Meyer's reference Yebamoth 48a should be 48b, also to be corrected in Donner and Rig, op. Meyer's rendering appeals also to the writer of this paper. Dupont-Sommer, op. Adon appears as a personal name in Ugarit.
See A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cundiformes alphabetiques Paris, , I, The broken sentence of the last two lines allows different interpretations. Dupont-Sommer, connecting it with a statement of Berossus, that the governor of Egypt, Coele-Syria and Phoenicia had defected, 19 thinks that these lines contain the information that the governor had already been put to death and that the secretary had been changed by the invading Babylonians.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Description: North of England publisher with strong line in award-winning music books, memoirs and novels. In a Fashion of ideas used in the total and fourth protectors, instructing with the unseen relations, Britain dropped as the first editor Page. View Book. Akten eines internationalen Symposiums in Uppsala Person Reference in Interaction.
On the other hand, according to Ginsberg's interpretation of these lines Adon warns the Pharaoh that in the case of a Babylonian victory the land which so far had been Egypt's possession would receive a governor appointed by the Babylonian king, and would experience drastic changes of its borders. The latter interpretation seems more plausible than the former and has been adopted in the translation presented above. The most tantalizing lacuna is the missing name of the country or city over which Adon reigned. On the original document the name of the place had followed the last preserved word on line i.
This now merely reads "To the Lord of kings, Pharaoh, your servant, Adon, king of. If it could be ascertained, most other questions connected with the letter would likely find satisfactory answers. On the other hand, it is quite certain that the letter never contained a date or the names of either the Egyptian or the Babylonian kings.
A date and these names were considered superfluous, for everyone concerned was expected to know them. This missing information must therefore be obtained from considerations about the historical background into which the letter fits. It is obvious that the letter was written at the time of one of the invasions of the Babylonian army during the which the title Pharaoh is prefixed to a king's name after the model of the Biblical "Pharaoh Hophra.
Of the Babylonian kings who reigned during this period, only Nebuchadnezzar II can be considered as the king under whom Adon's city or country was threatened, for in the time of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father, the Egyptian kings of the 26th Dynasty were undisputed overlords of Syria and Palestine. On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar's successors never carried out military campaigns which brought them into conflict with Egypt.
Hence it is rather certain that the letter was written neither earlier than , nor later than The name Adon is of limited value for an understanding of the historical situation in which the letter was written, because no king by that name is known to have reigned in the time of the Neo-Babylonian empire in any Asian area under Egyptian influence, which was at that time Syria and Palestine.
The name Adon is a very neutral Semitic name which could have been borne by any Semite king, whether he was an Aramaean, a Phoenician, or even a Philistine, of whom some bear good Semitic names such as Abimiti and Ahumilki, kings of Ashdod. An old Canaanite town in the central coastal area of western Palestine. In Hellenistic times it was called Pegae. Herod the Great rebuilt it and called it Antipatris after his father.
A town in the territory of Asher, Jos 19 3o and probably Jugs 31, although it is spelled there Aphik. It has been identified with Tell Kurdcineh, 6 miles southeast of Acco. A town in Transjordania, i Ki 20 26, 30; 2 Ki 13 17, which has been identified with Fig, about 3 miles east of the Sea of Galilee.
A town probably north of Sidon, Jos 13 4, generally identified with Afga, 34 miles east of Byblos, near the source of the Nahr Ibrahim in the Lebanon mountains. Apheka, a town in the southern part of Judah, Jos 15 53, which has not yet been identified with certainty. Alt locates it at Khirbet ed-Darrame, southwest of Hebron. But something can be said in favor of each of the other places called Aphek, two of which lay in the coastal areas of Palestine, and one in the Lebanon mountains.
It is unlikely, however, that the Lebanese Aphek No. II Oct. Noth, Josua 2d ed. Dussaud, Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et medievale Paris, , pp. North, Biblica, XLI o, HORN Ibrahim is not too difficult, there is no ready pass for a crossing of the mountains by a large body of men to reach Afqd from the east. Since several wider mountain passes to the north and south of Afqci are available for reaching the coast from the Beqa, it is hard to understand that the Babylonian army should have crossed the Lebanon via Afqd.
The choice between the two remaining Apheks is not easy, although the Galilean Aphek No. The other Aphek No. It is this Aphek to which almost all commentators on the Saqqara Papyrus have turned for identification. In this connection it is necessary to discuss a passage in a cuneiform text covering Esarhaddon's loth campaign. It contains the information that the city of Apqu, belonging to the territory of the land Sa-me-n.
Apqu is certainly Aphek, but which The distance poses a problem as well as the name of the land in which it was said 28 Also Vogt op. Vogt says, "Niemand denkt im Ernst daran, dass es sich hier um das unbedeutende Apheq im westlichen Galilda handeln konne," op. Some scholars have identified the broken word Samen.
Since no city by the name of Aphek in Simeon is known, it seems more plausible that Samaria was meant, although the remains of the last letter do not look as if they could have belonged to any cuneiform character starting with r. More serious is the distance given. The word beru has more than one meaning, i. The distance of the northern Aphek near Acco from Raphia at the Wadi el-Arish is about miles; the distance of Aphek in the Plain of Sharon from Raphia is about 75 miles by road. Neither of the two places fits Esarhaddon's description in this respect. For this reason Albright thought that the beru in this passage must refer to actual traveling time.
If 3o double hours are meant, a large army with baggage-train could cover the miles from the northern Aphek to Raphia in 6o hours, and we must decide in favor of the northern Aphek. But Albright is inclined to follow Delitzsch and Langdon, who maintained that the Assyrians preferred a shorter beru, of only one hour, and he therefore thinks that Esarhaddon's text refers to the southern Aphek, since its distance of 75 miles could be covered by an army in 3o ordinary hours of marching.
For example, A. Oppenheim, ANET, p. But this is not satisfactory, since it would give a distance of miles to cover, while the actual distance is only ca. HORN any help in reaching a decision as to which Aphek he means. This is regrettable, because it seems that his Aphek must have been a place important enough in the 7th century to be mentioned in a military itinerary, and it is plausible that as a well-known city it is the same place to which Adon refers in his letter to Pharaoh.
This leaves us practically where we started this discussion. Certainty as to which Aphek Adon means cannot be ascertained. Most commentators on the Saqqara Papyrus have seen in the Aphek mentioned in this letter the one which lay in the southern part of the Plain of Sharon No. While it must be admitted that this identification has much in its favor, especially if the letter-writer lived in southern Palestine, the identification cannot be considered as certain, because it cannot be ascertained whether Adon's letter came from a Phoenician, Syrian, or Palestinian city, and if from a Palestinian city, whether that city lay in the northern part of the Plain of Sharon, or in the Philistine Plain.
For this reason the mention of Aphek does not present a great help in the search for the city from which Adon's letter came to Pharaoh. It is now time to study the military activities of Nebuchadnezzar II in Syria-Palestine in order to find a possible military event which may have been the occasion for Adon to write the letter for help to Egypt. Before Wiseman published the Babylonian Chronicles covering the first eleven years of Nebuchadnezzar, all information concerning military campaigns of that king against Syria-Palestine or Egypt was extremely scarce.
The only sources for such activities were Josephus, the Bible and two badly preserved fragments of cuneiform texts.
These sources mentioned the following military campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar in the west In the last year of his father's reign, which was the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar Battle at Carchemish against the Egyptians and march through Syria-Palestine against Egypt. Also Dan I r seems to refer to this campaign. Dupont-Sommer, the editor of the papyrus and its first commentator, dated it in in connection with Whether z Ki 24 i refers to the same campaign or a later one is not certain.
On the present writer's views concerning the dating of events which took place during the last years of the kingdom of Judah, see Horn, AUSS, V , Strassmaier Hebraica, IX , 4, 5, and with reservations was attributed to Nebuchadnezzar. Winckler in E. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften and das Alte Testament 3d ed. Since the Babylonian Chronicles have revealed that a campaign in Ijattiland in Nebuchadnezzar's third year took place, it is now quite certain that Winckler's reasoning was correct. See Horn, op.
On the problems of dating the siege of Tyre see 0. Reihe, 7. Band Stuttgart, , cols. He maintained that an identification of the city or country over which Adon reigned was impossible, that Adon may have been a Phoenician, Philistine or even Transjordanian ruler, and that the city of Aphek could have been either the one lying in the Lebanon or the one in the Plain of Sharon. Albright was propounded. He pointed out that in there lived in Babylon two persons known as "the sons of Aga', the king of Ashkelon.
Ginsberg, op. While he agrees that Aphek most likely was the city in the Plain of Sharon, and that Adon ruled over a Philistine city, he thinks that the record of Ashkelon's capture and destruction rules out its continuous existence as a city with its own king. Ashkelon, according to the Babylonian Chronicles, was turned "into a mound and a heap of ruins," an expression also used for the earlier total destruction of Nineveh. That a new king, namely Aga', was put in the place of Adon, as Albright and Ginsberg thought, was also unlikely according to Vogt, since the Babylonian Chronicles say nothing about it while they expressly mention later the installation of a new king in Jerusalem.
For that reason Vogt rejects Ashkelon as a candidate for Adon's residence and suggests Gaza as an alternative. Mentioning four possible dates, , , , and , and declaring the last-mentioned date to be the most unlikely one, they leave the whole question open. Malamat, loc. Fitzmyer, op. HORN the correctness of the theory of Albright, which is still unproved. Vogt's reasons against accepting Ashkelon as Adon's city are weighty and worth pondering, although his suggestion that Gaza was Adon's residence also poses problems, as G. Wright has pointed out.
Adding the evidence of the Babylonian Chronicles to that found in other sources, as given above, we come to the following impressive list of Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns in the west Spring until August, Battles at Carchemish and Hamath against Egyptians and pursuit of the remnants of the Egyptian forces. The terminating date is broken off. Except for the year, the dates are missing. Wright, Biblical Archaeology Philadelphia, , p. Wiseman, op. Where no documentation is given, the source is the Babylonian Chronicles according to Wiseman's translation, ibid.
The following campaigns are known from other sources, for which see above.
The frequent campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar in Syria and Palestine as attested by our records make it extremely difficult to date a document such as the Saqqara Papyrus, which provides no further clues as to its date other than that a king with a Semitic name calls on Egypt for help during an invasion of Babylonian forces which at that time had reached Aphek. Furthermore, the fact that four years after the battle of Carchemish the Egyptians were strong enough to engage the Babylonians in a new test of strength 6oi, and seem to have come forth from it, if not as victors, certainly not as vanquished, shows that Egypt was still a power to be reckoned with.
This resurgence of Egyptian power prior to 6o1 lay probably at the base of the rebellion of the proEgyptian Jehoiakim against Babylon 2 Ki 24 I. Even after Nebuchadnezzar had taken the whole of Palestine, including Judah, Egypt still did not consider itself impotent to play a role in Palestine, although it was said that "the king of Egypt did not come again out of his land" 2 Ki This statement seems to refer only to a limited time, for it is known that Egypt made further attempts to foment revolts against Nebuchadnezzar and actively harassed his military campaigns.
A demotic papyrus tell us that Psamtic II made a trip to Palestine in Yoyotte, VT, I , ; S. HORN against Nebuchadnezzar, or whether it was a military venture. All this information shows that the struggle for supremacy over Palestine and Syria between the two powers, Babylonia and Egypt, was a long one, and explains why Nebuchadnezzar had to march almost annually into the west for a show of force or to reestablish his authority, which may often have been challenged as it was by Judah.
In fact, Judah is a good example of what may have been going on in more than one of the several small kingdoms in Syria-Palestine. The kingdom of Judah had regained its political independence from Assyria under Josiah. After his untimely death in the Battle of Megiddo, , the country fell into the hands of Necho II of Egypt, who installed the pro-Egyptian Jehoiakim on the throne. However, this king was forced to become a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar after Necho's defeat at Carchemish in , but he changed masters again as soon as he saw that Egypt had become strong once more.
The events of 6o1 seemed to prove that he had shown political foresight in switching loyalties from Babylon to Egypt, and for a few years he enjoyed the protection of Egypt. But Nebuchadnezzar recovered from his near defeat and as soon as he could he carried out a punitive action against Jehoiakim, who died before Nebuchadnezzar's arrival, with the result that his young son had to face the angry Babylonian king. After a 3-month rule he was forced to surrender himself and his city to the Babylonians. Then Zedekiah was put on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar and swore an oath of loyalty.
Some men, such as Jeremiah, recognized this act as folly and expressed their views openly, but a great many influential people did not share these views. For Judah this course of action ended in a terrible disaster in , when the kingdom was abolished, the country with its cities destroyed, and most of its citizens deported. It is quite possible that several other small kingdoms of Syria and Palestine shared the same or a similar fate. That Judah was not the only shaky vassal of Nebuchadnezzar is learned from Jer 27 , where the prophet tells of having warned envoys of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon against breaking their allegiance to Babylon.
They had come to Jerusalem with the obvious purpose of strengthening their alliance, which was certainly directed against Nebuchadnezzar. Whether his warning made any impression on them is not known. Jeremiah's warning certainly had no lasting influence in his own homeland, whose leaders were more inclined to accept the protection of neighboring Egypt than to follow the more cautious course of remaining loyal to Babylon.
The land or city state over which Adon ruled seems to have gone through a similar experience, and probably suffered similar catastrophic results. In the light of these considerations it seems futile to speculate which city in Palestine was Adon's capital if one of the two Palestinian Apheks of the Saqqara Papyrus was referred to, or over which city in southern Phoenicia Adon ruled if the Aphek in Lebanon is meant.
Too many uncertainties are involved to establish the year of the invasion of which Adon speaks, or to ascertain the part of Syria-Palestine from where his cry for help came. His testimony is considered particularly valuable inasmuch as his letters are thought to have been written not later than A. Use of the term "Lord's day" by him would therefore very likely constitute the earliest example of it after Rev 1 1o. The pertinent reference from the Magnesian letter as quoted in one recent polemical work of some substance is as follows If, then, those who walk in the ancient practices attain to newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's Day on which our life also arose in Him, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher.
Regarding authenticity, Fritz Guy in an article in A USS in , has reviewed the evidence pertaining to the Magnesian epistle, and concludes that "there is at present no adequate reason to deny the general authenticity of the letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians on the basis of historical or literary criticism. L4-,; tfra fuj, ex tat; I. Here again Guy has presented the needed information. The parent among these Latin manuscripts is Caiensis Guy has presented photostats of the disputed passage from the Greek and Latin exemplars.
We include now a photostat from a later Latin manuscript, Dublin D. However, as Guy states, the extant Latin manuscripts are unanimous in the reading of the disputed passage "secundum dominicam viventes. Kraft labels "the best Greek witness"4, and the Latin translations. After an intricate and accurate textual analysis, Guy concludes, in thoroughly neutral fashion, that the statement from Magnesians 9 "remains ambiguous.
The sources, presented in juxtaposition, appear thus a. The a form is the exact wording of the Greek Ibid. Robert A. In this he has some support from several previous editors, including Cotelerius in The c form is that of the Latin manuscripts and appears in Ussher's edition, 7 whereas the d form appears in his edition. This difference deserves some attention. The principal question at issue in this study is whether or not the expression "Lord's day" can be found in these phrases.
The answer may seem to be simpletranslate them literally a. Between c and d Ussher consulted the Greek recension published by Vossius in and changed the wording. This change appears to involve more than a simple step toward textual accuracy. By Ussher's time the modifier Lord's, especially in the Latindominicamwas commonly used to 6 J. II, Guy questions my use of this date in my book The Protestant Dilemma, a paperback prepared for the general reader, and rightly so, since at the time of writing I knew only of the inclusion of Ussher's Latin edition of the "middle recension" of Ignatius' letters within a composite book, following its own title-page dated Ahead of this portion of the book is other material with its own title-page dated My mistake was to use the word published in connection with the date I should have used, and I do here use, the word edition, because the edition was indeed edited and printed in , but gathered and published with other materials in I am indebted to Cyril Richardson for calling my attention to the fascinating story of this printing as related in Falconer Madan, Oxford Books Oxford, , II, , , , It cannot be here asserted that the same was true in the writing of Ignatius, for to do so would be to assume what is to be proved.
In fact, are we even absolutely sure that Ussher, in , wanted his Latin version to mean "Lord's day" The text as he then gave it, "Dominicam viventes. The reader of the earlier Ussher wording had a choice. But in the later wording Ussher left no choice, unless we allow for the use of the cognate accusative, "living a life according to the Lord's day," as explained by Guy. VIII r. Be not led astray by strange doctrines or by old fables which are profitless. For if we are living until now according to Judaism, we confess that we have not received grace. For the divine prophets lived according to Jesus Christ.
Therefore they were also persecuted, being inspired by His grace, to convince the disobedient that there is one God, who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his son, who is his Word proceeding from silence, who in all respects was well-pleasing to him that sent him. Guy's elucidation of this pertinent theory goes beyond his predecessors. However, in relationship to the case in point, we may state that the "cognate accusative" argument may be valid in explaining an existing wording such as a, above, but it can hardly be used to explain the insertion of collv.
That is, finding a manuscript with xuptaxip. If then they who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer living for the Sabbath, but for the Lord's Day, on which also our life sprang up through him and his death,though some deny him,and by this mystery we received faith, and for this reason also we suffer, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher; 2. The prophets did not, of course, cease to observe the Sabbath, but by faith looked forward to the coming Lord and lived the way He would live.
Their experience was an example to the Magnesian Christians. In order to avoid an absurdity, the word sabbatizing must not mean "sabbath observance," but rather the keeping of the Sabbath in a certain mannerJudaizing. The long recension of the letter reads as follows Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat. It may mean a person who keeps the seventh day of the week, or it may mean a person who keeps Sunday in a strict "Sabbath-like" way. A further significant comment from the early period may be found in the Gospel of Thomas, Logion 32, crappoc-riaczTe TOv acipporrov.
Occurring with an admonition to fast, the expression implies that even in Sabbath observance there may be a sabbatizing or Judaizing requirement presumably observances of the kind referred to in the above quotation from the long recension of Magnesians 9. In any event, it is almost certain, if we are to avoid absurdity in our treatment of Magnesians 9, that sabbatizing is equivalent to the general idea of Judaizing, a practice which could be avoided even while keeping the Sabbath.
This is the only feasible explanation inasmuch as it is the Sabbath-keeping Old Testament prophets who are described as "no longer sabbatizing. In Magnesians 8 Ignatius contrasts "living. Not only is the "according to" construction used elsewhere by Ignatius in speaking of a way of life, but the contrast between Judaism and the Christian life is likewise presented elsewhere e. It seems entirely normal, then, to find "living according to the Lord's life" in Magnesians 9 as a parallel to living "according to Jesus Christ" in chapter 8. These expressions are in antithesis to "sabbatizing" and living "according to Judaism.
The shortening of "Lord's day" to "Lord's" would normally come after considerable usage of the term "Lord's day. It therefore appears that though the argument is not conclusive, the weight is indeed on the side of "Lord's life. It is interesting to observe that Lightfoot misses or perhaps rejects the suggestion of Pearson and Smith that life can be retained if associated with living compare Guy's "cognate accusative". Lightfoot goes on to state that day must be inserted after Lord's, on the basis of contemporary writings which use a similar phraseology.
His significantly dated examples follow 1. The Doctrina Apostolorum, chapter Lightfoot's note is worth quoting in part If so that Rev 1 to refers to the day of judgment, the passage before us Magnesians 9 is the earliest example of its occurrence in this sense to mean Lord's Day, except perhaps Doct. Lightfoot is here assuming that "Lord's day" is the proper wording for Magnesians 9 and is willing to admit that there is no prior or contemporary 12 13 Lightfoot, op. The Doctrina is an early writing of unknown date, which was combined with other fragments, including the Didache, to form the 4th-century Apostolic Constitutions.
The expression "Lord's of the Lord" occurs in Didache 14 in Goodspeed's translation where it is rendered, "On the Lord's own day. As late as the year 57 this designation occurs in S. Paul Cor.
We do not know whether Eusebius is using an actual title or citing the subject of the discourse in his own words. See the quotation referred to in n. The date should perhaps be somewhat later. LEWIS 3. A letter written by Dionysius of Corinth A. The fragment of the letter is found only in Eusebius. There are two hazards in this piece of evidence Did Eusebius quote verbatim or did he substitute terms according to the usage of his own time If he quoted verbatim, does the expression "Lord's holy day," used thus early and uniquely, really signify Sunday It could refer to the Sabbath, which had traditionally been called holy, since nothing is said about which day of the week is referred to.
The designation of Sunday as "holy" certainly came later, but cannot be proved for A. At best this "evidence" comes some 5o or 6o years after the writing of Ignatius. It is interesting to note, in passing, that in Lightfoot's extensive footnote on Magnesians 9 he includes also a brief homily on the spiritual significance of the Lord's Day. He uses the disputed phrase as his text. Guy lists, among the former, Funk , Hilgenfeld , Bihlmeyer , and Camelot 2d ed. Guy might also have included Cotelerius and Jacobson as preceding Lightfoot, and he does mention Migne as a later editor among those who retain "life.
Lightfoot, op. Guy mentions Migne as the single exception to the practice of the last hundred years in that he included the word life. It is my contention that Migne is the better editor. He supports the "Lord's day" position but employs good scholarly practice. Why, for example, should Lake in , having available all of the material reviewed here and in Guy's study, follow Lightfoot instead of Migne, and omit Lightfoot's editorial comments to boot, as though to settle the "insertion" question forever by simply ignoring it 22 The following English translations give evidence, perhaps, of theological bias, but certainly of the "follow-the-leader" syndrome which too often affects editors and historians in all fields of scholarship Lightfoot, re-edited by Harmes ".
See Lake's Greek text in Lake, op. Harmes Grand Rapids, Mich. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch Westminster, Md. Richardson, ed. To balance the score of authorities, we note the following comments, published in the last century and available to these editors. Baden Powell in Kitto's Encyclopedia of Religious Literature We must here notice one other passage of earlier date than any of these, which has often been referred to as bearing on the subject of the Lord's day, though it certainly contains no mention of it.
It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians about A. The whole passage is confessedly obscure, and the text may be corrupt On this hypothesis they endeavour to make the rest of the sentence accord with a reference to the observance of the Lord's day, by further supposing ev t to refer to 4. Let us now look at the passage simply as it stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive to which ainoii can refer. This defect, so far from being remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of it.
Now if we take xoptaxi co;-, as simply "the life of the Lord," having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes nearer to supplying the substantive to airo5. Again, ev t may well refer to. Thus upon the whole the meaning might be given thus29 Robert M. Grant, ed. In this way allowing for the involved style of the whole the meaning seems to us simple, consistent, and grammatical, without any gratuitous introduction of words understood; and this view has been followed by many, though it is a subject on which considerable controversy has existed.
On this view the passage does not refer at all to the Lord's day; but even on the opposite supposition it cannot be regarded as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term "Lord's day" for which it is often cited, since the material word The person referred to is obviously the Lord, but the word occurs here only as a modifier, not as a substantive. But to make "Lord's day" the antecedent of ockoi3 is unsatisfactory; whereas "Lord's life" is clear in meaning if not consistent grammatically. Sir William Domville, The Sabbath a single paragraph is taken from a chapter devoted to the subject, a chapter which delineates the probable circumstance by which the word day came into the translations On the other hand, if our theological theorists would but allow Ignatius to be his own interpreter, and the words which he uses to bear their natural and literal signification, how perfectly would his phrase of "living according to the Lord's life" agree with the whole tenor of the context For the context shows that Ignatius, instead of intending to contrast the Sabbath day with the Lord's day, is throughout contrasting a Jewish life with a Christian life; a life spent in observing Sabbaths and ceremonies, with a life spent "according to the rules of Christianity.
Thus, "living according to the Lord's life, in which also our life is sprung up. James A. John, is the first writer whom I shall quote. Here is a passage from his Epistle to the Magnesians, containing, as you will observe, a contrast between Judaism and Christianity, and, as an exemplification of it, an opposition between Sabbatizing and living the life of the Lord, xupc. In summary, the arguments for leaving Magnesians 9 precisely as it is in the Greek manuscripts are these 1 The reading of the manuscript makes entirely good sense and is grammatically understandable.
That is, to center the Christian way of life on the keeping of Sunday, forces sabbatize to mean strictly the keeping of the Sabbath, and we have the double absurdity of "divine prophets" forsaking the Sabbath and observing Sunday. It should be remembered that the problem is not that of deciding which of two equally authentic wordings is preferable, nor that of discovering which of two words should be used to fill an ellipsis.
Rather it is the question of what justification there can be for removing a reasonable word from a prior, generally accepted manuscript and supplying another 31 32 William Doraville, The Sabbath London, , pp. Hessey, Sunday New York, o, p. Certainly the "confused obscurity" of the passage and "involved style of the whole," as Baden Powell phrases it, forbids the glib acceptance of the traditional "Lord's day" interpretation of many writers on the subject.
In view of the evidence, a defensible English version of this controversial passage would consist of a sincere literal translation from the Greek, with a footnote, somewhat as follows. Footnote A literal rendering of the best Greek manuscript. Some Latin versions of the epistle to the Magnesians omit the word life, and since the word dominicam later came to mean "Lord's day," some English translators render the passage "living according to the Lord's day.
Introduction This article is principally a reexamination of the source data relevant to the accession date of the Persian king Artaxerxes I, and especially a study of a double-dated papyrus from Egypt that was, until a few years ago, the only known ancient document assigning an approximate date to that event.
The "first year" and, therefore, the other years of his reign have long been known in two calendars. According to Ptolemy's Canon, which is fixed by eclipses, and according to certain double-dated papyri from Egypt to be discussed below, his year r in the Egyptian calendar was the day year beginning on Thoth 1, the Egyptian New Year's Day that is, December 17, B.
In the Persian reckoning in the Babylonian calendar, which was adopted by the Persian kings, his first year was the lunar year beginning in the spring, with Nisanu Jewish Nisan 1, approximately April 13, , 1 several months later than the Egyptian year. Postdating and Antedating. This Persian reckoning means that his reign must have begun before Nisan 1, , because the Babylonian-Persian method was to postdate all reigns.
That is, when a new king succeeded to the throne the scribes, who had been dating all kinds of documents by the day and month "in the 21st or whatever year of King X," would begin using the new dateline "in the accession year literally, 1 The equivalents of Persian dates in this article are taken from the reconstructed calendar tables in Richard A.
Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, B. Detailed checking of the source data has shown that the Canon uses two methods. In its earlier portion, which lists Babylonian and early Persian kings, it uses the postdating method called by some the "accession-year method". But in its latter portion, which lists the Seleucids and the Roman emperors, it antedates the reigns.
That is, it counts as "year 1" the year in which a king came to the throne, as if he had been reigning since the first day of the year. By this method, commonly used in Egypt, a scribe would begin dating in the king's "year 1" as soon as he came to the throne, and the first New Year's Day would begin "year 2. Since the Canon used both methods, and source data for the later Persian kings are insufficient, the Canon does not help in determining whether Artaxerxes came to the throne before or after Thoth 1.
Thousands of ancient documents from the period of the Persian Empire written on clay tablets letters, deeds, contracts, business accountshave been found, mostly in Babylonia. Many of them carry datelines in the day, month, and year of the king. Thus it is often possible 2 On postdating and antedating, see Edwin R. Theological Seminary, Andrews University, as to the method used in Ptolemy's canon to number the regnal years of Artaxerxes I. This was one among a number of Jewish papyri written in Aramaic found on the Nile island of Elephantine at Syene modern Aswan. Jewish soldiers in the Persian army in Egypt lived here in a garrison town with their families, spoke Aramaic, and had their own temple.
They dated by their lunar calendar; but on documents they used double dates, in their own lunar calendar and in the Egyptian solar calendar. Many of these papyri can be dated exactly in our calendar because a month and day in the shifting lunar calendar can synchronize with the Egyptian month and day in the fixed day calendar only once in twenty-five years. Its double-year date, in the year 21 of Xerxes and the accession year of Artaxerxes, has been interpreted to indicate that Xerxes had died and Artaxerxes had succeeded him very recently, probably in December, Oxford, , No.
This edition B. This seemed at first to settle the question, but not for long. By the time Parker and Dubberstein brought out the edition of their Babylonian Chronology, another clay tablet from Babylonia had come to light, an unpublished astronomical text of the Hellenistic period designated LBART No. If the writer of this tablet, about 15o years or more after the event, had correct information, Xerxes died approximately August , Figulla, the editor of the abovementioned Ur tablet, in which he had read "Kislimu, in the year 21 of Xerxes," decided that the partly broken word which he had taken as "Kislimu" must have been something else if Xerxes was dead some months earlier.
Actually, the original may have read "Kislimu," but since no one knows what the entire word was, this text is eliminated as evidence. Figulla, ed.
Sachs, ed. Providence, R. Since this tablet was described in a book issued twelve years ago but still remains unpublished, there is no point in awaiting its publication in order to use it at least tentatively, though it can hardly be evaluated since details of its contents, date, provenience, and general accuracy are not yet available. Can they be reconciled An examination of the papyrus and of the historical accounts relating or mentioning the death of Xerxes furnishes clues to a harmonious interpretation.
This study, comprising two main parts, will examine first the historical and chronological records, then papyrus AP 6. Even earlier than the Hellenistic tablet that dates Xerxes' death is a historical narrative of his murder, produced by Ctesias, a Greek physician at the court of Artaxerxes II grandson of Artaxerxes I, about 65 years after Xerxes' death.
Ctesias lived in Persia, knew the language, and had access to the official archives and to the accounts preserved by the royal family. His Persica is extant only in a summary by Photius gth century A. Ctesias tells the story as follows Artabanus, a very powerful courtier, with the aid of an influential palace chamberlain, assassinated Xerxes, then procured the death of Darius, the older son and heir, by accusing him to Artaxerxes, the younger son.
Thus Artaxerxes reigned with the support of Artabanus. But later the powerful Artabanus decided to put his young protg out of the way and take the throne. He made the mistake of enlisting the help of Megabyzus, a brother-in-law of Artaxerxes. When Megabyzus told the king everything the plot against him, the murder of Xerxes, and the false accusation against DariusArtaxerxes asserted himself, and Artabanus was put to death.
There followed a battle with the partisans of Artabanus in which three of his sons were killed. Others here cited in chronological order mention Xerxes' murder, and several tell essentially the same story as Ctesias, with some differences, mostly on minor points. Aristotle 4th century B. Manetho, an Egyptian priest 3d century B. At least he did so if the Epitome of his history, compiled soon afterward in the form of king lists, reflects accurately his historical account.
A year or two later came a revolt in Egypt, led by Inarus, in which the Athenians aided the Egyptians, and which lasted about five years Ctesias, op. Sachs, cited in PDBC , p. This text is listed among the historical sources, not because it presents an account of the event, but because it is not a contemporary dated document but a statement made by a writer a century and a half afterward, if not later. In footnote , see also facsimile on P1. III, reference is made to a papyrus fragment of this Epitome, a copy from the 5th century A.
When "he saw his plan was prospering" he decided that the time had come to kill Artaxerxes also. Calling his sons together, he attacked and slightly wounded Artaxerxes, whereupon the latter dealt him a fatal blow, and then "took over the kingship. This narrative says that Artabanus, fearing a struggle for the throne among the nobles, plotted to seize the throne himself. Upon learning of this treachery Artaxerxes, being only a boy, feared Artabanus and his seven sons. He therefore ordered out the troops for review. As Artabanus presented himself the young king asked the commander to exchange corselets with him, since his own was too short.
While Artabanus was thus unarmed, Artaxerxes ran him through with a sword and ordered the arrest of the sons. Nepos 13 Diodorus Siculus, xi. He places the final settlement in the archonship of Tlepolemus and the consulship of Titus Quinctius and Quintus Servilius Structus. That could be merely the error of a later writer, but it could be possible, though unlikely, that it reflects a variant tradition stemming from the partisans of Artabanus. Ancient Chronological Works In addition to the historical narratives, there are several chronological works of the early Christian period that are relevant to the question of Xerxes and Artaxerxes.
Plutarch loc. Diodorus holds that it was in the reign of Xerxes xi. He assigns 21 years to the reign of Xerxes and 41 years to Artaxerxes immediately following. But since the Canon is dated beyond doubt by nineteen eclipses and other astronomical synchronisms, it is certain that in the official Egyptian reckoning Xerxes' year 21 the year in Ptolemy's Nabonassar Era began on Thoth 1, December 18, B.
Among the Christian chronographers, Julius Africanus 3d century A. They both included Artabanus with a sevenmonth reign between Xerxes and Artaxerxes, i. Catesby Taliaferro, trans. Great Books of the Western World, vol. It is also printed in Thiele, op. Any year in the Nabonassar Era can be computed from the starting point by years of days only, beginning a day earlier every four years, because of the difference at each leap year. Fotheringham, ed. London, , p. Armenian version, J. Aucher, ed. Venice, , pp. Probably Ctesias' story is the nearest we can get to the originalat least as told from Artaxerxes' point of view, which naturally became the official version.
The extant summary of Ctesias says nothing of how long Artabanus was in power or how he met his death, though additional details in his original account, now lost, may have been the source for later narratives of Diodorus and Trogus. Diodorus seems to imply, though he does not say, that the whole upheaval was over immediately; yet he goes on to say that it was two years later that Artaxerxes settled the kingdom.
The stories of Ctesias and Trogus, even in their present abridged state, definitely require some interval to allow for the first coup to "prosper" and for the development of the threat of a struggle among the nobles before the inception of the second plot, to put Artaxerxes out of the way. In the nature of the case, the fact that Artabanus did not kill Artaxerxes at first but allowed him to occupy the throne at least in name, and only afterward plotted against him, would indicate that some time must have passed before he felt strong enough to make the attempt to seize the kingship for himself.
Then even after Artaxerxes killed Artabanus he had to fight his way to control. There was at least one battle against the latter's adherents, and there was a revolt in Bactria, possibly representing the claim of his brother Hystaspes. In all, the events could account for much more than seven months. Yet an actual seven-month reign of Artabanus preceding Artaxerxes' accession does not fit the picture drawn by the historical sources which, of course, represent mostly the official story from the side of Artaxerxes.
Not one of the extant accounts calls Artabanus "king. There are no known documents dated in the reign of Artabanus in either Egypt or Babylonia. The king list based on Manetho seems to be the only source for such a reign. It is possible that he could have been recognized in Egypt only, or the attribution could have been an error rising from the fact that Artabanus for a timeand possibly for about seven monthswas the real power while the young Artaxerxes was the puppet king. It may be that the confusion as to whether Themistocles came to the court of Xerxes or of Artaxerxes could be accounted for by supposing that he came during the period of Artabanus' ascendancy, while Artaxerxes was king but not yet ruling note Plutarch, as cited above.
And this situation may find an echo in the artificial extension of Xerxes' regnal numbering after his death as attested by papyrus AP 6, as will be discussed below. Use of the Ancient Sources Before modern archeology furnished contemporary dated documents from ancient times, and when the only authority for chronology was Ptolemy's Canon and the ancient historians, many writers on Biblical interpretation and chronology in the last three hundred years discussed the chronology of Artaxerxes because of the Biblical mention of his 7th and loth years.
Tarn, in the Cambridge Ancient History , says that Artabanus reigned seven months and was recognized in Egypt based apparently on Manetho and that he defeated Artaxerxes' brother Hystaspes a recombination of elements from Ctesias and Diodorus before Artaxerxes killed him. Olmstead presents Artaxerxes as eighteen years old a guess from Trogus ; Megabyzus as involved in the original conspiracy; and Hystaspes, Xerxes' other son, as heading the Bactrian revolt and being defeated by Artaxerxes after Artaxerxes killed Artabanus Diodorus.
Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire Chicago, , pp. The ancient writers are against his recognition in Persia, though he could have been recognized in Egypt. Yet AP 6, written in Egyptpossibly during the period when he was in de facto controlignores him. However, its dating formula does imply that the transfer of power to Artaxerxes was not immediate and normal, and implies the sort of confused situation pictured in the other ancient sources.
Contemporary Papyrus AP 6 Examined Though historical sources furnish an interesting and probably relevant background for understanding the contents of the tablets or papyri, actually the conditions implicit in a contemporary document outweigh those in late copies of worked-over historical narratives. Though the evaluation of this tablet must await its publication, it can meanwhile be accepted tentatively as possibly correct and be considered in the light of the contemporary Aramaic papyrus AP 6.
Cowley reads the broken day number conjecturally as "7th day of Thoth. The lunar-solar calendar synchronism is possible only if the Thoth date is read "i7th," which is equally possible paleographically; see S. Horn and L. The remainder of this article will examine the last part of the datelinethe regnal year formula the year 21 of Xerxes, obviously, and the accession year of Artaxerxes. Does this double dating of the year represent the difference between the Egyptian and Jewish reckonings There are two other papyri from Elephantine that furnish examples of such a dating in two regnal years AP 25 and AP That is, by the 3d of Kislev, the ninth month of the Semitic lunar year, the Egyptian New Year had passed, and this was the 12th of the first month in the new regnal year 9 by Egyptian count.
It does not represent a coregency of Artaxerxes with his father. The historical accounts of Xerxes' death show that Artaxerxes was not even the crown prince, and did not become king until after the death of his father and his older brother. There are three possibilities in explaining this unusual dating in two reigns at once 1 It was a scribal error. Was the Double-Year Formula an Error Some have thought that this unusual double-reign dating formula was an absent-minded error of the scribe who wrote it.
This was plausible when it was believed that Xerxes had only recently died, in late December, for the scribe could 26 Horn and Wood, op. Other Examples of Dating in Two Reigns. But it is not necessary to suppose a mistake, since there are other examples of this unusual type of year formula. In the case of the next regnal transition, after the death of Artaxerxes I, there are three tablets double-dated in two reigns.
That was also a period of murders, plots and counterplots, and competing claimants, with the resultant uncertainty of the status quo. This is not the place to go into the problem of exact dates and intervals, but suffice it to say that at the death of Artaxerxes I his son Xerxes II occupied the throne briefly 45 days, then was killed by a half brother Secydianus, or Sogdianus, who was himself killed after about seven months by another half brother who reigned as Darius II.
Perhaps the length of time assigned to them by the Greek historians was exaggerated. There are tablets dated to Artaxerxes as late as the 9th month of his year 41 December, , possibly also in the rth month February, ; and there are two dated unequivocally to Darius' accession year in the r ith month. Manetho, Zoe. Diodorus Siculus, xii. Thucydides, iv. They appear to reflect an unwillingness to abandon reckoning by Artaxerxes' reign, as if it were still uncertain as to whether the reign of Darius was permanent.
It is significant that these tablets and the papyrus AP 6, which seem to have the only such double datelines known, come in both cases from periods when the uncertain political situation would provide a reason for such an unusual extension of a king's regnal numbering even beyond the beginning of another reign. There are several other tablets, from an earlier period, that similarly show an abnormal prolongation of regnal dating, and in this case using a ruler's name, not only after his death, but even into a new year, with a new regnal number. This was in another period of upheaval, when Assyria's rule over Babylon ended.
In the last known Babylonian tablet dated in the reign of Kandalanu who ruled Babylonia under Assyria was written on the 13th of the 2d month of year Then there were two later ones obviously after his death one in Marcheswan, or Arahsamnu the 8th month, dated year 21, not "of Kandalanu," but "after Kandalanu" ; and the other a year later, Marcheswan 2, in year 22 "after Kandalanu. PDBC , p. For the Babylonian chronicle tablet says that on the 26th of the 8th month approximately November 23, "Nabopolassar sat upon the throne in Babylon.
This was the 'beginning of reign' of Nabopolassar. Since the extension of one king's regnal reckoning beyond his lifetime, into the reign of another king, is attested both before and after the time of papyrus AP 6, then its double dateline in the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes is not necessarily a scribal error. Nor is it necessarily a double dating in two calendars, for the tablets just discussed involve only the Babylonian-Persian calendar. Yet, in order to test all the possibilities, the AP 6 dateline. Then obviously either "year 21" presents this interpretation of a reign extended artificially, citing Wiseman's first printing.
This exact date for the accession, not known before, shows that Ptolemy's canon postdated Nabopolassar's reign. Yet a glance at the Egyptian calendar as represented in the horizontal band labeled "Egyptian" on Fig. What is wrong 8. Artaxerxes in the Egyptian Calendar The last regnal year 21 of Xerxes and the early years of Artaxerxes are shown here as reckoned in the Egyptian calendar, compared with the B.
The Egyptian years, beginning in December in this period, run a little earlier than the B. The N. Nabonassar Era numbering, derived from Ptolemy's Canon, is indicated for the years and On the one hand, Xerxes' Egyptian year 21 undoubtedly began on Thoth I December r8, , according to the astronomically fixed canon of Ptolemy and a double dated papyrus AP 5 of his year 15 ; then on the next Thoth December 17, the year number would have changed to year This is attested not only by Ptolemy's Canon but also by several double-dated papyri written during Artaxerxes' reign, all of which require year 1 to begin in December, B.
Further, if this was the accession year, then year I would not have begun until the following Thoth r, December 17, That would conflict with the official year numbering, also with the tablet that places the death of Xerxes in August , unless there was a delay in the recognition of Artaxerxes until after Thoth i. Could such a delay be accounted for by supposing it to be during the seven-month reign assigned by Manetho to Artabanus Yet the interval between the August death date and the January date of AP 6 is less than seven months.
And an intervening reign of Artabanus would still require to year 2 at the first New Year's Day. Yet there is some reason to think that they sometimes applied the Persian postdating method to their Persian kings.
But it seems necessary to abandon "year 1" in favor of "accession year" for the following reasons 1 The phrase r3 mlwkt' sic. Such a change is unattested by any evidence and seems to be unknown in any other case. Since the Egyptian year 21 is impossible for AP 6, and the accession year is incompatible with known Egyptian data and so unlikely as to be negligible, the logical result is to rule out both as possible Egyptian datings ; and therefore to abandon the first alternativea double Egyptian-Semitic year formulaand proceed to the second A Double Year Formula in One Calendar Not Egyptian.
If both "year 21" and "accession year of Artaxerxes" in the dateline of AP 6 constitute a double year formula in one calendar, then it means that both are designations of the same yearthe one that begins as year 21 of Xerxes and ends as the accession year of Artaxerxes. This cannot be an Egyptian-calendar year, since the Egyptian year 21 ended seventeen days before this papyrus was written.
Then it must be a Semitic lunar-calendar datein either the Persian year beginning in the spring with the month of Nisanu or the Jewish civil and regnal year beginning in the fall with the 7th month, Tishri. Papyrus AP 6 an agreement over a disputed piece of land was written in the name of a Persian for the benefit of his neighbor, designated as a Jew; and the scribe was a Jew, as well as most of the witnesses.
That this calendar was Jewish would be expected for several reasons. These Jewish colonists of Elephantine had been there some time before the Persians took over Egypt ; 34 33 34 Cowley, op. That their Jewish calendar would have been the same as the regnal reckoning of the Kingdom of Judah, from which they had originated, and of the returned Jews of the contemporary period of Ezra and Nehemiah, seems most likely. Some writers hold that these Jewish colonists, like the Babylonians and Persians, used a spring-beginning year, while others hold that they employed the Jewish autumnbeginning year.
Sustainable development, disaster and risks of the Caspian Sea Region. The submission process ends on 15 April, Guclusoy: harun. Amir S. Aliyev, Rana Y. Asaeva, S. Bazarsadueva, S. Mikhail Bolgov Hassanzadeh Saber, M. Zolgharnein, M. Jafarova, Sh. Mefta1, Salari-aliabadi, M. Pourkazemi, A. Reza Rahnama. Salari-Aliabadi M. A, Monjezi-Veysi M Allakhverdiyev, N. Akhmedov, U. Makhmudova, H. Imanov, F.
Maharramova, A. Monakhov O. Safarov, J. Huseynov, I. Ibrahimova, E. Rafig Verdiyev, Tahmina Bagirova N, Professor Pashayev, Z. Eminov, N. Medvedeva, E. Kulikov, I. Siamak Jamshidi, Marzieh Yousefi Siamak Jamshidi Taghiyeva Ye. Kurbanov, T. Bezrodnykh, B. Romanyuk, V. Hasanov, M. Kulikov, A. Maharramov, B. Azizov, R. Archeological researches in the Caspian littoral territories of Azerbaijan Seyidov A. Shnaider, R. Kurbanov, S. Alisher kyzy Ahadova Aygun Lale A.
Muradov, K. Hajieva, H. Rafieva, U. Hasanov Abulfaz Ashraf The author has been studying this culture for more than ten years ; she has been carrying out research in museums, archives and stack-rooms in Azerbaijan, Russia, Germany, and Austria. In this paper she presents the problems she has found, and she brings them up to international discussion. The first problem: the name of the culture. Kossack who pioneered contributions to the chronology in the Caucasus. The second problem: its geographic range should be redefined. Research carried out in recent years, especially by V.
Bakhshaliyev, confirms that the Khojaly-Gedebey culture was also spread across southern regions of Azerbaijan. Research led by the Iranian archaeologist R. Hejberi shows that this culture was also spread to regions south of the Araz River. Therefore, further research in the South Caucasus and southern regions of Azerbaijan as well as in north western Iran is urgently needed to determine the role of this culture in history, which needs to be verified by recent analyses. Dealing with the sources of the Khojaly-Gedebey culture conservation, statistics, research methods brings us to another important problem.
Previously it was impossible to study the Khojaly-Gedebey culture systematically because many artifacts belonging to it were scattered accross museums in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Germany, Austria, and France. The chronology of the Khojaly-Gedebey culture should also be reviewed.
The historiography of the Khojaly-Gedebey Culture: ideological approaches, distortions, and research problems. The research history of the Khojaly-Gedebey Culture can be tentatively divided into three chronological periods: 1. When looking at the historiography of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in the Southern Caucasus written in the last years in German, Russian and Azerbaijani it becomes quite obvious that there are several historiographies of the same period.
Without scrutinizing the erroneous information given by them is used for statements and publications. This becomes quite obvious when we have a close look at some catalogues of museums and exhibitions. Here are four examples from Germany: 1. Kohlmeyer and G. Saherwal8 6 Minkevich- Mustafayeva , p. In W. Nagel and E. This book, however, was translated into Azerbaijani in thus multiplying the errors. The Azerbaijani version is not only incorrect in substance, it is also filled with coarse grammatical and transcription errors; whereas other parts were not translated correctly, a great deal had been changed, distorted, twisted and fabricated The most recent exhibition with exhibits from the Caucasus opened in in the Berlin Museum of Ethnology with the title "Azerbaijan - Land of Fire.
History and Culture in the Caucasus" Unfortunately in this catalogue the authors preferred to rely upon the old outdated interpretations without critical analyses or corrective notes. So it is full of historical, archaeological, and geographical errors. Many German colleagues referred to these outdated interpretations until