DOCSLIB.ORG

The Kings of Daniel 11 NAU Daniel 11:2 "And Now I Will Tell You the Truth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Kings of Daniel 11 NAU Daniel 11:2 The Kings of Daniel 11 NAU Daniel 11:2 "And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to arise in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them; as soon as he becomes strong through his riches, he will arouse the whole empire against the realm of Greece. Historical Context • At that time, there has only been one king of Persia • There are a total of thirteen Persian kings • The fourth Persian king from Cyrus (Xerxes I) began a full scale war with Greece Actual Persian Kings 1. Cyrus the Great (559 – 530 BC) 2. Cambyses II (530 – 522 BC) 3. Bardiya (522 BC) Possibly a usurper to the throne 4. Darius I (522 – 486 BC) 5. Xerxes I (485 – 465 BC) [Most likely Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther] 6. Artaxerxes I (465 – 424 BC) 7. Xerxes II (424 BC) Son of Artaxerxes I 8. Darius II (424 – 404 BC) Son of Artaxerses I 9. Artaxerxes II (404 – 358 BC) Son of Darius II 10. Artaxerxes III (358 – 338 BC) Son of Artaxerxes II 11. Artaxerxes IV (338 – 336 BC) Son of Artaxerxes III 12. Darius III (336 – 330 BC) Great grandson of Darius II 13. Artaxerxes V (330 – 329 BC) ??? – killed by Alexander the Great Of all the Persian kings, Xerxes I (the 4th from Cyrus) was the richest of all the Persian kings. He began a total assault on the empire of Greece. The time frame from Dan. 11:2–3 is about 200 years! The time from when the 4th Persian king Xerxes I waged war on Greece to Alexander the Great is about 130 years. NAU Daniel 11:3 "And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases. There is no doubt that this is Alexander the Great of the empire of Greece. • Alexander the Great (336–323 BC) • He conquered most of the Asia / Middle East world (involving Israel) • He died in 323 BC and did not leave his kingdom to his son • He went through Jerusalem and the priests came out in their robes and read to him from the book of Daniel, to prove that Israel’s God had prophesied about him! Because of this, Alexander the Great spared Israel from paying taxes and left them pretty much alone if they recognized his rule. Read this quotation from the Jewish historian, Josephus, about the encounter (found in Josephus “Jewish Antiquities.” [11.337] And when the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present. In conclusion, Dan. 11:3 takes us to 323 BC. NAU Daniel 11:4 "But as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass, though not to his own descendants, nor according to his authority which he wielded, for his sovereignty will be uprooted and given to others besides them. When Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, his kingdom went to four of his generals. This transition did not happen immediately, but took place over about 20 years. The four generals and their regions are as follows: • Cassander (Macedonia [which is Greece]) • Lysimachus (Pergama [which is Turkey and Asia Minor]) • Ptolemy I Soter (Egypt and parts of North Africa) • Seleucus I Nicator (Syria and Babylon) From Dan. 11:5 – 31, the kings that are listed (King of the North, King of the South) are only referring to the Ptolemy and Seleucus dynasties. This is because right where the two kingdoms are joined is the nation Israel. The prophecy to Daniel in Dan.11 is about “what will happen to your people in the latter days…” (Dan. 10:14). Dan. 11:2 covers the approximate time of 538 – 485 BC which is about 53+ years. Dan. 11:3 then picks up about 323 BC, which is about another 160+ years. It took about 20 years for the four generals to secure their four territories. At first there were five generals, but the fifth gave way to the others. Between the Ptolemy and Seleucid dynasties, for the first 100 years (from approximately 300–200 BC) the Ptolemy dynasty was stronger. Dan. 11:5-12 describes what happens with the Ptolemy dynasty. After that, vv. 13-36 describe the Seleucid victories. Ptolemy and Seleucid Dynasty Explained Ptolemy Dynasty Seleucid Dynasty Ptolemy I Soter (323–285 BC) Seleucus I Nicotor (312–281 BC) Antiochus I Soter (not referenced in Dan.) Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–245 BC) Antiochus II Theos (262–246 BC) Ptolemy III Euergetes (245–221 BC) Seleucus II Callinicus (246–226) Seleucus III Caraunus (226–223) Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–203 BC) Antiochus III the Great (223–187 BC) Ptolemy V Ephiphanes (203–181 BC) Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175 BC) Ptolemy IV Philometor (181–146 BC) Antiochus IV Ephiphanes (170–163 BC) Ptolemy Dynasty (Dan. 11:2-12) NAU Daniel 11:5 "Then the king of the South will grow strong, along with one of his princes who will gain ascendancy over him and obtain dominion; his domain will be a great dominion indeed. The king of the South [Egypt area] is Ptolemy I Soter, one of Alexander the Great’s main generals and took the kingdom in 323 BC. Ptolemy I Soter had the Hebrew scriptures translated into Greek for the Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria. We have these copies, and they are called the Septuagint, or the LXX. Ptolemy I Soter reigned for about 38 years and died in 285 BC. NAU Daniel 11:6-7 6 "After some years they will form an alliance, and the daughter of the king of the South will come to the king of the North to carry out a peaceful arrangement. But she will not retain her position of power, nor will he remain with his power, but she will be given up, along with those who brought her in and the one who sired her as well as he who supported her in those times. 7 "But one of the descendants of her line will arise in his place, and he will come against their army and enter the fortress of the king of the North, and he will deal with them and display great strength. The time is now about 260 BC. The king of the South is Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The king of the North is Antiochus II Theos. After many military conflicts, Ptolemy II made a peace treaty with the king of the North—Anitochus II Theos in 250 BC. The terms of the agreement were that Ptolemy’s daughter Berenice, would marry Antiochus II Theos to seal the alliance, and their first son would be the next king of the Seleucids. The problem was that Antiochus II was already married to a powerful and ambitious woman named Laodice. Laodice succeeded in murdering her husband Antiochus II, Berenice, and their child, thus Berenice did not “retain her position of power” (v. 6). Laodice then ruled as “queen regent” with her son Seleucus II Callinicus. After this, Berenice’s brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes (son of Ptolemy II Philadelphus) took the Ptolemy throne and retaliated against his sister’s murder. He attacked the Seleucid king of the North (v. 7) with a great army. The war lasted from 246–241 BC during which Ptolemy III looted the Seleucid capital of Antioch. He eventually put Laodice to death. NAU Daniel 11:8-9 8 "Also their gods with their metal images and their precious vessels of silver and gold he will take into captivity to Egypt, and he on his part will refrain from attacking the king of the North for some years. 9 "Then the latter will enter the realm of the king of the South, but will return to his own land. Dan. 11:8-9 continues with the strength of Ptolemy III Euergetes. In his defeat of the young Seleucus II Callinicus—the Seleucid king—he took Syria’s golden “gods” and all their treasure back to Egypt, where he was hailed as a hero and a great victor. Ptolemy III then made a peace treaty with Seleucus II and left him in power in 240 BC. Dan. 11:9 refers to a brief attempt by Seleucus II to test his strength against Ptolemy II once more, but made a quick retreat back to Syria. NAU Daniel 11:10 "His sons will mobilize and assemble a multitude of great forces; and one of them will keep on coming and overflow and pass through, that he may again wage war up to his very fortress. Seleucus II Callinicus died in 226 BC, but his sons, Seleucus III Ceraunus (226–223 BC) and Antiochus III (the Great; 223–187 BC), continued the wars with the Ptolemies. Seleucus III Ceraunus was murdered after a brief three-year reign, and his brother, Antiochus III (“one of them will keep on coming”), came to power. Antiochus III was called the “Great” because of his military successes, and in 219–218 BC he campaigned in Phoenicia and Palestine, part of the Ptolemaic Empire (“up to his [the king of the South's] very fortress”). NAU Daniel 11:11-12 11 "The king of the South will be enraged and go forth and fight with the king of the North. Then the latter will raise a great multitude, but that multitude will be given into the hand of the former.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece David S
    Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece David S. Levene To cite this version: David S. Levene. Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece. KTÈMA Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome antiques, Université de Strasbourg, 2017, 42, pp.73-84. halshs-01669255 HAL Id: halshs-01669255 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01669255 Submitted on 21 Dec 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Les interprétations de la défaite de 404 Edith Foster Interpretations of Athen’s defeat in the Peloponnesian war ............................................................. 7 Edmond LÉVY Thucydide, le premier interprète d’une défaite anormale ................................................................. 9 Tim Rood Thucydides, Sicily, and the Defeat of Athens ...................................................................................... 19 Cinzia Bearzot La συμφορά de la cité La défaite d’Athènes (405-404 av. J.-C.) chez les orateurs attiques .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Hellenic League
    DEMETRIUSPOLIORCETES AND THE HELLENIC LEAGUE (PLATE 33) 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND D JURING the six years, 307/6-302/1 B.C., issues were raised and settled which shaped the course of western history for a long time to come. The epoch was alike critical for Athens, Hellas, and the Macedonians. The Macedonians faced squarely during this period the decision whether their world was to be one world or an aggregate of separate kingdoms with conflicting interests, and ill-defined boundaries, preserved by a precarious balance of power and incapable of common action against uprisings of Greek and oriental subjects and the plundering appetites of surrounding barbarians. The champion of unity was King Antigonus the One- Eyed, and his chief lieutenant his brilliant but unstatesmanlike son, King Demetrius the Taker of Cities, a master of siege operations and of naval construction and tactics, more skilled in organizing the land-instruments of warfare than in using them on the battle field. The final campaign between the champions of Macedonian unity and disunity opened in 307 with the liberation of Athens by Demetrius and ended in 301 B.C. with the Battle of the Kings, when Antigonus died in a hail of javelins and Demetrius' cavalry failed to penetrate a corps of 500 Indian elephants in a vain effort to rescue hinm. Of his four adversaries King Lysimachus and King Kassander left no successors; the other two, Kings Ptolemy of Egypt and Seleucus of Syria, were more fortunate, and they and Demetrius' able son, Antigonus Gonatas, planted the three dynasties with whom the Romans dealt and whom they successively destroyed in wars spread over 44 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Antiochus I Soter
    Antiochus I Soter home : ancient Persia : ancient Greece : Seleucids : index : article by Jona Lendering Antiochus I Soter Antiochus I Soter ('the savior'): name of a Seleucid king, ruled from 281 to 261. Successor of: Seleucus I Nicator Relatives: Father: Seleucus I Nicator Coin of Antiochus I Soter Mother: Apame I, daughter of Spitamenes (Museum of Anatolian Wife: Stratonice I (his stepmother), daughter of Demetrius Civilizations, Ankara) Poliorcetes Children: Seleucus Laodice Apame II (married to Magas of Cyrene) Stratonice II (married to Demetrius II of Macedonia) Antiochus II Theos Main deeds: 301: Present during the Battle of Ipsus 294/293: marriage with his father's wife Stratonice I 292: made co-regent and satrap of Bactria (perhaps Seleucus was thinking of the ancient Achaemenid office of mathišta) Stay in Babylon (on several occasions?), where he showed an interest in the cults of Sin and Marduk, and in the rebuilding of the Esagila and Etemenanki September 281: death of Seleucus (more...); accession of Antiochus; Philetaerus of Pergamon buys back Seleucus' corpse 280-279: Brief war against Ptolemy II Philadelphus (First Syrian War, first part); Cappadocia becomes independent when its leader Ariarathes II and his ally Orontes III of Armenia defeat the Seleucid general Amyntas 279: Intervention in Greece: soldiers sent to Thermopylae to fight against the Galatians; they are defeated 275 Successful "Elephant Battle" against the Galatians; they enter his army as mercenaries; Antiochus is called Soter, 'victor' 274-271: Unsuccessful war against Ptolemy (First Syrian War, second part) 268: Stay in Babylonia; rebuilding of the Ezida in Borsippa 266: Execution of his son Seleucus 263: Eumenes I of Pergamon, successor of Philetaerus, declares himself independent 262: Antiochus defeated by Eumenes Page 1 Antiochus I Soter 262: Antiochus defeated by Eumenes Dies 2 June 261 Succeeded by: Antiochus II Theos Sources: During Antiochus' years as crown prince, he played a large role in Babylonian policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2019 Letter from the Chair by Andrew Feldherr
    Spring 2019 Letter from the Chair by Andrew Feldherr ny of you dropping by East Pyne (and I hope you all will next time you are engulfed by the orange bubble) A will find a very different department. While we will never stop missing our recent retirees, Ted, Brent, Bob, and Christian (not to speak of Nino Luraghi, who left us to become Wykeham Professor at Oxford), the many wonderful new colleagues we have brought to Princeton during the same time period are making their presence felt all the more. This year it has been a special pleasure to welcome three new members of the faculty. Barbara Graziosi and Johannes Haubold have at last settled in East Pyne after their tremendous successes as professors of Greek at Durham, and Caroline Cheung, a scholar of Roman history and material culture, joins us from Berkeley by way of the American Academy in Rome. Each has brought exciting ideas for courses and new intellectual opportunities for us all. More reason for celebration comes from the exceptional honors won this year by our colleague Harriet Flower, who has also ended her time as Head of Mathey College. Last his term as chair of the department. It will be a fantastic spring, Harriet received the university’s highest honor for opportunity for him, and for all of us, as it has been a great achievements in the humanities, the Howard T. Behrman privilege for me to serve in that role. That privilege has been Award, and in case those laurels provided insufficient material a pleasure as well thanks to the wonderful support I received for resting, her most recent book, The Dancing Lares and from all my colleagues in the department and, in particular, the Serpent in the Garden (which really should have been the the incomparable contributions of Nancy Blaustein, our title of a mystery novel!) has just won a Goodwin Award department manager and everyone who works or has worked for Outstanding Publications from the Society for Classical in our office, Jill Arbeiter, Kai Laidlaw, Brittany Masterson, Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • A BRIEF HISTORICAL SURVEY of the POWERS of MESOPOTAMIA (Using Dates Based Primarily on John Bright’S a History of Israel, P
    A BRIEF HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE POWERS OF MESOPOTAMIA (using dates based primarily on John Bright’s A History of Israel, p. 462ff.) I. Assyrian Empire (Gen.10:11) A. Religion and culture were greatly influenced by the Sumerian/Babylonian Empire. B. Tentative list of rulers and approximate dates: 1. 1354-1318 - Asshur-Uballit I: (a) conquered the Hittite city of Carchemish (b) began to remove Hittite influence and allowed Assyria to develop 2. 1297-1266 - Adad-Nirari I (powerful king) 3. 1265-1235 - Shalmaneser I (powerful king) 4. 1234-1197 - Tukulti-Ninurta I - first conquest of Babylonian empire to the south 5. 1118-1078 - Tiglath-Pileser I - Assyria becomes a major power in Mesopotamia 6. 1012- 972 Ashur-Rabi II 7. 972- 967 - Ashur-Resh-Isui II 8. 966- 934 - Tiglath-Pileser II 9. 934- 912 - Ashur-Dan II 10. 912- 890 - Adad-Nirari II 11. 890- 884 - Tukulti-Ninurta II 12. 883- 859 - Asshur-Nasir-Apal II 13. 859- 824 - Shalmaneser III - Battle of Qarqar in 853 14. 824-811 - Shamashi-Adad V 15. 811-783 - Adad-Nirari III 16. 781-772 - Shalmaneser IV 17. 772-754 - Ashur-Dan III 18. 754-745 - Ashur-Nirari V 19. 745-727 - Tiglath-Pileser III: a. called by his Babylonian throne name, Pul, in II Kings 15:19 b. very powerful king c. started the policy of deporting conquered peoples d. In 735 B.C.. there was the formation of the “Syro-Ephramatic League” which was an attempt to unify all the available military resources of the transjordan nations from the head waters of the Euphrates to Egypt for the purpose of neutralizing the rising military power of Assyria.
    [Show full text]
  • PHILOPOEMEN IMMODICUS and SUPERBUS and SPARTA the Decision Taken by the Achaean League in the Autumn of 192 B.G at Aegium To
    PHILOPOEMEN IMMODICUS AND SUPERBUS AND SPARTA The decision taken by the Achaean League in the autumn of 192 B.G at Aegium to wage war against the Aetolians and their allies was crucial to the Greeks and their future. Greece proper had been divided for generations among several political bodies — and, in fact, had never been united into one state. Yet all those known as Έλληνες felt the natural human desire to avoid the unnecessary violence, bloodshed, and self-destruction engendered by ceaseless competition for preeminence and hegemomy in the domestic arena. The so-called “Tragic Historians” adopted these emotions as the leitmotif of their principal efforts to delineate the deeds and omissions of the Greek leadership and populace.1 Rome’s powerful political-strategical penetration east of the Adriatic sea, into Mainland Greece, particularly during the later decades of the third century B.C, undermined the precarious balance of internal Greek politics. The embarrassment which had seized most of Greece is easily understandable. Yet the Achaeans at Aegium do not appear to have been inspired by the memory of their ancestors’ resistance to the Persians. The Achaean leaders, Philopoemen not excluded, rejected Aetolian pleas for help or, at least, non-intervention in the struggle that they had started in the name of Έλληνες for the whole of Greece. Somewhat surprisingly, the Achaean leaders hastened to declare war on the Aetolians, anticipating even the Roman crossing to Greece2. These are the bare facts available to us (Livy 35.50.2-6). However, the conventional interpretation of these occurrences derived from Polybius 3 tends to be pathetic more than historical, and consti­ tute an embellished portrait of Achaean policy and politicians of those days rather than an honest guide to the political realities of the Έλληνες and Greece proper.
    [Show full text]
  • Handout: Daniel Lesson 7 Daniel 11:2-45 Covers the Period from the Persian Age to Seleucid Ruler Antiochus IV in Three Parts: 1
    Handout: Daniel Lesson 7 Daniel 11:2-45 covers the period from the Persian Age to Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV in three parts: 1. The Persian kings from Cambyses to Xerxes I: 529-465 BC (11:2) 2. Alexander the Great and the division of his empire: 336-323 BC (11:3-4). 3. Battles of the Greek Seleucids, the kings of the north and the Greek Ptolemies, the kings of the south (11:5-45). Part three concerning the history of the Greek Seleucids and Greek Ptolemies divides into six sections (11:5-45): 1. The reigns Ptolemy I Soter, 323-285 BC, and Seleucus I Nicator 312/11-280 BC (11:5) 2. The intrigues of Ptolemy II Philadelphus 285-246 BC and Antiochus II Theos 261-246 BC (11:6). 3. The revenge of Ptolemy III Evergetes 246-221 for the deaths of his sister Berenice and her baby by making war against the kingdom of Seleucus II Collinicus 246-226 BC (11:7-9). 4. The reign of Antiochus IV the Great 223-187 BC (11:10-19). 5. The reign of Seleucus IV Philopator 187-175 BC (11:20). 6. The cruel reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175-164 BC, his persecution of the Jews, and his destruction (11:21-45). 2 Three more kings are going to rise in Persia; a fourth will come and be richer than all the others, and when, thanks to his wealth, he has grown powerful, he will make war on all the kingdoms of Greece. The four kings of Persia who came after Cyrus: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Άλλες Ονομασίες Antigoneia, Antiocheia Daphnei, Antiochia Ad Orontem, Antiochia Ad Daphnen
    IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Καμάρα Αφροδίτη Μετάφραση : Καμάρα Αφροδίτη Για παραπομπή : Καμάρα Αφροδίτη , "Antioch ad Orontem (Antiquity)", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Κωνσταντινούπολη URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=7292> Περίληψη : Antioch was one of the most prominent cities of the Hellenistic and Roman East. Since the beginning of the 3rd century it was the capital of the Seleucid kingdom and it maintained its status as a free city even after the Roman conquest. Its strategic position made it the center of Roman administration in the East. The opulent lifestyle of its citizens as well as the high standards of education and artistic production turned Antioch into one of the two major centers of the east, rivaling Alexandria. It often suffered destructions due to earthquakes, the one of 526 being fatal. Today it belongs administratively to the Turkish state and bears the turcisized name Antakya Άλλες Ονομασίες Antigoneia, Antiocheia Daphnei, Antiochia ad Orontem, Antiochia ad Daphnen 1. Topography Antioch, present day Antakya, was built in the middle of a large plain, covering about 1.400 klms in the Amuq valley. The valley was surrounded by mountainous massifs, the Amanos range to the west, the mount Silpius and the Jebel el Aqra to the south and the low range of Kurt Dağ to the northeast. Three rivers flowed along the valley and irrigated the fertile plain: Orontes, coming from the south, from Syria, Afrin, from a northeast direction and Kara Su from the north. In a small distance from the city there was the lake of Antioch, called Amuq Gölü until the 1960s, when the Turkish state had it dried up in order to extend arable land in the area.1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Interventions by the Roman Republic in Illyria 230 – 167 BC
    Interventions by the Roman Republic in Illyria 230 – 167 BC Submitted by Jack James Willoughby, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classics, September 2018. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… Page 1 of 181 Abstract This thesis aims to determine how and why Rome undertook a series of interventions in Illyria during the period of 230 – 167 BC. The thesis is based on a detailed examination and consideration of the ancient written sources and the subsequent historiography on the subject. The Roman interventions in Illyria during this period have traditionally been treated as a component of wider studies of Roman expansion, although Rome’s involvement in Illyria has recently been examined by Dzino in his 2010 work Illyricum in Roman Politics 229BC-AD68. This work examined the development and integration of Illyricum in Roman political discourse, in which the Roman interventions were a smaller component in the broader study. A study of the Roman interventions in Illyria during the period of 230 – 167 BC has never previously been treated on this scale, nor effectively with a synthesis of the various approaches and pieces of evidence that are now available.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
    oi.uchicago.edu THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORIENTAL CIVILIZATION JOHN ALBERT WILSON & THOMAS GEORGE ALLEN - EDITORS ELIZABETH B. HAUSER & RUTH S. BROOKENS • ASSISTANT EDITORS oi.uchicago.edu oi.uchicago.edu BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 626 B.G.-A.D. 45 oi.uchicago.edu THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS - CHICAGO THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY • NEW YORK THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS • LONDON oi.uchicago.edu BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 626 B.C.-A.D. 45 BT RICHARD A. PARKER AND WALDO H. DUB B ERSTE IX THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORIENTAL CIVILIZATION • NO. 24 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS . CHICAGO • ILLINOIS oi.uchicago.edu COPYRIGHT 1942 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PUBLISHED DECEMBER 1942. COMPOSED AND PRINTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, U.S.A. oi.uchicago.edu PREFACE This study aims at providing a brief, but complete and thorough, presenta­ tion of the data bearing upon the chronological problems of the Neo-Baby- lonian, Achaemenid Persian, and Seleucid periods, together with tables for the easy translation of dates from the Babylonian calendar into the Julian. Recent additions to our knowledge of intercalary months in the Neo-Baby- lonian and Persian periods have enabled us to improve upon the results of our predecessors in this field, though our great debt to F. X. Kugler and D. Sider- sky for providing the background of our work is obvious. While our tables are intended primarily for historians, both classical and oriental, biblical students also should find them useful, as any biblical date of this period given in the Babylonian calendar can be translated by our tables.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel 11:1-19 Commentary
    Daniel 11:1-19 Commentary Click chart to enlarge PREVIOUS Charts from recommended resource Jensen's Survey of the OT - used by permission NEXT Daniel 11:1 "IN THE FIRST YEAR OF DARIUS THE MEDE, I AROSE TO BE AN ENCOURAGEMENT AND A PROTECTION FOR HIM. First year: Da 5:31 9:1 Be an encouragement: Da 10:18 Ac 14:22 Daniel 11 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Daniel 11:1 - Fits Better as Last Verse of Daniel 10 Daniel 11:2 - Persia Prophecy Daniel 11:3-4 - Alexander the Great/Greek Prophecy Daniel 11:5-20 - Seleucid and Ptolemy Prophecies Daniel 11:21-35 - Despicable Person Prophecy Daniel 11:36-45 - King Does As He Pleases Prophecy First year of Darius - 538BC I arose - This is still the supernatural interpreter of Daniel 10, presumably an angel. This verse would best be included at the end of Daniel 10 not the beginning of Daniel 11. Obviously the "chapter breaks" are not inspired but added by men. Encouragement (02388) (chazaq) means to make firm or strong, to strengthen, to give strength, to encourage (frome n = in + coeur = the heart) (to fill with courage or strength of purpose). Protection (04581) (ma'oz) signifies a stronghold or fortress, a protected place, a place of safety. Ma'oz - Seven of 35 OT uses are in Daniel 11 - Jdg 6:26; 2Sa 22:33; Neh 8:10; Ps 27:1; 28:8; 31:2, 4; 37:39; 43:2; 52:7; 60:7; 108:8; Pr 10:29; Isa 17:9, 10; 23:4, 11, 14; 25:4; 27:5; 30:2, 3; Jer 16:19; Ezek 24:25; 30:15; Da 11:1, 7, 10, 19, 31, 38, 39; Joel 3:16; Nah 1:7; 3:11 To be an encouragement and protection for him - The benevolent angel's role in the context of angelic conflict over the Persian empire reflects the supernatural protection God provided through His angel for King Darius the Mede, who reaffirmed the decree by Cyrus which permitted Israel to rebuild their Holy Temple in Jerusalem including the return of the Holy utensils used in Temple worship (see Ezra 6:1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
    [Show full text]