If I told you that I believed the 2nd coming of Christ was going to take place next year because I heard several of today’s leading prophecy teachers (whom I respect) are making the claim – what would you think? What would you think if I further told you, that I could not verify their claims from the Bible but I believed them because they were really decent, smart, and sincere?
If I ever were to make such claims, I hope you’d have the good sense to be skeptical and instead of taking my word for it, make sure you search the Scriptures to “see if these things be so”.
Now I certainly don’t have any special insight about the return of Yeshua next year and I don’t know of any prophecy teacher making such claims. Inexplicably thought, most of today’s smart and sincere expositors of Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens prophecy, expect you take their word (without Biblical evidence) for the starting point of the Bible’s countdown to the first coming of Christ.
Don’t believe me? Let me show you what I’m talking about. Most of you know or have heard of Thomas Ice, David Reagan, and Joel Richardson. By most standards, these men are well-spoken, smart, and sincere believers and teachers of the Bible’s prophetic word. Each one of them though, when it comes to Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens, instead of laying a sound Biblical chronological foundation for the starting point of the prophecy of 70 Sevens, simply ask you to take their word for it. Here take a look:
Thomas Ice
“Artaxerxes’ Decree It is clear to me that of all the options available, the only decree that specifically fits the statements of Daniel 9:25 is the one by Artaxerxes given in 444 B.C. as recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8. Why? Because decree one and two relate to rebuilding the Temple.” (Thomas Ice – The Seventy Weeks of Daniel – – For the full context of this quote please see the following Link)
David Reagan
“445 B.C. — Artaxerxes issued a decree to Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8).
On the surface, the third decree, the one issued to Nehemiah, seems to be the most obvious candidate for the starting date of the prophecy, for it is the only one that specifically relates to the rebuilding of the city. For that reason, most commentators have selected it as the beginning of the 70 weeks of years. ” (David Reagan, Daniel’s 70 Weeks of Years – – For the full context of this quote please see the followingLink)
Joel Richardson
“The only position that literally fulfills the requirements of the passage seems to be the decree from Artaxerxes as recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8,17-18 given on March 5, 444 B.C….
Only one decree matches or fulfills the Scriptural criterion of a decree issued specifically to rebuild the city.” (Joel Richardson, Daniel’s 70 Weeks: An Introduction – – For the full context of this quote please see the following Link)
Here is the trouble with the statements above. What the above well meaning authors fail to tell you is that there are at least two “Artaxerxes” mentioned in the Bible and at least three Persians who bear this throne name. Further complicating the issue is that word “Artaxerxes” originated as a Median administrative title which was then later used by Persian kings as a throne name. So even though Greek sources identify three Persian kings with the throne name of “Artaxexes”, the word may well have been used as an administrated title by Meads and Persians before it became a throne name taken by Artaxerxes I (Longimanus).
I find it Inexplicable that Mr. Ice, Mr. Reagan, and Mr. Richardson assert that Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) was the Persian king who gave a decree to “restore and build Jerusalem” in 444-445 BC, yet they make absolutely no effort to apprise their readers of the critical facts which let them to this conclusion. They simply make this foundational statement without a single Biblical chronological reference to back them up. Collectively, these men represent nearly a century of accumulated Biblical knowledge, yet none of their writings to date (that I’m aware of) provide a single piece of evidence to back up the most important foundational claims they are making regarding Artaxerxes’ decree and the date 444-445 BC.
Think about that for a moment. This date (444-445 BC) is the fixing point of their calculations for the countdown to the coming of the Messiah. All three authors admit the importance of the starting point of the 70 Sevens (Terminus a Quo) to a proper interpretation of the 70 Sevens. Further, each of the authors also acknowledges the profound importance the prophecy of 70 Sevens has to our understanding of Yeshua’s first coming and our understanding of His second coming as well. Yet, each fails to build his interpretation upon a solid Biblical foundation, rather they all, in respect to this critical subject, defer to the opinion of their peers.
Why is that? Why are most of today’s leading prophecy teachers like Mr. Ice, Mr. Reagan, and Mr. Richardson loath to give you a solid Biblical chronological foundation for their Terminus a Quo of Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens?
I won’t speculate as to their motivations but what I will say is that each day, each month, and each year that goes by, that they do not address this important subject, it undermines their credibility and ultimately the credibility of the Bible’s most important prophetic utterance. The only prophecy, it’s important to note, that provides a specific and datable timeline for the coming of the Messiah Yeshua.
I encourage you to ask them why they haven’t provided the basic Biblical fact to back up their claims. I’ve personally asked two of these authors how they arrived at their conclusions regarding this critical 2nd temple chronology of Ezra, Nehemiah, and their chronological relationship to the Biblical “Artaxerxes”. Neither could provide a single Biblical fact to back up their claims.
Do you want to know just how well your prophecy teacher understands the basic foundational chronology upon which they claim Artaxerxes Longimanus was the king who gave the commandment “to restore and build Jerusalem” of Daniel 9:25? Ask them to explain to you the following questions related to the 2nd temple era of the Bible. If they can’t give you clear and reasonable answers then you know they really don’t have the depth of understanding necessary to make definitive claims about this important prophecy.
Here are questions every prophecy teacher on Daniel 9 should have a grasp of in order to make any claim about the Terminus a Quo of Daniel 9:
Who is the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 and what does the chronology related to that king tell us about how the term is used in the Bible?
What does the use of the Medio-Persian word Arta tell us about the use of Arta-xerxes in the Bible?
Who was the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6 that gave a commandment to restore the rebuild the temple that was completed in the 6th year of Darius?
Explain the chronological transition from the temple completion in the 6th year of Darius I to Ezra’s excursion to Jerusalem in the 7th year of a Persian king known as “Artaxerxes”.
How could Ezra still be alive in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus when his father died in 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar?
How could the Priests and Levites who officiated in the days of Joshua and Zerubbabel be still alive in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus?
Explain the 1st and 2nd generational relationship between the Priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 and 12.
Who is the Mordecai of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, how is this man related to Esther and why is this important to understanding the chronology of the 2nd temple era and the Persian king “Artaxerxes”?
The prophecy of 70 Sevens is the Bible’s definitive proof given to the Jewish people (and all mankind) to prove that Yeshua of Nazareth was the promised Redeemer of the Old Testament. I challenge you to carefully read Mr. Ice’s, Mr. Reagan’s, and Mr. Richardson’s papers on Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens that I’ve linked in this article and see if you can find a single Biblical fact you can use to verify their claims that the Persian Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) in his 20th year (444-445 BC) was the “Artaxerxes” who gave the dabar (word) to “restore” (return) and build Jerusalem” described in Daniel 9:25. If you cannot, then I encourage you to write and ask them to explain their position with real Biblical evidence not just the well-meaning opinions of their peers. I want to stress here that I believe all three of these men are sincere believers who have a passion for sharing the Bible’s prophetic words. That being said, their interpretation of this wonderful prophecy is an illustrative example of what happens when you don’t laid a solid Biblical foundation for your teachings and beliefs.
In Closing I’ll leave you with a quote from each of these authors showing in their own words just how important this prophecy is to our Biblical world view. As you read their well-spoken words, ask yourself why, if this prophecy is as important as they say it is, didn’t take the time to establish it upon a rock-solid Biblical foundation as Yahweh, the living God of the Bible clearly intended? Also, ask yourself if they can’t provide you with verifiable Biblical facts related to their claims that Artaxerxes Longimanus gave the decree which began the Bible’s countdown to the Messiah, (no matter how well intentioned) what confidence can you place in their other conclusions about the prophecy, be it the 1st or 2nd coming of Christ?
To My Peers Mr. Ice, Mr. Reagan, and Mr. Richardson I sincerely hope you’ll take the criticisms expressed in this article in the spirit in which they are intended and use them to sharpen your exposition of this wonderful prophecy. Your unsupported assumptions regarding Artaxerxes Longimanus undermine the credibility of your claims about Yeshua and His fulfillment of the Bible’s most important prophecy. It is time for you and your peers to remedy this serious deficiency.
Thomas Ice
“One of the most important prophecy passages in the whole Bible is that of God’s prophecy given to Daniel in Daniel 9:24-27. This passage constitutes one of the most amazing prophecies in all the Bible. If worked out logically, this text is both seminal and determinative in the outworking of one’s understanding of Bible prophecy.”
Joel Richardson
“The prophecy of 70 weeks is one of the most critically important eschatological passages in the Bible, which the Church of the last days must properly interpret and understand.”
“F. Several critical issues are at stake in the proper interpretation of this passage.
1. At stake is the recognition of the present-tense, ongoing election and calling of the Jewish people. 2. At stake is the nature of this final future period of tribulation as necessary to accomplish all of the following specifically on behalf of Israel:
“To finish the transgression”
“To make an end of sin”
“To make atonement for iniquity”
“To bring in everlasting righteousness”
“To seal up vision and prophecy”
“To anoint the most holy place”
3. At stake is the Church’s recognition of the defining timing markers given to us by the Holy Spirit in Daniel and by Jesus personally.4.At stake is a proper understanding of the very nature of the Kingdom of God.”
David Reagan
“One of the most remarkable and important prophecies in the Bible is found in Daniel 9:24-27. It is the cornerstone of Messianic prophecy because it establishes the timing of both the First and Second Advents of the Messiah.”
Next Time – A WORD to rebuild Jerusalem Yahweh willing next time I look at the assertions made by Mr. Reagan, Mr. Ice, and Mr. Richardson about the “commandment” of Daniel 9:25. This commandment they claim referred to “building Jerusalem” which they arbitrarily limit to the reconstruction of the city walls and other infrastructure. Each of these authors claims that only the decree of “Artaxerxes” in 444-445 BC qualifies as a command to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and by their definition rebuilding the temple was not part of rebuilding Jerusalem. Is this an accurate point of view that can be supported from the Biblical record? I think you’ll be surprised at what the Biblical record reveals.
And what about the divine “word” Yahweh the living God of the Bible gave to the Jewish people to “return” and build? A word witnessed by Zechariah, Haggai, and Ezra? Why is this central event of the 2nd Temple era not even mentioned by Mr. Ice, Mr. Reagan, or Mr. Richardson, even though the “word” (dabar) of Yahweh is mentioned three other times in Daniel 9?
As we explore these important subject I think you’ll be surprised at how much the context of the 2nd temple era illuminates the starting point of Daniel 9 and the “word” to restore and build Jerusalem.
Maranatha!
Further Food for Thought: Why would a prophetic passage so exquisitely designed by Yahweh be given such an uncertain starting point as proposed by the authors above? Here are just a few amazing facts about Daniel 9 that shows why it is the crowning prophetic passage of the Bible and why its Terminus a Quo deserves a better foundation than well meaning assumptions:
Daniel 9:23-27 consists of:
100 Hebrew words designed in a manner to showcase the “7 sevens” (49) as the numerical center of the passage. In other words, Daniel 9:23-27 is 49+2+49 words. The two words sheba shebuw’ah in the numerical center of this passage themselves are an expression of 49.
100 Hebrew words consisting of 418 Hebrew letters designed to showcase the 10 letters that spell 7 sevens. These 10 letters are proceeded by 204 letters and 204 letters follow them. (204+10+204) In other words the 49 words that proceed the “7 sevens” in the numerical center of this passage, themselves consists of exactly 204 letters. The last 49 words of the passage also consist of 204 letters.
The word Seven in the numerical center of Daniel 9:23-27 is proceed by 49 words.
That same word Seven in verse 25 is the 13th word of verse 25 and it also is proceeded by the 49 letters of verse 25.
The Hebrew word “seven” in verse 25 is the 13 word of that verse. This word in Hebrew has the numerical value of 377. (13×29)
The Biblical calendar used by the Jewish people for thousands of years is lunar/solar. This lunar solar calendar typically has 12 lunar month but once very three years it is reconciled by the intercalary 13th month (13 x 29.53). If one were to calculate the 70 Sevens (490) units of time using this 13th month as a basis, those 70 Sevens would be a equal to a period of 515.05 years. From for “word” (dabar) to restore and build Jerusalem given by Yahweh, the living God of the Bible in the 2nd year of Darius as witnessed by Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra there it are precisely 515 years to the winter of 5 BC. By many conservative scholars calculations, 9 months later in the fall of 4 BC Yeshua of Nazareth was born. If the birth of Christ took place in the fall of 4 BC then his conception – that point when Yahweh’s Salvation – Yeshua – became flesh – would have taken place in the winter of 5 BC.
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:
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, andMattaniah, 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:
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 ofJonathan, 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:
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.”
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."
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 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.
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; 72To 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, 4Is 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.
(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.
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: 14And 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. 14Forasmuch 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.
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."
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."
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:) 2That 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 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?
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. 14Forasmuch 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: 14And 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.
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.
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).
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 achashdarpanﬢרפן(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.
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."
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."
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.
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).
King Darius says: These are the countries which are subject unto me, and by the grace of AhuramazdaI became king of them: Persia [Pârsa], Elam [Ûvja], Babylonia [Bâbiruš], Assyria [Athurâ], Arabia [Arabâya], Egypt [Mudrâya], the countries by the Sea….
“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)
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 bĕ [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 bĕ 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 bĕ [בּ] is not used exceptionally at all. In fact roughly half of the times ‘edayin is used, it has the preposition bĕ 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 bĕ 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 bĕ is used, it clearly describe a natural and chronological succession of events. For instance here is an occurrence of ‘edayin with the preposition bĕ 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.
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.
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:
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.
“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 Artaxerxesking, one king for many, one leader for all.
I am Artaxerxes, the greatking, the king of kings, the king of countries with all kinds of men, the king in this earth far and wide, the son of kingXerxes, the grandson of Darius, the Achaemenid.
Artaxerxes the great king says: by the grace of Ahuramazda, my father, kingXerxes, 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 Greeksatrápēs (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 Sanskritkṣatrapa (क्षत्रपम्).
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.
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."
If there is one unsung secular hero of Biblical history, I would say that honor belongs to Darius, son of Hystaspes, the great Persian king during whose reign Persia reached the height of its glory and power.
This week as I respond to the challenges and criticisms of Rick Lanser about my view of the 2nd temple era as described in his article The Seraiah Assumption we will take a closer look at Darius ‘the great’ and the profound influence this amazing Persian king had on the course of Jewish history. In the course of this exploration we will also get a clearer understanding of the Persian history described in the Bible. More importantly though, I hope the elucidation of this subject will give you a greater appreciation for the accuracy of the Bible and the congruency with which it describes historical people and events.
To help fill some of the context of what Mr. Lanser and I disagree about regarding 2nd temple era history, this week I’d like to provide you with a summary of the three foundational areas where Mr. Lanser takes issue with my view of the 2nd temple era history as described in his article The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25.
For those just joining this conversation, Mr. Lanser is the editor of Bible and Spade magazine, the publication of the respected apologetics ministry Associates for Biblical Research. This article is Part III of my response to Mr. Lanser’s article. The other parts of this series can be found here:
Mr. Lanser’s article is part of a research project that he is writing about Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens. To get the full context of the following quote, please see Mr. Lanser’s article here: The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25. Here is Mr. Lanser’s summary of how he understands my position:
Inspecting the Foundation Let us now examine the foundation on which Struse has built his case against Artaxerxes I Longimanus. We will do this by first identifying key assumptions he makes, then look for principles based on surrounding context by which to evaluate them. I identified three foundational assumptions in his articles:
Name sequences in genealogies identify fathers and their immediate sons. On this basis it is claimed from Ezra 7:1 that Seraiah, the last high priest before the exile, was the father of Ezra and brother of Jehozadak. We can call this the Seraiah Assumption.
The reign of Darius I of Persia sets the historical context into which everything in Ezra 4 through 6 must be placed. Therefore, the “Artaxerxes” mentioned in 4:7 and 6:14, as well as the “Ahasuerus” of 4:6, must be contextually understood as titles for Darius. We can call this the Darius Assumption.
Identical names in different genealogy lists can be used to construct a reliable historical chronology. Finding the names of people who arrived in Judea with Zerubbabel and Jeshua repeated in the time of Nehemiah and Eliashib indicates they are the same individuals, requiring Eliashib to overlap with the reign of Darius rather than Artaxerxes. We can call this the Eliashib Assumption.
Before we dig into what Mr. Lanser terms my “Darius Assumption” , an assumption he believes I have erroneously built my view of the 2nd temple era upon, I like to say something about what Mr. Lanser sees as my “assumptions” regarding points #1 & #3 above.
As I’ve stated at the beginning of this series or articles, my interpretational approach requires me to evaluate every passage of scripture in light of the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation best described by Dr. David Cooper as follows:
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
Both of the above Seraiah Assumption and the Eliashib Assumptions that Mr. Lanser claims I have made are predicated (by me) upon the premise that the Bible can and should be taken at face value in its most natural and plain sense. When the Bible plainly states that Ezra was the son of Seraiah, indeed I must assume, based upon my interpretational approach, and absent other clear and contextual evidence to the contrary, that this is exactly what the Bible meant. When the Bible provides generational listings of the Priests and Levites as father son relationships relative to the high priesthood of Joshua, Jehoiakim, and Eliashib, again absent any clearly and contextually defined evidence to the contrary, I am constrained by my interpretational approach to take these generational lists at face value in the most natural and plain sense in which they were conveyed.
One of the irreconcilable differences I have with Mr. Lanser and many of his peers who try to explain this important era in Biblical history is that they nearly all propose that the Bible should not be taken in its most literal sense regarding these subjects. In fact, according to their approach we must view much if not all of the 2nd temple era is in some ways as an exception to a straight forward reading of the text.
As I’ve explained in Part I of this series – Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4 and in the following article Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem when the Bible provides a reasonable and straight forward account of the Persian history in Ezra 4-6, an account that matches exceptionally well with what we know about secular Persian history, Mr. Lanser and many of his peers instead propose an explanation which requires us to view this account in an incongruent and what he describes as a “not strictly chronological” manner, a so called “thematic” perspective, which allows them to make claims about 2nd temple era Biblical history which I believe are not otherwise accommodated by the text.
When the text states plainly that Ezra was the son of Seraiah, Mr. Lanser and his peers take exception to this plain sense reading of the text and go to great lengths to explain why this passage is not to be taken literally. When the Priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12 are listed relative to the Joshua, Jehoiakim , and Eliashib, again Mr. Lanser and many of his peers must explain why these passages are not to be taken in the most natural sense as father son relationships and clear generational associations but rather refer to unspecific generational chronology. In subsequent articles I’ll explain why I believe my plain sense interpretational assumptions about Ezra, Seraiah, and Eliashib are the most reasonable and accurate way to interpret these passages. Further, I will show why these accounts of 2nd temple era history are exceptionally congruent and straight forward records which should strengthen your faith in the credibility of the Bible as an accurate clearly written account of real history.
Who was the Darius of Ezra 4-6? So who was Darius, the Persian king of Ezra 4-6? It’s unfortunate that Mr. Lanser adds additional complexity to this subject by misunderstanding and then erroneously stating my position regarding the kings of Persia in Ezra 4-6. As I explained in Part I of this series, Cyrus to Darius, I do not believe that the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 and the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23 are references to the Persian king Darius (son of Hystaspes) as Mr. Lanser stated regarding my position in the following quote:
The reign of Darius I of Persia sets the historical context into which everything in Ezra 4 through 6 must be placed. Therefore, the “Artaxerxes” mentioned in 4:7 and 6:14, as well as the “Ahasuerus” of 4:6, must be contextually understood as titles for Darius. We can call this the Darius Assumption….
If you are just joining this discussion I’d encourage you to read my previous two articles here & here as well as Mr. Lanser’s article here to get the full context of this important discussion. The bottom line is that in point #2 above Mr. Lanser’s – “Darius Assumption” is based in large part upon an unfortunate misreading and misunderstanding of my writings on the subject.
A Brief Recapitulation So what do I really believe about the Persian king Darius? Let’s pick up our exploration of Persian history where we left off in our previous two articles. Remember so far we’ve followed the Biblical account of the Jewish people’s return and resettlement of Judah starting in the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC) with Cyrus’ decree which allowed them to return and build the city of Jerusalem and Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary.
Those efforts to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple were met with harassment, first in the reign of Cyrus’ son Cambyses (Ezra 4:6), the king who the Bible simply identifies as Ahasuerus, and then again in the reign of Bardis the Magian usurper, the Persian king the Bible identifies as Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7-24).
As described in Ezra 4:7-24, the enemies of the Jewish people met with some success in their efforts to stop the Jewish people’s reconstruction of Jerusalem and the temple. In fact, during the reign of this “Artaxerxes” (Ezra 4:7-24) the Jewish people were forced to stop construction.
In Part II of this series we learned that in the 2nd year of Darius (son of Hystaspes), Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, commanded the Jewish people to return and restart construction on His desolate sanctuary. In defiance of Artaxerxes’ decree the Jewish people obeyed the command of Yahweh as given through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah and construction on the temple resumed.
In the mean time, the enemies of the Jewish people petitioned the new king Darius in an effort to halt construction of the temple and Jerusalem. Darius wisely checked the Persian records for the previous decree of Cyrus and when he found that it did indeed give the Jewish people permission to build Jerusalem and the temple he sent his own decree (which confirmed Cyrus’ original decree) and added his own blessing to the effort. Four years later, in the 6th year of Darius, Yahweh’s house was completed. Here is a brief recapitulation of the Biblical account:
Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them [2nd year of Darius – see Hag. 1 & Zech 1]. Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. Ezra 4:23 – 5:2
Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon. 2 And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of the Medes, a roll, and therein was a record thus written: 3 In the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Ezra 6:1-3
6 Now therefore, Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence: 7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place. 8 Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered. (Ezra 6:6-8)
12 And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed. (Ezra 6:12)
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. 15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:14-15)
Darius and Artaxerxes If you read the above account and the related context from Ezra 4-6 then by now you should have a pretty good grasp of what took place from the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC up until the 2nd year of Darius in 520BC when Yahweh gave His divine command which told the Jewish people to return and build Jerusalem. This events as related by Ezra 4-6, as we’ve seen are a straight forward, contextual, and clearly chronological rendering of Biblical history that matches flawlessly with secular Persian history, with one potential exception.
Let’s now turn to Ezra 6:14-15 and one of the few places in Ezra’s account which gives the reader pause.
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:14-15)
For those of you who have carefully followed this series and hopefully done your Berean duty and verified the context of these passages for yourself, it should be pretty easy for you to understand the people and events described here in Ezra 6:14-15.
The prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah we know was a result of the Yahweh’s “word” or dabar which commanded the Jewish people to return and build Jerusalem. That commandment by Yahweh resulted in the completion of the temple by the 6th year of Darius. Further the text tells us that the Jewish people “builded and finished” the temple by the decrees of the secular rulers Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
Keep in mind here that as we’ve seen from our exploration of Ezra 4, there is no “thematic” context (as Mr. Lanser and some of his peers assert), that allows us to claim the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23 is the Persian king “Artaxerxes” Longimanus. In fact the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 4 did not give a command which resulted in either the building or the finishing of the temple by the 6th year of Darius. It is imperative here to let the Scripture provide its own context. The Persian kings listed in the passage above, are all identified with the effort which resulted in the building and finishing of the temple by the 6th year of Darius (son of Hystapses).
So who is the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14?
The answer to this apparent conundrum is actually rather simple if understood in terms of the language this passage was written in. It’s a matter of Hebrew grammar. You see the letter waw attached to the Persian title “Artaxerxes” which we read in the KJV of the Bible as “and” doesn’t always have to be translated as a conjunction but if context dictates it can be used as a hendiadys or in other words, two words with the same meaning. Here is the TWOT Bible lexicon which explains the idiosyncrasies of this Hebrew letter:
519.0 – w (wa) . . . and, so, then, when, now, or, but, that and many others. (ASV and RSV similar.) The vocalization varies.
This is an inseparable prefix which is used as a conjunction or introductory particle which can usually be translated “and.”
The fundamental use of the prefix is that of a simple conjunction “and,” connecting words (“days and years,” Gen. 1:14), phrases (“and to divide” Gen. 1:18) and complete sentences (connecting Gen. 2:11 with verse 12). However it is used more often and for a greater variety of construction than is the English connector “and.”
It is often used at the beginning of sentences, for which reason the KJV begins many sentences with an unexplained “and.” This use may be explained as a mild introductory particle and is often translated “now” as in Exo 1:1 where it begins the book (KJV, ASV; the RSV ignores it completely; cf. Gen 3:1; Gen 4:1).
The item following the prefix is not always an additional item, different from that which preceded: “Judah and Jerusalem” (Isa. 1:1), pointing out Jerusalem especially as an important and representative part of Judah; “in Ramah, and his own city” (1 Sam 28:3), the two being the same place, hence the translation “even” as explanatory.
When the second word specifies the first the construction is called a “hendiadys,” i.e., two words with one meaning. For example, “a tent and dwelling” in 2 Sam 7:6 means “a dwelling tent.” (TWOT 519.0, emphasis mine)
In this series we’ve walked through the context of Ezra 4-6 together. If we take these events described in their most natural and plain sense then we are left with no other reasonable option but to translate the letter “waw” connected to the title “Artaxerxes” as a “hendiadys”.
There is really no mystery here. The author of Ezra was simply providing his readers with additional important context about the Persian king Darius, a king who he wanted us to understand was by his 7th year of reign also known by the title of “Artaxerxes”. I believe that Ezra 6:14 read in light of the context of Ezra 4-6 should have been translated in the following manner:
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.
15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. Ezra 6:14-15
It’s congruent, straightforward, and it allows us to follow the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation. The bottom line is there were no other Persian kings who gave commands that “builded and finished” the temple by the 6th year of Darius, this means that context demands we see the “waw” of Artaxerxes not as a conjunction but a hendiadys.
Defending the Artaxerxes Assumption Let’s now look at some of Mr. Lanser’s objections to understanding the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to the Persian king Darius. In the following passage Mr. Lanser uses Ezra 4:7-23 and his belief that his is a reference to Artaxerxes Longimanus as justification for inserting this king into chronology of Ezra 6:14. I quote Mr. Lanser:
Since we have just seen in our detailed examination of Ezra 4 that there is a “reasonable contextual basis” for the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 being Longimanus, there is reason to add a third king to the chronology of Ezra 6:14–15: it is in keeping with a thematic approach to the passage, like we saw in Ezra 4.
As I’ve shown in my previous two articles Part I –Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4 and Part II –Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore and Build Jerusalem this is a clearly erroneous interpretation of Ezra 4:7-24. The context of Ezra 4:23-24 does not allow for a non-chronological or thematic view of this passage. Ezra 4 is a clearly chronological recounting of Persian history that does not allow for the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 to be a thematic reference to the future Artaxerxes Longimanus.
Why Would Ezra 6 Introduce Darius as the Persian Artaxerxes Another of Mr. Lanser’s challenges to my interpretation of Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to Darius the son of Hystapses is his questioning of why would the author of Ezra refer to Darius consistently up to Ezra 6 but then add the title of Artaxerxes and then refer to him from Ezra 7 onward by only the title of Artaxrexes? Mr. Lanser explains his objection this way:
One is obliged to ask why the writer of the book of Ezra would have even bothered to introduce the name “Artaxerxes” into the narrative at Ezra 6:14, when this king had been uniformly referred to as “Darius” several times earlier in the book (4:5, 4:24, 5:5, 5:6, 5:7, 6:1, and 6:12). If “Darius” and “Artaxerxes” were indeed one and the same person, waiting until this late point in the narrative to introduce an additional designation for Darius does nothing but confuse the reader. Once one comes to terms with the fact there is nothing unbiblical about Seraiah being just an ancestor of Ezra, there is nothing to justify introducing a new label for him. Were it not for the genealogy in Ezra 7:1 seemingly implying that Seraiah ben-Azariah might have been Ezra’s father, one would normally expect “Artaxerxes the king of Persia” in Ezra 6:14 to refer to an entirely different man than Darius on a purely context-driven basis. This is a significant issue which the waw explicativum proposal above fails to address.
Once again this is where the credibility of the Bible’s account really shines. You see, there is a bit of Persian history that I believe explains this change of title. First, to get a better sense of the Greek use of Persian titles, it’s worth noting that the names or titles Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes are the Grecienize form of the original Persian names/titles. Herodutus presents the Greek perspective in the following quote:
Of the above names Darius may be rendered “Worker,” Xerxes “Warrior,” and Artaxerxes “Great Warrior.” And so might we call these kings in our own language with propriety. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 7169-7171). Kindle Edition.)
Faucets Bible Dictionary has a similar perspective on the title of Xerxes and Artaxerxes:
Faucets Bible Dictionary = 343 Artaxerxes 343.01 From arta, “great,” or “honored”; Artaioi, Arii, Sansk. Arya, being the old name of the Persians, and kshershe, “a king” = Xerxes = AHASUERUS
As you can see from the above quote from Herodotus, the Greek view saw the titles of Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes as titles that represent specific character traits of the Persian kings. Keep these titles in mind as we I provide you a brief history of Darius that explains why the author of Ezra likely added the title “Artaxerxes” or Great Warrior to the title of “Darius” the Worker after Darius’ 6th year:
According to Herodotus and Darius’ own Behistun Inscription, after the death of Cyrus, Cambyses, his son, took the throne. During Cambyses conquest of Egypt, Darius was a member of his royal bodyguard.
On Cambyses’ return to Persia from Egypt, Cambyses mysteriously died in Syria and his brother Bardiya (a.k.a Smerdis) son of Cyrus took the throne. Darius in his Bisitun inscription claimed that this Bardiya was not really the son of Cyrus but an imposter and with the help of six Persian nobles he executed Bardiya and assumed the throne himself. Darius’ murder of the Cambyses brother (who may or may not have been an imposter) didn’t go over very well in the rest of the Persian kingdom and there were revolts in many of the provinces.
It took Darius a year or two to clean up this mess and assume total control over the kingdom. Ezra’s account likely reflected this intimate knowledge of the realities of what was taking place from the provincial perspective.
Keep in mind that Ezra’s narrative of this aspect of Persian history began in the 2nd year of Darius when Darius (the Worker) was in the thick of trying to attain control over all the provinces of Persia. By the 7th year of Darius he had conquered his foes, expanded his kingdom, and assumed the title of Artaxerxes (the Great Warrior) as seen from the Jewish perspective of the author of Ezra.
In any case, Ezra’s account, far from introducing confusion as Mr. Lanser claims, instead provides accurate details about the rise of Darius the great Persian Artaxerxes to the pinnacle of power in the kingdom of Persia. We’ll look more at the history of Darius and the profound influence his reign had on the restoration and resettlement of Judah and Jerusalem in a subsequent article, but let’s first look at another one of Mr. Lanser’s objections regarding the “Artaxrerxes” of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to Darius the Great.
Scholars Don’t Agree In Mr. Lanser’s article the Seraiah Assumption he really takes issue with my explanation of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to Darius even Artaxerxes. One of his biggest complaints is that he cannot find a single Bible translation which agrees with my rendering of the text. Here are a few excerpts which illustrate Mr. Lanser’s complaints:
Ezra 6:14 and the Waw Explicativum Ezra 6:14 is another verse where the desire to avoid anachronistically introducing Artaxerxes I Longimanus into the narrative has given rise to creative ways of getting around it. One is a particular grammatical argument centered on the Hebrew letter waw. Prefixed to another word, waw is generally translated as a simple connective, “and.” There are places, however, where it can be used as what grammarians term a waw explicativum, where it equates the two items it joins and takes the translation “even.” Applying this understanding to Ezra 6:14b yields:
And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, even Artaxerxes king of Persia (KJV, emphasis added).
The error [of translating Ezra 6:14b as “and Artaxerxes”] is actually found in the English translation of the passage. It stems from presuppositional bias and the erroneous use of the Hebrew letter waw. In order to show that Ezra lived during the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, as they presupposed, the translators used the letter waw to form a conjunction instead of a hendiadys (two words with one meaning), as the context would dictate.
With all due respect to Mr. Struse, it is fair to say that 99% of people without any skin in the game would expect the well-trained professional scholars and translators of the various English versions of the Bible, particularly those who uphold it as the Word of God and take their responsibility to handle it carefully with utmost seriousness, to be in a good position to tell us what “the context would dictate.” To assert “presuppositional bias” and “erroneous use of the Hebrew letter” carries little weight when coming from someone without specialized training. He then goes on:
Since there is no reasonable contextual basis to assume that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 was another Persian king who helped finish the temple by the sixth year of Darius—especially a future one!—the translators should have used waw to form a hendiadys, not to denote two different people. Their decision to use the waw in this way was premised upon the necessity to show that Ezra was a contemporary of Artaxerxes Longimanus so that their messianic expectations concerning Daniel 9 could be satisfied. There is simply no other reason to add another Persian king to the chronology of Ezra 6:14–15, especially one who lived nearly sixty years after the events described were completed (emphasis added).
Unless he has actually been in touch with some English Bible translators, I doubt Mr. Struse is in a position to know about any premises or messianic expectations which may have influenced their work. Since we have just seen in our detailed examination of Ezra 4 that there is a “reasonable contextual basis” for the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 being Longimanus, there is reason to add a third king to the chronology of Ezra 6:14–15: it is in keeping with a thematic approach to the passage, like we saw in Ezra 4. How this applies to Ezra 6:14 is discussed by Dr. A. Philip Brown II, whose work we will examine later.
Concluding from the Seraiah Assumption that Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem must have taken place in the seventh year of “Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes of Persia,” Struse insists that his view is the only “reasonable” way of looking at the biblical data, and one who disagrees with it “hopelessly tortures the text” and “creates numerous interpretational inconsistencies”:
In summary, by every reasonable measure of biblical interpretation, Ezra was a contemporary of Darius ‘the Great’, and in fact the most reasonable reading of Ezra 6:13–15 supports this. Trying to stretch Ezra’s chronology to the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus hopelessly tortures the text and creates numerous interpretational inconsistencies which cannot be overcome with any reasonable rendering of the Bible’s chronological record (emphasis added).
Yet, in marked contrast to the certainty expressed above, the translation “even” is not part of any generally accepted English translation of the Bible (cf. the discussion of Anstey below), nor is it given as an alternative translation in the margin notes of any of 15 different English Bibles I checked. Rather, it reflects one individual’s grammar judgment call that hinges on the doubtful validity of the Seraiah Assumption. If the matter was so certain, we would think at least a single English translation would have made a marginal comment about the possibility, but we search for such in vain. This single word change of “and” to “even” is used to justify placing the journey of Ezra to Jerusalem not in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I Longimanus, but in the seventh regnal year of Darius the Great, i.e., 515/514 BC. Taking this approach would make Ezra, accepting via the Seraiah Assumption that he was 56 at the time of the first return under Zerubbabel in the summer of 536 BC, 78 years old when he arrived in Jerusalem in the summer of 514 BC. Though by this assumption Ezra was no spring chicken at his arrival, it sounds possible when contrasted with the alternative, so it is easy to see why this “what if” scenario might be an attractive idea.
Scholarship is Not Always Right Let me say up front that I have a great deal of respect for anyone, man, women, or child who is a dedicate student of Yahweh’s words. As believers all of us are required to be stewards of Yahweh’s holy words. Having said that, scholars, like the rest of us are mere mortals, they still make mistakes, are prone to group think, and frankly have the additional burden of peer pressure in their writings. This peer pressure and group think is more often than not a good thing, but sometimes it leads astray because too much respect is given to the opinion of other men and not enough respect given to the context of Yahweh’s word. I sincerely believe that is what happened in Ezra 6:14.
Mistranslating the Most Important Word in the Bible
Let me give you a glaring example of what happens when group think and tradition takes precedent over accurately representing what the Bible says.
If you had to choose the most important word in the Bible, what word would that be? A good case could be made that that word would be the name of Yahweh the living God of the Bible, wouldn’t it? It’s the single most important and most widely used verbal expression of His identity by which He revealed Himself to us in the Bible.
In the following list there are 26 different translations of Psalm 8:9 by some of the past several centuries most noted Biblical scholars. Of these, every single example has been translated inaccurately. Not only is the translation inaccurate but the scholars who provided the translation knowingly mistranslated this verse. Because of tradition, peer pressure, or possible even some degree of ignorance, these highly educated scholars all decided to replace the personal name of Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, with an impersonal title. Take a look for yourself:
KJV Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! BBE Psalm 8:9 O Lord, our Lord, how noble is your name in all the earth! CJB Psalm 8:10 ADONAI! Our Lord! How glorious is your name throughout the earth! CSB Psalm 8:9 LORD, our Lord, how magnificent is Your name throughout the earth! DRA Psalm 8:10 O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in all the earth! ERV Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! ESV Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! GNV Psalm 8:9 O Lord our Lord, howe excellent is thy Name in all the world! GWN Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name throughout the earth! JPS Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how glorious is Thy name in all the earth! KJG Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! LXE Psalm 8:9 O Lord our Lord, how wonderful is thy name in all the earth! NAB Psalm 8:10 O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth! NAS Psalm 8:9aO LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth! NAU Psalm 8:9aO LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth! NET Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord,20 how magnificent21 is your reputation22 throughout the earth!23 NIB Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! NIV Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! NKJ Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth! NLT Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, your majestic name fills the earth! NRS Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name in all the earth! RSV Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! RWB Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! TNK Psalm 8:10 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is Your name throughout the earth! WEB Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent {is} thy name in all the earth! BGT Psalm 8:10ku,rie o` ku,rioj h`mw/n w`j qaumasto.n to. o;noma, sou
Now I’ve made no secret that I’m only a high school (homeschooled) educated plumber. But stewardship of Yahweh’s precious words gives me and you the right, nay – the responsibility to translate this verse correctly no matter how many scholars tell us we should replace the holy name of Yahweh with a title.
O Yahweh our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
– Psalm 8:9
Did you know that this purposeful error in translating Yahweh’s name has been done over 6500 times in nearly every English and Greek translation of our Bibles? The Hebrew text is one of the few that accurately represents our Creators name.
Mr. Lanser is an exceptionally knowledgeable and dedicated scholar of the Bible, yet in his article The Seraiah Assumption, at least half a dozen times when quoting the Bible, he too conformed to group think, peer pressure, or whatever you want to call it, by knowingly using an erroneous translation of the verses which inaccurately replaces the holy name of Yahweh with an impersonal title. Decent well meaning intelligent scholars make mistakes too!
Now let me ask you, are you willing to read Ezra 4-6 in the chronological context we’ve explored in this series so far, and still not accept the possibility that the translators of this passage in all the English versions you choose to consult, out of well meaning tradition, messianic expectation, inadequate attention to context, or some other inexplicable reason might not have erroneously translated this incredibly important passage? I don’t care if you are an “uneducated” man like myself or a Phd in multiple deciples of Biblical studies, we all have the responsibility to show a Berean’s stewardship when reading and interpreting Yahweh’s words.
Context Decides the Artaxerxes Assumption
In my opinion, as informed by my interpretational approach, there is no other way to translate Ezra 6:14 other than by seeing it as an effort by the author of Ezra to inform his readers that Darius son of Hystaspes was also known by the Persian title of Artaxerxes.
Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes So working from the Biblical context we’ve explored so far, Ezra 6 ends with Darius (the worker) in his 6th year, transitioning into Darius the great Persian “Artaxrexes”.
Now once again humor me here. As we read the following passage from Ezra chapter 7, let’s assume the author was just relaying to us a chronological account of Persian and Jewish history in the same organized and detail manner in which the first 6 chapters of the book of Ezra are relayed.
Ezra 6 ended in the 6th year of Darius the Persian Artaxerxes. Ezra 7 opens in the 7th year of Artaxerxes. Using the context provided by Ezra 6, the most natural reading of the opening verses of Ezra 7 is that the Artaxerxes mentioned is none other than the Darius – even – Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14. Here take a look for yourselves:
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.
15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.
16 And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy17 And offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. 18 And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses. 19 And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. 20 For the priests and the Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves. 21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek YHWH God of Israel, did eat, 22 And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for YHWH had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel. (Ezra 6:14-22)
Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, 2
The son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, 3 The son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, 4 The son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, 5 The son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest: 6 This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which YHWH God of Israel had given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of YHWH his God upon him.
7 And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.
8 And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king.
For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him. ( Ezra 7:1-9 )
Transitioning from Reestablishing the Temple to Reestablishing Torah Observance If we allow the Bible to define its own context then this passage informs us that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 7 is the same Darius – even – Artaxerxes of Ezra 6. More importantly the text informs us of a transition from the building of the temple to the reestablishment of the temple service and the proper observance of the Torah.
Once the temple was completed the next natural step for the Jewish people was for them to start observing the Torah again. I think sometimes we impose on the text some of our own experiential biases. Today, even the poorest of the poor has access to the words of Yahweh as given in what we know today as the Old Testament. In the 2nd Temple Era, before the printing press, knowledge of the Torah was depended on hand copied scrolls or verbal instruction by those who had memorized the Torah.
Just before the destruction of Solomon’s temple by Nebuchadnezzar, knowledge of the Torah was so rare that when a copy was found and given to king Josiah to read by the scribe Shaphan it so profoundly moved king Josiah that he rent his clothes. Here is a brief account:
And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of YHWH. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.
And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes
13 Go ye, enquire of YHWH for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of YHWH that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.
(2 Kings 22:8-13 excerpted)
And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. 2 And the king went up into the house of YHWH, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH. (2 Kings 23:1-2)
Notice from this passage that once the Torah was found it was taken up to the temple and read by the king in the presence of the people gathered there.
The 7th year of Artaxerxes With this story in mind now consider and compare the events in the 7th year of Artaxerxes less than 100 years later. The temple had just been completed and dedicated in the 6th year of Darius – even – Artaxerxes. The following year Ezra whom the Bible describes as a “priest and scribe” whom the Bible further describes as the son of Seraiah (the last high priest of Solomon’s temple) is compelled to come up and teach the repatriated Jewish people the Torah. Remember Torah observance and its temple service required a completed and dedicated temple.
So it is only natural that once the temple was completed we find that Ezra “the scribe” felt it his duty as a custodian of the Torah to come up teach the Torah in order that the Jewish people might conduct their lives in accordance with Yahweh’s divine law.
Now let’s look at some of Mr. Lanser’s objections to Ezra traveling to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Darius – even – Artaxerxes
Struse, seeing in the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 6:14 a reference to Darius the Great, is inclined to have Ezra travel to Jerusalem the very next year after the Temple was finished, such that he arrived in “the seventh year of king Artaxerxes” (Ezra 7:7–8), which he equates with the seventh year of Darius I. But this is by no means upheld by the text—and it begs the question of why, if Ezra was 56 when Zerubbabel’s group left for Jerusalem, he did not join them at that time, but waited until he was in his late 70s to make the trip.
As we’ve seen by our contextual chronological exploration of Ezra 4-7, Ezra arriving in Jerusalem in the 7th year of Darius Artaxerxes is indeed supported by a plain reading of the texts. But what about Mr. Lanser’s question of why did Ezra wait so long to join his brethren in Jerusalem?
First of all there is no Biblical evidence that Ezra was not part of the early repatriated Jewish people who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel. In fact Nehemiah 12 tells us that there was a priest named Ezra who joined Joshua and Zerubbabel on their journey to Jerusalem circa 536 BC.
Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, 2 Amariah, Malluch, Hattush, 3 Shechaniah, Rehum, Meremoth 4 Iddo, Ginnetho, Abijah, 5 Miamin, Maadiah, Bilgah, 6 Shemaiah, and Joiarib, Jedaiah, 7 Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, Jedaiah. These were the chief of the priests and of their brethren in the days of Jeshua. (Nehemiah 12:1-7)
Another objection to Mr. Lanser raises to the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7) being the 7th year of Darius I is the contrast between the purity of those who dedicated the temple in the 6th year of Darius with the impurity of those who were married to foreign wives in the 7th year of Artaxerxes. Mr. Lanser believes this short period is not sufficient for the events described. He explains:
One can also draw from Ezra 6:16, 20 a corroborating inference that significant time passed between Ezra 6 and Ezra 7: “And the sons of Israel, the priests, the Levites and the rest of the exiles, celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy…For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves together; all of them were pure.” At the time of the dedication of the Temple prior to Ezra’s arrival, all of the priests and Levites were “pure,” and able to minister without reproach. Contrast that statement with what we learn in Ezra 9:1:
Now when these things [setting up for Temple worship right after Ezra’s arrival] had been completed, the princes approached me [Ezra], saying, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites.”
This alerts us that at some point between the completion of the Temple in Darius’ sixth year and Ezra’s arrival, the priests and Levites no longer met the standard of purity portrayed in Ezra 6:16, 20. The implication is that in the intervening time intermarriage with the local pagans had begun. The problem of taking foreign wives was a development that must have taken some years to unfold—a gradual secularism crept in as the passion for holiness seen in the pioneering returnees was diminished as succeeding generations were born in Judea. This was not something that could reasonably have taken place in a single year, between the sixth and seventh years of Darius. It implies that “after these things” required the passing of sufficient time for corruption to take root and begin spreading like leaven, even amongst those who should have been the leaders in resisting it—the priests and Levites.
Context here is again helpful. When the temple was dedicated in the 6th year of Darius, the people were ritually purified. This does not mean they were keeping the entire law or even all of the most important precepts of the law. In fact, the sacrificial system (which the Torah required) could not be instituted until after the temple had been dedicated. How could the reference to “purity” of the people at the dedication of the temple in Ezra 6 be a general reference which included all sins the people might have been guilty of if the temple service that was required to atone for those sins was not yet instituted? The point is that Ezra 6 and the reference to purity must have been seen within the limited ritualistic purity related to the dedication of the temple not a more general reference to the keeping of all precepts of the Torah.
The Son of Jeshua Took Foreign Wives
That a great deal of time did not transpire between Ezra 6 & 7 is also confirmed by Ezra 10:18-19 which tells us that some of the sons of Jeshua (the high priest) were among those guilty of taking strange wives. Taken at face value this verse provides reasonable evidence that Ezra 7-9 took place within one generation of the settlement of Jerusalem after the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC.
18 And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah. 19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass. (Ezra 10:18-19)
Please Note: In a subsequent article of this series we will look at the lineage of Ezra, and the lists of Priests & Levites of Nehemiah in order to address Mr. Lanser’s claim (#1 & #2 as quoted at the beginning of this article) that taking these passages at face value is an “assumption” not warranted by the text.
In Summary I hope this article has provided you the grounds to appreciate a straight forward natural reading of the Biblical text related to 2nd temple era, especially as it relates to the identity of the Persian king Darius who the Bible also identifies as Artaxerxes. I also hope that you won’t take my word for this fascinating and important era in biblical history, but that this article encourages each of you to do your Berean duty and, “see if these things be so”.
Maranatha!
Next Time
Yahweh willing in my next article we will look more closely at the Biblical and historical use of the Persian titles Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Ahasuerus. Along the way we’ll be addressing some more of Mr. Lanser’s objections to the use of Artaxerxes as a title that refers to the Persian king Darius I (son of Hystaspes) as exemplified by the following quote from Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption:
Calling Artaxerxes a title like “Caesar,” however, is incorrect. It is actually a throne name, which has a different significance. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throne%20name), a throne name is defined as “the official name taken by a ruler and especially an ancient Egyptian pharaoh on ascending the throne.” Specifically about Artaxerxes, the Encyclopaedia Iranica (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/artaxerxes-throne-name-of-several-persian-kings-of-the-achaemenid-dynasty) observes: “ARTAXERXES, throne name of several Persian kings of the Achaemenid dynasty.” The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Artaxerxes) notes: “[Artaxerxes] was borne by three kings of the Achaemenian dynasty of ancient Persia; though, so long as its meaning was understood, it can have been adopted by the kings only after their accession to the throne” [i.e., it was a throne name] (brackets and emphasis added). Recall also that Jacob Myers informed us that the three kings of Persia bearing that name were Longimanus, Mnemon and Ochus. I am unaware of a single authority who claims that Darius should be included. The point to take away is that “Artaxerxes” was a name replacement adopted by a king when he took the throne, not a title. A throne name is like the way Popes take on a new name when elected to that office. Newly elected Popes set aside their birth names and are henceforth known by the new one. A throne name is not the same thing as a title for their position, which is “Pope.” The very fact that the Scriptures refer to “King Artaxerxes” also illustrates this distinction between title and throne name, for if “Artaxerxes” was just a Persian term for “king,” he was in effect being called “King King.” That makes no sense.
Behistun Inscription – wikipedia
For further reflection I leave you this week with a quote from Darius I (son of Hystaspes) written at his direction on the cliffs of Mount Behistun in the Kermanshah Provice of present day Iran as well as two verses from the book of Ezra.
Line #1 I am Darius [Dâryavuš], the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia [Pârsa], the king of countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenid. (For a full rendering of the Behistun Inscription see the following link: Translation of the Behistun Inscription
Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, (Ezra 7:1)
12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time. (Ezra 7:12)
Authors Note: This is a multi-part series of articles responding to the Associates for Biblical Research criticism of my view of 2nd temple history as presented in an article on their website entitledThe Seraiah Assumption.
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."
In my ongoing effort to untangle the claims and criticisms raised by Rick Lanser in his recent article The Seraiah Assumption (published at the Associates for Biblical Research website) this week we will be exploring the context of Ezra 5-6 as it relates to the Persian king Darius (son of Hystaspes) and as it relates to Ezra, Nehemiah, and a divine command given by, Yahweh the living God of the Bible, telling the Jewish people to – return – and build His house.
This important aspect of 2nd temple era history is for the most part ignored by Mr. Lanser in his article The Seraiah Assumption and this oversight along with his errors concerning the chronology of Ezra 4 (See Part I of this series) creates unnecessary confusion regarding the events leading up to Ezra and Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem during the reign of a Persian “Artaxerxes”.
Here are a few related quotes from Mr. Lanser article The Seraiah Assumption which illustrate how his misunderstanding of Ezra 4 helped influence his interpretation of Ezra 6. I’d encourage those just joining this conversation to read Mr. Lanser’s entire article (here) so you can get the full context of these quotes. Further these quotes show why trying to explain Ezra 6:14 and the “commandments” mentioned there without providing the background context of Ezra 4-6 leads to some pretty serious interpretational errors that unnecessarily confuse the subject. I quote Mr. Lanser:
But as illustrated by our examination of Ezra 4 above, his context is too limited. It needs to be expanded beyond the immediate chronological context of Ezra 6:14, to include proper regard for the writer’s thematic context. When this is done, it provides the third “commended” king of Persia—Artaxerxes I Longimanus—that Austin could not find under the constraints of his purely chronological approach….
We are to understand that the writer presents the commandment of God in Ezra 6:14 as a single overarching decree, yet manifested through the individual edicts issued by Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes. This one decree of God—the word is a singular noun—is not completely unfolded until Artaxerxes contributes his part, notwithstanding that it is somewhat removed in time from the earlier contributions of Cyrus and Darius….
Before moving on, one more point can be made: since Ezra 6:14 tells us the one command of God had three kings involved in its outworking, we cannot say the decree of Daniel 9:25 had fully “gone forth” until Artaxerxes Longimanus added his contribution. We have to wait until Artaxerxes’ reign to find Daniel’s prophesied decree.(Rick Lanser – excerpts taken from his article The Seraiah Assumption)
Summary and Review of the Context of Ezra 4 In Part I of this series Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4 we learned that author of Ezra 4 provided a congruent and chronological summary of events which took place from the reign of the Persian king Cyrus up to the reign of Darius (son of Hystaspes). We learned that Cyrus gave the initial decree which allowed the Jewish people to return and build the city of Jerusalem and the temple. Then during the reign of the Persian Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6 (Cambyses), counselors for the enemies of the Jewish people tried to stop these construction efforts to no effect.
Subsequently during the reign of a Persian Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7-23 (Bardis), the enemies of the Jewish people were successful and construction on the temple was stopped. Ezra 4:24 tells us that construction was stopped until the 2nd year of the reign of Darius.
23 Now [‘edayin]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.
24 Then [‘edayin] 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 4:22-24)
The Prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah Ezra 4 closed with the nearly hopeless state of affairs in Jerusalem. The Jewish peoples efforts to restore Yahweh’s house had come to a standstill. The Persian king Artaxerxes (Bardis – the magian userper) had commanded that construction be stopped and the enemies of the Jewish people had done so by force of arms.
Then just when all hope seemed to be lost, once again Yahweh the living God of the Bible, reached down into the affairs of mankind to set in motion His redemptive plan for mankind.Ezra 5 opens with Haggai and Zechariah prophesying to the Jewish people. The text doesn’t say what was prophesied but the result was immediate. Here take a look:
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them.
Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. (Ezra 5:1-2)
So what do you think these prophets said that so challenged Joshua, Zerubbabel, and the Jewish people that they defied king Artaxerxes orders to stop construction? To find the answer we need to turn to the books of Haggai and Zechariah.
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word [dabar] 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,4Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?5 Now therefore thus saith YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways….
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.
9 Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith YHWH of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house. 10 Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit. 11 And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands.
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.
And 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, In the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king. (Haggai 1:1-15, excerpted for brevity)
Doing What is Right in the Face of Adversity A few things to notice from Haggai 1. First of all it is apparent that Yahweh was displeased with attitude of the Jewish people related to their efforts in building His house. Notice they were “building” their own houses. In fact construction activities were taking place in the city of Jerusalem but the people had their priorities wrong. They were building their own houses while Yahweh’s house lay desolate.
How many times in life have we excused our own lack of service to Yahweh by complaining about our circumstances? “I would have been nicer to that person if they hadn’t been so mean.” “I would have helped that person but I just lost my job.” “I would have done the right thing but the “law” says I can’t.”
That is what Yahweh was dealing with here regarding the construction of His house. His people weren’t really all that interested doing His work. They were just looking for excuses. Remember they’d been “building” the temple since the 2nd year of Cyrus and they still hadn’t even completed the foundation yet. When Artaxerxes said that they couldn’t build Yahweh’s house any longer they simply used that “law” as an excuse for not doing what was right in Yahweh’s eyes.
There is a valuable lesson here. Notice the text indicates their poor lot in life was in part related to their unwillingness to do what was right in Yahweh’s eyes. Yahweh was punishing their bad attitude and improper priorities.
Another thing worth noting here was that the counselors hired to represent the enemies of the Jewish people before the kings of Persia, framed the activities of the Jewish as if they were building the city of Jerusalem in an effort to rebel against the king of Persia, when in fact it was their half hearted efforts to build the temple that were really the concern. This just illustrates an important fact of life.
This life is a spiritual battle not against flesh and blood but against the “principalities, powers, and against the rulers of the darkness of this world.” Satan didn’t care if the Jewish people were building their own houses. What the adversary did care about was the reestablishment of Yahweh’s house and spiritual significance of that house. The temple of Jerusalem was the beating heart of the city of Jerusalem.
Building Yahweh’s House Was Building Jerusalem
This raises a curious point. Today most scholars claim that building the temple in Jerusalem was not “building” Jerusalem, despite the fact that the enemies of the Jewish people thought so (Ezra 4), Yahweh thought so (Zech 1; Hag. 1), and Daniel thought so (Dan. 9:4-22). To me such claims seems like a distinction without a difference. To claim building the temple was not “building Jerusalem” makes about the same sense as saying the development of the human heart in a baby is not part of the divine “building” process of our body that Yahweh encoded into the DNA of this human tabernacle. By any objective measure, building the temple in Jerusalem was indeed, “building” Jerusalem.
Zechariah receives the “word” of Yahweh
As stated in Ezra 5, it just wasn’t Haggai that received the word of Yahweh which commanded the Jewish people to return and build the temple. Zechariah also received a similar message to share with the Jewish people.
In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word [dabar]of YHWH to Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying,2 YHWH hath been sore displeased with your fathers. 3 Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith YHWH of hosts; Turn ye unto me, saith YHWH of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith YHWH of hosts….
Upon the four and twentieth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius, came the word [dabar] of YHWH unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying,…
12 Then 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.
14 So the angel that communed with me said unto me, Cry thou, saying, Thus saith YHWH of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.15 And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction.
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. (Zechariah 1:1-3, 7, 14-17)
There is so much important information here which grounds our understanding of the 2nd temple era on a solid contextual foundation.
First all notice that like the word give to Haggai this “word” (dabar) of Yahweh also came in the 2nd year of Darius. This word told the Jewish people that Yahweh had returned to Jerusalem with “mercy” and that His house would be build and that a line would be “stretched forth upon Jerusalem.” In other words, Yahweh told the Jewish people that His house, the very heart of Jerusalem, was to be built and this effort was in fact building or stretching a construction “line” upon Jerusalem.
Notice here that the text indicates that up to this 2nd year of Darius, Jerusalem and the Jewish people and their activities were under a cloud of divine “indignation”. That divine indignation the text tells us began 70 years earlier and then ended here in the 2nd year of Darius when Yahweh “returned to Jerusalem with mercies”. What is so neat about this statement is that it once again confirms just how accurate the Bible’s chronological record is when it relates history.
If we count 70 years back from the 2nd year of Darius (son of Hystaspes) in 520 BC we arrive at roughly 589 BC and what Ezekiel 8-10 describes as the departure of Yahweh’s divine presence from Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem. How awesome is that. 70 years after departing from Jerusalem and the temple, here is Yahweh the living God of the Bible, telling Zechariah and Haggai the prophets that He had “returned” to Jerusalem with mercies and He wanted construction on His house restarted.
As you look at the following chart remember that Part I of this series showed how the author of Ezra 4 gave an incredibly accurate summary of events between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, a summary which fits congruently with secular Persian history. In the chart below both of those important ‘bookends’ (Cyrus & Darius) of this chronology are further emphasized by marking the end of a 70 year period of time. That’s how cool the Bible!
The Temple Completed in the 6th Year of Darius
Four years after Yahweh had returned to Jerusalem with mercies and commanded the Jewish people to return and build His house, that house was completed. The beating heart of Jerusalem was once again serving it’s purpose in the city of peace. That’s what happens when we listen to Yahweh and do what’s right even in the face of adversity. As the Paul wrote to the Romans:
If God be for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31b)
Darius Rebukes the Enemies of the Jewish People
Let’s back up here for just a few moments now that we understand the context of Yahweh’s divine command to restore (return) and build the temple as given through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. We left off in Ezra 5 with the following verses for which you now known the fascinating back-story and context.
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them.
Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. (Ezra 5:1-2)
Once construction on the temple resumed it didn’t take long for the enemies of the Jewish people to try and stop this divinely sanctioned effort. This time though the Jewish people held firm, they were more afraid of Yahweh than the former decree of the Persian king Artaxerxes. So the matter was taken to king Darius and the Jewish people claimed precedence in the former decree of king Cyrus who had given them permission to build both the city and the temple.
Darius had a different attitude than the Magian usurper Bardis, so he made a search of the records and found the decree of Cyrus granting the Jewish people the right to return and build. Darius then wrote his own rather scathing letter to these enemies of the Jewish people telling them to leave the Jewish people alone or else! Here is an excerpt with some of the highlights. I’d encourage you to read all of Ezra 5 & 6 to get the full context.
Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon2 And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of the Medes, a roll, and therein was a record thus written:
In the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits;…
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. (Ezra 6:1-7 )
Finally Ezra 6:13-15 provides another chronological panoramic by summing up the chronology from Ezra 5 (the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah the word-dabar of Yahweh) and those who gave commands which resulted in the completion of the temple by the 6th year of Darius.
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.
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.
And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:13-15)
Let’s unpack this a bit more to make sure we can understand exactly what these verses are saying. Verse 13 tells that the enemies of the Jewish people obeyed the threatening letter of Darius and they left off harassing the Jewish people.
Verse 14 summarizes the history up to that point. First of all it points out that prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah was the catalyst that spurred the Jewish people’s return to the building efforts, the result of which was their “prospering” as Yahweh promised in Haggai 1 and Zechariah 1. The text further clarifies that building – and – finishing of the temple was the result of a command by the “God of Israel” and also the commands of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes.
For right now let’s not deal with the curious inclusion of Artaxerxes as one of those who helped build and finish the temple by the 6th year of Darius. We’ll explore that subject in the next part of this series, for now let focus on the other “commandments” first. Based upon the context we have explored in Ezra 4-6 does the Bible identify specific commands related to Yahweh, Cyrus & Darius which resulted in the building and finishing of the temple by the 6th year of Darius? Sure it does. Here are the commands as they took place chronologically.
Cyrus In 536 BC Cyrus ended the 70 years captivity of the Jewish people in Babylon. He allowed them to return and build the temple and the city of Jerusalem.
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. (Isaiah 44:28)
Yahweh After construction was stopped on the temple by the Persian king “Artaxerxes”, Yahweh in the 2nd year of Darius (520 BC) personally commanded Israel to return and build. This “commandment” was given as a word (dabar) of Yahweh through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah.
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word [dabar] of YHWH by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, ….
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. (Haggai 1:1-8 for brevity)
Upon the four and twentieth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius, came the word [dabar] of YHWH unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying,…
Then 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 [dabar]and comfortable words [dabar]….
Thus saith YHWH of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy….
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. (Zechariah 1:7-16 exerpted for brevity)
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo.
And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. 15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:14-15 excerpted for brevity)
Darius
In 520 BC Darius confirms Cyrus’ original decree and encourages the Jewish to continue their efforts to build the temple which Yahweh had commanded them to do. Four years later in the 6th year of Darius the temple was completed.
Now therefore, Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence:
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. 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.
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. And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed. (Ezra 6:6-12)
Comparing and Contrasting with The Seraiah Assumption
Now after exploring the context of Ezra 4-6 in a congruent and chronological manner consider the following quotes by Mr. Lanser once again. Do you think they represent an accurate explanation of the events Ezra 4-6 relates:
We are to understand that the writer presents the commandment of God in Ezra 6:14 as a single overarching decree, yet manifested through the individual edicts issued by Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes. This one decree of God—the word is a singular noun—is not completely unfolded until Artaxerxes contributes his part, notwithstanding that it is somewhat removed in time from the earlier contributions of Cyrus and Darius….
Doing this equates the command of God with the three-fold human command (singular!) of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes. That Brown’s view of the waw explicativum is possible does not necessarily make it so, of course, but it does show that Struse and Austin are not being equitable in the way they evaluate the translation possibilities. Fair-mindedness towards the data requires that they not insist their preferred view of this grammar question is the only one possible.
Before moving on, one more point can be made: since Ezra 6:14 tells us the one command of God had three kings involved in its outworking, we cannot say the decree of Daniel 9:25 had fully “gone forth” until Artaxerxes Longimanus added his contribution. We have to wait until Artaxerxes’ reign to find Daniel’s prophesied decree.
The claims Mr. Lanser makes in the statements above is why understanding the entire context of subject is so important. The commandment of God in Ezra 6:14 is not an ambiguous overarching thematic decree. Rather it was a very specific word (dabar) to restore and build Jerusalem given within a very specific sequence of chronological events and relayed through the mouths of the two prophetic witnesses of Haggai and Zechariah. That word (dabar) given in the 2nd year of Darius by Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, commanded the Jewish people to return and build His house, the beating heart of Jerusalem.
This context is so important lets summarize one last time:
23 Now [‘edayin] 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.
24 Then [‘edayin]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)
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them. Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. (Ezra 5:1)
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word [dabar] of YHWH by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, ….
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. (Haggai 1:1-8 for brevity)
5 But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they [the enemies of the Jewish people] could not cause them to cease, till the matter came to Darius: and then they returned answer by letter concerning this matter. (Ezra 5:5)
Ezra 6:1 Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon….
7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place.8 Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered. ( Ezra 6:7-8 )
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 finishedit, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:13-15)
Summary
In our exploration of the book of Ezra to date, we’ve learned that it is a straightforward and chronological account of the events relating to the building of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple starting in the 1st year of the Persian king Cyrus (536 BC) and continuing through to the 6th year of the Persian king Darius (son of Hystaspes) in 516 BC. The central focus of these events being Yahweh’s divine word (dabar) commanding the Jewish people to return and build His desolate sanctuary. This divine word we have learned came at the end of His 70 years of divine anger.
As I’ve demonstrated in my book The Jubilee Code: Prophetic Milestones in Yahweh’s Redemptive Plan, a reasonable case can be made that the 70 years of Babylonian captivity, the 70 years of divine anger, and the 70 years between the destruction of the Solomon’s temple and rebuilding and dedication of the 2nd temple, were a trifecta of 70 years periods which all had their origins within the 70th Jubilee cycle from Adam.
This important chronological information further underscores the significance of the timing of Yahweh’s divine “word” commanding the Jewish people to return and build His desolate sanctuary. In a future part of this series I’ll show why this divine word to return and build, given at this pivotal point in Biblical history, began the 70 “Weeks” of Daniel 9:24-27 and the Bible’s most famous countdown to the Messiah. The chart to the left demonstrates the significance of these events within the Bible’s larger chronological cycles.
I invite you to join me next time as we continue our investigation of this thrilling and important period in Biblical history.
Maranatha!
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.
Next Time
Now that we’ve laid a contextual chronological foundation for Ezra 4-6, Yahweh willing in Part III of this series we will explore the crux of the Artaxerxes Assumption. Who was the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 6:14 and why was his name added amongst those who “building and finished” the temple by the 6th year of Darius? In this upcoming article we will also address some the following related challenges and pointed criticism raised by Mr. Lanser in his article The Seraiah Assumption:
One is obliged to ask why the writer of the book of Ezra would have even bothered to introduce the name “Artaxerxes” into the narrative at Ezra 6:14, when this king had been uniformly referred to as “Darius” several times earlier in the book (4:5, 4:24, 5:5, 5:6, 5:7, 6:1, and 6:12). If “Darius” and “Artaxerxes” were indeed one and the same person, waiting until this late point in the narrative to introduce an additional designation for Darius does nothing but confuse the reader.
Ezra 6:14 and the Waw Explicativum Ezra 6:14 is another verse where the desire to avoid anachronistically introducing Artaxerxes I Longimanus into the narrative has given rise to creative ways of getting around it. One is a particular grammatical argument centered on the Hebrew letter waw. Prefixed to another word, waw is generally translated as a simple connective, “and.” There are places, however, where it can be used as what grammarians term a waw explicativum, where it equates the two items it joins and takes the translation “even.” Applying this understanding to Ezra 6:14b yields:
And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, even Artaxerxes king of Persia (KJV, emphasis added).
The error [of translating Ezra 6:14b as “and Artaxerxes”] is actually found in the English translation of the passage. It stems from presuppositional bias and the erroneous use of the Hebrew letter waw. In order to show that Ezra lived during the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, as they presupposed, the translators used the letter waw to form a conjunction instead of a hendiadys (two words with one meaning), as the context would dictate.
With all due respect to Mr. Struse, it is fair to say that 99% of people without any skin in the game would expect the well-trained professional scholars and translators of the various English versions of the Bible, particularly those who uphold it as the Word of God and take their responsibility to handle it carefully with utmost seriousness, to be in a good position to tell us what “the context would dictate.” To assert “presuppositional bias” and “erroneous use of the Hebrew letter” carries little weight when coming from someone without specialized training.
Book 1
Book I - Description
The 13th Enumeration
"A book that will change how you look at the Bible's Messianic Symbolism."
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."
Authors Note: This is a multipart series answering the criticisms and challenges posed by Rick Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption as published on the Associates for Biblical Research website here: The Seraiah Assumption .
Mr. Lanser’s article directly challenges my assertion that Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries of the Persian king Darius also known as ‘the great’ Artaxerxes.
Introductory Remarks Over the coming weeks, as I respond to Mr. Lanser’s – Seraiah Assumption, please keep in mind that this subject is the basis for the 70 “weeks” prophecy, the only prophetic utterance in the Bible which gives us a specific and chronologically verifiable date that proves Yeshua (Jesus) is the Bible’s promised Messiah. This is an incredibly important subject that we need to have clarity about. Further, Daniel 9 and the 70 “weeks” are the prophetic foundation upon which we base much of our beliefs about Yeshua’s 2nd coming, the rapture, the wrath of God, Israel’s restoration, and the coming messianic age. That’s a lot of weight resting on little understood and even less talked about bit of 2nd temple era history.
As we explore this wonderful history my understanding of the evidence will be filtered through the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation as described by Dr. David L. Cooper. His interpretational framework is as follows:
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
I want to make clear here, that I will first seek a “plain sense” interpretation, that a layman like myself would be able to understand and comprehend. This approach will see every word in a passage in its most primary, ordinary, usual, and literal meaning – unless – the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths – clearly indicate otherwise. I want to emphasis this, I will only look for an alternative meaning to “plain sense” reading of the text when the passage in question is contradicted by – clear and contextual – evidence found elsewhere in the Bible.
If any of us are to solve the challenges posed by Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption we must have a clear and contextual understanding of the history and chronology in question. To help facilitate such a contextual understanding of the subject, this week we will explore the Persian history as described in Ezra 4-6 and I’ll offer another perspective on Mr. Lanser’s claims and in at least one instance I’ll clarify where he has mistakenly misrepresented my position.
Let’s start with a brief overview of 2nd temple era to get a solid contextual fixing point.
Cyrus Ends the 70 Years Captivity of Judah One of the fastest ways to get off track when reading the Bible as it relates to its history is to ignore its chronological context. To clearly understand Ezra and Nehemiah’s place in Biblical history, we need to know a bit of the back story leading up to their importance in the events related to the restoration of Jerusalem and the Temple during what is commonly known as the 2nd temple era.
So with this in mind here are the Biblical passages which set the context for our understanding the book of Ezra. Please take a moment to read these important passages.
Therefore thus saith YHWH of hosts; Because ye have not heard my words, Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith YHWH, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations…
And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith YHWH, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations. And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations. (Jeremiah 25:8-13 – excerpted for brevity)
Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word [dabar] of YHWH by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, 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, 2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, YHWH God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of YHWH God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem. (Ezra 1:1-3)
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. (Isaiah 44:28)
Babylon 536 BC The book of Ezra opens with the statement that the Persian king Cyrus was used by Yahweh, the living God of the Bible to punish Babylon and end the 70 years captivity of Judah. According to the text, not only did Yahweh cause Cyrus to end the 70 years captivity of Judah in Babylon, but He also compelled Cyrus to allow the repatriated captives to restore the city of Jerusalem as well as rebuild the very beating heart of that city, Yahweh’s house, the temple which had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon. This restoration process began what is commonly known today as the 2nd temple era. The leaders of the repatriated captives were Zerubbabel (the governor) and Jeshua the high priest.
Ezra 1 and 2 informs us of the Judean captives who left Babylon and traveled to Jerusalem. Chapter 3 opens in the 7th month of the 1st year of Cyrus with the Judean captives assembling “as one man” at Jerusalem to set up an altar for sacrifices and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. Ezra 3:8 opens in the 2nd year of the Jewish people’s return to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel the governor and Jeshua the high priest organizing the Levites into a work parties in order to restart construction of the temple. Ezra chapter 3 ends with the following description:
Now in the second year 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…
And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of YHWH, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise YHWH, after the ordinance of David king of Israel.
And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto YHWH; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised YHWH, because the foundation of the house of YHWH was laid.
But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy: So that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people: for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar off. (Ezra 3:8-13 excerpted)
Before we move on to Ezra 4 and some of the complexities raised in Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption, there are a few things worth highlighting from the passages we’ve explored so far.
Cyrus (because of Yahweh’s divine will) ended the 70 years captivity of Judah in Babylon.
Cyrus’ “proclamation” allowed the Jewish people to restore both the city and temple of Jerusalem.
In the 7th month of the 1st year of their return the Jewish people kept the Feast of Tabernacles
In the 2nd month of the 2nd year of their return the priests and Levites laid the foundation of 2nd temple.
The Harassment Begins So the Jewish people are back in their land and construction on the 2nd temple was begun by the priests and Levites. Ezra 4 tells us that it wasn’t long after construction began, that the enemies of the Jewish people began to harass them in an effort to thwart reconstruction of the Yahweh’s house. Ezra describes it this way:
Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel; Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither.
But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.
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 4:1-5 – excerpted for brevity)
Ezra 4:1-4 tells of the initial effort of Judah’s enemies to hinder the temple construction. Verse 5 summarizes by saying these enemies hired counselors to facilitate this harassment and this harassment lasted from the reign of Cyrus until the reign of Darius the Persian. The following chart provides you with a handy reference guide for the commonly accepted succession of Persian kings and their dates and lengths of reign.
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
As you can see from this chart between Cyrus and Darius (son of Hystaspes) there are only two Persian kings noted in the historical record. This is important as we continue reading Ezra 4. Remember, my interpretive method demands that I accept it at face value in its most natural and plain sense.
So after Cyrus’ initial proclamation, Ezra 4:6 opens with the introduction of a new Persian king titled Ahasuerus during whose reign the enemies of the Jewish people continued their harassment. Now there are at least two ways to read this next passage.
The first is to conclude that Ezra 4:5 summarized the efforts of the Jewish people’s enemies to hinder the construction between the reign of Darius and Cyrus and that verses 6-23 provide further details about that harassment that took place during those roughly 16 years.
The 2nd way to look at this passage is to conclude that Ezra 4:6 onwards, ignores the Persian kings Cambyses and Bardis and jumps into the future describing unrelated harassment which took place after the reign of Darius sometime during the reign of a yet future Persian king who the Bible only describes as “Ahasuerus”.
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. (Ezra 4:6)
It’s worth noting here that regarding the Persian king named Ahasuerus the Bible does not indicate the efforts to hinder construction efforts were successful. But it was a different story altogether when Ezra 4:7 introduces a new Persian king named Artaxerxes. This Persian Artaxerxes king listened to the enemies of the Jewish people and after reading their letter he stopped construction of the temple.
Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me. Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?
Now when [‘edayin] 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. (Ezra 4:21-23)
All Construction of Jerusalem Stopped So it seems that the enemies of the Jewish people had won. This Persian Artaxerxes ordered all construction to be stopped until he gave further notice. Ezra 4 concludes with verse 24 as follows:
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)
In keeping with our attempt to see this from at least two points of view Ezra 4:24 could be understood in at least two ways:
The first and what I believe to be the most natural reading of the text is that Ezra 4 is a chronological explanation of successive events which took place during the reigns of the Persian kings Cyrus, Cambyses, Bardis, and Darius. Ezra 4:24 is the summary end cap of this successive chronological events. In other words, Cyrus gave permission for the Jewish people to rebuild the city and temple of Jerusalem. Then during the reign of Cyrus’ son Cambyses, counselors hired by the Jewish peoples enemies petitioned Cambyses to stop the temple construction. When that effort failed they tried again during the reign of the next Persian king who secular history identifies as the magian usurper Bardis. This attempt was successful and all construction stopped until the 2nd year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (As we will subsequently learn it was during the 2nd year of Darius (son of Hystaspes) that Yahweh the living God of the Bible commanded the Jewish people to return and build the temple.)
The second way to look at this verse is how Mr. Lanser chooses to interpret it. I’ll let him describe it in the following quotes from his article The Seraiah Assumption:
To summarize this point, to understand Ezra 4:6–23 “contextually” does not require a strictly chronological approach. The mentions of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are deliberate anachronisms introduced by the Spirit-inspired compiler of the records of Ezra-Nehemiah that would have been self-evident to his history-informed audience. There is no need to reinterpret the translated name of Ahasuerus or the throne name of Artaxerxes as forced references to Darius the Great. These names can be understood just as given elsewhere in Scripture, where they refer to Xerxes I and his son Artaxerxes Longimanus respectively. The plain sense is the right sense, and supports our contention that the Seraiah Assumption is the wrong way to approach the genealogy of Ezra in Ezra 7:1. (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2019/04/17/The-Seraiah-Assumption-and-the-Decree-of-Daniel-925.aspx)
The Thematic Context of Ezra 4:6–23 Now we come to the conclusion of Ezra 4:24b: “…and it was stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.” These words are the contextual key to the chapter. They directly connect verse 24 with verse 5, “all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.” The intervening verses 6 through 23 of Ezra 4 therefore constitute a parenthetical sidebar set between verses 5 and 24, continuing the theme of Samaritan-led opposition but now expressing it in their efforts to stymie the Jews in rebuilding the city instead of the Temple. The word “now” which leads off 4:6 has almost the sense of our expression “by the way…”—it introduces a jump to a tangential topic, which nevertheless has some relationship to what had already been discussed…..
In the above passage Mr. Lanser claims that Ezra 4:1-24 does not need to be read in strictly chronological manner. He suggests instead that verses 1-5 have in view the construction efforts of the Jewish people from reign of Cyrus (the Great) unto the start of the reign of Darius (son of Hystaspes) roughly 536-521 BC. Verses 6-23 he suggests are a parenthetical insertion that is not chronologically related to the verses 1-5 but describe events which transpire in the reigns of Xerxes (son of Darius) and Artaxerxes (son of Xerxes) over 40 and 60 years later respectively. After this chronological leap into the future, Mr. Lanser suggest that verse 24 jumps back from the future to the 2nd year of the reign of Darius (son of Hystaspes) in 520 BC.
This chronological incongruence Mr. Lander asserts is justified by his understanding of the use of the titles Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes elsewhere in Scripture.
If we apply Dr. Coopers approach to Ezra 4 we must first attempt to understand the passage in its most natural and plain sense given in the immediate context. Only when that fails are we justified in searching for an interpretation that goes beyond the plain sense meaning of the text.
Let me show you, why taking Ezra 4 at face value in its most natural sense as a congruent and chronological testimony of real Persian history is the best approach. In fact, as you’ll see Ezra 4 proves how important it is to stick to the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation as the go-to-method of reading the Scripture. To demonstrate this, let’s look at Ezra 4:21-24:
21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.
22 Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?
23 Now [‘edayin] 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.
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 4:21-24)
To refresh the context of the above passage keep in mind that Ezra 4:7 opens with the enemies of the Jewish people writing to a Persian “Artaxerxes” in an effort to stop construction of Jerusalem. Their claim was that the Jewish people were building the city (which Cyrus’ original proclamation allowed) and if Artaxerxes didn’t put a stop to the effort it would result in hurt to the king. The king believed the council of these evil men and ordered a stop to the construction efforts. Verse 23 tells us that Artaxerxes’ letter was delivered to the Jewish people in Jerusalem and their construction efforts were stopped “by force and power”.
Carefully notice, that verse 23 opens with the Aramaic word ‘edayin which means: then, afterwards, thereupon, from that time. In this case ‘edayin’ at the opening of the sentence is used to chronologically connect verse 23 to the events which chronologically precede it. To the extent that Mr. Lanser believes the events of Ezra 4:6-23 are all chronologically related, the use of ‘edayin’ confirms it. I agree with him.
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.
23 Now [‘edayin] 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.
24 Then[‘edayin] 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 4:22-24)
For those who would like to verify this for yourselves, here are the references for every occurrence of the word ‘edayin found in the Bible. (Ezra 4:9, 23f; 5:2, 4f, 9, 16; 6:1, 13; Dan 2:14f, 17, 19, 25, 35, 46, 48; 3:3, 13, 19, 21, 24, 26, 30; 4:7, 19; 5:3, 6, 8f, 13, 17, 24, 29; 6:3ff, 11ff, 18f, 21, 23, 25; 7:1, 11, 19)
What this contextual evidence demonstrates is that the Persian “Artaxerxes” mentioned in Ezra 4:7-23 is in fact a Persian king who ruled at some point previous to Darius (son of Hystaspes) and that by no natural reading of the text could this refer to the Persian king Artaxerxes (Longimanus). So let’s look at Ezra 4 in its natural chronological sense.
Ezra 4 opens with Jewish people beginning their construction on the temple based upon the original proclamation of Cyrus. The text then tells of efforts of their enemies to undermine those efforts. Verse 5 informs us that these enemies hired councilors to harass the Jewish people from the reign of Cyrus until the reign of Darius. Verses 6 onwards describes how these councilors petitioned a Persian king named Ahasuerus (Cambyses) to stop construction, when that did not produce results, Verses 7-23 describes how these councilors then petition a subsequent Persian king named Artaxerxes (Bardis). Their efforts to undermine the temple construction were successful with this “Artaxerxes” and in verse 24 it tells us that ‘then’ (‘edayin’) they were able to stop construction on the temple and it stopped until the 2nd year of Darius (son of Hystaspes).
23 Now [‘edayin] 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.
24 Then [‘adayin] 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)
Ironically, Mr. Lanser notices that the author of Ezra likes to give an overview of events and then fills in the details afterwards but fails to appreciate this habit as it applies to the summary of events in Ezra 4:1-5 and the subsequent details of verses 6-23. He rightly observed when quoting Brown in another place in his article:
“Having discussed the chronological anomaly above, Brown moves on to another which shows that the author of Ezra-Nehemiah displays a penchant for first telling where he is going, then explaining how he gets there.”
As you’ve seen this penchant for “first telling where he is going” that is exactly what happened in Ezra 4. The book opens with a general overview of events between Cyrus and Darius and then the author fills in the details by telling us “how he gets there”. Now take a look at our original chart which we can now update to reflect the new information we have learned by applying this plain sense reading of the text.
Misquoted and Misunderstood Before moving on there, are a couple places where Mr. Lanser seems confused about my interpretation of Ezra 4:6-7 as it relates to Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. He states the following in his article The Seraiah Assumption:
Just as in the case of Ahasuerus in verse 6, it is alleged that Artaxerxes in verse 7 is a title for Darius the Great. But why would the same king bear two different titles? That this is Struse’s understanding is clear from this statement in his “Queen of 127 Provinces” article: “The common thread of all the above references is that Darius ‘the Great’, also known as Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus…” (emphasis added). Why would Ezra 4:6–7 mention the same king twice, by different names, in back-to-back verses that bear every indication of talking about different people? I cannot follow this logic, and feel constrained to search for a better solution. By suggesting that both Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are titles for Darius I, Struse has expanded the identifying terms as necessary to maintain his theory. But a theory that cannot be falsified is one that cannot be proven, either. (Lanser – http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2019/04/17/The-Seraiah-Assumption-and-the-Decree-of-Daniel-925.aspx)
I want to make clear here that I’ve never stated or frankly ever seriously entertained the idea that the Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:6 & 7 were references to Darius (Hystaspes) also known as ‘the great’. I’m not sure how Mr. Lanser arrived at this conclusion from reading my article Queen of 127 Provinces. I clearly did not intimate such an belief in that article. Those who would like to verify this for yourselves, can read the article here: Queen of 127 Provinces.
As we’ve learned in this article the Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4, based upon the immediate context, can only be references to Cambyses and Bardis respectively. The quote provided by Mr. Lanser above is taken out of context and the chronology of Ezra 4 is not the subject under consideration. As I demonstrated in Queen of 127 Provinces, and Yahweh willing, will more fully elucidate in a subsequent article in this series, I do believe there is reasonable evidence which demonstrates that Darius (Hystaspes) was also known by the Greek titles of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. But to be clear – Darius is not who the Scripture has in view in Ezra 4:6 & 4:7.
Skipping the Context of the Divine Command to Restore and Build Unfortunately for readers of Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption, when explaining what he terms the “Darius Assumption” he skips the context of Ezra 5 & 6 which is critical to understanding the context of Darius’ place in the 2nd temple era. This is in my opinion a great oversight which in addition to his misreading of Ezra 4 severely handicaps Mr. Lanser’s understanding of the 2nd temple era.
Yahweh willing, in my next article in this series we will look at how Yahweh’s divine command to restore and build Jerusalem, as witnessed by the two prophets Haggai and Zechariah, provides the missing context which is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the efforts of the Jewish people in rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple during the reign of Darius (the son of Hystaspes). This information will further enhance our understanding of the Persian era and provide us with further grounds upon which to establish a reasonable and accurate understanding of the 2nd temple era and Ezra and Nehemiah’s place in it.
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them. 2 Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. 3 At the same time came to them Tatnai, governor on this side the river, and Shetharboznai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall? (Ezra 5:1-3)
Key Points to Remember:
Cyrus (because of Yahweh’s divine will) ended the 70 years captivity of Judah in Babylon.
Cyrus’ “proclamation” allowed the Jewish people to restore both the city and temple of Jerusalem.
In the 7th month of the 1st year of their return the Jewish people kept the Feast of Tabernacles
In the 2nd month of the 2nd year of their return the priests and Levites laid the foundation of 2nd temple.
The enemies of the Jewish people hired counselors to thwart their building efforts starting after the decree of Cyrus (536 BC) and continuing until the 2nd year of Darius (520 BC).
The most natural reading of Ezra 4 shows a congruent and chronological description of events from the reign of Cyrus until the reign of Darius (Son of Hystaspes).
This natural chronological flow of history is confirmed by the author of Ezra use of the Aramaic word ‘edayin. This word is used exclusively in the Bible to describe successive chronological information.
This then allows us to reasonably conclude that the “Ahasuerus” of Ezra 4:6 was the Persian king Cambyses (son of Cyrus).
This also allows us to reasonable conclude that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 4:7 is a reference to the Persian usurper king Bardis who was deposed by Darius (son of Hystaspes).
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."
I don’t know about you, but I hate when I get things wrong, especially subjects related to the Bible. It recently came to my attention that I’ve been making a statement that is not accurate. This week I want to set the record straight.
As many of you know, I’ve often claimed that the sum total of Sir Robert Anderson’s evidence for his Artaxerxes Assumption is a quote by Rawlinson regarding Artaxerxes’, Ezra’s, & Nehemiah’s place in the 2nd temple era. Well, it turns out, due to sloppy research on my part, this is not an accurate statement. To give you the context of my erroneous statement here is a quote taken from my book Daniel’s Seventy Weeks: The Keystone of Bible Prophecy:
“By far, the decree by this unnamed Persian Artaxerxes— once again presumed to be Longimanus, known to history as Artaxerxes I— is the most popular choice when scholars look for the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem prophesied by Daniel. Sir Robert Anderson, the great Christian writer, popularized this theory in his influential book The Coming Prince. Anderson does indeed make an impressive case, but surprisingly, he fails to address the scriptural basis for his belief that Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries of Longimanus. Instead, Anderson, in one of the most far-reaching eschatological errors of the past two centuries, simply defers to the judgment of the great historian Rawlinson. I quote Rawlinson as found on p. 71 of Anderson’s The Coming Prince:
“Artaxerxes I reigned forty years, from 465 to 425. He is mentioned by Herodotus once (6. 98), by Thucydides frequently. Both writers were his contemporaries. There is every reason to believe that he was the king who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem, and sanctioned the restoration of the fortifications.”— RAWLINSON, Herodotus, vol. 4, p. 217.
Did you catch that? “There is every reason to believe” is the sum of Rawlinson’s and Anderson’s evidence for Ezra and Nehemiah’s place in the Second Temple era! Not a single reference to Ezra’s age or the natural chronological flow of Ezra 6 and 7 is mentioned. Anderson, out of a well-intentioned necessity to prove his interpretation of Daniel 9, simply ignored the biblical evidence, instead relying on Continue reading →
To this day one of the most important, yet least understood aspects of Bible prophecy is the history of Ezra, Nehemiah and their contemporary, the great Persian king “Artaxerxes”. Even less understood is how this history has shaped Continue reading →
The Hebrew word “seven” in verse 25 is the 13 word of that verse. This word in Hebrew has the numerical value of 377. (13×29)
I don’t know about you, but I hate when I get things wrong, especially subjects related to the Bible. It recently came to my attention that I’ve been making a statement that is not accurate. This week I want to set the record straight.