p. 11 | Aids for Bible Readers

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Apr 9, 1908

Aids for Bible Readers

Historical quotations and extracts from various writers which may assist the thoughtful student of the Scriptures.

Historical Evidence Concerning the Commencement and the Close of the Seventy Weeks

ASSUMING, then, that the years referred to in this prophecy are to be interpreted as consecutive years, it follows that no calculation of these years from any one of the four edicts mentioned in Scripture as having been published by the kings of Persia for the building of the temple or city of Jerusalem will bring their termination even near the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, A. D. 70.

For, the first by Cyrus, was confessedly much more than the whole of the 490 years from the first year of the Christian era.

The same is the case with the edict of Darius, which Dean Prideaux (Conn. of O. and N. T. Hist. Pt. 1, bk. 5) has clearly proved to have been issued by Darius Hystaspes, and not by Darius Nothus, as supposed by Scaliger.

Moreover, as it has been clearly proved by Prideaux, and others, that the Artaxerxes who, in the seventh and twentieth years of his reign, issued the last two of the four edicts, was Artaxerxes Longimanus, and not Artaxerxes Mnemon or Artaxerxes Ochus, it is evident that 490 years from either of these edicts will not extend to the period of the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.

The destruction of Jerusalem, therefore, was not an event which was to come within the period of the 490 years.

Nor do the words of the prophecy intimate this, but only that it was an event that would stand in close connection with those that were to happen within the 490 years. The events that were to characterize the sixty-nine weeks and the seventieth week are distinctly pointed out, and the destruction of Jerusalem, and its subsequent state of desolation, are spoken of as distinct events following the cutting off of the Messiah. The events that were to take place, according to the prophecy, during the 490 years, seem to be the following:— 1. That at the end of sixty-nine septenaries of years, or 483 years from the issue of the decree, the Messiah was publicly to appear. 2. That in the middle year of the seventieth septenary of years the Messiah was to be cut off, and thus the sacrifices and offerings of the Jewish law in the sight of God to cease and be abrogated. 3. That during the seventieth septenary the Messiah was to establish the covenant with many of the Jews.

Now, of the four edicts above mentioned, the first two are excluded from our consideration by the fact that 490 years from either of them would not reach even to the period of our Lord’s birth.

We have to inquire, therefore, whether either of the edicts of Artaxerxes, which Scripture informs us were issued in the seventh and twentieth years of his reign, will suit the conditions of the prophecy.

And here first we must ascertain in what year Artaxerxes commenced his reign.

According to Ptolemy’s Canon (the best and most impartial authority to which we can refer), the reign of Artaxerxes commenced in the year 284 of the Nabonassarean era, which [284th year] began on Dec. 17, 465 B. C., reckoning in Julian years. And the principle on which Ptolemy’s Canon is constructed is to reckon each king’s reign as beginning on the first day of the first month (Thoth) of the year in which that king succeeded to the throne; the number of years of each king’s reign being limited to the number of complete years to which his reign extended, reckoning from that time. So that while, according to the principle of the canon, the reign of Artaxerxes is reckoned as beginning with the first day of the year 284 of the Nabonassarean era, we only know from it that the actual commencement of the reign was sometime in the course of that year.

Now the time of the year when he began to reign seems determinable from Ezra and Nehemiah. It appears from Neh. 1:1 and 2:1, that in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, and consequently in the other years of his reign, the first Hebrew month, Nisan (March-April), came after the ninth, Chisleu (November-December). Consequently the date of his accession must have been sometime between Nisan and Chisleu. And from Ezra 7:7-10 it follows, that, in the seventh and therefore in the other years of his reign, the fifth month, Ab, (July-August) came after the first, or Nisan. Therefore the accession of Artaxerxes was somewhere between the latter end of July and the former part of November, i. e., somewhere about the summer of 464 B. C.

Therefore the seventh year of Artaxerxes

was from the summer of 458 to the summer of 457.

Moreover it appears from Ezra 7:8-10 that Ezra started from Babylon to Jerusalem, in accordance with the decree issued by Artaxerxes in his seventh year, on the first day of the first month, Nisan.

Therefore the decree was issued a little previous to that period; and, as it is evident from Ezra’s own account (Ezra 7:28 and 8 throughout), that he took counsel with the whole body of the captive Jews upon the subject, convening a meeting at the river Ahava before they made their journey to Jerusalem, it is reasonable to suppose that the decree was issued at least a month or two previously. And therefore we must conclude that the decree was issued about January, 457 B. C.

According to the prophecy, then, at the end of 483 years from this period the Messiah was to appear.

Now, as there were different modes of calculating the length of the year among the ancients, and much has been said by writers on this prophecy, on the subject, we have first to consider which computation was probably intended in this place. The hypothesis adopted by some authors for making this prophecy correspond with the events predicted in it, has induced them to advocate the notion that the years were to consist of 360 days, according to the most ancient mode of reckoning. But as this incorrect mode of computation had long been laid aside at Babylon as erroneous, and was well known throughout the world in the time of Daniel to be seriously defective, it can hardly be supposed that the prophecy was founded upon such a faulty mode of reckoning. Among the Eastern nations, for centuries before the time of Daniel, the year had been reckoned as consisting of at least 365 days, and therefore no mode of reckoning less exact than this can fairly be considered as likely to be intended in this prophecy. And as in the space of 490 years the true mode of reckoning would only make the difference of about 120 days from this reckoning, the fulfilment of the prophecy may be sufficiently determined without our being able absolutely to prove that the year intended was the precise solar year. The event, however, will, I think, show the probability that such was the case, as might have been expected.

We have now to ascertain the dates of our blessed Lord’s birth and public appearance as the Messiah at his baptism. For the latter event, when our Lord first appeared publicly as the Messiah, and commenced his ministry in that character, is of course the event to which we should look, rather than to his birth, as that which Daniel had in view in this prophecy.

Let us first endeavor to fix the true date of his birth. It is so well known, and universally acknowledged, that those who first endeavored to fix this date, and from whose calculations the common Christian era has ever since been reckoned, made an error in their computation, that I need not stop here to prove that the vulgar Christian era does not exactly correspond with the real period of our Lord’s birth. It is universally admitted that his birth took place at a period previous to the year 1 of the vulgar Christian era, or, as it is said, A. D. 1. We have to inquire, therefore, what that period was, and on this point there has been much difference of opinion, varying from the year B. C. 8 to B. C. 1.

First, then, we get an approximation to the true date, if we can fix the date of Herod’s death; for our Lord must have been born some little time at least before Herod’s death.

Now, Josephus tells us (Antiq. 17: 6, 4) that an eclipse of the moon happened a few days before the death of Herod, and (ib. 9:3; De bell. Jud. 2: 1, 3) that he died just before a Passover. This eclipse, therefore, must have happened in March or April. Now the only eclipse of the moon at this period of the year that happened within more than eight years preceding A. D. 1 was on March 13, B. C. 4, at 2:45 A. M., which must have been, therefore, the eclipse referred to by Josephus. And consequently Herod’s death took place during the latter half of March B. C. 4.

Another note of the time of his death is also given us by Josephus, who tells us (Antiq. 17:8, 1; De bell. Jud. 1:33, 8) that he reigned thirty-four years after he had caused Antigonus to be slain, and thirty-seven after he had been declared king by the Romans; that is, according to the usual mode of reckoning, at that time, that he had completed thirty-three and thirty-six years respectively after these events, and died in the course of the thirty-fourth and thirty-seventh. If, therefore, he died March B. C. 4, these thirty-three and thirty-six years must have been completed either during the latter part of B. C. 5, or quite at the commencement of B. C. 4.

But Josephus tells us (Antiq. 14:14, 5) that Herod was made king by the Romans in the 184th Olympiad, when Caius Domitius Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio were consuls, the former for the second time. And the last year of the 184th Olympiad was from July B. C. 41 to July B. C. 40. Supposing, therefore, that Herod was made king toward the close of B. C. 41, or at the commencement of B. C. 40, we have exactly 36 years for his reign expiring some little time before his death in March B. C. 4. And as the consuls mentioned are generally considered as belonging to B. C. 40, and were probably appointed in January, we have the precise date of the commencement of his reign about the latter part of January, B. C. 40.

But Josephus also tells us that he died in the thirty-fourth year of his reign, after the death of Antigonus. Now, the capture of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius, soon after which Antigonus was slain, took place, he tells us (Antiq. 14: 16, 4), in the 185th Olympiad, when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls at Rome, and in the third month (that is, of the civil year), which is Chisleu, lasting from November 25 to December 25. But the third year of the 185th Olympiad lasted from July, B. C. 38, to July, B. C. 37. As Antigonus, therefore, must have been put to death about the end of December, B. C. 38, or early in January, B. C. 37, we have thirty-three years completed between that time and December, B. C. 5, or January, B. C. 4. And if we are to conclude that the consuls named were appointed in January, B. C. 37 (as they are generally attached to the year B. C. 37), we have a still more precise date for the period of the death of Antigonus. But the truth is, the precise time of the year when the consuls were appointed can not be definitely fixed.

The calculation of Herod’s death, in March, B. C. 4, also agrees with the accounts of the banishment of his successor Archelaus, in the tenth year of his reign. (Joseph. in Vita, c. 1, and Antiq. 17:13, 2). For in March, A. D. 6, he would have reigned nine years. And Dio (lv. 25, 27) tells us that he was banished when Emilius Lepidus and L. Arruntius were consuls, which was U. C. 759, or A. D. 6. And Josephus (Antiq. 18:2, 1) says that it was in the thirty-seventh year after the battle of Actium, which was in September, U. C. 723, so that in September, U. C. 759, thirty-six years were completed since the battle of Actium. And if Archelaus was banished toward the close of the year, it would be in the tenth year of his reign, and the thirty-seventh from the battle of Actium.

It agrees also with the date assigned by Josephus (Antiq. 18:4, 6) to the death of the tetrarch Philip. For, he says, that he died in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, having ruled over Trachonitis, etc., thirty-seven years. Now, if he came to his government in the spring of B. C. 4, he completed his thirty-sixth year of government in the spring of A. D. 33. And Tiberius commenced the twentieth year of his reign (reckoning, as Josephus does, from the death of Augustus) in the following August. So that, if Philip died at any time during the first three quarters of the twentieth year of Tiberius, he would be said to have reigned thirty-seven years, that is thirty-six complete years, and a portion of a thirty-seventh year.

It also agrees with the dates on two coins of Herod Antipas, given in Eckhel, tom. 3, pp. 486, 487, which make the forty-third year of his reign current in A. D. 39, and, of course, the first in B. C. 4.

On the strength of all these testimonies, then, we may fairly consider it as proved that the death of Herod took place in the latter end of March, B. C. 4.

Consequently, our Lord’s birth must have taken place some little time previous to this.—“Fulfilled Prophecy,” by W. Goode, D. D., F. S. A., London, Jas. Nisbet & Co., 1891, pages 210-216.

(To be concluded)