Tag Archives: ABR

The Priests & Levites of Ezra & Nehemiah: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

If I told you that today in this article I was going to set aside the most natural plain sense reading of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and instead adjust their chronology because this specific era in Biblical history doesn’t jive with what we know from secular sources, what would your reaction be?

My hope is that such an approach would raise all sorts of red flags to you as it should all of us when someone takes such liberties with the Biblical record. I believe the Bible should be read with the assumption that it is an accurate and reasonable rendering of real history. When it makes a historical statement, I believe our primary response should be to take it at face value and in good faith. Only after we have clear guidance from the context and related passages should we look for an alternative interpretation. This is what many call the Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation as most eloquently described by Dr. David Cooper:

 “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” –Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),

I can tell you that the times I’ve made the greatest interpretational errors have been when I’ve ignored this Rule of Biblical Interpretation.

While most scholars believe this rule is a valuable guild when interpreting the Scripture, I can tell you it is easier said than done. Which brings me to today’s subject. There is one place in the Biblical record where even some of the most notable Biblical scholars of our day still stumble over this rule. That place is the 2nd temple era chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah in general and more particularly the chronology of the priests and Levites mentioned in these books.

The more I’ve studied this subject the more disconcerting it is to see the length many of my peers go to discount a common sense reading of Ezra and Nehemiah. Case in point, the following quote comes from Mr. Lanser’s (of Associates for Biblical Research) article The Seraiah Assumption where he takes my writings on the 2nd temple era to task.  In the following quote I’ve excerpted from Mr. Lanser’s article so I’d encourage you to read the entire article to get the full context. As you’ll see Mr. Lanser starts out on the right foot, but then abandons his own criteria without actually applying the context he admits is necessary to ascertain an accurate understanding of the passage. Please note, as I’ll explain more fully below, Mr. Lanser is explaining why the priests and Levites as enumerated in Nehemiah 10 & 12 cannot be taken in their most natural and plain sense understanding, but must be read papponymically (i.e. common names do not necessary refer to the same person but can refer to an ancestor by the same name).

Some—notably Jeshua, Seraiah, Azariah, Meshullam and Shallum—demonstrate the phenomenon of papponymy, where a man’s name skips a generation and shows up again in a grandson. This phenomenon means keying on name repetitions alone is not a reliable way to construct a chronology. There is also the ambiguity raised by the repeated use of culturally common names among unrelated people. Anyone who has paid any attention to genealogies in Scripture has noticed that the same names are used for many different individuals. (The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser)

With such examples before us, how can we possibly use name matching alone to claim that Sir Robert Anderson erred in understanding “Artaxerxes” in Ezra 6:14 as Artaxerxes I Longimanus? Confronted with biblical evidence that using the same names in multiple generations was a common thing, we cannot simply find the same names in different lists of priests, Levites or gatekeepers, and claim that this repetition proves they were the same person. The only way to tell if a given name refers to the same person is by context and tying in at least some other names in an ancestral line. (The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser)

Regarding Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s relationship to the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 and 12, Mr. Lanser concludes with the following summary in his section on Answering Struse’s Six Biblical Challenges:

    1. The priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 are from the third post-exilic generation, when Ezra read the Law to the people when Nehemiah was governor and Eliashib was high priest, while those listed in Nehemiah 12:1–9 were from the original post-exilic generation under Zerubbabel and Jeshua. The name repetitions must be attributed to papponymy and the use of culturally common names—identical names, but not identical individuals. (The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser)

I again I encourage each of you to go back and read Mr. Lanser’s entire article again (here) to get the full context of his words. You’ll find his fuller thoughts on the subject under the heading Examining the Eliashib Assumption.

The Papponymy Assumption
Here is the crux of the problem. Many of the priests and Levites who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel in the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC) appear in the list of priests and Levites who were sealed with Nehemiah in the 20/21st year of a Persian “Artaxerxes”.  If the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah be the Persian king Longimanus (as Mr. Lanser and many of our peers claim) then many of those priests and Levites would have been 120+ years old. This proposition nearly all Biblical scholars (including Mr. Lanser) agree is untenable.

To get around this difficult problem Mr. Lanser and most of his peers resort to some variation of a Papponymy Assumption. What that means, is Mr. Lanser must assume that same names given in the lists of Nehemiah 10 and 12 are not the same men but rather one of their descendants who bore the same name generations later.

Mr. Lanser is correct that the Bible often uses the same name in succeeding generations but having said that, this in no way gives us license to automatically assume papponymy and discount the most natural reading of the text.  What is most disconcerting about Mr. Lanser’s conclusion above is that in his article he didn’t even take the time to show why  he believes the names found in Nehemiah 10 and 12 were used papponymically.

In this week’s article I’ll show you why the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 and 12 are not papponymic lists separated by decades but rather straight forward chronological statements that prove Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries of Jeshua and his son  Joiakim, the high priests, as well as contemporaries of Darius I ‘The Great’ whom the Bible identifies as “Artaxerxes”.

Who Returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel?
Our exploration of the subject begins with the decree of Cyrus and the first group of priests and Levites repatriated to Judea and Jerusalem. We start with the accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah:

 Ezra 2:1-2  Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;  2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah…

Nehemiah 7:5-7   5 And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein, 

6 These are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city;  7 Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Nehum, Baanah.

Taken at face value these two passages give us a list of a group of core leading men who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel after Cyrus allowed the Jewish captives to return in 536 BC. As I demonstrated in my last couple of articles (here & here) the Mordecai listed in these two passages is most likely the Mordecai of the book of Esther. After evaluating the evidence presented in this article I believe you’ll find a compelling reason to conclude that the Nehemiah mentioned in these passages is in fact the same man who nearly thirty-six years later would become the governor of Jerusalem as described in the book that bears his name.

The 2nd Year of the Return
Year two of the Jewish people’s return to Jerusalem was marked by the auspicious effort of rebuilding Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary. The following passage is especially worthy of note because it introduces us to some of the leading men and their families who were responsible for the commencement of the rebuilding efforts.

Ezra 3:8-9  8 Now in the second year [535 BC] of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the remnant of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity unto Jerusalem; and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to set forward the work of the house of YHWH.

 9 Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to set forward the workmen in the house of God: the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the Levites.

The reconstruction efforts on the temple were begun with Jeshua (the high priest – a.k.a Joshua) and his sons, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Henadad and their brethren the Levites. These are important people who are mentioned throughout the books of Ezra and Nehemiah so mark them carefully. Worthy of note is that the text seems to indicate that neither Judah nor Henadad were present but only their “sons”. As you’ll see this distinction is congruent as the history of Ezra and Nehemiah unfolds.

Ezra Reads the Law to Israel
After the wall of Jerusalem had been built and the gates restored in the 7th month of that year, all Israel gathered in Jerusalem to read the law of Yahweh during the Feast of Sukkoth as is commanded in the 7th year of the Sabbath cycle (Shemitah). On the following 24th day of that month as Israel was fasting and praising Yahweh we once again meet men named Jeshua and Kadmiel.

Now it is true that there was the high priest Jeshua (Joshua) and two Levites named Jeshua. But in the passages that mention them if read carefully most of the time they can be distinguished from one another. Of the two Levites named Jeshua, one was the son of Azaniah (Neh. 10:9) and the other was the son of Kadmiel (Nehemiah 12:24). In fact Nehemiah 10:9 mentions “both” Jeshua, son of Azaniah and mentions Kadmiel in the same verse. Remember in the passage above where the “sons of Henadad” were mentioned? Well, Nehemiah 10:1-13 also mentions both Jeshua’s, Kadmiel as well as Binnui the son of Henadad.  For context sake keep in mind here that Nehemiah 10 is in the 20th year of a Persian “Artaxerxes”.

As you read the following passages remember that they describe events that take place in roughly the 21st year of a Persian king “Artaxerxes” if this Persian king is Darius I then the following passages can be read in the straight forward manner in which they are given.

 If on the other hand the Persian king “Artaxerxes” is Longimanus as Mr. Lanser suggests then these passages cannot be taken at face value and we must assume that even though the men and their relationships to each other are nearly identical they cannot be father and son relationships but rather papponymic and an unknown number of generations separates both groups of men. What do you think is the most reasonable reading of these passages?

Ezra 3:9   9 Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to set forward the workmen in the house of God: the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the Levites.

Nehemiah 3:24  24 After him repaired Binnui the son of Henadad another piece,

Nehemiah 9:1-5  Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting,….

4 Then stood up upon the stairs, of the Levites, Jeshua, and Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani, and Chenani, and cried with a loud voice unto YHWH their God. 

5 Then the Levites, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodijah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah, said, Stand up and bless YHWH your God for ever and ever: and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise.

Nehemiah 10:1-13  Now those that sealed were, Nehemiah,…

9 And the Levites: both Jeshua the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, Kadmiel; (excerpted)

Nehemiah 12:1-8   Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua:..

Moreover the Levites: Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, which was over the thanksgiving, he and his brethren. (excerpted)

Nehemiah 12:24-25   24 And the chief of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward. 

Now it is pretty obvious, unless you are really trying not to see it, that these are not papponymic relationships but real first and second generation Levites who worked, prayed and gave thanks together from the 1st year of Cyrus until at least the 20th year of the Persian king the Bible identifies as “Artaxerxes”.  For clarity I repeat if this “Artaxerxes” of Ezra and Nehemiah be Darius I then these passages give an incredibly congruent picture of the temple rebuilding efforts, its dedication, the building of the wall, and resumption of Torah observance.

If the Artaxerxes mentioned is the Persian king Longimanus then we are left with a hopeless chronological muddle which undermines the credibility of the Bible.

Chief of Thanksgiving in the Days of Jeshua
But let’s drill down a bit to see if there is any other supporting passages which might shed light on this chronology. In Nehemiah 12 a Levite named Mattaniah is identified who was “over the thanksgiving”. In modern terms you might call him a worship leader. This Mattaniah is identified as one of the Levites who officiated during the days of Jeshua, the high priest.

Nehemiah 12:8  8 Moreover the Levites: Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, which was over the thanksgiving,…

After the wall was completed in the 21st year of “Artaxerxes” Nehemiah asked the children of Israel to cast lots in order that they might find inhabitants to dwell in the newly fortified city of Jerusalem. One of the men mentioned was Mattaniah who was the “principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer”. Further this Mattaniah Neh. 11:22 tells us had a son named Hashabiah who we find in Nehemiah 12:24 as one of the chief Levites whose job it was to “praise and give thanks” and who the text identifies as a contemporary of Joiakim (son of Jeshua, the high priest).

This provides confirming evidence that the Mattaniah of Cyrus’ and Jeshua’s day was the same Mattaniah who was present in Jerusalem at the dedication of the wall when the city was resettled and who’s son’s were also a contemporaries of Joiakim. In no reasonable way could these events have taken place in the 21st year of “Artaxerxes” Longimanus

Nehemiah 11:15-17  15 Also of the Levites:….
 17 And Mattaniah the son of Micha, the son of Zabdi, the son of Asaph, was the principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer:

Nehemiah 11:22   The overseer also of the Levites at Jerusalem was Uzzi the son of Bani, the son of Hashabiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Micha. Of the sons of Asaph, the singers were over the business of the house of God.

Nehemiah 12:24   24 And the chief of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward.

A Chronological Reading of Nehemiah 12
The above evidence is further confirmed with a chronological reading of Nehemiah 12. I challenge you to see for yourself in the following passage I’ve arranged the verses as they were given but in a way to emphasize their natural relationship to each other. Please note that Nehemiah 12:1-7 gives a list of the “chief of the priests” in the days of Jeshua, the high priest. This is followed by a listing of the “Levites” during the days of Jeshua. This list is arranged first by priest and then Levites.

Important Key to Understanding these Passages:
Please note that the distinction made between priests and Levites is one of the ways the author of Nehemiah helps the reader understand specifically who he is talking about. When you arrange these priests and Levites of Nehemiah chapters 7 -12 according to these designations, it removes much of the confusion as to who is meant and how each name is related to each other, especially when some of the priests or Levites share the same name.

Following this list of Levites in verses 8-9, Neh. 12:10-11 establishes the lineage of Jeshua and his sons so that there is no confusion about the chronological context he is describing and that which follows. In other words he links chronologically these priests and Levites with Jeshua the high priest and then shows the reader how these men are chronologically related to Jeshua’s descendants.

After this summary of the lineage of the high priests, the author in verses 12-21 then provides a list of priests who officiated during the high priesthood of Joiakim, son of Jeshua. To further emphasize the first and second generation relationship, most of the chief priests who were contemporaries of Jeshua (verses 1-7) are listed again along with the name of their offspring and the text then identifies these offspring as contemporaries of Joiakim the son of Jeshua the high priest.

 Verses 22-23 once again provide an overview of the high priesthood lineage, only this time it synchronizes this lineage with Darius the Persian.

Verses 24-25 provide a list of some of the Levites who officiated during the days of Joiakim. (Thus balancing the list of priests and Levites who served during the days of Jeshua the high priest with a similar list of priests and Levites who served during the days of Jeshua son, Joiakim. In other words this passage presents the  priests and Levites during the days of Jeshua and then priests and Levites during the days of Joiakim.

Finally verse 26 removes all doubt about the chronological relationship between the priest and Levites listed during the priesthood of Jeshua and Joiakim. It concludes:

26 These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe.

As you will be able to see for yourself below, this passage in its most natural and plain sense reading proves that the priests and Levites in the days of Joiakim were contemporaries with Nehemiah’s governorship and Ezra’s service as priest and scribe.

Here is the Nehemiah 12 with verse numbers:

Nehemiah 12:1-26
1 Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua:

Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra2 Amariah, Malluch, Hattush,  3 Shechaniah, Rehum, Meremoth4 Iddo, Ginnetho, Abijah5 Miamin, Maadiah, Bilgah6 Shemaiah, and Joiarib, Jedaiah7 Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, Jedaiah.

  These were the chief of the priests and of their brethren in the days of Jeshua

8 Moreover the Levites:

Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, which was over the thanksgiving, he and his brethren.  9 Also Bakbukiah and Unni, their brethren, were over against them in the watches. 

 

 10 And Jeshua begat Joiakim, Joiakim also begat Eliashib, and Eliashib begat Joiada,  11 And Joiada begat Jonathan, and Jonathan begat Jaddua.

 

 12 And in the days of Joiakim were priests, the chief of the fathers:
of Seraiah, Meraiah;
of Jeremiah, Hananiah;
of Ezra, Meshullam
of Amariah, Jehohanan;
of Melicu, Jonathan;
of Shebaniah, Joseph
of Harim, Adna
of Meraioth, Helkai
of Iddo, Zechariah
of Ginnethon, Meshullam
of Abijah, Zichri
of Miniamin
of Moadiah, Piltai
of Bilgah, Shammua
of Shemaiah, Jehonathan
of Joiarib, Mattenai
of Jedaiah, Uzzi
of Sallai, Kallai
of Amok, Eber
of Hilkiah, Hashabiah
of Jedaiah, Nethaneel.

22 The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers: also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian. 23 The sons of Levi, the chief of the fathers, were written in the book of the chronicles, even until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib. 

 

 24 And the chief of the Levites:

Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward. 

25 Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, Akkub, were porters keeping the ward at the thresholds of the gates.

 

26 These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe.

 As you can see from reading this passage in its most natural sense, the 1st and 2nd generational relationship of the priests and Levites is emphasized by the author.  In this passage there are only room for two generations from the decree of Cyrus and Joshua and Zerubbabel’s return until the events described in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah.

This 1st and 2nd generational relationship is further confirmed when the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 12 are compared to the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 who were present when the wall was completed under the direction of Nehemiah in the 20-21st year of the Persian king “Artaxerxes”. As you’ll see demonstrated in the chart below the same priests and Levites are listed and for the most part they are even listed in the same order as given in Nehemiah 12.

In other words, these lists demonstrate that many of the priests and Levites who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel in 536 BC (Neh. 12) were still alive and active when the wall was completed and dedicated in the 20-21st year of a Persian “Artaxerxes”.

To try and break this 1st and 2nd generational connection undermines the specific chronology and detailed account and throws the entire books of Ezra and Nehemiah into chronological confusion.

Please see the chart at the bottom of this page for a complete visual representation of the priest and Levites of Nehemiah 12 relative to priests and Levites of Nehemiah 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Zechariah the Trumpeter
An additional piece of evidence that puts the nail into the coffin of the Pappanymy Assumption is the lineage of a trumpeter named Zechariah. In Nehemiah 12:35 it tells us that Zechariah was one of the priests who played music upon the wall when it was dedicated in the 20-21st year of Artaxerxes.

Nehemiah 12:35   35 And certain of the priests’ sons with trumpets; namely, Zechariah the son of Jonathan, the son of Shemaiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Michaiah, the son of Zaccur, the son of Asaph:

What is so cool about this lineage is that this passage identifies Zechariah as a priest and the son and grandson of Jonathan and Shemaiah respectively. If we then turn to Nehemiah 12:12-18 we find that Shemaiah’s son Jonathan listed as contemporaries of Joiakim. Proceeding back in time we find that Nehemiah 12:18 lists Shemaiah as one of the original priests who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel in the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC).

Because Nehemiah 12:35 provides a continuous lineage from Zechariah to Shemaiah it provides reasonable if not conclusive proof that priests listed in Nehemiah 12 were first and second generation contemporaries of Joshua and Zerubbabel. Because these same priests and Levites are given in Nehemiah 10 and elsewhere as real live contemporaries of Ezra and Nehemiah we must accept that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra and Nehemiah could not have been Artaxerxes Longimanus but must have been the Persian king Darius I ‘The Great’ whom the Bible identifies by the title of Artaxerxes decades before that Medo-Persian administrative title was taken as a throne name by his grandson Longimanus.

Nehemiah 10 and the Sealing of Israel
For those of you who really love to search these things out I challenge you to read the chronological history of Nehemiah 8-10 & 12 and see if you can identify the priests and Levites who took part in those momentous events. For your convenience in the chart below I’ve color coded the names of the priests and Levites found in those chapters. With the information I’ve provided you in this article I sincerely believe you’ll find that there is no other reasonable option but to see the events of Ezra and Nehemiah and the priests and Levites who partook in those events as contemporaries of the Persian king Darius. Rather than an uncertain chronological muddle proposed by Mr. Lanser and many of our peers on account of their Papponymy Assumption, instead we have straight forward chronological generational statements that prove the Bible to be a reliable account of real history.

As you pursue the chart below keep in mind that the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 12 are those who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel in the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC). The priest and Levites of Nehemiah 8, 9, 10, and 11 are those who the Bible specifically tells us were contemporaries of Joshua’s son Joiakim (the high priest), Nehemiah (the governor), and Ezra (the priest and scribe).

Click on Image to Enlarge

Ezra the Priest and Scribe
This brings us to the history of Ezra, the priest and scribe. Our exploration of this subject wouldn’t be complete unless including this man who was one of the most pivotal people of that era.

Let’s start by looking at the lineage of Ezra.  Ezra 7 opens with Ezra’s lineage as a “son of Seraiah”. Here take a look:

Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah,… (Ezra 7:1)

Again according to our interpretive method, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise we must assume the most plain sense ordinary reading of the text. Such a reading of this text unequivocally indicates that Seraiah was Ezra’s father. Not everyone agrees with such a plain reading of the text. This is not how Mr. Lanser sees the text. I quote from his article The Seraiah Assumption:

Genealogical Lists Can be Incomplete
However, it is essential to realize that genealogies in Scripture often do not include every name in a family tree. Names of certain individuals are sometimes left out when their mention does not further the writer’s purpose. The possibility of missing ancestors is demonstrated in Ezra 7, where we are presented with this genealogy:

1Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, there went up Ezra son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, 2son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub, 3son of Amariah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth…

A superficial comparison of 1 Chronicles 6:14–15 with Ezra 7:1 might lead some to think Ezra was one of the exiles taken to Babylon in 587 BC, but this does not take the full picture into account. By focusing on “Ezra son of Seraiah, son of Azariah” in Ezra 7:1 to claim the existence of an Artaxerxes Assumption, another assumption is being made: that Seraiah ben- (“son of”) Azariah was the literal father of Ezra. This assumption is not nearly as firmly grounded as the English translation may make it seem, for the Hebrew prefix ben– (which the KJV archaically renders “begat”) encompasses not only direct father-son relationships but also ancestor-descendant relationships, where some intervening names between two significant people are left unmentioned.

It is true that generational lists don’t always include every generation in a family tree. As Ezra’s own genealogy demonstrates he did leave out several generations in the middle of his lineage when compared to 1 Chron. 6:3-25. This omission though does not provide any grounds to assume that there were also names missing between Ezra and his father Seraiah.

 If we allow ourselves to take such liberties with the text without contextual support then all lists would then be fair game to insert additional generations as we arbitrarily deem necessary to adjust Biblical history to meet our own criteria. Quite frankly such an approach undermines the credibility of the Scripture. Ezra was a scribe, that means he was well versed in the Torah. If he left names out in the middle of his lineage he could have simply done so for brevities sake. To use this omission as some sort of spring board to assume further missing name between his lineage and his father Seraiah is simply unsupported speculation, necessitated by a desire to stretch the chronology of the 2nd temple era.

The reason Mr. Lanser needs to seen missing generations between Seraiah and Ezra is because  Ezra’s father Seraiah was the last high priest of Solomon’s temple and he was killed in Babylon in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:18-20). By no reasonable interpretive method can Mr. Lanser’s chronology justify Ezra as the son of Seraiah in its most natural sense because taking this passage in its most plain sense would make Ezra over 140 years old by the time 21st year of the Persian king Longimanus.

The following chart shows the age of Ezra relative to the Persian kings Darius and Longimanus. Without inserting arbitrary generations in the lineage of Ezra this chart shows why Ezra and “Artaxerxes” Longimanus could in no reasonable way be considered contemporaries. 

Interestingly, one might argue that Ezra may have returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel for a short period of time.  In Nehemiah 12:1 a priest by the name of Ezra did in fact return to Jerusalem. The text does not tell us who this Ezra was, but we cannot say definitively that it was not our Ezra the priest and scribe. And lest you think it unusual to find Ezra back in Persia by the 6th year of Darius, consider that the Scriptures tells us Nehemiah, as an officer of the king, traveled back and forth between Jerusalem and Shushan in Persia. If we are going to speculate here, we could assume a high likelihood that there was much traffic between the Jewish community in Judah and those still in Persia, including those Hebrew men who were officiating on king Darius Artaxerxes’ behalf.

 Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra,  Amariah, Malluch,… Nehemiah 12:1-2

Ezra In the Historical Records
Ezra really is important to fixing the chronology of the 2nd temple period. In this article I’ve given you several reasonable pieces of Biblical evidence that show Ezra was a contemporary of Darius “Artaxerxes”. Now let me give you several historical references which also indicate Ezra was the literal son of Seraiah just as the Bible describes. These sources are not scriptural, but represent Jewish oral and written traditions as well as two references from the apocryphal books of Esdras. At the very least these references show that Ezra’s contemporaneous relationship to Darius “Artaxerxes” was well understood by the Jewish people.

    • Daniel now received the Divine charge to urge Cyrus to rebuild the Temple. To this end he was to introduce Ezra and Zerubbabel to the king. Ezra then went from place to place and called upon the people to return to Palestine. Sad to say, only a tribe and a half obeyed his summons. Indeed, the majority of the people were so wroth against Ezra that they sought to slay him. He escaped the peril to his life only by a Divine miracle. (LOUIS GINZBERG. THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS VOL. I – IV (Kindle Locations 18416-18420). Kindle Edition.)
    • The complete resettlement of Palestine took place under the direction of Ezra, or, as the Scriptures sometimes call him, Malachi. He had not been present at the earlier attempts to restore the sanctuary, because he could not leave his old teacher Baruch, who was too advanced in years to venture upon the difficult journey to the Holy Land. …. (LOUIS GINZBERG. THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS VOL. I – IV (Kindle Locations 18523-18530). Kindle Edition.)
    • … for it is written [Ezra, vi. 15]: “And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the King.” And we have learned in a Boraitha: At the same time in the following year Ezra and the children of the captivity went up from Babylon, and the Bible says about this [Ezra, vii. 8]:(The Babylonian Talmud Kindle Edition)
    • The second book of the prophet Esdras, the son of Saraias….which was captive in the land of the Medes, in the reign of Artexerxes king of the Persians.(4 Esdras 1:1-3)
    • In the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city I was in Babylon [554 BC], and lay troubled upon my bed, and my thoughts came up over my heart:(4 Esdras 3:1)
    • Jewish Encyclopedia —– The Babylonian captivity lasted seventy years. Ezra sanctified Palestine in the seventh year of the second entrance, after the sixth year of Darius, when the Temple was dedicated (Ezra vi. 15, 16; vii. 7). The first cycle of shemiṭṭah began with the sanctification of Ezra. The Second Temple stood 420 years, and was destroyed, like the First, in the 421st year, on the closing of the shemiṭṭah (‘Ar. 13a).

In this article I’ve given you several vectors of contextual Biblical evidence which all show that Ezra was the son of Seraiah and that he was a contemporary of Darius Artaxerxes.  This evidence combined with what we’ve learned about the 1st and 2nd generational relationship of the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12 provides compelling evidence that the events described in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah took place during the reign of Darius I ‘The Great’ Persian king whom the Bible also identifies as “Artaxerxes” decades before that title was taken as a throne name by Darius’ grandson Longimanus. 

The Sanballat Double Standard
There is one last aspect of Mr. Lanser’s Seraiah Assumption that I believe needs to be addressed because it illustrates the lengths to which so many decent scholars are willing to go to find evidence for their belief that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra and Nehemiah was the Persian king Longimanus.

As you read the following passage keep in mind that Mr. Lanser and many of his peers when reading the names of the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 and 12 cannot accept that these men are 1st and 2nd generations because some of the priests and Levites have the same name (the papponymy assumption).

Yet when it comes to the Bible’s mention of Sanballat the Horonite in Nehemiah 2, Biblical scholarship lauds this Sanballat as the very same Sanballat the governor of Samaria because he is mentioned in the Elephantine Papyri dated to the 407 BC. This despite the fact that at no point does the Bible tell us that Sanballat the Horonite was the governor of Samaria, despite the fact that Sanballat was a very common name in the 2nd temple era, and despite the fact that historians to this day have no real clarity as to how many Sanballat governors of Samaria there actually were. Mr. Lanser explains it this way:

Sanballat in the Elephantine Papyri
Lastly, I would point out the mention of Sanballat, the local leader Nehemiah contended with, in Elephantine papyri that place him alive in 407 BC. As described at https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/biblical-archaeology-31-the-elephantine-papyri/:

One letter is of particular note. The “Petition to Bagoas” is a letter written by Yedaniah bar-Gemariah on November 25, 407 BC (the 17th year of King Darius) to Bagoas, the Persian governor of Judea, asking for assistance in the rebuilding of a Jewish temple in Elephantine that had been damaged by Egyptian priests in the community. On the reverse side at the very end it mentions another letter that had been sent to the sons of Sanballat, governor of Samaria:

“We have also set forth the whole matter in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. Furthermore, Arsames (the Persian satrap) knew nothing of all that was perpetrated on us. On the twentieth of Marheshwan, the seventeenth year of Darius the King.”

The precise dating of this letter, in the seventeenth year of the reign of Darius II Nothus who succeeded Artaxerxes I Longimanus, together with the explicit naming of Sanballat alongside his two sons who were old enough to be the primary recipients of a second official letter, should make it clear that Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem must be placed in the twentieth year of an “Artaxerxes” compatible with that date. Only Artaxerxes I Longimanus meets the dating requirements; placing Nehemiah’s arrival in the twentieth year of Darius I (502/501 BC) is far too early for Sanballat to have been a middle-aged man at that time. When I pointed this out to Mr. Struse in a private email, he replied:

The fact that a Sanballat was mentioned in the Elephantine papyri is not proof that this was the Sanballat of Nehemiah’s day. In fact Sanballat was a very common name especially during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has this to say about Sanballat:

Sanballat is the Babylonian Sin-uballit, “may Sin give him life,” a name occurring a number of times in the contract tablets from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, and Darius Hystaspis. (See Tallquist, Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, 183) (emphasis added by Struse).

The problem here is that Mr. Struse has jumped to a conclusion that overlooks a key point made by Robert Dick Wilson in the aforementioned ISBE article, online at https://biblehub.com/topical/s/sanballat.htm. It is this: the Sanballat in question was clearly not only a governor of Samaria, he was also the father of two sons named Delaiah and Shelemiah. These are men who were rulers of the Samaritans and are known from the Elephantine papyri to have lived in the late fifth century BC. These further identifiers make this Sanballat a very specific person that stands out from any others who may have borne that name, and only this particular Sanballat matters to us. Certainly, the name may have been found at other times and in other contexts, just like the multiple examples of papponymy given in the previous article. But how many of them were governors who also fathered sons named Delaiah and Shelemiah?

Summarizing the Sanballat Double Standard
To put this Sanballat double standard a bit more bluntly, it claims that we can’t accept Nehemiah 10 and 12 as straight forward accounts of chronological history because some of the priests and Levites have the same names and this somehow proves, without any deference to the context, that those names must have been used papponymically. Yet we must accept that “Sanballat the Horonite” mentioned in the Bible is the very same “Sanballat the governor” of Samaria of the Elephantine Papyri because these two individuals have the same name.

In Conclusion
I hope this series of articles has helped you wrap your mind around the chronology of the 2nd temple era. I also hope that I’ve illustrated the dangers of making assumptions that the Bible cannot be taken at face value in its most natural and reasonable sense. So much confusion has been introduced into the subject because scholars have looked passed the most natural reading of the text and made unwarranted assumptions.  The Biblical account really is straight forward. Only when the reader steps outside a chronological reading of the text and imposes a so called “thematic” or other arbitrary framework around the text do the books of Ezra and Nehemiah become a hopelessly confusing chronological mess.

It is my belief that a straight forward and chronological reading of the texts of Nehemiah and Ezra provides the clearest and most compelling understanding of these books and it shows just how accurate the Biblical record is when it describes the history of the 2nd temple era.

If you’ve followed these series of articles closely then some of you realize the real root cause of the chronological confusion surrounding the 2nd temple era is a well meaning but misguided attempt to stretch the chronology of the 2nd temple era so that most interpretations of the prophecy of Daniel 9 find their fulfillment in Yeshua of Nazareth. That is the only reason compelling enough for scholars to turn a blind eye towards a contextual and plain sense reading of the history described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

But this need not be the case. The chronology of the 2nd temple era can be read in a straight forward and plain sense way without sacrificing the credibility of the prophecy of 70 Sevens and its fulfillment in Yeshua. I’ve demonstrated this in multiple articles at this blog and in my book Daniel’s 70 Seven: The Keystone of Bible Prophecy. Those of you who take your stewardship of Yahweh’s wonderful word seriously I encourage you to do your own due diligence and “see if these things be so.”

Maranatha!

Articles related to this series:
The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser of Associates for Biblical Research
The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping up Loose Ends by Rick Lanser

My response to Rick Lansers – The Seraiah Assumption:
Introduction
The Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption

Part ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius the great Persian Artaxerxes: A Contextual Look at the Book of Ezra in the Light of Persian History
Part IV – Darius and the Kingdom of Arta
Part VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, Ahasuerus, & Artaxerxes: Who was the Persian King of 127 Provinces?
Part VIII – Darius I: A Gentile King at the Crux of Jewish Messianic History
Part IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

 

Book 1
Book I - Description

The 13th Enumeration
"A book that will change how you look at the Bible's Messianic Symbolism."

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

Daniel's 70 Weeks -
"A book that will forever change how you understand the Bible's greatest Messianic prophecy."

Book 3
Book 3 - Description

The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."

 

 

Darius I: A Gentile King at the Crux of Jewish Messianic History

My last several articles have looked at the Persian king Darius and his important role in the return and restoration of the Jewish people to their land. This effort by Darius also included moral and financial support in rebuilding the temple, reestablishment of the temple service, and most importantly (I believe), the restoration of Torah observance.

The last seven articles have been a book’s worth of Biblical and historical details spread out over a period of months. So in this article I’ll attempt to summarize the important highlights of the information so that you’ll will be able have the big picture of how Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, used a the Persian king Darius to prepare the way of the coming of  Israel’s (and the world’s) promised Redeemer. If these highlights challenge or intrigue you then I encourage you to read the underlying articles which show the Biblical foundations for my arguments.

In response to The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser, which was a critical review of my work on the 2nd temple era as posted on the Associates for Biblical Research website, I started this series of articles with the premise that the Bible is a trustworthy and accurate account of history. As the Biblical history has unfolded in these articles we’ve seen in fact that taking the Biblical account in its most natural and plain sense provides us with a clearer picture of Biblical history and its chronology than if we try to rearrange the Bible’s chronology using a thematic approach as proposed by Rick Lanser.

In the following paragraphs let me show you just how incredibly important Darius I was in Jewish history. And so that you will have the clearest context of the events described, I will giving them in the same chronological order as they appear in the Biblical record. As a sort of prologue we will start with Cyrus and his decree which allowed the Jewish people to return and build the temple and Jerusalem.

Keep in mind here that in this series of articles I provided evidence to show that the Biblical authors of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther used the Medo-Persian administrative titles of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes to describe the Persian king Darius I (and others) long before those titles were take as throne names by his descendants in the decades that followed.

As I’ve demonstrated in these article and others over the years, Old Testament Biblical history in terms of an Bible chronology ends here in the reign of Darius I ‘The Great’, the only thing connecting the next five centuries of Biblical history to the coming of the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) and the New Testament record of Yeshua’s birth, death, and resurrection is the prophecy of Daniel 9 and its 70 Sevens. Daniel 9 and its 70 Seven prophecy is the bridge that connects the Old Testament and New Testament,. In essences it is the cord that binds them into a congruent and complete chronological whole.

Why is This Even Important?
The reason I’ve spent so much time going over the chronology of the 2nd temple era in this series and over the years at this blog is because the Bible is a congruent whole with specific redemptive message to share with mankind. That message is Yahweh’s atoning love through His Yeshua – His Salvation worked out through Biblical history according to His preordained calendar as measured in what we understand as time – past, present, and future. When we misidentify chronological fixing points Yahweh has recorded for us in the Bible, these errors can’t help but influence the interpretational matrix of how we understand what happened at Yeshua’s first coming as well as what Yahweh’s word predicts about what will take place at Yeshua’s return.

Think about the implications of an inaccurate understanding of Biblical history as it relates to Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens. Because the vast majority of evangelical Biblical scholars of the past and present believe that chronology of Ezra is a jumbled up mess that cannot be taken in a straightforward and chronological manner, they place the start of 70 Seven’s countdown to the Messiah nearly 60 years later in Biblical history than is chronologically justifiable by a plain reading of the text.  Having done this, their view of Biblical history then influences how they understand what that prophecy says about the Messiah and the purpose of his first coming. Then upon that weak foundation they make conclusions about what the Bible says about the Messiah Yeshua’s second coming.

Instead of an amazingly congruent prophecy which primarily speaks to the covenantal and redemptive nature of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for all mankind at Yeshua’s first coming, the 70 Sevens becomes a dispensational hybrid prophecy in which its covenantal and redemptive message for all mankind (the 69 Sevens = 98.6% of the prophecy) is left hanging and instead the focus shifts to the Anti-Christ and a final period of the 7 year tribulation (1.4%) in which Yahweh’s wrath towards the Jewish people reaches is fateful climax.

Chronological Errors Have Theological Significance
Let me give you a few examples of what has happened to most evangelical interpretations of the prophecy of 70 Sevens because Biblical chronologists have erroneously reconstructed the chronology of the 2nd temple era as it relates to Ezra, Nehemiah, Darius, and “Artaxerxes”.

  • Instead of the most congruent and wonderful testimony of Yahweh’s redemptive love for the Jewish people and all mankind through the promised Messiah, the messianic redemptive nature of the prophecy of 70 Sevens ends with the death of Yeshua and then shifts to the work of the Anti-Christ. (The resurrection is missing in most interpretations.)
  • Instead of a covenantal fulfillment of the oath (shebuw’ah) Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham, that “covenant and mercy” held up by Daniel in his prayer to Yahweh, (Dan 9:4)), the covenant of the prophecy of 70 (Shib’iym) Sevens (Shabuwa) is stripped of its context and becomes a covenant with the Anti-Christ.
  • Instead of providing the covenantal template by which the Jewish people can fully realize their promised restoration to the land sworn (shaba) by Yahweh in the an oath (shebuw’ah) made with Abraham, (that template which shows that the Jewish peoples temporal fortunes come only after their spiritual fortunes are restored through faith in Yeshua), the prophecy of 70 Sevens becomes a dark ugly thing which tells the Jewish people only of the Messiah’s death without the resurrection (after 69 Sevens), then tells of 7 years of punishment, and tells of yet another unknown period of desolation without hope. (And we wonder why Jewish anti-missionaries are so resistant to evangelical interpretations of Daniel 9)
  • Instead of confirming the multiple New Testament witnesses which tell us that Yeshua, by His death and resurrection, confirmed (strengthen) the oath (shebuw’ah) Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham, the messianic covenantal nature of the prophecy of 70 Sevens is transformed into a covenant made with the Anti-Messiah.

Today the vast majority of my evangelical peers tell us the prophecy of Daniel 9 and its 70 Sevens is a prophecy given by Yahweh to the Jewish people. With this I agree because it is through the Jewish people that a Jewish Messiah came and through the Jewish people (the seed of Abraham) that we received prophetic record which tells of Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for all of us.

With this wonderful messianic covenantal heritage, I for the life of me cannot understand why we then disassociate this prophecy with its covenantal messianic roots in the oath (Shebuw’ah) swore (shaba) with Abraham, an oath that Moses described as the “covenant and mercy” made with the “fathers” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I cannot understand how my evangelical peers then further deconstruct this wonderful covenant and mercy made with Abraham, that oath (shebuw’ah) which tells of the coming Yeshua Messiah and instead turn the prophecy and its promised covenantal restoration (spiritual & physical) through the Messiah into the darkest chapter in Jewish history.

Deuteronomy 7:9  Know therefore that YHWH thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Deuteronomy 7:12   12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that YHWH thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware [shaba] unto thy fathers:

Galatians 3:16-17   16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.  17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 Genesis 22:16-18   16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith YHWH, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

 Luke 1:68-73  68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,  69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;  70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:  71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;  72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;  73 The oath [shebuw’ah] which he sware[shaba] to our father Abraham,

 Acts 3:25-26   25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.  26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Daniel 9:4   4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

Shame on us!

I know many of you that read this blog long for the return of Yeshua as I do. I have sobering news for you though. Yeshua unequivocally told His Jewish brethren that He will not return again until they (the Jewish people) acknowledge him as their promised Messiah.  

Luke 13:34-35  34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!  35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Daniel 9:27   27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I believe now is the time to remove the chronological stumbling block we have placed upon the Bible’s single most important Messianic prophecy given specifically to the Jewish people, a stumbling block that undermines its clearly  OT covenantal and messianic context, a context that proves that Yeshua is the fulfillment (or if you prefer a confirmation) of the oath (shebuw’ah) that Yahweh swore (shaba) with Abraham.

The Covenant and Messianic congruency of Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens can only be properly understood if it is placed in the chronological context given by Yahweh as recorded in Bible. That is the reason I’ve spent so much time showing you why the 2nd temple context of the Bible is the crux of Biblical Messianic history as it relates to the Jewish people and the prophecy of 70 Sevens.

Please don’t take my word for it. Do your own Berean duty and see if these things be so.

With that being said, here is the summary of the chronology we’ve explored to date as it relates to Ezra, Nehemiah, Darius, and “Artaxerxes” place in the 2nd temple era. Yahweh willing, in my final article in this series I’ll show you why accepting the lineage of the priests and Levites as recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in its most natural and plain sense reading provides us with further evidence that the reign of Darius I ‘The Great’ is truly and accurately described as the crux of Jewish Messianic history as it relates to the Daniel 9, the Bible’s greatest Messianic prophecy.

536 BC
Cyrus Decrees that the Jewish People can Return to Building Jerusalem
At the end of the 70 years captivity prophesied by Jeremiah, Yahweh raised up Cyrus of Persia to allow the Jewish people to return and build Jerusalem. This return was lead by Joshua, the high priest, and Zerubbabel, the governor.

21 To fulfil the word of the YHWH by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.  22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the YHWH spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the YHWH stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,  23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the YHWH God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The YHWH his God be with him, and let him go up.  2 Chronicles 36:21

536 BC
Mordecai Returns to Jerusalem

After Cyrus’ decree that allowed the Jewish people to return and rebuild Jerusalem, this repatriation was lead by Joshua, the high priest, and Zerubbabel, the governor. Amongst those who lead this return was a man named Mordecai. For further explanation as to why this is important to the subject of Darius and Artaxerxes please see my article  Mordecai and the Chronological Context of Esther.

Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;  2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. Ezra 2:1-2  

 

522-521 BC
Darius I Squelches the Lobbying Efforts of the Jewish People’s Enemies
Today much is written about king Cyrus of Persia and his decree which allowed the Jewish people to return and build the temple of Jerusalem.  What is often left unsaid is that after Cyrus’s decree and the Jewish people’s return, they were only able to lay some of the temple foundation stones before their construction efforts on Yahweh’s house were interrupted.

4 Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building,  5 And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. Ezra 4:4-5   

For the next roughly 16 years any serious effort to rebuild Yahweh’s sanctuary were interrupted and instead the Jewish people worked on their own dwellings. After Cyrus died and his son Cambyses (a.k.a. the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6) took the throne, the enemies of the Jewish people sent lobbyists to the Persian court to ensure that any reconstruction efforts of the Jewish people were blocked. These efforts by the Jewish people’s enemies seemed to have fallen on a deaf ear by the Persian king Cambyses.

After Cambyses a new Persian king identified in the Bible as “Artaxerxes”  (a.k.a. Bardis the Magian Usurper) took the throne and the lobbying efforts of the Jewish people’s enemies found a willing ear in this new Persian king’s court. “Artaxerxes” countermanded the original decree by Cyrus of Persia and by force of arms the enemies of the Jewish people stopped the meager efforts of the Jewish people to rebuild Yahweh’s house. According to Persian history written by Darius I on the granite cliffs of Behistun, the Usurper’s reign only lasted a short time before he was deposed by Darius I (son of Hystaspes).

Shimshai the Scribe
One of those lobbyists who tried to thwart the Jewish people’s reconstruction efforts the Bible identifies as Shimshai the Scribe. Intriguingly, there is a tablet from the reign of Cambyses which names such an individual. This provides intriguing confirmation that the events of Ezra 4 are contemporaneous with the era of Cambyses and Darius I. For more on this see my article: Darius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature

 

520 BC – Yahweh and the Divine Command to Restore and Build
Then in 520 BC when the divine clock in Yahweh’s redemptive plan struck a preordained hour, He personally reached down into the affairs of mankind and commanded that the Jewish people “return” and build His desolate sanctuary.

Zechariah 1:16
Therefore thus saith YHWH; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith YHWH of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem. 

3 Then came the word of the YHWH by Haggai the prophet, saying,  4 Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?  5 Now therefore thus saith the YHWH of hosts;….

Haggai 1:3-9
Thus saith the YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways. 8 Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the YHWH.  9 Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the YHWH of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house. 

Ezra 6:14
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and [even] Artaxerxes king of Persia. 

Remember the Messianic Context!
Keep the big picture in mind here. In order for the Messiah to come and fulfill the many prophecies written about Him, Yahweh’s house had to be restored. That is the reason Satan used the enemies of the Jewish people to block the reconstruction of the temple. No temple – no Messiah, no Torah observance – no Messiah.

 

Related articles:
Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Darius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature


(521 BC)- Darius I – Helps Restores the Jewish Temple
After Yahweh’s divine command to restore and build Jerusalem, the enemies of the Jews approached king Darius in his 2nd year of reign (521 BC) to stop the Jewish people’s divinely mandated construction efforts. Darius had no sympathy for their cause of obstruction. In fact, as we know from Persian history that Darius favored the restoration of the religious institutions and their service of the people in his kingdom. This is what Darius told the enemies of the Jewish people:

Ezra 6:6-7, 11
 
6 Now therefore, Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence:  7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place….

11 Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this.

Ezra 6:13-15
13 Then Tatnai, governor on this side the river, Shetharboznai, and their companions, according to that which Darius the king had sent, so they did speedily. 

14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

 15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

Related articles:
Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem

521 BC & 515 BC – Darius the “Huckster” supports the Temple Service
One of those unusual statements of history that has stuck to Darius I was the appellation of “huckster” that Herodotus bestowed upon him.  This term was given to Darius I because he was the Persian king who instituted a commodities based form of tribute in lieu of Gold and Silver. This historical fact is confirmed in the Bible when Darius I gave the Jewish people (in days of Joshua and Zerubbabel) from the king’s treasury in support of the temple service. This interesting historical fact is further confirmed when “Artaxerxes” a.k.a. Darius also gave to Nehemiah in support of the same:

Ezra 6:8-10
8 Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered.

9 And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the appointment of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail:  10 That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savours unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons. 

Ezra 7:21-23
21 And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily,  22 Unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. 23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?

 

519 BC
Darius Holds Court for Officials of his 127 Provinces
By the 2rd year of his reign Darius had put down the rebellions in his kingdom and consolidated his power. According to the Persian records and historians of that day only Darius I could rightly be distinguished as the Persian Ahasuerus who ruled over “127 provinces”. It was he who achieved this distinction. While Darius’ son Xerxes did indeed inherit the full extent of Darius’ kingdom, by his 7th year he had lost part of the kingdom and no longer could he rightly be distinguished as such as is described in the book of Esther in the 13th year of “Ahasuerus”. Further, only Darius could rightly be said to have “laid tribute upon the land and the isles of the sea” as described in the book of Esther.

This evidence suggest then that in his 3rd year it was Darius, also known in the book of Esther by the title Ahasuerus, that held a grand banquet for the rulers of his 127 provinces. The following Biblical and historical sources confirm this:

Ester (Greek) 16:1
The great king Artexerxes unto the princes and governors of an hundred and seven and twenty provinces from India unto Ethiopia, and unto all our faithful subjects, greeting.

KJA 1 Esdras 3:1
Now when Darius reigned, he made a great feast unto all his subjects, and unto all his household, and unto all the princes of Media and Persia,  2 And to all the governors and captains and lieutenants that were under him, from India unto Ethiopia, of an hundred twenty and seven provinces.

KJV Esther 1:1
Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)

 

516 BC – The Temple Completed in the 6th year of Darius I

Ezra 6:14-15
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.  

515 BC – Darius I Commands the Restoration of Torah Observance
From historical sources we know that Darius I, who the Bible also identifies by the title “Artaxerxes” had a passion for restoring the laws and religious practices of the people he ruled. This is evidenced in the Bible in his 7th year when he granted Ezra the legislative and judicial power to institute Torah observance.

Ezra 7:25-26
25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.  26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.   

Encyclopedia Britannica – Darius as An Administrator
While measures were thus taken to unite the diverse peoples of the empire by a uniform administration, Darius followed the example of Cyrus in respecting native religious institutions. In Egypt he assumed an Egyptian titulary and gave active support to the cult. He built a temple to the god Amon in the Kharga oasis, endowed the temple at Edfu, and carried out restoration work in other sanctuaries. He empowered the Egyptians to reestablish the medical school of the temple of Sais, and he ordered his satrap to codify the Egyptian laws in consultation with the native priests. In the Egyptian traditions he was considered as one of the great lawgivers and benefactors of the country. In 519 bc he authorized the Jews to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, in accordance with the earlier decree of Cyrus.

Darius’ Behistun Inscription
(Column 2 – 14) King Darius says: The kingdom that had been wrested from our line I brought back and I reestablished it on its foundation. The temples which Gaumâta, the Magian, had destroyed, I restored to the people, and the pasture lands, and the herds and the dwelling places, and the houses which Gaumâta, the Magian, had taken away. I settled the people in their place, the people of Persia, and Media, and the other provinces. I restored that which had been taken away, as is was in the days of old. This did I by the grace of Ahuramazda, I labored until I had established our dynasty in its place, as in the days of old; I labored, by the grace of Ahuramazda, so that Gaumâta, the Magian, did not dispossess our house.

515 BC
Esther Becomes the Queen of Persia
Towards the end of his third year of reign (519 BC)Ahasuerus  requested Queen Vashti to present herself at the banquet which he held for the rulers of his 127 provinces.  After Vashti refused king Ahasuerus’ (Darius I) asked the advice of his 7 “wise men” as to what her punishment should be.

Four years later in Darius’ 7th year (a.k.a. Darius even “Artaxerxes”) we find these 7 wise men as part of the royal benefactors who send Ezra to Judah and Jerusalem along with those other willing Judeans who wanted to return.  

Esther 1:13-15
Then the king said to the wise men, which knew the times, (for so was the king’s manner toward all that knew law and judgment:  14 And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the king’s face, and which sat the first in the kingdom;)  15 What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?

Ezra 7:12-14
12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time. 13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.  14 Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand;

It is in this same 7th year of Darius (Esther’s Ahasuerus & Ezra’s Darius “even” Artaxerxes) that Esther became the Queen of 127 provinces.

510 BC
Haman Sets Out to Destroy the Jewish People
In the 12th year of Darius, a man named Haman lays plans to kill the Jews in the kingdom of Persia.  After casting Pur (lots) for nearly a year in an effort to determine the best day to exterminate the Jewish people, Haman was given permission to fulfill his evil machinations. It was that infamous day, on the 13th month after casting his first pur (lot), on the 13th day of the month in the 13th year of king Darius that the evil plan was set. Esther intervened and what was intended to be the day which ended the Jewish race instead became one of their greatest deliverances. 

In one of the great ironies of the Bible, what the evil Haman had intended for Mordecai and the Jewish people, instead fell upon him and his family. After Haman’s death in the 13th year of Darius, Mordecai became a VIP in the kingdom of Persia. Four years later we find this confirmed in the Persian historical record where a man named Mordecai (Marduka) appears in the cuneiform tables. See the follow article for more details Mordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther.

 

505-490 BC
Mordecai the Persian Administrator
According to Persian cuneiform tables a man named Mordecai (Marduka) was a high official in Persian government from the 17th to the 32nd year of Darius I.

501-490 BC
Nehemiah Becomes Governor of Jerusalem
Roughly 4 years after we have the first evidence of Mordecai in the Persian records we learn from the Biblical record that Nehemiah was granted the governorship of Jerusalem from the 20th/21st year to the 32nd year of king Artaxerxes. It is fascinating to note that Nehemiah brings to his readers attention that at his audience with the king of Persia “the Queen” was sitting beside him.

 Also worth noting, both Nehemiah and the Mordecai of the Persian cuneiform records seem to end their respective administrations in the 32nd year of Darius I.

Nehemiah 5:14
14 Moreover from the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that is, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten the bread of the governor. 

Nehemiah 2:6
6 And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.

Did Mordecai and Esther leave traces in the Neo-Babylonian documents? The name “Mordecai (Mar-duk-ka)” is relatively rare; it is sometimes found during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus32, unlike the name “Marduk”, typically Babylonian (always written dAMAR.UTU “calf-sun”, originally pronounced amarutuk)33, which was widely used. For example, a contract dated 16/XI/8 of Nebuchadnezzar (February 596 BCE) reads34:

Adi’ilu, son of Nabu-zer-iddina, and Ḫuliti, his wife (the divine Ḫulitum) have sold Marduka, their son, for the price agreed upon, to Šula, son of Zer-ukin. The liability to defeasor and pre-emptor, which is upon Marduka, Adi’ilu and Addaku respond for.

Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published35, there are only 2 individuals bearing the name Marduka: an entrepreneur36 who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of Cyrus (534 BCE), and a administrative superintendent37 who worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32 (505-490 BCE), exactly the same period as Mordecai worked38. (Queen Esther wife of Xerxes Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence by Gerard Gertoux p. 13-14)

Summary
In order to ensure the fulfillment of His redemptive plan for mankind, Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, rose up the Persian king Darius I, who in his 2nd year (520 BC) gave moral, legal, and material support for the reestablishment of Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary. By Darius’s 6th year (516 BC) the temple was completed. The following year (515 BC) Darius sent Ezra to Jerusalem with a mandate to reestablish Torah observance and the authority to adjudicate its observance. That same year (515 BC) Esther (Haddasah) became the Queen of Persia. In the 13th year Haman and his coconspirators were destroyed and Mordecai became an important administrator in the Persian empire. In the 20/21st year of Darius, Nehemiah was appointed governor and the walls of Jerusalem had been restored. By the 32nd year of Darius both Mordecai and Nehemiah’s administrations for the king of Persia seem to come to an end.

This Temple and the Torah observance encouraged by Darius I lasted for nearly 5 centuries until the coming of the promised Messiah Yeshua. After Yeshua’s death and resurrection, the temple and its sacrificial service only lasted for 40 more years.

It was here then, in the reign of Darius I of Persia that Yahweh, the living God of the Bible brought together various threads of His divine redemptive plan and set in motion His countdown to the Messiah Yeshua. That countdown, begun in the 2nd year of Darius with Yahweh’s divine command, and that divine countdown bridged nearly 5 centuries of divine silence and precisely on time (515 years later) brought forth the Messiah Yeshua.

Maranatha!

Articles related to this series:
The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser of Associates for Biblical Research
The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping up Loose Ends by Rick Lanser

My response to Rick Lanser’s – The Seraiah Assumption:
Introduction
The Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption

Part ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius the great Persian Artaxerxes: A Contextual Look at the Book of Ezra in the Light of Persian History
Part IV – Darius and the Kingdom of Arta
Part VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, Ahasuerus, & Artaxerxes: Who was the Persian King of 127 Provinces?
Part VIII – Darius I: A Gentile King at the Crux of Jewish Messianic History
Part IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

 

 

 

A favor to ask.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that you can download all of my books and articles free of charge. I don’t ask for donations or allow advertisements on this blog. This effort is a labor of love for me as a testimony to Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua. I don’t want your money but if you would take a moment to share the articles you read on this blog with your friends and family on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media I would greatly appreciate your help. Together we can share the Biblical evidence for Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind. Thank you for your help in this effort!

* * *

FREE Book Download:

If you would like to learn more about Biblical history and Bible prophecy, you might also appreciate my books in the Prophecies and Patterns series.

At the following link you may download one of the three books shown below. If you like the book and would like to download the other two, all I ask is that you subscribe to my blog. I won’t share your email or spam you with advertisements or other requests. Just every couple of weeks I’ll share with you my love of Biblical history and Bible Prophecy. Should you decide you no longer wish to be a subscriber you can unsubscribe at any time.

Click the following link to download your Free book: Book Download

I hope you’ll join the adventure!

Book 1
Book I - Description

The 13th Enumeration
"A book that will change how you look at the Bible's Messianic Symbolism."

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

Daniel's 70 Weeks -
"A book that will forever change how you understand the Bible's greatest Messianic prophecy."

Book 3
Book 3 - Description

The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."

 

 

Mordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther

Mordecai & Esther

The book of Esther is one of the books of the Bible that is truly a Biblical enigma. It’s the only book of the Bible that doesn’t mention Yahweh by name. It’s a Biblical drama in which a woman is the main hero and a man (Mordecai) is her facilitator and where these two Jewish heroes are known by their idolatrous pagan names. Finally, it is a story where the Jewish heroine, out of love for her people, is willing to outcast herself by marrying a pagan gentile king,  that sacrifice then is used as the means of by which Yahweh preserved His people, and finally in a wonderful twist of destiny ends up bringing eternal honor not shame to Esther as a gentile queen of Persia.

What a thrilling, inspiring, amazing story, don’t you think? As wonderful as Esther’s and Mordecai’s story seems, there is much more to it. You see, as I’ll explain in the coming pages, once we understand the chronological context of Esther and her Persian king, the story of Esther takes on profoundly greater significance to the story of the Jewish people and Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. Not only did Esther save her people from the evil machinations of Haman, but it was her Persian king who was the agent whom Yahweh used to ensure the completion of the 2nd temple, reestablish its sacrificial service, rebuild Jerusalem’s fortifications, and possibly the most important of all, decreed that Ezra, the priest and scribe, reestablished Torah observance in Jerusalem and Judea. 

Consider that for a moment. Without the efforts of Esther and her Persian king the social, political, and prophetic conditions necessary for the Messiah Yeshua to come would not have been in place. Without the efforts of Esther and her king, there would have been no temple, no priesthood, no sacrificial service, and no Torah observance – all of which were prerequisites for the coming of the Messiah. Think I’m exaggerating slightly? Well, if you let me, I’ll show you just how indispensable the story of Esther is to Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind.

If you’ve been a regular reader of this blog then you know that the theme or premise of this blog and its articles is that all the Bible and each of its 66 books contain important events and chronological details by which Yahweh reveals His redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua (Jesus).  The Bible tells us that this redemptive plan is laid out according to a cosmic timeline preordained by our Creator.  Because this redemptive plan is revealed through the Biblical ages, to fully appreciate its beauty and majesty, we must understand chronological context from which it springs.

The story of Esther and her king magnificently illustrates how important context and chronology is to Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. So let’s do a little digging to see some of the treasures Yahweh has hidden in the chronological context of Esther for us to find.

Who is Mordecai?
To start with today, let’s fill in some of the chronological context of Esther by looking at what the Bible tells us about Mordecai. We start with Mordecai because the Bible synchronizes Mordecai with the Babylonian captivity of Jechoniah which we can date with a reasonable degree of certainty.

First of all, the name Mordecai (Babylonian Marduka) is derived from the name of the Sumerian and Babylonian god Marduk.  Most Bible dictionaries say Mordecai’s name means “worshipper of Mars”. But as Gerard Gertoux1 notes Mordecai can also be understood as “ ‘the Mardukite (mardukaya)’ in the sense of the ‘the Babylonian’”.

Mordecai (Marduka) is a relatively rare name in the Bible as well as the historical record. In the Bible there are only two individuals named Mordecai. The first Mordecai named in the Bible is a man who returned to Jerusalem with Joshua and Zerubbabel after the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC. (Cyrus’ decree ended the 70 years Babylonian captivity). The second individual named Mordecai in the Bible is Esther’s Mordecai.

Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;  2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. (Ezra 2:1-2)

 Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;  6 Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin}

7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter. (Esther 2:5-7)  

In the secular historical record the name Mordecai is just as rare. According the Gerard Gertoux, out of 16,000 cuneiform records dating to the Neo-Babylonian period only two individuals named Mordecai (Marduka) are found. I quote Mr. Gertoux:

Did Mordecai and Esther leave traces in the Neo-Babylonian documents? The name “Mordecai (Mar-duk-ka)” is relatively rare; it is sometimes found during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus32, unlike the name “Marduk”, typically Babylonian (always written dAMAR.UTU “calf-sun”, originally pronounced amarutuk)33, which was widely used. For example, a contract dated 16/XI/8 of Nebuchadnezzar (February 596 BCE) reads34:

Adi’ilu, son of Nabu-zer-iddina, and Ḫuliti, his wife (the divine Ḫulitum) have sold Marduka, their son, for the price agreed upon, to Šula, son of Zer-ukin. The liability to defeasor and pre-emptor, which is upon Marduka, Adi’ilu and Addaku respond for.

Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published35, there are only 2 individuals bearing the name Marduka: an entrepreneur36 who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of Cyrus (534 BCE), and a administrative superintendent37 who worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32 (505-490 BCE), exactly the same period as Mordecai worked38. (Gerard Gertoux – Queen Esther Wife of Xerxes: Historical, And Archaeological Evidence, p. 13-14)

Mordecai the Babylonian
Considering the rarity of the name Mordecai in the Biblical and historical record, it seems like a rather strange coincidence that there are two Mordecai’s mentioned in the Bible. This curious fact is further compounded by the fact that Mordecai is derived from the name of a pagan idol (god), the use of such names are strictly prohibited in the Bible.

 

And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. (Exodus 23:13)

Typically in the Bible, you see exceptions to this rule when those names of idols/gods are the basis for the names of Biblical heroes renamed by their captives. For example Daniel’s companions were named Hananiah, Mishael, and Azraiah, but the Bible also identifies them by their Babylonian names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

So here in Ezra 2 we have a man with a Babylonian name, who is listed among a group of Jewish men with only Hebrew names who are returning to Jerusalem to build the city and the temple. Why didn’t the author of Ezra use this man’s Hebrew name? In keeping with Biblical tradition, the only reason that makes any real sense is that the author of Ezra 2 used the name Mordecai because it was a person more readily known to his Jewish readers by that name than his Hebrew name. In other words, one must at least consider the possibility that this Mordecai was none other than the Mordecai of the book of Esther and the author of Ezra was drawing our attention to this fact.

Mordecai, Nehemiah, and Darius ‘the great’ Artaxerxes
It’s fascinating, don’t you think, that as we learned above there are Persian cuneiform records which date a high Persian official named Mordecai to the years 17-32 of the reign of Darius I, the very same time frame that Nehemiah served as governor of Jerusalem under Darius – who we’ve learned in this series the Bible also identifies by the Persian title “Artaxerxes”.

14 Moreover from the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that is, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten the bread of the governor. (Nehemiah 5:14)   

Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published35, there are only 2 individuals bearing the name Marduka: an entrepreneur36 who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of Cyrus (534 BCE), and a administrative superintendent37 who worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32 (505-490 BCE), exactly the same period as Mordecai worked38. (Gerard Gertoux, Queen Esther Wife of Xerxes : Historical and Archaeological Evidence)

These fascinating historical details are wrought even more curious by the fact discussed above that a man name Mordecai was listed among a group of Jewish men who led the return to Jerusalem just a couple of decades earlier. Could they be the same man?

Ironically, it is the book of Esther and Mordecai’s lineage as given there that provides a fascinating solution to the curious use of Mordecai in the Bible and this Biblical hero’s relationship to the Mordecai mentioned in the cuneiform records of Darius I.

Mordecai and Esther were Cousins
To help us determine when Mordecai lived, we return to Esther where it tells us that Esther and Mordecai were cousins. Further this passage also gives us the lineage of Mordecai as it relates to the captivity of Jehoiachin (aka Jeconiah).

Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;  6 Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin}  7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter. (Esther 2:5-7)  

Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king’s chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed. And Esther obtained favour in the sight of all them that looked upon her. (Esther 2:15)

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS] 

 

In the passage above it gives the lineage of Mordecai relative to the captivity of king Jehoiachin. Now there are two ways to read  Mordecai’s lineage relative to the captivity of Jehoiachin. Either Kish was taken captive with Jehoiachin or Mordecai was. Both are legitimate ways to read the passage, but thankfully we are not left to flipping a coin in order to decide who the passage had in mind.

There are two further facts that help us nail this down. First of all, we know from 2 Kings 24 that Jehoiachin’s captivity began in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (594 BC). The second piece of information we have that helps us develop the chronological context of this passage is that Esther was a young maiden (narah) when she was brought before the Persian king the Bible identifies as Ahasuerus.

10 At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. }  11 And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.  12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. (2 Kings 24:10-16)

13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of YHWH, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of YHWH, as YHWH had said.  14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.  15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. {officers: or, eunuchs}  16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.  (2 Kings 24:10-16 )

2 Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king:  3 And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the fair young virgins unto Shushan the palace…. (Esther 2:2-3)  

8 So it came to pass, when the king’s commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together unto Shushan the palace, to the custody of Hegai, that Esther was brought also unto the king’s house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women. (Esther 2:8)

So take a look at the following chart. This chart shows the start of Jehoiachin’s captivity relative to the Persian kings Darius I and his son Xerxes I. Most Biblical scholars date the book of Esther to the reign of Xerxes and as you can see there are 109 years between the start of Jehoiachin’s captivity and start of the reign of Xerxes.

Since Esther was a young maiden at the time of her marriage to King Ahasuerus and further since Esther and Mordecai were cousins this means that even if Esther was 20-30 years Mordecai’s junior, Mordecai could not have been taken captive with Jehoiachin. This then tells us Esther 2 has Kish’s captivity in mind when it discussed it relative to the captivity of the Biblical king Jehoiachin. Even if we try to argue that Darius I might have been Esther’s king, Esther 2 could not have been referring to Mordecai’s captivity because again Esther would not have been, by any reasonable chronological criteria, a young maiden if Mordecai was taken captive with Jehoiachin. Therefore it must have been Kish’s captivity who the author of Esther had in mind and this further tells us that there were three generations between Jehoiachin’s captivity and the events described in the book of Esther.

 [DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

 

 

As I’ve been thinking and writing about this subject over the past couple of weeks I’ve been asking myself how I could best visually represent the chronological information related to Mordecai, Esther, and the Persian era so as to provide myself and those of you reading this article a unique way of looking at which Persian king best fits the chronological criteria for the book of Esther and the Persian record. The chart at the bottom of this page, I hope gets close to that goal.

In the chart at the bottom of this article the start of Kish’s captivity in 594 BC is the basis for all calculations. Since we don’t know Kish’s exact age when he was taken captive in 594 BC, I’ve provided several different options for Kish’s age at the start of his captivity. The range I’ve provided between 20 and 45 is based in part upon the criteria of 1 Kings 24 where it tells us that when Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive he also took all the craftsmen and smiths and those “apt” for war. (see 1 Kings 24 reference above )

 Using this information as a working basis I had to then figure out how to represent various generational spans so as to provide the best possible overview of  how the different generational spans might influence the number of years between the captivity of Kish and the events described in the book of Esther.

Based upon my own understanding of the demographics of that era, a 25-35 year generational span best reflects the average generational span between the people of the 2nd temple period.  In the following chart a 25-35 year generational span is confirmed by the generational lists of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Median, and Persian kings as well as the lists of Judean kings and high priests. Please note that this chart is based upon a chart found in R.E. Tyrwhitt dated 1868. I’ve modified the chart for clarity and added the lineage of priests and Levites.

(please click on image to enlarge)

With this chart confirming a 25-35 year generational span between the contemporaries of that era, here are some quick reference points for the final chart below:

    • Jehoiachin’s captivity and Kish’s various ages at the start of the captivity are represented in red.
    • Each different age assumption for Kish also has its own comparative generational span from 20-45.
    • The 1st year of Cyrus is marked with a horizontal bar across the chart. This date represents when the Mordecai of Ezra 2 went up to Jerusalem with Joshua and Zerubbabel in 536 BC.
    • The 1st, 7th, 13th year of Darius are represented by horizontal green bars across the chart. This allows us to ascertain a range of dates for the age Mordecai and Esther during the reign of Darius I. (Esther became queen in the 7th year of a Persian “Ahasuerus”, the events of Purim occurred in the 13th.)
    • The 1st, 7th, 13th, year of Xerxes are represented by horizontal rust colored bars. This allows us to ascertain a range of dates for the age of Mordecai and Esther during the reign of Xerxes. (Esther became queen in the 7th year of a Persian “Ahasuerus”, the events of Purim occurred in the 13th.)
    • The diagonal bars across the chart represent the 20th year of Mordecai relative to its corresponding (color) generational span. This provides a basis to compare the age of Esther and Mordecai relative to the Persian kings. It is unlikely that Esther and Mordecai were the same age but the diagonal lines give you good reference points from which to work from. Esther could have been the same age or as many as 20-30 years Mordecai’s junior. The diagonal lines allow you a basis to work from for further comparative analysis.
    • Finally, the numbers at the bottom of the chart show the age of Mordecai relative to the 1st year of Cyrus, the 7th, 13th, 20th, & 32nd year of Darius, and the 7th & 13th year of Xerxes.

(Click on chart to enlarge)

A few things are evident from the chart. If we are looking for a Persian king during whose reign all the Mordecai’s discussed in this article might have referred to the same person, that could have only occurred during the reign of Darius I. Indeed, if Darius I was Esther’s king then Mordecai could have been one of the men who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel in 536 BC, he was likely the same official mentioned in the Persian cuneiform records, and he certainly could have been the Mordecai mentioned in the book of Esther.

If the Mordecai of Ezra 2 and the Mordecai of Persian cuneiform records are excluded from any considerations in this chart then Xerxes is still a possible candidate for Esther’s kings. That being said, if we are looking at this chart as representing a window of probability into the identity of Esther’s king then that window is several times larger during the reign of Darius I than his son Xerxes. (This window we will narrow still further in subsequent articles.) In other words, the likelihood that Mordecai lived during the reign of Darius works across a wider array of generational spans than it does during the reign of Xerxes.  Excluding any other limiting factors relating to the other historical Mordecais in this chart, this window of probability regarding the reign of Darius should cause the serious student of the Biblical history to carefully consider the likelihood that “Ahasuerus” of the book of Esther is a reference to the Persian king Darius I.

Next Time
Yahweh willing, in my next article we will further narrow our search for Esther’s king by looking at who the Persian king of 127 provinces might have been. As you’ll see only one Persian king could rightly claim this title. If space permits I’ll also address Mr. Lanser’s of ABR’s objection to considering Darius I as the “Ahasuerus” of the book of Esther. I hope you’ll stay tuned as we explore this incredibly important period in Biblical history.

Maranatha!

1Gerard Gertoux, Queen Esther Wife of Xerxes : Historical and Archaeological Evidence, p. 10)

Answering Objects from the Associates for Biblical Research
For those just joining this exploration of Biblical history, this is part VI in a series in which I am attempting to answer the challenges and criticisms raised by Rich Lanser of the respected organization Associates for Biblical Research in his article The Seraiah Assumption. In his article, Mr. Lanser vigorously disputes my view of 2nd temple history as it relates to Darius ‘The Great’ as described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the links below I’d encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption as well as my responses to specific points of criticism that Mr. Lanser has raised in his article. I’d also encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s updated thoughts  in an addendum to that article that he recently published in response to and email exchange we’ve had as well as his responses to some of the points I’ve made in these articles.

Articles related to this series:
The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser of Associates for Biblical Research
The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping up Loose Ends by Rick Lanser

My response to Rick Lanser’s – The Seraiah Assumption:
Introduction
The Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption

Part ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius the great Persian Artaxerxes: A Contextual Look at the Book of Ezra in the Light of Persian History
Part IV – Darius and the Kingdom of Arta
Part VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, Ahasuerus, & Artaxerxes: Who was the Persian King of 127 Provinces?
Part VIII – Darius I: A Gentile King at the Crux of Jewish Messianic History
Part IX The Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

 

Book 1
Book I - Description

The 13th Enumeration
"A book that will change how you look at the Bible's Messianic Symbolism."

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

Daniel's 70 Weeks -
"A book that will forever change how you understand the Bible's greatest Messianic prophecy."

Book 3
Book 3 - Description

The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."

 

 

Darius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature

Does the Bible really give an accurate description of Darius I ‘The Great’ of Persia?

In this week’s article I’ll be comparing what the Bible says about Darius with what Darius says about himself from his own royal inscriptions. My purpose of this week’s article is twofold. First, I hope to further impress upon you the credibility of the Bible and the accuracy with which it describes history. Second, I want to finish providing you with a complete picture of how the book of Ezra and Nehemiah describe this great Persian king.

As you will see, this information will provide us with some of the final pieces of background context which will help us in our next article to determine the historical relationship between Darius I and the Biblical Esther. Was Darius I Esther’s father in law or her husband? Has traditional Biblical scholarship once again depended too much on what secular historians have written and too little on the Bible’s own historical and chronological details? I believe so and I hope in the next several articles to show you why this is the case.

In the article of this series to date I’ve argued that the book of Ezra can be depended upon to provide the reader with straight forward and chronological details about Biblical history. If this is in fact an accurate statement, doesn’t it lend confidence to the reader that the book of Esther might also provide dependable chronological and historical details as well? I believe so, and I think you’ll find that evidence compelling.

But before we explore the question of Esther and her king, let’s first finish developing a complete picture of what the Bible says about Darius I – the great Persian king who the it also describes as an Artaxerxes. (For more context on the Persian word Artaxerxes please see last week’s article Darius and the Kingdom of Arta).

From Cyrus to Darius
For those just joining this exploration of Biblical history, this is part V in a series in which I am attempting to answer the challenges and criticisms raised by Rich Lanser of the respected organization Associates for Biblical Research in his article The Seraiah Assumption. In his article, Mr. Lanser vigorously disputes my view of 2nd temple history as it relates to Darius ‘The Great’ as described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the links below I’d encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption as well as my responses to specific points of criticism that Mr. Lanser has raised in his article. I’d also encourage you to read Mr. Lanser’s updated thoughts  in an addendum to that article that he recently published in response to and email exchange we’ve had as well as his responses to some of the points I’ve made in these articles.

Articles related to this series:
The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser of Associates for Biblical Research
The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping up Loose Ends by Rick Lanser

My response to Rick Lanser’s – The Seraiah Assumption:
Introduction
The Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption

Part ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius the great Persian Artaxerxes: A Contextual Look at the Book of Ezra in the Light of Persian History
Part IV – Darius and the Kingdom of Arta
Part VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, Ahasuerus, & Artaxerxes: Who was the Persian King of 127 Provinces?
Part VIII – Darius I: A Gentile King at the Crux of Jewish Messianic History
Part IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

 

To briefly recap what we’ve explored chronologically so far, to date we’ve followed the Biblical history of the Jewish people, their captivity in Babylon for 70 years, and the decree of Cyrus which allowed them to return to Jerusalem and build the city and Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary.

The book of Ezra opened with Cyrus’ decree and Jewish people’s return to Jerusalem under the leadership of Joshua and Zerubbabel. We learned that the Jewish people only got as far as laying some of the foundation stones for the temple before their own lack of zeal and the harassment of their enemies stop their construction efforts.

As the book of Ezra describes it, the enemies of the Jewish people, between the reign of Cyrus and Darius I, hired counselors (think lobbyists) to harass them at every opportunity. After Cyrus died and a new Persian king (whom the Bible describes by the title or name Ahasuerus – Ezra 4:6) came to power these counselors approached this Persian king in an effort to stop construction. When this effort did not produce results they bided their time until years later when a new Persian king whom the Bible describes by the title Artaxerxes came to power. This Persian king did in fact listen to Jewish people’s enemies and he ordered the construction of Jerusalem stopped. As Ezra 4 describes it:

Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:23-24)

It’s worth noting here once again that in Ezra 4 the enemies of the Jewish people, in their petition to Artaxerxes, describe the construction efforts as building Jerusalem but when they receive their cease and desist from Artaxerxes it was the temple construction which stopped. In other words, the account of Ezra 4 shows that the temple construction was in fact building Jerusalem.

Also note, as explained in Part III of this series Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4, that the use of the Aramaic word ‘edayin’ (now/then) as a chronological synchronism in Ezra 4:23 & 24 provide strong evidence that the history of Ezra 4 is straight forward historical – chronological account of Persian history from Cyrus to Darius.

Now [after these things] the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.

Then [after these things] ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:23-24)

Authors Note: Please note that Mr. Lanser in his Addendum to his original article The Seraiah Assumption has provided additional information about his understanding of the word ‘edayin’ and its use here in Ezra 4 among other subjects. I’d encourage you to read that information. At the end of this article I will be explaining why I believe his explanation falls short and I’ll further be explaining how his errors regarding this subject are once again rooted in part in his misunderstanding of my position on the subject. Please see Mr. Lanser’s article here: The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping Up Some Loose Ends

What the context of Ezra 4 tells us is that there are two additional Persian kings between Cyrus and Darius. Because the Aramaic word ‘edayin’ consistently describes successive chronological information in the Bible we must see the Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:6 & Ezra 4:7-23 as Persian kings who ruled between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. This in fact agrees with Persian history. Further the history in Ezra 4 provides some neat historical details that show the author of Ezra had an intimate understanding of Persian history from that era.

There are a couple places where this is confirmed. Our first example comes from Cambyses (likely Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6) who did not stop construction of the temple when petitioned by the enemies of the Jewish people. Historically we know that Cambyses for the most part kept with his father’s tradition of restoring religious monuments of the peoples he ruled.

On the other hand, we know that the Persian king who followed Cambyses, Bardia (a.k.a Gaumâta/Smerdis) the Magian userper, who according to Darius’ own Behistun inscription, was responsible for the destruction of “the Temples” the previous kings had allowed. So when Ezra 4:7-24 describes an “Artaxerxes” who stopped construction on the temple of Jerusalem after the reign of Cyrus but before the reign of Darius, it confirms Darius I own account of this Magian usurper who he deposed. A king who, unlike Darius, had no reverence for the religious monuments of the people who he ruled.  I quote from Darius’ cuneiform inscription on the cliffs of Behistun:

Murder of Smerdis and Coup of Gaumâta the Magian
[i.10] King Darius says: The following is what was done by me after I became king. A son of Cyrus, named Cambyses, one of our dynasty, was king here before me. That Cambyses had a brother, Smerdis by name, of the same mother and the same father as Cambyses. Afterwards, Cambyses slew this Smerdis. When Cambyses slew Smerdis, it was not known unto the people that Smerdis was slain. Thereupon Cambyses went to Egypt. When Cambyses had departed into Egypt, the people became hostile, and the lie multiplied in the land, even in Persia and Media, and in the other provinces.

[i.11] King Darius says: Afterwards, there was a certain man, a Magian, Gaumâta by name, who raised a rebellion in Paišiyâuvâdâ, in a mountain called Arakadriš. On the fourteenth day of the month Viyaxananote did he rebel. He lied to the people, saying: “I am Smerdis, the son of Cyrus, the brother of Cambyses.” Then were all the people in revolt, and from Cambyses they went over unto him, both Persia and Media, and the other provinces. He seized the kingdom; on the ninth day of the month Garmapadanote he seized the kingdom. Afterwards, Cambyses died of natural causes.

[i.12] King Darius says: The kingdom of which Gaumâta, the Magian, dispossessed Cambyses, had always belonged to our dynasty. After that Gaumâta, the Magian, had dispossessed Cambyses of Persia and Media, and of the other provinces, he did according to his will. He became king.

Darius kills Gaumâta and Restores the Kingdom
[i.13] King Darius says: There was no man, either Persian or Mede or of our own dynasty, who took the kingdom from Gaumâta, the Magian. The people feared him exceedingly, for he slew many who had known the real Smerdis. For this reason did he slay them, “that they may not know that I am not Smerdis, the son of Cyrus.” There was none who dared to act against Gaumâta, the Magian, until I came. Then I prayed to Ahuramazda; Ahuramazda brought me help. On the tenth day of the month Bâgayâdišnote I, with a few men, slew that Gaumâta, the Magian, and the chief men who were his followers. At the stronghold called Sikayauvatiš, in the district called Nisaia in Media, I slew him; I dispossessed him of the kingdom. By the grace of Ahuramazda I became king; Ahuramazda granted me the kingdom.

[i.14] King Darius says: The kingdom that had been wrested from our line I brought back and I reestablished it on its foundation. The temples which Gaumâta, the Magian, had destroyed, I restored to the people, and the pasture lands, and the herds and the dwelling places, and the houses which Gaumâta, the Magian, had taken away. I settled the people in their place, the people of Persia, and Media, and the other provinces. I restored that which had been taken away, as is was in the days of old. This did I by the grace of Ahuramazda, I labored until I had established our dynasty in its place, as in the days of old; I labored, by the grace of Ahuramazda, so that Gaumâta, the Magian, did not dispossess our house.

[i.15] King Darius says: This was what I did after I became king.

As you can see this inscription by Darius provides really neat confirmation of the Biblical account. The following chart provides an overview of the succession from Cyrus to Darius:

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

In Part III of this series, Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem as described in Ezra 5 we learned that the Jewish people in obedience to the divine command of Yahweh through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, in the 2nd year of Darius, defied the previous decree of Artaxerxes (Bardis/Gaumâta?) the Magian usurper (who stopped construction of the temple) and they restarted their building efforts. With Darius’ blessing, four years later in Darius’ 6th year their efforts to rebuild the temple were successful.

In Ezra 6 by following the same straight forward interpretive principles that we applied to Ezra 4 & 5, we learned that the Bible in Ezra 6:14 informed us that Darius was also known by the Persian title “Artaxerxes”.  This fascinating historical detail, overlooked by so many Biblical scholars, fundamentally changes how we see the history described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Instead of a nearly 60 year gap between Ezra 6 & 7 we find chronological continuity. For we see that Ezra 6 ends with the completion of the temple in the 6th  year of Darius “even” Artaxerxes and then Ezra 7 opens in the 7th year of this same Artaxerxes, with Ezra, now that the temple was completed and dedicated, heading to Jerusalem to teach his people the Torah.

Shimshai the Scribe
Let me give you a fascinating historical example which confirms Ezra 6 & 7 and the Biblical identity of Darius even Artaxerxes. In Ezra 4:6-8, 23 the Bible describes a character who was part of the efforts to harass the Jewish people during the reign of “Artaxerxes” (Bardis/Gaumata). This individual’s name was Shimshai the scribe.  Did you know that we have a cuneiform tablet that names a Shimshai? The only problem is the tablet in which he is named is dated to the reign of Cambyses not the reign Artaxerxes I (Longimanus). And since Biblical scholars have dated the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:6-8, 23 to reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) there is a 60 years gap between when the tablets say this man lived and when Biblical scholars believe he lived. Here read for yourself.

The following quote comes from Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence as published in the Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta edited by Caroline Waerzeggers and Maarja Seire page 45-47. I quote:

The formulary of Text 2 is characteristic of a transcript of a trial: a formal address by a plaintiff is followed by the questioning of the defendant by the judge and the defendant’s confession. The broken lines that follow expectedly contained the sentence. The trial was held in the presence of four men, including one judge. The name of the first man — hence the most important one — is partly damaged, just like his function, provided it was given at all. His filiation seems to have been skipped, which could indicate that he was a man of high standing, whose identity was obvious. The second person in the list, the judge Mušēzib-Bēl of the Aḫu-bāni family is, to my knowledge, unattested elsewhere in the published contemporary court documents. Judges Rēmūt-bēl-ilāni (active under Neriglissar in Babylon), and Nabû-rā’im-šarri (attested in Nabonidus’ second year in Tapsuḫu) were members of the same clan and since judicial functions were often passed in families, Mušēzib-Bēl’s link to one of them appears plausible.25 The fourth man present at the trial was Aštakka’, whose name is non-Babylonian. It is, however, the third person in the list, Šamšāya, who is the most intriguing member of the panel.

Šamšāya’s function bēlṭēmi(‘bearer of the report, chancellor’) is extremely rare in Neo- and Late Babylonian material. Holders of this title are found in only three cuneiform texts from the Persian period; two of them were drafted in circles close to Persian governors. The earliest known bēlṭēmi appears on a list of silver allotments issued to over eighty men engaged in the preparation of a visit of Cambyses in southern Babylonia in the second year of his reign (Moore 1939 no. 89).26 The official’s name is damaged, but he is described as “a Median, bēlṭēmi, who discussed the issue of sheep with Gūbaru.”27 He received a large sum of silver (0.5 mina), exceeding by far the allotments of other men. The second attestation of this title comes from Stolper 1989 no. 1 (BM 74554), a receipt for barley issued at the order of the governor of Babylon and Across-the-River, and Libluṭ and Gadalâma, two men described as sepīru bēlṭēmi (‘Aramaic scribe [and] chancellor’). The third attestation comes from a fragmentary tablet BM 67669 drafted during the reign of Darius I, where bēl ṭēmi appears next to members of the board of the Ebabbar temple of Sippar.

Bēlṭēmi is possibly a Neo-Assyrian term that entered Aramaic and consequently Persian chancellery parlance.28 It is found in the Arsames correspondence from Egypt, where similarly to Stolper 1989 no. 1 (BM 74554), concurrent use of the titles bēlṭēmi and sepīru (b῾lṭ῾m spr᾿ ‘chancellor [and] scribe’) is attested.29 In Egyptian and Bactrian Aramaic letter subscripts, b῾lṭ῾m is paralleled by a title yd῾ṭ῾m᾿znh ‘(PN) knows this order’, which in Bactrian letters is, again, borne by scribes (spr᾿).30 Similar correspondence may also be traced in Persepolis tablets.31 In Egypt, b῾lṭ῾m was a member of the satrap’s entourage, in charge of official correspondence.32 A notable attestation of bēlṭēmi comes from Ezra 4: 8–9, 23, which quotes a letter sent to king Artaxerxes by Rehum b῾lṭ῾m and Shimshai spr᾿ together with “their colleagues the judges[knwthwndyny᾿], legates[᾿prstky᾿], officials [ṭrply᾿],33Persians, men of Erech, Babylonians, men of Susa, that is Elamites.”34 The Septuagint’s rendering of the names of the two first officials as Raoumos and Samsaios suggests the original reading of the second one as Shamshai (rather than Shimshai).

The patronymic of Šamšāya, son of Bēl-iqīša, is Babylonian, but his own name is less straightforward. It is uncommon in Babylonian sources. It may be interpreted as a Kosename‘My sun’35 or a hypocorism of a longer name comprising the theophoric element Šamaš. Alternatively, it may be a West Semitic appellative of a similar meaning. The only eminent bearers of this name were the royal resident of the Ebabbar temple at Sippar, attested in the twenty-sixth year of Darius I,36 and the son of Tattenai, the governor of Accross-the-River in the latter part of Darius I’s rule.37 No connection between these namesakes and the bēlṭēmi of Text 2 can be established.

It is much more inviting to identify Šamšāya with Shimshai the spr᾿, the colleague of Rehum b῾lṭ῾m of Ezra 4. Their names bear striking resemblance. Their titles admittedly vary (Šamšāya is called bēlṭēmi, while Shimshai a spr᾿), but both Stolper 1989 no. 1 (BM 74554) and the Aramaic material show that the two titles were occasionally combined. Also, a shift of titles between two protagonists of Ezra 4: 8–9, 23 in the course of the editorial process could be assumed. Both Šamšāya and Shimshai belonged to the elite of local Persian administration: Šamšāya stood close to the governor of Babylon and Acrossthe-River, while Shimshai, along with his colleague Rehum, addressed the king directly and implemented his orders. Both of them are listed next to judges. Furthermore, Ezra 4 contains many elements that reveal its editor’s acquaintance with the Persian-Babylonian administration and legal parlance.38 An obvious difficulty that this identification involves is a gap of over sixty years between Text 2 and the events set by Ezra-Nehemiah in the times of Artaxerxes (I). The authenticity of this so-called Artaxerxes correspondence in Ezra is a matter of dispute. According to extreme opinions, it was either a product of a Hellenistic author,39 or a compilation put together by an editor who had original sources from the Persian period at his disposal.40 If we accept the latter possibility, we may also allow that the editor of Ezra-Nehemiah has placed Rehum and Shimshai in the times of Artaxerxes I for reasons of narrative or ideological consistency, or simply by mistake. A possibility may thus be considered that Šamšāya bēlṭēmi,a high official in the satrapy of Across-the-River under Cambyses, served as a model for Shimshai/Shamshai of Ezra-Nehemiah.

22 CAD B, 261–263.
23 For Aramaic, see Lemaire and Lozahmeur 1987, for Neo-Babylonian, see Zadok 1985, 76–77.
24 Cf. Musil 1927, 313.
25 For Rēmūt-bēl-ilāni, see Wunsch 2000, 586, for Nabû-rā’im-šarri, see TBER no. 58 and its duplicate 59: 27.
26 For the context of the text, see Tolini 2009.
27 I˹x˺[x x]˹x˺ lúma-da-a-aen ṭè-e-mušáa-namuḫ-ḫiudu.níta a-naIgu-ba-ruiq-bu-ú (lines 41–42).
28 Stolper 1989, 301, Schwiderski 2000, 191.
29 Porten 1968, 56, Porten et al. 1996, 121 n. 74. Schwiderski’s proposition (2000, 190–193 and 358–359) to distinguish between a title(spr᾿) and an ad hoc function (b῾lṭ῾m) is problematic in view of the occurence of bēlṭēmi as name apposition, parallel to the title ‘judge’, in BM 47479. Also his argument that bēlṭēmi is never preceded by the determinative lú (2000, 192–193) is no longer standing: such writing (lúen ṭè-mu) is found in BM 67669.
30 Tuplin 2013, 128–130.
31 Tavernier 2008, 73.
32 Porten 1968, 55. For a possible correspondence between the b῾lṭ῾m and the Demotic senti, see Vittmann 2009, 102.
33 Or: ‘men from (Syrian) Tripoli’ (Koehler, Baumgartner and Stamm 2000, 1886b).
34 The translation follows Blenkinsopp 1988, 109.
35 Stamm 1939, 242.
36 Bongenaar 1997, 50.
37 Jursa and Stolper 2007, 249.
38 Especially line 9 is strongly influenced by Persian-Babylonian legal phraseology. The word knt ‘colleague, companion’ is commonly regarded as a borrowing from Akkadian (Porten et al. 1996, 159 n. 15, Koehler, Baumgartner and Stamm 2000, 1900a). Its only biblical occurrences are found in Ezra 4, 5 and 6; all of them refer to the companions of the opponents of the Jewish returnees (Rehum and Shimshai, Tattenai and Shethar-bozenai). Not only the word, but also the practice of combining it with professional titles might be traced to Akkadian (for references, see CAD K, 382). See especially the constructions parallel to knwthwndyny’‘(Shimshai and Rehum and) their colleagues the judges’: PN ukinattēšudayyānē(šašarri)‘PN and his colleagues the (royal) judges’ (BM 30957: 8–9, BM 62918: 2, Dar. 410: 5, MacGinnis 2008, 88–89: 1–2, Zadok 2002 no. D.4: 31, cf. Jursa, Paszkowiak and Waerzeggers 2003/2004 no. 1: 14). Similar practice of combining the Aramaic equivalent of the word kinattu with professional titles is found in Elephantine papyri (Porten et al. 1996, 159).
39 E.g. Schwiderski 2000, 381–382, Wright 2005, 39–43. 40 E.g. Grabbe 2006, 562–563, Williamson 2008, 52.

May I be so bold as to suggest another solution to the problem as presented by the authors above? Instead of the author of Ezra being mistaken or a later editor adding to the work and inserting this information 60 years after it happened, how about we just take the Bible’s chronology at face value, assuming the author of Ezra knew what he was talking about and admitting we just don’t understand all the pertinent details of Persian history as well as we supposed. Ezra 6 describes Darius I ‘The Great’ as an “Artaxerxes”, because this name was used as a throne name by Darius’ grandson Longimanus we assume this must be the only way this word was used in Persian history. The Bible tells us differently, and if we listen we find it places real historical people by the same name as described in the Bible in the very same time frame.

The more I study the chronology of the Bible, the more I am struck by how accurately it describes history. I’ve learned over the years when something doesn’t seem to make sense, it is better to assume that I just don’t have all the information I need, rather than assume the Bible got it wrong. The history described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah proves this is a compelling way. Let me give you several more examples.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

The Titles of Darius
Let’s do an experiment. For the sake of this exercise let’s assume the Bible’s chronology as described in the book of Ezra is a straight forward and chronologically congruent rendering of Persian history. In other words, it chronologically describes real Persian history between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. This, what I have shown in these articles to be a reasonable working assumption, informs us that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 6:14 onwards and the “Artaxerxes” of Nehemiah are in fact a reference to Darius I ‘The Great’. Using this as our premise let me show just how accurately the Bible describes the titles by which Darius is known from his own royal inscriptions.

  • King of Persia
    •  24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:24)
    •  14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and [even] Artaxerxes king of Persia. (Ezra 6:14)
    • Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, (Ezra 7:1)
    • Line 1 of Darius’ Behistun Inscription
       I am Darius [Dâryavuš], the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia [Pârsa], the king of countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenid.

 

  • King of Babylon
    The use of the title “king of Babylon” in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah is a fascinating study and worth further explanation. Keep in mind for context sake that it was Cyrus who conquered Babylon and allowed the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem and build the temple. Because he conquered Babylon he was rightly called “king of Babylon”.  As king of  Babylon Cyrus had the authority to set the Jewish captives free as well as return the temple treasure taken by Nebuchadnezzar.In the book of Ezra the next Persian king who we see involved in the affairs of the Jewish people in the province of Babylon is Darius I.
    • Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king’s treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.When Darius the king [of Babylon] made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon. Ezra 5:17 – 6:1

Darius as the king of Babylon confirmed the decree of Cyrus and allowed the construction of the temple to continue. Darius also added his own monetary blessing to the effort. It’s interesting to note as Gerard Gertoux does in the quote below that the kingdom of Babylon became a Persian province (from the official Persian perspective) only after the death of Darius. It’s further worth noting that after a Babylonian revolt during the reign of Xerxes (son of Darius) that Xerxes never again used the title king of Babylon. In fact this official titulature became exceedingly rare during the reigns of the following Persian kings. In the appendices of this article I’ve included an interesting discussion of the only known occurrences of the title “king of Bayblon” used in conjunction with an unidentified  “Artaxerxes”. As the authors note, there is no way to determine the identity of the Artaxerxes king of Babylon mentioned in these inscriptions.

 

 

    • The former kingdom of Babylon became a Persian province only after Darius’ death and it is worthwhile noting that during his reign, Babylon was a satrapy of two big provinces (Babylonia and [lands] Beyond the River) and its ruler has been called “Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River24”. Thus the governor of the land of Judea was under the authority of Tattannu, the governor of [the lands] Beyond the River, exactly as the Bible reports:The copy of the letter which Tattenai the governor of the province Beyond the River and Shethar-bozenai and his associates the governors who were in the province Beyond the River sent to Darius the king (Ezr 5:6).

According to the Bible, Rehum ruled (538?-522) the province Beyond the River as “royal prefect” (Ezr 4:7-21), before Tattenai. (Queen Esther Wife of Xexes: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence – ,  Gerard Gertoux)


Here is the point. “King of Babylon” was a title rightly used by both Cyrus and Darius as Babylon was still a powerful kingdom with some autonomy granted during their reigns. By the latter half of Xerxes reign, Babylon was demoted (so to speak) and over the intervening years it lost more and more of its prestige and relevance. This brings us to a statement in Nehemiah 13:6 were it tells us that Nehemiah left Jerusalem in the 32nd year of “Artaxerxes king of Babylon”.

6 But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem: for in the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon came I unto the king, and after certain days obtained I leave of the king: (Nehemiah 13:6)

As I’ve tried to explain in these articles, Ezra describes king Darius as a Persian “Artaxerxes”. Because Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries this means that Nehemiah’s “Artaxerxes” was none other than Darius I ‘The Great’. Thus it makes much more sense here to see Nehemiah identify Darius as “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” than it does to try and apply that titulature to the Persian king Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) long after the kingdom of Babylon had been subsumed into the Persian empire. Both chronologically and historically, the title “king of Babylon” would have been more contextually appropriate to Darius I ‘The Great’ than his grandson Artaxerxes I (Longimanus).

    • “Xerxes, designated by Darius as his successor, ascended the throne of Persia after twelve years as viceroy at Babylon. One of his first tasks was to suppress the revolt in Egypt begun in the lifetime of his father. This he did with great severity, forcing the Egyptian people to nurse their hatred in secret while awaiting their revenge. He acted with the same brutality towards Babylon, where revolt had also broken out: he razed the walls and fortifications of the city, destroyed its temple and melted down the golden statue of the god Bel. After this he ceased to use the title of ‘king of babylon’, calling himself simply ‘king of the Persians and the Medes’. (R. Girshman, Iran – 1951 p.190-191)
    • Babylon Loses its Independence
      “Babylon lost its independent status when it was merged with Assyria (Herodotus 7.63). After the fifth year of Xerxes’ reign the title “king of Babylon” was rarely used.” (Persia and the Bible – Edwin M. Yamauchi, 1994, p. 194)
    • Please note a further discussion of the title “King of Babylon” as used during the reign of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I as an appendices at the bottom of this post. (Waerzeggers, Caroline, and Maarja Seire. “Xerxes and Babylonia: the Cuneiform Evidence.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 277 (2018): n. pag. Print.)

 

  • King of Assyria
    Ezra 6:22 identifies Darius I ‘The Great’ as the “king of Assyria”. This is another instance where a Biblical author is using a title, in this case “king of Assyria” to emphasize a symbolic point relating to the history of the Jewish people. Remember it was Assyria who took Israel (the 10 tribes) captive. But now, long after Assyria ceased to be an official kingdom, a Persian “king of Assyria” is given credit for helping the Jewish return and build Yahweh’s holy temple. Yes, Yahweh had punished His people, but they had borne their punishment and outlasted their adversaries. In any case, Darius as “king of Assyria” is attested by Darius’ own Behistun inscription.
    • And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for YHWH had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel. (Ezra 6:22)
    • [i.6]King Darius says: These are the countries which are subject unto me, and by the grace of Ahuramazda I became king of them: Persia, Elam, BabyloniaAssyriaArabia, Egypt, the countries by the Sea, Lydia, the GreeksMediaArmeniaCappadociaParthiaDrangianaAriaChorasmiaBactria, Sogdia, GandaraScythiaSattagydiaArachosia and Maka; twenty-three lands in all. (emphasis mine)
  • King of Kings
    It’s worth noting here, that nearly all Achaemenid Royal inscriptions after Darius I attest to the Persian king titulature, “the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia” but it was Darius I who immortalized this tradition on the cliffs of Behistun and whom his sons and grandsons tried to emulated.
    •  11 Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of YHWH, and of his statutes to Israel.  12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time. (Ezra 7:11-12)
    • Line 1 of Darius’ Behistun Inscription
       I am Darius [Dâryavuš], the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia [Pârsa], the king of countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenid.

In Closing
I hope these articles have shown that the Bible consistently demonstrates its historical reliability if we accurately identify the context of its chronology. By separating Darius I from his Biblical title of “Artaxerxes”, scholars have unwittingly shifted Biblical history by nearly six decades from its original context and thus obscured some of the Bible’s most important history as it relates to secular Persian record.

As we’ll explore in forthcoming articles in this series, this shift of Bible history by nearly 60 years has really skewed our  view of the 2nd temple era and this is no where better demonstrated than the history of the Biblical heroine Esther and her king.

Did you know that the Persian records attest to a man named Mordecai who was a high official in Persia during the 2nd temple era? One of the reasons you’ve probably never heard about this Mordecai is because he was a Persian official during the reign of Darius I.

Here is a fact. The name Mordecai is extremely rare in the Persian record. The name is also extremely rare in the Biblical record. In fact, an individual named Mordecai is only mentioned in the book of Esther as the uncle of Esther and in the books of Ezra & Nehemiah as one of the leaders of the people who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel when Cyrus allowed the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem.

Curious, isn’t it, that two of the three records (historical and Biblical), where Mordecai is mentioned, place him as a leader in the early years of the 2nd temple era. Further, as I will do my best to demonstrate, the book of Esther by its own internal chronology also places the Biblical hero Mordecai in the early years of the 2nd temple era. This line of exploration will provide reasonable evidence to show that the Mordecai of the Persian records, the Mordecai of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the Mordecai of the book of Esther are one and the same person.

The result of this inquiry I hope is a further strengthening of your faith in the reliability of the Bible as an accurate account of history, with the bigger goal in mind of demonstrating that all Biblical history has an essential place in Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua.

I hope you’ll stay tuned. I think you’ll be thrilled at just how congruent the Bible is as it relates to us the history of the 2nd temple era.

Maranatha!

Next Time
Yahweh Willing my next article
Mordecai & The Chronological Context of Esther will look at the chronological relationship between Mordecai, Esther, Darius, and their Biblical and secular contemporaries.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]

Post Script
The ‘Edayin Assumption

As mentioned above Mr. Lanser has updated his original article The Seraiah Assumption with some further thoughts and explanations in response to my rebuttal of his article as well as an email exchange we’ve had in the interim.

I can’t stress enough the importance the chronology of Ezra 4-6 has to providing us with the foundational context as it relates to the Bible’s identity of Darius as a Persian “Artaxerxes”. Further, Ezra 4:23-24 and the Bible’s use of the word ‘edayin’ is at the crux of whether Mr. Lanser’s objections to the use of the Artaxerxes as a title are valid.

Here is the bottom line. If the Bible uses the term “Artaxerxes” to describe Persian kings before this word was used as a throne name to describe the Persian king Artaxerxes I (Longimanus), then the entire pretext for a thematic (think non-chronological) view of Ezra 4-6 becomes untenable. In other words, if Artaxerxes was used in the Bible to describe Persian kings before Longimanus then the chronological premise of Mr. Lanser’s Seraiah Assumption is erroneous. I should add, it is not just Mr. Lanser’s interpretations that are affected by the Edayin Assumption, but every scholar who claims that the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah is a reference to Artaxerxes I (Longimanus).

So let’s look at Mr. Lanser’s further explanation regarding the use of ‘edayin to see the Biblical merits of his case. I quote Mr. Lanser from his addendum titled: The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping Up Some Loose Ends  Quotes from his article The Seraiah Assumption: Wrappin up Some Loose Ends are in green and where he quoted me in this article I’ve further highlighted them in brown for clarity.

 

The Meaning of ’Edayin
One of Mr. Struse’s most recent posts, “Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4” (https://www.the13thenumeration.com/Blog13/2019/05/04/cyrus-to-darius-the-2nd-temple-context-of-ezra-4/), spends considerable time discussing his understanding of the Hebrew term ’edayin and its exegetical significance. He claims that in every single case where the Aramaic word ’edayin is used, it carries a chronological/temporal significance:

But verse 23 presents a problem for Mr. Lanser’s interpretation. The Aramaic word ‘edayin’ is used 57 times in the Old Testament. 56 of those occurrences, including the “now” of Ezra 4:23, clearly refer to successive events which take place in chronological order. In most cases the events described by the word ‘edayin’ transpire directly after previously described events of the text. The only other occurrence of the world ‘edayin’ found in the Bible is Ezra 4:24 and is represented by the English word “then”.

If we use a consistent Hermeneutics we must translate ‘edayin’ in Ezra 4:24 in the same manner we translated it in verse 23 – as well as the other 55 other occurrences of the word found in the Old Testament. There is simply no other reasonable way to see ‘edayin’ other than a chronological synchronism which connects successive events. By placing ‘edayin’ at the beginning of both verse 23 & verse 24 the author of Ezra wanted to ensure there was no confusion about the chronological order of events.

My response was to “be a Berean” and check his information. I went to the online copy of Strong’s at http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H116&t=NASB and looked up the Aramaic term ‘edayin (אֱדַיִן). Near the beginning of that entry it notes, “i.q. Heb. אָז,” meaning it was the same as the Hebrew word אָז (‘az). I then checked my copy of the Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon to look up that word. I found that EBDB on page 23 observes the word does not always have a strictly temporal significance; point 2 on that page shows it is also used for expressing logical sequence, i.e., “since A, then B.” Then I went to the Biblical Aramaic appendix to EBDB and checked the entry for ʼedayin. It referred me in turn to Gleason Archer’s standard reference book, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT). Entry 2558 in that work states that the Aramaic term generally takes a temporal sense as Struse insists, but with one exception: “Used also with prepositions [בּ] or min meaning ‘since.’” If we go to the Aramaic text of Ezra 4:24, what do we find? The word used there is בֵּאדַיִן—ʼedayin with the preposition prefixed to it! This indicates logical sequence is intended, not temporal sequence. Ezra 4:23 does not include the prefix, so in that case a temporal meaning applies. The meanings are not identical.

The “then” of Ezra 4:24 therefore must be understood, based on rules of grammar, not as an action following consecutively in time after Ezra 4:23, but as completing the thought paused after Ezra 4:5, when the author, following a thematic rather than chronological contextual approach, went on a sidetrack about similar Samaritan problems which would take place in the future. Mr. Struse was honest in reporting that his source treats the ʼedayin of Ezra 4:24 differently from its other instances, but refused to accept this because he regards it as an unreasonable, purely subjective opinion. It is not, it is grammar-based, and I think the grammar rules should carry the argument. Mr. Struse’s statement, “There is simply no other reasonable way to see ‘edayin’ other than a chronological synchronism which connects successive events,” does not match up with the objective grammar-based evidence.

Mr. Lanser’s explanation above is disconcerting for several different reasons. First of all Mr. Lanser (as he’s done in his article regarding the Darius Assumption) misunderstands and then misstates my position. This erroneous basis he then uses as part of his understanding of the word ‘edayin. I’ll try to untangle the confusion this causes. I quote Mr. Lanser above:

“The “then” of Ezra 4:24 therefore must be understood, based on rules of grammar, not as an action following consecutively in time after Ezra 4:23, but as completing the thought paused after Ezra 4:5, when the author, following a thematic rather than chronological contextual approach, went on a sidetrack about similar Samaritan problems which would take place in the future. Mr. Struse was honest in reporting that his source treats the ʼedayin of Ezra 4:24 differently from its other instances, but refused to accept this because he regards it as an unreasonable, purely subjective opinion.”

If you carefully read Mr. Lanser’s quote of my article above (in brown), you’ll see that in fact I do not claim that my source treats “the ‘edayin of Ezra 4:24 differently from its other instances”. What I did say was that since Ezra 4:23 and the other 55 occurrences use ‘edayin in the same manner that we are obligated, by proper Hermeneutical method, to treat the occurrence of ‘edayin in verse 24 in the same manner as it is used in every other instance.

Mr. Lanser then compounded the error of his misunderstanding of my position (that ‘edayin was used exceptionally in verse 24) by not verifying for himself if this assumption about my position was in fact Biblically accurate. Even if I had made such a statement, if Mr. Lanser would have checked the use of the word ‘edayin he would have found such as statement to be totally erroneous.

In the Bible ‘edayin with the prepositions [בּ] is not used exceptionally at all. In fact roughly half of the times ‘edayin is used, it has the preposition proceeding it. The following images show every occurrence of the word ‘edayin in the Bible. The first image shows ‘edayin without its preposition and the second image with its preposition bĕ. As you can see the usage of ‘edayin with or without its preposition bĕ, is roughly an even split. (you can click on image to enlarge)

Unfortunately for Mr. Lanser’s argument, he didn’t verify for himself how the prefix was used with ‘edayin in its other occurrences in the Bible. Had he done so, he would have realized that in each and every case in which ‘edayin with the preposition is used, it clearly describe a natural and chronological succession of events. For instance here is an occurrence of ‘edayin with the preposition where it is used to described events that took place after Yahweh’s divine command to restore and build Jerusalem. After Yahweh’s command the people “then” (‘edayin) they immediately obeyed His command by restarting construction on Yahweh’s house. Notice this occurrence of ‘edayin directly follows the same use of ‘edayin as given in Ezra 4:24 – the very  “exception” Mr. Lanser uses to make his erroneous point.

23Now [אֱדַיִן] when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.

24Then [בֵּאדַיִן] ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.  (Ezra 4:23 – 24)

1Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them.

2 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. (Ezra 5:1-2)

You’ve got to appreciate the irony here. These verses are the crux of Ezra’s 2nd temple era chronology as it relates to Yahweh’s divine command (word-dabar) to restore and build Jerusalem. The very command that I’ve demonstrated at this blog and in my book Daniel’s 70 Weeks: The Keystone of Bible Prophecy is the “word” (dabar) of Daniel 9:25.  Right here where Mr. Lanser and many of his peers by necessity must see a “a thematic rather than chronological contextual approach” to Biblical history we have a very strong likelihood that the Bible confirms its own internal chronology by dating this period to a historical figure found in the Persian records at the start of Darius I’s reign.

In my opinion, the above use of ‘edayin clearly demonstrates that Ezra 4:23-24 must be seen as a straight forward and strictly chronological account that demonstrates the book of Ezra understood that at least two Persian kings where known by the title of “Artaxerxes” over a half a century before that title was chosen by Darius I’s grandson, Longimanus as a throne name.

Finally, for those you who would like a play by play example of how ‘edayin is used outside the book of Ezra – along with and without its prepositional prefix bĕ, here is a clearly chronological account from the book of Daniel where I’ve added the use of ‘edayin in brackets for clarity.

Daniel 6:10-22
10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

11 Then [אֱדַיִן] these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God.

12 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king’s decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.

13 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.

14 Then [אֱדַיִן] the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him.

15 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.

16 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.

17 And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.

18 Then [אֱדַיִן] the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him.

19 Then [בֵּאדַיִן] the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions.

20 And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?

21 Then [אֱדַיִן] said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever. 

22 My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.

Articles related to this series:
The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser of Associates for Biblical Research
The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping up Loose Ends by Rick Lanser

My response to Rick Lanser’s – The Seraiah Assumption:
Introduction
The Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption

Part ICyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part IIDarius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part IIIDarius the great Persian Artaxerxes: A Contextual Look at the Book of Ezra in the Light of Persian History
Part IV – Darius and the Kingdom of Arta
Part VDarius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VIMordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VIIEsther, Ahasuerus, & Artaxerxes: Who was the Persian King of 127 Provinces?
Part VIII – Darius I: A Gentile King at the Crux of Jewish Messianic History
Part IXThe Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption

Book 1
Book I - Description

The 13th Enumeration
"A book that will change how you look at the Bible's Messianic Symbolism."

Book 2
Book 2 - Description

Daniel's 70 Weeks -
"A book that will forever change how you understand the Bible's greatest Messianic prophecy."

Book 3
Book 3 - Description

The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."

 

Appendices:
Addition information on the use of “King of Babylon” as it applies to the Persian record:

(Waerzeggers, Caroline, and Maarja Seire. “Xerxes and Babylonia: the Cuneiform Evidence.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 277 (2018): n. pag. Print

(INTRODUCTION: DEBATING XERXES’ RULE IN BABYLONIA
Caroline Waerzeggers
(Leiden University)*

How did the debate about Xerxes’ Babylonian policy develop? The ortho-doxy, most clearly expressed by Cameron (1941) and de Liagre Böhl (1962), held that Xerxes punished Babylon severely after the uprisings of Šamaš-erība and Bēl-šimânni, by taking away the statue of Marduk from its sanctuary, by preventing further celebration of the Akitu (or new year) festival, by destroying the city, by eliminating the element ‘King of Babylon’ from his official titula-ture, and by splitting the satrapy of Babylon-and-across-the-River into two smaller units.5

Other renderings, for instance by Hansjörg Schmid (1981, 132– 135; 1995, 78–87), added details of Babylon’s supposed destruction, such as the diversion of the Euphrates and the demolition of its ziggurat. Furthermore, the Daiva inscription was used as evidence of Xerxes’ supposed policy of intolerance,6 and the dwindling amounts of Babylonian clay tablets in his reign were presented as proof of decline after his violent suppression of the revolts.7

In 1987, Amélie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White argued that Böhl’s account “was based on a careless reading of Herodotus combined with incomplete Babylonian evidence and an implicit wish to make very disparate types of material harmonize with a presumed “knowledge” of Xerxes’ actions, policies, and character.

 The supporters of the earlier orthodoxy had misinterpreted several clues: the passage in Herodotus about Xerxes’ removal of a statue from the temple of Babylon concerns the statue of a man rather than of Marduk; by Xerxes’ time the Akitu festival had long been suspended so that Xerxes could not have been responsible for any change of program; the shortening of his titulature happened gradually, not abruptly; and the element ‘King of Babylon’ continued to be used occasionally even into the reign of Artaxerxes I. 9

Xerxes or their aftermath: the Kedor-Laomer texts, for instance, have been explained as a literary reaction to repression in the later Persian period (Foster 2005, 369). A memory of a Babylonian uprising against Xerxes is preserved in Ctesias (Tuplin 1997, 397; Lenfant 2004, 124; Kuhrt 2014, 167) and echoes may be contained in Herodotus’ account of Xerxes’ sacrileges in Babylon (1.183; Tolini 2011, 447 ‘echo déformé’) and in the Zopyros episode (Rollinger 1998, 347–348; but see Rollinger 2003, 257). Otherwise, Greek accounts are either oblivious of the revolts or they preserve garbled recollections at best;

see Kuhrt 2010 and 2014.
 5Böhl 1962, 111 and 113.
 6Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1980, 1–47.
 7Joannès 1989a, 126; van Driel 1992, 40; Dandamaev 1993, 42.
 8 The quote is from Kuhrt 2014, 166 where she reflects on the 1987 article with SherwinWhite.
 9 See Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1987.

    • The Ancient Near Eastern Chronology ForumTory
      Re: Artaxerxes, king of Babylon
      Sat Jun 11, 2011 03:31
      198.78.98That may or may not be conclusive but Dandamayev knows these families and their archives like the back of his hand. So when he says in 1995(?), eleven years after the Kessler text was published, that the title “King of Persia, Media, King of Babylon and Lands” (LUGAL Par-su Ma-da-a-a LUGAL E.KI u KUR.KUR) is not attested at all for Artaxerxes the First, his word is good enough for me until someone proves him wrong.I think we might be missing the real mark here. Even if Artaxerxes I did use the above title, and the Kessler text from Uruk dates to his reign, the original question was did any Achaemenid ruler after Darius I and Xerxes I ever use the royal title “King of Babylon” immediately after their nomen. In Nehemiah 13:6 we have “Artaxerxes, King of Babylon.” In the Kessler text “King of Babylon” comes after “King of Persia, Media” not after the nomen Artaxerxes. It’s no trivial point. The Nehemiah text is exactly what Darius I and Xerxes I did (what Babylonian scribes did) with the title “King of Babylon” in Babylonian documents. It was affixed to the nomen as if to say it was the king’s primary title. That does not happen again until the Year 4 Artaxerxes tablet OECT X 191 from Hursagkalama and the other tablet from this location but with year-date broken away (OECT X 229).

I notice Rollinger is not absolutely certain these documents or the Kessler text dates to Artaxerxes I. He simply says that if they do there would be a remarkable continuity in the use of the “Babylon” element in the Achaemenid royal titulary after Xerxes. I am inclined to believe, at least for the moment, and possibly being misled in this by Dandamayev, that these three tablets all date to the reign of Artaxerxes II, perhaps in this relative order:

Artaxerxes II year 4 “King of Babylon, King of Lands” (OECT X 191)
Artaxerxes II year x “…Baby]lon and Lands” (OECT X 229)
Artaxerxes II year 24 “King of Persia, Media, Babylon, and Lands” (Kessler)

In Year 4 (401) Artaxerxes II defeated his brother Cyrus on the battlefield in Babylonia (Cunaxa). Hence “King of Babylon, King of Lands.” Towards the middle of the reign Babylonian scribes shifted back to putting the main Persian title “King of Persia” or “King of Lands” immediately after the nomen.