The Most Crucial Key to Determine Jubilee Years

by W. Glenn Moore

As explained in other parts of this website, the first crucial key to determining the year of Creation is to find the Messiah in the prophecy of Daniel 9—the 70 week’s prophecy.  However, a point that is sometimes brought up is how can we know when the 7^th year of Artaxerxes is, if indeed this is the time that we should start the count of the 490 years (which would also be a year of Jubilee)?  Although I have covered this question extensively in chapter 7 of Discovering the Jewish Messiah, I will respond to this question more directly here—since it is absolutely vital to being able to find both the year of Jubilee and the year of Creation.

When Was the Decree to Rebuild Jerusalem Given?  Ezra 7 states that the decree to reestablish Jewish law and restore Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel took place in the 7^th year of Artaxerxes.  I believe Artaxerxes reigned from 464 to 424 BCE, and we will look at some well documented evidence which supports these dates conclusively.  Now some Bible scholars prefer to place the decree of Artaxerxes in the spring of the year 458, instead of 457 BCE, as we here maintain.  How do we know when to place this decree in our timeline?  Before we answer this question, it might be beneficial to get some background information on how major events were typically dated in ancient times—and cross-checked for accuracy in modern times.  For a detailed explanation of that, please go to Dating Events in Ancient History.  Having read that brief study on dating historical events, it is hoped that the reader has a better understanding of how we are able to sometimes determine precise dates in ancient history. So, should we place the decree of Artaxerxes in the spring of the year 458, or in the spring of 457 BCE? The main reason for the difference in dating this event is based upon whether Ezra was using the Persian/Babylonian calendar or the Jewish calendar. The Persians and Babylonians followed a spring-to-spring civil calendar, whereas the Jews are known to have followed a fall-to-fall civil calendar. The question is, “Did Ezra use the Persian calendar or the Jewish calendar to date that event?” The answer will decide for us the year in which the decree was actually issued and put into force..

Thankfully, we have a direct answer from Scripture on this issue. Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries, and at some point in time they began to work closely together. If Nehemiah used a certain dating system, then we can rightfully show that Ezra did the same.
We can determine which calendar Ezra used based upon the dates found in Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1. The first chapter of Nehemiah gives us a specific month and year—“Chisleu, in the twentieth year.” In the second chapter (which describes events only a few months later) it gives the month of “Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes.” It is impossible for Nisan to still be in the 20th year of Artaxerxes if he is using spring-to-spring calculations—for Nisan is in the spring, and therefore it should have been the 21st year (in a spring-to-spring calendar). Using a fall-to-fall calendar, however, we can solve the problem easily—since Chisleu[i] and Nisan[ii] could both be represented (in that order) as part of the same year.  Based on this, it is clear that Ezra (who was a contemporary of Nehemiah) was using the Jewish civil fall-to-fall calendar to determine dates.[iii]  Thus, at least during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the first day of Tishri[iv] (the 7^th month) was the time to start counting the years for “foreign kings.”  We also have confirmation of this from the Talmud, as explained by Ziegfried Horn:

That the fifth century Jews actually counted the regnal year of the Persian kings according to their own fall-to-fall calendar is attested not only by Nehemiah.... later on (it is) traditionally by the Talmud.  ‘According to the explanation of Rosh Hashanah ... the first of Tishri (the seventh month) is the new year for foreign kings.[v]

      More directly, the Talmud, in commenting on Rosh Hashannah in the Gemara, confirms the statement of Ziegfried Horn.[vi]  Not only does this commentary indicate a fall-to-fall calendar for foreign kings, not only does it indicate a spring-to-spring calendar for the kings of Judah, but it also shows accession year reckoning for both:

The rabbis taught: If a king die in Adar, and his successor ascend the throne in Adar, (documents may be dated either) the (last) year of the (dead) king or the (first) year of the new king. If a king die in Nissan[vii], and his successor ascend the throne in Nissan, the same is the case. But if a king die in Adar, and his successor does not ascend the throne until Nisan, then the year ending with Adar should be referred to as the year of the dead king, and from Nissan it should be referred to as that of his successor.  Is this not self-evident? The case here mentioned refers to an instance where the new king was a son of the deceased, and, while ascending the throne in Nissan, had been elected in the month of Adar, and being the king's son, it might be assumed that he was king immediately after his election, and thus the following first of Nissan would inaugurate the second year of his reign. He comes to teach us that such is not the case. . . . .

R. Hisda says: The rule of the Mishna—that the year of the kings begins with Nissan—refers to the kings of Israel only, but for the kings of other nations it commences from Tishri.[viii]

      To add to this evidence, the Mishnah plainly reveals that there were four ways of counting years, according to Jewish tradition.  We can confirm, with Scripture, that at least two of those four methods of counting years have historically been used.  One of those ways of determining a year was based upon a spring-to-spring calendar, used to determine the festivals and the reign of a Jewish king. The second way of determining years was by a fall-to-fall calendar.  Sabbatical years were determined by this calendar.  Since the Mishnah deals almost exclusively with regulations which affect the nation of Israel, Nisan (the first month) would have naturally been considered the time to begin counting the years for kings of Israel and the feasts, while Tishri (the seventh month) would be the time to begin counting Sabbatical and Jubilee years (and foreign kings, according to the Talmud): 

1:1  A.  There are four new years:

B.       (1) the first day of Nisan is the new year for kings and festivals;

C.       (2) the first day of Elul[ix] is the new year for tithing cattle.

D.      R. Eleasar and R. Simeon say, “It is on the first day of Tishre.”

E.       (3) The first day of Tishre[x] is the new year for the reckoning of years, for Sabbatical years, and for Jubilees,

F.        for planting [trees] and for vegetables.

G.      (4) The first day of Shebat is the New Year for trees, . . .[xi]

      Having established that the years of foreign kings began in the fall, we need to address other issues.  One issue is the fact that some Bible scholars believe Ezra and Nehemiah were not contemporaries.  In connection with that, therefore, they believe that the 7^th year of Artaxerxes was in reference to Artaxerxes II who reigned over 50 years after 457 BCE.  Here is an example of that teaching, as shown in the Interpreters Bible Commentary:

One of the most perplexing and controversial problems of Ezra-Nehemiah is that of the date of Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem. Traditionally Artaxerxes is identified with Artaxerxes 1 (464-424 B.C.) whose seventh year was 458 B.C.  Since Ezra followed Nehemiah into Palestine and was not his contemporary, the Artaxerxes must have been Artaxerxes II (404-359 B.C.), whose seventh year was 398 B.C.[xii]

      Is this true?  Amazingly, many believe that Ezra and Nehemiah were not living at the same time (even though they are plainly shown together in Nehemiah 8:1-9), and that they can therefore question the relevance of Scripture in this regard.  Please note the profound statement of another concerning this:

The chronological problems connected with the era of Ezra-Nehemiah remain unsolved, though there is a growing scholarly consensus in favour of reversing the traditional order (which place Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I, i.e. 458, and Nehemiah in the 20th year, or 445). Van Hoonacker was the chief exponent of the view that Ezra followed Nehemiah and was therefore to be dated in the reign of Artaxerxes II (seventh year-398).[xiii]

      Do the chronological issues regarding the era of Ezra and Nehemiah “remain unsolved,” as the author above states?  A common assumption from some is that Nehemiah and Ezra were not contemporaries, which therefore (supposedly) proves that the Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra 7 could not have been Artaxerxes I but instead Artaxerxes II of a later generation.  However, there is ample historical evidence that proves this to be in error.  In the Chronology of Ezra 7, Siegfried Horn demonstrates from reliable historical documents how this idea of Artaxerxes II being the one referred to in Ezra 7 is simply wrong.  He states the following:

In the Elephantine papyri AP 30 and 31 we learn that Johanan was high priest in Jerusalem in 407 B.C.  This was during the reign of Artaxerxes the second. He [Johanan] is mentioned in Nehemiah 12:22-23 [also in Ezra 10:6] as a son of a high priest Eliashib.  Eliashib held this office under Nehemiah!! (Neh. 3:1)[xiv]

      Basically, what these Elephantine documents prove is that Eliashib lived in the generation prior to the reign of Artaxerxes II, and was a contemporary of both Ezra and Nehemiah.  In addition to this, we have the testimony of Nehemiah 8:1-9, which plainly states that Ezra and Nehemiah were both alive, functioning, and working together at the same time.   This means Ezra and Nehemiah were definitely contemporaries, that they lived during the reign of Artaxerxes I, and therefore the decree of Artaxerxes really did take place in the 7^th year of the reign of Artaxerxes I (what I will soon demonstrate can be more precisely established as the late spring of 457 BCE).

      Now we need to establish more precisely when the reign of Artaxerxes I began and when this decree was issued.  According to a papyrus document found at Elephantine Island and the cuneiform tablets of Ur, in late December of 465 BCE it was still considered the 21^st year of Xerxes and the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes. Xerxes himself was assassinated sometime in the fall or winter of 465 BCE.  Evidently, based upon that evidence, there was a delay of a few months before he was replaced by his son Artaxerxes as the new king of the Chaldeans.  We know this because chronologists have already determined that the 21^st year of Xerxes is still ongoing by December of 465 BCE and the first year of Artaxerxes is not declared until sometime in 464 BCE.  How did they know all of this?

      First, they know from historical accounts that the full length of Xerxes reign was 21 years.  This can be determined by the simple fact that the 21^st year of Xerxes (and therefore 465 BCE) is plainly declared in historical documents to be his last year of life!  The historical documents I am referring to are called saros tablets.  One of those tablets is named BM 32234 and it is dated by astronomical events to the 21^st year of Xerxes, part of which says:

Month V, 14 [?], Xerxes was murdered by his son.[xv]

      Xerxes was clearly assassinated in his 21^st year (sometime in the fall of 465 BCE), as attested to by this and several other cuneiform tablets.  But what was the first year of Artaxerxes?  Did his reign begin immediately? 

      Evidently, his reign did not begin in the fall of 465 BCE.  For example, we have historical confirmation of the exact timing of the 11^th year of Artaxerxes.  One document which confirms this is a diary of astronomical information (called VAT 5047) which lists the 11^th year of Artaxerxes as the year of two peculiar lunar alignments with Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn.  Based upon astronomical data from that general time, that particular year could only have been the year 454 BCE.[xvi]  Since 454 BCE would be part of Artaxerxes’ 11^th year, ten years prior to this would give us the first year of Artaxerxes—464 BCE.

      Please notice that this also establishes the 7^th year of Artaxerxes as 458/457 BCE.  There are other ways we can determine the first year of Artaxerxes.  For example, we know that Xerxes died in his 21^st year about fall or winter.  In addition to this, we know that even as late as December of 465 BCE it was still considered the 21^st year of Xerxes!  There are several papyri which give us evidence of this.  Before I present these documents I wish to remind the reader that the month of Kisleu and the month of Kislimu are actually variant names of the same month (Kislev, in the Hebrew calendar—December-January).  The first document precisely establishes the exact date of the ascension of Artaxerxes to the throne.  Here is what this Aramaic papyrus (AP 6) says:

On the 18^th of Kisleu which is the (17^th) day of Thoth[xvii], in year 21, the beginning of the reign when King Artaxerxes sat on his throne[xviii]

      The “day of Thoth” is in reference to an Egyptian month which (at that time) begins almost the same time as the Hebrew month Kisleu in the Hebrew calendar, and it is the Egyptian New Year.  The 18^th day of Kisleu would also be the 17^th day of Thoth at that time in history.  Based upon other chronological data, we can more specifically identify the beginning of this month Thoth as December 17, 465 BCE.[xix]  Kisleu 18 would therefore be January 3^rd or 4^th in the year 464 BCE. 

      How do we know this, even to within a day or two of the event?  We know this because of the great Egyptian Sothic Cycle.  Using this great cycle, we are able to coordinate exactly the 18^th day of Kisleu (from a calendar which is based on lunar cycles) with the 17^th day of Thoth (from a calendar which is based upon the Egyptian Sothic Cycle).  In ancient times, the Egyptian calendar was composed of 360 days (30 days to each month) with 5 added days to allow it to approximate the actual solar year.[xx]  However, the Egyptian calendar was out of sync with the actual solar year by about one-fourth of a day for every year.  We know that the Sothic cycle began at a certain date in history at the rising of Sirius in Egypt, and the date of the start of this grand cycle is confirmed by Censorinus, a Roman grammarian and writer on a great variety of subjects:

According to Roman writer Censorinus, the Egyptian New Year’s Day fell on July 20 in the Julian Calendar in 139 CE, which was a heliacal rising of Sirius in Egypt. From this it is possible to calculate that the previous occasion on which this occurred was 1322 BCE, and the one before that was 2782 BCE.[xxi]

      Based upon this, let’s do some mathematical calculations to determine what day the Egyptian New Year began in 466, 465, and 464 BCE (the three possible dates for Xerxes final year and the start of Artaxerxes regnal year).

      We now know that the first day of Thoth of the Egyptian calendar was December 18 in 466, December 17 in 465, and December 17 in 464 BCE.  How does this information positively confirm for us the exact date?  Well, it is actually simple.  We have another date which is linked to the 17^th day of Thoth, and that date is Kislimu 18.  Kislimu is also called Kislev, the 9^th month of the Hebrew calendar.  The Hebrew calendar was based upon the repeatedly observable first sighting of the crescent moon over Israel.  By using known lunar calculations, we can accurately calculate (to within only a couple of hours margin of error) the exact date upon which Kislev 1 fell for the years 466, 465, and 464 BCE.  Here is what the evidence will show:

      Using Moon Calculation programs, lunar cycles and their corresponding Julian dates can be determined even going back several thousand years.  Generally, such dates can accurately be calculated to within a few hours.  There is an online calculation program which proves useful to those who do not have such programs available to them.  The lunar calendar dates given here are based upon an online Moon Calendar which is able to calculate lunar cycles from 3999 BCE to 3999 CE, and align them with the Julian calendar.[xxii]  Based upon the evidence shown for the dates in question, the new visible crescent moon for 465 BCE is in nearly exact alignment with the Egyptian Sothic cycle (which explains why AP 6 mentions them as being in almost perfect synchrony).  The 1460-year Sothic Cycles have also been determined (as shown earlier), and the dates for those years are given here.  Here is what we will find:

      The only year which is in close alignment between the Hebrew month Kislev (which follows a lunar cycle) and the Egyptian month of Thoth (which follows the Sothic cycle) is the year 465 BCE.  The year 466 shows Kislev 18 being 10 days late, and the year 464 BCE shows Kislev 18 being 11 days early.  465 BCE shows Kislev 18 in near perfect alignment with the Egyptian Sothic cycle, with a possible variance of + / - one day.[xxiii]  The Sothic cycle dates are based upon the previously mentioned reference from Censorinus giving us 139 BCE as the last historically known alignment of the Sothic cycle with the true solar year.  We therefore use the prior Sothic alignment of 1322 BCE as our starting point, subtract the number of years from that date, and divide by four to discover how many days the Sothic cycle is out of sync from the true solar year.  The near perfect alignment of these dates is astounding, especially when we consider that we are going back in time nearly 2500 years!  Since these are the only three possible years which Xerxes reign could have ended, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the winter of 465 BCE still being considered Xerxes 21^st year and the beginning of the accession year (zero year) of Artaxerxes.

      Now there are those who would question this particular papyrus (AP 6), mainly because it appears to establish (above all other forms of evidence) that the 21^st year of Xerxes was also the year in which Artaxerxes began to reign.  I believe it would be a mistake to simply assume that the author of this papyrus made an error.  The fact that his 2 dates (Egyptian and Hebrew) are historically confirmed is a major proof that it is not an error.  In addition, another cuneiform tablet found in the early part of the 20^th century confirms what this papyrus says regarding Artaxerxes—that he ascended to the throne in the 21^st year of Xerxes:

A cuneiform tablet found in the excavation campaign of 1930-31 in Ur, [regarding] an agreement dated in the thirteenth year of Artaxerxes the first, but states that the original arrangement was signed in the month Kislimu in the twenty-first year of Xerxes.[xxiv]

      Along with showing the year of Artaxerxes ascent to the throne, it also appears to demonstrate that Xerxes (even though he was killed in the fall) was still considered in his 21^st year as late as the month of Kislimu (which is the same as “Kislue” or “Kislev,” i.e., sometime around December of 465 or January of 464 BCE).  The year 21, based upon this cuneiform tablet, is clearly the last year of the reign of Xerxes.  That year 21 is still in progress as late as December of 465 BCE.  It is at this time (based upon AP 6) that Artaxerxes begins his accession year.  If the Jewish chroniclers are using a fall-to-fall calendar, along with accession year reckoning, then that would mean Artaxerxes actual first full year would begin in the fall of 464 BCE.

      The evidences presented here also demonstrate for us that they were dating this based upon accession year reckoning.  Using the non-accession year reckoning Artaxerxes first year would have been from late December of 465 to the fall of 464 BCE.  As previously noted in one of the cuneiform tablets of the time, King Xerxes was still alive at this time, and that year was considered the 21^st year of Xerxes.  Since it is dated according to Xerxes 21^st year, it certainly cannot also be considered the first full year of Artaxerxes.  Artaxerxes first year had to have been calculated as the following year.  This is just another confirmation of the popular use (at that time) of accession years to date historical events.

      According to the Talmud, the Jews were generally using accession year dating methods.  Accession year reckoning does not include the year in which the king ascends to the throne in calculating his length of reign.[xxv]  Instead, the remaining portion of the year is reckoned as belonging to the previous ruler.[xxvi]  Since we have already determined that the Jews at that time calculated the reigns of foreign kings according to a fall-to-fall calendar (which Nehemiah, a contemporary of Ezra, confirms for us in Nehemiah 1-2), then we are left with no other option but to calculate the first year of Artaxerxes reign starting from the fall of 464 BCE.  The seventh year, therefore, would have been from the fall of 458 to the fall of 457.

         All of the evidence presented here shows conclusively that the 7^th year of Artaxerxes would extend from the fall of 458 to the fall of 457 BCE.  The language of the decree (in Ezra 7) also shows that Ezra was given authority to establish Jewish courts of law, so that the people could be ruled according to the Torah of Yahweh—not the laws of other nations.  Therefore, this decree (above all other decrees) is the one which best fulfills the language and intent of the prophecy of Daniel 9—and it clearly came in the late spring of 457 BCE.  Ezra carried out the dictates of this decree in the fall of that same year, soon after he arrived to oversee the rebuilding efforts. Maimonides said that Ezra went up to the land of Israel and that such an event was called “the second entrance into the Promised Land" in which they "began a new count and declared the thirteenth year after the building of the Second Temple a Sabbatical year." (Sabbatical and Jubilee Years, chapter 10, paragraph 3.) What Maimonides is saying (essentially) is that Ezra came into the land in a year of Jubilee, for that is the only significant count that would need to be renewed.  That year of Jubilee is, therefore, 457/456 BCE in a fall to fall calendar.

      While it is historically difficult (if not impossible) to find a year of Jubilee, it is possible to find a year of Jubilee based upon the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9. Since that prophecy is clearly connected with the Jubilee legislation of Leviticus 25, and since it clearly demonstrates by its text Jubilee cycles (7 weeks and 70 weeks, or 1 Jubilee cycle and 10 Jubilee cycles), we can thereby conclude that the fulfillment of that Messianic prophecy will also historically line up with Jubilee cycles.  The fact that the prophecy is divided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week, clearly indicates that the purpose of this division was simply to bring home the unmistakable point that it was a Jubilee prophecy, and that 7 weeks from the start would take us to another Jubilee year.  Godfrey Faussett, in Sacred Chronology, expresses a similar view:

It has forcibly occurred to me during the consideration of this subject, that the peculiar description of 69 weeks as "7 weeks and 62 weeks"; which appears to have never been satisfactorily explained by commentators on the 70 weeks of Daniel, may be readily accounted for, if we view it as an emphatic reference to the great closing jubilee. The 69 weeks being presumed to end at the commencement of our Saviour's ministry, end also, according to the calculation which I have endeavoured to establish, in the grand completion of the series of jubilees. Now the ordinary expression "9 weeks and 60 weeks"; would have offered no hint of this important fact, whereas that of "7 weeks and 62 weeks"; affords a most intelligible one, and one which the case particularly required. For the whole 70 weeks of the prophecy amounting to the time of 10 inter-jubilee periods, and yet not corresponding with their series, might have entirely withdrawn the attention from their completion at the coming of the Messiah.[xxvii]

Sixty-nine weeks would transpire from the fall of 457 BCE until the start of the final week of the 70 weeks prophecy.  That is equal to 483 years (counting from 457 BCE) which extends to the year 27 CE.  Did the Messiah come in 27 CE?  I believe he did, and that the evidence supports this date as well.  Regardless of that, 457 BCE as the 7th year of Artaxerxes has to be one of most solidly confirmed dates in all of ancient history.  We know it is one of the most solidly confirmed dates in history because of two cuneiform tablets (VAT 5047 and M 32234), three papyri documents (AP 6, 30 and 31) and the same exact date given for an event on two different converging calendars (the Jewish calendar, based upon known lunar cycles, and the Egyptian Sothic Cycle calendar, which we can sometimes use to accurately determine ancient dates).  This makes the date of the start of Artaxerxes's reign (January 3 or 4, 464 BCE) to be one of the most solidly confirmed ancient dates in all history!!  Seven years later Ezra goes to Jerusalem to re-establish the Jewish nation, and the countdown to the first coming of Messiah begins (in a year of Jubilee).

[xxvii]Sacred Chronology, by Godfrey Faussett, Oxford, p. 297.