Why do Dispies count Daniels 'weeks' from Artaxerxes 20th year?

[Christian Gedge]

Admittedly, the twentieth-year start point for Daniel’s 70 weeks has had its supporters. Their problem though, is that a count of 483 years (69 x 7) from 444 BC comes to AD 40, a date which arrives well after Jesus died. So, proponents of the 444 BC terminus a quo resort to various 'short-year' theories to make the prophecy fit.

The best-known theory is the 360-day 'prophetic year' put forward by Sir Robert Anderson in AD 1895 to bolster the then emerging ‘dispensational’ system of prophecy. He multiplied 483 years by 360 (instead of 365¼), then added it to 445 BC, and arrived at the time (he said) of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in AD 32.

Anderson’s dates had to be adjusted by Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary to 444 BC and AD 33 where they remain the basic foundational dates for the doctrine of a future 'seventieth week' held by many prophetic teachers to this day.

This is where the Dispensational ‘count and date’ system comes from – man made doctrine for sure! However, Anderson and Hoehner’s theory is seriously flawed.

To be continued …

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

This video explains the flaws in their system specifically.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Admittedly, the twentieth-year start point for Daniel’s 70 weeks has had its supporters. Their problem though, is that a count of 483 years (69 x 7) from 444 BC comes to AD 40, a date which arrives well after Jesus died. So, proponents of the 444 BC terminus a quo resort to various 'short-year' theories to make the prophecy fit.

The best-known theory is the 360-day 'prophetic year' put forward by Sir Robert Anderson in AD 1895 to bolster the then emerging ‘dispensational’ system of prophecy. He multiplied 483 years by 360 (instead of 365¼), then added it to 445 BC, and arrived at the time (he said) of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in AD 32.

Anderson’s dates had to be adjusted by Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary to 444 BC and AD 33 where they remain the basic foundational dates for the doctrine of a future 'seventieth week' held by many prophetic teachers to this day.

This is where the Dispensational ‘count and date’ system comes from – man made doctrine for sure! However, Anderson and Hoehner’s theory is seriously flawed.

To be continued …

How many years BC do you count the birth of Jesus?

 

[Christian Gedge]

A popular subject Lady. I say 5 BC.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Admittedly, the twentieth-year start point for Daniel’s 70 weeks has had its supporters. Their problem though, is that a count of 483 years (69 x 7) from 444 BC comes to AD 40, a date which arrives well after Jesus died. So, proponents of the 444 BC terminus a quo resort to various 'short-year' theories to make the prophecy fit.

The best-known theory is the 360-day 'prophetic year' put forward by Sir Robert Anderson in AD 1895 to bolster the then emerging ‘dispensational’ system of prophecy. He multiplied 483 years by 360 (instead of 365¼), then added it to 445 BC, and arrived at the time (he said) of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in AD 32.

Anderson’s dates had to be adjusted by Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary to 444 BC and AD 33 where they remain the basic foundational dates for the doctrine of a future 'seventieth week' held by many prophetic teachers to this day.

This is where the Dispensational ‘count and date’ system comes from – man made doctrine for sure! However, Anderson and Hoehner’s theory is seriously flawed.

To be continued …

I support the 457 BC date in the 7th year of Artaxerxes' reign. Earlier kings had only built up the temple worship. Under Artaxerxes Nehemiah came to build the wall and establish self-government, apparently. The decree was the starting point, but the main work came later after some resistance.

If we begin with this date we will end up at the beginning of Messiah's ministry. I'm sure you're aware. Counting "short years" does not reflect real years for me. We know how many days make up a year.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

A popular subject Lady. I say 5 BC.

Yes, 3-6

 

[Christian Gedge]

This video explains the flaws in their system specifically.

I’ve got ‘The Coming Prince’ and ‘Chronological Aspects’. Together with your video I’m sitting in my chair holding my head, glazed eyes on the ceiling, and rocking gently. (but I agree with your conclusions concerning Anderson and Hoehner.)

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I’ve got ‘The Coming Prince’ and ‘Chronological Aspects’. Together with your video I’m sitting in my chair holding my head, glazed eyes on the ceiling, and rocking gently. (but I agree with your conclusions concerning Anderson and Hoehner.)

It's a good exercise to verify the calculations and assumptions of Anderson and Hoehner. Many people don't so they just assume that this system got things right. But when it comes right down to it, there are main 2 things that disqualify this whole system:

1. The system needs to use the decree of Artaxerxes in the 20th year of his reign in the month of Nisan. But no where does the text say what date in Nisan. They "assume" Nisan 1 without any proof whatsoever. This disqualifies the system.

2. Even if Nisan 1 was the correct date in the month. Their system states it was the equivalent to the beginning of March. That's an historically impossible date. According to the calendar expert Stern in his book “Calendar and Community”, the new year (or month of Nisan) for the Babylonians and Persians began with the first New Moon after the spring equinox. That means Nisan 1 MUST have been after March 20/21. It could never have been early March. This disqualifies the system.

There are more ways to disqualify the system. But those are the 2 most simple to understand.

 

[Christian Gedge]

… the new year (or month of Nisan) for the Babylonians and Persians began with the first New Moon after the spring equinox. That means Nisan 1 MUST have been after March 20/21.

Excellent point.

 

[Christian Gedge]

The system needs to use the decree of Artaxerxes in the 20th year of his reign in the month of Nisan. But no where does the text say what date in Nisan. They "assume" Nisan 1 without any proof whatsoever. This disqualifies the system.

Yes, Artaxerxes’ earlier decree was on the 1st day of Nisan of his seventh year, (457 BC) whereas the second command given in his twentieth year (444 BC) is only recorded as *sometime* during the month of Nisan.

"In the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes ... I said to the king, "If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, that you send me to Judah." (Nehemiah 2:1,5)​

So, as you say, Anderson’s 360-day year theory requires the count to start on the first day of Nisan. Indeed, his entire construction – an edifice of numbers stands or falls on this date even though it is not actually mentioned. Such an assumption should not be allowed to go unchallenged!

But the correct day can be found. To find it with accuracy, we need to work backwards from the completion of the Jerusalem wall. Solid dates are provided for this project, the most obvious being its completion on the 25th of Elul 444 BC. (Nehemiah 6:15) This was 21st September. Therefore, tracing back 52 days leads us to 31st July when the job began. Nehemiah had rested three days after his journey from Babylon, so his arrival in Jerusalem was on the 28th July 444 BC.
Let us now discover the time it took to travel from Babylon to Jerusalem and our answer will be there …

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

But the correct day can be found. To find it with accuracy, we need to work backwards from the completion of the Jerusalem wall. Solid dates are provided for this project, the most obvious being its completion on the 25th of Elul 444 BC. (Nehemiah 6:15) This was 21st September. Therefore, tracing back 52 days leads us to 31st July when the job began. Nehemiah had rested three days after his journey from Babylon, so his arrival in Jerusalem was on the 28th July 444 BC.
Let us now discover the time it took to travel from Babylon to Jerusalem and our answer will be there …

I'm pretty sure I know where you are going with this. I also have researched this topic intensely. However, I already see a flaw in what you wrote.
[Neh 1:1 LSB] 1 The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah. Now it happened in the month Chislev, [in] the twentieth year--and I was in Susa the capitol--

Your assumption is that Nehemiah began his journey in Babylon. Babylon was not the capitol of the Persian empire. Susa was. That is several hundred miles further east from Babylon.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Yes, Artaxerxes’ earlier decree was on the 1st day of Nisan of his seventh year, (457 BC) whereas the second command given in his twentieth year (444 BC) is only recorded as *sometime* during the month of Nisan.

In addition, this statement is not quite correct. Ezra's narrative does not say Artaxerxes' decree in his 7th year was made on Nisan 1. Ezra says that their journey from Babylon started on Nisan 1.
[Ezr 7:9 LSB] 9 For on the first of the first month he began to go up from Babylon; and on the first of the fifth month he came to Jerusalem, because the good hand of his God [was] upon him.

The rest of the chapter describes the decree in detail. How the king and his counselors gathered gold and silver for Ezra to take. Along with the freewill offering from the Jewish population and priests he was to organize. How he was to gather utensils for the temple and buy supplies from the royal treasury. And then gather chief men from the jewish population to resettle in Judah. All this was done AFTER the king's decree. So it's not possible that the decree was made on Nisan 1 and they left Babylon on that same day.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Your assumption is that Nehemiah began his journey in Babylon. Babylon was not the capitol of the Persian empire. Susa was. That is several hundred miles further east from Babylon.

You will have read then, that Susa functioned as the winter residence of Persian kings.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

You will have read then, that Susa functioned as the winter residence of Persian kings.

Are you suggesting Nehemiah was no longer in Susa at the start of Neh 2? The text does not indicate that. There is no change in location. The plain reading of the text would not imply that either.
In addition, we can know he was still in Susa by what the narrative says later:
[Neh 2:7, 9 LSB] 7 And I said to the king, "If it is good to the king, let letters be given me for the governors [of the provinces] beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah, ...
9 Then I came to the governors [of the provinces] beyond the River and gave them the king's letters. Now the king had sent with me commanders of the military force and horsemen.

From his current location he refers to provinces beyond the River - the main dividing line - the Euphrates River. If he was in Babylon, he would already be "beyond the river" on the west side. He wouldn't need to refer to the provinces as "beyond". Contextual reading shows he and the king were still in Susa as Neh 1 lays out.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I was hoping to hear back from you regarding when you think the decrees of Artaxerxes were. Both of them. Since it seems you know how to determine them from the text?

The assumption that the rebuilding of Jerusalem resumed in 444 BC or 445 BC can be shown to be impossible. This is one of the main anchors of Anderson's and Hoehner's view.

Examining the calendar dates of 444 BC recorded in the “Babylonian Chronology”, the month of Nisan occurred in early to mid April. Is it likely that Nehemiah could have procured the needed building resources, prepared a new group of Jewish settlers, journeyed with a large caravan several hundred miles west and met with the governors of the surrounding region all within the time period of at most three and a half months?

There is another similar journey of returning exiles during that period which is described in the Bible – in Ezra 7:
“And there went up also to Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king, some of the people of Israel, and some of the priests and Levites, the singers and gatekeepers, and the temple servants. And Ezra came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king. For on the first day of the first month he began to go up from Babylonia, and on the first day of the fifth month he came to Jerusalem, for the good hand of his God was on him.” (Ezra 7:7-9) [ESV]

Ezra describes his journey starting in Babylon on Nisan 1 and arriving in Jerusalem on Av 1. Just the journey itself took four months and he implies that they made very good time. Nehemiah, on the other hand, had to begin his journey in Susa, the capital of the Persian empire and not from Babylon.

This would be a further two hundred miles away to the east. It is therefore doubtful that the rebuilding could have occurred in the same year as Artaxerxes' decree. There is another account describing Nehemiah's time written by the historian Josephus who wrote in the first century AD:
“Now when he was come to Babylon, and had taken with him many of his countrymen, who voluntarily followed him, he came to Jerusalem in the twenty and fifth year of the reign of Xerxes.”
[Josephus] Antiquities XI, 5, 7

Taking into account what Josephus records, there occurred a gap of four years between the issuing of the decree and the time when Jerusalem began to be rebuilt. This would have been 440 BC. And this data point is very important in a proper understanding of the 70 Weeks Prophecy.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Sorry for the delay.

We continue to work back by finding the time it took to travel from Babylon to Jerusalem, and this is deduced from the time it took Ezra to make the same journey. It is obvious we should do this when we consider that the accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah were earlier combined in one book; the road they travelled was the same road; and their journeys were only 13 years apart. So, Nehemiah’s trip must have been similar at least. Ezra had previously arrived in Jerusalem on 23rd July 457 BC (Ezra 8:31-32) after hearing the king’s decree in March. That was four months. However, his party first assembled themselves at the Ahava canal and did not actually start moving for eleven days, therefore the number of traveling days were 107 days.

Nehemiah’s journey would have taken much the same time. Here is a timeline of events in Nehemiah’s trip:




What then is the conclusion? Simply this; the date of Artaxerxes’ second command can be found! It was 107 days before Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem. That date would have been the 10th Nisan which converts to our Julian equivalent, 12th April 444 BC. The correct decree dates will be of interest to those who propose a count of Daniel’s 70 weeks from Artaxerxes’ permission to Nehemiah in 444 BC. When the required number of years is added, it doesn’t fit.

Even when the hypothetical 360-day calendar is applied, theorists have to assume the king’s command came on the first day of the first month, when in fact the day was not stated. It must be calculated backwards from other data, and when done so, it does not start on the first day at all.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Thanks for those thoughts. But as my posts have outlined, the evidence shows that Nehemiah's journey was much longer than 107 days. And the decree of Artaxerxes just can not be known with any kind of certainty than it was within Nisan in the 20th year of his reign.

Your information still disqualifies Anderson's and Hoehner proposal though. But it can be determined with a much wider period of error than just 10 days.

1. Nehemiah's narrative starts from the issuing of the decree. He still had to organize a massive caravan full of supplies and new settlers. There is no way he could have left on Nisan 1 or even Nisan 10. Ezra's narrative begins at the point of departure AFTER he had organized the caravan, buying supplies out of the treasury, getting donations from the exiles, having utensils made. It took him 4 months when he was organized and it says he made good time.

2. Ezra left from Babylon. Nehemiah was still in Susa in the month of Nisan. That's 200 miles difference. That's another mark against a similar 107 day travel period.

3. Ezra's travel was from Babylon to Jerusalem - making good time. Nehemiah had to stop and give leters to the governors of provinces along the way. Then he had to go to Tyre, approve and arrange delivery of timber from the king's forest
[Neh 2:8 LSB] 8 and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the house [of God], for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go."

This would all take much longer than the assumed 3 1/2 months. In fact, according to Josephus, all this took 4 years.

 

[Christian Gedge]

2. Ezra left from Babylon. Nehemiah was still in Susa in the month of Nisan. That's 200 miles difference. That's another mark against a similar 107 day travel period.

It appears at first sight that Nehemiah had further to travel since his location in Persia was said to be in Susa, not Babylon. That was 200 plus miles further east, a significant addition, if it was indeed where he set out from. However, Susa was the winter residence of Persian kings, and his story begins in the month of Kislev, which falls in midwinter. The decree came later when the emperor would have been back in his summer palace (Babylon) together with his personal aides, of whom Nehemiah was one - cup bearer no less!

So yes, I'll just satisfy myself that we share agreement concerning the falsity of Anderson's theory.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

It appears at first sight that Nehemiah had further to travel since his location in Persia was said to be in Susa, not Babylon. That was 200 plus miles further east, a significant addition, if it was indeed where he set out from. However, Susa was the winter residence of Persian kings, and his story begins in the month of Kislev, which falls in midwinter. The decree came later when the emperor would have been back in his summer palace (Babylon) together with his personal aides, of whom Nehemiah was one - cup bearer no less!

So yes, I'll just satisfy myself that we share agreement concerning the falsity of Anderson's theory.

But where do you get this from? It's not in the text. And the whole "beyond the River" doesn't mean anything? And all the other evidences in the decrees and timing?

You'll probably not accept the evidence against the 457 BC decree then either.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

According to this information:
According to Xenophon (Cyropaedia 8.6. 22), in winter Cyrus spent seven months in Babylon, the three months of spring at Susa, and the two summer months in Ecbatana.

If the tradition continued....if the King and Nehemiah were already in Susa in Kislev for spring, they would have stayed there for Nisan (actual spring). They had left Babylon by the time the narrative starts in Neh 1.