Why is the Timing of Events in Ezra-Nehemiah So Confusing? (Part 4 of 4): Original Purpose

Historically Relevant Historiography

Historians, interested in real people and actual events, are naturally limited to the amount of information that can realistically be put into writing. It has always been necessary, therefore, to be discerning and to restrict reporting to what is deemed most significant. The aim of the ancient historian was to depict historical accounts so that readers could learn political, moral, or religious principles.¹ While completeness and accuracy were important, materials were commonly arranged thematically rather than chronologically. There was no preoccupation with linear thinking and little concern for chronological symmetry and precision of dating. Ancient historians were decidedly selective, ideological, and creative in narrating the facts available to them. 

No biblical author claims to be exhaustive, nor is the Bible designed as a well-ordered, chronological arrangement of history. A wealth of historical data is provided but not a complete, continuous record. The focus is rather on specific and detached periods.² Any chronological and historical allusions, including what might be perceived as ambiguous or puzzling, are merely secondary, supplementing and supporting the primary spiritual, instructional, and life-transforming message. 

The Purpose of Ezra-Nehemiah

If we fail to understand the purpose of Ezra-Nehemiah, we will likely wonder why the chronological arrangement and timing of events are so perplexing. It was clearly not the Lord’s intention to describe this block of history according to a modern-day-westernized agenda in order to cater to our idiosyncratic expectations and curiosities. The seemingly disjointed temporal components of Ezra-Nehemiah are better understood as intentional strategies in forming the main theological themes.³

Ezra and Nehemiah were more than just chroniclers of history. They were theological historians. Viewed as “a space of collection rather than a linear story,”⁴ the combined narrative is a work of religious history and is patently theological. It recounts the rebuilding of a religious community, providing the historical background for the spiritual and procedural reforms that established the postexilic Jews as a unified theocratic nation. It serves as a spiritual foundation and model for the continuity of Jewish communities committed to God’s law and confirms their identity. It further verifies the fulfillment of God’s promises, with theological explanations of political policies favoring God’s people.⁵

Conclusion 

Why is the timing of events in Ezra-Nehemiah so confusing? The bottom line is, the biblical writings are the result of God having chosen to communicate in real historical-sociocultural-literary environments that are fundamentally and unavoidably foreign to our own. Confusion and frustration are inevitable when modern-day, linear-thinking westerners approach the scriptures expecting a detailed historical account, unfolding in exact and precisely-dated sequences of events, catering to twenty-first-century-Anglo-European interests and curiosities.

Ongoing debates about the timing of events and chronological arrangement are comparatively recent, not particularly relevant to the original purpose of the Bible itself. Proposed chronologies of the distant past are almost always exercises in estimations, probabilities, and uncertainties. For those holding a high view of the sacred text, near approximations ought to be sufficient as long as the integrity of the biblical record is not compromised and the greater spiritual truths are not overshadowed.

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the 2023 FHU Lectures.

Endnotes:

     ¹ Roberto Nocolai, “The Place of History in the Ancient World,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Ed. John Marincola (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011): 13-26.

     ² See John M’Clintock and James Strong, Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1982): 2:292-97.

     ³ See esp. A. Philip Brown II, “Chronological Anomalies in Ezra,” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (Jan.-March 2005): 68-84.

     ⁴ Laura Carlson Hasler, “The Cited Documents of Ezra-Nehemiah: Does Their Authenticity Matter?” Biblical Interpretation 27.3 (Nov. 2019): 372-89.

     ⁵ While the motivation of the Persians was most likely to ensure stability and control of this strategic area in a remote region of their empire, God’s purpose was far greater. See Robert J. Littman, “Athens, Persia and the Book of Ezra,” TAPA 125 (1995): 251-59.

Related Posts: Timing of Events Ezra-Neh Part 1. Part 2, Part 3

Related articles: Neal Pollard, The Restorers

 

Image credit: Adapted from <https://disciple.org.au/resources/ezraandnehemiah/>

Why is the Timing of Events in Ezra-Nehemiah So Confusing? (Part 3 of 4): Non-Chronological Arrangement

Chronological Confusion 

From the starting point of Ezra’s historical record to that of Nehemiah’s is an interval of roughly ninety-five years. Ezra relocated to Jerusalem approximately eighty years following the decree of Cyrus, and Nehemiah around ninety-four years after the decree. The entire period recounted in Ezra-Nehemiah is just over a century, from the inaugural return of exiles led by Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (ca. 538 BC) to Nehemiah’s second return to Jerusalem (ca. 432 BC),¹ although reference to “the reign of Darius the Persian” (Neh. 12:22) would add at least another decade if Darius II Nothus is in view.² The reporting, however, is limited to particular occasions of importance and is intermittent, nonsequential, and disproportional, including extended spans of silence. 

Ezra 1:1–4:5 reviews about a fifteen-year period (ca. 537-522 BC), then vv. 6-23 jump ahead approximately thirty-six years and cover just over six decades of history (ca. 486-424 BC). The record jumps back in v. 24 nearly a century to 520 BC,³ and the rebuilding of the temple, recounted in 4:24–6:22, is completed over the next four years (to 516 BC). Almost sixty years are then bypassed with the brief statement, “after these things” (7:1a), bringing the narrative to 458/7 BC (7:1b-7). Up to this point roughly eighty years of history have been covered, and the final section (7:7–10:44) documents only a single year.⁴

Nehemiah overlaps Ezra’s account, albeit arriving in Jerusalem about a dozen years later, and continues the story for at least another quarter of a century. His narrative begins in 445/4 BC, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (1:1–5:14a), and after a brief twelve-year overview and reflection on previous years (5:14b-15), the story resumes and recounts the completion of the city wall by mid-445/4 BC (5:16–7:5a). The record then reaches back to 538 BC, listing the first group of returning refugees (7:5b-73a), leaps forward to 445/4 BC when the Law was publicly read and reforms enacted (7:73b–11:36), then back again to 538 BC (12:1-9). Next is a concise review of the subsequent generation (12:10-12), listing the priests “in the days of Joiakim” (12:13-21), followed by a summary of the record of Levites and priests of the third generation extending through to the sixth, documented “in the reign of Darius the Persian⁵ … in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua⁶ … until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib” (12:22-25).⁷ The section concludes by noting those who lived “in the days of Joiakim … and [in addition] in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest, the scribe” (12:26), particularly the thirteen years or so between 445 and 432 BC (12:27–13:31).

Canonical Vs. Chronological Order 

Which came first, Ezra or Nehemiah? The reverse-order hypothesis was developed from what appears to be duplications and interpolations of personalities and story lines between the two accounts, with perceived anomalies in the traditional arrangement.⁸  There is general agreement about the historical period of Nehemiah and his service under Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465-424 BC), marking Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem at around 445/4 BC. But if the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1-11 is Artaxerxes II Mnēmōn (404-359 BC), then Ezra began his work in Jerusalem in about 397 BC. The record of Nehemiah would therefore precede that of Ezra, making the conventional order backwards. 

The clearest reading of the Ezra-Nehemiah narrative, without the unnecessary and unprovable assumption of literary emendation, patently supports the traditional order.⁹ Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries during the reign of Darius the Persian (Neh. 12:22-26). Ezra had begun his work in Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7), and Nehemiah in the twentieth year (Neh. 2:1). Nehemiah’s tenure in Jerusalem coincided with Eliashib the high priest and his son Johanan,¹⁰ and Nehemiah had to contend with Sanballat, his cohorts, and the Samaritan army.¹¹ To claim that any of these reported details are spurious, especially in light of the earliest known transmission and preservation of the biblical text, is unfounded.

Papyri documents discovered on the Egyptian island of Elephantine, predating all extant Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts pertaining to the fifth-century BC Jewish people, include a letter dated ca. 407 BC, “the seventeenth year of Darius the King” (Sachau, Pap. 1.29). The reference is to none other than Darius II (423-404 BC), who succeeded Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC) and Xerxes II (424/3 BC). The letter names Johanan as high priest and Sanballat as governor of Samaria at an advanced age, his two sons being the primary recipients of previous correspondence.¹² This validates the Ezra-Nehemiah narrative and confirms the conventional chronology, Ezra having arrived in Jerusalem in 458/7 BC, followed by Nehemiah thirteen years later in 445/4 BC.

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the 2023 FHU Lectures.

Endnotes:

     ¹ Some separate Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel into two different waves, with four stages documented under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (538 BC), Zerubbabel (520-516 BC), Ezra (458/7 BC), and Nehemiah (445/4 BC), in three identifiable sections: (a) book of Zerubbabel in Ezra 1–6; (b) memoirs of Ezra in Ezra 7–10 and possibly Neh. 8–9 (unless these two chapters belong to the following); and (c) memoirs of Nehemiah in Neh. 1–7, 10–13. Cf. Barry L. Bandstra, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth, 2004): 494-98; Hannah K. Harrington, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022): 3-7.

     ² The conservate estimate of Ezra-Nehemiah having been completed by 400 BC is based on (a) the latest historical indicator in Ezra, the year after Artaxerxes’ seventh year, ca. 457/6 BC (Ezra 7:7-9; 8:31; 10:9, 17); (b) the latest historical indicators in Nehemiah, sometime during or not long after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, ca. 432 BC (Neh. 13:6), and referencing the fifth generation of returnees “in the reign of Darius the Persian” (Neh. 12:22), corresponding to Darius II Nothus (423-404 BC); and (c) if documented within a comparable timeframe (cf. 2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4), the six generations of Zerubbabel’s genealogy (1 Chron. 3:19-24), approximating ca. 520–400 BC.

     ³ Between “the days of Cyrus” and “the reign of Darius” (Ezra 4:5) is a parenthetical thematic review of continual opposition, including the period of Ahasuerus’ reign and the days of Artaxerxes (vv. 6-23), then resuming the report of the situation in “year two of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (v. 24). The seemingly disjointed chronology is not a problem if “the purpose of the writer is taken into account, namely, to finish one subject before going on to the next, even at the expense of chronological sequence …” (Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970]: 381-82).

     ⁴ See A. Philip Brown II, “Chronological Anomalies in Ezra,” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (Jan.-March 2005): 68-84; S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, ITL 8th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909): 540-44.

     ⁵ Without the presumption of textual emendation, this was “in” (MT) or “during” (LXX) rather than “until” the reign of Darius. But is “Darius the Persian” 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 present day (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 much 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). 

     ⁶ Eliashib, son of Joiakim (Neh. 12:10), had at least two sons, Joiada and Johanan (Ezra 10:6; Neh. 12:10, 23), while Jaddua was his great-grandson (Neh. 12:10-11). If twenty years are allowed per generation and Joiakim was born the year his father returned to Jerusalem, Jaddua is feasibly present by 458 BC, around the time Ezra arrived. If thirty years are counted as a generation, and if Joiakim accompanied his father to Jerusalem as an adult, Jaddua could have been present by 448 BC, about a decade after Ezra arrived and just a few years before Nehemiah came. Boys as young as three years old were included in genealogies of priests (2 Chron. 31:16). The book of Nehemiah, therefore, presents “no historical information and no single remark which Nehemiah might not himself have written” (C. F. Keil, “The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther,” in Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969]: 150). 

     ⁷ The book of the chronicles mentioned here is probably not the canonical books of Chronicles (Derek Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah: An Introduction and Commentary [Westmont, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979]: 124), but cf. 1 Chron. 9:14-22.

     ⁸ George Widengren, “The Persian Period,” in Israelite and Judean History, eds. John H. Hayes and James M. Miller (London: SCM, 1977): 503-509.

     ⁹ For helpful analysis, see John Stafford Wright, The Date of Ezra’s Coming to Jerusalem (London: Tyndale Press, 1958): 5-32; Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. T. Longman III and D. E. Garland, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010): 4:7-13; also Harrington 11-15; Kidner 146-58. An alternative theory marks Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem in the thirty-seventh year of Artaxerxes (428 BC), assuming textual emendation. For a thorough review and response, see Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1970): 396-401.

     ¹⁰ Neh. 3:1, 20; 12:10-26; 13:28; cf. Ezra 10:6. Unfortunately some English translations (JB, NAB, NLT) and a number of commentators conflate “Jonathan” (Neh. 12:11) and “Johanan” (v. 23), making Johanan the grandson of Eliashib rather than his son, which is an unwarranted assumption (see Kidner 124, 153-55).

     ¹¹ Neh. 2:10, 19; 4:1-8; 6:1-14.

     ¹² See Archer 396-97; Kidner 146-58; Young 384.

 

Related Posts: Timing of Events Ezra-Neh Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, Chronology of Postexilic Period, Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 1

 

Image credit: Adapted from https://thejohnfox.com/2021/10/how-to-write-a-non-chronological-plot/

Why is the Timing of Events in Ezra-Nehemiah So Confusing? (Part 2 of 4): Reckoning of Time

Ancient Time Reckoning 

The manner in which time was reckoned by the ancients in general and biblical authors in particular varied considerably, even more so when compared to the customary practices of today. The counting systems of antiquity were much more flexible, starting at various times of the year, calculating part of a year as a whole year, and using different calendars and historical pointers. Some ancient cultures followed a solar calendar, some a lunar calendar, and others a lunisolar calendar, periodically revised for administrative, religious, atmospheric, and/or corrective reasons (intercalary months, leap years, etc.).¹ Time was variously calculated according to a civil year, a regnal year, or a sacred or religious year, comparable to a modern-day fiscal or academic year.

Biblical time references are usually comparative with respect to the lifetimes and activities of prominent figures (e.g., Neh. 12:46, 47), major historical events (e.g., 1 Kings 6:1; Ezek. 40:1), or the reigns of well-known rulers (e.g., Ezra 1:1; 4:6-7; Isa. 1:1). Instead of a simple historical style and unbroken chronological composition, biblical writers often intersperse their own inspired reflections and commentary within the narrative. 

The year a king began his reign was his accession year, overlapping the final year of his predecessor and counted as a full year for each king through the official starting point of the regnal year. Different counting systems involved predating, postdating, or accession dating, i.e., counting a year from one anniversary of accession to the next.² Otherwise, the new regnal year was inaugurated on a particular day of a given month, although the season of the year varied from culture to culture. 

In contrast to the modern Gregorian solar year, the Jewish calendar marked the beginning of the religious year in spring, the first month of Nisan (March-April)³ through the twelfth month of Adar (Feb.-March). This was similar to the Persian spring-to-spring first month of Fravashi through the twelfth month of Spenta Armaiti. At the same time, the Jewish civil calendar began in autumn, the seventh (religious) month of Tishri (Sept.-Oct.) through the sixth (religious) month of Elul (Aug.-Sept.),⁴ ending the agricultural year with the Feast of Ingathering (Ex. 23:16; 34:22).

 

Time Reckoning in Ezra-Nehemiah 

As in the books of 1 Kings (6:1, 38), Esther (3:7), and Zechariah (1:7; 7:1), the Jewish religious or vernal calendar appears to be followed in Ezra-Nehemiah, particularly when alluding to religious holidays.⁵ However, notwithstanding Babylonian-Jewish names of specific months,⁶ the major dating of events coincides with the reigns of Persian kings, most notably Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes,⁷ with passing reference to Ahasuerus.⁸ The question is whether regnal years are counted from spring to spring or from autumn to autumn, or if accession dating is employed. 

When Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem is documented as “the fifth month” of “the seventh year” of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7-8), assuming Artaxerxes I Longimanus is in view, did the counting begin at the king’s accession year (August 465 BC)⁹ or his first regnal year (presumably March 464 BC)? The difference would mark Ezra’s arrival at either 458 or 457 BC. In Nehemiah’s record, “the month of Chislev” (Nov.-Dec) followed by “the month of Nisan” (March-April) both fall within “the twentieth year” of King Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1; 2:1), although whose twentieth year is not actually specified in the opening verse. Depending on whether the regnal year is predated to the accession year, or the regnal year is counted autumnally (as in the Jewish civil calendar), or the Persians were using accession dating, this would place Nehemiah’s journey to Jerusalem in either 445 or 444 BC. 

When all is said and done, there is no direct evidence to confirm which regnal dating system the Persians employed in their homeland.¹⁰ And if Ezra, a religious priest-scribe, and Nehemiah, an official of the Persian court, used different calendrical systems,¹¹ precision dating is even more elusive. Nevertheless, among the many reconstructed chronologies of the Persian period involving specific dates, a difference of only one year is relatively insignificant considering such a vast expanse of time.   

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the 2023 FHU Lectures.

Endnotes:

     ¹ Solar calendar–Egyptians, Persians, Romans; lunar calendar–Jews, with each year eleven or twelve days shorter than a solar year and months varying year to year; lunisolar calendar–Babylonians, Macedonians, Chinese. The Persians did not disturb the dating systems of the Egyptians and Babylonians but were instead influenced by them (Leo Depuydt, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Achaemenid Egypt,” JEA 81 [1995]: 151-73).  

     ² The Babylonians practiced postdating and the Egyptians predating until replaced by accession dating in the second century BC.

     ³ Established in Egypt as a divine directive in connection with the Passover and exodus, originally called Aviv or Abib (“barley ripening”) in the Hebrew language (Ex. 12:1; 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1).

     ⁴ This marked the end of the dry and barren summer and the beginning of the early rain season bringing forth new life. The mid-year or “return” [teshubah] was in the spring (2 Sam. 11:1; 1 Kings 20:22, 26; 1 Chron. 20:1; 2 Chron. 36:10).

     ⁵ Ezra 6:19; Neh. 8:14, 18; cf. Ezra 7:8-9; 8:31; 10:9, 16-17; Neh. 7:73; 8:2, 13. Note that Ezra 8:31 approximates the timing of the Egyptian exodus; cf. also Neh. 10:34-35.

     ⁶ Ezra 6:15; Neh. 1:1; 2:1; 6:15; compare Esth. 3:7.

     ⁷ Ezra 1:1; 4:24; 5:13; 6:3, 15; 7:7-8; Neh. 1:1–2:1; 5:14; 13:6; cf. Ezra 4:5-23; 7:1; 8:1; Neh. 12:22.

     ⁸ The Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 is probably the same Ahasuerus of Esther 1:1–8:12, contemporary of Mordechai, whose great-grandfather had been exiled by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC (Esth. 2:5-6). This Ahasuerus is accordingly to be identified as Xerxes I (485-465 BC), son and successor of Darius I. The Greek version Ξέρξης (Xerxes) is the Persian name Xšayāršā rendered in Babylonian Aḥšiyaršu and borrowed into Hebrew as Ăḥašwêrôš (spelled phonetically according to the unfamiliar sounds of a foreign name), transliterated in Latin Ahasuerus and English Ahasuerus (see W. S. McCullough, “Ahasuerus,” in Encyclopædia Iranica 1.6 [New York: Online Edition, 1996]: 634-35). The Ahasuerus of Daniel 9:1 (father of Darius the Mede), and the Ahasuerus of the apocryphal Tobit 14-15 (in league with Nebuchadnezzar), appear to be different persons.

     ⁹ Assuming he took the throne immediately, although the latest point of transition would have been January 464 BC (Leo Depuydt, “Evidence for Accession Dating under the Achaemenids,” JAOS 115.2 [April-June 1995]: 193-204).

     ¹⁰ Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989): 291; Depuydt, “Evidence” 193-204 (though making a case for potential accession dating).

     ¹¹ Aaron Demsky, “Who Came First, Ezra or Nehemiah? The Synchronistic Approach,” Hebrew Union College Annual 64 (1994): 1-17; cf. Hannah K. Harrington, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022): 36.  

Related Posts: Timing of Events Ezra-Neh Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, Proposed Chronology of Postexilic Period BC, Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 1

Image credit: https://about-history.com/the-invention-of-the-calendar-and-its-use-throughout-history/