From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Sat Nov 16 2002 - 13:24:42 EST
A few months back I read David Rohl, Legend: The Genesis of Civilization,
(London: Arrow Books, 1998). He had a very fascinating passage. Rohl writes:
ìAs we have learnt, Enki (ëLord of the Earthí) was called Ea in Akkadian
(East Semitic)óthat is to say the Babylonian tradition. Scholars have
determined that Ea was vocalized as ëEyaí. So, when Moses stood before the
burning bush and asked the name of the god of the mountain, did he really
reply ëI am who I amí (Heb. Eyah asher eyah)? This puzzling phrase has long
perplexed theologians but now there is a simple explanation. The voice of
God simply replied ëEyah asher EyahíóëI am (the one who is calle Eyahíóthe
name of Ea in its West Semitic (I.e. Hebrew) form. Scholars have simply
failed to recognise that this is another of those characteristic puns in
which the Old Testament abounds. ëI am (Eyah) he who is called (asher) Ea
(Eyah)í is a classic biblical play on words. It also explains Godís
apparently nonsensical instruction: ëThis is what you are to say to the
Israelites, ëI am has sent me to youí. Godís words should really be
translated as ëEyah has sent me to you.í
ìíEyahí or simply ëYaí is the hypocoristic form of the name
Yahweh found as
an element of so many Old Testament names.íî David Rohl, Legend: The Genesis
of Civilization, (London: Arrow Books, 1998), p. 196-197
I looked things up in Strong's and found this (the H numbers refer to
Strong's word numbers):
What H4100 is his name H8034? what H4100 shall I say H559 unto them?
14And God H430 said H559 unto Moses H4872, I AM H1961 THAT I AM H1961: and
he said H559, Thus H3541 shalt thou say H559 unto the children H1121 of
Israel H3478, I AM H1961 hath sent H7971 me unto you.
Strong's leaves out 'asher' which Rohl says is there in the Hebrew, 'asher
meaning 'that'. The interesting thing is that if asher isn't in the
original, then the sentence makes sense under Rohl's intepretation. "I am
Ea". And it is in response to a direct question about the name. And given an
easy change in pronounciation, 'eyah' becomes merely 'Ya' which is used for
God's name in Psalms 68.
Now, if Rohl's view is correct, then what are the implications? Is Dick
Fischer then correct to treat the Sumerian religious documents as if they
are divinely inspired? Is Yahweh, Ea? What of the polytheism in the Sumerian
and Akkadian religious discussions of Ea/Enki?
Comments?
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 16 2002 - 18:36:58 EST