Ezra-Nehemiah Chronology

It does not serve my own personal interests to argue for what I’m about to argue for given how it would destroy the 70 Weeks Chronology I have favored for over a decade now. 

It is often assumed that every Darius in Ezra but especially in chapters 5 and 6  is King Darius I sometimes called Darius The Great and that every Artaxerxes in both Ezra and Nehemiah is King Artaxerxes I Longimanus.  However this assumption has caused a lot of Chronological confusion for Ezra Chapter 4. 

A much simpler, more coherent timeline forms when one simply assumes the Darius of Ezra 4:5 is Darius I. The way this reference is worded it could be the same Darius as later being referred to in advance, but that wouldn’t fix the other Chronological problems.  The Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 is Xerxes I and thus also the Ahasuerus of Esther, in fact I think this verse is about the drama that Esther describes in more detail and thus upon reaching this Verse is where you should read Esther if you wanted to do a strictly Chronological reading of The Bible or just its Narratives.  Then the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23 is Artaxerxes I.  The Darius introduced in Ezra 4:24 through chapter 6 is Darius II Ochus and then the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7-8 and Nehemiah is Artaxerxes II Memnon. And then finally the Darius of the last verse of Nehemiah 12 is Darius III.

Josephus famously records Sanballat and Jaddua being still alive when Alexander comes to Jerusalem in 332 BC which definitely makes more sense if the Nehemiah narrative is late in the time of Artaxerxes II rather than almost a century earlier. 

The Seder Olam Rabba, which is in part the basis for the modern Jewish Calendar, removed about a century from the Persian period.  Now in-spite of the Seder Olam being a Jewish text the only people I’ve ever seen try to argue its shorter timeline for the Persian Empire is literally true are fringe Fundamentalist Christians trying to make it fit some alternate chronology they want to be true.

Part of what makes the Seder Olam’s timeline seem plausible to some is that our conventional understanding of Biblical History skips right from the first Artaxerxes to when Alexander conquers the Persian Empire.  So about a Century of Persian History is viewed as essentially just a long Filler Arc to someone viewing History mainly through a Biblical lens. 

I’ve seen people try to argue that the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4 is actually Cambyses II son of Cyrus but he didn’t reign long enough to have a 12th year. 

This new theory about the Persian Kings in Ezra-Nehemiah can potentially fix that. 

The only problem is that Ezra has Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak being important leaders both during the time of Cyrus in Ezra 3-4:3 and the time of Darius in Ezra 5-6. And that is a lot less plausible if that Darius is Darius II rather than the first. 

However there is a text known as 1 Esdras (or 3 Esdras when Ezra-Nehemiah are called 1st and 2nd Esdras) as well as Greek Esdras and Greek Ezra which is essentially another version of what Ezra covers.  It is not considered Canon by Jews or most Protestants but is included in Catholic Bibles and is firmly canonical to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. There are those who would argue the very early Church favored this Esdras over the Ezra now considered more universally Canon.  That usually goes hand in hand with other Septuagint Primacy arguments I don’t agree with, but it does exist. 

In the Greek Esdras narrative Zorobabel and Jesus don’t appear till the time of Darius in Chapter 5 and are not mentioned back during the time of Cyrus in Chapter 2. 

While this version lacks a reference to Ahasuerus or the first Darius it does have two separate Kings named Artexerxes, with the one who would be the first in chapter 2 and the second being introduced in chapter 7.

In Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 11, a Zorobabel is mentioned during the time of Cyrus near the end of Chapter 1, but his father isn’t identified and no High-Preist named Jeshua/Jesus is mentioned.  Zorobabel son of Salathiel and Jeshua son of Josedek as a pair, don't show up till the time of Darius in Chapter 3. Now Josephus is definitely presuming that Darius is Darius I, but it’s notable that the narrative he’s giving only has the fullness of this pair during the time of Darius. 

The Elaphantine Papyri seemingly place Johanan’s time as High Priest during the reign of Darius II, or already in the past during his 17th year.  So that could be a counterargument to all this. 

But the standard view that Ezra and Nehemiah served under Artaxerxes I can’t explain the earlier bad Artaxerxes who reigned before Darius.

Pilate's Governorship may have begun sooner in AD 17 or 18.

Here is an article on the subject arguing it could be the case based mostly on Roman Coinage.

http://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_Chronology_and_Tenure_of_Pontius_Pilate_New_Evidence_for_Re-dating_the_Period_of_Office._Judaea_and_Rome_in_Coins_65_BCE_-_135_CE._The_Numismatic_Circular_pp._1-7._Kenneth_L%C3%B6nnqvist

The above Article is behind a Paywall now, I first read it years ago when it wasn't so my memory of exactly how it made it's argument is foggy. 

There is a potential argument for this model from Josephus I have noticed that I don't think that article included.  Which is notable because something Josephus said is also basically the sole reason for the more common AD 26 date.

In Antiquities of The Jews Book 18. the last thing Josephus talks about at the end of chapter 2 before introducing Pilate in chapter 3 is the Death of Antiochus III of Commagene who died in AD 17.  The first three sections of chapter 3 are stories about affairs when Pilate was Governor, one of them being the Crucifixion of Jesus.

Then section 4 begins a long account of calamities that befell the Jews and Egyptians in Rome.  Tacitus Annals II records those same events, his Annals are explicitly year by year and he places them in AD 19 (the Year of the Consulship of Silanus and Balbus), the same year as the death of Germanicus.

Now the above article stresses how this need not change assumptions about the chronology of The Gospels, they're expanding Pilate's administration not moving it, he was still governor during the Passovers of 27-36, with myself long favoring the Passion being in AD 30.

However I have been flirting with the possibility of moving it down.  It would make my arguments for sooner Nativity Dates (Like 12 BC) even more plausible.  The 12 BC Model would have Jesus turn 30 in 19 and his 30th Year begin in 18. 

Apparently Tertullian had said there were 52 years between the first Advent and the fall of Jerusalem to Titus.  Which points us to AD 18.

What about the 15th Year of Tiberius?  Well I've already said more then once that Jesus Baptism could have actually happened before that, it's simply when John was arrested that happened then, which I do view as possibly merely months or even weeks before the Passover of the Crucifixion.  And it could be Luke was using a source counting from when Tiberius truly became Augustus's Heir and given the Tribunician power in AD 4 which can give us a 15th Year that begins in 18 and ends in 19.

This chronology would also make even more plausible the theory that Simon the Pharisee of Luke 7:36-50 is Simeon Ben Hillel.

This redating of the Crucifixion messes up the 70 Weeks Model I have argued for on this blog.  

Whether or not when the Crucifixion happened should be affected, I am convinced of these arguments for beginning Pilate's Governorship almost a decade sooner. 

Neo-Conservatism was a CIA op

First of all, to debunk the popular Trotskyist origins of Neo-Conservatism narrative, watch these videos from InDefenseOfTooucan, I’m not a Trotskyist but they are a Trotskyist YouTuber I respect.

https://youtu.be/xzM0lUko6hY

https://youtu.be/sgr2jkZxFcM

What most people typically mean when they refer to someone as a “Neo-Con” is the most Hawkish Pro Intervention people in the Republican Party in contrast to the firmly Non Interventionist Paleo-Cons.  Specifically how such Foreign Policy aims were framed during the Cold War and War on Terror.  Anyone meaning anything more specific than that is frankly referring to something that doesn’t even really exist., rarely has anyone actually called themselves a Neo-Con.

The core of Neo-Con ideology was defined by the magazine National Review and its founder William F. Buckley Jr.  Buckley was a Yale Graduate who is known to have worked for the CIA for two years at the start of the 50s including one of those for E. Howard Hunt in Mexico City. 

When he launched National Review in 1955 he made a point to hire intellectuals who were Ex-Communists of some sort.  This is tied to the basis for the Trotskyist claim, but the small number of Trotskyists among them were specifically Shachmanites, a sub group disowned by both Trotsky himself and James P. Cannon and are people who ultimately fell out even with Shachman. What most of them do happen to have in common is having all worked for either OSS or CIA at some point previously as they transitioned into abandoning The Left.  James Burnham is perhaps most important as the Magazine's lead writer on Foreign Policy specifically.  Whitaker Chambers proved a valuable spy because he’d spied for the Soviet Union when he was a Communist, a rare example of that McCarthyist accusation being true (usually Soviet Spies did not publicly claim to be Communists or participate in the CPUSA). 

But going outside the realm of intellectuals.  Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles were major players in the internal politics of The Republican Party and were in fact key backer of the early rise in political importance of both Prescott Bush and Richard Nixon.

Irving Kristol was part of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a known CIA operation.  However I don’t consider Irving Kristol important actually, he and many others you usually see named as the key Neo-Conservatives are part of the Genre of historical figures whose importance as “behind the scenes” political players is grossly exaggerated while just so happening to be Jews.  However since Kristol is the only person who has ever really self identified as a Neo-Con I couldn’t ignore him completely.

Fascism is the original Red-Brown Alliance

Neither popular answer to the question of why “Socialism” is in the name of “National Socialism” is entirely correct.  They were not indistinguishable from other Socialists on everything but the Nationalism v Internationalism question.  But neither can a claim it was all a lie to trick the working class with no sincerity behind it hold up to scrutiny.

The term “Red-Brown Alliance” is one of many used for the concept of the Far Left and Far Right being sometimes allied in mutual disdain for some aspect of the current Status Quo.  The reason the color Brown is referenced in that term is because in the post WW2 era Fascism is the Far Right.   But in the 19th Century the Far Right was regular old fashioned Royalism, in France it was being a Bourbon-Legitimist.  While the Far Left included both Internationalists and Nationalists, both Socialists and Jacobins, while The Center was Burkean Conservatism and Constitutional Monarchy.

The Philosophical groundwork for trying to be both a Monarchist and Revolutionary at once was laid by Thomas Carlyle who romanticized Medieval Europe and French Revolutionaries at the same time.  His works were popular in the Antebellum South and in Germany.  In The South it helped the Proto-Confederates from a justifying ideology that married Robert Filmer Paternalism with Jeffersonianism.

However the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War is where Proto-Fascism begins to take shape on the ground in Europe.  

In France it resulted in Revanchism and the creation of the Ligue des Patriotes in 1882 by Paul Déroulède.  In 1883 the last heir to Charles X died and so the Legitimists were split between those who now supported the Orleans line and the Carlists, this opened the door for a fusion of Ultra Royalism with the Bourgeois Nationalism of the Oleanists.  But importantly this was contemporary with the rise of Revanchism, that was the pan ideological phenomena.  Revanchism helped spawn a new mode of Antisemitism in France as France’s Ashkenazi population became included in French Germanophobia.  In 1886 Édouard Drumont published La France juive (Jewish France).  

In Germany meanwhile their Victory in the Franco-Prussian War emboldened the Volkisch Movement allowing Pan-Germanism to become no longer just a liberal but also an Imperialist goal as well as appealing to Social Reactionaries.  All while Modern Antisemitism got its start there.

1888 and early 1889 saw the rise and fall of Georges Ernest Boulanger whose ideologically vague movement was founded on three Principles, Revanchism, Revision of the Constitution and Restoration of The Monarchy.  One influential student of that movement was Maurice Barres. 

Later 1889 also saw the formation of the Second International where Nationalists were formally disowned from the Socialist movement.

From 1984 the Dreyfus Affair became a new animating movement that untied Socialists and Royalists. Maurice Barres wrote La Cocarde (The Cockade) to defend his ideas, attempting to bridge the gap between the far-left and the far-right and went on to become a leader of the before mentioned Ligue des Patriotes.

At this time Action Française was founded by Maurice Pujo, Henri Vaugeois, Jacques Bainville and Léon de Montesquiou, and then was later lead by Charles Maurras.  Charles Maurras created the ideology of Integral Nationalism combining Olreanist Royalism with the Mutualist Anarchism of Proudhon.  A student of his was Georges Valois. And he would also influence Jean Denis and the Rexist Party in Belgium.

Hubert Lagardelle and Gustave Hervé were other Anti-Reformist French Socialists who became radicalized by Nationalism during the WWI era, Mussolini himself cited Lagardelle as an origin point for Fascism. Herve founded in 1919 the Parti socialiste national (PSN) which was openly Class Collaborationist, and he openly vocally supported Mussolini.

Most of the key founders of Italian Fascism were former Leftists of some kind, not just Mussolini himself.  The common denominator was not which ideological subgenre they came from, they included former Marxists and Leninists and Syndicalists and Futurists and Anarchists of both Collectivist and Individualist varieties.  The common denominator was they were all people who supported Italy entering WWI because of their Nationalism. 

And today the primary unifying issue of the Far Right and Far Left is Anti-Zionism, and has been since Fancis Parker Yockey and Francois Genoud.

No God does not Condemn based on Thoughts Alone

Among Conservative Evangelical Christians it is common to emphasize that “according to The Bible we are judged even for our thoughts”, this influenced even my own thinking way back in the day.  

 

The basis for this is mainly The Tenth Commandment (Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21) and certain quotes from The Sermon on The Mount (Matthew 5: 22 and 27-28).

Many theologians have argued that Coveting in The Bible refers to more than just having ever felt like you want something someone else has.  It’s about dwelling in that Envy and letting it consume you.  It’s a Sin of thought rather than action only in contrast to actual Theft or Adultery, but it is very likely still affecting your actions towards the person you are Envious of even if only subconsciously.  2 Peter 2:14 refers specifically to “Covetous Practices”.  Roman 13:9 lists this command among those sufficiently covered under “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” so if you are obeying that commandment you are sufficiently obeying the Tenth. 

Looking at a Woman with Lust in your Heart absolutely involves an action the word "look" is a verb.  It’s about leering, ogling. (And that’s leaving aside the dispute of whether the context being about Adultery means Gune should be translated Wife rather than Woman.) It’s not a condemnation of having ever had horny thoughts, or even of indulging such thoughts privately in a way that harms no one.

Likewise calling someone a “Fool” or “Raca” is an act of insulting them, the way people twist that into being a condemnation of ever being Angry is absurd. Righteous Anger is absolutely something The Bible condones. 

Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus felt all the same Temptations we do but never Sinned, this to me is clearly about more than just the famous story of Satan directly tempting Him three times.  It’s an affirmation of the Full Humanity of Jesus, He had thoughts that would be Sinful to Act upon, but because He didn’t Act on them they were not Sins. 

And it’s because I’m a former Conservative when it comes to this very aspect of morality, that I’m among those Leftists who see similar attitudes among so-called Leftists as inherently Conservative.  It is pure Idealism, a product of Immanuel Kant’s pseudo intellectual babble about thoughts somehow being more powerful than actions.

And this is part of why I’m against Antishipers.

Harm Reduction needs to be the basis for Morality.

That is my position as both a Christian and a Communist. 

Whether an action is truly "Evil" or not should solely be about whether or not it does Harm, not whether or not you find it "Weird" or "Gross".  But unfortunately many who claim to agree with that still seek to define "Harm" in increasingly abstract ways. The Harm has to be tangible and measurable especially if you want to make it a civil crime. 

In addition to that, in my view whether someone is a currently a bad person or not is solely determined by whether they are currently doing or inclined to do harmful actions or not.  I don't believe they need to in anyway "make up" for their past sins, I don't even really think they need to regret them, Anime does a great Job at turning Villains into Heroes without even changing anything about that character's thought process.

Deserved or Earned Redemption is an Oxymoron, the literal definition of the word is about Redeeming a Debt that can't actually be paid off, same with Forgiveness.  

What's funny is people are gonna tell me my attitude can't be a Leftist one because it's the traditional Christian one.  The problem is modern mainstream Christianity is as Conservative as it now because they don't believe that anymore.  They may deny that fact, they may still preach from the Pulpit that all you need to do to be Forgiven is accept Jesus, but when you get into the weeds of their Theology that is utterly contradicted, because they are all either Calvinists or Arminians, they believe either Evil People were Predestined for Damnation by God for the fun of it, or that they all chose to be Evil.  However I view Sin as an illness that needs to be cured not a Crime that needs to be Punished, and Christians who agree with me were the ones who invented Communism and Liberalism long before any Atheists came along.

Leftists are supposed believe in Materialism not Free Will.  There is no value in Punishing people because that won't undo the harm they caused. 

Materialism and Idealism

 One thing that unintentionally poisons the well of Internet Leftist Discourse is that both of those words (as well as their -ist forms) have more than one meaning, and yet many either only know one meaning, ignorantly conflate the meanings, or are willingly ignorant that others don’t know the other meanings.

Idealism as in the Metaphysics of Platonism and Immanuel Kant has nothing to do with what it means when someone is called an Idealist in contrast to being a Pragmatist or Cynical.  In the latter case Ideal is being used as a synonym for Value or Moral rather then a Platonic Ideal Form.

Likewise Materialist Metaphysics (or lack of metaphysics) has little to do with the “Historical Materialism” of philosophies like Marxism and nothing to do with the Madonna song Material Girl.

You can be Idealistic while still rejecting Philosophical Idealism, and you can be a Historical Materialist while while holding to Idealist Metaphysics.

Materialist Metaphysics is a key pillar of Stoicism, and the main reason I call myself somewhat of a Stoic rather than most anything popularly associated with Stoicism.  While the rejection of anything metaphysical existing is Epicureanism. 

I agree with Historical Materialism but not the more specific Dialectical Materialism which I view as a symptom of Pythagorean Dualism.  And that’s why my status as a Marxist is questionable.

So I’m definitely not a Philosophical Idealist.  How much the other Idealism applies to me is purely subjective.