Re: Adam never met Eve

Date: Sun Nov 12 2000 - 14:02:22 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Adam never met Eve"

    George Murphy wrote:

    << I would still like to see a citation from a recognized philologist with
     in these languages to the effect that "Erech" or "Uruk" is derived from
     "Enoch". Maybe Waddell is one, though the fact that you said nothing
     about this makes me dubious. Nothing else you say here is in response
     to the point that I raise.
     Nothing is easier than to come up with popular etymologies of the "looks
     like" & "sounds like" variety. Usually they are frequently spurious.
     Pointing out unproven claims isn't all of scholarship but it's a
     necessary part of it. Call it carping if you wish.

    L H Waddell was a pioneer translator of Sumerian. In spite of the 1968 date
    on the book cited, it was originally published in 1929; and Waddell died in
    1938. In those early times the meaning of Sumerian was pretty much a guessing
    game (and still is to some extent) and Waddell linked Sumerian to
    Indo-European, which has since been discarded as certainly not true. Waddell
    also tended to speculate more than most others did (the complete title of his
    book is The makers of civilization in race & history, showing the rise of the
    Aryans or Sumerians, their origination & propagation of civilization, their
    extension of it to Egypt & Crete, personalities & achievements of their
    kings, historical originals of mythic gods & heroes with dates from the rise
    of civilization about 3380 B.C. reconstructed from Babylonian, Egyptian,
    Hittite, Indian & Gothic sources). Waddell's opinion without any other more
    modern Sumerologist to back him up is inadequate as academically sound

    It is true that E.Anna(k), a temple district, preceded the building of the
    associated city of Uruk, which is widely recognized as the biblical Erech;
    and, one could say that the first building at Erech was E.Anna(k). But, is
    E.Anna(k) the word that lies in back of Enoch, or more properly as the hebrew
    says Hanoch, with a Hard H and a long o? E.Gal comes into hebrew as Hekal,
    so, a soft H could have come in, but a hard H? And the a in Gal is retained,
    not changed to a long o. I would say Dick needs more solid linguistic
    evidence before making E.Anna(k) the etymology of Enoch.

    More importantly, although "House of Heaven" is a legitimate translation of
    E.Anna(k), the "House" was thought of as the house of a person who lived
    there; and that person is the god An, god of heaven; so, the more proper
    translation would be "House of An" , which is what was found at E.Anna(k),
    that is, a "Temple of An". This means that if Enoch is the hebrew rendering
    of E.Anna(k), then Cain named his son, "Temple of An." This seems improbable
    to me. In theophoric names, the person named and the god named are usually
    related, as in "servant of An" or "beloved of An" or the like. Unless
    evidence of someone else being named a temple or a house or the like can be
    adduced, I do not believe that "Temple of An" is probable as the name of a
    person. In addition, it seems odd to me that both Cain and Jared (Gen 5:19)
    would name their sons "Temple of An" when one would expect El or Yahweh to
    be divine name they would choose if any.

    I conclude that more solid evidence is needed before saying that the biblical
    "Enoch" is the same as or is based upon E.Anna(k).


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 12 2000 - 14:02:47 EST