Looking for Daniel

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


132) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 9:


- Kingdom of Israel:


https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kingdom_of_Israel




The Kingdom of Israel (Hebrew: מַלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, Standard Hebrew Malkut Yisrael) was the kingdom proclaimed by the Israelite nation around 1030 B.C.E. - 1020 B.C.E., enduring until it fell to the Assyrian empire in 722 B.C.E.. Traditionally, the nation of Israel formed as the Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus and conquered Canaan under Joshua's leadership. An alternative theory based on recent archaeological evidence suggests a more gradual evolution of a national identity as semi-nomadic Hebrew-Canaanite clans affiliated and became the nation of Israel.

In the biblical account, the Hebrew people, were led by the Patriarchs and later by Judges prior to the establishment of the kingdom. The notion of kingship was for a long time resisted, viewed as putting a man a position of reverence and power reserved for God. The people appealed to the prophet-judge Samuel for a king, after Samuel's sons misused their inherited offices. The United Kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon endured for a period of 120 biblical years and then split into two nations. This article will focus on the Northern Kingdom, or Israel. For information on the Southern Kingdom, please consult the article on the Kingdom of Judah.

Jerusalem was the capital of the United Kingdom. The first capital of Northern Kingdom was Shechem (1 Kings 12:25), then Tirza (14:17), and finally Samaria (16:24), which endured until the destruction of the kingdom by the Assyrians (17:5).

There are no contemporary extra-biblical references to the leaders of the United Kingdom. Contemporary scholars are supscious of the biblical story's historical accuracy, seeing it as an glorified account with numerous exaggerations and anachronisms. Our primary sources for the history of the Northern Kingdom are the biblical books of Samuel, Chronicles, and especially Kings, together with occasional historical references in the prophets and other biblical books. These are histories with a religious agenda and are not accepted uncritically by historians. However, beginning with Jeroboam I, several neighboring rulers left records that confirm some of the historical details of the biblical chronicle, while of course differing in political slant and religious outlook.

The area of the Northern Kingdom of Israel fluctuated greatly, and scholars disagree as to it actual borders at any given time. Neighboring peoples such as the Judahites, Amonites, Moabites, Aramean-Syrians, and Phonecians often lived within Israel's "borders" and vice versa. The Northern Kingdom is thought to have encompassed as many as 9,400 square miles, and as few as 2,400 or less. A similar problem arises with regard to population. The biblical numbers regarding the size of cities and armies are generally much larger than those suggested by the archaeological evidence.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


133) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 9:


- Kingdom of Israel:


'United' Monarchy

Around 1030-1020 B.C.E., Saul became the first king of Israel. A natural leader of uncommonly tall physical stature, he gained important military victories against Israel's traditional enemies, the Philistines and Amalekites. The degree to which he unified the tribes under a single Israelite authority is uncertain. According to the Book of Samuel, he ruled with God's approval for only two years, due to his disobedience in failing to complete the slaughter of the Amalekites.

Thereafter he continued to reign while the young and future king David gained fame among the southern tribes as a bandit leader of heroic proportions.

After Saul's death in battle with the Philistines, David was anointed king by the tribe of Judah at Herbron, where he remained for seven years. The northern tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin made Saul's son Ish-Bosheth their king in the town of Mahanaim, probably near the Jabbock River. During this time David captured the strategic Jebusite town of Jerusalem and made it his capital. A civil war between David's forces and the northern tribes supporting Ish-Bosheth raged intermittently, ending as the northern military commander, Abner, switched sides and assassins soon closed in on Ish-Bosheth.

After this, David consolidated the monarchical government in Jerusalem. He embarked on successful military campaigns against Israel's enemies, creating more secure borders. However, he faced several rebellions, in which elements of the northern tribes joined.

The Bible describes the next king, Shlomo, or Solomon, as a leader of great wisdom who expanded the United Kingdom into a great empire and constructed a glorious national Temple in Jerusalem. His reign is portrayed as a time of unprecedented peace, power, and prosperity for Israel. However, the historicity of this claim has come under challenge by recent scholarship and archeology, which consider it impossible that so vast and rich an empire as is described in the Bible could have existed given the small population base that in reality existed in Solomon's day. Because we have only the highly pro-Solomonic biblical account to inform us, we do not know what extent the northern tribes retained independence or resisted Solomon's rule.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


134) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 9:


- Kingdom of Israel:

The Northern Kingdom​

The history of the Northern Kingdom will be divided into four segments. The first begins with the rebellion of Jeroboam and ends with the ascension of the Omrian dynasty. The second begins with Omri and ends with the coup by Jehu. The third begins with Jehu and ends with Menahem. The fourth traces the decline of the Kingdom of Israel until its fall during the Assyrian invasion of 722 B.C.E..

Jeroboam to Omri​

Despite the biblical portrayal of a vast united empire under King Solomon, Jerusalem's control of the territory of Israel outside of Judah was minimal except for some amount of taxation and forced labor. There is little to suggest that inhabitants of the territory known as "Israel" had acted together previously except in opposition to the house of David. The harsh labor policy of Solomon's son, Rehoboam, gave the northern tribes a strong reason to coalesce under the leadership of Jeroboam I. Jeroboam united the northern tribes and created or expanded two major religious shrines, one in the northern district of Dan, the other just a few miles north of Jerusalem at Bethel. His erection of these sites, designed to create national cohesion and provide convenient access for pilgrims, earned him the enduring enmity of the Jerusalem priesthood and the biblical authors.

Israel was initially at a disadvantage against Judah due a lack of a standing army and also because of internal strife. The rule of Jeroboam's tribe, Ephraim, became unpopular; and his son Nadab (913) was slain by the usurper Baasha, of the tribe Issachar (911). Meanwhile the northern districts suffered from border attacks from the Arameans of Damascus.

Baasha moved the capital from Schechem to Tirzah and made a treaty with Damascus. This, together with the advantage of a greater population and better natural resources than landlocked Judah, enabled him to strengthen Israel's position. However, when King Asa of Judah influenced the Arameans to break with Baasha, Israel lost fertile lands northwest of the Sea of Galilee as well as militarily significant southern high ground. Baasha's son Elah (888) was slain in a military coup led by the cavalry commander Zimri. Zimri's reign was short-lived, however, and of the two leaders who competed to succeed him, the military general Omri soon emerged victorious.

Omri to Jehu​

Omri established a powerful dynasty and made Israel into a major regional power. He built an impressive new capital, the strategically located town of Samaria in central Palestine, increasing his control of overland trade and providing good access to the Mediterranean. He ended the fratricidal war with Judah and established a friendship with the Phoenician power of Tyre, sealed by a marriage between his son Ahab and the Tyrian princess Jezebel. Omri also consolidated Israel politically and resisted both Damascus to the north and the Moabites to the south.

Ahab (875) built on his father's foundation economically and politically. He defended Israel against the threat from Damascus and eventually forged an alliance with Judah and Damascus against the growing Assyrian power of Shalmaneser II. Despite his friendship with Jerusalem, Ahab's marriage to Jezebel and his reported willingness to honor the Phoenician deity Baal brought religious strife with Yahwist elements centering on the powerful itinerant prophets Elijah and Elisha, whose opposition eventually proved fatal to the promise of the Omrian dynasty. When war with Damascus broke out again, and Ahab died battle at Ramoth-Gilead.

Ahab's son Ahaziah died soon after his accession and succeeded by his brother Joram (853). He vigorously prosecuted the war with Damascus, but internal opposition by internal religious forces grew stronger. The prophet Elisha went so far as to anoint the Syrian leader Hazael to punish Israel's alleged idolatry and instigated a coup de etat against Joram by a military leader, Jehu. Joram and his mother, Jezebel, were soon put to death together with their entire extended family, and a widespread slaughter of the priests of the Baal followed. Jehu also killed Joram's southern ally, King Ahaziah of Judah, ironically paving the way for Jezebel's daughter Athaliah, to seize the throne in Jerusalem.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


135) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 9:


- Kingdom of Israel:

Jehu to Menahem​

Soon after seizing power, Jehu found himself in trouble with than Elisha's other recently anointed king, Hazael of Damascus. Jehu appealed to Shalmaneser III of Assyria, an act memorialized in the Black Obeslisk unearthed in northern Iraq.

When Assyrian campaigns against Damascus waned, however, Hazael prevailed against both Israel and Judah. Under Jehu's son Jehoahaz, Israel was reduced to a vassal state of Damascus. After the death of Hazael, Assyria moved against Damascus again. This enabled Jehoahaz' son Joash (also called Jehoash to distinguish him from the Judean king of the same name) to defeat Damascus' new king, Ben-hadad III, in battle and recapture lost territory. He also struck against Judah, where he reportedly sacked Jerusalem and looted its Temple (2 Kings 14).

Israel reached the zenith of its power after the ascension of Jeroboam II (c. 783), who recaptured substantial Syrian and transjordanian territories and made Israel an even greater power than it had been in the days of the Omrian dynasty. However, this external glory was short-lived. Affluence gave rise to moral corruption, which was eloquently decried in the oracles of the literary prophets Amos and Hosea. Jeroboam's son Zachariah was assassinated by Shallum, beginning a period of instability and decline. Shallum was soon put him to death by an army officer, Menahem.

Menahem to Hoshea​

Israel could no longer avoid the Assyrians. Menahem's main recorded contribution was to stave off invasion by paying a tribute of thousand talents of silver to Tiglathpileser III. His son, Pekahiah, ruled only briefly. His assassin, Pekah, took the throne around 735 B.C.E., just in time to face the return of the Assyrians. Pekah allied with Damascus against both Assyria and Judah. Against Judah he had some success, but the Assyrians succeeded in annexing the Galilee. Israel's territory was now little more than the district surrounding the capital of Samaria. Pekah was assassinated by Hoshea.

The last king of Israel, Hoshea remained an Assyrian vassal until around 724 when the resurgence of Egypt's counterbalancing power led him to believe that revolt against Assyria could succeed. In this belief, he was tragically mistaken. The capital fell to an Assyrian siege in 722. Some 27,000 of its inhabitants were reportedly deported, and the district of Samaria became an Assyrian province. The deportees were scattered throughout the East. Today, they are popularly known as the Lost ten tribes of Israel. The Assyrians brought various eastern peoples to colonize lands vacated by the deportees. These and later arrivals at times intermarried with the remaining Israelites to form the mixed-blood people later known as Samaritans.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


136) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 9:


- Kingdom of Israel:


Religious Dimension

The author of the Book of Kings presents the history of the Northern Kingdom primarily as a manifestation of the struggle between the One-God principle and idolatry. Political fortunes rise and fall according to whether various kings do "what is right" in the Lord's eyes or not.

Those who honor Yahweh, Israel's God, do well. But this alone is not enough. They must also avoid any hint of worshiping other deities, and must aggressively move to destroy Canaanite religions other than Yahwism. Just as important, they must not continue the "sin of [the first] Jeroboam," namely to support the Israelite shrines at Bethel and Dan with their golden calf statues.

In this scenario, none of Israel's kings does the right thing. The House of Jehu, brought to power on the foundation of the ministry of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, receives praise for destroying Baal worship. However because even the kings of this pro-Yahwist dynasty allow the worship of the Canaanite goddess Ashera and refuse to pull down the bull calf statues at Dan and Bethel, they too are judged as evil in God's sight. God provides a final chance for repentance during the days of Jeroboam II through the prophecies of Amos and Hosea. Amos emphasizes the need for a religion based on moral principles and social justice, while Hosea calls on Israel to abandon her "adulterous" worship of other gods and to return to Yahweh, her true and loving husband. When Israel refuses to change her ways, the prophetic doom pronounced by these oracles comes to pass in the form of the final Assyrian victory over Israel in 722 B.C.E..

Critical view​

Critics point out that this biblical history of the Northern Kingdom was written by Judean priests, men who were loyal to Jerusalem and for whom the Yahweh-only principle was paramount. One might see an analogy in a history of the American Civil war written by an adamant northern abolitionist.

The biblical writers see the hand of God in such events as Jehu's brutal murder of Ahab's family and the mass slaughter of the prophet-priests of Baal by Elijah and later again by Jehu. These authors tolerate no compromise with religious pluralism. Even the ancient shrine at Bethel (the "house of El") is, to them, an abomination. Critical scholars wonder if the bull calf statue was the real issue, or whether it was more likely one of control. After all, the bible has no objection to the golden statues of the cherubim that occupied a place of honor in the Temple of Jerusalem. In declaring "Here are your 'gods' (Elohim), O Israel" was Jeroboam I truly denying Yahweh/Elohim, or was he merely declaring that the God of Israel (Elohim) could be worshiped just as well at Dan and Bethel as in Jerusalem? Critics also argue that the biblical account represses feminine depictions of the Divine, portraying God as masculine and furiously warlike, while denouncing feminine symbols of God as idolatrous. Archaeologists point out that until its demise, the Northern Kingdom was far more prosperous, populous, and advanced than the Southern Kingdom in terms of architecture and other aspects of culture; yet the bible portrays Jerusalem the only Hebrew city of glory and denigrates the cosmopolitan successes of North as manifestations of idolatry.

Whether or not one accepts the spiritual veracity of the biblical version of providential history, it can hardly be denied that this account favors Judah over Israel, and that it presents the viewpoint of the Jerusalem priesthood at the expense of the monarchs and religious institutions of the Northern Kingdom.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


137) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 9:


- Kingdom of Egypt:


https://bible-history.com/old-testament/egypt-kingdom-abraham




The Kingdom of Egypt During the Time of Abraham

Genesis 12:14, 15 - "And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house."

Abraham and Ancient Egypt. The Bible records that during a famine Abraham and his wife traveled down into Egypt. It also mentions the Pharaoh of Egypt and his dealings with Abraham and his wife (Gen. 12). It is very difficult to determine the exact time that Abraham had come into Egypt, and there have been numerous speculations regarding the Pharaoh that spoke with Abraham, none of which are certain. Below is a chronology that is accepted by historians.




Ancient Egyptian Chronology. (From the 1st Dynasty to the Persian Conquest). The history of Egypt from the 1st Dynasty which was around 3100 BC*, all the way to the invasion of Egypt by Cambyses of Persia in 525 BC can be divided into these periods:

1. The Early Dynastic Period (3100 BC - 2686 BC) 1st Dynasty**

2. The Old Kingdom (2686 BC - 2181 BC) 3rd Dynasty

3. The First Intermediate Period (2181 BC - 2040 BC)

4. The Middle Kingdom (2040 BC - 1795 BC) 11th Dynasty

5. The Second Intermediate Period (1795 BC - 1650 BC)

6. The Hyksos Rulers (1650 BC - 1550 BC)

7. The New Kingdom (1550 BC - 1069 BC) 17th Dynasty

8. The Third Intermediate Period (1069 BC - 702 BC)

9. The Persian Conquest of Egypt (525 BC) 27th Dynasty

*These dates are generally accepted among scholars. It is interesting to note that before 1600 BC the chronology of ancient Egypt is very uncertain.

**A dynasty is a series of rulers all descending from the same family. One Egyptian priest named Manetho from the third century BC wrote a history of Egypt and arranged it by 31 dynasties.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


138) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 9:


- Kingdom of Egypt:




https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/places/main-articles/egypt




Egypt is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible almost seven hundred times, and it is referred to another 25 times in the New Testament, making it the most frequently mentioned place outside Canaan in the Bible. In biblical times, Egypt was already an ancient civilization and the pyramids were thousands of years old. Israel’s status as a relative newcomer can be seen in the fact that many of the events described in the Hebrew Bible are set in an era now known as the New Kingdom (1550-1069 B.C.E.), which was the most recent of the major periods of ancient Egyptian history. Egypt and Israel shared a border in antiquity as they do today, and this led to occasional contact and interaction between the peoples of the two lands. Certain biblical passages allow us to get some sense of the nature of that relationship, but Egyptian texts are less helpful in that regard.

Was Egypt enemy territory for people in the Bible?​

The relationship between Egypt and the Israelites is complicated. According to several biblical passages, the Israelites spent about four hundred years of enslavement in Egypt (Gen 15:13, Exod 12:40-41, Acts 7:6). That was their longest sojourn away from Israel, and Exod 14 describes it coming to an end in dramatic fashion when the Red Sea is parted and the Israelites are able to escape to freedom. The great majority of the biblical references to Egypt are related to the exodus tradition, which describes Moses leading the people through the waters and on the road to the promised land. That period of captivity is the basis for the biblical view of Egypt as a place of banishment and bondage.

But that is only part of the story. The land of the pharaohs is also sometimes the Bible’s go-to place, and on occasion it was a destination for people leaving Israel either on their own or because they were forced to flee. In a reversal of the exodus journey, they headed south to seek asylum or refuge from oppression and tough times. Among the biblical notables who travel to Egypt in order to escape hardship are Abraham and Sarah (Gen 12:10-20), King Jeroboam of Israel (1Kgs 11:40), a group of people fleeing the Babylonians (2Kgs 25:26), the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 43:5-7), and the newborn Jesus and his family (Matt 2:13-15). There are even some passages in the prophetic books that refute the notion that Egypt is a place of enslavement by advising Israelites to relocate there to avoid exile in Babylon. The biblical view of Egypt is therefore a mixed one, both an arrival point and a departure point, an ally and an adversary. So the answer to the question of whether or not Egypt was enemy territory depends on which part of the Bible you happen to be reading.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


139) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 9:


- Kingdom of Egypt:

Is Israel mentioned in Egyptian sources?​

Egypt is commonly referred to in the Bible, but the favor is not returned in the Egyptian written material. The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, but in all of their annals there is not one reference to the exodus or the events and individuals associated with it in the Bible. That includes Moses, whose name is of Egyptian origin despite the attempt to connect it to Hebrew in Exod 2:10. (It comes from an Egyptian word that means “to give birth to a child” that is also found in the names of the pharaohs Thutmose and Ramesses). Another biblical figure who had an extended stay in Egypt is Joseph, but he too is not mentioned in Egyptian sources even though the Bible reports that he rose to a position of great authority there (Gen 37-50). That lack of attestation has raised questions in the minds of many scholars about the historicity of these biblical traditions.

The lone mention of Israel in an Egyptian text is found on a stela, or stone slab, that commemorates a military campaign of a pharaoh named Merneptah, who ruled from 1213 to 1203 B.C.E. This stela dates to approximately 1208 B.C.E., and it is important because it contains the earliest reference to Israel outside the Bible. Merneptah’s campaign took him to Canaan, and the inscription lists the various enemies he encountered and defeated along the way. Among those listed is one referred to as Israel, and what is particularly interesting is that the name is identified as a group of people and not, as the others on the list, a place. This tells us that by that time there was an entity in Canaan that was known as Israel. It sheds no light on how they got there or how long they had been there, but this Egyptian evidence provides the earliest clue we have that is related to the origin of the people who would go on to produce the Bible.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


140) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 10:


- Tigris:


https://bible-history.com/old-testament/tigris-euphrates-rivers

The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers​

Genesis 15:18 - In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.




The Tigris. The Tigris River was known by the Hebrews as "Hiddekel" and is one of the two large rivers of Mesopotamia, which the Bible says, flowed from the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:14). It is formed by the confluence of two rivers that flow from the mountains of Armenia. In ancient times the courses of the Tigris and Euphrates were separate. Their confluence before they flow into the Persian Gulf is very recent. The Tigris has a greater volume of water than the Euphrates and flows faster, making upstream navigating impossible. The powerful and prosperous cities of Nineveh, Calah and Ashur flourished along its shores.




The Euphrates. The Euphrates River is one of the largest rivers of western Asia, about 1700 miles long. In the Bible it is referred to by several names such as the "great river" or just "the river" and is among the four rivers, which flowed from the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:14). It formed the northeastern limit of the Promised Land (Gen 15:18). The river, which receives its waters from the mountains of Armenia, flows through a deep and narrow gorge, but as it descends toward Babylon, the Euphrates and the Tigris take different routes, which form the great broad plain of Mesopotamia. The Euphrates has a very strong current and therefore is navigable only in its lower parts. Along its shores flourished some of the important cities of Mesopotamia. The greatest was Babylon.




Between the Rivers. The word Mesopotamia means the land "between the rivers" which were the Tigris and Euphrates. Although the courses have changed dramatically since ancient times we know the area was nearly 700 - 1000 miles long and nearly 300 miles across. The rivers were so large that the land was considered an "island" that was between them. But the heart of ancient Mesopotamia was in the northwest where the Euphrates made a huge bend at the northern portion of the Tigris as shown in the map above. The Bible records Mesopotamia as the city of Nahor, Abraham's brother (Genesis 24:10).

Genesis 11:31 - "They went from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan..."

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


141) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 10:


- Uphaz:


https://www.biblestudy.org/meaning-names/uphaz.html


Bible Meaning: Desire of fine gold

Strong's Concordance #H210

Uphaz was a region known for its high quality gold. The location of the region is unknown.

The five Biblical places known for producing gold are Havilah (Genesis 2:11 - 12), Sheba (1Kings 10:2, 10), Ophir (Job 28:16), Uphaz (Jeremiah 10:7 - 9, Daniel 10:4 - 6) and Parvaim (2Chronicles 3:6).

The Jerusalem Talmud states that there were seven kinds of gold. These were good gold, pure, precious, gold from Uphaz, purified, refined, and Parvaim's red gold.

Important verses​

Jeremiah 10:7 - 9

Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee. But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.

Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men.

Daniel 10:2, 4 - 6

In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks . . .

And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel; Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning . . .

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


142) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


Daniel 11:


- City of Kittim (ships of Kittim):


https://bibleatlas.org/kittim.htm




kit'-im (kittim, Isaiah 23:12 Jeremiah 2:10; kittiyim, apparently plural of kitti (not found, but compare (4) below); Ketioi, Kitioi, Ketieim, Jeremiah 2:10; Chettieim, Chettein): identified with Sepphoris, which is represented by the modern village of Seffuriyeh.


1. Two Usages of the Name:


In Genesis 10:4 the word is applied to the descendants of Javan, and indicates, therefore, the Greek-Latin races, whose territory extended along the coasts of the Mediterranean, and included its islands. By the side of Kittim are mentioned Elisha, Tarshish, and Dodanim (= Rodanim of 1 Chronicles 1:7), generally explained respectively as Sicily with Southern Italy, Spain and Rhodes. In its narrower sense Kittim appears simply to have stood for the island of Cyprus-it is mentioned between Bashan (= Pal) and the isles of Elisha in Ezekiel 27:6, 7, and with this Isaiah 23:1, 12 agree, Kittim occurring in these passages between Tarshish, Tyre and Sidon.


2. In Its Limited Sense:

The oldest etymology is apparently that of Josephus, who connects Kittim with the well-known old Cypriote city Kition (Citium) (Ant., I, vi, 1), testifying to the settling of the Kittim on the island. This word he further connects with Chethima, from Chethimus, and states that it was on account of Cyprus being the home of those people that all islands were called Chethim by the Hebrews. The derivation of an ancient Chethim from Chethimus, however, would make the m to be a radical, and this, with the substitution of Ch (= Kh) for Kittim, renders his proposed etymology somewhat doubtful.


The statement of Josephus, that "all islands, and the greatest part of the sea-coast, are called Chethim (= Kittim) by the Hebrews," on the other hand, must be taken as the testimony of one well acquainted with the opinions of the learned world in his time. In Jeremiah 2:10 and Ezekiel 27:6 the isles of Kittim are expressly spoken of, and this confirms the statement of Josephus concerning the extended meaning of the name. This would explain its application to the Roman fleet in Daniel 11:30 (so the Vulgate), and the Macedonians in 1 Maccabees 1:1 (Chettieim) and 8:5 (Kitians). In the latter passage the Greek writer seems to have been thinking more of the Cyprian Kition than of the Hebrew Kittim.


4. Colonization of Cyprus:

According to Herodotus (vii.90), Cyprus was colonized from Greece, Phoenicia, and Ethiopia. Referring to the plundering of the temple of Aphrodite at Askalon by the Scythians (i.105), he states that her temple in Cyprus was an offshoot from that ancient foundation, as reported by the Cyprians themselves, Phoenicians having founded it at Cythera, on arriving from Syria. The date of the earliest Phoenician settlements in Cyprus is unknown, but it has been suggested that they were anterior to the time of Moses. Naturally they brought with them their religion, the worship of the moon-goddess Atargatis (Derceto) being introduced at Paphos, and the Phoenician Baal at Kition. If Kition be, then, a Semitic word (from the same root as the Hebrew Kittim), it has been transferred from the small band of Phoenician settlers which it at first designated, to the non-Sem Japhethites of the West. Kition occurs in the Phoenician inscriptions of Cyprus under the forms K(i)t(t) and K(i)t(t)i, the latter being by far the more common (CIS, I, i, 10, 11, 14, 19, etc.).


5. Its Successive Masters:

The early history of Cyprus is uncertain. According to the Assyrian copy of Sargon of Agade's omens, that king (about 3800 B.C. in the opinion of Nabonidus; 2800 B.C. in the opinion of many Assyriologists) is said to have crossed "the sea of the setting sun" (the Mediterranean), though the Babylonian copy makes it that of "the rising sun"-i.e. the Persian Gulf. Be this as it may, General Cesnola discovered at Curium, in Cyprus, a seal-cylinder apparently inscribed "Mar-Istar, son of Ilu-bani, servant (worshipper) of Naram-Sin," the last named being the deified son of Sargon. In the 16th century B.C., Cyprus was tributary to Thothmes III. About the year 708 B.C., Sargon of Assyria received the submission of the kings of the district of Ya', in Cyprus, and set up at Citium the stele bearing his name, which is now in the Royal Museum at Berlin. Esarhaddon and his son Assur-bani-apli each received tribute from the 10 Cyprian princes who acknowledged Assyrian supremacy. The island was conquered by the Egyptian king Amasis, and later formed part of the Persian empire, until the revolt of Evagoras in 410 B.C. The Assyrians knew the island under the name of Yad(a)nanu, the "Wedan" (Vedan) of Ezekiel 27:19 Revised Version (British and American) (Sayce, PSBA, 1912, 26).


6. The Races Therein and Their Languages:

If the orthodox date for the composition of Genesis be accepted, not only the Phoenicians, but also the Greeks, or a people of Greek-Latin stock, must have been present in Cyprus, before the time of Moses, in sufficient number to make them the predominant portion of the population. As far as can be judged, the Phoenicians occupied only the eastern and southern portion of the island. Paphos, where they had built a temple to Ashtoreth and set up an 'asherah (a pillar symbolizing the goddess), was one of their principal settlements. The rest of the island was apparently occupied by the Aryans, whose presence there caused the name of Kittim to be applied to all the Greek-Latin countries of the Mediterranean. Greek and Phoenician were the languages spoken on the island, as was proved by George Smith's demonstration of the nature of the non-Phoenician text of the inscription of King Melek-yathon of Citium (370 B.C.). The signs used in the Greek-Cyprian inscriptions are practically all syllabic.


7. The Testimony of Cyprian Art:


The many influences which have modified the Cyprian race are reflected in the ancient art, which shows the effect of Babylonian, Egyptian Phoenician and Greek contacts. Specimens are to be found in many museums, but the finest collection of examples of Cyprian art is undoubtedly that of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Some of the full-length figures are life-size, and the better class of work is exceedingly noteworthy.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


143) Geographical locations in the book of Daniel


- The land of Shinar:


https://www.gotquestions.org/land-of-Shinar.html




The land of Shinar is referenced eight times in the Old Testament (Genesis 10:10; 11:2; 14:1, 9; Joshua 7:21; Isaiah 11:11; Daniel 1:2; Zechariah 5:11), always in connection to the geographical location of Babylonia. In certain passages, some versions of the Bible translate the word for “Shinar” as “Babylonia” for clarity’s sake. Shinar is significant for these reasons:


Shinar was the location of the Tower of Babel. Genesis 10:10 mentions that Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, built “Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar.” A plain in Shinar was the site chosen to construct the notorious Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–4). As punishment for the people’s wickedness, God confused their language, and thus the land of Shinar earned the name of “Babel” or “Babylon” (Genesis 11:5–9). Babylon and Babylonia both derive their names from Babel, which means “confusion.”


Shinar was ruled by a king that Abraham fought. During Abraham’s time, four kings, including Amraphel, king of Shinar, fought against the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and three other kings (Genesis 14:1–3, 8–9). After overpowering the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, the four kings plundered the cities, carrying away Lot and all he owned (Genesis 14:10–12). To save his nephew, Abraham and 318 of his men routed the raiding party, defeated the four kings, and recovered Lot, his family, and his possessions (Genesis 14:13–17).




Shinar was associated with temptation. After taking Jericho, the Israelites failed in conquering Ai because of sin in the camp (Joshua 7:10–12). Achan had stolen devoted items from Jericho, which the Lord had specifically commanded against (Joshua 6:18–19). Included in the plundered items was a finely crafted, beautiful robe from Shinar (Joshua 7:21). Because of Achan’s sin, about thirty-six people lost their lives during the failed attempt at taking Ai (Joshua 7:4–5). After his sin was discovered, Achan and his family were stoned to death in accordance with God’s command (Joshua 7:24–26).


Shinar was associated with Babylon’s wickedness. Zechariah the prophet recorded a vision of a basket with a lead cover. The angel guiding Zechariah identified the meaning of the basket: “This is the iniquity of the people throughout the land” (Zechariah 5:6). Then the angel raised the cover of lead, revealing to the prophet that there was a woman in the basket. The angel said, “‘This is wickedness,’ and he pushed her back into the basket and pushed the lead cover down over its mouth” (Zechariah 5:8). The basket with the woman was then carried through air to the land of Shinar where a temple would be built for it (verse 11). This strange vision pictures the suppression of wickedness and its banishment to Shinar/Babylon. In Shinar, the wickedness would eventually be freed and even worshiped (cf. Revelation 17). Shinar is associated with the wicked worship of false gods, and in the end times, Babylon the Great is the center of wickedness and demon worship (Revelation 18:2–3).

Shinar was the location of Judah’s exile. When the nation of Judah was finally taken into exile to Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar carried off the devoted things of the Lord’s temple and placed them in a temple to the god he worshipped (Daniel 1:1–2). Nebuchadnezzar probably placed the precious items into the temple of Marduk, also called Bel, which was the chief god of the Babylonians. Because of disobedience and idol worship, the Jews were exiled from their land to Shinar (2 Chronicles 36:15–21).


Shinar is a place that will contain a faithful remnant of Israel. Isaiah 11 mentions the future millennial kingdom of the “Root of Jesse” who will “stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious” (Isaiah 11:10). During His reign, Jesus will “recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea” (Isaiah 11:11, ESV). This promise assures us that God’s people will be regathered—even from Shinar—to worship the Lord in His future kingdom.




Shinar is significant in its connection to the world’s historical rebellion against God: everything from the construction of the Tower of Babel to its association with idols, its mistreatment of Israel, and its future association with the Antichrist. Despite the many evils in the land of Shinar, God has preserved His people there. Believing Israelites in Shinar will participate in Jesus’ millennial kingdom in the future, demonstrating God’s grace and redemption.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


144) The Administration in Babylon:


https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/babylonian-empire

Babylonian Empire​

Type of Government​

Located on the banks of the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq), the city-state of Babylon was the capital of two empires over the course of its long history. Both were absolute monarchies. The first was marked by the king’s personal involvement in even the most trivial affairs of state. An ever-expanding bureaucracy, a more powerful priesthood, and greater interaction with distant powers distinguished the second empire from its predecessor.

Background​

Because the term Babylonian Empire can be misleading, a few clarifications are necessary. First, it is important to note that Babylon and Babylonia are not identical. For much of its history, the city of Babylon was only one of a number of independent states in the region called Babylonia. Indeed, it was the conquest of those neighboring states that created the empires. Second, many of the most familiar features of Babylon did not exist until the second empire, often called the Chaldean or neo-Babylonian Empire, arose more than a thousand years after the first. Strictly speaking, however, the term Babylonian Empire refers only to the first incarnation, which began in about 1894 BC and ended three hundred years later.

Urban civilizations had existed in Mesopotamia for more than a thousand years when Babylon first rose to prominence. Because the land between the Tigris and Euphrates was a fertile and well-watered enclave in a barren landscape, it proved extremely attractive to a variety of nomadic peoples. Among those who stayed, abandoning nomadism for a more settled life of farming and trade, were the Amorites. Their union with the more established residents of northern Babylonia, an area known as Akkad, led to the establishment of a new dynasty in Babylon itself. The new king, Sumu-Abum (c. 1894–c. 1881 BC), was an Amorite.

His administration probably resembled those in nearby cities such as Kish and Kazallu. Construction of defensive walls, irrigation canals, and temples was a major preoccupation. Strong city walls were an obvious need in a land crowded with rival states, but the other projects were critical to royal power as well. No king or city in Mesopotamia could survive without active, centralized management of their water resources through canals, levees, and dams. As Sumu-Abum himself understood, one of the most effective ways of waging war against a enemy downstream was to simply divert the river. Less obvious to modern eyes, perhaps, is the benefit Sumu-Abum, his successors, and his rivals derived from their continual construction and reconstruction of temples, an activity that absorbed enormous manpower and a large share of government revenue. However, the basis of a Mesopotamian king’s legitimacy was the perceived closeness of his relationship with the gods. A king who neglected the temples was inviting the wrath of heaven and the fury of his people.

The other major focus of Mesopotamian kings was warfare, usually in the form of temporary, small-scale raids against neighbors. So it was with Sumu-Abum and the first four of his successors. The sixth, however, was Hammurabi (d. 1750 BC), one of the most famous rulers of antiquity. It was Hammurabi’s sustained military success, particularly against Larsa, Babylon’s powerful southern rival, that transformed the relatively prosperous city-state into a major regional power. He is better known, however, for the so-called Code of Hammurabi, a series of hypothetical if-then statements that judges could use as a guide in adjudicating the real cases before them. The code illustrates Hammurabi’s lifelong interest in law and the importance he accorded it in his administration. It also reveals something of his philosophy of kingship, a philosophy that permeated the structural framework of his government.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


145) The Administration in Babylon:

Government Structure​

A king’s closeness to the gods should not prevent his personal involvement in the most mundane, trivial, or unpleasant affairs of state. Or so the extensive records of Hammurabi’s administration suggest. These include letters to other heads of state, instructions to subordinates, and propaganda. The overwhelming impression is a paradox: a large bureaucracy designed to bring the smallest details of every facet of government activity to the attention of the king. While most bureaucracies exist to remove from the king or chief executive the burden of routine business, Hammurabi seems to have welcomed it, for reasons about which can only be speculated. Even though most Mesopotamian kings would have handled some legal cases as the court of last resort, Hammurabi involved himself in land disputes between farmers, contract disputes between merchants, and other routine legal business. A personal interest in law may have played a role. Most historians believe, however, that he simply took to heart the king’s traditional role as the guardian of justice. His involvement in diplomatic and military affairs might have had the same motive, if he believed that one of his neighbors was abusing the rights of the people.

Hammurabi’s attention to detail had a significant effect on the structure of his government. Scribes and literate clerks were the foundation of his administration, for it was only through their efforts that he could be kept abreast of state affairs with the thoroughness he demanded. Accurate records were crucial, particularly in the management of the frequent military drafts and the ilkum, a kind of compulsory labor service. After conquering a new territory, the king would send out a small corps of specialists under his immediate command to handle its integration into the empire. Such tasks were ideal training for future monarchs. Hammurabi is known to have sent his sons on diplomatic missions, just as he gave at least one daughter in marriage to an ally. Serious illness toward the end of his life forced Hammurabi to transfer most duties to Samsu-Iluna (eighteenth century BC), his son and successor. Even though it may well have been a difficult decision for Hammurabi, the transfer to Samsu-Iluna was useful in clarifying the succession and avoiding a bitter fight for the throne after the great king’s death.

Despite the turmoil of the centuries between the first and second empires, a basic conservatism prevented radical change in the political structure. Like many other ancient peoples, Babylonians revered the traditions and habits of their ancestors, whom they regarded as closer to the gods. Some change, including the expansion of the bureaucracy as a result of increased trade and territory, was accepted as inevitable. However, any other deviation from perceived tradition was likely to meet resistance.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/

146) The Administration in Babylon

Political Parties and Factions​

Most political intrigue in the first empire had external roots, as neighboring kings tried to undermine each other’s authority. It is likely that tax burdens and compulsory labor provoked some purely internal dissatisfaction, but little is known for certain. The king’s prestige as the semidivine embodiment of divine order undoubtedly stifled the expression of dissent. Some kings went further, declaring themselves wholly immortal. Many historians suspect that declarations of immortality were primarily a tool of weak or troubled kings to enhance their authority; Hammurabi himself apparently never felt the need to issue one.

Perhaps the most important distinction between the first and second empires is a dramatic increase in the power of the various priesthoods, particularly that of Marduk, Babylon’s patron god. Ironically, the priests’ new power stemmed largely from their ability to harness the people’s reverence for the past. If the authority of the gods was eternal and inviolate, went the argument, the authority of their priests ought to be as well. In fact, many early kings, particularly Hammurabi, kept tight control of the priesthoods. Religion and politics were inseparable in Mesopotamia, but the most successful kings took care to assert their authority over the temples and the priests who staffed them. Over time, this became an increasingly difficult task.


Major Events

After a period of increasing turmoil and internal weakness, Babylon fell to the invading Kassites, an Iranian people, in about 1575 BC. Their rule seems to have had little discernable effect on Babylon’s political structure, but the lack of written records from this period makes certainty impossible. By the middle of the twelfth century, power had passed to another Iranian people, the Elamites, though the powerful Assyrians were soon threatening from the north. They would dominate Babylon for the next five hundred years, until their downfall in about 625 BC at the hands of Nabopolassar (d. 605 BC), the leader of the Chaldean people, who came from what is now Kuwait. During their rule some of the most familiar events of Babylonian history occurred, including the construction of the Hanging Gardens and the conquest of Jerusalem, both of which were the work of Nabopolassar’s son, Nebuchadrezzar II (c. 630–562 BC).

Aftermath​

In 539 BC the Persians, in concert with the priests of Marduk, seized Babylon without a fight. The city’s economic and cultural prominence continued until the Persian king Xerxes I (c. 519–465 BC) plundered it and destroyed its walls after a failed rebellion in 482 BC. The effects of Xerxes’ revenge were permanent.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


147) The Administration in Assyria


https://database.ours.foundation/6HRTLYZ/




In the time of ancient Assyria, the Near East had several different types of governments. There were the Babylonian cities, where power was held in assemblies comprised of tribal and other social leaders of the citizen body. Generally speaking, though, monarchies were the most common system – depending on the government, the head of state would be called the king or maybe a city lord or clan leader. Assyria had a monarch, and by the Neo-Assyrian era the Assyrian kings presented themselves in their inscriptions as the sole creators and maintainers of the empire.

In truth, the Assyrian king was part of a vast state apparatus – at the top of the apparatus, of course – and engaged tremendously not just in exercising power but also in delegating it as well across an empire that at times included far-flung islands such as Cyprus and Bahrain. The machinery of the state including many officials – bureaucrats, military commanders, and cultural elites – who made up a vast administrative body and who are attested to within the abundant letters, reports, and other textual sources which have been excavated and translated.

Territorial control.​

Viewed at the broadest level, areas that were part of the Assyrian state were either provinces or vassals. Both were kept cooperative and loyal not just through punitive, militaristic, ≤i>negative means but also through positive means such as support in maintaining authority and through proximity and inclusion with the royal household. Pesonal family links were a crucial tool for the Assyrian king in keeping stability.

Provinces — these were directly and centrally administered through governors who were appointed by the Assyrian king. Governors had no claim to their office except through the king. Governors were often drawn from the royal court, and over time eunuchs were favored as they had been in the royal court since infancy and had no dynastic ambitions.

• Vassals — these were more locally administered, but were expected to pull the yoke of Assyria as inscriptions say. They had their own local rulers who were often related to the Assyrian household through dynastic marriage. Also, the Assyrian king kept a qepu in the vassal's court to represent Assyrian interests and report back intelligence.
  

On provinces.​

Regions formally incorporated into Assyria were organized as provinces. They were under the full central authority of the king. The king appointed a pahatu or bel pihati for each province, which are often called governors in English but actually translate more closely as proxies – as in, the proxies of the king. When a new king ascended to the throne he held the same authority over them as his predecessor. He could swap out any incumbent governor. This was in contrast to vassal rulers, who generally had their own dynasties and maintained hereditary rule. From the 9th century reign of Ashurnasirpal onwards, the governors were mostly eunuchs (if not entirely so) – royal inscriptions referring to my governors, my eunuchs.

On vassals.​

Vassals were states whose rulers pledged allegiance to the Assyrian king. Their rulers would sign treaties and swear oaths by the gods that their states would pull the yoke of Assyria. This agricultural term does not just reflect being brought under control and made tame, but also carrying a burden and making contributions of labor, financial, or other resources that were very important in the fruitfulness of Assyrian ambitions.

Vassal rulers were held responsible for their own kingdom or city-state. For the most part, they were under local governance. They had some level of autonomy, such as the ability to pass their office on by inheritance. However, they had to accept the presence and authority of delegates from the king. These delegates were known as qepu and represented the Assyrians' interests in their client states' governments – all the while, the qepu would also communicate back to the Assyrian central administration.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


148) The Administration in Assyria


The relationship between the Assyrian central administration and its vassals was cultivated and deepened over generations. Dynastic marriages into the Assyrian royal household were normal, as was keeping members of the vassal ruler's family in the Assyrian royal court. These family members were essentially collateral or hostages, but they were given excellent treatment and were expected to be supportive to Assyria when they were returned home.

Generally, vassals were outside the Assyrian heartland and furthest from the central administration. Islands in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf – among them Cyprus, Tyre, Arwad, and Bahrain – as well as mountainous areas in the Taurus and Zagros and the flats of the North Arabian Desert, are examples of far reaches that were treated as vassals. However, there were some vassals – for example, a cluster of Aramaean tribes, or the city-states of the Medes – that were quite close to the heartland but remained difficult to subdue by any means except occasional military submission and exaction of tribute.

Paying tribute and submitting to the Assyrian king had some practical benefit for a vassal. In the event of uprisings, the Assyrian central administration was expected to side with their vassal and quell any threats or popular resistance. However, in the 8th century the calculus of which empire to side with could become exceedingly complicated both for the ruling class and the proletariat. We see that especially in Syria, many vassals defected from Assyria and joined Urartu, which was a major competitor with its heartland in the Armenian highlands.

We see that Tiglath-Pileser III put in place a zero-tolerance policy that was maintained by his successors. His vassal rulers in Syria remained loyal, but the general population there had moved to the Urartian interest sphere and Assyrian rule was weakened. He conducted a military campaign, followed by the elimination of local government and the absorption of the vassal regions as full-fledged, centrally administered provinces of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. These areas were not new to Assyrian political influence, but their status as provinces of a central state was new. These efforts were continued by Tiglath-Pileser III's successors and we see the addition of provinces that amounted to a tripling of the area under central Assyrian control within just a few decades.

Great Ones​

The Great Ones were the most senior Assyrian state officials, usually numbering about 120. The king had to totally trust them and relied on their absolute loyalty. There were several positions making up the Great Ones,

• Regional representatives
  
  • Governors put in place to directly administer provinces.
    
  • The qepu officials assigned to monitor vassals.
    
• Chief Cupbearer
  
• Palace Herald
  

Letters between the king and the Great Ones reveal that his relationship with them provided them enough autonomy and fair treatment to conduct their affairs faithfully, dutifully, and loyally. This was essential to guarantee the Assyrian Empire maintained effective control over distant territories, via the Great Ones. Despite all authority tracing up the king, there was a tremendous amount of mutual trust and respect between the Great Ones and the king himself. Remarkably, reliefs show the king – equal in size and eye to eye – in deep conversations with his highest officials. This indicates they could speak candidly and at ease with the king, within the bounds of appropriate and polite behavior as required by protocol.

From the 9th century BC onward, the composition of the Great Ones changed. Many Great Ones had held their positions through heredity, and belonged to ancient noble families. However, from the reign of Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal onward, these hereditary officeholders were replaced with palace-educated professional bureaucrats – the eunuchs. This provided important stability by centralizing the Assyrian king's power, and also ensuring officeholders were chosen on merit rather than family ties. It was a significant change in the role or royal eunuchs, who previously had been mostly within the palace but now were used throughout the empire in highly visible and powerful roles.

The royal seal.​

When the Assyrian state shifted from a kingdom to an empire, an innovation took place: the royal seal, which was given to each of the Great Ones. The royal seal allowed those who held it to act on the king's behalf. This made it a powerful tool whose implementation coincided with a rising need to delegate power from the king to his officials across a vast territory. Simply possessing the seal was enough to issue commands in the king's stead, and additionally, it could be used on contracts or written orders – it served as a royal authorization as if from the king himself.

However, the royal seal only gave power via the king. The Great Ones had the power to use the royal seal, of course, but they were merely instruments of the king. The royal seal itself was engraved as a seal on a golden finger ring. It depicted the king killing a lion in close combat, symbolizing his strength and his power to tame evil forces. The image was known throughout the empire.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


149) The Administration in Assyria

Communication

There was tremendous uncertainty in the Near East for a sender giving a letter or anything else to a messenger who would bring it to the recipient. Anxiety about it meant that only the messenger — and not a single person else — was expected to handle the delivery until giving it to the recipient. The messenger would single-handedly make the delivery, along with a riding animal — and for greater speed but at a greater cost, the messenger would bring two riding animals the animals could take turns rather than one needing to take extended breaks.

The key thing here was that in traversing complicated territories with conflicting political systems, the delivery and its messenger stayed together as the only way to have any sort of guarantee of delivery. Letters were immensely private things, and they were recorded on tablets that were then encased with clay that bore the messenger's seal and sometimes a very brief description of the contents. Messengers were trusted to not only make the delivery but to respect the privacy of the contents. With the transition to alphabetic Aramaic from cuneiform Assyrian, there was an explosion and deepening of literacy among previous illiterate or barely literate levels of society — the Aramization of the Near East — this trust must have become even more important.

On the Neo-Assyrian relay system.​

In the 9th century BC, the Neo-Assyrian Empire developed a completely innovative communications strategy. It became possible to send mail and goods from the capital all the way to the Mediterranean at Adana (the ancient Assyrian vassal of Quwe) within five days. This was a distance of 700 kilometers that included rivers, mountain ranges, and steppes. The new system worked by overcoming the challenge of trust, and the inefficient single-messenger-per-delivery system that was traditional. In the traditional system, even with two animals, eventually they would need to rest, sleep, eat, and drink — and even if the animals were able to survive, the messenger himself needed breaks as well. Deliveries that might take one hundred uninterrupted hours could increase to a week in practice. In the new system, there were postal stations every 35 to 40 kilometers across the entire empire. The messenger would bring the delivery to the next postal station, and rather than the package waiting for them to recover it was instead given to a messenger at that postal station who brought it to the next station on its journey. The package never had to come to a standstill and could be transported effectively uninterrupted. (Of note, no postal stations have been excavated yet which limits our understanding.)

We do not know exactly how the exchange worked, or if deliveries were made at night, but it brought a tremendous degree of efficiency. The speed of the Assyrian postal system was not exceeded for two thousand years with the introduction of the telegraph in the 19th century. However, this system was operated by the military and was only available for the royal court and those holding the royal seal — not more than about 150 people. The expense of this system — the mules, the soldier-messengers, not to mention the postal stations themselves maintained across the entire empire — suddenly seems even more expensive when considering it was only for top-level administrative use. It must have had tremendous benefit in supporting the coherence of the empire. The royal seal was put in place alongside the development of the postal system, suggesting it was part of a master strategy for stability, the delegation of responsibility, and the visibility of the king through the golden ring worn by his trusted appointees.

The extremely elite and militarized nature of the relay system suggests that the issue of trust was still present. Although modern people receive mail without needing to consider who exactly of tens and hundreds of people had access to it, this was an entirely new concept in the 9th century BC. However, there was tension between efficiency and increasing the number of people involved in mail handling. This tension was ameliorated in various ways. The relay system was only operated by sworn servants of the state — even the mules were part of the state assets — and the amount of trust the king placed in their service means the postal system itself can be viewed as an extended way that the Assyrian king was forced to delegate tasks as the empire expanded too far for single-handed central control. Also, it was highly efficient but the relay system was only efficient with a low level of throughput to ensure the relays were on standby. When the Neo-Assyrian populace adopted Aramaic, the state explicitly required only Assyrian cuneiform on all official documents. This may have been more than just continuity of the language of recordkeeping, or the deep scribal tradition around cuneiform — it may have been a means to curtail normal people from snooping.

On mules.​

Mules were the backbone of communication. They are the generally sterile offspring of two different species: a horse and a donkey. They do not need as much food or water as a horse — but also have the strength of a donkey, without its stubbornness — and mules can be ridden, which of course is also possible with a horse but is not possible with a donkey. Mules were excellent for long-distance transport in an arid, challenging climate like much of the ancient Assyrian territory.

However, mules were expensive in ancient Assyria — in fact, they are still expensive to this day — and would have cost several times the price of a human. Producing a mule requires forcing a horse and a donkey to mate, which would almost never happen without human interference, and they are almost never able to produce offspring themselves. Skilled professionals are required to produce mules, from the mule's point of conception through its training. Mules were unaffordable to most people, but the Assyrian state used them extensively in transporting communications and goods.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


150) The Administration in Egypt


https://www.britannica.com/place/ancient-Egypt/Government-and-conditions-under-the-Ptolemies


Government and conditions under the Ptolemies

The changes brought to Egypt by the Ptolemies were momentous; the land’s resources were harnessed with unparalleled efficiency, with the result that Egypt became the wealthiest of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Land under cultivation was increased, and new crops were introduced (especially important was the introduction of naked tetraploid wheat, Triticum durum, to replace the traditional husked emmer, Triticum dicoccum). The population, estimated at perhaps three to four million in the late Dynastic period, may have more than doubled by the early Roman period to a level not reached again until the late 19th century. Some of the increase was due to immigration; particularly during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, many settlers were attracted from cities in Anatolia (Asia Minor) and the Greek islands, and large numbers of Jews came from Palestine. The flow may have decreased later in the Ptolemaic period, and it is often suggested, on slender evidence, that there was a serious decline in prosperity in the 1st century bce. If so, there may have been some reversal of this trend under Cleopatra VII.

Administration​

The foundation of the prosperity was the governmental system devised to exploit the country’s economic resources. Directly below the monarch were a handful of powerful officials whose authority extended over the entire land: a chief finance minister, a chief accountant, and a chancery of ministers in charge of records, letters, and decrees. A level below them lay the broadening base of a pyramid of subordinate officials with authority in limited areas, which extended down to the chief administrator of each village (kōmarchēs). Between the chief ministers and the village officials stood those such as the nome steward (oikonomos) and the stratēgoi, whose jurisdiction extended over one of the more than 30 nomes, the long-established geographic divisions of Egypt. In theory, this bureaucracy could regulate and control the economic activities of every subject in the land, its smooth operation guaranteed by the multiplicity of officials capable of checking up on one another. In practice, it is difficult to see a rigid civil service mentality at work, involving clear demarcation of departments; specific functions might well have been performed by different officials according to local need and the availability of a person competent to take appropriate action.

By the same token, rigid lines of separation between military, civil, legal, and administrative matters are difficult to perceive. The same official might perform duties in one or all of these areas. The military was inevitably integrated into civilian life because its soldiers were also farmers who enjoyed royal grants of land, either as Greek cleruchs (holders of allotments) with higher status and generous grants or as native Egyptian machimoi with small plots. Interlocking judiciary institutions, in the form of Greek and Egyptian courts (chrēmatistai and laokritai), provided the means for Greeks and Egyptians to regulate their legal relationships according to the language in which they conducted their business. The bureaucratic power was heavily weighted in favour of the Greek speakers, the dominant elite. Egyptians were nevertheless able to obtain official posts in the bureaucracy, gradually infiltrating to the highest levels, but in order to do so they had to Hellenize.

 

[JLG]

https://ilearnaboutthebible.blogspot.com/


151) The Administration in Egypt


Economy

The basis of Egypt’s legendary wealth was the highly productive land, which technically remained in royal ownership. A considerable portion was kept under the control of temples, and the remainder was leased out on a theoretically revocable basis to tenant-farmers. A portion also was available to be granted as gifts to leading courtiers; one of these was Apollonius, the finance minister of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who had an estate of 10,000 arourae (about 6,500 acres [2,630 hectares]) at Philadelphia in Al-Fayyūm. Tenants and beneficiaries were able to behave very much as if these leases and grants were private property. The revenues in cash and kind were enormous, and royal control extended to the manufacture and marketing of almost all important products, including papyrus, oil, linen, and beer. An extraordinarily detailed set of revenue laws, promulgated under Ptolemy II Philadelphus, laid down rules for the way in which officials were to monitor the production of such commodities. In fact, the Ptolemaic economy was very much a mixture of direct royal ownership and exploitation by private enterprise under regulated conditions.

One fundamental and far-reaching Ptolemaic innovation was the systematic monetarization of the economy. The monarchy also controlled this from top to bottom by operating a closed monetary system, which permitted only the royal coinage to circulate within Egypt. A sophisticated banking system underpinned this practice, operating again with a mixture of direct royal control and private enterprise and handling both private financial transactions and those that directed money into and out of the royal coffers. One important concomitant of this change was an enormous increase in the volume of trade, both within Egypt and abroad, which eventually reached its climax under the peaceful conditions of Roman rule. There the position and role of Alexandria as the major port and trading entrepôt was crucial: the city handled a great volume of Egypt’s domestic produce, as well as the import and export of luxury goods to and from the East and the cities of the eastern Mediterranean. It developed its own importance as an artistic centre, the products of which found ready markets throughout the Mediterranean. Alexandrian glassware and jewelry were particularly fine, Greek-style sculpture of the late Ptolemaic period shows especial excellence, and it is likely that the city was also the major production centre for high-quality mosaic work.

Religion​

The Ptolemies were powerful supporters of the native Egyptian religious foundations, the economic and political power of which was, however, carefully controlled. A great deal of the late building and restoration work in many of the most important Egyptian temples is Ptolemaic, particularly from the period of about 150–50 bce, and the monarchs appear on temple reliefs in the traditional forms of the Egyptian kings. The native traditions persisted in village temples and local cults, many having particular associations with species of sacred animals or birds. At the same time, the Greeks created their own identifications of Egyptian deities, identifying Amon with Zeus, Horus with Apollo, Ptah with Hephaestus, and so on. They also gave some deities, such as Isis, a more universal significance that ultimately resulted in the spread of her mystery cult throughout the Mediterranean world. The impact of the Greeks is most obvious in two phenomena. One is the formalized royal cult of Alexander and the Ptolemies, which evidently served both a political and a religious purpose. The other is the creation of the cult of Sarapis, which at first was confined to Alexandria but soon became universal. The god was represented as a Hellenized deity and the form of cult is Greek, but its essence is the old Egyptian notion that the sacred Apis bull merged its divinity in some way with the god Osiris when it died.

Culture​

The continuing vitality of the native Egyptian artistic tradition is clearly and abundantly expressed in the temple architecture and the sculpture of the Ptolemaic period. The Egyptian language continued to be used in its hieroglyphic and demotic forms until late in the Roman period, and it survived through the Byzantine period and beyond in the form of Coptic. The Egyptian literary tradition flourished vigorously in the Ptolemaic period and produced a large number of works in demotic. The genre most commonly represented is the romantic tale, exemplified by several story cycles, which are typically set in the native, Pharaonic milieu and involve the gods, royal figures, magic, romance, and the trials and combats of heroes. Another important category is the Instruction Text, the best known of the period being that of Ankhsheshonq, which consists of a list of moralizing maxims, composed, as the story goes, when Ankhsheshonq was imprisoned for having failed to inform the king (pharaoh) of an assassination plot. Another example, known as Papyrus Insinger, is a more narrowly moralizing text. But the arrival of a Greek-speaking elite had an enormous impact on cultural patterns. The Egyptian story cycles were probably affected by Greek influence, literary and technical works were translated into Greek, and under royal patronage an Egyptian priest named Manetho of Sebennytos wrote an account of the kings of Egypt in Greek. Most striking is the diffusion of the works of the poets and playwrights of classical Greece among the literate Greeks in the towns and villages of the Nile River valley.

Thus there are clear signs of the existence of two interacting but distinct cultural traditions in Ptolemaic Egypt. This was certainly reflected in a broader social context. The written sources offer little direct evidence of ethnic discrimination by Greeks against Egyptians, but Greek and Egyptian consciousness of the Greeks’ social and economic superiority comes through strongly from time to time; intermarriage was one means, though not the only one, by which Egyptians could better their status and Hellenize. Many native Egyptians learned to speak Greek, some to write it as well; some even went so far as to adopt Greek names in an attempt to assimilate themselves to the elite group.