Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  Continued ...

  The fact that other sources don't call Cambyses or Bardiya by the 'biblical' names does not conclusively mean that Ezra did not use those names.

  It is highly improbable that he would use unrecognized names for kings. He got Cyrus' and Darius' names right. Why invent new names for Cambyses and Bardiya who, btw, had barely warmed the seat of the throne before Darius had him killed.

  Josephus incorrectly refers to Artaxerxes I as Xerxes in Antiquities of the Jews Book XI, so it's evident that there may have been some confusion about the sequence of these throne names .

  At least 'Xerxes' is part of 'Artaxerxes.' There is some relationship between the names.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  Instead of renaming kings (without any support from history) and squashing them in in chronological order before Darius, it makes more sense to understand that the writer of Ezra began a giant parenthesis at 4:6 - as if he's saying, 'While we're on the subject of opposition to our temple rebuilding, I might as well mention what happened later in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reigns about our city rebuilding.' Then at 4:24 the writer resumes the narrative about the temple rebuilding.

  If you relegate verses 6 to 23 as a parenthetical statement, you're left with (verses 4-5, 25):

  4 Then the people of the land were continually discouraging the people of Judah and disheartening them from building. 5 They hired advisers against them to frustrate their plans all the days of King Cyrus of Persia until the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia. ... 24 It was then that the work on the house of God, which was in Jerusalem, came to a halt; and it remained at a standstill until the second year of the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia.

  It was then that the work came to a halt? In the reign of Darius? That doesn't make sense. On the other hand, there's no good reason to distinguish the 'they' in verse 5 from the 'they' in the verses that immediately follow.

  In addition, the attitude of Artaxerxes I (in Ezra chapter 7 & 8, and in Nehemiah) toward reconstruction in Jerusalem is entirely different to that of the Artaxerxes posited in Ezra chapter 4. There is nothing said of Artaxerxes I in Ezra chapters 7-8 or in Nehemiah to suggest that Artaxerxes I ever opposed reconstruction in Jerusalem; rather, he provides resources. In Ezra chapter 4, Rehum, the "governor of the region Beyond the River" is opposed to Jerusalem's reconstruction, but in chapter 7, the "governor of the region Beyond the River" is assisting with reconstruction. In Nehemiah, Sanballat and others objected after Artaxerxes I commissioned work in Jerusalem, but there is no reference to any associated request to Artaxerxes to halt repairs. Instead, work on the walls continues and is completed despite Sanballat's complaints to Nehemiah.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  It was then that the work came to a halt? In the reign of Darius?

  It didn't say that. As you said, v. 6-23 is the parenthesis. Thus:

  (Ezra 4:3-5, 24) ... “You have no share with us in building a house to our God , for we alone will build it to Jehovah the God of Israel, just as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.” Then the people of the land were continually discouraging the people of Judah and disheartening them from building. They hired advisers against them to frustrate their plans all the days of King Cyrus of Persia until the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia.

  . . .It was then that the work on the house of God, which was in Jerusalem, came to a halt; and it remained at a standstill until the second year of the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia.

  It was then, from the days of Cyrus up to Darius' Yr. 2, that the work on the temple came to a halt because of all the hassle from the neighbors.

  Ezra says Artaxerxes supported the opposition to rebuilding the city and said it could only resume on his say-so. The letter is undated. Was it early in his reign? All we know is that, apparently, because of Nehemiah's good standing at court (and God's intervention), in his 20th year Art. has a change of heart. It doesn't mean all the neighbors were happy about it, though.
• 

  NeverKnew

  Marked
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  As you said, v. 6-23 is the parenthesis.

  No. I didn't. I said you said it was.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Sorry - badly worded.
• 

  Jeffro

  Ezra says Artaxerxes supported the opposition to rebuilding the city and said it could only resume on his say-so. The letter is undated. Was it early in his reign? All we know is that, apparently, because of Nehemiah's good standing at court (and God's intervention), in his 20th year Art. has a change of heart. It doesn't mean all the neighbors were happy about it, though.

  What you're asserting is circular reasoning, based on the assumption that verses 6 to 23 are parenthetical.

  Ezra 6:14 indicates nothing other than that Artaxerxes I (after Darius) was supportive of rebuilding work in Jerusalem.

  If you're applying Ezra 4:12 to Artaxerxes I, then the arrival of Jews "from you to us" would best fit the timing of Ezra and others going to Jerusalem in the 7th year Artaxerxes I, which would require that the order to halt building would follow that. But that would plainly contradict the fact that Ezra had gone to Jerusalem after Artaxerxes I had given Ezra a letter specifically supporting them.

  It would be odd for Ezra 4:12 to refer to Jews who arrived in Jerusalem over 70 years prior (from return of Jews in 538BCE until in or after the accession year of Artaxerxes I, 465 BCE), as would be the case if it is said to refer to some time prior to Ezra going to Jerusalem but during the reign of Artaxerxes.

  The book of Esther presents Xerxes I as favourable toward the Jews, with no indication that he was the 'Ahasuerus' who prevented construction in Jerusalem either. It is unlikely that Persia would have a Jewish queen for several years, but that Artaxerxes I would be unfamiliar with the Jews, but would then quickly learn they were 'bad' from his 'investigation'.

  It is therefore more logical that Ezra chapter 4 simply presents events in chronological order. Ezra 4:6-7 is consistent with complaints in fairly quick succession to two kings largely unfamiliar with the Jews during relatively brief reigns between those of Cyrus and Darius. Since Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and Artaxerxes are common throne names that are used alternately at various times in the Persian dynasty, it is not especially remarkable that the Bible writer might employ those names, even if erroneously.
• 

  tornapart

  This is a great video on the subject. Easy to understand and easy to show JWs. he uses ONLY JW publications and the bible to prove it was 587BCE and not 607BCE.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdn_t-Aj0jg&list=UUmFy5skgfYsQ36UG1isMNSg
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi Jeffro,

  What you're asserting is circular reasoning, based on the assumption that verses 6 to 23 are parenthetical.

  And your assumption that Ezra attributed different names to Cambyses and Bardiya isn't circular?

  If you're applying Ezra 4:12 to Artaxerxes I, then the arrival of Jews "from you to us" would best fit the timing of Ezra and others going to Jerusalem in the 7th year Artaxerxes I, which would require that the order to halt building would follow that. But that would plainly contradict the fact that Ezra had gone to Jerusalem after Artaxerxes I had given Ezra a letter specifically supporting them.

  It would be odd for Ezra 4:12 to refer to Jews who arrived in Jerusalem over 70 years prior (from return of Jews in 538BCE until in or after the accession year of Artaxerxes I, 465 BCE), as would be the case if it is said to refer to some time prior to Ezra going to Jerusalem but during the reign of Artaxerxes.

  Wait. Artaxerxes was supporting the Jews' worship and their God by donating precious metals, goods, the means to procure animals for sacrifice, etc., to the temple, as well as enabling them to govern the people based on their religious set-up. The Persians not only were tolerant of other religions but, by honoring other people's gods, they ensured divine favor for themselves:

  (Ezra 7:23) . . .Let everything that is ordered by the God of the heavens be done with zeal for the house of the God of the heavens, so that there may be no wrath against the king’s realm and his sons.

  The letters to and from Artaxerxes in Ezra 4 are undated, but there is no contradiction with it being after Art's 7th year. It's one thing to support the Jews' religious practices; it's another to tolerate the rebuilding of a fortified city which could be used to break away and become independent from Persia - especially with Jerusalem's history of attempted rebellions (see 4:13-16). So Art. stipulated that no more building should be done until he ordered it (4:21).

  The book of Esther presents Xerxes I as favourable toward the Jews, with no indication that he was the 'Ahasuerus' who prevented construction in Jerusalem either.

  Where does it suggest Ahasuerus/Xerxes prevented construction? All it says is that complaints were made to him early in his reign.

  I think you are creating more complications than there are. Understanding v. 6-23 as parenthetical, as relating to the later oppositions to city-building, is the most logical conclusion when all factors are considered - at least to me (and also most of modern scholarship).
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  And your assumption that Ezra attributed different names to Cambyses and Bardiya isn't circular?

  Correct. It's not circular reasoning to suggest that a textual narrative probably means largely what it says.

  On the other hand, suggesting that part of an uninterrupted passage 'must' refer to a later period of time merely because it has some characters with the same names (which aren't even the persons' names) as in a later period is assuming a great deal.