444 BC, not 457 BC, the beginning 'bookend' date of Daniel's prophecy

[Daniel Gracely]

Last year, after studying the difficulties involved in the various dates given for Daniel's 69 weeks, I concluded that the best evidence on balance favors the years 444 BC to 33 AD. And yet I've seen a lot of attempts to claim 457 BC as the beginning date. But, invariably, the 'evidence' for 457 BC is not really evidence.

One of the repeated mistakes I see from the 457 camp (I'm not always going to put "BC" when it should be understood) is confusion over the decree of Cyrus. It has to do with the building of the house of God at Jerusalem, not with Jerusalem itself. Neither Cyrus, nor Darius the Great, nor Artaxerxes in his 7th year authorized anything but the building of the Temple. But Daniel's prophecy begins with the command to rebuild the city.

Another common mistake is the ignorance of the extra-biblical archaeological record, and how it relates to the biblical record and helps support a 444 date. For example, calendars found at Elephantine (an island in the Nile) from the 5th century BC Jewish colony, help establish when Jews reckoned the 1st of Nisan. Specifically, archaeologists cross-referenced 5th century BC Egyptian and Hebrew calendars to show when (within a day) the 1st of Nisan was reckoned by the Jews in 14 instances, and in what year. Another thing learned was that the Elephantine Jews reckoned the reigning years of a king from Tishri to Tishri (the 7th month), instead of from Nisan to Nisan (the 1st month). I believe this plays a key part in reconciling what at first appears to be discrepecies in the biblical record regarding when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar, since Jeremiah reports the deportation in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, but II Kings 24 states that Jehoiachin came out of Jerusalem and surrendered in the king's 8th year.

More could be said, but let me hear from some others first. Which date marks the beginning of Daniel's prophecy: 457 BC or 444 BC? Or is it some other date? What does the evidence say?

[markedward]

Neither Cyrus, nor Darius the Great, nor Artaxerxes in his 7th year authorized anything but the building of the Temple. But Daniel's prophecy begins with the command to rebuild the city.

Isaiah 44.28: '​​​​​​​[Yahweh] says of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose", saying of Jerusalem, "She shall be built," and of the temple, "Your foundation shall be laid."'

The prophecy Daniel receives from Gabriel says that the one who will issue the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple is called God's 'anointed'. Isaiah 45.1 calls Cyrus God's 'anointed', and in Isaiah 44.28 (cited above) God specifically says that Cyrus would be the one responsible for the rebuilding of both Jerusalem and its temple. When Jeremiah prophesies about the return of the Jews from their seventy-year exile, both Chronicles and Ezra say that Cyrus' decree to return to Jerusalem to build the temple was the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy.

Try as one might, but all of the information Daniel gives us points to Cyrus and his decree. Four different books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Chronicles, Ezra) point to Cyrus as being the 'anointed' one of God, who would issue the 'decree' to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, at the end of the seventy-year exile. To claim that Daniel describes the exact same thing (referring to an 'anointed' one of God, who would issue a 'decree' to rebuild Jerusalem and temple, at the end of the seventy-year exile) but that it's suddenly not Cyrus is too hard to believe.

Scripture consistently points to Cyrus and his decree to rebuild Jerusalem as being the fulfillment of prophecy. Scripture never points Artaxerxes or Darius or any other figure in the same way Cyrus is spoken of.

(Sidenote: Cyrus' decree was not in 457 BC. It was in roughly 538-537 BC, when the Jews were released from their Babylonian exile.)

[Cyberseeker]

We will go round and round in circles until we realise they were all the same decree – Cyrus’s decree of 538 BC. As for Darius in 520BC, Artaxerxes in 457 and 444, they are really ratifications of the first one - not separate decrees. So, which decree is the right one? They all are. It is even said as much in Ezra 6:14:

"And the elders of the Jews built and prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by decree of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia."

This clear statement of scripture cuts right through the endless arguments, disagreements, wrangling, books and debates claiming one decree is the ‘rightest’ and all others are wrong etc. etc. When we acknowledge this simple fact, we come to a better answer than the usual guff about who said what concerning temples, streets, moats, fulfillment in Antiochus, disconnected 70th weeks, and so on.

[Daniel Gracely]

markedward states:
Isaiah 44.28: ' [Yahweh] says of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose", saying of Jerusalem, "She shall be built," and of the temple, "Your foundation shall be laid."'

The prophecy Daniel receives from Gabriel says that the one who will issue the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple is called God's 'anointed'. Isaiah 45.1 calls Cyrus God's 'anointed', and in Isaiah 44.28 (cited above) God specifically says that Cyrus would be the one responsible for the rebuilding of both Jerusalem and its temple. When Jeremiah prophesies about the return of the Jews from their seventy-year exile, both Chronicles and Ezra say that Cyrus' decree to return to Jerusalem to build the temple was the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy.

Try as one might, but all of the information Daniel gives us points to Cyrus and his decree. Four different books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Chronicles, Ezra) point to Cyrus as being the 'anointed' one of God, who would issue the 'decree' to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, at the end of the seventy-year exile.

I had hoped for something more substantive. Have you actually read Daniel 9 and what Gabriel said? For you make (at least) two claims about what “the prophecy Daniel receives from Gabriel says,” which are complete fabrications. You state that the prophecy given to Daniel by Gabriel of a decree to rebuild involved the “temple”. It does not. You also state that the same prophecy identifies the one who gives the command to rebuild as “God’s ‘anointed’". This, too, is a complete fabrication. Here is the relevant passage from Daniel 9:

9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

9:26a And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

Finally, you claim that Cyrus rebuilt Jerusalem, based on Isaiah 44:28:

' [Yahweh] says of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose", saying of Jerusalem, "She shall be built," and of the temple, "Your foundation shall be laid."'

But Cyrus “saying” Jerusalem shall be rebuilt is not the same as Cyrus “decreeing” that it be rebuilt. The words are different in Hebrew and do not have synonymous, lexical meanings. Rather, Cyrus is simply making a prophecy about what would take place. Admittedly, he self-fulfilled the part about the Temple’s foundation being laid. But that has nothing to do with the City. In fact, none of the four books you cite (including Chronicles and Ezra) support your argument. For example, Ezra 1:1-5 states:

1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an HOUSE at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

1:3 Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the HOUSE of the LORD God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.

1:4 And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the HOUSE of God that is in Jerusalem.

1:5 Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the HOUSE of the LORD which is in Jerusalem.

And now consider II Chronicles 36:22-23:

36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

36:23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an HOUSE in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.

Perhaps a better verse for your argument would have been Isaiah 45:13, since 45:1 begins by speaking of Cyrus. Here is verse 13:

I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

Here, at least, the city is mentioned specifically. But Isaiah 45 is heavily Messianic, and from verse 8 forward there is arguably a decided shift in narrative perspective. For God addresses Cyrus directly as “thee” in four successive verses (vss. 2-5), but then in verse 8 God speaks of the righteousness which comes down from heaven, and by verse 13 God is now referring to, not addressing directly, the object person as “he”. This shift from 2nd person singular to the 3rd person singular is hardly on par with the natural narrative shift from 3rd to 2nd in vss. 1-2.

Furthermore, if God actually were referring to Cyrus here as having decreed that Jerusalem would be rebuilt, why, 90 years later, was Nehemiah in tears over the still ruinous state of Jerusalem? That hardly speaks of an effective decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the fulfilling of ALL God’s purpose, such that it had to be reconfirmed by two subsequent kings! But, of course, my point is that neither Cyrus nor Darius the Great nor Artaxerxes in the 7th year of his reign ever decreed that Jerusalem be rebuilt.

Strangely enough, you apparently don’t even believe that Gabriel spoke of the Messiah’s coming, since you believe that the edict was given in 538/537 BC. That saddens me, since you bereft yourself and now attempt to bereft others of the comfort this prophecy can give.

[John 8:32]

Last year, after studying the difficulties involved in the various dates given for Daniel's 69 weeks, I concluded that the best evidence on balance favors the years 444 BC to 33 AD. And yet I've seen a lot of attempts to claim 457 BC as the beginning date. But, invariably, the 'evidence' for 457 BC is not really evidence.

I am not sure how you get 444 BC to 33 AD, can you explain that? Should it not be 483 years?

One of the repeated mistakes I see from the 457 camp (I'm not always going to put "BC" when it should be understood) is confusion over the decree of Cyrus. It has to do with the building of the house of God at Jerusalem, not with Jerusalem itself. Neither Cyrus, nor Darius the Great, nor Artaxerxes in his 7th year authorized anything but the building of the Temple. But Daniel's prophecy begins with the command to rebuild the city.

There were actually 4 decrees...

The first being Cyrus in 536 BC...

2Ch 36:22-23 also the first chapter of Ezra.

The second decree was that of Darius I in 520 BC...

Ezra 6:1-12

The third decree was Artaxerxes I in 457 BC...

Ezra 7:12-28

And the fourth decree of Artaxerxes in 444 BC...

Nehemiah 1 and 2

Now why would we choose 457 BC? To understand this, we have to look at Dan 9...

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

When the prophecy is complete, six things will have occurred...

1. finish transgression
2. make an end of sins
3. make reconciliation for iniquity
4. bring in everlasting righteousness
5. seal up visions and prophecy
6. anoint the Most Holy

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

From the going forth of the commandment (the decree) is to be 69 weeks * 7 days = 483 days, a day for a year makes it 483 years.

So let's do some math. First of all let's get the year zero thing out of the way. There was no year zero. On a number line the difference between -1 and 1 is 2. Calculating from year 1 BC to year 1 AD is 1 year, so any math done that crosses this boundary requires us to add one to the AD date to account for the lack of a year zero. OK here we go...

1st decree was 536 BC, add 483 and we get 53 BC. This will not work because we know Christ did not appear in 53 BC.
2nd decree was 520 BC, add 483 and we get 37 BC. this will not work because we know Christ did not appear in 37 BC.
3rd decree was 457 BC, add 483 and we get 27 AD. This works because this is the year Christ began the final week. He was cut off in the middle of that week or 3-1/2 years later which brings us to 31 AD.

Now let's look at 444 BC. 444BC + 483 years and we come to 40 AD. We know that history is accurate enough to discount 40 AD as the beginning of Christ's ministry.

Another common mistake is the ignorance of the extra-biblical archaeological record, and how it relates to the biblical record and helps support a 444 date. For example, calendars found at Elephantine (an island in the Nile) from the 5th century BC Jewish colony, help establish when Jews reckoned the 1st of Nisan. Specifically, archaeologists cross-referenced 5th century BC Egyptian and Hebrew calendars to show when (within a day) the 1st of Nisan was reckoned by the Jews in 14 instances, and in what year. Another thing learned was that the Elephantine Jews reckoned the reigning years of a king from Tishri to Tishri (the 7th month), instead of from Nisan to Nisan (the 1st month). I believe this plays a key part in reconciling what at first appears to be discrepecies in the biblical record regarding when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar, since Jeremiah reports the deportation in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, but II Kings 24 states that Jehoiachin came out of Jerusalem and surrendered in the king's 8th year.

More could be said, but let me hear from some others first. Which date marks the beginning of Daniel's prophecy: 457 BC or 444 BC? Or is it some other date? What does the evidence say?

As far as the ignorance of extra-Biblical archaeology, I think that extra-Biblical archaeology is pretty convincing that 53 BC, 37 BC and 40 AD are not the dates that the Messiah appeared and conducted His 3-1/2 year ministry. So until you find some extra-Biblical archaeology that supports 53 BC, 37 BC or 40 AD, I will stick to the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC which actually sent Ezra to rebuild the temple and the city.

[Fenris]

9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Hebrew says "an anointed prince" not "the messiah the prince".

ESV is the only translation that gets this right.

9:26a And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

Hebrew says "and be no more" or "and have nothing" not "but not for himself."

ESV, NASB, ASV, Darby, ERV, all get this right.

[quiet dove]

Hebrew says "an anointed prince" not "the messiah the prince".

ESV is the only translation that gets this right.
[I]

Hebrew says "and be no more" or "and have nothing" not "but not for himself."

ESV, NASB, ASV, Darby, ERV, all get this right.

Just my two cents, but I think the "and have nothing" is the clearest of what actually happened...

[Fenris]

Just my two cents, but I think the "and have nothing" is the clearest of what actually happened...

Interesting, interesting...

although probably not for the reason you're thinking.

[Cyberseeker]

Josephus records that when Cyrus was shown the words concerning himself, he was so impressed by “the divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfil what was so written. So he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them that he gave them leave to go back to their own country to rebuild their city Jerusalem and the temple of God, and for that he would be their assistant …” (Antiquites X1,Ch1)

The problem with Cyrus’ decree however is when we add four hundred and eighty three years to 538 BC we arrive at a year of no particular significance. Did Messiah appear? No, nothing of interest happened at all.


The next decree was that of Darius. An important story is related concerning him which is a clue, though it may not seem so, to understanding the prophecy. Darius had Daniel thrown to the lions, not because he wanted to do it, but because the law of the Medes and the Persians could not be revoked. This incident is useful to understanding Daniel’s ‘seventy weeks.’ What it reminds us is that decrees did not change from one emperor to the next. It tells us that Darius’ decree was not a separate one at all; it was really Cyrus’ decree! Darius simply re-decreed it in accordance with Persian law.


So, those who say, "Cyrus" are technically right. But the problem with their argument is that they ignore the importance of those who re-decreed it. (Ezra 6:14) Some try to hook the prophecy to Antiochus and others (particularly Jewish writers) are simply trying to avoid the implications of a countdown to Jesus of Nazareth.

[markedward]

I had hoped for something more substantive. Have you actually read Daniel 9 and what Gabriel said?

Yes. Why do you feel the need to assume I haven't read it, simply because I stated my disagreement?

For you make (at least) two claims about what “the prophecy Daniel receives from Gabriel says,” which are complete fabrications. You state that the prophecy given to Daniel by Gabriel of a decree to rebuild involved the “temple”. It does not.

Daniel speaks of the 'sanctuary' and the 'most holy place'. These are terms referring to the temple.

You also state that the same prophecy identifies the one who gives the command to rebuild as “God’s ‘anointed’". This, too, is a complete fabrication.

The 'anointed prince' is the one who gives the decree. This is what Cyrus did, the one whom God calls his 'anointed' in Isaiah 45.1.

Finally, you claim that Cyrus rebuilt Jerusalem, based on Isaiah 44:28:

' [Yahweh] says of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose", saying of Jerusalem, "She shall be built," and of the temple, "Your foundation shall be laid."'

But Cyrus “saying” Jerusalem shall be rebuilt is not the same as Cyrus “decreeing” that it be rebuilt. The words are different in Hebrew and do not have synonymous, lexical meanings. Rather, Cyrus is simply making a prophecy about what would take place.

Isaiah 44.28 is God speaking about Cyrus and what Cyrus would do. Cyrus is the one who would fulfill God's purpose, rebuilding Jerusalem and laying the foundation for the temple.

Admittedly, he self-fulfilled the part about the Temple’s foundation being laid. But that has nothing to do with the City.

Isaiah 44.28 has God explicitly saying that Cyrus would fulfill God's purpose, rebuilding Jerusalem and laying the foundation of the temple.

Might I ask that you please get rid of the condescending tone you decided to lace your post with? It's immature. It is possible to have a kind, caring discussion about Scripture - even if we disagree - without making accusations about the other person's reading comprehension, or unloading faux-sadness as a way of emotional manipulation.

[quiet dove]

Interesting, interesting...

although probably not for the reason you're thinking.

I don't doubt that ....

So enlighten me...

[Fenris]

The problem with Cyrus’ decree however is when we add four hundred and eighty three years to 538 BC we arrive at a year of no particular significance. Did Messiah appear? No, nothing of interest happened at all.

And here is the backwards thinking. Because, you reason, this verse is talking about the messiah, we have to figure out how to make it fit.

What the verse isn't talking about the messiah at all?

[markedward]

Just my two cents, but I think the "and have nothing" is the clearest of what actually happened...

The Hebrew word for 'cut off' is kareth, which to my knowledge is a specific type of punishment found in the Law, defined as something like excommunication: being spiritually 'cut off' from the Covenant community. The anointed one who is to be 'cut off and have nothing' is someone suffering a justified punishment, rather than someone suffering an unjustified martyrdom.

[Fenris]

I don't doubt that ....

So enlighten me...

Don't take this the wrong way, I mean no disrespect.

Just making an observation. It's gotten to the point where people here can find Jesus in every single verse in the bible. Which I find...interesting.

[Fenris]

The Hebrew word for 'cut off' is kareth, which to my knowledge is a specific type of punishment found in the Law, defined as something like excommunication: being spiritually 'cut off' from the Covenant community. The anointed one who is to be 'cut off and have nothing' is someone suffering a justified punishment, rather than someone suffering an unjustified martyrdom.

Yup, and this is the Jewish understanding of the concept as well.

That probably won't help your standing in this debate though.