Continued: Chapter XIV-The Period Of The Restoration

According to Pliny, Darius Hystaspes built, or rather enlarged and beautified, Shushan as his official residence. There he kept his treasures (Herodotus Book V, chap. 49). From all this extra-canonical evidence it is clear that Darius Hystaspes did reign from India to Ethiopia and over the isles of the sea just as the book of Esther affirms.

Anstey gives us the following historical information:

"Thucydides (Book 1) and Plato (Menexenus) tell us that Darius Hystaspes subdued all the islands in the Aegean Sea, and Diodorus Siculus (Book 12) tells us that they were all lost again by his son Xerxes before the 12th year of his reign, but it was after the 12th year of the reign of Ahasuerus that he imposed his tribute upon the Isles, and the successors of Xerxes held none of them except Clazomene and Cyprus (Xenophon, Hellenics, Book 5).

"From all which it is clear that the Ahasuerus of Esther cannot be Xerxes, in fact that he can be none other than Darius Hystaspes, for his predecessors, Cyrus and Cambyses, never took tribute but only received presents. Polyenus (Stratagem, Book 7) says Darius was the first that ever imposed a tribute upon the people. For this reason Herodotus tells us (Book 3, Chap. 89) the Persians called Cyrus a father, and Cambyses a master, but Darius a huckster, 'for Darius looked to making a gain in everything.'"

With this understanding then we note the outstanding event of the third year of this mighty monarch. It was in this year that he made a great feast for the nobility of the realm. From now on we read of "Persia and Media" instead of "Medes and Persians." It was at this time that Queen Vashti was deposed, because she refused to expose herself in an indecent manner before the drunken and inflamed guests at Darius' debaucherous feast.

In the fourth year of King Darius a delegation was sent by the people of Bethel to Jerusalem to inquire as to whether or not they should continue to fast in the fifth and seventh months as they had done for so many years. The prophet replied by asking this pertinent question, "When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?" (Zech. 7:5). The fast of the fifth month was to commemorate the fall of the city and the burning of the temple which occurred, as we have already seen, in 586 B.C.E. The fast of the seventh month was in memory of the slaying of Gedaliah the governor. The young prophet called attention to the fact that men should obey the words of God which He had spoken to the former generation. Then he held up as an example those to whom the word of God had come on former occasions, and who had hardened their hearts like an adamant against the message. Hence upon them came judgment for rebellion and disobedience.

Later, however, the word of the Lord came to the prophet, and he foretold the glorious future in the kingdom age when old men and women will be in Jerusalem leaning on their staffs for very age, while the children will play in the streets. Finally, the answer was given relative to the fasts, the substance of which was that those which had been fast days will eventually be turned into occasions of great joy (Zech. 8:18-23).

Nothing of importance is recorded in the Biblical account concerning the events of the fifth year of Darius. The one outstanding incident which demands our attention is Darius' Behistun inscription in the Zagros mountains that is usually supposed to have been executed in the fifth, or possibly the sixth, year of his reign. This historical record, carved in the rock, tells of his having reconquered the provinces which had revolted; namely, Elam, Souciana Sargotia, Media, Babylonia, Parthia, and Armenia. He moreover speaks of his having overthrown nine pretenders to the throne among whom was Pseudo-Smerdis, his immediate predecessor. Having disposed of his opponents, having conquered the revolting territories, and having restored peace to his realm, Darius felt quite secure and, it is needless to say, considered himself as a great prince. Hence he became known as "Arta-xerxes," which means "great shah" (Ez. 6:14; 7:1). He was also recognized as "the king of Assyria." Evidently this title was given to him because of the fact that the territory which formerly constituted the Assyrian empire had been incorporated into the Medo-Persian realm. His assumption of this title, again, is seen in his calling himself "king of kings" in his letter recorded in Ezra 7:11-26. He also bore the name "king of Babylon" (Neh. 13:6). This acquisition of new titles becomes quite obvious as we pass from the fourth chapter of Ezra to the seventh and succeeding ones.

Further proof of the position which I am now advocating is to be found in Ezra 6:14b: "And they builded and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." If we take this statement as it is rendered in the English, we would suppose that the reconstruction of the temple was accomplished, according to the commandment of God, and according to the decrees issued by three different rulers; namely, Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. When we turn back to the first chapter of Ezra and study carefully every verse up to this one, we see that there were only two men who issued decrees relative to the temple. Cyrus made the first proclamation, granting permission to all Israelites who wished to return to the land of the fathers to do so, and authorizing the reconstruction of the temple. As we have seen from chapter 4, opposition arose on the part of the inhabitants of the land who made representation at the foreign office in Shushan and thus stopped the work until the second year of the reign of Darius. At this time they pursued the same course. Upon investigation Darius found that Cyrus had issued the original proclamation concerning this permission. He in turn issued a second decree confirming the one published by Cyrus and enlarging upon the grants conferred upon the Hebrew people. There were, therefore, only two decrees made by Persian kings concerning the reconstruction of the temple. If we accept the English translation of Ezra 6:14, we would think that a king by the name of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Darius, either immediately or later, also issued a decree for building it; but we know that the sacred structure was completed in the sixth year of the reign of Darius. The word Artaxerxes following Darius in this quotation, therefore, cannot refer to another king. Evidently something is wrong with the usual translation of this verse. When we look at the Hebrew, we see that the conjunction translated and also means even. In many instances its only significance is that of but. The translator has to select that definition which accords with all the facts of the context. Since we know that this little Hebrew conjuncion means and, but, and even, we must select that connotation which accords with all the known facts. Since it means even in many connections, since the word Artaxerxes signifies great shah or prince, and since we see from the history of the times that he was assuming to himself great and impressive titles, as many monarchs have done and continue to do, the only conclusion to which we can come is that the proper rendering of this conjunction in this context is even. With this understanding of the situation I submit this translation: "And they builded and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, even Artaxerxes king of Persia." This rendering is grammatical and is in accord with all known facts.

In view of all these historical circumstances there is but one conclusion to which we can come; namely, that the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther was none other than Darius Hystaspes of profane history. Further confirmation of this position is seen in the fact that in the Apocryphal book, I Esdras, the Ahasuerus of the canonical book of Esther and the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1 are both identified as Darius Hystaspes. For instance, in I Esdras 3:1,2, we read, "Now king Darius made a great feast unto all his subjects, and unto all them that were born in his house, and unto all the princes of Media and Persia, and to all the satraps and captains and governors that were unto him, from India unto Ethiopia, in the hundred twenty and seven provinces." A comparison of this quotation with Esther 1:1-4 shows that the Apocryphal account was taken from our canonical Esther. The latter uses the word Ahasuerus whereas the former substitutes the word Darius in the narrative. In the Apocryphal book, The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther, Ahasuerus is everywhere called Artaxerxes. In our canonical Esther we read that the two keepers of the threshold sought to take the life of Ahasuerus; but in The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther we are told that these eunuchs attempted to lay hands upon Artaxerxes the king in order to take his life. Here again the Ahasuerus of our canonical Esther is identified as Artaxerxes in the Apocryphal writing. In Esther 10:1 we read of Ahasuerus who laid tribute upon the isles of the sea, whereas in The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther it was the great king Artaxerxes who wrote to the princes and governors of the 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia. These facts show that the writers of the Apocryphal books understood that Ahasuerus was the Artaxerxes or Darius of our canonical Ezra.

Archbishop Usshur, author of the chronology that bears his name, identified Darius Hystaspes as the Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus of the books of Ezra and Esther. But Joseph Scaliger, one of the most profound scholars in modern times, repudiated the correct Scriptural identification of this one ruler who bore these various names and identified the Ahasuerus of Esther with Xerxes, successor of Darius Hystaspes. This mistake threw the chronology into hopeless confusion. Only by discarding it and studying the facts anew can we arrive at the truth on this point.

With the atmosphere thus cleared, we are in a position to understand that Darius Hystaspes is the same ruler who is called Artaxerxes in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and Ahasuerus, in the book of Esther.

In this connection may I call attention to the fact that the word Artaxerxes with the Persian rulers had a significance similar to that of Pharaoh in Egypt? Such writers as Abraham Zacutus in the fifteenth century, who was astronomer to Emanuel, King of Portugal, David Ganz of Prague, and the Sedar Olam Zeutah, or the lesser chronicle of the Jews, tell us that "Artaxerxes among the, Persians was the common name of their king as that of Pharaoh was among the Egyptians." The title Ahasuerus likewise appears to have had a similar significance.

In the light of the evidence which we have gleaned, we may be certain of the following facts: In Ezra 4:24 we read of the second year of this King Darius, or Artaxerxes; in Ezra 6:15 we see that the temple was completed in his sixth year; in Ezra 7:1f. we read of Ezra's leaving Babylon in his seventh year; and in Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 we learn of his twentieth year; and finally in Nehemiah 5:14 and 13:6 we read of his thirty-second year. As we have seen, this same monarch is known in the book of Esther as Ahasuerus; hence in this roll we read of his third, sixth, seventh, and twelfth years; but in the prophecies of Haggai we find several predictions made in his second year, and in Zechariah, others spoken in his second and fourth years.

As we have already seen, the temple was completed in this year (Ez. 6:15). Another outstanding event of far-reaching consequences was that of the selection and preparation of Esther to become queen of the empire. (See Esther, chapter 2.)

The next stated event in the reign of Darius Hystaspes is found in Ezra 7. According to verses 7 and 8, Ezra, a faithful priest, left Babylon on the first day of the first month of the seventh year of his reign to be present, it seems, at the dedication of the temple. With him came 1,754 exiles to join those who had already returned to the land. At the river, which runs to Ahava, they observed a fast from the ninth to the eleventh day of the first month of the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 8:15-21), praying God's protection and blessing upon them as they journeyed to the homeland. On the next day they resumed their journey, starting for Jerusalem.

At Jerusalem the returned exiles observed the Passover at the regular time, the fourteenth day of the first month, which was followed by the feast of unleavened bread (Ez. 6:19-21).

It took about four months for Ezra's journey; hence the pilgrims arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month. Three days later the sacred vessels which they brought back to the homeland were deposited with the proper officials at the temple.

Upon learning the conditions which obtained in the land, Ezra the Scribe was very much depressed, for many of the children of the captivity had married heathen wives; nevertheless, he was indeed thankful that the temple had already been restored and the debris, which had been in evidence on every hand had, to a certain extent, been removed. In the ninth chapter we find recorded the wonderful prayer which he by the Spirit of God poured out in behalf of the nation because of its wickedness. On the twentieth day of the ninth month of this same year the people were gathered together. This faithful scribe pled with them to confess their sins, to separate themselves from their heathen wives, and to maintain a life of separation unto God. In 10:16 we read of the events of the first day of the tenth month and in verse seventeen of the first day of the first month. Of course, we cannot be dogmatic, but in all probability these months fall in the same seventh year of Darius.

Now leaving the book of Ezra we turn to Esther. We have already seen that the Ahasuerus of this book is the same Darius or Artaxerxes of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In Esther 3:7 we learn that in the first month of the twelfth year lots were cast for the slaughter of the Jews. This plot against the Chosen People had been, as we have seen, concocted by Haman. On the thirteenth of the first month posts were dispatched, at the king's commandment in order to carry out this decree against the Jews (Esth. 3:12). Two days later Esther gained audience with the king and invited him and Haman to her banquet. That night the king could not rest (Esth. 6:1-14). On the following day Esther gave her banquet, at which Haman was accused and hanged, and Mordecai became the prime minister (Esth. 5:8---7:2-10).

On the twenty-third day of the third month scribes wrote letters which were dispatched by every means available--horses, mules, camels, dromedaries--in order that they might overtake the posts who had been sent out by Haman. The second decree counteracted the first. Finally, on pogrom day, the thirteenth of the twelfth month, the Jews defended themselves against their adversaries. The Lord by His overruling providence turned the darkness of Israel's night into day and delivered her from being exterminated. Let us remember that He still loves her and that He will, in her darkest of all nights yet in the future, turn the tables and will deliver her, i.e., those who turn to him with all their hearts.

As we have already seen, the last thing which occurred in Jerusalem, and which is recorded in the book of Ezra, was in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. Nothing, so far as our records go, of any importance transpired in the land of Palestine until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, when Hanani went to Shushan, the Persian capital, and reported to Nehemiah the conditions that obtained at Jerusalem.

During the thirteen years while the veil of obscurity was resting over Palestine, a distressing situation had developed in which the Jews were being vigorously opposed. In addition to this persecution the wall at Jerusalem had been broken down, and the gates burned. We are not told how this was brought about, but undoubtedly there had been some attack against the city.

Ezra, who led the second deputation of captives back to the land in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, in all likelihood remained in Jerusalem during this period of silence, for he was a man always active in God's cause. When we get our next glimpse of Palestine in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, we find him cooperating with Nehemiah.

Joshua, as we have already learned, was the high priest who came back with the first company of exiles under the leadership of Zerubbabel. The Scriptures do not give us any information as to his death, but Josephus asserts that it occurred about the time Ezra arrived in Jerusalem, namely, 515 B.C.E. There is no external evidence that would throw doubt upon the historian's record; hence we shall accept it at face value. Accordingly, Joiakim, his son, succeeded to the high priesthood in the seventh year of the Persian king who is called Artaxerxes by Ezra, but whom Josephus calls Xerxes. In this connection let us remember that this term together with others was a common title of the Persian monarchs. Those who have read the Greek papyri and have glanced at official documents especially know that the Roman Caesars seemed to vie one with the other in an effort to add pretentious titles to their names. This seems to have been the custom with the Persian rulers. Joiakim died and was succeeded by his son Eliashib about the time of the death of Ezra.

This little historical survey of the situation, drawn from non-Biblical sources, is in perfect accord with the facts as they are presented in the sacred text. For instance, from Nehemiah 3:1,20 we learn that Eliashib was called the high priest in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes; i.e., in the year when Nehemiah came back to Jerusalem. There is no reason so far as the text goes for doubting this statement. His father Joiakim may have died or he may have been incapacitated on account of age or sickness to perform the priestly functions; hence, it was natural that Eliashib, his son, should succeed to the priesthood under such conditions.

Another bit of confirmatory evidence of the position just stated is that the grandson of Joiakim was Jehohanan who was sufficiently old in the seventh year of Artaxerxes to have a chamber in the house of God (Ez. 10:6). According to Nehemiah 12:26, Joiakim was functioning in the capacity of high priest either immediately before or at the time of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest. The situation becomes clear by our glancing at the priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and those who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. This tabular form is presented by Anstey. It appears below:

A glance at the tabulation above shows that 15 of the 22 chief priests of 536 B.C.E. affixed their names to the covenant in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Looking at the table of the Levites, we see that eight are listed as having come back with Zerubbabel and the captives, and of these five affixed their names to the covenant in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Thus we see that 20 of these 30 men were living when the covenant was made. Since it is inconceivable that two-thirds of them could be living and actively engaged in the ordinary functions of their life's work 91 years later in 445 B.C.E. where the popular theory places them, we are driven irresistibly to conclude that the Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah was none other than Darius Hystaspes, who is called Artaxerxes. Let us remember in this connection that this name is simply a title indicating "great shah, or ruler."

In view of all the facts which we have thus far learned, we may be positive that the Artaxerxes mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1, 5:14, and 13:6 cannot possibly, under any conditions, be Artaxerxes Longimanus; "nor can he be any other Persian monarch of later date, and as the only Persian monarch of earlier date who reigned as long as 32 years (Neh. 5:14; 13:6) was Darius Hystaspes, the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah 2:1, 5:14, and 13:6 can be no other than Darius Hystaspes himself."

Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Darius Hystaspes. He assumed by imperial decree the office of Governor and continued in this capacity until the 32nd year of this monarch. During these 12 years he lived at his own charges, fulfilling his duties as the leader of the people of God. (See Neh. 5:14-19.) In the 32nd year, however, he returned to Babylon and after certain days he came back to Jerusalem. Upon his arrival he learned that there had been a plunge, on the part of his brethren, into sin and a departure from God (Neh. 13:6). The last things recorded of this great man of God were the reforms which he instituted at this time. This date brings us, from a historical standpoint, to the close of Hebrew history as set forth in the divine Oracles.

The situation which we see reflected in the last chapter of Nehemiah corresponds to a certain extent to that which is in evidence throughout the book of Malachi. Some scholars have judged, and I think correctly so, that Malachi's ministry fell about this time namely, around 490 B.C.E.

Since a proper understanding of the chronological question depends upon a clear knowledge as to who Darius Hystaspes was, I shall give a summary of the proof which identifies him positively as the Artaxerxes of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah constituted one single history until it was divided by Origen, the critic, in the third century of the present era. This is clearly shown by the summary statement found in the Hebrew Bible concerning the number of verses constituting the book and the middle passage of it together with other data. Nehemiah 3:31 is recognized as the center of this work. From this and all the data found in this Masoretic note, it is very evident that these two books originally constituted one single work.

The narrative in these two books is continuous, the only exception being that of Ezra 3:10-13, which is separated from chapter 5 by the parenthetical account of the opposition to the Jews as related in chapter 4. The work of the laying of the foundation of the temple was started in the second year of Cyrus, but was interrupted by the Samaritans and never begun again until the second year of Darius, 15 years later.

A tabular form of the data in these books shows the continuity of the narrative. On this point I will quote from Anstey: