Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Finding the right tools. The post The one guitarist Brian May said he wouldn’t be here without: “Could make his guitar do anything” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

IEA’s ‘World Energy Outlook 2025’ report shows that the goal of global decarbonisation is unlikely to be achieved and predicts that demand for oil and natural gas will continue to grow beyond […] The post The end is nigh for the climate industrial complex first appeared on The Expose.

Throughout history, humanity has been captivated by remarkable artifacts that offer glimpses into our shared past. These treasures, spanning continents and eras, serve as tangible connections to ancient civilizations, reflecting the diverse cultures and innovations that have shaped our world. From the enigmatic Nefertiti Bust in Berlin to the monumental Terracotta Army in Xi’an, each ...

by Brian Shilhavy, Health Impact News: If you still think that the current actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are all about rounding up illegal immigrants who are all criminals, then you are missing a lot of information from wherever you get your news from. TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/ One of the first […]

Every time somebody flushes a toilet in Mannheim, they contribute to ecological shipping. Since March 2025, the German city’s wastewater treatment plant has been feeding an experiment of global relevance: Transforming sewage gases into green methanol, a cleaner, nearly-carbon-neutral alternative to heavy fuel oil. The pilot, known as Mannheim 001, is the first full case study of how human waste can be captured, processed and converted into fuel powerful enough to propel cargo ships across oceans. “It’s the first time the entire value chain — from sewage to finished methanol — has been demonstrated,” says David Strittmatter, co-founder of Icodos, the start-up behind the project.  At first glance, the pathway from toilet to tanker might seem implausible. But the chemistry is straightforward. Wastewater plants produce sludge — the thickened residue left after sewage is treated and cleaned. Mannheim’s plant ferments this sludge in oxygen-free tanks, yielding biogas rich in methane and carbon dioxide, which is usually burned for heat or flared off. Icodos’ innovation is to clean and upgrade that gas. “The sewage gas is dried, desulfurized, and then the carbon dioxide is separated from the rest,” Strittmatter explains. Using renewable electricity, the captured carbon dioxide is then combined with hydrogen through a catalytic process to form methanol — a liquid fuel that can run ship engines with only minor modifications. The Mannheim 001 process. As a nearly-climate-neutral alternative to heavy fuel oil, e-Methanol is being hailed as central to the sustainable transformation of the shipping industry. Image courtesy of Icodos. “Wastewater exists everywhere,” says Strittmatter, gesturing to a model plant pinned on his office wall. “The sludge contains up to three times more energy than the treatment process needs. We just usually waste it. Why not use it as fuel?” International shipping, which carries about 90 percent of world trade, is responsible for approximately three percent of global greenhouse gas emissions — more than the entire country of Germany. Cargo ships also spew sulfur oxides and particulates, contributing to air pollution along coastlines and in port cities. For decades, the sector has resisted cleaner alternatives, arguing that no scalable, affordable fuels existed. But that defense is crumbling. Regulators, customers and climate urgency are pushing the industry to look for replacements. Methanol is emerging as one of the most promising. Weighed down by negative news? Our smart, bright, weekly newsletter is the uplift you’ve been looking for. [contact-form-7] It is energy-dense, can be stored and transported in liquid form, and — crucially — many ship engines can be converted to run on it. Global giants like Maersk and CMA CGM are already operating methanol-powered container vessels. The International Maritime Organization has set a target to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping by 2050, making green fuels essential. “Shipping companies have very strong ambitions to reduce their footprint,” says Strittmatter. “IKEA, Amazon and other big retailers increasingly want green supply chains. If the transport is dirty, the whole brand suffers.” Built at a cost of nearly €4 million ($4.6 million), with funding from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, the European Commission and Mannheim’s own Climate Fund, Mannheim 001 currently produces about 15,000 liters of methanol per year — enough to fuel smaller workboats or local needs, but nowhere near enough for a large container ship, which consumes tens of millions of liters annually. “A ship needs about as much fuel as 100,000 cars,” says Strittmatter, who has already secured an industrial area near Paris in France for the next upscaled plant, partly funded with a grant from the European Union. Mannheim 001’s anaerobic digester. At the wastewater treatment plant, biogas is converted into methanol using electricity and hydrogen. Photo courtesy of Icodos. The vision extends beyond shipping. Methanol is also a feedstock for plastics, solvents and other chemicals. A wastewater-to-methanol system could, in theory, help decarbonize multiple industries. But shipping is the most urgent target. “It’s literally waste that’s flushed away every day,” says Strittmatter. “We’re turning a liability into a resource.” Wastewater is a massive, underused resource. Each day, humanity produces about 900 million kilograms of feces and nearly 10 billion liters of urine. Harnessing even a fraction could help decarbonize industries, fertilize fields and power communities. Globally, less than 20 percent of sewage is treated before release, according to the UN. Even in highly regulated countries like Germany, where treatment rates exceed 96 percent, sewage plants consume enormous amounts of energy. Some municipalities spend up to 60 percent of their annual budgets running them, according to the German magazine brand eins. What if instead of burning energy to destroy sludge, we flipped the equation and mined its hidden power? Sewage is rich in carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus — the building blocks of fuel, fertilizer and food. A new wave of innovators is showing how to turn waste into wealth. One of the most striking efforts comes from another German startup: Shit2Power. The company has designed modular, shipping-container-sized units that sit directly beside wastewater plants. Inside, a thermochemical gasification process transforms sewage sludge into green hydrogen. Shit2Power works locally and is particularly useful for small municipalities. A small town of 30,000 residents could cover up to a third of its own electricity needs, explains co-founder and CEO Nina Heine. For many municipalities, that would amount to a small-scale energy transition right on their doorstep — and a relief for their waste balance sheets. This year, the Berlin startup plans to build its first facility; so far, the technology has only been tested in the lab. Wait, you're not a member yet? Join the Reasons to be Cheerful community by supporting our nonprofit publication and giving what you can. Join Cancel anytime “The potential of our technology is nothing less than redefining the entire sewage sludge treatment system,” says Heine. “We’re turning an expensive waste product into a resource that simultaneously generates energy and keeps essential nutrients in circulation. And what applies to sewage sludge can also be extended to other types of biomass.” Governments have taken notice. In 2023, Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs awarded Shit2Power the German Founders Prize. The European Union and regional utilities are also backing pilots, including those led by Shit2Power. For rural communities, the technology could be a lifeline, cutting waste disposal costs while generating homegrown renewable power. What a large-scale investment looks like can be seen in southern Denmark. Publicly inaugurated in May 2025, the Kassø e-methanol facility is the world’s first commercial-scale plant of its kind, producing 53 million liters annually with biogenic carbon dioxide from a local biogas plant.  “The interest is huge,” says Icodos’ Strittmatter. “[…] With methanol, you avoid sulfur emissions and dramatically cut particulates. The climate and air quality benefits are real.” According to Icodos, scaling sewage-to-methanol worldwide could cover the entire fuel demand of the global shipping sector. Credit: MartinLueke/Shutterstock. Yet the future of poop power isn’t without obstacles. Regulations are a major hurdle. Wastewater laws were written to protect waterways, not to harvest energy and nutrients. Many treatment plants lack legal frameworks for selling byproducts as fuel or fertilizer. “Once you think of wastewater not as a liability but as an asset, the possibilities multiply,” says Strittmater. “You can make fuel, fertilizer, clean water, even building materials.” Indeed, innovators are experimenting with sewage-derived bricks, plastics and biochemicals. The combined potential is staggering: According to Icodos, scaling sewage-to-methanol worldwide could cover the entire fuel demand of the global shipping sector. Shit2Power estimates its modular units could cut energy costs for thousands of small municipalities.  In a warming world, pragmatism may matter more than aesthetics. “Progress doesn’t have to be pretty,” Strittmatter says. “It just has to work.” The post The City That Turns Human Waste into Clean Fuel appeared first on Reasons to be Cheerful.

  The Persian king Cyrus the Great (ruled 559-530 BCE) founded the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE) and established Pasargadae as his capital. When Emperor Cyrus died, he was entombed there. His tomb was well tended until Alexander the Great (ruled 336-323 BCE) conquered Persia. Over the next millennium, Cyrus’ memory was gradually lost. The tomb was attributed instead to the Mother of Solomon and converted into a mosque, serving as a place of female pilgrimage. Later, the tomb was reattributed to Cyrus and is now a national monument.   Who Was Cyrus the Great? Tomb of Cyrus the Great facing entrance, Pasargadae, Iran. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Cyrus the Great was born in Anshan, Persia, at the start of the 6th century BCE to the Persian king Cambyses I and Queen Mandane of Media. Although terse, the Babylonian Nabonidus Chronicle (c. 500 BCE) outlines Cyrus the Great’s reign. After Cyrus the Great became king of Persia, the Median king Astyages (ruled 585-550 BCE) attacked him in the hope of conquering Persian territory. Cyrus the Great defeated King Astyages, sacked his capital, and carried off the spoils to Anshan (Nabonidus Chronicle 2.1-4).   Cyrus the Great later replaced the former capital, Anshan, with a new one at Pasargadae, which was also in Persia. According to the Greek historian Strabo in his Geographica (c. 1st century CE), Cyrus favored Pasargadae as it was the location where he defeated Astyages (Strabo 15.3.8). Following Cyrus the Great’s victory over the Medes, he conquered many lands, including the kingdom of Lydia and the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Nabonidus Chronicle 2.10-18, 3.1-28). Stretching from the Indus River to the Mediterranean Sea, Cyrus the Great’s Achaemenid Empire was now the largest the world had yet seen.   Cyrus the Great was also renowned for his beneficence towards his subjects and their religions. According to the contemporaneous Babylonian Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus the Great rebuilt temples in the Mesopotamian region that had fallen into disrepair under the occupation of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. He also returned the statues of gods, which the Babylonians had earlier seized, to their original sanctuaries (Cyrus Cylinder 30-34).   According to the Hebrew Bible, Cyrus the Great likewise allowed the Jews held in Babylon to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple. Additionally, he returned to them the treasures which had previously been taken by Babylon (Ezra 1:2-8). For his magnanimity, Cyrus the Great is described in the Bible as a messiah (Isaiah 45:1).   Tomb of Cyrus the Great Tomb of Cyrus the Great Facing Hills, Pasargadae, Iran. Source: Wikimedia Commons   When Cyrus the Great died in 530 BCE, succeeded by his son Emperor Cambyses II (ruled 530-522 BCE), he was entombed in Pasargadae. The tomb was constructed in sand-colored limestone with six steps ascending to a chamber shaped like a small house and topped with a sloping triangular roof. Strabo writes that it was located inside a park, in a thicket of trees (Strabo 15.3.7).   The Greek historian Arrian also described the tomb in his 2nd-century CE book, Anabasis of Alexander. Both Strabo and Arrian based their accounts on that of Aristobulus of Cassandreia, a 4th-century BCE Greek historian whose work is now lost. Arrian elaborates, writing that the park in which Cyrus the Great’s tomb was located also contained running streams and a grassy meadow. The tomb’s entrance was so narrow it was difficult for even a small man to squeeze through into the chamber (Arrian 6.29).   Past its narrow entrance and inside the tomb was Cyrus the Great’s golden coffin, which was covered in cloth and a Babylonian rug. There was also a couch with gold feet, a table bearing cups, and an array of gem-encrusted garments, jewelry, and swords. The tomb was protected and cared for by well-provisioned priests who lived in a small building on the approach to the tomb. Once a month, they sacrificed a horse to Cyrus the Great (Arrian 6.29, Strabo 15.3.7).   Arrival of Alexander the Great Alexander at the Tomb of Cyrus the Great, by Pierre-Henri de Valenciennes, 1796. Source: Art Institute of Chicago   Aristobulus of Cassandreia only saw the tomb of Cyrus the Great because he accompanied the Macedonian emperor Alexander the Great on his wide-ranging conquests. Alexander inherited the ancient kingdom of Macedonia, located in modern Greece, from his father, Philip II of Macedon (ruled 359-336 BCE). Through a series of brilliant campaigns, Alexander the Great conquered the Achaemenid Empire and defeated its final emperor, Darius III (ruled 336-330 BCE).   Aristobulus of Cassandreia first visited Pasargadae as Alexander headed east in his conquest of Persia, seeing the tomb and its environs as described above. After Alexander’s Indian campaign, they returned to Pasargadae. The defeat of the Achaemenid Empire resulted in political unrest in Persia, which Alexander’s appointees had difficulty stamping out (Arrian 6.29).   It was in this climate that the tomb was robbed of its portable items, leaving only the couch and coffin. The couch and coffin were both damaged, with the corpse of Cyrus the Great having been thrown out of the coffin and desecrated. Alexander tasked Aristobulus of Cassandreia with repairing the tomb. Aristobulus returned what remained of Cyrus’s body to his coffin and replaced the lid. He also mended the couch, procured identical items to those that had been stolen, and sealed off the tomb with stone and plaster (Arrian 6.29).   Bathsheba Mother of Solomon A Jinn King Leads Solomon to a City Inhabited by a Monstrous People, page from a Persian version of The Book of the Wonders of Creation and Their Singularities, Iran, c. 16th century. Source: Louvre   The repair of the tomb of Cyrus the Great did not presage another illustrious era for Pasargadae. Although other cities took precedence over Pasargadae as capitals during the Achaemenid Empire, Pasargadae had remained an important location. Following Alexander’s conquest of Persia, this ceremonial importance also declined. After Alexander died, the Macedonian Empire was fought over by his successors, and Persia was eventually ruled by the Seleucid Empire. Pasargadae was not a Seleucid capital, nor was it a capital of any of the subsequent empires. The city slowly decayed, and even the memory of Cyrus the Great was gradually lost.   By the early Islamic era, Cyrus the Great’s tomb was known by another name. The 12th-century Persian historian Ibn al-Balkhi wrote in his Fars-Nama about the tomb; however, he called it the tomb of Solomon’s Mother. He described it as a stone building with four sides situated near a meadow. Ibn al-Balkhi also claimed that anyone who entered the mausoleum would be cursed with blindness, so no one tried (Ibn al-Balkhi 154-155). The Mother of Solomon he referred to was Bathsheba, the mother of the 10th-century BCE Israelite prophet and king.   According to the Quran, King Solomon could control the jinn, supernatural beings created from smokeless fire, and he compelled them to build shrines and various religious items, such as those at Pasargadae (Quran 34:12-13, 55:14). Pasargadae was not the only city in Persia to be reattributed to Solomon. Near Pasargadae was the ruined city of Persepolis, whose remnants dated back to the Achaemenid emperor Darius the Great (ruled 522-486 BCE). The Arab geographer Ibn Hawqal wrote in his 10th-century Surat Al-Ard that these were the ruins of a temple of Solomon that had been built by jinn (Hawqal 128-129). In this manner, these two fabulous ancient Persian capitals of the Achaemenids were attributed to Solomon and his jinn, thus transforming the landscape into a former dominion of Solomon.   Tomb Becomes Mosque Chamber Within the Tomb of Cyrus the Great, view of the central portion of the 13th century Atabeg Mihrab, photo by Ernst Herzfeld, c. 1905-1928. Source: Smithsonian Institution   Although Ibn al-Balkhi wrote that the tomb was thought of as inaccessible, this soon changed. In his Travels to Tana and Persia, the 15th-century Venetian diplomat Giosafat Barbaro describes “a litle churche” being located atop the tomb, with Arabic writing inside (Barbaro 81).   Giosafat Barbaro was not describing a church but a mosque. This mosque was located inside the chamber that once held Cyrus the Great’s body. A mihrab, or wall niche denoting in which direction to pray, is carved inside the tomb. The mihrab and further inscriptions at the site of Pasargadae are dated to the reign of the Salghurid ruler Sa’d I ibn Zangi (ruled 1198-1226).   The German diplomat Johan Albrecht de Mandelslo, in his 1647 Travels, noted that the ruins of great pillars surrounded the tomb (Mandelslo 1.2). Although these pillars were Achaemenid in origin, this was not their original location. Rather, Sa’d I ibn Zangi had moved them from their initial placements and utilized them in the construction of a larger mosque surrounding the tomb.   One title of the Salghurids was “heir of Solomon’s dominion,” as inscribed by Sa’d I ibn Zangi on the lintel of the entry to the exterior mosque. Although grandiose for a small, subordinate dynasty, this title nevertheless demonstrates the importance with which they viewed Solomon and his supposed legacy in Persia. Additionally, Sa’d I ibn Zangi made the site a center for Islamic prayer with the construction of interior and exterior mosques.   Wallada bint al-Abbas Tomb of Cyrus Seen from a Distance, photo by A.G.A. van Eelde, 1925. Source: Rijksmuseum   By the time Johan Albrecht de Mandelslo visited Pasargadae, only remnants of the exterior mosque remained. However, the “little Chappel,” meaning the interior mosque, continued to be used, and the villagers still attributed the tomb to Bathsheba. The village itself was called “Mashhad e Madar e Soleiman” or “Tomb of the Mother of Solomon.” However, Johan Albrecht de Mendelslo suggested an alternative Solomon. According to Christian missionaries, the tomb belonged to the mother of the Umayyad ruler Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik (ruled 715-717 CE). Her name was Wallada bint al-Abbas (Mandelslo 1.2).   As Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik’s capital was Damascus, in contemporary Syria, it is highly improbable that Wallada bint al-Abbas would have been entombed in Pasargadae. More likely, this new attribution to Wallada bint al-Abbas represented an early foreign attempt to provide a more historical explanation for the importance of the site. The locals, however, considered the tomb to be Bathsheba’s and likely believed Solomon had ordered the jinn to construct this sepulcher for his mother.   Pilgrimage Site Tomb of Cyrus, by Eugène Flandin, c. 1851-1854. Source: New York Public Library   In addition to the tomb being an important location for villagers, people throughout the region would journey to the mausoleum for religious purposes. According to the French author André Daulier Deslandes in his Les Beautés de la Perse (1673), people would travel to Pasargadae for the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha (Deslandes 73). Eid al-Adha commemorates the Hebrew patriarch Abraham and his obedience to God, exemplified by his willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael. Fortunately for Ishmael, God spared him, and Abraham sacrificed a lamb in his stead (Quran 37:102-109).   But for the majority of the year, the pilgrims were predominantly women. The 1675 account of the travels of the Dutch explorer Jan Janszoon Struys, entitled The Perilous and Most Unhappy Voyages, described this aspect. Women visited the tomb to pray for themselves and their friends. The supplicant would bend down, pressing her head against the tomb thrice and kissing it thrice before saying a short prayer (Struys 331).   When the English diplomat James Justinian Morier visited Pasargadae, as recorded in his book A Journey Through Persia (1812), the key to the tomb was held by women. Only women were permitted to enter the sepulcher. Additionally, the ruined columns of the exterior mosque were incorporated into a low wall surrounding the tomb, and the area inside formed a burial ground for villagers. People thought the building was so extraordinary that they considered it to have been the court of jinn (Morier 144-145).   Rediscovering Cyrus Tomb of Cyrus the Great, Pasargadae, Iran. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In the 19th century, most people still believed the tomb to be that of Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba, but James Justinian Morier suggested otherwise. After briefly considering Johan Albrecht de Mandelslo’s proposal that it was the tomb of Wallada bint al-Abbas, James Justinian Morier turned to Arrian. He compared Arrian’s description of the tomb of Cyrus the Great to his own observations, concluding that the tomb he saw may have been Cyrus’s (Morier 145-146). This tentative reattribution was furthered by other scholars, both European and Persian, in the 19th and early 20th centuries.   As the tomb of Cyrus the Great, the mausoleum became a monument representing the modern nation of Iran. The Persian archaeologist Ali Sami Shirazi wrote in his 1956 book Pasargadae that he had constructed a stone wall around the tomb the previous year (Shirazi 48) to prevent locals from accessing the tomb as a mosque. In preparation for a 1971 event celebrating Persian monarchy, the remains of the exterior mosque were removed and the columns returned to their approximate palatial locations.   When one visits the tomb of Cyrus the Great today, little can be seen of its medieval past. However, the centuries when the tomb of Cyrus the Great was a mosque remain historically significant. The mosque of the Mother of Solomon exemplifies how people altered the mausoleum’s significance and usage to reflect their needs and worldviews. The tomb of Cyrus the Great stands today as a monumental representation of the achievements of ancient Persia.   Bibliography   Arnold, B. (2006) “The Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Series,” in M. Chavalas (ed.) The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation, pp. 407-426, Blackwell Publishing.   Arrian (1958) The Campaigns of Alexander (A. de Sélincourt, trans.), pp. 344–347, Penguin Books.   Barbaro, J. (1873) Travels to Tana and Persia (H. E. J. Stanley, Ed.; W. Thomas, trans.) p. 81, Hakluyt Society.   Daulier Deslandes, A. (1673) Les Beautez de la Perse, pp. 71-73m Gervais Clouzier. https://archive.org/details/lesbeautezdelape00daul/page/70/mode/2up.   De Mandelslo, J. A. (1669) The Travels of John Albert de Mandelslo (J. Davies, trans.), vol. I, p. 2, John Starkey & Thomas Basset.   Ebn Haukal (1800) The Oriental Geography of Ebn Haukal (W. Ouseley, trans.) pp. 128–129. Wilson & Co. https://archive.org/details/orientalgeograp00agoog/page/n178/mode/2up.   Finkel, I. (2013) “The Cyrus Cylinder: The Babylonian Perspective,” in The Cyrus Cylinder, pp. 4–7, Bloomsbury.   Ibnuʼl-Balkhí. (1921) The Fársnáma of Ibnuʼl-Balkhí (G. Le Strange & R. Nicholson, eds.) pp. 154–155, Cambridge University Press.   Morier, J. (1812) A Journey Through Persia, pp. 144–147, Longman & Co.   Mozaffari, A., ed. (2014) World Heritage in Iran: Perspectives on Pasargadae, Routledge.   Sami, A. (1971) Pasargadæ (R. Sharp, trans.), Musavi Printing Office.   Strabo. (1903) Geography (H. C. Hamilton & W. Falconer, trans.), vol. XV, George Bell & Sons.   Struys, J. (1683) The Perillous and Most Unhappy Voyages of John Struys (J. Morrison, trans.) p. 331, Samuel Smith.

  Biblical historians must give some account of why the Israelite monarchy split into two kingdoms shortly after Solomon’s death. The Bible provides answers both in the form of commentary by the stories’ narrators and in the judgments of the prophets who appear therein. These see the divide as a divinely mediated consequence imposed as punishment for the poor choices and bad behaviors of David and Solomon, ancient Israel’s two “golden-age” kings. However, those interested in sociopolitical causes can find much to work with in the narratives as well.   Two Biblical Stories About the Monarchy David, by Lorenzo Monaco, ca. 1408–10. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art   The Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament, contains the story of the Israelite monarchy’s beginning in two places. One appears in what many critical scholars often call the “Deuteronomistic History,” a name that evokes its literary connection to the book of Deuteronomy. These scholars believe that the biblical books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were edited together as a unit. This is not to say the material they contain was written at the same time, but that the sources upon which they draw were intentionally shaped together, as a continuous work, into the form in which they now appear in the biblical collection. While not all scholars agree with this conclusion about how the text was formed, it is at least clear that the book of Second Kings, which concludes the Deuteronomistic History, ends with the Babylonian takeover of Jerusalem. This suggests that its editors worked when Babylon was still dominant in the Mediterranean world.   The second biblical narrative about the Israelite monarchy’s history appears in First and Second Chronicles. In contrast to the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles was written after many Jews had been sent back to their ancestors’ land by the Persian king Cyrus II, who conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. For the Jewish descendants of captives that the Babylonians had forced to live in Mesopotamia, Cyrus was a liberator. Thus, while the narrative of the Israelite kingdom in the Deuteronomistic History was crafted in the wake of a chapter of extreme defeat in the nation’s history, Chronicles was probably written during a relatively hopeful time.   The Fall of Babylon; Cyrus the Great Defeating the Chaldean Army, by John Martin, 1831. Source: Wellcome Collection   The writer of Chronicles seems to have had access to the books of Samuel and Kings—or at least to an early version of them—as evidenced by its lengthy, word-for-word quotations of their material. However, Chronicles omits key parts of the Samuel–Kings story while choosing to emphasize others. As a result, the two accounts provide divergent explanations for one of the most pivotal events in ancient Israelite history.   The Monarchy’s Shaky Beginning Samuel Cursing Saul, by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1530. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In the Deuteronomistic History, the people of Israel occupied what was in their day called the Land of Canaan by means of conquest. Up to that time, the Israelites had been either largely nomadic or enslaved and therefore did not possess a land they could associate with their national identity. They were arranged according to tribes and clans and did not have a formal system of governance. Moses was a charismatic leader, whose lineage in no way destined him for authority. The same can be said of Joshua, whom Moses chose as his successor despite Moses having two sons who theoretically could have succeeded him. This tradition of recognizing leadership based on charisma, or divine election, rather than heredity continued through the period named for “the Judges,” who were also charismatic leaders, for around two or three hundred years (depending on how one dates the events) after the Israelites had settled in Canaan.   The last of these Judges was Samuel—a remarkable character who also played priestly and prophetic roles.   Samuel is one of the most celebrated personages in Deuteronomistic History. He vehemently opposed the establishment of a monarchy in Israel. Yet, paradoxically—and in stark contrast to the precedent Moses had set centuries before—Samuel appointed his own sons to succeed him as Israel’s leaders. As the story is told, despite Samuel’s personal popularity, his sons were corrupt and seen as unfit for leadership by the people. This was the occasion for a popular call for the establishment of a monarchy. Samuel failed to quell the enthusiasm, which God is also portrayed as opposing. Yet God relented, nevertheless, and sent Samuel to appoint a man from the small tribe of Benjamin, named Saul, to be Israel’s first king.   The Ghost of Samuel Appearing to Saul and the Witch of Endor, by Salvator Rosa, 1668. Source: The Louvre   Saul is presented as beginning well, but failing more and more as his reign progressed. Eventually, God rejects him as king and, in turn, sends Samuel to appoint David as his replacement. David’s would later become the most enduring dynasty in Israel’s history. But, his descendants would rule over only half the kingdom he had taken from Saul’s family.   Why the Split Happened According to Samuel–Kings The Prophet Nathan Rebukes King David, by Eugène Siberdt, ca. 1850. Source: Wikimedia Commons   One of the most famous stories from David’s kingship years is about his affair with a woman named Bathsheba, who was the wife of Uriah, one of his Hittite soldiers. When David discovers Bathsheba is pregnant, he orders that Uriah be placed in the enemy archers’ line of fire in battle, where he is killed.   By this time, Samuel is dead, but his prophetic mantle appears to have been taken up by another equally formidable prophet named Nathan. Though the reader is left wondering how he became aware of what had transpired between David, Uriah, and Bathsheba, Nathan confronts David in his own throne room for his unjust behavior. Though David is remorseful, Nathan predicts that the sword will never depart from his household because of what he has done. Also, the baby David had conceived with Bathsheba would die in infancy. Nathan’s prediction seems to evoke the later splitting of the kingdom into two. Though this is not made explicit in the text, Nathan’s prophecy at least suggests divisions of various kinds would result because of David’s choices.   The explicit reason provided for the division of the kingdom in the Samuel–Kings narrative is connected to the reign of David’s son, Solomon. Solomon’s multiplication of foreign wives in his harem leads to his building of shrines in honor of their patron deities. According to the narrative, it was Solomon’s tolerance and encouragement of idolatry that resulted in God’s rending of half the kingdom from his dynasty’s control.   Omissions in Chronicles The Idolatry of Solomon, by Frans Francken the Younger, 1622. Source: The Getty Museum   On first reading, much of Chronicles can appear to be a mere rehearsing of the same material that appears in Samuel–Kings. However, several key elements are omitted—including two that are mentioned above. In Chronicles, there is no trace of David’s affair with Bathsheba or his order to have her husband killed. In addition—and in starker contrast—Solomon’s vast harem is omitted from the story almost entirely. In fact, Chronicles nowhere explicitly links the division of the kingdom with Solomon’s choices.   Assuming that the writer of Chronicles had access to the material in Samuel–Kings, it seems that he was keen to ignore the most negative parts of David and Solomon’s activities. Given the clarity with which Samuel–Kings presents the division of the kingdom as a consequence of Solomon’s idolatry, it is remarkable that this is passed over in Chronicles’ retelling.   Like the Deuteronomistic History, however, Chronicles also sees the division as the result of kingly folly—it just avoids singling out Israel’s golden-age kings. Chronicles locates the fault in the generation following Solomon instead. For the writers and editors of both the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles, Israel’s division and exile are divinely orchestrated consequences of their bad behavior, and Israel’s kings in particular are held responsible.   A Sociopolitical Viewpoint Sacrifice of Jeroboam, by Claes Moeyaert, 1641. Source: Wikimedia Commons   If one brackets out the theological commentary in the text along with the pronouncements of the prophets, it is possible to piece together a sociopolitical reason for why Israel split in two using the historical narrative material in the text by itself. The key issue driving the division, from this point of view, was not idolatry but an oppressive labor policy.   The glory days of Solomon’s kingdom, which boasted enormous wealth and some of the most magnificent buildings in the region according to the Bible, came at a cost. Someone had to build those buildings. Both Chronicles and Kings report Solomon’s use of slave labor, but Kings also says that Solomon drafted labor from among the Israelites themselves. These people would be required to work one month out of three for the kingdom. For all Israelites who worked in what might be called in modern terms “civilian” sectors, this was an onerous amount of time to be working for the kingdom. This would have been especially true for workers drafted from the northern half of Solomon’s realm, where the majority of the population resided. This is also where most farming was done within the land. For farmers, leaving one’s responsibilities behind for long periods of time would have been especially burdensome.   By the time of Solomon’s death, Israel was tired. They enjoyed the prosperity his policies brought, but they were no longer willing to continue to give as much as they had been. Unless Solomon’s heir to the throne would be willing to change this policy, the kingdom was ripe for a rebellion.   Labor Rebellion Rehoboam’s Insolence, by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1530. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Book of Kings explains that Solomon recognized the exceptional managerial talents of a man from the tribe of Ephraim named Jeroboam. Solomon appointed him to oversee his drafted labor force within the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, which constituted the majority of Israel’s northern half. As the story is told, a prophet named Ahijah approaches Jeroboam and predicts that he will one day rule over ten of Israel’s tribes. According to Ahijah, this would function as divine judgment upon Solomon’s idolatry. But, the prophecy does not see Jeroboam as a liberator, indeed, he would be far more cruel than Solomon ever had been.   Somehow, Solomon discerns that Jeroboam is a threat to his dynasty and seeks to kill him, forcing Jeroboam to flee for refuge under Shishak, King of Egypt, until Solomon’s death. This element in the story suggests that Jeroboam had garnered a high level of respect among the workers he oversaw. He was well-positioned to lead a revolt, whether Ahijah had prophesied that he would or not.   King Solomon, by Simeon Solomon, ca. 1874. Source: The National Gallery of Art, Washington   Upon learning that Solomon had died, Jeroboam returned from asylum in the Egyptian kingdom. He then led a delegation of his compatriots to negotiate with Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, who had been installed as the next king. Without refusing to work faithfully for Rehoboam, the delegation asks simply that the yoke on their necks be lightened during his reign.   The text presents Rehoboam as egotistical and lacking his father’s political acumen almost entirely. Ignoring the advice of his father’s experienced counselors in favor of that of his peers, Rehoboam responds to the delegation’s request with insults, threatening to exceed his father’s demands rather than alleviate them. The response is immediate. Rehoboam barely escapes south with his life and, though a civil war is evaded, the kingdom splits permanently in two.   Ten Tribes in the North, Three in the South Solomon’s Temple 1000 BC, 1862. Source: The Getty Museum   The southern kingdom called Judah after the split, comprised the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with their territories, as well as the majority of the Levites who, as a priestly class, did not have a land of their own. The remaining ten tribes composed the northern Kingdom of Israel.   It is customary to think of ancient Israel as a confederation of twelve tribes, but since the descendants of the patriarch Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, are reckoned separately, the total count is actually thirteen. Ephraim and Manasseh are sometimes referred to jointly as “the house of Joseph.”   Jeroboam’s New Religion Jeroboam and the Congregation of Israel before Rehoboam, by Gerard de Jode, ca. 1579. Source: Harvard Art Museums   The character of Jeroboam plays a key role in Israel’s memory of its pre-exilic story. Having already been anointed king before his exile in Egypt, he was finally crowned ruler of the newly-formed Kingdom of Israel years later. As a popular, liberator-type figure, his reign brimmed with potential at the start. But beginning with his very first action as king, his memory became tainted, and his name evolved into a byword for failed kingliness later on.   The biblical Hebrew narrative only occasionally gives the reader insight into the conscious, mental reasoning of its characters. In one of these rare cases, the reader is told that Jeroboam feared for his life, thinking that if his subjects were to travel frequently to Jerusalem to Solomon’s glorious Temple to worship, they would eventually become discontent and assassinate him or his successors. His solution was to build two shrines at Bethel and Dan—opposite extremes of his new kingdom—with golden calves as their centerpieces. He further established holidays and a new priestly order. Basically, he founded a new religion.   This short foray into Jeroboam’s politico-religious reasoning echoes that of Aaron, Moses’s older brother, in an iconic scene in the biblical Book of Exodus. There, Aaron also ordered the crafting of a cultic golden calf out of fear for his life. In this ironic twist, Jeroboam is thus presented as a failed Moses figure; he had led his people out of a burdensome labor system, but only into a state of perpetual religious wandering away from Jerusalem and its Temple.   A Doomed Legacy Ahijah Predicting the Fate of Jeroboam’s People, by Abraham Bloemaert, ca. 1604. Source: The San Diego Museum of Art   In the remainder of the story, especially as it is related in the Book of Kings, Jeroboam becomes the quintessential example of an unfaithful monarch. There is a sense in which he was doomed from the start, since the Temple was located in the south, in the very capital of the Kingdom of Judah. But from the perspective of Israelites from all tribes in the wake of the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, Jeroboam’s disloyalty to the Temple cult at Jerusalem was difficult to forgive. The kings in the northern kingdom are remembered as wicked because they followed in the way of “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.”   What “Really” Split Israel’s Kingdom Apart? David, Solomon, Rehoboam (from The Twelve Kings of Israel), by Lucas van Leyden, 1520. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art   The answer to this question is surely complex—even as it would be if it were about the decline of any government in history. It would have to do with political, moral, economic, social, natural, and religious factors, and would take into account the choices of people both within and outside of the society.   While it can appear so at first blush, the Bible’s explanation for what led to one of the most consequential events in ancient Israel’s story is by no means straightforward. On the one hand, it does answer the “why-how” question but on the other hand, it also answers it in a variety of ways. The diverse perspectives invite a revisiting of the causes of what happened to Israel in light of emerging theories about what makes a society socially, morally, and politically healthy. The reader is asked to ponder: what kind of society can avoid divisions like this?

  The mysterious figure of the wizard Merlin is one of the most popular characters from the Arthurian legends. In most versions of the story, he is one of Arthur’s closest and most important allies, providing guidance in war and peace. Many of the most famous features of the Arthurian legends are tied to Merlin in some way, such as the Round Table and the Sword in the Stone. While different versions present Merlin in different ways, what is the basic story of this character in the Arthurian legends?   Merlin’s Birth and Parentage Merlin, Nuremberg Chronicle fol. 183r, 1493. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Given that Merlin is almost invariably shown to be a benevolent figure, helping Arthur fight against the forces of evil, his origin is quite surprising. The first record to provide Merlin with an origin story is Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae, written in c. 1137. He explains that a tyrant named Vortigern called for a boy without a father to be sacrificed at the site of a tower that he was attempting to build. Merlin is the boy who is brought forth, and in this passage, we learn of his origins.   According to Geoffrey’s account, Merlin was born from a spirit who visited his mother at night and slept with her. One of Vortigern’s men refers to this as an incubus, a specific type of male demon that violates sleeping women and produces demonic offspring. In other words, Merlin is portrayed as half-demon. Nevertheless, Merlin is consistently portrayed as a benevolent figure in Geoffrey’s account, something which he does not specifically explain.   Young Merlin before King Vortigern, MS Cotton Claudius B VII, fol. 224. Source: British Library   Later versions of the story expand on this origin and explain why Merlin is not a force for evil. The major contribution to Merlin’s story was the poem Merlin, written in c. 1200 by Robert de Boron. While almost nothing of this poem survives, a prose version, possibly written by Robert himself in c. 1210, reveals what Robert wrote about this figure. This version is much the same as in Geoffrey’s account, but Robert specifies that Merlin was actually supposed to be the Antichrist.   However, Merlin’s evil destiny was prevented from coming to fruition by the actions of a character named Blaise. He is a priest who baptizes Merlin immediately after birth. This frees him from Satan’s power and explains why he is able to have a benevolent role in the legends.   Nevertheless, as a result of his supernatural origin, Merlin has miraculous abilities. He is able to shapeshift, as well as allow others to change their appearances. He also has supernatural knowledge of the past and present, while God bestows him with supernatural knowledge of the future.   Merlin’s Service to Ambrosius and Uther Image in the Prose Merlin by Robert de Boron depicting Uther with Igerna on the night of Gorlois’ death, c. 13th century. Source: Bibliothèque Nationale de France   The early part of Merlin’s career is fairly consistent between Geoffrey’s account and Robert’s Merlin. Merlin is presented as serving Ambrosius during his reign as king, overseeing his overthrow of Vortigern. During a break in Ambrosius’ wars against his enemies, Ambrosius desired to construct a large stone monument in honor of the British leaders who had been killed during the Saxon wars. To do so, Ambrosius decided to travel to Ireland to steal the “Giants’ Dance,” an existing monument. This proved too much for Ambrosius’ men, so Merlin used his magic to levitate the stones and fly them over to Britain, where they became Stonehenge.   Later, upon the death of Ambrosius, a dragon-shaped comet appeared in the sky. Merlin interpreted this as a sign representing his son Uther. Two rays that issued forth from the dragon’s mouth represented two of Uther’s offspring, Arthur and an unnamed daughter.   Most famously, Merlin used his magic to disguise Uther as Gorlois, duke of Cornwall. This allowed Uther to sneak into Igerna’s castle during a war with Gorlois and violate Igerna without her or any of Gorlois’ men suspecting anything.   Merlin and the Rise of King Arthur “He stood there holding the magic sword in his hand,” by Archibald Stevenson Forrest, 1906. Source: New York Public Library   The aforementioned union is what resulted in Arthur’s conception. In Geoffrey’s account, Arthur simply succeeds Uther without any strange occurrences. However, from Robert de Boron’s Merlin onwards, the story of Merlin involved him using his powers as a wizard to assist in the transition to Arthur’s rule. For unstated reasons, Merlin is said to have taken Arthur to Sir Erec to be raised in secret. Therefore, upon Uther’s death, when Arthur was a teenager, there was no clear successor.   Consequently, Merlin manufactured the challenge of the Sword in the Stone. He made this magical sword appear in a churchyard, stuck through an anvil and into a stone. On the side, it was written that only the rightful king could draw it out. Eventually, the young Arthur happens to take it, not even realizing its significance.   After repeating this action at all the important Christian festivals of the year, the people finally accept Arthur as their new king. In this way, Merlin assured Uther’s succession through Arthur.   Merlin’s Key Contributions to the Arthurian Legends King Arthur and his knights at the Round Table, in Prose Lancelot in manuscript BNF 112, by Evrard d’Espinques, 1470. Source: Bibliothèque Nationale de France   Merlin contributed greatly to various famous features of the Arthurian legends. According to Robert de Boron’s account, it was Merlin who constructed the Round Table, which he did in the reign of Uther Pendragon. Interestingly, this contradicts the earliest mention of the Round Table from Wace in c. 1155. Wace presented Arthur as having the Round Table constructed. Presumably, Robert de Boron changed this to provide Merlin with even greater importance.   Robert de Boron’s account ends with the accession of Arthur. However, later versions of the Arthurian legends, such as the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate Cycle, provide further details of his legendary career. In the Post-Vulgate Cycle, the distinction between the Sword in the Stone and Excalibur is first introduced (in earlier versions, they are the same sword). Merlin is responsible for Arthur’s acquisition of this second sword, just as he was for his first. He is described as taking him to a lake, where the Lady of the Lake famously sticks her hand out of the water and provides Arthur with Excalibur.   Merlin’s Loves: Vivian and Morgan le Fey “She was known to have studied magic while she was being brought up in the nunnery,” by William Henry Margetson, 1914. Source: University of Rochester   Merlin has another famous association with the Lady of the Lake, whose name was Nimue or Viviane (depending on the version). First, however, comes Merlin’s connection with Morgan le Fay. She was Arthur’s sister and one of the ladies-in-waiting of Guinevere, Arthur’s queen. After Guinevere discovers an affair between Morgan and Guiomar and demands that it stop, Morgan withdraws from Camelot in a rage. Thereafter, she goes to Merlin to be taught the magical arts so that she will be able to gain revenge against Guinevere. Since Morgan then goes on to become Arthur’s main enemy throughout his reign, Merlin’s own folly is profoundly evident here.   Merlin falls in love with Morgan, but his feelings are ultimately not returned. Morgan insists on rejecting Merlin despite his insistence, even threatening to harm him if he does not leave her alone. Nevertheless, she frequently calls on him for help, and he is always there to assist her. In fact, there is one insistence in which Merlin lies to Arthur to protect Morgan, which appears to be the only instance of Merlin doing such a thing to Arthur.   The Lady of the Lake (Viviane) with Merlin in Witches’ Tree, by Edward Burne-Jones, 1882. Source: Wikimedia Commons   After this, Merlin falls in love with Viviane. His connection with this character varies considerably in the different tellings of the Arthurian legend. Nevertheless, there is wide agreement that Viviane was the object of Merlin’s love. Like Morgan, Viviane is portrayed as using Merlin to learn everything that she could about magic. After doing this, like Morgan, she rejects Merlin. Unlike Morgan, who apparently did sleep with Merlin in at least some versions of the legend, Viviane utterly refuses to have intercourse with him.   After using him to become a powerful sorceress, Viviane traps Merlin in an eternal prison. The exact nature of this prison varies depending on the version. In some versions, it is within a tree. In others, it is a cave. Others present it as a large, invisible tower from which there is no escape. In any case, Merlin is usually presented as offering little resistance, and after this, he is never seen again.   Who Is the Wizard Merlin? A modern carving of Merlin’s face at Tintagel, Cornwall, England. Source: photo by Caleb Howells   In summary, Merlin plays a vital role in most versions of the Arthurian legends. He was born from the union of a demonic incubus and a human mother, intended to be the Antichrist. Being baptized at birth, he was freed from this evil destiny and became benevolent. He is always portrayed as assisting the kings whom he served, such as Ambrosius, Uther, and Arthur. Using his magic, Merlin brought the “Giants’ Dance” over from Ireland for Ambrosius. He enabled Uther to disguise himself as Gorlois to take Igerna. Merlin assured Athur’s ascendancy to the throne by manufacturing the challenge of the Sword in the Stone, along with assisting him throughout his reign.   Merlin presenting the future king Arthur, by Emil Johann Lauffer, before 1909. Source: Sotheby’s   Merlin’s downfall was ultimately his passion for Morgan and, later, Viviane. Both of them were students of Merlin who learned everything they could from him, becoming powerful sorceresses before then rejecting him. In the case of Viviane, this resulted in Merlin becoming trapped in an eternal prison.