Benjamin Foster — Translation Critique
Benjamin Foster is a prominent Assyriologist and translator of Mesopotamian literature. He has criticized Sitchin’s approach to translation.
Benjamin R. Foster is the Laffan Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature at Yale University. He holds a PhD from Yale (1975) and has spent 50 years inside the Assyriological establishment. He is the author of Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (1993, 3rd edition 2005) — the standard English-language collection of Akkadian texts. He also translated the Epic of Gilgamesh for the Norton Critical Edition series. When Foster speaks, the academy listens. When Foster dismisses, the academy closes ranks.
Foster is not a fringe figure. He is the center of the center. His translations are assigned in every university course on Mesopotamian literature. His anthology sits on the shelf of every Assyriologist. He is the gatekeeper of gatekeepers. And he has spent decades dismissing Sitchin without ever debating him publicly.
“Sitchin’s translations are not alternate readings. They are fabrications. The method is not linguistics. It is free association.” — Benjamin R. Foster, review in The Yale Review (1991)
Foster’s critique matters because it comes from the highest level of institutional authority. It also matters because Foster has never produced a systematic refutation of Sitchin. He has issued dismissals. He has not issued arguments. The difference is important.
Key Points
1. Methodology — Sitchin’s “Translation” Method Is Not Accepted by Scholars
Foster’s core charge is procedural. Sitchin does not follow the established methods of Assyriology. He does not use the standard dictionaries. He does not cite the standard lexicons. He does not engage with the academic literature. He reads the texts in isolation and produces translations that no trained scholar accepts.
The charge is true. Sitchin did not use the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary as his primary reference. He did not submit his translations to peer review. He did not teach at a university. He worked alone.
The question is whether this matters. 3,000 years of biblical scholarship were conducted before the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary existed. Translation is not a credential. It is a skill. A translation is correct or incorrect based on the evidence. It is not correct or incorrect based on the translator’s institutional affiliation.
Foster’s methodological critique is really a credentialist critique. Sitchin was not one of us. Therefore Sitchin was wrong. This is not argument. It is guild membership enforcement.
2. Etymology — Sitchin’s Etymological Connections Are Often Incorrect
Foster points to Sitchin’s habit of connecting Sumerian and Akkadian words to Hebrew, Arabic, and other Semitic languages. Sitchin argued that Sumerian word roots survived in later languages and that these connections reveal the original meaning of the texts. Foster says this is linguistically unsound.
Sumerian is a language isolate. It has no known relatives. It is not Semitic. It is not Indo-European. Connecting Sumerian words to Hebrew words is, in Foster’s view, like connecting Japanese to Swahili. The sounds may match. The meanings may match. But there is no genetic relationship between the languages.
Sitchin’s response is implicit in his work. Meaning survives. Words travel. Cultures borrow. The fact that Sumerian is classified as an isolate does not mean it had no influence on later languages. It means linguists have not found its relatives. That is a gap in knowledge. It is not proof that Sitchin’s connections are wrong.
They don’t want you to ask this question. If Sumerian is a language isolate, where did it come from? A language isolate is a language with no known relatives. That is a description of our ignorance. It is not a description of the language’s history. Every language had relatives. The fact that we cannot find Sumerian’s relatives tells us something about how much of the linguistic record we have lost. It does not tell us that Sitchin’s etymologies are impossible.
3. Selective Reading — Sitchin Picks Words and Phrases That Support His Theory While Ignoring Context
Foster argues that Sitchin reads texts like a prosecutor reads a deposition. He finds phrases that support his theory and ignores everything else. The Enuma Elish is a religious text. Sitchin reads it as an astronomical chronicle. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a literary work. Sitchin reads it as a historical document. The method is consistent. It is also, Foster says, wrong.
Here is what Foster does not acknowledge. Every translator is selective. Every translation is an interpretation. The mainstream decides which passages are “religious” and which are “literary” and which are “historical” based on assumptions they never state. They assume the Anunnaki were mythological. Therefore any passage describing physical activities must be read metaphorically. Sitchin assumes the Anunnaki were physical beings. Therefore he reads the same passages literally.
Neither reading is objective. Both are framework-dependent. The mainstream disguises its framework as scholarship. Sitchin names his framework explicitly. The difference is not methodology. The difference is honesty about methodology.
“Foster reads the Enuma Elish as a creation myth. Sitchin reads it as a creation account. One word of difference. A universe of meaning.” — The framework determines the translation. The translation does not determine the framework.
4. The SHEM — Foster Argued That Sitchin’s Interpretation of “Shem” as “Rocketship” Is Linguistically Unsupportable
This is the most famous single translation dispute in the Sitchin controversy. The Hebrew word shem (שם) appears throughout the Old Testament. In every standard translation, it means “name.” Noah’s son Shem. The “name” of God. “A good name is better than riches.”
Sitchin argued that the Sumerian word MU — which also means “name” — has a parallel meaning: “that which rises high.” Cylinder seal VA-243 shows what Sitchin identified as a flying vehicle. The Sumerian MU appears in contexts that suggest vertical movement. Sitchin connected these threads and concluded that the Hebrew shem preserved a fragment of a much older concept: a sky vehicle, a “shem” used by the Anunnaki to travel between Earth and Nibiru.
Foster calls this fantasy. “Name” means “name.” There is no evidence for any other meaning in Hebrew. The Sumerian MU as “that which rises” is a homophone — a different word that sounds the same. Sitchin conflated two unrelated words and built a book series on the conflation.
But here is what Foster does not tell you. The Sumerian sign MU is written with the same cuneiform wedge for both meanings. The scribes did not distinguish them. The “homophone” is a modern linguistic classification. The ancient scribes treated them as the same word. The distinction Foster relies on is a 20th-century academic convention. It is not in the texts.
Furthermore, the Hebrew Bible contains passages where shem is used in contexts that strain the “name” translation. The Tower of Babel builders wanted to “make a shem” for themselves — and the context is a tower reaching to the heavens. A “name” that reaches to the sky? Or a “sky vehicle” that reaches to the sky? The standard translation requires a metaphorical reading. Sitchin’s reading is literal. Both are possible. Neither is proven.
The Physical Evidence They Don’t Want You to See
Foster’s critique is entirely textual. He argues about words. He does not argue about objects. This is deliberate. The objects are harder to dismiss.
In 1966, the Iraqi Directorate of Antiquities excavated a site at Tell es-Sawwan, approximately 100 kilometers north of Baghdad. The site is dated to the Samarra period, roughly 5500 BCE. Among the finds were alabaster figurines with elongated skulls, large eyes, and features that do not match the human population of the region. The figurines were buried in graves. The excavators classified them as “mother goddess” figurines. No evidence supports this classification. It is a label, not a conclusion.
The Sumerian cylinder seals present a harder problem. VA-243, housed in the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin, shows what appears to be a solar system with 12 celestial bodies orbiting a central star. The seal is dated to the 3rd millennium BCE. The Sumerians are not supposed to have known about the outer planets. They are not supposed to have known about a 12th member of the solar system. The seal exists. The image is clear. Foster has never addressed it.
The Egyptian Temple of Dendera contains a ceiling relief that depicts what appears to be a light bulb — a lotus-shaped base with a filament-like structure and a cord leading to a box. The relief is on the wall of a temple that was built in the Ptolemaic period. The standard explanation is that it depicts a lotus flower with a snake emerging from it. The relief looks nothing like a lotus flower and everything like a Crookes tube. Foster has not addressed this either.
The physical evidence accumulated across 14 books is not refuted by arguing about word meanings. It is refuted by explaining the objects. Foster does not explain the objects. He explains the words. The objects remain.
The Yale Problem
Foster’s silence on certain questions is louder than his dismissals. He has never publicly addressed:
- Why the Sumerian King List records reigns of tens of thousands of years if it is purely mythological
- Why cylinder seals depict beings in what appear to be enclosed compartments with wings and propulsion systems
- Why the Enuma Elish contains astronomical data that matches the structure of the solar system
- Why Sumerian civilization appeared suddenly with advanced mathematics, astronomy, and law — with no developmental precursors
Foster does not answer these questions. He dismisses the person who asks them. The distinction is not academic. It is the difference between a scholar and a gatekeeper. A scholar answers questions. A gatekeeper dismisses questioners.
Sitchin’s Response to Foster
Sitchin addressed Foster’s criticisms indirectly — through his work, not through direct debate. Foster never accepted Sitchin’s invitations to public discussion. Sitchin made the invitations. Foster declined. The pattern is consistent across the academic establishment.
-
On methodology. Sitchin argued that Assyriology is not a closed priesthood. The texts belong to humanity. Anyone who can read them can translate them. The claim that only university-trained scholars can understand Sumerian is gatekeeping dressed as scholarship.
-
On etymology. Sitchin pointed to the Akkadian word zakipu — “that which is raised” — used in astronomical texts to describe celestial bodies. He argued that the concept of “raising” or “ascending” is embedded in Mesopotamian languages. The MU/shem connection is not isolated. It is part of a pattern.
-
On selective reading. Sitchin cited over 1,000 ancient texts across 14 books. The charge of selectivity is a smear. He read broadly. He translated comprehensively. He simply translated differently from Foster. The difference is not selectivity. The difference is framework.
-
On the SHEM. Sitchin’s most detailed response appears in Genesis Revisited (1990). He argued that the Tower of Babel narrative describes a launch tower. The “bricks” were fired in a kiln — a technology unnecessary for a ziggurat but essential for a launch facility. The “bitumen” was used as mortar — a material that withstands extreme heat. The details fit a spaceport. They do not fit a temple.
⚖️ PRO vs CONTRA
| Foster’s Argument | Sitchin Response |
|---|---|
| Sitchin’s method is not accepted by scholars | The academy is not a jury. Truth is not determined by a vote of professors. 45 million readers are a larger jury than 6,000 Assyriologists. |
| Sitchin’s etymologies are linguistically unsound | Sumerian is a language isolate. This means we don’t know its relatives. It does not mean it had no influence on later languages. The classification is a statement of ignorance, not proof. |
| Sitchin reads selectively, ignoring context | Every translator is selective. Foster reads the Anunnaki as mythological deities. Sitchin reads them as physical beings. Both are interpretive frameworks. Neither is objective. |
| Shem means “name” — “rocketship” is unsupportable | The Sumerian MU sign is the same for both “name” and “sky chamber.” The distinction is a modern academic convention. The ancient scribes did not distinguish them. |
| Sitchin lacked formal training in Assyriology | Einstein did his best work as a patent clerk. Formal training is not a qualification. It is a gate. |
| The Enuma Elish is a religious text, not astronomy | The text contains orbital mechanics. The Babylonian name for Nibiru is recorded in astronomical tablets. The text is both religious and astronomical. The distinction is modern, not ancient. |
| Sitchin’s work was never peer-reviewed | Peer review is conducted by the same scholars whose careers depend on the standard model. Asking them to review Sitchin is like asking the Inquisition to review Galileo. |
See Also
- Translation-Disputes — Translation disputes
- SHEM — The rocketship concept
- Mainstream-assyriology — Academic criticism
- Enuma-Elish — The text Sitchin and Foster interpret differently
- Friedrich — Linguistic critique from a different angle
- Lambert — W.G. Lambert’s Assyriological critique
- Pseudohistory — The pseudohistory label applied to Sitchin
Sources
- Foster, Benjamin R. (1993, 3rd ed. 2005). Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. CDL Press.
- Foster, Benjamin R. (1991). Review in The Yale Review.
- Foster, Benjamin R. (2001). The Epic of Gilgamesh: A Norton Critical Edition. W.W. Norton.
- Sitchin, Z. (1976). The 12th Planet. Bear & Company.
- Sitchin, Z. (1980). The Stairway to Heaven. Bear & Company.
- Sitchin, Z. (1990). Genesis Revisited. Bear & Company.
- Sitchin, Z. (2002). The Lost Book of Enki. Bear & Company.
- The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 1921-2011. 21 volumes.
- Kramer, Samuel Noah. (1963). The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. University of Chicago Press.
- Heiser, Michael S. (2010). “The Myth That Just Won’t Die.” The Naked Bible blog.
- Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. (1992). Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. British Museum Press.