|
Updated: 2025.03.23
 0350x525.png "cuneiform cBCE2141-2122 Sumerian carved stone fm temple Nindara, Ur (David Morgan-Mar)") |
 1500x1000.png "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} ≈BCE 2141–2122 Sumerian-cuneiform chiseled stone fm temple in 𒋀𒀊𒆠 (modern Nindara), birthplace of AvꞋrã•hãmꞋ, in 𒆠𒂗𒄀 (Kᵊnᵊgir) (photo: David Morgan-Mar) |
The emergence and composition of the Zūg•ōtꞋ didn't appear out of a vacuum. They are the product of the developing, complex administration of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ over the millennia. Religious and political threads intertwine, sometimes contrasting or conflicting, while other times partially or completely fusing — like the hues, shades, tints and brightness of color. While computer colors certainly cannot duplicate real life faithfully, it can help keep track of the various threads.
Modern scholars often demonstrate a lack of awareness of the number and degree of differences between these various empires, which affects the ability to notice their individual influences on the development of the government of YᵊhūdꞋãh as their overlord empires changed. Changes of overlord empires affected the governing, and obligatory v permitted laws, of YᵊhūdꞋãh. Thus, these stages shouldn't be ignored as mere changes of an electronic address for bank transfers for the nation's annual taxes. I've attempted to remind the reader of these differences by incorporating an occasional reminder of their different languages as a signal of their significant differences. Simply hovering over the term, and occasional information note or link, provides help.
The Zūg•ōtꞋ emerge as a consequence, and product, of the ouster of the last legitimate Kō•heinꞋ Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, who was ousted by his own Hellenist brother in cahoots with the (Hellenist) SëꞋlë•ūk•ös SãꞋtrap Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής . It was apparently at this time that these two Hellenists displaced the historical Beit Din ha-Jã•dōlꞋ with the first Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Συνέδριον — over which they appointed the first Zūg.
Thus, the color blue suggests ancient Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ under Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ ha-Lei•wiꞋ, with the kō•han•imꞋ, until the the establishment, ≈BCE 1130, of the Royal Beit-Dã•widꞋ. ha-MëlꞋëkh. Red suggests the ancient animistic (& anthropomorphic) belief in blood sacrifice and its associated priesthood; later including Hellenists and the Romans. Accordingly, Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ is distinguished from the break-away 10 Northern Tribes of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10), under the leadership of the Tribe of Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim. The blend (assimilation) imposed by Hellenist foreign rulers results in dark orange font on a pale orange background of the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ and their subsequent Hellenized Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ.
(Mother Culture & Religion) 0350x390.png "Sajegag Inanna evolution: Semitic-Akkadian Ishtar, Hellenist Ashtoret, Christian Easter") |
 0750x835.png "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Pre-≈BCE 2300 𒊕𒈪 of AvꞋrã•hãmꞋ ≈BCE 2000. (Seal ≈BCE 2350-2150, photo: Sailko, edited.) |
The root of all of these was the earliest documented (written) — henotheistic — religious culture in 𒋀𒀊𒆠 (Ūr), birthplace of AvꞋrã•hãmꞋ, in 𒆠𒂗𒄀 (Kᵊnᵊgir). The indigenous 𒆠𒂗𒄀 (Kᵊnᵊgir) people, dating back to ≈BCE 6500, were non-Semitic and called themselves the 𒊕𒈪 (Sajᵊgig) — the earliest-known writers, in 𒋗𒈨𒊒 (Sūmerian) cuneiform. The ability of the 𒊕𒈪 (Sajᵊgig) to write enabled them to be the first to begin documenting history.
The religious-culture of the 𒊕𒈪 (Sajᵊgig) centered in ziggurat-temple municipal-homes for each different city-god. Some, perhaps all, of the ziggurat-temples featured a holy date-palm in a holy date-palm grove — an a•shᵊr•ãhꞋ. While romanticists in the cloak of historians credit the Sūmerian-speaking 𒊕𒈪 (Sajᵊgig) of the 𒆠𒂗𒄀 (Kᵊnᵊgir) with 39 "firsts" for humankind, the historical reality is that humankind had, over millennia, progressed to (at least) these 39 milestones of human progress by — and probably nearly all well before — the time of the 𒊕𒈪 (Sajᵊgig).
What we know about the 𒊕𒈪 (Sajᵊgig) of the 𒆠𒂗𒄀 (Kᵊnᵊgir) has been transmitted to us in their Sūmerian cuneiform, the first known human writing, beginning ≈BCE 2300 — about the time that 𒊬𒊒𒄀 (Sargon Sr.) founded the 𒆳𒌵𒆠 (Semitic-Akkadian) Empire. Consequently, most of what we know about the non-Semitic 𒊕𒈪 (Sajᵊgig) has been relayed to us by their successors, the Semitic 𒆳𒌵𒆠 (Semitic-Akkadian) Empire, in 𒆳𒌵𒆠 (Semitic-Akkadian) Empire cuneiform.
The 𒊕𒈪 (Sajᵊgig) "Queen of Heaven", Inanna, evolved in the successor 𒆳𒌵𒆠 (Semitic-Akkadian) Empire — as well as the 𒀸𒋩 (Assyrian), 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) and 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 (Iranian Empire) — religion(s) mophed into Ishtar/Ash•tōrꞋët/Easter; known as RæꞋa by the Hellenist Καλλίστη-Minoan (Πύλος-) Thalassocracy; eventually becoming known by Hellenist Romans as Venus.
It was from out of this Semitic 𒆳𒌵𒆠 (Semitic-Akkadian) religious mother-culture and language that, ≈BCE 2039–1980, AvꞋrã•hãmꞋ was born, renounced his "mother's milk" (mother-culture religion) and moved to the economic and trade center of the world — hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ Caravansary World Trade Hub — to pursue a monotheistic understanding of the Existant (Hebrew יְהוָׂה, the Creator-Singularity of the universe).
GIGO is a computer science axiom describing the misprocessing of a program. No matter if the program is wonderful and logically perfect: GIGO — Garbige-In, Garbuj-Out! If you're not careful about what goes into a process, then the output may be garbage either because the input was inaccurate and undependable or the process has been misunderstood. In such case, no matter how well a scholar may feel (s)he understands a process (e.g., a foreign overlordship), the output is necessarily unreliable. Scholars have consistently failed this test relative to the development of YᵊhūdꞋãh from the initial schism at the death of ShᵊlōmꞋōh ha-MëlꞋëkh to the deracination of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) in BCE 722. As a result, practically all earlier historical and archeological "scholarly analysis" must be reevaluated as suspect "garbage-out"!
Contrary to already-documented historical facts, Jews returning from the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) 3 centuries later have been treated, as pristine followers of Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ. But we know that Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ would not have tolerated switching New Year from spring to the autumn birthday of the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) god Ma•rᵊdūkhꞋ — as every Orthodox rabbi of today is required to teach along with the creation of the world precisely on BCE 3760.06.14! Tōr•ãhꞋ requires is about Truth. Clergies, contradicting Truth (reality) with faith-based delusion, are a contadiction of Tōr•ãhꞋ and the Existant (Hebrew: יְהוָׂה).
>
Starting at the time of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ, we can notice that the earliest recorded style of monarchies were envisioned as the mortal junior partner of the (demi-) gods conveying the divine will, a SãꞋtrap•y over SãꞋtrap•ies. Over centuries, as monarchs grew in power, they shed their "junior partner" portfolio to proclaim themselves as the demigod-in-waiting (i.e. "divine right") monarch — a king, by divine right; to become full-fledged god upon their mortal death-journey to join the stars.
DërꞋëkh יְהוָׂה Of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ & Mōsh•ëhꞋThe concept of monotheism is a simplism facilitating the simple-minded to miss the reality of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ's monumental contribution to humankind. While Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ surely had an "Aha!" moment, it was no conjurated "epiphany" delusion like the Hellenism of Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής & Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, the Christian delusions of The Apostate Paul or the delusional legend of Mohammed riding the "Flying Pegasus" of Islam from Mecca supposedly to Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim.
Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ was a genius philosopher-scientist of all time. Having seen mortal rulers claiming to be demigods with a divine right to rule and transcending to become star-gods upon their death, Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ reasoned logically, according to the most advanced science of his era, retrospectively tracking the origin of all of this; the Single Cause behind everything. Even within the limited science and knowledge of his day, his logical reasoning within the limitations of the science and technology of his day, unerringly required, and led him to, the Singularity-Existant; the Sole Origin-Cause of everything in the real-world universe.
Limitations of the science, technology and knowledge of his day limited his ability, as it similarly limited the ability of those succeeding him (i.e. Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ ha-Lei•wiꞋ, et al.) to distinguish science from animism and anthropomorphism (idolatry). This ignorance of science — reality — was pervasive in their day. Even the air was thought to be animist; the same word meant breeze and spirit, which moved the leaves of trees. Forest fires and lightning were thought to be spirits or demons. Every object was thought to represent some counterpart spirit. In such an environment, they were unable to discern that blood wasn't a life-spirit, that the notion of animal sacrifice was animism, that it wasn't until more than a millennium later, ≈BCE 720, that Yᵊsha•yãhꞋū ha-Nã•viꞋ proclaimed that a physical house for a god implied anthropomorphism (i.e. idolatry) — forbidden for the people of יְהוָׂה — and, therefore a temple of a god and animal sarifice must be displace by a Beit Tᵊphil•ãhꞋ (56.7).
Yet, still today, millennia after we were weaned from idolatrous (anthropomorphic) temples and animal sacrifice, science-illiterates — Bᵊn•æꞋ-KhōꞋshëkh, QōꞋ•rakh elements of "Orthodox Jewish" and other clergies no different from the other gōyꞋim they smugly sneer at, even today insist on reverting to their Bronze Age anthropomorphic idolatries! Learning nothing from 70 CE, 135 CE or the 1940s, all is simplistically, zero-sum attributed to hate and producing a response of hatred toward "gōyꞋim" in return!
There is only one Way out of this infinite intellectual darkness-sink of the Bᵊn•æꞋ-KhōꞋshëkh; and that is neither the elusive of love, forgiveness nor peace. The only Way out of Darkness is to find and follow the Light, becoming Bᵊn•æꞋ-Ōr: learn to behave based on logic, real-world — the universe and its governing immutable laws reflecting the Immutable Existant — education and knowledge. There is only One Ultimate Ë•mëtꞋ. So everyone who educates and commits themselves to the pursuit of ë•mëtꞋ will eventually coalesce. Contrary to silly and falacious arguments, Immutable means that יְהוָׂה (English: the Existant) doesn't depart from His Immutable Laws to grant the whims of one mortal wannabe god-manipulator over another. Rather, it is the mortal who must conform to the Immutable Laws of יְהוָׂה — and learn to be pleased with, and thankful for, the Perfect and Immutable TzëdꞋëq of יְהוָׂה.
Recognize how your present belief-system sets you up for devastation. Self-deception works fine for everyday matters of little consequence. If you get what you pray for, "God answered" and when you don't "God knows better". Don't you realize that's the same record of prayer success for every idolater? And when you pray for something all-important to you, e.g., to deliver a loved one, and it doesn't work then your belief-tent deservedly collapses. Get a pair of dice. Pray for either an even number or odd number and throw the dice. "God" will always "answer" half of your prayers; precisely the identical prayer record of every human being in history — except me (and worthy disciples I've mentored). Since I realized the lesson of Immutability and striving for ë•mëtꞋ and tzëdꞋëq, every prayer I've made for more than half a century has been granted! The only Way to succeed like this is to abandon Bᵊn•æꞋ-KhōꞋshëkh I-know-best, supernatural conjuration, wannabe god-manipulation, to instead recognize one's place as a mortal and pray only to study, learn and be thankful for the Omnipotent, real-world Ë•mëtꞋ and TzëdꞋëq of יְהוָׂה. Only when you learn that, will you know how to succeed in Tᵊhil•ãhꞋ. Emperors and kings sought shamans, seers, priests attempting to learn how to manipulate and control the gods—in order to make themselves all-powerful! Do not suppose to dare that your mortal bit of knowledge merits attempting to manipulate the Existant to stray from Perfect and Immortal Immutability for anything that you are foolish enough to think you know better!
Further, only then will you have the intellectual tools to follow the Prime Principles of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ and Mōsh•ëhꞋ (Ë•mëtꞋ & TzëdꞋëq) through the advancements of science, technology and knowledge, in the face of both internal and foreign pressures to assimilate; straying from these Prime Principles. יְהוָׂה and the Prime Principles are Immutable; but הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus)! The challenge for the reader is to discern the former through many delusions in the latter as you follow the development from Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ till today and into the future.
Today's scientists still apply Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ's same technique to learn more about this origin first described not by Einstein, but in Tōr•ãhꞋ: the "Big Nᵊti•yãhꞋ". The world-changing take-away here is: learning Ë•mëtꞋ about the Creator happens only by Bᵊn•æꞋ-Ōr rigorously applying logic and science applied to the real world universe; not Dark Ages hocus-pocus delusions conjured by charlatan Bᵊn•æꞋ-KhōꞋshëkh, superstitious-religious clergy cults.
What else has been glossed over, misleading modern Israel & Jews? Our concern here is how much assimilation may have taken place under subjugation to Demonstrating his absolute authority over the Judean kō•han•imꞋ and Bæt ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ, SãꞋtrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•öss decreed that only Hellenist sacrifices, for Hellenist Consequently, An•tiꞋ•ökh•öss' Hellenist-puppet religio-political party overseeing YᵊhūdꞋãh—the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ—were forcibly ensconced as the sole priests in the new Hellenist "Temple"; in absolute charge of a Hellenized "Temple"! Brought up as a step-brother of the Princess of Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim, in the Royal Palace of Par•ōhꞋ, Mōsh•ëhꞋ was afforded the best all-round (science, military, philosophic and religious-priest) education in the world. Having been highly educated to the inflexible and unchanging laws governing the days, the seasons and the universe, Tōr•ãhꞋ spells out Two vital principles emanate from the landmark contributions of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ and Mōsh•ëhꞋ: Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ eschewed the more recent, demigod model of monarchy shared by the Par•ōhꞋ. The only known historically-authentic title applied to Mōsh•ëhꞋ is Lei•wiꞋ. Rather than make himself a Hebrew Par•ōhꞋ or mëlꞋëkh, Mōsh•ëhꞋ simply practiced the more modest, deputy (SãꞋtrap) model of leadership; implying that Yi•sᵊr•ã•eil•imꞋ were the am serving יְהוָׂה as our MëlꞋëkh. The most frequently base verb describing his practice is pã•qadꞋ. Rabbis weren't even conceived until nearly 1½ millennia later! It is certain that Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ cannot have been "Rabbeinu"! That is a far distant future, straying clergy retroactively attempting to insert its own fake history (for a similar example, see also the ZōꞋhar). The closest similar Judaic historical function and title is that of the Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ pᵊqid•imꞋ (who defined Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NōꞋakh. The Pã•qidꞋ model of junior (deputy) leadership subordinate to יְהוָׂה practiced by Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ in the distant past, ended no later than the death of Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn, of sheivꞋët Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim. Subsequent Ta•na״khꞋ leaders then ranged from Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ to the senior leadership monarch model of xmelekh "demanded by the people", despite the dire warning by Shᵊmū•ælꞋ ha-Nã•zirꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ. That mëlꞋëkh PinkGranite 025x20.png "hieroglyph: Tawᵊ (Land-land {2 Lands, Upper & Lower}; Hellenized by disputed means to Αἴγυπτος (Aiguptos), Anglicized to Egypt; N16 ta landx2 dual)"){kind=small}
(𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) during the long Sojourn (≈BCE 1775–), and various periods of 𒀭𒊹 (Assyrian) domination even before the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) and 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 (Iranian Empire). The glossed, yet plain, outcome centuries later is that YᵊhūdꞋãh significantly assimilated during the חֲטִיפָה (exile only of the central national government), leaving YᵊhūdꞋãh "naked & exposed") in the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire). Having been confronted and influenced by the Hellenist Πύλος-tines since the Yᵊtzi•ãhꞋ, YᵊhūdꞋãh already been subject to Hellenist assimilation for nearly 1½ millennia when, in BCE 175, the Hellenizing of the known world culminated in the subjugation of YᵊhūdꞋãh as a SãꞋtrap•y of Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής.
gods, would henceforth be sacrificed in the Hellenized "Temple"!!! To enforce his decree, he put the "High Priest" position up for sale to the highest bidder stipulating that the candidate Hellenist "High Priest" must exact total compliance with his decree! that it was Mōsh•ëhꞋ who first deduced that these immutable laws of the universe reflected an Immutability that characterized the Singularity defined previously by Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ as: אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה This developed into יְהֹוָ֞ה, a Hebrew portmanteau of יְ□ + □הׂ□ + □וָה originally intended to be explanatory; the opposite of secret and forbidden. In English His Name is Existant.
was Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish ha-mëlꞋëkh — the same inherently-flawed model followed by Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh, ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh and all of the ensuing mᵊlâkh•imꞋ!
From the moment that Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn conquered, absorbed and subsumed Kᵊna•anꞋ ≈BCE 1500, the northern versus southern exposures formed under the pressures of differing external ethnocultural threats (Syrio-Mesopotamian on the north versus Egyptian and a variety of smaller peoples impinging the southern borders). This contrast is reflected in the BaꞋal-centric assimilations from the north and east versus the more Hãt-HōrꞋ-centric ("golden calf") Egyptian and Hellenist Πύλος-tines Dãg•ōnꞋ assimilations from the south and coastlands. Pulled primarily by two contrasting foreign assimilative tensions, the northern 10 tribes tended to grow apart from the 2 southern tribes (YᵊhūdꞋãh subsuming Bin•yã•minꞋ).
DërꞋëkh יְהוָׂה Had Already Been Rendered Forever Impossible Today's rabbis slyly peddle a fabricated falsification "tradition" of historical reality: a supposed "Unbroken Succession" of sᵊmikh•ãhꞋ; supposedly connecting Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ ha-Lei•wiꞋ and Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn to often widely disconnected links thereafter.
Upon the death of Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn, however, contrary to an indefensible children's fable of repeatedly-disconnected rabbinic fabrications and blatant misrepresentation, Israel strayed, often leaderless, for years and even decades in Kᵊna•anꞋ! In future, remnants of DërꞋëkh יְהוָׂה would be scattered.pockets among a straying herd.
 |
 Tribal Regions of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ |
Before Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn conquered the Promised Land, Kᵊna•anꞋ had been made up of numerous independent and sovereign citydoms ruled by "municipal kings". From the period of the Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ — Late Bronze Age (≈BCE 1479) to the beginning of the Iron Age (≈BCE 1199), ShᵊkhëmꞋ had been the capital of the Tribal Region of Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim.
≈BCE 1266, patterning himself after the previous Kᵊna•an•imꞋ citydom municipal "kings", Av•i-mëlꞋëkh Bën Ji•dᵊōnꞋ kick-started the campaign for the "traditional" (Kᵊna•an•iꞋ demigod-model) king instead of yet another Shō•pheitꞋ; claiming for himself the title of (municipal) king of ShᵊkhëmꞋ, in the Southwestern Tribal Region of Mᵊnash•ëhꞋ.
Shᵊmū•ælꞋ was a Lei•wiꞋ who was raised by, and served, the Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ in the ŌꞋhël Mō•eidꞋ, which was still where Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn had established it: in ShilꞋōh, in the heart of the Tribal Region of Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim. Thus, Shᵊmū•ælꞋ was a Lei•wiꞋ, of the Tribal Region of Bin•yã•minꞋ, serving in the National Sanctuary-Capitol in the Tribal Region of Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim — with the Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ and the A•rōnꞋ ha-Bᵊrit.
It's unsurprising that when the public demanded a king, Shᵊmū•ælꞋ searched among the power families of the Tribal Regions of Bin•yã•minꞋ and Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim for the optimal candidate. Shᵊmū•ælꞋ first selected his own tribe, Bin•yã•minꞋ, then narrowed his selection to a man of stature whom he had already, earlier, mã•shakhꞋ: Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish.
Together, these necessarily imply that Ma•lᵊkh•ūtꞋ Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, under Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish ha-MëlꞋëkh, with its first capital at Jiv•ãhꞋ, was well established and defended by ≈BCE 1134; and the southern border in YᵊhūdꞋãh, namely Sha•ar•ayꞋim beneath which Dã•widꞋ slew GãlᵊyãtꞋ, was by then well-fortified.
≈BCE 1129 — Battle Of ÆꞋmëq hã-ÆlꞋãh |
 ≈BCE 1129 — Battlefield: Dã•widꞋ & GãlᵊyãtꞋ (Yi•sᵊr•ã•eil•imꞋ POV looking south; photo Sourceflix)
|
Correlation to numerous 14C datings of near-contemporary events and persons has demonstrated that Dã•widꞋ Bën Yi•shaiꞋ (born c. BCE 1142) fought GãlᵊyãtꞋ, the Πύλος-tine ≈BCE 1129. The battlesite, in ÆꞋmëq hã-ÆlꞋãh, in YᵊhūdꞋãh, was guarded by a formidable fortress, built by Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish ha-MëlꞋëkh of SheivꞋët Bin•yã•minꞋ, demarcating, and defending, the southern border.
Following his spectacular victory over GãlᵊyãtꞋ, the Πύλος-tine, Dã•widꞋ was the leading star in YᵊhūdꞋãh.
At this time, however, no one had yet dislodged the 𒅁𒍑, who had occupied Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim after the Bᵊn•æꞋ-YᵊhūdꞋãh conquered the city, killed its inhabitants and sent the city up in flames. The rule of Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish, of SheivꞋët Bin•yã•minꞋ was trimmed by the rising popularity of Dã•widꞋ to the northern kingdom that was dominated by SheivꞋët Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim.
While the tribal territory of Bin•yã•minꞋ straddled the midsection between the 10 northern tribes and YᵊhūdꞋãh, the heart of the Bin•yã•minꞋ-YᵊhūdꞋãh boundary remained the city of Urshalim, inhabited by the indigenous Urshalim-ites. Thus, the boundaries of Bin•yã•minꞋ and YᵊhūdꞋãh extended only up to, but not including the Urshalim, which had been granted to whichever tribe could manage to dislodge the Urshalimites.
Combined with the increasing disfavor toward Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish ha-MëlꞋëkh, Shᵊmū•ælꞋ ha-Nã•zirꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ mã•shakhꞋ Dã•widꞋ MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh in Khë•vᵊr•ōnꞋ by ≈BCE 1130, where he reigned over YᵊhūdꞋãh for ≈7 years.
Much of this period, Dã•widꞋ MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh spent fleeing and hiding from Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish, MëlꞋëkh (northern) Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ; at one point, ≈BCE 1126, forcing Dã•widꞋ and his band to take refuge among the Πύλος-tines, feigning loyalty to the local Πύλος-tine Prince Ag•khöꞋūs, of nearby Jãt.
qqqBCE 1200 SeaPeoples (## Remaining Under Construction)
"The ultimate collapse of Egyptian power in the region occurred about 1175 B.C. at the hands of the Sea Peoples, of whom the best known are the Philistines. … For reasons not yet fully understood, the massive disruptions caused elsewhere in hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ appear to have had a minimal effect upon the Phoenician coastal centers. [Because the cause of the massive disruptions, the eruption, made it a matter of survival for the Kallistanines to colonize the coastlands, multiplying the effects of the eruption on the original inhabitants]"
Thus, ≈BCE 1121, Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh reconquered 𒅁𒍑, restoring its Hebrew name: Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim — which intervening rulers had first corrupted to Shalem, Shalim, Rushalim and Urushalim, after their Kᵊna•an•iꞋ god of dusk; then later changed (to 𒅁𒍑?). Dã•widꞋ upgraded its fortifications, built himself a palace and made it his capital of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ — as it is, yet again, restored today.
When the Πύλος-tines heard that Dã•widꞋ ni•mᵊshakhꞋ mëlꞋëkh and was threatening their hegemony, they attacked, spread out over ÆꞋmëq Rᵊphã•imꞋ and captured Beit LëkhꞋëm. Dã•widꞋ soon retaliated and, in three battles, forced the Πύλος-tines out of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
Having set Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and its capital, Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim, in order, Dã•widꞋ sent for the A•rōnꞋ ha-Bᵊrit to be brought from Qi•rᵊyatꞋ Yᵊãr•imꞋ in a great procession of celebratory dancing to the capital, where it was placed in a tent in Ir Dã•widꞋ.
Dã•widꞋ's term as MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ was marked internationally by a string of military victories that expanded his kingdom to the Mediterranean in the west and incorporating large areas east of Nᵊhar Ya•rᵊd•einꞋ. Domestically, however, the royal family was vexed by sex and murder scandals, and even an attempted assassination and ouster by one of his sons (Av•shã•lōmꞋ) — so serious that Dã•widꞋ was forced to flee the capital. A second revolt broke out from former supporters of Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish, which he also successfully crushed. David's association with Tᵊhil•imꞋ and final years of illness and succession are relatively well known, making it unnecessary to repeat here.
Barred from building a Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ himself, Dã•widꞋ is reported to have passed along its architectural design nearly identical to the Temple of Khat-shëpꞋsët in Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim during the time that Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ, the adopted son of Par•ōhꞋ and step-brother to the Egyptian Princess, still remained in the palace and royal family of Par•ōhꞋ. Thus, his full Egyptian name, in Egyptian records, seems to have been Prince Sen-ën-Mūt Tut-Moses, step-brother (and lover, the enforced norm in Egyptian royalty of the period) of Khat-shëpꞋsët — the architect-builder of her temple!
As Guardian of Architectural Design for the planned Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ, Dã•widꞋ handed down from Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ, the first MëlꞋëkh-Mã•shiꞋakh over Am Ë•khãdꞋ Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, is the basis of the tradition that a Mã•shiꞋakh will reveal the design of an eternal (i.e. necessarily metaversal) Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ to transcend the still-future Beit Tᵊphil•ãhꞋ (not yet-another anthropomorphic "temple of god") prophesied by Yᵊsha•yãhꞋū ha-Nã•viꞋ (56.7).
While Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh is legendary for his warrior prowess combined with his love for יְהוָׂה (as evidenced in Tᵊhil•imꞋ), his legacy must be tempered with the reality that he also committed adultery (in ancient days a capital crime) with Bat-ShëvꞋa, compounded his adultery by ordering her husband, Ūr•i-Yãh the Turk, to return to his cuckolded wife (an effort to make Ūr•i-Yãh appear to be the father of the illegitimate child). This command was an impossibly unacceptable affront to ancient Middle East honor that still echoes in the Middle East today. When her husband refused, Dã•widꞋ ordered that he be deliberately sent into the heart of battle and then abandoned to be killed. Thus, Dã•widꞋ added capital murder to his capital adultery. (Note: later during a coup by his own son, Avᵊshã•lōmꞋ, Dã•widꞋ had been forced to flee Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim. In his absence, Avᵊshã•lōmꞋ openly entered the forbidden private quarters of Dã•widꞋ's 10 concubines, insinuating sexual union. Just as Ūr•i-Yãh had done, Dã•widꞋ didn't accept them back either.)
Although Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh, because of his great popularity and power ensuing from his military victories, managed to harness the northern (10 Tribe) faction under one yoke; with YᵊhūdꞋãh (subsuming Bin•yã•minꞋ), nevertheless, the residual Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim power base of former MëlꞋëkh Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish constantly stoked fires of revolt that always seethed just below the surface, threatening to boil over into open revolt, even at the height of Dã•widꞋ's reign; and more so during the reign of ShᵊlōmꞋōh.
Further, Dã•widꞋ planned, designed and wanted to build a National Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ in Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim, which wouldn put altars & sanctuaries across northern Israel out of business, as well as elevate Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim, in YᵊhūdꞋãh, to supersede all of the former capitals — in northern Israel. So resistance to Beit-Dã•widꞋ persisted in northern Israel.
Thus, well before ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh ascended to the throne, fissures of internal conflict generated both before and during the reign of Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh had long been splitting the kingdom.
Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh was succeeded by ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh — who, despite his conventional reputation as a pinnacle of wisdom, far exceeded his father in violating the Biblical edict of Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 17.16-17. In addition to multitudes of horses and chariots, he bargained favorable international treatise by contracting marriages with idolatrous daughters of foreign leaders — accumulating 700 foreign wives + 300 concubines. These wives in his kheiꞋrëm brought along with them their native idols and religions — turning his heart to honor their gods, for which he built temples; particularly Ash•tōrꞋët. Thus, ShᵊlōmꞋōh multiplied the seeds of internal strife, schism and self-destruction he had inherited from his father, Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh. Supporting this enormous accumulation of wealth and women required extravagant taxes: an annual tax burden (in addition to silver) of 666 ki•kãr•imꞋ of gold! Savvy elders realized that this was headed to an apocalyptic schism, but inexperienced and overconfident young politicoes saw only extravagant luxury of the moment.
When ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh was repairing the Mi•lōꞋ, he noticed a worker who was a ji•bōrꞋ khaꞋyil and ya•phᵊqædꞋ him over all of the transportation workers (i.e. Beit Yō•seiphꞋ) serving the construction site. Unknown to ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh, however, 1. Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ (Sr.) was consulting an Insurrectionist Nã•viꞋ named Akh•i•yᵊhꞋ, from ShilꞋōh, in the Tribal Region of Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim — who prophesied to him that the 10 Northern Tribes would split away from ShᵊlōmꞋōh's successor-son and Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ (Sr.) would be their mëlꞋëkh.
— 1st Libyan Par•ōhꞋ of (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt), Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. 350x200.png "Egyptian hierarchy (historyonthenet)") |
 487x287.png "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} "Egyptian Social Classes and Society" (historyonthenet) |
Further, around the 33rd regnal year of ShᵊlōmꞋōh, a poltical upheaval overturned the superpower to the south. ≈BCE 1047, the first Libyan-Egyptian Par•ōhꞋ, Par•ōhꞋ, Hëdj-khëpër-Rã Sëtëp-ën-Rã Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr., took power over (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌).
Modern scholars cannot hope to grasp how YᵊhūdꞋãh was influenced, and in what areas, by Egyptian overlordship without first understanding what the Egyptian government model was; what the priorities and constraints of Egyptian overlordship entailed beside payment of annual national taxes.
In elementary school, the definitions we learn, for example "senator", is that of our modern time. It is only later, when studying history, that educators inform us that the definition we learned is not the original definition; how the original senators of Rome where somewhat different. This is also true of even more ancient government models. Our modern definitions of "noble" or "vizier" or "king", etc., differ from ancient realities. In this analysis, our aim is to discover any assimilated blemish(es) introduced into YᵊhūdꞋãh by ancient foreign rule. Precision in terms and definitions is key.
Describing ancient Egypt as "feudalistic" is not only anachronistic by ≈3 millennia, it misrepresents ancient Egypt as some Sherwood Forest of King Arthur, Robin Hood and English knights traipsing through an English countryside. Ancient Egypt was spët-istic; that is, the ancient Egyptian administrative district was an irrigation region, a nome or cataract; a spët. Whether feudalism is similar in some respects is irrelevant and misleading. (For anyone who cares, the proper question would be whether feudalism inherited any similarities from spët-ism; and that's not the topic here.)
 Shoshaq Sr cartouches Mel-a 11.40 14.25 Div-b 12.2-9 biblarchrep20200124 0350x300.png "Cartouches of Parōh Hëdj-khëpër-Rã Sëtëp-ën-Rã") |
| Cartouches of Par•ōhꞋ Hëdj-khëpër- |
To understand how Egyptian-rule affected YᵊhūdꞋãh after the invasion by Egyptian Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq ≈BCE 1035 requires understanding the Egyptian social and administrative models he established (see hierarchy diagram), specifically under his government ≈BCE 1047-1001. Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. was the first Par•ōhꞋ of the 22nd (Libyan-Egyptian) Dynasty. Under his rule, (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) was delineated into spëts, each administered by a Par•ōhꞋ-appointed Sëmër
"[Sëmërs] were the only group, beside the [Par•ōhꞋ] family, who could hold a government office. [Sëmërs] ruled the [spëts], made local laws and maintained order. Sëmërs also owned farm land which the peasant class worked for them."
"[Sëmërs] ruled the [spëts] of Egypt. They were responsible for making local laws and keeping order in their [spët]."
"[Sëmërs] below the [Par•ōhꞋ family] of ancient Egypt consisted of artisans and workers directly under the Par•ōhꞋ’s command, giving them a higher status than any other class in the kingdom."
"Nobility in Egypt was hereditary. Right below the [Par•ōhꞋ] in status were the powerful [Sëmërs], they h[e]ld government posts, and were rulers over the [spëts] of Egypt." More than once, when a Par•ōhꞋ failed to sire a suitable son, a Royal Dynasty of the Par•ōhs was begun by a leading Sëmër.
Since the "Middle Kingdom [≈BCE 2040–1782] onwards the power and independence of the [Sëmër had been] diminished, and their administrative functions were taken over by the Tyats. Each [spët] was governed by a [Sëmër] "
While tax demands out of Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim had been onerous from the reign of Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh, it's difficult to pinpoint exactly at what point Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim (i.e. YᵊhūdꞋãh) first appeared vulnerable enough to foster open talk of rebellion and secession among the northern tribes of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
But we are told who first initiated the rebellion to secede, and whom he commissioned to lead it. The Nã•viꞋ who ignited the tax tinder was Akh•i•yãhꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ, from ShilꞋōh — which, until superseded by Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim, had been the Capital of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ established by Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn. (So rival claims of legitimacy between the original-traditional kō•heinꞋ bastion of ShilꞋōh versus the Beit-Dã•widꞋ royalty bastion of Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim shouldn't be ignored.)
The man whom Akh•i•yãhꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ commissioned to execute the rebellion and secession, Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ (Sr.) Bën-Nᵊvãt, of the Tribe of Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim, provides a terminus post quem.
It was only after ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh began building the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ — ≈BCE 1076, that he commissioned Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ (Sr.) Bën-Nᵊvãt, of the Tribe of Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim, launching his career as an important player.
Some indefinite time later, we are apprised that ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh learned that Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ Sr. had been fomenting rebellion and secession, and issues a death warrant. However, Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ (Sr.) was informed of his death warrant and fled to Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim, where he was granted refuge.
Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. ascended to power as Par•ōhꞋ in (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌) ≈BCE 1055; ergo ≈21 years after ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh (and Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ Sr.) had begun work on the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ.
Thus, the death of ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh, ≈BCE 1040, came about 15 years into the reign of Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr.; by which time Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ Sr. had come under the personal protective wing of Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr.; likely for a considerable — and collaborative — time.
At this point, we can further make an educated guess that Akh•i•yãhꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ was sufficiently politically astute to recognize that the accession of Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. signaled a stronger and more aggressive (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌) on the southern flank of YᵊhūdꞋãh. The resulting need for YᵊhūdꞋãh to redeploy more forces (from the northern border with Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ) to defend her southern flank, now from Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim even more than from the Πύλος-tines, translated to greater weakness confronting (north) Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. A fortiori, Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq's redeployment of Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ (Sr.) back to Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ as "his man in Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ" after the death of ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh signaled Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq's designs on YᵊhūdꞋãh.
Thus, it should have been quite clear to Akh•i•yãhꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ that YᵊhūdꞋãh would be conquered by Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. and relegated to a (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌) spët.
The consuming question that remained was how to save the north (Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ). And the glaring answer was to work through the man whom Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. had clearly picked to rule Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ as a (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌) spët: Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ Sr.
Upon the death of ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh, his divergent sons by diverse wives of his enormous harem fought over the throne; eventually leading to two conflicting kings: one from Beit-Dã•widꞋ in Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim over YᵊhūdꞋãh (Jews) and the other — from Beit Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim, in their capital of ShᵊkhëmꞋ; over the "10 Northern Tribes" of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) (i.e. Israelis). This schism persisted under rival monarchies until the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) Deracination (not exile!) of BCE 722.
The schism developed during the early reign of RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh Bën-ShᵊlōmꞋōh, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. The seed had been planted during the reign of ShᵊlōmꞋōh ha-MëlꞋëkh when one of his aides, Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ, of the tribe of Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim, was told by Akh•i•yᵊhꞋ, from ShilꞋōh, in the Tribal Region of Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim that Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, would split in two; and that Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ would become mëlꞋëkh over Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (the10 Northern Tribes). Soon after, Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ led a failed uprising against ShᵊlōmꞋōh ha-MëlꞋëkh, after which Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ fled to (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt — where Hãt-HōrꞋ was still a popular goddess) for refuge.
Because the mᵊshikh•ãhꞋ of Ish- BōꞋshët Bën-Shã•ūlꞋ was administered by a mere general, AvꞋᵊnær, not by a Nã•viꞋ, Ish- BōꞋshët Bën-Shã•ūlꞋ was never accepted as a legitimate king. General AvꞋᵊnær, his only important supporter, was soon assassinated by his own colleagues, after which Ish- BōꞋshët Bën-Shã•ūlꞋ ceased to be a factor.
Thus, sole — and popular — reign over a unified Ma•lᵊkh•ūtꞋ Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ accrued to Dã•widꞋ Bën Yi•shaiꞋ.
The first act of Dã•widꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, was to reconquer the strategic city of 𒅁𒍑, then held by the Yᵊvūs•im.
The citydom of 𒅁𒍑 was a strategic chokepoint controlling the eastern corridor entrance, via Yᵊrikh•ōꞋ, from the east (modern Jordan) into the interior of the entirety, both north and south, of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
Battle of Har Ji•lᵊbōꞋa; Πύλος-tines v (Northern) Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ |
After Dã•widꞋ Bën Yi•shaiꞋ killed GãlᵊyãtꞋ the Πύλος-tine in ÆꞋmëq hã-ÆlꞋãh beneath the southern border Fortress of Shã•ūlꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh at Sha•ar•ayꞋim, YᵊhūdꞋãh, the Πύλος-tines changed their focus from the disastrously formidable southern border to the more vulnerable northern border.
About 6 years later, gradually and covertly, they had massed their forces up the coast to Har Ka•rᵊm•ëlꞋ. Although Prince Ag•khöꞋūs had mustered Dã•widꞋ and his band of 600 warriors to join them in fighting northern Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, the Πύλος-tines king and his generals knew that Dã•widꞋ couldn't be trusted to fight northern Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and forbade him accompanying them northward. Once the Πύλος-tines had amassed their army near Har Ka•rᵊm•ëlꞋ, they marched inland, down the Yi•zᵊrᵊëlꞋ Corridor past Har MᵊgidꞋō, right into the heart of northern Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, where they attacked and defeated Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, killing Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and, except for his youngest son (too young to fight), Ish-BōꞋshët Bën-Shã•ūlꞋ, killed all of his sons — including Prince Yō•nã•tãnꞋ.
This left YᵊhūdꞋãh, which absorbed many refugees from the defeated northern Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, under Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh, as the sole remaining Tōr•ãhꞋ legacy of Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ.
It shouldn't be surprising, then, that, at the death of Shã•ūlꞋ Bën-Qish ha-MëlꞋëkh, Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim remained loyal to his son, Ish-BōꞋshët Bën-Shã•ūlꞋ.
As Shã•ūlꞋ's top general, AvꞋᵊnær, wasn't mentioned relative to the Battle of Ji•lᵊbōꞋa, and he survived, he was apparently stationed elsewhere (probably at Sha•ar•ayꞋim).
Upon learning of the death of Shã•ūlꞋ and his elder sons, General AvꞋᵊnær then mã•shakhꞋ Ish- BōꞋshët Bën-Shã•ūlꞋ, at Ma•khan•ãꞋyim, as successor MëlꞋëkh over vanquished (Northern) Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
Ish- BōꞋshët Bën-Shã•ūlꞋ reigned over northen Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ ≈2 years.
It wasn't until after the assassinations of AvꞋᵊnær and Ish- BōꞋshët Bën-Shã•ūlꞋ that the rule of Dã•widꞋ in Khë•vᵊr•ōnꞋ, YᵊhūdꞋãh, became accepted by the remaining 10 Northern Tribes.
 |
 Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ ≈BCE 1050 |
SãꞋtrap•yNa'aman concluded that hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ campaign of Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. "was directed against Israel and the non-Judean Negev areas, avoiding almost entirely the kingdom of Judah" (p. 83).
"There is no evidence that Par•ōhꞋ, Hëdj-khëpër-Rã Sëtëp-ën-Rã Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. or his successors made any attempt to establish permanent rule in the ravaged territories, and Egypt was unable to take over the role of middleman in the trade." Na'aman then harmonizes his conclusions with Scripture (p85)
Nadav Na'aman. \'\'Israel, Edom an Shë•shënꞋyëq d Egypt in the 10th Century BCE.\'\' Periodicaltitle Tel Aviv 19 (1992), pp. 71-93. Web 2022.01.22.
--------------------
Shoshenq I unified Egypt
"Shoshenq I reformed the government at Tanis and the priesthood at Thebes. The priesthood would no longer be a hereditary position, but one of appointment by the Par•ōhꞋ; and this would also hold true for the selection of God's Wife of Amun. His military campaigns revitalized the economy of Egypt and, under his reign, the country began to somewhat resemble the Egypt of the New Kingdom."
During the reigns of Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh and ShᵊlōmꞋōh ha-MëlꞋëkh, the major power in the south, (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt), was counterbalanced by the powers in the northeast, 𒀸𒋩, and the "Πύλος-" (i.e. Philistines / ex-Minoan Thalassic "Sea Peoples" / Phoenicians) colonizing the entire southern and eastern coasts of the Meditteranean by sea from Hellenist Καλλίστη and Hellenist Greece.
From Secession To 𒀸𒋩𒆠 Deracination MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh |
 Mᵊlãkh•imꞋ during |
RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ Bën-ShᵊlōmꞋōh, who was still new to the throne, youthfully and simplistically expected to continue the policies and Ma•lᵊkh•ūtꞋ of his father. Sans the legendary military-hero credentials of his grandfather, or the legendary Solomonic wisdom of his father, continuation of the onerous taxes imposed by Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim to support his father's extravagances inflamed increasing calls throughout Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (the Northern 10 Tribes) to rebel and secede.
Ignoring the experienced counsel of "ossified" senior advisors, young RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ Bën-ShᵊlōmꞋōh defiantly ratcheted-up strict enforcement, causing Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ to rebel and secede; a fatal schism from which there would never be a way back.
Hearing of the the death of ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh, Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. (who had been providing Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ Sr. refuge from the death warrant that had been issued by ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh) enabled Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ to return to northern Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ with the Par•ōhꞋ's backing — with the understanding that he would be an ally and promote Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq's agendas.
While touting himself candidate for MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, in reality, Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ Sr. was the Sëmër of Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr., preparing Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ to be subjugated as a spët of (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌).
YᵊhūdꞋãh would then be trapped in a pincer.
Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, under the rule of Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ, had defiantly refused to forward taxes to Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim; and incited a rebellion against the perceived exorbatant taxes imposed by YᵊhūdꞋãh. In addition to indignance toward Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim as Ground-Zero of grievous tax Collections, however, there was also widespread and deep religious resentment against Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim for having superseded the ancient Capital of ShilꞋōh, in Northern Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ — which had been the original Capital under Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn, housing the A•rōnꞋ ha-Bᵊrit in the ŌꞋhël Mō•eidꞋ — by building the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ.
Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ's zeal to compete religiously against this new "Reform Movement" in Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim, with its new Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ, elegantly complemented his procuring the essential funding, while simultaneously pleasing his sponsor, Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. In addition to supporting the worship of long-venerated local, Kᵊna•an•iꞋ, gods (BaꞋal, A•natꞋ Dãg•ōnꞋ, et al.), Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ built two national temples, instituting annual Khaj•imꞋ to them, thereby reintroducing the previously-dormant worship of Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq's Egyptian moon-goddess Hãt-HōrꞋ; one in the south, in Beit Eil, and the other in the far north, in Dãn.
Like the future Boston Tea Party almost 3 millennia later, the revolution was about taxes. The preponderance of the extravagance enjoyed by ShᵊlōmꞋ•h ha-mëlꞋëkh was borne by the taxpayers, most of whom lived in northern Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (i.e. the Ten Tribes). Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim required taxes from northern Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ to pay for a national military and defense and a central government ranging from tax collectors to law enforcement. Northern Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ regarded the taxes unfair and intolerable — considering RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ's continuation of the extravagant lifestyle of his father, ShᵊlōmꞋōh — from his idolatrous foreign harem to his excesses of horses, chariots, etc.
)Thus, likely with covert aid from Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr., Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (often referred to as Ë•phᵊr•aꞋyim) rebelled and seceded under the leadership of Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq's protégé, Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ, establishing Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ as an independent Ma•lᵊkh•ūtꞋ with himself as puppet-MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ at its capital in ShᵊkhëmꞋ. In reality, however, it's far more likely that Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ was, in fact, an Egyptian spët, with Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ as its Sëmër, under the shadow authoroity of Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr.
 |
| 𓋖 (sëkhëmty, "The 2 ) united crown) of United Lower (north) & Upper (south) (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt). |
The schism between Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) and YᵊhūdꞋãh changed the balance of power disastrously. In ≈BCE 1035, ≈5 years after the death of ShᵊlōmꞋōh, Par•ōhꞋ Hëdj-khëpër-Rã Sëtëp-ën-Rã Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. of (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) was emboldened to raid and plunder the coffers of YᵊhūdꞋãh, now militarily weakened by its national schism, seizing taxes collected from the Coastal Road caravans along with national treasure.
Having negotiated an alliance treaty with Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, Third Intermediate (post-New Kingdom) Period (≈BCE 1069–664) 22nd Dynasty (≈BCE 943–720) Libyan-Egyptian Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. intimidated RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh with a huge and powerful army of 60,000 horsemen and 1,200 chariots, inducing him to hand over the entirety of his treasures (sparing war, conspicuous defeat and destruction; the far worse alternative). Thus, Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. "took" the treasures of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ZᵊrūꞋ-Bã•vëlꞋ, as welll as the treasues of the the royal palace — probably the source of his son becoming known as "The Silver Par•ōhꞋ" at a time when silver was more valuable than gold.
Scholars gloss-over the initial servitude of YᵊhūdꞋãh under foreign rule. Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. invaded YᵊhūdꞋãh, took all the treasures, went home and was never heard from again. End of story.
On the contrary, This episode was the first time YᵊhūdꞋãh was ruled by a foreign power — ever! YᵊhūdꞋãh had been self-ruled since the Yᵊtzi•ãhꞋ! In addition to taxes and an altered status reducing YᵊhūdꞋãh from a sovereign nation to an Egyptian spët, concern about potential Egyptian idolatrous expectations and assimilative influence, the effect of foreign overlordship on the national morale, of those who had regarded יְהוָׂה as ever-supportive Almighty, the effect on religious faith in their clergy and the outlook of the population cannot be overestimated.
Catastrophically, although YᵊhūdꞋãh seems not to have suffered extensive physical damage, the nation irrecoverably lost its independence, falling under the loose spëtity of Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim for 3 centuries! Ancient YᵊhūdꞋãh would never be independent again. Foreign rulers and occupiers would haunt YᵊhūdꞋãh with assimilative influence until their millennial demise in 135 CE.
Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) under Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ re-assimilated the gilded calves of Hãt-HōrꞋ in a foolish and short-lived treaty with 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aram) and YᵊhūdꞋãh, ≈BCE 1035. This enabled Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. to subjugate YᵊhūdꞋãh as an Egyptian spët with RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh the appointed (Egyptian) Sëmër — answerable to the Tyat in Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim. Soon after, Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. renounced his treaty with Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) and subjugated them as well.
Although Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim was the major superpower of the time, repeated waves of immigrant incursions along their northern coast by the Grecian Kallistæn maritime power, the Πύλος-tine "Sea People", had increasingly been undermining the Par•ōhꞋ since the BCE 13th century. Their foreign infiltration into the population of the Delta tied-up increasing numbers of permanent military resources. Concurrently, while not overtly threatening Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim, the Πύλος-tine were colonizing the northern coast of the Sin•aiꞋ, establishing a colony city — Πύλος — abutting the Egyptian border on the northwest coast of the Sin•aiꞋ. Hellenist Πύλος-tine colonization cities stretched from the Mediterranean coast of North Africa across the Sin•aiꞋ north through hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ and Lebanon into the western coasts of Turkey.
As a result, YᵊhūdꞋãh was largely ignored as a minor power. Control and influence of Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim over YᵊhūdꞋãh was accordingly mild and focused on collecting taxes. Thus, it appears that although RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh answered to the Egyptian Tyat, the latter appears to have had more interest in the security of their own northern exposure to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea Road military/caravan trade route; and, of course, their tax cow in the Southern hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ. While the MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh was reduced to a minor Egyptian Sëmër, in YᵊhūdꞋãh, except for taxes, he seems to have ruled without obvious interference from the Egyptian Tyat. There is practically no evidence of significant interest in the internal, or religious; affairs, or their forceful imposition on YᵊhūdꞋãh.
) — 2. Av•i•yãhꞋ Bën-RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋOne victory especially, gained by 2. Av•i•yãhꞋ Bën-RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, over 1. Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ Bën-Nᵊvãt Sr. (r. ≈BCE 1039–1006, first MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ of the Seceded 10 Northern Tribes), though greatly touted in the later traditions of YᵊhūdꞋãh, was more than negated by the next MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, 3. •sâꞋ Bën-Av•i•yãhꞋ (BCE 1007–953), who was so closely pressed by 3. Baᵊâs•âꞋ MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (BCE 1006–979), that he was forced to invoke assistance from the 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean) of Damascus.
qtop
Yet before the death of •sâꞋ (BCE 953) an enduring alliance was negotiated with Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ under the new and powerful dynasty of #6. •mᵊr•iꞋ (lineage unknown), MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (BCE 961–938). Henceforth YᵊhūdꞋãh was relegated to a subordinate rôle until Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ was finally deracinated by 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) in BCE 722.
) — 3. •sâꞋ Bën-Av•i•yãhꞋBeyond rebuffing repeated tensions along the border with Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, there was little to note during the first 2-3 years of the reign of ÕsãꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh, which coincided with the last couple of years of the reign of Yã•rãv•ãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, who threatened and fought with YᵊhūdꞋãh over their shared boundary throughout his entire reign.
(The greatest accomplishment of ÕsãꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh materialized during the reign of 3. BaᵊshãꞋ Bën-Akh•i•yãhꞋ,, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (see below) of SheivꞋët Yi•sã•khãrꞋ, whose superior military strength enticed him to attempt to push their border with YᵊhūdꞋãh south—existentially threatening the Capital of Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim and the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ShᵊlōmꞋōh.
Throughout his reign and his entire life, ÕsãꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh is recognized above all of the other mᵊlãkh•imꞋ of YᵊhūdꞋãh for battling mightily against pᵊsil•imꞋ wᵊkhãl tᵊmūn•ōtꞋ . Tragically, his successors would decay in a decline of cumulative assimilations.
) — 2. Nã•dãvꞋ Bën-Yã•rãv•ãmꞋUpon the death of Yã•rãv•ãmꞋ, his son, Nã•dãvꞋ, succeeded him as MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. Nã•dãvꞋ was a weak monarch, who only reigned for ≈2 years, continuing the pᵊsil•imꞋ wᵊkhãl tᵊmūn•ōtꞋ of his father, Yã•rãv•ãmꞋ.
During a battle with the Πύλος-tine-occupied Levitical village of Ji•bᵊtōnꞋ in Dãn, Nã•dãvꞋ was assassinated by 3. BaᵊshãꞋ Bën-Akh•i•yãhꞋ,—of SheivꞋët Yi•sã•khãrꞋ (and probably Nã•dãvꞋ's own general).
) — 3. BaᵊshãꞋ Bën-Akh•i•yãhꞋ, ≈BCE 1001, following the assassination of Nã•dãvꞋ, BaᵊshãꞋ ascended to the throne as MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ — thus ending the Dynasty of Yã•rãv•ãmꞋ!
Leveraging his superior military force, BaᵊshãꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh immediately threatened the Israeli-Jewish border by constructing a fortress at Rãm•ãhꞋ, just 3 km (2 mi.) north of (ancient) Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim.
Confronting and repelling the aggressiveness of BaᵊshãꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh turned out to be the most critical action in the entire ≈50 year reign of •sâꞋ Bën-Av•i•yãhꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh! The price •sâꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh had to pay, however, was steep: bribing the 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean) Shar Bën Had•ad to curtail the 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean) alliance with Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and, instead, join YᵊhūdꞋãh in a pincer attack against Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
The combined attack resulted in the 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Arameans) annexing all of the territory NW of Yãm Ki•nërꞋët—forcing BaᵊshãꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh to resign his ambitions against YᵊhūdꞋãh, abandon Rãm•ãhꞋ — and forced to move his capital out of ShᵊkhëmꞋ, 11 km (7 mi) northeast, to Ti•rᵊtz•ãhꞋ.
As a result, •sâꞋ, ha-MëlꞋëkh occupied the abandoned area, transferred the materials from the fortress of BaᵊshãꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh at Rãm•ãhꞋ south and repurposed them to fortify Jëv•aꞋ and Mi•tzᵊph•ãhꞋ, strengthening his southern border against the Πύλος-tines, AꞋmã•leiq, Ë•dōmꞋ and (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌).
) — 4. ÆlꞋãh Bën-BaᵊshãꞋUpon the death of BaᵊshãꞋ, he was succeeded by his son, ÆlꞋãh Bën-BaᵊshãꞋ.
The Scriptural account of ÆlꞋãh ha-MëlꞋëkh suggests that he grew up in the palace a spoiled, corrupt and incompetent drunk. His reign hadn't lasted 2 years when his army staged a coup d'état. The Commander of his Second Armored Group, General Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ, had exhausted his patience with ÆlꞋãh's drunkeness and corrupt court system at Ti•rᵊtz•ãhꞋ.
That General Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ was able to catch ÆlꞋãh ha-MëlꞋëkh goofy-faced drunk at the home of the Chief Steward of the Capitol suggests that it was the king's predictable habit to periodically drink himself party-sloshed at his friend's home. Capitalizing on this pattern, and taking advantage of the absence of General •mᵊr•iꞋ, Commander of the First Armored Group, which deployed in Ji•bᵊtōnꞋ fighting the Πύλος-tines, General Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ arranged to assassinate ÆlꞋãh ha-MëlꞋëkh and, subsequently, the entire royal family; whereupon he proclaimed himself MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
— 5. Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ Bën-??Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ must have felt very secure and smug, having taken advantage of General •mᵊr•iꞋ's deployment far away from Ti•rᵊtz•ãhꞋ to fight the Πύλος-tines at Ji•bᵊtōnꞋ on the southwestern borders of YᵊhūdꞋãh and the Πύλος-tines, while Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ staged his coup d'état, assassinating ÆlꞋãh and crowning himself MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ likely gloated over his place in history and how brief he had cut his incompetent predecessor's 2-year reign.
Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ had no idea how brief a reign could be.
It took a courier at least 2 days—after learning of the coup—to bring the news 70 km (43 mi) south from Ti•rᵊtz•ãhꞋ to Ji•bᵊtōnꞋ. It appears that ÆlꞋãh was the drunken elder brother of General •mᵊr•iꞋ. When news of the coup reached General •mᵊr•iꞋ, it immediately became clear that the military overwhelmingly resolved that they would not permit Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ to remain on the throne.
General •mᵊr•iꞋ and the entire army went up from the Battle of Ji•bᵊtōnꞋ to return, and lay siege, to Ti•rᵊtz•ãhꞋ. The return trip required another 2 days. Yet, even having spent 4+ days turn-around travel time, it was only about 6 days after the coup when General •mᵊr•iꞋ arrived in Ti•rᵊtz•ãhꞋ with his army and siezed control of the Capital.
When Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ realized that the Capital had been taken, he knew that his treatment of ÆlꞋãh and the entire royal family was imminently to befall him. He set fire to his palace, likely committing suicide, being consumed in the flames.
Thus, Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ's flimsy phase flickered-out in 1 week.
— 6. •mᵊr•iꞋ Bën-BaᵊshãꞋ While General •mᵊr•iꞋ succeeded in dethroning Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ, it remained unclear, both within the army and the general public, who should be MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. Consequently, ≈4 years of gridlock followed, contesting the monarchy against a rival candidate for the throne. Finally, however, General •mᵊr•iꞋ prevailed, becoming 6. •mᵊr•iꞋ Bën-??, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
•mᵊr•iꞋ's reign was specified to be 12 years (≈BCE 885–774), however it isn't clear whether this includes the 4 years of contested gridlock. Thus, •mᵊr•iꞋ's reign could have been almost anything between (4 years gridlock +) 8 years reign to 16 years (4 years of gridlock + 12 years reign).
 |
 Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋ City, for which the province, and today's post-deracination immigrants, are named. |
≈BCE 879, six years after •mᵊr•iꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh ascended the throne, he abandoned the burned-down palace and capitol of Ti•rᵊtz•ãhꞋ. He purchased the most military strategic, commanding and defensible hill in the area, 11 km (7 mi) to the SW, for a price of ≈69 kg (≈151 lbs. U.S. Avoirdupois) of silver, from an owner named ShëmꞋër. At the summit, •mᵊr•iꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh built his palace and surrounded it by building and founding a new city, which he named after the previous owner: Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋ City (corrupted to "Samaria")! Then he moved his capitol to Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋ City, which remained the capitol of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ until its deracination in BCE 722.
The military strength and acumen of •mᵊr•iꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh is both legendary and well attested, both in his retaking the territories that his predecessor, BaᵊshãꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh, had lost plus he conquered and ruled the Mō•ãv•imꞋ, as is attested on the MæꞋsha Stele. Even 1½ centuries later, his •mᵊr•iꞋ Dynasty merited recognition by  112x20.png "Neo-Assyrian (≈BCE 859–824) Shūlᵊmãnū-Asharëdū (''Friend-god is pre-eminent''; Shalmaneser) 3rd"){kind=small}
(Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) on his Black Obelisk.
•mᵊr•iꞋ negotiated a treaty with the Phoenician-Lebanese clearly sealed by the marriage of his son, Prince Akh•âvꞋ, to the idolatrous Phoenician/Lebanese Princess of Tzi•dōnꞋ, Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat ët BaꞋal.
•mᵊr•iꞋ reigned over the first durable and stable government of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ until his death. However, •mᵊr•iꞋ's arranging the intermarriage of his son, Prince Akh•âvꞋ, to the Phoenician (Greek-Minoan) Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat ët BaꞋal was the terminus ad quem marking the birth of Hellenization in Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ—followed by YᵊhūdꞋãh, more than 6 centuries before Alexander the Great assumed the throne! A fortiori, while the occasional unattested citizen may have remained faithful to DërꞋëkh יְהוָׂה, this stable government of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10 Northern Tribes) as an entity had, during the reign of •mᵊr•iꞋ, already elevated BaꞋal, Hãt-HōrꞋ, Ash•tōrꞋët and other gods of surrounding nations to national status; nullifying all religious resemblance to Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ and Mōsh•ëhꞋ.
qqqBCE1000Pulossians (## Remaining Under Construction)
Info re Philistine/Palastu/Pelishtim refer to Glos_N-Q.htm#Df-Pelishtim known in Akkadian  150x20.png "Palastu (Rawlinson squeeze L12 last word)"){kind=small}
More than half a millennium before Alexander (BCE 356, credited by incompetent historians with originating Hellenism.), Hellenist Greeks severed and controlled the Eastern Mediterranean coastal north-south land routes of hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ, which connected Europe with (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) all the way to the "Πύλος-tines" Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim-Sin•aiꞋ border and points east. (Still today, this coastal route, now through Syria, is a centerpiece of China's $4-8 trillion Land Belt (& complement of Maritime Belt) Initiative (including military hostilities), competing or sharing with Russia and Iran, aimed at completion in 2049.)
For eons, the Coastal Caravan Route running north-south through hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ had attracted immigration from all points of the compass. By the beginning of the 1st millennium, hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ had become a chaotic, wild-west mangle of conflicting clans having immigrated from varying backgrounds and ethnicities, from 𒆠𒂗𒄀 (Kᵊnᵊgir) to Πύλος — and including AvꞋrã•hãmꞋ (immigrated a millennium earlier, ≈BCE 2004), living among the indigenous Kᵊna•an•imꞋ.
When Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ returned from their sojourn in Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim, Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn faced a hodge-podge or splintered clans in the highlands, which he conquered first. From the proximity advantage of the highlands, he carved out the complementary section of the coastland from YãphꞋō to KhæphꞋãh.
This left the Πύλος-tines (Phoenicians) to the north (Lebanon) on the coast, with 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramea) to the northeast, while (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) remained the major power to the south(west). Closer on the heels of YᵊhūdꞋãh, were the smaller, but not inconsequential, powers of MōꞋãv and Ë•dōmꞋ-AꞋmã•leiq (i.e. Idumæa, Herodians).
By the time of Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh, the powers to the north and south largely countered each other, further curbed in the Eastern Mediterranea Coastal Caravan (& Military) Route by Πύλος-tines and Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
qqAkhav
) — Akh•âvꞋ Bën-Õmᵊr•iꞋ + Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël"King of northern Israel, 875-853 B.C. He was the son and successor of Omri, the founder of Samaria, and the first king of the Ten Tribes who was able to maintain a strong and stable government. Ahab inherited his father's military virtues and defended his country against the powerful Aramean (Syrian) kingdom of Damascus. Though often hard pressed by the Syrians, he defeated them in several battles and forced them to concede trading privileges in the great emporium of Damascus (855 B.C.). It was toward the end of his reign that his foreign relations became most trying. At this period, when hard pressed by Damascus, he lost the suzerainty over Moab, with the possession of valuable territory in the northern portion of that kingdom, all of which had been acquired by Omri. This expulsion of Israel is recorded by Mesha, the contemporary king of Moab, on the famous Moabite Stone now in the Louvre in Paris. ¶ Ahab was the first king of Israel who came into conflict with Assyria, and he is also the first whose name is recorded on the Assyrian monuments (see Schrader, "K. A. T."). It was in 854 B.C. that a combination was formed by eleven of the princes of the Mediterranean coastland against Shalmaneser II., who made several invasions into the west country during his long and warlike career. In this alliance the king of Israel found himself for once fighting by the side of the king of Damascus (Benhadad II.). Shalmaneser, who tells of the affair in three distinct inscriptions, gives a list of the kings in the longest account (on his monolith inscription). Besides Israel and Damascus, it is stated that Hamath, Ammon, and Arabia sent contingents. Ahab put 2,000 chariots and 10,000 soldiers into the field. The confederacy was soon dissolved by the battle of Qarqor, where the Assyrians were victorious, though Shalmaneser could not follow up his success. The Assyrian invasions of the lands bordering on Palestine were repeated, but it was long before either northern or southern Israel was directly attacked. In the next year (853 B.C.) the war with Damascus was renewed. Ahab secured the help of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and the two kings fought side by side at Ramoth in Gilead. In this battle Ahab disguised himself as a common soldier so as not to become a mark for the enemy, but an arrow, "shot at a venture," mortally wounded him, and he died at the close of the day. ¶ Besides the above-mentioned wars, certain events of great importance marked the reign of Ahab. One of these was the establishment of close relations between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, a policy which put an end to the rivalry that had existed between them since the days of the great schism. Another was the encouragement afforded by Ahab and his queen, Jezebel, to the worship of the Phenician Baal. Jezebel was a daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre, and the family alliance thus cemented, while it was of political and commercial advantage to Israel, resulted in great moral and religious injury through this idolatrous and sensual cult. A third noteworthy event was Ahab's cruel and oppressive dealing with Naboth of Jezreel whose property the king wished to secure, and who, upon his refusal to sell it, was put to death by false accusation at the instigation of Jezebel. For this outrage upon the rights of a freeholder, the prophet Elijah predicted a violent death for Ahab and Jezebel and the destruction of their dynasty. Noticeable also is the increase of luxury in Israel, in consequence of foreign trade and the ambition of the king and nobles. Ahab's palace of ivory (I Kings, xxii. 39) is an indication of the fashions of the time. Finally there was inaugurated in the reign of Ahab the régime of the preaching prophets, of whom Elijah was the first and greatest example (see I Kings, xvii.-xxii.)." https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/955-ahab
qqIyZevel
 |
  112x20.png "Neo-Assyrian (≈BCE 859–824) Shūlᵊmãnū-Asharëdū (''Friend-god is pre-eminent''; Shalmaneser) 3rd"){kind=small} (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) relief) |
& (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ &Beginning ≈BCE 957 — corresponding to the ≈38th year of the reign of •sâꞋ Bën-Av•i•yãhꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh in Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim & ≈18th year of 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) — •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, died and was succeeded in their capital city of Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋ by his son, Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ (with his Queen, Πύλος-tine (Phoenician-Lebanese) BaꞋal-priestess, Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ. Together, they ruled Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ for ≈22 years.
No doubt spurred by his wife — Πύλος-tine (Phoenician-Lebanese) BaꞋal-priestess Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ, Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ built a mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh to BaꞋal, in a temple dedicated to BaꞋal, which he had built, featuring an ashꞋᵊr•ãh.
953 4. Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ Bën-ÕsãꞋ
— Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ Bën-•sâꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh |
 YᵊhūdꞋãh & Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) ≈BCE 951 |
Foreign assimilative pressure on YᵊhūdꞋãh from (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) on the south(west) appears to have been counterbalanced from the north by 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean), which was itself buffered by Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
During the 2 wars waged by the 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean) of Damascus against Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10), YᵊhūdꞋãh took no direct share beyond sending a minimum token of assistance.
Yet, Bᵊrit-breaking assimilative influences on YᵊhūdꞋãh originated during this period emanating from the idolatrous Πύλος-tine (Phoenician-Lebanese) Princess of Tzi•dōnꞋ, Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ, funneled through Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. Particularly, they arranged for their daughter, Πύλος-tine (Phoenician-Lebanese) BaꞋal-priestess and Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ Princess A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat-Akh•âvꞋ (Bën-•mᵊr•iꞋ), to marry the Prince (later MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh), Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ.
It is clear from their shared sordid histories that their furtive purpose, under the ruse of knitting the divided kingdoms back together, was to infuse, through their daughter, tolerance in YᵊhūdꞋãh for their BaꞋal-worship (while boosting their own security as well).
In no small measure, these two marriages to essentially priestesses of BaꞋal enabled their Queen-wives to wield the idolatrous cancer that eventually destroyed both Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and inexorably, almost 8 centuries later, fueled the Hellenism assimilation in YᵊhūdꞋãh that conflicted and conflagrated the internal schisms that inexorably led to the consequent shattering and self-corruption of YᵊhūdꞋãh.
 0350x476.png "Divided Kingdoms") |
 1119x1523.png "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Divided Kingdoms. SheivꞋët Mᵊnash•ëhꞋ (in Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ) on both sides of Nᵊhar Ya•rᵊd•einꞋ. MōꞋãv was also a threat to YᵊhūdꞋãh, via the Yᵊrikh•ōꞋ Corridor into the heart of the border regions between YᵊhūdꞋãh and Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. |
 |
 𐤌𐤔𐤏 Stele, ≈BCE 950 (Louvre). Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) reveals (overlay) 𐤁𐤕 𐤃𐤅𐤃 |
≈BCE 950, however, MōꞋãv Shar 𐤌𐤔𐤏 was an entirely different matter.
Situated east of Yãm ha-MëlꞋakh, MōꞋãv was a tax-paying vassal of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ to its north (then SheivꞋët Mᵊnash•ëhꞋ, on both sides of Nᵊhar Ya•rᵊd•einꞋ — now occupied by modern state of Jordan).
When MōꞋãv rebelled against unbearable taxes imposed by Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, his resulting war with Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ to his north also threatened YᵊhūdꞋãh, via the Yᵊrikh•ōꞋ Corridor into the heart of the border regions between YᵊhūdꞋãh and Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
Libyan Par•ōhs perpetuated the existing spëtist structures, each of which was ruled by a local military Sëmër Commander. When Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. took the throne, "[h]is reign ([≈BCE 950–929]) mark[ed] the founding of the 22nd dynasty ([≈BCE 950–730]). Military controls were established, with garrisons under Libyan [Sëmër] commandants serving to quell local insurrections, so that the structure of the state became more spëtist."
Each Sëmër was the authority over his spët, answering to the Tyat (who, in turn, answered to the Par•ōhꞋ).
(Aramiya) & 𐤌𐤅𐤀𐤁 (MōꞋãv) vs 𐤉𐤔𐤓𐤀𐤋 () + 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤃𐤄 (YᵊhūdꞋãh)Other than his place in the succession of Egypt's Par•ōhꞋs, almost nothing is known about Simply looking at a map and analyzing the opposing forces from the north (Aram) to the southwest (Egypt), the fact that YᵊhūdꞋãh was an ally of Egypt, having been paying taxes to Egypt during the reign of Par•ōhꞋ Shë•shënꞋyëq Sr. took the throne,
Forced to choose between foreign pressures from the north (𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀) & the ruling Eastern Mediterranean superpower over hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ to their southwest, their ally to whom they paid taxes ( (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌)), YᵊhūdꞋãh and Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, responding as Egypt's northernmost defense line spëts, were compelled to defend themselves against 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 advances southward into hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ.
Consequently, Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ Bën-•sâꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh (BCE 953–914) fought side by side with Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (≈BCE 937-927) in the fateful Battle of Rãm•ōtꞋ Ji•lᵊãdꞋ (≈BCE 935), in which Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, knowing that he was personally targetted for assassination by Shar 𐤌𐤔𐤏, persuaded Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ Bën-•sâꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh to switch clothes and identities with him for the decisive Battle of Rãm•ōtꞋ Ji•lᵊãdꞋ (≈BCE 923).
Only when the Mō•ãv•imꞋ captured the apparent MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ did they realize they had the wrong man. A frustrated MōꞋãv sniper-archer spotted the "other" mëlꞋëkh in the midst of the fighting and launched a single arrow, which struck Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ in the gut and he bled-out in his chariot.
≈BCE 922 8. Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Akh•ãvꞋ
≈BCE 915 9. A•khazᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Akh•ãvꞋ
≈BCE 914 5. Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ fatal stomach disease
A•khazᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ became MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh.
Not long after, signaling to terminate the BaꞋal-worshiping reign of Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, and his wicked queen, Ël•i•shãꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ anointed YeiꞋhū Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ (Bën-Ni•mᵊsh•iꞋ) MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ!
YeiꞋhū immediately went out and assassinated Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, and then proceeded to assassinate Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ and exterminate their entire extended family of Beit •mᵊr•iꞋ — including the progeny of their infamous intermarriage, A•khazᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ, still in his first year on the throne as MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, who was then visiting his uncle, Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Akh•âvꞋ (who was in עֵמֶק יִזְרְעֶאל recovering from wounds suffered at the hands of the 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Arameans) in the Battle of Rãm•ōtꞋ Ji•lᵊãdꞋ).
The assassination of Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, of course, made his assassin, YeiꞋhū, bitterly hated by his widow, who assumed the throne: Queen A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat-Akh•âvꞋ.
qqQueenAtalyahu
When Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, died ≈BCE 901, his widow, Queen Mother A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat-Akh•âvꞋ, realizing her aloneness and vulnerability, took the throne of YᵊhūdꞋãh and promptly assassinated all of her rival royal heirs to the Throne of YᵊhūdꞋãh (i.e. Beit-Dã•widꞋ) — except for a single grandson (YōꞋãsh Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū) who had been hidden from his grandmother in Beit יְהֹוָ֔ה by her own daughter, the boy's aunt: Princess Yᵊhō•shavᵊatꞋ Bat Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ (sister of A•khazᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ, deceased MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh), as authorized by her husband — Yᵊhō•yãd•ã ha-Kō•heinꞋ ha-Rōsh
≈BCE 908 A•khazᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh in Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim (11th & 12th yrs of Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Akh•âvꞋ for 1 yr; Mᵊlãkh•imꞋ Beit 8.25-26; Di•vᵊr•eiꞋ-ha-Yãm•imꞋ Beit 22.2).
BCE 908-835 Ël•i•shãꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ
907 10. YeiꞋhū Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ
907 6a. Athaliah deposed by kohein
Thus, widowed "BaꞋal Queen" A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat-Akh•âvꞋ succeeded her late husband as monarch over YᵊhūdꞋãh, thereby becoming the only reigning Ma•lᵊk•atꞋ-YᵊhūdꞋãh.
 |
 BCE 10th century Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim (archaeology-based painting: Lloyd K Townsend) |
For 6 years, "BaꞋal Queen" (of YᵊhūdꞋãh) A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat-Akh•âvꞋ reigned in Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim, decreeing and promoting the abomination of BaꞋal as the national religion of YᵊhūdꞋãh.
Meanwhile, Princess Yᵊhō•shavᵊatꞋ Bat Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ and her husband, Yᵊhō•yãd•ã ha-Kō•heinꞋ ha-Rōsh, secretly raised Prince YōꞋãsh Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū.
In the 6th year of the reign of Idolatress-Queen of YᵊhūdꞋãh, A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat-Akh•âvꞋ (≈BCE 854), Prince YōꞋãsh Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū, still in secret, reached the age that he qualified to be crowned MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh. To the unhappy shock of "BaꞋal Queen" of YᵊhūdꞋãh, A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat-Akh•âvꞋ, in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ShᵊlōmꞋōh Yᵊhō•yãd•ã ha-Kō•heinꞋ ha-Rōsh, husband of Princess Yᵊhō•shavᵊatꞋ Bat Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ, anointed Prince YōꞋãsh Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū as MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, which was immediately proclaimed.
Down the hill, in her palace in Ir Dã•widꞋ, she soon heard the town-criers proclaiming the news. With all urgency, the threatened "BaꞋal Queen" of YᵊhūdꞋãh) #7. A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat-Akh•âvꞋ attempted to assassinate the newly anointed MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, #8 YōꞋãsh Bën-#6. A•khazᵊyãhꞋū, however she was captured and executed. Thus, the reign of the "Queen of BaꞋal" over YᵊhūdꞋãh ended.
≈BCE 907 
YeiꞋhū Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ (Bën-Ni•mᵊsh•iꞋ), MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ in Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋ 28 yrs., Mᵊlãkh•imꞋ Beit 9.14; 10.32-33, 36), dated by archaeologists, confining the calc to be no later than ≈BCE 855.
When YeiꞋhū Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ (Bën-Ni•mᵊsh•iꞋ) assassinated A•khazᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, his widowed Queen Mother, A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat- •mᵊr•iꞋ, wrested the throne of YᵊhūdꞋãh. When she learned that YeiꞋhū, having been anointed MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ by Ël•i•shãꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ, had also assassinated her entire family in Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, she realized her sudden vulnerability. She then assassinated all rival royal descendants of YᵊhūdꞋãh (i.e. Beit-Dã•widꞋ) — except for a single grandson, YōꞋãsh Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū, who had been rescued from his grandmother and hidden by her own daughter, the boy's aunt, Princess Yᵊhō•shavᵊatꞋ Bat Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ, sister of her deceased brother, A•khazᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh. (Her husband was Yᵊhō•yãd•ã ha-Kō•heinꞋ ha-Rōsh).
Thus, A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat- •mᵊr•iꞋ succeeded her husband, becoming the Wicked Ma•lᵊk•atꞋ-YᵊhūdꞋãh (the only queen ever to reign in the history of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ or YᵊhūdꞋãh) for ≈6 yrs 
To Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ, Crown Prince Of YᵊhudꞋãh |
 ≈BCE 911–Emergence Of The 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) |
Confusing matters — beyond the emerging specter of an increasingly menacing and bellicose 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) under Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd), there were two different men named Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ, only one of whom (son of •sâꞋ, not the son of Nimᵊshi) was a mëlꞋëkh.
It gets more confusing: with two, practically opposite, men with the same name (Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ) who were both mëlꞋëkh, and at the same time But one, Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Akh•âvꞋ, over Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (the son of Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and his BaꞋal-worshiping wife Phoenician/Lebanese Princess of Tzi•dōnꞋ, Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ) and the other,Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ, over YᵊhūdꞋãh.
Finally, this narrative is confused by the two fathers, the two kings, agreeing for the daughter of one (Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ) to marry the Crown Prince of the other (YᵊhūdꞋãh), mingling the two royal families. Thus, when the Crown Prince became MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, his BaꞋal-worshiping Queen, A•talᵊyãhꞋū Bat-Akh•âvꞋ, infused YᵊhūdꞋãh with the BaꞋal-worship of the Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ bride — and his mother-in-law, Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ!
Keeping the families straight after all that takes some extra effort. (See partial tree.
)
During the reign of •mᵊr•iꞋ (lineage unknown), beginning ≈BCE 969-65, he arranged a peace treaty with Tzid•önꞋ, sealed by the intermarriage of his son, Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ to the Princess of Tzi•dōnꞋ — Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ. This alliance provided the strength for both parties to enjoy a period of peace and prosperity during his reign.
901 7. Yō•ãshꞋ Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū hid fm gmom, assassinated by ministers
The 40+ year reign of YōꞋãsh Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū over YᵊhūdꞋãh should be commemorated as "The Great Revival of YōꞋãsh Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh"! His primary legacy was decontaminating YᵊhūdꞋãh from the abominations of idolatry that had been imposed by his grandmother, the "BaꞋal Queen" (daughter of idolatrous Phoenician/Lebanese Princess of Tzi•dōnꞋ, Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat ët BaꞋal ).
vs hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ Rebel Coalition)Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) of 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) recorded that at that battle "10,000 foot soldiers of Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, the Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋi" along with soldiers from 11 other kings, fought against him. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament" edited by James B. Pritchard p278-79) Shirley J. Rollinson http://drshirley.org/hist/hist05.html; The Battle of Qa•rᵊqōrꞋ, recorded both in 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) royal annals and on the Kurkh Monolith, was fought between the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) army, under the leadership of Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) of 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria), and a coalition of small kingdoms of hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ. Hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ Alliance included Biblical figures such as 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean) Shar 𐤄𐤃𐤃𐤏𐤆𐤓 ( Ha•dadꞋ-Õzër) of Damascus and Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
During the 22nd (Libyan) Dynasty, in the latter half of BCE 9th century, the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) were reaching their zenith in the northern hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ. At about that time (≈BCE 911), however, the 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean) were conquered by the first Shar of the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria), (H)adad-nirari Jr. — who immediately introduced deracination as the means of permanently terminating resistance of a conquered land and people.
This brought the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) into direct confrontation with the northern spëts of (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt); i.e. Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) & YᵊhūdꞋãh. Henceforth, each had the choice of allying either with 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) as their SãꞋtrap•y or with (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) as their spët.
qqBCE846
≈BCE 846, YōꞋãsh Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū was succeeded by his son, A•matzᵊyãhꞋū Bën-YōꞋãsh
≈BCE 846 — Under his son and successor, [A•matzᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yō•ãshꞋ (Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū)], YᵊhūdꞋãh began a [period]of development and prosperity which finally made it one of the leading kingdoms of the West-land. An essential factor in this achievement was the reconquest of Edom, which had been lost to Judah under Jehoram. This secured a share of the overland traffic of western Arabia, as well as the control of the Red Sea trade from the Gulf of Akaba. [A•matzᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yō•ãshꞋ (Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū)]'s successes led him foolishly to provoke to war [Yᵊhō•ãshꞋ (also Yō•ãshꞋ) Bën-Yᵊhō•ã•khãzꞋ], MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. The result was the defeat and capture of Amaziah and the submission of Jerusalem, which, however, was released upon the surrender of the treasures of the Temple and of the royal palace (c. [BCE] 790)."
qqYaravam
BCE 769 "With 10. Uzziah (Azariah; sole ruler [BCE] 769) the prosperity of Judah was renewed and brought to its greatest height. As a powerful ruler and statesman he was the only true successor of Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh. His kingdom was extended beyond precedent, embracing much of the Philistine country, and for a time even holding the suzerainty of MōꞋãv. In fortifications and standing armies as well as in the development of all the natural resources of his country, he was a successful imitator of the great (deracinating) 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) autocrats. Jotham (sole ruler [BCE] 738?) continued the vigorous régime of his father."
"It should be noted that the expansion of YᵊhūdꞋãh was coincident with the equally remarkable recuperation of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ after the long and exhausting 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) wars. The temporary prosperity of both kingdoms was chiefly due to the opportunities of development afforded by the decline of 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean-Damascus). YᵊhūdꞋãh as well as Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ had suffered from the aggression of this powerful 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean) state; for in the early days of Yisraeil10">Yᵊhō•ãshꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•ã•khãzꞋ Yisraeil10">Yᵊhō•ã•khãzꞋ (c. [BCE] 835), 𒄩𒍝𒀪𒀭 (Kha•za•a•n/Kha•zãh•eilꞋ) of Damascus had ravaged the whole country up to the city of Jerusalem, which opened its gates to him and yielded up its spoil."
≈BCE 741-720 A decisive change took place with the accession of ÕkhãzꞋ Bën-Yō•tãmꞋ (Yehudah #11 [of 12]; ≈BCE 741-720), son of #10-Yō•tãmꞋ Bën-A•zarᵊyãhꞋu (Yehudah #10 ≈BCE 758-742). The determining political factor was now the great Neo-Assyrian empire, reorganized under Neo-Assyrian Shãr 𒆪𒋾𒀀𒂍𒈗𒊏. in the 3rd year of the famine; defeated the 450 nᵊviy•eiꞋ BaꞋal, mothered by wicked Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ, on Har Ka•rᵊm•ëlꞋ in KheiphꞋãh (Mᵊlãkh•imꞋ ÃꞋlëph 18). Eil•i•yãhꞋu fed by a ma•lãkhꞋ; the still small voice. Passing the mantle to Ël•i•shãꞋ (Mᵊlãkh•imꞋ ÃꞋlëph 19).
During the reign of Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ 2 wars with Syria (Mᵊlãkh•imꞋ ÃꞋlëph 20), Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ cited "eminent domain" to take a vineyard from Nãv•ōtꞋ, for which Eil•i•yãhꞋū ha-Nã•viꞋ cursed her (Mᵊlãkh•imꞋ ÃꞋlëph 21.20ff). 3 yrs of peace with 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) was then followed by a war in which Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and YᵊhūdꞋãh allied together (Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and his wife, Queen Iy-ZëvꞋël Bat-ët•Ba•alꞋ having intermarried their (BaꞋal-follower) daughter, A•talᵊyãhꞋū, in marriage to Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ's son, Yᵊhō•rãmꞋ, to seal the alliance) to fight the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria).
Knowing that the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) had sent out the order to fight no one else, only to assassinate Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ alone (22.31), and to evade the prophecy of Mi•khã•yᵊhuꞋ Bën-Yi•mᵊl•ãhꞋ that he would be killed in that battle, Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ disguised himself as an ordinary charioteer, convincing Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ Bën-•sâꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh to dress as Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (wickedly scheming for Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ Bën-•sâꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh to be killed instead).
When the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) warrior chased down whom they thought was Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and discovered it wasn't him, they were disheartened. In frustration, a single 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) sharpshooter archer picked-out Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ in the fray and launched an arrow into the midst of the battling warriors of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ and YᵊhūdꞋãh. The arrow struck Akh•âvꞋ Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ in the gut and he bled out in the chariot.
Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) black-limestone obelisk YeiꞋhū Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ
(𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egyptian) DynastyJoshua J. Mark. Third Intermediate Period of Egypt 2016.10.11. https://www.worldhistory.org/Third_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/ 2022-01-22.
Later, ≈BCE 875, native Libyans — rivaling the 22nd (Libyan) (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egyptian) Dynasty — threatened the Western region of the Delta in (north) Lower Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim. This compelled the (Libyan) Par•ōhꞋ to commit significant military forces to defend the border and maintain law & order in the western Delta against incursions and immigration into the fertile and fruitful western Delta by rival Libyan tribes. The Par•ōhꞋ's efforts seem to have been, at best, only partially successful as the lands of the Delta became increasingly subject to the rule of rival immigrant Libyan tribes, further weakening the 22nd (Libyan) Dynasty.
Elsewhere meanwhile, Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) of 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) conquered most of 𒆠𒂗𒄀 (Kᵊnᵊgir) — developing the policy of deporting conquered peoples to other lands, and displacing them with neighboring populations, to preclude further nationalistic revolts.
854 12. Yᵊhō•ãshꞋ (also Yō•ãshꞋ) Bën-Yᵊhō•ã•khãzꞋ
≈BCE 853 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) invaded Damascus and Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, and exacted tribute from YeiꞋhū Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ. The "Black Obelisk" of Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd) shows a MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ identified as YeiꞋhū (Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ), kneeling before the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd), and claims "the tribute of YeiꞋhū Bën-Yᵊhō•shã•phãtꞋ (Bën-Ni•mᵊsh•iꞋ), Bën- •mᵊr•iꞋ: I recieved from him silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a Shar, …" (ANET 281) Shirley J. Rollinson http://drshirley.org/hist/hist05.html
≈BCE 846 8. A•matzᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yō•ãshꞋ (Bën-A•khazᵊyãhꞋū) killed by conspirators
 |  researchgate.net melon-Cucumis-melo 0275x335.png "Family: Cucurbitaceae (gourds) C. melo, Conomon (Oriental Pickling melon)") |
| Khëdjët, 2 meanings: ` & White Crown of Upper (south) Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim | Family: Cucurbitaceae (gourds). C. melo, Conomon (Oriental Pickling melon) Cucurbitaceae also includes similarly-shaped squashes. |
 Merrily Gamwell pinterest cropped 0245x335.png "Cucurbitaceae Cucumis sativus cucumber tendril") |  |
 Merrily Gamwell pinterest cropped 1130x1550.png "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Cucurbitaceae Cucumis sativus cucumber tendril — sprouts from throne-shaped leaf, forming a coil. The sprouting coil was familiar as an ancient Egyptian icon not only in the crown, but in the eyes of | 𓋔 (S3 Dëshrët, crown of Lower {north} red land). |
Besieged by Libyans on the western borders of the Delta, the Πύλος-tines on its northern coast and Sin•aiꞋ border as well as all along the coast as far as their spët of YᵊhūdꞋãh, and now by 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) from the north(east), the Kūsh•imꞋ on their southern border realized that Upper (southern) (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) was vulnerable. And they seized it.
As a result, ≈BCE 837-728 the 22nd (Libyan) Dynasty was able to control only Lower (north) Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim, including the Delta, while the 23nd (Kūsh•imꞋ) Dynasty ruled, concurrently, over Upper (south) Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim.
Yō•tãmꞋ Bën-A•zarᵊyãhꞋū
Deracination of Y10 in 19th year of ÕkhãzꞋ Bën-Yō•tãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh was
According to II Chronicles 27, Jotham built cities and fortresses and engaged the Ammonites in battle to defend Judah's claims in Trans-Jordan. He was successful in subjugating the Ammonites to Judah and in collecting tribute from them for three years (II Chron. 27:5). The rule of Judah in Transjordan is attested indirectly by I Chronicles 5:17, which tells of the census of the tribes of Israel in the area during the reigns of Jotham king of Judah and Jeroboam king of Israel. The notice that "the Lord began to send Rezin … and Pekah … against Judah" (II Kings 15:37) may indicate that the King of Israel and the King of Aram were responding to Jotham's expansionist moves (Cogan and Tadmor, 182–83). The prosperity of the country during his reign enabled him to undertake projects of fortification throughout the country. The general description given by the Chronicler is that Jotham continued his father's work. He fortified the wall of the Ophel in Jerusalem (II Chron. 27:3) and undertook repairs and made additions in the Temple area (ibid., II Kings 15:35). The Chronicler contrasts the piety of Jotham with the impiety of his father Uzziah, whose skin disease he attributes to Uzziah's attempt to usurp priestly functions (II Chron. 26:16–21). https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jotham-2 Jotham יוֹתָם
MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh at the time of the Deracination of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. He is often confused with, but must be rigorously distinguished from, his faithful & valiant contemporary Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, A•zarᵊyãhꞋ
After the death of ShᵊlōmꞋōh, Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ returned from his exile in Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim (where he had fled from ShᵊlōmꞋōh ha-MëlꞋëkh) and led the 10 Northern Tribes in a petition to RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ Bën ShᵊlōmꞋōh, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh to reduce their taxes. When RᵊkhavᵊãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, refused their petition, the 10 Northern Tribes seceded. Yã•rãvᵊãmꞋ set up his own capital in ShᵊkhëmꞋ and built 2 national temples (at Dãn and Beit Eil,) outfitted with gilded Hãt-HōrꞋ-idols to preempt Khaj•imꞋ to Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim.
Thus, YᵊhūdꞋãh continued to follow Beit-Dã•widꞋ while the 10 Northern Tribes reverted to a national idolatry assimilated from Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim: the return of gilded calves of Hãt-HōrꞋ.
≈BCE 0758 18. PëꞋqakh Bën-RᵊmalᵊyãhꞋū
BCE 745-727  Tiglat-pileser 3rd 165x20.png "Neo-Assyrian Shar Tiglat-pileser 3rd (≈BCE 744–727)"){kind=small}
(Tūkūltᵊ-a•Pil•EsharꞋra 3rd) of 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria).
Shar  Neo-Assyrian 067x20.png "Neo-Assyrian Shar Rū-ginꞋ (Sargon Jr., ≈BCE 722–705)"){kind=small}
(Shar Rū-ginꞋ Jr.); the Northern Kingdom was conquered by 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) in 720 BCE. The Kingdom of YᵊhūdꞋãh remained nominally independent, but paid tribute to the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) from 715 and throughout the first half of the 7th century BCE, regaining its independence as 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) declined after 640 BCE. But, after 609, YᵊhūdꞋãh again fell under the sway of imperial rule, this time paying tribute at first to (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) and, after ≈BCE 601 to the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) until 586 BCE, when (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌) was finally conquered by 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire).
≈BCE 720?? Sandwiched between the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) from the north and YᵊhūdꞋãh from the south, the Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ-𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean) alliance (with Damascus) crumbled. Unlike his slow and cautious, plodding predecessor, with lightning speed, 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) Shar (Shar Rū-ginꞋ Jr.) conquered and absorbed 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean) Damascus — then conquered and deracinated Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10).
Like all descendants of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ, these isolated individuals were also genetically (DNA, racially) descended from Assyrian and Mesopotamian Semites (including Arabs); henceforth including the religion of their new locale. Thus, regardless of DNA, genetics and race, their offspring were no longer members of the bᵊrit that had defined the defunct (10 Northern Tribes of) Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10). While some escaped and assimilated into YᵊhūdꞋãh (now "Jews"), Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ was not merely "lost", they assimilated out of the bᵊrit, which was the sole definition that distinguished them from other Semites of 𒆠𒂗𒄀 (Kᵊnᵊgir) and eiꞋrëv rav extraction — all with the same blood genetic (DNA) race. They were no longer members of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10), which had become extinct! There is no coming back from extinction.
The 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) then complemented the deracination of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) by repopulating the area vacated by the Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋis (the Shōm•rōnꞋ, the Gã•lilꞋ and Rãm•atꞋ ha-Gō•lãnꞋ) with Assyrians. Simultaneously, 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) Shar (Shar Rū-ginꞋ Jr.) repopulated the Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋ, the Gã•lilꞋ and Rãm•atꞋ ha-Gō•lãnꞋ with 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrians). Over time, many of these 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrians) mingled some of the beliefs, and intermarried, with their new southern neighbor — YᵊhūdꞋãh, resulting in both: today's Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋians (Samaritans).
With 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) Shar (Shar Rū-ginꞋ Jr.) firmly in charge, their ally, YᵊhūdꞋãh, under ÕkhãzꞋ Bën-Yō•tãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, peacefully acceded to be their 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) SãꞋtrap•y. This left YᵊhūdꞋãh alone and nose-to-nose against the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) to the north and (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egyptian) Empire and several not-insignificant nomadic tribes all eroding its southern borders.
I'm trying not to overload the circuits, but some flavor of the international foreign relations pressures — and consequent assimilative pressures — is vital to grasping the development of YᵊhūdꞋãh through the ages to become the crucible of the Zūg•ōtꞋ.
qqKushim
≈BCE 730, the Kushim (Sudanese) to the south seized on the weakness resulting from most of the military might of (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) being siphoned away from the northern borders, mired in the Delta, to invade Upper (south) (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt). Thus, a separate 23rd Dynasty seized control of Upper (south) (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt), confronting the 22nd Dynasty in Lower (north) Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim. United Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim spiralled into civil war, which required the brunt of its attention and forces. Thus, (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) split into north (Lower) Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim
and south (Upper) Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim under a concurrent and undetermined 23rd Dynasty, whose apparently chaotic and erratic compositions, operations and interactions are poorly understood and disputed among scholars.
YᵊhūdꞋãh felt increasingly sovereign and independent inversely proportionate to the waning power of (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt), power that was increasingly expended in defensive and internal conflicts.
Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd), invaded Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ.
to Yō•shi•yãhꞋu Bën-ÕmōnꞋBCE 722 — Fall of Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋ to 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) Shar  Tiglat-pileser 3rd 172x20.png "Neo-Assyrian Shar Tiglat-pileser 3rd (≈BCE 744–727)"){kind=small}
(Tūkūltᵊ-a•Pil•EsharꞋra 3rd) and Shar Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 3rd), Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 5th) and/or Shar (Shar Rū-ginꞋ Jr.), kings of 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian Empire) ; End of the Northern Kingdom; 722-705 BC Shar (Shar Rū-ginꞋ Jr.) of 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria), conquered the Hittites, the Khaldeans, and the Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋ.
(Shar Rū-ginꞋ Jr.) Deracinated The (10 Northern Tribes Of) Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋWhen ÕkhãzꞋ Bën-Yō•tãmꞋ ascended to the throne of YᵊhūdꞋãh in Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim ≈BCE 734, on his northeast the 𒆠𒂗𒄀 (Kᵊnᵊgir) 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) Shar (Tūkūltᵊ-a•Pil•EsharꞋra 3rd) was threatening to invade Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) (the 10 Northern Tribes). At that time, 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) was north and east of, but did not extend south to include Damascus-𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramea).
Fearful of the threatening invasion, PëꞋqakh Bën-RᵊmalᵊyãhꞋū, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ, from his capital city of Shō•mᵊr•ōnꞋ (BCE 737-732), negotiated a defense alliance with Damascus against Assyria. The Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10)- 𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀 (Aramean-Damascus) alliance then attempted to coerce ÕkhãzꞋ Bën-Yō•tãmꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh to join their defense pact against Assyria, whereupon ÕkhãzꞋ Bën-Yō•tãmꞋ calculated that the future of YᵊhūdꞋãh would be better preserved by allying with the Assyrians — against Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) and Damascus!
The 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) invasion threat didn't materialize until 2 years after 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) Shar (Tūūkltᵊ-a•Pil•EsharꞋra 3rd) had been succeeded, in BCE 727, by his son, Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 5th).
In BCE 722, after 3 years of fighting, Shar (Shūlᵊmãnū 5th died, and was succeeded by 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrian) Shar qqq
 Neo-Assyrian 067x20.png "Neo-Assyrian Shar Rū-ginꞋ (Sargon Jr., ≈BCE 722–705)"){kind=small}
(Shar Rū-ginꞋ Jr.).
qqqBCE0719 (## Remaining Under Construction)
qqqBCE0715 (## Remaining Under Construction)
 |
 Sîn-ahhī-erība — cast of rock relief from foot of Mt. Cudi, Turkey at the NE tip of Syria (Landshut Germany) |
"Hezekiah (reigned c. 715–c. 686), who instituted a religious reform to return worship to a pure Yahwist form, also displayed political independence, joining a coalition of Kᵊna•an•imꞋ states against Assyria. But the coalition was soon defeated, and Judah — with Jerusalem besieged — bought off the Assyrians, led by  133x20.png "cuneiform Neo-Assyrian Syn-akhe-eriba (Sennacherib)"){kind=small}
(Sîn-akhē-erība), with tribute." https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/From-the-period-of-the-divided-monarchy-through-the-restoration; accessed 2022.01.04
qqqBCE0701 (## Remaining Under Construction)
BCE 701 — (Sîn-akhē-erība), Shar of 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) invaded YᵊhūdꞋãh and laid siege to Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim.
(Sîn-akhē-erība)'s Annals of his campaign are given on 3 𒆳𒌵𒆠 (Semitic-Akkadian) cuneiform, hexagonal-pillar, baked red-clay tablets and the "Taylor Prism" (now in the British Museum) http://drshirley.org/hist/hist05.html
When the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyrians) threatened to attack in 701 B.C., Khi•zᵊqi•yãhꞋū built a wall and repaired sections of the original, 𒅁𒍑 , wall on the eastern side of the city that had been constructed between the top of the ridge and the bottom of the valley (the mid-slope wall). Khi•zᵊqi•yãhꞋū’s wall was very strong, being five meters (16.4 ft.) wide entirely around the city. Archaeologists have uncovered large portions of it that have survived to this day (Benjamin Mazar, The Mountain of the Lord, 1975, pp. 176, 177; Yigal Shiloh, Excavations At The City Of David I, Qedem 19, 1984, p. 29). qqq It was this wall with its gates that Nᵊkhëm•yãhꞋ [Note here: http://www.biblicalarchaeologytruth.com/nehemiahs-wall.html accessed 2022.01.04; then qqqMove to BCE 0445–0425] repaired after his return from Bã•vëlꞋ, of the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire). Shãh 𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁 Jr. (Iranian Empire) captured Bã•vëlꞋ in 539 B.C. and by 536 B.C., exactly 70 years after they were taken captive, the Jews were allowed to return to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. In 458 B.C. Ezra brought another group of captives to Jerusalem and in 445 B.C. the final expedition of Jews came to Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah. Artaxerxes agreed to send Nehemiah to Jerusalem, appointed him as Civil Governor for 12 years, and authorized him to complete the rebuilding of the wall (and gates) of the city, a task that took him but 52 days to accomplish ( Neh. 6:15). http://www.biblicalarchaeologytruth.com/nehemiahs-wall.html accessed 2022.01.04;
Broad Wall Khizqiyahu BCE701 & Nekhemyah BCE445 (holylandsitecom) 3335x2160.png
qqqBCE0694 (## Remaining Under Construction)
694 13. Mᵊna•shëhꞋ Bën-Khi•zᵊq•i•yãhꞋ murder Jerusalem judgment on am?
≈BCE 686 "In the reign of Manasseh (c. 686–c. 642) there was a revival of pagan rites, including astral cults in the very forecourts of the temple of YHWH, child sacrifice, and temple prostitution; hence, he is usually portrayed as the most wicked of the mᵊlãkh•imꞋ of Judah. If he had any tendencies toward independence from Assyrian domination, they apparently were suppressed by his being taken in chains to Babylon, where he was molded into proper [xSatrapy] behaviour, although one edifying and probably unhistorical biblical account reports his repentance and attempt at religious reform after his return to Judah. The great religious reform took place in the reign of his grandson Josiah (640–609)… " https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/From-the-period-of-the-divided-monarchy-through-the-restoration; accessed 2022.01.04
qqHellenism
Mingles With the Ἴωνες On The West Coast Of Modern Turkey orig 350x400.png "ccc") |
 orig 543x765.png "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Pre-Alexandrian Hellenization of West Turkey coast BCE 11th-8th century (map: Visionlearning) |
Archeologists & historians like to put everything in a box, on a shelf, dazzled with a pretentious, Latin or Greek, science-speak term. But life is seldom that simple and clear-cut. While historians universally, mindlessly, simplistically and automatically assume that Alexander the Great was the beginning of Hellenic influence in the ancient world, the fact is that Hellenic influence throughout the ancient Middle East dates back at least as far as the ancient Iranians (Medes & Persians) conflicts in Hellenic GreekἈνατολή — under xabbrMedPers βασιλιάς Φραόρτης.
 |
 Cartouche of Par•ōhꞋ Nᵊkhō Jr. (≈BCE 610–595) |
≈BCE 640 "The great religious reform took place in the reign of his [Mᵊna•shëhꞋ Bën-Khi•zᵊq•i•yãhꞋ] grandson Yō•shi•yãhꞋū Bën-ÕmōnꞋ (640–609) during a period when the Assyrian Empire was in decline and was precipitated by the discovery of the Book of the Law during the restoration of the Temple. It was proclaimed by the king to be the Law of the realm, and the people pledged obedience to it. In accordance with its admonitions, the pagan altars and idols in the Temple were removed, rural sanctuaries (“high places”) all the way into Samaria were destroyed, and the Jerusalem Temple was made the sole official place of worship. (For an identification of the law book with the legal portion of Deuteronomy, see below Old Testament literature: Deuteronomy.) Josiah also made an attempt at political independence and expansion but was defeated and killed by the Egyptians ≈BCE 604 under Par•ōhꞋ 𓈖𓎡𓇋𓅱 Jr. at the Battle of Ka•rᵊkhᵊmishꞋ in Neo-Assyria, the new allies of the fading 𒀸𒋩𒆠 Empire." qqq0301 https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/From-the-period-of-the-divided-monarchy-through-the-restoration accessed 2022.01.04.
(Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire): 3 Min•imꞋ? |
 Roman Republic & Hellenist Empires ≈BCE 200 |
The Roman Republic, and its religion, emerged from the background of Etruscan (Tuscany) domination of Rome from the late BCE 7th century. The Etruscans used the Greek alphabet and introduced elements of Hellenist-Greek culture.
The Roman Republic inherited the Etruscan consubstantial trinity of Tinia (the thunderbolt "Sky-Father"), Menrva (goddess of defense, wisdom, art and health) and Uni (aka Juno, goddess of love & fertility, wife of Tinia/Jupiter). The Roman Republic evolved the Etruscan consubstantial trinity into their own, Roman consubstantial counterpart trinity of Jupiter (the thunderbolt "Sky-Father" = 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) Marduk), Mars (god of war) and Romulus-Incarnate.
𐎧𐎹𐎼𐎿 
Made alliances with 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 Sar  Nabopolassar Nabû-apla-uṣur 160x30.png "Nabû-apla-utzur (Nabopolassar, NeoBabilim cuneiform)"){kind=small}
, as well as the Scythians and Cimmerians against Neo-Assyrian. At the Fall of 𒌷𒊮𒆜 (URU.ŠÀ.KASKAL, Sumerians and Hittites, Hbr חָרָן STurkey near Syrian border; (≈BCE 609), the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 and Media-Persia defeated an Neo-Assyrian / Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim alliance, after which Neo-Assyria largely ceased to exist as an independent state.
 |
 Jr. 090x40.jpg "Nᵊ-ka-u"){kind=small} |
| Par•ōhꞋ (Rᵊsᵊt-) Ni•ka•ū Jr. (BCE 610–595) |
YᵊhūdꞋãh remained a tributary Neo-Assyrian SãꞋtrap•y, under a Yᵊhūd•iꞋ Neo-Assyrian SãꞋtrap, subjugated to Neo-Assyria until Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim Par•ōhꞋ (Rᵊsᵊt-•) Ni•ka•u Jr. (BCE 610–595), on his way through hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ to conquer the Neo-Assyrians in ≈BCE 608, ousted the Neo-Assyrians—elevating Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim as the domanant power over the MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh xSatrapy, exiling the younger royal heir, Yekhoakhaz Bën-Yō•shi•yãhꞋū, and placing the elder royal heir, Elyaqim Ben-Yō•shi•yãhꞋū as the new MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh. Thus, YᵊhūdꞋãh went from a SãꞋtrap•y of the Assyrians to a Spëtity of the Egyptians — but for only 12 years.
Sar Conquers Neo-AssyriaBCE 0609a 16. Yᵊhō•ã•khãzꞋ Bën-Yō•shi•yãhꞋū deposed by Pharaoh Nekho
BCE 609b 17. Yᵊhō•yã•qimꞋ (Ëlᵊyãq•imꞋ) Bën-Yō•shi•yãhꞋū crowned Melekh Yehudah
609c 18. Yᵊhō•yã•khinꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•yã•qimꞋ deposed by Nebukhadnetzar
Par•ohꞋ Whëm-ib-Ra Nᵊkhō Jr. marched north out of (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌 Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim/Egypt) and fought the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) at the Battle of 𒃻𒂵𒈩 (Ka•rᵊkhᵊmishꞋ), 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria).
≈BCE 608 Par•ohꞋ Whëm-ib-Ra Nᵊkhō Jr. marched north to engage the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) at the Battle of 𒃻𒂵𒈩 (Ka•rᵊkhᵊmishꞋ). Yō•shi•yãhꞋū Bën-ÕmōnꞋ, MëlꞋëkh YᵊhudꞋãh, at the Battle of MᵊgidꞋō ≈BCE (1476 &) 609 on the way to the Battle of Ka•rᵊkhᵊmishꞋ (also ≈BCE 609) in which Yō•shi•yãhꞋū Bën-ÕmōnꞋwas killed (2 Kings 23:28-29). Par•ohꞋ Whëm-ib-Ra Nᵊkhō Jr. killed Yō•shi•yãhꞋū Bën-ÕmōnꞋ (≈BCE 631–610, Melakhimb 23.29), took יְהוֹאָחָז (born שַׁלּֽוּם [Divreia 3.15] ≈BCE 609–609) captive to Egypt, where he died. Neco chose another of the sons of Yō•shi•yãhꞋū Bën-ÕmōnꞋ: Eliakim Bën-Yō•shi•yãhꞋū, (≈BCE 609–609) then either renamed him, or killed and replaced him with Yᵊhō•yã•khinꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•yã•qimꞋ, and made him puppet-king of Jerusalem http://drshirley.org/hist/hist05.html; defeated King Josiah of Judah , he choose Eliakim Bën-Yō•shi•yãhꞋū as the new Neo-Assyrian SãꞋtrap of YᵊhūdꞋãh (2Kings 23:34), Par•ohꞋ Whëm-ib-Ra Nᵊkhō Jr. was defeated by the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) Shar 
(NabꞋū-kud•urꞋri-Ūshur Jr.) at the Battle of 𒃻𒂵𒈩 (Ka•rᵊkhᵊmishꞋ) (more bkgd@ https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2020/09/11/necho-ii-an-archaeological-biography/
≈BCE 608 — "Under the youthful Yō•shi•yãhꞋū Bën-ÕmōnꞋ (≈BCE 639) the reforming priestly party gained the upper hand. The law of Moses was promulgated, and gross abominations in religion and morals were sternly put down (≈BCE 621). But this promising career was soon cut short. Par•ohꞋ Whëm-ib-Ra Nᵊkhō Jr. at the head of the revived native autocracy of Egypt, was now aiming to replace Assyria in the dominion of western Asia. He passed through hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ with an invading force in ≈BCE 608; and Yō•shi•yãhꞋū Bën-ÕmōnꞋ , having decided to battle to him at Megiddo, was defeated and slain."
Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Neco, invaded Judah 605 BC Hostages, including Daniel, taken from Jerusalem to Babylon http://drshirley.org/hist/hist05.html
"Judah's spët to (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌) was, however, very brief.
In BCE 607 Nineveh was taken and destroyed by the Medes. The whole of the low countries westward to the Mediterranean fell to the ally of the Medes, the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) autocracy. The 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) (Shar) (Nabû-kud•urri-utzur Jr.) shattered the power of (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌) in the Battle of 𒃻𒂵𒈩 (Ka•rᵊkhᵊmishꞋ), in 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) (≈BCE 604; Syria and hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ were soon cleared of the Egyptians; and Yᵊhō•yãq•imꞋ יְהוֹיָקִ֑ים-אֶלְיָקִים Bën-Yō•shi•yãhꞋū became a 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (mat Babilim) SãꞋtrap)
≈BCE 601 (Nabû-kud•urri-utzur Jr.) failed in an attack on (𐤌𐤑𐤓𐤉𐤌). Consequently, Yᵊhō•yã•khinꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•yã•qimꞋ felt secure in stopping SãꞋtrap payments of tribute to (Nabû-kud•urri-utzur Jr.). Consequent to Yᵊhō•yã•khinꞋ Bën-Yᵊhō•yã•qimꞋ withholding his payments of tribute, (Nabû-kud•urri-utzur Jr.) retaliated.
0599 19. Ma•tanᵊyãhꞋ (Tzi•dᵊq•i•yãhꞋū) Bën-Yō•shi•yãhꞋū Khldns w-ldrs Riblah 97
Ek.krasis
After the initial denucleation of YᵊhūdꞋãh, with the utter destruction of Yᵊru•shã•laꞋyim and deportation to Babylon of the capital city's kō•han•icꞋ and Davidic elite aristocracy, both mostly ignored YᵊhūdꞋãh, and
Yᵊru•shã•laꞋyim remained much like a meteor crater when it initially entered the Iranian ShãhꞋtrap•y—utter desolation at the center rimmed by almost unscathed regions of Bin•yã•minꞋ immediately north of Yᵊru•shã•laꞋyim and the hills of YᵊhūdꞋãh immediately south.
≈BCE 598 Jehoiakim rebelled (against Neo-Babylonians?)
597 BC Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon invaded Judah again, took Yᵊhō•yã•khinꞋ יְהוֹיָכִין ([Je]Coniah) and thousands of Jews, including Ezekiel, as prisoners to Babylon see https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jehoiachin 597 BC Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon made Mattaniah, youngest son of Josiah, king of Judah, and changed his name to Zedekiah Prisoners deported from Judah to Babylon, 597 BC, 587 BC, & 582 BC http://drshirley.org/hist/hist05.html
"Josiah also made an attempt at political independence and expansion but was defeated and killed in a battle with the Egyptians, the new allies of the fading Assyrian Empire. During the reigns of his sons Jehoiakim (c. 609–598) and Zedekiah (597–586), Judah’s independence was gradually extinguished by the might of the new dominant Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadrezzar. The end came in 586 with the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the principal buildings, including the Temple and the fortifications. The first deportation of Judahites to Babylon, during the brief reign of Josiah’s grandson Jehoiachin in 597, was followed by the great deportation of 586" https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/From-the-period-of-the-divided-monarchy-through-the-restoration accessed 2022.01.04.
𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Aramaic Neo-Assyria) of the top 25% of the royal (Bæt-Dã•widꞋ; core government) & kō•han•imꞋ (religious elite) of YᵊhūdꞋãh in BCE 597 & 586
While the Gãl•utꞋ 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire),
The 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) Exile of Leadership, in (Archaeological dating) BCE 597, 588, 586.
588 BC Zedekiah refused to pay tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, broke his oath of allegiance. Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, besieged Jerusalem http://drshirley.org/hist/hist05.html
Prisoners deported from Judah to Babylon, BCE 597, 588 & 586.
http://drshirley.org/hist/hist05.html
Denucleation (Other Judaeans Not Exiled, Deported)The Aramaic-speaking 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire), under Shar  Nabopolassar Nabû-apla-uṣur 107x20.png "NeoBabilim cuneiform: Na•buꞋ (Babylonian god of wisdom and writing), apla (protect), ushur (the son); corrupted to Nabopolassar"){kind=small}
and his son Shar 
(Na•buꞋ-khad•nëtzꞋar) Jr., achieved victory over 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria) in BCE 605. The Seat of the Empire returned to Babylonia for the first time since 𒄩𒄠𒈬𒊏𒁉 (Ha•kur•mu•raꞋbi), more than a millennium before. Unlike the deracination policy of the 𒀸𒋩𒆠 (Neo-Assyria), the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (mat Babilim) displaced — only The Head (top government) of — Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim (i.e. Kᵊhun•ãhꞋ & Beit-Dã•widꞋ Aristocracy) Exiled to a Gãl•ūtꞋ; Not YᵊhūdꞋãh, the Jewish people.
What began for YᵊhūdꞋãh as a 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) Babylonian denucleation of Yehudah in BCE 586 morphed into 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 (Iranian Empire) SãꞋtrap•y in BCE 538. Thus, YᵊhūdꞋãh was a 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) Exile of Leadership for 48 years, after which they found themselves an Iranian SãꞋtrap for a year or so until BCE 539.10. || Babylon was an Assyrian tributary fm BCE 9th-7th centuries https://www.britannica.com/place/Babylon-ancient-city-Mesopotamia-Asia; || BCE 612 Kaldean overlord Shar Nabopolassar sacked Ninevah reestablishing the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire); BCE 605; overlord Shar (Na•buꞋ-khad•nëtzꞋar) Jr. son of Shar Nabopolassar (Overlord BCE 605–562) || " Exile of Leadership by the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) to that of their conquerors, the 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 (Iranian Empire) Dynasty, in BCE 538. https://www.britannica.com/place/Lebanon/Assyrian-and-Babylonian-domination-of-Phoenicia || Babylon/Mede-Kaldean (BCE 586-); Gedaliah BCE 583; Mede Overlord Astyages [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia] conquered by 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 (Iranian Empire). Shãh 𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁 Jr. (Iranian Empire), https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/persian-empire/] BCE 539.10, having evolved Hellenist-version SãꞋtrapies, who appointed a SãꞋtrap. Fell to Alexander the Great in BCE 4th century; ||
General: General:
≈BCE 539 NeoBabilim Empi0re falls to Persia which is ruled by Shãh 𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁 Jr. (Iranian Empire).
qqKoreshDecree
of 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 (Iranian Empire) 𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁 (Kurush)All scholars, and even most Orthodox rabbis, acknowledge that the chain of sᵊmikh•ãhꞋ from Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ to the present era is non-continuous at a large number of gaping lost links — whereas one missing link is sufficient to destroy the chain of succession. Today, despite a childish recitation of wishful rabbinic tradition, practically everyone — even most Orthodox rabbis — recognizes that the succession never survived the period of the Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ, much less the countless intervening interruptions and the wake of 135 CE.
The reality is that the chain of succession was broken almost from the start: at the death of Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bin-Nun!!! 
Despite the obvious and rabbinically acknowledged discontinuity and numerous inescapable missing links, delusionals ("believers") nevertheless further persist in stretching some periods and compressing others as convenient to fill and fit nebulous voids — like the missing 164 years from the rabbinic dating from the undefined Cessation of the Nᵊviy•imꞋ to the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ShᵊlōmꞋōh, which contradicts reality (scientific dating): from BCE 586 to the post-BCE 175 Hellenized Zūg•ōtꞋ; a false "link" in the chain of succession culminating in undefined, unidentified — fabricated proto-Συνέδριον of 120 — Hellenist-appointed lackeys: אַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה.
It would take a century for the Pᵊrush•imꞋ to overcome the Hellenist (Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ) domination of the Συνέδριον Zūg•ōtꞋ (when Beit Hi•leilꞋ finally displaced Tzᵊdōq•iꞋ Of Beit Sha•maiꞋ as Nã•siꞋ).
"The [𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 Shahdom] had functioned as well as it did through a policy of centralized government with decentralized administration. The [Shãh] was the supreme power but took counsel from his advisors who passed his decrees to secretaries who then relayed these to regional [SãꞋtraps]. Each SãꞋtrap•y] was administered by a [SãꞋtrap] who only had authority over bureaucratic-administrative matters while another official – a trusted general – functioned as a Provost Marshal, supervising military & police matters. This division of responsibilities in each [SãꞋtrap•y] reduced the chance of a regional [SãꞋtrap] amassing enough power from a loyal army to attempt a coup. The [SãꞋtrap] of a [SãꞋtrap•y] lacked military power and the Provost Marshal lacked funds to bribe an army into backing a power-grab."
From the completion? or authorization? of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ (c. B.C.E. 516) under beneficent 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 (Iranian Empire) Shãh 𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁 Jr., the Great, until B.C.E. 168, YᵊhūdꞋãh was a SãꞋtrap•y, under foreign rule.
 |
 Empires: 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 (Iranian Empire) ≈BCE 538 encompassing later (≈BCE 200) Σελευκιδῶν |
Although the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ZᵊrūꞋ-Bã•vëlꞋ had been their HQ and center of power, the rank-and-file great majority of Οs•inꞋ Kō•han•imꞋ were scattered in large numbers in villages throughout YᵊhūdꞋãh.
Ax•sa•khëm (Persian, Koresh) SãꞋtrap•y (tax district, governed in 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎶 (Iranian Empire) by a Shãh) until Alexander the Great Hellenist-ruled SãꞋtrap•y (continued the same SãꞋtrapies) of hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ BCE 323, his general, Σέλευκος BCE 312 (Macedonians constituted the vast majority of the kingdom’s governing elite https://about-history.com/history-of-the-seleucid-empire-a-fragment-of-alexanders-conquest/) to Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής (r. 175–163 b.c.e.)
Shãh 𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁 Jr. (Iranian Empire) was known for having Macedonian (Greek, ergo Hellenist) friends. "Xerxes I, who conquered most of northern and central ancient Greece, including the city of Athens, in 480 BC"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire] Thus, before the building of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ even began, his SãꞋtrap•y of YᵊhūdꞋãh was Macedonian-Greek (i.e. Hellenist) aware, with the specter of Hellenism already looming.
The Roman Republic didn't kick into gear until a century after Alexander the Great had conquered, and spread Hellenism throughout, most of the known world (BCE 336–323).
Following Alexander's death, his 4 leading generals divvied-up his empire into Sãtrapies. hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ — including YᵊhūdꞋãh — fell right in the middle between the two most hotly contested borders dividing the two primary Sãtrapies: the SãꞋtrap•y of General Σέλευκος (Σελευκιδῶν Empire: what is now Southern Turkey & Syria east including Iran, with their capital at Antioch) and the SãꞋtrap•y of General Πτολεμαῖος (of Πτολεμαῖος Empire: Egypt & the northeastern coast of Africa, with their capital at Alexandria).
"A legend related that before Romulus founded [Rome], there was a Greek colony on the site of Rome. There were flourishing Greek cities in Sicily and southern Italy, and Rome was soon in contact. The result was that Rome's gods became identified with Greek gods."
In BCE 332, Alexander the Great exerted his Hellenist rule over the region, Hellenizing the SãꞋtrap•y of YᵊhūdꞋãh. Upon his death, the Hellenist SãꞋtrap•y of YᵊhūdꞋãh was inherited by one of his generals — Σέλευκος, founder of the Hellenist Σελευκιδῶν Empire ruling the Hellenist a href= "Glos_R-S.htm#Df-Satrapy">SãꞋtrap•y of YᵊhūdꞋãh.
Since the Partition of BCE 301 hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ had been open between the SãꞋtrap•ies of Σέλευκος and Πτολεμαῖος.
"To rule as Greeks in an immense sea of non-Greeks would have been foolish, if not impossible, and so the Σέλευκος became both. With their own administration forming merely the newest of a series of ethnic layers that went back centuries, Σέλευκος and his successors were happy to embrace the cults, gods, and practices of the venerable states that came before them…That was the spirit of Hellenism – the amalgamation of West and East that forged a dynamic new era. And the Seleucid enterprise was its clearest manifestation."
Jewish Museum of Greece exhibit dates presence of Yᵊhūd•imꞋ in Greece to BCE 4ᵗʰ century.
The first sign that the Roman Republic was becoming a major power was their victory in the Pyrrhic War (BCE 280–275). This was the first time that the Roman Republic confronted, and vanquished, a professional mercenary army of a Hellenistic Empire of the eastern Mediterranean. Rome's victory drew the attention of these states to the emerging power of the Roman Republic. In response, and with great foresight, Πτολεμαῖος Jr. (BCE 283–246) established diplomatic relations with the Roman Senate.
≈BCE 279 — "An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös Sr., ö Sō•tærꞋ "became [Satrap] and continued his father's policies of encouraging a homogeneous [Satrapy] which blended Hellenistic cultural values with those of the Near East.
Over the course of the three Punic Wars (BCE 264 & 146), the Roman Republic significantly increased its military might, finally destroying Carthage along the northwestern coasts of Africa — abutting the Πτολεμαῖος Empire.
"By the middle of BCE 3rd century and the end of the Pyrrhic War, the Roman Republic had effectively dominated the Italian peninsula and won an international military reputation."
3rd, "the Great" Turns Toward Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim — Via hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋThis was the state of the Middle East when Σελευκιδῶν SãꞋtrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•öss ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ (BCE 215–164) inherited power in BCE 233 /168. [SëꞋlë•ūk•ös] policy (BCE 198—164): https://www.worldhistory.org/Seleucid_Empire/ 1
The disastrous defeat of his father, An•tiꞋ•ökh•öss 3ʳᵈ (the Great) by the Roman Republic at Magnesia precluded any westward ambitions across the Aegean Sea and the northern Mediterranean Basin from Turkey, while his father's death in the east appears to have discouraged eastward expansion. A priori, Σελευκιδῶν SãꞋtrap Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής (BCE 215–164) turned his ambitions to the south — and the way to Πτολεμαῖος Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim ran through hã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ and YᵊhūdꞋãh!
ANTIGONUS OF SOKO, Louis Ginzberg "flourished about the first half of the third century B.C. [i.e. BCE 299–250!!!] https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1581-antigonus-of-soko --> (אֲנִיגְנוֹס אִישׁ סוּכוֹ; Ἀντίγονος ὁ ἄνθρωπος Σοχὸς (Tel Sokho ≈⅔ of the way fm Khevron to Bær Sheva); γονος fm γένος (gene(tic), ethnic, race) anti-ethnic, anti-racist; core Perushim principle evident in Hileil) (Ab. 1:4-5); "The first scholar of whom Pharisaic tradition has preserved not only the name but also an important theological doctrine" ; 1st documented Pharisaic quotation: אֲנִיגְנוֹס אִישׁ סוּכוֹ אוֹמֵר: אַל תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת תּוֹרוֹתֵיכֶן כְּעַבְדֵי מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר, שֶׁאֵם יָמוּת, אֶלָּא כְּעַבְדֵי מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר, שֶׁאֵם יָמוּת (Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 1:3).; Antigonus of Sokho says: Don't do your teachings (your Torahs) like servants of a mortal king though he might die (after rewarding you); rather, do your teachings (your Torahs) like servants of a mortal king who may die (without having rewarded you.]
"By the end of the [BCE 3rd Century] there was a circle of Roman nobles who were so influenced by Greek culture that they preferred to speak Greek at home rather than Latin. Greek art was prized…" and Roman gods began to resemble, and coalesce with, the Hellenism gods.
(The Ōs•inꞋ were not orphaned from their home—near the Bæt haMi•qᵊdãshꞋ (ZᵊrūꞋ-Bã•vëlꞋ )—until BCE 175, and not rejected & mainly cloistered Qū•mᵊr•ãnꞋ in until 70 CE.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Seleucid_Dynasty
Since BCE 198 (p. 8), taken by Ἀντίοχος 3rd, "the Great" (BCE 242-187 p. 6) from the Πτολεμαῖος SãꞋtrap•y (Scopas).
3rd, "the Great" over the Greek Πτολεμαῖος allyAntiokos defeats Ptolemaios at modern Banᵊyas ) in Rãm•atꞋ ha-Gō•lãnꞋ, Post-BCE 722 Deracination Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10); ending the Πτολεμαῖος SãꞋtrap•y over YᵊhūdꞋãh.
BCE 198 — SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Rule: Rebelling at Ptolemaic Rule, Yᵊhūd•imꞋ opened the Gates of Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim to Antiokhos-3ʳᵈ, "the Great".
BCE 188-187 Antiokhos Great vs Seleukos — SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Satrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös 3rd "the Great" attempted to extend his Hellenist SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Satrap from what is now western Turkey to absorb the Aegea Sea regions into — thereby confronting a neighboring ally of the Roman Republic. His adventure backfired when the Roman Republic, just beginning to project their increasing power among their neighbors, handed An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös 3rd "the Great" a shocking and decisive defeat at Magnesia. Consequently, An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös 3rd "the Great" turned his his adventures to the east. But he was killed the next year (BCE 187) pillaging a temple in Persia.
BCE 187 — This left his son, Σέλευκος 4th in power until he was assassinated in BCE 175.
"The son and successor of Ἀντίοχος 3rd, "the Great", Σέλευκος IV Philopator (r. BCE 187-175), continued the efforts to pay off the war debt to the extent that this became his primary focus. He was assassinated in BCE 175 and rule passed to other son of Ἀντίοχος 3rd, "the Great", Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής (r. BCE 175-164). Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής had been sent to Rome as a hostage following the Treaty of Apamea and knew Roman policies and practices first-hand."[brewminateqqq]
) & Kᵊhūn•ãhꞋHæ•khãlꞋ
Hellenized Hæ•khãlꞋ )
The 3 Min•imꞋ: Pharisees, Sadducees & A Mystery Min
The original formation of the anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ pitted against the Hellenist Kōhanic "Temple" Kha•sid•imꞋ-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ in B.C.E. 175, the "Συνέδριον" was thenceforth officiated by "The Zūg•ōtꞋ", comprising a "Temple"-Kōhanic Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nã•siꞋ (Senior) & Pᵊrush•imꞋ Av Beit Din (Junior) "Pair of Complements".
Thus, in contrast to the Pᵊrush•imꞋ, there also became two polar-opposite "Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ" parties: the new Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ, in control of the Temple and priesthood, versus the ousted original anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִים Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ — and the Doers: Ōs•inꞋ
When the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ ousted the Ōs•inꞋ ≈BCE 175, the Hellenist, Roman-marionette aristocracy of YᵊhūdꞋãh went with the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, leaving the Ōs•inꞋ bereft of religious, political or financial support — and made homeless, witnessing ha-Shi•qūtzꞋ Mᵊshō•mæmꞋ: the Bæt ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ hã-Rish•ōnꞋ!.
Since the first Pre-Ma•kab•imꞋ Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ-control of the Συνέδριον didn't occur until the time of Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian)". Thus, it is clear that from the first Zūg, emerging from the Hellenization of the Second "Temple" & Kᵊhūn•ãhꞋ in B.C.E. 175, the Hellenist priests ("kō•han•imꞋ") Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ maintained their control over both their Hellenized "Temple" and the Συνέδριον, which was controlled by their Tzᵊdōq•iꞋ leader as the Nã•siꞋ. It widely agreed that the minority (Pᵊrush•imꞋ) voice in the Συνέδριον was represented in the position of the Av Beit Din.
To date, however, there seems to be no unequivocal historical document informing whether, from SãꞋtrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös' "ha-Shi•qūtzꞋ Mᵊshō•meimꞋ" Hellenizing the "Temple" in BCE 175, this secondary position in the Συνέδριον may, at first, also have been held by a Tzᵊdōq•iꞋ. And if so, history hasn't yet informed us when the junior (minority) position may first have shifted to the leader of the new (post-BCE 175), Pᵊrush•imꞋ, min.
Thus, the post-BCE 175 Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ that traced back to Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ, though now called by the Hellenist name, Συνέδριον, remained controlled by the קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ — the Nã•siꞋ (Chief Justice position) being handed to the leading קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ while the leader of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ was relegated to the junior, minority, position of Av Beit Din (Deputy Chief Justice).
In BCE 175, Hellenist Σελευκιδῶν SãꞋtrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ authorized Hellenist Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-kō•heinꞋ to oust his own Ōs•inꞋ brother, Yәkhōn•yãhꞋ Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, thereby Hellenizing the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ and the Kᵊhūn•ãhꞋ.
As a result, Hellenist Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-kō•heinꞋ soon became known as hã-Kō•heinꞋ hã-RëshꞋa הַכֹּהֵן הָרֶשַׁע dysphemism for רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין; ousting his own brother — the last Ōs•inꞋ Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, famously called the MōrꞋæh ha-TzëdꞋëq of DSS 4Q MMT.
YᵊhūdꞋãh had been ruled since BCE 323 by a Hellenist Së•lë•ū•kid•ōnꞋ SãꞋtrap the Hellenist, as a χωρίον (district) of their Syrian Satrapy. Thus, from BCE 323 to 175 inclusive, the khorion of Yehudah was ruled by a succession of σατράπης and strategos under Seleukid Βασιλεὺς Antiokhos 4 Epip.
The term Διάδοχοι ("Di•a•dökhꞋöi", the heirs, successors) is derived from the Greek word διάδοχος (Dia•dökhꞋöss, the heir, successor).
In BCE 175, that An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ were in complete control at the advent of the ZūgꞋōt. It is, therefore, certain that, from the inception of the ZūgꞋōt, the ruling Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ of the "Temple" were, likewise, predominantly represented in every one of the 5 ZūgꞋōt. It is well documented that the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ maintained their dominance in the Συνέδριον, uninterrupted, from their inception in BCE 175 until Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian)" first wrested Pᵊrush•imꞋ control ≈BCE 28.
The new ZūgꞋōt, heading the Συνέδριον, was led kō•heinꞋ קַנָּאִי as Nã•siꞋ. He was paired with the leader of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ (rabbis), who served in the junior position of Av Beit Din.
In the wake of the Hellenization of BCE 175, the Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ model, originated by Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ, was restructured in accordance with the Hellenist Συνέδριον model by the new Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "priests" in control of the Hellenizing "Temple" — by order of the Hellenist Seleucid SãꞋtrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ.
From the start, An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ outlawed the Bᵊrit Mil•ãhꞋ and the observance of Sha•bãtꞋ. He further erected an altar in the "Temple" to Ζεύς, inaugurating the sacrifice of pigs, and opened the Temple to goy•imꞋ.
The Tōr•ãhꞋ given by Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrãmꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ was already corrupted by assimilations from the earlier Gãl•utꞋ 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire), the reaction of the Anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Kō•han•imꞋ was predictable and swift.
Understanding how and why the Zūg•ōtꞋ leadership and form of administration emerged over YᵊhūdꞋãh consequent to Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής and the Hellenist of BCE 175 requires tracking the evolution of its leadership forms from the monarchy of Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh through the Assyrian Deracination of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ (10) (i.e. the Ten Northern Tribes) in BCE 722, the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 Exile of Leaders (deportations of the kō•hanꞋic & Davidic aristocracy leadership, BCE 597 & 586) and ultimate Hellenization, under a Συνέδριον led by Zūg•ōtꞋ, in BCE 175.
From the get-go in BCE 175 under Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής , the Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ was restructured, via Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•iꞋ Kō•heinꞋ ha-RëshꞋa, to comply with the Roman Συνέδριον model.
The Hellenization of the Kō•han•imꞋ in BCE 175, would change the political landscape significantly. The old-school, anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִים Οs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ viewed the rebel Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•iꞋ as defilers; yet continued to oppose the "דּוׂרְשֵׁי הַחְלָקוׂת" Pᵊrush•imꞋ as well as the Hellenist Σελευκιδῶν and their successor, the occupying Hellenist Romans. Overnight, they found themselves a Third Min, outcasts from their Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ZᵊrūꞋ-Bã•vëlꞋ—now a Hellenized "Temple".
qqqHellenPtolRuleVsHagiarchy (## Remaining Under Construction)
xHellenizingCalL3 the xkohanimL3
Origin — The overnight ouster of the original Tzadoqi Kohein ha-Gadol—??, the Moræh Tzedeq—by Jason—the Wicked Priest—galvanized all of the Hellenists into one coalition (the new, Hellenist, Tzedoqim), while orphaning all of the other parties comprising Yisraeil. These outliers eventually coalesced under the banner of the xPerushimL3.
This fractionated into a loosely 3-faction populous never-before described since before Josephus (≈37–≈100 CE):
Hellenized (Priest-Rule Aristocracy) The Tzedoqim
Babylonian-assimilated Yehudim (Davidic-Rule Royalist) Perushim—The Rabbis
"Old School" Yehudim — The Οs•inꞋ
(1) Jose b. Joezer and Jose b. Johanan, who flourished at the time of the Maccabean wars of independence; [167 (after 168.12)-135]
Hyrcanus (born 164 BCE, reigned from 134 BCE until his death in 104 BCE -- >
established the Zūg•ōtꞋ, appointing their own (Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ) party in control as its Nã•siꞋ head!
In B.C.E. 168, the Hellenist SãꞋtrap•y of YᵊhūdꞋãh came, for a second time, under the rule of (Hellenist Seleucid) SãꞋtrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ
However, An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ' capture of Πτολεμαῖος Egypt suggested to Rome that his current position, opposite the former Carthagian border — which was now the Roman Province of Africa, suggested he had ambitions on the Roman province!
In addition to threatening the Roman Province of Africa, in the years following BCE 275 Πτολεμαῖος Jr., having recognized the growing military power of the Roman Republic, had established diplomatic relations with the Roman Senate. Consequently, the Roman Senate issued an edict demanding that An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ withdraw the potential threat to the Roman Republic from their neighboring Πτολεμαῖος SãꞋtrap•y. This led to the famous confrontation in which a single elderly Roman ambassador named Gaius Popillius Laenas arrived delivering the edict from the Roman Senate, which demanded that An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ withdraw his armies from Πτολεμαῖος lands (i.e. Egypt and Cyprus) or consider himself in a state of war with the Roman Republic.
When An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ deferred, replying that he would discuss it with his council, the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ declaring: "Before you leave this circle, give me a reply that I can take back to the Roman Senate!" This meant that the Roman Republic would declare war on the Σελευκιδῶν Empire if the SãꞋtrap stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Πτολεμαῖος lands immediately.
An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ withdrew his Σελευκιδῶν forces from Πτολεμαῖος lands.
In BCE 168, An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ conquered his fellow-Hellenist Πτολεμαῖος Empire, extending his Σελευκιδῶν SãꞋtrap•y from Syria all the way to the Πτολεμαῖος capital in Alexandria, Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim.
(Joshua b. Peraḥyah and Nittai of Arbela, at the time of John Hyrcanus [b. BCE 164] High Priest King [Melekh 135/134–104] https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15293-zugot; "Hyrcanus died in 104 B.C. and was succeeded by his elder son, Aristobulus I, who ruled briefly. When Aristobulus died in 103 B.C, Alexander Jannaeus became king. Salome Alexandra and Alexander Jannaeus married and had two sons… During his reign, Alexander Jannaeus supported the aristocratic Sadducees and massacred hundreds of Pharisees. "Josephus mentions her husband had been in a civil war with the Pharisees," says Atkinson. "One time, he crucified 800 in a single day." After a reign of 27 years, Alexander Jannaeus bequeathed his kingdom to his wife. "The nation was really falling apart at the time he died and he realized she could really have this war with the Pharisees [finished]," he adds." "As Josephus writes in Antiquities of the Jews, Hyrcanus I conquered the nearby Idumeans in the 120s B.C. In exchange for allowing the Idumeans to stay in their homeland, Hyrcanus forced them to convert to Judaism (13:9). Hyrcanus turned to the Sadducees, wealthy priests and aristocrats, for support as his power base, alienating his former allies, the Pharisees…" https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/iron_ladies/salome_alexandra.html
These two Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim brother-princes fought each other for power in a schismatic civil stalemate that, in BCE 64, left both factions in a stand-off, both conflicted with the קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ (probably exasperated by the imperilment being caused to YᵊhūdꞋãh by both implacable feuding brothers) and anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ factions of the Συνέδριον desire for power and all 3 factions pleading to the new power broker in the Middle East: the Roman Senate, headed principally by the famous feuding duo of Pompey, conqueror of much of the western Mediteranean Basin, and Julius Caesar, conquering Europe (Gaul and nearby areas). Along the north African coast, that meant confronting the Roman Republic under the command of Pompey.
The result, in BCE 63, was Pompey vanquishing the last remnants of the Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim in BCE 63.
When a Hellenist (Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ?) priest required a קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ named Ma•titᵊyãhꞋū Bën-Yōkhã•nãnꞋ to officiate a sacrifice to Ζεύς, Ma•titᵊyãhꞋū killed the Hellenist (Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ?) priest! (We might infer that he assassinated the Hellenist priest with his sicarii dagger, worn by every adult male in the ancient, and parts of the modern, Middle East.) Thus, Ma•titᵊyãhꞋū began the Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim/Ma•kab•imꞋ uprising that resulted in KhaꞋnūkh•ãh.
SãꞋtrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ Deposes Ōs•inꞋ qqqBCE167 MakabimRevolt (## Remaining Under Construction)
) & The History Behind KhaꞋnūk•ãhCaught between the Hellenist SãꞋtrap and heavy Hellenist assimilation of his brothers, the priestly—Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ—and the religious strictures of the Ōs•inꞋ Kō•hanꞋic Hagiarchy, in their Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ, chafed under the aggressive idolatrous and hedonist assimilative pressures of the Hellenist Seleucid SãꞋtrap — and the SãꞋtrap's Hellenist kō•han•imꞋ pawns—the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ!
Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ was adjudicated by the Scriptural Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, at the head of the kō•han•imꞋ contingent along with a subordinate society of wealthy aristocrats and intellectuals ("sages") from the lay population. These precipitated in 3 main groups: the ruling Kō•hanꞋic Hagiarchy, a wealthy Hellenist Hagiarchy, and a Davidic-Rabbinic oriented Laity. These tended toward a 3-way splintering that would eventually produce Ōs•inꞋ, Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ and Pᵊrush•imꞋ, respectively.
Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ,To this day, in addition to a major 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire) assimilation, Judaism remains extensively Hellenized as a result of this event; which ushered in the rule of the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "priests" — with the inevitable Hellenization of the "Second Temple" of Herod the Ë•dōm•iꞋ (A•mã•leiqꞋ), and the irreversible illegitimacy and irrelevance of the קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ.
≈BCE 167 CD documents that the original, newly ousted, Anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ at first regarded their ouster by the new ruling Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "Temple priests" as a "family matter" to be resolved between Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ. They both remained united in their opposition to the דּוׂרְשֵׁי הַחְלָקוׂת "slick-PARSing sophist" laity-class of the anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ. Contrary to modern, agenda-driven, "Abrahamic" clergies protecting their respective religious "traditions", Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ certainly did NOT hand over control of their newly structured Συνέδριον to the "slick-PARSing sophist" laity-class of the anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ! They ensured that the controlling position of Nã•siꞋ went to their fellow Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ — not the "slick-PARSing sophist" laity-class of the anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ.
An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋhã-A•dãm•ãhꞋ, including YᵊhūdꞋãh, by contrast, was, as usual, up for grabs. It was at about this time that a Hellenist Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, ha-kō•heinꞋ came to An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ with a momentous plot to betray and oust his own brother, who was the Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ — Khōn•iꞋ•yōBën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, ending the last ever legitimate Anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ.
"In [BCE 143–142] Simon Maccabeus, son of Mattathias (and brother of Ἰούδας Μακκαβαῖος יְהוּדָה בֶּן מַתִּתְיָהוּ הַמַּכָּבִי Judas Maccabeus), succeeded his brother Ἰωνάθαν יְהוֹנָתָן בֶּן מַתִּתְיָהוּ הַמַּכָּבִי Jonathan as leader of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid dynasty. He soon became independent of the Seleucids as [hagioarchic high priest ruler; not ethnarch nor king nor any other title] of Judaea; the offices were hereditary, and Simon thus became the first of the Hasmonean dynasty. He was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus I, Aristobulus I, Alexander Jannaeus and his widow Salome Alexandra, Aristobulus II, John Hyrcanus Jr., and the last Hasmonean, Antigonus, who was deposed and executed by the Romans under Mark Antony." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hasmonean-dynasty
The relative tranquility of the Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim rule endured until the death of Queen Sa•lōmꞋā Alexandra
the Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim (BCE 141-67; known among anti-Hellenist Jews as שְׁלוֹמְצִיּוֹן from שְׁלוֹמִית) in BCE 67. She left two heirs to the Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim throne: Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. It's not insignificant that the infusion of Hellenist may be measured by how (her mother and) these two are all known principally by Hellenist (Greek), not Hebrew, names.
Hellenized Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ In Support Of Hagiocratic Rule of Ma•kab•imꞋThe Pᵊrush•imꞋ refused to ally with the Hellenized Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ due to the Pre-Ma•kab•imꞋ Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ refusal to assimilate into Hellenism under the rule of Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ Tzᵊdōq•iꞋ Yō•khãn•ãnꞋ Ὑρκανός, nephew of YᵊhūdꞋãh Ma•kab•iꞋ.
Refusal to assimilate forced the split-off from the ruling Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ.
Origin Of Ōs•inꞋ/Pᵊrush•imꞋ POV: Bᵊn•æꞋ-Ōr vs Bᵊn•æꞋ-KhōꞋshëkh
"Jubilees was written before the public breach between [post-BCE 175 Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ priest Ὑρκανός Urkanos (Hyrcanus) [Sr., BCE 135(/134)-104] and the [Pre-Ma•kab•imꞋ Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ] when Urkanos joined the [Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ] party. … conclude that Jubilees was written between [BCE 109 and 105]".
Jubilees (Charles 1913) 13.22 "many fleeing fell victim to [bitumen pits, which were scattered everywhere], and the land was littered with the wounded in עֵמֶק סְדוֹם, ÆꞋmëq Sᵊdōm; currently by the Yãm ha-MëlꞋakh.]
Based on scholarship subsequent to Charles, "the date of Jubilees must be set between [BCE] 161-140"
Since the split was after the writing of Jubilees, which was no later than BCE 140; the split can be narrowed to BCE 140–105. ALL THAT"S NEEDED: Since he solicited the advice of Pharisees (which elicited the insult that caused the schism between Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ & Pᵊrush•imꞋ) during his reign (Josephus, Ant. 13.288-296), which began BCE 134, the split between Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ is further narrowed to xZugL3 3, BCE 134-104.
"The death of Hasmonean queen Alexandra Salome plunged Judea into a civil war between her two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. After Aristobulus had ousted his elder brother from both the throne and the high priesthood in Jerusalem, Antipater the Idumean advised Hyrcanus to enlist the aid of King Aretas III of Nabataea. In return for the promise of territorial concessions, Aretas provided Hyrcanus with 50,000 soldiers, and their joint forces besieged Aristobulus in Jerusalem." (Wiki, Siege of Jerusalem BCE 63)
Late in Zūg 4 (Shᵊma•yãhꞋ and AvᵊtalᵊyōnꞋ), at the time of Hyrcanus II. [067-040];
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15293-zugot;
Salome " had named her son Hyrcanus as heir, but her younger son, Aristobulus, fought to be king. Aristobulus gathered outside support from Nabatea, thanks to his adviser, an Idumean named Antipater.
"Her eldest son, Hyrcanus, was High Priest," says Atkinson. "She appointed [him as] her successor and his brother, Aristobulus, attacked him in Jerusalem. They fought a war and Hyrcanus abdicated after three months. And then, a couple years later, he tried to retake the throne of his brother." To settle the succession dispute, the brothers called on a third party — the Romans.
At this time, Rome needed a shield from trouble in the east. "The reasons the Romans wanted to conquer the land of Israel had nothing to do with the weakness of these two guys," says Schiffman. "The Roman Empire was facing a big problem in the east with the Parthians and they wanted to be able to have a secure buffer against the Parthians. Now, they didn't have it in the Hasmonean state because it wasn't really linked up with them very closely." To create a buffer, Pompey conquered Judea in 63 B.C. and made it a Roman province.
Even after Judea's subjugation, the brothers continued to battle for the throne. Eventually, Antipater's son, Herod, became king in 41 B.C. To solidify his claim to the throne, Herod married Mariamne qqq-II?, a granddaughter of both Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II."
https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/iron_ladies/salome_alexandra.html
Emergence Of Pᵊrush•imꞋSo [below] Hileil became Nasi during Zug 4; i.e. no later than BCE 64
In the absence of strong geographical or archaeological confirmation, the weight of the evidence favors understanding בְתִירָא as referring to a group or community (as expressed in the term בְּנֵי בְתִירָא) rather than as a physical location, which lacks any compelling evidence.
בְּנֵי בֵּית יָרֵא may be the "Remnant of YᵊhūdꞋãh" who took charge after the Babylonian Denucleation. Would explain why they were similar yet lacking education in the tradition. This could explain why Hileil praised the also-Hellenized but uneducated Zugot (4) despite Hileil finding their lack of knowledge shocking.
Pesakhim 66a fm Sefaria:
"אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אוֹ חִלּוּף: מָה אִם הַזָּאָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת — אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּדְחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת?! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: עֲקִיבָא, עָקַרְתָּ מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, בֵּין בַּחוֹל בֵּין בַּשַּׁבָּת.
Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: Or perhaps we can reverse the order of your argument and say the opposite: If, as we know by accepted tradition, sprinkling the purifying water on Shabbat, which is prohibited only due to rabbinic decree, does not override Shabbat, then with regard to slaughter, which is prohibited as a biblically prohibited labor, is it not right that it should not override Shabbat? Therefore, it should be prohibited to slaughter the Paschal lamb when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, how can you say this? You have thus uprooted what is written in the Torah: “Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb in its appointed time” (Numbers 9:2); the phrase “at its appointed time” indicates that the offering must be brought on that day, whether it is a weekday or Shabbat.
אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, הָבֵא לִי מוֹעֵד לְאֵלּוּ, כְּמוֹעֵד לַשְּׁחִיטָה. כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. שְׁחִיטָה, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Eliezer: My teacher, bring me an appointed time stated in the Torah for these tasks, namely, carrying the animal or bringing it from outside the Shabbat limits, like the appointed time stated with respect to slaughter. The Paschal lamb must be slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nisan, but there is no fixed time when the animal must be brought to the Temple, and it is therefore possible to transport it before Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor required for the offering of the sacrifice that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲלָכָה זוֹ נִתְעַלְּמָה מִבְּנֵי בְתִירָא. פַּעַם אַחַת חָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, שָׁכְחוּ וְלֹא יָדְעוּ אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. אָמְרוּ: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ אָדָם שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו? אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: אָדָם אֶחָד יֵשׁ שֶׁעָלָה מִבָּבֶל וְהִלֵּל הַבַּבְלִי שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ שְׁנֵי גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן, וְיוֹדֵעַ אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. שָׁלְחוּ וְקָרְאוּ לוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כְּלוּם אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ אִם הַפֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו? אָמַר לָהֶם: וְכִי פֶּסַח אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָנוּ בַּשָּׁנָה שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת? וַהֲלֹא הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם פְּסָחִים יֵשׁ לָנוּ בַּשָּׁנָה שֶׁדּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, who were the leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat?
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִנַּיִן לְךָ? אָמַר לָהֶם: נֶאֱמַר ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ בַּפֶּסַח, וְנֶאֱמַר ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ בַּתָּמִיד: מָה ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ הָאָמוּר בַּתָּמִיד דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אַף ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ הָאָמוּר בַּפֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
They said to him: From where do you know this? He said to them: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is also stated with regard to the daily offering, for the verse says: “Command the children of Israel and say to them, My offering, the provision of My sacrifice made with fire, for a sweet savor to Me, shall you observe to offer Me at its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2). From here we learn that the daily offering is brought even on Shabbat. Thus, the daily morning and afternoon offerings are brought on more than fifty Shabbatot over the course of the year, and two sheep are offered every Shabbat as additional offerings, for a total of more than two hundred sacrifices a year that override Shabbat. Just as the expression “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides Shabbat.
וְעוֹד, קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה תָּמִיד שֶׁאֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, פֶּסַח שֶׁעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
And furthermore, it is an a fortiori inference: If the daily offering, the neglect of which is not punishable by karet, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb, the neglect of which is punishable by karet, should override Shabbat?
מִיָּד הוֹשִׁיבוּהוּ בָּרֹאשׁ, וּמִינּוּהוּ נָשִׂיא עֲלֵיהֶם, וְהָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ בְּהִלְכוֹת הַפֶּסַח. הִתְחִיל מְקַנְטְרָן בִּדְבָרִים. אָמַר לָהֶן: מִי גָּרַם לָכֶם שֶׁאֶעְלֶה מִבָּבֶל וְאֶהְיֶה נָשִׂיא עֲלֵיכֶם — עַצְלוּת שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּכֶם, שֶׁלֹּא שִׁמַּשְׁתֶּם שְׁנֵי גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר, שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן.
After Hillel brought these proofs, they immediately seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi over them, and he expounded the laws of Passover that entire day. In the course of his teaching, he began rebuking them [mekanteran] them with words. He said to them: What caused this to happen to you, that I should come up from Babylonia and become Nasi over you? It was the laziness in you that you did not serve the two most eminent scholars of the generation living in Eretz Yisrael, Shemaya and Avtalyon."
According to the sparse material preserved in the Talmudic record, the 8 זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא were the 4 Zūg•ōtꞋ, culminating with Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nã•siꞋ Shᵊma•yãhꞋ and Pᵊrush•imꞋ Av Beit Din AvᵊtalᵊyōnꞋ; the penultimate Zūg in the late B.C.E. 1st century. Shᵊma•yãhꞋ and AvᵊtalᵊyōnꞋ are mostly famous for being unable to remember the Tōr•ãhꞋ prioritizing the zᵊvãkh•imꞋ when PësꞋakh coincides with Sha•bãtꞋ.
≈BCE 102 the end of the last Zūg, the Av Beit Din was held by Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian)", a maternal scion of Dã•widꞋ — and a Pᵊrush•imꞋ!
"His activity of forty years is perhaps historical; and since it began, according to a trustworthy tradition ([Ma•sëkꞋët Sha•bãtꞋ] 15a), one hundred years before the destruction of Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim, it must have covered the period [BCE 30 ] - 10 CE."
It was the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ who were dependent upon their patron Roman occupiers for their own authority. There was no disagreement between Romans and Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ regarding Hellenism: both were Hellenists!!!
BCE Mid-060s — A civil war erupted in YᵊhūdꞋãh when two brothers of the post-Σελευκιδῶν SãꞋtrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ, 4ᵗʰ line of Hellenist "priests" instigated a civil war in the tradition of Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ (Hellenized to Jason) fighting each other over who would seize the office of Hellenist "High Priest".
BCE 63: Former (& later Future) Consul, General (Legatus), Imperator, exercising Proconsular Authority Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus ("the Great") sieges Yerushalayim after which the current in-office Consul Cicero made Yehudah a client kingdom of Roman Republic, replacing Khashmonayim Dynasty with Herodian Dynasty: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(63_BC)
qqqBCE63GlosSatrap (## Remaining Under Construction)
Hellenist Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzã•dōq′ ha-Kō•Ꞌhæn′ (Hellenized to Jason) ','#ffff99', 200)"; onMouseout="hideddrivetip()">Ἰωάννης Ὑρκανός Jr. as יוֹנָתָן הַאַפוּס, the Epic, a son of Mattathias; family tree https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Hasmonean_dynasty_family_tree.svg Mattathias [Hellenized kohein from Modiin, priestly order of יְהוֹיָרִיב] Di•vᵊr•æꞋ-ha-Yãm•imꞋ ÃlꞋëph 24.7 leader BCE 167-166 → Shimon Thassi 141-135 → John Hurcanus 135-104 → Alexander Jannaeus 103-76 → brothers Hyrcanus Jr. 76-67 & 63-40 / Aristobulus Jr. 66-63; then Anitonus Jr son of Aristobulus Jr 40-37; then Aristobulus 3ʳᵈ grandson of Hyrcanus Jr 36-35 → Herod (husband of Mariamne I, granddaughter of Hyrcanus Jr.) the Great 37-4;
Roman Republic in crisis facing overthrow conspiracy by Catiline; the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic in BCE 27). The Roman general Pompey defeats the Seleucid Antiochus XIII and incorporates Syria as a province of the Roman empire. --> Specific to YᵊhūdꞋãh — Roman general Pompey intervened in a civil war between rival factions of the Kha•shᵊmon•ãy•im dynasty. He captured Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim and imposed Roman rule over YᵊhūdꞋãh, making it a Civitas Clientelaris. However, although Rome usually appointed a "Reges Clientelales" to administer a Roman provincia, in the exceptional case of "religious" YᵊhūdꞋãh, Rome, instead, installed a combined Sacerdos Maximus and Ethnarkhoss Clientelaris—a "Roman-puppet Tribal Priest-Chief" obeying the Roman Republic Consul, Cicero.
Roman rule incurred a restructuring of Judean government to the Roman model. The power of the Roman Emperor was absolute. Provincial administration was administered by a Zūg of Roman imperial administrators: a patrician praetor (judge) and a plebian consul (advisory consultant). The נָשִׂיא was redesignated as the Senior Chair of the Συνέδριον, which displaced the preceding Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ.
The ZūgꞋōt counterbalanced the נָשִׂיא with a Junior Chair counterpart: the religious kō•han•imꞋ "ruling class", ruled ultimately by the Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ).
Zug 5: ≈BCE 063-030 Zug 5—Hillel and Shammai, at the time of King Herod Significant Event: Queen Σαλώμη Ἀλεξάνδρα / שְׁלוֹמְצִיּוֹן support of Perushim, wife of (Aristobulus I) & Alexander Jannaeus; "Salome Alexandra installed as high priest her eldest son, Hyrcanus II, a man who was wholly supportive of the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin was reorganized according to their wishes and became a supreme court for the administration of justice and religious matters, the guidance of which was placed in the hands of the Pharisees. " wiki; Establishment of Yavneh as a center of Jewish learning and transition to Rabbinic authority.
GPT: Transition from Puppet-Kings to Provinces:
Initially, Rome often installed client kings to govern newly acquired territories, allowing for some degree of local autonomy while ensuring loyalty to Rome. Herod the Great, for example, ruled Judea as a client king from 37 BCE until his death in 4 BCE.
After Herod's death, the region experienced instability, leading to direct Roman administration. In 6 CE, Judea was formally annexed as a Roman province, transitioning from a client kingdom to a province governed directly by Roman officials (procurators). …
4. Administrative Changes:
The Roman provincial system replaced the Hellenistic administrative structures. The satraps and strategoi, who had significant local authority, were replaced by Roman governors who were appointed by the Senate or the Emperor.
In Latin, the term for "province" is "provincia," and the term for "provincial governor" is "procurator" or "praefectus" depending on the context and specific role.
Provincia: This term refers to a territory or region that is governed by Rome. Provinces were established as Rome expanded its territory, and they were typically administered by appointed officials.
Procurator: This term was used for a financial administrator or governor of a province, particularly in the later Roman Empire. Procurators were responsible for the collection of taxes and the overall financial management of the province.
Praefectus: This term can refer to a prefect, who was often in charge of specific administrative duties within a province. In some cases, a praefectus could also serve as a governor, especially in smaller provinces or regions.
Hasmonean Dynasty: In the 2nd century BCE, the Maccabean Revolt (167–160 BCE) led to the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled Judea as an independent kingdom. The Hasmoneans held both the political and religious leadership, and their rule marked a significant period of Jewish autonomy.
2. Roman Intervention (63 BCE):
Pompey’s Conquest: In 63 BCE, Roman general Pompey intervened in a civil war between rival factions of the Hasmonean dynasty. He captured Jerusalem and established Roman influence over Judea, making it a client state.
Puppet-Kings: Following Pompey’s conquest, the Romans installed client kings to govern Judea. Herod the Great was appointed king in 37 BCE and ruled until his death in 4 BCE. Herod maintained a degree of autonomy while aligning closely with Roman interests.
3. Transition to Roman Province (6 CE):
Direct Roman Rule: After Herod's death, Judea experienced political instability, leading to the Roman decision to annex the region as a province in 6 CE. This marked a significant shift from client kingship to direct Roman governance.
Procurators: Judea was governed by Roman procurators (e.g., Coponius, Marcus Ambibulus), who were responsible for maintaining order, collecting taxes, and enforcing Roman law. The procurators reported directly to the Roman governor of Syria.
4. Administrative Structure:
Roman Provincial Administration: The Roman provincial system replaced the Hellenistic administrative structures. The procurators had significant authority, but they were often challenged by local elites and the Jewish population.
Cultural Tensions: The imposition of Roman law and taxation led to tensions with the Jewish population, who were resistant to foreign rule and sought to maintain their religious and cultural identity.
Intervention in the Hasmonean Civil War (63 BCE): The Roman general Pompey intervened in a civil war between rival factions of the Hasmonean dynasty in Judea. In 63 BCE, Pompey captured Jerusalem and effectively made Judea a client state of Rome. This marked the beginning of Roman influence in the region.
qqq combined the Kha•shahꞋshãh Pa•ã•vãꞋa and Kha•shahꞋshãh Pã•a•diꞋyã into a single σατράπης, the Vice-roy(al) of a σατραπεία qqq official
to Satrapy/Province & Satrap/Provincial Comptroller—not "vice-roy(al)" or "Tetrarch".
YᵊhūdꞋãh became an Iranian Satrapy in BCE 538, with the overthrow of Babylon by Iranian Shãh Kō•rꞋëshꞋ Jr. "the Great". Not much is known of the peculiarities of either the Babylonian administration of YᵊhūdꞋãh nor the Iranian Satrapy of YᵊhūdꞋãh, nor how the latter may have differed from the former, except that:
The Iranian ShãhꞋtrap•y endured until Babylon fell to Alexander the Great, ≈BCE 330, who adapted the Iranian ShãhꞋtrap•y of YᵊhūdꞋãh into a Hellenist-version ShãhꞋtrap•y.
2025-01-23: Yehudah under Herod the Great divided into 4 tetrarchies BCE 4: Tetrarchy 1. Yehudah (Roman Provost Marshal Pontius Pilate), Tetrarchies 2 & 3. Galilee & Perea (Herod Antipas), Tetrarchy 4. Iturea-Trachonitis (Herod Philip Jr. 𐎧𐏁𐏂 𐎱𐎠𐎺𐎠 (Kha•shahꞋshãh Pa•ã•vãꞋa /xšaça-pāvā/) m (GPT greatness, perhaps majesty—tax collection, administration, and local governance); meaning "Comptroller of Internal Revenue" of the Shah's Province of …, Hellenized to Satrapy/Province & Satrap/Provincial Comptroller—not "vice-roy(al)" or "Tetrarch". (Pontius Pilate (washed hands, NHM 27.24) Prefect: was the Comptroller (procurator) of Roman Internal Revenue for the Roman Provincial District [Tetrarchy] of Yehudah.[Note 4 Provincial Districts=tetrarchies])
"Roman provinces were usually ruled by high-ranking officials. Less important provinces though were entrusted to prefects, military men who would otherwise only govern parts of larger provinces. The most famous example is Pontius Pilate, who governed Judaea at a time when it was administered as an annex of the Province of Roman Syria." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praefectus
"It is likely that Pontius Pilate made his base at Caesarea Maritima, the site where the stone was discovered, since that city had replaced Jerusalem as the administrative capital and military headquarters of the province in AD 6.[8] Pilate probably travelled to Jerusalem, the central city of the province's Jewish population, only when necessary." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone
"the Roman governor of Syria had authority over the region, and the prefect of Judea operated under the broader jurisdiction of the Syrian province." GPT-4o
Kingdom or empire: 𐎧𐏁𐏂 (Kha•shahꞋshãh; province of a rulership domain of a Shãh; i.e. Province of a Shãhdom) Kha•shahꞋshãh-Pã•a•diꞋyã (GPT lord, master may suggest law and order, military oversight, or local administration ), Satrapy Provost Marshal
𐎱𐎠𐎮𐎹 (𐎱 Pa•𐎠 a•𐎮 di•𐎹 ya; Pã•a•diꞋyã protect (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%90%8E%A7%F0%90%8F%81%F0%90%8F%82%F0%90%8E%B1%F0%90%8E%A0%F0%90%8E%BA%F0%90%8E%A0#Old_Persian); adopted by Alexander, referred to the "Commissioner of Military and Police" of the Shah's Province of … (Hellenized to Satrapy/Province & Satrap/Provincial Commissioner. "Governor" or "Prefect", while conventional, is incorrect and unnecessarily confusing. (Herod Antipas (had no direct role) was the Roman Provost Marshal of the Roman Military & Police for the Province of Greater-Roman Yehudah [4 Tetrarchies]. John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 14:1–12)
Shãh
 |
 BCE 49 — The Roman Republic, Pompey, Julius Caesar & The Rubicon |
qqRomanRep
BCE 49.08.09 — [Chat GPT-4o 2025.03.20: BCE 49.01.10, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River with his 13ᵗʰ Legion "Gemina", which marked the point of no return and the beginning of the Roman Civil War against Pompey the Great. Caesar achieved a decisive victory over Pompey on 49.08.09 in the ensuing Battle of Pharsalus, Greece. This battle marked a turning point in the conflict between the two leaders, as Caesar's forces. Though outnumbered, Caesar utilized superior tactics to defeat Pompey's army. Following his defeat, Pompey fled to [Hellenist Πτολεμαῖος Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim] for refuge, where he was ultimately assassinated on 48.09.28. Caesar's victory solidified his power in Rome and led to his eventual rise as the sole ruler of the Roman Republic.] A counselor of one of the feuding Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim brothers had been a great help to Caesar, who placed the real power in the hands of that counselor: Antipater the Ë•dōm•iꞋ (A•mã•leiqꞋ) — father of Herod the Great! Thus ended the Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim.
With no other alternative for the Anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִים Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ, they became increasingly desperate — and radicalized, especially with the particular by the vicissitudes during the reign of Roman Emperor Caligula (37 CE). This situation degraded into the death-throes of the qqq xQenayim? sicarii-Jan•biꞋyãh assassins; targeting all Hellenists war, which would inexorably lead to the destructions that lay in future; in 70 CE & 135 CE!
Consequently, Shᵊma•yãhꞋ & Avᵊtal•yōnꞋ instructed their followers to refrain from declaring nationalistic positions.
Reigned until his death ≈BCE 04.
It is also documented that "זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא" exercised influence even after the destruction of the Temple, when the Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ (no longer a Hellenist Roman Provincial Συνέδριον) was in YaꞋvᵊn•ëh. Rab•ãnꞋ Yō•khãn•ãnꞋ Bën-Za•kaiꞋ was said to have conferred with the זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא in regard to certain legal rulings.
Chat GPT-4o 2025.03.15 DISCARD ENTIRETY CHAT SHAT:
≈BCE 0035 BATHYRA [vs Hileil], SONS OF (according to tb; in tj known as "Elders of Bathyra"), members of a famous Jewish family who were prominent from the first century b.c.e. to the second century c.e. Some scholars conjecture that the family was named after the city of *Bathyra in northern Transjordan. It is inferred from talmudic sources that members of this family were the religious authorities of their time, but that when Hillel demonstrated his superior knowledge of Torah (on the question of whether the paschal offering overrides the Sabbath) "they set him at their head and appointed him nasi over them" (TJ, Kil. 9:4, 32b; Pes. 66a; bm 85a). As a result of this abdication they were regarded exemplars of humility; Judah ha-Nasi said of them "whatever I am bidden I am prepared to do except what the Elders of Bathyra did for my ancestor (Hillel), namely abdicating from their high office in order to elevate him" (tj, Ket. 12:3, 35a). The talmudic sources do not specify their names. According to the Jerusalem Talmud they were nesi'im. In other talmudic sources, while they were not specifically designated as such, it is implied that they held the patriarchate before Hillel was appointed. According to Halevy, the Sons of Bathyra carried out the functions of the patriarchate when the Sanhedrin was not functioning (possibly at the beginning of Herod's rule). Apparently members of this family exercised influence even after the destruction of the Temple, when the Συνέδριον [? or Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ?] was in YaꞋvᵊn•ëh< !-- יַבְנֶה -- >. Yōkhã•nãnꞋ Bën-Za•kaiꞋ< !-- יוׂחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי -- > was said to have consulted the Sons of Bathyra in regard to certain legal rulings.
Zvi Kaplan, Encyclopedia Judaica
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bathyra-sons
BCE 040 notes Hi•leilꞋ was the principle leader of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ contingent in the Beit-Din ha-Jã•dōlꞋ, which, until c. 32 C.E., "According to the sparse material preserved in the Talmudic record, the 8 Elders of Batyra were religious leaders in the time following the death of [Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nã•siꞋ שְׁמַעְיָה] Shemayah and Avtalion [אַבְטַלְיוֹן Pᵊrush•imꞋ Av Beit Din; penultimate Zūg•ōtꞋ, BCE0103-064 Zug 4 Shmaya & Avtalyon] in the late 1st century B.C.E.." had forgotten [whether semikhah was performed on sacrifices when] Pesakh coincid[ed] with Shabat [Tosefta T. Pesachim 4.11; c 220 CE Shamma Friedman [he] has found that the Tosefta draws on relatively early Tannaitic source material and that parts of the Tosefta predate the Mishnah. S.Y. Friedman, Le-Hithavvut Shinnuye ha-Girsaot be'Talmud ha-Bavli, Sidra 7, 1991. (Tosepfta, wiki)], Sole consideration is Tradition! Azarah [temple court] gone "The change of protagonists focuses the conflict on the tension between two competing rabbinic-based groups. The Elders of Batyra are local, based in the Land of Israel, and aligned with the priests, while Hillel comes from Babylonia. The Yerushalmi" "logical proofs are refuted and dismissed" That would be because adversaries are Tzedoqim kohanim, not aligned with the priests !!! [Y. Pesachim 39a/6.1 c 400 CE] ≈BCE 39-10 In BCE ≈30, the Pre-Ma•kab•imꞋ Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ Rav Hi•leil´ ha-Za•qein´
------------------------------
Replaces Bene Batyra kohanim with "Our Rabbis [Tzedoqim kohanim] taught"; [“For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it.” (B. Sukkah 20a) Just as the sages of the Land of Israel prefer a local scholar, so the Bavli maintains a tradition that the Torah is preserved in Babylonia. maqom p13] accepts logic alone; "In Tosefta Hillel is appointed as Nasi because he demonstrates his mastery of multiple forms of authority: logical argumentation, received tradition, and the ability to call upon Ruach HaKodesh. In the Yerushalmi, Hillel’s logic is explicitly rejected. No reference is made to Ruach HaKodesh. He ascends to the office of Nasi solely on his merit as the disciple of Shemaya and Avtalion. For the Bavli, the sole relevant expertise necessary for Hillel to earn the office of Nasi is facility with the logical rules. A careful reading of these parallel narratives reveals the differences in values between these three levels of the rabbinic canon." maqom p14. "by the time of the Yerushalmi, the rabbis had to contend with the growing strength of the Church." (reliance on Ruakh ha-Qodesh) maqom p19 [ TB B. Pesachim 66a c 500 CE.];
-------------------------------
"Tosefta requires Hillel to be master of all the forms of authority: logic,
qqqBCE 37 HerodKing (## Remaining Under Construction)
"Herod effected his escape and with the help of the Romans seated himself on the throne of Judaea (37 B.C.). Through the execution of Antigonus by M. Antonius (Mark Antony) the same year the Hasmonaean dynasty became extinct."
qqq≈BCE 28 HileilSanh (## Remaining Under Construction)
Hi•leilꞋ was the principle leader (Av Beit Din) of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ junior contingent in the Συνέδριον, which, until ≈BCE 28,
qqqSanhBCE28 (## Remaining Under Construction)
was dominated by the
qqqSanhTzed (## Remaining Under Construction)
qqqRiyb"y (## Remaining Under Construction)
(spurred by his firebrand protégé, the Riyb"y (RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa).
Famously, the question arose regarding the coincidence of PësꞋakh and Sha•bãtꞋ: whether the qã•rᵊb•ãnꞋ PësꞋakh supersedes the qã•rᵊb•ãnꞋ Sha•bãtꞋ. The זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא — Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Complement of the Last Zūg, led by Sha•maiꞋ Sr. the Nã•siꞋ — failed to develop a satisfying solution, whereas Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian)" and Av Beit Din argued such a logically compelling set of interpretations from Tōr•ãhꞋ that Beit Sha•maiꞋ was forced to concede the position of Nã•siꞋ to Beit Hi•leilꞋ — marking the change of power from the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ domination of the Συνέδριον under Beit Sha•maiꞋ to the first Rabbinic Pᵊrush•imꞋ domination of the restored Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ: Beit Hi•leilꞋ.
Sole consideration is Tradition! Azarah [temple court] gone "The change of protagonists focuses the conflict on the tension between []two competing rabbinic-based groups[GodFearers???]. The Elders of Batyra are local, based in the Land of Israel, []and aligned with the priests,[Really???] while Hillel comes from Babylonia. The Yerushalmi" "logical proofs are refuted and dismissed" because adversaries are Tzedoqim kohanim [Y. Pesachim 39a/6.1 c 400 CE]
The transmission of the Interpretive Tradition of Ta•na״khꞋ (i.e. "Oral Law") has been obscured by rabbinic zeal to blot-out pre-rabbinic sources; rewriting history to appear as if it has always been rabbis who have transmitted "Oral Law" to us from Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ. This, of course, is intractably incompatible with documented history. Prior to the splintering of the Ōs•inꞋ in the wake of the Hellenization imposed by Hellenist Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-kō•heinꞋ and Seleucid SãꞋtrap An•tiꞋ•ökh•ös ö Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ in BCE 175, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ never before existed; hence, neither did rabbis.
History also tells us that, despite the position of Av Beit Din being held by a Pᵊrush•imꞋ at some point before the turn of the C.E., the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, with the support of the Hellenist Romans, maintained their control over the Συνέδριον until c. 5-10 CE BCE ≈30 when, for the first time ever, Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian)" Pᵊrush•imꞋ (who died c 10 CE) wrested the position of Nã•siꞋ — control of the Συνέδριον — from the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ.
Ergo, the Nã•siꞋ of the Συνέδριον, the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Complement in The Last Zūg, who preceded Hi•leilꞋ Sr. as Nã•siꞋ, could not have been himself! A priori, it could only have been his Zūg Complement, namely Sha•maiꞋ Sr.!
Thus, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ-controlled ha-ZūgꞋōt. the "Complementary Pairs", administered the Συνέδριον from B.C.E. 175 until Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian)" wrested the title of Nã•siꞋ (Chief Justice), i.e. Pᵊrush•imꞋ control of the Συνέδριον, for the first time ≈BCE 28.
For the importance of this yō•khas•inꞋ, 
Only Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Convened A Night Court — NHM 26:57–68.
Only Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Convened A Court On PësꞋakh (at night following the SæꞋdër) — NHM 26.26–68.
Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Convicted On Testimony of Hired False Witnesses & twisted testimony — NHM 26.57–64.
with his Letters (i.e. the Καινής Διαθήκης to his first & original Christian Churches in Turkey (not Rome, much less Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim), misrepresenting—stealing, defrauding, falsifying and defaming—the identity (ie. Identity Theft) of the Riy״by and his N´tzãr•im´; as a Jewish-Pantheon (Father, Consort, Divine Son with a sea of demigod-saints)!!!Having been plus the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ, upon which the Ōs•inꞋ were inextricably dependent, Hellenized into were left plummeting into extinction.
It wouldn't be until ≈500 CE that the compiler of the Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian), YᵊhūdꞋãh ha-Nã•siꞋ, would morph the זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא of c. 400 C.E. Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim into בְּנֵי־בְּתֵירָא of Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian). Regardless which title, these remained the same contingent that advocated their Interpretive Tradition: the Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν; namely the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ of The Last Zūg•ōtꞋ, under Sha•maiꞋ Sr. the Nã•siꞋ of the Last Zūg — the group better known as Beit Sha•maiꞋ!!!
TIME HACK
Practically everyone has routinely assumed that, in the wake of having been ousted by the Pᵊrush•imꞋ in the Συνέδριον, plus the Roman destruction of their "Temple" upon which they were dependent, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ simply faded into oblivion, leaving only the Pᵊrush•imꞋ — seemingly a priori (but actually ex falso quodlibet), Poof! Beit Sha•maiꞋ sages, magically, had always been "Rabbis" (i.e. Pᵊrush•imꞋ)! 
Suddenly irrelevant, and with no allies, oblivion and extinction were inevitable. This desperate position forced them onto a path toward becoming Tōr•ãhꞋ extremists; Jewish fanatics, radicals & Ultra-Nationalists, ranging from those zealous of Tōr•ãhꞋ to dagger-wielding anti-Hellenist—whether foreigner or Yᵊhūd•iꞋ—קַנָּאִים assassins; claiming that Tōr•ãhꞋ makes them the unfettered (crazed, not zealous) Spokesman of the Almighty. To them, this justified every extreme, which they regarded as pi•qūꞋakh nëphꞋësh; above any law.
Thus, Yᵊhūd•imꞋ fractured roughly into 3 Min•imꞋ:
the glacial extinction of the anti-Hellenist Kha•sid•imꞋ-Ōs•inꞋ,
the Hellenist Kōhanic "Temple" Kha•sid•imꞋ-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, and
"Pᵊrush•imꞋ" initially
meant simply "parsers", those who parsed themselves into a separate category. While various scholars have pigeon-holed the Boethusian-Herodians as Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, they differed significantly from the Οs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ in their disbelief in a resurrection. Moreover, the Boethusian-Herodians were lay—fake—priests—a clergy with a number of beliefs later, in the disappearance of the Boethusian-Herodians, found only among Christians! Thus, it seems likely that the Christianity of The Apostate Paul has some of its main origins in the x qqq
Thus, in the 1ˢᵗ century CE, they were identified as "Pᵊrush•imꞋ" (parsed separately), yet also parsed distinct from the rabbinic Pᵊrush•imꞋ!
qqq
they held beliefs that "parsed" them separate from either the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ or the into their own "Pᵊrush•imꞋ" niche—neither kō•han•imꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ nor Pᵊrush•imꞋ!
anti-Hellenist (ergo, anti-Herodian) Pᵊrush•imꞋ.
BCE 400–1289 CE TY Redactions Earliest in TY, redactions began c400CE. (JVirtLib, glos) The earliest extant ms., i.e. latest European assimilation, of the Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ is the "Leiden (Netherlands) ms.", reflecting the interpretations of 1289 CE! (glos) "…received tradition and Ruach HaKodesh. The Yerushalmi narrows the focus by discounting the logical arguments and elevating the importance of received tradition. The Bavli reverses the measure, accepting logical argument as the sufficient and necessary skill.", p19; " can glimpse the tension between the old world of the Second Temple period and the new world of the rabbis. The versions preserved in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli illustrate the tensions and connections between these two great communities. The simple question that introduced this narrative opened up a wide window on the rabbinic world."
| (Beit) Sha•maiꞋ Sr. | V | (Beit) Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian)" |
|---|---|---|
| ) | ||
| (Hebrew: סֵפֶר גְזֵירוֹת ). Excerpted in 18 גְּזִירוֹת. | (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian)) | |
The most racist, intolerant and xenophobic of today's "Jews" are Ultra-Orthodox Jews who advocate "Shammai" tradition — in defiance of the written record in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ documenting that the Tan•ã•imꞋ declared unambiguously that "the Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ was always according to Beit Hi•leilꞋ, and whoever acted contrary to the views of Beit Hi•leilꞋ deserved death"! For decades I've repeatedly observed instances of today's Ultra-Orthodox claiming to be Pᵊrush•imꞋ while preaching the primacy of Sha•maiꞋ "Sadduceanism"; and behaving like the ancient arrogant, ruling, "Sadducees" who brought about the destructions of 70 CE, 135 CE — and perhaps even the 1940s CE; very much unlike the ancient "Pharisees" personified by the scions of Beit-Dã•widꞋ: Hi•leilꞋ, RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa and (subsequently) Rab•ãnꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr.
Many Orthodox Jews & Judaism today, loudly proclaiming the primacy of Sha•maiꞋ (Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ) arguments blatantly contrary to Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 (Kaldean Neo-Babylonian)" and Pᵊrush•imꞋ history, contrary even to Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ, blindly march in lockstep, unquestioningly following the mystical (anti-education, anti-science, reality-denying = delusional = insane) Cult of Darkness of beyond-questioning, Ultra-Orthodox "great rabbis". Worship of rabbis is no less idolatry than worship of foreign gods or athletic and entertainment idols. They're labeled idols for proper reason, attracting admiration that belongs exclusively to the Existant; no human. Singing, playing pretend, playing with a ball, or a degree in art, is no indication of intellect or wisdom. While many of today's Jews secretly maintain their grip on the real universe and its Existant Creator, most "religious" Jews who view themselves as Pᵊrush•imꞋ have been duped into following Beit Sha•maiꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ; straying catastrophically from Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ: Ta•na״khꞋ-centric Principles afforded the logical understanding and resulting interpretation of the modern scientific and technical world; not the Cult of Darkness mystical perversion!
Changes in the world environment have repeatedly proven terminal to large segments, or even entire species, of populations that lack some previously unappreciated DNA. Like undefined rare DNA, the same holds true for diverse opinions, which may not seem correct or acceptable presently, but ultimately could prove correct in future; providing the sole—previously uncomprehended and unappreciated—explanation that averts extinction of entire belief systems. Advances in world knowledge dooms religions dependent upon a divine-son prophet, a prophet riding a Pegasus from Mecca to Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim overnight or Bronze Age (much less Cult of Darkness ) premises, which are, therefore, ex falso quodlibet.
יְהוָׂה is Immutable, but הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus).
Pay it forward (Quote & Cite):
| Yirmeyahu Ben-David. Zugot (2025.02.13). Netzarim Jews Worldwide (Ra'anana, Israel). https://www.netzarim.co.il/ (Accessed: MM DD, YYYY). |
 |
|
 |