When was the Book of Revelation Written? (Part 2 of 2)

Emperor Worship

Christians in the book of Revelation were being pressured to worship the secular ruling power (13:4, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). The seeds of emperor worship were to some degree evident in Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Caligula, but it was not until Domitian that the Imperial Cult was enforced.

When Domitian revived the Imperial Cult, he required his subjects to address him as dominus et dues noster (“our lord and god”).¹ The first Imperial Cult temple in Ephesus was established in the year 89 under Domitian’s rule. In fact, it was during this period that “in some areas – especially in Asia Minor – governors and other local officials demanded public participation in the cult as evidence of citizens’ loyalty and patriotism.”²

Condition of the Churches 

A Christian named Antipas had already suffered martyrdom in Pergamum (2:13) and members of the church at Smyrna were soon to face imprisonment and potentially the death penalty (2:10). Spiritual stagnation was a problem in many of the Asian congregations (2:4, 5; 3:1-3, 15-17), and the church of Laodicea was wealthy at the time (3:17). These conditions are more conducive to the period of Domitian’s reign.

If Revelation had been written during Nero’s reign (54-68) and prior to the Jewish war that led to Jerusalem’s destruction (66-70), it approximates the time period of Paul’s letters to Timothy (also sent to Ephesus). But the respective situations addressed by John and by Paul are very different. 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: charge some not to teach any other doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3-4; 6:3-5); to Ephesus of John’s day: you are standing against evil, false apostles, and deeds of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:1-7). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: pray “for kings and all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life” (1 Tim. 2:1-2);³  to Ephesus of John’s day: governing authorities are disrupting our quiet and peaceable life (Rev. 1:9; 17:1-6; 18:21-24; 19:1-2; 20:4). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: perilous times are coming (2 Tim. 3:1); to Ephesus of John’s day: perilous times are here (Rev. 1:9; 6:9-11). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: “all desiring to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted [future tense]” (2 Tim. 3:12); to Ephesus of John’s day: persecution is now happening and will get worse (Rev. 1:9; 6:9-11; 16:6; 17:6; 20:4). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: “There will be a time [in the future] they will not endure sound teaching …” (2 Tim. 4:3a); to Ephesus of John’s day: you are resisting false teachings and practices (Rev. 2:1-7). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: only “some” [τινες] have turned away from apostolic instruction and purity of love [ἀγάπη] (1 Tim. 1:5-6); to Ephesus of John’s day: you (collectively) have abandoned your first love [ἀγάπη] (Rev. 2:4). 

At the end of 2 Timothy, Paul names seventeen coworkers that would have been known by Timothy and the Ephesian brethren, but he does not mention John. Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155) was personally acquainted with John⁴ but knew of Paul only through Paul’s writings. In Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (dated ca. 110), he indicates that when Paul wrote his letter to the Philippi saints around 62, the church did not even exist in Smyrna as it did later in John’s day (11.3).

Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 (cf. Tacitus, Annals 14.26-27), and a couple of years later, when Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians, the nearby Laodicea church appears to have been spiritually healthy and thriving (Col. 2:1-2; 4:13-16). But by the time Revelation was written, the Christians in Laodicea were financially prosperous with no financial needs, while spiritually lukewarm and in danger of divine expulsion (Rev. 3:14-22).

The Temple of God

John is called upon to measure “the temple of God and the altar and worshipers,” while the “holy city” is trampled for “forty-two months” (Rev. 11:1-2). If this is taken as a reference to the literal Jewish temple in Jerusalem, a date before mid-70 would be implied. However, since the book of Revelation is filled with signs and symbols, the most natural interpretation of this passage is metaphoric, not literal (note 3:12; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21). If the physical temple in Jerusalem was still standing and was to be measured by John, how could he have accomplished this while banished on an island in the Aegean Sea over 600 miles away? Moreover, how else could worshipers be “measured” other than spiritually? This is a vision of the future. In the sixth century BC, when Ezekiel saw his vision of the temple being measured (Ezek. 40:1–42:20), the literal temple and city had already been destroyed by the Babylonians fourteen years earlier (Ezek. 40:1).

The Succession of Kings

In Revelation 17:9-11 eight kings are mentioned, and the one who appears to have been reigning at the time of writing was number six. If this passage is taken literally and the succession of kings begins with the first recognized emperor, an earlier date is then suggested. However, this argument is not decisive. Are the kings in this vision past, present, or future? Is the count to begin with Romulus (the first king), Julius Caesar (the first dictator), Augustus (the first emperor), or Caligula (the first persecutor)? Should the comparatively insignificant rulers, who were in power for only brief periods (68-69), be counted or not? [Note: Suetonius included Julius Caesar, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius in his Lives of the Caesars]. Should the respective numbers be interpreted literally or symbolically? Whatever position one wishes to take, it can be made to fit.

If the kings represent kingdoms (cf. Dan. 7:17, 23), this could be an overview of (1) Babylonian; (2) Medo-Persian; (3) Grecian, followed by four smaller kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire divided: (4) Macedon-Greece, (5) Pergamon-Asia Minor, (6) Ptolemaic-Egypt, (7) Seleucid-Syria; then (8) Rome. If Roman emperors: (1) Augustus (30 BC–AD 14); (2) Tiberius (14-37); (3) Caligula (37-41); (4) Claudius (41-54); (5) Nero (54-68); (a) Galba (7 months); (b) Otho (3 months); (c) Vitellius (8 months); (6) Vespasian (69-79); (7) Titus (79-81); and (8) Domitian (81-96).⁵

If the numbers are used symbolically, “seven kings” represent the totality of Roman emperors, the sixth indicates the empire has not yet reached its consummation (note 666 in 13:17-18),⁶ thus seven (completion) is “not yet come,” and eight (a divine number beyond perfection) represents a regime that parodies Christ as the supreme ruler of God’s kingdom (cp. 1:8; 17:8).⁷

CONCLUSION

Internal evidence places the most probable context of Revelation toward the end of the reign of Domitian, 95-96. This conclusion is supported by the weight of early testimonies,⁸ and the vast majority of modern scholars across the wide range of theological perspectives concurs. 

 

Why does it matter? The age-old promise of Christ’s return and future judgment offers reassurance to believers and sustains hope (Acts 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-8; 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3:10-11; 1 John 3:2-3), “awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” (Tit. 2:13). Teaching otherwise, claiming it has already happened (hyper-preterism compelled to reject the Domitianic date), causes unnecessary apprehension and discord (2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:15-18) and counters the persistent admonition to be prepared, watchful, and alert (Matt. 24:36, 44; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:1-11; 2 Pet. 3:10-18). 

May we find comfort and motivation in the Lord’s abiding promise: “The one overcoming will thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not wipe out his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels” (Rev. 3:5).

When was the Book of Revelation Written? (Part 1 of 2)

Introduction

John wrote from the Mediterranean island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9), a rugged, rocky island about 40 miles (24 kms) southwest of Ephesus in the Aegean Sea, used by the Romans as a place of exile (see Pliny, Natural History 4.23). The document was written to the seven churches of the Roman province of Asia in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (1:4, 11; 2:1–3:22).

Why does it matter when the book was written? It claims to be a book of prophecy  (1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20), foretelling future events, particularly “things to happen quickly” (1:1; cf. v. 19) [Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author's own translation]. The typical preterist proposal is that the Jewish War (66-70) fulfilled most if not all of these predictions. Therefore, in order for full-preterism to sustain itself, the book of Revelation must date before Jerusalem’s destruction in the summer of 70, and as predictive prophecy, somewhat earlier. For eschatological futurists, it does not really matter other than responding to false claims.¹

The two main proposals for dating Revelation center on the respective reigns of Nero (54-68) and Domitian (81-96). Nero began his reign at age 16 when his adopted father Claudius died 13th October 54, then Nero committed suicide 9th June 68 by stabbing himself in the throat at age 31. Domitian, the month before his 30th birthday, was inaugurated emperor 14th September 81, the day after his brother Titus died of illness, and Domitian was assassinated 18th September 96, stabbed to death by assailants at age 44.²

External Evidence

Irenaeus (ca. 130-202) was originally from Smyrna in the province of Asia, the location of one of the seven churches of Revelation. He was a disciple of Polycarp, also from Smyrna, who was discipled by the apostle John himself.³ Irenaeus’ literary work was originally in Greek under the title Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως (“On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis”), written around 180. It has been preserved in Latin translation under the title Adversus haereses (“Against Heresies”). In book 5, Irenaeus devotes chap. 30 to the number of the beast in Rev. 13:18, which Eusebius (ca. 260-339) has preserved in the original Greek in his Ecclesiastical History (3.18.1-3; 5.8.6). Eusebius reports: “In this persecution … the apostle and evangelist John … condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, in his fifth book against heresies [Adv. haer. 5.30.3] … in the above-mentioned revelation of John …. [quote] ‘declared by him who saw [ἑορακότος] the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen [ἑωράθη], but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian’s reign’” (Eccl. Hist. 3.18.1-3, trans. C. F. Cruse).

The question is whether Irenaeus’ use of the third person singular verb ἑωράθη is to be understood as masculine (“he was seen”) in reference to John, or neuter (“it was seen”) in reference to what John saw. If the former, nothing can be deduced either way about the dating of Revelation. However, contextually the preceding use of ὁράω (“he saw” - ἑορακότος) concerns what John saw, not John having been seen. In fact, the subject of the chapter is the revelation of John, and the verbal ὁράω is consistently used in Revelation of what John saw (cf. 1:2; 4:1; 5:1-2, 5-6, 11; 6:1-2, 5, 7-8, 12; 7:1-2; 12:1, 3; 17:6; et al.). Irenaeus had already reported that John lived into the reign of Trajan (98-117) (Adv. haer. 2.22.5; 3.3.4; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.23.3-4), so why point out that he was living at an earlier time? No reputable translation of Irenaeus’ words has rendered this as a reference to John having been seen, and the Latin version is not ambiguous at all. 

The Domitianic date was almost universally accepted throughout most of church history, and nothing in the book of Revelation contradicts it. No other tradition relevant to dating was proposed in the region where the document was originally sent. Significantly later, in the sixth and seventh centuries in different places, other traditions developed but not in Asia Minor.⁴

Internal Evidence

The key pieces of evidence involve (a) persecution of Christians; (b) emperor worship; (c) condition of the churches; (d) the temple of God; (e) succession of kings (7:9-11).

Persecution of Christians

The Christians to whom Revelation is addressed were apparently suffering severe and widespread persecution that would eventually worsen (1:9; 2:10, 13; 3:10; 6:9; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4). Nero’s persecution is well documented and lasted from mid-64 to mid-68, but it was primarily confined to the city of Rome. In fact, there is no record of a Neronian persecution outside of Rome. 

Is there evidence that Domitian persecuted Christians? No extant secular writings of antiquity explicitly accuse Domitian of widespread hostilities against Christians, leading a number of modern critics to claim it never happened.⁵ Domitian’s persecutions, reportedly most intense near the end of his regime (95-96), are primarily attested by later Christian writers,⁶  although the imposition of emperor worship during this time (see next post) adds more credence to this potential setting than do the alternatives.

Domitian was far less popular than his father Vespasian and brother Titus, who ruled before him. He sought to establish himself as absolute monarch, which ultimately led to his assassination in September 96.⁷ After he was killed, the Senate immediately passed the motion of damnatio memoriae (“condemnation of memory”) to remove him from official accounts.⁸  Accordingly, the silence of secular historians provides no solid basis for what Domitian may or may not have done.

At the time Revelation was composed, John was exiled on the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9). Nero’s reaction to Christians involved violent executions (Tacitus, Annals 15.44) that purportedly included the deaths of the apostles Paul and Peter.⁹ There is no evidence that Nero ever banished Christians, so if John’s punishment was under his rule, we have to wonder why John was exiled rather than killed? Banishment of alleged dissidents was much more common during Domitian’s reign.¹⁰

Both Tacitus (ca. 56-120) and Suetonius (ca. 69-122) describe Domitian’s final years as a reign of terror, and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) calls him a “tyrant.”¹¹ Those who opposed Domitian were either exiled or executed and their properties confiscated; the names of at least twenty political foes who were killed by Domitian have been preserved.¹²

Not only did Domitian suppress political opponents, he condemned those charged with the crime of atheism, i.e., rejecting the Roman pantheon, including the Imperial Cult.¹³ Justin Martyr wrote, “Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God …” (I Apology 6, trans. P. Schaff). In 110 Pliny the Younger examined those charged with being Christians in Asia Minor, some of whom had recanted their faith two decades earlier (Epistles 10.96.6), implying oppression during Domitian’s reign. 

Eusebius (ca. 260-399) more specifically reports the persecutions and martyrdoms of Christians in Domitian’s fifteenth year (96), having been documented by non-Christian writers known to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.18.4). Melito of Sardis (ca.100-180) speaks of persecutions in Asia in his day, then recounts Nero and Domitian having been “stimulated by certain malicious persons, showed a disposition to slander our faith” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.26.3-9, trans. C. F. Cruse). Tertullian (ca. 155-220) compares Domitian’s cruelty, before he allegedly eased off, to what Nero had done to Christians (Apol. 5.4; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.20.7-9). Clement of Rome, a contemporary of Domitian, refers to “sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities that have befallen us” (I Clement 1.1, trans. F. J. A. Hort). Paulus Orosius (ca. 375-420) later reported that Domitian issued edicts for a general and cruel persecution (Hist. adv. pag. 7.10.5). 

In our next post we will consider other evidences relevant to the dating of Revelation.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Preterism: What’s the Big Deal?” (Part 1), Moore Perspective (3 June 2020), <Link>.

     ² Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Nero 6.49, 57; Domitian 14.16.

     ³ Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.20.5-6; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.3.4; Tertullian, De praes. haer. 32.2. 

     ⁴ “The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line superscription in two Syriac versions of the New Testament in the sixth and seventh centuries. If the Neronic date were the original date of Revelation, one would expect a witness to this fact in Asia Minor, where the book of Revelation originated, and a witness much earlier than the sixth century” (M. Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation,” Dissertation: Dallas Theological Seminary [Dec. 2005] 74).

     ⁵ E.g., F. G. Downing, “Pliny’s Prosecution of Christians,” JSNT 34 (1988): 105-123; E. T. Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History 148-73.

     ⁶ See Eusebius (ca. 260-339), Eccl. Hist. 3.18.4; Sulpicius Severus (ca. 363-425), Chronicle 2.31; Paulus Orosius (ca. 375-420), Book 7 of Historiarum lib. Vii, adv. paganos (“History Against the Pagans”). Even though the most definitive information comes from Orosius in the year 417, his history is substantially based on the much earlier works of Justin and Eutropius (see M’Clintock and Strong 7:455-56), and he also had access to other documentation that is no longer extant.

     ⁷ Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 14.16.

     ⁸ B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian 160.

     ⁹ Cf. I Clement 5.4-5; Tertullian, De praes. haer. 36.3; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.5-8 (citing second-century Dionysius as added confirmation).

     ¹⁰ Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.3, 13, 14; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.20.7-8; 3.32.1; Jerome, Adv. Jovinianum 1.26; Victorinus, Comm. Apocalypse 10.11.

     ¹¹ Tacitus, Agricola 45; Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 8.10; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.23.5-19.

     ¹² R. E. Brown, Introduction to the NT 806; B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian 169, 182-88; cf. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 21.

     ¹³ Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 8.15; Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.14.2.

*Prepared for the 2024 FHU Lectures.

Related Posts: When was Revelation Written (Part 2), Introducing the Book of Revelation (Part 1), Ancient Dating Systems

Image credit: https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/1208739/view/emperor-nero-statue- and https://www.thecollector.com/misjudged-roman-emperors/

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/