Another question. What is significant about the "7 weeks" that is mentioned in Dan 9:25?

Sorry about that I had two lines of thoughts going on, I left one back at the station.

To continue the first thought “One source states it as so can be found in” Prideaux, the book, Connec., Vol 1Paage 322, you will find that it is also supports the beginning date of 457 as the decree and that Ezra went to begin the restoration of the city.
Josephus also supports the same date and the building of the city.
More over there is verse 28 of chapter 7 in Ezra where he plainly states that he went forth to go to the city.

1888 Message, I’m as interested in the historical establishment of 457 as you. However, the date cannot be established historically, at least at present.

The Bible states: “And he [Ezra] came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king [Artaxerxes]” (Ezra 7:8).

The problem is, when was the 7th year of Artaxerxes? There is no doubt that Ezra traveled in 458 B.C. or in 457 B.C., but the choice of either of these years is based on several assumptions, owing to a lack of documentation as to the Xerxes-Artaxerxes transition.

Besides, nobody knows which dating system Ezra was using – the Egyptian, the Babylonian/Persian, the Jewish spring-to-spring dating, or the Jewish fall-to-fall dating? The only system that would yield 457 B.C. as the year for Ezra’s trip is the Jewish fall-to-fall dating.

We know that Xerxes died in 465 B.C. In the fall-to-fall system we would have:
Fall 465 – fall 464
Fall 464 – fall 463
Fall 463 – fall 462
Fall 462 – fall 461
Fall 461 – fall 460
Fall 460 – fall 459
Fall 459 – fall 458
Fall 458 – fall 457

For Ezra to have traveled in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes must have ascended to the throne after the fall of 465. Thus, from this point in 465 until the fall of 464 we would have his accession year. From the fall of 464 to the fall of 463 his first year of reign, and so on; his seventh year would have been, then, from the fall of 458 to the fall of 457.

One papyrus gives the death of Xerxes in August, and thus before the fall of 465. But the historian Manetho (3d century B.C.) includes Artabanus with a seven-month reign between Xerxes and Artaxerxes. Sigfried H. Horn, in his book The Chronology of Ezra Seven, says, in frustration:

“There are no known documents from any part of the Persian empire recognizing a reign of Artabanus. Unfortunately this negative evidence is weak, because there are no known contemporary records dated in either the last year of Xerxes or the accession year of Artaxerxes, except the Aramaic papyrus AP 6. It is among the ironies of history that, although many thousands of documents of the Persian empire period survive, the year 465/4 is one of the poorest years represented” (pp. 106, 107).

The conclusion is that both the year 458 and the year 457 are based on assumptions, for a lack of historical information.

Arnold,

Quote:

---

Why can't it be at the end? That would make the end of the 70 weeks coincide with the cleansing of the sanctuary. Then you count back from that to figure out the start of the 2300 days.

---

The beginning point of the 70 weeks is the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem. This can only be either in the 5th century B.C. or in the 20th century A.D.
Beginning in the 5th century B.C., the 70 weeks (490 years) would take us to the first century A.D.; 2300 years back would take us to the 23d century B.C. - too early for the vision of the 2300 days, which begins at the time of the ram, Media-Persia (Dan. 8:3, 20) – 6th to 4th century B.C.
Beginning with the 20th century A.D. (the second time Jerusalem was rebuilt), 70 weeks (490 years) would take us to the 25th century A.D. – we would still have four centuries until the coming of the Messiah and the cleansing of the sanctuary.

Quote:

---

BTW, who's Andrews and what's the book's title?

---

John Nevins Andrews, one of our pioneers (1829-1883), and 3d GC president. The arguments I presented were taken from an article he wrote, “Under the Necessity of Choosing”, RH, November 8, 1853.