Where the Exodus and the Conquest belong

by Damien F. Mackey “Assuming that the Exodus was followed a generation or two later by the Conquest, could these events correspond, as will be proposed here, to the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the end of EB III in Canaan?” Robert M. Porter I fully agree with the following conclusions about the Exodus and the Conquest as arrived at by Robert M. Porter, who introduces as follows his article: Towards an Alternative Reconciliation of the Old Testament with History and Archaeology: Exodus at end of Old Kingdom and Conquest at end of Early Bronze III (2) Towards an Alternative Reconciliation of the Old Testament with History and Archaeology: Exodus at end of Old Kingdom and Conquest at end of Early Bronze III | Robert M Porter - Academia.edu …. without worrying too much about dates, what point in the archaeology of Canaan best fits a literal interpretation of the biblical Conquest story? At the end of the Early Bronze Age III period (EB III), Jericho and most of Canaan’s other walled cities were destroyed or abandoned and there then followed a period variously named as EB IV, MB I (Middle Bronze I), EB-MB or IB (Intermediate Bronze). …. The varying nomenclature reflects the strangeness of the transition – pottery styles changed although not greatly but the civilisation changed from city dwelling to villages and nomadism. Assuming that the Exodus was followed a generation or two later by the Conquest, could these events correspond, as will be proposed here, to the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the end of EB III in Canaan? …. [End of quote] Dr. Donovan Courville (in The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971) had arrived at a rather neat, tucked-in model whereby Egypt’s Old and Middle kingdoms were, in part, synchronous, and the succeeding First and Second intermediate periods were one and the same. Thus: Old Kingdom – Middle Kingdom First Intermediate – Second Intermediate I had embraced this neat set of equations, without, however, having really bothered to probe the supposed Intermediates. Robert M. Porter has accepted the First Intermediate Period as being a time of collapse for Egypt, despite our knowing little about the period – especially in its earliest phase: “The end of the Old Kingdom (end of Dynasty 6, typically dated c. 2200 BC) was a time of Egyptian collapse, followed by the so-called First Intermediate Period for which, in its early stages, we have little historical or archaeological information”. I. The First Intermediate Period So, what is exactly is the First Intermediate Period? Well, according to Joshua J. Mark: https://www.worldhistory.org/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/ The First Intermediate Period of Egypt (2181-2040 BCE) is the era which followed the Old Kingdom (c. 2613-2181 BCE) and preceded the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) periods of Egyptian history. The name was given to the era by 19th-century CE Egyptologists, not by the ancient Egyptians. Stable eras of Egyptian history are referred to as 'kingdoms' while eras of political strife or instability are known as 'intermediate periods.' This period has long been labeled a 'dark age' when the central government of the Old Kingdom, which had been built on the model of the Early Dynastic Period in Egypt (c. 3150-2613 BCE) collapsed and plunged the country into chaos. Recent scholarship has revised this opinion, and now the First Intermediate Period is seen as a time of change and transition, where the power and customs dictated by the monarchy at Memphis, capital of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, were disseminated throughout the country to those of traditionally lower status. Probably the best way to understand the First Intermediate Period of Egypt is to consider modern retail capitalism and mass consumerism. In the mid-19th century CE (c. 1858) the American department store Macy's in New York City boasted that they sold "Goods suitable for the millionaire at prices in reach of the millions" (14th Street Tribune, 2). Prior to the Industrial Revolution and mass consumerism, certain goods were available only to the wealthy who had the disposable income to spend on such purchases. With the rise of department stores like Macy's, following the Industrial Revolution and mass production, these kinds of goods, though of lesser quality, were available to anyone at a much-reduced cost. This is precisely what happened during Egypt's First Intermediate Period. Those who previously could not afford elaborate homes, gardens, tombs, tomb inscriptions, or their own Pyramid Texts to guide them through the afterlife now found that they could because wealth was no longer only in the hands of the upper-class nobility. Whereas once only the king was provided with tomb inscriptions in the form of the Pyramid Texts, now nobility, officials, and ordinary people were also provided with a guide book to the underworld through the Coffin Texts. This was possible because of the collapse of the central government at Memphis and the rise of individual nomarchs (governors or administrators of nomes, Egyptian districts) who finally held more power than the king of Egypt. …. [End of quote] More prosaically, Wikipedia tells of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt The First Intermediate Period, described as a 'dark period' in ancient Egyptian history,[1] spanned approximately 125 years, c. 2181–2055 BC, after the end of the Old Kingdom.[2] It comprises the Seventh (although this is mostly considered spurious by Egyptologists), Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and part of the Eleventh Dynasties. The concept of a "First Intermediate Period" was coined in 1926 by Egyptologists Georg Steindorff and Henri Frankfort.[3] …. [End of quote] The First Intermediate Period therefore “comprises the Seventh … Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and part of the Eleventh Dynasties”. But let us take a closer look at this. The Seventh Dynasty, for its part, is considered spurious, even non-existent: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/143lp1s/ancient_egypt_the_unknown_7th_dynasty_15th_hyksos/ “According to Manetho, the 7th dynasty contained 70 kings who ruled for a total of 70 days. Given the implausible nature of this claim, and the lack of other evidence to support the idea of the existence of the 7th dynasty, Egyptologists have traditionally viewed the 7th dynasty as being something that did not actually exist”. Not much better, we find is: The Eighth Dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Dynasty_of_Egypt): “The Eighth Dynasty of ancient Egypt (Dynasty VIII) is a poorly known and short-lived line of pharaohs reigning in rapid succession in the early 22nd century BC, likely with their seat of power in Memphis”. Same again for the “extremely obscure”: The Ninth Dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Dynasty_of_Egypt): “The Ninth Dynasty of ancient Egypt (Dynasty IX) is often combined with the 7th, 8th, 10th and early 11th Dynasties under the group title First Intermediate Period.[1] The dynasty that seems to have supplanted the Eighth Dynasty is extremely obscure”. Discounting the virtually non-existent Seventh Dynasty, the Eighth Dynasty, I find, has a predominance of names, Neferkare, which is the prenomen of Pepi, who is my “Chenephres” (Kanefere), the foster father-in-law of Moses. Even more suspiciously, one of the supposedly Eighth Dynasty names is Neferkare Pepiseneb. And there are also Fifth Dynasty names in there, such as Neferirkare and Djedkare. With the Seventh and Eighth dynasties we may not even be in an Intermediate Period. And the same comment may well apply to the Ninth Dynasty, which swings us back, at least in part, to the time of Abram and the ruler, Nebkaure Khety, whom I have identified with Hor-Aha (Menes), right at the beginning of Egyptian dynastic history: Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac (2) Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But the great name, Imhotep (the biblical Joseph), also emerges here in the Ninth. The Tenth Dynasty reproduces Neferkare and the name Khety. And, with the Eleventh Dynasty, synchronous with the Third Dynasty, we have arrived at the time of Jacob and Joseph (and Famine) in Egypt. After the most obscure Eighth Dynasty (of suspicious Neferkare names), which supposedly follows the virtually non-existent Seventh Dynasty, we find ourselves back in the era of Abram, and then of Jacob and Joseph. Therefore the pattern of the so-called First Intermediate Period of Egypt is that it - supposedly arising out of a real dynastic kingdom, the Sixth Dynasty – ghosts its way back to the Sixth, then all the way back to Abram, then on to Jacob and Joseph. The so-called First Intermediate Period of Egyptian history cannot at all, therefore, be construed as a collapse of Egypt following on from the end of the Old Kingdom. Instead, it is a confused mixture of eras preceding any major collapse of the country. II. The Second Intermediate Period Joshua J. Mark again: https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/ The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c.1570 BCE) is the era following the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040-1782 BCE) and preceding the New Kingdom (1570-1069 BCE). As with all historical designations of the eras of Egyptian history, the name was coined by 19th-century CE Egyptologists to demarcate time periods in Egypt's history; the name was not used by ancient Egyptians. This era is marked by a divided Egypt with the people known as the Hyksos holding power in the north, Egyptian rule at Thebes in the center of the country, and Nubians ruling in the south. As with the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, this time is traditionally characterized as chaotic, lacking in cultural advancements, and lawless, but as with the earlier period, this claim has been discredited. The Second Intermediate Period of Egypt was a time of disunity and records of the time are confused or missing, but it was not as dark a time as later Egyptian writers claimed. This period begins as the Egyptian rulers of the 13th Dynasty move the capital from Itj-tawi (in Lower Egypt near Lisht, south of Memphis) back to Thebes, the old capital of the late 11th Dynasty in Upper Egypt, loosening their control over the north. In the beginning of the 12th Dynasty, the king Amenemhat I (1991-1962 BCE) founded the small town of Hutwaret (better known by the Greek name Avaris) in the far north, which grew into a trading center with easy access to the sea and connected by land routes to Sinai and the region of Palestine. In the course of the 13th Dynasty successful trade and immigration brought an influx of Semitic peoples to Avaris who eventually gained enough wealth and power to exert political influence in the country. These people were known to the Egyptians (and themselves) as Heqau-khasut ('Rulers of Foreign Lands') but were called 'Hyksos' by the Greek writers, the name they are known by in history. The later Egyptian writers depict the Hyksos as brutal conquerors who destroyed Egypt, ransacked the temples, and oppressed the country until it was liberated and unified under the reign of Ahmose of Thebes (c. 1570-1544 BCE). Archaeological evidence and records of the time, however, strongly suggest a very different story. The Hyksos, far from the cruel conquerors of later histories, admired Egyptian culture greatly and adopted it as their own. They lived cordially, if not exactly peacefully, with the government at Thebes until a perceived insult drove the Theban kings to declare war on them and they were driven out. Ahmose I's victory signaled the end of the Second Intermediate Period and the beginning of the New Kingdom. …. [End of quote] More prosaically, Wikipedia tells of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt The Second Intermediate Period dates from 1700 to 1550 BC.[1]: 123  It marks a period when ancient Egypt was divided into smaller dynasties for a second time, between the end of the Middle Kingdom and the start of the New Kingdom. The concept of a Second Intermediate Period generally includes the 13th through to the 17th dynasties, however there is no universal agreement in Egyptology about how to define the period.[2] It is best known as the period when the Hyksos people of West Asia established the 15th Dynasty and ruled from Avaris, which, according to Manetho's Aegyptiaca, was founded by a king by the name of Salitis.[3] The settling of these people may have occurred peacefully, although later recounts of Manetho portray the Hyksos "as violent conquerors and oppressors of Egypt".[4] …. [End of quote] The Second Intermediate Period “generally includes the 13th through to the 17th dynasties …”. More can be made of this, I think, than with the First Intermediate Period. An early view of the Second Intermediate Period may have had the Twelfth Dynasty collapsing and then, immediately following this, the emergence of the supposedly weak Thirteenth Dynasty - just as the standard view tends to have the Sixth Dynasty collapsing, immediately followed by the First Intermediate Period. But, then, researchers came to appreciate that the Thirteenth Dynasty rulers, the Sobekhoteps and Neferhoteps, who presumably followed those of the Twelfth, were rather significant kings in the own right, giving no indications of an immediate collapse of Egypt. My own solution, wrapped around the life of Moses, is that ancient Egypt did collapse almost immediately after the demise of the mighty Twelfth Dynasty. Here is the new scenario simplified (referencing only the Sixth and Twelfth dynasties): The thoroughly Egyptianised Moses (cf. Exodus 2:19) had fled from the wrath of pharaoh Pepi Neferkare-Sesostris (“Chenephres”) after his killing of the Egyptian (2:12-15). After spending 40 years as an exile in the land of Midian, Moses was told by an angel that all those seeking his life had died (4:19). This means that the Sixth/Twelfth dynasty (that ended with the brief reign of a female) had come to an end. Now we need to bring in the Thirteenth Dynasty. The Crocodile worshipping Sobekhoteps, thought to have reigned in strength after the passing of the Twelfth Dynasty, I believe to have actually been of the Twelfth Dynasty. And that includes the female Crocodile, Sobeknefure, the female ruler: Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek (3) Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Moses saw nothing of the now defunct Twelfth Dynasty upon his return from Midian, but only the Thirteenth Dynasty king, the hard-hearted (cf. Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 14:4) Neferhotep, Pharaoh of the Exodus. Thus it was a very short period of time from the demise of the mighty Twelfth Dynasty to the Exodus during the Thirteenth Dynasty, which ushered in the beginning of an Intermediate Period that would deteriorate even further, presumably, in the reign of Dudimose (“Tutimaeus” – Josephus following Manetho) when the foreigners invaded Egypt ‘after a blast from God’.

Those alike Biblico-Egyptian names: Unas, Uni, Iannes, Ioannes, Ianassi

by Damien F. Mackey Now certain traditions tell that the pair, Jannes and Jambres (or Mambres), were two Reubenite (Israelite) brothers, troublemakers for Moses, Dathan (or Jathan) and Abiram. A simple as possible attempt will be made here to sort out, from the Bible and Egyptian history, those like names that can be the source of much confusion. Iannes (and Iambres) What shall we say about Saint Paul’s “Jannes and Jambres [Mambres]”? (2 Timothy 3:8): “And even as Jannes and Jambres [Mambres/Iambres] withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth. Men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith”. Jannes (Iannes, Ioannes) and Jambres [var. Mambres] are generally considered to have been Pharaoh’s magicians. I, though, had tried to connect them to actual Pharaohs, thereby stretching Moses’ life around Pharaoh Unas (my “Jannes”), from whom I suggested Moses had fled into Midian, and the Hyksos Maibre Sheshi (my “Mambres”), Pharaoh of the Exodus. (5th and 14th dynasties, respectively). But, for one, Dr. John Osgood has brilliantly shown that pharaoh Maibre belonged much later, to the Judges era of Eglon, king of Moab, ruling at Jericho: Over the Face of All the Earth Home / Archaeology / Over the Face of All the Earth In this fascinating volume, Dr John Osgood explores man’s past using the most ancient evidences and records. Building on his vast research over 40 years, Dr Osgood has developed a new and arguably superior framework of study which brings together all the evidence from ancient history to establish a true understanding of mankind’s exciting past. John presents a convincing case for accepting a modified version of the so-called ‘revised chronology’ of ancient Egypt and demonstrates how a genuine look at the facts establishes the accuracy and reliability of the Biblical records. …. One ought not neglect Hebrew traditions, which - while various of them can be quite misleading - can often throw much light on a subject, even to the point of clinching the matter. Now certain traditions tell that the pair Jannes and Jambres (or Mambres), were two Reubenite (Israelite) brothers, troublemakers for Moses, Dathan (or Jathan) and Abiram. On this, see e.g. my article: Jannes and Jambres (2) Jannes and Jambres | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu It was to this pair (names poorly transliterated into Greek), and not to any Egyptians, that Saint Paul was referring. He probably would not have said about idolatrous Egyptians, “Men … reprobate concerning the faith”. Conclusion One: Jannes (Iannes, Ioannes) was a Reubenite, not an Egyptian. Unas (Unis) Pharaoh Unas of Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (Old Kingdom) was indeed the king from whom Moses fled: Moses and Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (7) Moses and Egypt's Fifth Dynasty | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Unas needs to be multi-identified. He is also Chephren; Pepi; and Sesostris (and more). On this, see e.g. my: First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses (4) First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu There I wrote: The Tale of Sinuhe, which seems to recall in rough fashion the flight of Moses from Egypt, may help us here by locating this famous incident to early in the reign of Sesostris I. With the tyrannical “new king” of Exodus 1:8 firmly established as, among many names, Teti-Amenemes I, the founding dynastic king (who was murdered) whose land was becoming overrun by foreigners, then the ruler from whom Moses fled to Midian - some time after the murder of Amenemes I, according to Sinuhe - can only have been the (son- successor of that first dynastic king. To jump ahead of our story, by taking account of the C2nd BC Jewish historian, Artapanus, Moses was the foster son of the Egyptian queen “Merris”, who had married “Chenephres”: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/which-real-story-moses-was-he-criminal-philosopher-hero-or-atheist-008008 Moses, according to Artapanus, was raised as the son of Chenephres, king of Upper of Egypt. Chenephres thought Moses was his own son – but, apparently, the bond between a father and a son wasn’t enough to keep Chenephres from trying to kill him. Chenephres sent Moses to lead his worst soldiers into an unwinnable war against Ethiopia, hoping Moses would die in battle. Moses, however, managed to conquer Ethiopia. He became a war hero across Egypt. He also declared the ibis as the sacred animal of the city – starting, in the process, the first of three religions he would found by the end of the story. He started his second religion when he made it back to Memphis, where he taught people how to use oxen in agriculture and, in the process, started the cult of Apis . He didn’t get to enjoy his new cult for long. His father started outright hiring people to assassinate him, and he had no choice but to leave Egypt. .... [End of quote] With “Merris” already identified as Meresankh - of whom Egyptology may have unnecessarily created several versions, not to mention her alter egos in Ankhesenmerire I-II - then “Chenephres”, apart from being Sesostris I (as in the Story of Sinuhe), must be the Fourth Dynasty’s Chephren (Khafre), who married Meresankh”: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Khafre-king-of-Egypt “Khafre was the son of King Khufu and succeeded the short-lived Redjedef, probably his elder brother. He married his sister Khamerernebti, Meresankh III”. Khufu (Cheops) I have already identified with the founder king of Exodus 1:8. But I have also identified him with Redjedef (Djedefre), who was not (as I think) a ruler distinct from Khufu. Let us now recall, very briefly, our many versions of the first dynastic king (from Part One) to determine if each of these may have a (son-) successor who is appropriate for “Chenephres”. Snofru His appropriate successor, I think – though it does not follow conventionally – would be the (albeit poorly known - parentage uncertain) Huni. The name Huni may link up further on with Unis (Wenis) of the Fifth Dynasty. Huni’s nomen may enable us to link him up with the Sixth Dynasty’s Pepi. “[Huni] may have had the Nomen Neferkare ...”: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/huni/ “Kerpheris” the name given to Huni, apparently, by Manetho is not unlike Kenephres/ Chenephres. Khufu (Djedefre) His highly appropriate (son-) successor was Khafre (Chephren), a name that will be reflected amongst the Twelfth Dynasty’s Sesostris’s praenomina (Kheperkare, Khakheperre, Khakaure). Menkaure The Kaf- element (Khafre) now becomes significant. The successor in this case can only be Shepseskaf (Manetho’s Sebercheres), who, like Khafre, was closely associated with (married to) a Khamerernebti. Shepseskaf continued his predecessor Menkaure’s building works, “... he completed the pyramid of Menkaure ...”: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/shepseskaf/ Sahure Just going by names here of Sahure’s presumed successors: Neferikare has a heap of Kha- element and Neferkare type names (Nephercheres, Neferkeris, Kaikai, Kaka, Nefer-it-ka-re, Neferirkara). And Shepseskaf (see previous paragraph) seems to re-emerge in Shepseskare. But the more important Fifth Dynasty connection (e.g., with Huni) will be Unis (Wenis), see next. Djedkare Isesi As just noted, his successor was Unis or Wenis, and most appropriately Auguste Mariette, as we read in Part One, showed that Unis (Unas) followed on immediately after Tet (Teti), who is my 6th Dynasty version of the dynastic founder king. Teti and Unas also figure together in pyramid text decoration: “Two of the pyramids (those of Unas and Teti) contain chambers decorated with hieroglyph texts (the so called 'Pyramid Texts') that are amongst the earliest manifestations of ancient Egyptian writing”: https://www.flickr.com/photos/amthomson/43838532761 Merenre As in some of the other instances, the Sixth Dynasty is out of sequence (my opinion), with Merenre - my dynastic founder king (= Teti) - following Pepi (Neferkare), who is, in fact, the son-successor. The life of Moses before the return from Midian knew of only two long-reigning Egyptian monarchs, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, and the ruler from whom Moses fled to Midian. That one dynasty died out (Exodus 4:19) - its last ruler a woman - and Moses returned to Egypt. [End of article] Conclusion Two: Unas (Unis) was the ruler from whom Moses fled, to Midian. Uni (Weni) Uni, or Weni, was likely Moses himself (6th dynasty), the same as Mentuhotep (12th dynasty). He was Vizier and Chief Judge in Egypt: Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep (4) Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Drs. Courville and Osgood have unfortunately identified Mentuhotep as Joseph, thereby missing out on Joseph (Imhotep, 3rd dynasty), a connection that many others have embraced. See e.g. my article: Enigmatic Imhotep - did he really exist? (2) Enigmatic Imhotep - did he really exist? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. Osgood does follow Courville, and builds on him, in rightly recognising a link between the 6th and 12th dynasties – which syncretism conventional history would regard as absurd. This is another of those useful contributions in Dr. Osgood’s book. Conclusion Three: Uni (Weni) was likely Moses himself. Ianassi Finally, Ianassi was the son of the Hyksos pharaoh Khyan. Conclusion Four: Ianassi was the son of Hyksos pharaoh Khyan.

Matthew the Evangelist presents Jesus Christ as the new Moses

‘If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me’. John 5:46 Bart D. Ehrman writes: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/0195161238/studentresources/chapter6/#:~:text=Matthew%20further%20emphasizes%20Jesus'%20importance,give%20the%20(new)%20law Jesus, The Jewish Messiah: The Gospel According to Matthew Chapter Summary: The author of the Gospel of Matthew used Mark, Q, and his own sources (designated by scholars as "M"). The Gospel was written between 80-85 C.E., probably somewhere outside of Palestine. This chapter applies the redactional method to uncover Matthew's narrative emphases. The redactional method relies on the principle that an author only changes his/her sources for particular reasons. These changes, therefore, give the reader hints about the author's emphases. Damien Mackey’s comment: But see my article: Carsten Peter Thiede’s early dating of Matthew’s Gospel (2) Carsten Peter Thiede's early dating of Matthew's Gospel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Bart D. Ehrman continues: The Importance of Beginnings: Jesus the Jewish Messiah in Fulfillment of Jewish Scriptures In Matthew, Jesus is unmistakably Jewish: Matthew emphasizes Jesus' connection to two of the most important figures in Jewish history, David and Abraham. Jesus' relationship to Jewish history is further underscored by the genealogy presented in chapter 1. According to this genealogy, there were fourteen generations between Abraham and David, fourteen between David and the deportation to Babylon, and fourteen between the Babylonian exile and Jesus. At the end of each period, something important happened in Jewish history: first came the greatest king, then the worst catastrophe, and finally the arrival of the messiah. The emphasis on Jesus' Jewish roots and the insistence that his life was a fulfillment of prophecy can be traced from the genealogy to the birth narrative and through the rest of the Gospel. Matthew uses "fulfillment citations" to prove that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Matthew further emphasizes Jesus' importance to Judaism by modeling his birth and ministry on Moses' birth and mission: Jesus is the new Moses who has been appointed by God to free his people from bondage and to give the (new) law. According to Matthew, people do not need to choose between Jesus and Moses, nor must they choose between Jesus' law and Moses' law. Jesus is, for this author, the final interpreter of Mosaic Law. The Portrayal of Jesus in Matthew: the Sermon on the Mount as a Springboard The Sermon on the Mount is one of five blocks of teaching in Matthew. The five-fold structure may mimic the five books of Moses. This sermon is a clear example of Matthew's propensity to equate Moses' and Jesus' roles: Jesus delivers the law of God while standing on a mountain. The sermon deals largely with life in the kingdom of heaven, an earthly kingdom that God will establish on earth. The Beatitudes serve as assurances to those who are currently weak and oppressed-they will have a place in the kingdom of heaven. The Beatitudes are not, therefore, commands but statements of fact. Matthew's Jesus does not advocate abandoning the Mosaic Law. Instead, Jesus insists he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Jesus urges his followers to keep the law even more rigorously than the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus explains what he means in the next passage, known as the antitheses. In these statements, it is clear that the spirit of the law, not the letter, is ultimately what God's people are called to keep. The law is summarized in two commandments: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "love your neighbor as yourself." Thus, love is at the core of the entire law. Jesus Rejected by the Jewish Leaders Although Jesus is presented as thoroughly Jewish in the Gospel of Matthew, he strongly opposes Judaism as it is practiced by the leaders of his day. Jesus requires Jews to keep the law, but urges them to reject the Jewish leaders. For this author, the Jewish authorities are hypocrites who are blind to Jesus' messianic identity. In a story unique to Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus' blood, and the crowd of Jews cries out, "His blood be on us and on our children" (27:25). Rather than implicating the Jews as a whole for Jesus' death, however, Matthew indicts the Jewish leaders who stir up the crowds; it is the leaders who are responsible for Jesus' death. Matthew and His Readers Because of Matthew's insistence on keeping the law, scholars have surmised that his audience consisted of a number of Jewish converts. There were probably Gentile converts in the community as well, however, because Matthew writes that outsiders will enter the kingdom of God. At the end of the Gospel, moreover, Jesus commands the disciples to baptize the nations - a commandment that does not distinguish Jews from Gentiles. Scholars suggest that the Gospel of Matthew originated somewhere near Palestine. The author's criticism of Jewish leaders may indicate his community's opposition to a local Jews. Matthew may have written his Gospel to show that Jesus was in fact the Jewish messiah who, like Moses, gave his people God's law.

Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac

by Damien F. Mackey Upon close examination, the Book of Genesis appears to provide us with several vital clues about the “Pharaoh” encountered by Abram and Sarai. These may be such clues as can assist us in determining just who was, in the Egyptian records, this enigmatic ruler. From a study of the structure of the relevant Genesis passages, from toledôt and chiasmus, as considered in my article: Toledôt Explains Abram’s Pharaoh https://www.academia.edu/26239534/Toled%C3%B4t_Explains_Abrams_Pharaoh we learned that the biblical “Pharaoh”: Was the same as the Abimelech of Gerar, ruler of the Philistines, contemporaneous with both Abram (Abraham) and Isaac. which means that: This particular monarch must have reigned for at least 60+ years (the span from Abram’s famine to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah). The era of Abram also closely approximated, so we have found - as archaeologically determined by Dr. John Osgood - the time of Narmer. Now, while some consider this Narmer to have been the father of Egypt’s first dynastic king, Menes, my preference is for Narmer as the invasive Akkadian king, Naram-Sin. Though I would also make allowance for him to have been, perhaps, the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer, of Genesis 14. …. what makes most intriguing a possible collision of … Menes with a Shinarian potentate … is the emphatic view of Dr. W. F. Albright that Naram-Sin … had conquered Egypt, and that the “Manium” whom Naram-Sin boasts he had vanquished was in fact Menes himself (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2, Apr., 1920, pp. 89-98). I am also inclined to accept the view that the classical name “Menes” arose from the nomen, Min, of pharaoh Hor-Aha (“Horus the Fighter”). Most importantly, according to Manetho, Hor (“Menes”) ruled for more than 60 years: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/01menes.html Moreover, Emmet Sweeney has provided a strong argument for a close convergence in time of Abraham and Menes: http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/70-abraham-and First Conclusion My tentative estimation would be that Abram came to Egypt at the approximate time of Narmer, and right near the beginning of the long reign of Hor-Aha (Menes), who in his youthfulness had fancied Sarai. However, by the end of the pharaoh’s long reign, at the time when Isaac had married Rebekah, he (as Abimelech) no longer sought personal involvement with the young woman, but rather commented (Genesis 26:10): ‘What if one of the men had taken Rebekah for himself?’ In my recent article: Abram and Egypt (4) Abram and Egypt | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I added this Tenth Dynasty extension to Hor-Aha (Menes): EXPANDING MENES Just as I had earlier suggested that the Noachic Flood, when properly deciphered, might serve to bring into some sort of coherent synthesis those unwieldy and vast Geological Ages, so, too, do I believe that the Patriarchs of Genesis (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph), in company with Moses of the Pentateuch, may serve to tidy up the early Egyptian Kingdoms and dynasties. And here is a preview of how I think it may be done. In this article I shall be proposing that those aforementioned Patriarchs and Moses span the entire period of Egyptian history from the very first king of the First Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (as we have already learned) to (and even slightly beyond), in the case of Moses, the last king (actually a woman) of the so-called Middle Kingdom. Here is the schematic outline of it, with consideration of a possible Tenth Dynasty connection to Abraham and Isaac to follow after it: Abraham and Isaac (1, 10 dynasties); Joseph (3, 11 dynasties); Moses (4-6, 12-13 dynasties). Dynasties 7-9, which are thought to have followed the collapse of Egypt’s Old Kingdom as a First Intermediate Period (c. 2181-2055 BC), are omitted here. The implications of the drastic revision that I have outlined above are that a period of Egyptian history Sothically calculated as spanning, very roughly, (3100-1780 =) 1320 years, was actually the same 430-year period that we had calculated from the arrival of Abram in Canaan, aged 75, down to the Exodus under Moses. This is a time discrepancy between Egypt and the Bible of a whacking (1320-430 =) 890 years! In terms of the Early Bronze Ages (I-IV), these can neatly be set out (to be elaborated on) as: Abraham and Isaac (EBI); Jacob and Joseph (EBII); Moses (EBIII/IV). Now, in fashion similar to my condensing of the Akkadian dynasty by identifying alter egos, or duplicate rulers, so here do I intend to shorten the early Egyptian history which, I think, fits so poorly against the biblical record. The king of Egypt at the time of Abram (Abraham) I have identified as the first ruler of the First Dynasty, the very long-reigning Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’). And I have been able – following the structure of the Book of Genesis (toledôt and chiasmus) – to link that ruler with the Abimelech known to Abram (Genesis 20:2) and to Isaac (26:1). Whilst Abimelech (אֲבִימֶ֙לֶךְ֙) is a Hebrew name, meaning “My Father is King”, it has a structure and meaning rather similar to that of the supposedly Second Dynasty Egyptian king, Raneb (or Nebra): that is, “Father Ra is King”. Before I had come to the conclusion that Abram’s ruler of Egypt belonged to the First Dynasty, I had thought – the same as Dr. David Rohl, although quite independently of him – that that ruler must have been the Tenth Dynasty’s Khety. Rohl numbers him as Khety IV Nebkaure, whereas I had numbered the same ruler as Khety III (N. Grimal, I note, has a Khety II Nebkaure, A History of Egypt, pp. 144, 148). If the so-called Tenth Dynasty were really to be located this early in time, I had thought, then this would have had major ramifications for any attempted reconstruction of Egyptian history. Having Abram’s Egyptian ruler situated in the Tenth Dynasty did fit well with my view then, at least, that Joseph, who arrived on the scene about two centuries after Abraham, had belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty (as well as to the Third, as Imhotep). Although I would later drop from my revision the notion of Khety (be he II, III or IV) as Abraham’s king of Egypt – not being able to connect him securely to the Old Kingdom era – I am now inclined to return to it. Previously I had written on this: So far, however, I have not been able to establish any compelling link between the 1st and 10th Egyptian dynasties (perhaps Aha “Athothis” in 1 can connect with “Akhthoes” in 10). Nevertheless, that pharaoh Khety appears to have possessed certain striking likenesses to Abram’s [king] has not been lost on David Rohl as well, who, in From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible (Arrow Books, 2003), identified the “Pharaoh” with Khety (Rohl actually numbers him as Khety IV). And he will further incorporate the view of the Roman author, Pliny, that Abram’s “Pharaoh” had a name that Rohl considers to be akin to Khety’s prenomen: Nebkaure. Here, for what it is worth, is what I have written about pharaoh Khety III: There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history, associated with … Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis, that may possibly relate to the biblical incident [of “Pharaoh” and Abram’s wife]. It should be noted firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on says N. Grimal by “the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in eastern Africa” [A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 139]. Moreover, Khety III’s “real preoccupation was with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics” [ibid., p. 145]. Could these eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of Abram’s era – including the Hebrews themselves – who had been forced to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in Egypt): Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time: The nome of This was ravaged; Though it happened through my doing, I learned it after it was done. [Emphasis added] Cf. Genesis 12:17-19: But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai …. So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, ‘What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone’. It may now be possible to propose some (albeit tenuous) links between the era of Khety and what is considered to be the far earlier Old Kingdom period to which I would assign Abraham. N. Grimal refers to another Aha (that being the name of Abraham’s proposed contemporary, Hor-Aha) as living at the same time as Khety II. If Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’) had really reigned for more than sixty years (Manetho-Africanus), then he is likely to have accumulated many other names and titles. The death of Menes may be connected with the death of Akhthoes Khety. Manetho says that a hippopotamus carried off Menes at the end of his life. How Menes died is part of his legend, with the hippopotamus version being only one possibility. Diodorus Siculus wrote he was chased by dogs, fell into a lake, and was rescued by crocodiles, leading scholars to think possibilities include death by dogs and crocodile. It seems that Khety ruled over his neighboring nomarchs with an iron fist, and it is likely for this reason that in later times this ruler became Manetho's infamous Achthoes, a wicked king who went insane and then was killed by a crocodile. Second Conclusion Hor-aha (Menes) was also Khety Nebkaure of the Tenth Dynasty.

King Chedorlaomer of Elam vying for power with Akkad

by Damien F. Mackey “At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley). For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled”. Genesis 14:1-4 Seismic shifts in Geography Prior to any discussion now of who were the four coalitional kings of Genesis 14, who successfully invaded Syro-Palestine, we need to re-set their geography, which has undergone seismic shifts away from the earlier accepted opinions. Land of Elam When previously I had begun seriously to scrutinise the four kings of Genesis 14 as to their identifications and geography, it had occurred to me that one of them, Chedorlaomer (Kedorlaomer), king of Elam, was situated much too far to the east to have been able to keep under his control so distant a region as the Dead Sea Valley. So unsatisfied was I with this received geographical scenario that I began to look for a different place with a name like Elam, situated more reasonably close within range of the land of Canaan. The best that I could come up with was the location, Helam, against which King David had fought (2 Samuel 10:17): “When David heard of it, he gathered the Israelite troops, crossed the Jordan River, and marched to Helam, where the Syrians took up their position facing him”. The exact location of Helam, however, is not known, it being broadly described as ‘between the Jordan and the Euphrates’. Some time later my wish for an Elam situated nearer to the land of Canaan was realised when I read Royce (Richard) Erickson’s stunning (2020) article: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (4) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu in which the author has dragged the entire land of Elam hundreds of miles away from its usual place, to the region of Anatolia. Susa, the capital of Elam, was now to be re-identified as Sis (Kozan), in the Adana Province of Turkey. That, I thought, was now far more satisfactory and accessible for King Chedorlaomer. Land of Shinar Amraphel king of Shinar (Genesis 14:1) likewise had to be provided with a more satisfactory geography. This I attempted to do in my recent article: Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel (4) Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu wherein I wrote: “Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there”. Genesis 11:1-2 The Hebrew word miqqedem (מִקֶּדֶם), translated here as “eastward”, can also mean “from the east”, so we don’t need to become too squeezed directionally. The word can even have the quite different meaning of “in ancient times”. The meaning of Shinar (שִׁנְעָ֖ר) can be disputed. It may mean “country of two rivers”. The “plain” (בִקְעָ֛ה), biq’ah, of Shinar may just as accurately be translated as “valley”. Long tradition has Shinar connected with the name, Sumer, which is thought to have been the region of southern Mesopotamia (or ancient Sumeria), where Babylon is generally considered to have been situated. From this region, conservative, biblically-minded scholars will build up a whole Babel scenario, humanity having just the one language, and a world-wide dispersion. …. The Bible refers to Shinar only a few times: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Shinar “Shinar was used early to describe the land which included the cities of Babel (Babylon), Erech (Warka) and Accad (Agade) within the kingdom of Nimrod (Gen 10:10). This was the place where migrants from the E settled and built the city and tower of Babel (11:2). A king of Shinar (Amraphel) took part in the coalition which raided Sodom and Gomorrah (14:1) and was defeated by Abraham. A fine garment looted by Achan near Jericho was described as coming from Shinar (Josh 7:21, KJV “Babylonish”). It was to this land that Nebuchadnezzar took the captives from Jerusalem (Dan 1:2) and from it the prophet foresaw that the faithful remnant would be gathered (Isa 11:11). It was a distant and wicked place (Zech 5:11)”. One thing appears to be certain. Babylon was situated in the land of Shinar, because (Daniel 1:2): “And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into [Nebuchednezzar, king of Babylon’s] hand, along with some of the articles from the Temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Shinar and put in the treasure house of his god”. But, was the city of Babylon also situated in southern Mesopotamia? Dr. W. F. Albright, though a conventional scholar, defied tradition by identifying the land of Shinar in the region of Hana (“Shinar-Šanḡar and Its Monarch Amraphel”, AJSLL, Vol. 40, no. 2, 1924). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Khana “The Kingdom of Khana or Kingdom of Hana (late 18th century BC – mid-17th century BC) was the Syrian kingdom from Hana Land in the middle Euphrates region north of Mari, which included the ancient city of Terqa”. Terqa was located near the mouth of the Khabur river, thus being a trade hub on the Euphrates and Khabur rivers. This area I believe approximates to the land of Shinar, the “country of two rivers”. Now, we really appear to be getting somewhere. For, when the Jews went into Babylonian Exile, the prophet Ezekiel encountered them at the Chebar river, as he tells at the beginning (Ezekiel 1:1; cf. 3:15): “In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Chebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God”. Surely the Chebar - unknown in the “Babylon” region of southern Mesopotamia - can only be the Khabur river. And, indeed, this was an older commentary opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Abib#:~:text=Location,in%20what%20is%20now%20Syria “The Kebar or Chebar Canal (or River) is the setting of several important scenes of the Book of Ezekiel, including the opening verses. The book refers to this river eight times in total. …. Some older biblical commentaries identified the Chebar with the Khabur River in what is now Syria”. This now means that we must be in the approximate region of the real Babylon in the land of Shinar. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. There on the poplars we hung our harps …”. (Psalm 136:1-2 Douay; 137:1-2 NIV). …. What all of this means is that the geography of the mighty pair, Amraphel of Shinar and Chedorlaomer of Elam, has been shifted far to the NW 0f southern Mesopotamia, wrongly known as the land of Sumer. See also on this my article: “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia (5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Presumably, then, the historically obscure allies of these two great kings, “Arioch king of Ellasar … and Tidal king of Goyim …”, will also be found to have been located within this revised geographical scenario, and not in, respectively, Larsa (thought to be in Sumer) and Gutium in the central Zagros region. Our next task is to attempt an historical identification of the coalitional kings. Who were the Four Kings? The primary focus here will be to identify historically the two leading players, Amraphel of Shinar and Chedorlaomer of Elam. The other two kings, Arioch and Tidal, may have been more like officials, subordinate to Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, but powerful enough in their own right. As Sennacherib of Assyria will much later boast (Isaiah 10:8): ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ If we are to take a biblical clue, then Tidal’s Goyim might have been the cavalry fortress location of Sisera, serving Jabin king of Canaan. For, as we read in Judges 4:13: “Sisera summoned from Harosheth Haggoyim to the Kishon River all his men and his nine hundred chariots fitted with iron”. This fort (presuming it had even existed in the time of the four kings) would have been a useful launching pad for the four kings’ irruption into Ashteroth Karnaim and southwards beyond (see Dr. Osgood’s map above). And I have flirted with the idea - without much conviction - that Arioch’s Ellasar could have been the important Mediterranean port city of Ullaza, north of Byblos. Amraphel of Shinar In my “Land of Shinar” article, once again, I identified Amraphel king of Shinar as the biblical Nimrod, and as the historical Sargon of Akkad. There I wrote: “Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord’.” Genesis 10:8-9 Many scholars have tried their hand at historically identifying the biblical Nimrod. Dr. David Rohl’s suggested Enmerkar (“Nmr the Hunter”) may be correct. Enmerkar was an early king of Uruk, which could be Nimrod’s “Erech”, so long as the famous Uruk in southern Mesopotamia is not intended. Dr. David Livingston has identified Nimrod with the semi-legendary Gilgamesh, also a king of Uruk, who is reputed to have built walls at Uruk. http://www.davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm …. While the real Nimrod may be a composite of such semi-legendary characters as Enmerkar and Gilgamesh, the most likely full-bodied tyrant-king for him would be, as various scholars have concluded: Sargon the Great of Akkad. I would enlarge on this, though, by modifying the Akkadian dynasty and identifying Sargon with his supposed grandson, the similarly great Naram-Sin, as well as with Shar kali sharri, and, biblically, with “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1). Amraphel was for long (but wrongly) thought to be Hammurabi king of Babylon. …. My extension of Amraphel, through Sargon of Akkad to include his supposed descendants, Naram-Sin and Shar kali sharri, will prove to be most fortuitous now (though originally quite unintended) as we come to consider the Akkadian partnership with Chedorlaomer of Elam. Chedorlaomer of Elam Chedorlaomer is clearly the powerful Elamite king - often called emperor - of various names, Kutur-Inshushinak (Puzur Inshushinak; Kutik Inshushinak). The name Chedorlaomer is purely Elamite, Kudur-Lagamar. According to the Wikipedia article, “Puzur-Inshushinak” (and note the interaction with all of Sargon; Naram-Sin and Shar kali sharri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzur-Inshushinak Puzur-Inshushinak (Linear Elamite: Puzur Sušinak, Akkadian: 𒌋𒌋𒀭𒈹𒂞, puzur3-dinšušinak, also 𒅤𒊭𒀭𒈹𒂞, puzur4-dinšušinak "Calling Inshushinak"), also sometimes thought to read Kutik-Inshushinak in Elamite,[3] was king of Elam, around 2100 BC,[4] and the last from the Awan dynasty according to the Susa kinglist.[5] He mentions his father's name as Šimpi-išhuk, which, being an Elamite name, suggests that Puzur-Inshuhinak himself was Elamite.[6] In the inscription of the "Table au Lion", he appears as "Puzur-Inshushin(ak) Ensi (Governor) of Susa, Shakkanakku (Military Governor) of the country of Elam" (𒅤𒊭𒀭𒈹𒂞 𒑐𒋼𒋛 𒈹𒂞𒆠 𒄊𒀴 𒈣𒋾 𒉏𒆠 puzur-inshushinak ensi shushiki skakkanakku mati NIMki), a title used by his predecessors Eshpum, Epirmupi and Ili-ishmani as governors of the Akkadian Empire for the territory of Elam.[2][7] In another inscription, he calls himself the "Mighty King of Elam", suggesting an accession to independence from the weakening Akkadian Empire.[8] Rule …. Kutik-Inshushinak's first position was as governor of Susa, which he may have held from a young age. About 2110 BC, his father died, and he became crown prince in his stead. Elam had been under the domination of Akkad since the time of Sargon, and Kutik-Inshushinak accordingly campaigned in the Zagros mountains on their behalf. He was greatly successful as his conquests seem to have gone beyond the initial mission. Early on his inscriptions were in Akkadian but over time they came to be also in Linear Elamite.[9] In 2090 BC, he asserted his independence from king Shar-Kali-Sharri of the Akkadian Empire, which had been weakening ever since the death of Naram-Sin, thus making himself king of Elam.[10] He conquered Anshan and managed to unite most of Elam into one kingdom.[10] According to the inscriptions of Ur-Nammu, Puzur-Inshushinak conquered numerous cities … including Eshnunna and Akkad, and probably Akshak.[11] His conquests probably encroached considerably on Gutian territory, gravely weakening them …. …. He built extensively on the citadel at Susa, and encouraged the use of the Linear Elamite script to write the Elamite language. This may be seen as a reaction against Sargon's attempt to force the use of Akkadian. Most inscriptions in Linear Elamite date from the reign of Kutik-Inshushinak. …. [End of quote] This all fits well with the tradition that Chedorlaomer, initially subservient to the Akkadians, rose up to become the leader: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548 NIMROD. By: Emil G. Hirsch, M. Seligsohn, Wilhelm Bacher, Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. …. Ten years later Nimrod came to wage war with Chedorlaomer, King of Elam, who had been one of Nimrod's generals, and who after the dispersion of the builders of the tower went to Elam and formed there an independent kingdom. Nimrod at the head of an army set out with the intention of punishing his rebellious general, but the latter routed him. Nimrod then became a vassal of Chedorlaomer, who involved him in the war with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, with whom he was defeated by Abraham ("Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c.; comp. Gen. xiv. 1-17). …. [End of quote] Let us now take a quote from Royce Erickson’s article (above), showing just how precise his new geography enables for things to be. I refer to his marvellous identification of the Elamite location of Awan (among others), most relevant to Kutur-Inshushinak (Chedorlaomer) who had ruled there (emphasis added): …. All five of the most important historically important Elamite towns can be located in Anatolia: Susa, Madaktu, Hidalu, Awan and Anshan. Susa, the capital during the Neo-Assyrian period, and known to be the closest of these Elamite cities to Chaldaea and thence to Babylon and Assyria, is represented by Sis (Shishan) in Cilicia. Madaktu (Kayseri) and Hidalu (Kundullu) were described by the Assyrians as being in the distant Elamite hinterland from Susa. The equivalent modern sites of Kayseri and Kundullu agree with this description, being 90 miles to the north and 230 miles to the east of Kozan, modern Sis, respectively. Awan was a very early Elamite capital well known to the Akkadian King Rimush about 2400 AD, who campaigned there. He described Awan as being separated from Susa (Sis) by 3 rivers. He pursued the King of Elam between the two cities and defeated his army by the “Middle River.” The modern Turkish town of Avanos is in fact the proposed site of Elamite Awan. It is separated from modern Kozan (Susa) by three north-south running rivers, the Goksu, Zamanti and Damas, over a total distance of 100 miles – a very good fit to Rimush’s narrative. ….

Abram and Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey The Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, span the entire period of Egyptian history from the very first king of the First Dynasty of the Old Kingdom to, in the case of Moses, the last (woman) ruler king of the so-called Middle Kingdom. Egyptologists have created too many Egyptian kingdoms and dynasties. Likewise, regarding the early history of the earth, we are presented with a vast succession of Geological Ages reaching back, say, 4 billion years ago, give or take. Palaeontology takes us back through the supposedly successive Stone Ages a far more modest 2-3 million years. Archaeological Ages then follow these earlier ages, all nicely set out in linear, or “Indian file”, fashion. This system, however, is quite artificial, not according with reality. Hence, the already challenging task of trying to marry, particularly the Archaeological Ages, with the historical kingdoms and their dynasties, might seem to have become well-nigh impossible. Thankfully, though, Dr. John Osgood has already made the task far more manageable, at least, with his “A Better Model for the Stone Ages” series (creation.com), in which the linear model is rejected on the basis of hard evidence. And, regarding the conventional arrangement of the Egyptian Kingdoms (Old, Middle, New), which, too, is linear, Dr. Donovan Courville has argued for the Old and Middle Kingdoms, conventionally separated as to beginnings by (2600-2040 =) about 560 years, to be recognised as being (in part) synchronous. Here, embracing Dr. Courville’s general thesis (though with quite a different application of it), I would like to attempt to fill out that first ruler of the Old (or Archaïc) Kingdom era of Egypt - the contemporary of Abraham and Isaac - by enfleshing him with a so-called Middle Kingdom aspect or dimension as well. EXPANDING MENES Just as I had earlier suggested that the Noachic Flood, when properly deciphered, might serve to bring into some sort of coherent synthesis those unwieldy and vast Geological Ages, so, too, do I believe that the Patriarchs of Genesis (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph), in company with Moses of the Pentateuch, may serve to tidy up the early Egyptian Kingdoms and dynasties. And here is a preview of how I think it may be done. In this article I shall be proposing that those aforementioned Patriarchs and Moses span the entire period of Egyptian history from the very first king of the First Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (as we have already learned) to (and even slightly beyond), in the case of Moses, the last king (actually a woman) of the so-called Middle Kingdom. Here is the schematic outline of it, with consideration of a possible Tenth Dynasty connection to Abraham and Isaac to follow after it: Abraham and Isaac (1, 10 dynasties); Joseph (3, 11 dynasties); Moses (4-6, 12-13 dynasties). Dynasties 7-9, which are thought to have followed the collapse of Egypt’s Old Kingdom as a First Intermediate Period (c. 2181-2055 BC), are omitted here. The implications of the drastic revision that I have outlined above are that a period of Egyptian history Sothically calculated as spanning, very roughly, (3100-1780 =) 1320 years, was actually the same 430-year period that we had calculated from the arrival of Abram in Canaan, aged 75, down to the Exodus under Moses. This is a time discrepancy between Egypt and the Bible of a whacking (1320-430 =) 890 years! In terms of the Early Bronze Ages (I-IV), these can neatly be set out (to be elaborated on) as: Abraham and Isaac (EBI); Jacob and Joseph (EBII); Moses (EBIII/IV). Now, in fashion similar to my condensing of the Akkadian dynasty by identifying alter egos, or duplicate rulers, so here do I intend to shorten the early Egyptian history which, I think, fits so poorly against the biblical record. The king of Egypt at the time of Abram (Abraham) I have identified as the first ruler of the First Dynasty, the very long-reigning Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’). And I have been able - following the structure of the Book of Genesis (toledôt and chiasmus) - to link that ruler with the Abimelech known to Abram (Genesis 20:2) and to Isaac (26:1). Whilst Abimelech (אֲבִימֶ֙לֶךְ֙) is a Hebrew name, meaning “My Father is King”, it has a structure and meaning rather similar to that of the supposedly Second Dynasty Egyptian king, Raneb (or Nebra): that is, “Father Ra is King”. Before I had come to the conclusion that Abram’s ruler of Egypt belonged to the First Dynasty, I had thought - the same as Dr. David Rohl, although quite independently of him - that that ruler must have been the Tenth Dynasty’s Khety. Rohl numbers him as Khety IV Nebkaure, whereas I had numbered the same ruler as Khety III (N. Grimal, I note, has a Khety II Nebkaure, A History of Egypt, pp. 144, 148). If the so-called Tenth Dynasty were really to be located this early in time, I had thought, then this would have had major ramifications for any attempted reconstruction of Egyptian history. Having Abram’s Egyptian ruler situated in the Tenth Dynasty did fit well with my view then, at least, that Joseph, who arrived on the scene about two centuries after Abraham, had belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty (as well as to the Third, as Imhotep). Although I would later drop from my revision the notion of Khety (be he II, III or IV) as Abraham’s king of Egypt - not being able to connect him securely to the Old Kingdom era - I am now inclined to return to it. Previously I had written on this: So far, however, I have not been able to establish any compelling link between the 1st and 10th Egyptian dynasties (perhaps Aha “Athothis” in 1 can connect with “Akhthoes” in 10). Nevertheless, that pharaoh Khety appears to have possessed certain striking likenesses to Abram’s [king] has not been lost on David Rohl as well, who, in From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible (Arrow Books, 2003), identified the “Pharaoh” with Khety (Rohl actually numbers him as Khety IV). And he will further incorporate the view of the Roman author, Pliny, that Abram’s “Pharaoh” had a name that Rohl considers to be akin to Khety’s prenomen: Nebkaure. Here, for what it is worth, is what I have written about pharaoh Khety III: There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history, associated with … Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis, that may possibly relate to the biblical incident [of “Pharaoh” and Abram’s wife]. It should be noted firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on says N. Grimal by “the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in eastern Africa” [A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 139]. Moreover, Khety III’s “real preoccupation was with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics” [ibid., p. 145]. Could these eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of Abram’s era - including the Hebrews themselves - who had been forced to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in Egypt): Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time: The nome of This was ravaged; Though it happened through my doing, I learned it after it was done. [Emphasis added] Cf. Genesis 12:17-19: But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai .... So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, ‘What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone’. It may now be possible to propose some (albeit tenuous) links between the era of Khety and what is considered to be the far earlier Old Kingdom period to which I would assign Abraham. N. Grimal refers to another Aha (that being the name of Abraham’s proposed contemporary, Hor-Aha) as living at the same time as Khety II. If Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’) had really reigned for more than sixty years (Manetho-Africanus), then he is likely to have accumulated many other names and titles.

Brooklyn Papyrus lists Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to Exodus

“The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, ‘When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live’. The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live”. Exodus 1:15-17 “Titus” has written at: https://apxaioc.com/?p=21#:~:text=Evidence%20from%20Papyrus%20Brooklyn,-%2F%20Uncategorized%20%2F%20By%20Archae27&text=The%20presence%20of%20Hebrews%20in,the%20subsequent%20settlement%20of%20Canaan. Hebrews in Egypt before the Exodus? Evidence from Papyrus Brooklyn / Uncategorized / By Archae27 The presence of Hebrews in Egypt prior to their departure is a key component in the Exodus story, leading to the eventual formation of the Israelite nation and the subsequent settlement of Canaan. However, skepticism about the historical validity of the Exodus story has spread through both academia and the general public over the last century. One of the key problems for asserting the Exodus narrative as historical has to do with the supposed lack of archaeological confirmation for Hebrews living in Egypt. Current academic consensus views the events described in the book of Exodus as myth, without any indication of an historical core, and now a topic which the vast majority of scholars decline to investigate due to their certainty that the story is fictional. Scholars have made claims that according to archaeological investigations, “Israelites were never in Egypt…The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites’ presence in Egypt” (Zeev Herzog). Another archaeologist concluded that investigation of the Exodus story is pointless because of the alleged absence of evidence, stating that “not only is there no archaeological evidence for such an exodus, there is no need to posit such an event…I regard the historicity of the Exodus as a dead issue” (William Dever). Are claims that there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Hebrew people were in Egypt prior to the time of the Exodus consistent with current archaeological and historical data? Any possible evidence of Hebrews living in Egypt must be prior to the time of the Exodus in order to maintain that the story recorded in the Bible is an accurate historical narrative. Approximately when might have the Exodus occurred? According to a reading of specific chronological information in the books of Kings, Judges, and Numbers, combined with chronological information from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hellenistic, and Roman documents, the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt occurred around the 1440s BC (1 Kings 6:1; Judges 11:26; Numbers 32:13; Ptolemy’s Canon; Neo-Assyrian Eponym List; Manetho’s King List; Uruk King List; Roman Consul Lists). This approximate date in the 1440s BC is a crucial chronological marker which restricts investigation of archaeological and historical material to a particular window of time. Prior to this date, one would expect evidence for Hebrews in Egypt and an Egyptian policy of slavery towards Asiatics or Semites, the larger ethnic groups to which the Hebrews belonged, if the Exodus account is historical. According to the narrative in the Bible, near the end of the Patriarchal period calculated at approximately 1680 BC, Jacob and his family had settled into the northeastern Nile Delta region known as Goshen with their livestock and various possessions (Genesis 46:6, 47:1). Earlier, Abraham had resided temporarily in Egypt but he moved back to Canaan for the remainder of his life (Genesis 12:10-13:1). Around the time of these patriarchs, during the periods called the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period in Egypt and the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan, many people from western Asia or Canaan immigrated into Egypt. Damien Mackey’s comment: The early patriarchs pre-existed the Middle Bronze Age. See e.g. my article: Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham (5) Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu “Titus” continues: A famous contemporary depiction and description of this immigration was found painted on one of the walls of the tomb of Khnumhotep II in Beni Hasan, Egypt. The scene, paired with a text, depicts a group of 37 Semites from Canaan—men, women, and children, along with their livestock and supplies—immigrating into middle Egypt during the early 19th century BC. …. While this would be slightly earlier than when Joseph and subsequently his father Jacob arrive in Egypt, Damien Mackey’s comment: It’s actually later than the time of the early Patriarchs. … the events occur in the same general historical period. According to archaeological excavations and information derived from various ancient documents and art work, during this time large numbers of people from western Asia immigrated into Egypt and settled primarily in the Nile Delta region, just as Jacob and his family also did. …. …. The making of mudbricks by Hebrew slaves and the difficulties in this task are detailed in the Exodus account (Exodus 5). A remark on the scene in the tomb of Rekmire about an Egyptian master reminding slaves to not be idle lest they receive a beating with the rod brings to mind the episode in which Moses saw an Egyptian taskmaster beating a Hebrew slave (Exodus 2:11). Although many of these connections are circumstantial, the lack of contemporary texts or inscriptions directly attesting to Joseph, Moses, or a large scale enslavement of the Hebrews specifically may be due to the fact that no sites of the period have been excavated in either the central or western Nile Delta region and that few records from the Nile Delta region in this period have survived. Damien Mackey’s comment: For a clearer account of Hebrew involvement in large scale building works, see e.g. my article: Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them (5) Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu However, an important Egyptian document from Upper Egypt has survived the millennia. While the current scholarly consensus asserts that there is no definitive evidence for Hebrews living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, an Egyptian list of domestic servants written in the Second Intermediate Period, perhaps in the 17th century BC, contains not only Semitic names, but several specifically Hebrew names. This document was designated Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446. Rediscovered on the antiquities market, this papyrus was examined by William Albright and Kenneth Kitchen, and published in a book by Egyptologist William Hayes of the Brooklyn Museum. Several references to Thebes on the papyrus indicate that it was originally composed in or around that city, the capital of Upper Egypt, although it is not certain exactly where in that region it came from, as information about its original place of discovery was lost. The section of the papyrus dealing with the servants is thought to date from the 13th Dynasty of Egypt, or at least from some time in the era known as the Second Intermediate Period. The end of this period preceded the Exodus by approximately 120 years, while the period began around 300 years prior to the Exodus—encompassing the time that the Hebrews were in Egypt as settlers and perhaps even slaves. The dates for Pharaohs and even the existence of the Pharaohs themselves from this period are often tentative and highly disputed, so it is difficult to date anything with absolute certainty. However, the papyrus does contain the name of a Pharaoh called “Sobekhotep” who may have reigned around either the late 18th or the 17th century BC. Damien Mackey’s comment: For clarification about Sobekhotep, see e.g. my article: Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek (5) Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu While various publications have suggested rather definite and specific date ranges for the servant list section of the papyrus, it is difficult to establish the precise date due to the fragmentary history of the Second Intermediate Period. Pharaohs Sobekhotep III and VIII, who shared almost identical throne names, could possibly have been the same ruler. All of the monuments of Sobekhotep III are located in the south, and the only monument of Sobekhotep VIII is also located in the south at Karnak, indicating both were Theban kings during the 16th or 17th Theban Dynasties. With the 18th Dynasty beginning ca. 1570 BC according to the latest chronological studies based on high precision radiocarbon samples, this could place the Pharaoh “sekem re sewadjtowy” Sobekhotep (?) in the approximate range of 1700-1620 BC. Further, studies of the phrases and handwriting of the servant list on the papyrus also suggest a date in the Second Intermediate Period. Therefore, the list of servants probably comes from a time during or just after the life of Joseph. A section of Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 contains a list of 95 servants, many of whom are specified as “Asiatic” or coming from western Asia (i.e. Canaan). The servants with foreign names are given Egyptian names, just as Joseph was when he was a household servant under Potiphar (Genesis 41:45). The majority of the names are feminine because domestic servants were typically female, while the male servants often worked in construction or agricultural tasks. Approximately 30 of the servants have names identified as from the Semitic language family (Hebrew is a Semitic language), but even more relevant to the Exodus story is that several of these servants, up to ten, actually have specifically Hebrew names. The Hebrew names found on the list include: Menahema, a feminine form of Menahem (2 Kings 15:14); Ashera, a feminine form of Asher, the name of one of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:13); Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to the Exodus (Exodus 1:15); ‘Aqoba, a name appearing to be a feminine form of Jacob or Yaqob, the name of the patriarch (Genesis 25:26); ‘Ayyabum, the name of the patriarch Job or Ayob (Job 1:1); Sekera, which is a feminine name either similar to Issakar, a name of one of the sons of Jacob, or the feminine form of it (Genesis 30:18); Dawidi-huat a compound name utilizing the name David and meaning “my beloved is he” (1 Samuel 16:13); Esebtw, a name derived from the Hebrew word eseb meaning “herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2); Hayah-wr another compound name composed of Hayah or Eve and meaning “bright life” (Genesis 3:20); and finally the name Hy’b’rw, which appears to be an Egyptian transcription of Hebrew (Genesis 39:14). Thus, this list is a clear attestation of Hebrew people living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, and it is an essential piece of evidence in the argument for an historical Exodus. Although it appears that the Israelites were centered around the northeast Nile Delta area—the regions of Goshen and Rameses and the cities of Rameses, Pithom, and On—this document is from the area of Thebes to the south and includes household servants like Joseph in his early years rather than building and agricultural slaves of the period of Moses. Thus, the list appears to be an attestation of Hebrews in Egypt in their earlier period of residence in the country, prior to their total enslavement, and perhaps shows that a group may have migrated south or was taken south for work. While remains of material culture such as pottery, architecture, or artifacts may be ethnically ambiguous, Hebrew names and possibly even the word or name Hebrew clearly indicates that there were Hebrews living in Egypt. Although rather obscure, the list includes the earliest attestation of Hebrew names that has ever been recovered in Egypt, and it demonstrates that Hebrews were in Egypt prior to the 1440s BC just as the story in the book of Exodus records. ~Titus~

Akkadian kingdom renowned, but missing a famous capital city and a relevant archaeo-culture

by Damien F. Mackey “The Akkadian kings were extensive builders, so why, then, so few traces of their work? Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad? The Ur III founder, Ur-Nammu, built a wall at Ur. Not a trace remains”. Such are the sorts of anomalies that we have been encountering in ancient history. Given the much-touted greatness of the kingdom of the Akkadians, and their capital city called Akkad (Sumerian Agade), this civilisation, with its culture, should really stand out. According to Joshua J. Mark (2011), “Akkad and the Akkadian Empire”: https://www.worldhistory.org/akkad/ Akkad was the seat of the Akkadian Empire (2334-2218 BCE), the first multi-national political entity in the world, founded by Sargon the Great (r. 2334-2279 BCE) who unified Mesopotamia under his rule and set the model for later Mesopotamian kings to follow or attempt to surpass. The Akkadian Empire set a number of “firsts” which would later become standard. No one knows where the city of Akkad was located, how it rose to prominence, or how, precisely, it fell; yet once it was the seat of the Akkadian Empire which ruled over a vast expanse of the region of ancient Mesopotamia. It is known that Akkad (also given as Agade) was a city located along the western bank of the Euphrates River possibly between the cities of Sippar and Kish (or, perhaps, between Mari and Babylon or, even, elsewhere along the Euphrates). According to legend, it was built by the king Sargon the Great who unified Mesopotamia under the rule of his Akkadian Empire and set the standard for future forms of government in Mesopotamia. Sargon (or his scribes) claimed that the Akkadian Empire stretched from the Persian Gulf through modern-day Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Syria (possibly Lebanon) through the lower part of Asia Minor to the Mediterranean Sea and Cyprus (there is also a claim it stretched as far as Crete in the Aegean). While the size and scope of the empire based in Akkad is disputed, there is no doubt that Sargon the Great created the first multinational empire in the world. [End of quote] While already this article makes perfectly clear just how significant and how archetypal was the kingdom of Akkad, some corrections are required to be made to it. Firstly, the BC dates for the kingdom, and for Sargon the Great, would need to be lowered on the time-scale by about four centuries. For, the Akkadian founder-king, Sargon, I have identified as the biblical Nimrod, an older contemporary of Abram: Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel (3) Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Again, Sargon’s kingdom was situated largely westwards of Mesopotamia. While he did come later to rule the region of Assyria, in northern Mesopotamia, “the land of Nimrod” (Micah 5:6), he could not have had anything to do with, I think, southern Mesopotamia, which was at that very early time (according to my article, “Land of Shinar”) water-logged from the great Noachic Flood. Joshua J. Mark is mostly correct in writing that “the Akkadian Empire … stretched from the Persian Gulf through modern-day Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Syria (possibly Lebanon) through the lower part of Asia Minor to the Mediterranean Sea and Cyprus (there is also a claim it stretched as far as Crete in the Aegean)”, except for the first bit, “from the Persian Gulf through modern-day Kuwait, Iraq”. Due to a mis-identification of the countries Magan and Meluḫḫa in one of his Inscriptions, which normally mean in ancient records, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia, but which, for some strange reason, in the case of the Akkadians, become, say, Oman and the Indus Valley, the Empire is stretched much too far SE-wards. Traditions associate Abram (Abraham) and his father, Terah, with the despotic Nimrod, upon whom the semi-legendary characters Gilgamesh and Enmerkar of Uruk (not the southern Mesopotamian Uruk) may also be based. Now, ancient king lists can be notoriously unreliable, with duplications – and even triplications – being common: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (2) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In various articles, I have identified Sargon the Great also as his supposed grandson, Naram-Sin, and even as Shar-kali-sharri: Sargon and Shar-Kail-Sharri (2) Sargon and Shar-Kali-Sharri | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu If this be the case, if the Akkadians did not produce much of an actual dynasty beyond Sargon himself, then it would further explain the strange obscurity of the Akkadians. Through the more adaptable name of Naram-Sin, I have identified Sargon the Great as the biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1), who was one of the four coalitional kings who invaded Syro-Palestine at the time of Abram. Naram-Sin, who apparently conquered Menes, the first dynastic ruler of Egypt, may perhaps also be the similarly-named Narmer of a re-dated ancient Egyptian history. Having thus set the foundations more firmly, I hope, then all that remains to be done in this present article is to fit the Akkadian Empire - of whatever duration it was - to its capital, Akkad, and to its archaeo-culture. Akkad, I believe I have already found and re-located as the important port-city of Ugarit on the NW Syrian coast of the Mediterranean. (See “Land of Shinar” article). As to the worrying lack of a stratigraphical culture, this may be due to chronological miscalculation. I propose that the brilliant Halaf culture (c. 6500-5500 BC, conventional dating), geographically most appropriate for the empire of Nimrod (including Nineveh, see map below) needs to be massively re-dated (lowered by some 4000 to 3000 years) to impact upon the Akkadian era (c. 2300 BC, conventional dating). Halaf spreads perfectly for the Akkadian Empire from (Akkad) Ugarit (NW) through the land of Shinar, which I have situated between the Euphrates and Chabur rivers, and on to Assyrian Nineveh (NE). Surely this is the archaeo-culture of the Akkadians! Alisar Iram (she died in 2014) wrote as follows on the striking pottery known as Halaf: https://alisariramart.wordpress.com/the-pottery-of-ancient-tell-halaf-of-mesopotamia-and-my-ceramics/ The pottery of ancient Tell Halaf of Mesopotamia and my ceramics The love affair between me and the ancient pottery of Tell Halaf started when a friend of mine, a fellow potter and a university lecturer lent me some of his books about ancient Mesopotamia and the history of archaeological excavations there. It was then that I began a serious study of arguably the finest pottery in the Neolithic produced. We, the Syrians, belong to a country which was a cradle of civilization, taking part in creating the first civilizations known to mankind. Even in prehistoric times and before the invention of writing, Syria recorded in the amazing pottery of Tell Halaf (circa 7000 BC onward), the awakening of the artistic spirit in mankind and their early attempts to express themselves in images, patterns and shapes. Our lands witnessed in the Neolithic, the human revolution which introduced the first agricultural settlements and the domestication of animals. The first settlements or small villages led gradually to the building of the first cities …. Looking at the pottery of Tell Halaf from a potter’s point of view, was exciting and revealing. I was still learning the techniques of the potter at that stage with a passion that coloured everything I did or learnt. The Tell Halaf culture … produced, in my opinion, some of the most elegant and refined pottery of the Neolithic ancient world. The delicacy of the best examples of this pottery is breathtaking, the dexterity and intricacy puzzling and the craftsmanship of a very high quality. The Halaf culture covered the geographical expanse between upper Iraq and Syria reaching as far as Ras Shamra, Ugarit, on the Syrian coast, and spreading its influence even further to Anatolia. …. The final phase of Halaf culture, about 4900 – 4500 BC, displays in its pottery an accumulation of skills learned and tested. The vividly painted ware using mainly red and black paint over the common apricot slip or grayish background enhanced by the use of details in white over darker paints, shows vivid reliance on balance and symmetry. By now, the geometric design of Halaf which started simple and tentative in the earlier phases has multiplied to include cruciform shapes, fish scales, dotted circles, wavy patterns, also double ax, herringbone and small diamond patterns. In addition, multiple rows of hatching and cross hatching, a variety of ornament, including the very popular chequer design and many textile-like motifs were also in vogue. The splendid thin plates of this period are among the most beautiful products of the Tell Halaf kilns, probably the first of their kind in the world. On a visit the British Museum, I had the opportunity to see some of the pottery and shards of Tell Halaf. What impressed me most was the breath-taking quality of the brushwork. How did they do it? What methods of preparing and mixing the colours did they develop in order to produce such consistency, and what kind of brushes did they use to achieve this complex, sophisticated quality which I and many fellow potters can only dream of achieving? In describing the Halaf Pottery, Some archaeologists tend to emphasize qualities like static and formal in order to mean lacking in vigour and inventiveness. However, what I see is beauty of composition and a sensitive admirable control. James Mellart, the archeologist, commented, “Precise and neat, minute but repetitive, the Halaf designs formed an overwhelming rich brocade’.

Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel

by Damien F. Mackey Biblical commentators are generally in agreement about one important calculation, at least, that from Adam to the Flood was 1656 years. We read, for instance, at: https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/condensed-biblical-encyclopedia/antediluvian-chronology.html “In order to determine the length of time from Adam’s creation to the flood we have only to add the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs--Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah--at the births of their first sons, and add to this the age of Shem at the flood, and we find that it was 1656 years” (Genesis 5:3-32 ; Genesis 7:6). The Great Genesis (Noachic) Flood is estimated to have occurred - very approximately and in round figures - at 2300 BC. This is the date that Dr. John Osgood gives in his recent books, Over the Face of the Earth (2015), and They Speak with One Voice (2020). And, for the Babel incident, Dr. Osgood estimates about 2200 BC. These dates can be only rough estimations at this stage, but they will serve as early approximate anchor points. Now the real fun begins. The land of Shinar “Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there”. Genesis 11:1-2 The Hebrew word miqqedem (מִקֶּדֶם), translated here as “eastward”, can also mean “from the east”, so we don’t need to become too squeezed directionally. The word can even have the quite different meaning of “in ancient times”. The meaning of Shinar (שִׁנְעָ֖ר) can be disputed. It may mean “country of two rivers”. The “plain” (בִקְעָ֛ה), biq’ah, of Shinar may just as accurately be translated as “valley”. Long tradition has Shinar connected with the name, Sumer, which is thought to have been the region of southern Mesopotamia (or ancient Sumeria), where Babylon is generally considered to have been situated. From this region, conservative, biblically-minded scholars will build up a whole Babel scenario, humanity having just the one language, and a world-wide dispersion. Dr. John Osgood, a Creationist, is most insistent about Babel in Sumer-as-Shinar. In the two books mentioned above, he has an estimated 8000 people, from three families (Shem, Ham and Japheth), arriving in this southern region in c. 2200 BC, and eventually dispersing from there to fill the whole earth after the Babel incident. Dr. Osgood favours Judi Dagh in SE Turkey as the Noah’s Ark mountain. (Descent from there into southern Mesopotamia would not really be “eastward”, but almost due south). Osgood’s would be the approximate scenario that I would have embraced years ago. I now believe that it is all quite wrong (to be explained). I need to say immediately that I have found Dr. John Osgood’s research in other areas to have been of considerable benefit and inspiration: e.g., his tracing of watery Flood vestiges; his archaeology for Abram and the four invading kings of Genesis 14, which I would probably never have managed to work out; his fixing of the Middle Bronze I people of archaeology as the Exodus Israelites, conquering Early Bronze III Canaan and Early Bronze IV Transjordania; and his accurate sequences for the city of Jericho. Dr. Osgood’s Babel model reconstruction, though, I can no longer accept. And I also think that his more recent efforts (in the two books mentioned above) to revise ancient Egypt and Assyria along biblical lines have not really served to clarify the situation at all. Not that any of this is easy. The Bible refers to Shinar only a few times: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Shinar “Shinar was used early to describe the land which included the cities of Babel (Babylon), Erech (Warka) and Accad (Agade) within the kingdom of Nimrod (Gen 10:10). This was the place where migrants from the E settled and built the city and tower of Babel (11:2). A king of Shinar (Amraphel) took part in the coalition which raided Sodom and Gomorrah (14:1) and was defeated by Abraham. A fine garment looted by Achan near Jericho was described as coming from Shinar (Josh 7:21, KJV “Babylonish”). It was to this land that Nebuchadnezzar took the captives from Jerusalem (Dan 1:2) and from it the prophet foresaw that the faithful remnant would be gathered (Isa 11:11). It was a distant and wicked place (Zech 5:11)”. One thing appears to be certain. Babylon was situated in the land of Shinar, because (Daniel 1:2): “And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into [Nebuchednezzar, king of Babylon’s] hand, along with some of the articles from the Temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Shinar and put in the treasure house of his god”. But, was the city of Babylon also situated in southern Mesopotamia? Dr. W. F. Albright, though a conventional scholar, defied tradition by identifying the land of Shinar in the region of Hana (“Shinar-Šanḡar and Its Monarch Amraphel”, AJSLL, Vol. 40, no. 2, 1924). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Khana “The Kingdom of Khana or Kingdom of Hana (late 18th century BC – mid-17th century BC) was the Syrian kingdom from Hana Land in the middle Euphrates region north of Mari, which included the ancient city of Terqa”. Terqa was located near the mouth of the Khabur river, thus being a trade hub on the Euphrates and Khabur rivers. This area I believe approximates to the land of Shinar, the “country of two rivers”. Now, we really appear to be getting somewhere. For, when the Jews went into Babylonian Exile, the prophet Ezekiel encountered them at the Chebar river, as he tells at the beginning (Ezekiel 1:1; cf. 3:15): “In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Chebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God”. Surely the Chebar - unknown in the “Babylon” region of southern Mesopotamia - can only be the Khabur river. And, indeed, this was an older commentary opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Abib#:~:text=Location,in%20what%20is%20now%20Syria “The Kebar or Chebar Canal (or River) is the setting of several important scenes of the Book of Ezekiel, including the opening verses. The book refers to this river eight times in total. …. Some older biblical commentaries identified the Chebar with the Khabur River in what is now Syria”. This now means that we must be in the approximate region of the real Babylon in the land of Shinar. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. There on the poplars we hung our harps …”. (Psalm 136:1-2 Douay; 137:1-2 NIV). W. F. Albright ostensibly made easier the geographical task by reducing Nimrod’s early cities from four to three. While the biblical text, as it stands, reads (Genesis 10:10): “And the beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar”, Dr. Albright, ingeniously, with a slight tweaking of the Masoretic, translated Calneh as “all of them”. Now, all of Babel, Erech and Akkad (without any Calneh) were in the land of Shinar. Clever on the part of W.F. Albright, but wrong, I think. For Calneh (Calno) is referred to several times in the Bible, its approximate location being fairly tightly circumscribed with it being linked by Ezekiel (27:23) to Haran; by Sennacherib (in Isaiah (10:9) to Carchemish,; and by Amos (6:2) to Hamath. (See next map for Haran, Carchemish and Hamath). Nimrod ‘the Great’ and his early cities “Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord’.” Genesis 10:8-9 Many scholars have tried their hand at historically identifying the biblical Nimrod. Dr. David Rohl’s suggested Enmerkar (“Nmr the Hunter”) may be correct. Enmerkar was an early king of Uruk, which could be Nimrod’s “Erech”, so long as the famous Uruk in southern Mesopotamia is not intended. Dr. David Livingston (I presume) has identified Nimrod with the semi-legendary Gilgamesh, also a king of Uruk, who is reputed to have built walls at Uruk. http://www.davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm (i) Erech A possible candidate for Nimrod’s Erech, then, may be Terqa (T-Erqa), an ancient capital which, as we read, was in the environs of Shinar. Terqa was notable for its walls: https://www.terqa.org/pages/10.html#:~:text=The%20City%20Walls “If one could typify the impact of the size and scope of the ancient city of Terqa in one image, it would have to be the sight of the massive defensive rings surrounding the city – 60 acres of land surrounded by three concentric, solid masonry walls, 60 feet thick, with an additional 60 foot wide moat encircling the outer ring: these are extraordinary dimensions by any standard. So wide were these walls, that the outer ring possessed a passageway to allow for circulation along its perimeter. The date of construction for these extraordinary defenses, supported by Carbon 14 determinations as well as by the ceramic sequences, is indicated at 3000 B.C. for the inner wall, followed in turn by the middle and outer walls at one century intervals. This makes the walls of Terqa among the largest, oldest, tallest and most complex monuments in the Near East”. While the real Nimrod may be a composite of such semi-legendary characters as Enmerkar and Gilgamesh, the most likely full-bodied tyrant-king for him would be, as various scholars have concluded: Sargon the Great of Akkad. I would enlarge on this, though, by modifying the Akkadian dynasty and identifying Sargon with his supposed grandson, the similarly great Naram-Sin, as well as with Shar kali sharri, and, biblically, with “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1). Amraphel was for long (but wrongly) thought to be Hammurabi king of Babylon. Despite the greatness of the Akkadian so-called dynasty, and its fame down through the ages, it is poorly attested stratigraphically. As I have written previously: The long Akkadian empire phase of history (c. 2350-2150 BC), so admired by subsequent rulers and generations, is remarkably lacking in archaeological data. ….: “The Akkadian kings were extensive builders, so why, then, so few traces of their work? Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad? The Ur III founder, Ur-Nammu, built a wall at Ur. Not a trace remains”. But here I want to highlight the enormity of the problem. Archaeologists have actually failed to identify a specific pottery for the Akkadian era! This is, of course, quite understandable given that they (indeed, we) have been expecting to discover the heart of the Akkadian kingdom in Lower Mesopotamia. [End of quote] “Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad?” So, let us identify emperor Nimrod’s Akkad, not found by archaeologists to this day. (ii) Akkad (Agade) What do we know about Akkad? Well, the mighty Sargon of Akkad (Nimrod himself?) tells in an Inscription that ships (read reed boats) from Magan and Meluḫḫa docked in the Quay of Akkad: ‘The ships from Meluhha the ships from Magan the ships from Dilmun he made tie-up alongside the quay of Akkad’. Magan and Meluḫḫa in the Assyrian records are, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia. But, for Akkadian times, historians strangely (due to wrong geography and other things) identify them differently, as, say, respectively, Oman, in the Persian Gulf (their Sumer region), and the Indus Valley. Egypt’s maritime trade with NW Syria was on the Mediterranean. So I looked around the area and found, roughly in line with Carchemish, the famous port city of Ugarit. Nimrod would have needed a port city if he were to embark upon important Mediterranean trade. And here may be the clincher. Another name for Ugarit (used by the Egyptians) was IKAT (very close to Akkad). Nimrod’s city of Akkad was, I believe, a Mediterranean port city, and it - contrary to Dr. Albright (his Calneh theory) - was not actually situated in the land of Shinar. Nimrod did not necessarily found any of these ancient sites, but he built upon them. All of my four (i-iv) proposed candidates (tentative or otherwise) for Nimrod’s first cities will be sites going right back to (with the possible exception of Terqa) the agricultural and farming age (Neolithic) - appropriate to Noah and his descendants. My four choices were all strategic ancient capitals, key strongholds and trade locations. First humanity, coming away from the mountain of the Ark’s landing, Karaca dağ, would have arrived at early sites such as Göbekli Tepe; Ur; and Haran; and would then have moved off from there in all directions. The Cretans from Anatolia, for instance, quickly became a technologically advanced sea-faring people. The land of Shinar, with its waters, early loomed as an attractive prospect. Shem, who no longer appears textually linked to brothers Ham and Japheth, may well have been an eye-witness to the Babel incident that he has recorded (Genesis 11:1-10): “This is the toledôt of Shem”. But it needs to be understood that, prior to this famous event, humanity may already have been divided up into nations and languages (cf. Genesis 10:31-32). Perhaps Ham had already gone to Egypt, “the land of Ham” (Psalm 105:22 Douay), and his son, Cush, to Ethiopia (Kush). Dr. John Osgood has made a very interesting video on: Into Africa - The True History of Man - John Osgood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgAeRFNOOhM Southern Mesopotamia was apparently not yet habitable due to the Flood water levels. There are some intriguing debates amongst Creationists, including Dr. John Osgood and Kenneth Griffith (co-discoverer of Noah’s mountain as Karaca dağ) on southern and central Mesopotamia at this early time. These can be read at: https://answersresearchjournal.org/tower-of-babel/where-is-tower-babel-reply/ (iii and iv) Babel and Calneh Here, I shall be pinning a lot on the Septuagint version of Isaiah 10:9, which differs appreciably from the usual version according to which: ‘Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?’ These boastful words by the all-conquering Assyrian king Sargon II (Sennacherib) are translated somewhat differently in the Septuagint, with a clue to the Tower of Babel: ‘Have I not taken the country above Babylon and Chalanes, where the Tower was built?’ The name ‘Chalanes’ here is simply one of those several biblical variations for Nimrod’s Calneh, along with ‘Calno’, and ‘Canneh’ (Ezekiel 27:23). Two vital points arise from this Septuagint verse. Firstly, by substituting the usual Carchemish with Babylon, the text may be telling us exactly where Babylon was. It was Carchemish. Appropriately, Carchemish lies on a river, the Euphrates, and is situated in the approximate region of Shinar. We know from Daniel 1:2 that Babylon was in Shinar. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4027-carchemish “[Carchemish’s] importance seems to have been based on its situation at the end of the most direct route from the mouth of the Orontes to the Euphrates and to Harran”. Carchemish, which had treaty relationships with Ugarit (my Akkad), had a name which I think comes linguistically close to a common ancient name for Babylon(ia): Karduniash. The meaning of this last name is not really known. I have tentatively identified Karduniash also with the famous, but not firmly located, capital city of Tarhuntašša. Sargon II (Sennacherib) of Assyria initially had great plans for the famous Carchemish, according to Gianni Marchesi (2019, pp. 15-16): A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish (3) A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish [CORRECTED ONLINE VERSION] | Gianni Marchesi - Academia.edu …. In Karkemish, Sargon built not just a dwelling for his provincial governor, but a true royal palace where he stayed for a time and received tribute. In this connection, note the reference to the planting of what appears to be a botanical garden, an essential component of any Assyrian royal palace. Finally, the inauguration ceremony of his palace at Karkemish recalls well the inauguration cerimonies [sic]of Sargon’s palaces in the great Assyrian capitals of Kalhu and Dur-Sharrukenu. All this is quite telling of the great importance that Sargon attributed to Karkemish, putting the city on the Euphrates in a very special position. Apparently, it was Sargon’s intention that Karkemish would become more than a mere provincial capital, i.e., simply the seat of an Assyrian governor. Rather, because of its glorious past and strategic position, Karkemish was fully entitled to become a sort of western capital of the Assyrian Empire: a perfect place in which to display the grandeur of Assyria, and from which to control the western and north-western territories of the Empire. …. [End of quote] Archaeologists have identified a megaflood in the region - much later than the Noachic Flood - which they have put down to climate change. But might this flood which overwhelmed the region, including Carchemish’s ‘outer town’ of Jerablus (Tahtani), have been the work of the vindictive Sargon II (Sennacherib) who tells us that, regarding Babylon: ‘I devastated it with water so that it became a mere meadow’?: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/745/the-mutual-destruction-of-sennacherib--babylon/ I swiftly marched to Babylon which I was intent upon conquering. I blew like the onrush of a hurricane and enveloped the city like a fog. I completely surrounded it and captured it by breaching and scaling the walls. I did not spare his mighty warriors, young or old, but filled the city square with their corpses...I turned over to my men to keep the property of that city, silver, gold, gems, all the moveable goods. My men took hold of the statues of the gods in the city and smashed them. They took possession of the property of the gods. The statues of Adad and Shala, gods of the city Ekallati that Marduk-nadin-ahe, king of Babylonia, had taken to Babylon at the time of Tiglath Pileser … King of Assyria, I brought out of Babylon after four hundred and eighteen years. I returned them to the city of Ekallati. The city and houses I completely destroyed from foundations to roof and set fire to them. I tore down both inner and outer city walls, temples, temple-towers made of brick and clay - as many as there were - and threw everything into the Arahtu canal. I dug a ditch inside the city and thereby levelled off the earth on its site with water. I destroyed even the outline of its foundations. I flattened it more than any flood could have done. In order that the site of that city and its temples would never be remembered, I devastated it with water so that it became a mere meadow (Nagle, 26). “There on the poplars we hung our harps …”. We read in this report on Carchemish: https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/carchemishreport03brituoft/carchemishreport03brituoft.pdf “In the mass of debris against slabs B. 22 a and h there were charred pieces of poles, round in section, of a lightgrained wood resembling poplar; some of them were tilted up against the wall, others lay parallel to it. These must have been roofing-poles. The quantity of burnt wood lying on the ground-level underneath the brick rubble was very great”. Secondly, the way the Septuagint verse is worded, the Tower was built at “Chalanes”, not Babylon. This may be just a matter of the original wording being re-arranged, with Calno usually preceding Carchemish, whereas the Septuagint version has ‘Babylon and Chalanes, where the Tower was built’. Or, was it that the Tower was actually built in Calneh, and that Carchemish (original name?) became known as Babel (Babylon) afterwards due to its being the leading city of the Shinar region? Just a thought. But why I ask this question is because King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (c. 600 BC, conventional dating) will later appear to identify Borsippa, rather than Babylon, as the place of the Tower – which might also suggest, for the true location of Calneh, a Shinarian Borsippa. The similarly named (phonetically) trio Borsippa (not on map – 11 miles SW of Babylon), Sippar and Nippur are thought to have lain in fairly close proximity to Babylon in southern Mesopotamia. Interestingly, the uncertain (in that southern Mesopotamian region) Calneh has been traditionally connected with Nippur: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/calneh “At present there is no acceptable identification of Calneh, although the other cities mentioned together with it in Genesis are known from Akkadian inscriptions. No identification of Calneh can be made on the basis of the "land of Shinar," which serves in this instance, as elsewhere in the Bible, as a synonym for Babylonia (cf. Yoma 10a, which identifies Calneh with נופר, i.e., the modern Tell Nuffar, ancient Nippur, connecting this name with נינפי, i.e., nymphe; the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew כַּלָה, kallah, "bride")”. Nippur, Borsippa, are regarded as being sacred cities dependent upon Babylon with no independent hegemony, never the seat of a regional power. Could they be the same? And could they (it) equate to Nimrod’s Calneh? Here is what King Nebuchednezzar said about the Tower at Borsippa. It reads very much like Nimrod’s effort: https://armstronginstitute.org/125-nebuchadnezzars-tower-of-babel …. One thing Nebuchadnezzar isn’t generally known for, though, is a link with the tower of Babel—the attempt by Nimrod to build a tower up to heaven, dashed by God’s confounding of the languages (Genesis 11). A small handful of artifacts, however, help show an interesting link between Nebuchadnezzar and the biblical colossus. Birs Cylinders The Birs Cylinders are a series of clay cylinders dating to c. 600 b.c.e., discovered by Sir Henry Rawlinson during the mid-19th century at the Babylonian site of Borsippa. The cylinders, bearing parallel inscriptions, were found inserted into the walls of a massive, heavily damaged tower at the site. This tower—a type of the famous Mesopotamian religious ziggurats—had been heavily repaired during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. Bricks were found around the site, having been stamped with the name of the king. And the wall cylinders had an interesting story to tell. Rawlinson (known as the father of Assyriology) translated the inscriptions as follows: I am Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon … my great lord has established me in strength, and has urged me to repair his buildings … the Tower of Babylon, I have made and finished … the Tower of Borsippa had been built by a former king. He had completed 42 [cubits?], but he did not finish its head; from the lapse of time it had become ruined … the rain and wet had penetrated into the brickwork; the casing of burnt brick had bulged out … Merodach, my great lord, inclined my heart to repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did I destroy its foundation platform; but, in a fortunate month, and upon an auspicious day, I undertook the rebuilding … I set my hand to build it up, and to finish its summit. As it had been in ancient times, so I built up its structure …. As translated above, Nebuchadnezzar literally calls this monument the Tower of Babylon. (“Babylon” is interchangeable with Babel.) He describes this tower as an important ancient Babylonian edifice built by a “former king” that, for some reason or other, the workers stopped short in finishing—they “did not finish its head.” Why not? Some clue could be taken from the second name Nebuchadnezzar gives for this tower: the Tower of Borsippa. Borsippa literally means tongue tower, thus providing a link to language. Surely a significant linguistic event must have happened in order for Borsippa to receive its unique name? The Bible—as well as early secular histories—provide the explanation. Borsippa Ziggurat, a possible location of the Tower of Babel Yves GELLIE/Gamma-Rapho/ Getty Images There is another translation of this text that is even more direct in language. This one comes from Rawlinson’s contemporary Assyriologist, Julius Oppert. He translates a couple of lines slightly differently: … the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it … A former king built it—they reckon 42 ages [ago]—but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it without order expressing their words …. This translation calls this massive, unfinished tower the most ancient monument of Babylon. This fits squarely with the tower of Babel (Genesis 10:10; 11:4). And, if indeed more accurate, it provides an even stronger link to the language “phenomenon” at the tower of Babel, stating that sometime during this original building project the people had “abandoned it without order expressing their words.” Was this, then, the reason that the tower was named Borsippa—because a great “Babel” of “unordered words” led to the abandonment of the project? And what caused such a linguistic phenomenon, that such a rich and luxurious tower would be built and then abandoned, with only its upper “head” left to finish? The fascinating account on the cylinders—either translation—matches beautifully with the biblical record, found in Genesis 11:4, 6-9 (King James Version): And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven …. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language …. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth …. Borsippa today lies in ruins; however, the imposing remains of the ziggurat still tower to a height of 52 meters above the plain. Borsippa is also commonly known as Birs Nimrud, due to the strong traditional connection with Nimrod. Not only does Nebuchadnezzar describe, on these cylinders, a rebuilding of this tower, another of his inscriptions depicts what it may have looked like. Tower of Babel Stele (Smithsonian Channel screenshot) Smithsonian Channel/Christian News Network Tower of Babel Stele The Tower of Babel Stele is a black ceremonial stone, about 50 centimeters (20 inches) tall, discovered just over a century ago among the ruins of the city of Babylon. Since then, it has been kept as part of the private Norwegian Schøyen Collection. It has only recently been restudied, and the conclusions have led to great excitement in the scientific community, along with a corresponding video production by the Smithsonian Channel reexamining the authenticity of the Tower of Babel story. [End of quotes] Nimrod’s Calneh has proven somewhat troublesome for commentators. Taking Isaiah’s seemingly close association of Calneh with Babylon-Carchemish (10:9 Septuagint), and considering that it may be the original Borsippa-Nippur, then I would connect it with the almost identically named (as Borsippa) site of Til Barsip (see map). We may well find the name Borsippa reproduced in Til Barsip (modern Tall al-Ahmar), located about 20 kilometres south of Carchemish. Situationally, this accords very well with the conventional Borsippa (Birs Nimrud), which is located about 11 miles SW of Babylon. And both Til Barsip and Birs Nimrud are to be found to the east of the Euphrates River. Borsippa was closely connected with Babylon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsippa “Borsippa is mentioned, usually in connection with Babylon, in texts from the Third Dynasty of Ur through the Seleucid Empire and even in early Islamic texts. It is also mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 36a, Avodah Zarah 11b) and other rabbinic literature”. Akkadian culture Before proceeding to a consideration of the Babel incident itself, I need to return briefly to these phenomena: “The Akkadian kings were extensive builders, so why, then, so few traces of their work? Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad? Hopefully the second of these questions has now been answered (ii) Akkad (Agade) above. As to the first question, part of the answer may be that (as also argued above) the Akkadian dynasty - whilst being mighty and famous - was by no means as lengthy as is thought, with duplication (triplication?) occurring in the lists. As to the worrying lack of a stratigraphical culture, this may be due to chronological miscalculation. I have proposed that the brilliant Halaf culture (c. 6500-5500 BC, conventional dating), geographically most appropriate for the empire of Nimrod (including Nineveh, see map below) needs to be massively re-dated (lowered by some 4000 to 3000 years) to impact upon the Akkadian era (c. 2300 BC, conventional dating). Globalisation of the Babel Incident Shem writes in his toledôt history (Genesis 11:1-10): Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, ‘Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly’. They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth’. But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, ‘If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other’. So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. This is the account of Shem’s family line. As with the interpretation of any parts of early Genesis, idiom, original language, scribal methods, ancient customs, etc., all have to be taken into consideration. Idiom will be important here. Conservative scholars have a tendency to globalise the Flood and Babel incidents, with phrases such as “the whole earth” meaning for them the globe, and including everybody. The biblical scribes tended to think more locally. The whole earth, in the case of the Babel incident, for instance, could simply mean the whole region of Shinar. Nor is Babel probably all about language as tends to be concluded. Sam Boyd, finding similar sentiments to the Babel account in Sargon II’s Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription, has suggested that the point of the story is, not about a single language, but about speaking in harmony. In other words, the tyrant Nimrod had instigated a program to which his obedient (terrified?) subjects had conformed, as one. “Sargon's Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription and Language Ideology: A Reconsideration and Connection to Genesis 11:1-9”: (6) Sargon's Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription and Language Ideology: A Reconsideration and Connection to Genesis 11:1-9 | Sam Boyd - Academia.edu Sam Boyd writes: …. One of the foremost pieces of evidence in this discussion has been Sargon II’s Dūr-Šarrukīn cylinder inscription, in which he mentions the role of administrators and overseers in an attempt to consolidate his empire and allegedly to impose “one mouth” (pâ ištēn) on rebellious groups. The passage that has gained particular attention is the following, with phrases that will be important in the analysis below translated in boldface: …. Subjects of the four regions, foreign people, of non-harmonious speech, dwellers of mountains and lands, as many as the light of the gods, lord of all, guides, whom, by the order of Assur my lord, with the power of my scepter, I plundered. I made them act in concert, and I settled them in its (Dūr-Šarrukīn’s) midst. Natives of Assyria, masters of every craft, I dispatched them as overseers and officials to teach correct behavior, namely fear of god and king. …. … I claim that Genesis 11:1–9 is not a story about language, and rather that the idioms that have been translated as such concern political action and the authority to govern. I am not the first to argue so, noting especially Christoph Uehlinger’s groundbreaking 1990 study Weltreich und “eine Rede,” and works as old as Campegius Vitringa’s 17th century dissertation De confusione linguarum. My argument, however, diverges from Uehlinger’s analysis in three distinct ways—concerning the term pûm ištēn, the meaning of שׂפה, and diachronic considerations regarding the biblical text. Moreover, my explanation both uses more of a political than a personal lens than Virtringa’s interpretation, and makes better exegetical sense of Genesis 11:7 in particular. …. … Neo-Assyrian kings not only developed rhetoric, imagery, and literary and artistic motifs to provide justification to expand and to organize the empire, but, in doing so, also met with resistance. For example, texts from Sargon II’s time indicate a dissatisfaction with the king’s building campaign, specifically the Weidner Chronicle from Babylon. Several key elements of criticism correspond to themes in Genesis 11:1–9. As Marc Van de Mieroop argues, Assyrian kings had long taken credit for the construction of buildings, but did not ever claim credit for the founding of cities per se. The act of selecting the site for a new capital was the prerogative of the divine realm. In contrast, Sargon claimed credit for the identification of the location of his capital Dūr-Šarrukīn, comparing himself to the sage Adapa in the process, in addition to the construction of the capital buildings (part of a massive building campaign generally). Even the dimensions of the city contained proportions that called to mind his name, ensuring that the “measure of the city walls represents a numerical cryptographic writing of his name.” Yet the founding of the city had cosmological significance as well, and Sargon inscribed the language of creation from the Enūma Eliš in his description of his new capital. Sargon, then, not only created a parallel between himself and Adapa, but between himself and the creative acts of Marduk. This building act and the rhetoric that accompanied it was met with criticism. As Beate Pongraz-Leisten argues, “founding a new city was considered a primordial act of creation by the gods; when performed by a king, it was regarded as an act of hubris.” Indeed, the Babylonian Weidner Chronicle was likely written in the Neo-Assyrian period, possibly to criticize Sargon II’s building campaign. Given the themes that Uehlinger noted, the criticisms seen in the Weidner Chronicle attacking Sargon’s hubris for taking the divine right of founding a city has obvious correlations to the Tower of Babel episode. Indeed, just as the builders of the tower met with divine wrath, so also Sargon II’s untimely death was interpreted as an act of divine retribution in the “Sin of Sargon.” …. Other political transformations have also been identified during Sargon’s reign according to some scholars, most notably the use of Aramaic as a lingua franca. This innovation and a certain inscription that supposedly attests to it have also been connected to Genesis 11:1–9, as discussed below. …. Sargon II may so have admired Nimrod that he took his name, Sargon (‘True King’), and, as Nimrod may have imposed Akkadian, Sargon II did the same with Aramaïc: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/king-sargon-akkad#:~:text=Sargon%20sent%20Akkadian%20governors%20to,within%20Mesopotamia%20and%20well%20beyond. “Sargon sent Akkadian governors to rule Sumerian cities and tear down defensive walls. He left the Sumerian religion in place but made Akkadian the official language of all Mesopotamia [sic]. By lowering physical and linguistic barriers and unifying his realm, he promoted commerce both within Mesopotamia and well beyond”.