Nehemiah's governorship

Gene Benjamin II — (3/30/2011 12:56:05 PM)

Again, per Eugene Faulstich's chronological research, Nehemiah built the wall during the reign of Darius I Hystaspes, from 502 BCE to 491 BCE, the 31st year of Darius, then he returned to the king in 490 BCE, the 32nd year of Darius I. Nehemiah would be over 150 years old in 445 BCE.

• • • • • • •

temple on Mt. Gerizim

Gene Benjamin II — (3/30/2011 12:49:41 PM)

You all may want to investigate the chronological work of Eugene Faulstich. The 10 Northern Tribes were captured by the Assyrians in 723 BCE, the Northern nation of Israel was without a sin offering for 390 years per Ezekiel 4. 390 years after 723 BCE was the construction of the Samaritan temple in 333 BCE.

• • • • • • •

Continued Nehemyah

Natan — (3/28/2011 12:37:52 PM)

Thus, the 20th year of Artakhshast (Neh. 1-2) when Nehemyah returned would be around 502 BCE (20th year of Daryavesh I) 15-16 years after the completion of the Second Temple. And the 32nd year of Artakhshast (Neh. 13) would be 490 BCE (32nd year of Daryavesh I), around 26 years after the completion of the Second Temple. The 32nd year of Artaxerxes I would be 433 BCE, 153 years after the destruction of the Temple, and over a century after the first return. This is why Nehemyah doesn't mention.

• • • • • • •

Nehemyah 6th, not 5th century

Natan — (3/28/2011 12:24:18 PM)

The assumption that Sefer Nehemyah takes place in the 5th century during the reign of Artaxerxes I is baseless. It is much more realistic that Artakhshast in Ezra 7 is the same as Daryavesh I, and that the Artakhshast of Nehemyah is the same. Ezra's own father was killed and his brother exiled from Judea with the destruction of the Temple (586 BCE), so it is highly unlikely Ezra would still be active at any point, let alone deep into the reign of Artaxerxes I who began to rule in 465 BCE.

• • • • • • •

DATING OF SAMARITAN SYNAGOGUE ON MT. GERIZIM

Herbert Pompelio Holeman, Ph.D. — US (3/12/2011 10:52:49 AM)

I would not discount the scholarly work of Yitzhak Magen as Josephus’s accounts of people and events have proven to be questionable.

• • • • • • •

Vere

Stein — (3/5/2011 2:53:50 PM)

Great discussion! Im glad authors have a chance to address technical questions. Merrill, Im interested to read your Yhudi-Shameri reconstruction. Magen, you respond effectively on the earlier date. Still, I feel ancient texts are 'innocent until proven guilty', and shy from saying Josephus is 'categorically' wrong. Just because the way that we traditionally understood a text is wrong, doesnt mean the text is wrong. Sometimes reexamining a text from a more accurate context reveals useful info.

• • • • • • •