The third year of Jehoiakim and the fourth year of Jeremiah

Daniel opens his account with a precise indication:

“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” (Daniel 1.1)

Jeremiah provides another reference point of his own:

“In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.” (Jeremiah 25.1)

Jeremiah 46 also associates the battle of Carchemish with this fourth year:

“… Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated the army of Pharaoh Necho in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah.” (Jeremiah 46.2)

Taken in isolation, the texts therefore seem to place the events in two different years of Jehoiakim's reign.

The difficulty must, however, be stated precisely: Jeremiah 46.2 explicitly dates the battle of Carchemish, whereas Daniel 1.1 speaks of an intervention against Jerusalem. The two texts therefore do not describe exactly the same event, even though they belong to the same historical context.

Three pieces of data must be considered together.

Daniel 1.1: third year of Jehoiakim and intervention of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 25.1: fourth year of Jehoiakim, corresponding to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 46.2: defeat of the Egyptian army at Carchemish during the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

The question therefore has two distinct aspects.

The first concerns the difference between the third and the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

The second concerns the historical connection between the victory at Carchemish and the Babylonian intervention against Judah.

These two problems must be distinguished before being brought together.

The year 605 BC is a major turning point in the history of the Near East.

It must not, however, be treated as if all the events associated with it took place simultaneously.

The general sequence can be reconstructed as follows:

1. Nebuchadnezzar commands the Babylonian army while his father Nabopolassar is still reigning in Babylon.

2. The Babylonian forces confront the Egyptian army at Carchemish, on the Euphrates.

3. The Egyptian army is defeated and the Babylonians continue their advance southward.

4. Syria-Palestine gradually comes under Babylonian domination.

5. Judah, until then subject to Egyptian influence, finds itself directly exposed to the new dominant power.

6. The death of Nabopolassar leads Nebuchadnezzar to return quickly to Babylon in order to take possession of the throne.

Daniel 1.1-2 must be placed within this general political transformation.

The battle of Carchemish and the intervention against Jerusalem must therefore be clearly distinguished.

Carchemish lies on the Euphrates, far to the north of Judah.

The battle is fought mainly between Babylon and Egypt.

Jerusalem is not the theater of this confrontation.

Daniel 1.1 describes a different stage:

“Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.”

It would therefore be incorrect to write that Daniel 1.1 recounts the battle of Carchemish.

It is more accurate to say that the victory at Carchemish creates the geopolitical conditions that allow the Babylonian intervention against Judah.

The victory won over Egypt immediately changes the balance of power throughout the region.

Judah had been placed under Egyptian domination after the death of Josiah.

Pharaoh Necho had deposed Jehoahaz and installed Jehoiakim on the throne (2 Kings 23.33-35).

For Jehoiakim, the Egyptian defeat at Carchemish therefore means the loss of the foreign power on which his kingdom depended.

The Babylonian expansion southward then places Judah within Nebuchadnezzar's sphere of domination.

It is in this transition that Daniel 1 should be placed.

The term “invasion” must be used with precision.

One should not necessarily imagine, in 605 BC, the complete destruction of Jerusalem that would take place several years later.

Daniel 1.1-2 describes an intervention against Jerusalem in the course of which Jehoiakim comes under Babylonian domination and part of the Temple vessels is carried off.

Daniel 1.3-6 also places in Babylon young Judeans belonging notably to the royal family and the nobility.

This intervention is therefore a first stage of Babylonian domination over Judah.

It must be distinguished from the much larger deportation of 597 BC and from the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

To avoid any confusion, it is useful to distinguish three main stages.

Around 605 BC: after Carchemish, Babylon imposes its domination on the region; Daniel 1 places in this context the intervention against Jerusalem, the transfer of some of the Temple vessels, and the presence of Daniel and his companions in Babylon (Daniel 1.1-6).

597 BC: Jerusalem is taken under Jehoiachin; the king, his family, the officials, the craftsmen and a large part of the population are deported (2 Kings 24.10-16).

586 BC: after the revolt of Zedekiah, Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed and a further deportation takes place (2 Kings 25.1-12).

The intervention reported in Daniel 1 therefore belongs to the beginning of the process, not to its conclusion.

The date of 605 BC nevertheless remains essential.

It corresponds to the moment when the political balance of the region tips in favor of Babylon.

Carchemish is the great military event that makes this transformation possible.

Jeremiah confirms that this battle took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 46.2).

Jeremiah 25.1 also associates this fourth year with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 1 places the Babylonian intervention against Jerusalem precisely at the beginning of this new period.

The date 605 must therefore not be understood as the date of a single event, but as the chronological reference point of a sequence of military and political upheavals.

Another major event occurs during this same period: the death of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuchadnezzar, who commands the Babylonian armies, has to return to Babylon to secure his succession.

He then officially becomes king.

This situation explains why 605 is a particularly complex year for chronology.

Nebuchadnezzar can appear successively in the events of this year as crown prince commanding the army and then as king of Babylon.

Daniel 1.1 designates him by the title under which he is known in the narrative: “king of Babylon.”

Once this historical sequence has been clarified, the difference between Daniel and Jeremiah can be examined more precisely.

Daniel speaks of the third year of Jehoiakim.

Jeremiah speaks of his fourth year.

This difference can be explained by two methods of reckoning regnal years.

In a system with an accession year, the period between the king's coming to power and the beginning of the new official year constitutes an accession year that is not numbered as a first year.

In a system without an accession year, this same period can be counted immediately as the first year.

A difference of one unit then becomes possible.

The principle can be represented simply.

In a reckoning with an accession year:

year of accession → first year → second year → third year.

In a reckoning that counts the accession year immediately:

first year → second year → third year → fourth year.

The same historical interval can therefore be called “third year” in one system and “fourth year” in the other.

This explanation makes it possible to bring Daniel 1.1 closer to Jeremiah 25.1 and Jeremiah 46.2 without removing the real difference in wording between the texts.

The chronology must therefore avoid an overly simplified formulation such as:

“In 605, Nebuchadnezzar wins at Carchemish and invades Jerusalem.”

This sentence could give the impression that it was a single military event.

A more precise formulation would be:

“In 605 BC, the Babylonian victory at Carchemish brings about the collapse of Egyptian domination in Syria-Palestine. In the expansion that follows, Judah comes under Babylonian domination; Daniel 1 places in this context Nebuchadnezzar's intervention against Jerusalem and the transfer of Daniel and his companions to Babylon.”

This formulation better respects the historical succession of events.

The distinction between the data and their reconstruction remains indispensable.

Established biblical data:

Daniel 1.1 places the intervention against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim.

Jeremiah 46.2 places the victory at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

Jeremiah 25.1 associates the fourth year of Jehoiakim with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 1.2 mentions the transfer of part of the Temple vessels.

Daniel 1.3-6 presents Daniel and his companions within the setting of the Babylonian court.

Historical reconstruction:

bringing these data together leads to placing Daniel 1 within the political sequence opened by Carchemish in 605 BC.

This distinction makes it possible to maintain a scholarly argument without asking more of the sources than they say.