The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

344 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
The three years of training
But what about the three years of training referred to in Daniel
1:5, 18, which seem to conflict with a natural reading of Daniel 1:1
and 2:1? Is there no simpler way to solve this seeming conflict than
to suppose that the prophet in Daniel 1:1 reckoned Jehoiakim’s
regnal years from the beginning of his vassalage to Babylon, and
Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years in Daniel 2:1 from the year of his
rise to world dominion? Why should Daniel reckon the regnal years of
these two kings in such a confusing, abnormal manner when he
knew that his readers no doubt would misunderstand him? And
why does he not reckon the regnal years in this peculiar way
elsewhere in his book, for instance in 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, and 10:1, where he
follows the customary method of reckoning regnal years? Before
such strained explanations are adopted, should not a simpler and
more natural solution be sought?
It has already been demonstrated in the appendix for chapter
two (”Methods of reckoning regnal years”) that there is no real
discrepancy between the third year of Jehoiakim in Daniel 1:1, and
his fourth year in Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2. When the existing
accession and nonaccession year systems are taken into
consideration, this difference of one year is easily understood. 71
This solution also has bearing upon the seeming conflict
between the three years of training and Daniel 2:1. If Daniel 1:1
refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year (in agreement with the
Babylonian Chronicle), his “second year” at Daniel 2:1 may be
regarded as the third year of the training of the Jewish captives.
According to the Hebrew way of reckoning time periods, whereby
fractions of time were reckoned as full units, this would make three
years. 72 The three years are not necessarily three full years. Dr.
71 A brilliant discussion of this problem may be found in the article by Professor
Albertus Pieters, “The Third Year of Jehoiakim,” in From the Pyramids to Paul, a
miscellany in honour of Dr. G. L. Robinson (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons,
1935), pp. 180–193. Pieters concludes: “The ‘third year’ of Jehoiakim in Dan. 1:1 is
the same as the ‘fourth year’ of Jehoiakim in Jer. 25:1 and 46:2, the former being
reckoned according to the Babylonian and the latter according to the Palestinian
method of computing the years of the king’s reign.”—Ibid., p. 181.
72 This way of counting time periods is often termed “inclusive reckoning.” The best
example is the period of Jesus’ death, from Friday afternoon to his resurrection on
Sunday morning. Although, chronologically, this period was a little more than two
nights and one day, Bible writers refer to it as “three days” (Matt. 27:63; Mark
10:34), even “three days and three nights.” (Matt. 12:40) The Watch Tower Society
correctly applies it to mean “a portion of each of three days.” (Insight on the
Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 593) Another example is the period of the siege of Samaria,
stated at 2 Kings 18:9–10 to have lasted from the seventh to the ninth year of
Hoshea; yet the siege is said to have lasted for “three years.” For additional
examples, see Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, new
revised edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), p. 52, ftn. 12.