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.

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

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.

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?

[robrecht]

... 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.

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.

[Doug Shaver]

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.

What do they say their reasons are?

[Ged]

What are the reasons the minority scholars give for preferring Artaxerxes II?

I very much doubt that would be their motivation ...

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?

[Doug Shaver]

What do they say their reasons are?

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?

[NormATive]

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.

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.

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

[NormATive]

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

[Ged]

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

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.

[NormATive]

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