Darius the great Persian Artaxerxes: A Contextual Look at the Book of Ezra in the Light of Persian History

Darius the Great – Wikipedia

If there is one unsung secular hero of Biblical history, I would say that honor belongs to Darius, son of Hystaspes, the great Persian king during whose reign Persia reached the height of its glory and power.

This week as I respond to the challenges and criticisms of Rick Lanser about my view of the 2^nd temple era as described in his article The Seraiah Assumption we will take a closer look at Darius ‘the great’ and the profound influence this amazing Persian king had on the course of Jewish history. In the course of this exploration we will also get a clearer understanding of the Persian history described in the Bible. More importantly though, I hope the elucidation of this subject will give you a greater appreciation for the accuracy of the Bible and the congruency with which it describes historical people and events.

To help fill some of the context of what Mr. Lanser and I disagree about regarding 2^nd temple era history, this week I’d like to provide you with a summary of the three foundational areas where Mr. Lanser takes issue with my view of the 2^nd temple era history as described in his article The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25.

For those just joining this conversation, Mr. Lanser is the editor of Bible and Spade magazine, the publication of the respected apologetics ministry Associates for Biblical Research. This article is Part III of my response to Mr. Lanser’s article. The other parts of this series can be found here:

Articles related to this series:
The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser of Associates for Biblical Research
The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping up Loose Ends by Rick Lanser

My response to Rick Lanser’s – The Seraiah Assumption:
Introduction – The Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption
Part I – Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part II – Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part III – Darius the great Persian Artaxerxes: A Contextual Look at the Book of Ezra in the Light of Persian History
Part IV – Darius and the Kingdom of Arta
Part V – Darius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VI – Mordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VII – Esther, Ahasuerus, & Artaxerxes: Who was the Persian King of 127 Provinces?
Part VIII – Darius I: A Gentile King at the Crux of Jewish Messianic History
Part IX – The Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

Mr. Lanser’s article is part of a research project that he is writing about Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens. To get the full context of the following quote, please see Mr. Lanser’s article here: The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25. Here is Mr. Lanser’s summary of how he understands my position:

Inspecting the Foundation
Let us now examine the foundation on which Struse has built his case against Artaxerxes I Longimanus. We will do this by first identifying key assumptions he makes, then look for principles based on surrounding context by which to evaluate them. I identified three foundational assumptions in his articles:

1. Name sequences in genealogies identify fathers and their immediate sons. On this basis it is claimed from Ezra 7:1 that Seraiah, the last high priest before the exile, was the father of Ezra and brother of Jehozadak. We can call this the Seraiah Assumption.
2. The reign of Darius I of Persia sets the historical context into which everything in Ezra 4 through 6 must be placed. Therefore, the “Artaxerxes” mentioned in 4:7 and 6:14, as well as the “Ahasuerus” of 4:6, must be contextually understood as titles for Darius. We can call this the Darius Assumption.
3. Identical names in different genealogy lists can be used to construct a reliable historical chronology. Finding the names of people who arrived in Judea with Zerubbabel and Jeshua repeated in the time of Nehemiah and Eliashib indicates they are the same individuals, requiring Eliashib to overlap with the reign of Darius rather than Artaxerxes. We can call this the Eliashib Assumption.

Before we dig into what Mr. Lanser terms my “Darius Assumption” , an assumption he believes I have erroneously built my view of the 2^nd temple era upon, I like to say something about what Mr. Lanser sees as my “assumptions” regarding points #1 & #3 above.

As I’ve stated at the beginning of this series or articles, my interpretational approach requires me to evaluate every passage of scripture in light of the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation best described by Dr. David Cooper as follows:

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

Both of the above Seraiah Assumption and the Eliashib Assumptions that Mr. Lanser claims I have made are predicated (by me) upon the premise that the Bible can and should be taken at face value in its most natural and plain sense. When the Bible plainly states that Ezra was the son of Seraiah, indeed I must assume, based upon my interpretational approach, and absent other clear and contextual evidence to the contrary, that this is exactly what the Bible meant. When the Bible provides generational listings of the Priests and Levites as father son relationships relative to the high priesthood of Joshua, Jehoiakim, and Eliashib, again absent any clearly and contextually defined evidence to the contrary, I am constrained by my interpretational approach to take these generational lists at face value in the most natural and plain sense in which they were conveyed.

One of the irreconcilable differences I have with Mr. Lanser and many of his peers who try to explain this important era in Biblical history is that they nearly all propose that the Bible should not be taken in its most literal sense regarding these subjects. In fact, according to their approach we must view much if not all of the 2^nd temple era is in some ways as an exception to a straight forward reading of the text.

As I’ve explained in Part I of this series – Cyrus to Darius: The 2^nd Temple Context of Ezra 4 and in the following article Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem when the Bible provides a reasonable and straight forward account of the Persian history in Ezra 4-6, an account that matches exceptionally well with what we know about secular Persian history, Mr. Lanser and many of his peers instead propose an explanation which requires us to view this account in an incongruent and what he describes as a “not strictly chronological” manner, a so called “thematic” perspective, which allows them to make claims about 2^nd temple era Biblical history which I believe are not otherwise accommodated by the text.

When the text states plainly that Ezra was the son of Seraiah, Mr. Lanser and his peers take exception to this plain sense reading of the text and go to great lengths to explain why this passage is not to be taken literally. When the Priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12 are listed relative to the Joshua, Jehoiakim , and Eliashib, again Mr. Lanser and many of his peers must explain why these passages are not to be taken in the most natural sense as father son relationships and clear generational associations but rather refer to unspecific generational chronology. In subsequent articles I’ll explain why I believe my plain sense interpretational assumptions about Ezra, Seraiah, and Eliashib are the most reasonable and accurate way to interpret these passages. Further, I will show why these accounts of 2^nd temple era history are exceptionally congruent and straight forward records which should strengthen your faith in the credibility of the Bible as an accurate clearly written account of real history.

Who was the Darius of Ezra 4-6?
So who was Darius, the Persian king of Ezra 4-6? It’s unfortunate that Mr. Lanser adds additional complexity to this subject by misunderstanding and then erroneously stating my position regarding the kings of Persia in Ezra 4-6. As I explained in Part I of this series, Cyrus to Darius, I do not believe that the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 and the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23 are references to the Persian king Darius (son of Hystaspes) as Mr. Lanser stated regarding my position in the following quote:

1. The reign of Darius I of Persia sets the historical context into which everything in Ezra 4 through 6 must be placed. Therefore, the “Artaxerxes” mentioned in 4:7 and 6:14, as well as the “Ahasuerus” of 4:6, must be contextually understood as titles for Darius. We can call this the Darius Assumption….

If you are just joining this discussion I’d encourage you to read my previous two articles here & here as well as Mr. Lanser’s article here to get the full context of this important discussion. The bottom line is that in point #2 above Mr. Lanser’s – “Darius Assumption” is based in large part upon an unfortunate misreading and misunderstanding of my writings on the subject.

A Brief Recapitulation
So what do I really believe about the Persian king Darius? Let’s pick up our exploration of Persian history where we left off in our previous two articles. Remember so far we’ve followed the Biblical account of the Jewish people’s return and resettlement of Judah starting in the 1^st year of Cyrus (536 BC) with Cyrus’ decree which allowed them to return and build the city of Jerusalem and Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary.

Those efforts to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple were met with harassment, first in the reign of Cyrus’ son Cambyses (Ezra 4:6), the king who the Bible simply identifies as Ahasuerus, and then again in the reign of Bardis the Magian usurper, the Persian king the Bible identifies as Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7-24).

As described in Ezra 4:7-24, the enemies of the Jewish people met with some success in their efforts to stop the Jewish people’s reconstruction of Jerusalem and the temple. In fact, during the reign of this “Artaxerxes” (Ezra 4:7-24) the Jewish people were forced to stop construction.

In Part II of this series we learned that in the 2^nd year of Darius (son of Hystaspes), Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, commanded the Jewish people to return and restart construction on His desolate sanctuary. In defiance of Artaxerxes’ decree the Jewish people obeyed the command of Yahweh as given through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah and construction on the temple resumed.

In the mean time, the enemies of the Jewish people petitioned the new king Darius in an effort to halt construction of the temple and Jerusalem. Darius wisely checked the Persian records for the previous decree of Cyrus and when he found that it did indeed give the Jewish people permission to build Jerusalem and the temple he sent his own decree (which confirmed Cyrus’ original decree) and added his own blessing to the effort. Four years later, in the 6^th year of Darius, Yahweh’s house was completed. Here is a brief recapitulation of the Biblical account:

Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them [2^nd year of Darius – see Hag. 1 & Zech 1]. Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. Ezra 4:23 – 5:2

Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon. ² And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of the Medes, a roll, and therein was a record thus written: ³ In the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Ezra 6:1-3

⁶ Now therefore, Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence: ⁷ Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place. ⁸ Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered. (Ezra 6:6-8)

¹² And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed. (Ezra 6:12)

¹⁴ And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. ¹⁵ And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:14-15)

Darius and Artaxerxes
If you read the above account and the related context from Ezra 4-6 then by now you should have a pretty good grasp of what took place from the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC up until the 2^nd year of Darius in 520BC when Yahweh gave His divine command which told the Jewish people to return and build Jerusalem. This events as related by Ezra 4-6, as we’ve seen are a straight forward, contextual, and clearly chronological rendering of Biblical history that matches flawlessly with secular Persian history, with one potential exception.

Let’s now turn to Ezra 6:14-15 and one of the few places in Ezra’s account which gives the reader pause.

¹⁵ And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:14-15)

For those of you who have carefully followed this series and hopefully done your Berean duty and verified the context of these passages for yourself, it should be pretty easy for you to understand the people and events described here in Ezra 6:14-15.

The prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah we know was a result of the Yahweh’s “word” or dabar which commanded the Jewish people to return and build Jerusalem. That commandment by Yahweh resulted in the completion of the temple by the 6^th year of Darius. Further the text tells us that the Jewish people “builded and finished” the temple by the decrees of the secular rulers Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

Keep in mind here that as we’ve seen from our exploration of Ezra 4, there is no “thematic” context (as Mr. Lanser and some of his peers assert), that allows us to claim the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23 is the Persian king “Artaxerxes” Longimanus. In fact the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 4 did not give a command which resulted in either the building or the finishing of the temple by the 6^th year of Darius. It is imperative here to let the Scripture provide its own context. The Persian kings listed in the passage above, are all identified with the effort which resulted in the building and finishing of the temple by the 6^th year of Darius (son of Hystapses).

So who is the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14?

The answer to this apparent conundrum is actually rather simple if understood in terms of the language this passage was written in. It’s a matter of Hebrew grammar. You see the letter waw attached to the Persian title “Artaxerxes” which we read in the KJV of the Bible as “and” doesn’t always have to be translated as a conjunction but if context dictates it can be used as a hendiadys or in other words, two words with the same meaning. Here is the TWOT Bible lexicon which explains the idiosyncrasies of this Hebrew letter:

519.0 – w (wa) . . . and, so, then, when, now, or, but, that and many others.
(ASV and RSV similar.) The vocalization varies.

This is an inseparable prefix which is used as a conjunction or introductory particle which can usually be translated “and.”

The fundamental use of the prefix is that of a simple conjunction “and,” connecting words (“days and years,” Gen. 1:14), phrases (“and to divide” Gen. 1:18) and complete sentences (connecting Gen. 2:11 with verse 12). However it is used more often and for a greater variety of construction than is the English connector “and.”

It is often used at the beginning of sentences, for which reason the KJV begins many sentences with an unexplained “and.” This use may be explained as a mild introductory particle and is often translated “now” as in Exo 1:1 where it begins the book (KJV, ASV; the RSV ignores it completely; cf. Gen 3:1; Gen 4:1).

The item following the prefix is not always an additional item, different from that which preceded: “Judah and Jerusalem” (Isa. 1:1), pointing out Jerusalem especially as an important and representative part of Judah; “in Ramah, and his own city” (1 Sam 28:3), the two being the same place, hence the translation “even” as explanatory.

When the second word specifies the first the construction is called a “hendiadys,” i.e., two words with one meaning. For example, “a tent and dwelling” in 2 Sam 7:6 means “a dwelling tent.” (TWOT 519.0, emphasis mine)

In this series we’ve walked through the context of Ezra 4-6 together. If we take these events described in their most natural and plain sense then we are left with no other reasonable option but to translate the letter “waw” connected to the title “Artaxerxes” as a “hendiadys”.

There is really no mystery here. The author of Ezra was simply providing his readers with additional important context about the Persian king Darius, a king who he wanted us to understand was by his 7th year of reign also known by the title of “Artaxerxes”. I believe that Ezra 6:14 read in light of the context of Ezra 4-6 should have been translated in the following manner:

¹⁵ And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. Ezra 6:14-15

It’s congruent, straightforward, and it allows us to follow the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation. The bottom line is there were no other Persian kings who gave commands that “builded and finished” the temple by the 6^th year of Darius, this means that context demands we see the “waw” of Artaxerxes not as a conjunction but a hendiadys.

Defending the Artaxerxes Assumption
Let’s now look at some of Mr. Lanser’s objections to understanding the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to the Persian king Darius. In the following passage Mr. Lanser uses Ezra 4:7-23 and his belief that his is a reference to Artaxerxes Longimanus as justification for inserting this king into chronology of Ezra 6:14. I quote Mr. Lanser:

Since we have just seen in our detailed examination of Ezra 4 that there is a “reasonable contextual basis” for the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 being Longimanus, there is reason to add a third king to the chronology of Ezra 6:14–15: it is in keeping with a thematic approach to the passage, like we saw in Ezra 4.

As I’ve shown in my previous two articles Part I –Cyrus to Darius: The 2^nd Temple Context of Ezra 4 and Part II –Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore and Build Jerusalem this is a clearly erroneous interpretation of Ezra 4:7-24. The context of Ezra 4:23-24 does not allow for a non-chronological or thematic view of this passage. Ezra 4 is a clearly chronological recounting of Persian history that does not allow for the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 to be a thematic reference to the future Artaxerxes Longimanus.

Why Would Ezra 6 Introduce Darius as the Persian Artaxerxes
Another of Mr. Lanser’s challenges to my interpretation of Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to Darius the son of Hystapses is his questioning of why would the author of Ezra refer to Darius consistently up to Ezra 6 but then add the title of Artaxerxes and then refer to him from Ezra 7 onward by only the title of Artaxrexes? Mr. Lanser explains his objection this way:

One is obliged to ask why the writer of the book of Ezra would have even bothered to introduce the name “Artaxerxes” into the narrative at Ezra 6:14, when this king had been uniformly referred to as “Darius” several times earlier in the book (4:5, 4:24, 5:5, 5:6, 5:7, 6:1, and 6:12). If “Darius” and “Artaxerxes” were indeed one and the same person, waiting until this late point in the narrative to introduce an additional designation for Darius does nothing but confuse the reader. Once one comes to terms with the fact there is nothing unbiblical about Seraiah being just an ancestor of Ezra, there is nothing to justify introducing a new label for him. Were it not for the genealogy in Ezra 7:1 seemingly implying that Seraiah ben-Azariah might have been Ezra’s father, one would normally expect “Artaxerxes the king of Persia” in Ezra 6:14 to refer to an entirely different man than Darius on a purely context-driven basis. This is a significant issue which the waw explicativum proposal above fails to address.

Once again this is where the credibility of the Bible’s account really shines. You see, there is a bit of Persian history that I believe explains this change of title. First, to get a better sense of the Greek use of Persian titles, it’s worth noting that the names or titles Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes are the Grecienize form of the original Persian names/titles. Herodutus presents the Greek perspective in the following quote:

Of the above names Darius may be rendered “Worker,” Xerxes “Warrior,” and Artaxerxes “Great Warrior.” And so might we call these kings in our own language with propriety. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 7169-7171). Kindle Edition.)

Faucets Bible Dictionary has a similar perspective on the title of Xerxes and Artaxerxes:

Faucets Bible Dictionary = 343 Artaxerxes
343.01 From arta, “great,” or “honored”; Artaioi, Arii, Sansk. Arya, being the old name of the Persians, and kshershe, “a king” = Xerxes = AHASUERUS

As you can see from the above quote from Herodotus, the Greek view saw the titles of Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes as titles that represent specific character traits of the Persian kings. Keep these titles in mind as we I provide you a brief history of Darius that explains why the author of Ezra likely added the title “Artaxerxes” or Great Warrior to the title of “Darius” the Worker after Darius’ 6th year:

According to Herodotus and Darius’ own Behistun Inscription, after the death of Cyrus, Cambyses, his son, took the throne. During Cambyses conquest of Egypt, Darius was a member of his royal bodyguard.

On Cambyses’ return to Persia from Egypt, Cambyses mysteriously died in Syria and his brother Bardiya (a.k.a Smerdis) son of Cyrus took the throne. Darius in his Bisitun inscription claimed that this Bardiya was not really the son of Cyrus but an imposter and with the help of six Persian nobles he executed Bardiya and assumed the throne himself. Darius’ murder of the Cambyses brother (who may or may not have been an imposter) didn’t go over very well in the rest of the Persian kingdom and there were revolts in many of the provinces.

It took Darius a year or two to clean up this mess and assume total control over the kingdom. Ezra’s account likely reflected this intimate knowledge of the realities of what was taking place from the provincial perspective.

Keep in mind that Ezra’s narrative of this aspect of Persian history began in the 2^nd year of Darius when Darius (the Worker) was in the thick of trying to attain control over all the provinces of Persia. By the 7^th year of Darius he had conquered his foes, expanded his kingdom, and assumed the title of Artaxerxes (the Great Warrior) as seen from the Jewish perspective of the author of Ezra.

In any case, Ezra’s account, far from introducing confusion as Mr. Lanser claims, instead provides accurate details about the rise of Darius the great Persian Artaxerxes to the pinnacle of power in the kingdom of Persia. We’ll look more at the history of Darius and the profound influence his reign had on the restoration and resettlement of Judah and Jerusalem in a subsequent article, but let’s first look at another one of Mr. Lanser’s objections regarding the “Artaxrerxes” of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to Darius the Great.

Scholars Don’t Agree
In Mr. Lanser’s article the Seraiah Assumption he really takes issue with my explanation of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to Darius even Artaxerxes. One of his biggest complaints is that he cannot find a single Bible translation which agrees with my rendering of the text. Here are a few excerpts which illustrate Mr. Lanser’s complaints:

Ezra 6:14 and the Waw Explicativum
Ezra 6:14 is another verse where the desire to avoid anachronistically introducing Artaxerxes I Longimanus into the narrative has given rise to creative ways of getting around it. One is a particular grammatical argument centered on the Hebrew letter waw. Prefixed to another word, waw is generally translated as a simple connective, “and.” There are places, however, where it can be used as what grammarians term a waw explicativum, where it equates the two items it joins and takes the translation “even.” Applying this understanding to Ezra 6:14b yields:

And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, even Artaxerxes king of Persia (KJV, emphasis added).

By this understanding, Darius is equated with “Artaxerxes.” Mr. Struse is quite insistent that this is the way this waw must be understood; in one place (https://www.the13thenumeration.com/Blog13/2016/09/08/who-is-the-artaxerxes-in-your-prophecy/) he writes,

The error [of translating Ezra 6:14b as “and Artaxerxes”] is actually found in the English translation of the passage. It stems from presuppositional bias and the erroneous use of the Hebrew letter waw. In order to show that Ezra lived during the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, as they presupposed, the translators used the letter waw to form a conjunction instead of a hendiadys (two words with one meaning), as the context would dictate.

With all due respect to Mr. Struse, it is fair to say that 99% of people without any skin in the game would expect the well-trained professional scholars and translators of the various English versions of the Bible, particularly those who uphold it as the Word of God and take their responsibility to handle it carefully with utmost seriousness, to be in a good position to tell us what “the context would dictate.” To assert “presuppositional bias” and “erroneous use of the Hebrew letter” carries little weight when coming from someone without specialized training. He then goes on:

Since there is no reasonable contextual basis to assume that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 was another Persian king who helped finish the temple by the sixth year of Darius—especially a future one!—the translators should have used waw to form a hendiadys, not to denote two different people. Their decision to use the waw in this way was premised upon the necessity to show that Ezra was a contemporary of Artaxerxes Longimanus so that their messianic expectations concerning Daniel 9 could be satisfied. There is simply no other reason to add another Persian king to the chronology of Ezra 6:14–15, especially one who lived nearly sixty years after the events described were completed (emphasis added).

Unless he has actually been in touch with some English Bible translators, I doubt Mr. Struse is in a position to know about any premises or messianic expectations which may have influenced their work. Since we have just seen in our detailed examination of Ezra 4 that there is a “reasonable contextual basis” for the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 being Longimanus, there is reason to add a third king to the chronology of Ezra 6:14–15: it is in keeping with a thematic approach to the passage, like we saw in Ezra 4. How this applies to Ezra 6:14 is discussed by Dr. A. Philip Brown II, whose work we will examine later.

Concluding from the Seraiah Assumption that Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem must have taken place in the seventh year of “Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes of Persia,” Struse insists that his view is the only “reasonable” way of looking at the biblical data, and one who disagrees with it “hopelessly tortures the text” and “creates numerous interpretational inconsistencies”:

In summary, by every reasonable measure of biblical interpretation, Ezra was a contemporary of Darius ‘the Great’, and in fact the most reasonable reading of Ezra 6:13–15 supports this. Trying to stretch Ezra’s chronology to the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus hopelessly tortures the text and creates numerous interpretational inconsistencies which cannot be overcome with any reasonable rendering of the Bible’s chronological record (emphasis added).

Yet, in marked contrast to the certainty expressed above, the translation “even” is not part of any generally accepted English translation of the Bible (cf. the discussion of Anstey below), nor is it given as an alternative translation in the margin notes of any of 15 different English Bibles I checked. Rather, it reflects one individual’s grammar judgment call that hinges on the doubtful validity of the Seraiah Assumption. If the matter was so certain, we would think at least a single English translation would have made a marginal comment about the possibility, but we search for such in vain. This single word change of “and” to “even” is used to justify placing the journey of Ezra to Jerusalem not in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I Longimanus, but in the seventh regnal year of Darius the Great, i.e., 515/514 BC. Taking this approach would make Ezra, accepting via the Seraiah Assumption that he was 56 at the time of the first return under Zerubbabel in the summer of 536 BC, 78 years old when he arrived in Jerusalem in the summer of 514 BC. Though by this assumption Ezra was no spring chicken at his arrival, it sounds possible when contrasted with the alternative, so it is easy to see why this “what if” scenario might be an attractive idea.

Scholarship is Not Always Right
Let me say up front that I have a great deal of respect for anyone, man, women, or child who is a dedicate student of Yahweh’s words. As believers all of us are required to be stewards of Yahweh’s holy words. Having said that, scholars, like the rest of us are mere mortals, they still make mistakes, are prone to group think, and frankly have the additional burden of peer pressure in their writings. This peer pressure and group think is more often than not a good thing, but sometimes it leads astray because too much respect is given to the opinion of other men and not enough respect given to the context of Yahweh’s word. I sincerely believe that is what happened in Ezra 6:14.

Mistranslating the Most Important Word in the Bible
Let me give you a glaring example of what happens when group think and tradition takes precedent over accurately representing what the Bible says.

If you had to choose the most important word in the Bible, what word would that be? A good case could be made that that word would be the name of Yahweh the living God of the Bible, wouldn’t it? It’s the single most important and most widely used verbal expression of His identity by which He revealed Himself to us in the Bible.

In the following list there are 26 different translations of Psalm 8:9 by some of the past several centuries most noted Biblical scholars. Of these, every single example has been translated inaccurately. Not only is the translation inaccurate but the scholars who provided the translation knowingly mistranslated this verse. Because of tradition, peer pressure, or possible even some degree of ignorance, these highly educated scholars all decided to replace the personal name of Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, with an impersonal title. Take a look for yourself:

^KJVPsalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
^BBEPsalm 8:9 O Lord, our Lord, how noble is your name in all the earth!
^CJBPsalm 8:10 ADONAI! Our Lord! How glorious is your name throughout the earth!
^CSBPsalm 8:9 LORD, our Lord, how magnificent is Your name throughout the earth!
^DRAPsalm 8:10 O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in all the earth!
^ERVPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
^ESVPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
^GNVPsalm 8:9 O Lord our Lord, howe excellent is thy Name in all the world!
^GWNPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name throughout the earth!
^JPSPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how glorious is Thy name in all the earth!
^KJGPsalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
^LXEPsalm 8:9 O Lord our Lord, how wonderful is thy name in all the earth!
^NABPsalm 8:10 O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth!
^NASPsalm 8:9 ^aO LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth!
^NAUPsalm 8:9 ^aO LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth!
^NETPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord,²⁰how magnificent²¹is your reputation²²throughout the earth!²³^NIBPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
^NIVPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
^NKJPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth!
^NLTPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, your majestic name fills the earth!
^NRSPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
^RSVPsalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth!
^RWBPsalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
^TNKPsalm 8:10 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is Your name throughout the earth!
^WEBPsalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent {is} thy name in all the earth!
^BGTPsalm 8:10 ku,rie o` ku,rioj h`mw/n w`j qaumasto.n to. o;noma, sou

Now I’ve made no secret that I’m only a high school (homeschooled) educated plumber. But stewardship of Yahweh’s precious words gives me and you the right, nay – the responsibility to translate this verse correctly no matter how many scholars tell us we should replace the holy name of Yahweh with a title.

O Yahweh our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
– Psalm 8:9

Did you know that this purposeful error in translating Yahweh’s name has been done over 6500 times in nearly every English and Greek translation of our Bibles? The Hebrew text is one of the few that accurately represents our Creators name.

Mr. Lanser is an exceptionally knowledgeable and dedicated scholar of the Bible, yet in his article The Seraiah Assumption, at least half a dozen times when quoting the Bible, he too conformed to group think, peer pressure, or whatever you want to call it, by knowingly using an erroneous translation of the verses which inaccurately replaces the holy name of Yahweh with an impersonal title. Decent well meaning intelligent scholars make mistakes too!

Now let me ask you, are you willing to read Ezra 4-6 in the chronological context we’ve explored in this series so far, and still not accept the possibility that the translators of this passage in all the English versions you choose to consult, out of well meaning tradition, messianic expectation, inadequate attention to context, or some other inexplicable reason might not have erroneously translated this incredibly important passage? I don’t care if you are an “uneducated” man like myself or a Phd in multiple deciples of Biblical studies, we all have the responsibility to show a Berean’s stewardship when reading and interpreting Yahweh’s words.

Context Decides the Artaxerxes Assumption
In my opinion, as informed by my interpretational approach, there is no other way to translate Ezra 6:14 other than by seeing it as an effort by the author of Ezra to inform his readers that Darius son of Hystaspes was also known by the Persian title of Artaxerxes.

Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes
So working from the Biblical context we’ve explored so far, Ezra 6 ends with Darius (the worker) in his 6^th year, transitioning into Darius the great Persian “Artaxrexes”.

Now once again humor me here. As we read the following passage from Ezra chapter 7, let’s assume the author was just relaying to us a chronological account of Persian and Jewish history in the same organized and detail manner in which the first 6 chapters of the book of Ezra are relayed.

Ezra 6 ended in the 6^th year of Darius the Persian Artaxerxes. Ezra 7 opens in the 7^th year of Artaxerxes. Using the context provided by Ezra 6, the most natural reading of the opening verses of Ezra 7 is that the Artaxerxes mentioned is none other than the Darius – even – Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14. Here take a look for yourselves:

¹⁵ And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

¹⁶ And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy¹⁷ And offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. ¹⁸ And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses. ¹⁹ And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. ²⁰ For the priests and the Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves. ²¹ And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek YHWH God of Israel, did eat, ²² And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for YHWH had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel. (Ezra 6:14-22)

Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, ²

The son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, ³ The son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, ⁴ The son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, ⁵ The son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest: ⁶ This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which YHWH God of Israel had given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of YHWH his God upon him.

⁷ And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.

⁸ And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king.

For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him. ( Ezra 7:1-9 )

Transitioning from Reestablishing the Temple to Reestablishing Torah Observance
If we allow the Bible to define its own context then this passage informs us that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 7 is the same Darius – even – Artaxerxes of Ezra 6. More importantly the text informs us of a transition from the building of the temple to the reestablishment of the temple service and the proper observance of the Torah.

Once the temple was completed the next natural step for the Jewish people was for them to start observing the Torah again. I think sometimes we impose on the text some of our own experiential biases. Today, even the poorest of the poor has access to the words of Yahweh as given in what we know today as the Old Testament. In the 2^nd Temple Era, before the printing press, knowledge of the Torah was depended on hand copied scrolls or verbal instruction by those who had memorized the Torah.

Just before the destruction of Solomon’s temple by Nebuchadnezzar, knowledge of the Torah was so rare that when a copy was found and given to king Josiah to read by the scribe Shaphan it so profoundly moved king Josiah that he rent his clothes. Here is a brief account:

And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of YHWH. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. ¹¹ And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes

¹³ Go ye, enquire of YHWH for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of YHWH that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.
(2 Kings 22:8-13 excerpted)

And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. ² And the king went up into the house of YHWH, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH. (2 Kings 23:1-2)

Notice from this passage that once the Torah was found it was taken up to the temple and read by the king in the presence of the people gathered there.

The 7^th year of Artaxerxes
With this story in mind now consider and compare the events in the 7^th year of Artaxerxes less than 100 years later. The temple had just been completed and dedicated in the 6^th year of Darius – even – Artaxerxes. The following year Ezra whom the Bible describes as a “priest and scribe” whom the Bible further describes as the son of Seraiah (the last high priest of Solomon’s temple) is compelled to come up and teach the repatriated Jewish people the Torah. Remember Torah observance and its temple service required a completed and dedicated temple.

So it is only natural that once the temple was completed we find that Ezra “the scribe” felt it his duty as a custodian of the Torah to come up teach the Torah in order that the Jewish people might conduct their lives in accordance with Yahweh’s divine law.

Now let’s look at some of Mr. Lanser’s objections to Ezra traveling to Jerusalem in the 7^th year of Darius – even – Artaxerxes

Struse, seeing in the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 6:14 a reference to Darius the Great, is inclined to have Ezra travel to Jerusalem the very next year after the Temple was finished, such that he arrived in “the seventh year of king Artaxerxes” (Ezra 7:7–8), which he equates with the seventh year of Darius I. But this is by no means upheld by the text—and it begs the question of why, if Ezra was 56 when Zerubbabel’s group left for Jerusalem, he did not join them at that time, but waited until he was in his late 70s to make the trip.

As we’ve seen by our contextual chronological exploration of Ezra 4-7, Ezra arriving in Jerusalem in the 7^th year of Darius Artaxerxes is indeed supported by a plain reading of the texts. But what about Mr. Lanser’s question of why did Ezra wait so long to join his brethren in Jerusalem?

First of all there is no Biblical evidence that Ezra was not part of the early repatriated Jewish people who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel. In fact Nehemiah 12 tells us that there was a priest named Ezra who joined Joshua and Zerubbabel on their journey to Jerusalem circa 536 BC.

Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, ² Amariah, Malluch, Hattush, ³ Shechaniah, Rehum, Meremoth ⁴ Iddo, Ginnetho, Abijah, ⁵ Miamin, Maadiah, Bilgah, ⁶ Shemaiah, and Joiarib, Jedaiah, ⁷ Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, Jedaiah. These were the chief of the priests and of their brethren in the days of Jeshua. (Nehemiah 12:1-7)

Another objection to Mr. Lanser raises to the 7^th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7) being the 7^th year of Darius I is the contrast between the purity of those who dedicated the temple in the 6^th year of Darius with the impurity of those who were married to foreign wives in the 7^th year of Artaxerxes. Mr. Lanser believes this short period is not sufficient for the events described. He explains:

One can also draw from Ezra 6:16, 20 a corroborating inference that significant time passed between Ezra 6 and Ezra 7: “And the sons of Israel, the priests, the Levites and the rest of the exiles, celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy…For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves together; all of them were pure.” At the time of the dedication of the Temple prior to Ezra’s arrival, all of the priests and Levites were “pure,” and able to minister without reproach. Contrast that statement with what we learn in Ezra 9:1:

Now when these things [setting up for Temple worship right after Ezra’s arrival] had been completed, the princes approached me [Ezra], saying, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites.”

This alerts us that at some point between the completion of the Temple in Darius’ sixth year and Ezra’s arrival, the priests and Levites no longer met the standard of purity portrayed in Ezra 6:16, 20. The implication is that in the intervening time intermarriage with the local pagans had begun. The problem of taking foreign wives was a development that must have taken some years to unfold—a gradual secularism crept in as the passion for holiness seen in the pioneering returnees was diminished as succeeding generations were born in Judea. This was not something that could reasonably have taken place in a single year, between the sixth and seventh years of Darius. It implies that “after these things” required the passing of sufficient time for corruption to take root and begin spreading like leaven, even amongst those who should have been the leaders in resisting it—the priests and Levites.

Context here is again helpful. When the temple was dedicated in the 6^th year of Darius, the people were ritually purified. This does not mean they were keeping the entire law or even all of the most important precepts of the law. In fact, the sacrificial system (which the Torah required) could not be instituted until after the temple had been dedicated. How could the reference to “purity” of the people at the dedication of the temple in Ezra 6 be a general reference which included all sins the people might have been guilty of if the temple service that was required to atone for those sins was not yet instituted? The point is that Ezra 6 and the reference to purity must have been seen within the limited ritualistic purity related to the dedication of the temple not a more general reference to the keeping of all precepts of the Torah.

The Son of Jeshua Took Foreign Wives
That a great deal of time did not transpire between Ezra 6 & 7 is also confirmed by Ezra 10:18-19 which tells us that some of the sons of Jeshua (the high priest) were among those guilty of taking strange wives. Taken at face value this verse provides reasonable evidence that Ezra 7-9 took place within one generation of the settlement of Jerusalem after the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC.

¹⁸ And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah. ¹⁹ And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass. (Ezra 10:18-19)

Please Note:
In a subsequent article of this series we will look at the lineage of Ezra, and the lists of Priests & Levites of Nehemiah in order to address Mr. Lanser’s claim (#1 & #2 as quoted at the beginning of this article) that taking these passages at face value is an “assumption” not warranted by the text.

In Summary
I hope this article has provided you the grounds to appreciate a straight forward natural reading of the Biblical text related to 2^nd temple era, especially as it relates to the identity of the Persian king Darius who the Bible also identifies as Artaxerxes. I also hope that you won’t take my word for this fascinating and important era in biblical history, but that this article encourages each of you to do your Berean duty and, “see if these things be so”.

Maranatha!

Next Time
Yahweh willing in my next article we will look more closely at the Biblical and historical use of the Persian titles Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Ahasuerus. Along the way we’ll be addressing some more of Mr. Lanser’s objections to the use of Artaxerxes as a title that refers to the Persian king Darius I (son of Hystaspes) as exemplified by the following quote from Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption:

Calling Artaxerxes a title like “Caesar,” however, is incorrect. It is actually a throne name, which has a different significance. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throne%20name), a throne name is defined as “the official name taken by a ruler and especially an ancient Egyptian pharaoh on ascending the throne.” Specifically about Artaxerxes, the Encyclopaedia Iranica (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/artaxerxes-throne-name-of-several-persian-kings-of-the-achaemenid-dynasty) observes: “ARTAXERXES, throne name of several Persian kings of the Achaemenid dynasty.” The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Artaxerxes) notes: “[Artaxerxes] was borne by three kings of the Achaemenian dynasty of ancient Persia; though, so long as its meaning was understood, it can have been adopted by the kings only after their accession to the throne” [i.e., it was a throne name] (brackets and emphasis added). Recall also that Jacob Myers informed us that the three kings of Persia bearing that name were Longimanus, Mnemon and Ochus. I am unaware of a single authority who claims that Darius should be included. The point to take away is that “Artaxerxes” was a name replacement adopted by a king when he took the throne, not a title. A throne name is like the way Popes take on a new name when elected to that office. Newly elected Popes set aside their birth names and are henceforth known by the new one. A throne name is not the same thing as a title for their position, which is “Pope.” The very fact that the Scriptures refer to “King Artaxerxes” also illustrates this distinction between title and throne name, for if “Artaxerxes” was just a Persian term for “king,” he was in effect being called “King King.” That makes no sense.

Behistun Inscription – wikipedia

For further reflection I leave you this week with a quote from Darius I (son of Hystaspes) written at his direction on the cliffs of Mount Behistun in the Kermanshah Provice of present day Iran as well as two verses from the book of Ezra.

The first line of this so called Behistun inscription reads as follows:

Line #1
I am Darius [Dâryavuš], the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia [Pârsa], the king of countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenid. (For a full rendering of the Behistun Inscription see the following link: Translation of the Behistun Inscription

Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, (Ezra 7:1)

¹² Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time. (Ezra 7:12)

Authors Note:
This is a multi-part series of articles responding to the Associates for Biblical Research criticism of my view of 2nd temple history as presented in an article on their website entitledThe Seraiah Assumption.

Articles related to this series:
The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser of Associates for Biblical Research
The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping up Loose Ends by Rick Lanser

Book 1

Book I - Description

The 13th Enumeration
"A book that will change how you look at the Bible's Messianic Symbolism."

Click for Free Download

Book 2

Book 2 - Description

Daniel's 70 Weeks -
"A book that will forever change how you understand the Bible's greatest Messianic prophecy."

Click for Free Download

Book 3

Book 3 - Description

The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."

Click for Free Download