Cyrus prophecy of isaaih 44,45

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/264-cyrus-the-great-in-biblical-prophecy
One of the truly astounding prophecies of the Bible is found in the last verse of Isaiah 44, together with 45:1ff, (an unfortunate chapter break). It has to do with Cyrus, king of Persia. According to the historian Herodotus (The Histories i.46), Cyrus was the son of Cambyses I. He came to the Persian throne in 559 B.C. Nine years later he conquered the Medes, thus unifying the kingdoms of the Medes and the Persians.
Cyrus is mentioned some twenty-three times in the literature of the Old Testament. Isaiah refers to Cyrus as Jehovah’s “shepherd,” the Lord’s “anointed,” who was providentially appointed to facilitate the divine plan. God would lead this monarch to “subdue nations” and “open doors” (an allusion to the Jews’ release from Babylonian captivity). He would make “rough places smooth,” i.e., accommodate the Hebrews’ return to their Palestinean homeland. He would ultimately be responsible for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the reconstruction of the temple.
Amazingly, the king would accomplish these noble tasks even though he did not “know” Jehovah (45:4, 5). In other words, though he was a pagan in sentiment and practice, yet, as an unconscious tool in the hands of the Lord, he would contribute mightily to the Jewish cause, and so, indirectly, to the coming of God’s greater Anointed, Jesus of Nazareth.
The fulfillment of these plain and specific predictions is set forth in 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23 and Ezra 1:1-4, 7, 8; 3:7; 4:3. The Encyclopedia Britannica, an unlikely source, acknowledges that “in 538 [B.C.] Cyrus granted to the Jews, whom Nebuchadressar had transported to Babylonia, the return to Palestine and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple” (1958, 940).

Cyrus the Great and Darius the mede of Daniel 5?

http://philologos.org/bpr/files/d003.htm

Daniel 5.31

Ver. 31. "And Darius the Median took the kingdom," This was Cyaxares the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus; he is called the Median, to distinguish him from another Darius the Persian, that came after, (Ezra 4:5), the same took the kingdom of Babylon from Cyrus who conquered it; he took it with his consent, being the senior prince and his uncle. Darius reigned not long, but two years; and not alone, but Cyrus with him, though he is only mentioned. Xenophon says, that Cyrus, after he took Babylon, set out for Persia, and took Media on his way; and, saluting Cyaxares or Darius, said that there was a choice house and court for him in Babylon, where he might go and live as in his own:

"being about threescore and two years old"; and so was born in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, the year in which Jechoniah was carried captive, (2 Kings 24:12), thus God in his counsels and providence took care that a deliverer of his people should be raised up and provided against the appointed time. Darius was older than Cyrus, as appears by several passages in Xenophon; in one place Cyaxares or Darius says,

"since I am present, and am 'elder' than Cyrus, it is fit that I should speak first;"

and in another place, Cyrus, writing to him, says,

"I give thee counsel, though I am the younger"

and by comparing this account of the age of Darius with a passage in Cicero, which gives the age of Cyrus, we learn how much older than he Darius was; for, out of the books of Dionysius the Persian, he relates, that Cyrus dreaming he saw the sun at his feet, which he three times endeavoured to catch and lay hold upon, but in vain, it sliding from him; this, the Magi said, portended that he should reign thirty years, and so he did; for he lived to be seventy years of age, and began to reign when he was forty; which, if reckoned from his reigning with his uncle, then he must be twenty two years younger; or if from the time of his being sole monarch, then the difference of age between them must be twenty four years; though it should be observed that those that make him to reign thirty years begin his reign from the time of his being appointed commander-in-chief of the Medes and Persians by Cyaxares, which was twenty three years before he reigned alone, which was but seven years; and this account makes but very little difference in their age; and indeed some have taken them to be one and the same, their descent, age, and succession in the Babylonian empire, agreeing.

(The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

Darius: the name of several kings of Media and Persia. Herodotus says that the name is equivalent to "the restrainer"; three kings bearing this name are mentioned in the OT.

Darius the Mede, "the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes," who succeeded to the Babylonian kingdom on the death of Belshazzar, being then sixty-two years old. Only one year of his reign is mentioned; but that was of great importance for the Jews. Daniel was advanced by the king to the highest dignity, probably in consequence of his former services; and after his miraculous deliverance, Darius issued a decree enjoining througout his dominions "reverence for the God of Daniel" (Dan 6:25).

The extreme obscurity of the Babylonian annals has given occasion to three different hypotheses as to the name under which Darius the Mede is known in history. The first of these, which identifies him with Darius Hystaspis, rests on no plausible evidence, and may be dismissed at once. The second, which was adopted by Josephus, and has been supported by many recent critics is more deserving of notice. According to this he was "the son and successor of Astyages," who is commonly regarded as the last king of Media. It is supposed that the reign of this Cyaxares has been neglected by historians from the fact that through his indolence and luxury he yielded the real exercise of power to his nephew Cyrus, who married his daughter, and so after his death received the crown by direct succession... Herodotus expressly states that "Astyages" was the last king of the Medes, that he was conquered by Cyrus, and that he died without leaving any male issue...A third identification remains, by which Darius is represented as the personal name of "Astyages," the last king of the Medes...The name "Astyages" was national and not personal, and Ahasuerus represents the name Cyaxares, borne by the father of "Astyages"...If, as seems most probable, Darius (Astyages) occupied the throne of Babylon as supreme sovereign with Nerigalsarassar as vassal-prince, after the murder of Evil-merodach (Belshazzar) BC 559, one year only remains for this Median supremacy before the victory of Cyrus BC 558, in exact accordance with the notices in Daniel and the apparent incompleteness of the political arrangements which Darius "purposed" to make (Dan 6:3).

Astyages, the last king of the Medes, BC 595-560, or BC 592-558. The name is identified...[as] "the biting snake," the emblem of the Median power.

Ahasuerus, the name of one Median and two Persian kings mentioned in the OT. It may be desirable to prefix to this... a chronological table of the Medo-Persian kings from Cyaxares to
Artaxerxes Longimanus, according to their ordinary classical names.

1. Cyaxares, king of Media, son of Phraortes, grandson of Deioces and conqueror of Nineveh, began to reign BC 634.

2. Astyages his son, last king of Media, BC 594.

3. Cyrus, son of his daughter Mandane and Cambyses, a Persian noble, first king of Persia, 559.

4. Cambyses his son, 529.

5. A Magian usurper, who personates Smerdis, the younger son of Cyrus, 521.

6. Darius Hystaspis, raised to the throne on the overthrow of the Magi, 521.

7. Xerxes, his son, 485.

8. Artaxerxes Longimanus (Macrocheir), his son, 465-495.

In Daniel 9:1, Ahasuerus is said to be the father of Darius the Mede. Now it is almost certain that Cyaxares is a form of Ahasuerus, grecized into Axares with the prefix Cy- or Kai-, common to the Kaianian dynasty of kings, with which may be compared Kai Khosroo, the Persian name of Cyrus. The son of this Cyaxares was Astyages, and it is no improbable conjecture that Darius the Mede wass Astyages, set over Babylon as viceroy by his grandson Cyrus, and allowed to live there in royal state.

(Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 1872)

Media: ancient country & province of Persian Empire SW Asia in NW modern Iran Persia: see Iran (Webster's)

Media, in ancient times the name of northwest Persia. The Medes
were an Aryan people like the Persians. Their state religion was Zoroastrianism, and the Magi its priests. (Universal Standard Encyclopedia)

Medes, Media, a people and country called by the same word, Madai -- in Hebrew and Assyrian... Among the Semitic peoples... the name of the Medes continued long to be more familiar than that of the Persians, partly by reason of their greater antiquity, and partly because the Medes formed the principal portion of the Iranian population. Hence the word is more frequent than 'Persia,' except in the later books of the OT. Madai is mentioned in Gen 10:2 among the sons of Japheth, with no allusion to the Persians. So the Medes and not the Persians are mentioned in prophecy as the prospective destroyers of Babylon (Isa 13:17; 21:2; Jer 25:25; 51:11).

(Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible)

Joel 1:4 describes four types of locusts:

1. palmerworm: cutting locust
2. locust: swarming locust
3. cankerworm: hopping locust
4. caterpillar: destroying locust

Jerome relates that the Hebrews interpreted the four as:

1. palmerworm - Assyrians, Babylonians, and Chaldeans
2. locust - Medes and Persians
3. cankerworm - Macedonians, and all the successors of Alexander; especially King Antiochus
4. caterpillar - Roman Empire

[O]ne of the names of a locust is, "Arbeh," not much unlike in sound to an Arab. To which may be added, that it is a tradition of the Arabians, that there fell locusts into the hands of Mahomet [Mohammad], on whose backs and wings were written these words;

"we are the army of the most high God; we are the ninety and nine eggs, and if the hundred should be made perfect, we should consume the whole world, and whatever is in it."

And it was a law established by Mahomet, ye shall not kill the locusts, for they are the army of the most high God; and the Mahometans fancy that the locusts were made of the same clay as Adam was: and besides the tradition before mentioned, they say, that as Mahomet sat at table a locust fell, with these words on its back and wings;

"I am God, neither is there any Lord of the locusts besides me, who feed them; and when I please I send them to be food to the people, and when I please I send them to be a scourge unto them;"

...five months is the time that locusts live, and are in their strength and power, even the five, hottest months in the year, from April to September.

Coregent of Nebuchadnezzar with his father and counting 70years

Where Is Nebuchadnezzar's
7-Year Interregnum In History?

(Originally published as: "Nebuchadnezzar's Seven-Year Interregnum...
Is It Historical? in The PURE TRUTH magazine, No. 15, March-April 1995) http://www.thepuretruthrestored.com/Past/Articles/002-Interregnum.htm

ANIEL reveals that king Nebuchadnezzar of ancient Babylon went insane for seven years -- leaving his throne to others -- but was reinstated as monarch after the seven years had passed and his sanity restored.   Why is there no historical record of this amazing event?   Or is there?...
    The problem with many historians is that they cannot see the evidence of past scriptural events because generally they are too close to the facts and mainly because they have a decidedly secular bias or prejudice, even those whose background is supposedly religious.
    The trouble with seminaries or religious colleges has always been that they cannot impart spiritual insights they do not have, regardless of how many years the student devotes to his training or how erudite in their teachings he becomes.
    This is true because, despite the presumptions of "inspiration," they really have no better knowledge of truth, or historical facts, than uneducated lay people; perhaps less!
    Here then, from an Ambassador College and university "dropout," is the real truth about Nebuchadnezzar's Interregnum, along with the historical facts which utterly prove it and are known to all scholars, yet have never -- until now, that is -- been correctly understood in the light of what scripture reveals to be the historic reality!
The Generally Accepted History     The following is the supposed "history" of ancient Babylon, according to Merrill F. Unger and other past religious historians, in the articles: "Babylon" and "Chronology" in Unger's Bible Dictionary:
    "The city of Babylon did not reach the height of its glory, however, until the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, (B.C. [sic] 605-562)."
    "He was succeeded on the throne by Amel-Marduk (562-560), the Evil-Merodach of II Kings 25:27. This man was murdered by his brother-in-law, Nergal-sharusur (560-556) whose son ruled only a few months and was succeeded by one of the conspirators, who made away with him. A noble named Nabunaid, or Nabonidus, then ruled, together with his son Belshazzar (556-539; see Dan. 5); Nabonidus was the last king of the neo-Babylonian Empire."
    In 539, Babylon fell to Cyrus of Persia, thus ending the greatness of the ancient city-state known as Babylon.
    According to the article: "Nebuchadnezzar," we are told by Unger's that this same Nebuchadnezzar II -- son of Nabopolassar -- as a young general, inherited his father's empire of Babylon in 605 by defeating Egypt's King Necho II at Carchemish on the Euphrates and pursued the defeated Necho to the borders of Egypt when, in 604, Nebuchadnezzar's father died abruptly at Babylon, forcing Nebuchadnezzar to abandon his planned invasion of Egypt and return post haste to take over the government at Babylon.
    However, according to another Unger's article, "Chronology:" "Necho [was] defeated by [the] Chaldeans at Haran in c. 609 B.C. [sic] and at Carchemish c. 605 B.C. [sic]" and: "The Chaldean Period c. 612-539 defeat of Assyria and Egypt under Necho at Haran c. 609 B.C. [sic]."
    So Nebuchadnezzar actually began his conquest of Assyria and Egypt, which brought Babylon to its ascendancy, as early as 609 B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and this empire lasted through 538.
    The full significance of these dates will be explained shortly.
Missing the Boat Historically!     Again, continuing in Unger's: "After a prosperous and eventful reign of forty-three years (604-562 B.C. [sic]) Nebuchadnezzar died and was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk)."
    Interestingly, though Daniel is quoted in both this article and again in the article "Babylon" with the comments: "Archaeology has shown the complete suitability of Nebuchadnezzar's words recorded in Dan. 4:30, 'Is not this great Babylon which I have built for the royal dwelling-place by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?'" and: "How well the words of Dan. 4:30 fit this ambitious builder.…," nowhere do we read in Unger's about the seven-year insanity interregnum of this king, as recorded in the remainder of the very same fourth chapter of Daniel!
    So the religious historians and archaeologists have treated this scriptural account of history as so much "mythological fiction."
    However their very own history, when combined with scriptural accounts, proves Daniel recorded actual history, and modern so-called "historical" accounts are so much intellectual gibberish by comparison!
    In order to understand the historic truth, and distinguish it from well-intended but false nonsense history, let's begin with a closer examination of yet another historical personage, as recorded in Unger's article: "Nabonidus."
    According to this article, Nabonidus was: "the last ruler of the neo-Babylonian Empire (556-539 B.C. [sic]). He is called Nabunaid in the cuneiform records.   His son Belshazzar, who figures so prominently in Dan. 5, was associated with him legally from his third regnal year to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian Empire (539 B.C. [sic]).…   No Babylonian document actually affirms that Nabunaid's son Belshazzar was present at the fall of Babylon, yet there is no positive evidence against his participation in these events."
    Now stop and ask yourself, WHY would this "religious historian" bother to even bring up this point?   Could it be because he is automatically questioning the historical truth of the scriptural account, while taking no issue with his own grasp of the facts?
    However, since Babylon ceased to exist as an independent world power when it was conquered by Cyrus of Persia in 539, no Babylonian document would therefore exist giving the details of that battle!
    It should go without saying (but for the general ignorance and arrogance of these supposed historians) that this would be the prerogative of the victor, or independent historian such as Daniel, to record.
70 Years Determined for WHAT?     History does record the seven-year period of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity, believe it or not.   You just have to know where to look for it.
    Yet historians have completely missed the boat here because of their ingrained bias and prejudice against scripture as a historical source.
    Seventeen years ago I was inspired by the Creator Yahveh to understand the truth on this subject, which has baffled and confused the best minds of Christian and secular historians and the would-be teachers of the so-called "Plain Truth."
    I have this understanding by the merciful grace of Almighty Yahveh, to whom belongs all credit for its discovery -- since He alone reveals true history to His servants and prophets -- not because I have any kind of superior intellect or am a "great thinker," compared to those who have failed to understand this and many other scriptural truths only now being revealed by the restoration of all things!
    Several scriptural keys reveal the truth, once they are put together properly with the historical facts known to the secular and so-called religious historians and archaeologists.
    According to II Chronicles 36:21, the Babylonian captivity of Yasrael was: "To fulfill the words of Yahveh by the mouth of YermiYahv ["Jeremiah"], until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths: for as long as it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."
    The Worldwide Church and others have taught that this was a 70 year captivity, because the land rested for 70 years, according to this verse of scripture.
    But if you read it again more carefully you will see that this is not what it says. The NIV translates this verse as follows:
    "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of Yahveh spoken to YermiYahv." (Correct name transliterations restored to the text throughout.)
    The scripture in question, referred to in this verse, is Jeremiah 25:11-12, which reveals exactly which period of time this 70 years was intended to cover:
    "'This whole nation [of Yasrael] will become a desolate wasteland, and THESE NATIONS will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.   But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the King of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt,' declares Yahveh, 'and will make it desolate forever.'"
    Clearly, the seventy years was determined not for the total length of Yasrael's captivity, but rather for the nation and king of Babylon!
    The King James translation muddles this truth in Jeremiah 29:10 with the mistranslation "at Babylon," but the NIV corrects this mistake with the following translation:
    "This is what Yahveh says: 'When seventy years are completed FOR BABYLON, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place."
    Secular history verifies these facts, for the Babylonian captivity began, according to Unger's article "Nebuchadnezzar," in 587 when Yaravsalem ("Jerusalem") fell finally to Nebuchadnezzar after being besieged for a year and a half.
    From 587 until Cyrus' decree mandating the end of that captivity in 538 is, counting inclusively, a period of only 50 years.
    Religious historians have argued back and forth, and confused the "70 years" as the length of the captivity itself, for many generations.   According to Unger's article "Captivity:"
    "(4) Duration.   Jeremiah (25:12; 29:10) predicted that the captivity should last for seventy years, and this prediction has aroused much discussion.   The best explanation of the chronological problem involved is that there were two, if not more, coordinate modes of computing the period in question, used by the sacred writers, one civil, and extending from the first invasion by Nebuchadnezzar to the decree of Cyrus, B.C. [sic] 606-538; and the other ecclesiastical, from the burning of the temple to its reconstruction, B.C. [sic] 587(6)-517."
    Yet this very same article immediately goes on to frankly admit: "The Babylonian captivity was brought to a close by the decree (Ezra 1:2) of Cyrus, B.C. [sic] 538, and the return of a portion of the nation under Sheshbazzar or Zerubbabel, B.C. [sic] 535; Ezra, B.C. [sic] 458, and Nehemiah, B.C. [sic] 445."
    Notice how the so-called "civil" period, from 606-538, is at best, counting inclusively, only 69 years and not 70, while the period from 587-517 is, counting inclusively once again, 71 years, rather than 70!
    So actually none of these attempted explanations of the 70-year period are accurate, much less fit the scriptural facts which reveal this was not a seventy-year captivity but was instead the total time that Nebuchadnezzar would rule over the nations surrounding Babylon, from Babylon's ascendancy until its final destruction!
    A more recent attempt at explaining away the general ignorance of what these scriptures actually say is found in the NIV footnote to Jeremiah 25:11-12, where we are told:
    "25:11-12 seventy years.   See 29:10.   This round number (as in Ps 90:10; Isa 23:15) probably represents the period from 605 (see notes on v. 1; Da 1:1) to 538 B.C. [sic], which marked the beginning of Judah's return from exile (see 2 Ch 36:20-23; see also notes on Da 9:1-2).   The 70 years of Zec 1:12 are not necessarily the same as those here and in [Jeremiah] 29:10.   They probably represent the period from 586 (when Solomon's temple was destroyed) to 516 (when Zerubbabel's temple was completed).   See note on Zec 7:5."
    Notice how they have fudged the year for the destruction of Solomon's temple, pushing it forward one year, in the false attempt to force history to fit their incorrect theory!
    In fact, the NIV footnote to this verse in Zechariah says:
    "7:5.… seventy years.   See 1:12 and note.   Since these fasts commemorated events related to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (see note on 8:19), the 70 years here are to be reckoned from 586 B.C. [sic]   Strictly speaking, 68 years had transpired; 70 is thus a round number." [sic]
    For seventy years Yahveh was angry with Yavdea and Yaravsalem. (According to Zechariah 1:12.)
    This was not the total period of their captivity in Babylon, but represented instead the beginning of the siege of Yaravsalem by Nebuchadnezzar beginning in 589 (One and a half years before it fell, remember) until the building of the temple of Zeravbabel in 520, according to Unger's article: "Temple.   4. The Temple of Zerubbabel," quoting Smith's Bible Dictionary on this subject as follows:
    "'We have very few particulars regarding the temple…erected after their return from the captivity (about 520 B.C. [sic])…'"
    Zechariah 1:16 reveals that the end of the seventy years of Yahveh's anger toward Yaravsalem (verse 12) would end with the rebuilding of His temple!
    The only "fly in the ointment" of this explanation appears to be Daniel 9:1-2, which says: "In the first year of Darius.…   In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of Yahveh came to YermiYahv the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Yaravsalem."
    The NIV translates the last verse as follows: "I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of Yahveh given to YermiYahv the prophet, that the desolation of Yaravsalem would last seventy years."
    Even though this translation follows the Masoretic Hebrew fairly accurately, can this one scripture contradict both history and all the other scriptures?   The obvious answer is "NO!"
    So either of two possibilities exist which explain this apparent contradiction.   The first, and least probable, is that an early copyist of Daniel mistook the name of ZechariYahv for YermiYahv.
    The second, and more likely, possibility is that this verse has been misconstrued through transcription. Lancelot Brenton's English translation of the Greek Septuagint, itself an early translation from the original Hebrew scriptures, bears out this truth, both in the context of Jeremiah 25:8-12 and Daniel 9:1-2, as follows:
    "I Daniel understood by books the number of the years which was the word of Yahveh to YermiYahv, seventy years for the accomplishment of the destruction of Yaravsalem."
    Notice this does not say, as the Masoretic Hebrew does, that the length of Yaravsalem's destruction -- according to YermiYahv -- would last seventy years, but rather that the accomplishment of the seventy years prophesied by YermiYahv against Babylon would end with the return from exile of the Yasraelites to Yaravsalem.
    As history proves, the total length of Yaravsalem's desolation was -- at most -- only 50 years; far short of the full seventy years determined against Babylon.
Where's the Seven-Year Interregnum?     The seventy years was a judgment against both Babylon and its king! (Jeremiah 25:11-12.)
    Nebuchadnezzar ruled as co-regent with his father from 609 through 605, and as sole regent from 604 until -- so we are told by historians -- 562; just 43 years. (Or 48 years total, including the period of co-regency with his father.)
    Closely examining the rulers that succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, we find that from 562 until the rule of Nabonidus beginning in 556, counting inclusively, there are exactly seven years!
    Is this merely a coincidence?   Hardly.   But Unger's passes over some other important scriptural evidence, with little or no understanding, such as the article "Belshazzar" which has the following:
    "Belshazzar…was the eldest son and co-regent of Nabonidus (B.C. [sic] 539), the last sovereign of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.   The following passage [Babylonian archives] explicitly states that before Nabonidus started on his expedition to Tema in Arabia he entrusted actual kingship to Belshazzar: 'He entrusted a campaign to his eldest, firstborn son; the troops of the land he sent with him.   He freed his hand, he entrusted the kingship to him.   Then he himself [Nabonidus] undertook a distant campaign.   The power of the land of Akkad advanced [together] with him; towards Tema in the midst of the Westland he set his face.…   He himself established his dwelling in Tema.…   That city he made glorious.…   They made it like a palace of Babylon…'" (Ellipses theirs.)
    Notice how Belsazzar was first made a general and then co-regent just as Nebuchadnezzar was.   So while Belsazzar ruled from Babylon, his co-regent father Nabonidus settled in Tema in Arabia. Continuing:
    "The Babylonian records indicate that Belshazzar became co-regent in the third year of Nabonidus' reign (B.C. [sic] 553) and continued in that capacity until the fall of Babylon (B.C. [sic] 539).…   During Nabonidus' absence in Tema, the Nabunaid Chronicle explicitly indicates that the New Year's Festival was not celebrated but that it was observed in the 17th year upon the king's return home.   Accordingly, it is evident that Belshazzar actually exercised the co-regency in Babylon.…"
    The 17th year would place this "New Year's Festival" celebration in 539, or the very time of Babylon's destruction by Cyrus of Persia!   (Actually at the end of 538!)
    This could well be the very banquet described in Daniel 5, which resulted in the final judgment upon Babylon!   Continuing:
    "The book of Daniel is thus not in error [Who thought it was?] in representing Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon…nor can it be said to be wrong in calling Belshazzar 'the son of Nebuchadnezzar' (Dan. 5:1).   Even if Belshazzar were not lineally related to Nebuchadnezzar, which is doubtful…the usage 'son of,' being equivalent in Semitic usage to 'successor of,' in the case of royalty would in this case still not be inaccurate."
    Sounds like a reasonable explanation, doesn't it?   However, there is one great difficulty with this last argument.
    The Hebrew does not say, in either Daniel 5:1 or 18, that Belsazzar was "the son of Nebuchadnezzar."   (It does use this phrase, however, in Daniel 5:22.)   Instead, it says: "Nebuchadnezzar his [your] father."
    Some have even argued (The Worldwide Church among them) that this phrase in Hebrew can also mean "grandfather," but that is not what Daniel said or meant!
The AMAZING TRUTH!     The fact is, Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar were both the father of Belsazzar, according to Babylonian and scriptural records.   And this can only mean one thing:
    Nabonidus WAS Nebuchadnezzar, under a new and different name, which he obviously assumed following his seven-year insanity interregnum!
    Semitic custom often called for a change of name when a major change of character had taken place, such as: Abram to Abraham (Genesis 17:5, Nehemiah 9:7), Sarai to Sarah (Genesis 17:15), and Ya'acob to Yasrael. (Genesis 32:28.)
    The evidence all clearly supports this amazing conclusion: Daniel was named "Beltashazzar" by Nebuchadnezzar before his seven-year interregnum (Daniel 1:7, 2:26, 4:8-9, 18-19, 5:12, 10:1), and Belsazzar was the name given to the last co-regent of Babylon by his father Nebuchadnezzar! (Daniel 5:1-2, 18, 22.)
    Not only is there a unique similarity between these two names, revealing the fact they both came from the same mind, but notice also the similarity between the name Nabonidus, as post-interregnum Nebuchadnezzar was called in the Babylonian Chronicles, and Nabopolassar his father.
    In fact, another way to spell Nebu, the first part of Nebuchadnezzar's name, is "Nabo," "Nebu," or "Nebo," according to the phonetic spelling from Unger's article "Nebuchadnezzar:"
    "(Akkad.   Nabu-kudduriusur, Nebo, defend the boundary)."
    These English variations in spelling the very same Akkadian word have confused the issue, but once this is recognized the truth literally leaps out at you.
    The historians have Nebuchadnezzar as having died at the beginning of the seven years of insanity, during which time Daniel plainly reveals -- in Nebuchadnezzar's own words no less -- that others ruled in his stead, but that his throne was restored to him when his sanity returned after the seven years had passed!   (Daniel 4:25-26, 31-34, 36.)
    Nabonidus' change of name from Nebuchadnezzar reflected his newfound humility and change of character, brought about by the experience of his seven years of insanity, when he lived like a beast in the fields.   (Daniel 5:20-22.)
    Now notice the angel's message to Belsazzar, when the time had arrived for Babylon's end:
    "Mene; Yahveh has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end." (Daniel 5:26.)
    Clearly, this is a heavenly reference to the 70 years that were determined against both Babylon and its king Nebuchadnezzar, from beginning to end, from the co-regency with his father to the co-regency with his son, Belsazzar.
    Assuming, as some historians have, that Nebuchadnezzar was a young general of about 18 years old when he defeated Assyria and Necho of Egypt the first time in 609 B.C.E., he would have been approximately 88 years old at the fall of Babylon.
    This means that he would have been about 70 years old when his sanity and the kingdom were restored, and approximately 63 when he lost his mind and kingdom due to his pride, ego and vanity.
    He would have been about 23 when he became the sole regent over Babylon, at the death of his father Nabopolassar.
    This, then, is the ultimate and sole historical truth concerning the Babylonian regent Nebuchadnezzar/Nabonidus, and the seventy years determined against his rulership over the surrounding nations through his pagan city/state of Babylon.
The Source of ALL Truth!     Scholars, historians and archaeologists, secular and religious alike, have missed this singular truth because they, like Nebuchadnezzar, have been given over to a form of insanity -- the inability to recognize and understand historical truths as revealed in scripture -- due to pride and vanity in their own human accomplishments and supposed erudition!
    Instead, Yahveh has revealed these secrets to His servants the prophets and teachers, those who serve Him meekly and honor Him alone as the author of all truth and the revealer of all His secrets of the past, present and future!

Nabonidus Cylinder ( Belshazzar : mentioned by Daniel )

This clay cylinder with a cuneiform inscription, found in Ur near the Euphrates River in 1854, was one of the most important discoveries in Biblical archaeology.

Nabonidus, King of Babylon

The last Babylonian king, before the conquest of the Medes and Persians in 539 B.C., was Nabonidus.  Herodotus, visiting Babylon around 450 B.C., called him Labynetos (probably the Greek form of “Nabonidus”).  He comes last in the king lists of Berossus and Ptolemy.
Although details differ, the general consensus of the ancient historians is as follows:

• Cyrus defeated Nabonidus in battle outside the city.
• Nabonidus fled, perhaps to Borsippa.
• After a brief siege, the Persians took Babylon without a fight.
• Soon after, Nabonidus surrendered, and Cyrus spared his life.
• Many officials in Babylon retained their positions.
• Herodotus said the Persians diverted the Euphrates, waded through waist-deep water into the city, and surprised the defenders.

According to all ancient historians, Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon.

Daniel and Belshazzar

Daniel 5 says Belshazzar was king, and was making a great feast when (famously) a hand appeared and wrote a message of judgment on the wall.  Daniel read the writing and Belshazzar made him the third ruler in the kingdom.  Belshazzar was killed that night, and the city taken by the Medes and Persians.  According to Daniel, Belshazzar was king in Babylon when it fell, and he was killed that night.

Skeptics Always Loved Belshazzar

Skeptics loved Belshazzar — he obviously didn’t exist.  In 1850, Ferdinand Hitzig (Das Buch Daniel) called Belshazzar “a figment of the writer’s imagination.” The historians all agreed — the last king was Nabonidus, not Belshazzar.  He was captured, not killed.  Daniel was obviously all wrong, written centuries later and totally inaccurate.
Daniel’s account of Belshazzar was the silver bullet that killed Biblical credibility.  What more could a skeptic want?

“Epic Fail”

A mere four years later, the cylinder above turned up, and Hitzig’s book became an “Epic Fail.”  The inscription records a prayer of Nabonidus asking the gods to bless his son, the man who didn’t exist — Belshazzar.

© Trustees of the British Museum

That was just a start.  This cylinder to the left (also mentioning Belshazzar), found at Sippar in the 1880s, is a “highlight” in the British Museum, but the one from Ur was found first (both are in room 55).  Many other discoveries mean we now know a lot more about Belshazzar.
He was co-regent with Nabonidus, ruling at home in his father’s extended absence.  The queen of Daniel 5:10-12 was probably his grandmother, the Queen Mother (one of Nebuchadnezzar’s daughters).  Now we know why Daniel was the “third” ruler — Nabonidus, Belshazzar, then Daniel.  In fact, the discoveries clarify a lot of things.
Nabonidus WAS the last king, and fled after the battle.  The co-regent Belshazzar thought the city was safe, so held a drunken feast.  He died that night (perhaps a small skirmish in the palace).  The city fell without a real fight, perhaps because everyone got drunk at Belshazzar’s feast so no one noticed the dropping river level.  Cyrus could spare Nabonidus, because the war was over when he surrendered (Cyrus liked to appear magnanimous, more on that when we come to the Cyrus Cylinder).  Daniel was apparently one of those officials who retained their positions in the Mede-Persian administration (Daniel 6).

Nabonidus Cylinder ( Belshazzar : mentioned by Daniel )

Posted on August 17, 2013 by Luchnia

Posted by Kevin McKinney : The Book of Daniel has always been surrounded by controversy and doubt. Traditional teaching tells us the Book was written by a single author, the prophet Daniel, in the sixth century B.C.. Both of these facts have come under attack by critics and scholars throughout the centuries. There are many aspects of Daniel that can be examined in order to evaluate both its accuracy and the dates in which it was written. Here the focus will be on a single issue, a Babylonian ruler named in the Book of Daniel. For many years critics believed the author of Daniel had fabricated the person of Belshazzar who was listed as a ruler of Babylon during the exile. These critics were silenced when archeologist made a major discovery almost 160 years ago in 1853.

Prior to the 1853 Nabonidus Cylinder discovery the name of Belshazzar did not appear in any other lists of Babylonian rulers. Because of this absence, except for the Biblical text, scholars of the day assumed Belshazzar was fabricated by the author of Daniel to fit his literary purposes. This is a mistake repeated by Bible critics throughout the ages. In cases such as the Hittites, Pontius Pilate, King David and others the critics assumed since these people were only named in the Bible, they must not be real living breathing people. In each case new discoveries have proved them wrong, as is the case with the Book of Daniel.

“Belshazzar the king made a great feast…” Daniel 5:1

In 1853 archeologist unearthed a clay cylinder approximately six inches in length. This find has come to be known as the Nabonidus Cylinder. Like many discoveries, this confirmation came not as a direct statement, but as a side note of a larger text. In the case of the Nabonidus Cylinder, it was not intended to list the rulers of Babylon, but was rather a commentary on repairs made to a temple. The temple was located in UR and was dedicated to the moon-god Sin. The repairs were commissioned by the King of Babylon at the time, Nabonidus.

Previous listing of rulers of Babylon included Nabonidus and he was kinown to be the last king of Babylon. Since no previous king had been named Belshazzar, and there were no kings after Nabonidus, then the author of Daniel must have made an error in the historical data, or fabricated the name entirely. This fueled the critics arguments until the Nabonidus Cylinder clarified the confusion surrounding the rulers of the Babylon during the exile.

In addition to the information concerning the temple repairs, the cylinder also contained a prayer by Nabonidus for his son and co-regent Belshazzar. It was found the previous lists were correct but lacked the historical details recorded in the Bible which included both rulers of Babylon during the time of the writing of Daniel. This artifact confirms the reliability and accuracy of the author, but it also helps to answer another pressing concern regarding the Book of Daniel, primarily when was the text actually written.

Nabodinus, Last Great King of Babylon

Understand BIble History : NEBUCHADNEZZAR (645-561 B.C.)

NEBUCHADNEZZAR (645-561 B.C.)

By Clarence Cook

With the death of Sardanapalus, the great monarch of Assyria, and the taking of Nineveh, the capital city, by the Medes, the kingdom of Assyria came to an end, and the vast domain was parcelled out among the conquerors. At the time of the catastrophe, the district of Babylonia, with its capital city Babylon, was ruled as a dependent satrapy of Assyria by Nabopolassar. Aided by the Medes, he now took possession of the province and established himself as an independent monarch, strengthening the alliance by a marriage between the Princess Amuhia, the daughter of the Median king, and his son Nebuchadnezzar.
In the partition of Assyria, the region stretching from Egypt to the upper Euphrates, including Syria, Phœnicia, and Palestine, had fallen to the share of Nabopolassar. But the tribes that peopled it were not disposed to accept the rule of the new claimant, and looked about for an ally to support them in their resistance. Such an ally they thought they had found in Egypt.
Egypt was the great rival of Babylon, as she had been of Assyria. Both desired to control the highways of traffic connecting the Mediterranean with the farther East. Egypt had the advantage, both from her actual position on the Mediterranean and her nearer neighborhood to the coveted territory, and she used her advantage with audacity and skill. No sooner, however, did Nabopolassar feel himself firm on his throne than he resolved to check the ambition of Egypt and secure for himself the sovereignty of the lands in dispute.
The task was not an easy one. Pharaoh Necho had been for three years in possession of the whole strip along the Mediterranean—Palestine, Phœnicia, and part of Syria—and was pushing victoriously on to Assyria, when he was met at the plain of Megiddo, commanding the principal pass in the range of Mount Carmel, by the forces of the petty kingdom of Judah, disputing his advance. He defeated them in a bloody engagement, in which Josiah, King of Judah, was slain, and then continued his march to Carchemish, a stronghold built to defend one of the few fordable passes of the upper Euphrates. This important place having been taken after a bloody battle, Necho was master of all the strategic points north and west of Babylonia.
Nebuchadnezzar was now put in command of an army, to force Pharaoh to give up his prey. Marching directly upon Carchemish, he attacked the Egyptian and defeated him with great slaughter. Following up his victory, he wrested from Pharaoh, in engagement after engagement, all that he had gained in Syria, Phœnicia, and Palestine, and was in the midst of fighting in Egypt itself, when the news came of the death of his father; and he hastened home at once by forced marches to secure his possession of the throne. In his train were captives of all the nations he had conquered: Syrians, Phœnicians, Jews, and Egyptians. Among the Jewish prisoners was Daniel, the author of the book of the Old Testament called by his name, and to whom we owe the little personal knowledge we have of the great Babylonian monarch.
Of all the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar in this long struggle with Egypt, that of the Jewish people is the most interesting to us. The Jews had fought hard for independence, but if they must be conquered and held in subjection, they preferred the rule of Egypt to that of Babylon. Even the long slavery of their ancestors in that country and the sufferings it had entailed, with the tragic memories of the exodus and the wanderings in the desert, had not been potent to blot out the traditions of the years passed in that pleasant land with its delicious climate, its nourishing and abundant food. Alike in prosperity and in evil days the hearts of the people of Israel yearned after Egypt, and the denunciations of her prophets are never so bitter as when uttered against those who turned from Jehovah to worship the false gods of the Nile. Three times did the inhabitants of Jerusalem rebel against the rule of Babylon, and three times did Nebuchadnezzar come down upon them with a cruel and unrelenting vengeance, carrying off their people into bondage, each time inflicting great damage upon the city and leaving her less capable of resistance; yet each time her rulers had turned to Egypt in the vain hope of finding in her a defence against the oppressor, but in every instance Egypt had proved a broken reed.
Of the three successive kings of Judah whom Nebuchadnezzar had left to rule the city as his servants, and who had all in turn rebelled against him, one had been condemned to perpetual imprisonment in Babylon; a second had been carried there in chains and probably killed, while the third, captured in a vain attempt to escape after the taking of the city, had first been made to see his sons killed before his eyes, had then been cruelly blinded, and afterward carried in chains to Babylon, and cast into prison. The last siege of the city lasted eighteen months, and when it was finally taken by assault, its ruin was complete. By previous deportations Jerusalem had been deprived of her princes, her warriors, her craftsmen, and her smiths, with all the treasure laid up in the palace of her kings, and all the vessels of gold and silver consecrated to the worship of Jehovah. Little then was left for her to suffer, when the punishment of her latest rebellion came. Her walls were thrown down, her temple, her chief glory, was destroyed, the greater part of the inhabitants who had survived the prolonged siege were carried off to swell the crowd of exiles already in Babylon, and only a few of the humbler sort of folk, the vine-dressers and the small farmers, were left behind.
When Nebuchadnezzar rested after his conquests, secure in the subjugation of his rivals, and in the possession of his vast kingdom, he gave himself up to the material improvement of Babylon and the surrounding country. The city as he left it, at the end of his reign of forty-three years, was built on both sides of the Euphrates, and covered a space of four hundred square miles, equal to five times the size of London. It was surrounded by a triple wall of brick; the innermost, over three hundred feet high, and eighty-five feet broad at the top, with room for four chariots to drive abreast. The walls were pierced by one hundred gate-ways framed in brass and with brazen gates, and at the points where the Euphrates entered and left the city the walls also turned and followed the course of the river, thus dividing the city into two fortified parts. These two districts were connected by a bridge of stone piers, guarded by portcullises, and ferries also plied between the quays that lined the river-banks, to which access was given by gates in the walls.
Nebuchadnezzar's palace was a splendid structure covering a large space at one end of the bridge. In the central court were the Hanging Gardens, the chief glory of the city, and reckoned one of the wonders of the world. No clear idea can be formed of these gardens from any description that has come down to us, but it would appear that arches eighty feet high supported terraces of earth planted with all the skill for which the gardeners of the East were famous. We are told that they were built for the pleasure of Queen Amuhia, who, as a Median princess, missed her native mountains, but a more commonplace explanation is that they were carried so high to escape the mosquitoes that swarmed on the lower level.
Various splendid edifices, chiefly religious, adorned the great squares of the city: the temple of the god Bel, enriched by the spoils of Tyre and Jerusalem, was the especial pride of Nebuchadnezzar. It rose in a succession of eight lofty stages, and supported on the top a golden statue of the god, forty feet high. Still another temple of Bel was built in seven stages, each faced with enamelled brick of one of the planetary colors; the topmost one of blue, the color dedicated to Mercury or Nebo, the patron god of Nabopolassar.
But the most important of the civic undertakings of Nebuchadnezzar was the extension of the great system of canalization by which the barren wastes of the Babylonian plain were made to rival the valley of the Nile in fertility, and become the granary of the East. The whole territory was covered with a network of canals fed by the Tigris and Euphrates, and used for both irrigation and navigation. One branch had already connected Nineveh with Babylon, and another constructed by Nebuchadnezzar united Babylon to the Persian Gulf, running a distance of four hundred miles. This is still to be traced in a portion of its length.
The fate of Nebuchadnezzar is one of the most tragic in the long list of calamities that have overtaken the great and powerful of the earth. According to Daniel, it was just after the king had spoken those words of exulting pride as he walked in the palace of the Kingdom of Babylon: "Is not this great Babylon that I have built," when he was attacked by that dreadful form of madness, called by the Greeks, lycanthropy (wolf-man), in which the victim fancies himself a beast: in its fiercer manifestations a beast of the forest, or in milder visitations a beast of the field. Nebuchadnezzar's madness became so violent that for four years he was exiled from his throne and from the company of men, and wandered in the fields, eating grass like oxen, "and his body was wet with the dews of heaven, and his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws." Although no mention is made of this strange malady in any writing but the book of Daniel, yet it has a pathetic confirmation in one of the rock-cut inscriptions that record the acts of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. "For four years the seat of my kingdom did not rejoice my heart. In all my dominions I built no high place of power, nor did I lay up the precious treasure of my kingdom. In Babylon I erected no buildings for myself nor for the glory of my empire. In the worship of Bel-Merodach, my Lord, the joy of my heart, in Babylon the city of his worship and the seat of my empire, I did not sing his praise, nor did I furnish his altar with victims"—and then, as if returning to the thing that lay nearest him—"In four years I did not dig out the canals."

"And he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen."

In time, the black cloud of the king's madness passed away and health and reason were restored to him. And if the words that Daniel puts into the king's mouth on his recovery are really his, we must recognize in this Eastern Despot a decided strain of religious sensibility, a trait that appears beside in his almost passionate expressions of affection for his god Merodach, and in his sympathy with Daniel and the youths who were his companions, in their own religious devotion. Although Daniel and the other youths whom the king had caused to be called out from the mass of the Jewish captives for his own particular service—boys distinguished from the rest by their personal beauty, their intelligence and aptitude—were too earnest in their religious convictions and too high-spirited to conform to the Babylonian religion or to conceal their sentiments under the cloak of policy, yet the king tolerated their adherence to their ritual and yielded only in part to the persistence of the Jew-baiters, who saw with angry eyes the promotion of the hated captives to places of power and authority over the heads of their captors. In spite of his enemies Daniel was allowed to exercise his own religion in peace; and the persecutors of his companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were themselves destroyed in the furnace they had heated for their innocent victims, which the youths themselves were rescued from by the personal interposition of the king, who pretended to see—or in his religious exaltation did really see—the god himself standing guard over the victims in the midst of the flames.
Of Nebuchadnezzar after the recovery of his reason we learn but little. The chronicle of Daniel passes abruptly from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar, and the great king is not mentioned again. History, too, is silent. It tells us only that he left the throne to a son, whose name, Evil-Merodach, records the devotion of his father to the god of his people.

How to explain the PassOver discepancy

How Do We Explain the Passover "Discrepancy"?

By: Tim Staples

---

Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on email Share on print Share on gmail More Sharing Services

Some call into question the historical accuracy of the Gospels because of the apparent discrepancy between the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the Gospel of John as to the date of the Passover in the year our Lord was crucified. In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus offers the Lord’s Supper "on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb" (Mark 14:12; cf. Matt. 26:17, Luke 22:7). That would mean Jesus said the first Mass on Thursday, the fourteenth of Nisan. This was "the day of preparation" for the Passover when the lambs were slain and the meal prepared to be eaten in the evening according to Ex. 12:6. However, John tells us that Jesus was crucified on the "day of preparation" in John 19:31. That would seem to make Friday, the fourteenth of Nisan, the day of preparation. Saturday would then have been both the Sabbath and the Passover. Is there a contradiction here? Let’s take a look.

First, we need to ask two very important questions. Can we surmise what day the Passover occurred and what day the Lord was crucified two thousand years ago? The answer to both questions is yes. We can be fairly certain of both. First, some background investigation is in order.

Do the Math

Dionysius Exiguus, a monk who died in A.D. 556, is the man who determined the date of our Lord’s birth as the year 753 (years were then counted from the year Rome was founded) using the information available to him at the time. He made the following year, 754, A.D. 1, and so on. Hence was born the system of dating that has been used by most of the world for two thousand years.
With new information available to us, we have found Dionysius to be remarkably accurate in his computation. He was off only about six years. Flavius Josephus tells us in both The Jewish War (I.33.1, 5, 6, 8; II.1.3) and in Jewish Antiquities (XVII.6.1, 4-5; XVII.8.1; XVII.9), that King Herod died in 750. If Jesus was born "in the days of Herod the King" (cf. Matt. 2:1) then he had to be born before 750. This moves Jesus’ birth back at least three years from the traditional date determined by Dionysius. Given that Herod ordered the killing of all male children under the age of two (see Matt. 2:16), Jesus was most likely born roughly a year before this order was given. And because Herod had to be alive to give the order, this pushes Jesus’ birth back at least to about 748 or 749. Furthermore, Josephus tells us that Herod became ill shortly after this event and traveled to Jericho (a warmer climate) to heal, where he died six months later. This moves the date of our Lord’s birth back still further. When we add these factors together, we find that Dionysius’ calendar was off about six years, meaning that Christ would have been born about 747 or 748 (5 or 6 B.C.).

How Old was Jesus?

Luke 3:23 reveals that Jesus was baptized by John and began his ministry at "about the age of thirty." Luke 3:1-2 is more exact when it says John the Baptist began to preach

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and Phillip his brother tetrarch of Iturea, and the country of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilina; under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas . . .

Not much time seems to elapse between John’s beginning to preach and his baptism of Jesus. This was John’s mission—to "prepare the way of the Lord" as Luke 1:76 says. If John baptized Christ in the same year he began preaching, that would have been 780 (A.D. 27) because Tiberius was made Caesar to govern the eastern provinces under the reign of Augustus, which began in 765. Jesus, then, would have been about 32 or 33 when he began his public ministry.
The existence of all of the men mentioned in Luke’s Gospel can be verified from historical records, but the mention of Pontius Pilate is most helpful because he became procurator in Judea in A.D. 26. Jesus could not, therefore, have begun his ministry prior to A.D. 26. So we know we are right on track here.
Another note of interest: When Jesus cast the moneychangers out of the temple in John 2, he said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again" (John 2:19). The Jews told him it took "forty-six years" to build the temple. They speak as if the temple was completed. We know that the temple did take forty-six years to build and that it was completed around A.D. 25-26, according to Jewish Antiquities of Josephus, XV.11.1. This fact reiterates what have seen so far, that Jesus most likely began his public ministry in A.D. 27 at about 32 or 33 years of age.

How Long Did Jesus Minister?

We know from John’s Gospel that Jesus’ ministry lasted either two years and three months or, more likely, three years and three months. The traditional month of Jesus’ baptism is January. That is why we add the three months from January until April (when Jesus was crucified). The three years are deduced by adding up the Passovers during Christ’s ministry. John 2:13, John 6:4, and John 13:1 explicitly record three Passovers during Jesus’ ministry. John 5:1 refers to "a feast day of the Jews," but it does not say Passover. So there is some question as to whether Jesus’ ministry was two or three years in duration. Three years seems most likely.
Having established this, we can simply look at the Jewish calendar and see that in A.D. 30, Passover fell on Friday. That lends credence to the theory that Jesus’ ministry was three years in duration. And remember, that means the fourteenth of Nisan would have been Thursday. This would have been the day of preparation when the lamb was slain and the Passover meal eaten in the evening. The Jewish people counted their days as beginning the evening of the previous day. The actual day of Passover is the fifteenth of Nisan. The only other year near A.D. 30 that Passover would have occurred on Friday was A.D. 33. Some do maintain that this was the year our Lord was crucified, but it does not fit with the rest of the facts as well. So we can be fairly certain that our Lord was crucified in A.D. 30.

Just the Facts, Please

We know for certain that our Lord died on Friday (cf. Matt. 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, and John 19:31). We know it occurred in the month of Nisan (April) because it was the time of Passover. But the question remains: Why in the synoptic Gospels does Jesus celebrate the Passover on Thursday night (and, of course, given the fact that Passover fell on Friday in that year, this would be expected), but in the Gospel of John, Friday is "the day of preparation"? According to John, Passover fell on Saturday, which is why he refers to it as a "great Sabbath day" (cf. John 19:31). It was not only the Sabbath, but it was Passover as well. We still have to deal with this apparent contradiction.
According to The Navarre Study Bible, in Mark’s Gospel the Pharisees and Sadducees had a different way of celebrating feast days (51-52). The Pharisees were strict in their observance. If the fifteenth of Nisan fell on Friday, then that would be the day they celebrated the Passover. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were more liberal and had no problem with moving a feast day in certain situations. This practice is analogous to our modern practice of moving some feast days to Sunday when they actually occur during the week (as is commonly practiced with the feast of the Epiphany). It could also be likened to the bishops declaring a holy day not obligatory because of the day upon which it happens to fall. For example, if a holy day falls on a Friday, the bishops will sometimes dispense Catholics from the obligation of attending Mass on that particular holy day for that year.
What does all of this mean? When Jesus actually celebrated the Passover, he did it in the traditional way of the Pharisees. That is what we see in the synoptic Gospels. With the Pharisees, Jesus kept the Passover strictly in accord with what Moses said in Ex. 12. However, when John wrote about Christ’s passion, he does not put the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper that the synoptic Gospel writers do. In fact, he does not mention the Lord’s Supper at all. He emphasizes the crucifixion. Only in passing, as he describes the activity of the day, does John mention that it was "the day of preparation." John was not speaking of the practice of Jesus and the apostles; he was speaking of the practice of the Sadducees, who had a large number of priests in their camp and great influence in the culture at the time. This fact explains why John calls Friday the "day of preparation" instead of Thursday. The Sadducees, who moved the Passover to Saturday, celebrated the day of preparation on Friday, rather than on Thursday as Jesus and the apostles did.

Jesus Agreed with Pharisees?

These facts lead to some interesting anecdotes. Most people would agree that Jesus was very quick to correct both Sadducees and Pharisees in his teaching. For example, he showed them both to be in need of a deeper understanding of marriage when the question concerned divorce and remarriage, as in Matt. 19:3-9. The Pharisees believed that only in certain cases, such as adultery, could one divorce, while the Sadducees would grant divorce for just about anything. Though the Pharisees were closer to the truth, Jesus urged all involved to a deeper understanding when he elevated marriage to the level of a sacrament and declared, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6).
Yet, when Jesus spoke of the communion of saints in Luke 20:27-39, he agreed with the position of the Pharisees. Remember, the Sadducees did not believe in the Resurrection, or in angels, or in the reality of spirit at all (see Luke 20:27 and Acts 23:8). They also believed only in the first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah. It is interesting to note that in Luke 20, a group of these same Sadducees thought they would show up both Jesus and the Pharisees at the same time by using a story from Tobit 3:7ff against Jesus. They were going to "prove" that either there was serious error in Tobit and thus, Jesus and the Pharisees would be wrong about its divine origin; or, if Tobit were to be accepted as true, then the resurrection could not be true. Therefore Jesus and the Pharisees would be wrong about a matter they deemed essential to the true faith.
How did the Sadducees go about this? They knew Jesus believed, as did the Pharisees, in the canonicity of Tobit, so they cleverly used a "hypothetical" woman—in reality referring to Sarah from Tobit 3—and said:

There were therefore seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the next took her to wife, and he also died childless. And the third took her. And in like manner all the seven, and they left no children, and died. Last of all, the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? (Luke 20:29-33)

Jesus, the apostles, and any Pharisee listening would have immediately thought of the story of Sarah, who is depicted in Tobit 3 as having had seven husbands, all of whom were brothers, each killed by the demon Asmodeus when they married her, and before Sarah could conceive a child. In other words, each of these seven brothers "died childless." This story may seem strange to us today, but in keeping with the law of the Torah (Deut. 25:5), each of these brothers was actually fulfilling his responsibility as a faithful Jew. The law stated that if a man, as was the case here, were to die without having "raised up seed," his brothers would have the responsibility to ensure that one of them in fact "raised up seed" in his name.
They Sadducees’ plan was almost perfect. They knew that polyandry was never allowed by God in Scripture. Thus, if all of these brothers had Sarah to wife, whose wife would she be in the so-called afterlife? The Sadducees no doubt asked the question with a smirk on their faces, certain that they had stumped our Lord. They were in for quite a surprise.
Jesus answered them definitively in Luke 20:34-38 when he explained marriage to be a sacrament for this life, not the next. In other words, Sarah would not belong to any of these brothers because marriage is "until death do us part" as we say. And Jesus didn’t stop there. He went on to explain that those who die in Christ are not dead—at least in one sense—they are alive, "for all live to him" (verse 38). Jesus here clearly sided with the Pharisees, and in turn the Pharisees responded to Jesus and said, "Master, thou hast said well" (verse 39).
So it should not surprise us that Jesus lived liturgically in accord with the Pharisees rather than the Sadducees when it came to the Passover. After all, Jesus himself acknowledged that the Pharisees and scribes who sit "in the chair of Moses" must be obeyed. It was not that Jesus tended to side with the "more conservative" Pharisees over the Sadducees. Jesus simply followed the legitimate authority that he, as God, had established in Israel. At the same time, Jesus was quick to correct the "traditions of men" of either the Pharisees or the Sadducees in the process of bringing to the entire world the fullness of God’s revelation.

---

Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of...

more...