Add/remove tags to this thread

Topic: Persian Chronologies

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Moderator
Status: Offline
Posts: 769
Date:

Persian Chronologies

Permalink   
 

Ok. Finally. I figured out what everyone was missing and was able to reconcile the Biblical Chronology with the Secular. I saw the same problems in this study as those I encountered when trying to harmonize the King's Lists from Judah with those of Ephraim and then I discovered the Key to untying the Gordian Knot of the Persian Chronologies.

The Key is that the Ram has Two Horns.

From the time that they sacked Babylon to the time the Macedonian kicked their arses there were always Two Thrones of the Empire.

So, here is the story. Cyrus and Astyges (Darius the Mede son of Ahasuerus according to II Daniel in the Apocrypha) sacks Babylon in 539 BC and Astyges starts reigning as agreed between the two. For Biblical Chronologists who don't like this date the point is that this is 70 Years from Nebuchadnezzar's first tour through the Holy Land when Daniel himself was taken captive and could more properly be called their Servitude (per Sir Robert Anderson's, "The Coming Prince") and that is why not many people returned to the land under Cyrus Decree in 535 BC which, in turn, caused Daniel to wonder about those 70 years of Jeremiah.

So, Cyrus knows he has to wait for Darius to die and gets tired of waiting and usurps his reign or Darius willingly gave it up being, as Daniel stated, 68 years old when he took the empire. Cyrus, however, allows him to continue to live in luxury and proclaims liberty to the Jews and starts his reign precisely in 535 BC.

Now, however, Cambyses is chomping at the bit to reign but he has to wait until Darius the Mede kicks the bucket. He, and not Cyrus as some chronologists have suggested, might have helped him along and then he starts reigning with Cyrus but doesn't get to count them officially and they reign together for nine years until Cyrus passes away in 523 BC.

This is all the information you need to reconcile all of these chronologies as long as you realize that they did not use Ascension Years so that this is also the first year of Cambyses reign and he now has the scepter.

However, it is now also the start of the co-regency of Darius the Great who also has been patiently waiting, no doubt, for Cyrus to take a permanent vacation and I suspect that much of the confusion in these chronologies probably stems from the fact that many of these kings were probably helped along to their eternal reward.

Now, in 515 BC (and I will eventually get a graph up on this) Cambyses dies (after reigning officially for 8 years) and Darius the Great takes the Scepter and Xerxes I begins his co-regency years. Two years later Zerubbabel makes Aliyah (Mordecai has his dream of two Dragons) and the Temple is finished four years later in 509 BC. The start of this process is, basically, 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem.

As the Secular Chronologists tell us, Darius reigned for 36 years and those years start 511 BC and continue up until 474 BC (48 years total with his co-regency years but this is not impossible for both Manasseh and Uzziah reigned for over 50 years) when Artaxerxes II begins his co-regency tour and Xerxes I holds the scepter.

It is the 20th year of Artaxerxes II that Nehemiah receives his Decree that officially starts the 69 Weeks precisely Nisan 1, 454 BC ending precisely Nisan 1, 30 AD when John the Baptist proclaimed the Axe is laid to the Root of the Tree (Dan 4) and Y'shua proclaimed that the Time is Fulfilled of which Daniel had described as, "Unto Messiah the Prince."

It is also in this 20th year that Xerxes I dies and then Xerxes II begins his co-regency but is apparently whacked by Darius II who then begins his co-regency years and this is as far as I have taken this so far but will eventually bring it up to the times of Alexander the Macedonian.

You will see that it reconciles the two disparaging branches of Chronologys as it agrees with the accepted dates for these kings.

Notes : These are, basically, the steps I took in the above four day process :

I) Apparently, what no one else other than myself has realized is that Nehemiah specifically states that he found the record of genealogy in the Temple and he included it in his book and a later redactor (probably one of the Seventy) changed Nahamani to Nehemiah (see chapter 12 of Nehemiah where Nahamani is absent). This makes it look like Nehemiah came up with Ezra when he did not. This genealogy that he borrowed, assuredly, from that composed by Ezra, continues up until 10:39 where Nehemiah picks up the account again.

Neh 7:5 And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles and the rulers and the people that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein.

II) So, looking at this some more we have a few points that need to be addressed. Neh 12:10-13 prove that Ezra was a contemporary with Zerubbabel and Joshua and his son Jehoiakim but that Nehemiah was a contemporary with Joshua's Great, Great, Great Grandsons. This is irrefutable and, therefore, Biblical Chronologists have only two choices. Either there were two Nehemiah's (both of whom may have been Governors in their turn which is not inconceivable especially if directly related) and two Ezra's (both of who had son's named Meshullam which is also not inconceivable concerning cases of genealogical nomenclature) or one of the Seventy (who obviously worked late at night in a hemisphere where Rubiaceae Coffeeae was not indigenous) who, seeing Ezra's genealogy account in Nehemiah, assumed they were contemporaries and added Ezra's name to Nehemiah and Nehemiah's name to Ezra.

As one of the authors referenced above points out the priestly separation from the locals of 13:3 is not the one of Ezra's ministry.

Another one of the authors correctly points out that the wall had been built under the Aliyah under Zerrubbabel and that, by the times of Nehemiah it had fallen into disrepair which explains why it only took Nehemiah 52 days to (re) build it.

Part of the problem for both Jewish and Protestant Chronologists is that they don't consider the Apocrypha inspired however, I Esdras 6:20 proves that Zerubbabel did not make Aliyah under the degree of Cyrus but the mythical Sanabassarus did instead and probably became the Governor mistakenly applied to Nehemiah at a later date.

Concerning the age, lets say, of Morechi when he made Aliyah with Zerubbabel most of the chronologists fail to notice one very important point (as I myself did until I took another look) and that is that Ezra 2:1 specifies that these are the Children of the Captives which is to say that they themselves were not taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar but they were their children. The name of Zerubbabel actually proves this meaning, as it does, born in Babylon.

III) A point I discovered last night after the realization that, after Cyrus, all the Persian Kings could use any or all of the current pet names for King such as Darius, Artaxerxes, Xerxes and even Ahasuerus, it would be much simpler to solve this Chronological Gordian Knot by using the names we do have that are singular and, turns out, there are exactly three for the time period we are currently interested in just as the Angel told Daniel. So, I found that, when I graphed just those four names the chronology fell into perfect place albeit I had to sacrifice the sacred cow of 445 BC for Nehemiah's Decree but the resulting date is, literally, a perfect match as you will see when I post the graph, initially in its rough draft form.

The identification of Darius the Mede with Astyages (as Daniel does in the Apocrypha) makes perfect since now because apparently Cyrus basically usurped him after they took Babylon but treated him fairly well during that time thus his 'reign' over Babylon was about four years as the chart will reflect. 

IV) Well, this guy just gave me a piece of the puzzle cause he places Longimanus reign to start precisely in 474 BC. Taken with his predecessor Xerxes (I) reigning exactly 21 years and that is the last name I was looking for.

www.truthforthelastdays.com/secondcoming/secondcoming13.html

 

In all fairness to myself, this was not just the work of four days for I have been looking at these chronologies, on and off, since I first picked up Sir Robert Anderson's book which must have been about 30 years ago now.  So, just as with the Biblical Chronology; after realizing Ussher was out to lunch, I decided to figure it out for myself as I subsequently did with the harmonization of the King's Lists of Judah and Ephraim.

I finally decided, about five days ago, that, if you want something done right, ya gotta do it yourself...



__________________



Moderator
Status: Offline
Posts: 769
Date:

Problems in Persian Chronologies : Solved!

Permalink   
 

And here was my only trouble spot in the whole graph and it was just solved for me - Need to check this site out more :


Darius-Xerxes co-regency

Tory Fri Sep 19, 2014

This redating is made certain by a number of unbiased economic tablets which prove Xerxes became king during his father's lifetime and at least a decade before his death. For example:

1. The construction of a new palace for Xerxes in Borsippa began in Darius year 24, Ululu 29. The tablet that documents this is VS 3, No. 135. This record proves that the "king's son" was about to make Borsippa the seat of his co-regency in Babylonia. The capital city of Babylon remained the seat of the senior king Darius. In Persia, Darius presumably made Susa his primary residence and Persepolis became the seat of Xerxes' administration as junior co-king.

3. BM 75396 (Actes du 8e Congrès 18) from Sippar is dated Šabatu 27 in the accession year of “Xerxes king of Babylon, king of lands” by Ebabbar scribes Marduk-mukin-apli and Marduk-bel-šunu. Line 13 anticipates the counting of the sūtu (leaseholding) tax in a future year 27 (anonymous but can only belong to Darius Hystaspes). This tablet shows that Xerxes was king before year 27 of his father.

disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi;



__________________



Moderator
Status: Offline
Posts: 769
Date:
Permalink   
 

The ten year discrepancy introduced by Xerxes' coronation are correct in the fact that at least one ancient source states that Artaxerxes I actually reigned 51 years, not 41.

So, I'll have the second half of that graph up when I finish it.


The traditional chronology of the Persian Empire is universally accepted. A study of dated Babylonian business tablets, the Persepolis tables, and astronomical tablets show that there are several problems with the traditional chronology. It is argued that Cambyses reigned 1 year more than is traditionally accepted, there are 5 years between Cambyses and Darius I when Bardiya, Nebuchadnessar III, and Nebuchadnezzar IV, whereas the traditional chronology has no extra year. Xerxes had a cogency with Darius I of 16 years, and Artaxerxes I reigned for 51 years and not 41 as is traditionally believed.

www.researchgate.net/publication/259853699_Assyrian_Babylonian_Egyptian_and_Persian_Chronology_Volume_I_Persian_Chronology_and_the_Length_of_the_Babylonian_Exile_of_the_Jews



-- Edited by Theoferrum on Saturday 27th of April 2019 03:27:50 PM

__________________



Moderator
Status: Offline
Posts: 769
Date:

Persian Chronologies

Permalink   
 

 

Persian_Chronology_Graph.jpg



Attachments
__________________



Moderator
Status: Offline
Posts: 769
Date:

RE: Problems in Persian Chronologies : Solved!

Permalink   
 

GrecianTimeline.jpg



Attachments
__________________



Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Members Login


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard