Are CMI Hearing Me? ·
Does Sennaar mean Sumer? ·
Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe ·
Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too ·
Sumeria, Damien Mackey, Intellectual Honour ·
Damien Mackey Has His View on Shinar, Nimrod and Babel
Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel
Damien Mackey, 9.IX.2024
https://www.academia.edu/123692973/Land_of_Shinar_Nimrod_and_the_Tower_of_Babel
First, Chronology:
“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 ).
That was according to a source cited by Damien:
Bible Study Tools : Antediluvian Chronology
https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/condensed-biblical-encyclopedia/antediluvian-chronology.html
Whether it really adds up to 1656 years or sth else, depends on the text version used. I would prefer the LXX, as this is the basis for the chronology given in the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day. Nominally, as per most manuscripts now extant, that makes the pre-Flood era 2242 years long, though arguably this involves a scribal error on when Methuselah fathered Lamech, making the real timespan 2262 years instead.
Since Babel is post-Flood, the more relevant chronology question however would be, the chronology after the Flood. Damien Mackey doesn't mention which text he goes by here. The text versions giving Masoretic equivalent chronology would have not just Flood in 1656 after Adam, but also Abraham born in 292 after the Flood. Unsurprisingly, the Roman Martyrology disagrees, as it goes by a LXX based chronology. It's 942 years after the Flood that Abraham is born. LXX minus second Cainan = Peleg is born 51 years after the death of Noah.
Second, Locality, Broadly as Directionality:
“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 (מִקֶּ֑דֶם), 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 quite different meaning is actually attested, Nehemiah and Psalms. But locally speaking, the most basic meaning is "from the east" and that is how old translations give Genesis 11:2. When a translation like "to the east" is correct, or even "eastward" is acceptable, the most literal meaning is "on the east side of" such and such a thing (Genesis 2:8, Genesis 12:8, Numbers 34:11).
The one exception would be Genesis 13:11, and one can see this as an extension of "on the east side of" since Abraham was staying in the place, we are dealing with choice between two directions, not simply a simple direction.
More Closely, the name Shinar:
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”.
It totally endorse the reasing of “country of two rivers”. But they didn't find "a plain of Shinar" or "a valley of Shinar", they found either a plain or a valley "in the land of Shinar" (בְּאֶ֥רֶץ שִׁנְעָ֖ר) — which would suggest we are dealing with a place where either a plain or a valley is between the two rivers, not around them.
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.
I would not consider there is any long tradition about the name Sumer. It was discovered in Cuneiform in the 19th C. Less than 200 years ago. Just the last tenth (or less) of 2000 years. Perhaps this looks like "long tradition" to someone well integrated into modern Academia, but I tend to try to integrate at least my thoughts, if not all of my feelings or decisions, with St. Thomas and St. Augustine, to access them more than usual, even when I do extensively consult moderns for matters of observable fact, and so less than 200 years looks like a short tradition to me.
I would however agree there is an etymological identity between the names. This does not mean they are the same place or have the same limits. 42°21′37″N 71°3′28″W is called Boston, but so is 52°58′26″N 0°01′17″W. But Lincolnshire and Massachusetts are very separate, so they are two different places, even if you didn't catch that from the coordinates. Again, North and South America with the Caribbean archipelago is a very much broader limit than just United States, most of which is in North America. However, both are referred to as "America" ...
I do not think that the Bible ever mentioned directly "Sumer" by name. If Ur Kasdim is the Ur dug up by Woolley, the Bible would mention a city that is in Sumeria, but it does not mention Sumer in that connexion, not even as Shinar. When Joshua looks back at the family history of Abraham with idolatry, Shinar is not mentioned. There is a Shinar in Joshua, but that's in chapter 7, as origin of a textile merchandise.
20 And Achan answered Josue, and said to him: Indeed I have sinned against the Lord the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done 21 For I saw among the spoils a scarlet garment exceeding good, and two hundred sicles of silver, and a golden rule of fifty sicles: and I coveted them, and I took them away, and hid them in the ground is the midst of my tent, and the silver I covered with the earth that I dug up
[Josue (Joshua) 7:20-21]
Hebrew has "of Shinar" rather than "scarlet." Now, Damien is going to quote Encyclopedia of the Bible again, then tweak it a little. I'll quote both, first
Encyclopedia of the Bible:
I. Use. 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).
Very wisely, Encyclopedia of the Bible makes "II. Identification" a separate issue.
I'll quote from that too:
In this way the LXX read “Babylonia” in Isaiah 11:11 and “land of Babylon” in Zechariah 5:11.
By this time, Babylonia was the Seleucid Empire, to which also North West Mesopotamia belonged. Now for Damien's take:
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?
I would actually argue, two different Babylons or Babels were both in Shinar. Nimrod's and Nebuchednezzar's. Like St. Botulf was not having a tea party in Iccanoe and the Colonists with the Tea Party weren't near the place which he had exorcised, so also Nimrod's and Nebuchadnezzar's Babel are two different places. That's why I consider
all of Mesopotamia as the primary meaning of Shinar.
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 ”.
The thing is, just because Terqa is in Mesopotamia, hence in Shinar, doesn't mean it is the actual city of Babylon. The dates given can be presumed to be carbon dates and are way too late for anything in Genesis 14. Genesis 14 carbon dates to 3500 BC. Amraphel did not reign in Terqa. Citing wiki on that city:
Based on ceramic and radiocarbon dating the inner wall was built c. 2900 B.C., the middle wall c. 2800 BC and the outer wall c. 2700 BC and the fortifications were in use until at least 2000 BC.
New blog on the kid: Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html
- 2900 BC
- 1756 BC
- 86.4346 pmC; dated 2956 BC
- 1734 BC
- 86.8913 pmC; dated 2884 BC
- (1756 + 1734 + 1734 + 1734) / 4 = 1740 BC
- (86.4346 + 86.8913 + 86.8913 + 86.8913) / 4 = 86.777125 pmC => 1150
- 1150 + 1740 = 2890 BC
- 2800 BC
- 1700 BC
- 87.575 pmC; dated 2800 BC
| | - 2700 BC
- 1700 BC
- 87.575 pmC; dated 2800 BC
- 1678 BC
- 89.4653 pmC; dated 2598 BC
- (1700 + 1678) / 2 = 1689
- (87.575 + 89.4653) / 2 = 88.52015 pmC => 1000
- 0.5^(1000/5730) => 88.606 pmC
- 1000 + 1689 = 2689 BC
- 2000 BC
- 1610 BC
- 95.2011 pmC; dated 2020 BC
|
Terqa's walls start when the Israelites have not yet arrived in Egypt and the latest certain use of them was before the Exodus. Nothing is as old as Genesis 14.
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”.
I obviously believe that the two rivers were Euphrates and Tigris, not Euphrates and Khabur. Khabur is within the general limits of Shinar, but does not of itself define any limit.
Here is where Damien considers he has his silver bullet:
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”.
Part of the exiles certainly went to Chobar, since Haydock says so:
Chobar, or Aboras, which runs westward into the Euphrates, above Thapsacus. (Strabo)
Yes, Haydock agrees, since the
wiki for Khabur does mention the forms Aborrhas (Ἀβόρρας) and Aburas (Ἀβούρας).
I have no beef with Ezechiel being in the Khabur area. However, I have not seen Babylon in Ezechiel refer to the place where the prophet went. In the OT of the Douay Rheims, the mentions of Babylon 226 to 243 belong to Ezechiel, a total of 18, and most of them involve "king of Babylon" which, when I search it has mentions beginning Ezechiel on 118 and ending them on 129. A total of 12 mentions. The remaining six mentions of "Babylon" are
also not referring to where Ezechiel was:
- [Ezechiel 12:13]
- And I will spread my net over him, and he shall be taken in my net: and I will bring him into Babylon, into the land of the Chaldeans, and he shall not see it, and there he shall die.
- [Ezechiel 17:16]
- As I live, saith the Lord God: In the place where the king dwelleth that made him king, whose oath he hath made void, and whose covenant he broke, even in the midst of Babylon shall he die.
- [Ezechiel 17:20]
- And I will spread my net over him, and he shall be taken in my net: and I will bring him into Babylon, and will judge him there for the transgression by which he hath despised me.
- [Ezechiel 23:15]
- And girded with girdles about their reins, and with dyed turbans on their heads, the resemblance of all the captains, the likeness of the sons of Babylon, and of the land of the Chaldeans wherein they were born,
- [Ezechiel 23:17]
- And when the sons of Babylon were come to her to the bed of love, they defiled her with their fornications, and she was polluted by them, and her soul was glutted with them.
- [Ezechiel 23:23]
- The children of Babylon, and all the Chaldeans, the nobles, and the kings, and princes, all the sons of the Assyrians, beautiful young men, all the captains, and rulers, the princes of princes, and the renowned horsemen.
When I make a search on Chobar, I only find hits in other chapters than 12, 17 and 23. There are 8 hits in the entire Bible, and all from Ezechiel.
"Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, when I was in the midst of the captives by the river Chobar, the heavens were opened, and I saw the visions of God.
[Ezechiel 1:1]
"The word of the Lord came to Ezechiel the priest the son of Buzi in the land of the Chaldeans, by the river Chobar: and the hand of the Lord was there upon him.
[Ezechiel 1:3]
"And I came to them of the captivity, to the heap of new corn, to them that dwelt by the river Chobar, and I sat where they sat: and I remained there seven days mourning in the midst of them.
[Ezechiel 3:15]
"And I rose up, and went forth into the plain: and behold the glory of the Lord stood there, like the glory which I saw by the river Chobar: and I fell upon my face.
[Ezechiel 3:23]
"And the cherubims were lifted up: this is the living creature that I had seen by the river Chobar.
[Ezechiel 10:15]
"This is the living creature, which I saw under the God of Israel by the river Chobar: and I understood that they were cherubims.
[Ezechiel 10:20]
"And as to the likeness of their faces, they were the same faces which I had seen by the river Chobar, and their looks, and the impulse of every one to go straight forward.
[Ezechiel 10:22]
"And I saw the vision according to the appearance which I had seen when he came to destroy the city: and the appearance was according to the vision which I had seen by the river Chobar: and I fell upon my face.
[Ezechiel 43:3]
All four chapters that include Chobar lack the word Babylon entirely.
I think we can conclude very safely that Ezechiel a) saw Chobar with his mortal eyes, and b) did
not see Babylon with his mortal eyes.
Khabur is therefore pretty worthless as a location for Babylon, the city. Probably Damien concluded from the phrase "Babylonian captivity" that the Jews were all deported to the one single city of Babylon. On the contrary, it would make sense for the imperialist power to disperse them into different locations, so as to avoid too many Jews in any single place, just as with all the other minorities of conquered and deported peoples.
This gives us
yet another reason to not believe that Protestant reading of Apocalypse 18, since "Get out of her" cannot refer to the Reformation, as in the already undoubtedly real example many Jews were never in Babylon in the first place, and never had to heed those words by Isaias and Jeremias. That includes Jeremias himself, in Jerusalem, but also Ezechiel, on the river Chobar, which is now called Khabur. Hence, any Reformer who suspected that Rome of the Renaissance Popes might be Babylon would have needed to ask "where are the faithful who never got involved in Roman Catholicism?"
But, Khabur per se is no clue as to the Shinar of Genesis 11. Nor any reason to doubt that the city of Nebuchadnezzar was the one that Claudius Rich, Sir Henry, 1st Baronet Rawlinson, Robert Koldewey and Walter Andrae dug at.
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).
This is much better, and the corner of the map is closeish to the Turkish-Syrian border near which I place the actual Babel.
Person: Sargon of Akkad?
Damien Mackey gives a long discussion. I would rather agree with Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White that Sargon was the man who removed Babel from Subartu (in Eastern parts of modern Turkey) to the site formerly known as Akkad,
renamed Babilu.
Archaeology:
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).
The dates for the Halaf culture would recalibrate as:
- 2386 BC
- 60.477 pmC; dated 6536 BC
- ...
- 2250 BC
- 67.323 pmC; dated 5500 BC
However Ham, Kush, Nimrod ~
Shem, Arphaxad, Saleh or
Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan (II). In the latter case, Cainan died 595 after the Flood, 2363 BC. In the former case Saleh or Shela died 597 after the Flood, 2361 BC. The Halaf culture, according to my calculations would actually start twenty years before Nimrod dies.
In either case, this is well after the birth of Peleg BECAUSE I calibrated that one onto the end of GÖbekli Tepe.
Now, was there a Nineveh in the times when I propose Nimrod was active? Well, yes.
Qermez Dere.
Radiocarbon dating has estimated that Qermez Dere was built between c. 8500 BC and 7900 BC.
- 8500 BC
- 2573 BC
- 48.992 pmC; dated 8473 BC
- 7900 BC
- 2556 BC
- 51.76 pmC; dated 8006 BC
| | - 2539 BC
- 52.64 pmC; dated 7839 BC
- (2556 + 2539) / 2 = 2547 BC
- (51.76 + 52.64) / 2 = 52.2 pmC => 5350
- 5350 + 2547 = 7897 BC
|
It covers an area of about 100 metres (330 ft) x 60 metres (200 ft) and forms a 2 metres (6.6 ft) tall tell. The buildings were made of primitive Mudbricks, which is not a perennial material, and are mostly destroyed, however archaeologists have excavated a one-room structure in good shape.
I am noting, while the persons involved in Genesis 11:3 wanted to do baked bricks, the author just says they had bricks. Perhaps the mudbricks are due to a failure to actually produce bricks baked in fire.
Globality:
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.
Lots of things can be said about Graham Hancock's actual beliefs and conclusions, but one thing he gets right: Göbekli Tepe actually
has global connexions. Birdmen in Oceania and horizontal figure eights in Australia. I'd add (based on other researchers in Göbekli Tepe's bloody régime) the belief of punishing Condors in the Andes. Damien refers to Sam Boyd, whom I'll have to look up later.
For globality of the Flood, I have probably figured out what Damien meant by pretending the limpit of waters precludes the globality of the Flood:
When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits: when he balanced the foundations of the earth;
[Proverbs 8:29]
Damien reads this (or a parallel verse in Psalms) as implying the waters of Noah's flood had a limit they couldn't pass. I consider the verse refers to what happened
after the Flood, the limit of the waters is a synonym with the promise in Genesis 9:11
after the Flood. If this is true, then the balancing of the foundations refers to tectonic movements
after the Flood, or to folding of mountains
after the Flood.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Omer of Therouanne
9.IX.2024
In territorio Tarvanensi, in Gallia, sancti Audomari Episcopi.
