Reliable History proves Xerxes reigned for eleven years?

by VM44 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  VM44

  In a 1922 letter that was published in the Watch Tower under the title "Mistakes of Ptolemy, The Pagan Historian" MORTON EDGAR wrote the following concerning Xerxes.
  
  "...Ptolemy made another well-known mistake in his list of kings, namely, by mixing up the names of two kings called Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. Ptolemy's canon makes a mistake of ten years in the reign of Xerxes, saying that he reigned for twenty-one years, whereas reliable history proves conclusively that Xerxes reigned for eleven years only."

  Xerxes reigned for only eleven years?

  What is this "reliable history" that conclusively proves Xerxes reigned for eleven years?

  What is Morton Edgar talking about?
• 

  Leolaia

  *** it-2 p. 614 Persia, Persians ***
  
  There is some disagreement in historical writings with regard to the reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes. Reference works place Artaxerxes’ accession year in 465 B.C.E. Certain documents give to his father, Xerxes, a reign that continued into the 21st year. Xerxes’ rule is customarily counted from 486 B.C.E., when Darius, his father, died. His own first regnal year is viewed as having started in 485 B.C.E., and his 21st year and the accession year of Artaxerxes are often said to have been 465 B.C.E. As for Artaxerxes, scholars usually say that his last year of rule began in 424 B.C.E. Some documents present that as year 41 of Artaxerxes’ reign. If that were correct, it would mean that his accession year was in 465 B.C.E. and that his first regnal year began in 464 B.C.E. However, there is strong evidence for calculating the last year of Xerxes and the accession year of Artaxerxes as being 475 B.C.E. This evidence is threefold: from Greek sources, from Persian sources, and from Babylonian sources.....Therefore, testimonies from Greek, Persian, and Babylonian sources agree that Artaxerxes’ accession year was 475 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was 474 B.C.E. That places the 20th year of Artaxerxes, when the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 begin to count, in 455 B.C.E. If on the basis of Daniel 9:25 we reckon 69 weeks of years (483 years) from 455 B.C.E., we come to a significant year for the arrival of Messiah the Leader.
• 

  Leolaia

  Jonsson's reponse:

  http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/artaxerxes.htm
• 

  james_woods

  Anybody who really thinks that how long Xerxes ruled has anything to do with -

  a significant year for the arrival of Messiah the Leader.

  Is quite simply barking at moonbeams MAD.

  Especially considering that the year named has come and gone nearly a century ago with no sign of Messiah the Leader.
• 

  Leolaia

  Well that's really the object of this contrivance — in order to make the chronology agreeable with an interpretation of the seventy years that leads to their preferred date of Jesus' ministry.

  The interpretation itself is a whole nother can of worms. The translation of "Messiah the Leader" (rather than "an anointed one, a leader") forces a messianic reading into the text (nowhere else in the OT has the NWT rendered the same word as "messiah"), whereas the chapter (as well as ch. 8 preceding it) is focused on sacerdotal matters involving the Temple. The interpretation ignores the parsing of the MT and follows Theodotion in lumping the 7 and 62 weeks together, which facilitates the equation of the two anointed figures, whereas in the Hebrew a span of 62 weeks separates the two figures from each other. Starting the 70 weeks with Artaxerxes may also be questioned on many grounds. The early Christian interpretation that saw Jeshua son of Jozadek (the first high priest after the exile) as the "anointed one, a leader", preceded by the "7 weeks" of exile, imo best represents what the author likely intended (on the strength of parallels with ch. 8 and 11 and the language used in the passage). The "anointed one" who after 62 weeks is "cut off" is then probably Onias III, whose demise is mentioned in ch. 11 of Daniel. The Society assumes that the author meant the 70 weeks to be chronological data, but it is based not on history but rather on expanding the 70 years of Jeremiah into 490 (70 x 7, via the sevenfold curse of Leviticus mentioned in Daniel's prayer), and the 62 weeks is simply the remainder left after the initial 7 weeks (corresponding to the exile) and the last week (corresponding to the period between the death of Onias III and the restoration of the Temple) are subtracted from the total.
• 

  james_woods

  I know, Leolia - but I just wonder this: Have they realized that even if they changed the years of Xerxes, they still would not add up to a real year for the coming of the messiah?

  I am still amazed at how many apologists and ex-JWs argue with the mechanics of the date itself without ever considering whether the whole silly chronology even holds water.
• 

  itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat

  Thank you for your comments Leolaia. Such a different name? I wonder where it comes from? Of course I am the last person on JW.net to express that comment with itsi....................................as a name...hahah
• 

  Larsinger58

  For once the WTS has some standing with this. Basically, revised secular history dates the 20th of Artaxerxes in 445 BCE. The WTS needs to have the 20th of Artaxerxes occur 10 years earlier in 455 BCE to fulfill their interpretation of the '70 weeks" prophecy and have everything still work out for 1914. So they did a little research and, indeed, discovered that archaeology from Persepolis confirms a co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius I! They, in turn, use this to claim there was a 10-year corulership so that they can date year 20th of Artaxerxes to 455 BCE to fulfill the prophecy.

  To align with the timeline again, they add 10 years to the rule of Artaxerxes I, making his rule 51 years instead of 41 years. Amazingly, they have two extant ancient documents dated to year 51 of Artaxerxes. COJ discusses this, but what can you do; the texts exist. They have an option to believe they are more reliable than others that clearly date the reign of Artaxerxes I at 41 years.

  BUT... none of this really matters. The Bible at Ezra 6:14,15 clearly limits the rule of Darius I tio just six years and places "Artaxexes" on the throne as his successor. That's because the throne name for Xerxes was "Artaxerxes." Most of the Persian kings used two names so this is not unusual. Except Xerxes, after his defeat in Greece was persuaded to fake his own death and claim "Artaxerxes" was his own son. That's where the problems come in. Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king! This is proven at the tombs at Naqshi-Rustam which show that "Artaxerxes" was buried after Darius I, proving he was his successor.

  BOTTOM LINE: The bottom line is that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king and his 41-year rule does begin before the end of the reign of Darius I, and thus there indeed was a co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius not recognized by revised secular chronology. The co-rulership was only 4 years though.

  Bottom line is that Ezra 6:14,15 in and of itself requires a reduction of 51 years of fake history during the Persian Period. Also, the prophecy about rebuilding Jerusalem was indeed fulfilled by Cyrus in 455 BCE, which is the date you must begin his rule once you remove all the fake Persian years (i.e. -30 from Darius I and Artaxerxes II, -21 from Xerxes who was Artaxerxes, and -1 for a co-rulership vs. sole rulership year for Cambyses.)

  The WTS, instead of following strict Biblical history has trusted some secular references but the wrong ones; the Persians revised the entire timeline, removing 26 years from the NB Period and adding some 82 years to the Persian Period down to the time of Artaxerxes III, when the timeline is back in sync.

  LS