Daniels 70 weeks made Simple

[Ged]

There is no mention of rebuilding anything in Artaxerxes' decree.

Not explicitly, but in verse 25 we read, "And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God that is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province." This is 'law and government' that we are talking about. Does that include town planning? I would think so.

Don't put the one of Darius in the mix.

I will put it in the mix. Darius' re-decree of Cyrus' original decree is proof that any subsequent emperor would do the same. That is how Medes and Persians 'ticked.'

BTW, your quote of Ezra 6:14 is about rebuilding of the temple, not Jerusalem infrastructure.

The temple was finished in 515bc. Artaxerxes decree was 457bc. So what do you think it is referring to if it is not the remainder of Cyrus' decree - namely the city?

[Bernard Muller]

Not explicitly, but in verse 25 we read, "And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God that is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province." This is 'law and government' that we are talking about. Does that include town planning? I would think so.

Can you read? Your quote is about "magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province". Where did you see town planning?

I will put it in the mix. Darius' re-decree of Cyrus' original decree is proof that any subsequent emperor would do the same. That is how Medes and Persians 'ticked.'

Not for "Ezra": he had an Artaxerxes`decree doing the opposite: preventing any rebuilding in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:7-24a).

The temple was finished in 515bc. Artaxerxes decree was 457bc. So what do you think it is referring to if it is not the remainder of Cyrus' decree - namely the city?

I am not thinking it. That`s what the text says:
Ezr 6:14-15 "So the elders of the Jews built, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they built and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the command of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
Now the temple was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius."
The text says it is about the temple, not the city.
("Ezra" and "Daniel" are all confused about the succession of Persian kings)
And what Artaxerxes`decree in 457 BC is referring to is other things that any rebuilding. We do not have to think about it: it is well described in Ezra 7 and does not mention any rebuilding. Period.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ged]

Can you read? Your quote is about "magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province". Where did you see town planning?

Havn't you read in Moses law about removing peoples survey peg? Judges judge everything Bernard, including building permits.

Not for "Ezra": he had an Artaxerxes`decree doing the opposite: preventing any rebuilding in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:7-24a).

So he did. And I hope you noticed that it was the city walls and foundations that Artaxerxes stopped, not the temple. (Ezra 4:12) Also, I hope you noticed in verse 21 that he said it stopped temporarily - "until I so order."

That`s what the text says:

The third day of the month of Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius was 515bc before Artaxerxes was even born. His later decree included matters of Temple administration and expenses, but the bricks and mortar were already in place. Artaxerxes decree would have been meant to include the city rebuild just as Cyrus had meant his decree to include both.

[spin]

Can you read? Your quote is about "magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province". Where did you see town planning?

Havn't you read in Moses law about removing peoples survey peg? Judges judge everything Bernard, including building permits.

Not for "Ezra": he had an Artaxerxes`decree doing the opposite: preventing any rebuilding in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:7-24a).

So he did. And I hope you noticed that it was the city walls and foundations that Artaxerxes stopped, not the temple. (Ezra 4:12) Also, I hope you noticed in verse 21 that he said it stopped temporarily - "until I so order."

You can keep peddling this but you cannot seriously separate the temple from the city. The artificial distinction is only apologetic, for the building of the temple necessitated the building of the "city" around it. The story that Ezra tells is that the local populations used the excuse of the walls to stop all building. They had come in 4:1ff to help build the temple, but their help was refused, so they did what they could to thwart the building (4:4-6), till they wrote their letter about the walls, which got Artaxerxes I's attention and he ordered building in the city to cease (4:21).

The arc of the narrative starts and ends with the temple and in between the people of the land did what they could to oppose the building. In so doing, the text passes from Cyrus to Darius, on to Artaxerxes and finally to Darius II. It is that plain and simple.

That`s what the text says:

The third day of the month of Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius was 515bc before Artaxerxes was even born. His later decree included matters of Temple administration and expenses, but the bricks and mortar were already in place. Artaxerxes decree would have been meant to include the city rebuild just as Cyrus had meant his decree to include both.

Maybe Bernard will walk up this path of apologetics with you, but you have shown yourself not to have read the text with any objectivity.

I know why you must mangle the narrative, but it is at the cost of your reasonableness. You've done no history here. You've merely tried to sustain a series of textual interpretations. To do so, you've avoided dealing with your source texts.

[Ged]

You can keep peddling this but you cannot seriously separate the temple from the city.

My point to Bernard is very simple. The temple was built in 515bc under Darius and the letter to Artaxerxes1 seeking a stoppage was about 50 years later. It pertained to the construction of the city walls.

... you must mangle the narrative ...
... at the cost of your reasonableness ...
... You've done no history here ...
... you've avoided dealing with your source texts ...

Spin, you're ranting.

[spin]

You can keep peddling this but you cannot seriously separate the temple from the city.

My point to Bernard is very simple. The temple was built in 515bc under Darius and the letter to Artaxerxes1 seeking a stoppage was about 50 years later. It pertained to the construction of the city walls.

... you must mangle the narrative ...
... at the cost of your reasonableness ...
... You've done no history here ...
... you've avoided dealing with your source texts ...

Spin, you're ranting.

That's what I like about you: your need to repeat the same lie and you so zealously avoid the evidence!

the building of the temple necessitated the building of the "city" around it. The story that Ezra tells is that the local populations used the excuse of the walls to stop all building. They had come in 4:1ff to help build the temple, but their help was refused, so they did what they could to thwart the building (4:4-6), till they wrote their letter about the walls, which got Artaxerxes I's attention and he ordered building in the city to cease (4:21).

The arc of the narrative starts and ends with the temple and in between the people of the land did what they could to oppose the building. In so doing, the text passes from Cyrus to Darius, on to Artaxerxes and finally to Darius II. It is that plain and simple.

[unknown4]

To those who may believe the Artaxerxes in question was Mnemon, what is thought about the Elephantine Papyrus which refer to a "Jochanan" as chief priest, Darius [II] as king, and Arsames [a satrap]? The problem that I see is that this text refers to events in the late 5th century BCE, while Nehemiah refers to Eliashib as high priest (Neh 3:1,30; 13:28), although Jochanan is referred to as special enough to have his own chamber apparently in the temple area that Ezra went to (Ezra 10:6). The 7th or 20th year of Artaxerxes Mnemon would be early 4th century BCE. Jochanan was Eliashib's grandson. For Jochanan to be actually the high priest in the late 5th century BCE with Darius II as king, the Artaxerxes in question would, to me, have to be Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) referred to, at least in Nehemiah where Eliashib is specifically referred to as "high priest".

The only solution off hand that I see is that the Elephantine Papyrus refers to Jochanan as 'rosh' priest, [a] 'chief priest', not necessarily הַכֹּהֵ֣ן הַגָּדֹ֔ול , the gadowl kohen, the high priest. Just as the Elephantine authors wrote to the sons of Sanballat, while he was actually still governor, they wrote to Jochanan as a chief priest, not necessarily him as the high priest. Or, Jochanan was acting high priest.

Regardless, this seems to be an issue for referring to the relevant "decree" as coming from Artaxerxes II (Mnemon) and not Artaxerxes I (Longimanus).

I'm not trying to claim that Daniel was prophesying about Jesus, and as much as I'd like to think the 7th and 20th years of Artaxerxes (or one of them) was really referring to Mnemon, the problem of the Elephantine Papyrus I think should be addressed. Thanks for any help.

Here's a link to the relevant papyrus,

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/templeauth.html

[DCHindley]

There is a similar discrepancy between Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah and Ezekiel regarding who exactly was running the show in the restored (2nd) temple. The names of the key players just don't match up.

DCH

[unknown4]

Could you elaborate on that discrepancy between the first group of books and Ezekiel? Thanks.

[DCHindley]

Could you elaborate on that discrepancy between the first group of books and Ezekiel? Thanks.

Sorry, I was working off of a hazy recollection that there were dating problems with the book of Ezekiel. I was thinking that it crossed over into the era of the return, but now that I look back, that was a minority position (i.e., that Ezekiel lived ca 400 BCE). Turns out that he lived, probably, between the first and second captures of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and a bit into the captivity, but dies before the rise of Cyrus. I seemed to remember that he mentions several figures associated with the temple (he was a priest) who do not show up anywhere else in scripture, including the genealogies of the returnees in the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. At the time I last looked at Ezekiel, I was checking into the possibility that he flourished in the time of the Assyrian destruction of Israel, and his work was adapted by Judahites at a later period. There is evidence that the Hebrew version of the book was not finished until the 1st century CE.

See William A Irwin, The Problem of Ezekiel - An Inductive Study (Dec 1943)
http://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicag ... zekiel.pdf

DCH