In the first article in this series (VAT 4956 and the Timing of the Babylonian Captivity) we established with certainty that the 70 years of captivity in Babylon were from 605 BCE to 536 BCE (inclusive). In this article we’ll continue the historical account and from it show why the commonly accepted view regarding the commencement of Daniel’s 70 weeks cannot be correct.

We can determine the succession of kings that followed the end of the 70 year captivity, and the lengths of their reigns, from historical accounts given in the Bible, the 4th century BCE historians Herodotus and Thucydides, and from Josephus.

Cyrus of Persia’s first year was in 536 BCE and he made the decree that freed the Jews from captivity. He was succeeded by his son, Cambyses II, in 529 BCE. There is another clay tablet (Strm Kambys 400) that shows with a similar level of accuracy as that in the previous article that the seventh (and last) year of Cambyses II was 523 BCE.

After the death of Cambyses II the throne was usurped by a Mede pretending to be Cyrus’ other son (who had previously been killed). This ruse lasted about seven months and was discovered before the year of his accession had ended, after which the imposter was killed and Darius the Persian became the rightful king. Darius ruled for 36 years and was succeeded by his son Xerxes, who was assassinated in his 20th year. A king known as Artaxerxes Longimanus followed Xerxes, and it is during the reign of this king that most scholars believe the 70 weeks began.

The timeline of these kings is as follows:

536 BCE – 529 BCE		Cyrus
529 BCE – 523 BCE		Cambyses II
523 BCE – 522 BCE		The imposter
522 BCE – 486 BCE		Darius the Persian
486 BCE – 465 BCE		Xerxes
465 BCE – 424 BCE		Artaxerxes

The main point that needs to be made here is that Artaxerxes was a title, like Pharaoh or Caesar, and was used by a number of kings. Thus, when the Bible says “in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes”, as it does in Nehemiah 2:1, we cannot just assume it was Artaxerxes Longimanus that was being referring to.

One proof that there was more than one Artaxerxes’ can be found in the book of Ezra. In Ezra 4 we read that the building of the temple had been commenced in the time of Cyrus, but that there was opposition to it “even until the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:5). Following that, more detail is given concerning the letter of opposition that was sent to king Artaxerxes who commanded that the rebuilding of the temple be halted (Ezra 4:6–23). Then in the final verse of the chapter we read:

Here Ezra is referring to a king named Artaxerxes who clearly was reigning before Darius but after Cyrus. The temple reconstruction was commenced during the time of Cyrus, as per his decree, but with opposition from some of those in Judea. The opposition continued until the time of Artaxerxes, at which point they were commanded by that king to stop. This halt in work continued until the second year of Darius. Therefore, the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 can only have been Cambyses II (see the above table), or as an outside possibility, the imposter who reigned for seven months. This proves that the term Artaxerxes refers to a position, but not necessarily to the specific individual in that position.

Another title that derives from the same root word as Artaxerxes is Ahasuerus. This is the title of the king used throughout the book of Esther. The non-canonical book of 1 Esdras 3:1–2 refers to the Ahasuerus of Esther by the name Darius, and in another apocryphal book, The Rest of Esther, the title Artaxerxes is used throughout in place of Ahasuerus. While we can’t treat apocryphal books as scripture, they do help us understand the terminology that was in use at the time, and according to those books the king in the book of Esther, known as Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, was Darius (the similarities between the Ahasuerus of Esther 1:1 and Darius the Persian in Daniel 6:1 are also notable).

With a reign of only seven years Cambyses II could not have been the Artaxerxes being referred to in Nehemiah 2:1, as that passage mentioned the twentieth year of his reign. But Darius the Persian, who was also called Artaxerxes and had a reign of 36 years, is a possibility. In the next section we’ll show why the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah had to be Darius the Persian.

After Cyrus’ decree many Jews returned to the land of Israel and one of the first things they did, even before they started rebuilding the temple, was to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. This is recorded in Ezra 3:1-7 and would have taken place in either 536 or 535 BCE. Although the book of Ezra doesn’t mention Ezra’s presence at that time, the parallel account in Nehemiah 7:73–8:18 does.

Ezra was the son of Seraiah (Ezra 7:1) and that Seraiah (there were several) was killed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8, 18–21) which was 586 BCE, so Ezra could have been born the following year (if he had been conceived just prior to Seraiah’s death), but no later. In 536 BCE he would have been about 50 years old.

The problem occurs when we consider Ezra 7:8, which refers to the seventh year of Artaxerxes. Using the traditional interpretation that this is Artaxerxes Longimanus, the year would have been around 457 BCE, and Ezra would have been at least 128 years old. This is clearly unacceptable, thus Ezra 7 cannot be referring to Artaxerxes Longimanus. On the other hand, if the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 was Darius the Persian, the year would have been about 515 BCE and Ezra would have been at least 70 years, which is far more reasonable.

Further support for this interpretation comes from the structure of the book of Ezra itself. Chapter 6 describes how the temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius (Ezra 6:15). This would have been around 516 BCE. The following chapter sees Ezra coming to Jerusalem with additional people to serve in the temple, and with much gold and silver, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. According to the traditional reckoning this was in 457 BCE, with a gap of nearly 60 years between the completion of the temple in Ezra 6 and the arrival of Ezra with priests to serve in the temple in Ezra 7. Such a gap seems highly unlikely, particular as we know Ezra was present and serving in a priestly role before the construction of the temple was even started, in 535 or 536BCE. This means he had to be at least 20 years old in 535BC, thus he would have been at least 98 in 457 BCE, according to the traditional reckoning and not taking the prior discussion into account (which shows he would have been even older).

Instead of inserting a gap of 60 years into the text, we consider it much more likely that Artaxerxes is being used as a title for Darius in chapter 7, especially as the sequence of years in the book is from the sixth year of Darius to the seventh year of Artaxerxes. As there is a change of language from Hebrew to Aramaic at that point in the book of Ezra too, it may have been written at a later time or by a different person who used the title Artaxerxes rather than the name Darius, although it was still referring to the same individual.

If the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 is Darius, it holds that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah 2:1 is also Darius.

Both Ezra 2:1-2 and Nehemiah 7:6–7 suggest that Nehemiah was one of the original captives who returned by listing him by name among “the people … who came back from the captivity, of those who had been carried away”. As the last of those captives was taken in 582 BCE, had Nehemiah been an infant at the time he would have been around 80 years old when he made the request to go to Jerusalem to lead the rebuilding of the wall. The book of Nehemiah records his activities for the next 12 or so years, which makes him an old man by the end of the book, but certainly within the realms of possibility. But in the commonly accepted view the 20th year of Artaxerxes was in 445 BCE, which would have made Nehemiah at least 149 when he returned to Shushan, in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes’ reign. This is clearly impossible.

Mordecai was also listed with Nehemiah as being an original captive. This is confirmed from the account in Esther, but we won’t quote from the NKJV here as it adds a couple of words that aren’t in the original texts and which substantially change the meaning. Instead, we will quote from the ESV which is a more literal translation.

Here we are told that Mordecai had been taken captive from Jerusalem, which is consistent with the accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah. As Mordecai was taken captive in 597 BCE with Jeconiah, and as Xerxes didn’t start ruling until 486 BCE, and in his 12th year Mordecai was still serving him, he would have been at least 123 years old at that point, which is far too old to be credible. But if he was serving Darius, he would have been 87, which although old, is feasible.

The traditional view also fails to explain how Esther, whom he raised as his daughter, would have been considered to be so beautiful as she would have been a fairly old woman by that time. The only possible explanation that fits these facts is that Esther and Mordecai were actually in the reign of Darius the Persian (as Nehemiah was). Earlier we noted that the book of 1 Esdras called the Ahasuerus of Esther Darius, and this, no doubt, is why.

What does all this mean? There are several possibilities for what the decree that started the 70 weeks of Daniel was, but the majority of views see it as being the decress of Cyrus in 536 BCE, the decree in the seventh year of Artaxerxes in 457 BCE, or the decree in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes in 445 BCE.

We have now seen that those two decrees pertaining to Artaxerxes have incorrectly identified Artaxerxes Longimanus instead of Darius the Persian. To correct this, the dates of both should be some 57 years earlier, in 514 BCE and 502 BCE respectively.

Thus, regardless of which decree is used, the seventy weeks do no accurately predict the advent of the Messiah, despite the plethora of claims to the contrary. Even if we take the latest date of 502 BCE and add the full complement of 69 times seven years until the Messiah, we arrive at 19 BCE, which by all reckonings is well before the Messiah’s birth.

We will pose a solution to this problem in the next article in the series (coming soon).