Biblical Chronology

Someone new has entered the pass-time of interpreting Biblical Chronology, a project called The Tetra-Scroll.

My first annoyance is that like many others she has made the mistake of using the standard Secular date for Solomon as her starting point, which has his reign begin in 970 BC, and The Temple construction starting in 966 BC, and his death about 930 BC.  And thus the Exodus in 1446 BC.

The starting point should be the Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar when Solomon's Temple was destroyed.  Which there is a two year discrepancy for, 588-586 BC.  Though I have seen one reference to 584 BC.  It was definitely in the 580s.

Ezekiel 4:4-6 tells us that there would be 390 years from the division of the Kingdom to the fall of Jerusalem.  That puts the division of the Kingdom in the 970s BC.  The division happens soon after Solomon died.  Many have counted all the reigns of the Kings of Judah to match that, with disagreement on the details but basically they match that.  Here is one website doing so without mentioning Ezekiel.

The problem was there are apparent inconsistencies between the Biblical Chronology and the conclusions historians have drawn from Assyrian Chronology.  And so secular historians chose to believe Assyria over The Bible, and then many believers sought to force The Bible to match the presumed Assyrian Chronology.  But there have been good arguments against using Assyrian chronology this way at Answers In Genesis and Creation Wiki, though I don't always agree with them exactly, I made my own post that deals with Ahab and Jehu.

Bishop James Ussher's Chronology in Annals of The World I think made mistakes, but I believe he got the Kingdom Period right, from Saul down to Zedekiah.  Ussher's Chronology is summarized here.  My only variation from Ussher on the Kingdom period would be I'd have Solomon 2 or 3 years younger when he becomes King because I believe Solomon was the youngest of Bathsheba's sons.  So Ussher had him 18 I have him as 15 or 16.  That doesn't effect the other dates at all however.

So I place the beginning of Solomon's reign about 1015 BC.  And the completion of The Temple in 1004 BC.  With 1011 or 1012 BC as when The Temple construction was started.

Some will also try to use the way Josephus synchronized Solomon with a Tyrian historian in Against Apion to support a younger date for Solomon.  Josephus goal in that part of that book was to show the Israelite nation had antiquity from gentile histories, he wanted to show how even the youngest possible interpretation of the evidence makes Israel older then Classical Greece.  If he was aware that date for Hiram's reign conflicted with his other information he may not have even concerned himself with it.  Some think the copies he had of those Tyrian historians may have already been corrupted from the originals, today we don't have them independent of Josephus at all unfortunately.

In Wars of The Jews, after The Temple is destroyed in Book 6 at the end of chapter 4 Josephus says it had been since it's first foundation was laid by Solomon 1130 years besides 7 months and 15 days.  Counting back from 70 AD that gives us 1061 BC, which is older then Ussher's date, (during his time frame for the reign of Saul).  If someone can find a way to interpret the chronology of the Kingdom period consistent with that I'd be interested, but for now I still favor Ussher's.

Josephus also said in Wars 6.10 it was 477 years and 6 months from David's taking Jerusalem till it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.  (Counting from a 588 BC date that is 1065 BC and 2 years later for the more popular 586 BC date) And that there was 1179 years from David till the destruction in 70 AD.  That's 1110 BC.  Not sure how those 3 dates he gave can be reconciled with each other much less The Bible.

When discussing the High Priesthood in Antiquities 20.10.2 he says there was 466 years and 6 months and 10 days form the dedication of Solomon's Temple till it was destroyed in 588-6 BC.  That gives us about 1054 BC for the completion of the Temple which is consistent with his date for when it began.  Which sounds like it makes 1065 BC his date for David's death and Solomon becoming King.  And 1110 BC his date for David being given Ziklag.  In Antiquities he corrects many mistakes he made in Wars.  These dates would add exactly 50 years to Ussher's for David and Solomon.

One thing that I feel confirms Ussher's date for the reigns of David and Solomon (about 1055-975 BC), is that Diodorus list of Thalasocracies (preserved by Eusebius) has the Pelasgians as the dominant sea power at about exactly that time (1057-972 BC).  And I've argued elsewhere how Pelesgians could come from Pelegians or descendants of Peleg, and thus be a term some Greeks might have called the Hebrews.  Also about 972 or 971 BC was when Ussher dated Shishak's sacking of Jerusalem in the early reign of Rehoboam.

Ussher's date for the Exodus was 1492 BC,  1 Kings 6:1 says there were 480 years from the Exodus to when The Temple was started.  Ussher and many others chose to just assume that one verse without a second witness settles the issue.

Problem is Acts 13 says there was 40 years in the Wilderness, 450 years of Judges, 40 years for Saul and 40 years for David.  That doesn't agree with only 480 years total, but when you count the time periods in Judges and 1 Samuel it agrees with 450 years from the first time Israel was subjugated to the start of Saul's reign.

Many have argued that the 480 year reference intentionally didn't count the foreign oppressions or the brief reign of Abimelech.  Which means you can add 114 years to the 480 to get 594 and then everything fits nicely.  That would move Ussher's Exodus date to 1606 BC, the end of the wandering in the Wilderness to 1566, the end of Joshua's 7 years conquest to 1559, and the death of Joshua in 1557 BC.

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews 8.3.1 gave 592 years for this period.  Which suggests he considered the foreign oppressions to be excluded from the 480 but not Abimelech's 2 years.  He also said in 20.10.1 there were 612 years from Aaron till Solomon' Temple was dedicated.  Again Josephus numbers have issues, but he clearly recognized the Judges period was at least 450 years independent of trying to reconcile with Acts 13.

The Tetra-Scroll has the 430 years that ended with the Exodus begin when Abraham was 70.  This is based on her own convoluted explanation for two references being 430 years (Exodus 12:40 and Galatians 3:17) and another in Genesis 15 saying 400 years being a difference of 30 years before Issac was born.

But that doesn't work, nothing in The Bible is actually dated to when Abraham was 70, Genesis 12 begins with Abraham being 75 and that is where the 430 years references start.  Genesis 15 could just be saying about 400 years and the exact number we have to get elsewhere.

That is if you agree that the 430 years should begin with Abraham and not with Joseph.  As Ussher, the Tetra-Scroll and Rob Skiba all agree it should.  But I haven't made up my mind on that entirely yet.

The Prophecy being given to Abraham by no means proves it starts with him.  Galatians 3:17 is the main reason I have sometimes leaned towards 430 years from God making his promise to Abraham (which was when Abraham was 75, not 70) until the Torah was given.

The context of Galatians 3 earlier talked a great deal about Abraham.  But Promises were given more then once, so it could be Paul meant The Law was 430 years after the last Promise God gave the Patriarchs.  Which could arguably refer to the Death of either Jacob of Joseph.   Also what Paul meant could have been at least 430 years as he no doubt knew Exodus 12:40.

The way the 430 years is expressed in Exodus 12:40 makes it sound like it was entirely in Egypt.   Jacob died in 2315 AM.  Joseph died in 2369 AM.  According to Ussher, who's Biblical AM dates I consider correct up to the Death of Levi in 2385 AM.  The Death of Joseph is when the narrative of Genesis ends.  It could be the enslavement happened 30 years after Joseph died, which would make a lot of things fit.

I used to agree with Rob Skiba that they were not necessarily slaves for the entire 400 years, the disagreement is only if the 430 or 400 years should begin when either Joseph or the family as a whole entered Egypt rather then Abraham.  But the wording of Genesis 15 as I've studied it in more then just the KJV, says they will be in the nation that will afflict them for 400 years.

One mistake Skiba makes is he thinks the Pharaoh who "did not remember Joseph" literally lived so long later after that Joseph was forgotten.  If that's the case that actually supports a longer sojourn in Egypt model.

That statement could be just an expression meaning he didn't regard Joseph, he was willingly ignorant of what Joseph accomplished.  There is no guarantee that Pharaoh was born after Joseph died, and no reason he couldn't have been the very next new Pharaoh to be crowned after Joseph died.

Stephen in Acts further says that the Israelites suffered in Egypt for 400 years.  The Enslavement can't happen till after Joseph dies because it requires a New Pharaoh.  Perhaps it was 30 years after Joseph died.

Joseph's brothers entered Egypt over 200 years after God called Abraham, in the second year of the 7 year famine.  Joseph lived some time past that point and Moses was born 80 years before the Exodus.  So there would not be that many generations from Joseph to Moses.  If you start the 430 years with Abraham.  Yet the Hebrews had reproduced into a very large population.

Some might argue the genealogies don't give enough generations to fit my longer interpretation of the the Sojourn and Judges periods.  It can be demonstrated from The Bible repeatedly that Hebrew genealogies are willing to skip generations.  The Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are exceptions because they mention dates, they're chrono-genealogies.  Matthew 1's genealogy skipped at least a few names the Old Testament records.  So I think there were more then two generations between Levi and Moses (certainly more then one mater-lineally).

There being more then only 10 generations from Pharez to David may hurt the way Chuck Missler likes to tie Genesis 38 to Deuteronomy 23:1-2's law about bastard lines not entering the assembly before the 10th generation as a prophecy of David.  But it may also be The Holy Spirit only recorded 10 generations to make it spiritually fit that even if it didn't literally.  The family of Boaz and Naomi certainly doesn't seem like one that didn't have full citizenship due to descending from bastards, they were actually pretty prominent locally.

Genesis 11:36 days Terah was 70 when he began having children.  Abraham is listed first because he's the most important to this chronicler, like Shem being listed first usually even though Genesis 10 tells us Japheth was the oldest and Shem the youngest.

The Chapter divisions were not in the original text, Genesis 11 ends with telling us Terah died then 12:1 God calls Abraham.  Acts 7:14 clarified Abraham left Haran when Terah died, which Genesis 12 makes clear was when Abraham was 75.  Since one of Abraham's brothers already had a full grown son at this time, it's not at all absurd to conclude Abraham was born 60 years after the firstborn.

The so called Book of Jasher supports a 1948 AM birth-date for Abraham because it's author wanted to have Abraham and Noah meet (it's basically Medieval Jewish Fan Fiction), and Noah died between 1948 and 2008 AM.  But since Noah was the first generation born after Adam died, Abraham being born after Noah died I feel fits better thematically.

So, Abraham was born in 2008 AM/352 AF and called in 2083 AM/427 AF.  Isaac was born 2108 AM/452 AF and Abraham died in 2183 AM/527 AF.

Ussher's Creation date I currently think was certainly 114 years off.  That gives us a Creation date of 4118 BC and the Flood in 2462 BC.  But I still haven't made up my mind exactly on chronology.

Also I do not believe The Tower of Babel incident happened the year Peleg was born, the Hebrew used a different word for divided there then when describing Babel.  I think it refereed to geographical divisions happening from the sea levels rising.  Babel would have happened sooner.  Peleg's Birth in the above model would be 2361 BC.

The author of the Tetra-Scroll eschatologically believes in the Seven Millenniums theory which I do not.  So she makes a big deal out of 6000 years from Creation being in her estimation 2107 AD and 7000 years being 3107.  My calculation above would give the 6000 years date as being 1883.

That is all assuming the 430 years begins with the call of Abraham.  No matter what I date 430 years before The Exodus to 2036 BC.

A longer Soujorn model would require a 4333 BC creation date at least, but if my hunch developed above of possibly beginning the 430 years with the Death of Joseph is correct, that would be a Creation date of 4405 BC and 2749 BC for The Flood and 2648 for the birth of Peleg.  That would place the year 6000 in 1596 AD.

I have trouble with using a Flood date as young as Ussher's (2348 BC) much less younger based on the conclusions I've come to studying Ancient History.

I don't mean Egypt (which conventional Chronology says started around 3100 BC) I know from the revised Chronology discussed on this blog Egypt is probably much younger.  And that Ussher's 2188 BC date for Egypt's founding is plausible.  Though I'd make it a little older then that.

China is not effected by revising Egyptian Chronology.  The dates for China's earliest Emperors are older even then the oldest Flood date proposed above.  The Earliest Chinese Emperors are highly mythologized, but I think their dates are accurate at least as early as Shun.

The date for the beginning of Fuxi's reign is right when Shem would have been born with a 2749 Flood date, 2852 BC.  Fuxi is the brother of Nuwa, a female Chinese deity with a name oddly similar to Noah, who is linked to China's Flood legend.  I feel it's possible Noah could have been married to his Sister, so they could be corrupted Pagan memorizes of Noah and his Wife.  The Yan Emperor is often identified with Shennong, he could be based on Shem.

2333 BC is the traditional date of the founding of the Korean kingdom of Gojoseon by Dangun.

But more directly relevant I expressed on this Blog before why I do feel The Sumerian Kings List isn't changed by Revised Chronology.  Though whether I favor the Short Chronology or Middle Chronology remains to be seen.  It's the Short Chronology that places the 2234 BC date for the founding of Babylon during the reign of Sargon of Akkad which fits the theories of my earlier Babel Post.  So I'll favor that for now.

That puts the Death of Gilgamesh at possibly 2623 BC but no later then 2503 BC.  Two Kings were between him and Enmerkar who I view as Nimrod.  Noah died 2006 AM which in this Creation model would be 2399 BC.  So Gilgamesh could have met him.

Deciding to randomly round down the exaggerated reigns of Enmerkar to 42, Lugalbanda 12, Dmuzid 10 and Gilgamesh to 12.  Gives them 76 years total.  Which could put the beginning of Nimrod's reign in 2699 BC.  Which in China happens to be the same year the Yellow Emperor began his reign.  I'm not gonna speculate they're the same person, but it's an interesting coincidence.  Sima-Qian considered him possibly the earliest historical Emperor.

The end of the reign of queen Kug-Bau/Kubaba of Kish would be 2409 BC.  The reign of Enshagkushana who she was contemporary with would be 2483-2423 BC using the calculation that has Gilgamessh die in 2623 BC.

Ur-Zababa of Kish's reign would have been from 2383-2377.  Sargon of Akkad was supposed to have been his Cup bearer at some point.  Which would make Sargon over 100 years old when he became King in about 2270 BC, and then reigned 56 years after that.  Genesis tells us that is possible.

The Death of Terah and Abraham leaving Haran would have been in 2322 BC.  During the reign of Ishme-Shamash of Kish, and possibly Lugal-Kinshe-dudu or Lugal-ure of Uruk.  A post I already linked to shows why I do NOT believe Abraham's Ur was the Sumerian Ur as popularly thought.

Chedolaomer was probably a King of the Awan dynasty who reigned before the Akadian period.  And Amraphel was probably an alternate name for either the contemporary ruler of Kish or Uruk.

I think it's possible the Babel project happened about a Jubilee (49 years) after The Flood around 2700 BC.  Giving Nimrod/Enmerkar about a year to establish himself via his Hunting prowess as a leading figure in Uruk, to then consolidate his power and build an Emperor over the next 42 years.

If you're thinking  "that isn't enough time to produce enough people" you're wrong.  Babel was at the time the dispersion happened probably not a Metropolis by modern standards, I'd be shocked if it had a whole 500 people.  I've done math that tells me you could easily get over 120 people who would be adults by modern standards, and did some rounding down to be safe.

So I feel the 4405 BC Creation date works.  Making now, October of 2015 AD the year 6419 AM.

Update December 8 2015:  I've been rethinking the material from Ezekiel 4:4-6 where the 390 years comes from.  It also refers to 40 years for Judah specifically.  40 years before the finale deportation in 584 BC was 624 BC when Josiah's special Second Passover occurred that brought many of the North to Judah.  It could be that's the end of the Iniquity of the House of Israel followed by 40 remaining years for Judah.  I'm unsure on this though because it would mean finding room for another 40 years in the chronology of the divided kingdom.

But if I could push my Creation and Flood dates down another 40 years to 4445 BC and 2789 BC Flood date.  That gives 89 rather then 49 years between the Flood and when I've calculated the reign of Enmerkar to begin.  Plenty of time for the Tower of Babel to have possibly happened 70-75 years after The Flood.

Also about 635-634 BC was when Josiah began to go after God.  So that could add another decade.  And make an interesting thing to speculate with regard to Josephus numbers.

That would change my year 6000 AM date from 1596 to 1556.

But because of certain secular correlations discussed above and how it'd revamp the Kingdom period, I still favor the 4405 BC Creation date.  I found one random site online predating my first making this post that states a 4405 BC Creation date, but it doesn't explain why.  It's Here, that seems to have taken it's info from this Yahoo Answers entry, where a comment leaver named Voice in The Wilderness gave a 4405 BC date 4 years ago.

There is also the option of counting the 390 years as including Solomon's reign since the iniquity did begin with his mistakes, including marrying the Daughter of Pharaoh right at the start.  And so you could end it with Josiah's Passover and still get the same time frame for the Divided Kingdom.

Now it's popular to interpret this 390 years as a prophecy about the Northern Kingdom's captivity and play all kind of games with it misusing the "seven times" statement from Levitcus which was not about time periods.

The Hebrew word translated iniquity means guilt and offense.  The few senses where it can be used of punishment it would mean punishment equivalent to the sin.  Like the captivity in Babylon being 70 years because for 490 years they didn't keep the sabbatical year, that's 70 sabbatical years.  So I have looked at eschatological applications for the 390 years, but they still must be proceeded by 390 years of sin.

February 3rd 2016 Update: I speculate on some Pre-Flood chronology in a new post.

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 the name 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.

The Young's Literal Translation renders Genesis 10:11 as.

"from that land he hath gone out to Asshur, and buildeth Nineveh, even the broad places of the city, and Calah,"

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.

The Bible never says Nimrod was Evil

I've gone over before how the popular view that Nimrod was behind the Tower of Babel doesn't hold up Biblically.  Nimrod's career took place after the scattering clearly as there are multiple cities.  But in the past even knowing that I still went along with the assumption that he was clearly bad, the first proto-type of The Antichrist.

It doesn't matter how universal an extra-Biblical traditions seem to be.  Titus 1:14 tells us to give no heed to Jewish Fables, and all these legends about the great villain Nimrod were Jewish fables before the Christians and Muslims adopted them.

However, Ephrem the Syrian (306–373) relates a contradictory view, that Nimrod was righteous and opposed the builders of the Tower. Similarly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (date uncertain) mentions a Jewish tradition that Nimrod left Shinar in southern Mesopotamia and fled to Assyria in northern Mesopotamia, because he refused to take part in building the Tower—for which God rewarded him with the four cities in Assyria, to substitute for the ones in Babel.

In fact none of these extra-Biblical traditions about Nimrod can be proven to predate the Greeco-Roman era.  The Babylonian captivity could have been the beginning of a desire to vilify anyone linked to Babylon.  Extra-Biblical Jewish traditions about Nebuchadnezzar often forget we're explicitly told he was saved.

The attempt to justify condemning him from the Biblical text begins with "Before the LORD", they say the Hebrew word for "Before" here really means "In the face of" or "in opposition to".  But I've looked at other uses of this word, and that doesn't pan out, it's often used of Godly worship before The Ark of The Covenant, including of David. The Hebrew word for "face" is one of the word's roots, but "in the face of" does not have an inherently negative connotation in Hebrew usage.

In fact it looks to me like any other time someone is doing something "Before The LORD" it is consistently an expression of them worshiping or serving God.  Maybe sometimes serving him badly, but still serving him, not being intentionally against him.

When we get into Nephlim theories, people like Rob Skiba make a big thing out of Gibbor (Gibborim when plural) being used (translated mighty) which was also used of the presumed Angel-Human hybrids in Genesis 6.  But it's just a standard Hebrew word for Mighty, it's used of David's mighty men, and of Saul in 1 Samuel 9.  It's used of Jeroboam in 1 Kings 11:27-28.  The name of Gabriel relates to the same root.  Also when Jesus is called The Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6, it's the same word for mighty.

What Skiba specifically says is that "he became a mighty hunter" means he genetically engineered himself, some sort of ancient gene-splicing.  That is a horrible twisting of Scripture.  Mighty isn't even really the proper noun here, it's just describing the kind of Hunter he was.  No one is born a Hunter, that is a skill you learn.

Or better yet if you still insist Gibborim implies being a giant/nephilim/raphaim, then the title Nimrod is given would make sense to interpret as a "giant hunter" as in "hunter of giants".  That is exactly what Ninurta of Sumerian mythology is said to have hunted, giant mythical monsters that are also confusingly to modern readers described as heroes.

While the word Hunter itself is not used against him in anything I've seen yet.  I still want to look at it.  According to Strongs, the exact Hebrew word used here is translated in the KJV as a noun rather then a verb only three times.  Twice when referring to Nimrod, and in Genesis 25:27 of Esau.  Esau in-spite what you may think of him from his descendants legacy was not a bad person according to The Bible, flawed like his brother but not bad.  But he too was popularly defamed by Jewish fables, though not as seemingly universally as Nimrod.

As a verb it is translated hunting twice, but also catcheth, provision, food, venison and victuals.  There are similar words translated similarly.  The word seems to also carry the meaning of providing food for others not just yourself.

Then there is the often repeated claim that the name Nimrod means Rebellion, or "let us Rebel" or "He Rebelled" or The Rebel.

First off, while names are often meaningful in The Bible, people are named by their parents at birth, it's not always an accurate description of them.  Mered is directly identical to the Hebrew word for rebellion appealed to here, no one assumes he was bad, or a rebel of any kind.  In fact the name Miriam/Mary is a feminine form of that name.

Most of the Biblical types of The Antichrist if they have Hebrew names have Godly or positive sounding ones, Adonijah, Adonizedek, Jehu, King Manasseh. 

One theory is it's not his real name but a descriptive title.  But is rebellion even inherently bad?  Rebellion against God is, but Gideon was a Rebel too.  Maybe he rebelled against the Babel system?

Putting a Nun before Mered does mean "Let us Rebel". But we can't be 100% certain that's the origin of the name.

At the very least the name could equally likely come from namer, the Hebrew word for Leopard, with a daleth added to the end.  I think an animal name is frankly a more obvious reference for a hunter. On the one hand it could mean he hinted leopards, but on the other it could refer to how the leopard as a carnivore is a hunter of the animal kingdom.

 Jeremiah 13:23 analogizes Cushites, to leopards.  And Ancient Hebrew did use the daleth as a suffix sometimes, regardless of this seemingly not being known to the wikipedia page on Hebrew Suffixes.  Gadad is a Hebrew word often translated Troop, that is another Hebrew word often translated Troop, Gad, with a daleth added at the end.

This online Interlinear Bible interprets Nimrod's name in the Masoretic text as "loves to fit in" but in the Samaritan text as Leopard.

That would give it without the D nearly the exact same spelling the Enmer part of Enmerkar would have in Hebrew.  Kar means Hunter.

Strongs is uncertain about the etymology of Nimrod's name.  It could be a Hebrew rendering of a foreign name with no Hebrew meaning at all.

Ni is a Sumerian prefix (variantly rendered En) that means Lord.  J.D. Price in 1910 argued that Nimrod could come from Ni-Marad, "lord of Marad".

Calnah is the most elusive of the four cities identified as Nimrod's early Empire.  Eridu I've argued is the original Babel, Akkad's ruins haven't been found but what city it refers to is well known (it seems to have been pretty much where Baghdad is and Seleucia was), and Erech is Uruk.

Calnah has been theorized to be the Assyrian city Canneh mentioned in Ezekiel 27.  But that looks spurious to me.  And this isn't listed with the Assyrian cities.

The chief Ziggurat of Marad was called E-igi-kalama.  The letters n and m getting switched somehow in transliteration isn't unheard of.  Having similar sounds means you often switch them to make puns, which The Holy Spirit does in Hebrew a lot.

It's possible that Ziggurat didn't exist yet in Nimrod's day.  Also possible that the city's name changed later and the Ziggurat kept the original name.  Maybe it's possible Marad was originally a name for the region but became just that city for some reason.  Micah's reference to the "Land of Nimrod" could back up viewing Nimrod's name as also a name for the region.

I've talked about another possible Sumerian origin for the name of Nimrod elsewhere, how it could come from Enmerkar.

The Bible tells us nothing one way or the other on if he was good or bad.  Maybe he wasn't particularly either, lots of Kings of Judah got mixed reviews.  Maybe he started good but got corrupted later like Saul and Solomon.  We don't know, not from using Scripture Alone.

The vilification reeks of Racism to me.  The Rabbinic traditions saw how many villains came from Canaan and Mizriam and decided all descendants of Ham were bad.

In the last few hundred years, Racists have wanted to find any reason to apply the Curse of Canaan to Cush's offspring, since it's descendants of Cush we enslaved.  Rob Skiba makes Nimrod vital to his premise that all descendants of Ham carried on genetic corruption from Genesis 6.  A horribly dangerously Racist premise, regardless of Racism not being Skiba's intent.

Now you may be thinking, "Does this ruin your Nimrod is Enmerkar theory?"  I did selectively draw on extra-Biblical traditions there, mostly after making my main thesis.

Enmerkar is a good guy in those Sumerian poems, but he equates to bad for Judeao-Christian readers because he is Pagan in them.  But even those ancient poems were written much latter, the UR III period at the soonest.  Of course these later Sumerians wanted to claim all their old leaders worshiped the gods they worshiped when those poems were written.  Today we got various kinds of Pagans trying to claim Jesus as one of their own.  Mainstream archaeologists don't even consider Enmerkar's existence verified, so clearly we don't know for certain who or what he worshiped.

At the same time, there is no historical evidence Cyrus ever ceased to be a faithful follower of Mithra (he wasn't Zoroastrian as is often assumed, Darius made that the mainstream religion of the Persian Empire).  Yet The Bible speaks of him positively, (and I believe he's saved based on his believing Isaiah message from 44/45) and even called him a Messiah, Anointed of God.  God also had Elisha anoint both Jehu and Hazel of Syria, neither of whom were strict monotheists and only one likely worshiped Yahweh at all.

Maybe Nimrod was someone who fell into Idolatry later like Solomon or Jeroboam.  Who knows.

None of the kings of the Sumerian kings list ruled from Marad.  Marad was near Uruk, Enmerkar's capital.  So it could be that the Ni-Marad theory and the Enmerkar theory could go together.

Amraphel was first of all not the leader in Genesis 14, he's listed first but The Holy spirit often lists Shinar first.  Elam is clearly in charge of this.  If he were Nimrod The Bible would have said so.

As for the obsession people like Rob Skiba have with reading Nimrod into all their Occult research.  Yeah I'm sure the Masons and Theosophists want to claim Nimrod like they claim the Architect of The Temple as well as Solomon, they even claim Jesus as one of their own.  The Antichrist may well seek to compare himself to Nimrod like I've often assumed he'd seek to compare himself to Alexander The Great and Augustus Caesar.

But also all this research is just a flawed Christian twisting of the same comparative religion pseudo-History that lies behind the Christ Myth nonsense.  They just take everyone the skeptics claim Jesus was based on, and say those people were based on Nimrod.  It's Christians unwittingly giving credibility to nonsense claims that were made only to attack Christianity.

Stop opposing the Esoteric New Agers while at the same time assuming 90% of what they claim about their own history is true.

I believe Osiris might be identifiable in Genesis, but he's not Nimrod.

Semiramas was originally a fairly insignificant Assyrian Queen.  Herododtus mentioned her accurately.  Josephus cites Berosus who writing from native Babylonian sources refutes all the Greek myths that developed about her.  But Diodorus in book two of his Library of History preferred to use the fantastical version.  Ninos/Ninus is probably just a name Greek writers invented to explain the origin of Nineveh.

Recognitions of Clement was the origin of identifying Ninus with Nimrod.  That was not actually written by Clement, the Clementine literature was a source of much heresy, and was clearly very Gnostic.

And on the subject of Orion, the Hunter constellation.  The Greek myth of Orion has him never even as a king or anything, he's just a hunter who some goddess (it varies) got mad at and killed via Scorpio for some reason and then Asclepius (identified with the constellation Ophiuchus) resurrected him.  But if you believe Gospel in The Stars type theories, (which any supporter of Jupiter in Leo as the Star of Bethlehem like Skiba is would have to).  Then Ophiuchus and Orion are both among the constellations that represent Jesus in it's repeated referencing of Genesis 3:15.  Orion would be Jesus Slain, and Ophiuchus who is stepping on Scorpio's head would be Jesus Risen.

If Nimrod did get identified with that constellation, maybe it's because his story was used as a type of Christ in some way.

Satan's corruption of that into the Pagan Zodiac definitely creates potential Antichrist parallels with Orion as the Antichrist and Asclepius the False Prophet.  But there is no reason to blame Nimrod for it.

The Basis for identifying Orion with Osiris (which is in turn a major basis for identifying Nimrod with Osiris and/or Horus, which using Hellenistic comparative religion is then a basis for identifying him with Dionysus and Apollo), is that an alternate name for Osiris, Seir, was also as an Egyptian name for the Constellation Orion.

Well it turns out Seir happens to seem identical to a Hebrew word for "hairy" that is a name for a mountain region in Edom, as well the name of a Horite who's descendants intermarried with the Edomites, and the word can be linked to Esau himself who is described as Hairy.  Both Esau and Seir the Horite were ancestors of Amalek according to Genesis 36.  And some Gospel in The Star/Mazaroth researchers have claimed Seir to also be a Semitic name for the Constellation Orion.  As I already mentioned above, Esau was described as a Hunter in Genesis also.

Since I believe the Amalekites were a chief tribe among the Hyksos.  My hunch is it was during the Hyksos period that Seir became a name for Orion The Hunter.  The Hyksos worshiped Set but I see no evidence that Set worshipers vilified Osiris the way Osiris worshipers later would Set.  So they may well also have been Ok with identifying one of their ancestral figures with Osiris.

And a presumed connection between Nimrod and Osiris/Horus is largely why Nimrod gets identified with Apollo and Dionysus, since Greek writers viewed Osiris and Horus as being Egyptian forms of Dionysus and Apollo.  Another reason is a theory on the etymology of Bacchus being Bar-Cush (son of Cush) but there are other more likely theories for the etymology of Bacchus.

If Nimrod's Sumerian deification was as Ninurta, then the Greeco-Roman deities that equate to him would be Ares/Mars, and Saturn/Cronos.

Update 3/12/2016: Nimrod an ancestor of Abraham???

One thing I noticed recently is for some reason the Septuagint renders Nimrod as Nebrod.  Why the M would become a B I can't figure out.  In our Greek texts of Josephus a similar thing happens, it becomes Nabrodes in Antiquities Chapter 2 Section 2.  And Nabrodou in Section 3.

What is interesting is that the Book of Jubliees, which Rob Skiba includes in his "Synchronized texts", and is a far older and more authentic text then the claimed book of Jasher, being attested among the Dead Sea Scrolls and was preserved by the Ethiopian Church, and also older then Josephus being BC in origin.  Never mentions the Nimrod we're used to, it's equivalent Table of Nations in chapter 8 and 9 doesn't mention him among the sons and grandsons of Ham.  Same with the account of the Tower of Babel in chapter 10, no King or Hunter or any other human leader is behind it.

But Chapter 8 verse 7 does mention a Nebrod as the father of 'Azurad the wife of Heber and mother of Peleg (and probably also Joktan but he's not directly mentioned there).  Nimrod was the same generation from Noah as Salah according to Genesis 10, so their kids marrying each other is very plausible.  Our Latin and Ethiopic texts of Jubilees are agreed by scholars to have been translated from a now lost Greek version, so they would have used a Greek form of Nimrod if they mentioned him.

That is interesting given my originally random suggestion above that maybe Nimrod is named "Let us Rebel" because he rebelled against the Babel project.  Because Jewish tradition has long held it was the family of Heber that refused to go along with that project and because of that Heber's family kept the original language and so it became named after him as Hebrew.

And the book of Jubilees kind of alludes to that tradition, in the Babel account in chapter 10 verse 18 is describes Reu being born at this time, and given his name to reflect that.  Reu as you should well know is a direct ancestor of Abraham (as well as Lot and Laban).

Now if Nimrod is an ancestor of Abraham, then that really destroys Skiba's insistence that Nimrod had corrupt DNA.  Since Jesus is the Seed of Abraham.

Nimrod's name coming up in Micah is thought of as proof he's the Antichrist.  Nimrod is the name of a Land there, not the individual Assyrian ruler, I'm not even sure this Prophecy intends us to assume there is one.  And I do not consider that Antichrist relevant, I've argued from my new view of Isaiah 14 that that is after The Millennium.  So Assyria being known by Nimrod's name then must mean God considers his name a worthy name.  Maybe it can even be proof Nimrod will be among the resurrected believers co-ruling during The Millennium.  Yahuah calls it the land of Nimrod because He gave it to Nimrod the same as he gave the other side of the Euphrates to Abraham.

Further proof Nimrod can't be the Antichrist is his name doesn't have a Gematria value of 666.  The Hebrew variants of the name have a Hebrew value of 194 or 200.  In Greek gematria Nemrod would be 999 which is as close as any form gets, but that is unattested.  Nimrod would be 1005.  Nebrod is 961, Nabrodes is 1165 and Nabrodou would be 1427, those three are the attested ones.

Update May 2017: This Nebrod observation is a good time to return to the etymology issue.

I've found there are other precedents for this B=M interchangeability.  Sometimes it goes the other way, it's part of how the Hebrew Jacob becomes James via Greek and Latin transliterations.  But it's not limited to Hebrew and Greek.  Bar is the Aramaic word for Son, but in the older version of that language used in Assyrian inscriptions the word for son is Mar.  This is also why Mecca/Makkah is also called Becca/Bakkah.

You may have heard of Nibiru.  The Planet X pseudo astrology derived from Snitchin is easily debunk-able nonsense.  But it was used in Babylonian texts of some star, which one is debatable, Jupiter is popular, I lean towards Polaris, but other theories exist.  Other spellings of Nibiru include Neberu and Nebiru.

The Mesopotamian city commonly called Nippur was called in Sumerian Nibru and Akkadian Nibbur.  Very similar to Nibiru.

If the Daleth or Vav-Daleth is a suffix in the Biblical references to Nimrod.  And maybe there is a chance Nebrod might be closer to the original.  Then the names of Nibiru and Nippur might be where the name Nimrod is found in Mespotamian records.  And the land of Nimrod may be the land of Nippur.

Nibiru is associated with Marduk/Merodach in the Babylonian references we have.  But Marduk was actually a latter development of Babylonian religion, taking over the traits and roles originally assigned to Enlil.  Marduk however is the son of Enlil's rival and brother Enki/Ea.  Nippur was the center of the worship of Enlil.  But it was also important to Ninurta, Enlil's son, as Ugallu was his consort there.

I've argued that Enki is Satan and Enlil one of Satan's original distorted caricatures of the Biblical God.  Marduk taking Nibiru from Enlil might symbolize Satan's long term plan to claim Nimrod was his son, the Antichrist, when he had really served Yahuah.  Merodach's placement in the Strongs combined with how I've seen people claim Marduk was Nimrod would happen to help the false etymology of his name coming from Mari/rebellion.

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.