As part of revisting the founding of the Egyptian Old Kingdom I came across a book called "The Parthenon Code". (TheParthenonCode.com)
This book presents an analysis of the Parthenon of Athens. It concludes that the art of the Parthenon was not only a depiction but a celebration of the line of Cain and it's emergence as the dominant kingly line after the Flood. As part of this victory, the burden of servitude toward "God" was lifted. The author writes from an evangelical Christian perspective, therefore he finds the Parthenon as a supreme example of mankind's tendency toward humanism and atheism. In the Greek version of the Garden of Eden ("Hesperides"), eating the sacred apple did not lead to a fall but a rise to enlightenment - not a cause for shame but privilege.
Cain's line, as we have seen, was the junior line. He was the son of Adam, whereas Abel was the "son of God", that is born to the leader of a "superior" (more "enlightened") race. After the Flood, the line of Cain did became exalted through the elevation of Noah, who represented the line of Cain through Enoch. He became the new authority figure standing in place of "God". However, his place was soon usurped by another line of Cain that descended through Jubal. The struggle in Greek mythology of Herakles against the Giants would then seem to represent the war of Cain's line, specifically through Ham (Herakles/Horus) son of Jubal, against the rule of Noah and all other remaining claimants of Abel's line to the greater throne.
I have to disagree with some of the associations made in The Parthenon Code. For example, the author identifies Cheiron/Chiron with Ham. He is much more likely to be a Greek alias of Jubal (Horus the Elder) or of Lamech (Thoth). Herakles the author associates with Nimrod and Hermes he makes into Cush. However, Hermes is most certainly Lamech/Thoth and Herakles is Ham/Horus the Younger.
Despite the preachiness of the book and the author's naive Christian "trust and obey" mentality, I still found it very interesting and a worthwhile study. Many of the points make a lot of sense and seem to be quite original.
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.