Many years ago [20], scholars for the most part abandoned any hope of finding a basis for consistency in the Biblical figures for the reigns of the Hebrew kings [50]. A notable step toward clarifying the seemingly irreconcilable data for the early kings was made by E.R. Thiele.[100] He showed that the apparent difficulties in correlating the reigns of the kings of Judah with those of Israel resulted from a failure to recognize that the two kingdoms used different methods for defining the accession year of its kings.
However, this elucidation did not lead to the expected harmony of the figures for the later era. The period from the death of Uzziah to the fall of Israel continues to pose problems for which no proposed solution eliminates the necessity for assuming errors in the Biblical data. This situation suggests the existence of one or more as yet unrecognized factors that have prevented attainment of complete harmony in these figures.
The critical difficulty rises from the apparent inconsistency in the statements of 2.Kings 16:1, 17:1, and 15:27, 30. These verses tell us the seventeenth year of Pekah was the same as the accession year of Ahaz, that the twelfth year of Ahaz was the same as the accession year of Hoshea, and that the 20-year reign of Pekah ended with the accession of Hoshea. This latter synchronism is confirmed by an Assyrian source that tells us that Tiglath-pileser set Hoshea on the throne after the people had deposed Pekah.[200] The problems do not end with these difficulties. However, the fundamental problem can be visualized by means of the accompanying simple diagram (see Char 1), which reveals a nine-year discrepancy for the accession of Ahaz.[300]
A variety of methods have been proposed in attempts to secure consistency in the Biblical figures. Each of these in turn raises problems as large as the original, or larger. Most of these methods require recognition of highly improbable interregna (periods when no king was ruling) either in this late era or in the earlier period or both. Thiele properly rejected this concept of interregna and proposed a solution that moves the reign of Ahaz forward on the time scale from 744-728 B.C. to 735-715 B.C., extending the reign from the stated 16 years to an unstated 20 years, during the last 14 of which Hezekiah served as coregent with his father.
The construction adopted in The SDA Bible Commentary follows closely that proposed by Thiele.[400] The construction is set forth as tentative and acknowledged to be incomplete, since it does not provide an explanation of 2.Kings 17:1 short of assuming a copyist error. This construction brings the accession of Ahaz into line with the seventeenth year of Pekah but at the expense of invalidating the synchronism between the twelfth year of Ahaz and the accession of Hoshea.
If this construction actually led to the expected harmony with Scripture by assuming no more than a single copyist error (as of 2.Kings 17:1), one might be able to live with such a solution with some minor discomfort. If this plain statement is in error, how are we to know how many and which other statements are in error?
Not the only difficulty
But this is not the only difficulty resulting from the acceptance of this proposed solution. There are several additional discrepancies of such magnitude that they cannot be ignored. There are also numerous additional discrepancies and unsolved problems of the earlier period of antiquity that must be considered. It is the writer's contention that all of these are related to the same fundamental errors of interpretation and that hence the entire chronology of antiquity needs to be reconsidered. The incidents of the Exodus, the oppression, and the conquest under Joshua and others pose large problems for which the conventional chronological settings call for more and still more compromise of the dependability of the Scripture. A proposed reconstruction of this total chronology has been outlined in the writer's published volumes that eliminates these difficulties in virtual totality, as well as providing solutions to many problems inherent in the conventional structure. [500] The discussions here must be limited to the problems in the era of the late kings of Israel. This necessary limitation is not to be construed as allowing that the total problem of Biblical chronology has been solved by a clarification of the apparent discrepancies in this late era.
My analysis of the problem, here as well as in the earlier period, is that we have followed a popular opinion too slavishly in evaluating the data of archaeology as compared with inspiration. To me, the proper approach to these problems start with the most secure points that archaeology has to offer and work from there into areas of question and of lesser security, always maintaining a recognition of the authority of inspiration as standing above popular opinions relative to interpretations of obscure source materials.
This, I believe, has not been done in dealing with the problems relative to the Hebrew kings. Rather, an insecure interpretation of an earlier Assyrian inscription [600] has been used as an anchor point, only to find that the developing structure does not link satisfactorily with the secure synchronism of the fall of Israel to the Assyrians in 722/721 B.C.
As an alternate approach in dealing with the present problem, we shall take as our anchor point the synchronism of the fall of Israel to the Assyrians in the ninth year of Hoshea of Israel and the sixth year of Hezekiah, king of Judah (2.Kings 19:10). This incident is mentioned in the Assyrian sources. The bases for the establishment of the date 722/721 B.C. have been presented in The SDA Bible Commentary.[700] There were three kings in the era under consideration whose reigns are explicitly tied to this incident. These are Hoshea, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The stated reigns of these kings and their placement on the B.C. time scale are shown in bold lines on Chart 2.[800] This unit is our starting point for arriving at an altered construction that is in agreement with Scripture and assumes no copyist errors.
By starting with this solid and fixed unit, two problems are immediately solved. If one proposes a coregency between Hezekiah and Ahaz, the Scriptural information is contradicted. If such a coregency is assumed, we must recognize either that the reforms of Hezekiah were initiated and carried out when Hezekiah was coregent to his wicked father or that these reforms belong to the later reign of this king after the fall of Israel. Neither of these views is acceptable. In the sequence of events recorded in 2.Kings 18:1-10 and in 2.Chronicles 29:1,2. these reforms are placed immediately after the accession of Hezekiah. This position is clearly confirmed in Prophets and Kings, page 331: "No sooner had he [Hezekiah] ascended the throne than he began to plan and to execute." That this cannot refer to an accession after the fall of Israel (and hence after a coregency with Ahaz) is indicated in the subsequent statement "Soon Israel would fall completely into the hands of the Assyrians." [900]Ibid., p. 332.
That these reforms could not have been carried out when Ahaz was still alive is recognized by The SDA Bible Commentary.[1000] Anomalous also is the stated revolt of Hezekiah to the domination of the Assyrians, which incident also belongs prior to the fall of Israel (2.Kings 18:7). Such a bold political move by a coregent is incredible.
A further difficulty rises from the stated age of Ahaz as 20 (2.Kings 16:2) and of Hezekiah as 25 (2.Kings 18:2) when they began to reign. If Hezekiah was 25 in the sixth year before the fall of Israel (728 B.C.), and if Ahaz was 20 in the seventeenth year of Pekah in 735 B.C., then Hezekiah was born when his father was an infant. [See Charts: Ahaz born (735+20)=-755, Hezekiah born (728+25)=-753.] This absurdity is diminished, but not eliminated, by assuming the statement to mean that he was 25 at the end of the assumed 15-year coregency with Ahaz. [1100] This still places Hezekiah's birth when his father was 1 (or 2) year(s) old. Furthermore, the assumption represents an inconsistent handling of Biblical data. Such statements of age at the beginning of reign otherwise are consistently in terms of the age at the beginning of coregency if there was a coregency (see 2.Kings 14:2; 15:2; 21:1). This applies also to Jotham, as will be shown shortly. The stated years of reign may not include the years of coregency.[1200]
Were it not for the uncertain meaning of the statement in 2.Kings 15:30 that seems to imply a reign of 20 years by Jotham, not 16 as stated in verse 33, and that these 20 years reach to the accession of Hoshea, we might add Pekah's 20-year reign to our fixed unit. Placement of the reigns of Hoshea and of Jotham are delayed until this point has been clarified. We proceed rather by setting up a tentative and `floating' unit not fused to the B.C. time scale.
This unit is composed of the reigns of Zachariah (6 months), Shallum (one month), Menahem (ten years), Pekahiah (two years), and Pekah (twenty years). These reigns are correlated with the reign of Uzziah by the stated synchronisms in 2.Kings 15:8, 13, 17, 23, and 27. Strangely, the reign of Jotham, son of Uzziah, is correlated with the second year of Pekah rather than a year in the reign of Uzziah (verse 32).
A Single assumption
The entire problem may now be brought into focus by a single reasonable assumption, namely, that the years of Pekah that overlapped those of Pekahiah and Menahem were years in addition to the 20 years of 2.Ki.15:27. The stated correlations in the second and seventeenth years of Pekah (2.Ki.15:32; 16:1) should then be related to this total reign, not to his 20-year reign. These extra years [1300] may not have been a true coregency. They may represent a rule from another site, possibly in Transjordan. These are examples of "double dating," a concept used by Thiele, correctly and to advantage, in ironing out the difficulties in the earlier era. We may now calculate the date from the beginning of these overlapping years by moving back 17 years from the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, fixed by 2.Kings 16:1, to the year 745 B.C. These additional years of Pekah then began in 762 B.C., and his second year, which defines the beginning of the 16-year reign of Jotham, is 761 B.C. These 16 years reach just to the beginning of the sole reign of Ahaz. An unstated coregency evidently began with the death of Uzziah and the accession of Jotham. The floating unit now is part of the fixed unit. Each king is set in a position in agreement with Scripture.
The meaning of the statement in 2.Kings 15:30 is now apparent: "The twentieth year of Jotham" should be read "The twentieth year from Jotham", as dated to the death of Uzziah. This interpretation has long been recognized.[1400]
This structure now fits satisfactorily into the account of Uzziah's (Azariah) becoming a leper (2.Kings 15:5). Jotham was coregent with his father for four years.[1500] He then took over the major responsibility. The remaining years to the death of Uzziah are credited to both Uzziah and Jotham by the chronographer.
The ages of Jotham and Ahaz at the birth of their sons may now be calculated. Jotham was 18 at the birth of Ahaz, and Ahaz was 18 at the birth of Hezekiah. These ages seem surprisingly young for marriage, but not improbably so.[1600]
But someone asks, Are there not Assyrian inscriptions that do not allow recognition that the overlapping years of Pekah were in addition to the 20 years attributed to him? There are Assyrian inscriptions that have been so interpreted. The question is whether these inscriptions demand the interpretations placed on them. In a subsequent article these Assyrian inscriptions and the puzzling verse in 2.Kings 18:2 will be considered.
I set out to show that the chronological data of Scripture for the era of the late Hebrew kings are consistent and correct. The discrepancies some see in the data result from the deductions they draw from the Assyrian sources - deductions I consider unwarranted. Granting the construction I proposed in the earlier article, which harmonizes the Scripture data, there must be alternate and reasonable interpretations of the Assyrian sources. The aim here is to show that there are. The pertinent inscriptions are by Tiglathpileser (746-727 BC), Sennacherib (705-681 BC) and Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC).
Tiglathpileser, on the Black Obelisk, states that he received tribute from a king whose name is given as Jehoahaz. There is no king in this era by that name. It has been proposed that the Assyrian scribe meant Azariah (Uzziah)[1700], an identification allowable by the condensed chronology but not by the reconstruction. This name can be more reasonably taken to refer to Ahaz, a known contemporary of Tiglathpileser. Scripture records this payment of tribute by Ahaz (2.Kings 16:7,8) while there is no mention of such payment by Uzziah.
Tiglathpileser also states that he received tribute from Menahem[1800], an incident referred to in 2.Kings 15:19. The name of the recipient is there given as Pul. Pul has been identified as Tigalthpileser.[1900] By the proposed reconstruction, Menahem had been dead for five years at the accession of this king. It is evident that this statement provided one source of pressure seeming to require an abbreviated period between the death of Uzziah and the fall of Israel. An additional factor is now introduced, which has not been duly considered, in presuming that the Assyrian sources demand such abbreviation at the expense of the integrity of Scripture.
On the death of the Assyrian king it was customary to elevate to kingship a son of the preceding king who had been serving as general in the army. Payments of tribute were, more often than not, made to the acting general, rather than to the king in person. There is no deviation from acceptable procedure in assuming that this was so in the case of Menahem. This concept is of sufficient significance to digress briefly to present evidence in support of the application of this premise here, as well as in certain other cases where there is a discrepancy of a few years between Scripture and the Assyrian sources.
Why a shift?
Menahem paid his tribute to Pul (2.Kings 15:19). In a later verse, dealing with an incident a few years later, the name shifts from Pul to Tiglathpileser (verse 29). Pul is the same person as Tiglathpileser.[2000] Why this shift? The simplest explanation is that there was a shift in the status of Pul in the meantime - namely, from general to king. The fact that the recipient is said to be "Pul the king of Assyira" does not preclude this explanation. The Biblical kings were regarded as reigning from the beginning of coregency. It is not surprising that an Assyrian general who later became king would also be so recognized, though he did not name the years until accession.
At times the Assyrian kings made no distinction between their accomplishments as general from those as king. For example, Sargon claimed that it was he who conquered Samaria.[2100] This claim was altogether ethical if he was the acting general at that time. A further example of this, for which such an explanation is clearly the correct one, will be noted shortly.
Current scholars have not hesitated to use this same premise to explain discrepancies of a few years in their proposed identifications. For example. King So (2.Kings 17:4) is identified as the Egyptian king Shabaka.[2200] Yet this identification must assume that he was then a general, since Shabaka did not become king until after the time of Hoshea.[2300]
With these considerations before us, the puzzling statement in 2.Kings 18:13 may be satisfactorily explained without compromise of the integrity of Scripture. The verse reads: "Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them." Sennacherib reigned from 705 to 681 BC. The 14th year of Hezekiah, based on an accession in 729 BC (2.Kings 18:10), is 715 BC. This is ten years before the accession of Sennacherib. This discrepancy has been met by associating this incident with the invasion of Judah by this king in 702/701 BC.[2400] In terms of a chronology that assumes a 15-year coregency of Hezekiah with Ahaz and assuming that this is the 14th year of his sole reign beginning in 715 BC.
The assumed misstatement in 2.Kings 18:13 is explained by others as a slip in the pen of inspiration or an insertion by a later hand. All these devices are unnecessary . The incident belongs to the 14th year of Hezekiah, dated 715 BC, and occurs shortly after the Fall of Israel, as suggested by the position of the statement in the sequence of events recorded in 2.Kings 18:1-13. The paragraph symbol at verse 13 in the King James version is not part of inspiration. It belongs with verse 14. There was a historical gap of 14 years between verses 13 and 14. The time is in the reign of Sargon, predecessor of Sennacherib, and was not part of the invasion of 702/701 BC. The explanation of why the Bible writer credited this incident to Sennacherib is the same as that of crediting Tiglathpileser with the collection of tribute from Menahem. Sennacherib was the acting general under Sargon at this time.
This explanation is not without adequate support. In the first place, Sennacherib did not take the cities of Judah on his campaign of 702/701 BC. He intended to do so (2.Chron. 32:1), but this intention was rudely shattered with the destruction of his army. He failed to take Jerusalem, and with this destruction he abandoned his campaign (2.Kings 19:35-36).
Second, Sargon records a campaign to the west that involved Judah, among other areas. The pertinent part of the inscription reads: "To the kings of the lands of Philiste [Philistia], Iauda [Judah], Edom, Moab, who dwell by the sea, payers of tribute tax to Assur my lord, (they sent) numberless inflammatory and disdainful (messages) to set them at enmity with me to Piru [Pharaoh] king of Egypt."[2500]
There follows reference to his victory over Iuamani (of the Philistines). The remainder of the inscription, which could be expected to record his campaign against Judah, is damaged and unreadable. Rogers recognized that this inscription has reference to the incident of 2.Kings 18:13. He wrote: "While Sargon was engaged in these petty but annoying wars with small states, Egypt was again plotting to gain some kind of foothold in Palestine. Ashdod was now chosen as the starting point for another effort. By some means Philistia, Moab, Edom, and, most surprising of all, Judah, were drawn into this new opposition to Assyria. Hezekiah was now king of Judah and in their fresh union with Egypt, he was flying in the teeth of the advice and warning of Isaiah." [2600]
This placement of 2.Kings 18:13 in the reign of Sargon is conformed by Ellen White. She wrote: " "A few years after the fall of Samaria the victorius armies [of Assyria] reappeared in Palestine, this time directing their forces against the fenced cities of Judah, with some measure of success; but they withdrew for a season because of difficulties arising in other portions of their realm. Not until some years later, toward the close of Hezekiah's reign, was it to be demonstrated before the nations of the world whether the gods of the heathen were finally to prevail."[2700]
The remaining inscriptions to be considered are by Shalmaneser III. He states that in his 6th year he received tribute from a king whose name is given as Ahab, and that in his 18th year he received tribute from Jehu.[2800] These dates are 12 years apart. Since the last year of Ahab is separated from the first of Jehu by 12 years, these inscriptions are offered as absolute proof of the dates 853 and 841 BC, respectively for the last year of Ahab and the first of Jehu, thus providing a supposedly solid basis for the chronology of the subsequent Hebrew kings.[2900] But is this an unequivocal basis for "establishing" a chronology that must question the integrity of Scripture for this later era?
Apart from the continued discrepancies with Scripture in the subsequent chronology pointed out in the previous portion of this article, this interpretation represents a serious anomaly in itself. It must assume that Ahab, as on of 12 confederate allies of Syria, participated as a principal figure in a battle against Assyria fought on Syrian soil. But Ahab was slain in a battle against Syria in this same year.[3000] It is [3100] improbable that Ahab ever participated in any such adventure, but even less probable that he could have mustered the forces for a war against Syria so soon after the huge losses noted by Shalmaneser.
In this case it is not possible to assume that the incident belongs to an earlier era, when Shalmaneser was general under an earlier king, since the named (eponym) year of the engagement is stated. The error is rather quite the same as that which identified Ahaz as Jehoahaz by a later Assyrian scribe. Whatever the nature of these errors of identity, the error is of Assyrian origin, not Biblical. Ahab was long since dead by the 6th year of Shalmaneser.
The statement of Shalmaneser to the effect that he collected tribute from Jehu in his 18th year remains acceptable, though Scripture says nothing about any such payment. In any case the incident would belong to the late reign of Jehu, and not to his first year.
Courville chronology critiqued by Thiele
Re "A Proposed Solution to a Chronological Problem" (Aug. 10, 17, 1978).
Not one date of a Hebrew ruler as given in the articles by Dr. Courville is correct. Correct Biblical dates would agree with correct Assyrian dates, but incorrect Biblical dates would not. The author of the articles engages in a futile attempt to disprove the synchronizations of Shalmaneser III, Tiglath-pileser III, and Sennacherib with the Hebrew kings Ahab, Menahem, and Hezekiah. All three synchronizations are correct and agree perfectly with the correct Biblical dates.
The chronological facts given us by Shalmaneser III, Tiglath-pileser III, and Sennacherib are the very truths that enable us to prove the accuracy of the chronological data in the books of Kings.
The chronological pattern of reigns of the Hebrew kings is based on the Biblical data of synchronisms and lengths of reign calls for 152 years from the death of Ahab to the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. This is in perfect agreement with the 152 years of Assyrian chronology from 853 B.C., the sixth year of Shalmaneser III, when Ahab fought against Assyria at Qarqar, to 701 B.C., the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (2.Kings 18:13), when Sennacherib came against Jerusalem.
From the accession of Jehu to the fourteenth year of Hezekiah is 140 years, according to the Biblical pattern. This also is in agreement with the 140 years of Assyrian chronology from the eighteenth year of Shalmaneser III, 841 B.C., when Jehu paid tribute to him, to 701 B.C., the year when Sennacherib mentions that he went against Hezekiah. And again according to the Biblical pattern it was 118 years from the accession of Jehu to the ninth and last year of Hoshea, when Samaria fell after a three-year siege. And, according to Assyrian chronology, it was likewise 118 years from 841 B.C., when Shalmaneser III in his eighteenth year received tribute from Jehu, to 723 B.C., the third year of the Assyrian campaign against "Samaria," as the damaged cuneiform tablet that has been restored by the renowned Assyriologist A.T. Olmstead shows.
It is because of Dr. Courville's erroneous dates for the Hebrew kings that his pattern does not agree with the contemporary Assyrian dates.
In setting forth his proposed chronological reconstruction in the Review, Dr. Courville makes a number of statements that are not in accord with the facts. One of these is his denial of the accuracy of the Biblical synchronism in 2.Kings 15:30, and the substitution of an interpretation of his own that he claims has long been recognized. He says, " `The twentieth year of Jotham', should be read `The twentieth year from Jotham,' as dated to the death of Uzziah. This interpretation has long been recognized.'"
But that is not true. "The twentieth year of Jotham" is the correct meaning of the Hebrew. The synchronism of 2.Kings 15:30 is correct and is very important. Without it, it would not be possible to reconstruct correctly the Biblical pattern of reigns for this period, for it shows us that in one sense Jotham had a reign of 20 years, even though the datum given for his reign in 2.Kings 15:33 is 16 years. Both are true. All Bibles, old and new, including such translations as Goodspeed, Moffatt, Knox, Berkeley, New English, New American, New American Standard Version, Today's Englsih Version, Revised Standard Version, and so on, translate 2.Kings 15:30 "the twentieth year of Jotham," as it is in the King James.
From beginning to end Dr. Courville's pattern of Hebrew reigns is out of line with the Biblical pattern. For the pattern as based on the Biblical regnal data of synchronisms and lengths of reign see my The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (University of Chicago Press, 1951) and A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (Zondervan, 1978). For my dates as published by the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, see The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary.
Edwin Thiele, Porterville, California
Comment: E. Thiele's reply does not address the age issue of the father (Ahaz) of Hezekiah at the time of the birth of his son. If the Assyrian documents do not help in clarifying this age issue then they are not correctly understood. The age issue is the most important to solve since Ahaz could hardly have been 1 or 2 years old at the time of the birth of his son. The figures of Thiele result in Ahaz being born in 755/752 depending on using or not using the overlap with Jotham (p. 133 and Hezekiah in 740 B.C, p. 174).
We also endeavor to show that the reading `of' vs `from' could be solved in favor of `from' if the Hebrew letter `lambda' is derived from `lemin (even from)'.
Notes and References
[0020] Sources: Adventist Review, August 10 and August 17, 1978.
[0050] The relationship between the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel was unique in the Iron Age Levant. Where else in the Middle East was an "empire" split without having been conquered by an external power, and then continued to coexist in two parts for over two centuries? Ancient empires were often short lived and, particularly in earlier times, seem to have consisted of no more than a group of kings paying tribute to a particularly powerful one of their number. Such empires were commonly set up by a particularly effective strong man. Sargon of Akkad and Hammurabi are the best known. They held together for two or three generations before falling apart, sometime gradually and sometimes all at once. Babylonia seems to have followed this pattern a number of times.
[0100] E.R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, chap. 2.
[0200] D.D Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria, I, par. 816.
[0300] Thiele, op. cit., Appendix B, p. 217.
[0400] The Seventh-Day-Adventist Bible Commentary, p. 151.
[0500] D.A. Courville, The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, 2 volumes. These volumes may be obtained through Adventist Book Centers or directly from Crest Challenge Books, Box. 993, Loma Linda, California 92354 ($9.95 per set postpaid.). This information may now be outdated.
[0600] The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 159. This inscription will be discussed in a subsequent article.
[0700] Ibid., pp. 151 ff. See also SDA Bible Dictionary, article "Chronology."
[0800] Ibid., p. 86.
[0900] Ibid., p. 332.
[1000] Ibid., pp. 85, 150.
[1100] The assumed coregency with Ahaz should then last till -717 and Hezekiah would have been 25 years of age in 717 BC making 742/43 his year of birth when Ahaz was ca. 12 years of age. The assumption would then result in a fictitious 16+15 = 31/32 year reign of Ahaz. That is why Courville opted for an erroneous understanding of the Assyrian sources rather than the scriptural account, for that would normalize the age of the father at the birth of the sons. It appears that Thiele was not ready to think these age problems through.
[1200] Although Jotham king of Judah is given a reign of 16 years (2.Chr. 27:1) and the accession of Ahaz is consistent with this, Hoshea of Israel is given an accession date of year 20 of Jotham (2.Kings 15:30). Hoshea is also given an accession date of year 12 of Ahaz (2.K 17:1).
[1300] See Chart 2, where these extra years are represented by a horizontal dotted line and the correlations by vertical dotted lines. See also The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 85.
[1400] The Hebrew of 2.Kings 15:30: Seemingly the only Hebrew conjunction which we can cite at this time would render the usual `of' to `from' would be a shortened form which leaves only the letter lambda of the Hebrew 
`lemin', meaning `even from' in the sense of "in the twentieth year even from Jotham the son of Uzziah". We note that the last `of' (Uzziah) is not written and is a supplied conjunction in the English expression. The Hebrew reader would automatically sense the same conjunction supplied with `of/from Jotham' to `Uzziah'. The downside is, that this same lambda appears also in other verses (2.Ki. 18:1) where it is translated each time as `of'. Should we assume one exception?
[1500] Question: Is this four years after year 16 of Jotham? Answer: No. Not after, but before. There was a coregency of 4 years between Uzziah and Jotham.
[1600] Jotham, born ca. -784, was 25 years of age when he became king and reigned, according to this reconstruction, from ca. 760-744 BC. Ahaz became king in -744/3 at age 20 (2.Ki. 16:2) and reigned for 16 years to -728. Ahaz was born in ca. -764 when his father Jotham was ca. 18 years of age depending if full or partial years are used. Hezekiah was 25 years of age when he became king in 728 BC and reigned 29 years to ca. 699 BC. Hezekiah then was born in ca. -743 when his father Ahaz was about 18 years of age.
[1700] Thiele, op. cit., pp. 32, 64, 68-70. With respect to proposals by Damien, the Assyrian correlations with kings of Judah and/ or Israel may be affected. After charting once more in a rough draft the time line according to Courville, by incorparating the 9 years overlap of king Pekah of Israel, and plotting the time lines of the Assyrian kings, using Damien's alter egos, resulted in our (CIAS's) ID for the "Jehoahaz" of the Black Obelisk in king Ahaz of Judah as that ruler mentioned by the Assyrian source. It seems to us that Ahaz and Jehoahaz is a good correlation and, for now, seems to support the data between Damien and Courville, who also suggested Ahaz. That mans, it appears that we can retain the year 722 BC for the Fall of Samaria.
[1800] Ahaziah became king in Year 11 of Joram (2.K 9:29) or Year 12 of Joram (2.K 8:25).
[1900] Thiele, op. cit., p. 125, 139-141.; Explains that `Pul' was Tiglath-Pileser III. Eric Aitchison opts for `Merodach-Baladan' (Marduk-Apal-Iddina) as Pul.
[2000] See #1900. Same reason.
[2100] Sargon claims that he conquered Samaria; Luckenbill, `Ancient Records of Assyria', Vol. II, Sec. 4, p. 2. "At the beginning of my rule, in my first year of reign ... Samarinai (the people of Samaria) ..27,290 people I carried away."
[2200] King So is identified as a 22nd dynasty pharaoh.
[2300] Shabakah reigned from ca. 716/13-703 BC and Hoshea from ca. 732/31-723/22 BC.
[2400] However, in our revision Sennacherib was Sargon who reigned from ca. 722-705 as Sargon and from 705-681 as Sennacherib. The 14th year of Hezekiah 729-701 would be 715 BC when Sargon was king. The Hebrew scribe telescoped the Assyrian king's name Sennacherib back in time when he reigned still as Sargon.
[2500] Pritchard, Assyrian and Babylonian Historical Records, p. 198.
[2600] Compare 2.Kings 18:13 and Isaiah 36:1.
[2700] Ellen White, Prophets and Kings, p. 339. (emphasize ours).
[2800] Luckenbill, op. cit., Sec. 610-611.
[2900] The SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 159.
[3000] Who was "Ia-u-a apal Hu-um-ri" ('Iaua, son of Humri'), prostrating himself under Assur the winged god and before Shalmaneser. This king of Israel is almost universally identified as JEHU of the mid-C9th BC, while the bas-relief is generally believed to be "the only contemporary portrait of any Israelite king that surivives"
[3100] Edwin R. Thiele, New Evidence on the Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah in BASOR, Oct. 1956, p. 22-27.
W.F. Albright
1964
Following the important elimination of the Egyptian King So [1] from biblical historical tradition by Hans Goedicke,[10] Mr. Wesley Brown of Emmett, Idaho, has sent me a suggestion [20] which appears to be of considerable significance, though he himself was not aware of the Goedicke contribution. At his request I shall present it precisely here. While I cannot find any trace of the idea in any publication,[30] it is perfectly possible that someone has proposed it before.
Mr. Brown suggests that the regnal years "4th" and "6th" in 2.Kings 18:9-10 ...
And at the end of three years they took it: [even] in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that [is] the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken."
... originally referred to the reign of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V (727-722/15) and that "Hezekiah" is an insert from the margin in both cases. Since it may now be considered reasonably certain that Hezekiah did not ascend the throne until some 6 years after the fall of Samaria, this proposal is illuminating and, in my opinion, is clearly correct.
It is true that these ordinals do not agree with the normal Assyrian practice of reckoning the years of their monarchs by post-dating, i.e., by starting the 1st regnal at the New Year following the actual accession year, while the early Israelites followed the antedating (accession) mode of reckoning. The normal Assyrian reckoning would date the fall of Samaria toward the end of Shalmaneser's 5th year, not his 6th year. But there is ample evidence that two systems of reckoning were both employed in eighth-century Assyria and Babylonia. For instance, in 2.Kings 24:12, we read that, "the king of Babylon took him (Jehoiachin, king of Judah) prisoner in the 8th year of his reign" whereas in Jeremiah 52:28, the same event is listed under the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar and in the Nebuchadnezzar chronicle it also appears in the 7th year (the last month).[40].
It should be noted that in 2.Kings 24:12 the reference to the regnal year is also ambiguous; it might actually well refer to the king of Babylon and to the king of Judah (who only ruled 3 months and drops out automatically). In the case of Nebuchadnezzar we have a wealth of evidence for the contemporary use of two methods of counting regnal years.[50] It is not so clear in Assyrian records, but a parallel phenomenon has been recognized in the case of Sargon, Shalmaneser's successor,[60] and of Sargon's and Sennacherib.[60] [70] We may, accordingly, treat it as a normal variation, perhaps dominant in the west.
It has, of course, been observed that 2.Kings 17:3-6, ...
"Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents.
And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as [he had done] year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.
Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years.
In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor [by] the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes."
and ...
"And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which [was] the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, [that] Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it.
And at the end of three years they took it: [even] in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that [is] the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken.
And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor [by] the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes."
... are essentially doublets, forming two recensions of a small block of text which the editor of Kings incorporated in his work in two different places.[80] It is very probable that the omission of `el in copying the Hebrew text of 2.K. 17:4, which I have pointed out, and the additions which Mr. Brown has observed in 2.K. 18:9-10, were already present when the two recensions were utilized by the editor of Kings. The editorial ?iutes and the Deuteronomic homilies belong to that editor. Beyond this we are naturally reduced to conjecture, but it may safely be supposed that the original editor of this block of text wrote in northern Israel during the seventh century, when there was still accurate information and where the Assyrian regnal years formed the basis of chronology.[90]
Notes & References
[001] King So has been variously identified and dated over the years. While we cannot provide all the information regarding those diverse accounts, we like to refer our reader to our various papers on the subject, under `So' (1-pharaoh).
[010] Bulletin, No. 171 (1963), pp. 64-66, with my notes following his paper.
[020] Letter of April 23, 1964. It is interesting to note that Mr. Brown was graduated from college in 1908 and will soon be eighty years of age.
[030] In this connection let me refer to the following recent publications: Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, (Chicago, 1951), together with my own treatment. (based partly on Thiele's dissertation, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 1944, pp. 137-186) in Bulletin, No. 100 (1945), pp. 16-22, as well as a summation of differences between us in Interpretation, 1952, pp. 101-103; H. Tadmor's Hebrew Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV (Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 88-119 (with some important new observations as well as some weaknesses).
[040] D.J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (1956), p. 73.
[050] See most recently my discussion, BULLETIN, No. 143 (1956), pp. 31-32, following the standard treatment by F.X. Kugler, Von Moses bis Paulus (1922), pp. 182f.
[060] For Sargon see especially E.F. Weidner, Archiv für Orientforschung, XIV (1941), pp. 40ff, and especially pp. 52ff on the palu problem.
[070] For Sennacherib see Julius Lewy, Mi>Analecta Orientalia, 12 (A. Deimel volume), pp. 925ff., and A.K. Grayson, Archiv für Orientforschung, XX (1963), PP. 83-96, especially n. 126.
[080] See especially J.A. Montgomery, The Book of Kings (ICC, 1951), pp. 465ff.
[090] This article was typed by the staff of CIAS. The original can be found in the Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research, No. 174, April, 1964, pp. 66-67. The original article quoted only the Bible verses. We inserted their text to facilitate ease of looking them up.
Crawl out of this tomb