For a challenge to succeed, though - particularly if it were to overturn such a widely held view as this one - it would have to come up with some very convincing evidence. Despite this, there is one poster at least who is convinced that 539 BC is not the correct date for Babylon's fall.
Larsinger, you have the floor!
Bill.
Well, thank you for that nice invitation. You speak of "very convincing evidence" so I'll get right to it. A key part of the evidence comes from Persian archaeology.
The overview of the evidence deals with what is conveniently avoided. Two things in particular:
1) The issue of Nehemiah returning with Zerubbabel and living down to the reign of Darius III. In order to do so with the current timeline, he'd have to be over 143+ years. The dating of the 1st of Cyrus removes 82 fake years from the Persian timeline, but specifically following Ezra 6:14,15 we limit the rule of Darius I to just 6 years (instead of 36 years) and combine the 21-rule of Xerxes with that of Artaxerxes, since they were the same king. When we do that, that scripture alone removes 51 years from the timeline which allows Nehemiah to be a reasonable age a few years into the reign of Darius III. In other words, Nehemiah, about age 30 when Zerbubbabel returned would have been 30 years old than Xerxes who was born the same year Cyrus became king. Xerxes was Artaxerxes who ruled for 41 years beginning at age 18 and thus he died at 59 years of age. Nehemiah would have been only about 89 years of age at tht time. This same time period using the current revised timeline ends the reign of Artaxerxes I in 424 BCE and dates the 1st of Cyrus to 537 BCE. That is a period of 113 years. Add 30 years for the age of Nehemiah when he returned plus another 5 years or so into the reign of Darius III and you've got an 148-year Nehemiah! Not acceptable at this time in history.
So what the WTS does and historians is put on Chubby Checker and dance to "Let's Twist Again! Like we did last Summer!" They have to twist the scriptures. That is, they claim that the Nehemiah who returned with Zerubbabel was not the same Nehemiah who was the cupbearer to Artaxerxes throughout his entire reign.
So that's the first part of the "evidence." The "evidence" is divoded betweem the Biblical evidence and secular evidence. The connection to 539 BCE is academic. If the Persian timeline is compromised and collapses then 539 BCE will become invalidated. So what you have to do if drag the WTS and Carl Jonsson over to this point about Nehemiah and get them to contradict the Bible's evidence that Nehemiah returned with Zerubbabel.
Key Biblical points are:
1) Nehemiah was a eunuch. Cyrus is known to employ eunuchs only in his court service. He believed them to be more loyal and devoted as often their king became like their family, having no natural family of their own. Men with ambitious wives or children they wanted to have good lives always made the idea of overthrowing the king a temptation. Nehemiah being a eunuch is confirmed in the Bible.
Now just for a little background. When Cyrus became king he released many people to rebuild their homeland. He allowed freedom of religion but he was a very wise king. He gave no one in the kingdom any authority to decide anything except the king's secretary, who reported directly to him. Thus everything any priests decided had to be approved by the king's secretary. This gave the Persian government complete control and made it difficult for any type of power struggle in the local jurisdictions. The king's secretary was called the Tirshatha. When Nehemiah first returned with Zerubbabel that was the position he held. That is key to linking the Nehemiah who returned from Babylon in the 1st of Cyrus with the same Nehemiah who was cupbearer during the entire reign of Artaxerxes I. So first, we note Nehemiah as the Tirshatha making a decision a priest would ordinary make regarding some missing genealogy:
Ezra 2: 62 These were the ones that looked for their register to establish their genealogy publicly, and they did not find themselves, so that they were barred as polluted from the priesthood. 63 Consequently the Tir·sha´tha said to them that they could not eat from the most holy things until a priest stood up with U´rim and Thum´mim."
So this scripture is completely consistent with Persian background history at this time, that while there was freedom of culture and religion, the priests had no authority. Nehemiah was not of the priestly class. Next, we find Nehemiah identified specifically as the Tirshatha:
Nehemiah 10: 1 Now attesting it by seal there were: Ne·he·mi´ah the Tir·sha´tha, the son of Hac·a·li´ah,
Now, we are going to place both Ezra and Nehemiah at Jerusalem immediately after the return, as both were involved with that first assembly when they gathered to rebuild.
EZRA 3: 1 " When the seventh month arrived the sons of Israel were in [their] cities. And the people began to gather themselves as one man to Jerusalem. 2 And Jesh´u·a the son of Je·hoz´a·dak and his brothers the priests and Ze·rub´ba·bel the son of She·al´ti·el and his brothers proceeded to rise up and build the altar of the God of Israel, to offer up burnt sacrifices upon it, according to what is written in the law of Moses the man of the [true] God."
This is when they first began to rebuild. After arriving in the 5th month, they settled in their cities and then on the first day of the seventh month they held this assembly and began to officially rebuild. The parallel reference is in Nehemiah, only we find both Ezra and Nehemiah participating in this ceremony, as they should have, since Nehemiah was the official in the land, the Tirshatha.
Nehemiah 7: 73 And the priests and the Levites and the gatekeepers and the singers and some of the people and the Neth´i·nim and all Israel took up dwelling in their cities. When the seventh month arrived, the sons of Israel were then in their cities. 8: 1 And all the people proceeded to gather themselves as one man at the public square that was before the Water Gate. Then they said to Ez´ra the copyist to bring the book of the law of Moses, which Jehovah had commanded Israel. 2 Accordingly Ez´ra the priest brought the law before the congregation of men as well as of women and of all intelligent enough to listen, on the first day of the seventh month. 3 And he continued to read aloud from it before the public square that is before the Water Gate, from daybreak till midday, in front of the men and the women and the other intelligent ones; and the ears of all the people were [attentive] to the book of the law. .. 9 And Ne·he·mi´ah, that is, the Tir·sha´tha, and Ez´ra the priest, the copyist, and the Levites who were instructing the people proceeded to say to all the people: “This very day is holy to Jehovah YOUR God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people were weeping as they were hearing the words of the law."
So there you have it. Ezra and Nehemiah, the Tirshatha, both present on the first day of the seventh month at this special gathering in the 1st of Cyrus.
So that's #1. Establishing what the Bible actually says, whether contradicted later or not by any other evidence, we have to deal with this. Initially, it is seen contradictory to the Persian history since, as noted, Nehemiah would have to be up to 148 years old to live from this time down into the reign of Darius III. The presumption is that Ezra, a copyist, would have been at least 30 and as well Nehemiah to have been trained and to hold that position. However, this is when Ezra 6:14,15 shows the Bible veering from the secular history since there it gives us the kings who built and completed the temple. The temple was completed in the 6th year of Darius by "Artaxerxes, the king of Persia."
EZRA 6: 14 And the older men of the Jews were building and making progress under the prophesying of Hag´gai the prophet and Zech·a·ri´ah the grandson of Id´do, and they built and finished [it] due to the order of the God of Israel and due to the order of Cyrus and Da·ri´us and Ar·ta·xerx´es the king of Persia. 15 And they completed this house by the third day of the lunar month A´dar, that is, in the sixth year of the reign of Da·ri´us the king."
Simply put, the Persian king ruling at the time the temple was "finished" was Artaxerxes I. It was completed in the last month of the year which was the sixth of Darius. How so? The Babylonian accession year system. Not sure if you are familiar with it, but basically the year was named after the king who began to rule from Spring to Spring. If the king died during the year, his successor did not begin his "year 1" until the following Spring. Thus the year remained named after the king who began to rule that year. This partial year for the successor was called his "accession year." This explains, partially, how one king could be ruling during the year of another king. Thus this is the accession year of Artaxerxes I, which is the sixth year of Darius. That means Darius I died in his sixth year. Period.
But comparing that to secular history, we have another issue. That of what happened to "Xerxes"? Well that is easily explained as well. You see, the Persian kings adoped a new throne name when they became king. So you have many documents dated to Persian kings who used two different names. Darius II was "Nothus," Artaxerxes II was "Mnemon," Artaxerxes III was also "Nothus," and Darius III was "Cadomanus." Guess what the alternative name for Xerxes was? You got it: "Artaxerxes." So per the Bible, Artaxerxes and Xerxes are the same king, only the Bible calls him "Artaxerxes" rather than Xerxes.
To add to the Biblical confirmation of this, we go to Daniel 11:2 where we find the successor of Darius I clearly being the historical Xerxes who invaded Greece:
DANIEL 11:2B “Look! There will yet be three kings standing up for Persia, and the fourth one will amass greater riches than all [others]. And as soon as he has become strong in his riches, he will rouse up everything against the kingdom of Greece."
Now this is fulfilled, quite clearly, by the well-known historical event of Xerxes invading Greece. This is also consistent with the history that the king invading Greece was the successor to Darius I. Ezra 10:1 establishes this was recorded in the third year of Cyrus, so this would be the fourth king after Cyrus.
Cyrus
1st - Cambyses ("Ahasuerus" in the Bible at Ezra 4:6)
2nd - Imposter Bardiya/Smerdis ("Artaxerxes" in the Bible at Ezra 4:7), when the work on the temple was stopped
3rd - Darius I
4th - Xerxes, who invades Greece.
Therefore, per the Bible, the historical Xerxes is called "Artaxerxes" in the Bible.
Our first piece of secular evidence supporting this is a text dated to year 38 of an "Arses" (Xerxes) also known as Artaxerxes." The only Artaxerxes who ruled into year 38 would be Artaxerxes I or Artaxerxes II (although Artaxerxes didn't really rule for 47 years, but only 17). Artaxerxers II, though, is well known to be "Mnemon", not Arataxerxes. So the only other option is Artaxerxes I. This text confirms his alternative name was "Arses", that is, Xerxes.
The archaeological evidence if found here: http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-arses/arses_2.html
Here's the text:
MU 38.KAM mÁr-sú LUGAL sá mÁr-tak-sat-su LUGAL MU-sú [na-bu-ú], "year 38 of
king Arses, who is called king Artaxerxes"
So we do have an extant document from year 38 of Artaxerxes I with a confirmation his name was "Arses", that is, Xerxes.
So if the Bible is calling Xerxes, "Artaxerxes", because that is his new name, then it simply means that Xerxes/Artaxerxes began to rule as king of Persia in ths sixth year of Darius I, who died that year. In that case, per the Bible, we can disallow 30 extra years for the rule of Darius I and combine the 21-year rule of Xerxes with that of Artaxerxes. That removes 51 years from the Persian timeline per the Bible. That being the case, 539 BCE is a fraudulent date per the Bible.
Now this is key. For any JW or any Biblicist, like myself or Martin Anstey, we use the Bible's history as primary evidence before we accept any secular evidence. But let's be realistic. If Darius I ruled only 6 years rather than 36 years, then that should be something easily proven or disproven. That's a lot of years. That brings us to our next piece of critical evidence, which is the archaeology from Persepolis.
Turns out, Darius I began building at Persepolis in his 4th year, but he was only able to complete one building, and just barely that, his own palace. Another palace in Babylon built for the son of the king per business records took 2 years to complete. If we presume the same in this case, then we have a confirmation or at least a suggestion that Darius I died in his sixth year, just as the Bible says. That is, he was able to finish a 2-year project at Persepolis, but no other buildings he started, forcing them to be completed by his successor, Xerxes. Only one of the buildings, the Throne Hall, begun by Darius and Xerxes, was clearly completed by "Artaxerxes."
This is where we find the suggestion of dishonesty by archaeologists or historians. Normally, if you look at the bas reliefs at Persepolis, you can see that the compound began to be built by co-rulers, Darius and Xerxes, but at one point Darius dies, forcing the completion to be done by Xerxes and Artaxerxes. So the early death of Darius should have been apparent. But archaeologists seem to avoid this.
The same goes for another critical piece of archaeological evidence. That of Artaxerxes I's cupbearer who is shown in the bas reliefs. This is a non-Persian, non-Mede cupbearer. This is the highest position in the Persian court, demonstrated by the cupbearer always following behind the king or the co-ruler. The cupbearer has his beard covered, confirming he is a eunuch. Nehemiah was the cupbearer to Artaxerxes I during his entire reign, so this can be no other individual than the Jewish eunuch cupbearer Nehemiah in these bas-reliefs! But what archaeologist has made this critical identification. None of them. In fact, they tend to carefully distract from this identification based on what I've read. The cupbearer, holds the cuptowel, which is the badge of his office. The cupbearer, though serving as the "prime minister" of Persia, is required to serve the king's food, to taste his wine and to eat from his plate to show that he is not being poisoned. So the cuptowel is a classic tool of being a waiter. How obvious can it get? So here is Nehemiah with Artaxerxes, part of the "convincing evidence" of Nehemiah's historicity and his position with Artaxerxes, but also something totally avoided by the academic world.
Of note, you have Artaxerxes on the throne alone, followed by his cupbearer, the prime minister. Note the cuptowel he is holding in his hand. This can only be Nehemiah since Artaxerxes had only one cupbearer. Note that the Persians are identified by the fluted caps, the Mede by the rounded caps. So the cupbearer is neither Mede nor Persian though he holds the highest court position second only to the king. Note his beard is covered. Beards were of great pride to the Persians and it was shameful not to have a beard so Nehemiah, as a eunuch, has his beard covered.
Now why do you think archaeologists don't want to identify this individual as Nehemiah, when it is clear that is who he is? Well, one reason might be because Nehemiah was already the prime minister of Persia and the cupbearer even during the co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius I! Here is that bas relief:
Please note, you have the identifical staff with "Artaxerxes" as you see with "Xerxes" and Darius I! Again, you have a Jewish eunuch cupbearer, following immediately behind the king, showing he's the highest ranking court official and thus serves as the prime minister. Following him you can see a Mede holding a sword, which would be the badge of office of the military commander, who is logically the 2nd highest ranking official behind the prime minister. But these same two are in the court of Artaxerxes. Of course, since Artaxerxes and Xerxes were the same king anyway, this simply means that after Darius death, the cupbearer and military chief simply continued in their original positions during the co-rulership.
Now you would think some anthropologist and archaeologist would have worked all this out. But you don't see it discussed. Maybe because they did work this out and realized that this so totally contradicted the current popular history, they'd better not open up a can of worms!
But from the standpoint of a Biblicist, what we learn from archaeology is that apparently by the time of the co-rulership between Darius and Xerxes, Nehemiah had left his position as "Tirshatha" serving his people at Jerusalem and now had risen to the highest position in the land second to the royals. This would make the third time this has occurred when the Jews were under foreign rule; the other two times, of course, being in Egypt with Joseph and in Babylon with Daniel. So this is a consistent pattern for the chosen people to be represented so well in the foreign governments they were under. Just a bit of Biblical trivia there.
At this point the "convincing evidence" as reached the point of no return. How so? Because if Nehemiah was already the cupbearer during the reign of Xerxes and Darius, who began to build that city in the 4th of Darius, shortly after which he dies in his 4th year, then the archaeology contradicts the secular history. How so?
Well, let's say Nehemiah helped Xerxes and Darius overthrow Bardiya/Smerdis and due to that trust was made the cupbearer. He would have been cupbearer throughout the 36-year rule of Darius I, followed by the 21-year rule of Xerxes, followed by the 41-year rule of Artaxcerxes and say 5 years into the rule of Darius II. How does that add up?
36 + 21 + 41 + 5 = 103 years.
Nehemiah was likely at least 30 when he first returned from Babylon, which gives us 133 years. And from the 1st of Cyrus to the 1st of Darius I is a period of 17 years. That is, a 9-year rule by Cyrus followed by an 8-year rule by Cambyses. Add 17 years to 133 and you get 150 years!
That doesn't work. But if Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, as the Bible says, and based on some secular reference that Xerxes was born the year Cyrus became king, then as I stated before, Nehemiah could have outlived Xerxes/Artaxerxes at age 59 and been only around 89 years of age and lived 5 years into the reign of Darius II pushing him into his early to mid 90's.
Finally, the straw that breaks the camel's back here are the tombs at Naqshi-Rustam. The tombs of Darius I, Darius II, Artaxerxes and "Xerxes" are found there. But there is a huge irregularity. Artaxerxes is buried between Darius I and Darius II. That means when the kings were buried, Artaxerxes followed Darius I on the throne. The extra tomb for "Xerxes", which is lower and facing another direction, was an afterthought after the conspiracy to claim that Xerxes was the father of Artaxerxes. That is, Xerxes faked his death and claimed to be his own son, Artaxerxes, due to Greek politics. It worked. After the fact, the Persians went in and made it look authentic by revising the timeline. That's why the Bible timeline and the secular timeline are in conflict. But as you can see, the hard archaeology supports the Bible right down the line.
At this point, though, as I said, we are at the point of no return. There is no way to overcome this. The moment you look close enough it will be apparent that Nehemiah is the cupbearer seen with Artaxerxes and that he was already the cupbearer during the co-rulership with Darius and Xerxes. Once those trying to keep this lie going and to suppress the conspiracy start to chatter, it is a simple matter of comparing the archaeology at Persepolis with the secular story. That is, that allegedly, Darius I inherited the harem of the previous king, that of Kambyses and Bardiya/Smerdis. Among the wives was Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, who became pregnant the first year Darius became king. If that were the case, Xerxes would have been only 3-4 years old in the 4th year of Darius! But the bas-reliefs at Persepolis shows he is already a young man at this time (or either a very, very tall 4-year-old!) That's another thing the archaeologists and historians don't want to deal with.
However, consistent with revisionism, sometimes the facts are simply distorted. So it works out that Xerxes could not have been born in the 1st year of Darius, his father. However, based on chronology, it turns out he was born when his grandfather, Cyrus, became king over all over Persia, which is a more significant reference. How so?
Well Artaxerxes I dies in the 8th year of the Peloponnesian War. Based on a critical eclipse event in the first year of the war that occurs in early 402 BCE rather than in 431 BCE, we can date his death to 396 BCE. In that case, at age 59 he would have been born in 455 BCE.
396 + 59 = 455 BCE
So there is some historical merit in the claim that Xerxes was chosen over his brothers as king because he was born a "prince" whereas his brothers were born before his father became king, so he was the first legal heir to the throne. This apparently was the case in relation to Cyrus, though, rather than Darius I. Once Cyrus became king over both the Medes and the Persians, which was a huge deal, and Cyrus began counting the new rulership as year 1, then Xerxes born that year would have begun to be called "Prince Xerxes".
This also works out for the apparent "co-rulership" that is between Xerxes/Artaxerxes and Darius I. Now the WTS uses that bas-relief to prove that Darius and Xerxes were co-rulers. Secular history does not recognize this co-rulership, though it is quite apparent when you look at the bas-reliefs these are co-rulers, which is quite common in those times. Having noted that, the 41-year rule of Artaxerxes ending in 396 BCE would begin his first year in 437 BCE! The 455 BCE king's list would look like this.
455-446 BCE Cyrus, 9 years
446-439 BCE Kambyses (Ahasuerus), 7 years
439 BCE Bardiya/Smerdis, less than 1 year
439-433 BCE Darius I, 6 years
Thus the reign of Xerxes/Artaxerxes would have begun in the third year of Darius I, meaning there was 4-year co-rulership between Xerxes/Art and Darius I! And that is exactly what we find demonstrated by the bas reliefs at Persepolis, a short co-rulership followed by the sole rulership by Xerxes with bas reliefs making the identity of Artaxerxes and Xerxes impossible. Of course, that is because they are the same king anyway.
So the EVIDENCE is totally convincing and all on my side. At this point, not to recognize a historical conspiracy of revisionism is simply incompetent.
The WTS following popular Biblical commentators err in claiming the Nehemiah who returns with Zerubbabel is a different Nehemiah than who served with Artaxerxes. Now archaeology proves they were the same person as the Bible claims.
So at this point, again, we are at the POINT OF NO RETURN. There is no way to claim there are not critical problems between archaeology and the Bible and the Greek version of the Persian period. There is no way to substantiate the 36-year rule of Darius I, and Persepolis, if looked at honestly will confirm he died early during his rule. The bas-reliefs also confirm that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king and we have at least one extant document from the reign of Artaxerxes I that confirms his alternative name was Arses/Xerxes.
So it is all there.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT 539 BCE?
Well, 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon is based on the final Persian revisions which adds 82 years to the timeline. Once you remove those fake 82 years and date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, then the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE is just a joke, along with 587 BCE and 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem.
The Persians were good at revising their records, but then they had the Jews helping them. In that regard, I hasn't to note, again, that the VAT4956 in the form of a diary was designed to preserve critical references to the original timeline using a combination of historical and astronomical coincidence. In this case, the original year 37 of nebuchadnezzar was exactly 57 years later than the revised date. 57 years is a multiple of 19 years, the length of the luni-solar cycle, so even though not identical over this period, the lunar phase and position were close to the same for years 568 BCE and 511 BCE, off by a day. So the VAT4956 confirms the lunar positions a day earlier, matching 511 BCE but contradicting 568 BCE, which is quite clever. Dating year 37 to 511 BCE means year 23 falls in 525 BCE, which means 70 years later it confirms the year of 455 BCE as the true original date for the 1st of Cyrus.
This is a good argument because the fake documents that have survived do support the revised timeline and it might be difficult to convince someone that these documents are fake. So that part of this building is pretty solid. But the foundation is weak. The Greek period revisions are easy to dismantle and the Persian archaeology is very revealing, which is why it is avoided like a plague by biased archaeologists as much as the Exodus dated to the time of Akhenaten. But once you destroy the Persian Period, then the entire building tumbles. That saves you from all the double talk you'll get from Carl Jonson about the Saturn 7 text and all the other Egibi business tablets and all the rest. Once the Persian Period resets, then all the dates based on this timeline become disqualified.
But the BIBLE remains true. Persian archaeology vindicates the Bible.
Here are my two videos about the VAT4956 double-dating to 511 BCE. Very crude, but it shows the astrographs. The VAT4956 would be the secondary line of evidence supporting 455 BCE, but it is only necessary to establish the Biblical truth about Nehemiah and supplement that with what we learn about Nehemiah from archaeology, which is fascinating!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE9AkhOmYFo VID 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIQ18QrbyYs VID2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4YeU-BPTxY VID 3 - ECLIPSE SEEN!
As I said, there is NO RECOVERY at this point. Confirming the truth about Nehemiah both in the Bible and through archaeology will effectively force a correction of the timeline. When that correction is made then the Bible is vindicated totally.
In the meantime, it would appear that covering up this old conspiracy is still going on by the academic world for some reason. I could speculate why, but it is not pertinent.
YOU DECIDE though.
My position is that very few things can be absolutely proven in the ancient past and much evidence could be interpreted differently. So I'm satisfied to establish an "academic premise" for things and letting each individual decide. For instance, there is a premise for the Nehemiah that returned with Zerubbabel being the same Nehemiah who served under Artaxerxes for 41 years. There's no getting around it. There is a Biblical premise that Darius I only ruled 6 years followed by Artaxerxes who must have been also known as Xerxes. Once you become familiar with these valid premises and then look at the archaeology, then you get the confirmation you need. For instance, if Xerxes really was a different king than Artaxerxes, the he should have been buried in the tomb after Darius I, followed by Artaxerxes. Instead we find "Artaxerxes" buried between Darius I and Darius II. But of course, that is as it should have been because Xerxes is Artaxerxes! The fourth tomb assigned to "Xerxes" is confirmed to have been dug out centuries later and thus was a necessary part of the ancient cover-up. But some things can't be covered up. Who was buried where was already a historical fact, so we see right through it once we are focussed on proving or disproving that Xerxes was Artaxerxes.
Again, I like this approach to the issue since you can prove the WTS lies right off the bat regarding Nehemiah and you don't have to deal with the fabricated documents for the revised timeline, which can bog you down. This is clean and simple. Correct and re-date the Persian Period and 539 BCE is an immediate non-issue. I also have confidence in this approach since, from a research analyst point of view, persepolis and the issue with Nehemiah and the issue of Xerxes already being an adult in the 4th year of Darius is critically avoided in these discussions. COJ and others like to focus on what was well fabricated, that is, the strengths supporting the revised timeline. I like to focus on the weaknesses, which are found in the Classical Greco-Persian Period records and the Persian Period archaeology.
Thanks for this opportunity to have you seriously consider why 539 BCE simply is a joke at this point.
I'd appreciate your feedback or any questions.
LS
