University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Commentary To Philo Byblius' 'Phoenician History'

(USC Thesis Other)

A Commentary To Philo Byblius' 'Phoenician History'

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-6510 WILLIAMS, Philip Roland, 1926- A COMMENTARY TO PHILO BYBLIUS’ PHOENICIAN HISTORY. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1968 Language and Literature, classical University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan < £ > Copyright by PH ILIP ROLAND WILLIAMS A COMMENTARY TO PHILO BYBLIUS' PHOENICIAN HISTORY by Philip Roland Williams A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Classics) June 1968 UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by PJb.ilip..JRoJLand..WiIIi5Jiis....... under the direction of Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y Dean Date. J u n e, 1968 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE lairman 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Chapter Page I. PHILO OF BYBLOS AND SANCHUNIATHON........... 2 II. SEMITIC INFLUENCE ON GREEK MYTHOLOGY .... 9 III. PHILO'S SEMITIC SOURCE...................... 30 IV. THE CODICES.................................. 53 V. TEXT AND COMMENTARY.......................... 59 PART II. TEXT, CRITICAL APPARATUS, AND TRANSLATION OF THE PHOENICIAN HISTORY OF SANCHUNIATHON TRANSLATED BY PHILO OF BYBLOS TEXT, CRITICAL APPARATUS, AND TRANSLATION............ 68 COMMENTARY.......................................... 131 CONCLUSION.......................................... 198 APPENDIXES Appendix A: Phoenician History Stemmata .......... 202 Appendix B: Index Verborum........................ 205 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......... 211 ii PART I THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1 CHAPTER I PHILO OF BYBLOS AND SANCHUNIATHON Byblos became a city, the first in Phoenicia, when Kronos built a wall around his dwelling and thus constituted it a city. His grandfather Elioun (who was also called Hypsistos) and grandmother (who was called Berouth) had previously settled that region. We have this on the author ity of Philo (lines 328-330, 283-286), who was a native of Byblos (A.D. 64-161). Byblos is, indeed, an ancient city. A number of syl labic inscriptions on copper which come probably from the late third millennium B.C. have been discovered at Byblos.^ In the fourteenth century B.C., Palestine and Syria were in subjection to Egypt, but Egyptian authority was declining as a result of revolts and invasions. In the thirteenth ^-Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, N. J., 1959), p. 144. 2 century, Egypt relinquished northern Syria to the Hittites. (We have abundant evidence of the Hurrian-Hittite presence in northern Syria from the texts discovered at Ugarit, north of Byblos.) During this period, there was extensive cor respondence between Egypt and the cities of Palestine and Syria, including Byblos. There was an Egyptian base at Byblos and there were also mythological ties between Egypt and Byblos. In one form of the Osiris myth, Osiris was de ceived by his brother Seth and was placed in a wooden chest. The chest, after being fastened shut and cast into the Nile, drifted to Byblos, where a sycamore tree grew around it. Isis came, however, and recovered the chest and the body. It was in this region and during this era that one Sanchuniathon was supposed to have lived and written. Ac cording to Philo of Byblos, Sanchuniathon was a historian from Beirut (Beyrouth), some twenty miles south of Byblos. He lived before the Trojan War, perhaps during the time of Moses, and wrote a Phoenician history, or a history of the Phoenician religion, which Philo claimed to have translated into Greek (lines 1-127). F. Wagenfeld published a complete text of Philo which he defended as genuine, but, in general, this text is not accepted by other writers. If we reject this text, we have only fragments of Philo's work, amounting to perhaps a dozen and a half pages (approximately four inches by five inches in size) and preserved mainly by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Praeparatio Evanaelica. A critical text of this work was prepared by E. H. Gifford in 1903; the most recent one is that prepared by Karl Mras in 1954. From the fragments contained in Eusebius, it is impos sible even to make intelligent conjectures in reconstructing the lost sections of Philo's work. Eusebius did not tell us how large the work was, what portion of it he quoted, wheth er the quotations were given in chronological sequence, or almost anything else. Gifford, toward the end of the in troduction to his critical text, demonstrated at some length that Eusebius was accurate and fair in his quotations of other wor j (though that point has been disputed by some writers), so that we can, in my opinion, have confidence in the basic accuracy of the fragments which we do have. That section of Eusebius which incorporates the frag ments of Philo can be outlined briefly as follows: I. Eusebius' preface (lines 1-11 of my translation) II. Sanchuniathon, a historian of the Phoenician religion, whom Philo translates, is very ancient and very reliable, as Philo and Porphyry testify (lines 12-98) III. Philo's introduction to, and presentation of, Phoenician theology (cosmogony) (lines 99-149) IV. His description of generation (zoogony) (lines 153-167) V. These things were found in the writings of Taautos (lines 168-175) VI. The ancients' concepts of the gods (lines 178- 187) VII. The winds Kolpia and Baau and their descendants (lines 189-200) VIII. Philo accuses the Greeks of error (lines-201-208) IX. The inventor-deities (lines 209-282) X. The description of the gods— the descendants of Ouranos (lines 282-423) XI. Taautos' drawings of the gods (lines 423-449) XII. The rites of Phoenician worship and their per version (lines 449-482) XIII. Philo (or Porphyry?) on Taautos, or Thoth (lines 489-498) XIV. Philo (Porphyry?) on child sacrifice (lines 500- 516) XV. Sanchuniathon on serpents (lines 517-595) XVI. Eusebius' conclusion (lines 596-616) Just a casual reading of these fragments of Philo will reveal that his work was more than a strict translation of a Phoenician work. Philo frequently inserted comments of his own, mentioned that this Greek god was the same as that Phoenician one, etc. It is not always easy to know with certainty who is supposed to be speaking in a given place, whether Sanchuniathon or Philo or perhaps Porphyry, or even Eusebius himself in one or two places. In general, however, the passages can be assigned with assurance to one particu lar writer or another. Sanchuniathon wrote about the Phoenician religion, a subject about which we were relatively ignorant until quite recently. From the Ugaritic texts discovered at Ras Shamra in recent decades, however, we know much more about the Phoenician religion and are better able to judge the validi ty and the accuracy of some of Sanchuniathon's statements. Perhaps it is in order, therefore, to take a brief look at some of the main points of the Phoenician religion, though it may not have been known under the name "Phoenician." There were several streams of influence which contrib uted, some more and some less, to the Phoenician religion. The Phoenician religion was actually the Canaanite religion, and yet it shows the influence of the religions of neighboring peoples. Perhaps the main source of influence was the Hurrian-Hittite religious tradition, which centered in Asia Minor but extended as far down as Phoenicia. The original Canaanite religion had its pantheon of deities, just as did the religion of the Greeks. El was originally the chief god, but he appears to have been replaced by Baal, who was worshipped widely. Baal, as the weather god, the giver of rain, also controlled the fruitfulness of the fields. Opposed to him was Mot, or Death, who brought deso lation and famine. He was the god of the underworld. Baal's sister was Astarte, the goddess of love and of war. Another cycle of myths presented Alalu as king in heaven. He was defeated and replaced by Anu, the sky god (An = "sky"). Next Kumarbi defeated Anu and reigned in his place, and Kumarbi, in turn, was defeated by the storm god, who took the reign. There were, of course, numerous other gods and numerous other myths, and these have been treated in 2 greater detail by other writers. 2Theodor H. Gaster, The Oldest Stories in the World (Boston, 1959), pp. 99-171? idem. Thespis? Rjt.ual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East (Garden City, N. Y., 1961), pp. 114-376? Hans Guterbock, "Hittite Mythology," in Mythologies of the Ancient World, ed. Samuel Noah Kramer Anyone who is familiar with Greek mythology, and es pecially with Hesiod, will find that Hesiod's work, the Ugaritic texts and Philo's text have many points of simi larity. It was formerly held that Philo had just adapted Hesiod and that he had no ancient source at all, but the Ugaritic texts make it plain that Philo could indeed have gotten his material from an ancient Phoenician source. While we can only speculate about the channels through which the influence flowed to Greece, it now seems clear that many of the Greek gods and myths existed in Asia Minor and Phoe nicia and even further east before they existed in Greece. However similar some of Philo's mythical material may be to Hesiod's, he could have obtained it from a Semitic source from which much of Hesiod's material also ultimately came. Two examples will demonstrate this influence of Semitic mythology on Greek mythology. (Garden City, N. Y., 1961), pp. 139-179; S. H. Hooke, Middle Eastern Mythology (Baltimore, 1963), pp. 79-102; Marvin H. Pope and Wolfgang Rollig, "Syrien. Die Mythologie der Uga- riter und Phonizier," in Gotter und Mythen im vorderen Ori ent. Vol. I of Worterbuch der Mythologie. ed. Hans Wilhelm Haussig (Stuttgart, 1962), pp. 219-312; James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testa- msat, 2d ed. (Princeton, N. J., 1955), pp. 120-155. CHAPTER II SEMITIC INFLUENCE ON GREEK MYTHOLOGY If we ask, "Is the story of Typhon Semitic in origin?," we are immediately faced with the question, "Whose version of the story is more nearly the original— Hesiod's or Apollodorus1?," for Hesiod omitted certain essential details which Apollodorus included, and thereby gave a somewhat dif ferent force to the story. (Hesiod called this monster Typhoeus rather than Typhon, and while it is true that he gave some details which are unique to him, yet these are incidental and of no consequence. For instance, he devoted lines 829-835 of the Theoaony to describing the noises which Typhon made.) Evelyn-White was of the opinion that Hesiod lived at least as early as the eighth century B.C.'*' On the other ^Hugh G. Evelyn-White, trans., HesiodP the Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), p. xvi. 9 10 hand, Frazer was not even cex'tain who this Apollodorus was, much less when he lived. He was confident, however, that it could not have been earlier than the middle of the first century B.C. or later than the beginning of the ninth cen tury A.D., and he inclined to put him in the first or second 2 century A.D. Since Apollodorus quoted Hesiod several times (I. viii. 4; I. ix. 21; etc.), differences from him must be due to deliberate choice rather than to ignorance, for he was not unaware of Hesiod. Frazer believed that he "derived all his information from books aj.one," not from oral tradition, and that he "followed them faithfully" (p. xvii). While we may question the first of these statements, there seems to be no adequate reason to question that he did follow his sources, written or oral, quite faithfully. Investigation makes it clear that a tradition was current which included elements omitted by Hesiod, for Pindar, who wrote in the first half of the fifth century B.C., alluded to Aetna as the mountain under which Typhon was pinned (fill. IV. 7). Apollodorus likewise followed this tradition (I. vi. 3). Pindar, ^Sir James George Frazer, trans., Apollodorus: The Library. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), pp. ix-xvi. 11 however, seemed to mix two versions in Pyth. I. 15-28. He said that Mount Aetna in Sicily lay heavy on Typhon1s breast (lines 17-20), but also that he lay in dread Tartarus (lines 15-16). Perhaps he felt that the two were synonymous, that to suffer such fierce punishment was to be in Tartarus. In any event, Hesiod related how Zeus cast him into wide Tar tarus ITheoa. line 868), and made no mention of Mount Aetna at all (unless we follow a reading suggested by Tzetzes in line 860). For another example, Pindar (Pyth. VIII. 16) and Apollodorus (I. vi. 3) both stated that Typhon, or Typhoeus, was born in Cilicia, whereas Hesiod was silent on this mat ter. It would seem clear, then, that Apollodorus did not make up part of his account out of whole cloth. Apparently it was Hesiod who left out part of the story rather than Apollodorus who added to it. Frazer also agreed with this opinion, because, as stated above, he concluded that Apollo dorus followed his sources faithfully. If this conclusion is valid, it creates another prob lem: "Why did Hesiod omit parts of the story, and is there any significance to his omissions?" Of Apollodorus Frazer said: We may describe the Library as a plain unvarnished summary of Greek myths and heroic legends, as these were recorded in literature; for the writer makes no 12 claim to draw on oral tradition, nor is there the least evidence or probability that he did so: it may be taken as certain that he derived all his information from books alone. But he used excellent authorities and followed them faithfully, reporting, but seldom or never attempting to explain or reconcile, their discrepancies and contradictions. Hence his book possesses documentary value as an accurate record of what the Greeks in general believed about the origin and early history of the world and of their race. The very defects of the writer are in a sense advantages which he possessed for the execu tion of the work he had taken in hand. He was neither a philosopher nor a rhetorician, and therefore lay under no temptation either to recast his materials under the influence of theory or to embellish them for the sake of literary effect. He was a common man, who accepted the traditions of his country in their plain literal sense, apparently without any doubt or misgiving. (pp. xvii-xviii) Apollodorus was not seeking for literary effect, and he had no ax of his own to grind. He was content to take the myths and legends as he found them and to record them for poster ity. The case is quite different with Hesiod. At the very beginning of the Theoaony. he reproached those poets who told false things as though they were true (lines 26-27), and insisted that Jtig., under the guidance of the Muses, would speak the truth (line 28). He was going to sing about the birth of the gods, and hs. would give the true account. He began by singing about the Muses, the lovely daughters of Zeus. They too were singing, and they started by singing about all the gods. Next they sang, at the beginning and ending of their song, about Zeus, the father of gods and men, "how much the mightiest of all the gods he is, and how much the greatest in power" (lines 36-49). This introduc tory passage set the tone for the entire poem. Zeus was the father of the Muses, who were a blessing to men (lines 53- 103). He was fair in his distribution to the gods (lines 72-74). He faithfully kept his promises (lines 402-403). No one could thwart his will (lines 613-616). By his over whelming power he defeated the Titans (lines 687-712). Throughout, both by epithet and by statement, Zeus was pre sented as wise and kind, as generous and faithful, as ex alted and invincible. He was the mightiest of the gods (i.e., the bravest and best), and the greatest in power. It seems indisputable that Hesiod is guilty of special pleading for Zeus— he was trying to present him in the best possible light. In view of this fact, it is not surprising to find that in the Typhoeus episode, the significant de tails which Hesiod passed over in silence fall primarily into two categories: those which describe Typhon's (or Typhoeus') surpassing size and strength and those which tell how he defeated Zeus. Typhon might be able to make very fearful noises, but he certainly could not overcome Zeus. Therefore, we seem justified in concluding that Hesiod trimmed the traditional account to suit his own purpose and 14 that Apollodorus probably followed the original account as he found it. Typhon was called by at least two names and perhaps by three. He was commonly called Typhon— or Typho or Typhos— (Pindar, £JL. IV. 7; Pyth. I. 16; VIII. 16; Aeschylus, Prom. 356, 372; Su p. 560; Seven 493, 511, 517; Apollodorus I. vi. 3, etc.). He was also frequently called Typhoeus (Homer, II. II. 782; Hesiod, Theoq. 821, 869; Hvmn to Apollo 367; Ovid, Met. III. 303; V. 321, 325, 348, 353). Vergil called him both Typhon (Ciris 32— if this actually belongs to Ver gil) and Typhoeus (G. I. 279; Aen. VIII. 298; IX. 716). A third, almost identical name, Typhaon, was given either to this same monster or to a very similar one. Typhaon was a monster "unlike either gods or mortal men" (Hymn to Apollo -350-351), and Typhon also was depicted as a monstrosity (Hesiod, Theoa. 820-835; Apoll. I. vi. 3). Typhaon was "joined in love" to Echidna, a creature which was half nymph, half snake, and she bore to him, among others, Orthus and the^Chimaera. To Orthus she bore the Sphinx and the Nemean Lion (Hesiod, Theoq. 306-332). Typhon likewise fathered these same four creatures (and others) by Echidna, if we may assume that she was the mother of the Nemean Lion, a point that is not specifically stated, though it is said that Typhon was his father (Apoll. II. iii. 1; II. v. 1; II. v. 10; III. v. 8). Typhaon was to be an evil to Zeus and distinguished among the gods, stronger than even Zeus (Hymn to Apollo 300-352). This sounds very like Apollo dorus 1 statement about Typhon. He was born out of anger against Zeus, and in size and strength he surpassed all the offspring of Ge (I. vi. 3). In addition to these things, the Hymn to Apollo apparently equated Typhaon and Typhoeus. After speaking about Typhaon and the dragoness who was his foster mother, the Hymn said that Apollo killed the dragon ess and that neither Typhoeus nor Chimaera could help her (300-369). One is left with the impression that this Typhoeus is the Typhaon about whom the Hymn has been tell ing, the dragoness' foster son. It is true that the Hymn said that Hera bore this monster without benefit of a male partner (300, 352), while Hesiod (Theoq. 821-822) and Apol lodorus (I. vi. 3) said that he was the offspring of Ge and Tartarus, but it seems quite likely to me that the writer of the Hymn took the same tradition and adapted it for his own purposes and that Typhon/Typhoeus and Typhaon are one 3 and the same. West also agrees with this opinion. 3M. L. West, Hesiod; Theoaonv (London, 1966), p. 306. 16 And who was Typhon? As was pointed out above, he was a monstrous creature, the offspring of Ge and Tartarus, whom Ge bore out of resentment against Zeus. According to He siod's account (Theoq. 820-835), he was a strong god whose hands were strong and feet untiring; from his shoulders grew a hundred heads of a snake, and fire flashed from his eyes and burned from his heads as he glared; furthermore, he made all sorts of fearful noises from his dreadful heads. Apol lodorus (I. vi. 3) added to this account the following additional details; Typhon was the largest and strongest of Ge's children, half man and half beast, human from the thighs up and with coils of vipers from the thighs down; he stood taller than the mountains so that his head often brushed the stars, and his hands, from which projected a hundred dragons' heads, reached from east to west; his body was all winged, his head full of unkempt hair, and fire flashed from his eyes and shot from his mouth, and when the gods saw him heading for heaven, they fled. One unique point, that he came from Cilicia, was affirmed by several writers (Pindar, Pyth. I. 15-17, VIII. 16; Aeschylus, Prom. 353-356; Apoll. I. vi. 3). A point related to this was given by Apollodorus (1. c), that Typhon, when wounded, fled to Mount Casius above Syria, and, overcoming Zeus there, 17 carried him to the Corycian caves in Cilicia. There are hints that Typhon was originally not just a monster, but a sea monster. His mate was Echidna, and while Apollodorus said she was the daughter of Tartarus and Ge (II. i. 2), Hesiod made her the daughter of Callirrhoe and granddaughter of Ocean, half nymph and half snake (Theog. 287-300). If Echidna were herself a sea monster, she would be a fitting mate for a sea monster. A stronger intimation that Typhon was a sea monster is found in Apollodorus' statement that Typhon put the defeated Zeus on his shoulders and carried him through the sea from Mount Casius above Syria to the Corycian cave in Cilicia (I. vi. 3). There was a relatively direct land route, but Typhon chose to go by sea. Then when Typhon in turn was defeated, he fled through the Sicilian sea (1. c). He did not fly over the water, as a god could do (and Typhon was a god), but went through it. (It was of interest to me that after I had arrived at this tentative conclusion, I found the same idea suggested by 4 Baudissin, that Typhon was a sea monster. ) However, these are just intimations at best, and must not be pressed too 4WoIf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsaeschichte (Leipzig, 1876), II, 174. 18 strongly. When we study the myths of the Near East, we find close parallels to the Typhon story. West insisted that Hesiod did not imitate a foreign source (p. 14). I think West was not urging anything more, however, than that Hesiod did not model his Theoaony as a whole after a similar foreign work, for he informed us that [Hesiod's] Succession Myth has parallels in oriental mythology which are so striking that a connexion is in contestable. They occur principally in Hittite and Akkadian texts, and in Herennius Philo's translation of the Phoenician History of Sanchuniathon. (p. 19) If Greek mythology was thus influenced on this one point, it doubtless was in other points as well, and the Typhon story seems clearly to be such a case. Hans Giiterbock, for example, saw such influence (p. 172). The Typhon story combined elements found in two Hur- rian/Hittite stories, that about Ullikummi and the one about Illuyankas. The relation between these two myths is obvious — they both concern a battle between the storm god and one of his enemies— and there are three possible explanations as to why the Greeks had just one myth: (1) the Greeks re ceived two stories and combined them into one; (2) the Hur- rians or Hittites themselves, or some intermediate party, 19 combined the two myths and the Greeks received them in that form? (3) there was originally one story, and after it was transmitted to the Greeks, the Hurrians or Hittites divided it into two myths. Chronological considerations would seem to rule out the third explanation. The first explanation seems most probable. It would be most natural for the Greeks to take two stories about the Storm god and combine them into one story about Zeus, who was their own storm god. There are certainly variations between the Semitic myths and the Greek version. Some of these variations are superficial and insignificant, and further than this, it is easy to comprehend that variations could well have arisen during transmission, that the Greeks would have altered certain elements of the myth(s) to fit into their own thinking and culture, or even that a given Greek writer would have made some alterations simply on the basis of personal taste. It is simple to rationalize the differen ces, but the similarities are so striking that it is im possible to explain them except on one basis: the Greek myth is modelled after the Hurrian/Hittite myth(s). The texts for the two Semitic myths are somewhat frag mentary, but the gist of the story can be discerned fairly clearly. All references for these two myths will be taken 20 from James B. Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts. unless otherwise noted, and will be cited by page and column in that volume for the sake of simplicity. Some of the details will be more obviously related and more significant, and some, of course, will be less so. Following are some of these similarities. Kumarbi, who begot the monster Ullikummi, the diorite man, was very wise (121 B), as was Ge, who begot Typhon (Theoa. 462-495, 624-628, 881-893). Kumarbi plotted evil against the Storm god (the equivalent of Zeus) and deter mined to raise up a rival to him (121 B). Ullikummi was placed in the sea and the waters made him grow (122 B). This reminds one of Typhon's affinity for the sea. Ulli kummi, the diorite man, grew exceedingly high and reached up to heaven, but his body was not like that of the other gods (123 A, 124 A). The Storm god gathered the thunder storms, the rains and winds, and the lightning, and went forth to fight against Ullikummi (123 B-124 A). The text is quite fragmentary here, but it seems that the battle was at first indecisive, and apparently the Storm god was de feated (124 A-B). The Storm god went to Ea and appealed for help. Ea enlisted the help of the other ancient gods and they spoke magic words and brought forth the ancient copper 21 knife with which heaven had been severed from earth. With this knife Ea cut through the feet of Ullikummi and cut him from the shoulder of Ubelluri, the equivalent of Atlas (124 B-125 A). Just as Ullikummi was cut down with the instrument which had separated heaven from earth, so Zeus attacked Typhon with an adamantine sickle (Apoll. I. vi. 3), the same implement which had been used to castrate Ouranos, i.e., to separate heaven from earth (Theoq. 161-182). After this, the Storm god apparently defeated Ullikummi. The second myth is about Illuyankas. Actually, the 5 word "illuyanka" is a noun meaning "dragon" or "serpent." There are two versions of the Illuyankas myth, the earlier g and the later. In the earlier version, Illuyankas van quished the Storm god, who then called the other gods to his aid. One of them, Inara, secured the aid of Hupasiyas, a mortal man. They invited Illuyankas to a banquet and made him drunk. Hupasiyas bound him, and the Storm god killed him. In the later version, Illuyankas vanquished the Storm god and took away his heart and eyes. The Storm god married a poor man's daughter and had a son who married the daughter ^Giiterbock, p. 150. ^Pritchard, pp. 125-126. 22 of the Dragon Illuyankas. This son got back the heart and eyes and gave them to his father, the Storm god, who then went to the Sea for battle and killed the Dragon Illuyankas. Some of the similarities between the Greek myth and the Semitic myths could undoubtedly be incidental, but some of them are striking enough that the one must be derived from the others. In both, the monster was a serpent, or at least half serpent, and filled the very universe— in height he reached up to heaven itself, the dwelling of the gods, and his bulk was immense. So huge was he that the gods were terrified at the sight of him. In both myths (treating the Semitic myths as one at this point) the monster was appar ently a sea monster, or at the very least intimately asso ciated with the sea. The monster was born out of spite against the ruling god, the Storm god. The monster at first defeated the Storm god and took away certain members of his body, which left him helpless. The Storm god obtained the help of others, who regained his lost members for him. The implement which separated heaven from earth was used against the monster. The Storm god enlisted the help of the other gods, and with their help defeated the monster. The common Greek tradition is that the monster’s home was the Corycian cave (which has been found a short distance outside of 23 Corycus) in Cilicia, and Cilicia falls within the Hurrian/ Hittite domain. It seems evident that the Greeks were cor rect and were following a true tradition when they spoke of "the Cilician Typhoeus" and when they said he came from Cilicia. The Succession Myth (see above, p. 18) is another in which the Greeks followed the Semites in many points. In considering the structure of the Theocrony. West likened the Succession Myth to the backbone of the poem (West, p. 18), with other brief myths woven into it, and genealogies scattered throughout. The Succession Myth is actually just a dynamic genealogy (i.e., a genealogy presented in story form rather than in the form of a bare genealogy) that con tains the other genealogies within itself. The Hurrian myth has four generations of rulers, where as the Greek has three. The second ruler of the Hurrian pantheon was Anu (the Sumerian A&, which means "Sky"), whose name corresponds to the Greek Ouranos ("Heaven"). Alalu had been ruler before him, but Anu defeated him and Alalu went down to the dark earth. Anu then reigned, but he too was deposed by Kumarbi, who took over the reign. Kumarbi bit off and swallowed Anu's genitals which impregnated him with several gods. Ouranos likewise was castrated by Kronos (the implement used was a sickle with jagged teeth, and it has been suggested that this was a counterpart of Kumarbi1s teeth), and from the drops of blood and the genitals them selves there came numerous offspring, some of them gods and some of them at least demons, if not strictly gods. Kronos did not become pregnant, but he did swallow his children as soon as they were born and thus had several gods within him. When Zeus was to be born, however, Rhea deceived Kronos and gave him a stone which he swallowed, thinking it was Zeus. According to Hesiod (Theocr. 497-500), Kronos later vomited up this stone and "Zeus set it fast in the wide-pathed earth at goodly Pytho under the glens of Parnassus," where it was still seen and reverenced in the days of Pausanias (x. 24. 6). West speculated that Kumarbi, Kronos' counterpart, likewise swallowed a stone (p. 21), but this is a great deal less than certain. Also, it is not strictly correct that Kumarbi swallowed his son, as West affirmed (p. 21). Yet the similarities are very close. Both Kumarbi and Kronos had gods within them, which they later vomited up. More over, according to West, "In a Hurrian text from Ras Shamra, Kumarbi is equated with El, and the Greeks identified the Phoenician El with Kronos; the 'identity' of Kronos and Kumarbi is thus indirectly confirmed" (p. 21). The fourth 25 god to reign was Teshub (though his name is not given in this text), the Weather god or Storm god. He was the chief god of the Hurrian pantheon and corresponded to Zeus, who was the Storm god in Greek mythology and the chief god in the Greek pantheon. The Storm god apparently defeated Kumarbi and succeeded him in the kingship (though the text is deficient here) as Zeus did Kronos. After becoming king of the gods, the Storm god's reign was threatened by the monsters Ullikummi and Illuyankas, who actually defeated him at first, but were ultimately overcome, and Zeus's con test with Typhon was copied from these myths, as is shown above (pp. 18-23). The Greek Succession Myth, as found in Hesiod's Theoaonv. in all likelihood goes back ultimately to the Hurrian Succession Myth. The preceding considerations bring us to the real ques tion at hand, whether Philo of Byblos really had an ancient Phoenician source as he claimed. It cannot be denied that Philo could have gotten much of his material from Greek mythology without necessarily having had recourse to a Phoenician original. Ouranos married Ge and had children whom he tried to destroy. One of his sons, Kronos, deposed him, reigned in his place, and castrated him thirty-two years later. His rule, too, was tyrannical. He had a son 26 named Zeus who was represented as being a king, but there is no hint that he fought against his father Kronos. In fact, it is stated that he reigned by the advice of Kronos (lines 399-401). This is Philo's version of the Succession Myth, which purported to derive from the Phoenician writings of Sanchuniathon, a man who, Porphyry said, lived before the Trojan War, around the time of Moses (lines 19-31). We must realize that while most or all of these things could have been taken from Greek mythology, the basic outline, if the names be changed, could just as easily have been gotten from the Hurrian mythology. The "Phoenicians" (though not under that name) had close contact with the Hurrians— Hurrian tablets are found at Ugarit— and certainly had access to their mythology. There is no a priori reason why Philo could not have gotten these things from a Phoenician myth ology. In addition, Philo had four generations in the suc cession of the gods, as did the Hurrian myth. Elioun or Hypsistos was the first king and would be the counterpart of Alalu. This is in contrast to Hesiod's version. West suggested other things also, that are common to Philo and the Hurrian myth, but are lacking in Hesiod and the Enuma Elisht There is no primeval mother to match Tiamat and Gaia. 27 The first king is a nonentity; the memorable deeds which characterize the story are all done by his successors. There is no provocation of the old king by tumultuous children. The fourth king is the son of the second, not of the third, who merely acts as a foster-parent.^ To return to West's argument, he saw as other evidences that Philo had a Semitic original the presence of Phoenician names in the text and the presence of phrases which are ob viously translations from another language (p. 26). Cyrus Gordon is one of the foremost scholars of the present time who contend that Greek mythology was influenced by the mythology of the Near Eastern world. In fact, he finds such influence on every hand; in his monograph "Homer and Bible," he drew parallel after parallel between Greek ^Parenthetically, two points in West's statement need to be clarified. There are five distinct Zeuses in Philo's account: (1) Helios (the Sun) was Beelsamen ("Lord of Heav en") to the Phoenicians and Zeus to the Greeks (lines 197- 200). (2) Chrysor, or Hephaestus, a man who lived much later, was also called Zeus Meilichion, if this is the cor rect reading (lines 246-253). (3) One of the sons of Oura nos was Dagon, or Siton (lines 297-300), and he also had the name Zeus Arotrios (lines 364-366). (4) Yet another son of Ouranos (and foster son of Dagon) was Demarous (lines 323- 328), or Zeus Demarous (line 399). (5) Kronos had a son named Zeus Belos (lines 368-370). The first thing to be noted is that the fourth king who reigned was Zeus Demarous, the son of Ouranos (lines 399-401), not Zeus Belos, the son of Kronos (lines 368-370). In the second place, we should note that actually, Zeus Demarous, the fourth king, was not the foster-son of Kronos, the third king, as West stated above, but of Kronos* brother Dagon (lines 323-328). 28 g and Semitic literature. While I agree that such influence existed, I question that we can discern it in so great de tail as Gordon would have us believe. I believe that many of the supposed parallels which he found are commonplaces which would inevitably exist in societies which were similar in make-up, in technical development, etc., so that we can not necessarily assume, in many instances, that one nation derived a given practice from another nation. For example, Gordon attached significance to the mention of the scarcity of wood in a city under siege in both Greek and Semitic epic (paragraph 112). However, how could it be otherwise in societies whose main fuel was wood? Many of Gordon's exam ples seem to me of very questionable worth in establishing the influence of Semitic literature on Greek literature. Philo’s work contains nothing that would oppose Gordon's basis thesis of Semitic influence on Greek literature? on the contrary, it lends support to it. However, that support is not as extensive and claar-cut as we could wish. Uvo Holscher is another who recognized this Semitic ®"Homer and Bible: The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature," Hebrew Union College Annual, ed. Sheldon H. Blank et al.. XXVI (1955), 43-108. 29 influence on Greek literature, but he was more cautious than Gordon in the examples which he offered to verify such in fluence; he appealed to the more traditional examples, such 9 as the myth of Kingship in Heaven, etc. Peter Walcot is even more guarded than Holscher in assigning various elements found in Greek literature to Semitic influence, though he granted that some influence apparently did exist. For example, he said: I hope it will now be appreciated why I said earlier that a comparison of the Theogony and the Song of Ulli- kummi produces disappointing results. It is true that both poems (the Song of Ullikummi, as its name indicates, is a poem) tell how the last king of the gods was chal lenged by a monster whose efforts to displace the king proved abortive, but this is the one parallel between them. ^"Anaximander und die Anfange der Philosophie," Her mes: Zeitschrift fur klassische Philolocie. ed. Karl Buch ner, Hans Diller, and Herbert Nesselhauf, 81. Band, Heft 4 (Wiesbaden, 1953), 385-401. IQHesiod and the Near East (Cardiff, Wales, 1966), p. 12. CHAPTER III PHILO'S SEMITIC SOURCE Philo (according to Eusebius of Caesarea) professed to have a Phoenician original upon which he based his work, or more correctly, which was his work, as he claimed to have translated it into Greek, and there seems to be little reason to question that he did indeed have a Semitic origi nal, though not all men have been of this opinion. Movers mentioned the "evident spuriousness" of Philo's Sanchunia- thon and insisted that its spuriousness was beyond all doubt.^ Baudissin admitted that Philo's fragments contained some old elements, and yet in general he characterized it as 2 3 a fiction. Clemen accepted Sanchuniathon as genuine, as ^■Franz C. Movers, Die Phonizier (Bonn, 1841), I, 121. 2Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun. eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte des Glaubens an Auferstehungs- gotter und an Heilgotter (Leipzig, 1911), p. 8; Studien zur semitische Religionsgeschichte. I, 26. ^Carl Clemen, "Die phonikische Religion nach Philo von 30 4 did Eiftfeldt. A more recent author who argued for the genuineness of Sanchuniathon is M. L. West. He offered several reasons for believing that there was a Semitic original: the Phoenician names in the text are genuine, and are usually translated correctly; sometimes Philo offered alternatives, as though feeling for the right word to give an adequate translation of an original; there are places where Philo seemed to have misunderstood the sense of the original (West, p. 26). Semitic names do occur throughout, and they frequently are translated. In line 146, Zophasemin was translated as oupavou hcxtotitcx i , "watchers or overseers of heaven." In line 198 he said that BeeIsamen meant nupLOQ oupavou, "Lord of Heaven." If the final jq. reflects a final r i on the original word, then this would be "Baal Shamayim," "Lord Heaven." If the final u. is the Greek accusative and the nominative form would end in . § . , this would be "Baal She- mesh," "Lord Sun." In either case, Philo's translation is Byblos," Mitteiluncren der vorderasiatisch-aeqyptischen Ge- sellschaft (E. V.), XLII, Heft 3 (1939), 15. 4Otto Eiflfeldt, "Taautos und Sanchunjaton," Sitzunos- berichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften. z.u_Ber- lin. I (1952), 44, 50. 32 fairly correct. In lines 216-217, he mentioned the Cassius, the Libanus, the Antilibanus (and the Brathy) mountains of Phoenicia. Misor and Sydyk are "Yielding" and "Just" (lines 272-273), and these are at least partly correct— the word mishor means "uprightness" and tsadik means "just," and Elioun (lines 284-285) was correctly translated "Hypsistos," "the Highest." There are numerous other Semitic names in Philo's text, some translated and some untranslated. It is also true that there are places where Philo seemed to be groping for the right word, one which would express as fully and correctly as possible a word from a different language. A good example of this is found in lines 128-129, where Philo used one phrase in his presenta tion of the Phoenician cosmogony and then offered an alter nate and more or less synonymous phrase: "dark-colored, blowing air, or a vapor of dark-colored air." Further, there are also elements which quite clearly came from Semitic mythology or are Semitic in origin. Philo spoke of Elioun, and this word Ti’V? occurred in Genesis 14:18ff., where it was used of Yahweh. The LXX translated this word as "YcptcrTOQ, which is what Philo likewise said its Greek equivalent was. He spoke twice of El, or Elos (lines 383, 508), who was one of the main gods of the Canaanite 33 pantheon. One of the strongest evidences of a Semitic source is that Philo had four rulers in his succession myth (Hypsistos, Ouranos, Kronos, Zeus) as did the Hurrian/Hit- tite myth (Alalu, Anu, Kumarbi, Storm god), whereas Hesiod had but three (Ouranos, Kronos, Zeus). Philo spoke of the Sun god as "the Lord of Heaven" (lines 197-198), the identi cal term applied to him in the Ugaritic texts (Pritchard, p. 205 B, 398A) . He mentioned the dedicating of stelae to certain individuals as a part of the traditional worship (lines 108-115, 234-236), a custom which was also mentioned in the Ugaritic texts (Pritchard, p. 150 A). We also find in Philo child sacrifice (lines 410ff., 500ff.) and circum cision (line 413), practices which were common in the Semi tic world, while circumcision, at least, was not common in the Greek world. There seems to be no adequate reason to question that Philo had a Semitic original (or originals) as a basis for his work in Greek. This brings us to a second consideration. Philo not only claimed that he had a Phoenician source; that source was also supposed to be very ancient. Eusebius did not attribute any such claim to Philo directly, but Eusebius himself said that Sanchuniathon was reported to have lived during the time of the Trojans (lines 1-2). In thi 34 section of this work, he was dealing mainly with Philo, so presumably he would have based this opinion too on Philo (among others). He also quoted Porphyry as another witness to the antiquity of Sanchuniathon (lines 19-31). Although we accept as certain that Philo had a Semitic source which he followed, this source could not have been nearly as an cient as it is supposed to have been. Before looking at the evidence, it should be noted that the record is contradictory about when Sanchuniathon lived. In one place, it is stated that he lived during Trojan times (lines 1-2), or even earlier, close to the time of Moses (lines 19-21), and this dating would put him roughly in the fourteenth to twelfth centuries B.C. Just a few lines fur ther down, he is said (by Porphyry) to have been a contem porary of Semiramis, the queen of the Assyrians, and she also is said to have lived before or during the time of the Trojans (lines 27-30). In actual fact, however, Semiramis lived in the last half of the ninth century B.C. Yet an other contradiction exists in the claim that Sanchuniathon dedicated his work to Abibalos (lines 16-17), if we accept the statement, of Josephus that Abibalos was a contemporary 35 5 of David or Solomon. This dating would place Sanchuniathon at the end of the eleventh or beginning of the tenth century B.C. This confusion of chronology, of course, is no dis proof of Sanchuniathon's antiquity. There are other points, though, which do make it diffi cult, if not impossible, to believe that that source, in the form in which we have it, was as ancient as Philo claimed. First, Philo, by his own testimony, had multiple sources for his work, and not just a single source. In lines 87-90, for example, Philo said: "We have found these things out, being anxious to learn accurately about the Phoenicians and having examined much material which was unknown to Greeks," and he acknowledged his multiple sources more than once. In the section on cosmogony, he put it this way: "Some say that this is slime and some that it is a fermentation of a watery mixture" (lines 139-141). Sometimes he had one author only in mind, for he wrote "he says" (lines 188, 191, 197, 209, 212, 218, 219, 223, 238). Again, in line 253, he informed us of something which "they say," and in line 264, he men tioned something he had discovered "in books." This is not 5William Whiston, trans., Antiquities of the Jews, in The Works of Flavius Josephus. . . . (London, n.d.), VIII. v . 3. 36 just an indiscriminate mixing of the singular and plural while referring to a single source. Philo sometimes had a single author in mind (perhaps Sanchuniathon) and he some times referred to varied authors whom he had studied. In addition, there were several strong reasons for assigning Philo's source, or sources, to the Hellenistic age: (1) the thinking, in general, seems to be Hellenistic in outlook; (2) the myths, as presented, differ in certain essential aspects from the Hurrian/Hittite versions and from the traditional Greek versions; (3) there is great promi nence given to Thoth-Hermes, which perhaps suggests a Hel lenistic (or later) date; and (4) Philo's treatment of the gods is euhemeristic almost without exception and in general syncretistic. One indication of Hellenistic thinking is that San chuniathon was pictured as being very critical and ration alistic in his treatment of the material which he studied and revised. Philo saw Sanchuniathon as "a very learned and inquisitive man” who "desired to learn from all sources the things in the beginning whence all things arose," a man who was exhaustive and careful in his research about Taautos, who was the first man to invent letters and record-keeping (lines 50-58). This was in contrast to more recent men who 37 rejected the things which actually happened in the beginning and invented myths and allegories (lines 67-73). Sanchunia thon stumbled onto the obscure inscriptions of the Ammouneoi which had been lying hidden in the inner sanctuaries unknown to most people, and after diligent study, he weeded out the mythical and allegorical elements which had been superim posed upon them and restored them to their original, trust worthy state (lines 74-81). This critical approach was characteristic of the Hellenistic age, but certainly not of the fourteenth to twelfth centuries B.C. In the second place, there are discrepancies between the myths as Philo gave them and the versions found in the Ras Shamra texts and the traditional Greek versions. I can see little or no similarity between Sanchuniathon's cos mogony (lines 128-168) and the Akkadian account of creation which is given in Pritchard (pp. 60ff.). (There is no Canaanite account of creation extant, so the Akkadian ac count is referred to, since it would probably be more repre sentative of the Canaanite view of creation than any other account we have.) According to Philo, Hephaestus was not the son of Zeus— he was Zeus himself (lines 248-253). The Titans were not children of Ouranos and Ge, but men of a past generation (lines 265-269). Atlas was a son of Ouranos and Ge, and was not considered one of the younger Titans (lines 297-300). In Philo, Ouranos and Ge were estranged from one another and Kronos (El), their son, de fended his mother against his father (lines 302-314). In the Ugaritic myth, it was El and his wife who were estranged. Hermes was a contemporary and ally of Kronos, rather than his grandson (lines 311-313). Persephone and Athena were children of Kronos, rather than of Zeus (lines 315-316). Rhea and Dione were Kronos' wives rather than Zeus's, and Astarte (Aphrodite) too was his wife, not his granddaughter (lines 346-351). (However, as Walcot pointed out [pp. 5-6, 23], Hesiod made Aphrodite the daughter of Ouranos, and the goddess Ishtar, or Astarte, was considered to be the daugh ter of Anu. This coincides with what Philo stated.) Dagon, the son of Ouranos and Ge (lines 297-300), was also called Zeus (lines 364-366). Asclepius was the son of Sydyk and a Titaness, not of Apollo (lines 366-368). The son of [Zeus] Belos was Nereus; Nereus' son was Pontos and Pontos' son was Poseidon (lines 371-376). This would make Poseidon the great-grandson of Zeus rather than his brother. Ouranos fought against Pontos and then allied himself with [Zeus ] Demarous; Demarous then fought with Pontos but was defeated and fled (lines 377-381). There is nothing parallel to this 39 event in either Hittite or Greek mythology. Zeus, far from deposing and succeeding Kronos, reigned by his advice (lines 399-401). This is contrary to both the Hittite and Greek myths. These divergencies between Philo and the Hittite myths in particular make it difficult to believe that Philo was following a text written as early as he claims. Next, Philo gave great prominence to Thoth-Hermes and this fact possibly suggests a Hellenistic (or later) date for his source material. Philo followed the common Hellen istic practice of equating Thoth and Hermes (lines 50-61). Thoth, of course, was quite ancient as the Egyptian god of writing and the arts and sciences (and as such was the scribe of the gods), the god of medicine, the lord of re birth, the guide of the dead. The problem which faces us in this present discussion, however, is this: is the Thoth which Philo discussed the Thoth of ancient Egyptian writings, or is he the Thoth of the Hermetic writings? The Hermetic writings are from the Hellenistic age, and though they professed to be setting forth ancient Egyptian wisdom, they were basically a product of the Hellenistic age. G. R. S. Mead spoke of them as "Hellenistic 0 theological literature," and explained that term as mean ing "the blending of Greek and Oriental religious thought and experience" (I, 41). He went on to say that this Hel lenistic theology was most strongly influenced by Egyptian conceptions and traditions (I, 41). He insisted that these writings, or at least the "Poemandres," must be placed prior to the second century A.D. (I, 43), and one is left with the strong impression that he would place the majority of them even earlier than that. Walter Scott, who is much less sympathetic toward the Hermetic writings, disagreed with Mead. It was his opinion that the extant Hermetica cannot 7 have been written before 100 B.C., and that in actual fact they are later than that, most of them coming probably from the second and third centuries A.D. (I, 9-10). He further concluded that nearly everything in them derived from Greek philosophy and very little from Egyptian religion (I, 10-11). It seems safe to conclude, then, that many of these writings fall between 100 B.C. and A.D. 200, and that would ^Thrice Greatest Hermes (London, 1906), I, 40. 7Hermetica: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings Which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Her mes Trismeaistus (Oxford, 1924), I, 9. 41 mean that many of them were probably available to Philo. It is impossible, of course, to prove that Philo was in fact influenced by the Hermetic writings— much that is in them could have been common to other writers and other schools of thought also— but it can easily be shown that much that is in Philo couId have come from the Hermetic writings. A careful comparison of Philo and the Hermetica will reveal many concepts and expressions that are common to them. What the great mass of Hermetic material now lost might have added to this list of concepts and expressions we cannot know. Some of these Hermetic concepts, it is true, go back to the Egyptian Thoth, but some are Hellenistic inventions, or at least are fitted into the mold of Hellenistic think ing. Perhaps the place to start this comparison is with Mead’s statement that "The Thoth of the older period was regarded as a God, the Thoth of more recent times as a God- man" (I, 464). The prologue to Asclepius I bears out the latter half of this statement, speaking of Hermes and three g others as "four men," and Excerpt XXIII from the Hermetic 9 writings of Stobaeus likewise called Hermes a man. Philo 8Scott, I, 289. 9Scott, I, 489. gave mixed testimony for Hermes. In some instances he spoke of him as just a man. He was counted among the descendants of the men who invented courtyards, walls, etc. (lines 265- 275). Hypsistos and his wife settled around Byblos, and when he was killed by wild beasts, his son Ouranos became king. Ouranos' son Kronos fought against his father, and Hermes was his scribe, helper and adviser (lines 283-314). The entire context assumed that these were all men, includ ing Hermes. Philo deduced that the things written in the account of creation given by Taautos (Thoth, or Hermes) "are based partly on guesswork and partly on proofs which his intelligence discovered" (lines 170-175). This is obviously the description of a man and not a god. In lines 423-424 he was called a god, but in the preceding lines Philo men tioned the death of Ouranos, described how Kronos offered his son as a whole burnt offering and spoke of Pontos' re mains at Beirut. The term "god" almost seems to be nothing more than a convention. Philo again designated Taautos as a god (lines 444-445); yet other references to him leave the issue in doubt (lines 489-494, 525-528). Possibly Philo followed differing traditions. In some of these passages, at least, Hermes was just a man. Never was he given the exalted position which he occupied in Egyptian mythology. 43 In Philo he seems clearly to have been the Hellenistic Her mes and not the Egyptian Thoth. As contradictory as this view seems to us, Philo was merely following the traditional euhemerism when he taught that the gods had once been men but were now gods. There are also many expressions and concepts in Philo which could have been taken directly from the Hermetic writings. Thoth was the god of "magic formulae," whose speech was powerful and efficacious.” ^ According to Philo, Hermes spoke magical words which implanted in Kronos' allies the desire to wage war (lines 318-320). The Good Daimon which Philo mentioned (lines 550, 575) is found too fre quently in the Hermetica to need citing. In his description of the cosmogony, Philo merely alluded to an egg which came into existence somewhere in the creative process and apparently had a part in the creation (lines 142-149). Similarly, in a Hermetic writing which Mead attributed to the first century A.D., there was a time when "naught was but Chaos and an indistinguishable mixture of unordered elements still jumbled all together.(See 10Mead, I, 50, 53, 63-64. 1]-Mead, I, 387-388. Philo, lines 128-132, for a somewhat similar thought in this same context.) This Chaos, too, was an egg which had a part 12 in the creative process. Furthermore, Philo’s statement that "spirit loved its own first principles and a mixing together took place" which "was called Pothos (Desire)" and "was the beginning of the creation of all things" (lines 133-137) sounds very similar to the teaching of this same Hermetic writing that this egg was "itself . . . impregnated 13 in itself." In this cosmogony of Philo, we are told that "Mot flashed forth and sun and moon and the stars ( a o x e p E Q ) and the great stars (aoxpa \iey&Xa )" (lines 148-149). This is quite reminiscent of a passage in an invocation to Her mes: "For when thou didst shine forth, Cosmos came into being, and light appeared, and all things were dispensed 14 through thee." In addition, the Hermetica distinguished 15 between &axepeQ and aoxpoc, as did this passage in Philo, though the two words were apparently more or less synonymous as a rule. The serpent, according to Philo, was very long-lived 12Mead, I, 389. 14Mead, I, 91 15Scott, I, 419, n. 2. 13Mead, I, 390. 45 and grew young again by putting off its old age (lines 535- 537). With this, Excerpt XXIII from the Hermetic writings of Stobaeus agreed: "For the dragon is a powerful animal, and long-lived . . . and it renews its youth when it has grown old."^ Philo said that the serpent was called a good daimon by the Phoenicians, and that "if it should look up, it filled everything with light in its primeval country; but if it should close its eyes, there was darkness" (lines 549- 550, 559-562), and Mead recorded a prayer to the Good Daimon which contained many of the same thoughts: When thou dost shine the earth doth sprout afresh, the trees bear fruit when thou dost laugh, the animals bring forth when thou dost turn to them . . . Thee I invoke, the great in heaven . . . , 0 dazzling Sun, . . . Thou art the mighty serpent . . .17 In keeping with the thought contained in this prayer, Philo claimed that this god was fiery (lines 528-529, 562-565, 569-572). There are other points of similarity: the Hermetic writings frequently described the stars as gods ( £ . . H., 18 Libellus III, 2 b; III, 4; X, 7; etc.) and Philo likewise 16Scott, I, 481. 17Mead, I, 97. l®The most recent critical edition of the Corpus Her- meticum. to which the reader can refer for the Greek or 46 called the stars gods (lines 118-121); the same is true also of sun and moon (Asclepius I, 3 c; Philo, lines 118-121); the Sun was the greatest of the gods in heaven (£ .. H., Li- bellus V, 3; Philo, lines 197-200); some gods were mortal and some immortal— stars and planets were immortal gods, man could become a god but was still mortal (£. H., X, 11; XVI; X, 6; X, 24b, 25; Excerpt II B from Stobaeus; Philo, lines 115-123); creatures which were already in existence suddenly became male and female ( £. . H., I, 18; Philo, lines 162-167); Heimarmene, or Destiny, which was mentioned fre quently in the Hermetica (£. H., I, 9; I, 15; I, 19; etc.) was mentioned also in Philo (line 352); man possessed the unique blessing of speech (£. H., I, 3; XII, 13 a; Philo, lines 393-397); Hermes said that most men's names perish, Latin original, with French translation, is A. D. Nock and A. J. Festugiere, Corpus Hermeticum. 4 vols. (Paris: Vols. I & II, 1945; vols. Ill & IV, 1954). In reading through this work, I found only a half dozen references to Philo of Byblos. The work did not mention the influence of the Her metic writings on Philo, but only alluded to certain teach ings which were attested by various authors, including, in a few instances, Philo. For example, in Vol. I it was pointed out that a cosmogony of Thoth existed in the time of Philo (p. iv), and that the Good Daimon was assimilated to Kneph (p. 135). The other four references to Philo occur in Vol. Ill (pp. cxliii, clxv, clxvii, ccviii), and are likewise brief allusions similar to the two given immediately above. 47 but that the names of some will live on because they have left upon the earth mighty memorials of their handiwork (C. . H., III, 4), and Philo listed many men who were wor shipped as gods because they had invented some great bless ing for mankind (lines 209-283). There are three other themes also that are common to the Hermetica and Philo which should be noted in concluding this section: (1) the recording and hiding, on the one hand, or the discovery and bringing to light, on the other, of sacred records in the shrines or temples (Excerpt XXIII, 5 of Stobaeus? XXIII, 8; XXIII, 66; Philo, lines 22-27, 74- 77). (2) The obscuring of truth by men of later times, partly by translation into another language and partly by deliberate corruption of the truth (C. H., XVI, 1 b - 2; Ascleoius I, 12 b - 13; Philo, lines 62-85, 201-208, 449- 461, 463-482). It should be noted that both £.. H., XVI, 2 and Philo, lines 463-473, berated the Greeks for obscuring the truth by using flowery speech and striving for literary effect. (3) Comments on the founders of religious rites and of temples (Excerpt XXIII, 65 from Stobaeus; Philo, lines 449-458, 489-498 and perhaps other passages). The similarities between Philo and the Hermetica seem too numerous and too close to be due to chance. In light 48 of the above comparisons, there seems to be the strongest likelihood that Philo used the Hermetic writings in the com position of his own work, and they could not have been much earlier than approximately the first century B.C. (see pp. 39-41 above). The fourth reason for assigning Philo's source or sources to the Hellenistic age is that, in general, his treatment of the gods is euhemeristic and syncretistic, two of the main religious characteristics of the Hellenistic age. Points two and three immediately above demonstrate conclusively, to my mind, that Philo's work is syncretistic. In some instances, he followed the Hittite myths and the traditional Greek myths, and in some instances he departed from them and followed some other tradition. Much of his material also apparently came from the Hermetic writings. He cited by name Epeeis (lines 553-554, 562), Areius of Herakleopolis (line 556), Pherecydes (line 565), Zoroaster (lines 576-578) and Ostanes (line 586). Who can say what other sources may have contributed to Philo's work? In addition, throughout his work Philo equated the Semitic gods with the Greek gods in some detail. Philo's presentation of the gods is also euhemeristic. Euhemerus lived at the end of the fourth and beginning of 49 the third centuries B.C. While Euhemerus had predecessors in this practice (e.g., Prodicus, Hecataeus), he is the man whose name has become connected with the view that the gods were simply heroes, kings or great men whom later ages ex alted to the status of gods. In similar vein, Diodorus made the gods simply the authors of the advances in culture and 19 the inventors of the arts and benefits of civilization. Philo set the pattern which he consistently followed when he stated: The Phoenicians and the Egyptians, from whom the rest of man-kind took over this belief, used to consider those the greatest gods who provided those things which are necessary for life, or those who have rendered some bene fit to nations; and considering them to be benefactors and the givers of many good things, they used to worship them as gods. (lines 103-110) Again he said: These first ones, at least, consecrated the produce of the earth and considered them gods and used to worship them from whom they themselves had descended, as did those who followed them and all those who preceded them, (lines 178-182) Hypsouranios invented houses and his brother Ousoos invented clothing of skin and was the first to go to sea, so that 19Martin Persson Nilsson, A History of Greek Religion, trans. F. J. Fielden, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1949), p. 281. 50 when they died "those who were left behind dedicated staffs to them and worshipped the monuments and observed feasts to them yearly" (lines 223-241). Chrysor artfully fashioned words and charms and divinations; he is Hephaestus and he also discovered the fish-hook and bait and the fishing line and the raft and was the fxrst man to sail. Therefore they worshipped him just like a god after his death. And he was also called Zeus Mei- lichion. (lines 247-253) Of these men's descendants, one was called Agros and one Agroueros or Agrotes. His image also was reverenced greatly, and his shrine was pulled by yoked oxen in Phoenicia; and in books he is especially named greatest of the gods. These men thought of adding courtyards to their houses. (lines 260-266) One of their descendants was Taautos, or Thoth, just a man (lines 274-277). The same was true of Elioun (lines 283- 285). Ouranos, too, and Ge were likewise just human (lines 286-293). Hypsistos, or Elioun, the Most High, was killed in an encounter with beasts, and his children deified him and made libations and sacrifices to him after his death (lines 293-296). Not only was Kronos, or El, descended from these, which would obviously make him human too, but he also created Byblos, the first city of Phoenicia, where he lived (lines 328-330). He also was a man. In line 356, Ouranos was called a god, although we have already seen him to be 51 but a man. "Now Dagon, since he discovered grain and the plough, was called Zeus Arotrios" (lines 364-366). Dagon was a Semitic god as Zeus was a Greek one, but in Philo's opinion, he deserved the title only because of his out standing contributions to mankind. Kronos, "whom the Phoe nicians called Elos" (El), was "king of the land" and after his death was "consecrated as the star of Kronos" (lines 507-509). In these examples, Philo spoke of men and said they became gods or were worshipped as gods because of their contributions to men, or he took the traditional Semitic and Greek gods, El, Elioun (Eljon), Dagon, Thoth, Ouranos, Kronos, Zeus, and spoke of them as men. However far removed the thinking of the Semites and the Greeks may have been from our own in their conceptions of the gods (or of God), they nonetheless conceived them to be much more than did Philo— the gods were not just mere mortals I Philo's de scription of the gods, almost from beginning to end, is the Hellenistic view— the gods were not powerful supernatural beings, but great men of a past age who deserved great re spect and had therefore been deified. It is indisputable that numerous elements in Philo’s work are Semitic in origin and are ancient; it is likewise clear that many elements must have originated in the 52 Hellenistic age. However, even those that are Semitic in origin have, in general, been reworked by Hellenistic hands and recast in the mold of Hellenistic thinking. It is con ceivable, perhaps, that Philo's sources had ancient sources (i.e., sources extending back to the twelfth century B.C.) which they used and reworked; it is not conceivable that Philo himself had such sources. CHAPTER IV THE CODICES This brief treatment of the codices is taken from the introductions to the critical text of Eusebius' Praeparatio Evanaelica by Gifford (1903) and by Mras (1954). The reader may refer to those works, the former in Latin, the latter in German, for a very full and detailed treatment of these matters.^ Codex Parisiensis 451 (A) is the oldest and best manu script. In the subscription it is dated as having been copied in A.D. 914. It is of parchment and contains, among other things, books I-V of Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica. The broad margins contain full scholia throughout. There are three lacunae in this codex, and it can be demonstrated ■*-Edwin Hamilton Gifford, ed., Evangelicae Praeparatio- nis.... (Oxford, 1903), I, vi-xxxvi; Karl Mras, ed., Eusebius Werke. Vol. VIII, Pie PF^ep^patiQ Eyfrngeligft (Ber lin, 1954), 1. Teil, Einleitung, die Bucher I bis X, pp. xiii-li. 53 54 that they arose between the eleventh and the fourteenth centuries. Two of these can be restored from codex H, but there is a fourth lacuna which is due to the carelessness of Baanis, the scribe, and it is repeated in codex H. Codex A was corrected carefully by the hand of Aretha, the owner, and is confirmed by codex H. Codex Marcianus 343 (H) is from about the eleventh cen tury, and is of parchment. It likewise contains the first five books of the Praeparatio Evanqelica. in addition to other works. Codices A and H show the closest connection> and it is indisputable that H is copied from A, or at least from the same archetype, and soon afterward corrected to the likeness of A. Codex H offers help when A (1) is lost; (2) has been changed by a more recent hand; (3) differs from the other codices either alone or with H alone agreeing. Where H is passed over in silence in the apparatus, it agrees with A. These two codices are two or three centuries older than the others, and form the basis of the text in the first five books. They do have their errors, though, and so it is necessary to seek help from the recent ones also. The other codices, of which BIO are the main ones, are not of the same family. 55 Codex Parisiensis 465 (B) is of silk, and appears to have been produced after the middle of the thirteenth cen tury. The first few leaves of the codex are. destroyed, and it starts with the title of chapter seven. All of book xii is missing, as well as hundreds of words and lines. There are many large lacunae. A much later hand has restored single letters and even entire pages where the ink had faded. This same hand noted in the margin of leaf 174a that these things were done after the year A.D. 1454. Codex Marcianus 341 (I) is of paper, contains fifteen books, and was written in the fifteenth century. This codex was produced by two different hands, the first going from the beginning to the bottom of leaf 265r, the other going from there to the end, with the exception of certain sec tions written by the first scribe, and perhaps by other more recent scribes. Codex I has many large lacunae, but appar ently has some corrections made from codex A. It was cop ied, as a whole, from codex B. Codex Marcianus 342 (j) was not mentioned by Gifford; Mras devoted more than a page of discussion to it. He said that it was copied from I. Codex Bononiensis (Mras added the identifying number 3643) (0) was written by two different hands, the older of 56 which would seem to belong to the early thirteenth century. The writing of this hand is clear and easy to read, with but few abbreviations. The later part of the codex is written in small letters with many abbreviations, and is very diffi cult to read. The codex is in a very bad state of repair, and when a more recent copyist undertook to supply and cor rect those places which had been destroyed, he added a num ber of peculiar errors of his own. Many leaves are worn, torn or stuck together, so that they can be read with diffi culty or not at all. The first part of the codex is the more recent, and its scribe incorporated many of the errors of B in his text. Codex 0 is much better than codex B, but the first part of 0 (which is actually the more recent) is inferior to the first part of I (which is the more ancient part). The older parts of these two codices, however, are comparable, and one is scarcely better than the other. Codex Florentinus Pluteus VI 6. according to Gifford, Laurentianus Pluteus VI 6. according to Mras (F), is of parchment, in very excellent condition, and is from the fif teenth century. It contains the Praeparatio Evangelica. except that there is a lacuna from leaf lv to leaf 10r, where the binder carelessly inserted one quaternion from another work. It was copied from codex G. Codex Florentinus Pluteus VI 9 (Gifford) or C. q4sk Lau- rentianus VI 9 (Mras) (G) is of papyrus and was written in the fourteenth century. The scribe testified that he com pleted this codex in the year 1344. Codex G was copied from codex 0. Codex Parisiensis 466 (C) is of parchment and comes from the end of the fourteenth century. It, too, was copied from G, but very carelessly, as it has many errors of its own. Therefore, where the readings of 0 are lost or uncer tain, G and sometimes C may be called on for help. In gen eral, C has little or no authority of its own. Codex Parisiensis 468 (E) is of parchment, from the fifteenth century, and seems to have been copied from I, in the view of Gifford, or from j, according to Mras. It has very little authority, except that it is helpful wherever both B and I are lacking. Codex Neaoolitanus II A 16. or rather, II AA_16, Mras insisted, (N) is of papyrus and was written at the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century. Codex N almost always follows the readings of codex 0, and where it departs from 0, it almost always falls into error. It is of little or no help. Codex Parisiensis 457 (D) is of parchment, was written in the fifteenth or early sixteenth century, and is of very little authority. It was probably copied from N. In addition to these codices, Mras listed seven others, to which he devoted three or four lines each (p. xlix). CHAPTER V TEXT AND COMMENTARY We are indebted to Eusebius of Caesarea for the text of Philo which we have. This material is found in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evanaelica. I. 9. 30 d - 10. 42 d, according to Gifford's numbering. For the sake of consistency and ease of reference, the text will be cited throughout this paper by the line numbers found in my translation. Eusebius was born about A.D. 260. He received a lib eral education at Antioch and at Caesarea in Palestine, and afterward taught for a long time in the theological school at Caesarea. After the martyrdom of Pamphilus, his teacher and friend, in 309, Eusebius travelled to Tyre and to Egypt, and was an eyewitness of much of the persecution of the Christians under Diocletian. He himself was imprisoned for a short time. About 315, or perhaps earlier, Eusebius was chosen bishop of Caesarea, and held this post until his death in 59 60 340. He was an intimate friend and advisor of the Emperor Constantine, and it is in his praise of the Emperor that he is the least objective and trustworthy. Eusebius was a voracious reader, and while his scholarship was character ized by breadth rather than by depth, he is in general ac curate and reliable. The Praeparatio. in fifteen books, was written before 324, and is apologetic in nature. It is a documentary refu tation of the heathen religions from Greek writings.^- Philo lived A.D. 64-161 and was an inhabitant of Byblos in North Syria. Pauly-Wissowa said of Philo that he "be longed to the most prolific and versatile scholars of his 2 ... time.1 1 In addition to the Phomikika or Phoimkike His- toria (The Phoenician History), the work now under consider ation, Pauly-Wissowa mentioned nine others by him: (1) IlepV tt)q BocoiAeCcxq 'ASpiocvov, (2) Ilepl &0a)0iu)v ? , (3) IIapa6o£oQ idTopia, (4) riepi PooiiaCoov 6iaA.£HT0Ui, (5) ITept 6uacp6pa)v armatvop.£va)v, (6 ) Tot pr}|j.aTiKdc, (7) ITepi KTfjaecDQ xai Ih\oyt)Q (3i|3\ta}v, (8) riepi xP^tfTopaQeCaQ, (9) nepi noXewv Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1950), III, 871-879. 2"Herennios Philo von Byblos," Pauly1s Real-Encvclopa- die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1912), XV, col. 651. 61 Hat oDq endaTT} auxcov evSo^ouq f^veyk g. Pauly-Wissowa also discussed these in more or less detail (XV, cols. 651-661). The second of these, the Ethothia. and the third one, the Incredible History, were mentioned by Philo himself in The Phoenician History (lines 543-549 and lines 96-98 respec tively). Movers saw yet two other works by Philo, one a composition about the Jews, the other a composition about the Phoenician alphabet, and both found in the fragments 3 preserved by Eusebius. If lines 486-498 are a statement of Philo (rather than of Porphyry), they lend some support to Movers' view, at least for the first of these two proposed compositions. It is only with The Phoenician History that we are concerned here (unless there are, indeed, two other works of Philo contained in Eusebius, in which case we shall give attention to these three works). Before looking at the details of the text, it will give us a better grasp of the entire composition to assign its various parts to the re spective writers and to give a more detailed analysis of the work as a whole than was done above (pp. 4-6). Everything in our text can be assigned to one of four writers, Eusebius, Porphyry, Philo or Sanchuniathon, if, ■^Movers, pp. 115-118. 62 for our present consideration, we consider the brief quota tions by Philo from other authors as belonging to Philo. Eusebius gave an introductory statement in lines 1-49, and in this section, he quoted Porphyry in lines 12-31. At the end of this section, which contains Philo's Phoenician His tory. Eusebius gave a brief conclusion (lines 596-616). All the rest of this composition belongs to Philo or Sanchunia- thon, except for isolated sentences and brief paragraphs which Eusebius inserted here and there throughout the text to tie together his quotations from Philo. The first several passages belonging to Philo (lines 50-61, 67-85, 87-92, 94-98, 100-123) presented Philo speak ing in his own person, and are somewhat introductory in nature. In fact, in lines 124-127, Eusebius interjected the comment that the preceding statements of Philo were taken from his introduction. At this point, Philo began to present Sanchuniathon's teaching. This is found in lines 128-149 and 153-167. Then Philo made a few more explanatory remarks (lines 170-175, 178-183, 185-187). Lines 188-200 apparently contain Sanchuniathon's teaching with Philo's running comments mixed in. Philo again spoke in his own person in lines 203-208. Then there is a long section be longing to Sanchuniathon, which runs from line 209 to line 63 449, with the exception of lines 390-391, where Philo could not refrain from mentioning that "up to this present time the spot is pointed out" where Ouranos1 blood dropped into the springs, as described by Sanchuniathon. Philo followed this section with his own comments in lines 449-461 and continued in lines 463-482 with a tirade against the Greeks for their carelessness with facts. In lines 489-498', 500- 516 and 525-543, material from Sanchuniathon was again given, but it is material that had been pre-digested for us by Philo. This section blends right into the next section, as Philo began speaking in his own person and enlarged on the preceding material taken from Sanchuniathon. This sec tion covers lines 543-595. Eusebius concluded this section of his work with lines 596-616. The analysis of the text will follow different lines than those just drawn above. Eusebius set out to prove the antiquity and trustworthiness of Sanchuniathon in lines 1- 98. In his introduction (lines 1-11), he spoke about the accuracy and truthfulness of Sanchuniathon’s history. Then he cited Porphyry (lines 12-31) as a witness who vouched for the fact that Sanchuniathon was very ancient and likewise very careful in composing his history. Eusebius reiterated these two points in lines 32-33. Next Eusebius quoted Philo — 64 as saying that Sanchuniathon was "a very learned and in quisitive man" and a man who carefully researched his mate rial (lines 50-61). This, according to Philo, was in con trast to the more recent authors of holy legends, who had rejected the truth, and had obscured it with myths and allegories. Sanchuniathon, in contrast, had discovered ob scure inscriptions, and after diligent study, had stripped away the myths and allegories and restored the true account (lines 67-85). Two more brief quotations from Philo follow, pointing out again the inconsistency of the Greek writings and the contrasting trustworthiness of Sanchuniathon (lines 87-92, 94-98). At this point there is a statement from Philo which is explanatory in nature and which serves as an introduction to the cosmogony and zoogony of Sanchuniathon which follow (lines 100-123). In this introduction, Philo explained that the rest of mankind took over from the Phoenicians and Egyptians the belief that the greatest gods were men of an earlier age who had made great contributions to the human race, and that the heavenly bodies were also gods. San- chuniathon's cosmogony was given in lines 128-149, his zoogony in lines 153-167. There follow three more brief quotations from Philo, the first one attributing 65 Sanchuniathon's account of creation to Taautos (lines 170- 175), the second one stating that men of earlier ages had deified both the produce of the earth and their own ances tors (lines 178-183), the third one pointing out that the ancients had been very faulty and deficient in their con ception of worship (lines 185-187). Lines 188-200 contain Sanchuniathon's description of men of earlier ages, with Philo’s comments and interpretations woven into the account. Philo inserted another criticism of the Greeks (lines 203- 208), and then Sanchuniathon's account resumed, in which he described the men of earlier ages, the inventor-deities (lines 211-296). At line 297, Sanchuniathon's story began to deal with Ouranos and his descendants. This continued to line 449, with one small insertion by Philo in lines 390- 391. In lines 449-461, Philo accused Thabion of allegoriz ing these things, and mentioned Eisirios, the inventor of the three letters and the brother of Chna, who was called "Phoenician." In lines 463-482, Philo returned to one of his favorite themes, the error of the Greeks in substituting myth for truth. Then there was the mention by Sanchuniathon of Taautos and several other gods (lines 489-498), the de scription of child sacrifice among the ancients (lines 500- 516), and a brief discussion of serpents (lines 525-543). 66 Philo himself then took up the discussion about serpents. After stating his own thoughts on the subject, he cited the opinions of several other authors (lines 543-595). Lines 596-616 form Eusebius' conclusion to this section of the Praeparatio. The next section of this paper will consist of a criti cal text of the Praeparatio Evangelica. 1.9. 30 d - 10. 42 d (the section in which are preserved the fragments of Philo), an apparatus criticus and a translation. Following that there will be a commentary on the text, and a brief conclusion. P A R T II TEXT, CRITICAL APPARATUS, AND TRANSLATION OF THE PHOENICIAN HISTORY OF SANCHUNIATHON TRANSLATED BY PHILO OF BYBLOS 67 C. OTI NEpTEPA TQI BIQI riAPEIEHKTAI TA nEPI TQN 0EQN IIAPA TOIE HOAAOIE TE0PYAHMENA ‘IOTopet 6 e xauTa EayxouvidGcov, avr)p TtaAatdxa- xog wai tSv Tpco'CMOov xpovwv, tog cpaat, Ttpeapuxepog, 20 *6v nai in’ aMptPeCa nai aXTiOeCa xf)g $olvihlm^q toxopCag aTto&exQrjvat iiapTupouatv ‘ <&tA(ov 6 e t o u t o u 5 itaaav ttjv ypacprjv 6 BupAtog, oux 6 ‘Eppatog, |aexa- PaAtbv drcb xfjg c&otvCxoov y\u>TTr|g eui tt^v ‘E\A.a6a 1 6r] a ] tauta above a crossed-out rnxaa B1 ] 7taAatoTaTog A TtaXatT. BONV 2 upeaPoTepog BON -xaxog A 3 K I# ^ i ^ 3 3?otViHiKrjg A ON ^otvtwrjg A HB ^otvtHtjg v (everything by the first hand)] daio&exQ* A0N obxobeixQ* V ano&etxQB^00 B1 d7co6etx0eCdri Bs ] -otv A 5 ypacpriv A ouyypatpr)v BONV 6 yA6xxr)g A -aa- BONV Sanchuniathon, a man of very long ago (in fact, from the times of the Trojans, so they say) and an old man, relates these things. They say he was approved for the accuracy as well as the truthfulness of his Phoenician history. Now Philo (the one from Byblos, 5 not the Hebrew) translated this man's entire work 68 69 cpoovf)v e^e& w he. M-eiivri'cai xouxoov o hoc©’ i^ a Q tt^v nad’ Tcerconm.evoQ oucjxeutiv ev xsxdpxu) xrjc; TcpoQ ripaQ iVn;o0eaEO)Q, ui&e xw a v 6 p i p.apxupc5v Tupbg 10 Ae£l v " 'I a x o p e i 6e x a Ttepl *Iou5aCcov d X rjG eaxaxa, 8 x l w a i x o l q x o tco iq H at x ouq o v 6 |i a a i v atixmv x a 21 au(icpa)voxaxa, EayxovvidG oov o B rjp v x io g , siAiypcbQ x a {>7iop,vf|paxa nccpa 'Ie p o p P d X o u xoO tep^coQ 0 s o v ’ Ieuuj* 13 SayxcDVi<d0a)V always in Thdrt. 14 *l£pop.(3a\Cou b ] 0EOU A 0eou xou BON (xou) DV xou 0sou Thdrt.] *Ieuu> BONV Isu A "law Thdrt.] ’ApipaXu) A, Jos. ant. VIII 147 I and Ap. I 113 and 117; * A(3E\(3a\u) BONV, a few MSS of Thdrt. from the Phoenician tongue into the Greek language and published it. A contemporary of ours who composed a work against us mentions these things in the fourth part of his speech against us, bearing witness to this 10 man’s text as follows: Now Sanchuniathon of Beirut relates stories about the Jews which are very true because they are extremely consistent both in their places and names, for he received the records from 15 Hierombalos, the priest of the god Jeuo. He 70 15 oq *A|3i(3aXa) xcp (3acriAet xr]v taxoptav dvaOetg wt’ exeCvou xat xwv xax' a&xdv e^exaaxwv xfjq d\T|0eCag napebexBr). oi 6e xouxcov xpovot xai upo xwv Tpcol- xoov nCnxovot xP°w»v xai axe&ov xoTq Mcoaecog xXrj- aia£ouaiv, ujq at xcov 3>oivCxr|Q fkxaiAeoov (aiivdouaL 20 &ta6oxaC. EooyxouviaOcov 6e o xaxa xf)v c&oivCxojv SiaXexxov cpuXaXf|0a)Q xaaav xf)v xaXaiav taxopCav ex xujv xaxa n6\iv U7top.vr)ndxtov xat xcov ev xolq tepoiQ pap , 17 UTte6ex&‘ n 0 19 <3?oivCxu)v B* (®olvlxt) q B ) 20 6 Thdrt., here ora ABONV 21 cpiAaXf)0r)Q Thdrt.] xaaav om Migne ] xfjv tax. xr^v rcaX. ONV 22 ev A, Thdrt., om BG (O missing) NV] avaypa9<Ijv A avaypdcpcov BG (O missing) NV ypacpwv Thdrt. ] 6t) A3 6e A1 H* (cf. p. 38, 9) om BG (0 missing) NV Thdrt. dedicated his history to Abibalos, the king of Beirut, and was accepted by him and by those of his time who inquired into the truth. Now this was even before the time of the Trojans, in fact, 20 very near to the time of Moses, as the succes sions of the Phoenician kings reveal. Now San chuniathon, in the Phoenician language, scrupu lously assembled all this ancient history from the documents of the various cities, as well as 25 71 avaypacjKov auvayaywv 6r) nat, auyyp&^ac; etci Se(ii- pdcp,ea)Q yeyovev tt}q 'AaaupCcov (3aaiXC6oQ, t) Ttp6 25 xffiv 'iXianujv rf Hat* auxotig ye xotig xpovoug YEVsaGau dvayeypanTat. xa 6e xou EayxouvidGwvoQ elq ‘EXXa&a yXffiaaav r)p|a.f|veuaev $CXa)v 6 BtipXiog." Tauxa iiev o St iX g o G eC q, aXf|GeLav onou nat 7taXai6x-nxa x u > 6f] QeoX6yca iiapxuprjcraQ. o 6e 22 3 0 TCpolODV OU XOV ETtl TUdvXGOV 0EOV o {;6 £ (i.f)V 0EOUQ xouq nat* ou p a v o v , Gvrixoug 6e av6pag n at y u v a i - H C X Q , o{)5e XOV XpOTCOV aateioVQi OlOUQ bi* apexfiv 2 4 -V E V A 2 7 - a £ V a ] P tP X lO Q A 3 0 0EOUQ om NV, M i g n e 3 1 x o i j g ] n a t b ] y u v a i H a g - x p 6 7 i o v om B from the records in the temples, and wrote it down. He was a contemporary of Semiramis the queen of the Assyrians, and it is recorded that she was born before, or at the very least during, the times of the Trojans. Philo of Byblos trans- 30 lated Sanchuniathon1s work into the Greek tongue. In these words he was revealed confirming the truthful ness as well as the antiquity of the theologian. But he went further in his discussion of the gods and told, not about the One who is God over all, nor even about 35 those who are gods in heaven, but about mortal men and women; not about those who are refined in character 72 a^iov etvai d7i;o6£J;aa0ai ^ £r|Xo5aat tt)q cptA.oaocpCaQ, 9auX6xr|TOQ 6e nai nox0T]pCaQ cmxcrnc; nanCav nepL- 35 (3e|3\r||j.evouQ GeoXoyet. Hal ^apxupet ye toutouq a{>Tot>Q eheivouq suvai touq EtaETl nal vuv 0EOUQ raxpa tolq Tcaaiv vsvoixtapEvouQ xaxa te tocq tuoXeiq xal tocq x^pap. 6sxou Se Hal toutwv em toov syypacpODv tccq anode CE,eiq. 6 6r] $CXcov elq svvsa 23 40 (3C(3\oi;q tt)v naoav zov SayxouviaGcavoQ TipaypaTE Cav GleXcov nana to Ttpoolpiov toO Trpwxou auyypdiipaTOQ 34 Mat f | ND m i V 35 ys AB Mat ONV] e i vai om A 36 0soi>Q BONV olouq a ] -ch v A 39 Eyypdcpcov AN1 V ypa9cov BON D and because of their virtue ought to be approved or to be emulated because of their love of wisdom, but those who have surrounded themselves with the evil of mean- 40 ness and all wickedness; and he actually testifies that these are the very ones who even yet at this present time among all men both throughout the cities and the country too are considered to be gods. Now consider the proofs of this from the documents. 45 Philo, then, having divided Sanchuniathon's en tire treatise into nine books, in the introduction to the first book first says this about Sanchuniathon in 73 ocuxoiq fSrjixaci upoXeyet tcepl xou SayxouvidewvoQ xouiTa’ "To u t c o v o u x g o q ex6vxu)v 6 Eayxou v td0(ov, dvt)p 45 6e 7toXuii,a0f)Q hou TtoXuTcpdyiK ov yev6nevoQ wai xd s£ 24 & P X *)Q » acp' ov toc Ttavxcx auvearn, Ttapa Ttdvxoov eL&evoci tco0o>v, TcoXucppovxiaxLHtoQ s^EndaxEUOEv xd Taauxou elScoq oxi xcov dq>' ^ X C co yEyovoxwv TtpSxdq eox i TaauxoQ, o tg5v ypay,|j.dTa)v xf)v eOpeolv 45 6r) Mr as 6e A om BONV 46 roxpd] TtEpl N (a above e and above i, first hand) DV 47 el&evou] el6o> q b ] iroXucppovxiaxtHooc; (in the mss. two words)] no\vcppovrCaru)Q Dind. ] —0£v A] xa Tocauxou BONV xauxa auxou a ] 8xl BONV XIQ A 48 T^XtOV BONV f|Xtw A, Mras] ECJTI TdcaiTOQ BONV ta x iv oSxoq A these very words: This being the case, Sanchuniathon, who had 50 proved to be a very learned and inquisitive man, and who desired to learn from all sources the things in the beginning whence all things arose, very carefully tracked down the facts about Taautos, knowing that of all men who have come 55 into existence under the sun, Taautos was the first to invent letters and originate the writing 74 50 eiuvofiaocQ Hal Trjc; tujv tiuopvripdTttv ypacprjQ Hatap- £a<; hoc' i auo tou6e wouep Kpiyrci&a paXopsvoQ toO Xoyou, ov AlyOtctloi pev enaXeaav ©iou0, ’AXs^av- 6peiQ 6e ©u) 0 , ‘Epiafiv 6e "EXXtiveq psTscppaaav." TaOxa ELUWV EUipEpcpETai to lq petd Tauta 25 55 VEOOTEpO tQ, cog *av ^£|3 Gaapsvioc; Hat OUH dXt)0a)Q touq U£p\ ©eSv pu0oug six’ aXXriYopCaQ Hal qjuaindg &tr)Yr|cr£iQ te na\ 0£u>ptag avaYouoiv* Xeyei 6* ouv TUpOl'WV* "’AXX* o£ pev VE<x)TaTOL twv uspoXoYwv m 26 51 paXopEVOQ ABS -XX- B1ONV 53 6e 6e0oo0 A 54 toiq p. T. VEGOT. A TO IQ VEUJT. TO IQ pETOt T. BONV 55 Hal® A om BONV 57 -0IV A of records; and he laid a foundation, so to speak, from this word which the Egyptians called Thoyth, the Alexandrians Thoth and the Greeks 60 translated as Hermes. Having said this, he finds fault with the more recent men who lived after this, because they would turn the myths about the gods into allegories and physical explanations and theories which are forced and not 65 true. And then he further says: Yet the most recent authors of holy legends 75 60 psv Y£YOv6t( x TxpdYpaxa e£ apx^Q dit£7tEp<|Kxvxo, dXXT)YopCaQ 6e h o c! p u0o u q EiuvorjoavxeQ h o c i x o i q HoaiiiHoiQ 7ra0r)pa0Lv auYYeveiav TiXaodpEvot puo- xfjpta h o c x e o x t i o o c v nai no\vv auxoiq e t u t i y o^ xucpov, d)Q ( X T) (5qc6Ca>Q xiva, auvopav xd wax’ aAf|0£i,av 65 Yevo|X£va* 6 6e oup|3a\u)v xouq aito xu>v a&uxoov £up£0£icHV £X7iOHpi3<pot,p ’Appouvscov Ypdppaoi OVYHEXpEVOLQ, & 0T) OUK T)V 7UCX01V Yvk>pl|X(X, xf)V 61 6e om a ] E7ILVOT)0avXEQ A E71£vof)0avxo BONV 62 -cnv A 63 xov xucpov BONV, xov om A 64 xtvaQ A] wax* A (naxd the other mss.) 65 ye\fO\ieva AB Yi-^op. ONV 65 6 6e- line 89 0ap|3dpu)v om B] 6 6e : i.e., Sanchuniathon 66 ’Appouvswv ONV AppoOvowv A -aCcov? Mras 67 uaoiv A (-01 the other mss.) rejected those things which actually happened in the beginning, inventing allegories and myths, fashioning a relationship to earthly feelings, 70 and they instituted secret rites and brought great confusion into these matters so that it is not easy to discern what actually did happen. Now he stumbled onto the obscure inscriptions of the Ammouneoi which had been brought out of 75 the innermost sanctuaries where they had been 76 (j,&0r]cnv dudvTcov a vtoq f)anr\oev* x a l xeX oq e th O s 'iq x$ TtpaYpaxECa, x o v xax* d p x d g p u 0 o v xoa t a g 70 dXXTiyopCag eKTio&tbv TtoLt)adpevoQ , E ^ v t i a a x o xr^v T tp 6 0 ecn v , song tcocXlv oi eniyevo^evoi i £ p £ i g X p o v o tg u a x s p o v r)0 e \r)a a v auxr^v dxoHpOtjjai next s i g xo pu0u>&eg dTiO H axaaxfjaai * e£ ob xo p u a x in o v dv£H im x£v ouSetco) cp0aaav e l q "E \X T iv ag ." 75 Touxoig ££r)g cpr)ai’ 27 "TaOO* ^|ptv eCpiixat E7n,pE\o5g el&evoci xd 68 “CTEV A 71 ETUYevopEVOt, ONV ETtLYtV* A; cf. line 65 lying, relatively unknown to most people, and he diligently studied to learn them all; and having reached the end of the undertaking, he put to one side the myth at the beginning and the alle- 80 gories, and accomplished his purpose, until the priests who arose afterward wanted to conceal it again in later times and to restore it to the domain of myth. From that time the mystical emerged, which had not yet come to the Greeks. 85 Following this, he says; We have found these things out, being anxious to learn accurately about the Phoenicians and 77 $ o ivC kw v 7to0oucu nal 7ioX\f)v e^epeuvriaa(j.evoL(; ouxl Tt]v Tuap’ "EXA^ch * didcpwvoq yap aftrn nal cpiAovetHorepov Otc’ evCwv taaXKov r | rcpog 80 aX.f|0£i,av auvT£0£iaa". Kal ne0* E T s p a ’ 28 "Outwq t e exelv TteriEiaQai r | | j , i v itapeaTri tog ehelvoq Y e y p a9 E V , t t j v Siatpoovtav 6pc6a t t t ) v nap’ "EUr)Oi,. TcgpI ?jg (j.o l xpCa 7iE(pi\oTC|xr)TaL Pi.pX.Ca 85 t t )v ETULYpatpr^v IxovTa IlapaSo^ou taxopCag." Kal a?>0ig |i£0’ sxspa e t c iA eyei-* 29 77 TtoXAa o] E^EpEUvriaanEvoig ONV -voug A 83 5iacp. A 84 uepl fj; A nap* olg ONV having examined much material which was unknown to Greeks; for the Greek writings were incon- 90 sistent, and composed more for some people to quarrel about than for the truth. And after other remarks, he says: It was possible for us to believe that it was as he had written, since we see the incon- 95 sistency which is among the Greeks, concerning which I have bestowed much labor on three books which have the title Incredible History. And again he further says: "Ilpo6 tapepcoaai be dvaynatov upoq tt| v o c5 0 i q aacprjvEtav nal tuSv nam i^epoc; bidyvooaiv, o t l ot toxX cxC xtxT C H tujv |3ap(3apu)v, E^aipETWQ 6e $ o Cv l - 9 0 h e q te Hal AuyuTUTtoi,, nap' wv nal oi. A oit io l Ka p £ \ a p o v d v 0 p a )T c o t, 0 e o u q e v 6|x l £ ov i i e y l c t o u q TOVQ TCX TCpOQ TT)V [3lU)TlHT}V XPE^a^ EljpOVTaQ T j Kal nam t i ev TtoirjaavTaQ Ta e0vt} sftEpyETac; te toO- touq Hal tioaXoov atTtouQ dya05)v rjyoOpEvoL u > q 87 av0iQ (cf. line 169) ONV auTT)v A 89 mx\aCmToi A -aiomTOL ONV 91 ixEyCaxouQ BONV nal psylo to v a ] TCX A TL BONV ] Hal Oltl NV Now it is necessary to explain beforehand, for the sake of further clarity and of under standing particulars, that the most ancient of the barbarians, especially the Phoenicians and the Egyptians, from whom the rest of mankind took over this belief, used to consider those the greatest gods who provided those things which are necessary for life, or those who have ren dered some benefit to nations; and considering them to be benefactors and the givers of many good things, they used to worship them as gods; 100 1 0 5 110 79 95 0Eoi>g upoceKuvouv nat eig to xP^odv Haxaaxdvxag, vaoug HaxacJHeuaodnEvcH, axf)\ag te nal (5a0&oug dcpt&pouv sZ, ovopaxog atixaiv nat xauxa p.Eyd\(og asPopsvot nal £opxag Evspov auxolg x'ag (jLEyCaxag <J>oCviH£g‘ s^aipEXcog 6e Mat auo x£5v acpsxEpcov 100 |3acrtA£a)v xotg hoo^ihoZq otoix^^oiq nat xiai xcov voiAiConevoov 0£ojv xocg ovop.aaCag kneBeoav' cpvamovQ 6s t)\io v n al aeA.r)vriv nal xofcg XotTtoug 7u\avr)xag 95 |XEXaaxdvxag Wyttenbach, Animadvers. in Plut. Mor., p. 113c (Vol. VI, p. 754 of his edit.) naxaaxdvxag ABONV 96 HaxaaHEuaa. A |j.ExaaH£uaa. BONV] axr)Xag xe nal 0.: cf. lines 199-200 97 xauxa ANV xauxag BO 101 upoa- £§)eaav third hand E0T)Hav Mras 7rpoE0£aaav A TtposOsaav H E7t&0Eaav ONV EXt0EOav B 102 &e om A and having furnished again the temples which had been built as was necessary, they dedicated monuments and staffs in their name and reverenc ing these greatly, the Phoenicians observed very great feasts for them; and they also gave names, 115 especially of their own kings, to earthly ele ments and to certain of those who were consid ered to be gods; physical bodies, the sun and the moon and the other wandering stars and the 80 aox6paQ nal xa axoux£^a *ai xd xouxoiq auvatpfj 0souq fiovouQ lytvcoaHOv, coaxe auxotQ xouq jxev 105 0vr]XouQ, xouq 6e aOavdxoug 0soi>Q eivat." Tauxa naxd xo TrpooCpaov 6 $CXcdv Siacrxei- 30 \d(ievoQ e^rjQ dixdpxexai xfjQ xou Eayxouvid0oovoQ ep(j.r)vetaQ, u)6e ttwq xf)v ©oiviHUKTjv eKXi0E|ievoQ 0£oXoyCav’ td. EMTQMH THE $0INIKQN APXAIOAOrOYMENHE ©EOAOriAS KAI nEPI TQN TAYTHN EYITPAWAMENQN KAI QE AIKAIQZ AYTHE KATEriTYEAMEN 104 o&crxe A wax’ the other mss. 105 6e A (&’ the other mss.) 108 $OUVlHlHf)V A3BONV $0LVl,HT)V AXH Title V om ABON, which instead have $olvChu) v 0eo\oyCa elements and the things connected with these 120 things they considered to be the only gods so that in their thinking, some were mortal and some were immortal gods. Philo, having explained these things carefully in his introduction, begins with the explanation of San- 125 chuniathon in order, expounding the Phoenician the ology in some such manner as follows: 110 "Tt)v xwv SXcov tipx^iv TJTcoTC0emt despot CocpwbT) n a l 7ivei)ia.aTO)6r) Ttvofjv d e p o g £ocpu)&ouQ, n a l x&oq 0oX ep6v, epepwSeQ. TutOxa be e l v a i aneipa. n a t 6 t a n o \i)v auffiva i j l t ) exeiv ttepocq. ote 6e, <pt)aCv, rjpaaB'n to Tcv£up,a xSv t&Ccov apxcov hoc! 115 eyevexo auynpaaL Q , r| tcXoht) eneivp ehXtjOt} tioBoq. aOx-q 6’ apxri hxCoegoq cxtoxvtujv. atixb 6s oux eyCvcooHe xfjv aOxou hxlolv, nod eh xfjQ auxoO 110 UKOTL0ETOU AB -EVTCXL ONV 111 £ocpU)&Tl 0 113 Sxe AB oxi ONV 117 atixou Eififeldt auxou AB auxr|v G (0 destroyed) NV] xt) q in B crossed out He postulates dark-colored, blowing air, or a vapor of dark-colored air, as the first prin ciple of the universe and a muddy chaos, dark as Erebos. He held that these things are bound less and that they have had no limit for a very long time. "Then," he says, "when spirit loved its own first principles and a mixing together took place, that interweaving was called Pothos. And this was the beginning of the creation of all things. Now it was unaware of its own crea tion, and from the self combination of spirit, 81 10,1 130 135 cru|a7t\oHfiQ toO TtvetJtiaTOQ eyeveTo Ma>T. touto 2 TtvEQ cpaatv t\u v , 01 6e ti6ocTu>6ou<; pC^eooq afj(Jnv. 1 2 0 nai kn tcx, vtt\ q kykvexo Ttaaa on op a htC oeouq n a l Y evecu q xa)v oXcov. ?)v 6e tivcx £clja ovh s x o v x a a u a 0 r } a iv , s £ u>v k y k v e r o £<5a voE p a, hoc'i EH\r|0r| Zo9aoTip.Cv, t o u t * ecjt l v oip a v o O kcxtotctcu . Kai avenXaodr) S^oCcoq <j>ou a x ^ p a T i, nal k^kXap,c|>£ MIot 118 Md)T BONV om A 119 cpaaiv om A] ti&ocTw&r) ONV] of|(j)£( 0Q pC^iv V 123 ^ocpaariptv] without an accent in A] zt, otip. 0 124 6p. (^ou OX* • ' cf. Damascius, Dubitatio- nes et solutiones 125ter (I 323 Ruelle)] <I)ou om Migne Mot arose. Some say that this is slime and some that it is a fermentation of a watery mix- 140 ture. Then from this arose all the seeds of creation and the birth of the universe. Now there were certain living things which did not have sense-perception, and from these arose living things having intelligence and they were 145 called Zophasemin, that is, 'the overseers of heaven.1 They were fashioned into the likeness of an egg. And Mot flashed forth and sun and moon, and the stars and the great stars." 83 125 T^X-Loe xe n a i aeXf|vr) daxspsQ xe n a t aa x p a HEydXa." Toiauxr) (j,ev auxwv f ) noaixoyovCa, avx input; 3 aSeoxrixa etodyouaa* t&oopev &e E^ffc wq nai xt^v £<poyovlav {mooxfjvai Xsysi. cpr^atv ouv' "Kal xou aepoQ 5 tauydaavxot;, &id Ttupooaiv 4 130 nal xf)Q 0aXdaariQ nal xt^ q yrjg lyevexo TtvEupuxxa n a t vecpt) n a t oupavtwv ti&dxouv ixeytaxat naxacpopai n a l x u a siQ . n a t ETtetSri 6t£HpCer) na't xou t&tou xotiou £XOJpta0ri 6 toe xr)v xou r|Xtou 7rupa»crtu nat 125 OeXt)vt) ] pifivn B 126 auxoov BONV ( c f . l i n e 140) auxaj A] H oanoysvE ta A1 -y E v ta H 131 u&dxa>v A om BONV 133 £XWpta0T) A 61EX • BONV Such is their account of creation, which openly pro- 150 motes godlessness. Next let us also take a look at his description of generation. He says: When the air shone forth, because of the burning of both the sea and the land, there came into existence both winds and clouds and 155 very great downward movements and outpourings of the waters in the heavens. And when these things had parted, they were removed from their own place because of the burning of the sun and 84 naXuv auvf|VTr|0£v navxa sv aepi xa&s to lade nai 135 auveppa^av, (3povxaC ts <xneTsXea6r]oav nai doxpa- naCj nal np'oQ xov ndxayov xffiv ^povxa)v xa Ttpo- YEYpamisva vospa £(j)a EYP^YOPTIOEV, nal KpOQ xov ^X°v ETtxupr) nai £HLvf|0r) sv xe y^ na\ BaXdaar) appsv nal BfjXu." 140 Totauxr) auxoLQ nal r | C^oyovCa. xouxolq e^rjt; 5 6 auxoq auYYP^e^C EKLcpspEL Xeywv* 134 TtdXiv a. (-as B) itavxa AB navxa 0 . TiaXiv onv] aspt BONV anapEl h (el from r \ ) dnapf] A 137 vospa ANV om Bo] EYpTiYdp^OEv AB (-0E ) -oav ONV 138 Eirxvpri nal om B 141 6 above line A1 all these things came together with each other 160 again in the air and they dashed together; thunder and lightning resulted and at the crash of the thunder the intelligent living creatures which were mentioned above woke up and at the echo they were frightened and on 165 the land and in the sea they were turned into male and female. Such was their generation. Next the same author goes on to say; 85 "TauS’ r)upe0r) ev Tfj Koaiaoyovux YEYpap-Heva Taauxou Kai tolq enelvov &7TO|xvr)|j.aaiv, ek xe axoyaaiAWv nai xEK|ar|pCu)v aiv swpaHEv a’ jxou r j 6ia- 145 vota nai sftpsv nai fiptv scpobxiOEv." ‘E^fiq xouxolq ovojaaxa xoov avepoav eltuodv 6 Noxou nai Bopsou Kai xwv XoiTtaJv etciXeyei,* "’AW* ovtol ye Ttpuixoi acpiEpcoaav xa xfjq YBQ j3Xaaxf|p.axa, Kai 0eouq Evop-iaav Kai Ttpocr- 150 ehuvouv xauxa, dtp* cbv auxoC xe 6teyCvovxo Kai 142 r]upE0T) A ebp. BONV 143 Taauxou BONV xa auxou AH] ekeCvou BONV auxou A 145 -pev A 147 Bopea A -sou BONV 150 &i£Ylvovxo A Sueyev. BONV These things were found written in the 170 account of creation given by Taautos and in his treatises and are based partly on guess work and partly on proofs which his intelli gence discovered. He discovered them and taught us. 175 After this, when he has mentioned the names of the winds, Notus and Boreas and the others, he adds: But these first ones, at least, consecrated the produce of the earth and considered them gods and used to worship them from whom they 180 86 o l £7i6|i£vot, n a l o l Ttpo a in w v ti&vxeq, n a l x°d-Q kniQvOElQ ETtOLOUV." K a l etclXe y e i " 7 " A S to i 6e ?jaav a l E T u v o ia t xrjq TcpoanuvriaEcoQ 155 o ia o ia i xrj aux&v a a O e v E la n a l (l>ux^)Q a x o X p la . e l x a cprjaiv Y6YEvfia0aL eh xou KoXrcla a v s n o u n a l Y v v a t- hoq Baau ( t o u t o 6e v u n x a £ppr}V£U£t) Aitova n a l IlpcoTOYOvov, 0vr)TOUQ av&paQ, OUXU) HaX0Up.EV0UQ * s u p e i v 6e xov Altova xt)v dcno &£v&ptov xpo<pr)v. eh 152 emxvceiQ Giff. 154 &s A (6* the other mss.) 156 -0iv A 157 Baau, xouxo BONV Ba (B from P, by t h e f i r s t hand) auxou xi A Ba auxou xt)V H Baaux, xouxo D in d . a c c o r d in g t o B o ch a rt in H e in ic h e n 158 Bvtixouq] tjxouq A 159 dbco + xtov BONV themselves had descended, as did those who fol lowed them and all those who preceded them. They also used to make libations and offerings. And he adds: This was their conception of worship, 185 like their own weakness and the cowardice of their heart. Then he says that from the wind Kolpia and his wife Baau (interpreted, this word means "night," according to him) were born Aion and 190 160 toutwv touq yevohevouq H ?v.ri0fivau Tevoq nai rsvE&v, nat otwfjaai tt)v c&oivChtiv * auxp-wv 6's YEvoP£va)V T O Q xe^P^Q etQ otipavov bpsYeuv upoQ xov tiXiov. toutov y^p (<pr|aC) 0eov svoni^ov n,ovov ovpavov wupiov, BeEXadpr)v mcxXouvteq, o to t l raxpa <3?oCvi£i 165 Hupiog oupavou, Zeuq 5e Ttap* "EWtjctlv." Metoc 6 e TauTa nXdvriv "EXXriaiv otLTiaTca 8 160 yev0P* a yevvco|a. BONV] K\r)0fjvai] nai A 162 eiq oupavol)Q 6p. A op. £ oupavov B 6p. irpog oupavov ONV 6p. tiQ oupavovq Migne 164 B££Xad(j.r}v A BEEXaaprjv BONV Balsamem Plaut. Poen. 1027 165 -Oiv A 166 6e A om BONV Protogonos, mortal men who were so named. He further says that Aion discovered getting food from trees. Those who were born to them were called Genos and Genea and they settled in Phoenicia. Now when droughts came, they lift ed their hands to heaven toward the sun. For, he says, they considered this god the only lord of heaven, calling it Beelsamen, which means "Lord of Heaven" to Phoenicians and "Zeus" to Greeks. After this he accuses the Greeks of error in these 195 200 88 X£yoov* "Oft yap |a.araCwQ aura, rcoXXaxwg 6tecn;eiXa- pe0a, aXXa npoq tag au0tg rcapEH&oxag xwv ev xotg 170 Tcpayiiaatv ovoh&t w v, oatEp oi "EXXr)V£g ayvoriaavTEg aXXoog e^e&e^ocvto, TrXav-nSEvxEQ xtj dp.<pi|3oXCa xfjg HETacppaaeaog." 'E^fjg < p T )atv ’ 9 " ’Anb yevoug Aioovog hou npooxoyovov yevvr)- 175 0fjvai au0ig rau&ag Ovrixoug, oig etvai, ovo^axa ®o5g hou IIvp nat $Xo£. ofixoi (cpr^crCv) eupov eh 169 avQug BONV (cf. line 87) eu0eig A 171 e^eXe^avxo A 176 sftpov here A, after ^uXcov BONV words: We did not idly define them in many ways, but rather in light of the varieties of inter pretation of the names in things, which the 205 Greeks had not known and understood in the wrong sense, being deceived by the ambiguity of the translation. Then he says that in turn to Genos, Aion and Protogonos were born mortal children, who 210 had the names Phos and Pyr and Phlox. These, he says, discovered fire by rubbing sticks 89 7tapaTpt3f)Q ZvXwv nvp n a i ttjv xP^c tlv £&C6a£av. ulouq 6e eyEWTjaav oi>Toi (jtEyeQei. xe n a l tiuEpoxri HpeCooovaQ, obv xa 6v6p.aTa tolq S p sa iv eneredr] wv 180 EHpdcTTjaav, d )Q t;£ auTffiv K\T)0fjvai, to Kdooiov n ai tov AC(3avov Kai tov ’AvTiAC|3avov Ka't to Bpa0u. ek toutcov (<pr|0Cv) £Y£vvr|0r)oav Mr|npou|!OQ, n a i & ‘ Y (|)O V pO C V lOQ * d u o (jL T ]T E pc0V &£ (cpr}atv) £XPT)|J.dT u ^ o v , 180 Kdaaiov BONV KdaPtov A Kaoiov Strabo and others] nai t . #Avt. om A] ’Av t.- line 184 YVvaiKWV om B 182 EYevvrj0Tiaav M.rinpoup.OQ (without accent) A EYEVvrj0r| 0ap,T]p,pouiiOQ ON EYEVvf|0r) crcxp.Ti.poup.OQ V ( . is scarcely an erasure)] 6 Kai AONV Kai 6 the editions other than Steph. and Dind. 183 < Kai O{j0cooq> Dind. om AONV] EXPT)p.dTi£ov, TOOv] EXpiHiaTL^OVTO A together and taught its use. These begot sons who were mightier both in size and in height; their names were given to the mountains which 215 they ruled so that the Cassius, the Libanus, the Antilibanus and the Brathy got their names from them. To these, he says, were born Mem- roumos and Hypsouranios. And, he says, they began to take their names from their mothers, 220 for the women of that time shamelessly indulged 90 xSv x6xe yuvcuxwv dv£6r)v pLayon.&vu)v oI q evxu- 185 xotev." eIt& cpriat * 10 "Tov ‘Y(|)Oup&viov OLHfjoat Tupov HaXu(3ocQ xe ETtivofiaai, duo naXdpwv nai Opvoov wai Ttoatupou, axaataaou 6 e Ttpog xov a&sTupov Ouawov, oq o m e titiv 190 x<3 aajpaxi upcoxoQ eh Ssppaxcov Sv i o x u o e v ouXXa- Pelv OripCcov sSpsv. ^ay&aCoov 6e ysvopsvajv SpPpoov nai KVEV(j,dxwv uapaxpiPsvxa xd e v xfj Tupcj) 6sv6pa 184 dvat&T)v ABONV] evxux • A av £vx. BONV 187 Tov - Ttipov om B 188 ItO C T U U p O U A -pcov BONV] ouacov B 190 xcji awpaxu om a ] TtpwxoQ A upCxov B om ONV] - o s v A 191 -p e v A in intercourse with whatever men they might meet with. Next he says that Hypsouranios settled Tyre, and that he invented huts out of reeds and rushes and papyri; he fell out 225 with his brother Ousoos, who first discovered a covering for the body from the skins of the wild beasts which he was able to catch. When violent rainstorms and winds came, he kindled a fire by rubbing together the trees 230 which were in Tyre and he burned wood there. 91 TcOp ava<|>ai nat xf)v auToOi uXtjv KaxacpXE^ai. 6ev6pou 6e Xapo|j,EVOv tov Ouaoaov Kai daioKXa- 195 6euaavTa Ttpwxov xoXufjoai eiq ©aXaxxav sn0fjvai* dvuepfiaat 6e 6uo oxr|XaQ itupi Kai uvEuiaaxi, Kai 7tpo0Kuvf)0at at(a,a te otiev&eiv auxaic; wv flYpeuE 0r)pto)v. toutcov 6e reXevrrjoavTCDv tovq 11 arcoXsicpOevTag cpr^oi pa06oi>Q auxoic; acpispcooat Kai 200 tocq orfjXaQ TtpoOKuvEiv Ka'u touto iq sopxaQ aysiv Kax’ etoq. xpovoi'Q vorepov nqXXoZq ano tt\ q 193 auxoOt BONV auxciav A 194 Xa0o(j.Evou A] ouowxv (a second hand) B 195 OdXaxxav A -aooav BNV 0aXa 0 196 6e] te A And taking part of a tree and lopping off the branches, Ousoos was the first to dare to go to sea; and he dedicated two monuments to fire and to wind and he worshipped them and 235 he made an offering of blood to them from the wild beasts which he had caught. Now when these men died, he says that those who were left behind dedicated staffs to them and worshipped the monuments and observed feasts 240 to them yearly. Many ages after the race of Hypsouranios, Agreus and Halieus were born. 92 'Y<t)OupcxvCou yeveocq yeveaeat 'Aypea nal *AXiEa, Toug aXiEtag nat aypag supETag, eZ, wv HXr)0rjvai aypeuTag nal dXiEig" k Z , Sv yevEoBai 6uo a&sX- 205 <poug at6r)pou EijpsTag wai Tfjg toutou spyaoCag, Sv QaTEpov tov Xpuawp Xoyoug aoHrjaai na'i ETutoSag nal navTsCag* etvai 5e toutov tov "Hcpaicnrov, stipstv be ayniOTpov na't, 6eAeap nal 6p|j.idv nal 203 dXislag nal aypag A aXelag nal ayp. B (X over an erasure by the second hand, dXslag over an erasure by the second hand) V (X by the first hand over an erasure, aypxao) aypslag nai aypag 0 aypstag nat aypeag nd] stipETag] aypEUT&Q ND 204 Sv] o§ ONV 206 XovaSp BO (rather as Xovacop, as G has it) NV Xpuowp A; cf. Damascius, Dubit. t02T r et solut. 125 (I 323 Ruelle), where twice XovcKupov, once Xouocopog ] aOHrjOEWQ A 207 slvai - line 222 ovo|i.. om B 208 be A 6e nat ONV They were the inventors of fishing and hunting and hunters and fishers were named after them. To them were born two brothers, who discovered 245 iron and how to work it; one of them, Chrysor, artfully fashioned words and charms and divi nations; he is Hephaestus and he also dis covered the fish hook and bait and the fishing- 93 axe&Cav rcpuixov te raScvxcov av0pa)7tu)v uXEuaai’ 610 210 n a t d)Q 0 eov au x o v p,£xa 0 a v ax o v eae(3aa0r|CKxv. HaXeiaOat 6e atixov nai Ata MEtXCxtov* oi be 12 xoug aSsAcpoug auxou xolxoug cpaalv ETUvofiaat, tn 71X 1 v0cov. p,£xa x a u x a eh xou yevouq xouxwv YEV&a0at, v savC ag 6 u o , H a X s ia 0 a i 5s auxujv xov 215 jiev TexvCxt)vv xbv 5e Pri'Cvov AuxoxOova. ofixot knev6r\aav xtjj 7ir)Xy xfjg 7rXtv0ou aup.p.Lyvi3Etv cpopuxov n a l xa) r)Xt(j) auxaQ X E p a a C v stv , aXAa n a \ 209 cxtStav ONV (amended by the first hand) ] xe A 6e ONV 211 Ata MelX. ONV Sia^iCxtov A 212 auxou ONV atixuiv A] 9^0 tv (a by the first hand) A 214 vsavCaQ ONV Yeveocq A 216 auniAtYvuetv ONV aup,p.CYvuatv A line and the raft and was the first man to 250 sail. Therefore they worshipped him just like a god after his death. And he was also called Zeus Meilichios. They say that his brothers invented walls of bricks? after this, from their race were born two boys, one of 255 them called Technites and the other (being of the earth) called Autochthon. These thought of broken bricks with clay, of drying them in the sun, and further they invented roofs. To CTeytXt; E^eOpov. obuo xouxoov Eyevovxo exepoL, wv 6 hev 'AypoQ EHaXeuxo, 6 6e ’AypoO " H p u > Q t ) 220 *Ayp6xriQ, o§ nai £oavov elvai paka a£(3d,apiov nai vaov CuyocpopoupEvov ev $oivlHq* mpa 6e BupACoiQ E^atpexcoQ 0eg5v 6 pEyiaxoQ 6vopa£Exat,. etievo^ckxv be ouxoi au\ag TrpoaxtOevau xouq oihoiq 13 nal 7tepi|36\ou<; nal onf)\otLa. eh xovxodv aypoxai 225 nal HUvriyoL. oSxol 6e nai ’AAfjxat nal T lxcxveq naAouvxai,. &no xoOxtov yeveaOat "Apuvov nal Mayov, ol Haxs&Ei^av Hu>pa<; nal Tiolpvat;. anb 219 aypcu ^pa)Q AO Aypovnpax; NV -tipoq Giff. 220 ’Ayp6xriQ ONV a|3p6xTiq A 222 0l(3\Coi,q A 224 TCEp1(36\ouq AONV TCEptpoXata B Giff. 227 Tiolpvag A uolpvua BG (O missing) NV them were born others, of whom one was called 260 Agros and one Agroueros or Agrotes. His image also was reverenced greatly, and his shrine was pulled by yoked oxen in Phoenicia; and among the Byblians he is especially named greatest of the gods. These men thought of 265 adding courtyards to their houses, and enclos ing walls and grottoes as well. From these came farmers and hunters. These are also 95 toutoov yeveoQat Mtawp hoci Eu&uh, to u te o tiv euAutov na'i 6Chcxiov. oStoi ttjv tou cxXoq 230 eSpov. aito Miawp 6 T&ocutoq, 8q eSpev tt)v twv 14 7cpa)T 0)v OTOixetvv ypacpr|v* ov AtyuTtTtot p.ev 0wi36, ’AA.e^av&peiQ & e ©d)0, "EAA^veq 6s *Epia,fjv hna\EOav. eh 6e Su&uh AiSonovpoi r ) KdPeopoL r | 228 Miaa)p A MEtacop G (0 unreadable) NV MsCacopoc b] Eu5uh A (cf. line 309) Eu6bn G (O unreadable) NV Ee&eh B 230 MtOcbp A MeCawp BG (0 destroyed) NV] 6 T. Mras ou T. BON T. (om ou) v outoq ocutoq a] -psv A 232 0COU0 AN1 (o) above u N® ) 0u)O)p BODV; cf. line 52] ’KkeE,. 6e 0db0 BONV om A; however, cf. lines 52f. 233 &e Eu&uk A 6e tou Eu6eh bonv] KdPopoo A called Aletai and Titans. To these were born Amynos and Magos, who discovered and made 270 known the use of villages and flocks. To them were born Misor and Sydyk, that is, "Yielding" and "Just." These discovered the use of salt. The descendant of Misor was Taautos, who in vented the writing of the first letters. The 275 Egyptians called him Thoyth, the Alexandrians Thoth and the Greeks Hermes. The descendants 96 KoptiPavTEQ ? ) Ea|ao0pcxHEQ. oSxoi (cpriat) TtpoSxot, 235 tcXoiov s S p o v . eh xouxcov ysyovaaL V ETEPOL, o t n a t Pom vaQ Eupov k<x\ tt)v Tciov SaHETwv t a a i v nai knyb&Q. naira xouxouq yCvsxaC xlq ’EAio uv, naXouiiEVOQ "Ycjucrxoc;, n a 't O fiA sia, \Eyop.Evr) BripouO' o‘t nat Haxynouv rtsp't Bu|3A.ov. e£ 2>v 15 240 ysvvaxai 'Etuyeioq Aux6x0wv, ov uaxspov 234 KopupavTEQ A nuppavTEQ BONV 236 SanEXcov AB Be h o c x c o v ONV 237 ’EA.tov|ji V ‘EXtovp. ON ’Evouij. B *EA.toOv A 239 Btipotie BONV £ou0 A] 3C3\ov A 3s3A.ov B1 (amended by the second hand) 240 Aux. A Aux. BONV; however, see line 215. of Sydyk were the Dioscouri, or the Kabeiroi, or the Korybantes, or the Samothrakes. These, they say, were the ones who first invented the boat. 280 They begot others, who also discovered pasture and the healing of poisonous animals and enchant ments. Contemporary with them was born a certain Elioun, who was called Hypsistos and a female who was called Berouth. They settled around Byblos 285 and to them was born Epigeios Autochthon, whom they later called Ouranos, as thus the element tnaXeaav Oupavov* a > q cxtt* ocutou uai to imep ^nag axoixeiov 6 i ’ fouepPoArjv toO h&XXovq 6vop,dcCeLv oupavov. yevvaxai 6e tout^ a6eX(pf) kn ta>v Ttpoetpti^evcov, ti Kai ew\r)0r] rfj. Hat bua to 245 k&?\Aoq auTfjg (cpr]aCv) enocXeaav t?|v 6(j.a>vup,ov yfjv. 6 6e toutcuv TtaTtip 6 "Y<|hcjtoq ev auiipoXfj 0r)pia)v Te\evTf|crcxQ acptepwOri, 9 xo&Q Ha' * « QuaCag oi natdec; 241 to uirep ] tou Ttepi A (to above t o u, by the third hand) 242 OTOixetou A1 (amended by the third hand) 245 < xtz’ ooiTfjQ BONV (see line 241) otuTrjQ A 246 ev aup.(BoXrj ANV ev (amended to ex. by the second hand) aup,(3o\f)Q B ev oup,- PoXaiQ 0 ] 0T)pCcov] outpptwv A 247 oi A om BG (O un readable) NV above us, because of its surpassing beauty, was also given the name ouranos from him. He had a sister from the parents mentioned above, who 290 was called Ge and because of her beauty, he says, they called the earth gs. by the same name after her. Their father, Hypsistos, was deified when he died in an encounter with wild beasts, to whom his children made libations and sacri- 295 fices. 98 stsXeoav. raxpaXapiov 6e o Oupavog Tf)v tou 16 rcaTpbg <5cpx*)v aysTai TtpoQ ydqxov tt|v abeXcpri^ ^fju 2 50 nai TtotetTai eZ, a{>TT}Q ual&ac; TeaaapaQ, rHXov, tov nal Kpovov, nal BaCtuXov Hal Aaywv, &q sotl E ltgdv, nal "AtXavTa, nal sZ, aXXoov 6s yaiasTujv 6 Oupavog TtoXXiiv eaxev yevsav. 6i'o xa^ETCaCvouoa T) Trj tov Otipavov ^rjXoTUTiouaa SHanCCev, wg nal 255 6uaOTf]vaL aXXriAwv. 6 6e Oupavog attoxwp'naag 17 249 &ysu B2 over an erasure 250 THXov A "iXov BONV 251 BatTuXov ONV BstuXov B BxxtuXov a BfjTuXov h 252 eCtoov: cf. lines 307ffJ yajasTtov] yevsTciov A] 253 -sv A 253-254 6io nal NV] nanC^st Mras -£siv A sh&huCev BONV Ouranos, taking over the reign of his father, married his sister Ge and had four children from her, Elos (also called Kronos) and Baity- los and Dagon (who is Siton) and Atlas. And 300 from still other marriages Ouranos had numerous offspring. Therefore Ge, being angry and being jealous of Ouranos, reproached him, so that they even separated from one another. Now Ouranos, having withdrawn from her, came against 305 her with force whenever he desired and had 99 auTrjQ, nexa pCag, ote nal e3o{>X £T o, ehicov nal TiXriaKxCwv auTfl rcaXiv &7iT}XXa00£To. etuexeC peu 6e nat touq auTrjQ xcatSaQ 6tacp0EtpEtv, ttjv 6e rfjv ct(j.i3vaa0at tcoXX&hiq, oumj-axCav auTrj auXXE^a- 260 pEvrjv. Etg av&pag 5 e 7ipo£X0cov 6 Kp6vog ‘Epiirj tu> TptaiiEY^cJTCj) 0U[i,3ouXa> nal 3o t)0S xP & M -evoq - oStoq yap rjv a£> T u j ypa|i[i,aTEUQ - tov TtaTspa Oupavov apuvETat, TtpcopCv T tj |iT)TpC. Kpovtp 6s ytvovxat 18 256 £7ittbv A (etu over an erasure by the third hand) HONV E0TIO)V B1 ^0Ttfi)V B2 257 dornXX&aosTO A -tt- BONV] EKtxei-petv a ETtExetpet BODV inexeipr\ae n 259 auTtj the mss. a&Trj Mras 260 *Ep|i£t A 262 auTcj) AO auxbO BNV 263 &n,{)v£Tai om A intercourse with her and then withdrew himself again. And he also attempted to destroy the children which she had borne him, but Ge warded him off time after time, having gathered her- 310 self a body of allies. And Kronos, going forth to men, used Hermes Trismegistos as his adviser and helper (for he was his scribe) and drove off his father Ouranos and avenged his mother. The children of Kronos were Persephone and 315 Athena. The first died a maiden, but by the 100 raa&eQ nepaeq)6vT) xai 'ASriva. r ) iiev ouv Ttpwrn 265 uapOevoc; teXeutoc, tt}q &e ’A0t)vaQ xa'i ‘EpiJ-ou xaTsaxEuacJEV Kp6voQ eh aibrjpou apur^v xai 6opu. EtTa 6 ‘EpufiQ tolq tou Kpovou auniiaxotQ Xoyouc; nays Gag 6iaA£X0eiQ nodov eveteoCtioev tt)q xaTa tou Oupavou M-ocxtiq timsp TrjQ TfjQ. xai outgoq 270 KpovoQ tov Oupavov teoXeiko auiif3aXci)v tt]q apxrjQ f^Xaasv xai tt)v PaaiXsGav 6iE&E£aTo. saXu) 6e 264 ouv om O 265 teXeuta A ETsXslJTa BONV 265- 266 yvo)|x^ xai 'Epp.ou BONV iietoc y v < I ) | j . r | c ; xa’ i ixetcx *Epp,ou A; cf. lines 279f. 266 -asv A 268 teotov B] -oev A] tt) q ] toiq B 269 xam tou Oupavou A xaT* oupavov BONV] Tfjg om A] outwq B oStoq A o^tco ONV 270 teoXeu. u) BONV 71 oXem. gov A 271 -asv A advice of Athena and Hermes, Kronos made a sickle of iron and a spear. Then Hermes, hav ing spoken magical words to Kronos* allies, implanted in them the desire to wage war against 320 Ouranos in behalf of Ge, and thus Kronos, going to battle, drove Ouranos from power and took the reign. His concubine was taken in the battle, even the lovely mate of Ouranos, who was pregnant, and her Kronos gave in marriage 325 101 Hal £v xrj nax^ i 5 ! enepaoTOQ xou Oupavov cuyKOi- toq byHV[io)\> ouaa, ^v eHbibuoiv 6 Kpovop Aaywvi upoQ yd(iov. x Ckxei be irapa xouxy 8 naxa 19 275 yaaxpoQ e£ Otipavou ecpspev, 8 na't inaXeae Arma- pouv. sirl xouxoiq 6 KpovoQ X£ixoQ Tt£pi(3aXX£L xrj £auxou oiHf]oei nal tioXlv 7tpu)XT)v h x C£ei xr)v £7il $OLvCnr]Q Bu(3\ov. (asxa xauxa xov a&EXcp'ov 20 xov i&iov "AxXavxa tiiuovoriaaQ 6 Kpovog |iExa 280 yvd|j.r|Q xov 'Epiaou eCq (3a0OQ yrjQ suPaAwv naxs- Xwcfev. naxa xouxov xov XP°V0V T<* > v 272 nal here A, after (idxfl BONV 273 Aaytovt TtpoQ yd|j,ov A up. y. xffi Aayoov BNV eIq y. xaj Aaywv 0 275 Ar)(j,apouv BONV (cf. lines 317ff.) &indpovv A 277 xrj om o] ixoXtv Ttpdxrjv A ~ BONV 278 ^olvCh'hq A -hv\ BOV -ht]v ND] (3C(3\ov a |3s|3Aov B 281 -aev A to Dagon and she bore him a child which she had conceived from Ouranos, and she called it Demarous. In addition Kronos built a wall around his dwelling and created the first city in Phoenicia, namely Byblos. After this Kronos 330 suspected his own brother, Atlas, and after consultation with Hermes, he cast him into the depth of the earth and buried him there. At 102 Aiocmoupa)v oxe&Lciq hoc I nXoia ovvdevTSQ enXevoav, nai EHptcpevxeQ itepl to Kaaaiov opoc; vaov aux60i &<pt£pouaav. o£ 6e av|a.|a.axot "HXou toO Kpbvou 285 ,E\o)ein ETt£Hkfj0r|aav, coq av Kp6vtot obxot rjaav oi Xsyoi-iEvot Eitt Kpovou. KpovoQ 5e utbv ex^v 21 Eabtbov t&tw auxov crt6f|pcj) biexprttf0^ 0 * St* t>7io- voCaQ auxov eoxtihwq, wal Tfjq <l>txf)Q, auxoxetp 282 ai»v0EVTEQ AB (by the first hand from -xaa ) N V auvOexa 0 283 UEpt A Kara BONV] Kaatov V; see line 180 284 ot 6e - line 291 yvwpriv om B] "HX ou A "l\ou O N V 285 ’EXtoEtp £7Ieh\ . O N V ’EXuh (without ac cent) ^J,£T£^\, ^0T)aav a] < el> r^aav Schw. rjaav the mss. 287 Edtbibov (also D) ] Eabiov N this same time, the descendants of the Dioscouri built rafts and boats and set sail, and being 335 scattered around Mt. Cassius, they dedicated a temple there. Now the allies of Elos (that is, Kronos) were called "Eloeim," just as those who are called by Kronos' name would be "Kronians." Now Kronos had a son, Sadidos, 340 whom he killed with his own sword, being sus picious of him, and he robbed him of his life, 103 tou mxt&og yevoiaevog, eaTepr]aev* <l>aauxu>g Hal 290 Quyaxpog t6lag xrjv H£9a\T]v anexe\iev, cog raxvxag eunen\f)x8oc,L Geoug xt]v Kpovou yva>iir|v. xpovou 22 6e irpotovxog Oupavog ev cpuyrj xuyxdvwv GuyaxEpa auxou raxpGsvov ’AaxapxTiv heG’ Ixepcov abeXcpoiv auxfjg 6uo, 'Peag na'i Atu>vr|g, 6oA(j) xov Kpovov (xveAeiv 295 U7iO|XEp.7iE t * ag xai eAgjv 6 Kpovog noupt&tag yajiE- xag dGsAcpdcg ouaag ETtotriaaTO. yvobg &£ 23 289 y£VO|j.£Vog ONV ytv. A 291 ^XTiEnXfjxQat ONV EXTC£7iAf]a6ai a ] xP^vou bonv Kp6vou a v v ° ° v 294 'P&at nal Aidovru ( both times by the first hand) A O ‘P£av nat At^vr^v H becoming his own son 1s murderer. In like man ner he cut off his own daughter's head also, so that all the gods were shocked at Kronos' cun- 345 ning. Now as time went on, Ouranos, who happened to be in exile, secretly sent his virgin daugh ter, Astarte, with her two other sisters, Rhea , and Dione, to do away with Kronos by craft. And Kronos caught them and made them his lawful 350 wives, although they were his sisters. Now when 104 Oupavbg EitiaxpaxEUEi naxa xou Kp6vou Etjiap- |i£vr]v nat "Qpav psO* bxspcov oup|a.dxu>v ’ nal xauxag ££oimeiwaapEvog Kpovog nap* atixtji 300 KaxEOxev. exi 6e (<pr]aCv) kn£\>6r\0£\> 0sog Oupavog (3aixuXia, XC0oug £(i<j)UXOug |i.T)xavria&- |XEVog. Kpovtp 6e eyevovxo diro ’Aaxdpxrjg 6uya- xspsg Eirxa, TixavC&sg y \ *ApxEp.i&£g. nat 24 naAiv x ( j ) aux(p yCvovxai dno 'Psag mxi&sg £n;xd, 305 wv 6 vsdxaxog ap.a xrj yevsoei dcpispwOr)* nal 299 oiKEiajadjiEvog b ] Kpbvog A 6 Kp. BONV] atixij) A sauxcjj BONV 300 —oev A 301 |3£XuXt,a A 302- 304 0uyax. - 'Psag ANV om BO Ouranos learned this, he sent Heimarmene and Hora out to fight against Kronos in conjunc tion with other allies, but Kronos, having won these over, also held them in his own power. 355 And further, he says, the god Ouranos invented the Baitylia, by devising living stones. Now there were born to Kronos by Astarte seven daughters, the Titanesses or Artemides. Then again there were born to him by Rhea seven 360 sons, the youngest of whom was consecrated at birth; and from Dione were born two females and 105 cctio Alo>vt)q 0r|\E iat, wat dcito ’Aaxapx-nQ ti&Alv appeveg 6uo, n60oq na't "Epu)Q. 6 6e Aaywv, 25 etuet& t^ sSpsv atxov na\ dpoxpov, snAf)©^ Zeuq ’ApoxptOQ. 2u6ukcj) 6e, x < j) \£YO(a£V(}) &lhou<o, |iCa 310 xwv Ttxavt&oov auv£A0ouaa yevvcjc tov ’AaHArpuov. EYev»vf)0r|aav 6e Hat ev IlEpaCa Kpov^ xpetq toxi6e q, 26 KpovoQ, 6ii.wvu|j.OQ x c j j rnxxpC, next Zeuq BfjAoq na\ 308 -p£V A 309 Eu&ukw A Eu&eh ONV Ee6eh B? cf. lines 228 & 233] xu> X. 6ih.: see lines 228f. 311 eyev^t] N £Y£vvf|0r| d] IlEpaCa A xrj n. BONV Ilapata Migne: a village in Syria, see Steph. Byz. under this word Mr as from Astarte, in turn, were born two males, Pothos and Eros. Now Dagon, since he discov ered grain and the plough, was called Zeus 365 Arotrios. And one of the Titanesses, coming to Sydykos, who was called Dikaios, bore As- clepios; and there were also born to Kronos in Peraia three sons, Kronos, who had the same name as his father, and Zeus Belos and Apollo. 370 About the same time as these, Pontos and Typhon were born, and Nereus, the father of Pontos and 106 ’ AtioXX&ov. Kaxoc xouxout; yCvovxai IIovtoq wa\ TucpSv Hai. N-ppeug, naTT)p TIovxou, BrjXou be toxic;. 315 arch bk tou II6vtou yCvexai Eibwv, t ) hoc0’ uuep- 27 (B oXtiv eucpcovCaQ TtpdoTT) u|ivov ( | ) 6 f ) Q eupev, xa\ noostbajv. x c j ) be ArnaapouvTi yCvexai MeXnapSoQ, 6 nal *HpaKXf)Q. eoxa toxXlv Oupavog TtoXepet 28 riOVTO) Ha\ (XTTOOTOCQ AT^aapOUVTL TtpoaxCOexai' 320 ttneici xe riovxtj) 6 ArjiaapouQ xpoTtouxaC xe auxov 314 B. be naiQ A om BONV 315 S., r j ] aibwvr) A 316 after eucpwv. T ) written above line A (first hand), on the line in H] -pev A 317 bt|xapouvTL A (&t over an erasure) H; see line 275] MeXxaOpop A (cf. Eus. laus Const. 13, 5) MeXxapQog BONV 319 bup.apouvTi A (bt over an erasure) H 320 eireuaC xe - xpoic. BONV om A] xe BONV be A son of Belos. Now Sidon was born of Pontos (she was the first to discover the hymning of songs because of her outstanding melodic voice) 375 as was Poseidon; now to Demarous was born Mel- karthos, who is also Herakles. Then in turn Ouranos fought with Pontos, and withdrawing, sided with Demarous; and Demarous attacked Pontos and Pontos made him flee but Demarous 380 107 6 n 6vxoQ , 6 6e ATiiaapouQ (puyrjc; 0 u a ta v t)u£aT o. eTEt be TpuanoaTtji SeuTEpw Tfjg &ai)Tou xpaTrjaEWQ 29 nai paatXEtaQ 6 tH\oq, tout’ eoxiv 6 Kpovoq, Oupavov tov TOtTspa \ox^craQ ev totio) t i v! ^sao- 325 y e C c j ) nal \a(3cbv uitoxe Cp iov £HT£p,v£i auTou m aiboua aOveyyvQ Trr^yajv te Hal TtoTaiacov. sv0a dcpuep60r) Oupavoq xai catTipTCcrOr] auTou to uvEupa xai anEOTa^Ev auTou to aljaa tSv aC&otwv eiq tocq 321 6tp.apouQ a] r){5^avTo 0 322 exei AB2 eti, B1ON 323 tH\oq A "IXoq BONV 324 Xox^caq BONV TtEptTEpvEt X. A 324-325 (j.£aoyEC<j> - auTou BONV om A 327 7tV£U|ia AN (but al|aa is written above, by the first (?) hand) atp.a BG (O unreadable) DV vowed a sacrifice because of his escape. Now in the thirty-second year of his dominion and kingdom Elos, that is, Kronos, lying in wait for his father Ouranos in a certain inland spot and holding him under his power, cut off his gen- 385 itals, quite close to the springs and rivers. Ouranos was consecrated there and his breath was choked off and the blood of his genitals was dropped into the springs and the waters of the rivers and up to this present time the spot 390 108 TtTjyaQ xa'i tcov iroTa|j.<ov toc u6aTa, xa'i lasxpi- toutou 3 30 Setxvumt to xwptov.” Toaaika (jlev 6r| toc tou Kp6vou, nal Toiaura ye 30 toc ae(xva tou xcap* "EXXriai (3ouhj,evou (3Cou tcov eiti Kpovou, ouq xai cpaai yeyovevai "xpffiTov xpboeov te yevoq (xepoxcov avBpumcov", Ttjg |iaxapiZ;o|j.£vr)Q 3 35 £X£ivriQ tcov naXaicov £u6ai(aovCaq. uaXiv 6e 6 330 to written above line by the first or second hand in A 331 Tooouto Migne ] toc tou BONV toc A 332-333 Ta a£|J,vd - Kpovou a toc nap’ - Kpovou toc a. ON tou uap’- Kp. toc a. V toc ( tou by the second hand) Trap* - tou £. Kp. Tdc a. B 333 ou£ om A 335 tcov xaXaicov exeCvt)q B] 56 A om BONV is pointed out. Thus was the story of Kronos, and the sacred story of the life, celebrated by the Greeks, which belonged to the people of Kronos1 time, who were even said to have been born a first and golden race of men possessing 395 speech, because of the blest good fortune of the ancients. And then the author continues: Now Astarte the Most Mighty and Zeus Demarous ouyypacpeuQ toutou; |Ae0’ exepa imyepEi Xsyuv’ " *Aoxdpxt) be f \ iiEYtcmi Mai Zevq Ainiapoug Hat "AboiboQi PaatXeuq 0eaiv, e(3aa£Aeuov xfj<; Xwpag Kpovou Yvobpt-g. I s ) 6e ’Aaxapxri erueOriMev xrj 340 l6ta KscpaXrj (3aat\eCat; TOxpaaT)M.ov M£9a\f|v xaupou’ iteptvocxouaa 5e xt)v otHoup.evr)v eftpev depoTtexf) aoxepa, ov nal ave^opevr) ev Tuptj) xrj &Ytqc vrjaco &9 tepouoev. xt}v 6e ’Aaxapxriv $oivih£q xrjv *Acppo&Cxr)v etvat XeYouatv. Mai o KpovoQ 6e 336 xouxolq om B] eir^epei |ae0* ex. B 337 next A. BONV nai Zeuq * Mai 6 ip,dpoua A 339 -nev A 342 doxepa om B 343 -aev A] xf)V 5fe - line 361 XapaHX. om B 344 -atv A and Adodos, king of the gods, reigned over the land by the advice of Kronos. And Astarte placed on her head, as an emblem of her ruler- ship, the head of a bull; now as she was going round the inhabited world, she found a star which had fallen from the sky, and taking it, she consecrated it on Tyre, the holy island. The Phoenicians say that Astarte is Aphrodite. And Kronos, travelling around the world also, gave the rulership over Attica to his daughter, 109 31 32 Z. 400 405 110 345 7tepiLwv tt)v oiMouiaEvnv *A0T)vqc xrj eauxou Guyaxpi SC&wai xrjQ ’AxTiMrjQ xr|v paauAsCav. Aoiiaou 33 6e yevo|j.evou Ma'i cp0opaQ to v £auxoi> |i.ovoyEvf) tu ov 6 Kpovog OupavS xu> uaxp't dAoMapTtoi Mai Ta at&oux TieptTenveTaL, xauxbv Tioifjaat hcCi tovq a\i* 350 a£>xuj aupiidxouq s^avayMaaag. Mat hex’ ou tioAu 34 ETEpov auTou irat&a ociro ‘PEaq ovojxa^6(X£vov Moi>0 anoOavovxa tspot* ©avaxov &e to u to v Mat nAouxcova ^OtVtMEQ OVOfxd^OUat V. Ma't £7tl TOUTOtQ 6 35 348 TU)] T£ ND 349 TaUTOV A Tat)TO ONV 350 l^avayMaaaq A Maxav. ONV 352 tspot A acptspot ONV 353 -atv A Athena. And when plague and destruction came, 410 Kronos offered his only begotten son as a whole burnt offering to his father Ouranos and he circumcised himself, compelling his allies to do the same thing also along with him; and not long after he consecrated his 415. other son by Rhea who was called Mouth and had died, and the Phoenicians called him Thanatos and Pluto. And in addition to this, Kronos gave the city of Byblos to the goddess Ill Kpovoq Bti|3\ov p,£v tt)v TtbAiv 6eoc Baa\TL&L* Ttj 355 xai Acdvij, blbcoai, BripuTOv 6e rioaetSwvi. nal KaPetpotQ ’AypomtQ te nat 'AAieuchv, *0 nal xa tov IIovTou Aslcjxxva etc, xf|v Br)puTov acpcEpcoaav. upo 6e toutojv 0eoq Tdauxot; pi,nriad(a£vog tc5v 36 quvovtoov 0ecov 6c|)£lq, Kpovou t e nod AaycovoQ nal 360 TCOV XofJIGOV, & LETUTtWCJEV TOUQ LEpOUQ TCOV 0TOL- XeCcov xaPaw^^P0CQ* GTtevo^aEV 6e Hat to) Kpovy 354 PtPAov A 355 Aicbvr) A btcbbri ONV; cf. lines 294 and 306] ptjpvcov ’ t o v 6 e ND] noOEtbcovL A IIocJE 16cov 0 IloaEt N noa£i&co DV 356 KapfipotQ A 358 Tdauxog ONV Tau0' 8q A; cf. lines 48, 143, 230 358-359 t w v - o<J)£iQ ONV t o v oupavov tcov 0ecov 6<j)Et A 359 AayCvot; A Aaycbv ONV 360-361 -asv in both places A 361 nal om B Baaltis and to Dione, and Beirut to Poseidon 420 and the Kabeiroi, and the Agrotai and the Halieis, and they also consecrated Pontos' remains at Beirut. Now before this the god Taautos, having imitated the countenances of the gods Kronos and Dagon and the others, 425 formed the sacred shapes of the letters. He also invented emblems of rulership for Kronos, 112 nap&crnijux PaaiAetcu; oia^axa TEaaapa e h tcov enTtpoa- 0Ccov nal 67ita0Ca)v nepwv, <Suo |i e v o c t e v e q ( 3 Ke- novTa>, btio be riauxTj p.uovTa, nai etc I tcov <op.wv HTEpa Teaaapa, 6tio p,ev cog LTtTdjiEva, bvo be ci&g 365 ijcpELneva. to 6e aup(3o\ov rjv, E7tet6f } Kpovog 37 Hocpcoixevog e&Xenev nal sypriYOpcoq EHOipaTo* nal etc I tcov 7tTep5)v 6|ioCcog, Stl ava7iau6(xevoQ uitTaTo Hal iHTapEVOQ dvETCaUETO. TOLQ 6e \OL7lOLQ 0EOUQ 362-363 < 6uo fisv dcT. |3\.> Mras om ABONV 363 puovTa BONV veOovTa A 364 lTCTa|j,Eva ADV tHTaixevou BO < ^ °ua . „ LHTa|jiEv (all by the first hand) NJ ujq om A 366 -ev A 367 <S ti BONV ETt A] tTCTaTac B four eyes, two of which were in front and the other two in back; and two were quietly closed; and upon the shoulders were four wings, two as 430 though they were flying and two as though they were let down. Now this was a symbol, since Kronos was watching even when asleep and he was sleeping awake; and in regard to the wings in similar manner, this signified that he was 435 flying even when resting and was resting even when flying. Now for the other gods, he in vented two wings on the shoulders of each one, 113 6uo £xdc0T(i) itTepd)|j.am exi t w v goiigov, &q S t l 6r ) 370 auvLKTavTo T<j) Kpovc*). xa\ auxu) 6e 7taX.iv etu, Trjg H£9a\fjQ nrepa 6uo, ev eni t o u ^yepovtxwTd- t o u vou xa'i ev etu, tt^q ato0f|oea)Q. eX0wv 6e 38 6 Kpovog e l q N o t o u x^pav oataaav tt^v A i y u t i t o v 7tape6toxev 0£cj> Taauxto, Sticoq PaaCkeiov aut(j) 375 y e v r ) T a t . x a u x a 6 e (cpr^aC) itpw TO t 7tdvT(ov 07te(j.vr](iaTCaavTO ot eTtm 2u6ex 7iai&e<; Ka[3eipoi 370 Ouvt7tTavTai B 373 v o t o v ND 374 7rape6u)xev A e&(oxe bonv] TaauTti) bonv xau0u) a 376 u7te(JLvr)|j,aTLaavxo (scratched out) ANV dTte|xvr)naTCoavTO BO] Su&uxou Mr as (cf. line 309) Eu6ou A Eu&bx BONV] Kd(3T)poi A as though to signify that they, indeed, were flying along with Kronos. And again, on Kronos 440 he put two wings upon his head; one for his mind which was very capable of command and one for his perception. Now Kronos, coming to the land of Notos, gave all of Egypt to the god Taautos so that he might have a kingdom. He 445 says that the seven sons of Sydek, the Kabei- roi, and their eighth brother Asklepios, were the very first to record these things, as the 114 nal o 8y6ooq auT&v a&eXcpoc; ’ AaHAT}7ii6g, cog auTotg IveTeCAaTo Qeoq T&avzoc;. raura TtavTa 6 39 0a|3Cu)v, 1 o q •Jidcp.T tpooT og tcov cxtu’ atcovog yeyovoTcov 380 $ c h v Chu)v Lepo9dvxriQ aW'nYopriaag t o l q t e cpuatHOcg n a\ HoajxiHotQ uaQeaiv avanC^ag, TOcpe6uwev t o i q 6pye(oat n al t e X etgov naT&pxovac npocpr)Tat,Q* o l 6e t o v Tvcpov av^ etv e h t oc vto q e t u v o o v v t e q Taug 377 6 om NV] oy&OOQ BONV l&LOQ A 378 TaaUTOQ BONV TavQog A 378-379 o ©auCouvoQ BONV 6 ©aPtcov 8g A 379 TiaixTcpcoTog A Ttaig mpujTOQ BONV 381 - h e v a 382 opyeaiai BO o p y a t S a i A (y r e p a i r e d , at o v e r an e r a s u r e , b y t h e t h i r d hand) H opytcoat NV 382-383 6c 6 e - l i n e 408 ypdcpEh om B 383-384 t o i q a v T . 6 ia 6 o x o tQ c o n t r a r y t o th e m ss. s i n c e S t e p h . e d i t , e x c e p t f o r G i f f . god Taautos had commanded them. Thabion, the very first who taught rites of worship to the 450 Phoenicians who were born of old, interpreted these things allegorically, and mixing them up with physical and universal feelings, he handed them down to those who practiced the secret rites and to the prophets who celebrated mys- 455 teries. And they, contriving in every way to s t r e n g t h e n t h i s n o n s e n s e , p a s s e d i t on t o t h e i r 115 cxutwv 6ta6oxcxtQ mxpE&oaav nai touq ETsiaaHTOig’ 385 rjv Hat EiaCpiog, twv xptwv ypan|j,dTwv eupET^g, a&EXxpog Xva tou |j.£Tovo|j.aa0£VTog <&oCvtxog.f ' E l0* ££rjg a S 0 t g ^ tiiA e y e i * 4 0 M 0 £ 6 e "EXXriVEg Euqputa m xvT ag 6 7 r £ p 3 a M .6 - HEVOl T C X (JLEV TtpUJTa TtXEtOTa E^ t& l w c x x v t o , w a i TO i g 3 9 0 nponoo[if)\iaoi uoihiXuq s^ E T paytpSriaav T a t g t e t S v 384 cueio&htolg] kucia over euia A1 385 ?jv A Eig Itl o n v] EtaCptog A "Iaipig ONV] ypa^aTcov ONV YpaupKXTECOV A; cf. Giff. IV 53f. 386 tou jxetov. a t. icpa>TOU (iETOV. ONV (Xva = Canaanite = Phoenician, cf. Giff. IV 54 Mr as) 389 e£tcx ONV HCxi A 390 upoa- Hoan.f)caat Schw. itpoxoaix. the mss.] te a om ONV successors and to the initiates, one of whom was Eisirios, the inventor of the three letters and the brother of Chna, who took the new name, 460 Phoenician. Then next in order he continues: Now the Greeks, surpassing everyone in natu ral cleverness, first appropriated most of these things to themselves and declaimed in 465 various ways with showy ornament, and contriving to 116 V - l t j 0o)v ri&ovcxLQ QeXyetv etuvoouvteq tocvtoCun; etioixiMov* evQev 'HoCo6oq o'i re kvhXikol 7tepi.r)XT)n.evot 0eoyovCaQ xai riYavTO|j.axCocc; nal Timvo(j.axCag ETuXaaav t&Cag nal ehto^ocq* olq 395 auii7i:Epicpep6iaEV0L s^svtxrjaav ttjv dA.f|0Eiav. auvTpocpot 6e to iq exeCvwv TtXaopaa l v cxi axoal 41 Y£yop.£va.i xai TtpoAri<p0ELaai uoXXoZq aiSaiv d)Q TtapaxaTaGfix'nv cpuXaaaouotv tJvtiep eSs^avTO lJLU0O7toiCav, xaSauEp xai apxopEvog eltcov, t^tlq 396 6e A om ONV 398 T^vitEp E&s^avTO A f^v Ttape&. ONV 399 EtTtOV ON ELKEV A bewitch by means of the pleasures of the myths, they elaborated in all sorts of ways. From them Hesiod and the celebrated cyclic poets fashioned their own theogonies and giganto- 470 machies and titanomachies and excerpts, and being carried away with them, they defeated the truth. And our ears, being familiar with their fabrications and having been possessed for long ages, guard this mythic invention 475 which they received as though it were a deposit which had been entrusted to them, just as I also said at the beginning. This, being assisted 400 auvepynOetaa xP^vcp Sucte^Cttitov auTfjg tt)v koctoxtiv aireCpyaaTaL, w o t s t t ) v h e v aXf|0Eiav 6 o h e i v Xfjpov, t o be TfjQ acpriyriaeooQ vo0ov dXr)0£iav." T a u ta ( xtco xfjc; EayxovvLaOoovoc; TcpoKsCaOa) ypa(pf)Q, £p(j,r)v£U0eCa, nQ |j,sv urto $CXgovoq tov Bv (3- 405 XCou, 6 o H tp a a0£Car)Q 6 e u>q dXr)0oOq foro tt]q riop- cpvpCov t o v c p 1X000901) napTUpCaq. 6 5 ’ ocvtoq e v T ( j ) riE pl ' l o v 6aCu>v auyypdp.paTt e t u x a i tocvtcx its p i t o v K povov ypaqjEi* 400 &v o e £ C tt)t o v ] perhaps S v o e ^ C ttiXo v ? Mras 401 dcTtECpyaoTat A supyaaTat ONV 403 7tpoH£ta0u) Tcpoax. ONV 404 tino] dito Giff.] (3i(3XCov A 405 &Xt)0ouq Vig. dXriOaiQ AONV by time, has created a retention of it which does not easily perish. As a result, the truth seems colorless and the spurious part of the narration seems to be true. Let these things be set forth from the writings of Sanchuniathon, which were translated by Philo of Byblos and examined as accurately as possible by the testimony of Porphyry the philosopher. And he himself in his treatise about the Jews further writes this about Kronos: 117 42 A 480 485 118 "T&xutoq, *ov aCyOtitioi 7i;po0aYopeuou0 iv 43 410 0(ou6, ao9 ta Sieveyhoov Ttapa toiq $oCvt£tv, T cpcoxoc; xb c Hcrca tt^ v 0EO0Ef3stav eh tt)q xffiv xvbaCoov d7r£i,pta<; eIq ETtiaxripovl h t)v EpuEupCav SiEXa^sv. ( j ) p.£xa YEveaq tuXeCouq 0eoq Souppoupr^Xbg ©oupw te I s ! p£Tovopaa0£ taa Euaap0tg aHoXouOrjaavxEQ 415 HEHpuppEVT)v xou Taauxou nal d\A.r)YopCaiQ trcea- HiaapEvr)v tt)v ©soXoyCav Ecpwxtaav." 409 TdauxoQ BONV TauOoQ A] Ttpoaayopeuouai v 0an50 A 00)0 -at BONV; cf. lines 52 and 232 410 -£tv A 411 xffiv om B 413 9 ] d>o a] tiXeCouq A TtXEtoxouQ B1 TtXEtaxaQ Bsonv 414 Xovaap0tQ BONV EuaapOtQ A; X. is obviously the feminine of Xouaobp (cf. line 206) Mras 415 Taauxou BONV Tau0ou A Taautos, whom the Egyptians called Thoyth, excelling in wisdom in the eyes of the Phoeni- 490 cians, first arranged the things which have to do with religious worship into intelligent practice, because of the ignorance of the common people. After very many generations, the god Sourmoubelos and Thouro, who was given 495 the new name Eusarthis, following him, illumi nated the theology of Taautos which had been covered over and obscured by allegories. 119 Kocl fiexa 3paxea cp-pcCv’ 44 ""E0oq rjv xotg rcaXaioig ev tcxlq p.£YaXaiQ auncpopatg tgov w l v &uvgov avxi Trjg tc&vtoov cp0opag 420 t 6 riy aitru jL ev o v to)v tehvguv t o u q hpcxtouvtocq r) TtoXeoag r j e0vouQ etc, acpaynv e7it6t66vai, Xuxpov TOIQ T L|X(jOpO tQ 6(xC|J,O 0l,V ’ KCXTEOCpdcTTOVTO &£ OI 6i6opevoL (iuaTiHwg. Kpovog toivuv, $v oi $oCvlheq *HX TipoaayopEvovaiv, (3aoi,Xeuu)v tt]q 425 X&P^Q wal &0Tepov (aem xrjv tou 3Cou TeXeuTTjv eht t6v tou Kpovou aaxepa Ma0Lepoo0eCq, e£ 422 —olv A 424 ,VHX A ’iopa^X BG (0 missing) NV rHXov Giff.; cf. lines 250, 284, 323] -aiv A] eTCt A euq BONV And shortly afterwards, he says: It was the custom with the ancients, when 500 great dangers befell them, that the rulers of the city or of the nation, instead of permit ting the destruction of everyone, gave their most beloved child to be slaughtered as a ransom to the avenging gods. And those who 505 were given were sacrificed with secret rites. Kronos, then, whom the Phoenicians called Elos, being king of the land, and later, after his death, being consecrated as the star of Kronos, 120 ETtLx^ptaQ vOp<pT)g 'AvwppsT XsyopeviiQ ulov exwv p.ovoy£vfj ($v 6ia t o u t o ’ I e o u & eh&A.ouv, t o u p.ovoy£voug o Ctcoq e t l wai vuv HaA.oup.Evou napa 430 t o l q $ o £ v l £ l ) h l v S uvojv e h rtoXEp-ou p.syCotcdv HaTEuXT)cpoTa)v tt)v x^pav f3aciA.LH<j> HoapfiaaQ axt|- laaTL tov uiov 3u ) p . 6v te HaTaoHEuaodcp.EvoQ naxe- 0UOEV." ‘0 6' auTOQ TiaXtv Trsp'i tcov $ o l v Chu)v 45 427 ’AvcoPpET BONV "Avwppiv A 428 ' I e o u 6 EiBfeldt *I e 6 o u 6 A 'IspouS N *Ipou6 BODV 431 xwpav A 7toA.lv BONV 432 Haxa,onevaoa\iEvoQ A (but |i£ is restored or repaired by the third hand, over the third a something is scratched out) BONV HaTaOHEudcoag aap-EVOQ H 434 $oivi- H(3v ND ^OLVLHLHWV v C&OLVLHLHOUQ 0 had an only son by the nymph of that country 510 who was called Anobret. For this reason they called the son Ieoud. as the only son is still called even today by the Phoenicians. Now when very great dangers from war befell the land, he adorned his son in royal fashion, 515 prepared an altar and sacrificed him. And again, translating from the works of Sanchunia- thon about the fundamental teachings of the 121 435 OTOixeuov ex t u jv EayxouviaOcovog |i£Ta0dXXwv 0ea 6n;oid <pr|ai rcepl t c o v IpTtuaTixffiv xai topoXcav OripCcov, a 6ri xpifa^v M -^ v aya0T)v av0pu>7ioi,Q ou6e- (j.Cav ouvteXe i , <p0opav 6e xa'i Xupr}v oI q av tov & uaaX0fj xa'i xa^e7tov l ° v £YxpC |a4 )£I'£v ocTtepydCeTai. 440 ypdcpet 6£ xai TavTa npoQ Xe^iv S&e ticoq Xeyiov’ "Tf)v p e v o5v tou 6pdxovTOQ cpuaiv x a i tcov 46 ocpecov auTdq e ^ e O e la a e v 6 T a a u to g x a i } xet$ auTov 435 p,eTa(3dXXu>v A p,eTa0aXcbv BONV 436 ^pxuaTixcov AON (but u from £i, by the first hand) V epfiT^OT. B ^pmOT. D 439 lyxplM-^eiev A eyxpl<l>. BONV 440 tccoq AB t i t) ONV 442 e ^ e O la a e v A] TdauTOQ BONV Tau0OQ A Phoenicians, see what sort of things he says about the creeping and venomous creatures which actually 520 perform no useful function for men but bring de struction and hurt to those whom they strike with their deadly and harsh poison. And he writes these things also, quoting somewhat as follows: Therefore Taautos himself and the Phoeni- 525 cians and Egyptians after him deified the form of the snake and of serpents. For he taught that the serpent is the most spiritual 122 00)0 IQ $oCvtHEQ T£ Hal ACY^TC'^ LOU* TtVeup.aTLHOJTa- tov yap to ^(pov ttcxvtoov twv IpnET&v Hal Ttupffi&EQ 445 biz * auToO irapeSoBri* nap’ 8 nal tccxoq dvuTrsp- p\riTov 6ia tou itveu^aTOQ Tuaptcmiaiv, xwptQ TtO&GOV TE Hal X£*'P&V T ] aXXoV TIVOQ TtoV EHTO0EV, &i* wv toc XoiTta £<j)a TtivrjoEtQ TioietTai* nal notHCXoov axTl(JtdToov TU7touQ qcttoteXe i Hal naxa Tr)v 450 nopsCav IAihoei&eEq txsi tocc, dpixac; £9 ’ o PouXsTai T&XOQ . Hal TIO^UXPOV LWTaTOV 6e eotlv OU IO.OVOV 47 te eh&u6|j,evov to yfjpaQ vea^etv, aXka nai au^-pcav 444 twv om A 445 Trap’o A Trap’ <b BONV 446 -atv A 447 TtE&uiv B1 (amended by the second hand) ] £hto0ev A Ihtoodev Gaisf., Dind, e£(D0ev BONV 448 6t* A BONV 452 te BONV to A* (amended to Twt, by the first hand?) H of all animals and is fiery, while it also sym bolizes unsurpassed swiftness by its spirit, 530 having neither hands nor feet, nor any of the external members, by which other living crea tures move and it performs types of various movements, and it moves by twisting down its course, since it desires swiftness. Now it is 535 also very long-lived, not only growing young again by putting off its old age, but it is also 123 eiiu&e'xec6(xi p.sC£ova tcecpdhev* nai eheiSo c v to d)pta(i.evov jxeTpov T lX 'npcba'g, eiq Eauxov dvaXCcmETai, 455 ( I ) Q tv Talc; iepaiq 6poCcoq avxbq o TaavTOQ naTE- xa^Ev ypacpatQ. 6 to nal tv tEpotg touto t6 £a>ov nai) ev |jtuaTr|p Cotg aun.7iap£CXr]7CTat.. e'Cpr)xai 48 6e r)p,tv TtspX auTou tv tolq lu lyEYpaianEvoiQ ’E0w0twv u7top,vf)iJ.aaLv lui itXetov, tv otq 453 TiScpUHEV A1 (—KEvaL by the third hand, over an era sure) H -he BONV 455 d)Q - line 461 avaA. om B] 6p.oCa)Q aUTOQ A ~ ONV3 TaavTOQ ONV Tau0OQ A 456 -£ev A] tv om Mras 458 E- n:tYeYPaM'M'* A tni- Ypacpop.EvoiQ ONV 459 ,E0o5< v *0 > 0 < v e >Cojv Mras E0a)0a)v A E0a>0£5v OV (from s0u)0i6ov) e0u)0i.g5v NDV* e0u)v OeCcov Scaliger and Orelli, Sanchon. frgg., Lips. 1826, 45 fn. 121 QwOeCoov EiBfeldt disposed by nature to receive in addition greater increase. And when it fulfills its appointed measure, it is consumed into itself, as Taautos 540 himself likewise related in his holy writings. Wherefore, this creature has been received both in the temples and in the mysteries. And we have written about it quite fully in our work called the Ethothiae. in which we attempted 545 124 46 0 KaTaOHeu&CeTou 8tl &0&vcxtov eit) hcxi elq eocvtov dvaAusToa, faanep TcpoKEito ct ’ ou yap 0vf|aKEt C6tco 0avai;o) el | X T ] (3Ccx tlvl k^tiyev touto to £<jjov. ®olvlk£q 5e auTo ' Ayoc0ov Aalp.ova HaXouaiv. 6| J . O L ( j O Q Hat AlyUTlTLOL Kvt](p ETCOVO|J,&£OU01V* upoa- 465 TiOsaaiv be a^Tco LepanoQ W£cpa\r|v, 6ia to TipotHTl — h6v tou LspanoQ. nai cpr^aiv *Ercr|£iQ dXXriyopwv 49 (6 ovoixaaOELQ 7iap’ ocutolq ^eylotoq LEpocpavTtiQ 460 cxQavaTOV A —toq ONV 464 -aiv both times A 466 ’Etttiek; BONV 6Ttf)ELQ A 467 6 BONV om A to prove that it is immortal and it dissolves into itself, as stated above; for this crea ture does not naturally die, unless it is smitten by some power. And the Phoenicians call it a good daimon; and in like manner 550 the Egyptians give it the name "Kneph"; and they attribute to it the head of a hawk also because of the swiftness of the hawk. Epeeis speaks allegorically; among them he was called the greatest mystical expounder and 555 sacred scribe. Him Areius of Herakleopolis translated word for word as follows: "The 125 H a l l E p o y p a i i i i a T E U Q , o v jjteu ecppaaev " A p e i o q *H paHXeon;oXlTT)Q) naToc X e ^ lv outux;* ' t o TtpooTov 4 7 0 o v Q s i o T a T o v 8cpLQ s o t t v t e p a n o q e x ^ v p.opcpf|v, &yav eTcCxapi'Q* o q et ava(3X£<|>£i£v, 900TOQ t o Ttav eirXf)pov £v Tijj itp o o T o y o v ^ x& P^ a u T o u * e t 6e HanjiUOEtev, o h o t o q e y C v e t o ’ * Ejicpaaiv 6 i 6 o u q 50 6 ’ErcfietQ O T t na'i 6 lanupov e o t i 6ta t o u cpdvat 475 ‘SfnuyaaEv’* cpooToq yap t6tov e o t i t o Stauyaoat. Ttapa 3?olvC hu)v 6 s na't 3?£p£HU&r)Q Xaf3<bv tocq a 9 opiaaQ 468 eCq 'EXXa&a cpcovriv + after p.£TE9p. the edit, except Dind. (from D, where later by the first hand + after "Apsioc) 469 TO TipwTOV om B 470 ov AV ov BON] Cepansq B 471 ETtCxapsQ 0] -sv A 474 6 ’E t i ; . BONV 6ttT)EtQ A] Hat A om BONV 475 -OEV A first and most divine thing is a serpent with the form of a hawk, very pleasing, and if it should look up, it filled everything with light 560 in its primeval country; but if it should close its eyes, there was darkness." Epeeis implied that it was also fiery because he used the word &LT)vyaOE, for S t a u y d c o a t means "to have its own light." And Pherecydes also, 565 getting his materials from the Phoenicians, discoursed about that god which he called 126 e0so\6yr]aev Tuepl tou 7iap’ auT<3 \eyoM.evou 'OcpCovog 0eou nai twv ’OqHovi&Cv, rcepi a>v a$0iQ \e^ofiev. stl (if| v ot AtyuTtTiot obio tt)q auTrjg evvoCocq tov 51 480 h6oh.ov ypacpovTEQ Tieptcpepfj huhAov (XEpoEiSrj nai 7TupcoTt6v xap&PPovouv nai \ieoa tetochevov ocpiv LepaK6|j.opcpov (nai) eoti. to toxv c r x * ) ! - 1 1 * wq to Trap* T*|Htv QfjTa), tov (aev hukAov Hoajaov (irjvOovTEq, tov 6e iieoov ocpiv ouvehtihov toutou ’Aya06v 477 -oev a] *0<pCovoq A ’Ocptwvsax; B1 (’Ocpecoveax; Bs ) ONV; cf. Orig. Cels. VI 42 (^Ocptovea ) and 43 478 ’0<p(,ovi&u>v A ,0<pt(ovC6(*)v ONV ’ Ocpswv 16u)v B 481 \isau. A jxeaov BONV 482 < ! ) < ; ] inserted V1 om ND Onhion and about his descendants, of whom we shall speak again. The Egyptians even to this very day, in describing the world from the 570 same conception, draw it as a round circle, cloudy and fiery, and stretched in the middle of it a hawk-shaped serpent; and its entire shape is as our 0 is; as to the circle, they are indicating that it is a good daimon. 575 And Zoroaster also, a Magos in The Holy Scrip tures of the Persians, says in these very 127 485 AaCfiOva ar)|j,atvovteq. next ZwpoacTpTje; be 6 52 |j.dYOQ ev Ttj ‘Iepa Zuva,Ya>Yrj Ilepaixcov cpriat naxa Xe^iv* "*0 6e 0eog ecti H£cpa\r)v sxwv tepa- K O Q. oStOQ ECTLV 6 TipWTOQ, 6up0OCpTOQ , d t S l O Q , ayevriTOQ, d|aepf)Q, &voh.oi6tcx.toc; , r)vCoxOQ toxvtoq 490 hocXou, d6a)po&6Kr)TOQ, a,Ycx0a)v aYoc0U)TocTOQ, qjpovCixwv (ppoviiaamxxoQ* ect i &e xai mxTr)p euvo(j,Ccxq nal SiHaioauvriQ, cxuto&i Scxhtoq , cpuaLHOc; xou teXeioq nal aocpoQ nai iepov cpvaunov |j.6voq supsT^’. t o c , 6’ avxa naX ’OoxavriG cpr^al nepX oc&tou ev Ttj ETiiYpacpo- 489 a,Yevr)TOQ A -vv- BONV 491 naX1 om V] ndis om NV* (inserted by the first hand) 492 &L>taiO0Uvr) A 494 nai ’Oct. - line 498 dcptsp. om B words: "God has the head of a hawk. He is the prime immortal, eternal, unbegotten, indi visible, completely dissimilar from other beings, 580 the guide of every good man, incorruptible, the best of the good, the most prudent of the pru dent. And he is also the father of good order and justice, self-taught, self-made and perfect and wise and the sole discoverer of sacred 585 magic." And Ostanes also says the same things about him in his work entitled Octateuchos. 495 hevt) 'QnTaTEuxcj). tcocvteq 6e tocq &cpop|iaQ Ttapa 53 tou Taauxou Aa|36vT£Q EcpuaioXoyilcxxv, cootiep npSnei- tou. nai toc \xk\> TtpioTa otoixeux toc 6td tgjv Scpsoov, vaouQ MaTaaHEuaadjiEvoi, ev dc&UTo iq dcpuEpooaav, Hat t o u t o c q £opraQ nat 0uaiaQ e h e t e X o u v nai 500 Spyta, 0 e o u q t o u q h e y C o t o u q v o |j.C C o v teq nat apxriyouQ tw v oXcov. TocrauTa nal Ttspi toov 8<pecdv." ’ AXXa y a p toc ^ lev tt)q 3?o l v C hu> v 0 £ o X o y ia Q 5 4 4 9 5 ' O K T aT suxy A OHTaTExvoo ONV] rnpoc A d ito ONV 4 9 5 - 4 9 6 to u T a a u x o u ONV T a u 0 o u (om t o u ) A 498 a&{>TOiQ A a^TOiQ G (O destroyed) NV Migne 500 TOUQ] TE B 502 Tf]Q $01VtHT|Q ND TfjQ $OlVLHlHfjQ V And everybody, getting their materials from ' Taautos, discoursed on nature, as stated above; and they constructed temples and in the inner- 590 most sanctuary consecrated the first elements which have their existence through serpents, and they performed sacrifices and feasts and rites to them, considering them the greatest gods and the originators of all the others. 595 So much, then, for serpents. For the features of the theology of the Phoenicians are comprised in this way, from which the saving gospel teaches us 129 toutov Ttsptexei tpotuov* ?|Q &\Lexao'tpem:el cpevyeiv nai tt)q twv TtaXaiffiv cppEvof3\a|3EtaQ ttjv 505 tacnv laexa&LWMetv 6 acoT'nptoq £{xxyY£A.iC£Tai \6yoQ. cSti 6s irn (a.u0ot Taum nal TtofnTcov 55 ocvaTtXaaiiaTa \av0ocvouaav t ivoc ev uitovoCaic; exovTa 0ecopCav Tuyxdveu, aocpcov 5e Hal TcaXatcov, d)Q av auToi cpatev, 0eoX6ycov a\r|0EiQ y,apTupCai, 510 toc nal tcoltitgov dbravTwv nal Xoyoypdcpoov TcpeafBuxepa Tieptexovaai t o t e tcuotov tcov \6ywv eiraydnevat dub TrjQ e l o e t i 6e0po ev Tatg Kara ® o l v l h t )v 503 ?1Q d|JlETaOTpE1lTE l A t) v d|J,£TaOTpE7tTl BONV 507 Tiva BONV TT)V A to flee without turning back, and earnestly to seek the healing of this sickness of mind of the ancients. 600 Now it should be plain that these things are not fables and poets' imaginings which contain some theory concealed in hidden meanings, but true testi monies of theologians, who, as they themselves would claim, were wise and ancient, testimonies which con- 605 tain things older than all the poets and than the historians, and which inspire confidence in their declarations by the names and stories of the gods which even yet hold sway there in the cities and 130 u o X ea t t e n a l HwpaiQ HpaToucrng toov 0eg5v Ttpoar)- yopCaQ t e n a l ia t o p Gag tgov t e raxp* InaaT otc; in i - 515 TE\oup.Eva)v |i.uaTT)pCa)v, 6rj\ov &v eZr), a > < ; nr|H£Ti. X p f j v a i t o v t c o v P t a C o v Q a v i x v e v s i v c p u a io A o Y C o c q , aacprj t o v e £ aiJTcav e X e y x o v EHicpEpop.Evcov tgov 7tpaYp.aT0)v. T o i a u T t ) j i e v o 5 v 1 * 1 <&oivGhgov GeoXoyCoc* w p a 6 e p.ETa(3avTaQ H a t toc a G y u tc tC w v E T ttO s o o p fja a t. 513 0EWV BONV 0Et(DV A 516 XP* TOUTWV A ~ BONV ] Ptatav txveV£tv A* (amended by the first hand) 517 auTcov A ^auToSv BONV] tu5 v om ND 518 pev ouv] ( J . ev A Subscriptio in A: suayYeAi-xfiQ TipomxpaaHEvrjQ a. In the same line stands the stichometric statement given on p. xiv of Mras's introduction. No subscriptio in BONV villages throughout Phoenicia, as well as by the 610 mysteries which are performed in all of them. Thus it is no longer necessary to search for forced physical explanations of these things, since the matters provide clear refutation by themselves. So much, then, for Phoenician theology. It is time 615 to pass on and to investigate that of the Egyptians. COMMENTARY Line 1; Who, or what, is Sanchuniathon? Some have said it is merely a fictional name. Others have insisted it is a legitimate personal name, the name of a real historical person. Eififeldt devoted almost seventy pages to an imagi nary comparison between Sanchuniathon and Ilumilku'*'— imagi nary, because almost nothing at all is known about Sanchun iathon as a historical person. The name of Ilumilku has been discovered in the colophons of several of the Ras Shamra clay tablets from the fourteenth century B.C., and Eififeldt drew a picture of him as a famous writer of that time and suggested that Sanchuniathon, from the same general era and region, was doubtless quite similar to him. Bau- dissin cited a passage from Suidas which spoke of Sanchun iathon as a Tyrian and an appendix of Suidas which •^Otto EiSfeldt, "Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumilku von Ugarit," Beitrage zur Religionsgeschichte des.JMfcfirturns. V (1952). 131 132 designated him as a Sidonian, but Baudissin considered both of these to be general designations for Phoenician, and 2 concluded that he was from Beirut, as Philo said. This is the position which Eififeldt, too, held (pp. 42-43). San chuniathon, then, from the fourteenth to twelfth centuries B.C. (or, as is more likely, in my opinion, from the eleventh century B.C., for the reason given below on pp. 139-140), was a citizen of Beirut, and wrote a Phoenician history, or a history of the Phoenician religion. These are all the facts we have about Sanchuniathon, and even they are not completely beyond dispute. 3 The name Sanchuniathon. according to Baudissin, is composed of the god-name Sakkun (700) and ytn ( fnO, a form of the word ntn (]nj), "to give." Thus the name Sakkun- -iaton would mean "Sakkun has given," and would perhaps be analogous to Jonathan (I Sam. 13:2, etc.), "whom Jah has given." Carthaginian inscriptions containing the god-name Sakkun were cited by Baudissin (p. 21, n. 1), though he was not certain which god was intended by this name. EiBfeldt ^Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte. I, 23. 3s&u. < a i sn, I, 20-21. 133 4 concurred in this interpretation. Lines 1-3: TtaXaiOTaTOQ: Sanchuniathon had lived in antiq uity. itpsofivTspoc;: he was an aged man. Line 5: Herennius Philo, a cousin of Philo Judaeus, and a prolific writer (see above, pp. 60-61). He is considered to have been a charge, or slave, of Herennius Severus, and after he was freed, or acquired Roman citizenship, he 5 assumed the name of Herennius. Line 6; |ieT(x3(xXtt)v, literally, "to change, to turn" some thing. In this context it is obviously "to translate" for a literary work was "changed" from Phoenician to Greek. In lines 30-31 below, the word &p|AT)veuu) is used with the same import. Eififeldt stated that both of these words could be understood as referring to "a free adaptation of a presen tation" and not necessarily a translation in the strict 6 sense, and cited Renan by way of proof. Line 8; a contemporary of ours, i.e., Porphyry (232-c. 305). The "work" to which Eusebius alluded is Porphyry's ^"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," pp. 48-50. 5Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie (1913), VIII, 651. 6"Sanchunjaton von Berut," p. 61. 7 hcxtcx Xpiaxtavfijv (Against the Christians). Lin^s 11—31; For the last several hundred years, the au thenticity of Sanchuniathon has been argued extensively, with numerous men on each side of the issue (see above, pp. 30-31). In more recent years, however, since the discovery and investigation of the Ras Shamra texts, commentators v 8 have, with but few exceptions (e.g., Pierre Nautin), come more and more to believe that Philo did have an ancient Phoenician source for at least some of his material. Lines 11-16: the Jews. Baudissin thought it probable that Hierombalos was Jerubbaal (i.e., Gideon), as seen in Judges 9 6:28-32, and equated Jeuo with Jahveh. He said, further, that Porphyry (fr. 1 paragraph 2) verified the fact that Sanchuniathon referred to the Jews (p. 39). Movers held the same view (I, 127, 133). According to Eififeldt, it was generally agreed, right up to the time when he was writing (1952), that Hierombalos was Jerubbaal, but he himself ^For a brief biographical sketch and bibliographical material, see Oxford Classical Dictionary (London, 1957), pp. 719-720. 8"Sanchuniaton chez Philon de Byblos et chez Porphyre," Revue biblique. LVI (1949), 259-273. rejected this position.^ He suggested that ’ Iou6aC(ov (Jews) should be written * ieou6aCcov, single or only children. as in lines 512-516 of the text (although in another place he seemed to suggest replacing 'iou&ocCoov with $oivChu) v [p. 28]), and that Jeuo should be written as Jam.^ However, Eififeldt's testimony on this point seems to me to be very confused. Having corrected Jeuo to Jam, he 12 said in another place that Jeuo was also Jao. and at this point even admitted also that "it is probably true that this Jeuo is a— of course, occurring only here— form of the Jewish God's name" (p. 32). To this he added that Jeuo and Jao and Jam were identical, that Jam was likewise Poseidon, who was a chief god of Beirut and that this was the god whose priest Hierombalos was! (p. 35). Be that as it may, Clemen, writing a few years earlier, held it to be incred ible that anyone would understand Hierombalos to be the Old Testament Jerubbaal and to understand the Israelite Jahveh as the god of Hierombalos.^ 10"Sanchunjaton von Berut," p. 27. H"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 28. 12”sanchunjaton von Berut," p. 26. 13"Die phonikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos," pp. 8-9. 136 There seems to be no good reason for equating Hierom balos and Jerubbaal. The incidental similarity(?) between the two names does not provide sufficient basis for this equation. The -baal ending is common to many names, and we cannot readily get Hierom from Jerub. especially in the initial letter, unless we assume that the Greek rough breathing (or li) was lost in translation. The Hebrew yodh (X or □-) would normally have been transliterated into Greek as a consonantal i (e.g., teou&, ieoud or ieoud). The second point, in contrast, cannot be as simply resolved. Eififeldt advanced two main reasons for rejecting ’iou&aCoov here: (1) Eusebius was establishing the fact that erroneous heathen mythology began among the Phoenicians and Egyptians and spread from them to other peoples, so that it is confusing for him to make this point and then immedi ately name the Jews. One would rather expect him to name the Phoenicians. (2) The naming of the Jews does not agree with what follows it in Porphyry's testimony, namely, that Sanchuniathon1s statements about the Jews show themselves to be true by the fact that they correspond best of all to their places and names, when in actuality a reading of the fragments of the Phoenician History reveal that there is no mention of the Jews' names and places, while there is much discussion of those of the Phoenicians. To the first of these points, I would object that at this point, Eusebius' sole concern was to establish the carefulness and credi bility of Sanchuniathon, and for this purpose it would not matter whom Sanchuniathon was discussing, whether the Phoe nicians or the Jews or someone else, just so his credibility was established. Eusebius specifically stated that this was his purpose in giving this quotation from Porphyry, for following it he said: "In these words was he [Porphyry] revealed confirming the truthfulness as well as the antiq uity of the theologian [Sanchuniathon]" (lines 32-33). Eififeldt acknowledged this point (pp. 31-32), but apparently failed to give sufficient weight to it. To Eififeldt's second point it can be replied that it is, at best, an argument from silence. We have only a portion of Sanchun iathon' s work preserved for us, and we cannot know how much of it is lost, or what subjects it may have treated. Eu sebius chose those passages which served his purpose and passed over those which did not. One example that bears out this contention is the statement by Porphyry in his De abstinentia. II. 56 (and cited in Er_. IV. 16, 6), ^EiBfeldt, "Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 24-26. 138 that the Phoenician History is full of child sacrifice. A perusal of the fragments of the Phoenician History which we have, however, reveals but two mentions of this practice (lines 410-412, 500-516). Obviously Eusebius omitted the great bulk of Sanchuniathon's discussion of child sacrifice. Thus it is altogether possible that one section of Sanchun iathon' s work dealt with the Jews, a section which Eusebius likewise omitted. While perhaps we cannot dogmatically insist that San chuniathon wrote about the Jews, there are several facts which at least make it plausible. The most obvious argument for this position is that all the manuscript evidence sup ports the reading ’iou&otCwv. The arguments against this reading are based solely on conjecture. In the second place, accuracy in writing about names and places is gen erally taken for granted when a man is writing about his own locale and people, and for the people of that locale. In a work like that it would scarcely be necessary to get the records from some authority. It becomes noteworthy only when he is writing about places and people of whom it might reasonably be assumed he would have less knowledge. Then when scholars investigate such a work and find it to be accurate, that verifies that it is the work of a careful, 139 competent scholar, and not a composition which would have been done by a mere layman. Next, it seems best to understand Jeuo as being Jahveh. 15 Even Eififeldt admitted this in one place. There are others who offer a great mass of persuasive documentation for the view that Jahveh was often transcribed into Greek as Jeuo or Jao (Jeuo was written as Jao in the repetition of this fragment of Porphyry by Theodoret in his Graecarum affectionum Curatio II, 44). Movers was certain that Sol- Jao or Dionysus-Jao was not Jahveh (or Jehovah) (p. 540), but at the same time he concluded that Jeuo or Jao was Jah veh (or Jehovah). He said Jeuo and Jao were nominal forms of Jehovah among the heathen writers, and cited this passage from Philo (p. 548). Baudissin had a chapter on Jao. in which he offered extensive documentation for the position that Jahveh was commonly written as Jao among heathen 16 writers. A fourth fact which supports the plausibility of the reading ’iou&atwv seems to have been generally overlooked. Porphyry stated that Sanchuniathon dedicated his history to I5"Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 24-26. 16Studien. I, 181-254. Abibalos, the king of Beirut, and if a notice in Josephus is correct, it gives us our most specific clue to Sanchun iathon' s date. Josephus identified Abibalos as the father of Hiram, the king of Tyre, who was a contemporary of David 17 and Solomon. This was a time of amicable relations be tween Phoenicia and Israel, as is clear from II Samuel 5:11, I Kings 5:1-18, 9:26-28, etc. They were on good terms, and there apparently was very extensive trade between them. Under such circumstances, it would not be strange for a writer of a Phoenician history to include a section on the Jews. These four considerations argue for the probability that ’iou&aiwv is the correct reading, and that Sanchun iathon included a section on the Jews in his Phoenician History. Line 17: Abibalos: Clemen agreed with Movers that Hierom balos, not Sanchuniathon, was the one who dedicated his work to Abibalos (p. 5). This is not possible. We are not even told that Hierombalos wrote a history, only that he had records. Furthermore, the word-play taTopet-taToptav clearly points to Sanchuniathon as the one who dedicated •^William Whiston, trans., "Antiquities of the Jews," The Works of Flavius Josephus (London, n.d.), VIII, v3. his history to Abibalos. Eififeldt agreed that this state- 18 ment was made of Sanchuniathon rather than of Hierombalos, and cited other examples of such a practice (p. 58). Lines 18-19; those who inquired into the truth: Clemen supposed that these were men who must have had this special function (p. 9). Lines 19-31: In referring to "the Trojans," Porphyry was presumably thinking primarily of the time of the Trojan war. This was about the beginning of the twelfth century B.C. "The times of Moses" would probably fall in the fifteenth century B.C. Semiramis was from the ninth century B.C. Abibalos, mentioned a few lines earlier, was apparently from the second half of the eleventh century B.C. While we can understand that it would have been impossible for Porphyry or Philo to be consistent and correct in their chronology, we nonetheless should be aware of these inconsistencies. Lines 22-24: Eusebius emphasized that his purpose in using this quotation from Porphyry was to confirm Sanchuniathon's truthfulness and antiquity. Before leaving this quotation from Porphyry, we should examine Eiftfeldt's opinion that the statements of Eusebius, ■ * - 8" Sanchun jaton von Berut," p. 4. Porphyry and Philo did not at all agree. One entire section of this work (pp. 36-46) was devoted solely to this question, in addition to other scattered remarks. In Philo's writings, Sanchuniathon was not a historical person, but a god, not only to others but to Philo also, according to Eififeldt (p. 36). This, in my opinion, is a far-fetched statement, and lacking in proof. Nautin, too, saw such contradiction between Porphyry and Philo, even going so far as to picture Sanchuniathon as a fictitious figure (pp. 259- 273). (It is interesting that while Eififeldt agreed with Nautin1s conclusion, he rejected Nautin's reasons for ar- ,20 riving at that conclusion.) ExSfeldt's arguments are not persuasive. It may be correct that Porphyry and Philo say different things— it is not correct that they say contra dictory things. Porphyry emphasized certain aspects in his presentation and Philo emphasized different aspects but in the brief presentation that we have from each of them, it can scarcely be demonstrated that there are real contradic tions and inconsistencies. Eififeldt completely vitiated his own arguments by concluding with the admission that Sanchun jaton von Berut," p. 1. 20"Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 37-44. 143 possession of all of Philo's work might well show that there was no contradiction in fact between Porphyry and Philo (p. 46) . Lines 33-45: Eusebius speaking as a Christian and decrying Philo's (or Porphyry1s) heathen philosophy. Lines 46-47; nine books: Porphyry recorded that it was 21 eight books, rather than nine. Clemen suggested that Porphyry considered the first book to be an introduction rather than a book proper, but mentioned different solutions proposed by Ewald and Lagrange (p. 2). EiSfeldt took note 22 of the discrepancy but did not offer a solution. Lines 55-61: Taautos: There has been much controversy and disagreement about Taautos. Eififeldt correctly pointed out that Philo did not say that Taautos was the first one to come into existence (a translation which the grammar would permit, if a comma were inserted in the text in the proper place), but that of those who had come into existence, he was the first to invent letters and writing (p. 8). Philo said that he was the Egyptian Thoth, and that the Greeks ^De abstinentia. II. 56, cited by Eusebius in his £. E. in IV. 16, 6. 22"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," pp. 25, 27. translated him as Hermes, but EiBfeldt took issue with Philo on this matter. He was persuaded that not only the spelling of the name Taautos, but also other "insurmountable hur dles," made it impossible to equate Taautos with Thoth (p. 8), although he mentioned Bunsen's opposing view (p. 10, n. 4). EiBfeldt devoted the first half of "Taautos und San chun jaton" primarily to this very question. We cannot be certain about the origin of Taautos (p. 8). It was incon sistent of Philo to consider Taautos as coming from Egypt, since he claimed that the gods originated in Phoenicia (p. 10). Taautos occurred nowhere outside Philo's fragments contained in the Pr. ev. (p. 12), although the form Taautes occurred in Varro (p. 7). The function of Taautos was the invention of letters and of other signs and symbols (pp. 18-19). Taautos was probably a specifically Phoenician creation, but the similarity of the mutual functions of Taautos and Thoth led to their union and this union then found support in the similarity of their names (pp. 22-23). Philo found this divine figure in the fragments which stood at his disposal and it was therefore older than he. How much older we cannot say (p. 23). (In another place also, EiBfeldt supposed that Taautos was older than Thoth, which 145 23 would make him ancient indeed. This is a brief presenta tion of EiBfeldt's views on Taautos, and it seems to me that he is guilty of straining out a gnat. 24 In his discussion of the etymology of the name, EiBfeldt connected it with the word for "sign" or "symbol," and thus with writing. He here made clear that the Hebrew and Phoenician n was usually rendered by 0, but was some times rendered by t. That being the case, it is strange to hear him say that TdcautOQ differs from the pronunciation of 0(00 and ©cou0 with regard to the consonants, as well as with regard to the vowels. Either a 0 or a t would suffice to render a n. Taautos-Hermes had the same functions as Thoth (signs and symbols, writing, magic spells and incantations, etc.), the spelling is quite similar and is explainable, and 25 the etymology of the two names is apparently the same. Therefore, there seems no sufficient reason to reject Philo's statement that Taautos is Thoth. Lines 62-92; Philo brought this theme up several times 23 "Sanchunjatonvon Berut," p. 16. 24"Taautos Und Sanchunjaton," pp. 20-22. 25For a discussion of the etymology of Thoth. see Peter Boylan, Thoth the Hermes of Egypt: . . . (London and New York, 1922). (lines 201-208, 449-461, 463-482, 489-498). It was one of his favorite complaints that the original truth, which had been discovered by Taautos, was obscured and covered over by those who followed him. In two or three instances this was ascribed specifically to the Greeks (87-92, 203-208, 463- 482). The order of events seems to be as follows: (1) Taautos originally invented letters and the writing of records (lines 56-58, 423-426), he explained the creation of the universe and of living creatures (lines 128-149, 153- 167), and he it was who "first arranged the things which have to do with religious worship into intelligent practice, because of the ignorance of the common people," that is, who first introduced proper religious worship to the Phoeni cians, and thus to mankind (lines 489-494, 525-553, 589- 595). (2) Thabion, "the very first who taught rites of worship to the Phoenicians who were born of old, interpreted these things allegorically" and so obscured the truth from view (lines 449-461). He apparently was the one who fol lowed Taautos. (3) Thabion had "interpreted these things allegorically" (lines 449-452), and it would seem that next in order, "After very many generations, the god Sourmoube- los and Thouro, who was given the new name Eusarthis, fol lowing him [Taautos] illuminated the theology of Taautos which had been covered over and obscured by allegories" (lines 494-498). (4) We are not told, as nearly as I can discern, who next confused the issue, but apparently someone did and Sanchuniathon then entered the picture. (5) He went back to the original source of truth and carefully tracked down the facts about Taautos (lines 50-61). He stumbled onto the obscure inscriptions of the Ammouneoi which had been lying hidden in the innermost sanctuaries, and after diligent study, he weeded out the myth and the allegories which had- crept in and crowded out the truth (lines 74-81). (6) Then Philo "finds fault with the more recent men who lived after this [i.e., after Sanchuniathon had rescued the truth from confusion], because they would turn the myths about the gods into allegories and physical explanations and theories which are forced and not true" (lines 62-66). Of these same men, or perhaps of men who succeeded them and compounded the error even more, Philo said: "Yet the most recent authors of holy legends rejected those things which actually happened in the beginning, inventing allegories and myths, . . . and they instituted secret rites [mysteries] and brought great confusion into these matters so that it is not easy to discern what actually did happen" (lines 67-73). Presumably Philo was referring in general to the same group when he said a bit further down: "... the priests who arose afterward [i.e., after Sanchuniathon] wanted to con ceal it again in later times and to restore it to the domain of myth" (lines 79-84). (7) Now Philo had arisen at last to bring the truth to light again. He had gone back to the work of Sanchuniathon as Sanchuniathon had gone back to the works of Taautos, and he had translated and published San- chuniathon's work (lines 1-8, 124-127). Eiftfeldt gave a somewhat different order of events. In a long footnote which covers parts of two pages, he presented it this way: (1) Taautos, who recognized the true state of affairs; (2) the younger ones, who obscured his knowledge; (3) Sanchun iathon, who rediscovered Taautos; (4) the priests, who 26 followed Sanchuniathon and once again hid the truth. Immediately after this, Eififeldt pointed out that Thabion came next after Taautos and was the one who began obscuring the knowledge of Taautos (p. 8). He saw an apparent con tradiction between lines 494-498, which ascribed the re vival of the theology of Taautos to Sourmoubelos and Thouro, and lines 74-81, which ascribed this revival to Sanchunia thon (p. 8), but promised to explain this apparent ^"Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 7-8. contradiction on pp. 10, 30f., and 37. I believe that Eift- feldt has needlessly added to the confusion, that there is no necessary contradiction between these two passages, and that his efforts to explain this "apparent contradiction" are not only unnecessary but also very weak. The order of events which I have given above would seem to fit all the pertinent passages in satisfactorily. However, there is doubtless room for disagreement on this matter. Line 71: secret rites: p,uaTT)pi,a, probably referring to the mystery religions common in the Near East and in Greece. Lines 74-75: obscure inscriptions of the Ammouneoi: Clemen furnished us with the opinions of several men on this sub ject. Ewald supposed that these Ammouneoi were learned temple priests, and traced the word back to fait. Most others referred the word back to D’?an (or its Phoenician equivalent), the word for "pillars," suggesting that the inscriptions were found written on pillars. This is similar to the claim of Euhemerus that he obtained the material for his history of the gods from an inscription on a pillar of the temple of Zeus on the island of Panchaia. Pietschmann and probably also Reitzenstein connected the Ammouneoi with the Egyptian god Amon. Reitzenstein pointed out that ac cording to Iamblichus, Hermes had dedicated to Amon a book 150 ■written in hieroglyphics and later translated by the prophet Bytis. Clemen preferred the view proposed by Eifl- feldt that these inscriptions were connected with the Ras Shamra texts, which were also found in temple ruins, the script of which was later incomprehensible. To explain the name itself, EiBfeldt referred to the cities mentioned in the Old Testament and in other places under the name chammon. which were said to be named after the Amanus moun tains, and thought it possible that there might have been a Phoenician people by this name, from which would have come 27 the word Ammouneoi. In a later work, Eififeldt was unde cided what the letters of the Ammouneoi were, whether this phrase was to be translated "the apocrypha . . . written in the letters of the Ammouneoi" or "the apocryphal writings 21 . . . in the shrines of Ammon, where they were preserved." Further on Eifofeldt raised the possibility that these let ters were Egyptian letters and that they had been preserved in Egyptian temples (p. 16). Later in this same work, Eifi- feldt concluded that yp&iiiiCXTa meant "letters" of the alphabet, rather than "writings," and that these ^7Clemen, pp. 10-11. 28"sanchunjaton von Berut," p. 15. inscriptions were Phoenician in origin (p. 43). Line 76: the innermost sanctuaries: Perhaps it was a com mon practice among the ancient Semites to deposit their sacred writings in a sacred place, in a temple or some other such sacred place. Several Old Testament passages make it appear that this was true of the Hebrews. In Exodus 25:16 Moses was commanded by the Lord: "And thou shalt put into the ark [the ark of Jahveh] the testimony which I shall give thee." In Exodus 30:6 it is even called "the ark of the testimony" and in Exodus 40:20 we are told that Moses "took and put the testimony into the ark." This is confirmed in Deuteronomy 10:5, which states that Moses put the tables containing the Ten Commandments in the ark, "and," he said to the Israelites, reminding them of what had happened almost forty years previously, "there they be." "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee" (Deut. 31:24-26). Several centuries later, during the reform under King Josiah, when the temple was re-opened 152 and repaired, Hilkiah the high priest "found the book of the law in the house of the Lord" (II Kings 22:8). It may be that the practice of keeping their holy writings in their holy places was common to other Semitic nations also. Line 89: having examined much material: Philo did not limit his research to Sanchuniathon alone. He later men tioned by name some of the authors he had consulted (lines 553, 556, 562, 565, 576, 586). In fact, in this present context, he spoke of the Greek writings and said he had bestowed much labor on them (lines 87-92). Linps 100-123: According to Movers, the Phoenician popular religion had humanized the deities long before Philo's day (p. 122). I am not certain in what sense Movers meant this, but the Ras Shamra texts do not lend support to the straight forward euhemerism which Philo demonstrated here. Philo's statement about the Egyptians is partly borne out by fact— the Egyptians did deify their kings and offer them divine worship. Movers was correct on this point (p. 124). Bau- dissin said that as far as we can trace the Phoenician religion back, it is based on a deification of all natural 29 forces. This statement contains some truth, but is an 29Studien. I, 44. overstatement of the facts. An examination of the Ras Shamra texts will not bear out this sweeping generalization. Line 113; monuments and staffs: Philo referred again (in lines 234-235) to the dedicating of stelae to certain in dividuals as a part of their worship, a practice which was mentioned in the Ugaritic texts also (ANET. p. 150A). Lines 122-123: some were mortal and some were immortal gods: The mortal gods were men who had been deified, the immortal gods were the elements of nature, the physical bodies, etc. Movers, too, pointed this fact out (p. 122). In his brief discussion of this point, Eiflfeldt said that the human benefactors or kings who were deified "turn out to 30 be 'elements' ( cJT0tXG^a ) •" Philo discussed the elements in another place (lines 590-595) and said that the first elements had their existence through serpents, and that men considered them to be the greatest gods and the originators of all the others. However, Philo did not equate the ele ments with human beings. In fact, the contrary is true. In the passage presently under consideration (lines 115- 123), Philo spoke of both human kings and earthly elements. The earthly elements were called by the name of certain •^"Sanchunjaton von Berut," p. 12, n. 2. kings, but that is not to say that they were those kings. The language here makes it plain that they were separate entities, and that Eiftfeldt missed the point here. Lines 128-149: Movers found three cosmogonies in Philo's fragments (p. 144). The first one was that of Taaut (lines 128-195) which Movers considered to be Egyptian and within that one was included another, which he considered to be Phoenician (p. 144). This second one is contained in lines 188-195. To this second Phoenician cosmogony he added a third, which included borrowings from Hesiod. This third cosmogony was the fable of Uranus and Ge (p. 147). In Movers' opinion, the first cosmogony, attributed to Taaut, was taken from a Hermetic book written in Egyptian (p. 133). He was persuaded that the entire natural philosophical character of this cosmogony was based on experiences which could have occurred only in Egypt (pp. 133-138). Some of the reasons he gave will be considered here. There is no corresponding Semitic word for M&t , but in Egyptian it means mother. and is the nickname for Isis, that part of the earth which the Nile covered, fertilized and impreg nated. This was the slime or watery mixture from which arose the seeds of creation, a thought which Movers dis cussed in detail. In Zophasemin he saw a gloss of a 155 Semitic etymology of an Egyptian word. Clemen (p. 40) perceived but two cosmogonies, the first two given by Movers. He agreed that Mot was Egyptian in origin and referred to Isus but argued that Zophesamin was Semitic in origin (pp. 36-37). If I understand Clemen cor rectly, he applied this term to the eyes, though this does not make sense in context. Eiftfeldt was reluctant to trace 31 any of the names back to Egyptian. It seems impossible to arrive at a firm conclusion on many of these points. For the time being, they must remain in the realm of specula tion, as is true of much of Philo's material. Lines 150-151: This is Eusebius1 own personal comment on the Phoenician account of creation. Lines 150-195: Eusebius identified the preceding passage as "the Phoenician theology" or cosmogony (lines 126-127). This present passage was Philo's "description of origin" or zoogony and anthropogony (lines 151-152, 168). Line 177; Notus and Boreas: The well-known Greek and Latin south or southwest wind and Greek north wind. Line 188: Kolpia: Movers was persuaded that Kolpia could only be mrp ’3 or vox oris vivicantis ("voice of the ■^"Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 27-28, n. 2. mouth of Jhwh[?]") (p. 549). Baudissin equated it with O’ *? ^ip "audible breath," and rejected m - ’s-Vip, "the breath of the mouth of Jah," which would have been borrowed from 32 the Old Testament. Clemen found unacceptable both of the views mentioned by Baudissin, as well as another view which he gave, and concluded no satisfying explanation of this word had yet been found. It was, in his opinion, the same as "the dark and windy air" which Philo had previously described (lines 128-129) (p. 40). Line 189: Baau: "One of the two original beings, the feminine Baau, is the eternal Chaos, the ma of Genesis, the Baoth nina or Bu0oq of the Gnostics, the Buto of the Egyptian, the dead matter called More in the previous cos mogony, which unites with the mi, the spirit, which San chuniathon . . . makes into the wind, and from whose mar riage the first stirring of life and an apportioned amount 33 of time arise." Baudissin said simply that Baau was -lria , 34 "Chaos." Clemen disagreed with both Movers and Baudissin, and would grant only that Baau was some Phoenician god (p. 32£fcjidi£n, I, 13. 33^overs, p. 58. 34gt3Aflien, i, 13. 41). Philo said that Baau. according to Sanchuniathon, meant "night." None of the commentators, to the best of my knowledge, has given a sufficient explanation of this inter pretation, nor can I. Lines 1Q0-191; Aion [Age] and Protogonos [First born]: according to Movers, these two are "the first stirring of life and an apportioned amount of time" which "are personi fied in npcotoyovoQ, the MovoysvrjQ of the Chaldeans, and in *Aid)v" (p. 58). Baudissin considered Aion to be o^iy or OuXo)|J.6 q (from the Phoenician cosmogony of Mochos) "the 35 god of prehistory." (dV iy means "a long time, an age, 36 eternity.") Clemen (p. 41) and EiBfeldt held the same view. Protogonos, according to Clemen, was probably a Phoenician god which is not known to us (p. 41). Clemen mentioned Renan's conjecture that this was based on the story about Eve! Also, in these names, Renan saw a hint of Cain. Though he opposed Renan's view, Clemen thought it possible that the Phoenicians could have gotten their ideas from the Egyptians (p. 42). Lines 197-200: Beelsamen: D’aitf ("Baal Shamayim") 35Adonis und Esmun. p. 488. 36"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 56. literally means "lord of heaven" and would apparently be the Phoenician spelling of the name. "Zeus" was Philo's own equation with Sanchuniathon's Beelsamen here, though others also may have made the same equation before him. Line 211: Phos [Light], Pyr [Fire], and Phlox [Flame]: Clemen supposed that these were actually three Phoenician gods of which Philo knew (p. 43). Eififeldt inclined to agree with Renan that they were fictitious names taken from the inventions themselves and given to the supposed (but 37 nonexistent) inventors of them. Considering how the an cients personified and deified abstractions and forces of nature, Clemen's view is certainly conceivable, but Renan's position, as presented by Eiftfeldt, seems the more natural one. Lines 213-218: Clemen discussed this passage (pp. 43-44), but the views set forth in his discussion do not seem worth repeating in detail. One point, though, is of interest, that the Brathy is Mt. Tabor, though he did not give any solid reasons to support this interpretation. Baudissin considered the spelling corrupt and concluded it could not be identified with any widely known mountain. Mt. Casius 37"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 20. (or Kasios) is the place to which Typhon fled when defeated by Zeus and where he then overcame Zeus (Apollodorus, T.ihrary. I. vi. 3). Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon were well- known mountain ranges in Phoenicia. T.i nps 218-219; Memroumos: This is the reading of most of the texts. Nonetheless, Clemen followed Muller, Ewald, Dindorf and Count Baudissin in wanting to emend the text to read Samemroumos (p. 45). Clemen equated Samemroumos and Hypsouranios (by reading 6 Hal instead of Hal o) and Beel- samen and drew the conclusion that in these names was con tained the name of heaven (p. 45). Baudissin thus read the text and considered Samemroumos and Hypsouranios identi- 38 cal. In another place, however, he gave his interpreta tion of Memroumos. as well as of Samemroumos: Maarpj^npg. was to be connected with DiT?? ■ > ? ? , "Sea of Merom" or "Waters of Merom" (although he considered this spelling wrong). Samem roumos was conceivably to be explained as Dim mw, "Himmel 39 der Hohe" ("Heaven of the Height"). Clemen mentioned another view, set forth by Eififeldt, that Samemroumos could have been named after Samem Rumin, a part of the city of 38Adonis und Esmun. p. 76. 38Studien. II, 166, n. 3. Sidon, which would then have been his "mother," explaining the fact that they took their names from their mothers (p. 47). This was the view given by Eififeldt in a later work 40 also, and Hypsouranios would mean something like "High Heavenly One" as Ei&feldt there proposed. Lines 224-225: huts of reeds and rushes and papyri: To Clemen, reeds, rushes and papyri suggested an Egyptian ori gin for this statement, since these were not found in the vicinity of Tyre (pp. 45-46). Line 226: Ousoos: There are those who have seen Ousoos as Esau, finding a parallel in the conflict which existed be tween Hypsouranios and Ousoos and that between Jacob and Esau (pp. 45-46). The alternative offered by Clemen (pp. 46-47) and by EiBfeldt is more acceptable. In EiSfeldt's words: "Samemrumos-Hypsuranios, as it seems, was the per sonification of a part of the city of the island Tyre. Usoos was the personification of mainland Tyre, thus Palai- tyros, for which the name Uzu has been verified for us from older times. 40"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 39. 41"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 39; "Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 26-27. 161 T.inps 233-234: Ousoos was the first to go to sea: Almost immediately after this, Philo said that Chusor, or Hephaes tus, was the first man to sail (lines 246-251). Then in lines 277-280, Philo described the descendants of Suduk (the Dioscuri or Kabeiroi or Korybantes or Samothrakes) as the ones who first invented the boat. These passages plainly contradict one another, unless Philo intended to draw some distinction between "going to sea," "sailing," and "inventing the boat," which does not seem likely. If Ousoos were the personification of a part of the city of Tyre, it would be natural to connect him with sea travel. Lines 242-244: Agreus and Halieus: i.e., "Hunter" and "Fisher," fictitious names applied to the "inventors of fishing and hunting." Baudissin pointed out that the term 42 Aareus is applied to Zeus Kasius, but this is a very general term perhaps applied to different gods and does not need to identify Zeus with the god named by Philo. 43 Lines 251-256: Chrysor: Clemen (pp. 48-49) and EiBfeldt read this as Chusor. a reading found in two of the manu scripts, and Eiftfeldt concluded that he was Koschar or ktr ^Clemen, pp. 48-49. 43"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 23. ("order"), a god who is named in the Ugaritic texts. Koschar was a "master builder and skilled craftsman, who is called on for help everywhere where it is a question of the erection of palaces, or the production of gold and silver 44 implements, or also the question of making a war-bow." He also had command over magic capabilities, a gift to be expected only in a smithy (p. 57, n. 2). If this identifi cation is correct, as seems probable, one can readily see how Hephaestus would be considered his Greek counterpart. Lines 252-253; Chusor/Hephaestus was also called Zeus Meilichios: (The two best manuscripts have AiajxCx^OQ) • MetACxtOQ means "mild, gracious, gentle," but Baudissin traced the word back to n’Vn ("seafarer, sailor"), but 45 thought it a mistake to identify him with Hephaestus. To me, it is striking that Baudissin assigned the epithet "sailor" to Zeus in this context and yet refused to identify him with Hephaestus, "the first man to sail," since this description is the only one in this passage which would cause us to associate Zeus with sailing. This equation is contradicted by Greek mythology, which made Hephaestus the 44EiBfeldt, "Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 23. 45Studien, I, 15; II, 174. son of Zeus, and yet this is no more confused than the identifications which Philo made throughout his work. Clemen called Chusor/Hephaestus the brother of Zeus Meili- chios, perhaps a slip (p. 58). Lines 256-257? Technites and Autochthon: "Craftsman, skilled worker" and "Earth-born." Philo applied the second of these two names to Ouranos in lines 286-287. Clemen cited several men who saw Cain and Adam in these two names! He rejected this view (pp. 51-52). Commenting on this pas sage, Clemen stated that bricks with straw were common in Asia Minor and do not prove any Egyptian influence on Philo (p. 52). Lines 260-261: Agros and Agroueros or Agrotes: Agros means "Tilled Land," Agrotes means "Countryman." Instead of Agroueros. one of the better manuscripts has aypou "Hero of the Field." What may have been behind such names is difficult to see, though Clemen supposed they actually were two gods, and were protectors of fields, and farmers (p. 53). Clemen has gathered for us the speculations of several other men. In Bunsen's opinion, the translation rested on a mixup of the Hebrew word sadai ("field") with saddai ("the Almighty"), and this interpretation was veri fied by the word agroueros. which was the translation of the normal naming of the Almighty in Genesis: El-Saddai. "God the Almighty," was misunderstood as "God of the field." Aaros is the name Saddai alone. Also Renan said that with out doubt Agros was or "the Almighty." Lagrange under stood Agros to be Adonis, and considered him a hunter, as did Eififeldt. Grimme saw in them the Babylonian Agurru. "burnt brick," relating them to the bricks just mentioned by Philo. Dussaud thought they were the two gods Aleyin and Mot, mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts. Ewald considered them the gods and protectors of fields and farmers, the view adopted by Clemen (pp. 52-53). Baudissin equated Agroueros/ Agrotes with Elioun/Hypsistos, because Philo said that Agroueros was named greatest of the gods (lines 264-265) and 46 Hypsistos was "the Most High" (lines 283-284). This sounds logical, and yet we do not find consistency in Philo's reports, and things equal to the same thing are not necessarily equal to each other. Movers said that Adonis, the god of Byblos, thought of adding porches, or courts, to houses, so apparently he equated Adonis and Agroueros (p. 143). He later stated this explicitly, affirming that Adonis was called the greatest god in Byblos and Lebanon, 46Adonis und Esmun. p. 77. that Plutarch mentioned a wooden image in the temple of Adonis— a phallus drawn around on a wagon— and that the mention of porches and caverns or grottoes fitted in well with the worship of Adonis. Adonis was also Iao (p. 542). (He also saw Adonis as Elioun/Hypsistos, Iao as Adonis/ Elioun, the father of Ouranos and Ge, and as Dionysus [pp. 539-558].) Line 270: Amynos and Magos: Clemen was not certain whether or not Amynos was the progenitor of the Ammouneoi, as Eift- feldt proposed, but considered it possible. He was com pletely undecided about the significance of the name Magos (p. 54). If Maaos is Greek rather than Phoenician, it would mean "magician, wise man," but there is nothing in the con text to suggest that this is the case. Line 272: Misor and Sydyk: Philo said these two words meant "Yielding" and "Just." Eififeldt cited the explanation of Misor given by Eduard Meyer: "Like its culture, Egypt's religion has also always had an effect on the Phoenician. Also Thoth has been taken over as the inventor of writing and of symbols, as well as of all knowledge and theology. He plays this role under the name T&ocutoq, the eponym of Misraim-Egypt. This cannot be verified through 47 inscriptions," but Eififeldt considered this explanation unfounded (p. 19, n. 4). The Hebrew word -liw’a (mishor) means "uprightness, justice" and p’nx (tsadiq) means "just, righteous." It is probable that Misor and Sydyk come from these two root words. Baudissin pointed to the occurrence of Sadykos in the works of Damascius as verification that Philo had not invented this god. Also a South Arabian god's name pis seemed certain, and in Arabic tradition, Sidon appeared as the son of Sadalja or Sadika, the son of Ca- 48 naan. There seems no doubt that these were Phoenician gods in fact. Clemen discussed the fact that they were credited with inventing the use of salt (pp. 55-56). Sydy- kos is called Pikaios in line 367 which is the Greek equivalent of this word. 1.1 nas 274-275: Taautos, who invented the first writing of letters: According to Eiflfeldt, it was maintained by C . J. Bunsen that this statement had to be understood of the Phoenician alphabet, whose use had spread over almost the 49 entire earth. The functions of Taautos were very similar 47"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 7. 48Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun. p. 247. 49"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," pp. 10-12, n. 4. to those of Hermes, so that the identification was a fore gone conclusion. Lines 278-279; the Dioscouri, etc.: Clemen alluded to this passage, but in no great detail (pp. 56-57). Philo referred to the Dioscouri again in lines 446-447. There he called them only the Kabeiroi and designated them as being seven in number, with Asclepius as their eighth brother. This fits the earlier statement that their offspring invented the healing of evil effects of enchantments and the bites of poisonous animals (lines 281-283), inasmuch as Asclepius was the god of healing. In Greek mythology the Dioscouri were two in number, the sons of Zeus and patrons of sailors. This last point, at least, is consistent with Philo's state- 50 ment that they invented the boat. Line 284: Elioun, who was called Hypsistos: In Genesis 14:18ff., Jahveh is called (Eljon), "the Most High," and the LXX correctly translated this word as Hypsistos. It is scarcely correct to speak of this term as a name in the strict sense of the word. It is an epithet, an adjec tive, which might be applied to any god whose worshipper considered it an appropriate description of his god. A 50Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun. p. 246. Christian might refer to his God as "the Most High God" and a sun worshipper might do the same, and this would not imply that they were referring to the same god. The context would have to decide that. Clemen appropriately denied any con nection here between Philo and the Old Testament, and saw Adonis in Elioun, especially considering the fact that Elioun was killed by wild beasts and was deified (pp. 60- 61). Baudissin saw the same parallel, since Adonis died annually when the boars, the animals of the fiery sun, tore 51 him, and since Byblos was the center of hxs cult. He considered the animals which killed Elioun a generalization 52 of a wild boar and discussed this question in some detail. It is tempting to see Berouth (Br)pov0 ) as the eponym of Beirut (Btjputoq ); the difference in spelling is easily accounted for. However, this is merely one possible sug gestion . Lines 286-287: Epigeios (Of-the-earth) or Autochthon (Earth-born), whom they later called Ouranos: Hesiod said that Ouranos was born of Ge (Earth), presenting a similar concept (Theocrony. lines 126-127). Clemen thought Philo 51S.fcOfliSll, I, 36. 52Adonis und Esmun. pp. 76-77. 169 mistakenly made this identification, and that Autochthon was actually supposed to represent the earth, as suggested earlier in Philo (lines 256-257) (p. 61). Lines 297ff.: This account bears little similarity to the Greek story of Ouranos and Ge. Line 299; Elos, who was called Kronos: El is a very gen eral Semitic term meaning god, rather than a name in the strict sense. It might be applied to various gods indis criminately, just like our English word aod. Frequently, though, it was applied to a specific god, and had the force of a proper name. It was often applied to Jahveh (e.g., Genesis 14:18-22, El Eljon, "the Most High God"), and it often referred to the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon. Philo (or his predecessors) just added the Greek ending to it, as he commonly did to names (Abibalos, Amynos, Belos, Berytos, Sadykos, Taautos, etc.). Philo identified Elos with Kronos in two other places also (lines 337, 383). EiSfeldt raised the question of equating Elioun and Jahweh, .... . 53 but seemed to reject it without giving a direct answer, and rightly so. The once common practice of reading Old Testament names into Philo is coming less and less to be 53"sanchunjaton von Berut," p. 26. accepted. Eififeldt cited two texts from Ras Shamra in which "the god Kumarbi, who plays the chief role in the mentioned Hurrian-Hittite myth, appears and is equated here with the Phoenician god El, with the god, therefore, who is inter preted generally by the Greeks, and especially in the frag- 54 ments of Philo, as Kronos." M. L. West affirmed the same thing: "In a Hurrian text from Ras Shamra, Kumarbi is equated with El, and the Greeks identified the Phoenician El with Kronos; the 'identity' of Kronos and Kumarbi is thus 55 indirectly confirmed." Line 299: Baitylos: This word is doubtless related to Baitylia, the "living stones" which Ouranos invented (lines 356-357). It is commonly accepted that he was a god of stone. Baudissin called the Baitylia "houses of God," and stated that in the case of Baitylos, the holy stone had been 56 turned into a god because it was the residence of a deity. Baitylos has been equated with Bai-ai-ti-ili or Ba-i-ti-ili or Baiti-ilani, and with Bethel. EiBfeldt has written an article in which he made this proposal and in which he 54"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 63. 55Hesiod: Theogonv. p. 21. 56Adonis und Esmun. p. 30. 171 insisted that Bethel, as a god, is found in the Old Testa- 57 ment. It is possible to examine his article only briefly here. This position is based mainly on the belief that Bethel is seen to be a god in the Elephantine texts, but Eififeldt conceded that Noth disputes even that point (p. 3). EiSfeldt rejected the Old Testament passages cited by Levi and Dussaud (pp. 1-2) and appealed primarily to Jeremiah 48:13 and to certain passages in the minor prophets to demonstrate the presence of Bethel as a god in the Old Testament (pp. 10-17), but a careful and unbiased exegesis of these passages will reveal that Eiftfeldt did not judge correctly, and that Bethel in these passages referred to a place and not to a god. Beth-el means "house of God," and received its name when Jahveh revealed Himself there to Jacob, the father of the twelve patriarchs (Genesis 28:10- 22). Therefore, it is understandable that the place would have been famous in later times, and was a place with sacred connotations. The word occurs about sixty-five times in the Old Testament, and in most instances it will be readily admitted by everyone that it refers to the place. Amos and 57"Der Gott Bethel," Archiv fur Reliaionswissenschaft. Bd. XXVIII, Heft 1/2 (1930), 1-30. Hosea prophesied in the second half of the eighth century B.C., and Jeremiah prophesied more than a century later, but in similar circumstances. The former rebuked Israel's empty and hypocritical formalism and her injustice and predicted her destruction. Jeremiah had a similar ministry to the Southern Kingdom of Judah, and actually lived to see his threats carried out. He prophesied against the background of Amos' and Hosea's prophecies and was influenced by them in his thinking and terminology. These three prophets singled out the most famous places of worship for their attacks, especially Bethel, Beersheba and Gilgal. Eififeldt missed the point completely when he said that the prophets protested against Bethel, Beersheba and Gilgal because these shrines had belonged originally not to Jahveh but to other gods (pp. 12-13, n. 2). Such a thing is not stated or implied in the prophets. While the prophets did rebuke idolatry, the main burden of their exhortation was that their worship of Jahveh was unacceptable to Jahveh, because their hearts were not right. Isaiah, a late contemporary of Amos and Hosea, described Israel's sin this ways "This people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me" (29:13). Hosea echoed this thought: "For I desired mercy 173 and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (6:6), as did Amos: "But let judgement run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream" (5:24). They were offering sacrifices to Jahveh, but not as the law prescribed (Amos 4:4-5). They professed to be servants of Jahveh and to worship Him, and yet they were guilty of vio lence and robbery and oppression and idolatry (Amos 5:21-23, 3:10, 5:11-12; Hosea 8:5, 13:2). Such hypocrisy and empty formalism was unacceptable to Jahveh. Therefore, He prom ised to destroy those places which were the centers of, and synonymous with, such worship. Israel trusted in these places in the sense that they trusted in the religiosity which they practiced there. The facts do not bear out Eififeldt's contention that Bethel appears as a god in the Old Testament. In every instance, it fits just as well to take it as a place, and in most instances such an interpre tation is necessary. Therefore, if Hosea and Amos speak of Bethel as a place in most instances, it is better to under stand it in this way in the two or three places that some might consider questionable, especially when it is in a parallel construction with other place-names in part of those passages (Amos 5:5). I will grant that Bethel may have appeared as a god in the Elephantine papyri. If this 174 is the case, I think it is yet to be proven that this god and Baitylos are the same. Line 300; Dagon: Here called Siton (Greek for grain). Dagon is familiar to us from other literature (e.g., the Old Testament), but it is disputed whether he was a fish god or a god of grain, in spite of the fact that Philo said that 58 he invented grain and the plow (lines 364-365). Atlas: probably a Phoenician deity, according to Clemen (pp. 68- 69) . Lines 312-314: Hermes Trismegistos: A name which is common in the Hermetic writings of the Hellenistic (and later) period. Philo was strongly influenced by the Hermetic writings (see above, pp. 39-48). The declaration that he was the adviser and scribe of Kronos, and that he spoke magical words, fits the character of Hermes as well as that of Thoth. Lines 315-316: Persephone and Athena: In Greek mythology the daughters of Zeus. Movers gave an etymology for these two and for Hermes and Demarous which he supposed Philo had in mind, but it is quite fanciful (pp. 144-145). EiBfeldt and others have correctly stated that Athena represented ^Movers, pp. 143-144. 175 59 . . . the Phoenician goddess 'Anat. This identity is made on a Cyprian bilingual inscription. Ling 328: Demarous: The son of Ouranos and his concubine, the foster son of Dagon. To him was born Melkarthos, or Herakles (lines 376-377). Clemen conjectured that Demarous might have been a river god named after the river Damuras (pp. 66-67). Baudissin supposed the word was related to 60 (Baal) Tamar, a place name ("Palm-Baal") in Phoenicia. Line 336: Mt. Cassius: A place with which Typhon was as sociated, and also apparently where Zeus was worshipped, in Northern Syria; considered to be the Semitic Zaphon. Line 340: Sadidos: If I understand Movers correctly, he accused Philo of tracing Sadidos, by an etymological myth, back to the root n®, which means "to be strong, powerful" 61 (p. 144). Baudissin considered this the correct etymology. Eififeldt argued that the is. of Ieoud had gone through a mutation to sa, and that Ieoud and Sadidos were identical; thus Sadidos, whom Kronos killed with his own sword, was the 59"Taautos Und Sanchunjaton," p. 45; Clemen, p. 68; Baudissin, Studien. I, 38. 60StildiSJl, II, 211. 61Studien. I, 16; Adonis und Esmun. p. 35, n. 1; Clemen, p. 69. 176 same as Ieoud, the first-born son whom Kronos offered as a sacrifice to Ouranos (lines 410-412, 500-516).^ Lines 343-344; Kronos cut off his daughter's head: Clemen rejected Gruppe's conclusion that this referred to Athena (p. 68). Line 348: Astarte: Also called Ishtar and 'Anat and Inanna (Sumerian), the goddess of love and of war. Philo also called her "Astarte the Most Mighty" (line 399) and Aphro dite (line 407). Line 352: Heimarmene: The Greek word for "destiny, fate," from lieCponai. It appeared frequently in the Hermetic writings. Line 353: Hora: "A season, time"; in the plural speaking of the three Horai, keepers of heaven's cloud-gate, daugh ters of Zeus and Themis. I do not know what the import of the word is here. Line 357: Baitylia: See the discussion on Baitylos above at line 299. Line 359: Artemides: The Hathores, goddess of birth, according to Clemen (p. 71). Lines 364-366: Dagon was called Zeus Arotrios: &potpov CO "Sanchunjaton von Berut," p. 19. 177 meant "plow," hence Arotrios. In line 300 he was called Siton (grain). Line 367; Sydykos, who was called Dikaios: Dikaios (Right eous ) confirms the meaning commonly given to Sydyk or Sydykos. Line 370; Zeus Belos: The Babylonian god Bel. Apollo: Reseph or Nabu, in the opinion of Clemen (p. 74). Line 373: Sidon: The eponym of the city of Sidon? This would fit the statement of Philo that she was the daughter of Pontos ("Sea"), since Sidon was a seaport. Perhaps Sidon was early noted for its singers, but that is mere conjec ture . Lines 376-377: Melkarthos, who is Herakles: Melkart means basically "King of the City." Melkart was the god of Tyre,^ and was regarded among the Greeks as a sea deity. Lines 379-380: Demarous attacked Pontos. Clemen connected this to his conjecture that Demarous was a river, and "attacked" "Sea" (Pontos) but was repulsed (p. 66). Lines 382-394: Clemen cited the opinion of Gruppe that this account pictured the mythical prototype of the 63Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun. p. 277. 64Baudissin, Studien. I, 36, n. 2. 178 all-daring man who cut the grain, the produce of the ground from which he himself had come, with a sickle (p. 67). I think this is rather fanciful. He also gave an explanation of why he had reigned thirty-two years, an explanation to which the reader can refer in Clemen. When Philo said that the spot was still pointed out in his time where Ouranos1 blood dropped in the springs and rivers (lines 388-391), Clemen related this to a river south of Byblos which was colored red with soil by the spring rains, and where the castration of Adonis was supposed to have taken place (pp. 65 67-68). Baudissin advanced this same idea, as did Movers also (pp. 141-142). Clemen considered Philo partly depen dent on Hesiod for his account of the castration of Ouranos (p. 67), but while there may have been incidental borrow ings, Philo's account could well have been based on the Hurrian/Hittite myth of "Kingship in Heaven," in which Kumarbi (El/Kronos) castrated Anu (Ouranos), as Eififeldt 66 pointed out. Line 390; up to this present time: Philo's comment that the place was still seen in his own day. f \ ^ q3Adonis und Esmun. p. 125. 6 ® " T a a u t o s und Sanchunjaton." Lines 393-397: the blessing of possessing speech: Similar to a thought contained in the Hermetic writings (C. H. I, 3; XII, 13a). Lines 399-400: Zeus Demarous and Adodos: Eifefeldt followed Gruppe in changing the text to read 6 Hat instead of just 6 7 Hat, "Demarous who is also Adodos." According to Bau- 68 dissin, Adodos was Tin (Hadad). According to Clemen, he was Adad (Hadad?) (p. 66). Baudissin also considered it possible that Hadad had been merged with the god Philo 69 called El. Hadad was Baal, the storm god, and at one time the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon. This fact fits Philo's statement that Adodos was "king of the gods." Lines 401-406: Astarte found a star: Baudissin found fault 70 with Philo for deriving Astarte from aaxrjp, "star." However, I believe the fault lies with Baudissin for reading this view into Philo. I do not find the idea in Philo him self . 67 "Taautos und Sanchunjaton," pp. 41-42, n. 1. 68S£ii2i£H, I, 312-313. 6^Adonis und Esmun. p. 92. He gave a lengthy discus sion of this point oh pp. 33-35 of this work. 70££Siai£IL.. I, 26. T.ingPi 408-410; Kronos gave the rulership over Attica to Athena: EiBfeldt saw in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 the idea that the greatest god distributed command over the countries of 71 the world to the other gods. This idea was found there, however, only after Eififeldt had inserted it by altering the text. In the same place, EiBfeldt presumed this concept was an old Phoenician one, but was certain the assigning of Attica to Athena was Philo's own addition. Linfis 411-412: Kronos offered his son as a burnt offering: In the Pr. Ev., IV. 16, 6 Eusebius cited a statement from Porphyry's De abstinentia (II. 56) that the Phoenician His tory was full of child sacrifice. Actually, this practice was mentioned but one other time (lines 500-516) in the fragments of Philo which we have, though EiBfeldt wanted to 72 alter the text to include it in lines 11-16. Child sac rifice was common among the ancient Semites, and is men tioned frequently in the Old Testament (e.g., II Kings 3:27, 16:3, 17:17, 31, 21:6, 23:10; II Chron. 28:3, 33:6). It occurred not only among the heathen, but sometimes the Hebrews fell into it also. From the information at our 7^"Taautos und Sanchun jaton," p. 45. 7^"Taautos und Sanchun jaton,: ' pp. 27-28. disposal, the sacrifices were usually made to Molech or Moloch (Lev. 18:21, 20:2-5; I Kings 11:7; II Kings 23:10; Jer. 32: 35), a variation of Melek or Malk ("king"), but we cannot say with certainty that such sacrifices were not offered to other gods. In fact, II Kings 17:31 mentions two other gods who received human sacrifices, though the word melek is a part of their names. Nonetheless, the possi bility remains that human sacrifice was offered to other gods also. Lines 413-416: Kronos circumcised himself and compelled his allies to do the same: One is reminded of the parallel in Gen. 17:23-27 where Abraham circumcised himself and all the male members of his household. Though Clemen recorded Renan's view that this referred to the mutilation of Kronos (?), he did not accept it himself (p. 70). Circumcision was required among the Hebrews, and according to Herodotus (II, 104), was common among the Phoenicians also. Baudissin considered Philo's statement a proof that Kronos had become intertwined with Abraham, but Clemen disagreed (p. 70). Lines 416-418: Mouth, whom the Phoenicians called Thanatos and Pluto: We would have expected Philo to say that the Greeks called him Thanatos and Pluto. Mouth (nig, nYa in the construct), in Hebrew, means "death," as Thanatos does 182 in Greek, and Pluto was the Greek god of the underworld and of death. Philo's identification is correct in this case. Lintqs 419-420; Kronos gave Beirut to Poseidon: In regard to this, Eififeldt said: The city of Beirut is now preferably assigned to Posei don, since there are many verifications of the fact that Beirut was a chief cult location of this god. Beirutian coins of the third century B.C. bear the image of Posei don. In the second century B.C., the merchant guild of Poseidonists from Beirut erected on Delos a flourishing cult to their native god Poseidon . . . That this Posei don represents the Greek interpretation of a Phoenician god is certain. It is only a question of whether this Phoenician god can be identified . . . It is probably this Jam ["Sea," a god just mentioned] whom the Greeks and the Greek-educated Phoenicians identified with Po seidon . The Kabeiroi: A coin from the city of Beirut from ancient times had eight sitting figures on one side, and another had two sitting figures, and Clemen thought this verified the existence at Beirut of the eight Kabeiroi and of the Dios- couri, who, in Greek mythology, were two in number (p. 72). Line 420: Baaltis: The same as Baalat, according to Bau- 74 75 dissin. Eififeldt equated her with Dione. Baalat means "mistress" (the feminine of Baal, "lord, master"), but it ^•^"Taautos und Sanchun jaton," pp. 27-28. 74studien. II, 196-198. 7^"Sanchunjaton von Berut," p. 34. 183 came to have the force of a proper name, in many instances. Baudissin said that Astarte was called Baalat-Gebal. that is, "Mistress of Byblos," in Plutarch's De Iside et Osiri- Lines 421-422; "Countrymen (Hunters?)" and "Fishers, Sail ors ." Line 424; Taautos: Tauthos. rather than Taautos. occurs from here to the end of Philo's fragments in most of the mss., and was preferred by Gifford. I do not know how to account for this, unless it is a scribal error which goes back to some particular scribe of this part of Philo's work. It scarcely seems to me that it would go back to Philo him self. I would suppose that even though Philo were following a different tradition for this part of his work, he would have altered the spelling to conform to his usual way of spelling the word. The texts are divided on this matter, with all of them but A and H reading Taautos. the reading adopted by Mras. I believe this reading is preferable. Line 424: Taautos imitated Ouranos: I.e., he drew a pic ture of him, as well as of Kronos and Dagon and the other gods. 76Adonis und Esmun. p. 22. Line 426; the sacred shapes of the letters: Individual letters of the alphabet were regarded as symbols of the 77 gods, according to Baudissin. Lines 427-443: This symbolism seems fairly clear, that Kronos was all-seeing and untiring. Even though two eyes might close in sleep, he still had two with which to watch; even though two wings might be folded in rest, he still had two with which to fly. The other gods had wings, but as less powerful gods, they had only two wings. Philo did not say that they actually had wings, but that they were sym bolized as having wings. Taautos drew pictures of them which portrayed in graphic form the powers which they possessed. Baudissin said that the El of Gebal (i.e., Byb- los) appeared in the form of the winged Kronos on the 78 coins, a fact which Clemen likewise recorded (pp. 74-75). Clemen also conceived this description as being similar to that of the seraphs in Isaiah 6, a comparison which is rather fanciful. The extent of the similarity is that both Kronos and the seraphs had wings. The wings differed both in number and in symbolism. 77Studien. I, 18. 78Adonis und Esmun. p. 22. Line 444; Notos: I.e., "the South," a term often applied to Egypt. This is consonant with the fact that Taautos (or Thoth) was an Egyptian god. Line 448; the first to record . . . as Taautos had command ed: Taautos, as the inventor of letters and writing and record-keeping, and as the patron of writers, would logi cally be the one who had commanded them to record these things. Asclepius: Clemen had no doubt that Asclepius was Esmun, whose name, according to Damascius, meant eighth and who was a god of healing. This explained his connection with the Kabeiroi, who discovered healing herbs and the curing of injurious bites (p. 72). Baudissin en- 79 dorsed this view without reservation. Line 449; Thabion: Clemen included the conjectures of several commentators, but hesitated to approve of any of them. Movers saw in Thabion and Isiris, as he read it, "actual designations of the explanatory scriptures of Taaut the seventh (»yaw), and the tenth (’H?y)." Dussaud identi fied him with the name Ton from the Ras Shamra texts. Clemen did not offer an identification (pp. 13-14). Lines 459-460; Eisirios, the inventor of the three letters 79Adonis, nnd-Saraan, p. 246. and the brother of Chna: Clemen was positive that under the name Chna. the patriarch of the Canaanites was to be under stood, but in the case of Eisirios, he was uncertain, as he was with Thabion. Ewald wanted to read the word as Isri- (o) s. and to explain it as being Israel, with the three letters which he invented being n®1 (i.e., "straight, up right, righteous"). Baudissin and Paton suggested that he was Osiris. EiSfeldt removed the -ios ending, took the con sonants aleoh and s. and r. which formed the base of the word, "corrected" the s to a and came out with Uaarit1 These views are found in Clemen (pp. 13-14). All of these pro posals are pure fancy and sheer conjecture, in my estima tion . Inasmuch as we have no objective facts bearing on these names, these proposals are not capable either of demonstration or refutation. EiSfeldt, in a later work than that just cited by Clemen, considered Eisirios Phoenician rather than Egyptian, and did not believe he was Osiris, or 80 the "one belonging to Osiris," that is, Thoth-Taautos. Movers, however, thought that this was Osiris, and that the three-letter word was Iao. the mysterious name of Adonis, the sun god (pp. 541-542). Adonis (or Iao) was also 80"Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 43-44. 187 Agroueros, Elioun or Hypsistos and Dionysus. Movers stressed that Iao was a secret name and of a mysterious na ture. He also said that the prophet Bytis corresponded to the hierophant Osiris, the inventor of the three-letter word (pp. 542-554). Linss 469-471: It is interesting to note that Philo acknow ledged his familiarity with Greek mythology. Line 481; colorless: Literally, "mere trash, a trifle." Lines 486-487: he himself: Some have understood these words of Porphyry, some of Philo alone, but Eiftfeldt appar ently intended to refer them to Philo and Sanchuniathon 8X jointly. The confusion is brought in by the reference to Sanchuniathon, Philo and Porphyry in the preceding lines (483-486), so that it is not immediately clear which one Eusebius had in mind when he then said "he himself." I believe, however, that a careful examination of the succeed ing lines will demonstrate that these words have to be applied to Philo and no other. In line 499, Eusebius intro duced another quotation with the words "And shortly after ward, he says:", and we must assume that the "he" of whom Eusebius spoke was the "he himself" of lines 486-487. Then Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 29-31, n. 4. in lines 517-524, Eusebius introduced another quotation which is apparently from the same writer. He began the introduction to this quotation with the same words ( ' o 6 * auT6q, "and he himself") found in lines 486-487. Further more, Eusebius said: "And he himself again translated . . . from Sanchuniathon." The word again implies that this author had just been quoted, and the fact that he was trans lating from Sanchuniathon makes it the most natural thing to understand this statement of Philo, a view which, to the best of my knowledge, is held by most commentators on this passage. If my analysis is correct, then, Philo was the writer to whom Eusebius referred in lines 517-524 and in line 499, and thus the one intended by "he himself" in lines 486-487. This conclusion likewise fits well in the context of lines 483-488. Porphyry was introduced only incidentally, to verify the writings of Sanchuniathon which Philo had translated. Sanchuniathon was in view, but was in the background as the originator of the writings mentioned. Philo was in the foreground as the one through whose agency Eusebius had this material. Therefore, the treatise about the Jews belongs, in that case, to Philo rather than to Porphyry or Sanchuniathon. Lines 495-496: Sourmoubelos and Thouro, who was given the 189 new name Eusarthis; Eusarthis is the reading given in manuscripts A and H, the two best manuscripts, but Eififeldt considered it certain that Chousarthis. the reading of all the other manuscripts, was correct, and that it reflected Koscharat. the feminine form of Koschar or Chusor (line 82 246). Eiftfeldt quoted approvingly Renan's explanation of Sourmoubelos as simmure bel ("laws of Bel"), and Mover's view that Thouro was Torah ("law") as at least pointing in the right direction. He then surmised that the double naming of a figure with "law" (Thouro) and "order" (Chou sarthis) would be reasonable (pp. 18, 21-22). EiBfeldt's own explanation of Sourmoubelos was that an original is. had gone through a mutation into s., after the supposed analogy of Ieoud/Sadidos. and that Sourmoubelos was actually Hier- ombalos. mentioned in line 16 (pp. 18-21). Eififeldt re jected the explanation proposed by Nautin that Sourmoubelos was Ba'al of gor (Lord of Tyre), and that Thouro was like wise connected with Tyre (p. 18). Eififeldt's interpreta tions are very questionable, in my estimation. They impute to the ancients extremely abstruse and fanciful reasoning in their personification of abstractions. While the Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 17-18. ancients did personify abstractions, I believe there is great danger that we will read into their names and their statements thoughts that are not there. Clemen likewise, incidentally, opposed the views here copied from EiBfeldt, and with admirable restraint and humility, concluded that we cannot explain these names (p. 14). Lines 507-508: Kronos . . . called Elos: Baudissin sug gested that manuscripts A and H should have read Israel instead of El. because ir)\ was a frequent abbreviation for 83 ’lopaf)\ but that an interpolator had changed it. Movers assigned this passage to Philo's Treatise about the Jews (cf. line 487), and remarked that one is led inevitably to the conclusion that the Phoenician myth is parallel to the history of Israel and Abraham (pp. 130-131). Line 511: Anobret: Movers interpreted this word as may py, "overflowing" or "watery source" (literally "spring of outpouring"), and thought it probably referred to Sarah, since the Jews, according to Isaiah 48:1, originated from the waters of Judah, and according to Isaiah 51:1 (?), flowed forth from Sarah's well. In this way, Movers sup posed, the Phoenician folk-tale explained why the 83SiMisa, i, 39. Israelites bore the name o’nay. In the same way, the name Jews (Tin’) originated with the story of Abraham's sacrifice of his only (Tin’ for "nn’) son. Movers made this entire section a parallel to the Old Testament story of Abraham and Sarah and their descendants (pp. 130-131). Baudissin 84 explained Anobret as npin ("spring of union" [?]). Line 512; Ieoud: I believe we are probably correct in tracing this word back to t >rp (or perhaps to Tin’, appar ently an incorrect form of T»n'’). Philo used the term |iovoyevf|Q ("only, only begotten") in line 512 and several other times, and this is an exact translation of *nn’ (Iechivd or Ieiyd. or Ieoud if we assume n n ’). One can readily see how some have gotten Judah out of this word. Philo spoke of this one also as the "most beloved child" (line 504). The Hebrew word for this is which may be reflected in the Iedoud of manuscripts A and H. Lines 517-595; This long passage is devoted to a treatment of serpents, by both Sanchuniathon and Philo and other au thors whom Philo quoted. Lines 518-519; ctoix^ 011 A composition different from 84Studien. II, 158, n. 2. 85 Phoenician History and not by Sanchuniathon. Linps 519-523; A critical comment by Eusebius on the Phoe nician teachings about serpents. Lines 525-553; Baudissin made Taautos the snake god him self, and not just the writer about the snake. He said that his worship came from Egypt, where the worship of Tehuti was ancient to the Phoenicians. The name tut (tait) in Arabic meant, among other things, "snake," and the letter o (tet) seemed to get its name from its snake-like form. The Arabic £u£ also meant "hawk." In the third place, the Arabic tut 86 meant strenuus, 7tp&HTtH0Q, "quick, nimble, active." Thus Baudissin explained the root-form of Taautos as designating the snake (cf. lines 525-527), and the hawk, which, in ef fect, was equated with the snake (cf. lines 552-553, 558- 559, 573); furthermore, swiftness or nimbleness character ized both the serpent (cf. lines 528-530, 535) and the hawk (cf. lines 552-553), and that was a third meaning of this word. In fact, TtpcbtTlhoq occurs in line 553. The serpent was commonly worshipped, or at least was a part of the wor ship, in both Greece and Egypt, as well as in the Semitic ®^Baudissin, Studien. I, 41. ®^Baudissin, Studien. I, 19-20, n. 1. 193 worId. Some of the thoughts contained in this passage (lines 525-553) are similar to thought in the Hermetic writings (cf. above, p. 45). Line 537: putting off its old age: I.e., shedding its skin. Line 545: Ethiothiae: Baudissin considered this to be probably the Phoenician word for Ta atoixeta (cf. line 519), and proposed that ethoth had been corrupted from 87 ninitt "sign." Clemen followed von Gutschmid and Baudissin in writing the word as Thotheion. and understanding the phrase to refer to a commentary on the works or teachings of 88 Thoth (p. 12). This is the position held by Eififeldt too. In addition, Eiftfeldt equated this work to the writing Qn the Physiology of Hermesf Which Was Translated, which Suidas 89 ascribed to Sanchuniathon. However, Philo spoke of the Ethothiae (or Thotheion Hupomnema) as "our [i.e., my] work," and we must either assume Philo was taking undue license 87Studien. I, 18. 88"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," pp. 43-44; "Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 59-60, n. 1. Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 59-60. with the facts or reject EiBfeldt's identification of this work with that of Sanchuniathon. 90 Line 551« Kneph: Baudissxn equated Kneph and Khnum, and Khnum was the Egyptian god who formed man out of clay on his potter 1s whee1. Lines 553-556; Epeeis: "The greatest mystical expounder and sacred scribe" of the Egyptians. We do not know who he was. Line 556; Areius: We do not know him either. He trans lated the work of Epeeis into Greek. Lines 558-562: These lines are reminiscent of a passage in the Hermetica (cf. above, p. 45) and apparently here, as there, this god was considered to be the sun. This also fits the other statements about him, that he was fiery (lines 529, 563, 572) and had his own light (lines 564-565). Lines 562-565: Epeeis . . . used the word: I.e., Epeeis as translated by Areius. Line 565: Pherecvdes: From the island of Syros. He was a mythologist and cosmologist, and flourished around the middle of the sixth century B.C. There was also a Phere- cydes of Athens who flourished around the middle of the 90Studien. I, 199, n. 1. 195 fifth century B.C. and who wrote mythical and genealogical 91 histories. Eififeldt related Philo's reference to the 92 older Pherecydes. J4n§—568: Ophion: An Orphic god, the husband of Eurynome 93 and ruler of the universe before Kronos. Linp 573; a hawk-shaped serpent: The Egyptian god Phre, .. 94 the sun. Line 576: Zoroaster: The best-known form of his name Zara- thustra. The Greeks had heard of him as early as the fifth century B.C., and mentions of him are common in the Hellen istic period. His teachings were fairly well known in 95 Greek philosophic circles from about the time of Plato on. A Magos: a wise man or seer or magician. Ling 586: Ostanes: According to a notice in Nautin, Ostanes, along with Bytis, allegedly discovered the teach- 96 ings of Thoth in the inner sanctuary of a temple. 910xford Classical Dictionary, p. 676. 92"Taautos und Sanchunjaton," p. 48. 930xford Classical Dictionary, p. 622. 94Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-Enqlish Lexi con (Oxford, 1958), p. 820, under £epocH6nop<po<;. 950x£ord ..Classical Dictionary, p. 968. 9^Nautin, p. 272. Line 587: Octateuchos: I.e., The Eight Volumes. T.inp 591; the first elements: The letters of the alphabet in lines 274-275. Lines 594-595: the greatest gods: This contradicts Philo's statement in lines 102-108 that those were considered the greatest gods who had provided the necessities of life. These statements cannot be reconciled by referring them to different people, because in both instances Philo was speak ing of the Egyptians, or of people who had gotten their teachings from the Egyptians. This example is character istic of Philo's syncretistic method, which often incorpor ated contradictory statements into his work. Line 596: So much, then, for serpents: Gifford ended Philo's discourse on serpents at line 587, but I believe Eififeldt (following Muller and Nautin) was correct in ending 97 the passage at line 595. Eusebius concluded quotations in a similar way (TOLauTT) ) in three other passages (lines 150, 168, 615) and with the identical word (xoaauTCX ) in one other place (line 391). This seems to.be one standard way Eusebius concluded a quotation and resumed speaking in his own person, and would therefore argue that line 595 rather 97"Sanchunjaton von Berut," p. 12. than line 587 is the end of this quotation from Philo. T.i nps 596-600: Eusebius1 concluding exhortation against heathen theology. T.inps 601-613i I.e., "the statements quoted above were not taken from poets, who were writing make-believe stories; they were taken from wise and ancient theologians, and were meant to be taken literally. Therefore, if they contradict one another, that only proves my point, that heathen theolo gy is contradictory and erroneous and not to be believed." Such was the reasoning with which Eusebius closed the sec tion on Phoenician theology. •Linas 615-616; Eusebius was discussing the theology of various peoples. He had finished with that of the Phoeni cians and was now going to pass on to that of the Egyptians. CONCLUSION I cannot detect any particular connection between, or progression within, the fragments of Philo which are found in the Praenaratio. Apparently Eusebius copied isolated passages which substantiated the point he was trying to make at the moment, without any attempt to tie them together in an integrated whole. Eififeldt suggested that Philo's purpose was to fight against mythology.'*' I believe it would be more accurate to say that Philo's purpose was to fight against whatever mythology disagreed with his own. It is an oversimplifica tion to say only that Philo was a euhemerist. Alongside his euhemerism (lines 100-110, et passim) he said that earthly elements and heavenly bodies (lines 115-123), the produce of the earth (lines 178-183), serpents (lines 525-573), "the first elements" (lines 590-595), and perhaps other things ^"Sanchunjaton von Berut," pp. 62-63. 198 199 too, were likewise gods. We do not find consistency and agreement in Philo, either on this point or on numerous others. One of the strongest influences on Philo was the Her metic writings, and these came from the Hellenistic age and later. This influence is seen repeatedly in similarity of phraseology and concept: Philo frequently repeated con cepts and used phrases which can be traced back to the Her- metica, and the Thoth which Philo pictured was the Thoth of the Hellenistic period, not the Thoth of the ancient Egypt ian writings. Previous writers have, to the best wf my knowledge, overlooked this influence altogether, or have, at the most, hinted at it. The Ras Shamra texts have elucidated some points in Philo's fragments which were formerly obscure, but there are still many points on which it is impossible to render a dogmatic judgment, and some on which one cannot even give a worthwhile conjecture. Some of the speculations which I have cited in this paper have been very imaginative, and some quite appealing, but they remain speculations nonethe less. On some of Philo's material we will have to suspend judgment until further evidence is brought to light. a p p e n d i x e s 200 A P P E N D I X A PHOENICIAN HISTORY STEMMATA Beginning of Creation Spirit loved and mingled with its own first principle and that interweaving was called Pothos (lines 133-137). From its combination with spirit, Mot arose (lines 137-139). From this arose all the seeds of creation and the birth of the universe (lines 141- 142). 201 Kolpia Baau 202 i -- Aion Protogonos Genos Genea Phos Phlox Pyr Cassius Libanus i Antilibanus l Brathy J Merriroumos Hypsoiiranios Ousoos MANY AGES LATER Agreus Halieus Chrysor “I ---1 ---- 1 9 9 9 Technites Autochthon Agros i ____ Agroueros *(Agrotes) Aletai (Titans) Amynos i ____ Magos Misor I Taautos Sydyk Dioscouri 203 Misor Taautos Sydyk Dioscouri I _____ Elioun- Lovely Mate ■Berouth r 9 9 9 9 9 Ouranos- ~Ge Dagon Elos (Kronos) Baitylos Atlas Demarous Melkarthos Persephone Athena Sadidos Kronos Zeus Belos Apollo Nereus Pontos Sidon Poseidon — - ! ---------------------------------------------------------------- - i Rhea —i — Kronos— — Drone Astarte- Kronos 7 Titanesses Pothos Eros 2 daughters 1 Titaness- ■ Sydykos 7 sons Asclepios A P P E N D I X B INDEX VERBORUM 204 INDEX VERBORUM Name Abibalos Adodos Agreus Agros Agrotai Agrotes (Agroueros) Agroueros (Agrotes) Aion Aletai (Titans) Ammouneioi Amynos Anobret Antilibanus Aphrodite (Astarte) Apollo Areios of Herakleiapolis Artemides (Titanesses) Asclepios Astarte (Aphrodite) Atlas Athena Autochthon (Epigeios, Ouranos) Baaltis (fem.) Baau (fem.) Baitylia Baitylos Beelsamen (Helios, Zeus) Belos (Zeus) Berouth Boreas Brathy Line 17 400 242 261 421 261 261 190, 192, 209 269 75 270 511 217 407 370 556 359 367, 447 348, 358, 363, 399, 401, 407 300, 331 316, 317, 410 257, 286 420 189 357 299 198 370 285 177 217 205 206 Name Line Cassius Chna ("first Phoenician") Chrysor (or Chousor?) (Hephaestus, Zeus Mei- lichios) 216, 460 246 336 Dagon (Arotrios, Siton, Zeus) Demarous (Zeus) Dikaios (Sydykos) Dione Dioscouri (Kabeiroi, Kory- bantes, Samothracians) 326, 364 376, 379, 380, 399 367 349, 362, 420 278, 334 Eisirios Elioun (Hypsistos) Eloeim Elos (Kronos) Epeeis Epigeios (Autochthon, Ouranos) Eros Ethothia (by Philo) Eusarthis (or Chousar- this?, Thouro) 459 284 338 299, 337, 383, 508 553, 562 286 364 545 496 Ge Gene a Genos 291, 298, 302, 309, 321 194 194, 209 Halieus Halieis Heimarmene Hephaestus (Chrysor, Zeus Meilichios) Herakles (Melkarthos) Hermes (Taautos) Hesiod Hieronibalos Holy Scriptures of the Persians (by Zoroaster) 242 422 352 248 377 61, 277, 312, 317, 318, 332 469 16 576 207 Name Line Hypsistos (Elioun) 284, 293 Hypsouranios 219, 223, 242 Ieoud 512 Incredible History (by Philo) 98 Ieuo 16 Kabeiroi (see Dioscouri) Kneph Kolpia Korybantes (see Dioscouri) Kronos (Elos) Kronos II Libanus 278, 421, 446 551 188 279 299, 311, 315, 317, 319, 321, 325, 328, 330, 338, 339 340, 345, 349, 350, 353 354, 358, 368, 383, 391 394, 401, 408, 411, 419 425, 427, 433, 440, 443 488, 507, 509 369 216 Magos 270 Melkarthos (Herakles) 376 Memroumos (or Samemrou- mos?) 218 Misor ("Yielding") 272, 274 Moses 21 Mot 139, 148 Mouth (Pluto, Thanatos) 416 Nereus 372 Notus 177 Ophion 568 Octateuchos (by Ostanes) 587 Ostanes 586 208 Name Line Ouranos (Epigeios, Autochthon) Ousoos 287, 297, 301, 303, 305, 314, 321, 322, 324, 327, 346, 352, 356, 378, 384, 387, 412 226, 233 Persephone Pherecydes Philo of Byblos Phlox Phos Pluto (Mouth, Thanatos) Pontos Porphyry Poseidon Pothos Protogonos Pyr 315 565 5, 30, 46, 124, 484 211 211 418 371, 372, 373, 378, 380, 422 486 376, 420 135, 364 191, 210 211 Rhea 348, 360, 416 Sadidos Sanchuniathon Semiramis Samothracians (see Dioscouri) Sidon Siton (Dagon) Sourmoubelos Sydek (Sydyk, Sydykos) Sydyk (i.e., "Just"— Sydek, Sydykos) Sydykos (Sydek, Sydyk) 340 1, 12, 22, 31, 46, 48, 50, 125, 486, 517 27 279 373 300 495 446 272, 278 367 Taautos (Hermes, Thoth, Thoyth) Thoth (see Taautos) Thoyth (see Taautos) Technites 55, 56, 171, 274, 424, 445, 449, 489, 497, 525, 540, 589 60, 277 60, 276, 489 256 209 Name Thabion 449 Thanatos (Mouth, Pluto) 418 Thouro (fem.) (Eusarthis, or Chousarthis?) 495 Titanesses (Artemides) 359, 366 Titans (Aletai) 269 Typhon 371 Zophasemin ("Watchers of Heaven") 146 Zeus (Beelsamen, Helios) 200 Zeus Arotrios (Dagon) 365 Zeus Belos 370 Zeus Demarous (see Dema- rous) 399 Zeus Meilichios (Chrysor, Hephaestus) 253 Zoroaster 576 Line b i b l i o g r a p h y 210 BIBLIOGRAPHY fiflflfca Baudissin, Wolf Wilhelm Grafen. Adonis und Esmun, eine Untersuchuncr zur Geschichte des Glaubens an Aufer- stehungsgotter und an Heilgotter. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich'sche Buchhandlung, 1911. Studien zur semitischen Reliqionsqeschichte. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1876. Boylan, Patrick. Thoth the Hermes of Egypt: A Study of Some Aspects of Theological Thought in Ancient Egypt. London and New York: H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1922. Evelyn-White, Hugh G., trans. Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica. (Loeb Classical Library.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959. Finegan, Jack. Light from the Ancient Past: The Archaeo logical Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1959. Frazer, Sir James George, trans. Apollodorus: The Library. 2 vols. (Loeb Classical Library.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. Gaster, Theodor H. The Oldest Stories in the World. Bos ton: Beacon Press, 1959. __________________ . Thespis: Ritual. Mvth^and Drama_in the Ancient Near East. Rev. ed. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1961. 211 212 Gifford, Edwin Hamilton. rEvangelica Praeparatio— Greek and English 1 . . . Ad codices manuscriptos denuo collates recensuit, anglice nunc primum reddidit, notis et indicibus instruxit E. H. Gifford. Libri XV, Tomus I. Oxonii: 1903. Grant, Frederick C., ed. Hellenistic Religions; The Age of Syncretism. (The Library of Liberal Arts.) Indiana polis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1953. Grant, Robert McQueen. Gnosticism: A Source Book of Here tical Writings from the Early Christian Period. New York: Harper, 1961. Guterbock, Hans G. "Hittite Mythology." In Mythologies of the Ancient World, ed. Samuel Noah Kramer. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1961. Hooke, S. H. Middle Eastern Mythology. Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1963. Kapelrud, Arvid S. The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament, trans. G. W. Anderson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965. Mead, G. R. S. Thrice Greatest Hermes. London: The Theo- sophical Publishing Society, 1906. Movers, Franz C. Die Phonizier. Vol. I. Bonn, 1841. Mras, Karl. Eusebius Werke. Vol. VIII: Die Praeparatio Evangelica. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954. Nilsson, Martin Persson. A History of Greek Religion, trans. F. J. Fielden. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949. Nock, Arthur Darby. Earlv Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background. (The Cloister Library.) New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964. ___________________, and A.-J. Festugiere. Corpus Hermeti- cum. (Collection des Universites de France publiee sous le patronage de 1'Association Guillaume Bude.) 213 4 vols. Paris: Societe d'Edition "Les Belles Lettres," 1945-1954. Pope, Marvin H., and Wolfgang Rollig. "Syrien. Die Mytho- logie der Ugariter und Phonizier." In Gotter und Mythen im vorderen Orient. Vol. I of Worterbuch der Mythologie. ed. Hans Wilhelm Haussig. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1962. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relat ing to the Old Testament. 2d ed. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1955. Sanchoniathonis Historiarum Phoeniciae Libri IX. Bremae, 1837. Sanchuniathons Uraeschichte der Phonizier in einem Auszuge aus der wieder aufgefundenen Handschrift von Philos vollstandiger Ubersetzuno. Hanover, 1836. Sandys, Sir John, trans. The Odes of Pindar. Including the Principal Fragments. (Loeb Classical Library.) Cam bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. III. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Com pany, 1950. Scott, Walter. Hermetica: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings Which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teach ings Ascribed to Hermes Trismeoistus. Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. Smyth, Herbert Weir, trans. Aeschylus. Vol. I. (Loeb Classical Library.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni versity Press, 1963. Walcot, Peter. Hesiod and the Near East. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales Press, 1966. West, M. L., ed. Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. 214 Whiston, William, trans. The Works of Flavius Josephus, the learned and authentic Jewish Historian, and celebrated warrior, to which is added, Three Dissertations, con cerning Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, James the Just, God's Command to Abraham, etc., etc. London: Milner and Sowerby, Paternoster Row, n.d. Articles and Periodicals Clemen, Carl. "Die phonikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos," Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-aeayptischen Gesellschaft (E. V.), XLII, Heft 3 (1939). Eiflfeldt, Otto. "Der Gott Bethel," Archiv fur Reliqions- - wissenschaft. XXVIII, Heft 1/2 (1930), 1-30. . "Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumilku von Ugarit," Beitraae zur Reliaionsqeschichte des Alter- turns. V (1952). ____________ . "Taautos und Sanchunjaton," Sitzunosbe- richte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Bet U P, I (1952). Gordon, Cyrus Herzl. "Homer and Bible: The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature," Hebrew Union College Annual, ed. Sheldon H. Blank et al., XXVI (1955), 43-108. Holscher, Uvo. "Anaximander und die Anfange der Philoso- phie," Hermes: Zeitschrift fur klassische Philoloqie. ed. Karl Buchner, Hans Diller, Herbert Nesselhauf, LXXXI, Heft 4 (1953), 385-401. Nautin, Pierre. "Sanchuniaton chez Philon de Byblos et chez Porphyre," Revue Biblique. LVI (1949), 259-273. Dictionaries and Lexicons "Euemeros," Pauly'.s.. Eeal-Encyc.lflR.Mie.4sE .class is chen a iter- ■ t nmswjss. s nsflbaf t (1907), xi, 952-972. 215 "Eusebios," Pauly's Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (1907), XI, 1370-1439. "Herennios Philo von Byblos," Pauly's Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (1912), XV, 650-661. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. McDonald, Alexander Hugh. "Sanchuniathon," The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. M. Cary gtJal. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Montgomery, James Alan. "Philon of Byblos," The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. M. Cary et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. "Ophion," The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. M. Cary et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Rose, Herbert Jennings. "Zoroaster," The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. M. Cary et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Ross, William David. "Pherecydes of Syros," The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. M. Cary et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. "Sanchuniathon," Pauly's Real-Encvclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (1920), Series 2, II, 2232-2244.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Delia And Nemesis In The Corpus Tibullianum

PDF

'Antigone': A Study In Critical Method

PDF

A Factor-Analytic Study Of Problem-Solving Abilities

PDF

A syntactic analysis of the written language of selected Black elementary school children with reference to sociological variables

PDF

Julian And Athanasius--A Study In The Implications Of The Doctrine Of Creation

PDF

John William De Forest: A Study Of Realism And Romance In Selected Works

PDF

Servius' Knowledge Of Juvenal: An Analysis Of The Juvenalian Quotations In Servius' Commentary On Vergil

PDF

Plutarch On The Glory Of The Athenians: A Reassessment

PDF

A Factor Analytic Study Of Tests Designed To Measure Reading Ability

PDF

Theme, Rheme, And Focus As Grammatical Universals

PDF

Tibullus I: Theme And Technique: "Di Tibi Divitias Dederunt"

PDF

A Syntactic Analysis Of The Writing Of Some Fourth-Grade, Fifth-Grade, And Sixth-Grade Caucasian Children In The Los Angeles Schools

PDF

Studies In The Contemporary American And British Science Fiction Novel

PDF

A Descriptive Syntax Of King Alfred'S Soliloquies

PDF

Theological And Dramatic Concepts Of The End Of Man In The Middle Ages

PDF

Effects Of Labeling As Emr On Teachers' Expectancies For Change In A Student'S Performance

PDF

The Kinetic Behavior Of A One-Dimensional Ising Lattice

PDF

Organizational Behavior: Experimental Field Study Using Short Simulation Games And The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire

PDF

A Critical Appraisal Of The Prevalent Model Of Scientific Explanation

PDF

'Guingamor,' 'Guigemar,' 'Graelentmor,' 'Lanval,' And 'Desire': A Comparative Study Of Five Breton Lays

Asset Metadata

Creator Williams, Philip Roland (author)

Core Title A Commentary To Philo Byblius' 'Phoenician History'

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Classics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag literature, classical,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Phinney, Edward (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member), Epp, Eldon J. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-659787

Unique identifier UC11361201

Identifier 6906510.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-659787 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6906510.pdf

Dmrecord 659787

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Williams, Philip Roland

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA