Daniel 9:26-27

[placebofactor]

Daniel’s book still contains a few remaining secrets that are only now to be revealed. Most of us believe we are close to the time of the “catching away” of the church, the coming “Great Tribulation,” the revealing of God’s two witnesses, and the antichrist and his High Priest. These few remaining mysteries will be revealed and understood solely to exalt God and to inspire us. They are to be applied to truth by supernatural communication, through the Holy Spirit. Secrets that have remained hidden from us until the fullness of time, which I believe is now.

These remaining mysteries have been stamped with a special character on all who embrace them and invest in those who receive them, special insights. I believe Daniel’s prophecies still hold secrets that are now only being revealed. Here are the two verses under discussion. Here is how I understand the two verses. My comments are in (---). Also remember, the first 49 years of the 490 years are past and the next 434 years begin in Daniel 9:26.

Daniel 9:26-27, “After threescore and two weeks (434 years) shall Messiah (Jesus) be cut off (middle to end of October of 27 A.D.) but not for himself (to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel): and the people (Roman Legions) of the prince (the Lord) that shall come shall destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (Herod’s Temple); and the end (of the Temple and city) thereof shall be with a flood (70 A.D. was Israel’s end) and into the end of the war desolations are determined.”

Verse 27, “And he Jesus) shall confirm the covenant (his new covenant) with many (Jews) for one week (7 years): and in the middle of the week (3 ½ years) “he” (Jesus) shall cause the (Temple) sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it (the Temple) desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

There’s a great deal of surface information in the above two verses, and even more, hidden beneath the surface in carefully chosen words written in both verses. Let’s begin with several questions. Remember, Daniel wrote in ancient Hebrew with a touch of the ancient Chaldean. He uses words not found in any other book of the Bible, so careful study is needed. Here are my three questions.

1. Who do you think the “he” is?
2. And who caused the Temple sacrifices and offerings to cease?
3. What covenant is to be confirmed for 7 years, but the person who brought the covenant to the Jews was cut off after 3 ½ years?
We can begin with these three questions; what are your thoughts?

[JehovahsWitness]

The last week represents the 7 years of tribulation determined for the end time just prior to Jesus returning to the Mt. of Olives to begin His thousand year earthly reign.

This is incorrect : The final (70th) "week" corresponds to the 7 years following Jesus baptism

= 3.5 years : earthly ministry
= 3.5 years : Jews special (exclusive) relationship with God


JW

The first 3.5 years of the 7 years of tribulation will appear to be peaceful

It has nothing to do with the tribulations.. .didn't you read my post?

[placebofactor]

The last week represents the 7 years of tribulation determined for the end time just prior to Jesus returning to the Mt. of Olives to begin His thousand year earthly reign.

This is incorrect : The final (70th) "week" corresponds to the 7 years following Jesus baptism

Jesus was baptized in October of 27 A.D. He was crucified in April of 31 A.D. Daniel said the first 483 years would end when the Messiah was "cut off." Now my thinking is this, Herod tried to murder him when he was about two years of age. The Jews cut Jesus off the moment he stepped out of the waters of the Jordan, was led into the wilderness, and challenged by the devil. The minute he stepped out from his wilderness experience, he learned that John the Baptist had been arrested, and the authorities were looking for him. So instead of going to Jerusalem, he headed for Galilee, the land of the Gentiles. It was then, Andrew, a disciple of John, announced, "We have found the Messiah to his brother Peter." Shortly after, the first synagogue Jesus walked into he began to read from the book of Isaiah. When he finished, the Jews were so angry at his words,

Luke 4:28, "And all they (the Jews) --- were filled with wrath. They rose up, and thrust him (Jesus) out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon ---- that they might cast him down headlong (over the cliff). And he passed through the midst of them and went his way." These were not welcome home events for their Messiah, they hated him from the beginning. The only reason they followed him was because he fed them and healed them.

After his death, Jehovah cut the Jews off. Jesus announced to his disciples, speaking of the Temple, "See all these things? I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." Jesus also said, Matthew 23:38, "Behold, your house (Temple) is left unto you desolate." The Lord put the Jews under a curse, and for the next 1900 years, they suffered every persecution known to man.

= 3.5 years : earthly ministry
= 3.5 years : Jews special (exclusive) relationship with God


JW

The first 3.5 years of the 7 years of tribulation will appear to be peaceful

It has nothing to do with the tribulations.. .didn't you read my post?

Sorry J.W., this is another subject you have wrong. Marke is correct. The remaining 7 years concern the Tribulation. In the final 3 1/2 years, the world will suffer "The Great Tribulation," and even hell will be turned loose on those who have not been "caught up to be with the Lord," 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. Now if you would like to have an intelligent conversation about my post, my first question would be, "When do you understand the 490-year prophesy began? You cannot have an end date unless you have a starting date. So again, when did the first week of years, (49 years) begin?

Just tell me, when did the 490-year prophesy of Daniel 9:24 begin? Simple question.

[JehovahsWitness]

when did the 490-year prophesy of Daniel 9:24 begin? Simple question.

455 BCE

[placebofactor]

when did the 490-year prophesy of Daniel 9:24 begin? Simple question.

455 BCE

Were close on the date. I'll post what I think happened, then let me know your thoughts.

Artaxerxes Longimanus became king in 464 B.C. after his father Xerxes the Great died at the hands of the Greeks in 464 B.C.
Ezra 7:7-8, "And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, into Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. And he (Ezra) came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king."

So, the decree to allow Ezra and the Jews to return to Israel came in 457 B.C. in the 7th year of the King's reign. So, the first week of years (49 years) ended in 408 B.C. about the time Malachi, the last prophet of the O.T. finished his book.

Daniel 9:25 speaks of 69 weeks of years. If 457 B.C. is the starting point, then, 27 A.D. is when the Jews announced John 1:41, "And he (Andrew) first found his own brother Simon, and said unto him, we have found the Messias which is, being interpreted, the Christ." Also, Jesus was Baptized by John in October of 27 A.D. at the age of thirty, Luke 3:23, "Jesus himself began (his ministry) to be about thirty years of age."
John was also a witness to Jesus as the promised Messiah.

Your thoughts to this point.

[JehovahsWitness]

Your thoughts to this point.

WHEN WAS ARTAXERXES DECREE?

Evidence from Greek sources.

• An event in Greek history can help us determine when Artaxerxes began ruling. Greek statesman and military hero Themistocles fell into disfavor with his countrymen and fled for safety to Persia. According to Greek historian Thucydides (I, CXXXVII, 3), who has gained fame for his accuracy, at that time Themistocles sent on a letter to King Artaxerxes son of Xerxes, who had lately come to the throne. Plutarch’s Lives (Themistocles, XXVII, 1) gives the information that Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus relate that Xerxes was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes with whom Themistocles had his interview.Charon was a Persian subject who lived through the change of rulership from Xerxes to Artaxerxes. From the testimonies of Thucydides and of Charon of Lampsacus, we can see that when Themistocles arrived in Persia, Artaxerxes had recently begun ruling.
  
  We can establish the time when Artaxerxes began ruling by calculating back from when Themistocles died. Not all reference books give the same date for his death. However, historian Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily, XI, 54, 1; XI, 58, 3) relates his death in an account of things that happened “when Praxiergus was archon in Athens. Praxiergus was archon in Athens in 471/470 B.C.E. (Greek and Roman Chronology, by Alan E. Samuel, Munich, 1972, p. 206) According to Thucydides, Themistocles arrival in Persia was followed by a year of language study in preparation for an audience with Artaxerxes. Thereafter the king granted him settlement in Persia with many honors. If Themistocles died in 471/470 B.C.E., his settlement in Persia must have been not later than 472 B.C.E. and his arrival a year earlier, in 473 B.C.E. At that time Artaxerxes “had lately come to the throne
  
  Concerning the time when Xerxes died and Artaxerxes ascended the throne, M. de Koutorga wrote: “We have seen that, according to the chronology of Thucydides, Xerxes died towards the end of the year 475 B.C.E., and that, according to the same historian, Themistocles arrived in Asia Minor shortly after the coming to the throne of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Acadamie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l’Institut Imperial de France, first series, Vol. VI, second part, Paris, 1864, p. 147.
  
  As further support of this, E. Levesque noted the following: Therefore it is necessary, according to the Alexandrian Chronicle, to place Xerxes death in 475 B.C.E., after eleven years of reign. The historian Justin, III, 1, confirms this chronicle and the assertions of Thucydides. According to him, at the time of Xerxes murder, Artaxerxes, his son, was but a child, puer [a boy], which is true if Xerxes died in 475. Artaxerxes was then 16 years old, whereas in 465 he would have been twenty-six years old, which would not justify anymore Justin's expression. According to this chronology, since Artaxerxes began to reign in 475, the 20th year of his reign proves to be in 455 and not in 445 as it is said quite commonly.”Revue apologetique, Paris, Vol. 68, 1939, p. 94.
  
  If Darius died in 486 B.C.E. and Xerxes died in 475 B.C.E., how could it be explained that some ancient documents allot to Xerxes a reign of 21 years? It is well known that a king and his son might rule together in a double kingship, or coregency. If this was the case with Darius and Xerxes, historians could count the years of Xerxes reign either from the start of a coregency with his father or from his father's death. If Xerxes ruled 10 years with his father and 11 years by himself, some sources could attribute to him 21 years of rulership, while others might give him 11 years.
  
  There is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius. The Greek historian Herodotus (VII, 3) says: Darius judged his [Xerxes’] plea [for kingship] to be just and declared him king. But to my thinking Xerxes would have been made king even without this advice. This indicates that Xerxes was made king during the reign of his father Darius.

Evidence from Persian sources.

• A coregency of Xerxes with Darius can be seen especially from Persian bas-reliefs that have come to light. In Persepolis several bas-reliefs have been found that represent Xerxes standing behind his father’s throne, dressed in clothing identical to his father's and with his head on the same level. This is unusual, since ordinarily the king’s head would be higher than all others. In A New Inscription of Xerxes From Persepolis (by Ernst E. Herzfeld, 1932) it is noted that both inscriptions and buildings found in Persepolis imply a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius. On page 8 of his work Herzfeld wrote: “The peculiar tenor of Xerxes’ inscriptions at Persepolis, most of which do not distinguish between his own activity and that of his father, and the relation, just as peculiar, of their buildings, which it is impossible to allocate to either Darius or Xerxes individually, have always implied a kind of coregency of Xerxes. Moreover, two sculptures at Persepolis illustrate that relation. With reference to one of these sculptures, Herzfeld pointed out: “Darius is represented, wearing all the royal attributes, enthroned on a high couch-platform supported by representatives of the various nations of his empire. Behind him in the relief, that is, in reality at his right, stands Xerxes with the same royal attributes, his left hand resting on the high back of the throne. That is a gesture that speaks clearly of more than mere successorship; it means coregency.
  
  As to a date for reliefs depicting Darius and Xerxes in that way, in Achaemenid Sculpture (Istanbul, 1974, p. 53), Ann Farkas states that “the reliefs might have been installed in the Treasury sometime during the building of the first addition, 494/493–492/491 B.C.; this certainly would have been the most convenient time to move such unwieldy pieces of stone. But whatever their date of removal to the Treasury, the sculptures were perhaps carved in the 490

Evidence from Babylonian sources.

• Evidence for Xerxes beginning a coregency with his father during the 490’s B.C.E. has been found at Babylon. Excavations there have unearthed a palace for Xerxes completed in 496 B.C.E. In this regard, A. T. Olmstead wrote in History of the Persian Empire (p. 215): “By October 23, 498, we learn that the house of the king’s son [that is, of Darius’ son, Xerxes] was in process of erection at Babylon; no doubt this is the Darius palace in the central section that we have already described. Two years later [in 496 B.C.E.], in a business document from near-by Borsippa, we have reference to the ‘new palace’ as already completed.
  
  Two unusual clay tablets may bear additional testimony to the coregency of Xerxes with Darius. One is a business text about hire of a building in the accession year of Xerxes. The tablet is dated in the first month of the year, Nisan. (A Catalogue of the Late Babylonian Tablets in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, by R. Campbell Thompson, London, 1927, p. 13, tablet designated A. 124) Another tablet bears the date month of Ab(?), accession year of Xerxes. Remarkably, this latter tablet does not attribute to Xerxes the title “king of Babylon, king of lands, which was usual at that time. Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden übersetzt und erläutert, by M. San Nicolò and A. Ungnad, Leipzig, 1934, Vol. I, part 4, p. 544, tablet No. 634, designated VAT 4397.
  
  These two tablets are puzzling. Ordinarily a king’s accession year begins after the death of his predecessor. However, there is evidence that Xerxes’ predecessor (Darius) lived until the seventh month of his final year, whereas these two documents from the accession year of Xerxes bear dates prior to the seventh month (one has the first month, the other the fifth). Therefore these documents do not relate to an accession period of Xerxes following the death of his father but indicate an accession year during his coregency with Darius. If that accession year was in 496 B.C.E., when the palace at Babylon for Xerxes had been completed, his first year as coregent would begin the following Nisan, in 495 B.C.E., and his 21st and final year would start in 475 B.C.E. In that case, Xerxes reign included 10 years of rule with Darius (from 496 to 486 B.C.E.) and 11 years of kingship by himself (from 486 to 475 B.C.E.).
  
  On the other hand, historians are unanimous that the first regnal year of Darius II began in spring of 423 B.C.E. One Babylonian tablet indicates that in his accession year Darius II was already on the throne by the 4th day of the 11th month, that is, February 13, 423 B.C.E. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 18) However, two tablets show that Artaxerxes continued to rule after the 11th month, the 4th day, of his 41st year. One is dated to the 11th month, the 17th day, of his 41st year. (p. 18) The other one is dated to the 12th month of his 41st year. (Old Testament and Semitic Studies, edited by Harper, Brown, and Moore, 1908, Vol. 1, p. 304, tablet No. 12, designated CBM, 5505) Therefore Artaxerxes was not succeeded in his 41st regnal year but ruled through its entirety. This indicates that Artaxerxes must have ruled more than 41 years and that his first regnal year therefore should not be counted as beginning in 464 B.C.E.
  
  Evidence that Artaxerxes Longimanus ruled beyond his 41st year is found in a business document from Borsippa that is dated to the 50th year of Artaxerxes. (Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. VII: Tablets From Sippar 2, by E. Leichty and A. K. Grayson, 1987, p. 153; tablet designated B. M. 65494) One of the tablets connecting the end of Artaxerxes reign and the beginning of the reign of Darius II has the following date: “51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20, Darius, king of lands. (The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, Vol. VIII, Part I, by Albert T. Clay, 1908, pp. 34, 83, and Plate 57, Tablet No. 127, designated CBM 12803) Since the first regnal year of Darius II was in 423 B.C.E., it means that the 51st year of Artaxerxes was in 424 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was in 474 B.C.E.

Therefore, testimonies from Greek, Persian, and Babylonian sources agree that Artaxerxes’ accession year was 475 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was 474 B.C.E. That places the 20th year of Artaxerxes, [...] in 455 B.C.E.

[placebofactor]

Your thoughts to this point.

WHEN WAS ARTAXERXES DECREE?

Evidence from Greek sources.

• An event in Greek history can help us determine when Artaxerxes began ruling. Greek statesman and military hero Themistocles fell into disfavor with his countrymen and fled for safety to Persia. According to Greek historian Thucydides (I, CXXXVII, 3), who has gained fame for his accuracy, at that time Themistocles sent on a letter to King Artaxerxes son of Xerxes, who had lately come to the throne. Plutarch’s Lives (Themistocles, XXVII, 1) gives the information that Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus relate that Xerxes was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes with whom Themistocles had his interview.Charon was a Persian subject who lived through the change of rulership from Xerxes to Artaxerxes. From the testimonies of Thucydides and of Charon of Lampsacus, we can see that when Themistocles arrived in Persia, Artaxerxes had recently begun ruling.
  
  We can establish the time when Artaxerxes began ruling by calculating back from when Themistocles died. Not all reference books give the same date for his death. However, historian Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily, XI, 54, 1; XI, 58, 3) relates his death in an account of things that happened “when Praxiergus was archon in Athens. Praxiergus was archon in Athens in 471/470 B.C.E. (Greek and Roman Chronology, by Alan E. Samuel, Munich, 1972, p. 206) According to Thucydides, Themistocles arrival in Persia was followed by a year of language study in preparation for an audience with Artaxerxes. Thereafter the king granted him settlement in Persia with many honors. If Themistocles died in 471/470 B.C.E., his settlement in Persia must have been not later than 472 B.C.E. and his arrival a year earlier, in 473 B.C.E. At that time Artaxerxes “had lately come to the throne
  
  Concerning the time when Xerxes died and Artaxerxes ascended the throne, M. de Koutorga wrote: “We have seen that, according to the chronology of Thucydides, Xerxes died towards the end of the year 475 B.C.E., and that, according to the same historian, Themistocles arrived in Asia Minor shortly after the coming to the throne of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Acadamie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l’Institut Imperial de France, first series, Vol. VI, second part, Paris, 1864, p. 147.
  
  As further support of this, E. Levesque noted the following: Therefore it is necessary, according to the Alexandrian Chronicle, to place Xerxes death in 475 B.C.E., after eleven years of reign. The historian Justin, III, 1, confirms this chronicle and the assertions of Thucydides. According to him, at the time of Xerxes murder, Artaxerxes, his son, was but a child, puer [a boy], which is true if Xerxes died in 475. Artaxerxes was then 16 years old, whereas in 465 he would have been twenty-six years old, which would not justify anymore Justin's expression. According to this chronology, since Artaxerxes began to reign in 475, the 20th year of his reign proves to be in 455 and not in 445 as it is said quite commonly.”Revue apologetique, Paris, Vol. 68, 1939, p. 94.
  
  If Darius died in 486 B.C.E. and Xerxes died in 475 B.C.E., how could it be explained that some ancient documents allot to Xerxes a reign of 21 years? It is well known that a king and his son might rule together in a double kingship, or coregency. If this was the case with Darius and Xerxes, historians could count the years of Xerxes reign either from the start of a coregency with his father or from his father's death. If Xerxes ruled 10 years with his father and 11 years by himself, some sources could attribute to him 21 years of rulership, while others might give him 11 years.
  
  There is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius. The Greek historian Herodotus (VII, 3) says: Darius judged his [Xerxes’] plea [for kingship] to be just and declared him king. But to my thinking Xerxes would have been made king even without this advice. This indicates that Xerxes was made king during the reign of his father Darius.

Evidence from Persian sources.

• A coregency of Xerxes with Darius can be seen especially from Persian bas-reliefs that have come to light. In Persepolis several bas-reliefs have been found that represent Xerxes standing behind his father’s throne, dressed in clothing identical to his father's and with his head on the same level. This is unusual, since ordinarily the king’s head would be higher than all others. In A New Inscription of Xerxes From Persepolis (by Ernst E. Herzfeld, 1932) it is noted that both inscriptions and buildings found in Persepolis imply a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius. On page 8 of his work Herzfeld wrote: “The peculiar tenor of Xerxes’ inscriptions at Persepolis, most of which do not distinguish between his own activity and that of his father, and the relation, just as peculiar, of their buildings, which it is impossible to allocate to either Darius or Xerxes individually, have always implied a kind of coregency of Xerxes. Moreover, two sculptures at Persepolis illustrate that relation. With reference to one of these sculptures, Herzfeld pointed out: “Darius is represented, wearing all the royal attributes, enthroned on a high couch-platform supported by representatives of the various nations of his empire. Behind him in the relief, that is, in reality at his right, stands Xerxes with the same royal attributes, his left hand resting on the high back of the throne. That is a gesture that speaks clearly of more than mere successorship; it means coregency.
  
  As to a date for reliefs depicting Darius and Xerxes in that way, in Achaemenid Sculpture (Istanbul, 1974, p. 53), Ann Farkas states that “the reliefs might have been installed in the Treasury sometime during the building of the first addition, 494/493–492/491 B.C.; this certainly would have been the most convenient time to move such unwieldy pieces of stone. But whatever their date of removal to the Treasury, the sculptures were perhaps carved in the 490

Evidence from Babylonian sources.

• Evidence for Xerxes beginning a coregency with his father during the 490’s B.C.E. has been found at Babylon. Excavations there have unearthed a palace for Xerxes completed in 496 B.C.E. In this regard, A. T. Olmstead wrote in History of the Persian Empire (p. 215): “By October 23, 498, we learn that the house of the king’s son [that is, of Darius’ son, Xerxes] was in process of erection at Babylon; no doubt this is the Darius palace in the central section that we have already described. Two years later [in 496 B.C.E.], in a business document from near-by Borsippa, we have reference to the ‘new palace’ as already completed.
  
  Two unusual clay tablets may bear additional testimony to the coregency of Xerxes with Darius. One is a business text about hire of a building in the accession year of Xerxes. The tablet is dated in the first month of the year, Nisan. (A Catalogue of the Late Babylonian Tablets in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, by R. Campbell Thompson, London, 1927, p. 13, tablet designated A. 124) Another tablet bears the date month of Ab(?), accession year of Xerxes. Remarkably, this latter tablet does not attribute to Xerxes the title “king of Babylon, king of lands, which was usual at that time. Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden übersetzt und erläutert, by M. San Nicolò and A. Ungnad, Leipzig, 1934, Vol. I, part 4, p. 544, tablet No. 634, designated VAT 4397.
  
  These two tablets are puzzling. Ordinarily a king’s accession year begins after the death of his predecessor. However, there is evidence that Xerxes’ predecessor (Darius) lived until the seventh month of his final year, whereas these two documents from the accession year of Xerxes bear dates prior to the seventh month (one has the first month, the other the fifth). Therefore these documents do not relate to an accession period of Xerxes following the death of his father but indicate an accession year during his coregency with Darius. If that accession year was in 496 B.C.E., when the palace at Babylon for Xerxes had been completed, his first year as coregent would begin the following Nisan, in 495 B.C.E., and his 21st and final year would start in 475 B.C.E. In that case, Xerxes reign included 10 years of rule with Darius (from 496 to 486 B.C.E.) and 11 years of kingship by himself (from 486 to 475 B.C.E.).
  
  On the other hand, historians are unanimous that the first regnal year of Darius II began in spring of 423 B.C.E. One Babylonian tablet indicates that in his accession year Darius II was already on the throne by the 4th day of the 11th month, that is, February 13, 423 B.C.E. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 18) However, two tablets show that Artaxerxes continued to rule after the 11th month, the 4th day, of his 41st year. One is dated to the 11th month, the 17th day, of his 41st year. (p. 18) The other one is dated to the 12th month of his 41st year. (Old Testament and Semitic Studies, edited by Harper, Brown, and Moore, 1908, Vol. 1, p. 304, tablet No. 12, designated CBM, 5505) Therefore Artaxerxes was not succeeded in his 41st regnal year but ruled through its entirety. This indicates that Artaxerxes must have ruled more than 41 years and that his first regnal year therefore should not be counted as beginning in 464 B.C.E.
  
  Evidence that Artaxerxes Longimanus ruled beyond his 41st year is found in a business document from Borsippa that is dated to the 50th year of Artaxerxes. (Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. VII: Tablets From Sippar 2, by E. Leichty and A. K. Grayson, 1987, p. 153; tablet designated B. M. 65494) One of the tablets connecting the end of Artaxerxes reign and the beginning of the reign of Darius II has the following date: “51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20, Darius, king of lands. (The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, Vol. VIII, Part I, by Albert T. Clay, 1908, pp. 34, 83, and Plate 57, Tablet No. 127, designated CBM 12803) Since the first regnal year of Darius II was in 423 B.C.E., it means that the 51st year of Artaxerxes was in 424 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was in 474 B.C.E.

Therefore, testimonies from Greek, Persian, and Babylonian sources agree that Artaxerxes’ accession year was 475 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was 474 B.C.E. That places the 20th year of Artaxerxes, [...] in 455 B.C.E.

Good post. Dating events of the past is a difficult thing to do. There are usually scores of sources to examine, as you have in the above which I commend you for. Daniel and the book of Esther are my pet projects. been working on them for the past 10 years. They intertwine, giving readers a great insight into Biblical history. I have at least 10 sources in my home that have researched history.

As i was writing this, I decided to go back to my computer and pull some research out I had done 3 or 4 years ago. Here's what I found.

Question:
Did Artaxerxes Longimanus gain the throne 465 B.C., after the death of his father? Xerxes the Great was slain in August of 465 B.C. Then Xerxes eldest son ascended to the throne, but four months later, he was murdered. So, we can be sure that his coronation had to be in 464 B.C., not 465. This one year makes a difference concerning the correct interpretation of Daniel’s prophesy. This is the year I have settled all my conclusions concerning Daniel's prophecies.

[placebofactor]

The last week represents the 7 years of tribulation determined for the end time just prior to Jesus returning to the Mt. of Olives to begin His thousand year earthly reign.

This is incorrect : The final (70th) "week" corresponds to the 7 years following Jesus baptism

= 3.5 years : earthly ministry
= 3.5 years : Jews special (exclusive) relationship with God


JW

The first 3.5 years of the 7 years of tribulation will appear to be peaceful but in the middle of the tribulation the antichrist shall offer the abomination of desolation on the temple altar and declare himself to be God in God's place. That is when all the unnatural devastation and plagues of God's judgment will begin.

Daniel 9

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Paraphrased: "Jesus shall confirm the new covenant given to him by the Father. This began the moment the Holy Spirit fell on him, this in October of 27 A.D. But in the middle of the 7 years, April 31 A.D. he (Jesus) will cause all Temple sacrifices ordered by the LORD and according to the Law (Leviticus) to cease. Jesus was the last sacrifice. All temple sacrifices after his death were unacceptable to the LORD.

So, 3 1/2 years remain for his new covenant to be confirmed. I understand this will be accomplished by his Two Witnesses of Revelation 11. Their testimony will be for 3 1/2 years, thus completing the 7 years of confirming the new covenant Jesus brought to the Jews and Gentiles.

In verse 7 it reads, "An when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascended out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them and shall overcome them and kill them."

"He shall make it desolate," What's the "it"? The blood sacrifices and oblations or gift offerings made in the Temple. The rest of the verse concerns the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple

I do not believe the Great Tribulation after the death of the two Witnesses has anything to do with the 490 years.

[JehovahsWitness]

Paraphrased: "Jesus shall confirm the new covenant

1. Are you saying that Daniel 9 concerns the new covenant? [Yes] or [No]

2. If yes , why do you believe it concerns the new covenant as opposed to the Abrahamic covenant?

(May I suggest you begin Q2 with the words " I do not believe Dan 9:27 refers to Abrahamic covenant because ....")

[JehovahsWitness]

Good post.

It was a copy paste from THE WATCHTOWER publication: Insight on The Scriptures published by Jehovah's Witnesses

SOURCE Insight on The Scriptures Vol II p. 614
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003447#h=21

[placebofactor]

Paraphrased: "Jesus shall confirm the new covenant

1. Are you saying that Daniel 9 concerns the new covenant? [Yes] or [No]

"Yes."

2. If yes , why do you believe it concerns the new covenant as opposed to the Abrahamic covenant?

This new covenant Jesus brought with him has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant, it has to do with the Mosiac law the Jews were bound to, and their Temple sacrifices. The Lord offered to enter into a legal agreement with the Jews under the Mosaic covenant. Under this arrangement, Israel's standing with God would be based strictly on its ability to satisfy Jehovah's righteous requirements.

Note the word "If." Exodus 19:4, Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant ---." The Jews failed in every way, and many times in their moral behavior, idolatry, Temple sacrifices, etc.. So, the Lord had to punish them continuously.

Hebrews 8:10, For this is the (new) covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days, saith the LORD; I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts:" The first covenant was written on tablets of stone. Hebrews 8:13, "A new covenant, he has made the first old (obsolete). Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away." And so, when Jesus came to confirm his new covenant, and if the Jews had received it, they could have said, by-by-law because Jesus fulfilled the law in every way. And because he fulfilled it, and believers are in him, we will not be burdened by or judged by the law.

(May I suggest you begin Q2 with the words " I do not believe Dan 9:27 refers to Abrahamic covenant because ....")