Did the Jewish Rabbis Alter the Bible to Hurt Christianity?
In my last article, we learned there was no smoking gun of Rabbinic manipulation of the Hebrew Old Testament texts. The best “evidence” that those who hold this Christian conspiracy theory could come up with were second hand accounts and the belief that the Jewish rabbis of the 2nd century had “motive, means, and opportunity” to change the Hebrew Masoretic (MT) text of the Old Testament in order to undermine the Christian belief that the Yeshua of Nazareth was the Old Testament’s promised Messiah.
We also learned in the last article that the Septuagint text of the Old Testament was in fact purposely changed in thousands of places. This manipulation was likely a well-meaning attempt to make it more appealing to the Greek speaking audience of its day. Kind of like a “living translation” scholars compile today in order to make the Bible more understandable to their modern readers. I don’t agree with this mentality, nevertheless, I understand the reasons one might attempt such an effort.
Since there is no hard evidence the Jewish rabbis of the 2nd century manipulated the text of the Old Testament to undermine early Christian beliefs that Yeshua (Jesus) was the Old Testament’s promised Messiah, shouldn’t we as Christian’s give them the benefit of the doubt? I believe we should
In the interest of thoroughness though, let’s look at some of the Christian conspiratorialist’s circumstantial evidence to see if there is any validity to their claims.
Let’s start with the claim that the Old Testament chronology was shortened so that Yeshua of Nazareth did not arrive at the time expected of the Messiah. Here are a couple of quotes from Mr. Woodward’s – Rebooting the Bible pp. 199-200 that explain his arguments:
Voices Confirming MT Corruption of the Timeline Debating the nature of the differences between the LXX and the MT isn’t just a recent pastime of interested academics. It has been a hot topic for seventeen centuries! And scholars in the early Church arrived at the same conclusion that our study deduces: The rabbis of the first and second centuries changed the MT text in Messianic passages, but also “deflated” the Genesis 5 and 11 chronologies; Henry B. Smith Jr. informs us:
Ephraem of Syria [306-373 A. D.] is the first known ancient source to explicitly argue that the Jewish rabbis of the second century AD deflated the primeval chronology by ca. 1300 years in their Hebrew MSS for the purpose of discrediting Jesus as the Christ: “The Jews have subtracted 600 years [in Genesis 5] from the generations of Adam, Seth, etc., in order that their own books might not convict them concerning the coming of CHRIST: he having been predicted to appear for the deliverance of mankind after 5500 years.” Ephraem was one of many ancient authors who claimed that the rabbis deliberately reduced the primeval chronology for messianic reasons.224
Prophecy students are familiar with the notion that there would be a “Sabbath week” of millennia, meaning that biblical history would extend 7,000 years with the final 1,000 years being the reign of Christ –aka the Kingdom of David, or more appropriately, the Kingdom of God. Few know that this belief was widespread in Second Temple Judaism – meaning that the Messiah would appear before six thousand years had transpired. Says Smith, “Messianic chronologies were usually associated with the Days of Creation, with each day representing 1,000 years of history. In some schemes, the Messiah would arrive in the 6th millennium (5000-5999 AM), and usher in the kingdom in the 7th millennium (6000 AM).”225 Smith comments that this was done by the rabbis because “reducing the primeval chronology as presently found in the MT places Jesus’ life outside the time of the coming of the Messiah [This is, Jesus’s coming in 1 B.C., would have been too early for Jesus to qualify as Messiah].226 But Akiba had altered the dates so that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t come as the Messiah after 5,000 years!
Rebooting Early Christian Anti-Semitism There are several problems with Mr. Woodward’s and Mr. Smith’s reasoning above. To start with let’s address the origins of the Christian Conspiracy Theory regarding the unproven chronological manipulations of the Hebrew Bible by Jewish Rabbis.
In the quote above it is admitted that the first known ancient source who “explicitly“ argued that Jewish rabbis purposely manipulated the Hebrew text of the Bible was the early church father Ephraem of Syria. (306-373 AD) What Mr. Woodward and Mr. Smith fail to mention is that Ephraem was a rabid anti-Semite who wrote vitriolic rants against the Jewish people in an attempt to convince his Christian followers that the customs of the Jewish people were evil.
You see, the context of Ephraem’s words take place in the fourth century when it was still popular for many Christian believers to keep the Biblical holy day of Passover. Ephraem and other church fathers believed these “Jewish” traditions were evil and the Eucharist was the proper method to remember Yeshua sacrificial atonement on our behalf. Even though the Passover supper was in fact the symbol by which Yeshua taught his own disciples and those disciples taught their early followers to remember Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind and Yeshua’s part in that plan, many of the church fathers reject the Passover symbolism because of it’s “Jewishness”.
So you clearly understand the mentality of Ephraem and his unsupported claims that the Jewish rabbis manipulated the Old Testament chronology of the Bible; here are a few quotes reflecting his view of the Jewish people. These quotes come from several of Ephraem’s anti-semitic hymns which can be found here: Ephraem the Syrian
“Blessed is he who rejected the People [the Jewish people] and their matza Since their hands were defiled with precious blood!
For when the People went forth they bore leaven of idolatry along with matza.
See how the People refresh their outward appearance While in their heart dwells deadly poison.
For [the People] resembles the first serpent Who deceived us by giving us deadly fruit.
Don’t take that matza, brethren, from the People with blood-spattered hands
How much more unclean is matza, kneaded by hands that killed the Son!
The People that did not eat pork is a blood-stained pig.
‘I hate the Jewish dead! I loathe their bones in Sheol.
‘If only there was a way I could get rid of their bones from Sheol, for they make the place stink!
‘By the Holy Spirit, I’m astonished at how long I’ve dwelt among a People who smell as rank as their way of life!
‘Onions and garlic are the heralds of their deeds — (Numeri 11.5) The mind of that filthy People resembles their food.’
Ephraem’s claims of Jewish manipulation of the text must be seen through his depraved and unscriptural view of the Jewish people as reflected above. Ephraem clearly hated the Jewish people. His anti-semitic conspiracy theory about their manipulations of the Scriptures was likely rooted in this same evil.
Alison Salvesen of Jewish/Non-Jewish Relations explains the context of Ephraem’s Anti-Jewish Hymns this way:
Discussion of the sources The first three examples of Ephraem’s anti-Jewish works are taken from a series of hymns on the Unleavened Bread, for use in the days before the festival of Easter. It is clear from Ephrem, and from other writers of the period such as St John Chrysostom in Antioch in Syria, that Christians found participation in Jewish festivals attractive, with Pesach being a great favourite. Ephrem uses the strongest possible language to deter his congregants from eating matza with their Jewish neighbours. He also uses Old Testament Scripture very selectively and out of context, to support his argument that God has rejected the Jewish Chosen People, in favour of the ‘People from the Peoples’ (i.e., Gentile Christians). Ephrem’s goal is to get local Christians to accept the superior spiritual significance of Easter over Passover, and of Eucharistic bread (as symbol of the Body of Christ) over Jewish unleavened bread. https://jnjr.div.ed.ac.uk/primary-sources/rabbinic/st-ephrem-ephrem-the-syrian-c-306-373-ce-anti-jewish-hymns/
While not all early church fathers shared the vitriolic hatred expressed by Ephraem of Syria, many did consider the Jewish people (as a race) to be hopelessly flawed, and because of this supposed deficiency God cursed them with Torah observance and suffering. Justin Martyr, one of the earliest proponents of the Christian Conspiracy theory concerning the Rabbinic manipulations of the Hebrew text, had this to say about the Jewish people in his work: Dialogue with Trypho (a Jew). (Circa 155-170 AD)
We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.
The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.
What is so disconcerting about the sentiments expressed above is, first of all, their lack of love as exemplified by Yeshua’s death and resurrection for the sins of ALL mankind, not just the Jewish people. We are all flawed sinners in the eyes of Yahweh. Second, the Jewish people were and are special in the eyes of Yahweh because he chose them to fulfill his covenant with Abraham, that promise that through Abraham’s seed ALL nations of the earth would be blessed. Thirdly, the apostle Paul explained that it was Yahweh’s graciousness that used the rejection of Yeshua by some of the Jewish people and their leaders, to bring the good news of the gospel to the Gentiles – in order that BOTH Jews and Gentiles might be added to the family of God.
Romans 11:7-21 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9
And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Grafted into the Olive Tree As Gentiles grafted into the same source as the Jewish people, we should not get caught up in the reckless accusations of some of the early church fathers who saw the Jewish people as a hopelessly cursed race. Quite the contrary, the Jewish people as a race are indeed special in the eyes of Yahweh and they are and will continue to be a central fixture in Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind.
In fact, those of you who like me earnestly look for the return of Yeshua, it would behoove us to remember that Yeshua will not return again until the Jewish People as a nation say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord [Yahweh].”
I ask you then, what part are you playing in Yahweh’s plan to restore the Jewish people to favor in His sight? Are your words and actions helping or hindering the Jewish people in their understanding of the good news of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah? Making unfounded and slanderous accusations against the Jewish people, certainly does not further their understanding of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua – their JEWISH Messiah.
Luke 13:34-35 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! 35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
For those who would like to better understand the anti-Semitism of the early church fathers I encourage you to read Dr. David Reagan’s excellent article entitled: Anti-Semitism: Its Roots and Perseverance.
A Chronological Conspiracy Okay, so we’ve explored the antisemitic roots of the Christian Conspiracy Theory concerning the supposed Rabbinic manipulations of the Hebrew Bible. While the early church father’s anti-Semitic bias clearly contributed to their view of their unreliability of the Hebrew text of the Scripture, what about the facts of the case? Is their validity to the claims made above by Mr. Woodward and Mr. Smith that the MT Hebrew text of the Scripture was maliciously modified in order to hide the fact that Yeshua was the Bible’s promised Messiah?
Let’s do some chronological forensics to see if this Christian chronological conspiracy theory has any truth to it even though it was originally built upon an evil foundation of anti-Semitism. Might there be some truth to it, nevertheless?
Let’s look once more at Mr. Woodward’s and Mr. Smith’s claims regarding the chronological conspiracy of the Jewish Rabbis:
Prophecy students are familiar with the notion that there would be a “Sabbath week” of millennia, meaning that biblical history would extend 7,000 years with the final 1,000 years being the reign of Christ –aka the Kingdom of David, or more appropriately, the Kingdom of God. Few know that this belief was widespread in Second Temple Judaism – meaning that the Messiah would appear before six thousand years had transpired. Says Smith, “Messianic chronologies were usually associated with the Days of Creation, with each day representing 1,000 years of history. In some schemes, the Messiah would arrive in the 6th millennium (5000-5999 AM), and usher in the kingdom in the 7th millennium (6000 AM).”225 Smith comments that this was done by the rabbis because “reducing the primeval chronology as presently found in the MT places Jesus’ life outside the time of the coming of the Messiah [This is, Jesus’s coming in 1 B.C., would have been too early for Jesus to qualify as Messiah].226 But Akiba had altered the dates so that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t come as the Messiah after 5,000 years! (Woodward – Rebooting the Bible pp. 199-200)
Misunderstandings and Misrepresentations There are a couple of problems with Mr. Woodward’s & Mr. Smith’s representation of the early church’s belief in the 6 days (6000 years labor) – 1 day (1000 year rest) symbolism. First of all what we agree upon: Many of the early church fathers did indeed see Biblical history in terms of a 7000 year plan of God. Like Yahweh’s pattern at creation they saw the six days of Yahweh’s labor as 6000 years of mankind’s labor under the curse of sin, followed by a Sabbath rest of 1000 years where Yeshua literally ruled from the throne of David during the millennium. While there is clearly Biblical support for a 1000 year reign of Christ, Yeshua’s coming – during – the 6th millennium is nowhere clearly stated in the Bible.
Pre-Millenniallism and the Church Fathers
For more information on the Pre-Millennialism of the early church I’d encourage you to read Bob DeWaay’s article Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers. The article shows that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papias, Tertullian, Commodianus, Lactantius and Hippolytus of Rome all held some version of (7th day) millennialism (not 6th day).
As many before me have said, in many ways, Yeshua’s first coming could be seen as a secret mission. He came at His 1st coming to restore Israel’s and mankind’s spiritual fortunes and it is at His 2nd coming that the more physical manifestations of that redemptive plan will be revealed – to include Yeshua physical rule over the nations, a rule in which the nation of Israel will have an honored place.
But let’s get back to the conspiracy theory. To be clear, the invented accusation that because the Jewish Hebrew text of the Scripture placed Yeshua’s first coming in the 4th millennium instead of the LLX’s version of the chronology which places the first coming of Yeshua in the middle of the 6th millennium somehow constitutes proof of a Rabbinic manipulation is exaggerating the evidence to say the least.
Here take a look at the chronology of the Septuagint organized within the early church’s view of the 7000 year plan of Yahweh.
Click on image to enlarge
Good and Bad News First of all the bad news: According to the early church fathers’ view of Biblical history based upon the Septuagint (chart above), you and I have officially missed the millennial reign of Christ. The Good news is that we are now living in the age of the new heaven and earth and the New Jerusalem. Of course you must spiritualize much of what the Bible says about the coming messianic age to claim this age is in any way a fulfillment of what the Bible promises.
Missing the Millennium The above chart gives one an insight into understanding why from the 4th century onwards the literalist or chiliast (millennial) view of Biblical history of the early church was rejected in favor of a spiritualized (kingdom now) version of history.
The church based in part upon their rejection of everything Jewish, and their acceptance of the Septuagint’s chronology of Biblical history, saw that the Yeshua had not literally returned to reign from Jerusalem. Those who held to the Septuagint version of chronology and the 6000/1000 view of Biblical history sought an alternative version of history to explain their failed eschatology.
Definition: Chiliasm The belief that Christ will return to earth in visible form and establish a kingdom to last 1000 years. Also called millenarianism. — chiliast, n. — chiliastic, adj.
In the above chart note especially Ephraem of Syria’s chronological place in all of this. He, the first church father to specifically claim (according to Smith) that the Jewish Rabbis had manipulated the chronology of the Hebrew Bible to hide the messianic nature of Yeshua of Nazareth, himself made these claims when he stood at what his generation considered the very threshold of the millennium. Prejudiced by his hatred of the Jewish people, he might well have assumed that the Jewish version (MT) of the Scriptures was purposely concealing the soon return and reign of Christ.
Spiritualizing the Bible
Looking back we might explain the failed eschatological (chiliast) expectations of the early church fathers and their subsequent shift away from a literalist eschatological interpretation of Scripture to a more spiritualized view in a couple of different ways.
The early church fathers’ chiliast expectations (6000/1000) view of history was flawed since the Messiah didn’t come.
The Septuagint chronology of the Bible was inflated and it was not yet the end of the 6th millennium from Adam. In other words the early church fathers trust in the LXX was flawed and because of their anti-Semitic bias they were blinded to this possibility that the MT text of the Bible might have been correct.
The Rabbi’s Predicted the Coming of Yeshua Here is the real irony of this whole convoluted conspiracy theory. If the early church fathers hadn’t summarily rejected everything “Jewish” they might have realized that their conspiracy about the early Jewish manipulations of the Old Testament chronology were simply not accurate.
The fact of the matter is that Yeshua came precisely when the Rabbis believed the messianic age would begin. You see, like the early church fathers, many of the Jewish people believed in a 6 day (6000 yrs.) 1 day (millennial reign) view of Biblical history. The Jewish rabbis divided the 6000 years into three periods of time. The first 2000 years they called the Age of Chaos, the 2nd 2000 years the Age of Law/Instructions, and the 3rd 2000 years the Age of / Days of the Messiah.
Compiled in roughly 500 AD the Babylonian Talmud explained the Rabbinic Jewish view of Biblical history in the following way:
There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Ktina: As in the Sabbatic period, the seventh year is a release, so will it be with the whole world that one thousand years after six will be a release, as above cited verse [Isa. xii. i] and [Ps. xcii. 11]: “A Psalm or song for the Sabbath day,” which means the day which will be all Sabbath. And as [ibid. xc. 4]: “For a thousand years are in thy eyes but as the yesterday when it is passed.”
The disciples of Elijah taught: The world will continue for six thousand years, the first two thousand of which were a chaos (Tahu), the second two thousand were of wisdom, and the third two thousand are the days of the Messiah, and because of our sins many, many years of these have elapsed, and still he has not come.
Elijah said to R. Jehudah, the brother of R. Sala the Pious: The world will continue for no less than eighty-five jubilaic periods, and in the last jubilaic period ben David will come. (anonymous. The Babylonian Talmud (Annotated) (p. 317). Unknown. Kindle Edition.)
Take a look at the following chart. According to the Hebrew MT text of the Bible Yeshua’s first coming took place at precisely the beginning of what the Jewish rabbis believed to be the start of the Messianic age. From a Jewish rabbinic point of view any time during those 2000 years would have been time to expect the Messiah. That Yeshua came at the very beginning of this messianic period and many signs point to Yeshua soon return, the significance of this view should not be ignored.
Click on Image to Enlarge
You might be wondering, by what kind of logic could the early church fathers have claimed this was a manipulation meant to hide the messianic identity of Yeshua?
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Christian Conspiracy Theory of the early church fathers was so firmly rooted in their anti-Semitic view of the Jewish People that they were blinded to the truth and simply believed what seemed (at the time) to confirm their chronological (and eschatological) world view as given in the LXX version of the Bible.
While it is clear that the early church fathers were wrong about their unfounded claims that the Jewish rabbis manipulated the Hebrew MT chronology of the Bible to undermine Yeshua of Nazareth’s credibility as the promise Messiah. What is not so clear is whether the Septuagint version of chronology was inaccurate or the early church fathers’ view of a 7000 year plan of God was in error.
In my final article in this series (Yahweh willing), I will make a case for why I believe the chronology of the MT text of the Scripture is accurate in its projection of Biblical hisotry. I will also provide evidence to show that this version of the Old Testament chronology was known to the early New Testament church. Specifically, I will show that Matthew’s arrangement of Yeshua’s generations only makes sense if seen within the context of the chronology as given in the MT text of the Bible.
The “Dirty” Reason for Believing the Septuagint Please forgive my pun, but in exploring the modern resurrection of this Christian Conspiracy Theory regarding the Jewish manipulations of the Old Testament chronology, it became apparent to me that unlike the anti-Semitic roots of the past, the modern necessity for believing the LXX chronology had a more “scientific” albeit dirty reason.
I’ll let Mr. Woodward explain:
“Since the chronology also contributes to the case for Jesus Christ (as we will demonstrate later), the timeline was altered too – and dramatically so. The unintended consequences for Jews and Christians were not that significant. But over the last 200 years, during our modern era, this corrupted chronology has become a big problem. It became so since the science of Archeology started unearthing artifacts contradicting the dates supplied by the Masoretic Text.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – Introduction p. 14)
In our quest to know how God spoke through the Biblical authors, the LXX demands our highest respect and a good portion of our study. To discover the truth about the creation, the birth of humanity, the Great Flood, the Exodus, and so on, we must “reboot the Bible.” Many of the findings of Archeology can now much better be squared with God’s truth.” (Woodward, S. Douglas, Rebooting the Bible – The Creation of the Alexandrian Septuagint p. 63)
If you read the above closely you see the real driving reason behind Rebooting an ancient Christian Conspiracy Theory is to better align Biblical history with the consensus of modern archeology and the resulting history derived from it study.
Based upon the evidence that Mr. Woodward and other well meaning scholars like Mr. Smith have provided, I find little reason to believe in their conspiracy theory regarding the Jewish manipulations of the MT text of the Bible. Even if the facts and evidence are given an equal weighing against assumptions about motive, means, and opportunity, I beleive the scale tips decidedly in favor of the MT and the “Jewish” version of Old Testament history.
Maranatha!
This is a multi part article exploring the Rabbinic Forgeries Hypothesis Part I: Rebooting a Christian Conspiracy Theory Part II: The Anti-Semitic Roots of a Christian Conspiracy Theory
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."
The book of Esther is one of the books of the Bible that is truly a Biblical enigma. It’s the only book of the Bible that doesn’t mention Yahweh by name. It’s a Biblical drama in which a woman is the main hero and a man (Mordecai) is her facilitator and where these two Jewish heroes are known by their idolatrous pagan names. Finally, it is a story where the Jewish heroine, out of love for her people, is willing to outcast herself by marrying a pagan gentile king, that sacrifice then is used as the means of by which Yahweh preserved His people, and finally in a wonderful twist of destiny ends up bringing eternal honor not shame to Esther as a gentile queen of Persia.
What a thrilling, inspiring, amazing story, don’t you think? As wonderful as Esther’s and Mordecai’s story seems, there is much more to it. You see, as I’ll explain in the coming pages, once we understand the chronological context of Esther and her Persian king, the story of Esther takes on profoundly greater significance to the story of the Jewish people and Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. Not only did Esther save her people from the evil machinations of Haman, but it was her Persian king who was the agent whom Yahweh used to ensure the completion of the 2nd temple, reestablish its sacrificial service, rebuild Jerusalem’s fortifications, and possibly the most important of all, decreed that Ezra, the priest and scribe, reestablished Torah observance in Jerusalem and Judea.
Consider that for a moment. Without the efforts of Esther and her Persian king the social, political, and prophetic conditions necessary for the Messiah Yeshua to come would not have been in place. Without the efforts of Esther and her king, there would have been no temple, no priesthood, no sacrificial service, and no Torah observance – all of which were prerequisites for the coming of the Messiah. Think I’m exaggerating slightly? Well, if you let me, I’ll show you just how indispensable the story of Esther is to Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind.
If you’ve been a regular reader of this blog then you know that the theme or premise of this blog and its articles is that all the Bible and each of its 66 books contain important events and chronological details by which Yahweh reveals His redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua (Jesus). The Bible tells us that this redemptive plan is laid out according to a cosmic timeline preordained by our Creator. Because this redemptive plan is revealed through the Biblical ages, to fully appreciate its beauty and majesty, we must understand chronological context from which it springs.
The story of Esther and her king magnificently illustrates how important context and chronology is to Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. So let’s do a little digging to see some of the treasures Yahweh has hidden in the chronological context of Esther for us to find.
Who is Mordecai? To start with today, let’s fill in some of the chronological context of Esther by looking at what the Bible tells us about Mordecai. We start with Mordecai because the Bible synchronizes Mordecai with the Babylonian captivity of Jechoniah which we can date with a reasonable degree of certainty.
First of all, the name Mordecai (Babylonian Marduka) is derived from the name of the Sumerian and Babylonian god Marduk. Most Bible dictionaries say Mordecai’s name means “worshipper of Mars”. But as Gerard Gertoux1 notes Mordecai can also be understood as “ ‘the Mardukite (mardukaya)’ in the sense of the ‘the Babylonian’”.
Mordecai (Marduka) is a relatively rare name in the Bible as well as the historical record. In the Bible there are only two individuals named Mordecai. The first Mordecai named in the Bible is a man who returned to Jerusalem with Joshua and Zerubbabel after the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC. (Cyrus’ decree ended the 70 years Babylonian captivity). The second individual named Mordecai in the Bible is Esther’s Mordecai.
Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; 2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. (Ezra 2:1-2)
Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite; 6 Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin}
7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter. (Esther 2:5-7)
In the secular historical record the name Mordecai is just as rare. According the Gerard Gertoux, out of 16,000 cuneiform records dating to the Neo-Babylonian period only two individuals named Mordecai (Marduka) are found. I quote Mr. Gertoux:
Did Mordecai and Esther leave traces in the Neo-Babylonian documents? The name “Mordecai (Mar-duk-ka)” is relatively rare; it is sometimes found during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus32, unlike the name “Marduk”, typically Babylonian (always written dAMAR.UTU “calf-sun”, originally pronounced amarutuk)33, which was widely used. For example, a contract dated 16/XI/8 of Nebuchadnezzar (February 596 BCE) reads34:
Adi’ilu, son of Nabu-zer-iddina, and Ḫuliti, his wife (the divine Ḫulitum) have sold Marduka, their son, for the price agreed upon, to Šula, son of Zer-ukin. The liability to defeasor and pre-emptor, which is upon Marduka, Adi’ilu and Addaku respond for.
Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published35, there are only 2 individuals bearing the name Marduka: an entrepreneur36 who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of Cyrus (534 BCE), and a administrative superintendent37 who worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32 (505-490 BCE), exactly the same period as Mordecai worked38. (Gerard Gertoux – Queen Esther Wife of Xerxes: Historical, And Archaeological Evidence, p. 13-14)
Mordecai the Babylonian Considering the rarity of the name Mordecai in the Biblical and historical record, it seems like a rather strange coincidence that there are two Mordecai’s mentioned in the Bible. This curious fact is further compounded by the fact that Mordecai is derived from the name of a pagan idol (god), the use of such names are strictly prohibited in the Bible.
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. (Exodus 23:13)
Typically in the Bible, you see exceptions to this rule when those names of idols/gods are the basis for the names of Biblical heroes renamed by their captives. For example Daniel’s companions were named Hananiah, Mishael, and Azraiah, but the Bible also identifies them by their Babylonian names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
So here in Ezra 2 we have a man with a Babylonian name, who is listed among a group of Jewish men with only Hebrew names who are returning to Jerusalem to build the city and the temple. Why didn’t the author of Ezra use this man’s Hebrew name? In keeping with Biblical tradition, the only reason that makes any real sense is that the author of Ezra 2 used the name Mordecai because it was a person more readily known to his Jewish readers by that name than his Hebrew name. In other words, one must at least consider the possibility that this Mordecai was none other than the Mordecai of the book of Esther and the author of Ezra was drawing our attention to this fact.
Mordecai, Nehemiah, and Darius ‘the great’ Artaxerxes It’s fascinating, don’t you think, that as we learned above there are Persian cuneiform records which date a high Persian official named Mordecai to the years 17-32 of the reign of Darius I, the very same time frame that Nehemiah served as governor of Jerusalem under Darius – who we’ve learned in this series the Bible also identifies by the Persian title “Artaxerxes”.
14 Moreover from the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that is, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten the bread of the governor. (Nehemiah 5:14)
Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published35, there are only 2 individuals bearing the name Marduka: an entrepreneur36 who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of Cyrus (534 BCE), and a administrative superintendent37 who worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32 (505-490 BCE), exactly the same period as Mordecai worked38. (Gerard Gertoux, Queen Esther Wife of Xerxes : Historical and Archaeological Evidence)
These fascinating historical details are wrought even more curious by the fact discussed above that a man name Mordecai was listed among a group of Jewish men who led the return to Jerusalem just a couple of decades earlier. Could they be the same man?
Ironically, it is the book of Esther and Mordecai’s lineage as given there that provides a fascinating solution to the curious use of Mordecai in the Bible and this Biblical hero’s relationship to the Mordecai mentioned in the cuneiform records of Darius I.
Mordecai and Esther were Cousins To help us determine when Mordecai lived, we return to Esther where it tells us that Esther and Mordecai were cousins. Further this passage also gives us the lineage of Mordecai as it relates to the captivity of Jehoiachin (aka Jeconiah).
Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite; 6 Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin} 7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter. (Esther 2:5-7)
Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king’s chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed. And Esther obtained favour in the sight of all them that looked upon her. (Esther 2:15)
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
In the passage above it gives the lineage of Mordecai relative to the captivity of king Jehoiachin. Now there are two ways to read Mordecai’s lineage relative to the captivity of Jehoiachin. Either Kish was taken captive with Jehoiachin or Mordecai was. Both are legitimate ways to read the passage, but thankfully we are not left to flipping a coin in order to decide who the passage had in mind.
There are two further facts that help us nail this down. First of all, we know from 2 Kings 24 that Jehoiachin’s captivity began in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (594 BC). The second piece of information we have that helps us develop the chronological context of this passage is that Esther was a young maiden (narah) when she was brought before the Persian king the Bible identifies as Ahasuerus.
10 At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. } 11 And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. 12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. (2 Kings 24:10-16)
13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of YHWH, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of YHWH, as YHWH had said. 14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. 15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. {officers: or, eunuchs} 16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. (2 Kings 24:10-16 )
2 Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king: 3 And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the fair young virgins unto Shushan the palace…. (Esther 2:2-3)
8 So it came to pass, when the king’s commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together unto Shushan the palace, to the custody of Hegai, that Esther was brought also unto the king’s house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women. (Esther 2:8)
So take a look at the following chart. This chart shows the start of Jehoiachin’s captivity relative to the Persian kings Darius I and his son Xerxes I. Most Biblical scholars date the book of Esther to the reign of Xerxes and as you can see there are 109 years between the start of Jehoiachin’s captivity and start of the reign of Xerxes.
Since Esther was a young maiden at the time of her marriage to King Ahasuerus and further since Esther and Mordecai were cousins this means that even if Esther was 20-30 years Mordecai’s junior, Mordecai could not have been taken captive with Jehoiachin. This then tells us Esther 2 has Kish’s captivity in mind when it discussed it relative to the captivity of the Biblical king Jehoiachin. Even if we try to argue that Darius I might have been Esther’s king, Esther 2 could not have been referring to Mordecai’s captivity because again Esther would not have been, by any reasonable chronological criteria, a young maiden if Mordecai was taken captive with Jehoiachin. Therefore it must have been Kish’s captivity who the author of Esther had in mind and this further tells us that there were three generations between Jehoiachin’s captivity and the events described in the book of Esther.
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
As I’ve been thinking and writing about this subject over the past couple of weeks I’ve been asking myself how I could best visually represent the chronological information related to Mordecai, Esther, and the Persian era so as to provide myself and those of you reading this article a unique way of looking at which Persian king best fits the chronological criteria for the book of Esther and the Persian record. The chart at the bottom of this page, I hope gets close to that goal.
In the chart at the bottom of this article the start of Kish’s captivity in 594 BC is the basis for all calculations. Since we don’t know Kish’s exact age when he was taken captive in 594 BC, I’ve provided several different options for Kish’s age at the start of his captivity. The range I’ve provided between 20 and 45 is based in part upon the criteria of 1 Kings 24 where it tells us that when Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive he also took all the craftsmen and smiths and those “apt” for war. (see 1 Kings 24 reference above )
Using this information as a working basis I had to then figure out how to represent various generational spans so as to provide the best possible overview of how the different generational spans might influence the number of years between the captivity of Kish and the events described in the book of Esther.
Based upon my own understanding of the demographics of that era, a 25-35 year generational span best reflects the average generational span between the people of the 2nd temple period. In the following chart a 25-35 year generational span is confirmed by the generational lists of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Median, and Persian kings as well as the lists of Judean kings and high priests. Please note that this chart is based upon a chart found in R.E. Tyrwhitt dated 1868. I’ve modified the chart for clarity and added the lineage of priests and Levites.
(please click on image to enlarge)
With this chart confirming a 25-35 year generational span between the contemporaries of that era, here are some quick reference points for the final chart below:
Jehoiachin’s captivity and Kish’s various ages at the start of the captivity are represented in red.
Each different age assumption for Kish also has its own comparative generational span from 20-45.
The 1st year of Cyrus is marked with a horizontal bar across the chart. This date represents when the Mordecai of Ezra 2 went up to Jerusalem with Joshua and Zerubbabel in 536 BC.
The 1st, 7th, 13th year of Darius are represented by horizontal green bars across the chart. This allows us to ascertain a range of dates for the age Mordecai and Esther during the reign of Darius I. (Esther became queen in the 7th year of a Persian “Ahasuerus”, the events of Purim occurred in the 13th.)
The 1st, 7th, 13th, year of Xerxes are represented by horizontal rust colored bars. This allows us to ascertain a range of dates for the age of Mordecai and Esther during the reign of Xerxes. (Esther became queen in the 7th year of a Persian “Ahasuerus”, the events of Purim occurred in the 13th.)
The diagonal bars across the chart represent the 20th year of Mordecai relative to its corresponding (color) generational span. This provides a basis to compare the age of Esther and Mordecai relative to the Persian kings. It is unlikely that Esther and Mordecai were the same age but the diagonal lines give you good reference points from which to work from. Esther could have been the same age or as many as 20-30 years Mordecai’s junior. The diagonal lines allow you a basis to work from for further comparative analysis.
Finally, the numbers at the bottom of the chart show the age of Mordecai relative to the 1st year of Cyrus, the 7th, 13th, 20th, & 32nd year of Darius, and the 7th & 13th year of Xerxes.
(Click on chart to enlarge)
A few things are evident from the chart. If we are looking for a Persian king during whose reign all the Mordecai’s discussed in this article might have referred to the same person, that could have only occurred during the reign of Darius I. Indeed, if Darius I was Esther’s king then Mordecai could have been one of the men who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel in 536 BC, he was likely the same official mentioned in the Persian cuneiform records, and he certainly could have been the Mordecai mentioned in the book of Esther.
If the Mordecai of Ezra 2 and the Mordecai of Persian cuneiform records are excluded from any considerations in this chart then Xerxes is still a possible candidate for Esther’s kings. That being said, if we are looking at this chart as representing a window of probability into the identity of Esther’s king then that window is several times larger during the reign of Darius I than his son Xerxes. (This window we will narrow still further in subsequent articles.) In other words, the likelihood that Mordecai lived during the reign of Darius works across a wider array of generational spans than it does during the reign of Xerxes. Excluding any other limiting factors relating to the other historical Mordecais in this chart, this window of probability regarding the reign of Darius should cause the serious student of the Biblical history to carefully consider the likelihood that “Ahasuerus” of the book of Esther is a reference to the Persian king Darius I.
Next Time Yahweh willing, in my next article we will further narrow our search for Esther’s king by looking at who the Persian king of 127 provinces might have been. As you’ll see only one Persian king could rightly claim this title. If space permits I’ll also address Mr. Lanser’s of ABR’s objection to considering Darius I as the “Ahasuerus” of the book of Esther. I hope you’ll stay tuned as we explore this incredibly important period in Biblical history.
Maranatha!
1Gerard Gertoux, Queen Esther Wife of Xerxes : Historical and Archaeological Evidence, p. 10)
Answering Objects from the Associates for Biblical Research
For those just joining this exploration of Biblical history, this is part VI in a series in which I am attempting to answer the challenges and criticisms raised by Rich Lanser of the respected organization Associates for Biblical Research in his article The Seraiah Assumption. In his article, Mr. Lanser vigorously disputes my view of 2nd temple history as it relates to Darius ‘The Great’ as described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the links below I’d encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption as well as my responses to specific points of criticism that Mr. Lanser has raised in his article. I’d also encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s updated thoughts in an addendum to that article that he recently published in response to and email exchange we’ve had as well as his responses to some of the points I’ve made in these articles.
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."
Over the past year I’ve had the privilege of corresponding with Rick Lanser of the well respected Christian apologetics ministry – Associates for Biblical Research (ABR). Through their Biblical research and archaeological endeavors, ABR is an organization at the forefront of Biblical apologetics. Besides their great website they are the authors of the respected periodical Bible and Spade magazine.
Mr. Lanser is the Executive Editor of Bible and Spade magazine and author of numerous articles at their very informative website: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
Last year I was intrigued by an ongoing research project by Mr. Lanser entitled, The Daniel 9:24-27 Project: The Framework for Messianic Chronology. As regular readers of this blog know, I am passionately interested in the 70 Sevens prophecy so naturally I was drawn to Mr. Lanser’s articles. As part of his research project, on a monthly basis all last year Mr. Lanser laid the chronological foundation for the life of Yeshua. In my opinion he did a fantastic job in showing why 30 AD is the most reasonable date for the death and resurrection of Yeshua.
Several times last year I wrote to Mr. Lanser offering comments and some constructive criticisms on this effort and he was gracious and thorough in his responses. We had a very nice and cordial conversation on several topics related to this subject.
At some point Mr. Lanser unbeknownst to me ran across articles on my website related to 2nd Temple chronology, Ezra, Nehemiah, and their chronological relationship to Persian kings “Artaxerxes”. This past week Mr. Lanser wrote to me letting me know that these article really challenged him to dig into the subject and while he respected my research related to the 2 temple era he was publishing a critical article about it on the ABR website. His article is entitled: The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25
I’ve read Mr. Lanser’s article and it is a very in-depth, yet critical exploration of my premise that the most reasonable reading of the Bible’s 2nd temple era chronology places Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries of Darius ‘the great’ Artaxerxes. As many of you who regularly read this blog know, Ezra and Nehemiah and their chronological relationship to the Persian era, is the bedrock upon which Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens rests. Mr. Lanser, like few other scholars today, understands just how important this chronology is to our view of Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens as well as so many other related chronological and eschatological subjects.
While I would have preferred a more agreeable view of my writings on the 2nd temple era chronology, I am frankly thrilled that someone of Mr. Lanser’s knowledge and standing was willing to take a serious look at this most important subject. Like most of my critics Mr. Lanser has challenged me to look at the subject from another perspective and caused me to dig deeper into this wonderful subject than I’ve heretofore done. Just as importantly though, is the fact that Mr. Lanser has done all of us a great favor by bringing this often neglected subject out into the open where it can be discussed and better understood by the body of Christ.
For this I am and will be indebted to Mr. Lanser.
My hope is that those of you reading theses words will honor Mr. Lanser’s effort by carefully reading his explanations and criticisms of my work. Frankly, if you’ve ever read, preached, or talked to someone about Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens prophecy then this is no less than your Berean’s duty. It’s just good stewardship.
Over the coming weeks I will be responding to the pertinent points of Mr. Lanser’s criticism in an effort to further clarify and refine my perspective on this very important subject. After reading Mr. Lanser’s article I believe there are several critical points of chronology and textual interpretation where he has made some serious errors and I will be addressing them in the same respectful but direct manner that he has shown in his article The Seraiah Assumption.
For ease of reading and hopefully clarity I won’t be responding to all of the points raised in Mr. Lanser’s article at one time. Instead, Yahweh willing, I will be responding to the important points of his articles one at a time over the coming weeks. In each article I hope to break the subject down into building blocks which stand alone in their own right, each of which we can then use to build a more thorough and contextual understanding of this very important subject.
The Persian Chronology of Ezra 4 To start with my first article will look at Mr. Lanser’s interpretation of Ezra 4 and its foundational context for understanding the Persian era and its relationship to Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s place in it. It is here that I believe Mr. Lanser makes a critical interpretational error which charts his exploration of the subject on an erroneous course. Out of respect for Mr. Lanser I’ve invited him to respond to these articles if he thinks it necessary to bring further clarity to his position and the subject in general.
I’d also like to hear your thoughts on this subject as we explore it over the coming weeks. Please keep you comments edifying. As I’ve stated in the past I will not tolerate any personal insults or innuendo at this blog. You are welcome to disagree or be critical of my or anyone’s interpretation but if you’d like your comments posted please keep them edifying and related to the subject at hand.
Finally, it is my hope that this investigation will ultimately strengthen your faith in the Bible as an accurate testimony of past, present, and future history as it relates to Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind.
I look forward to exploring this subject with you over the coming weeks,
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 entitled The 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."
Did you know that Sir Isaac Newton wrote more about Biblical history and Bible prophecy then he did science? While he contributed greatly to science, I would argue that one of his greatest contributions to the field of Biblical history and Bible prophecy was his following observation:
” Those Jews who took Herod for the Messiah, and were thence called Herodians, seem to have grounded their opinion upon the seventy weeks of years, which they found between the Reign of Cyrus and that of Herod: but afterwards, in applying the Prophesy to Theudas, and Judas of Galilee, and at length to Barchochab, they seem to have shortened the Reign of the Kingdom of Persia.” (page 357, Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended)
In this article I hope to also show you why this often ignored statement is a key to understanding the chronology of the Persian era as it relates to the Rabbinic Forgeries Hypothesis. But more importantly this statement provides us a rare insight into the incredible influence Daniel 9 and the Seventy Weeks prophecy has had on Messianic expectancy and Bible chronology of the past and why its unique influence has continued to this very day.
Adding further intrigue to Newton’s statement above is the little known fact that it exposes the root of a chronological error that many of the Jewish messianic expectants of the 1st centuries BC/AD embedded into their interpretation of Daniel 9. Surprisingly, this error has been borrowed by most of today’s Christian eschatological scholars in a well-meaning effort to prove that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah prophesied by the 70 Sevens prophecy of Daniel 9. As you’ll see this error has profound implications for the vast majority of today’s eschatological world views.
Eclipsing the Persian Era
So what did Newton mean when he stated that Messianic expectancy based in the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 “seem” to have shortened the “Reign of the Kingdom of Persia”?
Unfortunately, Newton didn’t provide any direct evidence to explain why it “seems” to him that the Persian era had been shortened by the Jewish Messianic expectants. What’s implied by Newton’s statement, however, is that he believed the Jewish Messianic expectants used the decree of Cyrus (which allowed the Jewish people to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem) as a basis to claim that Herod was a fulfillment of the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9. When the Messianic kingdom (under Herod) failed to materialize, the Jewish Messianic expectants applied the prophecy to Theudas, then Judas of Galilee, and finally Barchochab. Thus by some unexplained means Newton surmised the Jewish rabbis had shortened the chronology of Persia.
Click on Image to Enlarge or for a high resolution PDF click here:PDF
Though Newton’s intuition was amazingly prescient, he provided no mechanism by which he could show how the Jewish people might have used Cyrus’ decree as a means to shorten the Persian period. It wasn’t until the early 1900s that Davidson and Aldersmith1 further illuminated Newton’s insights into a workable theory that could be proven with some clever chronological forensics.
What Davidson and Aldersmith found was that no matter what type of year used; lunar, solar, or prophetic (360 day), there was no reasonable way the Herodians could have used the decree of Cyrus to claim that Herod was the messiah of Daniel 9. To confirm Davidson and Aldersmith’s position, in the chart below, I’ve calculated each of the possible “years” the first century’s Jewish Messianic expectants might have used to claim Herod as the messiah. As you can see none of them provide a means to claim Herod as their messiah.
The following chart includes a “prophetic” (360 day) “year”, a solar (365.24 day) year and varying lunar cycle “years”. Keep in mind here that the Biblical year the Jewish people were familiar with was lunar/solar and varied between 12 & 13 lunar cycles. Please note that since there is some disagreement as to the BC date of Cyrus’ reign (some claim 538 BC and others 536 BC) I’ve provided calculations using both.
Click on Image to Enlarge or for a high resolution PDF click here: PDF
As you can see from the above chart, while Newton was on the right trail regarding the shortened Persian period attributed to the messianic expectations of the Jewish people, it was not the decree of Cyrus that was the basis for their messianic expectancy, but rather a decree given in 2nd year of Darius.
Davidson and Aldersmith explained Newton’s error this way:
“Thus Sir Isaac Newton (‘ Chronology of Ancient. Kingdoms Amended,” p. 357) states correctly, regarding the manipulations of the Jews, but incorrectly regarding the 1st year of Cyrus as the basis of these manipulations” (Davidson & Aldersmith, The Great Pyramid: It’s Divine Messiah – Table XXVIII)
What Davidson & Aldersmith discovered was that a decree in the 2nd year of Darius (Hystaspes) also known as Darius ‘the great’ Artaxerxes, did indeed provided a basis for the Herodians to claim that Herod was the expect messiah. Not only did this decree in the 2nd year of Darius provide the Herodians a basis to claim that Herod was the Messiah, but when Herod failed to usher in the messianic kingdom, the Jewish Messianic expectants found in this decree, the means to apply it to the 2nd year of the next Persian king and thus claim a new messianic hero as the expected Messiah. In fact, as the chart above demonstrates the 2nd year of Darius provided a basis for all the Jewish messianic claims of the 1st centuries BC/AD. That basis found its origins in the following statement from the book of Ezra:
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)
If you read the entire context of Ezra chapter 6 you’ll find that verse 14 is a statement which provided the Jewish people with a rock solid starting point from which to build their messianic claims. That starting point originated from Yahweh Himself when He gave a divine decree to restore and build Jerusalem. This decree had further weight because it was given through and confirmed by the – two – prophetic proclamations of Haggai and Zechariah.
Click on Image to Enlarge or for a high resolution PDF click here:PDF
This divine “commandment” (Hebrew dabar) was given by Yahweh through Haggai and Zechariah in the 2nd year of Darius(See Ezra 6, Hag. 1 & Zech. 1). Because this divine command was given in the 2nd year of a Persian king named Darius, the Jewish Messianic expectants of the 1st centuries BC/AD, found in this 2nd year a basis for their calculations to prove their heroes were the expected messiah. As we’ll see this 2nd year of Darius became the origin of all the 2nd temple chronological confusion which has plagued Bible chronologists and eschatologists (both Jewish & Christian) to this very day.
A Divine Word to Restore and Build
Before expanding upon the chronological errors resulting from the Jewish application of the 2nd year of Darius as a basis for their messianic fulfillment attempts, we really need to understand the context of Ezra 6:14 and the “commandment” Ezra describes as given by the “God of Israel”.
Did you know that in Daniel 9:25 the word translated “commandment” is the Hebrew word dabar? Interestingly, dabar simply means – “word”. According to my concordance, dabar is used 1439 times in the Bible. Of those occurrences, the vast majority refer to the “word of Yahweh”. That bears repeating, the vast majority of the time dabar (word) is used in the Bible refers to something spoken by Yahweh, the living God of the Bible.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment [commandment = dabar = word] to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks,… (Daniel 9:25a)
It is only reasonable to consider that to the 1st century Jewish Messianic expectants, it is likely that their first and natural choice would have been to assume that the “word” (dabar) of Daniel 9:25 was the word of Yahweh. What baffles me is that today most Christian scholars go to such great lengths to “prove” a decree of Cyrus, Darius, or Artaxerxes, but you hardly ever hear about the commandment or “word” of Yahweh.
This blindness is even more unexplainable when you consider that in Daniel 9 dabar is used not just once (in Daniel 9:25) but three other times in the preceding verses. Each of those other occurrences refers clearly to the dabar or word of Yahweh. Here take a look for yourself:
Daniel 9:2 – In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word [dabar]of YHWH came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
Daniel 9:12 – And he [YHWH] hath confirmed his words [dabar], which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.
Daniel 9:23 – At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment [word / dabar] came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
Daniel 9:25 – Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment [word / dabar] to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks,
Can you explain to me why nearly all Christian scholars today completely ignore this context when ascertaining who gave the “word” to restore and build Jerusalem? Why is it not even mentioned?
This blindness aside, as you can see from the above verses, there is in fact real hard contextual evidence, to consider that Daniel 9:25 might have been a divine “word” to restore and build Jerusalem. Here are the two contextual examples of Yahweh’s divine word to restore and build Jerusalem as described in Ezra 6:14. Both were given in the 2nd year of Darius:
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 …
This people say, The time is not come, the time that YHWH’s house should be built. Then came the word [dabar] of YHWH by Haggai the prophet, saying, Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?…
Thus saith YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways. 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 exerpted)
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….
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?…[70 years from the departure of the shekinah from the 1st temple, i.e. 589 – 520 BC ]
And YHWH answered the angel that talked with me with good words and comfortable words. 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. 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.
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)
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)
So with this in mind, we now have a better understanding of why the Jewish Messianic expectants of the first centuries BC/AD would have seen in Daniel 9:25 a divine decree to restore and build Jerusalem. Further, since both Haggai and Zechariah witnessed this decree as originating in the 2nd year of Darius (‘the great’ Artaxerxes) then naturally the Jewish Messianic expectants would have used this 2nd year of Darius (520 BC) as their basis to calculate the fulfillment of 70 “Weeks” in their messianic heroes. Keep in mind here that this date (520 BC) also marked the end of 70 years of divine anger mentioned in Zechariah 1 as well as the 71st jubilee cycle from Adam as we explored in my last article: The Masoretic Text, Matthew 1, & the Jubilee
Building Jerusalem
I’m sure some of you are thinking, okay I get that, but this still doesn’t really explain the mechanics of how or why the Jewish Messianic expectants justified applying this 2nd year basis to other Persian kings and thus “eclipsing” the Persian period nor does it really explain the resulting chronological confusion which resulted in this shortening of the Persian era. That explanation is found in a further examination of Ezra 6:14 and a related bit of intriguing Hebrew grammar.
You see at the center of the Jewish people’s efforts to “restore” Jerusalem was their effort to rebuild Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary. Building the temple in the eyes of the Jewish people was restoring Jerusalem. Try to put yourself in 2nd temple era context. What made Jerusalem different from any other city in the history of mankind? It was different, because it is the one place where Yahweh choose to meet with mankind.
You know, I find our obtuseness about this mind boggling. When we look for the “commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” of Daniel 9:25 most scholars will tell you it was the walls, the plaza, or even the houses of Jerusalem that signified the building of Jerusalem.
Why?
We don’t get that assumption from Daniel 9:25. So why the insistence upon the walls or plaza of Jerusalem as the starting point of the Jewish people’s efforts to rebuilt Jerusalem. Is Jerusalem as special city because of its impressive walls? Its dwellings?
No, Jerusalem was unique because it was the temporary dwelling place of Yahweh. Even the enemies of the Jewish people understood this.
I encourage you to read Ezra 4 carefully. You’ll find that when the enemies of the Jewish people approached the king of Persia about the Jewish building efforts they claimed it was the walls and fortifications they were concerned about. But notice when they received their cease and desist from the king it was the temple construction which they halted.
Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings…
Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria,..
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…
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 4:12-24 exerpted)
As you can see from the above account building the temple was in fact building Jerusalem.
Another example comes from the context of Daniel 9. When Daniel poured out his heart to Yahweh in prayer and supplication regarding his people and the city of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:1-22), what was the focus of his pleadings? From Daniel’s point of view what was restoring Jerusalem?
In Daniel’s mind was restoring Jerusalem about the wall? We can’t separate Daniel 9:25 from the context of Daniel’s prayer. And yet, that is what nearly every scholar today must do in order to find a secular decree to restore and build Jerusalem and its walls.
Here are Daniel’s pleadings to Yahweh, notice his focus:
O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.
Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake. (Daniel 9:16-17)
Darius and even Artaxerxes
This brings us back to Ezra 6:14-15 and the restoration of the temple. It was this “building” effort that was considered by all parties, (the enemies of the Jews, Daniel, Ezra, and Yahweh) the de facto event in restoring or building Jerusalem. As Ezra 6:14-15 summarizes, it was, an order of importance, the “commandment” of Yahweh, Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes that brought to completion the restoration of the temple by the 6th year of Darius. Just as the destruction of Solomon’s temple marked the desolation of Jerusalem so too the rebuilding of the 2nd temple marked Jerusalem’s restoration. The temple of Yahweh was the beating heart of Jerusalem.
I can’t stress enough how important this context is, because this is where most of today’s reasonably minded scholars break nearly all well established rules of exegesis. The most reasonable reading of Ezra chapters 1-6 clearly delineates the chronology of the temple construction as being completed by the 6th year of Darius (‘the great’ Artaxerxes). Here take a look once more:
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.
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)
Because of the way this verse has been translated, when you and I read the above account in English we assume that there were four individuals who gave a “commandment” to restore and build the temple. But in Hebrew this is just one of two different ways to understand the verse.
A Jewish person, who understood the context of Ezra chapters 1-6 and understood Hebrew grammar would have more than likely (as their historical messianic attempts demonstrate) understood that “Artaxerxes” did not refer to another Persian ruler but rather referred to Darius as an “Artaxerxes”.
Again the context:
A careful reading of Ezra chapters 1-6 makes it clear, that only Yahweh, Cyrus, and Darius gave “commandments” which resulted in the completion of the temple by the 6th year of Darius. The Bible simply does not tell of another “Artaxerxes” responsible for the completion of the temple by the 6th year of Darius. No such person exits!
This is where Hebrew grammar explains the confusion. In Hebrew, the letter “waw’ is normally used as a conjunction. But sometimes, as any Hebrew lexicon will tell you, “waw” is also used as a hendiadys or in other words, instead of connecting two words with two different meanings, it is used to connect two words with the same meaning. The TWOT Hebrew lexicon explains it this way:
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)
So in Ezra 6:14 when the passage refers to Darius and Artaxerxes, the only reasonable contextual explanation demands that we translate the passage as “Darius and even Artaxerxes.” In other words Ezra 6:14 was not telling of a fourth Persian king who gave a “commandment” to restore and build Jerusalem, it was simply informing us of the fact that the Persian king named “Darius” was also known by the title “Artaxerxes”. As I explained in my article Context, Chronology, and Daniel 9, this additional title can be explained with reasonable historical facts related to Darius’ rise to power in Persia. This straight forward contextual chronology also explains why Ezra 6 ends in the 6th year of Darius “even” Artaxerxes and Ezra 7 picks the story back up in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (a.k.a Darius)
Necessity – the Mother of Invention
This then brings new light to the chronological confusion of the Persian era and has direct bearing on the Jewish forgeries hypothesis. As stated before, the Jewish Messianic expectants of the first centuries BC/AD were certainly justified in believing that there was a divine “commandment” (word) to restore and build Jerusalem given in the 2nd year of Darius ‘the great’ Artaxerxes. This divine command was further strengthened by the fact that it was given through two different prophets in the same year. (the 2nd year of Darius – see Hag. 1 & Zech. 1)
The statement of Ezra 6:14 that equated Darius with Artaxerxes then became the chronological basis to “eclipse” the Persian era.
As Davidson and Aldersmith showed, (and my chart calculations above reflect) using the 2nd year of Darius as a basis, Jewish Messianic expectants had a mathematical means to claimed the Maccabaes fulfilled the 70 “weeks” of Daniel 9. When Maccabaen fulfillment didn’t usher in the messianic age then the prophecy was recycled and applied to Asmonaeans, then the Herodeans, and on down the line. Each time the prophecy was recycled it still had as its basis the implied “divine commandment” to restore and build Jerusalem in the 2nd year of Darius. (The only real “commandment” choice in the eyes of the Jewish people) But since Ezra 6:14 equated Darius with Artaxerxes this allowed the Messianic expectants to shift the prophecy to successive Darius and Artaxerxes of the Persian era, each time clipping a bit of history from the Persian era. Thus the original divine decree in 520 BC became a divine decree given in 463 BC, then 422 BC, then 403 BC, etc, etc. Messianic necessity became the mother of chronological invention.
Click on image to enlarge or to view a high resolution PDF click here:PDF
Thus the divine “command” in the 2nd year of Darius, and the Biblical statement that Darius was also kwon as Artaxerxes became the vehicle by which the Jewish people gradually erased much of the Persian era. To give you a better sense of this chronology, below is a chart based upon Aldersmith and Davidson’s original. I’ve modified the first chart to include the BC dating and added color for clarification. Davidson and Aldersmith’s dating is based upon what they termed A.K. (anno Kalendri) which began with first year of Adam as described in the Masoretic text.
The second chart I’ve provided shows the same basic chronology only expanded and from a slightly different perspective. The charts are quite large so I recommend you click on the image to get a larger resolution chart or download the PDF. I’ve also provided my Excel workbook with notes and calculations (at the end of this article) for those of you who are really serious about digging into this subject and verifying my work.
As you explore these charts take note of a few things.
• First, notice how profoundly influential Daniel 9 and the 70 “Weeks” have been to the Messianic identity of the Jewish people. • Second, notice (I will expand on this later) how Daniel 9 and the failed messianic applications of this prophecy provide unique evidence for the existence of the shorter Hebrew chronology based in the Masoretic text. • Third, notice how each successive Persian Darius or “Artaxerxes” became the catalyst to shorten the Persian period.
Click on image to enlarge or for higher resolution PDF click here: PDF
Click on image to enlarge or for higher resolution PDF click here: PDF
Unproven Accusations
For those of you who have taken a bit of time to study the charts, you can see in the chronological forensics described above a reasonable explanation of why the Jewish people eclipsed the Persian period. To be sure Rabbinic scholars have had no great motivation to correct their errors, especially in light of the adversarial relationship Jews and Christians have showed towards each other over the centuries, but no longer can we claim with certainty that the rabbis forged Persian history to obfuscate the identity of Yeshua as the promised Messiah. Frankly, it’s much more complicated and likely less nefarious than that.
Further, those well-meaning scholars like Jeremy Sexton and Henry Smith who use evidence of this erroneous Rabbinic chronology of the Persian era as a means to give credence to their Rabbinic Forgeries Hypothesis of the OT Masoretic text, I’d encourage to take a step back and reevaluate any related assumptions.
An Artaxerxes Assumption
More importantly though, I call out my Christian peers who in self-righteous indignation point to the chronological errors of the Jewish rabbis, claiming they were intentionally used to discredit Yeshua (Jesus) as the promised Messiah, but themselves borrow the very same chronological errors to prove their own Messianic expectations about Yeshua.
Think about the irony of the situation. Most of today’s respected eschatological teachers, historians, and scholars claim that “commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” of Daniel 9:25 was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus in his 7th or 21st year (i.e.. 458 or 445 BC respectively) Yet, as you’ve seen described in this article the very basis for those claims come from the evolution of the Jewish chronology, (which said chronology erroneously manipulated the Biblical statement of Ezra 6:14 that Darius “even” Artaxerxes was the Persian ruler during whose reign when the divine decree was given) so that they (the Jewish people) could claim their own Messianic heroes were the promised Messiah.
Not only do most Christian scholars today follow in the erroneous footsteps of their Jewish predecessors (by claiming that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 6 & 7 is Longimanus) but they compound this error by jettisoning the original kernel of truth that provided the basis for the entire complicated mess in the first place. That original kernel of truth being the certain knowledge that Daniel 9 and 70 “weeks” prophecy began with a divine command to restore and build Jerusalem by Yahweh the living God of the Bible.
Why This is Important
If you’ve read this far I hope you don’t think this subject is some trivial exercise irrelevant chronological minutia. If you believe as I do, that many Biblical vectors are pointing towards the soon return of Yeshua then we need to ensure that our eschatological world view is based upon a rock solid foundation. Whether you realize it or not, Daniel 9 and the 70 “Weeks” prophecy is the core of most of your future eschatological framework. This prophecy influences our view of the Anti-Christ and his kingdom, a “seven year” tribulation, the rapture, the restoration of Israel, the end of this age, and many other important eschatological truths.
If you doubt my statement, here is an exercise for you: Try explaining a “seven year” tribulation without the prophetic context of Daniel 9. Try to find a single clear statement in the Bible which mentions a 7 year period of tribulation. Other periods of time are mentioned, 42 months, 1260 days, 1335 days, etc, but not seven years. Without an Artaxerxes Assumption, the seven year tribulation theory loses its chronological anchor point and its credibility.
How many books have you read that lay out their case for the rapture, (pre trib, post trib, mid trib, pre-wrath) using a 7 year tribulation as the framework? Nearly all of them, don’t they? Do you see how deep this root of error has grown into our view of eschatology?
If your view of Daniel 9 and the 70 “Weeks” includes some form of the original Jewish Artaxerxes Assumption then it most likely rests upon a unstable foundation of sand. Any understanding of Bible prophecy that relies in part or whole upon an interpretation Daniel 9 needs to be reconsidered carefully to ascertain how they have been influenced by Daniel 9. We may be soon entering into one of the most challenging and wonderful periods in human history and your view of how the Bible says those events are supposed to play out may be flawed. If you are a pastor or a Bible teacher, you may be giving erroneous information to your followers. Today I plead with you to ensure your interpretations of Bible prophecy are based upon rock solid, contextual Biblical truth. If you sincerely care about truth, then I encourage you to do your Berean duty and carefully consider the chronology of the 2nd temple era. Challenge yourself to apply the golden rule of Biblical interpretation to your assumptions about Artaxerxes and “word” to restore and build Jerusalem.
The Purpose of Prophecy and Chronology
As a final thought, I believe it is important to always remember why Bible chronology and Bible prophecy are important. Revelation 19:10 informs us that the “spirit” of prophecy is the testimony of Yeshua. In other words, the underlying theme of the Bible’s prophetic revelation is the testimony of Yahweh’s salvation for mankind. (Yeshua (Jesus) means Yahweh saves or Yahweh’s salvation).
Prophecy is a prediction of future events. Those events, in order to have relevance to you and I, are related within a framework of time. In my opinion, this is the reason the Bible’s chronological details are so important. They are the context that brings relevance to Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. The main purpose of Bible chronology is not about aligning Biblical history with what modern scholarship says about the geological or archeological record, any more than the main purpose of Bible prophecy is about predicting future events.
The real purpose of prophecy and chronology in the Bible (in my opinion) is to work hand in hand to provide mankind with evidence and assurance that Yahweh is in control, that He has ordered the past, is working in the present, and is in complete control of the future to accomplish His redemptive purpose for mankind through His Yeshua. That is the real importance of the Bible’s chronological and prophetic record. As you explore these issues in the coming days I hope you’ll keep that focus in mind.
Maranatha!
My Excel workbook with calculations and notes: Excel Workbook
1Author’s Note on the Rabbinic Forgeries Hypothesis:
For those of you really interested in a further detailed analysis of Josephus’ chronology as it relates to the original Hebrew chronology and the Masoretic text I’ve provided Davidson and Aldersmith’s charts and notes on the subject. The charts and notes come from their book The Great Pyramid: It’s Divine Message (1924). Though I don’t agree with all of Davidson’s and Aldersmith’s theories about the Great Pyramid, in my 30 plus years of interest in Biblical history and Bible prophecy I’ve not found a more comprehensive organization and elucidation of Ancient and Biblical history as found in their 570 page tome.
Those of you interested in the Rabbinic forgeries hypotheses will also find in Davidson’s and Aldersmith’s unique work, evidence to show that 1st and 2nd BC century messianic expectants did indeed use a version of Old Testament chronology which is congruent with the Masoretic text today. Their work disproves the theory that the chronology of the Masoretic text was a 1st or 2nd century AD invention of Jewish rabbis. There Elucidation of the subject can be found here: Chronological Forensics of the Original Hebrew Chronology
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."
So did the Rabbinic Jewish scholars of the 2nd century AD forge the Masoretic text to obfuscate the Biblical chronological evidence that proves Yeshua (Jesus) was the Messiah promised in the Scriptures? Remember this is the underlying premise of Rabbinic forgery’s hypothesis that contends the Masoretic text is not a reliable template of Old Testament chronological history.
To ensure we don’t lose sight of the underlying thread of the forgery’s hypothesis, here once again are excerpts from Mr. Sexton and Mr. Smith’s papers on the subject:
The evidence suggests that the chronology in the MT did not exist before the second century of the Christian era. Russell concludes that “in the days of Josephus, as well as in those of the annalists who preceded him as compilers from the Jewish Scriptures, there was no difference in the numerical statements of the Greek version, as compared with the text of the original Hebrew.”128 ( Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90
Since Jubilees was immensely popular in Second Temple Judaism, I theorize that the rabbis were aware of this construct in Jubilees and adapted the concept into their Hebrew manuscripts of Genesis 5 to reduce the pre-Flood chronology by 600 years in order to discredit Jesus as the Messiah. (From Adam to Abraham: An Updated on the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project: Dec. 16, 2017)
Before digging into the Jubilee aspect of this subject, I think it’s important to emphasize how many of the Jews and Christians of the 1st century understood a past, present, and future panoramic view of Biblical history.
It may surprise some of you to learn that the millennialist view of Biblical history (6000 years of mankind’s labor under the curse of sin with a coming literal 1000 year reign/rest of Yeshua) was the predominant view of the early Christian church up until the time of the church father Origin. But this view wasn’t just limited to the early church of the first few centuries. In fact, Rabbinic traditions complied in the Talmud (100-500 AD) also held the millennialist perspective of Biblical history.
This needs to be repeated – up until the 2nd century Christian and Jewish traditions shared a common eschatological understanding of the Biblical ages. A majority of both believed the messianic age was a literal and future 1000 year reign of the Messiah upon this earth.
The Septuagint version of the Bible’s chronology placed this future millennial age only 500 years into the future (from the birth of Yeshua). The Masoretic text on the other hand placed the millennial age nearly 2000 years from the birth of Christ.
What’s odd to me about the Rabbinic forgery’s hypothesis is that it seems incongruent with what the Jewish traditions actually taught about the Messianic age. You see, as evidenced by the Talmud, Biblical history was divided into three – 2000 year ages followed by the 1000 year reign of the Messiah. This view was based in the 6 days labor & 1 day rest of creation. The chart below reflects these Talmudic traditions:
As you can see Biblical history of the present age (Olam Hazeh) was divided into three 2000 year periods. Notice the third period from 4000-6000 (from Adam) was considered the age of the Messiah. I quote from the Talmud:
There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Ktina: As in the Sabbatic period, the seventh year is a release, so will it be with the whole world that one thousand years after six will be a release, as above cited verse [Isa. xii. i] and [Ps. xcii. 11]: “A Psalm or song for the Sabbath day,” which means the day which will be all Sabbath. And as [ibid. xc. 4]: “For a thousand years are in thy eyes but as the yesterday when it is passed.”
The disciples of Elijah taught: The world will continue for six thousand years, the first two thousand of which were a chaos (Tahu), the second two thousand were of wisdom, and the third two thousand are the days of the Messiah, and because of our sins many, many years of these have elapsed, and still he has not come.
Elijah said to R. Jehudah, the brother of R. Sala the Pious: The world will continue for no less than eighty-five jubilaic periods, and in the last jubilaic period ben David will come. (anonymous. The Babylonian Talmud (Annotated) (p. 317). Unknown. Kindle Edition.)
Now think about the challenge this poses to the Rabbinic forgery’s hypothesis. The chronology of the Masoretic text (which was supposedly forged) places the birth of Christ about the year 4000 from Adam right at the start of the “Days of the Messiah”. If the Jewish Rabbinic authority had really forged the chronology of the MT text of the Scriptures to disprove that Yeshua was the Messiah, why then would they have changed the chronology of the Old Testament to show that Yeshua’s birth began those “Days of the Messiah”. Certainly a 5500 year birth date for Yeshua (as described by the LXX), towards the later end of the “Days of the Messiah” would have been less auspicious.
But let’s look back at history. Doesn’t the MT text of the Scripture accurately reflect the Messianic significance of Yeshua’s birth, death, resurrection, and the gospel age as seen through the lens of the Rabbinic tradition and the New Testament accounts?
Wouldn’t the past 2000 years as seen through the lens of the New Testament confirm the Rabbinic traditions concerning the Days of the Messiah? In fact wasn’t that exactly what the apostle Peter was telling his Jewish brethren when he reminded them of Hosea’s prophecy concerning their restoration after “two days”. (For more on this see my article: Did the Apostle Peter Believe in the Eminence of Christ’s Return? )
In a way don’t you and I as Christians consider these (nearly) two thousand years of the gospel age as the Days of the Messiah? It seems to me that the early church and traditional Judaism have a lot in common on this subject.
In any case by the time the Talmud was completed the Rabbinic authority believed that the times appointed for the Messiah had already come and gone. The New Testament confirms this by telling us that the Messiah Yeshua had indeed already come and gone at the start of Judaism’s “Messianic Age”, the only difference is that New Testament tells us that Yeshua, after a period of time would be coming again. For more on this see: After Two Days
As I’ve explained in my previous articles in this series (Part I & Part II), the Messiah is symbolized in the Torah as well as the New Testament by the typology of the numbers 13 & 14. The fact of the matter is that history has demonstrated that the chronology of the Masoretic text of the Scripture more accurately reflects the millennialist views of the early Jewish and Christian messianic expectants. It seems incredibly fantastic to believe that the Rabbis of the 2nd century would have been so careless as to forge Biblical history so that the birth of Christ began their “Days of the Messiah”. In any case this is just another aspect of this theory that bears further scrutiny.
The Masoretic Text and the Jubilee
Let’s move on now to explore the Jubilee cycles as they related to the Masoretic text and Matthew 1.
My last article Matthew 1, the Masoretic Text, & the Bible’s Messianic Symbolism provided some evidence to show that Yeshua’s lineage in Matthew 1 was indeed synchronized with Masoretic Text chronology from Abraham to Yeshua and the Jubilee cycles spanning that same period of time. This evidence gave reasonable cause to consider that Matthew purposely modified Yeshua’s generations to show Yeshua came in the 41 generation from Abraham which in real chronology was also the 41st jubilee cycle from Abraham.
I noted that curiously, according to the Masoretic text of the Scriptures, there were also 41 jubilee cycles from Adam to Abraham. In light of the fact that Matthew purposely modified Yeshua’s lineage, it becomes difficult to dismiss this synchronization as a coincidence. Further, this synchronism makes it rather difficult to claim with absolute conviction that Matthew, by the mid to late first century, had no knowledge of the MT text’s shortened chronology as it is presented in most versions of the Bible today.
As I hope to demonstrate in this article, when the Masoretic text of the Bible is considered in light of the Jubilee cycles and Matthew’s fascinating lineage of Yeshua, we find further compelling evidence that supports the New Testament’s claims that Yeshua was the promised Messiah. We also find a compelling order or design, if you prefer, to the chronology of the Bible which I believe demonstrates the hand of Yahweh working out His redemptive plan for mankind.
I can’t stress enough here the significance of Matthew’s lineage of Yeshua as the opening argument in the New Testament’s case for Yeshua as the promised Messiah. I can’t believe it is an accident that Matthew 1, in addition to being a witness to Yeshua’s lineage from Abraham and David, also happens to be the chronological bridge which connects the Old and New Testaments into a synchronized and congruent testimony to Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua.
Ezekiel’s Jubilee
In my last article I demonstrated the intriguing fact that the 41 generations of Matthew 1 were equaled to 41 jubilee cycles. I know I did not provide all the calculations or references for that statement. For those who take this subject seriously you can check my work in the following PDF – 6000 Years of Biblical History.
That fact that Matthew represented Yeshua’s generations as actual jubilee cycles is in its own right thrilling. But it is only when you see those Jubilee cycles in the larger context of Biblical history that you get a real glimpse of just how special Matthew’s lineage of Yeshua really is.
Now there is a couple of ways to go about establishing the context of Jubilee cycles relative to the chronology of the MT text and Matthew 1. The first is to simply overlay the Jubilee cycles on top of the Masoretic text’s chronology of the Old Testament. As I’ve stated before, this approach places the birth of Abraham in the 41st Jubilee cycle from Adam. Continuing with this approach then places the birth of Yeshua in the 82 Jubilee cycle from Adam (41×2). Running these calculations forward from the birth of Yeshua shows that we are now living in the 123rd Jubilee from Adam (41×3).
The 2nd way to provide context to the Jubilee cycles and Matthew 1 is to find any Scriptural references to the Jubilee or Shabbat (Shemitah) cycles in the Bible and determine their place relative to dated people or events in the Bible. This then would help us synchronize Biblical and secular history with the Jubilee and Shemitah cycles.
In Chapter 40 of the book of Ezekiel we find one of the most compelling examples of such a synchronism. Here Ezekiel describes the beginning or (rosh = head) of the year in the 10th day of the month in the 25th year of Judah’s captivity. This date was so important to Ezekiel that he also synchronized the date with the destruction of Jerusalem. Take a look:
In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of YHWH was upon me, and brought me thither. (Ezekiel 40:1)
What’s fascinating about this statement is that the only “year” which could possibly begin (rosh = head) on the 10th day of the month is a Jubilee cycle “year”. (see Lev. 25:8-10.) For more details on this please see my free book download The Jubilee Code: Prophetic Milestones in Yahweh’s Redemptive Plan – (Chapters 9 & 10)
With this chronological statement from Ezekiel we are able to double check our chronology from Adam. If Ezekiel 40:1 is indeed referencing a Jubilee year then we should be able to use the 25th year of the captivity and 14 years after the destruction of Jerusalem to triangulate this date relative to the Jubilee and further synchronize this Jubilee with our beginning of these cycles from Adam.
Long story short, a reasonable chronological case can be made that Ezekiel’s “beginning of the year” is in fact the 70th Jubilee from Adam. This fascinating fact is further confirmed by Ezekiel 1:1 where he mentions the “30th year” in the 5th year of Jehoiachin’s captivity. This by reasonable chronological consideration is the 30th year of the 70 Jubilee which Ezekiel later mentions in chapter 40. The following chart reflects the pertinent facts of the chronology:
Consider how important this Jubilee chronology is relative to Old Testament history. This is the only place in the entire Biblical record where we can fix the Bible’s chronology relative to the Jubilee and Sabbath cycles and secular history. And Ezekiel gives us not one but two Jubilee chronological synchronisms. Now take a bird’s eye view of this chronology and you’ll see another reason this Jubilee was special:
In the chart notice that Ezekiel’s Jubilee (based upon a reasonable rendering of the MT) marks the 70th Jubilee cycle from Adam. Further this Jubilee has the distinction of originating three important 70 year periods of time. In the chronological order they originate they are as follows:
The 70 years of captivity of Judah mentioned by Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11-12)
The 70 years of Divine anger mentioned in Zechariah 1
The 70 years period of desolation between the destruction of Solomon’s temple and the completion and dedication of the 2nd temple in 6th/7th year of Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes
Matthew 1, Zerubbabel, Yahweh’s Divine Anger, and Daniel 9 If you remember I mentioned in my last article (here) that in Matthew’s lineage of Yeshua, only four individuals were synchronized with the 41 Jubilee cycles between Abraham and Yeshua. One of those individuals was Zerubbabel and it was during his governorship of Jerusalem that Yahweh gave His divine command to “to restore and build Jerusalem”.
Upon the four and twentieth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius, came the word of YHWH unto Zechariah, 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?
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. 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. 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, 12-16)
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 1:14-15)
For those of you not familiar with this divine command to restore and build Jerusalem, here are the words of Ezra who confirms this divine command of Yahweh as given through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. For more on this divine command see my free book: Daniel’s 70 Weeks: The Keystone of Bible Prophecy
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.
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)
So the 70 years of Divine anger ended in the 2nd year of Darius, and with the end of this Divine anger Yahweh personally commanded the children of Israel to return (shuwb) and build His house. In Matthew’s lineage Zerubbabel is represented by the 71 Jubilee from Adam. As I’ve showed in my book The Jubilee Code: Prophetic Milestones in Yahweh’s Redemptive Plan, a reasonable case can be made that this 2nd year of Darius was in fact the end of the 71st and beginning of the 72nd Jubilee cycle from Adam.
Another way to look at this chronology is say that there were:
70 jubilees from Adam – which began
70 years of Divine anger – which ended on the 71st jubilee and began the
70 Sevens countdown to the Messiah of Daniel 9 – which ended with
Coming of the Messiah at the start of the 2000 year “Age of the Messiah”
These synchronizations alone should dispel any notion that the chronology of the Masoretic text was forged. Think about the statistical difficulties of trying to make the case that the Rabbinic authorities, in order to hide the identity of Yeshua as the Biblical Messiah, dropped round numbers from the pre-flood ages of several of the descendants of Adam, and in so doing were lucky enough to still align the Jubilee cycles from Adam so that it perfectly synchronized with the Jubilee and Sabbath cycles of the 2nd temple period. And still further, that somehow even after forging this chronology, they still managed to synchronize it with the New Testament’s premier chronological account of Yeshua as the promised Messiah found in Matthew 1. If this is forgery then what does an accurate representation look like?
For those interested in further confirmation of Ezekiel’s Jubilee the following comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia and it shows that by the time the Talmud was compiled Rabbinic scholarship understood Ezekiel 40 to be a reference to a Jubilee.
Jewish Encyclopedia Talmudic and Samaritan Calculation of Jubilees.
“According to Talmudic calculations….
….the last jubilee occurred on the “tenth day of the month [Tishri], in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten” (Ezek. xl. 1), which was the New-Year’s Day of the jubilee (‘Ab. Zarah 9b; ‘Ar. 11b-12b). Joshua celebrated the first jubilee, and died just before the second (Seder ‘Olam R., ed. Ratner, xi. 24b-25b, xxx. 69b, Wilna, 1895).” (excerpted by WS)
To give you yet another perspective on this chronology and how it relates I’ve taken the Rabbinic world view of the three 2000 year Biblical ages as represented in the chart I shared at the start of this article. In the following chart, I’ve overlaid the MT chronology as it relates to the generations of Matthew 1, Jubilee cycles and Daniel 9.
Again, there does not appear to be any conflict between the 1st century Messianic traditions of the Jewish Talmudists and the New Testament’s representation of Yeshua as the promised Messiah. In fact, quite the contrary; there appears to be a quite startling synchronism between the traditional Rabbinic view of history and the chronological evidence we can ascertain from Masoretic text as it relates to the New Testament’s presentation of Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah found in Matthew 1 and elsewhere in the New Testament.
A Dwelling Place for Yahweh Now let’s look at the Masoretic text chronology and the Jubilee cycles another way. Keep in mind here, we are looking for evidence which supports the hypothesis that the pre-flood chronology of the Old Testament was manipulated by the Rabbinic scholars of the 2nd century to hide the fact that Yeshua was the Bible’s promised Messiah.
In Genesis, the Garden of Eden was the location that Yahweh chose to meet with mankind. At that time, before sin entered the picture, there was no barrier between God and man. God walked in the Garden with mankind. After mankind’s sin, that relationship changed. Mankind’s sin created a barrier to our fellowship with our Creator.
Then 2513 years later, according to the MT of the Bible, a pivotal milestone was reached, Yahweh instructed Moses and the Children of Israel to construct a Tabernacle where Yahweh could dwell with mankind. This temporary dwelling place was also the location where Yahweh instituted the bloody sacrificial redemptive rites of the Torah. These sacrificial rites, as we’ve seen in these articles, were rehearsals or shadow pictures of Yeshua, Yahweh’s ultimate sacrifice, the promised “seed” through whom all nations of the earth would be blessed.
This temporary dwelling place and those sacrificial rites were instituted in the 52nd jubilee from Adam (4×13).
Nearly 500 more years pass before Yahweh gave instructions for a new more permanent dwelling place where He would meet with mankind and where the sacrificial rites of His redemptive plan would be rehearsed. This new dwelling place, constructed by David’s son Solomon, was built in Jerusalem on the same mountain where centuries earlier, Yahweh tested Abraham’s faith and asked him to sacrifice his only son in what would become one of the Bible’s most compelling symbols or allegories of Yahweh’s future redemptive plan.
This new dwelling place built by King Solomon was completed in the 62nd Jubilee from Adam.
Several more centuries pass and because of Judah’s sins they were carried away captive by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. Shortly thereafter Yahweh’s Shekinah departed the first temple and then a few years after this the temple was destroyed by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar. The departure of Yahweh’s Shekinah from the temple began the 70 years of Divine anger mentioned by Zechariah. The following chart provides the pertinent details:
Then in the 2nd year of Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes, Yahweh Himself, commanded Israel to return and build His house so that he could once again dwell with mankind. This commandment as I’ve shown in multiple articles at this blog and my book, Daniel’s 70 Weeks: The Keystone of Bible Prophecy was the “commandment” or word (dabar) which began the famous prophetic countdown to the Messiah found in Daniel chapter 9.
This new dwelling place was completed in the 6th year of Darius during the 72nd Jubilee from Adam.
Finally, nearly 500 more years pass and in the 82nd Jubilee from Adam (41×2) the prophesied Messiah of Daniel 9 comes and once again the terms of Yahweh’s dwelling with mankind change. Human flesh became the new dwelling place for Yahweh. Yahweh tabernacled with mankind becoming our Yeshua (Yahweh’s Salvation).
30 years later Yeshua stood in our place to take upon Himself the righteous penalty for all of our sins.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt [tabernacle] among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
These epics are visualized by the following chart:
A Divine Appointment Multiple times over the years I’ve shared with you all how much I appreciate the story of Yahweh’s test of Abraham’s faith in asking him to sacrifice his son Isaac. That story became one of the Bible’s most illustrious allegories of Yahweh’s future redemptive plan through Yeshua.
That test of faith had divine repercussions which have rippled across the Biblical ages. This story as seen in light of the Masoretic text and the Jubilee cycles has special significance.
This allegory concealed in real Biblical history begins in the 42nd jubilee from Adam when Abraham and Sarah where told they would have a son in their old age. This message was brought to them by an angel who told them that at the “set time” in the following year a son would be born to them.
But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time [mow’ed] in the next year. (Genesis 17:21)
For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time [mow’ed] of which God had spoken to him. (Genesis 21:2)
The phrase “set time” comes from the Hebrew word mow’ed which means appointed place or appointed time. This is the same word Yahweh uses in Genesis 1:14, when describing the Bible’s calendar, a Biblical reckoning of time, and its related divine appointments.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons [mow’ed = appointements], and for days, and years: (Genesis 1:14)
In any case, this set time, or divine appointment if you will, was marked for the following year. What is intriguing about His divine appointment is that it fell on the 43rd Jubilee from Adam. In other words, exactly on the 50th year of the 43rd Jubilee cycle (from Adam) Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarah.
At some point in that 43rd Jubilee cycle, while Isaac was still a “lad” (na’ar), Abraham was told to get up to the land of Moriah and offer his son Isaac as an offering. The Bible tells us that Abraham obeyed, but he did so in the knowledge that Isaac was Yahweh’s promised seed and when all was said and done, he and the lad would return again.
And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. (Genesis 22:5-8)
Indeed Yahweh provided that lamb in place of Isaac. In fact, it was on that very same mountain that nearly 2000 years later that Yahweh provided “Himself” as the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.
Keep in mind here that because of Abraham’s faith, Yahweh swore (shaba) an oath of seven with Abraham that promised in part that through Abraham’s “seed” all nations of the earth would be blessed.
Would it surprise you to learn that according to the Masoretic text of the Bible, that oath
Yahweh swore with Abraham saw its initial fulfillment with the birth of Yeshua in the 39th (13×3) Jubilee cycles from the birth of Isaac, Abraham’s promised “seed”. In other words, the birth of Yeshua took place in the 82 Jubilee (41×2) from Adam. This 82nd Jubilee was the 39th (13×3)Jubilee from the birth of Isaac.
What’s more, on the 40th Jubilee anniversary of Isaac’s birth the last atonement sacrifice was offered in the temple in Jerusalem in 69 AD. The following year in 70 AD the temple was destroyed and now for the past 40 Jubilee cycles Israel has had neither a temple nor a sacrifice.
That chronology is summed up in the following charts:
Again I wonder why, if the rabbis of the 2nd century were trying to hide the identity of Yeshua as the promised Messiah, did they align the major events in Yeshua’s life with the chronology of the Old Testament and the Jubilee cycles? A simple addition or reduction of the chronology by just a few years would have completely erased all of these synchronized chronological pictures which show Yahweh’s hand working His redemptive plan of Yeshua through the Biblical ages.
The Epics of the Promised Seed For those familiar with Biblical history, it is evident that the number 40 is often associate with important chronological periods of time in the Bible. There are three 40 years periods which define Moses’ life and his interactions with the children of Israel. We also have the 40 years between Yeshua’s resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem. Then there are the forty days of Jonah and the 40 days of Yeshua in the wilderness, to name just a few.
But in terms of Bible chronology, the granddaddy of 40 periods of time are the jubilee. One of the most thrilling examples of this relates to what I like to think of as the Epics of the Promised Seed.
As I’ve mentioned before, after mankind’s sin in Eden, Yahweh promised that someday Adam and Eve’s seed would bruise the serpent’s head. This promise became the foundation for the Bible’s Messianic redemptive theme.
After Cain slew Abel that promise appeared to be in jeopardy. Then in the 130th year of Adam, Seth was born and Yahweh gave Adam and Eve a new “seed” through whom that redemptive promise would be carried down through the Biblical ages. Seth’s birth not only came in the 130th year of Adam but in the 3rd Jubilee of Adam’s creation.
39 (13×3) Jubilee cycles later in the 99th year of Abraham’s life (his 2nd Jubilee) Yahweh confirmed the covenant of the promised “seed” with Abraham by promising him that at the “set time” (mow’ed) in the following year a son would be born unto them.
Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (Genesis 17:5-7)
That following year on the 43rd Jubilee cycle from Adam, Isaac was born. This auspicious date marked the 40th Jubilee cycle from Seth and a new era in Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind.
As stated previously, 39 (13×3) more Jubilee cycles pass and that covenant of the promised seed realizes its fulfillment in Yahweh becoming our Yeshua (Salvation). It was during this 39th Jubilee cycle from Isaac that an angel appeared to Mary (and later Joseph) telling them of the miraculous conception of Yeshua, the promised seed.
The following Jubilee, in the 40th Jubilee cycle from the promised seed of Isaac and the 80th Jubilee cycle from Seth, Yahweh’s promise that Adam and Eve’s “seed” would bruise the serpent’s head, finds partial fulfillment in the death and resurrection of Yeshua. I say partial fulfillment because, with this event Satan did indeed received a mortal wound, but his ultimate destruction has been set for another period of time in the future.
The above chronology leads naturally into our next example.
The Miracle of Israel’s Rebirth For our next example of the congruency of Masoretic text chronology, the Jubilee cycles, and the Bible’s Messianic message, I’d like to show you where the miraculous rebirth of the nation of Israel fits it.
It’s important to note here that not only did Yahweh swore with Abraham that in his “seed” all nations of the earth would be blessed, but also that Abraham’s “seed” would inherit all the land Yahweh promised to Abraham.
As we saw above Israel was uprooted (for a time) from the land of Israel. With their city in ruins and Yahweh’s house completely demolished, the children of Israel were scattered throughout the nations. This desolation was prophesied by Yeshua himself in Matthew 23.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew 23:37 – 24:1)
Did you know that in the 39th Jubilee cycle (13×3) from Jerusalem’s destruction, the nation of Israel was reborn and the city of Jerusalem once more came under the control of the Jewish people? Yes, both those events (according to the projected chronology of the MT) took place in the 122nd Jubilee cycle from Adam.
Another way to look at these events is just as the 39th Jubilee cycle from Abraham saw the birth of the promised Messiah and the following Jubilee, the 40th saw the end of the sacrificial service, the destruction of Jerusalem, its temple, and the start of the times of the gentiles – the 39th Jubilee from those terrible events saw the rebirth of nation of Israel in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. And today as we watch events unfold in the 40th Jubilee from the destruction of Jerusalem we see the times of the gentiles drawing to a close and the Jewish people and the nation of Israel becoming what the book of Zechariah describes in an eschatological Messianic context, as the “burdensome stone” for the nations.
Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. (Zechariah 12:2-3)
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications:
and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. Zechariah 12:9-11
A Jubilee of Jubilees For confirmation of the significance of the above chronology related to the Jewish people and their return to the land, let’s take one more step back in history to the destruction of the 1st temple by Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus’ decree allowing the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem and build the house of Yahweh. It’s worth noting that in a Jubilee year the Torah instructs that the land reverts back to its original owners. This we see fulfilled in a unique way by looking at a Jubilee of Jubilees. The following chart provide a panoramic:
As you can see from the above chronology if you count Jubilee cycles from Cyrus’ decree allowing the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem, you’ll find that it was in the 50th Jubilee cycle from Cyrus’ decree until the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the related British Mandate (starting in 1923) allowed the Jewish people to return to their homeland.
If you also count Jubilee cycles form Yahweh’s divine “word” to restore and build Jerusalem in the 2nd year of Darius ‘the great’ Artaxerxes, you’ll find that it was during the 50th Jubilee from this divine word that Israel was reborn as a nation in 1948.
And finally in consideration of the fact that the Bible describes the new Jerusalem (a city 12×12) coming down out of heaven after the 1000 year reign of Yeshua, it is worth noting that if the Jubilee cycles were projected into the future, the 144th Jubilee cycle begins in the 8th day or 7008th year from Adam.
Design or Forgery?
In summary then, I think it is important to consider all of this Masoretic chronology and the related Jubilee cycles in light of Matthew 1. Yeshua’s lineage in this first chapter of the New Testament, as arranged by Matthew, can reasonably be considered the chronological key of the Bible’s redemptive message. This lineage is the focal point of Biblical history. We can look backwards and forwards from this amazing list of names and we find it has astounding relevance and congruency when viewed in light of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for the Jewish people and the gentile nations.
Consider once again that only four men in this lineage lived in the Jubilee cycle represented by their place in the lineage. The events and prophecies associate with each of those men are critical witnesses to the Bible’s body of evidence which proves Yeshua was the Messiah.
Each of those men, when viewed within the larger chronological context of the Bible’s chronology based in the Masoretic text, fit seamlessly into a discernable framework of Jubilee cycles originating with Adam. This in my opinion is beyond human invention.
In consideration of this evidence, it is my belief, that Matthew did indeed have knowledge of a shorter Old Testament chronology based in the Masoretic text of the Bible. It also appears evident that this knowledge also included a view of Biblical history which synchronized important events in Yahweh’s redemptive plan with the Jubilee cycles. Further, that the chronological key to Matthew’s evidence is witness by his synchronization of Yeshua’s 41 generations from Abraham with 41 Jubilee cycles which span that period of time in real Biblical chronology.
This evidence, I believe is fatal to the hypothesis that the Jewish rabbis of the 2nd century forged the Masoretic text to obfuscate the Biblical evidence that Yeshua was the Bible’s promised Messiah. In fact, I believe the contrary is evident. In light of the evidence explored in these articles, I believe a reasonable case can be made that in fact, the Old Testament chronology of the Masoretic text, was divinely ordered to provide mankind with compelling evidence that Yeshua is mankind’s promised redeemer.
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:…
13 I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory. (Isaiah 46:9-13)
Maranatha!
Next Time:
Rabbinic Forgery’s Hypothesis in Light of the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9
Yahweh willing, next time we will look at the Rabbinic forgery’s hypothesis in light of the chronology of the 2nd temple era and the prophecy of Daniel 9. As we’ll see, the indefensible irony of this hypothesis is that many who hold it, unknowingly use the chronological errors arising from it, to try and prove that Yeshua fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 9. I hope you’ll continue this adventure with me.
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."
