Certain problems connected with the first few verses of the first chapter of Daniel have long been a source of perplexity to Bible students. Some consider these problems of so serious a character and so incapable of solution that the material is thrown out as unhistorical. According to their assertions, the first campaign of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem was not and could not have been made in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, as stated in Daniel I :I, but took place in 597 B. c., in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, when Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon. 2 Kings 24:12. Briefly stated, the alleged difficulties are as follows:
1. Inasmuch as Jeremiah 25:1 makes it plain that the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, the latter could not have been king of Babylon the previous year, the third year of Jehoiakim, when, according to Daniel 1:1, "came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it."
2. The message of Jeremiah 25, given in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and foretelling the seventy-year captivity in Babylon, makes it evident that that captivity was still a thing of the future, and could not have begun the previous year, the third year of Jehoiakim.
3. According to Jeremiah 46:2, Nebuchadnezzar smote Necho, king of Egypt, at Carchemish by the river Euphrates in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign. Four years prior to that, Necho had made a campaign to the Euphrates, at which time Josiah went forth to Megiddo to oppose him, and was slain, and Jehoiakim was placed on the Judean throne by Necho, and the land placed under tribute to Egypt. 2 Kings 23:29-35. It is alleged that Egypt remained in control of Judea and all the region to the Euphrates from the time of Josiah's death and Jehoiakim's accession, in 6o8 B. c., until Necho's defeat by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish in 604 B. c., the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judea. And if it is a fact that Necho of Egypt did control all this territory from 6o8 B. c. to 604 B. c., the argument is that it would have been impossible for Nebuchadnezzar to come down through this country for an attack on Jerusalem during the third year of Jehoiakim.
4. It is asserted that Daniel 1:1 is in contradiction to all other contemporaneous accounts.
5. According to Daniel 1:5, 6 the length of the course of training given by the king of Babylon to Daniel and the three other Hebrew captives was three years. But according to Daniel 2:I, 13, Daniel was already numbered among the wise men during the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, and his course of training certainly must have been completed by that time. That being the case, how could Daniel have been taken captive during the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and yet have completed three years of training by the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? Critics say that the writer of this account was sadly confused in his chronology.
If these allegations were true, and if Nebuchadnezzar did not come against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, then Daniel and his friends did not go into Babylonian captivity at that time, then also we lack the fundamental groundwork for the historicity of the book of Daniel, and then does this book and all that it stands for fall to the ground. The solution of the problems of Daniel I is, therefore, a matter of some importance. The difficulties presented are of a chronological and historical nature, and their solution requires an understanding of the chronological systems then in use, and of the historical data available on the period in question.
In 2 Kings 18 there is given an example of the system of chronological reckoning in use among the Hebrews. In verse one it is stated that in the third year of Hoshea, Hezekiah began to reign. In verses nine and ten it states that the seventh year of Hoshea was the fourth year of Hezekiah, and the ninth year of Hoshea was the sixth year of Hezekiah. That being the case, the fourth year of Hoshea would be the first year of Hezekiah. (See table above.) But verse one states that it was in the third year of Hoshea, that Hezekiah began to reign.
This brings out an important principle in Biblical chronology; namely, that the year in which a king began to reign was not called his first year, but the "year of beginning to reign." In modern histories the term "accession year" has been given to such a year. The following year would then be called the first year of that king's reign. An understanding of this accession-year principle is vital to a correct understanding of Biblical chronology. Without it the student would be involved in endless difficulties, incapable of solution.
Neo-Babylonian and Persian kings likewise employed the accession-year principle, but the Egyptians did not. This fact must always be taken into consideration when dealing with synchronization between the reigns of Hebrew kings and those of the monarchs of surrounding nations.
In 2 Kings 18:9, io there is found another principle of Hebrew reckoning that it is important for the Bible student to understand. There it states that Shalmaneser of Assyria came against Samaria to besiege it in the seventh year of Hoshea and that he took the city in the ninth year of Hoshea, "at the end of three years." According to our modern method of reckoning, we would call this two years. But according to the Hebrew method of reckoning then in use, the year in which the siege was begun was counted, even though it may have been only a fraction of a year, and this brought the total period up to "three years." This is illustrated in the following table:
(See PDF for Table)
The same principle is employed in the New Testament in regard to the death of Christ. We would call from Friday to Sunday two days, but inasmuch as parts of three days were involved—Friday, Saturday, and Sunday—the Hebrews called this three days. The term "inclusive reckoning" has been applied to this method of counting time. Such a term as "three years" in inclusive reckoning would cover three full years only in such exceptional instances when the period began with the first day of one year and ended with the last day of the second succeeding year.
Returning to the problem of Daniel 1:1, we thus find that there is no contradiction at all between that verse and Jeremiah 25 :I, when we keep in mind that the Hebrews used the accession-year principle. According to Jeremiah 25:1 the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. That being the case, then the third year of Jehoiakim would be the year in which Nebuchadnezzar began to reign, or his accession year. It is thus plain that Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne and was ruling as king during the third year of Jehoiakim. Thus it would be altogether possible for him, as far as this record goes, to come against Jerusalem as "king of Babylon" in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign as stated in Daniel 1:1.
2. Coming now to problem two, it is true that the message of Jeremiah 25, given in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, foretells the seventy-year captivity in Babylon. But because Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim foretold that the captivity would last seventy years, must we conclude that that captivity had not yet begun ? Not at all, for in Jeremiah 29:10 we find Jeremiah again stating that the captivity in Babylon would last seventy years ; but that statement was made at a time when the Jews were already in Babylon in captivity, for it was contained in a letter written by Jeremiah to the Babylonian exiles. (Jer. 29:1.)
And because Jeremiah 25, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, gives warnings of judgments which Nebuchadnezzar will yet bring on Judea, must we conclude that he could not already have brought a judgment on Judea in the third year of Jehoiakim? By no means, for in Jeremiah 25 :18 we read that a judgment and a curse had already been brought upon Judah and Jerusalem at that time.
In Jeremiah 25:3, 4 we find that for a period of twenty-three years Jeremiah had already been delivering to Judah messages of judgments to come. But these messages were to continue to be given for many more years in the future. Jerusalem was repeatedly warned, and repeatedly punished. The prediction of a future judgment by no means implies that a past judgment had not already taken place. In the third year of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar did come against Jerusalem, and captives were taken to Babylon. But the warning was not heeded. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah again warned that Nebuchadnezzar would come against the land. The greatest scourges of Nebuchadnezzar were at that time still future, for in the seventh year of his reign he carried away 3,023 captives (Jer. 32 :28) ; the following year he carried away 10,000 captives (2 Kings 24 :8-16) ; and eleven years after that he burned the temple and the palace, demolished the wall, and left only the poorest of the people in the land. (2 Kings 25 :2-10 ; Jer. 52:12.)
Throughout his long career as a prophet, Jeremiah continued to bear these warnings of judgments to come, and throughout his time these judgments came. So we find that the prediction of future judgments is no warrant at all for the conclusion that past judgments had not already taken place, and that Jeremiah 25 is thus no valid argument against a campaign by Nebuchadnezzar against Judea in the third year of Jehoiakim, as set forth in Daniel 1:1.
3. The third problem concerns an alleged control by Necho of Egypt over all Judea and Syria to the Euphrates from 6o8 B. C. to 604 B. c., thus making impossible any incursion by Nebuchadnezzar into that region during that period. The answer to this is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Necho was in control of all this territory during this whole period. We do know that he did advance to the Euphrates in 6o8 B. c., and that at that time he slew Josiah, set Jehoiakini on the throne of Judea, and placed Judea under tribute. But that he maintained an unbroken and unchallenged control over this area from then on till 604 B. c., as is maintained by some, is an assumption for which there is no historical evidence.
It is not at all impossible that Babylon would immediately challenge Egyptian control of the west land as soon as that had been secured. There is no evidence for this, but neither is there evidence to the contrary. With Nebuchadnezzar at this time in command of the forces of his father, and pushing ever farther and farther to the west, it would not be at all unlikely for him to have ousted Necho from his control of the west land either in 608 B. C. or shortly thereafter, neither would it have been unlikely for him to maintain; this control through the third year of Jehoiakim, when, according to Daniel 1 :I, he came against Jerusalem, only to have his control in turn challenged by Egypt the following year, at the battle of Carchemish. To assert that Egypt was in control of Palestine from 6o8 B. C. to 604 B. C. is thus to assume something for which there is no proof, and it is impossible to impugn the historicity of Daniel 1:1 upon such an assumption.
_________ To be concluded in September