5 June 2008
Exposing the Work of Zecharia Sitchin, Part 1: ELOHIM in the Hebrew Bible
Posted by MSH under: Ancient Astronauts; Sitchin .
Prior to this blog, I created a website devoted to exposing the flawed teachings and research of Zecharia Sitchin. Next to Erik von Däniken, Sitchin is easily the most well-known articulator of the ancient astronaut theory–the idea that the gods of ancient texts and religions were extraterrestrials, and those ETs came to earth long ago and either created humankind via genetic experiments with hominids (Sitchin’s view), or at least kick-started human civilization. Sitchin is different from von Däniken in one important respect: he claims to be a scholar of ancient languages, and his followers cast him as such. He isn’t a scholar of ancient languages, and has no credentials to demonstrate that he is. I’m someone who can hold him accountable, since I’ve got the degrees and coursework to show I know what I’m talking about. I don’t bother with von Däniken since he doesn’t pretend to be a scholar in my field.
My website is still online, but it’s outdated and pretty ugly (I’ve learned a few things about website design since 2001–at least enough to do a less ugly job). I’ll be updating my Sitchin critiques on PaleoBabble, and expanding them as well. My goal is to give out as much primary data as I can to readers. This is the first such effort. I want readers to be able to check the data, and I’ll do all I can to put it in YOUR hands. I want people to know I’m not making it up. Anyone who has read Sitchin knows he doesn’t do this–you have to depend on his (odd, to say the least) translations of texts, as well as his claims that certain readings in texts exist. Finding the source of his quotations is unbelievably frustrating most of the time.
With that intro, let’s get started.
One of my earliest PDF files regarding Sitchin’s work dealt with the word elohim in the Hebrew Bible. Sitchin and his followers claim that the word elohim (commonly translated “God”) is plural, and so it must be translated “gods” where it occurs. These gods are of course the aliens (the Anunnaki in Sitchin’s work), and so it is argued that the Bible actually says the extraterrestrial gods created humankind.
Here’s the truth. The word elohim is morphologically plural. Morphology refers to the “shape” or construction of a word - its form. The question, though, is that while elohim is plural in form, is it plural in meaning ? By itself, elohim can be either singular or plural in meaning. How can you tell? Two ways:
A. Grammar - Words have no meaning apart from sentences, and word relationships in sentences are determined by grammar. The grammar of Hebrew (like English) will tell you if elohim is singular or plural. Let me illustrate with English:
In English we have words that can be singular or plural: “deer”, “sheep”, “fish”. In these examples, you need other words to help you tell if one or more than one of these animals is meant. Sometimes these other words are verbs that help you tell. Compare the two examples::
1) “The sheep is lost” - the word “is” is a singular verb (It goes with a singular subject; one wouldn’t say, for example, “I are lost” - you would use a verb that goes with the singular subject (”I am lost”).
2) “The sheep are lost” - the word “are” is a plural verb (again, another word next to our noun “sheep” tells us in this case that plural sheep are meant.
All of this is just basic grammar - and every language has grammar. Biblical Hebrew has its own ways of telling us if elohim means one God or plural gods. And in EVERY passage in the Hebrew Bible where elohim creates humankind (or anything else), elohim is singular in meaning because all the verbs that go with it grammatically are singular. Sitchin is flat out, dead wrong. His view is DOA.
My original PDF is here if you want to read it. It was pretty basic, with an example or two. I even made a PDF that showed my view worked the same way in AKKADIAN, a language in which Sitchin is supposedly proficient. He isn’t. Here’s that file. On to the second way to tell singular vs. plural…
B. Context - I could call this “logic” as well, but we’ll go with context. Sometimes, the grammar doesn’t help. Sure, if elohim is the subject of a sentence and the verb it goes with is singular, then grammar tells you right away you have ONE deity. But what if elohim is another part of speech, like the direct object? Verbs won’t help at all then. Here’s where context becomes the determiner. Appealing to context may sound subjective, but it really isn’t; it’s usually VERY clear.
For example, consider the following sentence: “The Israelites sang songs of joy to Yahweh, praising elohim for delivering them through the Red Sea.” Is elohim singular or plural? It’s the direct object here, so we can’t depend on subject-verb agreement (grammar) to help us. But the context tells us that the songs of praise were to Yahweh–and Yahweh is not a plural! Yahweh was Israel’s God, and so the following elohim is obviously singular in context.
But enough of my examples. I don’t want to just tell you about this, since you have to take my word for it to some extent if you don’t know Hebrew, or if you have no experience with a foreign language. Instead, I want to SHOW you Sitchin’s view is bogus and give you the data to check up on me (and him!) at your leisure. I’m not afraid of giving you the data with the kind of tools real scholars use since the data are on my side and are a firm rebuttal to Sitchin’s view. To that end, I’ve made a few videos and have posted a few files for you.
First, I’ve made a video of me searching the Hebrew Bible with the LOGOS Bible software for (1) all occurrences of elohim in the Hebrew Bible; (2) all the places where elohim is demonstrated as singular through the grammar of subject-verb agreement; and (3) all the places where elohim could legitimately be translated as a plural because of the verb. The video is large (18.2 MB; 11:27 time), so you need high speed–and turn up your speakers.
- I’ve posted PDF files of the search results of the computer searches described in the video above (you might want to watch the video first, since it explains the results in these files). You can download all the PDFs for free:
- All occurrences of elohim in the Hebrew Bible (results in Hebrew); 251 pages; 2.5 MB; 2,601 occurrences, 99%+ are singular by grammar or context.
- Elohim as the subject of a singular predicator (results in Hebrew and English)
- Elohim as the subject of a plural verb form (results in Hebrew and English)
Second, on the same video above I also search for all the places in the Hebrew Bible where the word elohim is identified as Yahweh–the singular God of Israel–showing that elohim is singular for context reasons. You can download the PDF file of these results as well - over 1,400 occurrences of Yahweh being match with elohim! It’s 2.7 MB and 201 pages.
One last thing. Followers of Sitchin are bound to come across this post. If you’re one of those, feel free to register and comment. Don’t send me emails, since I won’t read them. Use the comment space. I want the world to see your response. However, if you can’t express yourself without foul language, I won’t approve it. After years of dealing with fundamentalist Sitchinites, I know the kind of screed they typically offer in their rage. It’ll be ignored, since it’s worthless. But if you can disagree without becoming hysterical, I’d love to post your response. It’s often a lot of fun. But be warned, I’ll demand data and coherence from you, and if you can’t supply it in exchanges, you’ll look very stupid. And I won’t stop you.
9 Comments so far...
Fundamentalist Sitchin Followers, Part 1 | UFO Religions Says:
5 June 2008 at 1:32 am.
[…] No, I haven’t forgotten to make a few comments about the SETI document’s section about catholic theology and ET, nor have I ditched the Partridge book and Balducci’s conundrums — I’ll get back to both t.his week. Today, however, I wanted to alert readers to a video I made and posted over on my PaleoBabble blog, along with PDFs for download. The video is exciting - it’s me searching the Hebrew Bible onscreen in regard to the word elohim and Sitchin’s nonsensical claims about it. Okay … it’s not exciting … but it’s a way for me to put the actual data in the hands of readers so they can see for themselves how Sitchin’s ideas are bankrupt. Almost 500 pages of search results in PDF for free download. Check it out! […]
blueyeswise Says:
5 June 2008 at 8:34 am.
The very first thing I thought when I opened up this site from my email (Google Alert for the tag ‘extraterrestrial’) was how so many others with the same tag in their Google Alerts will be getting it. More importantly, I know how many are taken in by TITLES and do not stop to read an article in it’s entirety. Consequently, I find that your ” Exposing the Work of Zecharia Sitchin” will be taken at face value by many without attention to the whole article. Is that what you wanted for Mr. Sitchin, to be exposed as a total fraud based on one word.
After others get your article, what happens here is that every website under the sun begins to pick up such a title and run with it simply because it’s juicy. Yea, you’re saying “good, that was my intention”. Well there’s a problem with that certainly because thus far your whole article has to do with one simple word, which was “ELOHIM” and that’s all.
How can you attack someone’s credibility based on one word? Now I understand that you have more to follow and I’ve already looked at the other references in your other site but still, I find no reason thus far where you can honestly use the word “Exposed”.
I am not a Sitchinite as you so facetiously put it however, I do have a few of his YouTubes in one of my forums and a website. Your derogatory title you placed upon those who are interested in Mr. Sitchin essentially puts them down and in a place you already stated you didn’t want them in, which was that they must be careful how they express themselves. You basically provoked them beforehand. Was that your intention?
Your article here simply tells me one thing. You didn’t learn anything from all of your Hebrew studies because if you had, your demeanor would be completely different than what I’ve read thus far on this page. You are rude and crude to people that you do not personally know and quite the narcissist. Certainly I do not want to start sounding like you, so I will stop there but you really need to take a look at ‘yourself’ and not so much at Zecharia Sitchin.
In regard to Mr. Sitchin, if you were to understand the depth of the spirit you would find in Mr. Sitchin’s speeches that he is an extremely kind hearted and meek individual with a nature that many of us wish we had. He’s not purposely pushing lies on us and nobody is idiot enough to believe that all of his words are 100% factual. He is an observer of certain things as I am as well. I never expect others to believe any of my experiences simply because they never observed what I did and he doesn’t either. Instead, everything remains theoretical and the reader or listener puts it in the back of their mind and not in that little drawer in the brain marked ‘truth’. By Zecharia Sitchin’s nature alone, people see that individual and who he really is, just like they see your nature upon reading this page and know who you really are.
You have a nut about him simply because he said a few things that go against your learned experiences. That probably bothered you, which is why you’ve done what you’ve done here. Get over it, it’s not that big of a deal, but slandering someone based on your weak attempt to “expose” him for such infractions is certainly not a road I would have taken.
Obviously, I know that you are not going to like my comments above because they’re really more about the writer and not the topic. I did not use profanity so I expect to see it posted. Due to it’s nature and since my comments most certainly pertain, if you do not post it, I will post it along with your article and it will fly across the internet faster than you could ever imagine.
And eye for an eye.
MSH Says:
5 June 2008 at 9:24 am.
blueyes: This was what I was looking for — I’m new to blogging, so thanks for alerting me to the fact that this will get picked up by so many avenues. Now for some response.
First, where is the post rude? I had to think about this. Maybe it was the use of the word fundamentalist. That’s the only thing I can think of, so I’ll not use that in the future. Anything else (it seems to me) is that you’re offended by facts. Can’t help you there.
I’m willing to take your word about Sitchin’s demeanor, but I’d be more impressed if he was honest. Why doesn’t he tell readers things like my video show - things that anyone in the first semester of a Hebrew class would learn? He doesn’t either because of incompetence, or because he’s made (and I guess still making) too much money to say “oops” or “sorry” at this point. Tens of millions of people have read his stuff, and so millions have been misled (or at least a few hundred thousand). If you were a lawyer or doctor, and millions of people were getting bad information about legal advice or health care, if you didn’t feel the urge to say something, you’d be pretty callous and, frankly irresponsible. My areas are ancient languages, the ancient Near East, and biblical studies, so I care if someone is deceiving people in these areas. It’s really that simple. If that’s a road you wouldn’t have taken, the shame is on you for letting people be deceived. It also isn’t slander if it’s true. So let him actually prove what he says. I think there’s a reason he hasn’t responded in seven years.
Lastly, no, I don’t “have a nut” about Sitchin. My website, which has been up since 2001, hasn’t had an addition in about four YEARS. If I was nutty over Sitchin, I’d keep reading his nonsense and adding things to the site. The reality is, he gets boring for me, but after four years I need to update the material. And this is the first entry about him on this blog, which is much wider than his stuff.
The fact is that Sitchin is the one that should issue some sort of disclaimer or apology to his readers for misleading them. Since he doesn’t, and since I don’t want to write about him any more than I have to, I’ve decided to give people access to the data and provide a means (the videos) for explaining what the PDF files are about. If that’s a sin, I’m unrepentant. I will, however, not use the term fundamentalist in the future. (And maybe “alien” is a better tag than extraterrestrial - not sure it would matter).
Quibus_Licet Says:
5 June 2008 at 5:07 pm.
Thanks for all you’re doing. I am a big fan.
I used to be somewhat of an adherent of Sitchin’s work. At one point, I was almost completely convinced of the ancient astronaut thesis. Sitchin’s claims of being a scholar of ancient languages is THE selling point of his books, and t nearly convinced me too.
In many ways, Däniken was only the opening act to Sitchin. The latter had put out works that, on the surface, seemed to prove all the previous claims - a real scholar, interpreting the real forgotten writings of the ancients. WOW! Who could argue with such an authority? And thus back to your original “gripe.”
MSH Says:
5 June 2008 at 7:32 pm.
Quibus_Licet: Thanks; I’m hoping the blog format let’s me be more active in this area. I’ve got access to some technology now (like the video thing) and am learning to put it to good use.
Matt... Says:
6 June 2008 at 9:52 am.
@MSH: point of curiosity…
While deer, sheep, and fish can be singular or plural depending on context, they don’t have distinct singular and plural forms. Doesn’t elohim have a singular form, eloah? Are there any sense among hebrew scholars as to why elohim occurs as a singular meaning as a plural word form when they could’ve used eloah instead?
Is it common in Hebrew to use the plural form when both are available? The only analogy I can think of in English is in the opposite sense when we refer to an unquantified amount of something and use the singular…we cut the grass, eat some chicken, plant some seed.
MSH Says:
7 June 2008 at 12:05 am.
Matt: The consonants ʾlh = the morphological singular root of the longer morphological plural ʾlhym (elohim). From Dennis Pardee’s article on Eloah in Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible: “There can be no doubt that the more common biblical and Jewish designation of ‘god’ as Elohim represents an expansion of Eloah, though there is debate both as to the ‘meaning’ of Eloah and as to the origin of the expanded form.” The reason that elohim took on a singular meaning is (!) that it did — i.e., that it did so is indisputable–overwhelmingly so; why it did is anyone’s guess. Personally, I think it has something to do with the statement in the Hebrew Bible that “Yahweh, he is ha-elohim [”THE elohim” - the definite article before the word elohim] - apparently a statement that meant Yahweh was the god of all gods.
Regarding the second part of your question (”Is it common in Hebrew to use the plural form when both are available?”) - the answer is yes, but it depends on what you mean by common. It happens with other nouns. Hebrew has words that work like your examples (not surprisingly, grass and seed are examples, where a singular form can refer to the greater amount, and both singular and plural forms are available). Kind of a classic example to what you’re asking is the word “wheat”(ḥiṭah = singular; ḥiṭṭim = plural). The singular form can be used as a collective (Deut. 8:8) even thought the plural is available (Gen 30:14). Other agricultural words do the same (spelt, flax, barley, etc.).
redadam Says:
28 July 2008 at 3:10 pm.
Dear doctor Hesier , I want to ask if about your opion then on the uses of elohim in the scriptures when it means a plurality of beings. On your sight it refers to a divine councle around the lord God of Isreal and and yet you make the distinction between the judges and rulers ( as it were) and angels as different ranks of beings. I realises that you a clear both are inferior created beings to the most high God but I wounder what is the difference in the nature of these other beings?
MSH Says:
28 July 2008 at 11:36 pm.
@redadam: The best thing to do here is to subscribe to my newsletter archive and get the draft (in progress) of the book I’m working on. The first chapter or so answers this question. In brief, elohim is a “place of residence” term (not an ontological term) - it tells us “this is an inhabitant of the ’spiritual world’ and not the world of those beings that are by nature embodied.” That’s why five different things/entities are called elohim in the OT. WITHIN that realm of the disembodied, there is rank and hierarchy (e.g., “angel” is a job description, not an ontological term).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
