Appendix II, Note A: Artaxerxes Longimanus and the Chronology of His Reign
So thorough is the unanimity with which the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is now admitted to be Longimanus, that it is no longer necessary to offer proof of it. Josephus indeed attributes these events to Xerxes, but his history of the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes is so hopelessly in error as to be utterly worthless. In fact he transposes the events of these respective reigns (see Ani. XI., caps v. and vii.) Nehemiah’s master reigned not less than thirty-two years (Neh. xiii. 6); and his reign was subsequent to that of Darius Hystaspes (comp. Ezra vi. 1 and vii. 1), and prior to that of Darius Nothus (Neh. xii. 22). He must, therefore, be either Longimanus or Mnemon, for no other king after Darius Hystaspes reigned thirty-two years, and it is certain Nehemiah’s mission was not so late as the twentieth of Artaxerxes Mnemon, viz., B.C. 385.
This appears, first, from the general tenor of the history; second, because this date is later than that of Malachi, - whose prophecy must have been considerably later than the time of Nehemiah; and third, because Eliashib, who was high priest when Nehemiah came to Jerusalem, was grandson of Jeshua, who was high priest in the first year of Cyrus (Neh. iii. 1; xii. 10; Ezra ii 2; ili. 2); and from the first year of Cyrus (B.c. 536), to the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.c. 445), was ninety-one years, leaving room for precisely three generations.*
Moreover, the eleventh chapter of Daniel, if read aright, affords conclusive proof that the prophetic era dated from the time of Longimanus. The second verse is generally interpreted as though it were but a disconnected fragment of history, leaving a gap of over 130 years between it and the third verse, whereas the chapter is a consecutive prediction of events within the period of the seventy weeks. There were to be yet (ze., after the issuing of the decree to build Jeru-
salem) “three kings in Persia.” These were Darius Nothus (mentioned in Neh. xii. 22), Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Ochus; the brief reigns of Xerxes IL, Sogdianus, and Arogus being overlooked as being, what in fact they were, utterly unimportant, and indeed two of them are omitted in the Canon of Ptolemy. “The fourth” (and /as#) king was Darius Codomanus, whose fabulous wealth — the accumulated horde of two centuries — attracted the cupidity of the Greeks. What sums of money Alexander found in Susa is unknown, but the silver ingots and Hermione purple he seized after the battle of Arbela were worth over f 420,000,000. Verse 2 thus reaches to the close of the Persian Empire; verse 3 predicts the rise of Alexander the Great; and verse 4 refers to the division of his kingdom among his four generals.
According to Clinton (# /., vol. ii., p. 380) the death of
* Encyc. Brit., oth ed., title “Artaxerxes.” ¢t W. K. Loftus, “Chaldea and Susiana,” p. 341.
Xerxes was in July s.c. 465, and the accession of Artaxerxes was in February B.c. 464. Artaxerxes of course ignored the usurper’s reign, which intervened, and reckoned his own reign from the day of his father’s death. Again, of course, Nehemiah, being an officer of the court, followed the same reckoning. Had he computed his master’s reign from February 464, Chisleu and Nisan could not have fallen in the same regnal year (Neh. i. 1; ii. 1). No more could they, had he, according to the Jewish practice, computed it from Nisan. Dr. Pusey here remarks,* ‘The accession of Artaxerxes after the seven months of the assassin Artabanus would fall in the middle of 464. For it is clear from the sequel of the months in Neh. i, ii., and Ezra vii. 7-9, that Chisleu fell earlier in the year of his reign than Nisan, and Nisan than Ab. Then the reign of Artaxerxes must have begun between Ab and Chisleu B.c. 464.” This is altogether a mistake. As already mentioned, Chisleu and Nisan fell in the same regnal year; and so also did Nisan and ¢he jirst day of Ab (Ezra vii. 8, 9). But the rst Ab of B.c. 459 (the seventh year of Artaxerxes) fell on or about the 16th July, and therefore the passages quoted are perfectly consistent with the received chronology, and serve merely to enable us to fix the dates more accurately still, and to decide that the death of Xerxes and the epoch of the reign of Artaxerxes should be assigned to the /a/ter part of July B.c. 465. Those who are not versed in what writers on prophecy have written on this subject, will be surprised to learn that this date is assailed as being nine years too late. All chronologers are agreed that Xerxes began to reign in
* Daniel, p. 160.
:
B.C. 485, and that the death of Artaxerxes was in B.C. 423; and so far as I know, no writer of repute, unbiassed by prophetic study, assigns as the epoch of the latter king’s. reign any other date than B.c. 465* (or 464; see anfe). This is the date according to the Canon of Ptolemy, which has been followed by all historians; and it is confirmed by the independent testimony of Julius Africanus, who, in his Chronography,t describes the twentieth year of Artaxerxes as the 115th year of the Persian Empire [reckoned from Cyrus, B.C. 559] and the fourth year of the eighty-third Olympiad. This fixes B.c. 464 as the first year of that king, as it was in fact the year of his actual accession.
It was Archbishop Ussher who first raised a doubt upon the point. Lecturing on “Daniel’s Seventies” in Trinity ‘College, Dublin, in the year 1613, difficulties connected with his subject suggested an inquiry which led him ultimately to put back the reign of Longimanus to B.c. 474, which is the date given in his Annales Vet. Test. The same date was afterwards adopted by Vitringa, and a century later by Kriiger. But Hengstenberg is regarded as the champion of this view, and the treatise thereon in his Christology § omits nothing that can be urged in its favour.
The objections raised to the received chronology depend
* On this point I have consulted the author of Zhe Five Great Monarchies, a book to which frequent reference is made in these pages, and I am indebted to Canon Rawlinson’s courtesy and kindness for the following reply: ‘‘ I think you may safely say that chronologers are now agreed that Xerxes died in the year B.c, 465. The Canon of Ptolemy, Thucydides, Diodorus, and Manetho are agreed; the only counter authority being Ctesias, who is quite untrustworthy.”
+ Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol.ix., second part, p. 184.
t Works, vol. xv., p. 108.
§ Arnold’s trans., pp. 443-454.
mainly on the statement of Thucydides, that Artaxerxes was on the throne when Themistocles reached the Persian Court; for it is urged that the flight of Themistocles could not have been so late as B.c. 464.” But, as Dr. Pusey remarks,t “they have not made any impression on our English writers who have treated of Grecian history.” In common with the German writers, Dr. Pusey ignores Ussher altogether in the controversy, though Dr. Tregelles § rightly claims for him the foremost place for scholarship among those who have advocated the earlier date. The apparent difficulty of making the prophecy and the chronology agree has led Dr. Pusey, following Prideaux, in opposition to Scripture, to fix the seventh year of Artaxerxes as the epoch of the seventy weeks, while it induced Dr. Tregelles, iv sheltering behind Ussher’s name, to adopt the B.c. 455 date for the twentieth year of that king’s reign. Bishop Lloyd when affixing Ussher’s dates to our English Bible reverted to the received chronology when dealing with the book of Nehemiah.
It is unnecessary to enter here upon a discussion of this question. Nothing short of a reproduction of the entire argument in favour of the new chronology would satisfy its advocates; and for my present purpose it is a sufficient answer to that argument, that although everything has been urged which ingenuity and erudition can suggest in support of it, it has been rejected by all secular writers. Unfulfilled
* Kriiger’s arguments are reviewed by Clinton in & 7, ii., p. 217. + Daniel, p. 171, note.; t See ex. gr. Mitford, ii., 226; Thirlwall, ii, 428; Grote, v., 379; and of Germans see Niebuhr, Zect. Anc, Hist. (Schmitz ed.), ii.. 180-181. § Daniel, p. 266. i Zé:d2., p. 99, note.
prophecy is only for the believer, but prophecy fulfilled has a voice for all. It is fortunate, therefore, that the proof of the fulfilment of this prophecy of the seventy weeks does not depend on an elaborate disquisition, like that of Hengstenberg’s, to disturb the received chronologies. One point only I will notice. It is urged in favour of limiting the reign of Xerxes to eleven years, that no event is mentioned in connection with his reign after his eleventh year. The answer is obvious; first, that it is to Greek historians, writing after his time, that we are mainly indebted for our knowledge of Persian history; and secondly, the battles of Thermopyle and Salamis may well have induced a king of the temperament and character of Xerxes to give himself up toa life of indolent ease and sensual enjoyment. But further, the twelfth year of Xerxes is expressly mentioned in the book of Esther (iii. 7), and the narrative proves that his reign continued to the twelfth (Jewish) month of his thirteenth year.* Hengstenberg answers this by asserting that it was customary with Hebrew writers to include in a regnal era the years of a co-regency where it existed, and he appeals to the case of Nebuchadnezzar as a
* The Feast of Purim derives its name from the fact that when Haman planned the destruction of the people of Mordecai, he cast lots day by day to find ‘‘a lucky day” for the execution of his scheme. A whole year — the twelfth year of Xerxes — was thus consumed (Esther iii. 7); and the decree for the slaughter of the Jews was made on the 13th Nisan in the following year (dd. iii. 12). The decree in their favour was granted two months later (#id. viii. 9), and the king is mentioned in connection with the execution of that decree in the twelfth month of that * year (7id. ix. 1, 13-17). The reign of Xerxes therefore certainly continued to the last month of his thirteenth year. The last chapter of Esther, moreover, clearly shows that his reign «lid not end with the events recorded in the book, but that his promotion of Mordecai was the beginning of a new era in his career.
proof of such a custom.* If Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was in fact reckoned thus, this solitary instance would establish no such custom, for it would prove nothing more than that the Jews in Jerusalem, knowing nothing of the politics or customs of Babylon, reckoned Nebuchadnezzar’s reign upon a system of their own, But I believe this theory about Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is a thorough blunder. If in the - sacred history he is called King of Babylon, in connection with his first invasion of Judea, it is because the writers were his contemporaries. ‘‘Lord Beaconsfield was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Derby’s administrations” is a statement which will be rightly condemned as an anachronism if made by the historian of the future, but it is precisely the language which would have been used by a contemporary writer acquainted with the living statesman. I have shown elsewhere (App. I., ane) that the Jews reckoned Nebuchadnezzar’s reign according to their own custom, as dating from the Nisan preceding his accession. Unless, therefore, some entirely new case can be made in support of the co-regency theory of Xerxes’s reign, it remains that the book of Esther is absolutely conclusive against Ussher’s date, and in favour of the received chronology.