Sir Robert Anderson (1841 to 1948) was one of the leading Christian Brethren of his era and wrote many books on Bible prophecy that are still highly respected today. He was a lawyer and for many years was Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard and Chief of the Crime Investigation Department (CID).
Sir Robert Anderson is possibly best known for his interpretation of Daniel's 70 Weeks in his book "The Coming Prince". This was revised by Harold Hoehner in his excellent book "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ" published in 1973. However, it is now widely recognised that Anderson's calculations and Hoehner's revision are faulty.
A Continuous Series of 490 years
Anderson claimed to have found the exact fulfilment (to the very day) of Daniel's 70 Weeks. Anderson noticed that the 70th Week has yet to be fulfilled (Daniel 9:27), so he divided the first 69 weeks (483 years) from the 70th week (7 years), even though Daniel 9:24 considers them as a continuous series of 490 years.
360-day Prophetic Year
To make his calculation work, he used a year of 360 days which he calls a prophetic year. This is based on twelve 30-day months which are only mentioned twice in the Bible - during the 150 days of the flood deluge (see Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:3-4) and during the second half of the tribulation (see Revelation 12:6; Revelation 13:5). Revelation 12:14 calls these 42 months of 30 days "3½ times". The 360-day year is a Babylonian "time", and is never referred to in scripture as a year.
It is interesting that both the 150 days of the flood deluge and the 42 months of the second half of the tribulation, when "times" are used for dating in the Bible, are periods of judgement!
Anderson's Calculation
The basic premise of Anderson's calculation is that...
483 "prophetic" years x 360 days = 173,880 days
Start point
Anderson took as his starting point the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes, when Nehemiah requested and received permission from the King to continue the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. Anderson's date for the this was 445 BC. Nehemiah 2:1 does say it was in the month Nisan that Nehemiah received his commission from Artaxerxes, and Anderson assumed this meant Nisan 1 which he calculated was ...
14th March 445 BC
based on Nisan 1 being the day after a New Moon that he understood to have occurred on 13th March 445 BC. Sir Robert Anderson was a lawyer and for many years was Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard and Chief of the Crime Investigation Department (CID). As a respected man in his day, he was able to obtain help from influential sources and he obtained his information on new moons from G B Airy, the Astronomer Royal, who referred to Largeteau's Lunar Tables prepared in 1846.
End point
He counted his 173,880 days representing prophetic years of 360 days inclusively from this date of 14th March 445 BC. He did this by converting as follows...
173,880 days = 476 years 24 days
He included 116 extra days for leap years. His calculation ended on...
6th April 32 AD
which he claimed was 10th Nisan 32 AD, the date of Messiah's triumphal entry into Jerusalem 4 days before the Cross. Since this was Jesus' official presentation of Himself to Israel as the Messiah this seems to be an impressive end point for the 483 years. In Anderson's scheme, at this point God stopped the prophetic clock for Israel and will only start it again when the tribulation begins and the last 70th week of 7 years will run to complete the 490 years of Daniel's prophecy.
The apparent accurate fulfilment to the day provided by this interpretation is very impressive. For this reason many who believe in the literal fulfilment of Bible Prophecy accept Anderson's calculation. However, when we look at the calculation in more detail, unfortunately we find it is in erroneous on practically every level.
Anderson's Theory Doesn't Work!
Wrong Intervening Period
There is a serious calculation error hidden in his mixing of 2 calendars, which by itself invalidates his calculation. Anderson explicitly states that he uses the Julian Solar Calendar for his dates. However, in the Julian Solar Calendar...
14th March 445 BC to 6th April 32 AD =
173,883 days inclusively
NOT
173,880 days inclusively
as required for his scheme of 483 prophetic years of 360 days!
What did he do wrong?
The Julian Solar Calendar is longer than a true solar year by about 3 days in 4 centuries. As a result, our English calendar was adjusted in 1752 by 11 days so that Easter would be celebrated at the time it thought the First Council of Nicaea had agreed upon in 325 AD. 3rd September was declared to be the 14th September and the Gregorian Solar Calendar was introduced so that there are no leap years at the turn of the century every 400 years and the calendar now stays in line with the sun.
In trying to use corrected Julian Solar years, Anderson created a mix-up between Julian and Gregorian Solar Calendars. The problem is that Anderson used Gregorian years when calculating the number of days between two Julian dates. If we use Julian dates, we must also use Julian years, and if we use Gregorian dates we must use Gregorian years. We cannot mix the two calendars in the way that he did.
He included 116 extra days for leap years between 445 BC and 32 AD. This is the number of extra days required in the Gregorian Solar Calendar. But he was using the Julian Solar Calendar, so he should have added 119 extra days for leap years between 445 BC and 32 AD. This would have given him 173,883 days inclusively between the two Julian dates of 14 March 445 BC and 6 April 32, which is 3 days too many for his 483 prophetic years of 360 days.
If Anderson had calculated correctly between his two Julian dates of 14 March 445 BC and 6 April 32 AD, he would have got a difference of 173,883 days rather than the 173,880 days that he was looking for.
Because Anderson calculated incorrectly between the two Gregorian dates of 14 March 445 BC and 6 April 32 AD, he managed to get the difference of 173,880 days that he was looking for.
JD
The Chronological Julian Day (JD) is a continuous series of days starting at midnight at the beginning of 1st January 4713 BC Greenwich (Universal Time) that enables us to work with different calendars and to unify different historical chronologies. It makes it easy to work out the time between 2 events by simply subtracting one Julian Day number from the other! Note this is a variant of the simple Julian Day system that started 12 hours later at noon on 1st January 4713 BC.
Wrong Day to Start From
Rabbinical records tell us that Jewish months back then began the day after spotting the new moon that could just be seen with the naked eye soon after sunset. According to the lunar data Anderson used, at sunset on the evening of March 13th the moon would have been only 11 hours old, too young to be seen. Thus the new month could not have begun until the evening of 14th March, making 15th March the first day of the new month, not 14th March even if his lunar data from 1846 was correct.
However, we can calculate from Nasa's much more accurate lunar tables that the new moon in March 445 BC was probably 11th March, 2 days earlier than Anderson thought, making the discrepancy 5 days - worse by another 2 days.
Wrong Month to Start From
14th March Julian (9th March Gregorian) is too early in the year to be considered Nisan 1st.
We have 2 resources that tell us something about the calendar back in the 5th century BC during and after the captivity in Babylon: Jewish scribal papyri from Elephantine, Egypt and cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia . Both indicate that 14th March is too early in the year to be considered Nisan, the first month of the Jewish year. Thus in 445 BC, Nisan would have begun after the new moon of April, not after the new moon of March, making 13th April the true Nisan 1 using Anderson's calculations, not 14th March.
Wrong Year to Start From
Although we've shown that Anderson's calculation is demonstrably wrong from a technical point of view, it is appropriate to also mention that his candidate for the starting year of Daniel's 70 Weeks in Nisan 445 BC, the so-called decree in the 20th year of Artaxerxes described in Nehemiah 2:2-8, does not agree well with the description of Daniel 9:25...
"from the going forth of the command (decree of divine origin - "dabar") to restore and build Jerusalem"
The prophecy should really be tied to the decree of Artaxerxes in the 7th year of his reign, Nisan 458 BC, described in Ezra 7:11-28 (with the most heavily emphasised series of dates in the Bible), not the decree in the 20th year of his reign. The simple fact is that there is no decree recorded from the 20th year of Artaxerxes in the book of Nehemiah! The earlier decrees of Cyrus in Ezra 1:2-4 and Darius Ezra 6:1-12 focused on the building of the Temple, but it is only in Artaxerxes' decree in his 7th year, as recorded in Ezra 7:11-28, that there is a restoration of the judiciary (self-government). At the start of his reign, Artaxerxes ordered that Jerusalem could not be rebuilt with walls until he gave the command (Ezra 4:21, see Ezra 4:11-16). This command was then given in Ezra 7:11-28 in his 7th year, 458 BC, where the king makes a decree which clearly has divine origin coming directly from God's throne (Ezra 7:27) as the word dabar requires. This decree imparted full authority to Israel for self-government so that it could function as a city under the Persian Empire. This command also gave them authority to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem as Ezra 9:9 explicitly tells us. For some reason this last passage is often ignored and the edict of Nehemiah 2:2-8 is commonly described as the only decree (it isn't even a decree) that commands the rebuilding of the walls.
This is also a logical consequence from the context of the Ezra 7:11-28 decree. It was the reversal of the Ezra 4:21 command made by Artaxerxes, probably in the first year of his reign, which forbade them rebuilding the city and its wall. Ezra went ahead and developed the spiritual and civil aspects of Israel's government. However, fears due to longstanding implacable local opposition to the rebuilding of Jerusalem (see Ezra 4:1-4) meant that this rebuilding did not take effect for another 13 years when only the arrival of Nehemiah made it possible. Nehemiah had great courage and also favour with the Persian King. Through the strong leadership of Nehemiah, Israel was able to overcome their fears and enemies and implement their authority to rebuild the city.
Nehemiah was galvanized into action in Nehemiah 1:1-11 when he received the report that the King's earlier decree in 458 BC had not resulted in the rebuilding of Jerusalem. So he sought and received permission to accomplish this neglected task. The important issue is that Nehemiah was simply released by the King to implement an earlier decree. There is no new decree in the book of Nehemiah!
The dominant decree in Ezra - Nehemiah around which all the action is based is the one in Artaxerxes' 7th year described in Ezra 7:11-28. That's why it is emphasised so strongly and dated so exactly, as if God was underlining it.
Thus the only possible start date for the 70 Weeks is 458 BC.
This agrees with the prophecy itself in Daniel 9:24,25 which says there would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and that it would be rebuilt as a fortified city within the first 7 Weeks (49 years) in troublesome times, ie against much opposition.
Whilst Cyrus' decree in 537 BC to rebuild the Temple resulted in the resettlement of Jerusalem, this prophecy was not fulfilled in the years 537 BC - 488 BC. It was however clearly fulfilled in the days of Ezra - Nehemiah between 458 BC - 409 BC.
Wrong Day to End With
There are major problems with Anderson's ending date of 6th April 32 AD. His theory called for it to be Nisan 10. He explains it this way...
For example, in AD 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 15th April, then obviously Nisan 10 fell on 10th April, not 6th April! He continues...
But the calendar may have been further disturbed by intercalation. According to the scheme of the eight years' cycle, the embolismal month was inserted in the third, sixth, and eighth years, and an examination of the calendars from AD 22 to AD 45 will show that AD 32 was the third year of such a cycle. As, therefore, the difference between the solar year and the lunar is 11 days, it would amount in three years to 33½ days, and the intercalation of a thirteenth month (Ve-adar) of thirty days would leave an epact still remaining of 3½ 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's because it doesn't make sense. It is 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 31st March, weather permitting, making 1st April Nisan 1, and 10th April (not 6th April) Nisan 10. Therefore Nisan 10 occurred at the earliest on 10th April, not 6th April as Anderson supposed.
Wrong Year to End With
No one except those who ascribe to Anderson's theory suggests 32 AD as a possible date for the death of Christ. 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
Israel Used a Lunisolar Calendar
During the period of Daniel's 70 weeks from the decree of Daniel 9 to the death of Christ, we have extensive historical evidence that the Jews used a lunisolar calendar. These calendars have been used in many cultures where the date indicates both the moon phase and the time of the solar year. The year must have a whole number of months, in which case most years have 12 months but every second or third year has 13 months.
In Israel's case, the lunisolar calendar is needed to 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 20/21st March) 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.
Anderson's theory relies on using a 360-day year, which he calls a prophetic year.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 judgment, and it seems that this is when God uses the 360-day year.
We should expect the Bible to refer to Jewish lunisolar years when setting the timetable of the coming of Messiah to Israel, not to a Babylonian Time that is only used of times of judgement.
That the lunisolar 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 25:1-55. 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 lunisolar 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 Anderson and Hoehner's 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 lunisolar years that stay aligned with the seasons. Such years must on average be 365.2425 days in length, not 360.
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 the land to have its full quota of rest years that they had not kept (Leviticus 26:34,35). Jeremiah 29:10 later specified that the Jews would be captives in Babylon for 70 years, and this 70 years of desolation is explicitly said to correspond to the number of sabbatical years that had not been kept (2Chronicles 36:21). Thus, Daniel's reference to 70 years of desolation in Daniel 9:2 speaks 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 70 x 7 years were Jewish lunisolar years then surely the other set of 70 x 7 years are also to be understood as lunisolar. Thus the context as well as the natural meaning of the language surely tells us that the years in this prophecy are Jewish lunisolar years not Babylonian Times. This is the plain meaning of the prophecy.
