A recent article in this journal shows a most welcome interest in Berossus, who has suffered a most undeserved neglect, especially in the English language, over the last century. Further, the writer of this article has for the first time tackled the problem of Pseudo-Berossus which Felix Jacoby posed in his text in FGrH by assigning certain fragments to “(Pseudo-)Berossos”. Jacoby's death before the commentary on this section was written has deprived us of knowledge of the grounds for this editorial procedure. The matters involved are highly important for the history of Babylonian ideas and the recent treatment of the problem merits critical scrutiny.

The agreed facts are that Berossus wrote his Babyloniaca in three books, and that genuine excerpts are quoted in Josephus and Eusebius, though these may not be the ipsissima verba of the author, having perhaps been taken from some sort of digest made by Alexander Polyhistor. The original work seems to have had a remarkably limited circulation in antiquity. These excerpts deal with mythology, legend and history relevant to the Old Testament. Of course Berossus may have written other works which are not quoted by Josephus and Eusebius because they lacked any Biblical interest. Some Greek and Latin authors, especially Vitruvius, Seneca, Pliny the Elder and Censorinus, cite Berossus on astrological matters, and it is these which Jacoby assigned to “(Pseudo-)Berossos”. Drews is entirely correct when he refuses to reject Josephus’ testimonium about Berossus’ reputation for astronomy, and since Berossus had no knowledge of the best contemporary Babylonian mathematical astronomy, as Neugebauer has remarked, the older traditional astronomy cum astrology must be meant. So far so good. No doubt Berossus did write on this subject, either in his Babyloniaca or elsewhere. But some statements in the Latin writers are so erroneous as to raise serious doubts whether they had themselves read Berossus.