27. Appendix 2: The pre-diluvian Kings and Patriarchs (§§412.1-457)

412.1

Cainites (Lamech’s Children)	Equivalent Sumerian Kings1	Cainites Main Line in Genesis2	Equivalent Sumerian Kings3	Adamic Patriarchs (Italicized)	Equivalent Apkallus and Kings4
		(Nod)	Ku’ara	(6th Day of Creation)
		Cain →	Alulim	ADAM →	*Uan(a) [1] [AB1]
		Enoch →	Alalgar	Abel →	*Ha-an-du-ga [2] [AB2 implied]
		City of Enoch	(Atlantis)
[Adah’s Sons:]	Bad-tibira
Jabal →	Enmen-lu-ana		Larak	Seth b. 3961 BC →	*Enme-du-ga [3] [A2+1]
Jubal →	Enmen-gal-ana	Irad →	En-sipa-zi-ana	Enosh b. 3856 BC →	*Enme-galam-ma [4] [A2+2]
[Zillah’s Children:]	Enme-ushumgal-ana	← Mehujael		Cainan b. 3766 BC →	*Enme-buluga [5] [A2+3]
Tubal-cain →	Dumuzi sipa			Mahalalel b. 3696 BC →	*An-enlil-da [6] [AB2+4]
Naamah →	(Geshtin-ana)
			Sippar
			Enme-dur-anki	← Jared b. 3631 BC	*Ha-an-utu-abzu [7] [AB2+5]
				Enoch b. 3469 BC →
			Larsa		Shuruppak
		Methushael →	Kidunnu-sha-kin-kin	Methuselah b. 3404 BC →	Ubara-Tutu
		Lamech → [marries (1) Adah (2) Zillah]	(Enmen-a)lima	Lamech b. 3217 BC →	“Shuruppak”
				Noah b. 3035 BC → (marries Balthi [identified with Naamah])	Ziusudra

Key to Columns:

1. City-names underlined

2. City-names underlined

3. Adamics italicized. City-names underlined.

4. Adamics Italicized; [n] = position in Uruk List; [An] = position in Abydenus; [Bn] = position in Berossus. Apkallus marked with an asterisk *. City-names underlined.

413. The names of the Cainites in Genesis parallel exactly the Sumerian names of the pre-diluvian kings:

414. Cain: the name, according to Eve herself (Gen. 4. 1), means “I have acquired [Heb. qaniyti from qanah] a male child from/via the LORD” — a Hebraism to denote a male of more than normal size, power, etc. Presumably all three elements of the etymology are included in the single Hebrew word qayin (Cain). As the context demonstrates, qayin means “acquisition,” but it is male in gender and applied to a male infant, hence it includes the idea of a “male acquired.” Implied also in the word is an element of divine intervention, since the root from which the etymology shows it to be formed, qnh, means “create,” or “give solid substance to,” rather than “acquire,” when used of the Divinity. Likewise, the Sumerian name of the first king Alulim (written a2-lulim) means “Acquisition (a2) of a more-than-humanly-powerful male (lulim = hero, powerful male, literally “stag,” the Semitic word for which, ajalu, is found employed to translate this name, i.e. “Ajalu” = “Alulim”). He was a male with the more-than-human power of a stag. The Biblical etymology seems to cross-reference the different meanings of the second element in the Sumerian name: 1) the sign lulim is basically the sign alim = “ox, buffalo” with the addition of the signs lu and lim as phonetic complements, to show it should be read lulim, i.e. that particular stag-like type of alim; 2) the same sign alim could be read giri3 which means “via” or something on that order; 3) alim was also the name of a deity, the “powerful one,” literally “ox” (like the Hebrew el which means “God” and “powerful one” and is etymologically related to the Hebrew ayyal, “stag,” this being the same word precisely as the Babylonian ajalu [= lulim].) Now all three meanings of the sign alim appear in the Biblical etymology, viz. “(I [Eve] have acquired [a2]) 1) a male (alim read lulim = “powerful male”) 2) from or via (alim read giri3, “via”) 3) the LORD (alim as the name of deity).” Traditionally the name Cain was also interpreted to mean “reed” (qayin, from qyn, cognate to kûn and qanah [cf. Gesenius-Tregelles, s.v. qanah], “to set upright, make or be firm,” understood as if it was the same as qaneh, reed, staff, from qanah, and, indeed, qayin means “spear,” i.e. a staff turned into a weapon, once elsewhere in the Bible, 2 Sam. 21. 16). The Sumerian a2-lulim is actually the name of a reed, “stag (lulim) horn (a2),” presumably with reference to the structure of the plant, and in this case a2 is a noun (“horn”) instead of a verb (“acquire”). The Rabbinic tradition that the sign of Cain was a horn (Heb. qeren) on his forehead must surely have something to do with this etymology: the same tradition relates that Cain was mistaken for a horned animal by his descendant, Tubal-cain, who then caused him to be shot with an arrow. (See further under Tubal-cain). In the case of this name, the translation of the initial element, a2, as “horn,” however, is not probable, as it recurs in the name of Alulim’s successor Alalgar, and there it cannot mean “horn.” But in a transferred sense Akkadian qarnu (= Heb. qeren) or qannu (qarnu/qannu = “horn” = Sum. a2) means “power,” and this makes sense here: Alulim = “(one with) the power (a2) of a stag (lulim).” In fact qarnû (“the horned one”) is a synonym of ajalu (“stag” = alulim, see supra). Note the form qannu, which has an obvious similarity to the form of the Hebrew qayin. Likely qarnu is a phonetic variation of the word qannu, with an “r” inserted, as commonly in Semitic dialects, instead of the reduplicated “n.” The word would then be from the same biconsonantal root, qn, kn, “be firm, like a staff, cane or reed,” and was applied to any firm, cane-like object, for example, a horn, shaft or spear. Thus Alulim is “qan ajali,” the “stag-horn” reed, translating Hebrew Qayin, “Reed,” with the initial word (qannu) an alternative spelling of the same word. Qayin = Alulim, “Reed,” also Qayin = Qarnû, Qannû = Ajalu = Alulim. The Greek form of Alulim is Aloros.

415. Enoch means “Skilled, having ability to grasp.” Alalgar (written a2-lalĝar) means “(one with) skill (a2 = Akkadian emuqu, “skill, ability, power”) from the Depth (of Wisdom),” literally from lalĝar, a synonym of engur and abzu, all of which refer to a cosmic realm, conceived of as located underneath the surface of the earth, and believed to be the source of terrestrial fountains, and the residence of Enki, the Divine Wisdom. The “Depth” (abzu, lalĝar, engur) was in a mythological/cosmic sense the place of the sun​(-god)’s birth, hence the first ray of the sun’s light rising from the Deep would be an appropriate symbol of the first appearance of a new-born infant, especially if, like the sun-god, he was credited with the possession of divine wisdom. The Akkadian emequ means “to be capable, skilled,” whence the noun emuqu, “skill, power,” and the adjective emqu, alternatively enqu, “capable, skilled.” The verbal root describes the act of applying the power of the hand to clasp or constrict. With an “n” rather than an “m” the Akkadian adjective enqu, “skilled,” has the same form precisely as the noun enqu = unqu, a “clasp” or “ring” (lit. “that which clasps”), and the latter corresponds in form and meaning to the Hebrew anaq, “neck-chain, clasp around the throat.” The Heb. verb anaq, “to clasp,” is cognate to hanak, whence the personal name Enoch (Hanok, equivalent to Akkadian enqu, “skilled, having ability to clasp, or grasp,” on the analogy of Heb. anoq = anaq, equivalent to Akkadian enqu, “clasp, ring”). Enoch thus corresponds to the first element in the Sumerian name (a2 = Akkadian emuqu), “one with emuqu, skill,” otherwise enqu, “the skilled one, having ability to grasp.” As noted supra, the second element in the Sumerian name (lalgar = Depth) defines the residence of Enki, the god of wisdom. The likelihood is that the divine name Enki, supposedly meaning “Lord of the earth” (En [= lord] + ki [= earth]), is a Sumerianization of an earlier proto-Semitic name Enqi (= Enqu), “the Skilled One,” or “My Skillful One [= My Wise Advisor],” since truly the god’s realm was the subterranean water beneath the earth, not the earth itself. Indeed one of the god’s Sumerian names was Adapa, which was translated into Akkadian as Enqu, the “Skilled One.” (On the Sethite Enoch, the Sumerian Adapa, see §454, below, >>.) As regards the Greek Atlas, anciently equated with the Hebrew name: if the initial alpha is intensive or euphonic (the latter being the view of Liddell-Scott-Jones, Lexicon, s.n.), A-tlas means “Submissive, or enduring hardship and discipline, thoroughly trained (tlas from tlaô).” If the initial alpha is privative, it means: “Relieved from hardship or discipline,” implying the completion of the course of training. In either case, the sense of the Biblical and the Sumerian names is well represented by the Greek. The Greek form of Alalgar is Alaparos. Alaparos is son of Aloros in Berossus (according to the Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronicle), as Enoch is son of Cain in the Bible.

416. Irad. If this is a single word, it must be from the unused root ‘rd (‘arad) which means “to be nervous, fearful, careful, watchful,” and hence, of an animal, “to be untamed.” From this root is derived the word ‘arod, a wild ass, which is a well-known example of a shy, untamed, creature. In the name of a human, it must mean “Very careful, concerned, watchful,” the form of the name being identical e.g. to Michal (miykal), meaning “a little stream of water” from makal “contain a little water” (Gesenius-Tregelles s.v.). A slight change in the sense of the word gives rise to the meaning “drive, drive away” because an animal is “made nervous” by that action. This is how Bereshith Rabba interprets the name, playing on the word as though it was a prophecy God was about to “drive” the Cainites out of the world by means of the Flood. Taken seriously, it would indicate Irad was a person skilled at “driving” or herding animals. It has also been thought to be a construction from the root ‘dr, with metathesis of the d and r, meaning “herder,” which seems to underlie the transcription Gaidad in the LXX (Gen. 4. 18, cf. Punic gdd = gdr = ‘dr, §491, below, >>, and for gdr = ‘dr, see Jastrow, Talmudic Dictionary, s.v. ‘-d-r). This reading is supported by the equivalent name in Plato’s list of the kings of Atlantis (the Biblical city of Enoch), viz. Gk. Eumelos, “Good herder,” or, “Gadeiros” (a transcription of the Semitic ‘dr, or gdr, the eponymus of Gadeira, Cadiz in Spain). The form of the equivalent Sumerian name supports a derivation from ‘arad = ‘adar. The element “zi” in the royal name En-sipa-zi-ana = nadaru = adaru (= ‘adar), be nervous, fearful, respectful (positive and negative senses), and adaru = Irad (with transposition, and/or r = d and vice versa), “respectful, watchful, reverent, fearful.” In that case the first two elements and the last element in the name are titular, viz. en-sipa means “master (en) ruler (lit. shepherd, sipa), and ana means “chief,” whilst the element zi (Akkadian adaru = Heb. ‘arad, with transposition) carries the meaning of the name: the “watchful one.” Evidence of this is the translation of mulSipa-zi-ana (the constellation [mul] Orion, named Sipa-zi-ana in Mesopotamia identically to this king) as Shatadaru (the “Reverent One”) = sh-t form of adaru. The name Irad, therefore, means “Careful driver of animals” and parallels the Sumerian En-sipa-zi-ana, meaning “Reverent, trusty, reliable (zi) herder/ruler (sipa),” i.e. one who is careful of his responsibilities. The Greek form of En-sipa-zi-ana is Amempsinos.

417. Mehujael = Enme-ushumgal-ana. Enme-ushumgal-ana appears in the Uruk List and in Berossus and Abydenus in the dynasty of Bad-tibira. When he published WB 444 and WB 62, Langdon recognized there was a Sumerian royal name missing in the dynasty of Bad-tibira in the sources available at that time which would correspond to the Megalaros of Berossus and Abydenus, this Megalaros being one of the three kings immediately preceding Daos/Daonos (Dumuzi sipa) in the Hellenistic writers. (OECT II, Weld-Blundell Collection vol. II, 1923, p. 3.) When the Uruk List came to light, so too did this missing name: Enme-ushumgal-ana. Sum. ushu(m) = bur2 and bur2 = nalbubu = shegû = mahû, “rage.” Akkadian mahû is a synonym of mahahu (ePSD, Lexical section s. ed3, OB Diri Sippar Section 6, 8-12) = Aram. m-ḥ–ḥ, m-ḥ-h, m-ḥ-y (Jastrow, Talmudic Dictionary s.vv.). The root meaning of these verbs is “rub/​wipe/​strike out, destroy,” and from m-ḥ-h is formed the name Mehujael (Heb. meḥuy = “striking out, destructive combat” + El, “God,” Fürst, Lexikon s.v.), lit. “Combat of God,” viz., as here in a personal name, “divinely/greatly combative.” Akkadian mahû similarly means “rage” in respect of an ecstatic under divine inspiration, therefore “divine raging.” Thus Mehujael = Enme-ushumgal-ana, “Great (gal) divinely inspired raging/combative one (bur2/ushum = mahû = Heb. meḥuy).” The Greek form of this name is Amegalaros or Megalaros.

418. Methushael = Kidunnu-sha-kin-kin: (WB 62 only: ki-du-un-nu sha2 kin-kin). Akkadian kidunnu/kidinnu, “divine protection,” translates the Sumerian ubara in the name Ubara-Tutu (see under Methuselah infra). Here kidinnu (ki-du-un–nu) is followed by a second element preceded in the Akkadian name by the word sha, “of” (viz. divine protection [ubara/kidinnu] “of” [sha] KIN.KIN).The word “sha” is written with the Sumerian sign lu2 = zikaru, amelu, etc. “man,” or in these phrases “man of …,” and Akkadian zikaru is a synonym of mutu, “man” = Hebrew meth(u). KIN.KIN = Akkadian she’ û, Heb. sha’ah, look out for, search, so the name is Kidinnu-sha-Sheî = “One who enjoys the divine protection (kidinnu) of the Searching One (KIN.KIN = she’ û)” = Heb. Methu-sha-el, in which latter the final syllable of the verbal noun Sha’eh (viz. –’eh) is absorbed by the initial vowel of the final element el (’el) = “Man of (methu) the Searching (sha[-’eh]) God (el).”

419. Lamech. The significant element, alima, in the name “[ a]lima” in the dynasty of Larsa (probably Enmen-alima in its original form) means “heavy-laden,” and is the name of a tree, the “heavy-laden” tree, elamaku. Elamaku = Heb. Lamech (see under the Sethite Lamech, §456, below, >>). The Akkadian “elamaku” also means “arrow,” because arrows were made of “elamaku” wood. Hence, no doubt, the Rabbinic legend that the Cainite Lamech fired an arrow at his own ancestor Cain. The Akkadian word for arrow, “elamaku,” was equated with the word “shukudu,” also meaning “arrow.” This latter, “shukudu,” was in Mesopotamia the name of the “Arrow-star,” Sirius. In the astral myth examined at §422, below, >>, Lamech is identified precisely with the star Sirius, the “arrow” of the constellation Orion, the celestial hunter, shooting at the neighboring star-sign Taurus, which represents Cain. This name does not appear in Berossus.

420. Jabal = Enme-lu-ana (WB 62 and WB 444 lu3, KAR IX, no. 434, Uruk List lu). Sum. lu and lu3 = balalu, mix, confuse, smear etc. Jabal, Yābăl (but with lengthening of the final vowel at the pause in Gen. 1. 20) = Heb. yabal = balal (Gesenius-Tregelles, s.v. balal) = Akkadian balalu = Sum lu and lu3 = “smeared.” The Greek form of Enmen-lu-ana is Amelon, Amillaros.

421. Jubal = Enme-gal-ana = Jubal: Sum. gal = belu, so gal could also represent the corresponding verb bêlu (ba’alu), “be lord, rule, exercise dominance, etc.” Heb. Jubal, Yûbāl = Sum. gal “He (who) displays dominance, or is made powerful” (gal): the Heb. form will have arisen from a primitive form of the verbal stem b-l (with disappearance of the medial glottal stop, cf. Hebrew Bel, identical to Akkadian Bel [“Lord”], likewise without the medial glottal stop). Jubal, Yûbāl, would be a fut. Hophal form, like yûkăm from qûm (but with lengthening of the final vowel at the pause in Gen. 4. 21), qûm also being attested with medial aleph. The Greek form of Enmen-gal-ana is Ammenon.

422. Tubal-cain means literally “Reed offspring (offspring of a reed).” Its sense is “child who is a strong support,” because of the use of reeds as staffs. Tubal is literally “that which is produced, brought forth.” For the meaning of the second element, -cain = Heb. qayin, “reed” or “shafted weapon”, see §414, above, >>. The Sumerian name Dumuzi or Dumu-zid, is composed of two signs. The first (dumu) means “child, offspring.” The second (zi[d]) is the sign of a reed, so literally the name means “Reed child,” but here, too, the sense is: “reliable, strong, supportive child.” Dumu-zi = Tubal-cain. zi = kânu = qânu (-cain). Dumu = maru, “son,” which can also be written with the sign ibila in Sumerian (though more commonly ibila = ablu/aplu, heir). Sum. ibila (as well as Akkadian ablu/aplu) represent formations from the stem w-b-l = carry, bear, whence also Heb. tubal = offspring. The Greek form of Dumuzi is Daos or Daonos described as a poimen, a herder or shepherd, just as Dumuzi is described as a sipa (herder, shepherd) in the Sumerian King List. The pre-diluvian Dumuzi was the god of smithcraft, Nagar, originating from Bad-tibira (“Wall of the metalsmiths”). Tubal-cain likewise was a metalsmith, and was identified in antiquity with the Classical god of smithcraft, Vulcanus. Post-Biblical tradition held that Tubal-cain guided his blind father, Lamech, to shoot his own ancestor, Cain, with an arrow, mistaking him for a stag because of the horn on his forehead (see under the name Cain). This is explained by the identification of Dumuzi in Mesopotamian mythology with the constellation Orion, and of Lamech with the star Sirius (§419, above, >>.) The stars of Orion portray the figure of a giant man, holding a bow, aimed at the constellation Taurus. In post-Biblical Jewish astrology, Aries represented Adam, Taurus Seth, Gemini Enosh, and so on, round the Zodiac to the generation of Noah’s sons. But the sign Taurus is actually conjoined with Auriga, at the star at the end of the northern horn, and Auriga (the Great Shepherd) shelters a female ungulate with her two young offspring from Taurus, the raging bull. Taurus is Cain, attacking Eve (the mother ungulate in Auriga) and her two kids, Abel and Seth (hence the identification of the conjoined constellations with Seth). The sign Taurus is a bull or stag with an angry red eye (the red star Aldebaran) and two long horns. It is the “sign” (Gen. 4. 15b) of the fratricide Cain, whose Sumerian name Alulim has been interpreted in modern times to mean “stag horn,” and was translated in antiquity as Ajalu, “Stag.” Over the back of the bull hangs the constellation of the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades, which represent the “seven times” vengeance is prophesied to be wrought on any who might be emboldened to slay Cain (Gen. 4. 15a). This is the oldest star-sign known, being represented by a circle of dots over the back of the bull in the Old Stone Age cave at Lascaux, which is, significantly, within the Atlantic zone of Cain’s city Enoch or Atlantis (see Plato’s Account of Atlantis §482, below, >>). The cluster represents a community, state, or civilization. It comprises, in this case, seven luminaries. There were seven cities in the pre-diluvian era, spanning the ages in which Cain (as an eponymus = the tribe of Cain) was permitted by God to go unpunished. The seven cities were as illustrated in the Chart at §412.1, above, >>: Ku’ara (Eridu, Babel), Atlantis (Enoch), Bad-tibira, Larak, Sippar, Larsa and Shuruppak. The Greeks believed these stars were the “daughters of Atlas,” that is, of Enoch, and this identifies them as colonies of the Atlantian civilization. One of these stars was extinguished at the Flood (evidently, Enoch-Atlantis itself, the city submerged in the Flood), so there are only six stars in the cluster today. The word “he (Cain) shall be avenged” is Heb. yuqqām, from the verb nāqam, to be avenged, receive satisfaction. This is cognate to the verbs nāḥam, to be comforted, and hāmāh, to hum, or coo, comfortingly, like an insect or dove (Gesenius-Tregelles, s.vv.). Star-clusters or nebulae were commonly in antiquity, and have been in modern times, compared to clusters of insects or small winged creatures. Cf. e.g. Praesepe, in Cancer, meaning cluster or hive of bees; and Tennyson on the Pleiades: “Many a night I saw the Pleiads, rising thro’ the mellow shade / Glitter like a swarm of fireflies, tangled in a silver braid.” The Pleiades in Greek mythology were seven doves, and “daughters of Atlas.” They were, in fact, so many “cooers,” representing sevenfold “comfort” or “satisfaction” bestowed by God on Cain. Doves were also the symbol of Astarte and Ishtar in the Near East, and her name was used as a synonym for “star.” Hence the belief referred to infra that the Pleiades were multiple forms of Ishtar. In the Bible Tubal-cain has a sister, Naamah, whose name means “Sweet.” Likewise Dumuzi has a sister, Geshtinana, the significant element in whose name (geshtin) means “Wine,” i.e., when applied to a female, “Sweet (as wine).” The same sign can be read geshtin, “wine,” and kurun, “to be sweet.” Geshtinana was anciently identified with Nin-edina or Belet-seri, the “Mistress of the Steppe,” the scribe of the underworld goddess Ereshkigal, and Belet-seri was equated, in turn, with Ninana (= Inana, Ishtar, Venus). Thus the traditional equation of Naamah with Venus (Ishtar = “Istehar” or Eshterah in Rabbinic sources) depends ultimately on Mesopotamian mythology. Hence also “Naamah” (for Balthi/Venus) is represented to have been the wife of Noah. In Jewish legend Istehar is said to have been exalted to the stars as the constellation Kimah, the Pleiades. The Pleiades were the object of Orion’s lust in Greek myth, as Ishtar was the consort of Tammuz (Orion) in Mesopotamian myth. Istehar is said to have extracted from the fallen spirit Shemyaza, the Secret Name of God, and thus to have ascended to heaven as the constellation Kimah. This was at the time when the sons of God commingled with the daughters of man and produced heroes called, in the literal interpretation of the Hebrew, “men of the Name” (Genesis 6. 4). In ancient Egypt the Pleiades were believed to be seven forms of the goddess Hathor (Venus) and Hathor was assimilated to Isis, and both to Neit (Athena, Minerva). Naamah was identified in antiquity with Minerva. Isis likewise is said to have extracted out of the supreme god of the Egyptian pantheon, Ra, his Secret Name. Once disclosed, Isis used the Name to effect the cure of Ra, and Egyptian priests thereafter used the spell reciting the incident to cure snake-bites. The Name of God revealed to Istehar was similarly used by Jewish magicians in their attempts to effect miraculous cures.

422.0.1. The name of Tubal-Cain’s mother is Zillah (initial ṣ, tsade) from the biconsonantal root d/ṭ/-l “be limp, hang, overshadow” etc. Dumuzi’s mother is Zirtum or Zertum (initial ṣ, tsade), written with two signs BU.DU (BU read ṣ/sir2, ṣ/ser2, DU read tum2) or less commonly TUR.TUR. (This Sumerian form is represented in Akkadian as Durtur, Duttur etc.) Zirtum or Zertum is the phonetic spelling of the name, standing for Zallatum (Zertum < Zeltum < Zaltum < Zallatum) = Dallatum, and this is represented logographically as TUR.TUR. (See von Soden Akk. Gramm: vowel “a” becoming “e” §9b; consonant cluster lt > rt §34b; Zaltum < Zallatum like sartum from sarratum, §54l.) Dallatu(m) (fem.) Dallu(m) (masc.) means “Limp, weak,” etc. (a verbal adjective from dalalu, d-l-l, be limp) and is the Akkadian or East Semitic equivalent of the West Semitic Hebrew Zillah. (Hebrew Zillah for East Semitic Zil[l]tu[m], from ṣ-l-l, hang, be limp, overshadow, cover, like Heth [masc. p. n.] “terror,” and Hittah [fem], likewise “terror,” from ḥ-t-t.) The goddess TUR.TUR is found equated with Gubaba (Kubaba) (Krebernik in Reallexikon d. Ass., s. n. TUR.TUR) who is the chief goddess of Carchemish and the Kubebe or Cybele of Classical mythology.

422.1. Already in the pre-Nicene age Christian commentators must have interpreted the words of Lamech as a reference to the seven generations of Cainites, as is demonstrated by the fact that the fourth-century exegete, Basil of Caesarea (of the school of Origen) makes reference to this as an already existing traditional interpretation (Basil The Letters LCL Vol. IV, LETTER CCLX To Bisnop Optimus [pp. 50-67] p. 62ff.): “There follows this a kindred question, regarding what was said by Lamech to his wives: ‘I have slain a man to the wounding of myself, and a stripling to my own bruising: if sevenfold vengeance has been taken for Cain, yet for Lamech seventy times sevenfold.’ And some think that Cain was destroyed by Lamech, on the ground that he lived until that generation that he might pay a more protracted punishment. But it is not true. For Lamech seems to have committed two murders, to judge by what he himself relates: ‘I have slain a man and a stripling, a man to my wounding, and a stripling to my bruising.’ Now a wound is one thing, and a bruise another. And a man is one thing, and a stripling another. ‘For Cain sevenfold vengeance shall be taken, but for Lamech seventy times sevenfold.’ It is just that I undergo four hundred and ninety punishments, if indeed God’s judgment is just in the case of Cain, that he undergo seven chastisements. For, just as he did not learn to commit murder from another, so he never saw a murderer enduring punishment, either; but I, though I had before my eyes the culprit groaning and trembling and the magnitude of God’s wrath, was not chastened by the example. Wherefore I deserve to pay four hundred and ninety chastisements. But some persons have arrived at the following notion, which is not out of harmony with the teaching of the Church: that from Cain unto the Deluge seven generations passed by, and the punishment was brought upon the whole earth, because the spread of sin had become great. But the sin of Lamech does not require a deluge for its cure, but Him who taketh away the sin of the world. Therefore count the generations from Adam to the coming of Christ, and you will find, according to the genealogy of Luke, that in the seventy-seventh succession the Lord was born.” The later Rabbinic tradition relating to the death of Cain in Lamech’s hunting expedition is a midrash on the following verses of Genesis (4. 19-24): “19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. 23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.” The Rabbinic tradition interpreted the “man” here killed by Lamech to be Cain, and the “young man” to be Tubal-cain. The ridiculous story recounted to explain their deaths was as follows: Midrash Tanhuma Bereshit 11: “How was Cain slain? For one hundred and thirty years, Cain became an angel of death, wandering and roaming about, accursed. Lamech, his descendant in the seventh generation, who was blind, would go hunting led about by his young son. At the sight of game, the lad would apprise his father of its whereabouts. One time the lad said to his father: ‘I see some kind of beast in the distance.’ Lamech sent his arrow in that direction, and Cain was slain. As they approached the corpse, the lad saw a horn protruding from the forehead of the slain creature, and he said to his father: ‘The corpse resembles a man, but a horn protrudes from its forehead.’ Thereupon, Lamech cried out: ‘Woe is me, it is my grandfather.’ In his grief, he clasped his hands together, and accidentally struck the child’s head, killing him. As it is said: I can slay a man by a wound of mine and a child by a strike of mine.” Cain’s “sign,” here is a horn on his forehead, which led to his being mistaken for a stag! Setting aside the fabulous outgrowth of that midrash, the context of the verses in Genesis 4 suggests the Rabbis correctly identified the “man” and the “young man.” When Lamech acquired his sons by his two wives, he appears to have interpreted their names in a prophetic manner, as in the passage cited. That is, the bi-consonantal root verb from which the names of the males was formed is bl, whence ybl meaning “carry, take out, bear,” etc. It is used in the Hebrew Scriptures to signify, amongst other things, “a carrying away to the grave.” There is an implied reference here also to Abel, Heb. Hebel, whose name was formed from the same bi-consonantal root. Jabal would then mean “he carried away to the grave,” Jubal “he is carried away to the grave” and Tubal-cain a “carrying away of Cain,” or, if the element -cain (qayin) is interpreted to mean “shaft,” the “carrying away by a shaft.” This explains how it came to be believed Cain’s death resulted from his being shot with an arrow by Tubal-cain. The generation of these three brothers was the seventh (inclusive) from Cain, and Cain was promised divine protection for “seven times” only. The “seven times” could be understood to have terminated in this seventh generation with the death of Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-cain in the Flood of Noah. (Naamah their sister married Noah, according to one Rabbinic tradition, and thus was saved on the container along with her husband. The seven generations were generations experienced by Adam as follows: Adam-Uana as the contemporary of [1] Cain-Alulim, and [2] Abel-Uanduga, the contemporary of Enoch-Alalgar, both these in the Sadeh period c. 120,000 BC, and then of [3] Irad-En-sipa-zi-ana, [4] Mehujael-Enme-ushumgal-ana, [5] Methushael-Kidunnu-sha-kin-kin, [6] Lamech-Enmen-alima, and [7] Tubal-cain-Dumu-zi, the latter, [3] through [7], in the Adamah period, c. 4000 BC and forward, after Adam’s return from his translation; see further on the chronology, §461, below, >>, §463, below, >>.) In the very act of acquiring these children, Lamech had therefore 1) terminated (“killed”) the line of Cain, as indicated by the name Jabal, “he carried away to the grave” the line of Cain, when he himself (the “man”) perished, 2) brought death upon (“killed”) these individual sons (each “young man” severally) in the seventh generation from Cain, as indicated by the name Jubal, “he is carried away to the grave,” and 3) fulfilled the promise of the “carrying away of Cain” (Tubal-cain, thus interpreted) in the seventh generation. Lamech himself believed he would be spared the destruction, on the other hand, with a seventy-seven-fold divinely provided protection. Tubal-cain being the Biblical name of Tammuz and Nagar (Annakos, Nannakos), it is remarkable to find that the death of Tammuz, and the abandoning of his body in the open plain, is said to have been the immediate cause of the Flood (the Flood of Noah) which swept Tammuz’s body out into the Persian Gulf (§325, above, >>); and equally the death of the long-lived Annakos/Nannakos was predicted to be coincidental with the destruction of mankind in the Flood of Deukalion (= Noah), hence his compatriots are said to have gathered to the temple to weep and mourn his demise. (See §172.1, above, >>.) As in the Rabbinic tradition, the death of Tubal-cain (Tammuz, Nagar/Annakos/Nannakos), prophesied beforehand, marked the destruction of the pre-diluvian Cainites, or (employing the eponymus) of “Cain,” in the great Flood. An indication that the ancient Mesopotamian tradition knew of a connection between Tubal-cain (Dumuzi Sipa) and Cain (A-lulim) is found in the myth of the Farmer and the Shepherd, where Inana prefers to marry the prototypical Farmer, Enki-imdu, rather than the prototypical Shepherd, Dumuzi. (Inana is usually Venus, but here is more probably the “Bow-star” viz. the constellation of lesser stars surrounding Sirius. The seasonal agricultural cycle marked by the disappearance of Sirius was seen as an icon of the cycle of death and rebirth of vegetation through the year. Thus when Inana [Sirius and the surrounding stars] disappeared into the Underworld, it was a harbinger of the death of Dumuzi. Otherwise Lamech [“the Arrow-Star” Sirius] caused the death of Tubal-cain [Dumuzi].) Here the name Enki-imdu is probably a translation into Akkadian of the Sumerian name a2-lulim (Cain), who likewise in Genesis is a farmer, since the word imdu (“support”) is used to translate Sumerian DA and DA is a synomym of a2, whilst lulim is a divine title, being in this case a reference to the bovine Enki. (Alulim = A2 [= DA = imdu] + lulim [= Enki].) The myth represents Enki-imdu (Cain) and Dumuzi (Tubal-cain) as on good terms in their personal relationship in spite of their rivalry for the hand of Inana. In Genesis Tubal-Cain is directly descended from Cain. Inana (Sirius and the surrounding stars as a time-reckoner) is said to have favored Enki-imdu because Cain (Alulim/Enki-imdu) was spared for seven times, but Dumuzi was not favored, because Tubal-Cain (Dumuzi) was slain immediately in the Inundation. It is likely that the mythology of Dumuzi developed out of a mixture of pre-diluvian and post-diluvian elements. The pre-diluvian Dumuzi perished in the waters of the flood. He was identified (as implicitly in the Oracle of Lamech) with Abel, the first Adamic human to die, and was called “Chief of the Westerners (the Dead),” Nin-gish-zida = Egyptian Khenty-Amentiu. Abel (Ha-an-duga/Uan-duga), in turn, was considered to be a duplicate form of the Primal Man, Adam (Uana, Oannes), see further §447ff., below, >>. Mizraim (Men) founder of Egypt died similarly in the waters of the Nile whilst on an hippopotamus hunt and therefore was identified likewise with Khenty-Amentiu (= Nin-gish-zida, Dumuzi, Khenty-Amentiu being the more primitive form of the god Osiris). The seasonal disappearance and reappearance of Sirius in Egypt, marking the Inundation of the Nile Valley, was seen as a duplicate in the annual agricultural cycle of the waters of the Inundation, so now the death of Khenty-Amentiu was connected with the Sirius cycle. Finally Mizraim’s re-embodied form, Djer (Sidon, Dumuzi Shu-nigin-pesh, the post-diluvian Dumuzi), was killed mysteriously in a hunting accident in Lebanon, seen as yet another example of the overwhelming of the hero king (Osiris) by the demonic forces of catastrophic destruction (Seth), this time in the form of a boar rather than an hippopotamus.

(To continue with the pre-diluvian Patriarchs, omitting the following excursus, go to §447, below, >>.)

Excursus on the Fallen Angels and Ishtar

423. From W. St.-C. Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, SPCK, 1905, Chapter III. Part 4 (online as at 2/5/06 at http://answering-islam.org/Books/Tisdall/Sources/), with minor orthographic changes:

“4. Story of Harut and Marut

424. In the Quran (Surah II., Al Baqarah, 96) it is thus written:—

“Solomon did not disbelieve, but the Devils disbelieved. And they teach men sorcery and what had been sent down unto the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut. And they teach not anyone until they both say, ‘Verily we are Rebellion, therefore do not thou disbelieve.’”

425. In the Araisu’l Majalis we find the following story, told on the authority of Tradition, in explanation of this verse. “The Commentators say that, when the angels saw the vile deeds of the sons of men that ascended up to heaven in the time of the Prophet Idris, they rebuked them for that and repudiated them and said, ‘These are those whom Thou hast made Vicegerents upon earth and whom Thou hast chosen, yet they offend against Thee.’ Therefore God Most High said, ‘If I had sent you down to the Earth and had instilled into you what I have instilled into them, ye would have done as they have done.’ They said, ‘God forbid! O our Lord, it were unfitting for us to offend against Thee.’ God Most High said, ‘Choose ye out two angels of the best of you: I shall send them both down to the Earth.’ Accordingly they chose Harut and Marut, who were among the best and most devout of the angels. Al Kalbi says, ‘God Most High said, “Choose ye out three of you;” so they chose Azz, who is Harut, and Azabi who is Marut, and Azrail. And indeed he changed the names of those two when they became involved in guilt, as God changed the name of Iblis, for his name was Azazil. Then God Most High instilled into them the desire which He had instilled into the sons of men, and sent them down to the Earth; and He commanded them to judge justly between men, and He prohibited them from polytheism and from unjustly slaying and from unchastity and from drinking wine. As for Azrail, when desire fell into his heart, verily he asked pardon of his Lord and begged that He would take him up to heaven. Therefore He pardoned him and took him up. And he worshiped for forty years; then he raised his head; and after that he did not cease to hang down his head through feeling shame before God Most High. But as for the other two, verily they remained as they were. They used to judge among men during the day, and when it was evening they repeated the Great Name of God Most High and ascended up to heaven. Qatadah says that a month had not passed ere they fell into temptation, and that because one day Zuhrah, who was one of the most beautiful of women, brought a law-suit to them. Ali says she was of the people of Fars and was queen in her own country. When therefore they saw her, she captivated the hearts of both of them. Hence they asked her for herself. She refused and went away. Then on the next day she returned, and they did as before. She said, ‘No, unless ye both worship what I worship and pray to this idol and commit murder and drink wine.’ They both said, ‘We cannot possibly do these things, for God has prohibited us from doing them.’ Accordingly she went away. Then on the third day she returned, and with her a cup of wine, and she showed herself favourable unto them. Accordingly they asked her for herself. Then she refused and proposed to them what she had said the previous day. Then they said, ‘To worship any but God is a fearful thing, and to murder is a fearful thing, and the easiest of the three is to drink wine.’ Accordingly they drank the wine: then they became intoxicated and fell upon the woman. … A man saw them, and they slew him. Kalbi bin Anas says that they worshipped the idol. Then God transformed Zuhrah into a star. Ali and Sadi and Kalbi say that she said, ‘Ye will not obtain me until ye teach me that by means of which ye ascend to heaven.’ Therefore they said, ‘We ascend by means of the greatest name of God.’ Then she said, Ye will not therefore obtain me until ye teach it to me.’ One of them said to his companion, ‘Teach it to her.’ He said, ‘Verily I fear God.’ Then said the other, ‘Where then is the mercy of God Most High?’ Then they taught it to her. Accordingly she uttered it and ascended to heaven, and God Most High transformed her into a star.”

426. Zuhrah is the Arabic name of the planet Venus. The number of authorities quoted for the various forms of this story is a sufficient proof how generally it is accepted among Muslims as having been handed down by Tradition from the lips of their Prophet. There are several points in the tale which would of themselves indicate its Jewish origin, even had we no further proof. One of these is the idea that any one who knows the special name of God — the “Incommunicable Name” as the Jews call it — can thereby do great things. It is well known, for example, that certain Jewish writers of olden times explained our Lord’s miracles by asserting that He performed them by pronouncing this Name, the Tetragrammaton. Again, the angel Azrail bears not an Arabic but a Hebrew name.

427. But we have more direct proof than this of the Jewish origin of the tale. It is contained in the Midrash Yalkut, chapter xliv, in these words: —

428. “His disciples asked Rab Joseph, ‘What is Azael?’ He said to them, ‘When the generation (that lived at the time) of the Flood arose and offered up vain worship (i.e. worship to idols), the Holy One, Blessed be He! was wroth. At once there arose two angels, Shemhazai [an alternative form of the name Shemyaza] and Azael, and said in His presence, “O Lord of the World! did we not say in Thy presence, when thou didst create Thy world, ‘What is man that Thou art mindful of him?’” (Ps. viii. 4). He said to them, “And as for the world, what will become of it?” They said to Him, “O Lord of the World, we shall rule over it.” He said to them “It is manifest and known unto Me that, if ye were dominant in the Earth, evil desire would reign in you, and ye would be more stubborn than the sons of men.” They said to Him, “Give us permission, and we shall dwell with the creatures, and Thou shalt see how we shall sanctify Thy name.” He said to them, “Go down and dwell with them.” At once Shemhazai saw a damsel, whose name was Esther [= Istehar]. He fixed his eyes upon her: he said, “Be complaisant to me.” She said to him, “I shall not hearken unto thee until thou teach me the peculiar Name [of God], by means of which thou ascendest to the sky at the hour that thou repeatest it.” He taught it to her. Then she repeated it: then too she ascended to the sky and was not humbled. The Holy One, Blessed be He! said, “Since she hath separated herself from transgression, go ye and place her among the seven stars, that ye may be pure with regard to her for ever.” And she was placed in the Pleiades. They instantly degraded themselves with the daughters of men, who were beautiful, and they could not satisfy their desire. They arose and took wives and begat sons, Hiwwa and Hia. And Azael was master of varieties of ornaments and kinds of adornments of women, which render men prone to the thought of transgression.’”

429. To what is said in this last sentence we shall recur again later. It should be noticed that the Azael of the Midrash is the Azrail of the Muhammadan legend.

430. It is impossible for any one to compare the Muhammadan with the Jewish legend without perceiving that the former is derived from the latter, not exactly word for word, but as it was related orally. There are, however, some interesting points in the Muhammadan form of the fable which require attention before we investigate the question, “Where did the Jews themselves learn the story?”

431. One of these points is the origin of the names Harut and Marut. These angels are said to have had other names originally, being called Azz and Azabi respectively and the latter names are formed from roots common to the Hebrew and the Arabic languages. In the Midrash Yalkut, however, the angels that sinned are called Shemhazai and Azael, whereas the Arabic legend says that Azrail, though he did come down, accompanied Harut and Marut as a third member of the party, and afterwards returned to heaven without committing actual sin. He is now regarded by Muslims as the Angel of Death, a part played by Sammael among the Jews. The Arabic legend says that the names Harut and Marut were not given to these two angels until after they had sinned. The meaning underlying this becomes clear when we discover that the names are those of two ancient Armenian deities, worshipped by the Armenians before their conversion to Christianity in the third and fourth centuries of the Christian era. In Armenian they were termed Horot and Morot, and a modern Armenian writer mentions the part which they were supposed to play in the ancient mythology of his country in these words:—

432. “Among the assistants of the goddess Spandaramit were undoubtedly Horot and Morot, demigods of Mount Masis (Ararat), and Amenabegh, and perhaps other deities also which are still unknown to us. They were the special promoters of the productiveness and profitableness of the earth.’

{Note: The names of Horot and Morot, the genii of Mount Ararat, have been altered in Armenian to make them seem to be derived from the Armenian words for “father” and “mother” respectively, — in the genitive ḥoṛ and moṛ. (Tisdall, Conversion of Armenia, p. 51.) Their role as eponymous genii of the famous Armenian massif seems to have led to a fusion of their mythology with that of Damascus-Eliezer, the steward of Abraham, who similarly bequeathed his name (“Marseak”) to Mount Masis, that is, to Mount Ararat (§140, above, >>). Eliezer was a manifestation of Al Khidr, the “Evergreen” One, who gained immortality by sipping the water of life, and Horot and Morot were the Avestan “Immortals” Haurvat and Ameretat, who presided over greenery and fertility. It is likely Horot and Morot as “father” and “mother” were identified more specifically with Damascus-Eliezer and his wife, since the traditional name of the wife of Damascus, Arathis or Ariarathes, whose cult survived at least till Roman times in the city of Damascus (Justinus, Epitome of Pompeius Trogus 36. 2. 2), was yet another name of Mount Ararat. (The name in Justinus is usually emended in modern editions, but the MSS. read as supra. “Arath” was the “popular” name for Ararat, according to Haithon of Armenia, cap. 9, apud Bochart, Geographia Sacra, p. 70: with the appropriate grammatical termination appended, this is the “Arathis” [also “Arates”] of Justinus. Bochart gives, ibid. the alternative form “Ariarathis” for the name of the mountain, and “Ariarathes” replaces “Arathis” in some MSS. of Justinus.). For the cognate Hindu tradition see §680.1, below, >>. Eliezer, in turn, was identified with the pre-diluvian giant and fallen spirit, Og (§279, above, >>). It was doubtless by a merging of these various traditions, in the vicinity of Damascus some time after the Muslim invasions, that the Armenian names Horot and Morot became attached to the post-Biblical legend of the pre-diluvian fallen angels. Incidentally, the reference in Justinus to Eliezer’s wife shows the connection between the former and Mount Ararat goes back at least as early as Pompeius Trogus. — ed.}

433. The Armenian Spandaramit is the Avestic Spenta Armaiti, the female archangel who presides over the earth and is the guardian of virtuous women. Horot and Morot appear in the Avesta as Haurvat (or Haurvatat) and Ameretat “abundance” and “immortality.” They are the fifth and sixth of the Amshaspands (Amesha-spentas, “bountiful immortals”) who are the chief assistants and ministers of Ahuro Mazdao (Ormazd), the creator of all good things. In the Avesta, Haurvatat and Ameretat are inseparable companions, as are Horot and Morot in Armenian mythology. The latter presides over the whole vegetable kingdom. In later Persian the names were gradually corrupted into Khurdad and Murdad, and these two good genii gave their names to the third and fifth months of the year. The words are of purely Aryan origin and occur under their proper form in Sanskrit (sarvata and amrita — the former occurring in the form sarvatati in the Rig Veda), though they have not become mythological beings. The Aryan legend represented these demigods as givers of fertility to the earth, personified as Spenta Armaiti, and as presiding over all kinds of fruitfulness. They were holy beings, and their descent to the earth was in accordance with the command of Ormazd, as in the Muhammadan legend. But originally the execution of their mission was not associated with any thought of sin. Borrowing their names from the ancient mythology of Armenia and Persia, Muhammad confounded them (or his informants did) with the two sinful angels of Jewish mythology. As we shall see in due time, he derived not a little information from Persian as well as from Jewish sources, and there was sufficient resemblance between the two originally quite independent myths to lead him to consider them one and the same. Hence the strange phenomenon of the appearance of two Aryan genii as the chief actors in a scene borrowed from the Talmud in its main features.

434. The girl called in the Jewish story Esther is the goddess Ishtar of ancient Babylonia, worshiped in Palestine and Syria under the name of Eshterah. She was the goddess of love and of sinful passion, and was identified by the Greeks and Romans with Aphrodite and Venus respectively. As she was also identified with the planet Venus, called Zuhrah by the Arabs, it is easy to perceive that the difference of names in the Jewish and the Arabian tales is not a matter of moment, the mythological person referred to being in reality one and the same.

435. It is well known what an important part Ishtar played in the mythology of the Babylonians and Assyrians. One of the tales of her many amours must be translated here, as it explains, in part, the origin of the story of the angels’ sin, and also shows why Zuhrah or Esther is said to have been enabled to ascend, and did ascend, to heaven.

436. In the Babylonian myth we are told that Ishtar fell in love with a hero called Gilgamesh, who repelled her advances:

437. “Gilgamesh put on his crown. And for (the purpose of attracting) the favour of Gilgamesh towards herself, the majesty of the goddess Ishtar (said to him), ‘Kiss me, Gilgamesh: and would that thou wert my bridegroom. Give me thy fruit as a gift. And would that thou were my husband, and would that I were thy wife! Then (shouldest thou) drive forth in a chariot of lapis lazuli and gold, the wheels of which are of gold, and both its shafts are of diamond. Then wouldst thou every day yoke the great mules. Enter into our house with perfume of cedarwood.’”

438. But when Gilgamesh refused to receive her as his wife and taunted her by mentioning some of the many husbands she had had [including Dumuzi], who had come to a bad end, then, as the tale goes on to tell us:—

439. “The goddess Ishtar became angry, and went up to the heavens, and the goddess Ishtar (came) before the face of the god Anu.” Anu was the Heaven and the god of Heaven of the oldest Babylonian mythology, and Ishtar was his daughter. Here we see her ascent to heaven mentioned, just as in the Muhammadan legend. In the latter she tempts the angels to sin, just as in the Babylonian tale she tempted Gilgamesh.

[omitted a section on a similar Hindu myth] ……………………………………..

440. We can hardly, however, suppose that the different forms of the story current among all these different nations were all derived from one and the same origin. The Jews, doubtless, borrowed the tale, in part at least, especially the name of Ishtar or Esther and certain other details, from the Babylonians, who had learnt it from the still more ancient Accadians. Forgetting its heathen source, the Talmud admitted the tale, and on the authority of the Jews it was received into the Quran and the Traditions of the Muslims.

441. …. The word Nephilim, which occurs in the passage Gen. vi. 1-4, was supposed to be derived from the verb naphal “to fall.” Hence Jonathan ben Uzziel in his Targum took it to mean “fallen angels,” and doubtless in doing so he was adopting the then current etymology of the word. …. Hence Jonathan in his comment on Gen. vi. 4 explains Nephilim by saying, “Shemhazai and Uzziel: they fell from Heaven and were on the earth in those days.” The myth in the Midrash Yalkut already quoted arose from this ….

442. Yet, even accepting the supposed derivation of Nephilim from the verb meaning “to fall,” it was not necessary to explain the origin of the name in such a way. The Targum of Onkelos acts much more wisely by understanding the Nephilim to have been so called because they were men who used to fall violently on the helpless and oppress them. Hence this Targum translates the word by one which means “violent men” or oppressors. Others have in more recent times denied the derivation of the word from naphal, “to fall,” preferring to connect it with the Arabic word nabil [the same in Arabic script] which means “noble” and also “skilled in archery.” After all, like many proper names in the early chapters of Genesis, the word may prove to be of Sumerian origin, unconnected with any root in the Semitic languages.

443. …. At first only two angels are spoken of as having fallen, and this was an exaggeration of the Babylonian tale of Ishtar’s tempting Gilgamesh alone. But in later times … in the apocryphal Book of Enoch it is said that the angels who fell from heaven amounted to 200, and that they all descended in order to sin with women. The following extract from that book is important as narrating the legend in a fuller form than those which we have previously quoted. It also gives a statement which agrees with one made at the conclusion of the Jewish legend in the Midrash Yalkut and also in the Quran, in a passage which we shall soon have to consider. “And it came to pass, wherever the children of men were multiplied, in those days daughters fair and beautiful were born. And the angels, sons of heaven, beheld them and longed for them and they said to one another, ‘Come, let us choose out for ourselves wives from men, and we shall beget children for ourselves.’ And Semiazas, who was their chief, said to them, ‘I fear that ye will refuse to do this deed, and I alone shall be guilty of a great sin.’ Therefore they all answered him, ‘Let us all swear an oath, and let us all bind one another under a curse not to give up this intention until we accomplish it and do this deed.’ Then they all swore together, and therewith bound one another under a curse.” After giving the names of the chiefs of the rebel angels, the story proceeds thus, “And they took to themselves wives: they chose out wives for themselves each of them, … and they taught them poisons and incantations and root-gathering, and they showed unto them the herbs. … Azael taught men to make swords and weapons and shields and breast-plates, the teachings of angels, and he showed them metals and the method of working them, and bracelets and ornaments and paints and collyrium and all sorts of precious stones and dyes.” This account of the origin of feminine ornaments is the same that we have found in the Midrash (see above, p. 98). It enables us to understand the meaning and to recognize the source of the following passage from the Quran, in which, speaking of Harut and Marut, Muhammad says that men “learn from them that by which they separate a man from his wife.” He adds, “And they used not to injure any one except by God’s permission, and they teach what injureth them and doth not profit them.”

444. It is hardly necessary to produce any further proof that the story of Harut and Marut is borrowed from a Jewish source, at least in all essential particulars, though in the names of these angels we perceive traces of Armenian and perhaps Persian influence. We have also seen that the Jews derived their form of the legend from Babylonia, and that their acceptance of it was in large measure due to a misunderstanding about the meaning of a Hebrew word in Genesis.

445. It may he urged that some Christians understand Gen. vi. 1-4, in much the same sense as the Jews did or still do, and that possibly this view is correct. But even granting all this, it is evident from what a corrupt source Muhammad borrowed the narrative, which, in the form in which the Quran and the Traditions relate it, cannot possibly be correct.”

Exposition of the Myth

446. One of the angels (Heilel Ben Shahar, Lucifer) fell from his original position (Greek archê, Jude 6) of ascendancy amongst the stars of God. Cast out of heaven by the Angelic hosts and banished to the humbler sphere of the air and the earth (Revelation 12. 9), Lucifer relentlessly prosecuted war against God in his new domain and became known in consequence as Satan, the Opposer, and Diabolos, or Devil, the Accuser: he used the serpent to seduce Eve and the daughters of man to seduce the sons of God. The serpent and the male Cainites, the nephilim or gibborim of the genetically polluted line, were male manifestations of the Satanic spirit. Eve, as the serpent’s consort, and the daughters of man, the products of that union, were female figures of the same type (cf. Inana, Ishtar, Hathor and Zuhrah). Specifically Heilel (Gk. Eosphoros, Phosphoros, Lat. Lucifer) was identified with the Twin stars Castor and Pollux of Gemini, representing the intermingled Sethite and Cainite lines, the “sons of God” and the “daughters of Man.” These, in turn, were viewed as twin forms of the god of the Underworld, Nergal, the god of the planet Mars, of masculine and martial pursuits, and the astrological opposite of Eshterah, Ishtar, the goddess of the planet Venus, representing the female principle. The god Mars was known in Syria as Aziz, the “fierce one” (hence the twin angelic names Shem-yaza and Aza–el in the Rabbinic legend, formed from the same Semitic root). As the supplanted god, relegated to the dark realm of the Underworld, Nergal imprisoned Ishtar until she was released by the sacrifice of her unconcerned lover Tammuz. Tammuz, in turn, was released from the Underworld by interchanging with his sister for six months alternately in the Upperworld and Underworld. This myth provided the context for the “sacred marriage” rite in which the king impersonated Tammuz and a priestess Ishtar in order to ensure fertility in the land. Lucifer is thus the Biblical name for the supplanted king of Babylon, equivalent to the demoted god Nergal in that mythic cycle. He is depicted as the head of the rebel gibborim, who is to be replaced as lord of the world, not by Tammuz, but, in the Biblical prophetic scheme, by the Messiah.

End of Excursus

447. The following names parallel those of the pre-diluvian Sethite patriarchs in Genesis: 1) The names of the patriarchs (ab.gal) of Sumerian tradition (especially in the so-called Uruk List [dating from 165 BC, J. J. A. van Dijk, XVIII. vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, ed. H. J. Lenzen, Berlin, 1962, pp. 44ff., see the translation of the pre-diluvian section at §479.0.1, below, >>] which dates each patriarch to the reign of a pre-diluvian king, and in Berossus), 2) the name of the diviner and pre-diluvian king, Enme-dur-anki, 3) the names of the three kings of the Shuruppak dynasty, Ubara-tutu, “Shuruppak” and Ziusudra.

448. Adam. Adam = U-ana. There are several layers of meaning in this name, as might be expected in view of the importance of the first patriarch (ab.gal):

1) The name U-ana was sometimes read by the ancient scribes as if it was “Um-ana” = ummanu, the artificer, since the initial sign in the name (the “u” in U-ana, that is, the sign UD read “u” [u4]) could also be read “um.” The incantation text known as Bit Meseri (R. Borger, Die Beschwörungsserie Bit Meseri und die Himmelfahrt Henochs, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 33 [1974] pp. 183-96, esp. pp. 192f.) added the following gloss accordingly to the patriarch’s name: “he who completed the plans of heaven and earth,” as if U-ana = Ummanu, the great Artificer, building by the heavenly blueprint. See §345 (Chart), above, >>, for Tekhnites, the Skilled One, the Artificer (= Adam), in Sanchuniathon. This probably reflects an interpretation of the name Adam as a formation from the bi-consonantal root d-m, whence also demuth, “image:” Adam was made originally in the “image/design” (demuth) of God, Gen. 1. 26f., and may be presumed to have been named accordingly. (Parkurst, Lexicon s.v. d-m-h, s. VII.) Adam would be “He of the Design/Image,” and hence the “designer, craftsman.” The bi-consonantal root d-m represents the sound made with a shut mouth, a “humming” or “murmuring” sound, being cognate to h-m and similar onomatopoeic bi-consonantal forms. (Gesenius-Tregelles, s.v. d-m-m). From h-m (= d-m) in the sense “murmur, hum,” is derived the noun hamon in Hebrew, “a tumultuous noise.” This Semitic root has been thought by some (Muss-Arnolt, Assyrian Dictionary s.v. mummu) to be the same as is found in the Akkadian mummu, the latter with preformative “m,” meaning “murmur, noise.” Mummu is a common synonym of Akkadian rigmu (“noise”) and rigmu is written in Sumerian with the sign UD, pronounced “u” (u4), viz. precisely the significant element in the name of this patriarch. Thus the root d-m, whence demuth, “image,” and Adam, “image-man” = h-m = hamon = mummu = rigmu = u4 in u4-ana (U-ana, Oannes). Further, Jastrow (Talmudic Dictionary) s.vv. d-m-m, d-m-h, shows how this root acquires from “murmuring” the additional meaning of “thinking, devising.” Thus in Hebrew hamon alternates with the form amon (’-m-n), and amon = “artificer, designer, craftsman.” This is precisely the same word as the Akkadian ummanu, “expert, craftsman,” which Bit Meseri sees in the name U-ana. Similarly mummu (Sumerian umun) means “artificer,” as well as “murmur,” reflecting the association of meanings in the Semitic root. Therefore the reading ummanu for u4-ana as in Bit Meseri is not merely a playful reading of the sign UD as “um” instead of “u” (u4-ana > um-ana > ummanu), but rather an exegesis of u4 as = rigmu/mummu/ummanu, “he of the design/image.”

2) From the sense “devising” of the root d-m/h-m/’-m arose the secondary meaning “planned, thought out,” and therefore “certain, reliable, trustworthy, established” (e.g. Heb. ’-m-n, “to be certain, established,” etc.). The Semitic bi-consonantal root d-m seems to have been borrowed into Sumerian as “dam,” which can be written with the UD sign: Sumerian “dam” similarly means “reliable, trustworthy,” and then a “trustworthy person, a reliable companion, or spouse.” With a prosthetic aleph “dam” would become “adam” in Hebrew. This sign (UD read dam2) is employed as an alternative to the sign whose principal reading is “dam,” in order to represent the meaning “trust, rely on.” The latter sign (dam) also = “spouse” (presumably because of the “trust” between spouses), and is therefore translated into Akkadian either as mutu, “man, male, husband,” or ashshatu, “wife.” Thus u4 = dam, the “trusted one,” and dam (the “trusted one”) = mutu, “husband, man.” Hence U4-ana = “Lord (ana) Adam (u4 = dam = mutu, man).” Note that Adam’s spouse Eve is referred to specifically in Genesis as ishshah, “wife, woman, female spouse” (Gen. 2. 23), which is the precise equivalent of the Akkadian ashshatu (Sum. dam), “female spouse.” Also Genesis refers to the fact that “their name” (viz. the name of both Adam and Eve) was “Adam” (as Sum. dam = both male and female “spouse”) in the day that God created them (Gen. 5. 2). Because of his role as the prototypical man, the father of the human race and the first husband, the name Adam came to denote “human, man, mankind” secondarily.

3) The reference in Bit Meseri to the plans “of heaven and earth” relates to another, but less common, meaning of the sign UD, read “u.” That is the sign UD could be translated into Akkadian as erṣetu, “earth.” (CAD s.v. erṣetu, lexical section, citing AIII/3:9f.) Here Bit Meseri seems to have read it as erṣetu, “earth,” and the following element -an(a), as “heaven” (an[a] = shamû, “heaven”). So U-ana, according to Bit Meseri, was the “designer, the ‘image-man’ (u-an as if = ummanu) of earth (u) and heaven (an[a]).” Similarly the name Adam could be understood in Hebrew to mean “man of the earth,” viz. formed of “blood-red earth,” adamah, from the root ’-d-m, “blood-red.” Parkhurst (Lexicon ibid.) derives the word adamah from the same bi-consonantal root d-m as the other words supra. The derivation is doubtless correct, though Gesenius’ understanding of the root meaning, viz. “murmur, hum” (of the sound made with the mouth shut), should be preferred to Parkhurst’s (“equitable”): the meanings “blood” (Heb. dam) and “blood-red earth” (adamah) are explicable as having been derived from the root on account of the “trickling” or “throbbing” of blood, as demamah denotes the “murmuring” of a light breeze and dabab (root d-b-b being cognate to d-m-m, Jastrow ibid., s.vv.) describes the trickling or quiet flowing of blood and other liquids, as well as the murmuring of rumor.

The Greek form of Uana is Oannes. This patriarch appeared twice in Mesopotamia, according to the preserved excerpts of Berossus. The first occasion was a single “day” in the “first year,” when Oannes (mysteriously described as “knowledgeless, unthinking,” Greek aphrenon) is said to have revealed to the beastlike inhabitants of Mesopotamia all it was ever possible to know. The second occasion was during the reign of the second king of Bad-tibira (Enme-gal-ana), after so many saroi, when he appeared under the name Oannes the “dirty, defiled” (Greek musaros, foul, dirty, loathsome, abominable, defiled, polluted). (§472ff., below, >>.) This epithet is applied to “Annedotos,” otherwise called “Oannes.” The difference between the original Oannes (Adam) and the later Oannes, Annedotos, will be examined infra. Oannes the “Ichthyophagus” was the primordial man of Assyrian tradition, corresponding to the Adam of the “Chaldaeans,” — this according to the 2nd century AD Gnostic Naassenes (Philosophoumena of Hippolytus, MS [ed. Miller] 28r, the name spelled “Iannes” here). How precisely the post-Biblical traditions concerning Adam corresponded to the accounts of Oannes summarized supra, can be demonstrated by a consideration of the following passage of Maimonides relating to the Subba, Sabians, or Mandaeans of Iraq: “They [the Subba] all believed in the antiquity of the world, for heaven (the heavens) are to them instead of God. They also believed the first man Adam was born of a man and a woman, like all other men. But they extolled him greatly, saying he was a prophet-apostle for the moon, and called men to the worship of the moon; and that there are books of his extant on the tillage of the land. They say of Adam, moreover, that he came from the [climate] land of t-s(h)-’-m near India [Tsam or Tsham, a geographic or ethnographic name which Malan does not attempt to identify, but which can only denote the Tsiam (Siam), or Cham, people of Indo-China, whose empire spread far and wide over that peninsula from early in the first millennium, to late in the second millennium, after Christ, that is, in the heyday of the Subba and of Maimonides, when that was the common denomination of the people, and the roots of whose culture and religion were in India in the vicinity of the Ganges], and dwelt in the land of Babylon, he brought with him wonderful things; among others, a tree of gold that yielded branches, leaves, and flowers [of gold]; also a like tree of stone, with leaves that fire could not burn, and that could shelter 10,000 men as tall as Adam. And he brought with him two leaves, each of which could cover two men. But they also say that Seth departed from Adam’s worship of the moon, etc.” (Maimonides, More Nevukim, sect. iii, ch. 29, cited in Malan, The Book of Adam and Eve, p. 220, n. 38). Oannes (Adam) first appeared in Mesopotamia on the “first day” of Creation, — the “first day,” that is, of his “first year,” as described earlier in this study (§32ff., above, >>, §38, above, >>), — and on that occasion he was “innocent” (“knowledgeless, unthinking”) yet full of divine wisdom. After the Fall and his subsequent reception back into God’s favor, he appeared again in Mesopotamia, offering his errant offspring there the divine favor he himself had benefited from, by the blood of the atoning sacrifice. The self-immolation of Belos, and the formation of man from a mixture of earth and Belos’ blood, was a major part of Oannes’ message, according to Berossus. The divine blood endowed man with “reason.” (See §466ff., below, >>.) The Annedotoi (a plural concept attested only in these Greek excerpts of Berossus and Abydenus, see infra under Abel) were the patriarchs who followed in his footsteps and completed his mission — as representatives, in Biblical terms, of God’s unmerited favor to the people by the blood of the sacrifice. The divine origin of Oannes is alluded to also in Helladius, apud Photius, Bibliotheca No. 279, ed. Bekker, p. 535a: “He relates the story of how a man called Oes {sic for Oannes} came up out of the Red Sea, with the body parts of a fish, except for his head, feet and hands, which were those of a man, and provided instruction in astronomy and writing. They claim he emerged from the Firstborn Egg {that is, the Mundane Egg, which was supposed to have split apart in the beginning to form the ordered cosmos}, as his name bears witness. {Gk. ôou, egg (gen.); cf. the name Ôês.} Though he was human, he had the complete appearance of a fish, because he was wrapped in the skin of a sea-creature.” The belief that Oannes won over the initially hostile inhabitants of the coastal regions of the Indian Ocean is confirmed by the Persian accounts of the Peshdadian kings descended from Gayomart (Adam), and particularly Hoshang, who subdued the people known as Mahiser, literally “fish-heads,” by their power over demons. Mahiser is the Persian name for the Ichthyophagi of Classical writers. It denotes the fisher folk who eked out (as their descendants still eke out) a meager living along the straggling coastline of the Indian Ocean from the Indus in the east, westward to the Persian Gulf, and along the edge of the Arabian peninsula, as far as the Gulf of Suez in the far west. They not only lived principally on fish themselves, they even used fish as fodder for their domestic animals, and some lived in shelters made of whale-bones. The Peshdadian king Hoshang (= Enoch), according to the Hoshang-nama, rode a monster called Rakhshe, the offspring of a crocodile and a hippopotamus, and thus subdued the Mahiser, and became their king. (For an earlier Sumerian version of this legend, see §454, below, >>.) This is a spiritual conquest analogous to that of Oannes referred to in Psellus’ excerpt from Chaeremon (infra under Abel). The designation “fish-head” is particularly apt in the light of the common ancient depiction of the apkallus or “patriarchs” as wearing the skin of a fish, with the cap over their heads formed from the fish’s head. The Mahiser in Persian lore were one of the mixed creatures of chaos which existed before the formation of man. Berossus’ story of creation (ascribed to Oannes) features similar monsters, composed of the body parts of different animals. To ride such a creature meant to exercise the same kind of power the Creator (Belos in Berossus) had, viz. to bring order out of chaos. In the case of the Mahiser: they were seen as being of an inferior or chaotic order; their conquest by Hoshang was, in essence, a reordering of their chaotic cultural universe. The Sanskrit word corresponding to mahi, “fish,” is matsya, hence in the Puranas the Ichthyophagi are termed similarly Matsya-siras, “fish-heads.” Al Khidr is identified in the Indus region as the matsya incarnation of Vishnu: Vishnu appeared in the form of a fish (matsya) to Manu (“Adam” = Noah), and revealed to him the secret of the impending Flood. Since Enoch (Hoshang) was one of the most notable pre-diluvian manifestations of Al Khidr, and his revealed wisdom was believed to have been handed down to, and transmitted to the post-diluvian world by, Noah, there is clearly some reference intended in the Hindu myth to the Ichthyophagian milieu of the pre-diluvian apkallus, that is, of the Biblical pre-diluvian patriarchs of the line of Adam through Seth. Compare the following medieval Jewish legend from the 10th century Yosippon (trans. S. Baring-Gould, Legends of Old Testament Characters, Vol. 1, London, 1871, p. 85f., with minor variations in the orthography): “Alexander wrote many epistles to Aristotle, his preceptor, in which he narrated what had befallen him in India. Amongst other things he wrote: ‘After I had entered the Persian region, which is a province of India, I arrived at some islands of the sea, and there I found men, like women, who fed on raw fish {i.e. Ichthyophagi}, and spake a language very like Greek; they said to me that there was in the island the sepulcher of a most ancient king, who was called Cainan, son of Enosh, and who ruled the whole world, and taught men all kinds of knowledge, and had demons and all kinds of evil spirits under his control. {Cp. Hoshang’s power over demons.} He, by his wisdom, understood that the ever-blessed God would bring in a flood in the times of Noah {cp. the matsya incarnation of Vishnu}; wherefore he engraved all that was to take place on stone tables, which exist there to this day, and are written in Hebrew characters. He wrote therein that the ocean would, in that age, overflow a third part of the world, which took place in the lifetime of Enosh, the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, our first parent. In the same island, Cainan built a most extensive city, surrounded with walls; and a great marble citadel, in which he treasured jewels and pearls, and gold and silver in great abundance. Moreover, he erected a tower, very lofty, over a sepulcher for himself, to serve as his monument. This tower can be approached by no man; for it was built by astronomical art under the seven planets, and with magical skill, so that every one who draws near the wall is struck down with sudden death.’ [Pseudo Josephus Gorionides ….] {Yosippon, ed. Breithaupt, Book II. ch. 18}.” Here Cainan is a Hoshang-like demon-suppressing hero of the ante-diluvian era. This is related, no doubt, to the Muslim tradition identifying Cainan with the Egyptian pyramid-builder Hermes, as well as with the Persian Gayomart. Soyuti (ob. 911 A.H., cited by Vyse and Perring, Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh 1837, vol. 2, p. 359, from two MSS. in the Bodleian Library, 660 and 780 in Uri’s Catalogue): “Soyuti then says that Seth {son of Adam, commonly identified with Agathodaimon} took possession of Egypt; and that one of his sons {sic, strictly, grandsons}, Kinan {= Cainan}, was Hermes {Thoth}. That he was endowed with great wisdom and traveled through the world, being under the especial protection of Providence. That he was likewise a great warrior, and conquered all the east, and introduced Sabaism, which inculcated a belief in one god — the observance of prayer seven times in each day — sacrifices, fasts, and a pilgrimage to the Pyramids. It is also said that he built one hundred and forty towns in the east, the least of which was Raha; and that, upon his return to Egypt, the king of that country did him homage, and believed in his predictions. He is supposed to have written the first treatise on astronomy; and to have brought the people of Egypt from the mountains, where they had retired for fear of the waters, and to have taught them to cultivate the plains, and also to regulate the inundations of the Nile. He afterwards traveled into Upper Egypt, Nubia and Abyssinia. The author adds that, according to some accounts, one of the Pyramids is the tomb of Seth.” For the equation Cainan = Gayomart, see Mirkhond, Rauzat ul safa: “The most celebrated historians consider this prince {Hoshang} to have been the grandson of Kaiomers {Gayomart}, while others maintain that he is identical with Mahaleel, and that Cainan {father of Mahaleel} is the same as his father Kaiomers.” As one of the “Annedotoi” who followed in the footsteps of, and were named after, the original Annedotos, Oannes, the ancient apkallu corresponding to the Hebrew Cainan (see infra Enme-buluga = Cainan) was evidently seen as a reincarnation of Oannes, and consequently of Enki (Mummu, the Logos), the patron deity of the apkallus, and of the equivalent deity in Greek paganism, Hermes, or, otherwise, of the Hebrew Oannes, Adam, who was similarly identified with Hermes, and with the Persian Gayomart. As can be seen from the quotation of Mirkhond, Hoshang likewise was identified in Muslim tradition with the Sethite Mahalalel, as well as, more commonly, with Enoch. The mention in Yosippon’s legend of a language like that spoken by Indo-European Greeks, on the one hand, and inscriptions in Semitic Hebrew (Aramaic), on the other, within the same territory in the Indian Ocean, is reminiscent of the combination of an Indo-European language, and an alphabet (Brahmi) written in a script derived from Aramaic amongst the Tamils of Sri Lanka. This was the zone of the Ichthyophagian apkallus. The particular island visited by Alexander where he found the tower of Cainan is likely to be Sri Lanka, as there to this day on Adam’s Peak are found traditions that Alexander visited the site, and even supposed relics of his visit. Adam’s Peak is dedicated to Adam in local Christian tradition, or otherwise to Al Khidr (= Hermes, Adam, Cainan, Enoch etc.) amongst the Muslims, to Pangu the Chinese cosmic Adam amongst the Daoists, to Buddha (= Hermes, Adam, Cainan, Enoch etc.) amongst the Buddhists, Buddha being treated by Hindus as an avatara of Vishnu, or to Shiva. The latter two Hindu deities represent the binary water and fire aspects of Al Khidr, or alternatively the two sons of Raamah son of Cush son of Ham who were the ancestors of the royal lines of India, viz. Sheba (“spark,” that is, fire, Shiva) and Dedan (“boiling, effervescent water,” that is, Indra, later Vishnu), the Muslim Sind and Hind, twin forms of Al Khidr as the genius of the Indus (Khwaja Khidr, §275, above, >>). The cult of Buddha under the male/female aspect of Avalokiteshvara, the “Lord who looks down in mercy,” is believed to have spread from this site in Sri Lanka into Tibet and widely in the further East.

448.1. Abel. In the Uruk List Uan (Oannes) is the apkallu (ab.gal, patriarch) of the first king Alulim (Cain), and “Uan-duga” is the patriarch of the next king, Alalgar (Alalgar = Enoch son of Cain). “Uan-duga” may be the Sumerian form represented in Greek as Annedotos. But if so, it changed at some point in the transmission of the tradition drawn on by Berossus and Abydenus into a title, as it is applied in the fragments of those writers both to Oannes and to a “second Annedotos,” and to subsequent patriarchs who emerged out of the Persian Gulf. Annedotos does not appear in any of the extracts preserved in Greek as a patriarch in his own right. The final element in the Greek name -dotos represents the final -duga in the Sumerian name. Sumerian “duga” means “blessed, favored, endowed (with).” In the following name (see infra) the Greek simply transcribes this element -dokos (= -duga). Here the form -dotos approaches the sound of the Sumerian element but actually translates it into Greek: “dotos” means “endowed (with), given” in Greek, a common final component in personal names (for example Hero-dotos), and this is precisely the meaning of the Sumerian “duga.” A translation may have been employed in this instance, rather than a simple transcription, because the name was more significant in the tradition: it was not merely the personal name of a single individual, but a prototypical title of the subsequent sages who emerged from the sea, “the Annedotoi.” The incantation text Bit Meseri understands the initial elements U-an- in this name somewhat differently than in U-ana supra: it glosses the name U-an-duga as he “who is endowed (duga, “favored, blessed”) with comprehensive understanding.” The initial sign UD (the “u” sound in U-an-, UD read u4), has the general meaning of heat, being a pictograph of the solar disk rising above the horizon. It can be read various ways. In the name U-ana it is read “u.” The Greek transcription of U-ana is Oannes. Presuming the Greek Annedotos represents the name Uan-duga, we might expect the Greek transcription to be Oandotos, rather than Annedotos: the initial “u” here seems to have the sound of an “a.” But as it happens the sign UD can be read “ha” (UD, read ha5) as well as “u,” and this is more appropriately represented by an “a” sound in Greek. The aspirated “h” in Semitic languages (like Akkadian, which derived its cuneiform signs from the Sumerians) could be represented by the smooth breathing in Greek (Sophocles, Greek Lexicon, p. 24), so the initial “A” in the Greek name Annedotos (that is, aleph preceded by the smooth breathing) is precisely equivalent to the initial “ha” sound in the Sumerian name (h > smooth breathing, a > aleph). The name would then be Ha-an(a)-duga, transcribed in Greek as Annedotos. (The medial -anne- in the Greek name = “ana,” as the sign “an” can also be read “ana,” and the final Greek eta in -anne- was originally a long “a” sound.) When read “ha” the sign UD still denotes heat in a general sense, but means more specifically “to dry up, evaporate, warm,” Akkadian abalu. (CAD, abalu B, lexical section.) The name Ha-an-duga could mean: “He who is blessed (duga) with the evaporating warmth (ha [viz. UD = abalu]) of heaven (an[a]).” The name Abel in Hebrew is hebel, from the root h-b-l, which is the precise equivalent of the Akkadian abalu, and means “warm air, evaporation, vapor, hot breath, exhalation” etc. UD, read ha5, can be translated into Akkadian as the “sh” form of the same verb abalu, viz. šabulu, in which case it is (like Hebrew Abel) a personal name, meaning the “Dry, or Withered One” (CAD s.v. šabulu 2). Hebrew hebel is from the bi-consonantal root h-b, ’-b, etc. (Gesenius-Tregelles, s.v.), which means “breathe after, long for etc.” and hence also “love,” so the concept “lovely” (Sum. duga, “sweet, pleasant lovely”) is included in the etymology. The same Hebrew root h-b-l can mean “carry upward, raise aloft” (as, for example of evaporation), so the concept “upwards” (Sum. an = “up”) is likewise conveyed in the name. Sum. Ha-an-duga references all three: 1) ha, “evaporation, vapor,” 2) an, “upwards,” 3) duga, “lovely.” In another sense, the fiery exhalation (Sumerian “ha”) of God/Heaven (Sumerian “an”) would be inspiration derived from that source, which was believed to endow its recipient (Abel, Ha-an-duga) with more than human insight (the “comprehensive understanding” of Bit Meseri).

Abel is the son of Adam in Genesis, and here Ha-an-duga (Uan-duga) is the immediate successor of Uana (Adam). If the Greek title “Annedotos” represents the Sumerian personal name Ha-an-duga, then the “second” and the “fourth” Annedotos would be so many “Abels,” as though Abel (Ha-an-duga, the “first” Annedotos) reappeared in the form of the apkallus who emerged subsequently from the Persian Gulf. This accords with the prophecy of Eve recorded in Genesis, that Seth had been appointed to her as a “seed” in place of Abel whom Cain slew. (Gen. 4. 25.) Seth was a replacement “seed,” a second Abel, as it were; and in the tradition preserved by Abydenus, illustrated in the charts infra, §478ff., below, >>, the second Annedotos appears in the era of the next apkallu, Enme-duga (Seth). It is noticeable that Ha-an-duga and Enme-duga share the same second element in their names. Abel as the prototypical “seed” of Adam was re-embodied, so to speak, in Seth, and in Seth’s genetic line. Here, too, there is a parallel with Abydenus’ account, which envisages a series of apkallus as so many forms of the original Annedotos. A literal appearance of Oannes (Uana) a second time at a later point in history in the tradition preserved by Berossus and Abydenus, but not of Ha-an-duga himself, as well as a “re-embodiment” in the following apkallus, is understandable in the light of the fact that Abel (Ha-an-duga) remained in the world of the Sadeh, or Grass Land, c. 120,000 BC, whilst his father Adam (Uana) returned to the world of the Adamah whence he had been translated originally c. 4000 BC into Paradise (§42ff., above, >>): it was in that latter (post-return) phase of Adam’s life that he appeared in Babylonia to instruct the natives, and Berossus and Abydenus report similarly of Oannes.

It may be presumed, in that case, the Sumerians had a tradition that Ha-an-duga (“Annedotos”) was the prototypical apkallu. Other apkallus were so many Ha-an-dugas or reincarnations of Ha-an-duga. The original Ha-an-duga being the Biblical Abel, the possibility suggests itself that the later Annedotoi were victimized by the kings descended from Alulim (Cain), as Abel (Ha-an-duga) was victimized by Cain (Alulim) himself. (Cf. the reference to the murder of Abel in the prophecy of Eve regarding the seed.) There is evidence of this in Chaeremon’s tradition that “Oan” (Uan[a], Oannes, “the Annedotos,” viz. Ha-an-duga/U-an-duga) was threatened with death by the people who ruled the territory adjacent to the Red Sea (see infra). The same theme is referenced in the Genesis account (Gen. 4. 19-24) that Lamech, the descendant of Cain, claimed the right to kill with impunity, on the grounds that Cain killed his own brother Abel, and yet received protection from God.

The Greek form of Uana is Oannes. This patriarch appeared twice in Mesopotamia, according to the preserved excerpts of Berossus. The first occasion, as we have seen, was a single “day” in the “first year,” when Oannes (mysteriously described as “knowledgeless, unthinking,” Greek aphrenon) is said to have revealed to the beast–like inhabitants of Mesopotamia all it was ever possible to know. The second occasion was during the reign of the second king of Bad-tibira (Enme-gal-ana), after so many saroi, when he appeared under the name Oannes the “dirty, defiled” (Greek musaros, foul, dirty, loathsome, abominable, defiled, polluted). (§472ff., below, >>.) The fact that Oannes emerged from an “egg,” and that it was a fish-skin with which the Annedotoi were covered, suggests a fish-egg was in view. In a cosmological sense the fish-egg represents the chaotic watery chaos (fish = water) from which heaven and earth emerged in the beginning. Thus also the enclosing fish-skin would be an appropriate symbol of the “earth” which is said to have “opened her mouth” to drink Abel’s blood (Gen. 4. 11), as a fish swallows water: the apkallus are depicted with their faces peering out of the covering of fish-skin just below the head of the fish, which forms a cap over the top of their heads, terminating in the fish’s mouth at its peak. In the preceding reign (of Enme-lu-ana of the same city), according to Abydenus, a “second Annedotos” appeared. The implication, as aforesaid, is that the apkallus of those two reigns, Enme-duga and Enme-galama, were duplicates or re-embodiments of the original Annedotos (= Ha-an-duga), the apkallu who preceded them, he himself being the successor of the first apkallu Oannes (U-ana). The name Annedotos (Ha-an-duga) can be read alternatively (and is so usually read) U-an-duga, the initial elements (U-an) being identical to the name U-an or U-ana (Oannes). He might thus be considered a duplicate or reincarnation of his predecessor Oannes, as his two successors duplicates of him.

Traditionally these later Annedotoi were connected with Egypt and were held to have imported thither their special knowledge of celestial phenomena. Two fragments ascribed to Chaeremon (mid 1st century AD) in Michael Psellus (Greek MS. no. 1182 Bibliothèque nationale du Paris, Sathas, Bulletin correspondance hellénique, t. I, 1877, p. 129, p. 201) record similarly of “Ioannes” or “Oanes,” who arrived in Egypt dressed in the skin of a fish. The original Oannes is said to have emerged out of the cosmic Egg, and is identified effectively, therefore, with the Logos (Hermes, Mercury). Chaeremon’s Oanes is described as the “son of Hermes,” so we may take it that the latter, the subject of this account, is Annedotos-Oannes, viz. Ha-an-duga (or U-an-duga), the second apkallu, and successor of the Egg-born Oannes (the Logos or Hermes), or one of the later Annedotoi who were identified with him. The Chaeremon fragments set Oanes in an Egyptian context, and ascribe him special expertise in celestial science, which is consistent with other ancient testimonies: for example (see §136, above, >>, §448, sub fin., above, >>), the descendants of Seth are said by Josephus to have been experts in astrology, erecting monuments inscribed with their wisdom in the Seiriadic land (= the Land of the Bee, Northern Egypt); Seth himself was equated with the Egyptian god Agathodaimon by the Sabians of Harran and was believed to have been buried in one of the pyramids of Giza; the Sethite patriarch Cainan (equated with Hermes) is said in Arabic sources to have instructed the Egyptians in the knowledge of the stars; and the Sethite patriarch Enoch (equated with Hermes) is said to have been learned in the same sciences, and was credited with the building of, and with being buried in, one of the pyramids of Giza. Oannes was classed in Classical antiquity as an Ichthyophagus, or “Fish-eater” of the Indian Ocean, and Ichthyophagi inhabited, amongst other coastal districts within that zone, the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea. The Egyptian context further implies Hermes, Oanes’ father in Charemon, is the Egyptian god of wisdom, the moon-god Thoth or Khensu, who was commonly identified with the Greek Hermes. Chaeremon refers to “Ioannes” or “Oanes” as the son of Hermes and the son of Hermes “and Apollo.” Apollo is the sun-god, corresponding to Amun-Ra in Egypt, and Amun-Ra is the father of the moon-god Khensu-Thoth, and the layer of the cosmic Egg, representing the chaotic state of the conjoined heaven and earth at the beginning of creation. Amun-Ra (the sun-god), “Apollo” in Chaeremon, represents the Creator of heaven and earth (heaven and earth being the constituents of the cosmic Egg): the first Oannes (= Khensu-Thoth-Hermes, the Logos, Adam) is a product of heaven and earth (of the Egg), and the second “Oannes” (Ha-an-duga, Abel) is his son, that is, the son of the Logos or “Hermes” (Adam-Oannes), emergent from the Egg. Chaeremon speaks of no less than fourteen “Ioannes” descended “from Hermes and Apollo,” the fourteenth himself arriving amongst the Chaldaeans in the period subsequent to the “most ancient Ninos.” (MS Paris 1182 f. 96 verso, Sathas, ibid., p. 129, lines 29-31.) The first fragment of Chaeremon reads as follows: 1) MS. id., p. 129, f. 96 verso: “… Ioannes [sic] arrived from the equatorial zone covered in the skin of a fish, saying he was the son of Hermes and of Apollo, who in the first instance acquired sovereignty by a ruse, threatening the people, if they did not offer him the crown, with an eclipse of the moon, the imminence of which he knew beforehand and which followed in due course.” The second, fuller, fragment reads as follows: 2) MS. id., p. 201, f. 277 verso: “The Egyptians were ignorant of the first elements of divine things, and forever quarreling among themselves, for they were distributed in independent demes {districts}. Then a man named Oanes, seeing their ignorance, made them blush at this life of theirs, and reigned over them by his natural cleverness. Having studied the observations and calculation of eclipses, and since he knew the time that the sun was to be eclipsed, he attired himself in the skin of a fish, and, wandering to and fro amongst them, reported himself to have been sent by his father Hermes. Some, seeing his strange aspect, were frightened, and he said to them: ‘I come to you as a messenger of the divine anger, for the divinity is displeased because you are not settled under the authority of a leader. If you do not alter your conduct, and if you do not establish a king over you, the great luminary of day will be darkened for you.’ These, not believing him, loaded the man with chains, with the intention of making him king should the menace of the divine anger be carried out, and of putting him to death should his announcement not be realized. The moon soon after coming before the sun and intercepting its rays, they instantly unbound Oanes, and besought him to appose the divinity on their behalf. He, feigning that he would bring about a prodigy, allowed himself to be persuaded, closed his lips like one possessed, and murmured something between his teeth, and thus handed out the prize of the contest, the very thing itself, which was indeed that the moon was presented traveling past the sun. This man it was who made them adore the stars, the celestial world, and certain solar and lunar powers which he imagined …. [the following from the same MS. f. 300:] …. the tropical zone, somewhere around where Oanes was in ancient times, who arrived in Egypt, covered in the skin of a fish.” (Published by Sathas [in the original Greek, without a translation], op. cit., p. 201.) Here we have evidence of an obscuration of the light of the sun, throwing the world into darkness, which confirmed to the people the religious teaching of one of the multiple patriarchs called “Oanes.” They requested Oanes to “appose the Divinity on their behalf,” which he did, and immediately thereafter the eclipse was terminated. In Genesis likewise it is said of Abel that God bore special witness to the rectitude of Abel’s act of worship (specifically his sacrifice). The word describing God’s act of vindication (Gen. 4. 4f.) is “shaah,” commonly translated “have regard to,” which means literally “turn away the eyes (toward)” and consequently “have regard to,” but also means “to be smeared over (as of the eye).” In the Pitron or commentary to the Samaritan Asatir I. 9 (Samaritan text of Asatir itself, not the Pitron, online as at 07/21 at http://​cal.huc.edu//​get_a_/​chapter/​.php?file=56100&cset=H), it is recorded that the whole world turned dark when Cain and Abel made their offerings. It is also said that on the occasion when Cain killed Abel, which was as a direct consequence of God’s acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and the rejection of Cain’s, the light of the sun and moon was obscured. Is not this a midrash on the Hebrew “shaah”? God’s “eye,” that is, the sun, “was smeared over,” in confirmation that Abel’s sacrifice was condoned by the Divinity. Asatir, trans. Gaster p. 187 (Pitron to Asatir I. 9-11) “… (9) ‘and when Kain did not see his offering accepted as he had been taught and he had seen the offering of his father;’ now when he offered and saw not the sign of acceptance, he knew in his soul that he was of no account, and the world grew dark before him and his spirit grew angry …. And another explanation is that when he offered the world was darkened {the word in the text of Asatir I. 9 is ’‑t‑‛‑k‑r, “become turbid, darkened, murky,” used of the eye, of wine, and here of the whole world} and his spirit, i. e., when the world got dark, through this his spirit became anguished; but God alone knows. And on the day (10) ‘on which Hebel offered, there were two turnings [of God]; (11) the Lord turned to Hebel and to his offering, while to Kain and to his offering he did not turn.’ By the first turning [away], Kain saw that his offering was not accepted, and his wrath kindled and grew strong, and he could not hide it.” In the second explanation the word “turn” interprets the Hebrew “shaah” in the sense “turn away the eyes,” rather than “be smeared over (as of the eye),” which is implied in the first interpretation. Also ibid. p. 189, 191 (Pitron to Asatir I): “… (19) And when he {Kain} had slain him {Hebel} and shed his blood, his spirit was distressed and the earth cried out and would not receive the blood of Hebel to drink it until commanded by God; and the earth trembled, and the light of the sun and of the moon was darkened, at the time when Kain slew Hebel. Now Adam dwelt in Badan. (20) And when Adam saw what had happened in the world, the darkening of sun and moon and the trembling of the earth, then he was greatly frightened on that day. And that day was for him like unto the day when he and his wife ate of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden.” The story in Chaeremon may be a more detailed account of that event handed down in the Mesopotamian apkallu tradition. Aloros (Alulim, Cain) in Abydenus, accordingly, is said to have put it about that he was the “shepherd” (king) of the people. This has an obvious relation to the account in Chaeremon, because it was the necessity to appoint a king for the people which prompted Oanes to utter the prophecy of the eclipse. In a similar vein the Asatir Pitron (ibid. p. 191) avers Adam consulted the book of heavenly signs to explain the darkening of the luminaries at the murder of Abel. We may imagine some such scenario as the following underlies Chaeremon’s tradition: Adam (Hermes, the original Oanes) and Abel (the son of Hermes, the Annedotos or “duplicate” Oanes, Ha-an-duga) desired that the barbarous inhabitants of Egypt should be governed more righteously and used their knowledge of the stars to persuade them their intentions were divinely inspired. The event described in Chaeremon ensured the eclipse passed in the normal manner, thus verifying the message of Oanes. God’s vindication of Abel resulted in his murder by Cain out of jealousy, and of the assumption by Cain (Aloros, Alulim) of the shepherd’s role God originally appointed for Abel.