Jones's Chronology

Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones is a Southern Baptist minister [1].

The key assumptions of his chronology include:

• The Judean kings are reckoned on an accession year system [2, p. 130].
• A Nisan to Nisan year was used in Judah [2, p. 118].

Timeline

Discussion

Battle of Megiddo

Jones dates the battle of Megiddo in the year prior to the attack on Harran [2, p. 188]:

Thiele placed the Josiah-Neco confrontation in the 17th year of Nabopolassar (609 BC). But then he added that Josiah perished in the month of Tammuz (June–July) as Chronicles 3:66–67 gives that month as the beginning of the Assyrian-Egyptian counterattack against Haran. This decision resulted in his placing the three-month reign of Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:31) from Tammuz (June–July) to sometime in September or October, yet neither is correct.

Thiele failed to consider logistics. It could have easily taken as much as several months for Neco to regroup and rest his troops after the Battle of Megiddo, then march his massive army some 425± miles over often rugged to mountainous terrain in order to join with the Assyrian’s under Ashur-uballit II. After again resting his soldiers (they must be fit to fight man-to-man with swords, spears and bows), the two kings must lay out battle plans, recross the Euphrates River, march their immense joint forces some 70 miles to Haran, and finally launch the attack. Thus, Josiah could hardly have been killed in the month of Tammuz. Accordingly, he was slain months earlier.

Moreover, charting the data quickly clarifies the matter (see next page and Chart 5c). From this, it will be seen that Josiah had to have died near mid-March (Adar) but shortly before Nisan 1 of 609 BC (Tuesday, March 20th, Gregorian).

Subjugation of Judah and the Battle of Carchemish

Jones interprets Jeremiah 25:1 as referring to Nebuchadnezzar's accession year rather than 1st year [2, p. 125]:

First, it will be observed that the fourth year of Jehoiakim is placed in the year of the Battle of Carchemish (605 BC) in agreement with Jer. 46:2. However, Jer. 25:1 also speaks of the fourth year of Jehoiakim saying: “that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon” (see diagram on page 126). How may this apparent discrepancy be reconciled?

The Hebrew words for “first year” in Jer. 25:1 are השנה הראשנית (hashshanah haroshniyth). Not being found elsewhere in Scripture, the phrase is unique and the feminine singular form of the adjective modifying the word “year” can mean either “first or beginning”. Thus the phrase in Jer. 25:1 is seen as not referring to Nebuchadnezzar’s official first year but to his initial year on the throne, the year of his accession.

Jones places Nebuchadnezzar's subjugation of Judah in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim in line with Daniel 1:1, which would correspond to the year prior to Nebuchadnezzar's accession and the battle of Carchemish. He believes this is necessary to fit 3 years of Daniel's training [2, pp. 189, 190]:

The first step in resolving this issue revolves around the fact that it simply would not be possible that Daniel and his three friends could be so highly elevated in the affairs of the government of Babylonia in chapter 2 (Dan. 2:48, 49) and afterward still have to appear before King Nebuchadnezzar to obtain his approval by proving their abilities “to stand in the king’s palace” (Dan. 1:4, 18–20) as though they were yet mere students. But such would be the case were the happenings of chapter 2 imbedded somewhere within the three-year time frame of chapter 1. Accordingly, the context of chapter 2 clearly follows after chapter 1 chronologically. Since chapter 1 encompasses most of a three year span (cp. vv. 4, 5, 18), then the events in chapter 2 must have occurred after Daniel’s schooling. Thus, the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign must take place after Daniel’s and the other princes of Judah’s “graduation”.

It follows then that Daniel 1:1 does not conflict with Jeremiah 25:1 as is often claimed. Observe that Daniel 1:1 does not say that the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim is the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. As illustrated, such would be impossible from the data in chapter 1 when compared to 2:1 which is said to occur in Nebuchadnezzar’s second year of dominion. Moreover, Daniel 1:1 is merely a statement of identification, i.e., the Nebuchadnezzar who came and besieged Jerusalem in Jehoiakim’s third year is the same man who ascended to the throne and became sole rex the following year (Jer. 25:1). The apparent contradiction has been resolved by simply allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves, apart from profane materials.

Criticism

Against this date for Judah's subjugation Foley argues [3, p. 31]:

Jones (2004, 189) takes the view that the only possible solution to this first problem is that Nebuchadnezzar must have besieged Jerusalem and Daniel must have been exiled in 606 BC. However, this solution creates as many problems as it solves because (1) Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king in 606 BC. (However, he was crown prince, and perhaps the title of "king" could be used), (2) Jones uses nonaccession year reckoning for the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar so that his second year is 604 BC, and it is not clear why he did not use accession year reckoning to make Nebuchadnezzar's second year 603 BC. (3) Until the defeat of the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BC, there is strong evidence that Egypt controlled Judah and Palestine and that Nebuchadnezzar's expeditions prior to that involved conflict with Egypt in Syria and further north, and (4) there are other solutions to the two problems that would satisfy Jones's view of biblical inspiration without the need to propose Daniel's exile in 606 BC.

Captures of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah

Jones claims that while Jehoiachin was captured at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, Zedekiah wasn't installed until the beginning of the 8th year [2, p. 126]:

However, the Hebrew account seems to conflict with the Babylonian record. It declares that the second deportation which brought Jehoiachin to Babylon, whereupon Zedekiah was placed on the throne in Jerusalem, occurred in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

The “discrepancy” resolves itself when it is seen that the Babylonian account has Jerusalem falling into their hands on 2 Adar. Now Adar is the 12th and final month of the 7th year. It naturally follows that selecting a vassal, establishing a new government, cutting in pieces the gold vessels in the Temple (2 Kings 24:13) and preparing the vast booty for transport before returning to Babylon requires time. Moreover, 2 Kings 24:14–16 tells us that the populace was divided and all the leaders, the most affluent, the surviving warriors of valor, masons, smiths, and carpenters – at least 10,000 of the cream of Judah’s citizenry – were separated from the poorest of the common people and then carried away to the Chaldean homeland. Such an undertaking would also have required time.

Indeed, the Hebrew Text reveals the precise length of that interval! In 2 Chron. 36:9–10 we learn that, after a reign of three months and ten days, “when the year was expired” Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) was brought to Babylon. Hence, this very brief but undefined time after 1 Nisan of the next year would fall in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar

On the deportations described at the end of Jeremiah 52 Jones says [2, p. 127]:

Yet, inconceivably, the later portion of Jeremiah 52 seems to record the fall of Jerusalem as having taken place in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar rather than in his 19th (which was Zedekiah’s 11th). To begin with, these verses are not recorded in 2 Kings 25. Jeremiah 52:28–34 seems to be an addendum – possibly written by Ezra in Babylon after Jeremiah’s death (It is noteworthy that it is not part of the text of the LXX.).

Being so small a number, most suppose verses 28–30 are referring to only the adult males of importance. Yet, how can we conclude that only 4,600 Jews were carried away in all of Nebuchadnezzar’s expeditions when we know at least 10,000 of prominence were carried away at one time with Jeconiah in 597 BC (2 Kings 24:12–16)?

Indeed, the very fact that 2 Kings 24:12–16 records the removal of these 10,000 in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar demands that Jer. 52:28 where 3,023 were said to have been carried away in that monarch’s seventh year is referring to a completely separate event. The differing numbers should alert us that it is not merely a matter of attempting to reconcile Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh with his eighth year by “Hebrew reckoning” or “Babylonian reckoning” that is in view here. Two different happenings are before us.

It follows that if these are not equivalent, and thus should not be associated, then the same is true for trying to force the “18th year” of Jer. 52:29 to match the “19th year” of Jer. 52:12 and 2 Kings 25:8. Hence, it seems most reasonable to conclude with Ussher that there were three significant deportations – in 606 BC (when Nebuchadnezzar was general-of-the-army and crown prince, Dan.1:1), as well as his 8th, and 19th regnal years — which are to be distinguished from the minor ones that Jer. 52:28–30 lists in his 7th, 18th, and 23rd years. These latter, then, were likely added after the fact to complete the historical record.

If so, the first minor deportation, reported by Jeremiah to have transpired in Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year, would have been those seized by the bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, etc. whom the king of Babylon sent against Judah prior to his coming (2 Kings 24:2). That in the 18th year would correspond to when the Chaldeans broke off the siege of Jerusalem to meet Pharaoh’s approaching army. Afterward, it may have been deemed prudent to march the swelling number of Egyptian and Jewish prisoners in the camp off to Babylon.

Release of Jehoiachin

Regarding Jehoiachin's release [2, p. 128]:

Moreover, in the first year of his reign, Evil Merodach (Amel-Marduk), Nebuchadnezzar’s son and successor, liberated Jehoiachin from prison and raised him to a position of honor at the palace (562 BC, the 18th Jubilee — Jer. 52:31–34). Evil Merodach’s kind, respectful treatment of Jehoiachin after 37 years’ imprisonment further substantiates the correctness of the above assertions.

Jones attempts to the stretch the captivity across 37 years by counting on the Anno Mundi (Year After Creation) calendar which uses Tishri-to-Tishri reckoning [2, p. 309]:

This resulted in fixing the year of “the captivity” as AM 3407. The relevant Scriptures relating to the reigns of the kings of Judah were then charted in terms of AM years. This resulted in fixing the year of “the captivity” as AM 3407. Inclusively numbering 37 years from this first year of Jeconiah’s (Jehoiachin) captivity brought me to 3443 AM, the first year of the reign of Evil-merodach, son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:27, cp. 2 Kings 24:12, 15). Counting back from 3443 AM, 3418 was found to be Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year – the very year the Scriptures say he razed Jerusalem (Jer. 52:12–15). As stated above, this destruction took place in Zedekiah’s 11th year (2 Kings 25:1–7), thus confirming the synchronization of Judah and Babylon in 3418.

References