Given that Sumerian figure Enmenduranki who increasingly is identified with Enoch the subject of the Book of Enoch, I asked Chat GPT, artificial intelligence tool, about the historicity of figures, along with Utnapishtim the Sumerian Noah and Ubara-tutu, possibly the Sumerian Methuselah. It replied:
“It is possible that historical figures are mentioned in the records that mention Utnapishtim, Ubara-tutu, and Enmenduranki. However, it is important to remember that these figures are often associated with mythological or supernatural elements, so it can be difficult to distinguish the historical facts from the legends.
In the case of Utnapishtim, he is described as the survivor of a great flood, which has led some scholars to suggest that the character may have been inspired by a historical flood event that occurred in the Mesopotamian region. However, there is no concrete evidence to support this theory, and many scholars continue to view Utnapishtim as a primarily mythological figure.
Similarly, Ubara-tutu and Enmenduranki are both associated with mythological or supernatural elements in the records that mention them. While it is possible that these figures had historical counterparts, the records themselves are often difficult to interpret and are subject to debate among scholars.”
I pushed it further and it replied: “It is possible that some scholars may be biased against accounts of supernatural events or may downplay the significance of such events in historical records. However, it is important to note that historians and scholars generally approach historical records with a critical eye and attempt to evaluate them in the context of the time and place in which they were written.
While supernatural events may be present in historical records, they are often viewed in the context of the cultural and religious beliefs of the time. In some cases, such events may be interpreted symbolically or allegorically, rather than literally.
That being said, it is also possible that some historical figures who were associated with supernatural or miraculous events may have been dismissed or overlooked by some scholars in the past. However, modern scholarship often takes a more nuanced approach to the evaluation of historical records, and attempts to consider a wider range of evidence and perspectives in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the past.
There can be several reasons for scholars to be biased against accounts of supernatural events and downplay their significance in historical records.
Firstly, scholars may have a naturalistic worldview that prioritizes empirical evidence and scientific explanations. This worldview may lead them to be skeptical of supernatural claims and to interpret such claims as either misunderstood natural phenomena or products of superstition and myth.
Secondly, scholars may be influenced by the dominant intellectual trends of their time, which may prioritize rationality and empirical evidence over faith and supernatural belief. This bias may lead scholars to dismiss or downplay the significance of supernatural events in historical records.
Finally, scholars may be influenced by their own cultural or religious backgrounds, which may lead them to interpret supernatural claims differently. For example, a scholar who is a devout believer in a particular religion may be more likely to interpret supernatural events in the context of their own religious beliefs, while a secular scholar may be more likely to view such events as products of myth and superstition.
It is important for scholars to be aware of their biases and to approach historical records with an open mind, while also evaluating them critically in the context of their historical, cultural, and religious backgrounds.“
