Greek Connections: Genesis 1–11 and the Poetry of Hesiod

Abstract

A comparison between Genesis 1–11 and the poetry of Hesiod reveals many interesting similarities that suggest the biblical authors, the Yahwist Historian and the Priestly Editors, were familiar with Hesiod's works in the fifth century BCE. Interesting similarities include the decline in the quality of human existence, the distancing of God/ gods from the world, creation of the world, woman and the “fall,” divine-human offspring, the descendants of the food hero, segmented genealogies, and other themes.

Keywords

Hesiod Theogony Works and Days Catalogue of Women Yahwist Historian Priestly Editors segmented genealogies four ages or five ages of humanity divine-human offspring

Aconsideration of the biblical narratives in Genesis 1–11 that are attributed to the Yahwist Historian and Priestly Editors in comparison with the epics of the Greek poet Hesiod can provide interesting and valuable insights. The biblical text and Hesiod both spoke of primordial events. Hesiod devoted most of his poetry to describing the origin of the cosmos, the gods, and the heroes of ancient times prior to the Trojan War, which for him was the beginning of his own age. The Primeval History in Genesis 1–11 is the prelude to recalling the tales of the patriarchs in Genesis 12–26, 38 and the story of Israel's birth in the exodus experience recounted in the book of Exodus. Thus, both literatures were meant to be preludes to the story of the Greek and Israelite peoples respectively. My suspicion is that the biblical author may have been familiar with Hesiod's writings. In the past biblical scholars have looked to Mesopotamian narratives to elucidate biblical stories, and the materials in Genesis 1–11 especially. I, too, have engaged in this approach to the biblical text (Gnuse 2014). But I believe it is time to look to the west, to the Greek traditions, to gain further insight into the materials that might have been available to our biblical authors.

Only in the past generation have some biblical scholars begun to pursue an analysis of biblical texts in the Primary History (Genesis through 2 Kings) and Greek texts. Such considerations were not undertaken when early dates were given for the biblical literature. But with the increasing tendency over the past thirty years to lower the dates for the origination of biblical texts, it has become feasible, even advisible to look for connections between Greek texts and biblical narratives.

For many years critical scholars located the Yahwist traditions of the Pentateuch in the era of the United Monarchy, specifically in the court of Solomon, and they spoke of the Yahwist as a bard who crafted an epic oral narrative. The Yahwist Narrative constitutes most of the text in Genesis 1–11, and includes Genesis 2:4b–25; 3:1–24; 4:1–25; 6:1–8; 7:1–5, 17–24; 8:6–12, 20–22; 9:18–29; 10:8–19, 21, 24– 30; 11:1–9, 27–32. Priestly narratives are believed to include Genesis 1:1–2:4a; 5:1–32; 6:11–22; 7:6–16; 8:1–5, 13–19; 9:1–17; 10:1–7, 20, 22–23, 31–32; 11:10–26. However, in the past generation increasingly scholars have suggested an exilic or post exilic date for this material, calling the Yahwist a historian rather than a bard. John Van Seters in several works has defended this position (1975; 1992; 1994). I have contributed an article defending the same notion by suggesting that the Yahwist account of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1–9 is a parody on the uncompleted ziggurat building efforts of Nabonidus, who fell from power around 540 BCE (Gnuse 2010b: 229–44). Thus, like Van Seters and others, I date the Yahwist to 500 BCE or later. If we date the Yahwist to 500 BCE or later, and the Priestly materials in Genesis 1–11 are already dated by us to that same era, then comparison with the Greek literary tradition becomes feasible.

Persian or Hellenistic Origins?

Scholars who date the origin of the biblical literature later fall more or less into two camps. One group suggests that most of the biblical narratives in Genesis through 2 Kings arose in the Persian period, and they would date the emergence of the texts between 500 and 330 BCE. They would find value in pursuing the comparison of biblical texts with Homer, He-siod, Hecataeus of Miletus, and Herodotus especially, since those Greek texts would have emerged before 400 BCE and thus could have been available for the scribes who created our biblical texts. The other group of scholars suggest that most of the biblical narratives arose in the Hellenistic period, perhaps between 300 and 250 BCE. They suggest that the Hebrew text arose only a short time before the Greek Septuagint was translated from it. They would further suggest that the vast majority of the biblical narratives in Genesis through 2 Kings are theological fiction. They would consider a much wider range of Greek literature in their evaluation of the sources for the biblical authors.

Significant contributions have been made by authors who work with the assumption of Persian period origins. Studies have compared the writings of Herodotus with the Primary History, Genesis through 2 Kings, often analyzing particular biblical texts (Bolin: 3–15; Nielsen; Wesselius 1999: 24–77; 2002: 1–103; Stott: 52–78; Gnuse 2010a: 31–45). Other scholars, who project the origin of the Primary History into the Hellenistic period, after 300 BCE, frequently suggest that scribes in Alexandria were responsible for the bulk of the biblical narratives and the Septuagintal translation. Sometimes they speak in general terms about the entire biblical corpus, at times they analyze specific texts (Lemche 1993: 163–93; 2001: 200–24; 2011: 75–92; Thompson 1999a: 258–83; 1999b; Larsson: 296–311; Niesiowolski-Spano 2011; Wajdenbaum; Guillaume: 146–64). For example, Russell Gmirken has analyzed numerous texts in Genesis and Exodus as dependent upon third century BCE Greek historians Berossus of Babylon and Manetho of Egypt respectively (89–239). In particular reference to the Primeval History, Lukasz Niesiolowski-Spano has explored the possibility that motifs in the Primeval History of Genesis 1–11 echo the writings of Plato, especially his works Timaeus, Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Symposium (2007 : 106 – 26). I have written articles to suggest that portions of the Primary History come from the Hellenistic period (Gnuse 1998: 233– 48; 2007: 272–85; 2017: 79–92). Of special interest to me is Daniel Hawk's suggestion that 1 Samuel 8–2 Kings 8 was in-fuenced by the play Orestia, written by Aeschylus, for I have an article under submssion proposing that the story of Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11:34–40 was influenced by two plays of Aeschylus about the sacrifice of Iphigenia (Hawk: 73–88).

Van Seters, very early in the scholarly discussion, suggested that the Yahwist would have been aware of the western literary tradition, especially the Greek poets and historians, such Hesiod, Herodotus, and Hecataeus of Miletus (Van Seters 1988; 1992: 78–103). Van Seters has been criticized by several scholars for saying this. One such scholar, Richard Hess, has criticized Van Seters for trying to connect the biblical text with the Greek tradition, although ironically Hess then provided a number of similarities between Hesiod's Catalogue of Women and Genesis 10 (Hess: 69–71). I suspect that the similarities merit further discussion. In this essay I wish to elaborate on Van Seter's observations, as well as drawing on the work of other scholars to discern the parallels between the writings of Hesiod and Genesis 1–11.

I believe that the Primeval History was primarily created in critical response to Mesopotamian accounts with their con-commitant religious and political ideologies, an idea that I referred to frequently in my theological commentary on Genesis 1–11 (Gnuse 2014). But I also believe that the Yahwist and Priestly authors of Genesis 1–11 were familiar with Greek historiographical work. A totally different proposal has been put forward by Mandell and Freedman, who suggest that perhaps Herodotus visited Jerusalem on his way to Egypt in the fifth century BCE and thus became familiar with the Primary History of Genesis through 2 Kings (175–76). I seriously doubt that the flow of information and inspiration for historical narratives would have been from Jewish to Greek intelligentsia, especially when all things Greek were permeating the Near East in this age and giving inspiration to people. To that end I devote this essay. I wish to defend Van Seters' suggestions against the criticisms of his detractors by probing a possible point of contact between the western literary tradition of Greece and the biblical text.

Connections with Hesiod

Scholars have called for a more thorough evaluation of the connections between biblical texts and Hesiod's writings (Fuller: 617; Darshan: 518). Significant scholarship has proceeded in this direction for the past generation. Philippe Guillaume suggested that the the biblical editor who placed the book of Judges into its present context was inspired by Hesiod's Works and Days, for in that work Hesiod locates an age of heroes prior to the historical age, the heroes of the Trojan War, and this performs the same function as the book of Judges with its heroes that precede the rise of the monarchy (146–64). Bruce Louden discussed the possible inspiration of material in the New Testament book of Revelation by Hes-iod's Theogony, for in Revelation dragons appear to challenge God and persecute believers, and this is comparable to the battles in the Theogony, such as Zeus defeating the Titans and the dragon Typhoeus (Theogony 687–880) (258–77). John Poirer believes that Hesiod's definition of a generation, recalled by Plutarch, as being 108 years in duration, may correspond to the statement in Genesis 15:13–16 that the four hundred years of slavery in Egypt was only four generations in length (193–99).

As we approach the use of Hesiod in our comparison with the biblical text, we also recognize that critical classical scholars assume that there is not one historical Hesiod behind all the Hesiodic literature, but rather we are confronting a Hesiodic school of great authors who worked their craft over a number of years (Lamberton). Some prefer to speak of a school of “Boiotian” epic rather than to say Hesiodic to distinguish the literature from the Homeric school of poetry (Lattimore 2–3). The classic works of Hesiod worthy of our consideration include Theogony, Works and Days, and Catalogue of Women (which is extremely fragmentary, but may be the most worthwhile piece of literature for comparison). The first two works are generally attributed with certainty to Hesiod, and they are his only complete works (Frazer: 3; Nelson: 31–32). Scholars compare Hesiod with Homer by saying that the literature from the Hesiodic tradition is more interested in “catalogue” and “genealogy” while the Homeric tradition favors epic narrative (Lattimore: 3).

Hesiod may have lived in the late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE. He was the son of a man who had failed as a merchant and had become a small farmer in Ascra in central Greece (Works and Days: 633–640). Hesiod had been cheated by his brother, Perses, in matters of inheritance because Perses had bribed “kings” or “barons” to decide against Hesiod (Works and Days: 27–39). Hesiod won a contest with his poetry at Euboia performed for the funeral competition honoring Amphidames (Works and Days: 651–59), perhaps with his poem Theogony (Lattimore 3, 12; Athanassakis 1; Frazer 36; Nelson 33). Hesiod may have lived at the time when writing began to emerge, so that his works might have emerged initially as written texts in the seventh century BCE (Athanassakis: 2; Nelson: 41). If so, then written texts might have been available for the scribes who created our biblical text after 500 BCE.

Theogony recounts the origin of the gods and the cosmos, and might best be compared to the Priestly creation account in Genesis 1. Herein Hesiod attempted to organize and tell in orderly fashion the old myths and legends of his age in the early seventh century BCE (Brown: 35; Kirk: 63–64). He has apparently drawn upon Homeric traditions, the local legends of his own age, and perhaps ancient Near Eastern narratives (Brown: 36). His ideational message was that the earth should be seen as the result of growth and change both in the divine and human realms (Brown: 15; Frazer: 8–9; Athanassakis: 10; Lombardo & Lamberton: 15). He has been described as a true theologian in contrast to Homer for his attempts to catalogue the gods and describe their relationships (Lattimore: 7). Critical scholars recognize that major expansion and omission occurred from the seventh through the fifth centuries BCE (Solmsen: 3; Brown: 7; Kirk: 63). If the Yahwist and Priestly Editors knew this epic, most likely in the fifth century BCE, then most of those additions were already in the narrative.

Works and Days is a moral diatribe by Hesiod against his brother Perses because of his dishonesty in the family inheritance. In this work Hesiod utters gnomic sayings that lead scholars to compare the work with the wisdom literature of the ancient Near East and Israel (West 1978: 1–25; Tandy & Neale: 5–9; Edwards: 25). He may have been influenced significantly by wisdom texts from the ancient Near East according to some (Frazer: 10–11; Lombardo & Lamberton: 9–10). Additionally the work provides directions for farming in the early seventh century BCE Greek world, and provides insight into the life and practices of Greek farmers (Athanas-sakis: 64; Tandy & Neale: 5–9; Edwards). Some have used this work to extensively reconstruct the socio-economic structures of Greece in that age (Edwards). Hesiod and Vergil are the only classical poets who tell us about the experience of farming (Nelson: 39).

The very fragmentary Catalogue of Women tells the genealogies of gods and humans up to the Trojan War. It has been dated to the sixth century BCE, thus not from the historical Hesiod, and it has even located more precisely by some scholars to the years 540–520 BCE on the basis of particular references in the text (West 1985: 130, 136). Hence, it appears almost contemporary with the date I assume for the Yahwist.

I can observe a number of continutities between these three narratives in Hesiod and the biblical text in the Primeval History.

Human Decline through the Ages

Both Hesiod and the Primeval History testify to a decline in the quality of human life in the primordial age.

Hesiod's Works and Days (109–201) describes the five ages of men that have existed upon the earth: age of gold, age of silver, age of bronze, age of heroes, and the present age of iron. There is a clear degeneration of the human race in those ages. In the golden age people lived on Olympus when Cronus was king, and they were free from care and old age, lacking evil. The fields bore crops of their own accord, and they shared their goods with all. When their age passed, they became the good spirits in the world today. In the silver age people remained children for a century and then died a painful death shortly thereafter due to their wicked behavior toward each other. Because they would not honor the immortals or sacrifice to the gods, Zeus covered them up in the earth. In the bronze age people were made out of ash trees, and they were terrible and strong and so committed acts of violence. They had massive limbs and hands growing out of their shoulders. They did not eat bread, presumably they ate meat. With their weapons of bronze they killed each other and went down to chilly Hades. Zeus created a fourth race, just and superior, the heroes of old, some of whom fought at Troy. Zeus finally settled these heroes at the ends of the earth where they dwell free of care on the Isles of the Blessed, eating from grain-giving fields and honey sweet fruit trees. The current age is the age of iron wherein people experience daily toil and distress, and the gods give them grievous cares. Zeus will destroy each person when he or she grows old. There is strife between families, disrespect for the aged, bad people prevail over good, envy and gloating prevail among all, and life is baleful. The age of heroes appears to have been inserted by Hesiod into an earlier four-age format (West 1978: 174; Lombardo & Lam-berton: 54). The age of heroes clearly disrupts his narrative format of the four ages associated with four metals. Hesiod may have inserted the age of heroes into the four ages between his bronze age and his iron age because he needed it as his reference to the Trojan War, which had to be mentioned for his audience, and because his iron age was for him the contemporary age in which he lived (Athanassakis: 92–93). Remove this age of heroes and clearly there is a degeneration of the human race. West has provided a succinct but thorough study of the concept of the four or five ages in other contemporary cultures, and he believes that Hesiod obtained the four ages from Mesopotamian texts lost to us (1978: 173–74).

In Genesis 1–11 there is likewise a slow descent comparable to Hesiod's view (West 1995: 37–38). The world is created and everything is said to be good (Genesis 1). The man and woman begin life in the garden, but are exiled (Genesis 2–3), Cain then kills Abel and places a greater curse upon the ground (Gen 4:1–16), gods have sex with human women to produce evil giants (Gen 6:1–4), a food destroys almost all of humanity (Gen 6:5–9:17), Ham dishonors his father (with a word play implying the possibility of rape) (Gen 9:20–27), and the Tower of Babel shows humanity defying God (Gen 11:1–9). The ages of human beings also shorten throughout this era. In the Priestly text of Genesis 5:1–32 ages for the early ancestors are long: Adam (930), Seth (912), Enosh (905), Kenan (910), Mahalalel (895), Jared (962), Enoch (365), Methuselah (969), and Noah (950). In Genesis 11:10–32 ages for the later ancestors are shorter: Shem (600), Arpach-shad (438), Shelah (433), Eber (464), Peleg (239), Reu (239), Serug (230), Nahor (148), and Terah (205). Add to this the interesting statement by God in the Yahwistic text of Genesis 6:3 where God says that people from that point onward would not live for more than 120 years because of their sinfulness. However, the folk in Genesis 11:10–32 seem to have been exempted (perhaps because this is a Priestly text and Genesis 6:3 is Yahwistic).

There is a difference between Hesiod's narrative and the biblical account worth mentioning. Hesiod portrays the decline as a natural devolution of human existence, but the biblical author attributes this decline to human sin. The biblical narrative is replete with examples of human sin and divine forgiveness, but the impression one receives is that human sin is responsible for the general shortening of human life, especially in light of the programmatic statement in Genesis 6:3. Hesiod does not believe that Zeus or the gods punish humanity for their sins; rather, human degeneration occurs naturally (Nelson: 71).

Increasing Distance of God

In similar fashion Hesiod's literature and the Yahwistic Primeval History imply that during the primordial age God or the gods became increasingly distant from humanity.

Hesiod scholars view the Catalogue of Women as portraying the gods increasingly distant from human affairs over the years. The Catalogue of Women may conclude with allusions to the Trojan War or the Heroic Age after which comes the modern age. Works and Days has the Heroic Age come before the banality and evil of the Iron Age, or the modern era. In both works one gets the impression that the gods have become distant by the contemporary era (Clay: 28–29). Because of the fragmented nature of the Catalogue of Women distancing of the gods is a subjective perception, in my opinion, but it appears to be more evident in Works and Days.

In the biblical tradition, likewise, one could envision the story line as increasingly distancing God from humanity. In the garden (Genesis 2–3) God comes and walks with the man and woman. In the story of Cain and Abel and the story of Noah, God speaks with Cain and Noah, and during the food God takes special care of Noah and his family (Genesis 4–9). But God is much more distant in the sin of Ham and the Tower of Babel accounts (Gen 9:20–27; 11:1–9). One can sense a progression here also.

Again, there is a theological difference to be observed. In the Yahwistic Primeval History God may indeed become distant for humanity, but this is designed to contrast with the Patriarchal accounts in Genesis 12–36, 38, where God again becomes present for the patriarchal ancestors. It would appear that the biblical author may be trying to create an image wherein God becomes increasingly distant from humanity as a whole, and then becomes very present again for the patriarchal ancestors and the people of Israel, as a specific people out of all the nations in the world. In Hesiod the gods become distant simply because that is the nature of human existence.

Origin of the World

Both Hesiod and Genesis 1 describe the origin of the cosmos in similar terms. They both speak of an original “void” or “chaos,” the creation of light and darkness, and the creation of the sky above and the earth with the ocean below.

Critical classical scholars are quick to point out that He-siod may have been familiar with ancient Near Eastern accounts of creation, and the same is surely true for the biblical account in Genesis 1 with its striking similarity to the Enuma Elish (Brown: 36; Frazer: 8–9; Lamberton: 41–42; Lombard & Lamberton: 15; West 1995: 37; Gnuse 2014: 1–12). Thus, it is subjective to say that the biblical author may have been using Hesiod's Theogony, when both Hesiod and the biblical author may have been familiar with Mesopotamian accounts. Nevertheless, it is interesting to compare Hesiod's Theogony with Genesis 1.

The relevant passages in Hesiod are in Theogony, 116 –131:

(116) In truth, first of all Chasm (Chaos) came to be, and then the broad-breasted Earth, the ever immovable seat of all the immortals who possess snowy Olympus' peak and murky Tartarus in the depths of the broad-pathed earth, and Eros, who is the most beautiful among the immortal gods, the limb-melter—he overpowers the mind and the thoughtful counsel of all the gods and of all human beings in their breasts. (123) From Chasm (Chaos), Ere-bos and black Night came to be; and the Aether and Day came forth from Night, who conceived and bore them after mingling in love with Erebos. (126) Earth first of all bore starry Sky, equal to herself, to cover her on every side, so that she would be the ever immovable seat for the blessed gods; and she bore the high mountains, the graceful haunts of the goddesses, Nymphs who dwell on the wooded mountains; and she also bore the barren sea seething with its swell, Pontus [Most 2006: 12–13].

Both works begin with a reference to the “void.” Theog-ony says (116) that Chaos was born first and after her came Gaia or earth. Genesis 1:2 states, “the earth was a formless void.” Literally the biblical text reads that the earth was “without form” and “void.” Both of those biblical words may be a subtle allusion to the Mesopotamian goddess of chaos in the Enuma Elish, Tiamat. Hesiod's reference to “chaos” may also refect an awareness of this same goddess of chaos. But it is possible that the biblical author also knew Hesiod's text in addition to the Mesopotamian texts, for the biblical text and Hesiod both expressly say “chaos” while the Enuma Elish is not so explicit in describing Tiamat as such (Foster: 391–99, provides the appropriate text of Enuma Elish).

Night and day are mentioned next in Hesiod's Theogony (123–125). Chaos gives birth to erebos (darkness) and black night, erebos impregnated black night to produce “Aether” and “Day.” Likewise, on the first day of creation God separated the light and the darkness (Genesis 1:4–5). Interestingly, the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish does not really have such a reference to the creation of light and darkness; so at this point we might suspect that the biblical author may be referring more directly to Hesiod's Theogony (Foster: 398–400, provides the appropriate text of Enuma Elish). This is a signifi-cant observation to make.

Next in Hesiod's Theogony (126–131), a longer section describes the generation of the “starry Sky” (line 126), the “high mountains” (line 129), and “the barren sea seething with its swell, Pontus” (line 131). On the second day in Genesis (1:6–8) God created the firmament with the waters above it and the land below with the waters under the land. Herein we observe the creation of the heavens, mountains, and sea of Hesiod's account. The accounts in Theogony and Genesis 1 are much closer to each other than either one is to the Meso-potamian accounts when we consider all three texts (Foster: 399, provides the appropriate text of Enuma Elish).

From this point onward, the biblical account and Hesiod's narrative diverge. Hesiod continues to speak about the generation of various gods, while the biblical text describes the creation of plant life, the sun, the moon, stars, birds, fish, land animals, and finally, man and woman. However, one is struck by the similarities between Hesiod and the biblical description of original chaos and the first two days. Indeed, it appears that “the authors of Genesis had made room for Hesiod's Theogony (Thompson & Wajdenbaum: 15).

If the biblical author was familiar with Hesiod's narrative, one can sense the distinct difference in the biblical author's perspective. Hesiod's account is all about cosmogony, the emergence of the gods. The biblical account, by comparison to the Greek text, is very much more concerned about the structure of the world that humanity will live in, and it culminates with the creation of people who are in the “image” and “likeness” of God. Hesiod's Theogony contains no account of the creation of people. Ironically, we are led to conclude that in comparison to the Greek text, the biblical text is more anthropocentric. God then becomes a deity far more gracious with a deep concern for the human creature and the creation of the world that humanity will live in and rule. In the past we have compared Genesis 1 with Genesis 2, declaring the former chapter to be cosmological in perspective and the latter chapter to be more anthropocentric. After viewing the comparable passages in Hesiod, we may be forced to alter our generalizations about Genesis 1.

Woman and the “Fall”

In both traditions women are involved in the “fall” of humanity, but women cannot be found in comparable Mesopo-tamian accounts. That is significant.

According to Hesiod Zeus brings evil upon men by the creation of women. Zeus does this in response to the theft of fire from the divine realm by Prometheus. Originally people were all male, but Zeus had Hephaestus craft a woman. Hesiod presents two versions of how Pandora brought evil upon human (Works and Days: 42–105; Theogony: 570 – 612) (Van Seters 1983: 23; 1992: 80).

Works and Days: 77–82, 90–96: Then into her breast the intermediary, the killer of Argus, set lies and guileful words and a thievish character, by the plans of deep-thundering Zeus; and the messenger of the gods placed a voice in her and named this woman Pandra (All-Gift), since all those who have their mansions on Olympus had given her a gift—a woe for men who live on bread…. For previously the tribes of men used to live upon the earth entirely apart from evils, and without grievous toil and distressful diseases, which give death to men. For in misery mortals grow old at once. But the woman removed the great lid from the storage jar with her hands and scattered all its contents abroad— she wrought baneful evils for human beings [Most 2006: 92–95].

Theogony: 585–595: Then, when he had contrived this beautiful evil thing in exchange for that good one, he led her out to where the other gods and the human beings were, while she exulted in the adornment of the mighty father's bright–eyed daughter, and wonder gripped the immortal gods and the mortal human beings when they saw the steep deception, intractable for human beings. For from her comes the race of female women: for of her is the deadly race and tribe of women a great woe for mortals, dwelling with men, no companions of baneful poverty but only of luxury [Most 2006: 50-51].

Classical scholars point out that the portrayal of Pandora in Works and Days is more negative than the portrayal in the Theogony (Pucci: 82). Pandora's creation is not only unnecessary in the order of the cosmos, but she is the corollary to the good gifts of Zeus; she brings evil into the world, producing asymmetry that will endure throughout human existence (Pucci: 86). Classical scholars also assume that the negative portrayal of women reflects Hesiod's own personal views more than the Greek culture of that age (Solmsen: 48). Although Hesiod has a story about how woman was created, he lacks an account about the origin of man. It has been suggested that perhaps he knew of ancient Near Eastern traditions of how humanity was created from clay and the blood of an evil god, and he felt that it was not a noble description of human origins, so he omitted discussion of male origins altogether (Athanassakis: 9—10).

There is a significant difference between Hesiod and the biblical tradition. In Genesis 2—3 the woman is portrayed in much more positive fashion, for she is created “good” and meant to be a “helper” for the man. The word for helper does not mean subordinate, but rather means a strong helper or savior, and the word is often used to describe God (Gen 2:18, 20). Furthermore, in the fall narrative the man and woman are both held responsible for the sin of rebellion, for they both eat of the fruit together, the man is “with her” (Gen 3:6) as she takes the fruit. Their eyes are opened at the same time (Gen 3:7), implying that they ate almost simultaneously. When confronted by God, the man even tries to blame God by saying to God that the woman you made, she gave the fruit to me (Gen 3:12). The woman is not as crass in her response (Gen 3:13). They both hear the pronouncements of God for their action in eating the fruit and attempting to pass the blame to each other and ultimately to God. In the divine pronouncements God actually says as much to the man (Gen 3:17—19) as to the snake and the woman combined (Gen 3:14—16) (Gnuse 2014: 98—130). The portrayal of woman in the Yahwist narrative is decidedly more positive than what we read in Hesiod, for she is not the solitary person responsible for bringing sin into the world. It seems that the biblical text may place more blame with the man for failing to prevent his wife from taking the fruit (Gnuse 2014: 41).

In the Pnestly narrative of Genesis 1, the man and woman are created together and both are given a rather significant status in God's world. In Genesis 1:27 we are told that God made man and made them into both male and female. Both male and female are said to be in the “image” and “likeness” of God, and both are given the commission to rule and subdue the world (Gen 1:26—28). All of the vocabulary is royal imagery, so both the man and the woman are portrayed as kings and queens in God's world (Gnuse 2014: 34—41). This is a high view of people, and this is a particularly high view of women. This portrayal contrasts vividly with Hesiod's narratives.

Perhaps the biblical authors were aware of Hesiod's account and reacted against it. There is no account in Mesopotamia that involves a woman. That the only other story with a woman involved in the so called “fall” is found in Greek literature should make us suspicious. That the portrayal of the woman is so dramatically different in the biblical account should make us suspicious. I cannot absolutely prove it, but I suspect that the biblical author knew the Greek account and consciously reacted against it.

Sexual Unions of Gods and Humans

In both Hesiod and the Bible there are narratives that describe how the gods have sex with humans to produce powerful beings, but such accounts are rare in Mesopotamia, other than the generic claim of kings to divine origins.

In the Catalogue of Women by Hesiod there are numerous accounts of how gods impregnated women to produce powerful beings and great heroes in the primeval age. Though the text is fragmented so that many of the names are lost, the following are representative examples of such sexual unions: Pandora and Zeus gave birth to Graecus (Most 2007: 44-45), Thyia and Zeus gave birth to Magnes and Macedon (Most 2007: 48—49), Canace and Poseidon bore Aeolus (Most 2007: 60—61), Molione and Poseidon bore Cteatus and Eurytus Most 2007: 62—63), Iphimedea and Poseidon sired the sons that were otherwise attributed to Aloesus (Most 2007: 64— 65), Althaea and Ares sired Melander (Most 2007: 74-75), Tyro and Poseidon gave birth to Neleus and Pelias (Most 2007: 86-87, 100-101), Philonis and Apollo birthed Phila-mmon (Most 2007: 128—31), Mestra and Poseidon bore Eu-rypylus (Most 2007: 140—41), Eurynome and Poseidon bore Bellerphon (Most 2007: 142-43), Peiren and Zeus birthed Io (Most 2007: 144–45), Europa and Zeus birthed Minos, Sarpedon, and Bacchylides (Most 2007: 158–61), Calypso and Hermes sired the Cephallenians (Most 2007: 172–73), Pleione and Atlas sired Taygete, Electra, Alcyone, Asterope, Celeno, Maia, and Merope (Most 2007: 186–8), Electra and Zeus gave birth to Eetion and Dardanus (Most 2007: 188–89), Aethusa and Apollo birthed Eleuther (Most 2007: 190–91), Antiope and Zeus gave birth to Amphion and Zethus (Most 2007: 192–93), Alcmene and Zeus gave birth to Heracles (Most 2007: 206–207), Aegina and Zeus sired Aeacus (Most 2007: 212–13), Euboea and Apollo sired Argeius (Most 2007: 240–41), Arsinoe and Apollo bore Asclepius (Most 2007: 240–41), and Cyrene and Apollo bore Aristaeus (Most 2007: 242–43). Hesiod describes the women in these sexual unions lyrically by saying, “and they loosened their girdles and because of golden Aphrodite mingling with gods” (Most 2007: 41).

In Hesiod's Theogony (963–1022) there is attention to the sexual unions of the gods and humans. Hesiod has a virtual role call of heroes produced by the union of a goddess and a human male in Theogony (963–991, 1003–1018). The following is a list of goddesses, their human consorts, and the offspring: Demeter and Iasius sired Plutus; Harmonia and Cadmus sired Ino, Semele, Agaue, and Autonoe; Callirhoe and Chrysaor birthed Geryoneus; Eos and Tithonus birthed Memnon; Eos and Cephalus sired Phaethon; Psamathe and Aeacos sired Phocus; Thetis and Peleus birthed Achilles; Cytherea and Anchises birthed Aeneas; Circe and Odysseus sired Agrius, Latinus, and Telegomus; and Calypso and Odysseus sired Nausithous (Most 2006: 81–85).

Genesis 6:1–4 simply states that the “sons of the gods/God” saw that the “daughters of men” were fair and had sex with them. The offspring of these sexual unions were perceived negatively by the biblical author, and the ensuing narrative about the food may imply that these semi-divine offspring and perhaps even the “sons of the gods” were so evil that they had to be destroyed by the food in addition to all humanity. This may be the biblical author's response not only to Mesopotamian propaganda about their divine kings but also a critique of Greek semi-divine beings (Van Seters 1992: 156–57; Gnuse 2014: 195).

Humanity Descended from Flood Hero

In Hesiod and the Bible (Genesis 10) all contemporary people are descended from the hero who survived the food, but in Mesopotamia people are recreated anew after the food while the food hero goes off to a special land with the gift of immortality.

In the biblical tradition Noah sires Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and in the Greek traditions Hesiod and Hecataeus of Miletus have a tradition of Deucalion and his three sons surviving the food (Van Seters 1988: 13; Gnuse 2014: 191). According to Hesiod in Catalogue of Women, Deucalion, the food survivor, who is the son of Prometheus and the grandson of Iapetus (a Titan), is the ancestor of the Greek peoples. He is the father of Hellen, who, in turn, is the father of Dorus, Aeolus, and Xuthus, the ancestors of the major Greek tribes (Most 2007: 44–47, 52–53; Darshan: 521).

Xuthus is the father of Achaeus and Ion, the father of the Achaeans and Ionians, Dorus sired the Dorians, and Aeolus sired the Aeolians. Thus, these three give rise to all the Greek peoples, like the sons of Noah give rise to all peoples. Ion may be equivalent to the biblical Yavan, the son of Japhet (Darshan: 522). Deucalion and Pyrrha had other daughters, and they gave rise to the Magnesians and Macedonians, folk north of Greece. It has been suggested that this genealogical table refects the political reality of Greece in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE (West 1985: 125–71; Darshan: 522; Hall: 43–110). I have suggested that the table of nations can be dated to the middle of the sixth century BCE, so that these traditions arise in the same era both in Greece and the biblical world (Gnuse 2014: 240–47).

Hecataeus of Miletus has a geneaology similar to that found in the Catalogue of Women. According to Hecataeus the sons of Deucalion were Pronoos, Orestheus, and Mar-athonius, and Hellen was the son of Pronoos, thus Heca-taeus adds an extra generation. But like Hesiod, Hecateus attributes three sons to the flood hero (Darshan: 523). Other Greek logographers also attribute the emergence of peoples in Greece to the food hero; so generally the narrative of Genesis 10 and Greek traditions agree over against Mesopotamian traditions that turn the flood hero into an immortal being with no descendants (Darshan: 523–25). Guy Darshan concludes that if this tradition of the flood hero as the human ancestor of all people is found in Greek and biblical sources, but not Mesopotamian sources, its origin must be on the periphery of the ancient Near East in the area of Syria and Phoenicia, because the possibility of Greeks and Jews learning the story from each other is most unlikely. He seeks the origin of these tales in West Semitic dynastic king lists from the second millennium BCE that gave rise to genealogical lists in the first millennium BCE (Darshan: 532–35). I suggest rather that the biblical authors may have been familiar with the Greek materials, especially if we are willing to date the emergence of the biblical literature later in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. In more general terms, it should be noted that the ethnographic concerns of tracing the various races of people to primeval ancestors, as it is found in Genesis 10, is also of interest to Hecataeus of Miletus in the sixth century BCE and Herodotus in the fifth century BCE (Gnuse 2014: 241, 245).

Age of Vegetarianism

Both Hesiod and the Bible acknowledge that an early age of vegetarianism among humanity was suceeded by an age in which meat eating became possible.

Hesiod seemingly implies that an early age of vegetarianism was succeeded by a later age when people ate meat (Westermann: 462; Gnuse 2014: 219). In Works and Days 109–26 Hesiod describes the golden age in which grain fields bore crops of their own accord for people. In Works and Days 127–42 people who lived in the silver age are described. In Works and Days 143–55 the people of the bronze age are described. In lines 146–47 it says “they did not eat bread,” which may imply that they were meat eaters, as opposed to the first two ages in which people appear to eat the produce of grain, which would be bread (Most 2006: 96–99). Thus, half-way through the primordial ages described by Hesiod, people became meat-eaters. One might say that half-way through the primeval history in Genesis 1–11 people were also allowed to eat meat.

In the biblical tradition people are allowed to eat meat after the food according to Genesis 9:2–4, and they are specifical-ly commanded to drain the blood from the meat. This may imply that the curse on the ground brought about by Cain was finally removed by the covenant with Noah. This may also be the rest to which Lamech refers when he says at Noah's birth that Noah will bring “rest” to humanity and that is why he will be called Noah (Gen 5:29).

It is worth pointing out that in Hesiod the meat-eaters of the third age are described as horrible ogres, but the biblical text does not so rudely characterize the people after the food. In Works and Days 145–146 Hesiod says of the people of the third age, “terrible and strong they were, and they cared only for the painful works of Ares and for acts of violence” (Most 2006: 98–99). In the biblical text one might say the builders of the Tower of Babel had pride and defied God by building a tower to the heavens, but they are not characterized as strongly as Hesiod stereotypes his folk of the third age.

Segmented Genealogies

In both traditions there are genealogies with segmented genealogical lines (listing multiple descendants of an ancestor) (Genesis 10 especially).

Mesopotamians generated king lists to speak about leaders through the ages, such as the Sumerian King List. In these lists one person follows sequentially after another. However, Greek authors and the biblical authors created familial or kinship genealogies. They mentioned persons who are descended from each other and included wives, siblings, and descendants, thus creating segmented genealogies (West 1985: 13; Darshan: 532). In Mesopotamia we very rarely find familial and segmented genealogies; we find instead the lists of officials and kings (Hess: 65). The Catalogue of Women by Hesiod is horribly fragmentary, but nonetheless one can see that the bulk of the narrative is devoted to mentioning the descendants of significant persons, and the genealogies are usually segmented (Most 2007: 41–261).

John Van Seters points out that the Yahwist version of the genealogies in Genesis 10 are most like Hesiod's Catalogue of Women (Van Seters 1992: 177), and the Yahwist's attempt to combine geography and ethnology is also like the writings of Hecataeus of Miletus (Van Seters 1983: 27).

Martin West compares the Hesiod genealogies with many diverse genealogies from various places in the world but observes that Hesiod has the greatest similarities with the biblical genealogies in Genesis 4–11, especially with the “multi-linearity” found in both Hesiod and Genesis (1985: 13). West generated charts of the genealogies found in the Catalogue of Women, and the vast majority of the listings are segmented genealogies (1985: 173–82). They often list people in sets of three and seven (West 1985: 27–29). By bringing together a large number of Greek myths, legends, and historical memories, Hesiod created “a compendium account of the whole story of the nation from the earliest times to the time of the Trojan War or the generation after it” (West 1985: 3).

Hesiod, however, also touched upon the origins of other peoples, including Egyptians, Phoenicians, Arabs, Scythians, Ethiopians, Libyans, and even Pygmies (West 1985: 131; Hess: 70). In this regard, the Catalogue of Women begins to seriously remind us of Genesis 10, which also recounts the ancestry of these very same peoples.

Of interest is the parallel between Hellen, son of the Greek flood hero, Deucalion, and Noah. Hellen has three sons, Dorus, Aeolus, and Xuthus, from whom the Greeks are descended, and Noah has Shem, Ham, and Japhet, from whom all people are descended. Both are segmented or multilinear genealogies. This has been described by commentators as “an exactly parallel instance” between Genesis 10 and Catalogue of Women (Skinner: 190).

Symbolic Allusions to History

Both Genesis 10 and Hesiod's Catalogue of Women may have symbolic allusions to social and political realities of their age.

Both the Catalogue of Women and the Yahwist may be dated to the sixth century BCE, and both may provide subtle political commentary upon the events of that age (Hess: 70). Genesis 10 appears to portray the map of the ancient Near East in the middle of the sixth century BCE after Cyrus the Great has conquered much of Asia Minor but before he conquered Babylon (550–540 BCE). Japheth's descendants appear to include Persia, the area north of Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and the Greek isles. Shem's descendants appear to be the Arameans, Assyrians, Jews, and the pastoralist peoples of the Transjordan and Arabia. Ham's descendants appear to be Saite Egypt and its economic partners: Crete, Cyprus, and the Canaanites in Palestine, and also the Chaldean Babylonian Empire in Mesopotamia (Gnuse 2014: 240–47). The only unusual item is that the Assyrians should be placed with the Mesopotamians; they should be with the descendants of Ham rather than Shem. But essentially one is reminded of the map of the world in 550 BCE with the Saite rulers in Egypt, the Chaldean Babylonians, and the Persian-Median Empire.

Likewise, it has been suggested that the Catalogue of Women refects the politics of seventh and sixth century BCE Athens (Irwin: 65–84). For example, the aborted marriage of Mestra into the family of Sisyphus may allude to the aborted marriage of the daughter of Megacles (Irwin: 67–73; Rutherford: 114– 17). References to Heracles may be allusions to the political life of Peisistratus, and Heracles' fight with the giants of Phlegra may allude to a battle fought there by Peisistratus (Irwin 74– 80). Even though the biblical author might not know the specifics of the allusions found in the Catalogue of Women, he may have thus become familiar with the idea of using genealogies to metaphor politics of the age.

The differences between the Catalogue of Women and Genesis 10 are significant. Though the Catalogue of Women does at times speak in terms of international groups, more than just Greeks, this is very limited, for the real interest is in the Greek world (West 1985: 113–15). Meanwhile the biblical narrative attempts to trace the genealogy of all the people in the known world (Hess: 70). The Catalogue of Women has primarily a Greek focus, while the biblical text is universal (Hess: 70–71). Though in theory the Greek genealogies trace all the Greeks and everyone else back to the food hero, Deucalion, the biblical text more systematically traces all the people in the world back to Shem, Ham, and Japhet, who are directly the sons of Noah. All people are more effectively unified in the persona of Noah (Hess: 70–71). Theologically this testifies to the biblical author's portrayal of the “one” God as the Lord and master of all human beings.

Migrations and Founding Cities

In both the Hesiod and the Genesis 1–11 traditions we have accounts of migrations that led to the founding of cities.

The migration and settlement of people is a theme in Hesiod's Catalogue of Women, including the founding of Aloeus in Aetolia by Aluc (Most 2007: 64–65), the founding of Pylus by Neleus (Most 2007: 90–91), and Argo founded by Danaus and his daughters (Most 2007: 148–49). This compares to the beginning of the Tower of Babel story wherein people are said to come from the east and dwell in the land of Shinar, where they build a city (Van Seters 1992: 180).

Prelude to the Contemporary Age

The Primeval History and other works by Greek historians are designed to lead up to some significant events.

The Primeval History in Genesis 1–11 ultimately leads up to the exodus by way of telling the story of Israel's patriarchs. Hesiod's Catalogue of Women leads up to the Trojan War (Van Seters 1988: 22). Herodotus tells accounts of events in the ancient Near East with the intent of describing the story of Persia's abortive invasions of Greece.

The difference between the biblical texts and the Greek authors appears to be in the overall portrayal of people in the Primeval History. The implication of the biblical narrative is that after the sinfulness of the people of the world, especially after the Tower of Babel, God turned to a particular people, Israel, by which the graciousness of God would be manifest. The biblical material has a distinctly theological perspective.

Conclusion

A number of fascinating parallels may be observed between the writings of Hesiod and the Primeval History in Genesis 1–11. Scholars have called for a closer evaluation of these similarities, and I hope that this simple essay accomplishes that task in an worthwhile and interesting fashion.

I am most impressed by several connections, which I believe offer strong evidence that the biblical authors, the Yahwist and the Priestly Editors, had Hesiod's texts at their disposal. Hesiod and the biblical authors share references to the “void” at creation and the divine creation of light and darkness. Their accounts are similar, and there are no real parallels in the Mesopotamian stories. Only Hesiod and the biblical text include a woman in what could be described as a “fall” narrative. The descent of modern humanity from the flood hero is a point of convergence in which both Hesiod and the Bible contradict the Mesopotamian accounts of the recreation of people after the food. Finally, that only the bibical text and Hesiod focus upon segmented genealogies or multilinearity in their genealogical listings may also indicate their divergence from Mesopotamian parallels.

If indeed the biblical authors were familiar with the Hesiodic tradition in the fifth century BCE, what is most sig-nificant is the theological perspectives of the biblical authors that diverge from Hesiod. The biblical texts appear to testify to a more personal and gracious deity, a greater anthropo-centric perspective of the texts, and the equality of all men and women. This should lead us to appreciate even more the message of the Primeval History in Genesis 1–11.

References

Athanassakis

Apostolos

. 1983. Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days, Shield. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Bolin

T. M.

1996. “When the End is the Beginning: The Persian Period and the Origins of the Biblical Tradition.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 10 : 3 – 15 .

Brown

Norman

, trans. 1953. Theogony: Hesiod. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill.

Clay

Jenny Strauss

. 2005. “The beginning and end of the Catalogue of Women and its relation to Hesiod.” Pp. 25–34 in The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, edited by Hunter

Richard

. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Darshan

Guy

. 2013. “The Biblical Account of the Post-Diluvian Generation (Gen. 9:20–10:32) in the Light of Greek Genealogical Literature.” Vetus Testamentum 63 : 515 – 35 .

Edwards

Anthony

. 2004. Hesiod's Ascra. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Foster

Benjamin

. 2003. “Epic of Creation.” Pp. 390–402 in The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, edited by Hallo

William

and Younger

Lawson

. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Frazer

R. M.

, trans. 1983. The Poems of Hesiod. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Fuller

Russell

. 1995 “(Review of) John Van Seters. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 63: 615–18.

10.

Gmirkin

Russell

. 2006. Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 433. Copenhagen International Seminar. London, UK: T & T Clark.

11.

Gnuse

Robert

. 2014. Misunderstood Stories: Theological Commentary on Genesis 1–11. Eugene, OR: Cascade.

12.

Gnuse

Robert

2010a. “From Prison to Prestige: The Hero who helps a King in Jewish and Greek Literature.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72: 31–45.

13.

Gnuse

Robert

2010b. “The Tower of Babel in Genesis 11: A Parable of Judgment or Cultural Diversification?” Biblische Zeitschrift 54: 229–44.

14.

Gnuse

Robert

2007. “Abducted Wives: A Hellenistic Narrative in the Book of Judges?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 22: 272–85.

15.

Gnuse

Robert

1998. “Spilt Water: Tales of David (II Sam 23:13–17) and Alexander the Great (Arrian Anabasis of Alexander 6.26.1–3).” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 12: 233–48.

16.

Guillaume

Philippe

. 2014. “Hesiod's Heroic Age and the biblical Period of the Judges.” Pp. 146–64 in The Bible and Hellenism: Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature, edited by Thompson

Thomas

& Wajdenbaum

Philippe

. Copenhagen International Seminar. New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Hall

J. M.

1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Hawk

Daniel

. 2003. “Violent Grace: Tragedy and Transformation in the Orestia and the Deuteronomistic History.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28: 73–88.

19.

Hess

R. S.

1994. “The Genealogies of Genesis 1–11 and Comparative Literature.” Pp. 58–72 in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, edited by Hess

Richard S.

& Tsumura

David Toshio

. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

20.

Irwin

Elizbeth

. 2005. “Gods among Men? The Social and Political Dynamics of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women.” Pp. 35–84 in The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, edited by Richard Hunter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Kirk

G. S.

1962. “The Structure and Aim of the Theogony.” Pp. 63–107 in Hesiode et son influence, edited by von Fritz

Kurt

et al. Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique, 7. Geneva, Switzerland: Foundation Hardt.

22.

Lamberton

Robert

. 1988. Hesiod. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

23.

Larsson

2004. “Possible Hellenistic Influences in the Historical Parts of the Old Testament.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 18 : 296–311.

24.

Lattimore

Richard

, trans. 1959. Hesiod. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

25.

Lemche

Niels Peter

. 2011. “Does the Idea of the Old Testament as a Hellenistic Book Prevent Source Criticism of the Pentateuch?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 25: 75–92.

26.

Lemche

Niels Peter

.2001. “How Does One Date an Expression of Mental History? The Old Testament and Hellenism.” Pp. 200–24 in Did Mo-ses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period, edited by Grabbe

Lester

. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 317. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

27.

Lemche

Niels Peter

.1993. “The Old Testament—A Hellenistic Book?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7 : 163–93.

28.

Lombard

Stanley

, & Lamberton

Robert

. 1993. Hesiod: Works and Days and Theogony. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

29.

Louden

Bruce

. 2014. “Hesiod's Theogony and the Book of Revelation 4, 12 and 19–20.” Pp. 258–77 in The Bible and Hellenism: Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature, edited by Thompson

Thomas

& Wajdenbaum

Philippe

. Copenhagen International Seminar. New York, NY: Routledge.

30.

Mandell

Sarah

, & Freedman

David Noel

. 1993. The Relationship between Herodotus' History and Primary History. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 60. Atlanta, GA. Scholars Press.

31.

Most

Glenn

, trans. 2007. Hesiod: The Shield, Catalogue of Women, Other Fragments. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

32.

Most

Glenn

, trans. 2006. Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

33.

Nelson

Stephanie

. 1998. God and the Land: The Metaphysics of Farming in Hesiod and Vergil. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

34.

Nielsen

Flemming

. 1997. The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 251. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

35.

Niesiolowski-Spano

Lukasz

. 2011. Origin Myths and Holy Places in the Old Testament: A Study of Aetiological Narratives. Copenhagen International Seminar. London, UK: Equinox.

36.

Niesiolowski-Spano

Lukasz

. 2007. “Primeval History in the Persian Period?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 21 : 106 – 26.

37.

Poirier

John

. 2003. “Generational Reckoning in Hesiod and in the Pentateuch.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62: 193–99.

38.

Pucci

Pietro

. 1977. Hesiod and the Language of Poetry. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

39.

Rutherford

Ian

. 1995. “Mestra at Athen: Hesiod fr. 43 and the poetics of panhellenism.” Pp. 99–117 in The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, edited by Hunter

Richard

. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Skinner

John

. 1930 (orig. ed. 1910). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark.

41.

Solmsen

Friedrich

. 1949. Hesiod and Aeschylus. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

42.

Stott

2002. “Herodotus and the Old Testament: A Comparative Reading of the Ascendancy Stories of King Cyrus and David.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 16: 52–78.

43.

Tandy

David

, & Neale

Walter

, trans. 1996. Hesiod's Works and Days. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

44.

Thompson

Thomas

. 1999a. “Historiography in the Pentateuch: Twenty Five Years after Historicity.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 13: 258–83.

45.

Thompson

Thomas

. 1999b. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past. London, UK: Jonathan Cape.

46.

Thompson

Thomas

, & Wajdenbaum

Philippe

. 2014. “Introduction: Making Room for Japheth.” Pp. 1–15 in The Bible and Hellenism: Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Literature, edited by Thompson

Thomas

& Wajdenbaum

Philippe

. Copenhagen International Seminar. New York, NY: Routledge.

47.

Van Seters

John

. 1994. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

48.

Van Seters

John

. 1992. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

49.

Van Seters

John

. 1983. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

50.

Van Seters

John

. 1975. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

51.

Wajdenbaum

Philippe

. 2011. Argonauts of the Desert: Structural Analysis of the Hebrew Bible. Copenhagen International Seminar. Sheffield, UK: Equinox.

52.

Wesselius

Jan-Wim

. 2002. The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 345. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

53.

Wesselius

Jan-Wim

. 1999. “Discontinuity, Congruence and the Making of the Hebrew Bible.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 13 : 24 – 77 .

54.

West

Martin

. 1995. “Ancient Near Eastern Myths in Classical Greek Religious Thought.” Pp. 33–42 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Sasson

Jack

. New York, NY: Charles Scribners' Sons.

55.

Wesselius

Jan-Wim

. 1985. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure, and Origins. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

56.

Wesselius

Jan-Wim

. 1978. Hesiod: Works and Days. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

57.

Westermann

Claus

. 1984. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Trans-lated by Scullion

John

. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.