Tuesday, December 31, 2024
Monday, December 30, 2024
Monday, December 23, 2024
truth
Friday, November 1, 2024
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
religions are evil
Jesus Christ is God
Sunday, October 27, 2024
ungodly
Tuesday, October 22, 2024
is Islam a a counterfeit Christianity?
royal priesthood
Wednesday, September 18, 2024
Daniel
We can read about the life of Daniel in his own writings in the book of Daniel and also in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and 28:3. There are some striking similarities between the life of Daniel and that of Jacob’s son Joseph. Both of them prospered in foreign lands after interpreting dreams for their rulers, and both were elevated to high office as a result of their faithfulness to God.
After Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem, he chose noble men from Israel’s royal household who were handsome and showed an aptitude for learning, to be trained in the ways of the Babylonians. After their three years’ training, they would be put into the king’s service (Daniel 1:1-6). Daniel, whose name means “God is my judge,” and his three countrymen from Judea were chosen and given new names. Daniel became “Belteshazzar,” while Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah became “Shadrach," "Meshach," and "Abednego.” The Babylonians most likely gave them new names that were completely disassociated with their Hebrew roots to hasten Daniel and his friends’ assimilation into the Babylonian culture.
Daniel and his compatriots proved to be the wisest of all the trainees, and, at the end of their training, they entered the service of King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel’s first sign of faithfulness to God was when he and his three friends rejected the rich food and wine from the king’s table, because they deemed it a defilement, and became vegetarians. As their health improved, they were permitted to continue with their chosen diet. In their education, the four men from Judah became knowledgeable in all Babylonian matters, and Daniel was given by God the ability to understand dreams and visions of all kinds (Daniel 1:17).
In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar was troubled with a dream that he could not interpret. Beyond interpretation, Nebuchadnezzar commanded his magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and astrologers to also describe his dream. These men were willing to try to interpret the dream if Nebuchadnezzar first told them what it was, but they said that revealing the dream itself was an impossible task for humans. The king decreed that all the wise men, including Daniel and his companions, must be put to death. However, after Daniel sought God in prayer, the mystery of the king’s dream was revealed to Daniel, and he was taken to the king to interpret it. Daniel immediately attributed his ability to interpret dreams to the one true God (Daniel 2:28). The key feature of the dream was that one day there will be a kingdom set up by God that will last forever, and that God’s kingdom will destroy all previous, man-made kingdoms (Daniel 2:44-45). For his wisdom, Daniel was honored by King Nebuchadnezzar and placed in authority over all the wise men of Babylon. At Daniel’s request, his three countrymen were also placed in positions of authority as administrators of Babylon.
Later, King Nebuchadnezzar had another dream, and again Daniel was able to interpret it. The king acknowledged that Daniel had the spirit of his holy God within him (Daniel 4:9). Daniel’s interpretation of the dream was correct. After experiencing a period of insanity, Nebuchadnezzar was restored to health, and he praised and honored Daniel’s God as the Most High (Daniel 4:34-37).
Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Belshazzar, became the new king, and during a banquet he ordered the gold and silver goblets that had been stolen from the holy temple in Jerusalem to be brought out for use. In response to the defilement of such holy items, Belshazzar sees a hand writing on the wall. His astrologers are unable to assist him in its translation, and so Daniel is called upon to interpret the writing (Daniel 5:13-16). As a reward for interpreting the writing, Daniel is promoted by King Belshazzar to the third highest position in the Babylonian kingdom (verse 29). That night, as Daniel had prophesied, the king was slain in battle, and his kingdom was taken over by the Persian Cyrus the Great, and Darius the Mede was made king.
Under the new ruler, Daniel excelled in his duties as one of the administrators to such a degree that King Darius was contemplating making him head over all the kingdom (Daniel 6:1-3). This infuriated the other administrators so much that they looked for a way to bring Daniel down. They could find no wrongdoing on Daniel’s part, so they focused on the matter of Daniel’s religion. Using flattery, the administrators coaxed Darius into issuing a decree forbidding prayers to any god other than the king for the next thirty days. The penalty for disobedience was to be thrown into a den of lions. Daniel disobeyed the edict, of course, and continued to pray openly to the true God. As Daniel made no attempt to hide his activity, he was seen praying and arrested. With much regret the king gave the order for Daniel to be thrown into the lions’ den, but not without a prayer that Daniel’s God would rescue him (Daniel 6:16). The next day, when Daniel was found alive and well, he told the king that God had sent an angel to shut the lions’ mouths and so he had remained unharmed. This miracle resulted in King Darius sending out a decree that all his subjects were to worship the God of Daniel. Daniel continued to prosper throughout King Darius’ reign.
Daniel is also well known for the prophetic dreams and visions God gave him, recorded in the book of Daniel. Daniel’s prophecies cover a broad range of human history, as he predicted the rise and fall of the Greek and Roman Empires and the rise of a powerful king who “will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods” (Daniel 11:36). Daniel’s “seventy weeks” prophecy spoke of a Messiah who would be killed (Daniel 9:24–27). We saw this prophecy fulfilled with Jesus. The remainder of the prophecy—the seventieth week—will be fulfilled in the end times. Daniel had other apocalyptic visions as well, and understanding his prophecies is important to eschatology.
Daniel exercised great integrity and, in doing so, received the respect and affection of the powerful rulers he served. However, his honesty and loyalty to his masters never led him to compromise his faith in the one true God. Rather than it being an obstacle to his success, Daniel’s continual devotion to God brought him the admiration of the unbelievers in his circle. When delivering his interpretations, he was quick to give God the credit for his ability to do so (Daniel 2:28).
Daniel’s integrity as a man of God gained him favor with the secular world, yet he refused to compromise his faith in God. Even under the intimidation of kings and rulers, Daniel remained steadfast in his commitment to God. Daniel also teaches us that, no matter whom we are dealing with, no matter what their status is, we are to treat them with compassion. See how concerned he was when delivering the interpretation to Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream (Daniel 4:19). As Christians, we are called to obey the rulers and authorities that God has put in place, treating them with respect and compassion; however, as we see from Daniel’s example, obeying God’s law must always take precedence over obeying men (Romans 13:1–7; Acts 5:29).
As a result of his devotion, Daniel found favor with man and with God (Daniel 9:20-23). Notice also in those verses what the angel Gabriel told Daniel about how swiftly the answer to his prayer was dispatched. This shows us how ready the Lord is to hear the prayers of His people. Daniel’s strength lay in his devotion to prayer and is a lesson for us all. It is not just in the bad times but on a daily basis that we must come to God in prayer.
Daniel was likely from an upper-class family in Jerusalem, according to the historian Josephus (Antiquities 10.188). As such, he was taken to Babylon among a group of nobles and royal family members, as Isaiah prophesied to King Hezekiah:
“Some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood who will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” (Isaiah 39:7; see also Daniel 1:3)
Along with his three close friends (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego), Daniel initially served as a trainee in the court of the king who had captured him.
He was then given leading governmental posts under that same King Nebuchadnezzar, and later kings Belshazzar, Cyrus, and Darius.
The chief official in Babylon gave Daniel the name of Belteshazzar, which means “Beltis, protect the king.”
Daniel: Natural Talent + Divine Inspiration = Great Wisdom
Daniel is described as one of the “young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace” (Daniel 1:4).
To Daniel and his three friends, “God gave knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning.” (Daniel 1:17)
And that gave them great favour with the king.
“In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom.” (Daniel 1:19–20)
Yet, it was Daniel who could understand and decipher visions and dreams when no one else in all of Babylon could.
Daniel gained a reputation first as an interpreter of other men’s visions (Daniel 2–5); then of his own, in which he predicted the future triumph of the Messianic Kingdom (Daniel 7–12).
Several of the visions and dreams Daniel interpreted and the knowledge told to him concern end-time events that are unfolding before us in these last days.
In fact, Yeshua (Jesus) acknowledged Daniel’s end-time prophecies twice in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14.
With all of Daniel’s stunning insight, one might think Daniel would be called a prophet among the Jewish People, but that is not so.
In Christian Bibles, Daniel is honoured as the fourth of the so-called “greater” prophets (rather than placed among the “minor” prophets).
The original Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is comprised of the Torah (first five books of Moses), Nevi’im (Prophets) and Ketuv’im (Writings). Together they are known as the T’N’K or Tanakh.
The Book of Daniel is found in the Writings (Ketuv’im) along with the books of Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, and other “non-prophetic” books. Therefore, the book of Daniel is not found in the Prophets (Nevi’im) section, and Daniel himself is not considered a prophet in Judaism.
This is because the Jewish definition of a Biblical prophet is one who had direct communication with God. Daniel, on the other hand, received divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh). He never actually saw or heard God.
We see this kind of inspiration in both the books of Daniel and Esther. In fact, in the Book of Esther, the name of God is not even mentioned.
The Jewish heroes of these two books are placed in a pagan kingdom where the Lord does not speak or appear to them the way He does with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah; for instance—audibly, visibly, tangibly.
Nevertheless, the men of Babylon clearly saw God’s sovereignty and power in Daniel’s life. They even told the king:
“There is a man in your kingdom in whom is the Spirit of the Holy God” (Daniel 5:11).
While prophets also had the Ruach (Spirit) of God with them, the sages say that God’s Spirit gave Daniel a depth of insight and revelation uncommon to prophets.
In this way, Daniel is considered to be a sage. And in the Talmud we read that “a sage is superior to a prophet” (Bava Batra 12a).
According to the Rabbis of the Talmud, Daniel was endowed with such an incredible gift of wisdom, that if one were to weigh his wisdom against that of all the wise men of the gentile nations, Daniel’s would outweigh them all (Talmud, Yoma 77a).
As it is written: “The people who know their God shall be strong and do great exploits” (Daniel 11:32).
Perhaps Daniel’s divinely inspired wisdom helped him to live a long life, while almost every prophet was killed by the people.
Daniel consistently kept his date with his beloved Lord. Three times a day, he turned toward Jerusalem to pray (Daniel 6:10–11,16), even though his life was in danger for doing so.
A synagogue’s bima (pulpit) and the aron kodesh (holy ark) that holds the Sefer (Torah scrolls) also faces Jerusalem, just as King Solomon expected people to do when they pray (1 Kings 8:35–36).
As Believers, we can learn a great deal from Daniel’s amazing prayer of repentance and supplication on behalf of his people, his nation, and the Holy City of Jerusalem.
Daniel knew from reading the scrolls of Jeremiah that Israel’s exile in Babylon would last 70 years, and that day was drawing very close (Jeremiah 29:10).
Did Daniel start packing? Did he alert his Jewish People in Babylon that they would soon return to Israel? No. Instead of taking the prophecy for granted, he prayed to God for that promise of restoration to happen.
In many ways, Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 can be a model prayer for all who seek God to restore their own wayward people and land.
Daniel first came to God humbly “in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes.” (verse 3)
He then confessed the sins of the people of Israel that put them in exile. (verses 5–16)
He affirmed God’s righteousness in judging those sins with exile.
Then Daniel did what Moses and the psalmist often did but many of us often don’t do. Daniel appealed to God’s reputation as the reason for restoring His people to His city of Jerusalem:
“Lord, forgive! Lord, hear and act! For your sake, my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.” (verse 19)
Imagine if God did not restore His people to the very city where He has placed His name—Jerusalem. Surely, the nations would say, “Where is their God?” (Psalms 79:10 and 115:2)
And because of Yeshua the Messiah, the Gentiles (non-Jews) are now also God’s “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)
God’s reputation is at stake when we fall, fail, or wander off. Yet, He is ever-willing to see us prosper and succeed in the calling He gave to us as His special possession.
But we need to come to Him as Daniel did: humbly, confessing our sins, acknowledging God’s sovereign rule over our lives, and appealing to His own righteous reputation, not to any righteousness of our own.
For we are made to glorify Him and only Him.
Daniel: A Man of Uncompromising Faith
Sometimes having great wisdom is not enough to stay alive in a hostile territory. In fact, thousands of martyrs have died over the centuries standing up for God.
But Daniel and his three friends had a unique favour and calling on their lives while living in a pagan culture that did not accept Jewish practices, nor the God of Israel.
How did they handle it?
Daniel obeyed God, putting his trust in Him at all times.
Daniel’s legacy has remained strong for over two millennia. Eight copies of Daniel were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are a testament to Daniel’s popularity in ancient times.
The last mention of Daniel himself is in the third year of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1).
The first century Jewish writer Josephus reported that Daniel’s body lay in a tower in Parthia, Iran, alongside the bodies of the kings of the Medes and Persians.
Later Jewish authorities said he was buried in Susa, Iran and that near his house were hidden the vessels from the Temple of Solomon.
Wherever Daniel’s true burial plot may be, his legacy of faithfulness to his God lives on.
May we be ever-learning, ever-faithful, and ever-prayerful in these days as Daniel was in his.
The Book of Daniel has some of the most incredible prophecies. Today we ask that you consider sponsoring our Bible Editorial team in their editorial work of the Book of Daniel for the Messianic Prophecy Bible Project.
Nomadic and barbaric tribes of Steppes
.Nomadic peoples dwelling on the Eurasian steppes have historically played a major role in shaping the civilizations of the Near East. On three occasions, nomads quitting their ancestral grasslands for the Near East have changed the course of civilization. Their gateway has been Transoxiana (Arabic Mawarannahr), the lands between the Oxus (Amu Darya) and south of the Jaxartes (Syr Darya) Rivers that today comprise Uzbekistan, western Tajikistan, southern Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan. This region sustained irrigated agriculture and cities from early Antiquity, but also its grasslands offered pastures for the herds and flocks of nomads. On three occasions, nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppes crossed the Jaxartes River and entered the Near East. In so doing, they defined the modern Middle East.
The first of these nomadic migrations occurred in the late third millennium BCE, when Indo-Aryan speaking nomads, likely members of the Sintashta Culture, migrated from their homeland between the Ural and Volga Rivers into Transoxiana, then home to the agriculturalists of the Bactria-Margiane Archaeological Complex (also sometimes referred to as the Oxus Culture). These pastoralists brought the modern horse and light chariot that revolutionized warfare across Eurasia in the Late Bronze Age.
The Indo-Aryans, from ca. 1500 BCE, crossed the Hindu Kush into the Indus valley, known in cuneiform texts as Meluuha, and defined the cultural and religious foundations of Hindu India. Centuries later, their Iranian-speaking kinsman, Medes and Persians, followed the route of the later Silk Road across Iran to settle, respectively, in northwestern Iran around Ecbatana (today Hamadan), and in southwestern Iran, Persia (today Fars). Cyrus the Great (559–530 BCE) conquered a vast Persian Empire from the Aegean to the Hindu Kush. The Great Kings of Persia depended on Iranian horse archers, the invincible light cavalry of steppe nomads since the early Iron Age (ca. 1000–700 BCE). Cyrus’ heirs extended the empire from the Nile to the Indus, founding the greatest ancient empire prior to Rome. Iran has ever since been a premier political and cultural power in the Near East. The Iranians, conscious of their imperial heritage, still view themselves as the masters of the Near East.
Later Iranian monarchs of the Arsacid (247 BCE–224 CE) and Sassanid (224–651 CE) dynasties strove to control the lands of Transoxiana, and to guard against the nomadic peoples north of the Jaxartes River. Repeatedly, nomadic peoples — Tocharians, Hephthalites, and Gök Turks — crossed the Jaxartes and wrested Transoxiana from Iranian control. Even so, these lands remained homes to fabled caravan cities, notably Bukhara and Samarkand, and the populations, while embracing many faiths, speaking the eastern Iranian tongue Sogdian — the language of commerce along the Silk Road as late as the eleventh century.
With the Muslim conquest of Iran, the Arab governors of Khorosan (the eastern Iranian plateau), mastered Transoxiana between 673 and 754 and so they succeeded to the task of defending the Jaxartes frontier against nomadic Turkish tribes which had rapidly spread across the Eurasian steppes since the sixth century. As the Caliphate fragmented after the death of al-Amin (809–813), emirs of Iranian or Turkish origin carved out regional states as deputies of the Sunni Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad. They depended on armies of slave soldiers (mamluks) obtained in trade with Turkish tribes on the Eurasian steppes.
With the Muslim conquest of Iran, the Arab governors of Khorosan (the eastern Iranian plateau), mastered Transoxiana between 673 and 754 and so they succeeded to the task of defending the Jaxartes frontier against nomadic Turkish tribes which had rapidly spread across the Eurasian steppes since the sixth century. As the Caliphate fragmented after the death of al-Amin (809–813), emirs of Iranian or Turkish origin carved out regional states as deputies of the Sunni Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad. They depended on armies of slave soldiers (mamluks) obtained in trade with Turkish tribes on the Eurasian steppes.
Finally, the Mongols were the nomads who had the most dramatic impact on the Near East. Many scholars still consider the campaigns of Genghis Khan in 1219–1222 and his grandson Hulagu in 1255–1260 as catastrophic for the civilization of eastern Islam. The large-scale massacres of populations and destruction of cities were without precedent. Hulagu destroyed the strongholds in northern Iran of the Nizarites, known popularly as Assassins, but he also sacked Baghdad and executed the Abbasid Caliph al-Musta’sim Billah in 1258. These Mongol invasions had two long-term consequences.
First, thousands of Iranians and Turks fled west from Transoxiana. Foremost was the Persian poet and mystic Jalal al-din Rumi (1207–1273), the Mevlana, who relocated to Konya and founded the order of the Deverishes who were so vital in converting the Byzantine populations of Asia Minor to Islam. The Mongols also tipped the linguistic balance from eastern Iranian to Turkish languages in Transoxiana. Second, the destruction of Baghdad by Hulagu in 1258 shifted the political and cultural axis of Sunni Islam to Cairo, and, after 1453, to Constantinople (Istanbul), still the two great centers of the Islamic world to this day. Meanwhile, Hulagu and his heirs ruled as the Ilkhans over the western ulus of the four nations of the Mongol Empire comprising Iraq, Iran and Transoxiana The Ilkhans eventually embraced Islam and the high Persian culture of eastern Islam, but the Ilkhanate fragmented in the mid-fourteenth century. Although Tamerlane (1370–1405) briefly aspired to reunite the Mongol Empire, his empire also fragmented upon his death.
The future of Iran rested with a new Turkish nomadic confederation, the Kızılbaşlar (“Red Turbans”), the warriors of the Safavid Shahs who turned Iran into an imperial Shi’ite in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Safavid Shahs proved the most dangerous foe to the Ottoman sultans, who united most of Sunni Islam, for mastery of the Near East and the historic Muslim capitals. The geopolitical and religious alignments ultimately wrought by the Mongol invasions, especially the Turkish-Iranian rivalry, have endured down to this day.
The Cimmerians lived on the steppes north of the Black Sea until they were driven from their homeland by the Scythians, who had themselves been driven from their own homeland in Central Asia by the nomadic Massagetae.
The Cimmerians fled, passing the Caucasus on the side of the Black Sea, and reached Anatolia. There, they raided the prosperous kingdoms of Phrygia and Lydia, until they were finally defeated by King Alyattes of Lydia (r. 610–560 BC), who went on to conquer all the lands west of the River Halys.
The Scythians pursued the Cimmerians, passing the Caucasus on the side of the Caspian sea, reaching Iran. When the Scythians found out that the Cimmerians had taken another route, they decided to attack the Median kingdom ruled by Cyaxares (r. 625–585 BC) instead. The Scythians ruled the region for 28 years, conducting raids as far as Palestine, until they were finally defeated by Cyaxares, who reclaimed his throne and went on to conquer all the lands east of the River Halys.
This is the story that Herodotus tells us about the Cimmerians and the Scythians (Hdt. 1.103–106 and 4.11–12). It is a remarkably detailed account, certainly when one considers that the events took place at least two centuries before Herodotus’ own time. Before the discovery of Akkadian cuneiform sources, it was generally accepted as true.
This attitude was strengthened when the Akkadian cuneiform sources confirmed the presence of Cimmerians (Gimirri) and Scythians (Ishkuza) south of the Caucasus. Classicists have been interpreting the Akkadian cuneiform sources on the Cimmerians and the Scythians through the lens of Herodotus ever since.
Similarly, archaeologists have tried to find evidence for the Cimmerian and Scythian migrations as described by Herodotus.However, there are some problems with Herodotus’ account that cannot be overlooked.
The archaeological record
First of all, Herodotus claims that there was a thriving Cimmerian culture north of the Black Sea before the arrival of the Scythians. This has led archaeologists to apply the name “Thraco-Cimmerian” to a distinct type of material culture that existed north of the Black Sea and along the banks of the Danube in the ninth to seventh centuries BC.
This material culture consist mostly of luxurious grave goods, including bronze weapons, bronze horse bridles, and bronze jewelry. The cultures most often associated with these “Thraco-Cimmerian” finds are the Chernogorivka culture and the Novocherkassk culture. At first glance, these cultures appear to be good candidates for a Cimmerian homeland. The problem, however, is that no “Thraco-Cimmerian” finds have been found south of the Caucasus.
There is also still some discussion on the question of a Scythian migration from Central Asia. Those who support this hypothesis point out that the first examples of Scythian art have been found in Southern Siberia around 900 BC, reaching the area north of the Black Sea no earlier than the eighth century BC. Those who oppose this hypothesis claim that Scythian art developed naturally from the Chernogorivka and Novocherassk cultures.
Scythian material culture, like “Thraco-Cimmerian” culture, consists mostly of richly decorated grave goods like weapons and horse gear. Unique to Scythian material culture, however, are its lavish use of gold and its impressive animal figurines. Unlike “Thraco-Cimmerian” material culture, Scythian art has, in fact, been attested in the region just south of the Caucasus and in northeastern Anatolia.
The presence of Scythian material culture and the absence of so-called “Thraco-Cimmerian” material culture south of the Caucasus has some interesting implications. First of all, it seems that the Scythian material culture found south of the Caucasus represents not only the Scythians proper, but also the Cimmerians. This, in turn, implies that the Cimmerians were closely related to the Scythians, possibly even a subgroup.
Furthermore, it also implies that the “Thraco-Cimmerian” material culture is not Cimmerian at all. This makes a Cimmerian homeland north of the Black Sea less plausible, unless we assume that the Cimmerians adopted Scythian art styles before migrating to Anatolia.
The route of the Cimmerians
In addition to the lack of “Thraco-Cimmerian” finds south of the Caucasus, there are some practical problems with the Cimmerian migration as described by Herodotus.
Firstly, in order for the Cimmerians to reach the Caucasus, they must have travelled in an easterly direction. This, however, would be quite illogical if the Scythians, who were attacking them, came from the east themselves. Secondly, the notion that the Cimmerians passed the Caucasus on the side of the Black Sea is problematic, as the terrain there is rugged and the coastal plain is very narrow. Although such a migration cannot be ruled out, the Scythian migration on the side of the Caspian Sea makes much more sense, in spite of what Herodotus himself claims (Hdt. 1.104). The coastal plain along the Caspian Sea is much wider.
A final problem with the route described by Herodotus is that Assyrian sources from the reign of Sargon II (r. 721-705 BC) mention the Gimirri (i.e. Cimmerians) as living near Uishdish, a Mannaean kingdom near Lake Urmia. From there, they attacked the kingdom of Urartu somewhere between 720 and 714 BC.
In order to reconcile this information with Herodotus’ account, one has to assume that the Cimmerians travelled from Colchis all the way to Lake Urmia, traversing the entire kingdom of Urartu before attacking the same kingdom from the southeast. Even if we assume that the nomadic Cimmerians were highly mobile, this is still unlikely. If they came from north of the Caucasus, they most likely travelled along the Caspian shore.
What do the Assyrian sources say?
Oracle texts from the reign of Esarhaddon (r. 681-669 BC) again mention the Gimirri among the people of the Zagros region, along with the Mannaeans and the Medes. It is around this time the Gimirri start raiding regions further from their “home” near Lake Urmia.
In 679 BC, they attacked Cilicia and, in 676 BC, they turned to Phrygia. Finally, in the second half of the seventh century BC, they started to raid Lydia. These Anatolian activities of the Cimmerians have understandably become the focus of Herodotus’ account, but initially their main zone of activity appears to have been the northern Zagros.
The same oracle texts also mention the Ishkuza (i.e. Scythians). They state that Esarhaddon forged an alliance with Bartatua, king of the Ishkuza, probably in an attempt to counter the threat of Gimirri, Mannaean, and Median attacks. This Bartatua is known as “Protothyes” in the work of Herodotus.
The son of this Protothyes – Madyes – is said to have conquered the Medes and to have ruled Asia for 28 years, but there is no contemporary evidence for these claims. Perhaps the Ishkuza conducted raids against the Medes, who at that time were little more than a loose confederation of tribes. This may have given rise to the notion of a 28 year Scythian reign.
A tentative reconstruction
Considering these objections to Herodotus’ account, let us now try to reconstruct the real course of events.
First of all, it seems that the Cimmerians (Gimirri) and the Scythians (Ishkuza) were closely related. We may count them both among the “Scythic peoples”. The Gimirri were probably the first among these Scythic peoples to venture south of the Caucasus around 720 BC, arriving in Uishdish after passing the Caucasus on the side of the Caspian Sea. Around 680 BC they were followed by the Ishkuza.
In the 670s BC, king Esarhaddon of Assyria formed an alliance with king Bartatua of the Ishkuza, probably with the intent of keeping the tribes from the Zagros region in check. Bartatua then started raiding the Zagros region, targeting both the Gimirri and the Medes.
As a result, the Gimirri fled to Anatolia, where they continued to raid Phyrgia and Lydia. This is where the notion that the Scythians had driven the Cimmerians from their homeland may have originated.
Meanwhile, the Medes continued to fight Bartatua and his son Madyes, until they gained the upper hand under the leadership of Cyaxares.
The Cimmerian homeland
The question then remains how Herodotus came to conclude that the steppes north of the Black Sea were the original homeland of the Cimmerians. He even claimed that certain monuments and landmarks were named after them. Although there is no conclusive answer, several factors may have played a role.
The Cimmerians most likely did come from north of the Caucasus, although their specific place of origin probably differs from the one mentioned by Herodotus. The notion that the Cimmerians took the western route around the Caucasus may simply be the result of Herodotus’ wish to impose some kind of geographical symmetry on history:
The Cimmerians took the western route around the Caucasus, raided the lands west of the River Halys and were defeated by King Alyattes of Lydia, who thus established his hegemony over the lands west of the Halys.
The Scythians took the eastern route around the Caucasus, raided the lands east of the River Halys and were defeated by King Cyaxares of Media, who thus established his hegemony over the lands east of the River Halys.
A similar desire to impose symmetry can be seen when Herodotus wrongly claims that the courses of the Nile and the Danube run parallel to each other.
Kushan describes one branch of the Yuezhi, an Indo-European group driven from northwestern China in 176–160 B.C. The Yuezhi reached Bactria (northwest Afghanistan and Tajikistan) around 135 B.C., moved south into Gandhara, and established a capital near Kabul.The Kushan kingdom was formed by Kujula Kadphises in c. 50 BC. He extended his territory to the mouth of the Indus so he could use the sea route for trade and thereby bypass the Parthians. The Kushans spread Buddhism to Parthia, Central Asia, and China. The Kushan Empire reached its peak under its 5th ruler, Buddhist King Kanishka, c. 150 A.D