#Ancient City of Ammonites | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

cincinnatusvirtue · 1 year ago

Text

Countries that are no more: Ancient Carthage (814BC-146BC)

The state discussed in this post is one of the most famous and important in antiquity. Yet, it remains one of the most elusive and mysterious civilizations in world history because its own written records have been virtually erased with all contemporary written records coming from foreign sources that both praised and reviled its existence. However, it was influential for its model of government, its expansion of Mediterranean trade, its influence on models of economic production, naval exploration and for its military leaders whose tactical and strategic prowess influence warfare to the modern day and for its rivalry with the other emerging Mediterranean superpower of antiquity: Rome. A rivalry that is characterized as the quintessential clash of civilizations. This is Carthage.

Name: In its native language, the Phoenician dialect known in Latin as Punic, it was 𐤒𐤓𐤕𐤟𐤇𐤃𐤔𐤕, or annunciated as qrt-ḥdšt or Qart-Hardasht. This translates into English as "New City". In Latin it was known as Carthago or Karthago, the modern English pronunciation of Carthage comes by way of French.

Language: Carthage as a city-state and its empire more broadly held a cosmopolitan mixture of peoples and languages. However, the founders of Carthage and its ruling elite spoke Punic, a dialect of Phoenician associated with the city of Carthage which was founded by Phoenician colonists from the Levant. Punic was Phoenician in origin and became a distinct local dialect of Phoenician speakers in Carthage and other cities. These settlers founded colonies throughout North Africa and the Western Mediterranean. The Phoenician language and its dialects were from the Semitic language family native to the Middle East. It originated as a distinct dialect of the Canaanite peoples from who the Phoenicians and subsequently the Carthaginians descend from. The Canaanites also gave rise to the other Semitic speaking peoples such as the Israelites, Moabites and Ammonites among others. Modern Hebrew is said to be the extant language most similar to ancient Punic. In Carthage's empire there were also local varieties of Berber (Amazigh) languages spoken by the native Berbers who settled in North Africa. There were also local languages in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) from the Iberian and Celtic tribes settled there and the languages of native Sardinian and Balearic peoples as well. Additionally, ancient Greek was spoken by Greek colonists, mercenaries and traders who also settled within Carthage's empire and sphere of influence.

Territory: The city of Carthage is located in the environs of modern Tunis, capital of the modern state of Tunisia in North Africa. It was from this centrally located city founded by Phoenician colonists that their subsequent empire grew. The established contact and control with other Phoenician colonies in the area such as nearby Utica and eventually grew to control all of coastal North Africa from modern Morocco to western Libya. The modern states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya were its core territory, with Tunisia being its heartland. It also included Malta, the western half of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica's coastal regions, the Balearic Islands of Spain and the southeastern portions of Iberia, particularly the coastal areas with influence into parts of the interior and south of the Ebro River.

Symbols & Mottos: The symbols associated with the state of Carthage are often in reference to their pantheon of gods which were quite extensive but centered mostly around the Phoenician gods but also included Berber, Iberian and Greek influences within their pantheon as well. A military standard associated with Carthage includes a staff with a sun disc and topped with a crescent moon. Also, the sign of Tanit, a Phoenician goddess's whose symbol was found on Carthaginian ruins along with Phoenician ruins found back in the Phoenician colonists' homeland in the Levant (Lebanon, Israel and Syria). The sign of Tanit appears in many varieties but is usually found as a schematic like sketch of a person with a triangular base with a disc on top with horizontal lines then pointing upwards like raised arms.

Religion: With Phoenician settlers being the originators of Carthage its ruling elite, the primary state religion was their variety of the ancient Phoenician religion which was polytheistic and included many notable gods and goddesses from Tanit to Baal Hammon, Melqart and Astarte among others. Many of these gods found companions with the Greeks and indeed due to the interfacing with Greeks both through trade and war, some Greek gods would also be incorporated into the Carthaginian pantheon, though it remained distinctly Punic at its core. There also appears to be Berber (Libyan and Numidian) influences along with Sardinian and Iberian interfacing that both saw the spread of worship of the Punic/Phoenician deities with local influences likewise being adopted by the Carthaginians. Even some ancient Egyptian gods appear to be included in Carthaginian worship. This syncretism and tolerance reflect the cosmopolitan outlook and composition the Carthaginians had within their realm.

There were priests who maintained the temples and sanctuaries devoted to particular deities. Likewise, Carthaginians practiced everything from ritual banquets to funerary rites such as those in the Levant like disposing of the remains of the dead, feasts for the dead, ancestor worship and goods in the tombs of the dead, indicating belief in life after death. Cemeteries were often built outside the walls of Punic settlements and included stelae with inscriptions serving as grave markers. Carthaginians practiced both burial and cremation.

There does appear to be cases of animal sacrifice to appease the gods in Carthaginian society as well. This tended to follow very specific regulations and rules.

The most controversial topic of the Punic religion however appears to be the practice of child sacrifice. The sources for this we must bear in mind come from Greco-Roman writers that weren't known to actually witness the practice and from civilizations that had biases toward Carthage more broadly. Yet both Greek and Roman sources cite the Carthaginians as practicing child sacrifice in their religion. These sources sometimes do contradict one another in their specifics. Modern historians debate the extent of this practice and what are the contents found at the sites known as Tophet in urns with ashes that may come from human infants. The Greco-Roman sources state children were specifically killed for ritual purposes and killed in various manners and burned as offerings. Based on archaeological findings some historians take the position that the practice may have occurred but may have been relegated to the ritual cremation of infants who died of natural causes. Others uphold the Greco-Roman sources and other deny the practice at all, chalking it up as pure invention of biased sources from Greece and Rome. Because Carthage was destroyed by Rome in 146 BC and virtually all extant written sources on Carthage come from Roman and Greek sources, there doesn't appear to be any definitive answer to this practice's purported extent or even its existence. Modern archaeology can lend more nuance to the topic but a clear answer like much of what we know about Carthage and its society remains a mystery.

Currency: The basic coinage of Carthage was called the shekel which derived from its Phoenician antecedents. There were gold, silver and bronze coins found throughout Carthage's empire. Mints were found not only in North Africa but Sicily and Iberia. Coins depicted everything from date palm trees to famous soldiers and politicians both Carthaginian in origin like the Barcid family of Hannibal Barca and even Greek rulers such as Alexander the Great.

Population: At its peak the empire had probably 3.7-4.3 million people. The city of Carthage proper at its peak was anywhere 250,000-500,000 people.

Government: The basis of our understanding of Carthage's governance is limited and largely based on ancient Greek and Roman sources. Some of which write of it in disparaging terms and others praise it for its complexity and nuance.

The basic understand is that during the first few centuries of Carthage's existence it was probably a monarchy. However, the extent to which the kings ruled over Carthage is debated. The Phoenician city states from which Carthage descended, namely Tyre had nominal monarchs but who deferred to a council of advisors who helped craft policy and administer the law. It seems reasonable that Carthage followed this political model in its earliest stages with nominal monarchs who likewise consulted a council of advisors made up Carthaginian nobility to craft and administer policy. The degree to which kings of Carthage held power probably fluctuated.

Following the First Sicilian War against the Greek colonists on Sicily in 480 BC, the nature of Carthage's government changed gradually with a weakening of the monarchy. By the 300s BC Carthage was at its peak and best characterized as an oligarchic republic. It was noted to have numerous checks and balances on the branches of government, a vast and complex administrative state, high levels of public accountability and participation in civic duty. Aristotle the famed Greek philosopher wrote on Carthage in his treatise "Politics" as the only non-Greek polity to be represented in the work.

Carthage as a republic became ruled nominally by two simultaneously elected non-hereditary magistrates called sufetes or shophets. This position's title translates as "judges" and they are said to handle a mix of judicial and executive powers. How they were elected and who was eligible for this head of state position is not known. What is known is they were always from the oligarchic ruling class of Carthage and that they held annual terms. The Roman writer Livy states this was comparable to the Roman republican practice of electing two consuls for annual terms. They are said to have ruled jointly and likewise handled matters of state through the convening and presiding over the supreme consultative council known as Adirim (similar to the Roman Senate), submitting legislation to the popular assembly and adjudicating trials. The sufetes interestingly did not hold any military power as this was separated and reserved for military commanders with the generals reporting to the Carthaginian assembly in the Adirim.

The Adirim held about 30 members on the council and like senators in Rome were elected from the wealthy elite merchant families of Carthage. They administered the treasury, conducted foreign affairs and providing some control over military affairs. It is said matters of state required unanimous decision making to go into effect.

Carthage also had judicial assembly called the One-Hundred and Four. These judges provided oversight of the military and other politicians and bureaucrats within Carthage. As an example of Carthage's political checks and balances, the One-Hundred and Four had the power administer monetary fines or even the death penalty, sometimes by crucifixion on military or government officials found to have engaged in unbecoming behavior that went against the interest of the public. It also formed small committees to provide oversight on political matters.

Separate from these bodies also came numerous junior bureaucratic positions to held administer everything from tax collection, public works and the state treasury.

Carthage also contained at local levels trade unions, a popular assembly and town meetings. In matters where the sufetes and Adirim could not decide law in a unanimous manner a popular assembly was consulted to make a final determination. Whether this was a formal institution or ad hoc solution has never been determined.

Aristotle singled out the Carthaginian government as more meritocratic than its contemporary Greek counterparts. He also praised its complex balance of monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements. Some other Greek writers went so far as to say it was the best form of government in existence at that time only equaled in the Greek world by Sparta. Meanwhile, Aristotle himself stated that Carthage had some form of constitution and found it superior to Sparta's.

The Greek historian Polybius writing for a Greco-Roman audience in his commentary on the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage stated that Carthage had more democratic elements than Rome did and that the common people were on average given more say than Romans at the time. However, Polybius saw this as a detriment to Carthage during the Punic Wars, in his estimate too much bickering and infighting to gain a unanimous decision led to paralysis and indecision. Whereas he favored the Roman Senate's rules which were less democratic overall and therefore more decisive in determining important decisions at crucial moments such as in war.

Carthage's republican government appears to have been replicated in the colonies and territories throughout its empire with sufetes found at local colonial levels. There appears to be cooperation between Punic colonial officials and the local population under Carthaginian rule.

Carthage was primarily mercantile in its outlook. The control of trade commodities and goods throughout the Mediterranean was the basis for its economic development and always of primary concern. Hence the merchant class-oligarchy's vested interest in maintaining power.

Military: Carthage was a classic example of a maritime power. Its navy was its most important military branch in many ways. The navy was used to ensure control over the network of trade routes between the various parts of the Western and Central Mediterranean. It would win naval victories over its Greek and Roman rivals though it would ultimately face defeat by the Romans.

The navy was large in size for antiquity and benefitted from the Phoenician advent of serial production, the ancient equivalent of assembly line production which produced ships of good quality but in an efficient manner. They could maintain hundreds of ships at one time, even after their power dimmed with the rise of Rome.

The ethnic composition of the navy's sailors, oarsman, navigators and marine force was almost exclusively Phoenician. Given the Phoenicians long association with seafaring trade and navigation, the Carthaginians merely upheld this tradition including in warfare.

The army of Carthage, its land based military branch was also crucial in achieving its geopolitical goals. From the subjugation of rebellious tribes in North Africa and Iberia to battling the Greeks and Romans in foreign wars. In conjunction with the navy the ultimate goal was maintaining Carthage's control of trade routes and upholding its sphere of influence to maintain favorable conditions for said trade.

Due to the limited population of Phoenician colonists spread throughout the Carthaginian empire and given their traditional naval prowess, much of the army was not of ethnic Phoenician/Punic background. Instead, they relied on a multinational mix of auxiliaries and mercenaries to fill the armies ranks. There might be Phoenician officers and generals such as the famed Hannibal Barca and his relatives including his father Hamilcar and brothers Mago and Hasdrubal, but many other officers could be Greeks among others. The rank and file including Greek mercenaries fighting in the hoplite style, many Greek colonists from Sicily and Southern Italy, Berber infantry and cavalry, particular the light cavalry of Numidia famed for its fast-moving skirmishers armed with javelins and the Libyan infantry. Iberian infantry and cavalry of mixed Celtic and Iberian backgrounds. The famed light skirmisher infantry from the Balearic Islands who slung stones at their enemies were likewise part of the army. Also included in the army were Gallic (Celtic) infantry and cavalry from France and Italy, Sardinians (Nuragic) and Italic peoples such as Samnites, Lucanians, Etruscans and even some Latin peoples including Roman defectors could be found among Carthage's land army. The Phoenician rank and file in the army were usually colonists from other Punic settlements and not Carthage proper. The exception being the famed 3,000 strong Sacred Band of Carthage which were derived from the strongest and healthiest of Carthage's wealthiest families to fight as an elite special unit of the army. Armed and trained int the Greek hoplite style and phalanx formation.

The army also utilized African Forest elephants as a mobile force similar to a wrecking ball. These elephants provided a fearsome complement to the army and was famously used by Hannibal Barca in his crossing of the Alps to invade Roman Italy during the Second Punic War.

The major conflicts Carthage fought in its history were its colonial wars in North Africa against Berber tribes and kingdoms, Iberia and in Sicily first against the Greeks and later against its archrival Rome. The three Punic Wars fought between Carthage and Rome have been characterized by some historians as the ultimate and perhaps most important clash of civilizations in the ancient world and perhaps of all time. Ultimately, they would all end in Rome's favor and eventual destruction and razing of Carthage by Rome, ending Rome's biggest rival and leading to Roman supremacy over the Mediterranean basin for the next several centuries.

Economy: Economic concerns were of chief importance to the Carthaginians. Their empire was essentially a commercial one or rather an expansive and complex trade network with the state trying to aggressively uphold and expand its scope. Its origins lie with the Carthage's Phoenician roots. The Phoenicians based in the Levantine coast (mainly modern Lebanon, Israel and Syria) weren't one united people but rather a series of city states, with the most powerful being based on the coast. These included the cities of Byblos, Sidon and Tyre among the leading polities and all with an outward maritime trade orientation. The Phoenicians produced many goods and economic models that would be both enriching and influential on trade throughout the ancient world. This included purple dye for fabric, uncolored glass, wine production and Lebanese cedar for timber production and the serial production economic model.

Carthage was founded in modern Tunisia by Phoenician colonists from the city of Tyre (Lebanon) in the 9th century BC. They were not the first Phoenician colony in North Africa but they eventually rose to become the most aggressive and successful. In part this was due to its secure and strategic location. It soon became the leading trade center on the Western and Central Mediterranean. They controlled trade routes at sea and rose to prominence and domination among all the other Phoenician colonies setup in North Africa, Sicily, Malta, Sardinia and Iberia.

Mining for metals silver, lead, copper and tin were of crucial importance for the wealth of Carthage, in particular this motivated their expansion into Iberia. Additionally, the temperate and fertile climate of the Western Mediterranean lead to much wine production. They also traded in amber, timber, grains an food preservatives.

While mostly a maritime trade power, Carthage also had overland caravans to secure goods from the African interior and even the Middle East. Continual exploration for new and expanding trade routes and goods was also important for Carthage. Famed Carthaginian explorers of Punic origin included Himilco the Explorer who lived in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. He is said to have been the first Mediterranean sailor to have explored the Atlantic routes to Northwest Europe, visiting Portugal, France and the British Isles. Britain in particular was important to the ancient tin trade which was necessary in bronze production. Britain was known in the ancient world to the Carthaginians and Greeks as the Tin Isles.

Hanno the Navigator was said to have explore trade routes to western Africa. Reaching as far as modern Senegal and Cameroon,

Lifespan: Carthage was said to have been founded by Phoenician colonists from the city of Tyre circa the 9th century BC. A foundation legend raised from its founding. Namely the legend of Princess Dido from Tyre leading her fellow Phoenicians not as colonists looking for commercial benefits but political refuge from her dictator brother. According to legend Dido and her retinue arrived at Tunisia and tricked the local Berber king into grating them a sizable tract of land from which the core of what became the city of Carthage was founded.

The city was given the name by its settlers of Qart-Hadasht, which in the Phoenician language meant "New City". The year 814 BC is often cited as the approximate date of its founding.

Quickly Carthage made an association with and eventual domination of fellow Phoenician colonies in the area including Utica. Its favorable climate, arable land and strategic location were all crucial to Carthage's rapid growth and dominance of over other Phoenician colonies. It would expand to conquer lands ranging from the whole of North Africa from Morocco to Libya, the islands of Malta, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearics and parts of the Iberian Peninsula over the coming centuries found themselves either under direct Carthaginian rule or favorable treaties incorporating the lands into its sphere of influence hence creating a trade network and empire, a classic example of a thalassocracy.

Initially, the Carthaginians paid a tribute and maintained contact to its mother city of Tyre back in Lebanon. However, this became an irregular occurrence due to Carthage's increasing independence due to its great distance from the Levant and the assertive character to its own local citizenry. Carthage began to see a mix of Phoenicians and local Berbers creating a unique Punic culture that synthesized the two cultures and ethnicities over time with the Phoenician dialect and culture remaining dominant but adaptable for its ability to incorporate other cultures. This was true as its sphere of influences expanded in the Mediterranean.

Carthage's independence was not only due to its relative distance from Tyre but due to the events back in Phoenicia. Various sieges from Babylonia and eventually later the Persian Achaemenid Empire conquered Phoenicia including Tyre circa 530-522BC. The subjugation of these lands reduced contact between the Carthaginian settlers and their Tyrian origins which had until that date sent a steady flow of colonists. While some flow of other Phoenicians would continue, the population would be buttressed by local native populaces and other Phoenician colonies rather than direct Tyrian migration.

The city of Carthage itself expanded over the centuries and created several distinct districts and architecture. At its peak in the 4th century BC, it contained a population between a quarter and half a million people. making it one of the world's largest and most prosperous cities at the time. The city had a mix of wealthy villas, apartment blocks six stories high, had warehouse and commercial districts, goods markets, a Greek style agora or public space, elaborate gardens. temples to various gods, various government buildings and a unique double harbor known as the cothon, which became the physical feature along with the Byrsa hill most associated with Carthage. The cothon featured an outer commercial harbor and military inner harbor with ship warehouses on a man-made island from which ship repairs, construction and maintenance could be addressed through its serial production. The Byrsa hill was the central district of Carthage which contained important temples, it had stair way avenues which were relatively wide for traffic, whereas most of the city's routes had narrow winding paths to navigate. The city was said to have triple walls for defenses, a shorter outer wall made of either stone or wood, followed by a ditch, a second taller stone wall 5 meters thick, a second ditch and a third stone wall 10 meters thick and with armed towers able to hold a force of over 20,000 troops.

In 509 BC it signed its first treaty with Rome, its eventual rival which at the time was the inferior power still clamoring for power on the Italian peninsula. The treaty was meant to demarcate their respective spheres of influence. From 580-265 BC, the Carthaginians found themselves in a series of wars with the Greek colonies of Sicily and Southern Italy. Namely, the city state of Syracuse which was the principal Greek settlement on Sicily.

These wars were back and forth in nature, marked by victory and defeat on land and sea for both sides. Eventually Carthage would retain control over the western half of Sicily until its loss of control in the Punic Wars with Rome. The Sicilian Wars also saw the gradual weakening of the kings of Carthage and its transition to an oligarchic republic (see government section).

The Punic Wars (264-146 BC) began almost by accident with neither Rome nor Carthage initially planning a direct confrontation with the other. The city of Messana (Messina) in Sicily found itself in the 260s BC under the control of a group of Italian mercenaries who had previously served the tyrant (king) of Syracuse who had died in 280 BC. These independent mercenaries were a threat to both Carthage and Syracuse's interests on Sicily. These mercenaries named the Mamertimes (Sons of Mars) divided into two factions, over the issue of the new Syracuse tyrant Hiero II's planned retaking of Messana. One faction advocating a Carthaginian intervention to take charge of the city's security and the other advocating for Roman intervention from the Italian peninsula. Carthage arrived first with a land garrison and naval fleet in the harbor. The Roman Senate was reluctant to assist the mercenaries but recognized the potential threat a permanent presence of Carthaginians in Messana and its location on the narrow Straits of Messina between Sicily and Italian mainland could pose on Roman trade and security. It advocated sending an expeditionary force to retake Messana to eject the Carthaginians. The attack triggered the first Punic War between the two powers. It turned into a quarter century struggle that was marked by intense fighting mostly on Sicily.

The First Punic War was ultimately a Roman victory that ended Carthage's presence on Sicily. It also saw Roman advances in naval technology such as the corvus to help board Carthaginian ships. Hitherto the Romans had little naval strength relative to Carthage but its innovations in naval warfare proved crucial in undermining Carthage's longstanding naval superiority. Meanwhile on land, despite the back-and-forth nature of the battles, the Roman army's tactical flexibility often proved superior to Carthage which after 23 exhausting years agreed to peace. It gave up control of Sicily to Rome (aside from Syracuse) and paid a tribute over the course of 10 years.

Rome also after the war used Carthage's distraction against a Libyan rebellion in the Truceless War to take control of Sardinia and Corsica in 238 BC.

To compensate for the loss of territory on Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, the Carthaginians under Hamilcar Barca tried to expand its territory in Iberia against Celtic and Iberian tribes especially to profit from increased mining production. They also gained new manpower and agricultural production to boost their economy and military again. They also had a standing agreement with Rome to not intrude north or south of the Ebro River respectively. However, an Iberian city of Saguntum south of the Ebro had an agreement with the Romans. This upset the balance of power established with Carthage in Iberia. Hamilcar Barca's son Hannibal now in charge of the Carthaginian army in Iberia an avowed enemy of Rome, besieged Saguntum which he took in 8 months. This is turn led to Rome's declaration of war, starting the Second Punic War which lasted for the next 17 years.

In one of the most famous military campaigns of all time, Hannibal and his army complemented by Carthaginians, Numidians, Celts, Iberians crossed the Alps and invaded Italy, taking the war to Rome's home territory. Hannibal showing his tactical prowess would defeat Roman armies repeatedly on their own territory most notably at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Many Italian cities that had been incorporated into Roman rule over the previous centuries rose up to join Hannibal against Rome. However, Hannibal never had sufficient strength to directly besiege Rome. Rome was constantly tested by Hannibal's victories over the next 13 years in Italy, but they refused to surrender and adopted an attritional strategy, and this wore down Hannibal by gradually retaking Italian cities allied to him if not able to defeat him directly. Likewise, they repelled Carthage's attempts to reinforce him in Italy. They also faced mixed success gradually conquering Iberia from the Carthaginians. Finally, an invasion of Tunisia forced Carthage to recall Hannibal back to North Africa to defend the capital from a Roman assault. He met the Romans in the Battle of Zama in 202 BC which resulted in a Roman victory over Hannibal himself at once.

Hannibal advocated for the government of Carthage to negotiate a treaty with Rome which it did. Its terms were harsh. A stripping of all overseas possessions of Carthage in Iberia and elsewhere including some African territories. A large punitive indemnity to paid to Rome over 50 years. A reduction of Carthage's navy ten warships, a ban on Carthage's use of war elephants. A prohibition on Carthage being able to fight war outside of Africa and any war it wages in Africa must require Rome's express permission.

Hannibal eventually became a sufete in Carthage and worked to reform the government of Carthage and stamp out corruption so as to ensure its ability to pay Rome its due from the treaty and rebuild its economy. Indeed, Hannibal was somewhat successful in his regards and Carthage's economy was somewhat rebounding but facing pressure from Rome and enemies in the local government, he went into voluntary exile in service to Greek states opposed to Roman expansion in the east. He died in exile under murky circumstances variously described as a suicide or murder.

The Third Punic War 149-146BC began will Carthage went to war in Africa with Berbers who were raiding its territory and without Rome's permission, this was used a pretext to attack Carthage itself by Rome for violating its treaty from the previous war. The third and final Punic War was characterized by a three-year siege of Carthage. Ultimately, the Romans after much pressure on both sides broke through its triple walls and assaulted Carthage in street-by-street fighting. The city was razed to the ground, much of its population killed by angered Roman troops. 50,000 Carthaginians were enslaved and sent elsewhere through the Roman Republic's empire. Carthage was no more as an independent political entity after 146 BC. A century later, Rome rebuilt the city on its ruins as part of its empire and it remained an important city within the Roman Empire until the fall of the Western half of the empire where it fell to the Germanic barbarians the Vandals who had their capital in Carthage, it was reclaimed by the Easter Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) by the forces of Belisarius in service to Justinian I. Carthage would face a final destruction as a Roman city when the Arabs of the Umayyad Caliphate destroyed the city in the year 698 AD. It never rose as a city again, instead its ruins remain part of the suburbs or the modern city of Tunis, capital of Tunisia.

Carthage despite its being steeped in legend and mystery remains worthy of study as one of the undeniably great civilizations of antiquity. A fact recognized by its contemporaries whether they wrote of it a complimentary fashion or with contempt, its power, wealth and influence was immense enough to engender scholarly study and reflection at the time. It is for these contemporary recognitions whether positive or negative and absence of surviving self-records that many continue its study into the modern age. Particularly its opposition to Rome and the perception by Rome that it was a worthy rival that needed complete annihilation, especially given Carthage's ability to stand up to Rome in a way no other power really could at its peak.

The more Carthage is analyzed both by its contemporary foreign commentators with the surviving archaeological and fragmentary historical record, the more nuance can be shed on the complexity of the civilization and influence it had on world history. Its opposition to Rome might be its most noted aspect but it shouldn't overshadow how else Carthage influenced the world. From its complex style of government and network of commercial imperialism that presaged future thalassocracies such as the Italian republics of the Middle Ages like Venice and Genoa and how it produced economic production models which influenced Rome and Greece and subsequently other areas of the world, they carried that influence on to. Likewise, another legacy of Carthage was how it helped build an ancient iteration of a globalized economy, shrinking the gap between the long distances of the ancient Mediterranean world by linking disparate geographies and peoples under a common commercial interest. In this commercial pursuit it also revealed itself to have both a distinct dominant culture but one that was not intolerant or unable to accommodate and absorb other cultural influences. In many ways ancient Carthage by way of its influence on Greece and Rome and their own influences give us glimpses into how its existence served as a precursor to the modern world we inhabit.

9 notes · View notes

freebiblestudyhub · 5 months ago

Text

Genesis 19:38 Meaning, Context & Commentary

Read the Daily Bible Verse – Genesis 19:38 To Strengthen Your Spiritual Journey.

Genesis 19:38, from the King James Version (KJV), reads: “And the younger daughter bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.”

This verse concludes the narrative of Lot’s daughters and their actions following the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. To fully understand the significance of this verse, we need to explore its context, meaning, application, and relevance both historically and in modern times.

The Context on Genesis 19:38 KJV

Genesis 19 recounts the dramatic events surrounding the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The chapter describes the sinful nature of these cities, the rescue of Lot and his family, and the subsequent destruction of the cities by fire and brimstone.

After the destruction, Lot and his two daughters fled to a cave in the mountains. Believing that they were the only survivors of the earth, the daughters took drastic measures to preserve their family line. They decided to get their father, Lot, drunk and have relations with him. This resulted in the birth of two sons: Moab, from the elder daughter, and Benammi, from the younger.

Genesis 19:38 specifically mentions Benammi, who became the progenitor of the Ammonites. This is significant because it provides an explanation for the origin of the Ammonite people, who would later play various roles in the history of Israel.

The Genesis 19:38 Meaning

Genesis 19:38 serves as a historical note rather than a focal point of theological teaching. It records the origin of the Ammonites, a neighboring group of the Israelites. The Ammonites and Israelites had a complex relationship, characterized by both conflict and cooperation.

Historical and Cultural Significance

The birth of Benammi and the establishment of the Ammonite lineage are crucial for understanding the historical and cultural context of the ancient Near East. The Ammonites were a significant people in the biblical narrative, often mentioned in connection with their interactions with Israel.

Moral and Theological Implications

While Genesis 19:38 itself does not carry explicit moral or theological lessons, it reflects the broader themes present in the Genesis narrative, such as human fallibility and the consequences of actions. The story of Lot’s daughters is one of desperation and moral compromise, highlighting the complex nature of human decisions and their repercussions.

Genesis 19:38 Application in Life

Genesis 19:38, while not immediately applicable in a direct moral sense, does offer insights into broader life themes:

Understanding Human Nature

The story underscores the lengths to which people might go in extreme circumstances. It reflects on human desperation and the ethical decisions individuals may make when faced with perceived existential threats.

Cultural and Historical Awareness

For modern readers, understanding the historical context of the Ammonites helps in comprehending the interactions and tensions described later in biblical texts. This awareness enriches one’s understanding of historical and cultural references in the Bible.

Moral Reflections

The moral implications of the story—though not explicitly detailed in Genesis 19:38—invite readers to reflect on themes of morality, responsibility, and the impact of one’s actions on future generations.

Comparison with Other Biblical Texts

Genesis 19:38 can be compared with other biblical texts that discuss the origins of nations and their interactions with Israel:

Genesis 36:20-30

This passage details the descendants of Esau, providing a parallel account of the origin of the Edomites. Like the Ammonites, the Edomites are significant in the biblical narrative, and their origins are traced through a family story.

Deuteronomy 2:19

This verse references the Ammonites as descendants of Lot, acknowledging their historical and geographical significance. It highlights the relationship between Israel and the neighboring nations.

Judges 11:15-27

Here, Jephthah recounts the history of the Ammonites and their conflicts with Israel. This passage provides context for the ongoing relationships and hostilities between the two peoples.

Modern-Day Relevance

Genesis 19:38, while not directly influential in modern theology, offers lessons in understanding the complexities of human history and relationships:

Understanding Historical Context

In modern biblical studies, knowledge of ancient peoples like the Ammonites helps in understanding the historical and cultural context of biblical events. This is important for both theological study and historical research.

Moral and Ethical Reflections

The story encourages readers to reflect on the nature of human decisions and the ethical challenges individuals may face. It prompts consideration of how extreme circumstances can influence moral behavior.

Cultural Awareness

For contemporary readers, recognizing the historical interactions between ancient peoples provides valuable insight into the broader narrative of human history and its implications for current cultural and social issues.

Conclusion

Genesis 19:38 is a brief but significant verse in the context of biblical history. It marks the origin of the Ammonites and reflects on the aftermath of a dramatic and morally complex narrative. While the verse itself is a historical record, its implications for understanding human nature, historical relationships, and moral challenges remain relevant.

Through this verse, readers are invited to explore the broader themes of desperation, moral compromise, and the consequences of human actions. The understanding gained from this text enriches one’s comprehension of biblical history and its ongoing significance in the study of ancient peoples and their interactions with Israel.

Genesis 19:38 Commentary

Commentaries on Genesis 19:38 often emphasize the historical and cultural dimensions of the text. Scholars typically note that this verse serves as a historical explanation for the Ammonite people and their relationship with Israel. The commentary often explores the moral and ethical implications of the story, offering insights into the complexities of human behavior and the consequences of extreme decisions.

The narrative of Lot’s daughters is sometimes discussed in terms of its reflection on human frailty and the impact of difficult circumstances on moral choices. Commentaries may also explore the significance of the Ammonites in the broader context of biblical history and their role in the narrative of Israel.

#bible study

0 notes

marysittingathisfeet · 6 months ago

Text

Foreign Queen Unnamed Perhaps Forgotten

Solomon was undoubtedly one of the greatest kings of Israel. He had wealth, he had knowledge, the land had peace and prosperity under his rule.

1 Kings 4:24- Solomon ruled every kingdom between the Euphrates River and the land of the Philistines down to Egypt. These kingdoms paid him taxes as long as he lived.

1 Kings 10: 21- All of King Solomon's drinking cups were solid gold, as were all the utensils in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon. They were not made of silver, for silver was considered worthless in Solomon's day!

1 Kings 4:29-34- Solomon was brilliant. God had blessed him with insight and understanding. He was wiser than anyone else in the world, including the wisest people of the east and of Egypt....Solomon became famous in every country around Judah and Israel. Solomon wrote 3,000 wise sayings and composed more than 1,000 songs. He could talk about all kinds of plants, from large trees to small bushes, and he taught about animals, birds, reptiles, and fish. Kings all over the world heard about Solomon's wisdom and sent people to listen to him teach.- - (perhaps he was a genius)

BUT--- Solomon had 1 major weakness and that was woman. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines. His first wife was the daughter of Pharaoh's daughter.

(She is never named in the Bible which I believe is significant. For the sake of ease of typing let's call her Aya after a queen in ancient Egypt.)

1 Kings 3:1 - Solomon made an alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt and married his daughter....

1 Kings 9: 16- 17 -Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife. And Solomon rebuilt Gezer.

At first I thought he had married the Egyptian princess solely to make peace with Egypt. Not a good reason to disobey God's commands because it is God who maintains the peace. But then Solomon was young and just beginning his reign. Then I read how Solomon held fast to them in love.

1 Kings 11: 1-2 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love.

So did Solomon marry Aya because he loved her? Maybe Solomon did love her romantically, but I seriously doubt he could love 1000 woman in that way. If he visited 1 different woman every night- it would be 3 years between visits for each woman. Sorry that does not create a deep intimate love with anyone. Unless Solomon was some kind of love machine. Either way that's not love- that lust. Solomon like his father liked the girls.

1 Kings 9:24: “As soon as Pharoah’s daughter went up from the City of David to the house [Solomon] had built for her, then he rebuilt the Millo citadel.” - (Millo citadel is part of Jerusalem. It is the rampart built by the Jebusites before David conquered the city. ). Once more Aya is mentioned in relation to building works. Don't see any googly eyed romance there.

Consequently we learn that Solomon believed his wife to be unsanctified most likely because of her pagan worship.

2 Chronicles 8:11-Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter up from the City of David to the palace he had built for her, for he said, "My wife must not live in the palace of David king of Israel, because the places the ark of the Lord has entered are holy."

Did Solomon not want to keep her in David's palace, because she had brought idols into the palace? At that time it was common to have house idols that were supposed to protect the home. (Remember when Rachael had taken her father Laban's idols and he chased down Jacob in search of them? Rachael sat on the idols claiming she was menstruating.)

Perhaps this was an area of contention between Solomon and Aya. So to end the argument Solomon built her her own palace. Maybe after years of marriage he had simply lost interest in her. After all she was getting older and Solomon had a bevvy of young beauties to pick from. Cynical? Yes. Unrealistic? No. Think Nero, Constantine, and Henry the VIII for example. There are many modern stars and politicians who have done the same. How many successful older business men have dumped their wives for a new model. Not right, selfish, and superficial but it does happen. The research showed that 38 percent of men wed a significantly younger woman after divorcing their first wife.

Did Solomon not want to bring her into David's palace because God had commanded through Moses laws not to intermarry with the pagans. Was Solomon convicted when he strode through his father's palace?

Either way what this implies is that Solomon knew that marrying foreign woman was wrong, and he did it anyway. Aya did live in King David's palace for about 20 years before Solomon completed building the temple and the new palace. Pharaoh's daughter despite living in Israel, continued to worship her gods. Therefore the author of Kings and Chronicles did not feel her name was important since she did not ever truly become a part of Israel. Perhaps Solomon felt toward this wife the way Charlemagne felt toward his second wife. Charlemagne's second marriage was purely to create an alliance the Lombards (a Germanic people who ruled Italy at the time) and the pope of Rome who had immense power. The marriage was an unhappy one. Charlemagne was known to call her names like sow. Although he did eventually have one child with her, Charlemagne eventually sent her back to Italy. Charlemagne, was so indifferent to this poor woman that her name was never mentioned in the history books even though she had been the wife, although temporarily, of one of the most powerful men in the world at that time. Charlemagne's treatment of this woman created a significant political rift with the Lombards. So Aya may have been Solomon's queen, but like Charlemagne's second wife she may have simply been a business deal or like Marie Antionette was never truly accepted by the people.

Despite whether their marriage was an alliance or one of love. Despite if she was the cherished wife of Solomon or a discarded spouse, she was given a great gift of seeking and knowing God. Did she ever truly open her eyes and her heart? Her husband was famous for his wisdom. Kings from all over the world sent people to learn from Solomon. But Aya does not appear to embrace this gift. She clings to her religion and never seeks the truth in front of her. She is also surrounded in opulence- blessing from God to Solomon and the people of Israel.

1 Kings 3:13- (God speaking to Solomon) Moreover, I will give you what you did not request--both riches and honor--so that during all your days no man in any kingdom will be your equal.

She had to know the wealth that surrounded her surpassed even that of her father's kingdom. The bible does say

"It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:25, Mark 10:25, and Matthew 19:24.)- This is mentioned three times in the New Testament. God wants us to really pay attention to this. Perhaps it was the wealth and ease that kept Aya from seeking and knowing the true God. She was comfortable and complacent.

Compare her to the Queen of Sheba..... (more later)

#bible study #woman of the bible #old testament #history

0 notes

things-that-are-god · 1 year ago

Text

Abraham accompanies God and Co. towards Sodom and Gomorrah. Since Abraham is Best Boy (tm) future father of all Good Boys, God figures he should know the sort of thing that gets you Fucking Smote and tells Abraham what's about to go down. A, true to his Best Boy status is horrified because surely there are a few innocent people even in the most depraved cities. Surely if there were 50 good people in town God would have mercy for their sake? God says yeah, of course, if He finds 50 innocent people He'll back off. Hand wringing and gnawing his lip the whole time Abraham persists in whittling that number down to 5 before the angels split off to go into town.

The angels run into Lot (nephew of Abraham, currently camped by Sodom) and Lot, also pious etc etc is like oh let me make you dinner, oh you've gotta stay at my place over night. And the angels are like no, we'll just sleep in the town square overnight. (apparently a reasonable thing to do in a normal town) and Lot's like oh. no. You, you gotta sleep at my house. Well, it seems Sodom's issue was they fucking hate outsiders and the way they keep outsiders out is raping anybody who tries to come by. (I read somewhere rape was a sort of ritual humiliation/domination on the battlefield at this time.) Lot's been on thin ice the whole time and a mob tries to break down his door to get to these two strangers/the angels. Lot offers up his virgin daughters in their stead which is, um, what the fuck. But the mob isn't having it. The angels drag Lot back in the house before the mob can kill him, and blind the crowd with light while they're at it.

Having no chance to find 5 good people, the angels haven't called off the scheduled FIRE RAINING FROM THE SKY IN THE MORNING (volcanic eruption?) and in fact only Lot, his wife, and the aforementioned unmarried daughters believe the angels and make a run for it. His various other married children laugh in Lot's face.

Lot's wife of course hesitates and looks back, dooming her escape attempt. Lot is so freaked out by all this that instead of escaping to a local village he hightails it up to a cave in the mountains with his girls. Blame it on the patriarchy: leaving their dad doesn't seem to be an option, and their only purpose in life, having children, is now denied to them. The elder daughter (tragically unnamed) takes matters into her own hands and gets her father blackout drunk so she can fuck him. She convinces her younger sister to do the same. The result is Moab/ the Moabite tribe and Ben-ammi/ the Ammonite tribe. Keep an eye on those names because the Hebrews fucking hate these neighboring tribes. Apparently they couldn't deny they were related to these people, but also those are their bad evil fucked up incest cousins you totally are nothing like us you guys. The ancient Hebrews were seriously racist, it can't be denied.

#lin reads the bible #biblically accurate angels

0 notes

ancestorsofjudah · 1 year ago

Text

1 Kings 14: 25-31. "The Sweetness of the People."

25 In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem.

26 He carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made.

27 So King Rehoboam made bronze shields to replace them and assigned these to the commanders of the guard on duty at the entrance to the royal palace.

28 Whenever the king went to the Lord’s temple, the guards bore the shields, and afterward they returned them to the guardroom.

29 As for the other events of Rehoboam’s reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah?

30 There was continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam.

31 And Rehoboam rested with his ancestors and was buried with them in the City of David. His mother’s name was Naamah; she was an Ammonite. And Abijah[d] his son succeeded him as king.

The Fifth Year is 728, ז‎בח‎, "the sacrifice." What are sacrifices? How would they be different here in the Melachim vs. those named in the Torah or the Septuagint?

"One of the most difficult elements of the Torah and the way of life it prescribes is the phenomenon of animal sacrifices – for obvious reasons.

First, Jews and Judaism have survived without them for almost two thousand years. Second, virtually all the prophets were critical of them, not least Jeremiah in this week’s haftarah.1 None of the prophets sought to abolish sacrifices, but they were severely critical of those who offered them while at the same time oppressing or exploiting their fellow human beings.

What disturbed them – what disturbed G‑d in whose name they spoke – was that evidently some people thought of sacrifices as a kind of bribe: if we make a generous enough gift to G‑d then He may overlook our crimes and misdemeanors. This is an idea radically incompatible with Judaism.

Then again, along with monarchy, sacrifices were among the least distinctive features of Judaism in ancient times. Every ancient religion in those days, every cult and sect, had its altars and sacrifices.

Finally, it remains remarkable how simply and smoothly the sages were able to construct substitutes for sacrifice, three in particular: prayer, study and tzedakah. Prayer, particularly Shacharit, Mincha and Musaf, took the place of the regular offerings. One who studies the laws of sacrifice is as if he had brought a sacrifice. And one who gives to charity brings, as it were, a financial sacrifice, acknowledging that all we have we owe to G‑d.

So, though we pray daily for the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of sacrifices, the principle of sacrifice itself remains hard to understand.

Many theories have been advanced by anthropologists, psychologists and Bible scholars as to what the sacrifices represented, but most are based on the questionable assumption that sacrifice is essentially the same act across cultures. This is poor scholarship.

Always seek to understand a practice in terms of the distinctive beliefs of the culture in which it takes place. What could sacrifice possibly mean in a religion in which G‑d is the creator and owner of all?

What, then, was sacrifice in Judaism and why does it remain important, at least as an idea, even today? The simplest answer – though it does not explain the details of the different kinds of offering – is this: We love what we are willing to make sacrifices for."

We sacrifice for what disturbs us and for what makes us fall in love. For a king, this means the contents of this Book of Kings, which so far means corruption and the successful conclusion of the Torah and all Torahs called Shabbat, a practice he must not neglect else his subjects surely will.

The opposite of sacrifice is surrender. In this portion of the Melachim, a kind of corruption called shishach, which normally means "lily white of the purest white" but here means "blackest evil" enters the kingdom and what does it do? It usurps the protection of civil rights, AKA Solomon's gold shields; it tries to spirit them away.

Gold Shields, be they in the form of the unwritten rules of decency we are all supposed to understand intuitively, or are written on documents we put in museums or read in church mean nothing at all without a proper reflective surface in the ways society functions all around us.

Solomon, "the complete peace" deeded these to his son, Rehoboam, "the all-inclusive" but an impure Egyptian flower bloomed and slandered them. We see this all the time. "Today our civil rights no longer matter". America is notorious for this; it has an uncanny abiity to devalue Gold like nobody's business.

This is caused by the dark power of democracy, which can change the direction of the wind at a moment's notice and then force it back the other way with similar unpredictability. The Torah says the King of Israel is not beholden to the darkness but to be unyielding to the power Light, time after time, generation after generation and ensure civil rights are upheld.

This Rehoboam did. He supplied his men with new shields made of bronze, an alloy consisting of all the principals of civilization and God reward him and his people with Shabbat.

The Gematria is found in v. 28 and 29, 10613, אאֶפֶסואג‎, apeswaag=

ap= eyes on

es= the fire

wa=The particle ו (waw) is the most occurring verbal unit in the Bible. Its name means peg or hook and its shape resembles one, and its job is to tie words, statements and sentences together.

ag=of the people

"Keep your eyes on the words that illuminate and bind the people together."

According to the text, there was conflict between "the expansion of the people and the inclusion of the people", but the former triumphed.

Rehoboam was succeeded by Abijah, "the sweetness of the people and social fatherhood that was the defining quality of the community's alpha male, the one around whom all economy revolved and from whom emanated all instructions by which the 'sons' (בן, ben) operated."

Unlike Hinduism which has sadhana, "the practices", satsang, "the gathering", and samadhi, "final peace", which contribute to the evidence of truth hidden in the Upanishads, Shabbat has utter meaning unto itself. There must be "no work" performed during Shabbat because all that troubles the world must be revealed and resolved and left in the past.

Without this personal and also universal experience of compliance with the Law, there is no Shabbat. Shabbat is not a means to an end, it is not gradual or progressive, Shabbat is Shabbat, the "way of the fathers and also of the sons" guaranteed not by democracy, but by the trust God has invested in Monarchy.

0 notes

600shekels · 2 years ago

Text

2 Chronicles 20: 1-13. "The Backstabbers."

Jehoshaphat Defeats Moab and Ammon

20 After this, the Moabites and Ammonites with some of the Meunites[a] came to wage war against Jehoshaphat.

Ah, traditions of inexcellence. They always come back.

The Moabites are the dreaded traditionalists, "If it ain't broke don't fix it" sorts, the Ammonites, "townsfolk", and the Meunites, "the indigenous population".

Well we don't want these, they are hairy and scary, have spent no time going to school or university and don't believe in laws and human rights like the rest of us, the townspeople they don't get along with strangers.

2 Some people came and told Jehoshaphat, “A vast army is coming against you from Edom,[b] from the other side of the Dead Sea. It is already in Hazezon Tamar” "the pruned palm tree" (that is, En Gedi).

En Gedi= Fountain of Light

עין

The noun עין ('ayin) means both eye and fountain, well or spring. This might be explained by noting that the eye produces water in the form of tears, but perhaps more so in that water and light were considered deeply akin (see our article on the verb נהר, nahar, both meaning to shine and to flow). In that sense, the eye was considered a fountain that watered the outward face with water and the internal mind with light. Verb עין ('in) means to eye or regard. Noun מעין (ma'yan) describes a place with a spring.

3 Alarmed, Jehoshaphat resolved to inquire of the Lord, and he proclaimed a fast for all Judah. 4 The people of Judah came together to seek help from the Lord; indeed, they came from every town in Judah to seek him.

The Gematria for this section is 5789, הזחט‎‎, "the Blackmailer".

To blackmail is to extort faith out of oneself or others and is forbidden by the Laws of Abraham.

The result of states and persons who blackmail, one without technical boundaries, is Sodom and Gomorrah, "violence and tyranny" - dead places- and this does not give glory to God.

Blackmailers and the Fountain of Light clearly do not belong in the same jurisdiction.

5 Then Jehoshaphat stood up in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem at the temple of the Lord in the front of the new courtyard 6 and said:

“Lord, the God of our ancestors, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you.

7 Our God, did you not drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and give it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend?

8 They have lived in it and have built in it a sanctuary for your Name, saying,

9 ‘If calamity comes upon us, whether the sword of judgment, or plague or famine, we will stand in your presence before this temple that bears your Name and will cry out to you in our distress, and you will hear us and save us.’

10 “But now here are men from Ammon, Moab and Mount Seir, whose territory you would not allow Israel to invade when they came from Egypt; so they turned away from them and did not destroy them.

Ammon= the suburbs, frowned upon even in ancient times

Moab= how your dad did things

Mount Seir- the pinnacle of devolution, cavemen.

11 See how they are repaying us by coming to drive us out of the possession you gave us as an inheritance.

12 Our God, will you not judge them? For we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you.”

13 All the men of Judah, with their wives and children and little ones, stood there before the Lord.

The Constitution is Abraham, it permits sane people to keep their eyes on God and live without much of a care. Normal and typically developed persons do not storm the City to picket, or yell and scream and try to turn back the clock to ye olde days when women were oppressed, and no one liked the Jews or the Gaze and the Blax.

We've done that before, lived through it and found it unlikely to make anyone feel particularly happy, it always leads nowhere but to bloodshed, so we decided these things should stop. It was just two decades ago when much of this became popular but God decreed human rights were sacrosanct long ago, as we see in this document.

As the Tanakh says, only those who are able to understand can live here. The rest must be driven out:

“Lord, the God of our ancestors, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you.

Our God, did you not drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and give it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend?"

Abraham did not present obstinate guests with a bill to blackmail them into praising G‑d.

The point was rather to create a situation in which the guests would become sharply aware of their helplessness.

This would then break through the coarseness that prevented them from understanding the validity of Abraham's request on their own. We now may also understand the precise wording of the Midrash in saying, "When they would see how he was distressing them, they would say, 'Blessed is the G‑d of the world of whose we have eaten.'"

It was not coercion that made them repeat the words they were told. It was the circumstance of "distress" that jarred them from their callousness and propelled them to a new level of spirituality.

The level to which every non-Jew may aspire is that of a righteous gentile who observes the Seven Laws commanded to Noah, and is promised a share in the World to Come.7

One of these seven commandments is the belief in G‑d. And being that a non-Jew is commanded to believe in G‑d, he has the ability to do so.

Abraham would thus engage his guests with proofs and reasoning, ultimately persuading them to become true believers in G‑d.8

Blackmailers and backstabbers- the Republicans and their colleagues, feebleminded and blasphemous is every way- they need to be made to reside under their eternal headstones.

As for the rest- Bless the God of Whose World You Have Eaten. Who is He? He is the Almighty, the Most High.

0 notes

tunathena · 5 months ago

Text

Thanks for the tag @sherdnerd !

I will tag @marcusagrippa , @catos-wound , @headsinsand , @wellington-yueh and @foxnewsdeathcult - but no pressure!

ok the post was getting way too long so i'm. just gonna start anew.

thank u so much @crazymadredfox for tagging me!! this is such a cute idea!! i stole ur meowth plush btw!! >:3

tagging; @roseofcards90 @sai-my-beloved @asagiri-fushimi-natsu @laveindrz @beddhead-red @megacarapa @bernkastel-ao3 @boy-yuri @icarianiscariot @trashcan-train and literally anyone who wants!!!

#prev I chose the comics because I should as a true nerd probably get into both of those shows but haven’t yet….#anyway I’m excited to see what gets picked on mine! I tried to include a range of options that I myself might struggle to pick between….

747 notes · View notes

enchantedtigress · 5 years ago

Video

flickr

Ammonite by elrina753

#usa #united states #new york #new york city #nyc #manhattan #amnh #american museum of natural history #museum of natural history #museums #milstein hall of ocean life #hall of ocean life #models #dioramas #ancient seas #cretaceous seas #cretaceous #cephalopods #ammonite

17 notes · View notes

j-crna-zvijezda · 4 years ago

Note

Hello, you said I could ask anything about Italy! :D So can you tell me 10 interesting facts about the country that you think many foreigners don't know?

Hi!! Thank you for your question about my country 🇮🇹

Italy, as many of you know, is a country full of many different realities which depend on where you go, as it was influenced by different countries (especially France, Spain, Papal State, Austria and Germany) and ancient cultures (Romans, Greeks, Etruscans, Celts, Phoenicians... and many more!) .

Here I’ll explain some unusual things many foreigners (or even Italians) don’t know! For more fun facts, I suggest you to check my headcanon posts out, I always write about history and culture (the first posts are mostly about the Italy fam) 📚

1. The old capitals

Rome is known to be the Capital, but it hasn't always played this role during the history of Italy: the cities under the monarchy which were capitals are Turin (1861-1865), Florence (1865-1871), Rome (1871-1943), Brindisi (1943-1944) and Salerno (1944-1944).

2. Collections about Ancient Egypt

Turin and Naples own two of the most complete and important collections about Ancient Egypt after Cairo (Museo Egizio di Torino and Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli). Inside both you can find statuary groups, mummies, papyrus and everything related to ancient Egypt, including mummified animals ⚱️

3. Largest minority groups

Italy got 5 million residents who are foreigners, 22,7% of them are from Romania, 8,4% from Albania, 8,2% from Morocco, 5,7% China and 4,5% Ukraine!

4. Spoken languages

There are 15 officially recognized minority languages in Italy, including native languages and the languages of neighboring countries: Sardinian, Friulian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Venetian, Catalan, Occitan, Ladin, French, Franco-Provençal, German, Slovenian, Croatian, Albanian and Greek.

5. Strange dishes

Many people from all over the world maintain Italian cuisine is delicious. Indeed, but they have probably only eaten the most famous dishes! In Italy you can eat food made with organs (see lampredotto or fegato alla veneziana) and you can also try snails, frogs, horse, boar, deer, even pigeon, but these aren't available in all the regions (for ex. in Naples you won't find boar while in Florence yea). I love boar meat 😋

6. Baroque music and instruments

The Italians invented violin, viola, cello and piano and were the greatest representatives of Baroque music with Vivaldi, Corelli, Monteverdi, Scarlatti D., Albinoni and Boccherini.

7. Italian car brands

Besides the luxury brands Ferrari, Lamborghini and Maserati which you can very rarely find in the streets, famous brands in my country are Fiat, Alfa Romeo and Lancia (also, I made an hc about which car the Itabros would have!).

8. The shortest river in the world

In the province of Verona, precisely in Malcesine, there's the shortest river in the world, the river Aril, which is only 175 m long. It's called "Ri" and, at the end of its course, flows into Lake Garda.

9. What "Italy" means

The name "Italy" derives from the word Italói, a term with which the Greeks designated the Vituli: a native population of the Calabrian tip who worshiped a religious figure embodied by a calf (vitulus, in Latin). The name would therefore mean “inhabitants of the land of calves”. Moo!! 🐂

10. Fossils in the Alps

In the Alps, scientists have discovered several different fossils, from the marine ones like molluscs (ammonites) to parts of dinosaur skeletons and footprints of large reptiles!

#fun facts #italy #italian history #aph italy #aph romano #aph south italy #hws italy #hws romano #hws south italy #hetalia #hetalia axis powers #hetalia world stars #axis powers hetalia #j-crna-zvijezda_edits #j-crna-zvijezda_speaks

102 notes · View notes

yamayuandadu · 4 years ago

Text

Who is Baal, anyway?

As I mentioned in my previous article, the instigator of the recent attacks on museums in Berlin believes some of the artifacts held in them to be part of a nefarious, bloodthirsty cult, prominent on the “global satanism scene” and devoted to “Baal (Satan),” as he put it himself according to articles covering this incident. In the following article I'll discuss the origin of this esoteric claim, as well as the actual nature of Baal, myths associated with him, other similar deities and their role in the ancient Middle East (and beyond).

I'll start with the matters I am not particularly enthusiastic about: Baal is the star of many conspiracy theories, mostly these which arise in christian fundamentalist circles, and which cast him as the deity venerated by nefarious groups, ranging from insufficiently conservative political parties and ethnic minorities to vampiric aliens, blamed for all of the world's evils. He owes this status to being one of the most frequently mentioned “false gods” or “idols” in the Bible. In fringe pseudohistory context it's basically a given that Baal is equated with the nebulous figure of Moloch, the child sacrifice boogeyman. They are not actually analogous, though - Baal is brought up in relation to idol worship, depicted as powerless, and generally associated with people from coastal cities like Sidon and Tyre – the groups Greeks collectively called „Phoenicians.” Moloch meanwhile is associated with the Ammonites, whose kingdom lied further inland – it is possible that he is therefore a biblical corruption of the Ammonite god Milkom. Some researchers propose instead that “Moloch” was a type of sacrifice involving the burning of victims in honor of a deity – this theory matches both the accounts of biblical Moloch, as well as some Greek and especially Roman accounts meant to prove the debased, barbaric nature of Phoenicians, especially these from Carthage. In later writing, all of the idols and false gods mentioned in the Bible were equated with the devil - in reality their inclusion in biblical text likely reflects struggle between various faiths and their cult centers in ancient Canaan, and later increasingly more fragmentary memories of it. In Christian demonology and in occultism, in addition to their names being considered synonyms of the devil, new demonic identities were assigned to them, which is where the popculture idea of Beelzebub, Bael and other similarly named figures has its origin. As almost every type of pseudohistory eventually connects to blood libel (or an equivalent of it), the exaggerated assumptions about biblical Moloch inspired Gilbert K. Chesteron to propose that blood libel was based on real events, specifically on possible outbreaks of “idolatry” in Jewish communities leading to bloody sacrifices. Needless to say, this is an outlandish, baseless claim rooted in prejudice. The scarce textual sources left behind by the Phoenicians themselves do not discuss any rites which match biblical and roman claims particularly commonly – occasional mentions paint an image similar to the sacrifice of Iphigenia in Greek myth, which would imply that human sacrifice was either the domain of myth, or a rarely performed act which only occurred as an irrational response in times of great peril. Romans claimed the epicenter of such practices was Carthage, their early rival to the title of the preeminent power of the Mediterranean, and its recipient was its tutelary god, Baal Hammon – a figure not directly relate to the biblical Baal(s), who I will discuss later, but for centuries commonly assumed to be one and the same as him due to the lack of primary sources. Excavations from Carthage do show the existence of funerary sites with a high concentration of child burials, but it's a matter of heated scholarly debate if they represent a proof of Roman propaganda being rooted in truth, or if it's simply the result of the well known fact that infant mortality prior to modern times was widespread. The debate is ongoing and I do not follow it closely. There is however precisely zero evidence of human sacrifice being performed in Ugarit, the most significant site associated with the most famous, and arguably original, Baal. The extensive cult literature recovered from its ruins discusses the sacrifice of cattle, sheep, rams, birds (but only uncommonly), donkeys (only for a specific reconciliation rite), oil, wine, and precious stones and metals - but not humans (researchers also often point out that dogs and pigs were never offered to gods too, which is a pretty clear proof that some taboos present in abrahamic faiths predate them). The Ugaritic texts do mention that sacrificial meat was at least sometimes shared by the devotees (in the case of sacrifices which did not involve a pyre, obviously – which essentially means such sacrifices were feasts or holiday meals ritually shared with the deity), which I assume where the false idea that both Phoenicians of classical antiquity and their bronze age Canaanite forerunners were cannibals might come from. This specific claim seems to be currently spreading as “trivia” online, alongside a false etymology of the word cannibal (a term only attested since the beginning of Spanish colonization of the Americas). It should be noted that even the researchers who do believe that human sacrifice might have sometimes occurred in Carthage do not suggest that it was followed by cannibal feasts, and even in Roman propaganda texts from the Punic wars period no such claims show up, despite their obvious bias and need to demonize the recently vanquished rival nascent power.

In art of ancient Levant, worshipers are sometimes depicted as tiny compared to gods – many “scandalous” conspiracy posts claim as a result that the minuscule figures raising their hands on ancient artifacts represent infants sacrifices to the gods depicted. However, accompanying inscriptions identify them as kings or priests – this is the case, for example, with the famous Baal stele from Ugarit, depicting a king praying to the tutelary god of the city. With the unpleasant matters out of the way, it's time to finally ask - who is Baal? Baal refers both to a specific figure, and to the general concept of a head god of a city's pantheon in certain parts of the Levant and Mesopotamia. “Baal” simply means “lord” and can be found in both titles and names of not only gods, but also royals – including some biblical examples.

As I said, the Baal most famous today is Baal Hadad of Ugarit, a city in present day Syria which was among the victims of bronze age collapse. This Baal was derived from an earlier god, Adad, who seemingly first became a major figure near present day Aleppo, emerging as the head of the local variation of Syro-Hurro-Mesopotamian pantheon. Eventually, the title of Baal started to be regarded as his true name, with Hadad relegated to the rank of a title. His other titles include “Rider of Clouds” and “Aliyan” (“Victorious”). His cult survived the destruction of Ugarit, and flourished well into Ptolemaic times.

In Ugarit, he served not only as a god of rain and thunder, but also agriculture and fertility, and, as expected from the lead god, a source of royal power. He was depicted as an impulsive and boastful figure in myths, but was also a firm ally of humans, subduing monsters, the forces of nature, and even promising to protect his followers from wrath of other gods in myths. His symbolic animal was the bull, and he was usually depicted in horned headwear. The associations between bull horns and divinity is well attested in the religious art of Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Levant, and to a degree Egypt too. Bulls are prominently featured in the art of Minoan Crete as well. This is also why the biblical golden calf is, well, a calf. Baal Hadad's family tree is rather confusing, with two separate gods being called his fathers in the Baal Cycle and other texts. The interpretation can potentially be complicated by the fact that Ugarit's (and other bronze age kingdoms’) kings seemingly often called monarchs they viewed as more powerful as „fathers” and these of similar perceived prestige as „brothers” in diplomatic correspondence. For example, one can operate undeer the assumption the god Dagon was Baal's actual father (he's only ever brought up in such a context, and shared many of Baal's roles, and like him was a prominent god deeper inland as well) while El, the elderly king of the gods, was only Baal's „father” in the diplomatic sense of the term. Some scholars instead propose that Dagon and El were partially or fully syncretised in Ugarit, that mention of Dagan was a nod to foreign tradition, or even that Baal having two fathers might be the echo of the myth of Baal's Hittite counterpart. Our main source of information about Baal is the Baal cycle, a heroic epic recovered from Ugarit in the 1920s and a subject of much scholarly analysis ever since. While not perfectly preserved, it is nonetheless a very valuable source of information, and arguably it's what allowed Baal to metaphorically speak in his own voice to modern researchers. It details his struggle with various enemies seeking to ruin his dream of becoming the king of the gods. While it's hard to tell if that was the intent of the ancient writers, Baal appears as somewhat of an underdog in this myth – his posdible father doesn't seem to be a god of particular importance, he has to rely on his allies to accomplish most of his heroic deeds, he whines about having no house of his own, and his actions are often impulsie. However, this shouldn't overshadow the fact he was for the most part the most popular god of Ugarit. Figures associated with the Ugaritic Baal include:

Anat - a war goddess who shares Baal's impulsive nature, and in myths frequently acts as his main ally or enforcer, slaying various sea monsters and the personification of death, Mot (however, there are a few instances showing Baal siding with humans rather than with Anat). She's often referred to as Baal's sister, and sometimes argued to also be his consort, though this view is challenged nowadays by some researchers. It should be noted that while Baal is firmly established as Dagon's son, Anat is never presented as related to the latter – she is pretty firmly only a daughter of El and, implicitly, his wife Asherah.

Ashtart - the Ugaritic forerunner of the famous Phoenician Astarte. She was equated with Babylonian Ishtar, and while she's not as prominent as Anat in Ugaritic texts, they emphasize her roles as a warrior and hunter; she is however also renowned for her beauty. In the Baal Cycle she berates Baal for his insufficient determination during the battle with his first opponent, and later announces his victory to the world. In many texts, both in Ugarit and beyond, her epithet is “face of Baal,” implying a particularly close bond between these two figures – it is plausible that she was viewed as Baal's consort in Ugarit. Ashtart/Astarte is NOT the same figure as Asherah (technically Athirat), the Canaanite mother goddess, and both of them appear in the Baal cycle in different roles.

Kothar-wa-Khasis – a craftsman god, indirectly equated with and possibly in part derived from Egyptian Ptah – myths state outright that he lives in Memphis, where Ptah's main temple was located. He acts as a reliable ally to Baal, providing him with weapons and precious objects and eventually also building his palace. In one scene, an argument occurs between him and Baal over whether the palace needs windows:

Yam – the god of the sea, also serving as Baal's rival to the throne. Various passage of the myth and other texts portray him as violent, tyrannical and otherwise unpleasant, and his overthrow by Baal as a positive development. He's aided by a number of sea monsters, the most notable of which is the serpent Lotan. It has been argued that that the later Babylonian Tiamat was in part based on him or his counterparts, as she doesn't appear in any Babylonian sources earlier than Enuma Elish, which is a work younger by a few centuries than the Baal cycle.

Mot – a personification of death and desolation. While even Yam received some reverence and offerings, Mot did not – he only existed as an antagonist for heroic figures. Mot's main trait is his insatiable hunger.

While the Baal from Ugarit is, due to possessing his own heroic epic, the most famous and probably best researched today, he was by no means the only deity of this sort – most cities in the Levant (and beyond, in other areas settled by the Phoenicians) had their own tutelary gods, often referred to as Baals. Among these, notable examples include:

The Baal of Tyre – Melqart served as the lead deity of the city of Tyre, seemingly the most prominent of the Phoenician centers. His name seems to simply mean “lord of the city”. He was a god of many things, most notably being viewed as a culture hero who discovered the secret of producing the purple dye which made Phoenician city-states rich and prosperous. He was also an underworld deity, and as a result an association with Babylonian Nergal has been proposed. It's quite likely that the Tyrian Baal was the one mentioned in some Biblical accounts – for example, Jezebel was said to be a princess of Tyre, therefore it's plausible that the god she revered was the Tyrian Baal. Greeks regarded him as analogous to Heracles, sadly I am unable to find the explanation for this.

The Baal of Sidon – Eshmun, a healing deity. He was seemingly viewed as analogous to the Mesopotamian Tammuz, Ishtar's lover condemned to torment in the underworld in her place. The origin of his name is unclear. His myth is somewhat similar to that of Phrygian Attis – the goddess Astronoë (possibly a variant of Astarte/Ishtar) was madly in love with him, but he was, to put it lightly, not interested (unlike Attis), and eventually castrated himself to show that, which lead to his death. He was restored to life (also unlike Attis) and made into a god of healing. Melqart and Eshmun were the two Phoenician gods invoked in a treaty meant to guarantee peace between the coastal regions and Assyria, which shows the high status of their cities in antiquity.

The Baalat of Gebal (Byblos) – Baalat was the feminine form of Baal, and a title sometimes simply applied to any prominent goddess. However, the Baalat of Gebal was seemingly a separate deity, associated with this epithet in the same way as Ugarit's Hadad became inseparable from his title of Baal. Some researchers instead propose she was simply Ashtart/Astarte, though Anat, Asherah, and Egyptian Isis and Hathor (while Ugarit was a Hittite or Mittani vassal, Gebal was under Egyptian control) were also proposed as her true identity based on instances of historical syncretism. However, due to very few surviving documents, her exact nature remains puzzling.

Baal Shamin - revered not only by Phoenicians and their ancestors, but also by Nabateans. He was likely initially simply an epithet of Baal Hadad, but developed into a distinct deity in later times. As a separate figure he was the lead god of Palmyra, though he was eventually upstaged by Bel (Marduk) there.

The Baal of Carthage, Hammon - unlike the generally youthful other Baals, he was depicted as an old man. He was also regarded as the father of Melqart, with the latter viewed as a more important deity – Carthage in fact paid tribute to his Tyrian temple. Most of what we know about him comes from Roman sources, and as a result it's hard to tell what was his true nature – it has been proposed he was a sun god at first. He was equated by Greeks with Cronus.

In a way, Babylonian Marduk can be considered to be a Baal – among the titles used to refer to him was “Bel,” the equivalent of “Baal,” and like the coastal Baals he was originally simply the protective deity of a specific city. However, occasional attempts to identify Marduk as originally having roughly the same nature as Adad/Hadad – that of a weather and agriculture god – are generally not considered to be credible by modern researchers. As I already noted, it is however quite likely that Marduk's battle with Tiamat – a figure invented for the Enuma Elish – was at least in part based on Baal's fight with Yam in the Baal cycle. Sadly, the dubious claims that Tiamat represents a deposed matriarchal order seem to be much more known to the general public – as I already said on my blog before, these are nonsensical and their spread relies on limited understanding of Mesopotamian history. Enuma Elish was not a primordial text, but a myth devised relatively late to further help with increasing Marduk's status by having him perform the same acts as many other popular gods, there is also no evidence of the existence of an earlier matriarchal religion in Sumerian and Akkadian sources. Curiously, it's also possible the myth of Baal and its analogs and derivatives inspired Zeus' battle with Typhon – it is sometimes said that it took place near mount Saphon, associated with the cult of Baal Hadad and specifically with his battle against Yam.

Egyptians regarded Baal as analogous to Seth – this conflation occurred before Seth's dominant role became that of an opponent of Osiris of his family, and relied on Seth being a god of the borderlands and foreigners inhabiting them, as well as on his chaotic, impulsive nature. Possibly depictions of Seth as the opponents of the serpent Apep were a factor, too. In an Egyptian adaptation of the Ugaritic Baal cycle, the so-called Astarte papyrus, Seth battles Yam, though no outright conflation of the Ugaritic and Egyptian mythical evildoers ever occurred to my knowledge. Baal's supporting cast of Anat and Astarte was likewise associated with Seth in Egypt, and both are referred to as his consorts in Egyptian texts. Outside of this specific example of syncretism, “Seth” was also sometimes used as a generic title for foreign gods, almost the same was as Baal functioned as a title in the Levant – it was applied to various Canaanite gods, but also to the gods of the Hittites. For example the peace treaty between Ramses II and Hattusili XI mentions “Seth of the city of Zipalanda” and “Seth of the city of Arinna” - corresponding Hittite text reveals that these are simply Teshub, the Hurrian an Hittite monster-slaying thunder god (and close analog of Ugaritic Baal Hadad – as Ugarit was seemingly at least for some time a Hittite dependency, it is more than likely their myths influenced each other), and the sun goddess of Arinna. Egyptians referred to the Libyan god Ash as a Seth, too. Curiously, at least one Ugaritic text identifies the city's Baal with Amun, rather than Seth – it doesn't seem like this idea caught on in Egypt, though.

Teshub was possibly the deity closest to Baal Hadad both in terms of myths and depictions – compare the one above with the Ugaritic Baal stele from much earlier in this article – but as a little known figure he (and his most notable allies and enemies) deserves his separate post, so I will not discuss him there, beyond letting you know that while Baal simply clobbered Yam with some encouragement from friends, Teshub only managed to best the serpent monster Illuyanka by having his son seduce Illuyanka's daughter in order to recover his internal organs stolen by the snake. Even functionally similar deities can have wildly different stories behind them! Further reading (most articles available on academia edu, jstor or persee):

A Moratorium on God Mergers? The Case of El and Milkom in the Ammonite Onomasticon by Collin Cornell

Animal sacrifice at Ugarit by Dennis Perdee

The Lady of the Titles: The Lady of Byblos and the Search for her "True Name” by Anna Elise Zernecke

Ugaritic monsters I: The ˁatūku “Bound One” and its Sumerian parallels by Madadh Richey

‛Athtart in Late Bronze Age Syrian Texts by Mark S. Smith

ʿAthtartu’s Incantations and the Use of Divine Names as Weapons by Theodore J. Lewis

Baal, Son of Dagan: In Search of Baal’s Double Paternity by Noga Ayali-Darshan

The Role of Aštabi in the Song of Ullikummi and the Eastern Mediterranean “Failed God” Stories by Noga Ayali-Darshan

The Death of Mot and his Resurrection in the Light of Egyptian Sources by Noga Ayali-Darshan

The Other Version of the Story of the Storm-god’s Combat with the Sea in the Light of Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Hurro-Hittite Texts by Noga Ayali-Darshan

The storm-gods of ancient Near East: summary, synthesis, recent studies, parts 1 and 2 by Daniel Schwemer

Politics and Time in the Baal Cycle by Aaron Tugendhaft

Echoes of the Baal Cycle in a Safaito-Hismaic Inscription by Ahmad Al-Jallad

My neighbor's god: Assur in Babylonia and Marduk in Assyria by Grant Frame

Gods in translation. Dynamics of transculturality between Egypt and Byblos in the III millennium BC by Angelo Colonna

Zeus Kasios or the Interpretatio Graeca of Baal Saphon in Ptolemaic Egypt by Alexandra Diez de Oliveira

#canaanite mythology #ugaritic mythology #mesopotamian mythology #egyptian mythology #baal

169 notes · View notes

atamascolily · 4 years ago

Text