Aspirin99

There seems to be a lot of arguments for dating Daniel late (c. 168 BCE) versus the early date of c. 530 BCE. One of the minor arguments is that the author places the date that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (606 BCE). However, Nebuchadnezzar would not become king of Babylon until a year later at 605 BCE.

The leading explanation seems to be that Daniel was using the supposed* northern-tribe dating system that starts the time of reign after the month of Nisan (March - April). So, if the king was in office prior to Nisan, that's his accession year, and after the start of the New Year in Nisan, his reign would actually start counting in calendar years. I may or may not have described that correctly - which is a partially the reason for this post.

If I'm understanding the explanation, proponents of the 530 BCE date believe that Daniel thinks that Jehoiakim came into office in May (for example), meaning that he had nearly 11 months of accession year before his reign started. So, the third year of his reign would have been 605 BCE, meaning that one of the first things Nebuchadnezzar did when he entered office was to besiege Jerusalem.

Somebody help me out here. What am I missing? How is that a solution to the dating problem?

* I say "supposed" because it is not mentioned in the Bible that there was any type of Northern-kingdom assession dating system. However, it is assumed to contrast with the southern kingdom’s dating system of their kings from the month of Tishri (September - October) II Kings 22:3 with 23:23. I don't have a strong handle on this yet.