Which Artaxerxes was Contemporary with Ezra?

[spin]

I get the idea that Ged is going through the motion, simply at loss as to how to deal with a relatively simple range of chronological indicators. He cannot even answer simple questions on the issue. He can't even crib diagrams that deal with facts. The idiot who made these doesn't even note that the temple was not finished under Artaxerxes I, who writes a letter ordering the stoppage of work on the temple.

Introducing information from other works before dealing with the chronology within Ezra is only guaranteeing that you cannot treat the information in Ezra with any neutrality. We can compare the information in the text with what we know externally regarding the Persian rulers and therefore establish a firm chronology to use when dealing with the Hebrew traditions inserted into the Persian framework. We can guarantee the Persian framework. We cannot guarantee anything else. in the works involved. This means we have to deal with Ezra in light of the Persian information before any other consideration. Ezra's use of Persian rulers is relatively straightforward.

In brief Ged, you've had several opportunities to show some analytical ability and comprehend what is presented to you. But you have failed. You really chose the wrong pill.

Here is what you were supposed to be dealing with for the fifth time:

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.

[DCHindley]

Ezra 4:8 Rehum the commanding officer and Shimshai the secretary wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king ...

It is a well known fact that Shimshai is actually Shinzon, the Romulan clone of Starfleet Captain Jean-Luc Picard, who formed a pact with the Reman Vkruk to take over the Romulan empire.

It would be in keeping with the aims of Shinzon and his Viceroy Vkruk to frustrate the rebuilding efforts of the Judean returnees by means of time travel.

Duh!

DCH

[Ged]

The idiot who made these (diagram) doesn't even note that the temple was not finished under Artaxerxes I, who writes a letter ordering the stoppage of work on the temple.

Your argument is dishonest Spin. The letter of opposition written to King Artaxerxes pertained to the rebuilding of city walls and foundations (Ezra 4:12) - not to the temple structure which had been completed during the reign of Darius 1. (515 bc)

Introducing information from other works before dealing with the chronology within Ezra is only guaranteeing that you cannot treat the information in Ezra with any neutrality.

Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book. Therefore they should be treated together.

Here is what you were supposed to be dealing with for the fifth time:

All your questions and objections regarding my chronology of the Persian-Jerusalem period is set out in the diagram. Is there any particular part of it that you don't understand?

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.

The sequence of events is interrupted with a parenthetical summary 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 70 years until Artaxerxes1. Then the narrative goes back to where it left off. So v.24 refers to the opposition during Darius1. (Ezra 4:24)

[spin]

The idiot who made these (diagram) doesn't even note that the temple was not finished under Artaxerxes I, who writes a letter ordering the stoppage of work on the temple.

Your argument is dishonest Spin. The letter of opposition written to King Artaxerxes pertained to the rebuilding of city walls and foundations (Ezra 4:12) - not to the temple structure which had been completed during the reign of Darius 1. (515 bc)

Call people's arguments dishonest at your own ignorant peril. You refuse to look at the evidence and you have the audacity to call my argument dishonest. You still refuse to look at the evidence. Let's talk about dishonesty.

Read the text:

4:23, Then, when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai the scribe and their associates, they went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease. 24 Then the work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Are you blind or just plain hard of reading? Verse 24 follows on from v23 about stoppage. Do you think the writer got there by accident? Did the writer not care when he somehow stuck this story about stopping Jewish work before v24? From where exactly in your theory does v24 follow from if not from the logical precedent in v23??

Introducing information from other works before dealing with the chronology within Ezra is only guaranteeing that you cannot treat the information in Ezra with any neutrality.

Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book. Therefore they should be treated together.

Rubbish. The combination was fabricated after the Vorlage of 1 Esdras was written. Note that 1 Esdras has the Ezra material in a sensible location that pops up now in Neh 8.

Here is what you were supposed to be dealing with for the fifth time:

All your questions and objections regarding my chronology of the Persian-Jerusalem period is set out in the diagram. Is there any particular part of it that you don't understand?

Your chronology had nothing to do with the evidence in Ezra, evidence that you rubberneck away from.

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.

The sequence of events is interrupted with a parenthetical summary 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 70 years until Artaxerxes1. Then the narrative goes back to where it left off. So v.24 refers to the opposition during Darius1. (Ezra 4:24)

You've already made this assertion before. You failed to deal with the evidence already provided. You just rehearse your apologetic sources. There is no logic in you ripping the Artaxerxes I material out of Ezra 4 other than for your tendentious commitments. You don't like the fact that it is there so you remove it without any textual justification, just your own gratification.

You still refuse to use the second line of evidence in the summary of decrees in 6:14. Building decrees were made by Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, while v15 says that the building was finished in the reign of Darius, ie Darius II, as Artaxerxes I had made a decree about the building process.

Now for the sixth time, yes the sixth time, without you actually reading what you need to deal with. Please consider all the argumentation rather than flitting over it and on to apologetics:

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]

Read the text:

4:23, Then, when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai the scribe and their associates, they went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease. 24 Then the work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Are you blind or just plain hard of reading? Verse 24 follows on from v23 about stoppage. Do you think the writer got there by accident? Did the writer not care when he somehow stuck this story about stopping Jewish work before v24? From where exactly in your theory does v24 follow from if not from the logical precedent in v23??

Perhaps it is you who should reading the text in context. (verses 12 & 21) Artaxerxes I, did not write a letter ordering the stoppage of work on the temple, as you assert. Here is what was written to him: “be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from you to us have gone to Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations.” (Ezra 4:12)

And here is what he wrote back: “Therefore make a decree that these men be made to cease, and that this city be not rebuilt, until a decree is made by me.” (Ezra 4:21)
And guess what Spin? Artaxerxes1 made that decree later on.

As for verse 24: It follows a parenthetical summary of the lobbying against Jerusalem that continued for 70 years until Artaxerxes1. Then the narrative goes back to where it left off. So v.24 refers to the opposition during Darius1. (Ezra 4:24)

You are conflating the summary of Darius 1 completing the temple with Artaxerxes stoppage of city construction. Moreover, you are selectively choosing verses 23-24 out of context to prove your point. And yes, that is dishonest.

[spin]

Read the text:

4:23, Then, when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai the scribe and their associates, they went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease. 24 Then the work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Are you blind or just plain hard of reading? Verse 24 follows on from v23 about stoppage. Do you think the writer got there by accident? Did the writer not care when he somehow stuck this story about stopping Jewish work before v24? From where exactly in your theory does v24 follow from if not from the logical precedent in v23??

Perhaps it is you who should reading the text in context. (verses 12 & 21) Artaxerxes I, did not write a letter ordering the stoppage of work on the temple, as you assert. Here is what was written to him: “be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from you to us have gone to Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations.” (Ezra 4:12)

And here is what he wrote back: “Therefore make a decree that these men be made to cease, and that this city be not rebuilt, until a decree is made by me.” (Ezra 4:21)
And guess what Spin? Artaxerxes 1 made that decree later on.

I know you are desperate to separate v23 from v24 because you are sunk if you can't. So far you have failed. You have just made claims about the honesty of my arguments. By separating v23 from v24 you lose the grammatical linking that exists between the two verses.

As for verse 24: It follows a parenthetical summary of the lobbying against Jerusalem that continued for 70 years until Artaxerxes1.

Where is the exact verse that v24 follows from in your fantasy reconstruction?

Then the narrative goes back to where it left off. So v.24 refers to the opposition during Darius1. (Ezra 4:24)

You are conflating the summary of Darius 1 completing the temple

You do understand the notion of assuming your conclusions, don't you. You need to establish that in the eyes of the writer of Ezra the temple was completed by Darius I. Good luck on that.

As to conflation, I see you cited my post before I edited for clarity to better show the grammatical cohesion:

4:23, Then, when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai the scribe and their associates, they went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease. 24 Then the work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Reading this text, as highlighted, shows the flow of ideas: the letter recipients went to Jerusalem to stop the work and work on the temple ceased. The temple being the central part of the city building and its outer wall formed part of the city wall. The writer's interest was in the temple.

If you arbitrarily remove the Artaxerxes material from chapter 4 because of your desired conclusion, do you also remove the note about Ahasuerus (Xerxes I) as well? for he guarantees the end of the reign of Darius I. Let's see just how much you feel prepared to jettison to satisfy your beliefs. If you do hack out Ahasuerus as well, then perhaps you might take out 4:4-5 as well because the Artaxerxes letter is part of the same discourse, ie the people of the land trying to stop the building. They bribed officials through the reigns of Cyrus and Darius (4:4-5), wrote to Ahasuerus (4:6) and again to Artaxerxes (4:7-16). As this is all a unit, do you want to remove everything from 4:1-23?? I mean, this is your little fantasy now, feel free to bullshit as much as you like.

Once you finish you can come back and deal with what the text says.

with Artaxerxes stoppage of city construction.

I get the idea that you seem to think that the temple was not part of the city. What, did they build it somewhere else or are you just so desperate to resuscitate a dead interpretation that you want to make arbitrary exclusions because you are committed to a conclusion that the text doesn't support?

Moreover, you are selectively choosing verse 24 out of context to prove your point. And yes, that is dishonest.

Now you are shooting yourself in the foot with this nuttery. Did you not note that I linked v24 with its immediate predecessor, showing a coherence in grammatical linkage? You are the one trying to take v24 out of its context, ie you accuse me of what you are doing. You have tried to confuse the straightforward chronology of Persian kings in Ezra because you have prior knowledge what it should indicate. I don't think I need to label your nonsense as dishonest. It's not that deep.

For the seventh time, show some nous and please deal with the whole argument:

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 6:14-15, Ezra 6:14 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 4:24—the work on the temple was forcibly stopped and only finished in the 6th year of Darius II.

[Ged]

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 is another one to add to the bunch. New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia You gonna love it:

It had long been the opinion of most historians of Israel that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was certainly the first of that name, and that consequently the first mission of Nehemiah fell in the year B.C. 445. The Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, recently published by Sachau, put this date beyond the shadow of a doubt. For in the letter which they wrote to Bahohim, Governor of Judea, in the seventeenth year of Darius II (B. C. 408), the Jewish priests of Elephantine say that they have also made an application to the sons of Sanaballat at Samaria. Now Sanaballat was a contemporary of Nehemiah, and the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah. Therefore, Artaxerxes was the predecessor, and not the successor, of Darius II.

[Tenorikuma]

They are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations. (Ezra 4:12)

The text is talking about the foundations of the temple. Everyone can see that but you, Ged.

Show that you understand what the text of Ezra-Nehemiah says before you bring in external evidence. Also name a single scholarly commentary or monograph you have read on the subject, if you want to be taken seriously.

[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 is another one to add to the bunch. New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia You gonna love it:

It had long been the opinion of most historians of Israel that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was certainly the first of that name, and that consequently the first mission of Nehemiah fell in the year B.C. 445. The Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, recently published by Sachau, put this date beyond the shadow of a doubt. For in the letter which they wrote to Bahohim, Governor of Judea, in the seventeenth year of Darius II (B. C. 408), the Jewish priests of Elephantine say that they have also made an application to the sons of Sanaballat at Samaria. Now Sanaballat was a contemporary of Nehemiah, and the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah. Therefore, Artaxerxes was the predecessor, and not the successor, of Darius II.

It seems impossible to get Ged to deal with the text. Running to some internet rubbish or other is just not good enough. We are not talking about anything other than the evidence for the chronology in Ezra. He simply cannot come to grips with the evidence contained in the book. That's why it's one dodge after another. A Sanballat is not mentioned in Ezra. The governor's name is generally written as Bagohi in scholarly literature. (see Porten's Archives from Elephantine, Berkeley & LA 1968, p.289)

As to the highlighted comment, Artaxerxes I was indeed a predecessor of Darius II. However, Artaxerxes II was not. It is the second Artaxerxes referred to in Ezra 7 as I have shown many times, despite the continual attempted obfuscation by Ged.

So for the eighth time (the eighth time!) please address the issues you have been asked to:

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 6:14-15, Ezra 6:14 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 4:24—the work on the temple was forcibly stopped and only finished in the 6th year of Darius II.

[Ged]

They are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations. (Ezra 4:12)

The text is talking about the foundations of the temple. Everyone can see that but you, Ged.

Show that you understand what the text of Ezra-Nehemiah says before you bring in external evidence. Also name a single scholarly commentary or monograph you have read on the subject, if you want to be taken seriously.

Hi Tenorikuma, here is the context:

“Be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from you to us have gone to Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations. Now be it known to the king that if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be impaired.
(Ezra 4:12-13)

1. ... "that rebellious and wicked "temple"? hmmm
2. Would they default on their taxes after their ‘church’ got built; or after the city defensive walls were built? Think about it.