[b-hebrew] actual Hebrew question about Daniel 9:25

Seth Knorr ftbaccounts at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 14 17:02:03 EDT 2006

Your discourse is very valid.
One common problem with figuring out Daniel 9:24-27 is that of chronology. The main problem is that modern chronology has been influenced greatly by the LXX, which changed the ages of different persons that where crucial for determining a valid chronology. A good book written on this topic is Martin Anstey’s "Romance of Bible Chronology." Unfortunately this book was written around the 1920's and therefore is out of print. 
The main point made in the book is when following the Tanakh as opposed to the LXX you will find a different chronology of dates, which are more accurate. For those that are dispensational, it is of interesting note that Scofield in his book "What Do The Prophets Say?" agreed with Anstey's work; although the chronology in his reference bible was never updated, and still shows the chronology of Ptolemy.
Anstey shows that due to errors in modern chronology it is possible that Cyrus could have given the decree without doing gymnastics with the numbers. Although the attempts made by Anderson, et all, are very fanciful, when reading the whole book he wrote you will see that he shows that G-d also worked in cycles of 365 and 360. The whole point of his book is to show that G-d works in 360 day cycles, then showing that G-d worked in a 365 day cycle basically goes against the point he was trying to prove.
>From looking at scripture, it seems very evident that Cyrus gave the decree. (cf. Isaiah 44:28 & 45, Ezra 1, Ezra 6:14)
All other commands seem to be a re-statement of the original decree made by Cyrus.
Seth Knorr
K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com> wrote:

I do suggest that Nehemiah's Artaxerxes was the same one who sent
Ezra. The question is which Artaxerxes was that?

People forget that before the fourth century AD there was no unified
dating system, not even in the Roman Empire. Add to that that most
ancient records have been lost leaves modern historians choosing what
is the most likely date, which may or may not be correct, but most
likely within a decade or more (close enough that it is not worth
arguing about unless new evidence can be found) (also psychologically
people don't like uncertainty). The further back one goes, the more
slight errors can compound. Those dates may or may not correspond to
Biblical dates.

The only reason that I emphasize that is in this discussion we are
trying to fit secular dates with prophecy. While that is a noble
effort, it is doomed to failure because the secular dates are fuzzy.
Further, what does "the 15th year Tiberius" mean, the 15th year after
he ascended the throne, or the 15th year after his being named the
successor of Augustus and the start of his de facto co-regency with
Augustus ten years earlier?

As for the plain reading, all it says in Nehemiah, chapter two, is
that the king was Artaxerxes, it does not say which Artaxerxes. There
is nothing in the book of Nehemiah that I know of that designates
which Artaxerxes. It could be either one.

In conclusion, move Alexander the Great about ten years earlier, the
second Artaxerxes a decade or so earlier, read the two divisions
within the seventy sevens as concurrent, recognizing that the dates
are fuzzy, and you have an almost perfect fit between prophecy and
history, including the seventieth seven. I personally find the reading
based on the earlier dates with the divisions consecutive problematic,
to say the least. Actually, there are problems with both schema.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 9/14/06, Peter Kirk 
> On 14/09/2006 00:21, K Randolph wrote:
> > Dear Rev. Bryant J. Williams III:
> >
> > First of all, which king Artaxerxes was the king who sent Ezra to
> > Jerusalem? In doing a googlewhack and reading several articles, I came
> > up with two possibilities, one which would have brought Ezra to
> > Jerusalem at 457 BC, the other at 395 BC.
> >
> > Of the two, the earlier one is used most of the time on online
> > articles, and that is entirely because of a reading of 69 sevens of
> > years to Jesus' death and resurrection. ...
> Not entirely so. If Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in 395 BCE, what is he
> doing there in Nehemiah 8:1, which appears from its context in that book
> to be in the same year, probably 445 BCE, as Nehemiah's building of the
> wall. (I don't in fact know why no one seems to suggest that Nehemiah's
> Artaxerxes was also Artaxerxes II.) Thus a plain reading of the book of
> Nehemiah requires the c.457 BCE date. Maybe the plain reading is not the
> whole story, but this is certainly evidence favouring the earlier date
> quite independent of any interpretation of the 69 sevens.
> --
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail: peter at qaya.org
> Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list