The Narrow Path Ministries

Earlier this year I decided to see whether Daniel’s prophecy about the Messiah’s death (“cutting off”) after 69 “weeks” could be historically verified to a reasonable point. I want to share some of that information in the hope it will bolster the faith of readers here, as it has bolstered mine.

First, let me say there are a few (or maybe several) minor or sub points I wish were more clearly demonstrated from biblical or extra-biblical history. (BTW they are not mentioned in this particular comment.) Still, I feel the overall evidence is strong enough to carry the argument that Daniel’s prophecy is proved to a reasonable point.

To begin then:

Sir Robert Anderson in his now famous, late-19th century book, The Coming Prince, believed John’s description (in Revelation) of a half-week being 42 months or 1260 days meant that all the 70 weeks should be understood to be twice that length, i.e., 84 months, or 2520 days. Therefore since Daniel says that Christ would be cut off after 69 weeks from the time the commandment went forth to restore and build Jerusalem, the “cutting off” would come after 483 years of 360 days each, or 173,880 days. (BTW I personally think a 360-day year was meant to hearken back to the length of year at the time of Creation, and to help the Jews understand Messiah’s plan of restoration, i.e., even of the orbits of the earth and moon and consequently the year’s length, as at the time of Creation.)

The question then becomes: When did the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem occur?

There are three decrees and (I would argue) one commandment in the Bible regarding post-exilic building in or of Jerusalem that concerns us. The first decree was by Cyrus in the 1st year of his reign, and specified the rebuilding of the Temple only. The second and third decrees were essentially reaffirmations of the first, the second given by Darius, and the third by Artaxerxes in his 7th year. None of these three decrees specified rebuilding the City, and a close reading shows that all three pertained to the “house” of God. The permission to rebuild the City came out of a conversation between Nehemiah and Artaxerxes in the 20th year of the latter’s reign, and resulted in a letter commanding the king’s forester, Asaph, to supply (among other things) building materials for the wall of Jerusalem. It is plain from Nehemiah’s 40 (or so) verses in chapter 3 that the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wall, i.e., the beginning step in restoring the City itself, did not occur prior to Artaxerxes’ command in his 20th year, and that any “leftover” silver or gold given to Ezra in Artaxerxes’ 7th year was not used for that purpose.

Two important notes here. First, the Jews had (at least) by the 5th century BC come to reckon a king’s anniversary of reign in the fall of the year, not the spring. This explains why Nehemiah speaks of an event in Chislev, the 9th month, and a subsequent event in Nisan, the 1st month, as both falling in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. Second, in the early 1900s archaeology found a 5th century Egyptian calendar at the Jewish colony at Elephantine (an island in the Nile) which showed that in 14 instances the 1st of Nisan occurred (within a day) from (Julian dates of) March 26 to April 24. In modern terms this is more or less equivalent to March 20 to April 18. Now, the modern practice shows that the 1st of Nisan has about a 6 week spread due to the Jews’ ‘floating’ year, in which a leap month is added to the lunar calendar 7 times in a 19 year span (hence the Jews have a lunar-solar calendar). Nevertheless, the (Julian) March 26 to April 24 dates gives us a general idea of when Nisan began.

Returning to our inquiry, if we are to know the beginning ‘bookend’ date of Daniel’s prophecy, we must answer the question: When was Artaxerxes’ 20th year?

To find this out, we must determine when Artaxerxes ascended to the throne. (Note: readers should not confuse a Persian king’s ascension year with his 1st year of reign, which always followed the ascension year.) History tells us he ascended after the death of his father Xerxes (the Ahasuerus of Esther), who was assassinated in August, 465 BC. However, there seems to have been a contention for the throne, and no documents exist that state that Artaxerxes had ascended to the throne in the months immediately following his father’s assassination, i.e., prior to Tishri (Sep/Oct), 465 BC. In other words, Artaxerxes did not have a very short ascension year leading to a Tishri, 465 BC 1st year of reign. In fact, there is an Egyptian papyrus dated Jan. 2, 464 BC and double dated to the ascension year of Artaxerxes and the 21st year of Xerxes. (For chronological and calendarical purposes, a king’s reigning year sometimes went beyond his death.) Therefore Artaxerxes was not reckoned by the Jews (and thus by post-exilic biblical authors like Ezra and Nehemiah) to have begun his 1st year of reign until Tishri, 464 BC. Long story short, this means the 20th year of reign of Artaxerxes began in fall, 445 BC, meaning the Nisan in Artaxerxes’ 20th year fell in 444 BC. So then, Nisan, 444 is the beginning ‘bookend’ date of Daniel’s 69 “weeks”. (Incidentally, the term “week” was also used in extra-biblical documents contemporary with Daniel, to sometimes refer to a period of 7 years.)

Without going into a lot more intermediate detail, let me say that the time required for Daniel’s prophecy brings us to spring, 33 AD. The late Prof. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary placed the 69 weeks from March 5, 444 BC to March 30, 33 AD, with crucifixion falling on Friday, April 3. But as already shown, a March 5 date is too early for the 1st of Nisan, according to archaeological records. Also, a March 5/1st of Nisan would mean a March 20/16th of Nisan “first-fruits” barley wave offering (this was an offering commanded in the Old Testament). But this is too early in the year for barley to have been mature enough to be considered a “fruit” even in its earliest edible stage (fully developed seeds that were parched in fire). And so, it appears Prof. Hoehner was off by one month. In addition, Sandoval shows that Hoehner miscalculated several days when citing the Julian Calendar, although even Sandoval admits this does not necessarily disprove Heohner’s general theory. (Sandoval reserves his severest criticism of Hoehner’s Dispensational eschatology to other points, such a gap in the 69th and 70 weeks.) So the correct dates for the 69 weeks appear to be April 6, 444 BC to (“Palm” Monday) April 27, 33 AD, with the crucifixion (“cutting off”) of Messiah taking place on (Julian) Friday, May 1, 33 AD, with the Resurrection on May 3, 33 AD. These dates, i.e., April 27, May 1, and May 3, 33 AD, actually fulfill the Old Testament symbolism of the 10th of Nisan (setting apart the lamb from the flock), the 14th of Nisan (slaying the lamb), and the 16th of Nisan (the “first fruits” of Christ’s resurrection, meaning Jesus is the first born among many brethren who likewise shall be resurrected).

Objections (whether legitimate or not) against the above beginning and ending ‘bookend’ dates of Daniel’s prophecy include the following claims:

1) Christ was assuming too much of the Jews, when he said (or implied) on the Day of His Triumphal Entry that the Jews should have known, “at least in this thy day”, the things that pertained to their peace. For this means that Jesus had the expectation that the Jews should have been counting off 483 years each of 360 days, instead of 365+ days, from 444 BC to determine the time just before Messiah’s “cutting off”. But what in the Jews’ history would have alerted them to count off years in this fashion?;

2) Jesus, citing the analogy of Jonah in the whale’s belly, said his burial would be 3 days and 3 nights long. But a proposed Friday afternoon crucifixion would only mean a day and a half burial;

3) as Chris Sandoval points out in his book, The Failures of Daniel’s Prophecies, numbers like that given for Solomon’s bronze Sea show that the Bible often rounds off numbers; likewise numbers in Daniel’s prophecy should not be read with micrometer precision;

4) A Friday crucifixion means a Thursday evening “Last Supper” and thus not a proper Passover Seder Meal;

5) The gospels give conflicting accounts about events during Passion Week, including on what day the disciples prepared for the Passover;

6) since Christ is generally thought to have been born in 5 or 6 BC, this would make Jesus about 35, not 30, at the time He entered ministry, yet Luke states that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he entered ministry.

Although the above objections may seem formidable, all of them can be reasonably answered. But I hesitate to make this particular comment any longer than it already is. However, if someone wants more information on any of these points, or any other point I may not have mentioned, I will try to respond. The point here, is that I want to assure readers that there are answers.

One closing note. Throughout much of this year, I occasionally asked certain questions of an astronomy professor whom I knew to be a Creationist. Yet in the end, when I wanted him to review my work to see if there were any problems with it, I found out he pretty much discounted approaches that posited specific dates, claiming there was too much ambiguity and imprecision to historians’ dating of events prior to 2,000 years. So I emailed him to ask him what relevance any biblical prophecy would have for today’s inquirer—whether Christian or unbeliever—if a vital, mathematical component of that prophecy could not be historically verified? I was a little surprised that he never answered. I think his lack of response was unfortunate, as it left the impression (with me, at least) that he felt people ought to just take the Daniel 9 prophecy at its word, without any particular reason to. Maybe this is enough for some people. But it does not help persons who are naturally skeptical (like myself), and who would find verifiable prophecy a considerable aid to having confidence in the Bible.

444 BC to determine the time just before Messiah’s “cutting off”. But what in the Jews’ history would have alerted them to count off years in this fashion?;

2) Jesus, citing the analogy of Jonah in the whale’s belly, said his burial would be 3 days and 3 nights long. But a proposed Friday afternoon crucifixion would only mean a day and a half burial;

3) as Chris Sandoval points out in his book, The Failures of Daniel’s Prophecies, numbers like that given for Solomon’s bronze Sea show that the Bible often rounds off numbers; likewise numbers in Daniel’s prophecy should not be read with micrometer precision;

4) A Friday crucifixion means a Thursday evening “Last Supper” and thus not a proper Passover Seder Meal;

5) The gospels give conflicting accounts about events during Passion Week, including on what day the disciples prepared for the Passover;

6) since Christ is generally thought to have been born in 5 or 6 BC, this would make Jesus about 35, not 30, at the time He entered ministry, yet Luke states that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he entered ministry.







Thank you for your post Daniel. I have read that 444BC is the right date but is the 5-6BC birthdate definitive? Re the 3 days & nights issue i have heard a couple of explanations, 1- the jews considered a part of a day to qualify for the terminology "day" or "night." Also it says he would be "in the heart of the earth" may not literally mean "in the grave" but 3 days & nights from captivity in Gethseme.
Also why does the last Supper have to be a proper Passover Seder meal?

“…why does the last Supper have to be a proper Passover Seder meal?”

You are correct in thinking it is not. I think the confusion for readers is Jesus’ statement to his disciples that he “desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (Lk. 22:15). Yet the official Passover Seder (on the 15th of Nisan) was still a day a way. An online comment by one, Daniel Gregg, sheds some light on this problem. First, the term “Passover” as used in gospels could indicate more than just the Passover Day (15th of Nisan). It appears the term Passover behaved somewhat like out “New Year’s” or even like “Christmas”. For example, in the sentence “For the sake of Christmas, when we buy one another gifts, I hope everyone will be happy,” it sounds like the gift-buying happens on Christmas Day. But in fact it happens prior to it. In fact, “Christmas” can refer to the entire lead-up to the Christmas Day.

More to the point, Gregg, citing the Mishna, Tractate Pesachim chapter 4 Mishna 5, points out a difference in how Galilean Jews observed the Passover, compared to Judean Jews. The day before the Passover Seder Meal was the 14th of Nisan, in which the school of Shammai forbid any work. Also, the firstborns fasted during the daylight hours (last half of the day) of the 14th of Nisan, in commemoration of the 10th plague of Egypt which killed the Egyptian firstborns. Thus the afternoon of the 13th of Nisan was a day of preparation for a “last supper”, known as a “seudah maphsehket,” since the firstborns would not eat again until the next evening (the 15th of Nisan).

This seems to explain Jesus’ statement that he would “eat no more” (or in the Greek, “no further”) of the Passover until he ate it in his kingdom.

I have read that 444BC is the right date but is the 5-6BC birthdate definitive?

You are right to suspect it is not, though most scholars believe Herod died in 4 BC and so also believe Christ must have been born prior to it, since Herod tried to kill the Christ Child.

The most definitive article advocating a 1 AD death for Herod is by W.E. Filmer in Journal of Theological Studies (Oxford). At issue is the date of an eclipse mentioned by Josephus that occurred before Passover, forming two events (eclipse-Passover) between which Herod died. Most scholars accept a 4 BC eclipse, but Filmer believes it was on Dec. 29, 1 BC (a few days before Jan. 1, AD; remember, there is no year zero in the BD/AD or BCE/CE systems). The main argument is that too many events occurred between the 1 month between the eclipse and the Passover in 4 BC, but that the 1 BC eclipse allows about 4 months (imo possibly 5, based on when the 1st of Nisan could have occurred in 1 AD). A fall, 2 BC birth of Christ would fit the chronology of Luke perfectly, insofar as Jesus beginning his ministry at about age 30, shortly after Christ’s forerunner, John the Baptist, began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius (mid-Sept., 28 AD to mid-Sept. 29 AD).

Re the 3 days & nights issue i have heard a couple of explanations, 1- the jews considered a part of a day to qualify for the terminology "day" or "night." Also it says he would be "in the heart of the earth" may not literally mean "in the grave" but 3 days & nights from captivity in Gethseme.

You are right about the Jews counting any part of a day as a day. But Christ’s specificity of 3 days and 3 nights seems at first glance to suggest three 24-hour days. And I don’t see how the time in Gethsemane would count, since the phrase in Matt. 12:40, in which Christ likens his burial to Jonah’s encavement inside a whale, is not “in the grave” but “in the heart of the earth.” So I think the answer lies along different lines than any explanation involving time spent in Gethsemane.

First, the answer may simply be what you otherwise suggested, i.e., that by “three days and three nights” Jesus meant any part of 3 days, not necessarily three 24-hour periods.

Second, it should be noted that Jesus doesn’t form the correlative conjunction of the Jonah simile (the “just as”…“also in this manner”) as strongly as it is sometimes expressed in the N.T. For although He does begin the simile with the intensified “just as” rather than “as” [Gr. hosper instead of hos, the per intensifying the word], He does not complete it in the common “outws kai” (Gr. in this manner also) or “kai outws” (Gr. also in this manner), thus suggesting, it seems, a lessened strength of the simile than it might have been, since the “also,” which is left out, would presumably have strengthened the simile.

Third and finally, there actually is one possible explanation to Matthew 12:40 that doesn’t rely at all on anything but a literal reading, though it does hearken to the principle that Christ could and sometimes did speak cryptically of his death and resurrection in a way not immediately grasped by his hearers. He did this, for example, when he said, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days,” by which he meant the temple that was his body, but which his hearers took to mean Herod’s temple. Now, looking closely at the Greek words in Matthew 12:40, Jesus uses the word “kai” between the terms “three days” and “three nights”. But the word “kai” can sometimes behave like “yet,” depending on the context. For example, the KJV renders John 1:11: “He came unto his own, and (Gr. kai) his own received him not.” But surely the intended meaning of John 1:11 must be “yet.” That is, “He came unto his own, yet his own received him not.” This is hardly an isolated example of how “kai” sometimes behaves in the N.T. For example, in Matthew 10:29-30 the “kai” arguably behaves like the weaker adversative “yet”, compared to the Greek “de” at the beginning of verse 30, which acts as the stronger adversative; thus:

(29)“Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? yet (Gr. kai) one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. (30) But (Gr. de) the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”

In other words, that God numbers the very hairs on our heads is an even more striking example of his watchfulness over creation than the value He puts on birds, relative to the greater value He puts on man. However, in my opinion the above translation using the word “yet” is technically incorrect, for otherwise the Greek word “de” (yet/but) or “alla” (but) would have been the logical choice. Yet clearly an adversative is present. So why is kai used? I think it is because kai can behave as an adversative yet at the same time express irony. We see this in English, too, with the word “and.” For example, suppose I had a son and said to his Little League coach, “I insist you place my son in an important place in the batting lineup,” and the coach replied, “I did that all last week in practice, yet he struck out every time.” Here the word “yet,” though an adversative, expresses no irony. But if the coach replied in a sardonic or even deadpan tone, “I did that all last week in practice, and he struck out every time,” then the word “and” behaves as an adversative but also expresses irony (or paradox). The trick of interpretation, then, when approaching a verse like John 1:11, is to realize that when John says “He came unto his own…” but then resolves it not by saying that his own received him (which is what one would expect to read), but rather “and his own received him not,” then irony is intended by the author, who uses kai (tr. and) as an adversative. Unfortunately, this kind of grammatical nuance capable of kai is not found among the definitions for kai in the standard lexicons, which is an example of why the student must always be aware of the limitations of lexicons.

Now, in Matthew 12:40 most hearers would naturally assume kai to mean and (also, additionally) in the phrase “three days and three nights.” But suppose Jesus was speaking not merely by way of simile (and, as already noted, a simile of a lesser degree), but, at another level of meaning, also by way of an ironic “yet.” In other words, perhaps Jesus was saying, “Even as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days…” (speaker’s pause) “…and [here kai behaves as yet, though with irony, i.e., (cryptically) on the other hand] three nights[i/] (!)….” Thus Jesus might actually have been stating that he would be in the grave “three days…yet… three nights! ” i.e., a duration of three daytimes, yet three nighttimes, were the hearer to assume the general way a 24-hour day is perceived and abstractly defined, i.e., into equal daylight and darkness. And, in fact, 36 hours appears to be the approximate, if not exact time Christ was in the grave. For note that when Mary Magdalene came to the empty tomb it was prior to dawn on the first day of the week, for the Bible states that the time was “when it was yet dark….” So for argument’s sake let us say that Jesus died at 2:30 PM (the middle of the ninth hour) on Friday, was buried three hours later, and rose at 5:30 AM Sunday morning while it was yet dark. That would total 36 hours in the heart of the earth—the length of three daytimes or three nighttimes—from the time of his burial to the moment of his resurrection.

It is the interpreter’s choice whether he will accept this explanation or one stressing the idiom of speech in which “three days and three nights” is simply meant to imply a short duration. But it may be that both of these explanations are possible, and that kai works polyvalently, so that “and” is intended at one level of meaning (to indicate a short duration), while “and” behaves as “yet” at another and ironic level of meaning.