Appendix 2(b)
*Wrong Day to End With.
There are major problems with Anderson's ending date of April 6, 32 AD. His theory called for it to be Nisan 10. He explains it this way:
“For example, in A.D. 32, the date of the true new moon, by which the Passover was regulated, was the night (10h 57m) of the 29th March.”
The ostensible date of the 1st Nisan, therefore, according to the phases, was the 31st March. It may have been delayed, however, till the 1st April; and in that case the 15th Nisan should apparently have fallen on Tuesday the 15th April.” Thus far, his explanation proves that he has chosen the wrong date for the 10th of Nisan. If Nisan 15 fell on April 15, then Nisan 10 fell on April 10, not April 6.
He continues: “But the calendar may have been further disturbed by intercalation. According to the scheme of the 8 years' cycle, the embolismal month was inserted in the 3rd, 6th, and 8th years, and an examination of the calendars from AD 22-45 will show that AD 32 was the 3rd year of such a cycle. As, therefore, the difference between the solar year and the lunar is 11 days, it would amount in 3 years to 33 3/4 days, and the intercalation of a 13th month (Ve-adar) of 30 days would leave an epact still remaining of 3 3/4 days; and the "ecclesiastical moon" being that much before the real moon, the feast day would have fallen on the Friday (11th April), exactly as the narrative of the Gospels requires.”
If that didn't make sense to you, it is because it does not make sense! It is just plain wrong! The Jews would add in a 13th month every 2 or 3 years. Since this 13th month was the length of a lunar month, as Anderson admits above, there was no "epact remaining."
Thus Nisan 1 would still have begun with observing the new crescent on the
evening of March 31st, making April 1st Nisan 1, and April 10th (not April 6th) Nisan 10. So Nisan 10 occurred at the earliest on April 10, not April 6 as Anderson supposed.
*Wrong Year to End With. No one, except those who ascribe to Anderson's theory suggest 32 AD as a possible date for Christ’s death. The simple fact is that Nisan 14 (the Cross) in that year would have been on a Monday or Tuesday! It is simply impossible to reconcile this fact with the Gospel accounts of the death of Christ. This consideration alone invalidates Anderson’s interpretation!
*Wrong kind of year. Anderson's theory relies on using a 360-day year, which he calls a "prophetic year." Now this can’t be right, because this is a prophecy specifically about Israel and would use the kind of year used by Israel, which was a luni-solar year which always stay aligned with the seasons for agricultural and ceremonial reasons (the feasts were connected to their seasons), so that the Passover (14th Nisan) was always kept in the Spring (after the Vernal Equinox on March 20/21st) according to the Biblical requirement (this fact will prove important shortly).
Therefore the Jewish year averaged 365.242 days, not 360 days. Anyone reading this prophecy, including Daniel, would have understood that this kind of year was intended, rather than a 360 day year which Israel never used.
The 360 day year is actually a Babylonian ‘Time’, and it slips over 5 days a year against the solar seasons, and neither is it in phase with the moon. It is certainly not the year used by Israel. It is misleading to argue that this is the year generally used in the Bible. In fact it is used at most on two specific occasions: the 150 days of Noah’s Flood, and the two halves (1260 days each) of the Tribulation. These situations are both special in that they are times of world-wide Judgement, and it seems this is when God uses the 360 day year.
That the luni-solar year used by Israel is the year used in the prophecy is confirmed by the fact that the 490 years are described as 70 Weeks (Sevens) of years. This is a clear reference to how God told Israel to count their years in Leviticus 25. They were to mark every 7th year as a Sabbath year when the land was to be rested. Every 7 Sevens of these years was a Jubilee-Cycle (49 years), and the 490 years were thought of as 70 Sevens, or 10 Jubilee Cycles of 49 years each on Israel’s Calendar. Thus the language used alludes to the Jewish Sabbatical and Jubilee Cycles that Israel kept according to the Law. We know that the years Israel used and counted in this manner were luni-solar according to God’s Law, with each month starting with a new moon and each year starting so that Passover in the first month was in the Spring. These years had to be kept in phase with the solar year, both for agricultural reasons and so that the Feasts (which were connected to the harvests) took place in the right season.
But the 360 day years used by Anderson and Hoehner to make their calculations work neither stay aligned with the seasons, nor with the sabbatical cycles.
The Passover falls back by 5 days a year and by an entire month every six years. In only 35 years, the Passover would occur in the Fall. Every 70 years, the Passover would have circled all the way through the seasons back to where it started. Thus, there is no possible way to make their calculations align with the years and cycles used by Israel, even though the language used strongly indicates that the Prophecy is expressed in terms of these years and cycles. Thus the 360-day calculation is just a hypothetical calculation that bears no resemblance to the years or Cycles being used by Israel, and therefore is against the plain meaning of the Prophecy. Therefore good Bible interpretation requires us to reject them.
Once we see the 360 day calculation does not work anyway, then all grounds for considering the 360 day year disappear. The only possible way to do justice to the language of the Prophecy with the 490 years counted in a way consistent with the Jewish sabbatical system is to use real Jewish luni-solar years that stay aligned with the seasons. Such years must on average be 365.2425 days in length, not 360 days.
Moreover the immediate context of Daniel 9 confirms this. Israel was told that if they did not let the Land rest in that 7th year, the Land would become desolate and they would be taken captive for a time that would allow it to have its full quota of rest years that they had not kept (Leviticus 26:34,35). Jeremiah 29:10 later specified that they would be captives in Babylon for 70 years, and these 70 years of Desolation are explicitly said to correspond to the number of Sabbatical Years that had not been kept by Israel (2Chronicles 36:21). Thus, Daniel's reference to 70 years of Desolation in Daniel 9:2, speak of a time-period of 490 years during which the Land had no Sabbaths. So Daniel 9 begins with a reference to a past 490 years or 70 ‘Sevens’ which had happened, and then ends with a reference to a future period of 490 years or 70 ‘Sevens’ in the Prophecy of the 70 Weeks (Daniel 9:24-27). If the first set of 70x7 years were Jewish luni-solar years then surely the other set of 70x7 years are also to be understood as luni-solar. Thus the context as well as the natural meaning of the language surely tells us that the years in this Prophecy are Jewish luni-solar years not Babylonian Times. This is the plain meaning of the Prophecy.
*3. Dr. Harold Hoehner's Alternative to Anderson's Dates.
We have seen that Anderson’s calculation is in error on practically every level. Some of these problems are known to dispensational scholars. Dr. H. Hoehner in his book, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, presents a different version of Anderson’s calculation that gives alternative dates. This alternative solved some of the difficulties of Anderson’s work and it now has become widely accepted in dispensational circles. Hoehner’s work is based on the same principles as Anderson’s, but starts and finishes the 70 Weeks one year later. But we shall see that his calculation does not work either!
The most obvious pointer that Anderson was in error was his year for the Crucifixion. Hoehner realised that an AD 32 crucifixion was impossible, for Christ would then have had to die on a Sunday or Monday. Anderson himself realised this dilemma and had to use mental gymnastics to try and get a Friday crucifixion (his attempts to do this are clearly invalid). Hoehner establishes from the criteria that the Crucifixion was on a Friday Nisan 14th that the only possibilities are AD 30 and 33. Therefore Hoehner realised the only way to save Anderson’s calculation was to bring it forward by a year.
Thus instead of having it run from 445 BC - 32 AD (as Anderson had it), Hoehner’s 69 Weeks run from 444 BC - 33 AD. His 69 Weeks began on Nisan 1 in 444 BC, which fell on March 5 (Julian). The 69 Weeks then ended on Nisan 10, 33 AD, which fell on March 30 that year. So Christ died on Friday April 3rd (Julian) in 33 AD. Insofar as Hoehner now has the correct date for the Cross, he has improved upon Anderson. However in every other respect his calculation has all the same problems as Anderson’s and cannot be correct.
Summary: Hoehner's Four Changes
1. He identified 444 BC as the 20th year of Artaxerxes, however in this respect Anderson was probably right and Hoehner wrong. Both Jewish and Persian practice at that time was to number their years and the years of their kings from Nisan. This gives 445 AD for the 20th year of Artaxerxes which is the generally accepted year (as Anderson used). In order to get 444 BC instead (so that the first 69 Weeks ended in 33 AD) he has to argue that the regnal years of Artaxerxes were measured from Tishri on an accession-year system.
2. 33 AD is a much better choice for the year of the crucifixion since it is possible to have Christ die on Friday that year.
3. His starting date, March 5, 444 BC, was the first day of a Jewish month, since the new moon could have first been seen the previous evening. In this respect this is better than Anderson’s first day.
4. His end-date for the first 69 Weeks, March 30, 33 AD, was indeed the 10th day of a Jewish month, since the new crescent moon could have first been seen the evening of March 20. In this respect this is better than Anderson’s last day of the 69 Weeks which as we have seen could not have been the 10th Nisan despite Anderson’s claims.
4. We now discuss where Hoehner's calculations fall short.
*Wrong Year to Start From.
As with Anderson, he starts from 20th Artaxerxes (rather than the 7th of Artaxerxes), but he dates it to 444 rather than 445 BC (Anderson). I have previously explained why this change from Anderson is probably in error.
*Wrong kind of year. Like Anderson, Hoehner uses the 360 day year which have previously shown to be in error.
*Wrong Intervening Period. Hoehner is guilty of the same basic calculating error as Anderson through mixing together Julian and Gregorian years in his calculation. Like Anderson, Hoehner converted the 69 Weeks (483 years) of 360 days to days. Multiplying 483 years by 360 days per year gives 173,880 days, which is about 476 of our (Gregorian) years. He then tries to show that March 5, 444 BC and March 30, 33 AD are 173,880 days apart, which would be exactly 69 Weeks of 360 day years. If this was correct it might be impressive. But it is wrong!
Instead of there being 173,880 days between the dates in question, there are really 173,885 days! Hoehner was off by 5 days in his calculation! This is an issue of fact, not of interpretation or opinion.
Click here for "Summary of Hoehner's Miscalculation" chat
Any reader can verify this by using a calendar program that computes Julian Day (JD) numbers. (The Julian Day number tells us how many days have transpired since January 1, 4713 BC). This gives an accurate method of calculating the exact number of days between two dates 476 years apart. One just converts the dates to Julian Days, and then subtracts one from the other to find the precise number of days between the two. So, March 5, 444 BC (Julian) is JD 1559316, and March 30, 33 AD (Julian) is JD 1733200. Thus, by subtraction, reckoning inclusively, there are 173,885 days, NOT 173,880 days.
Thus the main strength of this interpretation (its apparent accuracy to the very day) is just an illusion. In the next Section we will show it is not only inaccurate but impossible.
How was this error made? In order to determine how many days there were between his start date of March 5, 444 BC (Julian), and his end-date of March 30, 33 AD (Julian), he said this is 476 (solar) years plus 25 days. So he multiplied 476 by 365.24219879, the number of days in a solar year to get 173,855 days and then added 25 days to get the 173,880 days. This would slip under the radar of anyone unfamiliar with calendars. The problem is that he is using Julian dates, but true solar years to measure the gap between them. (A Julian year is only approximately solar, but the difference only builds up over centuries). If he used Julian dates he should have used 365.25, the number of days in a Julian year. Then he would have got the correct answer of 173,885 days between the 2 dates (reckoning inclusively). Or he could have used the Gregorian year with Gregorian dates, but by using the solar 365.24219879 instead of the Julian 365.25 with Julian dates, he introduced confusion resulting in an error of 5 days in his calculation. It is much safer and less confusing to do these calculations with Julian Day (JD) numbers.
*Wrong Month to Start From.
The wrong number of days between March 5, 444 BC and March 30, 33 AD is not quite fatal to Hoehner's position, since he correctly states that Artaxerxes could have sent Nehemiah off to Jerusalem later than Nisan 1. If the correct starting date is Nisan 6 instead of Nisan 1, then the number of days between the dates could be 173,880 after all (this, by the way, shows that an exact solution cannot be claimed if based on Nehemiah’s Decree, since the exact starting date is not known). But the difficulty we will now consider disqualifies Hoehner's view from further consideration:
He postulates a Nisan 1 date occurring on March 5, 444 BC.
This corresponds to a Gregorian date of February 28th.
(The Gregorian calendar, stays aligned with the seasons perpetually).
The Jewish calendar never starts Nisan 1 on February 28, as this is much too early in the year! The Passover would then be on March 13 (Gregorian). However, there is absolutely no way that Jews in 444 BC (or indeed ever) celebrated the Passover 8 days before the Spring Equinox. This is much too early. It contradicts the Jewish practice as required by the Law of Moses that the Passover (14th Nisan) must be after the Spring Equinox (21st March). This means that 1st Nisan (Abib) could not possibly be before 8th March (Gregorian).
Moreover, if Nisan 1 was on February 28th, then the barley could not possibly be ready for the Firstfruits Offering on Nisan 16th. Thus it is impossible that this could be the starting month for the 70 Weeks, and therefore the whole calculation fails to work, in that it is not just out by a few days, but also by a whole month.
*Start a Month Later?
We have shown that it is impossible that the New Moon of March 5th (Julian) 444 BC could be Nisan 1 marking the start of the New Year. Therefore Nisan 1 could come no earlier than the next New Moon in 444 BC which was April 3 (Julian). This agrees with today's rabbinical calendar projected back to the 5th century BC. But this is a whole month later than the date postulated by Hoehner. This means the 69 Weeks finish a month later in 33 AD. That would make Nisan 14 (Passover) fall on Saturday, May 2, or perhaps a day later (Sunday). But if Nisan 14 fell on a Saturday or Sunday in 33 AD, how could Christ have died on a Friday if He died in that year? So when we try to start the 483 years a month later in 444 BC (whatever day in Nisan we start with) we end up with the impossibility that Christ died on a Saturday or a Sunday, in 33 AD.
So whichever way you try it, the Anderson style of calculation does not work. So, neither Anderson’s nor Hoehner's reckoning of the 70 Weeks is correct, and so this interpretation is proven false. Although both clearly fail to give an exact fulfilment of the 70 Weeks (to the day), this book reveals an interpretation that does succeed!
