The Chronology of the Last Days of Judah: Two Apparent Discrepancies Alberto R. Green Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.

101, No. 1. (Mar., 1982), pp. 57-73.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28198203%29101%3A1%3C57%3ATCOTLD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X Journal of Biblical Literature is currently published by The Society of Biblical Literature.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/sbl.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org Tue Nov 20 11:22:02 2007

JBL 101/1 (1982) 57-73

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LAST DAYS OF JUDAH:

TWO APPARENT DISCREPANCIES

ALBERT0 R. GREEN
RUTGERS COLLEGE, NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 08903

NE of the pivotal points from ancient Near Eastern history which has been used for constructing biblical chronology derives from the Babylonian Chronicles.' All four of the important historical periods available in the Chronicles have been subjected to the widest possible discussion from historians and chronologists. It is a fact, however, that scholars have reached differing conclusions with regard to certain events related to the last days of the Kingdom of J ~ d a h The . ~ present study is intended to present some

0
'

Translated chronicles of the Neo-Babylonian Empire appear in the following: C. J. Gadd,

The Fall of Nineveh (London: British Museum, 1923); D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (625-556 B.c.) in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1956) hereafter cited as CCK; A. L. Oppenheim, "The Neo-Babylonian Empire and its Successors," in ANET; A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Vol. V: Texts From Cuneiform Sources (Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin, 1975), hereafter cited as ABC.
Since Wiseman's complete translation of the Chronicles in 1956, many pertinent studies and reviews have appeared which deal specifically with the problems of the chronology of the last days of Judah. Among the more important, from the most recent in chronological order, are the following: A. Malamat, "The Last Years of the Kingdom of Judah" and H. Tadmor, "The Chronology of the First Temple Period," The Age of the Monarchies: Political History (WHJP 411; ed. A. Malamat; Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1979) 44-60; 205-21; B. Oded, "The Last Days of Judah and the Destruction of Jerusalem (609-586)," Israelite and Judaean History (ed. John H. Hayes and Maxwell Miller; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977) 469-76; A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles; A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah: In the EgyptianBabylonian Maelstrom," VTSup 28(1975) 121-45; E. Stern, "Israel at the Close of the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey," BA 38(1975) 26-54; E. Kutsch, "Das Jahr der Katastrophe: 587 v. Chr.," Bib 55(1974) 520-45; D. J. A. Clines, "The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-Exilic Israel Reconsidered," JBL 93(1974) 22-40; J. M. Myers, "Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.c.," Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1971) 377-92; K. S. Freedy and D. B. Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian, and Egyptian Sources," JAOS 70(1970) 462-85; K. T. Anderson, "Die Chronologie der Konige von Israel und Juda," ST 23(1969) 69-119; S. B. Frost, "The Death of Josiah: A Conspiracy of Silence," JBL 87(1968) 369-82; A. Malamat, "The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem," IEJ 18(1968) 13756; S. H. Horn, "Where and When was the Aramaic Saqqara Papyrus Written," AUSS 6(1968) 29-45; "The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah," AUSS 5(1967) 12-27; G . Larsson, "When did the Babylonian Captivity Begin?" JTS 18(1967) 417-23; E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

58

JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATURE

observations not made in previous discussions or which need strengthening and/or clarification. The events covering the years 608-594 in the Babylonian Chronicles have provided accurate information with regard to certain important events recorded in the Bible. One such event is the surrender of King Jehoiachin and Jerusalem to Nebuchadrezzar, King of Babylon. The developments in the campaign in the Hatti-land during Nebuchadrezzar's seventh regnal year are of immense interest to students of the Bible, containing as they do a specific extra-biblical reference to a biblically known event. The Chronicles also supply us with the most exact data available for any biblical event, which is helpful in establishing the biblical chronology of the period. The passage from the Chronicle speaks for itself:
In the seventh year [598-5971, the month of Kislev [18 Dec 598-15 Jan 5971, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against (i.e. besieged) the city of Judah Uerusalem] and on the second day of the month of Adar [Mar 16,5971 he siezed the city and captured the king Uehoiachin]. He appointed there a king of his own choice (lit, heart) Zedekiah, received its heavy tribute and sent (them) to Baby10n.~

Students of the Chronicles who have dealt with the last kings of Judah have accepted without question the data presented in the texts but they have reached different conclusions. From our Babylonian sources, the fall of Jerusalem, which gives us the date for Jehoiachin's reign and surrender, occurred on March 16 of 597,4 assuming that Jehoiachin had been placed on the throne immediately upon the death of his predecessor. Three months and ten days of reign back from there (2 Chr 36:9) is December 9-10, 598, for the death of Jehoiakim in his eleventh regnal year (2 Kgs 23:36, 2 Chr 36:5). 2 Kings 24:12 states that Jerusalem and Jehoiachin were taken in the eighth year of Nebuchadrezzar. We thus have the biblical synchronism: eighth year of Nebuchadrezzar = eleventh year of Jehoiakim.
1965) 161-73; John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; Garden City: Doubleday, 1956) xlvi-lv; J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton: Princeton University, 1964) 87-92; D. N. Freedman, "Old Testament Chronology," The Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. G. Ernest Wright; Garden City: Doubleday, 1961) 265-99; M. Noth, "Die Einnahme von Jerusalem in Jahre 597 v. Chr.," ZDPV 74(1968) 133-57; F . Notscher, '"Neue' babylonische Chroniken und Altes Testament," BZ l(1957) 110-14; E. Vogt, "Die neubabylonische Chronik iiber die Schlacht bie Karkemish und die Einnahme von Jerusalem," VTSup 4(1957) 67-96; D. N. Freedman, "The Babylonian Chronicle," BA 19(1956) 50-60; A. Malamat, "A New Record of Nebuchadrezzar's Palestinian Campaign," IEJ 6(1956) 246-56; J. P. Hyatt, "New Light on Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History," JBL 75(1956) 277-84; H. Tadmor, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah," JNES 15(1956) 226-30; E . R. Thiele, "New Evidence on the Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah," BASOR 143(1956) 22-27; W. F. Albright, "The Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles," BASOR 143(1956) 28-33. B. M. 21946 in CCK, 72-73 (= ABC, 103). ' This entry is by far the most exact information ever obtained from cuneiform records for an event recorded in the Bible. It provides us with the precise day for the surrender of Jerusalem -2 Adar (March 16) 597, and gives us a fixed point of reference for the chronology of this period.

GREEN: THE LAST DAYS O F JUDAH

59

It is immediately clear that this biblical synchronism presents an apparent conflict between the Babylonian Chronicle and the biblical data. According to the Chronicle, Jerusalem was captured almost one full month (2 Adar) before the end of Nebuchadrezzar's seventh year, not during his eighth year. That the Babylonians used a spring to spring post-dating calendrical system has been well attested and needs no demonstration. If the biblical recorder was well informed and used the same method, then the dates should be the same, and 2 Kgs 24:12 apparently should have indicated the seventh instead of the eighth year of Nebuchadrezzar. Since the studies of Gadd and Wiseman, scholars who have written on the Battle of Megiddo between Josiah of Judah and Necho of Egypt, the battle on which the accession and regnal years of Jehoiakim are based, have all placed this conflict within the context of the Babylonian events of the summer of 609.5 The current status of our interpretation of 609 as the accession year of Jehoiakim permits us to choose from the following alternatives in order to provide dates for biblical references that would accord with the Babylonian Chronicle. (1) Assuming that the biblical tradition is well informed, that the computation did not use an accession year for Nebuchadrezzar, i.e., did not follow a post-dating system, then his regnal years would advance by one and the surrender of Jerusalem would come toward the end of his eighth year, not his ~ e v e n t h By . ~ the same token, the regnal years of Jehoiakim would also advance, meaning an actual twelve-year reign instead of eleven. Antedating, therefore, does not offer a solution, as the discrepancy would only be
It is now clear that the campaign of Nabopolasar's eighteenth year (608 BC.) was directed against Urartu rather than against Egypt, as had been previously thought (CCK, 20, 64-65; ABC 19, 97) and the Egyptian campaign, which included the battle of Megiddo, is the event alluded to during the previous summer of 609 (B. M. 21901) in CCK, 18-19, 62-63; ABC, 19, 96). So also A. Malamat, "Last Years of Judah," 206-7 n. 8; "The Twilight of Judah," 124-25; K. S. Freedy and D. B. Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel," 464-65; S. H. Horn, "The Calendar of Judah," 16-18; and B. Oded, "The Last Days of Judah," 468. The "large army of Egypt" which crossed the Euphrates with Assur-uballit to attack Haran in the month of Tammuz (B. M. 21901) may have included Pharaoh Necho and his men from the battle of Megiddo. The possibility of Joisah's death during this campaign of 609 is further strengthened through the reference to much Egyptian military activity across the Euphrates during 609 in the Babylonian Chronicle. The movement of the Egyptian army through the region en route to Haran fits the biblical picture of the events leading to the battle of Megiddo and the death of Josiah. On the other hand, evidence for Egyptian military activity in that area in 608 is negative. See also H. Tadmor, "Chronology of the last Kings of Judah," and W. F. Albright, "Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles." ' There is little support for this position. So also H. Tadmor "Chronology of the First Temple Period," 51-53. We have no hard evidence that an ante-dating method was in use at this time in Palestine, but we do know that post-dating was official in Babylon and it appears certain that this method was also used in Judah. "It would, therefore, be quite strange if the regnal years of a king of Babylon were recorded by a Judahite historian according to the ante-dating system" (D. N. Freedman, "Babylonian Chronicle," 123).

60

JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATURE

removed to another location, and the non-accession year would also introduce further difficulties elsewhere. (2) The events surrounding the capture of Jerusalem, the deposing and the deportation of Jehoiachin, and the installation of Zedekiah, were drawn out enough to lap over beyond 1 Nisan 597, or they were so close together around that time as to introduce scribal confusion. Freedy and Redford have offered an example of this view:
There is actually no discrepancy between the two accounts. Less than a month remained before the capture of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian New Year. Wiseman (1955) and de Vries (1962) have plausibly suggested in this connection that arrangements for the deportation, including selection and preparation of the captives for exile, carried the event beyond the new year of 597 B c '

This procedure, however, tends to accentuate the discrepancy, for Jer 52:2829 dates the captivity in the seventh year, while 2 Kgs 24:12 dates the capture of Jerusalem in the eighth year of Nebuchadrez~ar.~ Even if the events described took place at the turn of the year, and hence might with some propriety be assigned to the eighth year, while strictly speaking the seventh is correct, such an interpretation would then run into two serious problems. First, repeated entries in the Chronicles show that it is generally the practice of the Babylonian king to return to his own land before the end of the year, and 2 Chr 3610 agrees with the idea that Nebuchadrezzar made it back to Babylon before 1 N i ~ a nIn . ~order to be in accord both with the biblical account and the Babylonian Chronicle, the appointment of Zedekiah as king by Nebuchadrezzar must have come immediately after the fall of the city, if time must be allowed for him to make a fast trip back to Babylon in time for the New Year. Zedekiah's accession would clearly be

K. S. Freedy and D. B. Redford, "Dates in Ezekiel," 463. See also D. N. Freedman, "Old Testament Chronology," 278-79; Simon de Vries, "Chronology of the Old Testament," in IDB 4(1962) 596; E. R . Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, 168; A. Malamat, "The Last Kings of Judah," 145; and E. Kutsch, "Das Jahr der Katastrophe," 535, 544. 9. N. Freedman, "The Babylonian Chronicle," 53. See also K . S. Freedy and D. B. Redford, "Dates in Ezekiel," 465-66. It is assumed that the last editor of Jer 52:28-30 has used a rough table of equivalencies dated according to the Babylonian king's regnal year beginning in Nisan as a starting point for Jehoiachin's captivity. In this way he has tied in the eighth-year capture of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 24:12) to the seventh year of Nebuchadrezzar (Dec 598-Mar 597). J. P. Hyatt has argued for a harmonization on the assumption that the Books of Kings used an accession year system, whereas the book of Jeremiah employs a non-accession Nisan reckoning ("Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History," 278). ' This accords well with the data from the Chronicle for the years 0, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. The entries for years 2, 3, and 9 are in a poor state of preservation and cannot be read, while year 11 gives no information in this regard. Year 4 strongly implies that the king spent the remainder of the year at home after suffering severe losses during his encounter with the Egyptians. See C C K , 68-75; ABC, 100-102; also A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah," 125-30, and D. N . Freedman, "The Babylonian Chronicle," 57.

GREEN: THE LAST DAYS O F JUDAH

61

during Nebuchadrezzar's seventh Babylonian regnal year, where the Chronicle puts it.'' The second problem with this view is the difficulty encountered when projecting Nebuchadrezzar's regnal years forward to the next fall of Jerusalem in his eighteenth year (2 Kgs 25:8). It should be observed that in the case of this second captivity, however, the Bible specifies a month in the middle of the year; so that the discrepancy here is a full year (i.e., JulyAugust 587 or 586).11 Hence, to presume an overlapping or inaccuracy would increase the difficulties. (3) Another interpretation is based on reckoning a Nisan regnal year for the Judean calendar on the assumption that by the end of the seventh century B.C.E. the Judean regnal years began in the first month of the spring. Tadmor feels that due to the conservative nature of the reckoning customs in Judah ("First Temple Period," 50-51), it is safe to assume that even prior to Jehoiakim, Judean kings computed regnal years according to the Nisan calendar. There is, however, no explicit evidence for a spring to spring regnal year for Judean kings prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 586. Furthermore, the utilization of the Jer 46:2 reference to the Battle of Carchemish as support for this view along with the application of the Babylonian Nisan post-dating calendrical system, will encounter additional problems when combined with the apparently conflicting statement of Jer 2 5 1 and its record of Jehoiakim's fourth year as the first of Nebuchadrezzar. (4) Nebuchadrezzar's years are apparently dated from the time he became de facto king over the Hatti-land. The suggestion by certain scholars, following Albright, is that the Palestinian historian, while not using an ante-dating system, nevertheless, calculated Nebuchadrezzar's reign from the year 605 rather than the official 604, on the theory that by 605 Nabopolasar was no longer active in the field. Since Nebuchadrezzar was by that
' O There is no need to take the position that Zedekiah was installed after 1 Nisan and, therefore, in Nebuchadrezzar's eighth year, on the theory that this installation would have taken place only after Jehoiachin had actually been deported. So H. Tadmor, "The Last Kings of Judah," 229-30, "The Chronology of the First Temple Period," 56, and E. Vogt, "Die neubabylonische Chronik iiber die Schlacht die Karkemish," 90-91. This position has been adopted by E. R. Thiele in his attempt to harmonize the tenth year of Zedekiah with the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar according to Jer 32:l (Mysterious Numbers, 168, 170). By reckoning Zedekiah's accession year from Adar to Tishri, and his first regnal year from Tishri 597, the synchronisms between the regnal years of Nebuchadrezzar and Zedekiah from the Chronicle and the Bible can be reconciled. On this matter see also A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah," 135-37, and S. H. Horn, "The Calendar of Judah," 22-23. " S. H . Horn, "The Calendar of Judah," 22; A. Malamat, "Last Kings of Judah," 147-48; and D, K. Freedman, "The Babylonian Chronicle," 56-58. This would have to be accomplished by advancing the date of Zedekiah's first regnal year a full thirteen months after the removal of Jehoiachin to Nisan 596. Such a position must also assume that his accession year ran from 1 Nisan 597 to 1 Nisan 596 (H. Tadrnor, "Chronology of the First Temple," 56), a contradiction of both the Chronicle and the Bible.

62

JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATURE

time in sole command of the Babylonian army, he had been recognized as de facto king in the West. Thus, for the Judahite historian, Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year would have been 6051604, equivalent to the accession year of the official chronicle.12 The obvious objection to this is that it goes against the usual practice of recording the regnal years of kings by the regular calendar (whether spring to spring or fall to fall), which supplied well known beginning dates for the scribes to reckon by (1 Nisan or 1 Tishri). By pursuing this line of reasoning Nebuchadrezzar's first year would fall into 605; however, that chronological objective can be achieved more easily and with a minimum of problems, if the following alternative is pursued. If it is assumed that a Tishri year was used by the Judahite scribe at this time, and that the reigns of both native and foreign kings were recorded on this basis,13 all the difficulties are resolved and the sequence of events then becomes clear. Nabopolasar died on 8 Ab in his twenty-first year (Aug 15, 605). Nebuchadrezzar's accession period began on 8 Ab, 605, and he arrived in Babylon on 1 Elul (Sept 7, 605) of that same year and sat on the throne of Babylon. Both of these dates fell between Nisan and Tishri. The Judahite writers, accordingly using a Tishri system, began to count the Babylonian king's accession period from the 8th of Ab. On this basis his first regnal year would then begin 1 Tishri 605, and his eighth year would start 1 Tishri 598. All the events between Kislev 598 and Nisan 597 fall within this year correctly.14 Jehoiakim's eleventh year is in parallel with this year if his accession took place after Tishri, 609. On this basis it becomes unnecessary to assume a non-accession year dating by Hebrew annalists for Nebuchadrezzar's reign, or that the deportation of Jehoiachin and the installation of Zedekiah were drawn out affairs spilling over beyond 1 Nisan 597. Having, therefore, established the Tishri regnal year as the most logical working pattern, we may now turn to the two apparent discrepancies between the last chapters of Kings and Jeremiah.

l 2 Originally, W. F . Albright, "Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles," 32-33, and later D. N. Freedman "The Babylonian Chronicle," 57-58; M. Noth, "Die Einnahme von Jerusalem," 155; J. P. Hyatt, "Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History," 278; and S. Talmon, "Calendar Reckoning in Ephraim and Judah," VT 8(1958) 64. l 3 It must be understood that the Jewish scribe's only interest in the regnal years of Nebuchadrezzar was due to this king's involvement in the termination of the Judean state, and the carrying away of its population into exile. Hence, after Zedekiah and the destruction of Jerusalem and the state in 586, the exilic community, using the Nisan 597 B.C. deportation of Jehoiachin as a "first" year, the beginning of a kind of era, could have reverted to a Nisan reckoning which coincided with the Babylonian system, as is apparently the case in Ezekiel. See especially K. S. Freedy and D. B. Redford, "Dates in Ezekiel," 465-66. Such a position, however, need not apply to Kings or Jeremiah. " These would involve Nebuchadrezzar's campaign against Jerusalem which included (a) the fall of the city, (b) the ouster of Jehoiachin, (c) the accession of Zedekiah, and (d) a major deportation (2 Kgs 24:14, 16).

GREEK: THE LAST DAYS O F JUDAH

63

In Jer 52:28-30 there is a notation of three deportations. The first is assigned to Nebuchadrezzar's seventh year (v 28) and involved 3,023 ydhiidim; the second, in his eighteenth year (v 29) involved 832 persons from Jerusalem; and the third, in his twenty-third year (v 30) affected 745 y8hCd^im,15for a total of some 4,600 captives (v 30). In 2 Kgs 24:12-16, 8,000 to 10,000 captives were taken in the eighth year of the king, and in 2 Kgs 25:8, "the rest of the people," "deserters," and "the rest of the multitude" were carried off in Nebuchadrezzar's nineteenth regnal year. Accommodation between the figures from the seventh and eighteenth years of Nebuchadrezzar in the book of Jeremiah, and his eighth and nineteenth years in 2 Kings has been attempted on the basis of two assumptions: (1) That a Nisan accession year reckoning is used in Jeremiah which directly parallels the Babylonian system and (2) that the deportations in the seventh and eighteenth years are the direct product of and identical with the captures of the city in Nebuchadrezzar's eighth and nineteenth regnal years.16 We will first concentrate on the second premise, that the deportations of the seventh and eighteenth years are identical with the captures of the city in the eighth and nineteenth years. It appears that the evidence is against that premise. Several reasons contribute to such a conclusion: (1) The mere fact that all the numbers are different in every case that can be cross-checked, both years and numbers of captives, would seem to imply different events or even an alternate tradition. (2) The numbers in Jer 52:28-30 are quite specific, conveying the impression that they are documentary in character, in contrast to the round numbers used in 2 Kgs 24:16 where 10,000 and 8,000 are mentioned respectively for Nebuchadrezzar's eighth year. The difference between 8,000 and 10,000 in Kings and 3,023 in Jeremiah is statistically significant if it has not resulted from textual emendation or an alternate tradition about the same event. Bright's theory that the 3,023 in Jermiah refer only to adult males

Vv 28-30 are lacking in the LXX and in 2 Kgs 25, as is v 27b. This notice is a late editorial insertion. It is clear from the reading of Jer 51 that Jer 52 is a later appendix to the book. However, its account of the fall of Jerusalem is practically identical to the record in 2 Kgs 24:18-25:30 (with minor textual variations) excluding the description of Gedaliah's death which is found in 2 Kgs 2522-26. Aside from this reference, nothing further is known from the Babylonian records or the Bible on the subject of a third deportation. l 6 See especially W. F. Albright, "Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles," 28-33; D. N. Freedman, "Babylonian Chronicle," 50-60; J. P. Hyatt, "Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History," 278; W. Rudolf, Jeremia (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1968) 323-24. E. R. Thiele formerly held this view ("Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah," 25); however, though he has changed his position somewhat, he still asserts that the redactor of Jeremiah utilized a Nisan calendar in calculating the regnal years of Judean kings, except in cases where his chronological statements parallel those in Kings (Mysterious Numbers, 161).

64

JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATURE

does not narrow the gap because all the classification listed in Kings are certainly men." (3) It is difficult to perceive of the fall of Jerusalem under Zedekiah resulting in only 832 captives. (4) The fact that another deportation is mentioned in the twenty-third year, after the city had been destroyed, shows that the deportations do not have to be associated with the captures of Jerusalem.18 (5) Whenever the capture of the city itself or the events that have to take place after its capture are mentioned in the Bible, the eighth year is given.lg There were certainly other people around who could have been deported in the seventh year, but there was only one Jerusalem that could be captured in the eighth. (6) If the three deportations in Jer 52:28-30 are separated from the captures of the city, they can be fitted into the known historical situation very If a Nisan reckoning is presumed for Jeremiah, these captives would have to have been taken between Kislev (Nov-Dec) 598, and Adar (FebMarch) 597, during Nebuchadrezzar's decisive campaign against Jerusalem. As this would occur at the same time as the 8,000-10,000 were captured in 2 Kings, the only thing one could posit to separate these two events would be that perhaps the 3,023 were captives from the vicinity taken before the fall of the city. But in this case they probably would have all been deported together anyway. If, however, the seventh year deportation in Jeremiah is studied on a Tishri basis, then this group of captives would have been rounded up sometime during the previous Tishri year, 599-598.21 According to the Chronicle, Nebuchadrezzar's campaign against the Arabs falls during

" John Bright, History of Israel (3d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981) 328 n. 52; Jeremiah, 369. It is rather interesting that this Jeremiah fragment omits the main events but mentions only the deportation figures. One may speculate that these deportations represent to him a vindication of the prophet's repeated warnings of divine judgment resulting from Judah's rebellious history. I d See above note 15. I q In Nebuchadrezzar's eighth year (598-597) in Kislev (Dec 18, 598-Jan 15, 597) he marched to the Hatti-land and encamped against Jerusalem. On the 2d day of Adar (March 16, 597) he (1) seized the city, (2) deposed Jehoiachin, (3) installed Zedekiah, and (4) initiated the first major deportation (2 Kgs 24:14, 16). See above note 14. A position taken by a number of scholars. See, for example, A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah," 133-34; "The Last Years of Judah," 211; S. H. Horn, "The Calendar of Judah," 26-27 and E. R. Thiele, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah," 25. " Malamat, on the other hand, takes the position that this group was rounded u p in 597, and that a minor deportation occurred in the winter prior to 1 Nisan 597 ("Last Kings of Judah," 153-54, "Last Days of Judah," 211, "Twilight of Judah," 133-34). He points out that the utilization of the term "y2hirdim" could imply that the deportees were inhabitants of the provincial cities of Judah who might have been carried away while Jerusalem was under siege, but he concludes, nevertheless, that these deportees represent an immediate deportation of some residents of the capital ("Nebuchadrezzar's Palestinian Campaigns," 253-54).
j"

GREEN: THE LAST DAYS O F JUDAH

65

this period in his sixth Babylonian regnal year. At this time, after an absence of almost two years since his earlier major engagement in Syria and Palestine in Kislev of 601 (B. M. 21946), he conducted a late and short campaign between Kislev and Adar (Dec-Feb) against the Arabs, using the Hatti-land as a base of operation^.^^ For this campaign the Chronicle states that the king of Babylon "dispatched his army from Hattu and they went off to the desert. They plundered extensively the possessions, animals, and gods of the numerous Arabs."23 It would appear that the thrust of this campaign was against the Arabs. It is possible, however, that some military contingents could have been sent into Judah in view of the fact that Jehoiakim had been in rebellion against him for some two years and that Jerusalem was the target of the major campaign of the following season.24If some of the troops were deployed against Judah (which would be good military strategy) while the main army was in the desert against the Arabs, 3,023 captives from the more poorly defended locations in Judah would not be an inordinate number. It should also be remembered that, during his absence from the field, it is recorded by the deuteronomist that God ordered various bands of Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, and Chaldeans against Judah. These Babylonians were probably garrison troops (2 Kgs 24:2), who could have taken some captives in Judah, too, and held them for later dep~rtation.'~ Malamat has noted that the particular appellative here, yEhQdim, implying the provincial elements of Judah, is brought into perspective by the designation "from Jerusalem ," which is applied to the exiles deported during the final siege in Nebuchadrezzar's eighteenth year (v 29). Several years later, after the destruction of

2 ' It is quite possible that one of the objectives of this campaign was the tribe of Qedar and others to the East of Hazor (Jer 49:28-31); as other people in this region were apparently cooperating with the Babylonian garrisons (2 Kgs 24:2). See also CCK, 31-32; ABC, 20, 101. This challenge to Babylonian control probably developed as a result of Nebuchadrezzar's ill success against Necho's forces two years earlier. '' ABC, 20, 101; CCK, 32. Zi The reading of B. M. 21946 makes it clear that on this occasion Judah was the primary objective of the expedition which departed Babylon in Kislev (Dec 598). Following the successful campaign (2 Chr 36:lO and ABC, 102). the text implies that Nebuchadrezzar had returned to his capital for the New Year's festivities following the capitulation of Jerusalem one month earlier on 2 Adar. See above note 9. 2 5 See 1, Ephal, The Nomads on the Border of Palestine (dissertation: University of Jerusalem, 1971) 125-29. It seems clear that the king left the army in the field conducting this campaign against the Arabs while he returned to Babylon in Adar for the New Year's festival in Nisan. Based on the reading of the Chronicles for the sixth year (ABC, 101; CCK, 70-71), Wiseman has observed that while there is the mention of the personal return of the king, no reference is made to accompanying troops. H e has concluded, therefore, that at least some may have been kept in Syria to strengthen the garrisons against retaliatory raids from the desert during the subsequent spring and summer. See also A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah," 13132, "Last Years of Judah," 209 and S. H. Horn, "The Calendar of Judah," 25-26.

66

JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATURE

Jerusalem, the deportees in Nebuchadrezzar's twenty-third year are once again, and quite appropriately, called " J u d e a n ~ ! " ~ ~ A study of the passage in question leads to the conclusion that Malamat may be correct in his application of the term "yr?hOdimn here as an indication that these people were residents of Judah in general but not specifically Jerusalemites. Indeed, the 832 captives taken in the eighteenth year are contrastingly mentioned as coming "from Jerusalem," that is, coming specifically from the city. This falls into the period in which Nebuchadrezzar was directly engaged in the siege of the city (Jer 32:l). Captives of the subsequent deportation in Nebuchadrezzar's twenty-third year are again referred to as "ydhOdim," this time coming when Jerusalem was in ruins. Thus the terminology employed for these captives is complementary to the idea that these deportations in the seventh and eighteenth years were secondary and minor, separate from the major group of exiles following the capture of the city in his eighth and nineteenth years. It is clear, therefore, that the Jeremiah appendages to these deportations must be seen as minor events taking place in the years preceding the major deportations and unconnected to the other two major deportations which followed the fall of the city.27 A final point on the subject, something of the nature of Jeremiah 52, is worth emphasizing. It is generally agreed that this chapter is an appendix to the book, coming as it does, after the last verse in chapter 51 which says "Thus far are the words of Jeremiah." The account is clearly drawn largely from 2 Kings or the same source as that material.28Vv 28-30 are an exception for which we have no other scriptural documentation. The source of this notice is undetermined, but it does not have to come from exilic editing as has been suggested.2g If the thesis presented here is correct, it could just as well have been of some other origin. If the deportations of the seventh and eighteenth years are separated from those of the eighth and the nineteenth years, then not only is there nothing that contradicts the Tishri reckoning, but the fact that the details fit the historical situation so very well may be another indication that that was the method of reckoning used. Jer 52:12 states that Nebuzaradan's burning of the city occurred in the same nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar as cited in 2 Kgs 25, but a
26 Jer 52:30. See also note 16, and A. Malamat, "Nebuchadrezzar's Palestinian Campaigns," 253-54, and "Twilight of Judah," 133-34. " Also S. H. Horn, "The Calendar of Judah," 25-27. Malamat's position differs slightly in that he places the minor deportation in Nebuchadrezzar's seventh year in the winter prior to 1 Nisan 597, a deportation organized by Nebuchadrezzar himself, after the fall of the city ("Nebuchadrezzar's Palestinian Campaigns," 253-54, table on p. 256 and "Last Kings of Judah," 153-54). After Nebuchadrezzar's departure to Babylon for the New Year's festival, his subalterns proceeded to organize the first major deportation headed by Jehoiachin. " See John Bright, Jeremiah, 365-70, and above note 15. " Especially W. F . Albright, "Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles," 32, and D. N. Freedman, "Babylonian Chronicle," 54-59.

GREEN: T H E LAST DAYS O F JUDAH

67

deportation of a separate group of captives could have come before.30 Clearly, the writer must have been aware that two separate events were involved here.

One of the most difficult texts in any study of the chronology of the last days of Judah is Jer 46:2. The text reads as follows:
What came of the word of Yahweh to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the nations: About Egypt. Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was along the Euphrates River at Carchemish and which Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim ben Josiah, king of J ~ d a h . ~ '

Coupled with this statement is the synchronism in Jer 25:l which reads: "The word that came to Jeremiah concerning the entire people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim ben Josiah, king of Judah (that is, in the first year of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon . . .").32 If these two references are placed together there is the equation that the battle of Carchemish occurred in Jehoiakim's fourth year which was Nebuchadrezzar's first. It is known that the battle of Carchemish, which is placed by Jer 46:2 in Jehoiakim's fourth year, occurred sometime in the late spring or early summer of 605.33 In some unspecified month early in Nabopolasar's twenty-first regnal year, which began on 1 Nisan 605 (April 12), Nebuchadrezzar, the crown prince, led the army directly to an attack on the Egyptians at Carchemish, and there "He inflicted a defeat upon them (and) finished them off ~ompletely." ~ ~ then went after the remaining Egyptian forces that had He retreated southward toward Egypt. The Chronicle (B. M. 21946) states that Nabopolasar died in Babylon on 8 Ab (Aug 15) during his twenty-first regnal year (605). Nebuchadrezzar made the rapid trip home in one and one
30 The appendage to Jeremiah (52:12) records the burning of the city on the tenth day while Kings (2 Kgs 25:8) has the seventh day. One cannot say which is correct. Both, however, place this event in the fifth month of Nebuchadrezzar's nineteenth regnal year 31 Evidently, it would be incorrect to call Nebuchadrezzar king at Carchemish (May-early June 605), as this would only become a reality with the death of Nabopolasar (Aug 16, 605) a couple of months later (ABC, 19-20; CCK, 29, 70-71). 32 The parenthetical reference to the first year of Nebuchadrezzar does not appear in the LXX and is evidently a gloss, but a correct one. 33 After conducting his campaign against Egypt on the Upper Euphrates, Nabopolasar returned to Babylon in Sebat toward the end of his twentieth regnal year (Jan-Feb, 605). Then in some unspecified month of his twenty-first year (beginning 1 Nisan 605) Nebuchadrezzar, his son, led the army directly in an attack on the Egyptians at Carchemish. It is quite possible that the battle of Carchemish and the subsequent follow-up operations, which cornered and defeated the retreating Egyptian forces at Hamath, took place about Sivan (MayIJune) 605. See B. M. 21946 in CCK, 23-27. Also E. R. Thiele, "Last Kings of Judah," 24-25. Horn has placed Carchemish as early as April ("The Calendar of Judah," 20). 3 4 B. M. 21946 in ABC, 99, and CCK, 66-67.

68

JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LJTERATURE

half weeks and was crowned king on 1 Elul (Sept 7, 605).35 After he assumed the kingship, the remaining portion of the year until the next new year's day, 1 Nisan in the spring of 604, the Chronicle identifies as his accession yea~-.~"iven these statements, it is difficult to see how the battle of Carchemish can be equated with Nebuchadrezzar's first year when he did not actually come to the throne until Sept 7, 605, and did not begin his first proper regnal year until 1 Nisan 604 (MarchIApril). Adoption of a postdating Tishri regnal year cannot accommodate Jeremiah 46:2 which dates the battle of Carchemish to Jehoiakim's fourth year.3' A survey of the treatment of this problem reveals a number of different ways in which the passage may be interpreted. (1) The author, compiler or copyist of Jer 46:2, made an error when he placed the battle of Carchemish in Jehoiakim's fourth year.38 (2) In Jer 25:l the parenthetical phrase, "that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon," was a later (and incorrect) addition to the text.I9 The absence of this paragraph in the LXX has been enlisted as support for this view. The above suggestions could, of course, be applied to all the chronologic statements under discussion. It would be very convenient to invoke them whenever there is an apparent discrepancy in the chronological system. (3) Various interpreters have followed the suggestion of Albright of an incorrect translation of Jer 25:1,'O even though that idea had been proposed before the Babylonian Chronicle text had been discovered. Finegan's solution is as follows:
In Hebrew the words are hashshanah haroshniyt. The phrase is not found elsewhere, but we recognize, modifying the word 'year' the feminine singular form of the adjective

" It took three and one half weeks for the message of his father's death to reach him in the west and for him to return to Babylon to be crowned king. Nabopolasar died on 8 Ab (Aug 15-16.605) in Babylon during his twenty-first regnal year and Nebuchadrezzar was crowned on 1 Elul (Sept 7,605). The trip home, therefore, probably accounted for a half of the three and one half weeks, as he would be accompanied only by a few of his trusted lieutenants. See also CCK, 27. 36 B. M. 21946 in ABC, 99-100; CCK, 68-69. '' Battle of Megiddo and death of Josiah 609 (anytime), see above note 5. Necho's campaign in north Syria coincides with the brief reign of Jehoahaz, who was deposed on Necho's return shortly after 1 Tishri (late Sept) 609, at which time Jehoiakim's accession begins. First year of Jehoiakim, Tishri 608 (Sept-Oct) to Elul 607 (Aug-Sept). Third year of Jehoiakim, Tishri 606 (Sept-Oct) to last of Elul, 605 (Oct 6). This is the twenty-first year of Nabopolasar and the accession year of Nebuchadrezzar. Battle of Carchemish, late May to early June 605; Nabopolasar's death Aug 15/16, 605. Nebuchadrezzar's coronation Sept 7, 605. The accession year of Nebuchadrezzar = the third year of Jehoiakim. " One of the possible solutions suggested by K . S. Freedy and D. B. Redford ("The Dates in Ezekiel," 465). See discussion by J . Bright, Jeremiah, 160-63. " In his discussion on the Hebrew rendering of the Babylonian term rES Sarrati. W. F. Albright, "The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Pre-exilic History of Judah, With Some Observations on Ezekiel," JBL 51(1932) 101-2.
jQ

GREEN: THE LAST DAYS O F JUDAH

69

which can mean either 'first' or 'beginning.' Since the noun is used in the standard designation of an accession year, the phrase in Jer 2 5 1 probably means also 'the beginning year,' i.e., the accession year of Nebuchadrezzar."

This, of course, harmonizes the immediate events of the years 605-604, for by this means the accession year of Nebuchadrezzar falls into the fourth year of Jehoiakim, but it would also make matters worse for the year would end the last of Adar, 605, before the battle of Carchemish was However, if one uses the Nisan reckoning, this would still leave unresolved the datum concerning the fall of Jerusalem in Nebuchadrezzar's eighth year, for according to this system and the Babylonian calendar, it is his seventh. Correspondingly, as previously discussed, it also affects the problem of the city's fall in his nineteenth year.43 A case has been made for the possibility of a scribal error on the part of the author, compiler or copyist of Jer 46:2. It assumes a Tishri reckoning for the statement in Jer 46:2, retains the translation of "first" year of Nebuchadrezzar in Jer 25:1, and places this in parallel with Jehoiakim's fourth year, Tishri 605-604, after the battle of Carchemish had been fought. In this case the antecedent of the fourth year of Jehoiakim in Jer 46:2 is the oracular utterance rather than the battle itself. It has been suggested that Jer 46:2 be read as follows:
The word of Yahweh which came to Jeremiah the prophet, against the nations; about Egypt: against the army of Pharaoh Neco, king of Egypt (which had been at the river Euphrates at Carchemish which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon had defeated) in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah."

Horn observes that it has to be assumed that the parenthetical clause was inserted in the introduction of the message to point out that the oracle was pronounced over the Egyptian army which had been severely mauled
" J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 202. See also J. Tadmor, "Last Kings of Judah," 226-28; E. Kutsch, "Das Jahr der Katastrophe," 535-36. A. Malamat sees this as one possibility but he recognizes the additional problems this would raise with 2 Kgs 23:36 which gives Jehoiakim eleven years ("Twilight of Judah," 127-28, "Last Years of Judah," 350). " See discussion above under notes 33 and 37. 4 3 Under these circumstances Thiele finds it necessary to adopt a Nisan calendar in order to reconcile the regnal years ("Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah," 23-25 and Mysterious Numbers, 161-63). Also on the problem but not in agreement with Thiele, see E. Kutsch, "Das Jahr der Katastrophe," 536-37,544, and H. Tadmor, "Last Kings of Judah," 227-28. Others have generally held the view that the Nisan calendar was not adopted in Judah until the summer of 604. So J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 203-204; D. N. Freedman, "The Babylonian Chronicle," 52-60; J. P. Hyatt, "Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History," 278-81; M. Noth, "Die Einnahme von Jerusalem," 153-57; and E. Vogt, "Die neubabylonischi Chronik," 67-96. '9.H. Horn, "Calendar of Judah," 26, and n. 33; and A. Malamat, "Twilight of Judah," 12728, who gives guarded support to this view. Jer 46:1, like the parenthetical phrase in 46:2, is not found in the LXX, and is an editorial insertion. Hence this adjustment to the text with a view to an accommodation with 25:l may or may not be a more accurate reading of the passage. Note also similar superscriptions in 1:2, 14:1, and 49:34.

70

JOURNAL O F BIBLICAL LITERATURE

several months earlier. While such an artificial and unnatural grammatical may not appeal to some scholars, according to Horn, the mere fact that translators from the LXX to our time have applied this date as referring to the battle is no proof that the traditional reading is correct.15 If the portion of the verse referring to Carchemish is considered as a parenthetical clause, all the chronological difficulties would be removed, and the passage would fall in line with the other dated historical statements in the book of Jeremiah mentioning Nebuchadrezzar. (5) Ante-dating as a possible solution would only be helpful if one reckons by the Tishri year. Assuming hypothetically that Jehoiakim ascended the throne after Tishri, 609, and that the scribes applied the principle to both Jehoiakim and Nebuchadrezzar, it would bring together all three events in Jeremiah-the first year of Nebuchadrezzar, the fourth of Jehoiakim, and the battle of Carchemish in the period Tishri 609-605.46 But it would place the fall of Jerusalem in 597 in Jehoiakim's twelfth year, not his eleventh, and if followed through would do the same to Zedekiah. (6) Retarding the accession of Jehoiakim by placing Necho's campaign with the attendant death of Josiah in 608 instead of 609 has also been proposed. In this case, such a campaign would have escaped the notice of the Babylonian chronicler. This is possible, but as discussed earlier, not very likely. For a Nisan reckoning, this would bring the first of Nebuchadrezzar and the fourth of Jehoiakim correctly together, but it would also require additional explanation given above concerning Jer 462, and would have the effect of subtracting from the stated regnal years of Jehoiakim before his death. The Tishri reckoning would be just another way of insuring that Jehoiakim's accession came after 1 Tishri 609. Since that would reasonably have happened anyway, there is no need to go against the extra-biblical evidence. If this method were used to place the accession of Jehoiakim after 1 Tishri 608, all sorts of problems would result-the battle of Carchemish would come too early, Jerusalem would fall in Nebuchadrezzar's ninth year, and there is no way to place his first year together with Jehoiakim's fourth unless some other ploy was employed. If the extra-biblical material is to be used at all, the death of Josiah must be placed in 609. (7) Two examples of the split method used in some circles will suffice, though all sorts of combinations are possible: (a) Quite a few scholars have resorted to a transition in the calendar." A Tishri reckoning is utilized down to the spring of 604, after which it is
S. H. Horn, "Calendar of Judah," 26. Conversely, it would make things worse for a Nisan year. It would push Jehoiakim's fourth year ahead so it would terminate the last of Adar, 605, before the battle of Carchemish was fought. '' A method used by J. Finegan (Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 203) and quite a few others. E. R. Thiele uses a split method but applies this only to the chronological statements in the book of Jeremiah which are not derived from Kings (Mysterious Numbers, 161, and "The Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah," 24).

GREEN: T H E LAST DAYS OF JUDAH

71

assumed that the Babylonian calendar was adopted by Judah. Since this method dates Jehoiakim's accession by 1 Tishri, 609, and retranslates Jer 251, it can fit all the events of 605 together-the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the accession of Nebuchadrezzar, and the battle of Carchemish. But in switching to a Nisan reckoning there is the difficulty of the eighth and the ninth years which is then explained as ante-dating, a procedure which is extremely difficult to apply to a Babylonian king. The advocates of this method find it necessary to switch calendars in order to get the right number of years for Jehoiakim. (b) Others have suggested the use of different calendars in different sources. A Nisan reckoning is used for Jeremiah and a Tishri for KingsChronicles. Under such circumstances it would be expected that the dates for the fall of Jerusalem under Zedekiah would be different in Jeremiah and Kings, but the records are the same; therefore, source criticism and redaction are employed to edit these references away from the problem of the fourth year. In Thiele's words, "Items in Jeremiah that are taken from Kings, such as Jeremiah 39:l-10 and chapter 52 are in accord with the Tishri reckoning employed in Kings."" This is manifestly correct in the case of Jeremiah 52, and may be right in the case of Jeremiah 39, but the same reference is contained in Jer 1:3 which states that the deportation came in the fifth month of Zedekiah's eleventh year. It would seem that the same chronological statement is found right at the heart of the material in Jeremiah 1. "The material unquestionably derives from the ~ r o p h e t ' s own reminiscence^."^^ This methodology also fails to explain how two calendars came to be used at the same time in the same place. solutions, this study offers an Having examined a number of ~ r o ~ o s e d additional possibility which warrants some serious consideration. As can be adduced from the previous discussion, a Tishri reckoning can meet the requirements of all synchronisms but one, Jer 462. The suggestion of a retranslation and adjustment of this verse, while not without its distractions, is probably the best current solution. But the momentous events which revolve around this particular date lead one to wonder if it is not a different method employed here (Nisan vs. Tishri in Kings, etc) but rather a different tradition about an event, namely, the accession of Jehoiakim. This is a very important point for Tishri reckoning, and yet there is no exact information on it. That particular event must have come fairly close to 1 Tishri 609, so close that modern scholarship has laced it on either side of the line. Could
4 Y Mysterious Numbers, 163. Application of this method throughout should show a different date for the fall of Jerusalem in Jeremiah and Kings, but the records are the same, a factor which would indicate the inconsistency of such a route. Clearly, additional clarification would be necessary. 4 9 John Bright, Jeremiah, 6. The end of Zedekiah's rule given here, hence this should be identical with the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadrezzar.

72

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

it be that that was true in ancient times also? If one considers the complex of events that took place about that time which included the death of Josiah, the installation of Jehoahaz, his three-month reign, his trip to Riblah, his removal by Necho, the installation of Jehoiakim by Necho, etc., his travel back and forth to Riblah;" it is possible that the accession of Jehoiakim could have been placed on either side of 1 Tishri by two independent traditions, perhaps dating from slightly different points in the process of the changeover to Jehoiakim. It might be a difference of the interval from when Jehoahaz was last seen in Jerusalem to when he was put in chains in Riblah. In such a case one might expect the "government" sources (KingsChronicles) to give the official date, after 1 Tishri, with a variant tradition existing alongside of it among the populace (Jeremiah), dating the accession before 1 Tishri. If this alternative is pursued the method would remain intact. There would be no need for changing calendars or having different calendars in use at one time in one place. The Tishri accession year would be used throughout. Jehoiakim's fourth year would, therefore, include the battle of Carchemish and the accession year of Nebuchadrezzar, but not his first regnal year starting 1 Tishri 605 (Palestinian reckoning). This in turn would require a translation of Jer 25:l to mean accession year instead of first year but no other biblical synchronism or dates would be upset. Granted, it would give us twelve years of reign for Jehoiakim in the book of Jeremiah, but then we have no mention of any regnal years for him in Jeremiah after his fifth (Jer 36), so we really d o not know how long the editors of Jeremiah would ascribe to his reign. Since this is connected with an event rather than a method, it would be self-corrective with the death of Jehoiakim. It must be admitted that this is speculative. The same thinking, for example, is the essence of the idea that Nebuchadrezzar's reign in Palestine would be dated from the time he was de facto king. It might also be argued that to leave Jehoiakim with twelve years in the book of Jeremiah is at best questionable, and this is true; one can only plead lack of evidence to disprove such a possibility. It seems more reasonable to take such a position than to push Zedekiah's accession beyond 1 Nisan, where we have exact specifications from the Babylonian Chronicle. In this present case we are
A reexamination of Gadd's Chronicles makes it certain that the battle of Megiddo occurred in the summer of 609. See above note 5 . Josiah, therefore, died in May or June 609 of his thirtyfirst year (2 Kgs 22:l). Having been forced to retreat to Haran, Necho made his headquarters at Riblah. Jehoahaz, who had been installed as king at the death of Josiah, had now been summoned to Riblah (south of Hamath in Syria) where he was deposed by the Pharaoh after only three months of reign (2 Kgs 23:31, 32), a period which extended from June to September 609. The installation of Jehoiakim, his trip back and forth to Riblah and the events taking place at this time still leave a number of gaps which have not been fully explained. Was Jehoahaz "officially" deposed in Jerusalem by the Egyptians as implied in 2 Chr 36:3 or was it a general statement covering what was more specifically done at Riblah?
jU

GREEN: THE LAST DAYS O F JUDAH

73

here dealing with an inexactly dated event, i.e., Jehoiakim's accession. This suggestion could immediately be put to rest if we had (1) the number of years of reign for Jehoiakim in the Jeremiah tradition or (2) a more exact date for Jehoiakim's accession.'l Any study involving Jer 462, must take into consideration this position outlined above as another possibility for a satisfactory harmonization of all the data. In the study of the biblical passages and the historical events discussed in this paper, the Babylonian Chronicle has supplied the key point of departure. One can only wish for more gaps to be filled in, but until they are, we shall have to content ourselves with the best approximation possible by close attention to figures.
" An alternative system for solving the problem of Jehoiakim's accession, the synchronisms between the kings of Judah and Israel and the regnal dates for each kingdom, has recently been proposed by H. Tadmor ("The Chronology of the First Temple Period"). This system assumes the adoption of a Nisan ante-dating calendar for Judah and Israel by the ancient editor, who utilizes a Mesopotamian method of "rounding off" parts of years to "full" years. On this premise each "rounded off" regnal year of both kingdoms represents one more year than is attributed in Kings. Whether or not this applies consistently depends on the nature of the data available to the ancient editor. This assumption is definitely the case in Israel; however, in view of the official nature of the Chronicles of Judah recorded in years, months, and days, Tadmor's position is that the writer then switches to this precise method due to Babylonian influence. The matter of implied coregencies (2 Kgs 15:5, 14:27) which cannot be explained through this system is acknowledged as a serious drawback; notwithstanding, the conclusion is that these coregencies were at best unknown to the ancient editor. In comparison to the preceding complex system, the adoption of a Tishri pst-dating working principle is preferable to the Nisan ante-dating proposal for a reconstruction of the regnal periods of the kings of Judah and especially for the chain of events during the later years of the kingdom until Zedekiah.