. Syr. 1: Pouq K a i JipoPata K ai a(5r)pov <; yeaopyiav c7u 5 i 5 oij<;). This gift
of a plough was an archetypal gesture of cultural heroism that characterized Antiochus III in European
Thrace, like Antiochus I in Central Asia, as a sponsor of the settled, agricultural way of life. Indeed,
Antiochus III at Lysimachia acts much like Megasthenes Dionysus in India (see below).
15 Diod. Sic. 19.100.5: o 8 e KaBeotafievoq imo Ie^ei>Kou xfjc; BafhAamai; cxpatriyoq natpoK^fit;.
16 Strabo 2.1.17: o tcov tojtojv f)yr|adpVO<; toijtcov naxpOK^f]!;.
17 Plut. Demetr. 47.4.
18 BNJ 434 F 1 9.1 = Phot. Bibl. 224 p. 227a 4.
19 BNJ 712 T3a = Plin. H N 6.58; F4c = Plin. HN 2.67.167-8.
202 Paul Kosmin
far to the East. Finally, it seems that Patrocles proposed the canalization of the Caucasus, to
connect the Black Sea to the Caspian Gulf, the Oxus river, and O cean .20
It is precisely the fabrications and fantasies in Patrocles account that foreground its ideo
logical implications. First o f all, the periplus genre was closely associated with territorial
izing acts o f possession. In Herodotus, for example, the exploratory voyages commissioned
by Pharaoh Neco and kings Darius and Xerxes, like that of Scylax of Caryanda, constitute
an important intersection o f imperial praxis and cartographic im agination .21 Alexander, just
before his death, had sent a certain Heraclides to explore the Caspian Sea and to determine
whether it was connected to the Black Sea or O cean ;22 the project died with the king. So, by
assigning a Caspian periplus to Patrocles, Seleucus I and Antiochus I were not only fulfilling
an interrupted Last Plan o f Alexander but also locating themselves within a long-established
royal and Persian tradition o f maritime exploration. Furthermore, Patrocles periplus, like
other works in the genre, played a delimiting function, marking out a linear edge within
which royal power could perform its strategies o f possession. This comes through clearly in
a passage o f Pliny:
Similarly in the east the whole region under the same star from the Indian Ocean to the Caspian
Sea was navigated by M acedonian forces in the (joint) reign o f Seleucus and Antiochus, who
desired that it be called Seleucis and A ntiochis after them selves .23
The association of royal-sponsored naval exploration with territorial renaming highlights the
possessive, imperial implications of the Caspian periplus. Patrocles naval gaze - the posses
sive glance from ship to shore would perform and embed Seleucid sovereign claims in the
kingdoms North-East. In doing so, Patrocles geographical inventions gave to the oikoumene
a hitherto unrecorded oceanic boundary to the North, and to the Seleucid kingdom a natural
roundability and territorial unity.
In addition, the kind o f timeless ethnographic discourse used by Patrocles is marked by a
mercantile sensitivity. He is interested in the opening possibilities o f a northern trade route,
and this surely reflects one overt objective of his Seleucid commission. Strabo, paraphrasing
Patrocles, states:
They say that the Oxus river, which divides Bactriane from Sogdiane, is so navigable (euTt^ouv)
that Indian goods carried over to it are easily conveyed down to the Hyrcanian [Sea] and the
regions beyond as far as the Black Sea, by means o f the rivers .24
Like Marco Polo, Patrocles reckons as well as observes the peoples he encounters. For ex
ample, he records that the inhabitants o f the west Caspian coast are not greedy, are inex
perienced with money, barter, are ignorant o f any number greater than one hundred, and
unacquainted with accurate weights and m easures .25
20 Neumann 1884, 183.
21 Hdt. 4.42-4.
22 Arr. A nab. 7.16.1-3.
23 BNJ 712 F4c = Plin. HN 2.67.167-8.
24 BNJ 712 F 5b = Strabo 2.1.15.
25 BNJ 712 5e = Strabo 11.4.4. Tarn 1901, 15 plausibly defends the identification of this description as
Patrocles.
Seleucid Ethnography and Indigenous Kingship 203
Our final writer, Megasthenes, is the best preserved and altogether the most important
comparandum for Berossos; the two authors are explicitly linked by Josephus .26 Despite
doubts recently raised by Bosworth ,27 it is clear that Megasthenes was the Seleucid ambas
sador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya at Pataliputra (modern Patna) on the Ganges.
Although his ethnography of India has not survived in its own right, we are unusually fortu
nate. For various historical reasons, including the rise of Parthia, the collapse of the Mauryan
empire after king Asokas conversion to Buddhism, and the discovery of the Trade Winds,
Megasthenes Indica became the standard and most authoritative ethnography of the Ganges
basin. Accordingly, extensive and overlapping portions of his Indica have been preserved by
Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, A rrian, and various paradoxographers.
Megasthenes Indica, it seems, was composed in three books .28 The first discussed Indias
geography, natural history and climate. India is characterized by isolation, autarky, and
fertile superabundance. We find the requisite cataloging of faunal thaumata, with most at
tention given to the Indian elephant. Like his predecessors, Megasthenes populated India
with various freakish tribes; these are now located at the periphery of the Mauryan kingdom.
The second book opens the historical narrative with the invasion of Dionysus. As we shall
see, Dionysus acts as a comprehensive culture-hero. In a second stage of civilization, fifteen
generations later, an indigenous Heracles cleansed India of dangerous beasts and founded
the Indian capital Palimbothra. It seems that M egasthenes narrative moved swiftly from
Indian prehistory to the contemporary Mauryan empire. Early and contemporary India are
linked by various devices, including a diadochy o f kings, an absolute count o f years, and
an alternation between periods of monarchy and eleutheria. The effect of this hour-glass
shaped narrative is both to draw attention to a time of heroic emergence and to demonstrate
this periods aetiological function for the developed modern Mauryan state. The narrative
isthmus of intervening history is not associated with new historical transformations, cultural
discoveries, or developing tendencies of any sort. On the contrary, Megasthenes goes to great
length to refute claims of external contact or conquest.
Indias isolation is ended by Alexander and the Macedonians, the first foreign inva
sion since Dionysus. This second coming opens a new chronological era, introducing
M egasthenes contemporary world and the synchronic analysis of Chandraguptas kingdom
which formed the final book of the ethnography. The Indica depicts contemporary Indian
society as a highly-structured, centralized, and bureaucratic kingdom, configured around
two taxonomic systems. The first delineates seven social classes or castes characterized by
endogamy and occupational exclusivity .29 The second outlined the officials, portfolios, and
workings of the Mauryan royal adm inistration .30
Taken as a whole, M egasthenes ethnography was radically innovative. For the first time
the land of India was centered around the Ganges not the Indus, reflecting a shift from
26 BNJ 680 = Joseph, Ap. 1.144.
27 Bosworth 1996.
28 Note that the reference to a fourth book (A) in BNJ 1\5 F 1 = Joseph, AJ 10.227 was emended by Jacoby
to first (A). It is more probable, I think, that a reference to the second book (ev xrj Seuxepa) was abbrevi
ated by scribal error to ev xfj A. As Brunt 1980, 487 observes, Numbers are particularly liable to textual
corruption.
29 BNJ1\5 F4 = Diod. Sic. 2.40.1 and F 19b = Strabo 15.1.39 term the categories nepr|; F 19a = Arr. Ind. 11.1
calls them yevea. Various attempts have been made to correlate the Megasthenic division to the tour-tier
varnas (brahmans, ksatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras), without success.
30 B N J1\5 F31 = Strabo 15.1.50-52.
 204 Paul Kosmin
Achaemenid to M auryan spatial ideologies. Moreover, the kingdom of Chandragupta is no
longer the bizarre hypertrophic fringe o f classical Indography but a strangely fam iliar land
that functions as a realistic analogue of the Seleucid state. Much that is new in the Indica
responds to a very clear historical context. In 305 or 304 BCE Seleucus Nicator agreed a
peace treaty, perhaps negotiated by Megasthenes himself, with king Chandragupta in which
he transferred his easternm ost provinces to the Indian monarch in exchange for 500 war
elephants. The two kingdoms were joined in some kind of marriage agreement, gift and
counter-gift followed, and Megasthenes resided at Pataliputra as Seleucus envoy .31 Although
Seleucus celebrated his Indian campaign as a success there was no escaping that he had re
treated from Alexanders conquests and abandoned Graeco-Macedonian settlers to the status
of Yona minorities on the periphery o f the M auryan empire. Accordingly, it has long been
recognized that a strong apologetic strain runs through M egasthenes account and that it is
inflected with a clear eye to Seleucid interests .32
There is much in the Babyloniaca that implies Berossos close engagement with
Megasthenes. Both works share a basic structural organization, also found in Hecataeus
of Abderas ethnography o f Egypt and ultimately going back to Herodotus second book: a
description o f the lands geography, an account of civilizations birth, and then a dynastic
narrative running to the present. More specifically two passages in the Indica seem to pre
figure or parallel elements o f Berossos Babyloniaca. the depiction of culture heroes and the
glorification o f Nebuchadnezzar II.
As we have seen, the Indicas historical narrative begins with the invasion of Dionysus
over 6000 years before Megasthenes present day. Dionysus arrival operates as a watershed
for India: historiographically, it is the horizon o f recoverable history; ethnographically it is
the dividing line between primitive barbarism and settled civilization. M egasthenes writes,
as paraphrased by Arrian:
[M egasthenes says that] when Dionysus came and becam e m aster o f the Indians, he founded
cities and established laws in the cities, he dispensed w ine to the Indians, ju st as to the Greeks,
and he taught them to sow the land, giving them seeds ... [he says that] Dionysus was the
first to yoke oxen to the plough, and made the m ajority o f Indians farm ers instead o f nomads,
and arm ed them with weapons o f war. Dionysus also taught them to w orship other gods, but
him self most o f all, clashing cymbals and playing drum s. He also taught them to dance like
satyrs, which the Greeks call the kordax. He also showed them how to wear their hair long and
to wear the headband for the god, and he taught them anointm ents o f perfum es, so that, even
against Alexander, the Indians m arshaled for battle w ith cymbals and d ru m s .33
Megasthenes has avoided the naturalistic, impersonal, and gradualist Kulturgeschichte as
sociated with the sophist Democritus in favour o f Dionysus momentous role as benefactor,
teacher, and inventor .34 The parallels with Berossos account of Oannes are striking and
31 Just. Epit. 15.4.12, 20-21; Strabo 15.2.9; App. Syr. 55.
32 E.g. Kuhrt/Sherwin-W hite 1993,97.
33 BNJ 715 F 12 = Arr. Ind. 7.1-9.
34 The gradualist account of mans ascent allowed no individual, benevolent inventors, and no specific,
singular episodes of cultural heroism. Rather, the causation was uncompromisingly naturalistic, ex
plaining cultural development through the interaction of need (%peia) with mans hands, reason and
intelligence. Cole 1967 has persuasively argued that this model of cultural progress, as an accumulation
of technological advances on a continuum of inventive process, ultimately derives from Democritean
Seleucid Ethnography and Indigenous Kingship 205
important: the originary and complete civilization package to which nothing is added, the
primacy of city foundation, the didactic quality of the cultural heroism, the non-mortal but
not completely divine identity o f the founder-figure, his arrival from abroad, the co-creation
of urbanism and religion, the polarity of nomad and city, and the coexistence of multiple
urban foundations within a single kingdom .35
Fifteen generations after Dionysus, an indigenous autochthonous Heracles arose in India,
who cleansed the land and sea of dangerous beasts and founded cities .36 Chandraguptas
capital, Palimbothra, is expressly designated the largest and most distinguished o f Heracles
urban foundations. The combined destruction of monsters and fortification of the capital city
recall the actions of Berossos Bel .37
The second passage. Key to the Indicas apologetic force is M egasthenes insistence that
the civilizing activities of Dionysus generated a fortified and impregnable territory. Parallel
passages in Strabo and A rrian list a fascinating catalogue o f unsuccessful royal expeditions
against India:
M egasthenes, moreover, agrees with this point o f view when he urges disbelief in the an
cient accounts o f India, for no arm y was ever sent outside by the Indians, nor did any from
outside invade and conquer them , except that w ith Heracles and Dionysus and now w ith the
M acedonians. But Sesostris the Egyptian and Tearcon the Ethiopian advanced as far as Europe,
and N ebuchadnezzar, esteem ed more am ong the Chaldaeans than Heracles, went as far as the
Pillars (Na(3oKo5pooopov 5s xov 7ta p a Xa>.5atoi<; s\>5otap,r|oavia 'HpaKXiouQ paAAov Kai eax;
lrr]X&v s ld o a t), and Tearcon also went that far and led an arm y from Iberia into T hrace and
to Pontus. Idanthyrsus the Scythian overran Asia as far as Egypt, but none o f these touched
India, and Sem iram is died before her attempt. The Persians sent for the H ydracae from India
as m ercenaries, but did not take an expedition there, only coming near it when C yrus attacked
the M assagetae .38
Clearly, Megasthenes intended to normalize and vindicate the peace treaty with Chandragupta
by inventing historical precedents for Seleucus Nicators territorial withdrawal. The chroni
cle of invasions generates a rhythmical history of power and its limits in Asia, into which
Seleucus can be slipped unproblematically; we have seen Demodamas deploy a similar cata
logue for his altar on the Iaxartes.
N ebuchadnezzars appearance in this list is his first in all Greek literature; like Tearcon
(Pharaoh Taharqa of the 25th dynasty) he seems to be M egasthenes own discovery, appear
ing here for the first time in extant Greek literature. O f all the rulers named, he is singled
out for the highest praise. Megasthenes locates Nebuchadnezzar within a Chaldaean his
torical tradition and claims to reproduce a popular Chaldaean judgm ent, indicating both
his familiarity with Babylonia and his presumed source. By focalizing N ebuchadnezzars
superiority to Heracles in the Chaldaean population Megasthenes absolves him self of any
impiety and underlines the cultural specificity of historical judgments. We should note that,
just as in Berossos, the Babylonian king overshadows Semiramis of Assyria. W hat appears
anthropology. The contrast with Megasthenic Kulturgeschichte is stark: naturalistic vs. euhemeristic,
anonymous vs. heroic, gradual and accumulative vs. episodic and momentous, discovery vs. benefaction,
and ultimately democratic vs. royal.
35 On Oannes see BNJ 680 F lb = Syncellus, Chronography p. 49 19, F3b = Syncellus, Chronograph} p. 71, 3.
36 BNJ 715 F4 = Diod. Sic. 2.39.1-3.
37 For Berossos on Bel, see BNJ 680 F lb = Syncellus, Chronography p. 49, 19.
38 BNJ1X5 F 11a = Strabo 15.1.6-7. The parallel, though compressed, passage is F 1lb = Arr. Ind. 5.4-5.
 206 Paul Kosmin
in the catalogue as a question of reputation is, in a parallel fragment preserved by Josephus,
a statement o f historical fact:
And Megasthenes recalls these things in the [second] book o f his Indica, in which he undertakes
to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) surpasses Heracles in his bravery and in the magnitude
of his deeds (xrji avSpeiat K a i xcot peyeGet xcov 7tp a^ 8 (ov), for they say that he overran much o f
Libya and Ib eria .39
The comparison with Heracles is suggested not only by the geographical regions conquered
by the Babylonian monarch but also by A lexanders precedent. For a central trope of the
Macedonian conquerors imperial proclamations was the claim to surpass Heracles ;40 for
Megasthenes, the Chaldaean king Nebuchadnezzar had already done it.
Megasthenes unprecedented glorification o f Nebuchadnezzar anticipates Berossos treat
ment o f the same king. But his depiction owes more to Greek fantasy than Babylonian tradi
tion. The Indica's re-imagined Nebuchadnezzar, a mighty conqueror o f the West, victor over
Spain and Libya, can function as a good prototype for Seleucus Nicator himself, particularly
in the aftermath of the peace treaty with Chandragupta. Like Megasthenes Nebuchadnezzar,
Seleucus is a king distinguished by personal bravery and magnificent accomplishments who
had turned his back on India to pursue westward conquest, to the Bitter Sea and beyond.
In sum, the modalities o f Seleucid state formation gave rise to a particular technique
of power in peripheral regions and therewith to a particular type o f literature. O ur three
authors - Demodamas, Patrocles, and Megasthenes - all writing only a few years before
Berossos, were the kings philoi serving at the vanguard of the Seleucid kingdoms pioneer
ing phase. In salutary contrast to the arm chair scholars of Ptolemaic Alexandria, the early
Seleucid court author actively participated in the physical formation o f the kingdom he was
describing. Each was writing within the geographical-ethnographic genre. While historical
elements are very much present, no work was devoted explicitly and specifically to history .41
Although the surviving fragments contain no passages of direct encomium, it is not just
the biographies o f these authors that allow us to identify their pro-Seleucid agenda; even in
ignorance of their close engagement in the imperial project their ideological inflection would
not be difficult to spot.
Berossos as a Seleucid Author
How does this imperial literary context affect our reading of Berossos? Early third-centu-
ry Babylon was no Athens or Alexandria. It is unlikely that Greek prose literature had a
sim ilar generic profile or uncontoured spread across the newly conquered territories of the
Hellenistic world. Accordingly, not only would the Seleucid court ethnographies have been
among the works certainly circulating in Berossos Greek textual environment, but it is also
probable that they would have been more prominent than at first we might assume, both as
newly published books and as works authored by important officials living in the neighbour
hood. Moreover, personal interaction between Berossos and the court authors themselves is
not at all inconceivable: Patrocles had served as the Seleucid strategos of Babylonia 42 and
39 BNJ 7\5 F la = Joseph, A J 10.227.
40 See, of many examples, Arr. Anab. 3.3 (Siwah oracle) and 4.28-30 (Aornos rock).
41 Primo 2009, 20.
42 B N J 1 \ 2 J \ = Diod. Sic. 19.100.5.
Seleucid Ethnography and Indigenous Kingship 207
Megasthenes probably resided there with Seleucus .43 The officials and their works may have
provided Berossos with his most visible models of the practice of Greek authorship.
But at a more fundam ental level, is the Babylonian priest engaged in the same kind of
enterprise as the general, the admiral, and the diplomat? We learn from Tatians Oration
to the Greeks that the Babyloniaca was written for or dedicated to king Antiochus44. It is
unclear what kind o f relationship or dependency this implies. At the very least, it indicates a
Seleucid affiliation but is weaker than, for example, Clement of Alexandrias statement that
Megasthenes lived with (au|i(3PiG)KG)<;) Seleucus 45 or Plutarchs assertion that Patrocles was
a trusted Friend ((plA,o<; 7u o t 6(;) of the same king .46
Furthermore, Berossos publication of an account in Greek of the geography, history,
and customs o f Babylonia was, in broad term s, a sim ilar kind o f project to his contemporar
ies regional studies of newly acquired Seleucid provinces or neighbouring kingdoms. He
is engaged in the same program of making legible the imperial space. In addition, for his
extraordinary act o f uniting scribal texts from diverse periods and genres, translating them,
and transform ing them into a smooth, continuous narrative Berossos adopted the preferred
genre of early court literature: ethnography. We have already seen that the structure o f the
work as a whole has much in common with Megasthenes Indica. Particularly striking in
this regard are the unmotivated topographical and ecological passages with which Berossos
seems to have opened his account ;47 these, without precedent in cuneiform literature, brought
the Babyloniaca into conformity with the Greek literary genre.
Nonetheless, Berossos stands to one side o f the phalanx o f Seleucid court authors.
This is as much due to his historically-situated identity as a Babylonian within a Graeco-
Macedonian empire as to his failure (or decision not) to abide by or mimic Greek generic
conventions .48
The Babyloniaca represents an entirely different attitude to local knowledge. Since
Herodotus the ethnographic genre had authorized its statements in two main ways. First,
through claims of autopsy ( 1 saw, I witnessed), which are considered more reliable method.
And second, through the use of informed local sources for matters distant in space or time
(the priests report and so on). The Greek ethnographer feels able to criticize this local infor
mation as he uses it. To illustrate the two modes: Megasthenes assures us that his description
of king C handraguptas army camp records what he him self had witnessed 49 but represented
his account of Dionysus cultural-heroism as the report of the most learned of the Indians
(7iap a xot<; Tv5oi<; oi X,oyi(btaTOi) .50 In the Babyloniaca Berossos presents him self as precise
ly the kind of informant used by Megasthenes and others. In this way Berossos collapses into
him self both modes, establishing his authority as author according to an important principle
of Greek ethnography: he is o X,oyia)Ton;o^, the most learned, o f the Babylonians. The past is
known from carefully preserved ancient writings, dpxaiOTaton; ... avaypoupaTq.51 Berossos
43 BNJ1X5 T 1 = Clem. Al. Strom. 1.72.5.
44 BNJ 680 T2 = Tatian, A d Gr. 36.
45 B NJ1\5 T 1 = Clem. Al. Strom. 1.72.5.
46 BNJ 712 T2 = Plut. Demetr. 47.4.
47 BNJ 680 F la = Euseb. Chron. p. 6 , F lb = Syncellus, Chronography p. 49.
48 See Christopher Tuplin in this volume.
49 BNJ 115 F 32 = Strabo 15.1.53.
50 B N J1\5 F4 = Diod. Sic. 2.38.3.
51 B N J680 T3 - Joseph, Ap. 1.130. Tuplin, in this volume, notes the parallel with Ctesias (FGrHist 688 F lb
= Diod. Sic. 2.22.5).
 208 Paul Kosmin
has shifted the doublet o f Greek author and local informant down to local author and inform
ing texts. In the Babyloniaca local knowledge speaks without mediation.
By fashioning him self as a Babylonian describing his native land Berossos insists, in con
trast to Seleucid court literature, on the act o f translation, his ethnic alterity, and his subject
status. This has a spatial dimension. His Babyloniaca is not narrated from the perspective
of an invading or newly arrived imperial power; Berossos does not explore and assimilate a
newly conquered foreign territory; the priest and his account do not wander to the edges of
Seleucid space and back. Rather, Berossos is rooted in a land and tradition that, explicitly
in his narrative, had experienced a sequence o f invasions and foreign dynasties. Unlike
the traveling accounts o f Demodamas, Patrocles, and Megasthenes, Berossos landscape
is stable, stationary, and centripetal: all roads lead to Babylon. This narrow geographical
frame has channeled the Babyloniacas discourse into chronological depth rather than spatial
width: questions o f geography recede while, as we shall see, those o f history and precedent
come to the fore.
Such an assertion o f belonging encouraged a softly agonistic tendency vis-a-vis Seleucid
court literature proper and the much older and broader Greek literary heritage. Famously,
Berossos censured Greek historians for attributing to Semiramis, a woman and an Assyrian,
the achievements o f Nebuchadnezzar .52 Indeed, it is in his treatment o f this greatest of Neo-
Babylonian kings that Berossos oblique correction is most apparent.
As we have seen, Megasthenes had already glorified Nebuchadnezzar as a great conquer
or o f the west, whose identification with Seleucus is not easily resisted. Similarly, Berossos
depicts Nebuchadnezzar as a victorious commander, campaigning in Egypt, Coele Syria,
and Phoenicia. N ebuchadnezzars race from Egypt to Babylon with a few companions may
recall Seleucus return to the city from Alexandria in 312 BCE. Professor van der Spek
has suggested that N ebuchadnezzars Median wife may be modeled on Seleucus Apame .53
But the differences are more striking. Berossos Nebuchadnezzar belongs entirely within
the Babylonian tradition; Heracles, Libya, and Iberia are not mentioned. In M egasthenes
imperial stratigraphy, Nebuchadnezzar had been re-imagined as a Sesostris-like world-
conqueror who by him self stood for a long expired Babylonian hegemony in a succession
of Asian empires; Berossos, in contrast, emphasizes the kings role as son o f Nabopolassar
and great builder. The focus is on imperial succession and monarchic beneficence within
Babylon. In doing so, Berossos has updated the kings ideological force. That is to say, if
the Nebuchadnezzar o f M egasthenes Indica could call to mind the reigning Seleucus, so
Berossos Nebuchadnezzar, composed half a generation later, would conjure the reigning
Antiochus. Particularly relevant here is N abopolassars sharing of his rule with his son,
Nebuchadnezzars command of the kingdoms western hemisphere, his absence at the death
of his father, and his race to the capital to secure his rightful succession. Amelie Kuhrt has
written: What better models than this famous father and son could be found to prefigure the
activities o f Seleucus I and his son and successor, Antiochus, almost exactly three hundred
years later, who by their closely comparable behavior could be presented as the direct heirs
of Babylonias greatest and most pious kings ? .54 Accordingly, it would seem that Berossos
52 BNJ 680 F 8 a = Joseph, Ap. 1.142.
53 Van der Spek 2008, 312.
54 Kuhrt 1987, 56.
Seleucid Ethnography and Indigenous K ingship 209
excavation of an idealized prototype or typological equivalent for the Seleucid kings engages
in precisely the same kind of ideological work as Demodamas and Megasthenes.
But comparisons between Neo-Babylonian and Seleucid monarchs do not function as sim
ple equivalences; we can do more than match up kings. 1 would suggest that for the subjects
of a reigning monarch, profoundly impacted by and well informed about their kings activi
ties, comparison should operate on a finer grain than that of an entire reign. Moreover, com
parison can open a space for evaluation and judgm ent, for observing the different alongside
the similar, for noting where contemporary monarchs fall short as well as where they suc
cessfully emulate. Consequently, the nature of precedent in Berossos functions in a different
way to that of Seleucid court literature. W here precedent in Megasthenes and Demodamas
is invented, legitimizing, uncritical, and freely molded to serve the ideological needs of the
new Seleucid kings, precedent in Berossos is didactic, constraining, anterior, and potentially
critical. Berossos uses his narrative to build up the suggested parameters and proper behav
ior of Babylonian kingship to which Antiochus should conform. Good kings (Xisouthros,
Nebuchadnezzar, even Nabonidus) mostly win m ilitary victories, support the Babylonian
temples, and pursue large-scale building-programs in the city. Bad and licentious kings
abandon Babylon or raze its walls (Sennacherib, Amel-M arduk, Labasi-Marduk, Cyrus);
they are plotted against and beaten to death by close kin or courtiers.
The clearest instance of Berossos configuring a Babylonian precedent for a particular
moment in the reign of the ruling king is his account of N ebuchadnezzars accession. An
indirect comparison is established between two very similar but chronologically separated
events: on the one hand, the very recent succession o f Antiochus I to the throne o f Seleucus
I in 281 BCE, not discussed in our fragments but widely known to Berossos and his read
ers as a contemporary event and lived experience, and, on the other hand, the succession
of Nebuchadnezzar II to the throne established by Nabopolassar over three centuries ear
lier. The Seleucid accession had been traumatic and chaotic. Seleucus Nicator was assas
sinated on the far north-western fringe of the kingdom, when Antiochus was viceroy of the
Upper Satrapies and so absent from the imperial heartland of northern Syria. Crises accu
mulated: the founder-king murdered, his army abandoned, his assassin Ptolemy Ceraunus
recognized ;55 opportunistic Ptolemaic land-grabs in Asia M inor ;56 and a settler revolt in the
Syrian Tetrapolis perhaps supported by a Ptolemaic invasion .57 According to the epigram
matic summary of the historian Memnon of Heraclea Pontica, Antiochus recovered his pa
ternal kingdom in many wars, with difficulty and not completely (o 5e Is^euK ou Avxloxoq
T io U o tq 7io^ e[ioi< ;, e i K ai |io?a<; K ai ou5e naaav, 6(itoq a v a o c o o d |ie v o < ; i f ) v 7iaxp cb iav a p x f |v ) .58
Contrast this troubled succession with what Berossos tells us of A ntiochus prototype
Nebuchadnezzar II: It happened that at this time his father Nabopalassar fell ill and died in
the city of the Babylonians, having been king for twenty-one years. When Nebuchadnezzar
learnt of his fathers death not long thereafter, he settled the affairs in Egypt ... He him self
set out with a few companions and reached Babylon by crossing the desert. Finding on
55 Memnon BNJ 434 F 1 8.2. The Babylonian Chronicle seems to record a revolt of the Seleucid army in
European Thrace (BCHP 9 Rev. 3-4).
56 The so-called Carian War; see Tarn 1926 and 1930, Robert 1966, 53-7, Otto 1931, 400-416, Frost 1971.
57 OGIS 219 4-7; on the Ptolemaic invasion and the so-called War of Syrian Succession see Droysen 1836:
III.256 n. 1, Tarn 1926, Jones 1993, 78.
58 Memnon BNJ 434 FI 9.1.
 210 Paul Kosmin
arrival that affairs were adm inistered by the Chaldaeans and the kingdom was being m ain
tained by the noblest o f them, he gained possession o f his fathers entire realm .59
The similarities are too exact to be accidental; the differences are too inescapable to be
flattering. The official detoxified Seleucid version of Antiochus accession is preserved in an
inscription from Ilium, OGIS 219,60 that reads somewhat like Darius Is Behistun inscription:
the new king righteously defeats opponents and returns the kingdom to a pre-existing Order,
with the support o f his unnamed daimonion and the authorization o f the gods. By contrast,
Berossos account of Nebuchadnezzars succession does nothing to neutralize the difficulties
faced by Antiochus. Instead, the content and emplotting of his entire mirror-like narrative
seem designed to foreground each element of Seleucid failure. It appears that Berossos added
elements to the Babylonian Chronicle account o f Nebuchadnezzars accession in order to
better establish a comparison with recent Seleucid history .61 W hereas Nabopolassar died of
natural causes in his home city, Seleucus was brutally murdered on the barbaric hem of his
frayed kingdom. W hereas Nebuchadnezzar arrived back at a Babylonia being well adm inis
tered by the best o f the Chaldaeans, Antiochus had to drive foreign troops from the heartland
of his empire and crush a rebellion. Whereas Nebuchadnezzar took over from Nabopolassar
the entire kingdom (o^oic^ripoq), Antiochus could not win significant parts of his inherit
ance (oi)5e K&oav). The contrast would have been striking and evident to Berossos and his
contemporaries, both Greek and Babylonian.
We have the implied opposition of positive and negative types: a good accession in the
past and a troublesome accession in the present. Is Berossos extolling the trustworthiness of
Babylonian administrators? Is he establishing an aspirational model? Is he softly chastising
the reigning Seleucid? Is he lamenting a lost Golden Age of home-rule? The fragm entary
state of the Babyloniaca means that we cannot fix what is going on between the lines. But
it is evident that Berossos past functions in a far more nuanced and didactic way than the
submerged encomium o f Seleucid court literature. Above all, it is this focus on a sovereign
world anterior to the Seleucids that distinguishes Berossos from the court authors and points
us, in closing, towards one o f the Babyloniacas functions.
The Seleucid kings, like their Persian predecessors, responded to the ethnic and cultural
diversity o f their vast realm by role-playing local royal identities. Antiochus I carried out
the duties and responsibilities appropriate to a legitimate king of Babylon. For example, we
learn from the famous Borsippa Cylinder, w ritten in an archaizing A kkadian script, that
King Antiochus reconstructed the Ezida, the temple of the god Nabu in the city of Borsippa.
In the C ylinders narrative, Antiochus bears the formal titles of King Nebuchadnezzar .62
Antiochus prayer that he use the resources of empire and conquest for the beautification of
the Babylonian temples exactly parallels Berossos model Nebuchadnezzar.
Given Antiochus background and upbringing, such behavior had to be taught - it re
quired an education in the proper ways o f Babylonian kingship; more precisely, Antiochus
59 BNJ 680 F 8 a = Joseph, Ap. 1.136-8.
60 For discussion of this inscription see Ma 1999, 254-9; Jones 1993; Strobel 1996, 245-6; Orth 1977,
61-72; Robert 1966, 175. Piejko 1991 and Mastrocinque 1983, 67 claim, unpersuasively, that it refers to
Antiochus III.
61 ABC 5 Obv.lO-11. The chronicle, which is certainly Berossos source (Beaulieu 2006, 6-7), does
not mention Nabopolassars illness, Nebuchadnezzars race through the desert, his easy accession, or
Babylonias good administration under the Chaldaeans.
62 See Kuhrt/Sherwin-W hite 1991 and Kosmin, forthcoming.
Seleucid Ethnography and Indigenous K ingship 211
had to be guided through the actions of former Babylonian kings. Much of this training was
surely direct, inter-personal and oral: for example, the Babylonian Chronicles report that
Antiochus as Crown Prince made offerings to the moon god Sin according to the instruc
tions (ina qTbi) of a certain Babylonian .63 Berossos text may also have played its role in this
education. Perhaps this is what is implied by the dedication. The thrust of Berossos work
generates as its ideal audience a foreign king eager to learn. In this context, the pairing of
apkallu advisors to the ancient kings of Babylonia establishes an important paradigm, where
the proper Babylonian ways are taught to acceding kings. If this is correct, the Babyloniaca s
ancient history encodes Berossos own self-claimed role vis-a-vis Antiochus, thus folding
the author into his own work and establishing a historical model as much for Berossos as
for Antiochus. Seen in this respect, the fragments of the Babyloniaca represent the ruined
echoes of a much more extensive, multi-channeled, and almost entirely lost Babylonian
education (in Greek) of Antiochus I.
Berossos responds to the practices and ideology of the Seleucid kingdom as much as
Patrocles, Demodamas, and Megasthenes. If, as I have argued, the ethnographies of Central
Asia, the Caspian littoral, and India are a product of the itinerant court and the expansive
empire, then it seems fair to suggest that the Babyloniaca is an indigenous response to role-
playing kingship and a policy of culturally-sensitive traditionalism in the different regions of
empire. Accordingly, Berossos ethnicity and status inhere in his work and the Babyloniaca
can only hover at the threshold of court literature. It is directed, not from the court, but
towards it.
References
Beaulieu 2006
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Berossus on late Babylonian history, O riental Studies (Special Issue),
116-49.
Bosio 1983
Luciano Bosio, La Tabula Peutingeriana, R im ini 1983.
Bosworth 1996
A. Bosworth, The historical setting of M egasthenes Indica, Classical Philology 91 (1996), 113-27.
Brunt 1980
P. Brunt, On historical fragm ents and epitom es, Classical Q uarterly 30 (1980), 477-94.
Capdetrey 2007
Laurent Capdetrey, Le pouvoir seleucide: territoire, adm inistration, finances d un royaum e helle-
nistique, 312-129 av. J.-C., Paris 2007.
Cole 1967
Thomas Cole, D em ocritus and the Sources o f G reek A nthropology, Cleveland 1967.
Droysen 1836
Johann Droysen, G eschichte des Hellenismus, Hamburg 1836.
Frost 1971
Frank Frost, Ptolemy II and H alicarnassus: an honorary decree, Anatolian Studies 21 (1971),
167-72.
63 BCHP 5 1.8.
 212 Paul Kosmin

G ardiner-G arden 1987

John G ardiner-G arden, Greek Conceptions o f Inner Asian G eography a n d Ethnography from
Ephoros to E ratosthenes, Bloom ington 1987.
Jones 1993
C hristopher Jones, The decree o f Ilion in honor o f a King A ntiochus, Greek, Rom an a n d B yzan Berossos and Manetho
tine Studies 34 (1993), 73-92.
Kosmin forthcom ing Ian Moyer (University of Michigan)
Paul Kosmin, Seeing Double in Seleucid Babylonia: Rereading the Borsippa Cylinder o f
A ntiochus I, in: A1 Moreno /R osalind Thomas (eds.), Epitedeumata.
K uhrt 1987
Amelie K uhrt, B erossus Babyloniaca and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A melie K u h rt/S u san
In the early Christian chronographers, and even as early as the Jewish historian Flavius
Sherw in-W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East, London 1987, 32-56. Josephus, Berossos and Manetho were associated with one another as sources for the most
K uhrt/S herw in-W hite 1991 ancient periods of human history, a trend that was revived with the rediscovery and use of
Amelie K uh rt/S u san Sherwin-W hite, Aspects o f Seleucid royal ideology: the cylinder o f their fragm entary histories in the chronological works of Joseph Scaliger .1 Modern scholars
A ntiochus I from Borsippa \ Journal o f H ellenic Studies 111 (1991), 71-86 have often treated them as a pair, owing to a set o f basic similarities: both were non-Greeks
Ma 1999
(a Babylonian and an Egyptian), who wrote histories of their respective homelands in Greek;
John Ma, Antiochos III a n d the Cities o f Western A sia Minor, Oxford 1999.
M astrocinque 1983 both drew on indigenous sources and traditions; both supposedly wrote for the second kings
A ttilio M astrocinque, M anipolazione della storia in eta ellenistica: I Seleucidi e Rom a Rome of the Macedonian dynasties that ruled over their lands; both divided their histories into
1983. three books. This series of parallels, in fact, raised suspicions for Ernest Havet, the 19th-
N eum ann 1884 century scholar of Pascal and Christian origins. He wrote a little treatise on the dates of the
Karl N eum ann, Die Fahrt des Patrokles a u f dem K aspischen Meere und der alte L au f des O xus, Babyloniaca and the Aegyptiaca, in which he argued that the similarities were too great a
Hermes 19 (1884), 165-85.
O rth 1977 coincidence, and these works must be forgeries of some kind - pseudonymous texts written
Wolfgang O rth, K oniglicher M achtanspruch u n d sta d tisch e Freiheit, M unich 1977 at the end o f the second century BCE and given a dash of added authority by cliche fictions
O tto 1931 of eastern wisdom and royal patronage. No barbarian, he thought, could have achieved such
Walter Otto, Zu den syrischen Kriegen der Ptolem aer, Philologus 8 6 (1931), 400-18. a degree of Hellenism so soon after Alexanders conquests .2 For others, like O. M urray and
Piejko 1991. P. Fraser, the similarities have suggested the possibility of the dependence o f one on the
F. Piejko, Antiochus III and Ilion, Archiv f u r Papyrusforschung 37 (1991), 9-50.
other: a case of imitation and emulation, whose effects were intensified by the common
Prim o 2009
A ndrea Primo, La Storiografia su i Seleucidi da M egastene a Eusebio di Cesarea, Pisa 2009. influence of Greek historians on both authors .3 Even when no relationship of dependence
R obert 1966 is proposed, as tends to be the case in more recent work, the two are still paired together in
Louis Robert, Sur un decret dllion et sur un papyrus concernant des cultes royaux, in: Alan E. a shared volume of translations, for example, or in a handbook article on historiography .4
Samuel (ed.), Essays in H onor o f C. B radford Welles, New Haven, CT 1966, 175-211. In this essay, I would like to reopen the discussion of connections between Berossos and
Van der Spek 2008
Manetho, in part to address the question of whether there was any historical relationship be
R. J. van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and Greek historian, in: R. J. van der Spek
tween their respective works, but also to show that this problem, like the authors themselves,
(ed.), Studies in A ncient N ear Eastern World View a n d Society, Bethesda, M D 2008, 277-318
Strobel 1996 stands at the intersection of differing chronologies, temporalities, and historicities, whether
Karl Strobel, Die Galater, Berlin 1996. non-Greek or Greek, ancient or modern, locally situated or more global.
Tarn 1901 Ill begin with a fam iliar way of framing Berossos and Manetho in time and history: the
W illiam Tarn, Patrocles and the Oxo-Caspian trade route, Journal o f Hellenic Studies 21 (1901) search for antecedents and relations of descent that is part and parcel of traditional intellec
10-29.
tual history. And the first step is to discuss the age-old question of who came first. Very little
Tarn 1926
is known about the life of Berossos. According to the surviving testimonia, he was born and
W illiam Tarn, The First Syrian W ar, Journal o f Hellenic Studies 46 (1926), 155-62
Tarn 1930
W illiam Tarn, The date o f Milet I, iii. No.139, H erm es 65 (1930), 446-54. 1 Joseph AJ 1.104-8 lists Manetho and Berossos first in a series of historians, both non-Greek and Greek,
Tarn 1940 who support his contention that people lived longer in the days of Noah. On the importance of Berossos
W illiam Tarn, Two notes on Seleucid history: 1. Seleucus 500 elephants, 2. Tam ita, Journal o f and especially Manetho for Scaliger, see Grafton 1975. Scaliger also published fragments of Berossos
Hellenic Studies 60 (1940), 84-94. as an appendix to his treatise De emendatione temporum under the title Veterum Graecorum Fragmenta
Wolski 1960 Selecta (1598).
Josef Wolski, Les Iraniens et le royaume greco-bactrien, Klio 38 (1960), 110-21. 2 Havet 1873.
3 Murray 1972, 209; Fraser 1972, 1.105. Laqueur 1928, 1063-4 noted the priority of Berossos, and the
similiarities between the works, but left the question of dependence open.
4 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996; Dillery 2007.
214 Ian Moyer
raised around the time o f Alexander the Great (r. 336-323 BCE). As a priest of Marduk at
Babylon, he was well versed in Mesopotamian literary traditions, and, drawing on these, he
composed his Babyloniaca for Antiochus I (r. 281-261 BCE ) .5 Dates earlier in this range have
been made more plausible by the studies o f Amelie K uhrt and Stanley Burstein, who have
connected bits o f the content of the Babyloniaca with that particular historical and political
context. Berossos description o f Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar as a father-son duo, for
example, has been considered an allusion to the coregency of Seleucus and A ntiochus .6 This
and the dedication have suggested to several scholars that he was connected to the Seleucid
court, though none o f the testimonia state this explicitly. At some point in his life, he may
have emigrated to Cos, but the evidence for this is slight .7
Manetho, on the other hand, is consistently and plausibly associated with the early
Ptolemaic court, even if one of the testimonia is a pseudonymous dedication letter affixed to
a corrupted version o f his history .8 The one reported event in Manethos life reveals him as
an indigenous interpreter o f Egyptian religion at the court of Ptolemy I Soter (305-282) or
Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BCE), where he is said to have played a role in formulating
the Graeco-Egyptian cult of Sarapis .9 There is also a piece of documentary evidence. A letter
preserved in mummy cartonnage and discovered at el-Hibeh discusses a complaint regis
tered with the epistates o f the Herakleopolite nome about the theft of an official seal from
the temple of Herishef in Phebichis .10 The complaint claims that two suspects absconded
with the seal, so that they could use it on letters they wrote to Manetho or to anyone else.
This letter is dated to year 6 o f Ptolemy III Euergetes, so if this is the same figure (and I
am inclined to think so because the name is not at all common, and because of the priestly
milieu), this would put the last known date in M anethos life at 241 BCE. Involvement in
the creation o f the cult o f Sarapis is no obstacle to this late date. Even though epigraphi-
cal evidence shows that the worship o f Sarapis began to develop at Alexandria in the early
5 See G. de Breucker in this volume.
6 Berossos as contemporary with Alexander the Great: Syncellus 14.21-3 (this and all subsequent refer
ences to Syncellus use the pages and line numbers of Mosshammer 1984); Euseb. Chron. p. 6 , 14 Karst
(BNJ 680 T 1). Tatian, Ad Gr. 36 (BNJ 680 T2) reports that Berossos was born and raised during the reign
of Alexander and published his work in the reign of Antiochus; For the contextual clues, see e.g., Kuhrt
1987, 55-56 and Burstein 1978, 4 -6 , Appendix 2.
7 Vitr. De arch. 9.6.2 (BNJ 680 T5a) is the only source. Geert de Breucker in his BNJ commentary and
in his paper in this volume argues that the sojourn on Cos was part of the legend of a ps.-Berossos to
whom astrological works were attributed. Part of the argument for separating the astrological fragments
from the true Berossos, however, is the non-Babylonian character of the material. J. M. Steele has ar
gued that some of this material may be authentic (see his contribution to this volume), and as Johannes
Haubold shows in his chapter, Berossos was not so isolated from the world of Greek intellectuals. On
Cos as a possible contact point between the intellectual circles of Manetho and Berossos, see below.
8 Syncellus 41.10-19 (FGrHist 609 F25).
9 Plut. De Is. et Os. 28 (FGrHist 609 T3). The introduction of the Sarapis cult is placed in the reign of
Ptolemy I Soter (satrap 323 - 305 BCE, king 305 - 282 BCE) in Plut. he. cit. and De soil. an. 36 and Tac.
Hist. 4.83-4. Clem. Al. Prot. 4.42-43 and Cyril. Adv. Iul. 1.16 put the event in the reign of Ptolemy 11
Philadelphus (282 246 BCE). The Armenian version of the Canon of Eusebius places the arrival of
Sarapis in 278/7, during the reign of Philadelphus, while Jeromes version puts it near the beginning of
the coregency of Soter and Philadelphus: 286/5 (see Fraser 1967, 25 n.9). The authenticity of the story
of Manethos involvement, however, is not beyond doubt owing to its traditional Konigsnovelle elements.
See Borgeaud/Volokhine 2000.
10 P. Hib. I 72 (FGrHist 609 T4).
Berossos and M anetho 215
third century BCE under Ptolemy I, the great Serapeum was not founded until early in the
reign of Ptolemy III." All of this is compatible with the composition of the Aegyptiaca
under Ptolemy II, and I would favour a date in the later part of the reign. A reference to the
Arsinoi'te nome in M anethos 12th Dynasty makes 256 BCE, the year in which Philadelphus
renamed the nome in honor of Arsinoe, a terminus post quern for the composition of the
Aegyptiaca}2 M anethos history, therefore, was most likely later than the Babyloniaca - by
at least a few years and as many as 20-30 years.
On basic chronological grounds, then, it is certainly possible that Manetho wrote his
history of Egypt in response to or in emulation of Berossos history of Babylonia. But
the modern case for such a relationship also rests on a few o f the testimonia collected by
F. Jacoby in his Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Early in the ninth century CE,
the Byzantine chronographer George Syncellus charged that what Manetho of Sebennytos
wrote to Ptolemy Philadelphus about the Egyptian dynasties is full of lies, w ritten both in
imitation of Berossos and at about the same time as Berossos or a little later (FGrHist 609
T 11c) . 13 A bit later in his text, he added:
I f one carefully exam ines the underlying chronological lists o f events, one w ill have full con
fidence that the design o f both is false, as both Berossos and Manetho, as I have said before,
want to glorify each his own nation, Berossos the Chaldean, M anetho the Egyptian. One can
only stand in am azem ent that they were not asham ed to place the beginning o f their incredible
w riting each in one and the same year.
Another excerpt from Syncellus included in the same group of testimonia (T 1lb) appears to
express a similar opinion: Manetho of Sebennytos, chief priest of the polluted temples in
Egypt, born - later than Berossos - in the time o f Ptolemy Philadelphus, writes to the same
Ptolemy, telling lies like Berossos. There is also a brief reference to Manetho following the
work of Berossos in an anonymous fourth-century Latin geographical text .14
The first of these testimonia (609 T 1lc) is the only one that states in such a direct way and
so explicitly that Manetho imitated Berossos .15 This claim, however, comes in the course of a
larger argument in Syncellus work. The extraction of fragments, it hardly needs to be said,
11 Fraser 1967.
12 Syncellus 66.16, 67.17 (FGrHist 609 F2, F3b), Euseb. Chron. p. 63, 14 Karst (FGrHist 609 F3a). 1 think
it is reasonable to assume that this reference to the Arsinoite nome is genuine, since it is intended to
correct Herodotus, a practice consistent with the rest of the Aegyptiaca and with Manethos reputation.
Laqueur 1928, col. 1063 was also inclined to accept this reference as genuine, though he is rather tenta
tive in giving it full significance for the dating of the Aegyptiaca.
13 This first part o f FGrHist 609 T 11c appears among the testimonia of Berossos as FGrHist 680 T 10-11
(= BNJ 680 T 10a). For the full text and context see below. Syncellus composed his work ca. 808-10 CE
(Adler/Tuffin 2002, xxix).
14 The Expositio Totius Mundi et Gentium (Riese 1878, 104-5; FGrHist 609 T 6 c) mentions geographi
cal writings that were composed by Berossos and followed by Manetho. Berossos did include some
geographical information in his Babyloniaca (see FGrHist 680 F la-b), but since there is no geography
preserved in the fragments of Manethos Aegyptiaca, the testimony is of dubious value. The relevant
section of the Expositio is as follows: After him [sc. Moses] Berossos the Chaldaean philosopher de
scribed the provinces and seasons, and these writings were followed by Manetho the Egyptian prophet
and by Apollonius, likewise a philosopher of the Egyptians ... (Post hunc [sc. Moses] de provinciis
et temporibus sequentia dixit Berosus Chaldaeorum philosophus, cuius litteras secuti sunt Manethon,
Aegvptius propheta, et Apollonius, similiter Aegyptiorum philosophus ... ).
15 This is the primary evidence on which P. Fraser and O. Murray drew (see above n. 3).
216 Ian Moyer Berossos and M anetho 217

can bring confusion as well as clarity and convenience, and here, as in other cases, the loss K ai 7tdAtv Eiq ai)Tf|v d 7 t o K a x a o x a o t v ; 7 to ta v 8s a u x o i a v a y K riv E ix o v auuPtpd^Eiv xo \)/i38o(; xrj

o f context and the rearrangem ent o f sources has made the evidence somewhat misleading. aAiiOsia;
The reference to M anethos imitation o f Berossos is entangled with Syncellus criticism of
Annianos and especially Panodoros, two Egyptian monks of the late 4th to early 5th century Translation by A dler/Tuffin 2002, 21-23:
CE, who attempted to reconcile the long chronologies of the Egyptians and Babylonians [16, 13] It is clear from this [i.e. Genesis 10:8-12] that the kingdom of the Babylonians, that is
with Biblical chronology. Their main sources for Babylonian and Egyptian traditions were o f the C haldaeans, began with N im rod, who flourished in the 630th year after the Flood. And
Berossos and Manetho. I have quoted a longer passage of Syncellus below, and I have un it is necessary for those who correctly heed divine scriptures not to accept any w ritten record
derlined the excerpts that constitute FGrHist 609 T 11c: docum enting C haldaean or Egyptian history before the Flood - even if, after stealing narrative
from divinely inspired scriptures concerning the Flood and the chest (that is, the ark) they ap
George Syncellus, ed. M osshamm er 1984, p. 16, line 13 - p. 17, line 27: propriate it as their own, [16, 2 0 ] by which m eans the less sophisticated, em bracing the rest of
their nonsense, are easily harm ed (1 mean the nonsense involving the m yriads o f years in sars,
[ 16 , 13] (pavspov 8e ek toiitcov o n f) dpxf) xfj<; xwv BaPuAcovitov PaatAfiiai; nxot XaASaiaw ano
ners, and sosses). Included in this narrative is also the talk about some kind of A nnidotioi, in
NeppwS xoi) p sia xov KaxaKAuapov si<; sxr| yft aKpaaavxoq ysyovs. Kai xpri 7iacav iaxopiav
shape part fish, part hum an, who spend all day on the land taking no sustenance, but at night
XaA.8aiKfiv f\ Aiyu7ixiaKfiv 7tpo xoi) KaxaKAuapou xrj ypatprj a7tayysAAopsvr|v pf| d7to8sxsa0at
submerge into the sea. These creatures im part to hum ankind letters and knowledge o f sciences
xoix; 7ipoa8xovxa<; 6 p0 (b<; xat<; Oeiaiq ypacpatx;, ei Kai xiva Ttepi KaxaKAuapou Kai AapvaKoc; rjxoi
and crafts, the founding o f cities, and the establishm ent o f tem ples, the introduction o f laws,
kiPwxou KAV|/avx<; sk x<ov 0so7iv8uoxcov ypatpcov i8io7toif|aavxo, Si rov oi [ 16 , 2 0 ] d7tAoi)oxpoi
and the gathering o f seeds. And from that tim e, they say, hum an beings have made no further
Kai xoic; Aot7toT<; Aipripaci 7tpooxovxs<; suxep? PAdrcxovxat, Asyco 8s 7ipi pupiaScov sxcov Sta
discovery. And when authors o f C hristian histories see that all o f this and a great deal more are
oapcov Kai vf|ptov Kai acbcacov KaxaAsyopsvcov. ev oig Kai rcspi avvi8oxicov (paaKouot ^cocov
saturated with a large amount o f prattle at odds with our divine scriptures, [16, 30] 1 am amazed
xtvcov ix0 uop 6 p(pcov ev pepei Kai dv 0 pa)7top 6 p(pa>v, fipspac; psv ev xrj yrj Siaixoopevcov Kai
how they have at all consented to subject to a tabular arrangement what is unworthy of any men
priSspiav xpo(pf]v 7tpoa(ppopv(ov, vuKxoq 5 s ev xcp 7tsAdyt KaxaSuvovxcov, 7ia p a 5 i5 6 vxcov xs
tion whatsoever. Out o f respect for these men, I deem it unnecessary to mention them by name.
xou; dv0pcb7tot<; ypappaxa Kai pa 0 Tipaxcov Kai xexvrov sp7itpiac; Kai 7t6Atov auvouaapoix; Kai
But it is because of them that I too am required to make use of this same arrangem ent, lest my
iepd)v iSpuasvt; Kai vopcov siar|yf|Ci<; anEppaxoov xs at)vay(oya<;- Kai ano xoxs tpaoi xpovoix;
work appear incomplete. Since, then, the Chaldaean kingdom [17, 1] has been dem onstrated to
pr|8v 7iapa dvOpGmon; EcpEupsOfjvat. axtva navxa Kai aAAa nXeXoxa 7toAAfjc; aSoAsaxiai;
have begun from N im rod, it has been also clearly dem onstrated at the same tim e that what has
yspovxa opcovxsc; Kai xait; 0 eiat<; 7ispiaaov riyoupat ai 5 oT xwv dv5 prov, 5 i oi)<; avayKa^opat
been w ritten about Egyptian dynasties bv M anetho o f Sebennytos to Ptolemy Philadelphus is
Kaycb xrj adxfj axoixstcbast xpr|a 9 ai> *va pt] 86n axsU q slvat xo rcovripa. xfic ouv XaASatKfjc
full of untruth and fabricated in imitation of Berossos at about the same time or a little later than
apyrk f! 7 , 1] ano NsPpcbS d7to8s8stypsvr)c ot)va;to8s8stKxat 8r)Aov6xt Kai xa 7tspi xwv
him. N evertheless, even though this material is useless, it will be arranged chronologically on
AiYi)7txiaK&v SuvacxEuov imo MavsOfa) xou SsPsvvtixoi) nooc ITro?,epaIov xov OiA.d8eA.(pov
auyysypauusva 7iAr)pr| \|/tj8qdc: Kai Kaxa pipr|atv Briptbaaou 7ts7tXaousva Kaxa xoi)c a m o ve the basis of the tabulations found in many historians.
ctxeSov 7toD ypovouc f\ piKpov i3oxpov 7tAf)v Kai a d ia avtotpsAfj ovxa axotysuoOficTExai ek xffiv
napa noXXoic iaxopucotc KavovtoOEvxcov. In Anno M undi 1058, the Watchers descended and continued in their transgression up to the
Flood .16
T(p ,avr|' sxei xou Kocpou oi sypriyopoi KaxfjAOov Kai 8if|pKaav ev xrj napapdoEi scot; xoi)
KaxaKAuapou. The second cycle o f 532 years was completed, and the third cycle began in [17, 10] Anno Mundi
1056, in the 270th year o f Maleleel.
O 8i3xpo<; kuk Aoc; xwv (pAp' exwv ETtAripwOt], Kai rip^axo o xpixoc; xw [17,10] a^e' sxst xoi)
Koapoi), co' xou MaAsAEfjA. If you pay close attention to the two tables given below, you w ill be im m ediately and utterly
convinced that the thinking o f both of them , as was stated above, is contrived: the th ink ing
both o f Berossos and o f Manetho. who seek to glorify their own nations, the one the nation
O aKpippjc Ecpicxavcov xoiq U T to K E ip sv o ic 8ugi K a v o v i o i c a d x o O s v s s v naaav 7iAnoo(popiav
of the C haldaeans. the other that o f the Egyptians. M arvel how they felt no shame about as^
O il smnXacTOQ e p x i v f| xouxcov 7tivoia dp9oxpo)v. obc 7rposipr|xav. xoi3 xs Bi]pa)oaou Kai
signing a beginning to their fantastic compositions from one and the same year. But Berossos
xou Mavs 9(5 xo i'8iov s 9 voc Q e A o v x q c 8odaau xou pv xo xd) XaASaicov. xo\3 8s xo xmv
w rote his narrative in sars and ners and sosses, of which a sar is a period o f 3600 years, a ner
AiYU7txi(ov. 0 aupaCEXfa) 8 e 7tdk; o u k f]ayuv6r|aav acp1 e v o c Kai xou auxou sxouc a p y f ] v QsaQai
is 600 years, and a soss is 60 years. And he cam e up with a total o f 120 sars over a span o f ten
xaiq xpax68oiv auxaiv Quyypacpaic. aAA o psv Bripcooooi; 81a oapcov Kai vrjpcov Kai owoawv
kings, that is a period o f 432,000 years. Now these years some o f [17, 20] our historians have
avypd\|/axo, rov o psv adpoq j x ' sxwv xpovov ar|paivsi, 0 8 e vrjpo<; e x w v x ', 0 8 e a&ccoq
speculatively reckoned as days, criticizing Eusebius Pamphilou for not recognizing that the
Kai auvrj^E oapoug pK' 81a PaoiAscov 8sKa, qxoi xpovov sxwv pupiaScov py' Kai ,p. xaijxa 8 e
years o f sars are days. But in this they criticize him vainly. For how was he able to know about
sxr) xivs^ xrov [ 17, 2 0 ] Ka0 f|pa<; iaxopiKwv f)pspa<; sAoyioavxo oxoxaaxiKax; pEpvj/dpevoi xov
som ething that has no reality - this man who was both a polym ath and fam iliar with the Greek
riapcpiAou Euospiov, ax; pf) vofjoavxa xd sxr| xcov aapoov npspat;. Maxrjv 8s auxov e v x o u x co
notion that affirm s that many ages, that is, m yriads of years, have elapsed from the creation of
pspcpovxai. 7id)(; yap xo pf] ov eixe vorjoai 7ioAupa0r)c; tov Kai siSwc; xf]v 'EAAr|viKr)v 8o^av
the universe, based on their fanciful idea about the motion o f the zodiac from the beginning of
7toAAoi)q attbvai; opoAoyoi5oav, i]xoi puptaSaq sxtov 7tapAriAu0vai ano xrjq KoopiKrjc; yevsosait;
Kaxa xrjv nap auxot<; pu 0 iKf]v xou ^a)8 iaKoi3 7ti xd svavxia Ktvr|aiv a no xrjg apxrj<; xou Kpiou
16 Adler/Tuffin 2002, 22 n.2 note that Syncellus has here confused the fall of the Watchers with the syn
chronized beginning of the antediluvian kingdoms of Egypt and Babylon.
 218 Ian Moyer
the sign o f the ram to its diam etrical opposite and back to the same sign o f the cycle? W hat was
driving them to reconcile the lie with the truth?
In this passage Syncellus does not cite Annianos and Panodoros by name, but he later makes
it clear that these two are the objects o f his critique.17 His attack is in large part directed at
the trustw orthiness o f the sources that these two monks used, arguing that their attempt at
reconciliation was an exercise in futility, since the works of Berossos and Manetho are mere
fabrications given a thin veneer o f verisim ilitude by their plagiarism o f stories about floods
from divinely inspired scripture.18 In other words, the charge leveled at Manetho was not
just that he copied Berossos, but that both ultimately plagiarized from Moses.19 Syncellus
argument is intended to falsify an implicit claim by Panodoros that Berossos and Manetho
both refer (each in his own way) to the same actual events and therefore independently con
firm Biblical chronology. If both are derived from Moses, however, they are not independent
historical witnesses, just derivative forgers attempting to press the claims to antiquity of their
respective nations. This larger rhetorical context - the attack on Panodoros and Annianos -
makes it difficult to take at face value the testimony o f M anethos dependence on Berossos
as excerpted in Jacoby.
But was there ultimately something behind Panodoros comparison o f Berossos and
M anetho that justified Syncellus characterization of the relationship between the two?
W hat did they have in common? Did their compositions really begin in the same year, as
Jacobys excerpt suggests? Once again, the larger context is vital. As Syncellus disparage
ment of Manetho and Berossos shows, these histories posed a critical problem for Christian
historians: both contained the record o f a long past that put the creation much earlier than
scripture would permit. But while Syncellus rejected Manetho and Berossos as simply false,
Panodoros and his younger contemporary Annianos took a different approach. For the two
Egyptian monks, the earliest records of the Babylonians and the Egyptians, became material
that could be compared, synchronized, and reconciled with the Biblical antediluvian period.
In the case o f Berossos, the comparison was relatively straightforward: there is indeed a
Flood story and an antediluvian age in the Babyloniaca, and they can be traced back to the
Mesopotamian sources on which Berossos drew. In the case o f Manetho, the comparison
must have been a bit contrived, as there is no evidence that the genuine fragments of the
Aegyptiaca referred to a massive world-wide Deluge, and the mythology o f Egyptian floods
does not provide any clear parallels. The regular flooding of the Nile was, after all, generally
viewed as beneficent.20 Syncellus does, however, give us one little clue as to what may have
been the basis o f comparison. He writes: And it is necessary for those who correctly heed
17 Syncellus cites them repeatedly, but first mentions them by name at p. 34.24-5. Shortly thereafter (35.6-19),
he identifies them as contemporaries and makes it clear that they are the authors of the chronological rec
onciliations he discussed earlier.
18 See especially Syncellus 16.15-21.
19 See Adler 1983,439.
20 In most Egyptian cosmogonies, the world emerges from the primordial flood waters (Nun), but (by
definition) there is no antediluvian period to this flood (see, e.g. Lesko 1991, 105, 113-15). In the myth
of the Destruction of Mankind attested in Ramesside royal tombs (see Lichtheim 1976, 197-9), Ra uses
a flood of beer to bring an end to Sakhmets destruction of rebellious humanity (but here the flood is a
means of saving rather than destroying humanity). Panodoros appears to have chosen a different connec
tion to Egyptian myth (see below). The attempt at connecting Egyptian history with a catastrophic flood
was also a little unorthodox from the perspective of Greek tradition. Since Plato at least, the reason for
Berossos and M anetho 219
divine scriptures not to accept any w ritten record documenting Chaldaean or Egyptian his
tory before the Flood - even if, after stealing narrative from divinely inspired scriptures con
cerning the Flood and the chest [larnax/Xapva^] (that is, the ark [kibdtos/ Kipcoxoq]), they
appropriate it as their own ... 2I Though kibdtos is the word used to describe the ark in the
Septuagint, the reference to a chest (larnax) with which Syncellus connects the ark, is some
what peculiar. The word larnax is not used at all in the Septuagint; and in the relevant frag
ment o f Berossos (FGrHist 680 F4b), the boat that Xisouthros builds to ride out the Flood
is simply a boat (^oTov, vavq, oKoupoc;). Since Syncellus claims that both Chaldaean and
Egyptian histories borrow from scripture, this must be a reference to an Egyptian counter
part to the Flood story: perhaps a comparison between the ark and the chest in which Osiris
was trapped by his enemy Seth. According to the story in Plutarch,22 Seth tricked Osiris
into trying out the chest for size, then locked him up in it and threw the chest, called there a
larnax (Xapvat,) into the river.23 The chest then drifted out the Tanitic mouth of the Nile to
the sea and eventually made landfall near Byblos in Phoenicia, where Isis recovered her lost
husband. Since Osiris was regarded in Greek interpretations of Egyptian myth as the bringer
o f civilization and agriculture, the function o f the larnax could (by a clever or desperate
interpreter) be roughly equated with that of the ark or with a box containing the writings
preserved at Sippar in Berossos version o f the Flood story (FGrHist 680 F4b).24 The prob
lem, o f course, is that no evidence o f this story survives in any o f the Manetho fragments,
and even if it did, this approach would have required considerable conjecture and manipula
tion on the part of Panodoros. It is, in other words, hardly solid evidence that Manetho was
influenced by Berossos.
In fact, the narrative connection between Manethos history and the Flood story may have
come to Panodoros ready-made in the introduction to the text he used. If, as most scholars
have argued, Panodoros was following the so-called Book ofSothis, he would have read not
only the pseudonymous dedication to Ptolemy Philadelphus, but he would also have read
a garbled narrative about the origins of the text, which is summarized in Syncellus. That
narrative claims that the content of the work ultimately derives from antediluvian writings
composed by Thoth, the first Hermes, that were translated and written down after the flood
by Agathodaimon. The text is clearly the product of a well-developed Hermetic tradition that
post-dates Manetho, but it also mentions the legend of texts preserved from the flood in the
the long Egyptian record of the past was the absence of floods and other disasters such as those which
periodically destroyed the evidence of the Greek past (PI. Ti. 22a-23c).
21 Syncellus 16.15-19.
22 Plut. De Is. et Os. 13-18.
23 Plutarch dates this to either the 28thregnal year of Osiris, or the 28,h year of his life, and also says that it
occurred on the 17th of Athyr, when the sun passes through Scorpio. Once the box has arrived in Byblos
and has been enveloped in heather, it is called a coffin (oopoq, De Is. et O.v.15).
24 The fragments of Berossos do not explicitly mention a box in connection with the burial and recovery of
the writings at Sippar. The latter episode is not attested in the well-known flood narratives of Gilgamesh
or Atrahasis, but may have been part of a late Babylonian version of the Mesopotamian flood story
(see the discussion by S. Dailey in this volume). The particular motif of a tablet box containing ancient
(even antediluvian) writings would not be out of place in such a context. Indeed, in the first-millennium
redaction of Gilgamesh, the stories of both Gilgamesh and the flood survivor Utanapishtim - i.e. the
epic o f Gilgamesh itself - are buried in a box under the walls of'L/ruk. For this metaliterary moment in
Gilgamesh and the significance of the tablet-box motif in Mesopotamian literature, see Michalowski
1999, 79-87.
 220 Ian Moyer
Seriadic land, a m otif that derives from Jewish and Christian traditions.25 Though stories of
the discovery o f ancient texts by learned priests and their presentation before the pharaoh
were a real staple o f Late Egyptian narrative literature, the flood m otif still sticks out like a
sore thumb as a later addition.
W hether it was by inventive mythological comparison or pseudonymous text, Panodoros
did make a synchronism between Berossos and Manetho: he linked the Babylonian (and
Biblical) Deluge with the transition in Manethos work from the reigns of divine and semi
divine kings to human dynasties. But that was not all! He also made a synchronism o f the
starting points for the histories o f Berossos and Manetho - inspiring the incredulous com
ment o f Syncellus mentioned earlier: Marvel how they felt no shame about assigning a
beginning to their fantastic compositions from one and the same year (17.14-16). As cited
in Jacoby, the quote could give the impression that this was meant to support the earlier
statement that Manetho wrote in imitation o f Berossos.26 This synchronism, however, was
purely the product o f Panodoros creative calculations. In order to bring the Babylonian and
Egyptian antediluvian chronologies within the bounds of Biblical time, he adopted the prin
ciple that units o f time had once been confused. In those primordial days before the flood, a
year could mean a day, or a month, or a season. This was not a new idea, and Ill return to its
earlier history below. W hat was novel about Panodoros approach, as W illiam Adler pointed
out some time ago, was that he used a Hellenistic Jewish apocryphal work, The First Book
o f Enoch, to provide a unifying framework for his chronological reconciliations. A section
o f this work, which Syncellus calls the Book o f the Watchers, tells of angels who descended
to earth in the 1000th year o f the world, had intercourse with mortal women, and divulged
secret knowledge that corrupted humanity: how to make weapons and adornments; the arts
o f magic and divination. This included astrological knowledge concerning the movement
of the sun through the degrees o f the zodiac, but not (surprisingly) the length o f a month, a
year, or a season.27 Knowledge of the latter did not exist among humans until the angel Uriel
revealed it to Enoch in Anno Mundi 1282 or 1286.28 This gave Panodoros license to interpret
the years in M anetho and Berossos as other periods o f time.
In the case of Berossos, this was fairly straightforward. The massive Babylonian time
period of the sar was, according to Panodoros, not 3,600 years but only 3,600 days, so the
120 sars o f the 10 antediluvian kings in Berossos equaled 432,000 days not years. In other
words (dividing those days into real years): 1,183 years and 6 5 / 6 months.29 The Babylonian
record of history, therefore, began in Anno Mundi 1059, a date that fits nicely within the
antediluvian chronology o f the Bible - and, moreover, allows Babylonian chronology to be
subordinated to Biblical.
In the case of Manetho, the story of reconciliation is, once again, a bit more complicated.
As I mentioned earlier, most agree that Panodoros was not using Manethos Aegyptiaca, but
the Book ofSothis. On the other hand, it is possible that the pre-dynastic Egyptian chronology
25 On this, see Adler/Tuffin 2002, 54 n. 2 in which they note a parallel tradition in Joseph A J 1.70-1 that
mentions monuments constructed in the Seriadic land.
26 Adler/Tuffin 2002, 22 n. 3 here suggest that the reference is not to the works of Berossos and Manetho,
but to Panodoros and Annianos. This seems possible, but it strains the Greek. One would have to assume
a real mental slip by Syncellus, which is not impossible.
27 Syncellus 12.3-13.3, 33.1-8; / Enoch 6-8.
28 Syncellus 34.15-19; 1 Enoch 72-3; see also Jubilees 4.17.
29 Syncellus, 32.29-33.18.
Berossos and M anetho 221
that Panodoros synchronized with Berossos ten antediluvian kings did ultimately derive
from Manetho. The Hermetic dedicatory text could have been added to some more-or-less
genuine version of Manethos text, or at least a version of one of the standard epitomes,30
since Syncellus description of what follows the epistle in the Book o f Sothis is similar to
what is known o f the structure o f the Aegyptiaca. The Book o f Sothis, according Syncellus
(41.21-22), tells about the five Egyptian classes [of kings] in thirty dynasties, called by them
gods, demigods, spirits of the dead, and mortal men.31 Several fragments considered genu
ine Manetho attest that the Aegyptiaca did begin with a list of divine and semi-divine kings.
In fact, Eusebius, one o f the principle sources for the epitomes of the Aegyptiaca, had also
attempted to reduce the scale o f its predynastic section by a method like the one used by
Panodoros.32 The Armenian translation of Eusebius Chronica shows that he also used a list
of pre-dynastic rulers that included divine and semi-divine figures. M anethos predynastic
list, moreover, has a parallel in the Turin Canon, an Egyptian king-list preserved on a papy
rus dated ca. 1200 BCE, that begins with divinities belonging to the Greater Ennead and the
Lesser Ennead, then lists the divine spirits (3h.w), the followers of Horus (sms.w Hr), and a
group of mythical pre-dynastic kings. To judge by the surviving fragments of Manethos pre
dynastic list, the reigns o f the divine kings were - like those o f Berossos antediluvian kings -
extremely long by human standards. This was perhaps the most important of the parallels
upon which Panodoros built his unified periodization of the distant past - but (I reiterate) it
does not necessarily indicate any intertextual relationship. Both authors were working from
antecedents indigenous to their own traditions.
As with Berossos, Panodoros reduced the scale of Manethos primordial period by calcu
lating the years as equivalent to smaller units of time. For the dynasty of six gods, he equated
one year o f their reigns to a lunar month o f just over 29 'A days, so that the 11,985 years they
reigned amounted to only 969 real solar years.33 And for the nine demigods, he figured that
30 Compare, e.g., the versions o f Thessalos De virtutibus herbarum (Friedrich 1968) that are basically
intact, except for the replacement of the original introduction with a Hermetic one.
31 This description differs from the fragments of king-lists that most scholars have identified as ps.-
Manetho Book ofSothis (see Adler/Tuffin 2002, 127 n. 2). Therefore, it is possible (as noted above) that
Panodoros had a version of Manetho with the Hermetic dedicatory epistle, but with a better text of the
Aegyptiaca than the Book ofSothis.
32 Syncellus 41.23-8.
33 Syncellus provides Manethos original figures (according to Panodoros) only for the dynasty of the
gods (11,985 years) and for the regnal years of the first god, Hephaistos (9000 years). He also provides
the reduced numbers for these figures and for the regnal years of all the gods. Syncellus describes
the method of calculation for the reduced years of Hephaistos as follows (18.28-29): after dividing
the number of days in these 9,000 lunar months by the 365 days of the year, they [i.e. Panodoros and
Annianos] come up with a total of 7273/4 years (^epioavxet; t o t c o v rmspcov 7tA.fj0o<; t c o v a i)T (i)V 0
oeXr|vitov Ttapa zaq T ^ e ' r]|aepa<; t o u eviauion ouvrj^av t t | v | / k ^ ' 8 ' ) Adler/Tuffin 2002, 24, n. 3 deduce
from this that Panodoros method appears to assume a month of approximately 29'/> days (see also
Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 125-126 n. 15, 175-176 n. 7), but using these figures (11,985 x 29.5
365) the total number of years is reduced to 968.650685 rather than 969. A better fit for the calculations
can be found if one assumes a lunar month derived from the widely used Callippic cycle: 29 + Vi +
29/940 days (see Evans/Berggren 2006, 89) and a solar year of 365 % days (to account for the leap year).
This would result in a reduction of the total of 11,985 years to exactly 969 years. Using this method, the
9000 years of Hephaistos do not reduce exactly to 727.75 years, but the result is close (727.6595745), and
one could reasonably conjecture that in the example from Syncellus quoted above, he gave round num
bers such as 9,000 and 365 rather than the precise figures used by Panodoros. Alternatively, Panodoros
 222 Ian Moyer
each of their years was equivalent to a season, or one quarter of a year, so that their 856 years
amounted to only 214. That results in a total o f 1,183 years - the exact length o f the reduced
antediluvian era in Berossos. Now, except for the 9,000-year reign o f the first divine king
Hephaistos (Ptah) and the subtotals o f the gods and demigods, Syncellus reports none of the
original reign-lengths - only the recalculated figures of Panodoros and his mathematical
procedure. The original figures that Panodoros claimed to derive from M anetho must be
reconstructed. There is no way to verify them independently, but in any case they differed
significantly from the figures given in Eusebius Chronica?4
So in short, almost nothing solid remains from Jacobys 609 T lie that would support a
direct textual relationship between Manetho and Berossos. The histories of their respective
civilizations did not in fact begin in the same year, nor did Manetho derive a Flood story
from Moses by way o f Berossos .35 The two histories certainly shared the broad similarity
o f a long chronology, and o f primordial kings with extraordinarily long reigns. But if, as
Syncellus repeatedly argues, Manetho, like Berossos, wrote in order to glorify the antiquity
o f his own civilization, then he did a rather poor job by the standard that seemed to mat
ter most to the later chronographers and apologetic historians. His chronology is actually
shorter than that o f Berossos, even though he had the opportunity as the later w riter to take
the lead in that competition. And there is no evidence in the Aegyptiaca of synchronisms
or references to Mesopotamian kings or chronology - even when one might expect it, as
in the Assyrian conquest that ultimately established the Saite dynasty, or the campaign of
Nebuchadnezzar against Nechos encroachments in Syria-Palestine. The latter was treated
in some detail by Berossos ,36 but (as far as we can tell) Manetho did not mention it. In fact,
Syncellus himself, at a later point seems to contradict his assertion about the dependence
o f Manetho on Berossos, in an excerpt that I have yet to find among the testimonia o f either
author (Syncellus 38.12-21, trans. A dler/Tuffin 2002, 51):
... the account w ritten by M anetho concerning the Egyptian dynasties before the Flood is also
shown to be false. This is seen from the fact that while each o f them, that is those who w rite on
Chaldea and those who write on Egypt, confirm s himself, neither m entions nor confirm s the
other: not the author o f the Aigyptiaka as to the contents o f the Chaldaika (according to what
they say about them , they tell lies about the past), nor the author o f the Chalda'ika as to the
contents o f the Aigyptiaka. Rather, in glorifying his own nation and homeland, each weaves a
web o f lies; ...
Syncellus claim that Manetho wrote in imitation o f Berossos was, it seems, entirely a reac
tion to the synchronizing and rationalizing efforts o f Annianos and Panodoros rather than
the Egyptian and Babylonian histories themselves.
As I mentioned, however, the basic principle o f this rationalizing effort - the idea that
the years o f ancient tim es used to be shorter - was nothing new. It was not just a product
o f attem pts to encompass and subordinate the histories o f pagan nations within a universal
could have found (or created) round figures for the original reign years that would add up to 11,985 and
when converted according to his formula would be very close to the reduced figure he cites.
34 Syncellus 19.1-17; 41.29-42.19; compare to FGrHist 609 F3a (Euseb. Chron. p .63, 15 Karst).
35 Manetho does, on the other hand, mention Deucalion and the Greek flood story, which he puts in the
reign of Misphragmouthosis, the 6th king of Dynasty 18 - much later than the Biblical/Babylonian Flood
(Syncellus 78.3; FGrHist 609 F2).
36 FGrHist 680 F 8; BNJ 680 F 8a.
Berossos and M anetho 223
Christian history. Rather, it goes back to the 4th-century BCE Greek mathematician and
astronomer Eudoxus o f Cnidus, as attested by the Neoplatonist Proclus in his comments
on the story o f the m eeting between Solon and the Egyptian priests in Platos Timaeus?1
Eudoxus, of course, was famous for having studied astronomy with Egyptian priests at
Heliopolis, so he - like the Solon of Platos tale - may have discussed and compared Greek
and Egyptian chronologies while in Egypt .38 There is also a more developed version of this
idea in Diodorus account o f Egyptian history (1.26.1-5): at the time o f the oldest Egyptian
gods, the years were months, but by the tim e of the younger gods, the years had become
seasons. The most important source for Diodorus on the subject o f Egypt, it is generally
agreed, was Hecataeus of Abdera ,39 who wrote his Aegyptiaca in the early days of Ptolemaic
rule over Egypt: ca. 320-305 BCE. These two figures, Eudoxus and Hecataeus, take us from
the age of Christian universal historiography to a much earlier period in which G reek intel
lectuals grappled with non-Greek histories as well as differing Greek traditions in order to
integrate them into universal historical and chronological schemes. This was, after all, the
era in which Timaeus of Tauromenium (ca. 350-260BCE) worked at Athens to devise his
method of dating events according to Olympiads. The earliest foundations of Greek univer
sal history, of course, went back to Herodotus, for whom the traditions of Egyptian priests
concerning their long past had played a decisive role .40 The conquests o f Alexander, however,
created a new world political and cultural order that put Greek histories into a more direct
dialogue with the local traditions they had attempted to adopt, represent, and subsume.
This is the shared milieu through which modern historians have connected Berossos
and Manetho - as scholars of a new kind, able to respond to Greek historiography from the
perspective o f indigenous traditions. And they may have been even more closely connected
than by a common membership in the broad cosmopolis o f Greek learning. I f Berossos did
indeed emigrate to Cos after w riting his Babyloniaca, he would probably have arrived there
during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. At the time, Cos was an independent, democratic
polis and an ally of Ptolemaic Egypt. It was also, of course, the birthplace of Philadelphus,
and there was significant intellectual traffic between Cos and Alexandria during the era
when the Museum and Library were developing under the patronage o f the second Ptolemy .41
The poet Philitas o f Cos was the tutor to Philadelphus ;42 Theocritus spent some time on
Cos; the poetry of Herodas also suggests connections between Alexandria and Cos; and, of
course, the island was famous for its Hippocratic school of medicine: Praxagoras of Cos was
the teacher of Herophilus, the great Alexandrian physician. So there were certainly oppor
tunities for indirect intellectual contacts, whether through texts or common acquaintances,
between Berossos at Cos and Manetho at Alexandria. And yet, as we have seen, there are no
solid signs o f a specific intertextual relationship between the two.
37 Procl. In 7'/. 1.102.258. Discussed by Adler 1983, 432-3.
38 The most important sources are Strabo 17.1.29-30, Diog. Laert. 8.8.86, Sen. Q. Nat. 7.3.2 (Lasserre 1966,
T7, T 12-13, T 15); see also the discussion of other sources in Lasserre 1966, 139-41.
39 Burton 1972, 13-14 incorrectly attributes the idea to Manetho, but says that Manetho could not in any
case have been the source for Diodorus; she suggests Eudoxus via some intermediary. She also seems
to exclude Hecataeus, but her reasoning is not clear. Burstein 1992, 45 n. 1 is not convinced by Burtons
argument for multiple sources, citing Hornblower 1981, 22-39, along with Murray 1970, 144-50 and
Jacoby FGrHist 3a, 75-87.
40 Vannicelli 2001; Moyer 2002.
41 See Fraser 1972, 1.307, 343-4 and Von Staden 1989, 42-3.
42 See Theoc. Id. 1.
 224 Ian Moyer
Instead, they are usually connected through a shared Greek historiographical lineage
and the common influences of Hecataeus o f Abdera and Herodotus .43 The argument, brief
ly speaking, is that Hecataeus propagandistic and idealizing work on Egypt, written for
the benefit o f the embryonic kingdom and dynasty o f the Ptolemies, provoked a series o f
competitive responses: Megasthenes on India, and then our non-Greek writers Berossos
and Manetho. As responses to rival nations and to the errors of previous Greek historians,
Berossos and M anetho (it has been argued) adopted not only the Greek language but also
some of the generic conventions and intellectual practices of Greek ethnography and his
toriography. They included a polemical approach to predecessors, the insistence on native
sources, and Hecataeus structural pattern (derived from Herodotus) o f framing an historical
narrative centered on a succession of kings with logoi on geography, customs, and religion
or mythology. The arguments have not found universal support, but the general influence of
Herodotus and Hecataeus on Berossos and Manetho still often frames, I believe, the standard
debate over how to locate these non-Greek historians in relation to Greek historiography.
I cannot pursue this discussion in detail, but I would like to raise a few points in order to
dispute the idea that Berossos and Manetho can be related to one another through a different
universal history - dare I say, a civilizing narrative o f the spread o f Hellenism .44
In the first case, let me take up the theory that the polemical stance of these non-Greek
writers is itself proof o f Greek influence. This seems to me a kind of Catch-22 argument (but
also one that has echoes in the cultural and political contests of the colonial and post-colonial
world): by virtue o f the very attempt to establish a position independent of predecessors in
Greek historiographical writing, Berossos and Manetho are classed as dependent on their
predecessors. In other words, even a counter-discursive response to Greek historiography be
comes a kind o f m im icry .45 In the case o f Berossos Babyloniaca, however, the evidence of a
direct refutation o f Greek versions of Babylonian or Mesopotamian history is modest. While
he makes one or two implicit corrections, there is only one overt contradiction o f a Greek
tradition, and that concerns the story that Semiramis founded Babylon and built its greatest
monuments. This comes in the context o f Berossos account o f Nebuchadnezzars works at
Babylon, including the Hanging G ardens .46 In that context, Semiramis is described specifi
cally as Assyrian, which suggests that Babylonian prestige, at least relative to Assyrians,
was indeed part o f his motivation for correcting the Greeks. On the other hand, it is worth
rem em bering that Berossos corrects Ctesias on Semiramis, but does not correct Herodotus
on his attribution o f major works at Babylon to queen Nitocris. Did he not know that story?
And as far as asserting the greater antiquity of Babylonian civilization relative to the Greeks,
it is true that Berossos chronology was enormous, but he does not appear to have made any
specific synchronisms with Greek tradition. If there was a transcultural Hellenistic game of
competitive chronology afoot, it is not entirely clear that Berossos was playing.
Manetho is different. He is said to have w ritten Criticisms of'Herodotus. W hether this
was a separate work, or simply part of his Aegyptiaca, is not entirely clear, but Manetho does
correct Herodotus on some specific points, such as the name and relative placement of the
Old Kingdom pyram id-builder Cheops, and the identity of the king who built the so-called
43 Most notably in the influential article by Murray 1972, but also - though to a lesser extent - in
G. Sterlings book on the origins of apologetic historiography (Sterling 1992).
44 For a fuller discussion of Manethos historiography from this perspective, see Moyer 2011, 84-141.
45 On the colonial discourse of mimicry, see Bhabha 1994, 85-92.
46 BNJ 680 F 8a. See the discussions of C. Tuplin and R. Rollinger in this volume.
Berossos and Manetho 225
Labyrinth .47 Because o f these corrections, and references to kings and stories known to the
Greeks, Manetho has given the impression of greater familiarity, or at least more explicit
engagement with Greek traditions, than Berossos. But this should not be taken for influ
ence or dependence - especially in the case of Manethos attempts to reconcile Greek and
Egyptian chronologies. There are several synchronisms preserved in the epitomes o f the
Aegyptiaca, but Ill just discuss two important examples: Heracles and Deucalion.
As Pietro Vanicelli has shown, the crucial nexus of Herodotus project of universal chron
ology was a synchronism between the Egyptian king Sesostris and Heracles, a hero o f tre
mendous importance for Greek genealogical chronologies .48 Herodotus placed both about
900 years before his day or (alternatively) 16 generations in the past, and constructed the
narrative portion of his Egyptian history to be roughly coextensive with that period. This
was, in fact, the reason for his misplacement of the Pyramid builders - a structural mistake
that was reproduced by Hecataeus of Abdera. Now Manetho did, of course, include the great
12th Dynasty pharaoh Sesostris (Senusret III) in his king-list, and he referred to his legendary
conquests, but he did not follow Herodotus in synchronizing him with Heracles. There is no
way he could have, since M anethos Sesostris was around 1,600 or 1,900 years earlier than
Herodotus (depending on the epitome). M anethos only mention o f Heracles comes in con
nection with the 23rd Dynasty king Osorcho, whom (he says) the Egyptians called Heracles.
From this king to the end of the Saite dynasty, counting inclusively, there are 15 or 16 kings
(again, depending on the epitome) - about the same number as in the narrative o f Egyptian
history that Herodotus constructed to fit his Heraclid periodization .49 But if this reference
was meant to be a synchronism (rather than just the mention of an epithet), Heracles is put
only about three and a half centuries (rather than nine centuries) before Herodotus, a contra
diction that would emphasize to an extreme degree the proverbial youth o f the Greeks. More
to the point, however, is the fact that M anetho did not follow the principles o f Herodotus
universal chronology.
In fact, he implicitly revealed its gaps and limitations. The earliest synchronism with
Greek tradition in Manethos Aegyptiaca actually involves Deucalion and the Greek Flood
story. As the father o f Hellen, Deucalion stands at the beginnings o f Greek ethnical gen
ealogy. In Herodotus and Hecataeus, he has no fixed place in universal chronology; he
floats somewhere in the remote past before Heracles and Cadmus. Manetho, however, puts
Deucalion in the reign o f his 18th Dynasty king Misphragmuthosis - a fixed point in the
temporal scale o f the Egyptian king list. This fixing o f Deucalion bridges a floating gap
in Greek accounts of the past that were ultimately based on oral traditions. Herodotus had
already begun to examine such gaps as a result of his encounter with Late Period Egyptian
traditions on their past, but he did not fully resolve them. If the epitomes accurately represent
the text o f the Aegyptiaca, Manetho appears to have tied up some o f Herodotus loose ends,
47 Syncellus 63.3-4, 64.3-4, 66.16-17, 67.17-18; FGrHist 609 F2, F3a, F3b.
48 Vannicelli 2001.
49 16 kings in Africanus epitome of Manetho (Syncellus 82.9-83.6, 84.10-23; FGrHist 609 F2): Osorcho,
Psammus, Zet, Bocchoris, Sabacon, Sebichos, Tarcus, Stephinates, Nechepsos, Nechao, Psammetichus,
Nechao, Psammuthis, Uaphris, Amosis, Psammecherites. 15 kings in Eusebius epitome of Manetho
(Syncellus 83.26-84.9, 85.16-28; FGrHist F3a-b): Osorthon, Psammus, Bochchoris, Sabacon, Sebichos,
Taracus, Ammeris, Stephinathis, Nechepsos, Nechao, Psammetichus, Nechao, Psammuthis, Uaphris,
Amosis. One difference is the mysterious Zet {Zf\x), who only appears in Africanus, on whom see
Redford 1986,311.
 226 Ian Moyer
and definitively subsumed Greek chronology under the structure of the Egyptian king-list.
As anthropological studies have shown, an awareness o f gaps in chronologies based on oral
genealogical traditions sometimes came about in the modern colonial situation when tradi
tional indigenous chronologies were confronted with the longer, continuously documented
chronology of the colonizing power.50 In this case, Manethos king-list must have been analo
gous to the modern colonial temporality for the Greeks, and perhaps provoked some of their
efforts at chronological rationalization.
Clearly, both M anetho and Berossos followed their own indigenous traditions and did
not reorganize their respective pasts in accordance w ith Greek chronology. Their projects
were, however, not ju st translations o f indigenous sources. In their formal characteristics,
the Babyloniaca and the Aegyptiaca were novel compositions relative to what had gone
before in each scribal tradition. To what extent was that novelty o f form shaped by Greek
historiography? As I mentioned at the start, Havet suspiciously observed that both Manetho
and Berossos wrote histories in three books. These divisions may have been introduced after
the initial composition, but for the sake o f argument, I will very briefly look at these and
other basic divisions, since structural patterns have been proposed as a debt that Berossos
and Manetho owe to G reek predecessors. In the case o f Berossos, the first book is occu
pied with a geography o f Babylonia as well as myths of the creation of the world and the
transm ission o f civilized arts to humanity. The geographical section in particular stands
out as comparable to the H erodotean/H ecataean pattern - though detailed descriptions of
geography were certainly included in the Assyrian accounts of military campaigns .51 In other
respects, however, Berossos history appears to have been stitched together from existing
texts such as the Enuma Elis, the Sumerian King List and so forth, and the major structural
divisions follow these textual boundaries. A fter the mythological origin stories, Book 2
consists almost entirely o f king-lists, interrupted shortly after the start by the story of the
Flood and the preservation o f tablets containing all the knowledge (the beginning, the mid
dle, and the end) that had been revealed to hum anity in Book l .52 The beginning of the third
book, then, coincides with the beginning o f the Babylonian Chronicle series, and the curious
comment about N abonassars initiation o f accurate astronomical records, and his destruction
of the records o f previous kings .53 Taking this very broad view, then, Berossos Babylonian
history (with the possible exception of the geographical section at the start) appears to have
the synthetic metatextual organization that one might expect from a Babylonian scribe: an
organization which (as P. Michalowski has shown) revolves around the commemorative acts
of creating, preserving, recovering and even destroying texts that were central legitimating
functions o f kingship .54
If Manetho was aware o f Berossos, it is possible that he wrote his three books in emula
tion o f the three books o f the Babyloniaca. The divisions, however, do not come at such
50 Thomas 2001, 199-200, and also the excellent article by Calame 1998, which compares Herodotus work
of historiopoiesis to that of Michael Somare, the first indigenous prime minister of Papua New Guinea.
See also more generally Henige 1974 and Vansina 1985.
51 A pointed out by S. Dailey during the Durham conference. See, for example, the Letter to Ashur in
which Sargon 11 describes his eighth military campaign and includes an elaborate description of the
mountainous terrain of Urartu (Chavalas 2006, 334, 337-40).
52 B N J 680 F la-b, F3a-b, F4a-b.
53 B N J680 F3a, F 16a (with the commentary by G. de Breucker).
54 Michalowski 1999.
Berossos and M anetho 227
clear-cut points in the structure o f his work. Book 1 treats the divine and semi-divine rulers
as well as Dynasties 1-11; there is no sign o f a section on geography or customs, so Manetho
clearly did not adopt that Greek convention; Book 2 then treats Dynasties 12-19; and Book 3
Dynasties 20-30. There is some historical sense in beginning Book 2 with the 12th Dynasty,
which can be seen as a major refoundation o f the Egyptian kingdom after the internal divi
sions of the first intermediate period. But the same cannot be said of the division between
books 2 and 3, which splits up the 19th and 20th Dynasties at a time when the New Kingdom
was still in pretty good form. More significant, I believe, is the fact that the second book
ends with a synchronism: Thuoris, the last king of the 19th Dynasty is identified with the
Homeric Polybus, the Egyptian host of Helen and Menelaus. Manethos book divisions, then,
if they are indeed his, were set at reference points familiar to Greeks: the 12th dynasty of
Sesostris (whom I discussed earlier), and the Trojan War. Much more prominent, however, is
the Egyptian king-list structure that Manetho follows, as well as the division of these kings
into thirty dynasties. Manetho innovatively expanded the king-list with narratives and other
comments, but the king-list structure still predominates in the Aegyptiaca. The longer quota
tions preserved in Josephus even suggest that Manethos history was not so much a continu
ous narrative as a list of kings with stories or other information attached in an exegetical
format: as a series of lemmata and comments. The dynastic divisions into familial group
ings and locations also appear to be M anethos creation. Though there are similar divisions
implied by the periodic running totals of kings and years in the Turin Canon, M anethos
divisions are more explicit and elaborate. The round number of thirty dynasties, moreover,
may have been intended to give the Aegyptiaca a canonical closure. Thirty is the number of
days in an Egyptian month, and the number of years o f rule celebrated at a pharaohs hb-sd
(jubilee festival). The number was also associated with Maat and judgem ent, and it is the
number of chapters in the Teachings o f Amenemope, a canonical wisdom text .55 Indeed, the
Aegyptiaca can be seen as a wisdom text on Egyptian kingship. The narrative segments and
other comments serve as the exegetical component o f a king-list, elaborating principles o f
good kingship through a metahistorical juxtaposition o f multiple royal narratives gathered
from Egyptian literature .56
This comparison o f Berossos and Manetho suggests that although their works as a whole
had no exact formal antecedents within their respective traditions, both authors responded
to Greek historiography not only on the basis o f indigenous sources, but also in an effort to
55 The classic wisdom text attributed to Amenemope was composed in the Ramesside period but sur
vives in its most complete form in a manuscript of the 26th Dynasty (P. BM 10474; on the dating, see
Verhoeven 2001, 290-302). It is widely accepted that the author of the Proverbs was familiar with
the 30 chapters of Amenemope, and seems to have regarded this number as part of the genre. See
Proverbs 22:20-1: Have I not written for you thirty chapters of advice and Knowledge, for you to
be able to expound the truth and with sound words answer those who question you?. See Lichtheim
1976, 146-63, and Grumach-Shirun 1980 for further references. A Roman-period bilingual (Greek and
Demotic) school text on an ostrakon from Medinet Madi also mentions 30 precepts (O. Med. Mad. I
27, adopting the reedition of Hoffmann 2000, 45-6, pi. 9). The number thirtys connotations of justice
and judgement come from the Council of T hirty (mcb3y.t) that was the traditional grand jury of Egypt
(see e.g. Admonitions oflpuw er (P. Leiden 344 6, 10)). Even the Ennead of gods judging Horus and Seth
was referred to as the Thirty in P. Chester Beatty I recto 3,9. For references to this tribunal of thirty in
the Ptolemaic hieroglyphic texts at Edfu see Wilson 1997, 414-15. There is a probable reference to this
tribunal in Diod. Sic. 1.75.3-7.
56 For a detailed elaboration of this argument, see Moyer 2011, 125-41.
 228 Ian Moyer
make explicit their indigenous literary and m etahistorical principles: the content o f indigen
ous form (to adapt Hayden W hites phrase ) .57 This commonality is a long way from the basic
question of the connection between Berossos and Manetho with which 1 began this essay,
and I would like to conclude by briefly reconsidering the ways in which these two writers
and their histories have been subsumed in a series of interrelated universal histories: modern
intellectual history, early Christian history, and the history of Hellenism. In each of these
universal histories, Berossos Babyloniaca and M anethos Aegyptiaca - alien and ahistorical
from the universal perspective, have been brought into the fold of history, but they have been
historicized in various procrustean ways that have excluded other, more local historicities .58
The apparently straightforward questions Who came first? and Did Manetho imitate
Berossos? implicitly situate the two historians in a progressivist, teleological scheme in
which chains o f innovation and influence connect them to one another, and to a wider his
tory o f ancient Greek ways o f thinking and w riting about the past. This Greek legacy, by
way o f Christian historiography, is widely viewed as the ultimate ancestor not only of mod
ern occidental historiography, but also o f the modern w ests regimes o f historicity - its
modes o f understanding the past and the future in relation to the present .59 W hen Berossos
and Manetho are explained through a common-sense historicism and in term s o f an intel
lectual history that refers (ultimately) to the modern west ,60 there are only certain questions,
answers and evidence that are relevant. The comment of George Syncellus that M anetho of
Sebennytos ... wrote in imitation o f Berossos and at about the same time as Berossos or a
little later (FGrHist 609 T 11c), for example, looks like an im portant piece o f evidence for
this intellectual history. On closer examination, however, this comment has a complex origin
in the confrontation between Christian history and the far larger scales of the past preserved
in the works o f Berossos and Manetho. From the perspective of Syncellus, the solution to this
problem was simple: both the Babylonian and the Egyptian histories were untrue; they were
forgeries whose only claim to plausibility came from their shared imitation o f earlier sacred
scripture. Panodoros, however, chose a more subtle approach: he historicized the ahistori-
caP works o f Berossos and Manetho. Rather than assigning them to the realm o f myth and
fantasy on ethnic grounds, he brought them into harmony with a universal Christian history
and with each other by assigning their deepest pasts to a period of epistemological indeter
minacy - an antediluvian, pre-historical time when the principle units of chronology had not
57 White 1987.
58 Ashis Nandys general comment on the more recent conditions of division between the west and the
rest seems apposite: the historians history of the ahistorical - when grounded in a proper historical
consciousness, as defined by the European Enlightenment - is usually a history of the prehistorical, the
primitive, and the pre-scientific. By way of transformative politics or cultural intervention, that history
basically keeps open only one option - that o f bringing the ahistoricals into history (Nandy 1995, 44).
59 Hartog 2003. Hartog contrasts the presentism of western modernity with the Hawaiian heroic order of
time, which is oriented toward the past (following Sahlins 1985). He then proceeds to dicuss Ulysses and
Augustine as precursors to the subsequent chapters on modernity (from Chateaubriand to the present).
As A. Hannoum points out in his review, Hartog constructs around Ulysses a Greek heroic order of time
that is different from the Hawaiian one: it is characterised by its own form of presentism. Thus Greece
and Europe are attached to modernity whereas the Hawaiians are yoked to some premodern, primitive
sensibility in which they are doomed to be stuck in repeating the past (Hannoum 2008, 462).
60 Dipesh Chakrabarty has famously observed that insofar as the academic discourse of history - that
is, history as a discourse produced at the institutional site of the university is concerned, Europe
remains the sovereign, theoretical subject of all histories (Chakrabarty 1992, 1; Chakrabarty 2008, 27).
Berossos and M anetho 229
been fixed and were not equivalent to the time-scales o f the historical present. This moment
o f historicization left its traces in a spurious connection between Berossos and Manetho.
But it was ultimately Hellenism - or at least the Greek language - that made Egyptian and
Babylonian chronologies available to the early Christian authors for refutation or reconcili
ation, and through them to the early modern scholars o f historical chronology who contin
ued those debates. The history o f Hellenism, and in particular the history o f intellectual
exchanges and the production o f knowledge at the interface between non-Greek and Greek
civilizations in the Hellenistic period has at times been w ritten from the perspective o f the
modern west as a colonial history .61 In the history of historiography, it has sometimes been
imagined that it was only through the influence of Hellenism that some non-Greek civili
zations (whatever their prior traditions concerning the past) achieved a proper historical
consciousness and passed from the realms o f the ahistorical to the historical by w riting real
historical narratives. But, as I have argued, this vision forecloses the possibility o f seeing
the histories o f Berossos and Manetho in more dialogical terms as responses to the common,
widely spread, hegemonic culture o f Hellenism and its modes of representing the past.
Berossos and Manetho created their texts in productive moments that shared what
Marshall Sahlins might call a similar structure of conjuncture: that is, a set of historical
relationships that at once reproduce traditional cultural categories and give them new values
out o f the pragmatic context .62 In both cases, the pragmatic context was formed, in part, by
the need to respond to Greek intellectual traditions and Graeco-M acedonian rule. But if that
is the global, or the universal dimension, each scholar brought to it his own particular, local
categories and concepts. Among the things that has become clear in our own world-historical
age is that the global cannot be understood solely from the top down, or from the core out
wards. Global cultural interactions, as Arjun Appadurai has observed, are characterized by
a constant tension between homogenization and heterogenization. The cultural forces intro
duced to any given society (and these would include universal historicities and temporalities)
are always in some way or another indigenized. Transregional ideas are always received,
consumed and inflected at the conjunctures (and disjunctures) between the global level and
a series of more local levels by actors who both experience and create the larger formations .63
It is these dynamics that have made the works of Berossos and Manetho simultaneously ac
cessible and illegible to later universal historians (ourselves included).
References
Adler 1983
William Adler, Berossus, Manetho, and 1 Enoch in the World Chronicle of Panodorus, H arvard
Theological R eview 76 (1983), 419-42.
A dler/Tuffin 2002
William A dler/Paul Tuffin, The Chronography o f George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle o f
U niversal H istory fr o m the Creation, Oxford 2002.
61 For a broader discussion of this phenomenon, see Moyer 2011, 11-36.
62 Sahlins 1985, xiv, 125, 152-3.
63 This is the formulation of Appadurai 1990; see esp. 6-7, 10, 21.
 230 Ian Moyer Berossos and M anetho 231

Appadurai 1990
Havet 1873
A rjun Appadurai, D isjuncture and difference in the global cultural econom y, Public Culture 2 Ernest Havet, Memoire sur la date des ecrits qui portent les noms de Berose et de Manethon, Paris
(1990), 1-24.
1873.
Bhabha 1994
Henige 1974
Homi K. Bhabha, The Location o f C ulture, London and New York 1994. David P. Henige, The Chronology o f Oral Tradition: Quest fo r a Chimera (Oxford Studies in African
B orgeaud/V olokhine 2000
Affairs), Oxford 1974.
Philippe B orgeaud/Y ouri Volokhine, La formation de la legende de Sarapis: une approche Hoffm ann 2000
transculturelle, A rchiv fiir Religionsgeschichte 2 (2000), 37-76. Friedhelm Hoffm ann, Agypten: K ultur und Lebensw elt in griechisch-rdm ischer Zeit. Eine Dar-
Burstein 1978 stellung nach den dem otischen Quellen, Berlin 2000.
Stanley M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus(Sources a n d M onographs on the A ncient N ear H ornblower 1981
Eastvol. L fa s c . 5), M alibu, CA 1978. Jane Hornblower, H ieronym us o f Cardia (O xford Classical and Philosophical Monographs),
Burstein 1992
Oxford 1981.
Stanley M. Burstein, Hecataeus o f A bderas history o f E gypt, in: Janet H. Johnson (ed.), Life in K uhrt 1987
a M ulti-C ultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and B eyond (Studies in Ancient Amelie K uhrt, Berossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: Amelie K uhrt/S usan
O riental Civilization 51), Chicago 1992, 45-9. Sherw in-W hite (eds.), H ellenism in the East: Interaction o f G reek and non-G reek Civilizations
Burton 1972 fro m Syria to C entral A sia after Alexander, London 1987, 32-56.
A nne Burton, Diodorus Siculus Book I. A Comm entary (Etudes prelim inaires aux religions orien L a q u e u r1928
tates dans 1e m pire rom ain 29), Leiden 1972. Richard Laqueur, M anetho, in: Georg W issow a/W ilhelm Kroll (eds.), Paulys Realencyclopadie
Calame 1998 der classischen A ltertum sw issenschaft X IV 1, Stuttgart 1928, col. 1060-1101.
Claude Calame, M emoire collective et tem poralites en contact: Somare et H erodote, Revue de Lasserre 1966
Vhistoire des religions 215 (1998), 341-67. Francois Lasserre, D ie Fragm ente des Eudoxos von Knidos (Texte und Komm entare 4), Berlin
C hakrabarty 1992
1966.
Dipesh Chakrabarty, Postcoloniality and the artifice o f history: who speaks for Indian pasts?, Lesko 1991
Representations 37 (1992), 1-26. L eonard H. Lesko, A ncient Egyptian cosm ogonies and cosm ology, in: Byron E. Shafer (ed.),
C hakrabarty 2008 Religion in A ncient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice, Ithaca and London 1991, 88-122.
Dipesh C hakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: P ostcolonial Thought a n d H istorical Difference, Lichtheim 1976
Reissued ed (Princeton Studies in C ulture/ P ow er/ H istory, Princeton 2008. M iriam Lichtheim, A ncient Egyptian Literature, Vol. II: The N ew Kingdom, Berkeley 1976.
Chavalas 2006
M ichalowski 1999
M ark W. Chavalas (ed.), The Ancient N ear East: H istorical Sources in Translation, O xford 2006. Piotr M ichalowski, Com m em oration, w riting, and genre in ancient M esopotam ia, in: C hristina
D illery 2007 K raus (ed.), The Limits o f Historiography: Genre and N arrative in A ncient H istorical Texts
John Dillery, G reek historians o f the Near East: Clios other sons, in: John M arincola (ed.), (M neomsyne Supplem ents 191), Leiden 1999, 69-90.
A Companion to G reek a n d Roman H istoriography, M alden 2007, 221-30. M osshamm er 1984
Evans /B erggren 2006 Alden A. M ossham m er (ed.), Georgius Syncellus. Ecloga chronographica, Leipzig 1984.
Jam es E vans/J. L ennart Berggren, Geminos's Introduction to the Phenomena: A Translation a n d Moyer 2002
Study o f a H ellenistic Survey o f Astronomy, Princeton 2006. Ian S. Moyer, H erodotus and an Egyptian mirage: the genealogies o f the Theban priests, Journal
Fraser 1967
o f Hellenic Studies 122 (2002), 70-90.
Peter M. Fraser, C urrent pC oncerning the early history o f the cult o f Sarapis, O puscula Moyer 2011
Atheniensia: Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 7 (1967), 23-45. Ian S. Moyer, E gypt and the Limits o f Hellenism, Cam bridge 2011.
Fraser 1972
M urray 1970
Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic A lexandria, O xford 1972. Oswyn Murray, Hecataeus of Abdera and Pharaonic K ingship, Journal o f Egyptian Archaeology
Friedrich 1968
56(1970), 141-71.
Hans-Veit Friedrich (ed.), Thessalos von Tralles, griechisch und lateinisch (Beitrage zu r klas- M urray 1972
sischen Philologie 28), M eisenheim am Gian 1968. O swyn Murray, Herodotus and Hellenistic culture. C lassical Quarterly 22 (1972), 200-13.
G rafton 1975
Nandy 1995
Anthony T. G rafton, Joseph Scaliger and historical chronology: the rise and fall o f a discipline, A shis Nandy, H istorys forgotten doubles, H istory a n d Theory 34 (1995), 4 4 -6 6 .
H istory a n d Theory 14 (1975), 156-85.
Redford 1986
G rum ach-Shirun 1980 Donald B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and D ay-Books, M ississauga 1986.
Irene G rum ach-Shirun, Lehre des A m enem ope, in: Wolfgang H elck/E berhard Otto (eds.), Lexi- Riese 1878
kon der Agyptologie III, W iesbaden 1980, 971-4. A lexander Riese (ed.), Geographi latini minores, Heilbronn 1878.
Hannoum 2008
Sahlins 1985
Abdelmajid Hannoum, W hat is an order of tim e?, Review o f Hartog 2003, H istory an d Theory 47 M arshall Sahlins, Islands o f History, Chicago 1985.
(2008), 458-71.
Sterling 1992
Hartog 2003 G regory E. Sterling, H istoriography a n d Self-Definition. Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apologetic
Francois H artog, Regimes d historicite: presentism e et experiences du temps, Paris 2003. H istoriography (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 64), Leiden 1992.
232 Ian Moyer

Thomas 2001
Rosalind Thomas, Herodotus Histories and the floating gap, in: Nino Luraghi (ed.), The Historian's
Craft in the Age o f Herodotus, Oxford 2001, 198-210.
Vannicelli 2001
Pietro Vannicelli, Herodotus Egypt and the Ffoundations of universal history, in: Nino Luraghi (ed.),
The H istorians Craft in the Age o f Herodotus, Oxford 2001, 211-40.
Vansina 1985
Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History, M adison 1985.
5. Transmission, Reception, Reconstruction
V erbrugghe/W ickersham 1996
G. P. V erbrugghe/J. M. W ickersham, Berossos a n d Manetho, Introduced a n d Translated: Native
Traditions in A ncient M esopotamia and Egypt, A nn A rbor 1996.
Verhoeven 2001
U rsula Verhoeven, Untersuchungen zu r spathieratischen B uchschrift (Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 99), Leuven 2001.
Von Staden 1989
Heinrich Von Staden, Herophilus: The A rt o f M edicine in Early Alexandria, Cam bridge 1989.
W hite 1987
Hayden W hite, The Content o f the Form. N arrative D iscourse a n d H istorical Representation,
Baltim ore 1987.
W ilson 1997
Penelope W ilson, A Ptolemaic Lexikon: A Lexicographical Study o f the Texts in the Temple ofE d fu
(Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 78), Leuven 1997.
 The Early Reception of Berossos
Francesca Schironi (University of Michigan)

In this paper, I will review the three main ancient sources for Berossos: the Oxyrhynchus
Glossary, Alexander Polyhistor and Juba of M auretania .1 I will compare them in order to
understand better why and how these three sources became interested in the Babyloniaca.
When dealing with authors and works preserved only in scanty fragments, firm conclusions
are often difficult to reach; still, some o f these fragm ents may give some suggestions of
how Berossos was read in the early period and why he was so unsuccessful in the Graeco-
Roman world .2
W hile Alexander Polyhistor and Juba o f M auretania, though not among the best- known
authorities, are nonetheless familiar names in ancient historiography, the Oxyrhynchus
Glossary, a newly published text on papyrus, is rather unknown. However, the Oxyrhynchus
Glossary preserves two fragments of Berossos and also gives us an extremely interesting
contextual background that helps us better understand the early reception of Berossos. For
this reason, I will start with this odd text on papyrus.

The Oxyrhynchus Glossary

Without going into the details of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary, I would like to focus on some
of its characteristics which are necessary for understanding the context in which Berossos
is quoted .3
The Oxyrhynchus Glossary consists o f the combination of two different Oxyrhynchus
papyri, POxy 1802, a glossary first published by A rthur S. Hunt in 1922,4 and POxy 4812,
which consists of a series of fragments joining the first papyrus. The latter were found by

1 The sources preserving fragments of Berossos in chronological order are: Alexander Polyhistor (c. 110-
40 BC); Vitruvius (second half of the first century BC); Juba of Mauretania (50BC-23AD); Pliny the
Elder (2 3 /4 -7 9 AD); Seneca (c. 4BC-65AD); Josephus (37/8-100AD); Pausanias (c. 115-180AD);
Tatian (born c. 120 AD); Athenaeus (acme c. 190 AD); Clement of Alexandria (died before 215/221 AD);
Eusebius (c. 260-340 AD); Hesychius (fifth or sixth century AD); Agathias (c. 532-580 AD); Syncellus
(acme c. 810AD); Suidas (tenth century AD). Only Alexander Polyhistor and Juba seem to have read
Berossos directly, while all the others relied either on these two scholars or on Posidonius of Apamea. On
the history of Berossos reception and tradition, see Schnabel 1923, esp. 94-171; Burstein 1978, 6, 10-11;
Verbrugghe and Wickersham 2000, 27-31.
2 I will not discuss the other direct user of Berossos, Posidonius of Apamea, who, according to Schnabel
1923. 94-110, and Verbrugghe/Wickersham 2000, 27-8, is the one who transmitted all the astronomi
cal fragments of Berossos, because of the debated question of whether Berossos the astronomer is the
same as Berossos the author of the Babyloniaca. For clear summaries of this debate, see Burstein 1978,
31-2, and especially Kuhrt 1987, 36-44.
3 This introduction is largely based on Schironi 2009; however, since many of the characteristics of the
Oxyrhynchus Glossary are fundamental to explaining the ancient reception of Berossos and this text is
little known to most classical scholars, I have preferred to summarize the main features of the Glossary
in this article instead of simply referring the reader to the 2009 monograph.
4 Hunt 1922.
236 Francesca Schironi
Edgar Lobel, who did not publish them, and were published as POxy 4812 in 2007.- A com
plete edition o f the entire Glossary followed in 2009.6 The fragments are dated on palaeo-
graphical grounds to the second half o f the second century AD; however, the glossary itself
is probably much earlier, most likely dating to a period between the first century BC and the
first century AD .7
This Glossary collects words o f a very peculiar type: they are not literary words, that
is, words found in literary authors like Homer or Aristophanes, which needed an explana
tion; rather, they are non-literary words which mostly belong either to Greek dialects or to
non-Greek languages, especially from the Near-East. The extant portions of the Glossary
preserve lemmata pertaining to the letters k , X, and \l; they are listed in strict alphabetical
order, a very rare feature in ancient lexica. Lemmata are set in reverse indentation, followed
first by a blank space and then by the explanation, which is almost always accompanied by
a quotation from an ancient author, who is the supposed source of the explanation, like in
the following example:
Fr. 3, ii, 17:
/icvsjiavi to tiScop Ttapa toi<; riepaaig. Aetvcov e[v nepcijiaov
M enemani: water among the Persians. D(e)inon in Book ... of the Persica
L em m a - E xplanation - Q uotation o f an ancient author
This Glossary is unique among the other glossaries preserved on papyrus or in the medieval
tradition, for at least two reasons. First, it collects mostly words from Greek dialects and
foreign languages, in particular Iranian or Semitic languages. Second, it preserves an as
tonishing num ber o f quotations from ancient historians, antiquarians, and ethnographers of
classical and Hellenistic times. These two features are fundamental in order to understand
the early reception o f Berossos.
The G lossarys first im portant characteristic to exam ine is the interest which it dis
plays in Greek dialects and N ear Eastern words. Am ong the tw enty fully preserved lem
mata, three are labelled in the Glossary as deriving from Greek dialects (the Euboean
(ip07i8<;, the A etolian peooxe^eoxov and the Rhodian jiivcbSe^8) and ten as com ing from
non-Greek languages (the Lydian |iep|iva5at, the Scythian jxeMyiov, the Persian peve^iavi
and MiBpaq, the C haldean (iiGopy, |iivo5o^6eooa, jiioat, and the A lbanian pi^rix9), and
one lemma (prjipai), which could belong either to a Greek dialect or a non-Greek language
since the G lossary says that it was a word spoken in Soli and Tarsus in Cilicia - an area
originally Luwian and Semitic, then colonized by the Greeks and finally under Persian
5 Schironi 2007.
6 Schironi 2009.
7 For a discussion of the dating of this text, see Schironi 2009, 13, 50-2.
8 7tapa 'Po8[ioi<;?] is partly in lacuna in the papyrus in fr. 3, iii, 18.
9 Ancient Albania was a region near the Caspian Sea. The language spoken there was probably a
Caucasian language. This gloss however, sounds Semitic since it might be a transcription of the
Aramaic m(e)lek. See Schironi 2009, 105-7.
The Early Reception o f Berossos 237
influence .10 For most of these oriental lemmata it is impossible to find the original Semitic
or Iranian word behind them, but the lack of correspondence with attested words in real
languages does not dim inish the im portance of the Glossary. The most interesting feature
of the O xyrhynchus Glossary is that it shows a specific interest in non-G reek or dialectal
words, and this is almost unique in Greek glossography." Moreover, in addition to the lem
mata listed above, the G lossary refers to works on A sia 12 and on Phoenicia .13 It also uses
phrases such as among the Persians 14 or among the C haldeans ,15 which all support the
idea that the author of this Glossary had a strong interest in the N ear East. Given the ex
otic content of the O xyrhynchus Glossary, quotations from Berossos come as no surprise.
B erossos Babyloniaca are quoted tw ice ,16 in these two fragments:
Fr. 5, 20:
Bf|]p<x>ao<; ev y BaPtAeojviaKoov
Berossos in Book Three of the Babyloniaca
Fr. 10a, 9 10:
] QaXaooa Kara rTspoaq. Bripcoccog [
sv] a Ba(3uX,(ovtaKwv.
the sea according to the Persians. Berossos
in Book One o f the Babyloniaca
As a starting point, given the confusion among later authors, it is interesting to note that this
early Glossary cites Berossos work consistently as Babyloniaca rather than Chaldaica and
that it quotes it by book; whoever collected these glosses from Berossos could count on a
good edition, organized in books, of the Babyloniaca.
Before analyzing the fragment that is of some interest for the reception of Berossos, which
is the second and longer one, it is necessary to discuss the second characteristic of this glos
sary: that almost every entry is certified by a quotation or reference to some ancient work.
This relatively short glossary thus becomes a gold mine of lost authors and lost book titles
10 For a discussion, see Schironi 2009, 99-101.
11 For an overview of Greek glossography and foreign languages, see Schironi 2009, 28-42.
12 Fr. 3, i, 10 and 17-18.
13 Fr. 10a, 6.
14 Fr. 5, 13.
15 Fr. 5,6.
16 Plus twice in the same column (fr. 3, iii, 15 and fr. 3, iii, 20) at the end of an entry we read a reference to
what seems to be a work On Babylon: twv | Kara BocPuXwvcc which could be supplemented as [ sv ]|
tcov Kara Ba(3u>aova, in book X of the books on Babylon. This phrase, however, could also mean: of
the people living in Babylon, i.e. the Babylonians. The former solution - that is, a reference to a work
on Babylon - seems to be slightly preferable because the Glossary tends to conclude most of the entries
with a quotation from a textual authority. O f course, this does not imply that the work quoted here is the
Babyloniaca by Berossos, especially because in the other two secure cases where Berossos is quoted
(fr. 5, 20; fr. 10a, 9-10), the title of his work is the usual BapiAcDViaKwv (in the genitive preceded by the
book number) and not xwv r a t a BaPu^abva, as here. Therefore, in this discussion 1 will limit myself to
the two certain Berossan fragments.
 238 Francesca Schironi The Early Reception o f Berossos 239

from the Classical and Hellenistic periods. The list o f the authors and works quoted in the Date Fragment in
Author Title of the work
Glossary is given in Table 1. the Oxyrhynchus
Glossary
Table I: Works and Authors Quoted in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary
Anticlides21 3rd c. BC fr. 3, i, 5

Author Title of the work Autoclides22 Explanations ('E<rp/r|TtK6v) 3rd c. BC fr. 3, iii, 9
Date Fragment in
the Oxyrhynchus Berossos Babyloniaca 3rd c. BC fr. 5, 20; fr. 10a, 9-10
Glossary Callimachus Commentaries (Yjronvrmaxa) 3rd c. BC fr. 3, ii, 15-16

Anonymous authors (no title preserved, name of the author partly in lacuna) Erasistratus On Cookery 3rdc. BC fr. 10a, 7-8
Antenor23 2nd c. BC fr. 2, i, 5
A ... from Rhodes
fr. 11, 3
Apollodorus of Athens [On Gods?; FGrHist 244, F 89] 2nd c. BC fr. 3, ii, 1
Anonymous works (only title preserved, name of the author in lacuna) Hegesander of Delphi Commentaries (Y7to|ivf|}iata)24 2nd c. BC fr. 3, i, 12; fr. 3, iii, 21

On Agriculture (rsmpyuca) Cassius Dionysius of Utica [On Agriculture] 1st c. BC fr. 3, i, 13

fr. 18, 5; perhaps fr.
On Rivers Hestiaeus On Phoenicia 3rd c. BC- fr. 10a, 5-6
fr. 3, iii, 16-17
90 AD25
Scythiaca fr. 3, i, 1
Thessalian Constitution17 fr. 2, i, 8
Work On Asia (Kara Aoiav)? Among all these works, those that we can identify do not go beyond the first century BC
fr. 3, i, 10 and 17-18
or first century AD, with Cassius Dionysius of Utica and perhaps Hestiaeus being the most
Work On Babylon (Kara fr. 3, iii, 15; fr. 3, iii.
BaPuAowa)?18 recent identifiable authors in the list. Most authorities are dated between the fourth and the
second century BC. Whoever collected the entries in this Glossary and chose whom to quote
Work On Libya (Kara tf)v AiPvr|v)? fr. 5, 10
to support them seems to have had access only to authors not later than the first century BC
Authors securely attested in the papyrus, but not securely identified or, at the latest, first century AD. This means that, even though the papyrus is dated to the
second half o f the second century AD, the Glossary itself is almost certainly more ancient.
Asclepiades19
fr. 3, i, 6 Both the topic (odd words from Greek dialects and Near Eastern languages) and the
Dionysius
fr. 3, ii, 20 quotations from erudite literature from the fourth century BC to the first century B C /first
G!aucus Description o f Places Lying Towards fr. 3, ii, 8-9 century AD suggest that the Glossary was written in the late Hellenistic or early Roman per
the Left o f the Black Sea iod. Also, a necessary condition for this type o f work is the presence o f a good library where
Heraclides20 Foreign Language fr. 3, iii, 13 these less-than-ordinary authors could be found. While copies of Homer and Xenophon were
probably quite easy to find everywhere, all the other authorities quoted in the Glossary are
Authors securely attested in the papyrus and securely identified (chronologically ordered) definitely reserved for readers with refined tastes and certainly were not best-sellers in
Homer antiquity. Only royal libraries that aimed at collecting all Greek authors would have had
8th c. BC? fr. 11, 5
And ron War Against the Barbarians them available. Two places meet these qualitative and quantitative criteria: Alexandria
4th c. BC fr. 3, ii, 18-19
and Pergamum .26 Between these two possibilities, Alexandria seems to be the more likely
Aristotle Constitution o f Soli 4th c. BC fr. 3, iii, 6-7 candidate, not only because o f the obvious fact that our papyrus comes from Egypt. In fact,
Aristotle Historia Animalium 4th c. BC fr. 3, ii, 22; fr. 3, iii, 4 the Library of Alexandria was the largest and most famous in the Hellenistic period and the
D(e)inon Persica 4th c. BC fr. 3, ii, 17 Ptolemies supported a policy of systematically collecting all Greek literature, in the widest
Xenophon sense; hence the Alexandrian Library is the place where all the authorities quoted in the
4th c. BC fr. 5,21

17 By Aristotle or Critias? 21 Historian from Athens.

22 Antiquarian from Athens.
18 Berossos Babyloniaca? See footnote 16.
23 Antiquarian from Crete.
19 Given the content of the Glossary the most likely candidates are: Asclepiades of Myrlea (second/first 24 On the kings of Macedonia and Syria.
century BC) or Asclepiades of Cyprus (first century BC?), author of On Cyprus and Phoenicia. 25 The precise dating for Hestiaeus (FGrHist 786) is unknown; the terminus ante quem is Josephus, who
20 The most likely candidates are Heraclides Lembus (second century BC) or Heraclides of Cymae (fourth quotes him.
century BC), author of Persica.
26 For a discussion of these two possibilities, see Schironi 2009, 13-19.
 240 Francesca Schironi
Oxyrhynchus Glossary could most easily be found. There is also further evidence in favour
of Alexandria as the place o f origin for the Oxyrhynchus Glossary.
First, an analysis o f the entries of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary shows that this glossary
on papyrus is very close to the Lexicon o f Hesychius. This is evident from the nine entries
that they have in common, with the difference that those in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary are
richer than those in Hesychius .27 Such sim ilarity is unique, that is, these entries, with the
same lemmata and the same explanations, are not found in any other Greek lexicon except
in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary and in Hesychius. The Lexicon of Hesychius dates back to the
fifth or sixth century AD and represents the summa of Alexandrian lexicography because it
is ultimately derived from the huge lexicon o f the Alexandrian Pamphilus, dated to the first
century AD and now lost. The Lexicon o f Pamphilus was epitomized in various stages (by
Vestinus and by Diogenianus) before being used by Hesychius in the fifth/sixth century AD.
The close and unique sim ilarities between Hesychius and the much earlier Oxyrhynchus
Glossary on the one hand and the fact that the papyrus Glossarys entries are richer than
those in Hesychius on the other make it very likely that the Oxyrhynchus Glossary is also
very close to the lost Lexicon o f Pamphilus. The Oxyrhynchus Glossary could be either a
predecessor of the Lexicon o f Pamphilus, which Pamphilus used, or a lexicon derived from
Pamphilus, an excerpt o f the latter produced in the same environment and around the same
years, as Figure 1 illustrates .28
Oxyrhynchus Glossary
(1st BC/early 1st cent. AD) OR
Lexicon of Pamphilus Lexicon of Pamphilus
(1st cent. AD) (Is*cent. AD) ^ acquired another text that told the stories of the Near East: Berossos Babyloniaca.
Epitome of Vestinus Epitome of Vestinus Oxyrhynchus Glossary
(2nd cent. AD) (2nd cent. AD) (1st cent. AD)
Epitome of Diogenianus Epitome of Diogenianus
(2nd cent. AD) (2nd cent. AD)
Lexicon of Hesychius Lexicon of Hesychius
(5th/6th cent. AD) (5lh/6lh cent. AD)
Second, the Oxyrhynchus Glossary quotes Aristotles Historia Animalium according to a dif
ferent edition than ours, with a different title and a different book division. Twice the papyrus
quotes a passage that in our editions belongs to the ninth book of the Historia Animalium but
the Glossary says that it is to be found in Book Eight of On the Parts in Animals' (ev fj nepi
xwv ev tote; l^opicov) .29 We know that different editions of Aristotles corpus circulated
27 |i8 ^ io o a i ~ Hsch. [i 719; (ic M y io v = H sch. (i 733; |je p |iv a a i ~ H sch. (i 884; |iepoij/ ' H sch.
and nrjrpcu (2) ~ H sch. n 1291; MiOpaq = H sch. n 1335; n iv o 5 o ? u k a o a ' H sch. n 1391; M ivu ai = H sch.
1396; |iivd)8e^ ~ H sch. 1417.
28 For a full analysis of the relationship between the Oxyrhynchus Glossary and the Lexicon of Hesychius,
see Schironi 2009, 43-52.
29 Fr. 3, ii, 22 ApioxoxeXrn; ev rj nepi tow ev toTc; ^cook; |iopico[v] referring to Aristotle, HA 9.13, 615b25,
and Fr. 3, iii, 4 Api[o]ioieX.r|(; ev fj F|?p[i tmv ev xoTi; (boi<; ^opl(ov] referring to Aristotle, HA 9.41,
The Early Reception of Berossos 241
between the Hellenistic and early Roman period .30 In particular, the Alexandrian edition of
the Historia Animalium and the one by Andronicus of Rhodes were organized in nine books,
in which what is for us Book Seven was placed after Book Nine, so what is now Book Nine
was then Book Eight, exactly as in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary. Last but not least, the title
used in the Glossary for this work of Aristotle is interesting. The Historia Animalium is not
referred to with the usual n ep i xcov ^cocov ioxopia. The Glossary, as far as the only complete
entry allows us to conclude ,31 refers to this treatise as On the parts in the animals (Flepi xwv
ev xoit; ^(bou; fioplow). This is a very interesting title, because it is actually the incipit of
the Historia Animalium, which reads: Twv ev xoi^ l^opicov "ta |iev eoxtv aonvBexa, ...,
xd 5e <r6v0eia ...: O f the parts in the animals, some are simple ... some are composite.
Nam ing a work of poetry or prose by its incipit was a typical feature of antiquity and in
particular of the Alexandrian grammarians; for example, in the Pinakes Callimachus listed
both the official titles of books and their beginning; in the case of doubtful, multiple or
lost titles, the incipit was essential to nam e a work .32 Thus the author of the Glossary was
following the Alexandrian book division of Aristotles Historia Animalium and referred to it
according to the practice used at Alexandria.
If we think of the Alexandrian Library as the place of origin of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary,
then it is relatively easy to explain how Berossos could be quoted here. The policy of sys
tematic book acquisition pursued by the Ptolemies was not limited to G reek literature but
included also foreign literature written in Greek, like the Egyptian History of Manetho or
the Septuagint. While an interest in Egyptian history was natural in the Ptolemaic kingdom,
an interest in the Jewish Bible was less so. The effort that the Ptolemies put into having the
Bible translated into Greek to enrich their library testifies to their attention to foreign history
and culture. It is thus not surprising that the Ptolemies took an interest in other cultures and
What is the cultural context in which Berossos is quoted by the Glossary? With the excep
tion of Homer and Xenophon, all the works quoted are not literary works. As we remarked
earlier, the Oxyrhynchus Glossary is not a literary glossary, that is, a glossary conceived
to explain a piece of literature, as for example a glossary of Homer. The authors and works
quoted in the Glossary belong to another type of written texts: ethnography, history, or writ
ings dealing with technical subjects like cults, animals, diet, agriculture, etc. The authors
and works of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary are grouped according to some thematic groups in
Table 2, which shows that the large majority of works deal with foreign ethnography, and
indeed Berossos fits perfectly in this category. He is one among several ethnographers and
antiquarians who dealt with the Near East, which is among the main interests of the glosso-
grapher that put together this text.
The next question is: what is the focus, the attitude of the glossographer towards this
material? None of the glosses derives from fieldwork by the author. Rather, they are the
result of the work of a scholar sitting in his library, a scholar who could consult many differ
ent ethnographic and antiquarian treatises and select all the exotic glosses, which he then
886; (jrjipai (1) collected in his Glossary. The Oxyrhynchus Glossary is thus a bookish, erudite product of
a learned man working in a very rich library, most likely the Alexandrian Library. In this
627b33.
30 See During 1950, who (ibid., 50) thinks of at least three editions for the Historia Animalium.
31 Fr. 3, ii, 22 Apiaxoxe^r|c; ev fj nepi xwv ev xoic; (boi<; |aopico[v].
32 Cf. Call., fr. 433, 434, 436, 443, 444, 449 Pf.; see Blum 1991, 153 and 157.
242 Francesca Schironi The Early Reception o f Berossos 243

context, the real focus is ethnographic, not linguistic: the glossographer collected words of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary that I have proposed (end of first century BC -first halt of first
from all over the ancient world without distinguishing between different languages. Thus, century AD), the Glossary is more or less contemporary with these two authors. However,
the Glossary does not make any distinction between a word taken from a Greek dialect and unlike Polyhistor and Juba, the Oxyrhynchus Glossary gives us a richer context tor under
a non-Greek foreign word. The selection criterion adopted for the words lemmatized in the standing who was interested in Berossos and why.
Oxyrhynchus Glossary is the fact that they are strange. In other words, the Oxyrhynchus
Glossary is a collection o f mirabilia, though in the format and with the content of a glossary. Alexander Polyhistor
Alexander Polyhistor (c. 110-40BC) came from M iletus to Rome as a prisoner in the First
Table 2: Works and Authors quoted by the Oxyrhynchus Glossary according to topics M ithridatic War (89-85 BC ) . 34 He became the slave of a Cornelius Lentulus, was then freed
and became a Roman citizen in 81 BC. Titles of at least twenty-five works by him are known
Greek history and antiquarianism - Thessalian Constitution
- On Rivers
and this is why he was called Polyhistor. Suidas describes him as a gram m arian, pupil of
- Andron, War Against the Barbarians Crates ,35 but this must be taken with a pinch of salt: Polyhistor could not possibly have
- Autoclides, Explanations ( E^r|yr|xiic6v) been a direct pupil o f Crates of Mallus because Crates lived a century before Polyhistor .36
- Anticlides Thus, Polyhistor must belong to the Cratetean School. Given that Crates visited Rome and
Foreign ethnography - Hestiaeus, On Phoenicia lectured there in 168 BC, in theory there might have been Cratetean followers in Rome and
- Scythiaca so Polyhistor could have become a second-generation pupil of Crates in Rome. However,
- Aristotle, Constitution o f Soli
- Berossos, Babyloniaca
Polyhistor arrived at Rome around 85 BC when he was about twenty-five years old. At this
- D(e)inon, Persica age, he had probably already completed his education, and Pergamum seems the most likely
- Glaucus, Description o f Places Lying Towards the candidate for his Cratetean background. Even if the scholarship and librarians of Pergamum
Left o f the Black Sea are less known than those of Alexandria, we know that Pergamum was an active cultural
- Hegesander, Commentaries (Y7iojj.vf||j.aia)
- Work On Babylon (Kaxa BapiAojva)?
centre in the first century BC 37 and Alexander Polyhistor may have been educated there .38
- Work On Asia (Kara Aoiav)? Polyhistor could have gained access to the work of Berossos either in Pergamum or in
- Work on Libya (Kaxa xf)v Atpi3r|v)? Rome. A copy of the Babyloniaca could have reached Rome in 8 6 BC when Sulla brought
Greek religion - Apollodorus [On Gods]? with him the library of Apellicon of Teos (who collected rare books beyond those by
Philology and history of Greek literature Callimachus, Commentaries (Y;iO|4.vr||j.<xia) Aristotle), or around 67 BC when Lucius Licinius Lucullus opened to the public his library,
which was part o f the booty from the Third M ithridatic War (73-63 BC). Polyhistor could,
Linguistics Heraclides, Foreign Language
however, have read Berossos already in Pergamum. Not only was Pergamum geographically
Biology, agriculture, and diet - Aristotle, Historia Animalium
close to Babylonia, but Pergamene scholars like Crates had long taken an interest in the Near
- Erasistratus, On Cookery
- Dionysius of Utica, [On Agriculture?] East and in the Chaldeans :39 Crates pupil Zenodotus of Mallus even thought that Homer was
- On Agriculture (recopyiKd) a C haldean 40 We might even speculate that Polyhistor brought with him a copy of Berossos
from Pergamum to Rome.
Given that Pergamum and Alexandria were the greatest libraries of the Hellenistic and
Berossos in the O xyrhynchus G lossary early Roman periods, it is plausible that both of them had a copy of Berossos: the one in
In the Glossary Berossos is thus quoted as a source o f linguistic m irabilia\ exotic glosses, Pergamum might have been used by Alexander Polyhistor, and the one in Alexandria might
among the crowd o f other ethnographers and antiquarians, most of whom have not been have been used by the compiler of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary.
preserved by the m anuscript tradition, exactly like Berossos. Even if the Glossary does not
preserve any of the lemmata where Berossos is quoted and only a handful of the entries, it
34 On Alexander Polyhistor, see Jacoby, Komm. FGrHist 273; Christes 1979, 38-42; Troiani 1988.
is clear that its main interest is linguistic ethnography.
35 Su. a 1129 = FGrHist 273 T 1: AAii;av8po<; o Mi?a]oioq ... x\v 5e ypappaxtKOt; xwv Kpdxrjxoi; pa0r|xd)v.
Indeed, I would like to suggest that the very fact that Berossos is quoted in the ouxoq oDveypa\|/ pipA.ouq dpi0|iou Kpeixxoui;. ... [Alexander of M iletus:... He was a grammarian of the
Oxyrhynchus Glossary in part explains his lack of success in ancient times. We know that group of Crates disciples. He wrote books beyond counting ... ].
Berossos is largely ignored by Greek sources, which always preferred Ctesias as a source 36 Crates lived in the first half of the second century BC, while Polyhistor is dated between 110 and 40 BC.
for Babylonian history.13 Among the authors who quote Berossos, the earliest ones and also 37 Cf. Kuttner 1995, 162.
the only ones who directly used Berossos are Alexander Polyhistor and Juba of Mauretania, 38 Christes 1979, 38-40 seems to share this view. Jacoby, Komm. FGrHist 273, 249, however, thinks that
the phrase pupil of Crates does not indicate any real affiliation to the Cratetean School but rather indi
active between the first century BC and the early first century AD. If we accept the dating
cates Polyhistors range of interests, which were closer to those of Crates than to the more philological
interests of the Alexandrians.
33 Cf. Drews 1973, 116; Kuhrt 1987, 32-33; Kuhrt 1995, 63-4. On Ctesias, see Drews 1973, 103-16 and 39 Cf. Broggiato 2001, 181.
Kuhrt 1995, 60. 40 Cf. Sch. AT ad'V 79 b (ex.); see Wachsmuth 1860, 28; Pusch 1890, 150-1; Maass 1892, 187; Helck 1905, 7.
 244 Francesca Schironi
Berossos and Paradoxography
Even though Alexander Polyhistor - linked to Asia Minor and Rome - and the author of
the Oxyrhynchus Glossary - probably linked to Alexandria - lived and worked in very
different environments, they seem to have some interesting characteristics in common. As
Lucio Troiani already suggested, Polyhistor was writing more as a paradoxographer than as
a serious historian .41 Indeed Photius knows Polyhistor as a paradoxographer and not as a
historian:
Phot. Bibl. 189 p. 145 b 38 = FGrHist 273 T 5
xwv im o A ^e^avS pou TtapaSo^tov a u v eilsy ^ sv co v ...
A m ong the in cred ib le th in g s collected by A le x a n d e r .. ,42
Other ancient sources like Suetonius 43 and Suidas 44 call Alexander Polyhistor a gram m ar
ian, not a historian. This description o f Polyhistor as a gram m arian and paradoxographer
is reasonable in the light o f ancient genres: paradoxographic literature was the realm of
gram m arians rather than serious historians. Ever since Thucydides, fabulous storytelling,
myths and wonders were not considered appropriate to history:
Thuc. 1.21.
[ . . . ] ek Ss xwv eiprinevw v xK|ir|piwv djiox; x oiauxa a v Tiq vojii^cov ndX iaxa a 5trjI0ov o i)/
a n a p x a v o i, Kai ouxe co<; 7totr|xai i)|xvf|Kaai 7tepi auxobv 7ti xo |it^ov Koa(iouvxe<; (aaAlov
7ttoxt3(ov, oi)xs A.oyoypdcpoi uve0aav 87ti xo 7ipooaywyoxpov xrj a K podasi f\ aX.r|0axpov,
ovxa av^A.yKxa Kai xd noXXa im o xpovou auxw v a7uaxcoc; 7ti xo |j.u0g)8<; KVvtKr)KOxa,
[... ] 22. [... J Kai <; (iv aKpoaatv iaoo^ xo fxf) |i\)0w5<; aikwv axp7toxpov (pavEtxar ...
H ow ever, if, on the basis o f the ev idence p ro d u ced , one th in k s th at the events th at I exposed
w ere m ore o r less o f such m ag n itu d e, he could not be m istak en , w ith o u t tru stin g m ore w hat
the p o e ts have su n g about those events e m b e llish in g and m ag n ify in g them , o r w hat the logo-
g rap h ers put to g eth e r in order m ore to please the e ar than tell the tru th . T h e ir a cco u n ts are
d ifficult to disprove and for the m ost p a rt, due to the passin g o f tim e, have w on th e ir w ay into
the fabulous beyond b e lie f ... and the lack o f fabulous from m y w ork w ill p erh ap s seem less
attrac tiv e to the ear.45
Even if not all later historians followed Thucydides strict methodology ,46 collections of
mirabilia were developed as a separate genre by another type of scholars: the gram m arians.
41 Cf. Troiani 1988,20-1.
42 Cf. also FGrHist 273 T4 = Phot. Bibl. 188 p. 145 b 28 9.
43 Suetonius, De Gramm. 20 = FGrHist 273 T3: ... Cornelium Alexandrum grammaticum Graecum ...
[Cornelius Alexander, Greek grammarian],
44 Cf. footnote 35.
45 Cf. also Polybius 9.1.
46 For a very good analysis of the various types of historical writings in antiquity, see Gabba 1981. I would,
however, distinguish between the genre of paradoxography and that of 'false history. In antiquity it
seems that a false historian - that is, a historian who tells lies - was still considered a historian; how
ever, collections o f mirabilia, especially by authors who had a wide variety of interests (like Callimachus
or Polyhistor), were another matter and did not belong to the genre of historiography.
The Early Reception of Berossos 245
Ancient gram m arians were not devoted only to the study of language. They were philolo
gists, collectors of proverbs and strange words, hunters of obscure stories about places,
rivers and cults. The poet Callimachus with his many works on rivers, islands and names of
cities is considered the founder of the so-called ethnographic philology. More interesting
for us, Callimachus was considered also the Tipooxoc; eijpif|<; of the genre of paradoxography
and two titles testify to this: Collection o f Wonders o f the Entire Earth O rdered According
to Places (OaupaxoDV xcbv ei<; anaoav xr)v yfjv Kaxa xonovq ovxtov o\)vaywyf|) and On the
Wonders and the Incredible Things o f the Peloponnese and Italy (nepi icov sv neta) 7iovvfiocp
Kai Tca^ia Baupaoicov Kai 7ia p a 8 o^(ov) ,47 even if the latter might only be a sub-title indicat
ing a specific section of Callim achus collection of m irabilia 48
As others have noted, the scanty fragments of Polyhistor provide no evidence in favour
of a serious historiographic program 49 Moreover, the titles and topics covered by Polyhistor
(shown by Table 3) confirm that he did not dedicate him self only to historical writings.
Interestingly enough, Polyhistors titles overlap in topics with the works quoted by the
Oxyrhynchus Glossary, where we found many ethnographic treatises and works o f scholar
ship like Callim achus H ypomnemata or Apollodorus On Gods. This coincidence sug
gests that the compiler of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary and Alexander Polyhistor were both
interested in ethnographic paradoxography and curiosities covering mythology, literature,
and various other erudite topics .50 Berossos is thus quoted by scholars who do not have a
specific interest in history or linguistics but are interested in mirabilia and curiosities from
faraway countries .51
47 Cf. Su. k 2 2 7 ... [titles of works by Callimachus] ... Kxioeu; vfjotov Kai jt6A,ewv Kai pexovopaoiai, nepi
xwv sv Eupwjrri Ttoxapwv, nepi xcov ev ne^ojtovvricw Kai 'IxaWa Oaupaaiwv Kai TtapaSo^wv, nepi
pexovopaoia<; ixOuwv, nepi avepwv, nepi opvewv, Flepi xcbv ev xrj okoupevri Tioxapwv, aupaxwv xwv
eiq arcaoav xf)v yfjv Kaxa xojiou^ ovxwv ouvaycoyf). For a survey of paradoxographers from Callimachus
to the Imperial age, see Giannini 1964.
48 Cf. Giannini 1964, 1 0 5 -9 .
49 Troiani 1988, passim, and especially 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 2 - 3 , 3 7 -9 .
50 Already Jacoby suggested that Polyhistor was a follower of the ethnographic philology, as initiated
by Callimachus, but not limited to his school. Cf. Jacoby, Komm. FGrHist 2 7 3 , 2 5 2 -3 ; Troiani 1988, 14
and 20.
51 Syncellus (Eel. Chron. 2 8.17 = FGrHist 6 8 0 F lb) accuses Polyhistor of having inserted mirabilia in
the original text of Berossos: Ek xon AXe^dvSpou xou notaricxopoi; rcepi xwv 7ipo xou KaxaKA.uapou
Paoi^euoavxcov SeKa (3aoiA.ewv xcbv Xa^8aicov Kai ai)XOt5 xoi) KaxaK^uapoi) Kai 7tepi xou Nwe Kai
xrjq ki(3cdxou, ev oiq Kai Tiva 6ia heoou TxpatcoSti cpaoKSi (bq ftp Bt]p(booto ysypannEva [From
Alexander Polyhistor concerning the ten kings of the Chaldeans who reigned before the flood and the
flood itself, and concerning Noah and the ark, in which he also inserts some fabulous stories, as if
w ritten by Berossos ]. Similar is the accusation of Eusebius (FGrHist 6 8 0 F la, from the Armenian
version of Eusebius Chronicle). However, these two particular texts cannot be used as evidence for
Polyhistors interest in mirabilia, as Johannes Haubold rightly pointed out to me. Eusebius and Syncellus
had an agenda in reading Berossos, i.e. that of confirming Biblical history; therefore, all the monsters
or similar wonders which were present in Berossos (for example in the creation story) had to be con
sidered by them as mirabilia extraneous to the real and original Berossos. This is why Eusebius and
Syncellus considered them as inserted by the pagan Polyhistor. On these two passages, see also Troiani
1988, 16-17.
246 Francesca Schironi The Early Reception of Berossos 247

Table 3: Works by Alexander Polyhistor according to topics Euseb. PE 9, 17 -39 = FGrHist 273, F 19a

Mirabiha Collection o f Marvellous Things o noXmoTtop AX,^av5po<; ... dq sv Tfj rispi Ioi>8aiwv aovTd^st Ta Kaxa to v A P paap to u to v
i<TTopi K ara to v Tpo7iov v xcp Ile p i lo v d a ito v ... (18) Apxamxvoq
Foreign ethnography Aegyptiaca
8 e (prjoiv v toT<; IoDdaiKoiq . . . (19) ... T oaaina o notanaTwp ... (21) ... d7ua)^sv 8s 7ta^tv
On Bithynia
jii tov rioA.maTopa. Arm^Tpio*; tpijai . . . . (22) raura jiot KstoOa) and ifj<; AXs^dvSpoo to o
On the Euxine Sea
On the Illyrian Region noM oTopo<; ypaqjfj^,... ( 2 3 ) ... ra s^rjg jrspi to o lcoar|(p sk rrjc; aikfjc; to o noXmaropoq ypatpf]<;
Indica sjncn)vf|(p0or ApTa;ravo<; 56 <pii<nv v xtp I ls p i Ioi)6auov tw A Ppad|i Ia)of)(p a7toyovov
On the Jews ysv ea O a t. . . (25) ... aKoos Ss ota Kai nspi to o Iobp o avxoq tcTopsv Apicm:a<; 56 (pijaiv v
Italica xcp Il p i lo v S a ito v . . . (26) Tooaora Kai 7tspi tootcov o Ilo^oloTcop. [ . . . ]
On Caria
On Cilicia
A lexander ... who in the treatise On the Jew s records this story about A braham verbatim as
Cretica
On Cyprus follows: In On the Jews Eupolemus [says] . . . in the work on Judaea A rtapanus says
Libyca These things [says] Polyhistor. [ ...] . L ets go back again to Polyhistor: Dem etrius says ... . I
Lyciaca quote this from the w ritings o f Alexander Polyhistor. [ ...] . As for what happens next regarding
Periplous o f Lycia Josephus, lets follow closely what Polyhistor writes: In On the Jews A rtapanus says that
On Paphlagonia Josephus was a descendant o f A braham [ ...] . And listen also to what he him self (Polyhistor)
On Rome records about Job: In On the Jews A risteas says ... so Polyhistor [says] about these things.
On Syria
Collection o f Things about Phrygia
Chaldaica In these examples - among many others 52 - Polyhistor seems to compile his work by quoting
Greek religion - On the Oracle in Delphi his sources verbatim. He first introduces the name of the author he quotes from, and then
adds a speech-introductory verb; the quotation is thus turned into indirect speech. This way
Philology and history of Greek literature - On the Typical Linguistic Usages o f Aleman
- Commentaries on Corinna of introducing an authority recalls the phrasing of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary:
Philosophy and philosophical doxography - Successions o f Philosophical Schools ((Pdooocpcov Fr. 3, ii, 15-22:
diadoxai)
- On Pythagoric Symbols 15 |asA.cp8ta f] TpaycpSta to xaXaiov sXsyeTO (bq v Y;to-
jiv i^ a m v .
(j,svs(xavt to oSwp 7tapa TOtq n sp aau ;. Aeivcov [v - Ilpoi]K v.
(isp(^vd8at oi Tptop/ot Tiapa AoSotq. AvSpwv &[v ~ Ilpi xofi noXs-
The way in which in his fragments Polyhistor phrases his quotations shows his attitude
fiov xofi npd<; Toi>q pappapouq. (
extremely well:
20 |^spo 7isc; oi acppovsi; imo EoPoswv. A iovvaioq v [
Steph. Byz. s.v. 'Aj3ioi = FGrHist 273, F 14: l^epoV stSoq opvsoo OTtsp avTSKTpsq>st Tooq K[etpsvou<; svSov TOKsaq (vel yovsaq)
ApiOXOXf;}^ v X\ Il p i x v v xoiq ^tpoiq fiopiw[v
'A (3toi . . . A l t ^ a v S p o q 8 s e v tw f l e p i E o ^ s i v o o FIo v t o d (pTjtriv, o x ; A io < p a v x o q u t v ootoo

^ sy ea O a t aoT ou q 5 ta to t o v A p t a v o v 7 to T a |i6 v o ik s iv ...

Melodia: tragedy was so called in antiquity, as Callim achus (says) in
the Commentaries.
Abioi ... in the work On the Euxine Sea A lexander says that Diophantus said that they are M enemani: w ater among the Persians. D(e)inon in Book ... of the Persica.
thus called because they occupy (the area of) the river Abianos M erm nadai: hawks among the Lydians. Andron in Book ... o f On the War
Against the Barbarians.
Josephus AJ 1.240 = FrGrHist 273 F 102: Meropes: foolish men by the Euboeans. Dionysius in ...
Merops: a type o f bird that in return feeds its own parents, who lie inside.
laapropsT 5s ^ou tw ^oyco AXii;av5poq o Ilo^DiaTojp ^sytov ovTtoq- K>.68imoq 8 e (pqciv
A ristotle in Book Eight of On the Parts in Animals.
o 7rpotpfiTr|(5,o Kai MdA.xoq, iaxopwv r a F lsp i 'IouSaicov, KaOwi; Kai Mcouafji; io x o p r io s v o
vo(io0ETr|(; auTcov, o n sk xrjc; KaTOupa<; APpa^io) sysvovT O 7taT8s<; k a v o i . . .
As we have already remarked, in most of the Glossarys entries the lemma is followed by
the translation, which usually also gives the ethnographic origin of the word. The entry
A lexander Polyhistor testifies to what I am saying when he says: the prophet Cleodemus,
ends almost invariably with the quotation of the sources for the gloss, which testify to the
who is also [called] Malchus, and who wrote a history of the Jews, in agreem ent with Moses,
their lawgiver, says that there were many children born to Abraham by K eturah
52 Cf. also FGrHist 273 F29 = Steph. Byz. s.v. AcppoSmidq; FGrHist 273 F60 = Steph. Byz. s.v. "Y^ctnoi;
FGrHist 273 F68 = Steph. Byz. s.v. Tdyypa; FGrHist 273 F72 = Steph. Byz. s.v. Qpamoq. On the ver
batim quotations of Polyhistor, see Troiani 1988, 20-1, and Wacholder 1974, 46-9.
248 Francesca Schironi
correctness o f the information given in the entry. Each entry in the Glossary and each piece
of information in Polyhistor is thus certified by the quotation of an ancient learned work.
This way o f quoting verbatim is typical of scholarship and philology, and not of historiog
raphy because real historians normally tend to rework their sources in a more critical way,
as Polybius reminds us :53
Polybius 9.2:
rioAAmv yap Kai n o X X a x & q ^r|pt0pr|pevG)v id xs raspi m q yevsaXoyiaq Kai pu0ou<; Kai nepi
xuq a n o iK ia q , s n 5e auyyevsiag Kai Kiiasi^, X,oi;rdv i] ra (W^oxpia Sei k t y s i x (bq I5ia tov
vvv nepi to v tw v TipaypaxEDopEvov, o ^avTtov <mv alo/ioT ov, f\ toijto pf| (3oi)A.6psvov
jrpo8riXo)g p a ia i0 7 i0 v tv .
Since many have recounted in many ways the question o f genealogies, m yths and colonization
and also the relationships [among people] and the foundations [of cities], for a contem porary
historian dealing with these questions it is left either to repeat other peoples words as if they
were his own - and nothing could be more sham eful than this - or, if he refuses to do so,
to clearly toil in vain.
Polyhistor does exactly what Polybius condemns: he shows very little reworking of his
sources, which he quotes almost directly. W hile this way of proceeding by direct excerpts
is good for modern scholars who want to recover the fragments of lost authors quoted by
Polyhistor, it also shows how limited Polyhistors own intellectual autonomy is. His lack of
independent research together with his strong interest in mirabilia makes him extremely
similar to the author o f the Oxyrhynchus Glossary, who - as we have seen - proceeds in
exactly the same way.
This confirms my point on the early reception of Berossos: Berossos does not seem to
be an author for real historians but rather for gram m arians or more generally learned
antiquarians, interested in mirabilia and whose main activity consisted in excerpting from
ethnographers and erudite literature of the Hellenistic period. The only meaningful fragment
from Berossos in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary is a good example:
Fr. 10a, 9-10:
] 0aA,aaoa Kaxa flepaat;. Bf|pcoaaog [
ev] a Ba(3u>.amaKwv.
the sea according to the Persians. Berossos
in Book One o f the Babyloniaca
The lemma in the glossary is missing. The entry defines it as the Persian for sea, but the
Old Persian word for sea is drayah, and it would be hard to accommodate a lemma starting
with 8 - among the entries preserved in the Glossary, which cover letters K-p. It thus seems
more likely that the gloss refers to a different word, which could be considered Persian by
a glossographer who was not very skilled in linguistics but was very much interested in the
Near East. A clue comes from another fragment of Berossos:
53 Cf. Drews 1973, 122.
The Early Reception o f Berossos 249
Georg. Sync. Eel. Chron. 29.22 FGrHist 680 F 1 h (6), p. 370.21:
yevsoOat cpr|oi xpovov, ev co to n a v ck o x o q Kai u 5p eivai, Kai ev xouxcp C,wa xepaid)8r|,
Kai i5iocpi)eT<; xaq iSeai; exovxa ^cooyoveTaOai [ ... ] 30.4 apx^tv 5e toijtmv Ttavxcov yuvauca
fj ovopa OpopKa-54 eivai 5s xouxo Xa^Sa'icm psv 0aA,ax0, 'E U r|v iax i 5e pe0eppr|veija0ai
Q a X ao ca.
He [i.e. Berossos] says that there was a tim e w hen everything was darkness and water, and
prodigious creatures with peculiar forms were then alive ... [He says that] over them all ruled
a woman whose name was Omorka; and that this in Chaldean is Thalatth, and in G reek it is
translated as T halassa.
This quotation, taken from Georgius Syncellus, expressly says that the story is taken from
the first book of the Babyloniaca by Berossos .55 This reference is consistent with what we
find in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary, which quotes Bf|pa>aaoc; | sv a BaPu^toviaKcbv. As for the
lost lemma, on the basis of what Syncellus says, one possibility could be that it read OaAmB,
and another could be OpopKa, both of which mean sea in Greek. Both could work, but for
various reasons 56 OpopKa seems the better option.
If that is correct, it is striking to find the same fragment of Berossos in two differ
ent and unrelated works: the Oxyrhynchus Glossary and Syncellus, a Byzantine monk and
the author of a world-chronicle in 810 AD. Syncellus ultimately derived his knowledge of
Berossos from Polyhistor, transm itted to him through Eusebius of Caesarea. However, I
would discount the possibility that the author of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary took his quota
tion of Berossos from Polyhistor. In fact, the Glossary seems to be almost contemporary
with Polyhistor, and its Alexandrian origin makes it quite difficult to connect it with him.
Moreover, the entire Glossary seems to quote directly and without intermediaries from its
sources m aking it unlikely that it used Berossos through Polyhistor.
The coincidence between the Glossary and Syncellus can, however, be explained other
wise. The passage is taken from Book One of the Babyloniaca where Berossos deals with
the creation myth. Among all the topics treated by Berossos the creation myth was the most
appealing to a Greek scholar because Greek mythology too had its own creation story. In
fact, while Berossos historical sections and chronology were completely unfam iliar to a
Greek audience, the Babylonian history of creation would have been perceived as a m yth,
hence closer to existing Greek literature and so more likely to raise interest. Moreover, the
monsters, offspring of Omorka, were particularly appealing to scholars and compilers inter
ested in mirabilia, like Polyhistor and the author of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary. It is thus not
unlikely that both authors read the work of Berossos directly and decided that that passage
was worth excerpting. In addition, the fact that the Wortlaut of Berossos (if Syncellus -
via Polyhistor - has preserved it correctly) sounded like a lexicon-entry itself ( a woman
whose name was Omorka; and this in Chaldean is Thalatth, and in Greek it is translated
as Thalassa ) would of course have attracted the compiler of the Glossary immediately.
54 Not 0(iopcoKa, as in Syncellus. Cf. FGrHist 680 F i b , p. 371.26 (apparatus). Omorka is the name ot the
woman, who, according to Berossos, ruled over the first living monstrous beings and was then killed by
Bel.
55 Cf. Georg. Sync. Eel. Chron. 28.21.
56 Fora full discussion, see Schironi 2009, 122-4.
 250 Francesca Schironi
Juba of Mauretania
Another reader who seems to have used Berossos directly is king Juba II of Mauretania, who
was born in 50 BC and probably died in 23 AD. He was a little younger than Polyhistor and
was brought to Rome by Caesar. He was raised there and then sent to M auretania in 25 BC
to become king. His literary activity was similar to that of Polyhistor with his interests rang
ing from history to ethnography to literary studies, as the list (Table 4) of his known works
attests :57
Table 4: Works by Juba o f Mauretania according to topics
Roman history and antiquarianism - Roman Archaeology (or Roman History)
Foreign ethnography - On Libya
- On Arabia
- On Assyria
- The Wanderings ojHanno
Philology and history of Greek literature History o f Theatre (eaxpiKT) toxopia)
Linguistics - Similarities ('0(X0i0Tr|T8<;)
Botany and herbal drugs - On Euphorbion
Art history - On Painting (or On Painters)
Poetry - Epigrams
Juba used Berossos for his book On Assyria. W here could he have found Berossos work?
Juba could certainly have used the epitome o f Polyhistor. However, he may also have read
Berossos directly, at least if we trust a fragment from Tatian, who says that Juba, writing
about the Assyrians, says that he learned their history from Berossos .58
If Juba wrote On Assyria in his youth and read Berossos directly, he could have consulted
Berossos at Rome. It is tempting to speculate that Juba read the copy of Berossos owned
by Alexander Polyhistor, who had just finished his epitome a few years before .59 Another
possibility, however, is that Juba owned a copy of Berossos in his own library, which he
established in his court at Caesarea in M auretania .60 We know that his library included
Pythagorean writings and also a Punic section. The latter shows the ethnographic interests
of the king, who certainly used books on Punic history and culture for his treatise On Libya
57 On the intellectual activity of Juba, see Gsell 1927; Garcia Garcia 2000; Roller 2003, 163-82.
58 Tatian, Or. adv. Gr. 36 = FGrHist 275, F4: Br|pcoa6<; 5e ean v avf]p iKavd)taxo<;, Kai toutou TK|if|piov
Io(3a<;, dq Tiepi Aooupicov ypaqxov 7iapa Btipwoofi (prjoi Hfia0T]Kvai xrjv icropiav.
59 The two might even have met because both Juba and Polyhistor appear to have been close to Octavians
circle. If the reconstruction proposed by Roller 2003, 61-4, is correct, Juba, after being captured, was
raised in Caesars household and, after Caesars death, Octavia, the older sister of Octavian, took care
of him. Polyhistor, for his part, was the teacher of Hyginus, the future librarian of Octavian, who also
belonged to the household of Octavian (cf. Christes 1979, 72-82; Roller 2003, 64-5). Polyhistor then
visited Octavians house as a tutor; if Juba belonged to that household, the two could have met. However,
the difference in age (Juba would have been a child while Polyhistor was an old man around 40 BC)
makes it impossible that the two could ever have established any serious intellectual relationship.
60 On the library of Juba, see Gsell 1927, 171-2, and Roller 2003, 158-9, who makes various guesses about
its contents.
The Early Reception o f Berossos 251
and The Wanderings o f Hanno. It is not unlikely that a copy of Berossos could have been
obtained by Juba in Mauretania, possibly having it copied from the Alexandrian exemplar.
Juba could then have worked on the treatise On Assyria using the resources of his library
alone. Roller, however, suggests that perhaps the work On Assyria was not a separate mono
graph but rather a part of the treatise On Arabia,M written after Juba joined Gaius Caesar as
a counsellor on an expedition to Antioch, Gaza, and Petra around 2 BC .62 According to him ,63
On Arabia was probably composed at the court of Archelaus of Cappadocia at Elaiussa
Sebaste, where Juba stayed between 2 and 5 AD. If this is correct, and if On Assyria was
indeed part of this work, Juba might have found a copy of the Babyloniaca in the library of
Archelaus. Given the eastern location of Elaiussa Sebaste in Cilicia, close to the original
place of composition of Berossos work and also close to Pergamum with its library, it seems
likely that a copy of Berossos was available there.
To conclude, Juba could have read Berossos in at least three places: 1) at Rome, if he
wrote On Assyria in his early age (was it the copy used by Alexander Polyhistor?); 2) in
his library (was it a copy from Alexandria?); 3) at Elaiussa Sebaste (was it a copy from
Pergamum?).
W herever Juba had the occasion to read Berossos or an epitome of his work, his in
tellectual profile fits in the picture already outlined for Polyhistor and the author of the
Oxyrhynchus Glossary. Juba seems to be rather more independent from his sources in that
he does not limit him self to verbatim quotations from other authors like Polyhistor and
the author of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary .64 However, like these other two scholars, Juba is
attracted by faraway countries and shows an interest in barbaric languages , just like the
compiler of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary .65 In fact, Juba wrote a work called Similarities in
which he tried to derive Latin words from Greek and hence to prove that Latin was a form of
Greek .66 His other works on the History o f Theatre and On Paintings also make him some
thing other than what the ancients would have labelled as a historian.
The topics covered by Jubas works are very close to those of Polyhistor and to those
quoted by the Oxyrhynchus Glossary, and Jubas interest in foreign ethnography reinforces
our previous conclusions about Berossos early reception: Berossos is quoted by a scholar
who is neither a serious historian nor particularly interested in preserving the Babylonian
past. Juba is interested in collecting mirabilia, probably with the aid o f copyists excerpting
his sources .67
61 Cf. Roller 2003, 237-8.
62 On this expedition, see Roller 2003, 212-26.
63 Cf. Roller 2003, 221, 222, 248.
64 The only case where Juba quotes another authority is FGrHist 275 F24, where he refers to the historian
Sulpicius Galba (born c. 75-65 BC).
65 Cf. Gsell 1927, 170-1.
66 Cf. Roller 2003, 170-3. Jubas efforts to see Latin as a Greek dialect are similar to those of his near
contemporary Philoxenus, who wrote a treatise to show how Latin was in reality a form of Aeolic. See
Giomini 1953 and Gabba 1963. This was the only way Greeks could ennoble - and accept - a foreign
language: making it somewhat Greek. Even if Juba is neither a Greek nor a Roman, but a barbarian
from Africa, he too follows this pattern, probably because of his philhellenic education. Similarly, the
Oxyrhynchus Glossary does not seem to recognize the Chaldean, Babylonian and Persian glosses as
words belonging to foreign, independent languages worthy of serious linguistic attention: for the glos-
sographer they are just exotic curiosities.
67 Cf. Gsell 1927, 190; Garcia Garcia 2000, 422.
 252 Francesca Schironi
Conclusion
To conclude, Berossos was directly consulted by the compiler of the Oxyrhynchus Glossary
and Alexander Polyhistor and most likely by Juba .68 All these authors approached his text
as a source o f mirabilia, not specifically as history. This approach is typical of the Greek
authors dealing with foreign peoples and becomes particularly common between the first
century BC and the first century AD, when scholars educated in the Hellenistic schools of
Alexandria and Pergamum find themselves working for the Roman Empire. The Romans,
who were expanding towards the east, were hungry for stories about these faraway, barbaric
lands. Both Juba and Polyhistor responded to Roman demand when writing ethnographic
philology about many o f these foreign countries. However, I would like to suggest that
exactly the breadth o f their intellectual interests and their love for ethnographic mirabilia
restricted them (and Berossos) to a particular type of readership. Polyhistor and Juba were
perceived as very learned men, but fundam entally as gram m arians and paradoxographers,
which meant that those who wanted to w rite history in the Graeco-Roman world did not
consult them. Even though Polyhistor and Juba did preserve not only m ythic and incred
ible stories, but also original Babylonian king-lists as is certainly the case with Polyhistor ,69
people who wanted to have accurate historical facts were not likely to read them.
Thus, historically-m inded readers would never have heard o f a barbarian author like
Berossos; rather, their point o f reference was the Greek Ctesias. No m atter what modern
scholars think about Ctesias reliability, he was widely recognized in antiquity as the his
torian o f Persia and Assyria. Berossos was not successful among serious Greek historians
because his style differed from what a Greek audience expected of a historian. Even though
Berossos wanted to reach a Greek audience and in part imitated Greek historiographic style,
his account lacked many o f the ingredients, such as vivid narrative, speeches, or anecdotes
that would have captured the interest o f a Greek audience .70 His excerptors Polyhistor,
Juba and the author o f the Oxyrhynchus Glossary sealed Berossos fate. Being prim arily
excerptors, they could not improve on Berossos style and make it more appealing to a
Greek readership because they ju st recopied Berossos excerpts almost verbatim. Moreover,
they belonged to a very particular genre: paradoxography, the genre of mirabilia. This was
Berossos final death-sentence. Even if Berossos did not write his Babyloniaca with the
goal o f am using his readers with exotic wonders, he became associated with mythical
stories and odd names. I hope to have shown that this was due at least in part to Berossos
68 According to Schnabel 1923, 169-71, the work of Juba was known to Didymus of Alexandria (see Su.
i 399); it was only through Juba, then, that Berossos was known at Alexandria and used by Pamphilus
for his Lexicon in the second half of the first century AD, not because a copy of the Babyloniaca
was present in the Alexandrian Library. Schnabels theory was founded on the only instance where
Hesychius quotes Berossos (Hsch. o 169 = FGrHist 680, F 13; see Dossin 1971). However, now this one
entry in Hesychius quoting Berossos finds at least two striking parallels in the Oxyrhynchus Glossarys
quotations of Berossos. It is thus more plausible that the Hesychian entry shares the same origin as the
Oxyrhynchus Glossary, i.e. that it belongs to the oldest core of the Lexicon of Hesychius (see Hansen
2005, ad Hsch. o 169) and attests to a time when lexicographers (Pamphilus? Or the compiler of the
Oxyrhynchus Glossary?) could check their entries against the original authors, Berossos in our case,
whose text was present in the Alexandrian Library.
69 Cf. FGrHist. 680 F3a (p. 377, 27-8); FGrHist. 680 F3b (p. 377, 11); FGrHist. 680 F5a.b (p. 383.25-384.1);
FGrHist. 680 F 7c (p. 386.31); FGrHist. 680 F 9b (p. 392.22) = FGrHist 273 F 79.
70 Cf. Burstein 1978, 9-10; Verbrugghe/Wickersham 2000, 31-4.
The Early Reception of Berossos 253
early reception, which was in the hands of authors perceived as gram m arians dealing with
ethnographic philology, if not real paradoxography. The genre to which Polyhistor and Juba
belonged precluded a more widespread interest for Berossos.
With time only a very select group of readers took the pains of taking Polyhistor and Juba
seriously and transcribed them in their own works: these were the Jews and Christians of
a much later era, who found that Berossos history overlapped with the history told in the
Old Testament. They also were detached enough from Graeco-Roman categories o f literary
genres to look at Polyhistor, Juba and Berossos as more than conveyors of exotic oddities.
But that is another story.
References
Blum 1991
R udolf Blum, Kallim achos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins o f Bibliography, translated
from the G erm an by Hans H. Wellisch, M adison 1991.
Broggiato 2001
M aria Broggiato, Cratete di Mallo, Ifram m enti. Edizione, introduzione e note, La Spezia 2001.
Burstein 1978
Stanley M ayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f B erossus, Sources fro m the A ncient N ear East 1 / 5
(1978), 143-81.
C hristes 1979
Johannes C hristes, Sklaven und Freigelassene als G ram m atiker und Philologen im antiken Rom,
W iesbaden 1979.
Dossin 1971
Georges Dossin, La glose sarachero dH esychius, Bulletin de la Classe des lettres et des sciences
morales et politiques. Academ ie royale de Belgique 57 (1971), 389-99.
Drews 1973
Robert Drews, The G reek Accounts o f Eastern H istory, Cambridge, M A 1973.
Diiring 1950
Ingem ar D uring, Notes on the History o f the Transm ission of A ristotles W ritings, Goteborgs
H ogskolas A rsskrift 56 (1950), 37-70 [R eprint in: H. K urfess/I. D uring (eds.), A ristotle a n d His
Influence: Two Studies (New York - London 1987)].
Gabba 1963
Emilio Gabba, 11 latino come dialetto greco, in: M iscellanea di studi alessandrini in m emoria di
Augusto Rostagni, Turin 1963, 188-94.
Gabba 1981
Emilio Gabba, True History and False History in Classical A ntiquity, Journal o f Roman Studies
71 (1981), 50-62.
Garcia Garcia 2000
Alicia Garcia Garcia, Un autor casi desconocido de la literatura griega: Juba II, rey de M auritania,
in: Emilio C respo/M aria Jose Barrios Castro (eds), Actas del X Congreso Espahol de Estudios
C lasicos:2I-25 de septiem bre de 1999, volume 1, M adrid 2000: 415-23.
G iannini 1964
A lessandro G iannini, Studi sulla paradossografia greca. II. Da Callim aco all'eta imperiale: la
letteratura paradossografica, Acme 17 (1964), 99-140.
Giomini 1953
Remo G iom ini, II gram m atico Filosseno e la derivazione del latino dalleolico, La Parola del
Passato 8 (1953), 365-76.
254 Francesca Schironi

Gsell 1927
Stephane Gsell, Juba II, savant et ecrivain, Revue qfricaine 68 (1927), 169-97.
Hansen 2005
Peter Allan Hansen, H esychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Volumen III [n-c], B erlin - New York 2005
Helck 1905
Joannes Helck, De Cratetis Mallotae studiis criticis, quae a d Iliadem spectant, Diss. Leipzig 1905
Hunt 1922
A rthur S. Hunt, P.Oxy. 1802, in: B ernard P. G ren fell/A rth u r S. Hunt (eds.), The Oxyrhynchus
Papyri, vol. 15, London 1922, 155-62.
K uhrt 1987
Amelie K uhrt, B erossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia, in: A melie K u h rt/S u san
M. Sherwin-W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East: The Interaction o f G reek a n d non-G reek
Civilizations fro m Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, Berkeley - London 1987, 32-56
K uhrt 1995
Amelie K uhrt, A ncient M esopotam ia in Classical G reek and Hellenistic T hought, in: Jack M.
Sasson (ed.), Civilizations o f the Ancient N ear East, vol. 1, New York 1995, 55-65.
K uttner 1995
A nn Kuttner, Republican Rome Looks at Pergam on, H arvard Studies in C lassical Philology 97
(1995), 157-78.
M aass 1892
Ernst Maass, Aratea, Berlin 1892.
Pusch 1890
Herm ann Pusch, Quaestiones Zenodoteae, Diss. phil. Halens. XI, Halle 1890, 119-216
Roller 2003
Duane W. Roller, The World o f Juba II and Kleopatra Selene: Royal Scholarship on R o m es African
Frontier, London - New York 2003.
Schironi 2007
Francesca Schironi, P.Oxy. 4812 G lossary (more o f XV 1802), in: Dirk O bbink/N ikolaos Gonis
et al., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXXI, London 2007, 53-66.
Schironi 2009
Francesca Schironi, From Alexandria to Babylon. N ear Eastern Languages a n d H ellenistic
Erudition in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary (P.Oxy. 1802 + 4812), Sozomena 4, Berlin-New York 2009.
Schnabel 1923
Paul Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig 1923.
Troiani 1988
Lucio Troiani, Sullopera di Cornelio A lessandro soprannom inato Polistore, in: id., D ue studi di
storiografia e religione antiche, Biblioteca di A thenaeum X, Como 1988, 7-39.
V erbrugghe/W ickersham 2000
Gerald P. V erbrugghe/ John M. W ickersham, Berossos a n d Manetho, Introduced a n d Translated:
Native Traditions in A ncient M esopotamia a n d Egypt, Ann A rbor 2000.
W acholder 1974
Ben Zion Wacholder, Eupolemus: A Study o f Judaeo-G reek Literature, C incinnati 1974.
W achsmuth 1860
K urt Wachsmuth, D e Cratete Mallota, disputavit adiectis eius reliquiis C. W., Diss. Leipzig 1860.
From Berossos to Eusebius -
A Christian Apologists Shaping of Pagan Literature'
Irene M adreiter (Leopold-Franzens Universitat Innsbruck)
... sit at home and read the Law, and the Book o f K ings and the Prophets,
and the Gospel the fulfilm ent o f these. But avoid all books o f the heathen.
For what hast thou to do with strange sayings or laws or lying prophecies?2
The passage quoted above, from the so-called Didascalia Apostolorum, a Christian treatise
of the third century AD ,3 advises its readers to attend to the word of the Lord and the Holy
Scripture, but to keep away from classical philosophy or historiography. The authors invec
tive against pagan 4 literature is at odds with the evidence that shows a revival of Greek
tradition of the fifth and fourth centuries BC .5 Educated Christians and Jews were highly
interested in ancient texts, as is shown by the book collections and libraries that were put
together at the time. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 265-339 AD) was a member of the learned
elite that used older texts in theological controversies, in order to confirm the priority and
superiority of Eastern cultures in comparison to Greeks, pagans or gentiles .6
Eusebius has not always fared well with historians. Jacob Burckhardt, in his mono
graph about the age o f Constantine, called him the worst historian ever and even a blatant
liar .7 This verdict has changed in the last sixty years, with Eusebius coming to be seen as
an important source for the reconstruction of otherwise lost ancient works like Berossos
Babyloniaca. Eusebius is generally regarded as a faithful excerptor of his source material.
His trustw orthiness in this respect has been stressed in several recent studies .8 Despite this
positive judgm ent, however, there are clear indications that Eusebius did modify his sources
1 I thank Robert Rollinger, Kordula Schnegg, Birgit Gufler and Martin Lang for their helpful sugges
tions. Abbreviations of ancient authors and works follow the Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. Simon
Hornblower and Anthony Spawforth (Oxford 19963), xxix-liv.
2 Didasc. Apost. 1 5 -6 ed. Funk; Conolly 1929, 11-12.
3 It pretends to be written by the twelve apostles, but was actually a composition of around 230 AD origi
nating in North Syria; cf. Conolly 1929.
4 I use the term pagan in awareness of its pejorative connotations in a non-religious sense, to denote
non-Christian cultures in general. The equation of pagan and Hellenic seems to coincide with the
beginning of late antiquity, cf. Bowersock 1990, 10.
5 E.g. movements like the Second Sophistic or Neo-Platonism.
6 E.g. Josephus Flavius Contra Apionem I 215: Our (i.e. Jewish) antiquity is sufficiently established by
the Egyptian, Chaldean and Phoenician records.
7 Burckhardt 1853, e.g. 346: The Life o f Constantine is an inimitable work of dishonesty and deliberate
meagreness and esp. 375: He is the first thoroughly dishonest historian ot antiquity . Already Josephus
Scaliger had formulated a similar critique: Many are the hallucinations, many the errors of Eusebius.
No one has written with less caution, none has presumed more on the indulgence of his readers than our
author, cf. Scaliger 165 82, 417. On Eusebius worth as a historian see also Winkelmann 1991, 9-10.
8 E.g. Oden 1978, 115: it has been demonstrated that Eusebius preserves and transmits his sources with
extreme care; recently Inowlocki 2004, 30528; Inowlocki 2007; Carotenuto 2011; see already Henry
256 Francesca Schironi
for his own purposes, though his treatment o f Berossos in particular has not yet attracted
much attention. This chapter seeks to address the following questions: (1) do the polemical
or apologetic elements o f some Eusebian works affect the shape or meaning o f the original?
And (2) what are the consequences for the reconstruction of the Babyloniaca and the inter
pretation o f the extant fragments? The first section of this paper gives a brief overview of the
biographical background o f Eusebius and the environment of Caesarea that influenced his
thinking. I will then go on to discuss the nature of Eusebius Chronicle and his Praeparatio
evangelica which both contain fragments o f Berossos. A close examination o f the borrowed
material will serve to highlight his handling of the sources. Additionally, Eusebius Berossos
fragments will be compared with parallel texts in Josephus to elucidate the adaptation o f
specific themes. Finally, 1 raise the question o f what function Berossos had in Eusebius
wider argument. This is connected with his view of history and the intention o f his works.
Life and works of Eusebius
Some biographical data
We have surprisingly little information about the life o f Eusebius, considering he held the
high offices of bishop o f Caesarea and metropolitan of Jerusalem. Beyond what we can infer
from his own writings, we rely on scattered references in several Christian authors .9 A bio
graphical work entitled Life o j Eusebius by A cacius , 10 the successor o f Eusebius on the see,
is unfortunately lost. As a consequence, nothing is known about Eusebius origins, and even
his date o f birth cannot be determined with certainty, though most m odern scholars think
of the time between 260 and 265 AD." Eusebius was born into the Christian rather than the
pagan population group o f Caesarea Maritima, for he relates in a letter to his congregation
in Caesarea 12 that he had received a Christian education.
In the 280s he became a pupil o f the presbyter Pamphilus 13 who managed a Christian
school in Caesarea that was perhaps a re-establishment of the school of Origen. Because of
his closeness to Pamphilus, Eusebius was given the surname Pam phili, which effectively
made him the spiritual son and heir o f Pam philus .14 In 313 or 314 AD, Eusebius was elected
bishop of Caesarea and metropolitan of Jerusalem .15 Some opponents like Athanasius 16 sus
pected him o f Arianism but the facts o f the m atter are unclear today. At any rate, Eusebius
1935, 16ff.; Mosshammer 1979, 138ff.; Barnes 1981, 119; 341; Kofsky 2000, 82; cf. also Eusebius own
statement that he value(s) the truth above all else in Euseb. Chron. p. 2, 35-6 Karst.
9 Jerome, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenus, Theodoretus; also Athanasius, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia
and Alexander of Alexandria. Some information about his life may be gleaned from writings of his dis
ciple Eusebius of Emesa (Sermo IV, adv. Sabellium); Wallace Hadrill 1960, 11; Mosshammer 1979, 31.
10 Cf. Socrates, Hist. eccl. II 4; the vague reference to the biography without even mentioning its content
indicates that Socrates (mid-5th century AD) had not read it himself.
11 Schwartz 19572, 495-6; Wallace Hadrill 1960, 11; Winkelmann 1991, 16; Winkelmann 2003, 3-4;
Carriker 2003, 17-18; Barnes 2009, 2.
12 Euseb. Vit. Const. Ill 6-21; Athanas. De deer. 33; Opitz 1934, no.22.
13 Mosshammer 1979, 31; Barnes 1981, 93-4; Carriker 2003, 18-19.
14 An actual adoption or even enslavement by Pamphilus, as was suggested following Photius (Ep. 73),
seems to be unlikely; Wallace Hadrill 1960, 11-12; Carriker 2003, 19-20; Barnes 2009, 2.
15 Euseb. Hist. eccl. X 4; Winkelmann 1991, 52; Barnes 2009, 3; the bishops of Caesarea were metropoli
tans of Jerusalem until 325 AD.
16 Archbishop of Alexandria from 328-73 AD; Athanas. A p o l.ll, 10; 87, 1; Athanas. De deer. 33.
From Berossos to Eusebius A C hristian A pologists Shaping o f Pagan Literature
seems to have been sympathetic towards at least some of A rius ideas .17 Having almost been
excommunicated for heresy, Eusebius submitted to the Nicene Creed , 18 probably in 325,
when he also played a prominent role at the council of Nicaea. In these and the following
years he seems to have been held in high esteem at the court in Constantinople , 19 though he
met the emperor only four or five times, and always in the company of other bishops .20
There are no reliable records concerning the final decade of Eusebius life, but we do
know that he was engaged in various clerical activities, such as the councils of Tyre and
Constantinople. He also participated in the celebrations of the em perors tricennalia in July
336, where he delivered a speech to Constantine .21 Socrates and Sozomenus place Eusebius
death before the death o f Constantine in 340;22 the Syriac m artyr-acts date it to 30th May
339/40 AD .23
Eusebius and Caesarea
Eusebius had a lifelong connection to Caesarea Maritima. The unique multicultural environ
ment of this town influenced not only his career but also his intellectual development.
The town itself was founded in the Hellenistic age and initially bore the name Pyrgos
Stratonos (i.e. Stratons Tower) .24 Since the citys re-foundation under Herod the Great
(r. 37-4 BC), when it took on the name of Augustus Caesar, Caesarea was one of the seven
Roman colonies of the province Iudaea .25 By the third century AD, Caesarea had a popula
tion of about a hundred thousand and was economically prosperous .26 It was home to sizable
Jewish and especially Samaritan minorities, as well as Greeks and Romans. Greek was the
common language and the degree of Hellenisation among the inhabitants was high .27 Such
ethnic, religious and cultural diversity was typical of major cities of the Roman Empire but
unique within Palestine. Through the activities of the theologian Origen (185/6-254) and the
school of his follower Pamphilus, Caesarea became a centre of Christian learning ,28 as schol
ars applied the methods of Alexandrian philology to the study of the Bible. In the third and
17 E.g. Socrates (Hist. eccl. II 2, 1) denies that Eusebius was a follower of Arius. Wallace Hadrill 1960,
33ff.; Winkelmann 1991, 54ff.; Barnes 2009, 3.
18 Compare his above-mentioned letter to the congregation in Caesarea, in which he explains his change
from Arianism to the Nicene creed: Athanas. De decr33; Opitz 1934, no. 22; Barnes 1981, 226.
19 Eusebius has even been called a eulogist of Constantine, cf.Burckhardt 1853, 346; Schwartz 19592, 499;
contra Winkelmann 1991, 146-7; Barnes 2009, 1-2.
20 Barnes 1981, 266-7; Barnes 2009, 1, 4: Eusebius met Constantine on four occasions: at the councils of
Nicaea (325), Nicomedia (327/28), Tyros and Constantinople (336).
21 This speech is added to his Life o f Constantine, cf. editions and translations by Winkelmann 2008 and
Cameron/Hall 1999.
22 Socrates Hist. eccl. II 4; Sozom. Hist. eccl. Ill 2; as Acacius is bishop of Caesarea at the council of
Antioch, the year 341 is a terminus ante quem for the death of Eusebius, cf. Sozom. Hist. eccl. Ill 5.
23 Lietzmann 1911, 11 ; B a r n e s 2009, 2 dates Eusebius death one year earlier, on 31 May 338/39 AD.
24 Latin turris Stratonis, a discussion of the towns history is found in Carriker 2003, Iff. and Patrich
2011, 1-24; see also e.g. Raban/Holum 1996, Belayche 2001, 173ff., and the excavation reports of the
American Schools of Oriental Research.
25 Tacitus (Hist. II 78) calls the town ludaeae caput.
26 Exposit. totius mundi et gentium 26; 31 (trade with purple, glass, oil and wine); Winkelmann 1991, 241f.;
Barnes 1981, 82-3; Patrich 2011, 2.
27 Belayche 2001, 173 notes that (at least some of?) the Jews even prayed the Shema Israel in Greek.
28 Caesareas Christian community presumably had a history reaching back to apostolic times but no
bishops are attested before about the year 190 AD; cf. Barnes 1981, 82-3.
 258 Irene M adreiter
fourth centuries, Caesarea also had Hellenistic and Jewish schools, where famous teachers
offered an education in rhetoric, literature and law .29
On his deathbed, Origen had made a bequest of his private library to the citys Christian
community .30 Together with the books o f his patron Ambrosius, Origens library formed
the core o f the collection that Pamphilus established and Eusebius continued. Isidore o f
Seville states that the library consisted o f 30,000 scrolls (triginta voluminum millia) during
Eusebius lifetime, though J. Carriker suggests that the number of volumes was actually con
siderably smaller .31 The collection included theological literature like O rigins Tetrapla and
Hexapla but also important philosophical works, especially by Plato and the Neo-Platonists,
Greek historiography and official documents and letters. Strikingly, it contained little by way
of classical poetry and oratory .32 Eusebius frequent use of ancient material reflects the easy
access he had to the w ritten heritage o f Greece and Rome.
Eusebius literary activity
A relatively large portion o f Eusebius extensive literary production has been preserved ;33
though individual works can only be dated very approximately .34 Throughout his oeuvre,
Eusebius makes extensive use o f quotations from earlier sources. For the most part it is
not clear if he had complete editions of the source texts at his disposal, or if he consulted
them directly. Almost 250 extracts from Greek and Latin sources, half of them otherwise
unknown, are transcribed word for word. The transcribed passages are not always free from
errors, due either to defective texts or to the work of incompetent assistants in the school. In
addition to verbatim quotations we find some hundred summaries, which Eusebius appears
to have jotted down from memory and without checking the original text .35
As well as responding to anti-Christian attacks in several apologetic works ,36 Eusebius
was principally concerned with placing the Christian faith in the context of pagan tradi
tions. Without going into much detail here, Eusebius is especially known for his Church (or
Ecclesiastical) History ,37 a continuous account of the Christian Church from its origins to
the Great Persecution and its afterm ath .38 Another very influential work was the so-called
29 E.g. the school of Rabbi Abbahu (died 309 AD); Winkelmann 1991, 23; Patrich 2011, 4.
30 See also the detailed account of the foundation and development of the library in Carriker 2003, 2ff.; the
location and size of the library are still unknown, Carriker 2003, 30-1.
31 Isid. Etym. VI 6, 1; Carriker 2003, 31-6,
32 Carriker 2003, 311-12; Winkelmann 1991,23-4.
33 See the overview in Barnes 2009, 4ff.
34 Cf. the different chronological tables of Eusebius works in Wallace Hadrill 1960, 39-58; Barnes 1981,
277-9; Winkelmann 1991, 188-91; Carriker 2003, 37-41; Barnes 2009, 3ff.
35 According to F. Winkelmann (1991, 60) and J. Carriker (2003, 151-2; 313-14) Eusebius had no direct
access to works of Greek or Roman historiography such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Sallust or
Tacitus.
36 E.g. Against Hierocles, Against Porphyry and the Apologv for Origen; Barnes 1981, 164ff.; Winkelmann
1991, 36; Kofsky 2000, 58-73; Barnes 2009, 10-11.
37 Ed. Winkelmann 1999 in GCS NF6, 1-3; English edition by Lake/Oulton 1926/32; context e.g. in
Barnes 1981, 129ff.; Barnes 2009, 5-7. It shows a close connection to the Chronicle, which it presup
poses; see Barnes 1981, 120, 130; Barnes 2009, 4-5.
38 See the recent fresh approach of Verdoner 2011; and, more generally, the collection of Inowlocki/
Zamagni 2011 and the forthcoming volume of Johnson/Scott 2012.
From Berossos to Eusebius A Christian A pologists Shaping o f Pagan Literature
Life o f Constantine P which was no biography in the usual sense, as the title might suggest,
but a panegyric designed to praise the emperors support of the Christians and his patronage
of the clergy and church .40
Only two of Eusebius works contain fragments of Berossos: the Preparation for the
Gospel and the Chronicle, the latter only preserved in fragments. The Chronicle is a descrip
tion of universal history from the birth of Abraham to Eusebius own day .41 The first edition
is traditionally dated prior to 300 AD, but R. Burgess argues convincingly that it was actual
ly written between 306 and 311 A D .42 This dating makes the Chronicle more apologetic 43 in
character than is usually allowed.
In the introduction, Eusebius gives as one of his aims to reprove the boasting of vain
glorious chronographers 44 who claimed to predict the apocalypse. His revisionist approach
is reflected in the bipartite structure of the work. The first part, entitled Chronography
(Xpovoypaqna), contains an epitome of universal history from ancient sources, arranged
according to the nations which to Eusebius mind had been most significant for mankind:
the Chaldaeans, Assyrians, Medes, Egyptians, Persians, Hebrews, Greeks and Romans. He
tabulates the reigns of their respective kings and offers critical discussions of their systems
of calculation. The result is a comparative chronology that enables him to detect errors in his
sources. As Eusebius states in the Historia Ecclesiastica, the Chronography was intended as
the raw material for a complete chronology of world history .45
This is realized in the second part, called the Canons (XpoviKoi Kavove <;),46 which
furnishes a synopsis of the historical material. The continuous prose of the first part is
abandoned in favour o f parallel vertical columns. Here we find Eusebius own conclusions
about the chronological problems raised in the Chronography. His calculations start with
the birth of Abraham, here reckoned as the year 2017 BC. From the year 776 BC the Greek
Olympiads are taken into account. Eusebius had to simplify the different chronological sys
tems and equated all dates with the civic Syro-Macedonian year of Caesarea .47 It is generally
agreed that any dates before the middle of the eighth century BC are almost pure fiction
and historically worthless. For later periods, scholars disagree on the basis of Eusebius
39 Cf. editions and translations by Winkelmann 2008 and Cameron/Hall 1999; interpretations by Barnes
1981, 265ff.; also Barnes 2009, 7-8.
40 Barnes 2009, 7. The biased presentation of the emperor and his deeds have given Eusebius a bad reputa
tion among modern historians.
41 Eusebius him self describes the work as putting together historical canons and setting against them an
epitome of the manifold history of Greeks and barbarians (XpoviKoix; mma^xvTEi; Kavovcn;, e7monr|v
tc TOiJTOiq 7iavTo8 ajtfii; ioxopiag 'EUrivcov xe Kai (3ap(3apcov avTmapaOevisq), cf. Euseb. Eel. Proph. 1,
27. The second edition extends to the vieennalia of Constantine in July 325 AD. See the recent short
description in Barnes 2009, 4-5; also Wallace Hadrill 1960, 155ff.; Winkelmann 2003, 4.
42 Burgess 1997 , 471-504, esp. 495: completed not before 306, concluded 311 AD; Adler 1992, 467; Burgess
1999, 21; Barnes 2009, 5 with short discussion of the different publication dates.
43 For the apologetic dimensions of the Chronicon see Barnes 1981, 111-20; Burgess 1997, 488-95; Kotsky
2000, 38-9; Adler 2006, 152ff.
44 Euseb. Chron. p. 1, 25- p. 2, 19 Karst; Winkelmann 1991, 90/91.
45 Euseb. Hist. eccl. I 6 and Sync. Eel. Chron. 122; see also the introduction to the Canons in Jeromes
translation (praef. 8 ed. Helm): in priori libello (i.e. the Chronography) quasi quondam materiamfuturo
operi omnium mihi regum tempora praenotavi.
46 Burgess 1999,21-112.
47 The Syro-Macedonian year of Caesarea was a Babylonian calendar with Macedonian month names,
unusually starting the year on October 3; Burgess 1999, 281f.
 260 Irene M adreiter
calculations .48 Strikingly, the columns o f the different civilisations gradually decrease in
number, from a maximum of nine spread over two pages to two on a single page: the Romans
and the Hebrews. A fter 70 AD only the Romans remain because Eusebius thought of the
destruction o f the temple in Jerusalem as the end of Jewish history. After the birth o f Jesus,
church history is also included as are events o f local Caesarean history. Eusebius evidently
chose the format to illustrate the progress o f human civilisation from the polyarchy and
polytheism o f the past to the monarchy and monotheism of the present.
The Chronicle was extended (even by the author him self49), adapted, translated and epito
mized from early on, and the original Greek text was entirely supplanted by the seventh cen
tury. That m eans the Chronicle does not have a continuous manuscript tradition of its own
but survives in secondary versions, one in Latin by Jerome ,50 at least two abbreviated ver
sions in Syriac 51 and several Armenian m anuscripts .52 All of these are based on the second
edition o f Eusebius Chronicle which was completed in 325/26 AD .53 Despite the loss o f the
Greek original, it too can to some extent be reconstructed from later chronographers of the
Byzantine school. O f special importance is the detailed paraphrase o f the Chronography by
the m onk George Syncellus who composed his own chronographical work at the beginning
of the ninth century A D .54 The main problem o f the different versions is that none is suffi
ciently accurate to be considered the work of Eusebius himself: any attempt at reconstruction
remains somewhat conjectural .55
The second work that contains fragments o f Berossos is the Preparation fo r the Gospel
(Praeparatio evangelica), composed between 314 and circa 321 AD .56 It has rightly been called
the culmination of Greek apologetic literature 57 because it responds fully to contemporary
48 Burgess 1999, 29. Eusebius chronology for the early Roman imperial period is accurate because the
regnal year is treated as equivalent of a full calendar year, but cf. op.cit. 36ff. on Eusebius errors in the
Canons, especially concerning the period after 260 AD.
49 On the dates of these reworkings see Wallace Hadrill 1955, 248-53; Adler 1992, 481-2; Burgess 1999,
21 .
50 Jerome only translated the Canons (edited about 380). His translation seems (at least in parts) to be closer
to the original Eusebian text than the Armenian versions, see Winkelmann 1991, 94; Mosshammer 1979,
29-30 and 37-8, 67ff.; Burgess 1999, 90ff. expresses reservations.
51 Keseling 1917 (= 1921) 8ff. discusses abbreviations of, and changes to, the original Canons', he dates
the first Syriac versions in the lifetime of Jerome (op. cit. pp. 3-4); Burgess estimates the value of these
versions as very high, cf. 1999, 26 n. 12; he also mentions two Arabic works of the 10th and 11" century
that depend on Syriac sources.
52 The first part of Eusebius Chronicle has been preserved in Armenian, though with lacunae, errors
and a completely reworked structure, Mosshammer 1979, 79ff.; the oldest Armenian manuscript may
reach back into the fifth century: Drost-Abgarjan 2006, 256; end of the sixth century: Karst 1911,
XXXVII-XXXVIII.
53 For the availability of the written tradition today see Mosshammer 1979, 29-83; Barnes 1981 112ff.;
Winkelmann 1991, 89ff; Adler 1992, 481ff.; Drost-Abgarjan 2006, 255ff.
54 Adler 1992, 473; Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 29-30.
55 Burgess 1999, 26ff: Burgess (op. cit.) compares reconstructing a smashed glass goblet that has been
mixed with broken glass from other objects.
56 Barnes 1981, 178ff.; Kofsky 2000, 74-5; Barnes 2009, 8; Inowlocki 2011, 199ff.; Johnson 2006, 11:
313 AD, soon after Eusebius became bishop.
57 Winkelmann 1991, 37, 46-7; Gallagher 1993, 251ff.; Frede 1999, 223ff.; Johnson 2004, 2 3 -4 and id.
2006, 11; Iricinschi 2011, 69ff.
From Berossos to Eusebius A C hristian A pologists Shaping o f Pagan Literature
theological controversies and discussions .58 O f the Praeparatio itself all fifteen books are
preserved, whereas of its sister book (the Demonstratio evangelica), only the first ten of origi
nally twenty books are extant. About seventy per cent of the Praeparatio consist of passages
of earlier pagan works, many of them otherwise unknown .59 These quotations do not so much
reflect Eusebius interest in these works as his ambition to overwhelm his readers with as
much support as possible for his claim that Hebrew culture (understood as proto-Christian)
was superior to that of the Greeks.
Eusebius had two main concerns: an argumentative concern that can be seen in the selec
tion o f topics and a pedagogical concern aimed at recently converted Christians. He gives
a description of the development of m ankind 60 to ground the allegedly young religion in a
secure and meaningful past. The claim to antiquity 61 is needed on the one hand to confirm
Christianitys legitimacy in the context of Graeco-Roman culture, but also to strengthen it
vis-a-vis the claims to precedence of Jewish religion. In support of his argument Eusebius
distinguishes the true spiritual heirs o f the Hebrew patriarchs 62 - the Christians - from
illegitimate pretenders such as the Jews .63 The Praeparatio thus develops a common iden
tity for the Christian community through an account of its past and through constructing a
sustainable line of descent .64
The material from Berossos is used in the second half of the Praeparatio ev a n g e lic a l
where Eusebius defines Old Testament beliefs and compares them with Greek conceptions
to establish the superiority of the Old Testament. In this connection, Eusebius cites Berossos
several times but these quotations do not increase our knowledge of the Babyloniaca, since
they are excerpts o f Josephus and Tatian .66 According to A. Johnson, Eusebius used a lan
guage of foreignness to mark the boundary between Christians and non-Christian, barbar
ian cultures like Egyptians or Phoenicians .67 As will be demonstrated in the following sec
tion, he also used Berossos to exemplify the folly of pagan theology, oracles and divination.
But let us start with the problem of defining the original phrasing and precise boundaries of
the fragments attributed to Berossos.
58 It is often interpreted as a response to Porphyrys Against the Christians', Carriker 2003, 44; Kofsky
2000, 17ff, 250; Barnes 2009, 8; Morlet (2011, 119ff.) argues against exaggerating the importance of
polemics against Porphyry.
59 Winkelmann 1991, 48; Johnson 2004, 24-5; Johnson 2006, 13. The high quantity of quotations reduced
Eusebius originality as a creative author, as his work was seen merely as a literary storehouse or gold
mine for missing works, e.g. Wallace Hadrill 1960, 138; Barnes 1981, 184; Kofsky 2000, 81-2; Inowlocki
2011 , 201 - 2 .
60 Winkelmann 1991, 46ff.; Carriker 2003, 44; Iricinschi 2011, 71.
61 The question of the greatest antiquity of a certain culture was not invented by Eusebius but can be
traced back to Kastor of Rhodes, Apollonius, Eupolemos, Philo of Byblos and even Berossos and
Manetho, cf. Oden 1978, 120ff.; Adler 1983, 422-3; Winkelmann 1991, 48-9; Kofsky 2000, 243.
62 Therefore, the Hebrew patriarchs are presented as proto-Christians, see Kofsky 2000, 102ff.; Johnson
2006 and Iricinschi 2011, 84-5.
63 Gallagher 1993, 254ff 260; Iricinschi 2011, 72.
64 Winkelmann 1991, 48; Kofsky 2000, 100ff.; Johnson 2004, 23ff.; Johnson 2006, 14-15.
65 Praep. evang. IX 10, 7-11, 4; IX 13, 5; IX 16, 2; X 10, 3; X 11, 8-9; there is no fragment of Berossos in
the Demonstratio Evangelica.
66 Josephus: A J I 93; A J I 107; A J I 158; A J X 219ff; Ap. I 131-53; Tatian Ad Gr. 36. Compared with the
overall number of quotations in the Praeparatio, Eusebius uses Berossos sparingly.
67 Johnson 2006, 5Iff.; Johnson 2007, 95ff.
 262 Irene M adreiter From Berossos to Eusebius A C hristian A pologists Shaping o f Pagan Literature

Berossos Babyl. Quoted in Eusebius and/or Contents of fragments,

W hat is to be called a fragment of Berossos in Eusebius? Frg. no.69 book via Josephus or Syncellus70 kind of reproduction (N / L)71
The table below depicts the distribution o f Berossos fragments within Eusebius (and Chron. p. 15, 11-20 Karst List of reigns of Chaldaean and Achaemenid
F 10 (=10) 3
Syncellus) and their respective contents. Eusebius provides us with fourteen fragments (plus kings (Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes); (L)
four testimonies) out of a total of twenty-six fragments attributed to Berossos Babyloniaca,68 Chron. p. 21ff.Karst = Praep. Nabopolassar; Nebuchadnezzars campaigns in
F 8a (=8) 3
the equivalent o f about fifty-four per cent o f the preserved fragments o f the work. If one evang. IX 40, 1-2 = Joseph AJX Egypt and Palestine; sack of Jerusalem; (N)
compares these figures to Syncellus who epitomized Eusebius, we count only five fragments 219ff. = Joseph Ap. I 131-144
(plus four testimonies), the equivalent o f nineteen per cent of the total number of twenty-six (= Sync .Eel. Chron. 416, 6ff.)
fragments. Thus, Eusebius Chronicle and his Praeparatio evangelica are undeniably im F 9a (=9) 3 Chron. p. 23, 4ff. Karst = Praep. Death of Nebuchadnezzar; reigns of Amel-
evang. IX 40, 3-12 = Joseph Ap. Marduk, Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk,
portant sources for reconstructing Berossos Babyloniaca, though it should be noted once
I 145-53 Nabonidus; Cyrus subdues Asia; conquers
again that there is no reference to Berossos in the second part of the Chronicle, the Canons', Babylon; (N)
nor is he mentioned in the sister book o f the Praeparatio, the Demonstratio evangelica, or Remains of the ark still exist in Armenia - are
F4c(=4b) 2 Praep. evang. IX 11 = Joseph
indeed any o f the other apologetic works o f Eusebius, or the Historia ecclesiastica. That is, AJ 193 used as talismans in Berossos lifetime; (N)
Eusebius refers to Berossos extremely rarely within his oeuvre as a whole. List of sources used by Eusebius (Manetho,
F 14 (=14) 2 Praep. evang. IX 13, 5 = Joseph
AJ I 107 (= Sync. p. 78, 12ff.) Berossos, Jerome, Hecataeus etc.) (L)
Table 1: Berossos-fragments mentioned in Eusebius Berossos mentions Abraham without naming
F 6 (=6) 2 Praep. evang. IX 16, 2 = Joseph
AJ I 158 him; (N)
Berossos Babyl. Quoted in Eusebius and / or Contents of fragments,
Frg. no.69 book via Josephus or Syncellus70 F 8c (=8) 3 Praep. evang. X 10, 3 Different views on the duration of the exile of the
kind of reproduction (N/L)71
Hebrews, Cyrus ends Babylonian captivity; (L)
F 3a (=3) 2 Chron. p. 4, 8-p. 6, 8 Karst = Ten antediluvian kings and the duration of their
F 8b (=T 2) 3 Praep. evang. X 11, 8-9 = Nebuchadnezzar campaigns against Phoenicia
Sync. Eel. Chron. 71, 3-13 reigns; antediluvian sages; (N) and Judaea; (N)
Tatian Ad Gr. 36 = Clem. Al.
F la (= 1) 1 Chron. p. 6, 8-p. 9, 2 Karst = Presentation of author and sources, geography Strom. I 122.1
Sync. Eel. Chron. 49, 19-50, 9 of Babylonia; creation of the world, Oannes; Nabonassar destroys the historical records of
F 16a 2 Sync. Eel. Chron. 389, 20
antediluvian sages; creation of the universe and kings before him, therefore the enumeration of
(=16a)
men by Belos; (N) Chaldaean kings starts from him.
F4a (=4b) 2 Chron. p. 10, 17-p. 12, 16 Karst Detailed account of the flood story (Xisouthros);
= Sync. Eel. Chron. 53, 13-19 (N)
F5a(=5a)
W hat we now believe to be parts of Book 2 and 3 of the Babyloniaca dominate in Eusebius
2/3 Chron. p. 12, 17-p. 13, 18 Karst Lists of postdiluvian kings; tyrants of the
Medes; Chaldaean and Arabian kings; quotations. He adopts nine passages of the Babyloniaca into the Chronicle and seven into
Semiramis; Phoulos, Sennacherib; (L) the Praeparatio evangelica (one passage o f these is used in both works). Josephus serves
F7c (=7) 2/3 Chron. p. 13, 18- p. 15, 4 Karst Deeds and valour of Sennacherib, Merodach- as intermediary for Eusebius on six occasions 72 but he does not use all the Berossos-
Baladan; campaign against the Greeks in Cilicia; fragments quoted by Josephus ;73 From the Jewish Antiquities he adopts four passages into
Nebuchadnezzar-Sardanapal los / Nabopolassar: the Praeparatio evangelica and one into the Chronicle (one passage o f these is used in
fall of Assyria; (N) both works). From the Contra Apionem he borrows twice in the Chronicle and twice in the
F 9b (=9) Chron. p. 15, 5-10 Karst List of reigns of Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Praeparatio evangelica (again, one passage of these is used twice).
Nabonidus; his battle against Cyrus; (L) If we look at what topics o f the Babyloniaca interest Eusebius, it becomes clear that he
considered Berossos as an authority for the earliest phase of Mesopotamian history, as the
borrowed passages cover cosmogony, anthropogony and the Mesopotamian kings until the
68 Only passages from the Babyloniaca are counted, as the authenticity of Berossos (alleged) astronomi rise of the Achaemenid dynasty. Eusebius especially stresses the fact that Berossos used na
cal works is still disputed. De Breucker lists these fragments (Ber. BNJ 680 F 1522b), but doubts their tive traditions 74 and consulted archives. This also holds true for other authors whom Eusebius
authenticity. cites, e.g. Philo of Byblos on the earliest Phoenician history ,75 or Diodorus Siculus and
69 The numbering of fragments follows de Breuckers recent edition in BNJ (http://referenceworks.
brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/berossos-of-babylon-680-a680?s.num=5); brackets indicate 72 Most likely Josephus too used Polyhistors epitome rather than Berossos original text; cf. Schwartz
the numbering in Jacobys FGrHist IIIc 680 (= Jacoby 1958, 364-97). 1897, 315; Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 29 without explanation; Jacoby 1958, 372ff. disagrees.
70 The entries of the table are chronologically indexed, i.e. passages from the Chronicle are listed before 73 Josephus provides us with a total of eight fragments (including direct quotations and one testimony Ber.
passages from the later Praeparatio evangelica and Syncellus Ecloga chronographica. BNJ 680 F 4c, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 9a, 14, TIOd).
71 N and L denote Eusebius different ways of reproducing Berossos; N stands for a longer narrative; L for 74 Euseb. Chron. p. 21 Karst (= Joseph. Ap. I 130); also Euseb. Chron. p. 6, 8-p. 9, 2 Karst; pp. 16-26 Aucher.
a short (sometimes abbreviated) list. 75 Euseb. Praep. evang. I 9, 19ff.; Oden 1978, 115; Johnson 2004, 35ff.
264 Irene M adreiter
Manetho 76 on Egyptian cosmogony. W hether or not an author used indigenous sources was
evidently an important criterion for Eusebius.
W hat conclusions about Eusebius treatm ent o f the original text, and consequently about
his working methods, may be drawn from the quantity, arrangement and content of the
fragments? In the extant Arm enian introduction of the Chronography Eusebius reflects on
his handling o f Berossos. He characterizes his source material in the following way: in col
lecting the names o f the kings he (Berossos) collects (that) alone, but he tells nothing precise
of the deeds o f some o f them, indeed he did not consider them worthy o f mention, since he
has set out the number o f kings .77 Berossos transmits brief summaries, one after another,
of the reigns o f the Chaldaeans, just as the Polyhistor writes his account in the same way .78
Eusebius will start with Berossos and then also consider Polyhistor: And whatever may be,
that this same Berossos wrote there in his first book of history, I shall recount; and to the
first things that were said, I shall add that which, indeed, the Polyhistor set down in his own
book. And he goes through everything one by one, in this way .79 These passages make it
clear just how much Eusebius wants to appear as an impartial author who applies objective
scholarly principles.
Eusebius reproduces the text o f Berossos in the same order in which it appears in the
original ,80 but he does so in a number o f different ways: we can distinguish quotations in
oratio recta or obliqua, paraphrase and sum m ary .81 First of all, we have only one verbatim
quotation: and in Berossos second book he chronicled the kings, one after another, as he
says: until the time Nabonassaros was king ,82 Occasionally, Eusebius refers to Berossos
indirectly as the Chaldaean .83 Sometimes he uses indirect speech introduced by a ver-
bum dicendi to render text from the Babyloniaca: Berossos said in his second book ...
or Berossos recorded ... \ 84 For the most part he alludes to Berossos via intermediaries:
According to the Polyhistor, Berosos (sic) narrates this (i.e. the creation of the world) in the
first book ,85 or: Apollodoros reports that Berossos said ... . Consequently, it is unlikely that
Eusebius had a copy of the Babyloniaca at hand; rather, he seems to have recycled quotations
and excerpts from ps.-Apollodoros ,86 Abydenus, Alexander Polyhistor87 or Josephus. It is not
76 Euseb. Praep. evang. I l l , 1-50; Johnson 2004, 38ff.
77 Euseb. Chron. p. 4, 8 - p. 6, 8 Karst. (= Ber. BNJ 680 F3a).
78 Euseb. Chron. p. 15, 11-20 Karst (= Ber. BNJ 680 F 10).
79 Euseb. Chron. p. 6, 8-p. 9, 2 Karst (= Ber. BNJ 680 F la).
80 There is one exception in the Chronicle: The obvious beginning of the Babyloniaca with the presenta
tion of the author, his sources and a geographical overview (= F la) is quoted after the list of the ten
antediluvian kings (= F 3a) because Eusebius first writes about the Chaldaean methods of calculation.
81 S. Inowlocki observes the same in Eusebius handling of Philo of Alexandria: cf. Inowlocki 2004, 314.
82 Euseb. Chron. p. 4, 8 Karst (= Ber. AM/680 F 3a).
83 Euseb. Chron. p. 13, 8 Karst (= Ber. BNJ 680 F7c).
84 Euseb. Praep. evang. X 10, 3 (= Ber. BNJ 680 F8c).
85 Euseb. Chron. p. 9, 2 Karst (= Ber. B N J680 F la); see also Euseb. Chron. p. 15, 5ff. Karst (= Ber. BNJ 680
F9b): Polyhistor, following Berossos, reports ... .
86 On Apollodoros chronological method see Mosshammer 1979, 113ff.
87 Eusebius used a version of Polyhistor which was already contaminated with Jewish-Christian interpo
lations, see Schnabel 1923, 155-6; Jacoby 1958, 373; see also G. de Breuckers commentary ad BNJ 680
F la, http://brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnj a680 (vidi 17/02/2012).
From Berossos to Eusebius A C hristian A pologists Shaping of Pagan Literature 265
by coincidence that he omits the name Berossos when he lists most of his other sources in
the C hronicled
The extant paraphrases and summaries show that Eusebius selects his material with a
view to highlighting similarities or dissimilarities between Berossos and Hebrew Scripture,
e.g. several times in fragment 7c: He (i.e. Berossos/Polyhistor) talks about this in like
manner to the books of the Hebrews, or: And since the Polyhistor (Berossos) is in agree
ment with the Hebrew books about all this, there is no need for many words .89 Overlap with
the Scriptures also explains why the last independent Babylonian dynasty receives a more
detailed treatment. Accounts of the capture of Jerusalem or the deportation and return of the
Jews interested Eusebius just as they had already interested Josephus: both wanted to prove
the chronology of the Bible correct. Eusebius generally quotes passages that confirm the Old
Testament in abbreviated form but gives stories in detail that diverge from the Bible, such as
Mesopotamian cosmogony, the narrations about Oannes or the antediluvian sages.
There are some other indications that Eusebius did not always faithfully reproduce his
sources but sometimes shortened them considerably. This includes the historical passages
from Babyloniaca 3. Fragment 8 a ,90 an allegedly direct quotation of Berossos (but by
Josephus, not Eusebius), deals with N ebuchadnezzars campaigns and the Babylonian cap
tivity. At the end o f the passage we read that Nebuchadnezzar surpasses in his exploits all
who had reigned over the Chaldaeans. Berossos obviously had written on this in more detail,
in excerpts unfortunately lost. Further, Eusebius declares in fragment 7c that he (Polyhistor/
Berossos) describes all the remaining deeds of Senacheirimos (i.e. Sennacherib) and lists
numerous accomplishments o f his. What these accomplishments are is left open: Eusebius
feels no need to rehearse them in the C hronicled He omits such details because he is m ain
ly interested in chronology, as can be seen for example in fragment 9b ,92 where he men
tions only the regnal years of the last Babylonian kings. He expands the same topic in the
Praeparatio evangelica by writing not only about the duration of a particular king s reign
but also about the crisis of succession after Nebuchadnezzars death, C yrus campaigns, and
his conquest of Babylonia .93
Passages concerning the Achaemenids 94 seem to be even more abbreviated. Fragment 10
is particularly telling: in the Chronicle only a list comprising the regnal years of Achaemenid
kings (Cyrus, Cambyses and Darius) is given. Here Eusebius ends his paraphrase abruptly:
88 Euseb. Chron. p. 125, 6-26 Karst; cf. Jer. Chron. p. 7, 15-17 Helm. The list includes Abydenus,
Alexander Polyhistor, Clement of Alexandria, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Iustus of
Tiberias, Cassius Longinus, Kastor of Rhodes, Kephalion, Manetho, Phlegon of Tralles, Tatian, Thallus,
Porphyry.
89 Euseb. Chron. p. 13, 18p. 15, 4 Karst: (= Ber. BNJ 680 F7c); cf. also: this (Berossos/Polyhistors ac
count) is also according to the Hebrew books; if one looks one finds the same thing.
90 Euseb. Chron. p. 21 ff. Karst = Euseb. Praep. evang. IX 40, 1-2 = Joseph Ap. I 133ff. = Joseph A J X 219ff. =
Sync. Eel. Chron. p. 416, 6ff.
91 Euseb. Chron. p. 13, 18p. 15, 4 Karst (= Ber. BNJ 680 F7c).
92 Euseb. Chron. p. 15, 5-10 Karst.
93 Euseb. Praep. evang. IX 40, 3-11 = Joseph Ap. I 145-53. Josephus gives a much fuller description of
the succession of Nebuchadnezzar II and C yrus capture of Babylon than Eusebius (Euseb. Chron.
p. 23, 4ff. Karst).
94 Eusebius does not distinguish between Teispids and Achaemenids. On the necessary separation of the
two Old Persian dynasties see Rollinger 1998, 155tf.
266 Irene M adreiter
After him (i.e. Darius) Xerxes, and still other Persian kings ? 15 It is clear from Abydenus ex
cerpts of Berossos 96 that Berossos had originally treated all Teispid and Achaemenid kings,
including at least some events o f their respective reign. This fact is also still evident in
the fragment on Persian religion preserved in Clement of Alexandria, where we learn that
Artaxerxes II allegedly introduced the worship o f divine statues in Persia .97 G. de Breucker
suggests that the omission o f the later Achaemenid kings is due to the fact that Eusebius and
his predecessors had Greek historians at their disposal for this period .98 This is certainly an
attractive suggestion but it does not entirely convince. I submit that Eusebius simply was not
interested in the other Persian kings because he saw no connection with Hebrew or Christian
matters. A look at the Armenian version, where Eusebius also quotes other authors who dealt
with Achaemenid history confirms that they are reproduced in no more detail than Berossos.
In the Praeparatio Eusebius follows Josephus excerpt of Berossos but makes one spe
cific change probably for the sake o f establishing a different - and in his eyes more cor
rect - sequence of events when covering C yrus subjection of Mesopotamia and Asia Minor.
Josephus, quoting Berossos, tells us that Cyrus came out from Persia with a large army and
having subdued the rest o f Asia (KaTaoTp\|/&|aevo<; xfjv ^oi 7rr|v A aiav a 7taoav) advanced on
Babylonia. In Eusebius we read instead that Cyrus subdued first of all the rest of the entire
kingdom (xfiv ^oi 7rf)v (3aoiXslav a^aoav) and then attacked Babylonia .99 As we know from
contemporary sources, Eusebius changed phrasing is historically less accurate: Cyrus prob
ably first conquered Media, then Lydia (i.e. Josephus Asia), then campaigned in Central
Asia , 100 before returning west to attack Babylonia.
We cannot rule out the possibility that such alterations occurred more often, but this
could only be proved if we had more parallel quotations. In a recent contribution, Sabrina
Inowlocki has shown the fruitfulness o f a direct comparison of Eusebius with his sources , 101
in this case Philo o f Alexandrias De vita contemplativa.'02 According to her, Eusebius is
generally very faithful to Philos text, but Christianizes it .103 This sometimes leads to a sig
nificant deviation from the original because Eusebius main interest is to prove the superior
ity o f Christian over pagan asceticism .104 Consequently, we must exercise caution when
95 Euseb. Chron. p. 15, 11-20 Karst (= Ber. BNJ 680 F 10).
96 Abydenus FGrHist 685 F7 and recently BNJ 685: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/
brill-s-new-jacoby/abydenos-685-a685?s.num=0 (vidi 22-02-2012).
97 Clem. Al. ProtrN 65, 2 (= Ber. BNJ 680 F 11); for discussion see Jacobs, this volume.
98 Cf. de Breuckers commentary on F 11: http://brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnj_a680 (vidi
2 2 / 0 2 / 2012).
99 Euseb. Praep. evang. IX 40, 7 = Joseph Ap. I 150.
100 Whether or not Cyrus in fact campaigned in Central Asia in the 540s is still a disputed matter, see e.g.
Waters 2004, 9 Iff.
101 This approach faces a general problem when dealing with fragments: it has been observed that
Eusebius quotations of e.g. Diodorus Siculus do not agree with a specific medieval manuscript tradi
tion of Diodorus but are a mix of the two main manuscript families. Differences in wording between
Eusebius and his source may therefore not be result of his own interventions but may reflect defective
copying of Diodorus either before or even after Eusebius used the text.
102 Inowlocki 2004, 305ff.; Eusebius deals with Philos text in the second book of the Historia ecclesiastica
(II 16-17).
103 E.g. by omitting words from the original text like 'the sacred laws of the Jews (Euseb. Hist. eccl.
XVII 3 = Philo VC 2), see Inowlocki 2004, 314-15; 319-20.
104 See the impressive example at Euseb. Hist. eccl. II 17, 19-20 = Philo VC 78, where he begins to cite
faithfully, but ends up departing significantly from his source; Inowlocki 2004, 315ff 319, 324.
From Berossos to Eusebius A C hristian A pologists Shaping o f Pagan Literature 267
attempting to reconstruct Berossos text from Eusebius. Eusebius often leaves it open when
a quotation starts or ends or to which author he actually refers. For this reason we can rarely
be certain if a passage originated in Berossos or rather in Polyhistor, Abydenus, Apollodoros
or even Josephus. The number of intermediaries makes a contam ination of the original
text all the more likely. Current editors of Berossos seem to me to pay too little attention
to this problem. Because of Eusebius method of selection and his frequent deviations from
his sources the precise contours of Berossos work only become apparent to a very limited
extent.
The function of Berossos in the Chronicle and the Praeparatio evangelica
As we have seen, Eusebius varies in the handling of his sources and actively reworks the
structure of the original. But what is the resulting status of the Babyloniaca in Eusebius
writings? Why was Berossos attractive to Eusebius in the first place, and how did he further
his agenda? To answer these questions we have to look beyond the Berossos fragments.
Like most of his predecessors in the genre of historiography, Eusebius defines his ob
jectives at the beginning of his works. Thus, the Latin and Armenian introduction o f the
Chronicle share typical features with proems of earlier Greek and Roman historiography :105
In it, Eusebius legitimises his w riting , 106 defines the purpose of his work 107 and explains his
working methods .108 As a disciple of Alexandrian exegesis, Eusebius was used to analysing
his sources critically, and he stresses the scholarly nature of his account: I have perused
diverse histories of the past which the Chaldeans and Assyrians have recorded ... as accu
rately as possible .109 His aim is to make use of their calculations of time (on the basis of these
works), and to chronicle the outstanding exploits of both the Greeks and the barbarians, of
both the brave and the decadent ... the remarkable victories o f these nations, their generals,
scholars, heroes, poets, historians and philosophers .110 Moreover, he wants to reprove the
boasting of vainglorious chronographers , 111 who attempt to calculate the end of the world .112
For all these aims Berossos Babyloniaca was a perfect choice.
105 For similarities between Eusebius and older historiography see Winkelmann 2003, 18-19, 21-2, 38-9;
Morgan 2005, 193ff.; Studer 2006, 213ff.
106 Presenting something new and surpassing his forbears: cf. Eusebius unfavourable references concern
ing Africanus handling of biblical chronology; Adler 1992, 475ff. and 2006, 147ff.
107 Education, benefit, entertainment, and preserving knowledge of the past: see Studer 2006, 213ff.;
217-18; Euseb. Hist eccl. 11,5; III 3, 3. It is for Eusebius a useful and necessary task to summarize
this, cf. Euseb. Chron. p. 2 Aucher (trans. Smith 2008).
108 Eusebius names his sources as authorities; he values truth the most, etc., cf. Euseb. Chron. p. 2, 35-6
Karst; Euseb. Contra Hier. 17; Barnes 1981, 341; Studer 2006, 218. Wischmeyer 2005, 270-1 empha
sizes the scholarly aspect of the Chronicle and plays down apologetic dimensions of the work.
109 Euseb. Chron. p. 1 Aucher (transl. Smith 2008; Bedrosian 2008). E.g. in fragment 8c (= Euseb. Praep.
evang. X 10, 3) on the end of the Babylonian captivity Eusebius notes that this is dated differently by
Julius Africanus, Berossos and the Book of Ezra.
110 Euseb. Chron. p. 1 Aucher (transl. Smith 2008; Bedrosian 2008).
111 Euseb. Chron. p. 1, 25-p. 2, 19 Karst. History is thought of as a linear progression, but without deca
dence or apocalyptic end. Eusebius is deliberately antichiliastic and distances him self from earlier
chronographers like Julius Africanus or Hippolytus. In his opinion, their calculations are not based on
sound scholarship; on Africanus see recently Wallraff 2006, and already Mosshammer 1979, 146ff;
Winkelmann 1991, 91-2; Adler 2006, 147ff.
112 Eusebius is aware that his chronological calculations might be limited. Therefore he refers to the Acts
o f the Apostles, to find support in the words of Jesus, cf. Acts 1, 7; Euseb. Chron. p. 1, 25-p. 2, 6 Karst;
268 Irene M adreiter
The introductory chapters of the Praeparatio evangelica also reveal Eusebius intentions.
He will provide an elementary instruction and introduction o f the nature o f Christianity
for recently converted Christians 113 and react to pagan accusations in order to show who we
(the Christians really) are .114 The work seems to be intended as a comprehensive handbook
(or portable library"5) for use in polemical discussions. The Christian apologists interest
in the chronicles o f the Egyptians and Babylonians extended only as far as he was able to
subordinate them to his cause, the defence o f the Christian faith. A favourite tactic of apolo
getic literature was to turn pagan sources against the pagans themselves, with the objective
of overwhelming the reader with as much evidence as possible from every side. For that
reason, earlier w ritten accounts o f history were of extraordinary importance for Eusebius
argument and had to be named as he does in the Praeparatio and in the Chronicle: besides
the Old Testament, Flavius Josephus and Julius Africanus for Hebrew chronology , 116 he refers
to some twenty pagan authors by nam e . " 7 As Eusebius does not in fact quote from all of
these authors, it has been suggested that he only consulted Africanus and probably Josephus
and listed the other names to claim more authority . " 8 For the Praeparatio, J. Carriker has
shown that Eusebius sometimes even feigned first-hand usage by quoting extracts alleg
edly from Hecataeus, Clearchus and Choerilus of Samos, which were in fact all derived
from Josephus Contra Apionem. 119 Even if this is not true of the whole of his work, it does
apply to Berossos, as the alleged Berossos-fragments seem to be taken from Polyhistor, ps.-
Apollodoros or Josephus. But although he did not include Berossos in his list o f sources, it
is clear that Eusebius regarded him as an authority on indigenous history. Therefore, it is no
contradiction that he tacitly adopts Tatians statement about Berossos being a most compe
tent m an (a v ip iKavobiaxo^).120
The other side o f the coin is also evident: Eusebius cited native sources to show off his
profound knowledge and learning but at the same time to show the inferiority of these tradi
tions. In this, he was relatively moderate, compared to Syncellus who criticized Berossos
as a liar or false prophet o f the Chaldaeans .121 Eusebius leaves it to his readers to decide
whether they believe the narration o f B erossos/Polyhistor or not; though he makes it clear
Adler 1992, 475ff.; Adler 2006, 147ff.
113 Euseb. Praep. evang. 11,6; his intentions are repeated at the beginning of the last book {Praep. evang.
XV 1); Kofsky 2000, 85.
114 Euseb. Praep. evang. I 2.
115 Barnes 1981, 184.
116 Euseb. Chron. p. 34, 10-13 Karst; Barnes 1981, 118; Carriker (2003, 51) notes correctly that Eusebius
fails to list Clement of Alexandria as his source, although he cites from the Stromateis, cf. Euseb.
Chron. p. 57 Karst.
117 Euseb. Chron. p. 125, 6-26 Karst; cf. Jer. Chron. p. 7, 15-17 Helm; Phot. Bihl. 33; see the names men
tioned above, n. 88.
118 Julius Africanus as only source: Schwartz 19572, 507-8; contra Mosshammer 1979, 138ff; Winkelmann
1991,93; Carriker 2003, 50.
119 Carriker 2003, 52 on Euseb. Praep. evang. IX 4, 2-9 (Hecataeus), IX 5, 1-7 (Clearchus) and IX 9, 1-2
(Choerilus). In the Praeparatio he names his authorities e.g. at Praep. evang. I 5, III 1; V 5 etc.; Kofsky
2000, 81-2.
120 Euseb. Praep. evang. X 11,9 = Tatian Ad Gr. 36 (= Ber. BNJ 680 F 8b).
121 Sync. Eel. Chron. 53, 17 (= Ber. BNJ 680 F4b): Polyhistor quotes from Berossos, the lying author
of the Chaldaika: Br|p(oaoou totj ta XaA.5aiKa \(/eu5r|yopo{jvToq - he also calls Berossos account
Chaldaean fantasies (XaA.5aucai ipaxoA.oyiai); his work even contradicts the Holy Scripture: Sync.
E d. Chron. 49, 19 (= Ber. BNJ 680 F lb).
From Berossos to Eusebius A Christian A pologists Shaping o f Pagan Literature 269
what he himself thinks of it: if anyone might consider the books to be a true history, and that
the myriads of years could truly be filled in this measure, then in the same way he must also
believe the rest, in connection with things just as obviously incredible that are found in the
same book .122 I have already mentioned that Eusebius generally wanted to appear fair and
objective, so as to avoid raising the suspicion o f being biased in favour o f Christianity .123 In
the Praeparatio in particular, he therefore quotes his sources at great length, without inter
ruptions or personal glosses. Occasionally, however, he does not refrain from severe criticism
of pagan cultures. More generally, his critical stance becomes visible in the use o f loaded
adjectives, for instance when he refers to the unreliable account of the Chaldaeans 124 or the
many improbable stories (that) have been told by the Egyptians and Chaldaeans, ... as they
tell many crazy m yths .125 Thus, while avoiding any accusations o f outright bias he creates
a contrast between the historical approach of pagan authors and his own, scholarly method.
As Francesca Schironi points out elsewhere in this volume the early reception of Berossos
in Alexander Polyhistor and Juba of M auretania was driven by their interest in mirabilia,
without much regard for Berossos style of exposition. Schironi suggests that later Jews and
Christians were detached enough from Greco-Roman genre categories to look at Polyhistor,
Juba and Berossos as more than containers of exotic oddities .126 It seems to me that that is
too optimistic a view. Eusebius, despite being a man of learning, clearly shares their inter
est in curiosa and mythical stories but uses them in a more elaborate way. Using Lorna
Hardwicks terminology, Eusebius too appropriated Berossos Babyloniaca to sanction sub
sequent ideas and practices .127
Berossos him self undeniably wanted to glorify his native traditions and to educate his
Greek audiences, e.g. when he corrected their view that Semiramis founded Babylon .128
But more was at stake than mere education: Amelie K uhrt has convincingly shown that the
Babyloniaca can be understood as a corrective to Hecataeus of Abdera who wrote a his
torical work for the Ptolemies. Berossos created a line of tradition between the Chaldaean
dynasty and the new rulers of Babylonia, the Seleucids. Thus he helped to make accessible
the local ideological repertoires and historical precedents for adoption by the Macedonian
dynasties .129 A fter Alexander the G reats death it was necessary to create common ground
between native M esopotamian and foreign (Seleucid) elements to help consolidate the
new state.
What we might call the integrative thrust of Berossos work, his attempt to combine
distinct cultural traditions, has close affinities with Eusebius own project. In the phase of
transition after the Great Persecution, the Christian faith had to be incorporated into the
existing multicultural environment of the eastern Roman Empire. Christians had to construct
a collective identity of their own, including elements such as a collective name, a common
122 Euseb. Chron. p. 6, 8 Karst (= Ber. BNJ 680 F3a).
123 Kofsky 2000, 81-2, 241, 245.
124 Euseb. Chron. p. 16 Aucher (transl. Smith 2008).
125 Euseb. Chron. p. 6 Aucher (transl. Smith 2008); Winkelmann 1991, 90.
126 Schironi, this volume, pp. 235-254.
127 Hardwick 2003, 9.
128 Ber. BNJ 680 F 8a (= Joseph Ap. I 142 = Euseb. Chron. p.21ff. Karst = Euseb. Praep. evang. IX 40,
1- 2).
129 Kuhrt 1987, 56.
270 Irene M adreiter
myth of descent, a shared history, etc .130 It is no coincidence therefore that Eusebius seems
especially interested in the cosmogonies of Eastern cultures like the Phoenicians, Egyptians
and Chaldaeans. A. Johnson rightly emphasizes the importance o f cosmogonies in narra
tives o f descent .131 They shore up claims to superiority, and create an ethnic identity. This
aspect was already important to Berossos, as also to Philo and Manetho, all of whom set
out to prove that their native traditions were older than the ones of their new rulers, be it the
Seleucids in Asia or the Ptolemies in Egypt. Five hundred years later Eusebius incorporated
these narratives to put (the Greeks) in their historical place as a late and derivative people 132
in comparison to those other cultures. Berossos Chaldaean cosmogony and anthropogony
moreover helped to draw a continuous historical line from the very beginning o f time down
to the Flebrews (again seen as proto-Christians). By integrating the Hebrew patriarchs into
Chaldaean history and culture, Eusebius could portray Christianity as the primeval religion
of the human race.
Eusebius interest in quoting the Babyloniaca was certainly also connected to the Bible:
he searched for data that gave corroborating evidence for what Hebrew Scripture said and
found it in biblical toponyms and important figures like Nebuchadnezzar or Sennacherib.
However, beside this positive manner of use, Berossos also served as a negative foil to the
Bible. The unbelievably long reigns of Berossos early kings, his strange cosmogony, his
curious stories about primeval monsters did not just satisfy a genuine interest on Eusebius
part in native Mesopotamian traditions. Rather, they were embedded in a new context, where
they could serve as an aid 133 to the reader who needed to become aware of the lies and
inventions o f the ancient authors. The Chaldaeans thus became exponents of pagan cul
ture tout court, its errors and follies. Eusebius wanted to protect his readers from the bad
influence o f these stories 134 and open their eyes to the truth instead, a truth in the form of
the Christian faith and Christian scriptures. It seems unlikely to me that Eusebius was able
to convince pagans by disparaging their native traditions. It should rather be assumed that
those among them who read Eusebius at all considered his work a mere provocation. He will
not have minded much, as long as his literary demarcations boosted the self-esteem o f early
Christians.
Finally, I take a short look at the later reception of Berossos after Eusebius .135 At the
beginning o f the ninth century George Syncellus made relatively precise excerpts from
Eusebius Chronography, even though he added judgm ents o f his own. Occasionally, he
may also preserve authentic materials from Berossos not found in Eusebius . 136 Syncellus
self-avowed aim was to demonstrate that pagan authors transm itted fabulous nonsense,
130 On Eusebius creation of a Christian identity in the Praeparatio evangelica see the illuminating studies
of Johnson 2004, 28ff.; and Johnson 2006, passim.
131 Johnson 2004, 35ff.; Johnson 2006, 55ff.; Johnson 2007, 95ff.
132 Johnson 2004, 36. On Eusebius idiosyncratic view of history see Barnes 2009, 12.
133 Sync. Eel. Chron. 49, 19 (= Ber. BNJ 680 F lb).
134 Inowlocki 2011, 221 also stresses that Eusebius determines in the Praeparatio what kind of literature
is good for Christians: Greek literature is appropriated and becomes part of Christian culture only in
so far as it supports Eusebius apologetic purposes.
135 On the Byzantine reception of Eusebius Chronicle see also Croke 1982, 195ff.; Adler 1983, 419-42;
Jeffreys 1979, 199ff.; Winkelmann 2003, 20.
136 Sync. Eel. Chron. 49, 19 (8) (= Ber. BNJ 680 F lb); interpreted as an interpolation by Jacoby (1958,
373), or a second version of the same story as Verbrugghe/Wickersham (1996, 46 n. 7) suggest; de
Breucker thinks of a Jewish rew riting of an authentic (second?) version provided by Berossos.
From Berossos to Eusebius A C hristian A pologists Shaping o f Pagan Literature
and that they disagreed with each other as well as with Scripture: I (Syncellus) have set
out these statements (i.e. excerpts of older works) ... as a refutation of their irrational and
fabulous judgem ent .137 Pronouncements such as this reveal his criteria for selecting material:
unrealistic or mythical stories had a good chance of being quoted by Syncellus, the more so
if they were at odds with biblical traditions. Syncellus form of reception can thus be defined
as foreignization , 138 as he represents Berossos in such a way that the difference between
source and reception is emphasized.
In fact, the horizon of expectation of Eusebius readers had long shifted in another di
rection, away from Eusebius apologetic intentions: Jerome, Panodoros and Annianos had
already treated his work as a convenient repository of chronological calculations, anecdotes
and, above all, a handy source-book of the early histories of pagan nations .139
Conclusion
Eusebius comprehensive and careful excerpts from original sources saved his successors the
painstaking labour o f original research. Thanks to him, much has been preserved that would
otherwise have been lost, including the Babyloniaca.
Yet, Eusebius him self knew Berossos work only indirectly, via other authors like
Polyhistor, ps.-Apollodorus, Abydenus or Josephus. Therefore we cannot be certain to what
extent the fragments reflect the original text. Recent research on how Eusebius handled his
sources throws doubt on his own rhetoric of trustworthiness. For example, it has been shown
that Eusebius sometimes deliberately changed the original to make it more appropriate to his
purpose. We should keep that in mind when looking at the Babyloniaca, even though in this
particular case we lack extant material to check Eusebius claims.
Despite the scarcity o f fragments, Eusebius methods o f quoting Berossos are clear
enough: he uses paraphrase, direct quotation in oratio recta or obliqua and summary to ren
der text from the Babyloniaca. I have detected no major cases of carelessness or intentional
forgery, though at a more general level, Eusebius practice is of course coloured by the nature
o f his project: the Chronicle and the Praeparatio evangelica were intended as a defence
against the charge that Christian religion was of recent origin. Eusebius main aim was
therefore to prove the superior age of Hebrew culture where the foundations of the Christian
faith lay. For this, he quotes Berossos, but only in so far as he serves his purposes. Berossos
Babyloniaca served not only to illustrate the inferiority of pagan culture, as pagans believed
in oracles, stars and mythical beasts, but at the same time also provided the building blocks
for the creation of a Christian prehistory. We are, then, left with an ambivalent impression:
on the one hand we see the scholar interested in calculations, recorded without obvious
distortion. On the other hand, we see the Christian bishop who disparages foreign religious
practices, myths and gods.
The superiority of Christian beliefs was an important issue in the fourth century AD, not
least in a multi-cultural town like Caesarea, where so many different religions rivalled each
137 Sync. Eel. Chron. 71, 13 (= Ber. BNJ 680 F3b); cf. also Syncellus opinion of Berossos and Manetho
concerning their chronology of antediluvian history, Sync. Eel. Chron. 57, 10.
138 Hardwick 2003, 9.
139 Adler 1983, 419ff. The last three authors all criticised the inadequacies of the Chronicle, especially
its errors and miscalculations. Moreover, they reproached Eusebius for misunderstanding his sources,
for example concerning the chronology of antediluvian biblical, Egyptian and Chaldaean history, see
Adler 1983, 434ff.
272 Irene M adreiter From Berossos to Eusebius A Christian A pologists Shaping o f Pagan Literature

other. Since the times o f persecution were over and Christianity was on its way to gaining of Adler 1992
W illiam Adler, Eusebius Chronicle and its legacy, in: Harold W. A ttridge/G ohei Hata (eds.),
ficial status within the Roman Empire, Eusebius works can be read as a piece of legitimacy-
Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (Studia Post Biblica 42), L eiden/N ew Y ork/C ologne 1992,
literature, attempting to promote Christian views by disparaging, but also appropriating and
467-91.
re-shaping, pagan traditions like the ones found in Berossos. A dler 2006
W illiam Adler, Eusebius critique o f A fricanus, in: M artin W allraff (ed.), Julius Africanus und
die christliche Weltchronik, Berlin 2006, 147-57.
Barnes 1981
Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, MA 1981.
Barnes 2009
Timothy D. Barnes, Eusebius o f C aesarea, E xpository Times 121 (2009), 1-14.
References
Belayche 2001
Nicole Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina. The Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth
1) Selected English and German editions or translations Century) (Religion der Romischen Provinzen, I), Tubingen 2001.
Bowersock 1990
Berossos Glen W arren Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity, C am bridge/N ew Y ork/Port C hester/
M elbourne/Sydney 1990.
Berossos (F 680), in: D ie Fragm ente der griechischen Flistoriker vol. I l l C 1, ed. Felix Jacoby Berlin
B urckhardt 1853
1958, 364-97.
Jacob Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantins des Grossen, Basel 1853.
Berossos a n d Manetho. N ative Traditions in A ncient M esopotamia a n d Egypt, introd. and trans. by
Burgess 1999
Gerald P. V erbrugghe/John M. W ickersham, Ann A rbor 1996.
Richard W. Burgess, The dates and editions o f Eusebius Chronici Canones and H istoria
Berossos o f Babylon (680), ed. and trans. by G eert de B reuker in: Brill's New Pauly online,
E cclesiastica\ Journal o f Theological Studies 48 (1997), 471-504.
http://brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnj_a680 [12/02/2012].
Burgess 1999
Richard W. Burgess, Studies in Eusebian andpost-E usebian Chronography (Historia Einzelschrif-
Eusebius and Jerome ten 135), Stuttgart 1999.
Die Chronik des Eusebius, aus dem Arm enischen, ed. and transl. Josef K arst (GCS 20 = EW V), Carotenuto 2011
Leipzig 1911. Erica Carotenuto, Tradizionee innovazione nella H istoria Ecclesiastica di Eusebio di Cesarea,
Eusebii Pamphili C aesariensis episcopi Chronicon bipartitum. N unc prim um ex Arm eniaco textu in Bologna 2011.
Latinum conversum, adnotationibus auctum , ed. by John Baptiste Aucher, Venice 1818. C arriker 2003
Eusebius o f Caesarea, Chronicon, Book 1, trans. Andrew Smith, in: Roger Pearse et al., The Tertullian Andrew J. Carriker, The Library o f Eusebius o f Caesarea, (Supplements to Vigiliae C hristianae
Project, Early Church Fathers, 2008, 67), L eiden/B oston 2003.
http://w w w .tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_chronicon_01_text.htm [12/02/2012], Croke 1982
E usebius Chronicle, translated from Classical A rm enian by Robert Bedrosian, in: Roger Pearse et al., Brian Croke, The originality o f Eusebius C hronicle, Am erican Journal o f Philology 103/2
The Tertullian Project, Early Church Fathers, 2008, (1982), 195-200.
http://w w w .tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_chronicon_02_text.htm [12/02/2012], Drost-Abgarjan 2006
Die C hronik des Hieronym us, ed. R udolf Helm (GCS 24 u. 34), 2 Tie., Leipzig 1913/26 (=GCS 47, A rm enuhi Drost-Abgarjan, Ein neuer Fund zur arm enischen Version der Eusebius-C hronik1, in:
1956 = EW VII), Berlin 19843. M artin W allraff (ed.), Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronik, Berlin 2006, 147-57.
The Chronicle o f St. Jerom e, trans. Roger Pearse et al., in: The Tertullian Project: Early Church Frede 1999
Fathers: Additional Texts, 2005, Michael Frede, Eusebius apologetic w ritings, in: Mark E dw ards/M artin G oodm an/Sim on Price
http://w w w .tertullian.org/fathers/jerom e_chronicle_00_eintro.htm [12/02/2012], (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Oxford 1999, 223-50.
Eusebius: PraeparatioEvangelica, ed. Karl Mras, Berlin 1954, 1956 (= GCS 43, 1-2 = EW VIII 1-2. G allagher 1993
Eusebius: D em onstratio Evangelica, ed. I. A. Heikel (Leipzig 1913) (= GCS 23 = EW VI). Eugene V. Gallagher, Eusebius the apologet: the evidence o f the Preparation and the P r o o f,
Eusebius. The E cclesiastical History, ed. and trans. by K. L ake/J. E. L. O ulton, L ondon/C am bridge, Studia Patristica 26 (1993), 251-60.
MA. 1926/1932. Hardwick 2003
Eusebius Kirchengeschichte, ed. Friedhelm W inkelm ann, Berlin 1999 (= GCS N F 6, 1-3). Lorna Hardwick, Reception Studies (New surveys in the classics 33: Greece & Rome), Oxford
Eusebius: Life o f Constantine, ed. Averil C am eron/S.G . Hall, Oxford 1999. 2003.
Eusebius, Leben des Konstantin, rev. ed. by Friedhelm W inkelm ann, Berlin 2008. Henry 1935
Paul Henry, Recherches sur la Preparation Evangelique d Eusebe et Vedition perdue des oeuvres
2) Secondary Research literature de Plotin p u b lieep a r Eustochius, Paris 1935, 16-26.
Adler 1983 Inowlocki 2004
W illiam Adler, Berossus, Manetho, and 1 Enoch in the world chronicle o f Panodorus, The Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius of C aesareas Interpretatio C hristiana of Philos De vita contem-
H arvard Theological Review 7 6 /4 (1983), 419-42. plativa H arvard Theological Review 97 (2004), 305- 28.
274 Irene M adreiter
Inowlocki 2006
Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius a n d the Jew ish Authors. H is Citation Technique in an Apologetic
C ontext, L eiden/B oston 2006.
Inowlocki 2011
Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius construction o f a C hristian culture in an apologetic context: read R aban/H olum 1996
ing the P raeparatio evangelica as a library, in: Sabrina Inow locki/C laudio Zam agni (eds.),
Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, a n d Theological Issues
(Vigiliae Christianae Supplements, 107), Leiden 2011, 199-224.
Inowlocki / Zam agni 2011
Sabrina Inowlocki/ Claudio Zamagni (eds.), Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary,
Historical, and Theological Issues, (Vigiliae Christ ianae Supplements, 107), Leiden 2011.
Iricinschi 2011
Eduard Iricinschi, Good Hebrew, bad Hebrew: C hristians as triton genos in Eusebius apolo
getic w ritings, in: Sabrina Inow locki/C laudio Zam agni (eds.), Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected
Papers on Literary, Historical, a n d Theological Issues, (Vigiliae Christianae Supplements, 107),
Leiden 2011, 69-86.
Jeffreys 1979
Elizabeth M. Jeffreys, The attitudes of Byzantine chroniclers towards ancient h istory, Byzantion
49 (1979), 199-238.
Johnson 2004
Aaron P. Johnson, Identity, descent, and polemic: Ethnic argum entation in Eusebius Praeparatio
E vangelica, Journal o f Early Christian Studies 12 (2004), 23-56.
Johnson 2006
Aaron P. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argum ent in E u seb iu s Praeparatio Evangelica, O xford 2006.
Johnson 2007
Aaron P. Johnson, G reek ethnicity in Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica, Am erican Journal o f Verdoner 2011
Philology 128 (2007), 95-109.
Johnson /Schott 2012 (forthc.)
Aaron P. Johnson/Jerem y Schott (eds.), Eusebius and the Making o f Late Antique Literary Culture,
W ashington, DC 2012 (forthcoming).
Kofsky 2000
A ryeh Kofsky, Eusebius o f Caesarea Against Paganism, (Jewish and Christian Perspectives
Series 3), L eiden/B oston/C ologne 2000.
L ietzm ann 19112
Hans Lietzm ann, D ie drei altesten M artyrologien, Bonn 19112.
Keseling 1921
Paul Keseling, D ie Chronik des Eusebius in der syrischen Uberlieferung, (= Diss. Univ. Bonn
1917), Bonn 1921.
K uhrt 1987
A melie Kuhrt, B erossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A m elieK uhrt/S usan
Sherwin-W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East. The Interaction o f Greek and non-G reek Civilizations
fr o m Syria to C entral A sia after Alexander, B erkeley/L os Angeles 1987, 33-56.
Morgan 2005
Teresa Morgan, Eusebius o f Caesarea and Christian historiography, Athenaeum 93 (2005), 193-208.
Morlet 2011
Sebastian Morlet, Eusebius polemic against Porphyry: A reassessm ent, in: Sabrina Inow locki/
Claudio Zam agni (eds.), Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and
Theological Issues, (Vigiliae Christianae Supplements, 107), Leiden 2011, 119-50.
M osshamm er 1979
Alden A. M osshammer, The Chronicle o f Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition,
L ew isburg/London 1979.
Oden 1978
Robert A. Oden, Philo of Byblos and Hellenistic historiography, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110
(1978), 115-26.
From Berossos to Eusebius A C hristian A pologists Shaping of Pagan Literature 275
Patrich 2011
Joseph Patrich, Caesarea in the time of Eusebius, in: Sabrina Inow locki/C laudio Zam agni
(eds.), Reconsidering Eusebius: C ollected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues,
(Vigiliae Christianae Supplem ents 107), Leiden 2011, 1-24.
A vner R aban/K enneth G. Holum, Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia,
Leiden 1996.
R ollinger 1998
Robert Rollinger, Der Stam mbaum des achaim enidischen Konigshauses oder die Frage der Legi
tim is t der H errschaft des Dareios, Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 30 (1998/99),
155-209.
Scaliger 16582
Josephus Justus Scaliger, Thesaurus Temporum vol. 2: Notae in Graeca Eusebii, 2nd ed. Amsterdam
1658.
Schnabel 1923
Paul Schnabel, Berossos und die Babylonisch-H ellenistische Literatur, Leipzig 1923.
Schwartz 1897
Eduard Schw artz, Berossos 4 , Realencyclopadie der Classischen A ltertum sw issenschaft I I I /I
(1897), 309-16.
Schwartz 19572
Eduard Schwartz, Eusebios von Caesarea, in: Eduard Schwartz, Griechische Geschichtsschreiber,
Leipzig 19572, 495-598.
Studer 2006
Basil Studer, Durch Geschichte zum Glauben. Zur Exegese und zur Trinitatslehre der Kirchenvdter,
Rome 2006.
M arie Verdoner, N arrated Reality: The H istoria Ecclesiastica o f Eusebius o f Caesarea, (Early
C ristianity in the Context o f A ntiquity 9), F rankfurt 2011.
W allace H adrill 1955
David S. Wallace Hadrill, The Eusebian C hronicle: The extent and date of composition of its early
editions, Journal o f Theological Studies NS 6 (1955), 248-53.
Wallace Hadrill 1960
David S. W allace H adrill, E usebius o f Caesarea, London 1960.
W allraff 2006
M artin W allraff (ed.), Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronik, Berlin 2006.
Waters 2005
M att Waters, C yrus and the A chaem enids, Iran 42 (2004), 91-102.
W inkelm ann 1991
Friedhelm W inkelm ann, Euseb von Kaisareia. D er Vater der Kirchengeschichte, Berlin 1991.
W inkelmann 2003
Friedhelm W inkelm ann, Historiography in the age o f C onstantine, in: Gabriele M arasco (ed.),
Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Leiden /B oston/
Cologne 2003, 3-41.
W ischmeyer 2005
Wolfgang W ischmeyer, W ahrnehm ungen von G eschichte in der christlichen L iteratur zwischen
Lukas und Eusebius, Die chronographische Form der Bischofslisten, in: Eve-M arie Becker (ed.),
D ie antike H istoriographie und die Anfdnge der christlichen G eschichtsschreibung, Berlin 2005,
263-76.
 From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus:
The Forgeries of Annius of Viterbo and Their Fortune
Walter Stephens (Johns Hopkins University)

The reception history of Berossos Babyloniaca is, to paraphrase the old saw, just one
damned contradiction after another. Evidence suggests that it was little appreciated in an
tiquity, that scant efforts were made to preserve the text, and that it was overshadowed by
other accounts of Chaldaean history, especially Ctesias of Cnidus Persica, written a century
earlier. Surviving ancient works that quoted or paraphrased Berossos appear to have done so
at second or third hand. Moreover, ancient writers created the impression of two Berossoi, or
rather of a split authorial personality, half astronomer and half chronicler, although it seems
unlikely that he wrote a separate astronomical treatise. Neither his chronicle nor his astron
omy was well preserved, and Berossos the historian was particularly ill-served until Joseph
Scaliger tracked down the manuscript o f Syncellus at the end o f the sixteenth century .1
It may come as a surprise, then, to learn that a Latin forgery o f Berossos chronicle, pub
lished almost a century before Scaliger attempted to reconcile ancient chronologies, had a
long and successful publication history and an enormous fortuna, lasting from 1498 to the
mid-eighteenth century. Between those dates, many more scholars were familiar with the
forgery than with Syncellus excerpts. Stranger yet, there were legions of readers with no
Latin or Greek who praised Berossos as one of the most ancient and illustrious historians of
all antiquity, on the sole evidence of paraphrases and vernacular translations of the forgery .2
The crowning irony was that classical scholars recognized the forgery as such almost im
mediately, yet many of them who must have known better continued to invoke it as Gospel
truth about ancient history, and to defend it as somehow authentic, long after the forgers
ineptitude had become proverbial.
The history of the forgery and its reception is both long and bizarrely amusing. While
researching in the University of Pisa library in 1976, I found that works by and about the
genuine Berossos, such as Paul Schnabels monograph, were catalogued under the forgers
name. Six years later, I met and interviewed the last living disciple of the pseudo-Berossos
and his forger, a man whose several books on the topic were printed by semi-reputable
publishers .3 Both incidents took place in Italy, an appropriate backdrop since the forger was
him self an Italian.
Know n to posterity as A nnius of Viterbo or Annius Viterbiensis, Giovanni Nanni was
born at Viterbo, the papal summer retreat fifty miles north of Rome, in 1432. At his death in
1502 he had risen through the ranks of the Dominican order to become Master of the Sacred
Palace, that is, personal theologian to the Pope and supreme censor o f books published
in Rome. The story of his career is too long to be recounted here, but can be said to have
1 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 13-15, 27-31; on Scaliger, Syncellus, Berossos, and Annius, see Grafton 1990,
99-123.
2 Stephens 1989, 58-184; Stephens 2004.
3 Stephens 2 0 0 4 ,S219-20.
 278 W alter Stephens
begun in earnest when Rodrigo Borgia became Pope Alexander VI in November of 1492.
Beginning the following year, Annius began a systematic program of revising the history of
the world, of Italy, and o f his hometown, Viterbo. In addition to forging the text of Berossos,
he forged ten other texts by ancient authors and provided all eleven with a voluminous com
mentary, in which he coordinated them with the most authoritative historians of antiquity,
both pagan and Judeo-Christian.
His corpus o f fake histories and commentaries was not published until 1498, but his
career as forger had begun much earlier, probably by 1493.4 Between about 1488 and 1493,
he concentrated on the interpretation of ancient Etruscan inscriptions, which were abundant
around the territory of Viterbo. The ironies thicken here, for he was in a non-trivial sense the
inventor o f Etruscology, freeing it from its exclusive reliance on a few Greek and Latin texts,
and taking it into the field. By 1493, when the newly-elected Borgia Pope came to Viterbo
for the first time, Annius had graduated from am ateur fieldwork on real artefacts to staging
spurious discoveries and interpreting their supposed significance.
We may seem to have wandered a long way from the Babyloniaca of Berossos, but in
fact, after 1493 Berossos became essential to the bizarre fictions of the mythomaniac from
Viterbo. As a Christian, Annius feared that the finite revealed chronology of the Hebrew
Bible was being undercut by fifteenth-century Latin translations of hitherto unknown works
by Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Hermes Trismegistus, defining Egyptian history as
many times more ancient5; as a Dominican, he was anxious to defend the supremacy of
the Roman Church, which he believed was under siege by heresy and Islam; as a native of
Viterbo, he wished to vindicate the antiquity and importance of his hometown. He was par
ticularly offended by the respected antiquarian and geographer Flavio Biondo, who, in his
Italia illustrata, had dismissed Viterbo in a single sentence as not very ancient, and therefore
neither interesting nor illustrious, a civitas parum vetusta.b Annius had two serendipitous
experiences that inspired his solution to the tw in desiderata of religious fealty and local
patriotism. Earlier in his career the Dominican order had posted him to Genoa. Annius
recounted that while he was serving in the monastery of Santa M aria del Castello, it was
visited by two Arm enian Dominicans. The visit probably did happen, and historians have
identified two likely candidates for A nnius visitors, but he made an outlandishly false claim
for the encounter. He declared that the two Arm enians had presented him the Chaldaica of
Berossos in an anonymous Latin translation .7
A nnius second formative experience at Genoa is completely hypothetical, but is ren
dered probable by textual and historical evidence. I believe that during his time in Genoa
he must have run across a thirteenth-century chronicle of that city composed by his fel
low Dominican Jacobus o f Voragine (d. 1298). Jacobus is well known to mediaevalists as
the compiler of the Golden Legend, the foremost mediaeval compilation o f saints lives.
Hagiography is not known for its objectivity; likewise, in the fullest spirit of mediaeval
Lokalpatriotismus, Jacobus claimed that Italy had been colonized soon after Noahs Flood
4 Crahay 1983, 243-9.
5 Translated by Lorenzo Valla, Poggio Bracciolini, and Marsilio Ficino, respectively; cf. Copenhaver
1992, xlv-li; Curran 2007, 51-132.
6 Biondo 2005, 110; Annius 1515, fols. 20v-lr, 159r and 160r. On the riddle of Vetulonia, see Pallottino
1978, 105 and 117.
7 Crahay 1983, 244; Stephens 2011, 000-000. For Chaldaica as an alternative title for the Babyloniaca see
De Breucker, this volume, pp. 15-28.
From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus 279
by sons of Noahs great-grandson Nimrod. Later, said Jacobus, in the time of Moses, an
other prince came from the east and reigned over Italy; his name was Janus and he founded
Genoa. Janus named the town for himself, Janicula. Later still, when the town grew large,
its inhabitants dropped the diminutive and called it Janua* Patriotic claims involving Noah
were common in the later Middle Ages: early in the thirteenth century, Giraldus Cambrensis
(Gerald of Wales) recorded that the Irish claimed Noahs granddaughter as the original colo
nizer of Ireland .9
The similarities between the Chronicle of Jacobus and the forgeries of Annius are numer
ous, but Annius introduced three improvements over his predecessors mythology. First, he
backdated the story and exaggerated its importance by making Noah him self the original
colonizer of Italy, rather than his great-great-grandsons. Moreover, on the basis of a Hebrew
word for wine, iain, Annius declared that Janus was N oahs cognomen among all ancient
peoples, bestowed in honour of his inventing wine. This identification was to have a great
fortune of its own, even among Jewish commentators of the Renaissance .10
A nnius third improvement was in many ways more radical. Rather than write a continu
ous chronicle and merely cite ancient authorities, as Jacobus and other mediaeval patriots
had done, Annius presented his reader with eleven forged primary sources, surrounded them
with his own meticulous commentary, and left the reader to construct the chronicle from
these spurious materials. As I have led you to suspect, A nnius principal forged authority
was Berossos Babyloniaca. Annius forged the Babyloniaca (or Chaldaica, as he knew it)
because, as far as he could tell, it had disappeared sometime in antiquity, like A nnius other
ten authorities, except for a few quotations and paraphrases preserved by later authors. As
far as anyone knew in A nnius day, the most abundant traces of Berossos Babyloniaca had
been preserved by Flavius Josephus in the Jewish Antiquities and in the work he wrote to
defend them, his diatribe Against Apion the Grammarian."
Josephus inspired A nnius revisionist project directly by emphasizing the contrast be
tween Greek and Biblical versions o f human history. In both the Antiquities and Against
Apion, Josephus had asserted that the Hebrew Bible was the oldest and most authentic his
torical record, and that its account of Noah, Moses, and other heroes was corroborated by
historians who were neither Hebrew nor Greek. Josephus stressed that the Greeks relied
on oral records until the time of Homer, whereas the Hebrews and other barbarian peoples,
particularly the Chaldaeans, Egyptians, and Phoenicians, had kept meticulous written records
of their history. In short, Greek mythology was a pathetic, belated oral substitute for barbar
ian historiography, which was based on carefully protected chains of written, documentary
evidence, dating from the earliest times.
Annius, who knew little Greek, read Josephus in the Latin translation commissioned by
Cassiodorus in the late sixth century .12 The aha moment for Annius came when he under
stood the importance that Josephus attributed to Berossos as an independent corroborator of
stories that Genesis told about Noah and the Flood. All those who wrote histories of non-
Greek peoples, said Josephus, record the Great Flood and the ark. Among these is Berossos
8 Jacobus of Voragine 1995, 84-5, 342-3; Cochrane 1981, 61-2 and n. 5 appears to confuse Jacobus Janus
with Annius.
9 Stephens 1989, 109 and n. 17 (p. 370); cf. Mattiangeli 1981,319-21.
10 Jewish Encyclopedia, 6:553 and 9:322; Stephens 1979, 191-2 and n.68.
11 Reproduced in Verbrugghe/Wickersham,passim on pp. 5164.
12 Scheckenberg 1972, 104-5.
280 W alter Stephens
the Chaldaean .13 Although Josephus listed other ancient writers who mentioned Noah, the
Chaldaean was his prize exhibit. And so A nnius entitled his forgery the Defloratio Berosi
Chaldaica, or Berossos epitome of Chaldaean history, modelling his title on the Latin trans
lations reference to Berosus, qui Chaldaica defloravit ,14 Inspired by Josephus respect for
Berossos, Annius decided to rewrite ancient history at the source, and prove that the Greco-
Roman consensus about ancient history had been a malicious forgery.
However, if discovering Berossos was A nnius aha moment, it was not the origin of
his revisionary project. We do not know just when the idea of forging Berossos occurred to
Annius, but it must have come after 1493. By that date Annius had begun forging inscrip
tions, for he stage-managed an excavation o f several at Viterbo, witnessed by the newly-
elected Alexander VI and the papal Curia in late 1493. But the several reports Annius pro
duced about these epigraphic hoaxes were inspired by Diodorus Siculus rather than Josephus;
they starred Isis and Osiris rather than Noah, and connected the history o f Viterbo to that
of Egypt rather than Chaldaea. Nowhere does Annius mention Berossos in these earlier fic
tions, and he seems not to have intended linking them directly to Biblical history. Instead, he
took advantage of the enthusiasm for Egyptian antiquity that excited humanist scholars in the
second half o f the fifteenth century, after Poggio Bracciolini and Marsilio Ficino produced
their Latin translations o f Diodorus and the Corpus Hermeticum. Discovering Berossos did
not inspire Annius to discard his earlier pseudo-Egyptian forgeries; instead, he integrated
them, often clumsily and usually with significant modifications, into his new and improved,
pseudo-Chaldaean and pseudo-Biblical mythologies.
In practical terms, this decision made Annius the inventor o f scientific forgery: he created
a total pseudo-archaeological experience that coordinated forged inscriptions with pseudo
nymous texts by means o f erudite commentaries. Accordingly, Annius carefully designed
his literary forgeries to exploit contradictions, lacunae, and cruxes in the historical records
known and respected by his contemporaries. Taken as a whole, A nnius m ultimedia impos
ture grounded a seamless revisionist narrative that began with Noahs colonization of the
M editerranean basin and proceeded through falsified Chaldaean and Egyptian king-lists
until it reconnected with canonical accounts o f Roman history, and ended with Desiderius,
the Longobard king routed by Charlemagne in 774. At the centre o f this grand historical
sweep was little Viterbo. Today the tow ns population is around 60,000. In A nnius day it
was far smaller. In fact, although it was still important as a papal property, it had undergone
serious decline in the fourteenth century during the so-called Babylonian captivity when the
Papacy was removed to Avignon (1308-77).
To construct an illustrious past for the little town, Annius linked Noah, the Babylonians,
and the Egyptians to the civilization o f the Etruscans. As I mentioned earlier, Annius had
an intense interest in Etruscan antiquity, and actually made some important discoveries of a
genuine sort . 15 From the beginning, Annius focussed his grandiose historical impostures on
the Etruscans, but his exploitation o f Diodorus, the Hermetica, and Josephus has frequently
confused modern critics and historians. One still encounters the assertion that he glorified
Chaldaea, presumably because he chose Berossos as the textual anchor of his mythologies.
13 Jewish Antiquities, 1.93-4 (in Verbrugghe/Wickersham, 51).
14 Josephus 1958, 137.
15 Rowland 1998, 53-9.
From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus 281
Nothing could be less true. And his use of Egypt in his epigraphic forgeries has compounded
the confusion.
Having observed that Josephus invoked Berossos in order to provide independent cor
roboration of Hebrew history, Annius applied the same strategy to the history of Etruria.
But he added an astute twist: in his day Berossos work resembled Etruscan history in that
little or nothing was known of either besides fragments preserved by Greek and Roman
authors. Thus he decided to propose a rediscovered Defloratio Berosi Chaldaica as the pri
mary source for resurrecting the history of the Etruscans. A nnius blamed Graecia mendax,
or Mendacious Greece, for the oblivion that had engulfed Etruscan history, and so, for
good measure, he attributed Berossos own eclipse to a kind of Greek damnatio memoriae.
Josephus inspired these accusations of A nnius in the diatribe Against Apion, which he
wrote to defend the Jewish Antiquities from Grecophile mockery. Annius not only repeated
Josephus claim that Greek mythology and history were erroneous and falsified; he went
further and declared that Greek philosophy was actively and deliberately destructive of true
religion and authentic culture. Distorting a quotation that Pliny had drawn from Cato the
Elder, Annius claimed that the Greek language itself was inimical to truth, being infused
with a virus contra veritatem. The Greek version o f history, which magnified Greek civili
zation and ridiculed the achievements of the barbari, was a monstrous lie, constructed over
centuries, foisted onto the sturdy but naive Romans, which induced them to abandon and de
stroy the primeval civilization they had inherited from the Etruscans. The contrary of Greek
mendacity was barbarian piety, the common inheritance shared by Etruscans, Chaldaeans,
Egyptians, and the early Hebrews. Annius understood this barbara pietas in both the Roman
and the Christian senses: it was not mere loyalty to family, race, and cultural tradition, but
also a righteous monotheism. Conversely, the G reeks polytheism, like their inveterate men
dacity, resulted from their hereditary love of sophistic rhetoric, abstruse logic-chopping, and
the prostitution of both for monetary gain .16
Annius was far too well-read to be ignorant that Diodorus, Plato, and countless other
Greeks had exalted the civilization of the Egyptians and, to a lesser extent, the Chaldaeans,
but he needed a culprit nefarious enough to assume responsibility for the destruction of
Etruscan civilization as he imagined it. Conversely, he combined Josephus idealization
o f Berossos as a beacon o f truthful barbarian historiography with the Jewish apologists
defence of Hebrew monotheism, and thereby reinvented Berossos as the archetypal pious
Chaldee. A nnius Berossos was trismegistic: he was not only a historian, but a priest, and
consequently a notary-public with a sacred mission. In his commentary on pseudo-Berossos,
the forger asserts that
Berossos was by birth a Babylonian and by rank a Chaldaeus, as Josephus inform s us in his
Against Apion the Grammarian and in the first book o f his Jew ish Antiquities. Thus he was
necessarily a priest, for the Chaldaei held the same rank in their society that the priests held
in Egypt, as D iodorus Siculus asserts in his third [sic] book. Hence Berossos was also a public
scribe and notary, for no one but priests enjoyed the publicly-sanctioned authority to chronicle
events, exploits, and kings ... Accordingly, Berossos condensed all o f C haldaean history, and
in his capacity as a notary invested with public authority, he also transcribed universal history
and ancient occurrences everywhere; he mentioned the flood ... and explicitly named Noah and
his sons, as Josephus asserts in his abovementioned books.17
16 Stephens 1979, 110-16.
17 Annius 1515, fol. 104r-v.
282 Walter Stephens
The Annian Berossos was too piously loyal to his own culture to agree with the negative
accounts o f Nimrod and Nebuchadnezzar given by the Bible, but his loyalties were other
wise pan-barbarian. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, his Defloratio glorified the Etruscans
above all other barbarians. Annius explains that this feature owed nothing to arbitrary par
tisanship on Berossos part: rather, it derived naturally from the pious Chaldees fidelity to
his vocation as documentary historian and scrupulous notary-public. His priestly functions
made him the prefect o f the temple archives at Babylon, and over time this library had
grown to be the storehouse of universal history, resembling both the Ptolemaic library of
Alexandria and the archives o f the Egyptian priests that Solon visited in the fram e-story to
the Timaeus.
The Babylonian library contained the records o f all peoples, so its incomparable manu
script collection naturally included the diaries o f the antediluvian patriarchs. These docu
ments recounted how Noah left Arm enia in the year 100 after the Flood, and sailed around
the M editerranean, leaving substantial colonies o f his prolific descendants on all its shores.
In the year 108, Noah sailed up the Tiber and founded the Janiculum, bestowing his vi
nous nickname on it. Thirty-five years later, N oahs grandson Comerus Gallus, the Biblical
Gomer, formally introduced laws and letters to the lanigenae, who would later be known
as Etruscans. A half-century after that, N oahs great-grandson Nimrod founded Babylon or
Babel. Pseudo-Berossos loyally asserts that Nim rod was a model ruler, but he admits that
Nim rod stole N oahs books before leaving to found Babylon - Berossos does not specify
whether these were Noahs autographs or mere copies. In either case, Noahs books became
the nucleus o f the Library o f Babylon.
By Berossos time, the chronicles and archival documents in Babylons library had be
come so numerous that reading universal history had become a Sisyphean chore - Berossos
criticizes their prolixity - and so he condensed them into the Defloratio. Sometime there
after, the great library was destroyed, and the true history of the Etruscans went into eclipse
sometime later, when Berossos Defloratio fell victim to neglect and the elements. Only the
Latin translation that was brought to Annius from Arm enia seems to have survived, and
Annius confided that he did not even know who translated it.18
A nnius authorial fictions about Berossos are worthy of Jorge Luis Borges, who indeed
seems to have known something about the forger from Viterbo. But despite the grandiose
scene-setting, the Defloratio Berosi Chaldaica was so condensed that A nnius contempor
aries immediately began referring to it as fragments, whether they defended its authentic
ity or denounced it as a forgery. This m isinterpretation was doubtless encouraged by the
format Annius chose. He surrounded relatively short segments of pseudo-Berossian text
with extremely long and detailed commentaries that cited and quoted an impressive variety
of genuine ancient, mediaeval, and Renaissance sources, as well as A nnius own bespoke
forgeries. On several occasions, printers reproduced the entire contents of pseudo-Berossos
on about twenty octavopages in large type, yet when A nnius commentary is included, the
Defloratios total bulk exceeds eighty densely-printed quarto pages .19
As is evident, Noah was the most im portant figure in pseudo-Berossos history. He was
the first Etruscan, and, equally important, the first pontifex maximus. Thanks to him, there
was a continuous succession o fponteflces maximi in Rome, from Noahs Etruscans through
18 For all this, see Stephens 1979, 88-106; Stephens 1989, 111-14; Stephens 2011, 698-702.
19 Comparing Annius 1530 (texts only) to Annius 1515.
From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus 283
the Romans to the succcssors of Saint Peter. Among the books that Nimrod stole from Noah
were the same libri rituales that the Roman priests eventually inherited from their Etruscan
elders. Pseudo-Berossos makes tantalizing references to the ritual books contents, claiming
they were essential to the Babylonian priesthood of his day, but unfortunately his holy vows
prevent his divulging even the most trivial details. What a loss to the history of monotheism.
Annius took great pains to coordinate the text of pseudo-Berossos with the inscriptions he
had forged earlier, in his Egyptophile period. Although he was able to sound out inscriptions
in the Etruscan alphabet, he did not forge any of his own. Etruscan language came into his
project in a less spectacular way, through his claim that it was an older form of the Hebrew
language. Not that he knew much about Hebrew. He claimed to have consulted with rabbis
in Viterbo regarding individual words, and may have actually done so on a few occasions.
But most of his knowledge, or rather his guesswork, came from Saint Jeromes glossaries of
Hebrew names in the Bible. By matching Hebrew syllables to Jeromes Latin etymologies
of the names, Annius was able to claim knowledge of Hebrew. He then used this pseudo-
glossia to parse phrases and place-names in Greek, Latin, Italian, and even Croatian, so as
to provide Etrusco-Hebraic explanations of their significance. One of his most amusing feats
was the transformation of a humble onion-field outside Viterbo into the scene of a primeval
wedding-feast starring the Great Mother, by deriving the oniony adjective cipollara from
the onomastic Cybellaria.20
Annius pseudo-Hebrew erudition, like his fictionalization of Berossos and the Library
of Babylon, derives indirectly from one of the most intriguing features of the genuine
Babyloniaca, that is, Berossos history of writing and of historiography. You remember that,
according to Berossos, hum anity was originally bereft of all skills and lived like animals
until the man-fish Oannes rose from the sea to instruct them, and that even afterward, hu
manity never discovered anything on its own. Berossos Noah-figure Xisouthros safeguarded
human culture by burying all the books, the first, the middle, and the last, in the citadel of
Sippar, thereby creating the first Renaissance in all of human history when the books were
excavated after the flood. Annius could not have known these tales, for Joseph Scaliger only
retrieved them from Syncellus paraphrase of Berossos a century after A nnius time. But
Annius did have Josephus Jewish Antiquities and Against Apion.
If Josephus knew anything about Oannes teachings, he certainly had no use for them,
and the Bible relates nothing that resembles Xisouthros rescue of written culture. However,
Josephus told a story that was remarkably similar to the Babylonian Noahs exploit, and
could have been partly inspired by it. According to Josephus, Adams third son Seth was
both righteous and learned, and passed these traits on to his offspring. The sons of Seth dis
covered astronomy - that quintessential^ Babylonian discipline. Josephus went on to relate
that the Sethians recorded their discoveries on two pillars or stelae, one of stone and one of
brick. This they did because Adam had predicted that the world would be destroyed twice,
once by a flood, and once by a conflagration. Josephus may have been inspired by the second-
century BCE Book o f Jubilees, which attributed the astronomical discovery to Enoch, reflect
ing Enoch-legends now surviving in the Geez or Ethiopic redaction ot the Book of Enoch .- 1
20 Stephens 1979, 17694; Stephens 2004, S212-13; Collins 2000, 62.
21 Josephus, 2001, 33n.; Jubilees 4:17 (Charlesworth, 2.62); 1 Enoch chaps. 81-2 (Charlesworth 1.59-60);
cf. 2 Enoch chap. 40 (Charlesworth 1.164-7).
 284 W alter Stephens
W hatever Josephus exact inspiration, his anecdote about the Sethians and their col
um ns was one o f the most often repeated tales o f the Middle Ages and Early Modern per
iod. According to Hans Schreckenberg, Josephus anecdote was first given prominence
in the West by Isidore o f Seville in his early seventh-century world chronicle, and both
Schreckenberg and Cora Lutz have traced variants o f it in practically all the im portant uni
versal chronicles, both Greek and Latin, right down to Werner Rolewincks and Hartmann
Schedels late fifteenth-century printed bestsellers. It is without doubt an inspiration for
eighteenth-century Masonic legends about the twin columns of Enoch and the columns
outside the Temple o f Solomon, and I have found it discussed with great seriousness as late
as 1852, in an illustrated history o f the world .22
As one would expect, a legend with such staying power underwent several transform a
tions over the centuries. The most bizarre variant was probably initiated by Petrus Comestor,
in his tw elfth-century chronicle, the H istoria Scholastica. According to Peter the Eater,
N oahs son Ham, also known as Zoroaster for his invention o f magic, transcribed the seven
liberal arts onto seven columns o f brick and seven of bronze to preserve them from the twin
cataclysms. Josephus story was too good for deliberate impostors to ignore, and so when
Peters contemporary Godfrey o f Viterbo (d. ca. 1196) composed his own universal history,
he changed the story to enhance his own profile as a historian. A fter finishing his exposition
of events that took place before the Creation o f Adam, Godfrey confronted his reader with
a startling catechism. The rubric asks: Who could have known and narrated the things that
happened before the creation of m an? and Godfrey answered with a versified proclamation:
Adam, tis said, formed great colum ns o f brick
And decreed recording on them all events;
From them we copy all our ancient history.23
Like his fellow townsman o f three centuries later, Godfrey claimed to have read the works
o f Berossos and Manetho, although he stopped short of providing spurious editions o f them.
His claim to have read history from Adam s colum nar chronicles should probably be inter
preted to mean that, as Annius later did, Godfrey combined Josephus references to Berossos
with the anecdote o f the Sethians columns to imagine that historiography was coextensive
w ith universal history. According to Godfrey, Before the rise of the Hebrews, indeed b e
fore the Flood, from the time o f Adam himself, there were historiographers and notaries of
ancient history. Adam was the first of all and wrote down what he knew about the creation
of the world, and left it to his son Seth. Godfrey dutifully traces this genealogy of historiog
raphy down to the time o f Noah and his sons, and then onward to Abraham the Chaldaean
and Moses the pupil o f the Egyptians. Moreover, he proclaims,
A ccording to the annual record books o f the ancient kings, there were other Barbarian or
Gentile historiographers, who wrote down in its entirety everything that happened, and left
nothing unrecorded. I will state some o f their names here: M amenot [sic] who made the de
scription o f the Egyptians, Berossos, who excerpted all the writings o f the Chaldaeans, Mochus
22 Schreckenberg 1972, esp. 192; Lutz 1956; Stephens 2005, S65-83; Mackey 1996, 44-9; 397-405;
Goodrich 1852,66-7.
23 'Quis potuit scire et narrare ilia quae erant ante hominis creationem?' Fertur Adam longas laterum
formasse columnas, /In quibus et [rerum] statuit describere summas, /A quibus accipimus, si qua vetusta
damus\ Godfrey of Viterbo 1559, 34; Godfrey of Viterbo MS, fol. 19v; iterum in the 1559 verses corrupts
rerum in MS (cf. Mader 1702, 8; Fabricius 1722, 1:14).
From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus 285
and Estius [sic] and Jerome the Egyptian: they and many other B arbarian or Gentile historiog
raphers are in agreem ent with my histories and chronicles.24
There can be no doubt that Godfrey was the midwife to A nnius appropriation of Josephus
historiographic program. Both o f them adapted the Jewish patriots implied history of w rit
ing as well as his program of corroborating the Mosaic account of primeval history; both
went far beyond Josephus to claim Adamic authority for their revolutionary revelations about
the supposed truth of history. And both made Berossos central to the transmission of pri
meval chronicles.
Annius took Godfreys revisionary fervour much further, o f course, but he revealed his
dependence on Godfrey in his account of the filiation between Adams diaries and Berossos
condensation of the Babylonian archives. He combined Josephus references to the Sethian
columns and to Berossos with Pliny the Elders invocation o f Berossos as a witness to the
antiquity of writing, and with the Apostle Judes reference to apocalyptic prophecies of
Enoch, and concluded that
Enoch prophesied future [divine] Judgm ents], by m eans o f both flooding and a final confla
gration. A nd Flavius Josephus testifies in the first book o f the Jew ish Antiquities that Enoch
wrote these things on two colum ns, one o f bronze and the other o f brick. Thus, more than a
thousand years before the universal Flood, the arts o f w riting, casting bronze, brick m aking,
and prophecy were in use.
The upshot o f all this was that A nnius reader should have absolute faith in the startling
revelations of Berossos about ancient history, since they were consonant with both Josephus
and the Bible.
Thus the Hebrew history o f antiquity is as sim ilar as can be to the C haldaean ancient history,
and for that reason M oses is cited as a w itness by M aseas [s/c] the Phoenician and H ieronym us
o f Egypt, as Josephus asserts in the first book o f the Jew ish Antiquities and in A gainst Apion
the Grammarian. Therefore it is no wonder if M oses and Berossos are in agreem ent, for they
drank together from the same Fountain o f History.25
This fa n s historiae was o f course the entire complex o f antediluvian chronicles careful
ly safeguarded by the Biblical patriarchs. Even more cynically than his elder compatriot
Godfrey had done, Annius only pretended to follow Josephus example by corroborating
the Biblical account of history. Both Viterbese impostors strongly imply that while the Bible
may be an accurate historical account as far as it goes, it is grossly incomplete. Godfrey re
ferred to Berossos and the rest of Josephus barbarian sources as authors who wrote history
24 Ante tempora vero Ebreorum, immo ante diluvium ab ipso Adam sunt antiquitatum notarii et istorio-
grafi. Adam primo loco quae de mundi constitutione cognovit scripsit, et Seth filio suo reliquid [s/e].
... Sunt et alii barbari sive gentiles istoriografi, secundum libros annales antiquorum regum, qui omnia
que contigerant integraliter descripserunt, nec aliquidnon scriptum reliquerunt; quorum nomina aliqua
hie dicemus: Mamenot [s/c] qui descriptionem fecit Egiptiorum, Berosus, qui defloravit omnia scripta
Chaldeorum, Mochus, et Estius, et Ieronimus Egiptius, et alii multi barbari sive gentiles istoriografi
concordant istoriis et cronicis nostris. Godfrey of Viterbo 1872, 95-6.
25 Unde cum historia Chaldaica de antiquitatibus quam simillima est Hebraeae, ac propterea Moyses pro
teste adducitur a Masea Phoenice et Hieronymo Aegyptio, ut asserit losephus contra Appionem gram-
mat icum et in primo De Antiquitate ludaica. Non est igitur mirum si Moyses et Berosus conveniunt, qui
ex eodem fonte historiae combiberimt, 1515 fols. I05v-6r.

286 Walter Stephens
more amply than Moses and the other holy fathers. Annius dared to show just how incom
plete the Bibles historiography was by forging those more ample accounts.
I would not imagine that scholars o f the historical Berossos have an abiding interest in
the details o f pseudo-Berossos and his fortunate reception, but I would expect you to agree
that Viterbian impostures are evidence o f the old Chaldaeans subterranean influence on
Western ideas about history, writing, and indeed, power. I will close with a final ironic twist.
Between 1531 and 1572, the world chronicle w ritten by an obscure Lutheran astrologer was
appropriated and vastly expanded by Martin Luthers education expert Philipp Melanchthon
and later by M elanchthons son-in-law Caspar Peucer. In its original German vernacular,
the little Chronicon Carionis declared that Josephus says that Adam and Seth made two
tables [Tafeln], one of terra cotta and one of stone. To Josephus assertion that the two stelae
contained astrological and calendrical lore, the Chronicon added the claim that Adam and
Seth wrote Gods Word and Prophecies, and that G ods Word would be fulfilled. This
embellishment, which may have owed something to A nnius fiction of Adamic chronicles,
was clearly intended to supplement the Lutheran notion of sola Scriptura, the idea that the
Bible contained all knowledge necessary for salvation. Improving on Luthers watchword,
the Chronicon also implied that only the Bible was necessary for a knowledge of history, an
idea that it contradicted by its very existence.
Over the ensuing decades, Melanchthon and Peucer improved upon the Chronicons an
ecdote until it read as follows:
Josephus writes that Adam set up two stone tablets, onto which he wrote the beginning o f crea
tion, the Fall o f man, and the prom ise [of the Redemption], I think those tablets were like a sort
o f temple, and the sign o f a certain place where Adam was wont to convoke his Church, where
sacrifices were made and doctrines recited. There the voice o f the prom ise was a testim ony
distinguishing the true Church from the assembly o f Cain, who broke away from his father and
created his own rites and sect. Thus right from the beginning a part o f the human race deserted
the true Church and forgot the prom ise .. ,26
Like Josephus, Melanchthon and Peucer no doubt felt that the history of the world was a
footnote to their own religion. More important, like Berossos himself, and like the impos
tors from Viterbo, the two Lutherans assumed that the history of w riting was necessarily
coextensive with the history of the world, that all worthwhile human knowledge had been
available from the beginning, and that one or more providential gods was standing by to en
sure that writing would continue to guarantee the survival of culture, civilization, and hope.
It seems likely that the Pseudo-Berossos has thus far received far more commentary and
interpretation than the real one will ever inspire. Between 1500 and 1900, and indeed, on
into the 1960s and 1970s, dozens o f commentaries and adaptations o f Berosus Chaldaeus
were printed, mostly for patriotic or religious ends, and it was cited, mostly for the same
reasons, in thousands o f printed and manuscript works. A few systematic refutations and
26 Scribit etiam Josephus, Adam duas lapideas tabulas collocasse, in quibus scripsit initia creationis, lap-
sum hominum, et promissionem. Has tabulas existimo tanquam templum fuisse, et certi loci signum, in
quern solitus est convocare suam Ecclesiam, et ubi sacrificia facta sunt, et recitata doctrina. Fuitque vox
promissionis testimonium discernans veram Ecclesiam a coetu Cain, qui secesserat a patre, et habuit
suos ritus et suam sectam. Ita statim initio verae doctrinae vocem et veram Ecclesiam pars humani
generis deseruit, et promissionem oblita est ... The development can be followed in Carion 1534, sig.
B2v; Carion 1543, fol. lOr-v; Carion/M elanchthon/Peucer 1580, 17.
From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus 287
hundreds of dismissive or sarcastic comments, in both scholarship and fiction, rounded out
the considerable fortune o f this complex and ingenious forgery .27
References
A sher 1993
R. E. Asher, N ational Myths in Renaissance France: Francus, Samothes, a n d the D ruids.
E dinburgh 1993.
A nnius 1515
A nnius of Viterbo [Giovanni N anni], Antiquitatum variarum volumina X V II a venerando et sacra;
theologice etprcedicatorii ordinisprofessore foanne Annio, Paris 1515.
A nnius 1530
A nnius o f Viterbo [Giovanni N anni], Fragm enta vetu stissim o n m autorum, sum m o studio ac dili-
gentia nunc recognita. Basel 1530.
Biondo 2005
Flavio Biondo [Biondo Flavio], Italy Illum inated, vol. 1, trans. Jeffrey A. W hite, Cam bridge, MA
2005.
Borchardt 1971
Frank L. Borchardt, German A ntiquity in Renaissance Myth, Baltim ore 1971.
Carion 1534
J. Carion, Chronica dorch D. Johan. C arion/vlitich tosamende getagen/ m enncichlick niitlick tho
lesen, Magdeburg 1534.
Carion 1543
J. Carion, Chronicorum libellus, maximas quasque res gestas, ab initio mundi, apto ordine com-
plectens, ita ut annorum ratio, ac praecipuae vicissitudines, quae in regna, in religionem, et in
alias res m agnas incidunt, quam rectissim e cognosci ac observari queant. Autore loan. Car.,
Frankfurt 1543.
C arion/M elanchthon/Peucer 1580
J. C arion/P. M elanchthon/C . Peucer, Chronicon Carionis, expositum et auctum multis et veteri-
bus et recentibus historiis, in descriptionibus regnorum et gentium antiquarum , et narrationibus
rerum ecclesiasticarum, et politicarum, graecarum, romanarum, germanicarum et aliarum, ab ex-
ordio mundi usque ad Carolum Quintum imperatorem, a Philippo Melanthone et Casparo Peucero,
W ittenberg 1580.
Charlesworth 1983-5
James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The O ld Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., Garden City, NJ 1983-5.
Cipriani 1980
Giovanni Cipriani, II mito etrusco nel rinascim ento fiorentino, Florence 1980.
Cochrane 1981
Eric Cochrane, H istorians and H istoriography in the Italian Renaissance, Chicago 1981.
Collins 1998
A m anda Collins, The Etruscans in the Renaissance: the sacred destiny o f Rome and the H istoria
Viginti Saeculorum o f G iles o f Viterbo (c. 1469-1532), Studi e m ateriali di storia delle religioni 64
(1998), 337-65.
Collins 2000
Am anda Collins, Renaissance epigraphy and its legitim izing potential: A nnius o f Viterbo,
Etruscan inscriptions, and the origins o f civilization, in: Alison Cooley (ed.), The Afterlife o f
Inscriptions, (Bulletin o f the Institute o f Classical Studies Supplem ent 75), London 2000, 57-76.
27 Stephens 2004, S202-13; Asher 1993; Borchardt 1971; Cipriani 1980; Collins 1998; Collins 2000;
Rowland 1998, 53-9.
 288 W alter Stephens From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus 289

C o p en h av er1992 Pallottino 1978

Brian P. Copenhaver, Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a New Massimo Pallottino, The Etruscans, trans. J. Cremona, Harmondsworth and New York 1978 (1975).
English Translation, with Notes a n d Introduction, Cambridge 1992. Rowland 1998
Crahay 1983 Ingrid D. Rowland, The Culture o f the High Renaissance: Ancients and M oderns in Sixteenth-
Roland Crahay Reflexions sur le faux historique: le cas d A nnius de V iterbe, Academ ic Royale C entury Rome, Cambridge 1998.
de Belgique, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 5e serie, 69 Scheckenberg 1972
(1983), 241-67. H einz Scheckenberg, D ie Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in A ntike und M ittelalter, Leiden 1972.
C urran 2007 Stephens 1979
Brian C urran, The Egyptian Renaissance: The Afterlife o f Ancient E gypt in Early Modern Italy, W alter Stephens, B erosus C haldaeus: C ounterfeit and Fictive Editors o f the Early Sixteenth
Chicago 2007. C entury, PhD dissertation, Cornell University 1979.
Fabricius 1722 Stephens 1989
Johann A lbert Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti, collectus, castigatus, W alter Stephens, G iants in Those Days: Folklore, A ncient History, and N ationalism , Lincoln,
testimoniisque, censuris et anim adversionibus illustratus, 2nd ed., 2 vols., Hamburg 1722. N E 1989.
G odfrey o f Viterbo MS Stephens 2004
O xford University, Bodleian Library MS Lat. hist. c. 1. W alter Stephens, W hen Pope N oah ruled the Etruscans: A nnius o f Viterbo and his forged
Godfrey o f Viterbo 1559 Antiquities, 1498, in: W alter Stephens (ed.), Studia H um anitatis: E ssays In H onor o f Salvatore
Godfrey of Viterbo, Pantheon, sive universitatis libri, qui chronici appellantur, XX, Omnes omnium Camporeale, Special Supplement to M LN Italian Issue, vol. 119, no. 1 (2004), S201-S223.
seculorum et gentium, tarn sacras quam prophanas Historias complectentes: Per V C. Gottofridum Stephens 2005
Viterbiensem, Basel 1559. Walter Stephens, Livres de haulte gresse: bibliographic myth from Rabelais to Du B artas, in:
G odfrey o f Viterbo 1872 Samuel Junod/F lorian Preisig/Frederic Tinguely (eds.), La Litterature engagee a u xX V Ie etX V IIe
G odfrey o f Viterbo, Pantheon, ed. Georg Waitz (M onum enta G ermaniae Historica, Scriptorum , siecles: Etudes en I'honneur de G erardD efaux (1937-2004), Special Supplement to M LN Italian
ed. G. H. Pertz, vol. 22), Hannover 1872. Issue, vol. 120, no. 1 (2005), S60-S83.
Goodrich 1852 Stephens 2011
S. G. Goodrich, H istory o f A ll Nations, fr o m the Earliest Periods to the P resent Time, C incinnati Walter Stephens, Complex pseudonymity: A nnius of Viterbos multiple persona disorder, in MLN
1852. French Issue, vol. 126, no. 4, (2011), 689-708.
G rafton 1990 Verbrugghe /W ickersham 1999
Anthony G rafton, Forgers and Critics: Creativity and D uplicity in Western Scholarship, Princeton Gerald P. V erbrugghe and John M. W ickersham , Introduction to B erossos, in: Berossos and
1990. Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in M esopotamia and E gypt (1996) rpt.
Jacobus of Voragine 1995 Ann A rbor 1999, 13-34.
Iacopo da Varagine, Cronaca della citta di Genova dalle origini al 1297, ed. Stefania Bertini
G uidetti, Genoa 1995.
Jew ish Encyclopedia
The Jew ish Encyclopedia ..., ed. Isidore Singer et al., 12 vols., New York 1901-6.
Josephus 1958
The Latin Josephus, ed. Franz Blatt (Aarsskrift fo r Aarhus Universitet 30.1, H um anistisk Serie,
no. 44), C openhagen 1958.
Josephus 1997
Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, in Josephus, with an English
Translation, vol. 1 o f 10 vols., Cambridge, M A and London 1997 (1926).
Josephus 2001
Flavius Josephus, Jew ish Antiquities, Books / - / / / , trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, in Josephus, with an
English Translation, vol. 2 o f 10 vols., Cambridge, MA and London 2001 (1930).
Lutz 1956
Cora E. Lutz, Remigiuss Ideas on the origin of the seven liberal arts, Mediaevalia et Humanistica
10(1956), 32-49.
Mackey 1996
Albert Gallatin Mackey, The History o f Freemasonry: Its Legendary Origins, New York 1996 (1881).
M ader 1702
Joachim Johann Mader, De bibliothecis atque archiviis: virorum clarissim orum libelli et commen-
tationes, ed. Johann A ndreas Schmidt, H elm stedt 1702.
M attiangeli 1981
Paola M attiangeli, A n n io da Viterbo ispiratore di cicli pittorici, in: M assim o Pallottino (ed.),
Annio da Viterbo: docum enti e ricerche, Rome 1981, 257-342.
 Berossos in Modern Scholarship1
Kai Ruffing (Universitat Marburg)

Introduction

Berossos is not one of those authors who are central to the study o f ancient history. One
glance at the Oxford Classical Dictionary proves the point: in the first edition, published
in 1949, Eric A rthur Barbers article only takes up seven lines and its only bibliographical
reference is the FH G 2; in the third edition, published in 1996, the lemma Berossos takes up
twelve lines and mentions in its bibliography the number of Berossos in FGrHist, as well as
the translation by Burstein and a ground-breaking article by Amelie K uhrt .3
Both OCD articles briefly summarize the contents of the Babyloniaca, and the third
edition of the OCD also mentions the contrast which Berossos draws between Assyrians
and Babylonians. It would thus appear that the study o f Berossos is more closely associated
with Assyriology than with ancient history. The following overview will trace the shifting
fortunes of Berossos scholarship between these two academic disciplines; and investigate
the main topics and questions that have been raised by this research.
The earliest scholarly edition of Berossos, going back to before the decipherment o f the
cuneiform script, was published by Johannes Richter in 1825. In his introduction, Richter ad
dresses many of the questions which Berossos work raises. Notably, he argues that Berossos
did not only w rite the Babyloniaca in three books but also essays on philosophy and as
tronomy. In 1878, the Babyloniaca was included in the second volume of Karl M ullers
Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. This was followed by Paul Schnabels monograph in
1923, which included an edition of the Berossos fragments. Schnabels work has a peculiar
history. Pages 1-183 were printed in 1912 and presented to a group of scholars. The rest of
the book was produced in the years 1922/23 because Schnabels work was interrupted by
an illness he contracted in World War I, and by his habilitation at Halle University .4 Because
o f these interruptions, the number and order o f the fragments as given in the edition at the
back o f the book do not always correspond to the text presupposed in the monograph itself.
Moreover, Schnabels opinions underwent major shifts. For example, he distances him self
from his previous assumption that Clitarchus uses Berossos 5 in the addenda et corrigenda
to the 1923 monograph 6
In 1978, Stanley Meyer Burstein published an English translation of Berossos (The
Babyloniaca o f Berossos), which used a novel method of textual reconstruction. On the
assumption that Josephus, Abydenus and Eusebius depend on Polyhistor, Burstein aimed

1 1 wish to express my gratitude to Johannes Haubold for all his efforts to improve the English tex..
2 See OCD, s. v., 135.
3 OCD, s.v., 239-40. The bibliography refers to Burstein 1978 and Kuhrt 1987.
4 See the preface in Schnabel 1923.
5 Schnabel 1923, 33-66.
6 Schnabel 1923, 246.
 292 Kai Ruffing
essentially to recover Polyhistors excerpt: when passages are missing in Eusebius' text that
are mentioned in Josephus an d /o r Abydenus, he inserts the relevant material in the cor
responding parts o f the text. Anything that Eusebius took from other authors is omitted.
However, since - apart from the longer quotations in Syncellus - only the Armenian transla
tion o f Eusebius survives, one is left to juggle overlapping transmissions o f five authors in
two languages, o f which Josephus is prim a fa cie the most, and Abydenus the least, reliable.
Since Burstein often assumes that the Arm enian translation of Eusebius is faulty, the Greek
text - as far as it is preserved in Syncellus - and, for the Neo-Babylonian era, Josephus
text constitute the basis for his English translation. His reconstruction also includes four
other groups of source: 1. Eusebius excerpts which are not included in Syncellus but are
present in the Arm enian translation. 2. M aterial that is omitted by Eusebius but included in
Abydenus. 3. One line of the lost Syrian translation of the Chronica by Michael the Syrian. 4.
The astronomical-astrological fragments left out by Eusebius because they were not present
in the Polyhistor excerpts, or because they were of no interest to Eusebius .7
The Man and his Life
Researchers broadly agree that Babylonia was Berossos native country and that he worked
as a priest at the main temple of M arduk, the Esagila .8 However, doubts about Berossos be
ing an actual historical figure were voiced from early on .9 Thus, at the beginning of the 19th
century the Encyclopadie der Wissenschaften mentions a Greek author who wrote under the
name o f Berossos but gave away his true identity because of his lack of knowledge of the
Chaldean language; this impostor is said to have authored his work in 262 BC . 10 As early as
1825, Richter accepted Berossos historicity, though he also assumed that he published his
work late, on the ground that Berossos, according to Eusebius, was active under the third
king after Seleucus, i.e. Antiochus II. Theos, whose reign began in 262BC, according to
Richter." Richter argued that Berossos authored his work, or at least sent it to Antiochus II,
at the advanced age o f 80. He was sceptical of ancient sources that suggest Berossos opened
a school at Cos and spent time in Athens, especially since such anecdotes about his life find
no corroboration in his w ork .12
Susemihl, in contrast with Richter, dates the creation of the Babyloniaca to the reign
of Antiochus I. Soter, i.e. shortly after 280B C .13 Paul Schnabel, who researched the topic
most thoroughly, came to a similar conclusion. According to him, the reference to Berossos
fj^iKia during the reign o f Alexander (FGrHist 680 F 1(1)) puts Berossos date of birth in
the years between 350 and 340 BC. The dedication of the Babyloniaca to Antiochus, the
third king after Alexander (FGrHist 680 T2), to him suggested a date o f composition under
Antiochus I. Soter. Moreover, Schnabel argued that the work could only have been authored
between 293 and 280 BC, when Antiochus was crown prince and co-regent o f Babylon, as
any later date would have made him implausibly old .14
7 Burstein 1978, 11. Some corrections to this translation were published by Scurlock 1983.
8 Thus already Richter 1825, 2.
9 Richter 1825, 10-11.
10 Ersch/Gruber 1818, s.v. Berossos.
11 Richter 1825, 4-5.
12 Richter 1825, 17.
13 Susemihl 1891, 606.
14 Schnabel 1923, 5-10.
Berossos in M odern Scholarship 293
In 1928, as a reaction to Schnabels monograph, Lehmann-Haupt suggested a different
date of composition - 275/274 BC - based on a date of birth around 340B C .15 The em igra
tion to Cos is said to have taken place in 273/272B C .16 With that, the debate about the date
of composition had largely run its course, and by the latter half of the 2 0 th century attention
shifted to the content o f the Babyloniaca and Berossos cultural and literary environment.
Komoroczy set the pace with a publication in the 1970s, in which he emphasises the im
portance of Berossos priesthood for his writing and accepts a date of composition o f the
Babyloniaca at around 280BC.17 Verbrugghe and Wickersham, on the other hand, suspected
Berossos date of birth to have been around 330 and 323 BC and placed the publication of
the Babyloniaca at around 290 BC. They accept Berossos emigration to Cos as historical,
motivated in their view by the fact that Babylon was no intellectual centre of the Seleucid
Em pire .18 R. J. van der Spek, on the other hand, emphasised the difficulty o f finding reliable
information on Berossos life, though he did not exclude the possibility that at some point
he emigrated to C os .19 Like all previous researchers, van der Spek was convinced that the
Babyloniaca encompassed the history of Babylonia up to the death of Alexander III. Paul-
Alain Beaulieu, however, suggested that it included the enthronement of Antiochus I .20
Berossos Sources
As early as 1825, Richter argues for frequent use o f cuneiform sources on the part of
Berossos, a point which is widely accepted even today. Richter ascribes any difficulties with
Berossos text to his allegedly limited knowledge of the Chaldean language on the one hand,
and to problems on the part of the authors who used and reshaped Berossos work on the
other. Richter especially emphasised Berossos knowledge of the Babylonian Chronicles and
concluded that he was indeed a Marduk priest .21 Assuming the presence of a large number
of Greeks in Babylonia, Richter deduced that educated Babylonians knew Greek, setting the
intellectual framework for Berossos literary work .22 Furthermore, he assumed that Berossos
knew Hebrew and with it the Jewish tradition, backing this assumption by pointing to the
fact that Berossos allegedly referred to Abraham (FGrHist 680 F *6 ), and the matching
number of antediluvian kings in Berossos and the book of Genesis .23
Francois Lenormant once again emphasised Berossos detailed use of cuneiform sources
in a helpful comm entary on the Babylonians cosmogony and its cuneiform sources pub
lished in 1871. Moreover, Lenormant reached a more accurate understanding of Berossos
sources, which Berossos him self called anagraphai (FGrHist 680 F 1(1)), because unlike
them he could draw on the newly discovered cuneiform texts from Nineveh, and considered
inscriptions on buildings as being among his sources .24 Twenty years later, the classical phil
ologist Franz Susemihl insisted that Berossos anagraphai were in fact temple chronicles .25
15 Lehmann-Haupt 1928, 130-5. See also Lehmann-Haupt 1938, 2-3.
16 Lehmann-Haupt 1938, 2-3.
17 Komoroczy 1973, 126.
18 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 13-15.
19 Van der Spek 2008, 287-8.
20 Beaulieu 2006, 117.
21 Richter 1825, 19-20 and 27.
22 Richter 1825,26.
23 Richter 1825,27-9.
24 Lenormant 1871, 13-35.
25 Susemihl 1891,605.
294 Kai Ruffing
Paul Schnabel was the first scholar to study in detail Berossos use of cuneiform sources,
starting from his own account o f them at FGrHist 680 F 1(1): rcepiexsiv e xd<; avaypacpac;
ioxopiaq Tcepi xoij oupavou Kai 0a?uxoor|(; Kai 7tpo)Toyovla^ Kai Paadecov Kai xcov Kaiaikoix;
Ttpa^ecov). Schnabel saw this fragment as referring to a detailed creation myth in which as
tronomical knowledge played its part. Moreover, Schnabel studied possible links to the Epic
o f Gilgamesh and highlighted Berossos use o f the Babylonian chronicles. Among possible
influences from cuneiform literature Schnabel particularly stressed the idea of a written
tradition going back to antediluvian times. Schnabel saw Berossos greatest achievement
in having refuted the tall tales o f Ctesias and his successors, and confronted them with a
genuine native tradition .26
The question o f Berossos cuneiform sources continued to generate interest as new texts
were found. A striking example is a tablet from Uruk published in 1962 (W 20 030,7), in
which sages - known from mythology - emerge from the sea to reveal science, art and social
order to humankind. Hitherto, this idea had only been attested in Berossos: now there was
also a cuneiform source. Despite this overlap, however, the newly found text was in many
ways closer in content to ancient cuneiform tradition than to the text of Berossos himself,
even though it was more recent than the Babyloniaca. The new findings from Uruk revealed
that Berossos too remodelled old Mesopotamian tradition ;27 as well as suggesting a revival
of Sumerian learning under the Seleucid kings .28
Against this background, Komoroczy asked in an im portant essay how much Berossos
knew about M esopotamian literature. His starting point was Berossos position as priest of
M arduk at the Esagila, which, he argued, meant that Berossos must have known Akkadian
and Sumerian and had access to cuneiform archives .29 Like others before him, Komoroczy
stressed the importance o f Berossos own reference to ancient cuneiform archives (FGrHist
680 F 1(1)). He deduced from the phrase ... avaypacpaq 5e koXX&v ev BapuXcovi qnAaaoeOai
(i8 i a 7toA,^fj<; 87U|!e^ia^ ... that Berossos had access to esoteric information, since those
lines bring to mind colophons o f a set o f cuneiform tablets which deny access to the un
initiated. Since Berossos was a priest of Bel, Komoroczy reasoned, he must have had access
to the scholarship that went on at the M arduk temple: perhaps he wanted to convey some
of this knowledge to a Greek readership .30 A fter a thorough analysis of the Mesopotamian
background of events mentioned in Berossos, Komoroczy concludes that the author also used
ancient Babylonian mythological sources. When he deviates from them this cannot be seen
as a mistake on his part but as the result o f a new level o f historical awareness. Komoroczy
also concurred with earlier scholars that large parts o f Berossos work showed Sumerian
influence, which confirms that Sumerian literature experienced a revival in the late period .31
Burstein too stressed that Berossos made ample use of cuneiform sources, which he found
in the archives o f Babylon ;32 as did Verbrugghe and Wickersham, though they also insist
that Berossos did not have access to Assyrian texts. Furthermore, they point out significant
differences between Berossos and the Sumerian King List, which - according to them
26 Schnabel 1923, 172-84.
27 van Dijk 1962, 46-7.
28 van Dijk 1962, 50.
29 Komoroczy 1973, 127-8.
30 Komoroczy 1973, 129-30.
31 Komoroczy 1973, 151-2.
32 Burstein 1978,8-11.
Berossos in Modern Scholarship 295
Berossos cannot have used. Additionally, Berossos is said to focus on Babylonian kings,
omitting Sargon and challenging Greek traditions about Sem iram is .33
Berossos use of cuneiform sources, and his background as a priest of Marduk, has re
cently been studied in depth by Geert de Breucker. De Breucker examines a range of texts
and text types from temples in Uruk and elsewhere, with a view to analysing the range of
scholarly activity at these temples, including the copying and editing of texts, astrology and
exorcism. Overall, de Breucker highlighted the function of Mesopotamian temples as centres
o f knowledge, to which Berossos had access as a part o f the temple community. The Esagila
was the ideal place for Berossos to write his work .34
In a contribution published in 2006, Paul-Alain Beaulieu emphasised the persistence
of native cultures in the face of Hellenisation and named Berossos and Manetho as prime
examples of this phenomenon. Beaulieu argues that Berossos was of relevance to historical
scholarship as an access-point to Babylonian history but lost this role with the decipher
ment of the cuneiform script. As scholars gained access to cuneiform texts Berossos be
came increasingly redundant or was seen as too detached from Mesopotamian traditions:
In short, the Babyloniaca might have been discarded altogether as a hasty patchwork of
half-digested and garbled facts, showing no authentic respect for the millennial traditions
o f M esopotamia .35 Might have been, but wasnt: Beaulieu stresses that Berossos belongs to
the intellectual context of early Hellenistic Babylon and acquires new significance as a valu
able witness to that context. That in turn raised the old question of what kind of cuneiform
sources Berossos had access to .36 Beaulieu examines this issue by focussing on Berossos
account of the two Babylonian kings Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, which proves that
Berossos must have had easy access to the archives of Esagila. Among the sources that were
kept there, Berossos certainly used the Babylonian chronicles but, as Beaulieu also points
out, he embellished their accounts. For example, he transformed the chronicle account of
the conflict between Babylon and Egypt over control of the Levant into an uprising of the
satrap of Egypt, Syria and Phoenicia against his Babylonian overlords. Beaulieu concludes
that Berossos must have made these changes in order to put his city on a par with other Near
Eastern super-powers: according to him, the Babylonians ruled over Egypt as the Assyrians,
Persians, and Alexander the Great had done .37 This is what the Seleucids liked to hear:
Beaulieu connects the salient features of Berossos account with his aspiration to fashion
parallels between the Seleucids and the Babylonian kings, which could function as propa
ganda for the rulers of his tim e .38
Astronomy and Astrology
Ever since the publication of Part 3 of Jacobys Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, the
authenticity of the astronom ical/astrological fragments of Berossos, which Jacoby assigned
to a Pseudo-Berossos, has been in serious doubt. Part 3 of FGrHist has no commentary, so
it is not known why Jacoby reached this conclusion. The introduction to Johannes Richters
edition of 1825 may have been a source of inspiration, for it divorces the astronom ical/
33 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 15-22.
34 De Breucker 2003b.
35 Beaulieu 2006, 117-18 (citation on p. 118).
36 Beaulieu 2006, 118-19.
37 Beaulieu 2006, 121-6.
38 Beaulieu 2006, 126-32.
296 Kai Ruffing
astrological fragments from the Babyloniaca, though it does not doubt that they are by
Berossos .39 Richter discuses 18th century theories according to which the astronom ical/as
trological fragments cannot possibly have reflected Babylonian knowledge of astronomy
in Berossos times; some scholars therefore postulated the existence of a second, older
Berossos, who worked as an astronomer some time before H erodotus- a position which
Richter attacks .40 His work proved influential. In the Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum
Muller still assumes that Berossos wrote a separate work on astrology .41 Likewise, Alfred
von Gutschmid argued that the testimony o f Josephus (FGrHist 680 T3) proved the existence
of a separate astronomical work by Berossos .42 The tide only turned when Paul Schnabel,
him self an expert in Babylonian astronomy ,43 denied the existence of a separate astronom i
cal text ,44 instead placing the astronom ical/astrological fragments in the first book of the
Babyloniaca ,45 Schnabel extensively discusses Babylonian astronomy, as it was known to
Berossos. He sees its heyday in the second half of the Persian period and during the early
Hellenistic period (427-314 BC). Yet, according to Schnabel Berossos only had access to the
antiquated school of Babylon and was not him self a specialist, which is why signs of cutting-
edge Babylonian astronomy cannot be expected in his w riting .46 Schnabels position became
canonical through Lehm ann-H aupts article in Paulys Realencyclopadie,47
In 1965, the peculiarity o f the astronomical fragments prompted Stephen Toulmin to
comment specifically on the Theory o f Sky G eom etry {FGrHist 680 F20) mentioned
in Berossos, which he claims is more primitive than anything the Greeks had to offer in
this field. Toulmin raises the question, o f whether Berossos aimed to depict state of the art
Babylonian astronomy, or merely offered a popular but primitive Babylonian cosmology.
Toulmin concludes that Berossos was not an astronomer and was not even allowed to divulge
up-to-date astronomical knowledge, since this knowledge was classified. The rectangular
cosmology suggested in the relevant fragment goes back to 1000 BC .48
The pendulum continued to swing back and forth. Komoroczy argued that ouranos in
FGrHist F 1(1) referred to cosmogony rather than astronomy: according to him, Berossos
did not promise any information on astronomy at all .49 Robert Drews, however, insisted,
based on Josephus claim in Contra Apionem 1, 128 that Berossos wrote p eri astronomias
{FGrHist 680 T3), that the astronomical fragments were authentic and belonged in the 2nd
and 3rd book o f the Babyloniaca,50
Reacting to Jacoby and an essay by Lambert on the eschatology of Berossos , 51 Burstein
also accepted the authenticity of the fragments. He argued that any Greek influence traceable
in the astronomical/astrological fragments of Berossos is due to the vagaries of transmission.
39 Richter 1825, 38-9.
40 Richter 1825, 39-40.
41 MUller 1878, 496.
42 v. Gutschmid 1893, 491.
43 Schnabel 1923, 211-45; Schnabel 1927. See Lehmann-Haupt 1928, 158-60.
44 Schnabel 1923, 20.
45 Schnabel 1923 F 16-26.
46 Schnabel 1923, 238-9.
47 Lehmann-Haupt 1938, 16-17.
48 Toulmin 1967; for reactions on his positions see Form an/Palgen/Aaboe/Toulm in 1968.
49 Komoroczy 1973, 130-1.
50 Drews 1975, 51-4.
51 See Lambert 1976.
Berossos in Modern Scholarship 297
Moreover, Berossos wrote for a Greek audience which forced him to use a Greek cover for
Babylonian concepts .52
Perhaps the strongest case to date against the authenticity of the astronom ical/astrologi
cal fragments came in a paper by Amelie Kuhrt. K uhrt highlights the special position held
by authors who handled astronom ical/astrological material in ancient Babylon, and the lack
o f correspondence between the fragments of Berossos and the cuneiform sources. Although
Berossos was known in antiquity as a transm itter of Babylonian mathematical astronomy,
no relevant information can be found in the fragments. According to Kuhrt, another im
portant argument against the authenticity of the fragments is that his alleged transmission
of Babylonian knowledge to Greek culture seems to have had no traceable impact. When
astronomical topics are mentioned in the fragments, the underlying concepts are fundam en
tally Greek .53
Yet even K uhrts argument did not settle the issue. Without commenting on her posi
tion, Verbrugghe and Wickersham accepted the authenticity of the astronomical /astrological
fragments in 1996.54 More recently, R. J. van der Spek argued that Berossos must have had
astronomical-astrological knowledge and may have brought this knowledge to bear on his
work. The traceable Greek influence on the astronomical-astrological fragments is explained
by van der Spek with the Greek audience of the Babyloniaca, though he allows that some of
it was wrongly associated with Berossos .55
Sitz im Leben of the Babyloniaca
Like almost all other aspects of Berossos work, his Sitz im Leben has been much discussed.
In a Pauly article published in 1897, Schwartz saw Berossos as a Seleucid author on the one
hand, and on the other hand as a native whose philosophy, which is apparent in the astro
nom ical/astrological fragments, was of special interest to the Hellenes .56 Paul Schnabel
argued that the Babyloniaca were a sign of Berossos gratitude towards Antiochus I. Soter
for the protection of native traditions and the restoration of the Esagila, the importance of
which becomes more apparent when we consider Babylons depopulation in order to found
Seleucia at the Tigris and the resulting decrease of prebends .57 Five years later, Lehmann-
Haupt emphasised Berossos function as a priest o f Bel, for whom Alexander the Great was
of special interest because his outlook was Babylonian-Hellenistic, and thus anti-Persian.
Moreover, Berossos focal point was the city of Babylon rather than Babylonia as a whole -
which implies that he rejected claims of competing groups of priests in the area. At the time
of publication, the Esagila held a significant role as a source of propaganda for world dom i
nance. For Lehmann-Haupt, the actual motive for writing the Babyloniaca was an attempt
to appeal to Antiochus friendly attitude towards Babylon .58 In the 1960s Robert Drews,
on the other hand, highlighted Berossos special concern to revise Greek ideas of a united
Babylonia and A ssyria .59 However, Stanley Meyer Burstein pointed out that Alexanders
52 Burstein 1978, 31-2.
53 Kuhrt 1987, 36-42.
54 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 15.
55 Van der Spek 2008, 288-9.
56 Schwartz 1897,314-16.
57 Richter 1923, 8-9 and 12-13.
58 Lehmann-Haupt 1928, 127, 132-3; see also Lehmann-Haupt 1938, 1-2.
59 Drews 1965, 130.
298 Kai Ruffing
conquest o f M esopotamia either provoked an intellectual resistance or led to attempts on
the part of local intellectuals to explain Babylonian culture to the conquerors by writing in
Greek. Indeed, Burstein sees Berossos as belonging to the Seleucid court; and as having
authored his work in order to instruct Antiochus I. Berossos stay on Cos resulted from his
disappointment in this king .60 For Burstein, Berossos was motivated by the wish to change
Greek perceptions o f Babylon though in the end he failed to do so .61
Amelie Kuhrt opposes the popular view that Alexander was welcomed by the priests
of Esagila because Xerxes had destroyed their temple .62 According to her, the Babylonians
simply arranged themselves with the new regime which - after the death of Alexander and
the fighting that ensued - restored peace and stability to the region. Even the founding of
Seleucia on the Tigris was not seen as competition, since Seleucus used Neo-Babylonian
forms of royal self-representation. All in all, Kuhrt sees the Greek conquest of Babylonia
and its aftermath as a moment o f crisis in Babylonian history against which the Seleucid
reign positively stood out. Berossos bears witness to a period of deepening interaction
between M acedonians and Babylonians after Antiochus I .63 With this setting in mind,
Amelie K uhrt developed a new and intriguing interpretation of the Babyloniaca and its in
tention. Like others, she sees the work as a product of cultural contact between Macedonians,
Hellenes, and Babylonians. However, for K uhrt the main emphasis is on countering
Ptolemaic propaganda. The emperors mentioned in the Babyloniaca, e.g. N abopolassar and
Nebuchadnezzar II., are represented by Berossos as rulers over Phoenicia, Coele Syria, and
Egypt. Hence, the Babyloniaca must be read as an attempt to bolster Seleucid claims to
hegemony in the region. K uhrt concludes ... that Hecataeus and M anetho in Egypt, on
the one hand, and Berossos in Babylon, on the other, helped to make accessible the local
ideological repertoires and historical precedents for adoption by the M acedonian dynasties,
which resulted in the formation and definition o f the distinctive political-cultural entities of
Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid em pire .64
Rounding off this section, Verbrugghe and Wickersham see the Babyloniaca as an at
tempt to reach out to a Greek audience, sponsored either by the king or the temple, with
the aim of glorifying Babylon or M arduk .65 In a similar vein, Geert de Breucker argues that
Berossos main goal was to extol the golden age o f Mesopotamian culture ;66 and Paul-Alain
Beaulieu likewise suggests that Berossos intention was to glorify Babylon and its history. In
order to do so, he reinterpreted events conveyed in the chronicles to create parallels between
the Neo-Babylonian kings and the Seleucids .67 Russel E. Gmirkin, finally, sees Berossos
special concern as telling the Greek world o f the unknown Nebuchadnezzar, affiliating
Berossos with M egasthenes, who, according to him, succeeded him as a writer. Again, both
are thought to have worked at the behest o f Antiochus I.68
60 Burstein 1978,4-6.
61 Burstein 1978, 8.
62 Bichler/Rollinger 2005, 189-90.
63 Kuhrt 1987, 48-52; see also Kuhrt 1995, 62. For the self-representation of Antiochus I as a Babylonian
king see further Kuhrt/Sherwin-W hite 1991.
64 Kuhrt 1987, 53-6 (citation on p. 56).
65 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996,26-7.
66 De Breucker 2003a, 30-2.
67 Beaulieu 2006, 121-32, esp. 132.
68 Gmirkin 2006, 258.
Berossos in M odern Scholarship 299
Transmission
There has been much discussion as to how exactly Berossos work was passed down and,
accordingly, how the surviving fragments should be reassembled. Johannes Richter recon
structed the main lines of transmission as follows: Berossos was passed down to later au
thors via Polyhistor and Juba. Josephus is the exception, since he must have had direct ac
cess to Berossos work. Alexander Polyhistor, who may have used a 2nd century BC author
called Apollodorus, served as a source for Abydenus and Eusebius, who also used Josephus.
According to Richter, Tatian and Clement of Alexandria used Juba. Tatian was then used by
Eusebius, who in turn was used by Syncellus .69
Muller paints a slightly different picture of the transmission of Berossos. He claims
that only Apollodorus and Juba used Berossos directly. Juba was then used by Clement of
Alexandria, while Apollodorus was used by Alexander Polyhistor, the source for Josephus
and Julius Africanus. Eusebius used Africanus and was him self used by Syncellus. Susemihl
countered that Alexander Polyhistor, Josephus, and Juba all used Berossos directly. Clement
of Alexandria then used Juba, whereas Eusebius used Josephus and Alexander Polyhistor.
Eusebius might also have used Julius Africanus. Apollodorus, who up to this point was seen
as a source for Alexander Polyhistor, was exposed as a fraud by Susemihl, who argued that
this Pseudo-Apollodorus might have had first-hand knowledge of Berossos and acted as a
direct source for Syncellus.
Paul Schnabel in his monograph researched the transmission of Berossos in greater depth
than was attempted before or after. To trace his argument in detail would go beyond the scope
of this chapter. Schnabel initially raised the possibility that Clitarchus used the Babyloniaca,
but later changed his m ind .70 He identifies Posidonius, Juba, and Alexander Polyhistor as the
three main sources for later users of Berossos .71 In reaction to this, Carl Friedrich Lehmann-
Haupt argued that Alexander Polyhistor absorbed Berossos work through the Babylonian
Sibyl and Pseudo-Eupolemos; and that Eusebius had access to Alexander Polyhistor in an
interpolated form. Pseudo-Apollodorus comes to stand between Berossos and Alexander
Polyhistor .72
Issues of transmission resurface in a publication by Arnaldo Momigliano which deals
with the connections between Berossos, Alexander Polyhistor, and Abydenus. Momigliano
focuses on Berossos account of a battle between the Ionians and the Assyrians, which
Eusebius passed down in two versions, one using Polyhistor and the other Abydenus. The
two versions differ in that Polyhistor mentions a battle on land, while Abydenus places the
conflict at sea (FGrHist 680 F *7(31) = F43 ed. Schnabel; F 44 ed. Schnabel). At this point,
Momigliano uses the discrepancy to argue that Abydenus did not use Polyhistor .73
Lehmann-Haupt argues that Alexander Polyhistor knew Berossos work directly ,74 and
that he was used by Abydenus, Josephus, and Eusebius .75 He also believes in a direct use
of Berossos by Posidonius and Juba. Like Schnabel, he surmises that Berossos entered into
69 Richter 1825, 30-7.
70 Schnabel 1923, 33-66 and 246.
71 Schnabel 1923,94-171.
72 Lehmann-Haupt 1928, 139-42.
73 Momigliano 1934.
74 Lehmann-Haupt 1938, 4.
75 Lehmann-Haupt 1938, 7-8.
300 Kai Ruffing
Latin literature through Posidonius, while passing down to Aelian and Tatian via Juba.
Tatian then was available to Eusebius.76 Pseudo-Eupolemos might also have had direct access
to Berossos work.77 The role of Alexander Polyhistor as a privileged source for later authors
was further emphasised by Burstein,78 but challenged by Amelie Kuhrt.79 Kuhrt highlights
the difficulties involved in recovering the structure of Berossos work, given that the most
important fragments come from Christian and Jewish apologetic texts. Moreover, she points
out that material which had a bearing on Biblical tradition was frequently quoted, whereas
everything else was badly preserved.80 In their translation, Verbrugghe and Wickersham
essentially revert to the opinions o f Schnabel.81
Russel E. Gm irkin recently suggested a completely new approach to the transmission of
Berossos work - for him Berossos is the source o f Mesopotamian influences on the book of
Genesis.82 He demonstrates this by using the cosmogony as an example, and by arguing that
Berossos offered better parallels to the Bible texts than the cuneiform sources.83 Gm irkin
also tried to prove that Berossos was a source for M egasthenes.84
I conclude by mentioning an unusual witness to the transmission of Berossos: the Greek
glossary, published in 2007,85 which has recently been joined to a papyrus already published
in 1922.86 Both pieces were re-published by Francesca Schironi in 2009.87 Two entries in the
Oxyrhynchus Glossary mention Berossos (Frg. 5, 2 0 /Frg. 10A, 9-10). The second of these
names him as the source o f a Persian gloss: ] O cdaooa Kaxa nspaac;. Bfjpajaaoi; [ | ev] a
Ba(3uA,(oviaKc6v.88
Chronology
Scholars o f the 19th and early 20th century paid much attention to questions of Babylonian
chronology, with Berossos seen as an important witness. A prominent early exponent was
Alfred von Gutschmid, who used his chronological researches to emendate Eusebius text.89
Schwartz also devoted much room to questions of chronology in his article in Pauly.90 In
the 20th century it was Carl Friedrich Lehm ann-Haupt who particularly concentrated on
chronological questions in Berossos and in the Ancient Near East, and in so doing drew on
the increasingly abundant cuneiform sources.91 Eduard Meyer, too, worked on the chrono
logical system o f Berossos, showing, among other things, that Berossos ended an era o f
76 Lehmann-Haupt 1938, 8.
77 Lehmann-Haupt 1938, 9.
78 Burstein 1978, 6.
79 Kuhrt 1987, 34.
80 Kuhrt 1987, 34-6.
81 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996, 27-30.
82 Gmirkin 2006, 91.
83 Gmirkin 2006, 92-135.
84 Gmirkin 2006, 257-8,
85 P. Oxy. LXXI4812.
86 P. Oxy. XV 1802.
87 See Schironi 2009.
88 This appears to refer either to the word 0od&x0 o r OpopKa; cf. Schironi 2009, 122-4 and pp. 235-254
in this volume.
89 v. Gutschmid 1853; v. Gutschmid 1858.
90 Schwartz 1897, 310-14.
91 Lehmann-Haupt 1903; Lehmann-Haupt 1908; Lehmann-Haupt 1910; Lehmann-Haupt 1919; Lehmann-
Haupt 1928, 144-54; Cf. Lehmann-Haupt 1938, 9-16.
Berossos in M odern Scholarship 301
36.000 years after the death of Alexander .92 Other notable contributions came from Paul
Schnabel ,93 Friedrich Cornelius ,94 and Stanley Burstein, who did much to clarify the chro
nology of the reigns of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon in the appendix to his Berossos trans
lation .95 More recently, Verbrugghe and W ickersham have argued that Berossos either had
no access to the Sumerian King List or was not interested in it.96 A recently published
literary papyrus throws a fascinating new light on this issue .97 In this text, a short list of
the first Babylonian kings after the Deluge is given, the sum of the years of the reign of the
Babylonian kings being 168 (col. III. 7-13). The preserved names of the kings - Adaneites,
Hyrboullos and Phe [ .] .[ ..] chos - are neither found in Berossos nor in the cuneiform texts.
This suggests that diverging versions of such lists must have circulated in the Hellenised
Eastern M editerranean.
Berossos and Historiography
Robert Drews was the first scholar to put the Babyloniaca in the context of Greek histori
ography and its knowledge of Assyria. Such knowledge is sparse in the works of Herodotus
and Ctesias, though both authors at least make some attempt to establish a chronology of
the Assyrian empire. Drews argues that the conquest of Babylonia by Alexander the Great
is the prim ary cause for the rise of patriotic historiography in the region. Accordingly, the
Babyloniaca has to be seen as an attempt on the part of Berossos to correct Greek literature
on the one hand and to boost the image of the Chaldaeans on the other. As we have al
ready seen, Berossos insisted upon differentiating between Babylonians and Assyrians, who
were seen as largely identical in Greek literature, and also corrected the tale of Semiramis.
Drews saw the chances for a broad reception of Berossos in classical literature as being
rather slim, since neither the average Greek nor the average Roman were particularly inter
ested in Assyria. In the Jewish world, however, things were completely different, as events
known from the Old Testament could be paralleled in Berossos, which led to the use of the
Babyloniaca by Josephus and the Christian chronographevrs. More generally, the Assyrians
were of a much greater significance to Jewish tradition, which made them descendants of one
of Noahs grandsons .98 Eusebius, finally, created a synthesis of Ctesias and Eastern versions
of Assyrian history, which was repeated until the cuneiform sources challenged the accuracy
of his Assyrian king list in modern tim es .99
Ten years after his first article, Robert Drews revisited Berossos, this time in connection
with the Babylonian chronicles. He especially focuses on history and historiography in
different types of cuneiform sources, an issue on which J. J. Finkelstein had already worked
before him .100 Drews asks whether we can call the Babylonian Chronicles historiography
92 Meyer 1903.
93 Schnabel 1908; Schnabel 1923, 185-210; Schnabel 1927.
94 Cornelius 1942.
95 Burstein 1978, 33-5.
96 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996,22-3.
97 Colomo/Popko/Rucker/Scholl 2010 with the corrections made by Luppe 2010. On this chronicle see
WeiB 2010.
98 Drews 1965, 129-31.
99 Drews 1965, 137.
100 See Finkelstein 1963, esp. 462: i n the first place, then, it will be plain that our own understanding of
the word history is inadequate to comprehend any Mesopotamian literature that deals with the past
in any systematic way. Finkelstein instead opts for a definition of history developed by the Dutch
302 Kai Ruffing
in any meaningful sense, and sums up his position as follows: There is no escaping the ob
vious fact that the chronicles present some kind of history. But it also seems to be true that
they differ greatly from what most o f us would comfortably call historiography . 101 Drews
defines historiography broadly as the explanation of the present by the past, but even on
this definition does not feel able to include the Babylonian chronicles .102 He sum m arizes his
conclusion as follows: The texts commonly called chronicles seem to be temporal charts
showing the occurrence o f certain types o f phenomena which either directly express or
else symptomize suffering or well-being in Babylon and environs. These phenomena were
not understood as being tied to each other in a causal chain, and apparently were all seen
as direct results o f divine decree .103 On the basis of this observation, Drews connects the
chronicles with the Astronomical Diaries and Prophecies: The inferred use of chronicles
for the composition o f the Akkadian Prophecies points to the conclusion that the chron
icles may have been drawn up in the service o f judicial astrology. The same conclusion is
indicated by the demonstrable use o f the chronicles by Berossus ... I04 Drews regards the
astronom ical/astrological fragments o f Berossos as authentic, only to raise the question
whether the Babyloniaca as a whole can be regarded as historiography. His answer is no:
... Berossus presentation of their [sc. the chronicles] contents in the Babyloniaca increases
rather then dim inishes the probability that they were drawn up in the service o f astrology.
Both the chronicles and the Babyloniaca [ ... ] were based on the presupposition that since
what happened in the past would happen again, it would be useful to have compiled a record
of the past .105
Drews conclusions did not remain uncontested. W. G. Lambert challenged them just one
year later, arguing that Berossos (or indeed Pseudo-Berossos) did not hold a cyclic view of
history .106
Stanley Meyer Burstein too disagreed with D rews conclusions, though he accepted that
the Babyloniaca was not historiography in the usual sense. Instead, Burstein described it as
an introduction to Babylonian culture: Berossos was interested not in historie but sophia. In
fact, there was no such thing as Babylonian history, for contrary to the Greeks, Babylonians
saw civilisation as a result o f divine revelation, not human actions, thus making the begin
ning of history also its end. For Burstein, this perspective explains the arrangement of mate
rial in Berossos :107 the Babyloniaca provided the basis on which the Greeks could understand
Babylon. It was a Babylonian work, but written in Greek, and for a Greek audience, to whose
taste it made im portant concessions .108
There followed Amelie K uhrts ground-breaking essay to which I have already re
ferred on several occasions. Based on the assumption that the astronom ical/astrological
fragments are not authentic, Kuhrt too rejects Drews interpretation of the Babyloniaca,109
historian Johan Huizinga in order to describe the cuneiform texts: History is the intellectual form in
which a civilization renders account to itself of the past.
101 Drews 1975, 40.
102 Drews 1975, 41-2.
103 Drews 1975,45.
104 Drews 1975, 50.
105 Drews 1975, 54.
106 Lambert 1976.
107 Burstein 1978, 6-7.
108 Burstein 1978, 8-10.
109 Drews 1975.
Berossos in M odern Scholarship 303
Like Momigliano, she sees the astronom er Berossos as a Greek construct, created to lend
an air of authority to Greek scientific writing. The moment Babylonia fell to the Parthian
Empire, this authority figure was transported to Cos .110 Kuhrt dismissed Drews account of
Berossos relationship with historiography on these grounds. In her view, Berossos must
have been familiar with cuneiform traditions, including the chronicles, but without giving
them too much weight. Instead, Berossos engages openly with Greek concepts and ideas, as
Kuhrt demonstrates with reference to his description of Babylon, cosmogony, the figure of
Semiramis, the battle between Greeks and Assyrians, and the sequence of empires which
he mentions .111 According to Kuhrt, Berossos compares closely to Greek historiographers,
pouring his Babylonian materials into a Greek m ould .112
Verbrugghe and W ickersham see Berossos as combining Mesopotamian and Greek his
toriography, with parallels in Herodotus, Thucydides, and early Greek historiography. The
description of Babylon in particular is said to be typically Greek .113
Geert de Breucker argues that after the wars of Alexander the Great and the initial trau
ma o f cultural encounter indigenous populations sought to redefine themselves vis-a-vis
the dominant Greek culture. Furthermore, there was a desire to correct existing Greek ac
counts of indigenous culture, which led to the creation of an apologetic historiography whose
Babylonian representative was Berossos. De Breucker sees him strongly influenced by cu
neiform tradition on the one hand, yet on the other hand responding to Greek literature too.
Berossos saw Babylonian history as a giant continuum, undisrupted by catastrophic events.
Although his overall outlook was based on local sources, he paradoxically expressed it in
the form o f Greek ideas about the East. All in all, Berossos and his Babyloniaca are, for de
Breucker, a typical Hellenistic m ixture of local and Greek culture .114
In a similar vein, Reinhold Bichler highlights Berossos precise knowledge of names and
dates, in contrast to Greek historiography, yet sees him as deeply influenced by Greek tradi
tion too .115 Such influence, according to Bichler, is due to his Greek audience and its literary
horizons, prompting Berossos to follow Herodotus and Ctesias where he could have fol
lowed cuneiform precedent. Thus, Berossos echoes Greek traditions about the Neo-Assyrian
Empire, which he struggles to bring in line with Babylonian history. This becomes clear
in his account about N ebuchadnezzars building projects in Babylon {FGrHist 680 F9a,
13940) which Bichler sees as being in close contact with Herodotean tales about Nitocris
and Cyrus. Like de Breucker, Bichler sees Berossos as significantly influenced by Greek
historiography . 116
The issue was recently revisited by R. J. van der Spek in an extensive essay which aims
to assign Berossos a place in Babylonian and Greek historiography. To meet this goal, van
der Spek first considers the status of the Babylonian chronicles as historiography, speci
fying eleven criteria for historiography properly speaking. According to van der Spek,
historiography
1. deals with the past;
110 Kuhrt 1987, 42-4. For another discussion of the astronomical-astrological fragments see Kuhrt 1995, 63.
111 Kuhrt 1987,45-8.
112 Kuhrt 1995, 62-3.
113 Verbrugghe/Wickersham 1996,23-6.
114 De Breucker 2003a.
115 Bichler 2004 [2007], 209.
116 Bichler 2004 [2007], 217-24.
304 Kai Ruffing
2. focuses on human beings;
3. is based on evidence (whether corroborated or not);
4. tries to explain events (in religious or secular terms);
5. m aintains a certain distance between author and object of study;
6 . takes the form o f a narrative;
7. has a well-defined theme;
8 . has a single, well-defined author, preferably known by name;
9. is w ritten with a historiographic aim in mind: history for historys sake;
lO.is published;
11 . tries to make sense o f human history; conveys m eaning . " 7
Van der Spek specifically distinguishes between chronicles of the distant past, the inten
tion o f which was to give a theological explanation of events, and chronicles of the recent
past, which present facts in a broadly objective manner - i.e. independent o f any specific
ideological agenda. The Babylonian chronicles, he argues, fulfil five of the eleven criteria
in his catalogue; yet, crucially, they were history not for the sake of history but for the sake
of divination. In support o f this point, van der Spek argued that the Babylonian author of
chronicles essentially used astronomical diaries and omen lists as sources. Nor indeed were
they specialised writers o f chronicles, since they belonged to the same group of intellectuals
who were attached to the temple. According to van der Spek, Berossos was him self an author
of chronicles, though one who had taken on board Greek influences. His roots as a writer of
chronicles are especially obvious in the fragments drawn from Contra Apionem ; and in the
structure and focus o f his work as a whole. At the very least, Berossos knew the chronicles
and used them for his work . " 8 Van der Spek is thus the last in a long line of scholars who see
Berossos as shaped by his hybrid cultural milieu. With his knowledge of the Babylonian,
Sumerian, Aramaic, and Greek languages Berossos was the ideal counsellor to his king .119
Conclusion
Having offered the only access point to the history of Babylon before the decipherment
of cuneiform, Berossos lost his privileged position as an entirely new category of source
material emerged in the second half o f the nineteenth century. By the early 20th century,
Berossos was still o f importance to scholars interested in Mesopotamian chronology, and
those interested in the reception and transmission of ancient literature. Yet, by the 1960s,
those issues had lost much o f their traction, and research on Berossos turned increasingly to
the question of how to define Mesopotamian historiography. In this context, two questions
came to prominence, which were both mutually interlinked and helped scholars rethink
Berossos status as a historian: were the astronom ical/astrological fragments genuine, and
was Berossos primarily, or at least partially, a Greek author? Finally, the question arose as
to the intention o f the Babyloniaca. Here, positions continue to range widely, with some
scholars suggesting that Berossos wanted to win Seleucid support for Babylon, while others
see him as addressing a broader Greek audience. Yet others see Berossos as rewriting history
117 Van der Spek 2008, 279.
118 Van der Spek 2008, 284-95.
119 Van der Spek 2008, 313-14.
Berossos in M odern Scholarship 305
on behalf of his Macedonian patrons, who wished to harness the resources of indigenous
cultural tradition in the interest of their own imperial project.
References
Beaulieu 2006
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Berossos on late Babylonian history, O riental Studies. Special Issue 2006,
Beijing 2006, 116-49.
Bichler 2004 [2007]
Reinhold Bichler, Some observations on the image o f the A ssyrian and Babylonian kingdom s
w ithin the G reek tradition, in: Robert Rollinger (ed.), R einhold Bichler. H istoriographie -
Ethnographie - Utopie. Gesammelte Schriften, Teil 1: Studien zu H erodots K unst der H istorie
(Philippika 18,1), W iesbaden 2007, 209-28.
Bichler, R ollinger 2005
Reinhold B ichler/R obert Rollinger, Die hangenden G arten zu Ninive - Die Losung eines
R atsels?, in: Robert Rollinger (ed.), Von Sum er bis Homer. Festschrift fiir M anfred Schretter
zum 60. G eburtstag am 25. Februar 2004, M unster 2005 (Alter O rient und Altes Testam ent 325),
153-218.
Burstein 1978
Stanley M eyer Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus (SANE 1.5), M alibu, CA 1978.
C olom o/P opko/R ucker/S choll 2010
Daniela C olom o/Lutz Popko/M ichaela R ucker/R ein hard Scholl, Die alteste Weltchronik. Europa,
die Sintflut und das Lam m , A rchiv fiir P apyrusforschung 56 (2010), 1-25.
Cornelius 1942
Friedrich Cornelius, Berossos und die altorientalische C hronologie, Klio 17 (1942), 1-16.
De Breucker 2003a
G eert de Breucker, Berossos and the construction o f a N ear Eastern cultural history in response
to the G reeks, in: Hero H okwerda (ed.), C onstructions o f Greek Past. Identity and H istorical
C onsciousness from A ntiquity to the Present, Groningen 2003, 25-34.
De Breucker 2003b
G eert de Breucker, Berossos and the M esopotam ian temple as centre o f knowledge during the
Hellenistic period4, in: A lasdair A. M acD onald/M ichael W. T w om ey/G errit Jan Reinink (eds.),
Learned Antiquity. Scholarship and Society in the Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and the
Early M edieval West, Leuven-Paris-D udley 2003, 13-23.
Drews 1965
Robert Drews, A ssyria in classical universal histories, H istoria 14 (1965), 129-42.
Drews 1975
Robert Drews, The Babylonian chronicles and Berossus, Iraq 37 (1975), 39-55.
E rsch/G ruber 1818
Johann Samuel E rsch/ Johann G ottfried Gruber, Encyklopddie der Wissenschaften und Kunste,
Leipzig 1818.
Finkelstein 1963
J. J. Finkelstein, M esopotamian H istoriography, Proceedings o f the Am erican Philosophical
Society 107 (1963), 461-72.
Forman /'P algen/A aboe/ Toulmin 1968
Paul Form an/J. J. O. Palgen/A sger A aboe/Stephen Toulmin, The astrophysics o f Berossos the
C haldean, Isis 59 (1968), 91-4.
306 Kai Ruffing Berossos in M odern Scholarship 307

Gm irkin 2006 M uller 1878

Russel E. G m irkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho a n d Exodus. H ellenistic H istories a n d the Karl Muller, Fragm enta H istoricorum G raecorum, Paris 1878.
D ate o f the Pentateuch, New York-London 2006. Peretti 1943
v. Gutschm id 1853 Aurelio Peretti, La Sib ilia babilonese nella propaganda ellenistica, Florence 1943.
A lfred von Gutschm id, Zu den Fragmenten des Berosos und K tesias, Rheinisches M useum 8 Pongratz-Leisten 1997
(1853), 252-67. Beate Pongratz-Leisten, s.v. Berossos, D er Neue Pauly 2 (1997), 579-80.
v. Gutschm id 1858 Richter 1825
A lfred von G utschm id, Beitrage zu r G eschichte des alten Orients. Zur Wiirdigung von Bunsen's Johann Daniel W ilhelm Richter, Berosi Chaldaeorum H istoriae quae supersunt cum commenta-
A egypten B a n d IV u n d V, Leipzig 1858. tione prolixiori de Berosi vita et librorum ejus indole, Leipzig 1825.
v. Gutschm id 1893 Schironi 2009
A lfred von Gutschm id, Vorlesungen tiber Josephos Bucher gegen Apion, in: Franz Riihl (ed.), Francesca Schironi, From A lexandria to Babylon. N ear Eastern Languages a n d H ellenistic
K leine Schriften A lfred G utschm id Bd. IV, Schriften zu r griechisehen Geschichte und Literatur, E rudition in the O xyrhynchus G lossary (P. Oxy. 1802 + 4812) (Sozomena 4), Berlin-New York
Leipzig 1893, 336-589. 2009.
Komoroczy 1973 Schnabel 1908
G. Komoroczy, Berosos and the M esopotam ian literature, A cta A n tiqu a 21 (1973), 125-52. Paul Schnabel, Studien zur babylonisch-assyrischen Chronologie (M itteilungen der Vorderasia
K uhrt 1987 tischen G esellschaft 13), Berlin 1908.
Amelie K uhrt, B erossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia, in: A melie K u h rt/S u san Schnabel 1923
Sherwin-W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East. The Interaction o f Greek and Non-G reek Civilizations Paul Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig-Berlin 1923.
fr o m Syria to C entral A sia after Alexander, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1987, 32-56. Schnabel 1927
K uhrt 1995 Paul Schnabel, Kidenas, Hipparch und die Entdeckung der Prazession, Zeitschrift fu r Assyriologie
Amelie Kuhrt, Ancient M espotamia in classical Greek and Hellenistic thought, in: Jack M. Sasson 37 (1927), 1-60.
(ed.), Civilizations o f the A ncient N ear E ast vol. I, New York 1995, 55-65. Schwartz 1897
K uhrt/Sherw in-W hite 1991 Eduard Schwartz, s.v. Berossos Nr. 4 , Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertum swissen-
Amelie K uh rt/S u san Sherwin-W hite, Aspects o f Seleucid royal ideology: The cylinder o f schaft III.l (1897), 309-16.
A ntiochus I from Borsippa \ Journal o f Hellenic Studies 111 (1991), 71-86. Scurlock 1983
Lam bert 1976 Joanne Scurlock, Berossos and the fall o f the A ssyrian Em pire, Revue d A ssyriologie 77 (1983),
W ilfred G. Lam bert, Berossus and Babylonian Eschatology, Iraq 38 (1976), 171-3. 95-6.
Lehm ann-Haupt 1903 Spoerri 1975
Carl Friedrich Lehm ann-Haupt, Die Dynastien der babylonischen Konigsliste und des Berossos, Walter Spoerri, s.v. Beros(s)os, D er K leine Pauly 1 (1975), 1548.
Klio 3 (1903), 135-63. Streck 1903
Lehm ann-Haupt 1908 M axim ilian Streck, s.v. Berossos Nr. 4 , Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertum sw is-
Carl Friedrich Lehm ann-Haupt, B erossos Chronologie und die keilschriftlichen N eufunde, Klio senschaft Suppl. 1 (1903), 249.
8 (1908), 227-51. Susem ihl 1891
Lehm ann-Haupt 1910 Franz Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit Bd. /, Leipzig 1891.
Carl Friedrich Lehm ann-Haupt, B erossos Chronologie und die keilschriftlichen N eufunde, Klio Toulmin 1967
10 (1910), 476-94. Stephen Toulmin, The Astrophysics o f Berossos the Chaldean, Isis 58 (1967), 65-76.
Lehm ann-Haupt 1919 Van der Spek 2008
Carl Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt, Berossos Chronologie und die keilschriftlichen N eufunde, Klio Robartus J. van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and a Greek historian, in: Robartus
16(1919) 178-86; 242-301. J. van der Spek (ed.). Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society P resented to Martin
Lehm ann-Haupt 1928 Stol on the Occasion o f his 65th Birthday, Bethesda, MD 2008, 277-318.
Carl Friedrich Lehm ann-Haupt, Neue Studien zu B erossos, Klio 22 (1928), 125-60. van Dijk 1962
Lehm ann-Haupt 1938 Jacobus van Dijk, Die Inschriftenfunde, in: Heinrich J. Lenzen (ed.), XVIII. vorlaufiger Bericht
Carl Friedrich Lehm ann-Haupt, s.v. Berossos, Reallexikon der A ssyriologie 2 (1938), 1-17. iiber die von dem D eutschen Archaologischen Institut und der Deutschen O rient-G esellschaft aus
Lenormant 1871 Mitteln der D eutschen Forschungsgem einschaft unternomm enen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka
Francois Lenorm ant, E ssai de com mentaire des fragm ents cosm ogoniques de Berose d a pres les (Abhandlungen der D eutschen O rient-G esellschaft 7), Berlin 1962, 39-62.
textes cuneiform es et les monuments de I a rt asiatique, Paris 1871. V erbrugghe/W ickersham 1996
Luppe 2010 Gerald P. V erbrugghe/John M. W ickersham, Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated.
Wolfgang Luppe, Korrekturen und Erganzungen zur Leipziger W eltchronik, Archiv fu r Papyrus- Native Traditions in Ancient M esopotamia and Egypt, Ann A rbor 1996.
forschung 56 (2010), 2 0 0 -6 . WeiB 2010
Meyer 1903 Alexander WeiB, Die Leipziger W eltchronik - die alteste christliche W eltchronik?, Archiv fu r
Eduard Meyer, Das chronologische System des Berossos, Klio 3 (1903), 131-4. Papyrusforschung 56 (2010), 26-37.
Momigliano 1934
A rnaldo M omigliano, Su una battaglia tra Assiri e G reci, Athenaeum 12 (1934), 412-16.
 308 Kai Ruffing

Wilcke 1991
Claus W ilcke, G ottliche und menschliche W eisheit im Alten Orient. Magie und W issenschaft,
M ythos und G eschichte, in: Alida Assman (ed.), Weisheit. Archdologie der literarisehen
Kom m unikation III, M unich 1991, 259-70.
Berossos - A Bibliography
Birgit Gufler1/Irene Madreiter (University of Innsbruck)

Publications Focused on Berossos by Year

1825 Richter
This bibliography is part of a major bibliographical project on Greek historians writing about
1853 v. G utschm id the ancient N ear East (Herodotus, Ctesias2, Berossos and Manetho), which was initiated by
1858 v. Gutschm id Robert Rollinger at the University of Innsbruck in 2005. The bibliography is based on en
1871 Lenorm ant tries in Gnomon and Annee Philologique. It includes further studies and papers of journals
1893 v. G utschm id and proceedings published until August 2012 as well as the chapters of the current volume .3
1897 Schwartz
The bibliography does not contain book reviews and encyclopaedia articles, except the en
1903 L ehm ann-Haupt; Meyer
1908 Lehm ann-Haupt
tries Berossos, O annes and Sardanapal in Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen
1910 Lehm ann-H aupt Altertumswissenschaft. Titles are listed alphabetically and by year of publication.
1919 Lehm ann-H aupt
1923 Schnabel
1928 Lehm ann-H aupt
1934 M omigliano
1938 Lehm ann-Haupt
1942 Cornelius Adler 1983
1965 Drews William Adler, Berossus, Manetho, and 1 Enoch in the world chronicle of Panodorus,
1967 Toulmin The H arvard Theological Review 7 6 /4 (1983), 419-42.
1968 Forman / Palgen / Aaboe / Toulmin Albright 1923
1973 Komoroczy William Foxwell Albright, The Babylonian antediluvian kings, Journal o f the American
1975 Drews /S poerri
1976 Lam bert
Oriental Society 43 (1923), 323-29.
1978 Burstein Annus 2012
1983 Scurlock Am ar Annus, The antediluvian origin of evil in the Mesopotamian and Jewish tradi
1987 K uhrt tions: A comparative study, in: Tarmo K ulm ar/R udiger Schmitt (eds.), Ideas o f Man
1991 Wilcke in the Conceptions o f the Religions - Das M enschenbild in den Konzeptionen der
1995 K uhrt
Religionen. Akten des VIII. gemeinsamen Symposiums der Theologischen Fakultat
1996 Verbrugghe / W ickersham
1997 Pongratz-Leisten
der Universitat Tartu, der deutschen religionsgeschichtlichen Studiengesellschaft, der
2003 De Breucker a + b estnischen Studiengesellschaft fiir Morgenlandkunde und der Studiengesellschaft fiir
2004 Bichler Theologie am 2. und 3. Oktober 2009 an der Universitat Tartu/Estland (Forschungen
2005 B ichler/R ollinger zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 43), Munster 2012, 1-43.
2006 B eaulieu/G m irkin Atenstadt 1922
2008 Van der Spek
Felix Atenstadt, Zwei Quellen des sogenannten Plutarch de fluviis, Hermes 57/2 (1922),
219-46.

1 The project was financially supported by the Research Platform Cultural Encounters and Transfers
(CEnT), University of Innsbruck.
2 Margareta M. Berktold/Birgit Gufler/Inge Klingler/Irene Madreiter, Ktesias-Bibliographie, in: Josef
Wiesehofer/Giovanni B. Lanfranchi/Robert Rollinger (eds.), Die Welt des Ktesias/ Ctesias' World
(Classica et Orientalia I), Wiesbaden 2011, 515-527; see also the draft version on Achemenet.com:
http://www.achemenet.com/document/BERKTOLD_Ktesias-Bibliographie _10-02-09.pdf.
3 We thank Margareta M. Berktold, Sebastian Fink, Inge Klingler, Martin Lang and Robert Rollinger for
providing us with additional material.
310 Kai Ruffing
Bach 2013, in press
Johannes Bach, Berossos, Antiochos und die Babyloniaka, Ancient West and East 12
(2013), in press.
Barreiros 1561
G aspar Barreiros, Censuras de Gaspar Barreiros sobre quatro liuros intitulados em M.
Portio Catam de Originibus, em Beroso Chaldaeo, em Manethon Aegyptio et em Q. Fabio
Pictor Romano. Sigs. Bl-I3v (bis) in his Chorographia de alguns lugares que stam em
hum caminho, que fe z G. Barrieros in anno de M.D. X XXXVI, Coimbra 1561.
Barreiros 1565
Gaspar Barreiros, Censura in quendam auctorem, qui sub fa lsa inscriptione Berosi
Chaldaei circumfertur, Rome 1565.
Barton 1915
George A. Barton, A Sumerian source o f the fourth and fifth chapters of Genesis,
Journal o f Biblical Literature 34/1 /4 (1915), 1-9.
Bedrosian [s.a.]
Robert Bedrosian, M aterials for the study o f extra-terrestrial presence in human history
based on ancient prim ary sources, vide: http://rbedrosian.com/ephh.htm [17/08/2012],
Bertin 1891
George Bertin, Babylonian chronology and history, Transactions o f the Royal Historical
Society 5 (1891), 1-52.
Beaulieu 2005
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Eannas contribution to the construction of the North Palace at
Babylon, in: Heather D. B aker/M ichael Jursa (eds.), Approaching the Babylonian
Economy. Proceedings o f the START Project Symposium on the Economic History o f
Babylonia in the First Millennium H eld in Vienna, 1 3 July 2004 (Veroffentlichungen zur
Wirtschaftsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., vol. II, Alter Orient und
Altes Testament 330), Munster 2005, 45-73.
Beaulieu 2007
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Berossus on late Babylonian history, in: Yushu G ong/Y iyi
Chen (eds.), A Collection o f Papers on Ancient Civilizations o f Western Asia, Asia Minor
and North Africa (Oriental Studies Special Issue 2006), Peking 2007, 116-49.
Bichler 2004
Reinhold Bichler, Some observations on the image of the Assyrian and Babylonian king
doms within the Greek tradition, in: Robert Rollinger/Christoph Ulf (eds.), Commerce and
Monetary Systems in the A ncient World: Means o f Transmission and Cultural Interaction,
Proceedings o f the Fifth Annual Symposium o f the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual
Heritage Project Held in Innsbruck, Austria, October 3rd-8th 2002 (Melammu Symposia 5,
Oriens et Occidens 6), Stuttgart 2004, 499-518. (= idem, in: idem, Historiographie,
Ethnographie, JJtopie. Gesammelte Schriften Teil I, ed. Robert Rollinger, Wiesbaden 2007,
209-28).
Bidez 1904
Joseph Bidez, Berose et la grande annee, in: Societe pour le progres des etudes
philologiques et historiques (eds.), Melanges Paul Fredericq: hommage de la Societe pour
le progres des etudes philologiques et historiques, 10 juillet, 1904, Brussels 1904, 9-19.
Berossos - A Bibliography 311
Boncquet 1980
Jan Boncquet, Berossus en de griekse geschiedschrijvers over Mesopotamia, Kleio 10
(1980), 22-28.
Borger 1974
Rykle Borger, Die Beschworungsserie Bit meseri und die H im m elfahrt Henochs,
Journal o f Near Eastern Studies 33/2 (1974), 183-96.
Bosanquet 1855
James W hatman Bosanquet, Corrections of the canon of Ptolemy, required in order to
place it in harmony with the solar eclipses of Jan. 11th B.C. 689, and May 28th B.C. 585,
Journal o f the Royal Asiatic Society o f Great Britain and Ireland 15 (1855), 416-30.
Boiy 2004
Tom Boiy, Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 136),
Leuven /Paris /Dudley, MA 2004.
Boiy 2007
Tom Boiy, Between High and Low: A Chronology o f the Early Hellenistic Period
(Oikumene 5), Frankfurt 2007.
Boiy (this volume)
Tom Boiy, Babylon during Berossos lifetim e, in: Johannes Haubold/G iovanni B.
Lanfranchi/ Robert Roi linger /John Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et
Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Bossi/V illarubia 2004
Bea Bossi/C arlos Villarubia, [Translation of] W ickersham, Beroso, los textos, Revista
Beroso. Revista de in ve stig a tio n y reflexion histdrica sobre la Antiguedad 11/12 (2004),
11-62.
Bowersock 1983
Glen W. Bowersock, Antipater Chaldaeus, The Classical Quarterly 3 3/2 (1983), 491.
Brown 1893
Robert Brown Jr., The ten patriarchs of Berosus, The Academy: A Weekly Review of
Literature, Science and Art 43 / nr. 1100 (1893), 485-86.
Brown 1893
Robert Brown Jr., The ten patriarchs of Berosus, The Academy: A Weekly Review of
Literature, Science and Art 4 4/nr. 1106 (1893), 56.
Bukharin 2000
Mikhail D. Bukharin, Early Hellenistic horographers: Megasthenes, Hekataios of Abdera
and Berossos, Vestnik Drevnei Istorii/Journal o f Ancient History 2 (2000), 88-99 [Russian
with an English summary].
Burstein 1978
Stanley Mayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca o f Berossus (Sources and Monographs,
Sources from the Ancient Near East / / 5), Malibu 1978.
B ury/C ook/A dcock 19282
John Bagnall B ury/Stanley Arthur C ook/Frank E. Adcock, The Cambridge Ancient
History, vol. I: Egypt and Babylonia to 1580 B.C., Cambridge, 2nd ed. 1928.
312 Birgit G ufler/Irene M adreiter
Caballero Lopez 2004
Jose Antonio Caballero Lopez, El Beroso de Annio de Viterbo y su presencia en las
historias de Espana, Revista Beroso. Revista de investigacion y reflexion histdrica sobre
la A ntiguedad 11/12 (2004), 81-128.
de Callatay 2001
Godefroid de Callatay, The Presocratics and the Great Year, in: Dietrich Papenfu 13/
Volker Michael Strocka (eds.), Gab es das griechische Wunder? G riechenlandzwischen
dem Ende des 6. und der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Tagungsbeitrage des 16. Fach-
symposiums der Alexander-von-Humboldt-Stiftung, veranstaltet vom 5. bis 9. April 1999
in Freiburg im Breisgau, M ainz 2001, 243-49.
Campos Daroca 2004
Javier Campos Daroca, Beroso de Babilonia (Dictionnaire des Philosophes antiques II,
Paris 1994), Revista Beroso. Revista de investigacion y reflexion histdrica sobre la
A ntiguedad 11/12 (2004), 63-80.
Cavaignac 1921
Eugene Cavaignac, La premiere dynastie arameenne de Berose et les documents contem-
porains, Revue d assyriologie et d archeologie orientale 18 (1921), 79-81.
Cavaignac 1954
Eugene Cavaignac, Sur deux textes de Berose et de Diodore relatifs a lastronomie
babylonienne, in: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten (ed.), Compte rendu de
la troisieme rencontre assyriologique internationale: organisee a Leiden du 28 Juin au
4 Juillet 1952 (Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten 1), Leiden 1954, 148-50.
Cornelius 1942
Friedrich Cornelius, Berossos und die altorientalische Chronologie, Klio. Beitrage zur
Alten Geschichte 35 (1942), 1-16.
Cory 1828
Isaac Preston Cory, Ancient Fragments, Containing What Remains o f the Writings o f
Sanchoniatho, Berossus, Abydenus, Megasthenes, and Manetho, London 1828.
Dailey 1994
Stephanie Dailey, Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens: Cuneiform and classical
sources reconciled, Iraq 56 (1994), 45-58.
Dailey 1997
Stephanie Dailey, Sennacherib and Tarsus, in: Altan (^ilingiroglu (ed.), Proceedings o f
the Fourth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium H eld at Mersin, 19-23 May 1997 (Anatolian
Iron Ages 4, Anatolian Studies 49), London 1999, 73-80.
Dailey (this volume)
Stephanie Dailey, First m illennium BC variation in Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, the
flood story and the Epic o f Creation: W hat was available to Berossos?, in: Johannes
H aubold/G iovanni B. Lanfranchi/R obert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f
Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Day 2011
John Day, The flood and the ten antediluvian figures in Berossus and in the priestly
source in Genesis, in: James K. A itken/G raham I. D avies/K atharine J. D ell/B rian A.
Mastin (eds.), On Stone and Scroll, Essays in Honour o f Graham Ivor Davies (Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 420), Berlin/B oston 2011, 211-24.
Berossos - A Bibliography 313
de Breucker 2003
Geert de Breucker, Berossos and the construction of a Near Eastern cultural history in
response to the Greeks, in: Hero Hokwerda (ed.). Constructions o f Greek Past. Identity
and Historical Consciousness from Antiquity to the Present, Groningen 2003, 25-34.
de Breucker 2003
Geert de Breucker, Berossos and the Mesopotamian temple as centre of knowledge dur
ing the hellenistic period, in: Alaisdair A. M acDonald/M ichael W. Twomey/ Gerrit J.
Reinink (eds.), Learned Antiquity. Scholarship and Society in the Near-East, the Greco-
Roman world, and the Early M edieval West (Groningen Studies in Cultural Change 5),
Leuven/Paris/D udley, MA 2003, 13-24.
de Breucker 2010
Geert de Breucker, Abydenos (685), B rills New Jacoby Online, 2010 [24/08/2012].
de Breucker 2010
Geert de Breucker, Berossos (680), B rills New Jacoby Online, 2010 [24/08/2012],
de Breucker 2011
Geert de Breucker, Berossos between tradition and innovation, in: Karen Radner / Eleanor
Robson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook o f Cuneif orm Culture, Oxford 2011, 637-57.
de Breucker 2012
Geert de Breucker, Berossos Babyloniaca: purposes and interpretations, in: Tom Boiy/
Joachim Bretschneider/A nne G oddeeris/H endrik H am eeuw /G reta Jans/Jan Tavernier
(eds.), The Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe (Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 220), L euven/Paris/W alpole, MA 2012, 115-30.
de Breucker 2012
Geert de Breucker, De Babyloniaca van Berossos van Babylon. Inleiding, vertaling,
commentaar, PhD Univ. Groningen 2012.
de Breucker (this volume)
Geert de Breucker, Berossos: his life and his work, in: Johannes H aubold/G iovanni
B. L anfranchi/R obert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et
Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Deschamps 1988
Lucienne Deschamps, Virgile, Eneide, VI, 453-54 et la lune obscure du debut du mois,
Kentron 4 (1988), 59-63.
Dillery 2007
John Dillery, Greek historians of the Near East: Clios other sons, in: John Marincola
(ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden 2007, 221-30.
Dillery (this volume)
John Dillery, Berossos narrative of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II from
Josephus, in: Johannes Haubold/Giovanni B. L anfranchi/R obert Rollinger/John Steele
(eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Dossin 1971
Georges Dossin, La glose sarachero dHesychius, Bulletin de lAcadem ie royale de
Belgique, Classe des. Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques 57 (1971), 389-99.
Drews 1965
Robert Drews, Assyria in classical universal histories, Historia. Zeitschrift fiir Alte
Geschichte 14(1965), 129-42.
314 Birgit G ufler/Irene M adreiter
Drews 1975
Robert Drews, The Babylonian chronicles and Berossus, Iraq 37 /1 (1975), 39-55.
Eggert 1823
Friedrich Ludwig Heinrich Eggert, Dissertatio, qua Berosi de mundi primordiis narratio
explicatur, Halle 1823.
Fernandez Quintano 2004
Jose Fernandez Quintano, Beroso, el historiador, Revista Beroso. Revista de investi
gatio n y reflexion histdrica sobre la A ntiguedad 11/12 (2004), 129-275.
Finkelstein 1963
Jacob Joel Finkelstein, The antediluvian kings: A university of California tablet, Journal
o f Cuneiform Studies 17/2 (1963), 39-51.
Floigl 1880
Victor Floigl, Die Chronologie der Bibel, des Manetho und Beros, Leipzig 1880.
Form an/Palgen/A aboe/T oulm in 1968
Paul Form an/J. J. O. Palgen/A sger A aboe/Stephen Toulmin, The astrophysics of
Berossos the Chaldaean, Isis 59/1 (1968), 91-94.
Frahm 2010
Eckart Frahm, Counter-texts, commentaries, and adaptions: politically motivated re
sponses to the Babylonian Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Biblical world, and
elsewhere, Orient: Reports o f the Society fo r Near Eastern Studies in Japan 45 (2010),
3-33.
Frahm 2011
Eckart Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins o f Interpretation
(Guides to the M esopotamian Textual R ecord vol. V'), Munster 2011.
Freudenthal 1874
Jakob Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judaischer
und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Jahresbericht des judisch-theologischen Seminars
Fraenkelscher S tiftung, Hellenistische Studien 1), Breslau 1874.
Galling 1953
Kurt Galling, Von Naboned zu Darius. Studien zur chaldaischen und persischen
G eschichte, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 69/ 1 (1953), 42-64.
Gaiter 2005
Hannes D. Gaiter, sa lam abubi. Die Zeit vor der groBen Flut in der mesopotamischen
Uberlieferung, in: Robert Rollinger (ed.), Von Sumer bis Homer. Festschrift fu r Manfred
Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament
325), M unster 2005, 269-301.
Geller 2012
Mark J. Geller, Berossos on Kos from the view of common sense geography, in: Klaus
G eus/M artin Thiering (eds.) Common Sense Geography and Mental Modelling, Berlin
2012, 101-9.
Berossos - A Bibliography 315
Gmirkin 2006
Russell E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus. Hellenistic Histories
and the Date o f the Pentateuch (Copenhagen International Series 15, Library o f Hebrew
B ible/O ld Testament Studies 433), London/N ew York 2006.
Goddard 1927
Cranston Earl Goddard, A tradition current in the third century B.C f Journal o f Biblical
Literature 4 6 /1 2 (1927), 106-10.
Grafton 1990
Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship,
Princeton 1990.
Grafton 1990
Anthony Grafton, invention of traditions and traditions of invention in Renaissance
Europe: The strange case of Annius of Viterbo, in: Anthony Grafton /A n n Blair (eds.),
The Transmission o f Culture in Early Modern Europe, Philadelphia 1990, 838.
Grafton 1991
Anthony Grafton, Defenders o f the Text: The Traditions o f Scholarship in an Age o f
Science, 1450-1800, Cambridge, MA 1991.
von Gutschmid 1853
Alfred von Gutschmid, Zu den Fragmenten des Berosos und K tesias, Rheinisches
Museum 8 (1853), 252-67.
Hallo 1971
William W. Hallo, Antediluvian cities, Journal o f Cuneiform Studies 23/3 (1971), 57-67.
Haubold (this volume)
Johannes Haubold, The World of Berossos: Introduction, in: idem/Giovanni B. Lanfranchi/
Robert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5),
Wiesbaden (this volume).
Haubold (this volume)
Johannes Haubold, The wisdom of the Chaldaeans: Reading Berossos, Babyloniaca
book 1, in: idem /Giovanni B. Lanfranchi/Robert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World
o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
H aubold/L anfranchi/R ollinger/Steele (this volume)
Johannes H aubold/Giovanni B. L anfranchi/R obert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The
World o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Harmanny 1990
Geert Harmanny, Annius of Viterbo on Persian history: the success story of a fifteenth cen
tury forgery, in: Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), The Roots o f the European Tradition.
Proceedings o f the 1987 Groningen Achaemenid History Workshop (Achaemenid History V),
Leiden 1990, 53-66.
Havet 1873
Ernest Havet, Memoire sur la date des ecrits qui portent les noms de Berose et de
Manethon, Paris 1873.
Heidel 19512
Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis. The Story o f Creation, Chicago/London
19512 (19421), 77-81.
316 Birgit G ufler/Irene M adreiter
Hodges 1876
Edward Richmond Hodges, C orys Ancient Fragments o f the Phoenician, Carthaginian,
Babylonian, Egyptian and other Authors: A New and Enlarged Edition; the Translation
Carefully Revised, and Enriched with Notes Critical and Explanatory, with Introductions
to the Several Fragm ents, London 1876.
Hommel 1893
Fritz Hommel, The ten patriarchs of Berosus, Proceedings o f the Society o f Biblical
Archaeology 15 (1893), 243-46.
Huber 2005
Irene Huber, Ersatzkonige in griechischem Gewand: Die Umformung der sar puhi-
Rituale bei Herodot, Berossos, Agathias und den Alexander-Historikern, in: Robert
Rollinger (ed.), Von Sumer bis Homer. Festschrift fiir Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburts-
tag am 25. Februar 2004 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 325), Munster 2005, 339-398.
Huxley 1968
George Huxley, Nikolaos of Damascus on Urartu, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 9
(1968), 319-20.
Jacoby 1958
Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, vol. IIIc 1 F680, Leiden/Berlin
1958, 364-97.
Jacobs 2001
Bruno Jacobs, Kultbilder und Gottesvorstellung bei den Persern - Zu Herodot, Historiae
1.131 und Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus 5.65.3, in: Tomris B akir/ Heleen Sancisi-
W eerdenburg/R. Gul G iirtekin/Pierre Briant/W outer Henkelman (eds.), Achaemenid
Anatolia. Proceedings o f the First International Symposium on Anatolia in the Achaemenid
Period, Bandirma 15-18 August 1997 (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeo-
logisch Instituut te Istanbul 92), Leiden 2001, 83-90.
Jacobs (this volume)
Bruno Jacobs, Berossos and Persian religion, in: Johannes Haubold/Giovanni B.
L anfranchi/ Robert R ollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et
Orientalia 5), W iesbaden (this volume).
Knobloch 1985
Johann Knobloch, Eine etymologische Fabel im Sintflutbericht bei Berossos, Glotta.
Zeitschrift fiir griechische und lateinische Sprache 63/1 (1985), 1.
Komoroczy 1973
Geza Komoroczy, Berossos and the Mesopotamian literature, Acta Antiqua Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 21 (1973), 125-52.
Kosmin (this volume)
Paul Kosmin, Seleucid ethnography and indigenous kingship: The Babylonian education
o f Antiochus I, in: Johannes Haubold/Giovanni B. Lanfranchi/R obert Rollinger/John
Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Kraeling 1947
Emil Gottlieb Kraeling, The significance and origin of Gen. 6:1-4, Journal o f Near
Eastern Studies 6 /4 (1947), 193-208.
Berossos A Bibliography 317
Kraeling 1947
Emil Gottlieb Kraeling, Xisouthros, Deucalion and the flood traditions. Journal o f the
American Oriental Society 6 7/3 (1947), 177-83.
Kuhrt 1987
Amelie Kuhrt, Berossus Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia, in: Amelie
K uhrt/Susan Sherwin-W hite (eds.), Hellenism in the East. The Interaction o f Greek
and Non-Greek Civilizations fro m Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, Berkeley/Los
Angeles 1987, 32-56.
Kroll 1930
Wilhelm Kroll, Plinius und die Chaldaer, Hermes 65/1 (1930), 1-13.
Lagrange 1898
M arie-Joseph Lagrange, Melanges: I. La Cosmogonie de Berose, Revue biblique 7/1
(1898), 395-402.
Lambert 1976
Wilfred George Lambert, Berossus and Babylonian eschatology, Iraq 3 8 /2 (1976),
171-173.
Lanfranchi (this volume)
Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Babyloniaca, book 3: Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians,
in: Johannes H aubold/Giovanni B. Lanfranchi/R obert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The
World o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Lang 2008
M artin Lang, Floating from Babylon to Rome. Ancient Near Eastern flood stories in the
M editerranean worlds, KASKAL. Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente
Antico 5 (2008), 211-31.
Lang (this volume)
Martin Lang, Book two: Mesopotamian early history and the flood story, in: Johannes
Haubold/Giovanni B. L anfranchi/R obert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f
Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden 2012 (this volume).
Langdon 1923
Stephen Langdon, The Chaldean kings before the flood, Journal o f the Royal Asiatic
Society o f Great Britain and Ireland 2 (1923), 251-59.
Larsson 2004
Gerhard Larsson, Possible hellenistic influences in the historical parts of the Old
Testament, Scandinavian Journal o f the Old Testament 18/2 (2004), 296-311.
Lehmann 1903
Carl Friedrich Lehmann, Die Dynastien der babylonischen Konigsliste und des
Berossos, Klio. Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte 3 (1903), 135-63.
Lehmann-Haupt 1908
Carl Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt, Berossos Chronologie und die keilinschriftlichen Neu-
funde. I-V Iir, Klio. Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte 8 (1908), 227-51.
Lehmann-Haupt 1910
Carl Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt, Berossos Chronologie und die keilinschriftlichen Neu-
funde. IX-X, Klio. Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte 10 (1910), 476-94.
318 Birgit G ufler/Irene M adreiter Berossos - A Bibliography 319

Lehmann-Haupt 1920 [1919] Nanni 1498 [Annius of Viterbo, Pseudo-Berossos]

Carl Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt, Berossos Chronologie und die keilinschriftlichen Neu Giovanni Nanni, Fragmenta vetustissimorum autoru[m]: summo studio ac diligentia nunc
funde. XV, Klio. Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte 16/1-2 (1920) [1919], 178-86. recognita. Myrsili Lesbii de origine Italiae et Tyrrhenorum Auctores vetustissimi, Rome
Lehmann-Haupt 1920 1498 (Venice 1498, also Basel 1530 etc.).
Carl Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt, Berossos Chronologie und die keilinschriftlichen Neu Nanni 1499 [Annius of Viterbo, Pseudo-Berossos]
funde (mit Beitragen von W. Del Negro) XII-XV, Klio. Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte 16 Giovanni Nanni, Antiquitatum variarum volumina X V II a venerando et sacrae theologae
(1920), 242-301. et praedicatorii ordinis professore Ioanne Annio, Venice 1499 (Paris 1515 etc.).
Lehmann-Haupt 1929 Nanni 1509 [Annius of Viterbo, Pseudo-Berossos]
Carl Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt, Neue Studien zu Berossos, Klio. Beitrage zur Alten Ge Giovanni Nanni, Berosus babillonic[us] de antiquitatibus seu defloratio Berosi: Caldaica
schichte 22 (1929), 125-60. cum figuris et ipsius eleganti vita libris Geneseos perutilis, Paris 1509. [illustrated edition
Lenormant 1871 of Nanni 1498, Berosi sacerdotis chaldaici].
Francois Lenormant, Essai de commentaire des fragm ents cosmogoniques de Berose Nanni 1534 [Annius of Viterbo, Pseudo-Berossos]
d apresles textes cuneiformes et les monuments de I art asiatique, Paris 1871. Giovanni Nanni, Berosi Babylonis antiquitatum libelli quinq[ue], in: Flavii Iosephi
Levi della Vida 1910 Hebraei Antiquitatum ludaicarum Libri XX: novissime iam ad vetustissima exemplaria
Giorgio Levi della Vida, Pseudo-Beroso siriaco, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 3 (1910), diligenter recogniti, interprete Ruffino, Cologne 1534.
7[l]-43[37] and 611-12. Nanni 1554 [Annius of Viterbo, Pseudo-Berossos]
Levy 1950 Giovanni Nanni, Berosi et aliorum eius argumenti autorum de chronologica priscae
Isidore Levy, Les inscriptions de Karatepe (et le temoignagne de Berosos), La Nouvelle memoriae historia tomus (...): Cuius scriptores, & co[n]sequentem eorum ordinem pro
Clio 1-2 (1949/1950), 105-21. ratione temporum versa pagina indicabit apodeixis, Lyon 1554 [= part o f N anni 1498,
Ligota 1987 Berosi sacerdotis chaldaici].
Christopher R. Ligota, Annius of Viterbo and historical method, Journal o f the Warburg Niebuhr 1857
and Courtauld Institutes 50 (1987), 44-56. Marcus Carsten Nicolaus von Niebuhr, Geschichte Assurs und B a b els seit Phul. Aus der
Concordanz des Alten Testaments, des Berossos, des Kanons der Konige und der griechi-
M adreiter (this volume) schen Schriftsteller. Nebst Versuchen iiber die vorgeschichtliche Zeit, Berlin 1857.
Irene Madreiter, From Berossos to Eusebius: A Christian apologists shaping o f pagan lit
erature, in: Johannes Haubold/Giovanni B. Lanfranchi/Robert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), Oelsner 1992
The World o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume). Joachim Oelsner, Griechen in Babylonien und die einheimischen Tempel in hellenis
Meyer 1903 tischer Zeit, in: Dominique C harpin/Francis Joannes (eds.), La circulation des biens, des
Eduard Meyer, Das chronologische System des Berossos, Klio. Beitrage zur Alten Ge personnes et des idees dans le Proche-Orient ancien, Paris 1992, 341-47.
schichte 3 (1903), 131-134. Oelsner 2002
Momigliano 1934 Joachim Oelsner, Hellenization of the Babylonian culture?, in: Antonio Panaino / Giovanni
Arnaldo Momigliano, Su una battaglia tra Assiri e Greci, Athenaeum 12 (1934), 412-16. Pettinato (eds.), Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena. Proceedings o f the Third Annual
Moyer (this volume) Symposium o f the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project Held in Chicago,
Ian Moyer, Berossos and Manetho, in: Johannes Haubold/Giovanni B. Lanfranchi / Robert USA, October 27-31, 2000 (Melammu Symposia 3), Milan 2002, 183-96.
Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden Opitz 1932/33
(this volume). Dietrich Opitz, Der Bar bei den Babyloniern und bei Berossos, Archiv f u r Orient
Murray 1972 forschung 8 (1932/33), 45-51.
Oswyn Murray, Herodotus and hellenistic culture, The Classical Quarterly 2 2 /2 (1972), Oppert 1874
200-13. Jules Oppert, Restoration of the Berosus canon, in: Robert K. Douglas (ed.), Transactions
Muller 1878 o f the Second Session o f the International Congress o f Orientalists, H eld in London in
Karl Muller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. II, Paris 1878, 495-510. September, 1874, London 1876,46-50.

Nanni 1498 [Annius o f Viterbo, Pseudo-Berossos]

Giovanni Nanni, Berosi sacerdotis chaldaici, antiquitatum Italiae ac totius orbis libri
quinque. Cum commentariis Joannis Annis Viterbensis sacrae theologiae professoris,
Rome 1498 (also Antwerpen 1545, W ittenberg 1612 etc.).
320 Birgit G ufler/Irene M adreiter
Pellicer de Ossau i Tovar 1673
Ioseph Pellicer de Ossau i Tovar, Beroso de Babilonia en Chaldea, distinguido del Beroso
de Viterbo en Italia: Con la chronologia de los reyes antiquissimos de A siria y Babilonia:
puesto en la real proteceion del serenissimo senor el senor Don luan de Austria (... ),
Valencia 1673.
Rabinovitch 1969
Nachum L. Rabinovitch, Berossos the Chaldean, Isis 6 0 /4 (1969), 547.
Rajak 2001
Tessa Rajak, Josephus and the Archaeology of the Jews, in: eadem, The Jewish
Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction (Arbeiten zur
Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 48), Leiden 2001, 241-255.
Richter 1825
Johann Daniel Wilhelm Richter, Berosi Chaldaeorum Historiae quae supersunt cum com-
m entatiuoneprolixiori de Berosi vita et librorum eius indole, Leipzig 1825. [= De Beroso
Chaldaeorum historiae et astronomiae veteri scriptore: commentatio ( . . . ) , Univ. Diss.
Halle-W ittenberg 1825],
Rollinger 2011
Robert Rollinger, Assur, Assyrien und die klassische Uberlieferung. Nachwirken, Deu-
tungsmuster und historische Reflexion, in: Johannes Renger (ed.), Assur - Gott, Stadt und
Land. 5. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 18.-21. Februar
2004 in Berlin (Colloquien der D eutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 5), Wiesbaden 2011,
311-46.
Rollinger (this volume)
Robert Rollinger, Berossos and the monuments: City walls, sanctuaries, palaces and the
Hanging Garden, in: Johannes Haubold/Giovanni B. Lanfranchi/Robert Rollinger/John
Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), W iesbaden (this volume).
Rollinger in press
Robert Rollinger, Assyria in classical sources, in: Eckart Frahm (ed.), Blackwell Com
panion to Assyria, Malden (in press).
Rost 1897
Paul Rost, Berossus und die babylonische Konigsliste, in: idem, Untersuchungen zur
altorientalischen Geschichte (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft 1897/2),
Berlin 1897, 1-30.
Rubin 1882
Solomon Rubin, Berossos oder Chaldaische Alterthumer. Als, durch die neulich dem
Boden Assyriens ausgegrabenen Keilschriften bestatigte, Seitenstiicke zur Bibel. In sechs
Buchern, Wien 1882 [in Hebrew],
Ruffing (this volume)
Kai Ruffing, Berossos in modern scholarship, in: Johannes H aubold/G iovanni B.
Lanfranchi/R obert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et
Orientalia 5), W iesbaden (this volume).
Sansovino 1583
M. Francesco Sansovino, Le Antichita di Beroso Caldeo sacerdote et d a ltri scrittori, cosi
Hebrei, come Greci, & Latini, che trattano delle stesse materie. Tradotte, dichiarate &
Berossos - A Bibliography 321
con diversi utili, & necessarie annotationi, illustrate, Venice 1583 [= Nanni 1498, Anctores
vetutissimi\.
Scaliger 1606
Joseph Scaliger, Thesaurus temporum Eusebii Pamphili. Chronicorum canonum omnimo-
dae historiae libri duo. Interprete Hieronymo, ex fid e vetustissimorum codicum castigati.
Item auctores omnes derelicta ab Eusebio et Hieronymo continuantes. Eiusdem Eusebii
utriusque partis Chronicorum canonum reliquiae Graecae, quae colligi potuerunt, an-
tehac non editae. Ios. Scaligeri Notae et castigationes / in latinam Hieronymi interpreta-
tionem, et Graeca Eusebii. Ios. Scaligeri Isagogicorum chronologiae canonum libri tres,
ad Eusebii chronica et doctrinam de temporibus admod. necessarii, Leiden 1606.
Schironi 2009
Francesca Schironi, From Alexandria to Babylon: Near Eastern Languages and Hellenistic
Erudition in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary (P.Oxy. 1802+4812), Berlin 2009.
Schironi (this volume)
Francesca Schironi, The early reception of Berossos, in: Johannes H aubold/G iovanni
B. Lanfranchi / Robert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et
Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Schnabel 1908
Paul Schnabel, Die babylonische Chronologie in Berossos Babyloniaka (Mitteilungen
der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft 13/5), Berlin 1908.
Schnabel 1912
Paul Schnabel, Berossos und Kleitarchos, Berlin/Leipzig 1912, 3366 [= Univ. Diss.
Jena 1911; also quoted as being part of: idem, Prolegomena undKom m entar zu Berossos
Babyloniaka].
Schnabel 1923
Paul Schnabel, Berossus und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig 1923
(Reprint Hildesheim 1968).
Schwartz 1897
Eduard Schwartz, Berossos 4, Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertums-
wissenschaft, vol. Ill / 1 (Fiinfter Halbband), Stuttgart 1897, 309-16.
Scurlock 1983
Jo Ann Scurlock, Berossus and the fall of the Assyrian Empire, Revue d a ssyriologie et
d archeologie orientale 11 (1983), 95-96.
Smith 1874
George Smith, On fragments of an inscription giving part of the chronology from which
the canon of Berosus was copied, Transactions o f the Society o f Biblical Archaeology 3
(1874), 361-79.
Smith 1910
John M. P. Smith, Fresh light on the story of the deluge, The Biblical World 3 5/4 (1910),
282-283.
van der Spek 2000
Robartus J. van der Spek, The satammus of Esagila in the Seleucid and Arsacid periods, in:
Joachim M arzahn/Hans Neumann/unter Mitarbeit von Andreas Fuchs (eds.), Assyriologica
et Semitica. Festschrift fiir Joachim Oelsner (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 252), Munster
2000, 437-46.
322 Birgit G ufler/Irene M adreiter
van der Spek 2008
Robartus J. van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and Greek historian, in:
idem (ed.), Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society, Presented to Marten
Stol on the Occasion o f his 65th Birthday, Bethesda 2008, 277-318.
Spoerri 1961
Walter Spoerri, Untersuchungen zur babylonischen Urgeschichte des Berossos und zu den
Turmbausibyllina, Habilitationsschrift fur Klassische Philologie von der Philosophischen
Fakultat der Universitat Hamburg 1961.
Steele (this volume)
John M. Steele, The Astronomical Fragments of Berossos in context, in: Johannes Tubach 1998
H aubold/G iovanni B. L anfranchi/R obert Rollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f
Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Stephens 1979
Walter Stephens, Berosus Chaldaeus: Counterfeit and Fictive Editors o f the Early Sixteenth
Century, PhD Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 1979.
Stephens 1984
Walter E. Stephens, De historia gigantu: theological anthropology before Rabelais,
Traditio 40 (1984), 43-89.
Stephens 2004
Walter Stephens, When Pope Noah ruled the Etruscans: Annius of Viterbo and his forged
Antiquities, 1498, in: Walter Stephens (ed.), Studia Flumanitatis: Essays in Honour o f
Salvatore Camporeale (Special Supplement to M LNItalian Issue 119/1), Baltimore 2004,
201-23.
Stephens (this volume)
Walter Stephens, From Berossos to Berosus Chaldaeus: The forgeries of Annius of Viterbo
and their fortune, in: Johannes Haubold/Giovanni B. Lanfranchi/Robert Rollinger/John
Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
Sterling 1992
Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and S e lf Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apolo
getic Historiography (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 64), Leiden 1992.
Streck 1903
M axim ilian Streck, Berossos 4 , Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertums-
wissenschaft, Supplementum vol. I, Stuttgart/W eim ar 1903, 249.
Sturm 1937
Josef Sturm, Oannes, Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft,
vol. X V II/2 (Vierunddreissigster Halbband), Stuttgart 1937, 1677-79.
Susemihl 1891
Franz Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit, vol. I,
Leipzig 1891.
Toulmin 1998
Steven Toulmin, The astrophysics o f Berossos the Chaldean, Isis 58/1 (1967), 65-76.
Troiani 1982
Lucio Troiani, Berosso, in: Claudio Saporetti (ed.), II diluvio nelle narrazioni della
Mesopotamia: ilprim o incontro interdisciplinare mesopotamico, Camaldoli, 23-25 ottobre
Berossos A Bibliography 323
1981 (Geo-Archeologia: Periodico Semestrale Edito dallAssociazione Geo Archeologica
Italiana 1982/2), Rome 1982, 103-111.
Troiani 1984
Lucio Troiani, Berosso e la cosmogonia fenicia, in: Claudio Saporetti (ed.), I miti della
creazione nel Vicino Oriente Antico, il secondo incontro interdisciplinare m esopo
tamico, Camaldoli, 14-15 ottobre 1982 (Geo-Archeologia: Periodico Sem estrale Edito
dallA ssociazione Geo-Archeologica Italiana 1 9 8 4 /1), Rome 1984, 4350.
Trumbull 1892
H. Clay Trumbull, Jonah in Nineveh, Journal o f Biblical Literature 11/1 (1892), 53-60.
Jurgen Tubach, Der Beginn der Sintflut nach Berossos, Philologus. Zeitschrift fiir antike
Literatur und ihre Rezeption 142 (1998), 114-22.
Tuplin (this volume)
Christopher Tuplin, Berossos and Greek historiography, in: Johannes Haubold/Giovanni
B. L anfranchi/R obert R ollinger/John Steele (eds.), The World o f Berossos (Classica et
Orientalia 5), Wiesbaden (this volume).
V erbrugghe/W ickersham 1996
Gerald P. V erbrugghe/John M. Wickersham (eds.), Berossos and Manetho, Introduced
and Translated. Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, Ann Arbor 1996.
van der Waerden 1952
Bartel Leendert van der Waerden, Das Grosse Jahr und die ewige W iederkehr, Hermes
80 /2 (1952), 129-55.
W aterman 1923
Leroy W aterman, The date of the deluge, The American Journal o f Semitic Languages
and Literatures 3 9 /4 (1923), 233-47.
Weitemeyer 1996
Mogens Weitemeyer, Herodots og Berossos beskrivelse a f Babylonien (Studier fr a sprog-
og oldtidsforskning), Copenhagen 1996.
Weissbach 1920
Franz Heinrich Weissbach, Sardanapal 14. Berossos, Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der
Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. I A /2 (Zweite Reihe. Zweiter Halbband), Miin-
chen 1920, 2448-51.
von Wesendonk 1931
Otto Gunther von Wesendonk, The Kalavada and the Zervanite system, Journal o f the
Royal Asiatic Society o f Great Britain and Ireland 1 (1931), 53-109.
Whitehouse 1882
Frederic Cope W hitehouse, Berosus - Genesis, The Academy: A Weekly Review o f
Literature, Science and Art 2 2 /nr. 534 (1882), 8 6 .
Winckler 1888
Hugo Winckler, N ebuchadnezzars artificial reservoir, Hebraica 4 /3 (1888), 174-75.
W ilkinson 1888
James John Garth Wilkinson, Oannes According to Berosus: A Study in the Church oj the
Ancients, London 1888.
 Index

Abraham, 22, 76, 246-247, 259, 263, 284, 293 Antiochus I, 3, 7, 17-18, 23, 64, 69-70, 72,
Abydenus, 10, 21, 66-67, 69-71, 137-139, 141, 82-83, 85, 90, 100, 103-104, 108, 171-173,
145, 148-149, 151, 180, 186-187, 264-267, 186, 199-212, 214, 292-293, 297-298
271,291-292, 299 A ntiochus I o f Comm agene, 171-172
Acacius, 256-257 A ntiochus II, 17, 86, 292
Achaemenid royal inscriptions, 23, 128, 147 A ntiochus III, 82, 171, 199-201, 210
Achaemenids, 9, 62-64, 69, 71-72, 128, 130, 265 A ntiochus V III, 199
Acusilaus, 177, 185 A ntiochus IX, 199
A dad-nadin-ahi, 166 apkallu, 49-50, 54
Adam, 283-286 apologetic literature, 260, 268
Adaneites, 138,301 Apsu, 36
Adapa, see O annes (Uan(na)) A rabia, 150, 250-251
Adramelos (Arda-M ulissi), 69 AradvT Sura Anahita-Yast, 127
Aelian, 23, 169-170, 300 A ram aic, 5, 16, 18, 32, 47, 54, 166, 168, 172,
Agathias, 125-126, 235 193, 236, 304
akitu-festival, see New Year Festival A ratus, 116, 199
A kkad (Agade), 80, 146, 168-169, 189, 192 A rbaces, 71
A kkadian, 3-5, 15-17, 32, 37, 47, 49, 52, 113, Archelaus, 102-103, 251
123-124, 151, 189,210, 294,302 A rgyraspids, 101-102
A lexander historians, 66-67, 181, 183, 194 A ristoboulos, 66
Alexander Polyhistor, 3 -4 , 10,20-21,35, A ristotle
64-71, 75, 137-141, 235, 242-247, 250-252, H istoria Anim alium , 238, 240-242
264-265, 269, 299-300 A rius, 256-257
Alexander the G reat, 3, 15-18, 23, 83, 99-101, A rk, 52-53,245
124, 200, 214, 269, 295, 297, 301, 303 A rm akales river, 149
Alexander IV, 102 A rm enia, 50, 138, 167, 263, 282
A lexander VI, Pope (R odrigo Borgia), 278, 280 A rsam eia, 172
A lexandria A rtaxerxes II, 9, 1 8 ,22-23, 126-128, 130,
library of, 178, 223, 239, 241, 252, 282 191,266
allegory, 37 A shurcity, 78, 171
Ambrosius, 258 A shur god, 170, 226
Am el-M arduk, 77 A sordanios (A ssur-nadin-sum i), 6 5 -6 6 , 192
A m el-M arduk (Euilm aradochos, A ssurbanipal, 32, 69-70, 144, 166, 168, 171,
Evil-Merodach), 71,77 187-188, 193
Ammenon (Enm enunna), 22 A ssyriaca, 21, 179-180, 184
A m ytis, Am yitis, 5, 151, 194 A ssyria(n), A ssyrians, 6 -8 , 61-74, 78-79,
Anai'tis, 22-23, 124-126 125-126, 130, 139, 142, 170-171, 179, 187,
A naxim enes o f Lampsacus, 186 189, 192, 205, 224, 250-252, 259, 262, 267,
Anchiale (Ingira), 2 2 ,6 6 -6 7 , 141, 187 291,295,297, 299,301,303
A nnianos, 216,218,220-222,271 astrology, 19-20, 23, 61, 108, 118, 295-296, 302
A nnius, o f Viterbo (Ioannes A nnius A stronom ical D iaries, 17, 79, 182, 189, 302
Viterbiensis; Giovanni N anni), 7, 10, 20, astronom ical fragments, see Berossos
277-290 astronomy, 3 -4 , 9, 19-20, 23, 31, 52, 61,
A nshar, 170, 173 107-114, 117-119, 181, 188,223,277,283,
antediluvian kings, 21-23, 48, 167, 169, 291,296-297
22 0 -2 2 1 ,2 6 2 ,2 6 4 , 293 Astyages, 151, 194
anthropogony, 263, 270 A thenaeus, 21-23, 123-125, 177, 179, 185,
Antigonus, 101-103, 181 187, 235
Antioch, 82, 172-173, 199, 201, 251, 257 A thenians, 3, 19, 141
Antiochus, 182 Atrahasis fAtra-hasis), 41-42, 52-53, 165-176,
219
326 Index Index 327

Atthidography, 180 astronom ical fragments, 4 -5 ,9 ,3 1 , 107 122, Greek, 225-226 Diodorus Sicuius, 3, 107, 203, 263, 265-266,
A vesta, 125, 127-128, 130 235, 295-297, 302 Cilicia, 22, 66-69, 140, 236, 246, 251, 262, 278, 280-281
Axerdis, 69-70, see Esarhaddon (Axerdis) date, 17-18,183,213-214,292-293 see also Que Diogenes, 124
A zdahak, 71 exile in Cos, 3, 19-20, 107, 184,214,223, Clearchus, 268 Dionysius
292-293, 298 Cleidemus the exegete, 180 Persika, 111
Babylon name, 3, 15-16, 25, 292 Clement of A lexandria, 22, 126, 128-130,207, Dionysius o f H alicarnassus, 177, 265
cultural adaptability of, 5 -6 priest o f Bel, 3, 15, 34-35, 183, 294, 297 235, 265-266, 268, 299 Dionysus
decadent, 99 Pseudo-, 10, 181,214,277,281-283,286, Cleomedes, 109, 112 113, 116, 118 as culture hero, 203, 205, 207
H anging Garden of, 295, 302 Clitarchus, 84, 86, 88-89, 127, 151, 181, 291, 299 in India, 181,201,204
see H anging Garden(s) o f Babylon Berosus, Coele Syria, 81-83, 90, 208, 298 division o f Babylon, 101
in the Hellenistic period, 5 -6 , 18, 99-106, see Berossos, Pseudo- com m entaries, 100, 170, 278, 280, 282, 286 division o f Triparadisus, 101
206,295 Bible, 40, 55, 64, 68-69, 76, 140, 220, 241, 257, Constantine, 255, 257, 259 Dura Europus, 172-173
library of, 282-283 265, 270, 278-279, 282-283, 285-286, 300, Constantinople, 257 D ynastic Chronicle, 22
Babylonia, 3, 15-18, 20-21, 23, 25, 62-74-75, see also Old Testament Corupedion, battle of, 82 D ynastic Prophecy, 137, 145-146, 183, 193
77-80, 83-84, 90, 100-104, 109, 111, 117, Biondo, Flavio, 278 Cos, 3, 10, 19-20, 79, 107, 109, 214, 223, Ea (Enki), 49, 52, 170, see also Kronos
130, 138, 142, 146, 150, 155, 165-166, 169, Book o f Giants, 168 292-293, 298, 303 Eanna, 146
171, 178-179, 181, 183-184, 191-194, 201, B ook o f Jubilees, 283 cosmogony, 8, 31-32, 35, 111, 185, 263-265, East India House Inscription, 148-149, 154,
205, 207-208, 210-211, 215, 226, 243, 262, Book o fS o th is (ps.-M anetho), 25, 219-221 270, 293, 296, 300, 303 see also Basalt Stone Inscription
265-266, 269, 292-293, 297-298, 301, 303 B ook o f the Watchers, 220 court doctors, 200 Ecclesiastical History,
Babyloniaca Borsippa, 17, 64, 102, 104, 171, 193, 210 Crates of M allus, 243 see Eusebius o f Caesarea
as Fiirstenspiegel, 32, 180 Borsippa Cylinder, 6 4 ,1 0 4 ,2 1 0 Ctesias of Cnidus, 142, 277 ecliptic, 112
as propaganda, 7, 25, 33, 90, 117, 173, 298, 301 Bracciolini, Poggio, 278, 280 cultic calendar, 171 Efca spring, 172
audiences of, 3, 5, 8, 10, 32, 34, 108, 178, Burckhardt, Jacob, 255 culture hero, 49, 54, 183, 204 Egibi, 144
186, 199, 211, 277-278, 298, 301-302 C urtius Rufus, 89, 99, 151 Egisnugal, 146
transm ission of, 4, 7 -8 , 10, 2 0 -22, 24, C aesarea in M auretania, 250 C yaxares, 71 Egypt, Egyptians, 7, 20, 24, 6162, 69-70,
75-76, 137, 235-254, 255-276, 278-279, C aesarea M aritim a, 255-257 Cybele 72, 77, 8 0 -8 4, 90, 102, 126, 137, 150, 173,
299-300 as centre o f learning, 257-258 Cybellaria, 283 179-182, 189-191, 204-205, 208-209,
Babylonian captivity, 263, 265, 267, 280 ethnic groups, 257, 271 Cyrus, 5-10, 21, 62, 64, 71, 75, 79, 88, 124, 137, 213-232, 239, 259, 261, 263, 268-270,
Babylonian Chronicle, 65, 70, 78, 80, 83, 143, library, 258 141-146, 150-151, 165, 187-188, 191-194, 279-281,284-285, 295, 298
209-210, 226 Cain, 286 200, 205, 209, 262-263, 265-266, 303 as Babylonian satrapy, 7, 83-84, 90, 137, 150,
Babylonian chronicles, 17, 67, 70, 79, 100, 110, Cairo, 151 Cyrus Cylinder, 6, 143-144 182, 208, 295, 298
137, 166, 193, 211, 293-295, 301-304 C allim achus, 239, 241-242, 244-245, 247 Elaiussa Sebaste in Cilicia, 251
Babylonian Epic o f Creation, Callisthenes, 66, 183 Daas, 145 Elamite, 128, 171
see Enuma elis Cambyses, 70, 145-146, 191, 263, 265 Dahan-i Ghulam an, 128 Empedocles, 38-39, 42, 178
Bactria Carchem ish, battle of, 75, 80-82 Damascius, 23, 36, 170, 172-173 Enki,
as stronghold o f Zoroastrianism , 127 C arian War, 209 D amastes, 185 see Ea, Kronos
Bagophanes, 99 Caspian Sea, 201-202, 236 Darius I, 145,210 Enlil, 52, 110-111, 170, 173
Basalt Stone Inscription, Cato the Elder, 281 De Breucker, 3, 8, 15-16, 19, 23-24, 32-33, Enlil Gate, 145
see East India House Inscription Chaldaeans 3 7 -4 3 ,4 7 -4 8 , 53-54, 107, 109-110, 117, Enm eduranki, 54
Bel as priests, 32, 35, 103 123-124, 137-138, 140-143, 145, 149, 155, Enoch, First Book o f 220
and Tiamat, 35 36 C handragupta Maurya (Sandracottus), 203 166, 168, 177, 186, 189, 214, 226, 262, 264, Enuma Anu Enlil, 110-111
national god o f Babylon, 3,15 Charlem agne, 280 266, 270, 278, 295, 298, 303, 308 Enum a elis, 4, 9, 23-24, 31-32, 35-39, 41-42,
tom b of, 100 C hoerilus o f Samos, 268 Deluge, 64, 138,218,220,301 111-112, 114-117, 149, 155, 165-176, 226
Bel-reu-shunu (B el-reu-sunu), Christians, 253, 255, 259, 261, 268-270 Demetrius Poliorcetes, 102, 201 Ephorus, 177, 185
see Berossos, name o f Chronicle o f the Successors, 101-103 Demodamas o f M iletus, 9, 179-180, 194, Epic o f Creation,
Belesys, 6, 70-71, 182 Chronicles, 17, 67, 70, 193, 211, 293, 301 200-201, 205-206, 208-209, 211 see Enuma elis
Belibos (Bel-ibni), 65, 137, 192 chronography, 125 D em onstratio evangelica, 261-262 Epic o f Erra and Ishum, 167
Bellino Cylinder, 6 6 -6 7 Chronography, Desiderius, 280 Esagil(a), 100-101, 104-105, 140, 166
Berossos, see also Babyloniaca see Eusebius of Caesarea Deucalion, 222, 225 Esarhaddon (Axerdis), 21, 32, 62, 66, 69-70,
and Greek paideia, 178 chronology diadochi, 181 170, 301
and G reek philosophy, 3 9 -4 0 ,4 2 , 111, 178, antediluvian, 21-22,220,271 Diadoch War Esnunna, 146
182 Babylonian, 2 2 ,2 1 6 ,2 2 0 ,2 2 9 ,3 0 0 Second, 101 Etem enanki, 100, 105, 140
Armenian transmission, 4, 10,21,63, 182,292 Biblical, 21-22, 216, 218, 220, 265, 267, 278 Didascalia Apostolorum , 255 ethnicity, 34,211
as Chaldaean, 4, 20, 183, 215, 264, 268, 279 Egyptian, 6 2 ,2 1 6 ,2 2 0 ,2 2 3 ,2 2 5 ,2 2 9 Dinon, 123, 126-127, 129, 179
328 Index Index 329

ethnography, 5, 24, 33, 177, 199-212, 224, von G utschm id, A lfred, 76, 296, 300, 308 Ishtar 189-190, 201-202, 204, 206-207, 213, 229,
241-242, 246, 250-251 o f Arbela, 171 259, 269, 298, 305
Etruscans, 179, 280-282 Hammurabi, 6, 80 ofN ineveh, 170 Magi, 99, 125-127, 130
Eudemos o f Rhodes, 36 H anging Garden(s) o f Babylon, 5, 9, 22, 24, 75, Isidore of Seville, 258,284 Manetho, 5, 10, 25, 55, 61-62, 70, 72, 76, 87,
Eudoxus o f Cnidus, 223 86, 88-89, 100, 137-138, 148-152, 154-155, 178-179, 182, 189-191, 194,213-232,241,
Euilm aradochos, Evil-M erodach, 181, 187, 224 Jacobus of Voragine, 278-279 261, 263-265, 270-271, 284, 295, 298, 309
see Amel-M arduk Hanu-troops, 101 Jacoby, Felix, 3, 8, 10, 19, 40, 48, 53, 72, 79, Marduk,
Eumenes, 101-102 Hardwick, Lorna, 10, 269, 271 89, 109, 137, 169, 177, 181, 186, 189, 203, see Bel
Euphorion o f Chalcis, 199 Hasanlu beaker, 169 215, 218, 220, 222-223, 243, 245, 262-264, M arduk Ordeal, 171
Euphrates, 51, 78, 80-81, 140, 143, 147, Hebrews, 190, 259-260, 263, 265, 270, 279, 270, 295-296 M aroudach B aladan, see M erodach-Baladan II
149-150 281,284 Janicula, 279 (M arduk-apla-iddina)
Eusebius o f Caesarea H ecataeus o f Abdera, 24, 55, 90, 179, 189, 204, Janiculum , 282 M auryan empire, 203-204
and A rianism , 256-257 223-225, 263, 268-269, 298 Janua, 279 Media, M edes, 7, 62, 70-72, 77, 86, 88, 102,
Canons, 259-260, 262 H ecataeus o f Miletus, 177, 185-186,225 Jerome, 214, 256, 259-260, 263, 271-272, 283, 125-126, 129, 148, 155, 166, 182,259, 262,
Chronicle, 4, 15, 21, 51, 245, 256-276 Hellanicus, 177, 179-180, 185 285 266
C hronography, 205, 207, 259-260, 264, 270 Hellenism , 2 5 ,2 1 3 ,2 2 4 ,2 2 8 -2 2 9 Jerusalem , 21, 62, 69, 76, 81, 141, 256, 260, Median Wall, 149
E cclesiastical History, 258-259 Heracles 263,265 M egasthenes, 5 -7 ,9 ,2 4 , 177, 179-181, 186,
Pamphili, 256 and Nebuchadnezzar, 180, 205-206 Josephus, 5, 7 -8 , 10, 18-22, 63, 65, 72, 75-96, 189-190, 194, 200-201, 203-209, 211, 224,
Preparation fo r the Gospel in India, 203, 205 100, 107, 138, 140-143, 147-148, 150, 177, 2 98,300
(Praeparatio evangelica), 256-276 H eraclides, 179, 202, 238, 242 188, 190, 192, 203, 206, 213, 227, 235, 239, Melanchthon, Philipp, 286
Eutychides, 172 H erm es Trism egistus, 278 246-247, 255-256, 261-268, 271, 279-281, Memnon o f Heraclea Pontica, 209
H erm etica, 280 283-286, 291-292, 296, 299, 301 M erodach-Baladan II (M arduk-apla-iddina),
Ficino, Marsilio, 278, 280 Herodotus, 5, 24-25, 62-65, 67, 69-70, 72, Juba o f M auretania, 21, 235, 242, 250, 269 21, 137
Flood, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, 41, 47-60, 76, 79, 83, 8 6 -8 8 , 99, 107, 123, 125-129, 143, Julius A fricanus, 267-268, 299 Michael the Syrian, 292
86, 138-140, 165-176-177, 182, 184-186, 145, 150-151, 177, 179, 181, 183, 185-187, m im icry, 224
188-189, 217-220, 222, 225-226, 245, 262, 189-191, 194, 202, 204, 207, 215, 223-226, K andalanu, 187 Minos, 185
278-279, 281-285 258, 278, 296, 301, 303, 309 Kasr, 155 Mirabilia, 246
Freemasons H estiaeus, 239, 242 king-list, 188,191,221,225-227 Mochus, 284-285
M asonic legends, 284 as E stius, 285 kingship, 5 -6 , 8, 23, 31-33, 48, 50, 55, 62-64, M omigliano, A rnaldo, 35, 299, 303, 308
Hesychius 66, 71, 77, 80, 147, 150, 171-172, 180, 185, Moses, 138-139, 184, 215, 218, 222, 246, 279,
Gadde, 172 Lexicon of, 240, 252 199-212, 226-227 284-286
Ganges river, 203 H ipparchus, 108-109, 117 118 kinistu of Esagil, 104 M oses o f Chorene, 19, 182
Gathas, 127-128 historiography K ronos, 48-49, 51-53, 125, 138-140, M U L.A PIN , 52, 111-113, 117
Gaugamela, battle of, 5, 99 apologetic, 54, 222, 224, 303 see also Ea (Enki) m ythical epic, 177
Gaza, 102,251 five types of, 177 Kugler, Franz Xaver, 108 mythology, 34, 177, 185, 218, 224, 245, 249,
Geminus, 107, 118 Greek, 9, 24, 55, 87, 177-198, 223-224, K uhrt, Amelie, 3, 5, 8-9, 17, 19, 21, 25, 31-32, 279, 281,294
genealogy, 35-36, 55, 170, 173, 177, 185,225, 226-227, 258,301,303 47-48, 64, 78-79, 82, 86-87, 90, 99-100,
248, 284 universal, 223 110, 114, 123-128, 130, 140, 146, 149, 182, N abonassar (Nabu-nasir), 3, 23, 48, 62, 79,
Genesis Holy Scripture, 255, 268, 184, 193, 204, 208, 210, 214, 235, 242, 269, 108-109, 185, 190, 226, 263
Genesis P, 167 see also Bible, 291, 297-298, 300, 302-303, 308 Nabonidus (Nabonnedos), 4, 6, 32, 62, 71, 75,
Genoa, 278-279 see also Old Testament K ulturgeschichte, 204-205 79, 141-142, 144, 147, 153, 165-166, 168,
geography, 3, 9, 23, 82, 112, 184-185, 194, 201, Humbaba, 169-170 179, 188, 192-193,209, 262-263
203-204, 207-208, 215, 224, 226-227, 262 Hyrbullos, 138 Labasi-M arduk (Laborosoardokhos), 71, 147, N abopolassar (Bupalossoros), 6, 6 3-64,
George Syncellus (Georgius Syncellus), Hystaspes, 125, 127 166, 209 70-72, 75-96, 147, 149-150, 166, 182, 187,
215-216, 228,249, 260, 270 Larisa Kremaste, 154 191-192, 208-210, 214, 262-263, 295, 298
Gilgamesh a n d A kka, 169 Iam ndia, 67 late antiquity, 255 Nabu, 17, 170, 172,210
Gilgamesh, Epic of, 166, 168, 170,294 Iddin-M arduk, 144 Leipziger W eltchronik, 138 Nabu-mukTn-apli, 146
Hittite, 168-169 Im gur-Enlil, 143-144, 147 libraries, 16, 168, 170, 239, 243, 255 Nabu-nasir,
H urrian, 169 im itation, 213, 215-217, 220, 222, 228 Long, Roger, 107-108 see N abonassar
G iraldus Cam brensis (Gerald o f Wales), 279 India, 3 ,2 4 , 100, 102, 148-149, 154, 166, loyalty oaths, 172 N aram -Sin o f Agade, 168
G odfrey o f Viterbo, 284-285 179-181, 189-190, 194, 2 0 0 -2 0 1 ,2 0 3 -2 0 6 , Lutz, Cora, 284 N ebuchadnezzar I, 54
Graecia m endax, 281 211,224 Nebuchadnezzar II (Naboukodrossoros), 6, 9,
G reat Mother, 283, see also Cybele Ingira, M acedon, Macedonian(s), 15, 18, 24, 33, 21, 75-96, 145-147, 154, 179, 204, 209, 265
G reat Persecution, 258, 269 see A nchiale (Ingira) 51-52, 64, 69, 101, 145, 178, 181, 183, N ebuchadnezzar IV, 145
330 Index Index 331

Nechepso, 20 Persica, 6, 24, 125, 177, 179, 187, 194, 238, Sabbe, 20 Solon, 223,282
Necho, 70, 82, 188, 222 242, 247, 277 Sacaea, 124-125, 130, 185, 187, 189 Sozomenus, 256-257
N em rut Dagh, 172-173 Petosiris, 20 Saka, 124 spontaneous generation, 39, 41
Neo-Babylonian period, 8, 78, 80, 84, 137 Petrus Comestor, 284 Samm uram at, 186, see also Sem iram is Suidas, 235,243-244
Neo-Platonism , 255 Peucer, Caspar, 286 Samoges (Samas-sumu-ukTn), 62,69, 187 Sum erian, 4 -5 , 16, 48, 50, 123, 152, 168-169,
N eriglissar (Neriglisaros), 71, 166,262-263 Phanodemus, 180 Sandes, 125-126 226, 2 94,301,304
Neugebauer, 47, 108, 111 Pherecydes, 185 Sandracottus, see C handragupta Maurya Sum erian King List, 48, 50, 226, 294, 301
New Year Festival, 65, 79, 81, 170-172, 188 Philistus, 185 Sarachero, 22, 185 Syncellus, 4, 15, 21, 25, 37, 40, 79, 86-87, 126,
N icaea Philochorus, 180 Sarakos (Sin-sarra-iskun), 22, 69-70 138-140, 149, 179, 182-183, 187, 205, 207,
council of, 257 Philo o f A lexandria, 264, 266 sar (Babylonian unit o f time), 217, 220 214-222, 225, 228, 235, 245, 249, 260, 262,
N imrod, 139, 217, 279, 282-283 Philo o f Byblos, 55,261,263 Sardanapallos, Sardanapalus, 22, 66-67, 69, 268, 270-271, 277, 283, 292, 299
Nineveh, 22, 62-63, 70, 88, 166, 168, 170-171, Phoenicia, Phoenicians, 77, 81, 83, 90, 150, 208, 71, 141, 187, 193,262 synchronism , 22, 220, 225, 227
187, 293 219, 237-239, 242, 261, 263, 270, 295, 298 Sardanapalus epitaph, 66 Synchronistic History, 63
Ninus, 186, 189 Phulos, Sardis, 104, 126-127, 130 synodic month, 108
N inyas, 71 see Tiglath-Pileser III Sargon II, 62, 67-68, 226 Syria, 7, 77, 81-83, 90, 150, 201, 208-209, 222,
Nippur, 168-169 Plato, 10, 52, 117, 178, 218, 223, 258, 281 Sayce, A rchibald Henry, 108 239, 246, 255, 295, 298
Noah, 7, 20, 213, 245, 278-284, 301 Pliny the Elder, 19-20, 235, 285 Scaliger, Joseph Juste, 213, 255, 277, 283 Syrian War o f Succession, 82
Polybius, 185, 244, 248, 258 Schedel, H artm ann, 284 System B lunar theory, 108
Oannes (Uan(na)), 23, 31-32, 36, 41-42, 48-49, Posidonius o f Apamea, 235 Schnabel, Paul, 108, 169, 277, 291-294, sar puhi ritual, 124
53-55, 76, 79, 184-186, 189, 204-205, 262, POxy 1802, 235 296-297, 299-301,308
265, 283, 309 POxy 4812, 235-236 Schreckenberg, H ans, 284 Tammuz, 146
Old Testament, 21-22, 52, 55, 253, 261, 265, Praeparatio evangelica, Scylax of C aryanda, 202 Tarsus, Tarzi, 2 2 ,2 4 ,6 6 -6 7 , 140-141, 187-188,
268,301, see Eusebius of Caesarea Selene, 42, 127 193,236
see also Bible, Preparation fo r the Gospel, Seleucia on the Tigris, 18, 103-104, 297-298 Tatian, 15, 17, 21-22, 207, 214, 235, 250, 261,
see also Holy Scripture see Eusebius o f Caesarea Founding of, 103 263, 265, 268, 299-300
O morka (OpopKa), 37, 42, 249 Proclus, 223 Seleucid, Seleucids, 3, 7-9, 16-19, 25, 32, Telloh, 166
Opis, 5, 146 Prom etheus, 138-139 50-51, 55, 64, 70, 75, 78, 80, 82-85, 90, Teredon, 149
Origen, 256-258 Pseudo-Apollodorus, 271,299 103-104, 108,145-146,149, 165-173, 178, Theopom pus, 185
Orontes river, 172 Pseudo-Eupolemos, 299-300 180,182-183, 188, 194, 199-212,214, Thucydides, 24, 177, 180, 182, 185, 190, 244,
Osiris, 190,219,280 Ptolemies, 7, 19, 70, 82, 173, 224, 239, 241, 269-270, 293-295, 297-298, 304 258, 303
O sthaken, 143, 145 269-270 Seleucus I, 3, 17, 82, 90, 103, 172, 200, 202, Tiam at, 2 4 ,3 5 -3 9 ,4 1 -4 3 , 172
Oxus river, 201-202 Ptolemy (author), 68, 107-108, 117-118,200 208-209 Tiglath-Pileser III, 21, 62, 64-6 5
Oxyrhynchus Glossary, 10, 21, 235, 237-238, Ptolemy I Soter, 24-25, 89, 214-215 Seleukis, 82 Tim aeus o f Tauromenium, 223
240-245, 247-249, 251-252, 300 Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 19, 25, 82, 214-215, self-beheading, 170-171 Titan, 138-140
217,219, 223 Semiram is, 9, 24, 62, 65, 67, 77, 86, 88-90, Tower o f Babel, 139-140,150,182
pagan literature, 255-276 Ptolemy III Euergetes, 214-215 123, 141-142, 150, 152, 179, 181, 186-187, Trojan War, 185,189,227
pagans, 255-276 Pulu, see Tiglath-Pileser III 189, 193, 200, 205, 208, 224, 262, 269, 295, Turin Canon, 221,227
Palmyra, 172-173 Pythagoras, 20, 187 301, 303, see also Sam m uram at Tyche, 172
Pamphilus (lexicographer), 240, 252 Seneca, 51-52,235 tupsar Enum a Anu Enlil, 110
Pamphilus o f Caesarea, 256-258 Qingu, 171 Sennacherib (Senekeribos, Sinecheirimos),
Panodoros (Panodorus), 216, 218-222, 228, 271 Que, 67, see also Cilicia 21-22, 24, 62-63, 65-69, 71, 78, 88, 137, Universalgeschichte, 177
Papyrus A m herst, 172 Q um ran, 168-169 140-141, 170, 173, 179, 182,187-188, Ur, 54, 146, 167-168, 190
Paradoxography, 244 Ras Shamra, 168 169 190-193, 209, 262, 265, 270, 301 U ruk, 16,49,54, 110, 146, 168-169, 171, 183,
Parthian, 16-17,165-166,171,303 Sesostris, 90, 205, 208, 225, 227 188,219, 294-295
Patrocles, 9, 102, 179-180, 194,200-202, reception, 5, 7, 10, 31, 35, 109, 189, 235-254, Seth, 219,227,283-286 Uruk King-List, 183
206-208,211 269-271 ,2 7 7,2 86 , 301,304 seven sages (in M esopotamian tradition), Ut(a)-napisti(m), see also Xisouthros
Pausanias, 3, 103-104, 235 Red Sea, 49, 149 49-50
Pergamum, 199,239,243,251-252 Richter, Johannes, 291,295,299 shatammu, 16 Van der Spek, Robartus, 3, 8-9, 15-17, 23-24,
Periplus, 83 Rites o f Egasankalama, 171 Sibyl, 3 ,20, 138-140,299 47, 61, 65, 67, 100, 103-105, 110, 123, 137,
Persepolis Fortification texts, 128-129 Rolewinck, Werner, 284 Sippar 146, 148, 152, 166, 182, 187, 189, 192-193,
Persian Verse Account, 6, 32, 143 Rome, 21, 100, 243-244, 246, 250-251, 258, library of, 16, 167 195, 208, 293, 297, 303-304, 308
Persia, Persians 277, 282 role in the story of the flood, 53-54, 168 Viterbo, 7, 10, 20, 277-278, 280, 282-286
and cult statues, 129-130 Shamash temple at, 168 V itruvius, 3, 19, 109, 113, 116, 118-119,235
Socrates Scholasticus (author), 256-257
332 Index

War o f Syrian Succession, 209 Zeitgeschichte, 177, 181, 186

Zeno o f Citium, 35
Xanthus of Lydia, 5, 179-180, 194 Zeugm a-Seleuceia, 172
Xerxes, 64, 69, 87, 100, 146, 167, 191, 202, 263, Zeus, 3 7 ,41-42, 125-127, 129, 172,
266, 298 see also Bel
X isouthros, 4 8 -4 9 ,5 2 , 138, 169,209,219,262, ziggurat, 140
283, see also Ut(a)-napisti(m) Zi(u)sudra,
see Xisouthros
Yasts, 127-128 zodiac, 112,217,220
Zoilus o f A m phipolis, 186
Zoroaster, 1 2 5 -1 2 8 ,1 3 0 ,1 8 2 ,2 8 4