DANIEL IN THE CRITICS DEN
APPENDIX I
NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S FIRST INVASION OF JUDEA
THE opening statement of the Book of Daniel
is here selected for special notice for two reasons. First, because the attack
upon it would be serious, if sustained. And secondly and chiefly, because it is
a typical specimen of the methods of the critics; and the inquiry may convince
the reader of their unfitness to deal with any question of evidence. I am not
here laying down the law, but seeking to afford materials to enable the reader
to form his own opinion.
Dan. i. I reads: "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of
Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it."
The German rationalists denounce this statement as a blunder. Their humble
disciples, the English sceptics, accept their conclusion and blindly reproduce
their arguments. Dr. Driver (more suo) takes a middle course and brands
it as "doubtful" (Daniel, pp. xlviii and 2). I propose to show that
the statement is historically accurate, and that its accuracy is established by
the strict test of chronology.
For a complete and exhaustive analysis of the chronology I would refer to
the "Chronological Treatise" in The Coming Prince.
A reference to Rawlinson's Five Great Monarchies (vol. iii. 488-494), and to
Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, will show how thoroughly consistent the sacred
history of this period appears to the mind of an historian or a chronologer,
and how completely it harmonises with the history of Berosus. Jerusalem was first
taken by the Chaldeans in the third year of Jehoiakim. His fourth year was
current with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxv. i). This accords with
the statement of Berosus that Nebuchadnezzar's first expedition took place
before his actual accession (Josephus, Apion, i. 19). Then follows the
statement quoted at p. 27, ante. But here we must distinguish between the
narrative of Josephus, which is full of errors, and his quotation from Berosus,
which is consistent and definite. Dr. Driver tells us that on this expedition,
when Nebuchadnezzar reached Carchemish, he was confronted by the Egyptian army,
and defeated it; and that then, on hearing of his father's death, he hastened
home across the desert. That German rationalists should have fallen into such a
grotesque blunder as this, is proof of the blind malignity of their
iconoclastic zeal that English scholars should adopt it is proof that they have
not brought an independent judgment to bear on this controversy. What Berosus
says is that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father's death, "he set the
affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives
he had taken from the Jews, and the Phenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations
belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, while he went in haste over the
desert to Babylon." Will the critics tell us how he could have had Jewish
captives if he had not invaded Judea; how he could have reached Egypt without
marching through Palestine; how he could have returned to Babylon over the
desert if he had set out from Carchemish on the Euphrates?
One error leads to another, and so Dr. Driver has to impugn also the accuracy
of Jer. xlvi. 2 (which states that the battle of Carchemish was in Jehoiakim's
fourth year), and further, to cook the chronology of Jehoiakim's reign by
making his regnal years date from Tishri (p. xlix.)- a blunder that the Mishma
exposes. (Treatise, Rosh Hashanah.) The regnal years of Jewish kings are always
reckoned from Nisan.
According to the Canon of Ptolemy, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar dates from B.C.
604: i.e. his accession was in the year beginning the 1st Thoth (which fell in
January), B.C. 604. But the Captivity began in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year
(cf. Ezek. i. 2, and 2 Kings xxiv. 12); and in the thirty-seventh year of the
Captivity Nebuchadnezzar's successor was on the throne (2 Kings xxv. 27). This,
however, gives Nebuchadnezzar a reign of at least forty-four years, whereas
according to the canon (and Berosus confirms it) he reigned only forty-three
years. It follows, therefore, that Scripture antedates his reign and computes
it from B.C. 605. (Clinton, F. H., vol. i. p. 367.) This might be explained by
the fact that the Jews acknowledged him as suzerain from that date. But it has
been overlooked that it is accounted for by the Mishna rule of computing regnal
years from Nisan to Nisan. In B.C. 604, the first Nisan fell on the 1st April,
and according to the Mishna rule the king's second year would begin on that
day, no matter how recently he had ascended the throne. Therefore the fourth
year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxv. i) was the
year beginning Nisan B.C. 605; and the third year of Jehoiakim, in which
Jerusalem was taken and the Servitude began, was the year beginning Nisan B.C.
6o6. This result is confirmed by Clinton, who fixes the summer of B.C. 6o6 as
the date of Nebuchadnezzar's first expedition. And it is strikingly confirmed
also by a statement in Daniel which is the basis of one of the quibbles of the
critics: Daniel was kept three years in training before he was admitted to the
king's presence, and yet he interpreted the king's dream in his second year
(Dan. i. 5, 18; ii. i). The explanation is simple. While the Jews in Palestine
computed Nebuchadnezzar's reign in their own way, Daniel, a citizen of Babylon
and a courtier, of course accepted the reckoning in use around him. But as the
prophet was exiled in B.C. 6o6, his three years' probation ended in B.C. 603,
whereas the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, reckoned from his actual accession,
extended to the early months of B.C. 602.
B.C. 561, and the thirty-seventh year of the Captivity was then current (2
Kings xxv. 27). Therefore the Captivity dated from the year Nisan 598 to Nisan
597. But this was (according to Jewish reckoning) the eighth year of
Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiv. 12). His reign, therefore, dated from the year
Nisan 605 to Nisan 604. And the first siege of Jerusalem and the beginning of
the Servitude was in the preceding year, 606-605. But seventy years was the
appointed duration of the Servitude (not the Captivity, see p. 21, ante). And
the Servitude ended in the first year of Cyrus, B.C. 536. It must therefore
have begun in B.C. 606 (the third year of Jehoiakim), as the Book of Daniel
records. That date, therefore, is the pivot on which the whole chronology
turns. On what ground then does Dr. Driver impugn it? Will it be believed that
the only ground suggested is that 2 Kings xxiv. r, which so definitely confirms
Daniel, does not specify the particular year intended, and that Jeremiah xxv.
and xxxvi. are silent with regard to the invasion of that year.
Let me examine this. I open Jer. xxv. to find these words: "The word that
came to Jeremiah . . . in the fourth year of Jehoiakim . . that was the first
year of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon." Now Jeremiah had been a prophet
for more than twenty years, yet till the fourth year of Jehoiakim he never
mentions Nebuchadnezzar; but in that year he fixes a date by reference to his
reign.
How is this to be explained? The explanation is obvious, namely that by the
capture of Jerusalem, the year before, as recorded in Dan. I. I, and 2 Chron.
xxxvi. 6, 7, Nebuchadnezzar had become suzerain. And yet Professor Driver tells
us that "the invasion of Judea by Nebuchadnezzar, and the three years'
submission of Jehoiakim, are certainly to be placed after Jehoiakim's fourth
year - most probably indeed, towards the close of his reign" (Daniel, p.
2).
I now turn to Jer. xxxvi. This chapter records prophecies of the fourth and
fifth year of Jehoiakim (vers. i and 9), and it is true that they do not
mention an invasion before these years. But the critic has overlooked chapter
xxxv. This chapter belongs to the same group as the chapter which follows it,
and should of course be assigned to a date not later than the fourth year of
the king. And in this chapter (verse ii) the presence of the Rechabites in
Jerusalem is accounted for by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's invasion had
driven them from their homes. This chapter also thus affords signal
confirmation of Daniel. The critics therefore hold, of course, that it belongs
to the close of Jehoiakim's reign. And if we ask, Why should the history be
turned upside down in this way? they answer, Because the prophecies of the
earlier years of his reign are silent as to this invasion! This is a typical
illustration of their logic and their methods.
I will only add that the silence of a witness is a familiar problem with the
man of affairs, who will sometimes account for it in a manner that may seem strange
to the student at his desk. It may be due, not to ignorance of the event in
question, but to the fact that that event was prominently present to the minds
of all concerned.