PROYECTOS CON PARTICIPACIÓN DE INVESTIGADORES Y/O PERSONAL DEL CIMA

In the early Christian chronographers, and even as early as the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, Berossos and M anetho were associated with one another as sources for the most ancient periods o f hum an history, a trend that was revived with the rediscovery and use of

their fragm entary histories in the chronological works o f Joseph Scaliger.1 M odern scholars

have often treated them as a pair, owing to a set o f basic similarities: both were non-Greeks (a Babylonian and an Egyptian), who wrote histories of their respective homelands in Greek; both drew on indigenous sources and traditions; both supposedly wrote for the second kings o f the M acedonian dynasties that ruled over their lands; both divided their histories into three books. This series o f parallels, in fact, raised suspicions for Ernest Havet, the 19th- century scholar o f Pascal and Christian origins. He wrote a little treatise on the dates of the

Babyloniaca and the Aegyptiaca, in which he argued that the sim ilarities were too great a

coincidence, and these works must be forgeries o f some kind - pseudonymous texts w ritten at the end o f the second century BCE and given a dash o f added authority by cliche fictions of eastern wisdom and royal patronage. No barbarian, he thought, could have achieved such

a degree of Hellenism so soon after Alexander’s conquests.2 For others, like O. M urray and

P. Fraser, the sim ilarities have suggested the possibility o f the dependence o f one on the other: a case of im itation and emulation, whose effects were intensified by the common

influence o f Greek historians on both authors.3 Even when no relationship o f dependence

is proposed, as tends to be the case in more recent work, the two are still paired together in

a shared volume o f translations, for example, or in a handbook article on historiography.4

In this essay, I would like to reopen the discussion of connections between Berossos and Manetho, in part to address the question of whether there was any historical relationship be­ tween their respective works, but also to show that this problem, like the authors themselves, stands at the intersection o f differing chronologies, tem poralities, and historicities, whether non-Greek or Greek, ancient or m odern, locally situated or more global.

I’ll begin with a fam iliar way o f fram ing Berossos and M anetho in time and history: the search for antecedents and relations o f descent that is part and parcel o f traditional intellec­ tual history. And the first step is to discuss the age-old question of who came first. Very little is known about the life of Berossos. According to the surviving testimonia, he was born and

1 Joseph AJ 1.104-8 lists Manetho and Berossos first in a series of historians, both non-Greek and Greek, who support his contention that people lived longer in the days of Noah. On the importance of Berossos and especially Manetho for Scaliger, see Grafton 1975. Scaliger also published fragments of Berossos as an appendix to his treatise De emendatione temporum under the title Veterum Graecorum Fragmenta

Selecta (1598).

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.

214 Ian Moyer

raised around the time o f Alexander the Great (r. 336-323 BCE). As a priest o f Marduk at Babylon, he was well versed in M esopotamian 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 testim onia state this explicitly. At some point in his life, he may

have em igrated 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 testim onia is a pseudonymous dedication letter affixed to

a corrupted version o f his history.8 The one reported event in M anetho’s life reveals him as

an indigenous interpreter o f Egyptian religion at the court o f 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 o f 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 M anetho 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 o f the priestly milieu), this would put the last known date in M anetho’s 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 A lexandria 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

o f Alexander and published his work in the reign o f 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. h e. 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 Jerome’s 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 Manetho’s 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 o f this is compatible with the composition o f the Aegyptiaca under Ptolemy II, and I would favour a date in the later part o f the reign. A reference to the Arsinoi'te nome in M anetho’s 12th Dynasty makes 256 BCE, the year in which Philadelphus renamed the nome in honor of Arsinoe, a terminus p o st quern for the composition of the

A egyptiaca}2 M anetho’s 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 o f Berossos’ history of Babylonia. But the modern case for such a relationship also rests on a few o f the testim onia collected by F. Jacoby in his Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Early in the ninth century CE, the Byzantine chronographer George Syncellus charged that ‘what M anetho o f Sebennytos wrote to Ptolemy Philadelphus about the Egyptian dynasties is full o f 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 B erossos and M anetho, as I have said before, want to glorify each his own nation, Berossos the C haldean, 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 sam e year.

Another excerpt from Syncellus included in the same group of testim onia (T 1 lb) appears to express a sim ilar opinion: ‘Manetho o f Sebennytos, chief priest o f 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 1 lc) 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 argum ent in Syncellus’ work. The extraction o f fragm ents, 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 Manetho’s 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 T6c) 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 Manetho’s 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 ... ).

can bring confusion as well as clarity and convenience, and here, as in other cases, the loss o f context and the rearrangem ent o f sources has made the evidence somewhat misleading. The reference to M anetho’s imitation o f Berossos is entangled with Syncellus’ criticism o f Annianos and especially Panodoros, two Egyptian monks of the late 4th to early 5th century CE, who attem pted to reconcile the long chronologies o f the Egyptians and Babylonians with Biblical chronology. Their main sources for Babylonian and Egyptian traditions were Berossos and Manetho. I have quoted a longer passage of Syncellus below, and I have un ­ derlined the excerpts that constitute FGrHist 609 T 11c:

George Syncellus, ed. M ossham m er 1984, p. 16, line 13 - p. 17, line 27:

[16, 13] (pavspov 8e ek toiitcov o n f) dpxf) xfj<; xwv BaPuAcovitov PaatAfiiai; nxot XaASaiaw ano NeppwS xoi) p s ia xov KaxaKAuapov si<; sxr| yft aKpaaavxoq ysyovs. Kai xpri 7iacav iaxopiav XaA.8aiKfiv f\ Aiyu7ixiaKfiv 7tpo xoi) KaxaKAuapou xrj ypatprj a7tayysAAopsvr|v pf| d7to8sxsa0at xoix; 7ipoa8xovxa<; 6p0(b<; xat<; Oeiaiq ypacpatx;, ei Kai xiva Ttepi KaxaKAuapou Kai AapvaKoc; rjxoi kiPwxou KA£V|/avx£<; sk x<ov 0so7iv8uoxcov ypatpcov i8io7toif|aavxo, Si’ rov oi [16, 2 0] d7tAoi)ox£poi Kai xoic; Aot7toT<; Aipripaci 7tpoo£xovxs<; suxep®? PAdrcxovxat, Asyco 8s 7i£pi pupiaScov sxcov Sta oapcov Kai vf|ptov Kai acbcacov KaxaAsyopsvcov. ev oig Kai rcspi avvi8oxicov (paaKouot ^cocov xtvcov ix0uop6p(pcov ev pepei Kai dv0pa)7top6p(pa>v, fipspac; psv ev xrj yrj Siaixoopevcov Kai priSspiav xpo(pf]v 7tpoa(p£pop£v(ov, vuKxoq 5s ev xcp 7tsAdy£t KaxaSuvovxcov, 7ia p a5i5 6vxcov xs xou; dv0pcb7tot<; ypappaxa Kai p a0Tipaxcov Kai xexvrov sp7i£tpiac; Kai 7t6A£tov auvouaapoix; Kai iepd)v iSpuasvt; Kai vopcov siar|yf|C£i<; anEppaxoov xs at)vay(oya<;- Kai ano xoxs tpaoi xpovoix; pr|8£v 7iapa dvOpGmon; EcpEupsOfjvat. axtva navxa Kai aAAa nXeXoxa 7toAAfjc; aSoAsaxiai; yspovxa opcovxsc; Kai xait; 0eiat<; 7ispiaaov riyoupat a i5oT xwv dv5prov, 5i’ oi)<; avayKa^opat Kaycb xrj adxfj axoixstcbast xpr|°a °9ai> *va pt] 86£n axsU q slvat xo rcovripa. xfic ouv XaASatKfjc apyrk f!7, 1] ano NsPpcbS d7to8s8stypsvr)c ot)va;to8s8stKxat 8r)Aov6xt Kai xa 7tspi xwv 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 ctxeSov 7toD ypovouc f\ piKpov i3ox£pov 7tAf)v Kai a d ia avtotpsAfj ovxa axotysuoOficTExai ek xffiv

napa noXXoic iaxopucotc KavovtoOEvxcov.

T(p ,avr|' sxei xou Kocpou oi sypriyopoi KaxfjAOov Kai 8if|pK£aav ev xrj napapdoE i scot; xoi) KaxaKAuapou.

O 8£i3x£po<; kukAoc; xwv (pAp' exwv ETtAripwOt], Kai rip^axo o xpixoc; xw [17,10] a^e' sxst xoi) Koapoi), co' xou MaAsAEfjA.

O aKpippjc Ecpicxavcov xoiq U T to K E ip s v 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

O il

smnXacTOQ

e p x i v f| xouxcov £7tivoia dp9ox£po)v. obc 7rposipr|xav. xoi3 xs Bi]pa)oaou Kai xou Mavs9(5 xo i'8iov s9voc Q e A o v x q c 8o£daau xou p£v xo xd) XaASaicov. xo\3 8s xo xmv AiYU7txi(ov. 0aupaCEXfa) 8 e 7tdk; o u k f]ayuv6r|aav acp1 e v o c Kai xou auxou sxouc a p y f ] v QsaQai

xaiq x£pax68£oiv auxaiv Quyypacpaic. aAA’ o psv Bripcooooi; 81a oapcov Kai vrjpcov Kai owoawv av£ypd\|/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

Kai auvrj^E oapoug pK' 81a PaoiAscov 8sKa, qxoi xpovov sxwv pupiaScov py' Kai ,p. xaijxa 8 e

sxr) xivs^ xrov [17, 2 0] Ka0’ f|pa<; iaxopiKwv f)pspa<; sAoyioavxo oxoxaaxiKax; pEpvj/dpevoi xov riapcpiAou Euospiov, ax ; pf) vofjoavxa xd sxr| xcov aapoov npspat;. Maxrjv 8s auxov e v x o u x c o

pspcpovxai. 7id)(; yap xo pf] ov eixe vorjoai 7ioAupa0r)c; tov Kai siSwc; xf]v 'EAAr|viKr)v 8o^av 7toAAoi)q attbvai; opoAoyoi5oav, i]xoi puptaSaq sxtov 7tap£AriAu0£vai ano xrjq KoopiKrjc; yevsosait; Kaxa xrjv nap’ auxot<; pu0iKf]v xou ^a)8iaKoi3 £7ti xd svavxia Ktvr|aiv a no xrjg apxrj<; xou Kpiou

K ai 7tdAtv Eiq ai)Tf|v d7t 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 x o \)/£i38o(; xrj

aAiiOsia;

Translation by A dler/T uffin 2002, 21-23:

[16, 13] It is clear from this [i.e. G enesis 10:8-12] that the kingdom o f the Babylonians, that is o f the C haldaeans, began w ith N im rod, who flourished in the 630th year after the Flood. And it is necessary for those who correctly heed divine scriptures not to accept any w ritten record 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 propriate it as their ow n, [16, 2 0] by which m eans the less sophisticated, em bracing the rest o f their nonsense, are easily harm ed (1 m ean the nonsense involving the m yriads o f years in sars,

ners, and sosses). Included in this narrative is also the talk about some kind of ‘A nnidotioi’, in

shape part fish, part hum an, who spend all day on the land taking no sustenance, but at night subm erge into the sea. These creatures im part to hum ankind letters and know ledge o f sciences and crafts, the founding o f cities, and the establishm ent o f tem ples, the introduction o f laws, and the gathering o f seeds. A nd from that tim e, they say, hum an beings have m ade no further discovery. And when authors o f C hristian histories see that all o f this and a great deal more are saturated with a large am ount o f prattle at odds with our divine scriptures, [16, 30] 1 am am azed how they have at all consented to subject to a tabular arrangem ent what is unworthy o f any m en­ tion whatsoever. Out o f respect for these men, I deem it unnecessary to m ention them by name. But it is because o f them that I too am required to m ake use o f this same arrangem ent, lest my work appear incom plete. Since, then, the Chaldaean kingdom [17, 1] ha s been dem onstrated to have begun from N im rod, it has been also clearly dem onstrated at the sam e tim e that w hat has been w ritten about E gyptian dynasties bv M anetho o f Sebennytos to Ptolem y P hiladelphus is full o f untruth and fabricated in im itation o f Berossos at about the same tim e or a little later than him. N evertheless, even though this m aterial is useless, it w ill be arranged chronologically on the basis o f the tabulations found in m any historians.

In A nno M undi 1058, the W atchers descended and continued in their transgression up to the Flood.16

The second cycle o f 532 years was com pleted, and the third cycle began in [17, 10] A nno M undi 1056, in the 270th year o f Maleleel.

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 o f them , as was stated above, is contrived: the th in k ing both o f Berossos and o f M anetho. who seek to glorify their own nations, the one the nation o f the C haldaeans. the other that o f the Egyptians. M arvel how they felt no sham e about as^ signing a beginning to their fantastic com positions from one and the same year. But Berossos w rote his narrative in sars and ners and sosses, o f w hich a sar is a period o f 3600 years, a ner is 600 years, and a soss is 60 years. A nd he cam e up with a total o f 120 sars over a span o f ten kings, that is a period o f 432,000 years. Now these years some o f [17, 20] our historians have speculatively reckoned as days, criticizing Eusebius Pam philou for not recognizing that the years o f sars are days. But in this they criticize him vainly. For how was he able to know about som ething that has no reality - this man who was both a polym ath and fam iliar with the G reek notion that affirm s that m any ages, that is, m yriads o f years, have elapsed from the creation o f the universe, based on their fanciful idea about the motion o f the zodiac from the beginning o f 16 Adler/Tuffin 2002, 22 n.2 note that Syncellus has here confused the fall of the Watchers with the syn­

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 w ith 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 attem pt at reconciliation was an exercise in futility, since the works of Berossos and M anetho 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 ju st that he copied Berossos, but that both ultim ately plagiarized from M oses.19 Syncellus’ argum ent 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

In document Consellería do Mar Centro de Investigacións Mariñas Memoria de la actividad del año 2008 (página 84-103)