CHAPTER TWO: The 'King's Calendar' Starting Point
The Fall of Jerusalem, the Burning of Solomon's Temple, and the Reign of Nebuchadrezzar

This Chapter discusses issues directly related to the reign of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon. The Babylonian Chronicles which are relied upon so heavily by Academics, is not Judeo-centric. Josephus provides much more detailed information for Judah than the Babylonian Chronicles. Whilst Josephus did not always understand chronological details precisely, we can see, that in conjunction with the Bible, the Babylonian Chronicles and Archaeology, Josephus does provide a lot of clear understanding of the times and events about which he writes. Nebuchadnezzar is 'the' pivotal figure in the reconstruction of the history of Ancient Israel and Judah, and Josephus had at his disposal, ancient documents no longer available to us. The 'King's Calendar' finds no inherent contradictions between the works of Josephus, the Babylonian Chronicles, and the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Nebuchadnezzar's reign lasted only 42 years not 43 years, as is currently believed, and it is the current placement of his reign which causes some of the chronological problems. Nabopolassar died in 604 BCE not 605 BCE. His son Nebuchadnezzar/Nebuchadrezzar reign 603 - 562 BCE.

Note: To put the various charts in this Chapter into perspective, it may be beneficial to refer to Appendix Five, which provides the complete 'King's Calendar' synchronisms for the period of the Divided Kingdom from Rehoboam until the Babylonian Exile in 586 BCE

Introduction:

The premise of the 'King's Calendar' is that between the fifth and third centuries BCE the Chronological Data within the Historical Records of Judah and Israel were 'converted' into an artificial chronological system, and transcribed into the original historical records. (1) 

In order to do this a starting point or specific chronological springboard (date) from which to launch the artificial calendar was required, and the most logical candidates appear to be Nebuchadrezzar's capture of Jerusalem and the burning of Solomon's Temple. 

Logic however, is not a solid enough basis upon which to offer a new chronological perspective of Israelite history.  An apologetic or 'reasonable argument' for this assumption is required.  This is the purpose of this chapter.  In order for that argument to be considered reasonable, two outstanding issues need addressing. The first is the process by which the commencement date for the calendar was determined; the second, deciding which of two possibilities is the appropriate 'year' in which to commence such an artificial calendar (the Temple was destroyed in either 586 BCE or 587 BCE).

In the process of providing an apologetic for these two issues, a variety of other issues will arise, not the least of which will be the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, and the correct chronological placement of the 'Battle of Carchemish' in relation to which King Josiah of Judah was killed.

The issues are numerous, interrelated, and intricately interconnected like spiders webs. What follows will be somewhat complex, and readers not well acquainted with the history of the Ancient Near East during the first twenty years of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, may wish to forgo the 'polemics' and proceed to Chapter Five. 

This Chapter will be divided into the following sections: 

1.    Calculating a commencement date for the 'King's Calendar'

        The process.

2.    Determining the year in which Jerusalem Fell

        586 BCE or 587 BCE

3.    Determining the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign

        42  or 43  Regnal Years 

4.    Babylonian history from Ashurbanipal to Amel-Marduk

        Who was Kandalanu and when did he commence his reign?

5.    The Issue of Josiah's Death

        Who killed him and in what year?

6.    Contradiction of Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2

        Nebuchadrezzar's first year was Jehoiakim's 4th.

7.    Chapter Summary.

In providing this apologetic it must be stressed that the issues involved are extremely complex, and it is necessary to proceed slowly, dealing with only one issue at a time, until a comprehensive assembly of arguments has been compiled to provide foundational support for the 'King's Calendar'.

1.    Calculating a commencement date for the 'King's Calendar'

In assuming that the artificial calendar may have used the burning of Solomon's Temple as a possible 'starting point' to rewrite the chronological history of Israel, it is necessary to appreciate that Scripture provides two different dates for that event.  Jeremiah 52:12 records that it occurred on the 10th day of the 5th month of that year,  and 2 Kings 25:8, that it occurred on the 7th day of the 5th month.   Despite this variance, 2 Kings 25:3 and Jeremiah 52:6 agree on the date for the fall of Jerusalem, both citing the ninth day of the fourth month.

It has been assumed that this anomalous situation was the result of transcription or some other error.  But since the most fundamental underlying 'assertion' of this research is that  contradictions are only 'apparent' and not 'real',  it was necessary to assume that the apparent contradiction demonstrates two 'differing,  but correct independent' chronological observations, one of which is provided in accordance with the 'Babylonian calendar', and the other, in accordance with the artificial calendar. (Refer to Appendix Nineteen)

The next assumption is that as both differ as to the date of the Temple's burning, but concur as to the date of the fall of Jerusalem,  the prime conjunction for both Calendars is the fall of Jerusalem.  By this is meant that those who introduced the artificial calendar, requiring a point at which to commence the transcription of the artificial calendar into the nations' history, used the fall of Jerusalem on the 9th day of the fourth month as the synchronous focal point for both the real and artificial calendars.  

The artificial calendar therefore, did not commence as at the first day of the first month of a particular year, but as sharing the 9th day of the Babylonian Calendar's fourth month.  From that 9th day of the fourth month, history past and future were calculated and recorded in an artificial construct.

Based upon this premise, it is determined that the commencement date for the artificial calendar for the year in which the Temple was burned,  was  April 17th. if Jerusalem fell  in the year 586 BCE., or April 5th, if the event occurred in 587 BCE. 

Although these assumptions, deductions and determinations are apparently logical, there is however a major flaw that must be illuminated at this point. The premise that the two contradictory dates for the Burning of the Temple are 'correct independent observations' based in two differing chronological systems, inherently requires that the artificial calendar (sharing as it does the ninth day of the fourth month with the Babylonian Calendar), precedes the Babylonian Calendar into the fifth month by three days, but it does not. 

Since the artificial system consists of 28 days per month, it effectively enters the new month two days earlier than the 30 day lunar month,  (2)  not the three days as indicated in Jeremiah 52:12.  There is therefore an unaccountable variance of one day. While the anomaly undermines the Thetical foundational supposition of 'non-contradiction',  the acceptance of that premise, from which arises the concept of an artificial calendar,  is vindicated by the mathematical probability of its' synchronistic success. Had the theory of 'non-contradiction' in relation to the burning of the Temple, been the embarkation point of a theory of the existence of an artificial calendar, that calendar would never have been discovered. (3)   Fortunately, its' existence was evident four years prior to the discovery of its' starting point.

The statistical probabilities of the 'King's Calendar's' mathematical success, demonstrate it's validity, and since it's validity is demonstrable, the premise of 'non-contradiction' between Jeremiah and Second Kings is valid.  Therefore the discrepancy in relation to the unaccounted  'one day variance', can be said to arise either by the manner in which the original redactorial calculation was made, by redactorial error, or perhaps some later transcription error.

In the final analysis, the artificial calendar moved into the 5th month more rapidly than the Babylonian System, and thus determines the reference to the 10th day of the 5th month to be an artificial calendrical reference, while that of the 7th day of the 5th month refers to the standard Babylonian Calendar. 

Backdating the two calendars from the Fifth Month

Artificial

- C a l e n d a r -

Babylonian

10th	day of the month	7th
9		6
8		5
7		4
6		3
5		2
4		1
3	'unaccounted'	Spare
2		30
1		29
28	- M a t c h i n g -	28
27		27
26		26
25		25
24		24
23		23
22		22
21		21
20		20
19		19
18		18
17		17
16		16
15		15
14		14
13		13
12		12
11		11
10		10
9 th	Day of 4th Mth.	9 th

 

According to current scholarship, Nebuchadrezzar burned Solomon's Temple on either 15th August 586 BCE (Thiele 1966, p.164, Table XV) or August 5th 587 BCE (Wiseman, 1985, p.37)  (4)

Since the temple was burned on the tenth day of the fifth artificial month, to determine the first day of the first month of the artificial calendar for that year,  add the ten days of the fifth month to four times the twenty-eight days of the preceding four artificial months.  If the resultant one hundred and twenty- two days (122 days) are subtracted  from the dates provided for the destruction of the Temple, the first day of the first month of the artificial calendar for those years may be determined. For the year 587 BCE, the resultant date is April 5th, and for 586 BCE, the date is 16/17 April.

There are now two possibilities for the commencement of the 'King's Calendar', dependent upon which year is the correct year for the fall of Jerusalem.  Determining that year, is the next task.

2.    Determining the year in which Jerusalem Fell

Chronological Charts demonstrating conclusions herein stated, are provided at the end of this Section

Having determined the commencement dates in the artificial calendar of the year in which Jerusalem fell, it is now necessary to determine whether that year was 587 BCE or 586 BCE.   To assist in that determination, three references require examination.

The first two are found in Scripture in reference to Jehoiachin's release from prison by Evil - Merodach (Amel Marduk). The third is provided by Wiseman (1985, p.9) and relates to Amel Marduk's ascension to the Babylonian throne on October 8th 562 BCE, commencing his first regnal year in Nisan of 561 BCE.

     Jehoiachin's release.

Scripture provides us with two conflicting dates for Jehoiachin's release. Second Kings 25:27 informs us that it occurred in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile on the 27th day of the twelfth month, while Jeremiah 52:31 informs us that it occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month. 

Textually it is possible to apply the event to either the accession year (2 Kings 25:27) or First Regnal Year (Jeremiah 52:31) of Amel Marduk. The 'King's Calendar' will demonstrably concur with Finegan (1965) that only the accession year is supportable.

1.    The Thirty-Seventh (37th) Year:

Stipulation that Jehoiachin's release occurred in the Thirty-Seventh (37th) year of his captivity is demonstrably an artificial reference.  If it were a Solar year reference, it would require that his captivity occurring Thirty-Seven (37) solar years earlier than 562 BCE or 561 BCE,  would have taken place in either 599 BCE or 598 BCE. Neither of these two dates align with a 597 BCE or 596 BCE invasion by Nebuchadrezzar. 

2.  The Three (3) day Discrepancy:

The apparent three (3) day discrepancy between the two references to Jehoiachin's release date is determined to be a 'non-contradiction'. They are two different but correct calendrical perceptions. 

On principal, in order for this to be correct,  both calendars must be fairly well aligned as at Nisan First of 561 BCE (Amel-Marduk's first regnal year).

As the artificial calendar proceeds faster than the Babylonian Calendar, the most advanced reference (27th day as opposed to 25th day) of the 12th month,  will be that originating in the artificial calendar. Therefore, 2 Kings 25:27 is the artificial date, and will correspond with Jeremiah 52:31.

 That date as determined in the 'King's Calendar', will be either:

a)    March 18th 561 BCE (Calculated from 586 BCE as the year in which Jerusalem fell) - or -

b)    March 8th, 562 BCE (calculating from 587 BCE). 

3.    Amel Marduk's accession:    

It is maintained that Amel-Marduk ascended the throne of Babylon in October 562 BCE and commenced his first regnal year in Nisan of 561 BCE. (Wiseman 1985, p.9) 

Of the two dates concluded above to be the date of Jehoiachin's release, one occurs Seven (7) months prior to Amel Marduk's Accession, and the other, Five (5) months after.  Therefore March 18th 561 BCE appears to be the correct date for Jehoiachin's release, and indicates that the Fall of Jerusalem occurred in 586 BCE.  

Having concluded that  586 BCE is the year in which Solomon's Temple was burned, and having already agreed with Wiseman that Amel-Marduk commenced his first regnal year in 561 BCE, another issue now arises.  

Since Amel-Marduk's accession year of 562 BCE is Nebuchadrezzar's last regnal year, it is not possible that Nebuchadrezzar reigned forty-three (43) years, if his reign is to be synchronised with the reigns of the Judean Kings, as is indicated in the Biblical Narratives.   It is to this problem that we must now turn.

3.    Determining the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign

In Section Two, in accordance with currently accepted chronologies of the time, the 'King's Calendar' used 562 BCE as Amel Marduk's accession year and therefore it is Nebuchadrezzar's last regnal year. 

In accepting that parameter, the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates that for the Biblical data to be 'synchronous',  Nebuchadrezzar must have commenced his reign one year later than is currently accepted, and therefore must reign one year less than is currently accorded him. Therefore, Nebuchadrezzar reigned Forty-Two (42) years not Forty-Three (43) years.

Currently Nebuchadrezzar is believed to have ascended the throne of Babylon in 605 BCE.  He commenced his first regnal year in Nisan of 604 BCE (Wiseman, 1985, pp.18-19), and reigned forty-three (43) years (Cambridge Ancient History,1991, p.240) 

The 'King's Calendar' can demonstrate that professor Wiseman's figures are excessive by one year, and that 603 BCE is Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year.  Since his records are not complete, (5)  (Wiseman 1961. p.94) and other references to his reign may include his accession year as a regnal year, current academic opinion can only be tentative.  

To compare the 'King's Calendar' chronological overview of  the entirety of Nebuchadrezzar's reign as well as (alongside) current academic opinion,  follow the link to Appendix Six  

When one attempts to adhere to the Biblical data, AND current academic opinion assigning Nebuchadrezzar a Forty-Three (43) solar year reign commencing in 604 BCE (1st Regnal Year),  numerous problems arise.  This is demonstrated in the following chart which follows Nebuchadrezzar's reign to the year of the exile in 586 BCE.

Commencing Nebuchadrezzar's reign in 605 BCE reigning 43 years.
586 BCE Exilic Perspective

There are several problems arising from this attempt, they are:

• Josiah's death is later than currently accepted. 
• Zedekiah's Tenth (10th) solar year (not 11th) is equivalent to the 19th of Nebuchadrezzar. (Jer.52:12)
• Zedekiah's 10th artificial year is equal to Nebuchadrezzar's 18th solar year. (Jer. 32:1)
• According to 2 Ki 24:12 & 2 Chron 36:10  Jehoiachin was taken prisoner in the 8th year of Nebuchadrezzar, which within this chart would require that he was captured between Mar/Apr and  Jun/Jul of 597 BCE.  This figure is however anomalous given that this chart is created on the foundational basis of a 586 BCE and a 596 BCE invasion by Nebuchadrezzar (6) rather than a 587 BCE and 597 BCE basis. (7)

In attempting to synchronise the Biblical Data with the current insistence of a Forty-Three (43) year Reign, both charts (the one above and the one in the footnotes)  appear self-defeating.  But we note that in both charts Nebuchadrezzar's regnal years are only recorded in 'Solar Years'. 

However, the 'King's Calendar' determines that Nebuchadrezzar's reign also was transcribed into the artificial calendar for the purpose of the Biblical Chronological Synchronisms, and demonstrates that he ascended in 604 BCE, commencing his first regnal year in 603 BCE  

'Nebuchadrezzar's Reign within the Artificial Construct'

Results:

1. Jeremiah 32:1 synchronising the tenth (10) year of Zedekiah with the Eighteenth (18th) year of Nebuchadrezzar is correct in artificial and Solar years.

2. Second Kings 25:8 which synchronises the burning of the Temple in Zedekiah's Eleventh (11th) year, with Nebuchadrezzar's Nineteenth (19th) year is correct in artificial years.

3. Jeremiah 52:28,29 in reference to the two exiles (596 BCE and 586 BCE), are provided within the Babylonian Calendrical system of recording Nebuchadrezzar's reign in Solar Years, (Seventh and Eighteenth years). 

4. None of these references are incorrect, even though they all appear to be contradictory.

Section Summary

In this section we have:

• Agreed that Nebuchadrezzar's last regnal year was 562 BCE.

• Shown that Amel Marduk released  Jehoiachin from captivity in March of 561 BCE.

• Determined that the Babylonian Exile occurred in 586 BCE.

• Concluded that the commencement date for the 'King's Calendar' in 586 BCE was April Seventeenth.

• Insisted that Nebuchadrezzar reigned Forty-Two not Forty-Three years

• Demonstrated that Nebuchadrezzar ascended the Babylonian throne in 604 BCE, commencing his first regnal year in 603 BCE.  

Whilst from the perspective of the 'King's Calendar' the issues are demonstrably obvious, from an academic perspective further apologetic for these changes to current opinion is required.  If,  as the 'King's Calendar' requires, Nebuchadrezzar's reign is to be shortened by one year, it stands to reason that this must affect the current chronological placements of the preceding kings of Babylon. It is to this issue that we now turn.

4.    Babylonian History From Ashurbanipal to Amel-Marduk

A précis of Babylonian Kings.
Ashurbanipal,  king of Assyria was also king of Babylon. His brother Samash-sum-ukin was his Babylonian Regent. After an unsuccessful rebellion, Samash-sum-ukin chose suicide in preference to surrender.  Upon his death, it became necessary for Ashurbanipal to appoint a replacement.  

That replacement was named Kandalanu.  When he eventually died,  there was a brief period of uncertainty in Babylon, until Nabopolassar was proclaimed king. Eventually he was succeeded by his son Nebuchadrezzar, who in turn was succeeded by Amel Marduk.

The Challenge to Current Chronology.
The fact that the 'King's Calendar' can find mathematical justification for shortening Nebuchadrezzar's reign from Forty-Three to Forty Two years is on its own, insufficient to justify such an alteration.  Such an insistence must also be compatible with, or possible within, what are understood to be the 'facts' of Babylonian History.

Within those facts of Babylonian history, there is leeway to allow for this proposed change, and it is to be found in records relating to the reign of Kandalanu.  Current chronologies for the reigns of Kandalanu, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar, are based totally on academic speculation, not 'chronological fact'. (8)    

The Reign of Kandalanu.
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 the ascension of Kandalanu in Babylon, for it is with this date that the balance of the Babylonian data synchronises. 

However, argument in relation to this event aside, the fact is that not even his identity is certain. According to Roux  (9) Kandalanu is the name by which Ashurbanipal ruled in Babylon from 648 BCE onwards.  Wiseman (1961, p89) however, indicates that Kandalanu was Ashurbanipal's appointee, immediately upon the death of Shamash-sum-ukin in 648 BCE. This disagreement in identifying Kandalanu is significant, for it impacts directly upon his reign, and specifically, upon his accession date.

Kandalanu's Identity:
The significance of establishing the identity of Kandalanu is to be found in the matter and timing of his vice-regal or perhaps Regal appointment. If he is in fact Ashurbanipal, the Babylonian record would accept 648 BCE. (the year in which Samash-sum-ukin died) as his accession year. (This is the current chronological perspective -  As per the chart below).

This would make 647 BCE his first regnal year and 627 BCE. his 21st regnal year.  The interregnum (Wiseman,1961, p.90), counted as the 'Twenty-second year after Kandalanu' and as Nabopolassar's accession year, would have been 626 BCE. 

Nabopolassar's First Regnal year would be 625 BCE, and his last year would be 605 BCE.

As a result,  Nebuchadrezzar's Accession year would be 605 BCE, His first regnal year would be 604 BCE, and as his reign ended in 562 BCE, he can be seen to have reigned Forty-Three (43) years.  

However,  if he was Ashurbanipal's appointee, it is not at all necessary for him to have been appointed 'immediately' upon Shamash-sum-ukin's death. (10)

If we were to presume that it took some months for Ashurbanipal to appoint Kandalanu, then 647 BCE. may have been his accession year.  In this case his first regnal year fell in 646 BCE.  His Twenty-first regnal year (during which he died) will have been 626 BCE.   It is at this point we note that Nabopolassar's accession years is counted as the 22nd year of Kandalanu (Wiseman, 1961, p 89)., and this therefore is 625 BCE. 

Nabopolassar then reigns until 604 BCE, when Nebuchadrezzar ascends the throne, to commence his First regnal year in 603 BCE.

Note:   This perspective provides the necessary one year adjustment to Wiseman's chronology, without changing the chronologies of Shamash-sum-ukin in Babylon and Ashurbanipal in Assyria. 

Without definitive proof that Kandalanu is Ashurbanipal, current chronology cannot be impregnably defended, and even if 'proven' that he was in fact Ashurbanipal, there is sufficient precedence to mistrust the chronological data, as to allow for the mathematical demonstration of the 'King's Calendar'.

If the dates calculated for Kandalanu, or the understanding of  'the year in which there was no king' (after Kandalanu's death), or the understanding or interpretation of various business contracts is incorrect, then the reigns of Kandalanu, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar, from 648 BCE  to 587 BCE will be incorrect.            

While the success of the 'King's Calendar' chronology for this period depends upon Wiseman's determination that Kandalanu is Ashurbanipal's appointee, it must insist that Kandalanu's accession date remain open, until the chronologies of Kandalanu, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar can be more conclusively verified by direct documentary evidence. 

The 'King's Calendar' presentation of the Reigns of the King's of Babylon.