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

by Bart Belteshassur 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  (Jeffro) And even if 1 Esdras came after, it was obviously understood then that the 'foundations' at Ezra 4:12 referred to the foundations of the temple. It's never specified as the foundations of anything other than the temple.

  Ezra makes no suggestion in 4:12 that the foundations relate to the temple. We can infer from Ezra that the foundations of the city or walls are meant.

  In contrast with Ezra, 1 Esdras adds that Darius granted permission for the city to be rebuilt (4:47-57). Ezra indicates Darius only supported the construction of the temple.

  1 Esdras comments that in the 2nd year after they returned, "the builders built the temple of the Lord" (5:56-58). Josephus apparently understood it thus:

  "... and the temple, by the great diligence of those that had the care of it, was finished sooner than any one would have expected. And when the temple was finished [the priests and Levites celebrated/mourned the loss of the previous temple] ..." (Ant. XI.4.2)

  But the temple wasn't finished then, and Josephus later resumes the narrative about how it came to be rebuilt in Darius' time. There's a contradiction here.

  1 Esdras has the period between the end of Cyrus' reign and Darius' reign as 2 years (5:73). Josephus has it as 9 years (Ant. XI.2.2)

  FWIW, The New Bible Commentary (1970, 3rd ed.) remarks on p. 395:

  "It [Esdras A/1 Esdras] probably reflects a better Hebrew text than the Massoretic text but the translation is very free and its historical and chronological details are unreliable, and so the biblical Ezra is to be preferred. The Jewish historian Josephus bases his work upon 1 Esdras."

  .

  (Jeffro) Actually, Josephus took Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' to be Cambyses ...

  Oops. Yes, you're right. Ezra makes reference to Ahasuerus but 1 Esdras does not. Interestingly, 1 Esdras isn't in chronological order anyway.

  Cyrus - 2:1-16
  Artaxerxes - 2:16-30
  Darius - 2:30-5:6
  Cyrus - 5:7-73
  Darius - 6:1-7:15
  Artaxerxes - 8:1-end

  So all-in-all, it doesn't make sense to me to use 1 Esdras (even via Josephus) to argue that Ezra 4 keeps strict chronological sequence and that v. 6-23 referred to the years between Cyrus and Darius.

  ... which is indeed probably in error, but still in the correct period, prior to Darius. Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' - the recipient of the letter - would more likely refer to Bardiya, after complaints were sent to Ezra's 'Ahasuerus', who would more logically refer to Cambyses.

  Well, I've already discussed why I find those identifications unsatisfactory.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  Ezra makes no suggestion in 4:12 that the foundations relate to the temple. We can infer from Ezra that the foundations of the city or walls are meant.
  In contrast with Ezra, 1 Esdras adds that Darius granted permission for the city to be rebuilt (4:47-57). Ezra indicates Darius only supported the construction of the temple.

  An overt distinction between rebuilding the temple or the city is a false dichotomy. The focus of the narrative is on the temple because the temple is of religious significance to a writer of the priestly class. It is more realistic that Cyrus and Darius gave permission to rebuild Jerusalem in general, including but not limited to the temple.

  1 Esdras comments that in the 2nd year after they returned, "the builders built the temple of the Lord" (5:56-58). Josephus apparently understood it thus:

  Those verses only indicated that they were rebuilding the temple, not that it was completed at that time. The context of the rest of the chapter indicates quite clearly that construction of the temple was ongoing.

  1 Esdras has the period between the end of Cyrus' reign and Darius' reign as 2 years (5:73). Josephus has it as 9 years (Ant. XI.2.2)

  The 'two years' in 5:73 is correctly understood to mean Darius' second year of reign (i.e. two years after his accession), not that there were only two years between Cyrus and Darius.

  Interestingly, 1 Esdras isn't in chronological order anyway.
  Cyrus - 2:1-16
  Artaxerxes - 2:16-30
  Darius - 2:30-5:6
  Cyrus - 5:7-73
  Darius - 6:1-7:15
  Artaxerxes - 8:1-end
  So all-in-all, it doesn't make sense to me to use 1 Esdras (even via Josephus) to argue that Ezra 4 keeps strict chronological sequence and that v. 6-23 referred to the years between Cyrus and Darius.

  The claim made in the list above that 1 Esdras chapter 2 isn't in chronological order is going back to the same circular argument as before. 1 Esdras chapter 2 specifically identifies the temple foundations, so without deferring to speculation that the name assigned to Persia's king must refer to a later king with the same (throne) name, the plain reading of 1 Esdras indicates two sections, both in chronological order:

  Cyrus - 2:1-16
  'Artaxerxes' (Bardiya) - 2:16-30
  Darius - 2:30-5:6

  Cyrus - 5:7-73
  Darius - 6:1-7:15
  Artaxerxes - 8:1-end
• 

  Jeffro

  Bart Belteshassur:

  If the JW hisorty states that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 and 8 is Bardiya, then it follows that as chapters 2,3 and 4 are a continuation of each other that the first year of the returnees who come with Zerubbabel must have been 523 BCE at which time the foundation was laid and then halted. Evidently of the narrative we can asume that Sheshazzar had continued as governer throughout the reign of Cyrus, and Cambyses,however the work could not get started due to complaints,and was still governer at the time the foundation was laid in 522BCE, as this work was initially attributed to him at Ezra 5:16, although Zerubbabel organized the work. Zerubbabel became governer sometime before the sixth month 520BCE.

  Your suggestion that the Jews arrived in Jerusalem in 523 BCE has no basis in anything. Work on the foundations began during the reign of Cyrus.

  Sheshbazzar (a Babylonian designation) is likely a title for Zerubbabel in his capacity as governor. Compare Ezra 5:16, Zechariah 4:9.
• 

  Bart Belteshassur

  Jeffro - The return in 523BCE is based on the narrative of chapter 4. It would be rediculus to suggest that the chapter is written in complete chronological order, than can not be the understanding or there would be little need to introduce Cambyses and Bardiya into the chronology at this point. Ez 4:4 to 6 has to be a comment on the past and the narrative of Ez 4:1-3; 7 onwards relates to the current descriptive narrative. As this is regarded as a letter to Bardiya it can only be placed between 2nd and 8th month of Acc Darius, 522BCE, and the second year of Zerubabbel's return. If this is not the way it is intended to be understood what is the point in detailing the letter as it does not achieve any further understanding and could lead to confussion. It must be placed to explain the outcome when the complaint was considered from Ez 4:1-3, and why the work was further halted until the 2nd year of Darius.

  The work on the foundation could well have started in the reign of Cyrus under Sheshazzar but as Ezra gives no date and fails to address the issue this is an arguement from silence, and pure speculation.

  How can Sheshazzar be Zerubabbel? In Ezra 5:14 the reply detailed in the letter to Darius shows that Zerubbabel himself speaks of Sheshazzar in the third person, if it had been him, he or the older men would have named him, as Darius had evidently made Zerubbabel governer by the 2nd year of his reign, and to use his own name in this context would give far more authority to the statement than to use a name which Darius may have been unfamiliar.

  BB
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi Jeffro,

  It is more realistic that Cyrus and Darius gave permission to rebuild Jerusalem in general, including but not limited to the temple.

  And yet Ezra does not say that. You (and the compiler of 1 Esdras) assume it.

  Those verses only indicated that they were rebuilding the temple, not that it was completed at that time. The context of the rest of the chapter indicates quite clearly that construction of the temple was ongoing.

  Sure, but Josephus understands from this that the temple (naos) was completed. Josephus apparently misunderstood 1 Esdras.

  Likewise, 1 Esdras didn't name Cambyses, but Josephus assumed that the first Artaxerxes it mentioned was Cambyses.

  The 'two years' in 5:73 is correctly understood to mean Darius' second year of reign (i.e. two years after his accession), not that there were only two years between Cyrus and Darius.

  But it said "they were kept from building for two years, until the reign of Darius." 'We' have to reinterpret or correct it.

  The claim made in the list above that 1 Esdras chapter 2 isn't in chronological order is going back to the same circular argument as before. 1 Esdras chapter 2 specifically identifies the temple foundations, so without deferring to speculation that the name assigned to Persia's king must refer to a later king with the same (throne) name, the plain reading of 1 Esdras indicates two sections, both in chronological order

  Hm, look, you either have to believe that Cambyses and/or Bardiya were also known as Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus (circularly arguing on nothing more than speculation or assumption), or you have to believe that 1 Esdras wrote out of sequence or else confused the order of Persian kings (which undermines 1 Esdras' chronological usefulness in any argument about the timeframe of Ezra 4:6-23). What's your pleasure?

  
• 

  Bart Belteshassur

  It appears unlikely that Cambyses would feel threatened by the building of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. In the Elephantine papyri P13495 the writer states that "when Cambyses came to Egypt he found it constructed (the Jewish temple). They (the persians)knocked downall the temples of the Egyptian gods; but no one damaged this temple."

  Therefore Cambyses evidently respected the Jewish temples and their faith. Just a quick comment from the sand pit of..........

  BB
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I think you may be getting a little muddled with the Jews returning in 523 BCE, Bart, unless I'm just not following you. However, this comment popped out at me:

  As this is regarded as a letter to Bardiya it can only be placed between 2nd and 8th month of Acc Darius, 522BCE

  (More probably between the 4th and 7th months.)

  So Jeffro, if the Samaritans and neighboring peoples wrote a letter to 'Artaxerxes'/Bardiya, we have to consider:

  - The time it took for them to hear of Cambyses' death. The Behistun inscription indicates July 522 BCE as the time of his death.

  - The time it took for them to hear about Bardiya's universal acceptance as new king, said to also be July (Behistun).

  - The time it took to send and receive the letters.

  Let's say the neighbors knew who the new boss was very quickly, by mid-July. They would have to meet up and confer with everyone concerned (Ezra 4:7-10), compose and translate a letter, send the letter to (presumably) the Persian capital Susa, allow time for the Persians to dig around the archives for historical information on the Judean kingdom, allow time for the Persians to compose a reply, have it sent back to the local Samaritans' or neighboring peoples' officials and have it read out to them before rushing over to Jerusalem to implement the order.

  Google Earth calculates Jerusalem to Susa by foot on modern roads is about 988 miles (1174 km). If they can travel by very fit horses at a lightning 60 miles per day, it would still take at least 16 days there and 16 days back - a day less if Bardiya resided at the fort where he was said to have been killed, somewhere near Behistun.

  Bardiya was dead by the end of September. Soon after Jerusalem got the reply, he'd be history. His order to stop building could hardly be enforced long-term, so why did the Jews wait to finish repairing the city and its walls until (the next) Artaxerxes' 20th year - 78 years - which made Nehemiah depressed - especially if you believe Darius gave the go-ahead to rebuild the city?
• 

  Bart Belteshassur

  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, as the chrono from ch2 runs through 3 and 4 as the WT must claim I assume. If not why identify Ahasuerus as Cambyses and Atraxerxes as Bardiya, there would appear to be little point.

  Outsider of la la land I agree with the idea tha t there would have been little time to contact Bardiya, even if they know he was the man to contact. It would be far more likely that those in Jerusalem would have known of Cambyses death before those in Elam, and that Darius was on his way back to Babylon to claim the crown, having been in Egypt with Cambyses when he died, if memory serve correctly.

  BB
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  And yet Ezra does not say that. You (and the compiler of 1 Esdras) assume it.

  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. (And it's not firmly established that 1 Esdras does not represent an earlier version of the text than Ezra.)

  Sure, but Josephus understands from this that the temple (naos) was completed. Josephus apparently misunderstood 1 Esdras.

  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.

  Likewise, 1 Esdras didn't name Cambyses, but Josephus assumed that the first Artaxerxes it mentioned was Cambyses.

  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??

  But it said "they were kept from building for two years, until the reign of Darius." 'We' have to reinterpret or correct it.

  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.

  Hm, look, you either have to believe that Cambyses and/or Bardiya were also known as Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus (circularly arguing on nothing more than speculation or assumption), or you have to believe that 1 Esdras wrote out of sequence or else confused the order of Persian kings (which undermines 1 Esdras' chronological usefulness in any argument about the timeframe of Ezra 4:6-23). What's your pleasure?

  Neither. 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.

  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.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  Let's say the neighbors knew who the new boss was very quickly, by mid-July. They would have to meet up and confer with everyone concerned (Ezra 4:7-10), compose and translate a letter,

  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'.

  send the letter to (presumably) the Persian capital Susa, allow time for the Persians to dig around the archives for historical information on the Judean kingdom, allow time for the Persians to compose a reply, have it sent back to the local Samaritans' or neighboring peoples' officials and have it read out to them before rushing over to Jerusalem to implement the order.

  Or Badiya already didn't like the Jews and lied about the research. Or the research had been done during Cambyses' reign. 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, so it's possible that some or all of the content of either letter was simply made up. There's many instances in the Bible where conversations - even private conversations among enemies - are simply made up where the writer could not possibly have been party to the conversation.

  Bardiya was dead by the end of September. Soon after Jerusalem got the reply, he'd be history. His order to stop building could hardly be enforced long-term, so why did the Jews wait to finish repairing the city and its walls until (the next) Artaxerxes' 20th year - 78 years - which made Nehemiah depressed - especially if you believe Darius gave the go-ahead to rebuild the city?

  Maybe they were just lazy. Apparently they only did any rebuilding in ernest when there was an order to do so. I'm not sure that Nehemiah's depression would be a particularly great motivator to Jerusalem's populace.