Ezra records that Persian king Cyrus II (538-529), in his first regnal year, issued a proclamation to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. In the context of Ezra 1:1-4, cf Ezra 6:1-5, II Chronicles 36:22, is there any basis for us to construe this proclamation to rebuild the Temple as one authorizing rebuilding of the city? There is no language in his proclamation suggesting his call for the rebuilding of the city.

Cyrus II ordered the rebuilding of many temples in an effort to gain popular support for his government. The cuneiform Cyrus Cylinder records that Cyrus II returned foreign exiles to their former homes and established sanctuaries for their images in place of ruined ones (Finegan 1998:266; Pritchard 1955:315-316). In 539 BCE, for example, "all the effigies of the Assyrian gods which had been captured by the Babylonians were returned to their native cities and their temples were rebuilt" (Armstrong 1996:91).

The data imply that the intent of the decree issued by Cyrus II was to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. It was not permission to rebuild the city per se nor its walls but limited specifically to Temple reconstruction. Consequently it was not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. This does not rule out, however, that the act of Jews moving to Jerusalem, taking up residence there, and commencing reconstruction of the Temple was not participation in a slow, de facto rebuilding of the city that predated the decree by several decades. Therefore, we must reject Research Hypothesis 1 based on these data.

Decree for Temple Construction to Continue
(Research Hypothesis 2)

During the reign of Darius I provincial officials wrote to the king that the Jews were rebuilding the Temple, not the city nor its walls, and that they claimed their authorization to do so was the decree of Cyrus II (Ezra 5:8; 5:14-17). Upon review of a record from the Cyrus II administration, noting the issuance of a royal decree authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem, Darius I ordered, "leave this work on the house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews rebuild this house of God on its site" (Ezra 6:7). The rebuilding of Jerusalem was not in issue for its wall was not being rebuilt. During the reign of Darius II the Jews finished rebuilding the Temple and dedicated it.

The decree called for the local opposition to stand down and not to interfere with the building of the house of God. Moreover, the provincial powers that be were to provide resources for the project out of local taxes. While the Jews had begun construction of the Temple during the reign of Cyrus II (538-529) they accomplished little until the beginning of the second year of Darius I (521-485). Four years later, in his sixth regnal year, in 516 BCE, the builders finished construction of the Temple. Ezra records:

This temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar; it was the sixth year of the reign of King Darius. And the sons of Israel, the priests, the Levites and the rest of the exiles, celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy. (Ezra 6:15 NASB.)

There is no indication in the context of Ezra 6 that Darius I issued a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, its plaza, or moat, or that there was any additional stressful interference by detractors. In context, this decree simply ordered financing for Temple reconstruction and a halt to local interference with the project. The weight of the evidence suggests that the decree by Darius I at Ezra 6:8-12 is not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. Therefore, we reject Research Hypothesis 2 based on these data.

Decree for Temple Beautification
(Research Hypothesis 3)

Another generation, about 60 years later, decided they would restore the city's fortifications and commenced to rebuild its walls. The question is when did this occur? The answer has to do with the nature of Ezra 4.

The organization of Ezra is not strictly chronological but topical as well. The account in Ezra 4:6-23, dealing with king Ahasuerus and describing happenings during he time of Artaxerxes I, are insets. The chronological story flow of Ezra 4 ends at Ezra 4:5 with the beginning of the reign of Darius and picks up again at Ezra 4:24 with the second regnal year of king Darius.

Ezra 4:1-23, as a literary unit, summarizes and tells of some the opposition the Jews faced in rebuilding the Temple and the city. This inset section is in chronological order from Cyrus to Artaxerxes I. It ends with governmental halting of the Jewish attempt to rebuild the city by "force of arms" at the order of Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:23).

Paul Kroll, who argues that Ezra 7 is a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, holds that this effort to rebuild Jerusalem occurred before the seventh regnal year of Artaxerxes I (Kroll 1966:10, 19). The account in Ezra 4:7-23, however, does not record when this happened. It could have been before or after the decree of Ezra 7. Kroll assumes the stop order did in fact occur prior to the decree of Ezra 4:7. He also would have us believe that somehow the decree of Ezra 7 has to be the one authorizing rebuilding the city. Artaxerxes I, however, did not issue a decree to rebuild the city until his 20th regnal year 444 (445) BCE (Nehemiah 2:1-8).

The salient question is, who were the Jews who came from Artaxerxes I to Jerusalem and began rebuilding the city? The answer should be no great surprise. Ezra records only one set of Jews early in the king's reign who came up to Jerusalem from Artaxerxes. They consisted of the priest Ezra and those who, in 458 (457) BCE, went with him to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:13). Apparently, this group got caught up in the fervor of their reformed Judaism and allowed their zealousness to get the best of them and they intentionally committed an ultra vires act. Artaxerxes made it quite clear that he did not want the city rebuilt unless he ordered it so by a decree. This requires the Ezra 4 stop order to follow the Ezra 7 decree.

Charles Voss, in a particularly hash attack on an article by William Dankenbring (Dankenbring 1965), claims that the decree of Ezra 7, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, "was given to Ezra to beautify the Temple" not to rebuild Jerusalem. He argues that Nehemiah 2:1-3, in the context of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, deals with the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Voss 1997). Hoeh, Dankenbring, Kroll, and others linked the decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 with the starting date of the prophecy recorded in Daniel 9:25-26 (Hoeh 1959:16-17; Dankenbring 1965:9-11; Kroll 1966:9-19, 18-20).

Ezra 7:10 explains why Ezra traveled to Jerusalem in the seventh regnal year of Artaxerxes I:

For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel. (Ezra 7:10.)

With him traveled a number of people who could help him accomplish his mission. Ezra 7 describes his party:

And some of the sons of Israel and some of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the temple servants went up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes. (Ezra 7:7.)

The trip lasted four months. They departed Susa on Nisan 1 and arrived at Jerusalem on Ab 1.Ezra describes the trip in Ezra 8:1-34 and provides a detailed account of the people putting their religious affairs in order in Ezra 9-10. There is no indication in these passages that Artaxerxes I ordered the Jews to restore the city of Jerusalem.

Consider now the decree of Artaxerxes as set forth in Ezra 7:12-26. The text framed at the right is from the NASB with the text reformatted for readability.

Where in this passage do you read that Artaxerxes I decreed that the city of Jerusalem was to be rebuilt? Where in Ezra 7-10 do you find the king either ordering or authorizing Ezra to restore and rebuild Jerusalem? The silence is deafening. All we have in Ezra 7-10 is the circumstance of the Persian king Artaxerxes issuing a decree permitting the Jewish people in his empire to return to Jerusalem to beautify the Temple and to worship God.

The weight of the evidence suggests that the decree of Artaxerxes I at Ezra 7:12-26 is not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. There is no language of rebuilding. While many Christian writers claim that Ezra 7 marks the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem a detailed examination of Ezra 7-10 shows no language whatsoever in support of that claim. The context shows that Ezra simply received permission to beautify the Temple and intensify its worship system. Therefore we must reject Research Hypothesis 3 based on the data.

Decree to Rebuild City Walls and Gates
(Research Hypothesis 4)

Nehemiah, who served as royal cupbearer to Artaxerxes I, was in Shushan (Susa) in the month of Kislev (Chisleu) in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I (Nehemiah 1:1). He records that he had received a report from Judah that "the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire" (Nehemiah 1:3).

Nehemiah 2:1 reports that in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I a downcast Nehemiah appeared before the king in the month of Nisan. He explained to the curious king that he could not be other than sad when "the city, the place of my fathers' tombs, lies desolate and its gates have been consumed by fire?" (Nehemiah 2:3). He said to the king "send me to Judah, to the city of my father's tombs, that I may rebuild it" (Nehemiah 2:5). He also asked for a supply of timber for the beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city, and for the house to which he would will go (Nehemiah 2:5, 2:8). The king granted his requests and issued the necessary letters (Nehemiah 2:8).

The conclusion is inescapable. Here there is specific language dealing with rebuilding the city. It is the only decree of Artaxerxes that suggests the rebuilding of the city. Therefore, some writers claim that this is the decree spoken of in Daniel 9. The problem, however, is that the language of this passage in Nehemiah does not suggest that this was the launch of the effort to rebuild Jerusalem. Rather, it implies that it was Nehemiah's request to join the ongoing building of Jerusalem by bringing the necessary materials specifically for construction of walls, gates, and an official residence for the governor.

In context, this decree by Artaxerxes I did not commission the rebuilding of Jerusalem per se. At best it permitted the establishment of fortifications through the rebuilding of city walls and gates and the construction of an official residence for the governor. The king appointed Nehemiah to the task.

The weight of the evidence suggests that the decree of Artaxerxes I at Nehemiah 1 is not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. It is certainly plausible, but not more probable than not, as we cannot rule out the plausibility, that this order to rebuild is the decree of Daniel 9. Therefore we must reject Research Hypothesis 4 based on the data.

Summary and Conclusion

The incidental resettlement of the city by Jews constituted a de facto rebuilding of the city, an evolutionary process, extending over many decades. It began long before Artaxerxes issued his two decrees. The decrees in Ezra and Nehemiah either hindered or advanced the process but there is no clear and convincing evidence that any of the four decrees considered in this analysis commissioned the launch of the rebuilding of the city.

Ezra and Nehemiah do not show beyond a reasonable doubt any decree specifically to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. What the texts do show is a Jerusalem being built through a process of continuous resettlement from the time of Cyrus the Great and a series of public projects with the support of Persian emperors. The progression of these public projects was the building of the Temple, beautifying it, and the raising up of city walls and erection of gates for protection, in a milieu of local opposition.

Whatever the intended meaning of Daniel 9, the evidence shows that beyond a reasonable doubt that of the decrees of Ezra and Nehemiah concerning Jerusalem not one qualifies as the one spoken by Daniel the prophet. We must look elsewhere for a solution of the meaning of Daniel 9 and the time and nature of its decree to initiate the rebuilding of the city.

Comments from Our Viewers

Please send us your Comments by e-mail. All submissions must be signed and include your street or route address and telephone number, which we require for verification purposes only. We reserve the right to use or not use comments so addressed (in whole or in part, as deemed in the public interest), to include your name, and to edit or condense your comments for clarity and space. Click here to send us Comments.

Martin's Temple Theory 

I think Martin is correct (see Jerusalem's Temples: Lost and Found? or Simply Forgotten?). The gold in the temple would have melted when it was destroyed and ran down into the rocks. This would explain why not one stone would be left upon another. The western wailing wall and the Mosque of Omar could not be a part of the temple.

--Tom Parker

Molecular Genealogy

Your DNA initiative is a great idea (see Who Are the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel?). But since the LDS has no archeological basis for their beliefs, DNA evidence won't make much difference either.

--Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel

From your news story titled "Jews are the Genetic Brothers of Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese but not to Non-Jewish Europeans" I quote:

...Jewish communities have generally not intermixed with non-Jewish populations. If they had, then Jewish men from different regions of the world would not share the same genetic signatures in their Y chromosome.

This is the key to why the genetic study is essentially meaningless and proves nothing one way or the other. For this study to prove anything, the same would have to be true of the "lost tribes". No one claims that the descendants of the "lost ten tribes" did not intermix with non-Israelite peoples. In fact, I think it is generally understood that they did so and quite liberally. The results of this study should therefore be totally unsurprising and irrelevant. I think because of the liberal intermarrying, genetics will probably never prove or disprove the theory.

-Robert Keeney

A Rolling Stone?

I would like to kindly challenge you on one of your questions and answers at this web page http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/QA-Last Seder.htm. Pertaining to the last question on this page, "Was the stone in front of Jesus' tomb round?" the answer given was "A couple of women could have easily rolled a large rolling stone set in a track of the type used in the Herodian period. The women couldn't move the stone since it was a block not a round stone. Note that the angels sat on the stone as if were a bench." I have to disagree. According to John 20:11-12, it states that Mary stooped down to look into the sepulcher and then she saw the two angels sitting on the bench on which Jesus had previously lain! One at each end, indicating a rectangular block of stone. But that was inside!

--Bob Strugnell

Oops! You came on a draft page officially not published. It is part of the second article on The Last Seder in preparation for Perspectives. The sentence should read "Note that an angel sat on the stone, which he had rolled away from the door of the tomb, as if it were a bench (Matthew 28:2)." Some have suggested to us that one can roll a squared stone, actually a cube or block, although in context "moved" may be a better English rendering here. And yes, Mary Magdalene saw two angels sitting in the tomb as well (John 20:12).

Of the over 900 rock tombs discovered from Herodian times in and around Jerusalem only four had round blocking stones. The rest were square. In Jesus� day round blocking stones, set in stone tracks, were extremely rare and found only in the tombs of wealthy and distinguished families. This was neither the kind of stone placed at Jesus� tomb nor the kind of tomb into which Joseph of Arimathea placed him. Jesus� tomb was a standard small burial room, with a standing pit and burial benches along three sides, with a square blocking stone placed at its entrance (Kloner 1999:23).

--Editor

In the Beginning

Being that God is Eternal and all things have always been, we need to understand the word in the beginning. If God is eternal then all things have always been. 

In the beginning. What beginning are we talking about? There have been many beginnings through Eternity of Eternities. Take the creation of mankind and animals and plants, we can say, this was the beginning of the creation of plant, animal and man. What was before this time of beginning we do not know. but before there is a beginning of anything, there has to be an end of what was before, to begin again. 

For example, before the fall of man it had been a beginning of righteousness everything God made was good. What brought the end of this age (world)? We know it was sin. So the beginning of that age ended because of sin. So now the beginning of new age (world) begins with a race of a fallen creation. This world (creation-age) is totality different then the world (age) before. Now this age (world) to, will soon come to and end because of wickedness and so it did by the flood of waters. After the flood destroyed that World age. Now another beginning starts again. One world ends and another begins. This is the cycle. It has always been.

The world (age) we now live in, will also come to an end, as it is written by fire. Then we read that he will again create new heavens and a new earth another beginning of righteousness and peace. So we see a pattern of cycles of many beginnings.

And because time (age=world) before the time we know of the book of Genesis there is no written documents that we know of, before the (age=world) of Genesis. All has been lost throughout the ages (=worlds) before someone or persons finally begin to record (=write) the events. Maybe it had been written, but with the destruction of one age to another the written documents of those ages also perished. And the only written documents we have today, is because those before the flood from Adam was handed down by mouth then written, handed down to Noah and down to us.

Therefore, we only know what took place from the book of Genesis to Revelation. This makes better sense to me. We see, that all this beginnings of time were worlds of hundreds of years before they came to an end, and a new beginning started.

--Stella Carabajal

Questions & Answers

Please feel free to submit short questions. We reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be in the public interest. We reserve the right to use or not use questions (in whole or in part), to include your name, and to edit or condense your questions for clarity and space. Click here to submit a question to the editor.

Giants in the Levant 

--Chet Stanger

--John Williams

--Editor

Land of Put 

II am trying to find out where the land of Put was, as mentioned a few times in the Bible. One of these is in Ezekiel 27:10 and another is Ezekiel 38:5. What can you tell me about it or where can I find out about it? I had a dream some time ago about this place but didn't even know it existed until I ran across it in the Bible. 

--Kathleen Bulla

Put appears to be the land we now know as Libya or part of contemporary Libya. The article Put by W. S. Lasor in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 3, provides the details for this identification (Lasor 1986:1059).

--Editor

First Century Christian Tombs

I am wondering if you know anything bout supposed first Century Christian Tombs found in Jerusalem with the Tau or + and the name Jesus or other New Testament names. I read articles in the Jerusalem Christian Review and I would appreciate it if you could tell me if they are trustworthy and if they are true. I also seen a reference to Archaeology of the New Testament by Jack Finegan that supposedly refers to First Century Christian Tombs with inscriptions about Jesus dating back to the 30's and 40's A.D. If the Tombs are not real First Century tombs then is there any archaeological evidence for Jesus?

--Blake Reas

The tombs are real but they are all Jewish as far as we know. We are unaware of any evidence that the Tau and + were the symbols used by the people of God, Judeo-Christians, in those early days of the church. These symbols were inventions of later generations. The marks you refer to, found on some ossuaries, appear to be no more than traces of the manufacturing process not symbols. The Jerusalem Christian Review , particularly Jean Gilman's article (Gilman 1992:1), should be seen in context with all the validity of the tabloids you find in the typical US supermarket checkout station. As to archaeological evidence for Jesus, it all depends on what you mean by evidence. There is no corpse. We don't have any of his clothing although some have made a religion out of the fake should of Turin. We don't have the cross although there are many fakes. No one really knows exactly where the tomb was or the exact location of the resurrection. No one knows where his home was in Nazareth. No one knows where he stayed at Capernaum although the remains of the old synagogue were found. No one knows were any of the original apostles lie buried with any certainty. The evidence of Jesus' Messiahship is independent of archaeology and lies in the teachings of the New Testament including God's calling and answered prayer.

--Editor

I had a question as to how far the children of Israel traveled in the book of Exodus, leaving Egypt and arriving in Canaan? Yes, the King James bible said that it took 40 years, but I wanted to know how long it might have taken if God had not determined other wise. Can you help me?

--A young minister

Its about 190 miles from Cairo to Beersheba. From Beersheba to Jerusalem its another 84 miles. You can probably walk it in a week.

--editor

British Israelism

I am currently doing some further study into the topic of British Israelism. It was something I was heavily into, but unfortunately I based it on little evidence. Have you seen any recent advancements, genetic or historical, that give evidence either for or against with this topic.

--Drew Dixon

--editor

I have been trying to find out what the fisherman in biblical times would have fished with. I don't really know how to get this information and have been looking around online for about six weeks and still have no answers. If you could assist me in any way it would be a great help. Im trying to get as specific of an answers as possible, and have found it very difficult to get any answers at all.

--Matt Ritchey

Do a search on Mendel Nun. He specialized in such matters.

--editor

I have heard tales of the remains of a Caucasian being found somewhere in the Pacific northwest. Allegedly, this individual had been in North America well before the Asian hunters traversed the Bering Straight. Do you know if this tale is true?

--Grant Abrahamson

This is the Kennewick Man. These remains have been subject to a battle between scientists and the descendants of American aborigines, under the politically correct, controversial, 1990 federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which involves many issues. The molecular genealogy of the Kennewick man is unclear.

--editor

Is there any archaeological evidence in defense or opposing Graham Hancock's theory of the Ark of the Covenant lying in Ethiopia? Are there any alternative views that can be backed up?

--Katie Helgeson

Archaeological evidence? No. The Ark of the Covenant remains lost. It was lost even in Jesus' day. It disappeared from history in First Temple times. The ark was not part of the inventory of the Temple built by Herod the Great (see Josephus, Wars 5.5.5; Whiston 1957:784). Some adventurers seek in the copper Dead Sea Scrolls, from the Second Temple period, clues that would lead them to treasures hidden before the Romans took Jerusalem in 70 CE. Presumably, if found, these treasures would join other items at the Temple Institute in Jerusalem. The staff at the institute have assembled various tools, pots, jars, and the like to reinstate the Levitical offerings in a Third Temple or national altar on the Temple Mount. The collection is incomplete and each item is quite costly. The time of manufactures of each of these items is our own day and you may view them, and have an explanation of each, at the Temple Institute.

Imagine the excitement the discovery of a cash of Second Temple ceremonial offertory utensils would create. Presently, it would likely be the stimulus for an excited Jewish populace to storm and seize the Haram esh-Sharif, the ancient Roman Antonia fortress, from the Muslims and the Israeli military to reinstate morning and evening sacrifices. At this time such an event would be catastrophic. If Temple ceremonial items from the Second Temple Period could be so problematic consider what the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant would produce. One leading Israeli archaeologist told me that it is better for the Ark to remain lost since its appearance could bring about World War III. We agree for such would fuel Jewish zealots and extremists and Arabic opposition but there are other problems.

In Christian thinking God no longer vests the Ark with supernatural power as the Old Covenant ended at Jesus' death and this is the time of the New Covenant. In traditional Jewish and messianic Jewish thinking the Old Covenant continues in force and the Ark remains the focus of just as much power as it ever was. The discovery of an Ark charged with the supernatural power of God or void of such power would challenge many theologies. An Ark devoid of power would be confirming to Christians, problematic for Jews, and compelling to skeptics. Yet the net result would likely be the further undermining of the confidence of many in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament).

While we are not into pop-archaeology we found Graham Hancock's The Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant (Hancock 1992)quite entertaining. This work details Hancock's adventurer's quest for the lost Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia and raises some interesting questions about the Knights of the Templar. Many centuries ago the Templars dug for the Ark on the Haram esh-Sharif which they believed to be the Temple Mount.

We assume you have seen the Steven Spielberg film Raiders of the Lost Ark, a Lucasfilm Ltd. production, by Paramount Pictures. The Sign and the Seal and Raiders of the Lost Ark place the Ark in Egypt on different theories. The Spielberg film ended with the Ark of the Covenant remaining lost by assignment to a U.S. federal warehouse where the world would not have to deal with it. In Hancock's book the Ark also remains "lost" to the world in a Coptic church.

Ephraim Isaac considered Hancock's claims in a book review, "Is the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia?", published in the Biblical Archaeology Review (Isaac 1993:60-63). You also might refer to The Real "Ark Mystery" by Doug Ward on the WWW at http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com.