The Encyclopedia Judaica acknowledges a fundamental dispute that determines when the "the issuing-forth of the word to return and build Yәru•shâ•la′ yim…" took place.
"DARIUS THE MEDE, Persian king. According to the Bible in Daniel 6.1 (cf. 11.1) Darius the Mede succeeded Belshazzar as king of Babylon. The reference is historically impossible and has caused much confusion. A possible explanation may be found in the recapture of Babylon in B.C.E. 520 by Darius I and the loose use of the term Mede for Persian by the Greeks and Mineans." ("Darius The Mede," Ency. Jud., 5.1304).
The date of "the issuing-forth of the word to return and build Yәru•shâ•la′ yim…" (Dân•i•eil′ 9.25) has been hotly debated for millennia because the identity of the Persian داريوش; Hebrew ãÌÈøÀéÈåÅùÑ áÌÆï-àÂçÇùÑÀåÅøåֹùÑ îÄæÆøÇò îÈãÈé; anglicized to "Darius," who issued the edict (Dân•i•eil′ 9.1), is historically uncertain and hotly contested by rabbis and historians.
This is particularly heated because the primary argument revolves around whether or not Dân•i•eil′ 's period of "69 weeks of years" (69*7=483 years; cf. Dân•i•eil′ 9.25) to the "cutting off" of the îùéç began in B.C.E. 538 or B.C.E. 453. 483 years after B.C.E. 538 is B.C.E. 55 (only headline that year was Julius Caesar invading England), but 483 years after B.C.E. 453 is 30 C.E. (-453+483=30)!!!
Any scholar must acknowledge that nearly all of the argumentation is driven not by scholarship but, rather, by religious axe-grinding, whether Christian or Jewish.
| B.C.E. 584-550 | ایشتوویگو, son of Cyaxares (last Median King) |
| ca. B.C.E. 559-529/30.08 | کوروش, Hebrew ëÌֹøÆù, Hellenized to Greek Κυρος, anglicized to "Cyrus" II "the Great," (grandson of Cyrus I); an ill-defined edict of B.C.E. 538 allowing exiles to return to Yәru•shâ•la′ yim, not necessarily to rebuild the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ . |
| B.C.E. 530-522 | Cambyses, son of Cyrus, king of Persia ("Darius," EJ, 5.1303) |
| B.C.E. 522-486 | داريوش; Hebrew ãÌÈøÀéÈåÅùÑ, anglicized to Darius (I) the Great, son of Cambyses; Ë′ zәr•â 6.12; Khaj•ai′ 2.25 ("Darius," EJ, 5.1303) |
| reigned B.C.E. 486-465; | خشایارشا, Hebrew àÂçÇùÑÀåÅøåֹùÑ, Greek Ξερξης, anglicized to Xerxes (I) "…(reigned B.C.E. 486-465), son of Darius I" ("Ahasuerus-Xerxes," EJ, 2.454) and Atossa (daughter of Cyrus the Great) "Xerxes is generally identified as the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther." ("Xerxes I," Encarta '95,) |
| B.C.E. 465-425 | اردشیر یکم; Hebrew evolving from àÇøÀúÌÇçÀùÑÇùÑÀúÌÈà to àÇøÀúÌÇçÀùÑÇùÑÀúÌÀ to àÇøÀúÌÇçÀùÑÇñÀúÌÀà; Hellenized to Ἀρταξέρξης, anglicized to Artaxerxes (I, Longimanus). Son of Ahasuerus-Xerxes (I) as Dân•i•eil′ stipulated; issued the decree of ca. B.C.E. 453 authorizing rebuilding of the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ |
| B.C.E. 442-404 | داريوش; Hebrew ãÌÈøÀéÈåÅùÑ, anglicized to Darius (II), son of Artaxerxes I (EJ, "Darius," 5.1304) |
 |
"Medes and Media … Astyages… son of Cyaxares and the last king of Media (B.C.E. 584-550) attempted to oust Babylonia from the region of Haran. However, after Cyrus king of Persia had revolted against Astyages and defeated him, Media became part of the Persian Empire (B.C.E. 550)." "Medes and Media," EJ, 11.1177).
"Cyrus' first important act was to conspire against Astyages, king of Media, toward which end he entered into an alliance with Nabonidus, king of Babylon. The army of Astyages betrayed him, and Cyrus seized control of the Median kingdom in B.C.E. 550." ("Cyrus," EJ, 5.1184)
"Cyrus holds a special place in the history of Israel. He is mentioned in the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah, in the Book of Ezra (and at the end of II Chrosnicles), and in the Book of Daniel (1.21; 6.29; 10.1)… The prophecy of [Isa.] 44.28 apparently refers to Cyrus' edict and was certainly uttered after the event." ("Cyrus," EJ, 5.1185) See also Ezra 1.2-4; 6.3-5; II Chr. 36.23.
"Ahasuerus-Xerxes "…Ahasuerus is represented in the Book of Daniel as the father of Darius the Mede (Dan. 9.1) [which is impossible, a clerical mistake] and, in one rescission of the Book of Tobit, as allied with Nebuchadnezzar at the capture of Nineveh (Tob. 14.15). Since Nineveh was actually captured (in B.C.E. 612) by kings Cyaxares of Media and Nabopolassar of Babylon, it is natural to surmise that later generations confused Cyaxares with Ahasuerus-Xerxes just as they confused Nabopolassar with Nebuchadnezzar." ("Ahasuerus-Xerxes," EJ 2.454).
Any reasonable person can recognize that proposing that Dân•i•eil′ was confused concerning both persons, rather than making a simple clerical error, beyond doubling the errors ascribed to the passage and their seriousness, is stretching so far beyond the pale that it opens the door for one to argue whatever he pleases. It does confirm, however, that confusion has reigned over scholars concerning this enigma.
B.C.E. 538 "The Temple of Zerubbabel. The Jerusalem Temple is a major focus of attention in post-Exilic biblical books. Deutero-Isaiah [ca. B.C.E. 540] foretells that Cyrus shall be divinely charged with the task of restoring the Temple (Isa. 44.28). The Chronicler ends his account (II Chron. 36.22-23) and the Book of Ezra begins its account with the fulfillment of this prophecy (Ezra 1.1ff.), referring to the earlier word of Jeremiah (cf. Jer. 29.10). Issued in B.C.E. 538, after his conquest of Babylon, Cyrus' rescript relates the return exclusively to the reconstruction of the Temple." ("Temple," EJ, 15.955).
However, this last remark, assuming the explicit inclusion of construction of the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ in addition to return of exiles, is a careless assumption (based on subsequent refurbishing that may—or may not—hint at it). Scholars have repeated this unfounded assumption thoughtlessly. It is not supported in the historical literature. Furthermore, neither the EJ editors nor any other scholar has ever offered any shred of historical explanation how Cyrus could be [a] Darius and [b] the son of his own great-grandson—Ahasuerus-Xerxes (B.C.E. 486-465) in harmony with Dan. 9.1!!!
Since it is impossible that Dan. 9.1 refers to Cyrus II the Great, we must examine "Darius, son of Ahasuerus"—specified by Dan. 9.1.
The son of Ahasuerus was named àøúçùñúà (Artaxerxes I), not ãÌÈøÀéÈåÅùÑ (Darius) as written in Dan. 9.1,
Ahasuerus did have a grandson named Darius II and it would be correct to refer to the grandson as "Darius [II] son [meaning descendent] of Ahasuerus." However, Darius II issued no edict as described by Dân•i•eil′ . Thus, Dân•i•eil′ can be correct either in citing "the son of Ahasuerus" or Darius but a clerical error is evident in one or the other. Since Darius II issued no such edict to rebuild the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ , a priori, Dân•i•eil′ referred not to the grandson, Darius, but, indeed, to Ahasuerus' son: Artaxerxes I, who issued exactly the decree Dân•i•eil′ specified!!!
The window is defined by Ë′ zәr•â 7.12-26 to the period subsequent to Ë′ zәr•â's fact-finding trip, which he documents to the "7th year of Artaxerxes" (7.1-6); i.e. (using a negative number for B.C.E.), -465+7= B.C.E. 458. The edict is cited after this, beginning in verse 12.
"Artaxerxes I… reigned from B.C.E. 465 to 425. The first sixteen years of his reign were troubled… It was probably during these troubled first three-fifths of his reign [i.e., B.C.E. 465-441] that the provincial authorities of Samaria were able to persuade the king that the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls by the Jews constituted a threat to his authority in the whole of Transeuphrates (Ezra 4.7-23, which belongs chronologically after Ezra 6). In the latter calmer years of his reign [i.e., beginning to ease ca. B.C.E. 455—see next paragraph, the edict preceding the appointment of Nәkhëm•yâh′ ], he appointed Nehemiah governor of Judah with authority to fortify Jerusalem." ("Artaxerxes," EJ, 3.646-7).
"The revolt of Egypt, aided by the Athenians, was put down [ca. B.C.E. 455] after years of fighting, and Bactria was pacified." (Columbia Encyclopedia: Artaxerxes I; answers.com/topic/artaxerxes-i-of-persia). It should be obvious that the king of Persia wouldn't feel secure in delegating authority to Judea until the revolt next-door in Egypt had been quelled. Together, these all point to ca. B.C.E. 453 as the most likely date of the decree documented in Ë′ zәr•â 7.12-26.
 |
|
 |