Such a suppo have been Artaxerxes Mnemon*. sition however is utterly irreconcileable with chronology, as will sufficiently appear from the following statement. Whoever the Artaxerxes may be that is mentioned by Ezra as enacting the third decree, he must be that Artaxerxes who was contemporary with Eliashib the high-priest of the Jews, because Eliashib was high-priest when Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of this same Artaxerxes. Now, according to the number of years which the Chronicon Alexandrinum ascribes to each high-priest, Eliashib could not have been contemporary with Artaxerxes Mnemon, but must have been contemporary with Artaxerxes Longimanus. The high-priesthood of Joshua commenced with the first year of Cyrus and the year 4178 of the Julian period, and lasted 53 years: that of his son Joiakim lasted 30 years: and that of his grandson Eliashib, the high-priest in question, 40 years. Hence it is * Darius Nothus had two successors of the name of Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Artaxerxes Ochus. The latter of these however could not be the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah, because mention is made of the 32d year of their Artaxerxes (Nehem. xiii. 6.), whereas Ochus reigned no more than 21 years. Consequently, if the Darius of Ezra be Darius Nothus, his Artaxerxes must be Artaxerxes Mnemon. Nehem. ii. 1. iii. 1. evident, evident, that Joiakim must have died 82 years after the first year of Cyrus: that is to say, he must have died in the year 4260 of the Julian period, which coincides with the eleventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. At this time therefore Eliashib must have succeeded him. Consequently, the Artaxerres, with whom Eliashib was contemporary, must have been Artaxerxes Longimanus. It is also evident, that Eliashib must have died 122 years after the first year of Cyrus: that is to say, he must have died in the year 4300 of the Julian period, which coincides with the tenth year of Darius Nothus. But Darius Nothus was the predecessor of Artaxerxes Mnemon. Therefore the Artaxerxes, with whom Eliashib was contemporary, could not have been Artaxerxes Mnemon; inasmuch as Eliashib died in the tenth year of Darius Nothus, before Artaxerxes Mnemon came to the throne *. Thus * See the chronological tables in the Appendix. The Chro nicon Alexandrinum is followed by Dr. Prideaux as the safest guide in ascertaining the lengths of the high-priesthoods after the Babylonian captivity. That Eliashib was the son of Joiakim, and Joiakim the son of Joshua, appears from Nehem. xii. 10. Independent indeed of the Chronicon Alexandrinum, the error of Scaliger is manifest from this consideration. If Eliashib was high-priest in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, which he must have been if the Darius who enacted the decree was Darius Nothus, the three successive high-priesthoods of a father, Thus it appears, that the Artaxerxes, with whom Eliashib was contemporary, must have been Artaxerxes Longimanus. But the contemporary of Eliashib was the Artaxerxes who enacted the third decree. Therefore the Artaxerxes who enacted the third decree, must have been Artaxerxes Longimanus. This being the case, since the decree of Darius was enacted previous to the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the Darius who enacted it must have been a predecessor of that sovereign. Therefore he could not be Darius Nothus, who was the successor of Artaxerxes Longimanus. But, if he were not Darius Nothus, he must have been Darius Hystaspis; because there was no other Darius between Cyrus and Artaxerxes Longimanus. The general result then of the whole is, that, since Ezra's Darius is Darius Hystaspis, and since the decree in favour of the Jews was enacted in the third year of this Darius, it must have been enacted in the Julian year 4195, and in the year 519 before the Christian era. IV. Respecting the propriety of the chronological arrangement here maintained, Petavius, Usher, father, a son, and a grandson, must jointly have extended to the incredible length of more than a century and a half. For the first year of Joshua coincides with the first year of Cyrus, or the Julian year 4178; and the 20th year of Artaxerxes Mnemon coincides with the Julian year 4329. and Prideaux, are all agreed in opposition to Scaliger: but there has been a difference of opinion in settling the true epoch of the first year, and consequently of the seventh and twentieth years, of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who was contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah. That his father Xerxes began to reign in the year 4229 of the Julian period, and in the year A. C. 485, and that his own reign expired in the year 4289 or 4290 of the Julian pe riod, and in the year A. C. 425 or 424, according as the nine months during which his son Xerxes and Sogdianus reigned after him are excluded or included*, is universally acknowledged †: the only question is, when the reign of Artaxerxes is to be considered as beginning. Petavius and Usher make his first year commence in the year 4240 of the Julian period, and in the year A. C. 474, but with this difference: Usher makes it commence so far on in the year, that the Nisan of his first year falls out in the Julian year 4241, and in the year A. C. 473; In estimating the length of the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, the year of the Julian period 4229 and the year 4289 or 4290 are to be reckoned inclusive, to make up the sum total of their reigns 61 years or 62 years, according as the reign of Artaxerxes is reputed to extend to the year 4289 or to the year 4290. Mr. Lancaster indeed objects; but, with how little reason, will be shown hereafter, whereas, whereas, according to Petavius, it falls out in the preceding year. This difference, of course, runs through the whole of his reign: consequently the Nisan in his twentieth year, from which they alike compute the seventy weeks, is the Nisan in the Julian year 4259 and in the year A. C. 455, according to Petavius; whereas, according to Usher, it is the Nisan in the Julian year 4260 and in the year A.C. 454*. But Dr. Prideaux, adhering to the canon of Ptolemy, makes his first year coincide with the Julian year 4250 and the year A. C. 464, so that the Nisan of that year falls out in the first year of his reign: consequently, according to this reckoning, the Nisan in his twentieth year will be the Nisan of the Julian year 4269 and of the year A. C. 445; and the Nisan in his seventh year will be the Nisan of the Julian year 4256 and of the year A. C. 458. In short, the two first of these computations * Petav. Rationar. Temp. par. ii. lib. iii. c. 10. p. 123–125 -Usser. Annal. in A. P. J. 4240, 4259, 4260. Dr. Prideaux is right in saying, that both Petavius and Usher compute the seventy weeks from the Nisan in the twentieth year, of Artaxerxes: but, as far as I can understand those two chronologers, he is mistaken in asserting, that they equally reckon from the Julian year 4260, and of course from the Nisan in that year. Usher does indeed compute from the Nisan of that year; but Petavius computes from the Nisan of the preceding year: consequently they differ a year in the era of our Lord's crucifixion. See Prideaux's Connect. part i. b. v. p. 294, 295. place |