Last Days of Judah

7/30/2019 Last Days of Judah

1/18

The Chronology of the Last Days of Judah: Two Apparent Discrepancies

Alberto R. Green

Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 101, No. 1. (Mar., 1982), pp. 57-73.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28198203%29101%3A1%3C57%3ATCOTLD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Journal of Biblical Literature is currently published by The Society of Biblical Literature.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sbl.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgTue Nov 20 11:22:02 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28198203%29101%3A1%3C57%3ATCOTLD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Xhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sbl.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sbl.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28198203%29101%3A1%3C57%3ATCOTLD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X


2/18

JB L 101/1 (1982)57-73

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LAST DAYS OF JUDAH: TWO APPARENT DISCREPANCIES

A LB ER T0 R . G R EENRUTGERS COLLEGE, NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 08903

0 NE of the pivotal points from ancient Near Eastern history which hasbeen used for constructing biblical chronology derives from the Baby-lonian Chronicles.' All four of the important historical periods available inthe Chronicles have been subjected to the widest possible discussion fromhistorians and chronologists. It is a fact, however, that scholars have reacheddiffering conclusions with regard to certain events related to the last days ofthe Kingdom of J ~ d a h . ~ somehe present study is intended to present

' Translated chronicles of the Neo-Babylonian Em pire a ppea r in the following: C. J. Ga dd ,The Fall of Nineveh (London: British Mu seum , 192 3); D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chal-dean Kings (625-556 B.c.) in the British Museum (Lon don: British Museum , 1956) hereaftercited as C C K ; A. L. Oppen heim , "T he Neo-Babylonian Em pire an d its Successors," in ANET;A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Vo l. V : Texts From Cun eiform Sources(Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin, 1975 ), her eaft er c ited as ABC.

Since Wiseman's complete translation of t he C hronicles in 19 56, man y pertinen t studiesand reviews have appeared which deal specifically with the problems of the chronology of thelast days of Ju da h. Among the m ore impo rtant, from the most recent in chronological order, arethe following: A. Malam at, "Th e Last Years of t he Kingdom of Jud ah" and H . Tadm or, "Th eChronology of the First Temple Period," The Age of the Monarchies: Political History ( W H J P411; ed. A. Malam at; Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1979) 44-60; 205-21; B. Oded , "Th e Last Day sof Judah and the Destruction of Jerusalem (609-586)," Israelite and Judaean History (ed. JohnH. Hayes and Maxwell Miller; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977) 469-76; A. K. Grayson,Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles; A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom," VTSup 28(1975) 121-45; E. Stern, "Israel at the Close of the Period ofthe Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey," BA 38(1975) 26-54; E. Kutsch, "Das Jahr d erKatastrophe: 587 v. Chr.," Bib 55(1974) 520-45; D. J. A. Clines, "Th e Evid ence for an Autu m-nal New Year in Pre-Exilic Israel Reconsidered," JBL 93(1974) 22-40; J. M. Myers, "Ed om an dJudah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.c.," Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W ill ia m FoxwellAlbright (ed. H. Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1971) 377-92; K. S. Freedy and D . B.Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian, and Egyptian Sources,"JAOS 70(1970) 462-85; K. T. Anderson, "Die Chronologie d er K onige von Israel und Jud a," ST23(1969) 69-119; S. B. Frost, "The Death of Josiah: A Conspiracy of Silence," JBL 87(1968)369-82; A. Malamat, "The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem," IEJ 18(1968) 137-56; S. H. Ho rn, "Whe re and When was the Aramaic Sa qqara Papyrus W ritten," AUSS 6(1968)29-45; "The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah," AUSS5(1967) 12-27; G . Larsson, "When did the Babylonian Captivity Begin?" JT S 18(1967) 417-23;E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,


3/18

58 JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATU REobservations not made in previous discussions or which need strengtheningand/or clarification. The events covering the years 608-594 in the Babyloni-an Chronicles have provided accurate information with regard to certainimportant events recorded in the Bible. One such event is the surrender ofKing Jehoiachin and Jerusalem to Nebuchadrezzar, King of Babylon.

The developments in the campaign in the Hatti-land during Nebuchad-rezzar's seventh regnal year are of immense interest to students of the Bible,containing as they do a specific extra-biblical reference to a biblically knownevent. The Chronicles also supply us with the most exact data available forany biblical event, which is helpful in establishing the biblical chronology ofthe period. The passage from the Chronicle speaks for itself:

In t he seventh year [598-5971, t he m on th of Kislev [18 Dec 598-15 Ja n 5971, th e king ofAkkad mustered his troops, mar ched to th e Hatti-la nd, and en camp ed against (i.e. besieged)the city of Ju dah Uerusalem] and on th e second da y of the month of A dar [Mar 1 6,5971 hesiezed the city and captured the king Uehoiachin]. He appointed there a king of his ownchoice (lit, heart) Zedekiah, received its heavy trib ute an d sent (th em) to Baby1 0n.~

Students of the Chronicles who have dealt with the last kings of Judah haveaccepted without question the data presented in the texts but they havereached different conclusions.

From our Babylonian sources, the fall of Jerusalem, which gives us thedate for Jehoiachin's reign and surrender, occurred on March 16 of 597,4assuming that Jehoiachin had been placed on the throne immediately uponthe death of his predecessor. Three months and ten days of reign back fromthere (2 Chr 36:9) is December 9-10, 598, for the death of Jehoiakim in hiseleventh regnal year (2 Kgs 23:36, 2 Chr 36:5). 2 Kings 24:12 states thatJerusalem and Jehoiachin were taken in the eighth year of Nebuchadrezzar.We thus have the biblical synchronism: eighth year of Nebuchadrezzar =eleventh year of Jehoiakim.1965) 161-73; John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; Garden City: D oubled ay, 1956) xlvi-lv; J. Fine-gan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princ eton: Princeton University, 1964) 87-92; D . N .Freed man , "Old T estament Chronology," The Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. G. E rnestW right; Garde n City: Doubleday, 1961) 265-99; M. Noth, "D ie Einnahm e von Jerusalem inJahre 597 v. Chr.," ZDPV 74(1968) 133-57; F . Notsch er, '"Neue' b abylonisch e Chron iken undAltes Testament," BZ l(1957) 110-14; E. Vogt, "Die neubabylonische Chronik iiber di e Schlachtbie Karkemish und d ie Einnahm e von Jerusalem," VTSup 4(1957) 67-96; D . N. Free dm an,"The Babylonian Chronicle," BA 19(195 6) 50-60; A. M alam at, "A New R ecord of Nebuch ad-rezzar's Palestinian C ampaign," IEJ 6(1956) 246-56; J. P. Hyat t, "New Light on N ebuchadrez-zar and Judean History," JBL 75(1956) 277-84; H . Tad m or, "Chronology of th e Last Kings ofJudah," JNES 15(1956) 226-30; E . R. Thiele, "New Evidence on the Chronology of the LastKings of Judah," BASOR 143(1956) 22-27; W . F. Albright, "The Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglis-sar Chronicles," BASOR 143(1956) 28-33.B. M. 21946 in C C K , 72-73 (=ABC, 103).' This entry is by far t he most exact information ever obtained fr om cune iform records for an

event recorded in the Bible. It provides us with the precise day for the surrender of Jerusalem-2 Adar (M arch 16) 597 , and gives us a fixed point of re fere nce for th e chronology of thisperiod.


4/18

59REEN: TH E LAST DAYS O F JUDAHIt is immediately clear that this biblical synchronism presents an appar-

ent conflict between the Babylonian Chronicle and the biblical data. Accord-ing to the Chronicle, Jerusalem was captured almost one full month (2 Adar)before the end of Nebuchadrezzar's seventh year, not during his eighth year.That the Babylonians used a spring to spring post-dating calendrical systemhas been well attested and needs no demonstration. If the biblical recorderwas well informed and used the same method, then the dates should be thesame, and 2 Kgs 24:12 apparently should have indicated the seventh insteadof the eighth year of Nebuchadrezzar.

Since the studies of Gadd and Wiseman, scholars who have written onthe Battle of Megiddo between Josiah of Judah and Necho of Egypt, thebattle on which the accession and regnal years of Jehoiakim are based, haveall placed this conflict within the context of the Babylonian events of thesummer of 609.5 The current status of our interpretation of 609 as the acces-sion year of Jehoiakim permits us to choose from the following alternativesin order to provide dates for biblical references that would accord with theBabylonian Chronicle.

(1) Assuming that the biblical tradition is well informed, that the com-putation did not use an accession year for Nebuchadrezzar, i.e., did notfollow a post-dating system, then his regnal years would advance by one andthe surrender of Jerusalem would come toward the end of his eighth year,not his ~eventh.~y the same token, the regnal years of Jehoiakim wouldalso advance, meaning an actual twelve-year reign instead of eleven. Ante-dating, therefore, does not offer a solution, as the discrepancy would only be

It is now clear that the campaign of Nabopolasar's eighteenth year (608 BC . ) was directedagainst Urartu rather than against Egypt, as had been previously thought (C CK , 20 , 64 -65;ABC 19, 97 ) and the Egyptian campaign, which included the battle of Megiddo, is the eventalluded to during the previous summer of 609 (B. M. 21901) in C CK , 18-19, 62-63; ABC, 19,9 6 ) . So also A. Malamat, "Last Years of Judah," 206-7 n. 8 ; "The Twilight of Judah," 124-25; K.S. Freedy and D. B. Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel," 464-65; S. H. Horn, "The Calendar ofJudah," 16-18; and B. Oded, "The Last Days of Judah," 468. Th e "large arm y of E gypt" whichcrossed the Euphrates with Assur-uballit to attack H ara n in the m onth of Tam mu z (B. M.21901) may have included Pharaoh Necho and his men from the battle of Megiddo. Thepossibility of Joisah's death during this campaign of 609 is further strengthened through thereference to mu ch Egyptian military activity across the Eup hrates during 60 9 in the Babyloni-an Chronicle. The movement of the Egyptian army through the region en route to Haran fitsthe biblical picture of the events leading to the battle of Megiddo and the death of Josiah. Onthe other hand , evidence for Egyptian military activity in that area in 608 is negativ e. See alsoH . Tad mo r, "Chronology of th e last Kings of Judah," and W. F. Albright, "Neb uchad rezzar an dNeriglissar Chronicles."

' There is little support for this position. So also H. Tad mo r "Chronology of th e First Tem plePeriod," 51-53. We have no hard evidence that an ante-dating method was in use at this timein Palestine, but we do know th at post-dating was official in Babylon and it a ppea rs certain tha tthis method was also used in Judah. "It would, therefore, be quite strange if the regnal years ofa king of B abylon were recorded by a Judah ite historian according to the ante-d ating system"(D. N. F reedm an, "Babylonian Chronicle," 123) .


5/18

60 JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATUREremoved to another location, and the non-accession year would also intro-duce further difficulties elsewhere.(2) The events surrounding the capture of Jerusalem, the deposing andthe deportation of Jehoiachin, and the installation of Zedekiah, were drawnout enough to lap over beyond 1 Nisan 597, or they were so close togetheraround that time as to introduce scribal confusion. Freedy and Redford haveoffered an example of this view:

There is actually no discrepancy between the two accounts. Less than a month re-mained b efor e th e captu re of Jerusalem and th e beginning of the Babylonian New Year.Wiseman (1955) and de Vries (1962) have plausibly suggested in this connection thatarrangem ents fo r th e deportation, including selection a nd p reparation of the captives forexile, carried th e event b eyond the new year of 597 B c '

This procedure, however, tends to accentuate the discrepancy, for Jer 52:28-29 dates the captivity in the seventh year, while 2 Kgs 24:12 dates thecapture of Jerusalem in the eighth year of Neb uc ha dr ez ~a r. ~ven if theevents described took place at the turn of the year, and hence might withsome propriety be assigned to the eighth year, while strictly speaking theseventh is correct, such an interpretation would then run into two seriousproblems. First, repeated entries in the Chronicles show that it is generallythe practice of the Babylonian king to return to his own land before the endof the year, and 2 Chr 3610 agrees with the idea that Nebuchadrezzarmade it back to Babylon before 1 N i ~ a n . ~n order to be in accord both withthe biblical account and the Babylonian Chronicle, the appointment ofZedekiah as king by Nebuchadrezzar must have come immediately after thefall of the city, if time must be allowed for him to make a fast trip back toBabylon in time for the New Year. Zedekiah's accession would clearly be

K. S. Free dy and D . B. Redford, "Dates in Ezekiel," 463. See also D. N. Freed man , "OldTestament Chronology," 278-79; Simon de V ries, "Chronolog y of the Old T estam ent," in IDB4(1962) 596; E . R . Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, 168; A. Malamat, "The Last Kings of Judah,"145; and E . Kutsch, "Das Jahr der Katastrophe," 535, 544.9.N. Freedman, "The Babylonian Chronicle," 53. See also K . S. Freedy and D. B. Redford,

"Dates in Ezekiel," 465-66. It is assumed tha t th e last ed itor of J er 52:28-30 has used a roughtable of equivalencies dated according to the Babylonian king's regnal year beginning in Nisanas a starting point for Jehoiachin's captivity. In this way h e has tied in th e eighth-ye ar captu reof Jerusalem (2 Kgs 24:12) to the seventh year of N ebuchadrez zar (De c 598-Mar 597). J. P.Hyatt has argued for a harmonization on the assumption that the Books of Kings used an acces-sion year system, whereas the book of Jeremiah employs a non-accession Nisan reckoning("Nebuchadrezzar and Jud ean History," 278).

' This accords well with th e data fro m th e Chronicle for the years 0 , 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , and 10. T h eentries for years 2, 3 , and 9 are in a poor state of preservation and cannot be read, while year11 gives no information in this regard. Year 4 strongly implies that the king spent the remain-der of the year at home after suffering severe losses during his encounter with the Egyptians.See CCK , 68-75; ABC, 100-102; also A . Malam at, "Th e Twilight of Jud ah," 125-30, and D. N .Freedman, "The Babylonian Chronicle," 57.


6/18

61REEN: TH E LAST DAYS O F JUDAHduring Nebuchadrezzar's seventh Babylonian regnal year, where the Chron-icle puts it.''

The second problem with this view is the difficulty encountered whenprojecting Nebuchadrezzar's regnal years forward to the next fall of Jeru-salem in his eighteenth year (2 Kgs 25:8). It should be observed that in thecase of this second captivity, however, the Bible specifies a month in themiddle of the year; so that the discrepancy here is a full year (i .e. , July-August 587 or 586).11 Hence, to presume an overlapping or inaccuracywould increase the difficulties.

(3) Another interpretation is based on reckoning a Nisan regnal year forthe Judean calendar on the assumption that by the end of the seventh centu-ry B.C.E. the Judean regnal years began in the first month of the spring.Tadmor feels that due to the conservative nature of the reckoning customsin Judah ("First Temple Period," 50-51), it is safe to assume that even priorto Jehoiakim, Judean kings computed regnal years according to the Nisancalendar. There is, however, no explicit evidence for a spring to springregnal year for Judean kings prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 586. Further-more, the utilization of the Jer 46:2 reference to the Battle of Carchemish assupport for this view along with the application of the Babylonian Nisanpost-dating calendrical system, will encounter additional problems whencombined with the apparently conflicting statement of Jer 25 1 and itsrecord of Jehoiakim's fourth year as the first of Nebuchadrezzar.(4) Nebuchadrezzar's years are apparently dated from the time hebecame de facto king over the Hatti-land. The suggestion by certain schol-ars, following Albright, is that the Palestinian historian, while not using anante-dating system, nevertheless, calculated Nebuchadrezzar's reign fromthe year 605 rather than the official 604, on the theory that by 605 Nabopo-lasar was no longer active in the field. Since Nebuchadrezzar was by that

' O There is no need to take the position that Zedekiah was installed after 1 Nisan and, there-fore, in Nebuchadrezzar's eighth year, on the theory that this installation would have tak enplace only aft er Jehoiachin h ad actually been d eported. So H . Tadm or, "Th e Last Kings ofJudah," 229-30, "Th e Chronology of the First Tem ple Period," 56, and E . Vogt, "Die neubab-ylonische Chronik iiber die Schlacht die Karkemish," 90-91. This position has been adopted byE. R. Thiele in his attempt to harmonize the ten th year of Zedekiah with the eigh teenth year ofNebuchadrezzar according to Jer 3 2 : l (Mysterious Numbers, 168, 170). By reckoning Zedeki-ah's accession year from Adar to Tishri, and his first regnal year from Tishri 597, the synchro-nisms between th e regnal years of N ebuchadrezzar and Z edekiah from the Ch ronicle and t heBible can be reconciled. On this matter see also A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah," 135-37,an d S. H. Horn, "Th e Calendar of Judah," 22-23.

" S. H . Horn, "Th e Calendar of Judah," 22 ; A. Malamat, "Last Kings of Judah," 147-48; andD , K. Freedman, "The Babylonian Chronicle," 56-58. This would have to be accomplished byadvancing the da te of Zedekiah's first regnal year a full thirteen months af ter the remov al ofJehoiachin to Nisan 596. Such a position must also assume that his accession year ran from1 Nisan 597 to 1 Nisan 596 (H . Tadrn or, "Chronology of the F irst Temp le," 56) , a contradictionof both t he Chro nicle and th e Bible.


7/18

62 JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATUREtime in sole command of the Babylonian army, he had been recognized asde facto king in the West. Thus, for the Judahite historian, Nebuchadrez-zar's first regnal year would have been 6051604, equivalent to the accessionyear of the official chronicle.12 The obvious objection to this is that it goesagainst the usual practice of recording the regnal years of kings by theregular calendar (whether spring to spring or fall to fall), which suppliedwell known beginning dates for the scribes to reckon by (1 Nisan or 1 Tish-ri). By pursuing this line of reasoning Nebuchadrezzar's first year would fallinto 605; however, that chronological objective can be achieved more easilyand with a minimum of problems, if the following alternative is pursued.

If it is assumed that a Tishri year was used by the Judahite scribe at thistime, and that the reigns of both native and foreign kings were recorded onthis basis,13 all the difficulties are resolved and the sequence of events thenbecomes clear. Nabopolasar died on 8 Ab in his twenty-first year (Aug 15,605). Nebuchadrezzar's accession period began on 8 Ab, 605, and he arrivedin Babylon on 1 Elul (Sept 7, 605) of that same year and sat on the throne ofBabylon. Both of these dates fell between Nisan and Tishri. The Judahitewriters, accordingly using a Tishri system, began to count the Babylonianking's accession period from the 8th of Ab. On this basis his first regnal yearwould then begin 1 Tishri 605, and his eighth year would start 1 Tishri 598.All the events between Kislev 598 and Nisan 597 fall within this yearcorrectly.14 Jehoiakim's eleventh year is in parallel with this year if hisaccession took place after Tishri, 609.

On this basis it becomes unnecessary to assume a non-accession yeardating by Hebrew annalists for Nebuchadrezzar's reign, or that the deporta-tion of Jehoiachin and the installation of Zedekiah were drawn out affairsspilling over beyond 1 Nisan 597. Having, therefore, established the Tishriregnal year as the most logical working pattern, we may now turn to thetwo apparent discrepancies between the last chapters of Kings and Jeremiah.

l 2 Originally, W. F . Albright, "Nebuch adrezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles," 32-33, and laterD. N. Freedman "The Babylonian Chronicle," 57-58; M. Noth, "Die Einnahm e von Jerusalem,"155; J. P. Hyatt , "Nebuchadrezzar and Jud ean History," 278; and S. Talm on, "Calendar Reck-oning in Ephraim and Judah," V T 8(1958) 64.

l 3 It must be understood that t he Jewish scribe's only interest in the regnal years of N ebu -chadrezzar was due to this king's involvement in the termina tion of the Jude an state, and t hecarrying aw ay of its population into exile. He nce , after Zedekiah and the destruction of Jerusa-lem and the state in 586, the exilic com mu nity, using the Nisan 597 B.C. deportation of Jehoia-chin as a "first" yea r, th e begin ning of a kind of e ra , could hav e rever ted to a Nisan reckoningwhich coincided with the Babylonian system, as is apparently the case in Ezekiel. See especiallyK . S. Freedy and D . B. Redford, "Dates in Ezekiel," 465-66. Such a position, howe ver, need notapply to Kings or Jeremiah." These would involve Nebu chadrezzar's cam paign against Jerusalem which included (a) thefall of the city, (b) the ouster of Jehoiachin, (c) th e accession of Zedekiah , and (d) a m ajordeportation (2 Kgs 24:14, 16).


8/18

G R EEK : TH E LAST DA YS O F JU D A H 63

In Jer 52:28-30 there is a notation of three deportations. The first isassigned to Nebuchadrezzar's seventh year (v 28) and involved 3,023 ydhi i -dim; the second, in his eighteenth year (v 29) involved 832 persons fromJerusalem; and the third, in his twenty-third year (v 30) affected 745y8hCd im,15 or a total of some 4,600 captives (v 30). In 2 Kgs 24:12-16,8,000 to 10,000 captives were taken in the eighth year of the king, and in 2Kgs 25:8, "the rest of the people," "deserters," and "the rest of the multi-tude" were carried off in Nebuchadrezzar's nineteenth regnal year. Accom-modation between the figures from the seventh and eighteenth years ofNebuchadrezzar in the book of Jeremiah, and his eighth and nineteenthyears in 2 Kings has been attempted on the basis of two assumptions: (1)That a Nisan accession year reckoning is used in Jeremiah which directlyparallels the Babylonian system and (2) that the deportations in the seventhand eighteenth years are the direct product of and identical with the cap-tures of the city in Nebuchadrezzar's eighth and nineteenth regnal years.16We will first concentrate on the second premise, that the deportations of theseventh and eighteenth years are identical with the captures of the city inthe eighth and nineteenth years. It appears that the evidence is against thatpremise. Several reasons contribute to such a conclusion:

(1) The mere fact that all the numbers are different in every case thatcan be cross-checked, both years and numbers of captives, would seem toimply different events or even an alternate tradition.(2) The numbers in Jer 52:28-30 are quite specific, conveying theimpression that they are documentary in character, in contrast to the roundnumbers used in 2 Kgs 24:16 where 10,000 and 8,000 are mentioned respec-tively for Nebuchadrezzar's eighth year. The difference between 8,000 and10,000 in Kings and 3,023 in Jeremiah is statistically significant i f it has notresulted from textual emendation or an alternate tradition about the sameevent. Bright's theory that the 3,023 in Jermiah refer only to adult males

Vv 28-30 ar e lacking in the LXX and in 2 Kgs 25, as is v 27b. This notice is a late editorialinsertion. It is clear from the reading of Jer 51 that Jer 52 is a later appendix to the book.How ever, its acc ou nt of the fall of Jeru salem is practically identical to th e record in 2 Kgs24:18-25:30 (with minor textual variations) excluding th e description of G edaliah's d eat h w hichis found in 2 Kgs 2522-26. Aside from this reference, nothing further is known from theBabylonian records or the Bible on the subject of a third deportation.

l 6 See especially W. F. Albright, "Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles," 28-33; D. N.Free dm an, "Babylonian Chronicle," 50-60; J. P. Hyatt , "Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History,"278; W. Rudolf, Jeremia (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1968) 323-24. E. R. Thiele formerly held this view("Chron ology of th e Last Kings of Ju dah ," 25); however, though he has changed his positionsom ew hat , he still asserts that th e redactor of Jere mia h utilized a Nisan cale nd ar in calculatingthe regn al years of Ju dea n kings, excep t in cases wh ere his chrono logical state me nts parallelthose in Kings (Mysterious Numbers, 161).


9/18

64 JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATUREdoes not narrow the gap because all the classification listed in Kings arecertainly men."(3) It is difficult to perceive of the fall of Jerusalem under Zedekiahresulting in only 832 captives.(4) The fact that another deportation is mentioned in the twenty-thirdyear, after the city had been destroyed, shows that the deportations do nothave to be associated with the captures of Jerusalem.18(5) Whenever the capture of the city itself or the events that have totake place after its capture are mentioned in the Bible, the eighth year isgiven.lg There were certainly other people around who could have beendeported in the seventh year, but there was only one Jerusalem that couldbe captured in the eighth.(6) If the three deportations in Jer 52:28-30 are separated from thecaptures of the city, they can be fitted into the known historical situationvery

If a Nisan reckoning is presumed for Jeremiah, these captives wouldhave to have been taken between Kislev (Nov-Dec) 598, and Adar (Feb-March) 597, during Nebuchadrezzar's decisive campaign against Jerusalem.As this would occur at the same time as the 8,000-10,000 were captured in2 Kings, the only thing one could posit to separate these two events wouldbe that perhaps the 3,023 were captives from the vicinity taken before thefall of the city. But in this case they probably would have all been deportedtogether anyway. If, however, the seventh year deportation in Jeremiah isstudied on a Tishri basis, then this group of captives would have beenrounded up sometime during the previous Tishri year, 599-598.21 Accordingto the Chronicle, Nebuchadrezzar's campaign against the Arabs falls during" John Bright , History of Israel (3d ed. ; Philadelphia: Westminster , 1981) 328 n. 52; Jeremi-

ah , 369. It is rather interesting that this Jeremiah fragment omits the main events but mentionsonly the deportation figures. One may speculate that these deportations represent to him avindication of th e proph et's repeated w arnings of divin e judgment resulting from Judah'srebellious history.

I d See above note 15.I q In Nebu chadrezzar's eighth year (598-597) in Kislev (De c 18, 598-Jan 15, 597) he march ed

to the Hatti-land a nd en cam ped against Jerusalem. On t he 2d day of Adar (March 16 , 597) he(1) seized the city, (2) deposed Jehoiachin, (3) installed Zedekiah, and (4) initiated the firstmajor depo rtation (2 Kgs 24:14, 16). See above note 14.

j" A position take n by a n um ber of scholars. See, for exam ple, A. Ma lam at, "T he Tw ilight ofJud ah," 133-34; "Th e Last Years of Jud ah," 211; S. H . Horn , "The Ca lend ar of Judah," 26-27an d E . R. Thie le, "Chronology of th e Last Kings of J ud ah ," 25." Malam at, on the other han d, takes the position that this gro up was rounded u p in 597, andthat a minor deportation occurred in the winter prior to 1 Nisan 597 ("Last Kings of Judah,"153-54, "Last Days of Judah," 211, "Twilight of Judah," 133-34). He points out that the utiliza-tion of t he term "y2hirdim" could imply that the deportees we re inhabitants of th e provincialcities of Jud ah who m ight ha ve been carried aw ay while Jerusalem was u nde r siege, but heconcludes, nevertheless, that these deportees represent an immediate deportation of someresidents of the capital ("Nebuchadrezzar's Palestinian Campaigns," 253-54).


10/18

GREEN: TH E LAST DAYS O F JUDAH 65this period in his sixth Babylonian regnal year. At this time, after an absenceof almost two years since his earlier major engagement in Syria and Pales-tine in Kislev of 601 (B. M. 21946), he conducted a late and short campaignbetween Kislev and Adar (Dec-Feb) against the Arabs, using the Hatti-landas a base of operation^.^^ For this campaign the Chronicle states that theking of Babylon "dispatched his army from Hattu and they went off to thedesert. They plundered extensively the possessions, animals, and gods of thenumerous Arabs."23It would appear that the thrust of this campaign was against the Arabs.It is possible, however, that some military contingents could have been sentinto Judah in view of the fact that Jehoiakim had been in rebellion againsthim for some two years and that Jerusalem was the target of the majorcampaign of the following season.24 f some of the troops were deployedagainst Judah (which would be good military strategy) while the main armywas in the desert against the Arabs, 3,023 captives from the more poorlydefended locations in Judah would not be an inordinate number. It shouldalso be remembered that, during his absence from the field, it is recorded bythe deuteronomist that God ordered various bands of Syrians, Moabites,Ammonites, and Chaldeans against Judah. These Babylonians were probablygarrison troops (2 Kgs 24:2), who could have taken some captives in Judah,too, and held them for later dep~ rtation. '~ alamat has noted that theparticular appellative here, yEhQdim, implying the provincial elements ofJudah, is brought into perspective by the designation "from Jerusalem ,"which is applied to the exiles deported during the final siege in Nebuchad-rezzar's eighteenth year (v 29). Several years later, after the destruction of

2 It is quite possible that one of the objectives of this campaign was the tribe of Qedar andothers to the East of Hazor (Jer 49:28-31); as other people in this region were apparentlycooperating with the Babylonian garrisons (2 Kgs 24:2). See also CCK, 31-32; ABC, 20, 101.This challenge to Babylonian control probably developed as a result of Nebuchadrezzar's illsuccess against Necho's forces two years ea rlier.'' ABC, 20, 101; CCK , 32.

Z The reading of B. M. 21946 makes it clear that on this occasion Judah was the primaryobjective of t he expedition w hich d ep arte d Baby lon in Kislev (De c 598). Following th e success-ful campaign (2 Ch r 36:lO and ABC , 102). the text implies that Nebucha drezzar had r eturn edto his capital fo r the N ew Year's festivities following the capitu lation of Jerusalem on e mo nthearlier on 2 Adar. See above note 9.

2 5 See 1, Eph al, The Nomads on th e Border of Palestine (dissertation: University of Jerusa-lem , 1971) 125-29. It seems clear that th e king left the ar m y in the field conducting this ca m-paign against the Arabs while he returned to Babylon in Adar for the New Year's festival inNisan. Based on the reading of the Chronicles for the sixth year (ABC, 101; CCK, 70-71),Wiseman has observed that while there is the mention of the personal return of the king, noreference is made to accompanying troops. He has concluded, therefore, that at least some mayhave been kept in Syria to strengthen the garrisons against retaliatory raids from the desertdurin g the subsequent spring and s um me r. See also A. Malamat, "Th e Twilight of Jud ah," 131-32, "Last Years of Jud ah," 209 and S . H . Hor n, "Th e Cale ndar of J udah ," 25-26.


11/18

66 JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATUREJerusalem, the deportees in Nebuchadrezzar's twenty-third year are onceagain, and quite appropriately, called "Judean~!"~~

A study of the passage in question leads to the conclusion that Malamatmay be correct in his application of the term "yr?hOdimnhere as an indica-tion that these people were residents of Judah in general but not specificallyJerusalemites. Indeed, the 832 captives taken in the eighteenth year arecontrastingly mentioned as coming "from Jerusalem," that is, coming specif-ically from the city. This falls into the period in which Nebuchadrezzar wasdirectly engaged in the siege of the city (Jer 32:l). Captives of the subse-quent deportation in Nebuchadrezzar's twenty-third year are again referredto as "ydhOdim," this time coming when Jerusalem was in ruins. Thus theterminology employed for these captives is complementary to the idea thatthese deportations in the seventh and eighteenth years were secondary andminor, separate from the major group of exiles following the capture of thecity in his eighth and nineteenth years. It is clear, therefore, that the Jere-miah appendages to these deportations must be seen as minor events takingplace in the years preceding the major deportations and unconnected to theother two major deportations which followed the fall of the city.27

A final point on the subject, something of the nature of Jeremiah 52, isworth emphasizing. It is generally agreed that this chapter is an appendix tothe book, coming as it does, after the last verse in chapter 51 which says"Thus far are the words of Jeremiah." The account is clearly drawn largelyfrom 2 Kings or the same source as that material.28Vv 28-30 are an excep-tion for which we have no other scriptural documentation. The source ofthis notice is undetermined, but it does not have to come from exilic editingas has been suggested.2gf the thesis presented here is correct, it could just aswell have been of some other origin. If the deportations of the seventh andeighteenth years are separated from those of the eighth and the nineteenthyears, then not only is there nothing that contradicts the Tishri reckoning,but the fact that the details fit the historical situation so very well may beanother indication that that was the method of reckoning used.

Jer 52:12 states that Nebuzaradan's burning of the city occurred in thesame nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar as cited in 2 Kgs 25, but a

26 Jer 52:30. See also note 16, and A. Malamat, "Nebuchadrezzar's Palestinian Campaigns,"253-54, and "Twilight of Judah," 133-34." Also S. H . Horn , "Th e Calendar of Judah," 25-27. Malamat's position differs slightly in

that he places the minor deportation in Nebuchadrezzar's seventh year in the winter prior to1 Nisan 597, a deportation organized by Nebuchadrezzar himself, after the fall of the city("Nebuchadrezzar's Palestinian Campaigns," 253-54, table on p. 256 and "Last Kings of Judah,"153-54). After Nebuchadrezzar's departure to Babylon for the New Year's festival, hissubalterns proceeded to orga nize the first major deportation headed by Jehoiachin." See John Bright, Jeremiah, 365-70, and above note 15." Especially W. F . Albright, "Nebuch adrezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles," 32, and D. N.Free dm an, "Babylonian Chronicle," 54-59.


12/18

GREEN: TH E LAST DAYS O F JUDAH 67deportation of a separate group of captives could have come before.30Clearly, the writer must have been aware that two separate events wereinvolved here.

One of the most difficult texts in any study of the chronology of the lastdays of Judah is Jer 46:2. The text reads as follows:Wh at ca m e of th e word of Y ahweh to Jeremiah th e prophet concerning the nations:About Egypt. Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was

along the Euphrates River at Carchemish and which Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon,defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim ben Josiah, king of J ~ d a h . ~ '

Coupled with this statement is the synchronism in Jer 25:l which reads:"The word that came to Jeremiah concerning the entire people of Judah inthe fourth year of Jehoiakim ben Josiah, king of Judah (that is, in the firstyear of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon . . .").32 If these two references areplaced together there is the equation that the battle of Carchemish occurredin Jehoiakim's fourth year which was Nebuchadrezzar's first. It is knownthat the battle of Carchemish, which is placed by Jer 46:2 in Jehoiakim'sfourth year, occurred sometime in the late spring or early summer of 605.33In some unspecified month early in Nabopolasar's twenty-first regnal year,which began on 1 Nisan 605 (April 12), Nebuchadrezzar, the crown prince,led the army directly to an attack on the Egyptians at Carchemish, andthere "He inflicted a defeat upon them (and) finished them off~omple te ly . "~~e then went after the remaining Egyptian forces that hadretreated southward toward Egypt. The Chronicle (B. M . 21946) states thatNabopolasar died in Babylon on 8 Ab (Aug 15) during his twenty-firstregnal year (605). Nebuchadrezzar made the rapid trip home in one and one

30 Th e appen dag e to Jeremiah (52:12) records the burning of the city on the tenth day wh ileKings (2 Kgs 25:8) has the sev enth day. O ne canno t say which is correct. Both, however, placethis event in the fifth month of Nebuchad rezzar's nineteenth regnal year

31 Evidently, it would be incorrect to call Nebuchadrezzar king at Carchemish (May-earlyJun e 605), as this would only beco me a reality w ith th e dea th of Nabopolasar (Aug 16 , 605) acouple of mo nths later (ABC , 19-20; CCK, 29, 70-71).

32 The parenthetical reference to the first year of Nebuchadrezzar does not appear in theLXX and is evidently a gloss, but a correct one.

33 After conducting his campaign against Egypt on the U pper Eup hrate s, Nabopolasarreturned to Babylon in Sebat toward the e nd of his twe ntieth regnal year (Jan-Feb, 605). Th enin some unspecified month of his twenty-first year (beginning 1Nisan 605) Nebuchadrezzar, hisson, led the army directly in an attack on the Egyptians at Carchemish. It is quite possible thatthe battle of Carchemish an d the subsequ ent follow-up operations, which cornered anddefeated th e retreating Egyptian forces at H am ath , took place about Sivan (M ayIJu ne) 605. SeeB. M. 21946 in CCK, 23-27. Also E. R. Thiele, "Last Kings of Ju dah," 24-25. Ho rn has placedCarchemish as early as April ("The C alendar of Judah," 20).

3 4 B. M. 21946 in ABC, 99, and CCK, 66-67.


13/18

68 JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LJTERATUREhalf weeks and was crowned king on 1 Elul (Sept 7, 605).35After he assumedthe kingship, the remaining portion of the year until the next new year'sday, 1 Nisan in the spring of 604, the Chronicle identifies as his accessionyea~-.~"iven these statements, it is difficult to see how the battle of Car-chemish can be equated with Nebuchadrezzar's first year when he did notactually come to the throne until Sept 7, 605, and did not begin his firstproper regnal year until 1 Nisan 604 (MarchIApril). Adoption of a post-dating Tishri regnal year cannot accommodate Jeremiah 46:2 which datesthe battle of Carchemish to Jehoiakim's fourth year.3' A survey of the treat-ment of this problem reveals a number of different ways in which thepassage may be interpreted.

(1) The author, compiler or copyist of Jer 46:2, made an error when heplaced the battle of Carchemish in Jehoiakim's fourth year.38

(2) In Jer 25:l the parenthetical phrase, "that was the first year ofNebuchadrezzar king of Babylon," was a later (and incorrect) addition to thetext.I9 The absence of this paragraph in the L X X has been enlisted as sup-port for this view. The above suggestions could, of course, be applied to allthe chronologic statements under discussion. It would be very convenient toinvoke them whenever there is an apparent discrepancy in the chronologicalsystem.

(3) Various interpreters have followed the suggestion of Albright of anincorrect translation of Jer 25:1,'Oeven though that idea had been proposedbefore the Babylonian Chronicle text had been discovered. Finegan's solu-tion is as follows:

In Hebrew the words are hashshanah haroshniyt. Th e phrase is not found elsewhere,but we recognize, modifying th e word 'ye ar' the fem inin e singular form of the adjective

" It took thre e and o ne half weeks for the message of his father's death to reach him in the westand for him to return to Babylon to be crown ed king. Nabopolasar d ied on 8 Ab (Aug 15-16.605)in Babylon during his twenty-first regnal year and Nebuchadrezzar was crowned on 1 Elul (Sept7, 60 5) . The tr ip hom e, therefore, probably accoun ted for a half of the three an d one half weeks,as he wo uld be acc om panied only by a few of his trusted lieu tenan ts. See also CCK ,27.

36 B. M. 21946 in ABC , 99-100; CCK ,68-69.'' Battle of Me giddo a nd death of Josiah 609 (an ytim e), see abov e note 5. Necho's camp aign in

north Syria coincides with the brief reign of Jeho ahaz , who w as deposed on Necho's retu rn shortlyafte r 1 Tishri (late Sept) 609, at which ti me Jehoiakim's accession begins. First year of Jehoiakim,Tishri 608 (Sept-Oct) to Elul 607 (Aug-Sept). Third year of Jeh oiakim , Tishri 606 (Sept-Oct) tolast of Elu l, 60 5 (O ct 6). This is th e twenty-first y ear of Nabo polasar an d the accession year ofNeb uchad rezzar . Battle of C arche mish , late May to early June 605; Nabopolasar's death Aug15/1 6, 605. Nebuch adrezzar's coronation Sept 7, 605. The accession year of Nebuchad rezzar =the third year of Jeh oiakim .

" One of the possible solutions suggested by K . S. Freedy and D. B. Redford ("The Dates inEzekiel," 465).jQ See discussion by J . Bright, Jeremiah, 160-63." In his discussion on th e Heb rew re nderin g of the Babylonian te rm rES Sarrati. W . F. Albright,

"Th e Seal of Eliakim an d the Latest Pre-exilic History of J ud ah, With S ome Observations onEzekiel," JBL 51(1932) 101-2.


14/18

GREEN : TH E LAST DAYS O F JUDAH 6 9which can mean either 'first' or 'beginning.' Since the noun is used in the standard desig-nation of an accession year, the phrase in Jer 2 5 1 probably means also ' the beginningyear, ' i .e ., the accession year of Nebu chadrezz ar."

This, of co urse, harmon izes the im m ed iate events of the years 605-604, forby this mean s the accession year of Ne buc had rezza r falls into the fou rthyear of Je hoiak im, bu t i t would also mak e m atters worse for the yea r w oulden d the last of A dar, 605, before th e battle of C arc he m ish wasHowever, if one uses the Nisan reckoning, this would still leave unresolvedthe datum concerning the fal l of Jerusalem in Nebuchadrezzar 's eighth year,for according to this system and the Babylonian calendar, it is his seventh.Correspondingly, as previously discussed, it also affects the problem of thecity's fall in his nineteenth year .43

A case has been m ad e for th e possibility of a scribal erro r on th e pa rt ofthe author, compiler or copyist of Jer 46:2. It assumes a Tishri reckoning forthe sta tem en t in Jer 46:2, retains the translation of "first" year of N eb uc ha d-rezzar in Jer 25:1, and places this in paral lel with Jehoiakim's fourth year,Tishri 605-604, after the battle of Carchemish had been fought. In this casethe antecedent of the fourth year of Jehoiakim in Jer 46:2 is the oracularutterance rather than the battle itself. It has been suggested that Jer 46:2 beread as follows:

Th e word of Yahweh which c am e to Jeremiah th e prophet, against the nations; aboutEgypt: against the army of Pharaoh Neco, king of E gypt (which had been a t the riverEuph rates at Carchemish which Nebu chadrez zar king of Babylon had d efea ted) in thefourth y ear of Jehoiakim son of Josia h, king of Ju dah."

Horn observes that i t has to be assumed that the parenthetical clause wasinserted in the introduc tion of th e message to point out tha t the oracle waspronounced over the Egypt ian army which had been severely mauled" J. Fine gan , Handbook of Biblical Chronology , 202. See also J. Tad m or, "Last Kings of J uda h,"

226-28; E. Kutsch, "Das Jahr de r Katastrophe," 535-36. A. Malam at sees this as one possibility bu the recognizes the additional problems this would raise with 2 Kgs 23:36 which gives Jehoiakimeleven years ("Tw ilight of Ju dah ," 127-28, "Last Y ears of J uda h," 350)."See discussion abov e unde r notes 33 and 37.

4 3 Unde r these circumstances T hiele finds it necessary to adop t a Nisan cal end ar in orde r to rec-oncile the regnal years ("Ch ronology of t he La st Kings of J uda h," 23-25 and Mysterious Num -bers, 161-63). Also on the problem but not in agreem ent with Th iele, see E. Kutsch, "Das Jahr de rKatastrophe," 536-37,544, and H . Tadm or, "Last Kings of Jud ah," 227-28. Others ha ve generallyheld the view that the Nisan calendar was not adopted in Judah until the summer of 604. So J.Fin ega n, Hand book of B iblical Chrono logy, 203-204; D. N. Freed man , "The Babylonian Chroni-cle," 52-60; J. P. Hy att , "Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History," 278-81; M. Noth, "Die Einna hm evon Jerusalem," 153-57; and E. Vogt, "Die neubabylonischi Chronik," 67-96.'9.H . Horn , "Calendar of Judah ," 26, and n . 33; and A . M alam at, "Twilight of Judah ," 127-28, who gives guarded support to this view. Jer 46:1, like the paren thetical phrase in 46:2, is notfound in the L XX , and is an editorial insertion. Henc e this adjustment to the text with a view toan accommodation with 2 5 : l may or may not be a more accurate reading of the passage. Notealso similar superscriptions in 1:2, 14:1,and 49:34.


15/18

70 JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATUREseveral months earlier. While such an artificial and unnatural grammatical

may not appeal to some scholars, according to Horn, the merefact that translators from the L X X to our time have applied this date asreferring to the battle is no proof that the traditional reading is correct.15 Ifthe portion of the verse referring to Carchemish is considered as a paren-thetical clause, all the chronological difficulties would be removed, and thepassage would fall in line with the other dated historical statements in thebook of Jeremiah mentioning Nebuchadrezzar.

(5) Ante-dating as a possible solution would only be helpful if one reck-ons by the Tishri year. Assuming hypothetically that Jehoiakim ascended thethrone after Tishri, 609, and that the scribes applied the principle to bothJehoiakim and Nebuchadrezzar, it would bring together all three events inJeremiah-the first year of Nebuchadrezzar, the fourth of Jehoiakim, andthe battle of Carchemish in the period Tishri 609-605.46 But it would placethe fall of Jerusalem in 597 in Jehoiakim's twelfth year, not his eleventh,and if followed through would do the same to Zedekiah.

(6) Retarding the accession of Jehoiakim by placing Necho's campaignwith the attendant death of Josiah in 608 instead of 609 has also been pro-posed. In this case, such a campaign would have escaped the notice of theBabylonian chronicler. This is possible, but as discussed earlier, not very likely.For a Nisan reckoning, this would bring the first of Nebuchadrezzar and thefourth of Jehoiakim correctly together, but it would also require additionalexplanation given above concerning Jer 462, and would have the effect ofsubtracting from the stated regnal years of Jehoiakim before his death.

The Tishri reckoning would be just another way of insuring that Jehoia-kim's accession came after 1 Tishri 609. Since that would reasonably havehappened anyway, there is no need to go against the extra-biblical evidence.If this method were used to place the accession of Jehoiakim after 1 Tishri608, all sorts of problems would result-the battle of Carchemish wouldcome too early, Jerusalem would fall in Nebuchadrezzar's ninth year, andthere is no way to place his first year together with Jehoiakim's fourth unlesssome other ploy was employed. If the extra-biblical material is to be used atall, the death of Josiah must be placed in 609.

(7) Two examples of the split method used in some circles will suffice,though all sorts of combinations are possible:

(a) Quite a few scholars have resorted to a transition in the calendar." ATishri reckoning is utilized down to the spring of 604, after which it is

S. H. Ho rn, "Calend ar of Jud ah," 26.Conversely, it would make things worse for a Nisan year. It would push Jehoiakim's fourthyear ah ead so it would te rmin ate th e last of Adar, 605,before the ba ttle of Carchemish was fought.

'' A method used by J . Finegan (Handbook of Biblical Chronolo gy, 203) and quite a fewothers. E. R. Thiele uses a split method but applies this only to the chronological statements inthe book of Jeremiah which are not derived from Kings (Mysterious Numbers, 161, and "TheChronology of the Last Kings of J ud ah ," 24).


16/18

GREE N: T H E LAST DAYS OF JUDAH 71assumed that the Babylonian calendar was adopted by Judah. Since thismethod dates Jehoiakim's accession by 1 Tishri, 609, and retranslates Jer251, it can fit all the events of 605 together-the fourth year of Jehoiakim,the accession of Nebuchadrezzar, and the battle of Carchemish. But inswitching to a Nisan reckoning there is the difficulty of the eighth and theninth years which is then explained as ante-dating, a procedure which isextremely difficult to apply to a Babylonian king. The advocates of thismethod find it necessary to switch calendars in order to get the right num-ber of years for Jehoiakim.

(b) Others have suggested the use of different calendars in differentsources. A Nisan reckoning is used for Jeremiah and a Tishri for Kings-Chronicles. Under such circumstances it would be expected that the datesfor the fall of Jerusalem under Zedekiah would be different in Jeremiah andKings, but the records are the same; therefore, source criticism and redac-tion are employed to edit these references away from the problem of thefourth year. In Thiele's words, "Items in Jeremiah that are taken fromKings, such as Jeremiah 39:l-10 and chapter 52 are in accord with theTishri reckoning employed in Kings."" This is manifestly correct in the caseof Jeremiah 52, and may be right in the case of Jeremiah 39, but the samereference is contained in Jer 1:3 which states that the deportation came inthe fifth month of Zedekiah's eleventh year. It would seem that the samechronological statement is found right at the heart of the material in Jeremi-ah 1. "The material unquestionably derives from the ~rophet 's ownreminiscence^."^^ This methodology also fails to explain how two calendars

came to be used at the same time in the same place.Having examined a number of ~ r o ~ o s e dolutions, this study offers an

additional possibility which warrants some serious consideration. As can beadduced from the previous discussion, a Tishri reckoning can meet therequirements of all synchronisms but one, Jer 462. The suggestion of aretranslation and adjustment of this verse, while not without its distractions,is probably the best current solution. But the momentous events whichrevolve around this particular date lead one to wonder if it is not a differentmethod employed here (Nisan vs. Tishri in Kings, etc) but rather a differenttradition about an event, namely, the accession of Jehoiakim. This is a veryimportant point for Tishri reckoning, and yet there is no exact informationon it.

That particular event must have come fairly close to 1 Tishri 609, soclose that modern scholarship has laced it on either side of the line. Could

4 Y Mysterious Numbers, 163. Application of this method throughout should show a differentdate for the fall of Jerusalem in Jerem iah and Kings, but the records are th e sam e, a facto rwhich would indicate the inconsistency of such a route. Clearly, additional clarification wouldbe necessary.

49 John Bright, Jeremiah, 6. The end of Zedekiah's rule given here, hence this should beidentica l with th e fall of Jeru salem to Nebucha drezz ar.


17/18

72 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATUREi t be that that was tru e in anc ient t ime s also? If one considers th e complex ofevents that took place about that t ime which included the death of Josiah,the installation of Jehoahaz, his three-month reign, his tr ip to Riblah, hisremoval by Necho, the installation of Jehoiakim by Necho, etc. , his travelback a n d fo rt h to Riblah;" it is possible tha t th e accession of Jehoia kimcould have been placed on either side of 1 Tishr i by two ind epende nt t rad i-tions, perhaps dating from slightly different points in the process of thechangeover to Jehoiakim. It m ight be a d if ference of th e in terval f rom whe nJehoahaz was last seen in Jerusalem to when he was put in chains in Riblah.In such a case one might expect the "government" sources (Kings-Chronicles) to give the official date, after 1 Tishri , with a variant traditionexisting alongside of i t am on g the po pulace (Jere m iah), datin g th e accessionbefore 1 Tishri .If this alternative is pursued the me thod would rem ain inta ct. T he rewould be no need for changing ca lendars or having d if ferent ca lendars inuse at one t ime in one place. The Tishri accession year would be usedthroughout. Jehoiakim's fourth year would, therefore, include the battle ofCarchemish and the accession year of Nebuchadrezzar, but not his firstregnal year starting 1 Tishri 605 (Palestinian recko ning). This in turn wouldrequire a translation of Jer 25:l to mean accession year instead of first yearbut no other biblical synchronism or dates would be upset. Gr an ted , i t wouldgive us twe lve years of reign for Jehoia kim in th e book of Je rem iah , butthen we have no mention of any regnal years for him in Jeremiah after hisfifth (Jer 36), so we really d o not know how long the editors of Jeremiahwould ascribe to his reign . Since this is connected with a n ev ent r athe r thana me thod , it would be self-corrective with th e de ath of Jeho iakim.

It must be admitted that this is speculative. The same thinking, forexa m ple, is the essence of th e idea that Neb uchadrezzar 's reign in Palestinewould be d a ted f r om the t ime he was de facto king. I t mig ht also b e arguedthat to leave Jehoiakim with tw elve years in th e book of J erem iah is at bestquestionable, and this is true; one can only plead lack of evidence to dis-prove such a possibility. It seems more reasonable to take such a positionthan to push Zedekiah 's accession beyond 1 Nisan, where we have exactspecifications from the Babylonian Chronicle. In this present case we are

jU A reexamination of G add's Ch ronicles makes it certain that th e battle of Megidd o occurredin the sum me r of 609. See above note 5 . Josiah, there fore , died in M ay or Jun e 609 of his thirty-first year ( 2 Kgs 22 :l ). Having been forced to retreat to Ha ran , Necho mad e his headqu arters atRiblah. Jeh oah az, who ha d been installed as king at th e death of Josiah, had now been sum -mone d to Riblah (south of Ham ath in Syria) wh ere he was deposed by the Ph araoh a fter onlythree months of reign (2 Kgs 23:31, 32) , a period w hich extende d from Ju ne to September 609.The installation of Jehoiakim, his trip back and forth to Riblah and the events taking place atthis time still leave a numb er of gaps which h ave not bee n fully exp laine d. Was Jehoahaz"officially" deposed in Jerusalem by t he E gyptians as im plied in 2 Ch r 36:3 or was it a generalstatement covering what was more specifically done at Riblah?


18/18

7 3REEN : THE LAST DAYS OF JUDAHhere dealing with an inexactly dated event, i.e., Jehoiakim's accession. Thissuggestion could immediately be put to rest if we had (1) the number ofyears of reign for Jehoiakim in the Jeremiah tradition or (2) a more exactdate for Jehoiakim's accession.'l Any study involving Jer 462, must take intoconsideration this position outlined above as another possibility for a satisfac-tory harmonization of all the data.

In the study of the biblical passages and the historical events discussed inthis paper, the Babylonian Chronicle has supplied the key point of depar-ture. One can only wish for more gaps to be filled in, but until they are, weshall have to content ourselves with the best approximation possible by closeattention to figures.

" An alternative system for solving the problem of Jehoiakim's accession, the synchronismsbetween the kings of Judah and Israel and the regnal dates for each kingdom, has recently beenproposed by H. Tadmor ("The Chronology of the First Temple Period"). This system assumesthe adoption of a Nisan ante-dating calendar for Judah and Israel by the ancient editor, whoutilizes a Mesopotamian m ethod of "roun ding off" parts of years to "full" years. On this premi seeach "rounded off" regnal year of both kingdoms represents one more year than is attributed inKings. Wh ether or not this applies consistently depends on the n atu re of the d ata available tothe an cient edi tor . This assumption is definitely th e case in Israel; however, in view of th eofficial nature of t he Chronicles of Ju dah re corded in years, month s, and days, Tadm or's posi-tion is that the w riter then sw itches to this precise m ethod du e to Babylonian influence. Thema tter of imp lied coregencies (2 Kgs 15:5, 14:27) which cannot be explained through thissystem is acknowledged as a serious drawbac k; notw ithstan ding, the conclusion is that thesecoregencies were at best unknown to the ancient editor. In comparison to the preceding com-plex system, the adoption of a Tishri pst-dating working principle is preferable to the Nisanante-dating proposal for a reconstruction of the regnal periods of the kings of Judah and espe-cially for the chain of events du rin g the later years of t he kingdom until Zede kiah.

Last Days of Judah

Documents