Jeffro - Can you give me a reference in Josephus were he equates Cambyses to Artaxerxes, I can only find two refs, one is Artaxerxes I, and he later refs another Artaxerxes which is either II, or III?
BB
Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?
by Bart Belteshassur 100 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Jeffro
Bart Belteshassur
Jeffro - Can you give me a reference in Josephus were he equates Cambyses to Artaxerxes
Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter 2. Compare Ezra chapter 4. Josephus equates Cambyses with the 'Artaxerxes' of Ezra chapter 4. He doesn't say that Cambyses was the person who we now call Artaxerxes (I, II, III, IV or V).
I can only find two refs, one is Artaxerxes I, and he later refs another Artaxerxes which is either II, or III?
The 'Artaxerxes' in Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter 6 is actually Xerxes I, during the time of Esther.
The "another Artaxerxes" in Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter 7 is Artaxerxes I, when Eliashib was high priest.
The Artaxerxes in Against Apion, Book I is also Artaxerxes I, after Xerxes I.
-
AnnOMaly
Hi Jeffro,
It's not my assumption at all. It's a fairly well established view, and one that was considered correct much closer to the period it happened.
That depends on whether 1 Esdras came before Ezra or whether 1 Esdras is a later reworking of Ezra. If the latter, 1 Esdras has embellished Ezra's wording.
(And it's not firmly established that 1 Esdras does not represent an earlier version of the text than Ezra.)
Although there is still much debate on how Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras were composed, most experts seem come down on the side of Ezra-Nehemiah being first.
So? Josephus was wrong (and it's not the first time). The context of the same chapter indicates the ongoing construction of the temple, so Josephus' error is irrelevant.
It illustrates how mistaken assumptions can be made if the wording of the source is ambiguous or if it breaks with chronological order and a reliable history of the Persian succession was not used.
... So Josephus can get the name wrong, but the author of Ezra and 1 Esdras (one of which is a copy of the other regardless of which came first) 'must' necessarily identify Artaxerxes correctly??
If Josephus wrongly assumed that 1 Esdras 2's 'Artaxerxes' was Cambyses, how can you use his mistake as support for your position that Ezra 4's 'Artaxerxes' = Bardiya, or indeed that Ezra's 'Ahasuerus' and 'Artaxerxes' have to refer to kings between Cyrus and Darius? It doesn't follow.
The word translated "until" literally means "allow", and can validly be interpreted as two years into the reign of Darius - the reign of Darius, allowing 2 years. Since it's basically a Greek rendering of Ezra 4:24, this isn't much of a leap.
Did you get that definition ('allow') from an online automated lexicon* that tried to match the Gk. word in the verse? If so, you unfortunately took the first of the 5 options it provided which is an unrelated verb ('until' is a conjunction) and which doesn't have the rough breathing mark or the same pointing that the one in the verse has. 'Until' is the 4th one down - ἕως[1]. So my argument stands. 1 Esdras 5:73 gives the impression that there were two years between the end of Cyrus' reign and Darius'. Its chronology is wrong. You have to reinterpret or correct it so it fits with known history.
* http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/?search=%E1%BC%95%CF%89%CF%82
Neither. ...
How can it be neither? You are arguing for the first scenario, believing that Cambyses and/or Bardiya were also known as Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus (circularly arguing on nothing more than speculation or assumption). You can't point your finger at my reasoning, claiming it is circular because of favoring the 'out of sequence' solution, when your own reasoning is patently globoid.
Chapters 3, 4 & 5 of 1 Esdras employs a chiastic structure that associates events under Darius with events under Cyrus for literary purposes, however the rest of the book is in chronological order.
You can allow 1 Esdras to mess with the chronological order but not Ezra?
They had already sent complaints to the previous king. Why would further 'conference' be required? The scribe could just write substantially what they'd previously written to 'Ahasuerus'.
That would have been 7 or 8 years earlier - "at the start of [Ahasuerus'/Cambyses'] reign" (Ezra 4:6). We do not know the contents of those letters, the nature of the accusation they wrote about or the names of the accusers. That the names of those involved in the reign of 'Artaxerxes' were mentioned suggests to me it was a new campaign. Naturally, if Xerxes and Artaxerxes I are the kings, the incidents would be more than 20 years apart anyway. But whatever the case, Bardiya was a flash in the pan and he had no lasting authority so that a ban on the work could be enforced - even if there was time to contact him and get a reply.
It's not really clear why the writer of Ezra (or 1 Esdras) would have in their possession a letter sent by their enemies to Persia's king and the Persian king's response to their enemies anyway. ...
The enemies would surely have to provide official documentation to prove it really was the king's order.
... so it's possible that some or all of the content of either letter was simply made up.
If that is so, it undermines its value for establishing the chronological structure of Ezra 4.
I'm not sure that Nehemiah's depression would be a particularly great motivator to Jerusalem's populace.
Naturally not. He was hundreds of miles away at Susa. My point was that Jerusalem's walls and gates were still in an appalling state in Artaxerxes I's 20th year, so much so Nehemiah was affected by the news. Little or nothing had been done since the first return from Babylon. If, as you argue, they were trying to rebuild the city and walls straight off but Bardiya had stopped it, and if Darius had granted permission to resume, it is puzzling that the city and walls remained in ruins 78 years later when there was no further recorded opposition from on high. On the other hand, if, once the temple was rebuilt, there were attempts at fixing the walls and city, it would explain the state of the city in Art's 20th year; i.e. successive campaigns in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reigns hampered and even stalled the Jews' progress till then.
-
AnnOMaly
(Bart) AnnO - I am making the point that in the second year of their coming is when the letter to Aterxexes was written which as you suggest is between the 4th and 7th months of 522BCE. It therefore follows that the return of this group must have been the year before 523BCE
Oh I see what you're getting at. No, it was the second year after they were first repatriated, i.e. early in Cyrus' reign, that they laid the foundations of the temple. That would be 537 BCE. It was after that that all the trouble started. If 'Artaxerxes' = Bardiya, then the letter was written about 15 years later. Ezra 4:4,5 does say it was an ongoing problem.
-
Bart Belteshassur
AnnO - Is that the offical WT view of Ezra 4? If that is the case that the narrative of chapter3 and at some point in 4 are disconected. Ezra 4:7 onwards then as it does not mention the temple could be applied to Artaxerxes I, and there would be no need to complicate the chronology by inventing new throne names for Cambyses/Ahasuerus and Bardiya/Artaxerxes. So why would the WT bother to do it?
Jeffro - Which bible do you prefer to believe the Hebrew or the Greek, Josephus is following the LXX, with Artaxerxes. That may be because there is no evidence that Esther was part of the Hebrew cannon in the late 1st-early 2nd century. He also indenfies the king at the time of Ezra's commission as Xerxes, as it is given in the LXX as Arthasastha. I would tend to except the older reference, and as Esther is missing from the Dead Sea canon it places Josephus, and the Lxx older than the Hebrew I believe
It is also interesting to note that Josephus places the events of Ezra 3 in the reign of Darius as do I in parralell with Haggai.
AnnO - If you argue for a disconect in the chrono of 4, then under the same reasoning 2and 3 and early part of 4, can be just as disconected to the reign of Darius and note Cyrus
-
AnnOMaly
Bart, there is no disconnect except in 4:6-23. The second year of their return (537 BCE) they laid the temple foundations (3:8). Celebrations (3:10-13). Samaritans/neighbors wanted in on the temple building and the Jews told them 'no' (4:1-3). General comment about temple-building trouble from the time of Cyrus to the time of Darius (4:4, 5). Additional info on later opposition to city wall building in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reigns (4:6-23). Back to the topic of temple-building trouble in Darius' reign (4:24f.).
The official WT view is that the Jews returned in 537 BCE so their second year when the foundation was laid was 536 BCE. The WT believes the 'Artaxerxes' of 4:7f. is Bardiya who stopped the work in 522 BCE..
-
Jeffro
AnnOMaly:
If Josephus wrongly assumed that 1 Esdras 2's 'Artaxerxes' was Cambyses, how can you use his mistake as support for your position that Ezra 4's 'Artaxerxes' = Bardiya, or indeed that Ezra's 'Ahasuerus' and 'Artaxerxes' have to refer to kings between Cyrus and Darius? It doesn't follow.
I do not use Josephus as the basis for my conclusion. It just happens to say something similar.
How can it be neither? You are arguing for the first scenario, believing that Cambyses and/or Bardiya were also known as Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus (circularly arguing on nothing more than speculation or assumption). You can't point your finger at my reasoning, claiming it is circular because of favoring the 'out of sequence' solution, when your own reasoning is patently globoid.
I already explained that. The author of Ezra/1 Esdras (whichever was first) could have used the wrong throne name (which doesn't identify a specific king) but known which individual and period they referred to. This does not require that the king was broadly known as the other name. The author of E[z/sdr]a[/s] could simply have confused the names, just like Josephus does. Or he could have jumbled events from kings from both periods. Or he could have made the whole thing up about the letters. (How did the author of E[z/sdr]a[/s] get the letters? Are we going with the 'inspired' [aka 'magic', aka superstitious nonsense] theory?)
-
Bart Belteshassur
Jeffro - If neither the author of Ezra and Esdras, and Josephus are all in error as to the throne names, but relate them to the correct period in the time, what starting point are we supposed to use. My question must be which Darius is refered to in Haggai, and which Artaxerxes relates to Nehemaih's decree, and which Artaxerxes relates to Ezra?
AnnO, same question for you if you wish.
I am not looking for an answer that is reliant on assumption, or inspiration, the Biblical and historic evidence should be enough however as the last few pages of this discussion have shown, Ezra, Esdras and Josephus can not be the point at which to start, can it?
BB
-
AnnOMaly
Hi Jeffro
I do not use Josephus as the basis for my conclusion. It just happens to say something similar.
I said you use Josephus to support your position. Josephus takes his information from 1 Esdras, assumes that it is in chronological order and that 'Artaxerxes' was Cambyses.
It's also interesting that he didn't think to associate the 'Artaxerxes' letter with the "Magi" (Bardiya) who "attained the government of the Persians for a year" (Ant. 11.3.1).
The author of Ezra/1 Esdras (whichever was first) could have used the wrong throne name (which doesn't identify a specific king) but known which individual and period they referred to.
'Could have' reflects conjecture, of course. The author or later redactor 'could have' (and IMO more likely) got the right throne name(s) and mentioned it (them) out of sequence as part of the 'opposition' theme. 1 Esdras, as you admitted above, "associates events under Darius with events under Cyrus for literary purposes, however the rest of the book is in chronological order." If 1 Esdras can deviate from chronological order there, then it and Ezra conceivably 'could have,' deviated from chronological order with the first mentioned 'Artaxerxes.'
This does not require that the king was broadly known as the other name. The author of E[z/sdr]a[/s] could simply have confused the names, just like Josephus does.
Or he 'could simply have' NOT confused the names and placed later 'opposition' events in with the 'opposition' summary.
Or he could have jumbled events from kings from both periods. Or he could have made the whole thing up about the letters.
Indeed he 'could have' made the whole thing up. In that case, this textual passage is useless for chronological/historical purposes and it is pointless insisting on a timeline (one way or another) for Ezra 4:6-23.
(How did the author of E[z/sdr]a[/s] get the letters?
Unknown. How did he get a copy of the letters between Tattenai and Darius or know that they found the memo about Cyrus' order in Ecbatana?
Are we going with the 'inspired' [aka 'magic', aka superstitious nonsense] theory?)
??? I hope we are going with an approach that tries to harmonize ancient Jewish accounts of history with other historical sources. What has the subject of 'inspiration' to do with anything?
Anyway, I think we're at a stalemate.
-
AnnOMaly
Bart,
My question must be which Darius is refered to in Haggai, and which Artaxerxes relates to Nehemaih's decree, and which Artaxerxes relates to Ezra?
Darius I (521-486 BCE) for Ezra and Haggai;
AND
Artaxerxes I (464-424 BCE) for both Ezra 4 and 7, and Nehemiah (my view).
OR
(Jeffro's view) 'Artaxerxes'/Bardiya (522 BCE) for Ezra 4;
Artaxerxes I (464-424 BCE) for Ezra 7 and Nehemiah.