[Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar

[Lisa Liel via Avodah]

On 5/12/2015 3:36 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:

>     5) Koresh= Daryavush=Artachasta

>   <<As far as Achashveirosh being Artachshasta, Chazal say Artaxerxes 
> was a throne name.  And in fact, Greek sources say that both 
> Artaxerxes II and III adopted it as a throne name. Furthermore, the 
> Septuagint version of Esther refers to the king as Artaxerxes, so 
> saying that Ahasuerus is Artaxerxes is a truism that has nothing to do 
> with chronology >>

> Do these Greek sources explain how Koresh and Daryavush are the same 
> person?

Fortunately, they don't have to, since that's just Midrash and has no 
nafka mina l'maaseh.

> Besides you use the parts of the Greek sources that you like and 
> reject those that dont fit your thesis

Of course I do.  The Greek sources aren't what we would call "history" 
today.  Herodotus collected folklore and picked the versions he liked to 
make a more entertaining story.  He says himself that he heard 4 
different and conflicting stories about Cyrus's backstory, and chose the 
one he liked best.  He didn't even preserve the other three so that we 
could make our own decisions. He made his living in Greece by 
entertaining his patron(s) with exotic stories from exotic lands.

> Now you rely on the Septuagint? Almost everyone else identifies 
> Achashverosh with Xerxes,

Not so.  Everyone recognizes that the *name* Achashveirosh is the same 
as the *name* Xerxes.  Or rather, that both names are transliterations 
of the original Persian Khshayarsha.  To say that "almost everyone else 
identifies Achashverosh with Xerxes" indicates that you aren't 
particularly well versed in the subject.  I mean, at the very least, 
read the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahasuerus which 
notes which sources have identified him as which kings.

> Besides the are several inscriptions in ancient Persian that give a 
> detailed list of kings eg
> Artaxerxes the great king, king of kings king of peoples king on this 
> earth son od Darius the king Darius son of Artaxerxes the king, Xerxes 
> son of Darius the king Darius son of Hystapes the Archaemend proclaims ..

<sigh> Have you read the Behistun Inscription?  Darius son of Hystaspes 
had it inscribed.  In it, he talks about Babylonian kings who weren't 
actually Babylonian kings.  At least not by our standards.  They were 
pretenders, since Babylon had fallen to the Medes and Persians.  But 
they gave themselves royal titles and claimed descent from 
Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus and the rest. From their point of view, 
they *were* kings of Babylon.  From the Persian point of view, they were 
pretenders.  Similarly, what do you think happened to Persia when 
Alexander conquered it?  From one day to the next, Persia vaporized?  
Persia covered a huge area.

Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The Challenge 
of Jewish History".  I don't agree with all of his conclusions, and I'm 
embarrassingly late completing a review of the book, but he posits the 
Persian line continuing even after Alexander whupped Darius at 
Gaugamela.  And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which started only about 
70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed descent from the 
Achaemenids of the Persian Empire.  As did the later Sassanids.  Names 
like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the Old Persian Artaxerxes.

That's completely aside from the fact that we *know* there were 
forgeries perpetrated in ancient times for the purpose of establishing 
royal descent.  Check out Roland Kent's article "The Present Status of 
Old Persian Studies" in /Journal of the American Oriental Society, 
/1936, vol. 56, p. 215ff. 
(http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/594668?uid=3739656&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21106376285721).

A couple of inscriptions that are nothing but royal titles with no 
actual content to them is kind of flimsy evidence.  Certainly not 
something strong enough to trash Chazal's entire picture of such an 
important period in our history.

> As an aside modern chronology of Eygpt has been confirmed by recent 
> carbon 14 dating.

Source.  Because you may not be aware of this, but when you bring items 
in for carbon dating, you have to tell them -- up front -- what the 
rough date is that you think they're from.  So that they can throw away 
any results that skew too far from that as "contaminated".  The rest are 
subject to a fudge factor (sorry: correction factor) to help make them 
fit.  But I'd like to see the source you have for carbon dating of 
modern Egyptian chronology.

> Dates of Sishak and other Assyrina and Babylonian kings have been 
> confirmed by their writings combined with various astronomical events 
> mentioned in their writings.

Assuming Sosenk = Shishak, which is iffy, considering that Sosenk only 
claims to have campaigned in the north of Israel, which would be odd for 
Shishak, whose son-in-law Yeravam was ruling there.  The rest of what 
you're talking about is pure confirmation bias.  They have a model and 
they shoehorn any evidence they find into that model, even if they have 
to kind of mush it in there.

> <<Again, he wasn't Kohen Gadol.  No one holds that he was.  Let me try 
> and explain a little more about Midrash.  Chazal bring Midrashim that 
> contradict one another.  For example, there's a Midrash that says 
> Esther never slept with Achashveirosh. That Hashem sent a mal'ach that 
> took her place.  That conflicts with "Esther karka hayta", as well as 
> with the Midrash that Darius the Persian was Esther's son.  None of 
> this is problematic.  Because the truth of Midrashim is not in their 
> concretes.  Like analogies, Midrashim are abstractions which are 
> anchored with concretes, but are not defined by those concretes.>>

> That's your opinion. In fact many achronim take these conflating of 
> names very seriously. While you claim Eliyahu wasn't a cohen gadol 
> there is in fact a halachic literature whether he was or not and 
> whether a cohen gadol can resign.
> For example see hebrewbooks Magen Tzvi siman 36 page 388 where he 
> concludes that a Cohen Gadol (annointed by oil) who resigns still has 
> all the laws of a cohen gadol

Midrash.  And if it were something more solid than that, you'd have more 
than just some achronim saying so.

> You wrote "Midrash that Darius the Persian was Esther's son " .
> However Darius's own version (Behustan) states that he was not the son 
> of the previous king (see also above inscription on a wall)

So what?  I'm confused.  I'm saying that Midrash isn't necessarily the 
literal fact, and you pick out a phrase from what I wrote and point out 
that it isn't the literal fact?  It seems like you're trying to make a 
point, but I'm not seeing what it is.

Lisa