Banyai at t-online.de
Sun Aug 15 04:44:00 EDT 2004
Sanchiunatons work is indeed a third hand report over Eusebius, most details being made irecognisable by labelling of Greek or Pseudo-Greek names unto the mythical personae.
But I could hardly recognise any or the scarciest biblic influence upon Eusebius. As a matter of fact it would have been even for Eusebius very hard to recognise any biblical parallels in this text. He had probably not the slightest idea of the similarity of his Usoos with Esau, and would he have had such an idea, he would have been rather scandalised to recognise in the Esaus/Jacob story pagan mythical elements.
Should he have recognised the similarity, his reaction would have been either to call Usoos brother like in the biblical text Jacob instead of Hypsuranios or Samemrumos (first being probably a translation into Greek of his phoenician original). It is also hard to discover how Eusebios might have been influnced by biblical sources calling Isaak either Cassios, Libanon, Brathy or Antilibanon (names of Phowenician mountains).
His reaction would have been probably rather to make the name Usoos disappear, by giving him a Greek nick, or demythologising the whole phoenician theogony.
So, on the whole, there is nothing behind the alegation, Eusebius would have been biblically biased. His account is indeed damaged, but on other reasons, of his or rather Philon´s attempt to appeal to the Greek tongue, making most of the text hardly understandable.
More information about the b-hebrew