[See page image]

Page 198

devised symbols of royalty for Kronos, and had received from him Egypt. The Cabeiri, Suduc's seven sons, reduced these things to writing. But the first Phenician hierophant, Thabion, allegorized the narrative and made myths of them, the prophets inaugurated the mysteries, while their successors diffused myths and ceremonials. The Greeks, in accordance with their genius, were most fertile in carrying this process forward, especially Hesiod and the Cyclic poets. Quotations from a work cited by Eusebius as "History of the Jews" repeat the story of Thoth's rescuing of the worship of the gods from ignorance, and proceeds to relate that the ancients used in crises to sacrifice their most beloved children with mystic rites. Kronos (Elus) was deified as Saturn, but had previously by Anobret a son Iedud, whom he sacrificed on an occasion like that mentioned in II Kings iii. 26-27. The origin of serpent worship is ascribed to Thoth, who saw in this animal and in the dragon the divine nature.

The material here presented embodies an eclectic theory of the origin of the gods, combining the Euhemeristic theory (see EUHEMERUB) with the naturalistic (deification of cosmic or stellar or natural forces). The line of transmission of the fragments is not altogether devoid of obscurity.

For centuries the opinion obtained that g. Antiquity Eusebius quoted from Porphyry; but of Material a closer examination warrants the con-

uity of Sanchuniathon, and that for the rest he used Philo direct. The alleged antiquity is implied by Philo in his statements that the results of Sanchuniathon's researches had long before been perverted by the Greeks, and that Greek myths, which go back to Hesiod, were derived from this falsified material. Philo's task as he states it was to recover once more the facts from the perverted statement of them. But the fragments bear internal evidence that no such antiquity can be granted. The incidents with which they are made contemporary were not of the same period. Semiramis (the Assyrian queen of Greek legend is probably to be identified with Sammuramat, consort of Adad-nirari V., 812-783) was not a contemporary of the Trojan war, but considerably later. Hierombalos is evidently the Greek form for Jerubbaal (Judges ix.-x.), while by Abibalus is evidently meant the father of Hiram of Tyre who was a contemporary of Solomon (cf. Josephus, Ant., VIII., v. 3) ; all of these are made nearly the contemporaries of Moses. Moreover the dedication of a work of history in those times is almost certainly an anachronism. It is beyond belief that Euhemerism was so old as to have become the subject of so early priestly falsification, which, moreover, reverses the course of history. When to Euhemerism is added so late a theory as the eclectic employed in this narrative, the ascription of so great an antiquity falls to the ground of its own weight.

It still remains to ask whether Philo reproduced the work of a man much later in history. It is to be noted that the processes of criticism reveal an evident complexity of sources. At least two cosmogonies are present besides the Greek (cf. Eusebius,

ut sup., 33c with 34c). There are present at least three accounts of the invention of navigation

-by Ousous, Chrysor-Hepheestus, and 6. Complex- the Dioscuri. Similarly, there are ity of triple accounts of the origin of hunting

and Agros and Agrueros, the first of whom invented clothing from the skins of wild animals he had slain. While so far this might have existed in the supposed original of Philo's work, a whole series of facts, viz., the distinct mingling of two separate lines of tradition-the Semitic and the Greek, the latter of which was not in existence at the time implied by Philo himself for the composition; the facts that the whole work is a distinct echo of Euhemerus (who claimed to have discovered his basal material in a temple; the most notable instance of Euhemerism in the assumption that Light, Fire, and Flame were the names of three men which were given to their discovery-a statement truly Spencerian in its boldness!); that the part assigned to Hermes as the adviser of the gods belongs to late post-Alexandrian theology; that a Greek play of words is found which involves the material of tradition (astkr, "star," Astarte); that the method of handling Greek, especially Hesiodic, theology is that of the period about the Christian era; that the forms followed in Phenician names are rarely old Phenician but rather Aramaic (cf. the form Beelsamen instead of the true Phenician Baalsameme),-all these considerations make it practically certain that Sanchuniathon was a fictitious personage upon whom Philo fathered the material which embodied his own philosophy of religion.

While there is little that is remarkable in the Greek material which Philo employed, the use of Semitic is interesting. The name Sanchuniathon reproduces a correct formation and means " (the god) Sakkun has given," and such a deity is abundantly attested in Phenician and Carthaginian environment. The deity Aion as discoverer of fruit finds a certain war-

rant in the inscription in Semitic enSemitic vironment on a late coin. Melcathrus

Material is evidently Melcarth-Herakles. Muth Employed. (Semitic for "death") is punned upon.

Adodos is Hadad, but Aramaic rather than Phenician. That Hebrew tradition is drawn upon is shown not only by mention of Hierombalos and Abibalus, but by the phrase " Iedud, the only begotten being" (Eusebius, ut sup., 40c; cf. yahid, "only son," Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16, in the narrative of the tempting of Abraham). Ieuo is as clearly Yahweh; Due is the Hebrew El, "God" (or the Semitic ilu, "god"). Is Ousous the hunter to be connected with Esau the hunter or with Usu, the cuneiform name for the mainland of Tyre? Misor and Suduc are Semitic abstracts, "equity" and "righteousness," though there may have been a Phenician deity ,Zdk. Zophasemim is correctly rendered "observers of heaven," Elioun and Eloim (Eusebius, 37b) have already been commented upon. The reasoning of the introduction is of a piece with the professed discussion, while the first part of the.cosmogony is but the prologue to account for Greek mythology, used in the second part. Moreover the