Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah (Part 2 of 2)

Historical Anomaly: Elderly Priests and Levites

Among the priests and Levites who accompanied Zerubbabel in the first year of Cyrus, documented in Ezra chap. 2 and Nehemiah chaps. 7 and 12, a number of the names are repeated in the list of those who placed their seal on a document drafted nearly ninety-five years later in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 10:1-27). If each name refers to the same person, this would make the signatories at least 120 years old or older, not impossible but realistically unlikely. 

Even though the accounts in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 concern the bə·nê (“sons” or “people”) of those listed, common usage of patronyms and papponyms (boys named after their fathers, grandfathers, and other male ancestors) and other culturally popular monikers readily account for the same names appearing in subsequent generations.¹

Historical Anomaly: Artaxerxes’ Contribution to the Temple

It is stated in Ezra 6:14 (in the Aramaic section of 4:8–6:18) that the temple was completed by divine decree and according to the order of “Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” The initial order came from Cyrus around 539 BC (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-12), was then reissued by Darius about nineteen years later in his second year (Ezra 4:24; 6:1, 8-13), and the building project was finished around 516 BC, his sixth year (Ezra 6:15). But why would Ezra include Artaxerxes, whose decree in his seventh year (Ezra 7:7-27) was nearly six decades after the temple had been completed? 

Artaxerxes I Longimanus did in fact contribute to the continued restoration and beautification of the temple,² and Ezra affirms the contemporary king’s support of Jewish interests in line with other prominent rulers. Ezra simply summarizes the entire history of the temple to his present day.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See A. Philip Brown II, “Chronological Anomalies in Ezra,” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (Jan.-March 2005): 68-84.

     ² If Ezra had given the impression that the temple was completely finished in the distant past, opponents could have challenged what Artaxerxes did for the temple’s ongoing restoration – silver, gold, utensils, offerings, and whatever else was needed to “beautify” (ESV), “glorify” (CSB), “adorn” (NASB 1995), or “bring honor to” (NIV) the temple (Ezra 7:27).

Related Posts: Alleged Discrepancies Ezra-Neh. Part 1, Numerical Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah, Proposed Chronology of Postexilic Period BC 

Image Credit: https://aleteia.org/2020/12/11/the-most-read-bible-verses-in-2020/

 

Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah (Part 1 of 2)

Genealogical Incongruities 

Ezra is said to be the “son of Seraiah” (Ezra 7:1), yet Seraiah was killed when Jerusalem was overthrown by the Babylonians in 596 BC (2 Kings 25:18-25) and his son Jehozadak was taken into captivity (1 Chron. 6:14-15). Ezra does not appear in the historical narrative until approximately 138 years later in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7-8). This seems chronologically implausible. 

The word “son” (Heb. ben) does not always denote direct offspring but is also applicable to grandsons (Gen. 31:17, 28, 55) and more remote lines of descent (Josh. 22:24-27; 2 Kings 10:30; Ezra 2:3-61). Lengthy genealogical tables are characteristically incomplete. While names could be skipped or lost inadvertently, they were usually omitted intentionally to keep the preservation of a sizeable family tree manageable, especially when certain individuals were considered insignificant or inconsequential to the chronographer’s purpose. Many names would fall outside the main lines of descent, and genealogies were naturally segmented rather than unbroken links.¹ This is evident in Ezra 7:1-5 when compared to 1 Chronicles 6:3-15. In fact, Ezra 7:3 skips six generations listed in 1 Chronicles 6:7-10.

Historical Anomaly: Johanan and Jaddua 

The conventional dating of Ezra-Nehemiah has been challenged due to names such as Johanan and Jaddua appearing much later in other historical records. In the time period of Ezra and Nehemiah, the high priest was Eliashib (Neh. 3:1-21; 13:28), whose son was Johanan (Ezra 10:6; Neh. 12:22-23) and great-grandson Jaddua (Neh. 12:10-11, 22), with Nehemiah’s reporting concurrent with the reign of Darius the Persian (Neh. 12:22, 26). About twenty-six years after Nehemiah’s account, the Elephantine papyri confirm Johanan as high priest in Sanballat’s later years (Sachau, Pap. 1.29), posing no chronological difficulty. However, Josephus mentions Jaddua as high priest not long before Darius III lost the empire to Alexander the Great in 330 BC (Ant. 11.8.2-5), about a century after Nehemiah’s report. While it is possible that the Jaddua of Nehemiah was quite young and the Jaddua of Josephus was quite old, this still seems like an improbable stretch. 

Critics who challenge the integrity of Ezra-Nehemiah apparently do not judge secular sources with the same level of scrutiny.² Nonetheless, name matching alone does not take into account the recurrence of identical names of different people in alternate generations. The Jaddua of Nehemiah is not referred to as high priest, and if one assumes he is the high priest of Josephus’ narrative, one would also have to explain the inclusion of Sanballat, still alive, albeit advanced in years, in the same historical setting (Ant. 11.8.2-4). Either Josephus has made a chronological mistake, or there was more than one Jaddua and more than one Sanballat.³ The name Sanballat was in fact worn by multiple persons, historically confirmed as Nehemiah’s adversary and, according to Samaria papyri, another in the mid-fourth century BC.⁴ There are even two different men in Nehemiah’s report by the name of Jaddua – a descendant of Jeshua the high priest (Neh. 12:11, 22), and a Levite who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. 10:21).⁵

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ When Jesus is called “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1), obviously immediate parentage is not in view. Matthew neatly arranges the Lord’s ancestry in three sets of fourteen generations apiece. In fourteen generations there are literally 8,192 twelfth-great-grandfathers. As was typical in long genealogical tables, a number of names are omitted, e.g., three kings of Judah (Matt. 1:8, 17; cf. 2 Kings 8:24; 1 Chron. 3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1), maintaining this symmetrical balance. Having been written in a predominantly oral culture where few would have had the opportunity to own a copy of the text, this arrangement makes memorization easier.

     ² Edward Mack candidly observes, “all fair-minded men should recognize that a clear and straightforward declaration of the Sacred Scriptures is not to be summarily rejected because of its apparent contradiction by some unknown and irresponsible person, who could stamp clay or chisel stone” (“Chronology of the Old Testament,” rev. Melvin Grove Kyle, in ISBE, ed. James Orr [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980]: 1:636).

     ³ On the proclivity of Josephus to make factual mistakes or to record information unsubstantiated elsewhere, see Carl G. Tuland, “Josephus, Antiquities, Book XI: Correction or Confirmation of Biblical Post-Exilic Records?” AUSS 4.2 (31 Dec. 1966): 176-92; also Derek Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Westmont, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979): 145-46.

     ⁴ F. M. Cross, Jr., “The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri,” BA 26 (1963): 119-21.

     ⁵ Note the distinction between the priests and the Levites (Neh. 10:8-9; 12:7-8, 12, 22, 24; cf. Num. 18:1-6), with at least two other men named Jeshua among the latter in Nehemiah’s record (Neh. 10:9; 12:8, 24).

Related Posts: Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 2, Numerical Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronology of Postexilic Period 

Image Credit: https://olsenpark.com/Bulletins22/FS24.44.html

Proposed Chronology of the Postexilic Period BC

The following is a precursor to upcoming articles on the historical setting and literary integrity of Ezra-Nehemiah. Studies making dogmatic claims about specific dates during this period could have an underlying agenda, as data may be interpreted through the tainted lens of eschatological assumptions and preconceived conclusions about biblical prophecies, or a low view of biblical inspiration.¹ 

Having analyzed and compared numerous scholarly works with diverse interpretations of the evidence,² these dates are offered as provisional approximations, considering the scarcity, incompleteness, probable bias, and incongruity of ancient sources. Factored in are the brief reigns of unofficial and often overlooked Persian rulers, and the confusion of accession vs. regnal dating and periods of tumultuous uprisings prior to successors securing control of the empire.³

559            Cyrus begins reigning as king of the Elamite and Persian tribes of Anshan.

553-550     Cyrus gains control of Media and other smaller kingdoms to the west.

539            Cyrus gains control of Babylon and extends the Persian Empire.⁴

538            Cyrus permits Jews to return to their homeland; temple rebuilding begins but is delayed.⁵

530-522     Cambyses II.

522            Bardiya, a.k.a. Smerdis (or imposter Gaumata).

522-486     Darius I the Great.⁶

520-516     Temple rebuilding resumes and is completed.⁷

486-465     Xerxes I the Great (Ahasuerus of Esther).⁸

465-424     Artaxerxes I Longimanus.⁹

458/7         Ezra to Jerusalem.¹⁰

445/4         Nehemiah to Jerusalem, city wall completed.¹¹

432            Nehemiah leaves and then returns to Jerusalem.¹²

424/3         Xerxes II and Sogdianus.

423-404     Darius II Ochus/Nothus.¹³

404-359     Artaxerxes II Arses or Arsaces/Arsicas/Oarsēs, a.k.a. Mnēmōn.

358-338     Artaxerxes III Ochus. 

338-336     Artaxerxes IV Arses. 

336-330     Darius III Codomannus. 

330            Alexander the Great overthrows Persia.

Grecian dominance continues through the Intertestamental Period into the Roman era and the historical record of the New Testament.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Daniel’s Prophecy of ’70 Weeks,’” Moore Perspective (10 March 2021), <Link>.

     ² Particularly helpful are the multi-authored and well-documented articles in Encyclopedia Iranica, including the research of Muhammad A. Dandamayev, Heleen Sanchisi-Weerdenburg, A. Shapur Shahbazi, and Rüdiger Schmitt; plus the contributions of R. J. Coggins, F. Charles Fensham, Jack Finegan, John E. Morby, Daan Nijssen, and John H. Walton.

     ³ The nation of Israel had reached the height of its glory when David ruled as king (1010-970 BC) and on into the reign of his son Solomon (970-931 BC). Israel’s downfall ensued as the nation divided (931 BC), the northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians (722 BC) and the southern kingdom by the Babylonians (597 BC), followed by seven decades of exile involving three major deportations in 597, 587, and 582 BC.

     ⁴ Isa. 44:28; 45:1. The postexilic period that follows is concurrent with the end of Daniel’s life (Dan. 1:21; 10:1) and the lives of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

     ⁵ 2 Chron. 36:20-23; Ezra 1:1-8; 3:7; 4:3-5; 5:13-17; 6:3, 14.

     ⁶ Ezra 4:5, 24; 5:5-7; 6:1-15; Hag. 1:1, 15; 2:10; Zech. 1:1, 7; 7:1. He invaded Greece in 492 BC and was defeated in 490 BC at the Battle of Marathon. This is not “Darius the Mede” (Dan. 5:31; 6:1-9, 25, 28; 9:1; 11:1) and probably not “Darius the Persian” (Neh. 12:22) noted below.

     ⁷ Ezra 6:1-15. This inaugurated the historical period known as the Second Temple era that continued until the temple’s destruction in AD 70. 

     ⁸ Ezra 4:6; Esth. 1:1–8:12 (but not the Ahasuerus of Dan. 9:1). Xerxes I led an unsuccessful campaign against Greece 480-479 BC, during which the famous Battle of Thermopylae occurred where King Leonidas’ 300 Spartan soldiers fought to the death. The following year Grecian troops forced the retreat of the Persians.

     ⁹ Ezra 4:7-23; 6:14; 7:1-21; 8:1; Neh. 2:1; 5:14; 13:6.

     ¹⁰ Ezra 7:1–10:44.

     ¹¹ Neh. 2:7–6:16. 

     ¹² Neh. 13:6-31.

     ¹³ It is debated whether “Darius the Persian” (Neh. 12:22) is to be identified as Darius I (522-486 BC), Darius II (423-404 BC), or Darius III (336-330 BC). The latter would require editorial emendation or a much later date for Nehemiah, while Darius I would be a matter of historical record and Darius II within Nehemiah’s lifetime. Nehemiah traces the history of the first generation of returnees (vv. 1-9) and includes a concise genealogy up to his own time (vv. 10-11), goes back to the second generation (vv. 12-21), and then makes a summary statement about the third generation through to his own time (vv. 22-23), without explicit reference to the office of high priest (unnecessarily assumed by many commentators). In the immediate context, the reference to “Darius the Persian” more readily fits the reign of Darius II and is too late for Darius I and too early for Darius III. The section ends by briefly alluding to some in the second generation (v. 26a) and concludes in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (v. 26b).

Related Posts: Historical Background of the NT Part 2 and Part 3, Numerical Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah, Who was Darius? 

Image credit: James Dabney McCabe (1842-1843), The Rebuilding of Jerusalem, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemiah#/media/File:The_Rebuilding_of_Jerusalem.jpg>.