Commentary On Daniel :: Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Appendix 1A:Daniel’s historical backdrop

The subject of OT chronology is no small one and includes a number ofissues about which scholars disagree. The most comprehensive workson the subject are those of Thiele,1 Finegan,2 McFall,3 and Steinmann.4

In the present appendix, I provide an general introduction to the subjectas well as a proposed chronology for Judah’s last days and exile. Myproposed date for Babylon’s fall (587) is in agreement with Young’s,5 butis one year removed from Thiele, Finegan, and McFall’s (586). While, asfar as I can see, mine and Young’s calculations make sense of the relevantsynchronicities, the 586-view fails to do so at times.6

Some notes on chronological details

To interpret the OT’s chronological data is no mean feat for a number ofreasons. First, ancient historians did not possess a common ‘framework’within which they could work (such as the BC and AD eras). Second, veryfew Israelite inscriptions from the period 1000-600 BC have survived.(The Israelites preferred papyrus to clay.) Third, different OT authorsreckon the reigns of kings in different ways. Our last point may requireclarification.

The ancients do not generally reckon history in terms of fractions ofyears. (They hardly ever, for instance, refer to a 11/2-year war or a 22/3-

1. XXX.

2. XXX.

3. XXX.

4. XXX.

5. Young, “When Did Jerusalem Fall?”, 2005:21-38.

6. See “An alternative interpretation of Jer. 52’s dates”.

1

2 SOME NOTES ON CHRONOLOGICAL DETAILS

year reign.) The real world, however, is no respecter of man’s conven-tions. Kings do not perish on New Year’s eve in order to make way fortheir successors, nor do wars begin on New Year’s day. Suppose, then,a king dies midway through a calendar year. To whom should the yearbe assigned? To the dead king or the new king? The record-keepers ofthe ANE chose to solve the problem in two different ways. The Egyptianscredited the whole year to the new king; that is to say, they counted theyear as the first of the new king. The Assyrians and Babylonians, on theother hand, credited the year to the old king; they then dubbed it thenew king’s ‘accession year’ (a ‘0th year’ effectively). The first of thesemethods is known as ‘non-accessional’ reckoning; the latter is known as‘accessional’ or ‘post-accessional’ reckoning.7 I personally prefer the term‘post-accessional’. As an illustration of these two methods of reckoning,consider the following scenario:

· King A accedes to the throne in August 600 BC (hereafter simplyAugust 600),

· King A dies in July 597,

· King B takes his place, and

· King B dies in June 595.

The difference between reckoning the above scenario “post-accessionally” and “non-accessionally” is shown in the following table:8

Year Post-acc. reckoning Non-acc. reckoning

600 King A’s acc. year King A’s 1st year

599 King A’s 1st year King A’s 2nd year

598 King A’s 2nd year King A’s 3rd year

597 King A’s 3rd year King B’s 1st year

596 King B’s 1st year King B’s 2nd year

595 King B’s 2nd year King B’s 3rd year

7. For further details, see Kitchen (How We Know When Solomon Ruled, 2001) or Thiele (The MysteriousNumbers Of The Hebrew Kings, 1994:43).

8. assuming that the relevant civilisations’ years run from January to December

APPENDIX 1 3

All well and good, one might say. But, unfortunately, the OT seems toemploy both of these systems of reckoning. In Jer. 52, for instance,Jeremiah assigns the fall of Jerusalem to the 19th year of Nebuchad-nezzar’s reign; then, later in the same chapter, he assigns (what is ap-parently) the same incident to the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign(cf. Jer. 52.12, 52.29). To make matters worse, the OT employs differ-ent calendar-years. In some passages, it employs an Apr.-to-Apr. year,while, in others, it employs a Sep.-to-Sep. year. Such irregularities canbe difficult to process, but their existence is not surprising. The OT wascomposed in a number of different places and times. Moses, for instance,wrote in the wilderness of Egypt; Jeremiah wrote both in Judah and inBabylon, as did Ezekiel; and so on. That the OT employs a number ofdifferent reckoning systems is therefore unsurprising. We must handle itaccordingly.

Ancient calendars

As mentioned in our “housekeeping points”,9 the Hebrews and Babylo-nians employed very similar calendars, as shown below

Akk. mth. Heb. mth. Modern eqvt. My approx.

Nisanu Nisan Mar-Apr. Apr.

Aiaru Iyyar Apr-May May

Simanu Sivan May-June June

Duzu Tammuz June-July July

Abu Ab July-Aug. Aug.

Ululu Elul Aug-Sep. Sep.

Tashritu Tishri Sep-Oct. Oct.

Arahsamnu Heshvan Oct-Nov. Nov.

Kislimu Kislev Nov-Dec. Dec.

Tebetu Tebeth Dec-Jan. Jan.

Shabatu Shebat Jan-Feb. Feb.

Addaru Adar Feb-Mar. Mar.

9. See App. 0A.

4 THE LAST DAYS OF JUDAH’S KINGS

The administration of the Hebrew calendar was not straightforward. Itwas lunar as opposed to solar. Each time a ‘new moon’ was sighted, theHebrews therefore began a new month, which was proclaimed through-out the land via a series of trumpet-calls (cf. Num. 10.10, Psa. 81.3).But the Hebrew calendar also needed to keep in step with solar years(or ‘spring months’ such as Nisan and Iyyar would soon become ‘win-ter months’). The Hebrews therefore needed to insert ‘leap months’ intotheir calendars from time to time. Such months are generally known as‘intercalary’ or ‘intercalated’ months.

Exactly how the Hebrews intercalated in OT times is not known to us. TheBabylonians used mathematical formulas to tell them when extra monthsneeded to be inserted.10 The Hebrews appear to have been less rigor-ous about things. Their environment provided them with indicationsof the solar year’s progress (e.g., the flooding of the Nile, the blossom-ing of certain trees, etc.),11 so they would have been able to tell whenintercalation was necessary.12 But exactly what they did about it is notknown to us. Either way, the Hebrews must have employed some form ofintercalation; otherwise, their spring festivals would soon have becomewinter festivals, which would have wreaked havoc with their agriculturalsystems (cf. Lev. 23).

With these things in mind, then, let us see what we can glean about thelast days of Judah’s kings.

The last days of Judah’s kings

The last three kings of Judah were Jehoiakim, Yehoiachin, and Zedekiah.(The second of these kings is generally known as ‘Jehoiachin’, but thenames ‘Jehoiakim’ and ‘Jehoiachin’ are very easy to confuse. In thepresent commentary, I therefore refer to Jehoiachin as Yehoiachin,13

which has the added benefit of alphabetically-ordering Judah’s last threekings.)

10. They inserted either an extra Ululu (a summer month) or an extra Addaru (a winter month). On average,they inserted 7 leap months every 19 years.

11. Deut. 11.14, Joel 2.23.

12. HOBC XXX.

13. which is actually closer to the original Hebrew

APPENDIX 1 5

Each of the reigns of Jehoiakim, Yehoiachin, and Zedekiah ended in aBabylonian invasion. The end of Zedekiah’s reign, however, markedJerusalem’s final downfall, from which she has never fully recovered.Below, we set out what the OT reveals to us about these kings’ reigns.We begin with Zedekiah and work our way backwards.14

Zedekiah

Zedekiah reigned for a total of eleven years. As mentioned above,the end of his reign marked Jerusalem’s final fall (cf. 2 Kgs. 25.1-12).Zedekiah was a hard-hearted and godless king. He filled Jerusalem withabominations, ignored the prophecies of Jeremiah, and rebelled againstKing Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 2 Chr. 36.10-14). Accordingly, in the 9th yearof Zedekiah’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched against Judah and laidsiege to the city of Jerusalem. Zedekiah managed to hold out againstthe Babylonians for a year or so, but, in the 11th year of his reign, theybreached the city walls. The majority of Zedekiah’s soldiers fled, butZedekiah himself was captured and carried away to Babylon.

In the 5th month of the same year, a man named Nebuzaradan (the cap-tain of the King’s bodyguard) arrived in Jerusalem. Nebuzaradan’s or-ders were to completely destroy the city. He discharged these orderswithout ado; he torched the city’s houses, burnt down the Temple, andutterly demolished the city walls. Nebuzaradan then carried away themajority of the Judean remnant as well as whatever remained of theTemple-vessels (cf. 2 Kgs. 25.13-22). The reign of the kings of Judahthus came to an unseemly end and Jerusalem passed into Babylon’shands. (After the fall of Zedekiah, Judah’s rulers are only referred to as“governors”, i.e., rulers reigning in place of a higher authority (cf. 2 Kgs.25.23). The next mention of a Jewish king in the OT is in fact Zechariah’sprophecy of the Messiah: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! ...Behold,your king is coming to you—righteous and bearing salvation is he, hum-ble and mounted on a donkey”-cf. Zech. 9.9.)

14. We have used 2 Kgs. as our primary source, but the same results can be generated from 2 Chr. 36.

6 A FIRST PASS AT A JUDEAN CHRONOLOGY

Yehoiachin

Prior to Zedekiah’s reign, Yehoiachin occupied the throne. Yehoiachin’sreign was a brief and unhappy one (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.8). Only three monthsafter Yehoiachin’s accession, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem,at which point Yehoiachin gave himself up. Nebuchadnezzar carriedYehoiachin away to Babylon and installed Zedekiah on the throne in hisplace (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.17). Nebuchadnezzar also carried away “the mightymen of valour” and “the treasures of the house of the LORD”, i.e., the ‘toplayer’ of Judah’s society. According to the Chronicler,15 “none remained[in the wake of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion] except the poorest people ofthe land” (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.8-15).

Jehoiakim

Prior to Yehoiachin’s reign, Jehoiakim occupied the throne. His reignlasted for a total of eleven years (cf. 2 Kgs. 23.36-24.7). It marked thebeginning of the end for Judah. The full details of Jehoiakim’s interac-tion with Nebuchadnezzar will be discussed later. For now, it suffices tonote that Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar and slain in the11th year of his reign (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.1-8).

A first pass at a Judean chronology

We can now construct an approximate chronology of the last days of thekings of Judah,16 where x marks the date of Jerusalem’s final fall.

Year17 Event

x-22.25 Jehoiakim accedes to the throne

x-11.25 Jehoiakim falls and Yehoiachin accedes to the throne

x-11.25 Jerusalem is besieged, Yehoiachin’s reign comes to anend, and Judah’s nobles are exiled

x-11 Zedekiah accedes to the throne

15. In the present commentary, we use the term ‘Chronicler’ to designate ‘the author of OT history’, whetherthe Book of Kings, Chronicles, or whatever else.

16. i.e., a chronology showing how various events relate to one another without assigning an absolute dateto them

APPENDIX 1 7

Year17 Event

x Jerusalem finally falls; its houses, temple, and citywalls are destroyed by Nebuzaradan

So, let us now try to assign some absolute (Gregorian) dates to ourchronology. To do so, we must find an absolute date to work with—apeg on which to hang our relativistic chronology—, which we can obtainfrom Babylon’s historical records. Unlike the Israelites, the Babylonianswere well-known for their use of clay (cf. Gen. 11.3). They were also amajor power in the Near East. As a result, archeologists have been ableto recover tens of thousands of astronomical and administrative tabletsfrom Babylon’s remains. Historians have then used these artefacts tocompile a comprehensive list of Babylon’s kings, which have been (suc-cessfully) correlated with Babylon’s documented eclipse sightings. So,if we can link our Judean chronology with Babylon’s chronology, we canassign absolute dates to its events. But how to do such a thing? The bestploy, to my mind, is to consider the most notable occasion when Judahand Babylon’s paths crossed, namely when Nebuchadnezzar conqueredJerusalem (and destroyed her Temple) at the end of Zedekiah’s reign.No other event is as thoroughly documented in OT history, nor has anyeven been so rigorously memorialised since.18

Below, we will therefore ‘absolutise’ our Judean chronology by means ofthe following steps. First we will consider the dates of Nebuchadnezzar’sreign as documented by Babylon’s records; then we will use the OT toassign a date to Jerusalem’s final fall; then we will be able to backfill therest of our chronology.

The reign of Nebuchadnezzar

According to the Early Years of Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle, Nebuchad-nezzar acceded to the throne on 1st Sep. 605 BC.19 And, as mentionedpreviously, the Babylonians reckoned the reigns of their kings accordingto a Nisan-based-post-acc. system. Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year musttherefore have spanned the period Apr. 604 to Mar. 603 (here denoted

18. The Jewish people still remember the date of the Temple’s destruction today.

19. PDBC XXX.

8 THE REIGN OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR

‘604/603’).20 The question we must now, therefore, answer is, In whichyear of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign did Jerusalem fall? The answer can bededuced by means of the following inferences:

1. (Premise) According to Jer. 52.29, Jerusalem fell in the 18th yearof Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.

2. (Premise) According to Jer. 52.12, Jerusalem fell in the 19th yearof Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.

3. (From 1 & 2) Jeremiah employs two different reckoning systems inJer. 52.

4. (Premise) Given Jeremiah’s background, one of the tworeckoning systems he employs is likely to be theofficial Babylonian reckoning system, i.e.,Nisan-post-acc. reckoning.

5. (Premise) Whatever reckoning system assigns Jerusalem’s fall toNebuchadnezzar’s 19th year cannot beNisan-post-accessional, since no reckoning systemcould then date Jerusalem’s fall to Nebuchadnezzar’s18th year. (Since Nebuchadnezzar acceded to thethrone on 1st Elul, Nisan-post-acc. reckoning yields aslow a year-count as any.)

6. (From 4 and 5) Jerusalem fell during the 18th post-acc. Nisan-year ofNebuchadnezzar’s reign.

7. (Premise) The 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was604/603.21

8. (From 6 & 7) Jerusalem fell at some point during the year 587/586.

9. (Premise) Jerusalem fell in July (cf. Jer. 52.4-7).

10. (From 8 & 9) Jerusalem fell in July 587 BC.

Our proposed date for Jerusalem’s fall is then consistent with the im-plications of the Seder POlam Rabbah (a Biblical chronology producedin the 2nd cent. AD) and various Talmudic passages, which, according toRodger Young’s calculations, date the fall of the Temple to the Sabbatical

20. Unless otherwise indicated, all the references in the present commentary refer to the BC era.

21. PDBC XXX.

APPENDIX 1 9

year Tishri 588 to Tishri 587 BC.22 It is also in line with the chronologyset out in Steinmann’s Biblical Chronology.23

So, with these things in mind, let us now consider which reckoning sys-tem could have assigned Jerusalem’s fall to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year(see points 1-5 above). By way of recap, the data-points we have estab-lished are as follows: a] Nebuchadnezzar acceded to the throne in Sep.605 BC, b] Jerusalem fell in July 587 BC, c] Jerusalem fell in Nebuchad-nezzar’s 18th post-accessional Nisan-year, in July 587 BC, and d] reckoneddifferently, Jerusalem fell in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year. How, then, arewe to reconcile these data-points? The best answer, to my mind, is to un-derstand statement ‘d’ in non-accessional terms. If Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st

year ran from Sep. 605 to Apr. 604, then Jerusalem’s fall (in July 587 BC)would have coincided both with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th post-acc. year aswell as his 19th non-acc. year. The apparent ‘oddness’ of Jeremiah’s reck-oning system then makes good sense.

An alternative interpretation of Jer. 52’s dates

The interpretation of Jer. 52 which I have set out above strikes me asperfectly plausible, but a number of scholars view the text of Jer. 52 dif-ferently. The most notable of them is Leslie McFall. According to McFall,Jeremiah’s reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year is to be understoodin terms of Tishri-based post-acc. terms. Jerusalem, McFalls claims, fellin July 586 BC, in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th ‘Babylonian year’ (Nisan-post-acc.) and in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th ‘Judean year’ (Tishri-post-acc.).24

McFall’s view is, in theory, quite plausible. (That the Judeans mighthave reckoned in Tishri-years at certain points in their history seemsquite uncontroversial.25) But, in practice, it seems overly ad hoc. If Neb-uchadnezzar acceded to the throne on 1st Elul 605, then his 1st post-acc.Tishri-year would have begun on 1st Tishri 605. So, all things beingequal, July 586 would have coincided, not with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th

Judean year, but with his 19th Judean year. McFall must therefore positsan asynchronicity between Babylon and Judah’s calendars—in particular,

22. Young, “Seder Olam And The Sabbaticals Associated With The Two Destructions Of Jerusalem: Part II”,2006:252-259.

23. Steinmann, From Abraham To Paul: A Biblical Chronology, XXXX:XXX.

24. XXX

25. XXX.

10 THE DATA OF THE BOOK OF KINGS

an asynchronicity which caused Judah’s 1st Tishri to pre-date Babylon’s1st Ululu—, which he does. The Babylonians, according to McFall, in-serted an extra Addaru in 605, which moved Babylon’s calendar forwarda month relative to Judah’s.26 As a result, Judah’s 1st Tishri pre-datedBabylon’s 1st Ululu.

Even, however, if we accept McFall’s proposed non-synchronicity, hisview still strikes me as problematic. In 605, Ululu consisted of 30 days.27

So, in order for Babylon’s 1st Ululu to have arrived before Judah’s 1st

Tishri, Babylon’s calendar would have needed to be at least 31 days aheadof Judah’s.28 But an extra (intercalated) Ululu alone could not havebrought about such a misalignment, since the Babylonians’ intercalatedUlulus were invariably 29 days in length.29 In order for the Judeans’ 1st

Tishri to pre-date the Babylonians’ 1st Ululu, other asynchronicities musttherefore have been in play. This, of course, is perfectly possible. (Therelevant new moon might have been visible in Jerusalem before it wasvisible in Babylon, or the two calendars might have been out-of-sync forsome other reason.30) But it seems preferable for a chronology not todepend on such quirks. I have not, therefore, adopted McFall’s view ofJer. 52 in the present commentary. With these things in mind, then, letus return to the task at hand.

The data of the Book of Kings

We now have an ‘absolute date’ to plug into our relative chronology,i.e., the date of Jerusalem’s fall (July 587 BC). We are therefore a stepcloser to our goal. But we still need to work out which reckoning systemthe text of 2 Kgs. 24-25 employs. That can be done by comparing itschronology with Jer. 52’s, as shown below.

26. The Babylonians intercalated in two different ways. Sometimes they added an extra Addaru, and some-times an extra Ululu. In contrast, the Judeans only intercalated by means of Adars. The Babylonian andHebrew calendars would often, therefore, have been out-of-sync with one another.

27. PDBC XXX

28. assuming that the two calendars were otherwise ‘in sync’

29. PDBC XXX.

30. Since the Judeans only intercalated Adars (on did so on a fairly ad hoc basis), the Judean and Babyloniancalendars could have been as much as two months out-of-sync with one another for a short time.

APPENDIX 1 11

Event Jer. 52a Jer. 52b 2 Kgs. 24-25

1st dep. (Undated) 7th year of Neb. 8th year of Neb.

2nd dep. 19th year of Neb. 18th year of Neb. 19th year of Neb.

3rd dep. (Undated) 23rd year of Neb. (Undated)

As can be seen, 2 Kgs.’ dates differ by a year from Jer. 52b’s, but they areconsistent with Jer. 52a’s. Like Jer. 52a, then, 2 Kgs. 24-25 must reckonNebuchadnezzar’s reign in non-acc. Nisan-years. Let us now, therefore,start to make our chronology absolute. Earlier, we represented ourchronology as follows:

Year Event

x-22.25 Jehoiakim accedes to the throne

x-11.25 Jehoiakim falls and Yehoiachin accedes to the throne

x-11.25 Jerusalem is besieged, Yehoiachin’s reign comes to anend, and Judah’s nobles are exiled

x-11 Zedekiah accedes to the throne

x Jerusalem finally falls, as its houses, temple, and citywalls are destroyed by Nebuzaradan

We are now in a position to plug two important data-points into ourchronology: i] the date of Jerusalem’s fall (July 587 BC), ii] the timingof Jerusalem’s fall in relation to Zedekiah’s reign (according to 2 Kgs.24.18, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years prior to Jerusalem’s fall, and,according to 2 Chr. 36.10, Zedekiah acceded to the throne in the spring-time).31 We can therefore assign the following absolute dates to the lasttwo events in our chronology:

Date Event

597 Apr. Zedekiah accedes to the throne in Judah

587 Jul. Jerusalem finally falls, as its houses, temple, and citywalls are devastated by Nebuzaradan

31. The text refers to ‘the return of the year’ (tešûbat hašanah), which seems to have the spring-time in mind.

12 608-597: JEHOIAKIM’S REIGN

We can now add Yehoiachin’s reign to the picture (Yehoiachin only lastedfor three months):

Date Event

597 Jan. Yehoiachin accedes to the throne

597 Apr. Zedekiah accedes to the throne


And it is now not too difficult to also add in Yehoiachin’s predecessor,namely Jehoiakim. According to 2 Kgs. 23.36, Jehoiakim’s reigned for11 years came. He must therefore have acceded to the throne at somepoint in 608/607, which, for the sake of illustration, we will assign toApr. 608. We can then represent Judah’s last days as follows:

Date Event

608 Apr. Jehoaikim accedes to the throne

597 Jan. Jehoiakim falls and Yehoiachin accedes to the throne

597 Mar. Jerusalem is besieged, Yehoiachin’s reign comes to anend, and Judah’s nobles are exiled

597 Apr. Zedekiah accedes to the throne


So, with the ‘back-bone’ of our Judean chronology in place, let us nowfill in some of its details. We begin with the reign of Jehoiakim.

608-597: Jehoiakim’s reign

The OT provides us with the following data-points as far as Jehoiakim’sreign is concerned: (A) At the outset of Jehoiakim’s reign, Judah was avassal state of Egypt and was subject to Egypt’s taxes (cf. 2 Chr. 36.1-4).Indeed, Jehoiakim was appointed at the behest of Pharaoh Neco. (B)Later on in Jehoiakim’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar visited Judah and de-clared it to be one of Babylon’s vassal states. Judah thereby became sub-

APPENDIX 1 13

ject to Babylon’s taxes. Three years later, Jehoiakim “rebelled” againstNebuchadnezzar (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.1).32 (C) As a result of Jehoiakim’s re-bellion, God sent a coalition of armies against Judah. The coalition wasled by the Babylonians (cf. 2 Kgs 24.2). As a result of the invasion,Jehoiakim was slain and Egypt’s hold over the Near East was greatlyweakened (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.1-7).33 (D) At one point in Jehoiakim’s reign,Nebuchadnezzar bound Jehoiakim in chains and led him away to Baby-lon. He also carried away many of the Temple-vessels and stowed themin “his temple” (cf. 2 Chr. 36.6-7). Since Jehoiakim seems to have beenslain in Judah (as opposed to Babylon), I take Jehoiakim’s exile to havebeen a temporary one which occurred midway through his reign.34 (E)In the 3rd year of Jehoiakim’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalemand gained control of it. He later returned to Babylon accompanied byJehoiakim and some of the Temple-vessels (cf. Dan. 1.1-2).

We are now in a position to arrange these events in a plausible chrono-logical order, which can be done as follows:

(1) Jehoiakim is appointed as the King of Judah by Pharaoh Neco (cf. 2Chr. 36.4).

(2) Nebuchadnezzar rises to power and besieges Jerusalem, at whichpoint Jehoiakim surrenders. Nebuchadnezzar chooses to spare Je-hoiakim’s life. He carries Jehoiakim away to Babylon along with manyof the Temple-vessels and pronounces Judah a vassal state (cf. 2 Chr.36.6-7, Dan. 1.1-2).35 Some time in Aug. 605, Nebuchadnezzar arrivesback in Babylon and, on 1st September, is crowned king.

(3) Soon afterwards, Jehoiakim is allowed to return to Jerusalem. (Itake Jehoiakim to have been released almost immediately. Near Easternkings commonly released captives in their accession year.36) Jehoiakim

32. He most likely refused to pay the relevant taxes. We can consider, by way of analogy, 2 Kgs. 3.4-5, wherethe king of Moab’s refusal to pay tribute to Ahab is described as an act of “rebellion”.

33. 2 Kgs. 24.6 seems to link Jehoiakim’s death with 24.1-4’s invasion.

34. To take an enemy king captive was common practice in ancient times. Indeed, Manasseh and Zedekiahwere both carried away to Babylon (cf. 2 Chr. 33.11-13, Jer. 51.59). There in Babylon, they would havebeen required to make a public show of their loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar or to sign a treaty of some kind.

35. I take 2 Chr. 36.6-7 and Dan. 1.1-2 to narrate the same event. A man of Nebuchadnezzar’s temperamentis unlikely to have carried Jehoiakim away to Babylon twice.

36. 2 Kgs. 25.27, Ezra 1.1-4, CC 32, XXX.

14 NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S EARLY YEARS

mistakenly views his release from Babylon as a divine reprieve. Overtime, he grows increasingly insolent (cf. Jer. 36.9-26) until, three yearsafter his release, he rebels against Nebuchadnezzar.

(4) In response to Jehoiakim’s rebellion, Nebuchadnezzar leads a con-federacy against Judah. He promptly destroys Jerusalem and warns theEgyptians not to meddle in the affairs of Judah (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.7).

So far so good, one might say. But how are we meant to date any ofthese events? The answer is: by turning our attention back to Babylon’srecords.

Nebuchadnezzar’s early years

Nebuchadnezzar’s early years, as documented by Babylon’s records, isset out below:

Year Event

605/604 Nebuchadnezzar (Babylon’s crown-prince) leads his troops to battleagainst Egypt. He inflicts heavy losses on the Egyptians in the Battleof Karkemish and pursues the remaining Egyptians southwards intothe region of Hamath. He promptly subjugates Hamath (modern-daySyria). In Abu, Nebuchadnezzar then hears news of the death of hisfather, Nabopolassar. Nebuchadnezzar immediately returns toBabylon, where he is crowned king on 1st Ululu.

604/603 Nebuchadnezzar begins to stamp his authority on the region ofHamath (i.e., Syria, Israel, and Egypt). He exacts “heavy tribute” fromthe region.

603/602 Nebuchadnezzar continues his attempt to subdue Hamath.Meanwhile, Egypt begins to regain her strength.

601/600 Nebuchadnezzar launches a second expedition against Egypt. Bothsides suffer heavy losses. Nebuchadnezzar returns to Babylon toregroup. Meanwhile, Judah finds herself caught between a rock and ahard place, i.e., between the Near East’s two main forces.

600/599 Nebuchadnezzar remains in Babylon, replenishing his troops.

599/598 Nebuchadnezzar returns to Hamath with renewed vigour. He takesconsiderable plunder from the Arab states and heads back to Babylon.

APPENDIX 1 15

Year Event

599/598 Nebuchadnezzar marches against Hamath again. He “besieges the cityof Judah” and, in Addaru, conquers it. Nebuchadnezzar then appointsa king of his own choosing and returns to Babylon, along withnumerous captives.

598/597 Nebuchadnezzar takes control of Hamath as far as Karkemish.

We can now insert Yehoiachin’s actions into the above chronology:

Date Events

608 Apr. Jehoiakim accedes to the throne.

605 Apr. The final year of Nabopolassar’s reign begins.

605 May Nebuchadnezzar confronts the Egyptians at Karkemish. He quicklyoverpowers them and pursues the fleeing Egyptians southwards intothe region of Hamath (modern-day Syria).37

605May/Jun.

Nebuchadnezzar continues to push southwards towards Judah (avassal state of Egypt at the time), where he lays siege to Jerusalem (cf.Dan. 1.1-2).38

605 Jul. Jehoiakim promptly surrenders without a fight, at which pointNebuchadnezzar takes him captive.39

605 Aug. News of Nabopolassar’s death reaches Nebuchadnezzar, whoimmediately turns and heads home.

605 Sep. Nebuchadnezzar arrives back in Babylon, where he is crowned king.40

605 Oct. Jehoiakim is allowed to return to Jerusalem. Judah is now a vassalstate of Babylon. As such, Judah is required to send regular tributes toNebuchadnezzar.

37. For further details, see Wiseman’s Chronicles Of Chaldean Kings (cf. 1956:14-16). (Wiseman suggests adate of June/July for the Battle of Karkemish.)

38. Daniel employs the standard Babylonian convention.

39. With Egypt defeated, resistance against Babylon was futile, as Jehoiakim well knew. (Jehoiakim hadbeen relying on Egypt for protection: cf. 2 Kgs. 23.29-37, Isa 30.1.) As a result, he surrendered withoutdelay; he could see the writing on the wall.

40. The events of May-Sep. 605 follow on from one another in quick succession. According to Babylon’srecords, Nabopolassar passed away on 8th Abu, yet Nebuchadnezzar nevertheless managed to get backin Babylon by 1st Ululu (23 days later). Nebuchadnezzar could obviously, therefore, get around quicklywhen the need arose. According to Josephus, Nebuchadnezzar headed off alone. He left affairs inHamath—including his “captives”—to his subcommanders (cf. JAA 1.19).

16 AN ABSOLUTE JUDEAN CHRONOLOGY

Date Events

602 Oct. Egypt begins to regain her strength. At the same time, she (possibly)withholds her tribute from Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim decides tofollow suit (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.1, Isa. 30.1-3).

601 Apr. Nebuchadnezzar marches against Egypt. Both Babylon’s and Egypt’sarmies sustain many casualties in the ensuing battle.

599 Apr. Nebuchadnezzar sets out for Hamath with renewed forces determinedto stamp out his vassal states’ rebellion.

598 Dec. Nebuchadnezzar joins forces with the Syrian, Moabites, andAmmonites and marches against Jerusalem. (601/600’s campaignhad taken its toll on Nebuchadnezzar’s forces.) Jehoiakim’s reigntherefore comes to a bitter end. Nebuchadnezzar at the same timepegs the Egyptians back to “the Brook of Egypt” (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.7).41

597 Jan. Yehoiachin’s reign begins.

597 Feb. Yehoiachin follows the (poor) example of Jehoiakim in refusing tocomply with Nebuchadnezzar’s demands. Nebuchadnezzar thereforebesieges Jerusalem. Two months later, Yehoiachin gives himself upand is carried away to Babylon.

597 Apr. Zedekiah accedes to the throne in Judah.

This, then, completes our chronology of the period 608—597. And wealready know the date of Jerusalem’s fall (587). The only remaining partof the puzzle is the events of 597—587, to which we will now turn ourattention. (These events are not covered by Babylon’s records, so we willwork exclusively from the OT.)

An absolute Judean chronology

The table below provides a continuous record of events in Judah overthe period 608-586. A few points of clarification may be helpful as faras its calculations are concerned: (A) I have reckoned Judah’s data (asdocumented in 2 Kgs. 24-25) non-accessionally. My rationale for doingso is twofold. First, the data set out in 2 Kgs. 24-25 the harmonisesvery naturally with the rest of the OT data; that is to say, it makes goodsense to do so. Second, it is consistent with 2 Kgs. 24-25’s treatment ofNebuchadnezzar’s reign. Since 2 Kgs. 24-25 reckons Nebuchadnezzar’s

41. The Brook of Egypt was probably the Pelusian arm of the Nile, i.e., a now-dry distributary which markedthe border of Ancient Egypt (cf. Ezek. 30.15-16).

APPENDIX 1 17

reign non-accessionally, it would not seem unreasonable for it to reckonthe reigns of Judah’s kings in the same manner. (My treatment of otherOT books is addressed later.) (B) I have counted the years since the firstdeportation in absolute terms, i.e., as we count our age. The deporta-tion was a single event, so it seems more appropriate to refer back toit in ‘anniversary years’ rather than, say, Nisan-based or accessional ornon-accessional terms, especially if the date was remembered each year,as was 9th Av (the date of the Temple’s destruction). (C) Not all of theevents contained in the OT record for 597-587 can be dated precisely.Some of my chronology is therefore merely ‘illustrative’; that is to say,it reflects a correct order of events but the exact dates to which I haveassigned events are only approximations within the relevant boundary-points. These dates are enclosed in square brackets. (D) The tablecontains six columns. Column 1 contains a quarter-by-quarter timeline.Columns 2 and 3 note the post-accessional (PA) and non-accessional(NA) years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Column 4 notes the year of thereign of Judah’s kings. Column 5 counts the number of elapsed yearssince Judah’s first deportation, as per Ezekiel’s method (see later). AndColumn 6 notes each period’s most important events.


Date Neb.[PA]

Neb.[NA]

Exile Judah[NA]

Events

608 Jul. - - - Jeh. [1st] Jehoiakim’s reign begins.42

608 Oct. - - - Jeh. [1st]

607 Jan. - - - Jeh. [1st]

607 Apr. - - - Jeh. [2nd]

607 Jul. - - - Jeh. [2nd]

607 Oct. - - - Jeh. [2nd]

606 Jan. - - - Jeh. [2nd]

606 Apr. - - - Jeh. [3rd]

606 Jul. - - - Jeh. [3rd]

606 Oct. - - - Jeh. [3rd]

605 Jan. - - - Jeh. [3rd]

605 Apr. - 1st - Jeh. [4th] Jeremiah offers Jehoiachin his lastchance. Soon afterwards,Nebuchadnezzar defeats the Egyptiansat Karkemish and lays siege toJerusalem.43

605 Jul. - 1st - Jeh. [4th] Jehoiakim surrenders and is carriedaway to Babylon.44 Jeremiah dictates amessage to Baruch. The message callsthe people of Judah to repentance. It isto be read out in the courtyard of theTemple (cf. Jer. 36.1-8).

605 Oct. 0th 1st - Jeh. [4th] Jehoiakim returns to Jerusalem. Judahis required to pay tribute toNebuchadnezzar.45

604 Jan. 0th 1st - Jeh. [4th]

604 Apr. 1st 2nd - Jeh. [5th] Nebuchadnezzar begins to exact a“heavy tribute” from his other vassalstates.46

42. 2 Kgs. 23.36

43. Jer. 25, 46.2, ABC 5.O.2-8, Dan. 1.1. Jer. employs the same convention as 2 Kgs. 24-25, i.e, he reck-ons non-accessionally (52.28-30 is an exception, which we discuss later); meanwhile, Daniel employsstandard Babylonian convention, i.e., he reckons post-accessionally.

44. Dan. 1.2, 2 Chr. 36.6-7.

45. 2 Kgs. 24.1a.

46. ABC 5.O.17.

APPENDIX 1 19

Date Neb.[PA]

Neb.[NA]

Exile Judah[NA]

Events

604 Jul. 1st 2nd - Jeh. [5th]

604 Oct. 1st 2nd - Jeh. [5th] Baruch proclaims Jeremiah’s call torepentance in the Temple courtyard.When Jehoiachin hears the words of theproclamation, he is enraged and setsfire to Jeremiah’s scroll (cf. Jer.36.9-26). He considers the threat ofinvasion to have past him by. (“Whyhave you written...that the king ofBabylon will certainly come and destroythis land?”, he incredulously exclaims.)

603 Jan. 1st 2nd - Jeh. [5th]

603 Apr. 2nd 3rd - Jeh. [6th]

603 Jul. 2nd 3rd - Jeh. [6th]

603 Oct. 2nd 3rd - Jeh. [6th]

602 Jan. 2nd 3rd - Jeh. [6th]

602 Apr. 3rd 4th - Jeh. [7th]

602 Jul. 3rd 4th - Jeh. [7th]

602 Oct. 3rd 4th - Jeh. [7th] Buoyed by Egypt’s strength [andperhaps insurrection], Jehoiakim rebelsagainst Nebuchadnezzar.47

601 Jan. 3rd 4th - Jeh. [7th]

601 Apr. 4th 5th - Jeh. [8th] Nebuchadnezzar goes to war againstEgypt.48

601 Jul. 4th 5th - Jeh. [8th]

601 Oct. 4th 5th - Jeh. [8th]

600 Jan. 4th 5th - Jeh. [8th]

600 Apr. 5th 6th - Jeh. [9th] Nebuchadnezzar returns from Egyptand begins to regroup.49



47. 2 Kgs. 24.1b.

48. ABC 5.R.6-7.

49. ABC 5.R.8.


Date Neb.[PA]

Neb.[NA]

Exile Judah[NA]

Events


599 Apr. 6th 7th - Jeh. [10th] Nebuchadnezzar marches againstHamath with the intention of stampingout its rebellious tendencies.50




598 Apr. 7th 8th - Jeh. [11th]


598 Oct. 7th 8th - Jeh. [11th] Nebuchadnezzar brings Jehoiakim’sreign to an end and pegs the Egyptiansback behind their borders.51

597 Jan. 7th 8th 1st Yeh. [1st] Yehoiachin accedes to the throne.Shortly afterwards, Judah is besieged.Three months later, Yehoiachinsurrenders. Nebuchadnezzar then leadsthe first group of exiles away fromJudah.52

597 Apr. 8th 9th 1st Zed. [1st] Zedekiah is installed [byNebuchadnezzar] as the King ofJudah.53

597 Jul. 8th 9th 1st Zed. [1st]

597 Oct. 8th 9th 1st Zed. [1st]

596 Jan. 8th 9th 2nd Zed. [1st]

596 Apr. 9th 10th 2nd Zed. [2nd]

596 Jul. 9th 10th 2nd Zed. [2nd]

596 Oct. 9th 10th 2nd Zed. [2nd]

595 Jan. 9th 10th 3rd Zed. [2nd]

595 Apr. 10th 11th 3rd Zed. [3rd]

595 Jul. 10th 11th 3rd Zed. [3rd]

50. ABC 5.R.9-10.

51. 2 Kgs. 24.1-7.

52. ABC 5.R.11-12, 2 Kgs. 24.8-16.

53. ABC 5.R.13, 2 Chr. 36.10.

APPENDIX 1 21

Date Neb.[PA]

Neb.[NA]

Exile Judah[NA]

Events

595 Oct. 10th 11th 3rd Zed. [3rd]

594 Jan. 10th 11th 4th Zed. [3rd]

594 Apr. 11th 12th 4th Zed. [4th]

594 Jul. 11th 12th 4th Zed. [4th]

594 Oct. 11th 12th 4th Zed. [4th]

593 Jan. 11th 12th 5th Zed. [4th]



















589 Oct. 16th 17th 9th Zed. [9th] In light of Zedekiah’s rebellion,Nebuchadnezzar lays siege toJerusalem.54


54. 2 Kgs. 25.1, Jer. 39.1, Eze 24.1. (Jer. and Ezek. employ the same convention as 2 Kgs. 24-25, i.e, theyreckon non-accessionally.)


Date Neb.[PA]

Neb.[NA]

Exile Judah[NA]

Events

588 Apr. 17th 18th 10th Zed. [10th] [Jeremiah is imprisoned.55]

588 Jul. 17th 18th 10th Zed. [10th] [Jeremiah gives Zedekiah his lastwarning. He later buys a field inJudah.56]

588 Oct. 17th 18th 10th Zed. [10th] [Jeremiah prophesies Judah’srestoration.57]

587 Jan. 17th 18th 11th Zed. [10th] [Jeremiah prophesies again.58]


587 Jul. 18th 19th 11th Zed. [11th] Jerusalem falls.59

587 Oct. 18th 19th 11th

586 Jan. 18th 19th 12th A fugitive brings Ezekiel news [inBabylon] that Jerusalem has fallen.60

We can now test the accuracy of our chronology by ‘checking off’ thefollowing synchronicities against it: (1) The battle of Karkemish takesplace in the 4th year of Jehoiakim’s reign (cf. Jer. 46.2). (2) Jehoiakim’s4th (post-accessional) year coincides with Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st (post-accessional) year (cf. Jer. 25.1).61 (3) Nebuchadnezzar exacts “heavytribute” from his lands in the early years of his reign (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.1,ABC 5.13, ABC 5.17). (4) Nebuchadnezzar’s first major invasion ofJudah takes place: a] in the spring-time (cf. 2 Chr. 36.10), b] duringYehoiachin’s three-month reign (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.8), c] in the 7th post-accessional year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (cf. Jer. 52.28), and d] in the8th non-accessional year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (cf. 2 Kgs. 24.12).(5) Nebuchadnezzar’s second major invasion of Judah takes place: a]in the 4th month of the year (cf. 2 Kgs. 25.2-3), b] in the 11th yearof Zedekiah’s reign (cf. 2 Kgs. 25.2-3), c] in the 18th post-accessional

55. Jer. 32.2-3.

56. Jer. 32.1.

57. Jer. 33.1.

58. Jer. 34.1.

59. 2 Kgs. 25.2-21, Jer. 1.3.

60. Ezek. 33.21.

61. As mentioned previously, the ancients did not tend to assign a single ‘calendar year’ to more than oneking. The entire period from Apr. 605 to Mar. 604 therefore constitutes Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year, eventhough part of it pre-dates his accession.

APPENDIX 1 23

year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (cf. Jer. 52.29), and d] in the 19th non-accessional year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (cf. 2 Kgs. 25.8).

As is evident, then, the OT’s record of history (as found in Kings, Chron-icles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel) provides us with a consistent andcoherent account of history. And, importantly, the way in which each OT

author records history makes sense given his intended audience. The au-thors of Kings and Chronicles wrote for a primarily Jewish audience. Asa result, they reckoned years non-accessionally.62 Daniel wrote in Baby-lon. As a result, he reckoned years in the standard Babylonian manner(i.e., post-accessionally). Jeremiah wrote for both a Jewish and a Baby-lonian audience; as a result, he reckoned years both non-accessionallyand post-accessionally. Ezekiel’s writings centre on the exile. As a re-sult, he introduces a third system of reckoning based on the date of thefirst exile. The OT’s chronological details are therefore plausible, cogent,and coherent.

62. as the Jewish people are known to have done at other points in history (cf. Kitchen, How We Know WhenSolomon Ruled, XXX)

24 APPENDIX 1B: JEHOIAKIM’S 3RD YEAR

Appendix 1B:Jehoiakim’s 3rd year

A final issue now remains to be addressed, namely to determine exactlywhich events the text of Dan. 1.1-4 has in mind. As will be recalled, thetext reads as follows:

1.1 In the 3rd year of the reign of Jehoiakim (the King of Judah),Nebuchadnezzar (the King of Babylon) came [to] Jerusalem and laid siegeto it,

1.2 and the Lord gave Jehoiakim (the King of Judah) into his hand, togetherwith odds-and-ends from the vessels of the house of God, and[Nebuchadnezzar] brought them [both to] the land of Shinar, [to] thehouse of his god, where he brought the vessels into his god’streasure-house.

1.3 The King then commanded Ashpenaz (the greatest of his palace-staff) tobring some of the sons of Israel [into the palace], even from the royal seedand from the nobility—

1.4 youths who were without blemish, of goodly appearance, insightful in all[matters of] wisdom, well-educated, and perceptive, i.e., [youths] whohad the ability to stand in the royal palace. [These youths were] to beeducated [in] the book[s] and tongue of the Chaldeans.

The sequence of events is therefore as follows. Nebuchadnezzar be-sieges Jerusalem; Jehoiakim surrenders (or, to be precise, God gives Je-hoiakim into Nebuchadnezzar’s hand); and Nebuchadnezzar then carriesJehoiakim away into exile (along with some of the Temple-vessels). Achange of scene then seems to take place: in 1.3-4, we find Judah’s bestmen (among whom is Daniel) assembled in Nebuchadnezzar’s courts,with no real explanation as to how they came to be there. (Only Je-hoiakim and the Temple-vessels are said to have been carried away in1.2.) Most commentators therefore take Jehoiakim’s exile to have in-cluded a number of other Judeans—which is by no means an unreason-able conclusion, but a couple of considerations mitigate against it:

First, Jer. 52 contains what looks very much like a comprehensive listof Judah’s deportations to Babylon. “This is the [number of] people”,Jeremiah writes, “whom Nebuchadnezzar led away captive”:

APPENDIX 1 25

In the 7th year, 3,023 Judeans,In the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, he led away captive fromJerusalem 832 persons,In the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar,...745 persons.

(Jer. 52.28-30†)63

The purpose of these verses seems to be to record the flow of Jews fromJudah to Babylon. That Jeremiah would neglect to mention the verydeportation which kickstarted the whole process (in the 1st year of Neb-uchadnezzar’s reign) therefore seems unlikely.

Second, according to 2 Kgs. 24.12-16, the deportation which coincidedwith the end of Yehoiachin’s reign is precisely the kind of deportationwhich would have included Daniel since it focused on the ‘top layer’ ofJudah’s society.

In conclusion, then, I do not believe a deportation of Jews took place inYehoiachin’s 3rd year. In my view, only three deportations took place. In598/597, Yehoiachin was led away along with many people from Judah’supper classes; in 587/586, Zedekiah was led away along with many peo-ple from Judah’s middle class; and, in 582/581, a number of people fromJudah’s lower classes were led away.

I therefore understand the flow of Dan. 1.1-4 as follows. In 1.1, Danielrefers to Nebuchadnezzar’s first encounter with the Judeans, namely his

63. Jer. 52.28-30’s account of the Jews’ deportations is unusual for a number of reasons: i] it is missing fromthe Theod., ii] it employs a post-acc. reckoning system (as opposed to the non-acc. system Jeremiahemploys elsewhere), and iii] its details differ significantly from those of 2 Kgs. 24-25. The first two ofthese differences are not so difficult to explain, but the third is striking. According to Jer. 52b, threegroups of Judeans were led away from Judah: 3,023 were included in the first group, 823 in the second,and 745 in the third. In contrast, 2 Kgs. 24-25 refers to only two of these deportations and includes10,000 Judeans in the first of them; it also gives the impression that the second deportation involvedeven more Judeans than the first. (The first involved only the ‘top layer’ of Judah’s soceity, while thesecond included the ‘common classes’.) The reason for these oddities is not immediately obvious to me.What follows is at least a possible explanation of the relevant data. Jer. 52.28-30 is a compilation oflines of text from Babylon’s official palace records. (Jeremiah spent time in Babylon and knew Aramaic;he may also have been familiar with cuneiform [cf. Jer 10.11, 40.3-4]. Furthermore, the format of Jer.52.28-30 seems to be consistent with the record-keeping of Nebuchadnezzar’s day, e.g., ‘In the 1st year,such-and-such a thing took place; in the 2nd year, such-and-such a thing then transpired; etc.’.) Jer. 52bis therefore written from the perspective of life in Babylon. It notes the number of Judean exiles whoenter the king’s service as a result of three different deportations, which it reckons post-accessionally;hence, as fewer skilled Judeans leave Judah, fewer of them enter the king’s service (cf. 1.3-4). By way ofcontrast, 2 Kgs. 24-25 is written from the perspective of Judah. It notes the number of Judeans who leaveJudah (rather than who arrive at the Palace) and is reckoned non-accessionally (i.e., in non-Babylonianfashion).

26 APPENDIX 1B: JEHOIAKIM’S 3RD YEAR

exile of Jehoiakim and the Temple-vessels. This, for Daniel, is ‘the be-ginning of the end’; it is the backdrop to everything which follows inhis writings. Daniel then ‘fast-forwards’ a number of years to show usthe end-result of Nebuchadnezzar’s encounter with Jehoiakim, i.e., thefirst deportation (in 597). As elsewhere, then, Daniel’s view of history isprimarily causal as opposed to temporal. When Daniel puts two eventsnext to another, he does not always want us to see them as successiveoccurrences; sometimes, he wants to portray the second event as theconsequence of—or an illustration of—the first event. Consider, for in-stance, the way in which Daniel moves directly on from Nebuchadnez-zar’s restoration to Belshazzar’s feast (cf. 4.37-5.1).64 Daniel does notwant us see these events as successive occurrences; rather, he wants usto see the second event (Belshazzar’s feast) as an illustration of the first(i.e., of God’s ability “to bring low those who walk in pride”). Consider,alternatively, the way in which Daniel moves directly on from Xerxes’raid on Greece to Alexander’s conquest of Persia (cf. 11.2-3).65 In 1.1-4,then, Daniel wants to portray Jehoiakim’s actions in the 3rd year of hisreign (and Nebuchadnezzar) as the beginning of the end for Judah—asthe precursor for what was to follow, namely Judah’s deportations andfinal fall and Daniel’s presence in Babylon (cf. 1.3). Daniel’s contem-porary (Jeremiah) portrays the events of Jehoiakim’s 3rd year66 in anequally pivotal light. Indeed, in Jehoiakim’s 3rd year, Jeremiah explicitlyproclaimed to him,

Since Josiah’s 13th year...to this day, the word of the LORD hascome to me, and I have spoken persistently to you, but youhave not listened... Thus, therefore, says the LORD of Hosts:Since you have not obeyed my words, I will send...for Neb-uchadnezzar the King of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring[him] against this land its inhabitants. ...This whole land willbecome a ruin and a waste.

(Jer. 25.1-11†)

Jeremiah’s words to Jehoiakim marked the King’s last chance to repent,but Jehoiakim spurned the offer. Jehoiakim’s 3rd year therefore marked

64. The chapter break is not Daniel’s; it is the addition of later scribes.

65. For a discussion of the relevant exegesis and history, see “11.2-3: XXX”.

66. or, reckoned non-accessionally (cf. Jer. 25.1), his 4th year

APPENDIX 1 27

a point of no-return. With Jehoiakim’s rejection of Jeremiah’s message,Judah’s fate was sealed. 1.3 therefore describes the logical conclusion of1.1-2, namely the presence of the exiles in Babylon—the next phase ofJudah’s history.

28 APPENDIX 1C: THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY

Appendix 1C:The Reliability Of The Neo-Babylonian Chronology

In App. 1A, we derived the specific details of our Judean chronology al-most entirely from the OT. We then cast our chronology in absolute termsby correlating it with the ‘received’ Neo-Babylonian Chronology. Thequestion therefore arises, How reliable is the received Neo-Babylonianchronology? It is not, in my view, as reliable as Scripture,67 but, happily,it seems to stand on firm foundations.

A number of different sources stand behind the received Neo-Babylonianchronology.68 The first is Ptolemy’s Canon. Ptolemy’s Canon is a list ofkings which was compiled by an Egyptian astronomer named Ptolemy.Its purpose was to provide astronomers with a common frameworkfor recording and analysing astronomical data. It lists every king whoreigned over Babylon—together with the number of years for which theyreigned—from the first Assyrian king to the first Roman Emperor. Likeall such records, Ptolemy’s Canon has its limitations; it only, for instance,covers a single line of kings (i.e., the Kings of Babylon) and it omits thosekings who reigned for less than a year. Nevertheless, it provides us witha very useful reliable overview of Babylon’s history. It allows to workbackwards from the well-known (e.g., the dates of the Roman emperors)to the less known (the dates of Babylon’s kings).

A second source which underlies the Neo-Babylonian chronology is thevast collection of economic and administrative tablets which have beenunearthed over the years. Archeologists have recovered, quite liter-ally, thousands of economic and administrative tablets from the Neo-Babylonian era. Each tablet is stamped with a day and a year—e.g.,“2nd Tasritu, the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar”, “4th Tasritu, the 4th yearof Nebuchadnezzar”, etc. We have roughly two tablets for each weekwhich elapsed in the period 748-29 BC.

An equally important source is Babylon’s astronomical tablets. Thesetablets document over a thousand astronomical observations of the posi-tions and phases of the moon and planets from 650 BC onwards. (Many

67. The believer should have greater faith in Scripture (properly interpreted) than in any other sources ofknowledge.

68. The Neo-Babylonian Age is generally taken to refer to the period 626-539 BC.

APPENDIX 1 29

of them are currently housed in the British Museum.) They also de-tail the deaths of Babylon’s most important kings. (The reliability of theBabylonians’ astronomical observations has been verified by independentcalculations.69)

A final source which we should mention is Babylon’s repository of ‘chron-icles’. These inscriptions were made on behalf of Babylon’s kings in or-der to document their major achievements. They include, among otherchronicles, the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle, Nebuchadnezzar’s Chronicle,the Cyrus Cylinder, and so on. Almost all of them are currently housedin the British Museum.

Suffice it to say, then, the received Neo-Babylonian chronology is sup-ported by a considerable body of data; and, happily, the data in questionexhibits a high degree of consistency. Consider, for instance, the dataprovided by Ptolemy’s Canon:

King Length of reign

Nabonpolassar 21 years

Nebuchadnezzar 43 years

Amel-Marduk70 2 years

Neriglissar 4 years

Nabonidus 17 years

Cyrus 9 years

As can be seen, Ptolemy’s Cannon provides us with an entirely relativisticBabylonian chronology. Suppose, then, we ‘plug in’ the received date forNabopolassar’s accession, namely 626/625. We arrive at the followingdates:

King Length of reign Acc. year

Nabonpolassar 21 years 626/625

Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 605/604

69. Stephenson, Historical Eclipses And Earth’s Rotation, 1997:93-192.

70. aka Evil-Merodach

30 APPENDIX 1C: THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY

King Length of reign Acc. year

Amel-Marduk71 2 years 562/561

Neriglissar 4 years 560/559

Nabonidus 17 years 556/555

Cyrus 9 years 539/538

These details can then be cross-referenced with Babylon’s tablets. Inthe standard reference-work on the subject, Parker and Dubbersteindetail the last known economic or administrative tablet from each king’sreign.72 When we set these details next to Ptolemy’s Canon, we find animpressive level of agreement between them:

King Length of reign Acc. year Latest tablet

Nabonpolassar 21 years 626/625 605 Aug. 15

Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 605/604 562 Oct. 8

Amel-Marduk73 2 years 562/561 560 Aug. 7

Neriglissar 4 years 560/559 556 Apr. 16

Nabonidus 17 years 556/555 539 Oct. 2974

Cyrus 9 years 539/538 530 Aug. 12

As can be seen, the last known tablet in each king’s reign falls well withinthe bounds one would expect on the basis of Ptolemy’s Canon. By way offurther confirmation, we can consider artefacts such as the Adda-GuppiStele.75 According to her inscriptions, Adda-Guppi personally lived towitness,


72. PDBC XXX.


74. when Cyrus entered Babylon

75. Adda-Guppi was a notable Queen-mother who lived in the Neo-Babylonian era. In 1956, a large uprightstone bearing her inscriptions was found buried underneath the remains of a large mosque.

APPENDIX 1 31

the 21st year of Nabopolassar,the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar,the 2nd year of Awel-Marduk, [and]the 4th year of Neriglissar.76

Again, then, the same chronology emerges. (Sources such as the UrukKing List can also be consulted.)

In sum, then, the received chronology of the Neo-Babylonian kings seemssubstantially well-established. In the absence of any evidence to thecontrary, we have reason to repose confidence in it.

76. XXX.

32 APPENDIX 1D: FINAL REFLECTIONS

Appendix 1D:Final Reflections

A number of important lessons emerge from our consideration of Dan.1.1-4.

First, the Bible is not a collection of fables; it tells us real things aboutreal people. Here in 1.1-2, Daniel tells us about a real Judean city(Jerusalem) which was conquered by a real Gentile king (Nebuchad-nezzar). Indeed, even now, Jerusalem is still standing, the relics of Neb-uchadnezzar’s reign are still buried in Babylon (or on display in muse-ums), and those who witnessed these events are either alive in God’spresence or in darkness outside of it.

Modern-day society views the Christian faith as a matter of preference—a‘manner of life’ which people can take or leave as they please. Suchthinking is a recipe for disaster. The Jews in Jehoiakim’s day were notfree to ‘take or leave’ the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. (Nebuchadnez-zar was a real king whose wrath they had to face, whether they liked itor not.) And we are no more free to take or leave the demands of ourCreator. God’s wrath against sin is a fact which we must all one day faceup to. To think flippantly (‘I can worry about my relationship with Godlater’) or boastfully (‘I’ve done my best in life’) will not do. As men andwomen who are morally impure, we stand in need of God’s moral cleans-ing. We therefore need to seek God’s mercy via God’s appointed means,namely the Gospel of the Messiah—“the power of God for salvation toeveryone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (cf. Rom.1.16). To dismiss this message—a message which published throughoutthe entire earth—is to court disaster.

The second thing we can learn from our discussion of Dan. 1.1-4 con-cerns the importance of studying the Scriptures for ourselves. The writ-ings of critical commentators reveal a long tradition of besmirching Dan.1.1-4’s accuracy. “That [1.1-4’s claims are] erroneous”, Farrar wrote in1895, “can hardly be [questioned], for...neither Jeremiah, the contempo-rary of Jehoiakim, nor the Book of Kings, nor any other authority, knowsanything of any siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian King in the 3rd year

APPENDIX 1 33

of Jehoiakim”.77 Montgomery made a similar allegation in 1927. Hedescribed 1.1-4’s claims as “inexplicable” given his understanding of ANE

history and the rest of the OT. “It is a vast pity”, Montgomery went on tosay, “that apologists have gone so far as they have in attempting to main-tain [1.1-4’s historicity]”.78 Porteous repeated the claim in 1965,79 as didCollins in 1993. “[Daniel’s opening] statement”, Collins said, “cannot bereconciled with any plausible reconstruction of the course of events”.80

And so the story has continued.81 But, as we have seen, the facts of thematter tell a very different story. Daniel 1.1-2 integrates quite naturallyand coherently both with the rest of the OT as well as with Babylon’sofficial records. Why, then, is 1.1-2 is so frequently defamed? The an-swer, I suspect, is because many scholars simply parrot the assertions oftheir predecessors when they would do far better to (critically) assess therelevant issues for themselves. An important lesson therefore emerges.Errors are easily propagated, both in scholarly and non-scholarly circles,critical and otherwise. We must therefore follow the example of theapostle Paul. We must “test everything” and “[only to] hold fast [to]that which is good” (cf. 1 Thes. 5.21†). We must also be careful to com-mit our studies to God in prayer. Whether we want to lead a Bible-studyin a home, to preach a sermon in a church, or to present a paper at aconference, we need the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit. God does notlead his people into error. If we are listening to his voice, then we willnot go too far wrong.

77. That an author of Daniel’s competence could have made an error of such proportions seems to haveconcerned Farrar. He later, therefore, added the comment, “A mere variation in a date would have beenregarded as a matter of the utmost insignificance [to our author]” (cf. Farrar, The Expositor’s Bible: TheBook Of Daniel, 1895:124-125), but how Farrar came to discover such things about an anonymous 2nd

cent. author is not clear to me.

78. Montgomery, ...On The Book Of Daniel, 1927:72.

79. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, 1965:25.

80. Collins, Daniel, 1993:131.

81. See, for instance, Seow’s comm. on Daniel (cf. 2003:5). Even the New Jerusalem Bible’s introductionto the Book of Daniel brands Daniel’s writings as “inaccura[te] and vague” and ultimately a work of“fiction”!

Commentary On Daniel :: Appendix 1

Documents