Tuna El-Gebel 9

Home , Philo of Byblos, Pschent, Sanchuniathon

Tuna el-Gebel 9

Weltentstehung und Theologie von Hermopolis Magna I Antike Kosmogonien Beiträge zum internationalen Workshop vom 28.–30. Januar 2016

herausgegeben von Roberto A. Díaz Hernández, Mélanie C. Flossmann-Schütze und Friedhelm Hoffmann

Verlag Patrick Brose

Tuna el-Gebel - Band 9 Antike Kosmogonien Der Workshop wurde gefördert von:

GS DW

Graduate School Distant Worlds

Der Druck wurde ermöglicht durch:

Umschlag: Vorderseite: Foto privat Rückseite: © National Aeronautics and Space Administration (https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/060915_CMB_Timeline600nt.jpg) Tuna el-Gebel - Band 9

Weltentstehung und Theologie von Hermopolis Magna I Antike Kosmogonien Beiträge zum internationalen Workshop vom 28. bis 30. Januar 2016

herausgegeben von Roberto A. Díaz Hernández, Mélanie C. Flossmann-Schütze und Friedhelm Hoffmann

Verlag Patrick Brose Vaterstetten Reihe „Tuna el-Gebel“ herausgegeben von Mélanie C. Flossmann-Schütze, Friedhelm Hoffmann, Dieter Kessler, Katrin Schlüter und Alexander Schütze

Band 1: Joachim Boessneck (Hg.), Tuna el-Gebel I. Die Tiergalerien, HÄB 24, Hil- desheim 1987. (Gerstenberg Verlag) Band 2: Dieter Kessler, Die Paviankultkammer G-C-C-2, mit einem Beitrag zu den Funden von Hans-Ulrich Onasch, HÄB 43, Hildesheim 1998. (Gersten- berg Verlag) Band 3: Dieter Kessler, Die Oberbauten des Ibiotapheion von Tuna el-Gebel. Die Nachgrabungen der Joint Mission der Universitäten Kairo und München 1989–1996, Tuna el-Gebel 3, Haar 2011. (Verlag Patrick Brose) Band 4: Mélanie C. Flossmann-Schütze / Maren Goecke-Bauer / Friedhelm Hoff- mann / Andreas Hutterer / Katrin Schlüter / Alexander Schütze / Martina Ullmann (Hg.), Kleine Götter – Große Götter. Festschrift für Dieter Kessler zum 65. Geburtstag, Tuna el-Gebel 4, Vaterstetten 2013. (Verlag Patrick Brose) Band 5: Birgit Jordan, Die demotischen Wissenstexte (Recht und Mathematik) des pMattha, 2 Bände, Tuna el-Gebel 5, Vaterstetten 2015. (Verlag Patrick Brose) Band 6: Katja Lembke / Silvia Prell (Hg.), Die Petosiris-Nekropole von Tuna el- Gebel. Band I, Tuna el-Gebel 6, Vaterstetten 2015. (Verlag Patrick Brose) Band 7: Katrin Schlüter, Die Kultstellen im Tierfriedhof von Tuna el-Gebel in frühptolemäischer Zeit: Der Gang C-B und die Kammer C-B-2. 2 Bände, Tuna el-Gebel 7, Vaterstetten 2018. (Verlag Patrick Brose) Band 8: Mélanie C. Flossmann-Schütze / Friedhelm Hoffmann / Alexander Schütze (Hg.), Tuna el-Gebel – Eine ferne Welt. Tagungsband zur Konferenz der Graduate School „Distant Worlds“ vom 16.–19.1.2014 in München, Tuna el-Gebel 8, Vaterstetten 2019. (Verlag Patrick Brose)

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Natio- nalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

Vorwort der Herausgeber

Dies ist der erste Band, der aus dem von der VolkswagenStiftung im Rahmen ihres Pro- gramms „Forschung in Museen“ geförderten Projekt „Weltentstehung und Theologie von Hermopolis Magna. Tuna el-Gebel als Teil einer Kultlandschaft in Mittelägypten von der Spät- bis in die Römerzeit (ca. 600 v. Chr. – 400 n. Chr.)“ hervorgegangen ist. Es wird ge- meinsam vom Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim, der Joint Mission der Universitäten Kairo und München in Tuna el-Gebel und dem Institut für Ägyptologie und Koptologie der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München durchgeführt. Im Rahmen des Projekts werden Funde, Grabungsdokumentationen und Archivmaterialien hauptsächlich des Peli- zaeus-Museums Hildesheim zu Hermopolis Magna und Tuna el-Gebel umfassend aus- gewertet und in den Kontext der Kosmogonie und Theologie von Hermopolis Magna als Urstätte der Schöpfung gestellt. Die Erforschung von Hermopolis Magna (heute el-Aschmunein in der Provinz el-Minja in Mittelägypten) und seinem Nekropolenareal in Tuna el-Gebel kann auf eine lange Tra- dition zurückblicken, in der sich die Joint Mission sieht. Eine wesentliche Etappe stellten die Grabungen G. Roeders 1929–1939 in Hermopolis Magna und S. Gabras 1931–1952 in Tuna el-Gebel dar. Die Funde Roeders gelangten zum großen Teil nach Hildesheim, sind aber vielfach noch unveröffentlicht. Ebenfalls unpublizierte Funde Gabras sollen von der Joint Mission aufgearbeitet werden. Den von Roeder entdeckten Objekten in Hildesheim, den Grabungsdokumentationen und antiken Texten ist das Projekt der VolkswagenStif- tung gewidmet. Das Ziel ist es, den lebensweltlichen Kontext, aus dem die Funde stam- men, möglichst umfassend zu rekonstruieren, um den vollen Aussagewert der Museums- objekte zu gewinnen. Die Konzentration auf den Zeitraum von ca. 600 v. Chr. bis 400 n. Chr. ergibt sich aus der Laufzeit der paganen Kulteinrichtungen von Tuna el-Gebel. Die theologische Verknüpfung der Stadt Hermopolis Magna und ihrer Nekropole Tuna el-Gebel erfolgte im alten Ägypten über das Konzept der Schöpfung. Sie bedeutete einer- seits den Anbeginn der Welt, andererseits die ständige Überwindung des Chaos sowie des Todes und war damit eine fundierende Größe in der Theologie von Hermopolis Magna sowie seiner Nekropole. Nach altägyptischen Vorstellungen war Hermopolis Magna neben Heliopolis und Memphis eines der drei wichtigsten Kultzentren der pharaonischen Hoch- kultur, die mit der Entstehung der Welt in Verbindung gebracht wurden. Hier in Hermo- polis entwickelte sich die Idee von der „Achtheit“, d. h. acht göttlichen Urelementen. Von dem heiligen Bezirk mit dem zentralen Tempel des Thot und einem möglichen Sanktuar der „Achtheit von Hermopolis“ sind aber nur sehr wenige Reste erhalten geblieben. Das Schöpfungssystem von Hermopolis Magna hatte allerdings für ganz Ägypten eine heraus- ragende Bedeutung, die durch antike ägyptische religiöse Schriften gut belegt ist. Daneben gab es Teile des theologischen Systems von Hermopolis Magna, die von einer spezifisch lokalen Relevanz waren. Der weitgehende Verlust der originalen religiösen Literatur vor Ort und die Zerstörung des Thot-Tempels mit seinen Inschriften und Szenen sowie die fehlende systematische Aufarbeitung des Areals hat zu einer insgesamt unbefriedigenden Forschungslage geführt, die der einstigen Bedeutung von Hermopolis nicht entspricht. Umso wichtiger ist es daher, auch Tuna el-Gebel in den Blick zu nehmen. Es ist seit dem Neuen Reich ein Nekropolenareal der Hohen Priester des Thot und der Elite der Gauhauptstadt Hermopolis Magna. Seit der Spätzeit wurden in unterirdischen Galerien VIII TeG 9 in Tuna el-Gebel zudem vergöttlichte Ibis- und Pavianmumien beigesetzt, die zu ihren Lebzeiten teilweise zu den göttlichen Tempeltieren am Thot-Heiligtum von Hermopolis gehörten; die Tier- und Menschennekropole war u. a. bei großen Festprozessionen in das kultische Geschehen eingebunden. Das Architektur- und Dekorationsprogramm in den Heiligtümern Tuna el-Gebels und in einigen herausragenden Gräbern dort wie dem des Petosiris orientiert sich am Tempel des Thot von Hermopolis Magna, und in den Inschrif- ten von Tuna el-Gebel wird das theologische Wissen der Metropole verarbeitet. Die ma- teriellen und textlichen Hinterlassenschaften aus Tuna el-Gebel mit seinen Tempel- und Nekropolenanlagen liefern daher unterschiedlichste Einblicke in das komplexe religions- politische Gefüge des antiken Hermopolis Magna. Wenn aber ein wesentlicher Aspekt der Theologie von Hermopolis Magna seine Welt- schöpfungslehre ist, die auch für den lokalen Kult etwa in Tuna el-Gebel eine Rolle ge- spielt hat, da die Überwindung des Todes nach ägyptischer Auffassung eine Erneuerung durch Kräfte, die schon bei der Entstehung der Welt wirksam waren, bedeutet, dann stel- len sich verschiedene Fragen: Was ist Weltentstehung eigentlich, und wie kann sie de- finiert werden? Welche Axiome sind als relevant anzunehmen? Welche Methoden zur Unterscheidung von kosmogonischen und regenerativen Aspekten sind geeignet? Wie kann man sich dem Thema aus heutiger, stark naturwissenschaftlich geprägter Perspekti- ve annähern? Welche Folgerungen ergeben sich für die Rekonstruktion der hermopolita- nischen Weltentstehungsvorstellungen? Ein Schritt zur Reflexion über diese und weitere Fragen wurde in einem anregenden Dialog von Geistes- und Naturwissenschaftlern auf dem Workshop „Antike Kosmogonien“ vom 28. bis 30. Januar 2016 in München getan. Die Tagung, die im Rahmen und unter Beteiligung der Münchner Graduate School „Dis- tant Worlds“ stattfand, sollte helfen, einen theoretischen Input für die anstehende Pro- jektarbeit zu liefern; die Ergebnisse werden jedenfalls in die Projektpublikationen, die in weiteren Bänden der Reihe Tuna el-Gebel vorgelegt werden, einfließen. Wir danken für die Hilfe bei der Durchführung der Tagung vor allem R. Birk und C. Feucht sowie den Studierenden des Münchner Institutes M. Dietrich, E. Hemauer, D. Pen- zer, F. Rösch und Ph. Seyr. Der Graduate School „Distant Worlds“ sind wir für ihre organi- satorische und finanzielle Unterstützung dankbar, dem Staatlichen Museum Ägyptischer Kunst für die Bereitstellung geeigneter Räumlichkeiten und der Mitarbeiter, ohne deren Einsatz die Tagung nicht so reibungslos hätte durchgeführt werden können. E. Bernhauer hat freundlicherweise die Tagung fotografisch dokumentiert. Besonders danken wir aber allen Vortragenden für die anregenden Gespräche. Wir freuen uns, dass die meisten ihre Beiträge für eine Veröffentlichung in diesem Band, den der Verlag P. Brose in bewährter Weise verlegerisch betreut hat, zur Verfügung gestellt haben; andere sind durch Abstracts dokumentiert. Wir bitten um Nachsicht, wenn die Zitierweise, für die wir sehr wohl Vor- gaben gemacht haben, dennoch uneinheitlich geworden ist, weil einige Autorinnen und Autoren individuelle Lösungen gewählt haben. Verwendete bibliografische Abkürzungen richten sich nach dem Lexikon der Ägyptologie.

R. A. Díaz Hernández M. C. Flossmann-Schütze F. Hoffmann TeG 9 IX

Inhalt

Vorwort ...... V Inhaltsverzeichnis ...... VII Tagungsprogramm ...... IX

Friedhelm Hoffmann ...... 1 Einleitung

Olivier Dufault ...... 15 Mōt in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos as a Reference to the Late Representation of the Egyptian Goddess Mut as Demiurge

Stefan Eisenhofer ...... 25 Ursprungsmythen und Herrschaftslegitimation im Reich Benin (Nigeria)

Nina Gschwind ...... 31 JHWHs Handeln in creatio prima und creatio continua und Hiobs Weg vom Gotteszweifel zum Gottvertrauen in Hiob 38,1–42,6

Friedhelm Hartenstein ...... 43 Von der Vorwelt zur Welt. Kosmogonische Übergänge in alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Texten zur Weltentstehung

Salah el-Kholi ...... 59 Die Schöpfungsvorstellung im alten Ägypten und im Islam. Mögliche Gleichsetzungsaspekte

Madeleine Mai ...... 71 Mulier defessa. Mutter Erde und Atomismus bei Lukrez

Lorenzo Medini ...... 81 Entre tradition grecque et égyptienne : la cosmogonie de Strasbourg

Walther Sallaberger ...... 93 Das göttliche Wesen des Kosmos: Zum Sitz im Leben von Weltentstehungsmotiven im frühen Mesopotamien

Regine Schulz ...... 109 Die Entstehung der Welt. Altägyptische Erklärungsmodelle und ihre lokale Verortung am Beispiel des Buchs vom Fayum

Theresia Schusser ...... 123 „Vom Ursprung der Welt“. Kosmogonische Vorstellungen in NHC II,5

Gerald Unterberger ...... 137 Die Schöpfungsmythen der Dogon. Schöpfung und Urzeit im Lichte geschlechterantagonistischer Spannung und göttlicher Perfektion des Zweigeschlechts

Mona Zuheir El-Shaieb ...... 155 Shapes, Orientations and Elements of Egyptian Zodiacs in the Graeco-Roman Period

Abstracts weiterer Vorträge ...... 165

TeG 9 XI

PROGRAMM

Donnerstag, 28. Januar 2016

18:00–18:45 Begrüßungsworte Dr. Sylvia Schoske, Direktorin des Staatlichen Museums Ägyptischer Kunst München Prof. Dr. Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Forschungsdekan der Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften, LMU München Prof. Dr. Martin Hose, Sprecher der Graduate School „Distant Worlds“, LMU München Prof. Dr. Salah el-Kholi, Head of the Joint Mission „Tuna el-Gebel“, Fakultät für Archäo- logie, Universität Kairo Fathy Awad Riad, Chefinspektor Tuna el-Gebel, Ägyptisches Antikenministerium Dr. Mélanie C. Flossmann-Schütze, Direktorin des deutschen Teams der Joint Mission „Tuna el-Gebel“, Graduate School „Distant Worlds“, LMU München

18:45–19:15 Prof. Dr. Friedhelm Hoffmann: Vorstellung des Projektes „Weltentstehung und Theologie von Hermopolis Magna“

Abendvortrag 19:15–20:00 Prof. Dr. Regine Schulz: Die Entstehung der Welt. Schöpfungsmythen aus dem Alten Ägypten nach dem Buch vom Fayum

20:00–22:00 Abendempfang im Staatlichen Museum Ägyptischer Kunst

Freitag, 29. Januar 2016

Moderator: Prof. Dr. Friedhelm Hoffmann 09:00–09:45 Prof. Dr. Jochen Weller: Naturwissenschaftliche Kosmologie I: Vom Ende des heißen Urknalls bis heute 09:45–10:30 Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer: Naturwissenschaftliche Kosmologie II: Der heiße Urknall und davor

10:30–11:00 Kaffeepause Moderator: Dr. Ralph Birk 11:00–11:45 Prof. Dr. Walther Sallaberger: Das göttliche Wesen des Kosmos im frühen Mesopotamien 11:45–12:30 Dr. Maysara Abdallah Hussein: Between time and space. Cosmic order and temple architecture

12:30–14:00 Mittagspause Moderatorin: Dr. Katrin Schlüter 14:00–14:45 Roxane Bicker, M.A.: Rinderschenkel und Dekane. Der altägyptische Nachthim- mel 14:45–15:30 Dr. Mona Zuheir El-Shaieb: Shapes, orientations and elements of Egyptian Zodiacs in the Graeco-Roman Period

15:30–16:00 Kaffepause Moderatorin: Dr. Mélanie C. Flossmann-Schütze 16:00–16:45 Prof. Dr. Dieter Kessler: Der hermopolitanische Mythos und der ägyptische Kult 16:45–17:30 Dr. Lorenzo Medini: Comparing different traditions: Hermopolitan cosmogonies in between Greek and Egyptian material

18:00–22:00 Abendempfang in der Bibliothek des Institutes für Ägyptologie und Kop- tologie, Katharina-von-Bora-Str. 10, 80333 München TeG 9 XIII

Samstag, 30. Januar 2016

Moderatorin: PD Dr. Martina Ullmann 09:00–09:45 Prof. Dr. Salah el-Kholi: Die Schöpfungsvorstellung im Alten Ägypten und im Islam. Einige mögliche Gleichsetzungsaspekte 09:45–10:30 Prof. Dr. Friedhelm Hartenstein: Von der Vorwelt zur Welt – kosmogonische Übergänge in der hebräischen Bibel und in altorientalischen Texten

10:30–11:00 Kaffeepause Moderatorin: Dr. Daniela Rosenow 11:00–11:45 Dr. Maciej Paprocki: “Whence the gods have risen”: Okeanos as the origin of Greek gods and their powers 11:45–12:30 Dr. Madeleine Mai: Mulier defessa. Mutter Erde und Atomismus bei Lukrez

12:30–14:00 Mittagspause Moderator: Dr. Alexander Schütze 14:00–14:45 Dr. Olivier Dufault: Egyptian Elements in Philo of Byblos’ so-called Phoeni- cian Cosmogony 14:45–15:30 Theresia Schusser, M.A.: „Vom Ursprung der Welt“ – kosmogonische Vor- stellungen in NHC II,5

15:30–16:00 Kaffepause Moderatorin: Prof. Dr. Regine Schulz 16:00–16:45 Dr. Gerald Unterberger: Die Schöpfungsmythen der Dogon. Schöpfung und Urzeit im Lichte geschlechterantagonistischer Spannung und göttlicher Perfektion des Zweigeschlechts 16:45–17:30 Dr. Stefan Eisenhofer: Ursprungsmythen im westafrikanischen Königreich Benin als Spiegel der Gegenwart 17:30 Schlussworte

19:30–22:00 gemeinsames Abendessen für Referenten

TeG 9 15

Mōt in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos as a Reference to the Late Representation of the Egyptian Goddess Mut as Demiurge1

by Olivier Dufault (München)

The following discusses the presence of a generative principle called Mōt in a short cosmogony found in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos (c. 100 CE). The work is only preserved in fragments and was described by Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 300 CE)—our only source on this work—as the translation of a universal history written by a certain Sanchu- niathon “before the Trojan war.”2 Eusebius’ goal was apologetic and his precise purpose in citing the Phoenician History was to demonstrate that the ancient Phoenicians did not venerate the god of the Jews and of the Christians but mere humans and natural forces. This might explain why the passages of the Phoenician History he quoted are all euhemeristic accounts translating myth into human or natural history. Modern research has mostly concentrated on these myths and on establishing whether they could be traced to Phoenician originals.3 Thanks in a large part to Albert Baumgarten’s work, most scholars now agree that the Phoenician History is of Hellenistic date (or at least, post-sixth-century BCE) and that it includes Greek, Semitic as well as Egyptian elements.4 Fragments of the Phoenician History are still often studied for their Semitic characteristics.5 In this interpretive context, Mōt has been usually understood as the euhemeristic interpretation of a Se- mitic god of death, which is well documented in late Bronze Age documents from Ugarit. I argue that the name of Mōt was rather inspired by the Egyptian deity Mut as she was conceived from the Ptolemaic period on. Always depicted with the face of a human or of a

1 Research for this paper was made possible thanks to the Graduate School Distant Worlds at the Ludwig- Maximilians-Universität, Munich. I would like to thank Christopher Waß and Friedhelm Hoffmann for their useful suggestions and comments concerning the Egyptian material used for this study. 2 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.9.20. Fragments can be found in Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, ed. Felix Jacoby (Leiden 1923–1958), No. 790. 3 Corinne Bonnet, “Errata, absurditates, deliria et hallucinationes. Le cheminement de la critique historique face à la mythologie phénicienne de Philon de Byblos : un cas problématique et exemplaire de testis unus,” Anabases 11 (2010) 123–136. 4 See Albert Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos (Leiden, 1981), Sergio Ribichini, “Taautos et l’invention de l’écriture chez Philon de Byblos,” in C. Baurein (ed.), Phoinikeia grammata : lire et écrire en Méditerranée (Namur, 1991) 201–213 and José Nunes Carrera, “O fundo Egípcio da cosmo- gonia de Fílon de Biblos,” in Mito, religião e sociedade, ed. Zélia Ladeira Veras de Almeida Cardoso (São Paolo, 1991) 244–258. 5 See André Caquôt, “La naissance du monde selon Canaan,” in La naissance du monde (Paris, 1959) 175– 184, Harold Attridge and Robert Oden, The Phoenician History (Washington D.C., 1981), Mark Edwards, “Philo or Sanchuniathon? A Phoenician Cosmogony,” Classical Quarterly 41 (1991), 213–220, Martin West, “Ab Ovo. Orpheus, Sanchuniathon and the Origins of the Ionian World Model,” Classical Quartely 44 (1994) 289–307, Hans-Peter Müller, “Der Welt- und Kulturentstehungsmythos des Philon Byblios und die biblische Urgeschichte,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 112 (2000) 161–179. 16 Olivier Dufault TeG 9 lioness until the end of the New Kingdom, Mut was represented from the New Kingdom on with the vulture cap and could also be represented as a vulture, an Egyptian symbol for mo- therhood. It is also with the New Kingdom (and more precisely, with the reign of Hatshepsut) that Mut started to be represented as the wife of Amun and the mother of Khonsu, i. e. the mother goddess of the Theban triad.6 Inscriptions from temple precincts of the Hellenistic and Roman period show that she was later assimilated with other female deities who were all considered demiurgical goddesses.7 Plutarch (c. 100 CE), a near contemporary of Philo, testi- fies to a similar syncretism. At the very least, his knowledge of Mut shows that it would have been possible for Philo to refer to Mut. Before discussing the evidence concerning Mut in the Ptolemaic and Roman era, I will present the text of the cosmogony and its interpretive issues. First, a translation of text of the cosmogony as presented by Eusebius: Having distinguished these things in the introduction, Philo then begins the translation of Sanchuniathon, setting out the Phoenician theology as follows. He posits at the beginning of all things opaque and breath-like air, or a wind of opaque air, and a turbid chaos dark as Erebos. These things were boundless, and were without bounds for a long period of time. “When,” he says, “pneuma loved its own principles, a mixture resulted and this combination was called Desire. This is the source of the creation of all things. But it did not know its own creation and, from the self-combination of the pneuma, Mōt was produced. Some say that it is mud; others say the putrefaction of a watery mixture. And from this was born every seed of creation and the creation of all things. And there were some living things that had no sense perception and from which living beings possessing an intellect were born. And they were called Zophasēmin, that is to say, watchers of the sky. And they were formed like the shape of an egg. And Mōt shined forth, as well as the sun and the moon, the stars and the great luminous bodies.”8

A recapitulation of the main steps of the cosmogony should make the following discussion clearer: 1. There is first a sort of breath (pneuma), wind (pnoē) or air (aēr) as well as a “turbid chaos,” i. e. water. 2. This pneuma then moved into an autoerotic combination sugkrasis( ) or “braid” (plokē). This combination was called “desire” pothos( ) and is said to be the “source of all creation.”9

6 See Herman te Velde, “Mut” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4, ed. Wolfgang Helck und Wolfhart Westendorf (Wiesbaden, 1982) 246–248 and te Velde, “The Goddess Mut and the Vulture,” in Servant of Mut, ed. Sue H. D’Auria (Leiden, 2008) 242–245. 7 See Jean-Claude Goyon, “Notes d’épigraphie et de théologie thébaines,” in The First Pylon of the Mut Temple, South Karnak, ed. Richard A. Fazzini and Jacobus van Dijk (Leuven, 2015) 55–70 (= Chronique d’Égypte 78 [2003] 43–65). Jürgen Ebach, Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos (Stuttgart, 1979) 41 n. 4 discussed a possible connexion between Mōt and Mut but visibly ignored the later history of the goddess. 8 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.9.30–1.10.2. TeG 9 Mōt in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos 17

3. This autoerotic combination produced Mōt, which is said in turn to have produced the “germs of generation and the creation of all things.” Mōt, Philo’s euhemeristic glosses demonstrate, is “mud” or the “putrefaction of a watery mixture.” It is considered as a principle and consequently received a neutral gender. At the same time, the euhemeristic glosses also strongly suggest that the name of Mōt referred to a divinity. 4. We are then informed that there were living beings (zōia) without perception who produced intelligent/perceptive beings (zōia noera) called Zophasēmin, glossed as the “observers of heaven.” 5. “They”—it is unclear which of the above are implied—then took the shape of an egg. 6. Finally, we are told that Mōt “shined out” together with the sun, the moon, the stars and other astral bodies. Nothing more is said about the egg. The text also remains silent about the role played by the egg in the cosmogony.10 7. In the second part of the cosmogony (not discussed above), the “observers of heaven” are said to be male and female and to have “awoken” (egrēgorēsen) during great natural cataclysms. Mark Edwards, who proposed one of the two most recent analyses of this text, argued that Philo created it as a sort of pastiche of the cosmogony attributed to Moses and that he meant to show that Moses imitated Thoth. Martin West later argued that the cosmogony could be traced back to a Phoenician “traditional prototype” which would have influenced early Greek cosmogonies and which could consequently be dated around 600 BCE.11 Here are the (same) arguments brought forward to build these two theories.12 First, the beginning of the cosmogony is similar to the first lines of the book of Genesis. The two uncreated principles are a breath- or pneuma-like “air” and “a turbid chaos dark as Erebos.” Since “tholeros” (turbid, muddy) usually qualifies liquids and that erebōdes“ ” (dark as Erebos) can be found qualifying the sea, the beginning of Philo’s cosmogony re- calls the opening of the book of Genesis, where the “breath/pneuma of God” is “hovering above the waters.” Secondly, Zō- or Zophasēmin, is the Aramaic word for “observers of heaven.”13 Thirdly, two cosmogonies, one attributed to the Sidonian Mochos and another to the people of Sidon, also included two wind-like principles producing an egg. Finally,

9 The unnamed neutral subject said to have “ignored its own creation” (Αὐτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκε τὴν αὑτοῦ κτίσιν) could apply grammatically either to pneuma or to Mōt, the only neutral nouns of the passage. The fact that pneuma appears as one of the two archai of the cosmogony and that “principles” (archai) are often assumed to be ungenerated in cosmogonical narratives (as it also appears here), I conclude that the ignorance was attributed to Mōt. 10 Scholars have often understoodMōt to be the egg from which astral bodies shone out (and not with). To achieve this reading one must emend the manuscripts, which unanimously read: καὶ ἐξέλαμψε Μὼτ ἥλιός τε καὶ σελήνη ἀστέρες τε καὶ ἄστρα μεγάλα (Preparation to the Gospels, 1.10.2.6–7). 11 West (1994) 303. 12 See Edwards (1991) 217–220 and West (1994) 290–302. 13 See West (1994) 301. 18 Olivier Dufault TeG 9 it is also widely accepted that the poetic form of the cosmogony (e. g. the repeated use of the conjunction kai and the use of doublet phrases, the use of the Greek word ktisis for “creation”) followed stylistic models typical of Semitic poetry.14 The similarities of Philo’s cosmogony with the two Sidonian cosmogonies require to be studied more in detail since one could assume from these that the cosmogony of the Phoenician History was entirely derived from a Phoenician “traditional prototype.” Three elements common to these cosmogonies could be claimed to be typical of the Phoenician tradition West tried to reconstruct. First, West noted the presence of a god of time close to, or at the very beginning of the cosmogonic process. Time is alluded to in the cosmogony of the Phoenician History but it is neither personified nor presented as an active or generative element. The two other elements, a generative wind and a “cosmogonic egg”, are connected and figure in all three cosmogonies. All of them describe an egg (or something shaped like an egg) and also mention that it was created by the wind or Desire (pothos). In itself, the notion of a “cosmogonic” or “theogonic egg” (although not necessarily primordial) is not specific to the Phoenician theogonies. This mythological element was present in Midd- le Kingdom Egypt and persisted through later periods.15 At least two Greek-educated scholars also continued to associate the motif with Egyptian theogonies. Eusebius, for instance, mentioned an Egyptian cosmogony where the god Knēph produced an egg from which the demiurgic god Ptah would have hatched.16 Moreover, the image of a “cosmogonic” or “theogonic egg” is too common to conclude that its presence in two different linguistic spheres can only be explained through diffusion.17 Cosmo- or theogonic eggs created by the wind, however, are specific enough to suggest some connexion. In this case, we can find an Egyptian parallel in the demotic text On the Primeval Ocean, dated to the second-century CE. Its theogony involves the generation of the sun god from an egg created by the coalescence of the four winds. The text’s editor, Mark Smith, also found traces of a similar motif in some late antique Greco-Egyptian papyri.18 These texts suggest an older tradition but as far as we can tell, they all postdate the examples cited by West.

14 See also Baumgarten (1981) 98–103. 15 See Serge Sauneron and Jean Yoyotte, “La naissance du monde selon l’Égypte ancienne,” in La naissance du monde (Paris, 1959) 59–62 and Susanne Bickel, La cosmogonie égyptienne avant le Nouvel Empire (Fri- bourg, 1994) 233–241. 16 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 3.11.46, citing part of an unnamed work by Porphyry (perhaps Peri agalmatōn, frag. 10 Bidez). See also Diodorus of Sicily, Historical Library, 1.27.5. 17 See the list of examples in Anna-Britta Hellbom, “The Creation Egg,”Ethnos 28 (1963) 63–105. 18 On the Primaeval Ocean, ed. Mark Smith (Copenhagen, 2002) 207–211. The fact that the vulture could later represent Mut, and that this species—thought to be entirely composed of females—was believed to be fertilized by the wind, suggests a natural-historical description of a generative process paralleling the way primitive generation could be imagined in mythological narratives. See Chaeremon, frag. 12 in Chaeremon, ed. Pieter W. van den Horst (Leiden, 1984), Plutarch, Moralia 286c5–10, Aelian, On the Nature of Animals 2.46, Horapollo, Hieroglyphica 1.11 in Horapollo l’Egiziano. Trattato sui geroglifici, ed. Franco Crevatin and Gennaro Tedeschi (Naples, 2002). Even more tantalizing is Horapollo’s mention (1.11) that the Egyptians used the vulture sign to represent the universe or the sky (ouranos) since, he wrote, “the generation of the sun, of the moon and of the other celestial bodies takes place in it.” The Egyptians, Horapollo also wrote, would have considered the universe/sky as feminine “since the gen- TeG 9 Mōt in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos 19

It consequently appears that the wind-born egg is the only element specific to the cosmogonies of Philo and the Sidonians. It should be said, however, that none of the texts cited by West are particularly ancient. Strictly speaking, West compared the cosmogonic traditions reported by a first century author (Philo of Byblos) with those reported by a fourth-century BCE author (Eudemos of Rhodes), not with ancient Semitic sources.19 While Philo or his source could have borrowed the notion of a wind-born egg from a Phoenician myth, the connection is too slim to suggest that all other elements of the cosmogony were also taken from the same source. It is probably with a similar spirit of systematic explanation that the name of Mōt has been usually explained as a reference to the Phoenician god of death Mot even though the evidence is less than convincing. As could be expected, known representations of Mot from Ugarit have nothing to do with generative processes.20 Mot also appears to have been a minor deity.21 The only argument for seeing Mōt as the euhemeristic rendering of Mot was presented by Marvin Pope who claimed that the domain of Mot in Ugaritic texts was “slushy, and putrescent.”22 This would coincide with the description ofMōt in Philo’s cosmogony as “mud” or as a “putrefaction of a watery mixture.” From this point of view, cal- ling a primordial and generative principle by the name of the Phoenician god Mot would have not referred to death but to mud, which could be considered as a source of animal life (at least in Greek philosophy).23 According to Moshe Held, however, there is no connection between the abode of the Ugaritic Mot and humidity.24 The case is open and I am not qualified to settle it. Held’s doubts, however, show that the putative connection between Mot’s domain and mud could not have been as evident as Pope argued. The chances that Philo would have alluded to it seem rather slim. In the absence of clear evidence that Philo or his source connected Mot and its “slushy and putrescent” domain to mud considered as a generative element, we are brought back to the counter-intuitive theory that Philo or his source would have equated death (or the god of death) with the origin of the world. A solution can be found in late Egyptian representations of the goddess Mut.

eration of these [i. e. the celestial bodies] occurs there” and that generation “is the work of the female [gender].” 19 See West (1994) 290–293. The text of both accounts also go back to Damascius’ treatise On the First Prin- ciples (c. 500 CE). 20 See, e. g., Paul Watson, “The Death of ‘Death’ in the Ugaritic Texts,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 92 (1972) 60–64. 21 Mōt only shows up in a few references in Edward Lipiński, Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et pu- nique (Leuven, 1995). See also Christopher Hays, “The Goddess Mut in Iron Age Palestine,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71 (2012) 308. 22 See, e. g., Baumgarten (1981) 112 n. 71, following Marvin Pope, Job (Garden City, 1965) 73–74 and H. L. Ginsberg in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. Pritchard (Princeton, 1969) 134. 23 On this notion, see Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. Herman Diels and Walther Kranz (Berlin 1912– 1922) fragments 12 A11, 12 A30, 60 A1, 64 A32 and 68 A139 with William K. C. Guthrie, In the Beginning (Ithaca, 1965) 35–39. 24 See Moshe Held, “Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973) 188–190. 20 Olivier Dufault TeG 9

It is surprising how little Egyptian influences have been found in thePhoenician Hi- story considering that its author implied that the entire text ultimately derived from a book attributed to Thoth. According to the two only sources on thePhoenician History, Eusebius and his contemporary Porphyry of Tyre, Philo would have translated the work of Sanchuniathon of Beirut, a legendary figure who would have lived before the Trojan war.25 Sanchuniathon, Porphyry claimed, would have learned the history of the universe from a certain Hierombalos, “priest of the god Ieuo.” 26 Following Eusebius, however, the Phoenician History would have implicitly attributed the sources of Sanchuniathon to Thoth. According to the text of the Phoenician History cited by Eusebius, Philo claimed that Sanchuniathon found the source for his own history in the work of a certain Taautos son of Misor, the inventor of writing.27 The Egyptian origin of Sanchuniathon’s source is implicitly confirmed by the fact that Philo equated Taautos with Thoth and Hermes.28 It is difficult to explain the discrepancy between the accounts of Porphyry and Eusebius since we know of the Phoenician History only through Eusebius (Porphyry’s comments on the Phoenician History also come from the same book of Eusebius’ Preparation to the Gospels). Be that as it may, the text of the cosmogony as we know it—that is, through Eusebius’s citations—was ultimately attributed to a Phoenician wise man who was identified with the Egyptian god Thoth. In other words, the version of Philo’s Phoenician History read by Eusebius intuited that its source was a part of the original Hermetica. The work of this euhemerized Thoth, Philo also wrote, would have been found in the “shrines of Ammon.”29 We can consequently suspect that Philo’s narrative was influenced by the fame and antiquity of Egypt.30 This is likely considering that Philo wrote that the Phoenicians and the Egyptians were the oldest nations and that he believed them to have taught the rest of humanity to worship human benefactors and natural forces.31

25 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.9.20 and Porphyry, On Abstinence 2.56. 26 Porphyry in Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.9.21. 27 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.10.7–14. 28 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.9.23–24. 29 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.9.26: ὁ δὲ συμβαλὼν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδύτων εὑρεθεῖσιν ἀποκρύφοις Ἀμμουνέων (variant: Ἀμμοῦνσων) γράμμασι συγκειμένοις ἅ δὴ οὐκ ἦν πᾶσι γνώριμα, τὴν μάθησιν ἁπάντων αὐτὸς ἤσκησεν. Translations of this sentence vary. See the commentary of Baumgarten (1981) 74–82. Ἀμμουνέων has been read as Ἀμμωνείων (genitive plural of Ἀμμωνείος, literally “of Ammon”) and translated as “les sanctuaires d’Ammon” by Pierre Nautin, “Sanchuniathon chez Philon de Byblos et chez Por p hy re ,” Revue Biblique 56 (1949) 262, Baumgarten (1981) 42–45, Edwards (1991) 213–220 as well as Jean Sirinelli and Édouard des Places in their Sources Chrétiennes translation. Alternatively, it could also be read as the genitive plural of Ἀμμουνεύς, an “adept of Ammon.” Martin West read ἀμμουνέων/ ἀμμοῦνσων as the genitive masculine plural of the unattested form Ἀμμουνεῖς (“Ammonites”), which he conjectured from the Hebrew ‘ammōnîm. E.H. Gifford gave a similar reading of the word. West read: “lighting upon the out-of-the-way works found in the adyta, written in Ammounean characters, which were not familiar to everyone, he worked out everything for himself.” As West himself remarked, the name of this ethnic group was spelled Ἀμμανῖται in the Septuagint although he claimed that there would be no reason “why we should expect Philo to have known or adopted the Septuagint form Ἀμμανῖται.” This is not self-evident. The form Ἀμμανῖται was used by Flavius Josephus some years before PhiloJu ( - dean Antiquities, 7.139.2, 159.1, 161.2, 161.7). Considering that the subject of the sentence was Sanchuni- athon and that he was looking for the work of Taautos, i. e. Thoth/Hermes, a reference to Ammon appears more likely than to the Ammonites. TeG 9 Mōt in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos 21

An 3031 allusion to Egyptian theology can also be found in the name of Mōt. The first que- stion is to know what this word could have transliterated, and if the name of the goddess Mut (mwt) could have been one of them. Around the time of Philo, Plutarch wrote that Isis could be called Mouth as well as Athuri and Methuer (i. e. Methyer).32 Mouth appears to have been a reference to the goddess Mut. At an early stage in the evolution of Egyptian, the t sound dropped at the end of words. The name of Mut, however, retained the final t together with other Egyptian names that contained the same sound in final position.33 Mo- reover, the sound of the vowel in mwt could be transliterated in Greek by the sequence ou. For instance, the theophoric name of Thutmosis—containing the name of Thoth,+H wtj— could be transliterated in Greek as Thoummōsis.34 Third- and fourth-century papyri also show that +Hwtj could be written Thouthin Greek.35 We can then conclude that the word Mouth was a Greek transliteration of the Egyptian mwt and that the name of the goddess was known by Plutarch, a well-read Greek scholar and contemporary of Philo. Moreover, evidence shows that the Egyptian name of Mut could have also been transliterated Mōt. First, there are several examples showing that the Egyptian interconsonantal vowel “w” could be variously represented by ο, υ, ω and ωυ (o, u, ō and ōu).36 Ptolemaic lists of names of Greek priests transliterated into Demotic show that interconsonantal omegas were transcribed in only 24% of cases. When they were, the transcription followed regional patterns. The three examples of transcriptions from northern cities all used the aleph (3). The vowel w was used in all other cases.37 It is possible that the reverse transcription (from Demotic to Greek) functioned in a similar way. We know from Philo that “the Alexandrians” wrote the name of Thoth (+Hwtj) Thōth while those he called “the Egyptians” wrote it Thōuth. This first shows that the Greek representation of the Egyptian vowel w fluctuated by the time the Phoencian History was written.38 It also shows that the vowel w found in the name of Mut (mwt) could be transcribed ω by Alexandrian con- temporaries of Philo. It is consequently possible that Egyptians (not mentioning Greeks)

30 Diodorus of Sicily also started his universal history with Egypt. For another Egyptian element in the Phoenician History, see Joachim F. Quack, “Les Mages Égyptianisés? Remarks on Some Surprising Points in Supposedly Magusean Texts,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65.4 (2006) 269–270. 31 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.9.29. For arguments suggesting an influence from the Heliopolitan and Hermopolitan cosmogonic traditions, see Baumgarten (1981) 113, 115–117. For similar arguments, see Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden Jr., Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History (Washington D.C., 1981) 37 n. 29 and Nunes Carrera (1991) 244–258. 32 Isis and Osiris, 374b. 33 See Wolfgang Brunsch, “Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Wiedergaben ägyptischer Personennamen,” Enchoria 8 (1978) 124–128. 34 Josephus, Against Apion 1.88 with the reading from the Codex Laurentianus 69.22. The same name was also be rendered Tethmōsis, Josephus, Against Apion 1.94 (citing Manetho) and Thmouthosisby Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 10.13.8. 35 See the Papyri Graecae Magicae, ed. Karl Preisendanz et al. (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1971), III.471, V.350 and XV.14, XIII.923. 36 See Brunsch (1978) 66, 114, 121–128. 37 Willy Clarysse and Griet van der Veken, The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt (Leiden : Brill, 1983) 146, 150. 38 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.9.24. 22 Olivier Dufault TeG 9 pronounced the name of the goddess Mut in different ways and that one of these produced the form that Philo used (i. e. Μώτ). As far as we can trust the text of Eusebius’ Preparation to the Gospels, Philo rather referred to Mot using the Greek form Mouth to identify an ancient Phoenician prince. This man, he wrote, would have been called by the Phoenicians Plutōn and Thanatos. In other words, they called him “death,” i. e. Mot (mwt).39 It is also unlikely that the author of the Phoenician History would have made use of the god Mot for two different euhemeristic readings: once when describing a legendary Phoenician prince (Mouth), and once more when naming a cosmogonic principle (Mōt). The development of the roles of Mut in Egypt under the Hellenistic and Roman rule shows that she would be a much better candidate than Mot. An inscription from the first pylon of Mut’s precinct in Karnak, dated to the Ptolemaic period, shows that the goddess Mut was assimilated to Neith and that she was considered a demiurgical goddess.40 Mut was represented as a mother goddess and as the protector of the pharaoh from the New Kingdom on but the inscription from the precinct of Mut appears to be the first to have unambiguously cast her in the role of demiurge.41 One other inscription from the pylon describes her as the “mother of Re” and as “greater there than the gods and goddesses.”42 In another, she is said to be the “mother of the gods.”43 A longer inscription attributes her fuller creative powers: (14) The son of Re (Ptolemy)| comes to you, Mut, (his) Mistress, while he makes your house festive with what you have created, for you (15) are the Father who becomes Mother, who creates everything that exists, who gives birth to all Egypt/the universe,44 the prince, father of the gods, whose manifestation is the (primeval) water, while the mother of the two Disks is your divine embodiment.45 According to Jean-Claude Goyon, Mut in Karnak and Neith in Esna were conflated during the Ptolemaic and Roman period and at the same time represented as demiurgic figures.46 An inscription from Esna also equates Neith with Mut and moreover casts Neith

39 Eusebius, Preparation to the Gospels, 1.10.34. The edition of Mras and des Places (Berlin, 1982) does not signal different readings formouth . 40 The First Pylon of the Mut Temple, South Karnak: Architecture, Decoration, Inscriptions, ed. Richard A. Fazzini and Jacobus van Dijk (Leuven, 2015), text 12, printed below. 41 See the evidence on New Kingdom representations of Mut in te Velde (1979–1980) 6–9. 42 See text 8, line 5 in Fazzini and van Dijk (2015) 26. All texts from the Mut precinct were edited, translated and commented by Jean-Claude Goyon, Herman te Velde and Jacobus van Dijk. I have pasted their transliteration of the inscriptions here for reference only. I do not claim any competence in translating this document. 43 Text 10 in Fazzini and van Dijk (2015) 28–31. 44 On #t-mn, “Egypt,” or “the universe,” which would be identical to Egypt in the mythical context of the inscription, see Fazzini and van Dijk (2015) 33 n. 123. 45 Text 12 from Fazzini and van Dijk (2015) 31–33: (14) ỉyỉ.n s3 Ra (Ptwlmys etc.)| xr=t Mwt Hnwt(=f) Hr sHb pr=t m qm3.n=t twt (15) ỉt xpr m mwt ỉr nty ms #t-mn wr ỉt nTrw mw ỉrw=f ỉw mwt ỉtn.wy pw Hmt=t. The translation of Fazzini and van Dijk with was slightly modified following the suggestions of Friedhelm Hoffmann and Christopher Waß. 46 See Jean-Claude Goyon, “Notes d’épigraphie et de théologie thébaines,” in Fazzini and Dijk (2015) 55–70 (= Chronique d’Égypte 78 [2003] 43–65). TeG 9 Mōt in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos 23 and Methyer together in the role of “the begetter” (*m3t).47 Plutarch also appears to have witnessed a similar form of syncretism when he wrote that Mouth (“Mut”) and Methuer (“Methyer”) were the same as Isis. There is also clear evidence that Mut was present in Palestine during the first half of the first Millennium BCE.48 Christopher Hays pointed to the finds of several figurines in Palestinian sites depicting a leonine figure with the pschent, a combination of attributes that can be associated with the goddess Mut. In some cases, inscriptions found on the figurines bearing Mut’s name confirmed this association.49 Mut, Hays argues, would have been sufficiently important in the region to be attacked in the book of Isaiah.50 If we are to assume that her presence in the region was sustained, this would reinforce the hypothesis that the Hellenistic figure of the demiurgical Mut could have made its way into Philo’s Phoenician History. To sum up, if we are to explain the presence of Mōt in the Phoenician History, the Ptolemaic Mut appears as a better candidate than the Ugaritic Mot. First, Philo’s ultimate source (at least according to Eusebius’ citations of the work) was implicitly identified with Thoth. Secondly, the word Mōt could have applied to the Egyptian name of Mut. On the other hand, Mot, i. e. death, is an unlikely candidate for a cosmogonic principle. Mut also appears to have been part of a process of syncretism starting in Hellenistic Egypt that represented her (and other divinities) as demiurgic goddesses. This process was continued in Roman times and appears to have been taken over by Greek writers such as Plutarch. That Philo or his source referred to her demiurgic role would also make sense considering that he saw the Phoenician and Egyptian traditions as equally ancient and as equally authorita- tive.

47 Text 163.23 in Serge Sauneron, Esna V (Cairo, 1963) 291. 48 See Christian Herrmann, Agyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1994) cited by Christopher Hays, “The Egyptian Goddess Mut in Iron Age Palestine,”Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71 (2012) 303–304. 49 About the figurines, Hays (2012) 304 notes that “one (no. 171) is inscribed dd mdw ỉn Mwt, ‘recitation by Mut’ (Fig. 4); most are not inscribed, but Herrmann [1994] identified six others as Mut in his descrip- tions (nos. 163, 170, 173, 176, 177, 178), and one should do the same with the other female amulets with the double crown (e. g., no. 159; fig. 7), since Mut was the goddess most commonly portrayed with the double crown in this period.” 50 This would not have been surprising considering that other Egyptian gods were present among the Phoe- nicians. See Religionen in der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 2, ed. Corinne Bonnet and Herbert Niehr (Stuttgart, 2010) 86–87. According to Lipiński (1995), 319–350, the Phoenicians borrowed forms of symbolic and aesthetic representations from the Egyptians but not their gods. It is clear however, that Lipiński speaks here of temple cults as he also recognized that multiple Egyptian amulets and statuettes attest to “the presence of Egyptian divinities at the level of popular and personal devotion.” He also points out that some Phoenician proper nouns included the names of Egyptian gods (322–323). In other words, Phoenicians probably knew many Egyptian divinities but there are no clear traces that they honoured them in their temples. Friedhelm Hoffmann: Einleitung | Olivier Dufault: Mōt in the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos | Stefan Eisenhofer: Ursprungsmythen und Herrschaftslegitimation im Reich Benin | Nina Gschwind: JHWHs Handeln in creatio prima und creatio continua in Hiob 38,1–42,6 | Friedhelm Hartenstein: Kosmogonische Übergänge in alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Texten zur Weltentstehung | Salah el-Kholi: Die Schöpfungs- vorstellung im alten Ägypten und im Islam | Madeleine Mai: Mulier defessa. Mutter Erde und Atomismus bei Lukrez | Lorenzo Medini: Entre tradition grecque et égyptienne : la cosmogonie de Strasbourg | Walther Sallaberger: Zum Sitz im Leben von Weltentste- hungsmotiven im frühen Mesopotamien | Regine Schulz: Altägyptische Erklärungsmo- delle und ihre lokale Verortung am Beispiel des Buchs vom Fayum | Theresia Schusser: „Vom Ursprung der Welt“. Kosmogonische Vorstellungen in NHC II,5 | Gerald Unter- berger: Die Schöpfungsmythen der Dogon | Mona Zuheir El-Shaieb: ��Shapes, �O��rienta- tions and Elements of Egyptian Zodiacs in the Graeco-Roman Period