Over the past year I’ve had the privilege of corresponding with Rick Lanser of the well respected Christian apologetics ministry – Associates for Biblical Research (ABR). Through their Biblical research and archaeological endeavors, ABR is an organization at the forefront of Biblical apologetics. Besides their great website they are the authors of the respected periodical Bible and Spade magazine.
Mr. Lanser is the Executive Editor of Bible and Spade magazine and author of numerous articles at their very informative website: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
Last year I was intrigued by an ongoing research project by Mr. Lanser entitled, The Daniel 9:24-27 Project: The Framework for Messianic Chronology. As regular readers of this blog know, I am passionately interested in the 70 Sevens prophecy so naturally I was drawn to Mr. Lanser’s articles. As part of his research project, on a monthly basis all last year Mr. Lanser laid the chronological foundation for the life of Yeshua. In my opinion he did a fantastic job in showing why 30 AD is the most reasonable date for the death and resurrection of Yeshua.
Several times last year I wrote to Mr. Lanser offering comments and some constructive criticisms on this effort and he was gracious and thorough in his responses. We had a very nice and cordial conversation on several topics related to this subject.
At some point Mr. Lanser unbeknownst to me ran across articles on my website related to 2nd Temple chronology, Ezra, Nehemiah, and their chronological relationship to Persian kings “Artaxerxes”. This past week Mr. Lanser wrote to me letting me know that these article really challenged him to dig into the subject and while he respected my research related to the 2 temple era he was publishing a critical article about it on the ABR website. His article is entitled: The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25
I’ve read Mr. Lanser’s article and it is a very in-depth, yet critical exploration of my premise that the most reasonable reading of the Bible’s 2nd temple era chronology places Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries of Darius ‘the great’ Artaxerxes. As many of you who regularly read this blog know, Ezra and Nehemiah and their chronological relationship to the Persian era, is the bedrock upon which Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens rests. Mr. Lanser, like few other scholars today, understands just how important this chronology is to our view of Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens as well as so many other related chronological and eschatological subjects.
While I would have preferred a more agreeable view of my writings on the 2nd temple era chronology, I am frankly thrilled that someone of Mr. Lanser’s knowledge and standing was willing to take a serious look at this most important subject. Like most of my critics Mr. Lanser has challenged me to look at the subject from another perspective and caused me to dig deeper into this wonderful subject than I’ve heretofore done. Just as importantly though, is the fact that Mr. Lanser has done all of us a great favor by bringing this often neglected subject out into the open where it can be discussed and better understood by the body of Christ.
For this I am and will be indebted to Mr. Lanser.
My hope is that those of you reading theses words will honor Mr. Lanser’s effort by carefully reading his explanations and criticisms of my work. Frankly, if you’ve ever read, preached, or talked to someone about Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens prophecy then this is no less than your Berean’s duty. It’s just good stewardship.
Over the coming weeks I will be responding to the pertinent points of Mr. Lanser’s criticism in an effort to further clarify and refine my perspective on this very important subject. After reading Mr. Lanser’s article I believe there are several critical points of chronology and textual interpretation where he has made some serious errors and I will be addressing them in the same respectful but direct manner that he has shown in his article The Seraiah Assumption.
For ease of reading and hopefully clarity I won’t be responding to all of the points raised in Mr. Lanser’s article at one time. Instead, Yahweh willing, I will be responding to the important points of his articles one at a time over the coming weeks. In each article I hope to break the subject down into building blocks which stand alone in their own right, each of which we can then use to build a more thorough and contextual understanding of this very important subject.
The Persian Chronology of Ezra 4
To start with my first article will look at Mr. Lanser’s interpretation of Ezra 4 and its foundational context for understanding the Persian era and its relationship to Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s place in it. It is here that I believe Mr. Lanser makes a critical interpretational error which charts his exploration of the subject on an erroneous course. Out of respect for Mr. Lanser I’ve invited him to respond to these articles if he thinks it necessary to bring further clarity to his position and the subject in general.
I’d also like to hear your thoughts on this subject as we explore it over the coming weeks. Please keep you comments edifying. As I’ve stated in the past I will not tolerate any personal insults or innuendo at this blog. You are welcome to disagree or be critical of my or anyone’s interpretation but if you’d like your comments posted please keep them edifying and related to the subject at hand.
In the mean time I hope you’ll read Mr. Lanser’s article here: The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25
Finally, it is my hope that this investigation will ultimately strengthen your faith in the Bible as an accurate testimony of past, present, and future history as it relates to Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind.
I look forward to exploring this subject with you over the coming weeks,
Maranatha!
Authors Note:
This is a multi-part series of articles responding to the Associates for Biblical Research criticism of my view of 2nd temple history as presented in an article on their website entitled The Seraiah Assumption.
Articles related to this series:
The Seraiah Assumption by Rick Lanser of Associates for Biblical Research
The Seraiah Assumption: Wrapping up Loose Ends by Rick Lanser
My response to Rick Lanser’s – The Seraiah Assumption:
Introduction – The Associates for Biblical Research Responds to the Artaxerxes Assumption
Part I – Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4
Part II – Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem
Part III – Darius the great Persian Artaxerxes: A Contextual Look at the Book of Ezra in the Light of Persian History
Part IV – Darius and the Kingdom of Arta
Part V – Darius, Artaxerxes, & the Bible: Confirming Royal Persian Titulature
Part VI – Mordecai & the Chronological Context of Esther
Part VII – Esther, Ahasuerus, & Artaxerxes: Who was the Persian King of 127 Provinces?
Part VIII – Darius I: A Gentile King at the Crux of Jewish Messianic History
Part IX – The Priests & Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12: Exploring the Papponymy Assumption
Pingback: Daniel 9: A Word, Decree, or Commandment? | Daniel's Seventy Weeks
Hi William
Are you able to comment on this March 2021 article by Answers In Genesis?:
Refuting Challenges to the Accepted Chronology of Achaemenid Empire | Answers in Genesis
[sorry, can’t get the link to work!]
I think the big flaw is that it assumes the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 is Artaxerxes Longimanus, which I believe you have refuted.
Do you agree with the secular dates as supposedly reconstructed in this article, or do you think the Persian period is overstated in length as per Anstey et al?
Thanks for your consideration.
Hi S Wrixon,
I do not agree with Anstey et al regarding the Persian period. I briefly scanned the article you mentioned (look forward to reading it more thoroughly). I believe the authors Griffith and White make a good case for accepting the secular dates regarding the Persian Kings and their reigns. I do agree with you that their view of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7) = Longimanus is flawed for the reasons I’ve explained in many of my articles. I’d love to see them tackle the Artaxerxes assumption with the same straightforward approach they’ve shown in their Answers in Genesis article.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I look forward to digging into their article.
Warm regards,
William