jerusalem chronicle

The Jerusalem Chronicle, detailing the early years of Nebuchadnezzar.

Taking II Kings 24:12, II Chronicles 36:5, and Jeremiah 52:28 together shows it came at the end of Jehoiachins short reign of 3 months and 10 days. Calculating backwards, we find that Jehoiachins predecessor and father, Jehoiakim (the names are similar and may easily cause confusion), was captured in the 11th year of his reign, in December, 598. Therefore both Judean kings were taken into captivity in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzars reign. We know this fact not only from Jeremiahs statement that the deportation came in Nebuchadnezzars 7th year, but also because a Babylonian record known as The Jerusalem Chronicle detailing Nebuchadnezzars early years states that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem on the 2nd of Addaru (March 16, 597 BC) in the 7th year of his reign. The month of Addaru was the Babylonians 12th month, basically equivalent to the Jews’ 12th month, Adar. Therefore the entire reign of Jehoiachin came between Tishri and Nisan, ending shortly before the turn of the new year which would mark the beginning of Nebuchadnezzars 8th year (by Babylonian and Jeremiahs reckoning). Again, then, note that both Judean kings were captured between Tishri and Nisan, 598/597. The importance of this fact will become more evident as we proceed.

But although March 16, 597 BC is a date used by some theologians for when the Exile began, a prior deportation about 8½ years earlier is mentioned by both Jeremiah and Daniel. Jeremiah describes this deportation in 27:1920 (NASB):

For thus says the LORD of hosts concerning the pillars, concerning the [bronze] sea, concerning the stands and concerning the rest of the vessels that are left in this city, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon did not take, when he carried into exile Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, from Jerusalem to Babylon, and all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem (emphasis mine).

Backing up to Jeremiah 27:1, we find that Jeremiah spoke verses 1920 at the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim.But this is a relative statement, for in 28:1 we are told that in the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year…”, a false prophet named Hananiah tried to mislead the people, claiming God had broken Nebuchadnezzar’s power. In a moment we will dovetail Jeremiah’s statements recounting this earlier exile with Daniel 1, to find internal, biblical corroboration that Daniel went into captivity in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem.

This timeline of a deportation in Jehoiakim’s 3rd year is also corroboratively implied in II Kings 24:1, which states that Jehoiakim became his [Nebuchadnezzars] servant three years when he then rebelled. A more literal translation might be something like and Jehoiakim, his [Nebuchadnezzars] servant three years is turning and rebelling against him”. Now consider also that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne on September 7, 605 BC, and that his 1st regnal year in Babylon by Babylonian reckoning would have officially begun about 6½ months later, at the turn of the Babylonian new year (see chart further below). From his date of ascension until the new year, Nebuchadnezzar was considered in his ascension or accession year. Therefore because the 1st regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar began on the 1st month of the Babylonian calendar in spring, 604, this means his 7th year would have run from spring, 598 up to spring, 597. Again, this is the year he captured Jehoiakim in December, 598, and several months later captured his son, Jehoiachin, in midMarch 597.

nebuchadnezzar

Jeremiah tells the false prophet, Hananiah, that he will die in the same year because of his sin.

But here a question arises. For in examining the reigning years of Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar, we find that if Daniels deportation occurred at the beginning of the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (which is necessary if the exile is to be at least 69 years in length), it would have taken place before Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne. But why, then, does Daniel in 1:1 state that in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem and besieged it? The answer may be one of at least three possibilities. First, Nebuchadnezzar was all but acting as coregent with his father at this time (just before his fathers death) and would be endowed with most or all the powers due a king shortly before his ascension. (Records indicate Nabopolassar gave up his throne in favor of his son, Nebuchadnezzar, just a few months before he died of natural causes at about age 53, that Nebuchadnezzar was on campaign at Jerusalem at the time he received news of his fathers death, and hastened over the desertback to Babylon.) Second, Daniel is writing his book retrospectively, and so from the vantage point of history may have simply been referring to Nebuchadnezzar as the king in the same way that Americans refer to Presidents by their presidential title long after they have left office. And so under this explanation Daniel is not stating that Nebuchadnezzar was the sole king at the time of his captivity. (Moreover, it should be noted here that numerous sons of Hebrew kings were said to have reignedprior to becoming sole regent, and that the term kingmay therefore have had a similar latitude of definition as the word
reign,not only among the Hebrews of that time, but also among the Babylonians.) Third, King Dariusin the book of Daniel has all but certainly been identified as Gobryas (or Guburu), the Babylonian governor. Therefore apparently his rulership under Cyrus of the important city, Babylon, was sufficient for Daniel to have referred to him as a king. At any rate, for the purpose of maintaining a proper chronology, Babylonians assigned the reigning years of kings so that a linear timeline resulted. Thus the interim before

Nebuchadnezzar actually began the 1st regnal year of his reigni.e., the time between his ascension in early September, 605 until the following springthe question for Babylonians as to whose regnal year it was, at least for civic calendar purposes, was presumably that it was his fathers reign, even though his father had died. (Similarly, 5thcenturyBClegal documents from the Jewish colony at Elephantine are doubledated according to Egyptian and Babylonian calendars, and one of these contracts is dated past the death of Xerxes but nevertheless assigned to the 21styear of Xerxes.)

elephantine island

elephantine island

Now, a second and more critical problem arises when we take into consideration all the biblical data about when Nebuchadnezzar reigned in relation to Jehoiakim. For while the harmonization of the Babylonian record with the biblical record of II Chronicles 36:56 (saying Jehoiakim reigned 11 years) would seem to show a fouryear differenceNebuchadnezzars 7thyear of reign being Jehoiakims 11tha statement in Jeremiah 25:1 shows that Jehoiakim was in his 4thyear when Nebuchadnezzar was in his 1st, a difference of threeyears! And this is not the only incidence in which there appears to be a discrepancy. For II Kings 24:12 states that Jehoiachin (Jehoiakims son) was taken captive in the 8thyear of Nebuchadnezzars reign, but (as noted earlier) the Babylonian record states that this occurred in Nebuchadnezzars 7th year. In fact the website livius.org,devoted to translating ancient Babylonian and Assyrian texts from which I obtained a translation of The Jerusalem Chronicle (detailing events in Nebuchadnezzars early years, including his capture of Jerusalem in 597 BC), pointed this discrepancyout, as they called it, and said it had never been explained.

However, the solution lies along the lines of what Harold Hoehner pointed out, when he showed that the Jews of the 5thcentury BCused Tishri (7thmonth) reckoning for the reigning years of kings, whereas Jeremiah used the older Nisan (1stmonth) reckoning. And so when these two systems of reckoning are taken into account, all of the socalled discrepancies disappear.

For example, recall how the entire 3 month, 10 day reign of Jehoiachin fell betweenTishri and Nisan, 598/597 BC. This explains why by Babylonian and Jeremiahs reckoning Jehoiachin was captured in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzars reign, while the exilic book of II Kings reckoned the same event as falling in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. This is because the Jews of the 6th century BC (and thus thewriter(s) of the Books of Kings and Chronicles) would have reckoned the beginning of Nebuchadnezzars 1st regnal year just weeks (not 6½ months) after Nebuchadnezzars ascension on September 7, 605 BC, upon the arrival of the 1st of Tishri.

timeline

Therefore from the 6th century perspective of the Jewish writers of Kings and Chronicles, the capture of Jehoiakim and the entire reign of his son, Jehoiachin, happened in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzars reign, while by Babylonian and Jeremiahs reckoning both these events happened in Nebuchadnezzars 7th year. Again, this is because both Judean kings were deposed between (the beginning of) Tishri and (up to) Nisan and because the anniversaries of the reigning years of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim are reckoned from spring in the Nisan system, but from fall in the Tishri system. And so, although all parties would have agreed to the exact calendar day Nebuchadnezzar ascended to the throne, Jeremiah would have reckoned Nebuchadnezzars 1st regnal year to have begun on the 1st of Nisan after the ascension, whereas Kings and Chronicles would have reckoned his 1st regnal year to have begun on the 1st of Tishri after the ascension.

nebuchadnezzar head

Head of a figure representing Nebuchadnezzar (II).

This may help to explain why Josephus erroneously gives a difference of four years when stating that Jehoiakims 8th year was Nebuchadnezzars 4th. For apparently he was ignorant of the two systems of reckoning, and so took passages like II Kings 23:36 and II Chronicles 36:5, which state that Jehoiakims reign was 11 years, and dovetailed it with a deduction made from Jeremiah 52 about a deportation in Nebuchadnezzars 7th year. But as stated by the Babylonians and implied in Jeremiah, it was Nebuchadnezzars 7th year when Jehoiachin was also deposed. And since no regnal year is assigned to Jehoiachin, Jehoiakims deposing came in the same regnal year. Thus Josephus made the understandable mistake of assuming the regnal year difference between Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar was the difference between 11 and 7, or 4 years. But Josephus failed to note Jeremiah 25:1, which plainly states that Jehoiakims 4th year was Nebuchadnezzars 1st, a difference of three years. (Incidentally, although Nebuchadnezzars ascension came shortly before the Tishri that began his 1st regnal year according to II Kings (in 605), and thus about a halfyear prior to when Nisan reckoning would begin it, the opposite would have been true if Nebuchadnezzar had ascended after Tishri 1, 605 but before or on Nisan 1, 604. For in such a case Nebuchadnezzars 1st regnal year would not have begun until Nisan, 604, with Tishri reckoning coming about a halfyear later, also in 604. The point here is that Tishri reckoning does not always precede Nisan reckoning for other kingsregnal years.)

Now, although Jeremiah did not state the length of Jehoiakims reign, he would have put it at 10 years, even though II Kings 23:36 and II Chronicles 36:5, which used Tishri reckoning, stated it was 11 years. Here is why. (1) Jeremiah tells us that Jehoiakim’s 4th year was Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year, a difference of three years. (2) This means that when Jehoiakim was deposed in December, 598, he would have had to have been in his 10th regnal year according to Jeremiah’s reckoning, since we have already established that Nisan 1, 598 up to but not including Nisan 1, 597 was Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year, thus demonstrating the three years difference between Jehoiakim’s and Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years. (3)

 

insane nebuchadnezzar

Nebuchadnezzar, a color monotype ca. 1800 by William Blake, the imaginative English poet, painter, and printmaker. Blake shows Nebuchadnezzar during his 7-year insanity period described in Daniel 4. God restored Nebuchadnezzar to his throne once he humbled himself before God.

 

This leads to the deduction that Jehoiakim ascended after Nisan 1, 608, not on or before Nisan 1, 608. For had Jehoiakim ascended on or before Nisan 1, 608, then by Jeremiah’s and the Babylonian’s Nisan reckoning Jehoiakim would have entered his 11th regnal year on Nisan 1, 598. But then this would mean a four-year difference between the regnal years of Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar, therefore contradicting Jeremiah 25:1. Therefore Jehoiakim had to have ascended after Nisan 1, 608, so that his 1st regnal year came on Nisan 1, 607, and thus his 10th regnal year on Nisan 1, 598, showing a three-year difference in accord with Jeremiah 25:1. At the same time we can see why II Kings 23:36 and II Chronicles 36:5 state that Jehoiakim reigned 11 years. For from their perspective Jehoiakim would have ascended prior to Tishri 1, 608, and therefore entered his 1st regnal year upon Tishri 1, 608, and thus his 11th regnal year on Tishri 1, 598, a few months before December, 598 when Jehoiakim was deposed.

These facts go a long way to resolve what has been a long-standing dispute about the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Even in Christian circles there has been a lack of consensus as to whether the destruction of Jerusalem happened in the summer of 587 or 586. Much of this stems from an apparent fact which the proponents for 587 have parleyed into a conclusion that is unwarranted. The apparent fact is that the last verse of Jeremiah 51 says, “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” Therefore it is reasonable to assume chapter 52 was added by someone else. The unwarranted conclusion, however, by those advocating 587, is that Jeremiah 52:29 puts Nebuchadnezzar’s deportation of 832 persons in the king’s 18th year, which these advocates assume is the same event as that described earlier in the chapter (vss. 4-5) about the city being broken up in the 11th year of Zedekiah (in the 4th month). And so it is claimed, e.g. Bruno Kolberg in his extensive work, Redating the Hebrew Kings, that the Hebrews reckoned Babylonian years one year earlier than did the Babylonians. Says Kolberg:

 

Thus, the seventh year of Jer 52:28 (Babylonian dated) corresponds to the eighth year of 2 Kgs 24:12 (Hebrew dated). The 18th year of Jer 52:29 (Babylonian dated) corresponds to the 19th year of 2 Kgs 25:8 (Hebrew dated).

 

However, this assumption makes no difference between the Hebrew Jeremiah, who, like the Babylonians, reckoned years according to Nisan as proved in statements in Jeremiah 28 about the death of Hananiah (where the 5th and 7th months are said to be in the same year), versus the Hebrew exilic writers, who reckoned from Tishri. Thus Kolberg misses the vital point that Jeremiah reckoned from Nisan.

For the moment, let us simplify matters by focusing only on the data in the entire book of Jeremiah to show that all of the book, chapter 52 included, reckons by Nisan.

First, Jeremiah 52:28 speaks of a deportation by Nebuchadnezzar in his 7th year. The deportation is the same mentioned in the Babylonian ‘Jerusalem Chronicle,’ which involved the capture of Jehoiachin on Addaru 2, 597, about one month before Nisan 1. Nisan 1, 597 is when Jeremiah and the Babylonians would have marked the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s 8th year. Since Jeremiah reckoned from Nisan even as the Babylonians did, we should expect that both should mention a deportation in Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year.

Second, Jeremiah 32:1 states that the 10th year of Zedekiah was the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. (Zedekiah was the successor of Jehoiachin and the one whose reign would end with the destruction of Jerusalem.) Also, Jeremiah 39:2 states that it was the 11th year (4th month) of Zedekiah when the city was broken up. Therefore if Zedekiah’s 10th year was Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, Zedekiah’s 11th year had to have been Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year. Note that all these statements occur before Jeremiah 52, and therefore must be attributed to Jeremiah. The crucial deduction of all this is that Zedekiah had to have ascended after Nisan 1, 597, not on or before Nisan 1. For had Zedekiah ascended on or before Nisan 1, then his 1st regnal year would have begun Nisan 1, 597, meaning Jerusalem fell in his 11th year, in 587. But then an August, 587 date for the fall of Jerusalem, i.e., before Tishri, 587, could not have been the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar according to the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s ascension and the Tishri reckoning perspective of II Kings 25:8. On the other hand, if Zedekiah ascended after Nisan 1, then his 1st regnal year would have been delayed until Nisan 1, 596, meaning the fall of Jerusalem in August, 586 would be Zedekiah’s 11th year, as well as Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year from both Tishri (II Kings’s) and Nisan (Jeremiah’s) reckoning. Thus Jeremiah’s statements support only a 586 destruction of Jerusalem.

 Note that these conclusions do not contradict Jeremiah 52 at all. For Jeremiah 52:4-5 state that the city of Jerusalem was broken up on the 9th day of the 4th month of Zedekiah’s 11th year. The only real objection here is that the deportation of Nebuchadnezzar is stated to have come in the king’s 18th year (Jer. 52:29). But the reason for this is because Nebuchadnezzar’s deportation came prior to when the city was broken up. There are at least two reasons to think so. First, there is Zedekiah’s reason to Jeremiah about why he does not want to surrender:

Then King Zedekiah said to Jeremiah, “I dread the Jews who have gone over to the Chaldeans, for they may give me over into their hand and they will abuse me.” (38:19)

(Continued in Part 3)