More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society

by Jeffro 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  Artaxerxes is a throne name. Cambyses wasn't as prominent as the ruler later referred to as 'Artaxerxes I' (kind of like how what we call 'World War I' wasn't really the first major war). Ezra 4:11 most likely refers to Bardiya (as 'Artaxerxes'), whereas Ezra 4:6 refers to Cambyses as 'Ahasuerus' (also a throne name).

  So you are going with the classical designations? Incidentally, the WTS also agrees with you here. There's no evidence that Cambyses was ever called Ahasuerus (Xerxes). More modern scholarship goes with Ezra 4:6-23 being a parenthesis and relates to the troubles in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes I's time before resuming the narrative regarding Darius.

  Johanan was priest during the 7th year of Artaxerxes II. That makes perfect sense, being the grandson of Eliashib. There is no conflict with Eliashib being priest in the 20th year of Araxerxes I.

  Maybe so, but how do you know Johanan was high priest in Artaxerxes II's 7th year (458/7 BCE)? Where do you get Eliashib as high priest being succeeded by Joiada in Artaxerxes I's 32nd year (433/2 BCE)? How do you know Johanan only took over as high priest in Darius II's year 14 (410/9 BCE)? What is your source?

  The simplest (and traditional Jewish) explanation is that Josephus' references to the 'later' Sanballat were a retelling of an earlier event.

  Then it's also feasible that Josephus was retelling earlier events with regard to Sanballat's contemporaries Johanan, Jaddua and Bagoses and placing them in the wrong historical context.

  [Re: Jaddua showing the book of Daniel to Alexander] As I stated in an earlier post, this is almost certainly folklore. There is no conflict with the story being circulated well before the time of Josephus.

  [Later comment] Might a Jewish historian believe a Jewish story purported as historical that had been circulating for over 200 years? Sure.

  As with the other stories Josephus tells, huh? Some truth, some legend, some consistent with other sources, some not.

  My chart doesn't disagree with the clearest parts of the information you've provided. I do not doubt that many of the years given are approximate - as well as difficult to verify - but the basic order seems entirely plausible, without the gymnastics otherwise required for Eliashib and Johanan's tenures as High Priest. I've done a reasonable job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Unlike my chart for the Neo-Babylonian period however, there is indeed greater scope for variation in this period due to the paucity of reliable information.

  However, despite the 'paucity of reliable information,' despite the guesswork and assumptions made for high priests in your chart, you are slating scholars' (and the WTS's) identification of Darius II as 'Darius the Persian' in Nehemiah as 'moronic' and categorically 'wrong.' That isn't fair-minded given the weak case (IMO) you have for Darius III.

  Now, Josephus could be right about Darius III, but given his track record, the lack of support and conflicting evidence from elsewhere, it is far, far from conclusive. It could equally be Darius II.

  Most of the problems are resolved when it's realised that Josephus simply gets his names of 'Xerxes' and 'Artaxerxes' mixed up.

  So you rejected Josephus' synchronisms here?

  ... "the magi" - presumably Gaumata

  (or Bardiya, who may have been an imposter)

  Gaumata was the imposter, a magian, allegedly impersonating Cyrus' son Bardiya.

  Artaxerxes III - 21 years;

  including accession

  Hm. Why 'including accession'? There are astronomical texts dated to 362 BCE and Artaxerxes II's 43rd year, then 358 BCE, Artaxerxes III's 1st year (name and year missing but enough astronomical data to determine), a clear one from 347/6 BCE with a named and dated Artaxerxes year 12, and other clear ones from years 16 (343/2 BCE) and 20 (339/8 BCE).

  So Art. III's accession year began toward the end of Art. II's 46th year (359/8 BCE), his 1st year was 358/7 BCE and his 21st and last year was 338/7 BCE.

  Darius III - 5 years

  6 years. excluding accession

  P&D have year 5 of Darius III = year 6 of Alexander. Why 6 years for Darius III?

  It is considerably more likely that two people were named Sanballat than that there were two sequences of people with the same names.

  Johanan was a common name. There was already another Jaddua at Neh. 10:21 who was one of the leaders of the people. And, as you admit earlier, sometimes Josephus overlayed earlier events onto later historical contexts.

  So what do you think? Are you still going to stick with your chart on priestly succession?

  Yep

  I think, then, you should add a note that the high priest datings are only your opinion rather than based on solid fact.

  Do you still think the WTS and others who favor the Darius II identification are 'moronic'?

  The WTS is also moronic for other reasons.

  Maybe so, but on this specific issue, do you think the WTS and other Bible scholars are 'moronic' for favoring the Darius II identification?

  Or do you think they have some grounds for their preference and their distrust of Josephus here?

  As stated earlier, we all know that Josephus has errors, but most for the period in question involve simple errors of reporting the wrong Xerxes or Artaxerxes.

  That is enough to give pause before dissing the 'Darius II camp.'
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  I think, then, you should add a note that the high priest datings are only your opinion rather than based on solid fact.

  A lot of the years probably are opinion. But they're not my opinion. I did get the years from a Wikipedia article, which I freely admit was not clear about its sources. But I don't have any reason to believe the years were simply pulled out of a hat either. The most likely source for the years is Sedar Olam Zutta.

  In any case, the errors by Josephus that I've postulated are consistent with the types of errors we already know Josephus to make at other times. And I've shown that aside from Josephus' errors, my chart is consistent with the information you've provided. The chart I've produced then is, at the very least, plausible. And none of it is actually solely based on 'my opinion'.

  So, do you personally go with the Darius II verson? You really don't think it's plausible that Josephus simply made a parallax error when lining up events with a list of Persian names?

  Thanks for all the research you've put into this matter.
• 

  Jeffro

  ablebodiedman:

  You may not believe me

  Correct.
• 

  Jeffro

  There's no evidence that Cambyses was ever called Ahasuerus (Xerxes). More modern scholarship goes with Ezra 4:6-23 being a parenthesis and relates to the troubles in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes I's time before resuming the narrative regarding Darius.

  That's possible too. Though that doesn't preclude events from the times of (the 'real') Xerxes and Artaxerxes being offered as an analogue of events during the time of Cambyses, in order to lead into the narrative about Darius.
• 

  Jeffro

  Then it's also feasible that Josephus was retelling earlier events with regard to Sanballat's contemporaries Johanan, Jaddua and Bagoses and placing them in the wrong historical context.

  It's more likely that there was just two people named Sanballat during the period of more than a century, as indicated in my second green-highlighted post.
• 

  Jeffro

  It could equally be Darius II.

  I'm not so sure the possibility is equal. There's a bit of mental gymnastics involved in assigning Eliashib's grandson a position at the temple "with his own chamber!" at the same time as his grandfather. It seems more likely that he had his own chamber during his own tenure as High Priest, during the 7th year of a later king.
• 

  Jeffro

  Gaumata was the imposter, a magian, allegedly impersonating Cyrus' son Bardiya.

  That's kind of what I meant - that 'Bardiya' may or may not have been Gaumata, but may still have been an imposter. I probably should have offset 'Bardiya' in quotes.
• 

  Jeffro

  Why 'including accession'? ... Why 6 years for Darius III?

  Only as a comparison to what I'd already charted.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  It's also of note that the writer of Nehemiah still calls Eliashib "the high priest" when his grandson married into Sanballat's family.

  Assume for a moment that my chart is correct. Go on, just for a moment...

  Let's assume Eliashib was born around 500 BCE, so that he became High Priest when he was about 30 years old.

  If Eliashib has a son (Joiada) when he's around 20 (say, 479 BCE), then Joiada is around 47 when he becomes High Priest in around 433 BCE.

  If Joiada has a son (Johanan) when he's around 20 (say, 460 BCE), then Johanan is around 51 when he becomes High Priest in around 410 BCE.

  Johanan therefore lives to an age of about 89, which is plausible.

  It also means that he's about 27 years old by the end of Eliashib's tenure as High Priest, so he could easily have been married while Eliashib was still High Priest.

  If you make either Eliashib or Joiada (or both) a few years older when they have their respective sons, there is still time for Johanan to be married while Eliashib is still High Priest, and his age at his death is a little lower.

  (And of course, it's still most likely a separate 'Sanballat' discussed later by Josephus.)

  You'll be happy to know (thrilled, I'm sure) that for my final version of the chart I will be marking certain ranges of years as approximate.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  We do know his grandson Johanan was old enough to have responsibilities in the temple (with his own chamber!) by the 7th year of Artaxerxes.

  I decided to take a closer look at this claim.

  Josephus doesn't say Johanan had responsibilities in the temple at that time. What Josephus does say is that Ezra went out of the temple and then into the chamber of Johanan, which doesn't indicate anything official about either Johanan or his chamber. As indicated in my previous post about the possible age of Johanan, he would probably have been an infant in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I. It is entirely consistent that Ezra, just after he'd dismissed foreign wives and children, might go to the room of a child - particularly the [grand]son of the High Priest - to have a cry.

  Antiquities XI.5:

  After Esdras had said this, he left off praying; and when all those that came to him with their wives and children were under lamentation, one whose name was Jechonias, a principal man in Jerusalem, came to him, and said that they had sinned in marrying strange wives; and he persuaded him to adjure them all to cast those wives out, and the children born of them, and that those should be punished who would not obey the law. So Esdras hearkened to this advice, and made the heads of the priests, and of the Levites, and of the Israelites, swear that they would put away those wives and children, according to the advice of Jechonias. And when he had received their oaths, he went in haste out of the temple into the chamber of Johanan, the son of Eliasib, and as he had hitherto tasted nothing at all for grief, so he abode there that day.

  This doesn't alter the fact that Johanan was High Priest in the 14th year of Darius II, though it does support the idea that his tenure began around that time.