Nebuchadrezzar: Nebuchadrezzar: King of Babylon: Destruction of Solomon's Temple: Daniel - Dream
How long did King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon Reign?
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.
Note:
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 BCE to 562 BCE, the period covered in this article.
This article does not in any way dispute the Archaeological Evidence of any of the events listed herein.
End of Days Sale: The king's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran, which has been available to academics at an academic price for 6 years now, has run its course. Before the Merchant Banking contract expires in November 2010, this book is being made available [From August 20th] to 'lay readers' at the all time low price of US$10. This offer only lasts until November 2010. 'PURCHASE NOW'.
PREFACE
The Stated aim of this article is to challenge many false academic assumptions which have been accepted by the general community as academic fact. In short, this article strives to demonstrate where the Academics got it wrong!
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 King's 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 BCE to 586 BCE, is correct, and that some of the chronological conclusions reached by historians, are incorrect.
This article will be divided into the following sections:
1. Introduction.
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 BCE
7. Academic Mathematical BS
8. The Fall of Jerusalem: The Babylonian Exile 586 BCE
9. The Death of Nebuchadrezzar & Jehoiachin's Release.
10. Article Summary.
11. Conclusion
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 King's Calendar?)
Although his reign is discussed at many junctures within the Book entitled: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran', and within numerous articles on the King's Calendar Website, there has to date been no article exclusively devoted to King Nebuchadrezzar.
The reason for this is that the importance of King Nebuchadrezzar's actions, reign and chronology, relates to so many issues, that up until now, the focus has been purely on the Biblical chronological issues as they relate to the Kings of Judah. As stated in Chapter 2 (in Chapter Precis Section) of 'The Secret of Qumran', "The issues are numerous, interrelated, and intricately interconnected like spiders webs".
This article will therefore be the first solely devoted to a discussion of the chronology of the reign of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon.
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. Two online sites to mention in passing would be:
Nebuchadnezzar The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
One Good Source of information on Babylonia and Assyria which includes a discussion of 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 BCE, whilst the Rogers commentary quote below, chooses 604 BCE.
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. Assyrian International News Agency Books Online(Emphasis added)
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 King's 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 BCE 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 BCE to 586 BCE, the artificiality of Judah's chronological history has passed unnoticed, as the record for Judah only varies from real history by less than 2 years.
Whilst this variance is minor, it is nevertheless significant because in both directions in time from 586 BCE, 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:
Daniel's Captivity
The Death of Jehoiakim King of Judah
The Captivity of Jehoiachin of Judah
Nebuchadrezzar's Near Defeat by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt
The apparently 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 2 kings prior to Nebuchadrezzar), and end with the accession of King Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach) in 562 BCE.
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 Death of Josiah, only a precis of those discussions is presented here.
The reign of King Kandalanu of Babylon is significant within the artificial calendar for 2 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 BCE
His First Regnal year is 647 BCE
His 21st Regnal year is 627 BCE
626 BCE is the Interregnum (Wiseman,1961, p.90)
626 BCE is Nabopolassar's accession year
625 BCE is Nabopolassar's First Regnal year
Nabopolassar's last year is 605 BCE
Nebuchadrezzar's accession year is 605 BCE
Nebuchadrezzar's First Regnal year is 604 BCE
Nebuchadrezzar's Last Regnal year is 562 BCE
Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 years.
The other possibility:
If it took some months for Ashurbanipal to appoint Kandalanu, then 647 BCE may have been his accession year.
Kandalanu's First Regnal year would therefore be 646 BCE
Kandalanu's 21st Regnal Year would be 626 BCE
The interregnum, Kandalanu's 22nd Regnal year would be 625 BCE
625 BCE would be Nabopolassar's Accession Year
624 BCE would be Nabopolassar's First Regnal year
604 BCE would be Nabopolassar's Last Regnal year
Nebuchadrezzar's accession year would therefore be 604 BCE
Nebuchadrezzar's First Regnal year would be 603 BCE
Nebuchadrezzar's Last Regnal year would be 562 BCE
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 decision to assign Nebuchadrezzar 43 years was based upon two assumptions.
Assumption 1. Kandalanu commenced his reign in 648 BCE. (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 BCE, commencing his First Regnal Year in 603 BCE, and dying in 562 BCE.
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.
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 BCE.
608 BCE was Nabopolassar's 18th year
607 BCE was Nabopolassar's 19th year
606 BCE was Nabopolassar's 20th year
605 BCE was Nabopolassar's 21st year
Nabopolassar died in August of his 21st year - August 605 BCE
Nebuchadrezzar Briefly returned to Babylon
Prior to April 604 BCE, 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 BCE, Nebuchadrezzar returned to Hatti-land
Around November/December 604 BCE, he captured Ashkelon.
Refer to: Wiseman: (1961) B.M. 22047 (p.65) and BM 21946 (p.67)
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:
The Bible does not equate King Josiah's death with Nabopolassar's 17 th year
No ancient document other than the Bible discusses King Josiah's death
There is no corroborating evidence to support academic interpretation of what the Bible does record
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'.
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 BCE
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. Refer to "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 BCE, 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 BCE, and that Jerusalem also fell prior to that in 597 BCE. This issue was addressed in Chapter Twoand is illustrated in Appendix 6. It will also be discussed again later in this article.
Relying on these two dates, 597 BCE and 587 BCE 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 BCE 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 however, they have erred. That matter was also discussed in the article entitled: The Death of Josiah, 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 BCE, 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. (What is the King's Calendar?)
The Biblical Evidence from the King's Calendar Perspective
From the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE to the Death of Josiah.
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 BCE, 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 + 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 BCE during Nebuchadrezzar's 4th Regnal year, the King's Calendar shifts the date by one year to 600 BCE (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 BCE
2. Nebuchadrezzar's 5th year commences in Nisan of 599 BCE
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
Specific Nisan 1st dates 13/4/597 and 3/4/596 as per Finegan (1965, p.206)
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.
6 : Nebuchadrezzar Captures Jerusalem 596 BCE
The First Point to note here, is that According to Wiseman's chronology for Nebuchadrezzar, Jerusalem fell in 597 BCE, not in 596 BCE which is the King's Calendar mathematical calculation for the event.
This difference of opinion will be discussed further on, in relation to Biblical Data for King Jehoiachin. Academics reject the Biblical reference to a 37 year confinement for Jehoiachin, because from both a 597 BCE and 596 BCE perspective, 37 years do not fit real history. See:Appendix Six Furthermore given that Nebuchadrezzar's last year is identifiable, if one accepts that he reigned 43 years, 597 BCE must be the correct date.
I make this point about the date for the capture of Jerusalem, because it demonstrates graphically what was meant earlier when it was pointed out that while Josiah's death and Jehoiakim's 4th year were calculated by relying on Biblical Chronological Data, the Biblical Data is never considered reliable.
The Second Point to note here, is that whereas academics accept the Jeremiah 46:2 synchronisation of Jehoiakim's 4th year with the Accession year of Nebuchadrezzar, it is Jeremiah 25:1 that is correct. You can see that in Appendix 6; in Chapter 2 of the King's Calendar; and in the last section of this article.
The Third Thing to note is that while Biblical Chronological data does not seem to make sense in it's synchronisms in relation to Jehoiakim's 3 years of tribute, this is only 'apparent' and not real. This will be discussed again in the next section.
The Point of this Section
Nebuchadrezzar's campaign against Jerusalem dated here to 596 BCE (not 597 BCE) whilst a fact, poses some difficulties, not just in relation to Biblical Chronology, or Biblical Narrative for that matter, but with the details provided in the Babylonian Chronicles.
The Babylonian Chronicles records only one campaign against Jerusalem at this time, and provides details about only one unnamed king - Jehoiachin. Combining details from the Babylonian Chronicles and the Biblical Narrative, the Academic picture is this:
In Kislev (c. December) Nebuchadrezzar set off for Jerusalem.
This was Nebuchadrezzar's 7th year.
On Adar 2nd he captured the City
He took prisoner the king of Jerusalem (Jehoiachin is not named but he was taken to Babylon)
Jehoiachin reigned 3 months before he was taken captive - 2 Kings 24:12
Since it was not possible for Nebuchadrezzar to have accomplished everything necessary, between Kislev and Adar 2nd, it has been determined that Jehoiachin had succeeded Jehoiakim prior to Nebuchadrezzar's forces leaving Babylon. (Wiseman, 1961, p.33)
Bright (1981, p.327) suggests that Jehoiakim was earlier assassinated, to make way for Jehoiachin, in the hope of preventing a Babylonian invasion. Refer also to: Mitchell (Cambridge Ancient History, 1991, p.400). See AlsoAuthor's footnote - Chapter 3 King's Calendar.
Accepting the Academic Version: If Jehoiachin was taken captive on Adar 2nd after reigning 3 months (+/- some weeks: 2 Chronicles 36:9 / 100 days.), then:
1. He had he been on the throne since sometime in December, in which case it could not have been against Jehoiakim that Nebuchadrezzar marched. Therefore the Biblical Narrative is wrong.
2. Jehoiachin was of necessity taken prisoner in Nebuchadrezzar's 7th year. So 2 King's 24:12 is incorrect is stating he was taken captive in Nebuchadrezzzar's 8th year.
Since the Babylonian Chronicles are treated as 'gospel', and they speak of only 'one' siege (Adar 2nd), and since that reference appears to necessitate that it was Jehoiachin who was captured on Adar 2nd. (by virtue of his being the only King taken back to Babylon), academics insist that the Babylonian Chronicles must be speaking of Jehoiachin when it refers to events of Adar 2nd.
What's wrong with this picture? There are two things that are wrong with it.
Firstly, these same Academics who use Biblical chronology and narrative in relation to Jehoiakim to support their chronologies for Josiah and Jehoiakim, maintain that the Biblical Chronology and Narratives are wrong. We call this a hypocritical Academic position.
Secondly, Lacking understanding of issues relating to the provision of evidence, and the inherent investigative procedures necessary to understand why two firsthand witnesses can give conflicting accounts, they have taken the easy or dare I say, biased path in deciding what is true and what is not.
Failing to understand the foundational premises of Biblical Chronology, Historians have failed to see how both direct documentary evidences can be right.
The King's Calendar Perspective
Agrees that Nebuchadrezzar set off in Kislev/December for Hatti-land (Palestine)
It places his 7th Regnal year in 596 BCE not 597BCE
He did this because Jehoiakim had refused tribute for 3 years.
These years were 599 BCE, 598 BCE and 597 BCE. Subsequent to the Battle with Pharaoh Necho.
These were the 5th, 6th and 7th years of Nebuchadrezzar - but -
The 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th artificial years of Jehoiakim
In February of 596 BCE, Jehoiakim commenced his 11th artificial regnal year.
On Adar 2nd, March 5th 596 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar or his agents - See Below captured Jerusalem.
Jerusalem was Captured or surrendered [Josephus Antiquities Book 10]
Jehoiakim in his 11th year, died - "slept with his fathers" 2 Kings 24:6. - or -
Antiquities Book 10 Chapter 6: 3 He [Nebuchadrezzar] slew ....their king Jehoiakim, whom he commanded to be thrown before the walls
Nebuchadrezzar appointed Jehoiachin to be king during Jehoiakim's 11th year, prior to Nisan.
Nisan of 596 BCE (April 3rd) would commence Jehoiachin's 1st Regnal year according to usual (Babylonian) tradition.
April 3rd 596 BCE commenced Nebuchadrezzar's 8th Regnal Year.
In June of 596 BCE Nebuchadrezzar removed Jehoiachin from office. (3 months - 3 months 10 days after Adar 2nd) [Antiquities Book 10 Chapter 7: 1. BUT a terror seized on the king of Babylon, who had given the kingdom to Jehoiachin, and that immediately; he was afraid that he [Jehoiachin] should bear him a grudge, because of his [Nebuchadrezzar] killing his father [Jehoiakim]
Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon where he stayed prisoner for 37 artificial years.
End of Article has Text Format for Babylonian Chronicles Data
The Difficulties of this interpretation.
The Babylonian Chronicles record only one campaign against Jerusalem.
The King Taken Captive was King Jehoiachin.
Responses to these Objections.
The Babylonian Chronicles records information relevant only to the Babylonians. It is not Judeocentric.
The information provided is only a summary. It is not a full detail of events.
No kings of Judah are identified by name in the Babylonian Chronicles.
In both The Babylonian Chronicles and the Israelite Redactors accounts, we have summarisation and confusion relating to two separate events and they have presented them as one.
According to Josephus Nebuchadrezzar did not keep his word to "not harm" King Jehoiakim. Josephus records that Nebuchadrezzar killed Jehoiakim.
2 Kings 24:6 however, relates that King Jehoiakim "slept with his fathers". This would normally mean that he died naturally.
2 Chronicles 36:6 however, says that Jehoiakim was taken prisoner to Babylon. "Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon."
Clearly Jehoiakim could not have suffered all three fates, and the Babylonian records mention none of them. But the "Second Kings" account does mention something interesting. 2 Kings 24
Verse 1: In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years; then he turned and rebelled against him.
Verse 2: And the LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Arameans, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke by the hand of His servants the prophets.
It is possible that the actual submission of Jehoiakim to Nebuchadrezzar, was not to Nebuchadrezzar himself, but to his commanders. What is significant about 2 Kings 24:1,2 is that Mitchell (Cambridge Ancient History, 1991, p.398 ) refers to the Chaldeans and Arameans as elements of Babylonian garrison troops. Refer also to: Bright. J. (1981) A History of Israel. 3rd Ed. Philadelphia. Westminster Press. (p.327)
It has been the assumption that since the Bible says that Nebuchadrezzar overthrew Jehoiakim, that it means that Nebuchadrezzar personally did what the Bible attributes to him. What is likely is that Nebuchadrezzar sent garrison troops ahead of his own arrival.
Having appointed Jehoiachin personally, or by proxy, he determined that this was not a good decision, for, as Josephus points out, the death of Jehoiakim may lead to later insurrection.
With only a summary of events in the Babylonian Chronicles to guide them; a summary which does not identify Judaean Kings, Academics have concluded that the Biblically portrayed events are totally incorrect. As we have seen however, it is possible to see how all the stories fit together.
Nebuchadrezzar did invade Jerusalem in his 7th Regnal Year - and -
Jehoiachin was taken prisoner in Nebuchadrezzar's 8th Regnal Year
For a more detailed integration of the accounts in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, together with Josephus' narratives and the data contained in the Babylonian Chronicles, Go to: CHAPTER THREE: Jehoiakim 606BCE. to 596 BCE located in the Chapter Precis Page
7 : Academic Mathematical BS
Throughout this article I have said many times, that Academics use Bible chronology to justify their own theories, despite the fact that they constantly maintain that Bible Chronology is misleading.
In this Section, which forms a natural bridge between the two invasions of Jerusalem, I want to demonstrate Academic Mathematical fudging.
Academics know that Nebuchadrezzar's reign ended in 562 BCE, and they (incorrectly) assign him a 43 year reign preceeded by an ascension year in 605 BCE. Therefore his First Regnal Year commences in 604 BCE. From this they can calculate that the Babylonian captivity commenced in 587 BCE.
Furthermore, because both Zedekiah and Jehoiakim each had 11 year reigns, by adding these 22 years to 587 BCE, they can determine that Jehoiakim ascended the throne of Judah in 609 BCE, which by implication, is the year in which King Josiah died.
Furthermore, they use Jeremiah 46:2 to support their claim that Jehoiakim's 4th year was Nebuchadrezzar's Accession year. [It is Not. Jeremiah 25:1 is correct]
But look what happens when you actually count out these years:
587 BCE - Zedekiah's 11th year.
588 BCE - Zedekiah's 10th year.
589 BCE - Zedekiah's 9th year.
590 BCE - Zedekiah's 8th year.
591 BCE - Zedekiah's 7th year.
592 BCE - Zedekiah's 6th year.
593 BCE - Zedekiah's 5th year.
594 BCE - Zedekiah's 4th year.
595 BCE - Zedekiah's 3rd year.
596 BCE - Zedekiah's 2nd year.
597 BCE - Zedekiah's 1st year.
From this Table we can see That in 597 BCE, which is supposed to be Nebuchadrezzar's 7th year and the one in which he campaigned against Jehoiakim for refusing to pay tribute, and during which year he set Jehoiachin on the throne of Judah, it was actually King Zedekiah who was ruling. So what happened to Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin?
Not a Problem. As many historians will tell you, this is not really a problem, because obviously Zedekiah really only reigned 10 years not 11 years.
So let's change this calendar a little and delete one year from Zedekiah's Reign.
587 BCE - Zedekiah's 10th year.
588 BCE - Zedekiah's 9th year.
589 BCE - Zedekiah's 8th year.
590 BCE - Zedekiah's 7th year.
591 BCE - Zedekiah's 6th year.
592 BCE - Zedekiah's 5th year.
593 BCE - Zedekiah's 4th year.
594 BCE - Zedekiah's 3rd year.
595 BCE - Zedekiah's 2nd year.
596 BCE - Zedekiah's 1st year.
597 BCE - Jehoiakim's 11th year.
598 BCE - Jehoiakim's 10th year.
599 BCE - Jehoiakim's 9th year.
600 BCE - Jehoiakim's 8th year.
601 BCE - Jehoiakim's 7th year.
602 BCE - Jehoiakim's 6th year.
603 BCE - Jehoiakim's 5th year.
604 BCE - Jehoiakim's 4th year.Not according to Historians
605 BCE - Jehoiakim's 3rd year.
606 BCE - Jehoiakim's 2nd year.
607 BCE - Jehoiakim's 1st year.
608 BCE - Josiah's Last year : Out by 1 year
So the first thing to notice is that adding the 22 years assigned in the Bible to Zedekiah and Jehoiakim interferes with current academic chronology which puts the Death of Josiah in 609 BCE. Not to worry though many Academics will just say Josiah died around 609 BCE, perhaps in 608 BCE. It is one way to solve a problem, but in the process, creates another.
The Other Problem: By the reckoning of the chronology provided above, Jehoiakim's 4th year, the year which apparently corresponds to Nebuchadrezzar's accession year, (as per Jeremiah 46:2) is now 604 BCE, not 605 BCE. Coincidently, this happens to be the year insisted upon by The King's Calendar.
To correct this faulty chronology historians would have to assign Zedekiah a 10 year reign and Jehoiakim a 12 year reign.
609 BCE - Death of Josiah. : At last the desired outcome.
But what if 596 BCE is the year of the Babylonian Captivity?
586 BCE - Zedekiah's 11th year.
587 BCE - Zedekiah's 10th year.
588 BCE - Zedekiah's 9th year.
589 BCE - Zedekiah's 8th year.
590 BCE - Zedekiah's 7th year.
591 BCE - Zedekiah's 6th year.
592 BCE - Zedekiah's 5th year.
593 BCE - Zedekiah's 4th year.
594 BCE - Zedekiah's 3rd year.
595 BCE - Zedekiah's 2nd year.
596 BCE - Zedekiah's 1st year.
597 BCE - Jehoiakim's 11th year.Fits Nicely
598 BCE - Jehoiakim's 10th year.
599 BCE - Jehoiakim's 9th year.
600 BCE - Jehoiakim's 8th year.
601 BCE - Jehoiakim's 7th year.
602 BCE - Jehoiakim's 6th year.
603 BCE - Jehoiakim's 5th year.
604 BCE - Jehoiakim's 4th year. : Not according to Historians
605 BCE - Jehoiakim's 3rd year.
606 BCE - Jehoiakim's 2nd year.
607 BCE - Jehoiakim's 1st year.
608 BCE - No King at all! -:- Oops!-:- -:--:-
609 BCE - Josiah's Last Year.
This synchronism also does not fit the picture painted for us by historians. At the End of the day, the Academics we trust so much are just pulling the wool over our eyes. (Refer to: James et.al. (1991, p.162) comments in relation to hypercritical treatment of the biblical narratives, and poor methodology. See also Miller & Hayes (1986, p.74) in relation to 'attitudes' of historians.)
To view the King's Calendar Perspective, scroll back to Section 4 Chart or go to Appendix 5 (Start at Bottom of Appendix 5)
8 : The Fall of Jerusalem: The Babylonian Exile 586 BCE
When one views the King's Calendar perspective of the reign of Zedekiah, one can immediately see two things. The first is that in accordance with the stated Biblical Chronology, Zedekiah reigned 11 years, albeit artificial years. The second thing is that in true solar years, Zedekiah reigned only 10 years.
In his 8th regnal year, (post April 3rd 596 BCE) Nebuchadrezzar replaced Jehoiachin in favour of Zedekiah. This coincided with Jehoiakim's 11th artificial year. Had he lived, Jehoiakim would have commenced his 10th true Regnal year at Nisan.
As Jehoiachin commenced his accession year prior to Nisan, April 3rd 596 BCE (per Finegan) saw him commence his First true Regnal Year. When he was replaced by Zedekiah, that year was Zedekiah's Accession year, and so in true regnal years, he did not commence until Nisan of 595 BCE which was Nebuchadrezzar's 9th true Regnal year. Zedekiah's first artificial year however, commenced in January of 595 BCE.
On 17th April 586 BCE Zedekiah commenced his 11th and final artificial year. At almost the same time, (Nisan) he commenced his 10th True Regnal Year.
On the 9th day of the 4th month of Zedekiah's 11th year (2 Kings 25:2,3) Nebuchadrezzar finally broke into Jerusalem.
On the 7th day of the next month in the 11th year of Zedekiah, the Jerusalem Temple was burned to the ground.
This happened, according to 2 Kings 25:8, in the 19th year of Nebuchadrezzar.
Here we see that the 11th year of Zedekiah was the 19th year of Nebuchadrezzar, which is confirmed in Jeremiah 32:1 which indicates that the 10th year of Zedekiah was the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar. It follows then that Nebuchadrezzar's 19th year was Zedekiah's 11th year.
But there are some Problems with this!
Before discussing those problems, let's first look at the King's Calendar Perspective.
King's Calendar Perspective
Reign of Zedekiah
Yellow Figures with Dark Blue Background Refer to Solar Years as from Nisan of each quoted year.
Jeremiah 52:28 This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive: in the seventh year.. Note: When Jehoiakim was killed.
Jeremiah 32:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD in the 10th year of Zedekiah king of Judah, which was the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar.
2 Kings 25:8 Now in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar..
Jeremiah 52:29 in the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar, from Jerusalem, eight hundred thirty and two persons;
Jeremiah 52:30 in the 23rd year of Nebuchadrezzar Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive of the Jews
We see from this chart that:
The 10th True (solar) Regnal Year of Zedekiah, [left 2nd column - dark blue background] is the 18th Regnal year of Nebuchadrezzar [based on a 42 year reign - 2nd column from the Right].
This bears out the Jeremiah 32:1 synchronism of 10th to 18th year.
The 2 Kings 25:8 synchronism [11th to 19th] appears incorrect.
Jeremiah 52:29 indicates that Nebuchadrezzar took prisoners in his 18th year.
An 11th Artificial year Synchronism would be with the 18th of Nebuchadrezzar.
Unless that is, there is something else unseen in Biblical Chronology.
In This Chart, Zedekiah and Nebuchadrezzar's Reigns
are recorded in both
True Solar Years (Extreme Left/Right Columns]
- and -
Artificial years [Yellow Background]
Zedekiah's 10th Year Synchronises with Nebuchadrezzar's 18th year - and -
Zedekiah's 11th year Synchronises with Nebuchadrezzar's 19th year - and -
Both References refer to the same year
In the foregoing sections mention has been made of the way in which Academics manipulate Scripture to suit their purposes, whilst at the same time, maintaining that the Biblical Chronological Details are incorrect. But as I stated in Academic Deceit and Manipulation
It is the claim of the 'King's Calendar', that the Biblical Data as it appears, is not understood because it was recorded in a 'coded' form, and it has been our failure to understand this that has prevented us from discovering the truth. We have been presumptuous in believing that the Biblical redactors were obliged to record data in a way that fits our own perceptions of what is 'Rational' and 'Logical'.
The King's Calendar Mathematical hypothesis is that each Biblical Year has a value of 336 days, thereby creating an artificial 13th year for every 12 solar years recorded. (What is the King's Calendar?)
What we saw in the chart above, is that even ridiculously incorrect chronological references can be seen to have correct application, if one only knows how to apply them.
Having "chronologically speaking", come to the end of the Kingdom of Judah, there is only one more thing to discuss in relation to the reign of King Nebuchadrezzar; his death, and the release from Captivity of King Jehoiachin of Judah.
9 : The Death of Nebuchadrezzar & Jehoiachin's Release.
King's Calendar Chapter 2 deals with Jehoiachin's release in detail. This section, will deal with the issue more concisely.
Nebuchadrezzar's Death.
Scripture records Nebuchadrezzar's death in an inadvertent manner, when it completes the story of the Events that took place in Jerusalem, in the 7th and 8th Regnal years of Nebuchadrezzar. King Jehoiachin of Judah commenced to reign before Nisan of 596 BCE and was a few months later taken prisoner. According to the Bible, he was released 37 years later by the King who succeeded Nebuchadrezzar.
2 Kings 24:8 informs us that: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; and he reigned in Jerusalem three months; 2 Kings 24:12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon,....and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his [Nebuchadrezzar's] reign.
2 Kings 25:27 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach [Amel Marduk] king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison.
Amel Marduk [Evil-merodach] was Nebuchadrezzar's son who reigned for 2 years from 562 BCE to 560 BCE, before being slain by his sister's husband, Neriglissar [Nergal-sharezer]. According to Professor Wiseman (1985, p.9) Amel Marduk's accession date and therefore Nebuchadrezzar's death occurred on October 8th 562 BCE
As previously stated, the only thing known for certain chronologically about Nebuchadrezzar, is the year of his death. Therefore, from the perspective of Biblical references to Jehoiachin, we know for sure when he was released. [Maybe!]
As also stated previously, Nebuchadrezzar has been assigned a 43 year reign for 2 reasons:
A fragmentary piece of archaeological evidence quotes Nebuchadrezzar's 43 rd year.
The only known year prior to Nebuchadrezzar with certainty is 648 BCE when the throne of Babylon became vacant. Commencing Kandalanu in that year gives Nebuchadrezzar a 43 year reign. However nothing is certain about the events in relation to Kandalanu.
Concluding therefore that Nebuchadrezzar had a 43 year reign, it is easy to calculate the various other events in his life. It is therefore calculated that the two invasions of Jerusalem must have occurred in 597 BCE and 587 BCE, with Nebuchadrezzar commencing his reign in 604 BCE.
Having so far demonstrated the Academic lack of evidence in relation to the reign of Kandalanu and the synchronisms between Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon and Josiah and Jehoiakim of Judah, it is now time to demonstrate that the Biblical references to Jehoiachin's release, are correct, and thereby demonstrate that Nebuchadrezzar reigned only 42 years.
And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach [Amel Marduk] king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison.
** From this we might deduce that Jehoiachin was released about 3 days prior to Nisan of 561 BCE, (in the ascension year of Amel Marduk - which began on October 8th 562 BCE.)
And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison.
** From this we might deduce that Jehoiachin was released about 5 days prior to Nisan of 560 BCE (in the 1st Regnal year of Amel Marduk - which began in Nisan of 561 BCE.
Problem No.1
The First problem, is that the two references have a 2 day variance. The King's Calendar answer to this is that one reference is provided in Real Solar Years, and the other in Artificial years.
From the Perspective of a 586 BCE Babylonian Captivity, the King's Calendar artificial calendar demonstrates that the New artificial year (Jehoiachin's 38th) commenced on March 20th 561 BCE. Since King's Calendar Months are of 28 day lengths, 2 Kings 25:27 demonstrates conformity with the artificial calendar.
If the reference in Jeremiah 52:31 is a solar year reference, then Nisan 1st in the Babylonian Calendar must fall approximately on March 23rd 561 BCE. Unfortunately No record has ever been found by this writer, that indicates the exact date for Nisan in that year.
The Bottom Line however, is that these two references are not contradictory.
More importantly, they indicate that Jehoiachin was released in 561 BCE, prior to Amel Marduk's coronation and commencement of his First Regnal Year.
Problem No.2
The Second Problem with these verses is that the actual year in which Jehoiachin was released is not precisely stated. One cannot be sure if the wording in relation to the year Amel Marduk began, and his 1st year respectively, refer to the accession year and 1st year (respectively), or if they both mean accession year, or both mean 1st Regnal year.
As can be seen in the discussion in Chapter 2 and in the chart in Appendix 6 Chapter Precis Page, and also in the article entitled: How Historians Deceive Us and Manipulate Biblical Chronology., Jehoiachin's 37 artificial years (= to 35 solar years) do coincide with a 42 year reign of Nebuchadrezzar, and synchronize with both 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31.
Since Nebuchadrezzar's 8th Regnal Year was Jehoiachin's 1st regnal year, then Jehoiachin's 35th Solar year (37th Artificial Year) is Nebuchadrezzar's 42nd year.
It becomes apparent therefore: That both 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31 are speaking of the accession year of Amel Marduk - 562 BCE, placing Jehoiachin's release around March 18th 561 BCE.
The thing most demonstrated, is that the Biblical Synchronisms demonstrate that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 42 years + one accession year, not 43 years + one accession year.
Please Note:
If you place Zedekiah's 11th and last year in 587 BCE, which is the year currently stated by academics to be the year of the Babylonian Captivity, then Jehoiachin's release in his 37th Artificial year, just prior to Nisan of the New Year, results in his freedom being granted around March 8th 562 BCE.
Since Amel Marduk did not succeed Nebuchadrezzar until October 8th 562, a 587 BCE date for the Babylonian Captivity and the Destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, cannot be correct.
10 : Article Summary
At the beginning of this article I described it as analogous to a Jigsaw Puzzle, pointing out that many pieces in the historical jigsaw puzzle have been forced into place, and that many pieces that actually belong there have been discarded. I suggest that this happens because of Academic Anti-Biblical Bias.
What we have been looking at in this article, are those pieces which up until now have seemed to fit, but in reality do not.
Some of those pieces include:
The commencement date for King Kandalanu of Babylon.
The current chronology for the Death of King Josiah of Judah
The accepted synchronisation of the reigns of King Jehoiakim of Judah and King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon
The identity of the King who was captured on Adar 2nd in 596 BCE
The Date for the Burning of the Temple and the Babylonian Captivity
The length of King Jehoiachin's Captivity
The Single Biggest Point that I have made in this article, is Academic hypocritical treatment of the Biblical Narratives and Biblical Chronology. Whilst constantly maintaining that these Archaeological and Historical Direct Documentary Evidences are untrustworthy, unreliable and just plain wrong, the self same academics use those documents whenever such use assists in the promulgation of some theory. It is just plain hypocritical!
Once it is accepted that Biblical Chronology has been passed down to us in a coded form; once we can get our heads around our own religious and / or academic arrogance; and once we start to treat historical Biblical documents with the same dignity as any other nation's historical documents, it is possible to see that the chronological data recorded therein, is reliable and trustworthy, and, for the most part, agrees with modern calculations in relation to Ancient Near Eastern Chronology.
It is the hope of the King's Calendar, that historians and other academics will overcome their 'loss of face' and 'anti-Biblical bias' and take a fresh look at their results, for clearly, some of them are wrong.
11 : Conclusion
Given that historians can provide no actual evidence for their chronological determinations, there can be no refutation of the King's Calendar chronological determinations, unless it can be proved either that the King's Calendar mathematical process is mathematically incorrect, or that the mathematical hypothesis of the King's Calendar is unjustified.
Needless to say, given that the King's Calendar computer generated Mathematical Synchronisation of the Biblical Chronological Data for the Divided Kingdom generally demonstrates the accuracy of the current academically determined history of Israel, the only way to prove that the King's Calendar mathematical hypothesis is wrong, is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that two specific chronological determinations which are separated by Biblical time, are in fact wrong, thereby demonstrating that the King's Calendar value for Biblical Years is incorrect.
Until that time, the legitimacy of the King's Calendar chronology for King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon and Kings Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah of Judah, remains incontestable.
Therefore: From all that has been discussed in this article, the following chronological realities result:
In 604 BCE King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon ascended to the throne of Babylon
In 603 BCE King Nebuchadrezzar commenced his first regnal year
On Adar 2nd in 596 BCE during his 7th year, King Nebuchadrezzar captured King Jehoiakim of Judah, replacing him with King Jehoiachin.
3 months later, in his 8th Regnal year Nebuchadrezzar took King Jehoiachin prisoner.
In 586 BCE, during his 18th Regnal year, King Nebuchadrezzar captured King Zedekiah of Judah who was in his 11th artificial year.
In October of 562 BCE King Nebuchadrezzar died after a 42 year reign.
In March of 561 BCE, Amel Marduk, successor to King Nebuchadrezzar, released King Jehoiachin from prison, in the last few days of Jehoiachin's artificial 37th year reign.
Moreover we see that:
There is no 'legally demonstrable evidence' to prove that King Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 Regnal Years Plus his accession year.
There is no 'legally demonstrable evidence' to prove that King Kandalanu commenced his first regnal year in 648 BCE
Despite claims to the contrary, the most fundamental operational procedure of the 'King's Calendar', has been to ignore all things 'logical and illogical', and all things 'apparent and real', by adhering strictly to the principle of 'linear causality' in it's investigation of the outcomes of it's mathematical hypothesis. The Results Speak for themselves.
If you would like to read other King's Calendar articles directly related to this one, you could read:
That the Mosaic Exodus was a 15th Century BCE / 18th Egyptian Dynasty event. No. 5: ANCIENT EGYPT
Bibliography, Citations and References.
Aharoni. Y. (1978 ) The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia. Westminster Press. p.183
Bright. J. (1981) A History of Israel. 3rd Ed. Philadelphia. Westminster Press.
Clines. P.J.A. (1972) Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology. 'Regnal year Reckoning in the Last years of the Kingdom of Judah'. Published by: The Australian Society for Biblical Archaeology. Vol 2 p.30
Finegan.J. (1965) Handbook of Biblical Chronology : Principles of time reckoning in the ancient World and problems of chronologies of the Bible. Princeton University Press. New Jersey p.204
Gardiner. A. (1961) Egypt of the Pharaoh's. Oxford University Press. The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. No. 6
Herrmann,S. (1981) A History of Israel in Old Testament Times. Philadelphia. Fortress Press.
Jagersma,H. (1983) A History of Israel in the Old Testament Period. Philadelphia. Fortress Press
James P. Thorpe.I.J., Kokkinos.N., Morkot.R., Frankish.J. (1991) Centuries of Darkness. Rutgers Uni Press. New Jersey.
Marston. C. (1935) The Bible is true: The lessons of the 1925-34 excavations in Bible lands summarized and explained. Australia. Angus and Robertson.
Mazar. B. (1986) The Early Biblical Period. Jerusalem Exploration Society. pp.231/47
Miller,J.M., Hayes,J.M. (1986) A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. USA. Westminster Press.
Mitchell Cambridge Ancient History Vol III Part 2. (1991) U.K.Cambridge University Press p398
Peet. T.E. (1924) Egypt and the Old Testament. University Press of Liverpool page 75
Ragozin.Z.A. (1889) Media, Babylon and Persia : including a study of the Zend-Avesta or religion of Zoroaster, from the fall of Ninevah. T.Fisher Unwin. The Story of the Nations Series:19.
Robinson,T.H. (1932) A History of Israel. Vol I. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
Rogers, Robert William : (1900) "The History of the Chaldean Empire. "A History of Babylonia and Assyria Volume II Published 1900 A.D. Assyrian International News Agency Books Online www.aina.org
Roux.G. (1982) Ancient Iraq. Suffolk. Penguin Books p..308 Citing: Oates.J. (1965) Iraq XXVII 'Assyrian Chronology 631-612BCE.p135-59 -and - Reade.J. (1970) JCS CCIII 'The Accession of Sinsharishkun' pp 1-9.
Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London,
Wiseman.D.J. (1985) Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. The Schweich Lectures. Oxford University Press
Dates for Nabopolassar & Nebuchadrezzar Kings of Babylon - and - Josiah and Jehoiakim Kings of Judah as per (Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London) Using Babylonian Chronicles B.M. 22047 (p.65) and BM 21946 (p.67) But with a one (1) year adjustment for the Reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar.
607 bce - Sep - Nabopolassar engaged at Bit-Hanunia / Urartu - 18th year - B.M. 22047 Line 1-4
607 bce - Dec - Josiah's 31st year commences
607 bce - Dec/Jan - Nabopolassar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 1-4
606 bce - May/Jun - Campaigning to the north - 19th year - B.M. 22047 Lines 5-7
606 bce - Jun/Jul - Nabopolassar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 8
606 bce - Jul/Aug - Necho heads North for Carchemish
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Nebuchadrezzar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 12
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Josiah of Judah slain
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Jehoahaz becomes king of Judah
606 bce - Sep/Oct - Nabopolassar Heads to Kimuhu - B.M. 22047 Line 12
606 bce - Nov - Nabopolassar captures Kimuhu - B.M. 22047 Line 14
606 bce - Nov - Jehoahaz deposed by Pharaoh Necho - taken to Riblah
606 bce - Nov - Jehoiakim commences - 1st Artificial year commences.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
