The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Appendix 343
Nebuchadnezzar’s army left Babylon “in the month of Kislev,”
which was the ninth month, and seized Jehoiachin “on the second
day of the month Adar,” that is, the twelfth month. 69 This means
that even if the army left Babylon in the beginning of Kislev (which
this year began on December 18, 598 B.C.E., Julian calendar), the
interval between the day it left Babylon until the city was captured
and its king (Jehoiachin) seized, on the second Adar (which
corresponded to March 16, 597), was three months at the most. 70
As Jehoiachin ruled for “three months and ten days” (2
Chronicles 36:9), he evidently had been ruling for some days already
when Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon in the month of Kislev! If the siege of
Jerusalem described at Daniel 1:1f. referred to this siege during the
reign of Jehoiachin, how could it be said that it took place during the
reign of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1), that Nebuchadnezzar came up
“against him” (2 Chronicles 36:6), and that “Jehovah gave into his
hand Jehoiakim” (Daniel 1:2), when Jehoiakim was already dead
when Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon?
Equating the siege described at Daniel 1:1f. with the one that
took place during the reign of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:10–12; 2
Chronicles 36:10) is clearly impossible. Daniel and the Chronicler
at 2 Chronicles 36:6 both obviously describe an earlier siege and an
earlier deportation, during the reign of Jehoiakim. There is no reason
to believe that the “third year” of Daniel 1:1 means anything else
but his third year of reign. There is no evidence at all, either in the
book of Daniel, in the other books in the Bible or in the
contemporary Neo-Babylonian historical texts, that regnal years
were reckoned from a king’s vassalage, or from Nebuchadnezzar’s
rise to world dominion. Such theories are nothing more than
unfounded guesses, adopted only in an attempt to defend an
erroneous application of the seventy years of servitude predicted by
Jeremiah.
69 The Babylonians had a second Ululu (an intercalary month) in the seventh year of
Nebuchadnezzar, thus making Kislev and Adar the tenth and thirteenth months
respectively that year, although they were normally the ninth and twelfth calendar
months . This fact does not affect the discussion above.
70 If the Babylonian army left Babylon some time after Jehoiachin had ascended the
throne, the siege was of very short duration, two months at most and probably
less, as the time the army needed to march from Babylon to Jerusalem has to be
subtracted from the three months from Kislev to Adar. Such a march took at least
one month. It is possible, however, that a part of the army had left Babylon earlier,
as 2 Kings 24:10–11 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem some
time after the siege had begun. The reason for the short duration of the siege was
Jehoiachin’s surrender to Nebuchadnezzar on Adar 2 or March 16, 597 B.C.E.,
Julian calendar. (2 Kings 24:12) For an excellent discussion of this siege, see
William H. Shea, “Nebuchadnezzar’s Chronicle and the Date of the Destruction of
Lachish III,” in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, No. 111 (1979), pp. 113f.