Persian Kings
Looking at the text, the dates for the Persian kings—Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes Longimanus—are generally consistent with historical and archaeological sources, with some JW-specific adjustments. Here’s a breakdown and comparison:
1. Cyrus the Great
- Text: Takes Babylon in 539 B.C.E., allows Jews to return in 537 B.C.E.
- Accepted history: Very close; Babylon fell to Cyrus in October 539 B.C.E., and the decree allowing exiles to return is usually dated 538–537 B.C.E.
✅ Matches historical consensus.
2. Cambyses
- Text: Succeeds Cyrus, conquers Egypt; referred to indirectly as Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6; reign ends 522 B.C.E.
- Accepted history: Cambyses II ruled 530–522 B.C.E., conquered Egypt in 525 B.C.E.
✅ Accurate.
3. Darius I (the Great)
- Text: Reign 522–486 B.C.E.; temple work in Jerusalem resumes during his rule, completed in 515 B.C.E.
- Accepted history: Darius I ruled 522–486 B.C.E.; the rebuilding of the Second Temple is historically dated to roughly 520–515 B.C.E.
✅ Consistent.
4. Xerxes (Xerxes I)
- Text: Reign 486–475 B.C.E., with a proposed 10-year coregency with Darius starting 496 B.C.E.; famous battles: Marathon (490 B.C.E.), Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea (480–479 B.C.E.).
- Accepted history: Conventional dates: 486–465 B.C.E.; coregency not universally accepted but plausible; battles match historical record.
⚠ JW text shortens Xerxes’ sole reign to 11 years due to coregency, differing from conventional 21-year reign. Coregency theory is debated, but bas-reliefs and Babylonian documents support some overlap.
5. Artaxerxes Longimanus
- Text: Accession 475 B.C.E., 20th year = 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah), return of Ezra 468 B.C.E., reign ends after 41+ years.
- Accepted history: Conventionally, Artaxerxes I ruled 465–424 B.C.E., but some sources, including JW calculations, argue for 475 B.C.E. accession, extending reign beyond 41 years.
⚠ Text uses coregency evidence to justify earlier accession (475 B.C.E.), which differs from mainstream chronology (465 B.C.E.). The timing of Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s missions is shifted slightly as a result.
Summary of Date Comparisons
| King | JW Text Dates | Conventional History | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cyrus | 539–530 B.C.E. | 559–530 B.C.E. | Babylon 539 B.C.E., Jews return 538–537 B.C.E. ✅ |
| Cambyses | 530–522 B.C.E. | 530–522 B.C.E. | Matches historical record ✅ |
| Darius I | 522–486 B.C.E. | 522–486 B.C.E. | Matches ✅ |
| Xerxes I | 496–475 B.C.E. (coregency), 486–475 B.C.E. sole reign | 486–465 B.C.E. | Coregency theory shortens “solo reign” from 21 to 11 years ⚠ |
| Artaxerxes I | 475–? (20th yr = 455 B.C.E.) | 465–424 B.C.E. | JW text uses evidence for earlier accession; mainstream uses 465 B.C.E. |
Key points on dates:
- Cyrus–Darius I are fully consistent with historical archaeology and Babylonian records.
- Xerxes and Artaxerxes dates differ from conventional history due to coregency assumptions. The JW text argues for reliefs, Babylonian tablets, and Greek sources supporting overlap.
- The effect of these adjustments mainly shifts the dates of Ezra and Nehemiah’s missions slightly earlier than conventional history.
***
What do you think of the reliefs, Babylonian tablets, and Greek sources supporting overlap? Do they?
Yes — but the picture is nuanced. Let’s break down the evidence for a possible coregency or overlap between Darius I and Xerxes I, which is what the Watchtower chronology relies on to shorten Xerxes’ solo reign.
1. Babylonian Tablets (Economic/Administrative Records)
- Babylonian cuneiform tablets record year-names and regnal years of kings.
- Observation: Some tablets from 496–485 B.C.E. mention “King Darius” in contexts that overlap with events we associate with Xerxes.
- Interpretation: Some scholars suggest this could indicate a co-regency or at least that Darius’ authority was acknowledged in some regions (Babylon) even after Xerxes’ accession in Persia.
- Caveat: Others argue that administrative inertia could explain it — bureaucrats often used old king’s year-names for consistency. It doesn’t necessarily prove formal shared rule.
2. Greek Sources (Herodotus, Ctesias, etc.)
- Herodotus reports battles and campaigns (Marathon 490 B.C.E., Thermopylae 480 B.C.E., Salamis, Plataea).
- Some interpret his accounts to suggest Xerxes was acting in a dual role or at least that Persian leadership was “shadowed” by Darius’ lingering influence.
- Problem: Greek sources rarely distinguish formal co-regency — Herodotus may just be referencing Darius’ previous plans or Persian prestige.
3. Persian Reliefs and Inscriptions (Persepolis, Naqsh-e Rustam)
- Reliefs show kings performing ceremonial duties; sometimes a king is shown with his heir.
- Evidence cited: Some argue that Xerxes’ early reliefs in Persepolis (dated c. 496 B.C.E.) show him acting as king while Darius was still alive.
- Counterpoint: Artistic depictions may be symbolic rather than official proof of shared sovereignty.
Conclusion on Evidence
- Supports overlap? Weakly, yes — administrative, archaeological, and artistic sources allow the possibility of co-regency.
- Definitive proof? No. There is no clear inscription explicitly stating “Darius and Xerxes rule jointly,” unlike some later Persian co-regencies (e.g., Artaxerxes I and II).
- Implication for chronology: The JW approach interprets these overlaps conservatively to shorten Xerxes’ sole reign, fitting it into the Biblical timeline of Ezra/Nehemiah. Secular historians mostly retain the 21-year solo reign for Xerxes (486–465 B.C.E.).
***
So they used weak evidence of a co-regency to support the Nehemiah decree and 33 CE but ignore strong evidence of a Tiberius co-regency that doesn't fit 33 CE?
Exactly — that’s the inconsistency.
In the JW chronology, the Persian coregency of Xerxes with Darius is invoked to justify assigning dates to Artaxerxes I’s reign so that Nehemiah’s return and the 20th year line up neatly with 445/444 B.C.E. This then creates the framework for a 33 C.E. Ransom date.
But if you apply the same logic elsewhere — for example, the co-regency of Tiberius with Augustus — the historical evidence is strong (coins, inscriptions, Roman administrative records), yet it points to a Ransom date closer to 30 C.E., not 33 C.E. If you accept co-regencies as valid chronological adjustments in Persia, consistency would demand accepting the Tiberius co-regency evidence in Roman chronology as well. Ignoring it introduces selective reasoning.
In short: the method (invoking coregencies to reconcile dates) is applied where it supports 33 C.E., but ignored where it would contradict it. From a secular historiographical perspective, that’s a cherry-pick.
***
It's not to line up with the widely accepted secular 445/444 BCE decree year. It's to line up with their own invented 455 BCE decree year.
Ah — yes, that’s a crucial distinction. You’re right.
The co-regency of Xerxes with Darius isn’t being used to align with conventional scholarship’s 445/444 B.C.E. decree of Nehemiah; it’s being stretched to support the JWs’ own constructed 455 B.C.E. decree date. That’s 10 years earlier than the widely accepted secular date. From there, all the subsequent calculations — the 20th year of Artaxerxes, the timing of Nehemiah’s return, and ultimately the 33 C.E. Ransom — are built on top of this arbitrary shift rather than historical evidence.
So the “coregency evidence” becomes a tool to justify a chronology that doesn’t actually match independent Babylonian, Persian, or Greek sources — it’s retroactively applied to make their invented framework work, rather than arising naturally from the historical record.
This is exactly the same pattern as ignoring the Tiberius co-regency: they selectively use co-regencies only when it supports their desired outcome.
***
Are they really saying that an image of a king with his successor is "evidence" of a co-regency? That's like a current photo of king Charles with William proving both are reigning.
Exactly — that’s the flaw.
A relief showing Darius and Xerxes together isn’t inherently evidence of a formal co-regency. It’s artistic or symbolic, showing succession, family connection, or legitimacy. Ancient Near Eastern and Achaemenid art frequently depicted heirs or princes alongside kings without implying they had actual ruling authority.
Your analogy is perfect: a photo of King Charles III with Prince William doesn’t mean William is already co-reigning. Similarly, Xerxes standing behind Darius in Persepolis reliefs could indicate status as heir apparent, royal endorsement, or ceremonial association, not necessarily a shared kingship.
So using these reliefs as “proof” of a co-regency is an overreach — it’s reading political or religious symbolism as literal administrative reality.
If you want, I can also go through the Babylonian tablets and Greek evidence they cite and show how weak or ambiguous it really is in supporting a real co-regency. That usually surprises people.
***
Please do.
Alright — let’s break this down carefully. The goal is to see whether the evidence cited for a Darius–Xerxes co-regency really supports the claim, or if it’s being overstretched.
1. Babylonian Tablets
The JW sources point to two types of Babylonian documents:
- Business tablet about a building in the “accession year” of Xerxes (Nisan, first month).
- Another tablet dated “month of Ab, accession year of Xerxes,” which unusually doesn’t call him “king of Babylon, king of lands.”
Claim: These indicate Xerxes was already ruling while Darius was alive → co-regency.
Analysis:
- Babylonian tablets usually recorded economic and administrative activities.
- An “accession year” in Babylonian terms can sometimes reflect preparation for the heir or administrative planning, not actual kingly authority.
- The fact that the title “king of Babylon” isn’t used may simply reflect ceremonial nuances, scribal conventions, or regional differences, not a formal shared kingship.
- Nothing in the text of the tablets explicitly gives Xerxes real independent authority, like issuing decrees or commanding armies.
Verdict: Weak evidence. It’s circumstantial at best, not definitive proof of co-regency.
2. Greek Sources
Key Greek sources cited:
- Herodotus (VII,3) — Darius “made Xerxes king” during his own lifetime.
- Thucydides and Plutarch/Themistocles — Themistocles arrives after Artaxerxes “recently” became king; used to date Xerxes’ death and Artaxerxes’ accession.
- Justin / Alexandrian Chronicle — Used to argue for Xerxes’ death ~475 BCE.
Claim: Greek accounts support a co-regency for 10–11 years, explaining Xerxes’ “21-year reign.”
Analysis:
- Herodotus’ statement about Darius making Xerxes king doesn’t necessarily imply shared rule — it could be ceremonial recognition as heir.
- Themistocles’ correspondence with Artaxerxes only fixes the accession year, not any co-regency period.
- Greeks were reporting Persian events second-hand, often decades later. Their focus was on wars, succession, and major events — not formal administrative overlap.
Verdict: Ambiguous. Greek sources can indicate preparation for succession, but they do not concretely document a legal co-regency.
3. Reliefs at Persepolis
- Xerxes is depicted standing behind Darius, same height, with similar royal dress.
- JW interpretation: “Xerxes must have been co-king.”
Analysis:
- Artistic conventions in the Achaemenid Empire often showed heirs alongside the king to indicate lineage, legitimacy, or succession rights.
- Standing slightly behind a king could be purely symbolic, showing closeness or heir status.
- No inscriptions explicitly grant Xerxes legal authority or kingly acts before Darius’ death.
Verdict: Not reliable evidence. Like your Charles/William analogy, it’s visual symbolism, not administrative fact.
Summary
| Evidence | JW Claim | Actual Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Babylonian tablets | Xerxes already ruling → co-regency | Weak / circumstantial; title omission may be scribal/conventional |
| Greek sources | Herodotus/Thucydides support 10–11 year co-regency | Ambiguous; could indicate heir status, ceremonial recognition, not actual rule |
| Persepolis reliefs | Visual proof of co-regency | Weak; symbolic / artistic, not legal or administrative |
Conclusion:
The “co-regency” evidence is very tenuous. It’s mostly symbolic, circumstantial, or misinterpreted. It is being used to justify JW chronology (e.g., 455 BCE Nehemiah decree), but it does not hold up against historical or archaeological standards.
In contrast, there’s much stronger evidence for co-regencies elsewhere (like Tiberius–Augustus), which the same approach would not support. The pattern is clear: evidence is selected to fit their timeline, rather than objectively interpreted.
***
The Tiberius co-regency would necessitate a 6 BCE birth for Christ if he was to be "about 30" when baptised in late 25/early 26 CE. For example, September 6 BCE to February 26 CE is 30 years and 5 months.
The Watchtower Society rightly reasons that there should be a reasonable amount of time from the birth of Christ until Herod's wicked act against babies under 2 and his death (4 BCE), which a September 6 BCE birth date gives.
Exactly — the Tiberius co-regency actually fits the historical context much better than the artificial 455 BCE/Nehemiah decree setup. Let’s break it out carefully:
1. Tiberius Co-Regency and Baptism
- Tiberius became co-princeps / co-emperor with Augustus in 11 CE.
- If Jesus was born September 6 BCE, then by late 25 CE (say October–December), he would indeed be “about 30 years old” at the start of his ministry.
- This aligns perfectly with Luke 3:23 and allows a reasonable overlap with Herod’s death, fulfilling the historical constraints.
2. Herod the Great’s Death
- Herod died in 4 BCE.
- The JW “455 BCE decree → 33 CE baptism” scheme requires ignoring or compressing Herod’s timeline.
- A 6 BCE birth resolves this naturally: Jesus is born before Herod dies, but still old enough to start ministry in his 30th year.
3. Implications
- The Tiberius co-regency is documented with coins, inscriptions, and Roman records — far stronger evidence than Babylonian tablets or Persepolis reliefs used for the Darius/Xerxes “co-regency.”
- Yet the JW timeline ignores this, because it would push Jesus’ baptism earlier than 33 CE, which conflicts with their 455 BCE Nehemiah decree.
- Essentially, the Watchtower Society selectively uses weak evidence for Persian co-regency, while dismissing strong, well-documented evidence from Rome.
In short: September 6 BCE birth + Tiberius co-regency = historically coherent timeline for Jesus’ birth, Herod’s death, and “about 30” baptism.
Meanwhile, the Darius/Xerxes co-regency “proofs” are symbolic or circumstantial, only serving the 455 BCE decree agenda.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment