Continued: Chapter XIV-The Period Of The Restoration

According to the popular theory in vogue at the present time, the temple at Jerusalem was completed in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes, 516 B.C.E. Between chapters 6 and 7, we are told, is a gap of 58 years. Chapter 7 narrates the going of Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus in 458 B.C.E. The things narrated in Ezra 7-10 are, upon this hypothesis, an account of the reforms instituted by Ezra in 458. The book of Nehemiah relates events of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, 445 B.C.E.

As we have already noted, the temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes in 516 B.C.E., according to the commandment of the God of Israel and according to the decrees of Cyrus and Darius, even Artaxerxes (the great shah, or ruler) king of Persia. Cyrus issued the original proclamation for the reconstruction of the temple. Darius in the second year of his reign confirmed this original decree by a similar one. These are the only two Persian rulers issuing decrees pertaining to the reconstruction of the temple. The word Artaxerxes simply means "great ruler." Darius, according to the Behistun inscription, executed it either in the fifth or sixth year of his reign, conquered his foes, and consolidated his empire, assuming to himself titles of great dignity. Since the term Artaxerxes signifies Great Shah or Ruler, it is in perfect keeping with all the facts that he should at this time assume this title also. No other construction can be placed upon the facts as they are embedded in the Hebrew text.

Further confirmation of the continuity of the narrative is seen in the last statement of Ezra 6. According to verses 19-21 the children of the captivity together with their brethren who had remained in the land, and who had separated themselves from the filthiness of the nations, observed the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread with unusual joy. The basis of this joy was that God had "turned the heart of the king of Assyria (Darius Hystaspes, into whose kingdom the former Assyrian empire had been incorporated) unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." At this Passover, therefore, the Hebrew people rejoiced before God because He had turned the heart of Darius to confirm the decree of Cyrus, thus permitting them to complete the work of reconstruction of the house of God. This last statement of verse 22 is a reference to God's overruling providence in turning the heart of Darius toward the Jewish people in the second year of his reign. From this position there can be no escape.

It is a very unfortunate matter that the Scriptures were divided into chapters and verses, because these frequently destroy the continuity of the thought. Chapter 7:1 begins this way, "Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, Ezra, the son of Seraiah ..." As we have seen, the title "Artaxerxes" in 6:14 refers to Darius Hystaspes. Since this chapter concludes with the events of the sixth year of Darius or Artaxerxes, it is natural to suppose that the Artaxerxes mentioned in 7:1 is the same monarch, because in the seventh chapter Ezra tells us that Artaxerxes was favorable to him and his company in permitting them to return to the land of the fathers. These facts naturally weld chapters 7 to 10 with chapter 6. Only clear, unmistakable, positive proof to the contrary could ever break this natural continuity of thought; therefore, the idea that a gap of 58 years intervened between the events of chapter 6 and those of chapter 7 is simply a myth. In chapter 6 we are reading of the completion of the temple in the sixth year of Darius and in chapter 7 of the events of the seventh year of the same ruler. As we shall see later, the book of Nehemiah recounts the events of the twentieth and the 32nd years of this same Darius Hystaspes.

Should we assume that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 is Artaxerxes Longimanus (464-424 B.C.E.), we must concede that Ezra was 128 years old when he returned from Babylon to Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. Proof of this position is found in the facts that are embedded in the genealogical table of the high priest (I Chron. 6:3-15) and the abridged one appearing in Ezra 7:1-5. According to the Chronicles passage, Israel had 22 high priests from Aaron to Seraiah, who was slain by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah at the time of the captivity in 586 B.C.E. The genealogy appearing in Ezra 7:1-5 is an abridged one which omits six names from the list--those between Merioth and Azariah. The only other difference between the two genealogies is this: The chronicler began with Aaron and traced the lineage to Seraiah, whereas Ezra began with himself and went backward to Aaron. From the Chronicles passage we see that Seraiah was the father of Jehozadak, but in the Ezra genealogy attention is called to the fact that Ezra was the son of Seraiah; therefore, Jehozadak and Ezra were brothers.

Since Seraiah was slain by Nebuchadnezzar in his nineteenth year, i.e, 586 B.C.E. (II Kgs. 25:8, 18-21), Ezra was born either in that year or shortly before. The seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus was 458 B.C.E. of the current chronology. If, therefore, the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 was Artaxerxes Longimanus, Ezra then was 128 years old when he led his deputation of captives back to Jerusalem in that seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Furthermore, he was, upon this hypothesis, 141 years old when he walked in the procession at the dedication of the wall with Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Who can accept such an absurdity as this? Reason absolutely rejects such an hypothesis.

But if we are willing to take all the evidence and accept the natural deduction to be drawn from the data, we conclude that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 was none other than Darius Hystaspes whose seventh year was 515 B.C.E. In this year Ezra was at least 71 years old. A man of such an age could do the things that are mentioned here.

Proof of the contention here set forth is to be found in the lists of priests who came back with Zerubbabel and Joshua and those who sealed the covenant in the days of Nehemiah. In Nehemiah 12:1-7 appears the list of the names of the 22 priests who returned with Zerubbabel. In verses 12-21 we have a second list of their names given in connection with their sons administering the priestly office in the days of Joiakim the son of Joshua. There is one difference, however, in the two lists: Hattush is mentioned in the first list but is omitted from the second.

In these same verses, Nehemiah 12:12-21, appear the names of the sons of the chief priests who came back with Zerubbabel, and who functioned in their priestly offices with Joshua; but their sons functioned in the same capacity in the days of Joiakim, the high priest, who, as we have already seen, succeeded his father about the time of Ezra's return from Babylon. It is quite likely that they held office along with Joiakim, Ezra, and Nehemiah. (See Nehemiah 12:26.) If the second generation of chief priests was contemporaneous with Ezra and Nehemiah, then we would date their ministration from 502-490 B.C.E.

When one compares the list of 22 priests and 8 Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua and the captives with the register of the chief priests and the Levites who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, he will see that 20 out of the 30 coming back with Zerubbabel affixed their seal to this document. Zerubbabel and Joshua led the captives back in 536 B.C.; the twentieth year of Darius Hystaspes was 502 B.C.E. or 34 years later. It is quite in keeping with human life and affairs to believe that 20 out of 30 of these men who returned with Zerubbabel were living 34 years later and sealed the covenant with Nehemiah. This is only reasonable and in accordance with facts as we know them in human experience. But let us suppose, as practically all scholars today assume, that the Artaxerxes in the twentieth year of whose reign Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem was Artaxerxes Longimanus whose reign began, according to the accepted chronology in 464 B.C.E. and continued to 424. The twentieth year of his reign would be 445 B.C.E. In this case we have 20 out of 30 men who were performing the functions of chief priest and Levites in 536 B.C.E. still alive and filling the same positions in 445 B.C.E., 91 years later. Is this supposition possible? Longevity existed before the Flood, but the span of life was cut down most drastically immediately after it. In the days of Moses the life of the average individual was further reduced to threescore and ten and "if by reason of health and strength four score" (Ps. 90). It seems that the life of a generation has been constantly lowered as time passes by. One or two men in a given community might reach the century mark; such cases are the exception and not the rule. It was certainly not the case in the days of Ezra. Daniel was very young when he was taken into captivity at the beginning of the 70-year period of Babylonian exile. He lived through it and to the third year of Cyrus king of Persia. Thus we can account for 73 years of his life. We are bound to assume that he was a young man, probably in his teens, when he was taken to Babylon. Let us, for the sake of investigation, assume that he was 17 years of age at that time. Upon this basis he was, at the time of his passing away, around 90. Evidently he was an exception to the rule as may be seen in many cases. One, or possibly two, who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and who were sufficiently old to perform the priestly functions at that time, might have lived until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, i.e., 445 B.C.E.; but it is incredible to think that 20 out of 30 of those listed in 536 B.C.E. were continuing their priestly function 91 years later. In view of these facts it is unthinkable to conceive of the position that the Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah was Artaxerxes Longimanus. On this point I wish to quote Martin Anstey:

"Some valuable chronological informaton is contained in the genealogical and other lists in these Books. The list of those who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah; in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 10:1-13) is almost identical with the list of those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Joshua given in Neh. 12:1-9.

"This is the crowning argument for the identification of the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah with Darius Hystaspes."

In Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7 the third in the list of the leaders who brought the captives back from Babylon is Nehemiah. This man undoubtedly was one of the outstanding characters of the time, as is indicated by the position which he holds in the narrative. The first presumption, then, is that Nehemiah, the cupbearer, the leading character in the book of Nehemiah, is the same individual. Unless there is positive proof indicating otherwise, we must accept this presupposition. For instance, there are many Roosevelts in the country today. Whenever we read in the paper anything about Mr. Roosevelt, we instantly think of the President of the United States, since he stands out from all other Roosevelts in prominence. So it was with this Nehemiah. Acting thus upon this normal, logical supposition, we find Nehemiah as one of the leaders of the restoration movement. If we assume that Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah is Artaxerxes Longimanus, who mounted the throne in 464 B.C.E., and whose 32nd year was 433 B.C.E., then Nehemiah was 103 years older at this latter time than he was when he returned with the captives in the first year of Cyrus. It is unreasonable and absurd to think that a man of such age could carry on the work of repairing the walls and administering the office of governor during such troublous times as existed. On the contrary, if we accept the proposition that Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah was Darius Hystaspes whose 32nd year was 490 B.C.E., then Nehemiah was only 46 years older than he was when he returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel in the first year of Cyrus. This assumption is not only reasonable but necessary. From this consideration, therefore, we conclude that Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah is none other than Darius Hystaspes.

Since the Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra 7, in whose seventh year that ready scribe returned with a deputation of captives from Babylon is the Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah, and since this ruler was not Artaxerxes Longimanus, he could have been none other than Darius Hystaspes, inasmuch as he reigned at least 32 years, according to Nehemiah 5:14; 13:6, and no other Persian king except Artaxerxes Longimanus reigned that long. From this angle, therefore, we identify the Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah with Darius Hystaspes.

As already seen, Josephus identifies the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 with the Persian king whom he calls Xerxes, and who reigned at least 28 years. This could not be Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspes, mentioned in Ptolemy's canon, because he reigned only 21 years. He, therefore, must have been Darius Hystaspes. Evidently Josephus was mistaken in calling him "son of Darius." In the apocryphal book of I Esdras the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther is identified with Darius Hystaspes and in the chapters of the apocryphal Rest of Esther Ahasuerus is known as Artaxerxes. Jewish tradition, as is reflected in the tract Sedar Olam, also identifies Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah as Darius Hystaspes. These facts likewise corroborate the position taken.

In Ezra 7:23 we read of "the realm of the king and his sons." According to profane history Darius Hystaspes had several sons before he became king. Some of these disputed the succession with his son by his second wife "Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, one of whom Darius Hystaspes appointed to succeed him, viz. Xerxes."

Additional evidence in favor of the present contention is to be found in the fact that Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of whose reign permission was granted Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem, and who reigned as long as 32 years (Neh. 13:6), could not have been Xerxes who reigned only 21 years. Since, as seen above, he could not have been Artaxerxes Longimanus, we are again driven to believe that he was Darius Hystaspes.

All evidence points to the conclusion that Artaxerxes of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah was none other than Darius Hystaspes. If one rejects this proposition and supposes that this monarch is Artaxerxes Longimanus, he is forced to create two Ezras, two Nehemiahs, two Mordecais, and several others. Such a supposition is unresonable; therefore, all the evidence proves positively, without a shade of doubt, that Darius Hystaspes was the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 and of the book of Nehemiah.

The next thing in order is to summarize the testimony identifying the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther. Since the days of Joseph Scaliger, this monarch has been reckoned as the Xerxes of the Ptolemaic canon. Such an interpretation of the facts is required by the effort to make Biblical chronology fit into the accepted chronology of the day. In order to accomplish this unusual feat, a forced interpretation has been placed upon Esther 2:5,6. In this passage we are told that there was a "certain Jew in Shushan the palace, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives that had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, had carried away." The strained interpretation referred to makes this passage declare that Kish, the great-grandfather of Mordecai, was the one who was taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar when Jeconiah was deported. Such an interpretation is possible, if one closes his eyes to the usual manner of writing genealogies and ignores the data of the context. The genealogy, for instance, of Ezra is recounted in Ezra 7:1-6, which traces his lineage back to Aaron. Aaron was not the one who taught the law in the seventh year of Artaxerxes; Ezra was the one. On account of the long list of ancestors, Ezra repeats his name in verse 6 after giving his pedigree. The writer of Esther wants to introduce Mordecai the Jew and differentiates him from all other Mordecais. He does this by tracing his genealogy back to his great-grandfather and follows this information by stating that Mordecai was a Benjamite, i.e., of the tribe of Benjamin, who had been carried with Jeconiah to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. Let us note another example of the identification of a writer or speaker. In Zephaniah 1:1 the prophet traces his lineage back to his great-great-grandfather and follows these words by dating his prophecy, "In the days of Josiah, the son of Amon, king of Judah." Another example may be found in Zechariah 1:1. Here the prophet traced his genealogy back to his grandfather Iddo and spoke of himself as the prophet to whom the word of the Lord came. From these and other examples we can see that the natural meaning intended by the inspired writer was that Mordecai was the one who went into captivity with Jeconiah and not Kish, his great-grandfather.

If we make Ahasuerus of the book of Esther Xerxes whose reign was from 485 to 465, his twelfth year would be 474 B.C.E. In this event Mordecai would be at least 123 years of age, and Esther, who was his cousin, would have been, as Anstey says, "an aged beauty." Such a position is unthinkable. Ahasuerus of the book of Esther, therefore, is not Xerxes but Darius Hystaspes.

Josephus speaks of the husband of Esther as Artaxerxes throughout. It must be admitted, however, that he is somewhat confused in his name because he speaks of Artaxerxes as "Cyrus the son of Xerxes, whom the Greeks called Artaxerxes." This could not be Artaxerxes Longimanus, for that would make Mordecai 143 years of age, which supposition is ridiculous. In I Esdras 1:2 Ahasuerus is identified as Darius Hystaspes.

According to Esther 1:1, Ahasuerus is the one who reigned over 127 provinces. Note how specific the language is: "this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces." This language indicates that he was the one and the only one who reigned over this number of provinces from India to Ethiopia. It could mean nothing if there were more than this one monarch whose territory was so very extensive. Who then reigned over these 127 provinces? From Daniel 6:1 we learn that Darius the Mede in 538 B.C.E. was sovereign of an empire consisting of 120 provinces. It is quite evident that this monarch could not have been the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther. According to Herodotus, the Greek historian, Darius Hystaspes conquered India in 506, for he says that this monarch "established 20 governments of the kind which the Persians call satrapies, assigning to each its governor and fixing the tribute which was to be paid him by the several nations" (Vol. 3:89). Then the historian enumerated the nations included in the conquest of Darius; namely, Asia Minor, Phoenicia, Syria, Cyprus, Egypt, Libya, Cyrene, Susa, Babylon, Assyria, Media, Armenia, Parthia. He also gave the amount of tribute paid by each nation. In chapter 95 he further states that "The Indians, who were more numerous than any other nation with which we are acquainted, paid a tribute exceeding that of any other people, to wit: 360 talents of gold dust. This was the twentieth satrapy." The Ethiopians did not pay a cent of tribute, but brought gifts to the king. The Egyptians and Nubians likewise made a certain contribution to him. His empire finally grew until it included 127 satrapies. He alone of the Persian rulers governed so much territory. Hence Darius Hystaspes was Ahasuerus of Esther.

After having enumerated the 20 satrapies of the realm of Darius, Herodotus states "Such was the revenue which Darius derived from Asia, and a small part of Libya. Later in his reign the sum was increased by the tribute of the islands and of the nations of Europe as far as Sicily" (Herodotus, Book 3, 96). Thucydides also gives us this information: "The lonians had attained great prosperity when Cyrus and the Persians, having overthrown Croesus, and subdued the countries between them and the river Halys and the sea, made war against them and enslaved the cities of the mainland. Sometime afterward, Darius, strong in the possession of the Phoenician fleet, conquered the islands also."

The three Greek writers, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato, inform us that Darius Hystaspes subdued the islands of the Aegean Sea, whereas Diodorus Siculus (Book 12) states that they were all lost again by Xerxes the son of Darius "before the twelfth year of his reign," which occurred in 474 B.C.E. This is in perfect keeping with what we are told concerning the smashing defeats which he suffered at Thermopylae, Salamis, and Platea in 480 B.C.E. After Xerxes, no Persian kings held any islands except that of Clazomene and Cyprus. From these considerations we may be absolutely certain that Ahasuerus of the book of Esther was none other than Darius Hystaspes; therefore, the identification of Xerxes as the monarch of the book of Esther is erroneous.

According to Esther, chapter 7, the Persian monarch made a feast in his third year, namely, 519 B.C.E. During the first 2 years of his reign Darius was occupied with the overthrow of pretenders to the throne and in subduing revolts, the first of which was in his first year; and the second, in his fourth. The latter lasted for 2 years, according to Herodotus. He divorced Vashti in the third year, but was occupied in quelling revolts until his sixth year, at which time he turned his thoughts toward matrimony. After the year of preparation for the marriage, he wedded Esther in his seventh year (Esth. 1:3; 2:16).

The character of the monarch of the book of Esther together with the local setting fits in perfectly with that of Darius Hystaspes just as accurately, if not better, than with Xerxes his son.

In view of all the facts presented, I am absolutely certain that Ahasuerus of the book of Esther was none other than Darius Hystaspes who reigned from 521-485 B.C.E.

II. EXAMINATION OF THE BASIS OF THE RECEIVED CHRONOLOGY

"The Chronology of this period has never yet been accurately determined. The received chronology, though universally accepted, is dependent on the list of the Kings, and the number of years assigned to them in Ptolemy's Canon. Ptolemy (A.D. 70-161) was a great constructive genius. He was the author of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy. He was one of the founders of the Science of Geography. But in chronology he was only a late compiler and contriver, not an original witness, and not a contemporary historian, for he lived in the 2nd Century after Christ. He is the only authority for the chronology of the Persian period. He is not corroborated. He is contradicted by the Persian National Traditions preserved by Firdusi, by the Jewish National Traditions preserved by the Sedar Olam, and by the writings of Josephus.

"It has always been held to be unsafe to differ from Ptolemy and for this reason his Canon, or List of Reigns, is the only thread by which the last year of Darius Hystaspes, 485 B.C.E., is connected with the first year of Alexander the Great."

As Mr. Anstey states, the chronology of the Persian period is everything but certain. It is resting upon fragmentary traditions, deductions made by a late compiler, and the manipulations and guesses of modern chronologists. Under such conditions it is utterly impossible for one to accept this system as authentic.

Confirmation for the accepted chronology is sought by resort to astronomical calculations based upon the Egyptian Sothic Cycle. Thus we are told from time to time that our present method of reckoning is demonstrated by accurate mathematical calculation. One of the principal arguments is based upon a statement of Censorinus, a Latin writer. In this connection I wish to quote from Martin Anstey, who has stated the situation very succinctly in the following passage.

"To the list of these six early Greek authors must be added the name of the Latin writer Censorinus.

"Censorinus (A.D. 238) wrote his work De die Natali in the year A.D. 238. Like Ptolemy he was a compiler of dates and a calculator of Eras. He fixed the date of the last Sothic period before his own time, as that covered by the years B.C. 1321-A.D. 139. This calculation is used by Egyptologers in dating the reign of Merenptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The passage is one of first rate importance. It is therefore given in full. Censorinus says:--

" 'The Egyptians in the formation of their great year had no regard to the moon. In Greece the Egyptian year is called "cynical" (doglike), in Latin "canicular" because it commences with the rising of the Canicular or dogstar (Sirius), to which is fixed the first day of the month which the Egyptians call Thoth. Their civil year had but 365 days without any intercalation. Thus with the Egyptians the space of four years is shorter by one day than the space of four natural years, and a complete synchronism is only established at the end of the 1461 years (Chapter XVIII).

" 'But of these Eras the beginnings always take place on the first day of the month which is called Thoth among the Egyptians, a day which this present year (A.D. 238) corresponds to the VIIth day of the Kalends of July (June 25), whilst 100 years ago this same day corresponded to the XIIth day of the Kalends of August (July 21) at which time the dogstar is wont to rise in Egypt' (Chapter XXI).

"This information is used by Egyptologers in translating the Egyptian Vague year of 365 days into the Julian year of 365¼ days. Taking together the somewhat doubtful testimony of Manetho and the calculations of modern astronomers, based on the information given by Censorinus, they are able to arrive at a date for the reign of Merenptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But the validity of the result obtained is dependent upon the truth of a considerable number of assumptions, and cannot be regarded as anything but hypothetical, or tentative.

"Another calculation by Censorinus of still more fundamental importance is his determination of the date of the 1st Olympiad. This he places in the 1014th year before the consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus, A.D. 238. Of these 1014 years, 238 belong to the present Era A.D. This leaves 776 for the number of years before the commencement of the present era, and accordingly the 1st Olympiad is dated B.C. 776.

"The fragment is here given in full. It is taken from Cory's Ancient Fragments. (Because of the length of this quotation I shall omit it, but anyone can see it in the work cited by Mr. Anstey.)

"Hence the year B.C. 776, thus determined by Censorinus, has been made the pivot upon which Chronology has been made to depend. The scheme or framework being determined beforehand, all that remained was to make the facts fit into the space allotted to them, and all dates, both sacred and profane, have been made to conform to the requirements of the scheme.

"Eusebius accepted this basis, and adapted the Chronology of the Old Testament to it, and he and Jerome, who translated his work into Latin, are followed by all subsequent writers. They all adopt the principle, though they differ somewhat in their application of it. Eusebius identifies the year B.C. 776 with the 49th of Uzziah. Elsewhere he copies Julius Africanus and identifies it with the 1st year of Ahaz. Syncellus identifies it with the 45th year of Uzziah. Clinton says it was in reality the 33rd year of Uzziah. But the method adopted is the same, and through Eusebius the Era has passed into the works of all subsequent writers, and thus the space of time between the first of Cyrus as Sole Rex and the year of our Lord A.D. 1, has been fixed beforehand, as a space of 536 years instead of 454, as it is by Daniel. The important thing to note is that this fixing of the dates is not based on contemporary testimony like that of Jeremiah 25:1, in which we are distinctly told that the 4th year of Jehoiakim was the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, but is arrived at by a process of computation worked out 1000 years after the event, and resting ultimately upon the shadowy calculations of Eratosthenes and Timaeus, who obtain their data by multiplying the number of Ephors Kings, Archons or Priestesses by the number of years which they imagined each of these various officers would be likely to have occupied these several posts."

From this quotation we can see that the attempt to determine chronology by calculations based upon the Sothic cycle is of little value. Nevertheless, certain Egyptologists depend entirely upon it and devise a system of dates which are contrary to other data and to the Scriptures. In view of the unreliability of this method of establishing a scheme of dating history, one can see that no scientific value can be attached to any calculations based upon it.