The Decrees of Artaxerxes I and the Seventy-Weeks Prophecy–Part Two (Resources & Notes)

[Note:  By comparing two biblical genealogical records we see that the descendants of Elam, and the person of Jesus, both have a common ancestry in Shem (Sem), who was the son of Noah.  The children of Shem are:  “Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram” (Gen. 10:22).  And the lineage of Jesus through his mother Mary is through the line of Arphaxad [brother of Elam], who was the:  “son of Sem (Shem), which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God” (Lk. 3:36-38).]

[Note:  “The chief authority for the early history of Persia is the famous poet Ferdosi.  His Shah-Nameh is founded on the most ancient traditions, embellished by his own rich imagination…  But for actual historical fact we are dependent on Herodotus, Ctesias, and the other Grecian writers, and on a few inscriptions…  The Shah-Nameh is not historical, but, like the Annals of Livius, it is national.  In the most remote times it lead us to one of the cradles of the human race, the mountainous districts around the snow-clad peak of Ararat, where some of the descendants of Shem still dwelt, and peopled Media—the modern province of Azerbaijan.  They rapidly became rude and ignorant, until a king arose amongst them, named Kaiomurs [surnamed Paishdad, or the ‘Just Judge’], who is said to have been the son of Yessan Azum, the son of Elam, the son of Shem” (A General Sketch of the History of Persia, by Clements R. Markham, London:  Longmans, Green, and Co., 1874, Kraus-Thomson Organization Limited, 1977, pp. 1-2).]

[Note:  Deiokes (GK, Deioces), the son of Phraortes, is considered to be the founder of the

The Ganjnameh in Ecbatana on the side of Alvand Mountain. Inscriptions were authored by Darius the Great and Xerxes I.

Median kingdom who selected the town of Hamadan for its principal capital, and this city was called Amadana by the Assyrians, and Hagmatana by the ancient Persians, and it was known as Ecbatana by the Greeks.]

[Note:  The legendary builder of Persepolis (Takht-i-Jamshid) was Jamshid, he was overthrown by Zohak from Syria who conquered Persia.]

[Note:  “The Persians, like the Medes, were divided into tribes—the Pasargadae, Marphii, Maspii, Panthialaei, Derusiaei and Germanii, all agriculturists, and the Dai, Mardi, Dropici and Sagartii, who had remained nomads.  The Pasargadae were the most important, and Hakhamanish were a clan of this tribe.  Susa, the capital of Susiana or Elam, in the plain at the foot of the mountains, was at that time under the rule of a dynasty which had supplanted the native Anshanite kings.  This was the clan Hakhamanish, out of which the Greeks created the eponymous king Achaemenes” (Ancient Persia and Iranian Civilization, by Clement Huart, Translated by M. R. Dobie, published by Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1927, p. 34).]

[Note:  Achaemenes (Hakhamanish) was the legendary founder of the Persian monarchy, and he was the prince of the tribe of Pasargadae.  From him came a double line of Persian rulers, which explains the inscription of Darius the Great at Behistun, which reads:  “In a double line we have been kings.”]

[Note:  The two lines of the Persian kings are as follows:  Anshan Line:  Achaemenes—Teispes—Cyrus I—Cambyses I—Cyrus II (the Great)—Cambyses II.  Persian Line:  Achaemenes—Teispes—Ariaramenes—Arsames—Hytaspes (Vishtaspa)—Darius (the Great).]

[Note:  “The Defeat of Astyages by Cyrus—We now come to the historical account so far as it is known of the campaign against Astyages.  The famous tablet of the Annal of Nabonidus:  ‘[His troops] he collected, and against Cyrus, king of Anshan,… he marched.  As for Astyages, his troops revolted against him and he was seized (and) delivered up to Cyrus.  Cyrus (marched) to Ecbatana, the royal city.  The silver, gold, goods, and substance of Ecbatana he spoiled, and to the land of Anshan he took the goods and substance that were gotten’” (A History of Persia, by Brigadier-General Sir Percy Sykes, Vol. I, 3rd ed., MacMillan and Co. Limited, 1951, page 143.)]

[Note:  Following the rule of Cyrus II, his son Cambyses II came to the throne of the Persian Empire.  Afterwards Cambyses killed his brother Smerdis, which added to his reputation for cruelty, and it was he who expanded the empire into Africa—Egypt, Cyrene and Libya.]

[Note:  Pseudo-Smerdis was an imposter who was seated on the throne politically for eight months, but he was assassinated by conspirators.]

[Note:  Nidintu-Bel pretended to be the son of Nabonidus and assumed the name of Nebuchadnezzar III.]

Behistun Inscription, Iran.

Behistun Inscription, Iran. Authored by Darius the Great it provides a record of his military campaigns and a synopsis of his ancestry respective to Cyrus II.

[Note:  The Behistun Inscription carved into the Behistun Rock is a multi-lingual inscription located on Mount Behistun in the Kermanshah Province of Iran in western Iran.  Authored by Darius the Great it provides a record of his military campaigns and a synopsis of his ancestry respective to Cyrus II.]

[Note:  Babylon and Susa became royal residences of the Persian kings, while another residence, Persepolis, later became a royal cemetery, and Susa, the “Shushan” of Scripture, became the main palace of the king, while Ecbatana—the former capital of the Median Empire—became a summer palace for the kings of Persia.]

[Note:  “In the vision about to be recorded Daniel finds himself in Susa, the winter capital of the Persian Empire and the residence of Persian kings, a city renowned in ancient times as a mighty fortress (cf. Neh. 1:1; Esth. 1:2, 5; 2:3, 5) and a centre of Persian power.  He is beside ‘the river Ulai’ (some would read the ‘Ulai Gate’) which is no doubt the Eulaeus of classical antiquity near which the fortified city of Susa was situated, in the province of Elam, the finest and fairest part of the Persian empire” (Daniel, by D. S. Russell, The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1981, p. 139).]

[Note:  It is with measured confidence that we are able to rely on the information found in the Babylonian Chronicle and the Canon of Ptolemy (Ptolemy’s Canon of Kings), with the latter being a compilation of various materials gathered from different places that includes astronomical observations and a general chronology of the kings of Babylon, Persia and Greece.]

[Note: Ptolemy’s Canon provides a comprehensive list of kings along with a set of astronomical tables that associates the dates of rule with the Egyptian civil calendar, but its importance to some chronologists is that Ptolemy’s canon does not account for co-regencies for the kings of Persia.  Those who use the astronomical tables and the works of certain writers allow for co-regencies that account for a ten year difference for the beginning of Artaxerxes’ rule over the Persian Empire.]

[Note:  “According to the Author’s factitious chronology, the episode reported in chapter 9 [of the book of Daniel] took place just after the end of the Babylonian era and the beginning of the Median period (v.i.), that is, at the moment when Jeremiah’s prophecy of the restoration should have found its realization (Jer. 25:11; 29:10).  Regarding Darius ‘the Mede’, Belshazzar’s successor in universal dominance, see our commentary on Dan. 6:1, and for the ‘Chaldeans’, see our commentary on Dan. 1:4.  Xerxes (or Ahasuerus) is the Xerxes of classical literature, Darius’ successor, not his father.  He reigned from 485-465 and is the king in Esth. 1:1 and Ezra 4:6” (The Book of Daniel, by Andrew Lacocque, translated by David Pellauer, John Knox Press, 1979, p. 179.)

[Note:  For a unique discussion regarding the kings of the north and south see: The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, by Uriah Smith, Vol. 1, Review and Herald Publishing, Revised 1944.]

[Note:  It is not uncommon to find in history texts that there were only three major divisions of Alexander’s empire, and so the reader is directed to the:  Historical Atlas, by William R. Shepherd, 8th ed., published by The Colonial Offset Co. Inc., 1956, pp. 18-20.  Also see: Unger’s Concise Bible Dictionary, William Unger, Baker Book House, 1987.]

[Note:  “Agricultural abundance, defended at paltry cost, may seem an unachievable formula for a frontier province; yet Egypt offered it.  Nevertheless, when Augustus annexed Cleopatra’s kingdom, he saw the Nile as a larder so rich that he must set three legions to guard against its seizure by potential rivals” (The Reach of Rome, A History of the Roman Imperial Frontier 1st-5th Centuries AD, by Derek Williams, St. Martins Press, 1996, p. 115).]

[Note:  The Greeks considered all the land east of the Nile to be Arabia, and this:  1) explains the statement made by Paul who wrote to the congregations in Galatia and said, “For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia” (Gal. 4:25), and 2) it helps us to understand that the Arabs were only on the fringe of the Grecian Empire, and by this we can conclude that the Arabs, as well as the native Egyptians, were not representative of or represented by the prophetic “kings of the south.”  See: The Curse of Ham, Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam, by David M. Godenberg, Princeton University Press, 2003.]

[Note:  The Arabs never became assimilated with the Greek and Roman rulers and therefore we are able to conclude that the usurping north and south Greek kingdoms were never Arab, Middle Eastern or African kingdoms, but rather they were Eurasian-based Mediterranean powers that warred over the region of Palestine.]

Tile Mosaic of Alexander the Great

Tile Mosaic of Alexander the Great

[Note:  Historically, Perdiccas was the recipient of Alexander the Great’s ring and after much controversy he became the regent for king Arridaeus (Alexander’s brother), and Roxane’s son, the joint-king Alexander.  Arridaeus became king under the name of Philip, and Perdiccas appointed some of Alexander’s generals as satraps over the empire, and eventually both Arridaeus and Alexander were murdered so that there would no longer be a single Macedonian Empire.]

[Note:  “Egypt was inherited by his [Alexander’s] general, Ptolemy [Ptolemy Lagides, Soter I, the “Savior”], who founded the dynasty of Ptolemies and under whom the new city of Alexandria became the intellectual and religious center of the Hellenistic world” (The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, Edited by Judith Levey and Agnes Greenhall, Avon Books, 1983, “Egypt,” p. 255).]

[Note:  The Ptolemies established their kingdom in North Africa and ruled from the city of Alexandria, while the Seleucids ruled from Antioch in Syria, placing the region of Palestine generally in the middle of these warring factions until there regional influence was usurped by the expanding Roman Republic.]

[Note:  Ptolemy became a satrap in Egypt for Philip, and later became ruler of Egypt and claimed the title of Pharaoh.  He is presumed to be the beginning of the kings of the south according to some biblical expositors.  The Seleucid kingdom began following the death of Philip Arrhidaeus, and there lineage is presumed to represent the biblical kings of the north.  However, it should be understood that the Ptolemies and Seleucids were usurping foreign rulers, and rulers of foreign lands, and so their rule represented a north/south political partition relative to their particular kingdoms, which no longer exist, and so their political divisions were not according to their geographical locations respective to the city of Jerusalem.  See:  World Reference Atlas, published by Dorling Kindersley, 1994, 1995, 1996.  Also see: History of the World, Earliest Times to the Renaissance, General Editor: John Hall, Editor:  John Kirk, published by Gallery Books, 1988, pp. 80-107.  Also see: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952 ed., subject “Greece.”]

[Note:  Persia fell to one of Alexander’s generals named Seleucus, who assumed the name of Nicator, or “Conqueror.”]

[Note:  According to Persian authors, Alexander died at the city of Zour, though some would claim it was Babul or Babylon.]

[Note:  Jewish colonists were in Elephantine, Egypt, sometime before the Persians took over Egypt, and by consequence we could say that they were not expected to adopt the Persian calendar, but it is likely that they would have reckoned the regnal years from spring to spring in regard to the kings of Judah.]

[Note:  Antiochus the Great refused to abandon the region west of the Taurus Mountains and was subsequently defeated in the Battle of Magnesia near Mt. Sipylus.  He was also made to pay a significant indemnity, and to allow his son, Antiochus IV, to become a hostage at Rome.  Thus, we have the beginning of Rome’s eastward expansion by reason of the decline of the Seleucid Empire, and from this time in history we have relatively little recorded information about the rule of Antiochus IV, except what may be found respective to his campaigns against the Jews.]

[Note:  The Battle of Magnesia (c. 190 BCE) brought increasing Roman influence to the Middle East region with the defeat of Antiochus the Great who lost political and military control over the kingdoms of Asia Minor.  Then, with the Seleucid Empire in decline, his successor, Antiochus IV, became increasingly subject to the dictates of the Roman Republic and his kingdom no longer played a leading political role in the Middle East.]

[Note:  The reign of Antiochus IV has been noticeably embellished in order to make his reign and his exploits to seemingly fit into some preconceived interpretive ideas in regard to the prophecies of Daniel, noting that Antiochus IV receives much of his attention because he harassed the Jewish people at Jerusalem.  Also, we must consider that in the time of Antiochus IV the Seleucid Empire had become a marginal kingdom compared to the rising Roman Republic and the strengthening Parthian kingdom.  Also, we may conclude that from a relative political perspective the ancient kingdom of Babylon and the Roman Empire brought more destruction upon Jerusalem than Antiochus IV.]

[Note:  Some biblical expositors have concluded that the vision given to Daniel in the time of Belshazzar, and the prophecy received in the time of Cyrus the Great, represented the long-standing conflict between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, each respectively ruling regions of the former Greco-Macedonian Empire.]

[Note:  Daniel was told that:  “at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.  He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown:  but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.  He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.  But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt:  and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.  But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.  And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him” (Dan. 11:40-45).]

[Note:  Antiochus IV believed himself to be a manifestation of the Syrian god Baal-Shamen (Lord of Heaven) to whom he dedicated the Jerusalem Temple.]

[Note:  The individual of “fierce countenance” and a “king of the north” are thought by some expositors to represent the repressive ruler Antiochus IV, called “Epiphanes” (the Illustrious).  However, the “abomination that maketh desolate” was not represented by or associated with Antiochus IV, and he cannot be associated with the individual who understands “dark sentences” as spoken of by Daniel.]

[Note:  Antiochus attempted to change temple observances and to prohibit observance of Jewish law under penalty of death, but as a result of his weakening empire he was unable to crush the ensuing revolt, and eventually ended the ban that he had imposed on the people of Jerusalem.]

[Note:  By accepting the view that the prophecies and visions recorded in Daniel 8 and 11 are for the most part fulfilled, we see that the seventy-weeks prophecy becomes irrelevant to the context of these particular prophecies, and consequently the seventy-weeks prophecy has become subject to a day-for-a-year interpretation that is commonly associated with a biblically undocumented decree supposedly issued by Artaxerxes I.]

[Note:  Respective to the seventy-weeks prophecy, it is the “sacrifice and offering” that ceases in the middle of a week and not the “anointed” one, and if Antiochus IV is to be associated with the “abomination that maketh desolate,” and the one who caused the sacrifice and offering to stop, then it could be concluded that the seventy-weeks prophecy was fulfilled before the time of Jesus’ warning to his disciples regarding a then future “abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:26-27).]

[Note:  It is understood from the text in Daniel nine that after a period of 62 weeks a “messiah” will be “cut off,” which is an undefined expression that does not allow us to determine in what way this individual is “cut off” at a time when there is a political and military incursion into the Middle East (Dan. 9:26).  Also, it is not possible to determine from the text in Daniel nine that this “messiah” is “cut off” after an interpretive three and one-half year ministry or “cut off” in the middle of a literal week, and therefore all that we can conclude is that Gabriel stated that this individual will be “cut off” following a period of 62 weeks, before the “sacrifice and oblation ceases” by reason of the “overspreading of abominations” (Dan. 9:27).]

[Note:  Nehemiah was able to receive “timber” to make “beams” for the gates of the palace related to the governor’s office and house and the wall of the city, which means that this was not a decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem.  For at the beginning of Artaxerxes 20th regnal year, which was 445/444 BCE (reckoned spring to spring), Nehemiah said to the king:  “If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah; And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into.  And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me” (Neh. 2:7-8).]

[Note:  A challenge to reckoning Artaxerxes’ accession year comes from an interpretation surrounding the 20th year that Nehemiah was serving in the palace at Shushan.

For we read in the book of Nehemiah that:  “it came to pass in the month Chisleu [Kislev], in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace, That Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem” (Neh. 1:1-2).  And so according to this statement, the friends of Nehemiah came to him in the ninth month of the year (November/December), and according to Nehemiah this was in the “twentieth year” when he was in the palace that was at Shushan (Susa).

Then we read that Nehemiah went before the king as the cupbearer:  “in the month Nisan [March/April], in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king,” and Nehemiah “took up the wine, and gave it unto the king” (Neh. 2:1).

Therefore, by the chronology of the story we see that Nehemiah’s friends came to visit him in the “twentieth year,” in the ninth month of the year, and then we see that Nehemiah went before the king in the following spring in what appears to be the same “twentieth year.”  And so from a chronological perspective some would contend that this is only possible if the kings of Persia reckoned their reigns from fall to fall, so that Nehemiah’s friends came in the winter, after the beginning of the 20th regnal year that would have begun in the fall of c. 446 BCE, allowing then for Nehemiah to go before the king in the same 20th regnal year of Artaxerxes I, which would have been in the spring of c. 445 BCE.

However, there is substantial evidence to show that the kings of Persia reckoned their regnal years from spring to spring, which would mean that if Nehemiah went before the king in the spring of c. 445 BCE, at the beginning of Artaxerxes’ 20th regnal year, then Nehemiah’s friends—who came the previous winter—could not have arrived in Shushan in the same 20th regnal year of Artaxerxes I.  (By a spring to spring reckoning the winter of c. 446 BCE would have been the king’s 19th regnal year.)

Thus we have an apparent contradiction in the chronology of Artaxerxes’ reign.

But it is not without a reasonable solution.

For we see that Nehemiah’s statement regarding his “twentieth year” in Shushan is not stated to be the 20th regnal year of Artaxerxes I, as it was when Nehemiah went before the king in the spring that began the 20th regnal year of Artaxerxes I.  Therefore we would have to acknowledge that Nehemiah’s friends came to see him in the winter of Artaxerxes’ 19th regnal year, but it was the 20th consecutive year of the king’s administration related to Nehemiah’s responsibilities “in Shushan” (c. 446 BCE was the administration’s “twentieth year” at Shushan).  Meaning that by a spring to spring reckoning the king’s 20th regnal year began in the spring of c. 445 BCE when Nehemiah went before the king to make requests regarding the city of Jerusalem.  (It is difficult to assume that Nehemiah was writing in the context of a fall to fall reckoning in regard to his personal responsibilities as the cupbearer for Artaxerxes I while he was in Shushan.)]

[Note:  A fall to fall reckoning for the accession year of Artaxerxes I would have begun in the late summer of c. 465 BCE, and ended only a relatively few days after the death of Xerxes I.  Which means that Artaxerxes’ first year would have been 465/464 BCE (fall to fall), and his seventh year would have begun in the fall of c. 459 BCE, which would mean that his seventh regnal year would be dated 459/458 BCE, which would also mean that if Ezra left in the spring of the year in Artaxerxes’ seventh year, then it would have to be in the spring of c. 458 BCE, which would not allow for any day-for-a-year method to be applied to the seventh year of Artaxerxes I.]

[Note:  By a spring to spring reckoning, the accession year of Artaxerxes I would have ended in the spring of c. 464 BCE, which would mean that his accession year began with the death of Xerxes I in c. 465 BCE.  Which means that Artaxerxes’ first year was 464/463 BCE (spring to spring), and his seventh year would have begun in the spring of c. 458 BCE, which would mean that his seventh regnal year would be dated 458/457 BCE.  Meaning then that if Ezra left in the spring of the year in Artaxerxes’ seventh year, then it would be in the spring of c. 458 BCE, which again would not allow for any day-for-a-year method to be applied to the seventh year of Artaxerxes I.  Noting also that even if a decree had been issued in the year c. 457 BCE, prior to the beginning of the eighth regnal year in c. 457 BCE (spring to spring), it would not account for the fact that Ezra had the letter in hand by the spring of c. 458 BCE and had already departed from Babylon and arrived in Jerusalem before January c. 457 BCE.  Therefore it is not possible to use the year c. 457 BCE for the starting date of the seventy-weeks prophecy.]

[Note:  Some expositors attempt to reconcile the 7th year of Artaxerxes I and the 20th year associated with Nehemiah’s responsibilities at Shushan, assuming that the text is speaking about the 20th regnal year of Artaxerxes I.  This is a misconception of what is stated in the text as it does not mention that it is the 20th regnal year of Artaxerxes I, and so for those who claim that it is the “king’s years” makes it an obvious inserted assumption that carries the extra burden of assuming the regnal years of the kings of Persia were reckoned from fall-to-fall when the evidence show us that the Persians reckoned the reigns of their kings–particularly after the fall of Babylon–from spring to spring.  Thus, some have attempted to make the 7th year of Artaxerxes I a reference to the Jewish civil/agricultural calendar, rather than the years of the king (regnal years) as clearly stated and understood from the book of Ezra.  The reason for this maneuvering of Scripture and chronology of the king’s rule is because a spring to spring reckoning of the king’s years, with an accession year, will without a doubt make it impossible to claim that c. 457456 BCE is Artaxerxes I’s 7th regnal year, in which case the seventy-weeks prophecy argument–based on “prophetic years”–collapses because it has no foundation.]

[Note:  Iran is a complex and diverse nation that has a unique cultural and political

Representatives from Iran and the P5+1 after concluding talks in Lausanne, Switzerland. Courtesy of U.S. State Department.

Representatives from Iran and the P5+1 after concluding talks in Lausanne, Switzerland. Courtesy of U.S. State Department.

heritage that is distinctly Persian at its core, and by this it is reasonable to consider that this ancient political heritage will continue to have a significant influence on the current governmental administration of Iran.]

[Note: “On July 14, 2015, Iran and the world’s six major powers—Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States—reached a final deal to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.  The agreement was formally adopted on Oct. 18, 2015.  It was implemented on Jan. 16, 2016, after the U.N. nuclear watchdog determined Iran had taken the necessary steps to scale back its nuclear program.  The following list contains the text of the deal, reactions from officials, and other resources on the agreement” (Website: United States Institute of Peace, “The Iran Primer”).]

[Note:  “Special coverage of IAEA inspection activities, including reports, statements and media coverage in relation to the application of IAEA safeguards in Iran” (Website: International Atomic Energy Agency, “Monitoring and Verification in Iran”).]

[Note:  From a biblical perspective, some have interpreted Iran to possibly be the final king of the north, mainly because it is geographically located to the north of Jerusalem.  But this is nothing more than unfounded conjecture based on a particular interpretation of the prophecies given to Daniel.  However, it is important to recognize from a biblical perspective that Iran will be expected to emerge as a significant political power in Central Asia before the return of Christ, and by consequence we would also have to recognize that Iran will become a greater political influence in the region of Palestine and in the greater Middle East.]    (

Back to:  The Decrees of Artaxerxes I and the Seventy-Weeks Prophecy—Part Two

Fair Use Disclaimer

See:  Additional Resources

Books & Blogs

The Vision of Daniel 8, Interpretations from 1700 to 1800, by Samuel Nuñez, Andrew University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, Volume XIV, Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, MI, 1987, 1989.

Harvard Dissertations in Religion, Editors:  Margaret R. Miles and Bernadette J. Brooten, No. 26, “The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King, Ancient Jewish Court legends,” by Lawrence M. Wills, Fortress Press, 1990.

Daniel, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, by W. Sibley Towner, John Knox Press, 1984.

Isaac Newton’s Observations on the Prophesies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, A Critical Edition, Prophecy as History, Edited by S. J. Barnett, with Preface and Biblical Study Notes by Mary E. Mills, Mellen Critical Editions and Translations, Vol. 2, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999.

Supplements to the Journal of the Study of Judaism, Formerly Studia Post-Biblica, Editor John J. Collins, Vol. 61.

The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar, The Ancient Near Eastern Origin and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4, by Matthias Henze, published by Leiden, Boston, Koln, Brill, 1999.

‘Time and Times and Half a Time,’ Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras, by Ida Fröhlich, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series 19, Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Prophecy and the Times or England and Armageddon, An application of some of the predictions of Daniel and St. John to Current Events, by Joseph F. Berg, D.D., Higgins & Perkinpine, 1856.

Daniel, A Commentary of the Book of Daniel, by John J. Collins, Fortress Press, 1993.

Daniel, Under the Siege of the Divine, by Daniel Berrigan, the Plough Publishing Co., 1998.

The Daily Study Bible (Old Testament), General Editor: John C. L. Gibson, “Daniel.”

The History of Persia, From the Most Early Period to the Present Time: Containing an Account of the Religion, Government, Usages, and Character of the Inhabitants of that Kingdom, by Major-General Sir John Malcolm, G.C.B, K.L.S., Governor of Bombay, Vol I., John Murray, 1829.

The History of Persia, From the Most Early Period to the Present Time: Containing an Account of the Religion, Government, Usages, and Character of the Inhabitants of that Kingdom, by Major-General Sir John Malcolm, G.C.B, K.L.S., Governor of Bombay, Vol II., John Murray, 1829.

A History of Persia, by Brigadier-General Sir Percy Sykes, Vol. I, 3rd ed., MacMillan and Co, Limited, 1951.

A History of Persia, by Brigadier-General Sir Percy Sykes, Vol. II, 3rd ed., MacMillan and Co, Limited, 1930.

The Persians, Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press, by Homa Katouzian, 2009.

The Persian Empire, by Amélie Kuhrt, Vol. I, Published by Routledge, 2007.

The Land of the Elephant Kings, Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire, by Paul J. Kosmin, Harvard University Press, 2014.

The Rex Guide to the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Ancient Egypt, by Elizabeth Warr, the Caister House of Publishing, 2014.

–Website:  Brookings: Iran’s Nuclear Deal, “Regional Implications of a Nuclear Agreement with Iran,” by Kenneth M. Pollack, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy.