25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>The</strong> 20 th Year of Artaxerxes 383<br />

Xerxes with Darius by stating that Darius died one year after this<br />

appointment of Xerxes as his successor. Herodotus says:<br />

Xerxes, then, was publicly proclaimed as next in succession to<br />

the crown, and Darius was free to turn his attention to the<br />

war. Death, however, cut him off before his preparations<br />

were complete; he died in the year following this incident and<br />

the Egyptian rebellion, after a reign of thirtysix years, and so<br />

was robbed of his chance to punish either Egypt or the<br />

Athenians. After his death the crown passed to his son<br />

Xerxes.<br />

What we find, then, is that Darius appointed Xerxes his successor<br />

one year (not ten!) before his own death. Further, Herodotus does not say<br />

that Darius appointed Xerxes his coregent, but his successor. (Note, for<br />

instance, the wording of the passage quoted by the Watch Tower<br />

Society in Aubrey de Sélincourt's translation in the Penguin Books).<br />

In the preceding paragraphs, Herodotus explains that a common<br />

rule among Persian kings before they went out to war was to<br />

appoint their successors to the throne, in case they themselves<br />

would be killed in the battles. This custom, he says, was also<br />

followed by Darius.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Watch Tower Society, then, quotes Herodotus completely out<br />

of context, leaving out the subsequent sentences that refute their<br />

claim. Incredibly, they introduce this forgery by terming it "solid<br />

evidence"!<br />

Other "solid evidence" presented in their Bible dictionary in<br />

support of the coregency is of the same quality, for example the<br />

bas-reliefs found in Persepolis, which Herzfeld in 1932 felt<br />

indicated a coregency of Xerxes with Darius. (Insight 2, p. 615) This<br />

idea, however, is dismissed by modern scholars. <strong>The</strong> very fact that<br />

the crown prince is pictured as standing behind the throne shows that<br />

he is not a king and a coregent, but an appointed successor.<br />

Second, no names are found on the relief, and the conclusion that<br />

the man on the throne is Darius and the crown prince is Xerxes is<br />

nothing but a guess. J. M. Cook, in his work on the history of<br />

Persia, argues that the crown prince is Artobazanes, the oldest son<br />

of Darius. (Cook, <strong>The</strong> Persian Empire, New York 1983, p. 75) Other<br />

modern scholars, such as A. B. Tilia and von Gall, have argued that<br />

the king cannot be Darius but must be Xerxes, and that the crown<br />

prince, therefore, is the son of Xerxes! (Cook, p. 242, ftn. 24)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!