Daniel's 70 weeks (1) correcting errors in Persian chronology by redating historical eclipses

 

There is a longstanding tradition within Christianity of reading Daniel 9’s seventy weeks as a messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The seventy "weeks" of years (with each prophetic day counted as 1 solar year) are divided into three groups: a seven-week period spanning forty-nine years, a sixty-two-week period spanning 434 years, and a final period of one week spanning seven years.

The seven and sixty-two "weeks" are most frequently understood for the purpose of Christological interpretation as consecutive, making up a period of 69 weeks (or 483 years) beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458 or 457 BC and terminating with the baptism of Jesus in 26 or 27 AD. The reference to an anointed one being "cut off" in verse 26 of Daniel 9 is identified with the crucifixion of Jesus and has traditionally been thought to mark the midpoint of the seventieth week (or 3 ½ years) causing many to conclude that Christ was crucified anywhere between 29 to 31 AD.

Another influential way of reading the prophecy follows Africanus in identifying the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445 or 444 BC as the starting point. 483 solar years from 445 or 444 BC would extend somewhat beyond the lifetime of Christ to 39 or 40 AD, hence some Christological interpretations reduce the period to 476 years by viewing the 483 years as "Biblical years" with each Biblical year having only 360 days. The sixty-nine weeks of "prophetic" years are then considered to terminate with the death of Christ in 32 or 33 AD.

I would like to point out that these two interpretations of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy used two starting points in making their calculations, namely, the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458 or 457 BC and the warrant given by Artaxerxes I to Nehemiah in 445 or 444 BC.

Now according to Ezra chapter seven, the decree given to Ezra happened in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I, while according to Nehemiah chapter two, the warrant given to Nehemiah was in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I. Therefore, the validity of Daniel's seventy weeks interpretation and calculation lies heavily in the accuracy of the dating of Artaxerxes I’s reign, which according to Ptolemy’s Canon of Kings was from 464 to 424 BC. But what if this historical dating is wrong? In this video I will show you why it actually is so!

Those who claim that the Persian chronology of the reigns of Achaemenid kings are accurate to the year point to astronomical diaries as their proof. One such diaries are the Babylonian astronomical diaries (abbreviated BM and currently stored in the British Museum). They are a collection of Babylonian cuneiform texts that contain systematic records of astronomical observations and political events as well as calculated predictions, based on known planetary motions. 

The Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa (abbreviated VAT) is the record of astronomical observations of Venus, as preserved in numerous cuneiform tablets dating from the first millennium BC. It is believed that this astronomical record was first compiled during the reign of King Ammisaduqa of the First Dynasty of Babylon.

However, relying on astronomical diaries for dating events and reigns can prove to be misleading especially since planetary movements are cyclical and their exact relative positions can be repeated over a period of time. Let me highlight one such astronomical observation that was misinterpreted, miscalculated and erroneously used for dating Artaxerxes I’s reign: 

BM 33478 is dated to a king named Artaxerxes. The regnal year is partially broken. Hunger tentatively dated it to the 24th year of Artaxerxes I (442 to 441 BC), but he admitted that both the date and the identity of the king are problematic. The problems were solved a few years later by Johannes Koch, who demonstrated that the tablet belonged to the 23rd year of Artaxerxes II, 382 to 381 BC instead. This conclusion was later supported by R. J. van der Spek.

As you can see from this example, Babylonian tablets do not use appellations such as the first or the second for the king’s name, so that Artaxerxes II can be easily misidentified as Artaxerxes I by modern scholars. Now I believe Artaxerxes I’ reign was dated at least two years too early, as were the reigns of other Achaemenid kings as well, like Xerxes I for example. Let me show you why.

Herodotus mentioned a solar eclipse that occurred at the start of the second Persian invasion of Greece. According to historians, the invasion began in the spring of 480 BC, when the Persian army led by Xerxes I crossed the Hellespont.

Eclipses during the war of Xerxes with the Greeks, by Lynn: in the seventh book of Herodotus, where he says that in the early spring, whilst Xerxes was at Sardis, preparing to set out on the Grecian expedition, “the Sun leaving his seat in heaven became invisible, and instead of day it became night”... The date when this expedition … took place is considered to have been one corresponding to 480 BC. No eclipse of the Sun, however, could have been visible in Western Asia during the spring of that year... 

Take note: instead of admitting that their calculated date for the Persian invasion of Greece was wrong, historians would rather blame Herodotus by saying “Herodotus had the sequence of events wrong”. 

Now before I use Stellarium software to analyze the eclipse mentioned by Herodotus, let me discuss in detail one important factor in calculating eclipses that occurred in the distant past, namely, the Algorithm of delta T:

NASA eclipse website: The orbital positions of the Sun and Moon required by eclipse predictions, are calculated using Terrestrial Dynamical Time (TD) because it is a uniform time scale. However, world time zones and daily life are based on Universal Time (UT). In order to convert eclipse predictions from TD to UT, the difference between these two time scales must be known. The parameter delta T (ΔT) is the arithmetic difference, in seconds, between the two as: ΔT = TD - UT.

Past values of ΔT can be deduced from the historical records. In particular, hundreds of eclipse observations (both solar and lunar) were recorded in early European, Middle Eastern and Chinese manuscripts, and canons. In spite of their relatively low precision, these data represent the only evidence for the value of ΔT prior to 1600 AD. In the centuries following the introduction of the telescope (circa 1609 AD), thousands of high quality observations have been made of lunar occultations of stars. 

The average annual change of ΔT was 0.99 second from 1965 to 1980... Future changes and trends in ΔT can not be predicted with certainty... Extrapolations from the table, weighted by the long period trend from tidal braking of the Moon offer reasonable estimates... Outside the period of observations (500 BC to 2005 AD), the value of ΔT can be extrapolated from measured values using the long-term mean parabolic trend.

Historical records affect the precise determination of past values of delta T prior to the introduction of the telescope (circa 1609 AD). And quite obviously, the calculation of delta T is biased towards how modern historians date past eclipses. And as for the effect of the tidal braking of the Moon, it is parabolic in nature, meaning it varies regularly over a period of time, just like the Moon’s distance varies from apogee to perigee regularly. In my discussion of historical eclipses I will be using two Algorithms of delta T, namely JPL Horizons and Chapront-Touze & Chapront (1991). And I will be switching between these two algorithms from time to time. 

Now using Stellarium and setting the Algorithm of delta T to JPL Horizons, and the date to February 17 (which was early spring) of 478 BC (or -477 in astronomical year numbering) and at 10:19 UTC, one can see an annular solar eclipse which was visible in Abydos or the Hellespont at 40° 11′ 43″ N, 26° 24′ 18″ E. The time of maximum eclipse occurred just thirteen minutes before culmination at local noon, with an eclipse obscuration of 89.4%. I believe this is the  solar eclipse that occurred at the start of the second Persian invasion of Greece, as recorded by Herodotus.

This two years error in the Persian chronology (which wrongly dated the start of the second Persian invasion of Greece to 480 BC instead of 478 BC) is further confirmed by the way historians dated the short-lived Babylonian revolts of two rebel kings of Babylon, Bel-shimanni and Shamash-eriba sometime during Xerxes I’s reign which is believed to be from 485 to 465 BC. The near universally accepted date for the start of this revolt is in July 484 BC, on the fourth month of Xerxes I's second year as king. The revolt lasted for three months only. 

However those years during Xerxes’ reign when there are no known Babylonian tablets mentioning Xerxes (who was unseated briefly by the rebel kings) were also considered as possible dates for this three months rebellion, and these years are 484 BC, 479 BC, 477 BC, 475 BC, 473 BC, 472 BC, 468 BC and 466 BC. So basically the year of the revolt could have happened anytime in the 2nd, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 18th, or 20th year of Xerxes I’s reign.

Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes by Gerard Gertoux pg. 47-48: A Chronicle fragment (BM 36304) and an astronomical fragment enable the dating of these Babylonian revolts… Although the data are fragmentary they describe a revolt, dated during Xerxes’ reign…. The astronomical fragment reads: 

the month of Tammuz..., the 5th day... to Babylon went… the troops of Elam…  Mars into Cancer entered...

Lines six to seven of the astronomical fragment dated Xerxes I’s military response to the Babylonian revolts, in a year when Mars entered Cancer on the fifth day of the fourth Hebrew month of Tammuz which is also the fourth Babylonian month of Dumuzu. So the question is, which day of the year in 484 BC (the near universally accepted year for this three months long revolt), did Mars enter Cancer? Note that Mars’ synodic orbital period is about two years and forty nine days, so that Mars can be seen entering Cancer only about once every two years.

Using Stellarium and setting the Algorithm of delta T to JPL Horizons, and the date to August 27 of 484 BC, or -483 in astronomical year numbering, one can see that  Mars entered Cancer around 2:14 UTC in Babylon using coordinates 32° 32′ N, 44° 25′ E. 

Now August 27, 484 BC Julian calendar corresponds to the eighth day of the sixth Hebrew month Elul or the 6th Babylonian month Ululu and not the fourth Babylonian month of Dumuzu as stated by the tablet. Evidently 484 BC could not have been the year of the Babylonian revolt. 

However, on July 3, 463 BC Julian calendar at about 23:30 UTC, Mars entered Cancer coming from Gemini when the Moon was 5.5 days old on the fourth Hebrew month of Tammuz or the fourth Babylonian month of Dumuzu just as described in the astronomical fragment. Now since the currently accepted year of Xerxes’ death is 465 BC, this means the Persian chronology currently used by historians and Bible scholars is at least two years too early. 

Also, later in this video series, you will find that I dated Xerxes I’s twentieth year as 463 to 462 BC. If you still recall,  one of the candidate years for the Babylonian revolt was Xerxes I’s twentieth year.  And this matches my July 3, 463 BC dating for the astronomical fragment about the revolt. Furthermore, according to my revision of the Persian chronology, Xerxes I who ruled twenty one years died in 461 BC, or four years later than the historical date in 465 BC. 

Now I would like you to remember that Xerxes I’s death could not have happened earlier than 463 BC, the correct year of the Babylonian revolt, because current Persian chronology uses the astronomical tablet BM32234 to “prove” that Xerxes I died in 465 BC which I have just shown is an impossibility.

For me to properly correct and recreate the Persian chronology, I have to have other anchor dates supported by astronomical observations in addition to just identifying the date of the solar eclipse that occurred at the start of the second Persian invasion of Greece, and the date of the Babylonian revolts. 

So in this presentation I will be discussing the following recorded astronomical observations which I will date according to my own personal interpretations:

1. The lunar eclipse dated the second year of Nabonidus’ reign (or slightly before) and described in Nabonidus No. 18, a cylinder inscription which was discussed by Paul-Alain Beaulieu in page 127 of his book “The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556-539 BC”.

2. The solar eclipse that occurred during the reigns of Astyages of Media and Alyattes of Lydia as mentioned by the Roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero in his work Divination and by Pliny the Elder in Book 2, par. IX of his work Natural History.

3. The solar eclipse predicted by Thales of Miletus,  which occurred during the war between Cyaxares of Media and Alyattes of Lydia as recorded by the Greek historian Herodotus in his book “The History”. This war is also known as the Battle of Halys as some scholars assume the location of this battle was near Halys river which was located in the border region between both kingdoms at that time.

4. The astronomical tablet referred to by three names: Strm Kambys 400, LBAT 1477, and BM 33066, that contains the astronomical data of the seventh year of Cambyses II, successor of Cyrus the Great.

5. The astronomical tablet BM 32234 used for dating the death of Xerxes I according to Mathieu Ossendrijver in page 152 of “Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence”. This tablet reports two eclipses: a lunar eclipse in the region of the Four Rear Stars of Sagittarius, on Month III of the year of death of the king who died on Month V. And another lunar eclipse on Month VIII of the year of death of the same king. 

In this video I will show that this tablet is not about “Xerxes I being killed by his son” as interpreted by scholars, but rather about Artaxerxes I who was killed by his son Xerxes II.

6. Several Babylonian tablets dating the ascension year of Darius II to the 41st year of Artaxerxes I.

7. The solar eclipse that occurred early summer of the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war. And according to the Athenian historian Thucydides, Artaxerxes I died in the seventh year of this war.

8. The lunar eclipse that occurred in the summer of the nineteenth year of the Peloponnesian war.

9. The solar eclipse that occurred in the summer of the first year of the Peloponnesian war.

10. The astronomical tablet BM 71537 that mentions a lunar eclipse when Artaxerxes III sat on the throne. And also a solar eclipse when Artaxerxes III died in year twenty one of his reign.

11. The astronomical diary VAT 5047 that preserves information about two lunar positions relative to the positions of Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, and which according to Carl Olof Jonsson in his work “The 20th Year of Artaxerxes and the ’Seventy Weeks’ of Daniel'' is clearly dated to the eleventh year of Artaxerxes I or specifically 454 to 453 BC historically. 

12. Astronomical tablets LBAT 1387, 1388, & 1486 published as No. 56 in Hunger's Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (abbreviated ADT), Vol. V, which contain dated observations of the planet Venus during the 7th, 15th, 23rd, 27th, 31st, 35th, & 39th year of an unnamed king and the sixth year of his successor.

According to Carl Olof Jonsson in his work "The Litmus Test of the Absolute Chronology" the unnamed king and his successor were Artaxerxes I and Darius II respectively. Furthermore, according to Jonsson, “The observations recorded for year seven in months I to VI all fit the seventh year of Artaxerxes I, or 458 BC”. However, in this video series I will show that the unnamed king was Artaxerxes II and the successor was Artaxerxes III instead.

13. The astronomical tablet LBAT 1393, transliterated and translated by Abraham Sachs and Hermann Hunger and published as No. 54 in their book ADT Vol. V, pp. 158 to 165, which records observations of the planet Jupiter dated to years 8, 19, 20, 31, and 32 of an unnamed king. This was dated for the reign of Darius I according to Carl Olof Jonsson in his website titled “Chronology Persia. Furuli's Response to Carl Olof Jonsson Examined”. 

There are many other astronomical tablets used by scholars to date Persian chronology, but there are too many for me to discuss all of them. However, I believe the tablets which I will be discussing in this eleven part video series will suffice to prove the point I am making, and this is to show that:

 

1. planetary movements are cyclical and their exact relative positions can be repeated over a period of time. And this means astronomical positions which scholars believe happened in the reign of one king can repeat itself in the reign of another king. And errors in dating can happen in this case if the tablet does not mention the name of the king, or the name is unreadable.

2. Names of kings do not have appellations so that the Artaxerxes mentioned in a tablet can refer to Artaxerxes I, or the II, or the III and so on. I already showed one case when scholars previously applied an astronomical tablet to Artaxerxes I when it should have applied to Artaxerxes II instead.