Ancient Language Scholar debunks Sitchin. Heisser will be on Art Bell tonight and will receive open calls.--DJ

Zecharia Sitchin's Errors and an Open Letter to Mr. Sitchin
By Michael Heisser
http://www.facadenovel.com/positionpapers.htm

Introductory Comments:

While acknowledging the diligent work of Zecharia Sitchin, particularly the valuable insights into the ancient cross-cultural connections relating to the "ET" issue, several of the major pillars to Mr. Sitchin's work do NOT stand up under scholarly scrutiny. I believe that Mr. Sitchin has done some kind of work in the ancient languages (I have never seen academic credentials in the form of degrees or transcripts), but some of the mistakes he makes are at so basic a level of language knowledge that I am uncertain if he in fact knows the languages he says he does. I'm guessing that with Hebrew, for example, Mr. Sitchin (being Jewish) can sight-read the language but doesn't understand Biblical Hebrew grammar or semantics (much like many English readers don't have a real grasp of the mechanics of English grammar). Additionally, nearly everything Mr. Sitchin discusses with respect to other languages (Akkadian and Sumerian) can be gained from numerous secondary sources - and then merely supplying one's own "word meanings" and interpretations. I have seen little that convinces me that Mr. Sitchin is a language "expert". I say this because of Mr. Sitchin's mistakes (see below), and because he rarely interacts with scholarly articles pertaining to any linguistic material in the texts he uses. Unfortunately, there are even points he just makes up. Either (1) He doesn't know the languages he says he does; (2) He is very careless - the mistakes are obvious to someone with training in these ancient languages); or (3) He just doesn't want readers to know what's really going on in these texts. None of these options are very flattering. In short, I don't quite know what to think about why he misses so much and resorts to making things up in places.

The Specifics:

As examples of what I am talking about, I invite the reader to investigate the material below. I am a trained Semitic linguist, and can back up the assertions that follow. Reading through these items will also help provide the background for my Open Letter to Mr. Sitchin at the bottom of this page.

The reader should also know that I believe that the strange phenomena people have experienced in antiquity through the present day with respect to "UFOs" and "aliens" are real. The Facade offers an alternative paradigm to these phenomena, one that, contrary to Mr. Sitchin's reconstruction, CAN be defended (if the connections be legitimate) through ancient texts.

Lastly, the reader should also know that I view Mr. Sitchin more positively than others who are trying to link ancient texts of the Old Testament and other near eastern cultures of antiquity to aliens (such as Alford, who appears to have even scantier (any?) credentials in the ancient languages than what I can discern of Sitchin). To his credit, Mr. Sitchin has maintained a distinction between his understanding of the Annunaki and the God of the Hebrew Bible. He seems to genuinely want to mesh the two notions. My contention is that his work is linguistically deficient (and therefore many of his ideas lack a linguistic foundation), but that there is an alternative paradigm that can be drawn from the ancient material that offers a better reconstruction (assuming the UFO and alien contact phenomena are real). This paradigm is offered in The Facade.

Mr. Sitchin's Errors

Claim # 1

Sitchin insists that "Elohim" in Genesis 1:26-27 is plural, thereby "requiring" us to interpret that passage as supporting his idea that extraterrestrial "gods" (The Annunaki) created humankind. (See The 12th Planet, p. 337-338).

Sitchin's comments in this regard show either a refusal to consider the Hebrew grammar of this passage, or outright ignorance of that grammar (i.e., he just never looked). "Elohim" does NOT always mean "gods" (plural); the meaning of the term is to be determined by grammatical and contextual clues. GRAMMAR is IMPORTANT! Grammar is to language what your graphical internet browser is to the websites on the internet - it is the organizing vehicle that gives meaning to the data -bits of information; without it you'd have to create your own method of obtaining and understanding that information - it would be totally SELF STYLED. Grammar dictates the formation of words, the relationship of words to each other, and the meaning of those words with respect to that arrangement. Without attention to the rules of grammar that have governed the languages of ancient texts, you can make the texts say ANYTHING; grammar is a control against total subjectivity. Sitchin ignores grammar in his work on elohim in this passage (and others). The PDF files below illustrate (from the Hebrew) that "elohim" often refers to a "god" or "God" (proper name). Besides this evidence from the Hebrew Bible, I have also posted examples from ancient Mesopotamian texts (Akkadian) and the famous El-Amarna texts (also Akkadian) where the plural word for "gods" ('ilanu) refers to a single person or god - just as in the case of Hebrew elohim. Why is Sitchin (and others) unaware of this material ! Someone trained in the ancient languages would know about this - and if he knows it, why doesn't he tell his readers!?

Here are the examples of the Akkadian word for "gods" (plural) used to refer to SINGLE gods or individuals.

Here is my critique - and the truth as to what is going on in Genesis 1:26-27.

NOTE: In the above PDF file critiquing Sitchin on Genesis 1:26-27, I note how these two verse contain many grammatical evidences that "elohim" in these verses should be understood as SINGULAR. Some of these evidences are verb forms. So you don't have to take my word for it, below is the scanned page from the standard Biblical Hebrew parsing guide showing that these verb forms (where "elohim" is the subject) are indeed SINGULAR. The source is Todd Beall and William Banks, Old Testament Parsing Guide, vol. 1 (Moody Press, 1986), p. 1.

Here's the page.

Claim # 2

Sitchin contends that the word "Nephilim" means "those who came down from above" or "those who descended to earth" or "people of the fiery rockets" (see The Twelfth Planet, pp. vii, 128ff.).

These translations, of course, serve his purpose - to see the Nephilim as ancient astronauts. As such it is hard to over-estimate the importance of Sitchin's work here - if he's wrong about the meaning of "nephilim," much of his overall thesis falls.

Unfortunately for Sitchin, such translations are completely out of step with the Hebrew text and the word which is at the base of "Nephilim." Once again ignoring the grammar of the text (and actually making up his own word meaning in this case), Sitchin makes the following errors, addressed in the PDF files below.

Sitchin assumes "Nephilim" comes from the Hebrew word "naphal" (as opposed to ARAMAIC - see below) which usually means "to fall." He then forces the meaning "to come down" onto the word, creating his "to come down from above" translation. "Nephilim" - in the form we find it in the Hebrew Bible - COULD come from Hebrew "naphal," but it could ONLY mean be translated one way in light of the spelling - "those who are fallen" (i.e., either "fallen in battle" - which is out of the question given the context of Genesis 6 - or "spiritually fallen" / evil - which fits the context IF the sons of God are evil). That the sons of God in Genesis 6 were evil divine beings and this cohabitation was evil, one needs only to turn to either Jude 6-7 and II Peter 2:4-6, or the Book of Enoch.

How can I say "ONLY" above? Click HERE for the scholarly reasons from Hebrew morphology (morphology = the "shape" or grammatical form / "spelling" of the word). In short, if you care about the grammar of Hebrew, Sitchin's word meanings CAN'T be correct.

Here are the dictionary entries (from Koehler- Baumgartner's Dictionary) referred to in the above paper / link (DON'T read these before reading the above link - they won't mean anything).

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3

Claim # 3

Sitchin assumes (and I still don't understand HOW he makes this error) that the "Nephilim" are the ones who came from heaven and cohabited with the human women! (Cf. p. 172, The 12th Planet).

The "sons of God" (beney ha-elohim) and the Nephilim are clearly separate groups. Here's an analysis of this Sitchin error.

Claim # 4

Sitchin argues that certain Sumerian terms (and the Akkadian equivalents) refer to flying craft. Specifically, these terms are "ME" and "MU" (see The 12th Planet, pp. 130 ff.). He then argues that such terms are behind the Hebrew term "shem". He then goes to the Genesis account of the tower of Babel, where the people wanted to make for themselves a "shem," and argues that this account is actually the construction of a flying craft/rocket.

There are a number of difficulties with Sitchin's arguemtns and his use of the languages here.

A. The Meaning of "ME"

To begin his argument, Sitchin quotes the following lines from an unnamed text (p. 130; why doesn't he give sources?). The text is most likely from the Descent of Inanna:

She (Inanna) placed the SHU.GAR.RA on her her head.
She arranged the dark locks of hair across her forehead.
She tied the small lapis beads around her neck.
Let the double strand of beads fall to her breast,
And wrapped the royal robe (PALA) around her body.

Although the word "ME" is not in this text, Sitchin insists that the SHU.GAR.RA is a space helmet. The object is surely some type of headgear, as is evident from the statuary Sitchin reproduces in his book (p. 132). That it involves SPACE TRAVEL is a fabrication, based on some presumed connection between it and a passage he quotes on page 136, which describes the ME that Enlil fastens to Inanna's body, objects which Inanna wears for her journeys in the "Boat of Heaven" (and so, for Sitchin, space gear or a space suit). Enlil announces to her:

You have lifted the ME
You have tied the ME to your hands
You have gathered the ME
You have attached the ME to your breast
O Queen of all the ME, O radiant light
Who with her hands grasps the seven ME

Where's the space travel part? That comes with Sitchin's interpretation of the "Boat of Heaven" in which Inanna rides - the MU. Inanna TAKES the ME's with her on her trip in the MU. Naturally, Sitchin's interpretation of the above depends on whether the MU is a flying craft (see B. below). Before getting to the MU, however, let's look at the idea of the ME being objects worn FOR FLIGHT.

The word ME in other Sumerian texts describing Inanna's journey wearing the SHU.GAR.RA is used dozens of times for objects that are NOT worn. Specifically, the famous text Inanna and Enki deals with Inanna's desire to "possess the ME" of Enki. In this work, ME can refer to: (a) abstract ideas, like rulership, godship, shepherdship, priestess-ship, the throne of kingship, dishonesty, kissing, extinguishing fire, etc.; (b) activities, such as love-making, prostitution, slander, plunder, writing, leather-working, arguing, mat-weaving, and washing; and (c) concrete objects, like a black dress, hair, a sheepfold, descendants, etc.

This data is what leads scholars to define "ME" as either "cultural norms (which can be stored like concrete objects) or banners that represent these objects or ideas" (see "Inanna and Enki," pp. 518ff. in The Context of Scripture, vol 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger; Brill, 2000). What would love-making have to do with flying in a spaceship? Hair? Washing? Etc.! In all, there are 94 "ME's" in the above text, NONE of which have any clear connection to flight.

For more specific study of the word "ME", see:

Gertrud Farber, Der Mythos "Inanna und Enki" unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der Liste der ME, Studia Pohl 10 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973)

Gertrud Farber, "ME" in Real-lexikon der Assyriologie

Richard Averbeck, The Cylinders of Gudea, pp. 417-433 in The Context of Scripture, vol 2: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, ed. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger (Brill, 2000)

B. The Meaning of "MU"

Does "MU" refer to a flying SHIP? The most current study on "heaven" or "heavenly" terminology is Wayne Horowitz's Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Eisenbrauns, 1998). Chapter 10 of that scholarly work produces a devastating critique of Sitchin's understanding of "MU". A summation, with page numbers, can be found HERE.

Open Letter to Zecharia Sitchin:

Dear Mr. Sitchin

While the contents of this letter may constitute a challenge to your academic scholarship, the intent of this letter is more in the interest of research than confrontation. I recognize and appreciate your efforts toward understanding the ancient texts of Mesopotamia and the Hebrew Bible in more than a sterile, unimaginative way than characterizes most scholarship in this area. However, I find many of your positions to be curiously lacking in precisely the area which you (or perhaps mainly your followers) have claimed expertise - the languages of the ancient near east. At this point I can only conclude (perhaps ignorantly) that either you do not know the grammar of these languages, did not do enough research into the languages and therefore missed the points I have raised above on this webpage, or (hopefully not) do not want your readers to know what's going on in these ancient texts with respect to the grammar and structure of the languages. Toward clarifying why your work has overlooked some obvious linguistic issues, I would ask that you respond to the following questions:

1. Can you please provide transcripts of your academic language work, or an address to which I could write to obtain proof of your training in this area? I would like to post this information on my website, and would gladly do so.

2. Can you explain why your work on Genesis 1:26-27 overlooks so many obvious grammatical indications that Elohim in that passage refers to a single deity (as demonstrated above)?

3. Can you explain why you did not include the comparative linguistic material from the Amarna texts that shows the Akkadian language also uses the plural word for "gods" to refer to a single deity (as demonstrated above)?

4. Can you explain how your interpretation of the word "nephilim" is at all viable in light of its morphological impossibility (as demonstrated above)?

5. Can you explain why you were unaware that Sumerian has no relative pronouns, thereby making the alleged "SHU.MU" etymology for Hebrew "shem" a totally bogus argument (as demonstrated above)? Why did you fabricate this form in light of Sumerian grammar?

6. Can you provide a coherent rationale in response to the logical problems presented by your understanding of the technology of the Annunaki as outlined below?

7. Can you explain how the Babylonians, if they knew the world was round by virtue of the Annunaki, made so many errors in the well-known Babylonian World Map?

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will of course post any responses on this site.

Sincerely,

Michael S. Heiser
PhD candidate, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The "Image of God"

One of the "centerpieces" of The Facade is the question of just how irrefutable evidence of intelligent ET life would impact mainstream western religions, namely Christianity and Judaism. The reason Christians and Jews would be disturbed (a la the Brookings Report) is because for centuries the leadership of those respective religions has linked the image of God (cf. Genesis 1:26-27), which is what makes mankind unique from animals (allegedly), to intelligence or sentience. Hence, if ET shows up, mankind is proven as not unique, and we have a huge error in the Bible. There should be no fear of an ET reality on these grounds, though, since that fear is based upon an exegetically weak and theologically misguided interpretation of the image. The Facade lays out a far sounder view in its treatment of the ET issue. The more academic version is here: The Meaning of the Image of God

Notes on Ezekiel's Visions

Ufologists and interested laypeople have for many years contended that the visions of Ezekiel (chapters 1 and 10 of that Old Testament book) contain the description of an encounter with a UFO (contending, among other things, that the "eyes" mentioned in those visions should be translated as "windows" - they shouldn't; Hebrew has several different words for "window" than the one meaning "eyes" in these chapters).

People who argue for a UFO/ alien craft in Ezekiel 1 and 10 typically are unaware that all the elements of the vision can be accounted for in the artwork of Babylon/ Mesopotamia - none of which resembles what we would think of as an alien craft today (contrary to, say, the Vimanas of ancient India, which are very clearly flying craft). For this ancient artwork, see Ezekiel's visions.

Items related to real "gods" in the Old Testament

Divine Council terms
Notes on the Linguistic Agreement of Ugaritic religious terms with Hebrew religious terms relating to the divine council

Psalm 82 - plural elohim in the Hebrew Bible
*An explanation of how this fits with monotheism is available only in print - I need permission from a publisher of a scholarly journal to post my article on this issue; until then, if you send me a self-addressed 10 x 13 stamped envelope [78 cents], I'll mail you a copy. Email me at michaelsheiser@yahoo.com for my mailing address.

Flaws in the "non angelic" view of Genesis 6:1-4

Many Christians try to "de-mythologize" the Genesis 6 account of the sexual cohabitation of the sons of God with human women by appealing to the notion that the "sons of God" represent the "godly" human line of Seth (Adam and Eve's son), while the "daughters of men" represent another, ungodly line. The issue, then, for those who take this position is one of completely HUMAN intermarriage - of the spiritually faithful and the unfaithful. For a list of items that point to the textual inadequacy of the "Sethite" view, click HERE.

Other Sitchin Critiques

1. Brief Response to Sitchin's recent posting of Adam's "alien genes"

2. Sitchin's Astronomy

I cite two scholars here against Sitchin's understanding of this field:

*Chris Siren (who actually knows Akkadian and Sumerian) has a brief analysis of Sitchin's astronomy HERE.

*Tom Van Flandern ( a real astronomer) - HERE is his critique of Sitchin.

I would also cite the following books as refutations of Sitchin:

Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, Wayne Horowitz (another REAL Akkadian scholar)

Mesopotamina Planetary Astronomy - Astrology, David Brown (ditto the above credential; this book is part of the Cuneiform Monograph Series)

3. Sitchin's Logic

Ask yourself if any of the following Sitchin ideas make sense:

How is it that the same gods who conquered deep space travel took several tries to genetically create humans? Couldn't they get it right the first time?

How is it that these gods, with their fantastic space travel technology, gods who gave mankind the technology to build the pyramids and other fantastic structures, didn't have a better mechanism than MANUAL LABOR for mining the earth's gold?

How is it that the deep space travel capability of the Annunaki CONSISTED OF COMBUSTION ENGINES (Sitchin's "fiery rockets")? Even we stupid humans know that can't work.

How is it that these deep space vehicles (rockets - !?) don't match the vehicles now seen by people in terms of their apparent propulsion systems - systems that many physicists believe (if genuine) COULD be capable of the kind of speeds necessary for true deep space travel?

How is it that these gods who had mastered the forces of physics and biology could not make a synthetic equivalent to gold?

Select Curriculum Vitae – Michael S. Heiser

Academic Degrees:

University of Wisconsin-Madison, (ABD)

dissertation title – "The Divine Council in Second Temple Jewish Literature"

University of Wisconsin-Madison, M.A., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, 1998
University of Pennsylvania, M.A., Ancient History (Israel, Egypt), 1992

Graduate Courses of Relevance:

Languages Studied / Graduate Language Courses:

Elementary Biblical Hebrew
Intermediate Biblical Hebrew
Advanced Biblical Hebrew
Hebrew Exegesis: Ezekiel
Hebrew Exegesis: Isaiah
Epigraphic Hebrew
Biblical Aramaic
Imperial Aramaic
Elementary Egyptian Grammar
Intermediate Egyptian Grammar
Elementary Biblical Greek
Biblical Greek Syntax
Septuagintal Greek
Syriac Grammar
Ugaritic Grammar
Moabite
Phoenician
Akkadian (independent study)
Sumerian (independent study)

Archaeology and Ancient History:

Biblical Archaeology
Dead Sea Scrolls
Middle Bronze Age
Culture of Ancient Egypt
The Hyksos
Ancient Near Eastern Religion
Egyptian History

Biblical Studies and Theology:

Old Testament Introduction
Pentateuchal Criticism
Biblical Hermeneutics
Bibliology
Trinitarianism

Academic Honors:

Scholarship recipient: Wisconsin Society for Jewish Higher Learning (1995, 1996, 1998)
Selected to: The National Dean's List (1996)
Selected to: Who's Who Among America's College Teachers (1996)
Fellowship recipient: James L Weinstein Fellowship in Hebrew Studies (1995)
Scholarship recipient, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Ancient History (1992)

Publications:

Scholarly

"Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God," Bibliotheca Sacra (January-March 2001)

"The Mythological Provenance of Isaiah 14:12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material," Vetus Testamentum (forthcoming, date undetermined); originally read at the annual meeting of The Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, MA, 1999

"Moses as High Priest and Sorcerer? A Response to Graham Hancock's Egyptian Explanation for the Ark of the Covenant," Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin (1995-1996)

"Biblical History, Chronological Reconstruction, and Apologetics: A Critique of Egyptology’s Sothic Dating System," Journal of Christian Apologetics (1999)

Review of A Short History of Ancient Egypt, by T.G.H. James, Johns Hopkins, 1998, for H-Net Book Reviews, http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/ (1998)
Non-Fiction, Academic (Lay Audience):

"Moses' Radioactive Death Machine: Graham Hancock's Arguments from Silence," The Anomalist 6 (1998): 54-87

The Bible Code Myth (Due end of April)

Unpublished Papers Read at Academic Conferences:

"The Divine Council in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Danvers, MA (1999)

“Gog of Magog, the 'chief prince': The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls Toward an Identification,” Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Danvers, MA (1999)

"Mount Sinai in Arabia," Annual Meeting of the Near East Archaeological Society, Orlando, FL (1998)

"Jeremiah 3:16 and the Ark of the Covenant: A Survey of Interpretation" Annual Meeting of the Near East Archaeological Society, Philadelphia (1995)

Memberships in Professional / Scholarly Associations:

I am a member of: The Evangelical Theological Society, The Society of Biblical Literature, The Near East Archaeology Society, and Associates for Biblical Research

Audio 4/5/01 on Rense: http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeram.asp?id=898783