The three years of training and the second year of Nebuchadnezzar

Daniel 1 fixes the length of the training:

“The king assigned them a daily portion of the food from his table and of the wine that he drank, intending to educate them for three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king's service.” (Daniel 1.5)

Daniel 2 then provides a chronological indication:

“In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams.” (Daniel 2.1)

At first reading, a difficulty appears.

How can Daniel have completed a three-year training and intervene in the events of Daniel 2 if these occur as early as Nebuchadnezzar's second year?

The problem must not be artificially removed.

Daniel 1 presents a clear sequence:

selection of the young Judeans;

training for three years;

presentation before Nebuchadnezzar;

recognition of their wisdom;

entry into the king’s service.

Daniel 2 then seems to recount an event that occurred during the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

A reading that uses exclusively our modern way of counting full years could therefore give the impression of an incompatibility.

The first precaution is not to understand the three years of Daniel 1.5 automatically as a period of thirty-six full months.

In ancient chronologies, a year designated in a narrative can correspond to a portion of a civil year.

A period that begins at the end of one year, continues through one full year and ends at the beginning of a third can thus touch three calendar years without lasting three full years.

This distinction is essential for understanding the chronology of the passage.

Nebuchadnezzar accedes to the throne in 605 BC, after the death of his father Nabopolassar.

In the Babylonian system, the period between his accession to the throne and the beginning of his first official year constitutes his accession year.

This period is therefore not numbered as his first year of reign.

The first official year begins at the following Babylonian New Year.

This method of reckoning creates a gap between the actual time elapsed since the sovereign's accession and the official number of his regnal year.

If Daniel arrives in Babylon during Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, his training may begin during this period.

It then continues during the king's first official year.

It may finally end during his second official year.

The sequence would then be approximately:

accession year of Nebuchadnezzar: beginning of the training;

first year of Nebuchadnezzar: continuation of the training;

second year of Nebuchadnezzar: completion of the training and events of Daniel 2.

The “three years” of Daniel 1 and the “second year” of Daniel 2 are therefore not necessarily incompatible.

The mechanism can be presented as follows:

This table is deliberately simplified.

It illustrates the chronological mechanism without claiming to determine the exact month of Daniel's arrival, of his examination or of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

Inclusive reckoning also helps us understand the expression “three years.”

The initial year is counted as the first period, even if it is not complete.

The following year is the second.

The portion of the year after that is the third.

A duration covering parts of three calendar years can thus be described as a three-year training without corresponding to thirty-six months.

The text does not specify the day or the month when Daniel begins his training.

Nor does it specify the exact moment when he arrives in Babylon.

Daniel 1.1 provides a regnal year.

Daniel 1.5 provides the planned length of the training.

But no datum allows us to calculate exactly the number of months separating these two events.

Any more precise reconstruction must therefore be presented as approximate.

Daniel 1.18 declares:

“At the end of the time appointed by the king for them to be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs presented them to Nebuchadnezzar.”

The text thus confirms that the planned period comes to its end.

But it provides no absolute date for this audience.

We know only that it takes place after the prescribed training.

This absence of a precise date forbids constructing a chronology accurate to the month.

Daniel 1.19 reports:

“The king spoke with them, and among all these young men none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. They were therefore admitted to the king's service.”

The narrative progression is clear.

The training is followed by an examination.

The examination leads to admission to royal service.

Daniel 2 can therefore be read as the first great crisis recounted after this integration.

Nebuchadnezzar orders the specialists of his court to be summoned in order to obtain the explanation of his dream (Daniel 2.2).

After their inability to meet his demands, the king orders the wise men of Babylon to be put to death (Daniel 2.12).

The account adds:

“The decree went out, the wise men were to be put to death, and they sought Daniel and his companions to put them to death.” (Daniel 2.13)

Daniel and his companions are therefore associated closely enough with this category to be affected by the decree.

Daniel's institutional membership in the world of the wise men does not mean that he shared all their religious or divinatory practices.

Daniel 2 precisely establishes a distinction between them and him.

The wise men declare their inability (Daniel 2.10-11).

Daniel, for his part, seeks the answer from the God of heaven (Daniel 2.17-19).

The account thus contrasts not so much two levels of intelligence as two sources of knowledge.

If Nebuchadnezzar's second year were understood as necessarily meaning “between twelve and twenty-four months after his accession,” a significant difficulty would remain.

But this is not how the Babylonian system with an accession year works.

The accession year is a distinct period.

The second official year can therefore begin appreciably more than two calendar years after the start of the year in which Nebuchadnezzar acceded to the throne.

This difference considerably reduces the difficulty.

Nebuchadnezzar does not accede to the throne on the first day of a modern year beginning on January 1.

His accession occurs during the course of a year.

The initial period preceding his first official year can therefore serve as the first portion of the chronology of Daniel's training.

This is precisely what our modern numbering risks masking when we read “second year” as if it simply meant the second calendar year after 605.

Caution remains necessary.

The book contains no note explicitly explaining the chronological system used in each verse.

The explanation by the accession year and inclusive counting is a coherent harmonization.

It must not, however, be turned into information explicitly given by Daniel.

The difference between what the text affirms and the chronological reconstruction that allows its indications to be articulated must remain visible.

Another explanation has sometimes been considered.

Daniel and his companions might have been regarded as belonging to the general group of the wise men even before the formal completion of their training.

The decree of Daniel 2 could then have concerned them as members of this institution in training.

This hypothesis would also reduce the difficulty.

It is, however, less directly supported by the narrative progression of Daniel 1, which presents their examination before their admission to the king's service.

In its present form, the book presents Daniel 1 as a complete introductory chapter.

The training comes to an end.

The young men are examined.

They enter royal service.

Daniel 2 then begins with Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The most natural reading of the narrative is therefore to understand Daniel 2 as subsequent to the completion of the training.

It is preferable, when possible, to seek a chronological solution compatible with this progression rather than immediately supposing that Daniel 2 takes place in the middle of Daniel 1.

The hypothesis of a training begun during the accession year makes it possible to keep this sequence.

Daniel begins his training in 605 BC.

He continues it during Nebuchadnezzar's first official year.

He completes it during the second official year.

The dream of Daniel 2 can then occur after his admission to royal service while still belonging to the king's second year.

On this basis, the events of Daniel 2 can be placed approximately around 603/602 BC, depending on the systems of conversion and the way the periods concerned are counted.

This date must remain approximate.

The biblical text provides a regnal year, not a complete modern date.

It is therefore preferable to use formulations such as “around 603/602 BC” rather than claiming to determine an exact date.

If we accept, solely as a working hypothesis, an age of about fourteen at his arrival in Babylon around 605 BC, Daniel would be approximately sixteen or seventeen at the end of his training.

He could therefore still be very young during the events of Daniel 2.

But no verse gives his age.

This estimate depends entirely on the initial hypothesis about his age at the time of the deportation.

It must therefore never be presented as a certain biblical datum.

If Daniel is indeed still very young, the contrast with the established wise men of Babylon becomes particularly striking.

The experienced specialists of the court cannot answer the king.

Daniel, recently trained, nevertheless does not claim to be intellectually superior by nature.

He asks for time and calls on his companions to implore the mercy of the God of heaven (Daniel 2.16-18).

The mystery is then revealed to him (Daniel 2.19).

The account thus attributes the solution to God rather than to Daniel's age, experience or status.

When he appears before Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel states:

“The mystery that the king asks, the wise men, enchanters, magicians and diviners cannot reveal to the king. But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries.” (Daniel 2.27-28)

He adds further:

“As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because there is in me any wisdom greater than that of all the living.” (Daniel 2.30)

Daniel 2 thus confirms what Daniel 1.17 had already prepared.

The training explains Daniel's presence at court.

The revelation explains his ability to unveil the mystery.

Daniel 1.17 states:

“Daniel interpreted all visions and dreams.”

This indication would be pointless if it did not prepare for what follows.

From Daniel 2 onward, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream.

The reader already knows that Daniel has a particular aptitude in this domain.

The transition between the two chapters is therefore carefully prepared.

The chronological data are not foreign to the construction of the account.

Daniel arrives as a captive.

He is trained.

He is examined.

He enters the king's service.

Then comes a crisis that the institutional wisdom of Babylon cannot resolve.

Daniel, trained by Babylon but dependent on the God of Israel for revelation, then becomes the interpreter of the royal mystery.

Daniel 1 and Daniel 2 thus form a coherent progression.

Several data are explicit:

Daniel and his companions are to receive three years of training (Daniel 1.5).

They are presented to Nebuchadnezzar at the end of the appointed period (Daniel 1.18).

They are admitted to the king's service (Daniel 1.19).

Nebuchadnezzar's dream is set in his second regnal year (Daniel 2.1).

Daniel and his companions are affected by the decree directed against the wise men (Daniel 2.13).

These data must all be kept in the chronological reconstruction.

The text does not give:

the month of Daniel's arrival in Babylon;

the month when his training begins;

the exact number of months corresponding to the “three years”;

the precise date of his examination;

nor the month of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The reconstruction using the accession year and inclusive counting makes it possible to articulate the data.

It does not, however, turn the missing elements into certainties.

An academic formulation can therefore be adopted:

“The three years of training mentioned in Daniel 1.5 do not necessarily require thirty-six full months. If it begins during Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year in 605 BC, continues during his first official year and ends during his second year, Daniel may have completed his training before the events of Daniel 2 while still being in the king’s second official year. This reconstruction is a coherent chronological harmonization, although it cannot be established to the month.”

This formulation respects both the textual data and the limits of the reconstruction.

Daniel 1.5 ; Daniel 1.17 ; Daniel 1.18 ; Daniel 1.19 ; Daniel 2.1 ; Daniel 2.2 ; Daniel 2.10-11 ; Daniel 2.12 ; Daniel 2.13 ; Daniel 2.16-18 ; Daniel 2.17-19 ; Daniel 2.19 ; Daniel 2.27-28 ; Daniel 2.30.