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.
