C. Ermal Allen
Biblical scholarship will be forever indebted to Edwin Thiele for his discovery that finally made sense of the confusing dating systems for kings mentioned in the OT. Two keys unlocked the secrets that had mystified scholars for centuries: (1) the year in some time-lines began with the month Nisan (in the spring), and in others it began with Tishri (in the fall). Furthermore, (2) the first year of the king’s reign was sometimes counted from the year he actually began and at other times from his first full year, counting the initial months prior to the new year as his accession year. When these two keys are combined, the result is four different ways of dating any particular year in the reign of a king. See the chart below, based on Thiele’s work, showing the possibilities for dating the last days of Jerusalem, when it was besieged and destroyed by the Babylonians.
Possible Systems for Dating the Final Days of Jerusalem, years BC
Accession
Non accession
Nisan
Tishri
Nisan
Tishrt
Zedekiah
Accession
597–596
597
1
596–595
597–596
597–596
(598)-597
2
595–594
596–595
596–595
597–596
3
594–593
595–594
595–594
596–595
4
593–592
594–593
594–593
595–594
5
592–591
593–592
593–592
594–593
6
591–590
592–591
592–591
593–592
7
590–589
591–590
591–590
592–591
8
589–588
590–589
590–589
591–590
9
588–587
589–588
589–588
590–589
10
587–586
588–587
588–587
589–588
11
586-(585)
587–586
587–586
588–587
Nebuchadnezzar
Accession
605–604
605
1
604–603
605–604
605–604
(606)-605
….
7
598–597
599–598
599–598
600–599
8
597–596
598–597
598–597
599–598
….
18
587–586
588–587
588–587
589–588
19
586–585
587–589
587–586
588–587
It is the position of this paper that Thiele made a miscalculation regarding the year that Jerusalem was finally taken and destroyed by the Babylonians.
In examining this question we must begin with certain pivotal dates that have been established on the basis of Babylonian tablets: (1) the accession of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Babylon on September 7, 605 BC; and (2) the capture of Jerusalem and her king, Jehoiachin, on March 16, 597.
BSpade 18:1 (Winter 2005) p. 26
Babylonian Chronicle for the years 605–595 BC. It states: “Year 7 [597 BC] in Kislev the king of Babylonia [Nebuchadnezzar] called out his army and marched to Hattu [the west]. He set his camp against the city of Judah and on the second Adar [March 16] he took the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin]. He appointed a king of his choosing there [Zedekiah], took heavy tribute and returned to Babylon” (Millard 1997: 468). The Bible describes the same events in some detail. When Nebuchadnezzar besieged and captured Jerusalem Jehoiachin was on the throne. He took Jehoiachin, the royal family and important men in the kingdom to Babylon. Then he placed Jehoiachin’s uncle, Mattaniah, on Judah’s throne, and changed his name to Zedekiah (2 Kgs 24:11–17). A collection of clay tablets excavated in Babylon, known as the Babylonian Chronicles, were purchased by the British Museum in the 19th century. The tablet shown here, translated by Donald J. Wiseman in 1956, recorded the last (21st) year of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, and the first 11 years of his son Nebuchadnezzar. Among Nebuchadnezzar’s accomplishments was his capture of Jerusalem, dated precisely to March 16, 597 BC. The Bible tells the story from the side of the defeated nation. The Babylonian Chronicle described the story from the victor’s side. Of no real surprise to us, they agree!
Other key dates are then built upon the pivotal dates: (3) the accession of Zedekiah to the throne in Jerusalem shortly after March 16, 597; and (4) the beginning of the “final siege” of Jerusalem on January 15, 588.
These four dates are widely accepted as firm.
The next step is to determine the possibilities for converting the Biblical time indicators to modern dates. The chart on page 25 provides us with these possibilities. The accuracy of this chart is confirmed when compared with Jeremiah 32:1 in which Zedekiah’s tenth year is identical with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th. No matter which of the four possible systems is being followed by Jeremiah, the dates in the chart are identical for both kings.
Our next step is to start comparing the possible dating systems with other Biblical references, to determine which ones are consistent with the Biblical record. The Tishri/Non-accession method is ruled out in 2 Kings 24–29 and Jeremiah 39 and 52 because Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth year, the year he captured Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:12), must include March of 597 (see above, pivotal date #2, and chart).
According to Jeremiah, the Exile started in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, according to one system (52:12–14), which is the same as the 18th year under a different system (52:29). The Tishri/ Non-accession system was ruled out above. Nisan/Accession must also be ruled out for the 19th year (586–585) since there is no corresponding year identical with the 18th. Only Nisan/Accession works for the 18th year, for it makes the 18th year (52:29) identical (587–586) with the 19th (52:12) under the Tishri/Accession or the Nisan/Non-accession system.
The Lachish Letters. In the late 1930’s, within the gate complex of Lachish in Israel, 21 ancient military messages written by a Judean army officer from a nearby outpost were excavated by archaeologist James Starkey. Some are displayed in the British Museum, seen here, and some in Jerusalem’s Israel Museum. Each message was written in ink on flat broken pieces of pottery. Called ostraca (plural, ostracon singluar; Greek for “shell”), these were the Biblical world’s equivalent to our scrap paper. While the writer seemed to be under duress, he mentioned neither invasion nor Babylonians. Yet the stratum where they were found and the shape of the script clearly date them to the time of the Babylonian conquest. The Lachish Letters are among the few First Temple Israelite texts, and were apparently written by a very ordinary person, adding to their uniqueness. They are also consistent with both the Biblical text and Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar’s own record of his conquest of Judah. In fact, the final words of Letter IV (“we are watching the [fire] signals of Lachish…for we cannot see Azekah” [Pardee 2002: 80]) even suggest it was written during the very week mentioned by Jeremiah: “When the king of Babylon’s army fought against Jerusalem and…Lachish and Azekah” (34:7).
BSpade 18:1 (Winter 2005) p. 27
Zedekiah before Nebuchadnezzar. “And he [king Zedekiah] was captured. He was taken to the king of Babylon at Riblah, where sentence was pronounced on him. They killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes. Then they put out his eyes, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon” (2 Kgs 25:6–7).
The remaining possibilities for Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th and Zedekiah’s 11th year are therefore (1) October 587-October 586 and (2) April 587-April 586. The city, then, was captured (fourth month) in (1) January 586 or (2) July 587.
Gedaliah was assassinated in the seventh month (April or October), during which summer fruit and wine were harvested (Jer 40:10–12). Therefore, the July date in 587 is required for the fall of Jerusalem.
The system in 2 Kings 24–25 and most of Jeremiah is therefore Nisan/Non-accession.
Where Thiele Went Wrong
Thiele erred by using Tishri reckoning for the years, but counting the months from Nisan (Thiele 1965: 168).3 He also erred in his calculations based on Ezekiel 40:1: “In the 25th year of our exile…in the 14th year after the fall of the city.” By subtracting 14 from 25, he concluded that the fall of Jerusalem had to be 11 years after the beginning of the exile (597) (Thiele 1965: 169). But he gives April 28, 573 as the date for 40:1. If the city fell in July of 586, then only 12 years (July 586 until July 574) and 9 months (July 574 until April 573) had elapsed, contrary to 40:1 which says it was in the 14th year after the fall of the city.
Thiele made his mistake in 40:1 by assuming that the 25th year was the 25th anniversary of Ezekiel’s exile. But “in the 25th year,” “at the beginning of the year,” may refer to the start, not the end of the 25th year, and thus only 24 years after the beginning of the exile.
More importantly, Thiele miscalculated the length of the siege as two and one-half years (January 588-July 586). But it began in the tenth month of the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 25:1; Jer 52:4) and ended in the fourth month of the 11th year (25:2–3; 52:5–6). That is, only one and one-half years!4
Ezekiel 26:1–2 refers to the ruins of Jerusalem. This prophecy is dated in the “11th year,” or sometime between April 23, 587, and April 13, 586—before the city fell if Thiele’s date of July 586 is correct.
Ezekiel 29:1 is dated (10m-12d-10y) by Thiele’s system5 as January 7, 587. Jerusalem fell six months later (4m-9d-11y), and thus still in the year 587.
BSpade 18:1 (Winter 2005) p. 28
Destruction of the Temple. “The Babylonians broke up the bronze pillars, the movable stands and the bronze Sea that were at the Temple of the Lord and they carried the bronze to Babylon. They also took away the pots, shovels, wick trimmers, dishes and all the bronze articles used in the Temple service. The commander of the imperial guard took away the censers and sprinkling bowls—all that were made of pure gold or silver” (2 Kgs 25:13–15).
One date in Ezekiel is hard to explain by the dating followed in this paper, 33:21. Ezekiel was told of the fall of Jerusalem on 10m-5d-12y. This was one and one-half years after the fall, which seems like a long time for such important news to take getting to him! He could be dating this prophecy from a different starting point, but his date for the beginning of the siege is 10m-10d-9y (24:1–2), just as in Jeremiah and 2 Kings. It should be noted that the actual problem is in Ezekiel’s own dating, not in the conversion of dates to the modern style. Ezekiel has three years between the beginning of the siege (24:1–2) and his hearing the news (33:21). Since the siege lasted only one and one-half years, then it was indeed an additional one and one-half years before he heard about it!
When all the data are considered, it is clear that we must date the fall of Jerusalem in July of 587 BC, not in 586.
Ration record from Babylon mentioning Jehoichin. The Bible records that after Jehoiakim, king of Judah, died in Jerusalem his son Jehoiachin became king (2 Kgs 24:6). Ruling for only three months, the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and set Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, on the throne (2 Kgs 25:15–17). Jehoiachin, the royal family and leading men of Judah were taken to Babylon and lived under guard in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace at Babylon (2 Kgs 24:12, 15; see also 25:27–30 and Jer 52:31–34). During Robert Koldeway’s excavations at Babylon at the turn of the 20th century, he discovered what archaeologists call the “Northern Palace.” Probably the royal residence of King Nebuchadnezzar, himself, Koldeway found here a number of cuneiform-inscribed clay tablets dated by the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign—between 594 and 569 BC. They listed people captured from all over the ancient Near East living in the palace and receiving rations of grain and oil from the king. Four different tablets list rations for “Jehoiachin, king of Judah” and his family. While only a footnote in the Biblical account of the Babylonian Captivity, excavations in Nebuchadnezzar’s own palace demonstrate its complete accuracy.
Bibliography
Barker, Kenneth, ed.
1985 The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Millard, Alan
1997 The Babylonian Chronicle (1.137). Pp. 467–68 in The Context of Scripture 1, ed. William W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill.
Pardee, Denis
2002 Lachish Ostraca (3.42). Pp. 78–81 in The Context of Scripture 3, ed. William W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill.
Thiele, Edwin R.
1965 The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
C. Ermal Allen, A.B., M.Div., is the Evangelist for the Rittman Christian Church in Rittman OH. Mr. Allen has taught New Testament classes in Winston-Salem Bible College and has had over 40 articles published in Christian Standard, One Body, Recovery and the Restoration Herald.
BSpade 18:1 (Winter 2005) p. 29