Daniel's 69-weeks

Daniel Historicity

Passion Week Harmonized

Jesus' Historicity

Jesus' Birth Date

Fall of Judah - Regnal Years and Timeline

There has been alleged a seeming inconsistency: how can Jeremiah refer to Jehoiakim's 4th year while Daniel refers to Jehoiakim's 3rd year when recording the same event, namely, Nebuchadnezzar's first year?

It will be shown (in the Fall of Judah Chronology below) that the following passages are in fact consistent and in agreement regarding the dates and events reported (all cites NASB):

Jeremiah 46:2
To Egypt, concerning the army of Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt, which was by the Euphrates River at Carchemish, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah:

Jeremiah 25:1
The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon),

Daniel 1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.

New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation (1995)

Jeremiah (along with Zechariah, Haggai and Ezekiel) reckoned regnal years by the accession-year system and sacred calendar years running Nisan-Adar while Daniel (along with Ezra, Nehemiah and the chronicler of Second Kings) reckoned regnal years by the accession-year system and civil calendar years running Tishri-Elul (see Regnal Year Reckoning).

Consequently, Daniel understood Jehoiakim to be in his 3rd year as king of Judah (by Tishri-accession reckoning) while Jeremiah understood Jehoiakim to be in his 4th year as king of Judah (by Nisan-accession reckoning), and both understood that Nebuchadnezzar had just become king of Babylon upon Nabopolassar's death: all three reckonings synchronize in 605 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptian army at Carchemish and then beseiged Jerusalem. This synchronization is highlighted in the table below, in the intersection of the row 605 BC, Aug/Sep, and the sub-columns headed:

• "Jeremiah - use Nisan accession-years" show Jehoiakim in his 4th regnal year and Nebuchadnezzar in his accession year (as Jeremiah understood regnal calendars)
• "Daniel - use Tishri accession-years" show Jehoiakim in his 3rd regnal year and Nebuchadnezzar in his accession year (as Daniel understood regnal calendars)

Additional background on the chronology of the last kings of Judah and reckoning the years of their reign is found in:

• Hayim Tadmor, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Oct., 1956), pp. 226-230.
• Alberto R. Green, "The Chronology of the Last Days of Judah: Two Apparent Discrepancies", Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 101, No. 1. (Mar., 1982), pp. 57-73.
• Leslie McFall, "Translation Guide to Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles", Bibliotheca Sacra, 148 (1991) 3-45
• Leslie McFall, "Has the Chronology of the Hebrew Kings been finally settled?", Themelios Vol. 17 (1991) pp. 6-11.
  

The table below organizes the years of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah (kings of Judah) and Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar (kings of Babylon) as recorded by Jeremiah, the chronicler of Second Kings, and Daniel through to the final fall of Jerusalem, so as to verify that their dates are in fact consistent with each other and with the Jerusalem Chronicle (translation at livius.org) when similarity in accession-year conventions and differences in regnal-year conventions are taken into account.

Also demonstrated in the table below (highlighted in yellow) are two theoretical early 6th century B.C. synchronisms between Babylonian and Hebrew intercalation:

1. The capture by Nebuchadnezzar on Addaru 2nd 597 B.C. of Jehoiachin (Jerusalem Chronical reverse line 11-13) who had only reigned three months (2Ki 24:8) when Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah king of Judah on Babylonian Nisanu 597 B.C. and Hebrew Nisan 3164 A.M. "at the turn of the year" (2Chron 36:10):
   1. If Babylonia weren't intercalating, Nebuchadnezzar would have marched to Jerusalem in the Babylonian month of Tebetu (rather than Kislimnu) and captured Jehoiachin in the next later month of Nisanu) .
   2. If Judah/Jerusalem weren't also intercalating (an embolismic Adar II possibly two years earlier in 599 B.C.), then Jehoiachin's three month reign from Kislev to Shevat ending early Adar (upon capture by Nebuchadnezzar) and Zedekiah's consequent and subsequent appointment by Nebuchadnezzar would be one month later in Iyar after the "turn of the year"
2. Nebuchadnezzar's final siege of Jerusalem on the 10th month, 10th day of Zedekiah's 9th year in 588 B.C. was theoretically preceded 4 months earlier by a Hebrew intercalary month, Adar II:
   1. Jeremiah normally reckons on a Nisan regnal year (see Regnal Year Reckoning) counting 4 months from Nisan as in Jer 39:2 which reports Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Jerusalem in the 4th month of Zedekiah's 11th year (586 B.C.).
   2. However, in 588 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar began his final siege of Jerusalem, Jeremiah counted 10 months from a Tishri regnal year (Zedekiah's 9th) to the siege beginning on the 10th month, 10th day (Jer 39:1).
   3. Jeremiah normally should have reckoned the final siege commencing in Tammuz as the 4th month of Zedekiah's 9th Nisan regnal-year instead of the 10th month of Zedekiah's Tishri regnal-year. The reported date is correct, but Jeremiah has used a different reckoning system than his usual. Why?
   4. Possibly, 4 months before the siege, an extra month Adar II may have been intercalated which consequently deferred the beginning of the Nisan regnal year by one month and postponed the Nisan festivals (there was no Adar festival of Purim in Jeremiah's time). Jeremiah (who used Nisan regnal reckoning) was held in Jerusalem at that time (Jer 38:28) and was a prophet of Judah (which used Tishri regnal reckoning). Ostensibly, if an intercalation and postponement was made, then ostensibly the determination would have come from the priests and king in Jerusalem, which was threatened with attack. Presumably, advance warning of Nebuchadnezzar's approaching army and siege train must have reached Judah and Jerusalem prior to Adar of 588 B.C. as Nebuchadnezzar's marches often began in the earlier Babylonian months of Kislimnu or Tebetu.
   5. Possibly Nebuchadnezzar's approaching army precluded the priests in Jerusalem from confirming an intercalation of Adar II, or Jeremiah being held first in a cistern and then in the court of the guardhouse (Jer 38) prevented Jeremiah from knowing. Jeremiah seemed to be recording events contemporaneously, and lacking official confirmation of whether the Nisan sacred calendar year (and hence the Nisan regnal year) was postponed, Jeremiah used Tishri reckoning instead when recording Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem in Jer 39:1.

   However, it must be pointed out that an intercalated Adar II in 588 B.C. is hypothetical. Though, if Jeremiah had no confirmed intercalary postponement of the Nisan calendar year, he would have to change reckoning systems for that one single verse and event recorded in Jer 39:1 and instead use the Tishri reckoning system of his immediate surrounds. This is clearly speculative and inconclusive, but Jeremiah's anomalous switch from reckoning on the sacred calendar year to the civil for one verse warrants further examination.

Fall of Judah Chronology

When reading the table, take care to not confuse the abbreviation for Jeremiah (Jer) with the abbreviation for the Jerusalem Chronicle (Jer. Chon.).

* Jeremiah 39:1 would appear to reckon months from a Tishri regnal year whereas Jer 39:2 would appear to reckon months from a Nisan regnal year.

** All dates from Jeremiah chapter 52 are presumed to be reckoned on Tishri-accession years or are otherwise quoting accounts of the chronicler of 2 Kings, as Jeremiah 52 is generally recognized as an appendix not authored by Jeremiah. Note the last verse of chapter 51 is: Jer 51:64b "Thus far are the words of Jeremiah" afterwhich comes chapter 52 which is a chronology of the reign of Zedekiah to the final fall of Jerusalem, seemingly reckoned on Tishri-accession years (see for example Jer 52:4 "ninth year of his reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month"), and not Nisan-accession years as in Jeremiah chapters 1-51. While verses such as Jeremiah 52:29, 30 are indeterminate, Jeremiah 52:5-6, 12, and 28 would seem to be exceptions to such a presumption.

To ensure that intercalated months did not invalidate the correlation of Jeremiah's and Daniel's reporting of dates and events, the table above shows the intercalated (embolismic) months. See Hebrew and Babylonian Intercalation for a brief overview of the intercalation methods and their impact on the above table.

Dates of Nebuchadnezzar's military campaigns are recorded in the Babylonian Chronicle which has been cited by most historians and scholars (including Finegan and others relied upon above) to substantiate the accounts of the Old Testament.

Historicity of the Babylonian Chronicle can be verified at:

• Cuneiform tablet with part of the Babylonian Chronicle (616-609 B.C.) - British Museum
• Cuneiform tablet with part of the Babylonian Chronicle (605-594 B.C.) - British Museum

Jona Lendering (at livius.org) has excerpted English translations of many Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian texts which may be viewed at Mesopotamian chronicles.

Excepting Javascript applets and "fair use" excerpts of other author's works,
content on this site, "Theos Sphragis" by Charles D. Davis,
is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.




(last updated July 6, 2020)