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.