Bible Chronology Timeline

VIII. Dating the Journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah

After the initial resettlement in the reign of Cyrus, the next two milestones in the repatriation of the Jews were the arrival of Ezra with another company of exiles under a decree of Artaxerxes (important for the period of the 70 weeks) in the 7th year of that king and the coming of Nehemiah in the 20th year. The chronology of these two events depends on determining (1) which of three kings named Artaxerxes (Artaxerxes I, 465–423; Artaxerxes II, 404–359/58; Artaxerxes III, 359/58–338/37) commissioned these two Jewish leaders, and (2) the exact regnal-year dating involved.

The Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah.—It was formerly taken for granted that the king whose 7th and 20th years are the key Biblical dates of this period was Artaxerxes I, son and successor of Xerxes, but since 1890 the opinion has been advanced, and increasingly accepted, that Ezra is to be dated in the time of Artaxerxes II. However, Nehemiah’s connection with the first Artaxerxes is regarded as established, since one of the Elephantine papyri, dated 407 B.C., mentions the sons of Sanballat.

If, then, the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was Artaxerxes I, the narrative of Ezra–Nehemiah unquestionably places Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem in the 7th year of the same king, 13 years before Nehemiah’s. Both were recognized leaders of the community in the ceremony of the dedication of the walls (Nehemiah 12:36, 38). Furthermore, the reading of the law on New Year’s Day, the 1st of the 7th month (Nehemiah 8:1-6, 9), could hardly have happened many years before Ezra was sent to Jerusalem (Ezra 7) with full authority to establish the civil and religious administration in Judea and to teach the law of God in Israel (for a discussion of the relative dating of Ezra and Nehemiah. Therefore we may accept the Biblical order and place the return of Ezra in the reign of Artaxerxes I.

The Circumstances of Artaxerxes I’s Accession.—Since both Ezra and Nehemiah are dated by the chronology of Artaxerxes I, the source materials for this dating must be examined. A few historians have counted a short reign between Xerxes and Artaxerxes because the Egyptian king list of Manetho, and two early Christian chronographers who followed him, assigned seven months to Artabanus, the murderer of Xerxes. However the ancient Greek historians, while varying on the details, present Artaxerxes as the actual king but a puppet in the hands of Artabanus, the real power behind the throne, until he learned that Artabanus had murdered his father Xerxes and, indirectly, his older brother, and also was planning to do away with him as well and ascend the throne openly. Thereupon Artaxerxes slew Artabanus and took over the kingdom. There was, until recently, a gap in the archeological evidence for this regnal transition. In the series of commercial tablets from that period there are none dated in Xerxes’ last (21st) year or Artaxerxes’ accession year, and none even mentioning Artabanus.

The Years of Artaxerxes I Dated by Contemporary Documents.—The years of Artaxerxes’ reign according to Ptolemy’s Canon have long been known. In recent years this dating has been confirmed by eight double-dated Aramaic papyri written in a Jewish colony in Egypt in eight different years of that reign. Thus Artaxerxes’ year 1 in the Egyptian calendar was, without doubt, that beginning on Thoth 1 (December 17), 465 B.C. One of these papyri, written January 2/3, 464, is dated in (Xerxes’) “year 21, accession year when King Artaxerxes sat on his throne.” The Jewish scribe who wrote that was for some reason reluctant to abandon Xerxes’ regnal years and date in Artaxerxes’ name alone, even though if Artaxerxes was king, Xerxes was certainly dead. (See NOTE) He was not dating in an Egyptian year; the Egyptian year 21 had ended, and this was now year 1—for so the Egyptians called the remainder of the calendar year in which a new king came in. Evidently this Jewish scribe was using his own calendar. The Jewish regnal reckoning was by a fall-to-fall year; therefore if a January 3 date was still in Artaxerxes’ accession year, his year 1 began at the next Jewish New Year, in the fall of 464.

NOTE: For the date of his death there is no contemporary evidence, but if an unpublished Hellenistic tablet (some 150 or more years later) is correct, it was in August, 465 (A. J. Sachs, LBART No. 1419, cited in Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 1956 ed., p. 17). He was dead before January 3, 464, according to this contemporary double-dated papyrus, designated as AP 6 (A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., No. 6). It has been suggested that this unusual dating in two reigns may reflect the uncertain status of Artaxerxes while Artabanus was in power (Andrews University Seminary Studies, VI [1968], pp. 60-87; see also Horn and Wood, the Chronology of Ezra 7, 2nd ed., rev., Washington: Review and Herald, 1970).

Locating the Seventh and Twentieth Years.—According to these three calendars the 1st year of Artaxerxes, and the years 7 and 20 as well, can be tabulated:

	Year 1	Year 7	Year 20
By the Egyptian calendar (Dec–Dec)	465/64	459/58	446/45
By the Babylonian–Persian (spring–spring)	464/63	458/57	445/44
By the Jewish civil calendar (fall–fall)	464/63	458/57	445/44

There is no reason to suppose that the Bible writers would have used the Egyptian calendar. The B.C. dating of the journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem hinges on whether, by Biblical reckoning, Artaxerxes’ 7th and 20th years began with the 1st month, in spring, or with the 7th month, six months later.

The Journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah.—The dates of Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s journeys, in terms of Artaxerxes’ regnal years, are given as follows:

Year	Month	Day
7	1	1	Ezra and party set out for Judea	Ezra 7:9
7	1	12	Ezra and party leave Ahava	Ezra 8:31
7	5	1	Ezra and party arrive at Jerusalem	Ezra 7:8, 9
20	[9]	(Kislev)	Nehemiah receives news from Judea	Nehemiah 1:1
20	[1]	(Nisan)	Nehemiah gains permission to leave	Nehemiah 2:1

Ezra arrived at Jerusalem in the summer of Artaxerxes’ 7th regnal year, and Nehemiah in the same season of the 20th year (see on Ezra 7:8; Nehemiah 6:15). Now the Babylonian-Persian 7th year began with the spring of 458 B.C. and ended in the spring of 457, thus covering the summer of 458; but the Jewish fall-to-fall 7th year, extending from the fall of 458 to the fall of 457, covered the summer of 457. If Ezra reached Jerusalem in the Babylonian-Persian 7th year, he obviously traveled in 458. On the other hand, if he arrived in the summer of the Jewish fall-to-fall 7th year, which did not end until the autumn of 457, he traveled in 457.

There is evidence for the fall-to-fall year in various periods of Hebrew history; also in the very book of Ezra–Nehemiah itself, for the two dates of Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 show that Kislev (the 9th month) preceded Nisan (the 1st month) in the same 20th year. Since regnal years were then customarily calendar years, and since that year could not have begun with the 1st month, the obvious and inescapable inference is that it was a Jewish calendar year beginning with the 7th month, that is, in the autumn. Therefore it would seem logical to assume without further question that Ezra went to Jerusalem in 457 and Nehemiah in 444, in the 7th and 20th years, respectively, of Artaxerxes I as reckoned by the Jewish civil calendar. But opinion has varied on this question, as will be seen in the next paragraph.

Changes in Dating of Artaxerxes.—Although many earlier authorities placed Ezra’s return in 457, modern histories and reference books tend to give 458 for the 7th year of Artaxerxes, arrived at by the spring-to-spring reckoning. (See NOTE) This is based on the assumption either (1) that the regnal dates of Artaxerxes, as a Persian king, must be reckoned by the Babylonian-Persian calendar, or (2) that the Jews themselves at this time counted regnal years from spring to spring. In either case the fall reckoning of Nehemiah is considered erroneous, and his Nisan events following Kislev of year 20 must be “corrected” to Nisan of year 21. But neither assumption is valid. The Elephantine papyri disprove the first and lend no support to the second. These papyri, the only direct archeological evidence for Jewish usage, have been interpreted by some (especially in the United States) as supporting the spring-to-spring reckoning, but the most recently published group of Elephantine papyri contains the first conclusive evidence on that question. How this evidence proves a Jewish fall-to-fall year will be explained in Section IX, but the conclusion may be stated here.

NOTE: The earlier writers, some of whom gave 458 and others 457, arrived at their dates by various methods, but there was no adequate basis for the chronology before the discovery of ancient sources like the Babylonian tablets and the Elephantine papyri. Some earlier scholars thought that Artaxerxes’s Persian years were the same as Ptolemy’s Egyptian years, and thus placed the summer of the 7th and 20th years in 458 and 445 B.C. Some made a mistake of one year in calculating the Egyptian New Year’s Day in its backward shift of a day in four years, and thus began Artaxerxes’ 1st year, by the canon, in December, 464, instead of December, 465, consequently placing the whole reign one year late. Others, like Isaac Newton, arrived at the correct dating by two mistaken assumption, each of which canceled out the other: Newton thought Artaxerxes came to the throne only in the latter half of 464, after a supposed reign of some months by Artabanus; and he assumed that the 1st year began on the day of accession—both incorrect assumptions. Thus some of the earlier datings for 9 or 10 years by pure conjecture; all were untenable because based on erroneous premises. Nearly all later authorities, using the newer knowledge of the spring-beginning Babylonian-Persian year and the accession-year system, have assigned these Ezra and Nehemiah dates to 458 and 445 respectively. That is why newer histories give 458 and 445 (some of them use 444, because they “correct” the date of Nehemiah’s journey to the 21st year of the reign). However, in thus doing they have ignored the possibility that the Jews might be expected to use their own fall-to-fall reckoning rather than the Babylonian spring year.

Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah Established.—In the light of the evidence for Jewish fall-to-fall reckoning of the year, there is no reason whatever to “correct” Nehemiah’s Nisan date from the 20th to the 21st year. The logical and reasonable explanation of Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 is that they indicate the Jewish fall-to-fall year, in which months 7–12 precede months 1–6 of the same year. Therefore the journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem in the 7th and 20th years of Artaxerxes I are to be dated according to the Jewish fall-to-fall calendar (in which the 7th and 20th years were 458/57 and 445/44), and thus in the spring and summer of 457 and 444 B.C. respectively.

The conclusions concerning the dating of Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s journeys—long a much-confused subject—may be summarized as follows:

(1) Most modern writers, using the Egyptian year of Ptolemy’s Canon or, later, the Babylonian-Persian spring-to-spring year, have placed Ezra’s journey in 458 B.C., since the 7th year by either of these calendar systems (459/58 and 458/57 respectively) includes the spring and summer of 458, but ends before the month of Nisan in 457. (See NOTE) According to this the journey of Nehemiah would have occurred in 445, although many of those who assign Ezra’s expedition to 458 place that of Nehemiah in 444, on the assumption that the latter returned in the 21st year instead of the 20th.

NOTE: Some earlier writers placed Ezra’s return in 457 B.C. (and Nehemiah’s in 444) on the basis that “the 7th year of Artaxerxes is 457 B.C. according to Ptolemy’s Canon.” Actually the 7th year according to Ptolemy’s Canon is 459/58, though 458/57 might be spoken of as the 7th year as derived from Ptolemy’s Canon and the source documents, since the relationship of the Egyptian year to the Persian spring year and the Jewish fall year is involved.

(2) In the Jewish civil-calendar reckoning the 7th year of Artaxerxes was 458/57, fall to fall, according to the more exact evidence as we have it now from the Babylonian tablets and the Jewish papyri from Egypt. This places Ezra’s return in the summer of 457 B.C. and Nehemiah’s in the 20th year in 444.

Since the evidence from the Bible and from archeology favors the fall reckoning, as in paragraph (2), the dates 457 and 444 may be taken as established.

IX. The Elephantine Papyri and the Jewish Calendar

In showing that the dating of the journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah hinges on the spring versus the fall year, it has been stated that Jewish papyri from Elephantine, formerly inconclusive on this point, now furnish evidence for the fall-to-fall reckoning. For those who wish to examine the reasons why the papyri are important to the decision in favor of the fall-to-fall reckoning in Ezra–Nehemiah, the following brief survey of the evidence furnished by the papyri and of its bearing on the Biblical reckoning is provided.

Spring Year or Fall Year in Elephantine?—The double-dated Elephantine papyri were drawn up in a Jewish community under the Egyptian legal system; hence the Egyptian year number was customarily given, but the Semitic lunar-year number was often omitted. In the period of these papyri the Babylonian spring year began about four months later than the corresponding Egyptian solar year, and the Jewish fall-to-fall year six months later than the Babylonian. The Egyptian year 4, for example, of any of these reigns ran about 4 months before the Babylonian year 3 ended and year 4 began, but it would run an additional 6 months before the Jewish year number changed from 3 to 4.

 

On such a basis a series of complete double dates would show, by the Egyptian month in which the Semitic lunar-year numbers changed, whether the writers of these papyri reckoned the lunar dates from a spring or a fall New Year. But most papyri gave only one year number, even during that part of the year when two would be expected in a complete double date. Heretofore all the known double-dated papyri were inconclusive (See NOTE) until a papyrus was found with a date line of a kind that could have been reckoned only by a spring-to-spring year or only by a fall-to-fall year.

NOTE: Some of them came from that portion of the year when the regnal number was the same in both spring and fall reckonings, and hence could have been dated in either system. Others appeared to require a spring-to-spring year because of the absence of a differing number, but they too were inconclusive, since some of the papyri that bore only the Egyptian year number were actually written in a part of the year when the two differing year numbers would be expected. The absence of a second year number is not proof that both were the same.

New Papyrus Proves Fall Reckoning.—Finally one such document was found, No. 6 of the Brooklyn Museum Papyri, published by Emil G. Kraeling in 1953. It is a deed to (part of?) a house in Elephantine presented to a prospective Jewish bride. It bears only one year number, the 3rd year of Darius (II), but the month and day of the Egyptian calendar agree with those of the lunar calendar only in July, 420 B.C. This harmony is not possible in either the Egyptian year 3 (beginning in December, 422) or the Babylonian-Persian year 3 (beginning in the spring of 421), but only with the fall-to-fall year of the Jewish civil calendar, which began in the autumn of 421 and so included July, 420. Therefore the lunar calendar in which this papyrus was dated was not the Babylonian but the Jewish civil calendar, with the year beginning in the autumn. Consequently the other papyri, inconclusive in themselves, should be interpreted in the light of this one. Obviously the Jews in Elephantine must, like Nehemiah, have used the old fall-to-fall civil calendar.

The editor and translator of Papyrus 6 mentions the fact that the date will not fit into the 3rd year of the reign according to the Egyptian and Persian reckoning, and notes the fall-to-fall year as one conclusion, (See NOTE 1)but he himself accepts the alternative of conjecturing a scribe’s error. There are only two alternatives. If this clearly written date is correct, the year began in the autumn, (See NOTE 2) and Nehemiah’s usage is unquestioned. The only reason for supposing that the papyrus date is an error is the fact that it does not agree with the current widespread scholarly opinion that the Jews adopted not only the Babylonian month names but the Babylonian calendar outright, including the spring New Year.

NOTE: This view that the Jews used the spring year (and hence that Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 are in error) appears to be connected with the higher-critical application of the “law” of evolution to the supposed gradual development of the Jewish religion toward a lofty monotheism. By this theory most of the “Mosaic” law, including the Passover and the fixing of the first month in the spring, was not a rediscovery but an innovation at the time of the reform of Josiah. This explains the phenomenon of the critical-scholarly reluctance in some quarters to admit a postexilic Jewish fall-to-fall year, also the tendency to interpret the inconclusive dates of the earlier Elephantine papyri as evidence for the spring year and to brush aside this new papyrus as a scribal error with hardly a thought of an alternative interpretation. Biblical scholars, like their fellow mortals, can be influenced by their theories, and contrary evidence often proves hard to accept. Of course such an explanation can have little weight in a commentary whose editors, contributors, and readers accept the high ethical monotheism of the “Deuteronomic code” as a revelation from God at the time of the Exodus, not a product of the “evolving” Jewish mind.

NOTE 1: Set forth by S. H. Horn and L. H. Wood, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XIII (1954), pp. 1-20.

NOTE 2: The fact that Papyrus 6 was written only a few months before the end of year 3 seems to be corroborated by Papyrus 7, the very interesting marriage contract of the same girl, dated evidently the next Tishri (approximately October). Since Papyrus 6 is proved to have been dated in the fall-to-fall calendar, it would be expected that No. 7 would show a change in the year number—for Tishri would be in year 4 by the Jewish calendar (as well as by the Egyptian and Persian). Although the papyrus is broken, leaving the year numeral incomplete, its reconstruction to year 4 is rather certain. Being written in the same year 4 according to all three calendars, No. 7 does not prove which reckoning was used, but it confirms the evidence of Papyrus 6 for the fall-to-fall year.

But not one who wishes to give all the Bible writers a hearing and to discovery what they mean, without impatiently assuming that the “late editors” misunderstood the earlier writers and that the supposed errors of Scripture must be corrected by theory and conjecture, is gratified to find that it is not necessary to abandon Moses, to ignore Josiah and Jeremiah, and to assume that Nehemiah was wrong. The Jewish calendar need not agree with the Babylonian.

Significance of the Elephantine Jewish Calendar.—Were these Jews in Egypt employing the Persian calendar or the same Jewish calendar they had used in Palestine? If these colonists, on coming into Egypt (before 525 B.C.), had adopted a foreign calendar it would have been the Egyptian solar calendar, not a Babylonian-Persian system, for Egypt had not at that time been made part of the Persian Empire. They would not have used double dating, since some of these papyri, as well as the demotic Egyptian texts from other parts of the country, carry only the Egyptian date. Therefore the double dates show that they retained their old calendar along with that of the Egyptians.

Thus it is evident that a Persian king’s years need not be reckoned by the Babylonian-Persian calendar, but are more likely to be reckoned in the national or ancestral calendar of the writer. That is exactly what we find in the only conclusive dating among these Elephantine papyri. Just as these colonists considered themselves separate from the Egyptians to the extent of retaining their own calendar, they seem to have considered themselves akin to their repatriated brethren in Palestine, as their correspondence shows. Hence their use of the fall-to-fall year, even considered apart from the Ezra-Nehemiah evidence, would lead to the conclusion that they were in accord with Palestinian custom in this.

An advocate of the theory of the late date of the Pentateuch, and of the introduction of the spring year by Josiah, is likely to see the supposed spring reckoning in the formerly inconclusive papyri as part of a chain of postexilic evidences for the spring usage from Josiah on. In this he would include Ezekiel, Haggai and Zechariah, Esther, and even Nehemiah (for he tends to brand as erroneous the fall-to-fall sequence in Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1). But actually there is no continuous chain of evidence for the spring reckoning. Jeremiah almost certainly used a fall year; Ezekiel probably did also, and even if he did not, his book and Esther are irrelevant to the problem because they were written during the Exile, in Babylonia and Persia. Haggai’s usage is less than proof for the spring reckoning, (See NOTE) and there is the possibility of Zechariah’s fall reckoning. The links in this chain tend to fall apart, leaving the supposed spring year of the papyri unsupported, and Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 unchallenged.

NOTE: Even if the spring-to-spring year be insisted on for the time of Haggai and Zechariah because of the order of Haggai’s dates, it should be remembered that there is a great difference between the conditions of that period, when national consciousness had long been at a low ebb, and the situation of the restored Jewish community in Judea 70 years later, in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, with the Temple rebuilt, the civil and religious administration reorganized under the “law of God,” and finally the capital fortified. Along with the new emphasis on the national law, on the elimination of foreign influences and foreign languages, and on the observance of the national festivals, the old national calendar reckoning of Judah would naturally be restored, if indeed it had not been in use all along; for the community of repatriated Jews, founded by the Davidic prince Zerubbabel and the Levitical priesthood, was a continuation of the nation of Judah. Thus the use of the old Jewish civil fall-to-fall calendar was to be expected.

Now the proof of Jewish fall-to-fall reckoning in the Elephantine papyri changes the picture radically. Anyone not preoccupied with the theory of the spring-beginning year can find the postexilic data reasonably consistent in indicating that the fall-beginning year was not abandoned. Thus the Elephantine calendar becomes a link in the long chain of evidence for the fall-to-fall reckoning extending from the civil year of ancient times to Ezra–Nehemiah, including Solomon, Josiah, the corroborative though indirect evidence for Judah’s kings from the synchronisms, and Jeremiah, possibly the usage of Ezekiel and Zechariah. The fall-to-fall year in Elephantine thus confirms unequivocally the usage of Ezra–Nehemiah, and therefore the accuracy of the chronological data of the Bible writers of this period.

The Postexilic Jewish Calendar in Egypt.—The double-dated papyri furnish considerable information about the Jewish calendar as used at Elephantine. They also fix a number of exact dates, accurate to within a day. Since the Egyptian day began at sunrise, and the Jewish at sunset, there could be a difference of opinion in some cases as to whether a specific Egyptian day is to be aligned with the Jewish day beginning 12 hours earlier or that beginning 12 hours later (depending on whether the document was written before or after sunset). Where a papyrus date establishes a given day of the month in this manner, the whole month is similarly fixed, and the other months of that year are also known virtually to the day. It is to be remembered that an ancient lunar month cannot be fixed with complete certainty, because of the possible variation of a day or so each way. But within these limits there are a number of these completely known years in this Jewish calendar during the 5th century, and the other years of the period can be approximated with a relatively high degree of precision, allowing leeway for the exact location of some of the 13th months.

Tentative Reconstruction of Elephantine Jewish Calendar—A calendar reconstructed around the fourteen known months fixed by the double-dated papyri gives a very close approximation of the B.C. date of the 1st of each month for the Jewish years from 472/71 through 400/399 B.C. Such a tabulation has been computed by Siegfried H. Horn and Lynn H. Wood on the following premises:

1. The year begins with Tishri 1, in the autumn.

2. The 1st of each month is computed theoretically, but based on a reasonable interval after conjunction, so as to keep as close as possible to the observed crescent.

3. These computed months are derived from the working hypothesis of a regularly alternating sequence of 30-day and 29-day months from Nisan through Tishri, with adjustments in the other half of the year.

4. These adjustments appear to have resulted in four types of years, those of 354, 355, 383, or 384 days (the 353- and 385-day years, used today by the Jews, must have been introduced much later.

5. A second Adar is assumed to have been inserted whenever Nisan 1 would precede the vernal equinox, which fell about March 26.

6. This results in the pattern of a second Adar in 7 out of each 19 years. Except in two cases, when a fixed papyrus date seems to indicate otherwise, these 13th months fell in the years commonly numbered 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 of the Babylonian 19-year cycle.

Since this tabulation forms the basis for the exact Jewish dates given in this volume, it is reproduced here entire from the unpublished copy for the convenience of any readers of this commentary who wish to make a detailed study of the dates for the period indicated.

˚Tables of Elephantine Jewish Calendar, 472/471 Through 400/399 B.C.

How to Use This Calendar Tabulation:—Each horizontal line of dates in this tabulation represents a regnal year as reckoned in the Jewish fall-to-fall calendar, beginning with Tishri, the 7th month. The first eight-line section comprises the 14th through the 21st years of Xerxes, and the following sections are the reigns of Artaxerxes I and so on. The boldface figures are the B.C. years (those starred are leap years); and the dates on each line (10/6, 11/5, etc.) are the Julian-calendar dates on which the 1st of each Jewish month falls.

For example, the first line represents the 14th year of the Xerxes by Jewish reckoning. It begins in 472 B.C. (second column) with Tish[ri] 1, which falls on October 6, abbreviated to 10/6 (third column), that is, the day beginning at sunset of October 5. The 1st of the next month, Mar[heshvan], is 11/5 (November 5, beginning at sunset of November 4); Kis[lev] 1 is December 4. Next comes the boldface figure 471, indicating the opening of a new B.C. year (Julian). Hence the remaining months of this Jewish year begin in 471: Teb[eth] 1 falls on January 3, 471; Sheb[at] 1 on February 1, Ad[ar] 1 on March 3, Nis[an] 1 on April 1, Iyy[ar] 1 on May 1, Siv[an] 1 on May 30, Tam[muz] 1 on June 29, Ab 1 on July 28, Elul 1 on August 27. This last date appears in red because one of the double-dated papyri was written in that month, thus fixing the date. (The 14 dates so marked on this calendar are the basis on which the rest of the calendar is computed.)

In the next year, the 15th of Xerxes, which begins in 471 B.C. (September 25), Tebeth is still in 471; hence the boldface date 470 appears in the column between Tebeth and Shebat, which is the first month beginning in 470. This 15th year has a 13th month, the second Adar. The column headed “Ad[ar] II” shows that 7 out of 19 years contain the second Adar.

Many Biblical dates in this volume of the commentary have been computed according to this tentative reconstruction of the Jewish calendar; for example, the dates of Ezra’s journey to Judea (Ezra 7:9; 8:15, 31). In the tabulation the line numbered the 7th year of Artaxerxes I shows that year beginning by Jewish reckoning in 458 B.C., on Tishri 1, or October 2, and places Nisan 1 of that year, the date of Ezra’s departure, on March 27, 457. Ezra left Ahava on the 12th of the same month, 11 days later, which would be April 7 (that is, April 6/7, sunset to sunset); and his arrival date, the 1st of the 5th month (Ab), was July 23. Although the B.C. number at the beginning of this 7th year is 458, it changes to 457 between Tebeth 1 and Shebat 1; hence Ezra’s dates in Nisan and Ab are all in 457.

XERXES

Year

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Regnal

B.C.

Tish.

Mar.

Kis.

B.C.

Teb.

B.C.

Sheb.

Ad.

Ad. II

Nis.

Iyy.

Siv.

Tam.

Ab

Elul

14

472

10/6

11/5

12/4

471

1/3

2/1

3/3

4/1

5/1

5/30

6/29

7/28

8/27

15

471

9/25

10/25

11/23

12/23

470

1/21

2/20

3/22

4/20

5/20

6/18

7/18

8/16

9/15

16

470

10/14

11/13

12/12

469*

1/11

2/9

3/10

4/8

5/8

6/6

7/6

8/4

9/3

17

469

10/2

11/1

12/1

12/31

468

1/29

2/28

3/29

4/28

5/27

6/26

7/25

8/24

18

468

9/22

10/22

11/20

12/20

467

1/18

2/17

3/19

4/17

5/17

6/15

7/15

8/13

9/12

19

467

10/11

11/10

12/9

466

1/8

2/6

3/8

4/6

5/6

6/4

7/4

8/2

9/1

20

466

9/30

10/30

11/28

12/28

465*

1/26

2/25

3/26

4/24

5/24

6/22

7/22

8/20

9/19

21

465

10/18

11/17

12/16

464

1/15

2/13

3/15

4/13

5/13

6/11

7/11

8/9

9/8

ARTAXERXES I

Year

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Regnal

B.C.

Tish.

Mar.

Kis.

B.C.

Teb.

B.C.

Sheb.

Ad.

Ad. II

Nis.

Iyy.

Siv.

Tam.

Ab

Elul

1

464

10/7

11/6

12/6

463

1/5

2/3

3/5

4/3

5/3

6/1

7/1

7/30

8/29

2

463

9/27

10/27

11/25

12/25

462

1/23

2/22

3/24

4/22

5/22

6/20

7/20

8/18

9/17

3

462

10/16

11/15

12/14

461*

1/13

2/11

3/12

4/10

5/10

6/8

7/8

8/6

9/5

4

461

10/4

11/3

12/2

460

1/1

1/30

3/1

3/30

4/29

5/28

6/27

7/26

8/25

5

460

9/23

10/23

11/21

12/21

459

1/19

2/18

3/20

4/18

5/18

6/16

7/16

8/14

9/13

6

459

10/12

11/11

12/11

458

1/10

2/8

3/10

4/8

5/8

6/6

7/6

8/4

9/3

7

458

10/2

11/1

11/30

12/30

457*

1/28

2/27

3/27

4/26

5/25

6/24

7/23

8/22

8

457

9/20

10/20

11/18

12/18

456

1/16

2/15

3/17

4/15

5/15

6/13

7/13

8/11

9/10

9

456

10/9

11/8

12/7

455

1/6

2/4

3/6

4/4

5/4

6/2

7/2

7/31

8/30

10

455

9/28

10/28

11/26

12/26

454

1/24

2/23

3/25

4/23

5/23

6/21

7/21

8/19

9/18

11

454

10/17

11/16

12/15

453*

1/14

2/12

3/13

4/11

5/11

6/9

7/9

8/7

9/6

12

453

10/5

11/4

12/4

452

1/3

2/1

3/3

4/1

5/1

5/30

6/29

7/28

8/27

13

452

9/25

10/25

11/23

12/23

451

1/21

2/20

3/22

4/20

5/20

6/18

7/18

8/16

9/15

14

451

10/14

11/13

12/12

450

1/11

2/9

3/11

4/9

5/9

6/7

7/7

8/5

9/4

15

450

10/3

11/2

12/2

449*

1/1

1/30

2/29

3/29

4/28

5/27

6/26

7/25

8/24

16

449

9/22

10/22

11/20

12/20

448

1/18

2/17

3/19

4/17

5/17

6/15

7/15

8/13

9/12

17

448

10/11

11/10

12/9

447

1/8

2/6

3/8

4/6

5/6

6/4

7/4

8/2

9/1

18

447

9/30

10/30

11/28

12/28

446

1/26

2/25

3/26

4/25

5/24

6/23

7/22

8/21

19

446

9/19

10/19

11/17

12/17

445*

1/15

2/14

3/15

4/13

5/13

6/11

7/11

8/9

9/8

20

445

10/7

11/6

12/5

444

1/4

2/2

3/4

4/2

5/2

5/31

6/30

7/29

8/28

21

444

9/26

10/26

11/24

12/24

443

1/22

2/21

3/23

4/21

5/21

6/19

7/19

8/17

9/16

22

443

10/15

11/14

12/14

442

1/13

2/11

3/13

4/11

5/11

6/9

7/9

8/7

9/6

23

442

10/5

11/4

12/3

441*

1/2

1/31

3/1

3/30

4/29

5/28

6/27

7/26

8/25

24

441

9/23

10/23

11/21

12/21

440

1/19

2/18

3/20

4/18

5/18

6/16

7/16

8/14

9/13

25

440

10/12

11/11

12/10

439

1/9

2/7

3/9

4/7

5/7

6/5

7/5

8/3

9/2

26

439

10/1

10/31

11/29

12/29

438

1/27

2/26

3/28

4/26

5/26

6/24

7/24

8/22

9/21

27

438

10/20

11/19

12/18

437*

1/17

2/15

3/16

4/14

5/14

6/12

7/12

8/10

9/9

28

437

10/8

11/7

12/7

436

1/6

2/4

3/6

4/4

5/4

6/2

7/2

7/31

8/30

29

436

9/28

10/28

11/26

12/26

435

1/24

2/23

3/25

4/23

5/23

6/21

7/21

8/19

9/18

30

435

10/17

11/16

12/15

434

1/14

2/12

3/14

4/12

5/12

6/10

7/10

8/8

9/7

31

434

10/6

11/5

12/5

433*

1/4

2/2

3/3

4/1

5/1

5/30

6/29

7/28

8/27

32

433

9/25

10/25

11/23

12/23

432

1/21

2/20

3/22

4/20

5/20

6/18

7/18

8/16

9/15

33

432

10/14

11/13

12/12

431

1/11

2/9

3/11

4/9

5/9

6/7

7/7

8/5

9/4

34

431

10/3

11/2

12/1

12/31

430

1/29

2/28

3/29

4/28

5/27

6/26

7/25

8/24

35

430

9/22

10/22

11/20

12/20

429*

1/18

2/17

3/18

4/16

5/16

6/14

7/14

8/12

9/11

36

429

10/10

11/9

12/9

428

1/8

2/6

3/8

4/6

5/6

6/4

7/4

8/2

9/1

37

428

9/30

10/30

11/28

12/28

427

1/26

2/25

3/26

4/25

5/24

6/23

7/22

8/21

38

427

9/19

10/19

11/17

12/17

426

1/15

2/14

3/16

4/14

5/14

6/12

7/12

8/10

9/9

39

426

10/8

11/7

12/6

425*

1/5

2/3

3/4

4/2

5/2

5/31

6/30

7/29

8/28

40

425

9/26

10/26

11/24

12/24

424

1/22

2/21

3/23

4/21

5/21

6/19

7/19

8/17

9/16

41

424

10/15

11/14

12/13

423

1/12

2/10

3/12

4/10

5/10

6/8

7/8

8/6

9/5

DARIUS II

Year

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Regnal

B.C.

Tish.

Mar.

Kis.

B.C.

Teb.

B.C.

Sheb.

Ad.

Ad. II

Nis.

Iyy.

Siv.

Tam.

Ab

Elul

1

423

10/4

11/3

12/3

422

1/2

1/31

3/2

3/31

4/30

5/29

6/28

7/27

8/26

2

422

9/24

10/24

11/22

12/22

421*

1/20

2/19

3/20

4/18

5/18

6/16

7/16

8/14

9/13

3

421

10/12

11/11

12/10

420

1/9

2/7

3/9

4/7

5/7

6/5

7/5

8/3

9/2

4

420

10/1

10/31

11/30

12/30

419

1/28

2/27

3/28

4/27

5/26

6/25

7/24

8/23

5

419

9/21

10/21

11/19

12/19

418

1/17

2/16

3/18

4/16

5/16

6/14

7/14

8/12

9/11

6

418

10/10

11/9

12/8

417*

1/7

2/5

3/6

4/4

5/4

6/2

7/2

7/31

8/30

7

417

9/28

10/28

11/26

12/26

416

1/24

2/23

3/25

4/23

5/23

6/21

7/21

8/19

9/18

8

416

10/17

11/16

12/15

415

1/14

2/12

3/14

4/12

5/12

6/10

7/10

8/8

9/7

9

415

10/6

11/5

12/4

414

1/3

2/1

3/3

4/1

5/1

5/30

6/29

7/28

8/27

10

414

9/25

10/25

11/23

12/23

413*

1/21

2/20

3/21

4/19

5/19

6/17

7/17

8/15

9/14

11

413

10/13

11/12

12/12

412

1/11

2/9

3/11

4/9

5/9

6/7

7/7

8/5

9/4

12

412

10/3

11/2

12/1

12/31

411

1/29

2/28

3/29

4/28

5/27

6/26

7/25

8/24

13

411

9/22

10/22

11/20

12/20

410

1/18

2/17

3/19

4/17

5/17

6/15

7/15

8/13

9/12

14

410

10/11

11/10

12/9

409*

1/8

2/6

3/7

4/5

5/5

6/3

7/3

8/1

8/31

15

409

9/29

10/29

11/28

12/28

408

1/26

2/25

3/26

4/25

5/24

6/23

7/22

8/21

16

408

9/19

10/19

11/17

12/17

407

1/15

2/14

3/16

4/14

5/14

6/12

7/12

8/10

9/9

17

407

10/8

11/7

12/6

406

1/5

2/3

3/5

4/3

5/3

6/1

7/1

7/30

8/29

18

406

9/27

10/27

11/25

12/25

405*

1/23

2/22

3/23

4/21

5/21

6/19

7/19

8/17

9/16

19

405

10/15

11/14

12/13

404

1/12

2/10

3/12

4/10

5/10

6/8

7/8

8/6

9/5

ARTAXERXES II

Year

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Regnal

B.C.

Tish.

Mar.

Kis.

B.C.

Teb.

B.C.

Sheb.

Ad.

Ad. II

Nis.

Iyy.

Siv.

Tam.

Ab

Elul

1

404

10/4

11/3

12/2

403

1/1

1/30

3/1

3/30

4/29

5/28

6/27

7/26

8/25

2

403

9/23

10/23

11/21

12/21

402

1/19

2/18

3/20

4/18

5/18

6/16

7/16

8/14

9/13

3

402

10/12

11/11

12/11

401*

1/10

2/8

3/9

4/7

5/7

6/5

7/5

8/3

9/2

4

401

10/1

10/31

11/29

12/29

400

1/27

2/26

3/27

4/26

5/25

6/24

7/23

8/22

5

400

9/20

10/20

11/18

12/18

399

1/16

2/15

3/17

4/15

5/15

6/13

7/13

8/11

9/10

* This is a leap year.

Bibliography

Babylonian Chronicle (see entry under Wiseman). Contains the Babylonian account of the accession and early campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar.

Cowley, A.Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Contains text and translation, with notes, of all the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine known up to 1923. The double dates on certain of these papyri (and some of those in the collection published by Kraeling) are of great importance as contemporary evidence on the dating of several Persian reigns, and on the Jewish calendar.

Dougherty, Raymond Philip. Nabonidus and Belshazzar. A study based on the Babylonian tablets. The evidence for Belshazzar’s co regency with his father Nabonidus demonstrates the accuracy of the book of Daniel on this subject.

Horn, Siegfried H., and Wood, Lynn H. The Chronology of Ezra 7 2nd ed., rev. Washington: Review and Herald, 1970. 192 pp. (This second edition has a revised text and added appendixes.) A scholarly solution, by two contributors to this commentary, of the problem of dating Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I. After surveying for the general reader the principles and methods of ancient chronology, calendars, and regnal-year systems, with documentation of sources, this work applies the data from the Babylonian tablets and the Aramaic papyri from Egypt to the specific problem of the dating of the 7th year of Artaxerxes according to the Jewish calendar. Appendix 2 is a technical analysis of the double dates of 14 Aramaic papyri (from those published by Cowley and Kraeling), showing that the B.C. dates can be consistently fixed, and demonstrating the evidence from one of them that the lunar calendar represented by these dates is reckoned from the autumn, and not from the spring. The most important reference work for the reader of this article who wishes a more thorough treatment of these points.

Kraeling, Emil G. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. This book does not discuss calendar or chronology problems as such, but it presents the text and translation of a new group of papyri whose additional double dates are the source of significant information about the calendar of the Jews in Egypt, including the first known date line demonstrating the autumn beginning of the year, the key evidence for the date of Ezra 7.

Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. A useful survey. This work is an interpretative history, which naturally is based on incomplete source material; consequently the reader cannot always distinguish between more and less certain areas of the narrative. Parker, Richard A., and Dubberstein, Waldo H.Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 45. In addition to the calendar tabulation, this work contains a series of dates of the first and last known tablets in each reign, which form the basis for the more or less approximate date of the accession of each king from Nabopolassar through the period covered in this article.

Pritchard, James B., editor. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Contains source documents on the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, the text referring to the kingship of Nabonidus’ oldest son (Belshazzar), etc.

Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus). The Almagest. The Canon of Ptolemy, an appendix to The Almagest, is available in this commentary, Vol. II p. 54.

Rogers, Robert William. A History of Ancient Persia. A very readable narrative, covering more of the political and less of the cultural history than Olmstead.

Bible Chronology Timeline - Page 7