Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Which Artaxerxes was Contemporary with Ezra?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Which Artaxerxes was Contemporary with Ezra?

    ďÖ in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, Ezra arrived in JerusalemĒ
    (Ezra 7:7-8)
    By far the most historians identify Artaxerxes 1 (465bc Ė 424bc) as the king who issued a decree permitting Ezra to go to Jerusalem in his 7th year.

    Here is the wiki article:

    Here is the Jewish encyclopaedia:

    Here is Iranís 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 Ė 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 Ezraís chronology to support the prophet Daniel. (who tends to get a bit predictive)

    Well, itís past my bed time so Iíll leave this as an opener, and call back in the morning for a chat about it.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  • #2
    Originally posted by Ged View Post
    By far the most historians identify Artaxerxes 1 (465bc Ė 424bc) as the king who issued a decree permitting Ezra to go to Jerusalem in his 7th year.

    Here is the wiki article:

    Here is the Jewish encyclopaedia:

    Here is Iranís 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 Ė 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 Ezraís chronology to support the prophet Daniel. (who tends to get a bit predictive)

    Well, itís past my bed time so Iíll leave this as an opener, and call back in the morning for a chat about it.
    I believe you need to consider a more objective and less biased comparison of the evidence as to which is true instead of name calling and grinding one's own axes.

    What are the reasons the minority scholars give for preferring Artaxerxes II?
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-15-2014, 08:18 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Ged View Post
      ... 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 Ezraís chronology to support the prophet Daniel. (who tends to get a bit predictive)

      Well, itís past my bed time so Iíll leave this as an opener, and call back in the morning for a chat about it.
      I very much doubt that would be their motivation as they would see the book of Daniel as written long after that and referring to this time frame in retrospect. Nothing need be said about Wikipedia, but a note of caution about the Jewish Encyclopedia. It is an extraordinarily great resource with truly excellent entries, but it is rather old so it was not able to evaluate more recent scholarship and therefore will not always give you the best introduction into the status questionis.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον∑
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ged View Post
        They make a superficial construct to the book of Ezra for no good reason except that they do not want Ezraís chronology to support the prophet Daniel.
        What do they say their reasons are?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon
          What are the reasons the minority scholars give for preferring Artaxerxes II?
          Originally posted by robrecht
          I very much doubt that would be their motivation ...
          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          What do they say their reasons are?
          Perhaps I made that last comment needlessly. Sorry. On another forum I was explaining the countdown of Daniels 70-week prophecy from the 7th year of Artaxerxes 1. About 2 or 3 posters started shouting about Artaxerxes 2, so much so that I figured this was their reason for following the minority veiwpoint.

          Is their another reason? Can someone here tell me why some scholars feel so strongly that the late chronology is the right one?
          "Your name and renown
          is the desire of our hearts."
          (Isaiah 26:8)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
            What do they say their reasons are?

            Originally posted by Ged View Post
            About 2 or 3 posters started shouting about Artaxerxes 2, so much so that I figured this was their reason for following the minority veiwpoint. Is their another reason? Can someone here tell me why some scholars feel so strongly that the late chronology is the right one?
            Why didn't you just ask those posters?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ged View Post
              By far the most historians identify Artaxerxes 1 (465bc Ė 424bc) as the king who issued a decree permitting Ezra to go to Jerusalem in his 7th year.

              Here is the wiki article:

              Here is the Jewish encyclopaedia:


              Here is Iranís 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 Ė 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 Ezraís chronology to support the prophet Daniel. (who tends to get a bit predictive)

              Well, itís past my bed time so Iíll leave this as an opener, and call back in the morning for a chat about it.
              Huh?


              If I remember correctly, it's no "liberal plot." It's simply trying to reconcile the conundrum of positing Nehemiah Before Ezra (Ezra existed, according to Biblical chronology, before Nehemiah in the book of Ezra). The problem is that when Nehemiah arrives, there is no sign of Ezra at all. Or some such. I don't recall exactly. But, I know there was always an issue with this in Old Testament studies classes in cemetery.

              In order to make the biblical account more accurate, one of the biblical scholars suggested that Ezra's mission takes place during the time of Artexerxes II, thus no conflict between Ezra and Nehemiah.

              I'm not sure what you think a "liberal" might gain from a later dating of Ezra, other than to prove the Bible is accurate on this one instance???

              NORM
              Last edited by NormATive; 06-16-2014, 10:49 PM. Reason: Fixed goof up.
              When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

              Comment


              • #8
                I think I found a paper on this issue here:

                http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pd...a_yamauchi.pdf

                Perhaps it could shed light on this subject. I'll try to read it myself a little later.

                NORM
                When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NormATive
                  The problem is that when Nehemiah arrives, there is no sign of Ezra at all. Or some such. I don't recall exactly. But, I know there was always an issue with this in Old Testament studies classes in cemetery.
                  Um, I dont think you are quite right there Norm? They are shown together in Nehemiah 8:8

                  Originally posted by NormATive
                  In order to make the biblical account more accurate, one of the biblical scholars suggested that Ezra's mission takes place during the time of Artexerxes II, thus no conflict between Ezra and Nehemiah.
                  Yeah, but conflicts in other areas. It seem wrong to date it so late.
                  "Your name and renown
                  is the desire of our hearts."
                  (Isaiah 26:8)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ged View Post
                    Um, I dont think you are quite right there Norm? They are shown together in Nehemiah 8:8



                    Yeah, but conflicts in other areas. It seem wrong to date it so late.
                    Take a look at the paper I linked. The argument is described there. This really is of little interest to me. I don't think much in the Bible is very reliable for historical accuracy.

                    NORM
                    When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by lee_merrill, 10-30-2020, 09:01 PM
                    28 responses
                    117 views
                    2 likes
                    Last Post thormas
                    by thormas
                     
                    Started by lee_merrill, 10-24-2020, 07:58 PM
                    13 responses
                    63 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Gondwanaland  
                    Started by Whateverman, 07-26-2020, 11:01 AM
                    330 responses
                    6,602 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                    Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                    1,242 responses
                    54,965 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post thormas
                    by thormas
                     
                    Working...
                    X