Monday, June 22, 2015

Jar bearing the name of Ishbaal/Eshbaal found

It's estimated to be about 3000 years old, putting it near the time of King David.  Main reason people are assuming it's unlikely to refer to the exact same Biblical Ishbaal is that he's Ben Beda rather then Ben Shaul.

Ancient Kings frequently had additional names, They would frequently take an additional name to their birth name when becoming king. Beda is observed in the linked article as rare and unusual.

The only similar word I found in the Strongs (908) means devised or feignest, or to invent.

Ishbaal's base of operations was east of the Jordan, but still it's presumed the entire North was loyal to him over David till he died.  This Jar was fond west of Jerusalem which was originally allotted to Benjamin, and Ishbaal was a Benjamite.

I favor the basics of the Velikovsky model over David Rohl.  It's interesting since we're talking about Ishbaal to note that Rohl's argument for Saul as Labaya of the Amarna Letters pointed out that Mutbaal has basically the identical meaning to Ishbaal/Eshbaal.

Maybe it's possible this Eshbaal is that Mutbaal?  At face value connecting Beda to Labaya seems more likely then to Shaul.  But Mutbaal was also Transjordan based and without making an Ishbaal connection no reason to think he held authority west of the Jordan, or had any link to the territory of Benjamin.

This Eshbaal may indeed have no connection, but it's an interesting find.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Anakim and Egyptian Records

Egyptian Exercration Texts of the Middle Kingdom mention a list of enemies of Egypt in Canaan, among them are a group called the ly Anaq or "People of Anaq".  The three rulers of the ly Anaq were Erum, Abiyamimu, and Akirum.

Clearly these are the Anakim or "Sons of Anak" of The Bible.  It's interesting that they aren't refereed to later then the Middle Kingdom.  We believe The Exodus and Joshua's conquest of Canaan happened about when The Middle Kingdom ended, and that is indeed when the Anakim were driven out.

Joshua also refers to the Anakim having three leaders.  I do not not think Sheshai, Ahiman and Telmai were immediate sons of Anak, Anak and Arba it seems were ancestral figures of the Anakim and Kirjath-Arba.  It might be that they developed a Triarchial form of government, and so the three names from the Egyptian texts could be predecessors of the three named in The Bible when they are driven out.

But it's also not impossible that they are alternate names for the same three individuals.

What it means that the Anakim are called Nephlim is something I will be discussing in the future on one of my other blogs.  For now what's relevant here is Egyptian records verify their existence, and places them exactly when Revised Chronology predicts they would.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Nimrod and Ninus

I need to correct something I said in my last Nimrod post (I may eventually just go back and remove the relevant part).  In Genesis 10:11 it seems the confusion people see there is cleared up by realizing that it was only using Asshur geographically, the land that would become known by that name by the time of Moses, (every-time you see Assyria in the KJV it's Asshur in the Hebrew).
And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth to Assyria, and built Nineveh and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; the same is a great city.
In which case it does indeed seem to say Nimrod founded Nineveh.  The Geneva Bible seems to agree with this reading, so it's not just something modern translators came up with.  Nineveh is old enough to go back to the time of Enmerkar, it's Wikipedia page says it's first time of prominence was about 2900-2600 BC.

That does provide justification for identifying Ninus of Greek sources with Nimrod.  Problem is those Greek legends are still clearly highly corrupted and removed from the original story.

Ninus could derive from the Sumerian prefix(s) Nin or Nun.  It has been claimed that the deified form of Nimrod was Ninurta, a war and agriculture god who has been called a hunter.  Ninurta's daughter Ninsun was the mother of Bilgames which would justify making Gilgamos the grandson of Enmerkar as one Greek writer said.

Nineveh seems to be the only of the four Assyrian cities founded here that is still known by that name (and Moses may have only used the name he knew it by, not it's original one).  Nimrud however is a very modern name for that site, first applied to it in 1760 AD.  Nimrud was in antiquity called Kalhu, so it's clearly Calah.  Rehoboth-Ir is almost identical to the Hebrew phrase "rehovot ir", meaning "streets of the town" or "public square of the town", so it may not refer to a separate city at all but simply to Nineveh.  Verse 12 not mentioning it again but only Nineveh and Calah would further support that.  Resen hasn't been firmly identified, but Karemlash is a popular theory.  I personally don't think Asshur is one of the cities mentioned here, I think Asshur was founded by Asshur.

My point that we don't really know the moral character of Nimrod remains, that especially means those who think Nimrod is The Antichrist need to accept they've built their arguments on a shaky foundation.  And that not every pagan heroic figure is code for Nimrod.  And Nimrod being deified by others later doesn't mean he himself approved of it.

On the subject of Semiramis.  Even if there was a wife or consort of Nimrod that inspired some of those Greek stories, that wasn't her name, that name comes from the 9th century BC Assyrian queen.  If the historical Nimrod was Enmerkar, then we should be looking for her in those legends.  But since The Bible doesn't mention a lover or offspring for Nimrod, (at least not identifying any person as such), we should never forget we're leaving The Bible when making such speculations.

Even the apocryphal texts like Jasher don't add an important consort for Nimrod to the mix.  "Jasher" makes Nimrod the same as Amraphel which is just stupid.

In the Enmerkar poems, which were written down generations after they take place, the conflict between Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata seems to revolve around the goddess Inanna.  She seems to have been with the Lord of Aratta first but now has a fondness for Enmerkar.  While she at times seems annoyed by both kings acting like they can own her, she ultimately favors Enmerkar.  If she wasn't explicitly identified as a goddess, it would sound a lot like a love triangle.  In fact both kings do seek to refer to themselves as her true Bridegroom.

Maybe that's what it was, but the story became altered in the passing down as Inanna was deified.   Maybe the origin of the custom of the Ritual Marriage between the King of Uruk and Inanna via her High Priestess was that Inanna originally was the wife of the first king of Uruk.

It's possible that this process broke her role in the story into separate parts, both the goddess and mortal women in the stories who seem to function as agents of the goddess.  Mainly the "old woman" who defeats Aratta's magician and later marries Enmerkar.  Who some interpreters of the poems (ones who take them at face value not looking for a real history behind them) interpret wasn't literally old but being described as such for some mystical reason.

In the Greek historiography Semiramis is given a divine parentage but then is said to be raised by the shepherd Simmas.  I can't help but suspect Simmas could come from Shem.  And it also claims she was married to someone before Ninus but who that was I doubt the Greek sources got right.  Armenian legends claimed Semiramis married an Armenian king Aras after Ninus died, it might be out of patriotism that the Armenians switched the progression of her love life.

The important thing to remember here is just because the pagans told pagan stories about them doesn't mean they themselves were pagan.

Friday, June 12, 2015

Thera and Ice Core dateing

There is an article talking about how the Ice Core dating of Thera's eruption hurts Velikovsky.

I'm a creationist, and know full well the Science behind Ice Core dating is bunk. Same with Radiometric dating.  As well as Tree Ring dating.

The Ice Core dating of Thera has not been adequately acknowledged by Egyptian Chronologists for how it hurts conventional chronology.  If they acknowledged it, it would force them to move down the Hycsos period.  As talked about here.  That link seems to ignore Velikovsky's work on the Dark Ages of Greece showing there is a connection between Thera and revised Chronology.  It's also over all not a Creationist website.

Because I agree with Ussher's dates for David and Solomon's reigns my date for Thera's eruption would probably be a few decades before Velikovsky's.  950s BC would be during Solomon's reign from the timeline Velikovsky assumed I think.  I place Solomon's reign from 115 BC to 975 BC.

I as I said before I do not agree with or care for the Worlds in Collision premise, I'm just into the Revised Chronology.

Velikovsky and some of his later followers also argued the Minoan civilization lasted longer then the Mycenean civilization which can bring it down to the 7th Century BC.  But I'm not inclined to agree with making Tarshish the Minoan civilization.

The main synchronization is that the Eruption effected the Minoans during or very soon after the Hycsos period.  Anytime in the 11th Century BC could work I feel.

I've read a claim (from someone not trying to connect it to Thera) that the chronology of the Kings of Athens refers to a disaster happening around the time of the Death of it's last king Cordus around 1068/9 BC.  But I haven't yet been able to verify this.

Shem, Ham and Japheth

Tradition has usually worked under an assumption that Japheth = Europe, Ham = Africa and Shem = Asia.

Today there is a growing trend to line them up instead with modern "racial" classifications as Japheth = Mongoloid, Ham = Negroid and Shem = Caucazoid.  This happens to be attractive to British Israelism and similar theories since Semites and and Indo-Europeans aka White people are both Caucazoid it can make the idea of Israelites becoming European seem less absurd then it does at face value.

I consider both those assumptions equally flawed.  Regardless however of what may or may not determine descent from Ham there is nothing wrong with being descended from Ham.

Before I elaborate I want to recommend everyone familiarize themselves with Ken Ham's explanation for how all the different "races" of people we see today could have all came from Noah and his sons.  His and other Creationists discussions of the subject are why I don't even like to use the word "race" we are all the Human Race, I prefer ethnicity when referring to these kinds of distinctions.  (I of course disagree with his hints at disapproving of Homosexuality but that's not the point of those discussions).

Everyone on the Ark and at the building of Babel I believe looked about the same (probably like Arabs) and had the same Genetic variability.

After they dispersed what determined the kinds of features they developed was mostly the climates of the regions they traveled to.  The darkest skinned people were those who first settled in the heart of Africa where it's the hottest.  The lightest skinned people come from those who settled in the north in the coldest regions.  I don't know why the climate and conditions in East Asia (and to a lesser extent the Americas possibly) would be where almond shaped eyes developed, but I'm sure there is a reason.

From the Biblical clues we have it was mostly Ham's offspring who went to Africa.  But if some Semites and Japhethites had went with them they'd have developed the exact same dark skinned features.  And likewise and Hamites who settled in cold regions would have developed light skin.

Now over time loss of genetic information made it so it wouldn't be so easy for those features to change after migrating to a different region.  That is why today we have ethnically diverse populations living in the same locations.  But some groups might have maintained more genetic variability then others, especially those who are Medium Brown, and that can help explain why descendants of various Israelite Diasporas look so different from each other.

I said before that I don't believe Genesis 10 and 11 name all Noah's grandsons.  It just names the founders of various early tribes.  I also want to suggest that even the early groups those leaders lead were maybe not made up only of descendants of that one of Noah's sons and that they may even have included some people who's pater-lineal ancestry did not go back the same one of Noah's sons.

This is also important to understand when it comes to the desire of evolutionists to label Neanderthals or Homo-Floresiensis and other fossils as Non-Humans.  They clearly seem basically human but Evolutionists insist that have so many differences that don't fit our modern scientific definition of Human.  Any examples that are petrified fossils were probably Pre-Flood and descendants of Adam and Eve but possibly not through Seth and Enosh.  But even ones that aren't petrified and so probably are from Noah might be people who developed distinct features that Noah's genetic potential had. But because they were not well known to enlightenment and Victorian era scientists who defined our modern "racial" distinctions were thus excluded from the modern definition of Human.  The fact remains that those people weren't "Ape like" either.

The problem with either simplistic way of defining descent from Shem, Ham and Japheth is that the Canaanites and probably also the Philistines are labeled by secular "racial" scientists as Semitic even though Biblically they are from Ham.  Likewise the primary nation identified with Shem's son Lud is classical Lydia which is not considered Semitic.

I think the early descendants of Aram's son Gether were the Gutians who some have argued became the Goths or at least some of the Goths.  I'm also open to theories about Edom and Dam contributing to the European gene pool (But I also think many Africans are descended from Dan in Ethiopia, and other Africans like the Lemba and Igbo from other Israelites).  But mostly I think the Lost Tribes went East. And I overall see the Indo-Europeans as mostly coming from Japhethite tribes, and very much recommend Bill Cooper's research in After The Flood.  In addition I recommend material out there about how Ashkenaz became the Aseir.

I definitely think Japheth also contributed greatly to Asia.  The Mongols and Huns seem to be among the descendants of Magog like the Scythians.

But let's look at the arguments for denying Japheth's traditional association with Europe/"White" people.

The association between Javan and Greece is the foundation of the traditional association of Japheth with Europe.  Greeks and other Mediterraneans are often not considered to be "white" under the strictest definition today, but regardless they are definitely Indo-European.  Yavan was and still is the Hebrew name for Greece.  The Bible uses it in passages about Alexander The Great (Daniel 8 and 10-11) leaving no dispute the Aegean world is what's meant by it, not just the Ionians.

This new view argues that the original inhabitants of Greece were of Javan but that Semites displaced them eventually, Javan's name remained associated with the geographical region even though his offspring were no longer there.  The argument for that can be compelling when you have a thorough knowledge of Greek history and their myths about their pre-history and how they developed.  But not when they try to make it sound like one simple invasion or migration.

The Greeks themselves believed other people lived in their lands first.  Pelesgian was a name for one of the pre-Hellenic tribes that became a general term for all of them.  I've argued before that Pelesgians could have came from Pelegian, meaning of Peleg son of Heber of Shem.  But I also think the Arcadians could have came from the Arkite tribe of the Canaanites and the Sintians from the Sinite tribe of the Canaanites.

That however makes it look like the non-Japhethites were the ones who came first.  Well it gets more complicated.  The Javanites no doubt came after these people but before the proper "Heroic Age" of Greek mythology.  Which conventionally correlates with the Mycenaean age Archaeologically.  But we believe the Mycenaean age should be moved down, and that the myths associated with the Heroic age had when they took place confused by Homer and Hesiod and others re-imagining them during the Classical period.

The Heroic Age can be said to begin with Cecrops founding or refunding Athens.  That event being dated to 1556 BC I don't think should change because that's based on the ancient chronology of the Kings and Archons of Athens which is pretty solid and unbroken.  This means I place Theseus (a later king of Athens) during the Minoan rather then Mycenaean period.  This makes perfect sense with the context of the myth (the origin story part of it at least).  It is about Greece being subject to a Cretan tyrant.  In some versions Cecrops came from Egypt but not always, in my chronology this was likely during the Hycsos period of Egypt.  Since I lean towards dating the death of Joshua to 1557 BC.

I have seen two references to placing Theseus in the 800s BC, neither gave a reason and I suspect they were just pure fiction.  But both were in the context of specifically Theseus interactions with the Amazons.

Later between 1490-1450 BC Cadmus and Dannus lead what I think were likely Edomite migrations into Greece.  Whether or not those dates should be changed I'm unsure.  But all those were isolated to specific parts and clearly were always mingling with those already there.  Ultimately Italy is where Edom mainly settled.

Some people think Rhodes is the only Greek location the Dodonim should be linked to.  I disagree with identifying Dodonim with Dardanus, but there is a location on the Greek Peninsula called Dodona.

Madai is the ancestor of the Medes and the Medes are indeed Indo-European, they seem to be the root of the Indo half.  But British Israelists may be inclined to argue that they became "Indo-European" because the Cities of the Medes were where many Northern Israelites were taken in II Kings 17.  However that their language was Indo-Eurpean seems to be pretty firmly established well before that.

The new theory will try to argue for connecting Javan to Eastern peoples by linking Javan to names like Yuan.  Or even arguing that Japan came from Javan via the V becoming a B (which does happen) and the B later becoming a P.  There is also the Javanese People to consider.  One could also try to use the Yavanas of the Mahabarata as evidence of Javan in India, but the Mahabarata is not as old as Ancient Aliens says it is, it's post Alexander The Great.

I agree entirely with Bill Cooper that the name Iapetos/Iapetus/Japetus in Greek mythology comes from Japheth.  Iapetos was an ancestral deity, but Greek mythology as we know it has confused things and he is made an ancestor of the Flood survivor rather then his son.  Iapetos is also a Titan, and it is believed by many scholars that the Titans were the gods of the Pre-Hellenic inhabitants of the Aegean and that the Olympians overthrowing The Titans is a myth that allegorises the change in pantheon.  Iapetos wife in some myths was named Asia.

So the argument can become very compelling.  The problem is it begins with the flawed assumption that what we label Oriental ethnic features is the sign of descent from Japheth.  And no ancient depictions I know of can justify saying that Ancient Greece was ever inhabited by people with Almond shaped eyes.  Whether or not there is a kinship between some of the early tribes of Ancient Greece and many Far Eastern peoples, it would still say nothing about what Ethnic features prove.

While I believe Japheth contributed to the Asiatic gene pool, so did the other two.  The Early Chinese I believe likely have a connection to the Sinite tribe, one Psalm calls the Chinese the Sinim.  I also think there was a major Semtic contribution, I don't think Joktan's sons were limited to Arabia, I agree that the name Yucatan could come from Joktan.  But not how that argument is used by Mormons and people wanting to put Ophir in Peru.

Tarshish is interesting.  I agree largley with the argument that Tarshish is Britan, Chuck Missler makes a good argument there, Herodtus says Tarshish was beyond the Pillars of Herakles (Straight of Gibraltar).  I think the cities in Spain and Turkey people like to point to were merely outposts.

Some insist that the Tarshish in Solomon and Jehoshaphat's times were in the East rather then West because of leaving for it via the Red Sea.  It could be because this was an unusual Tarshish linked mission involving Ophir in Arabia that they circumnavigated Africa.

Arguing that Tarshsish is Japan doesn't work because even Japan's possibly exaggerated mythological history doesn't have their Nation being founded until the 7th Century BC.  Well after both Solomon and Jehoshaphat.

It could also be this early British sea faring nation had outposts in South Africa or Madagascar.

Advocates of this modern theory will say that Genesis 9 foretells Japheth being enlarged and thus we should identify him with the world's largest populations.  Enlarged there could also mean Geo-Political influence however.  In that context Genesis 9 was abused to support European Imperialism and Slavery.

When it comes to being foretold that the number of individuals descended from you would be a large number, that's mainly Abraham and his Decedents.  Genesis 12 and 15 talk about his Seed being as the stars in Heaven, which is in turn compared to the sands of the seashore.  In Genesis 35 Jacob is told a company of Nations would come out of him.  In Genesis 48 Ephraim also was told a "multitude of nations" would come out of him. In Deuteronomy 33, Reuben's blessing says "Let not his men be few" and God promises to bless them that enlarge Gad.

So this factors into my view I already linked to that the Lost Tribes went East.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Bit-Sulman in the Armana letters

Velikovsky did not use this argument in Ages of Chaos but a later Essay.

Mostly the criticism of this argument is that the "n" only became added to the name of Solomon in Greek transliteration, in Hebrew it is Shalamo.  Appealing to the Septuagint is something I reject on many levels.

I first feel the need the point out that I no longer believe the Salem or Shalem of Genesis was the Jerusalem of David and Solomon.

I could also nitpick Velikovsky's jumping from Bit/Beth to Temple when it just means House, that can include The Temple which is The LORD's house but not always.  The personal palace Solomon spent even more time constructing was likely still around at this time also.

Just as I feel the name Ebed-Tov as an alternate name for the King of Jerusalem could have a connection to Obed an Ancestor of the House of David.  I also think perhaps the real origin of the name Sulman is Salmon (Strong number 8012), an ancestor of Boas and Obed mentioned in Ruth 4:21 (spelled with an N there but without it in verse 20) Matthew 1:4-5 and Luke 3:32.

The versions of the name without the N are strong number 8009 and 8007 used in 1 Chronicles 2:11.  1 Chronicles 2:51 and 52 Identifies another Salmoh as the father of Bethleham, and son of Caleb.  Presumably this Bethleham was the founder of the city of Bethleham.

Another related name is Zalmon (Strong number 6756), referenced in Psalm 68:14 and Judges 9:48 as a location and the name of a random Israelite in 2 Samuel 23:28.  There is no clear connection to Jerusalem here however.  The location seems like it's probably a Northern Kingdom one.

But since Salmon is rendered both with and without the N clearly in reference to the same person.  That could also be seen as evidence that adding an N to Solomon independent of Greek influence wasn't impossible though it has no known precedent in the Masoretic text.  Shalamo (Strong 8010) and Salmoh (Strong 8009) are spelled the same in Hebrew but merely pronounced different due to different vowels.

Sunday, June 7, 2015

How did Edom become Rome?

On my Blog on Bible Prophecy I argued based mainly on Biblical Eschatology that Edom became Rome.  Then I further backed that up with a look at what we know about Edomite and Roman Religon.  All of that is also relevant to my current view on Daniel 11:36-45.

On this Blog I've previously touched on the Edom=Rome issue when discussing the Hycsos as the Amalekites.  And to some extent what I said there overlaps with my study on Dan.

Now I want to get into my recently developed thoughts on how Edom became Rome.  Major reason why that's relevant here has to do with Veilkovsky and his followers work on The Dark Age of Greece.

Clearly Greek and Roman mythology are frequently more distorted from the real history behind them then even many other highly distorted mythologies.  A product of them reinventing their mythology multiple times.

I agree that Homer probably actually wrote in the 7th century BC as opposed to the traditional 8th, and that The Iliad is probably an imaginative mixing of characters and events linked to both the 7th century BC fall of Troy VIII and the 12th century BC fall of Troy II.  With perhaps sprinklings of myths not originally linked to Troy at all.

Dating when Aeneas lived based on when Dido lived is a mistake however.  None of the myths connecting Aeneas to Dido began to pop up until after the Punic Wars, or at least after they started.  It was prompted by a desire to give a Romantic background to Rome and Carthage's rivalry for dominance of the Western Mediterranean.

Thing is, I've grown skeptical that Aeneas originally had anything to do with Rome at all.  His connection to Rome did exist before Virgil and Livy, but it still seems late, after they began borrowing more and more from Greece.  Aeneas was definitely an unresolved sequel hook in The Iliad, which I think Roman imagination latched onto.

I think originally like most City-States Rome had one key mythical founder, Romulus.   Now I think some Edomite tribes came to Italy well before Romulus, like the Italian Pelasgians, and the Sabines who were a Spartan offshoot.  But I think Romulus and Remus are the key to how the Edomite kingdom that had been subject to Davidic Kings for generations became Rome.

Now I'm going to do some copying from Wikipedia.
Romulus and Remus were the twin brothers and main characters of Rome's foundation myth. (The pronunciation in English is different from the Latin original Rōmulus and Rĕmus). Their mother was Rhea Silvia, daughter of Numitor, king of Alba Longa. Before their conception, Numitor's brother Amulius seized power, killed Numitor's male heirs and forced Rhea Silvia to become a Vestal Virgin, sworn to chastity. Rhea Silvia conceived the twins by the god Mars, or by the god Hercules. Once the twins were born, Amulius had them abandoned to die in the Tiber river. They were saved by a series of miraculous interventions: the river carried them to safety, a she-wolf (in Latin, lupa) found and suckled them, and a woodpecker fed them. A shepherd and his wife found them and fostered them to manhood as simple shepherds. The twins, still ignorant of their true origins, proved to be natural leaders. Each acquired many followers. When they discovered the truth of their birth, they killed Amulius and restored Numitor to his throne. Rather than wait to inherit Alba Longa, they chose to found a new city.
My hypothesis is, all of this part of the story was only later in it's passing down changed geographically to being already in Italy.  Alba Longa replaced an Edomite City south of the Dead Sea.  And The Tiber replaced a river in that area.  They decided to travel and found a new city somewhere else because this is during the time when Assyria was becoming a threat to the whole area. The Northern Kingdom's fall was approaching.

Eventually 753 BC was settled on as the official Date of Rome's founding, but Ancient sources actually had dates varying from 758 BC to 728 BC.  Ussher argued that it was really in 748 BC.  It could be the restored King Numitor is the king known from Assyrian inscriptions as Kaus-Malaka around 745 BC.  Kaus-Malaka sounds like it's probably a throne name and not a personal one.  But Numitor could also be changed with the people's language change to Latin.

A potential Semitic origin for the name of Romulus (and thus Rome) could be words like Rowmah (Strongs 7317) or Rowman (Strongs 7318) .  Remus could interestingly enough derive from the controversial Semitic word the KJV translates Unicorn.

It might be that as Aeneas was made part of Roman Mythology, stories originally affiliated with Romulus and Remus became attached to him.  At least the key part about being someone who traveled from across the Mediterranean to found a new city.

Later as Romulus's city became successful more Edomites might have migrated there.

Update: Second Hypothosis

I've come up with a second one, still based on the premise that the cycle of myths around Aeneas in Italy were originally peeled off from myths about Romulus.

This time I'm thinking maybe Romulus and Remus should be identified with Ascanius and Silvius, the sons of Aeneas and Lavina.  Lavina could be identified with Rea Silvia and Latinus with Numitor.  Or Numitor and Armulius represent a generation between Latinus and Lavina that had been removed.

And when Aeneas was added to Roman mythology Troy replaced Edom and Aeneas was put in place of a man later deified as Mars.  Mars is another of the Roman deities who's name wasn't borrowed from the Etruscan pantheon, the Etruscan war god was Laran.  The name Mars could have a Semitic origin as Mari (Strongs number  4805) which means rebel or rebellious, it's easy to make a connection between Rebellion and War.

The last reference to Edom in their Biblical region is before the time of the three Edomite kings referred to in Assyrian inscriptions.  I'm actually starting to think the people we assume to be Edomites of Assyrian inscriptions may actually be the Ishmaelite tribe of Dumah, who later became the Idumeans and were also affiliated with Mount Sier.  Since the Assyrian inscriptions actually say Udumi or Udumu.

Speaking of the Etruscans, the official theory on their connection to the Sea Peoples doesn't work well with Velikovskian chronology. Where they came from I'm working on.  That Etruscans are present in the Aeneas cycle of myths could be evidence against whoever was behind those stories living in the 1100s since the Etruscan civilization began around 900 BC.

I think since I'm a writer I may someday write a fictional narrative based on how I think this might have played out.  I really like the 1962 Steve Reeves film The Avenger where he played Aeneas.  He also did one where he played Romulus I haven't seen yet.