Author Archives: William Struse

The Anti-Semitic Roots of a Christian Conspiracy Theory

Did the Jewish Rabbis Alter the Bible to Hurt Christianity?

In my last article, we learned there was no smoking gun of Rabbinic manipulation of the Hebrew Old Testament texts. The best “evidence” that those who hold this Christian conspiracy theory could come up with were second hand accounts and the belief that the Jewish rabbis of the 2nd century had “motive, means, and opportunity” to change the Hebrew Masoretic (MT) text of the Old Testament in order to undermine the Christian belief that the Yeshua of Nazareth was the Old Testament’s promised Messiah.

We also learned in the last article that the Septuagint text of the Old Testament was in fact purposely changed in thousands of places. This manipulation was likely a well-meaning attempt to make it more appealing to the Greek speaking audience of its day. Kind of like a “living translation” scholars compile today in order to make the Bible more understandable to their modern readers. I don’t agree with this mentality, nevertheless, I understand the reasons one might attempt such an effort.

Since there is no hard evidence the Jewish rabbis of the 2nd century manipulated the text of the Old Testament to undermine early Christian beliefs that Yeshua (Jesus) was the Old Testament’s promised Messiah, shouldn’t we as Christian’s give them the benefit of the doubt? I believe we should

In the interest of thoroughness though, let’s look at some of the Christian conspiratorialist’s circumstantial evidence to see if there is any validity to their claims.

Let’s start with the claim that the Old Testament chronology was shortened so that Yeshua of Nazareth did not arrive at the time expected of the Messiah. Here are a couple of quotes from Mr. Woodward’s – Rebooting the Bible pp. 199-200 that explain his arguments:

 

Voices Confirming MT Corruption of the Timeline
Debating the nature of the differences between the LXX and the MT isn’t just a recent pastime of interested academics. It has been a hot topic for seventeen centuries! And scholars in the early Church arrived at the same conclusion that our study deduces: The rabbis of the first and second centuries changed the MT text in Messianic passages, but also “deflated” the Genesis 5 and 11 chronologies; Henry B. Smith Jr. informs us:

Ephraem of Syria [306-373 A. D.] is the first known ancient source to explicitly argue that the Jewish rabbis of the second century AD deflated the primeval chronology by ca. 1300 years in their Hebrew MSS for the purpose of discrediting Jesus as the Christ: “The Jews have subtracted 600 years [in Genesis 5] from the generations of Adam, Seth, etc., in order that their own books might not convict them concerning the coming of CHRIST: he having been predicted to appear for the deliverance of mankind after 5500 years.” Ephraem was one of many ancient authors who claimed that the rabbis deliberately reduced the primeval chronology for messianic reasons.224

Prophecy students are familiar with the notion that there would be a “Sabbath week” of millennia, meaning that biblical history would extend 7,000 years with the final 1,000 years being the reign of Christ –aka the Kingdom of David, or more appropriately, the Kingdom of God. Few know that this belief was widespread in Second Temple Judaism – meaning that the Messiah would appear before six thousand years had transpired. Says Smith, “Messianic chronologies were usually associated with the Days of Creation, with each day representing 1,000 years of history. In some schemes, the Messiah would arrive in the 6th millennium (5000-5999 AM), and usher in the kingdom in the 7th millennium (6000 AM).”225 Smith comments that this was done by the rabbis because “reducing the primeval chronology as presently found in the MT places Jesus’ life outside the time of the coming of the Messiah [This is, Jesus’s coming in 1 B.C., would have been too early for Jesus to qualify as Messiah].226 But Akiba had altered the dates so that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t come as the Messiah after 5,000 years!

Rebooting Early Christian Anti-Semitism
There are several problems with Mr. Woodward’s and Mr. Smith’s reasoning above.  To start with let’s address  the origins of the Christian Conspiracy Theory regarding the unproven chronological manipulations of the Hebrew Bible by Jewish Rabbis.

In the quote above it is admitted that the first known ancient source who “explicitly“ argued that Jewish rabbis purposely manipulated the Hebrew text of the Bible was the early church father Ephraem of Syria. (306-373 AD) What Mr. Woodward and Mr. Smith fail to mention is that Ephraem was a rabid anti-Semite who wrote vitriolic rants against the Jewish people in an attempt to convince his Christian followers that the customs of the Jewish people were evil.

You see, the context of Ephraem’s words take place in the fourth century when it was still popular for many Christian believers to keep the Biblical holy day of Passover. Ephraem and other church fathers believed these “Jewish” traditions were evil and the Eucharist was the proper method to remember Yeshua sacrificial atonement on our behalf.  Even though the Passover supper was in fact the symbol by which Yeshua taught his own disciples and those disciples taught their early followers to remember  Yahweh’s  redemptive plan for mankind and Yeshua’s  part in that plan, many of the church fathers reject the Passover symbolism because of it’s “Jewishness”.

So you clearly understand the mentality of Ephraem and his unsupported claims that the Jewish rabbis manipulated the Old Testament chronology of the Bible; here are a few quotes reflecting his view of the Jewish people. These quotes come from several of Ephraem’s anti-semitic hymns which can be found here: Ephraem the Syrian

“Blessed is he who rejected the People [the Jewish people] and their matza
Since their hands were defiled with precious blood!

For when the People went forth they bore
leaven of idolatry along with matza.

See how the People refresh their outward appearance
While in their heart dwells deadly poison.

For [the People] resembles the first serpent
Who deceived us by giving us deadly fruit.

Don’t take that matza, brethren,
from the People with blood-spattered hands

How much more unclean is matza,
kneaded by hands that killed the Son!

The People that did not eat pork
is a blood-stained pig.

‘I hate the Jewish dead!
I loathe their bones in Sheol.

‘If only there was a way I could get rid of their bones
from Sheol, for they make the place stink!

‘By the Holy Spirit, I’m astonished at how long I’ve dwelt
among a People who smell as rank as their way of life!

‘Onions and garlic are the heralds of their deeds —  (Numeri 11.5)
The mind of that filthy People resembles their food.’

Ephraem’s claims of Jewish manipulation of the text must be seen through his depraved  and unscriptural view of the Jewish people as reflected above. Ephraem clearly hated the Jewish people. His anti-semitic conspiracy theory about their manipulations of the Scriptures was likely rooted in this same evil.

Alison Salvesen of Jewish/Non-Jewish Relations explains the context of Ephraem’s Anti-Jewish Hymns this way:

Discussion of the sources
The first three examples of Ephraem’s anti-Jewish works are taken from a series of hymns on the Unleavened Bread, for use in the days before the festival of Easter. It is clear from Ephrem, and from other writers of the period such as St John Chrysostom in Antioch in Syria, that Christians found participation in Jewish festivals attractive, with Pesach being a great favourite. Ephrem uses the strongest possible language to deter his congregants from eating matza with their Jewish neighbours. He also uses Old Testament Scripture very selectively and out of context, to support his argument that God has rejected the Jewish Chosen People, in favour of the ‘People from the Peoples’ (i.e., Gentile Christians). Ephrem’s goal is to get local Christians to accept the superior spiritual significance of Easter over Passover, and of Eucharistic bread (as symbol of the Body of Christ) over Jewish unleavened bread. https://jnjr.div.ed.ac.uk/primary-sources/rabbinic/st-ephrem-ephrem-the-syrian-c-306-373-ce-anti-jewish-hymns/

While not all early church fathers shared the vitriolic hatred expressed by Ephraem of Syria, many did consider the Jewish people (as a race) to be hopelessly flawed, and because of this supposed deficiency  God cursed them with Torah observance and suffering. Justin Martyr, one of the earliest proponents of the Christian Conspiracy theory concerning the Rabbinic manipulations of the Hebrew text, had this to say about the Jewish people in his work: Dialogue with Trypho (a Jew). (Circa 155-170 AD)

We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.

 The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.

What is so disconcerting about the sentiments expressed above is, first of all, their lack of love as exemplified by Yeshua’s death and resurrection for the sins of ALL mankind, not just the Jewish people. We are all flawed sinners in the eyes of Yahweh. Second, the Jewish people were and are special in the eyes of Yahweh because he chose them to fulfill his covenant with Abraham, that promise that through Abraham’s seed ALL nations of the earth would be blessed. Thirdly, the apostle Paul explained that it was Yahweh’s graciousness that used the rejection of Yeshua by some of the Jewish people and their leaders, to bring the good news of the gospel to the Gentiles – in order that BOTH Jews and Gentiles might be added to the family of God.

Romans 11:7-21   7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded  8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.  9

And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:  10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?  13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:  14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.  15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.  17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;  18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.  19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.  20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Grafted into the Olive Tree
As Gentiles grafted into the same source as the Jewish people, we should not get caught up in the reckless accusations of some of the early church fathers who saw the Jewish people as a hopelessly cursed race. Quite the contrary, the Jewish people as a race are indeed special in the eyes of Yahweh and they are and will continue to be a central fixture in Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind.

In fact, those of you who like me earnestly look for the return of Yeshua, it would behoove us to remember that Yeshua will not return again until the Jewish People as a nation say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord [Yahweh].”

I ask you then, what part are you playing in Yahweh’s plan to restore the Jewish people to favor in His sight? Are your words and actions helping or hindering the Jewish people in their understanding of the good news of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah?  Making unfounded and slanderous accusations against the Jewish people, certainly does not further their understanding of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua – their JEWISH Messiah.

Luke 13:34-35   34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!  35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

For those who would like to better understand the anti-Semitism of the early church fathers I encourage you to read Dr. David Reagan’s excellent article entitled:  Anti-Semitism: Its Roots and Perseverance.

A Chronological Conspiracy
Okay, so we’ve explored the antisemitic roots of the Christian Conspiracy Theory concerning the supposed Rabbinic manipulations of the Hebrew Bible. While the early church father’s anti-Semitic bias clearly contributed to their view of their unreliability of the Hebrew text of the Scripture, what about the facts of the case? Is their validity to the claims made above by Mr. Woodward and Mr. Smith that the MT Hebrew text of the Scripture was maliciously modified in order to hide the fact that Yeshua was the Bible’s promised Messiah?

Let’s do some chronological forensics to see if this Christian chronological conspiracy theory has any truth to it even though it was originally built upon an evil foundation of anti-Semitism. Might there be some truth to it, nevertheless?

Let’s look once more at Mr. Woodward’s and Mr. Smith’s claims regarding the chronological conspiracy of the Jewish Rabbis:

Prophecy students are familiar with the notion that there would be a “Sabbath week” of millennia, meaning that biblical history would extend 7,000 years with the final 1,000 years being the reign of Christ –aka the Kingdom of David, or more appropriately, the Kingdom of God. Few know that this belief was widespread in Second Temple Judaism – meaning that the Messiah would appear before six thousand years had transpired. Says Smith, “Messianic chronologies were usually associated with the Days of Creation, with each day representing 1,000 years of history. In some schemes, the Messiah would arrive in the 6th millennium (5000-5999 AM), and usher in the kingdom in the 7th millennium (6000 AM).”225 Smith comments that this was done by the rabbis because “reducing the primeval chronology as presently found in the MT places Jesus’ life outside the time of the coming of the Messiah [This is, Jesus’s coming in 1 B.C., would have been too early for Jesus to qualify as Messiah].226 But Akiba had altered the dates so that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t come as the Messiah after 5,000 years! (Woodward – Rebooting the Bible pp. 199-200)

Misunderstandings and Misrepresentations
There are a couple of problems with Mr. Woodward’s & Mr. Smith’s representation of the early church’s belief in the 6 days (6000 years labor) – 1 day (1000 year rest) symbolism. First of all what we agree upon: Many of the early church fathers did indeed see Biblical history in terms of a 7000 year plan of God. Like Yahweh’s pattern at creation they saw the six days of Yahweh’s labor as 6000 years of mankind’s labor under the curse of sin, followed by a Sabbath rest of 1000 years where Yeshua literally ruled from the throne of David during the millennium. While there is clearly Biblical support for a 1000 year reign of Christ, Yeshua’s coming – during – the 6th millennium is nowhere clearly stated in the Bible.

Pre-Millenniallism and the Church Fathers
For more information on the Pre-Millennialism of the early church I’d encourage you to read Bob DeWaay’s  article Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers. The article shows that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papias, Tertullian, Commodianus, Lactantius and Hippolytus of Rome all held some version of (7th day) millennialism (not 6th day).

As many before me have said, in many ways, Yeshua’s first coming could be seen as a secret mission. He came at His 1st coming to restore Israel’s and mankind’s spiritual fortunes and it is at His 2nd coming that the more physical manifestations of that redemptive plan will be revealed – to include Yeshua physical rule over the nations, a rule in which the nation of Israel will have an honored place.

But let’s get back to the conspiracy theory. To be clear, the invented accusation that because the Jewish Hebrew text of the Scripture placed Yeshua’s first coming in the 4th millennium instead of the LLX’s version of the chronology which places the first coming of Yeshua in the middle of the 6th millennium somehow constitutes proof of a Rabbinic manipulation is exaggerating the evidence to say the least.

Here take a look at the chronology of the Septuagint organized within the early church’s view of the 7000 year plan of Yahweh.

Click on image to enlarge

Good and Bad News
First of all the bad news: According to the early church fathers’ view of Biblical history based upon the Septuagint (chart above), you and I have officially missed the millennial reign of Christ. The Good news is that we are now living in the age of the new heaven and earth and the New Jerusalem. Of course you must spiritualize much of what the Bible says about the coming messianic age to claim this age is in any way a fulfillment of what the Bible promises.

Missing the Millennium
The above chart gives one an insight into understanding  why from the 4th century onwards the literalist or chiliast (millennial) view of Biblical history of the early church was rejected in favor of a spiritualized (kingdom now) version of history.

The church based in part upon their rejection of everything Jewish, and their acceptance of the Septuagint’s chronology of Biblical history, saw that the Yeshua had not literally returned to reign from Jerusalem.  Those who held to the Septuagint version of chronology and the 6000/1000 view of Biblical history sought an alternative version of history to explain their failed eschatology.

Definition: Chiliasm
The belief that Christ will return to earth in visible form and establish a kingdom to last 1000 years. Also called millenarianism. — chiliast, n. — chiliastic, adj.

In the above chart note especially Ephraem of Syria’s chronological place in all of this. He, the first church father to specifically claim (according to Smith) that the Jewish Rabbis had manipulated the chronology of the Hebrew Bible to hide the messianic nature of Yeshua of Nazareth, himself made these claims when he stood at what his generation considered the very threshold of the millennium. Prejudiced by his hatred of the Jewish people, he might well have assumed that the Jewish version (MT) of the Scriptures was purposely concealing the soon return and reign of Christ.

Spiritualizing the Bible
Looking back  we might explain the failed eschatological (chiliast) expectations of the early church fathers and their subsequent shift away from a literalist eschatological interpretation of Scripture to a more spiritualized view in a couple of different ways.

  1. The early church fathers’ chiliast expectations (6000/1000) view of history was flawed since the Messiah didn’t come.
  2. The Septuagint chronology of the Bible was inflated and it was not yet the end of the 6th millennium from Adam. In other words the early church fathers trust in the LXX was flawed and because of their anti-Semitic bias they were blinded to this possibility that the MT text of the Bible might have been correct.

 The Rabbi’s Predicted the Coming of Yeshua
Here is the real irony of this whole convoluted conspiracy theory. If the early church fathers hadn’t summarily rejected everything “Jewish” they might have realized that their conspiracy about the early Jewish manipulations of the Old Testament chronology were simply not accurate.

The fact of the matter is that Yeshua came precisely when the Rabbis believed the messianic age would begin. You see, like the early church fathers, many of the Jewish people believed in a 6 day (6000 yrs.) 1 day (millennial reign) view of Biblical history. The Jewish rabbis divided the 6000 years into three periods of time. The first 2000 years they called the Age of Chaos, the 2nd 2000 years the Age of Law/Instructions, and the 3rd 2000 years the Age of / Days of the Messiah.

Compiled in roughly 500 AD the Babylonian Talmud explained the Rabbinic Jewish view of Biblical history in the following way:

There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Ktina: As in the Sabbatic period, the seventh year is a release, so will it be with the whole world that one thousand years after six will be a release, as above cited verse [Isa. xii. i] and [Ps. xcii. 11]: “A Psalm or song for the Sabbath day,” which means the day which will be all Sabbath. And as [ibid. xc. 4]: “For a thousand years are in thy eyes but as the yesterday when it is passed.”

The disciples of Elijah taught: The world will continue for six thousand years, the first two thousand of which were a chaos (Tahu), the second two thousand were of wisdom, and the third two thousand are the days of the Messiah, and because of our sins many, many years of these have elapsed, and still he has not come.

Elijah said to R. Jehudah, the brother of R. Sala the Pious: The world will continue for no less than eighty-five jubilaic periods, and in the last jubilaic period ben David will come. (anonymous. The Babylonian Talmud (Annotated) (p. 317). Unknown. Kindle Edition.)

Take a look at the following chart. According to the Hebrew MT text of the Bible Yeshua’s first coming took place at precisely the beginning of what the Jewish rabbis believed to be the start of the Messianic age. From a Jewish rabbinic point of view any time during those 2000 years would have been time to expect the Messiah. That Yeshua came at the very beginning of this messianic period and many signs point to Yeshua soon return, the significance of this view should not be ignored.

Click on Image to Enlarge

You might be wondering, by what kind of logic could the early church fathers have claimed this was a manipulation meant to hide the messianic identity of Yeshua?

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Christian Conspiracy Theory of the early church fathers was so firmly rooted in their anti-Semitic view of the Jewish People that they were blinded to the truth and simply believed what seemed (at the time) to confirm their chronological (and eschatological) world view as given in the LXX version of the Bible.

While it is clear that the early church fathers were wrong about their unfounded claims that the Jewish rabbis manipulated the Hebrew MT chronology of the Bible to undermine Yeshua of Nazareth’s credibility as the promise Messiah. What is not so clear is whether the Septuagint version of chronology was inaccurate or the early church fathers’ view of a 7000 year plan of God was in error.

In my final article in this series (Yahweh willing), I will make a case for why I believe the chronology of the MT text of the Scripture is accurate in its projection of Biblical hisotry. I will also provide evidence to show that this version of the Old Testament chronology was known to the early New Testament church. Specifically, I will show that Matthew’s arrangement of Yeshua’s generations only makes sense if seen within the context of the chronology as given in the MT text of the Bible.

The “Dirty” Reason for Believing the Septuagint
Please forgive my pun, but in exploring the modern resurrection of this Christian Conspiracy Theory regarding the Jewish manipulations of the Old Testament chronology, it became apparent to me that unlike the anti-Semitic roots of the past, the modern necessity for believing the LXX chronology had a more “scientific” albeit dirty reason.

I’ll let Mr. Woodward explain:

“Since the chronology also contributes to the case for Jesus Christ (as we will demonstrate later), the timeline was altered too – and dramatically so. The unintended consequences for Jews and Christians were not that significant. But over the last 200 years, during our modern era, this corrupted chronology has become a big problem. It became so since the science of Archeology started unearthing artifacts contradicting the dates supplied by the Masoretic Text.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – Introduction p. 14)

In our quest to know how God spoke through the Biblical authors, the LXX demands our highest respect and a good portion of our study. To discover the truth about the creation, the birth of humanity, the Great Flood, the Exodus, and so on, we must “reboot the Bible.” Many of the findings of Archeology can now much better be squared with God’s truth.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – The Creation of the Alexandrian Septuagint p. 63)

If you read the above closely you see the real driving reason behind Rebooting an ancient Christian Conspiracy Theory is to better align Biblical history with the consensus of modern archeology and the resulting history derived from it study.

Based upon the evidence that Mr. Woodward and other well meaning scholars like Mr. Smith have provided, I find little reason to believe in their conspiracy theory regarding the Jewish manipulations of the MT text of the Bible. Even if the facts and evidence are given an equal weighing against assumptions about motive, means, and opportunity, I beleive the scale tips decidedly in favor of the MT and the “Jewish” version of Old Testament history.

Maranatha!

This is a multi part article exploring the Rabbinic Forgeries Hypothesis
Part I: Rebooting a Christian Conspiracy Theory
Part II: The Anti-Semitic Roots of a Christian Conspiracy Theory

For an expanded version of this subject please see my articles:
Part I: The Septuagint, the Masoretic Text, & Matthew 1
Part II: Matthew 1, the Masoretic Text, & the Bible’s Messianic Symbolism
Part III: The Masoretic Text, Matthew 1, & the Jubilee
Part IV: Sir Isaac Newton, Daniel 9, & the Rabbinic Forgeries Hypothesis

 

Which Covenant Could Christ Be?

The title of today’s blog post is a fascinating question asked by Dr. Paul Henebury  in his latest article at his blog: here  The question is asked in the messianic redemptive context of Isaiah 42 and Matthew 12 and is within the greater context of Dr. Henebury’s explorations of the Bible’s covenants.

Can you answer Dr. Henebury’s question: Which Covenant Could Christ Be?

For what it is worth my reply to Dr. Henebury is below. For those interested, before you read my reply I’d encourage you to read his article to get the full context of his question and then see what you come up with yourself. It’s a wonderful subject and worthy of every Berean’s consideration. Dr. Henebury’s article is here.

Authors Note:
For those of you wondering, I hope to finish up Part II of Rebooting a Christian Conspiracy Theory by next week. I was hoping to post it this week but not quite done yet.

My Answer to Dr. Henebury’s question:
Which Covenant Could Christ Be?

Good evening Dr. Henebury,

I’ve enjoyed reading your latest articles exploring the covenants. They make for such a wonderful treasure hunt in Yahweh’s word.

You asked “Which covenant could Christ be?” This is a wonderful challenge so here is my take for what it is worth.

I agree that Matthew 12 can be seen within the messianic redemptive theme of Isaiah 42.

Concerning Matthew’s quote of “in His name Gentiles will trust.”, this is more directly expanded upon in  Isaiah 11 where the passage describes the ‘Branch’, the “root of Jesse” to whom the “Gentiles seek”.  In Romans 15 Paul quotes Isaiah (11?) describing Jesus as the “minister of (to) the circumcision for the truth of God” which truth “confirms the promises made unto the fathers”. Those promises made to the fathers, Paul explains, are related (in part) to the “mercy” Yahweh will show the gentiles.

Romans 15:8-12   8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:  9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.  10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.  11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.  12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah 11:1,10
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:….

  10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Isaiah 49 builds upon this theme by describing a “servant”, a “light to the Gentiles”, a “Redeemer of Israel” , a “covenant for the people”.

I believe a strong case can be made that the “covenant to the people” of Isaiah 42 and the “covenant of the people” of Isaiah 49 can be traced back to the first covenant Yahweh swore with any man in the Bible. That covenant is found in Gen: 22:16-18 is promise by Yahweh “by Himself” to Abraham that in Abraham’s seed all nations of the earth will be blessed.

Genesis 22:16-18
16 And said, By myself have I sworn [shaba], saith YHWH, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:  17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

What I think is so awesome about this oath (shebuw’ah) Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham is that it is confirmed to Isaac and then later described as the “covenant and mercy” of Yahweh by Moses when he is exhorting Israel just before crossing into the promised land. Here is the confirmation given to Isaac:

Genesis 26:3-4  
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath [shebuw’ah] which I sware [shaba] unto Abraham thy father;  4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

In the following Moses explains this covenant to Israel. Notice Moses makes clear that Yahweh’s blessings upon Israel are not because of their greatness but because He loved them and that He was going to keep “the oath (shebuw’ah) which He sware (shaba) to your fathers.” An oath which Moses later explains in Deu. 9:5 begins with Abraham.

Deuteronomy 7:12 
12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that YHWH thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware [shaba] unto thy fathers:

Deuteronomy 7:6-9  
6 For thou art an holy people unto YHWH thy God: YHWH thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. 

7 YHWH did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:  8 But because YHWH loved you, and because he would keep the oath [shebuw’ah] which he had sworn [shaba] unto your fathers, hath YHWH brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

9 Know therefore that YHWH thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Deuteronomy 9:5
5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations YHWH thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which YHWH sware [shaba] unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Confirming that the “covenant and mercy” of Yahweh is in fact the oath (shaba) Yahweh swore (shebuw’ah) with Abraham we have the witness of Zechariah, Peter, Paul, and Mary the mother of Yeshua. Notice in these first two examples that Zechariah  and Mary who were before the cross saw Israel’s messianic redemption first as a national or physical deliverance from their enemies. Peter on the other, who had the benefit of hindsight, saw this covenant (in part) – this shaba with Abraham, as primarily related to Yahweh’s redemptive promise through Yeshua to restore Israel’s spiritual fortunes.

Luke 1:68-75 
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,  69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;  70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:  71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;  73 The oath [shaba] which he sware [shebuw’ah] to our father Abraham,  74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,  75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Luke 1:54-55  
54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;  55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

Acts 3:25-26 
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.  26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Galatians 3:16-17  
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.  17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

To make my final argument for the case that Yeshua is the fulfillment of the “covenant and mercy” that Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham I offer you Daniel 9. In this wonderful prophetic passage the first words out of Daniel’s mouth are a plea for Yahweh to remember His “covenant and mercy to them that love Him and keep His commandments”.  As we saw above this is a direct quote from Deu 7:9 and in the context of the oath (shebuw’ah) Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham.

Daniel 9:4 4
And I prayed unto YHWH my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

So how does Yahweh answer Daniel’s plea for His “covenant and mercy”, for his plea to redeem Israel and reestablish his holy dwelling place? Yahweh sends Daniel a prophecy of 70 (shib’iym) Sevens (shabuwa) which tells when this covenant and mercy, this Yeshua (Salvation of Yahweh) would come. In awesome congruence the very roots for 70 and Sevens comes from the Hebrew word for Shaba (to sware).

So my answer is that Christ is the Covenant Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham. A covenant that promised all nations of the earth (including Israel) would be blessed by Yahweh Salvation – His Yeshua!

Warm Regards,
William

Rebooting a Christian Conspiracy Theory

Every generation has a responsibility to push back against prejudice and ignorance in whichever form it rears its ugly head. This is especially true for those of us who hold to a Biblical world view and call ourselves followers of Christ (Christians). Today I want to push back against a conspiracy theory that seems to be couched in Biblical scholarship but in reality is based upon assumption and error.

 What I’m talking about is the disparagement which claims that certain Jewish Rabbis maliciously manipulated the Hebrew Masoretic (MT) text of the Bible to undermine early Christian faith in Yeshua (Jesus) as the Bible’s promised Messiah. The flip side of this theory states that because of these manipulations of the Hebrew text, the Greek Septuagint (LXX) text of the Bible is a more dependable text and should be restored as the primary translation of the Old Testament.

LXX & MT Background (an overly simplified explanation)
For those who are not familiar with the background of the LXX and MT, in short today nearly every translation of the Old Testament (OT) comes from one of these two older translations of the Old Testament.  The LXX is a translation of the OT in Greek made by 70 seventy translators beginning in the 3rd century BC from an older Hebrew version of the OT. There is evidence that the LXX or a similar version was quoted from in the New Testament.

The MT is a Hebrew version of the OT copied and edited by Jewish Mesoretes (7th-10th centuries) from an older Hebrew version. The oldest extant copies of the MT text date to roughly the 9th century AD. Today the MT test is the basis for most Bible translations used today.

These two version of the Old Testament differ in certain passages and these differences have been a source of contention amongst Biblical scholars for centuries if not millenniums.

Rebooting a Conspiracy
So let’s look closer at why some scholars believe the MT text of the Old Testament was changed by the Jewish Rabbis after the time of Christ. The manipulation, so the conspiracy theory goes, was undertaken by the Jewish Rabbis beginning nearly 1900 years ago and accomplished in at least two ways:

 The first manipulation (the conspiracy theorists claim) was accomplished by the Jewish Rabbis changing the original Hebrew chronology of the Old Testament so as to make it seem that Yeshua (Jesus) did not arrive at the time the Messiah was expected to appear.

 The Second manipulation (the conspiracy theorists claim) was accomplished by Jewish Rabbis changing certain Hebrew words in the Messianic passages of the OT used by early Christians to prove that Yeshua was the Messiah. This purposeful change of the Hebrew text (by the Rabbis) was in order to undermine the Messianic nature of those passages and again undermine Christian claims that Yeshua was the Bible’s prophesied messiah.

As we dig into this subject you need to understand why this is so important. Today anti-Semitism is once again raging across our world and the adversary hasn’t changed his methods. Did you know that Nazi Germany’s anti Semitism was born out of a racist form of evolutionary Darwinism that believed the Jewish people were an inferior (less evolved) race than the Aryan race and it was for the good of mankind that they were being exterminated? This “scientific” racism was then supplemented by the still earlier seeds of anti-Semitism sown by Martin Luther and other religious leaders centuries before and then used by Hitler and the Nazi’s a further justification for the extermination of the Jewish people. The result of which  we now call the Holocaust.

What many Christians are ignorant of, is that while Martin Luther contributed greatly to the Protestant Reformation, he was a conflicted man and later in life it is evident that he developed a great animosity towards the Jewish people. So much so that he wrote a diatribe against the Jews entitled: The Jews and their Lies. This evil rant by Luther was in fact used centuries later by the Nazi’s as part of the justification for their treatment of the Jews. Here are few of the actions that Luther advised the German Christians to take against the Jewish people of his day: (you can read Luther’s entire vile rant here)

      • Christians should “set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with whatever will not burn”
      • That Jewish houses should be “razed and destroyed”
      • That their “Talmudic writings… be taken from them”
      • “Their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.”
      • “safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews”
      • “…that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping…”
      • Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish.

Honestly, Luther’s words are hard to distinguish from those of Hitler’s and his murderous henchmen. The point of bringing up Luther’s horrific statements above, is that words and the ideas they engender have consequences, even if those sentiments lie dormant for a very long time. Even if you one tries to claim Luther’s words were given in a moment of person weakness and frustration, nevertheless those seeds of malice lay dormant just waiting for the right growing environment. That season came years later in Nazi Germany.

Reseeding the Garden of Prejudice
I believe that claiming the Jewish Rabbis of past centuries manipulated the Hebrew Bible to undermine Christian faith in Yeshua the Messiah is an evil seed that should not be nurtured in the garden of Christian thought. While such a conspiracy theory may not be rooted in any real anti-Semitism by the Christian scholars who propose it today, if left unchallenged such seeds are sure to find fertile grounds, if not in the anti-Semitic passions of our generation, surely in that of one to come.

God forbid we as Christians (by commission or omission) provide any assistance to those who would persecute Yahweh’s chosen people. As a final thought, before doing my best to refute the rabbinic forgeries conspiracy theory, let me remind you what Yahweh has in store for the Jewish people who He considers “the apple of his eye”. These prophecies of Zechariah are just two of many examples found in the Old Testament.

Zechariah 2:8-13   
8 For thus saith YHWH of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.  9 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that YHWH of hosts hath sent me. 

10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith YHWH.  11 And many nations shall be joined to YHWH in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that YHWH of hosts hath sent me unto thee.  12 And YHWH shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.  13 Be silent, O all flesh, before YHWH: for he is raised up out of his holy habitation.

Zechariah 8:22-23   
Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek YHWH of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before YHWH.  23 Thus saith YHWH of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

 

Refuting a Christian Conspiracy Theory

“The astonishing story of a 1900-year-old rabbinical conspiracy to corrupt the Bible’s ancient history and thwart belief in Jesus as the Messiah.”

These are the words boldly proclaimed on the cover of Douglas Woodward’s book Rebooting the Bible. In this article and any following articles I’ll be challenging several foundational claims Mr. Woodward makes in his rabbinic conspiracy theory, a theory I might add that is shared by other respected Bible scholars and historian from the past and present. 

At the outset I want to make clear that I do not believe Mr. Woodward is a racist. I’ve read and reviewed several of his books over the years and from what I can determine he is a smart and talented author who in my opinion in this instance has gone far afield of sound and reasonable scholarship. I’d encourage each of you to read the fuller context of the quotes I’ll be taking from Mr. Woodward’s book so you can make your own determination about the validity of his claims and my challenges to those claims. His book can be found on Amazon here: Rebooting the Bible

LXX verse MT
To start of with I’d like to address one of the foundational claims made by Mr. Woodward relating the superiority of the Septuagint (LXX) verses the Masoretic (MT) text of the Scripture. Mr. Woodward believes the Septuagint is superior because the Masoretes forged certain passages of the Old Testament in order to obfuscate the identity of Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah.  I quote Mr. Woodward:

“…the argument this book puts forth is that the King James Version was created using the Masoretic Text (MT), and therefore, was corrupted long before today. It happened nineteen centuries ago. This corruption was intentional. It was carried out by those rabbis who survived the destruction of Herod’s Temple.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – Preface xii)

“To peek behind the curtains (and to peak your interest), here’s this story in a nutshell: Second-century rabbis deliberately altered the biblical text 1,900 years ago to twist what the original authors wrote.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – introduction p.11)

Beginning with discussions on Genesis 5 and 11, scholarship reveals what must have been the second-century rabbis’ corrupting principle. If so, it confirms the thesis of this book. And it demonstrates that if they were willing to change the Bible and history in one area, they were equaling willing to change it in another.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – Chapter 5 Correcting Chronology: The Genesis Timeline Recovered, pp. 217-218, emphasis by Mr. Woodward)

“So why should Christians care? Akiba’s position of authority and interpretive method became the bais for his altering Scripture. You see, if the Bible’s wording didn’t suit Akiba, he (and his disciples) would merely change it to what would. And , as we will document, these unwanted (and unwarranted) changes eventually found their way into the Protestant Bible’s Old Testament.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – Chapter 2 – Rabbi Akiba & the Bar Kokhba Revolt, p. 90)

Conclusion
If we seek the most accurate Old Testament available today, the verdict must be the Alexandrian (OG) Septuagint. It was the Church’s Bible for hundreds of years, it has the best textual support, and it offers splendid backing from the affirmation that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Additionally, it was the intent of Rabbi Akiba ben Josef and the Mamnia Academy to muddle the biblical testimony that God Himself would come In the flesh as our Redeemer. Thus, the most essential attribute of the Messiah was rejected by Rabbinical Judaism – that the Messiah was not just “anointed” – He was a member of the Godhead.” ((Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – Chapter 2,  Rabbi Akiba & the Bar Kokhba Revolt, p. 111, emphasis by Mr. Woodward)

One of the most troubling aspects of Mr. Woodward’s accusations found in the quotes above is that in over 400 pages of arguments and documentation in his book he cannot provide a single verifiable instance where it can be proven that Rabbi Akiba or any other Jewish Rabbi purposely altered the MT text of the Bible to undermine Christian belief in Yeshua as the Bible’s promised redeemer. To the casual reader the quotes above by Mr Woodward appear to be concrete statements of fact. Unfortunately, if you read closely you’ll also find these claims are qualified in other parts of the book with the admission “it appears” and “it is suspected”.  Here are a couple of examples:

Suspected but not Proven

The Evolution of the Protestant Bible
At this point, we need to pause and recap how the Protestant Bible was married to the Masoretic Text, while the LXX was “left at the altar.” Given the suspected perfidiousness of the rabbis altering the text, it seems the Septuagint would be preferred.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible –Correcting Chronology: The Genesis Timeline Recovered, p. 202)

“Chapter Three
The Battle for the Septuagint

Inspecting the Scene of the Crime
AS SHOULD BE APPARENT TO THE READER BY THIS POINT, THERE ARE MANY REASONS TO SUSPECT THAT THE TEXT PROTESTANTS AFFIRM AS THE AUTHORITATIVE STANDARD was intentionally corrupted by rabbinical academies in the early second century. In contrast, the Septuagint, whose Pentateuch translation was completed in the middle of the third century B.C. I Alexandria, Egypt, has escaped this textual sabotage.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – Chapter 3, The Battle for the Septuagint, p. 113, emphasis by Mr. Woodward)

“Finally, as illustrated in the preceding chapter in considerable detail, there are numerous Jewish scholars and textual experts who confirm that the rabbinic school had “method, means, and opportunity” to alter the text”. (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – Chapter 3, The Battle for the Septuagint, p. 117)

Underline emphasis added by WS

“Method, Means, and Opportunity”
I don’t know about you, but I’d hate to be judged about something solely upon circumstantial evidence that indicated I had “method, means, and opportunity” to commit a crime. What’s even worse, we are making (unproven) accusations about Jewish Rabbis who can no longer speak in their own defense. The unsettling truth of the matter is, that Mr. Woodward and those who share the Rabbinic forgeries conspiracy theory cannot provid any solid evidence to back up their conspiracy theory, it’s simply conjecture. It is beyond my comprehension why Mr. Woodward or any Christian, would claim 2nd century Jewish Rabbi’s were guilty of an egregious crime without anything more than circumstantial evidence. Sure the textual differences of the MT & LXX are important subjects to be discussed, but libelous accusations about the source of those differences, based upon nothing more than “motive, means, and opportunity”, in my opinion, are not a sound foundation for any serious discussion of the Bible.

Proof of Manipulation
As quoted above Mr. Woodward believes that the LXX is a more trustworthy translation of the Old Testament because he suspects “perfidiousness of the rabbis altering the text” of the MT. As I’ve said, there are some differences between the LXX and the MT, but by Mr. Woodward’s own admission the unintended consequences of these differences did not amount to much until about 200 years ago. I’ll dig into Mr. Woodward’s reasoning for this later because it is importing to the thesis of his book. The bottom line though is the textual differences between the LXX and the MT do not materially impede the overall Messianic redemptive message of either text. No matter which Bible version you read, the message of Yahweh’s Salvation (His Yeshua) is there for any reader to find.

As a layman I can’t give you fancy textual arguments to show you why the Septuagint is not a superior text. It is my opinion that the MT is a more accurate version of the original Hebrew text because despite what the Jewish Rabbis of the 2nd temple era are accused of, we know for a fact that the 70 translators of the Septuagint did in fact change the original Hebrew text in order to make their version more understandable and appealing to the Greek speaking audience of their day. Kind of like a “living Bible” of there day instead of a literal translation. Here are some real examples of Greek words used to replace the original Hebrew:

    1. When translating the original Hebrew words that described the body of water the Israelites crossed when leaving Egypt, the Septuagint authors used the Greek term Erythraean Sea (Red Sea) instead of the Hebrew Yam Suph (Sea of Reeds).
    2. In Exodus 30:13 the Hebrew Bible describes two weights of measure: the shekel and gerah. The Septuagint changes these weights into the Greek measures of didrachm and oboli. Didrachm is also substituted for shekel in other verses as well. (These Greek measures were not invented until centuries after the book of Exodus was recorded.)
    3. In Genesis 46:34 the MT gives the location as Goshen. The LXX changes the text to read Gesem of Arabia.
    4. In Gen. 46:28 the MT tells us that Jacob sent Judah to Joseph in Goshen. The LXX has it as Heroes (Heroopolis) in the land of Ramessses.
    5. To my mind the example that convinces me that the authors of the Septuagint were comfortable modifying the original Hebrew text to appeal to their Greek audience is their abuse of the most important name in the Bible.

You see the translators of the Septuagint took the proper name of Yahweh and over 6500 times replaced it with the impersonal Greek title Theos which could be applied to any god of the Greek pantheon.

It is an obvious double standard to accuse (with only circumstantial evidence) the Jewish Rabbis of the 2nd century AD of maliciously corrupting the Hebrew MT because it is believed they had the “motive, means, and ” to modify the original Hebrew text to fit their anti-Christian agenda, yet many of these accusers ignore the patently obvious changes to the text by the authors of the Septuagint.  To give you a sense of just how extensive the modification made by the authors of the Septuagint, here is nearly every instance where the personal name of Yahweh was removed from the Septuagint text and replaced with the impersonal title used by the Greeks to identify any “god”.

Genesis
 2:4f, 7ff, 15f, 18f, 21f; 3:1, 8f, 13f, 21ff; 4:1, 3f, 6, 9, 13, 15f, 26; 5:29; 6:3, 6ff; 7:1, 5, 16; 8:20f; 9:26; 10:9; 11:5f, 8f; 12:1, 4, 7f, 17; 13:4, 10, 13f, 18; 14:22; 15:1f, 4, 6ff, 18; 16:2, 5, 7, 9ff, 13; 17:1; 18:1, 3, 12ff, 17, 19f, 22, 26f, 30ff; 19:2, 13f, 16, 18, 24, 27; 20:4, 18; 21:1, 33; 22:11, 14ff; 23:6, 11, 15; 24:1, 3, 7, 12, 18, 21, 26f, 31, 35, 40, 42, 44, 48, 50ff, 56; 25:21ff; 26:2, 12, 22, 24f, 28f; 27:7, 20, 27, 29, 37; 28:13, 16, 21; 29:31ff, 35; 30:24, 27, 30; 31:3, 35, 49; 32:4f, 9, 18; 33:8, 13ff; 38:7, 10; 39:2f, 5, 16, 21, 23; 40:1, 7; 42:10, 30, 33; 44:5, 7ff, 16, 18ff, 22, 24, 33; 45:8f; 47:18, 25; 49:18;

Exodus
 3:2, 4, 7, 15f, 18; 4:1f, 4ff, 10f, 13f, 19, 21f, 24, 27f, 30f; 5:1ff, 17, 21f; 6:1f, 6ff, 10, 12f, 26, 28ff; 7:1, 5f, 8, 10, 13f, 16f, 19f, 22, 25; 8:1, 5, 8, 10, 12f, 15f, 19f, 22, 24, 26ff; 9:1, 3ff, 8, 12f, 20ff, 27ff, 33, 35; 10:1ff, 7ff, 16ff, 24ff; 11:1, 3f, 7, 9f; 12:1, 11f, 14, 23, 25, 27ff, 31, 36, 41ff, 48, 50f; 13:1, 3, 5f, 8f, 11f, 14ff, 21; 14:1, 4, 8, 10, 13ff, 18, 21, 24ff, 30f; 15:1ff, 6, 11, 16ff, 21, 25f; 16:3f, 6ff, 15f, 23, 25, 28f, 32ff; 17:1f, 4f, 7, 14, 16; 18:1, 8ff; 19:3, 7ff, 18, 20ff; 20:2, 5, 7, 10ff, 22; 22:11, 20; 23:17, 19, 25; 24:1ff, 7f, 12, 16f; 25:1; 27:21; 28:12, 29f, 35f, 38; 29:11, 18, 23ff, 28, 41f, 46; 30:8, 10ff, 20, 22, 34, 37; 31:1, 12f, 15, 17; 32:5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 22, 26f, 29ff, 33, 35; 33:1, 5, 7, 9, 11f, 17, 19, 21; 34:1, 4ff, 9f, 14, 23f, 26ff, 32, 34; 35:1f, 4f, 10, 21f, 24, 29f; 36:1f, 5; 38:22; 39:1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29ff, 42f; 40:1, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34f, 38;

Leviticus
 1:1ff, 5, 9, 11, 13f, 17; 2:1ff, 8ff, 14, 16; 3:1, 3, 5ff, 9, 11f, 14, 16; 4:1ff, 6f, 13, 15, 17f, 22, 24, 27, 31, 35; 5:6f, 12, 14f, 17, 19; 6:1f, 6ff, 14f, 18ff, 24f; 7:5, 11, 14, 20ff, 25, 28ff, 35f, 38; 8:1, 4f, 9, 13, 17, 21, 26ff, 34ff; 9:2, 4ff, 10, 21, 23f; 10:1ff, 6ff, 11ff, 15, 17, 19; 11:1, 44f; 12:1, 7; 13:1; 14:1, 11f, 16, 18, 23f, 27, 29, 31, 33; 15:1, 14f, 30; 16:1f, 7ff, 12f, 18, 30, 34; 17:1f, 4ff, 9; 18:1f, 4ff, 21, 30; 19:1ff, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21f, 24f, 28, 30ff, 34, 36f; 20:1, 7f, 24, 26; 21:1, 6, 8, 12, 15f, 21, 23; 22:1ff, 8f, 15ff, 21f, 24, 26f, 29ff; 23:1ff, 8f, 11ff, 16ff, 20, 22f, 25ff, 33f, 36ff, 43f; 24:1, 3f, 6ff, 11ff, 16, 22f; 25:1f, 4, 17, 38, 55; 26:1f, 13, 44ff; 27:1f, 9, 11, 14, 16, 21ff, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34;

Numbers
 1:1, 19, 48, 54; 2:1, 33f; 3:1, 4f, 11, 13f, 16, 39ff, 44f, 51; 4:1, 17, 21, 37, 41, 45, 49; 5:1, 4ff, 8, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25, 30; 6:1f, 5f, 8, 12, 14, 16f, 20ff, 24ff; 7:3f, 11; 8:1, 3ff, 10ff, 20ff; 9:1, 5, 7ff, 13f, 18ff, 23; 10:1, 9f, 13, 29, 32ff; 11:1ff, 10f, 16, 18, 20, 23ff, 28f, 31, 33; 12:2, 4ff, 8f, 11, 13f; 13:1, 3; 14:3, 8ff, 13f, 16ff, 20f, 26, 28, 35, 37, 40ff; 15:1, 3f, 7f, 10, 13ff, 17, 19, 21ff, 28, 30f, 35ff, 39, 41; 16:3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15ff, 19f, 23, 28ff, 35f, 38, 40ff, 44, 46; 17:1, 7, 9ff, 13; 18:1, 6, 8, 12f, 15, 17, 19f, 24ff, 28f; 19:1f, 13, 20; 20:3f, 6f, 9, 12f, 16, 23, 27; 21:2f, 6ff, 14, 16, 28, 34; 22:8, 13, 18f, 22ff, 31f, 34f; 23:3, 5, 8, 12, 15ff, 21, 26; 24:1, 6, 11, 13; 25:3f, 10, 16; 26:1, 4, 9, 52, 61, 65; 27:3, 5f, 11f, 15ff, 21ff; 28:1, 3, 6ff, 11, 13, 15f, 19, 24, 26f; 29:2, 6, 8, 12f, 36, 39f; 30:1ff, 5, 8, 12, 16; 31:1, 3, 7, 16, 21, 25, 28ff, 37ff, 47, 50, 52, 54; 32:4, 7, 9f, 12ff, 20ff, 25, 27, 29, 31f; 33:2, 4, 38, 50; 34:1, 13, 16, 29; 35:1, 9, 34; 36:2, 5f, 10, 13;

Deuteronomy
 1:3, 6, 8, 10f, 19ff, 25ff, 30ff, 34, 36f, 41ff, 45; 2:1f, 7, 9, 12, 14f, 17, 21, 29ff, 33, 36f; 3:2f, 18, 20ff, 26; 4:1ff, 7, 10, 12, 14f, 19ff, 23ff, 27, 29ff, 34f, 39f; 5:2ff, 9, 11f, 14ff, 22, 24f, 27f, 32f; 6:1ff, 10, 12f, 15ff, 24f; 7:1f, 4, 6ff, 12, 15f, 18ff, 25; 8:1ff, 5ff, 10f, 14, 18ff; 9:3ff, 16, 18ff, 22ff, 28; 10:1, 4f, 8ff, 17, 20, 22; 11:1f, 4, 7, 9, 12f, 17, 21ff, 25, 27ff, 31; 12:1, 4f, 7, 9ff, 14f, 18, 20f, 25ff, 31; 13:3ff, 10, 12, 16ff; 14:1f, 21, 23ff, 29; 15:2, 4ff, 9f, 14f, 18ff; 16:1f, 5ff, 10f, 15ff, 20ff; 17:1f, 8, 10, 12, 14ff, 19; 18:1f, 5ff, 9, 12ff, 21f; 19:1ff, 8ff, 14, 17; 20:1, 4, 13f, 16ff; 21:1, 5, 8ff, 23; 22:5; 23:1ff, 5, 8, 14, 18, 20f, 23; 24:4, 9, 13, 15, 18f; 25:15f, 19; 26:1ff, 7f, 10f, 13f, 16ff; 27:2f, 5ff, 9f, 15; 28:1f, 7ff, 15, 20ff, 24f, 27f, 35ff, 45, 47ff, 52f, 58f, 61ff, 68; 29:1f, 4, 6, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20ff, 27ff; 30:1ff, 16, 20; 31:2ff, 11ff, 25ff, 29; 32:3, 6, 9, 12, 19, 27, 30, 36, 48; 33:2, 7, 11ff, 21, 23, 29; 34:1, 4f, 9ff;

Joshua
 1:1, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17; 2:9ff, 14, 24; 3:3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17; 4:1, 5, 7f, 10f, 13ff, 18, 23f; 5:1f, 6, 9, 14f; 6:2, 6ff, 11ff, 16f, 19, 24, 26f; 7:1, 6ff, 10, 13ff, 19f, 23, 25f; 8:1, 7f, 18, 27, 30f, 33; 9:9, 14, 18f, 24, 27; 10:8, 10ff, 14, 19, 25, 30, 32, 40, 42; 11:6, 8f, 12, 15, 20, 23; 12:6; 13:1, 3, 8, 14, 33; 14:2, 5ff, 12, 14; 15:13; 17:4, 14; 18:3, 6ff, 10; 19:50f; 20:1; 21:2f, 8, 43ff; 22:2ff, 9, 16ff, 22ff, 27ff, 31, 34; 23:1, 3, 5, 8ff, 13ff; 24:2, 7, 14ff, 26f, 29, 31;

Judges
 1:1f, 4, 19, 22; 2:1, 4f, 7f, 10ff, 20, 22f; 3:1, 3f, 7ff, 12, 15, 25, 28; 4:1ff, 6, 9, 14f, 18; 5:2ff, 9, 11, 13, 23, 25, 31; 6:1, 6ff, 10ff, 21ff, 34; 7:2, 4f, 7, 9, 15, 18, 20, 22; 8:7, 19, 23, 34; 10:6f, 10f, 15f; 11:9ff, 21, 23f, 27, 29ff, 35f; 12:3; 13:1, 3, 8, 13, 15ff, 23ff; 14:4, 6, 19; 15:14, 18; 16:5, 8, 18, 20, 23, 27f, 30; 17:2f, 13; 18:6; 19:18, 26f; 20:1, 18, 23, 26ff, 35; 21:3, 5, 7f, 15, 19;

Ruth
 1:6, 8f, 13, 17, 21; 2:4, 12f, 20; 3:10, 13; 4:11ff;

1 Samuel
 1:3, 5ff, 9ff, 15, 19ff, 26ff; 2:1ff, 6ff, 10ff, 17f, 20f, 24ff, 30; 3:1, 3f, 6ff, 15, 17ff; 4:3ff; 5:3f, 6, 8f, 11; 6:1f, 4, 8, 11f, 14ff; 7:1ff, 12f, 17; 8:6f, 10, 18, 21f; 9:15, 17; 10:1, 6, 17ff, 22, 24f; 11:7, 13, 15; 12:3, 5ff, 22ff; 13:12ff; 14:3, 6, 10, 12, 23, 33ff, 39, 41, 45; 15:1f, 10f, 13, 15ff, 28, 30f, 33, 35; 16:1f, 4ff, 12ff, 16, 18; 17:37, 45ff; 18:12, 14, 17, 28; 19:5f, 9; 20:3, 8, 12ff, 21ff, 42; 21:6f; 22:10, 12, 17, 21; 23:2, 4, 10ff, 18, 21; 24:4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18f, 21; 25:24ff, 34, 38f, 41; 26:9ff, 15ff, 23f; 28:6, 10, 16ff; 29:2, 6ff; 30:6, 8, 23, 26;

2 Samuel
 1:10, 12, 14, 16; 2:1, 5f; 3:9, 18, 21, 28, 39; 4:8f; 5:2f, 10, 12, 19f, 23ff; 6:2, 5, 7ff, 21; 7:1, 3ff, 8, 11, 18ff, 22, 24ff; 8:6, 11, 14; 9:11; 10:3, 12; 11:9, 11, 13, 27; 12:1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13ff, 20, 24f; 13:32f; 14:9, 11f, 15, 17ff, 22; 15:7f, 15, 21, 25, 31; 16:4, 8ff, 18; 17:14; 18:19, 28, 31f; 19:7, 19ff, 26ff, 30, 35, 37; 20:6, 19; 21:1, 3, 6f, 9; 22:1f, 4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 21f, 25, 29, 31f, 42, 47, 50; 23:2, 10, 12, 16f; 24:1, 3, 10ff, 14ff, 21ff;

1 Kings
 1:2, 11, 13, 17f, 20f, 24, 27, 29ff, 33, 36f, 43, 47f; 2:3f, 8, 15, 23f, 26ff, 32f, 38, 42ff; 3:1ff, 5, 7, 10, 15, 17, 26; 5:3ff, 7, 12; 6:1f, 11, 19, 37; 7:12, 40, 45, 48, 51; 8:1, 4, 6, 9ff, 15, 17f, 20ff, 25, 28, 44, 53f, 56f, 59ff; 9:1ff, 8ff, 15, 25; 10:1, 5, 9, 12; 11:2, 4, 6, 9ff, 14, 23, 31; 12:15, 24, 27; 13:1ff, 5f, 9, 17f, 20ff, 26, 32; 14:5, 7, 11, 13ff, 18, 21f, 24, 26, 28; 15:3ff, 11, 14f, 18, 26, 29f, 34; 16:1, 7, 12f, 19, 25f, 30, 33f; 17:1f, 5, 8, 12, 14, 16, 20ff, 24; 18:1, 3f, 7f, 10ff, 18, 21f, 24, 30ff, 36ff, 46; 19:4, 7, 9ff, 14f; 20:4, 9, 13f, 28, 35f, 42; 21:3, 17, 19f, 23, 25f, 28; 22:5ff, 11f, 14ff, 19ff, 28, 38, 43, 52f;

 2 Kings
3f, 6, 15ff; 2:1ff, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24; 3:2, 10ff; 4:1, 16, 27f, 30, 33, 43f; 5:1, 3f, 11, 16ff, 20; 6:12, 17f, 20, 26f, 33; 7:1f, 6, 16f, 19; 8:1, 5, 8, 10, 12f, 18f, 27; 9:3, 6f, 11f, 25f, 36; 10:10, 16f, 23, 30ff; 11:3f, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17ff; 12:2, 4, 9ff, 16, 18; 13:2ff, 11, 17, 23; 14:3, 6, 14, 24ff; 15:3, 5, 9, 12, 18, 24, 28, 34f, 37; 16:2f, 8, 14, 18; 17:2, 7ff, 11ff, 23, 25, 28, 32ff, 39, 41; 18:3, 5ff, 12, 15f, 22f, 25, 30, 32, 35; 19:1, 4, 6, 14ff, 19ff, 23, 31ff, 35; 20:1ff, 8f, 11, 16f, 19; 21:2, 4ff, 9f, 12, 16, 20, 22; 22:2ff, 8f, 13, 15f, 18f; 23:2ff, 6f, 9, 11f, 16, 19, 21, 23ff, 32, 37; 24:2ff, 9, 13, 19f; 25:9, 13, 16;

1 Chronicles
 2:3; 6:15, 31f; 9:19f, 23; 10:13f; 11:2f, 9f, 14, 18; 12:19, 23; 13:2, 6, 10f, 14; 14:2, 10, 17; 15:2f, 12ff, 25f, 28f; 16:2, 4, 7f, 10f, 14, 23, 25f, 28f, 31, 33f, 36f, 39ff; 17:1, 4, 7, 10, 16f, 19f, 22ff, 26f; 18:6, 11, 13; 19:13; 21:3, 9ff, 22ff, 26ff; 22:1, 5ff, 11ff, 16, 18f; 23:4f, 13, 24f, 28, 30ff; 24:19; 25:3, 6f; 26:12, 22, 27, 30; 27:23; 28:2, 4f, 8ff, 12f, 18ff; 29:1, 5, 8ff, 16, 18, 20ff, 25;

2 Chronicles
 1:1, 3, 5f, 9; 2:1, 4, 11f, 14f; 3:1; 4:16; 5:1f, 7, 10, 13f; 6:1, 4, 7f, 10ff, 14, 16f, 19, 41f; 7:1ff, 6f, 10ff, 21f; 8:1, 11f, 16; 9:4, 8, 11; 10:15; 11:2, 4, 14, 16; 12:1f, 5ff, 9, 11ff; 13:5f, 8ff, 14, 18, 20; 14:2, 4, 6f, 11ff; 15:2, 4, 8f, 11ff; 16:2, 7ff, 12; 17:3ff, 9f, 16; 18:4, 6f, 10f, 13, 15f, 18ff, 27, 31; 19:2, 4, 6ff; 20:3ff, 13ff, 17ff, 26ff, 32, 37; 21:6f, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18; 22:4, 7, 9; 23:3, 5f, 12, 14, 16, 18ff; 24:2, 4, 6ff, 12, 14, 18ff, 24; 25:2, 4, 7, 9, 15, 27; 26:4f, 16ff; 27:2f, 6; 28:1, 3, 5f, 9ff, 13, 19, 21f, 24f; 29:2f, 5f, 8, 10f, 15ff, 25, 27, 30ff, 35; 30:1, 5ff, 12, 15, 17ff; 31:2ff, 6, 8, 10f, 14, 16, 20; 32:8, 11, 16f, 21ff, 26; 33:2, 4ff, 9ff, 15ff, 22f; 34:2, 8, 10, 14f, 17, 21, 23f, 26f, 30f, 33; 35:1ff, 6, 12, 16, 26; 36:5, 7, 9f, 12ff, 18, 21ff;

Ezra
 1:1ff, 5, 7; 2:68; 3:3, 5f, 8, 10f; 4:1, 3; 6:21f; 7:6, 10f, 27f; 8:25, 28f, 35; 9:5, 8, 15; 10:3, 11;

Nehemiah
 1:5, 11; 3:5; 4:14; 5:13; 8:1, 6, 9f, 14; 9:3ff; 10:29, 34f; Job 1:6ff, 12, 21; 2:1ff, 6f; 12:9; 28:28; 38:1; 40:1, 3, 6; 42:1, 7, 9ff;

Psalms
 1:2, 6; 2:2, 4, 7, 11; 3:1, 3ff, 7f; 4:3, 5f, 8; 5:1, 3, 6, 8, 12; 6:1ff, 8f; 7:1, 3, 6, 8, 17; 8:1, 9; 9:1, 7, 9ff, 13, 16, 19f; 10:1, 3, 12, 16f; 11:1, 4f, 7; 12:1, 3ff; 13:1, 3, 6; 14:2, 4, 6f; 15:1, 4; 16:2, 5, 7f; 17:1, 13f; 18:1ff, 6, 13, 15, 18, 20f, 24, 28, 30f, 41, 46, 49; 19:7ff, 14; 20:1, 5ff, 9; 21:1, 7, 9, 13; 22:8, 19, 23, 26ff, 30; 23:1, 6; 24:1, 3, 5, 8, 10; 25:1, 4, 6ff, 10ff, 14f; 26:1f, 6, 8, 12; 27:1, 4, 6ff, 10f, 13f; 28:1, 5ff; 29:1ff, 7ff; 30:1ff, 7f, 10, 12; 31:1, 5f, 9, 14, 17, 21, 23f; 32:2, 5, 10f; 33:1f, 4ff, 8, 10ff, 18, 20, 22; 34:1ff, 6ff, 15ff, 22; 35:1, 5f, 9f, 17, 22ff, 27; 36:1, 5f; 37:3ff, 7, 9, 13, 17f, 20, 23f, 28, 33f, 39f; 38:1, 9, 15, 21f; 39:4, 7, 12; 40:1, 3ff, 9, 11, 13, 16f; 41:1ff, 10, 13; 42:8; 44:23; 45:11; 46:7f, 11; 47:2, 5; 48:1, 8; 50:1; 51:15; 54:4, 6; 55:9, 16, 22; 56:10; 57:9; 58:6; 59:3, 5, 8, 11; 62:12; 64:10; 66:18; 68:11, 16ff, 22, 26, 32; 69:6, 13, 16, 31, 33; 70:1, 5; 71:1, 5, 16; 72:18; 73:20, 28; 74:18; 75:8; 76:11; 77:2, 7, 11; 78:4, 21, 65; 79:5, 12; 80:4, 19; 81:10, 15; 83:16; 84:1ff, 8, 11f; 85:1, 7f, 12; 86:1, 3ff, 8f, 11f, 15, 17; 87:2, 6; 88:1, 9, 13f; 89:1, 5f, 8, 15, 18, 46, 49ff; 90:1, 13, 17; 91:2, 9; 92:1, 4f, 8f, 13, 15; 93:1, 3ff; 94:1, 3, 5, 7, 11f, 14, 17f, 22f; 95:1, 3, 6; 96:1f, 4f, 7ff, 13; 97:1, 5, 8ff, 12; 98:1f, 4ff, 9; 99:1f, 5f, 8f; 100:1ff, 5; 101:1, 8; 102:1, 12, 15f, 18f, 21f; 103:1f, 6, 8, 13, 17, 19ff; 104:1, 16, 24, 31, 33ff; 105:1, 3f, 7, 19, 21, 45; 106:1f, 4, 16, 25, 34, 40, 47f; 107:1f, 6, 8, 13, 15, 19, 21, 24, 28, 31, 43; 108:3; 109:14f, 20f, 26f, 30; 110:1f, 4f; 111:1f, 4, 10; 112:1, 7; 113:1ff, 9; 114:7; 115:1, 9ff; 116:1, 4ff, 9, 12ff; 117:1f; 118:1, 4ff, 23ff, 29; 119:1, 12, 31, 33, 41, 52, 55, 57, 64f, 75, 89, 107f, 126, 137, 145, 149, 151, 156, 159, 166, 169, 174; 120:1f; 121:2, 5, 7f; 122:1, 4, 9; 123:2f; 124:1f, 6, 8; 125:1f, 4f; 126:1ff; 127:1, 3; 128:1, 4f; 129:4, 8; 130:1ff, 5ff; 131:1, 3; 132:1f, 5, 8, 11, 13; 133:3; 134:1ff; 135:1ff, 13f, 19ff; 136:1, 3; 137:4, 7; 138:4ff, 8; 139:1, 4, 21; 140:1, 4, 6ff, 12; 141:1, 3, 8; 142:1, 5; 143:1, 7, 9, 11; 144:1, 3, 5, 15; 145:3, 8ff, 14, 17f, 20f; 146:1f, 5, 7ff; 147:1f, 5ff, 11f, 20; 148:1, 5, 7, 13f; 149:1, 4, 9; 150:1, 6;

Proverbs
 1:7, 29; 2:5f; 3:5, 7, 9, 11f, 19, 26, 32f; 5:21; 6:16; 8:13, 22, 35; 9:10; 10:3, 22, 27, 29; 11:1, 20; 12:2, 22; 14:2, 26f; 15:3, 8f, 11, 16, 25f, 29, 33; 16:1ff, 9, 11, 20, 33; 17:3, 15; 18:10, 22; 19:3, 14, 17, 21, 23; 20:10, 12, 22ff, 27; 21:1ff, 30f; 22:2, 4, 12, 14, 19, 23; 23:17; 24:18, 21; 25:22; 28:5, 25; 29:13, 25f; 30:9; 31:30;

Isaiah
 1:2, 4, 9ff, 18, 20, 24, 28; 2:2f, 5, 10ff, 17, 19, 21; 3:1, 8, 13ff; 4:2, 4f; 5:7, 9, 12, 16, 24f; 6:1, 3, 5, 8, 11f; 7:3, 7, 10ff, 14, 17f, 20; 8:1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17f; 9:7f, 11, 13f, 17, 19; 10:12, 16, 20, 23f, 26, 33; 11:2f, 9, 11, 15; 12:1f, 4f; 13:4ff, 9, 13; 14:1ff, 5, 22ff, 27, 32; 16:8, 13f; 17:3, 6; 18:4, 7; 19:1, 4, 12, 14, 16ff, 25; 20:2f; 21:6, 8, 10, 16f; 22:5, 12, 14f, 17f, 25; 23:9, 11, 17f; 24:1, 3, 14f, 21, 23; 25:1, 6, 8ff; 26:4, 8, 10ff, 15ff, 21; 27:1, 3, 12f; 28:2, 5, 13f, 16, 21f, 29; 29:6, 10, 13, 15, 19, 22; 30:1, 9, 15, 18, 20, 26f, 29ff; 31:1, 3ff, 9; 32:6; 33:2, 5f, 10, 21f; 34:2, 6, 8, 16; 35:2, 10; 36:7, 10, 15, 18, 20; 37:1, 4, 6, 14ff, 20ff, 24, 32ff, 36; 38:1ff, 7, 11, 14, 16, 20, 22; 39:5f, 8; 40:2f, 5, 7, 10, 13, 27f, 31; 41:4, 13f, 16f, 20f; 42:5f, 8, 10, 12f, 19, 21, 24; 43:1, 3, 10ff, 14ff; 44:2, 5f, 23f; 45:1, 3, 5ff, 11, 13f, 17ff, 21, 24f; 47:4; 48:1f, 14, 16f, 20, 22; 49:1, 4f, 7f, 13f, 18, 22f, 25f; 50:1, 4f, 7, 9f; 51:1, 3, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22; 52:3ff, 8ff; 53:1, 6, 10; 54:1, 5f, 8, 10, 13, 17; 55:5ff, 13; 56:1, 3f, 6, 8; 57:19; 58:5, 8f, 11, 13f; 59:1, 13, 15, 19ff; 60:1f, 6, 9, 14, 16, 19f, 22; 61:1ff, 6, 8ff; 62:2ff, 6, 8f, 11f; 63:7, 14, 16f; 64:8f, 12; 65:7f, 11, 13, 15, 23, 25; 66:1f, 5f, 9, 12, 14ff, 20ff;

Jeremiah
 1:2, 4, 6ff, 11ff, 19; 2:1ff, 8f, 12, 17, 19, 22, 29, 31, 37; 3:1, 6, 10ff, 16f, 20ff, 25; 4:1ff, 8ff, 17, 26f; 5:2ff, 9ff, 14f, 18f, 22, 24, 29; 6:6, 9ff, 15f, 21f, 30; 7:1ff, 11, 13, 19ff, 28ff, 32; 8:1, 3f, 7ff, 12ff, 17, 19; 9:3, 6f, 9, 12f, 15, 17, 20, 22ff; 10:1f, 6, 10, 16, 18, 21, 23f; 11:1, 3, 5f, 9, 11, 16ff, 20ff; 12:1, 3, 12ff, 16f; 13:1ff, 5f, 8f, 11ff, 25; 14:1, 7, 9ff, 13ff, 20, 22; 15:1ff, 6, 9, 11, 15f, 19f; 16:1, 3, 5, 9ff, 14ff, 19, 21; 17:5, 7, 10, 13ff, 19ff, 24, 26; 18:1, 5f, 11, 13, 19, 23; 19:1, 3, 6, 11f, 14f; 20:1ff, 7f, 11ff, 16; 21:1f, 4, 7f, 10ff; 22:1ff, 5f, 8f, 11, 16, 18, 24, 29f; 23:1f, 4ff, 11f, 15ff, 23f, 28ff; 24:1, 3ff, 7f; 25:3ff, 7ff, 12, 15, 17, 27ff, 36f; 26:1f, 4, 7ff, 12f, 15f, 18ff; 27:1f, 4, 8, 11, 13, 15f, 18f, 21f; 28:1ff, 9, 11ff; 29:4, 7ff, 14ff, 19ff, 25f, 30ff; 30:1ff, 8ff, 17f, 21, 23f; 31:1ff, 6f, 10ff, 14ff, 20, 22f, 27f, 31ff, 40; 32:1, 3, 5f, 8, 14ff, 25ff, 30, 36, 42, 44; 33:1f, 4, 10ff, 16f, 19f, 23ff; 34:1f, 4f, 8, 12f, 17, 22; 35:1f, 4, 12f, 17ff; 36:1, 4ff, 26f, 29f; 37:2f, 6f, 9, 17, 20; 38:2f, 9, 14, 16f, 20f; 39:15ff; 40:1ff; 41:5; 42:2ff, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18ff; 43:1f, 4, 7f, 10; 44:2, 7, 11, 16, 21ff, 29f; 45:2ff; 46:1, 5, 10, 13, 15, 18, 23, 25f, 28; 47:1f, 4, 6f; 48:1, 8, 10, 12, 15, 25f, 30, 35, 38, 40, 42ff, 47; 49:1f, 5ff, 12ff, 16, 18, 20, 26, 28, 30ff, 34f, 37ff; 50:1, 4f, 7, 10, 13ff, 18, 20f, 24f, 28ff, 33ff, 40, 45; 51:1, 5ff, 10ff, 14, 19, 24ff, 29, 33, 36, 39, 45, 48, 50ff, 55ff, 62; 52:2f, 13, 17, 20;

Lamentations
1:5, 9, 11f, 14f, 17f, 20; 2:1f, 5ff, 17ff, 22; 3:18, 22, 24ff, 31, 36f, 40, 50, 55, 58f, 61, 64, 66; 4:11, 16, 20; 5:1, 19, 21;

Ezekiel
 1:3, 28; 2:4; 3:11f, 14, 16, 22f, 27; 4:13f; 5:5, 7f, 11, 13, 15, 17; 6:1, 3, 7, 10f, 13f; 7:1f, 4f, 9, 19, 27; 8:1, 12, 14, 16; 9:4, 8f; 10:4, 18f; 11:1, 5, 7f, 10, 12ff, 21, 23, 25; 12:1, 8, 10, 15ff, 19ff, 23, 25f, 28; 13:1ff, 5ff, 13f, 16, 18, 20f, 23; 14:2, 4, 6ff, 11f, 14, 16, 18, 20f, 23; 15:1, 6ff; 16:1, 3, 8, 14, 19, 23, 30, 35f, 43, 48, 58f, 62f; 17:1, 3, 9, 11, 16, 19, 21f, 24; 18:1, 3, 9, 23, 25, 29f, 32; 20:1ff, 5, 7, 12, 19f, 26f, 30f, 33, 36, 38ff, 42, 44f, 47ff; 21:1, 3, 5, 7ff, 13, 17f, 24, 26, 28, 32; 22:1, 3, 12, 14, 16f, 19, 22f, 28, 31; 23:1, 22f, 28, 32, 34ff, 46, 49; 24:1, 3, 6, 9, 14f, 20f, 24, 27; 25:1, 3, 5ff, 11ff; 26:1, 3, 5ff, 14f, 19, 21; 27:1, 3; 28:1f, 6, 10ff, 20, 22ff; 29:1, 3, 6, 8f, 13, 16f, 19ff; 30:1ff, 6, 8, 10, 12f, 19f, 22, 25f; 31:1, 10, 15, 18; 32:1, 3, 8, 11, 14ff, 31f; 33:1, 11, 17, 20, 22f, 25, 27, 29f; 34:1f, 7ff, 15, 17, 20, 24, 27, 30f; 35:1, 3f, 6, 9ff, 14f; 36:1ff, 11, 13ff, 20, 22f, 32f, 36ff; 37:1, 3ff, 9, 12ff, 19, 21, 28; 38:1, 3, 10, 14, 17f, 21, 23; 39:1, 5ff, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 25, 28f; 40:1, 46; 41:22; 42:13; 43:4f, 18f, 24, 27; 44:2ff, 9, 12, 15, 27; 45:1, 4, 9, 15, 18, 23; 46:1, 3f, 9, 12ff, 16; 47:13, 23; 48:9f, 14, 29, 35;

Daniel
 1:2, 10; 2:10, 47; 4:19, 24, 36; 5:1, 9f, 23; 6:17; 9:2ff, 7ff, 13ff, 19f; 10:16f, 19; 12:8;

Hosea
 1:1f, 4, 7; 2:13, 16, 20f; 3:1, 5; 4:1, 10, 15f; 5:4, 6f; 6:1, 3; 7:10; 8:1, 13; 9:3ff, 14; 10:3, 12; 11:10f; 12:2, 5, 9, 13f; 13:4, 15; 14:1f, 9;

Joel
 1:1, 9, 14f, 19; 2:1, 11ff, 17ff, 21, 23, 26f, 31f; 3:8, 11, 14, 16ff, 21;

Amos
 1:2f, 5f, 8f, 11, 13, 15; 2:1, 3f, 6, 11, 16; 3:1, 6ff, 10ff, 15; 4:2f, 5f, 8ff, 13; 5:3f, 6, 8, 14ff, 20, 27; 6:8, 10f, 14; 7:1ff, 15ff; 8:1ff, 7, 9, 11f; 9:1, 5ff, 12f, 15;

Obadiah
 1:1, 4, 8, 15, 18, 21;

Jonah
 1:1, 3f, 9f, 14, 16f; 2:1f, 6f, 9f; 3:1, 3; 4:2ff, 6, 10;

Micah
 1:1ff, 12; 2:3, 5, 7, 13; 3:4f, 8, 11; 4:1f, 4ff, 10, 12f; 5:4, 7, 10; 6:1f, 5ff; 7:7ff, 17;

Nahum
 1:2f, 7, 9, 11f, 14; 2:2, 13; 3:5;

Habakkuk
 1:2, 12; 2:2, 13f, 16, 20; 3:2, 8, 18f;

Zephaniah
1:1ff, 5ff, 10, 12, 14, 17f; 2:2f, 5, 7, 9ff; 3:2, 5, 8f, 12, 15, 17, 20;

Haggai
 1:1ff, 5, 7ff, 12ff; 2:1, 4, 6ff, 14f, 17f, 20, 23;

Zechariah
 1:1ff, 6f, 9ff, 16f, 20; 2:5f, 8ff; 3:1f, 5ff, 9f; 4:4ff, 8ff, 13f; 5:4; 6:4f, 9, 12ff; 7:1ff, 7ff, 12f; 8:1ff, 6f, 9, 11, 14, 17ff; 9:1, 4, 14ff; 10:1, 3, 5ff, 12; 11:4ff, 11, 13, 15; 12:1, 4f, 7f; 13:2f, 7ff; 14:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12f, 16ff, 20f;

Malachi
1:1f, 4ff; 2:2, 4, 7f, 11ff, 16f; 3:1, 3ff, 10ff, 16f; 4:1, 3, 5;

An Obvious Double Standard
In light of this clear evidence, I have a question for you to consider. If the 70 translators of the Septuagint believed they had license to replace Yahweh’s name, arguably the single most important word in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures, with an impersonal Greek title more than 6,500 times, what other changes would they have felt justified in making? Would lengthening the chronology of the Old Testament by 1300 years in order to make it align more closely with the Ptolemaic Egyptian chronology of their day also fit under this purview?

I admit that I’m baffled by the logic of Mr. Woodward and those who hold the Rabbinic manipulation conspiracy theory. Are we really to believe that the Hebrew MT of the Bible cannot be trusted because (based upon only circumstantial evidence) the Jewish Rabbis are accused of changing certain passages of the original Hebrew text of the Bible to obfuscate the messianic identity of Yeshua (Jesus). Yet astoundingly, the very act (modifying the original Hebrew text of the OT) for which the Jewish Rabbis are libelously accused, we know in fact was committed by the translators of the Septuagint.

 I mean come on. Sure it is important to talk about the differences in chronology and words between the LXX and MT versions of the OT, but why the need to throw the Jewish Rabbis of the 2nd century AD under the bus with inflammatory rhetoric based only upon circumstantial evidence? What real purpose does it serve other than to inflame passions and provide fertile ground for the seeds of anti-Semitism to be reborn?

I want to repeat something here. I believe both the Septuagint (LXX) and Masoretic (MT) texts of the Old Testament provide more than enough evidence to prove that Yeshua (Jesus) was the Jewish Messiah promised in the Scriptures.  Sure the chronology of the Old Testament is roughly 1300 years longer in the LXX than the MT text. But as I’ll demonstrate in Part II of this series, far from the MT undermining the case for Yeshua as the promised Messiah (as is argued by the Rabbinic conspiracy theorists), the MT chronology of the Old Testament provides compelling proof of the opposite. In fact, it can be demonstrated that the MT  of the Scriptures shows that Yeshua came at the beginning of what the Jewish people considered the Messianic age. Further it can be shown that the major milestones in Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind, and Yeshua’s pivotal part in that plan, can only be seen in its intended magnificence within the chronological framework of the Old Testament as given in the MT text of the Old Testament.

Yahweh willing I’ll do my best to demonstrate this in Part II of this series.

Maranatha!

Book 1
Book I - Description

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

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

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

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."

The Mystery of Immanuel

In many ways it seems unfathomable to me that Yahweh, our Creator, and creator of the physical world around us, desires fellowship with His Creation. If we were to step back and look at the Biblical story with a wider angle lens one could say that the overreaching theme of the Bible is the story of mankind’s lost fellowship with Yahweh (due to our sin) and His merciful efforts to reestablish that fellowship at all costs. For whatever unfathomable reason, Yahweh desires Immanuel, that is, He desires to be with us, to dwell with His creation.

Isaiah 7:13-14
 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?  14 Therefore YHWH himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:20-23  
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of YHWH appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.  21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.  22

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of YHWH by the prophet, saying,  23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 In this week’s article I’d like to give you another way of looking at the mystery of Immanuel. We’ll start by stepping back in time to the first Immanuel (God with Us), back to the time when Adam and Eve walked with God in Eden. We briefly look at the consequences of their fall and then moving forward in Biblical history, the thrilling efforts of Yahweh to reestablish that lost fellowship with mankind. Along the way, I’ll mark these events for you within the context of Bible chronology (found in the Hebrew (MT) of the Scriptures) and the Jubilee cycles. This exploration, I believe, will leave you with the profound realization that Yahweh is indeed actively engaged in the affairs of mankind in an effort to reconcile us to Himself. That reconciliation, that salvation, we will see is realized in Yeshua (Jesus) – that is – Yahweh’s Salvation. (Remember it is no accident that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Hebrew word meaning Yahweh’s Salvation)

  Eden – The 1st Immanuel
  So let’s start in the beginning with the word of Yahweh:

John 1:1-14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  2 The same was in the beginning with God.  3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.  4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.  5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.  7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.  8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.  9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.  10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.  11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.  12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:  13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Genesis 3:7-8  
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of YHWH God amongst the trees of the garden.

I think it is fair to say, that as with Adam and Eve so too with us today, sin (no matter the promised benefits) causes separation from our Creator. From that initial act of Edenic rebellion, mankind (in general) fell out of fellowship with Yahweh, and that fall brought death upon the human race. Thankfully, the story didn’t end with Adam and Eve’s death and the demise of the human race. Yahweh graciously offered mankind a seed of hope! That hope came in the form of a promise that Adam and Eve’s own “seed” would someday “bruise” the serpent’s head:

Sinai – The 2nd Immanuel
Our next stop in our quest to follow Yahweh’s meeting with mankind – His Immanuel (God with Us) comes after Israel’s Exodus from Egypt. 2500 years after Eden Yahweh once more chose to meet with mankind. Indeed there were other instances when Yahweh or his messengers spoke with individuals but it wasn’t until Sinai that the Bible records Yahweh once more choosing a specific location to meet with mankind. That meeting place was a mountain where Yahweh spoke to all of the children of Israel. After this initial meeting with Israel, Yahweh charged Moses to build Him a tabernacle where He could temporarily dwell in the midst of Israel.

Exodus 29:42-46   42 This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before YHWH: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.  43 And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.44 And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest’s office.  45 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.  46 And they shall know that I am YHWH their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am YHWH their God.

Exodus 33:8-11   8 And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tabernacle.  9 And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and YHWH talked with Moses.  10 And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door.  11 And YHWH spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

A couple things  strike me here from this passage above. First of all, the passage here tells us that Moses spoke “face to face” with Yahweh like someone talks to their friend. This type of intimacy between God and mankind was last recorded in Eden.

Second, Joshua remained in the tabernacle after Moses finished talking to Yahweh. I can’t help but think there is some added significance here as Joshua is but the English version of the Hebrew Yeshua or as the name is commonly known by us today as Jesus – the name meaning Yahweh’s Salvation.

So it was in the wilderness of Sinai in the 52nd (13×4) jubilee cycle after Eden that Yahweh once more chose a dwelling place to meet with mankind. This new dwelling place was temporary and by its nature created a barrier between God and man.

This barrier was necessary because of mankind’s fallen state. I think it fair to say, that the tabernacle was not constructed to contain Yahweh but rather to protect mankind (in our fallen state) from the righteousness of Yahweh. For the next several centuries the tabernacle made by Yahweh’s instruction in the 2nd year of the Exodus became the meeting place between God and man.

 

Jerusalem – The 3rd Immanuel in Solomon’s Temple
Almost 500 years later during the 62nd Jubilee cycle from Adam, Yahweh chose a more permanent location to meet with mankind. Gone was the wilderness animal skin covered tent (tabernacle) of Sinai and in its place the gold plated temple of Solomon was built. This new dwelling place, where Yahweh met with mankind was built after a pattern shown to king David and then constructed by David’s son Solomon.

Deuteronomy 12:10-11
10 But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which YHWH your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;  11 Then there shall be a place which YHWH your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto YHWH:

1 Kings 8:1-29
Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of YHWH out of the city of David, which is Zion. 

2 And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month.  3 And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark.  4 And they brought up the ark of YHWH, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up…

6 And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of YHWH unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims…

9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when YHWH made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.  10 And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of YHWH,…

To give you a little bit of the back story about our next Immanuel, just over 400 years after the completion of Solomon’s temple in the 70th jubilee from Adam, the book of Ezekiel chapters 8-10 records the departure of Yahweh’s presence from Solomon’s temple. This departure of His shekinah (glory) from His holy temple was due to the abominations committed by Israel. 6 years after Yahweh’s departure, Solomon’s temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s armies.

It is worth further noting here that the 70th jubilee from Adam was particularly pivotal in Yahweh’s plans for Israel and the coming Messiah. As the following chart shows, the 70th jubilee originated three separate 70 years periods of time that played a particularly important role in the chronology of the 2nd temple era.

 

Those 70 year periods were as follows:

70 years captivity of Judah (Jer. 25:12; 29:10)
70 years of Divine anger (Zech. 1:12)
70 year between the 1st & 2nd temple (2 Kings 25:8-9; Ezra 6:14-17)

Jerusalem – The 4th Immanuel
Just 70 years after Yahweh’s departure from Solomon’s temple, the book of Zechariah tells us that Yahweh had returned to Jerusalem “with mercy”.  What’s so important to understand here is that 16 years earlier in 536 BC Cyrus of Persia had allowed the Jewish people to return and build the temple. This return ended the 70 years captivity of Judah. (see chart). Having been granted permission to rebuilt the temple in 536 BC, by 520 BC in the 2nd year of Darius I (16 years later) the Jewish people had not even completed the temple foundation.

Then as Zechariah 1 and Haggai 1 both describe, Yahweh gave a divine command to the Jewish people to return and build His sanctuary. As you’ll read in the following excerpted passages, Yahweh had “returned to Jerusalem with mercies” and reassured the Jewish people that “I am with you”. Yahweh’s divine anger had ended and He wanted the Jewish people to finish rebuilding His house. Please take a moment to read these passages, so you get a sense of what is going on here in the 2nd year of Darius.

Zechariah 1:2-17   7 Upon the four and twentieth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius, came the word of YHWH unto Zechariah…. 

12Then the angel of YHWH answered and said, O YHWH of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?  13 And YHWH answered the angel that talked with me with good words and comfortable words…

16 Therefore thus saith YHWH; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith YHWH of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.  17 Cry yet, saying, Thus saith YHWH of hosts; My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad; and YHWH shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.

Haggai 1:1 – 15
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of YHWH by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying,  2 Thus speaketh YHWH of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that YHWH’S house should be built.  3 Then came the word of YHWH by Haggai the prophet, saying,  4 Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?…

 7 Thus saith YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways.  8 Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith YHWH….

12 Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of YHWH their God, and the words of Haggai the prophet, as YHWH their God had sent him, and the people did fear before YHWH.  13 Then spake Haggai YHWH’S messenger in YHWH’S message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith YHWH.

 14And YHWH stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of YHWH of hosts, their God,  15 In the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king. 

The Temple was the Dwelling Place of Yahweh
I love this part of the Immanuel story, it is so wonderful to see the rich context of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind and ordered manner in which He carries it out. Yahweh had returned to Jerusalem and told the people that he was with them in their efforts to rebuild His dwelling place.

Leading the reconstruction efforts were Joshua (Yeshua in Hebrew) the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor. In the book of Haggai and Zechariah a messianic aura is woven around both these men. At the bottom of this article I’ve provided some of the more clearly messianic and prophetic passages for your review. It is so worth your time to read through them and then the fuller passages to get the complete context.

In any case, as here in what I’m calling the 4th Immanuel, Yahweh had returned to Jerusalem with mercy and desired to once again dwell with His people.

Yeshua – The 5th Immanuel
In the midst of the window of time in which Yahweh gave His divine command to restore and build Jerusalem to the Jewish people through Haggai and Zechariah, a profoundly important statement is made which had direct bearing on the coming of Messiah. Consider the progressive revelation of the following excerpted passages from Haggai 2:

Haggai 2:5-7  According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.  6 For thus saith YHWH of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land7 And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith YHWH of hosts.

Haggai 2:9  The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith YHWH of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith YHWH of hosts.

Haggai 2:15-23   And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of YHWH:..

18 Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of YHWH’S temple was laid, consider it

 from this day will I bless you.

As I’ve shared with you in my book and articles over the years, if you count forward from 24th day of the 9th month in the 2nd year of Darius I (520 BC) there were 515.05 Biblical lunar/solar years until Hanukah in the year 5 BC. These 515 years fulfill 70 Seven periods of time as prophesied in Daniel 9. (For more details see my article Seven, 70, & Sevens: Daniel 9 & the Bible’s Messianic Symbolism)

A reasonable Biblical and historical case can be made that Yeshua of Nazareth was conceived in the winter of 5 BC and 9 months later was born during the Feast of Tabernacles in 4 BC.

Today the birth of the Yeshua (Jesus) gets is honored as the miracle of the season, but in reality the true miracle of Immanuel was that moment when the divine spark of Yahweh became flesh in the human incarnation of Yeshua – that moment when the hopeless darkness of mankind existence was pierced by the light of God and Yahweh took on the temple of human flesh.

John 8:12  2 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 9:5   As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

John 10:22-23   22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.  23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.

Do you realize that Yeshua made the above statements at the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) – a festival where the Jewish people commemorated the cleansing and rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabaeus? Can you picture Yeshua standing in the brilliant light of the temple mount candelabra telling His audience that He was “the light of the world”? Do you understand how congruent this picture is?

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  2 The same was in the beginning with God.  3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.  4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.  5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Isaiah 9:2-7
2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined….

 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.  7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of YHWH of hosts will perform this.

As we’ve followed Yahweh’s Immanuel appointments with mankind through the Biblical ages I hope that I’ve strengthened your faith in the Biblical case for Yahweh’s love for you and His willingness to humble Himself and take on humans flesh so that He could stand in our place when the righteous penalty for our sins was carried out. Yeshua conception and birth in the 82nd jubilee cycle from Adam fits precisely in Yahweh’s ongoing redemptive plan for mankind. It is my hope that this year as you remember the reason for the season you’ll consider the conception and birth of Yeshua in light of Yahweh’s desire to restore mankind to their intended state.

Maranatha!

 

 

 

Acts 3:25 – 4:1  Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.  26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. 

Isaiah 9:6-7   6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.  7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of YHWH of hosts will perform this.

Revelation 21:10-16  0 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,  11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;  12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:  13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.  14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.  15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

 16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.

 

The Promised Seed
For those who would like to explore another thread of this wonderful story. Here is some symmetry to the jubilee cycles and their relationship to the promised seed.

The Birth of Seth Confirms the Promise of the Seed
In Adam’s 130th year (13×10) the line of the promised seed was keep alive in the birth of Seth. Seth’s birth took place in the 3rd jubilee of Adam’s life.

Noah’s Flood – the Consequence of Unrestrained Sin
Sin has profound consequences. We only need to move forward roughly 1656 years from Adam and Eve’s sin to see that the darkness, that Satan’s deception wrought, far from elevating mankind to the status of gods, it had metastasized to the point that it had nearly brought about mankind’s demise.  

Genesis 6:11-13  
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.  12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.  13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Genesis 9:1  
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Sobering, isn’t it? After 1656 years from Adam’s sin only 8 souls where left who were thought worthy to escape the judgment of the flood.

Abraham and the Covenant of the Seed
Yahweh’s promise concerning the “seed” of Adam and Eve was confirmed after the flood with the birth of Isaac in Abraham’s 100th year which was 40 jubilee cycles from birth of Adam’s seed Seth in the 3rd Jubilee from Adam.

Genesis 17:17-22   17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?  18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!  19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.  21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time [mow’ed] in the next year.  22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

A few years later, when Isaac was still a boy or young man, in Genesis 22 Yahweh unfolds a bit more of His redemptive plan by swearing (shaba) an oath (shebuw’ah) with Abraham which explained that through Abraham’s “seed” all nations of the earth would be blessed. (For more on this see Seven, 70, Sevens: Daniel 9 & the Bible’s Messianic Symbolism)

This oath swearing with Abraham by Yahweh was in response to Abraham’s demonstration of faith in his willingness to offer up Isaac as Yahweh commanded and Abraham’s unwavering faith that he and Isaac would come back down from that mountain together. Don’t forget it was Isaac who was Abraham and Sarah’s son of their old age and Yahweh had already promised that in Isaac, Yahweh would establish His covenant of the seed.

Genesis 22:11-18  11 And the angel of YHWH called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.  12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.  14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of YHWH it shall be seen.  15 And the angel of YHWH called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,  16 And said, By myself have I sworn [shaba], saith YHWH, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

One of the fascinating aspects of this subject is the symmetry with which these events were fulfilled when seen within a continuous jubilee cycle originating with the creation of Adam. From the birth of Seth to the birth of Isaac there was an interval of 40 jubilee cycles. 40 jubilee cycles after the birth of Isaac the oath Yahweh sworn with Abraham concerning his “seed” blessing all nations of the earth was fulfilled when Yeshua reconciled all mankind to Yahweh by His death and resurrection.

Romans 5:8-12
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.  10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.  11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.  12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Also worth noting is that Seth was born in the 3rd jubilee of Adams life, Isaac was born in 2nd jubilee of Abraham’s life, and Yeshua fulfilled His destiny as the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world in the 1st jubilee of His life.

Here are some verses related to the Messianic theme of Haggai and Zechariah

Zechariah 2:1-5 
I lifted up mine eyes again, and looked, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.  2 Then said I, Whither goest thou? And he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.  3 And, behold, the angel that talked with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him,  4 And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein:  5 For I, saith YHWH, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her.

Zechariah 2:10-13
10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith YHWH.  11 And many nations shall be joined to YHWH in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that YHWH of hosts hath sent me unto thee.  12 And YHWH shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.  13 Be silent, O all flesh, before YHWH: for he is raised up out of his holy habitation.

Zechariah 3:8-10
8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.  9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith YHWH of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.  10 In that day, saith YHWH of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

Zechariah 4:6-10
6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of YHWH unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith YHWH of hosts.  7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.  8 Moreover the word of YHWH came unto me, saying,  9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that YHWH of hosts hath sent me unto you.  10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of YHWH, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

Zechariah 6:11-13
 11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;  12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh YHWH of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of YHWH:  13 Even he shall build the temple of YHWH; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Zechariah 8:1-3
Again the word of YHWH of hosts came to me, saying,  2 Thus saith YHWH of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury.  3 Thus saith YHWH; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of YHWH of hosts the holy mountain.

Zechariah 8:22-23
Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek YHWH of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before YHWH.  23 Thus saith YHWH of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

Zechariah 11:10-14
 10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.  11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of YHWH.  12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.  13 And YHWH said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of YHWH.  14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

Zechariah 12:2-10
 2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.  3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.  4 In that day, saith YHWH, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.  5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in YHWH of hosts their God.  6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.  7 YHWH also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.  8 In that day shall YHWH defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of YHWH before them.  9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.  10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Zechariah 13:1-2
In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.  2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith YHWH of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.

Zechariah 14:1-9
Behold, the day of YHWH cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.  2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.  3 Then shall YHWH go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.  4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.  5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and YHWH my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.  6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:  7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to YHWH, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.  8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.  9 And YHWH shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Zechariah 14:20  0 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO YHWH; and the pots in YHWH’S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.

Not Afraid of the Antichrist: A Book Review

The question of when the rapture takes place has long challenged me. Like many who set out to understand the “end times” chronology I started from a pre-tribulation perspective. Looking back this was probably because at the time I first became interested in eschatology it was the most widely disseminated theory, it had many proponents who I respected (and still do), and because unfortunately I didn’t do my own due diligence as I should have.

Because this subject still challenges me, I try to read as many diverse views on the subject as I can and then compare them to my current understand of Biblical passages in question. This quest led me recently to Dr. Michael L. Brown and Craig S. Keener’s new book Not Afraid of the Antichrist: Why we don’t Believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture.

While this book does dig into the details of the timing of the rapture it paints the arguments mostly from a big picture point of view. The book is divided into three parts.

Part I: Why Many Doubt “Left Behind” Theology
Part II: What does the Bible Say?
Part III: Implications for Us Today

Part I lays out some of the challenging aspects of the pre-tribulation rapture that are found in 2 Peter 3:10, I Corinthians 15:23-26, and 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 (among others). By asking a series of logical questions based upon these passages the authors get you thinking about the subject of the rapture from a new perspective. Chapter 2 then gives the author’s personal journey from a pre-tribulation rapture timing to their current perspective. After their personal testimony the authors explore the chronology of the “end times” from the perspective of church history.

Part II digs into the time of the rapture in a bit more detail by questioning the Old Testament “support” for the rapture. Here the authors look at some of the commonly used Old Testament types or shadows which are often used to support the pre-tribulation rapture. After laying this foundation the authors then really focus on why they believe there is only one “2nd coming”.  Part II wraps up with Evaluating Pre-Tribulation arguments and exploring what they believe are post-tribulational passages that show why Yeshua (Jesus) returns for the church after the tribulation.

To me the part of the book that was most compelling was Part III and the authors’ exploration of the implications  that he timing of the rapture has for the church today. Over the years I’ve had a hard time reconciling some of my former pre-tribulation beliefs with the suffering of the followers of Christ over the last 2000 years. In this part of the book the authors really provide some great analysis of “What is Tribulation”, why is this different than God’s Wrath. Related to this, the authors explain how and why thy believe believers will be protected from Yahweh’s divine judgments that will be poured out upon this earth at the end of the age.

Most valuable of all to me in reading this book was the authors’ challenging their readers with victorious view of living in Christ during this present age, regardless of its challenges and sacrifices. This part of the book was truly encouraging and inspiring.

Another aspect of the subject that clicked with me while reading this book is the reality of how the 1st century church understood that they were in the end times yet they understood the 2nd coming of Yeshua was at some yet appointed time. This “already” and “not yet” aspect of the end times has challenged me over the years.  The authors’ explanation of this subject got me thinking  that the early church’s understanding of the “end times” may have been influenced by big picture cyclical view of history much like Jewish Rabbinic thought saw the 1st century BC/AD as the start Yemot Mashiach or Days of the Messiah which was a much longer period of time than a seven years. In any case it was some great food for further reflection.

*       *       *

In the category of missed opportunities I wish the authors had done a more thorough job explaining why they saw Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 “Weeks” (Sevens) as fulfilled in Yeshua (Jesus) in the first century. Clearly Dr. Brown as a Jewish believe in Yeshua, as well as one who believes in the rapture and 2nd coming, has a unique perspective on this wonderful prophecy and one can hardly call him a preterist.

Why I believe this was a missed opportunity is because Daniel 9 and 70 Sevens is the bedrock upon which all who hold a dispensationalist point of view find their chronological framework for the 7 year tribulation, the rapture, and their view of the Jewish people in the plan of God.  Without the dispensational gap between the 69th and 70th “week” of Daniel 9 the entire pre-trib framework is upended. A seven year tribulation is not once mentioned in the entire Bible but comes directly from a dispensationalist conclusions about Daniel 9.

Dr. Brown and Dr. Keener both made a great effort to allow context to define their understanding of the rapture and its timing, yet in their explanation of Daniel 9 they overlooked the one contextual aspect of Daniel 9, which is fatal to dispensational view of Daniel 9. That context is the “covenant and mercy” of Daniel 9:4.

The more I study Yahweh’s wonderful words the more in awe I am of the congruency of its messianic redemptive message. Here in Daniel 9 that congruency is on display in a wonderful way.

In Daniel 9 the first words out of Daniel’s mouth are a petition for Yahweh to remember his “Covenant and Mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments.” Daniel goes on to plead for his people, Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary, and  ruined city of Jerusalem.  As Dr. Brown and most readers well versed in the Old Testament would know, This “Covenant and Mercy” is a direct quote from Deut. 7 and Moses’ admonition to Israel.

    • Deuteronomy 7:7-12
      YHWH did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because YHWH loved you, and because he would keep the oath [shebuw’ah] which he had sworn [shaba] unto your fathers, hath YHWH brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.   Know therefore that YHWH thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations…..
      ….Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that YHWH thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware [shaba] unto thy fathers: (excerpted)

Moses goes on to inform Israel that these fathers and this oath (shebuw’ah) He swore (shaba) with them originated with Abraham (Due. 9:5).  If we go back in Biblical time we find that oath Yahweh swore with Abraham was in Genesis 22 after Abraham showed his willingness to offer Isaac in that heart wrenching OT shadow of Messianic symbolism. It is here that Yahweh (by himself, by his own sovereign will) sware (shaba) the first oath (shebuw’ah) with any man in the Bible. That oath (shebuw’ah) in part promised Abraham that through his “seed” all nations of the earth would be blessed.

It’s later in Genesis 26 that Yahweh confirms His oath with Abraham’s son Isaac:

Genesis 26:3-4  – – – Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath [shebuw’ah] which I sware [shaba] unto Abraham thy father;  4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Chronicles 16:13-17 and Psalm 105:6-10 both confirm this oath Yahweh swore with Abraham.

In the New Testament, Peter in Acts 3:25-26 speaks of this covenant, as does Zacharias, the father of John, and Mary, the mother of Yeshua  in Luke 1. Even Paul speaks of this covenant to the Galatians and they are all unanimous that this covenant (and mercy) Yahweh sware with Abraham was the promise of Israel’s redeemer Yeshua.

In other words, Daniel’s plea for Yahweh to remember his “covenant and mercy” (whether he understood it in its fullest context) was a plea for the promised “seed” through whom “all nations of the earth would be blessed”.  It was plea for Yahweh to remember the oath (shabuw’ah) He the living God of the Bible sware (shaba’) with Abraham.

So how did Yahweh answer Daniel’s prayer? He sent Daniel a prophecy of 70 Sevens. Now here is where the awesome congruency of Yahweh’s word really shines. The Hebrew word for the number seven and swear are phonetically identical. From this Hebrew root come the Hebrew words shebuw’ah (oath), shabuwa’ (Sevens) and, last but not least shib’iym (Seventy). So in other words when Daniel pleaded with Yahweh to remember the shebuw’ah (oath) He shaba (sware) with Abraham, Yahweh sent Daniel the prophecy of shebuwa’ shib’iym (70 Sevens) which told Daniel exactly when that promised redeemer would come. How congruently awesome is that!

This context of the “covenant and mercy” of Daniel 9:4, then must be the lens through which we see the “covenant” mentioned in Daniel 9:27. Only Yeshua could have “confirmed the covenant” originally made with Abraham. Indeed it was by Yeshua’s death and resurrection that the “seed” of Abraham became the blessing to all nations of the earth.

    • Luke 1:67-73 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,  68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,  69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;  70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:  71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; ….To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
    • Galatians 3:14-16 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.  Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.  16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises [covenant] made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 

It is my hope that in some future writing, Dr. Brown will give this subject the attention it deserves and use his eloquence and knowledge to highlight the amazingly congruent redemptive message of Yahweh’s Covenant and Mercy through Yeshua.

*        *        *

In closing, context matters. I believe that if you explore the subject of the rapture and its timing with Dr. Brown and Dr. Keener in this book, you’ll find that a very good case can be made that the rapture and 2nd coming are not two separate events separated by years but a single event of hours (possible days) that transpires right at the end of this age and just before Christ literal reigns upon this earth.

Maranatha!

Book 1
Book I - Description

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

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

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

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."

Yahweh’s Covenant and Mercy to a Thousand Generations
For those who would like to read the story of Yahweh’s Salvation (His Yeshua) as spelled out through his Covenant and Mercy to a thousand Generations, here are the Bible’s own words:

To Abraham
Genesis 22:11-18
 11 And the angel of YHWH called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.  12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.  13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.  14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

 15 And the angel of YHWH called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,  16 And said, By myself have I sworn [shaba], saith YHWH, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;  18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

To Isaac:
Genesis 26:3-4   3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath [shebuw’ah] which I sware [shaba] unto Abraham thy father;  4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

To Jacob:
Genesis 28:13-14  
3 And, behold, YHWH stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;  14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

 Confirmed By

Deuteronomy 4:31   31 (For YHWH thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware [shaba] unto them.

Deuteronomy 7:8-12  8 But because YHWH loved you, and because he would keep the oath [shebuw’ah] which he had sworn [shaba] unto your fathers, hath YHWH brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.  9 Know therefore that YHWH thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

 10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.  11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.  12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that YHWH thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware [shaba] unto thy fathers

Deuteronomy 8:18   18 But thou shalt remember YHWH thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware [shaba] unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

Deuteronomy 9:5  5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations YHWH thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which YHWH sware [shaba] unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The Covenant of a Thousand Generations
1 Chronicles 16:13-17  O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.  14 He is  YHWH our God; his judgments are in all the earth.  15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath [shebuw’ah] unto Isaac;  17 And hath confirmed  [‘amid] the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,

Psalm 105:6-10  6 O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.  7 He is YHWH our God: his judgments are in all the earth.  8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.  9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath[shebuw’ah] unto Isaac;  10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:

 Nehemiah 1:5  5 And said, I beseech thee, O YHWH God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments

Daniel 9:4  And I prayed unto YHWH my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

The Covenant and Mercy in the New Testament

Acts 3:25-26   25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.  26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Luke 1:46-55  46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,  47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.  48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.  49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.  50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.  52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.  53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.  54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;  55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

Luke 1:67-73  67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,  68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,  69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;  70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:  71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;  72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;  73 The oath [shabuw’ah] which he sware [shaba] to our father Abraham,

Acts 13:22-23   22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.  23 Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Acts 13:32-33  32 ….And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,  33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Galatians 3:14-17  14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.  15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.  16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.  17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Galatians 3:29   29 ….And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Romans 15:8   8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Hebrews 6:12-17   12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.  13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,  14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.  15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.  16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.  17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

Mark 14:22-24   22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.  23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.  24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many.

Hebrews 7:22   22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament [covenant].

Hebrews 13:20   20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Daniel 9:27  27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Promised Seed of Faith
Romans 4:12-18
 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.  13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.  14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:  15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.  16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,  17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.  18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

Romans 9:3-8  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:  4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;  5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.  6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:  7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.  8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

 A Light to the Gentiles

Isaiah 42:1-7  KJV Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.  2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.  3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.  4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.  5 Thus saith God YHWH, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:  6 I YHWH have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

Luke 2:25-32   25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.  26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.  27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,  28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,  29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:  30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,  31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;  32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Acts 26:23   23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Even so come Yeshua!

 

The Priests & Levites of Ezra & Nehemiah: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

If I told you that today in this article I was going to set aside the most natural plain sense reading of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and instead adjust their chronology because this specific era in Biblical history doesn’t jive with what we know from secular sources, what would your reaction be?

My hope is that such an approach would raise all sorts of red flags to you as it should all of us when someone takes such liberties with the Biblical record. I believe the Bible should be read with the assumption that it is an accurate and reasonable rendering of real history. When it makes a historical statement, I believe our primary response should be to take it at face value and in good faith. Only after we have clear guidance from the context and related passages should we look for an alternative interpretation. This is what many call the Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation as most eloquently described by Dr. David Cooper:

 “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.” –Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),

I can tell you that the times I’ve made the greatest interpretational errors have been when I’ve ignored this Rule of Biblical Interpretation.

While most scholars believe this rule is a valuable guild when interpreting the Scripture, I can tell you it is easier said than done. Which brings me to today’s subject. There is one place in the Biblical record where even some of the most notable Biblical scholars of our day still stumble over this rule. That place is the 2nd temple era chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah in general and more particularly the chronology of the priests and Levites mentioned in these books.

The more I’ve studied this subject the more disconcerting it is to see the length many of my peers go to discount a common sense reading of Ezra and Nehemiah. Case in point, the following quote comes from Mr. Lanser’s (of Associates for Biblical Research) article The Seraiah Assumption where he takes my writings on the 2nd temple era to task.  In the following quote I’ve excerpted from Mr. Lanser’s article so I’d encourage you to read the entire article to get the full context. As you’ll see Mr. Lanser starts out on the right foot, but then abandons his own criteria without actually applying the context he admits is necessary to ascertain an accurate understanding of the passage. Please note, as I’ll explain more fully below, Mr. Lanser is explaining why the priests and Levites as enumerated in Nehemiah 10 & 12 cannot be taken in their most natural and plain sense understanding, but must be read papponymically (i.e. common names do not necessary refer to the same person but can refer to an ancestor by the same name).

Some—notably Jeshua, Seraiah, Azariah, Meshullam and Shallum—demonstrate the phenomenon of papponymy, where a man’s name skips a generation and shows up again in a grandson. This phenomenon means keying on name repetitions alone is not a reliable way to construct a chronology. There is also the ambiguity raised by the repeated use of culturally common names among unrelated people. Anyone who has paid any attention to genealogies in Scripture has noticed that the same names are used for many different individuals. (The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser)

With such examples before us, how can we possibly use name matching alone to claim that Sir Robert Anderson erred in understanding “Artaxerxes” in Ezra 6:14 as Artaxerxes I Longimanus? Confronted with biblical evidence that using the same names in multiple generations was a common thing, we cannot simply find the same names in different lists of priests, Levites or gatekeepers, and claim that this repetition proves they were the same person. The only way to tell if a given name refers to the same person is by context and tying in at least some other names in an ancestral line. (The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser)

Regarding Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s relationship to the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 and 12, Mr. Lanser concludes with the following summary in his section on Answering Struse’s Six Biblical Challenges:

    1. The priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 are from the third post-exilic generation, when Ezra read the Law to the people when Nehemiah was governor and Eliashib was high priest, while those listed in Nehemiah 12:1–9 were from the original post-exilic generation under Zerubbabel and Jeshua. The name repetitions must be attributed to papponymy and the use of culturally common names—identical names, but not identical individuals. (The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser)

I again I encourage each of you to go back and read Mr. Lanser’s entire article again (here) to get the full context of his words. You’ll find his fuller thoughts on the subject under the heading Examining the Eliashib Assumption.

The Papponymy Assumption
Here is the crux of the problem. Many of the priests and Levites who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel in the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC) appear in the list of priests and Levites who were sealed with Nehemiah in the 20/21st year of a Persian “Artaxerxes”.  If the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah be the Persian king Longimanus (as Mr. Lanser and many of our peers claim) then many of those priests and Levites would have been 120+ years old. This proposition nearly all Biblical scholars (including Mr. Lanser) agree is untenable.

To get around this difficult problem Mr. Lanser and most of his peers resort to some variation of a Papponymy Assumption. What that means, is Mr. Lanser must assume that same names given in the lists of Nehemiah 10 and 12 are not the same men but rather one of their descendants who bore the same name generations later.

Mr. Lanser is correct that the Bible often uses the same name in succeeding generations but having said that, this in no way gives us license to automatically assume papponymy and discount the most natural reading of the text.  What is most disconcerting about Mr. Lanser’s conclusion above is that in his article he didn’t even take the time to show why  he believes the names found in Nehemiah 10 and 12 were used papponymically.

In this week’s article I’ll show you why the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 and 12 are not papponymic lists separated by decades but rather straight forward chronological statements that prove Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries of Jeshua and his son  Joiakim, the high priests, as well as contemporaries of Darius I ‘The Great’ whom the Bible identifies as “Artaxerxes”.

Who Returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel?
Our exploration of the subject begins with the decree of Cyrus and the first group of priests and Levites repatriated to Judea and Jerusalem. We start with the accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah:

 Ezra 2:1-2  Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;  2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah…

Nehemiah 7:5-7   5 And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein, 

6 These are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city;  7 Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Nehum, Baanah.

Taken at face value these two passages give us a list of a group of core leading men who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel after Cyrus allowed the Jewish captives to return in 536 BC. As I demonstrated in my last couple of articles (here & here) the Mordecai listed in these two passages is most likely the Mordecai of the book of Esther. After evaluating the evidence presented in this article I believe you’ll find a compelling reason to conclude that the Nehemiah mentioned in these passages is in fact the same man who nearly thirty-six years later would become the governor of Jerusalem as described in the book that bears his name.

The 2nd Year of the Return
Year two of the Jewish people’s return to Jerusalem was marked by the auspicious effort of rebuilding Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary. The following passage is especially worthy of note because it introduces us to some of the leading men and their families who were responsible for the commencement of the rebuilding efforts.

Ezra 3:8-9  8 Now in the second year [535 BC] of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the remnant of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity unto Jerusalem; and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to set forward the work of the house of YHWH.

 9 Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to set forward the workmen in the house of God: the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the Levites.

The reconstruction efforts on the temple were begun with Jeshua (the high priest – a.k.a Joshua) and his sons, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Henadad and their brethren the Levites. These are important people who are mentioned throughout the books of Ezra and Nehemiah so mark them carefully. Worthy of note is that the text seems to indicate that neither Judah nor Henadad were present but only their “sons”. As you’ll see this distinction is congruent as the history of Ezra and Nehemiah unfolds.

Ezra Reads the Law to Israel
After the wall of Jerusalem had been built and the gates restored in the 7th month of that year, all Israel gathered in Jerusalem to read the law of Yahweh during the Feast of Sukkoth as is commanded in the 7th year of the Sabbath cycle (Shemitah). On the following 24th day of that month as Israel was fasting and praising Yahweh we once again meet men named Jeshua and Kadmiel.

Now it is true that there was the high priest Jeshua (Joshua) and two Levites named Jeshua. But in the passages that mention them if read carefully most of the time they can be distinguished from one another. Of the two Levites named Jeshua, one was the son of Azaniah (Neh. 10:9) and the other was the son of Kadmiel (Nehemiah 12:24). In fact Nehemiah 10:9 mentions “both” Jeshua, son of Azaniah and mentions Kadmiel in the same verse. Remember in the passage above where the “sons of Henadad” were mentioned? Well, Nehemiah 10:1-13 also mentions both Jeshua’s, Kadmiel as well as Binnui the son of Henadad.  For context sake keep in mind here that Nehemiah 10 is in the 20th year of a Persian “Artaxerxes”.

As you read the following passages remember that they describe events that take place in roughly the 21st year of a Persian king “Artaxerxes” if this Persian king is Darius I then the following passages can be read in the straight forward manner in which they are given.

 If on the other hand the Persian king “Artaxerxes” is Longimanus as Mr. Lanser suggests then these passages cannot be taken at face value and we must assume that even though the men and their relationships to each other are nearly identical they cannot be father and son relationships but rather papponymic and an unknown number of generations separates both groups of men. What do you think is the most reasonable reading of these passages?

Ezra 3:9   9 Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to set forward the workmen in the house of God: the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the Levites.

Nehemiah 3:24  24 After him repaired Binnui the son of Henadad another piece,

Nehemiah 9:1-5  Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting,….

4 Then stood up upon the stairs, of the Levites, Jeshua, and Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani, and Chenani, and cried with a loud voice unto YHWH their God. 

5 Then the Levites, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodijah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah, said, Stand up and bless YHWH your God for ever and ever: and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise.

Nehemiah 10:1-13  Now those that sealed were, Nehemiah,…

9 And the Levites: both Jeshua the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, Kadmiel; (excerpted)

Nehemiah 12:1-8   Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua:..

Moreover the Levites: Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, which was over the thanksgiving, he and his brethren. (excerpted)

Nehemiah 12:24-25   24 And the chief of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward. 

Now it is pretty obvious, unless you are really trying not to see it, that these are not papponymic relationships but real first and second generation Levites who worked, prayed and gave thanks together from the 1st year of Cyrus until at least the 20th year of the Persian king the Bible identifies as “Artaxerxes”.  For clarity I repeat if this “Artaxerxes” of Ezra and Nehemiah be Darius I then these passages give an incredibly congruent picture of the temple rebuilding efforts, its dedication, the building of the wall, and resumption of Torah observance.

If the Artaxerxes mentioned is the Persian king Longimanus then we are left with a hopeless chronological muddle which undermines the credibility of the Bible.

Chief of Thanksgiving in the Days of Jeshua
But let’s drill down a bit to see if there is any other supporting passages which might shed light on this chronology. In Nehemiah 12 a Levite named Mattaniah is identified who was “over the thanksgiving”. In modern terms you might call him a worship leader. This Mattaniah is identified as one of the Levites who officiated during the days of Jeshua, the high priest.

Nehemiah 12:8  8 Moreover the Levites: Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, which was over the thanksgiving,…

After the wall was completed in the 21st year of “Artaxerxes” Nehemiah asked the children of Israel to cast lots in order that they might find inhabitants to dwell in the newly fortified city of Jerusalem. One of the men mentioned was Mattaniah who was the “principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer”. Further this Mattaniah Neh. 11:22 tells us had a son named Hashabiah who we find in Nehemiah 12:24 as one of the chief Levites whose job it was to “praise and give thanks” and who the text identifies as a contemporary of Joiakim (son of Jeshua, the high priest).

This provides confirming evidence that the Mattaniah of Cyrus’ and Jeshua’s day was the same Mattaniah who was present in Jerusalem at the dedication of the wall when the city was resettled and who’s son’s were also a contemporaries of Joiakim. In no reasonable way could these events have taken place in the 21st year of “Artaxerxes” Longimanus

Nehemiah 11:15-17  15 Also of the Levites:….
 17 And Mattaniah the son of Micha, the son of Zabdi, the son of Asaph, was the principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer:

Nehemiah 11:22   The overseer also of the Levites at Jerusalem was Uzzi the son of Bani, the son of Hashabiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Micha. Of the sons of Asaph, the singers were over the business of the house of God.

Nehemiah 12:24   24 And the chief of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward.

A Chronological Reading of Nehemiah 12
The above evidence is further confirmed with a chronological reading of Nehemiah 12. I challenge you to see for yourself in the following passage I’ve arranged the verses as they were given but in a way to emphasize their natural relationship to each other. Please note that Nehemiah 12:1-7 gives a list of the “chief of the priests” in the days of Jeshua, the high priest. This is followed by a listing of the “Levites” during the days of Jeshua. This list is arranged first by priest and then Levites.

Important Key to Understanding these Passages:
Please note that the distinction made between priests and Levites is one of the ways the author of Nehemiah helps the reader understand specifically who he is talking about. When you arrange these priests and Levites of Nehemiah chapters 7 -12 according to these designations, it removes much of the confusion as to who is meant and how each name is related to each other, especially when some of the priests or Levites share the same name.

Following this list of Levites in verses 8-9, Neh. 12:10-11 establishes the lineage of Jeshua and his sons so that there is no confusion about the chronological context he is describing and that which follows. In other words he links chronologically these priests and Levites with Jeshua the high priest and then shows the reader how these men are chronologically related to Jeshua’s descendants.

After this summary of the lineage of the high priests, the author in verses 12-21 then provides a list of priests who officiated during the high priesthood of Joiakim, son of Jeshua. To further emphasize the first and second generation relationship, most of the chief priests who were contemporaries of Jeshua (verses 1-7) are listed again along with the name of their offspring and the text then identifies these offspring as contemporaries of Joiakim the son of Jeshua the high priest.

 Verses 22-23 once again provide an overview of the high priesthood lineage, only this time it synchronizes this lineage with Darius the Persian.

Verses 24-25 provide a list of some of the Levites who officiated during the days of Joiakim. (Thus balancing the list of priests and Levites who served during the days of Jeshua the high priest with a similar list of priests and Levites who served during the days of Jeshua son, Joiakim. In other words this passage presents the  priests and Levites during the days of Jeshua and then priests and Levites during the days of Joiakim.

Finally verse 26 removes all doubt about the chronological relationship between the priest and Levites listed during the priesthood of Jeshua and Joiakim. It concludes:

26 These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe.

As you will be able to see for yourself below, this passage in its most natural and plain sense reading proves that the priests and Levites in the days of Joiakim were contemporaries with Nehemiah’s governorship and Ezra’s service as priest and scribe.

Here is the Nehemiah 12 with verse numbers:

Nehemiah 12:1-26
1 Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua:

Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra2 Amariah, Malluch, Hattush,  3 Shechaniah, Rehum, Meremoth4 Iddo, Ginnetho, Abijah5 Miamin, Maadiah, Bilgah6 Shemaiah, and Joiarib, Jedaiah7 Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, Jedaiah.

  These were the chief of the priests and of their brethren in the days of Jeshua

8 Moreover the Levites:

Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, which was over the thanksgiving, he and his brethren.  9 Also Bakbukiah and Unni, their brethren, were over against them in the watches. 

 

 10 And Jeshua begat Joiakim, Joiakim also begat Eliashib, and Eliashib begat Joiada,  11 And Joiada begat Jonathan, and Jonathan begat Jaddua.

 

 12 And in the days of Joiakim were priests, the chief of the fathers:
of Seraiah, Meraiah;
of Jeremiah, Hananiah;
of Ezra, Meshullam
of Amariah, Jehohanan;
of Melicu, Jonathan;
of Shebaniah, Joseph
of Harim, Adna
of Meraioth, Helkai
of Iddo, Zechariah
of Ginnethon, Meshullam
of Abijah, Zichri
of Miniamin
of Moadiah, Piltai
of Bilgah, Shammua
of Shemaiah, Jehonathan
of Joiarib, Mattenai
of Jedaiah, Uzzi
of Sallai, Kallai
of Amok, Eber
of Hilkiah, Hashabiah
of Jedaiah, Nethaneel.

22 The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers: also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian. 23 The sons of Levi, the chief of the fathers, were written in the book of the chronicles, even until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib. 

 

 24 And the chief of the Levites:

Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward. 

25 Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, Akkub, were porters keeping the ward at the thresholds of the gates.

 

26 These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe.

 As you can see from reading this passage in its most natural sense, the 1st and 2nd generational relationship of the priests and Levites is emphasized by the author.  In this passage there are only room for two generations from the decree of Cyrus and Joshua and Zerubbabel’s return until the events described in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah.

This 1st and 2nd generational relationship is further confirmed when the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 12 are compared to the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 who were present when the wall was completed under the direction of Nehemiah in the 20-21st year of the Persian king “Artaxerxes”. As you’ll see demonstrated in the chart below the same priests and Levites are listed and for the most part they are even listed in the same order as given in Nehemiah 12.

In other words, these lists demonstrate that many of the priests and Levites who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel in 536 BC (Neh. 12) were still alive and active when the wall was completed and dedicated in the 20-21st year of a Persian “Artaxerxes”.

To try and break this 1st and 2nd generational connection undermines the specific chronology and detailed account and throws the entire books of Ezra and Nehemiah into chronological confusion.

Please see the chart at the bottom of this page for a complete visual representation of the priest and Levites of Nehemiah 12 relative to priests and Levites of Nehemiah 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Zechariah the Trumpeter
An additional piece of evidence that puts the nail into the coffin of the Pappanymy Assumption is the lineage of a trumpeter named Zechariah. In Nehemiah 12:35 it tells us that Zechariah was one of the priests who played music upon the wall when it was dedicated in the 20-21st year of Artaxerxes.

Nehemiah 12:35   35 And certain of the priests’ sons with trumpets; namely, Zechariah the son of Jonathan, the son of Shemaiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Michaiah, the son of Zaccur, the son of Asaph:

What is so cool about this lineage is that this passage identifies Zechariah as a priest and the son and grandson of Jonathan and Shemaiah respectively. If we then turn to Nehemiah 12:12-18 we find that Shemaiah’s son Jonathan listed as contemporaries of Joiakim. Proceeding back in time we find that Nehemiah 12:18 lists Shemaiah as one of the original priests who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel in the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC).

Because Nehemiah 12:35 provides a continuous lineage from Zechariah to Shemaiah it provides reasonable if not conclusive proof that priests listed in Nehemiah 12 were first and second generation contemporaries of Joshua and Zerubbabel. Because these same priests and Levites are given in Nehemiah 10 and elsewhere as real live contemporaries of Ezra and Nehemiah we must accept that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra and Nehemiah could not have been Artaxerxes Longimanus but must have been the Persian king Darius I ‘The Great’ whom the Bible identifies by the title of Artaxerxes decades before that Medo-Persian administrative title was taken as a throne name by his grandson Longimanus.

Nehemiah 10 and the Sealing of Israel
For those of you who really love to search these things out I challenge you to read the chronological history of Nehemiah 8-10 & 12 and see if you can identify the priests and Levites who took part in those momentous events. For your convenience in the chart below I’ve color coded the names of the priests and Levites found in those chapters. With the information I’ve provided you in this article I sincerely believe you’ll find that there is no other reasonable option but to see the events of Ezra and Nehemiah and the priests and Levites who partook in those events as contemporaries of the Persian king Darius. Rather than an uncertain chronological muddle proposed by Mr. Lanser and many of our peers on account of their Papponymy Assumption, instead we have straight forward chronological generational statements that prove the Bible to be a reliable account of real history.

As you pursue the chart below keep in mind that the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 12 are those who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel in the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC). The priest and Levites of Nehemiah 8, 9, 10, and 11 are those who the Bible specifically tells us were contemporaries of Joshua’s son Joiakim (the high priest), Nehemiah (the governor), and Ezra (the priest and scribe).

Click on Image to Enlarge

Ezra the Priest and Scribe
This brings us to the history of Ezra, the priest and scribe. Our exploration of this subject wouldn’t be complete unless including this man who was one of the most pivotal people of that era.

Let’s start by looking at the lineage of Ezra.  Ezra 7 opens with Ezra’s lineage as a “son of Seraiah”. Here take a look:

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)

Again according to our interpretive method, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise we must assume the most plain sense ordinary reading of the text. Such a reading of this text unequivocally indicates that Seraiah was Ezra’s father. Not everyone agrees with such a plain reading of the text. This is not how Mr. Lanser sees the text. I quote from his article The Seraiah Assumption:

Genealogical Lists Can be Incomplete
However, it is essential to realize that genealogies in Scripture often do not include every name in a family tree. Names of certain individuals are sometimes left out when their mention does not further the writer’s purpose. The possibility of missing ancestors is demonstrated in Ezra 7, where we are presented with this genealogy:

1Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, there went up Ezra son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, 2son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub, 3son of Amariah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth…

A superficial comparison of 1 Chronicles 6:14–15 with Ezra 7:1 might lead some to think Ezra was one of the exiles taken to Babylon in 587 BC, but this does not take the full picture into account. By focusing on “Ezra son of Seraiah, son of Azariah” in Ezra 7:1 to claim the existence of an Artaxerxes Assumption, another assumption is being made: that Seraiah ben- (“son of”) Azariah was the literal father of Ezra. This assumption is not nearly as firmly grounded as the English translation may make it seem, for the Hebrew prefix ben– (which the KJV archaically renders “begat”) encompasses not only direct father-son relationships but also ancestor-descendant relationships, where some intervening names between two significant people are left unmentioned.

It is true that generational lists don’t always include every generation in a family tree. As Ezra’s own genealogy demonstrates he did leave out several generations in the middle of his lineage when compared to 1 Chron. 6:3-25. This omission though does not provide any grounds to assume that there were also names missing between Ezra and his father Seraiah.

 If we allow ourselves to take such liberties with the text without contextual support then all lists would then be fair game to insert additional generations as we arbitrarily deem necessary to adjust Biblical history to meet our own criteria. Quite frankly such an approach undermines the credibility of the Scripture. Ezra was a scribe, that means he was well versed in the Torah. If he left names out in the middle of his lineage he could have simply done so for brevities sake. To use this omission as some sort of spring board to assume further missing name between his lineage and his father Seraiah is simply unsupported speculation, necessitated by a desire to stretch the chronology of the 2nd temple era.

The reason Mr. Lanser needs to seen missing generations between Seraiah and Ezra is because  Ezra’s father Seraiah was the last high priest of Solomon’s temple and he was killed in Babylon in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:18-20). By no reasonable interpretive method can Mr. Lanser’s chronology justify Ezra as the son of Seraiah in its most natural sense because taking this passage in its most plain sense would make Ezra over 140 years old by the time 21st year of the Persian king Longimanus.

The following chart shows the age of Ezra relative to the Persian kings Darius and Longimanus. Without inserting arbitrary generations in the lineage of Ezra this chart shows why Ezra and “Artaxerxes” Longimanus could in no reasonable way be considered contemporaries. 

Interestingly, one might argue that Ezra may have returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel for a short period of time.  In Nehemiah 12:1 a priest by the name of Ezra did in fact return to Jerusalem. The text does not tell us who this Ezra was, but we cannot say definitively that it was not our Ezra the priest and scribe. And lest you think it unusual to find Ezra back in Persia by the 6th year of Darius, consider that the Scriptures tells us Nehemiah, as an officer of the king, traveled back and forth between Jerusalem and Shushan in Persia. If we are going to speculate here, we could assume a high likelihood that there was much traffic between the Jewish community in Judah and those still in Persia, including those Hebrew men who were officiating on king Darius Artaxerxes’ behalf.

 Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra,  Amariah, Malluch,… Nehemiah 12:1-2

Ezra In the Historical Records
Ezra really is important to fixing the chronology of the 2nd temple period. In this article I’ve given you several reasonable pieces of Biblical evidence that show Ezra was a contemporary of Darius “Artaxerxes”. Now let me give you several historical references which also indicate Ezra was the literal son of Seraiah just as the Bible describes. These sources are not scriptural, but represent Jewish oral and written traditions as well as two references from the apocryphal books of Esdras. At the very least these references show that Ezra’s contemporaneous relationship to Darius “Artaxerxes” was well understood by the Jewish people.

    • Daniel now received the Divine charge to urge Cyrus to rebuild the Temple. To this end he was to introduce Ezra and Zerubbabel to the king. Ezra then went from place to place and called upon the people to return to Palestine. Sad to say, only a tribe and a half obeyed his summons. Indeed, the majority of the people were so wroth against Ezra that they sought to slay him. He escaped the peril to his life only by a Divine miracle. (LOUIS GINZBERG. THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS VOL. I – IV (Kindle Locations 18416-18420). Kindle Edition.)
    • The complete resettlement of Palestine took place under the direction of Ezra, or, as the Scriptures sometimes call him, Malachi. He had not been present at the earlier attempts to restore the sanctuary, because he could not leave his old teacher Baruch, who was too advanced in years to venture upon the difficult journey to the Holy Land. …. (LOUIS GINZBERG. THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS VOL. I – IV (Kindle Locations 18523-18530). Kindle Edition.)
    • … for it is written [Ezra, vi. 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.” And we have learned in a Boraitha: At the same time in the following year Ezra and the children of the captivity went up from Babylon, and the Bible says about this [Ezra, vii. 8]:(The Babylonian Talmud Kindle Edition)
    • The second book of the prophet Esdras, the son of Saraias….which was captive in the land of the Medes, in the reign of Artexerxes king of the Persians.(4 Esdras 1:1-3)
    • In the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city I was in Babylon [554 BC], and lay troubled upon my bed, and my thoughts came up over my heart:(4 Esdras 3:1)
    • Jewish Encyclopedia —– The Babylonian captivity lasted seventy years. Ezra sanctified Palestine in the seventh year of the second entrance, after the sixth year of Darius, when the Temple was dedicated (Ezra vi. 15, 16; vii. 7). The first cycle of shemiṭṭah began with the sanctification of Ezra. The Second Temple stood 420 years, and was destroyed, like the First, in the 421st year, on the closing of the shemiṭṭah (‘Ar. 13a).

In this article I’ve given you several vectors of contextual Biblical evidence which all show that Ezra was the son of Seraiah and that he was a contemporary of Darius Artaxerxes.  This evidence combined with what we’ve learned about the 1st and 2nd generational relationship of the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12 provides compelling evidence that the events described in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah took place during the reign of Darius I ‘The Great’ Persian king whom the Bible also identifies as “Artaxerxes” decades before that title was taken as a throne name by Darius’ grandson Longimanus. 

The Sanballat Double Standard
There is one last aspect of Mr. Lanser’s Seraiah Assumption that I believe needs to be addressed because it illustrates the lengths to which so many decent scholars are willing to go to find evidence for their belief that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra and Nehemiah was the Persian king Longimanus.

As you read the following passage keep in mind that Mr. Lanser and many of his peers when reading the names of the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 and 12 cannot accept that these men are 1st and 2nd generations because some of the priests and Levites have the same name (the papponymy assumption).

Yet when it comes to the Bible’s mention of Sanballat the Horonite in Nehemiah 2, Biblical scholarship lauds this Sanballat as the very same Sanballat the governor of Samaria because he is mentioned in the Elephantine Papyri dated to the 407 BC. This despite the fact that at no point does the Bible tell us that Sanballat the Horonite was the governor of Samaria, despite the fact that Sanballat was a very common name in the 2nd temple era, and despite the fact that historians to this day have no real clarity as to how many Sanballat governors of Samaria there actually were. Mr. Lanser explains it this way:

Sanballat in the Elephantine Papyri
Lastly, I would point out the mention of Sanballat, the local leader Nehemiah contended with, in Elephantine papyri that place him alive in 407 BC. As described at https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/biblical-archaeology-31-the-elephantine-papyri/:

One letter is of particular note. The “Petition to Bagoas” is a letter written by Yedaniah bar-Gemariah on November 25, 407 BC (the 17th year of King Darius) to Bagoas, the Persian governor of Judea, asking for assistance in the rebuilding of a Jewish temple in Elephantine that had been damaged by Egyptian priests in the community. On the reverse side at the very end it mentions another letter that had been sent to the sons of Sanballat, governor of Samaria:

“We have also set forth the whole matter in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. Furthermore, Arsames (the Persian satrap) knew nothing of all that was perpetrated on us. On the twentieth of Marheshwan, the seventeenth year of Darius the King.”

The precise dating of this letter, in the seventeenth year of the reign of Darius II Nothus who succeeded Artaxerxes I Longimanus, together with the explicit naming of Sanballat alongside his two sons who were old enough to be the primary recipients of a second official letter, should make it clear that Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem must be placed in the twentieth year of an “Artaxerxes” compatible with that date. Only Artaxerxes I Longimanus meets the dating requirements; placing Nehemiah’s arrival in the twentieth year of Darius I (502/501 BC) is far too early for Sanballat to have been a middle-aged man at that time. When I pointed this out to Mr. Struse in a private email, he replied:

The fact that a Sanballat was mentioned in the Elephantine papyri is not proof that this was the Sanballat of Nehemiah’s day. In fact Sanballat was a very common name especially during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has this to say about Sanballat:

Sanballat is the Babylonian Sin-uballit, “may Sin give him life,” a name occurring a number of times in the contract tablets from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, and Darius Hystaspis. (See Tallquist, Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, 183) (emphasis added by Struse).

The problem here is that Mr. Struse has jumped to a conclusion that overlooks a key point made by Robert Dick Wilson in the aforementioned ISBE article, online at https://biblehub.com/topical/s/sanballat.htm. It is this: the Sanballat in question was clearly not only a governor of Samaria, he was also the father of two sons named Delaiah and Shelemiah. These are men who were rulers of the Samaritans and are known from the Elephantine papyri to have lived in the late fifth century BC. These further identifiers make this Sanballat a very specific person that stands out from any others who may have borne that name, and only this particular Sanballat matters to us. Certainly, the name may have been found at other times and in other contexts, just like the multiple examples of papponymy given in the previous article. But how many of them were governors who also fathered sons named Delaiah and Shelemiah?

Summarizing the Sanballat Double Standard
To put this Sanballat double standard a bit more bluntly, it claims that we can’t accept Nehemiah 10 and 12 as straight forward accounts of chronological history because some of the priests and Levites have the same names and this somehow proves, without any deference to the context, that those names must have been used papponymically. Yet we must accept that “Sanballat the Horonite” mentioned in the Bible is the very same “Sanballat the governor” of Samaria of the Elephantine Papyri because these two individuals have the same name.

In Conclusion
I hope this series of articles has helped you wrap your mind around the chronology of the 2nd temple era. I also hope that I’ve illustrated the dangers of making assumptions that the Bible cannot be taken at face value in its most natural and reasonable sense. So much confusion has been introduced into the subject because scholars have looked passed the most natural reading of the text and made unwarranted assumptions.  The Biblical account really is straight forward. Only when the reader steps outside a chronological reading of the text and imposes a so called “thematic” or other arbitrary framework around the text do the books of Ezra and Nehemiah become a hopelessly confusing chronological mess.

It is my belief that a straight forward and chronological reading of the texts of Nehemiah and Ezra provides the clearest and most compelling understanding of these books and it shows just how accurate the Biblical record is when it describes the history of the 2nd temple era.

If you’ve followed these series of articles closely then some of you realize the real root cause of the chronological confusion surrounding the 2nd temple era is a well meaning but misguided attempt to stretch the chronology of the 2nd temple era so that most interpretations of the prophecy of Daniel 9 find their fulfillment in Yeshua of Nazareth. That is the only reason compelling enough for scholars to turn a blind eye towards a contextual and plain sense reading of the history described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

But this need not be the case. The chronology of the 2nd temple era can be read in a straight forward and plain sense way without sacrificing the credibility of the prophecy of 70 Sevens and its fulfillment in Yeshua. I’ve demonstrated this in multiple articles at this blog and in my book Daniel’s 70 Seven: The Keystone of Bible Prophecy. Those of you who take your stewardship of Yahweh’s wonderful word seriously I encourage you to do your own due diligence and “see if these things be so.”

Maranatha!

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 Lansers – The Seraiah Assumption:
Introduction
The Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption

Part ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius 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 VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, 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 IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

 

Book 1
Book I - Description

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

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

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

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."

 

 

Darius I: A Gentile King at the Crux of Jewish Messianic History

My last several articles have looked at the Persian king Darius and his important role in the return and restoration of the Jewish people to their land. This effort by Darius also included moral and financial support in rebuilding the temple, reestablishment of the temple service, and most importantly (I believe), the restoration of Torah observance.

The last seven articles have been a book’s worth of Biblical and historical details spread out over a period of months. So in this article I’ll attempt to summarize the important highlights of the information so that you’ll will be able have the big picture of how Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, used a the Persian king Darius to prepare the way of the coming of  Israel’s (and the world’s) promised Redeemer. If these highlights challenge or intrigue you then I encourage you to read the underlying articles which show the Biblical foundations for my arguments.

In response to The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser, which was a critical review of my work on the 2nd temple era as posted on the Associates for Biblical Research website, I started this series of articles with the premise that the Bible is a trustworthy and accurate account of history. As the Biblical history has unfolded in these articles we’ve seen in fact that taking the Biblical account in its most natural and plain sense provides us with a clearer picture of Biblical history and its chronology than if we try to rearrange the Bible’s chronology using a thematic approach as proposed by Rick Lanser.

In the following paragraphs let me show you just how incredibly important Darius I was in Jewish history. And so that you will have the clearest context of the events described, I will giving them in the same chronological order as they appear in the Biblical record. As a sort of prologue we will start with Cyrus and his decree which allowed the Jewish people to return and build the temple and Jerusalem.

Keep in mind here that in this series of articles I provided evidence to show that the Biblical authors of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther used the Medo-Persian administrative titles of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes to describe the Persian king Darius I (and others) long before those titles were take as throne names by his descendants in the decades that followed.

As I’ve demonstrated in these article and others over the years, Old Testament Biblical history in terms of an Bible chronology ends here in the reign of Darius I ‘The Great’, the only thing connecting the next five centuries of Biblical history to the coming of the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) and the New Testament record of Yeshua’s birth, death, and resurrection is the prophecy of Daniel 9 and its 70 Sevens. Daniel 9 and its 70 Seven prophecy is the bridge that connects the Old Testament and New Testament,. In essences it is the cord that binds them into a congruent and complete chronological whole.

Why is This Even Important?
The reason I’ve spent so much time going over the chronology of the 2nd temple era in this series and over the years at this blog is because the Bible is a congruent whole with specific redemptive message to share with mankind. That message is Yahweh’s atoning love through His Yeshua – His Salvation worked out through Biblical history according to His preordained calendar as measured in what we understand as time – past, present, and future. When we misidentify chronological fixing points Yahweh has recorded for us in the Bible, these errors can’t help but influence the interpretational matrix of how we understand what happened at Yeshua’s first coming as well as what Yahweh’s word predicts about what will take place at Yeshua’s return.

Think about the implications of an inaccurate understanding of Biblical history as it relates to Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens. Because the vast majority of evangelical Biblical scholars of the past and present believe that chronology of Ezra is a jumbled up mess that cannot be taken in a straightforward and chronological manner, they place the start of 70 Seven’s countdown to the Messiah nearly 60 years later in Biblical history than is chronologically justifiable by a plain reading of the text.  Having done this, their view of Biblical history then influences how they understand what that prophecy says about the Messiah and the purpose of his first coming. Then upon that weak foundation they make conclusions about what the Bible says about the Messiah Yeshua’s second coming.

Instead of an amazingly congruent prophecy which primarily speaks to the covenantal and redemptive nature of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for all mankind at Yeshua’s first coming, the 70 Sevens becomes a dispensational hybrid prophecy in which its covenantal and redemptive message for all mankind (the 69 Sevens = 98.6% of the prophecy) is left hanging and instead the focus shifts to the Anti-Christ and a final period of the 7 year tribulation (1.4%) in which Yahweh’s wrath towards the Jewish people reaches is fateful climax.

Chronological Errors Have Theological Significance
Let me give you a few examples of what has happened to most evangelical interpretations of the prophecy of 70 Sevens because Biblical chronologists have erroneously reconstructed the chronology of the 2nd temple era as it relates to Ezra, Nehemiah, Darius, and “Artaxerxes”.

  • Instead of the most congruent and wonderful testimony of Yahweh’s redemptive love for the Jewish people and all mankind through the promised Messiah, the messianic redemptive nature of the prophecy of 70 Sevens ends with the death of Yeshua and then shifts to the work of the Anti-Christ. (The resurrection is missing in most interpretations.)
  • Instead of a covenantal fulfillment of the oath (shebuw’ah) Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham, that “covenant and mercy” held up by Daniel in his prayer to Yahweh, (Dan 9:4)), the covenant of the prophecy of 70 (Shib’iym) Sevens (Shabuwa) is stripped of its context and becomes a covenant with the Anti-Christ.
  • Instead of providing the covenantal template by which the Jewish people can fully realize their promised restoration to the land sworn (shaba) by Yahweh in the an oath (shebuw’ah) made with Abraham, (that template which shows that the Jewish peoples temporal fortunes come only after their spiritual fortunes are restored through faith in Yeshua), the prophecy of 70 Sevens becomes a dark ugly thing which tells the Jewish people only of the Messiah’s death without the resurrection (after 69 Sevens), then tells of 7 years of punishment, and tells of yet another unknown period of desolation without hope. (And we wonder why Jewish anti-missionaries are so resistant to evangelical interpretations of Daniel 9)
  • Instead of confirming the multiple New Testament witnesses which tell us that Yeshua, by His death and resurrection, confirmed (strengthen) the oath (shebuw’ah) Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham, the messianic covenantal nature of the prophecy of 70 Sevens is transformed into a covenant made with the Anti-Messiah.

Today the vast majority of my evangelical peers tell us the prophecy of Daniel 9 and its 70 Sevens is a prophecy given by Yahweh to the Jewish people. With this I agree because it is through the Jewish people that a Jewish Messiah came and through the Jewish people (the seed of Abraham) that we received prophetic record which tells of Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for all of us.

With this wonderful messianic covenantal heritage, I for the life of me cannot understand why we then disassociate this prophecy with its covenantal messianic roots in the oath (Shebuw’ah) swore (shaba) with Abraham, an oath that Moses described as the “covenant and mercy” made with the “fathers” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I cannot understand how my evangelical peers then further deconstruct this wonderful covenant and mercy made with Abraham, that oath (shebuw’ah) which tells of the coming Yeshua Messiah and instead turn the prophecy and its promised covenantal restoration (spiritual & physical) through the Messiah into the darkest chapter in Jewish history.

Deuteronomy 7:9  Know therefore that YHWH thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Deuteronomy 7:12   12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that YHWH thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware [shaba] unto thy fathers:

Galatians 3:16-17   16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.  17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 Genesis 22:16-18   16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith YHWH, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

 Luke 1:68-73  68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,  69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;  70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:  71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;  72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;  73 The oath [shebuw’ah] which he sware[shaba] to our father Abraham,

 Acts 3:25-26   25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.  26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Daniel 9:4   4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

Shame on us!

I know many of you that read this blog long for the return of Yeshua as I do. I have sobering news for you though. Yeshua unequivocally told His Jewish brethren that He will not return again until they (the Jewish people) acknowledge him as their promised Messiah.  

Luke 13:34-35  34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!  35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Daniel 9:27   27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I believe now is the time to remove the chronological stumbling block we have placed upon the Bible’s single most important Messianic prophecy given specifically to the Jewish people, a stumbling block that undermines its clearly  OT covenantal and messianic context, a context that proves that Yeshua is the fulfillment (or if you prefer a confirmation) of the oath (shebuw’ah) that Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham.

The Covenant and Messianic congruency of Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens can only be properly understood if it is placed in the chronological context given by Yahweh as recorded in Bible. That is the reason I’ve spent so much time showing you why the 2nd temple context of the Bible is the crux of Biblical Messianic history as it relates to the Jewish people and the prophecy of 70 Sevens.

Please don’t take my word for it. Do your own Berean duty and see if these things be so.

With that being said, here is the summary of the chronology we’ve explored to date as it relates to Ezra, Nehemiah, Darius, and “Artaxerxes” place in the 2nd temple era. Yahweh willing, in my final article in this series I’ll show you why accepting the lineage of the priests and Levites as recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in its most natural and plain sense reading provides us with further evidence that the reign of Darius I ‘The Great’ is truly and accurately described as the crux of Jewish Messianic history as it relates to the Daniel 9, the Bible’s greatest Messianic prophecy.

536 BC
Cyrus Decrees that the Jewish People can Return to Building Jerusalem
At the end of the 70 years captivity prophesied by Jeremiah, Yahweh raised up Cyrus of Persia to allow the Jewish people to return and build Jerusalem. This return was lead by Joshua, the high priest, and Zerubbabel, the governor.

21 To fulfil the word of the YHWH by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.  22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the YHWH spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the YHWH stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,  23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the YHWH God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The YHWH his God be with him, and let him go up.  2 Chronicles 36:21

536 BC
Mordecai Returns to Jerusalem

After Cyrus’ decree that allowed the Jewish people to return and rebuild Jerusalem, this repatriation was lead by Joshua, the high priest, and Zerubbabel, the governor. Amongst those who lead this return was a man named Mordecai. For further explanation as to why this is important to the subject of Darius and Artaxerxes please see my article  Mordecai and the Chronological Context of Esther.

Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;  2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. Ezra 2:1-2  

 

522-521 BC
Darius I Squelches the Lobbying Efforts of the Jewish People’s Enemies
Today much is written about king Cyrus of Persia and his decree which allowed the Jewish people to return and build the temple of Jerusalem.  What is often left unsaid is that after Cyrus’s decree and the Jewish people’s return, they were only able to lay some of the temple foundation stones before their construction efforts on Yahweh’s house were interrupted.

4 Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building,  5 And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. Ezra 4:4-5   

For the next roughly 16 years any serious effort to rebuild Yahweh’s sanctuary were interrupted and instead the Jewish people worked on their own dwellings. After Cyrus died and his son Cambyses (a.k.a. the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6) took the throne, the enemies of the Jewish people sent lobbyists to the Persian court to ensure that any reconstruction efforts of the Jewish people were blocked. These efforts by the Jewish people’s enemies seemed to have fallen on a deaf ear by the Persian king Cambyses.

After Cambyses a new Persian king identified in the Bible as “Artaxerxes”  (a.k.a. Bardis the Magian Usurper) took the throne and the lobbying efforts of the Jewish people’s enemies found a willing ear in this new Persian king’s court. “Artaxerxes” countermanded the original decree by Cyrus of Persia and by force of arms the enemies of the Jewish people stopped the meager efforts of the Jewish people to rebuild Yahweh’s house. According to Persian history written by Darius I on the granite cliffs of Behistun, the Usurper’s reign only lasted a short time before he was deposed by Darius I (son of Hystaspes).

Shimshai the Scribe
One of those lobbyists who tried to thwart the Jewish people’s reconstruction efforts the Bible identifies as Shimshai the Scribe. Intriguingly, there is a tablet from the reign of Cambyses which names such an individual. This provides intriguing confirmation that the events of Ezra 4 are contemporaneous with the era of Cambyses and Darius I. For more on this see my article: Darius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature

 

520 BC – Yahweh and the Divine Command to Restore and Build
Then in 520 BC when the divine clock in Yahweh’s redemptive plan struck a preordained hour, He personally reached down into the affairs of mankind and commanded that the Jewish people “return” and build His desolate sanctuary.

Zechariah 1:16
Therefore thus saith YHWH; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith YHWH of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem. 

3 Then came the word of the YHWH by Haggai the prophet, saying,  4 Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?  5 Now therefore thus saith the YHWH of hosts;….

Haggai 1:3-9
Thus saith the YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways. 8 Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the YHWH.  9 Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the YHWH of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house. 

Ezra 6:14
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 [even] Artaxerxes king of Persia. 

Remember the Messianic Context!
Keep the big picture in mind here. In order for the Messiah to come and fulfill the many prophecies written about Him, Yahweh’s house had to be restored. That is the reason Satan used the enemies of the Jewish people to block the reconstruction of the temple. No temple – no Messiah, no Torah observance – no Messiah.

 

Related articles:
Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Darius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature


(521 BC)- Darius I – Helps Restores the Jewish Temple
After Yahweh’s divine command to restore and build Jerusalem, the enemies of the Jews approached king Darius in his 2nd year of reign (521 BC) to stop the Jewish people’s divinely mandated construction efforts. Darius had no sympathy for their cause of obstruction. In fact, as we know from Persian history that Darius favored the restoration of the religious institutions and their service of the people in his kingdom. This is what Darius told the enemies of the Jewish people:

Ezra 6:6-7, 11
 
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….

11 Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this.

Ezra 6:13-15
13 Then Tatnai, governor on this side the river, Shetharboznai, and their companions, according to that which Darius the king had sent, so they did speedily. 

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.

Related articles:
Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem

521 BC & 515 BC – Darius the “Huckster” supports the Temple Service
One of those unusual statements of history that has stuck to Darius I was the appellation of “huckster” that Herodotus bestowed upon him.  This term was given to Darius I because he was the Persian king who instituted a commodities based form of tribute in lieu of Gold and Silver. This historical fact is confirmed in the Bible when Darius I gave the Jewish people (in days of Joshua and Zerubbabel) from the king’s treasury in support of the temple service. This interesting historical fact is further confirmed when “Artaxerxes” a.k.a. Darius also gave to Nehemiah in support of the same:

Ezra 6:8-10
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.

9 And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the appointment of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail:  10 That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savours unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons. 

Ezra 7:21-23
21 And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily,  22 Unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. 23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?

 

519 BC
Darius Holds Court for Officials of his 127 Provinces
By the 2rd year of his reign Darius had put down the rebellions in his kingdom and consolidated his power. According to the Persian records and historians of that day only Darius I could rightly be distinguished as the Persian Ahasuerus who ruled over “127 provinces”. It was he who achieved this distinction. While Darius’ son Xerxes did indeed inherit the full extent of Darius’ kingdom, by his 7th year he had lost part of the kingdom and no longer could he rightly be distinguished as such as is described in the book of Esther in the 13th year of “Ahasuerus”. Further, only Darius could rightly be said to have “laid tribute upon the land and the isles of the sea” as described in the book of Esther.

This evidence suggest then that in his 3rd year it was Darius, also known in the book of Esther by the title Ahasuerus, that held a grand banquet for the rulers of his 127 provinces. The following Biblical and historical sources confirm this:

Ester (Greek) 16:1
The great king Artexerxes unto the princes and governors of an hundred and seven and twenty provinces from India unto Ethiopia, and unto all our faithful subjects, greeting.

KJA 1 Esdras 3:1
Now when Darius reigned, he made a great feast unto all his subjects, and unto all his household, and unto all the princes of Media and Persia,  2 And to all the governors and captains and lieutenants that were under him, from India unto Ethiopia, of an hundred twenty and seven provinces.

KJV Esther 1:1
Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)

 

516 BC – The Temple Completed in the 6th year of Darius I

Ezra 6:14-15
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.  

515 BC – Darius I Commands the Restoration of Torah Observance
From historical sources we know that Darius I, who the Bible also identifies by the title “Artaxerxes” had a passion for restoring the laws and religious practices of the people he ruled. This is evidenced in the Bible in his 7th year when he granted Ezra the legislative and judicial power to institute Torah observance.

Ezra 7:25-26
25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.  26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.   

Encyclopedia Britannica – Darius as An Administrator
While measures were thus taken to unite the diverse peoples of the empire by a uniform administration, Darius followed the example of Cyrus in respecting native religious institutions. In Egypt he assumed an Egyptian titulary and gave active support to the cult. He built a temple to the god Amon in the Kharga oasis, endowed the temple at Edfu, and carried out restoration work in other sanctuaries. He empowered the Egyptians to reestablish the medical school of the temple of Sais, and he ordered his satrap to codify the Egyptian laws in consultation with the native priests. In the Egyptian traditions he was considered as one of the great lawgivers and benefactors of the country. In 519 bc he authorized the Jews to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, in accordance with the earlier decree of Cyrus.

Darius’ Behistun Inscription
(Column 2 – 14) King Darius says: The kingdom that had been wrested from our line I brought back and I reestablished it on its foundation. The temples which Gaumâta, the Magian, had destroyed, I restored to the people, and the pasture lands, and the herds and the dwelling places, and the houses which Gaumâta, the Magian, had taken away. I settled the people in their place, the people of Persia, and Media, and the other provinces. I restored that which had been taken away, as is was in the days of old. This did I by the grace of Ahuramazda, I labored until I had established our dynasty in its place, as in the days of old; I labored, by the grace of Ahuramazda, so that Gaumâta, the Magian, did not dispossess our house.

515 BC
Esther Becomes the Queen of Persia
Towards the end of his third year of reign (519 BC)Ahasuerus  requested Queen Vashti to present herself at the banquet which he held for the rulers of his 127 provinces.  After Vashti refused king Ahasuerus’ (Darius I) asked the advice of his 7 “wise men” as to what her punishment should be.

Four years later in Darius’ 7th year (a.k.a. Darius even “Artaxerxes”) we find these 7 wise men as part of the royal benefactors who send Ezra to Judah and Jerusalem along with those other willing Judeans who wanted to return.  

Esther 1:13-15
Then the king said to the wise men, which knew the times, (for so was the king’s manner toward all that knew law and judgment:  14 And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the king’s face, and which sat the first in the kingdom;)  15 What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?

Ezra 7:12-14
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. 13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.  14 Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand;

It is in this same 7th year of Darius (Esther’s Ahasuerus & Ezra’s Darius “even” Artaxerxes) that Esther became the Queen of 127 provinces.

510 BC
Haman Sets Out to Destroy the Jewish People
In the 12th year of Darius, a man named Haman lays plans to kill the Jews in the kingdom of Persia.  After casting Pur (lots) for nearly a year in an effort to determine the best day to exterminate the Jewish people, Haman was given permission to fulfill his evil machinations. It was that infamous day, on the 13th month after casting his first pur (lot), on the 13th day of the month in the 13th year of king Darius that the evil plan was set. Esther intervened and what was intended to be the day which ended the Jewish race instead became one of their greatest deliverances. 

In one of the great ironies of the Bible, what the evil Haman had intended for Mordecai and the Jewish people, instead fell upon him and his family. After Haman’s death in the 13th year of Darius, Mordecai became a VIP in the kingdom of Persia. Four years later we find this confirmed in the Persian historical record where a man named Mordecai (Marduka) appears in the cuneiform tables. See the follow article for more details Mordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther.

 

505-490 BC
Mordecai the Persian Administrator
According to Persian cuneiform tables a man named Mordecai (Marduka) was a high official in Persian government from the 17th to the 32nd year of Darius I.

501-490 BC
Nehemiah Becomes Governor of Jerusalem
Roughly 4 years after we have the first evidence of Mordecai in the Persian records we learn from the Biblical record that Nehemiah was granted the governorship of Jerusalem from the 20th/21st year to the 32nd year of king Artaxerxes. It is fascinating to note that Nehemiah brings to his readers attention that at his audience with the king of Persia “the Queen” was sitting beside him.

 Also worth noting, both Nehemiah and the Mordecai of the Persian cuneiform records seem to end their respective administrations in the 32nd year of Darius I.

Nehemiah 5:14
14 Moreover from the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that is, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten the bread of the governor. 

Nehemiah 2:6
6 And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.

Did Mordecai and Esther leave traces in the Neo-Babylonian documents? The name “Mordecai (Mar-duk-ka)” is relatively rare; it is sometimes found during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus32, unlike the name “Marduk”, typically Babylonian (always written dAMAR.UTU “calf-sun”, originally pronounced amarutuk)33, which was widely used. For example, a contract dated 16/XI/8 of Nebuchadnezzar (February 596 BCE) reads34:

Adi’ilu, son of Nabu-zer-iddina, and Ḫuliti, his wife (the divine Ḫulitum) have sold Marduka, their son, for the price agreed upon, to Šula, son of Zer-ukin. The liability to defeasor and pre-emptor, which is upon Marduka, Adi’ilu and Addaku respond for.

Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published35, there are only 2 individuals bearing the name Marduka: an entrepreneur36 who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of Cyrus (534 BCE), and a administrative superintendent37 who worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32 (505-490 BCE), exactly the same period as Mordecai worked38. (Queen Esther wife of Xerxes Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence by Gerard Gertoux p. 13-14)

Summary
In order to ensure the fulfillment of His redemptive plan for mankind, Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, rose up the Persian king Darius I, who in his 2nd year (520 BC) gave moral, legal, and material support for the reestablishment of Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary. By Darius’s 6th year (516 BC) the temple was completed. The following year (515 BC) Darius sent Ezra to Jerusalem with a mandate to reestablish Torah observance and the authority to adjudicate its observance. That same year (515 BC) Esther (Haddasah) became the Queen of Persia. In the 13th year Haman and his coconspirators were destroyed and Mordecai became an important administrator in the Persian empire. In the 20/21st year of Darius, Nehemiah was appointed governor and the walls of Jerusalem had been restored. By the 32nd year of Darius both Mordecai and Nehemiah’s administrations for the king of Persia seem to come to an end.

This Temple and the Torah observance encouraged by Darius I lasted for nearly 5 centuries until the coming of the promised Messiah Yeshua. After Yeshua’s death and resurrection, the temple and its sacrificial service only lasted for 40 more years.

It was here then, in the reign of Darius I of Persia that Yahweh, the living God of the Bible brought together various threads of His divine redemptive plan and set in motion His countdown to the Messiah Yeshua. That countdown, begun in the 2nd year of Darius with Yahweh’s divine command, and that divine countdown bridged nearly 5 centuries of divine silence and precisely on time (515 years later) brought forth the Messiah Yeshua.

Maranatha!

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 ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius 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 VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, 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 IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

 

 

 

A favor to ask.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that you can download all of my books and articles free of charge. I don’t ask for donations or allow advertisements on this blog. This effort is a labor of love for me as a testimony to Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua. I don’t want your money but if you would take a moment to share the articles you read on this blog with your friends and family on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media I would greatly appreciate your help. Together we can share the Biblical evidence for Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind. Thank you for your help in this effort!

* * *

FREE Book Download:

If you would like to learn more about Biblical history and Bible prophecy, you might also appreciate my books in the Prophecies and Patterns series.

At the following link you may download one of the three books shown below. If you like the book and would like to download the other two, all I ask is that you subscribe to my blog. I won’t share your email or spam you with advertisements or other requests. Just every couple of weeks I’ll share with you my love of Biblical history and Bible Prophecy. Should you decide you no longer wish to be a subscriber you can unsubscribe at any time.

Click the following link to download your Free book: Book Download

I hope you’ll join the adventure!

Book 1
Book I - Description

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

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

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

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."

 

 

Esther, Ahasuerus, & Artaxerxes: Who was the Persian King of 127 Provinces?

Authors Note:
 I hope you’ve all had a wonderful and productive summer. I’ve missed sharing these articles with you the past few months. July-September is our family’s busiest time of year. Besides my regular day job as a plumbing contractor, Winnie & I manage our local farmers market as well as tend our nearly two acres of orchards and gardens. Now that harvest season has peaked, hopefully I’ll be able to write more consistently. I have a few more articles to write responding to Associates for Biblical Research’s criticism of my writings on the 2nd temple era before I change subjects and look at some other rather challenging subjects that have been on my mind for a while.. Yahweh willing here are some of the subjects I will be exploring with you in the coming months.

To the subject at hand…

Esther’s Ahasuerus
In this series of articles responding to Rick Lanser’s challenges and criticisms of my chronological view of the 2nd temple era (as posted on the Associate for Biblical Research website here) I’ve done my best to present what I believe to be an accurate and contextual view of the 2nd temple era. In that effort I’ve followed the chronology of the Bible from the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC (which allowed the Jewish people to return and build Jerusalem) up to the 7th year of “Artaxerxes” and Ezra’s departure for Jerusalem to teach the Jewish people the Torah. 

We’ve learned along the way that the Bible can be read in a straight forward and chronological manner as it relates to the Persian era. Indeed we’ve found that trusting the Bible in its most natural and common sense chronological reading provides the clearest and most natural way of understanding the chronology of the 2nd temple era. My last post (here) provided a reasonable Biblical and historical basis for believing that, at least chronologically, Esther’s uncle Mordecai could have been a contemporary of Darius I ‘The Great’. This Darius whom we know from the book of Ezra was also identified by the title “Artaxerxes” several decades before the term was first used by Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) as a throne name.

Granted this evidence did not conclusively prove that Darius and Mordecai were contemporaries or that “Ahasuerus” of the book of Esther is a reference to the Persian king Darius, but it did provide valuable chronological context to consider the likelihood of such an association.

King of 127 Providence
Now let’s further develop the Biblical evidence to see if there is any reason to further consider the possibility that the Persian king whom the Bible identifies as Darius might in fact be the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther. To do this let’s look at a couple of passages in the book of Esther that help identify this Persian king.

Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)  2 That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace,  3 In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him:  4 When he shewed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even an hundred and fourscore days. (Esther 1:1)

The book of Esther opens in the Persian city of Shushan with the Persian “Ahasuerus” (in his third year) throwing a feast for “all his princes and his servants” as well as the “nobles and princes of the provinces”. Notice this Ahasuerus the text further identifies as the “Ahasuerus” who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia over 127 provinces. This fact is helpful in identifying this Ahasuerus in several ways.

First of all, the implication in this statement is that the extent of this Persian’s kingdom (127 provinces) was a fact known well enough to the readers of the book of Esther that it would help identity him. This identification also implies an extent to the kingdom of Persia that was not matched by other Persian kings, otherwise the identification with 127 providence would have had no relevance to the reader.  

The Persian Empire of Artaxsaca
Historically speaking we know that the Persian imperial aspirations reached their fullest extent during the reign of Darius I ‘The Great’. In the following quote Richard Tyrwhitt explains why only Darius I qualifies as the Ahasuerus of 127 provinces mentioned in the Esther 1:

“The ‘great king’ of the book of Esther is distinguished – at least from his predecessors – as the king who ruled from India to Ethiopia. Of these opposite extremities of the Persian empire when it had reached its widest limits, we showed that the African Ethiopians were first conquered by Cambyses, while the Indian dependents were first acquired by Darius the father of Xerxes; whereupon we argued that, as two kings had reigned over this extent of nations before Artaxerxes, the fact of their subject condition could not with propriety be applied either by a contemporary or by a later writer to distinguish the reign of Artaxerxes.

In like manner we argue now against Xerxes. He could not with propriety be distinguished from the kings who had preceded him by the fact, that he reigned from Hindu to Kush, form the Upper Indus to the Upper Nile, because Darius his father had already possessed this empire. Our inference, therefore, is, that Xerxes is not the Ahasuerus of Esther.”

Claiming that the author of Esther, when distinguishing the Persian king Ahasuerus who ruled over 127 providence from his peers – was reference to Xerxes the son of Darius I – would be the equivalent of an historian today trying to distinguish the Presidency of John F Kennedy from his peers by claiming he was the President of all the 50 Untied States of America. Indeed there were 50 states when Kennedy became president but it was during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower (Kennedy’s predecessor) that 49th and 50th state were added to the United States of America. Any honor for this distinction belongs to Eisenhower not Kennedy.

Likewise it was during the reign of Darius I ‘The Great’ that Persia reached its greatest territorial breath that included 127 provinces. Trying to apply this distinction to Xerxes, Darius’ son makes no historical sense and undermines the credibility of the Biblical record related to the Persian period.

The book of Esther confirms that Darius I is the most likely candidate for Esther’s king in another way as well. In Esther 9-10 it tells us that the Ahasuerus of Esther still had 127 provinces in his 13th year of reign. It further tells us that this was the Persian king who “laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea.” Historically speaking, this description of Esther’s Ahasuerus only truly fits the Persian king Darius I, because it was he who laid tribute upon the isle of the Mediterranean Sea.

And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea. (Esther 10:1) 

I defer once again to Edmund Tyrwhitt in his book Esther and Ahasuerus: An Identification of the Persons so Named. He explains it this way:

“Darius was the Persian monarch who fixed the tributes of the subject nations. The other is equally important to our argument. He alone was lord of the Greek islands in the Aegean, after the twelfth year of his reign. No former king of Persia had been their lord, and though they formed part of the empire, which Darius bequeathed to his son Xerxes, they were lost to Xerxes after that destruction of his fleet at Mycale in the seventh year of his reign, which we have had occasion to relate. Of all the islands, Samos was the first conquered by Darius, if not also lost by Xerxes…..(Edmund Tyrwhitt, Esther and Ahasuerus: An Identification of the Persons so Named p.174)

Darius was a Huckster
Darius is to be distinguished from his peers as the Persian king who instituted a commodities based system of tribute which his subjects could, when necessary, use in lieu of gold and silver. This novel form of tribute earned the deprecation of “huckster” from Herodutus. Once again I quote Tyrwhitt:

“The principal change which the measures of Darius introduced into the king’s tributes, appears to have been a substitution of silver and gold for articles of local production. To make up the royalty due from each nation, there may have been established in consequence of this change, places of deposits in every satrapy, and periodical sales on account of the kings’ revenue, of corn, wine, oil, or whatever other local produce; and this may have given occasion for the sarcasm above noticed, that king Darius had become a “huckster,”…. (Edmund Tyrwhitt, Esther and Ahasuerus: An Identification of the Persons so Named p.175-176)

For confirmation of this new provincial form of tribute we have to look no further than the 2nd year of Darius I and his declaration which allowed the Jewish people to continue building the temple. Notice in the following quote the items that were considered “tribute”.

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  9 And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the appointment of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail: (Emphasis mine – Ezra 6:7-9 )

Notice just a few years later in Ezra 7 this same king Darius (whom Ezra 6 identifies by the title “Artaxerxes”) once again offers items of tribute from his royal treasury in support of the Jewish peoples efforts to reestablish their temple worship.

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.  13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. 

14 Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand; 15 And to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counsellors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem,  16 And all the silver and gold that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem:  17 That thou mayest buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meat offerings and their drink offerings, and offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem.  18 And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will of your God.  19 The vessels also that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, those deliver thou before the God of Jerusalem.  20 And whatsoever more shall be needful for the house of thy God, which thou shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the king’s treasure house. 

21 And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily,  22 Unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?

24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.  25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.  26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. (Ezra 7:12-26)

So you appreciate the congruency here, notice that not only did  “Artaxerxes” (Darius I) in the passage above offer support for rebuilding the Jewish people’s religious sanctuary, but he also encouraged Ezra to teach the Jewish people the laws of their God.

Darius went even further though. He gave Ezra the authority to establish a legal system which was based in the Torah (law of Moses).  That this was in fact the modus operandi of Darius I is confirmed in multiple examples from Babylon to Egypt. A good example comes from Egypt in the 3rd year of Darius (519 BC) about the same time as Darius was offering support to the Jewish peoples in their efforts to reestablish temple worship, he was also helping the Egyptians codify their laws.

 Like his efforts related to the Jewish temple worship, Darius efforts on behalf of the Egyptians were not just limited to the codification of their laws. There also are multiple examples of Darius’ efforts to rebuild their places of worship. I quote once again from Pierre Briant’s book From Cyrus to Alexander:

Darius and the Egyptian Laws
I was just about the same date, 519, that Darius sent a letter to his satrap in Egypt, which we know (in fragmentary form) from a text on the back of the Demotic Chronicle. Darius ordered his satrap to assemble Egyptian sages, chosen from among priests, warriors, and scribes. They were instructed to gather in writing all of the old laws of Egypt down to year 44 of Pharoah Amasis, that is, 526 – the eve of the Achaemenid conquest. The commission worked for sixteen years (519-503) and produced two copies of its work, one in Demotic, the other in Aramaic.

The text does not detail the exact content of the book that they produced. It simply distinguishes “public (or constitutional) law,” temple law”, and “private law.”

The Seven Wise Men of Artaxerxes
Another place that potentially links the Bible’s  Darius I  (a.k.a. Artaxerxes) of Ezra 6 & 7 with Ahasuerus of Esther is found in the so called Persian “Seven”.

When Darius came to power in Persia he was assisted by 6 other Persians in his conspiracy to remove the usurper Bardyia.  These men, while not equal with the king, were considered his councilors and had some influence and power with regard to the affairs of the Persian empire. This is important because we find a similar 7 councilors advising both the Darius of Ezra 6 and the Ahasuerus of Esther. Pierre Briant explains the significance:

Darius and the Six
Primus inter pares?
We must now return at greater length to the relations between Darius and his companions after his accession to the throne. Reading Herodotus without perspective, on actually receives the impression that Darius was bound by the agreements that had been mutually reached by the Six when he came to power (Otanes having taken himself out of the competition), concession that basically would have made the new king primus inter pares. According to Justin (who had read his Herodotus carefully), as a result of the murder of the magus, “the Great ones (principles) were equal in merit and nobility (virtute et nobilitate….pares; I.10.1-2) This is the version also found in Plato (Laws 695c) in an otherwise very suspicious passage: “When [Darius] came and seized the empire with the aid of the other six, he split it up into seven divisions, of which some faint outlines still survive today.”…..

Diodorus as late as the fourth century specifies that the satrap Rhosaces “ was a descendant of one of the seven Persians who deposed the Magi (XVI.47.2), Quintus Curtius introduces Orsines, chieftain of the tribe of Pasargade, who was  “a descendant of the ‘seven Persians’ and tracing his genealogy also to Cyrus” (IV.12.8) The permanence of the term thus seems assured. But does this mean that the Seven constituted an entity that had the ability to control the activities of the king?

…This interpretation is also based on Ezra and Esther, where Ahasuerus is shown convening “the seven administrators of Persia and Media who had privileged access to the royal presence and occupied the leading positions in the kingdom” (Esher 1:13-14)( Preirre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander p.128-129 excerpted)

 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. 13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.  14 Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand; (Ezra 7:12-14)

  Then the king said to the wise men, which knew the times, (for so was the king’s manner toward all that knew law and judgment:  14 And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the king’s face, and which sat the first in the kingdom;)  15 What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains? (Esther 1:13-1)

There is nothing simple about looking into the past and trying to understand history from the point of view of those who wrote it. But if we take the pieces of evidence we find in the Bible related to Ezra’s Darius “even” Artaxerxes and compare it with the evidence we find in the book of Esther, it is evident that Darius I best fits the Biblical template of the king who rule over 127 provinces from India to Cush and who laid tribute upon the isles of the sea.

 Further as we’ve seen above there is a great deal of additional chronological and historical evidence that suggest that Darius I whom the book of Ezra describes as an “Artaxerxes” (before the throne name was taken by his grandson) was also the king the book of Esther describes as “Ahasuerus”.

Answering More Objections from ABR’s Rick Lanser
Now that I’ve provided you with some fascinating historical and Biblical context related to Darius, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes, I would like to further strengthen the context of this information by addressing some of Mr. Lanser’s objections to my associations between Esther’s Ahasuerus and the Darius “even” Artaxerxes of Ezra 6 & 7. If you are just joining this discussion here are the prior articles in this series as well as the original links to Mr. Lanser’s articles posted on the Associate for Biblical Research website.

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 ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius 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 VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, 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 IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

 

 For clarity’s sake, as I go through these quotes from Mr. Lanser  article The Seraiah Assumption (in brown) I will add my own comments in black with further quotations by others in green. I quote Mr. Lanser:

The Ahasuerus of Esther (ch. 1:1; etc.) is generally identified with the king whom the Greeks called Xerxes. The Hebrew Achashwerosh is a much closer transliteration of the Persian Khshayârshâ or the Babylonian from Achshiyarshu than is the Greek Xerxes. It should not be forgotten that the vowels did not come into the Hebrew Bible manuscripts until about the 7th century AD. Hence, the Hebrew author of Esther reproduced only the consonants of Khshayârshâ and wrote ’Chshwrwsh…The spelling of the name Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6 is the same as in Esther, and linguistically fits, of all known Persian kings, only the name of Xerxes.

Philip Brown II, in “The Chronological Relation of Ezra and Nehemiah,” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (Apr–Jun 2005) (https://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-2-temporal-ordering-ezra-part-ii), whose excellent work we will look further at below, adds:

Contrary to older commentators’ frequent citation of the “well-known fact” that Persian kings had multiple names, no extant archeological or inscriptional evidence equates Cambyses with Ahasuerus or Artaxerxes with Pseudo-Smerdis, or uses Artaxerxes as a general title for Persian monarchs. From a philological standpoint, H. H. Schaeder’s analysis of vwrwvja and vsvjtra establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Ahasuerus and Artachshashta are in fact the Aramaic names for Xerxes and Artaxerxes (emphasis added).

I think it’s only fair to point out here that the absence of evidence is not in inself any form of evidence.  Historically speaking the Persians kept a verbal tradition but left very little in the way of a written literary tradition. In fact, in some ways the Bible provides us with more literary information about the kingdom of Persia than the known Persian records themselves. I find it difficult to understand the tendency of Biblical scholars to automatically discount the chronological details given in the Bible when those details to not agree with the current meager evidence of secular history.

Pierre Briant, one of the most respect Persian scholars of our era had this to say about the literary tradition of the Persians:

“The Persians, however, left no literary record of their own history. The only form of official historiography in this period is the genealogies recorded by the kings themselves.”

 Need I say more?

I return to Mr. Lanser’s thoughts – picking up where we left off in the quote above:

Thus, we must conclude that Ahasuerus was a personal name that was modified by passing through different languages. Ahasuerus was neither a throne name nor a title.

Was Ahasuerus a peronsal name? Let’s start by offering some clarifications regarding the name Ahasuerus and Xerxes. First of all, the Old Persian Xšayārša / Xšayāršam / Xšayâršahyâ  (Greek =Xerxes) by some accounts pronounced Khshayârshâ is an Old Persian compound word), the meaning of which is xšay ‘king/rule’ + aršan ‘male’ thus literally the word means ‘king/ruler of (all) male (men, etc) Further the word xšay (rule) is of Median origins and the root of the  Old Persian word for “king” (i.e. Xšayathiya / Xšayathiyam).

Old Persian Lexicon
For further study here is a link to an Old Persian Lexicon:
https://archive.org/details/OldPersian

For those interested in confirming spelling and transliteration of these words from the original cuneiform script, below I’ve provided a translation of the Aechamenid Royal inscription A1Pa  courtesy of Livius.org.  In that inscription, which I’ve color coded, you’ll find the cuneiform and phonetic spelling of the words king, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Kingdom as well as their English translation.

(Click on Image to Enlarge)

Interestingly, I’ve also learned in researching this, that many scholars believe that Persian administrative words  such as Vazrak “great”, xšāyaθya-“king”, xšassa-“kingdom” had Median origins. Concerning the Median origins of Persian administrative vocabulary Walter Bruno Henning, the highly respected German scholar of Persian languages and literature had this to say:

“As is well known, the administrative vocabulary of Old Persian was largely borrowed from Median”.

So at least tentatively we might conclude that the Persian throne name we know from Greek history as Xerxes (OP = Xšayâršahyâ)  has Median etymological roots and that in its most literal and natural rendering could well have been used to describe Median and Persian males who rule.

Was Ahasuerus a Personal Name
But what about Mr. Lanser’s claim that the Biblical rendering of Xerxes name as Ahasuerus or more accurately as he claims without vowel pointings as “Chshwrwsh” must not be considered a title or a throne name but rather it “was a personal name that was modified by passing through different languages.”?

First of all, this statement doesn’t really make sense in light of the fact the Mr. Lanser believes that the Biblical “Ahasuerus” is more accurately given as “Chshwrwsh” and that this word is a close transliteration of the Persian  Xšayâršahyâ  pronounced Khshayârsha and by the Greeks loosely as Xerxes. I quote Mr. Lanser:

The Hebrew Achashwerosh is a much closer transliteration of the Persian Khshayârshâ or the Babylonian from Achshiyarshu than is the Greek Xerxes.

Later in his article Mr. Lanser further emphasizes his point with:

But despite the seemingly solid identification of Ahasuerus with Xerxes,…

The problem shared by both of these suggestions is that they ignore a patently obvious fact: all through the book of Esther we encounter the name “Ahasuerus” where it refers to Xerxes.  (Excerpted for clarity – full quote below)

So if as we’ve seen in this article, Ahasuerus, (Xšayâršahyâ) given in its Hebrew spelling as Chshwrwsh comes from the Median root xsay (rule) and literally means a king or ruler of all males (men), it is hard to see how this evidence demands that we “must conclude” that Ahasuerus is a personal name.

This claim by Mr. Lanser is further undermined by Daniel 9 of all places.

The Father of Darius the Mede
To help us further understand how the Bible used the word “Ahasuerus” we turn to Daniel chapter 9. This, the greatest prophetic chapter of the Bible opens with a chronological synchronism which provides us with a fixing point for when the prophecy was given to Daniel.

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; (Daniel 9:1)

Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. (Daniel 11:1)

Keep in mind that “Darius the Mede” was believed to be the leader of Cyrus’ army that fateful night Babylon fell (some historians even believe this is a reference to Cyrus himself). Regardless of the identity of this Darius the Mede, it is important to observe that Daniel identifies Darius, the Mede’s father as an Ahasuerus long before the same name was given to Esther’s king. This further weakens the argument that this Ahasuerus was a personal name.

What’s really neat here though is that without the knowledge that some Persian administrative words had Median origins, some might be inclined to believe that the Bible got it wrong  by claiming that both a Median and a Persian were known by Ahasuerus. But as explained above this is not the case because, the Bible’s Ahasuerus was the rending of the Old Persian word Xšayâršahyâ which means male ruler/king and this word Xšayâršahyâ finds it’s etymological roots in the Median root word xšay (rule) hence it was a Median loan word connected to administration of Medo-Persian affairs.

To emphasize the Median origins of Persian administrative vocabulary I again quote Walter Bruno Henning, the highly respected German scholar of Persian languages and literature:

“As is well known, the administrative vocabulary of Old Persian was largely borrowed from Median”.

Kings and Lieutenants
But let’s look at this from another angle and test Mr. Henning’s statement with a comparison of two Persian “administrative” words found in the Bible. We know now with reasonable confidence that the Hebrew word  transliterated Achashverowsh (un-pointed Chshwrwsh) – further transliterated via the Greek Septuagint as Ahasuerus in our English Bibles – is the Hebrew transliteration of Old Persian Xšayâršahyâ (Greek=Xerxes). A bit complicate, no? Stick with me here, because this is pretty neat stuff.

We also learned that the Old Persian word Xšayâršahyâ better known to you and I as Achashverowsh/Ahasuerus/Xerxes has as its root the Median administrative word xšay which means “to rule” or “ruler”.

Now take a look at Xšayâršahyâ as it is represented in Hebrew. The highlighted red Hebrew letters Alef, Cheit, Shin, אחשורוש (the Chsh sound) would be the Hebrew transliteration of the Old Persian xšay or “ruler”. The letters Vav, Reish, Vav, Shin, then would represent the Hebrew equivalent of the Persian âršahy which means male, men, mankind etc. (Please understand this is a way oversimplification of the linguistic nuances of the subject)

That we are likely on the right track regarding our tentative understanding of meaning of the OP Xšayâršahyâ and the Hebrew Achashverowsh can be confirmed with the Hebrew word אחשﬢרפן (achashdarpan) which our English Bibles translate as Lieutenants or Princes.

To help you understand the context of this word I’ve provided three different places this word is used in our Bible. As you read these verses, notice I’ve arranged them roughly chronologically. My first example of achashdarpan comes from the reign of Darius the Mede, the second from 7th year of Darius (a.k.a. Artaxerxes) and the third comes from the book of Esther and the time of the Persian Ahasuerus.

 It pleased Darius [Darius the Mede son of Ahasuerus] to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom; (Daniel 6:1)

 And they delivered the king’s commissions unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God. (Ezra 8:36)

 And all the rulers of the provinces, and the lieutenants, and the deputies, and officers of the king, helped the Jews; because the fear of Mordecai fell upon them. (Esther 9:3)

As you can see from its usage above achashdarpan (princes/lieutenant) is indeed a Median-Persian administrative word. In most of our Hebrew Bible lexicons they give the meaning of the word as a satrap or governor of a Persian province. Taking the Hebrew word אחשﬢרפן (achash-darpan) apart then we see it has as its root the same אחש (achash) which comes from the Median root word xšay for “ruler”. The second half of the Hebrew  achashdarpan  ﬢרפן(darpan) likely then is Hebrew equivalent of the Old Persian pavan which we translate today as satrap.

So putting achash-darpan together we get an approximate meaning of “ruler/king of the satrap/province”. The following chart provides a more visual comparison of these words in their various Persian and Hebrew forms.

(click on image to enlarge)

 From 120 to 127 Provinces
As a side note here, notice that chronologically there were 120 provinces set up by Darius the Mede when he became the “king of Babylon” under Cyrus the Persian.  By the time of Esther’s king the Persian empire had grown to 127 provinces. Again it is worth repeating that the Persian Xsaca (empire) reached its fullest measure during the reign of Darius I ‘The Great’. By the 7th year of his son Xerxes that empire started to shrink.  Esther 9:30-32 tells us that by the 13th year of Esther’s “Ahasuerus” there were still 127 provinces. Further Esther 10:1 opens with the statement that this same Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the “land and the isles of the sea”, a historical description which most accurately describes Darius I ‘The great’ and a description which by the 7th year of his son Xerxes would no longer have accurately applied.

It pleased Darius [Darius the Mede son of Ahasuerus] to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom; (Daniel 6:1)

Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:) (Esther 1:1)  

Ahasuerus was an Administrative Title
The evidence we’ve developed here further strengthens the case that we’ve been building that the Biblical usage of Achashverowsh/Ahasuerus/Xerxes was not a Biblical personal name. Rather this word was the Hebrew transliteration of a Medo-Persian administrative title which meant “king/ruler of men”.

As such it usage first in a Median context as a title for the father of “Darius the Mede” (Dan. 11), then subsequently as a title for the Persian king Cambyses (Ezra 4:6), and finally as a title for Esther’s Persian king (Est. 1:1) provides not only an accurate, but chronological and congruent usage of the word that only a contemporary of that era would have known.

The sum of all this I believe, provides compelling evidence the word Xšayâršahyâ /Achashverowsh/Ahasuerus was first used in the Bible as a general title to identify three different Persian rulers before it was later chosen as a throne name by Darius I’s son Xerxes. And further that this usage of the word in the Bible in no way eliminates Darius I ‘The Great” as a contender for the Biblical identity of Esther’s king Ahasuerus.

Artaxerxes and its Median Roots
Before moving on, take one more look at the chart above and you’ll see that not only does Ahasuerus (Xšayâršahyâ) and King ( Xšayathiya) have roots in the  Median administrative word xšay but so does the title or name we know as Artaxerxes (Artaxšaçâ). This just adds to the evidence that Artaxerxes, before it was a throne name chosen by Xerxes son Longimanus, may well have been used as part of the administrative vocabulary of the author of the book of Ezra to describe the Persian king Darius I.

Returning now to Mr. Lanser’s objections:

But despite the seemingly solid identification of Ahasuerus with Xerxes, doesn’t the context restrict itself to events between Cyrus and Darius? If we look at the list of Achaemenid rulers given near the beginning of this article, we see Xerxes did not rule until after Darius I. This break from chronological order tempts some to abandon plain-sense interpretation principles, and look instead for other ways to understand the passage. One is by overlooking or dismissing the etymology behind the name, instead suggesting “Ahasuerus” was not the personal name for Xerxes resulting after some translational gymnastics, but a title for some other king who lived between Cyrus and Darius, perhaps Cambyses or Smerdis. The problem shared by both of these suggestions is that they ignore a patently obvious fact: all through the book of Esther we encounter the name “Ahasuerus” where it refers to Xerxes. Shouldn’t the Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6 likewise be Xerxes? To hold this view is simply recognizing that Scripture really has one Author, God, who we rightly expect to be self-consistent. Since He inspired the writers of Scripture, shouldn’t we be looking for a way to accommodate the plain-sense implication of this—that the Ahasuerus of Esther was also the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6—rather than arguing against it?

As I explained above, his reasoning here does not take into account the Biblical usage of the word Ahasuerus in referring to the Median “Ahasuerus” father of “Darius the Mede” (Dan. 6:1)  Mr. Lanser’s explanation above also does not take into account the Median and Persian etymological roots of the word Ahasuerus found in the Medo-Persian word (xšay) which means king/ruler.

After posting his article The Seraiah Assumption on the Associates for Biblcial Research website, (which I have been quoting from above) Mr. Lanser and I had further email correspondence were I pointed out the error of his reasoning concerning the usage of Ahasuerus in the Bible. Mr. Lanser then updated his Seraiah Assumption article in an attempt to further clarify his position regarding Ahasuerus and several other topics. If you have not read Mr. Lanser’s updated thoughts I’d encourage you to read his entire article The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping Up Some Loose Ends so you have the complete context of his thoughts before you continue with my response to his updated thoughts.

I continue now with Mr. Lanser’s The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping Up Some Loose Ends:

Consistent with Wilson’s scholarship, I presented in my Seraiah Assumption article a chart where Dr. William Shea summarized the most recent ancient language studies. They indicate the name “Ahasuerus” in Ezra 4:6 was not a generic “title” for Persian kings, but a personal name. Shea showed how the original Old Persian form of the name mutated into Ahasuerus—the very name used throughout the book of Esther. I pointed this out in a private email to Mr. Struse, and he replied (5/30/2019, most typos as in the original):

Regarding William Shea’s ancient language studies I’m not sure why you believe that is some sort of conclusive proof. As I’m sure you know “Ahasuerus” is the Hebrew version of the Persian word Khshayarsha. The unpointed Hebrew word being “‘chshwrsh”. The Mesoretes [sic] added the vowel pointings which gave us “Ahasuerus”. In my opinion Esther 1:1 is sufficient evidence to prove that the Hebrew Ahasuerus is a title. The verse reads:

Esther 1:1 KJV Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces…)

The author of Esther opens with “in the days of Ahasuerus”. Then he goes on to clarify that this “Ahasuerus” was the “Ahasuerus” who ruled over 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia. If “Ahasuerus” was personal name of single king then the author of Esther would not have need to make the clarification that this Persian king was the one who rule over 127 Provinces. The only reasons to make such a distinction would be to make sure the reader understood which “Ahasuerus” was being mentioned.

The reasoning that this was a “single king whom the Greeks knew as Xerxes” further falls downs when we consider that in Greek history there were no other “Xerxes” before Xerxes son of Darius (Hystaspes). Yet the Bible clearly tells us that there was a Median king named “Ahasuerus” who was the father of Darius the Mede, the same Median who (under Cyrus) was made king of Babylon circa 538-536 BC. This was several generations before the Xerxes I of Greek fame. This also proves that Ahasuerus was at the very least, a title used by more than one Persian and most probably just a general title given to Persian kings, possibly to signify some connection to the Median side of the Medeo-Persian peoples.

Please note here that my email response above to Mr. Lanser was before I understood that in fact the Persian Ahasuerus has etymological roots in the Median administrative nomenclature. As noted in the email above I speculated that Ahasuerus had some connection to the Medo-Persian peoples but was not sure. As this article explores Ahasuerus does indeed have roots in the Median administrative word xšay which means “to rule” and by further implication “king”.

Although calling “Khshayarsha” a “word” rather than a “name” seems to be an attempt to blunt the force of the historical evidence by redefining it, Mr. Struse did make a valid factual point above. He is correct that the name “Ahasuerus” was also applied to another king; Daniel 9:1 informs us that an earlier “Ahasuerus,” usually identified with Astyages, was the father of Darius the Mede. However, this man was a predecessor of Cyrus the Great and had nothing to do with the Persian Achaemenid period, my focus, so I did not discuss him. I agree that, in view of the existence of this earlier Ahasuerus, it makes sense that Esther 1:1 could be taken as a statement clarifying which Ahasuerus was being discussed in Esther—the one who was the son of Darius the Great, not the earlier one who was the father of Darius the Mede. My point was that there was only a single king in the Achaemenid Period under discussion who went by the name Ahasuerus.

Unfortunately for Mr. Lanser’s readers in the above he gave no indication that he only had the Persian Aehaemenid period in mind when he made his statement about Ahasuerus. Here is Mr. Lanser’s original claim for context:

The problem shared by both of these suggestions is that they ignore a patently obvious fact: all through the book of Esther we encounter the name “Ahasuerus” where it refers to Xerxes. Shouldn’t the Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6 likewise be Xerxes? To hold this view is simply recognizing that Scripture really has one Author, God, who we rightly expect to be self-consistent.  

If indeed we are to recognize that the Scripture really has “one Author, God, who we rightly expect to be self-consistent”, then we must include the Medo-Persian usage of Ahasuerus into our interpretational matrix when trying to understand the usage of this word, especially in light of the fact that the word Ahasuerus find its roots in Median administrative nomenclature.  Including the Median usage of Ahasuerus and its etymological roots into our matrix turns Mr. Lanser’s argument on its head and in fact leads to the opposite conclusion. Namely that the Biblical usage of Ahasuerus in the Bible was in fact a more general title based in Medo-Persian administrative nomenclature and not a personal name. Mr. Lanser continues:

 Bringing up the fact that there was a Median king by that name prior to Cyrus should not obscure the fact that there is no evidence for any Persian “Ahasuerus” after Cyrus, save for that king whom the Greeks knew as Xerxes. To cite well-meaning but inadequately informed commentators of yesteryear as evidence Cambyses II held the “title” of “Ahasuerus” is to shut one’s eyes to contemporary historical evidence.

I think I’ve demonstrated that the “well-meaning but inadequately informed commentators of yesteryear” were closer to the truth than Mr. Lanser would like to believe. Mr. Lanser’s conclusions above do not take into account the etymological roots of the xšay from which is derived the Old Persian title Xšayâršahyâ /Achashverowsh/Ahasuerus. Mr. Lanser continues:

Moreover, if “Ahasuerus” was just a common “title” for Persian kings generally, what would be the point of mentioning it if the intent of Esther 1:1 was to clarify exactly which king was being discussed? It does not help to identify the exact king if “Ahasuerus” was simply a generic title. If instead it was a personal name or perhaps a throne name, though, it has real value in narrowing down the options.

This statement completely ignores that most natural reading of Esther 1:1 which indicates that Ahasuerus was indeed a general title which the text of Esther 1:1 clarified by adding that this “Ahasuerus” was the Ahasuerus of 127 provinces. If Ahasuerus was anything but a general title, the author would not have needed to qualify him as the king of 127 provinces. Mr. Lanser continues:

Thus, I believe it makes better sense to view “Ahasuerus” as either a throne name taken by two Medo-Persian kings or as an example of papponymic name repetition.

It is evident that Mr. Lanser’s opinion is evolving because his statement above contradicts his earlier conclusion from his original article The Seraiah Assumption. In his original article he claimed that “Ahasuerus” could not be title or a throne name. He provides no explanation for this change in position. I quote from Mr. Lanser’s original article The Seraiah Assumption (notice the emphasis Mr. Lanser provides in his original article):

Thus, we must conclude that Ahasuerus was a personal name that was modified by passing through different languages. Ahasuerus was neither a throne name nor a title.

Returning to Mr. Lanser’s – Wrapping up Loose Ends:

 The further observation that the intended king [Esther’s Ahasuerus] was fabulously wealthy, because he inherited an expansive empire from his father Darius the Great—who is never called either Ahasuerus or Artaxerxes anywhere in any historical records—is used to narrow the options down to only one.

For reasons explained more fully in my responses above, the wealth, dominion, and tribute ascribed to Esther’s Ahasuerus could only rightly be attributed to Darius I ‘The Great’. As we’ve seen the chronological and historical details provided by Esther disqualifies Xerxes as the Ahasuerus of Esther.

Finally, I don’t know if Mr. Lanser meant to be somehow more specific in his statement above but his claim that “Darius the Great – who is never called either Ahasuerus or Artaxerxes anywhere in any historical records” is simply not accurate.

Just a few hundred years after the events in the book of Ezra and Esther were recorded, the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures was translated into Greek. In this translation of the Bible the  authors identified the Hebrew Esther’s “Ahasuerus” by the title Artaxerxes.

(300-200 BC)

LXE Esther 1:1 In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the great king, on the first day of Nisan, Mardochaeus the son of Jairus, the son of Semeias, the son of Chisaeus, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Jew dwelling in the city Susa, a grat man, serving in the king’s palace, saw a vision.

This association between Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and Darius is further confirmed by the Greek Ester as well as the apocryphal book of 1 & 4 Esdras.

KJA Ester (Greek) 11:2 In the second year of the reign of Artexerxes the great, in the first day of the month Nisan, Mardocheus the son of Jairus, the son of Semei, the son of Cisai, of the tribe of Benjamin, had a dream;

KJA 4 Esdras 1:1 The second book of the prophet Esdras, the son of Saraias, the son of Azarias, the son of Helchias, the son of Sadamias, the sou of Sadoc, the son of Achitob,  2 The son of Achias, the son of Phinees, the son of Heli, the son of Amarias, the son of Aziei, the son of Marimoth, the son of And he spake unto the of Borith, the son of Abisei, the son of Phinees, the son of Eleazar,  3 The son of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi; which was captive in the land of the Medes, in the reign of Artexerxes king of the Persians.

Ester (Greek) 16:1 The great king Artexerxes unto the princes and governors of an hundred and seven and twenty provinces from India unto Ethiopia, and unto all our faithful subjects, greeting.

KJA 1 Esdras 3:1 Now when Darius reigned, he made a great feast unto all his subjects, and unto all his household, and unto all the princes of Media and Persia,  2 And to all the governors and captains and lieutenants that were under him, from India unto Ethiopia, of an hundred twenty and seven provinces.

KJV Esther 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)

Even if you don’t believe that the books of Esdras and the Greek Ester were “inspired” at the very least they represent a version of history understood by the authors of their day.

As testified by the Septuagint, the translators understood the Xšayâršahyâ /Achashverowsh/Ahasuerus of the Hebrew Bible to be synonymous with the title Artaxerxes. This usage of Artaxerxes in place of  Esther’s Ahasuerus only makes sense if these titles were seen by the Hebrew authors as being interchangeable administrative titles for Persian kings – before – these titles were enshrined as Persian throne names.

Further if 1 Esdras (written in 100 BC/AD?) understood Darius to be the king of 127 provinces, this underscores the fact that early on in Biblical tradition Darius = Ahasuerus = Artaxerxes.

Finally I leave you with a few more historical quotes from the time of Yeshua up until the 17th century which show that some historians did in fact believe that Darius  was also known by the titles Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus.

Josephus – a contemporary of Yeshua
Now, in the first year of the king’s reign, Darius feasted those who were about him, and those born in his house, with the rulers of the Medes, and princes of the Persians, and the toparches of India and Ethiopia, and the generals of the armies, of his hundred and twenty-seven provinces (Antiquities of the Jews 11:33, emphasis mine)

Rashi – 1000 AD
and Artaxerxes:
He is Darius, but he was called Artaxerxes because of the province and the kingdom, for all kings of Persia were thus named just as all the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh (Solomon ben Isaac (Rashi) circ. 1000 AD.

Ussher – 1600’s
Mordecai, the Jew, in the Greek edition of Esther {Apc Est 11:1-12}, is said to have had a dream on the first day of the month of Nisan, in the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the Great (or Ahasuerus or Darius, the son of Hystaspes), concerning a river signifying Esther and two dragons portending himself and Haman. 3484c AM, 4194 JP, 520 BC (Ussher, Annals of the World, p. 126 , section 1015, emphasis mine)

Next Time
Due to the length of time between these articles on Darius, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes and the volume of information covered, Yahweh willing next time I’ll summarize the evidence and make some conclusions relating to Darius, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes.

Hopefully after that in a final article in this series we will look at the chronology from Ezra 7 and the 7th year of Darius “even” Artaxerxes up to the final years of Nehemiah’s governorship. In this article we will look at the fascinating and complex details off the priests and Levites who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel and their relationship to the priests and Levites in the days of Nehemiah.

Until then Maranatha!

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 ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius 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 VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, 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 IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

 

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

 

 

A Favor to Ask.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that you can download all of my books and articles free of charge. I don’t ask for donations or allow advertisements on this blog. This effort is a labor of love for me as a testimony to Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua. I don’t want your money but if you would take a moment to share the articles you read on this blog with your friends and family on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media I would greatly appreciate your help. Together we can share the Biblical evidence for Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind. Thank you for your help in this effort!

* * *

FREE Book Download:

If you would like to learn more about Biblical history and Bible prophecy, you might also appreciate my books in the Prophecies and Patterns series.

At the following link you may download one of the three books shown below. If you like the book and would like to download the other two, all I ask is that you subscribe to my blog. I won’t share your email or spam you with advertisements or other requests. Just every couple of weeks I’ll share with you my love of Biblical history and Bible Prophecy. Should you decide you no longer wish to be a subscriber you can unsubscribe at any time.

Click the following link to download your Free book: Book Download

I hope you’ll join the adventure!

Book 1
Book I - Description

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

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

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

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."

Mordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther

Mordecai & Esther

The book of Esther is one of the books of the Bible that is truly a Biblical enigma. It’s the only book of the Bible that doesn’t mention Yahweh by name. It’s a Biblical drama in which a woman is the main hero and a man (Mordecai) is her facilitator and where these two Jewish heroes are known by their idolatrous pagan names. Finally, it is a story where the Jewish heroine, out of love for her people, is willing to outcast herself by marrying a pagan gentile king,  that sacrifice then is used as the means of by which Yahweh preserved His people, and finally in a wonderful twist of destiny ends up bringing eternal honor not shame to Esther as a gentile queen of Persia.

What a thrilling, inspiring, amazing story, don’t you think? As wonderful as Esther’s and Mordecai’s story seems, there is much more to it. You see, as I’ll explain in the coming pages, once we understand the chronological context of Esther and her Persian king, the story of Esther takes on profoundly greater significance to the story of the Jewish people and Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. Not only did Esther save her people from the evil machinations of Haman, but it was her Persian king who was the agent whom Yahweh used to ensure the completion of the 2nd temple, reestablish its sacrificial service, rebuild Jerusalem’s fortifications, and possibly the most important of all, decreed that Ezra, the priest and scribe, reestablished Torah observance in Jerusalem and Judea. 

Consider that for a moment. Without the efforts of Esther and her Persian king the social, political, and prophetic conditions necessary for the Messiah Yeshua to come would not have been in place. Without the efforts of Esther and her king, there would have been no temple, no priesthood, no sacrificial service, and no Torah observance – all of which were prerequisites for the coming of the Messiah. Think I’m exaggerating slightly? Well, if you let me, I’ll show you just how indispensable the story of Esther is to Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind.

If you’ve been a regular reader of this blog then you know that the theme or premise of this blog and its articles is that all the Bible and each of its 66 books contain important events and chronological details by which Yahweh reveals His redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua (Jesus).  The Bible tells us that this redemptive plan is laid out according to a cosmic timeline preordained by our Creator.  Because this redemptive plan is revealed through the Biblical ages, to fully appreciate its beauty and majesty, we must understand chronological context from which it springs.

The story of Esther and her king magnificently illustrates how important context and chronology is to Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. So let’s do a little digging to see some of the treasures Yahweh has hidden in the chronological context of Esther for us to find.

Who is Mordecai?
To start with today, let’s fill in some of the chronological context of Esther by looking at what the Bible tells us about Mordecai. We start with Mordecai because the Bible synchronizes Mordecai with the Babylonian captivity of Jechoniah which we can date with a reasonable degree of certainty.

First of all, the name Mordecai (Babylonian Marduka) is derived from the name of the Sumerian and Babylonian god Marduk.  Most Bible dictionaries say Mordecai’s name means “worshipper of Mars”. But as Gerard Gertoux1 notes Mordecai can also be understood as “ ‘the Mardukite (mardukaya)’ in the sense of the ‘the Babylonian’”.

Mordecai (Marduka) is a relatively rare name in the Bible as well as the historical record. In the Bible there are only two individuals named Mordecai. The first Mordecai named in the Bible is a man who returned to Jerusalem with Joshua and Zerubbabel after the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC. (Cyrus’ decree ended the 70 years Babylonian captivity). The second individual named Mordecai in the Bible is Esther’s Mordecai.

Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;  2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. (Ezra 2:1-2)

 Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;  6 Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin}

7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter. (Esther 2:5-7)  

In the secular historical record the name Mordecai is just as rare. According the Gerard Gertoux, out of 16,000 cuneiform records dating to the Neo-Babylonian period only two individuals named Mordecai (Marduka) are found. I quote Mr. Gertoux:

Did Mordecai and Esther leave traces in the Neo-Babylonian documents? The name “Mordecai (Mar-duk-ka)” is relatively rare; it is sometimes found during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus32, unlike the name “Marduk”, typically Babylonian (always written dAMAR.UTU “calf-sun”, originally pronounced amarutuk)33, which was widely used. For example, a contract dated 16/XI/8 of Nebuchadnezzar (February 596 BCE) reads34:

Adi’ilu, son of Nabu-zer-iddina, and Ḫuliti, his wife (the divine Ḫulitum) have sold Marduka, their son, for the price agreed upon, to Šula, son of Zer-ukin. The liability to defeasor and pre-emptor, which is upon Marduka, Adi’ilu and Addaku respond for.

Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published35, there are only 2 individuals bearing the name Marduka: an entrepreneur36 who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of Cyrus (534 BCE), and a administrative superintendent37 who worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32 (505-490 BCE), exactly the same period as Mordecai worked38. (Gerard Gertoux – Queen Esther Wife of Xerxes: Historical, And Archaeological Evidence, p. 13-14)

Mordecai the Babylonian
Considering the rarity of the name Mordecai in the Biblical and historical record, it seems like a rather strange coincidence that there are two Mordecai’s mentioned in the Bible. This curious fact is further compounded by the fact that Mordecai is derived from the name of a pagan idol (god), the use of such names are strictly prohibited in the Bible.

 

And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. (Exodus 23:13)

Typically in the Bible, you see exceptions to this rule when those names of idols/gods are the basis for the names of Biblical heroes renamed by their captives. For example Daniel’s companions were named Hananiah, Mishael, and Azraiah, but the Bible also identifies them by their Babylonian names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

So here in Ezra 2 we have a man with a Babylonian name, who is listed among a group of Jewish men with only Hebrew names who are returning to Jerusalem to build the city and the temple. Why didn’t the author of Ezra use this man’s Hebrew name? In keeping with Biblical tradition, the only reason that makes any real sense is that the author of Ezra 2 used the name Mordecai because it was a person more readily known to his Jewish readers by that name than his Hebrew name. In other words, one must at least consider the possibility that this Mordecai was none other than the Mordecai of the book of Esther and the author of Ezra was drawing our attention to this fact.

Mordecai, Nehemiah, and Darius ‘the great’ Artaxerxes
It’s fascinating, don’t you think, that as we learned above there are Persian cuneiform records which date a high Persian official named Mordecai to the years 17-32 of the reign of Darius I, the very same time frame that Nehemiah served as governor of Jerusalem under Darius – who we’ve learned in this series the Bible also identifies by the Persian title “Artaxerxes”.

14 Moreover from the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that is, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten the bread of the governor. (Nehemiah 5:14)   

Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published35, there are only 2 individuals bearing the name Marduka: an entrepreneur36 who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of Cyrus (534 BCE), and a administrative superintendent37 who worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32 (505-490 BCE), exactly the same period as Mordecai worked38. (Gerard Gertoux, Queen Esther Wife of Xerxes : Historical and Archaeological Evidence)

These fascinating historical details are wrought even more curious by the fact discussed above that a man name Mordecai was listed among a group of Jewish men who led the return to Jerusalem just a couple of decades earlier. Could they be the same man?

Ironically, it is the book of Esther and Mordecai’s lineage as given there that provides a fascinating solution to the curious use of Mordecai in the Bible and this Biblical hero’s relationship to the Mordecai mentioned in the cuneiform records of Darius I.

Mordecai and Esther were Cousins
To help us determine when Mordecai lived, we return to Esther where it tells us that Esther and Mordecai were cousins. Further this passage also gives us the lineage of Mordecai as it relates to the captivity of Jehoiachin (aka Jeconiah).

Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;  6 Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin}  7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter. (Esther 2:5-7)  

Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king’s chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed. And Esther obtained favour in the sight of all them that looked upon her. (Esther 2:15)

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS] 

 

In the passage above it gives the lineage of Mordecai relative to the captivity of king Jehoiachin. Now there are two ways to read  Mordecai’s lineage relative to the captivity of Jehoiachin. Either Kish was taken captive with Jehoiachin or Mordecai was. Both are legitimate ways to read the passage, but thankfully we are not left to flipping a coin in order to decide who the passage had in mind.

There are two further facts that help us nail this down. First of all, we know from 2 Kings 24 that Jehoiachin’s captivity began in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (594 BC). The second piece of information we have that helps us develop the chronological context of this passage is that Esther was a young maiden (narah) when she was brought before the Persian king the Bible identifies as Ahasuerus.

10 At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. }  11 And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.  12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. (2 Kings 24:10-16)

13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of YHWH, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of YHWH, as YHWH had said.  14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.  15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. {officers: or, eunuchs}  16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.  (2 Kings 24:10-16 )

2 Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king:  3 And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the fair young virgins unto Shushan the palace…. (Esther 2:2-3)  

8 So it came to pass, when the king’s commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together unto Shushan the palace, to the custody of Hegai, that Esther was brought also unto the king’s house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women. (Esther 2:8)

So take a look at the following chart. This chart shows the start of Jehoiachin’s captivity relative to the Persian kings Darius I and his son Xerxes I. Most Biblical scholars date the book of Esther to the reign of Xerxes and as you can see there are 109 years between the start of Jehoiachin’s captivity and start of the reign of Xerxes.

Since Esther was a young maiden at the time of her marriage to King Ahasuerus and further since Esther and Mordecai were cousins this means that even if Esther was 20-30 years Mordecai’s junior, Mordecai could not have been taken captive with Jehoiachin. This then tells us Esther 2 has Kish’s captivity in mind when it discussed it relative to the captivity of the Biblical king Jehoiachin. Even if we try to argue that Darius I might have been Esther’s king, Esther 2 could not have been referring to Mordecai’s captivity because again Esther would not have been, by any reasonable chronological criteria, a young maiden if Mordecai was taken captive with Jehoiachin. Therefore it must have been Kish’s captivity who the author of Esther had in mind and this further tells us that there were three generations between Jehoiachin’s captivity and the events described in the book of Esther.

 [DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

 

 

As I’ve been thinking and writing about this subject over the past couple of weeks I’ve been asking myself how I could best visually represent the chronological information related to Mordecai, Esther, and the Persian era so as to provide myself and those of you reading this article a unique way of looking at which Persian king best fits the chronological criteria for the book of Esther and the Persian record. The chart at the bottom of this page, I hope gets close to that goal.

In the chart at the bottom of this article the start of Kish’s captivity in 594 BC is the basis for all calculations. Since we don’t know Kish’s exact age when he was taken captive in 594 BC, I’ve provided several different options for Kish’s age at the start of his captivity. The range I’ve provided between 20 and 45 is based in part upon the criteria of 1 Kings 24 where it tells us that when Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive he also took all the craftsmen and smiths and those “apt” for war. (see 1 Kings 24 reference above )

 Using this information as a working basis I had to then figure out how to represent various generational spans so as to provide the best possible overview of  how the different generational spans might influence the number of years between the captivity of Kish and the events described in the book of Esther.

Based upon my own understanding of the demographics of that era, a 25-35 year generational span best reflects the average generational span between the people of the 2nd temple period.  In the following chart a 25-35 year generational span is confirmed by the generational lists of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Median, and Persian kings as well as the lists of Judean kings and high priests. Please note that this chart is based upon a chart found in R.E. Tyrwhitt dated 1868. I’ve modified the chart for clarity and added the lineage of priests and Levites.

(please click on image to enlarge)

With this chart confirming a 25-35 year generational span between the contemporaries of that era, here are some quick reference points for the final chart below:

    • Jehoiachin’s captivity and Kish’s various ages at the start of the captivity are represented in red.
    • Each different age assumption for Kish also has its own comparative generational span from 20-45.
    • The 1st year of Cyrus is marked with a horizontal bar across the chart. This date represents when the Mordecai of Ezra 2 went up to Jerusalem with Joshua and Zerubbabel in 536 BC.
    • The 1st, 7th, 13th year of Darius are represented by horizontal green bars across the chart. This allows us to ascertain a range of dates for the age Mordecai and Esther during the reign of Darius I. (Esther became queen in the 7th year of a Persian “Ahasuerus”, the events of Purim occurred in the 13th.)
    • The 1st, 7th, 13th, year of Xerxes are represented by horizontal rust colored bars. This allows us to ascertain a range of dates for the age of Mordecai and Esther during the reign of Xerxes. (Esther became queen in the 7th year of a Persian “Ahasuerus”, the events of Purim occurred in the 13th.)
    • The diagonal bars across the chart represent the 20th year of Mordecai relative to its corresponding (color) generational span. This provides a basis to compare the age of Esther and Mordecai relative to the Persian kings. It is unlikely that Esther and Mordecai were the same age but the diagonal lines give you good reference points from which to work from. Esther could have been the same age or as many as 20-30 years Mordecai’s junior. The diagonal lines allow you a basis to work from for further comparative analysis.
    • Finally, the numbers at the bottom of the chart show the age of Mordecai relative to the 1st year of Cyrus, the 7th, 13th, 20th, & 32nd year of Darius, and the 7th & 13th year of Xerxes.

(Click on chart to enlarge)

A few things are evident from the chart. If we are looking for a Persian king during whose reign all the Mordecai’s discussed in this article might have referred to the same person, that could have only occurred during the reign of Darius I. Indeed, if Darius I was Esther’s king then Mordecai could have been one of the men who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel in 536 BC, he was likely the same official mentioned in the Persian cuneiform records, and he certainly could have been the Mordecai mentioned in the book of Esther.

If the Mordecai of Ezra 2 and the Mordecai of Persian cuneiform records are excluded from any considerations in this chart then Xerxes is still a possible candidate for Esther’s kings. That being said, if we are looking at this chart as representing a window of probability into the identity of Esther’s king then that window is several times larger during the reign of Darius I than his son Xerxes. (This window we will narrow still further in subsequent articles.) In other words, the likelihood that Mordecai lived during the reign of Darius works across a wider array of generational spans than it does during the reign of Xerxes.  Excluding any other limiting factors relating to the other historical Mordecais in this chart, this window of probability regarding the reign of Darius should cause the serious student of the Biblical history to carefully consider the likelihood that “Ahasuerus” of the book of Esther is a reference to the Persian king Darius I.

Next Time
Yahweh willing, in my next article we will further narrow our search for Esther’s king by looking at who the Persian king of 127 provinces might have been. As you’ll see only one Persian king could rightly claim this title. If space permits I’ll also address Mr. Lanser’s of ABR’s objection to considering Darius I as the “Ahasuerus” of the book of Esther. I hope you’ll stay tuned as we explore this incredibly important period in Biblical history.

Maranatha!

1Gerard Gertoux, Queen Esther Wife of Xerxes : Historical and Archaeological Evidence, p. 10)

Answering Objects from the Associates for Biblical Research
For those just joining this exploration of Biblical history, this is part VI in a series in which I am attempting to answer the challenges and criticisms raised by Rich Lanser of the respected organization Associates for Biblical Research in his article The Seraiah Assumption. In his article, Mr. Lanser vigorously disputes my view of 2nd temple history as it relates to Darius ‘The Great’ as described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the links below I’d encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption as well as my responses to specific points of criticism that Mr. Lanser has raised in his article. I’d also encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s updated thoughts  in an addendum to that article that he recently published in response to and email exchange we’ve had as well as his responses to some of the points I’ve made in these articles.

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 ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius 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 VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, 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

 

Book 1
Book I - Description

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

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

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

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."

 

 

Darius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature

Does the Bible really give an accurate description of Darius I ‘The Great’ of Persia?

In this week’s article I’ll be comparing what the Bible says about Darius with what Darius says about himself from his own royal inscriptions. My purpose of this week’s article is twofold. First, I hope to further impress upon you the credibility of the Bible and the accuracy with which it describes history. Second, I want to finish providing you with a complete picture of how the book of Ezra and Nehemiah describe this great Persian king.

As you will see, this information will provide us with some of the final pieces of background context which will help us in our next article to determine the historical relationship between Darius I and the Biblical Esther. Was Darius I Esther’s father in law or her husband? Has traditional Biblical scholarship once again depended too much on what secular historians have written and too little on the Bible’s own historical and chronological details? I believe so and I hope in the next several articles to show you why this is the case.

In the article of this series to date I’ve argued that the book of Ezra can be depended upon to provide the reader with straight forward and chronological details about Biblical history. If this is in fact an accurate statement, doesn’t it lend confidence to the reader that the book of Esther might also provide dependable chronological and historical details as well? I believe so, and I think you’ll find that evidence compelling.

But before we explore the question of Esther and her king, let’s first finish developing a complete picture of what the Bible says about Darius I – the great Persian king who the it also describes as an Artaxerxes. (For more context on the Persian word Artaxerxes please see last week’s article Darius and the Kingdom of Arta).

From Cyrus to Darius
For those just joining this exploration of Biblical history, this is part V in a series in which I am attempting to answer the challenges and criticisms raised by Rich Lanser of the respected organization Associates for Biblical Research in his article The Seraiah Assumption. In his article, Mr. Lanser vigorously disputes my view of 2nd temple history as it relates to Darius ‘The Great’ as described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the links below I’d encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption as well as my responses to specific points of criticism that Mr. Lanser has raised in his article. I’d also encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s updated thoughts  in an addendum to that article that he recently published in response to and email exchange we’ve had as well as his responses to some of the points I’ve made in these articles.

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 ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius 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 VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, 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 IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

 

To briefly recap what we’ve explored chronologically so far, to date we’ve followed the Biblical history of the Jewish people, their captivity in Babylon for 70 years, and the decree of Cyrus which allowed them to return to Jerusalem and build the city and Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary.

The book of Ezra opened with Cyrus’ decree and Jewish people’s return to Jerusalem under the leadership of Joshua and Zerubbabel. We learned that the Jewish people only got as far as laying some of the foundation stones for the temple before their own lack of zeal and the harassment of their enemies stop their construction efforts.

As the book of Ezra describes it, the enemies of the Jewish people, between the reign of Cyrus and Darius I, hired counselors (think lobbyists) to harass them at every opportunity. After Cyrus died and a new Persian king (whom the Bible describes by the title or name Ahasuerus – Ezra 4:6) came to power these counselors approached this Persian king in an effort to stop construction. When this effort did not produce results they bided their time until years later when a new Persian king whom the Bible describes by the title Artaxerxes came to power. This Persian king did in fact listen to Jewish people’s enemies and he ordered the construction of Jerusalem stopped. As Ezra 4 describes it:

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. (Ezra 4:23-24)

It’s worth noting here once again that in Ezra 4 the enemies of the Jewish people, in their petition to Artaxerxes, describe the construction efforts as building Jerusalem but when they receive their cease and desist from Artaxerxes it was the temple construction which stopped. In other words, the account of Ezra 4 shows that the temple construction was in fact building Jerusalem.

Also note, as explained in Part III of this series Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4, that the use of the Aramaic word ‘edayin’ (now/then) as a chronological synchronism in Ezra 4:23 & 24 provide strong evidence that the history of Ezra 4 is straight forward historical – chronological account of Persian history from Cyrus to Darius.

Now [after these things] 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 [after these things] 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. (Ezra 4:23-24)

Authors Note: Please note that Mr. Lanser in his Addendum to his original article The Seraiah Assumption has provided additional information about his understanding of the word ‘edayin’ and its use here in Ezra 4 among other subjects. I’d encourage you to read that information. At the end of this article I will be explaining why I believe his explanation falls short and I’ll further be explaining how his errors regarding this subject are once again rooted in part in his misunderstanding of my position on the subject. Please see Mr. Lanser’s article here: The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping Up Some Loose Ends

What the context of Ezra 4 tells us is that there are two additional Persian kings between Cyrus and Darius. Because the Aramaic word ‘edayin’ consistently describes successive chronological information in the Bible we must see the Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:6 & Ezra 4:7-23 as Persian kings who ruled between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. This in fact agrees with Persian history. Further the history in Ezra 4 provides some neat historical details that show the author of Ezra had an intimate understanding of Persian history from that era.

There are a couple places where this is confirmed. Our first example comes from Cambyses (likely Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6) who did not stop construction of the temple when petitioned by the enemies of the Jewish people. Historically we know that Cambyses for the most part kept with his father’s tradition of restoring religious monuments of the peoples he ruled.

On the other hand, we know that the Persian king who followed Cambyses, Bardia (a.k.a Gaumâta/Smerdis) the Magian userper, who according to Darius’ own Behistun inscription, was responsible for the destruction of “the Temples” the previous kings had allowed. So when Ezra 4:7-24 describes an “Artaxerxes” who stopped construction on the temple of Jerusalem after the reign of Cyrus but before the reign of Darius, it confirms Darius I own account of this Magian usurper who he deposed. A king who, unlike Darius, had no reverence for the religious monuments of the people who he ruled.  I quote from Darius’ cuneiform inscription on the cliffs of Behistun:

Murder of Smerdis and Coup of Gaumâta the Magian
[i.10] King Darius says: The following is what was done by me after I became king. A son of Cyrus, named Cambyses, one of our dynasty, was king here before me. That Cambyses had a brother, Smerdis by name, of the same mother and the same father as Cambyses. Afterwards, Cambyses slew this Smerdis. When Cambyses slew Smerdis, it was not known unto the people that Smerdis was slain. Thereupon Cambyses went to Egypt. When Cambyses had departed into Egypt, the people became hostile, and the lie multiplied in the land, even in Persia and Media, and in the other provinces.

[i.11] King Darius says: Afterwards, there was a certain man, a Magian, Gaumâta by name, who raised a rebellion in Paišiyâuvâdâ, in a mountain called Arakadriš. On the fourteenth day of the month Viyaxananote did he rebel. He lied to the people, saying: “I am Smerdis, the son of Cyrus, the brother of Cambyses.” Then were all the people in revolt, and from Cambyses they went over unto him, both Persia and Media, and the other provinces. He seized the kingdom; on the ninth day of the month Garmapadanote he seized the kingdom. Afterwards, Cambyses died of natural causes.

[i.12] King Darius says: The kingdom of which Gaumâta, the Magian, dispossessed Cambyses, had always belonged to our dynasty. After that Gaumâta, the Magian, had dispossessed Cambyses of Persia and Media, and of the other provinces, he did according to his will. He became king.

Darius kills Gaumâta and Restores the Kingdom
[i.13] King Darius says: There was no man, either Persian or Mede or of our own dynasty, who took the kingdom from Gaumâta, the Magian. The people feared him exceedingly, for he slew many who had known the real Smerdis. For this reason did he slay them, “that they may not know that I am not Smerdis, the son of Cyrus.” There was none who dared to act against Gaumâta, the Magian, until I came. Then I prayed to Ahuramazda; Ahuramazda brought me help. On the tenth day of the month Bâgayâdišnote I, with a few men, slew that Gaumâta, the Magian, and the chief men who were his followers. At the stronghold called Sikayauvatiš, in the district called Nisaia in Media, I slew him; I dispossessed him of the kingdom. By the grace of Ahuramazda I became king; Ahuramazda granted me the kingdom.

[i.14] King Darius says: The kingdom that had been wrested from our line I brought back and I reestablished it on its foundation. The temples which Gaumâta, the Magian, had destroyed, I restored to the people, and the pasture lands, and the herds and the dwelling places, and the houses which Gaumâta, the Magian, had taken away. I settled the people in their place, the people of Persia, and Media, and the other provinces. I restored that which had been taken away, as is was in the days of old. This did I by the grace of Ahuramazda, I labored until I had established our dynasty in its place, as in the days of old; I labored, by the grace of Ahuramazda, so that Gaumâta, the Magian, did not dispossess our house.

[i.15] King Darius says: This was what I did after I became king.

As you can see this inscription by Darius provides really neat confirmation of the Biblical account. The following chart provides an overview of the succession from Cyrus to Darius:

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

In Part III of this series, Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem as described in Ezra 5 we learned that the Jewish people in obedience to the divine command of Yahweh through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, in the 2nd year of Darius, defied the previous decree of Artaxerxes (Bardis/Gaumâta?) the Magian usurper (who stopped construction of the temple) and they restarted their building efforts. With Darius’ blessing, four years later in Darius’ 6th year their efforts to rebuild the temple were successful.

In Ezra 6 by following the same straight forward interpretive principles that we applied to Ezra 4 & 5, we learned that the Bible in Ezra 6:14 informed us that Darius was also known by the Persian title “Artaxerxes”.  This fascinating historical detail, overlooked by so many Biblical scholars, fundamentally changes how we see the history described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Instead of a nearly 60 year gap between Ezra 6 & 7 we find chronological continuity. For we see that Ezra 6 ends with the completion of the temple in the 6th  year of Darius “even” Artaxerxes and then Ezra 7 opens in the 7th year of this same Artaxerxes, with Ezra, now that the temple was completed and dedicated, heading to Jerusalem to teach his people the Torah.

Shimshai the Scribe
Let me give you a fascinating historical example which confirms Ezra 6 & 7 and the Biblical identity of Darius even Artaxerxes. In Ezra 4:6-8, 23 the Bible describes a character who was part of the efforts to harass the Jewish people during the reign of “Artaxerxes” (Bardis/Gaumata). This individual’s name was Shimshai the scribe.  Did you know that we have a cuneiform tablet that names a Shimshai? The only problem is the tablet in which he is named is dated to the reign of Cambyses not the reign Artaxerxes I (Longimanus). And since Biblical scholars have dated the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:6-8, 23 to reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) there is a 60 years gap between when the tablets say this man lived and when Biblical scholars believe he lived. Here read for yourself.

The following quote comes from Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence as published in the Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta edited by Caroline Waerzeggers and Maarja Seire page 45-47. I quote:

The formulary of Text 2 is characteristic of a transcript of a trial: a formal address by a plaintiff is followed by the questioning of the defendant by the judge and the defendant’s confession. The broken lines that follow expectedly contained the sentence. The trial was held in the presence of four men, including one judge. The name of the first man — hence the most important one — is partly damaged, just like his function, provided it was given at all. His filiation seems to have been skipped, which could indicate that he was a man of high standing, whose identity was obvious. The second person in the list, the judge Mušēzib-Bēl of the Aḫu-bāni family is, to my knowledge, unattested elsewhere in the published contemporary court documents. Judges Rēmūt-bēl-ilāni (active under Neriglissar in Babylon), and Nabû-rā’im-šarri (attested in Nabonidus’ second year in Tapsuḫu) were members of the same clan and since judicial functions were often passed in families, Mušēzib-Bēl’s link to one of them appears plausible.25 The fourth man present at the trial was Aštakka’, whose name is non-Babylonian. It is, however, the third person in the list, Šamšāya, who is the most intriguing member of the panel.

Šamšāya’s function bēlṭēmi(‘bearer of the report, chancellor’) is extremely rare in Neo- and Late Babylonian material. Holders of this title are found in only three cuneiform texts from the Persian period; two of them were drafted in circles close to Persian governors. The earliest known bēlṭēmi appears on a list of silver allotments issued to over eighty men engaged in the preparation of a visit of Cambyses in southern Babylonia in the second year of his reign (Moore 1939 no. 89).26 The official’s name is damaged, but he is described as “a Median, bēlṭēmi, who discussed the issue of sheep with Gūbaru.”27 He received a large sum of silver (0.5 mina), exceeding by far the allotments of other men. The second attestation of this title comes from Stolper 1989 no. 1 (BM 74554), a receipt for barley issued at the order of the governor of Babylon and Across-the-River, and Libluṭ and Gadalâma, two men described as sepīru bēlṭēmi (‘Aramaic scribe [and] chancellor’). The third attestation comes from a fragmentary tablet BM 67669 drafted during the reign of Darius I, where bēl ṭēmi appears next to members of the board of the Ebabbar temple of Sippar.

Bēlṭēmi is possibly a Neo-Assyrian term that entered Aramaic and consequently Persian chancellery parlance.28 It is found in the Arsames correspondence from Egypt, where similarly to Stolper 1989 no. 1 (BM 74554), concurrent use of the titles bēlṭēmi and sepīru (b῾lṭ῾m spr᾿ ‘chancellor [and] scribe’) is attested.29 In Egyptian and Bactrian Aramaic letter subscripts, b῾lṭ῾m is paralleled by a title yd῾ṭ῾m᾿znh ‘(PN) knows this order’, which in Bactrian letters is, again, borne by scribes (spr᾿).30 Similar correspondence may also be traced in Persepolis tablets.31 In Egypt, b῾lṭ῾m was a member of the satrap’s entourage, in charge of official correspondence.32 A notable attestation of bēlṭēmi comes from Ezra 4: 8–9, 23, which quotes a letter sent to king Artaxerxes by Rehum b῾lṭ῾m and Shimshai spr᾿ together with “their colleagues the judges[knwthwndyny᾿], legates[᾿prstky᾿], officials [ṭrply᾿],33Persians, men of Erech, Babylonians, men of Susa, that is Elamites.”34 The Septuagint’s rendering of the names of the two first officials as Raoumos and Samsaios suggests the original reading of the second one as Shamshai (rather than Shimshai).

The patronymic of Šamšāya, son of Bēl-iqīša, is Babylonian, but his own name is less straightforward. It is uncommon in Babylonian sources. It may be interpreted as a Kosename‘My sun’35 or a hypocorism of a longer name comprising the theophoric element Šamaš. Alternatively, it may be a West Semitic appellative of a similar meaning. The only eminent bearers of this name were the royal resident of the Ebabbar temple at Sippar, attested in the twenty-sixth year of Darius I,36 and the son of Tattenai, the governor of Accross-the-River in the latter part of Darius I’s rule.37 No connection between these namesakes and the bēlṭēmi of Text 2 can be established.

It is much more inviting to identify Šamšāya with Shimshai the spr᾿, the colleague of Rehum b῾lṭ῾m of Ezra 4. Their names bear striking resemblance. Their titles admittedly vary (Šamšāya is called bēlṭēmi, while Shimshai a spr᾿), but both Stolper 1989 no. 1 (BM 74554) and the Aramaic material show that the two titles were occasionally combined. Also, a shift of titles between two protagonists of Ezra 4: 8–9, 23 in the course of the editorial process could be assumed. Both Šamšāya and Shimshai belonged to the elite of local Persian administration: Šamšāya stood close to the governor of Babylon and Acrossthe-River, while Shimshai, along with his colleague Rehum, addressed the king directly and implemented his orders. Both of them are listed next to judges. Furthermore, Ezra 4 contains many elements that reveal its editor’s acquaintance with the Persian-Babylonian administration and legal parlance.38 An obvious difficulty that this identification involves is a gap of over sixty years between Text 2 and the events set by Ezra-Nehemiah in the times of Artaxerxes (I). The authenticity of this so-called Artaxerxes correspondence in Ezra is a matter of dispute. According to extreme opinions, it was either a product of a Hellenistic author,39 or a compilation put together by an editor who had original sources from the Persian period at his disposal.40 If we accept the latter possibility, we may also allow that the editor of Ezra-Nehemiah has placed Rehum and Shimshai in the times of Artaxerxes I for reasons of narrative or ideological consistency, or simply by mistake. A possibility may thus be considered that Šamšāya bēlṭēmi,a high official in the satrapy of Across-the-River under Cambyses, served as a model for Shimshai/Shamshai of Ezra-Nehemiah.

22 CAD B, 261–263.
23 For Aramaic, see Lemaire and Lozahmeur 1987, for Neo-Babylonian, see Zadok 1985, 76–77.
24 Cf. Musil 1927, 313.
25 For Rēmūt-bēl-ilāni, see Wunsch 2000, 586, for Nabû-rā’im-šarri, see TBER no. 58 and its duplicate 59: 27.
26 For the context of the text, see Tolini 2009.
27 I˹x˺[x x]˹x˺ lúma-da-a-aen ṭè-e-mušáa-namuḫ-ḫiudu.níta a-naIgu-ba-ruiq-bu-ú (lines 41–42).
28 Stolper 1989, 301, Schwiderski 2000, 191.
29 Porten 1968, 56, Porten et al. 1996, 121 n. 74. Schwiderski’s proposition (2000, 190–193 and 358–359) to distinguish between a title(spr᾿) and an ad hoc function (b῾lṭ῾m) is problematic in view of the occurence of bēlṭēmi as name apposition, parallel to the title ‘judge’, in BM 47479. Also his argument that bēlṭēmi is never preceded by the determinative lú (2000, 192–193) is no longer standing: such writing (lúen ṭè-mu) is found in BM 67669.
30 Tuplin 2013, 128–130.
31 Tavernier 2008, 73.
32 Porten 1968, 55. For a possible correspondence between the b῾lṭ῾m and the Demotic senti, see Vittmann 2009, 102.
33 Or: ‘men from (Syrian) Tripoli’ (Koehler, Baumgartner and Stamm 2000, 1886b).
34 The translation follows Blenkinsopp 1988, 109.
35 Stamm 1939, 242.
36 Bongenaar 1997, 50.
37 Jursa and Stolper 2007, 249.
38 Especially line 9 is strongly influenced by Persian-Babylonian legal phraseology. The word knt ‘colleague, companion’ is commonly regarded as a borrowing from Akkadian (Porten et al. 1996, 159 n. 15, Koehler, Baumgartner and Stamm 2000, 1900a). Its only biblical occurrences are found in Ezra 4, 5 and 6; all of them refer to the companions of the opponents of the Jewish returnees (Rehum and Shimshai, Tattenai and Shethar-bozenai). Not only the word, but also the practice of combining it with professional titles might be traced to Akkadian (for references, see CAD K, 382). See especially the constructions parallel to knwthwndyny’‘(Shimshai and Rehum and) their colleagues the judges’: PN ukinattēšudayyānē(šašarri)‘PN and his colleagues the (royal) judges’ (BM 30957: 8–9, BM 62918: 2, Dar. 410: 5, MacGinnis 2008, 88–89: 1–2, Zadok 2002 no. D.4: 31, cf. Jursa, Paszkowiak and Waerzeggers 2003/2004 no. 1: 14). Similar practice of combining the Aramaic equivalent of the word kinattu with professional titles is found in Elephantine papyri (Porten et al. 1996, 159).
39 E.g. Schwiderski 2000, 381–382, Wright 2005, 39–43. 40 E.g. Grabbe 2006, 562–563, Williamson 2008, 52.

May I be so bold as to suggest another solution to the problem as presented by the authors above? Instead of the author of Ezra being mistaken or a later editor adding to the work and inserting this information 60 years after it happened, how about we just take the Bible’s chronology at face value, assuming the author of Ezra knew what he was talking about and admitting we just don’t understand all the pertinent details of Persian history as well as we supposed. Ezra 6 describes Darius I ‘The Great’ as an “Artaxerxes”, because this name was used as a throne name by Darius’ grandson Longimanus we assume this must be the only way this word was used in Persian history. The Bible tells us differently, and if we listen we find it places real historical people by the same name as described in the Bible in the very same time frame.

The more I study the chronology of the Bible, the more I am struck by how accurately it describes history. I’ve learned over the years when something doesn’t seem to make sense, it is better to assume that I just don’t have all the information I need, rather than assume the Bible got it wrong. The history described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah proves this is a compelling way. Let me give you several more examples.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

The Titles of Darius
Let’s do an experiment. For the sake of this exercise let’s assume the Bible’s chronology as described in the book of Ezra is a straight forward and chronologically congruent rendering of Persian history. In other words, it chronologically describes real Persian history between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. This, what I have shown in these articles to be a reasonable working assumption, informs us that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 6:14 onwards and the “Artaxerxes” of Nehemiah are in fact a reference to Darius I ‘The Great’. Using this as our premise let me show just how accurately the Bible describes the titles by which Darius is known from his own royal inscriptions.

  • King of Persia
    •  24 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. (Ezra 4:24)
    •  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 [even] Artaxerxes king of Persia. (Ezra 6:14)
    • 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)
    • Line 1 of Darius’ Behistun Inscription
       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.

 

  • King of Babylon
    The use of the title “king of Babylon” in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah is a fascinating study and worth further explanation. Keep in mind for context sake that it was Cyrus who conquered Babylon and allowed the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem and build the temple. Because he conquered Babylon he was rightly called “king of Babylon”.  As king of  Babylon Cyrus had the authority to set the Jewish captives free as well as return the temple treasure taken by Nebuchadnezzar.In the book of Ezra the next Persian king who we see involved in the affairs of the Jewish people in the province of Babylon is Darius I.
    • Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king’s treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.When Darius the king [of Babylon] made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon. Ezra 5:17 – 6:1

Darius as the king of Babylon confirmed the decree of Cyrus and allowed the construction of the temple to continue. Darius also added his own monetary blessing to the effort. It’s interesting to note as Gerard Gertoux does in the quote below that the kingdom of Babylon became a Persian province (from the official Persian perspective) only after the death of Darius. It’s further worth noting that after a Babylonian revolt during the reign of Xerxes (son of Darius) that Xerxes never again used the title king of Babylon. In fact this official titulature became exceedingly rare during the reigns of the following Persian kings. In the appendices of this article I’ve included an interesting discussion of the only known occurrences of the title “king of Bayblon” used in conjunction with an unidentified  “Artaxerxes”. As the authors note, there is no way to determine the identity of the Artaxerxes king of Babylon mentioned in these inscriptions.

 

 

    • The former kingdom of Babylon became a Persian province only after Darius’ death and it is worthwhile noting that during his reign, Babylon was a satrapy of two big provinces (Babylonia and [lands] Beyond the River) and its ruler has been called “Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River24”. Thus the governor of the land of Judea was under the authority of Tattannu, the governor of [the lands] Beyond the River, exactly as the Bible reports:The copy of the letter which Tattenai the governor of the province Beyond the River and Shethar-bozenai and his associates the governors who were in the province Beyond the River sent to Darius the king (Ezr 5:6).

According to the Bible, Rehum ruled (538?-522) the province Beyond the River as “royal prefect” (Ezr 4:7-21), before Tattenai. (Queen Esther Wife of Xexes: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence – ,  Gerard Gertoux)


Here is the point. “King of Babylon” was a title rightly used by both Cyrus and Darius as Babylon was still a powerful kingdom with some autonomy granted during their reigns. By the latter half of Xerxes reign, Babylon was demoted (so to speak) and over the intervening years it lost more and more of its prestige and relevance. This brings us to a statement in Nehemiah 13:6 were it tells us that Nehemiah left Jerusalem in the 32nd year of “Artaxerxes king of Babylon”.

6 But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem: for in the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon came I unto the king, and after certain days obtained I leave of the king: (Nehemiah 13:6)

As I’ve tried to explain in these articles, Ezra describes king Darius as a Persian “Artaxerxes”. Because Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries this means that Nehemiah’s “Artaxerxes” was none other than Darius I ‘The Great’. Thus it makes much more sense here to see Nehemiah identify Darius as “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” than it does to try and apply that titulature to the Persian king Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) long after the kingdom of Babylon had been subsumed into the Persian empire. Both chronologically and historically, the title “king of Babylon” would have been more contextually appropriate to Darius I ‘The Great’ than his grandson Artaxerxes I (Longimanus).

    • “Xerxes, designated by Darius as his successor, ascended the throne of Persia after twelve years as viceroy at Babylon. One of his first tasks was to suppress the revolt in Egypt begun in the lifetime of his father. This he did with great severity, forcing the Egyptian people to nurse their hatred in secret while awaiting their revenge. He acted with the same brutality towards Babylon, where revolt had also broken out: he razed the walls and fortifications of the city, destroyed its temple and melted down the golden statue of the god Bel. After this he ceased to use the title of ‘king of babylon’, calling himself simply ‘king of the Persians and the Medes’. (R. Girshman, Iran – 1951 p.190-191)
    • Babylon Loses its Independence
      “Babylon lost its independent status when it was merged with Assyria (Herodotus 7.63). After the fifth year of Xerxes’ reign the title “king of Babylon” was rarely used.” (Persia and the Bible – Edwin M. Yamauchi, 1994, p. 194)
    • Please note a further discussion of the title “King of Babylon” as used during the reign of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I as an appendices at the bottom of this post. (Waerzeggers, Caroline, and Maarja Seire. “Xerxes and Babylonia: the Cuneiform Evidence.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 277 (2018): n. pag. Print.)

 

  • King of Assyria
    Ezra 6:22 identifies Darius I ‘The Great’ as the “king of Assyria”. This is another instance where a Biblical author is using a title, in this case “king of Assyria” to emphasize a symbolic point relating to the history of the Jewish people. Remember it was Assyria who took Israel (the 10 tribes) captive. But now, long after Assyria ceased to be an official kingdom, a Persian “king of Assyria” is given credit for helping the Jewish return and build Yahweh’s holy temple. Yes, Yahweh had punished His people, but they had borne their punishment and outlasted their adversaries. In any case, Darius as “king of Assyria” is attested by Darius’ own Behistun inscription.
    • 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 6:22)
    • [i.6]King Darius says: These are the countries which are subject unto me, and by the grace of Ahuramazda I became king of them: Persia, Elam, BabyloniaAssyriaArabia, Egypt, the countries by the Sea, Lydia, the GreeksMediaArmeniaCappadociaParthiaDrangianaAriaChorasmiaBactria, Sogdia, GandaraScythiaSattagydiaArachosia and Maka; twenty-three lands in all. (emphasis mine)
  • King of Kings
    It’s worth noting here, that nearly all Achaemenid Royal inscriptions after Darius I attest to the Persian king titulature, “the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia” but it was Darius I who immortalized this tradition on the cliffs of Behistun and whom his sons and grandsons tried to emulated.
    •  11 Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of YHWH, and of his statutes to Israel.  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 7:11-12)
    • Line 1 of Darius’ Behistun Inscription
       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.

In Closing
I hope these articles have shown that the Bible consistently demonstrates its historical reliability if we accurately identify the context of its chronology. By separating Darius I from his Biblical title of “Artaxerxes”, scholars have unwittingly shifted Biblical history by nearly six decades from its original context and thus obscured some of the Bible’s most important history as it relates to secular Persian record.

As we’ll explore in forthcoming articles in this series, this shift of Bible history by nearly 60 years has really skewed our  view of the 2nd temple era and this is no where better demonstrated than the history of the Biblical heroine Esther and her king.

Did you know that the Persian records attest to a man named Mordecai who was a high official in Persia during the 2nd temple era? One of the reasons you’ve probably never heard about this Mordecai is because he was a Persian official during the reign of Darius I.

Here is a fact. The name Mordecai is extremely rare in the Persian record. The name is also extremely rare in the Biblical record. In fact, an individual named Mordecai is only mentioned in the book of Esther as the uncle of Esther and in the books of Ezra & Nehemiah as one of the leaders of the people who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel when Cyrus allowed the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem.

Curious, isn’t it, that two of the three records (historical and Biblical), where Mordecai is mentioned, place him as a leader in the early years of the 2nd temple era. Further, as I will do my best to demonstrate, the book of Esther by its own internal chronology also places the Biblical hero Mordecai in the early years of the 2nd temple era. This line of exploration will provide reasonable evidence to show that the Mordecai of the Persian records, the Mordecai of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the Mordecai of the book of Esther are one and the same person.

The result of this inquiry I hope is a further strengthening of your faith in the reliability of the Bible as an accurate account of history, with the bigger goal in mind of demonstrating that all Biblical history has an essential place in Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua.

I hope you’ll stay tuned. I think you’ll be thrilled at just how congruent the Bible is as it relates to us the history of the 2nd temple era.

Maranatha!

Next Time
Yahweh Willing my next article
Mordecai & The Chronological Context of Esther will look at the chronological relationship between Mordecai, Esther, Darius, and their Biblical and secular contemporaries.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

Post Script
The ‘Edayin Assumption

As mentioned above Mr. Lanser has updated his original article The Seraiah Assumption with some further thoughts and explanations in response to my rebuttal of his article as well as an email exchange we’ve had in the interim.

I can’t stress enough the importance the chronology of Ezra 4-6 has to providing us with the foundational context as it relates to the Bible’s identity of Darius as a Persian “Artaxerxes”. Further, Ezra 4:23-24 and the Bible’s use of the word ‘edayin’ is at the crux of whether Mr. Lanser’s objections to the use of the Artaxerxes as a title are valid.

Here is the bottom line. If the Bible uses the term “Artaxerxes” to describe Persian kings before this word was used as a throne name to describe the Persian king Artaxerxes I (Longimanus), then the entire pretext for a thematic (think non-chronological) view of Ezra 4-6 becomes untenable. In other words, if Artaxerxes was used in the Bible to describe Persian kings before Longimanus then the chronological premise of Mr. Lanser’s Seraiah Assumption is erroneous. I should add, it is not just Mr. Lanser’s interpretations that are affected by the Edayin Assumption, but every scholar who claims that the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah is a reference to Artaxerxes I (Longimanus).

So let’s look at Mr. Lanser’s further explanation regarding the use of ‘edayin to see the Biblical merits of his case. I quote Mr. Lanser from his addendum titled: The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping Up Some Loose Ends  Quotes from his article The Seraiah Assumption: Wrappin up Some Loose Ends are in green and where he quoted me in this article I’ve further highlighted them in brown for clarity.

 

The Meaning of ’Edayin
One of Mr. Struse’s most recent posts, “Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4” (https://www.the13thenumeration.com/Blog13/2019/05/04/cyrus-to-darius-the-2nd-temple-context-of-ezra-4/), spends considerable time discussing his understanding of the Hebrew term ’edayin and its exegetical significance. He claims that in every single case where the Aramaic word ’edayin is used, it carries a chronological/temporal significance:

But verse 23 presents a problem for Mr. Lanser’s interpretation. The Aramaic word ‘edayin’ is used 57 times in the Old Testament. 56 of those occurrences, including the “now” of Ezra 4:23, clearly refer to successive events which take place in chronological order. In most cases the events described by the word ‘edayin’ transpire directly after previously described events of the text. The only other occurrence of the world ‘edayin’ found in the Bible is Ezra 4:24 and is represented by the English word “then”.

If we use a consistent Hermeneutics we must translate ‘edayin’ in Ezra 4:24 in the same manner we translated it in verse 23 – as well as the other 55 other occurrences of the word found in the Old Testament. There is simply no other reasonable way to see ‘edayin’ other than a chronological synchronism which connects successive events. By placing ‘edayin’ at the beginning of both verse 23 & verse 24 the author of Ezra wanted to ensure there was no confusion about the chronological order of events.

My response was to “be a Berean” and check his information. I went to the online copy of Strong’s at http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H116&t=NASB and looked up the Aramaic term ‘edayin (אֱדַיִן). Near the beginning of that entry it notes, “i.q. Heb. אָז,” meaning it was the same as the Hebrew word אָז (‘az). I then checked my copy of the Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon to look up that word. I found that EBDB on page 23 observes the word does not always have a strictly temporal significance; point 2 on that page shows it is also used for expressing logical sequence, i.e., “since A, then B.” Then I went to the Biblical Aramaic appendix to EBDB and checked the entry for ʼedayin. It referred me in turn to Gleason Archer’s standard reference book, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT). Entry 2558 in that work states that the Aramaic term generally takes a temporal sense as Struse insists, but with one exception: “Used also with prepositions [בּ] or min meaning ‘since.’” If we go to the Aramaic text of Ezra 4:24, what do we find? The word used there is בֵּאדַיִן—ʼedayin with the preposition prefixed to it! This indicates logical sequence is intended, not temporal sequence. Ezra 4:23 does not include the prefix, so in that case a temporal meaning applies. The meanings are not identical.

The “then” of Ezra 4:24 therefore must be understood, based on rules of grammar, not as an action following consecutively in time after Ezra 4:23, but as completing the thought paused after Ezra 4:5, when the author, following a thematic rather than chronological contextual approach, went on a sidetrack about similar Samaritan problems which would take place in the future. Mr. Struse was honest in reporting that his source treats the ʼedayin of Ezra 4:24 differently from its other instances, but refused to accept this because he regards it as an unreasonable, purely subjective opinion. It is not, it is grammar-based, and I think the grammar rules should carry the argument. Mr. Struse’s statement, “There is simply no other reasonable way to see ‘edayin’ other than a chronological synchronism which connects successive events,” does not match up with the objective grammar-based evidence.

Mr. Lanser’s explanation above is disconcerting for several different reasons. First of all Mr. Lanser (as he’s done in his article regarding the Darius Assumption) misunderstands and then misstates my position. This erroneous basis he then uses as part of his understanding of the word ‘edayin. I’ll try to untangle the confusion this causes. I quote Mr. Lanser above:

“The “then” of Ezra 4:24 therefore must be understood, based on rules of grammar, not as an action following consecutively in time after Ezra 4:23, but as completing the thought paused after Ezra 4:5, when the author, following a thematic rather than chronological contextual approach, went on a sidetrack about similar Samaritan problems which would take place in the future. Mr. Struse was honest in reporting that his source treats the ʼedayin of Ezra 4:24 differently from its other instances, but refused to accept this because he regards it as an unreasonable, purely subjective opinion.”

If you carefully read Mr. Lanser’s quote of my article above (in brown), you’ll see that in fact I do not claim that my source treats “the ‘edayin of Ezra 4:24 differently from its other instances”. What I did say was that since Ezra 4:23 and the other 55 occurrences use ‘edayin in the same manner that we are obligated, by proper Hermeneutical method, to treat the occurrence of ‘edayin in verse 24 in the same manner as it is used in every other instance.

Mr. Lanser then compounded the error of his misunderstanding of my position (that ‘edayin was used exceptionally in verse 24) by not verifying for himself if this assumption about my position was in fact Biblically accurate. Even if I had made such a statement, if Mr. Lanser would have checked the use of the word ‘edayin he would have found such as statement to be totally erroneous.

In the Bible ‘edayin with the prepositions [בּ] is not used exceptionally at all. In fact roughly half of the times ‘edayin is used, it has the preposition proceeding it. The following images show every occurrence of the word ‘edayin in the Bible. The first image shows ‘edayin without its preposition and the second image with its preposition bĕ. As you can see the usage of ‘edayin with or without its preposition bĕ, is roughly an even split. (you can click on image to enlarge)

Unfortunately for Mr. Lanser’s argument, he didn’t verify for himself how the prefix was used with ‘edayin in its other occurrences in the Bible. Had he done so, he would have realized that in each and every case in which ‘edayin with the preposition is used, it clearly describe a natural and chronological succession of events. For instance here is an occurrence of ‘edayin with the preposition where it is used to described events that took place after Yahweh’s divine command to restore and build Jerusalem. After Yahweh’s command the people “then” (‘edayin) they immediately obeyed His command by restarting construction on Yahweh’s house. Notice this occurrence of ‘edayin directly follows the same use of ‘edayin as given in Ezra 4:24 – the very  “exception” Mr. Lanser uses to make his erroneous point.

23Now [אֱדַיִן] 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.

24Then [בֵּאדַיִן] 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.  (Ezra 4:23 – 24)

1Then 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 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] 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 5:1-2)

You’ve got to appreciate the irony here. These verses are the crux of Ezra’s 2nd temple era chronology as it relates to Yahweh’s divine command (word-dabar) to restore and build Jerusalem. The very command that I’ve demonstrated at this blog and in my book Daniel’s 70 Weeks: The Keystone of Bible Prophecy is the “word” (dabar) of Daniel 9:25.  Right here where Mr. Lanser and many of his peers by necessity must see a “a thematic rather than chronological contextual approach” to Biblical history we have a very strong likelihood that the Bible confirms its own internal chronology by dating this period to a historical figure found in the Persian records at the start of Darius I’s reign.

In my opinion, the above use of ‘edayin clearly demonstrates that Ezra 4:23-24 must be seen as a straight forward and strictly chronological account that demonstrates the book of Ezra understood that at least two Persian kings where known by the title of “Artaxerxes” over a half a century before that title was chosen by Darius I’s grandson, Longimanus as a throne name.

Finally, for those you who would like a play by play example of how ‘edayin is used outside the book of Ezra – along with and without its prepositional prefix bĕ, here is a clearly chronological account from the book of Daniel where I’ve added the use of ‘edayin in brackets for clarity.

Daniel 6:10-22
10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

11 Then [אֱדַיִן] these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God.

12 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king’s decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.

13 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.

14 Then [אֱדַיִן] the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him.

15 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.

16 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.

17 And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.

18 Then [אֱדַיִן] the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him.

19 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions.

20 And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?

21 Then [אֱדַיִן] said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever. 

22 My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.

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 ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius 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 VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, 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 IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

Book 1
Book I - Description

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

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

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

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."

 

Appendices:
Addition information on the use of “King of Babylon” as it applies to the Persian record:

(Waerzeggers, Caroline, and Maarja Seire. “Xerxes and Babylonia: the Cuneiform Evidence.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 277 (2018): n. pag. Print

(INTRODUCTION: DEBATING XERXES’ RULE IN BABYLONIA
Caroline Waerzeggers
(Leiden University)*

How did the debate about Xerxes’ Babylonian policy develop? The ortho-doxy, most clearly expressed by Cameron (1941) and de Liagre Böhl (1962), held that Xerxes punished Babylon severely after the uprisings of Šamaš-erība and Bēl-šimânni, by taking away the statue of Marduk from its sanctuary, by preventing further celebration of the Akitu (or new year) festival, by destroying the city, by eliminating the element ‘King of Babylon’ from his official titula-ture, and by splitting the satrapy of Babylon-and-across-the-River into two smaller units.5

Other renderings, for instance by Hansjörg Schmid (1981, 132– 135; 1995, 78–87), added details of Babylon’s supposed destruction, such as the diversion of the Euphrates and the demolition of its ziggurat. Furthermore, the Daiva inscription was used as evidence of Xerxes’ supposed policy of intolerance,6 and the dwindling amounts of Babylonian clay tablets in his reign were presented as proof of decline after his violent suppression of the revolts.7

In 1987, Amélie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White argued that Böhl’s account “was based on a careless reading of Herodotus combined with incomplete Babylonian evidence and an implicit wish to make very disparate types of material harmonize with a presumed “knowledge” of Xerxes’ actions, policies, and character.

 The supporters of the earlier orthodoxy had misinterpreted several clues: the passage in Herodotus about Xerxes’ removal of a statue from the temple of Babylon concerns the statue of a man rather than of Marduk; by Xerxes’ time the Akitu festival had long been suspended so that Xerxes could not have been responsible for any change of program; the shortening of his titulature happened gradually, not abruptly; and the element ‘King of Babylon’ continued to be used occasionally even into the reign of Artaxerxes I. 9

Xerxes or their aftermath: the Kedor-Laomer texts, for instance, have been explained as a literary reaction to repression in the later Persian period (Foster 2005, 369). A memory of a Babylonian uprising against Xerxes is preserved in Ctesias (Tuplin 1997, 397; Lenfant 2004, 124; Kuhrt 2014, 167) and echoes may be contained in Herodotus’ account of Xerxes’ sacrileges in Babylon (1.183; Tolini 2011, 447 ‘echo déformé’) and in the Zopyros episode (Rollinger 1998, 347–348; but see Rollinger 2003, 257). Otherwise, Greek accounts are either oblivious of the revolts or they preserve garbled recollections at best;

see Kuhrt 2010 and 2014.
 5Böhl 1962, 111 and 113.
 6Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1980, 1–47.
 7Joannès 1989a, 126; van Driel 1992, 40; Dandamaev 1993, 42.
 8 The quote is from Kuhrt 2014, 166 where she reflects on the 1987 article with SherwinWhite.
 9 See Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1987.

    • The Ancient Near Eastern Chronology ForumTory
      Re: Artaxerxes, king of Babylon
      Sat Jun 11, 2011 03:31
      198.78.98That may or may not be conclusive but Dandamayev knows these families and their archives like the back of his hand. So when he says in 1995(?), eleven years after the Kessler text was published, that the title “King of Persia, Media, King of Babylon and Lands” (LUGAL Par-su Ma-da-a-a LUGAL E.KI u KUR.KUR) is not attested at all for Artaxerxes the First, his word is good enough for me until someone proves him wrong.I think we might be missing the real mark here. Even if Artaxerxes I did use the above title, and the Kessler text from Uruk dates to his reign, the original question was did any Achaemenid ruler after Darius I and Xerxes I ever use the royal title “King of Babylon” immediately after their nomen. In Nehemiah 13:6 we have “Artaxerxes, King of Babylon.” In the Kessler text “King of Babylon” comes after “King of Persia, Media” not after the nomen Artaxerxes. It’s no trivial point. The Nehemiah text is exactly what Darius I and Xerxes I did (what Babylonian scribes did) with the title “King of Babylon” in Babylonian documents. It was affixed to the nomen as if to say it was the king’s primary title. That does not happen again until the Year 4 Artaxerxes tablet OECT X 191 from Hursagkalama and the other tablet from this location but with year-date broken away (OECT X 229).

I notice Rollinger is not absolutely certain these documents or the Kessler text dates to Artaxerxes I. He simply says that if they do there would be a remarkable continuity in the use of the “Babylon” element in the Achaemenid royal titulary after Xerxes. I am inclined to believe, at least for the moment, and possibly being misled in this by Dandamayev, that these three tablets all date to the reign of Artaxerxes II, perhaps in this relative order:

Artaxerxes II year 4 “King of Babylon, King of Lands” (OECT X 191)
Artaxerxes II year x “…Baby]lon and Lands” (OECT X 229)
Artaxerxes II year 24 “King of Persia, Media, Babylon, and Lands” (Kessler)

In Year 4 (401) Artaxerxes II defeated his brother Cyrus on the battlefield in Babylonia (Cunaxa). Hence “King of Babylon, King of Lands.” Towards the middle of the reign Babylonian scribes shifted back to putting the main Persian title “King of Persia” or “King of Lands” immediately after the nomen.

Darius & the Kingdom of Arta


This is Part IV in my exploration of the challenges and criticisms raised by Rick Lanser in his article The Seraiah Assumption as posted on the Associates for Biblical Research website here: The Seraiah Assumption

Do you really believe the Bible accurately records ancient history?

In this article and forthcoming articles, as we further expand on the history of the Biblical figure Darius I or as he is described in the book of Ezra, Darius even Artaxerxes, I hope to impart to you a renewed sense of wonder and appreciation for the accuracy of the Biblical record. Frankly though, the amazing accuracy of the Biblical record is only part of the real story, and the lesser part at that.

You see, I believe that Biblical history was not written in a contextual vacuum. It has a purpose, and that purpose is to provide you and me with the chronological and contextual foundation upon which to understand and believe the Bible’s redemptive story.  As I’ve often shared with you in these articles, by the Bible’s own testimony, its stories and its chronology, when understood in its intended context, offers compelling evidence that shows us our Creator, Yahweh, has been actively directing history to bring about His redemptive plan for mankind through His Yeshua (Jesus). (The Hebrew name Yeshua means Yahweh’s Salvation or the Salvation of Yahweh.)

The most unique aspect of the Bible and its message is that Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind has been spelled “from the foundation of the world” in prophetic utterances which were given before the events described came to pass. These prophecies offer unique proof that the Bible is a divinely inspired testimony that can be trusted to provide us with a window into the past, an understanding of the present, and the confidence to face the future – all of which gives us the assurance and grace to live this life with meaning and purpose.

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:20-21)  

That window into the past, present, and future only makes congruent sense when it is seen through the contextual lens of Yahweh’s salvation, His Yeshua.  As John explained in Revelation 19:10

            “…the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Yeshua” (Rev. 19:10)

In other words, the “spirit of prophecy “  is the testimony of Yahweh’s salvation for mankind.

Darius and the Spirit of Prophecy
In all of the Bible’s 66 books, there is only one prophetic utterance that provides mankind with a specific and verifiable timeline for the coming of Yahweh’s promised Messianic redeemer, His Yeshua.

That prophecy is found in  Daniel 9 and what most of us know today as the prophecy of 70 “weeks” or more accurately the prophecy of 70 Sevens.  It’s worth repeating, this is the only prophecy in the Bible which provides specific chronological synchronisms between Biblical and secular history. It would not be an exaggeration to say that upon this prophetic utterance hangs the chronological bedrock of a vast part of Bible’s prophetic record.

As a Berean, one of the things that has really challenged me over the years is the lack of stewardship by many of my peers regarding the chronological foundation of Daniel 9.  If Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens prophecy is really as important as nearly all expositors of Bible prophecy claim (and indeed I believe it is) then why has the chronological foundation upon which this divine prophetic countdown to the Messiah has been built so inadequately addressed?

Do you really believe that Yahweh gave us a specific prophetic utterance that tells us when His Yeshua would come and then leave it up to us to guess about when that countdown to the Messiah would begin? Take for instance the reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus). Did you know that there are only a very few Persian records that mention him or his reign? Little of what we know about this Persian king comes from actual Persian inscriptions or other first hand Persian era records.

Yet, today the vast majority of Biblical scholars claim it is this obscure Persian king who gave a “commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” upon which the Bible’s singularly most important prophetic utterance is chronologically fixed and upon which the rest of this detailed  prophecy is built.   

Take for instance Mr. Lanser’s claim as expressed in his article The Seraiah Assumption, that it was the 7th year of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) that is the basis upon which the 70 Sevens of Daniel 9 are built. I quote Mr. Lanser:

Conclusions
This examination of the decrees issued by Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes makes it clear that only one can be regarded as fulfilling the requirements of Daniel 9:25, namely, that of the seventh year of Artaxerxes I Longimanus. With his first regnal year beginning Tishri 1, 464 BC, his seventh year began in the fall of 458 BC. Since we know that Ezra departed for Judea on the first of Nisan in the spring of 457 BC (Ezra 7:9) and his journey took a full four months, he arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month, Av, the summer of 457 BC. We will discuss the ramifications of this for the date of the coming of the Messiah in a future article.

Think about Mr. Lanser’s well meaning claim above about the starting point of the “decree” to restore and build Jerusalem. It’s very specific, isn’t it? Did you know that this decree by this “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 7 is not even dated in the Bible? I challenge you to look for yourself. The decree by the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 is not dated in the Bible. The dates given by Mr. Lanser and many of his peers are simply well-meaning assumptions and extrapolations based upon the description of events given in the book of Ezra after the undated decree of Artaxerxes was given. Why in the world would Yahweh have given such specific chronological details about the coming of the Messiah in Daniel 9, yet fail to provide a specific date upon which to synchronize these prophetic utterances?

 This in my opinion is incongruent in the extreme.

From the witness of Yaweh’s words in the Bible and the witness we have of His handiwork in the world around us, Yahweh’s does not reflect His character in this manner. If in fact Yahweh left us this wonderfully precise prophecy telling us exactly when the Messiah Yeshua would come,  then based upon what we know of His character, it is only reasonable to believe that the chronological starting point upon which this prophecy is built must be of the same exacting and precise nature.

Darius and the Crux of Messianic History
The specificity of the Prophecy of 70 Sevens drives home the importance of having a contextual and accurate understanding of the Bible’s 2nd temple era history and its related chronology.  Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind, as it is unfolded in the pages of the Bible reaches critical mass in the 2nd temple era as the final books of the Old Testament were penned.

Step back a moment with me and look at a panoramic view of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The final Old Testament revelations of the messianic covenants, promises, and prophecies were written during the reigns of the Persian kings of the 2nd temple era. The next 5 centuries of Biblical silence are spanned by the prophetic bridge of Daniel 9 and its 70 Sevens. Those five centuries of silence end with the opening words of the book of Matthew who penned a list of Yeshua’s ancestors which (prove in a most elegant of ways), that indeed Yeshua was, is, and always will be the thrust Biblical history. Further, as I’ve demonstrated in numerous articles on this blog and my books, that amazing list of names specifically links Yeshua to Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens prophecy in a most astounding way.

As I have shown in this series and I hope more fully elucidate in coming articles, the thrust of Old Testament Messianic prophecy reaches its climax during the reign of the Persian king Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes. Seen from the perspective of secular history it was also during the reign of Darius ‘the Great’ that the Persian kingdom reached the height of its power and influence.

For Such a Time as This
Because of Darius’ influence on Persian history, his reign and the related chronology is the most well established of the Persian era if not all of Old Testament Biblical history. Think about the implications of that for a moment. At precisely the point in history when Yahweh needed to provide mankind with a way to synchronize Biblical and secular history so He could prove to mankind that His Yeshua was the promised Redeemer, we have the reign of the Persian era’s most influential king, who himself commissioned one of the most detail accounts of Persian history by which we can synchronize the events of Biblical and secular Persian history.  Not only did he commission such a historical statement he nearly immortalized that statement in the granite rocks of Behistun. This information combined with the known astronomical records from the Persian era, the reign of Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes and the events during his reign, as described in the Bible, can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.

To give you a graphical example of Darius’ mark on history, the following chart shows the known Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions for the Persian kings from Cyrus to Darius II (Nothus). For further reference please see the table of Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions at Livus.org.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

To give you a further sense of how little is known (comparatively) about the reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) relative to the other Persian kings the following chart shows the distribution of known tablets from the reigns of the kings of Persia. As you can see the reign’s of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I Longimanus are the least documented of the Persian era. The following chart comes from Gerard Gertoux’s article, Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes.

 “Because of the small number of tablets the chronology of Artaxerxes reign was hard to verify. However, the discovery of the Murashu archives119 completely changed the previous reconstitution since a co-regency of several months (up till month XII)120 appeared between Artaxerxes I and Darius instead of a period ruled by two usurpers121.”   (Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes by Gerard Gertoux https://www.academia.edu/2421036/Dating_the_reigns_of_Xerxes_and_Artaxerxes )

 Artaxerxes Who?
As you can see from the chart above, the known Persian royal inscriptions for the reign of Darius ‘the Great’ are 10x better documented than the reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus).  Even this doesn’t do true justice to the disparity. Darius’ Behistun inscription alone comprises nearly 100 lines of Persian cuneiform text recounting important historical details that took place during his reign, details that align with the account of events described in the Bible.

 Contrast that to the roughly 35 lines of cuneiform text in total from the reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) – none of which provide any real historical details about Artaxerxes or his reign other than his lineage through his grandfather Darius I.

There is no question here about which one of these Persian kings would provide a more solid historical foundation upon which to synchronize Biblical and secular history. Hands done that designation goes to Darius I ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes.  As I will attempt to show in the coming pages and future articles, the knowledge we have about this great Persian king was just the foundation necessary to synchronize the Bible’s prophetic record with secular history so that future generations would have the confidence to believe that Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens prophecy does indeed prove that Yeshua was the Bible’s promised redeemer.

Darius Even Artaxerxes
If you’ve followed the articles in this series then you should have better grasp of the Biblical evidence which shows, that from the perspective of the author of the book of Ezra, Darius I ‘the Great’ was known to the Jewish people by the title “Artaxerxes”. While indeed this title was later used by Darius’ grandson Longimanus as a throne name, it does not appear to have been used in this way by the author of Ezra to describe the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 4:7-24 or when it was used in Ezra 6 & 7 to describe Darius I.  

 For more details on why I believe the Bible described Darius I as “Artaxerxes” please see the following articles. Please note these articles are part of an ongoing series in which I am responding to challenges and criticism of Rick Lanser of Associates for Biblical Research which he posted about my view regarding the chronology of the 2nd temple era and my belief that Darius is indeed known Biblical speaking as “Artaxerxes”. Please see those article below:

IntroductionThe Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption
Part ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part II – Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius the great Persian Artaxerxes: A Contextual Look at the Book of Ezra in the Light of Persian History

If you’ve read these article then you understand why I believe the most reasonable way to interpret Ezra 6-7 is to see that the author of Ezra was informing his readers that Darius ‘the Great’ was also known to the Jewish people by the title Artaxerxes.

In his article the Seraiah Assumption one of the key points that Mr. Lanser takes issue with is my statement that Artaxerxes was a title given to Persian kings. I quote from Mr. Lanser’s article:

“Artaxerxes” a Throne Name, not a Title
The gist of the Darius Assumption is that Darius I, known also as Darius the Great, could be referred to by the title “Artaxerxes.” This idea arises mainly from a particular interpretation of Ezra 6:14 which will be looked at later, but its roots lie earlier, in Ezra 4. In an article posted at https://www.the13thenumeration.com/Blog13/2016/09/08/who-is-the-artaxerxes-in-your-prophecy/, Struse writes:

It is important to understand that the term Artaxerxes is not a name; it is merely a title given to Persian kings, much like “Caesar” in Rome centuries later. In Ezra 4:7, the Persian Artaxerxes who ordered construction of the temple to stop was likely Smerdis, the Magian usurper, with his decree given at some point between the first year of Cyrus and the second year of Darius. But he is not necessarily the only Artaxerxes named in Scripture. As we will explore more fully in the coming articles, Darius ‘the Great’ was also known historically as Artaxerxes. For the present, just keep in mind that Artaxerxes is a title. We must allow the Bible’s chronological context to identify him.

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.

In the quoted passage above I believe Mr. Lanser does indeed make a valid point. Calling the throne name “Artaxerxes” of the Persian king Longimanus the grandson of Darius I, a title would not be correct. If I’ve stated or implied that in any of my many articles on this subject I stand corrected. 

I want to make a careful distinction here though between Longimanus and Darius. As I hope to show in the following paragraphs, before Artaxerxes was taken as a throne name by Persian kings starting with Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) this word had a rich meaning which summed up the religious/political world view of the Persian Empire, a world view that Darius I was largely responsible for establishing, and because of this, it is not without historical support to state (as the author of the book of Ezra does) that the kings of Persia in general were known by this title. To more fully explore this subject let’s go back in time with an interesting commentary by the Jewish Rabbi Rashi.

1000 Years Ago
Confirming that the Jewish people understood that Darius was also known by the title of “Artaxerxes” the influential Jewish Rabbi, Solomon ben Isaac (Rashi) nearly 1000 years ago in his commentary on the book of Ezra and Nehemiah had this to say about the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 6 and 7. (Please note the quotes by Rashi follow the Biblical passage he was commenting on. Color and formatting added by WS. Rashi’s quotes are in Green and Biblical passages in Blue.)

Ezra 6:14   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.

The elders of the Jews:
And the elders of the Jews were building and succeeding in their work, according to the prophecy of Haggai and Zechariah, and they built and founded the building by the command of the God of Israel and by the authorization of Cyrus, the first king of Persia, in whose days the laying of the foundation was commenced, and by the authorization of this Darius, the king of Persia

 and Artaxerxes:
He is Darius, but he was called Artaxerxes because of the province and the kingdom, for all kings of Persia were thus named just as all the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh

Ezra 7:1  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,

And after these incidents: of the building of the House
Artaxerxes: That is Darius

 Ezra 7:7   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.

of Artaxerxes: That is Darius.
in the seventh year: That is a year after the completion of the Temple.

 Nehemiah 1:1 The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace,

 the twentieth year:
This refers to the twentieth year of King Darius, who is identical with Artaxerxes.

 Nehemiah 2:1 And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence.

of… Artaxerxes:
That was Darius, and because of his kingship he was called this.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
A Kingdom of Truth and Justice
After reading these quotes by Rashi, (Thank you Larry for sharing them with me) I was led down a fascinating line of research related to the meaning of the Persian word “Artaxerxes”.  I wanted to know firsthand, to the best of my ability, what the word Artaxerxes really meant in the Persian language. Was there really any basis for Rashi’s claim that because of the “province and kingdom” all Persian kings were named “Artaxerxes”.

This detour added several weeks of fascinating and enjoyable research to this article. I started by learning the cuneiform symbols for the word’s Artaxerxes, Xerxes, Darius, and King. This allowed me to search through all of the published Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions (at Livus.org) for this word and its derivatives. In the images below I’ve highlighted the Persian cuneiform word we know as Artaxerxes as well as any derivatives of that word that I could find. If you are not interested please just skip the images and continue reading below. Please note that these copies of these cuneiform text and their translations are from livus.org. Highlights are my own.

The first image below comes from a block of stone found at Peresepolis between the courts of Darius, Xerxes, & Artaxerxes. The words are color coded so that you can more easily identify them.  The inscription is known as A1Pa.

A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created that heaven, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Artaxerxes king, one king for many, one leader for all.

I am Artaxerxes, the great king, the king of kings, the king of countries with all kinds of men, the king in this earth far and wide, the son of king Xerxes, the grandson of Darius, the Achaemenid.

Artaxerxes the great king says: by the grace of Ahuramazda, my father, king Xerxes, built this palace. After that, I built [it]. May Ahuramazda and the gods preserve me, my kingdom, and what I have built.

A1Pa, inscription from Persepolis
[Old Persian inscription, written on a block of stone. The fragments were excavated on the court between the Palace of Darius, Palace of Xerxes, Palace of Artaxerxes I, and Palace G. The beginning of the Old Persian version is missing, but can be reconstructed because the Babylonian translation is better preserved.](Image and translation curtesy of Livius.org here)

Identifying Persian Words in A1Pa
One of the nice things about this inscription from the reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) is that it gives us a basis for identifying the words, King (xsayathiay), Great King (xsayathiya vazraka), King of Kings (xsayathiyanam xsayathiya), Xerxes (Xsayarsa), Artaxerxes (Artaxsaca / Artaxsacam), Empire/Kingdom (xsacam). By the way this inscription from the reign of Longimanus comprises the majority of what we know about Longimanus from his own royal cuneiform inscriptions.

Arta-xsacam  – Artaxerxes
What I learned by exploring these Persian words is that the Cunieform inscription for Kingdom or Empire (xsacam) is also found as part of the compound word Arta-xsacam (Artaxerxes).  This was further confirmed for me from Darius’ own Behistun inscription Column 1, Lines 18-26 as well as several other of Darius’ inscriptions. Here take a look for yourself.

Interestingly, I also found that xsaca was used as part of the word Satrap and possibly even house. Here are a couple examples:

Rashi’ Kingdom and Province
These etymological insights into the word Artaxexes and its underlying root word xsaca/xsacam which means kingdom / dynasty, and is the basiss for the word satrap provides some credence to Rashi’s commentary on the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra and Nehemiah.

He is Darius, but he was called Artaxerxes because of the province and the kingdom, for all kings of Persia were thus named…. (Rashi’s commentary on Ezra 6:14-15)

What does Arta Mean?
This led me naturally to consider the meaning of the other half of Artaxexes name, Arta. I was curious to know what I could learn about this word and how and why it was used as a prefix of the Persian word for Kingdom. What I learned was that word Arta is at the very heart of Pesian religious/political order and find it’s roots in Zoroastrian world view. Wikipedia (exerpted) defines the word Arta as follows:

Asha Asha; also arta; Avestan: aṣ̌a/arta) is a Zoroastrian concept with a complex and highly nuanced range of meaning. It is commonly summarized in accord with its contextual implications of ‘truth’ and ‘right(eousness)’, ‘order’ and ‘right working’.[1][2] For other connotations, see meaning below. It is of cardinal importance[3] to Zoroastrian theology and doctrine. In the moral sphere, aša/arta represents what has been called “the decisive confessional concept of  Zoroastrianism”…. 

Its Old Persian equivalent is arta-. In Middle Iranian languages the term appears as ard-.

The word is also the proper name of the divinity Asha, the Amesha Spenta that is the hypostasis or “genius”[5] of “Truth” or “Righteousness”.

Meaning
Aša “cannot be precisely rendered by some single word in another tongue” [1] but may be summarized as follows:

It is, first of all, ‘true statement’. This ‘true statement’, because it is true, corresponds to an objective, material reality that embraces all of existence. Recognized in it is a great cosmic principle since all things happen according to it.[11][j] “This cosmic […] force is imbued also with morality, as verbal Truth, ‘la parole conforme’, and Righteousness, action conforming with the moral order.”[12]

The correspondence between ‘truth’, reality and an all-encompassing cosmic principle is not far removed from Heraclitus’ conception of Logos.[13]

Artaxerxes – The Kingdom of Arta
It’s tentatively apparent from the entomology of arta and xsaca that the original meaning of the word Arta-xsaca most likely found its origins in Zoroastrian religious concepts of divine truth and the outworking of that concept as it related to the Persian empire, for indeed a direct translation of the compound word Artaxsaca could be rendered the “Empire or Kingdom of Arta” or alternatively “He who rules through Arta”. 

As Pierre Briant explains, it was Darius I who was first responsible for fusing a congruent political/religions ideology around the Zoroastrian concept of arta- truth and its dualistic principal drauga – the lie. I quote:

Beginning in the late 520’s Achaemenid monarchic ideology was articulated around rules and justifications where politics and religion were fused into a whole of rare consistency. The authority of the king and the rights of his family were henceforth under the protection of Ahura-Mmazda, who was invoked as the great god of the king and the Empire. The concept of arta (‘truth’)- in relation to its antithetical corollary, drauga (‘the Lie’)- was the true linchpin of this ideological structure. This is the program we see at work in the new residence in Susa and Persepolis as well as on the royal tomb at Naqs-I Rustam.

            Without in the least deprecating the work accomplished by his predecessors (chapter 2), we may thus assert that the advent of Darius marks the foundation of a new dynastic and imperial order. In this regard, the first year of his reign definitely represent a decisive period in Achaemenid history. (p. 138, From Cyrus to Alexander by Pierre Briant)

I’d encourage you to take an hour or two to read through Darius I’s royal inscriptions. They do indeed confirm that he believed that his kingship was the result of the divine favor of Ahura Mazda the Persian creator god of Zoroastrianism. This mandate Darius believed, led him to impose upon the known world the Arta-xsaca (Greek Artaxerxes) – the Zoroastrian concept of Arta truth/order/righteousness and the Persian word for kingdom. In other words during the reign of Darius I, his empire in the political-religious world view of their day was may well have been known as Artaxsaca, the kingdom or order of Arta.

Darius as the divinely sanctioned ruler who achieved the glory of ‘arta’ for Ahura-Mazda and the Persian people would have indeed been associated with this concept of Artaxsaca and it is not difficult to see how Arta-xasaca the Kingdom (of Truth/Order/Righteousness) came to be identified with the Artaxsaca (the ruler) of that order.

Pierre Briant has some additional insights related to this subject, that are worth sharing:

            “This statement does not in any way imply that Darius completely altered the ideological strategy of his predecessors in the conquered countries. But what is clear is that in just a few years, at the instigation of Darius, Persian royal authority was endowed with a uniformly steady and coherent politico-religious ideology. More than ever, in times of peace and times of war, the king was the earthly proxy of his god Ahura-Mazda.” (p. 128, From Cyrus to Alexander by Pierre Briant)

The Persian concept of Artaxsaca provides some clarity as to why, early on in the Persian empire, (as indicated in Ezra 4:7 and Ezra 6 – 7 and confirmed by the commentary of Rashi) the Bible identifies two Persian kings as Artaxsaca.

Darius the Great – Wikipedia

Only after the Persian empire had reached its glory under the reign of Darius I and then begun is political and social decline did future Persian kings deem it necessary to claim the divine political-religious concept of the kingdom as their own personal throne name. Indeed history is full of examples of what one generation considers as divine responsibility to achieve, subsequent generations consider a right to claim. (For more on the Zoroastrian concept and meaning of Asha/Arta see the Wikipedia article here. )

 

 

Pierre Briant thoughts on Longimanus’ choosing of the throne name Artaxerxes are also illustrative of the dynamics at play:

The Position of the New Great King
One of the new king’s first acts was to give up his private name and lake the throne name Artaxerxes, a custom that is first attested with his reign. The choice of a name meaning ‘whose power [is established through] Arta’ appears to indicate a desire to exalt the political-religious value of ‘thruth’ and dynastic loyalty, as his father and grandfather did – which was probably welcome after the difficulties in the succession.” (p. 570, From Cyrus to Alexander by Pierre Briant)

Protector of the Xsaca (Kingdom)
Two more threads of evidence are worth adding to the mix related to the use of Arta-xsaca. As previously mentioned the word xsaca is used as part of the Persian word xsacapava, what we know today as Satrap. Xsaca-pava literally means protector of the kingdom. Wikipedi explains it this way:

Satrap – root from xsaca-pavan
Etymology

The word satrap is derived via Latin satrapes from Greek satrápēs (σατράπης), itself borrowed from an Old Iranian *xšaθra-pā/ă-.[4] In Old Persian, which was the native language of the Achaemenids, it is recorded as xšaçapāvan (𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎱𐎠𐎺𐎠, literally “protector of the province”). The Median form is reconstructed as *xšaθrapāwan-.[5] It is cognate with Sanskrit kṣatrapa (क्षत्रपम्).

In the Parthian (language of the Arsacid Empire) and Middle Persian (the language of the Sassanian Empire), it is recorded in the forms šahrab and šasab, respectively.[6]

In modern Persian the descendant of xšaθrapāvan is shahrbān (شهربان‎), but the components have undergone semantic shift so the word now means “town keeper” (shahr [شهر‎] meaning “town” + bān [بان‎] meaning “keeper”).

The People of Arta
It is interesting to note that in all the Achaemenid royal inscriptions the word “arta” or its derivatives is only found in Xerxes daivd Inscription. In the following quote from Pierre Briant, he expounds on this. Note also in this quote that according to Heroduotus the Persian people were known as the Artaei.

The King, Ahura-Mazda, Life, and Death
The first interesting point about Xerxes’ proclamation is that it contains the only occurrence of the word artava in the Achaemenid inscriptions. The importance of the concept of arta for the Persian’s is well evidence by three observations:

    • (1) Herodotus says, formerly “the Persians…were known to themselves and their neighbours as Artaei” (VII.61);
    • (2) Hesychius defines the word as “the heroes among the Persians”
    • (3) Moreover, one of the courses of instruction given to young Persian was Truth. [truth = arta] (p. 550 From Cyrus to Alexander by Pierre Briant)

Herodotus’ claim that the Persian people were known to themselves and the others as the Artaei lends further credence to Rashi’s statement that the Persian kings were known by the title of Artaxsaca or as the Greeks translated the word Artaxerxes.

In Summary
From the evidence gathered in this article, there is reasonable historical evidence to suggest that in fact that the Biblical use of the term Artaxsaca to refer to other Persian kings before that term was chosen as a throne name by Artaxerxs I (Longimans) is entirely plausible.  As we’ve learned the word arta and its Zoroastrian concepts of truth, justice, and order is inseparably linked with the Persian people. As the divinely sanctioned head of the Persian imperial dynasty, Persian rulers would have naturally been associated with the kingdom identity of Arta-xsaca, that idea, in the eyes of their subjects, likely came to be understood as a title used to refer to the head of that divine order as exemplified in the Biblical book of Ezra.

Today I leave you with a final quote by Pierre Briant regarding Darius I and his incredible contribution to the Persian language and the immortalization of that arya upon the granite face of Behistun. As you read this quote consider the reign of Darius as it relates to the history of Ezra and Nehemiah and the monumental importance of establishing Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens upon a rock solid historical foundation (excuse the pun).

Though we fully reject the temptation to speak of evolution toward monotheism, we must recognize that in the official religion established by Darius, ahura-Mazda had a supreme position. He is designated as the sovereign deity of the pantheon, and the other deities are invoked only nominally. This privileged alliance conferred absolute power on the king, and no one could question athat power, except at the risk of divine displeasure. This is in fact the reason that the lie (drauga) and truth (arta) represent political and religious concepts simultaneously. The king rules over the lands and peoples (dahyava) thanks to the protection of Ahura-Mazda, and he must make truth reign and hunt down the lie among them in the name of the same precepts that govern relations between men and gods.
            But what is most novel about this monument is quite simply the fact that the Persian language (arya) was being written for the first time. Despite the continuing debate over the precise meaning of ꭍ70 and the actual act of transcribing a text already inscribed in Elamite, the inclination today is to recognize that Persian writing constituted a major innovation by Darius (who did not hesitate to use it at Pasargadae in order to tap into the prestige of Cyrus to his own advantage). Until this event, the king’s deeds were transmitted in Persian exclusively through recitation and song and through the intermediary of masters of memory. To be sure, oral transmission remained a constant throughout the long history of the Persian people, as shown by the notable role of the magi in general.  But this observation lends still more import to the first indubitable attestation of royal writing, inscribed in the presence of the king (and written on clay and parchment), a model that was followed by all of Darius’s successors. By this very action the Great King could claim that he himself was first of all a master of truth. He intended to control the tradition he wished to be transmitted to future generations: The royal word, inscribed for all posterity on the rock, was placed  under the aegis of Ahura-Mazda as protection against all those who might want to destroy it (DB ꭍꭍ65-67). This is how the king transmitted not only the memory of his unique exploits but also his genealogy. In this way he took appropriate measure to have his word disseminated throughout the lands of his realm (DB ꭍꭍ70), after having it authenticated – the text had previously been read to him.  At the same time, the memory of his royalty was fixed. No one, not even his successors (DB ꭍꭍ64), would have the right to question it: on the cliff at Behistun, the history of historians is forestalled for all time. (p. 126-127, From Cyrus to Alexander by Pierre Briant)

Next Time
Yahweh willing in my next article we’ll continue by exploring more of what the Bible has to say about the great Persian king whom it identifies as Darius even Artaxerxes.

 

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

My response to Rick Lanser’s – The Seraiah Assumption:
Introduction
The Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption

Part ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius 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 VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, 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 IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

Book 1
Book I - Description

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

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

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

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."