Regarding the 70 weeks of Daniel and Persians

[Bammer]

Hi! I'm wondering if anyone here has looked at the reasons JWs have for saying Darius and Xerxes ruled simultaneously for 10 years. I am studying the 70 weeks of Daniels prophecy with a JW friend of mine, and my friend and I have agreed to be really thorough and look at all the sources used.

So we come to the section in Insight on the Scriptures where it quotes Herodotus, and uses the quote from Herodotus to show that Xerxes and Darius reigned simultaneously. This is the part that is quoted in Insight on the Scriptures:

Xerxes followed this counsel, and Darius, persuaded that he had justice on his side, appointed him his successor. For my own part I believe that, even without this, the crown would have gone to Xerxes;

Insight says this shows that Xerxes was appointed during his fathers reign.

But since we wanted to be thorough, we found the source on the net – Herodotus book 7 – and when reading the passages immediately before and after the passage that Insight quotes, it actually seems Herodotus does NOT believe they reigned simultaneously, at least not for 10 years.

Here is what book 7 of Herodotus also says – the part which the Insight book quotes is in Italic:


[7.1]... After this, in the fourth year, the Egyptians whom Cambyses had enslaved revolted from the Persians; whereupon Darius was more hot for war than ever, and earnestly desired to march an army against both adversaries.

[7.2] Now, as he was about to lead forth his levies against Egypt and Athens, a fierce contention for the sovereign power arose among his sons; since the law of the Persians was that a king must not go out with his army, until he has appointed one to succeed him upon the throne
...
[7.3]... Xerxes followed this counsel, and Darius, persuaded that he had justice on his side, appointed him his successor. For my own part I believe that, even without this, the crown would have gone to Xerxes; for Atossa was all-powerful.

[7.4] Darius, when he had thus appointed Xerxes his heir, was minded to lead forth his armies; but he was prevented by death while his preparations were still proceeding. He died in the year following the revolt of Egypt and the matters here related, after having reigned in all six-and-thirty years, leaving the revolted Egyptians and the Athenians alike unpunished. At his death the kingdom passed to his son Xerxes.


The entire book 7 can be found here: http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/Text/Book7.htm

In my opinion, the book of Herodotus clearly shows that Darius and Xerxes did NOT reign simultaneously for 10 years, since Darius died soon ( < 1 year) after he had appointed Xerxes as heir. Herodotus may of course be wrong, but the question is why on earth the Insight book would use a quote from Herodotus to show that Darius and Xerxes ruled together for 10 years, when Herodotus clearly does not believe they did.

My friend who is JW believes the authors of Insight on the Scriptures must have missed the passage in 7.4 of the book, but that seems unlikely to me. He said he might try and send a letter to them.

Has anyone here – and I guess I am mainly looking for replies from JWs – noticed this as well and if so, why do you think Insight uses this passage from Herodotus?

Best regards
Bammer

[NonTrinitarian]

Good question. While I cannot speak for the “official” Jehovah’s Witnesses statement, maybe I can offer my opinion on this matter. The entire relevant article out of the Insight Book (IT) is presented below. As you read it, it should become obvious there is much debatable and inconclusive evidence. In other words, if ALL the ancient documents said the same thing on this subject, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, would we? The fact that scholars debate this issue demonstrates the ambiguity of the evidence.

Please notice that the IT book breaks this subject down into three sections. Evidence from Greek, Persian and Babylonian sources are discussed. Each source may say something a little different but by piecing together all of the data a more clear picture can be formed. In fact, as you read through the article you see numerous statements about disagreements among the scholars and the historical records. Now on to the question you raised. Here is the start of the quote:





The Reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes. Xerxes, Darius’ son, is evidently the king called Ahasuerus in the book of Esther. His actions also fit the description of the fourth Persian king, who would “rouse up everything against the kingdom of Greece.” (Da 11:2) Endeavoring to retaliate for the Persian defeat at Marathon, Xerxes launched massive forces against the Greek mainland in 480 B.C.E. Following a costly victory at Thermopylae and the destruction of Athens, his forces met defeat at Salamis and later at Plataea, causing Xerxes to return to Persia.

Xerxes’ reign was marked by certain administrative reforms and the completion of much of the construction work his father had initiated at Persepolis. (Compare Es 10:1, 2.) The Greek stories of the end of Xerxes’ reign revolve around marital difficulties, disorders in the harem, and a supposed dominance of Xerxes by certain of his courtiers. These accounts may reflect, though in a very confused and twisted way, some of the basic facts of the book of Esther, including the deposing of Queen Vashti and her replacement by Esther, as well as the ascension of Mordecai to a position of great authority in the realm. (Es 2:17; 10:3) According to secular accounts, Xerxes was assassinated by one of his courtiers.

Artaxerxes Longimanus, Xerxes’ successor, is notable for his authorization of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem with a large contribution for the support of the temple there. This occurred in Artaxerxes’ seventh year (468 B.C.E.). (Ezr 7:1-26; 8:24-36) During the 20th year of Artaxerxes (455 B.C.E.), Nehemiah was granted permission to go to Jerusalem to rebuild the city. (Ne 1:3; 2:1, 5-8) Nehemiah later returned for a time to the court of Artaxerxes in that king’s 32nd year (443 B.C.E.).—Ne 13:6.

There is some disagreement in historical writings with regard to the reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes. Reference works place Artaxerxes’ accession year in 465 B.C.E. Certain documents give to his father, Xerxes, a reign that continued into the 21st year. Xerxes’ rule is customarily counted from 486 B.C.E., when Darius, his father, died. His own first regnal year is viewed as having started in 485 B.C.E., and his 21st year and the accession year of Artaxerxes are often said to have been 465 B.C.E. As for Artaxerxes, scholars usually say that his last year of rule began in 424 B.C.E. Some documents present that as year 41 of Artaxerxes’ reign. If that were correct, it would mean that his accession year was in 465 B.C.E. and that his first regnal year began in 464 B.C.E.

However, there is strong evidence for calculating the last year of Xerxes and the accession year of Artaxerxes as being 475 B.C.E. This evidence is threefold: from Greek sources, from Persian sources, and from Babylonian sources.

So as we can see, there is definitely variances in the data and only by considering evidence from all three sources can we get the clear (or hopefully clear picture) First the Greek evidence:



Evidence from Greek sources. An event in Greek history can help us determine when Artaxerxes began ruling. Greek statesman and military hero Themistocles fell into disfavor with his countrymen and fled for safety to Persia. According to Greek historian Thucydides (I, CXXXVII, 3), who has gained fame for his accuracy, at that time Themistocles “sent on a letter to King Artaxerxes son of Xerxes, who had lately come to the throne.” Plutarch’s Lives (Themistocles, XXVII, 1) gives the information that “Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus relate that Xerxes was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes with whom Themistocles had his interview.” Charon was a Persian subject who lived through the change of rulership from Xerxes to Artaxerxes. From the testimonies of Thucydides and of Charon of Lampsacus, we can see that when Themistocles arrived in Persia, Artaxerxes had recently begun ruling.

We can establish the time when Artaxerxes began ruling by calculating back from when Themistocles died. Not all reference books give the same date for his death. However, historian Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily, XI, 54, 1; XI, 58, 3) relates his death in an account of things that happened “when Praxiergus was archon in Athens.” Praxiergus was archon in Athens in 471/470 B.C.E. (Greek and Roman Chronology, by Alan E. Samuel, Munich, 1972, p. 206) According to Thucydides, Themistocles’ arrival in Persia was followed by a year of language study in preparation for an audience with Artaxerxes. Thereafter the king granted him settlement in Persia with many honors. If Themistocles died in 471/470 B.C.E., his settlement in Persia must have been not later than 472 B.C.E. and his arrival a year earlier, in 473 B.C.E. At that time Artaxerxes “had lately come to the throne.”

Concerning the time when Xerxes died and Artaxerxes ascended the throne, M. de Koutorga wrote: “We have seen that, according to the chronology of Thucydides, Xerxes died towards the end of the year 475 B.C.E., and that, according to the same historian, Themistocles arrived in Asia Minor shortly after the coming to the throne of Artaxerxes Longimanus.”—Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l’Institut Impérial de France, first series, Vol. VI, second part, Paris, 1864, p. 147.

As further support of this, E. Levesque noted the following: “Therefore it is necessary, according to the Alexandrian Chronicle, to place Xerxes’ death in 475 B.C.E., after eleven years of reign. The historian Justin, III, 1, confirms this chronicle and the assertions of Thucydides. According to him, at the time of Xerxes’ murder, Artaxerxes, his son, was but a child, puer [a boy], which is true if Xerxes died in 475. Artaxerxes was then 16 years old, whereas in 465 he would have been twenty-six years old, which would not justify anymore Justin’s expression. According to this chronology, since Artaxerxes began to reign in 475, the 20th year of his reign proves to be in 455 and not in 445 as it is said quite commonly.”—Revue apologétique, Paris, Vol. 68, 1939, p. 94.

If Darius died in 486 B.C.E. and Xerxes died in 475 B.C.E., how could it be explained that some ancient documents allot to Xerxes a reign of 21 years? It is well known that a king and his son might rule together in a double kingship, or coregency. If this was the case with Darius and Xerxes, historians could count the years of Xerxes’ reign either from the start of a coregency with his father or from his father’s death. If Xerxes ruled 10 years with his father and 11 years by himself, some sources could attribute to him 21 years of rulership, while others might give him 11 years.

There is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius. The Greek historian Herodotus (VII, 3) says: “Darius judged his [Xerxes’] plea [for kingship] to be just and declared him king. But to my thinking Xerxes would have been made king even without this advice.” This indicates that Xerxes was made king during the reign of his father Darius.



First we notice that the Greek evidence is not consistent. But the Greek evidence does provide some evidence. That being that there could have been a co-regency. I have bolded the pertinent phrases in the quote you have questioned. Please note that the argument they are trying to establish is that it was possible for a co-regency. Note the phrase “There is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius.” That tells us what the following evidence is trying to establish. The quote did not say that this was evidence that it was a co-reign of ten years. In fact, after quoting the evidence the IT book then goes back and restates what it was trying to prove when it says, "This indicates that Xerxes was made king during the reign of his father Darius.” Note again that in no sense did they say this particular evidence argued for a ten year reign. The first step in setting up the argument was demonstrating that a co-reign could and perhaps did exist, though Herodotus seems to think it was a year or less. But keep in mind, other ancient historians and documents disagree with Herodotus. Thus, the fact that Herodotus said it was only one year or less does not prove anything as all of these documents and historians say different stuff and Herodotus could have been just as wrong as the next ancient historian or document. But what Herodotus does say is that it may have been possible for a co-reign to have existed. That was the purpose for the quote. It was NOT to prove that this reign was for 10 years or that Herodotus thought it was for ten years. It’s obvious Herodotus didn’t think that. Then the IT book goes on and discusses other evidence to establish further possibilities. The Persian and Babylonian evidence is what is drawn upon to establish that it was a ten year co-reign.



Evidence from Persian sources. A coregency of Xerxes with Darius can be seen especially from Persian bas-reliefs that have come to light. In Persepolis several bas-reliefs have been found that represent Xerxes standing behind his father’s throne, dressed in clothing identical to his father’s and with his head on the same level. This is unusual, since ordinarily the king’s head would be higher than all others. In A New Inscription of Xerxes From Persepolis (by Ernst E. Herzfeld, 1932) it is noted that both inscriptions and buildings found in Persepolis imply a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius. On page 8 of his work Herzfeld wrote: “The peculiar tenor of Xerxes’ inscriptions at Persepolis, most of which do not distinguish between his own activity and that of his father, and the relation, just as peculiar, of their buildings, which it is impossible to allocate to either Darius or Xerxes individually, have always implied a kind of coregency of Xerxes. Moreover, two sculptures at Persepolis illustrate that relation.” With reference to one of these sculptures, Herzfeld pointed out: “Darius is represented, wearing all the royal attributes, enthroned on a high couch-platform supported by representatives of the various nations of his empire. Behind him in the relief, that is, in reality at his right, stands Xerxes with the same royal attributes, his left hand resting on the high back of the throne. That is a gesture that speaks clearly of more than mere successorship; it means coregency.”

As to a date for reliefs depicting Darius and Xerxes in that way, in Achaemenid Sculpture (Istanbul, 1974, p. 53), Ann Farkas states that “the reliefs might have been installed in the Treasury sometime during the building of the first addition, 494/493–492/491 B.C.; this certainly would have been the most convenient time to move such unwieldy pieces of stone. But whatever their date of removal to the Treasury, the sculptures were perhaps carved in the 490’s.”

Evidence from Babylonian sources. Evidence for Xerxes beginning a coregency with his father during the 490’s B.C.E. has been found at Babylon. Excavations there have unearthed a palace for Xerxes completed in 496 B.C.E. In this regard, A. T. Olmstead wrote in History of the Persian Empire (p. 215): “By October 23, 498, we learn that the house of the king’s son [that is, of Darius’ son, Xerxes] was in process of erection at Babylon; no doubt this is the Darius palace in the central section that we have already described. Two years later [in 496 B.C.E.], in a business document from near-by Borsippa, we have reference to the ‘new palace’ as already completed.”

Two unusual clay tablets may bear additional testimony to the coregency of Xerxes with Darius. One is a business text about hire of a building in the accession year of Xerxes. The tablet is dated in the first month of the year, Nisan. (A Catalogue of the Late Babylonian Tablets in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, by R. Campbell Thompson, London, 1927, p. 13, tablet designated A. 124) Another tablet bears the date “month of Ab(?), accession year of Xerxes.” Remarkably, this latter tablet does not attribute to Xerxes the title “king of Babylon, king of lands,” which was usual at that time.—Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden übersetzt und erläutert, by M. San Nicolò and A. Ungnad, Leipzig, 1934, Vol. I, part 4, p. 544, tablet No. 634, designated VAT 4397.

These two tablets are puzzling. Ordinarily a king’s accession year begins after the death of his predecessor. However, there is evidence that Xerxes’ predecessor (Darius) lived until the seventh month of his final year, whereas these two documents from the accession year of Xerxes bear dates prior to the seventh month (one has the first month, the other the fifth). Therefore these documents do not relate to an accession period of Xerxes following the death of his father but indicate an accession year during his coregency with Darius. If that accession year was in 496 B.C.E., when the palace at Babylon for Xerxes had been completed, his first year as coregent would begin the following Nisan, in 495 B.C.E., and his 21st and final year would start in 475 B.C.E. In that case, Xerxes’ reign included 10 years of rule with Darius (from 496 to 486 B.C.E.) and 11 years of kingship by himself (from 486 to 475 B.C.E.).

On the other hand, historians are unanimous that the first regnal year of Darius II began in spring of 423 B.C.E. One Babylonian tablet indicates that in his accession year Darius II was already on the throne by the 4th day of the 11th month, that is, February 13, 423 B.C.E. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 18) However, two tablets show that Artaxerxes continued to rule after the 11th month, the 4th day, of his 41st year. One is dated to the 11th month, the 17th day, of his 41st year. (p. 18) The other one is dated to the 12th month of his 41st year. (Old Testament and Semitic Studies, edited by Harper, Brown, and Moore, 1908, Vol. 1, p. 304, tablet No. 12, designated CBM, 5505) Therefore Artaxerxes was not succeeded in his 41st regnal year but ruled through its entirety. This indicates that Artaxerxes must have ruled more than 41 years and that his first regnal year therefore should not be counted as beginning in 464 B.C.E.

Evidence that Artaxerxes Longimanus ruled beyond his 41st year is found in a business document from Borsippa that is dated to the 50th year of Artaxerxes. (Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. VII: Tablets From Sippar 2, by E. Leichty and A. K. Grayson, 1987, p. 153; tablet designated B. M. 65494) One of the tablets connecting the end of Artaxerxes’ reign and the beginning of the reign of Darius II has the following date: “51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20, Darius, king of lands.” (The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, Vol. VIII, Part I, by Albert T. Clay, 1908, pp. 34, 83, and Plate 57, Tablet No. 127, designated CBM 12803) Since the first regnal year of Darius II was in 423 B.C.E., it means that the 51st year of Artaxerxes was in 424 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was in 474 B.C.E.

Therefore, testimonies from Greek, Persian, and Babylonian sources agree that Artaxerxes’ accession year was 475 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was 474 B.C.E. That places the 20th year of Artaxerxes, when the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 begin to count, in 455 B.C.E. If on the basis of Daniel 9:25 we reckon 69 weeks of years (483 years) from 455 B.C.E., we come to a significant year for the arrival of Messiah the Leader.

Counting from 455 B.C.E. to 1 C.E. is a full 455 years. Adding the remaining 28 years (to make up 483 years) brings us to 29 C.E., the exact year when Jesus of Nazareth was baptized in water, anointed with holy spirit, and began his public ministry as Messiah, or Christ.—Lu 3:1, 2, 21, 22.

Thus, the Greek evidence merely established a possible co-reign though it seems to not suggest a ten year co-reign. The Babylonian and Persian records provide a more likely timeline of around ten years. Since much of this information is in disagreement with each other, we cannot point to Herodotus and say he is right. Why would we? What makes his writings and viewpoint more accurate that the scores of other documents? But Herodotus does suggest a possible co-reign. For all we know, Herodotus may be right. But then, for all we know he may be wrong. He may have gotten the co-reign correct but was not correct on when or how it came about. Hope that clears it up. Also, sorry about the bold font. I can't get it to go away!

[Bammer]

Hi, and thanks a lot for taking the time to reply to my post - I really appreciate it.

It is true what you write when you write that the IT book doesn't claim that Herodotus believed Xerxes and Darius reigned together for 10 years, but merely uses the quote from Herodotus to show that there could have been a co-regency. I noticed this as well, but since the IT book is presenting the 3 sections (about the greek, persian and babylonian sources) as containing evidence that the accession year of Artaxerxes was 475 b.c.e., I assumed they would only use evidence that actually allowed for the possibily that this was true and that a 10 year coregency could be true. But you are right, the IT book only includes the quote to show evidence of a coregency.

As I said in my previous post and as you also mention, Herodotus could very well be wrong. He could be wrong when he states that Artaxerxes died the year following his appointment of Xerxes as heir. So I guess this means the IT book doesn't really trust Herodotus, which in my opinion then makes it awkward to use a quote from him to establish something. The IT book says that there is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius, but the 'solid evidence' provided immediately after this is a source that is untrustworthy - according to the IT book. So if the evidence is solid, it is not evidence from Herodotus, because Herodotus can not be trusted. I guess all I'm saying is that if I had solid evidence of a coregency between the two kings, I would either not start out with a qoute from a source I don't trust, or I would mention that this source could not be trusted and possibly show why. This would enable the reader to make his/her own judgment as to whether Herodotus could be trusted or not, and how solid the evidence was.

First we notice that the Greek evidence is not consistent. But the Greek evidence does provide some evidence. That being that there could have been a co-regency
The greek evidence about for instance the life of Themistocles does not seem to be consistent, I agree, but to say that the evidence still points to a co-regency doesn't seem to me to be sustainable. Yes, it's true that the quote from Plutarch's Lives seems to indicate the Artaxerxes died earlier than usually recorded, but the author of Plutarch's Lives (Plutarch?) himself writes that this information can not be trusted. This is entire paragraph from Plutarch's Lives – the part which the IT book quotes is in Italic:

Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus say that Xerxes was dead, and that Themistocles had an interview with his son; but Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides, and many others, write that he came to Xerxes. The chronological tables better agree with the account of Thucydides, and yet neither can their statements be said to be quite set at rest.
The author himself states that there is disagreement among historians as to which of the kings, Xerxes or Artaxerxes, actually ruled and had the interview with Themistocles, and he also states that he can make no conclusion as to which is actually true. So can we conclude anything about the beginning of the reign of Xerxes or Artaxerxes from Plutarch's Lives? I would say no, and I would also believe this evidence would not be of any use when trying to figure this out.

I found Plutarch's Lives here: http://www.bartleby.com/12/1.html

The third evidence from the greek source mention in the section you included in your post is from Diodorus of Sicily. I found it here (http://www.chlt.org/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084&layout=&loc=11.54.1). That the reference books do not give the same date for his birth is true. I find that too. But as far as I can see - and I admit I'm not sure I understand the text correctly - Diodorus doesn't believe Themistocles died as early as 471/470 b.c.e. The part where Diodorus writes that Praxiergus was archon in Athens is 11.54, and the part where Diodorus writes of the death of Themistocles is 11.58. However, in between the part where Praxergius was archon in Athens and the part where Themistocles dies, several events are mentioned which all in all must have taken several years.
11.54.3: Themistocles is accused of treason
11.54.5: He is charged with this crime and found not guilty
11.54.5: He is then very popular
11.55.1: His popularity diminishes, and he is ostracised
11.55.2: He flees to Argos
11.55.1: He flees to king Admetus and starts working for him
11.56.4: He flees to Asia
11.56.5: He travels to Persia
11.57.5: He learns the persian language, and defends himself in a trial
11.57.6: He marries a persian woman
11.57.7: He is given 3 cities
11.58.1: He spends his life in these cities
And then Diodorus writes that he dies.

Now, I suppose we can say that yes, Diodorus Siculus relates his death in an account of things that happened “when Praxiergus was archon in Athens.” as the IT book says, but that doesn't mean Diodorus actually writes that Themistocles died in 471/470. If he actually died in that year, then all the things I've listed above took place in less than a year. I simply can't believe a person could do all that in a year, and I certainly don't think Diodorus believed that was the case.

Actually, in the sections from 11.54 to 11.58, I can't find any mentioning of Artaxerxes, only Xerxes. So I'm not even sure what this source can be used for in trying to establish the year when Artaxerxes became king.

I (and the guy I talk to) have not yet started in on the persian and babylonian sources.

Best regards
Bammer