This same date, 604/3 B.C., long known as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar from Ptolemy’s canon, ^{3See page 235.} and corroborated by this ancient tablet, was the basis upon which older historians arrived at 606 as the accession date. This figure was based on theological grounds in an attempt to reconcile a supposed conflict between Nebuchadnezzar’s accession date and Daniel’s narrative. And this astronomical tablet helps to demonstrate that the conflict does not really exist in the light of newer knowledge.PFF1 915.2

2. SUPPOSED BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS FORMERLY ANSWERED BY COREGENCY

Hostile critics long contended that the book of Daniel was untrust worthy because it called Nebuchadnezzar “king” in the third year of Jehoiakim, which would be, according to Jeremiah, before Nebuchadnezzar began to reign (Daniel 1:1; Jeremiah 25:1); also because Daniel, after “three years” of training at the court of Babylon, was already installed as one of the “wise men” in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, when he saved himself with them from the death sentence by interpreting the king’s dream. (Daniel 1:1-7, 18-20; 2:1, 12, 13.)PFF1 915.3

Formerly a standard reply of the theologians to this criticism was that the supposed discrepancy could be eliminated by assuming that Nebuchadnezzar, who is known to have been in command of the army at the time of his father’s death, must have also shared the throne as coregent for two years. ^{4The idea of the two-year coregency is credited to Petavius, about 1627. William Burnet, writing in 1724, sets forth a certain dating as correct “if with Petavius, in order to make up the Seventy Tears of the Babylonish Captivity, we begin Nebuchadnezzar’s Reign two years sooner than the common account, in his Fathers Life time, and yet allow Nebuchadnezzar but forty-three years Reign, according to Ptolomy’s [sic] canon, and Berosus.” (William Burnet. An Essay on Scripture-Prophecy, p. 147. Italics supplied.) This apparent solution was quoted from one authority to another during three centuries, until it came to be taken for granted, and it was forgotten that such a coregency was based on an assumption rather than on actual historical evidence.}PFF1 915.4

The defenders of Daniel agreed with the critics that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar began in 604 B.C. according to Ptolemy, but they regarded that as the first year of his sole reign; if he had had a two-year co-rulership with his father, the first year of his coregency would have begun in 606 B.C. Then, assuming that he took Daniel captive near the beginning of his coregency, in 606, the three years of Daniel’s training would end in 603—the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s sole reign. Here is a diagram of the old explanation:PFF1 916.1

Diagram:
INTERPRETATION:
Page 916PFF1 916

The theory of the coregency seemed to be the only alternative to accepting the critics’ charge of Biblical contradictions. Still the critics were in a position to retort that if either of the two “first” years of Nebuchadnezzar (of his coregency or of his sole reign) was equivalent to Jehoiakim’s fourth year, then Daniel’s captivity would have to begin in either the second or the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and not in “the third year of Je-hoiakim,” as Daniel 1:1 indicates.PFF1 916.2

3. FIRST YEAR FOLLOWS “ACCESSION” YEAR

But the spade has again come to the support of the Bible. Archaeology has in recent years made it clear that the Bible statements which indicated what older writers naturally regarded as a paradox—that Nebuchadnezzar could be king in the year preceding the one which was officially and generally known as the first year of his reign—agreed perfectly with the established dating of that time. The Babylonians, who dated their clay-tablet documents by the years of the king’s reign, were accustomed to designate the unexpired portion of the calendar year after the old king’s death as his successor’s “beginning of kingship,” or in modern phraseology, his “accession year.” The official “first year” of the new reign thus meant the following first full calendar year, beginning with the New Year’s day (Nisan 1) after the accession, ^{5Sidney Smith, “Chronology: Babylonian and Assyrian,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 5, p. 655. This dating practice was discovered from the numerous dated tablets excavated in Babylonia. This accession-year system seems to have been used by the Jews also in the latter part of the kingdom of Judah.} at which time the new king “grasped the hands of Bel” and was regarded as officially invested by the god with full kingly powers. This may be visualized as follows:PFF1 916.3

Diagram:
INTERPRETATION:
Page 917PFF1 917

4. THREE YEARS END WITH SECOND YEAR

Thus Nebuchadnezzar’s “accession year,” about eight months long according to the Babylonian calendar, would last from his father’s death, in the late summer of 605 B.C., ^{6About August 7. See Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 45, p. 9.} to the following spring, when his first year began. Daniel’s three-year training period would therefore end in the second year of the reign if thus counted inclusively, that is, including the first and last partial years of the series. This ancient method of reckoning, which is attested repeatedly in the Bible and elsewhere, is illustrated by Christ’s well-known “three days” in the tomb, namely, part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday; and by the “three years” of Shalmaneser’s siege between the fourth and sixth years of Hezekiah. (2 Kings 18:9, 10.) ^{7On the inclusive reckoning and the accession-year regnal system, see Edwin R. Thiele, “The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, July, 1944 (vol. 3, no. 3), pp. 142, 143. The same author presents the whole problem of Daniel 1 in his less technical Solving the Problems of Daniel 1,” The Ministry, August, 1941 (vol. 14, no. 8), pp. 7, 8, 47, and September, 1941 (vol. 14, no. 9), p. 18.

For this material on Nebuchadnezzar’s “accession year,” here in Appendix A, and for the two illustrative diagrams used, I am indebted to Julia Neuffer. See her discussion of this whole question in The Ministry, February, 1949 (vol. 22, no. 2), pp. 37-40.}PFF1 917.1

By this reckoning, then, the three years of Daniel’s training, beginning with his captivity in the third year of Jehoiakim, would be the same as the first three years credited beyond dispute to Nebuchadnezzar: namely, (1) his accession year, (2) his first year, (3) his second year. (See second diagram.) There is no need for any conjectural coregency to save the Bible record from the critics’ charge of contradiction, for with Nebuchadnezzar’s accession in 605 B.C., preceding his first year, 604/3, the supposed inconsistency has disappeared. ^{8It is interesting to note that although up-to-date reference books give Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as 605-562 B.C., occasionally even yet some modern book, in which exact chronology is not at issue, will give 604-561, taken presumably from an older reference work, and derived from the canon date for the first year of the reign. This was formerly the accepted dating, based on the assumption that the first year” was that in which the reign began. Not until comparatively recent years have the excavated Babylonian documents disclosed that, by Babylonian reckoning the “first year” meant the first full calendar year after the date of accession.

This accession-year discovery has resulted in a parallel change in the modern dating of the capture of Babylon by the Persians in the days of Belshazzar. Current reference books almost universally date it in 539 B.C, instead of the old 538, because the accession-year documents are interpreted as placing the fall of the city in the latter part of the preceding year. There is no real discrepancy in the chronology, for 538 is still, as formerly, accepted as the first year of the Persian Empire, as well as 604 for the official first year of Nebuchadnezzar. It is well therefore to remember that older authorities will be found dating such reigns from the first year, and recent authorities from the preceding accession year.} This is another example of newer archaeological discoveries supporting the Bible against older critics whose attack was based on lack of knowledge.PFF1 917.2

Acknowledgments

II. The Religion of Babylon