Which Artaxerxes was Contemporary with Ezra?

[Ged]

“… in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem”
(Ezra 7:7-8)

By far the most historians identify Artaxerxes 1 (465bc – 424bc) as the king who issued a decree permitting Ezra to go to Jerusalem in his 7th year.

[wiki][/wiki]Here is the wiki article:

Here is the Jewish encyclopaedia:

Here is Iran’s encyclopaedia:

However a small number of alternative historians make the claim that the person referred to was really Artaxerxes 2 who reigned about 80 years later. (404bc – 358bc) These are usually liberal scholars with an ax to grind concerning biblical history. They make a superficial construct to the book of Ezra for no good reason except that they do not want Ezra’s chronology to support the prophet Daniel. (who tends to get a bit predictive)

Well, it’s past my bed time so I’ll leave this as an opener, and call back in the morning for a chat about it.

’night

[spin]

A bunch of Wiki links just shows how unprepared you are. Recourse to authorities is neither evidence nor an argument. As you still have not shown any understanding of the issues, here we go again:

Here is the end of the reign of Cyrus onward in chapter 4: Ezra 4:5 They bribed officials to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia. 6 At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem. 7 And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes. The letter was written in Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language. 8 Rehum the commanding officer and Shimshai the secretary wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king... All these kings are in order, Cyrus, Darius I, Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I with the few minor rulers not mentioned. All is clear. At the end of the letter of Artaxerxes I Ezra continues: Ezra 4:23 As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimshai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop. 24 Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. When the letter of Artaxerxes arrived, work by the Jews was forced to stop until the second year of the reign of Darius, so Artaxerxes preceded a Darius, who can only be Darius II. And just in case you missed that, there is a repeat of the royal acts toward the Jews in 5:14-15, Ezra 5:14 So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15 The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius. which provides the king names Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes and another Darius, so in fact there are two indications that we have Darius II before the Artaxerxes in 7:1. This is Artaxerxes II. During the reign of Artaxerxes I—according to his letter, see 4:21—the work on the temple was forcibly stopped and only finished in the 6th year of Darius II.

You have been presented with the information in various forms at least three times, yet you still have not dealt with it, choosing to talk about the authorities you can muster tell you. If you don't want to deal with it, just say so and stop all the evasive tactics. I for one am not interested in watching you dodge bullets.

[beowulf]

“… in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem”
(Ezra 7:7-8)

By far the most historians identify Artaxerxes 1 (465bc – 424bc) as the king who issued a decree permitting Ezra to go to Jerusalem in his 7th year.

[wiki][/wiki]Here is the wiki article:

Here is the Jewish encyclopaedia:

Here is Iran’s encyclopaedia:

However a small number of alternative historians make the claim that the person referred to was really Artaxerxes 2 who reigned about 80 years later. (404bc – 358bc) These are usually liberal scholars with an ax to grind concerning biblical history. They make a superficial construct to the book of Ezra for no good reason except that they do not want Ezra’s chronology to support the prophet Daniel. (who tends to get a bit predictive)

Well, it’s past my bed time so I’ll leave this as an opener, and call back in the morning for a chat about it.

’night

Why would a Christian want to imitate these people?

Talmud - Mas. Megilah 11b
. He reasoned thus: ‘Belshazar calculated and made a mistake; l have calculated and made no mistake’ — What is the meaning of this? — It is written, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon I will remember you,10 and it is written, That He would ccomplish for the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years.11 He reckoned forty-five years of Nebuchadnezzar and twenty-three of Evilmerodach and two of his own, making seventy in all.............

The exile of Babylon — How many years [is this reckoning] less [than the other]? Eight.24 So in place of them he inserted one of Belshazar,25 five of Darius and Cyrus,26 and two of his own, which made seventy .....

When he saw that seventy had been completed and they were not redeemed, he brought out the vessels of the Temple and used them — Then the Satan came and danced among them and slew Vashti.

(26) According to the Talmudic chronology, the Darius mentioned in Daniel VI was succeeded by the Cyrus who gave permission for the building of the Temple. On what authority they are supposed to have reigned five years is not clear.


Talmud - Mas. Megilah 12a
Raba said: Daniel also made a mistake in this calculation, as it is written, In the first year of his reign, I Daniel meditated in the books [etc.].2 From his use of the words ‘I meditated’ we can infer that he [at first] made a mistake.

All the same, there is a contradiction between the texts [is there not]? It is written [in one], when there are accomplished for Babylon,3 and it is written [in the other], for the desolations of Jerusalem?

— Raba replied: [The first term] was for visitation [pekidah] only, and this was fulfilled, as it is written, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord, the God of the heavens, given to me, and he hath charged [pakad] me to build him a house in Jerusalem.4

[Blood]

These are usually liberal scholars with an ax to grind concerning biblical history.

As if you just have a purely objective interest in the subject.

[Ged]

Okay, just a quick overview of most commentaries on Ezra. As you know Ezra and Nehemiah used to be a single book, so I’ll use both of them. For the most part the narrative follows a consecutive chronology from the decree of Cyrus (538bc) to Nehemiah’s final reforms. (430 -420bc approx.)

However, in several places the sequence is interrupted with a parenthetical summary of something related, but additional to the narrative. Such a parenthesis is found in Ezra 4:4-23 where the author paused at the 1st major occasion of opposition during Cyrus (Ezra 4:4) to summarise the lobbying against Jerusalem that continued for the next 70 years until Artaxerxes1.

Then the narrative picks up where it left off, and continues from the 2nd major occasion of opposition during Darius1 (Ezra 4:24) So, with that simple explanation, let’s have a look at Spin’s argument:

Ezra 4:23 As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimshai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop. 24 Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

When the letter of Artaxerxes arrived, work by the Jews was forced to stop until the second year of the reign of Darius, so Artaxerxes preceded a Darius, who can only be Darius II.

Darius2 is referring Darius Nothus (424 – 404bc) hmmm a bit late? But your sequence is logical enough, just as my explanation is logical too. (Im sure you will agree) I notice that the New International and Amplified Bible footnotes agree with my understanding of it.

The long digression in Ezra 4:6-23 describes later opposition to Jewish efforts to restore the walls and rebuild the city during the reigns of Xerxes (486-465 b.c.) and Artaxerxes I (465-424). Here in Ezra 4:24 Ezra reverts back to the time of Darius I (522-486) and the rebuilding of the temple, which ceased because of the discouragement described in Ezra 4:4-5, resumed again (Ezra 5:2), and was completed in the sixth year of the reign of Darius I (Ezra 6:15).
(Amplified Bible footnote)

[Tenorikuma]

That doesn't work as the text now stands.

Ezra 4:23-24 says that Artaxerxes' letter prevented the temple from being built:

Then when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and the scribe Shimshai and their associates, they hurried to the Jews in Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease. At that time the work on the house of God in Jerusalem stopped and was discontinued until the second year of the reign of King Darius of Persia.

Here is corresponding 1 Esdras 2:30, on which the Ezra text is probably based:

Then, when the letter from King Artaxerxes was read, Rehum and the scribe Shimshai and their associates went quickly to Jerusalem, with cavalry and a large number of armed troops, and began to hinder the builders. And the building of the temple in Jerusalem stopped until the second year of the reign of King Darius of the Persians.

The NIV is not the Bible to go to if you want a scholarly view of the material. However, there are several good commentaries that discuss the issues with the passage about the letters sent to Xerxes and Artaxerxes. If you take this route, however, you're already admitting that the text as it stands is not an inerrant historical account. It is obvious to anyone who has read the text closely that it is a mishmash of different source materials, some historical and some fictional, put together by a scribe who lived too long afterward to make a plausible chronology out of it.

[spin]

Okay, just a quick overview of most commentaries on Ezra. As you know Ezra and Nehemiah used to be a single book, so I’ll use both of them. For the most part the narrative follows a consecutive chronology from the decree of Cyrus (538bc) to Nehemiah’s final reforms. (430 -420bc approx.)

However, in several places the sequence is interrupted with a parenthetical summary of something related, but additional to the narrative. Such a parenthesis is found in Ezra 4:4-23 where the author paused at the 1st major occasion of opposition during Cyrus (Ezra 4:4) to summarise the lobbying against Jerusalem that continued for the next 70 years until Artaxerxes1.

Then the narrative picks up where it left off, and continues from the 2nd major occasion of opposition during Darius1 (Ezra 4:24) So, with that simple explanation, let’s have a look at Spin’s argument:

Ezra 4:23 As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimshai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop. 24 Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

When the letter of Artaxerxes arrived, work by the Jews was forced to stop until the second year of the reign of Darius, so Artaxerxes preceded a Darius, who can only be Darius II.

This is only part of the argument. There was more that you have conveniently omitted. And what follows doesn't even deal with the problem you cite from me.

Darius2 is referring Darius Nothus (424 – 404bc) hmmm a bit late? But your sequence is logical enough, just as my explanation is logical too. (Im sure you will agree) I notice that the New International and Amplified Bible footnotes agree with my understanding of it.

The long digression in Ezra 4:6-23 describes later opposition to Jewish efforts to restore the walls and rebuild the city during the reigns of Xerxes (486-465 b.c.) and Artaxerxes I (465-424). Here in Ezra 4:24 Ezra reverts back to the time of Darius I (522-486) and the rebuilding of the temple, which ceased because of the discouragement described in Ezra 4:4-5, resumed again (Ezra 5:2), and was completed in the sixth year of the reign of Darius I (Ezra 6:15).
(Amplified Bible footnote)

The Amplified bible is an apologetic work. It here works on assertion. We have a "long digression" it asserts, while ignoring that the text itself argues against the assertion. Selecting to end the "digression" at 4:23 is a deliberate obfuscation, separating the stoppage under Artaxerxes I from the fact that the stoppage continued until the second year of Darius in 4:24.

You simply did not respond to the chronology supplied in 5:14-15. (I repeat all below to help you focus.)

For the fourth time, please deal with the problem of Artaxerxes:

Here is the end of the reign of Cyrus onward in chapter 4: Ezra 4:5 They bribed officials to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia. 6 At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem. 7 And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes. The letter was written in Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language. 8 Rehum the commanding officer and Shimshai the secretary wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king... All these kings are in order, Cyrus, Darius I, Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I with the few minor rulers not mentioned. All is clear. At the end of the letter of Artaxerxes I Ezra continues: Ezra 4:23 As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimshai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop. 24 Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. When the letter of Artaxerxes arrived, work by the Jews was forced to stop until the second year of the reign of Darius, so Artaxerxes preceded a Darius, who can only be Darius II. And just in case you missed that, there is a repeat of the royal acts toward the Jews in 5:14-15, Ezra 5:14 So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15 The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius. which provides the king names Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes and another Darius, so in fact there are two indications that we have Darius II before the Artaxerxes in 7:1. This is Artaxerxes II. During the reign of Artaxerxes I—according to his letter, see 4:21—the work on the temple was forcibly stopped and only finished in the 6th year of Darius II.

[Ged]

And just in case you missed that, there is a repeat of the royal acts toward the Jews in 5:14-15

Ezra 5:14 So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15 The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.

which provides the king names Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes and another Darius, so in fact there are two indications that we have Darius II before the Artaxerxes in 7:1. This is Artaxerxes II. During the reign of Artaxerxes I—according to his letter, see 4:21—the work on the temple was forcibly stopped and only finished in the 6th year of Darius II.

You assert, "so in fact there are two indications that we have Darius II" but you are demanding that the author write his sentences in a pedantically 'wooden' sequence. He simply said that the decree came through Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, and that the temple was built during the reign of Darius. Of course it could have been Darius1.

Let me give you a homely example: I finished my “Daniels 70-weeks made simple” topic and started my “Which Artaxerxes” topic on June the 15th. I joined the forum on the twelfth day of the month June, in the year 2014.

As you can see, the last sentence is not in date order and yet the paragraph makes perfect sense. Now, can I suggest that you stop nit-picking and we will be able to move faster dealing with the main issues of this thread?

[spin]

And just in case you missed that, there is a repeat of the royal acts toward the Jews in 5:14-15

Ezra 5:14 So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15 The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.

which provides the king names Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes and another Darius, so in fact there are two indications that we have Darius II before the Artaxerxes in 7:1. This is Artaxerxes II. During the reign of Artaxerxes I—according to his letter, see 4:21—the work on the temple was forcibly stopped and only finished in the 6th year of Darius II.

You assert, "so in fact there are two indications that we have Darius II" but you are demanding that the author write his sentences in a pedantically 'wooden' sequence. He simply said that the decree came through Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, and that the temple was built during the reign of Darius. Of course it could have been Darius1.

Somewhere in here there is supposed to be some logic. I may work on the notion that a writer tries to make sense, an act that seems arcane to Ged. It would be nice if he tried to make sense of what the writer said. It doesn't dawn on him that if the temple was finished under Darius but still not finished under Artaxerxes, that clearly indicates that the last Darius followed the specified Artaxerxes. For some reason Ged just cannot read what the text says. So, note the lack of understanding of Ezra that follows:

Let me give you a homely example: I finished my “Daniels 70-weeks made simple” topic and started my “Which Artaxerxes” topic on June the 15th. I joined the forum on the twelfth day of the month June, in the year 2014.

As you can see, the last sentence is not in date order and yet the paragraph makes perfect sense. Now, can I suggest that you stop nit-picking and we will be able to move faster dealing with the main issues of this thread?

Perhaps, Ged might get some understanding of how a language indicates progress. The temple wasn't finished under Artaxerxes. In fact he made a decree on temple construction after Cyrus and Darius. The temple was not finished under this Artaxerxes. He decreed about its building. If the temple was finished under Darius then this Artaxerxes whose decree was about building obviously came before this Darius.

Ged, please answer:

1. Was the temple finished under Artaxerxes in Ezra 6:14?
2. Was the temple finished under Darius in Ezra 6:15?
3. Was this Darius the same as the Darius in Ezra 6:13-14 who made a decree on the building of the temple?
4. Did the Artaxerxes of ch 7 come after the Darius who finished the temple? How do you know?

[Ged]

I think the best way to answer your questions is to produce another diagram. The following timeline extends from 540 BC to 400 BC and included the Persian kings as well as the Jewish high priests for comparison purposes. I did it this way because there are genealogies which are contemporary with certain kings and this allows us to piece together a chronology.

Here it comes. If its too wide for the screen, go here:




The first thing I would like to point out is that the High Priest Jeshua, who is referenced in the 2nd year of Darius, (Haggai 1:1) could not possibly have been alive during the reign of Darius 2! He was simply too old. We know this because his father, Jehozadak was captured 70 years earlier by the Babylonians. (See 1Chron. 6:14-15) That was a long time.