Babylon in Egypt

The existence of a place called Babylon in Ancient Egypt, not poetically or spiritually but as it's literal official name, is a pretty fascinating subject.  Babylon in Egypt was also the embryo of the city now known as Cairo, the Capital of Modern Egypt and religiously important to both Muslims in Egypt and Coptic Christianity.

Speculation that this could be relevant to Biblical uses of the name Babylon mostly focus on 1 Peter 5:13's usage, since Marcus/Mark is said to be with him in the same verse and tradition says Mark went to Egypt.  But I'm as skeptical of the Mark in Egypt traditions as I am the Peter in Rome and John in Ephesus traditions.  My theory is the Christian Community of Alexandria was largely founded in the late 1st or early 2d century by Christians from Cyprus and their particular interest in Mark and Barnabas comes from their connection to Cyprus.  I think Peter and Mark were in Seleucia on the Tigris when that Epistle was written.

For New Testament relevance I've actually become very interested in Babylon in Egypt possibly explaining the use of the name in Revelation.

The main argument against this that isn't more an argument for Babylon being somewhere else would be that the only explicit reference to Egypt in Revelation is calling the "Great City" Spiritually Sodom and Egypt in chapter 11, with "Spiritually" in a context like this being presumed to be mutually exclusive to literally or geographically, and elsewhere The Great City is explicitly Babylon.  I have two responses to that.

1st from a certain POV you could almsot argue actual Egypt was only still Egyptian Spiritually by this point, the land had been increasingly colonized by the various Empires of Daniel 2&7 and their native languages were on the decline being largely only still used for Religious purposes, yet Egyptian Paganism still thrived both in Egypt and throughout the Empire.

2nd is that I feel the relationships between certain key terms in Revelation are not as geographically synonymous as a casual reading assumes, and that some relate to each other more abstractly.  The Babylon Fortress was from 30 BC onwards a Roman Military fortress, it was central to how Rome enforced it's military might in the region.  The fact is a significant number of the Roman troops involved in the 66-73 AD Jewish-Roman War were probably troops who had been stationed in the Babylon Fortress before it started.

So this view need not conflict with arguments for Babylon being Rome, the Seven Hilled City of Revelation 17 I still believe refers to the Seven Hills of Rome.  I stand by my argument for how the Great City of Revelation 11 could be Rome and for the Roma Cult argument that the Woman of Revelation 17 is the people of Rome no matter where they dwell.  The Beast is definitely still the Roman Empire.  Or "Great City" could refer to different cities in different contexts, sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes Rome and sometimes Babylon in Egypt.

But before I return to Revelation I want to speculate on how even some Hebrew Bible references to Babylon could be this Babylon in Egypt.  

The origins of there being a settlement in Egypt called Babylon do predate the Roman Fortress and possibly go back to Babylonian Refugees in Egypt during the time of Assyria's Conquests contemporary with King Hezekiah of Judah and thus also the Prophets Micah and Isaiah.  Based on the conclusions of my Languages of the Table of Nations theories the language of the Babylonians was a Canaanite Language, so Babylon in Egypt could be one of those Five Cities from Isaiah 19.

The Biblical chapter divisions we're used to aren't in the original text, the famous Bethlehem Prophecy of Micah 5 is actually in the context of Micah 4 which refers to the Migdal Eder and Zion.  Micah 4:10 has the Daughter of Zion after giving birth go to Babylon, well Christians know this was actually fulfilled by going to Egypt, both with Mary in Matthew 2 and then the people as a whole after being conquered by Titus, Josephus says Titus stopped at Alexandria with his Captives on the way to Rome and then once at Rome started his Triumph in the Temple of Isis.  Latter after the Fall of Masada the surviving Zealots go to Egypt to rile things up there.  This arguably also fulfills the prophecy of Israel returning to Egypt in Hosea 8:13-9:3.

In the time of Isaiah this Babylon in Egypt was possibly a settlement of ethnic Babylonians (like a little Italy or a Chinatown) so Isaiah could have referred to them in Ethnic terms, he could have called them the Daughter of Babylon for the same reason he called Tyre the daughter of Sidon.

Ezekiel 20:36 justifies calling the land of Egypt a wilderness fitting the third verse of Revelation 17.  And Ezekiel 23 associated Egypt with the theme of Israel's Idolatry as Spiritual Whoredom/Adulatory which is another theme Revelation 17 is drawing on.

What really compels me though is the possibly of the Babylon of Isaiah 13-14 being a Babylon in Egypt thus justifying placing the Seat/Throne of Satan in Egypt.  I've already talked on this blog about how I now view the King of Babylon of Isaiah 14 as having never been a mortal ruler but always a title of Heylel ben Shachar.

Sobek was often depicted as with Isis healing the murdered Osiris.  Sobek's association with Ra which became his main form during Ptolemaic and Roman times could explain why The Dragon of Revelation 12 is Red since Ra is usually depicted as a Red Sun rather then Yellow.  And that association with The Sun also provides relevance to the Babylon fortress being in the area of Heliopolis.

When people say the reason Rome is called Babylon in Revelation was to try and hide what they were talking about from Romans who might happen to read it I get annoyed.  What makes Babylon in some sense Rome is entirely Rome's own self identification, no Patriotic Roman reading the text would see chapter 17 refer to a City on Seven Hills with Seven Kings and fail to recognize that. It is attempts to find an alternate Sola Scriptura explanation for those symbols that leads one away from Rome and to Daniel 7 and other prophecies referencing the same animals or symbolic Harlots.  It is studying the Hebrew Bible references being drawn on that points one to Egypt as the secret actual focus of the narrative, if it's not as straight forward as simply being Babylon or more broadly Iraq.

For more Egyptian Relevance to Revelation beyond just Babylon read this follow up post.

https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2023/02/patmos-was-actually-pithom-in-egypt.html

The Three Faces of Eve in The Book of Revelation

I have come to view The Woman of Revelation 12, the Harlot of Revelation 17, The Bride of Christ in Revelation 19 and The Lamb's Wife in Revelation 21 as the same Symbolic Woman.  I'd stated that on this Blog before but I feel it needs restating, most posts I've done before on any of these personages are pieces in putting this puzzle together.

Most theologians who would say something like this are not Futurists like I am but more taking an Idealist view of Revelation like Peter Heitt.  Pre-Trib/PreWrath Dispensationalists tend to view there as being three women (everyone agrees that the Bride and the Wife at the same), while Post-Trib Futurists prefer to see the Bride and the Mother in Revelation 12 as the same but the Harlot as still an irredeemable enemy who simply dies when she is killed.

I believe in Universal Salvation, the Metanarrative of Scripture is that Israel was Widowed and Divorced because of her Adulatorous Harlotry but YHWH is going to Redeem and Remarry her just like Hosea and Gomer, He will Restore Judah and Samaria and even Sodom as Ezekiel 16 clearly states, Ezekiel 27 returns to those themes, this cycle was first laid out in Deuteronomy 29-30 and is reaffirmed in Malachi chapter 3 and Romans 11.

The Dispensationalist view on the Women of Revelation happens to resemble The Three Faces of Eve Trope, which is an analysis of the concept that Patriarchal Society tends to see women in only 3 roles, a faithful Wife/Mother, a Harlotrous Seductress, or a Innocent Virgin/Child.  Of course my making all three the same woman can also be seen as an example of that trope.  Except that usually as stages in the character development of one character it goes in the opposite direction, you start as an innocent, then get sexually active, then settle down, The Woman of Revelation is introduced giving birth and ends the story as a Virgin.

As an Anime Weirdo, this reading of the Book of Revelation factors into why a number of my favorite Anime are shows where one of the principal Villains is also the Damsel in Distress at the same time, stories where saving the Villainess is the Heroes' emotionally most important objective, the World being Saved in the process is just an added bonus, like how Ezekiel 16 frames the restoration of Sodom as being because it'd be unfair to save Israel but not Sodom, and Roman 11 clarified that it's not till the FULLNESS of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel that ALL Israel shall be Saved.

Pretear and a number of other Magical Girl stories fit this to varying degrees. SSSS.Gridman was one of the shows that first made me see this as a common theme. It's also a big part of Robotics;Notes and Chaos;Child, one could debatably see Utena and Princess Tutu as fitting too.  Oh and Future Diary counts as well, but be warned that one is an edgy and trashy ride to get there.  [Update April 2023: Now that I've finally watched it I can add Re:Creators to this list.]

It would naturally spoil these shows a bit to go into detail, maybe you feel I've spoiled them by mentioning they do this at all, but I didn't say which characters this applied to.  And SSSS.Gridman is a show that isn't good because anything was a surprise, if you're at all Genre Savvy it was clear from episode 1 where it was going.  In Robotics;Notes it is also clear early on to the audience that Misaki Senomiya has become a villain in the present, how and why is the mystery.  It's Misaki who perhaps best fits the relevance here, she's the older sister of the Female Protagonist and informally basically of the Male Protagonist as well, which is similar to being a mother.

I'm sure there are stories that do this with a male character as well if you want to see these Gender norms subverted, it's just Anime Girls are who I'm most drawn to personally.

These are often exactly the Anime that lend themselves to Bring Me To Life AMVs.

But I should mention in some of these shows the character in questions is not the only villain or even only major villain, there sometimes still is an Unrepentant Pure Evil Antagonist that an infernalsit viewer could view as representing the Reprobate or Satan.

Seleucia on The Tigris is Babylon of 1 Peter 5:13.

Seleucus Nicator founded Seleucia in 305 BC, in order to quickly make it a Metropolis he forced most of the population of Babylon to resettle there, there is a tablet dated to 275 BC recording this.  It spent very little time as the actual Capitol of the Seleucid Empire, but it did spend most of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC as a larger city then Antioch.

Diogenes of Babylon was a Stoic Philosopher commonly referred to as being "of Babylon" but he was actually born in Seleucia and neither city is where he spent most of his life, he was educated in Athens and obviously mostly lived there during his time as head of the Stoic School based in Athens until he died around 150-140 BC.

1 Maccabees 6:4 and 2 Maccabees 8:20 call a City in Mesopotamia Babylon even though it's population is Macedonian.

In 141 BC the Parthian Empire took it from the Seleucids and made it their western capital, but it remained a fully Hellenistic city.

Josephus's references to the city confirm that even the remaining Jewish diaspora of Babylon were in fact mostly living in Seleucia during the first century.  The Jews of Seleucia and other northern Mesopotamian cities revolted during the Kitos War. That of course was a factor in Trajan destroying the City in it's original form in 117 AD.

Hadrian gave Babylonia back to Parthia however and they then quickly rebuilt Seleucia in a Parthian style.  That version of the city was destroyed by Avidius Cassius during another war between Rome and Parthia in 165 AD.  It then became a Sassanian city commonly called Seleucia-Ctesiphon.  This city became the seat of the leading Bishop of the Ancient Church of The East who was formally called the Patriarch of Babylon.

If people really find it so unlikely Peter was in actual Babylon when he wrote his First Epistle simply because some first century sources make it sound like it was a mostly abandoned ruin already, then Seleucia is probably where he was.  It was home to an important Jewish population and Paul calls Peter the Apostle to The Jews in Galatian 2:8.

The idea that Peter said "Babylon" in place of "Rome" to fool Roman officials who might read the letter is stupid.  

1. He doesn't actually say anything bad about where he is, it's only the negative connotations the name of Babylon often has in the Judeo-Christian mind that makes it seem that way.

2. Roman customs officials would have known where the letter was actually mailed from.  So using an easy to interpret as insulting name instead of the real name would have only caused problems.

If Peter meant by Babylon a city other then the exact same city where Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar ruled, it would have been the one other similar Greek texts were calling Babylon during the Greco-Roman Era due to being the regional capital and largest city of the region called Babylonia.

Thyatira, Daughter of Jezebel

I have a complicated relationship with the Seven Church Ages view of Revelation 2-3.  What I've been doing lately is trying to develop my own modified form of it, that's almsot more of a genealogy then a Timeline, but also it's fluidity allows the eras to overlap.  But I still consider any such view less important then the idea that at any time there are some Churches that fit all of these descriptions.

When I was most hostile to the idea I emphasized it as tied to a Western Bias in looking at Church History.  And Thyatira being both the Roman Catholic and Medieval Church was vital to how I painted it that way  But as a student of History I should have known better.  The Catholic Church did impact the lands of The Bible during the Middle Ages, and that impact is still felt today.

One aspect of that is the Maronite Church which claims to have always been in Communion with Rome and is still the dominant form of Christianity in Lebanon.

However The Crusades are the bigger deal.  Catholic Kingdoms ruled Jerusalem for nearly a Century and places like Cyprus, Acre and Antioch for longer.  Then the Fourth Crusade had Latins take over much of the Eastern Empire's territory.  The Cities of the Seven Churches themselves always remained part of the Greek Empire of Nicaea, but the Catholic Empire was near by.  And then the Knights Hospiltars' rule of Rhodes gave them presence in the Eastern Mediterranean till after The Reformation started.

And since then the Maronites have become no longer the only Eastern Rite Catholic Church.  The Melkite Greek Catholics are the majority of Christians in Modern Israel, and the Chaldean Catholic Church are the Majority of Christians in Iraq, something that should perhaps be considered more often in the Mystery Babylon and Papal Antichrist debates.

Protestants seeing Catholicism in this message tend to overlook the good things that are said about them.  And indeed the good things said about Thyatira are the good things that can be said about Catholics even today.  Maybe not the Church Hierarchy as an institution, but many individual Catholics and local Parishes do take seriously the Church's mandate to give to the poor and care for the sick better then most Protestants, especially in the modern U.S. who've gotten wrapped up in that Prosperity nonsense.

This Church getting the longest message is often used to justify it getting the longest time period in the Seven Ages view.  While it has the longest message it's not half the total.  The modified version I'm considering would begin the Thyatira era with Pope Gregory I and ends Pergamos's primacy with the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 and then begin Sardis with the preaching of John Ball and John Wycliff in the 1370s and ends Thyatira primacy with the death of Mary Queen of Scots.  So it still has more of the timeline then anyone else.

It is the figure of Jezebel in the message who is the most enigmatic.  With even speculation on the original 1st-2nd century local context being unsure what to make of her.  Later Church history doesn't seem to associate any female Prophets false or otherwise with this city, the Montanists claimed their prophetic lineage from Philadelphia.  Scholars even disagree on if the intent is to reference the Old Testament personage or if this was an individual literally named Jezebel.

The Anti-Paul cultists out there have from time to time thrown out the idea that this Jezebel is Lydia of Thyatira from Acts 16.  There is no real evidence of that besides she's a woman linked to both this location and Paul and these people are determined to believe all the bad things said in these 2 chapters are directed at Paulian Christianity. 

The association of this message with Protestant criticisms of Catholicism has often resulted in this Jezebel being associated with The Catholic view of Mary, sometimes specifically that this is referring to a Demonic Entity that is behind those Marian Apparitions.  However I feel Jesus is definitely referring to a flesh and blood female Human claiming the office of Prophet.  But eschatologically it could be applicable to multiple false Prophets who've filled this role over the ages.

Perhaps my most controversial Hot Take on the applicability of this prophecy is that maybe if Thyatira is Catholicism then Jezebel is Jeanne d'Arc? (Joan of Arc for uninformed Anglophones, I only got used to the proper pronunciation because of all the Anime she pops up in.)

I get annoyed every time Protestants try to claim her as some kind of Proto-Protestant (including one website I read on the Historicist view of Thyatira), she actually called for a Crusade agaisnt the Hussites, the actual Proto-Protestants of 15th Century Europe. She was in fact both religiously and politically conservative and even reactionary.  In fact I don't think any woman living in 15th century Europe would be more hostile to modern Feminism.  And again I don't think any of the talk of "Fornication" in this chapter or 17-18 is actually about Sex, the Greek word is a word for prostitution but in my view is here about spiritual whoredom, i.e. Idolatry.  Catholic Idolatry was something Jeanne promoted in claiming specifically Catholic Saints talked to her in her visions.

But that is by no means my only or even main theory.

I think the reason people are confused by the name dropping of Jezebel is because we don't properly think of Old Testament Jezebel as someone claiming to be a Prophetess.  But the role of Prophet Biblically is not just about giving predictive Prophecies or even for claiming to have directly communicated with God, it's being a forth teller of God's word.  And there are in that case two types of false Prophets, those who attribute false words to the True God, and those who promote false gods.  Jezebel was the chief False Prophet of her era because she was leading the propagation of Baal Worship.  

The Prophetess of Isaiah 8 was in my opinion probably the wife of Uzziah and mother of Hezekiah.  And while Biblically the word Prophetess is never used of her Jewish tradition does call David's Wife Abigail a Prophetess because she did Prophesy.  That's two precedents for a Prophetess of YHWH being a Queen-Consort of the House of David, so the Queen-Consort of Ahab being his False Prophetess rhymes quite nicely.

My reading of Jezebel does have a bit in common with what I said of Jeanne d'Arc above.  Even though she was a woman who held power, she and her daughter Athaliah I see as conservative women driven by a lot of internalized misogyny.  So I am a bit annoyed that a certain famous Feminist website has named itself after her.  I get it, they don't want to give The Bible the benefit of the doubt on Gender issues so see it as empowering to embrace a Biblical Villainess.  But I do believe The Bible's historical narrative allows more nuance then people realize, that some Heroes aren't Lionized as unconditionally as we assume, and that some villains it is okay to emphasize or sympathize with.  Jezebel and Athaliah are simply the worst to claim as Feminist icons, Delilah I actually like but what most people assume about her is also off.  Even Athaliah would be better since she was a Queen-Regent and not another example of the trope of a woman wielding power because of who she's screwing or is related to, she even tried to massacre her own grandchildren to be rid of that pretense.

Back to Revelation chapter 2.  Since the name itself is a point of contention, I decided to look at the Greek text.  The Greek spelling is Iezabel.  That spelling makes perfect sense to me as a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Iyzebel.  But I'm also struck by how much it resembles the Romance Language European names Isabel/Isabella and other variants.

The Wikipedia page for the name Isabel/Isabella says they are forms of Elizabeth.  But that seems utterly ridiculous to me.  As if Catholic Europe doesn't want to admit how often they've been unwittingly naming their daughters after one of The Bible's notorious villains.

The most famous Isabella is Isabelle of Aragon the first Queen of Spain, who the Catholic Church does highly revere, giving her the title "The Catholic".  She hasn't been made a Saint yet, but remember Jeanne wasn't canonized till the 20th Century, it can take awhile.  She died just before the Reformation but among her children and grandchildren were the fiercest Catholic political opponents of the Reformation, they include two Holy Roman Emperors and Bloody Mary.

However since I earlier defined this era as tied to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, perhaps I should look to figures who lived then.  The sin of Jezebel in Revelation 2 is Iconophilia, which prevailed at this council.

Empress Irene was the major political force behind the Council.  What's interesting is how much her biography resembles Athaliah rather then Jezebel.  She was first a Queen-Consort, then Queen-Mother and then Queen-Regent, and was in the end overthrown by a Coup.  But I suppose the only part that doesn't also apply to Jezebel is being an actual ruling Queen.

Update February 18th 2023:

I've argued earlier on this blog for Revelation being written during the reign of Hadrian.  And it has now occurred to me that perhaps many Jews and Christians during that era saw Empress Pompeia Plotina, as a Jezebel figure.  She was the wife of Trajan and by adoption Mother of Hadrian, she's the only Roman empress known to have been also deified in Egypt, and in Rome she was associated with Virgin Goddesses like Vesta and Minerva.  She held the title of Augusta and there are coins depicting her, she lived until at least 121 AD so a few years into the reign of Hadrian, and she was deified in Rome after her death.

Update March 5th 2023: 

I'm adding this update because I read Fred Harding's The Apocalypse Deception, I wrote a review of the Book on Amazon but it hasn't gone live yet, I find it interesting but have to reject it's main thesis which is that The Revelation is a Satanic False Prophecy.  But it's relevant here because there is a whole sub chapter on Thyatira.

First I did mention above that some people read the text as saying this Woman was literally named Jezebel, however I always considered that unlikely and had pretty much ruled it out before I bought this book.  But Harding is presuming there is no other reading in order to make Revelation seem nonsensical and ridiculous.  This chapter of Revelation already established that Hebrew Bible names will come up symbolically.

The teachings of Jezebel are basically the same as what's called the Doctrine of Balaam in the message to Pergamos.  But why use a different Biblical villain here when the text reused the name of Nicolaitans for a different doctrine?  It's because of the different context, Pergamos was a center of the Imperial Cult so the imagery of Idolatrous Adultery with a Foreign Pagan King was mot potent there.  In Thyatira the source of the Corruption is seemingly more internal, and the very name of Thyatira makes using a female symbolic figure who was a daughter of a Canaanite King poetically fitting.

Harding as a Hyper-Paulian asks why Jesus didn't just tell them to excommunicate this Jezebel, at which point I get confused because the entire Jezebel part of the message begins with Jesus saying "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel", I really don't know what he thinks that sentence is saying other then "You need to excommunicate her".

He also claims there is no other evidence there ever was a Christian Community in Thyatira in the Pre-Nicene era, but claims this only of Thyatira of these seven which I find odd.  Four of these cities are never explicitly mentioned (at least by this same name) elsewhere in The New Testament, Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis and Philadelphia.  Thyatira is missing from Polycrates letter on the Quartodeciman controversy but so are Pergamos and Philadelphia.  As far as the lack of a documented line of Bishops, I think all of these traditional lines from Eusebius are exaggerated because he wanted to push Episcopal polity further back into history then it actually existed, Thyatira may have not had it precisely because it was the most Paulian and Paul intended Church government to be Congregational with Presbyterian characteristics, Episcopal Polity came from the Heretic Igantius.  But the Traditional identification for Philadelphia doesn't have any known Bishops prior to the time of Constantine either.

Acts absolutely does depict Paul as visiting the general area of where Thyatira is but without naming specific cities on his third journey, and a native of Thyatira living in Philipi was converted previously.  It's highly unlikely a Paulian community wasn't established here.  Revelation 2 predicts Great Tribulation to fall on Jezebel and her followers in the near future, maybe those of the Thyatira Church who survived that simply moved elsewhere.

Also Lydia was a Merchant, that job required traveling, and we know independent of Acts 16 that Thyatira was important to the Trade of Purple during this period.  So it doesn't mater that we're never explicitly told she had ever traveled back to her hometown, her job basically required her to do so regularly.  

The Wikipedia page for Thyatira (titular see) mentions a second century Bishop named Carpus.  And there was also a Bishop representing Thyatira at Nicaea I, Chalcedon and Nicaea II the Ionophilic Council.

By the Third Century the city was a stronghold of the Montanist sect (my source on that being Epiphaninius Adv Haer LI 33) which did involve prominent Prophetesses.  Montanus was also said to have began his ministry in an unidentified town of Mysia, Thyatira I'd referred to above as Lydian but it was also arguably part of Mysia, sometimes placed right on the border between them. Maybe Montanus's claim to Prophetic succession from Amia of Philadelphia was a lie to obscure actually inheriting his prophetic lineage from the false prophetess of Thyatira?  On the other hand the Montanists seem opposite to what Jezebel was teaching since they were proto-Donatists opposing letting the Lapsi back into the Church while "Jezebel" was basically saying it's okay to Lapse. Maybe they were a movement formed after the time of this "Jezebel" as a reaction going in many ways in the opposite direction?  And of course people who like the Montanists could consider seeing them as those praised in the Message for not following Jezebel.

Speaking of the very concept of Prophetesses, Harding also in this part of the book engages in the typical Patriarchal abuse of 1 Timothy 2:12 which I've addressed in multiple posts on my other blog, Neither Male of Female and it's follow up, Women Pastors, ect and may address further in the future.  But it's also amusing that's he's willing to engage in this criticism of the established Canon, including breaking down stylistic reasons Revelation can't share an author with the other books attributed to an author named John, but then builds so much of this argument on the most disputed Epistle of Paul.

I intend to make a future post on broader claims of incompatibility between Paul and Revelation in the future, I'll maybe say more on Harding then.

I do want to elaborate on why Thyatira has it's name.  The city existed before Seleucus I Nicator but in 290 BC he renamed it to celebrate learning his wife had given birth to a Daughter.  Seleucus was the successor of Alexander who initially specifically inherited just Babylonia, he conquered everything else from there.  Meanwhile one of the names Thyatira is said to have had before this is Semiramis the Greek form of the name of an Assyrian Queen who Greek legendary histography exaggerated into being the founder of Babylon. Five verses of the Hebrew Bible refer to a "Daughter of Babylon", Psalm 137:8, Isaiah 47:1, Jeremiah 50:42, 51:33 and Zechariah 2:7.  Some imagery of the discussion of Jezebel is repeated when discussing Mystery Babylon in chapter 17.  So there could be a Poetic connection there.

Thyatira also may have been a city that was already Greek before the time of Alexander, I'm not sure if that means anything, but like Pergamon and Smyrna it would have been specifically an Aeolian colony. 

It's also interesting that today Thyatira has a Catholic Titular See not a Greek Orthodox one when in general this is an historically Orthodox region.  

Erbil as the original Babel

I'm perhaps the first person to propose this theory, but I think it's interesting.

Archeologists have considered Erbil to be a candidate for the title of oldest continually inhabited city on Earth.  Biblically that City should be Babel.

The name of that city today is commonly given as Erbil or Irbil and was in Greco-Roman times known as Arbella.  It's been known by forms of that name since before 2000 BC when the Sumerians called it Urbilum, Urbelum, Urbillum or Arbilum.  The Hebrew word for City used in Genesis 11 is Ir and the Hebrew word for Confusion used is Balal.  So could this name come from "City of Confusion" in a Semitic language?

Specifically this results in my theorizing that the Citadel of Erbil could be the site of the Abandoned base of The Tower.

I don't know fully how to reconcile this with Genesis 10.  Maybe that Babel is still Nippur as I argued for last year, I certainly still favor the YLT translations of the Nimrod verses.  However there are a number of ancient inhabited archeological sites near Erbil who's ancient names we don't know because some were abandoned before 2000 BC it seems, like Tell Shemshara, Tepe Gawra, Tell Arpachiyah, Telul Eth-Thalathat, and maybe Arrapha.  Could a lot of the names we usually associate with southern Mesopotamia really be re-foundings of settlements that were originally further north?

This theory could be compatible with a number of different theories of Bible Prophecy.

For example in the first century it was the capital of Adiabene who's rulers had converted to Judaism and King Monobaz II brought an army from beyond the Euphrates to support the rebels during the 66-73 Ad revolt.  So maybe 70 AD Preterists should rethink their assumption that they have to remove Babylon from Mesopotamia?

But for Protestant Historicists and Futurists still obsessed with wanting Mystery Babylon to be the Catholic Church, Erbil is currently the seat of one of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, the Chaldean Catholic Church, they have a huge Church in the city called the Cathedral of Saint Joseph that was built in an ancient Mesopotamian Style, it basically looks like a Ziggurat with a Cross on top.  Zechariah 5 seems to describe Mystery Babylon dwelling somewhere else for awhile but returning to her home in Shinar before the end.  So maybe the seed is already in place for the Papacy to move there for some reason?

And the Patriarch of this branch of the Catholic Church is officially titled the Patriarch of Babylon.  Speaking of which maybe this city which had a major Jewish population in the first century is the city Peter was dwelling in and calling Babylon when he wrote his first Epistle?

Erbil is also the current Headquarters of the Assyrian Church of The East, one of the Churches often misleadingly called "Nestorian".  Isaiah 14 seems to call the End Times King of Babylon "The Assyrian" and Micah 5 also uses that title when referring to the "Land of Nimrod".  Of course most followers of the Chaldean Church also consider themselves ethnically Assyrian.

Erbil is also the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan.  Now in Prophecies like Jeremiah 50-51 and Isaiah 13 it's currently popular to see the Kurds as the Medes.  But maybe the Medes of Jeremiah 51:28 are in fact modern Iran, while the prior verse is pretty arguably referring to locations in modern Turkey (Ashkenaz could be Lake Ascanius near Istanbul).  Those are the two major nations most threatened by and opposed to Kurdish sovereignty.  Youtuber Nelson Waters is building a view of Bible Prophecy that involves an alliance between Turkey and Iran, that involves a lot of things I don't currently agree with but it's interesting.

Mystery Babylon as an Adulteress

The more technical arguments for making Mystery Babylon Jerusalem don't hold up at all.  What does hold up are the more thematic connections to themes in the Hebrew Bible about her as a wife of YHWH engaged in Harlotry with The World.

The problem is a lot of Christians are uncomfortable with accepting that that could be us, we think The Church is supposed to the one people of God who won't fall into the same pitfalls that Samaria and Jerusalem fell into.  Even when more fringe elements are criticizing the mainstream Church it's usually in the context of wanting to deny that they actually count as The Church, as legitimately part of the Body and Bride of Christ.

So Protestants and Evangelicals and Torah Keepers point out the ways in which Mystery Babylon can apply to the Catholic Church, but are unwilling to see how we've been guilty of the same basic sins in our own way.

I'm not an Historicist in remotely the traditional sense.  But I do think it's fascinating how the clues in Revelation about Mystery Babylon both point to Rome and to her being either The or A Church.  Meaning on some level however indirectly this book that even the most skeptical critics can't date to later then the mid second century predicted Rome becoming Christian.

The Revelation is drawing on Old Testament imagery, but it's directed at The Church, at Seven Churches in Asia Minor.  And the Jezebel of Thyatira is associated with a lot of the same imagery as the Harlot of Revelation 17.

However the time when Rome became Christian is also the time when OG Rome on the Tiber River ceases to be the only candidate for who Rome is, because that is when Constantinople was founded.

In my view the only cities eligible to be considered candidates for the Seven Hilled city of Revelation are ones that define themselves that way as a positive because they want to be seen as an heir to Rome.  The main three candidates are modern Rome, Constantinople/Istanbul and Moscow.

God's judgments are for correction, this Harlot no matter who she is should not be seen as being permanently rejected, this all goes back to Ezekiel 16.

I have to admit I've spent much of the last year or two trying to be convinced of a form of Post-Millennialism, The Revivalist form however is the only form I'd accept.  I don't want to be a Prophet of Doom predicting this world has to get a lot worse before it can get better.

And I understand the Post-Mil and Partial Preterist arguments about Revelation 20.  But in my look at Church History I see the Church as fitting the Revivalist Post-Mill interpretation of that Chapter for a lot less then a Thousand years, not more.  We were a Camp set apart and separate from The World not even three hundred years.  Only the Ancient Church of the East (often misleadingly called Nestorians) even came close to being like that for a full thousand years.

What I have become more open to are elements of Historicism, but not the Day=Year theory, so if someone has a form of it that works without that nonsense, point me to it and I'll give it a shot.

The Great City where our Lord was Crucified

So I'm changing my position on the Great City issue slightly.  Jerusalem is only unambiguously called the "Great City" in Revelation 21 where it's New Jerusalem (and in some ancient manuscripts it's not used there, but I'm a Textus Receptus proponent so I'm not gonna place any eggs in that basket).  I am currently for now going to take the position that in Revelation 6-20 the only Great City is the same city called Babylon.

Preterism has been associated with both Babylon=Rome and Babylon=Jerusalem, but for both Full and Partial the Jerusalem theory has become the far more common standard, because Rome wasn't destroyed in 70 AD, it had a fire in 64 but even tradtions claim they didn't start Persecuting Christians till after that so it being a judgment for being drunk on the blood of the martyrs doesn't make sense.

The face value issue with making Jerusalem as Babylon work in a 66-70 AD context is "how can Jerusalem be said to ride the beast" since they still believe the beast is the Roman Empire and in particular Nero.  Well what you could do is take what Josephus tells us about Poppaea Sabina, how she was practically a proselyte and so under her influence Nero was favorable to the Jews and it was months after her death the Jewish revolt begins to break out.  I haven't seen any Preterist use Poppaea this way yet, it's a suggestion I'm giving them out of my magnanimous generosity.

The problem is the Symbolism of Revelation clearly only works with Babylon being Rome in a First Century context.  There is no Biblical support for calling Jerusalem a City on Seven Hills but Rome had that concept as part of it's self identity from the beginning.

I am a Futurist in my basic understanding of Revelation (technically I've come to a historicist understanding of the Seals and am open to that for the first four Trumpets, but Chapter 9 is definitely yet future).  But I do think we need to begin decoding Revelation by understanding what these symbols and imagery would have meant to the initial audience, which were mostly Greek speaking Christians in Asia Minor between 40 and 140 AD.

So while I do believe the final eschatological Babylon is not Rome in the sense of being geographically on the Tiber River of the Italian Peninsula.  If things were going to play out within the lifetime of the original readers, then Babylon=Rome is what the symbolism of the Book was pointing them towards, as I talked about in the post on the Roma Cult.

Among both Preterists and Futurists it's assumed Revelation 11:8 can only be Jerusalem, and so that's the smoking gun that terrestrial Jerusalem is the Great City at least sometimes.

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

As I've said a few times before, no view on Revelation is free from some level of picking and choosing when to interpret symbolically and when to interpret literally.  In this case however it's within one statement.  We're specifically told the these are things it's called Spiritually but interpreters keep applying that only to the "Sodom and Egypt" part while "where also out Lord was crucified" is taken as a literal geographic indicator.

Number 1, strictly speaking the literal location of the Crucifixion was not in a city at all, John 19 says "near to the city" and Hebrews 13 says "without the gate".  That is semantics you can object, it's definitely associated with Jerusalem, but that still makes it less then strictly literal.

Number 2, what city is actually responsible for the Crucifixion?  

Legally speaking it was Rome, right in the Apostles' Creed we say "Crucified under Pontius Pilate" and Rome was pretending to still be a Republic at this time, so Pilate was theoretically representing the people of Rome.  And even the "Jews" calling for His Crucifixion said "we have no King but Caesar" they pledged their loyalty to Rome.  It was Roman Soldiers who mocked him and placed a Crown of Thrones on His head, Crucifixion was a standard Roman form of Execution. In ancient mindsets a City was more then just a location, it was also it's people.  Fortunately for everyone involved Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

But neither of those is my main argument.  Because I know everyone is going to list off Old Testament prophets who called Jerusalem both Sodom and Egypt as further proof this verse can only mean Jerusalem.  But Jerusalem was spiritually called Sodom and Egypt for a reason, there was a specific sin in mind which plenty of other cities/nations have been guilty of.

When YHWH was telling the Israelites to not be cruel to the strangers(immigrants and refugees) living among them, He reminded them "because you were once strangers in the land of Egypt".  Ezekiel 16, Jesus himself, and if you add them to your Canon both Jubilees and Jasher all clarify Sodom's Sin was their cruelty to strangers, an issue I talk about more on my other blog.  Ezekiel 16 is the main basis for Jerusalem being spiritually Sodom because there YHWH says Jerusalem has become worse then Sodom.

And that basic moral sin is also a factor in why the Pharisees wanted Jesus killed, because he taught that many Gentiles will enter the Kingdom before some of the Children of The Kingdom.

Rome had this Sin in it's own way, a refusal to properly allow full citizenship to "Barbarians" who'd proven their loyalty was a repeated issue, just watch this YouTube video.  And this way of thinking effected even the believers in Rome which is partly what Paul's epistle to the Romans is addressing.

This of course is among the Roman traits that makes America the most Roman nation of the modern world.  But perhaps it can also apply pretty well to Putin's Russia, even Soviet Russia had it's xenophobic tendencies.

There is a third city involved in Ezekiel 16, Samaria representing Ephraim. I have a post on this blog arguing for Rome being Ephraim in a sense, I'm not longer as interested in arguing for that literally genealogically as I was when I first wrote it, but thematically it can still be interesting because of the role Paul's Epistle to Rome plays in it.  

Rome also tied themselves to Egypt when Octavian took over the Pharaonic Worship in Egypt, and a Temple to Isis in Rome played a role in Titus's Triumph celebrating his capture of Jerusalem.  So Egyptian Spirituality was present in Rome when Jesus was Crucified not in Jerusalem.

The Roma Cult and Mystery Babylon

I am not making this post to argue absolutely Babylon=Rome in some preterist or Historicist sense.  It should not be controversial to acknowledge that Rome is where Mystery Babylon was at John's time.  Zechariah 5 gives us reason to suspect she moves around.

I disagree with the argument that Babylon is "Code" for Rome in some way meant to hide it from Roman authorities who might read the Book.  It is largely Rome's own cultural symbolism that makes it explicit, applying purely prior Biblical meaning to the same symbols is if anything what weakens it.  A city on Seven Hills which had Seven Kings is how Rome defined itself, not how it's enemies defined it.

People interpreting Revelation have tried to make Seven Hills a defining characteristic of countless cities, I've looked into the argument for applying it to Jerusalem and find it to be pretty bad.  The thing is the only city already defined as a city on Seven Hills (whether that is strictly geographically accurate or not) before Revelation was written was Rome.  And since it was written the only attempts to make a city a Seven Hill city as a positive trait with no regard for the Biblical implications are ones doing so in a desire to claim to be a New Rome or successor to Rome.  It was done with both Constantinople and Moscow for example.

What I want to get into here is some stuff about Rome that may have been particularly relevant to the region of the Seven Churches The Revelation was first given to.

The City of Smyrna was where the Roma cult was founded in 195 BC.  Roma was the City of Rome personified as a Goddess.  Mellor has proposed her cult as a form of religio-political diplomacy which adjusted traditional Graeco-Eastern monarchic honours to Republican mores.  Athens and Rhodes accepted Roma as analogous to their traditional cult personifications of the demos (ordinary people).  In 133 BC when Pergamon became part of the Empire it quickly became another major center of the Cult of Roma.

We can't be certain what colors Roma would have usually be depicted wearing, what we know about how she was depicted comes largely from coins.  But we know that during The Roman Triumph the Triumphitor wore Purple and their face was painted Red, so I feel Purple and Scarlet as the colors of Roma fits.  Some want to point out Purple and Scarlet being the colors of the Veil of The Tabernacle/Temple of Solomon to support the Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon theory, but every-time the Veil is refereed to as Purple and Scarlet/Crimson in Exodus 25-28, 35-39 and 2 Chronicles 2-3 the color Blue is also mentioned, usually first, and no Blue is in Revelation 17-18.  The Veil of The Temple is basically the Bisexual Flag.

In the Hellenistic world typically Male deities had male Priests and Goddesses had Priestesses.  But the Roma Cult was explicitly an exception to this, her worship was lead by male Priests.  And so I think that is partly what the False Prophet may have been seen as to the book's earliest readers in these cities.

In either 30 or 29 BC the worship of the Emperor in the provinces began, and in Asia particularity it was essentially just merged with the Roma Cult. Pergamon was the first city where the Imperial cult was established. From here on Roma increasingly took the attributes of an Imperial or divine consort to the Imperial divus, but some Greek coin types show her as a seated or enthroned authority, and the Imperial divus standing upright as her supplicant or servant.  Thus her as a woman riding the Beast.

The reason Smyrna and Pergamon were the churches most facing persecution is because in these cities the worship of the Emperor was required by law, most Pagans didn't see it as a conflict.  Jews were usually excepted as theirs was an ancient religion, but Christianity was new and so once it stopped being seen as a sect of Judaism the Christians had a problem in these cities.

Aphrodite/Venus as the mother of Aeneas mythical progenitor of Rome naturally become identified with Roma sometimes, like in the Temple Hadrian built.  And in the context of Revelation I've already noted possible Aphrodite imagery for the Beast out of the Sea.

People who like to argue the United States is Babylon could easily draw attention here to how the concept of Roma is basically the same as the concept of Columba/Columbia.  But other such feminine personifications of the state exist in the modern world, the Pan-Europa movement has taken Europa of Green Mythology and made her more of a Roma type figure.  I'm pretty sure Athena was originally just the Demos of Athens before Pan-Hellenism turned her into an Olympian all of Greece had to recognize.  And of course I believe the Woman of Revelation 12 is the Demos of Israel being symbolically personified in a similar way.

Shinar and Babel

[Update October 2020: This theory I don't currently consider likely.]

Nimrod and Babel.

First I want to quote here the Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 10:8-12.

And Cush hath begotten Nimrod; he hath begun to be a hero in the land; he hath been a hero in hunting before Jehovah; therefore it is said, "As Nimrod the hero in hunting before Jehovah."

And the first part of his kingdom is Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar; from that land he hath gone out to Asshur, and buildeth Nineveh, even the broad places of the city, and Calah, and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah; it is the great city.

The YLT used the same source texts as the KJV, or rather the source texts KJV onlyists keep saying the KJV uses, however these very verses show how the KJV was influenced by the mistakes of the Septuagint/LXX and the Vulgate, like verse 11 where all three of those translations imply Asshur founded Nineveh.  What Asshur founded wouldn't be discussed till we reached Shem's part of the genealogy, this verse is clearly still part of the Nimrod narrative.  The only thing I'd change from the YLT translation is swapping "Asshur" for "Assyria".

There is a claim going around out there that the Book of Jubilees 9:3 supports the LXX version of 10:11, but that is not correct.

"And for Ashur came forth the second Portion, all the land of Ashur and Nineveh and Shinar and to the border of India, and it ascends and skirts the river."

That statement is only saying Nineveh is in the land allotted to Asshur, it doesn't say who founded it.  That sentence can be compatible with either interpretation/translation of Genesis 10:11.  Jubilees doesn't seem that interested in the Nimrod subject, it has no counterpart to these verses but possibly alludes to his daughter marrying Heber/Eder and becoming the mother of Peleg in it's version of the Genesis 11 genealogy.  Josephus isn't quite saying Asshur founded it either, but he is much closer to seeming influenced by the LXX version.

Calah/Kalhu is the city 30 or 40 miles south of Nineveh/Mosul today commonly called Nimrud, but that is a purely modern name for the City, no one in Antiquity called it that, it fits because modern archaeologists recognized it as a city associated with Nimrod.  Resen doesn't seem to have been found.  Maybe the failure to find Resen is because people have been assuming "between Nineveh and Calah" means also on the Tigris, maybe it could be a city between them but also further east or west, and that's why it isn't first listed between them?  Erbil/Arbella was considered part of Assyria in antiquity, and it's one of the oldest cities in the region, I have a hunch that maybe it's Resen.  

Which of the cities talked about is being called the "Great City"?  At first glance it might seem to be Resen, but given the context of Jonah 1:2, 3:2-3 and 4:11 it's possibly more likely to be Nineveh.  Or another candidate for Resen could be Karana/Qattara modern Tell al-Rimah.  Tell-Hassuna and Tell-Taya are some other ancient sites near Nineveh believed to have been inhabited pre 2400 BC but their ancient names aren't known.

None of the Nimrod cities in Genesis 10 is likely to be the city of Asshur, that city is south of Calah.  So it was probably the city Asshur himself founded, and either he failed to or didn't try to stop Nimrod from encroaching on his territory.  They may have simply came to an agreement, and maybe the people who inhabited these cities were largely Assyrians from the beginning but benefited from living under Nimrod's protection.

In the past I've argued for the Babel of Genesis 10&11 being Eridu and Nimrod being Enmerkar.  I'm still attracted to that theory but have been considering an alternative.  I do absolutely still think the Pre-Flood Eridu is the city of Genesis 4, which again has a translation issue, here is how I'd translate the verses in question.

Genesis 4:16-18

And Cain went out from the presence of Yahuah, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.  And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he (Enoch) builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son.

And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

So the City of Irad could be Eridu.  Now the Eridu of Post-Flood Mesopotamia may not actually be the same city or on the same location.  But I'm also growing skeptical of the usual assumption that a Global Flood model means no Pre-Flood cities could have left ruins behind.  Mainstream archaeologists believe Eridu goes back to 5200 BC, so that's pre even the oldest plausible date for The Flood.

It is a misleading translation that makes people think Genesis 11:4 is about height.  It's about them creating their own Heaven at the top of the Tower, an early form of idolatry.  And the Hebrew word Migdol is sometimes used of some structures we today wouldn't exactly define as a tower.

Here is a Wikipedia page listing various known Sumerian Temples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89_(temple)
 Not all of them have been archaeologically found, some may be different names for the same Temple.  Some are thought to have originally been to different gods then they are usually associated with now, so what the Temple was called is probably more informative to it's origins.  All of them are named "House of ____" in some way.  The Tower of Babel I would expect to be named "House of Heaven" or something like that.  Eridu's is not, it's instead looking in the opposite direction, the Abyss.  More then two fitting examples exist, but other factors make only two viable.

Uruk's Temple to Inanna is one, and a good theory could be made for making that work with Nimrod as Enmerkar, saying Genesis 10 isn't different cities but rather describing the expansion of what he controlled, first the Tower, then the City of Erech/Uruk, then Accad, then all of Shinar.

But I'm instead going to consider another city, and that Nimrod is actually Etana who is the first Post-Flood King to rule all of the countries.  The King's List possibly made up all names before Etana, other sources make him seemingly the first King of Kish and of any place after The Flood.  Etana here would be a special Throne name, like many Kings Nimrod likely had many names.

Which leads me first to how Genesis 10:8-12 seems like a short narrative inserted into the Genealogy.  In which context I wonder if Nimrod simply is the same person as a Son of Cush from verse 7?  One of them being the name given at birth and the other a name he became known by later?  The theory that Ninurta is a later deification of Nimrod is going to be relevant to my theories here quite a bit.  Zababa is a deity who is mentioned rarely and was possibly just another form of Ninurta, one reason being that they had the same wife, Bau.  Zababa could easily be a Sumerian form of one of the names mentioned in Genesis 10:7, Seba, Sebta or Sebtcha.

Alternatively you could argue that Nimrod might not be the immediate son of Cush but a later descendant of his. That is pretty much required for identifying him with anyone later then Enmerkar on the Kings List.  And the fact that Uruk's isn't quite the first Post-Flood dynasty means it might be necessary even for the Enmerkar theory.  Depends on when you date the Flood really, if you're using a Septuagint or Samaritan version of Genesis 11 to support a pre 3000 BC date for the Flood then Enmerkar is not likely to be an immediate son of Cush.

Now the Sumerian Temple I feel most likely to be The Tower of Babel is the E-me-ur-ana (House which gathers the divine powers of heaven) at Nippur.  It seems either archaeologists haven't found this Temple or it's another name for the E-Kur. (Or the Temple some maps identify as a Temple of Inanna since she was or became the deity of Uruk's "House of Heaven").  The Ekur was also known as the "mooring-rope" of heaven and earth. The statement in some sources that Enmebaragesi was the first to build a Temple to Enlil at Nippur may just mean he was the first to make it a Temple to the Sumerian Enlil, as Babel in Genesis 11 was not originally about a specific deity.

Nippur was the religious capital of Sumer, it was never the political capital but control of it was required to claim to be King of all of Sumer and Akkad.

Nippur is a flawed modern transliteration, the ancient name of the city was Nibru or Nibbur.  The Septuagint, Josephus and possibly Jubilees all render Nimrod's name as Nebrod.  This isn't the only place related to Sumerian/Semitic etymology where the letter B and M seem oddly interchangeable, the above mentioned Zababa is also spelled Zamma, and in 1st Century Aramaic "bar" is the word for Son but many Assyrian Inscriptions are transliterated as saying "mar" instead.  Micah refers to a "Land of Nimrod" according to Genesis 10 Shinar was the land of Nimrod starting at Babel and eventually extending to include Assyria.  Nippur was one of the cult centers of Ninurta, but another was near by Marad (which is another purposed origin for the name Nimrod via Ni-Marad "Lord of Marad"), the main Temple at Marad had Kalama in the name, a possible origin for Calneh.

Erech is Uruk, that's the one name from Genesis 8:10 that has no mystery to it, except for people who want to remove Shinar from Mesopotamia altogether.

Accad is Akkad, a city known to have existed but archaeologists haven't quite found.  But it's also used as the name of a region (Mesopotamia north of Sumer proper but south of Assyria) and of a language.

Before he was a King Sargon was associated with Kish.  That list of Sumerian Temples has only 3 in Akkad and only one in Kish, awfully small for cites that had both been capitals.  Maybe Akkad and Kish were the same city?

The Babylon of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar is described in some texts as being founded by Sargon of Akkad, (which fits other sources dating it's founding to that time period).  Saying he built it "before Akkad" and possibly that it was a re founding of an older city.  That geographical relationship to Akkad makes it look to me like Akkad is either Borsippa or Kish.

If the younger Babylon was a city founded to be a new Babel, it's interesting that it's Nippur who proceeded Babylon as the chief cult enter of Enlil(later replaced by Marduk) the Mesopotamian Zeus analogue.

The name of Kish likely derives from Cush.  The Temple listed as a Temple at Kish is the one for Zababa, and Zababa's only Temple appears to have been the one at Kish.

The theory that "Calneh" is really a phrase meaning "all they of" I consider possible.  I also, as said above, think it could be related to Kalama, a Sumerian word that seems to mean "land" or "world" and is in the name of a few Temples including the ones at Marad and Bad-Tibira.

Ninurta was also worshiped by the Assyrians, one of his major Temples was at Kalhu/Calah, where the name Nisroch might come from an Assyrian name for Ninurta.

Nimrod being the founder of Niniveh is the basis for why Christians in various eras have identified him with the Greek Historiographical figure of Ninus.  Ninus appears to be a composite figure, I definitely do think he's partly a Greek memory of Nimrod, but some ancient statements about when and for how long he reigned (Castor of Rhodes apud Syncellus p. 167) make him seem more like Sargon of Akkad or his grandson Naram-Sin, which given what I talked about above could also fit associating his wife with the founding of the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.

However the name of Ninus's supposed wife comes from an Assyrian Queen who lived around 800 BC, and that's also about when Herodotus originally placed Semiramis.

But in the context of Ninus as Nimrod, I think Belus is really his grandfather Ham rather then his father Cush.  Usually the Greek mythical Belus of Egypt is assumed to be separate from the Belus of Assyria, but both have good reasons to argue they could be Ham.  Aegeyptus son of Belus would be Mizraim and Danaus would be Phut (Diodorus Siculus gives us reasons to suspect the Amazons descended from Phut, and some names of Amazons were also names of Daughters of Danaus).  Agenor is most popularly identified as a brother of Belus but Nonnus and Tzetzes make him a son of Belus, Agenor was the first ruler of Phonecea in Greek mythology so he could be Canaan.  Cepheus could be Cush as the first King of Aethiopia, but perhaps also the Philistines or more Canaanites based on his association with Joppa.

The Mother of Harlots

The pastor I do not like to name did a sermon on the Whore of Babylon once.  This sermon focused specifically on her being called the "Mother of Harlots".  He views the Mother Whore as being the Roman Catholic Church (even though he's Futurist not Hisotricist), and the other Harlots as being other denominations of Christianity who broke off from Rome.  He is one of those Independent Baptists who insists the Baptists have some secret independent Apostolic Succession and so does not descend from Rome the way mainline Protestants do.

The first daughter harlot in his little timeline was the Eastern Orthodox Church who he says broke off in 1054 AD.  It fascinates me how much Protestant and Evangelical Christianity still has such a Western bias of Church History that in-spite of how much they hate the Catholic Church they'll still view what happened at the Great Schism from the Vatican's POV.  The Ancient Imperial Church was built on viewing 4 (eventually 5) important Bishoprics as basically equal, one of them left the others and yet westerners insist on viewing the east, where Christianity started and where they spoke the same language the New Testament was written in, as the ones who left the existing Church to start a new one.  Ryan Reeves on YouTube does some of the same kinds of things but understands more of the nuances then this nut.  Reeves points out how the Bishops of Rome were technically subjects of the Eastern Emperors right up until the Schisim happened, you couldn't become Bishop of Rome without the Emperor's approval.

This Pastor also says the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine, because it suits him to give single individuals the credit for all denominations he rejects.  It was Constantine who moved the Empire's Capital to Constantinople which he founded, so if any Bishopric was founded by him it's that one.  Though the Bishops of Constantinople claim succession from Andrew who was traditionally Martyred in Greece near Corinth, and they have an alleged Pre-Nicene line.  Is it possible Constantine just moved a Bishop there from somewhere else?

Most bad Catholic/Orthodox doctrines were already forming well before Constantine.  Including the stuff about Church hierarchy and organization which they love to selectively quote Ignatius and Cyprian in support of.  And the Bishops of Rome were already starting to act like they had some primacy over other Bishops.

Thing is, in-spite of all that, for the first over a century it looks to me like the most powerful Bishop in Nicene Christianity was actually the Bishop of Alexandria, often associated with the School of Alexandria.  Who BTW were being called Popes already even before Constantine, while Rome didn't use the term Pope till awhile after.  In the past I'd mistakenly refereed to Clement and Origen as Bishops of Alexandria, they were not, they were heads of the School (The Greek word for Bishop means overseer, so you could call the person overseeing the School a Bishop, but that's not what people mainly mean by the Bishop of Alexandria).

At the Council of Nicaea both sides were actually lead by Alexandrians, Arius founder of the Arian Heresy was an Alexandrian.  But it was the position of the actual Bishop of Alexandria that prevailed, who was named Alexander at the time, Alexander of Alexandria, I'm sure that was never confusing.

Also present at the Council was Alexander's student and soon to be successor Athanasius of Alexandria, who was the chief defender of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity for much of the Fourth Century.  The only threats to his power were when Emperors were sympathetic to Arianism, during which time an Arian Bishop of Alexandria was appointed in his place.

The next Nicene Bishop of Alexandria was Peter II (a Peter I is known in Egypt as the last of the martyrs), who is the Pope of Alexandria named in The Edict of Thessalonica which made Christianity the state Religion of the Empire.  The Pontiff of Rome is named first, yet the language implies Peter is the real head of the new state religion.

After him came Timothy I who was a president at the Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council.

Next was Theophilus of Alexandria, it was during his Bishopric that in 391 Paganism was fully outlawed and the Serapium was destroyed.  I also support the theory that during this time the Tomb of Alexander The Great was turned into the Tomb of St Mark.

Theophilus was succeeded by his nephew Cyril of Alexandria.  Cyril basically turned his monastic order into a Gang and used them like Storm Troopers in a power struggle with Orestes the Prefect and became the de facto Pharaoh of Egypt. He had Hypatia Murdered during that struggle.  Later he waged war against Nestorius orchestrating the sham that was the Council of Ephesus.  He also really hated The Jews.

He was succeeded by Dioscorus who orchestrated the even more obviously a shame Second Council of Ephesus.  However the downfall of the Alexandrian Bishopric's power within the Empire came at the Council of Chalcedon where Dioscorus was deposed and the Miaphysite Schism happened.  From then on the majority of the Coptic Church was Miaphsyte and so Alexandria usually had two Bishops neither of which was able to wield that much power.  But thanks to their influence the Churches of Nubia and Ethiopia are at least nominally Miaphysite.

Miaphysite Christianity would wield political Power in the Empire one last time during the reign of Justinian through his wife Theodora.  But even during this time John of Ephesus and Jacob Baradaeus were more influential then the Bishops in Egypt.

It's interesting that the Book of Acts gives us shockingly little information on the Early Church's History in Egypt and Alexandria.  Acts 2 says Diaspora Jews of Egypt were at Pentacost, but most places alluded to here still have additional Apostolic Missions to them later.  Only Egypt lacks any later references to Christians there, any Turkish regions not mentioned later in Acts are covered by the first verse of Peter's Epistle, and Peter himself was in Babylon/Mesopotamia.  Simon of Cyene took care of Cyrene and the rest were eventually visited by Paul.

Most references to Egypt in the New Testament are referencing back to the Old Testament, and Acts later has one offhand reference to an Egyptian false prophet also described in Josephus.  Apollos is called an Alexandrian, but there is no clear evidence he ever returned to Alexandria after his conversion, and we can't even be certain he was from the Alexandria of Egypt, Asia Minor had two Alexandrias, one was pretty close to Ephesus.

Traditionally Mark the Evangelist founded the Alexandrian Church.  But there are contradictory claims about when he arrived, and the Eastern Traditions distinguish him from John Mark and Mark the Cousin of Barnabas. Interestingly there was an early proto-gnostic heretic named Marcus.

Platonism and Gnsoticism flourished in Egypt, Clement of Alexandria and Origen opposed the Gnostics yet showed Platonic influences themselves.  Clement even seems to have used material from the above mentioned Heretic Marcus in Stormata.

All this was just an excuse to show how the history of Organized Christianity is more complicated then many Protestants want to make it sound. I ultimately believe there is only one Symbolic Woman in Revelation and she's Israel, Christianity itself is an offshoot of an older religion, Judaism.  But Israel was born by coming out of Egypt, Ezekiel 23 emphasizes Mizraim as where Israel's Harlotry began.

The Whore of Babylon is Capitalism

This is not in conflict with my prior posts on Mystery Babylon, but a separate aspect of what Mystery Babylon is.  So what I've said about how Revelation 17 relates to The Bride of Christ doctrine, and whether or not Revelation 18 is geographically linked to Mesopotamia remains the same.  This is about what the Sin of Mystery Babylon is.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Capitalism is the Whoredom of Babylon.

I did a post on how the words translated Fornication and Fornicator refer to Prostitution.  They like the words for Whore/Harlot come from a root that means "to sell off".  People seek to justify their broader interpretations of those verses by saying how words related to Prostitution are sometimes used euphemistically for sexual promiscuity that isn't about money.  But the opposite euphemism is also used, people will say they feel like they're "whoring themselves out" to express the idea of "selling out".

Well if you break down Revelation 17 and 18 and look at the context outside of these "pronos" words.  There is not anything that implies sex, but a lot about economics, about buying and selling.

I've been expressing my opposition to Capitalism a lot lately on my other blog.  There are people like the YouTuber Renegade Cut who want to make any and all Futurist/Pre-Millenial views on Bible Prophecy seem inseparable from Right Wing politics.  And yet it is exactly a Futurist and Pre-Millennial view of Revelation that makes chapters 17 and 18 a blatant condemnation of Capitalism.  Also Post-Millennialism was invented to justify theocracy.

There is no labor going on in New Jerusalem, New Jerusalem is the return to Eden, it's a Communist Utopia.  The founder of Communism was Gerard Winstanly in the mid 1600s who certainly held a Pre-Millenial view of Revelation.  Communism is an inherently Christian ideology, it was in the 1700s that Atheists and Deists started forming a Secular version of it that was then further secularized by Karl Marx and the Bolsheviks.

Many of my fellow Anti-Capitalist might not like the implication of making Capitalism a Whore, they might prefer characterize Capitalism as a Pimp.  Well the thing is Porneia as an ancient Noun form of the word for Prostitution was associated with all people taking part in that Sin.  Babylon being called the "Mother of Harlots" may well imply she's a Madam rather then the Proletariat of Whoredom.

Eden, Sinai and Iraq

I’m abandoning some of my past speculation about the locations of Kadesh-Barnea and Mt Sinai.  I still think Sinai was in Arabia not the traditional Sinai Peninsula.  But it’s a broad definition of Arabia that includes all of the Arabian Peninsula and everything between the Jordan and Euphrates Rivers.  I now think the Kadesh of the wilderness (or one at least if there were two) was Petra, a theory Josephus expressed and is supported by some today, including many who still support Jabal El-Lawz.

Ezekiel 28:13-14 associates the Garden of Eden with the Holy Mountain of God.  Many use this to support making Eden a location in Judea, like Moriah or Zion.  But the first Holy Mountain of God in The Bible was Mt Sinai.  Perhaps this location was consistently God’s main earthly dwelling place until the construction of the portable Tabernacle in the days of Moses.  The exact phrase "Mountain of God" or "Mount of God" (both the same in the Hebrew) is used outside Ezekiel only of Sinai/Horeb.

This is a good place to remind people that the Garden was probably gone in the Post-Flood world.

Eden was in Mesopotamia.  Search every appearance of the name Eden in The Bible, you’ll find many references ignored in the Garden debate because they are clearly about a Mesopotamian location during the Neo-Assyrian period.  I’ve already addressed those who are confused by thinking Cush only refers to Africa.  The Cush of Mesopotamia was probably Kish and/or the core cities of Nimrod’s Empire, the “Land of Nimrod” of Micah.  Though some have also suggested connecting it with the Kassites.

The Gihon Spring in the City of David is not a river.  Plenty of names are used of more than one location in The Bible, that Gihon has nothing to do with Eden.

Locating where the Sumerian mythology counterpart of the Garden was is complicated by it coming to share a name with a civilization Sumer traded with, Dilmun, possibly located in Bahrain.  What I can gather of it independent of that, seemingly implies a place close to Eridu, where the Abzu Temple was.  Dilmun is called a Mountain at least once.

Another name for Mt Sinai was Horeb.  The spelling in the Hebrew is the same as the word for Sword used in Genesis 3:24 in reference to the Flaming Sword.  Part of the word play of that verse is that word being a bit of a homophone for Cherub, a word also used in Ezekiel 28’s discussion of the Molech of Tyre.

The name of Sinai itself is possibly etymologically related to the name of the connected Wilderness of Sin.  Which may come from the Sinite tribe of Canaan, possibly the same as the Sinim of Isaiah 49:12.  The Sinites aren’t one of the Canaanites who show up again in Joshua and Judges.  Genesis 10:18 says the Canaanites did spread beyond what we properly call Canaan.  So some could easily have gone to modern Iraq, Sinim is defined as a land Israel is returning from.

Sin was the Akkadian (a Semitic language) name for the Mesopotamian Moon god, named Nanna by the Sumerians.  In the past I’ve desired to question the traditional identification of the Ur of Genesis 12 with the Ur of Sumer.  But given how Terah, the name of Abraham’s father, could be interpreted as a variation on the Hebrew word for the moon, Yerah.  Him moving from Ur to Harran is interesting, the older and later centers of Mesopotamian moon worship.  Acts 7 clarified that God first spoke to Abraham before they left for Harran.  Did even Abraham also first encounter Yahuah at Mt Sinai?

Yahuah is obviously not a Moon god, he forbids moon worship.  But it’s possible His preference for a Lunar calendar in His worship may have caused some polytheists to presume Him to be one.  Pagans who encountered the Israelites never denied the existence of their God, just His Superiority.  I’ve discussed before an apparent phonetic similarity between the name Yah and the name of a moon god worshiped in Kemet.  So it may be Sin became a name for a moon god from being linked to the Mountain of Yahuah.  Or that mountain and wilderness was named after Sin because people erroneously thought the God dwelling there was a moon god.

The Sinai is Yemen theory draws a lot on Teman being a name for Yemen, and Habakkuk 3:3 seemingly using Teman as a synonym for Sinai.  But Biblically other uses of Teman are usually about Edom.  The location of Kadesh may be more what that verse had in mind.  And Edom could have controlled more than we usually think.  Something worth keeping in mind when I bring up Bozrah later.  As well as considering how Seir fits into Sinai’s location.

Shiite Muslims seem to view Mesopotamia as equally or even more holy than Arabia.  It has a lot to do with Ali’s association with the region, but they have justifications for making it older.  Karbala, Kufa and Samarra are among particular cities they revere.  Basra is mainly a Shiite city as well.  

Sunni Muslims typically say that Mecca doesn’t just go back to Abraham and Ishmael, but all the way back to being the first Holy Mosque built by Adam.  But the fourth Shiite Imam Zayn al-Abidin said.

 “God chose the land of Karbalā’ as a safe and blessed sanctuary twenty-four thousand years before He created the land of the Ka'bah and chose it as a sanctuary. Verily it (Karbala) will shine among the gardens of Paradise like a shining star shines among the stars for the people of Earth.”. 

If there was more than one Kadesh of the wandering, and one needs to be made much closer to Sinai than Petra.  There are a lot of places in Jordan, Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia to choose from.  Maybe Tema, which was an Ishmaelite settlement, and later become another Holy Place of the Akkadian moon god Sin.  However I think most scholars underestimate how far they could travel in 11 days.

One proposed location for the Garden of Eden is Basra.  A city I have argued could be Eschatological Babylon.

I have argued that The Woman’s hiding place in the Wilderness is the same Wilderness as Exodus and Numbers, and possibly a return to Sinai.  

Later however I argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and the Woman of Revelation 13 could be the same.  In that the main thing holding me back was that this would make my Sinai being where the Woman returns and the Babylon being in Iraq position probably not compatible anymore.  But did suggest they could be reconciled by expanding the scale of the wandering.  And even suggested that the Bozrah of Micah could be a by name prophecy of the Basra of Iraq.  Either way the Hebrew name Bozrah seems to refer to more than just one location.

Paul is speaking mostly symbolically not Literally when he calls Torah based religion mount Sinai in Galatians 4.  But perhaps it does have a literal application Eschatologically?

This view can be compatible with a traditional identification of Misraim with Kemet (modern Egypt), including maybe Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke’s Red Sea crossing site.  Israel had over a month to get to Sinai.  But I should mention I have been considering the alternate Misraim in Arabia view, and will post on it in the future.

Likewise with the traditional location for Midian, many think Sinai wasn’t as close to where Jethro lived as is commonly assumed.  At the same time expanding Midian is viable, they had five Kings after all.

The only thing is I don’t have is a specific mountain to identify with Sinai/Horeb.  I think it’s modern Iraq, probably to the south.  West of the Euphrates, or at least west of where the Euphrates was at the time.  But maybe a bit too far from the rivers to fit what many consider Mesopotamia proper.  Looking at the modern maps, maybe a location in Kuwait could fit?