(Continued: Chapter II-Sixty-Nine Weeks of Years)

But he did not possess sufficient data to enable him to fill the gaps, or to fix the dates of the Chronology of this period, so he had to resort to the calculation of eclipses. In this way then, not by historical evidence or testimony, but by the method of astronomical calculation, and the conjectural identification of recorded with calculated eclipses, the Chronology of this period of the world's history has been fixed by Ptolemy, since when, through Eusebius and Jerome, it has won its way to universal acceptance. It is contradicted (1) by the national traditions of Persia, (2) by the national traditions of the Jews, (3) by the testimony of Josephus, and (4) by the conflicting evidence of such well-authenticated events as the Conference of Solon with Cruises, and the flight of Themistocles to the court of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which make the accepted Chronology impossible. But the human mind cannot rest in a state of perpetual doubt. There was this one system elaborated by Ptolemy. There was no other except that given in the prophecies of Daniel. Hence, whilst the Ptolemaic astronomy was overthrown by Copernicus in the 16th century, the reign of the Ptolemaic Chronology remains to this day. There is one, and only one alternative. The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 fixes the period between the going forth of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem (in the first year of Cyrus) to the cutting off of the Messiah (in the year A.D. 30) as a period of 483 years. If this be the true Chronology of the period from the first year of Cyrus to the Crucifixion, it leaves only 123 years instead of the 205 given in Ptolemy's Canon, for the duration of the Persian Empire. (Chart) (click link and scroll to comparison of Daniel and Ptolemy)

"Consequently the received or Ptolemaic Chronology, now universally accepted, must be abridged by these 82 years. The error of Ptolemy has probably been made through his having assigned too many years, and perhaps too many Kings, to the latter part of the period of the Persian Empire, in the scheme which he made out from various conflicting data.

"We have to choose between the Heathen Astrologer and the Hebrew Prophet.

"Other interpretations have been given of the date of 'the going forth of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem' (Dan. 9:25).

"Bishop Lloyd, the author of the Bible dates in the margin of the Authorized Version, reckons the 483 years from the leave given to Nehemiah to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, whom he identified with Artaxerxes Longimanus (Neh. 2:1), and to make the fulfillment fit the prophecy on the erroneous Ptolemaic reckoning of the Chronology he has to curtail the interval by reckoning in years of 360 days each.

"Dr. Prideaux reckons the 483 years from the date of Ezra's return in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Longimanus), Ezra 7:1-28.

"Scaliger reckoned the 70 weeks of Daniel as commencing in the 4th year of Darius Nothus, B.C. 420, and ending at the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D.70.

"Others have reckoned the 483 years from the going forth of the commandment in the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 519) to build the Temple (Ezra 4:24,5:1-6:15).

"But the true point of departure for the 70 weeks, and therefore, for the 483 years also, is unquestionably the 1st year of Cyrus (Dan. 9, 2 Chron. 36:20-23, Ezra 1-4, Isa. 44:28; 45:1-4,13), and no other epoch would ever have been suggested but for the fact that the count of the years was lost, and wrongly restored from Ptolemy's conjectural astronomical calculations.

"It would be far better to abandon the Ptolemaic Chronology and fit the events into the 483 years of the Hebrew prophecy.

"The one great fundamental truth to be remembered is the fact that modern Chronology rests upon the calculations of Ptolemy as published in his Canon or List of Reigns. And since the foundation of Greek Conjectural Computation Chronology, upon which Ptolemy's Canon rests, is unstable, the superstructure is likewise insecure. Ptolemy may be called as a witness. He cannot be allowed to arbitrate as a judge. He cannot take the place of a Court of Final Appeal. He cannot be erected into a standard by which to correct the Chronology of the text of the Old Testament."



From the data assembled and presented in this lengthy quotation it is quite evident that the chronology for the Persian period from which Ptolemy made his computation was in utter confusion. The conclusions which he drew, therefore, are just as uncertain as the sources from which he gathered his information. Anstey, therefore, is correct in saying that "Ptolemy may be called as a witness. He cannot be allowed to arbitrate as a judge. He cannot take the place of a court of final appeal. He cannot be erected into a standard to correct a chronology of the text of the Old Testament."

The chronological scheme of Sanchoniathon "is a confused, unintelligible jargon, culled from (1) the mythologies of Egypt and Greece, and (2) a corrupt tradition of the narrative in Genesis. It may well have been forged by Porphyry, or by Philo Pyblius, in order to prosper the sinking cause of Paganism and to retard the rapid spread of Christianity in the second and third centuries of the Christian era."

Neither can we rely with absolute certainty upon data which is presented to us by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Concerning his three monumental works, Anstey makes the following statement: "These three great works contain most valuable chronological material, but the figures given are not reliable. They are not always self-consistent, in some cases they have been carelessly copied, and in others they have been corrected by his Hellenistic editors in order to bring them into accord with those of the Seventy, i.e., the Septuagint. Apart from this it must be admitted that chronology was not a strong point with Josephus and chronology being but a secondary object with him, he was not always over-careful in his calculations."

We have seen that according to Ptolemy's canon there were ten kings of the Persian period. Josephus gives six:

  1. Cyrus.

  2. Cambyses = Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23.

  3. Darius Hystaspes.

      2nd year, Temple foundation laid.
      9th year, Temple finished.
  4. Xerxes = Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1-8:36.

      25th year, Nehemiah came to Jerusalem.
      28th year Wall of Jerusalem finished.
  5. Cyrus (son of Xerxes), called by the Greeks Artaxerxes, and identified with the Ahasuerus of Esther.

  6. Darius, the last King, a contemporary of Jaddua and Alexander the Great.

The Sedar Olam, Rabbah, i.e., The Large Chronicle of the World, is a Jewish Talmudic tract, containing the chronology of the world as reckoned by the Jews. It brings the chronology of the world from the creation down to the days of Hadrian, the Roman emperor (76-138 of the common era). The author is supposed to have been Rabbi Jose ben Chaliptha, the master to Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh, who composed the Mishna. A second Jewish work on chronology is the Sedar Olam Zeutah, i.e., Small Chronicle of the World, and is said to have been written about 1123 C.E. It is a history of the world from creation to the year 522 C.E. Both of these Jewish works contain the tradition respecting the duration of the Persian period. According to them, in the last year of Darius Hystaspes the prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died. Thereupon the spirit of prophecy ceased from among the children of Israel. This continuance of the prophetic spirit was "the sealing up of vision and prophecy" spoken of by Daniel (Dan. 9:24). This same tradition tells us that the kingdom of the Persians also ceased that very year. Evidently the one originating this legend thought that this was the Darius whom Alexander the Great conquered. Below I will give the tabulation of the data presented in these works as given by Anstey: (Sedar Olam bottom Chart)

"This last Darius, they say, was the Artaxerxes who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem to restore the state of the Jews, for they tell us that Artaxerxes among the Persians was the common name for their Kings, as that of Pharaoh was among the Egyptians."

As has already been seen, Ptolemy considered the Persian period 205 years long, whereas these two Jewish chronological works credit Persia with only 52 years. According to the evidence, which is the most authentic obtainable, the conquest of Alexander and the beginning of his world empire was 331 B.C.E. If we accept Ptolemy's reckoning, then the restoration of the Jews from Babylon by the decree of Cyrus was in the year 536 B.C.E. On the other hand, if we accept the shorter chronology presented in these Jewish works, this restoration was in 383 B.C.E. Thus these two sources conflict. They also contradict the statement of the angel Gabriel to Daniel; they give the Persian and Greek periods as covering 536 and 383 years. The angel Gabriel to Daniel stated that there would be 483 years from the issuing of the decree which, as we have seen, was written in the first year of Cyrus, and which year, according to the Ptolemaic reckoning, was 536 B.C.E.

The common era which, from the present point of view, dates from the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who, as Christians believe, was both the Son of God in human form and the Jewish Messiah. In the computation of chronology by modern calculators there was a discrepancy of something like 4 or 5 years in the reckoning of His birth. According to the data obtainable He was executed in the year 30 C.E. The terminal date of the 69 weeks of years, or 483 years, is that of the cutting off of Messiah (Dan. 9:26). This prediction is interpreted as a reference to His execution.

Since Jesus of Nazareth is reckoned as the Messiah, to be cut off at the end of the sixty-ninth week, or the 483rd year, if we accept the longer chronology, we must add the 30 years of the present era to the 536 of the Ptolemaic chronology. On account of the transition, therefore, from the B.C. dates to those of the common era, one year must be deducted from the sum total, 566 years, making 565 years.

Certain commentators trying to fit the 483-year period mentioned by the angel Gabriel into the chronology passed on to us by Ptolemy and his successors have thought of the year 445 B.C.E. as the initial date of this Period¹.

According to the Biblical, chronological data, the year in which Cyrus issued this decree was 3589 A.H. The anno hominis system of dating time begins the reckoning of time with the creation of Adam and traces the chronology throughout the Tenach and finds that in the year 3589 Cyrus issued his decree as was foretold by the angel Gabriel.


V. THE END OF THE SIXTY-NINTH WEEK

The 69 weeks are divided into two sections: seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks:

"Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again with street and moat even in troublous times" (Dan. 9:25).

During the first seven weeks or 49 years, according to this prediction, the city of Jerusalem was to be built with moat and street in troublous times. A glance at the book of Ezra shows that the Jews after they returned from Babylon were harassed constantly by Gentile enemies in the land. Thus the prediction was literally fulfilled. Next the angel comprehended the remaining part of this period in the expression, "threescore and two weeks."

Let us note the fact that the terminal date of the sixty-ninth week is "the anointed one, the prince." Who is this prince, the anointed one? Of whom would Daniel naturally think? Certainly his mind would not revert to the prince who, in Daniel 7, is called "a little horn." Neither would he think of the little horn mentioned in chapter 8. The one mentioned by Gabriel is "the anointed one, the prince." Could Daniel have known of any anointed one, who was called "Messiah, the Prince?" It is true that prophets, priests, and kings were at different times called "anointed" ones. The manner in which Gabriel speaks of this one shows conclusively that he presumed on Daniel's part a knowledge of this one. From the utterance of the promise of "the seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15) men began to look for the coming of a mighty deliverer. The expectation aroused by this oracle finds expression throughout the Scriptures. Hannah, however, is the first one to call Him an anointed one. In speaking of the time when the Lord will destroy all the wicked from the earth she exclaimed,

"Jehovah will judge the ends of the earth;
and he will give strength to his king.
And exalt the horn of his anointed (Messiah)" (I Sam. 2:10).

The priests, especially the High Priest, were called the "anointed" priests. None were ever designated as "the anointed prince." The prophets were sometimes spoken of as having been anointed, but were never called "the anointed prince." On the other hand, the kings of Israel were known as the Lord's anointed. This especially is seen in the early history of the monarchy. But the king was frequently called the anointed. At other times he was called by the title "king." Naturally when Gabriel spoke of "the anointed one, the prince," Daniel thought of an anointed king. But since they were looking for King Messiah to appear and to introduce the golden era, and since Gabriel in his message spoke of this glorious time in the future, the prophet could think of no one besides Him. This proposition is, therefore, self-evident.

The expression "the anointed, the prince" undoubtedly is a reference to King Messiah, of whose nature and person we have learned the principal facts in my book,
Messiah: His Nature and Person. In that discussion I showed from the Hebrew text of the Tenach that Messiah, according to the prophetic utterances, enters the world by miraculous conception and virgin birth. In the third book of this Messianic Series, Messiah: His Redemptive Career, I showed from the inspired predictions that Messiah was scheduled to come to the world, being born of a Virgin, to be rejected and executed, to be buried, to rise from the dead, to ascend to heaven at the invitation of God, and to sit at the Lord's right hand until He (Jehovah) puts His enemies under His feet, at which time He will return to earth and be enthusiastically welcomed by the Hebrew nation. At that time He will reestablish the throne of David and inaugurate a world-wide reign of righteousness and peace. Thus was outlined in the prophetic word the redemptive career of the Messiah.

The question arising at this point of the discussion is: What event in Messiah's redemptive career is referred to by the expression
עַד מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד "unto the anointed one, the prince." From Daniel 9:25 we cannot be dogmatic. We might conclude, however, that the special point of the passage refers to some great epoch in this redemptive career of Messiah. Further than this no one can conjecture. But verse 26 supplies the desired information. "And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing." It is evident from the drift of the thought that this statement is explanatory of the indefinite words "until the anointed one, the prince." This phrase from verse 26, therefore, points out which epoch in Messiah's redemptive career was before the angel's mind.

The impression which the passage makes upon the mind of one who has not espoused a theory relative to this oracle is that at the conclusion of the 69 weeks Messiah is cut off or executed; therefore, the terminal date of the 69 weeks, or 483 years, is the year of the Messiah's execution.

Will a critical study of this passage confirm the general impression received from reading the English translation of
אֲחַרֵי? The fundamental meaning of this word is to be found in the verb from which it is derived, and which means "to remain behind, delay, tarry." The form used by Gabriel is the plural construct of the noun אַחַר, rendered literally "the hinder or following part." For the fundamental idea see II Samuel 2:23. Here it is rendered "the hinder end" of Abner's spear with which he smote Asahel. Since the form appearing here is the plural construct, it means literally "the hinder part of." In this connection it is evident that this substantive has a prepositional force and is properly rendered "after."

This conclusion is supported by numerous references which might be cited. For instance, in the genealogical tables of Genesis 5 and 11, this word is used in such statements as, "and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years." The account began from the begettal of Seth onward. Our word is used to express this idea. Another example is found in Leviticus 16:1 in the following statement: "As Jehovah spake unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron." The Lord's speaking to Moses was immediately after the death of these men. We see this same usage in Deuteronomy 1:3,4. An examination of this text shows that this word means immediately after. It is to be found in such passages as Joshua 1:1; Judges 1:1; 10:1. In all of these cases it carries the idea of the transpiring of an occurrence immediately after a given event has taken place. Scores of instances support this contention. In view of this inherent meaning of the word, obviously it always carries the idea that an event, about which a statement is made, transpires immediately after some other occurrence with which it is connected. Only in such cases as those where the absolute evidences of the context show that some time might intervene is one at liberty to interpret it differently.

According to our prediction, after the sixty-ninth week, or at the expiration of the 483 years, "shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing." In view of the fact that the general usage of this word indicates an occurrence following immediately another action that has been mentioned, we are to conclude that the cutting off of the Messiah occurs at the end of the sixty-ninth week or at the close of the 483 years.

Gabriel was very specific in his mentioning the exact number of years and in giving the initial date of this period. Since he was speaking with mathematical precision with reference to it and also with reference to the initial date, it is to be presumed that our word after used in connection with such exact language must be interpreted as indicating the cutting off of Messiah immediately at the end of the 483 years. Cold facts and plain logic demand this conclusion. On the other hand, there would have to be absolute and positive evidence showing that the cutting off of the Messiah does not occur immediately at the close of the 483 years in order for us to understand that any time interval separates its conclusion and the cutting off of Messiah.

The period under discussion begins with the going forth of the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem and extends "unto Messiah, the prince." As seen above, this statement is not specific enough inasmuch as it does not refer to a definite date or event in the life of Messiah. Gabriel, however, removed the ambiguity when he, following the principle of the law of recurrence, gave us the specific data indicating what point in the career of Messiah he had in view. This he explained in the following verse: "And after the threescore and the two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing." Thus the specific event in Messiah's career here intended is His being cut off. Since the angel was speaking with mathematical exactness and since the initial date is very specific, we are to assume that the terminal date is likewise definite.

The word rendered "cut off"
כָּרַת means "cut down." In Exodus 4:25 it refers to circumcision; in Numbers 13:23,24, to the cutting of clusters of grapes; in Judges 9:40,49, to the cutting of boughs of trees; in I Samuel 17:51; 31:9; II Samuel 20:22, to the cutting off of the head of a man; in Jeremiah 11:19; 50:16, it also refers to the cutting off of men from the land of the living. By Gabriel it is applied to Messiah and evidently its significance is that of His execution. In the famous servant passage, Isaiah 52:13--53:12, the execution of King Messiah is expressed by a different word, גָּזַר. A comparison of the message given by Gabriel and that spoken by Isaiah shows that the same execution was before the mind of both speakers. Gabriel and Daniel assumed on the part of the reader the knowledge concerning this execution; hence only a brief statement was necessary to convey the thought.

From all the data, we see that the terminal date of the 483-year period is the time of Messiah's being cut off or executed for the sins of His people. From this conclusion there cannot possibly be any escape.


Footnotes:

¹ For a full discussion of the method of reckoning adopted by these chronologers, see Chapter XXI, Messiah: His First Coming Scheduled. Since, however, the evidence is overwhelming in identifying Cyrus as the one who would issue the decree and who also did it, we accept unreservedly the position that the initial date of the seventy weeks was the year when Cyrus issued the decree for the rebuilding of the temple and Jerusalem.


 <<< Previous | Next >>>