This article was originally published as one article on the old KingsCalendar website under the title: How long did King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon Reign? The file is about ten thousand words which is difficult for this site to handle so it appears here in two parts.
The Reign of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon
from the King’s Calendar perspective.
The Jigsaw Analogy:
If you have ever done a jigsaw puzzle then you know that it is possible for a number of pieces to look like they fit, but it is not until you are down to the last few pieces that you discover that some pieces that originally seemed to fit were misplaced.
This article is devoted to demonstrating that pieces of the historical jigsaw in relation to Ancient Near Eastern History that were thought to fit the jigsaw have actually been forced to fit; and many pieces thought by historians to have been superfluous and which were consequently thrown away, actually do belong.
You will find nothing in this article by way of chronology or narrative, that contradicts the Egyptian, Assyrian or Babylonian Records of events that transpired during the period from 609 BC to 562 BC, the period covered in this article.
This article does not in any way dispute the Archaeological Evidence of any of the events listed herein.
We sometimes tend to think that our knowledge of history is based on irrefutable evidence, but as pointed out by Sir Alan Gardiner (1961) [James Et.Al 1991 p.222] in reference to Egyptian history, our knowledge is based in a collection of rags and tatters. That there are probably many errors and circular arguments in relation to ancient history is attested to by many, including Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge University (James Et. Al. 1991 : foreword pages.xiii-xv)
As pointed out by Peet. T.E. (1924. p 75): “Archaeology is not an exact science, and deals more often in probabilities and possibilities than in irrefutable demonstrations.”
Whilst it is understandable therefore that some conclusions might be occasionally incorrect, it remains a fact however that it is sometimes difficult for scholars to admit to errors. (Aharoni 1978, p.183). A good example of this is provided by James et.al. (1991, p.250) in ‘Centuries of Darkness,’ which cites Mazar (1986, pp231/47) in relation to Mazar’s preference for accepted dating despite his own evidence to the contrary.
Sir Charles Marston (1935, p.156) made similar comments in relation to prejudiced refutation of evidence in reference to potsherds from Jericho that indicated a 15th century Exodus. His point was that rather than change the then current academic opinion, the system of pottery dating indicating a 15th century Exodus was considered questionable. In short, the evidence itself was disbelieved in preference for current academic opinion.
Unfortunately however, there is a bigger problem than merely losing a little face at having to admit that some conclusion or other was incorrect. Miller and Hayes (1986, p.74 ‘Taking the Account as It Stands’) whilst offering an honest and even-handed approach to their examination of various historical matters, offer us insights into some of the less than scientific approaches that are taken by some academics that lead one to speculate that for some, admitting that the scriptural record of history might be right, may be sufficient incentive to ensure that that scriptural record be summarily rejected.
James et.al. (1991, p.162) are quite straightforward in their criticisms of academic “poor methodology, hypercritical treatment of Scripture, blindness, prejudice and a sectarian like rejection of the biblical record.”
Such observations lead us to consider that some historians and archaeologists would rather provide us a factually incorrect history than one which might cause us to give credence to anything recorded in the Bible.
What is hypocritical however is when many of these same academics quote the very Scriptures which they consider to be fictional, to support their many and various hypotheses.
In this article, through the use of a computer generated mathematical artificial calendar, (What is the Kings Calendar) I am going to demonstrate that without any contradiction to any Ancient Historical Record, that the chronological data recorded in the Bible for the period from 609 BC to 586 BC is correct, and that some of the chronological conclusions reached by historians are incorrect. The most important of these is the length of King Nebuchadrezzar/Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.
This is an extremely important issue; actually a vital issue in getting Israelite history correct.
This article will be divided into the following sections:
2. The King’s Calendar Significance of the Reign of Nebuchadrezzar.
3. King Kandalanu of Babylon.
4. The Death of King Josiah of Judah and Nebuchadrezzar’s accession.
5. Nebuchadrezzar’s Battle with Pharaoh Necho of Egypt.
6. Nebuchadrezzar Captures Jerusalem 596 BC
7. Academic Mathematical BS
8. The Fall of Jerusalem: The Babylonian Exile 586 BC
9. The Death of Nebuchadrezzar & Jehoiachin’s Release.
10. Article Summary.
1 : INTRODUCTION
The reign of King Nebuchadrezzar (Nebuchadnezzar) of Babylon is one of several extremely important Historical lynch pins upon which hangs the success or failure of the King’s Calendar Mathematical approach to determining the correct chronological history of Ancient Israel and Judah. (What is the Kings Calendar)
The importance of King Nebuchadrezzar’s actions, reign and chronology, relates to so many issues which, as stated in Chapter 2 (in Chapter Precis Section) of The Secret of Qumran, “are numerous, interrelated, and intricately interconnected like spiders webs.”
Possibly the best sources of information on King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon can only be found in hard cover, and the best of these would be Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London, – and – Wiseman.D.J. (1985) Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. The Schweich Lectures. Oxford University Press
Unfortunately, without subscription to some fine hardcopy and online academic journals, there are few informative online resources in relation to King Nebuchadrezzar. An online site to mention in passing would be Jewish Encyclopedia – Nebuchadnezzar and if you can find it the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition on Nebuchadnezzar which used to be online but the links now leads nowhere.
A good source of information on Babylonia and Assyria which includes a discussion on Nebuchadrezzar can be found at www.aina.org and appears in both pdf and html format.
As indicated in that resource, and as also stated by Professor Wiseman in his writings, the records we have of Nebuchadrezzar are quite incomplete. In fact the actual length of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign is determined by a fragment of a business document which refers to the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar. Since that reference could well include his accession year one cannot be sure of the exact placement of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign. Whilst the termination date for Nebuchadrezzar is known, his commencement year is a matter of preference. Wiseman places Nebuchadrezzar’s accession in the year 605 BC, whilst the Rogers commentary (aina.org) quote below, chooses 604 BC.
From the Rogers Commentary Chapter 2 : The Reign of Nebuchadrezzar Book 4 of “The History of the Chaldean Empire” From “A History of Babylonia and Assyria Volume II by Robert William Rogers Published 1900 A.D.
Nebuchadrezzar reached Babylon from the borders of Egypt in season to prevent any outbreak in favor of a usurper, if any such were intended. He was received as king of Babylon without a sign of any trouble. So began one of the longest and most brilliant reigns (604-562 B. C.) of human history.
Nebuchadrezzar has not left the world without written witnesses of his great deeds.
In his inscriptions, however, he follows the common Babylonian custom of omitting all reference to wars, sieges, campaigns, and battles. Only in a very few instances is there a single reference to any of these. The great burden of all the inscriptions is building. In Babylon was centered his chief pride, and of temples and palaces, and not of battles and sieges, were his boasts.
As we are therefore deprived of first-hand information from Babylonian or Chaldean sources, we are forced to turn elsewhere for information of the achievements of Nebuchadrezzar as an organizer of armies and a planner and conductor of campaigns.
The knowledge thus obtained from other peoples is fragmentary, because each writer was more concerned about his own people than about the Chaldeans.
The best help of this kind is obtained from the Hebrews, with whom Nebuchadrezzar had the first difficulties of his reign, and against whom his first operations were directed.
Cognizant of the paucity of Babylonian information and the need for reliance on Biblical information, the purpose of this article is to challenge the current academic placement of the chronology of King Nebuchadrezzar.
The basis of the challenge is academia’s general rejection of the biblical narratives, and failure to understand it’s chronological foundation.
2 : The King’s Calendar Significance of the Reign of Nebuchadrezzar.
The Significance of King Nebuchadrezzar’s reign can be summed up in just one sentence.
King Nebuchadrezzar reigned one year less and started one year later than is currently accepted and as a result historians came up with the wrong date for the Fall of Jerusalem and the Burning of the Second Temple.
As explained in the article What is the Kings Calendar, The King’s Calendar is a computer generated Mathematical Synchronous History of Ancient Israel and Judah that actually succeeds in synchronizing the historical chronological data recorded in the Books of Kings and Chronicles in the Bible. The fundamental methodology of the King’s Calendar is to apply an artificial value to biblical years, based upon the premise that the early redactors attempted to artificially extend the history of Ancient Israel. The starting point for this artificial recording was the burning of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BC during the reign of King Nebuchadrezzar.
Since the effect of the artificial history is to replace 12 real years with 13 artificial years, it has transpired that within the record of King Nebuchadrezzar’s reign from 605 BC to 586 BC, the artificiality of Judah’s chronological history has passed unnoticed, as the record for Judah only varies from real history by less than two years.
Whilst this variance is minor, it is nevertheless significant because in both directions in time from 586 BC, the real and true chronological history of Judah differs significantly from that presented to us by academics. This is dramatically demonstrated when one considers that the artificial chronology puts Josiah’s death several years later than currently accepted, and, when one applies the biblical chronological details provided for Jehoiachin, the result differs from accepted history.
These are not of course the only issues connected to the reign of Nebuchadrezzar. Others include issues related to:
The death of Jehoiakim King of Judah
The captivity of Jehoiachin of Judah
Nebuchadrezzar’s near defeat by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt
The apparent erroneous synchronization of the reigns of King Zedekiah of Judah and King Nebuchadrezzar.
Whilst discussion of King Nebuchadrezzar in ‘The Secret of Qumran’ was ancillary to that focused upon the Kings of Judah, in this article the focus will be upon Nebuchadrezzar himself and the historical record we have of him. To successfully do this, we will begin with a discussion related to the chronology of the reign of Kandalanu of Babylon, (the first of two kings prior to Nebuchadrezzar), and end with the accession of King Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach) in 562 BC.
3 : King Kandalanu of Babylon
As this issue has been discussed in detail in Chapter Two of the King’s Calendar and again in the article entitled: The Significance of the Reign of Kandalanu King of Babylon only a precis of those discussions is presented here.
The reign of King Kandalanu of Babylon is significant within the artificial calendar for two reasons. Firstly, since the King’s Calendar will insist that King Nebuchadrezzar reigned one year less than is currently accepted, the currently accepted chronology for the reigns of his father Nabopolassar and of King Kandalanu before Nabopolassar, must also be erroneous by one year.
It is the chronological placement of the reign of Kandalanu that determines the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar, and by extension, the success or failure of the biblical narratives to synchronise with Babylonian records. The pivotal date concerns Kandalanu’s ascension in Babylon.
Whilst the King’s Calendar determination for the reign of Kandalanu is purely mathematical, because of a quirk of history that determination cannot be disproved, and the reason for this is twofold.
1. Nobody is certain of Kandalanu’s real identity.
2. The chronological record relating to the end of his reign and the beginning of Nabopolassar’s reign presents a difficulty.
(Refer to: Roux.G. 1982 p.308 -and- Wiseman 1961, p89)
Since a loophole exists in the historical record, no one can definitively demonstrate that the King’s Calendar computer generated and mathematically determined dates for Kandalanu, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar are incorrect. Currently the accepted chronology is:
Kandalanu commenced in 648 BC
His First Regnal year is 647 BC
His 21st Regnal year is 627 BC
626 BC is the Interregnum (Wiseman,1961, p.90)
626 BC is Nabopolassar’s accession year
625 BC is Nabopolassar’s First Regnal year
Nabopolassar’s last year is 605 BC
Nebuchadrezzar’s accession year is 605 BC
Nebuchadrezzar’s First Regnal year is 604 BC
Nebuchadrezzar’s Last Regnal year is 562 BC
Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 years.
The other possibility:
If it took some months for Ashurbanipal to appoint Kandalanu, then 647 BC may have been his accession year.
Kandalanu’s First Regnal year would therefore be 646 BC
Kandalanu’s 21st Regnal Year would be 626 BC
The interregnum, Kandalanu’s 22nd Regnal year would be 625 BC
625 BC would be Nabopolassar’s Accession Year
624 BC would be Nabopolassar’s First Regnal year
604 BC would be Nabopolassar’s Last Regnal year
Nebuchadrezzar’s accession year would therefore be 604 BC
Nebuchadrezzar’s First Regnal year would be 603 BC
Nebuchadrezzar’s Last Regnal year would be 562 BC
Nebuchadrezzar reigned 42 years.
Kandalanu, Nabopolassar & Nebuchadrezzar – per the King’s Calendar
How can one just change the number of years that Nebuchadrezzar reigned? The Answer? One Doesn’t! There is no proof that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 years. The academic decision to assign Nebuchadrezzar 43 years was based upon two assumptions.
Assumption 1. That Kandalanu commenced his reign in 648 BC. (But Academics even disagree as to his identity!)
Assumption 2. That the one and only text relating to Nebuchadrezzar’s 43rd year, is speaking of his 43rd Regnal year. (It was common practice to include accession years!)
The King’s Calendar Mathematical formula determines that Nebuchadrezzar reigned only 42 years, ascending to the throne of Babylon in 604 BC, commencing his First Regnal Year in 603 BC, and dying in 562 BC.
Since Kandalanu’s reign has direct bearing on the reign of Nebuchadrezzar, and there is uncertainty regarding Kandalanu’s identity and reign (both it’s beginning and it’s end), no one can definitively dispute the King’s Calendar mathematical placement of the reign of King Nebuchadrezzar.
Whilst altering the commencement date of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign results in a shift in history of just one solitary year, this one year shift has serious repercussions when demonstrating the validity of the artificial biblical chronology for that period in history.
Before proceeding to those discussions however, it is necessary to examine one particular historical event that occurred just prior to Nebuchadrezzar’s ascension.
4 : The Death of King Josiah of Judah and Nebuchadrezzar’s accession.
It is very important to note at this point that there are no records in any ancient document that chronologically synchronises the death of King Josiah of Judah with any other chronologically recorded event.
Note: Whilst King Josiah’s Death has been discussed in detail in the article How, When, where Did King Josiah Die? in this section the focus is upon the Babylonian Chronicles and academic opinion. See: Academic Deceit and Manipulation..
The current chronological perspective of events leading up to King Nebuchadrezzar’s reign maintains that:
In Nabopolassar’s 17th year, whilst Pharaoh Necho of Egypt was going to Haran to assist Assur-Uballit King of Assyria to combat Nabopolassar, Necho met and killed King Josiah of Judah.
This event is dated to 609 BC.
*608 BC was Nabopolassar’s 18th year
*607 BC was Nabopolassar’s 19th year
*606 BC was Nabopolassar’s 20th year
*605 BC was Nabopolassar’s 21st year
*Nabopolassar died in August of his 21st year – August 605 BC
*Nebuchadrezzar Briefly returned to Babylon
*Prior to April 604 BC, Nebuchadrezzar conquered Hatti-land (Syria/Palestine)
*He then returned to Babylon for his coronation
*In Nisan of 604 BC (April) he commenced his First Regnal Year
*In May/June 604 BC, Nebuchadrezzar returned to Hatti-land
*Around November/December 604 BC, he captured Ashkelon.
(Refer to: Wiseman: (1961) B.M. 22047 (p.65) and BM 21946 (p.67)
and see Chart Two Appendix Six King’s Calendar for an alternate history.)
Apart from the one year shift in the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar as previously discussed, the two great problems associated with the information provided above are that firstly there is no information recorded in the Egyptian, Assyrian, or Babylonian documents in relation to King Josiah’s death; and therefore, secondly, the only connection that Josiah’s death has to events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles, is what can be found in the biblical documents and the connection that historians insist upon despite a lack of evidence.
Whilst the issues pertinent to King Josiah’s death are discussed generally and in detail in other articles, in succinct form, those issues are:
1. The Bible does not equate King Josiah’s death with Nabopolassar’s 17th year
2. No ancient document other than the Bible discusses King Josiah’s death
3. There is no corroborating evidence to support academic interpretation of what the Bible does record
4. What the Bible does record is open to various interpretations.
Miller and Hayes (1986, p.402) maintain that the Biblical accounts are misleading, whilst Jagersma,(1983, p.171) finds them ‘vague.’ See:
An interpretation of the Biblical Record of King Josiah’s Death.
Robinson (1932, p.424) and Herrman (1981, p.271), make several interesting comments which provide a basis for a whole new perspective of the biblical narratives. From what they write we can take note of three things:
1. Reference to Megiddo may be corrupt. The event may have occurred much further north, away from Judah.
2. Reference to Carchemish may have nothing to do with the battle for Harran in 609 BC
3. Josiah’s intent toward Necho may not have been hostile, but rather he meant to ‘join’ him.
That the accounts are vague, misleading and unreliable makes them ineffective ‘direct evidences’ in the establishing of a fact. Their limited and conflicting data makes them unreliable in the pursuit of any ‘dependable and demonstrable’ opinion of events to which they relate. See the Rules of Evidence Series.
The only evidence by which a calculation for King Josiah Death can be made is the biblical chronological data supplied for the kings that succeed him, but even that depends upon how one interprets Babylonian chronological history.
Based upon an inaccurate premise that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 Regnal years, and calculating backwards from Nebuchadrezzar’s last regnal year – 562 BC, combined with an assumption regarding the commencement date of Kandalanu in Babylon for which no evidence exists, academics have calculated that the Babylonian captivity occurred in 587 BC, and that Jerusalem also fell prior to that in 597 BC. This issue was addressed in Chapter Two and is illustrated in Appendix 6. It will also be discussed again later in this article.
Relying on these two dates, 597 BC and 587 BC and relying on information provided in Jeremiah 46:2, academics have synchronised the 4th year of Jehoiakim with the accession year of Nebuchadrezzar, and by extension, calculated the year in which King Josiah died, determining it to have occurred in 609 BC in the 17th year of Nabolpolassar.
In choosing Jeremiah 46:2 over Jeremiah 25:1 which aligns Jehoiakim’s 4th year with Nebuchadrezzar’s 1st regnal year, they have erred. That matter was also discussed in the article entitled: How, When, where Did King Josiah Die? the bottom line of which was that “Academic chronology for Josiah’s death and Jehoiakim’s 4th year is not demonstrably factual.”
In calculating backwards in time from an incorrect date for the Fall of Jerusalem, ie: from 587 BC, they have accepted as factual in true solar years, the Biblical Chronology for the reigns of Zedekiah and Jehoiakim.
That evidence however is only considered credible in relation to dating King Josiah’s Death and Jehoiakim’s 4th year. The rest of the time it is considered to be false and misleading. In fact, the complete Bible chronology from the time of Uzziah to the time of Zedekiah is considered untenable except when it suits academic purposes.
It is the contention here that that biblical chronological data actually is false and misleading when given the same value as a normal solar year.
The Biblical Evidence from the King’s Calendar Perspective
From the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC to the Death of Josiah.
As per Divided Kingdom Chart in Appendix 5
The Relevance of this section is to be found in how historians reject the clear historical statements of the Bible, which in law are as much to be considered “direct documentary evidence” as the Babylonian Chronicles, and every bit as trustworthy; and in the fact that no Babylonian record provides any chronological information in relation to when King Josiah died or when King Jehoiakim commenced to reign.
As the death of King Josiah is bound tightly to the reign of his son Jehoiakim, and that reign is chronologically synchronised in the Bible with the reign of Nebuchadrezzar, both issues are tremendously significant within a discussion of the chronology of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign.
Whilst academics tabulate the date of Josiah’s death according to chronological data provided in the Bible for his descendants, those same academics then dismiss the rest of the data.
As previously stated, reliance upon just one ancient text that refers to Nebuchadrezzar’s 43rd year has led historians to arrive at incorrect conclusions, one of which is that in 601 BC, aligned by the Babylonian Chronicles with Nebuchadrezzar’s 4th Regnal year, Nebuchadrezzar did battle with Pharaoh Necho of Egypt.
5 : Nebuchadrezzar’s Battle with Pharaoh Necho of Egypt
Currently the accepted chronology for King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon derives from the brilliant scholarship of Professor Wiseman of the British Academy. (Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London)
Within the framework of the King’s Calendar Chronology (King Kandalanu of Babylon Sect. 2 above) however, it becomes apparent that Professor Wiseman’s chronology is out by one year. While he writes that Nebuchadrezzar reigned a total of 43 years (based on an archaeological evidence), the King’s Calendar position (based in mathematics) is that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 42 years plus his accession year. Therefore many events relating to Nebuchadrezzar’s reign are chronologically misplaced.
One such event is Nebuchadrezzar’s battle with Pharaoh Necho of Egypt. Whilst current chronology maintains that this battle occurred in 601 BC during Nebuchadrezzar’s 4th Regnal year, the King’s Calendar shifts the date by one year to 600 BC (December).
Again, whilst this section may not seem relevant, in fact this one year change in date has implications within the framework of the chronology of the Kings of Judah.
The Babylonian Chronicles (Wiseman, 1961, p.71, BM 21946, Reverse Lines 5, 8 ) record that:
1. In his 4th year, Nebuchadrezzar marched unopposed in Hatti land.
2. In Kislev (Nov/Dec) he marched to Egypt.
3. Necho mustered his army to meet Nebuchadrezzar
4. They fought in open battle, inflicting great havoc on each other. (Wiseman 1961 BM 21946 ‘Reverse Side’ Line 7)
5. Nebuchadrezzar turned back to Babylon
6. During Nebuchadrezzar’s 5th year, he stayed at home.
This event is significant to the King’s Calendar, because it relates to issues in relation to King Jehoiakim of Judah, and statements made by Josephus (Antiquities Book 10:6:1)
When one compares the data contained in the Babylonian Chronicles with the ‘King’s Calendar’ synchronization of the reigns of Nebuchadrezzar and Jehoiakim, the following picture emerges.
1. Nebuchadrezzar’s 4th year commences in Nisan of 600 BC
2. Nebuchadrezzar’s 5th year commences in Nisan of 599 BC
3. Nebuchadrezzar’s 4th and 5th years align with the 6th, 7th and 8th years of Jehoiakim’s reign.
4. The battle in Kislev of Nebuchadrezzar’s 4th year, took place during Jehoiakim’s 7th year.
5. Nebuchadrezzar spent his 5th regnal year in Babylon, devoted to reviving his military forces (Wiseman, 1961, p.31).
6. Nebuchadrezzar’s 5th year involved both Jehoiakim’s 7th year (Nisan to May) and 8th year, (May to Nisan)
Whilst there are many issues discussed in Chapter Three of The Secret of Qumran (Go to: Chapter Precis) the point to be noted here is that despite Josephus’ chronological errors, Jehoiakim’s three year tribute to Nebuchadrezzar (2 Kings 24:1) is dated from the time of this battle between Nebuchadrezzar and Pharaoh Necho of Egypt. The date provided here is Kislev / December 600. It coincides with Jehoiakim’s 7th artificial year.
King’s Calendar Synchronisation of Reigns
The Point to be made here is that Bible chronology for Jehoiakim is in fact correct within the artificial chronological construct, and that his 11th and final year coincides with the 8th year of Nebuchadrezzar.
This point is significant because it leads us to a discussion about the biblical record of events in relation to Nebuchadrezzar’s two campaigns against Jerusalem, (a record which academics reject); and to the record of the Babylonian Chronicles, (upon which academics rely), which provide no specific data that identifies specific kings of Judah at this point in history.
The Bible is quite straightforward about the events leading to the capture of Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim, but it doesn’t fit academic understanding of either the Babylonian Chronicles or their own chronological timetables.
Because the academic world cannot understand biblical chronology, particularly the synchronous chronology of the Divided Kingdom period, they assume that the fault lies with the record, when in fact the true fault lies with their simple inability to understand that chronological record. Anti-biblical bias has prevented a scientific approach to understanding biblical chronology. [See: Miller & Hayes 1986.p.59 on Anti Biblical Bias.]
Given the Jewish redactorial preoccupation with recording synchronistic chronological detail, it ought to be a natural conclusion that the data be more reliable than the other oft-times discredited historical records. Perhaps if academics had been determined to understand the methodology behind biblical chronological recording rather than trying to prove or disprove the Bible itself, the history of the Ancient Near East could have been understood much earlier than it has.
One chronological event concerning which academia finds biblical narrative and chronology faulty, concerns the death of Jehoiakim and the captivity of his replacement King Jehoiachin.