Reconciling the Messianic Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 with Secular History

Finalizing the Solution


Summary of Findings to Date

In this marathon investigation so far, we have found from the scriptures the following:

  • This solution placed the end of the 69 sevens in 29 AD when Jesus commenced his ministry.
  • This solution placed the causing of sacrifice and gift offering to cease, at the half of the seven in 33 AD with the Messiah Jesus being cut off, put to death, on behalf of all mankind.
  • This solution placed the end of the final seven in 36 AD with the conversion of Cornelius the Gentile.
  • This solution placed the 1st Year of Cyrus the Great at 455 BC as the start of the seven sevens of 49 years.
  • This solution placed the 32nd Year of Darius a.k.a. Ahasuerus, a.k.a. Artaxerxes in 407 BC ending the seven sevens of 49 years with Nehemiah’s return to Babylon with the wall of Jerusalem restored. (Nehemiah 13:6)
  • This solution, therefore, provides a logical reason for Daniel and Jehovah to split the prophecy into 7 sevens and sixty-two sevens. (see problem/solution 4)
  • This solution gives reasonable ages for Mordecai, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah as opposed to the traditional secular and religious interpretations, which either ignore or explain away the unreasonable ages with “another Mordecai, another Ezra, another Nehemiah, or the Bible account is wrong”. (See problems/solutions 1,2,3)
  • This solution also provides a reasonable explanation for the succession of Persian kings in the scriptures. (See problems/solutions 5,7)
  • This solution also helps us understand a reasonable High Priest succession for the period of the Persian Empire that agrees with scripture. (see problem/solution 6)
  • This solution provides a reasonable explanation for the two priest lists. (see problem/solution 8).
  • This solution requires understanding that Darius I became called or known as or took the name Artaxerxes or was referred to as Artaxerxes from his 7th year of reign onwards in the accounts from Ezra 7 onwards and Nehemiah. (see problem/solution 9)
  • This solution also requires understanding the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther to be referring to Darius I as well. (see problems/solutions 1,9)
  • This solution also helps us make sense of almost all of what Josephus wrote, though not every single piece, instead of only a few pieces. (see problem/solution 10)
  • This solution also gives a reasonable solution to the naming of the Persian Kings on the books of the Apocrypha. (see problem/solution 11)
  • This solution also gives a reasonable solution to the naming of the Persian Kings in the Septuagint. (see problem/solution 12)

However, this solution leaves us with a small conundrum to figure out, that of the remaining succession of Persian Kings.

For the remaining period, from the year following the death of Darius I in his 36th Year, which in this solution is 402 BC, to 330 BC when Alexander defeated a King Darius for the final time and became King of Persia himself, we need to fit 156 years into 73 years (and 6 kings if possible) without contradicting the majority of historical information if at all possible. A giant Rubik’s cube of a puzzle!


The Final Pieces of the Puzzle

How was this achieved?

In the author’s research and investigation and the writing of the previous parts of this series of the results, it had become apparent that the starting point had to be 455 BC. However it had also become apparent that this had to be the 1st Year of Cyrus instead of the 20th Year of Artaxerxes I. As a result, he had from time to time attempted to work out scenario’s that would fit the requirements of the last point in the Summary of Findings section above. However, no scenario made sense of the data at that time nor could it be justified.

A comparison of the information from Eusebius[i] and Africanus[ii] and Ptolemy[iii] and other ancient historians on reign lengths of the Persian kings and those kings mentioned by Josephus, Persian Poet Ferdowsi[iv], and Herodotus was made. It began to yield and show up patterns all of which had explanations, not only from what was discovered in the investigation of the Bible record, but also from various snippets of information that had come out of investigations by other historians.

It was interesting that the Persian Poet Ferdowsi only had Kings up to Darius II and omitted Xerxes.

Josephus also only had Kings up to Darius II but included Xerxes. Herodotus only had Kings up to Artaxerxes I. (It is believed Herodotus died during the reign of Artaxerxes I or early in the reign of Darius II.)

If Darius I (the Great) was also variously known as or changed his name to Artaxerxes, it was entirely possible that other Persian Kings were similar, which may have caused confusion among later historians both in ancient history and in the 20th and 21st Century.

A Comparison of Reign Lengths from Ancient Historians

Herodotus c. 430 BC Ctesias c. 398 BC Diodorus  30 BC Josephus 75 AD Ptolemy 150 AD Clement of Alexandria c. 217 AD Manetho / Sextus Julius Africanus c.220 AD Manetho / Eusebius c. 330 AD Sulpicus Severus c.400 AD Persian poet Firdusi (931-1020 AD)
Cyrus II (The Great) 29 30 Yes 9


30 31 Yes
Cambyses II 7.5 18 6 8 19 6 3 9 Yes
Magi 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Darius I (the Great) 36 9+ 36 46 36 36 36 Yes
Xerxes I Yes 20 28+ 21 26 21 21 21
Artabanos 0.7
Artaxerxes (I) Yes 42 40 7+ 41 41 41 40 41 Yes
Xerxes II 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Sogdianos 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Darius II 35 19 Yes 19 8 19 19 19 Yes
Artaxerxes II 43 46 42 62
Artaxerxes III 23 21 2 6 23
Arses (Artaxerxes IV) 2 3 4
Darius III 4 4 6
Totals 73 126 145 50+ 209 212 134 137 244



As you can see there is a great difference between the solutions offered by different historians over a period of hundreds of years. The secular and religious authorities today usually adopt the chronology of Ptolemy.

Therefore, to attempt to reconcile this massive issue, a decision was taken to work back from the fall of the Persian Empire to Alexander the Great of Macedonia in 330BC, towards Darius I whose rule ended in 403 BC with Cyrus starting in 455 BC.

We therefore found:

  • Darius III with 4 years, (reign length according to Ptolemy and Manetho according to Julius Africanus), the last king of Persia, who ruled during the time of the advance of Alexander the Great into the Persian Empire.
  • Arses (Artaxerxes IV) with 2 years. (reign length according to Ptolemy).


  • Artaxerxes III was taken to have a reign of 2 years. (the reign length according to Manetho and Julius Africanus, with possibly another 19 years as King over Egypt or as co-ruler)
  • Darius II with a reign of 19 years as consistently given by Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy.

This totaled 21 years which Ptolemy had given Artaxerxes III. This gave a strong indication that probably Ptolemy had the wrong reign length for Artaxerxes III. (Ptolemy’s figure of 21 years for Artaxerxes had always appeared to neatly and coincidentally be equivalent to the length of Xerxes reign. It is very rare indeed for Kings of the same country and near in time to each other to have the same length of reign, the mathematical odds of this occurring naturally being very unlikely).

The most likely explanation is that Ptolemy had miscopied the reign length maybe using that of Xerxes. However, other options could be either there was a co-rulership with a 2-year sole reign by Artaxerxes III after the death of Darius II or that Darius (II) was also known as or changed his name to Artaxerxes (III), probably in the same manner as the Bible had shown Darius (I) was also known as Artaxerxes (I).


  • Secular Artaxerxes I was added with a reign length of 41 years omitting secular Artaxerxes II (for the reign length of Artaxerxes I according to Ptolemy. Secular Artaxerxes II was omitted by many ancient historians and widely varying reign lengths from the remainder).

This meant that Artaxerxes I reign, started in the 6th year after the death of Darius I, a 5-year gap (the solution’s Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 onwards and Nehemiah). It left no room for the whole of Xerxes 21-year reign.

Final Piece:

  • Xerxes was added with a reign length of 21 years, 16 years as co-ruler with his father Darius, and 5 years as sole ruler.

As mentioned near the beginning of our series, some scholars believe there is evidence that Xerxes co-ruled with his father Darius for a period of 16 years. If Xerxes was a co-ruler with Darius and on the death of Darius, became ruler then this gives a viable explanation. How so? Xerxes would be sole ruler for the final 5 years of his reign before being succeeded by his son Artaxerxes.

Ptolemy gives Artaxerxes I reign length as 41 years and Artaxerxes II reign length as 46 years. Note the difference of 5 years. Depending on how it was counted Artaxerxes I could be said to have reigned 41 years alone or perhaps 46 years including a 5-year co-rulership with his father Xerxes after the death of his grandfather Darius I. This would account for later confusion by historians such as Ptolemy regarding the reigns of the various Artaxerxes. With different sources giving different reign lengths for Artaxerxes, Ptolemy could have assumed that what is known secularly as Artaxerxes I and Artaxerxes II were different kings instead of one and the same.

Summary of Differences to Secular Solutions:

  1. Xerxes I has a co-rulership with Darius I for 16 years.
  2. Artaxerxes II reign of 46 years according to Ptolemy is dropped as a duplication of Artaxerxes I.
  3. Artaxerxes III reign is shortened from 21 to 2 years or has a co-reign of the remaining difference of 19 years.
  4. Arses or Artaxerxes IV has Manetho’s 3 years reduced to Ptolemy’s 2 years or 1 year of co-rulership with the 2 years.
  5. The total adjustments are 16 + 46 + 19 + 1 = 82 years.

All these adjustments have been made with a good basis and allow for the Bible prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 to be correct and yet still allow all known and reliable historical facts to be accurate. In this way we can uphold the truth of God’s word as stated in Romans 3:4, where the Apostle Paul stated “But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar”.

13. Secular Inscription Issue – A Solution

Most importantly this understanding also then allowed the A3P inscription to be correct as the required line of succession to match the inscription was still intact, despite the dropping of Artaxerxes II.

The A3P inscription reads “The great king Artaxerxes [III], the king of kings, the king of countries, the king of this earth, says: I am the son of king Artaxerxes [II Mnemon]. Artaxerxes was the son of king Darius [II Nothus]. Darius was the son of king Artaxerxes [I]. Artaxerxes was the son of king Xerxes. Xerxes was the son of king Darius [the Great]. Darius was the son of a man named Hystaspes. Hystaspes was a son of a man named Arsames, the Achaemenid.” [v]

Notice the bracketed [III] numbers as this is an interpretation by the translator, as the inscription and also the original records do not give the Kings a number to identify them from previous kings. This is a modern addition to make identification easier.

For this solution the A3P inscription would therefore be understood to read “The great king Artaxerxes [IV], the king of kings, the king of countries, the king of this earth, says: I am the son of king Artaxerxes [III]. Artaxerxes was the son of king Darius [II Nothus]. Darius was the son of king Artaxerxes [II Mnemon]. Artaxerxes was the son of king Xerxes. Xerxes was the son of king Darius [the Great, also Longimanus]. Darius was the son of a man named Hystaspes. Hystaspes was a son of a man named Arsames, the Achaemenid.”

The following table gives a comparison of the two interpretations both of which fit the text of the inscription.

Inscription – King List Secular assignment Assignment by this solution
Artaxerxes III (Arses) IV
Artaxerxes II (Mnemon) III (Arses)
Darius II (Nothus) II (Nothus)
Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) I (Mnemon)
Xerxes I I
Darius I I (also Artaxerxes, Longimanus)



14.      Sanballat – One, Two or Three?

Sanballat the Horonite appears in the Bible record in Nehemiah 2:10 in the 20th Year of Artaxerxes, now identified in this solution as being Darius the Great. Nehemiah 13:28 identifies that one of the sons of Joiada the son of Eliashib the high priest was a son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite. This event took place a while later after Nehemiah’s return to Artaxerxes (Darius the Great) in the King’s 32nd year. Perhaps two or three years later.

We find traces of his sons Delaiah and Shelemiah in the Elephantine Papyri along with Jehohanan as High Priest.

Gleaning the facts from the Elephantine Temple Papyri we find the following.

“To Bagohi [Persian] governor of Judah, [from] the priests who are in Elephantine the fortress. Vidranga, Chief [Governor of Egypt in the absence of Arsames] said, in year 14 of King Darius [II?]: “Demolish the Temple of YHW the God which is in Elephantine fortress”. The pillars and gateways of hewn Stone, standing doors, bronze hinges of those doors, cedarwood roof, fittings they burned with fire, gold and silver basins stolen. Cambyses [son of Cyrus] destroyed the Egyptian temples but not the YHW temple. We seek permission from Jehohanan the High Priest in Jerusalem to rebuild the temple as it was formerly built to offer meal-offering, incense, & holocaust on altar of YHW the God. We also told Delaiah and Shelemiah sons of Sanballat governor of Samaria. [dated] 20th of Marheshvan, year 17 of King Darius [II?].” [Brackets indicates explanatory data for context purposes].

Moreover, from the month of Tammuz, year 14 of King Darius and until this day we are wearing sackcloth and fasting; our wives are made as widow(s); (we) do not anoint (ourselves) with oil and do not drink wine. Moreover, from that (time) and until (this) day, year 17 of King Darius”. [vi]

In the suggested solution the King Darius of the Papyri would likely be Darius II, not long before the fall of the Persian Empire to Alexander the Great.

The most plausible solution, and which fits the known facts, is that there were two Sanballat’s as follows:

  • Sanballat [I] – is attested to in Nehemiah 2:10. Assuming an age of around 35 in the 20th Year of Artaxerxes (Darius I) as he was Governor, he would have been about age 50 in Nehemiah 13:28, approximately the 33rd Year of Darius I / Artaxerxes. This would also allow one of the sons of Joiada to be a son-in-law of Sanballat [I] at this time.
  • Unnamed Son of Sanballat – if we allow for an unnamed son to be born to Sanballat [I] at age 22, that will allow a Sanballat [II] born to the unnamed son at age 21/22.
  • Sanballat [II] – is attested to in the Elephantine Letters dated to the 14th year and the 17th year of Darius.[vii] Taking Darius as Darius II this would allow Sanballat [II] to be in his late 60’s early 70’s at this time and die elderly at around 82, 7 months into Alexander the Great’s siege of Tyre. It would also allow for his named sons Delaiah and Shemeliah to be old enough (in their late 40’s) to be taking over part of the administrative duties from their father as the letters suggest.

There are no facts the author is aware of that would contradict this suggested solution.

The facts were obtained from an article entitled Archaeology and Texts in the Persian Period, Focus on Sanballat” [viii], but the interpretations were ignored, and the few facts available were put in the suggested solution framework.

15.      Cuneiform Tablet Evidence – Does it contradict this Solution?

There are no confirmed cuneiform tablets for Artaxerxes III, Artaxerxes IV, and Darius III. We have to rely on ancient historians for their reign lengths. As you will see from the earlier table, there are varying lengths with no evidence to support any of them as correct. Even those cuneiform tablets assigned to Artaxerxes I, II, and III are done mainly on conjecture as the kings were not numbered in Persian times. The assignment of tablets is also usually done on the basis that the chronology of Ptolemy is correct. Scholars, unaware of this, then claim that these cuneiform tablets confirm the chronology of Ptolemy, yet this is flawed circular reasoning.

The King’s numbering scheme such as I, II, III, IV, etc., is a modern addition to make identification easier.

At the time of writing the author is not aware of any cuneiform tablet evidence that would contradict this solution. Please see Appendix 1[ix] and Appendix 2[x] for further information.



This solution evaluated and investigated the end year of the 70 sevens. It also verified the start year of the final seven. Working back from this the starting year for the whole period was established and the year for the end of the 7 sevens and start of the 62 sevens. Candidates for establishing which command/word/decree started the period of 70 sevens were evaluated and conclusions based on the scriptures were drawn. Having established these four key years, the other evidence was then fitted into this outline framework.

In the course of this long journey we have found solutions for all the 13 major problems cited, created by existing interpretations.

At the time of completion (May 2020) the author had not ignored, or found or been notified of any facts that contradicted the solution presented. This does not mean that it may not need to be refined in due course, but the overall solution is currently considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt at present.

In arriving at this solution the integrity of the Bible record has been relied upon and wherever possible have used the Bible to interpret itself. We have also looked for reasonable explanations of the known historical facts that fit the Bible account that has emerged, rather than taking secular history as the basis and trying to fit the Bible record into it.

In the course of doing so, reasons for splitting the Messianic prophecy into 7 sevens and 62 sevens and half a seven and another half a seven have all become evident. The prophecy has also been considered in its Biblical context rather than isolation. This gives reasons as to why Daniel was given this prophecy at the time that he was, in the 1st year of Darius the Mede, namely:

  • To confirm the end of desolations
  • To look forward to the Messiah
  • To strengthen Daniel’s faith because he would see the beginning of this new prophetic period

Daniel was also familiar with the 70 years of serving Babylon, and the 49 years of Jerusalem’s and the Temple’s complete devastation and the release of the Jubilee year. Therefore, the 49 years to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple would be understood by Daniel, as would the total prophecy period of the larger period of 70 sevens until the end of the period for the Jews to have the opportunity to terminate their transgression.

The timing of Ezra’s return and restoring of the Levitical duties and sacrifices after the completion of the Temple also now makes complete sense, along with many other things.

Readers may also wonder if this solution causes problems for the conclusions drawn in the series “A Journey of Discovery through Time”[xi], which dealt with the events and prophecies regarding the exile to Babylon. The answer is that it changes none of the conclusions drawn. The only change that would be needed is to amend the suggested years in the Julian Calendar by reducing them by 82 years, moving 539 BC to 456 BC or 455 BC, and all the others by the same amount of adjustment.

This understanding of the Messianic prophecy also serves to reconfirm the findings of “A Journey of Discovery through Time”. Namely, that interpreting Daniel’s explanation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of seven times as having a larger fulfillment is not possible, particularly with a beginning date of 607 BC nor an end date of 1914 AD.

Finally and most importantly, the aim of the investigation was successful. Namely, the suggested solution has verified and given evidence that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah of Daniel’s prophecy from Daniel 9:24-27.





Appendix 1 – Cuneiform Evidence Available for Persian Kings


The source of the following information is Babylonian Chronology 626 BC – AD75 by Richard A. Parker and Waldo H Dubberstein 1956 (4th Printing 1975). Online copy available at:


Page 14-19 of Book, page 28-33 of pdf


Dating convention is:  Month (Roman numerals) / Day / Year.

Acc =     Accession Year, i.e. Year 0.

? =          unreadable or missing or questionable.

VI2 =       2nd month 6, an intercalary month (leap month in lunar calendar)



First: VII/16/Acc                Babylon falls (Nabunaid Chronicle)

Last:  V/23/9                      Borsippa (VAS V 42)


                First: VI/12/Acc Babylon (Strassmaier, Cambyses, No. 1)

                Last: I/23/8                         Shahrinu (Stassmaier, Cambyses, No. 409)


                First:  XII/14/??                 Behistun Inscription line 11 (by Darius I)

                Last: VII/10/??                   Behistun Inscription line 13 (by Darius I)


Darius I

                First: XI/20/Acc                 Sippar (Strassmaier, Darius, No.1)

                Last: VII/17 or 27/36        Borsippa (V AS IV 180)


                First: VIII or XII/22/Acc   Borsippa (V AS V 117)

                Last: V/14? – 18?/21                        BM32234

Artaxerxes I

                First: III/-/1                         PT 4 441 [Cameron]

                Last: XI/17/41                    Tarbaaa (Clay, BE IX 109)

Darius II

                First: XI/4/acc                    Babylon (Clay, BE X 1)

Last: VI2/2/16                     Ur (Figulla, UET IV 93)

No tablets for yrs 17-19 of Darius II

Artaxerxes II

                                                No Tablets for the accession of Artaxerxes II

First: II/25/1                       Ur (Figulla, UET IV 60)


Last: VIII/10/46?               Babylon (V AS VI 186; year numeral damaged slightly but read as “46” by Arthur Ungad)

Artaxerxes III

No contemporary cuneiform tablets

Arses / Artaxerxes IV

No contemporary cuneiform tablets

Darius III

No contemporary cuneiform tablets

Cuneiform evidence for 5yrs in Babylonia

Ptolemaic Canon 4 Year rule in Egypt




Appendix 2 – Egyptian Chronology for the Achaemenid [Medo-Persian] Period

There was though, one piece of the puzzle that was left till last. The reason it had been left to the very end was that the subject of the Persian rule over Egypt was not touched on in the scriptures.

After a considerable time spent in research the conclusion was that there are also very few hard facts for dating the Persian rule over Egypt or indeed any local Pharoah’s. The majority of dates given for the Persian satraps as rulers on behalf of the Persian monarchs, are based on the Ptolemaic chronology of the Persian Kings rather than papyri or cuneiform references. The same is true with the Kings / Pharoah’s of the Egyptian Dynasties of the 28th, 29th and 30th.

Persian Satrapies

  • Aryandes: – Ruled from Year 5 of Cambyses II to Year 1 of Darius I.
  • Aryandes: – Reappointed by Darius I in his 5th

Ruled until Year 27 of Darius I?

  • Pheredates: – Ruled for 11 years?

From Year 28? of Darius I to Year 18? of Xerxes I (= Darius I, 36 +2 years)?

  • Achaemenes: – Ruled for 27 years?

From 19th – 21st of Xerxes? and 1st – 24th year Artaxerxes [II]?

  • Arsames: – Ruled for 40 years?

From 25th Artaxerxes [II] to 3rd Year Artaxerxes IV?

Out of all these dates, only those underlined are certain. Dated/Datable records are scare from this period. For further information on Persian Satrapies in general and Egypt in particular see under 5, 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2, 5.3.


Pharaonic Dynasty 27

The official secular chronology can be found here:

The following important points should be noted:

  • Only Cambyses II and Darius I are known to have throne names, being Mesutire and Stutre respectively.
  • The rule of each Persian King over Egypt is based on the secular Persian Chronology which in turn is based on the chronology of Ptolemy written in the 2nd Century AD. Because of the suggested solution contained in this series, this would also cause the conjectured dates of the Kings of Persia’s reigns in Egypt to also be wrong. Given that there is little or no datable evidence especially through event synchronisms this poses no problems for the proposed solution. Hence the secular dates for Persian rule over Egypt must be incorrect and simply need to be amended in line with the solution for the timing and length of reign of the Persian kings over Persia.
  • The list contains all the Persian Kings from Cambyses II to Darius II and also includes rebels Petubastis III during the first three years of the rule of Darius I and Psamtik IV during the time of Xerxes.
  • There is hieroglyphic evidence for Darius (I) in his 4th year, and a number of inscriptions bearing his name, but not dated.[xii]
  • There are hieroglyphic inscriptions for Xerxes for his years 2-13.[xiii]
  • There are hieroglyphic inscriptions for secular Artaxerxes I, this solution, Artaxerxes II. [xiv]
  • There are no hieroglyphic traces of Darius II or secular Artaxerxes II, this solution, Artaxerxes III.
  • The latest papyri evidence for Darius (I) is his Year 35.[xv]
  • Other than the already mentioned Elephantine papyri for Darius (II) discussed under Sanballat, there is no other papyri evidence the author has been able to locate and verify.


The Egyptian Pharaonic Dynasties 28, 29, 30[xvi]

Dynasty Pharoah Reign
  Amyrteos 6 years
  Nepherites I 6 years
  Psammouthis 1 year
  Achoris 13 years
  Nepherites II 4 months
30th (per Eusebius)  
  Nectanebes (I) 10 years
  Teos 2 years
  Nectanebus (II) 8 years


This table is based on Manetho’s list as preserved by Eusebius.

Given the scarcity of any datable documents or inscriptions and that there were gaps between these dynasties, and that these dynasties only ruled Lower Egypt (the Nile Delta, or parts of it), this allows them to reign concurrently with any Persian Satraps ruling over Upper Egypt including Memphis and Karnak, etc. It also means there are no troubling mismatches of synchronisms for the solutions revised reign length, etc. of the Persian Kings. Should new evidence of additional facts be presented to the author then this section would be re-evaluated. By facts, the author is referring to papyri with regnal years and a King’s name, or cuneiform tablets or inscriptions giving the Persian King and the year of the King’s reign, with synchronistic data that can be matched, or established in context.

By way of example, the Elephantine Papyri letters contain dates of Darius year 5, year 14 and year 17, and Jehohanan (the Jewish High Priest) after the death of Nehemiah. This would place them as likely being in the reign of Darius II, the information above allowing Darius II to be ruling over Elephantine, Upper Egypt, (modern-day Aswan, near the dam).






[v] and

“Ancient Persian lexicon and the texts of the Achaemenidan inscriptions transliterated and translated with special reference to their recent re-examination,” by Herbert Cushing Tolman, 1908. p.42-43 of book (not pdf) Contains Transliteration and translation.

[vi] Context of Scripture, Bezalel Porten, COS 3.51, 2003 AD

[vii] Further details and pictures of Elephantine Manuscripts available here

However, the author does not accept the dates given there, which are the internet site writers interpretation, especially in view of all the Biblical and other evidence presented in this series. The facts however can be extracted and used to give a fuller picture of this period and to check if any facts conflict with the suggested solution, which none do.


[ix] Appendix 1 – Cuneiform Evidence Available for Persian Kings

[x] Appendix 2 – Egyptian Chronology for the Achaemenid [Medo-Persian] Period


[xii] For a reference of a list see

[xiii] For a reference of a list see

[xiv] For a reference of a list see

[xv] Hermopolis Papyri

[xvi] Based on Eusebius version of Manetho:



Articles by Tadua.
    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x