Combining aspects of Rohl and Velikovsky.

Well, I'm now probably moving away again from the Mizraim was in Arabia theory.

As I've said before, even as I've become more critical of Velikovsky in terms of the 18th Dynasty,  I've become more convinced then ever of his models for the 19th, 20th and 21st Dynasties.

I've been considering the Implications of keeping that aspect of Velikovsky while at the same time considering that Rohl may have been at least partly right in his view of the Amarna Letters.

Mutbaal as Ishbaal/Eshbaal has always been Rohl's strongest argument.  Even conventionalists agree that Mutbaal also means Man of Baal.  We have someone ruling mainly in the Trans-Jordan but who's father controlled Shechem, and with basically the same name.  Too many perfect alignments to just ignore.

The name Labaya is suspected to be related to a Hebrew word usually translated Lion, Labiy Strong Number 3833.  The primary verse using this word I've seen so far cited to support it being a name for Saul is Psalm 57:4 which David wrote while on the run from Saul, and there it appears in a Plural form, Labaim.  Sometimes the plural suffix is used of an individual in Hebrew as a sign of respect.

I however have been looking at Prophecies in the Torah, Genesis 49:9, Numbers 23:24 and Numbers 24:9, where two words for Lion get used, Ari and Labiy.  Ari is definitely the Lion of Judah since only Ari is used in Micah 5:8, and Isaiah 29 uses Ariel (Lion of God) as a name for Zion, The City of David (Which is Bethlehem), and the Lions of Solomon's Throne were Ari.  So I wonder if it's possible that in these prophecies the Ari is David and the Labiy is Saul?

Rohl doesn't seem to have an identity for Abdi-Heba the King of Jerusalem in the Amarna Letters.  Probably because he assumed The Bible never names the Jebusite King of the region.  But that's because English translations obscure that the Hebrew of 2 Kings 24:23 says Araunah was a King.  And both accounts agree he was a Jebusite.

The fact that Abdi-Heba seems to have later started working with the same Hapiru that he'd complained about Labaya working with, is probably his alliance with David.  It can be inferred from the Biblical Narrative that they were on friendly terms already even before the Plague happened.

Now one implication of combining those two views, is bringing us right back to the 22nd Dynasty seemingly being the era of Solomon, Jeroboam and Rehoboam.  The starting point of Revised Chronology is usually saying that identification is obviously wrong.

Unless there is a forgotten dynasty, or forgotten final phase of the 18th, to come between the end of the Amarna period and the Libyan take over.

One criticism of the Shoshenq as Shishak view to come to me recently is that The Bible would have called Shosenk a Libyian (either by calling him a Lubim or of Phut).  When it refers to the Nubian Dynasty ruler Taharka it calls him a Cushite King, and doesn't call him Pharaoh or even directly say that he rules Egypt.

And then there is the fact that even the conventional date for Shoshenq is too late for when I place the end of Solomon's Reign, being Ussher's date (975 BC) at the latest.  Conventional Chronology places Ussher's date for Solomon's Death during the reign of Siamun of the 21st Dynasty.

This returns me to the mystery of how Manetho's 18th Dynasty does seem to last longer then Archeologists usually think.  And has him seemingly recording Ramses Minaium twice, once as part of the 18th Dynasty and then in the 19th Dynasty.  But Seti exists only in the 19th Dynasty account.

I still think Orus of Manetho is Akhenaten, and Rathotis is Tutankamun.  And then Acheneres as Ay and finally Armasis'Harmais as Horemheb.

Rohl has Horemheb as the Pharaoh who's daughter Solomon Married, that adds up well.  Since Labaya is now agreed to have probably died before Amenhotep III did, Horemheb was probably King when Solomon took the Throne 40 and one half years after Saul died.  Still it's possible that even though he was King at the time the daughter Solomon married was one of Akhenetan's, or any woman who held the title "King's Daughter".  Maybe Solomon wound up marrying the same Queen who had written to Suppiluliuma I?

That still leaves the Shishak question up in the air.

Adjusting the 18th Dynasty

I still think Shishak is most likely an 18th Dynasty Pharaoh, or rather 18th Dynasty at the latest.

There are some out there now who support Velikovsky's identity for Shishak but can't his view of the 19th Dynasty.  And will thus try to argue a place for the 19th Dynasty putting it right after Velikovsky has the 18th end.  One variation is arguing Seti I is the "Saviour" of Jahoash.

And with that one could argue, though I haven't seen it yet, for placing the Libyan (22nd and 23rd) dynasties between 19 and 20.  Since Rameses III alludes to a foreign occupation then.

The thing is, I'm actually more convinced of Velikovsky's arguments for the 19th, 20th and 21st Dynasties then anything else, and I will be posting more on that in the future.  So I'm the opposite of others in this regard.

My desire to adjust the 18th Dynasty began only with problems I saw in which specific campaign of Tuthmosis III Velikovsky identified with Shishak taking treasures form The Temple.  We keep criticizing the conventional Shoshenk view by pointing out how Shoshenk's campaigns were in the North, ruled by Shishak's effective puppet Jeroboam.  But Tuthmosis III's 21st year campaign (first year of his sole rule) was mainly a siege of Megiddo, also a northern city.  Velikovsky talks about Megiddo being one of Solomon's main fortresses, but that doesn't matter, everything Solomon had north of Bethel became Jeroboam's by this point.

Something else I noticed.  The Bible records Shishak and Rehoboam fighting no battle.  The more detailed Chronicles account includes a description of his army, but because Rehoboam listened to the Prophet (unlike the Kings in the days of Jeremiah and Ezekiel) Temple treasures were turned over without a fight.

So if it is a campaign of Tuthmosis III, it could easily be one of the campaigns that focused only on collecting tribute.  Or maybe it could fit Tuthmosis I's Syrian campaign where he describes how no one resisted him, a fact which has confused historians.  But it could also fit Amenhotep II's campaigns from his 3rd, 7th or 9th years.

Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh isn't mentioned in Chronicles, only in Kings, though Chronicles does mention Solomon bringing horses from Egypt.  And Gezer isn't mentioned when the marriage is first refereed to.  Pharaoh taking Gezer is thus based on only one verse, 1 Kings 9:16.  I shall quote it in the context of the verses before and after.

And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Yahuah, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer. 

 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife.

 And Solomon built Gezer, and Bethhoron the nether.....

Velikovsky is willing to consider The Bible account imperfect or corrupted, as shown by his discussion of Ahab and Jehoram, which I responded to in my Amarna post.  And Rhol does the same when arguing for his view of Babel, I adjust his argument in a way that can be more consistent with viewing God's word as inspired and preserved.

When one allows that option, the possibility that Gezer somehow became an error for Megiddo is plausible.  I who do not consider it possible for the Masoretic text to be in error, am willing to consider that this whole account is a summery and by Pharaoh taking Gezer it might mean all three cities at the end of the previous verse.

That then opens up the option that Tuthmosis III's 21st-23rd years campaign is during Solomon's reign not Rehoboam.  When in Solomon's reign Gezer was taken isn't clear.  This verse seems to refer to it in past tense (the context of Solomon's reign at this point is about 20-25 years in).  But I think this did happen later then the marriage since Gezer isn't mentioned in the initial account of it.  And maybe in that case Gezer or Hazor is the city called Kadesh by Tuthmosis III.  Gezer did have a Canaanite High Place, so it too could have been a Holy City.  Hazor is actually quite close to Kadesh-Naphtali, not just both being in Naphtali, but very northern Naphtali, both significantly north of the Sea of Galilee.

So this could make the Shishak campaign either one of the very late campaigns of Tuthmosis III, or of Amenhotep II.  And could make the daughter of Pharaoh Solomon married either a daughter of Tuthmosis III or Neferure.

Karnak does list Gezer as a city Tuthmosis III conquered.   And Wikipedia's page for Gezer lists Tuthmosis as the only Pharaoh known to have conquered the city.

While I have many potential nitpicks of Velikovsky's Amarna view.  The strong evidence for the Amarna period being being contemporary with Shalmanezzer III I do find quite compelling.  But again for my view that would be Jehoram's reign over the north not Ahab's.

I tried to entertain David Rohl's Amarna view, his Mutbaal/Ishbaal connection is his strongest argument.  It's not only Rohl who argued Mutbaal means "Man of Baal" it's at the start of Mutbaal's wikipedia page.  However Labaya as Saul doesn't add up to me, I could see a Northern Kingdom ruler being defined mainly as Shechem, even the ones ruling from nearby Samaria.  But Saul's capitals were all in Benjamin.  Rohl also identifies Joab with a king of a very far northern city, which is just random.

The Amarna period must be some period of the Divided Kingdom.  Even how conventional chronology defines it has the area of Israel mostly being defined by the rivalry between Labaya in Shechem and the King of Jerusalem.

I read an argument once for Labaya as Basha.  I can't find it now.

But here is the thing, the beginning of the reign of Akhenaten is almost exactly 100 years after Tuthmosis III's battle of Megiddo, the Amarna period begins a decade before that, so 90 years later.  The Biblical timeline of the divided kingdom has 90 years after Shishak plundered Rehobaom as during the brief reign of Athaliah, and thus the Amarna period mostly after she died.  That's going off Ussher's dates.

So Velikovsky's synchronization for Shishak and Amarna can't both be right.

If the taking of Gezer can be synchronized to the Battle of Megiddo, then Amarna can be moved down a couple decades and perhaps fit much better.

And if the taking of Gezer was very early in Solomon reign, then 90 years after that takes us to right after Omri moved his capital from Tirzah to Samaria, in the region of Shechem. The Bible doesn't tell us how Omri died, but it was about 6 years after he moved the capital to Samaria.  The death of Labaya has sometimes been dated to while Amenhotep III still reigned.

If Ebed-Tov is a name all Kings of Judah used, then the letters might not even notice when Asa changed to Jehoshaphat.  Or maybe Jehoshaphat was writing the letters during the later part of his father's reign?

In my earlier Amarna post I had suggested the possibility that the grandfather of Jehu was a son of Omri other then Ahab who was placed in charge of the Transjordan.  Now that I'm considering Omri as Labaya, Mutbaal could have been an alternate name of Nimshi grandfather of Jehu.  Nimshi may be a name given to him post-mortem considering it's meaning.

But even without a Jehu connection, it would be logical for Omri to place a son as a governor in the Trans-Jordan.  And maybe it's because he ruled in the same region that he took the name of the much earlier Ishbaal.

End of part 1, Beginning of Part 2.

That timeline still has the issues so many find so unacceptable of the 19th Dynasty not immediately following the 18th.  I will make further arguments for the gap between the 18th and 19th Dynasties in the future.  But for the rest of this post I want to consider one more hypothetical timeline for the 18th Dynasty, one that would have it end pretty close to when Velikvosky has the 19th Dynasty begin.

The dates for Horemhab's reign are inconsistent, with most archeologists certain he didn't have more then 14 years, but with at least one ancient reference to 59 years.  Maybe power struggles with Nubia/25th dynasty are a part of that confusion.

If Horemhab can be placed about when Velikovsky argued him to be (which he did in the context of removing him from the 18th dynasty altogether) it can become possible to argue for the Amarna period being contemporary with Menahem and Pekah.  Menahem I think it is a bit easier to hypothetically identify with Labaya.

Let's talk about the sons of Labaya.  We know he had more then one, and we know the name of only one.  There is however no definitive proof Mutbaal was even among the sons referenced in other contexts.  I will not argue for identifying Mutbaal with Pekaiah.  I will for the next five paragraphs copy something I argued elsewhere not connected to revised chronology at all, for possibly making Hoshea a son of Menahem.  And at the same time giving his dynasty a link to the Transjordan (where Mutbaal reigned) via Gad.

King Menahem is called Ben Gadi or "Son of Gadi", Gadi is the same in the Hebrew as "Gadite", so perhaps Gadi wasn't the personal name of his father but rather this phrase identifies him as a Gadite?

The house of Menahem does NOT like Jeroboam, Baasha or Ahab have a declaration that it's male line was or will be entirely blotted out.  His son Pekahiah was killed in a coup by Pekah ben Remaliah.  Pekah is later killed in a coup by Hoshea ben Elah.  Could Hoshea have been of Menahem's house, that is often called the House of Gadi?   Hoshea and Menahem both paid tribute to the same Assyrian King, Tiglath-Pileser.

Maybe Elah was Pekahiah's brother?  Or Sister, ending with a Heh is usually grammatically feminine in Hebrew but our assumptions about some names forget that. Or maybe Elah was a wife of Menahem or Pekahiah?

We are repeatedly told there is more to the story in an alluded to Northern Kingdom counterpart to Chronicles, but it hasn't been preserved since it (being kept by a less faithful Kingdom) wasn't God's Word.

The idea of Kings coming from Gad is intriguing to me because I've noticed something about Moses Blessing on The Tribe of Gad in Deuteronomy 33:20-21 that most don't.  It's a blessing that seems to imply Royal status, similar terminology to that used of Judah in Genesis 49:9-10.  So Lost Tribes speculation aside that convinced me Samaria did have a Gadite dynasty.

 Maybe Hoshea could be Mutbaal, or maybe another brother.  If this dynasty was a Gadite one then it could have been important to them to place a potential heir as the governor of Gad, or of the whole Transjordan.

Maybe the Shalmanezzer alluded to is V rather then III? 

BTW the Deuteronomy Prophecy about Gad uses the same Hebrew word for Lion that Rohl argued is root of the name Labaya.

This could place the start of the 18th Dynasty already after the time of Rehoboam.  And open the possibly that Shishak was a Hyksos.

I argued before that Shishak is in fact a Hebrew name the etymology of which can be 100% explained as Hebrew in origin, coming from a word for linen.  And did so for the purpose of suggesting that we need not look for it in Egyptian records at all.  And I stand by that in terms of the first model I argued for in this post.

But the Hyksos used Semitic names.  Did they use one that could explain the origin of Shishak?  There is one very hotly debated figure of the second intermediate period who comes awfully close.  Sheshi.

Rohl attempted to argue Sheshi was the Sheshai who was an Anakim king.  In the Strongs that name is located close to some of the variants of Shishak, like Shashak and Sheshech.   One other attested Egyptian king some have sought to identify Sheshi with is Sharek.  So that is evidence for a version of the name with a K at the end.

Sheshi is also theorized to be the same as Shenshek.  If Shoshenk proponents can add an n to the name, then adding one in a different spot is also acceptable.

The two theories about Sheshi provided by mainstream Egyptologists I find most interesting here are, that he may have been a Hyksos who reigned between Khyan and Apepi.  Or that he was a Hyksos vessel who ruled in southern Canaan.

Shishak is NOT in either Kings or Chronicles called Pharaoh, the King who's daughter Solomon married was.  Shishak is only called the King (Melek) of Egypt.  But could it be this actually meant a King from or representing Egypt?  Perhaps ruling from Al-Arish or Sharuen?

And then, could the Pharaoh who's daughter Solomon married be Khyan?  Arguably the Hyksos ruler who's influence was the most extensive?  And the Hyksos may not have shared the hostility to marrying their daughter to foreign rulers that Amenhotep II and III did.

Josephus's version of Manetho seems to place Khyan after rather then before Apepi/Apophis.   Modern Egyptologists are pretty sure him reigning before is correct.  Either way aspects of what I just argued could be seen as weakening the Amalekites/Hyksos connection.  But as I said the Hyksos were always a collection of tribes.

Sheshi's successor has been theorized to be Nehesy Aaserhe.  With Nehesy being interpreted to mean "The Nubian".  Could Aaserhe somehow become Zerah?  Maybe it could come from an attempt in the Egyptian language to represent Ha-Zerah (Zerah with a definite article, because Hebrew did use those before personal names).  And "The Nubian" used to translate "The Cushite".

This second model is perhaps better compatible with a 6th Dynasty Exodus Model then a Middle Kingdom model.

Jar bearing the name of Ishbaal/Eshbaal found

http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/rare-inscription-bearing-biblical-name-found-in-israel-150616.htm

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 Saul.  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.

Nimrod and Babel identified Part 2

This is a follow up post, for part 1 go here.

Now to discus this Enmerkar in more detail. He's second only to Gilgamesh among the heroes of ancient Sumerian literature. Gilgamesh is also of the same Dynasty, a generation or two later.

In Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta a previous confusion of the languages of mankind is mentioned. This agrees with the Biblical conclusion I came to earlier, Nimrod didn't instigate Babel (at least not originally) but came sometime later, though definitely still when it was a fairly recent memory. Aside from founding Uruk, Enmerkar is said here to have had a temple built at Eridu, and is even credited with the invention of writing on clay tablets, for the purpose of threatening Aratta into submission. Enmerkar furthermore seeks to restore the disrupted linguistic unity of the inhabited regions around Uruk, listed as Shubur, Hamazi, Sumer, Uri-ki (the region around Akkad), and the Martu land.

This, and the other three major legends about Enmerkar chiefly revolve around his conflict with a Kingdom called Aratta, and it's ruler En-suhgir-ana. Aratta obviously sounds a lot like Ararat, but most scholars won't connect them because they are used to the traditional identification of Ararat referring to a mountain in Turkey, and these texts clearly seem to place Aratta in northern Iran.

But Bob Conruke has shown that The Bible clearly places Ararat in northern Iran.
http://www.baseinstitute.org/pages/noahs_ark/17
He even addresses the connection between Ararat and Armenia.

From Genesis 10 and other sources referenced in Bill Cooper's After The Flood this region is indeed likely to be one of the earliest major settlements of Japheth's descendants (Gomer and Madai chiefly). Some Rabbinical traditions (like the so called book of Jasher from medieval times), suggest there was a war or conflict between Nimrod and Japheth (or Japheth's descendants).

According to the ancient Armenian historian Moses of Khorene and Georgian historian Leonti Mroveli.  Hayk was a Son of Togarmah son of Gomer son of Japheth who founded Armenia and inherited Arrarat.  Hayk is said to have fought wars with a Mesopotamian king named Bel who is sometimes identified with Nimrod.  Though to the Greeks Belus was the father of Ninus.

Enmerkar's successor was Lugalbanda, who appears in the narratives about Enmerkar as a military figure. It's possible that Lugalbanda was just an interim military governor ruling Uruk, and that the rule of Sumer as a whole went to Etana in Kish, who is said to have "consolidated all the foreign countries". Although his reign has yet to be archaeologically attested, his name is found in later legendary tablets, and Etana is sometimes regarded as the first king and founder of Kish himself.

Etana has been a Nimrod candidate on some websites I've visited.  The Evidence for Enmerkar far outweighs the evidence for Etana in my view.  But maybe it's not impossible Etana and Enmerkar are the same person simply known by different names in different cities.  But for now my working theory is that they are different people.

Etana could easily have been one of Cush's other sons, and the brother of Nimrod, creating possible parallels to Set overthrowing Osiris in Egyptian mythology, and many other myths about a a tyrant becoming King by killing his brother to latter be avenged by his brother's son. Zababa was the name of the patron deity of Kish, which makes Sabtah or Sabtecha seem the likely candidates to me.

The next King of Uruk was Dumuzid, who's name is another form of Tammuz. Modern mythology makes him the Son of Nimrod and likely an inspiration for figures like Osiris and/or Horus, I'm skeptical of all that, but it could fit here. Dumuzid was captured by Enmebaragesi of Kish, the earliest ruler on the kings-list whose name is attested directly from archaeology. So we are at the dawn of recorded history now.

There are two Dumuzids on the Kings-list. The Antediluvian one is who the Tammuz myths are usually attributed to. But I believe that's because of Confusion, while I do think some real Pre-Flood history may be remembered in the myths associated with the Antediluvian Sumerian Kings, I believe this was the only real Dumuzid. The Tammuz myths are clearly heavily mythologized and harder to identify with history anyway, because they revolve around Inanna.  But in part I feel this comes from this Dumuzid's relationship with the High Priestess of Inanna, who's Temple was in Uruk, and the sacred Marriage ritual that was key to the religion of Uruk.  I suspect the same thing about Inanna's role in the Gilgamesh legends.  Indeed every other myth about Inanna is known to be about the importance of Uruk.

Dumuzid was succeeded by Bilgames, more commonly known as Gilgamesh. The "Epic of Gilgamesh" most commonly refereed to is a much later construction, the earliest actual Sumerian poems about Bilgames (Which are still well after when he actually lived) are very different. Enkidu is not a wild-man who needed to be tamed, he has no origin story, he's just a loyal friend and partner (and possibly Lover) of Bilgames. Also in the Sumerian poems Bilgames dies first and it is Enkidu who mourns him.

One of the Bilgames poems lacks a parallel story in the latter Epic. "Bilgames and Aga", which is about his conflict with King Aga of Kish, the successor of Enmebaragesi.

Bilgames/Gilgamesh is sometimes cited as a son of Lugalbanda, but the Sumerian Kingslist calls him "The Son of Lilu" a phrase often translated Phantom, but also taken to mean an Incubus (Male Sucubus) and associated with Lilith. Lilith would in medieval times become the alleged first wife of Adam in Jewish folklore. But her original Sumerian origin story was as a "Sacred Prostitute" in the service of Inanna in Uruk. It's possible both names refer to the same man, or that Bilgames was adopted, or one was his step father by marriage. Bilgames' mother is always refereed to as the goddess Ninsun, who I'm simply going to randomly guess was a daughter of Nimrod.

One of the most noted things about Gilgamesh is his having traveled to meet the man who built the Ark and survived the Flood. This event isn't depicted directly in the surviving Sumerian Bilgames poems, but it is mentioned.  In the Sumerian poems the Noah figure is named Ziusudra rather then the more well known Utnapishtim of the later Epic of Gilgamesh.

Noah lived 350 years after The Flood, the time of Bilgames could very well have been that early after The Flood.  If he was a nephew or grandson of Nimrod as I suspect, that would make him the same generation as Eber or Peleg, Peleg actually died before Noah did.

So I feel I have succeeded in identifying Nimrod's true place in early history. And in so doing connected the first 10 and a half chapters of Genesis with the earliest recorded History.

If you want to read the Enmerkar and Bilgames Sumerian poems, they are online including English translations here.
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/catalogue1.htm
I am well aware this theory has been suggested before (most notably by David Rohl), I have however added my own new contributions and twists to it.

Nimrod and Babel identified Part 1

First I want to say I'm skeptical of the common assumption that Nimrod was the instigator of the Babel project. Extra Biblical traditions, both Jewish and Christian, have been making this assumption since at least as far back as Josephus. But The Bible itself doesn't really say that. And I feel that sometimes the more nearly unanimous an extra-Biblical assumption is the more likely it is it's completely wrong.

Babel is discussed in the first part of Genesis 11, which is in fact the Prequel to what's discussed in Genesis 10. Genesis 10 tells us about how the different nations divided, 11 then goes back and explains for us why.

The city of Babel is cited as one of Nimrod's cities, it's mentioned first, but that doesn't mean it was Nimrod's capital. Genesis 14:1 also lists the King of Shinar first, but it's later made clear the King of Elam is the leader of that alliance. Shinar/Babel is a focal point from the Biblical view of History, so The Holy Spirit will often list it first, whether by the contemporary secular reckoning it should be or not. Genesis 11 clearly implied Babel is the only City in existence at this time, so this project in my view can't be the result of Nimrod's Imperialism.

Another detail about Babel I want to point out. "may reach unto" is not in the Hebrew text, the popular view of the Babel Tower and it's intent is entirely wrong. What they where making was their own heaven at the Top of the Tower, it's the birth of Idolatry, not merely an engineering feat. Nor was it a portal or "Stargate" or any other Sci-Fi concept you want to read into it.

 The Tower of Babel was the first Ziggurat, since new Ziggurats where constructed later, I do think it's possible that when Nimrod was ruling Babel later that he may have restarted the project.  Or maybe not, we don't know.

Many mistakes are made in trying to identify Nimrod historically by Christian scholars wanting to make countless ancient mythical heroes connected to Nimrod. And their attempts to identify a verifiable figure from the ancient history and archaeology of Mesopotamia are always trying too hard to pick someone very well known and so often wind up too late.

He's certainly not Hammurabi, or the same person as Genesis 14's King of Shinar (who I don't think was Hammurabi either, but that theory is popular). He's not Sargon of Akkad, though I myself was attracted to that theory before I was more informed. Nor is he Gilgamesh, though I believe Gilgamesh is at least in the right basic historical context.

And he did not have a wife named Semiramis. Semiramis comes from Hellenistic Greek historians giving their very confused mythologized account of Mesopotamian and Syrian antiquity. The name is a Hellenization of Shammuramat or Sammu-ramat who was a Queen of Assyria between 811 and 808 B.C. The Greek mythologizing of her begins with Herodotus, but he doesn't do any of the major exaggerations yet, if anything his implied chronology made her more recent, not more ancient. Latter Greek sources make her sometimes contemporary with the Fall of Troy (1182 B.C.), but others would try to place her supposed husband Ninus over 2000 B.C.

Ninus was the supposed founder of Nineveh, so he probably does have attributes of ancient memories of Nimrod added into him.. Modern Christian scholars get obsessed with Semiramis, Hislop's scholarship was very flawed, and people like Hunt have followed him with little adjustment.

Is Babel the same as the Babylon we know today? The name is the same, but lots of times new cities are built with older names, and the Babylon of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar seems to in fact be basically one of the younger major cities of ancient Mesopotamia.

Historical tablets (like the so-called "Weidner Chronicle" ) state that Sargon of Akkad (23rd century BC) dug up the original "Babylon" and rebuilt it near Akkad, though some scholars suspect this may in fact refer to a much later Assyrian King Sargon (there were two).  The exact location of Akkad isn't known either, but it's assumed it was basically near Hammurabi's Babylon but on the Tigris, possibly by were Seleucia and Baghdad would be built later.

Simplicius of Cilicia (ad Arist De Caelo. ii. 503A) recorded that Callisthenes in the 4th century BC traveled to Babylon and discovered astronomical observations on cuneiform tablets stretching back 1903 years before the taking of Babylon by Alexander the Great in 331 BC. This makes the sum 1903 + 331 which equals 2234 BC as the founding date for Babylon.  A similar figure is found in Berossus, who according to Pliny (Natrual History vii 57) stated that astronomical observations commenced at Babylon 490 years before the Greek era of Phoroneus, and consequently in 2243 BC. Stephanus of Byzantium, wrote that Babylon was built 1002 years before the date (given by Hellanicus of Mytilene) for the siege of Troy (1229 BC), which would date Babylon's foundation to 2231 BC.

Each of those dates is during the reign of Sargon of Akkad (2272-2217 BC)) according to the Short Chronology.  Ctesias, who is quoted by Diodorus Siculus and in George Syncellus's Chronographia, claimed to have access to manuscripts from Babylonian archives which date the founding of Babylon to 2286 BC by Belus who reigned as Babylon's first king for fifty five years.  Sargon reigns 56 years.  The date is only 14-16 years before his reign.  The middle chronology would have Sargon reign begin in 2334 BC.  My views on revised chronology do not change the Mesopotamian Kings Lists, I favor the Short Chronology.

Dalley Stephanie, Oriental Institute SAOC, pp. 25–33 discusses the well-known interchangeability of "Babylon" and "Eridu" in ancient texts, and proposes a hypothesis that the name "Babylon" was also applied to many other cities in Mesopotamia at times.

The Sumerian Kings list has Eridu as the oldest city, but the much later Greek version of the King-list by Berossus (c. 200 BC) reads "Babylon" in place of "Eridu" in the earlier versions, as the name of the oldest city where "the kingship was lowered from Heaven". The Ziggurat ruins of Eridu are far older than any others.

One name of Eridu in cuneiform logograms was pronounced "NUN.KI" ("the Mighty Place") in Sumerian, but much later the same "NUN.KI" was understood to mean the city of Babylon. If they had this name in common, they certainly could have had others.

In Sumerian mythology, Eridu was the home of the Abzu temple of the god Enki, the Sumerian counterpart of the Akkadian water-god Ea. Like all the Sumerian and Babylonian gods, Enki/Ea began as a local god, who came to share, according to the later cosmology, with Anu and Enlil, the rule of the cosmos. His kingdom was the waters that surrounded the World and lay below it (Sumerian ab=water; zu=far).

The stories of Inanna, goddess of Uruk, describe how she had to go to Eridu in order to receive the gifts of civilization. At first Enki, the god of Eridu attempted to retrieve these sources of his power, but later willingly accepted that Uruk was now the center of the land. This seems to be a mythical reference to the transfer of power northward.

Babylonian texts also talk of the creation of Eridu by the god Marduk as the first city, "the holy city, the dwelling of their [the other gods] delight".

Uruk, which was mentioned above, is the city the Bible refers to as Erech, another of Nimrod's core cities.

I think Babel was originally just a nickname for the City, a Hebrew name meaning "confusion" but the pagans reinterpreted it to mean "gate of the gods". It wasn't until the new NUN.KI was founded by Sargon that Babylon became a city's official name.

The Sumerian Kings List has the beginning of Post-Flood kingship at Kish. Kish is a name clearly derived form Cush. But the King-lists itself I feel is trying to create a more ancient kingdom then it ever had, and I think this city was originally a Democracy of some sort, which also technically Genesis 11 implied Babel/Eridu was as well. The first listed ruler of Kish was Jushur (also transliterated Jucur, Gushur, Ngushur, Gishur, etc) which could also be derived from Cush. Second is Kullassina-bel, the name seems to be an Akkadian phrase meaning "All of them (were) lord". The following kings of Kish on the list preceding Etana are all names of animals. I will return to Etana later.

Since an earlier referenced myth has civilization traveling from Eridu to Uruk not Kish, I think Uruk's earliest Kings where in fact the first. It's first ruler was Mesh-ki-ang-gasher (Mèš-ki-áĝ-ga-še-er, Meš-ki-aĝ-gašer; also transliterated Mes-Kiag-Gasher, Mesh-Ki-Ang-Gasher, Meskiagkasher, Meckiagkacer and variants) you can clearly see there connection to the variants of Jushur and to Cush.  He is also refereed to on the King's list as the son of Utu, The Sun.  His son and successor was Enmerkar. But besides the Kings List Enmerkar himself seems to be treated as the son of Utu and founder or first king of Uruk.

The myths above do also seem to treat Eridu as having been a Pre-Flood city, but the same is true of Beorsous referencing Babylon as the first city.  The Bible only mentions one city in the Pre-Flood world, in Genesis 4:17.

The face value assumption is that Cain founded the city and named it after his son.  But Cain was also told he'd be a Vagabound till he died before this.  That the very end of the verse gives Enoch (Cain's son not the Genesis 5 Enoch), is the only reason we think Cain was the one who founded a city and named it after his son.  The text could just as easily otherwise be read as saying Enoch founded a city and named it after, or to more properly represent the Hebrew according to the name of his son.

Looking at my Greens Masoretic Text based Interlinear-Bible that one occurrence of the name Enoch at the end of verse 17 is different from the others, there is something added after it.  Maybe we've misunderstood what it really says.  Maybe it was called Enoch temporarily but he also planed to change it once he had a son and the son was named.  Most of the time in Biblical custom the mother names the child at birth, so Enoch may not have known in advance what his son would be named.  Or maybe the intent of the name being there was to identify the one founding the city not what the city was named.

The name of Enoch's son we're told in verse 18 was Irad.  The name Eridu could possibly come from Irad.  Maybe Babel was also thought of as being a Post-Flood refunding of the great Pre-Flood city.

 The Bible doesn't always list the actual real names of the foreign rulers it refers to, but often gives them names that are Hebraic puns on their names. Nimrod is refereed to as a Mighty Hunter, the element 'kar' in Enmerkar was the Sumerian word for 'hunter'. Thus the king of Uruk's name consists of a nomen plus epithet - Enmer 'the hunter'. Ancient Hebrew was originally written without vowels, in early copies of Genesis the name Nimrod would simply have been written 'nmrod' or 'nmrd'. The name Enmer could also have been transcribed into Hebrew as 'nmr' (the En prefix is only one symbol in cuneiform) - identical to Nimrod but for the last 'o' and 'd'. The added 'od' at the end I can't guess the meaning of now.

Eusebius of Caesarea in the early 4th century cited the Babylonian historian Berossus in the 3rd century BC as stating that the first king after the flood was Euechoios of Chaldea, and identified him with Nimrod. George Syncellus (c. 800) also had access to Berossus, and he too identified Euechoios with The Biblical Nimrod.

More recently, Sumerologists have suggested additionally connecting both this Euechoios, and the king of Babylon and grandfather of Gilgamos who appears in the oldest copies of Aelian (c. 200 AD) as Euechoros .  Later more commonly cited copies of Aelian have Sacchorae in place of Euechoros.  Gilgamesh was called the son of Enmerkar's successor Lugal-Banda, so Alien could have assumed him to be his grandfather regardless.  Looking at how some Egyptian names got transliterated into Greek, I could easily see Enmerkar becoming Euechoios or Euechoros.

I'm going to continue this and discus Enmerkar in more detail in the next post.