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.

The immediate effect of an alteration to the current chronological placement of the reigns of Nebuchadrezzar and his father, is to alter the date of the 'Battle of Carchemish' in the 17th year of Nabopolassar.  Currently, the significance to Biblical Chronology of this battle, is that it is directly tied to the death of King Josiah of Judah.  It is to this issue that we must now turn, for not only does a shift in the chronology of Nebuchadrezzar affect the timing of the battle of Carchemish, but the 'King's Calendar' indicates that current academic insistence that Josiah died in that particular year, is incorrect.

5.    The Issue of Josiah's Death

The issue of  Josiah's death has tremendous ramifications for the 'King's Calendar' in relation to current perspectives for the chronological placement of the reigns of Nebuchadrezzar and his father. 

Currently Josiah's death is accepted to have occurred in 609 BCE  at Megiddo, in connection with a battle between Egyptians and Babylonians, during Nabopolassar's 17th year. 'The King's Calendar' however, places his death in 606 BCE.

The question of which opinion is correct, is far from simple, for at the heart of the matter, lies academic reliance upon biblical chronology. 

Since the contention of the 'King's Calendar', is that reliance upon biblical chronology in terms of currently accepted concepts of chronological 'years', leads to error, the claim here is, that the very foundation of academic argument (the Biblical Narrative) is flawed.

This may seem a somewhat bold statement to make, but a cursory reading of Thiele (1966, preface - p.10), and Wiseman (1985, p.33), will offer some understanding of the lengths to which academics go, (and to which they will disagree), in order to understand and solve the complex issues involved.

609 BCE Justification  for  Josiah's Death
Concisely put, there are three basic reasons for the current academic placement of Josiah's Death in 609 BCE. They are:

1. That Josiah died while Necho was on his way to assist Assur-Uballit in his final attempt to capture Harran during Nabopolassar's 17th Regnal year. (Wiseman, 1961, p.63. Lines 66 - 67)

2. That Jeremiah 46:2 correctly synchronises Nebuchadnezzar's (first) accession year with Jehoiakim's 4th. year, and thereby justifies placing Josiah's death in 609 BCE.

3. The mathematical result of deducting the accumulated (Solar year)  reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, from either 586 or 587 BCE., indicate that Josiah died in 609 BCE.

Before examining these issues, it may be helpful to view the 'King's Calendar' presentation of the Biblical Chronological Data in relation to the reigns of the Kings of Judah, as well as Nebuchadrezzar's Solar and Artificial Year reign, together with the Babylonian Calendar New Year dates for Nisan First, based on a 42 year reign for Nebuchadrezzar. 

Results from this Perspective:

1. Josiah Dies between December 607 BCE and November 606 BCE.

2. Jehoiakim's first regnal year commences on November 28th 606 BCE.

3. Nebuchadrezzar's accession year is 604 BCE 

4. Nebuchadrezzar's First Regnal year is 603 BCE.

5. Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year is Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year.

6. Jehoiakim's 11th year commences on February 2oth  596 BCE. 

7. February 20th 596 BCE falls during Nebuchadrezzar's seventh (7th) regnal year. 

8. Nebuchadrezzar's eighth (8th) regnal year commences Six (6) Weeks later than Jehoiakim's 11th year.

9. Nebuchadrezzar's regnal years are recorded in both artificial and Solar years. Nisan Dates are provided.

10. Zedekiah's 11th year, commences April 17th 586 BCE

11. April 17th 586 BCE is both the 18th Solar Year and 19th Artificial year of Nebuchadrezzar's reign.

Josiah's Death

The Biblical Story of Josiah's death is very important within the framework of current historical chronology. This is so, because the reign of his son Jehoiakim is chronologically synchronised with that of Nebuchadrezzar.  For the 'King's Calendar' however, what is significant about the Biblical Data, is that it contains two contradictory synchronous references, (Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2), one synchronising Jehoiakim's fourth year with Nebuchadrezzar's accession year, and the other, synchronising it with his First Regnal year. 

Since Jehoiakim's 4th year is said to synchronise with Nebuchadrezzar's ascension year and therefore with Nabopolassar's 21st year, (currently believed to be 605 BCE), the consequential mathematical conclusion is, that Josiah died four years earlier in 609 BCE, during Nabopolassar's 17th year. This is the year in which Assur-Uballit attempted to recapture Haran.

Although generally having a justifiable distrust of the Biblical chronological data,  Academics of necessity, when lacking external corroboration, are forced to rely upon the Biblical data  when synchronising the Biblical narratives with accepted ancient histories and chronologies.

It is for this reason that Josiah's 31st year has been synchronised with the 17th year of Nabopolassar.  However, whilst academic reliance upon the Biblical data may appear justified, it is in fact foolish for them to insist upon the certainty of that data in support of their findings, when they themselves maintain that the Biblical chronologies are erroneous and misleading. 

To insist that Josiah died four years earlier than Jehoiakim's 4th year, because one Scripture appears to support  archaeologically derived conclusions in relation to Nebuchadrezzar,  is ridiculous,  given that the balance of that chronological record does not synchronise with Nebuchadrezzar's reign.  The Biblical record in fact contains quite obvious irregularities and it is the contention of the 'King's Calendar', that current synchronisation with Babylonian kings is erroneous.

It is not sufficient however, merely to assert such, but one must demonstrate the inaccuracies in academic opinion. In order to do this, a perusal of the documentary evidences is required.

i) The Biblical Narratives.

While the Biblical narratives may be the most important source of information in relation to the history of ancient Israel (Starr, 1991, p.144), that record contains not only the two differing synchronisations with Nebuchadrezzar's reign as mentioned above, but two differing accounts of Josiah's meeting with Pharaoh Necho, and his subsequent death.  Within this section, our focus will be on a specific examination of Josiah's death.

There are two accounts of his death.  The first, the Chronicles account,  relates that Josiah was wounded in battle, removed from the scene, and later died in Jerusalem. The Second account, that in the Book of Kings, relates that he was killed on the field of battle, following which his dead body was carried back to Jerusalem.

The two accounts differ probably because the material from which they are drawn, is not precisely clear. The Kings account, which is the briefest, is probably intended to be nothing more than a generalised summary, while the Chronicles account provides more information. Provided below are the two accounts as recorded in point fashion.

2 Kings 23:29-30

1. In Josiah's days, Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt 'went up' to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates.

2. King Josiah went up to meet him

3. Pharaoh Necho slew him at Megiddo, when he saw him.

4. His servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo.

2 Chronicles 35:20-24

1. Necho was on his way to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates

2. Josiah went out against him

3. Necho sent envoys to forestall Josiah's intent

4. Josiah disguised himself in order to fight with him

5. Josiah joined battle at Megiddo and was wounded

6. Josiah died later in Jerusalem.

Three particular points of interest:

From a reading of these two accounts, we will take note of Three specific things,  for as will be subsequently discussed, our current perception of what is recorded may not in fact be correct within the historical context. These points are:

1.    In relation to Josiah's intent in going to meet with Necho

2.    In relation to the name of the place at which Josiah was wounded/killed,

3.    In relation to Pharaoh Necho's destination; Carchemish.

Robinson (1932, p.424) and Herrman (1981, p.271), (11)  make several interesting comments, which are not only noteworthy, but provide a basis for a whole new perspective of the biblical narratives, especially in relation to the 'King's Calendar' interpretation of the chronological data.

Robinson suggests that the whole episode at Megiddo is a corruption of an event that Herodotus places at Magdolos (Migdol) near Kadytis (Kadesh) on the Orontes,  (12)  and  that the story is not to be trusted, suggesting that the event has nothing to do with the campaign leading to the battle of Carchemish in 609 BCE. (during the 17th year of Nabopolassar when Assur-Uballit attempted to capture Haran). (13)

Herrman sees no necessity to link these events to 'The' Battle of Carchemish. By this he indicates only that the biblical reference is not to a 'specific battle', but to the general scenario of the times. He also finds nothing hostile in the rendering of the account  but that it merely records an instance of Josiah going 'up' to Necho,  not a going up 'against' him as has been assumed in the English translation.

From these two writers therefore, we can take note of three things:

1.    Reference to Megiddo may in fact be corrupt. The event may have occurred much further north, well 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. (14)

In addition to the above mentioned comments,  Miller and Hayes (1986, p.402) also agree that the Biblical accounts are misleading, whilst Jagersma,(1983, p.171) finds them 'vague'. (15)  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.

Despite their unreliable and imprecise nature however, Thiele, (1966, p.194) in reliance upon Professor Wiseman's work, maintains that the 609 BCE date for Josiah's death, is 'fixed beyond question'.

To summarise then, the biblical narratives, do not provide unequivocal evidence that Josiah stood in opposition to Necho; that this opposition occurred at Megiddo; that he was killed by him or his troops; or that the event occurred in the 17th regnal year of Nabopolassar.

The fact of the matter is, that the two biblical accounts are contradictory. In a court of law, neither testimony would be accepted without corroboration by direct (Bates,1985,p.2) or circumstantial evidence.  (16)

In this case, not only is there no circumstantial evidence (the Babylonian Chronicles), or direct evidence (other material or records), but the one source from which corroboration ought to have been expected, the Biblical Record, is contradictory.

There is no 'legitimate' or 'substantial' evidence to support current opinion, that Josiah died in 609 BCE.

Record of The Babylonian Chronicles 

Refer to  Wiseman: (1961) B.M. 22047 (p.65) and BM 21946 (p.67)

The conclusion of the previous section was that there is no 'circumstantial' evidence of Josiah's death in the 17th year of Nabopolassar (currently dated 609 BCE.).  Assur-Uballit may have been supported by a large Egyptian force in his attempt to recapture Haran (Wiseman, 1961, p.19),  but there is no 'circumstantial evidence'  in either the Biblical or Babylonian Material to connect Josiah's death with this event. Nor does the Babylonian material ever make mention of Pharaoh Necho or  Josiah.

The records do however give evidence that Egyptian activity in the area was continuous over a period of years, and whilst current academic opinion does see connection between Josiah's death and the 17th year of Nabopolassar, the 'King's Calendar' sees connection with the 19th year.  

In Tishri (Sept/Oct) of Nabopolassar's 19th year (around the time the 'King's Calendar' maintains that Josiah died),  Nabopolassar mustered his army and travelled to Kimuhu to meet the renewed threat of Egyptian attack down the Euphrates Valley. He captured Kimuhu in Kislev (Nov/Dec). (Babylonian Chronicles, (BM 22047- Line 12 /13)

From this the 'King's Calendar' perceives Josiah's meeting with Necho in the context of Necho's march on the Babylonian Garrisons, and Jehoahaz' captivity in the context of Necho's return to Egypt after Kimuhu is retaken.

The issue however of when Josiah died and in which year of Nabopolassar, is not directly related to the Babylonian Chronicles. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence connecting Josiah with the Seventeenth (17th) or Nineteenth (19th) years of Nabopolassar.   Such connections actually arise out of Biblical Material, and the connection between Josiah and Nabopolassar's 17th year, arises out of current academic opinion that the Biblical reference synchronising Nebuchadrezzar's accession year with the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim is correct. It is therefore to this issue of Jeremiah 25:1 and Jeremiah 46:2  which we must now turn our attention.

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

The quickest way to determine which of these is the correct quote is to refer back to section 3 of this chapter and the discussion on the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign. It is quite visible that Jehoiakim's 4th year is Nebuchadrezzar's 1st year.

Introduction
In this section, we will examine Jeremiah 25:1 and Jeremiah 46:2, in relation to the reign of Nebuchadrezzar. The intention is to demonstrate that Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year (Jeremiah 25:1) and not his accession year (Jeremiah 46:2), is equivalent to Jehoiakim's fourth (4th) regnal year.  

The Biblical depiction of Jeremiah 25:1 is that it relates to events that occurred in Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year and Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year, as Nebuchadrezzar marched unopposed throughout Syria-Palestine.

Academic understanding  of Jeremiah 46:2  is that it relates to the battle between Nebuchadrezzar and Necho which occurred during Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, and that as this was the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim, the battle referred to in relation to Josiah's death occurred in the 17th year of Nabopolassar.  As Nebuchadrezzar is believed to have ascended to the throne in 605 BCE, Nabopolassar's 17th year will have been 609 BCE.

We will compare both references; attempt to synchronise references in the book of Daniel with Jeremiah 25:1; examine Josephus' account; and  see what best fits the record left us in the Babylonian Chronicles.

a)    Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2
To review The 'King's Calendar' sequence of events in Judah,  between the 18th year of Nabopolassar, and Nebuchadrezzar's 2nd year; synchronised with the Babylonian Chronicles, but with a one year adjustment, refer to Appendix Six - Second Chart

Jeremiah 25:1 (17)  indicates that the 4th year of Jehoiakim was the first regnal year of Nebuchadrezzar.

Jeremiah 46:2  (18)  places Nebuchadrezzar's battle with the Egyptians at Carchemish, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Since the Babylonian Chronicles (19) clearly indicate that this battle occurred in Nebuchadrezzar's ascension year, these two biblical references are contradictory.  (20)

Jehoiakim's 4th year is synchronised therefore, with either Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year (Jeremiah 25:1), or with Nebuchadrezzar's Ascension year (Jeremiah 46:2)

If Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year is synchronised with Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year, then not only is Jeremiah 46:2 demonstrated to be incorrect, but current chronologies for Josiah, Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar and Kandalanu will need to be amended. 

Conversely, if Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year is aligned with Nebuchadrezzar's accession year,  not only would that make Jeremiah 25:1 incorrect, it would align with Nabopolassar's 21st regnal year, (Nebuchadrezzar's accession year), and justify the conclusion that Josiah's died in Nabopolassar's 17 th year, and fix that year at 609 BCE.

Only one of these references can be correct, and so it becomes necessary to examine the relevant materials more closely, to determine which one of them it is.

The Two Chronological References
What follows is the 'King's Calendar' presentation of the effect of each of these two references.  Readers must realise that this argument is disconnected from any arguments in relation to deciding which is the correct year for the commencement of Nebuchadrezzar's reign.  

As Biblical Chronology is not synchronous with the current perspective of Babylonian history, no attempt is made herein to appease it.  Within these charts, Nebuchadrezzar's reign commences with his accession in 604 BCE.  This is a one year shift in the current placement of Nebuchadrezzar's reign.  (21)

The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that Jeremiah 25:1 is synchronous with the balance of Biblical data, and that Jeremiah 46:2 is not.  Such would Automatically be the case even in a solar year synchronisation, for the exercise is one of mathematics. 

First Synchronization:  Jeremiah 25:1 
Fourth year of Jehoiakim is the First year of Nebuchadrezzar

This presentation as at 562 BCE  provides Nebuchadrezzar  42 regnal years.

Results: The 17th of Nabopolassar commences at Nisan of 606 BCE

1. Jehoiakim's Second (2nd) year commences October 605 BCE

2. Nabopolassar's 21st year commences in Nisan of 604 BCE

3. The Battle of Carchemish occurs prior to Nabopolassar's death during Jehoiakim's Second (2nd) year.

4. Nebuchadrezzar ascends to the Babylonian throne in August 604 BCE during Jehoiakim's Second (2nd)  year.  

5. In October 604 BCE  Jehoiakim commences his Third (3rd) regnal year. 

6. Nebuchadrezzar's accession year is Jehoiakim's Third (3rd) regnal year.

7. In Nisan of 603 BCE Nebuchadrezzar commences his first (1st) regnal year.

8. Nebuchadrezzar's first (1st) regnal year falls within Jehoiakim's third (3rd) regnal year.

9. Jehoiakim commences his fourth (4th) regnal year in September of 603 BCE

10. Nebuchadrezzar's First (1st) regnal year falls within Jehoiakim's fourth (4th) regnal year

11. Nebuchadrezzar's Second (2nd) regnal year commences in Nisan of 602 BCE

12. Nebuchadrezzar's Second (2nd) regnal year falls within Jehoiakim's fifth (5th) regnal year.
    

Second Synchronization:  Jeremiah 46:2
Fourth Year of Jehoiakim is the Accession Year of Nebuchadrezzar

This presentation as at 562 BCE  provides Nebuchadrezzar only 41 regnal years.

Results: The 17th of Nabopolassar commences at Nisan of 607 BCE

1. Jehoiakim's Third (3rd) year commences October 604 BCE

2. Nabopolassar's 21st year commences in Nisan of 603 BCE

3. The Battle of Carchemish occurs prior to Nabopolassar's death during Jehoiakim's Third (3rd) year.

4. Nebuchadrezzar ascends to the Babylonian throne in August 603 BCE during Jehoiakim's Third (3rd) regnal year.  

5. In September 603 BCE  Jehoiakim commences his Fourth (4th) regnal year. 

6. Nebuchadrezzar's accession year is Jehoiakim's Third (3rd) regnal year.

7. In Nisan of 602 BCE Nebuchadrezzar commences his first (1st) regnal year.

8. Nebuchadrezzar's first (1st) regnal year falls within Jehoiakim's fourth (4th) regnal year.

9. Jehoiakim commences his fifth (5th) regnal year in August of 602 BCE

10. Nebuchadrezzar's First (1st) regnal year falls within Jehoiakim's fifth (5th) regnal year

11. Nebuchadrezzar's Second (2nd) regnal year commences in Nisan of 601 BCE

Points to note from these charts are:

1.    Academics accord Nebuchadrezzar a reign of Forty-Three (43) regnal years.

2.    Jeremiah 25:1 results in a Forty-Two (42) regnal year reign.

3.    Jeremiah 46:2 results in a Forty-One (41) regnal year reign.

4.   Jeremiah 25:1 refers to the period between September 603 BCE. and Nisan 602 BCE. which is:

                    Jehoiakim's Fourth (4th) Year - and -

                    Nebuchadrezzar's First (1st) Year

5.    The battle of Carchemish occurring prior to Nebuchadrezzar's accession, necessarily occurs during:

            Jehoiakim's 2nd year (per Jeremiah 25:1)

            Jehoiakim's 3rd year  (per Jeremiah 46:2)

6.    From neither perspectives can Jehoiakim's 4th year be Nebuchadrezzar's accession year.

Conclusion:
Jehoiakim's fourth (4th)  year is synchronous with Nebuchadrezzar's first (1st)  year.

b)    In Support of Jeremiah 25:1
In relying upon Biblical Chronology one wonders why it is that Jeremiah 46:2 has been found to be preferable to Jeremiah 25:1, especially given that it finds support in Daniel 1:1.    It is does not escape one's attention however that the controversies and distrust of the book of Daniel, may in fact be the deciding reason for dismissing both Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1. (Clines, 1972, p25).

Despite such mistrust, it is necessary at this point to examine Daniel's chronological material not just to provide support for Jeremiah 25:1. but to demonstrate that not only is the data provided from within the artificial chronological construct, but that as it relates to historical (as opposed to Prophetic) details, the data is correct,  despite Clines [1972, p.25] objections to the contrary.  As additional support for Jeremiah 25:1,  we shall also examine chronological material provided by Josephus. 

1. Daniel 1:1 in relation to Jeremiah 46:2

Daniel 1:1 supports Jeremiah 25:1, by informing us that Nebuchadrezzar besieged Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim. It thereby contradicts Jeremiah 46:2.  (22)

To be strictly and literally correct in relating a siege of Jerusalem in the Third (3rd) year of Jehoiakim, this event must occur after Nebuchadrezzar's return from Babylon in his accession year and before Nisan of his first Regnal year. Therefore it ought to occur between October 604BCE. (Jehoiakim's 3rd year and Nebuchadrezzar's accession year) and March 603 BCE. (the new Babylonian year - Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year). In fact from his accession until the end of his first regnal year, the Babylonian Chronicles merely says that he marched unopposed in Hatti-land.  (23)

Clines (24)  however maintains that there is no mention of a siege in the Babylonian Chronicles to support Daniel's claim. This is significant however, only within a Judeo-centric perspective. From the Babylonian perspective, the siege will have been but one of  the many undertaken  throughout Hatti-land during this time. Consequently, from a Babylonian perspective, it will have been considered to be but a minor incident not worth recording. 

In fact, other than the specific mention of Carchemish, there are no details of the extent of Nebuchadrezzar's campaigns, other than the use of the general term 'Hatti-land'.

Since one supporting reference from  Daniel  does not provide strong corroborative evidence, it must be determined if as a chronological reference, Daniel 1:1 stands alone, or whether it synchronises with the balance of the chronological data in the book of  Daniel.

2.    Daniel 1:1 in relation to Daniel 1:5 & :18

The easiest way to determine if a solitary chronological reference within a group is erroneous, is to attempt to synchronise it with the balance of that surrounding Data. If it fails to synchronise, it is probably erroneous.  If it synchronises however, it is either correct, or along with all of the other data is similarly incorrect.

From the balance of the data in Daniel, we know that in the third (3rd) year of Jehoiakim (Accession year of Nebuchadrezzar) Daniel, along with his fellows, was taken to Babylon to be 'educated for three years'.  At the end of that time they were presented to the King (Daniel 1:5,18,19).

The events of Daniel Chapter One, which commence with Daniel's captivity, and end with having completed a three year training period, appear to take place within the first two years of Nebuchadrezzar's reign. 

Although Clines (1972, p.25) has difficulty with this, the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates that Daniel's three (3) years of education, can have been completed by Nebuchadrezzar's 2nd year.

Year 1. Jehoiakim's 3rd yr = Oct 604-603 BCE  -  Nebuchadrezzar's accession Year

Year 2. Jehoiakim's 4th yr = Sept 603-602 BCE  -  Nebuchadrezzar's First Regnal Year

Year 3. Jehoiakim's 5th yr = Aug 602-601 BCE - Nebuchadrezzar's Second Regnal Year

Result:   There is no conflict in data between a three artificial year education of Daniel, and a two solar year reign of Nebuchadrezzar

3. Daniel 2:1 in Relation to Daniel 1:5 &  1:18

Daniel 2:1 informs us that in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, that is to say, in the year commencing in Nisan of 602 BCE, Nebuchadrezzar had a dream which Daniel interpreted. The assumption is that Daniel must have completed his three years of study by this time.   Since Daniel Chapter One is a summary, there is no necessity to conclude either that Daniel's three years had or had not yet been fulfilled.

Nevertheless, as demonstrated by the chart above, it is quite possible for Daniel and his friends to have completed their three years of studies (Dan 1:5) by Nebuchadrezzar's Second year. Those three years would be artificial years equivalent to Jehoiakim's 3rd, 4th, and 5th regnal years, commencing  October 604 BCE,  September 603 BCE and August 602 BCE., but which would have been completed prior to the commencement of Nebuchadrezzar's third regnal year in Nisan of 601 BCE. 

If it be accepted that Daniel 1:1 refers to Nebuchadrezzar's Accession year, then Jeremiah 25:1 refers, as stated, to Jehoiakim's 4th year and Nebuchadrezzar's 1st year. Within this context, Jeremiah's warning (Jer 25:1) would have occurred between September 603 BCE., and August 602 BCE. This is at least six months after Nebuchadrezzar's first year commences and up to a year after Jehoiakim was forced to pay tribute.

The significance of the prophecy, is that in Sivan (May/Jun) of 602 BCE, Nebuchadrezzar assembled his army and marched on Hatti-land. This campaign resulted in the capture of Askelon around December of 602 BCE.  (Wiseman (961, p.69. BM 21946 Line 15-20)

 Within this context, Jeremiah's prophecy can be understood as a very legitimate concern at the very real and proximate events underway in the north, and as such (given academic disdain for 'prophetic foretelling') it suits the events of Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year, better than his accession year. (25)

Apart from Clines remarks, there is no reason for Daniel 1:1 to refer to anything other than Nebuchadrezzar's Accession year, except that it supports Jeremiah 25:1, and renders Jeremiah 46:2, and current academic opinion erroneous.

While the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates that it is only Jeremiah 46:2 that is incorrect, and that Daniel, Jeremiah and the Babylonian Chronicles do synchronise, it will be beneficial here, if we introduce and examine another piece of documentary evidence, that recorded by Josephus, which tends to shed more light on these matters.

4) Josephus

All references are as per Whiston's numbering system. Whiston. W. (1993) The Works of Josephus.  Hendrickson Publishers. Massachusetts. USA.

Within Josephus' narrative for this period of history, there are four (4) points that will be of interest to us in establishing the correct synchronism between the reigns of Nebuchadrezzar and Jehoiakim.  These are found in  'Antiquities of the Jews'. They are:

i) Book 10:6:1 (84) That the Battle of Carchemish occurred in the 4th year of Jehoiakim

ii) Book 10:6:1 (86) That Nebuchadrezzar took Syria but not Judea

iii) Book 10:10:3 (188) That Daniel was taken captive by Nebuchadrezzar at this time

iv) Book 10:10:3 (195) That Nebuchadrezzar's dream took place two (2) years after the destruction of Egypt.

The first thing we note, is that Josephus supports a contradiction. He does this by supporting Jeremiah 46:2 in synchronising the Battle of Carchemish with Jehoiakim's 4th year, and by supporting Daniel 2:1 in synchronising Nebuchadrezzar's dream with his Second year, (which as we saw in the previous section confirms Daniel 1:1 in the assertion that Daniel was taken captive in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim).

In Chapter Twenty (20) it will be demonstrated over and again that Josephus drew from sources that were both original and independent of the biblical narratives. When he provides important extra Biblical data, for example; the foundation of Jerusalem; or when he provides more intimate details of events than contained in the canonical texts, for example, that Manasseh was captured by treachery; we can see that Josephus rates as an independent source of documentary evidence.

If  then, as an independent witness, we see him, supporting a contradiction, we can only conclude that at least some of his information was either sourced in or as incorrect as the Biblical Narrative. 

That there is a chronological error in his material, is obvious. Our task here will be to determine where that error lies. In order to help determine this, we shall examine Josephus' account of the Battle of Carchemish. 

Josephus' chronological order of events:

1)    In the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim

2)    Nebuchadrezzar took Government

3)    The Battle of Carchemish occurred

4)    Nebuchadrezzar took all Syria

5)    Nebuchadrezzar did not take Judea.

The picture painted by Josephus appears quite straightforward in its' support for the Synchronisation of Nebuchadrezzar's accession year with Jehoiakim's fourth (4th) year.   That picture is not so clear however, when we compare his narrative with the Babylonian Chronicles. 

In pursuing that examination, we shall endeavour to compare what Josephus relates, firstly, with what the Chronicles say of Nebuchadrezzar's Accession year, and then, with what is said of his first regnal year.

a). Regarding the Accession Year of Nebuchadrezzar

The Babylonian Chronicles record:

1.    Battle of Carchemish prior to Nabopolassar's death in August.

2.    Pre - August Nebuchadrezzar Conquered Hatti-land

3.    September Nebuchadrezzar returned to Babylon

4.    October Nebuchadrezzar marched Unopposed in Hatti-land

5.    January/February Nebuchadrezzar personally Returned to Babylon

Points to note:

1.    The Battle of Carchemish is synchronised with Nabopolassar's last year,  not the 4th year of Jehoiakim

2.    It contradicts Josephus' assertion that Nebuchadrezzar took government prior to the Battle of Carchemish.  (26)

3.    It confirms that the battle occurred in the same year as Nebuchadrezzar's accession.

4.    It supports Josephus' claim that Nebuchadrezzar took all of Syria.

5.    It makes no mention of Judea, which comes under the broad heading of Hatti-land, referred by Josephus as 'Syria'.

b). Regarding the First Regnal Year of Nebuchadrezzar

The Babylonian Chronicles record:

1.    In Nisan Nebuchadrezzar commences his first regnal year.

2.    Post May/June He returns to Hatti-land and marches unopposed

3.    In Kislev (Nov/Dec) He captures Askelon

4.    In Jan/February He returns to Babylon

Points to note:

1.    This does not provide synchronisation with Jehoiakim's 4th Regnal year

2.    It confirms that Nebuchadrezzar took government

3.    It contradicts Josephus' statement that the Battle of Carchemish occurred during the Nebuchadrezzar's 1st regnal year

4.    It does not corroborate Josephus' statement that Nebuchadrezzar 'conquered' all of Syria in his first regnal year.

5.    It makes no comment concerning Judea.

From these various points it is apparent that Josephus' account does not precisely synchronise with the Babylonian Chronicles, but it is clear that it contains a mix of the events not mentioned in the Biblical narratives, but which did occur over the accession and first regnal years of Nebuchadrezzar.

From this we can determine that Josephus was privy to historical data not included in the Biblical Narratives, and that his understanding of that data was not precise. Since Josephus' account originated at least 300 years after Jeremiah 46:2 was redactorially altered,  (27)  it is obvious that he relied upon that reference, in aligning biblical history with his other independent source of historical data.

Between the Babylonian Chronicles, Josephus, and the Biblical Narratives, we can construct a clear chronological account of all details recorded. They are:

1.    The Battle of Carchemish occurred before Nebuchadrezzar's father died.

2.    Between his fathers death and his first regnal year, Nebuchadrezzar, conquered all of Hatti-land, including Judea.

3.    Daniel was captured during Nebuchadrezzar's conquest of Syria (3rd year of  Jehoiakim, post-October 604 BCE).

4.    In Nebuchadrezzar's 1st regnal year, he returned to Hatti-land (Mar/April to January).

5.    He did not return to Judea during Jehoiakim's 4th Regnal year (September 603 BCE to August 602 BCE).

6.    Jeremiah 25:11 records a prophecy given during Nebuchadrezzar's 1st regnal year and Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year  (Jer 25:1), during a 'show of strength, power, and sovereignty' in 'Hatti-land'.

Since it is clear that Nebuchadrezzar marched through Hatti-land in both his accession year and his first regnal year, it would appear that the redactors have chronologically misidentified these two actions in relation to Jehoiakim's reign. They have confused Nebuchadrezzar's march through Hatti-land and siege of Jerusalem in his accession year, with the march through Hatti-land (not including Judea) in Jehoiakim's 4th year.

Josephus rightly insists that Nebuchadrezzar did not enter Judea in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, which of necessity requires that Daniel's captivity occurred previous to that year.

It is the contention of the 'King's Calendar' therefore, that Daniel 1:1 and 2:1; and Jeremiah 25:1 are all correct, and that Jeremiah 46:2 and Josephus 10:6:1 (84) are in error; and that the current use of Jeremiah 46:2 to place Josiah's death in 609 BCE is inappropriate.

Section Six (6) Summary. 

We have seen that Jeremiah 25:1 as well as Daniel 1:1,1:5, and 2:1, are all correct and synchronise with the Babylonian Chronicles, and  that the prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11(70 years of exile)  is more well suited to and supports, Jeremiah 25:1 in aligning Jehoiakim's 4th year with Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year.

We have established that Josephus drew upon extra biblical material in recounting his version of events, and that his reliance upon the redactorial error in Jeremiah 46:2 caused him to err in his account, specifically in the chronology of events

Finally, we have seen that Jeremiah 46:2 is in fact in error, and that academic reliance upon this reference in preference to Jeremiah 25:1, is without logical foundation.

Far from proving that Josiah died in 609 BCE, the Josiah narratives and Jeremiah 46:2 are unacceptable witnesses in support of current chronological placement of the reigns of Josiah and Nebuchadrezzar. The 'King's Calendar' demonstrates that Clines (1972, p.29) assertion that 'Jeremiah 46:2 provides in fact the clearest piece of chronological data relevant to this period...', is in fact erroneous. Like many others, Clines has put his trust in the least trustworthy piece of archaeological evidence.

7.    Chapter Summary

Within this chapter,  a foundation for the 'King's Calendar' has been provided by examining the following issues:

• The fall of Jerusalem as the starting point for the 'King's Calendar'.

• 586 BCE. as the Year in which the Babylonian Exile occurred. 

• April 17th 586 BCE. as the commencement date of the 'King's calendar'.

• 562/61 BCE as Nebuchadrezzar's last regnal year.

• March 561 BCE as the date of Jehoiachin's release.

• The length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign -  42 regnal years - not 43 years.

• Nebuchadrezzar's ascension in 604 BCE - not 605 BCE.

• The uncertain Identity of Kandalanu.

• Kandalanu's questionable accession date.

• Shifting Kandalanu and Nabopolassar's reigns - by one year.

• Lack of definitive evidence regarding Josiah's death.

• Lack of corroboration for the current chronological placement of Josiah's death in 609 BCE.

• The Synchronisation of Nebuchadrezzar's First Regnal year with Jehoiakim's Fourth (4) year.

• The captivity of Daniel in Nebuchadrezzar's Accession Year, Jehoiakim's Third (3rd) year.

Because there are many intricately connected issues (like a spider's web),  it has been necessary up to this point, to merely lay a foundation for the 'King's Calendar' proposition that;

1.    The Babylonian Exile occurred in 586 BCE

2.    The New Year date for the Artificial Calendar in that year was April 17th.

3.    That Nebuchadrezzar commenced one year later than currently accepted (604 BCE not 605 BCE).

We must now turn our attention to a variety of issues that shall arise as we begin to examine an overview of the 'King's Calendar' presentation for the period 609 BCE - 586 BCE., covering the reigns of Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. So intricate are these issues, that it will not be possible to examine Nebuchadrezzar's reign as a separate entity. 

To Chapter Three

ENDNOTES:

1.    That an artificial system was used was a logical deduction. Refer to Appendix Nine (9)

2.    The lunar month is actually 29.5 days and therefore the artificial calendar is actually 1.5 days shorter, but effectively speaking it is two days shorter

3.    The tendency to dismiss biblical content on the basis of contradictions demonstrates an inability to enter into fervent higher-critical research or talmudic type study. Refer to:  www.ohr.edu/judaism/articles/talmud.htm for a discussion on the variety of approaches that ought to be taken to scriptural content, as opposed to the dismissive approaches of secular academics.

4.    Wiseman.D.J.         (1985) Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. The Schweich Lectures. Oxford University Press   It must also be noted that Wiseman Cambridge Ancient History Vol III Part 2.(1991) U.K.Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Ancient History, p.1991, p.234) provides an alternate date for the burning of the Temple, of 25th August 587 BCE., as does Finegan (1965. p.208) 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  -  which would set the commencement date of the 5th April back twenty days to 25th April. 587 BCE. 

5.    Only a quarter of Nebuchadrezzar's reign is covered in the records that exist today. Since the record of his 43 rd year relates to a contract dated to Amel- Marduk's accession year, it is natural to assume that he reigned 43 years. There is precedent however, that indicates that sometimes, accession years were included with regnal years. It may yet be demonstrated that this principle applies to Nebuchadrezzar. Ref: Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BCE) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London, p.31 & Cambridge Ancient History, 1991, p240) and Finegan (1965, p.210) 

6.    One cannot create a calendar using 586 BCE as the date for the fall of Jerusalem, to prove that the event occurred a year earlier. While it might appear to  favour a 587 BCE. exile, it immediately alters the data for Jehoiachin which results in his release prior to Amel Marduk's ascension in October 562 BCE. The argument then becomes a 'Catch 22'. Because of the novel nature of this research, and because current opinion is that the Babylonian Exile occurred in 587 BCE, the temptation to 'fit' a 587 BCE Babylonian Exile into this diagrammatic overview is recognised as almost impossible to resist. To view the same information from a 587 BCE perspective, read the following footnote.

7.    Presenting the same data but from a 587 BCE Exilic Perspective.

The Temptation to conclude a 587 BCE Babylonian Exile from the previous diagrammatic overview while tempting, is a contradiction in terms.     To avoid the appearance of prejudice,  the same presentation is provided from the 587 BCE perspective.  This hopefully demonstrate that the argument does not concern the 'chronological' determination of  the year, but the difficulties involved in the synchronistic nature of the biblical data.

Result:

1. Josiah's death is close to acceptable
2. In terms of artificial years, Zedekiah's 10th year is  equal to Nebuchadrezzar's 17th (solar) year But in 588 BCE.
3. In terms of Solar years, Zedekiah's 10th solar year is equal to Nebuchadrezzar's 18th year in 587 BCE.
4. 2 Ki 24:12 & 2 Chron 36:10 indicate that Jehoiachin was taken prisoner in the 8th year of Nebuchadrezzar, i.e.. Mar/Apr - Jun/Jul of 597 BCE. This overview would support that.
5. While this might seem to favour a 587 BCE. Babylonian exile, it leads us back to Jehoiachin's release prior to Amel Marduk's ascension in October 562 BCE. and becomes a self-defeating circular argument.

8.    To view a discussion on academic speculation refer to Chapter 15./  2.  Reasonable Assumption or Actual Proof?

9.    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.

10.    Wiseman (1961, p89) believes that Kandalanu was appointed to rule Babylon immediately after its capture by Ashurbanipal and the death of Samas-sum- ukin in 648 BCE. The date provided is 19/20th July 648 BCE cited from: JNES (Journal of Near Eastern Studies) III, p.39   This however is only an opinion or a presumption. Refer to: Bates.F. (1985) Principles of Evidence. 3rd Edition. Sydney The Law Book Company Limited. p.46 'In general terms, a presumption is simply the assumption of the truth of a particular fact and hence, in the law of evidence, the effect of a presumption will be to establish a fact without proof.'  - and -   Ligertwood. ALC (1988) Australian Evidence First Edition Butterworths Pty. Ltd. North Ryde 'In discussing 'opinion evidence' Ligertwood makes it clear, that opinions are 'subjective inferences drawn from primary trace evidence', which is to say, that opinion is an attempt to establish a fact from other facts.

11.    Robinson,T.H. (1932) A History of Israel. Vol I. Oxford. Clarendon Press. and Herrman (1981, p.271) Herrmann,S. (1981) A History of Israel in Old Testament Times. Philadelphia. Fortress Press.

12.    Herodotus on the Pharaohs: Herodotus on Necho II (Histories 2,158f) http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/herodotus/nekhau.htm Project Gutenberg. 

13.    In so far as Second Kings 23:29 relates that Necho was on his way to the King of Assyria, there is no literary requirement to connect this statement with the event listed in reference to Josiah's death, for it occurs only in a summary. Indeed, the Second Chronicles account (35:20) omits reference to Assyria at all.

14.    This being the case, it may be inferred that when Necho refused his offer of assistance, Josiah disguised himself in order to fight with him (2 Chron 35:22), only to then be mortally wounded during the course of the battle. This is not however, the picture painted by Josephus (Antiquities Book 10:5:1 (74-77)

15.    Jagersma,H. (1983) A history of Israel in the old testament period. Philadelphia. Fortress Press Miller,J.M., Hayes,J.M. (1986) A history of ancient Israel and Judah. USA. Westminster Press.

16.    'Circumstantial Evidence is evidence of facts which are not in issue, from which a fact in issue may be inferred. As Dixon J. put it in the case of Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367 at 375: "If an issue is to be proved by circumstantial evidence, facts subsidiary to or connected with the main fact must be established from which the conclusion follows as a rational inference" (Bates,1985, p.2) Corroborative evidence is evidence which confirms or supports other evidence of a particular fact (Bates, 1985, p.82) 

17.    Jeremiah 25:1  is a prophetic word (not specifically related to the Battle of Carchemish), given in the 4th year of Jehoiakim. It includes a redactorial insertion to the effect that this 4th year was equivalent to Nebuchadrezzar's 1st year.

18.    Jeremiah 46:2 is a specific prophecy related to the Battle of Carchemish, and definitively indicates that this battle occurred in the 4th year of Jehoiakim

19.    Wiseman 1961 p.67 B.M. 21946 Lines 1-14 According to the Babylonian Chronicles, the battle occurred prior to the death of Nabopolassar, (in the accession year of Nebuchadrezzar). Following a short trip back to Babylon at his father's death, Nebuchadrezzar returned to the area, and marched unopposed throughout the Hatti-land, before returning to commence his first regnal year in Nisan.

20.    Josephus, drawing upon biblical and perhaps other material, indicates that the battle occurred at the same time as Nebuchadrezzar took the reigns of government. Cornfeld (1982) Antiq. Jud. X, 6 - refer to footnote 3

21.    As Demonstrated in Chart One of Appendix Six, the insistence that 605 BCE is the (Solar) accession year of Nebuchadrezzar, whilst concluding that he reigned Forty-Three (43) years, actually synchronises his accession year with the Second year of Jehoiakim.

22.    It does this by necessitating at face value, that Jehoiakim's 4th year be either Nebuchadrezzar's First or Second Regnal year.

23.    Refer to Babylonian Chronicles, (Wiseman, 1961) Lines 8-13 BM 21946 While this might appear to invalidate insistence upon a siege, it may also be read as to indicate that there were no pitched battles.  

24.    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 Page 9-33.

25.    Refer to Zeitlin I.M. (1984)  Ancient Judaism.  Cambridge. Polity Press. Chapter Seven  for a discussion on the role of the prophet, in discerning and providing necessary guidance, as social and religious critics.(p.211) 

26.    In August Nabopolassar died, in September Nebuchadrezzar returned to Babylon, and in October he returned to Hatti-land and marched unopposed.

27.    The artificial calendar had already been inserted into the standard text prior to the compilation of the Septuagint c.250BCE.

Calculating Jehoiachin's Captivity Based on the Fall of Jerusalem
From the 586 BCE perspective: 

Justification for these charts: The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the 11th year of Zedekiah.  Zedekiah and Jehoiachin both ascended to the throne during Jehoiakim's 11th year. Therefore, the year in which the Temple was Burned will be equivalent to what would have been Jehoiachin's regnal 11th year, that is 586 BCE.

Conclusion:

The artificial date of the 27th day of the 12th month of the 37th year, occurs Two (2) days before the 38th artificial New Year's Day. The 'King's Calendar' New Year is 20th March 561 BCE. 

Since 18.3.561 must also equate with the 25th day of the 12th lunar or Babylonian Calendar month, it must fall on the 5th day before the Babylonian New year.  Therefore Nisan 1st in the Babylonian Calendar for 561 BCE ought (according to this chart) to be March 23 rd. (This Nisan First date however is yet to be confirmed.) 

As Amel-Marduk ascended the throne on the 8th. October 562 BCE, his first regnal year will therefore commence on Nisan first, or 23 rd March,  561 BCE. 

Calculating Jehoiachin's Captivity Based on the Fall of Jerusalem
From the 587 BCE perspective: