{"id":153,"date":"2021-08-23T21:22:07","date_gmt":"2021-08-23T21:22:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/?p=153"},"modified":"2021-08-26T01:00:06","modified_gmt":"2021-08-26T01:00:06","slug":"chapter-3-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/chapter-3-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Chapter 3 – Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.9.2″ background_color=”rgba(224,100,0,0.03)” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/jerusalem-chronicle.jpg” alt=”jerusalem chronicle” title_text=”jerusalem chronicle” _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n

\u2018<\/span><\/span>The Jerusalem Chronicle<\/span><\/span>,<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>detailing th<\/span><\/span>e early years of <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.3″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”9px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n

Taking II Kings 24:12, II Chronicles 36:5, and <\/span><\/span>Jeremi<\/span><\/span>ah 52:28 together shows it came at the <\/span><\/span>end of Jehoiachin<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s short reign of 3 months <\/span><\/span>and 10 days. Calculating backwards, we find that <\/span><\/span>Jehoiachin<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s predecessor and father, Jehoiakim <\/span><\/span>(the names are similar and may easily cause <\/span><\/span>confusion), was captured in the 1<\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>year of his <\/span><\/span>reign, in December, 598. Therefore both Judean <\/span><\/span>kings were taken into captivity in the 7<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>year of <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s reign. We know this fact not <\/span><\/span>only from Jeremiah<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s statement that the <\/span><\/span>deportation came in Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 7<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>year, <\/span><\/span>but also <\/span><\/span>because a Babylonian record known as <\/span><\/span>The Jerusalem Chronicle <\/span><\/em><\/span>detailing <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s early years states that <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem on the 2<\/span><\/span>nd<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>of Addaru (March 16, 597 <\/span><\/span>BC<\/span><\/span>) in the 7<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>year of <\/span><\/span>his reign. The month of Addaru was the <\/span><\/span>Babylonians<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>12<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>month, basically <\/span><\/span>equivalent to <\/span><\/span>the Jews<\/span><\/span>\u2019 12<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>month, Adar. Therefore the entire <\/span><\/span>reign of Jehoiachin came <\/span><\/span>between<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>Tishri and <\/span><\/span>Nisan, ending shortly before the turn of the <\/span><\/span>new year which would mark the beginning of <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 8<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>year (by Babylon<\/span><\/span>ian and Jeremiah<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s reckoning). <\/span><\/span>Again<\/span><\/span>, <\/span><\/span>then, note that both Judean kings <\/span><\/span>were captured between Tishri and Nisan, 598\/597. <\/span><\/span><\/em>The importance of this fact will become more evident as we <\/span><\/span>proceed.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But although March 16, 597 <\/span><\/span>BC<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>is a date used by some theologians fo<\/span><\/span>r when the Exile began, a prior <\/span><\/span>deportation about 8\u00bd years earlier is mentioned by both Jeremiah and Daniel. Jeremiah describes this <\/span><\/span>deportation in 27:19<\/span><\/span>–<\/span><\/span>20 (<\/span><\/span>NASB<\/span><\/span>):<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For thus says the L<\/span>ORD <\/span>of hosts concerning the pillars, concerning the [bronze] sea, <\/span>concer<\/span>ning the stands and concerning the rest of the vessels that are left in this city, which <\/span>Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon did not take, <\/span>when he carried into <\/span>exile<\/span> <\/span>Jeconiah the son of <\/span>Jehoiakim, king of Judah, from Jerusalem to Babylon, and all the nobles of <\/span>Judah and Jerusalem <\/span><\/em>(emphasis mine).<\/span> <\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Backing up to <\/span><\/span>Jeremiah 27:1, we find that Jeremiah spoke verses 19<\/span><\/span>–<\/span><\/span>20 at <\/span><\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/span>the beginning of the reign of <\/span><\/span>Jehoiakim.<\/span><\/span>\u201d <\/span><\/span>But this is a relative statement, for in 28:1 we are told that in <\/span><\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/span>the same year, in the beginning <\/span>of t<\/span>he reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, <\/span>in the fourth year<\/span>…\u201d, a false prophet named Hananiah tried to <\/span>mislead the people, claiming God had broken Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s power. In a moment we will dovetail <\/span>Jeremiah\u2019s statements recounting this earlier exile with Dani<\/span>el 1, to find internal, biblical corroboration that <\/span>Daniel went into captivity in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This timeline of a deportation in Jehoiakim\u2019s 3<\/span>rd<\/span> <\/span>year is also <\/span><\/span>corroboratively implied in II Kings 24:1,<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>which <\/span><\/span>states that Jehoiakim became his [Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s] servant three years when he <\/span><\/span>then <\/span><\/span>rebelled. A more <\/span><\/span>literal translation might be something like <\/span><\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/span>and Jehoiakim, his [Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s] servant three years is <\/span><\/span>turning and rebelling against him<\/span><\/span>\u201d. <\/span><\/span>Now c<\/span><\/span>onsider also that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne on <\/span><\/span>September 7, 605 <\/span><\/span>BC<\/span><\/span>, and that his 1<\/span><\/span>st<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>regnal <\/span><\/span>year in Babylon by Babylonian reckoning would have officially <\/span><\/span>begun about 6\u00bd months later, at the turn of the Babylonian new year (see chart further below)<\/span><\/span>. From his <\/span><\/span>date of ascension until the new year, Nebuchadnezzar was considered in his ascension or accession year. <\/span><\/span>Therefore because the 1st <\/span><\/span>regnal<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>year of Nebuchadnezzar began on the 1<\/span><\/span>st<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>month of the Babylonian <\/span><\/span>calendar in spring, 604, this means his 7<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>year would have run from spring, <\/span><\/span>598<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>up to spring, <\/span><\/span>597<\/span><\/span>. Again, <\/span><\/span>this is the year he captured Jehoiakim in December, <\/span><\/span>598<\/span><\/span>, and several months later captured his son, <\/span><\/span>Jehoiachin, in mid<\/span><\/span>–<\/span><\/span>March <\/span><\/span>597<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"nebuchadnezzar\"

Jeremiah tells the false prophet, Hananiah, that he will die in the same year because of his sin.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/span>But here a question arises. For in examining the reigning ye<\/span><\/span>ars <\/span><\/span>of Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar, we find that if Daniel<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s <\/span><\/span>deportation occurred at the <\/span><\/span>beginning<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>of the 3<\/span><\/span>rd<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>year of Jehoiakim <\/span><\/span>(which is necessary if the <\/span><\/span>exile<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>is to be at least 69 years in <\/span><\/span>length), it would have taken place <\/span><\/span>before<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar <\/span><\/span>ascende<\/span><\/span>d the throne. But why, then, does Daniel in 1:1 state that <\/span><\/span>in the 3<\/span><\/span>rd<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>year of Jehoiakim, <\/span><\/span>King<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar came to <\/span><\/span>Jerusalem and besieged it? The answer may be one of at least <\/span><\/span>three possibilities. First, Nebuchadnezzar was all but acting as <\/span><\/span>co<\/span><\/span>–<\/span><\/span>regent wit<\/span><\/span>h his father at this time (just before his father<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s <\/span><\/span>death) and would be endowed with most or all the powers due a <\/span><\/span>king shortly before his ascension. (Records indicate <\/span><\/span>Nabopolassar gave up his throne in favor of his son, <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar, just a few months be<\/span><\/span>fore he died of natural <\/span><\/span>causes at about age 53, that Nebuchadnezzar was on campaign at <\/span><\/span>Jerusalem at the time he received news of his father<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s death, and <\/span><\/span>hastened <\/span><\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/span>over the desert<\/span><\/span>\u201d <\/span><\/span>back to Babylon.) Second, Daniel is <\/span><\/span>writing his book retrospectively, and so<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>from the vantage point <\/span><\/span>of history may have simply been referring to Nebuchadnezzar as the king in the same way that Americans <\/span><\/span>refer to Presidents by their presidential title long after they have left office. And so under this explanation <\/span><\/span>Daniel is not sta<\/span><\/span>ting that Nebuchadnezzar <\/span><\/span>was<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>the <\/span><\/span>sole<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>king <\/span><\/span>at the time<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>of his captivity. (Moreover, it <\/span><\/span>should be noted here that numerous sons of Hebrew kings were said to have <\/span><\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/span>reigned<\/span><\/span>\u201d <\/span><\/span>prior to becoming <\/span><\/span>sole regent, and that the term <\/span><\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/span>king<\/span><\/span>\u201d <\/span><\/span>may therefore have had a simi<\/span><\/span>lar latitude of definition as the word <\/span><\/span>
\u201c<\/span><\/span>reign,<\/span><\/span>\u201d <\/span><\/span>not only among the Hebrews of that time, but also among the Babylonians.) Third, <\/span><\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/span>King Darius<\/span><\/span>\u201d <\/span><\/span>in the book of Daniel has all but certainly been identified as Gobryas (or Guburu), the Babylonian <\/span><\/span>governor. Ther<\/span><\/span>efore apparently his rulership under Cyrus of the important city, Babylon, was sufficient for <\/span><\/span>Daniel to have referred to him as a king. At any rate, for the purpose of maintaining a proper chronology, <\/span><\/span>Babylonians assigned the reigning years of kings so tha<\/span><\/span>t a linear timeline resulted. Thus the interim before <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Nebuchadnezzar actually began the 1<\/span><\/span>st <\/span><\/span>regnal <\/span><\/span><\/em>year of his reign<\/span><\/span>\u2014<\/span><\/span>i.e., the time between his ascension in early <\/span><\/span>September, 605 until the following spring<\/span><\/span>\u2014<\/span><\/span>the question for Babylonians as to whose <\/span><\/span>regnal <\/span><\/span><\/em>yea<\/span><\/span>r it was, at <\/span><\/span>least for civic calendar purposes, was presumably that it was his father<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s reign, even though his father had <\/span><\/span>died. (Similarly, 5<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span>century<\/span><\/span>BC<\/span><\/span>legal documents from the Jewish colony at Elephantine are double<\/span><\/span>–<\/span><\/span>dated <\/span><\/span>according to Egyptian and Baby<\/span><\/span>lonian calendars, and one of these contracts is dated past the death of <\/span><\/span>Xerxes but nevertheless assigned to the 21<\/span><\/span>st<\/span><\/span>year of Xerxes.)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"elephantine

elephantine island<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Now, a second and more critical <\/span><\/span>problem arises when we take into <\/span><\/span>consideration <\/span><\/span>all <\/span><\/span><\/em>the biblical data about <\/span><\/span>when Nebuchad<\/span><\/span>nezzar reigned in relation <\/span><\/span>to Jehoiakim. For while the <\/span><\/span>harmonization of the Babylonian record <\/span><\/span>with the biblical record of II Chronicles <\/span><\/span>36:5<\/span><\/span>–<\/span><\/span>6 (saying Jehoiakim reigned 11 years) <\/span><\/span>would seem to show a <\/span><\/span>four<\/span><\/span>year <\/span><\/span>difference<\/span><\/span>\u2014<\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s <\/span><\/span>7<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span>year <\/span><\/span>of reign <\/span><\/span>being Jehoiakim<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s <\/span><\/span>11<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span>\u2014<\/span><\/span>a <\/span><\/span>statement in Jeremiah 25:1 shows that <\/span><\/span>Jehoiakim was in his <\/span><\/span>4<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span>year when <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar was in his <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/span>st<\/span><\/span>, a <\/span><\/span>difference of <\/span><\/span>three<\/span><\/span>years! And this is not <\/span><\/span>the only incidence in which there appears <\/span><\/span>to be a discrepancy. For II Kings 24:12 <\/span><\/span>states that Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s son) was taken captive in the <\/span><\/span>8<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span>year of Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s reign, but (as <\/span><\/span>noted earlier) the Babylonian record states that this occurred in Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s <\/span><\/span>7<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>year. In fact the <\/span><\/span>website livius.org<\/span><\/span>,<\/span><\/span>devoted to translatin<\/span><\/span>g ancient Babylonian and Assyrian texts from which I obtained a <\/span><\/span>translation of <\/span><\/span>The Jerusalem Chronicle <\/span><\/span>(detailing events in Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s early years, including his capture <\/span><\/span>of Jerusalem in 597 <\/span><\/span>BC<\/span><\/span>), pointed this <\/span><\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/span>discrepancy<\/span><\/span>\u201d <\/span><\/span>out, as they called it, and <\/span><\/span>said it had never been <\/span><\/span>explained. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

However, the solution lies along the lines of what Harold Hoehner pointed out, when he showed that <\/span><\/span>the Jews of the 5<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span>century <\/span><\/span>BC<\/span><\/span>used Tishri (7<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span>month) reckoning for the reigning years of kings, whereas <\/span><\/span>Jeremiah used th<\/span><\/span>e older Nisan (1<\/span><\/span>st<\/span><\/span>month) reckoning. And so when these two systems of reckoning are <\/span><\/span>taken into account, all of the so<\/span><\/span>–<\/span><\/span>called discrepancies disappear. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For example, recall how the entire 3 month, 10 day reign of Jehoiachin fell <\/span><\/span>between<\/span><\/span>Tishri and Nisan, <\/span><\/span>598<\/span><\/span>\/597 <\/span><\/span>BC<\/span><\/span>. This explains why <\/span><\/span>by Babylonian and Jeremiah<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s reckoning <\/span><\/span>Jehoiachin was captured in the <\/span><\/span>7<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>year <\/span><\/span>of Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s reign, while the exilic book of II Kings reckoned the same event as falling in the <\/span><\/span>8<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>year of Nebuchadnezzar. This is because the <\/span><\/span>Jews of the 6<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>century <\/span><\/span>BC <\/span><\/span>(and thus the<\/span><\/span>writer(s) of the <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>Books <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>of Kings and Chronicles) would have reckoned the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 1<\/span><\/span>st <\/span><\/span>regnal year <\/span><\/span>just weeks (not 6\u00bd months) after Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s ascension on September 7, 605 <\/span><\/span>BC<\/span><\/span>, upon the <\/span><\/span>arrival of <\/span><\/span>the 1<\/span><\/span>st <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>of Tishri.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"timeline\"<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore from the 6<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>century perspective of the Jewish writers of Kings and Chronicles, <\/span><\/span>the capture of Jehoiakim and the entire reign of his son, Jehoiachin, happened in the <\/span><\/span>8<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>year of <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s reign, while by Babyl<\/span><\/span>onian and Jeremiah<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s reckoning both these events happened in <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s <\/span><\/span>7<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>year. Again, this is because both Judean kings were deposed between (the beginning <\/span><\/span>of) Tishri and (up to) Nisan and because the anniversaries of the reigning years of Nebucha<\/span><\/span>dnezzar and <\/span><\/span>Jehoiakim are reckoned from spring in the Nisan system, but from fall in the Tishri system. And so, <\/span><\/span>although all parties would have agreed to the exact calendar day Nebuchadnezzar <\/span><\/span>ascended <\/span><\/span>to the throne, <\/span><\/span>Jeremiah would have reckoned Nebuchadnez<\/span><\/span>zar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 1<\/span><\/span>st <\/span><\/span>regnal year to have begun <\/span><\/span>on <\/span><\/span>the 1<\/span><\/span>st <\/span><\/span>of <\/span><\/span>Nisan <\/span><\/span>after the <\/span><\/span>ascension, whereas Kings and Chronicles would have reckoned his 1<\/span><\/span>st <\/span><\/span>regnal year <\/span><\/span>to have begun <\/span><\/span>on the 1<\/span><\/span>st <\/span><\/span>of <\/span><\/span>Tishri <\/span><\/span>after the ascension.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"nebuchadnezzar

Head of a figure representing Nebuchadnezzar (II).<\/p><\/div><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This may help to explain why Josephus <\/span><\/span>erroneously gi<\/span><\/span>ves a difference of four years when <\/span><\/span>stating that Jehoiakim<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 8<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>year was <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 4<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span>. For apparently he was <\/span><\/span>ignorant of the two systems of reckoning, and so <\/span><\/span>took passages like II Kings 23:36 and II <\/span><\/span>Chronicles 36:5, which state that Jehoiakim<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s <\/span><\/span>re<\/span><\/span>ign was 11 years, and dovetailed it with a <\/span><\/span>deduction made from Jeremiah 52 about a <\/span><\/span>deportation in Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 7<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>year. But as <\/span><\/span>stated by the Babylonians and implied in <\/span><\/span>Jeremiah, it was Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 7<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>year when <\/span><\/span>Jehoiachin was also deposed. And si<\/span><\/span>nce no regnal <\/span><\/span>year is assigned to Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s <\/span><\/span>deposing came in the same regnal year. Thus <\/span><\/span>Josephus made the understandable mistake of <\/span><\/span>assuming the regnal year difference between <\/span><\/span>Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar was the <\/span><\/span>difference between 11 and 7, <\/span><\/span>or 4 years. But Josephus failed to note Jeremiah 25:1, which plainly states that <\/span><\/span>Jehoiakim<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 4<\/span><\/span>th <\/span><\/span>year was <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/span>st<\/span><\/span>, a difference of <\/span><\/span>three <\/span><\/span>years. (Incidentally, although <\/span><\/span>Nebuchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s ascension came shortly before the Tishri that began his 1<\/span><\/span>s<\/span><\/span>t <\/span><\/span>regnal year according to II <\/span><\/span>Kings (in 605), and thus about a half<\/span><\/span>–<\/span><\/span>year prior to when Nisan reckoning would begin it, the opposite <\/span><\/span>would have been true if Nebuchadnezzar had ascended <\/span><\/span>after <\/span><\/span>Tishri 1, 605 but <\/span><\/span>before or on <\/span><\/span>Nisan 1, 604. For <\/span><\/span>in such a case Ne<\/span><\/span>buchadnezzar<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s 1<\/span><\/span>st <\/span><\/span>regnal year would not have begun until Nisan, <\/span><\/span>604<\/span><\/span>, with Tishri <\/span><\/span>reckoning coming about a half<\/span><\/span>–<\/span><\/span>year later, also in <\/span><\/span>604<\/span><\/span>. The point here is that Tishri reckoning does not <\/span><\/span>always precede Nisan reckoning for other kings<\/span><\/span>\u2019 <\/span><\/span>regnal years.) <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Now, al<\/span><\/span>though Jeremiah did not state the length of Jehoiakim<\/span><\/span>\u2019<\/span><\/span>s reign, he would have put it at <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>10\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>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\u2019s 4th year was Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s 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\u00a010<\/u>t<\/u>h regnal year according to\u00a0Jeremiah\u2019s reckoning, since we have already established that Nisan 1,\u00a0598 up to but not including <\/em>Nisan 1,\u00a0597 was Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s 7th year, thus demonstrating the three years difference between Jehoiakim\u2019s and Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s regnal years. (3)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"insane

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.<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

This leads to the deduction that\u00a0Jehoiakim ascended after <\/em>Nisan 1, 608, not on or before <\/em>Nisan 1, 608. For had Jehoiakim ascended on or before\u00a0<\/em>Nisan 1, 608, then by Jeremiah\u2019s and the Babylonian\u2019s Nisan reckoning Jehoiakim would have entered his\u00a011th regnal year on Nisan 1, 598. But then this would mean a four<\/em>-year difference between the regnal years of Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar, therefore contradicting Jeremiah 25:1. Therefore Jehoiakim had to have ascended after <\/em>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.<\/p>\n

These facts go a long way to resolve what has been a long-standing dispute about the year of Jerusalem\u2019s 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, \u201cThus far are the words of Jeremiah.\u201d 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\u2019s deportation of 832 persons in the king\u2019s 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<\/em>, that the Hebrews reckoned Babylonian years one year earlier than\u00a0did the Babylonians. Says Kolberg:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Thus, the seventh year of Jer 52:28 (Babylonian dated) corresponds to the eighth year of 2\u00a0Kgs 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).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

However, this assumption makes no difference between the Hebrew Jeremiah, who, like <\/em>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 <\/em>year), versus the Hebrew exilic writers, who reckoned from Tishri. Thus Kolberg misses the vital point that Jeremiah reckoned from Nisan.<\/p>\n

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

First, Jeremiah 52:28 speaks of a deportation by Nebuchadnezzar in his 7th year. The deportation is the same mentioned in the Babylonian \u2018Jerusalem Chronicle,<\/em>\u2019 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\u00a0would have marked the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s 8th year. Since Jeremiah reckoned from Nisan even as the Babylonians did, we should expect that both should mention a deportation in Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s 7th year.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 10th year was Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s 18th year, Zedekiah\u2019s 11th year had to have been Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s 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 <\/em>Nisan 1, 597, not on or before <\/em>Nisan 1. For had Zedekiah ascended on or before <\/em>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<\/em>, 587 date for the fall of Jerusalem, i.e., before <\/em>Tishri, 587, could not have been the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar according to the date of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s ascension and the Tishri reckoning perspective of II Kings 25:8. On the other hand, if Zedekiah ascended after <\/em>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\u2019s 11th year, as well as Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s 19th year from both Tishri (II Kings\u2019s) and Nisan (Jeremiah\u2019s) reckoning. Thus Jeremiah\u2019s statements support only a 586 destruction of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Note 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\u2019s 11th year. The only real\u00a0objection here is that the deportation of Nebuchadnezzar is stated to have come in the king\u2019s 18th year (Jer.\u00a052:29). But the reason for this is because Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s deportation came prior <\/em>to when the city was broken up. There are at least two reasons to think so. First, there is Zedekiah\u2019s reason to Jeremiah about why he does not want to surrender:<\/p>\n

Then King Zedekiah said to Jeremiah, \u201cI dread the Jews who have gone over to the\u00a0Chaldeans, for they may give me over into their hand and they will abuse me.\u201d (38:19)<\/p>\n

\n

(Continued in Part 3)<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u2018The Jerusalem Chronicle,\u2019 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 Jehoiachin\u2019s short reign of 3 months and 10 days. Calculating backwards, we find that Jehoiachin\u2019s predecessor and father, Jehoiakim (the names are similar and may easily cause confusion), was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"793","footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rock-paper-shivers"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":283,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153\/revisions\/283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}