Before proceeding to the demonstration of this fact, the reader should glance at the bird's-eye view of the content of the Book of Judges given on page 48 in Vol. II. in the form of a Table of the 12 judges and the one usurper King, whose history is recorded in the Book of judges, with the respective years of servitude, rest, usurpation and judgeship, and other particulars respecting the twelve Judges.
From this Table it will be seen that the judgeship of Shamgar was included in the 20 years of the 3rd servitude under Jabin.This is proved by the words of Judges 5:6,7: "In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were unoccupied, and the travellers walked through byways.The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel."
This places the days of Shamgar, which are the days of Jael, in the 20 years of Jabin's servitude, which lasted "until that I Deborah arose, and were brought to a conclusion by the deliverance of Deborah and Barak.
It will also be seen that the 20 years of the Judgeship of Samson are included in the 40 years of the 6th servitude, under the Philistines.This is proved by the words of Judges 15:20: "And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years."These facts are attested by the same authority as the rest of the facts related as happening during this period, viz. by the writer of the Book of Judges.This writer was probably Samuel, who, no doubt, obtained all the facts from authentic contemporary records.According to oral tradition, dating perhaps from the very time, but first written down in the 1st Century A.D., in the Talmudic Tract Baba Bathra, Samuel wrote the Books of Judges, Ruth, and 1 Samuel 1-24. All the remaining periods of servitude, rest, usurpation and Judgeship in the Book of Judges are strictly consecutive and continuous.They are brought to a conclusion in Judges 16:31.
1 Samuel 1 resumes the narrative, which has been interrupted by three undated illustrative appendices, and is strictly continuous with the story of Samson and the Philistine servitude of Judges 13-16.
The 40 years of Eli's Judgeship begins where the 40 years of the Philistine servitude ends.
The story of Israel begins with the birth of Abram in Genesis 11.From that point on to the end of 2 Kings it is one continuous story throughout, interrupted by occasional illustrations like the two appendices in Judges 17- 21, the Book of Ruth, and the five appendices in 2 Samuel 21-24.
We now return to the demonstration of the fact that the so-called Joshua - Judges chasm, or the period from the division of the Land to the oppression of Cushan, was a period of 13 years.
This is one of the most difficult problems of Old Testament Chronology. It can only be solved by giving the closest attention (1) to the structure of the Book of Judges as a whole; (2) to the special characteristics of the general statements prefixed to the first four servitudes in Judges 2:11-23, and to the last two servitudes in Judges 10:6-9.These are summary or prefatory statements of the nature of a preliminary survey of the whole periods of the four and the two servitudes respectively, with which the writer immediately afterwards proceeds to deal in detail; and (3) to the structure of the verse Judges 10:8.This verse, as it stands in the Hebrew, is an introversion, giving first an event and its time, and then another time and its event.The words "that year" refer to the 1st year of the Judgeship of Jair, in which the children of Ammon "broke and crushed" the children of Israel, and thereby recovered possession of Heshbon, and some part of the land of Israel, which they held during the 22 years of Jair; whilst the words "eighteen years" refer to the time when, immediately after the death of Jair, they subdued and oppressed "all the children of Israel" on both sides of the river Jordan.
The 22 years of Jair will therefore be included in the Chronology as an entire period, complete in itself, and distinct from the 18 years of the 5th servitude under the children of Ammon, by which it is immediately succeeded. But neither of these two periods will be included in the 300 years of Jephthah (Judges 11:26), because in "that year," the 1st year of Jair, the children of Ammon "broke and crushed" the children of Israel, threw off their yoke, and recovered possession of Heshbon, and other towns, on the east side of Jordan, so that Jephthah could not say that "Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coast of Arnon" (Judges 11:26) at any time during the 22 years of the Judgeship of Jair.Still less could he say that Israel dwelt in these cities at any time during the 18 years of the Ammonite oppression when all Israel, on both sides of the Jordan, was completely subjugated and reduced to a state of servitude by the children of Ammon.
1. The Structure of the Book of Judges as a whole.
With regard to the first of these three important considerations, the structure of the Book of Judges as a whole, this will be to some extent apparent from the bird's eye view of the content of the Book of Judges given on page 48, in Vol. II, from which it will be seen that the book is a narrative of six apostasies, six servitudes, six cries to God, and six deliverances.The story gathers round the personalities of six deliverers and six other Judges, one Prophetess (Deborah) and one usurper King (Abimelech).The years of servitude, rest after deliverance, usurpation and Judgeship, are in each case unambiguously stated, as also the facts that the deliverance of Shamgar from the Philistines took place during the oppression of Jabin (Jud. 3:31; 5:6,7) and that the Judgeship of Samson was exercised during 20 out of the 40 years of the Philistine oppression (Jud. 15:20; 16:31).The proof of the fact that the Judgeship of Eli is consecutive, and follows on immediately at the close of the 40 years of the sixth servitude under the Philistines, lies in the structure of the Books of Judges, Ruth and 1 Samuel taken together.It is one continuous story throughout.The story is interrupted by three appendices, which are given as detailed or concrete illustrations of the period of the Judges, an outline or skeleton of the history of which has been given in the previous chapters.We have first an illustration of the idolatry of the time, the story of Micah and the Danites (Jud. 17-18).Next an illustration of the immorality of the time, the story of the Levite and the men of Gibeah (Judges 19-21), and, by way of contrast, an idyllic picture of rustic piety and purity in the midst of infidelity and immorality.Then, in 1 Sam 1:1, the narrative is resumed.Take out the pictures, and the reading will be seen to be consecutive and continuous.There is, however, a change in the tone of the narrative as we pass from Judges 1-16 into 1 Sam. 1.Judges 1-16 gives the history of the times of the Judges properly so called.1 Sam. 1-7 gives the history of the transition period from the Theocracy to the Monarchy. The difference is sufficient to account for the insertion of the three appendices, for in 1 Sam. 1 we turn down a page and commence a new chapter in Israel's history.But it must not be forgotten that the whole of the series of historical books from Genesis to 2 Kings is one consecutive, continuous narrative throughout.
In order to make the matter clear we append here a bird's-eye view of the structure of the Books of Judges, Ruth and 1 Samuel.This will show the consecutive, continuous character of the whole narrative, and also the transition character of 1 Sam. 1-7.It will also give us a key to the interpretation of the difficult phrase "that year" in Judges 10:8. It may be exhibited thus:-
BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK OF JUDGES.
Theocracy.
PART 1. - FOUR SERVITUDES.
Jud. 1:1-2:10. Introduction.
Jud. 2:11-23.Preliminary survey or summary statement prefixed to the first four servitudes.
APOSTASY. - The children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord.
SERVITUDE. - And he delivered them into the hands of their enemies.
CRY TO GOD. - They groaned by reason of them that broke and crushed them.
DELIVERANCE. - The Lord raised up Judges and delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.
Jud. 3:7.The children of Israel did evil.
1st Servitude - Cushan, 8 years.Deliverance - Othniel.
Rest 40 years.
Jud. 3:12 The children of Israel did evil.
2nd Servitude - Eglon, 18years.Deliverance - Ehud.
Rest 80 years.
(Jud. 3:31).Parenthesis. - And after him Shamgar, he also delivered Israel, viz. during Jabin's oppression (see Jud. 5:6,7).This is not a continuation of the narrative, but an anticipatory summary statement of an event which took place during the period dealt with in the next paragraph.
Jud. 4:1. The children of Israel did evil when Ehud was dead.This connects the 80 years of rest by Ehud with the 20 years of the oppression by Jabin, without leaving any room for Shamgar's deliverance between these two periods.
3rd Servitude - Jabin, 20 years.Deliverance - Barak.
Rest 40 years.
Jud. 6:1. The children of Israel did evil.
4th Servitude - Midian, 7 years.Deliverance - Gideon.
Rest 40 years.
Jud. 8:33-9:57. The Story of Abimelech.
Jud. 8:33.When Gideon was dead Abimelech 3 years.
Jud. 10:1-5. Summary statement of two Judgeships.
Jud. 10:1.After Abimelech arose Tola.
Judged 23 years.Died and was buried.
Jud. 10:3. After him arose Jair.
Judged 22 years.Died and was buried.
This last statement is anticipatory.The historian completes his account of Jair before commencing a new subject, though chronologically he has reached the first year of Jair.Cp. 2 Chron. 29:1,2, a summary statement of the whole of the reign of Hezekiah, followed in verse 3 by a detailed account of it, beginning with the events of the first year.
PART II. - TWO SERVITUDES.
Jud. 10:6-16. Preliminary survey or summary statement prefixed to the last two servitudes.
APOSTASY. - The children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord.
SERVITUDE. - He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and the children of Ammon.
A. And they broke and crushed the children of Israel
A. That year (=the 1st year of Jair).
B. Eighteen years (=after the last year of Jair).
B. All the children of Israel on both sides of the Jordan.
CRY TO GOD. - The children of Israel cried unto the Lord, saying we have sinned.
REFUSAL TO DELIVER. - Go, cry to the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you.
REPEATED CRY TO GOD. - We have sinned.Deliver us this day only.
RESPONSE. - His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.
Jud. 10:17-12:6 Details of the Ammonite oppression and deliverance by Jephthah.
Jud. 12:7-15.Summary statement of four Judgeships.
Jud. 12:7. Jephthah judged Israel 6 years., died and was buried
Jud. 12:8. Ibzan judged Israel 7 years., died and was buried
Jud. 12:11. Elon judged Israel 10 years., died and was buried
Jud. 12:13. Abdon judged Israel 8 years., died and was buried
Jud. 13:1-16:31. Details of the Philistine oppression and Judgeship of Samson.
(Jud. 15:20). Parenthesis. - Samson judged Israel in the days of the Philistines 20 years.
APPENDICES.
Jud. 17-18.Appendix 1. - Micah and the Danites - Idolatry.
Jud. 19-21.Appendix 2. - The Levite and the men of Gibeah - immorality.
Ruth.Appendix 3. - The story of Ruth - piety and purity in the midst of infidelity and immorality.
Transition to Monarchy.
1 Sam. 1-7.Judgeships of Eli and Samuel.
Monarchy.
1 Sam. 8-2 K. Saul, David and Solomon, and the Kings of Israel and Judah.
2. The Special Character of the Summary Statements, Jud. 2:11-23 and 10:6-9.
From this analysis of the structure of the Book of Judges it will be seen that it is divided into two parts, each commencing with a summary statement of the fourfold cycle of events - apostasy, servitude, cry to God, deliverance - which are thereafter described in detail.
The difficult verse, Judges 10:8, occurs not in the continuous consecutive narrative, but in the preliminary survey or summary statement of the last two servitudes, which are first mentioned together, and afterwards narrated in detail, the Ammonite oppression first, and then the Philistine.Though mentioned together in this summary way, they are two distinct servitudes, not one only, and they are consecutive, not contemporary.
3.The Structure of the Verse Judges 10:8
Jair was a Gileadite.He had 30 sons that rode on 30 ass colts, a sign of princely rank and governmental authority; and they had 30 cities called Havoth-Jair, or the villages of Jair, in the land of Gilead.It is not said that Jair delivered Israel, but only that he judged Israel 22 years, but in Judges 2:18 we read that "when the Lord raised them up Judges then the Lord was with the Judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the Judge," so that, although it is not said that the Lord "raised up" Jair, but only that he "arose," it is most probable that the writer means us to understand that the Ammonites "broke and crushed" the children of Israel in the first year of Jair in such a way that they were able to recover Heshbon and the territory to the south allotted to Reuben, but not Gilead and the territory to the north allotted to Gad, and not any of the rest of the of the Land of Israel, until the death of Jair, when they crossed the Jordan and completely subjected all Israel on both sides of the river and oppressed them for 18 years until deliverance came by Jephthah.
The exact translation of the Hebrew of Judges 10:8,9 is as follows:-
v. 8. A. And they broke and crushed the children of Israel
A. In that year (=the first year of Jair).
B. Eighteen years (=after the last year of Jair).
B. All the Children of Israel who were beyond Jordan in the Land of the Amorites which is in Gilead.
v. 9. "And the Children of Ammon crossed over the Jordan to fight even against Judah and against Benjamin, and against the house of Ephraim, and Israel had great distress."
The construction of verse 8 is very difficult.The second sentence commencing with the words "eighteen years" begins very abruptly, and is elliptical, its verb having to be supplied from the first sentence.The meaning of this second sentence is expanded in the following verse.No other interpretation of the words makes the meaning more clear than that adopted above.
This interpretation, which makes the 22 years of Jair and the Ammonite oppression two complete and consecutive periods without any overlapping of the one by the other, is corroborated by the reckoning of St. Paul, who in Acts 13:19,20, gives a total of about 450 years for the period from the division of the Land by lot to the end of the Judgeship of Samuel.The figure is the exact sum of the number of years attributed to the servitudes, the years of rest, the usurpation and the Judgeships given in Judges and 1 Samuel 1-7, from the oppression of Cushan to the end of the Judgeship of Samuel, reckoning the 20 years of 1 Sam. 7:2 as the length of the Judgeship of Samuel.But as the number of years for the so-called Joshua - Judges chasm, from the division of the Land to the oppression of Cushan, is not specified in the Old Testament, and must have occupied some years, St. Paul allows an indefinite addition to the 450 years by prefixing to it the word "about."
This interpretation is further corroborated by the fact that the 13 years which it gives to the so-called Joshua - Judges chasm, from the division of the Land to the 1st servitude under Cushan, makes up the years of the Theocracy from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon (omitting the six servitudes and the usurpation of Abimelech) to exactly 480 years, as stated in 1 Kings 6:1.
This interpretation of Jud. 10:8 is further supported by the fact that the only possible alternative interpretation of the words "that year," which makes them refer to the last year of Jair, would leave not a single year for the interval between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan. We may, therefore, regard the interpretation which makes "that year" in Jud. 10:8 the first year of Jair as correct.
The determination of the length of the so-called Joshua - Judges Chasm, or the interval between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan, will then be arrived at in the manner indicated in the following Table.
THE SO-CALLED JOSHUA - JUDGES CHASM.
From the Division of the Land (Jud. 2:6) to the beginning of the 1st Servitude under Cushan (Jud. 3:8)
PERIODS Years Years Years
From the Conquest of Heshbon to its re-conquest by Ammon, probably in the 1st year of Jair (Jud. 10:3-8; 11:26) 300
DEDUCT
From Conquest of Heshbon to Entry(Ex. 12:40,41; 40:17, Deut. 2:14-37; Josh. 4:19; 5:6) 1
From Entry to Division of Land, 2253-2260 7
[Here follows the so-called Joshua-Judges Chasm]
From 1st Servitude. under Cushan. to 1st year of Jair, viz.:-
1st Servitude, under Cushan (Jud. 3:8) 8
Rest by Othniel (Jud. 3:11) 40
2nd Servitude. under Eglon (Jud. 3:14) 18
Rest by Ehud (Jud. 3:30) 80
Judgeship of Shamgar (Jud. 3:31) included in 3rd Servitude under Jabin (Jud. 5:6-7)
3rd Servitude, under Jabin (Jud. 4:3) 20
Rest by Barak (Jud. 5:31) 40
4th Servitude, under Midian (Jud. 6:1) 7
Rest by Gideon (Jud. 8:28) 40
Usurpation of Abimelech (Jud. 9:22) 3
Judgeship of Tola (Jud. 10:2) 23 279 287
Therefore, the so-called Joshua-Judges Chasm, from the Division of the Land to the 1st Servitude under Cushan = 13
We may now add to our Chronology the following additional link:-
AN. HOM.
2560 Division of the Land (see Chapter 15).
13 Add 13 years, to the 1st Servitude under Cushan (Jud. 3:8) as determined by the above Table.
2573 Beginning of 1st Servitude under Cushan.
CHAPTER XVII.THE JUDGES INCLUDING SAMUEL = 450 YEARS.
(AN. HOM. 2573-3023)
THE following Table exhibits the Chronology of the period of the Judges, from the 1st servitude under Cushan to the election of Saul.The years of servitude, rest, usurpation, and Judgeship, are set out in four different columns, and it will be seen that the four totals amount to exactly 450 years.St. Paul, in his address at Antioch in Pisidia, says: "He divided their land to them by lot.And after that he gave unto them Judges about the space of 450 years until (heos = up to and including) Samuel the Prophet."Acts 13:19,20.Here again the minutest accuracy is observed.
It will be seen that the number of the years from the oppression of Cushan to the end of Samuel's Judgeship is not "about," but exactly 450 years. St. Paul is, however, quite right in using the word "about," and he was compelled to use it in order to be accurate, because the period of which he is speaking is the period from the division of the Land to the end of the judgeship of Samuel.It includes, therefore, the so-called Joshua - Judges chasm of 13 years, and as this is not specified in the Text of the Old Testament, and not included in the 450 years that are specified, St. Paul is obliged to allow for this space, and he does so quite naturally and quite accurately by describing this period as a period of "about 450 years."
ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.
From the 1st Servitude, under Cushan to the Election of Saul.
PERIODS Servitude Rest Usurpation Judgeship
1st Servitude, under Cushan 8 - - -
Rest by Othniel - 40 - -
2nd Servitude, under Eglon 18 - - -
Rest by Ehud - 80 - -
(Judgeship of Shamgar included in 3rd Servitude, under Jabin, Jud. 3:31; 5:6,7)
3rd Servitude, under Jabin 20 - - -
Rest by Barak - 40 - -
4th Servitude, under Midian 7 - - -
Rest by Gideon - 40 - -
Usurpation of Abimelech - - 3 -
Judgeship of Tola - - - 23
Judgeship of Jair - - - 22
5th Servitude, under Ammon 18 - - -
Judgeship of Jephthah - - - 6
Judgeship of Ibzan - - - 7
Judgeship of Elon - - - 10
Judgeship of Abdon - - - 8
6th Servitude, under the Philistines 40 - - -
(Judgeship of Samson included in 6th Servitude, under the Philistines, Jud. 15:20)
Judgeship of Eli - - - 40
Judgeship of Samuel - - - 20
(N.B.- 1 Sam. 7:13-17 is a Review, not a continuation of the history)
Totals 111 200 3 136
THE WHOLE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES.
Years of Servitude 111
Years of Rest 200
Years of Usurpation 3
Years of Judgeship 136
[TOTAL] 450
We are now in a position to continue the Chronology from the 1st servitude, under Cushan, to the election of Saul, and this is done in the following Table:-
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES.
From the 1st Servitude, under Cushan to the Election of Saul.
AN. HOM. EVENT
2573 1st Servitude, under Cushan (see Chapter 16).
8 Add 8 years' Servitude under Cushan (Jud. 3:8).
2581 Rest by Othniel.
40 Add 40 years' Rest by Othniel (Jud. 3:11).
2631 2nd Servitude, under Eglon.
18 Add 18 years' Servitude under Eglon (Jud. 3:14).
2639 Rest by Ehud.
Judgeship of Shamgar (Jud. 3:31) included in 20 years of 3rd Servitude, under Jabin (Jud. 5:6,7).
80 Add 80 years' Rest by Ehud (Jud. 3:30).
2719 3rd Servitude, under Jabin.
20 Add 20 years' Servitude under Jabin (Jud. 4:3).
2739 Rest by Barak.
40 Add 40 years' Rest by Barak (Jud. 5:31)
2779 4th Servitude, under Midian.
7 Add 7 years' Servitude under Midian (Jud. 6:1).
2786 Rest by Gideon.
40 Add 40 years' Rest by Gideon (Jud. 8:28).
2826 Usurpation by Abimelech.
3 Add 3 years' Usurpation of Abimelech (Jud. 9:22).
2829 Judgeship of Tola.
23 Add 23 years' Judgeship of Tola (Jud. 10:2).
2852 Judgeship of Jair.
22 Add 22 years' Judgeship of Jair (Jud. 10:3).
2874 5th Servitude, under Ammon.
18 Add 18 years' Servitude under Ammon (Jud. 10:8).
2892 Judgeship of Jephthah.
6 Add 6 years' Judgeship of Jephthah (Jud. 12:7).
2898 Judgeship of Ibzan.
7 Add 7 years' Judgeship of Ibzan (Jud. 12:9).
2905 Judgeship of Elon.
10 Add 10 years' Judgeship of Elon (Jud. 12:11).
2915 Judgeship of Abdon.
8 Add 8 years' Judgeship of Abdon (Jud. 12:14).
2923 6th. Servitude, under the Philistines.
Judgeship of Samson 20 years (Jud. 16:31) included in 40 years of 6th Servitude, under Philistines (Jud. 15:20).
40 Add 40 years' Servitude under Philistines (Jud. 13:1).
2963 Judgeship of Eli.
40 Add 40 years' Judgeship of Eli (1 Sam. 4:18).
3003 Judgeship of Samuel.
20 Add 20 years' Judgeship of Samuel, 1 Sam. 7:2 (N.B.- 1 Sam. 7:13-17 is a review, not a continuation of the history).
3023 Election of Saul.
CHAPTER XVIII.THE ELI - SAMUEL CONNECTION.
From the Death of Eli to the beginning of the Reign of Saul = 20 years.
(AN. HOM. 3003-3023)
THE so-called Joshua - Judges chasm fills the interval between the last dated event of the Seven Years' War of conquest, viz. the division of the Land by Joshua and the first dated event of the 450-year Period of the Judges, viz. the oppression of Cushan.It is determined with great difficulty, by means of the fact implied in Jephthah's message to the children of Ammon (Jud. 11:14- 28).
The argument of Jephthah is this.The children of Ammon were dispossessed by the Amorites, not by the children of Israel. The children of Israel obtained their title to the land by the conquest of Sihon, the Amorite King of Heshbon, which took place in the year before the entry into Canaan, when they took possession of "all the coasts of the Amorites from Arnon even unto Jabbok."
The right of conquest had been supported and maintained by the fact of the uninterrupted possession of the land in spite of the attack of Balak, King of Moab, to wrest it from them, which had failed.The Lord God of Israel had dispossessed the Amorites and given the land to Israel and their claim had been made good by their uninterrupted possession of it for a period of 300 years from the conquest of Heshbon in the year before the entry into Canaan to "that year," the year in which the children of Ammon "broke and crushed" the children of Israel and recovered the territory which Israel had taken from the Amorites, but which the children of Ammon now claimed as originally belonging to them.
With great difficulty, but with a considerable degree of historic certainty we have fixed upon an interpretation of the words " that year" in Jud. 10:8, which identifies it with the first year of Jair, the year which immediately succeeded, but which was not included in the 300 years of Jephthah.
We now approach the discussion of another chronological problem of almost equal difficulty and complexity, and one which has given rise to an equal number of divergent interpretations or rather, "guesses at truth," there being no direct statement as to the exact length of the period from the death of Eli to the end of Samuel's Judgeship at the election of Saul.
The determination of the number of years in this period which coincides exactly with the administration of Samuel is, however, quite simple and quite decisive.The administration of Samuel occupies the interval of those twenty years mentioned in 1 Sam. 7:2.
These years include the fraction of the year during which the Ark was for 7 months in the land of the Philistines, and the whole period of its stay at Kirjath-jearim down to the battle of Mizpeh, at which the Philistines were defeated and the cities which they had taken from Israel were restored to Israel from Gath even to Ekron.
Whereupon the people began that clamour for a King which led to the election of Saul.
This interpretation is necessitated by a proper understanding of the structure of 1 Samuel 7.The analysis of the chapter by Professor Henry Preserved Smith into two sections derived from two sources or documents, is in the highest degree subjective and fanciful, and rests upon no assured basis of objective fact. He assumes the existence of an "Eli document" which begins with 1 Sam. 4 or 5, and extends to the end of 1 Sam. 7:2, the phrase "for it was 20 years" being eliminated by Stenning as a subsequent interpolation or addition by a late redactor.The rest of the chapter Prof. H. P. Smith regards as derived from a "Samuel document," the symbol for which is the abbreviation Sm., whilst Stenning makes 1 Sam. 7:2-8:22 the work of a second Elohistic narrator, who is designated by the symbol E2.
An analysis of the structure of the chapter shows that the first verse belongs to the narrative contained in Chapter 6.There is no reason to doubt the uncontradicted tradition preserved in the Talmudic Tract Baba Bathra, that the author of the first 24 chapters of this book was Samuel himself, and there is no real ground for the assumption of interpolations and later additions by subsequent editors of the Book and redactors of its text.At verse 2 a new epoch is reached and a new subject is introduced, and this should have been marked by the division of the chapter, or the placing of a paragraph mark at this point.
The author proceeds to tell the story of the first great religious revival brought about by the 20 years of Samuel's quiet, unobtrusive, but pervasive religious teaching, at the close of which the people returned to God, and under the leadership of Samuel obtained a great victory over their enemies at Mizpeh, and thus recovered their independence (1 Sam. 7:2-12).
This brings the narrative of the Judgeship of Samuel to a close, and the next consecutive event is the rejection of the Theocracy and the demand for the appointment of a king in 1 Sam. 8.
But before finally dismissing the closing period of the Theocracy, the author sums up in a few brief and pregnant sentences the whole story of the judgeship of Samuel, down to the appointment of King Saul, and intimates that not only down to that point but beyond it, even all the days of his life, Samuel continued to act as Judge.The summary of the Judgeship of Samuel is contained in 1 Sam. 7:13-17.Like the summary of the reign of Saul, in 1 Sam. 14:47-52, it is retrospective and prospective, not continuous.It tells us that the hand of the Lord had been against the Philistines all the days of Samuel, and that this antagonism had now culminated in the great victory at Mizpeh, as a result of which the cities which the Philistines had taken from Israel were restored to Israel, and a period of peace ensued, during which the Philistines came no more into the land of Israel.
This summary statement also tells us something of the method of Samuel's administration.He was accustomed to go on circuit from Bethel to Gilgal, and from Gilgal to Mizpeh, after which he returned to his home at Ramah, where he established a centre of religious worship, and where he exercised his function as Israel's Judge all the days of his life, for he continued his work as Judge even after the appointment of King Saul.
Since 1 Sam. 7:13-17 is a retrospective and prospective summary of the administration of Samuel, the continuity of the narrative will be exhibited by connecting 1 Sam. 8:4, the gathering of the Elders to Samuel to demand a King, with 1 Sam. 7:12, the setting up of the stone Ebenezer in memory of the great victory at Mizpeh, and the period of 20 years named in 1 Sam. 7:2 must be interpreted as covering the whole period of Samuel's administration previous to the victory of Mizpeh and the election of Saul, by which it was immediately followed.
This result is obtained from a close attention to the structure of the chapter.It is obtained from a careful consideration of the statements made in the Text itself, and it may be accepted as a true exposition of the author's intention and meaning.
But it does not stand alone.It is corroborated, and indeed necessitated, by the figures given by St. Paul in Acts 13:19-20, in which he states that the period from the division of the Land up to and including (heos) Samuel was a period of about 450 years.The word "about" is introduced to cover the period between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan.
The 450 years is made up of the 19 figures specified in the Book of Judges (including 1 Sam. 1-7,) as the number of years contained in each of the six servitudes, the four periods of rest, the one usurpation of Abimelech and the remaining eight Judgeships, of which the last is the Judgeship of Samuel, and which must have been a period of 20 years, as otherwise the years of the period as defined by St. Paul would not have amounted to the total of 450 years.
There can be no doubt that, whether the Apostle Paul was right or wrong, in the figures which he gives, he obtained them by the process of simple addition.He took each figure as it is given in the text of the Old Testament narrative of the period under review, and the result was as follows.Nobody can make it either one year more or one year less:-
Details of the 450 years of St. Paul in Acts 13:20.
Cushan 8 years
Othniel 40 years
Eglon 18 years
Ehud 80 years
Jabin 20 years
Barak 40 years
Midian 7 years
Gideon 40 years
Abimelech 3 years
Tola 23 years
Jair 22 years
Ammon 18 years
Jephthah 6 years
Ibzan 7 years
Elon 10 years
Abdon 8 years
Philistines 40 years
Eli 40 years
Samuel 20 years
Total 450 years
This result is further corroborated by its agreement with the total of 480 years given in 1 Kings 6:1, which is made up of all the figures given for the various periods of the history from the Exodus to the commencement of the building of the Temple in the 4th year of Solomon, always omitting the years of the six servitudes, and the one usurpation, as not to be included in the reckoning of the years of Isra-El, governed by God, and also the years of Shamgar's Judgeship, as falling within the period of the oppression of Jabin, and those of Samson as falling within the period of the oppression of the Philistines.
The Table on p. 49, in Vol. II, Chronological Tables, gives a complete view of the entire period of the Judges, apportioning the number of years assigned to each period in the Text of the Old Testament, and showing its agreement with the number of years in the longer periods of the 300 and the 480 years specified in the Old Testament, and the 450 years specified in the New Testament.
CHAPTER XIX.COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY - MOSES TO SAMUEL.
THE so-called Samuel or Eli-Saul chasm, which fills the interval between the last year of Eli and the 1st of Saul, has been as great a puzzle to the Chronologers as the so-called Joshua-Judges chasm.They all persist in the error of supposing that the period is not definitely implied in the statements of the Old Testament, and they either fall back upon Josephus or some other unauthoritative source, or else proceed to fill the gap by setting down the figure which appeals most strongly to their own imagination.The result is the production of an immense variety of discordant figures obtained by guesswork, all alike destitute of any semblance of authority or value.The following Table may be compared with the list of guesses hazarded by Chronologers, ancient and modern, as to the length of the period of the so- called Joshua - Judges chasm, given in Chap. 16.
ELI - SAUL CONNECTION.
From the Death of Eli to the beginning of the Reign of Saul.
According to the subjective opinions of Chronologers, ancient and modern,
or as Clinton phrases it, as "variously supplied by conjecture."
Jewish Chronicle (included in reign of Saul) 0 years
Eusebius 0 years
Petavius 0 years
Clement of Alexandria 0 or 9 years
Theophilus 12 or 23 years
Josephus (Eli and Saul = 52) 12 or 23 years
De Tournemine in Du Fresnoy 20 years
Syncellus 20 or 40 years
Ussher (Eli omitted as contemporary with Philistine Servitude) 21 years
Hales (Eli and Samuel = 72) 32 years
Clinton (32 years are not too much to assume) 32 years
Africanus 38 or 50 or 108 years
Willis J. Beecher (Waiting 20, Samuel 19) 39 years
Companion Bible 40 years
Jackson 41 years
A. V. Margin = Bishop Lloyd (B.C. 1141-1095) 46 years
Paschal Chronicle 60 years
This method of writing history, which records only those facts and dates which lie on the surface, leaving the gaps between them to be "supplied by conjecture," is not one that will commend itself to the modern student of Biblical Chronology.
History and geography are descriptive Sciences.They are not, like physics, chemistry and biology, general Sciences in which hypotheses are allowable, because they can always be tested and verified or disproved by observation and experiment.The Sciences of history and geography depend entirely on direct observation and testimony, and where that is wanting they lose the character of Sciences altogether, unless the problems encountered can be solved by historical induction from well attested facts from which the information required can be deduced by way of inference.It is in this manner alone that the problems of Biblical Chronology can be solved, and the Joshua - Judges, the Samuel and other apparent chasms in the continuity of the Chronology bridged over.
It is for this purpose that the long periods of Scripture are given; to them recourse must be had in every case in which there is a break in the continuity of the dates given in the narrative of the history.The result will show that every gap or chasm in the Old Testament history can be bridged over, and that the materials given in the Text of the Old Testament are sufficient to construct a continuous Chronology of dated events from the creation of Adam to the "cutting off" of the Messiah, without recourse to any outside source of information, or to the adoption of problematical results "supplied by conjecture."
The 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.
The long period of 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 has occasioned a considerable amount of perplexity.Some Chronologers, like Ussher, have adopted it into their chronological system and thereby vitiated their entire scheme from that point onward to the extent of 114 years.Others, like Jackson, Hales and Clinton, regard it as "a forgery foisted into the Text," and reject it altogether.Others, again, have not only accepted the number 480 as authentic, and bent the Chronology of the Old Testament to make it accord with this figure, but they have even ventured upon the task of correcting St. Paul, and emended the Text of the New Testament in Acts 13:17- 20 in order to bring it into accord with the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.
This "amended," or rather this corrupted Text, is the basis of the translation of Acts 13:17- 20 in the Revised Version, a rendering which absolutely precludes the possibility of putting any intelligible construction on the words of Acts. 13:19-20.
The Authorised Version translates the true Text of sTi. D2, E, H, L, P, and many others, item D*d., syr., ar., aeth., "when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He divided their land to them by lot.And after that He gave unto them Judges about the space of 450 years until Samuel the prophet."
The Revised Version translates the "emended" Text of Gb1, ALEPH, A, B, C, and 7 cursives, which yields this nonsense, "when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He gave them their land for an inheritance for about 450 years; and after these things He gave them Judges until Samuel the prophet."
The great blot of the R.V. throughout the New Testament, is the overrating of the authority of Westcott and Hort's pet MSS. ALEPH and B., two MSS. regarded as amongst the earliest and best authorities by one school of Textual critics led by Westcott and Hort, but really two faulty copies carelessly made by Eusebius for the Emperor Constantine, containing numerous errors, and by no means worthy to be adopted as a standard Text, as is clearly proved by an opposing school of Textual critics led by Burgon and Scrivener.
How could St. Paul have been guilty of perpetrating a sentence which limits the inheritance of the Land by the people of Israel to the time of Eli, and then placing the period of the 14 Judges between Eli and Samuel!Fortunately, the Authorised Version adheres to the better MS. authorities, and gives not only an intelligible but also a true rendering of Paul's great speech at Antioch in Pisidia.
We will first prove (I) that the true extent of the period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon is 594 years: (1) from the Text of the Old Testament, and (2) from the address of St. Paul at Antioch recorded in the New Testament (Acts 13:17-20).We will then explain (II) the nature of the mistake of Ussher, who is followed in this matter by Bishop Lloyd, in the dates given in the margin of the A.V., and finally we will explain (III) the real significance of the phrase "the 480th year," as used by the author of the Text, 1 Kings 6:1, and the exact meaning which he intended to convey thereby.
I. From the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon = 594 years.
I. And first the true extent of the period which lies between the two epochs, the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon, in which the building of the Temple was commenced, is 594 years.Our first step is (I) to prove the accuracy of this figure (594 years) from the Text of the Old Testament. The Table of the 25 dated events of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, given on p.49, in Vol. II, contains full details of the entire period, together with the chapter and verse references which prove the truth of the number assigned to each dated event, except the 13 years of the Joshua-Judges connection and the 20 years, of the Eli-Saul connection, detailed proof of the length of which is given in chapters 16 and 18.The Table is as follows:-
Chronology of the Period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon.
(I) According to the Old Testament.
1. The Wilderness Period 40 years
2. The Seven Years' War 7 years
3. The Joshua-Judges Connection 13 years
4. 1st Servitude (Cushan) 8 years
5. Rest by Othniel 40 years
6. 2nd Servitude (Eglon) 18 years
7. Rest by Ehud 80 years
Judgeship of Shamgar included in 3rd Servitude (Jabin) -
8. 3rd Servitude (Jabin) 20 years
9. Rest by Barak 40 years
10. 4th Servitude (Midian) 7 years
11. Rest by Gideon 40 years
12. Usurpation of Abimelech 3 years
13. Judgeship of Tola 23 years
14. Judgeship of Jair 22 years
15. 5th Servitude (Ammon) 18 years
16. Judgeship of Jephthah 6 years
17. Judgeship of Ibzan 7 years
18. Judgeship of Elon 10 years
19. Judgeship of Abdon 8 years
20. 6th Servitude (Philistines) 40 years
Judgeship of Samson included in 6th Servitude (Philistines) -
21. Judgeship of Eli 40 years
22. Eli-Saul Connection = Judgeship of Samuel 20 years
23. Reign of Saul 40 years
24. Reign of David 40 years
25. Reign of Solomon to 4th year 4 years
Total 594 years
Our next step is to prove the accuracy of this figure (594 years), from the address of St. Paul at Antioch, in Pisidia, recorded in Acts 13:17-22 so far as it covers the same ground.
Chronology of the Period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon.
(2) According to St. Paul in Acts 13:17-22.
PERIODS Years stated by St. Paul Years omitted by St. Paul
1. The Wilderness Period 40 -
2. The Seven Years' War - 7
3. Division of the Land to 1st Servitude (Cushan) - 13
4. After that He gave unto them Judges,until (=heos i.e., up to and including) Samuel the Prophet 450 -
5. Saul 40 -
6. David - 40
7. Solomon, to his 4th year - 4
Period covered by St. Paul's statement 530 64
Period not covered by St. Paul's statement 64
Total 594
The ground covered by St. Paul's figures alone exceeds the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, to which has, to be added the whole of the 40 years of the reign of David and three smaller periods, which brings the total for the entire period up to 594 years, in exact accordance with the text of the Old Testament.
2. Ussher's mistaken Interpretation of 1 Kings 6:1.
II. We now proceed to explain the nature of the mistake of Ussher, whose dates were first printed, with some slight modifications, in the margin of the A.V. in Bishop Lloyd's Bible, published A.D. 1701.The dates in the margin of the A.V. are in the main exceedingly accurate and reliable.Those in the margin of the Book of Genesis are correct to the last detail.Ussher's dates are seriously astray only (1) in respect of this period, which Ussher assumes to be a period of 480 instead of 594 years, an error of 114 years which vitiates to that extent all previous dates expressed in terms B.C., and all subsequent dates expressed in terms A.M. or AN. HOM.; (2) in respect of the period of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, perhaps the most difficult and perplexing chronological period in the whole of the Old Testament; and (3) in the marginal note to 2 Kings 15:1, in accordance with which Ussher abridges the Chronology by a period of 11 years, by dating the accession of Uzziah (Azariah) from the 16th year of Jeroboam II instead of from his 27th year, thereby omitting an interregnum of 11 years after the reign of Amaziah of Judah, and reducing the interregnum after Jeroboam II of Israel from 22 years to 11 years.
Ussher's method of reckoning the Chronology of the Judges abridges the period from the division of the Land to the accession of Saul by exactly 114 years.This is done intentionally and purposely, the object being to cut off 114 of the 594 years between the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon in order to crowd all the events between these points into the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.
Ussher's error in this period may be tabulated as follows:-
Chronology of the Period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon.
Table of Ussher's Mistakes.
EVENT YEARS. TOO MUCH. TOO LITTLE.
Joshua-Judges Connection 31 instead of 13 = 18 -
Rest by Othniel 62 instead of 40 = 22 -
Rest by Ehud 20 instead of 80 = - 60
Rest by Barak 33 instead of 40 = - 7
Rest by Gideon 9 instead of 40 = - 31
Abimelech 4 instead of3 = 1 -
Jair 4 instead of 22 = - 18
Eli contemporary with the Philistine Servitude 0 instead of 40 = - 40
Eli-Saul Connection (Samuel Judgeship) 21 instead of 20 = 1 -
[TOTALS] 42 156
Deduct errors in excess 42
Net abridgement of the Chronology 114
Ussher's dates are quite correct down to the division of the Land, AN. HOM. 2560 = B.C. 1444 (Josh. 14:1, A.V. margin).He then omits these 114 years in order to square his Chronology with the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.In order to secure this result he assumes that the figures for some of the periods of rest are figures that include the years of the previous servitude, and that the Judgeship of Eli is contemporary with the Philistine oppression.Consequently his date for the accession of Saul is AN. HOM. 2909 = B.C. 1095 (1 Sam. 11:14, A.V. margin) instead of the true date which is AN. HOM. 3023, or just 114 years later than Ussher's date.
3. The real Significance of the Phrase "the 480th year," in 1 Kings 6:1.
III. We now turn to the examination of the real significance of the phrase "the 480th year" as used by the author in 1 Kings 6:8, with a view to ascertaining the exact meaning which he intended to convey to his readers by the use of it.
The Text is undoubtedly genuine, though many attempts have been made to alter, or to get rid of it.Thus the LXX. has "the 440th year." Jackson regards the number 480 as spurious.Clinton rejects it.Hales boldly declares it to be "a forgery foisted into the Hebrew Text."
The indefatigable Petavius, on the contrary, not only adhered to the Hebrew verity, reprobating every departure from or emendation of the Massoretic Text, but actually pronounced an anathema against those "who dared to assert that the number 480 years was corrupt."
A glance at the Table of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 (see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 49) will at once disclose the fact that the number 480 is arrived at by omitting from the 594 years of the entire period, the 111 years of the six servitudes and the 3 years of the usurpation of Abimelech.
The writer is not computing the Chronology of the world.He is computing the Chronology of Isra-El, i.e. of the chosen people as Governed-by-God, in other words, he is computing the years of the Theocracy that lie between these two crucial epochs, the Exodus at which it began and the commencement of the building of the Temple; at the dedication of which, just 10 years later, the full cycle of seventy-sevens of these Theocratic years was completed.The dedication of the Temple is manifestly an event of first-rate importance in the history of the religion of Israel, and in the relation of Israel to the government of Jehovah.
Hebrew names compounded of the passive participle and the Divine name El, are intended to immortalize that special form of the activity of God which the action of the verb denotes.At Peni-El, "faced by God," Jacob the "heeler," who had outwitted Esau and outbargained Laban, and prevailed with men, became Isra-El, "Governed-by-God." Similarly Samu-El, "heard by God," denotes a child of prayer (1 Sam. 1:20) and a man of prayer (1 Sam. 7:9; 8:6; 12:19-23; 15:11; Ps. 99:6; Jer. 15:1).Dani-El, "judged by God," a man whose judgment is not his own but God's.
Why, then, are these 114 years of servitude and usurpation omitted? Because the author is computing the years of the Theocracy, of the government of God, of Isra-El, and during those years Israel was not Isra-El, not governed by God, but under the heel of the oppressor and the usurper. Hence they are not included in the Theocratic years of the reckoning of God, though they are reckoned in the computation of the years of the age of the World.
The method appears strange and almost impossible to the modern mind, with its highly developed historical sense, its worship of truth, its keen scent for fact, and its pantheistic indifference to distinctions of good and evil.Nevertheless, there are days in the history of individuals and years in the history of the nations which we would fain blot out of the calendar of time.Job desired for the day of his birth that it might perish, that it might "not be joined to the days of the year, nor come into the number of the mouths." We cannot deal thus with the objective facts and events of time, but we can with the chronicle and the record of them.
The monarchs of Assyria, and other nations of antiquity, left copious records of their conquests and their victories, but they did not chronicle their disasters and their defeats.The nations of the East were accustomed to treat their history in this way.They kept account of the years of prosperity, but they omitted from their Chronology altogether the years of national humiliation and disgrace.We do not write our histories in this way, but
"East is East and West is West,
And never the twain shall meet."
It is a first principle of statistical Science that no list of figures compiled for one purpose should be used for another purpose.The purpose of the compiler determines the classification and hence the number of the units.All kinds of statistics are lawful if we use them lawfully.
If I am asked the duration of the Kingdom of England from the accession of William the Conqueror to that of Queen Victoria, I reply 1837 - 1066 = 771years.But if the purpose of the enquiry is to institute a comparison between a monarchy and a republic then I must deduct the 11 years marked "Abasileutus," or "Commonwealth," between the reigns of Charles I and Charles II, and possibly other periods of Regency, and the 771 years of the duration of the Kingdom will be reduced to 760 or something less.
Now the writer of 1 Kings 6:1 is computing the years of the Theocracy, the years of God's rule, the years of Isra-El, when she was herself, when she was isra-El, when she was Governed-by-God, and the sum total of these years is correctly given.
During the years of the servitudes the people of Israel were not ruled- by-God, for "He delivered them into the hands of Spoilers that spoiled them, and sold them into the hands of their enemies round about."He sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim.They served Eglon - not Jehovah.He sold them into the hand of Jabin.He delivered them into the hand of Midian. Abimelech reigned over Israel - not God.He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and into the hands of the children of Ammon.These are the keynotes of the history of the periods of oppression and usurpation.
It is abundantly clear that these are no Theocratic years at all, and cannot be included in the reckoning of the years of God when He ruled over Israel and Israel served Him.Nothing can be clearer than the fact that these are the years which the writer of 1 Kings 6:1 omits, except the fact that he omits them intentionally and purposely, and does not for a moment pretend to be making an ordinary chronological statement.He does not even say that the space between the two epochs was a period of 480 years.He records a fact which took place in the 480th year, by which he means the 480th theocratic year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt.
Contemporary Events in Egypt.
There are no synchronisms between the history of Israel during the period from the birth of Moses to the end of the administration of Samuel (AN. HOM. 2433-3023), and the history of Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, or Greece, either in the literary records which have been preserved to us, or in the Monumental Inscriptions that have been discovered in recent times.
With regard to Egypt, the identification of the Pharaoh of the oppression has not yet been established.We have to choose between two rival schools.Those who adopt the Long Chronology identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Achencheres, Amosis or Amenophis, one of the Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty, and date the Exodus somewhere near the year B.C. 1500.Those who adopt the Short Chronology identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Merenptah (also called Amenophis in the story of Manetho), the son of Rameses the Great, one of the Pharaohs of the 19th dynasty, and date the Exodus somewhere near B.C. 1300.
According to those who adopt the Short Chronology, the Pharaoh who "made the children of Israel to serve with rigour" (Ex. 1:13) and "made their lives bitter with hard bondage" (Ex. 1:14), the Pharaoh for whom "they built treasure cities Pithom and Raamses" (Ex. 1:11), and who died sometime after Moses was 40 years old (Ex. 2:23 with Acts 7:23,30), was Rameses II, whose long reign of 67 years, and whose extensive and enormous Monumental remains ought to form a distinct chronological landmark.
The Short Chronology rests upon the identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Merenptah, whose reign is dated B.C. 1328-1309.But the only authority for this identification is the account of the Exodus given by Manetho and preserved in Josephus, who, however, regards it as of little or no authority.
The story is that the King, whose name is given as Menophis or Amenophis, but who must be identified with Merenptah the Son of Rameses II, resolved to propitiate the gods by purging the land of Egypt of all lepers and unclean persons.These, to the number of 80,000, were banished to the city of Avaris (Pelusium).Here they chose for their leader an apostate priest of Heliopolis, whose name, Osarseph, was changed to Moses.He gave them new laws, bidding the people to sacrifice the sacred animals.He fortified the city, and called in the aid of the shepherds who had been expelled from Avaris and had settled in Jerusalem.These now advanced to Avaris with an army of 200,000 men."The King of Egypt marched against them with an army of 300,000, but returned to Memphis through fear of an ancient prophecy.He then fled to Ethiopia, whence he returned after an absence of 13 years, drove the rebels out of Egypt, and pursued them to the frontier of Syria." (Philip Smith's Ancient History).
The story evidently confuses remIniscences of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings of the 18th dynasty (c. 1500) with the Exodus of the Israelites.It is a manifest invention of the priests of Egypt, a perverted Egyptian version of the great national disaster by which the chariots and the horsemen and all the hosts of Pharaoh were overtaken when "the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the Sea."The mention of lepers recalls the sign of Moses' leprous hand.The people's choice of Moses as their leader, their acceptance of new laws at his hands, the mention of Jerusalem and the description of Moses as an apostate priest, one therefore who was "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," may be regarded as so many dim reflections of the underlying truth which the legend perverts and yet preserves.The name of the King of Egypt - Amenophis, though he is here identified with Merenptah of the 19th dynasty, is more probably that of the real Amenophis of the 18th dynasty.
The Long Chronology rests upon the identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus with one of the Egyptian Kings of the 18th dynasty, whom Africanus calls Amosis, whose date is somewhere about B.C. 1525, and whom he describes as the first King of the 18th dynasty.
But both the Greek and the Armenian copies of Eusebius place the Exodus under the 9th King of the 18th dynasty, whose name was Achencheres, and who was either the son or the grandson of Amenophis III.
The history of the Empire of the Pharaohs for this period is full of obscurities.It was a time of continual revolution and civil discord.Revolts occurred in most of the provinces, and disorder reigned for nearly half a century after the death of Amenophis III.
The following dates have been assigned to the Exodus by various members of these two rival schools.
THE LONG CHRONOLOGY { Pharaoh = one of the Kingsof the 18th dynasty.
{ Exodus = c. 1500 B.C.
The theory of Lepsius has now been abandoned by recent scholars, and a new theory framed by Mahler, Edouard Meyer and others, has taken its place.Hence we have a third school of Chronologers and a still shorter Chronology, amongst the advocates of which the following names deserve mention:-
1st year of Merenptah.
A. H. Sayce 1280 B.C.
E. A. W. Budge (British Museum Guide) 1263 B.C.
Breasted 1225 B.C.
Flinders Petrie 1207 B.C.
All Egyptian dates for this period are, however, purely conjectural.The date of the Exodus is fixed quite definitely in the Hebrew Text, and as there is nothing certainly known in the records of Egypt to conflict with the Hebrew date there is no reason why it should not be accepted.The Exodus occurred on the 14th of Nisan, in the year AN. HOM. 2513, a year which would be expressed by Ussher as B.C. 1492, but in terms of the scheme of the present writer as B.C. 1530 (Bible dates), and in terms of the ordinary received Chronology as B.C. 1612 (Ptolemaic dates).
There are no synchronisms during this period, AN. HOM. 2433-3023 in Babylonian history.The contemporary monarchs were the Kings of the Kassite dynasty (B.C. 1780-1203), the dynasty of Isin (B.C. 1203-1030), the Dynasty of Elam (B.C. 1030-1025) and the second dynasty of Babylon (B.C. 1025-730) (Prof. Jastrow's dates).
There are no synchronisms during this period with the events of Assyrian history.Babylon was conquered by Tilgath-in-Aristi I (son of Shalmaneser I), King of Assyria about B.C. 1270.The kings of the daughter colony, Assyria, continued to rule the mother city, Babylon, from this time onward for about 600 years, till the destruction of Nineveh by Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, and Cyaxares the Mede, in or before the year B.C. 606.
There are no synchronisms during this period with the history of Greece. The date usually assigned to the taking of Troy is B.C. 1184.Sir Isaac Newton places it in the year B.C. 904.
PERIOD III.THE MONARCHY - 1 Sam. 8 to 2 Kings.
CHAPTER XX.SAUL, DAVID AND SOLOMON.
I. Saul.
VERY little is known of Saul in the way of Chronology.The Old Testament gives neither the year of his coronation, the length of his reign, nor the year of his death.
There is only one date given for his reign, and that is to Commentators and Revisers, both ancient and modern, a puzzle and a mystery.In 1 Sam. 13:1 we read, "Saul reigned one year;and when he had reigned two years over Israel" he established a standing army.The meaning of this verse unquestionably is that Saul had now, at this point in the narrative, reigned one year, viz. from his first anointing by Samuel at Ramah, to his second anointing by him at Gilgal after the defeat of Nahash.
The historian proceeds to tell us that he reigned over Israel two years, that is he reigned two years over the whole of Israel now that he was publicly recognised and accepted by all the people at Gilgal, for before, at the public recognition at Mizpeh, there were some who dissented from the appointment and despised him (1 Sam. 10:17-27).
The implication is that at the end of this two years the Lord cast him off, and anointed David in place of him.The remaining 37 years of his reign is not recognised as legitimate ruling, but is regarded rather as a tyranny, and a persecution.During the two years of his recognised rule over Israel he defeated Moab, Ammon, Edom, the Kings of Zobah, the Philistines and the Amalekites, and thus delivered Israel out of the hands of those that spoiled them (1 Sam. 14:47-48).Then he invaded and conquered Amalek, but here he disobeyed the word of the Lord in sparing Agag, and the Lord cast him off, three years after his first anointing at Mizpeh, and two years after the commencement of his reign over all Israel at his second anointing at Gilgal.
The translation of the verse in the Revised Version is utterly unwarranted, and the marginal note is distinctly misleading.The R.V. rendering is "Saul was (thirty) years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel."The marginal note reads as follows: "The Hebrew Text has 'Saul was a year old'.The whole verse is omitted in the unrevised LXX. but in a later recension the number 30 is inserted."
Now the truth is the Hebrew Text does not say " Saul was a year old." To say that it does is to charge it with perpetrating a folly of which it is incapable.And the charge is a false one.What the Hebrew Text says is not "Saul was a year old," but "Saul was a year old in his reigning" or "in his Kingdom," literally "a son of one year in his reigning," accurately "Saul had been reigning one year."The description of the LXX. which omits the verse altogether as "the unrevised LXX." when it is nothing else but the original LXX. itself, and of the LXX. of Origen's Hexapla, in which Origen himself has interpolated the word "thirty" as a "later recension," implying the superiority of Origen's interpolated text to the original LXX., is an inexcusable and a gratuitous misrepresentation of the facts of the case.The translators of the LXX. omitted the verse altogether simply because they did not understand it.Origen perverted it because he did not understand it. The Revisers prefer the perverted text of Origen to the imperfect text of the original LXX., which omits the text altogether, and both to the true Text as it stands in the Hebrew Verity.If modern interpreters, instead of reading modern ideas into the Text of these ancient writers, would place themselves at the point of view of the writers, we should be spared some of these superfluous "emendations."In truth the Text, as it stands in the Hebrew, is both correct and complete.These first three years are carefully distinguished and marked off from the remaining 37 years of Saul's reign because they are regarded as being years of a different character.The first three years are years of the legitimate rule of Saul, the Lord's anointed.The last 37 years are years of the unrecognised and illegitimate tyranny of Saul, the usurper of David's throne, and the rejected of the Lord.
Josephus says: "Now Saul, when he had reigned 18 years while Samuel was alive, and after his death two (and twenty), ended his life in this manner."There may have been some authentic record to which Josephus had access, and from which he obtained the information here given, and this is all the more probable, because the length of Saul's reign was also known to St. Paul, who gives it in his address at Antioch in Pisidia, as a "space of 40 years" (Acts 13:21).
II. David.
Full details are given of the Chronology of David's reign.He was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 40 years.In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 2:11; 5:4,5; 1 Chron. 29:27).
Willis J. Beecher, therefore, adds 41 years to the Chronology for the reign of David, assuming that the odd six months would be counted to David as an additional year.But there is no ground for this supposition.The statement in 2 Sam. 2:11 from which that of 2 Sam. 5:5 is derived is quite peculiar. The Hebrew specifies 7 years and 6 months as "the number of days that David reigned in Hebron."
The usual chronological statements of the years of the Kings reckon quite accurately in whole years, without introducing fractions of a year.For these whole years are always calendar years from New Year's Day (Nisan 1st) to New Year's Day.They are not measured from the day of the King's accession to the day of his death.They are designed like the years of the Patriarchs in Genesis, and the reigns of the Kings in Ptolemy's Canon, and in the Assyrian Eponym Canon, to mark the succession of the years in a given chronological Era.
It is not so with a chronological statement which contains fractions of a year like this of David's 7 1/2 years in Hebron.Here we have a statement measuring the exact duration of David's reign in Hebron, as measured from the day of his accession to the day of his removal to Jerusalem.When the statement is reproduced in terms of calendar years in 1 Chron. 29:27, the number assigned to David's reign is not 41 but 40 years.
This is confirmed by the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, for if we give David 41 years, that figure would have to be altered to 481. We could not make David's reign 41 years in that list and still retain the number 480 by reducing the Joshua-Judges chasm to 12 instead of 13, for if we did that we should reduce Jephthah's 300 to 299.These numbers are so locked and inter- locked, so checked and doubly checked, that it is next to impossible to "correct" any one of them without throwing the whole system into confusion.
Other dated events are mentioned as taking place in the reign of David.
(1) In 2 Sam. 15 7 we read, "And it came to pass after 40 years, that Absalom said unto the King, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the Lord, in Hebron."It is the story of the commencement of Absalom's rebellion.If we knew the point of departure from which the 40 years are reckoned we should be able to fix the date of the event, but we do not.
Hales suggests an "emendation" of the Text, and would read 4 years with the Syriac, Arabic, several MSS. of the Vulgate, Josephus and Theodorus, instead of 40, "the present reading being utterly inexplicable."
The proposal is wholly gratuitous.The 40 years is not reckoned from the time of the events detailed in the preceding verses, 1 Sam. 15 1-6, but from some previous event, whether, as Dr. John Lightfoot, Ussher and the Companion Bible suggest, from the anointing of David, or from some other event, is uncertain.
As the last four chapters of the Book (2 Sam. 21-24) contain five appendices on (1) the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21), (2) David's Song (2 Sam. 22), (3) David's last words (2 Sam. 23:1-7), (4) David's mighty men (2 Sam. 23:8- 39), and (5) David's census (2 Sam. 24), incidents which are not arranged in chronological order, and which do not form part of the consecutive history of David; and as almost the very next incident of the consecutive history (1 Kings 1) is the story of David's last days and death, there is no reason why the 40 years may not be reckoned from the 1st year of the reign of David.In that case, 1 Sam. 15:7, "It came to pass after 40 years," means it came to pass in the 40th and last calendar year of David's reign, the 41st as it would be called by us if we reckoned from the day of his accession instead of from the following New Year's Day, as the writers of the Old Testament reckon.As however one cannot be quite sure that this is the epoch from which the 40th year is reckoned, the event is not inserted in the Chronological Tables.
(2) The other dated event belonging to David's reign is the appointment of Officers of State, which took place in the fortieth year of his reign (1 Chron. 26:31).
III.Solomon.
"The time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was 40 years" (1 Kings 11:42; 2 Chron. 9:30).
The dated events of his reign are the following:- "In the fourth year of Solomon's reign, in the month Zif, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD" (1 Kings 6:1,37), "in the 2nd day of the 2nd month of the 4th year of his reign" (2 Chron. 3:2). In the 11th year in the month Bul, which is the 8th month, the House was finished throughout, so he was 7 years (more exactly 7 years and six months) in building it (1 Kings 6:38)
In the 11th year he commenced to build his own house, and with this he was occupied for 13 years until the 20th year of his reign (1 Kings 7:1; 9:10; 2 Chron. 8:1).
Accuracy of the Round Numbers used in the Old Testament.
The remarkable fact that each of the first three Kings of Israel, Saul, David and Solomon, are said to have reigned 40 years, has been used to cast a doubt upon the accuracy of the record, these figures being used, it is said, as round numbers, and signifying nothing more than a rough approximation to the lifetime of one generation.
The same argument has been applied to other periods of 20, 40 and 80 years in respect of the 40 years in the wilderness, and the periods of rest in the Book of Judges.The argument could not be applied to the Kings of Israel and Judah from Rehoboam and Jeroboam onward without modification, as there, only one out of the 19 Kings of Judah, and only one out of the 19 Kings of Israel, is credited with either 20 or 40 years.
Nevertheless, it has been urged that multiples of five occur with great frequency in the ages of the Kings of Judah, and the years of their reign, and that the natural inference is that the figures given are round numbers or approximations (D. R. Fotheringham, Chronology of the Old Testament).But the total number of the ages and reigns of the Kings of Judah is 36.Of these we should expect, on the theory of averages, that at least 7 would end in a 5 or a 0.As a matter of fact, seven end in a 5 and two in a 0, from which the true conclusion is that the figures given are not approximations, but exact statements of matters of fact.
The same can he said with regard to the periods of 20, 40 and 80 years. The entire list is as follows:-
Periods of 20, 40 and 80 years mentioned in Scripture.
The Wilderness Period 40 years
Othniel 40 years
Ehud 80 years
Jabin 20 years
Barak 40 years
Gideon 40 years
The Philistines 40 years
Eli 40 years
Samuel 20 years
Saul 40 years
David 40 years
Solomon 40 years
The wilderness period is not an approximation, for it is calculated to the day, and full particulars are given of 17 distinct events with the year, the month, and the day of the month on which they happened, especially at the beginning and at the end of the period.
It is not true of David's reign, for this is divided into two parts of 7 1/2 and 33 years respectively.We have no warrant for concluding that the remaining periods of 20, 40 and 80 years may not be made up in the same way either to the day, as in the case of the wilderness period, or within six months, the fraction of a year being allowed for in the Chronology as in the case of the reign of David.
The number of the Kings of England from William the Conqueror to Queen Victoria is 35.On the theory of averages we should expect the number of years in the reigns of 7 of these to end in a 5 or a 0.As a matter of fact, 12 or nearly double that number end in one or other of these figures, yet no one supposes that the length of the reigns of the Kings of England is an approximation.
The Book of Judges is a very condensed account of a long period of time. Its space is apportioned at the rate of 5 pages to the Century. A writer on English Architecture would not be guilty of chronological inaccuracy if he dealt in a similarly brief space with the various styles of Gothic Architecture, tabulating them as follows: 11th Century, Norman; 12th Century, Transition; 13th Century, Early English; 14th Century, Decorated; and 15th Century, Perpendicular.As a matter of fact, each of these styles dates from at least a decade or so before the opening year of the Century to which it mainly belongs. But the Chronology of the entire period is not affected thereby.And it must not be supposed that the round numbers used in Scripture are introduced in such a way as to make the Chronology, as a whole, inaccurate or inexact.The reckoning by forties is just as accurate as the reckoning by Centuries. If these numbers are approximations they are self-compensating and self-correcting, and conduct us to a point quite definite and quite exact, for their totals agree with the long numbers measuring long periods by which smaller component numbers are checked.All the above periods of 40 years are checked either by St. Paul's 450 years, in Acts 13:20, or by the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, and some of them by both of these long numbers.
We are therefore justified in rejecting the theory of round numbers or approximations, and taking the numerical statements of Scripture at their face value.We continue our Chronology from the election of Saul to the accession of Rehoboam and Jeroboam as follows:-
AN. HOM.
3023 Saul (see Chapter 17).
40 Add 40 years for the reign of Saul (Acts 13:21).
3063 David.
40 Add 40 years for the reign of David (2 Sam. 5:4,5; 1 Chron. 29:27).
3103 Solomon.
40 Add 40 years for the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:42, 2 Chron. 9:30).
3143 Rehoboam and Jeroboam.
CHAPTER XXI.ISRAEL AND JUDAH TO THE FALL OF SAMARIA.
The Gordian Knot of Bible Chronology.
(AN. HOM. 3143-3413).
[In reading this Chapter continual reference must be made to the Chronological Tables, which are printed separately in Vol. II so that they may lie upon the table at the required opening, ready for use.]
WE now reach the crux of the Chronology of the Old Testament, the period of the Kings of Judah and Israel, "the Gordian knot of Sacred Chronology," as Hales terms it.As was to be expected, we here meet with an unusually large number of attempts to cut the Gordian knot by means of so-called emendations, corrections and rejections of the Text by lame Chronologers, who, one and all, conclude that if they cannot make the figures agree, it is not their own interpretation of the figures, but the Text which is at fault. And yet there is not a single difficulty that has been raised which is not capable of a simple and easy solution without doing violence to the Text; there is not a single difficulty that has not been satisfactorily cleared up in standard works by able Chronologers from the Chronicle of the Old Testament by Dr. John Lightfoot, in the 17th Century, to Willis J. Beecher's Dated Events of the Old Testament, and the scholarly work of the author of the Companion Bible, in our own day.
"In casting up the times of the collateral Kingdoms," says Dr. Lightfoot, "your only way is to lay them in two columns, one justly paralleling the other, and run them both by years, as the Text directs you.But here is nicety indeed, not to see how strangely they are reckoned, sometimes inclusive, sometimes otherwise - for this you will easily find; but to find a reason why they be so reckoned.Rehoboam's years are counted complete; Abijam's are current.Whereas it is said that Jeroboam reigned 22 years - and his son Nadab 2 years; you will find by this reckoning that Nadab's 2 years fall within the sum of his father's 22.This may seem strange, but the solution is sweet and easy from 2 Chron. 13:20.The Lord smote Jeroboam with some ill disease, that he could not administer or rule the kingdom, so that he was forced to substitute Nadab in his lifetime.And in one and the same year, both father and son die."
"Divers such passages as these you will find in this story of the Kings. Ahaziah 2 years older than his father (2 Chron. 22:2), Baasha fighting 9 years after he is dead (2 Chron. 16:1), Jotham reigning 4 years after he is buried (2 Kings 15:30), Joram crowned King in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 1:17 with 1 Kings 22:51), and in the 22nd year of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:16), and after Jehoshaphat's death (2 Chron. 21:1)."
"For resolution of such ambiguities, when you have found them, the Text will do it, if it be well searched.This way, attained to, will guide you in marking those things that seem to be contradictions in the Text, or slips of the Holy Ghost, in which always is admirable wisdom."
"Admirable it is to see how the Holy Spirit of God in discords hath showed the sweet music.But few mark this, because few take a right course in reading of Scripture.Hence, when men are brought to see flat contradictions, as unreconciled there be many in it, they are at amaze and ready to deny their Bible.A little pains right spent, will soon amend this wavering and settle men upon the Rock, whereon to be built is to be sure."
The key to the solution of all these difficulties is given by Willis J. Beecher, in an article on "The Kings of Israel and Judah," in the American Presbyterian Review for April, 1880.
"In recording dates," he says, "these narratives follow a simple and consistent system.The following rules are obeyed with entire uniformity, in all the dates of the period under consideration:-
"Rule 1. All the years mentioned are current years of a consecutive system. The first year of a King is not a year's time beginning with the month and day of his accession, but a year's time beginning (1) the preceding, or (2) the following New Year's Day - the New Moon before the Passover, Nisan 1st.
"Rule 2.When a reign closes and another begins during a year, that year is counted to the previous reign (Judaite mode).
"Rule 3. Regularly in the case of the earlier Kings of Israel, and occasionally in other cases, the broken year is counted to the following reign as well as to the previous reign (Israelite mode).
"Rule 4. When we use the ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) which date the beginning or the end of a reign to check the cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.), which denote its duration, we must count both sets as designating complete calendar years.That is, we must count the date given in the ordinal as being either the opening or the close of the year designated by the ordinal.Otherwise the units represented by the two sets of numbers are of different sorts, and cannot be numerically compared."
The Hebrew Text of the history of this period is self-consistent and self-contained. All the data required for the resolution of any difficulties that may arise are to be found in the Text itself.
There is no need to fall back upon Josephus.Still less is there any need to introduce any of the harmonizing expedients of the LXX. or any of the "emendations," "restorations" and "corrections" of the Text by modern critics, who present us with a view of the history as they think it ought to be, not with a view of the history as it is.
Similarly the use of "Sothic Cycles," the calculation of eclipses and other astronomical methods and expedients for settling Bible Dates, are all alike inadmissible.They are liable to errors of observation on the part of the original observer, to errors of calculation on the part of the modern astronomer, and consequently to errors in the identification of the observed and recorded eclipse with the eclipse reached by astronomical calculation.
They are used mainly in support of assumptions and pre-suppositions already arrived at by the method of hypothesis and conjecture.They may be true or they may not, but in any case they cannot be erected into a standard by which to correct the data given in the Hebrew Text.
Modern Egyptologists make much of astronomical data.Each advocate regards his own scheme as thereby invested with the certainty of a mathematical calculation.But there are many such schemes, and they differ from each other by more than a century.As Willis J. Beecher says, "Each chain has links of the solid steel of astronomical computation, but they are tied together with the rotten twine of conjecture."
A few years ago the scheme of Lepsius was generally accepted by those modern Egyptologists by whom the Biblical data were discarded.A Sothic Cycle known as that of Menophres, terminated A.D. 139, and as the cycle contains 1,461 years it began B.C. 1322.By this calculation they date the Exodus in the year B.C. 1320.The inference depends for its validity upon the truth of the following hypotheses, every one of which partakes of the character of an unverified conjecture:-
1.The trustworthiness of the testimony of Censorinus, the chronological scheme constructor, who lived A.D. 238, and who states in his work De die Natali that a Sothic period came to an end A.D. 139.The testimony may be authentic and reliable, but as it is not contemporary, but given just a century after the event, it is at all events liable to error.
2. The accuracy of the calculation of Censorinus, and the truth of the underlying assumption that the period of 1,460 Sothic years of 365 1/4 days does actually correspond with the period covered by 1,461 of the vague or calendar years of 365 days, and that these vague years were used in the historical records of Egypt throughout the entire period of 1,460 Sothic or 1,461 vague calendar years.
3. The accuracy of the calculation of modern astronomers as to the heliacal rising of Sirius, the rising of the dogstar with the sun in the year B.C. 1322.
4. The accuracy of the identification of this cycle (B.C. 1322 to A.D. 139) with the Sothic cycle of Menophres.
5. The accuracy of the identification of this Menophres with Merenptah the son of Rameses the Great.
6. The accuracy of the identification of Merenptah with the Amenophis IV, to whose reign Manetho, as reported by Josephus, assigns the Exodus.
7. The trustworthiness of the testimony of Manetho, as preserved in Josephus, in referring the Exodus to the reign of this Amenophis IV, and the accuracy of the identification of Manetho's story of the expulsion of the lepers with the Biblical story of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, by Moses, at the Exodus.
Lepsius held that the year B.C. 1322 was connected with the reign of Merenptah, the immediate successor of Rameses the Great.It was based on astronomical calculations of the Sothic cycle, and was generally accepted by modern scholars a few years ago.
But to-day the theory of Lepsius is abandoned for another theory also based on astronomical calculations of the Sothic cycle, and elaborated by Mahler, Edouard Meyer, Prof. Breasted, and others.Its advocates claim that their methods are exact, but their results are various and incompatible. The year in which Merenptah succeeded Rameses II is given by Flinders Petrie as B.C. 1207, by Sayce as B.C. 1280, and by Breasted as B.C. 1255.
But the most striking feature in the whole process and method of these scientific calculations is the fact that the synchronism of Amenophis III of Egypt with Burna-buriash of Babylon and Asshur-uballet of Assyria, who are said to have flourished about B.C. 1430, which was formerly used in confirmation of the Lepsian dates, is now used in confirmation of these other dates, which differ from that of Lepsius by 42, 97, and 115 years respectively, "each method abundantly convincing to those already convinced before!"
These quasi-infallible dates arrived at by modern investigators are erected into a standard by which to amend and to correct the dates of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.But this is correcting standard coin of the realm by means of counterfeit fabrications.
The authentic documents of the Hebrew Old Testament are both accurate and self-consistent, complete and self-sufficient.The facts and the events, the dates and the periods there given, are as accurate and as reliable as those other statements upon which we base our confidence in the goodness of God, and rest in hope of eternal Salvation.
We read in Hales' Analysis of Sacred Chronology, the following proud and startling paragraph.
"We are now competent to detect some errors that have crept into the correspondences of reigns; and which have hitherto puzzled and perplexed Chronologers, and prevented them from critically harmonizing the two series; not being able to distinguish the genuine from the spurious numbers.
1. 1 Kings, 22:41.Jehoshaphat began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab.It should be the second.
2. 1 Kings 22:51,Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat.It should be the twentieth.
3. 2 Kings 1:17,Jehoram the son(?) of Ahaziah began to reign over Israel in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat.It should be in the twenty-second year of Jehoshaphat, as also where it is again incorrectly stated in the eighteenth (2 Kings 3:1).
4. 2 Kings 8:16,Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began to reign over Judah, in the fifth year of the reign of Joram the (grand)son of Ahab.It should be,
(1) the fifth year from the death of Ahab, or
(2) the third year of Joram's reign.
'Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah' is an anachronism and an interpolation in the Massoretic Text.
5. 2 Kings 13:10.Jehoash began to reign over Israel in the thirty- seventh year of Joash King of Judah.It should be in the thirty-ninth year; as in the Aldine Edition of the Greek Septuagint.
6. 2 Kings 15:30,Hoshea slew Pekah King of Israel in the twentieth year of Jotham.But Jotham only reigned sixteen years (2 Kings 15:33).It should be in the third year of Ahaz, as collected from 2 Kings 16:1."
Clinton follows in the same groove, though not quite in the same vein.Chronologers generally follow each other like a flock of sheep, each one reproducing and propagating the errors of his predecessor.He says:-
"1. 2 Chron. 16:1-3.Baasha came up against Judah in the 36th year of the reign of Asa.As in the 36th year of Asa, Baasha was dead, we must either (1) correct the numbers to the 26th, or (2) we must understand them to mean the 36th year of the Kingdom of Judah.
2. 2 Chron. 22:2,Forty-two years for the age of Ahaziah are wrong, on account of 2 Kings 8:26, where it is given "22 years," and on account of the age of his father who died at forty.
3. 1 Kings 22:51,The 17th year of Jehoshaphat is inconsistent with the other coincidences given.(So he alters it to the 19th, as Hales does.)
4. 2 Kings 3:1,The 18th of Jehoshaphat was the 1st of Joram.This is evidently impossible; for between the accession of Jehoshaphat and the accession of Joram son of Ahab are 18 years complete of Ahab and two years of Ahaziah.
5. 2 Kings 1:17,Joram son of Ahab is said to have succeeded his brother in the 2nd of Jehoram King of Judah, but as the 1st of Jehoram King of Judah was the 5th of Joram King of Israel, and the 8th of the King of Judah was the 11th or 12th of the King of Israel, this date, the '2nd of Jehoram,' is evidently wrong.
6. 2 Kings 8:16.The phrase, 'Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah,' we may perhaps explain thus: Jehoram began to reign while his father was yet living (as in the accession of Solomon), and Jehoshaphat died at the commencement of the 25th year, which is therefore the 1st Jehoram.
7. 2 Kings 13:10.The 37th year of Joash is inconsistent with the other dates. The LXX. has the 39th year, which might be the true reading.
8. 2 Kings 15:1.We may concur with Jackson, De Vignoles and Greswell in rejecting the 27th year of Jeroboam as corrupt."
All these difficulties are due to (1) misinterpretation of the words of the Text, or (2) unwarrantable inferences drawn by the Chronologer, not from the words of the Text, but from assumptions made by the Chronologer in construing it.
Thus 2 Chron. 16:1-3.Baasha came up against Judah in the 36th year of the reign of Asa.The text says the 36th year of the malekuth = malchuth = Kingdom of Asa, which Kingdom dates from the 1st year of Rehoboam, and which is here contrasted with the Kingdom of Baasha, which dates from the 1st year of Jeroboam.To make it mean the 36th year from the accession of Asa is an error of interpretation.
Again, 2 Kings 13:9,10.Jehoash of Israel began to reign in the 37th year of Joash, King of Judah.It is said that this should be the 39th.Here it is assumed that Jehoash of Israel did not begin to reign until after his father Jehoahaz was dead, and as his father did not die till two years later in the 39th of Joash of Judah, the inference drawn from the Chronologer's assumption is that Jehoash of Israel did not begin to reign till the 39th year of Joash of Judah.But the Text says he began to reign in the 37th year of Joash of Judah, and the true inference drawn from the Text is that Jehoash was Co-Rex with his father, during the last two or three years of his father's reign.
In like manner it can be shown that every other supposed inconsistency is not in the Text, but in the mind of the critic; that the Text is susceptible of another interpretation, and that the construction put upon it by the critic is a false one.This is done in the ensuing Chronological Table of the Kings of Judah and Israel, where each difficulty is explained in accordance with the statements of the Text.
The Table is divided into three periods :-
1. From the 1st of Rehoboam to the death of Ahaziah of Judah, which synchronises with the period from the 1st of Jeroboam to the death of Jehoram of Israel, both these monarchs having been slain at the same time by Jehu.
2. From the 1st of Athaliah to the 6th of Hezekiah, which synchronises with the 1st of Jehu to the 9th of Hoshea, the Text giving the synchronism, "the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea," as the date of the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 18:10).
3. From the fall of Samaria in the 6th of Hezekiah to the captivity.The captivity is dated from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim.The following year is characterised by the synchronism, "the fourth year of Jehoiakim that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar" (Jer. 25:1-11).The captivity lasted for 70 years (Jer. 25:12).
In the first of these three periods, Rehoboam and Jeroboam start level, and their years are parallel or co-numerary as far as they both continue. Similarly, in the second of these three periods, Athaliah and Jehu start level, and their years are parallel or co-numerary as far as they both continue.In the third period, which forms the subject of our next chapter, we have the reckoning of the one Kingdom of Judah only.
The reigns of the Kings of the first two periods are so locked and interlocked, that it is impossible for any error to have crept into the Chronology between the year of the disruption and the year of the fall of Samaria.
The accuracy of the Chronology of the Kingdom of Judah from the fall of Samaria to the captivity is likewise guaranteed, being checked by the long numbers which measure the intervals between two distant events, e.g. the period from the 13th year of Josiah, when the ministry of Jeremiah began, to the 4th year of Jehoiakim, is stated to have been a period of 23 years (Jer. 25:1-3).
The synchronism contained in Jer. 25:1 is the most important date in the Bible.It connects all the previous dates of Sacred Chronology down to the 4th year of Jehoiakim, with all the dates of Profane Chronology that can be connected with the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, for these two years are here identified, and to know any one date in a complete system of Chronology is to know every date connected with it.
We have inserted in Vol. II, pp. 50 and 51, two Tables giving a bird's- eye view of the Kings of Judah and Israel, the years of their reigns, and other particulars contained in the Hebrew Text.
Scripture Chronology deals only with integral years.It reckons a broken year sometimes as one whole year, which it gives to the outgoing King, and sometimes as two whole years, of which it gives one to the outgoing, and one to the incoming King, the year being thus reckoned twice over.It follows from this fact that the Chronology of the period cannot be ascertained by applying the process of simple addition to the figures denoting the length of the reigns of the various Kings.This is easily demonstrated.
In the first period the sum of the reigns of the 6 Kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Ahaziah of Judah is 95 years.The sum of the reigns of the 9 Kings of Israel from Jeroboam to Jehoram of Israel is 98 years.The true Chronology of the period is 90 years.The explanation of the figures 95 and 98 lies in the fact that in them some years have been reckoned twice over.
In the second period the sum of the reigns of the 6 Kings and 1 Queen of Judah from the 1st of Athaliah to the 6th of Hezekiah, together with the interregnum of 11 years, is 176 years.The sum of the reigns of the 10 Kings of Israel from the 1st year of Jehu to the 9th year of Hoshea, including the interregnums of 22 and 8 years respectively, is 175, reckoning a full year each to Zechariah and Shallum.The true Chronology of the period is 174 years, and the explanation of the figures 176 and 175 years is the same as before.
In the third period the sum of the reigns of the 6 Kings of Judah from the 6th year of Hezekiah to the 3rd year of Jehoiakim is 114.The true Chronology of the period is also 114 years.
We now proceed to consider the case of each reign in detail.The figures cannot be treated mechanically.They can only be interpreted and understood in the light of the accompanying narrative.
The fact that Ahab and his two successors, Ahaziah of Israel and Jehoram of Israel, all reigned in the same calendar year, is illustrated by the knowledge gained from the Assyrian Inscriptions that Ahab of Israel and Benhadad of Syria were engaged in military operations against Shalmaneser II (III) of Assyria, in the 21st year of Ahab's reign, which led to the appointment of Ahaziah of Israel as Co-Rex during his father's absence at the war.But Ahaziah was incapacitated by his fall through a lattice in his upper chamber (2 Kings 1:2).Hence the appointment of his brother Jehoram, either as Deputy or Pro-Rex, whilst Ahaziah was ill, or as Co-Rex with his father Ahab on Ahaziah's death. In that 18th year of Jehoshaphat, Ahab was in his 22nd year and died. Ahaziah of Israel was in his 2nd year as Co-Rex with his father Ahab, and he died.Thereupon Jehoram of Israel ascended the throne, and, in the usual Israelite mode of computation, the same year, the 18th of Jehoshaphat, is also given to him as the incoming King, and reckoned as his first year.
The last year of Edward IV was the year 1483.If his son Edward V had been associated with him in 1482 and had died, and been succeeded by Richard II in 1483 instead of 1485, we should have had a parallel case in English History.Edward IV, Edward V and Richard II all on the throne in the same calendar year.
Similarly, the character of Jehoram of Judah, one of the most wicked Kings that ever sat upon the throne of Judah (2 Chron. 21), explains why he should have been made Pro-Rex with his father in the 17th of Jehoshaphat (the 18th year of Jehoshaphat = the 1st year of Jehoram of Israel being his second year - 2 Kings 1:17; 3:1), then deposed by his godly father Jehoshaphat and subsequently re-appointed, or possibly, prompted by his own wickedness to usurp (2 Chron. 21:4) the throne of his father, in the 22nd year of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat himself being then (in the 22nd of Jehoshaphat = the 5th of Jehoram of Israel) King of Judah (2 Kings 8:16).
Ussher is correct here. Clinton is wrong. Ussher does not "suppose" three beginnings of the reign of Jehoram of Judah.He incorporates these three beginnings in his scheme as a fact definitely stated in the Hebrew narrative.
Clinton does not think the three beginnings probable, but circumstances alter cases, and our business is not to construe the Chronology as we think it ought to be, but as the Hebrew writer says it is.
If we adhere to the facts as given in the Hebrew Text, and never so much as attempt to "emend," to "correct," or to "restore" a single one of them, we shall find that we are here presented with a Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah which is at once both self-consistent, self-sufficient and correct in every detail.
I. First Period - Rehoboam to Jehu.
We begin with the reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam.We gather from the narrative that these both commenced in the same calendar year.The 40th year of Solomon is their accession year.The following year is their first year.The 17 years of Rehoboam run parallel with the first 17 years of Jeroboam.
Rehoboam was succeeded by Abijah, who began to reign in the 18th year of Jeroboam, and reigned 3 years (1 Kings 15:1,2).As Abijah's first year is the 18th year of Jeroboam, either his accession year was the 17th of Jeroboam = the 17th of Rehoboam, or else Rehoboam reigned out his 17th year to its close, and Abijah began his reign at the very beginning of the New Year.In either case the three years of Abijah will be the years 18, 19 and 20 of Jeroboam.
The words "began to reign" used throughout this entire period and spoken of almost every King, alike in the A.V. and in the R.V., is not an accurate translation of the Original. The Hebrew is always "he reigned," not "he began to reign."
The intention of the writer is to give us, not the actual day of the King's accession, but the calendar year of the chronological Era in which he came to the throne.As a matter of fact, he may have acceded to the throne in the year which, by the Judaite mode, is reckoned as the last year of the outgoing King, and by the Israelite mode as both the last year of the outgoing King and the year 1 of the incoming King.By the Israelite mode of computation the same year is reckoned twice over.
Abijah's three years are the years 18, 19 and 20 of the reign of Jeroboam. From 1 Kings 15:9,10 we learn that Asa "reigned" in the 20th year of Jeroboam, and that his reign consisted of 41 calendar years.As the 20th year of Jeroboam is already given to Abijah, this 20th year of Jeroboam is Asa's accession year, and Asa's year 1 is Jeroboam's year 21.Of course Asa did reign in the 20th year of Jeroboam, but only during a fraction of it. The Chronology ignores the fraction, and on the Judaite mode of reckoning gives the whole year to Abijah.
Should we make the mistake of entering Asa's year 1 as parallel with Jeroboam's year 20, then Asa's year 2 will be Jeroboam's year 21, and Asa's year 3 will be Jeroboam's year 22, which is Nadab's year 1.But by 1 Kings 15:25-33, Nadab reigned in the 2nd year of Asa, 2 years, and Baasha reigned in the 3rd year of Asa.We must therefore place Asa's year 1 parallel with Jeroboam's year 21, and Asa's accession year parallel with Jeroboam's year 20. What the narrative tells us is that during Abijah's year 3, he died and was succeeded by Asa, whose year 1 begins at the close of Abijah's year 3.
Asa 1 = Jeroboam 21.Therefore Asa 2 = Jeroboam 22.Jeroboam reigned 22 years and was succeeded by Nadab (1 Kings 14:20), who also reigned in Asa's year 2 (1 Kings 15:25).This year, Asa's year 2, is therefore reckoned twice over; it is given to Jeroboam, the outgoing King, as his year 22, and also to Nadab as his year 1.This is the Israelite mode of reckoning.
Nadab reigned 2 years (1 Kings 15:25).His year 1 is Asa's year 2.Therefore his year 2 is Asa's year 3. But in Asa's year 3, Baasha slew Nadab and reigned in his stead (1 Kings 15:28-33)Therefore Asa's year 3 is both Nadab's year 2 and Baasha's year 1.Again, the same year is reckoned twice over. It is given to Nadab, the outgoing King, as his last year, and to Baasha the incoming King, as his first year, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning.
Baasha reigned 24 years (1 Kings 15:33).His year 1 is Asa's year 3.Therefore his year 24 is Asa's year 26.But in Asa's year 26 Elah reigned (1 Kings 16:8).Hence Asa's year 26 is reckoned twice over, once as the last year of Baasha and again as the 1st year of Elah, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning.
Elah reigned 2 years (1 Kings 16:8).His year 1 is Asa's year 26.Therefore his year 2 is Asa's year 27.But in Asa's year 27 Zimri slew Elah and reigned 7 days (1 Kings 16:10-15).
Then the people made Omri King, but half the people followed Tibni, and they both reigned as rival Kings from Asa's year 27 till Tibni died (1 Kings 16:16-22).Again the year Asa 27 is reckoned twice over, to Elah the outgoing King, and to Omri and Tibni as their year 1, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning.On the death of Tibni, in Asa's year 31, Omri reigned over Israel alone (1 Kings 16:22-23)But Asa's year 27 was Omri and Tibni's year 1.Therefore Asa's year 31 was Omri and Tibni's year 5.
Omri reigned 6 years, that is one year more, in Tirzah. He then bought the hill of Samaria and built his new capital there (1 Kings 16:23,24).Omri reigned altogether 12 years (1 Kings 16:23).Since Asa's year 27 was Omri's year 1, Omri's year 12 was Asa's year 38.But Asa's year 38 is Ahab's year 1 (1 Kings 16:29).Hence Asa's year 38 is reckoned twice over to the outgoing King Omri as his 12th and last year, and to the incoming King Ahab as his first, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning.
The verse 1 Kings 16:23, like many others, would be much clearer if instead of the mistranslation "began to reign," we read simply "reigned," as it is in the Hebrew Text.Omri began to reign over part of Israel in Asa's year 27. He began to reign over all Israel in Asa's year 31.He reigned altogether 12 years from Asa's year 27 to Asa's year 38.
Asa reigned 41 years (1 Kings 15:10).Asa's year 38 was Ahab's year 1. Therefore Asa's year 41 was Ahab's year 4.But in Ahab's year 4, Jehoshaphat reigned in Judah (1 Kings 22:41).Asa's year 41 is therefore Jehoshaphat's accession year, and Jehoshaphat's year 1 is the next year, Ahab's year 5.The whole of the broken year, Ahab's year 4, is given to the outgoing King Asa, and none of it to the incoming King Jehoshaphat, according to the Judaite mode of reckoning.
Should we make the error of reckoning Ahab's year 4 as Jehoshaphat's year 1, we shall be tripped up when we reach the years of Ahaziah and Jehoram of Israel, and the critics who fall into this trap will immediately begin to cry out for an "emendation" of the Text to make it square with their error.
So far all is clear.Each figure given is found to be correct.The Judaite method of reckoning is applied to the Kings of Judah, the Israelite method to the Kings of Israel.
But now we reach the most difficult and puzzling problem of the Ahaziahs and the Jehorams of Israel and Judah, the Gordian knot of the Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah.Many Chronologers have cut the knot.But very few have untied it, amongst whom honourable mention must be made of Ussher, Willis J. Beecher, and the Author of the Companion Bible.
The problem is not an easy one, and it can only be solved by giving careful attention to the history of the period and the character of the Kings.
Three Kings of Israel and three Kings of Judah are concerned.A mnemonic will serve to fix them in their proper place and to distinguish one from another.A. follows A., and J. follows J., and the two successors of Ahab and Jehoshaphat are of the same names, but follow in reverse order.Thus we have the following successions:-
In Israel: (1) Ahab, (2) Ahaziah, (3) Jehoram.
In Judah:(1) Jehoshaphat (2) Jehoram, (3) Ahaziah.
Ahab married Jezebel and became a thorough-paced Pagan.Jehoshaphat walked in the ways of Asa his father doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord."After a while Jehoshaphat joined affinity with Ahab.
There was first family alliance (2 Chron. 18:1). Jehoshaphat's son, Jehoram of Judah, married Ahab's daughter Athaliah.Then there was a commercial alliance.Jehoshaphat joined himself with Ahab's son, Ahaziah of Israel, to make ships to go to Tarshish (2 Chron. 20:36).Finally, there was a military alliance. Jehoshaphat joined his armed forces with those of Ahab, and went up with him against Ramoth-gilead (1 Kings 22:1-40).
Jehoram of Judah was one of the worst men that ever sat on the throne of David.His wife Athaliah was the daughter of Jezebel, and whatever was not bad in her husband when she married him was made bad by her.He killed off all his brethren (2 Chron. 21:4).She killed off all the descendants of her son Ahaziah (except Joash who was saved by Jehoshabeath).Jehoram of Judah walked in the ways of the Kings of Israel like as did the house of Ahab.He rose up against (wayaqam al) the kingdom of his father (2 Chron. 21:4), not "was risen up to" in the sense of being made a partner of the kingdom, as suggested in the A.V. marginal note, but "he rose up against the rule of his father and slew all his brethren with the sword, and divers also of the princes of Israel."This looks like laying violent hands upon the Kingdom.Jehoram of Judah caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication and compelled Judah thereto (2 Chron. 21:11).Elijah rebuked him, his enemies stripped him of all his substance, the Lord smote him with a foul disease, and in the end "he departed without being desired."
When Ahab and Jehoshaphat went out to war they left the care of their Kingdoms to their sons.Hence we find Jehoram of Judah Pro-Rex with Jehoshaphat, and Ahaziah of Israel Co-Rex with Ahab, both in the same year.Next year Ahab dies in battle at Ramoth-gilead.Ahaziah of Israel falls through the lattice and dies, and his brother Jehoram of Israel succeeds to the Kingdom.This explains how it is that there were three Kings of Israel in one and the same calendar year.
Meanwhile Jehoshaphat returns to Jerusalem.He resumes the control of affairs, and the Pro-Rexship of Jehoram of Judah comes to an end, and with it the reckoning of Jehoram of Judah's years in 2 Kings 1:17, which makes Jehoram of Israel's year 1 = Jehoshaphat's year 18, which again = Jehoram of Judah's year 2.
Then comes Jehoshaphat's death and the sole Kingship of Jehoram of Judah.He began his second count as Co-Rex in Jehoram of Israel's 5th year (2 Kings 8:16,17) = Jehoshaphat's year 22.This, then, was Jehoram of Judah's year 1 as Co-Rex, Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah, if Hales and Clinton, who would delete these words as an interpolation, only knew it.
Jehoshaphat died in Jehoram of Judah's year 4 as Co-Rex, whereupon Jehoram of Judah begins to reign for the third time, now as sole King, but he continues the count of the years of his Co-Rexship and calls the next year his 5th year.He reckons himself King from the time of the first year of his CoRexship, and consequently he calls the year after the year of Jehoshaphat's death his year 5.
This explains the apparent incongruity of his beginning to reign three times over, 1st as Pro-Rex, when his father went to war, 2nd as Co-Rex, during his father's lifetime, when Jehoshaphat gave gifts and cities to all his sons, but gave to Jehoram of Judah the Kingdom because he was the firstborn (2 Chron. 21:3), and 3rd as sole King when his father died.
Ahaziah of Israel is said to have reigned 2 years, but both he and his father died in the same year, and both these years belong to each of them, whilst the second of them belongs also to Jehoram of Israel.All this is correctly stated in the Text (1 Kings 22:51; 2 Kings 1:17; 3:1), according to the Israelite mode of reckoning.
Since Jehoram of Israel's year 1 = Jehoram of Judah's year 2 (2 Kings 1:17; 3:1) = Ahab's year 22 = Ahaziah of Israel's year 2 = Jehoshaphat's year 18, it follows that Jehoram of Judah's year 1 as Pro-Rex = Jehoshaphat's year 17.
Since Jehoram of Judah's year 1 = Jehoram of Israel's year 5 = Jehoshaphat's year 22 (2 Kings 8:16,17), it follows that he must have been removed from the Pro-Rexship (the count of his years as Pro-Rex having ceased), and begun to reckon again as Co-Rex, making Jehoshaphat's year 22 the year 1 of his Co-Rexship, the years of which are continued throughout the rest of his life, so that when he becomes sole King on the death of Jehoshaphat his years are counted on just as if he were already King.In all this there is no departure from the ordinary Judaite mode of reckoning.The facts are all perfectly clear and are all clearly stated.They can only be understood by keeping the eye on the Chronological Table which exhibits them.(See Vol. II, p. 24.)
When Jehoram of Judah was smitten with the foul disease he was obliged to associate his son Ahaziah of Judah with himself as Co-Rex.Hence Ahaziah of Judah reigned in Jehoram of Israel's year 11, viz. as Co-Rex (2 Kings 9:29).
But since Jehoram of Israel's year 5 is Jehoram of Judah's year 1, it follows that Jehoram of Israel's year 11 is Jehoram of Judah's year 7.Hence Jehoram of Judah's year 7 is Ahaziah of Judah's year 1 as Co-Rex.The next year is Jehoram of Israel's year 12 = Jehoram of Judah's year 8 = the year in which Jehoram of Judah died (2 Kings 8:17), consequently in which Ahaziah of Judah became sole King (2 Kings 8:25) and reigned one year (2 Kings 8:26).This one year is Jehoram of Israel's year 12, and Ahaziah of Judah's year 1 as sole King.
But now for the first time in the records of the Kings of Judah we get one and the same year counted twice over, and given to the outgoing King, Jehoram of Judah, and also to the incoming King, Ahaziah of Judah.This just shows what thorough-paced heathens these two Kings of Judah had become, the one the husband, and the other the son, of Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel.We cannot affect to be surprised that under the domination of paganizing Israelitish influences, the Judaite method of reckoning is displaced by the Israelite mode of reckoning.
Ahaziah of Judah is the King whose age, as given in 2 Chron. 22:2, shows him to have been "two years older than his father."Yet, as Dr. John Lightfoot says, there is always "admirable wisdom" in these "slips of the Holy Ghost.""Strange variations yet always Divine," "discords in which the Holy Ghost hath showed sweet music."
Compare the two passages:-
2 Kings 8:26: "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
2 Chron. 22:2: "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
A plain contradiction, if ever there was one, either in the Bible or out of it, yet one put there intentionally and on purpose to convey a Divine Truth.
The two golden rules for the solution of Bible difficulties like this are, (1) look to the original Hebrew, and (2) read carefully the context.We translate-
2 Chron. 22:2: A son of 42 years was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
If, therefore, we look back 42 years, we shall come to his father.Now from AN. HOM. 3231, the first year of Ahaziah, deduct 42 years, and we reach the year AN. HOM. 3189.Referring to the Chronological Tables we find that the year AN. HOM. 3189 was the first year of Omri, the founder of a new dynasty - so that just as the sacred writer reckons the years of the Kingdom of Asa from the true origin of the Kingdom in the first year of Rehoboam (2 Chron. 16:1, see Chronological Tables AN. HOM. 3178 = 16th year of Asa), so here he reckons the years of Ahaziah from the accession of the dynasty of Omri.
Now look to the context.Complete the translation of the verse:-
2 Chron. 22:2:A son of 42 years was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem, and his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab. He did evil, like the house of Ahab.He went down to see Joram the son of Ahab.And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram.For he went out with Joram against Jehu, whom the Lord had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab.And when Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab, and found the princes of Judah and the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah, he slew them.And he sought Ahaziah, and they caught him (for he was hid in Samaria), and when they had slain him they buried him, for they said he is the son of Jehoshaphat who sought the Lord with all his heart.
But the Holy Ghost will not have him for a son of David's line at all.He is the son of Athaliah, the daughter of Omri and Jezebel.He is no seed of David.He is an imp of the house of Ahab, a son of the house of Omri, and as such a "son of 42 years," for the dynasty of the house of Omri was exactly 42 years old.
That is not the "modern" way of writing history, but it is the way of the Old Testament writers, and the way of the New Testament writers too, and if we want to understand their writings we must put ourselves at their point of view, and not force our meaning into their words.
This interpretation is confirmed by St. Matthew, who will have it that Rehoboam begat Abijah, and Abijah begat Asa, and Asa begat Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat begat Jehoram, but Jehoram did not beget Ahaziah - nor Joash - nor Amaziah - but only the fourth in the direct line of descent, "Jehoram begat Uzziah," his great-great-grandson. "Let the posterity of the wicked be cut off, and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.Let them be before the LORD continually, that He may cut off the memory of them from the earth" (Psa. 109:13-15)."For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me" (Ex. 20:5).St. Matthew will have it that from David to the carrying away to Babylon are 14 generations, not 17, and that these three men are no true seed of the royal line of David.Their ancestry must be traced to the house of Omri.
The modern critic wants facts, and will have it that the Bible must be interpreted like any other book.But the Bible is not written from the same standpoint as any other book, and whilst it gives all the facts that the critics need, it also gives something more.It gives the Divine interpretation and the real meaning of the facts.
2. Second Period - Jehu to the Fall of Samaria.
We have reached the end of another chapter in the history of the Kings of Israel and Judah.Jehu slays both Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel, and seizes the throne of Israel.
Athaliah destroys the seed royal, and usurps the throne of Judah.Athaliah and Jehu start level as Rehoboam and Jeroboam did.Jehu's year 1 is Athaliah's year 1, and with this year a new Era is introduced."Jehu slew (the seventy sons and) all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he left him none remaining (2 Kings 10:11).He gathered together "all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests," and slew them.Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel (2 Kings 10:19,25,28).
In the Kingdom of Judah, Jehoiada engineers a great political revolution inspires a great religious revival, and sets Joash on the throne of Judah. Athaliah is slain in the 7th year of her usurpation.The house of Baal is broken down, and Mattan, the priest of Baal, is slain (2 Kings 11:4-21).
In these circumstances, it is natural to expect that the reigns of the succeeding Kings of both Kingdoms are computed by the Judaite mode of reckoning, and, as a matter of fact, this is just what we find.
The new Era begins with Jehu's year 1, which is also Athaliah's year 1. From this point onward, the Israelite mode of reckoning is discarded except in the one solitary instance of the 1st year of Jeroboam II, which is reckoned twice over, once to his predecessor and once to himself.
From 2 Kings 11:1,3,4,21 we learn that Athaliah reigned 6 years, and was slain in the 7th, and from 2 Kings 12:1 that Joash of Judah reigned in Jehu's year 7.So that Jehu's year 7 = Athaliah's year 7 = Joash of Judah's year 1. Jehu reigned 28 years (2 Kings 10:36) and Jehu's year 7 = Joash of Judah's year 1.Therefore, Jehu's year 28 = Joash of Judah's year 22.
Jehoahaz of Israel's year 1 = Joash of Judah's year 23 (2 Kings 13:1), and Jehoahaz of Israel reigned 17 years (2 Kings 13:1).Therefore, Jehoahaz of Israel's year 17 = Joash of Judah's year 39.
Jehoahaz of Israel was succeeded by Jehoash of Israel.As Jehoahaz of Israel's last year was Joash of Judah's year 39, Jehoash of Israel's first year was Joash of Judah's year 40 (2 Kings 13:9).Jehoash of Israel's year 1 (as sole King) = Joash of Judah's year 40.But Jehoash of Israel reigned (as Co-Rex) in Joash of Judah's year 37 (2 Kings 13:10).Therefore, Jehoash of Israel was Co-Rex with his father Jehoahaz of Israel during the last three years of his father's reign.
This is not a supposition or a hypothesis.It is a fact stated by implication in the Text itself, and being contained in the Text it is of equal authority with any other statement contained in the same Text.
These Co-Reigns occur frequently in the history of Israel and Judah, from the time when Solomon was made King in the reign of David onward. They are also equally frequent in the annals of other Eastern nations.
They do not become any less frequent by being referred to as "gratuitous," "fictitious" and "absurd."They are there in the Text itself. There is frequently a hint given in the Text as to the reason for them.In this case, the reason for the appointment of Jehoash of Israel as Co-Rex may have been the absence of Jehoahaz of Israel in his Syrian wars, when "the King of Syria made them (the people of Israel) like dust by threshing" (2 Kings 13:7)
Amaziah succeeded Joash of Judah in Jehoash of Israel's year 2 as sole King (2 Kings 12:21; 14:1).He reigned 29 years (2 Kings 14:2).
Jehoash of Israel reigned 16 years as sole King (2 Kings 13:10).Since Jehoash of Israel's year 2 as sole King = Amaziah's year 1, Jehoash of Israel's year 16 = Amaziah's year 15.But Amaziah's year 15 = Jeroboam II's year 1 (2 Kings 14:23).Hence Amaziah's year 15 is a broken year, and is reckoned twice over, once as Jehoash of Israel's last year as sole King, and once as Jeroboam II's first year, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning, which reappears here for the last time.
Amaziah lived after the death of Jehoash of Israel 15 years.Then a conspiracy was hatched against him.He fled from Jerusalem, and was slain at Lachish in Jeroboam II's year 15 (2 Kings 14:17-22)The interregnum which followed lasted for some time.The word "then" in 2 Chron. 26:1 is a mistranslation.It represents the Hebrew Vav, which contains no note of time, and should be translated simply "And."
Judah was divided into two parties.The conspirators gained their object.They slew King Amaziah and held their own for some years, but in the 27th year of Jeroboam II the scales were turned, and the other party, the people of Judah, got the upper hand and made Uzziah (Azariah) King instead of his father Amaziah (2 Kings 14:21, 15:1).
From the 15th year of Jeroboam II when Amaziah was slain (2 Kings 14:17- 22), to the 27th year of Jeroboam II when Uzziah was made King instead of his father Amaziah (2 Kings 15:1), is a period of 11 years during which the throne of Judah was vacant.
Hence, Ussher is wrong in deleting these 11 years from the Chronology. He assumes that Jeroboam II was Co-Rex with his father Jehoash of Israel, for the long period of 11 years, being made Co-Rex in Jehoash of Israel's year 5.He assumes that the 27th year of Jeroboam II in 1 Kings 15:1 is the 27th year of this assumed Co-Regency which began in the 5th year of Jehoash of Israel, the 27th year of this assumed Co-Regency being the 16th year of Jeroboam II's reign as sole King.(See 2 Kings 15:1, marginal note).This is one of the few blemishes in Ussher's work.
He fell into the error because he had an axe to grind.He wanted to make our Lord's birth fall exactly 4,000 years after the creation of Adam.For this purpose he wanted to get rid of 7 years.He cuts out 11 years here and gets back 4 of them, one at a time, later on.But there is no room for doubt. The fact of the 11 years interregnum is as stable as any other fact which lies embedded in the Text, and cannot be ignored without throwing the whole scheme of the Chronology of the Text into hopeless confusion.
Josephus made the same error as anyone else may do, quite easily, who is satisfied with a superficial and a cursory, instead of an attentive reading, of the narrative.But the interregnum is there and it cannot be got rid of. The gap of 11 years between Amaziah and Uzziah must be charted down.
For 15 years Uzziah and Jeroboam II reigned together, Uzziah in Judah and Jeroboam II in Israel.Jeroboam II reigned 41 years (2 Kings 14:23; 15:8).Jeroboam II's year 27 was Uzziah's year 1.Therefore Jeroboam's year 41 was Uzziah's year 15.Then follows a gap of 22 years from the year after Jeroboam II's year 41, or Uzziah's year 16, to Uzziah's year 37, both inclusive, or from Uzziah's year 15 to Uzziah's year 38, both exclusive, an interregnum in the Kingdom of Israel of 22 years.
By deleting the 11 years interregnum in the Kingdom of Judah, Ussher reduces the interregnum of the Kingdom of Israel by 11 years, viz. from 22 to 11. (See A.V. marginal note, 2 Kings 14:29 and 15:1.) These years must be restored.
Ussher's own notes are as follows: "Jeroboam seemeth to have been taken into the consortship of the Kingdom by his father Joash, going to war against the Syrians."" After Amaziah came Uzziah or Azariah, in the 27th year of Jeroboam, King of Israel, reckoning from the time that he began to reign in consortship with his father."Ussher makes Uzziah (Azariah) succeed Amaziah immediately after Amaziah has completed his 29th year, which he identifies with the 16th year of Jeroboam II's reign as sole King, and which he calls the 27th year of Jeroboam II's reign.He ought to have inserted an interval between Amaziah and Uzziah, and made Uzziah succeed Amaziah after an interregnum of 11 years, in the 27th year of Jeroboam II, as stated in 2 Kings 15:1.
No account is given of the events which occurred in Israel during this interregnum which lasted 22 years, but the history indicates very plainly the straitened character of the times, and suggests a reason for the interregnum, for we are told that the country was overrun by enemies, and the name of Israel was in danger of being "blotted out from under heaven" (2 Kings 14:26,27).Some mystery seems to hang over this period.During the first part of it Assyrian history is also a blank.
It is the time of the Prophet Jonah (2 Kings 14:25) with his dread message: "Yet 40 days and Nineveh shall be destroyed."It is the time of the earthquake, two years before which Amos began to prophecy (Amos 1:1), an earthquake that was remembered even to the days of Zechariah, nearly 300 years later, the terror of which Zechariah uses as an image of the terror of the Day of Judgment.
It was a time when the affliction of Israel was bitter, for "there was not any shut up nor left in Israel" (2 Kings 14:26).The author of the Companion Bible suggests that the words "shut up" are to be interpreted as meaning "protected," like those shut up in a fortress, and that the word "left" is a mistranslation.He derives the word so translated from the Hebrew word azab azab, to fortify, not from the Hebrew word azab azab, to leave, to forsake.The meaning then is "there was no fortress and no fortification," or "no protection and no defence" against their foes.The bitterness of Israel's affliction at this time may possibly be connected with the Civil War by which the Kingdom of Israel was torn asunder from the reign of Jeroboam II to the close of its history.
At the close of this interregnum of 22 years, in the 38th year of Uzziah, Zachariathe son of Jeroboam II reigned over Israel for six months (2 Kings 15:8-10), and was slain by Shallum.
In the following year, the 39th year of Uzziah, Shallum reigned one month and was slain by Menahem (2 Kings 15:13,14).
In the same year, the 39th year of Uzziah, Menahem slew Shallum and reigned over Israel.Here we notice the adoption of the Judaite mode of reckoning the reigns of the Kings of Israel.This year, the 39th of Uzziah, is the accession year of Menahem.For he reigned 10 years, and if this 39th year of Uzziah's was his first year, there would be a break of one year between his last year and the first year of his son Pekahiah.
Therefore Menahem's year 1 = Uzziah's year 40, Menahem's year 10 = Uzziah's year 49.Pekahiah's year 1 = Uzziah's year 50 (2 Kings 15:23) Pekahiah's year 2 = Uzziah's year 51 (2 Kings 15:23).
Pekah's year 1 = Uzziah's year 52 (2 Kings 15:27).Jotham's year 1 = Pekah's year 2 (2 Kings 15:32) = the year after Uzziah's year 52, which year 52 was Uzziah's last year (2 Kings 15:2).
Jotham reigned 16 years (2 Kings 15:33), and since Jotham's year 1 = Pekah's year 2, Jotham's year 16, his last year = Pekah's year 17.But Pekah's year 17 was also Ahaz's accession year, for he reigned in the 17th year of Pekah (2 Kings 16:1).Consequently Pekah's year 18 = Ahaz's year 1, and Pekah's year 20 his last year on the throne = Ahaz's year 3.
We now reach one of the most interesting, and, at the same time, one of the most illuminating puzzles of the Chronology of this period.We read in 2 Kings 15:30, that Hoshea slew Pekah in the 20th year of Jotham, which is the year after the 20th of Pekah.Now Jotham only reigned 16 years altogether, and if Jotham's year 20 is the date intended, we should call this Ahaz's year 4.But in the Text it is called the 20th year of Jotham.
Why is this?The history supplies a reason in the character of the wicked King Ahaz.Two characters in the narrative of the Kings of Israel and Judah are marked with an index finger of horror and scorn, as pointing to the names of two persons singled out for fierce execration and perpetual reproach.In 2 Kings 9:37, we read "This is Jezebel," and in 2 Chron. 28:22, "This is that King Ahaz."
It was Ahaz who "made molten images for Baalim," who "burnt his children in the fire after the abominations of the heathen," who "made Judah naked and transgressed sore against the Lord."The cup was full.The writer could say no more. "This is that King Ahaz.""And" (not "for" as in A.V. and R.V.), with a fine finishing touch of irony the writer adds this last mark of his contempt and scorn, "he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus which smote him, and he said, Because the gods of the Kings of Syria help them, therefore I will sacrifice to them, that they may help me.But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel."That explains the Chronology.As Dr. John Lightfoot quaintly observes, "The Holy Ghost chooseth rather to reckon by holy Jotham in his grave, than by wicked Ahaz alive," and instead of the 4th year of Ahaz we get the 20th year of Jotham.
Pekah was slain by Hoshea in the 20th year of Jotham i.e. in the 4th year of Ahaz, i.e. in the year after the 20th year of Pekah.So then he was dethroned in his 20th year, and slain the year after the 20th, and last year of his reign.
Then comes another gap, an interregnum or a period of anarchy lasting 8 years.For although Pekah's throne was empty in the 4th year of Ahaz, Hoshea did not himself begin to reign till the 12th of Ahaz (2 Kings 17:1).
Ahaz's year 12 is Hoshea's year 1.For Hoshea reigned 9 years (2 Kings 17:1), and Hoshea's year 9 = Hezekiah's year 6 (2 Kings 18:10), and Hoshea's year 7 = Hezekiah's year 4 (2 Kings 18:9).Therefore Hoshea's year 4 = Hezekiah's year 1.But Hoshea's year 4 is also Ahaz's year 15 because Hoshea's year 3 is Hezekiah's accession year (2 Kings 18:1).Therefore Hoshea's year 3 = Ahaz's year 14, and consequently Hoshea's year 1 = Ahaz's year 12 (2 Kings 17:1).Therefore the gap between Pekah's year 20, his last year on the throne, and Hoshea's year 1, is the gap between Ahaz's year 3 and his year 12, both exclusive, or the gap between Ahaz's year 4 and his year 11, both inclusive, and this is a period of 8 calendar years.
Hoshea's year 1 = Ahaz's year 12 (2 Kings 17:1).Therefore Hoshea's year 3 = Ahaz's year 14.And Ahaz reigned 16 years (2 Kings 16:2).But Hoshea's year 3 = Hezekiah's accession year (2 Kings 18:1).Therefore Hezekiah was Co-Rex with Ahaz during Ahaz's years 14, 15 and 16.Ahaz's year 14 = Hezekiah's accession year.Ahaz's year 15 = Hezekiah's year 1.Ahaz's year 16 = Hezekiah's year 2.
The year in which Hezekiah began to reign as Co-Rex with his father (Ahaz's year 14), is Hezekiah's accession year.As soon as he got firmly into the saddle he took matters into his own hands.He was 25 years of age, and in the first year of his reign, and the very first month of it (2 Chron. 29:3), and on the very first day of the month (2 Chron. 29:17), he made a clean sweep of the idolatrous practices of his father Ahaz.
He opened the doors of the house of the Lord which Ahaz had shut up (2 Chron. 28:24).He removed the high places, broke in pieces the stone statues of Baal, cut down the wooden images of Ashtoreth, and "brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made, and called it Nehushtan (a piece of brass)" (2 Kings 18:4).They cleansed the Sanctuary in 16 days (2 Chron. 29:17) It was now too late to keep the Passover at the proper time in the 1st month, so they observed the feast on the 14th day of the 2nd month.
The remnant of Israel that were escaped out of the hands of the Kings of Assyria were invited to attend this great Passover (2 Chron. 30:6), and they came from Ephraim and Manasseh and Issachar and Zebulum (2 Chron. 30:18), and there was no Passover like it since the time of Solomon (2 Chron. 30:26).
"And Hezekiah rejoiced, and all the people, that God had prepared the people: for the thing was done suddenly" (2 Chron. 29:36).
It was a sudden coup d'etat.It had been prepared for by the inspiring ministry of Isaiah, and the secret influence of Hezekiah during his Co-Rex ship with his father.When Ahaz died, the revulsion of the people was deep and widespread.This first year of Hezekiah, when he was 25 years of age, was not his accession year as Co-Rex (the 14th of Ahaz), and not his first year as Co-Rex (the 15th of Ahaz), but his first year as sole King, in the year after Ahaz's death.That explains how it was that the great religious revival broke out so suddenly on the 1st day of the 1st month of Hezekiah's reign as sole King.It had been prepared for.The people were ready for it.It met with an immediate response, and it spread like wildfire throughout the two Kingdoms.
A difficulty has been raised respecting the age of Ahaz at the birth of his son Hezekiah, who is said from a comparison of 2 Kings 16:2 and 2 Kings 18:2 to have been born when his father was only 8 years old.But Ahaz was 20 when he began to reign (2 Kings 16:2), and 36 when he died and Hezekiah was 25 when he began to reign as sole King the year after the 16th of Ahaz (2 Kings 18:2).Hence Hezekiah was 25 when Ahaz was 37, i.e. Ahaz was 12 when Hezekiah was born, not 9 as he would have been if he had been 25 in his accession year, the 14th of Ahaz.Hezekiah was 25, not in his accession year as Co-Rex, but in his first year as sole King.
CHAPTER XXII.JUDAH FROM THE FALL OF SAMARIA TO THE CAPTIVITY.
(AN. HOM. 3406-3520)
SAMARIA fell in the 9th year of Hoshea, which was the 6th year of Hezekiah, the year AN. HOM. 3406. The account of the fall of Samaria in 2 Kings 18:9,10 is very condensed but perfectly accurate.We know from the records of Assyria that it was taken by Sargon.Scripture says, "Shalmaneser came up against Samaria and besieged it."So he did."And at the end of three years," not "he took," but "they took it," implying that someone else was concerned in the actual taking of the city beside Shalmaneser, who began the Siege.
This is not the place to discuss the authorship of the so-called Deutero- or Trito-Isaiah.But it may be pointed out that the critical year of the reign of Hezekiah was the 14th.It was the year of Sennacherib's invasion, when the angel of the Lord went forth and smote in the camp of the Assyrians 185,000, and when they arose early in the morning they were all dead Corpses (2 Kings 18:13-19:37; Is. 36,37).It was the year of Hezekiah's sickness, when the Lord brought the shadow 10 degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz (2 Kings 20:1,6,11; Is. 38).It was the year of the embassy of Merodach-baladan of Babylon (2 Kings 20:12-21; Is. 39).
It was the year in which Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon" (Isaiah 39:1,6,7).These three great events, the destruction of the host of Sennacherib of Assyria, the sickness of Hezekiah, and Isaiah's prophecy of the Babylonian captivity, all fell out in the same year and made it the great critical year of Hezekiah's life.
They are all recorded in Isaiah 36-39, a passage which forms the true second part of Isaiah, the connecting link between Isaiah 1-35, and Isaiah 40- 66.These last 27 chapters should not be called the second, but the third part of Isaiah.The Prophet foresaw and foretold, not only the captivity, but also the return from Babylon.This is the subject elaborated in these last 27 chapters of Isaiah, and the present writer agrees with Professor R. G. Moulton and the Poet Tennyson in believing that, with the preceding 39 chapters, they form one indivisible literary and artistic whole, and are the work of one and the same man.They belong to the last fifteen years of the reign of Hezekiah, from this his 14th year, to his 29th and last.
Up to this point, the Chronology has been so locked and interlocked by checks and cross-checks, that it has been almost impossible for anyone to err in regard to it, provided that the statements in the Text are strictly adhered to in every case.From the accession of Manasseh to the reign of Josiah, we have no check on the numbers given, but from the 13th year of Josiah onward, they are checked by the long periods in the Prophets (Jer. 25:1-3), and by synchronisms with the years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:8-12; 25:2-8; Jer. 32:1; etc).
But in the Kingdom of Judah, the Chronology always follows the Judaite mode of reckoning, and never counts a year twice over, or gives it to both the outgoing and the incoming King, with the one single exception of the case of Ahaziah the son of Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, an exception which proves the rule, for Ahaziah is not reckoned as a true descendant of the line of David, but "an imp of the house of Omri," whose years are naturally computed by the Israelite mode of reckoning.Apart from the special circumstances of this case, the reigns of the Kings of Judah are always reckoned as calendar years, the broken year being always reckoned to the outgoing, and never to the incoming King, the outgoing King's last year being always regarded as the incoming King's accession year, and the following calendar year as the first year of his reign.We cannot be wrong in applying the Judaite mode of reckoning to the cases of Manasseh, Amon and Josiah, the only three cases in which the mode of reckoning cannot be checked.
Manasseh reigned 55 years (2 Kings 2:11).Fifty-five calendar years must be allotted to him in full in our Chronology of his reign.Amon reigned 2 years (2 Kings 21:19).Two years must be allotted to him.Josiah reigned 31 years (2 Kings 22:1).Thirty-one years must be allotted to him.
Jehoahaz reigned 3 months, the whole of which was included in the Josiah's year 31.If his reign had gone over into the New Year he would have been described as having reigned one year.It is of the essence of the method of the Chronology that it deals only with whole years.Fractions do not count; they do not come into the Chronology at all.
Jehoiakim reigned 11 years.His accession took place either during the 31st year of Josiah, which would then be called his accession year, or else immediately after, at the beginning of the New Year.In either case Jehoiakim's year 1 is the calendar year that follows next after Josiah's year 31.
The correctness of these results is proved by the long period given in Jeremiah 25:1-3The 4th year of Jehoiakim was one of the most critical years in the history of Judah.It was the year in which Jeremiah prophesied that both Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, and all the world, from Egypt to Media, should serve the King of Babylon 70 years (Jer. 25:11-26).
It was the year which synchronised with the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon (Jer. 25:1), the most important synchronism in the whole Bible, for it enables us to connect the Sacred Chronology, from the creation of Adam to the 4th year of Jehoiakim, with the recorded dates of profane history from that point, both forward and backward, as far as they have been faithfully preserved and accurately ascertained from the writings and Monuments of antiquity.
Finally, it was the year in which Jeremiah solemnly recounted the results of the work of the past 23 years of his ministry, thereby giving us this valuable synchronism."From the 13th year of Josiah, the son of Amon King of Judah, even unto this day (the 4th of Jehoiakim), these 23 years, the word of the Lord hath come unto me, and I have spoken unto you rising up early and speaking; but ye have not hearkened" (Jer. 25:3, R.V.).What are "these 23 years?"
They are as follows:-
The 23 years of Jeremiah 25:3.
YEAR EVENT
1 = Josiah's year 13
2 = Josiah's year 14
3 = Josiah's year 15
4 = Josiah's year 16
5 = Josiah's year 17
6 = Josiah's year 18
7 = Josiah's year 19
8 = Josiah's year 20
9 = Josiah's year 21
10 = Josiah's year 22
11 = Josiah's year 23
12 = Josiah's year 24
13 = Josiah's year 25
14 = Josiah's year 26
15 = Josiah's year 27
16 = Josiah's year 28
17 = Josiah's year 29
18 = Josiah's year 30
19 = Josiah's year 31 = Jehoiachin's 3 mos. = Jehoiakim's accession yr.
20 = Jehoiakim's year 1
21 = Jehoiakim's year 2
22 = Jehoiakim's year 3
23 = Jehoiakim's year 4
This enables us to bridge the gulf between the last year of Josiah and the 1st of Jehoiakim, and proves conclusively that the computation given above is correct.
CHAPTER XXIII.COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY - SAUL TO THE CAPTIVITY.
We have now traced the history of the Hebrew people during the period of the Monarchy, from the first year of Saul to "the 4th year of Jehoiakim... that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar" (Jer. 25:1), as it is recorded by contemporary prophetic narrators in their own annals.The Chronology is so precise, and the history of the Kingdom of Israel is so closely locked and interlocked with that of the Kingdom of Judah, that it is next to impossible for any error to have crept into it.The connections are so perfect that to alter any one text by one single year, is to throw the Chronology of the whole into hopeless confusion.No method for the better preservation of a chronological record for all succeeding generations could be devised or even imagined. We may rely absolutely on the authenticity and the correctness of every chronological statement in this Record, as it has been preserved to us, and as we have it in our hands to-day.
There are numerous other witnesses by whose testimony the chronological data for this period, as given in the Old Testament, can be tested, and it is not too much to say that wherever it has been thus brought into court, its accuracy and its authenticity have been amply and invariably vindicated. "In every case where we can test it by contemporaneous Monuments, the authenticity of which is doubted by no one," says Prof. A. H. Sayce, "we find it confirmed and explained even in the minutest details."
These other witnesses may be grouped under three heads - Egypt, Moab and Assyria.
1.Egypt.
In Egypt we have the celebrated Shishak Inscription, on the south wall of the temple of Amon at Karnak.This Temple is one of the noblest examples of the majesty and sublimity of Egyptian architecture.Karnak is situated on the right bank of the river Nile, a very short distance from the site of Thebes, now Luxor, the ancient capital of Egypt.Karnak is the "populous No," or better, as in the margin, the "No-Amon" of Nahum 3:8.
Shashanq I, or Sheshonk I, as the name is now pronounced by the modern guide to the temple ruins, is the Shishak of the Old Testament.To him Jeroboam fled when Solomon sought to kill him (I Kings 11:40).In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak came up against Jerusalem, plundered the Temple and took away all the treasures of the king's House (1 Kings 14:25,26; 2 Chron. 12:2-9).
Shishak was the founder of a new dynasty, the 22nd or Bubastite dynasty, so called because it alone of all the 31 dynasties had its capital at Bubastis.
Near the close of his 21st year, Shishak commissioned Haremsaf, his Chief of Public Works, to execute a memorial of his conquests, and the result was the great bas-relief on the walls of the temple of Amon at Karnak.In this Inscription, Shishak mentions the names of 133 cities of the Kingdom of Judah, like Beth-horon, Gibeon, Mahanaim, Shunem, Megiddo, etc., as taken by him during this invasion.
He does not give the exact date of his warlike operations in Palestine, but we know from 1 Kings 14:25 that it was in the 5th year of Rehoboam's reign (B.C. 982-966), viz. in the year B.C. 978.We can never be sure of any Egyptian dates at this early period, but several computations have been made from various approximate data.
The Egyptian Monuments generally give the year of the reign of the King in whose reign they are executed, but the King may have lived on a year or more after executing his last Monument.His years will therefore be expressed by the highest number found on any Monument plus an unknown remainder.
The later King Shabaka, the So of 2 Kings 17:4, was on the throne when Sargon invaded Palestine in B.C. 720, and for an unknown period before that event.Professor Breasted, in his Ancient Records, gives the minimum length of the Kings from that date back to the 1st year of the 22nd dynasty, which was the 1st year of Shishak, as follows:-
Egyptian Kings from Shishak to Shabaka.
Accession of Shabaka or So B.C. 720 years +
1 King, 24th dynasty 6 years +
3 Kings, 23rd dynasty 37 years +
6 Kings, 22nddynasty 230years +
B.C 993 years +
A similar computation from the accession of Tirhaka, B.C. 701+, makes the number 998+.To this we must add the unknown number of years that So had reigned before his defeat by Sargon, and the unknown number of years that each of the other ten Kings reigned after the date of the latest Monument we moderns have happened to discover.We must then deduct the unknown number of years by which these reigns overlap each other.But if we suppose these additions and subtractions to cancel each other, we shall probably not be more than 5, 10, 15 or 20 years out.
Shishak's Inscription was executed in the 21st year of his reign.If his 1st year was B.C. 998 (or 993), and his invasion of Palestine the year before that of his Inscription, that would bring the date of his expedition against Rehoboam to the year B.C. 978 (or 973), i.e. in the exact year (or within 5 years) of the 5th year of Rehoboam, B.C. 978.This is quite as exact as we could expect.
Other estimates for the accession of Shishak are Brugsch 980, Marriette 980, Whitehouse 966, Lepsius 961, Flinders Petrie 952.The lowest of these is within 26 years of the 5th year of Rehoboam, and is quite a possible synchronism, but the date which is excluded by the synchronism is the Assyrian date c. B.C. 947, which, by omitting the blank of 51 years between Ramman Nirari III and Ashurdan III (B.C. 834-783), makes the 20th year of Shishak c. 927, or 51 years after the 5th of Rehoboam.
This is a decisive argument, from the uncertain but approximate dates of Egypt, against the omission of the 51 years from the Chronology of Assyria, but the Egyptian Monuments have no testimony to bear against the Biblical date of the 5th year of Rehoboam, for the invasion of Judah by Shishak.
We must not, however, lay too much stress upon any argument connected with Egyptian Chronology.The data are so uncertain that no reliance can be placed upon any conclusion derived from them.In order to show the highly speculative nature of the Chronology of Egypt adopted by modern Egyptologists, it will be necessary to examine the method by which their chronological results are obtained.
We cannot do better than take the chapter on "The Revision of Chronology," by Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie, in his recently published Researches in Sinai (1906).Prof. Petrie stands almost alone amongst Egyptian Chronologists in the contention that none of Manetho's dynasties are contemporary. "Every instance of double reckoning, or, contemporary dynasties of Kings in Manetho," he says, "has broken down on examination.Not a single overlapping period can be proved against him."Hence Prof. Petrie's date for the 1st dynasty is B.C. 5510.
The principal sources of our knowledge of Egyptian Chronology are (1) the Turin Papyrus, a list of Kings compiled in the 19th dynasty(2) the list of Kings and dynasties preserved by Manetho, of the 3rd century B.C., a list known to us only in fragments at second or third hand, and much altered in the process of transmission; and (3) the records of the Monuments.
The Turin Papyrus is illegible and incomplete.The list of Manetho is incomplete and self-contradictory.The Monuments do not give any chronological data earlier than the 19th dynasty, say about B.C. 1590.
Failing authentic sources of information, recourse is had to the method of astronomical calculation.
The Egyptians ignored leap year, and counted only 365 days to every year.Hence every month slipped back 1/4 of a day every year, a whole day every four years, a whole year every 365 x 4 = 1,460 years.This period of 1,460 years was called the Sothic period.At the commencement of the period, the star Sirius, called by the Egyptians Sothis, first appeared in the glow of Sunrise at early dawn just before the sun.
Censorinus (A.D. 238) says one Sothic period commenced A.D. 139.Consequently, other Sothic periods must have commenced B.C. 1322, 2782, 4242 and 5702, at regular intervals of 1,460 years.
A papyrus from Kahun, now at Berlin, states that there was a rising of Sirius on the 17th of the month Pharmuthi in the 7th year of Senusert III, of the 12th dynasty, which may have been the year B.C. 1874, or the year 1874+1460 = B.C. 3334, and consequently the close of the 12th dynasty was either in the year B.C. 1786, or in the year B.C. 3246.
The Berlin school of Egyptologists assume that the closing year of the 12th dynasty was the year B.C. 1786.Professor Petrie assumes that it was the year B.C. 3246.There is no Monumental evidence that can be brought forward by the advocates of either of the two schools to decide between them.
In order to arrive at any conclusion on the matter they have to fall back upon the already discarded Turin Papyrus and Manetho, which differ from each other by a period of 258 years, which are only known to us in illegible fragments, which offer self-contradictory testimony, which cannot be checked by the Monuments during the period of the first six dynasties, and one of which, Manetho, is said to be in error wherever he can be checked by them.
Apart from which Professor Petrie himself admits that even if all these difficulties were removed, astronomical calculations in regard to the precessional movement of the Pole may introduce a difference of two or three Centuries from the dates which he adopts.
Under these circumstances the proper course is to admit that we are not in possession of the materials necessary to enable us to arrive at a scientific conclusion on the matter, and every date ascribed to an Egyptian Monument in the British Museum, on grounds similar to those explained above, ought to be marked with a query.
2. Moab.
"I Mesha am son of Chemosh-[Gad?], King of Moab, the Dibonite.My father reigned over Moab 30 years, and I reigned after my father. And I erected this high place to Chemosh at Kahara (a Stone of Sal)vation for he saved me from all despoilers(?) and let me see my desire upon all my enemies. Omri was King of Israel, and oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his land. His son succeeded him, and he also said, I will oppress Moab. In my days he said, Let us go and I will see my desire on him and on his house, and Israel said I shall destroy it for ever. Now Omri took the land Medeba and occupied it his days and half his son's days (or he and his son and his son's) son forty years. And Chemosh had mercy on it in my days; and I built Baal Meon, and made therein the reservoir and I built Kirjathaim.And the men of Gad dwelled in the land (Ataro)th from of old, and the King of Israel restored (At)aroth, and I assaulted the city and captured it."
So runs the opening sentence of this ancient Monument, the discovery of which, by Rev. F. Klein, of the Church Missionary Society, in 1868, created intense interest throughout all Europe.
It is the oldest Semitic lapidary record yet discovered; in the course of a couple of Centuries it will be 3,000 years old.It takes us half way back to the Bible date for the beginning of the race.It exhibits the most ancient specimen of alphabetical writing yet discovered.It is older than two-thirds of the Old Testament itself.Its principal interests are theological and linguistic, but it has also a historic, and even a chronological value, corroborating as it does the authenticity of the Biblical Record.
Dr. Ginsburg, in his excellent monograph on The Moabite Stone, gives a facsimile of the Stone itself, an introduction, a translation and a commentary. He has also added an interesting account of its discovery.
The Omri here described as the oppressor of Moab, is the King of Israel mentioned in 1 Kings 16:16-28His date is B.C. 936-925.His son would be Ahab (B.C. 925-904) and his son's son Jehoram of Israel (B.C. 904-893). Mesha's father's reign of 30 years would be during the reigns of Baasha (B.C. 960-937) and Elah (B.C. 937-936), and part of Omri's reign.The forty years of the Oppression of Moab would be the remainder of Omri's reign and the reign of Ahab (B.C. 925-904), and part of Jehoram of Israel's reign (B.C. 904-893).(See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, pp. 23,24).
Upon the accession of Ahaziah of Israel we read (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4,5): "Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab.... And Mesha, King of Moab, was a sheepmaster, and rendered unto the King of Israel (Jehoram of Israel) 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams, with the wool.But it came to pass when Ahab was dead, that the King of Moab rebelled against the King of Israel."
Whereupon Jehoram of Israel, with Jehoshaphat of Judah, and the King of Edom, made war against Moab (2 Kings 3:6-25) "And when the King of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him 700 men that drew swords, to break through even unto the King of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall.And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him and returned to their own land" (2 Kings 3:26,27).
The last phrase is euphemistic.It means that though Moab was at first defeated and hard pressed, in the end the allies were beaten back, and there was aroused against Israel a feeling of intense indignation, in the strength of which Mesha renewed the battle, the Siege was raised and victory remained with Mesha.
It was in the days of Jehoram of Judah (B.C. 905-893), which run almost exactly parallel with those of Jehoram of Israel (B.C. 904-893), that Edom also revolted from Judah."In the days of Jehoram of Judah, Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah and made a King over themselves" (2 Kings 8:20).
There was a weakening of power in both Israel and Judah.Mesha took advantage of it and threw off the yoke, and then erected this triumphal pillar to commemorate the result.
The Moabite Stone fits in exactly with the Old Testament narrative. They mutually illustrate and confirm each other.
The great value of the Moabite Stone lies in the fact that it is a history of events which were contemporary with the Inscription which records them. And this ancient witness, a witness in the presence of which most of the coins, manuscripts and Inscriptions of antiquity are comparatively young, has come forth out of the dark recesses of past millenniums, to corroborate the authenticity of the Hebrew Records contained in the Old Testament.It brings us face to face with the very times of Omri and Ahab, Elijah and Elisha, Jehoshaphat and Jehu.
3. Assyria.
However great the interest and value of the Shishak Inscription and theMoabite Stone may be, on various accounts, they cannot for one moment be compared for chronological purposes with the interest and value of the Cuneiform Inscriptions recently discovered in Assyria, Babylon and Persia.
Throughout the Middle Ages Nineveh remained unknown to Europe.The natives of the district had, however, preserved the name and the tradition of the site of Nineveh among the mounds of Nunia, opposite Mosul, on the Tigris.It was pointed out to Benjamin Tudela, A.D. 1160, and its ruins were described by Rauwolf (1573), Sherley (1599), Tavernier (1644), Theve'not (1663), the Jesuit writer of the Lettres E'dificantes (1675), Otter (1734), Niebuhr (1766) and Ollivier (1794).But the discovery of the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Assyria, Babylon and Persia, was the romance of the 19th Century.The mounds of Nineveh were explored by Rich in 1820, and by Commander Jones in 1852.In 1850 Botta excavated Khorsabad (Dur-Sarrukin or Sargonsburg), the great northern suburb of Nineveh, containing the vast palace of Sargon II. Sir H. Layard excavated Kouyunjik (Central Nineveh) with its palaces of Sennacherib and Ashur-bani-pal, and Nimrud (Calah) with its N.W. palace of Ashur-nasir- pal, its S.W. palace of Esar-haddon, and its central palace of Shalmaneser II (III). These excavations were continued by Mr. Rassam and others, and are still proceeding.
In 1847 Sir Henry Rawlinson published the text of the Behistun Inscription in three languages - (1) Persian, (2) Contemporary Elamite or Susian, and (3) Assyrian or Babylonian.The Behistun Inscription provided the key for the decipherment of the Assyrian Inscriptions, as the Rosetta Stone provided the key to the interpretation of the Egyptian Inscriptions.
Grotefend, Burnouf, Lassen, Dr. Hincks, and George Smith, took a leading part in the interpretation of the Cuneiform characters inscribed on slabs, bulls, cylinders, tablets, bricks, etc., now treasured up in the British Museum and the Louvre, through which a new world of ancient history has been opened up to the astonished gaze of modern Europe.These inestimably precious treasures of antiquity lay buried with a hoard of clay documents, till they were dug up by Layard and interpreted by Dr. Hincks, Sir H. Rawlinson, and other pioneers in the art of deciphering these ancient records.
These important lapidary documents, which have been used in constructing a Chronology of the ancient Empires of Assyria and Babylon during the period of the Hebrew Monarchy, may be classified as follows:-
Assyrian Cuneiform Inscriptions.
A.The Historical Inscriptions of the Kings.
I. Shalmaneser II (III), B.C. 911-876. (Assyrian Dates= B.C.860-825).
II. Tiglath-Pileser III (IV) 745-727.
III. Shalmaneser IV (V) 727-722.
IV. Sargon II722-705.
V. Sennacherib705-681.
VI. Esar-haddon681-668.
VII. Ashur-bani-pal 668-626.
B.The Assyrian Eponym Canon.
C.Fragmentary Lists of Assyrian Eponyms.
D.The Synchronous History of Assyria and Babylon.
The dates given in the present work are those adopted by Willis J. Beecher, in his Dated Events of the Old Testament.The Assyrian dates, which precede the great gap, B.C. 834-783, are all 51 years later.After we reach the reign of Shalmaneser III (IV), B.C. 783-773, they coincide.The Assyrian dates are adopted by E. A. Wallis Budge, in his Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum, and by many other Assyriologists, but, in the view of the present writer, they are 51 years too recent.
A.The Historical Inscriptions of the Kings.
I. Shalmaneser II, B.C. 911-876 (Assyrian dates = B.C. 860-825), is called Shalmaneser III by recent writers like C. H. W. Johns, in Ancient Assyria, published 1912, on account of the recent discovery of an earlier King of the same name.
Shalmaneser's long reign of 35 years was a protracted military campaign against Babylon, Mesopotamia, Armenia and the peoples of Asia Minor. The Hittites of Carchemish were compelled to pay tribute, and Hamath and Damascus were subdued.
Prof. Sayce says: "In B.C. 854 (Assyrian Dates) = B.C. 905, a league formed by Hamath, Arvad, Ammon, Ahab of Israel and other neighbouring Princes, under the leadership of Damascus, fought an indecisive battle against him at Karkar, and other battles followed in 849 (=B.C. 900) and 846 (=B.C. 897). In 842 (=B.C. 893) Hazael was compelled to take refuge within the walls of his capital.The territory of Damascus was devastated, and Jehu of Samaria (whose ambassadors are represented on the black obelisk now in the British Museum), sent tribute..... Shalmaneser II (III) built a palace at Calah, and the annals of his reign are engraved on an obelisk of black marble which he erected there (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Article - Shalmaneser II.)
The position of the palace of Shalmaneser II (III) is indicated in the following diagram of ancient Nineveh, its suburbs and its palaces.
[DIAGRAM]
Shalmaneser II (III) has left us an account of his conquests during the first 31 years of his reign down to B.C. 880, the year in which the Black Obelisk was finished.Then his son Ashur-danin-apli rebelled against him, and the remaining four years of his reign was a time of civil war.Shalmaneser II (III) held Calah, but Nineveh, Asshur and most of the chief cities of Assyria went over to his rebel son Ashur-danin-apli.Shalmaneser died B.C. 876 after 31 years of undivided rule, and 4 years of divided rule.He was then succeeded by his other son and legal successor, Shamshi-Adad (= Shamshi-Ramman II), who had to fight two years more before he won his crown in B.C. 874.
Shalmaneser II (III) has left us the following Monumental Inscriptions:-
1. The Kurkh Monolith (Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 8).
In this he says that in the 6th year of his reign he left Nineveh, crossed the Tigris and the Euphrates, and came to Syria where he captured
12,000 chariots, 1,200 carriages and
20,000 men of Ben-hadad of Syria,
700 chariots, 700 carriages and
10,000 men of Irhuleni of Hamath, and
2,000 chariots and 10,000 men of Ahab of Sirhala (Israel),
overthrowing all the 12 Kings whom Ben-hadad of Syria had brought him.This was in the sixth year of his reign, B.C. 905 (Assyrian dates B.C. 854).
2. The Bull Inscription (Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 5, No. 6).In this he says:-
"In my 18th year the sixteenth time the river Euphrates I crossed. Hazael of Syria.... I overthrew.18,000 men of his army with weapons I destroyed.1,121 of his chariots, 470 of his carriages, with his camp, I took from him.To save his life he fled.After him I pursued, in Damascus his royal city I besieged him.... In those days the tribute of Tyre and Zidon, of Jehu son of Omri, I received."
This event is referred to in the following Inscription:-
3. The celebrated Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser II (III) in the British Museum (Layard, p. 98, l. 2).Here the Inscription runs:-
"Tribute of Jehu son of Omri, silver, gold, bowls of gold, cups of gold, bottles of gold, vessels of gold, maces, royal utensils, rods of wood I received from him."
From these three Inscriptions it will be seen that Shalmaneser came into touch with Israel on two distinct occasions.In the sixth year of his reign (B.C. 905) he says he took 2,000 chariots and 10,000 men from Ahab, who was one of 12 Kings joined together in alliance against him, under the leadership of Ben-hadad of Syria.And in the 18th year of his reign (B.C. 893) he fought another campaign against Hazael of Syria, the successor of Ben- hadad, at which time he received tribute from Jehu.
This exactly fits in with the Biblical narrative.A reference to Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 24, AN. HOM. 3220-3232 will show that the 6th year of Shalmaneser II (III) (B.C. 905) is the 21st year of Ahab, and that the 18th year of Shalmaneser II (III) (B.C. 893) is the year of Jehu's accession.
Shalmaneser's 6th year could not have been later than the 21st year of Ahab, for in his 22nd, which was his last year, he was not in alliance with Ben-hadad of Syria, but at war with him.In 1 Kings 22:1,2 we read that after a series of wars between Ben-hadad of Syria and Ahab of Israel, "they continued 3 years without war between Syria and Israel, and it came to pass in the 3rd year" that Ahab and Jehoshaphat went up to Ramoth-gilead and fought a battle against the King of Syria, in which Ahab was killed.
The three years' truce between Syria and Israel was the truce of the 19th, 20th and 21st years of Ahab.During these three years Ben-hadad formed the league of the 12 Kings, and in the last of them, i.e. in the 6th year of Shalmaneser's reign, which was the 21st year of Ahab's reign, the year B.C. 905, Ben-hadad and Ahab fought against Shalmaneser and were defeated.In this year Ahaziah the son of Ahab was associated with his father as Co-Rex of Israel, during his father's absence at the war.In the following year, the 22nd year of Ahab, B.C. 904, Ahab was no longer in alliance with Ben-hadad, but was fighting against him at Ramoth-gilead, with his ally Jehoshaphat of Judah.
But if Shalmaneser's 6th year could not have been later than the 21st year of Ahab (the year B.C. 905), his 18th year could not have been earlier than the accession year of Jehu (the year B.C. 893), for in that year Jehu first came to the throne.The synchronism is therefore absolutely exact.It is also determinative.It fixes this and every other date at which the history of Assyria comes into contact with the history of Israel and Judah.It could not have been one year earlier, for then Jehu could not have paid tribute.It could not have been one year later, for then Ahab was not in alliance with, but was fighting against, Ben-hadad, and the year after that he died.
Schrader dates the battle of Karkar in the 6th year of Shalmaneser, B.C. 854 (Assyrian dates), i.e. B.C. 905.He contrasts this with Ussher's date for the reign of Ahab, B.C. 918-897, but this should be 925-904, when it is seen to be in perfect agreement.
Schrader dates the payment of tribute by Jehu in the 18th year of Shalmaneser, B.C. 842 (Assyrian dates), i.e. B.C. 893.He contrasts this with Ussher's date for the reign of Jehu, B.C. 884-856, but this should be 893-865, when, again, it is seen to be in perfect agreement.Here, as everywhere, the Chronology of the Assyrian Inscriptions, when rightly interpreted, is in exact agreement with that of the Old Testament (see Vol. II, Chronological Tables).
II. Tiglath-pileser III (B.C. 745-727) is called Tiglath-pileser IV by the most recent writers, as e.g. by C. H. W. Johns, in Ancient Assyria, published 1912.It will be noticed that from the year B.C. 783 onward the Assyrian dates and those of Willis J. Beecher coincide, the gap or blank of 51 years extending over the period B.C. 834 to 783, and affecting only those dates which lie before these years.
Tiglath-pileser III (IV) was a military upstart, a usurper.He probably owed his elevation to the throne of Assyria to a discontented army.We know nothing of his origin, but he never lays claim to royal descent.Later on, when he came to the throne of Babylon, he was known as Pulu or Poros. He has been identified by George Smith and Schrader with Pul.Pil-Eser is his Assyrian name, the termination Eser being merely a title occurring in many Assyrian names, like Shalmaneser, Esar-haddon, etc.Pul or Pulu is his Babylonian name.It is found also in Scripture (2 Kings 15:19, 1 Chron. 5:6,26).Porus is the Greek form of the name found in Ptolemy's Canon. According to the cuneiform Inscriptions, Tiglath-pileser III (IV) or Pul, conquered Chinzer, King of Babylon, B.C. 731 and died B.C. 727.According to Ptolemy's Canon, Porus succeeded Chinzer, and began to reign in Babylon in 731 and died in 727.Tiglath-pileser III (IV), Pul, Pulu, and Porus have, therefore, been identified as one and the same person.
He built himself a palace at Calah, the modern Nimrud, on the ruins of an old palace of Shalmaneser II (III).Many years later Esar-haddon, a King of another dynasty, used the marble slabs of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) for a palace of his own, turning their faces to the wall and cutting his own inscriptions on their backs.
Hence, the chronological annals of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) are lost, and the only Inscriptions of his that we have left are some mutilated fragments, the date of which it is impossible to determine.Mr. George Smith says, the dates given for the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) are only approximate calculations, and future discoveries may alter them considerably.
It is very important to remember this, as the dates attributed to some of the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) do not agree with the dates given in the Old Testament, unless we assume that they were expeditions undertaken by him when he was acting as the General of Ashur-dan III (773-754) or Ashur- nirari (754-745) before he seized and mounted the throne himself, B.C. 745.
The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) like those of most Assyrian Monarchs are of two kinds.
(1) Annalistic Inscriptions giving details of dated events arranged in chronological order and written down year by year according to the individual years of the King's reign.
(2) Summarising triumphal Inscriptions giving a general review of all that has happened during an extended period of time, in which the facts are grouped, not chronologically, but geographically, or in the order of their importance, or on some other principle.
Tiglath-pileser III (IV) mentions (1) Azariah of Judah (= Uzziah, 806- 755) as a great military power to whom certain cities turned when they revolted from Assyria; (2) Menahem of Israel (768-758) as one who paid tribute to him; (3) Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel (755-735, dethroned 736) as defeated and deposed by him; (4) Yauhazi or Joachaz (Ahaz, 739-723) as submitting to his dominion and paying tribute; and (5) Hoshea (736-719, King of Israel 727-719) as set up by him, not as King but as governor, as Gedaliah was set up later on by Nebuzaradan for Nebuchadnezzar.Thus, altogether no fewer than five Kings of Judah and Israel are mentioned by Tiglath-pileser III (IV) in those of his Inscriptions which have a bearing on the Chronology of the Old Testament.
These Inscriptions are as follows:-
1. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 9, No. 2, date unknown; George Smith says its probable date is B.C. 738.
This is an Inscription on a fragment of a marble slab used by Tiglath- pileser III (IV) in his central (S.E.) palace at Calah (Nimrud).It was subsequently transported by Esar-haddon and used by him in his S.W. palace at Calah (Nimrud).It contains this passage (Schrader i, 210; George Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, p.117):-
"In the course of my campaign..... tribute of the Kings......
Azrijahu of Judah....... Asurijahu of Judah (Azariah = Uzziah).
2. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 9, No. 3, date unknown; George Smith says its probable date is B.C. 738.
This is an Inscription on another fragment of a marble slab used by Tigath-pileser III (IV) in the same way.It contains this passage (Schrader, i, 212; George Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, pp. 117-118).
"Of Azariah my hand mightily captured..... Nineteen districts of the town Hamath, together with the towns in their circuit, which are situated on the sea of the setting sun, which in their faithlessness made revolt to Azrijahu (Azariah = Uzziah), I turned into the territory of Assyria.My officers, my governors I placed over them."
It will be noted, (1) that this Inscription is undated; (2) that it does not say that Azariah (Uzziah) paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III (IV), but that Tiglath-pileser (received) tribute from certain Kings who had revolted from him and turned to Azariah (Uzziah), and that he pulled down and destroyed the cities of these Kings.If the Inscription was written as George Smith suggests, B.C. 738, the revolt of the Kings was a prior event to the campaign of Tiglath-pileser III (IV), and might well have been as long prior as some time before B.C. 755, the last year of Uzziah's reign.
Schrader says: "The Azariah (Uzziah) here mentioned must be a contemporary of Tiglath-pileser III (IV).The date of Uzziah's death according to the ordinary Chronology (of the Bible) is 758, while Tiglath- pileser, according to the Assyrian fivefold guaranteed Canon, did not ascend the throne till B.C. 745. There gapes here a chronological discrepancy which refuses to be explained away.If the Assyrian Chronology, certified as we have said fivefold, be the correct one, the Biblical cannot be correct."
There is here no discrepancy whatever.The Inscription does not say when these 19 Cities revolted to Uzziah, but only when Tilglath-pileser destroyed them.It does not say whether he destroyed them before he ascended the throne of Assyria, as General of Ashur-dan III (773-754), or as General of Ashur-nirari (754-745), or after he ascended the throne B.C. 745.On the one hand, there is no reason why these cities should not have revolted to Uzziah long before the campaign of Tiglath-pileser III (IV)and on the other, there is no reason why Tiglath-pileser III (IV) should not have made his military-expedition long before he came to the throne of Assyria, B.C. 745, for he exacted tribute from Merodach-baladan of Babylon in B.C. 751, six years before he came to the throne.And to crown all, this Inscription, like every other Inscription of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) yet recovered, is an undated, mutilated fragment, the date having been given to it, and not derived from it. All which proves that this, like all other "contradictions" in the Old Testament, is derived from the "assumptions," and inspired by the animus of the critic. Prof. Owen C. Whitehouse thinks the Inscription probably refers to a King of the land of Yadi and not to Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah at all.
3. Rawlinson, Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 9, No. 3, date unknown; George Smith says its probable date B.C. is 738 (cp. 2 Kings 15:19).
This is an Inscription on the same fragment of the marble slab as the Inscription last mentioned, containing the name of Azariah (Uzziah).
Azariah (Uzziah) is mentioned on lines 2 and 10.Menahem on line 29.
Here we read (Schrader i, 244; George Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 120):-
"The tribute of Kustaspi of Kummuha, Resin of Syria, Menahem of Samaria and (here follow the names of 14 other Kings and one Queen) I received."Then follow the words, "In my 9th year."Judah is not included in the list.Uzziah was King there, and he had a standing army of 307,050 men (2 Chron. 26:13).
Schrader and other Assyriologists attribute these Inscriptions to Tiglath-pileser, and as the year preceding the 9th year of his reign was the year B.C. 737, and Menahem died 21 years before, B.C. 758, there is here an apparent discrepancy between the interpretation of these fragmentary Inscriptions by Assyriologists, and the Chronology of the Old Testament.
But it is by no means certain that the above Inscriptions do relate to the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (IV).Willis J. Beecher thinks they belong to the 8th year of Ashur-dan III (B.C. 773-754), the year B.C. 765, when Tiglath-pileser III (IV), some 20 years before he seized the throne, was acting as General of the army of Ashur-dan.The subject of the Inscription is an expedition to Hamath, 19 districts of which had revolted to Azariah (Uzziah), and in that very year, the 8th year of Ashur-dan III, the year B.C. 765, the Assyrian Eponym Canon mentions the fact that there was an expedition to Hadrach.
The identification of these Inscriptions as belonging to Tiglath-pileser may be granted, but it must be remembered that it is only a "conjecture," not a directly attested fact.George Smith speaks of "the deplorable state in which the annals of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) are found."He says, "It is very difficult to arrange them in their chronological order," "the dates assigned to them are only approximate calculations," and "future discoveries may alter them considerably."
The process by which Schrader dates the payment of tribute by Menahem to Tiglath-pileser in the year B.C. 738 is as follows:-
There is nothing in the Inscription itself to yield this date.It is only an inference from a study of the Assyrian Eponym Canon.From this Schrader says certain things may be "presumed," and certain other things must be "assumed," but "whether Menahem of Samaria was among the Princes who rendered homage in the 3rd year of Tiglath-pileser III, which he identifies with the year B.C. 738, cannot be determined with certainty.Meanwhile the above conjecture would be justified if G. Smith had really, on a basis of palaeographic facts, connected the plate Layard 45 with the plate Rawlinson, vol. iii, p. 9, No. 1.
Since G. Smith himself says the dates in question are only "approximate calculations," and that "future discoveries may alter them considerably," and since Willis J. Beecher finds equal support in the Assyrian Eponym Canon for his conjecture that the payment of tribute by Menahem belongs to the 8th year of Ashur-dan, the year B.C. 765, when Tiglath-pileser was perhaps acting as his General, we may allow the matter to remain where it is.One conjecture disagrees with the Chronology of the Old Testament.Another conjecture agrees with it.Either conjecture meets all the facts contained in the Assyrian Inscriptions, and these Inscriptions contain no fact which contradicts the facts of the Old Testament.
4. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 10, No. 2.Probable date B.C. 740 to 730.
This is a summarising or triumphal Inscription by Tiglath-pileser III (IV), on a fragment of one of the marble slabs from his palace at Nimrud.
It reads as follows (Schrader i, 246; G. Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 123).
"The cities Gil(ead), Abel (Beth-maacha?).... which is the boundary of the land of Beth-omri (Samaria) I turned in its entire extent into the territory of Assyria.I set my Officers and Viceroys over it (cp. 2 Kings 15:29; 16:9-16; 1 Chron. 5:6,26; Isaiah 7:1-9:1).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The land of Beth-omri (Samaria)..... the goods of its people and their furniture I sent to Assyria.Pekaha (Pekah) their King..... and Asui (Hoshea) I appointed over them..... their tribute of them I received."
(Cp. 2 Kings 17:1, but this refers only to Hoshea's appointment as Governor under the King of Assyria like that of Gedaliah (2 Kings 25:23) under the King of Babylon, not to the first year of his reign as King, which was several years later).
The date attributed to this Inscription by the Assyriologists is B.C. 740 to 730, which agrees perfectly with the Biblical date of the deposition of Pekah, B.C. 736, and his being slain by Hoshea the following year, B.C. 735, or as it is called in 2 Kings 15:30 the 20th year of Jotham, though Jotham had been dead 4 years, and this was really the 4th year of the reign of Ahaz, "the Holy Ghost choosing rather to reckon by holy Jotham in his grave than by wicked Ahaz alive" (Dr. John Lightfoot).
Schrader translates inaccurately, "Pekah their King I slew."There is nothing in the Original to correspond with this rendering.The Assyrian text reads "Pa-ka-ha sarra-su-nu.....du....ma.""Pekah their King....ed." There is no "I" at all in it.And there is no "kill" or "slay" in it, only the termination of some verb unknown indicating a past tense -ed.All the rest is conjecture, read into the text by Schrader (may we not add), in order to manufacture a contradiction to the Text of the Old Testament, which tells us that Pekah was slain a year later by Hoshea?It might just as well be conjectured to have been "Pekah their King escaped," or "Pekah their King I defeated," or "Pekah their King I dethroned," or " Pekah their King I imprisoned."
From 2 Kings 15:25-27 we learn that Pekah slew Pekahiah and reigned from the 52nd year of Uzziah, B.C. 755, for 20 years (inclusive reckoning) to
B.C. 736.
From the above Inscription of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) we learn that about that time he was removed and Hoshea appointed as governor in his place. And from 2 Kings 15:30 we learn that in the following year, B.C. 735, he was slain by Hoshea.
5. Layard's Inscription, p. 66; Smith's Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 124.Probable date, according to George Smith, B.C. 734-730.
This is a tiny fragment of an Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser, which tells us nothing more than we have already learned from the previous Inscription. It reads "Samaria alone I left.Pekah their King..."
6. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. ii, p. 67.Probable date, according to George Smith, B.C. 732.(Schrader i, 249Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 124).
This is a Summarising triumphal Inscription of Tiglath-pileser III (IV), embracing the events which belonged to the period "from the beginning of my rule (sarrutu) to the 17th year of my reign (palu), i.e. from B.C. 745, or perhaps earlier, to B.C. 728.It records the fact that Tiglath-pileser III (IV) received tribute from a very large number of Kings, amongst which we find the name of Yanhazi of Judah (= Ahaz, B.C. 738-723), (cp. 2 Kings 16:8; 2 Chron. 28; Is. 7:1-9:1).
This beginning of rule (sarruti) is in other cases expressly distinguished in the Inscriptions from the first year of the King's reign.The year in which a new monarch ascended the throne was reckoned, not to the new monarch, but to his predecessor.Any events which happened during that portion of the calendar year which followed the accession of the new monarch were described as happening in "the beginning of his rule" - the following year being reckoned the "first year" of his reign (Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, vol. ii, p. 94), cp. Jer. 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34.
III. Shalmaneser IV (V) (727-722).
No Monuments have been found bearing Inscriptions by this monarch.Some scholars think he may have left some, but that they were destroyed by his successor Sargon II, who was a usurper and the founder of a new dynasty.Other scholars have conjectured that Shalmaneser IV (V) and Sargon II are one and the same person.
IV. Sargon II (B.C. 722-703).
Sargon II, the successor of Shalmaneser IV (V), was a mighty warrior. It is generally supposed that he was a usurper, who may have been concerned in a revolution resulting in the overthrow of his predecessor.He gives no genealogy of himself, but he claims royal descent from 350 royal predecessors. If this claim be true his revolution may have been a counterstroke leading to a reversion of the crown to some collateral branch of the older dynasty of Ashur-dan III, which was overthrown some 23 years before by Tiglath-pileser III (IV) B.C. 745.
Sargon II was the first King of Assyria to come into actual conflict with Egypt, which he defeated at the famous battle of Raphia, near the frontier of Egypt, not immediately, but soon, after the capture of Samaria.Shabaka or Seveh, the "So, King of Egypt," of 2 Kings 17:4, paid tribute to Sargon II, and it is quite possible that Sargon II went up the Nile and partly destroyed the Ethiopian No-Amon or Thebes referred to in Nahum 3:8, in fulfilment of Isa. 20:1-6, as his great grandson, Ashur-bani-pal, destroyed it again, twice over, three generations later.
But in spite of the vast resources of the mighty empire of this powerful ruler, his magnificent achievements and his glorious conquests were all forgotten.Sic transit gloria mundi.There was no reference to him in classic literature.There was just the incidental mention of his name in Isaiah 20:1, the unsupported witness of one single verse of Scripture, and that was all that was known of him.Critics and scholars doubted whether there ever was such a "King of Assyria" who sent his Tartan against Ashdod and took it, just as to-day, there are scholars and critics of very considerable reputation who doubt whether there ever was such a person as Belshazzar, the King of the Chaldeans, or Darius the Mede, who took the Kingdom from him.
For 25 Centuries Isaiah was the sole witness to the existence of Sargon II. To-day, through the corroboration of the Monumental Inscriptions, he is known to have been Assyria's great master mind, the Emperor of the then known world.
Sargon II's reign of 17 years (722-705) was one long series of military expeditions.He conquered Samaria,Elam,Babylon, Hamath, Egypt, Armenia, Ashdod, Ethiopia, Babylon (a second time) and Cyprus, together with a host of smaller states, transporting the inhabitants of one conquered territory to another.The most noteworthy of his conquests were:-
B.C. 722. His accession year - His first capture of Samaria, upon which he imposed tribute, but which soon afterwards rebelled again.(Other documents place his accession two years later, in the year 720.)
B.C. 721. His first year - His conquest of Merodach-baladan of Babylon.
B.C. 720. His second year - His conquest of Shabaka = "So, King of Egypt," at Raphia.
(Other documents make this his accession year, So that his first year may be either 722, 721, 720 or 719, according to the documental authority followed, and the method of reckoning employed).
B.C. 711. His 11th year - Conquest of Azuri, King of Ashdod.This is the event referred to in Isaiah 20.It is very fully described by Sargon II, in his great summarising triumphal Inscription at Khorsabad.
B.C. 710. His 12th year - Conquest of Merodach-baladan of Babylon, whom he dethroned, reigning there himself for five years as King of Babylon (710- 705).Ptolemy's Canon gives the name Arcean as King of Babylon for these five years, B.C. 710-705.
Like all great warriors and world conquerors, Sargon was a great builder.He built a palace for himself, and called the place after his own name, Dur- Sharrukin or Dur-Sargon, now Khorsabad, or Northern Nineveh.All the more important Monuments of Sargon II, were obtained from Khorsabad by M. Botta, the French explorer, who sent them to the Louvre.
Sargon II also restored the palace of Ashur-nasir-pal (B.C. 936-911), built some 200 years earlier at Calah, the modern Nimrud.He repaired the walls of Nineveh proper, the modern Kouyunjik, and made it the first city in the Empire.
The Inscriptions of Sargon II are for the most part well preserved.They include,
1. Sargon II's Annals, which give detailed accounts of the events of each year of his reign.
2. The great summarising triumphal Inscription at Khorsabad.
3. The Bull Inscription at Khorsabad.
4. A triumphal Inscription on a Stele of Sargon II which he sent to Cyprus, which was discovered on the site of ancient Citium, and which is now preserved in the British Museum.
5. A clay cylinder Inscription.
6. Sundry Inscriptions on pavements, slabs, bricks, vases, etc.
Of these, seven have some bearing on the Chronology of the Old Testament. They are as follows:-
1. Botta, 145, I. (Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 21, p. 125; Schrader i, p. 263).
This is a short passage from Sargon II's great triumphal Inscription at Khorsabad, dated by George Smith B.C. 722.It is in a very mutilated condition but contains the following passages:-
".....Samaria..... I carried off 50 chariots, my royal portion..... tribute the same as that of the Assyrians I fixed upon them."
2. Fastes of Oppert, lines 23 to 25;Smith's Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract, 22, p. 125; Schrader i, p. 265.
This is a passage from Sargon II's Annals, dated by Smith B.C. 722(?). It appears to refer to the same event as the foregoing Inscription, viz. the first capture of Samaria by Sargon in 722, i.e. in the 3rd year of Hezekiah, and three years before its final fall.It reads as follows:-
"Samaria I besieged, I captured, 27,290 people dwelling in the midst of it I carried captive, 50 chariots from among them I selected, and the rest of them I distributed.My general over them I appointed, and the taxes of the former King I fixed on them " (cp. 2 Kings 17:13).
These two extracts appear to refer to events that took place prior to the siege of Samaria by Shalmaneser IV (V), referred to in 2 Kings 17:5, and Sargon appears to be acting as the General of Shalmaneser IV (V).
3. Annals of Sargon, lines 36-57;Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 23, p. 125.Dated 720.
This is a mutilated Inscription, respecting the defeat of Sibahki (= So, King of Egypt, 2 Kings 17:4), at Raphia.It reads as follows:-
"In my second year....... Damascus, Samaria......
- - - - - -- - - -
,..............Sibahki....... to his aid, with him to make battle and war, to my presence came.In the name of Assur my lord their overthrow I struck, and Sibahki the ruler, who had slight courage, fled away alone and got off.
"Hanun in hand I captured, and his family to my city Assur I sent.
"Raphia I pulled down, destroyed, in the fire I burned, 20,033 people and their abundant goods I carried captive."
4. Fastes of Oppert, lines 25 and 26; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 24, p. 126; Schrader ii, p. 87.Botta, 145, 2, 1-3.
This is an extract from Sargon II's summarising triumphal Inscription at Khorsabad.It also refers to the Battle of Raphia.It is dated by Smith B.C. 720, and reads as follows:-
"Hanun, King of Gaza, with Sibahe, General of Egypt, in Raphia, to make battle and war, to my presence came.Their overthrow I struck. Sibahe the attack of my soldiers avoided, fled away, and his place could not be seen.Hanun, King of Gaza, in hand I captured."
5. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i, p. 36, line 20; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 29, p. 129; Schrader i, p. 269.
This is from Sargon II's clay cylinder Inscription.It is dated by Smith B.C. 715, and reads as follows:-
"Sargon (?) Conqueror of the Tamudu (an Arabian tribe), Ibadidi, Marsimani, and Hayapa, who the rest of them enslaved, and caused them to be placed in the land of Beth-omri (Samaria)."
6. Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 30, p. 129.
This is the great Ashdod Inscription (cp. Isa. 20) contained in Sargon II's Kouyunjik Cylinder and Khorsabad Inscription.
It is distinctly dated here "In the 9th year of my reign," i.e. B.C. 713 if he dates his accession from B.C. 722, or B.C. 711 if he dates his accession from B.C. 720.In his Annals he gives this expedition under the 11th year of his reign.
This shows that there were two ways of reckoning the accession of Sargon. His accession year was 722.His first year 721.He had another accession year 720, and his royal Eponym Year was 719.
Similarly Shalmaneser II (III) ascended the throne B.C. 860 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 911.His first year was B.C. 859 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 910 and his royal Eponym Year B.C. 858 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 909.
From the time of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) (745-727) onward, says Schrader (ii, p. 168 note), the year of the King's accession is also reckoned as the first year of the new series of Eponyms.The Canons vary in their mode of reckoning the first year of the King.Sometimes it is his accession year, sometimes the year after his accession, sometimes the year after that.
George Smith says (Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 21) the general practice was to count the regnal years from the first New Year's Day after the King's accession, and to call the period between the accession and the first New Year's Day, "the beginning of the reign."Nevertheless, there are cases in which the year of accession is considered as the first year, thus giving two reckonings. Thus:-
Shalmaneser II (III's) year of Accession = 860.His 1st year 860 or 859
Tiglath-pileser III (IV's) year of Accession = 745. His 1st year 745 or 744
Sargon II's year of Accession = 722.His 1st year 722 or 721
Sennacherib's year of Accession = 705.His 1st year 705 or 704
Nebuchadnezzar's year of Accession = 605.His 1st year 605 or 604
Sargon's Ashdod Inscription, as taken from the Kouyunjik Cylinder, is as follows:-
"In my 9th year, to the land beside the great sea, to Philistia and Ashdod I went.
"Azuri of Ashdod hardened his heart not to bring tribute, and sent to the Kings round him, enemies of Assyria, and did evil.Over the people round him I broke......
"Ahimite..... his brother I raised and appointed over his Kingdom before his face.Taxes and tribute to Assyria like those of the Kings round him I appointed over him.
"But the people..... revolted against their King...... and drove him away..... and appointed Yavan, not heir to the throne, to the Kingdom over them.....
"I, Sargon, crossed, the Tigris and the Euphrates.... Yavan heard of my expedition...... and fled away..... to the border of Egypt, the shore of the river, the boundary of Meroe."
7. Botta, 149, 6; Schrader, ii, p. 89.
This is another account of the Ashdod Expedition from Sargon's Annals, dated the eleventh year of his reign instead of the ninth, as in the preceding Inscription.It reads as follows:-
"Azuri, King of Ashdod, hardened his heart not to pay tribute, and sent to the Princes of his neighbourhood, demands to revolt from Assyria. Accordingly, I wreaked vengeance, and changed his government over the inhabitants of his district.Achimite, his own brother,I appointed to be governor over them.The Hittites, who thought to revolt, despised his rule, raised Yaman, who had no claim, to the throne, and who, like the former, refused recognition of authority over them.In the rage of my heart, my whole army I gathered not, did not even collect my baggage; with my chief warriors, who did not retreat from the victorious track of my arms, I advanced to Ashdod.The above Yaman, as he of the approach of my expedition heard from far, fled to a district of Egypt, which is situated on the frontier of Milukka (Meroe or Ethiopia); not a trace of him was seen.Ashdod Gimt-Ashdudim, I besieged, I captured; his goods, his wife, his sons, his daughters, the treasures, possessions, valuables of his palace, together with the inhabitants of his land, I destined for capture.Those towns I restored again. The inhabitants of the countries which my hands had seized..... in the East I settled there.I treated them like unto the Assyrians.They tendered obedience..... The King of Milukka (Meroe or Ethiopia) cast Yaman into iron chains, and caused him to take his distant way to Assyria, and appear before me."
This is the background that lies behind the words of Is. 20:1-6: "In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod (when Sargon the King of Assyria sent him), and fought against Ashdod and took it: at the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, Saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot.And he did so, walking naked and barefoot."
This was the Sign upon Egypt and Ethiopia that so should the King ofAssyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and Ethiopians captives, naked and barefoot, to the shame of Egypt and Ethiopia.
The enterprise of Sargon against Ashdod was connected with an enterprise against the great Western Power on the Nile.After the fall of Ashdod, Sargon either went to Thebes (the No-Amon of Nahum 3:8, A.V. margin) and partly destroyed it, as his great grandson Ashur-bani-pal did more completely, twice over, about half a century later, or else Egypt and Ethiopia surrendered to Sargon without fighting, for they betrayed and gave up Yaman the King of Ashdod, who had fled to them for refuge, and sued for peace.
If the dates of Sargon's reign are rightly computed by the interpreters of the Assyrian Inscriptions, the year that Sargon II took Ashdod was his 11th year - the year B.C. 711 - the 14th year of Hezekiah, the year of the destruction of the 185,000 of the host of Sennacherib, the year of the sickness of Hezekiah, and the year of the embassy of Merodach- baladan of Babylon (2 Kings 18-20; Is. 36-39).
There is no reason why Sargon II should not have made his son Sennacherib his Tartan or Commander-in-Chief, and associated him with himself on the throne of Assyria in B.C. 711, six years before Sargon II died, and Sennacherib became sole King of Assyria.The word Tartan occurs only in 2 Kings 18:17 and Is. 20:1It may be the title of Sennacherib as Crown Prince and Co-Regent with his father Sargon, and Commander-in-Chief of the army.The Ashdod expedition, the Lachish payment of tribute, the blasphemous letter episode, and the destruction of the host of Sennacherib all belong to one and the same year, the 14th year of Hezekiah, the year B.C. 711.We have no right to assume that Sennacherib undertook none of his military expeditions before he ascended the throne in B.C. 705.He may very well have been associated with his father in the throne and Commander-in-Chief of the army in the year 711, for we know that he was "Crown Prince and Viceroy in Assyria during the last few years of Sargon's reign" (C. H. W. John's Ancient Assyria), just as Nebuchadnezzar was Co-Regent with, and Commander-in-Chief of, the army of his father Nabopolassar, and just as Belshazzar was Co-Regent with, and Commander- in-Chief of, the army of his father Nabonidus.
V. Sennacherib (B.C. 705-681).
Sennacherib was the son of Sargon II (722-705), and the father of Esar- haddon (681-668).He was a typical Assyrian monarch.His whole life was taken up in warlike expeditions, conquering and crushing and subduing other nations, and taking tribute from them, and in the erection of great palaces and other buildings.He was nearly always at war with Babylon.He defeated Merodach-baladan, and appointed Belibus as his Viceroy there.Later on he conquered Merodach-baladan again, and appointed his own son, Ashur-nadin-shum, King of Babylon, and finally he was himself King of Babylon for 8 years, a period which is reckoned as an interregnum in Ptolemy's Canon.
He conquered Armenia, Media, Sidon, Tyre, Edom, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Libnah and Lachish.He defeated Egypt at Eltakeh between Ekron and Timnath, and took the seal of So, King of Egypt, which was discovered in his palace at Kouyunjik, a building extending over 8 acres of ground.He restored another palace at Neby Yunas (the prophet Jonah), also at Nineveh. He was the first Assyrian monarch to make Nineveh the seat of government.
His Inscriptions are on clay cylinders, marble slabs, and colossal bulls. We have bas-reliefs of his wars and building operations, terra cotta bowls, bricks, alabaster plate, and a crystal throne.There is also an Inscription of his on the Rock at Bavian, to the north of Nineveh, and another at Nahr-el- Kelb, on the coast of Syria, which he made by the side of an Inscription placed there by Rameses the Great 600 years before.
Those which refer to the Chronology of the Old Testament may be tabulated as follows:-
1. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i, 43, 15;The Inscription of Constantinople of Schrader i, 279; The Memorial Tablet, lines 13 to 15, of Smith's Assyrian Eponym Canon.
Here we read:- "From Elulaeus King of Sidon I took his Kingdom, Ethobal I raised to his throne and imposed on him the tribute of my rule; the extensive territory of the land Judah, Hezekiah its King, I compelled to obedience."
2. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i, 7, No. J; Schrader i, 280; The Lachish Slab, No. 28, in the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum.
This is a bas-relief of Sennacherib sitting on a throne amid the vines and fig-trees outside the city of Lachish, receiving tribute.It bears the Inscription: "Sennacherib, King of hosts, King of Assyria, seated himself upon an exalted throne and received the spoil of the city Lachish."
3. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i, 37-42.The Taylor six- sided clay Cylinder, Schrader i, 280.
This was executed in the Eponymy of Bel-emur-ani, B.C. 691, and contains an account of Sennacherib's eight military expeditions.
The Inscription on the Bellino Cylinder, executed B.C. 702, contains an account of two of these campaigns.The Inscription on the Colossal Bulls of Kouyunjik, executed B.C. 700, contains a parallel account of the third of these campaigns.The Inscription on the C. Cylinder (George Smith's Assyrian Discoveries, p. 296), executed B.C. 697, contains an account of four of these campaigns.
These parallel accounts add little to the matter contained in the celebrated Taylor Cylinder.
The most important of all the Inscriptions of Sennacherib is the account he gives of his third campaign.
Unfortunately, none of the events recorded by Sennacherib are dated. Earlier monarchs, like Shalmaneser II (III) and Tiglath-pileser III (IV) record the events which happened "in the first, second, third, etc., year of my reign."The later monarchs, Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, and Ashur-bani-pal, do not give dates.They record only the events which happened "in my first, second, third, etc., military campaign."
This third campaign of Sennacherib embraces:-
1.An expedition to the towns of Phoenicia and Philistia.
2.An expedition against Zedekiah of Ashkelon.
3.An expedition against the Ekronites, whose King, Padi, had been deposed and sent as a prisoner to Hezekiah because he was loyal to Assyria.Hezekiah gave him up, and Sennacherib restored him.While Sennacherib was engaged here he was attacked by the Egyptians and Ethiopians, whom he defeated at Eltakeh, between Ekron and Timnath.
4.An expedition against Hezekiah, on the date of which Schrader founds his whole case for the untrustworthiness of the Biblical Chronology, and the necessity of substituting for it the Chronology of the Monuments.
The account of Sennacherib's third campaign is a long one, but it must be given in full:-
"As for Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke, 46 of his strong cities, together with innumerable fortresses and small towns dependent on them, by overthrowing the walls and open attack, by battle engines and battering-rams I besieged, I captured; I brought out from the midst of them and counted as a spoil 200,150 persons, great and small, male and female, besides mules, asses, camels, oxen, and sheep without number.Hezekiah himself I shut up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem, his royal city.I built a line of forts against him, and I kept back his heel from going forth out of the great gate of his city.I cut off his cities which I had spoiled from the midst of his land, and gave them to Metinti, King of Ashdod; Padi, King of Ekron; and Zil-baal, King of Gaza, and I made his country small.In addition to their former tribute and yearly gifts, I added other tribute and the homage due to my majesty, and I laid it upon them.The fear of the greatness of my majesty overwhelmed him, even Hezekiah, and he sent after me to Nineveh, my royal city, by way of gift and tribute, the Arabs and his body guard whom he had brought for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal city, and had furnished with pay, along with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of pure silver, carbuncles, and other precious stones, a couch of ivory, thrones of ivory, an elephant's hide, an elephant's tusk, rare woods of all kinds, a vast treasure, as well as the eunuchs of his palace, and dancing men and dancing women, and he sent his ambassador to pay homage (or tribute) and to make submission."
It will be seen from this extract that Sennacherib claims a victory, but he did not take Jerusalem, though he sent an army against it.He is evidently trying to cover up a fact which looks like virtual defeat.
When this passage is compared with 2 Kings 18:13-19:37; 2 Chron. 32; Is. 36-37; 38:1; 39:1, chronological difficulties at once arise, for Sennacherib began to reign B.C. 705, and this was his third campaign.Therefore, says Schrader, "for this event the only possible date is B.C. 701.But Hezekiah died B.C. 700, and his fourteenth year in which these events took place, according to the Chronology of the Old Testament (2 Kings 18:2,13, 20:1-6) was the year B.C. 711.
"We see," says Schrader, "that one of the two systems must be abandoned. We cannot doubt against which of the two sentence must be passed.Our verdict must be pronounced against the Scriptural system.It must be abandoned in the presence of the corresponding statements of the Monuments and the Eponym Canon.In the Monuments we possess the additional advantage of gaining access to documents which have not, like Scriptural writings, notoriously been subjected in the course of Centuries to numerous alterations.We must acknowledge the artificial character of the Biblical Chronology."
Many attempts have been made to explain this discrepancy.Rawlinson suggests that there were two campaigns by Sennacherib.Kleinert suggests that the redactor put "Sennacherib" by mistake for "Sargon."Fausset thinks the case is hopeless and we must admit a copyist's error in putting the 14th instead of the 27th year of Hezekiah.Budge adopts Rawlinson's theory of an earlier campaign ending in victory as described by Sennacherib, and a later campaign, about two years after, ending in the destruction of the 185,000 men of Sennacherib's army by the angel of the Lord, who smote them "perhaps with a plague."George Smith thinks we should read 24th instead of 14th, and Samuel Kinns, in Craven on the Rock, says there is some error of transcription in 2 Kings 18:13.
But there is really no need for any of these expedients.The whole difficulty arises from supposing that Sennacherib could not have undertaken a warlike operation of this kind during his father Sargon's lifetime - a pure assumption, wholly gratuitous, and capable of being satisfactorily disproved.Hezekiah's 14th year is the year B.C. 711.There is some doubt as to Sargon's first year, but his accession year was either B.C. 722 or 720.Hezekiah's 14th year was Sargon's 11th, and Sargon reigned 17 years.Six years, therefore, before he came to the throne, in B.C. 705, Sennacherib undertook this expedition, and received the submission of Hezekiah with the silver and the gold in the name of the King of Assyria.
George Smith says, "Sennacherib held some official rank during his father's reign, and it is quite possible that he commanded the expedition in B.C. 711 as his father's deputy.In the Tablet K 2169, Sennacherib is called "Rabsaki" (Rabshakeh) or General, and "great royal son," that is, heir to the throne; and he is said to possess his own scribe.The passage reads:-
"Tablet of Aia-suzubu-ilih the Scribe of the Rabshakeh, of Sennacherib, the great royal son of Sargon, King of Assyria."
The title, "great royal son," was assumed by Asshur-bani-pal when he was associated with his father on the throne.
Schrader says, "According to the Assyrian Eponym Canon, Sennacherib - began his reign in the year B.C. 705.Therefore the Campaign must have fallen subsequent to that year."Why must it?Why could not Sennacherib have conducted it before he came to the throne?Schrader says, "The Inscription does not inform us in the least in which year or years of Sennacherib's reign these eight campaigns occurred."But neither does it inform us that they occurred in the reign itself, i.e. between B.C. 705 and 681.
On the contrary, we know from an Inscription on a tablet enclosed in a clay envelope, and sent as a letter by Sennacherib to his father - No. 105 in Table-case D in the Nineveh Gallery of the British Museum - that Sennacherib sent to his father extracts from despatches which he had received concerning imperial affairs.
In the account of his fourth Campaign, Sennacherib says: "Merodach- baladan, on whom I, in my first military expedition, inflicted a defeat, and whose force I had broken in pieces, dreaded the onset of my powerful weapons and the shock of my mighty battle."Why may not that first campaign have been undertaken by Sennacherib before he came to the throne?Did not Edward the Black Prince prove himself a famous warrior?Yet he never came to the throne of England at all.
Sargon conqueredMerodach-baladan and dethroned him B.C. 710.Sennacherib's first campaign was against Merodach-baladan.Why may not he have been the Tartan or Commander-in-Chief in the war against Merodach- baladan, B.C. 710, five years before he came to the throne, and also in the war against Ashdod, in the 14th year of Hezekiah, B.C. 711, six years before he came to the throne?
Schrader says, "We have no means of directly fixing the date of Sennacherib's third Campaign" - the one against Hezekiah.Yet this is the very one whose date he declares to be irreconcilable with the Biblical date, the 14th year of Hezekiah, B.C. 711 (2 Kings 18:13), and what makes it irreconcilable is not anything in the Monuments, but the assumption that Sennacherib could not have conducted a military expedition during Sargon's' reign, as we know Sargon's Tartan did (Is. 20:1), and whether Sennacherib was that Tartan or not, we know that he was Crown Prince and Viceroy, or Co-Rex with his father Sargon, during the last five years of Sargon's reign.
Schrader is puzzled by the fact that Merodach-baladan was defeated and dethroned by Sargon in B.C. 710, and then again by Sennacherib in 704.He asks, "Was this Merodach-baladan, by whom Sennacherib was confronted, identical with the Babylonian King of the same name, whom Sargon defeated and dethroned, or was he distinct from the above, perhaps his successor and son"?
The solution of the difficulty is perfectly simple.Quod facit per alium facit per se - what one does through another, one may be said to do oneself. What Sargon did through his son Sennacherib, he did himself.It was one and the same Merodach-baladan, one and the same defeat, by one and the same Sargon in his 12th year, which was Hezekiah's i5th year, B.C. 710, through one and the same Sennacherib, in his first campaign, in the beginning of his rule, five years before his accession, and six years before the first year of his reign.
This is borne out by Sennacherib's Inscriptions on the Taylor cylinder, the Bellino cylinder, and the Memorial Tablet, in each of which he says that he conquered Merodach-baladan "ina ris sarruti" (in the beginning of my rule), not "ina ris pale-ja" (in the beginning of my reign).
Prof. Sayce interprets the Biblical Record in another way.He takes 2 Kings 18:13-16 as referring to the events of the 14th year of Hezekiah, B.C. 711, and 2 Kings 18:17-19, the destruction of Sennacherib's host, to a later date, viz. Sennacherib's 4th year, and Hezekiah's 24th, B.C. 701.The interpretation is not perhaps positively excluded by the Text of the Old Testament, but in view of the words of 2 Kings 20:1,6,12 it seems more probable that the whole of 2 Kings 18:13-20:19 belongs to the 14th year of Hezekiah (B.C. 711). It is not necessary to decide what the explanation of the difficulty is.It is enough to prove that no necessary contradiction between the Old Testament and the Monuments has been made out.
There is no reason why Sennacherib may not have been Co-Regent in the field with Sargon, as Nebuchadnezzar was with his father Nabopolassar, and Belshazzar with his father Nabonidus.Sennacherib appointed his son Ashur- nadin-shum, King of Babylon, and Esar-haddon appointed his two sons, the one King of Assyria and the other King of Babylon.The practice of appointing a Co-Regent during the King's life was very commonly adopted in all the countries of the East.
Schrader's whole case for the untrustworthiness of the Bible Chronology rests, as he himself tells us, upon this discrepancy between the Biblical date of Sennacherib's expedition, in the 14th year of Hezekiah, B.C. 711, and the Assyrian Monumental date for Sennacherib's accession, B.C. 705.But both these statements are true.There is no discrepancy between them.Schrader's attack has failed, and the Bible Chronology stands.
VI. Esar-haddon (68i-668).
Esar-haddon was the most potent of the Kings of Assyria.He conquered Media, Phoenicia, Egypt and Ethiopia, and drove Tirhakah out of Egypt. He conquered the sons of Merodach-baladan, and made Babylon directly subject to the Assyrian Crown, residing by turns at Nineveh and Babylon instead of governing Babylon by Viceroys.
Esar-haddon was a great builder.He built no new city, but he restored many old ones.He rebuilt Babylon, which his father had destroyed, and which had lain waste for 10 years.He began to build a great palace for himself at Calah, the modern Nimrud, using for this purpose the slabs inscribed and used before by Tiglath-pileser III (IV), but it was never finished.He rebuilt or restored temples at Nineveh, viz. at Nebi Yunus (Prophet Jonah), at Erech, Sippara and Borsippa.
He abdicated B.C. 668, after proclaiming his son Ashur-bani-pal King of Assyria and his son Shamash-shum-ukin King of Babylon.
The colossal Stele of Esar-haddon at Samaal represents him holding a cord attached to rings in the lips of two lesser figures, Tirhakah of Egypt and Baal of Tyre.
His Inscriptions include baked clay, six-sided cylinders, giving the annals of his reign and a summary of the same.A black basalt Memorial Stone in archaic Babylonian characters, a has-relief (cut in the rock at Nahr-el- Kelb near Berut, in Syria, close to the ancient highway from Egypt to Syria by the side of six other similar Assyrian and three Egyptian Inscriptions), cylinders, slabs, tablets, etc., giving his name, titles, genealogy and building operations.Four of his Inscriptions have a bearing on the subject of Old Testament Chronology, and the authenticity of the Bible Records so far as they refer to him.
1. A brick Inscription (I, Rawlinson 48, No. 3; Schrader, vol. ii, p. 20).It reads as follows:-
"Esar-haddon, King of Assyria, son of Sennacherib King of Assyria."
This agrees with 2 Kings 19:37.
2.The broken clay cylinder (III, Rawlinson 15, col. I, 18 foll.) on the defeat of his two parricidal brothers who killed their father and fled to Armenia (Schrader ii, 17.)It bears the following Inscription:-
"The terror of the great gods, my lords, overthrew them.They saw and dreaded the meeting.Istar the mistress of conflict and battle, who loved my priesthood, raised my hands, broke their bow, cleft through their battle array; in their assembly resounded the cry 'This is our King.'"This corroborates 2 Kings 19:37.
3. The great cylinder Inscription (I, Rawlinson 47, V, 11-13; Schrader ii, 39; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 37, p. 139, date B.C. 680).
"I gathered 22 Princes of the land of Khatti (the Hittites) who dwell by the sea, and in the midst of it, all of them I summoned."
3A. A supplement to 3.A broken clay cylinder (III, Rawlinson 16, C. V; Schrader ii, 39-41; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 37 p. 139.Probable date B.C. 680), which gives the names of these 22 Princes.They are as follows:-
1. Baal, King of Tyre.
2. Manasseh, King of Judah.
3. Khausgabri, King of Edom.
4. Mushuri, King of Moab.
5. Zilbel, King of Gaza.
6. Mitinti, King of Askelon.
7. Ikasamu, King of Ekron.
8. Milkiasap, King of Byblos.
9. Matanbaal, King of Arados (Arvad).
10. Abibal, King of Samsimuruna.
11. Puduil, King of Beth-Ammon.
12. Ahimelech, King of Ashdod.
Etc., etc.
There is a similar list given by his son Ashur-bani-pal in the next reign, in which all the names are the same except that Jakinlu takes the place of Matanbaal, and Amminadab that of Puduil.
These Inscriptions prove that Manasseh paid tribute to both Esar-haddon and Ashur-bani-pal in accordance with 2 Kings 21:13,14, and 2 Chron. 33:11-19.
4. A baked cylinder (V, Rawlinson 45, col. I, 24; Schrader ii, 61; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 36, p, 137-8.Probable date, B.C. 680), in which Esar-haddon says: "I gathered together all the Kings of the land of Khatti (Hittites) and of the sea coast.Another town I caused to be built. Esarhaddonstown I called it.The inhabitants of the mountains carried away by my bow, and those of the Eastern sea I settled in that spot.My Officer the Viceroy I placed over them."
This corroborates Ezra 4:2, in which the adversaries of Judah, who opposed Zerubbabel and hindered the rebuilding of the Temple, say that it was Esar-haddon who brought them there.
If the captivity of Manasseh (B.C. 696-641), related in 2 Chron. 33:11, took place in the reign of Esar-haddon (B.C. 681-668), this would explain why he was deported by the King of Assyria to Babylon, and not to Nineveh, and as Esar-haddon was of a mild, forgiving nature, he would readily forgive and restore Manasseh, as he did the son of Merodach-baladan (2 Chron 33:12,13). In that case, there would be at least 28 years in which Manasseh could carry out his reformation.If the captivity of Manasseh was due, as Schrader suggests, to his being suspected of complicity in the rebellion of Shamash-shum-ukin against Ashur-bani-pal, B.C. 648, he may have had to appear before Ashur-bani- pal at Babylon, to clear himself of suspicion and to furnish guarantees of faithfulness to Ashur-bani-pal; upon which he would naturally be restored (2 Chron. 33:12,13).In that case, there would be only seven years in which Manasseh could carry out his reformation, as he died B.C. 641.
The most probable conclusion is that of George Smith, which is as follows:-
In the days of Ahaz, whose first year was the year B.C. 738, Isaiah prophesied and said, "Within 65 years shall Ephraim be broken from being a people" (Is. 7:8).
The adversaries who hindered the building of the Temple by Zerubbabel, were planted in Samaria by Esar-haddon, and some of these were Babylonians (Ez. 4:2,9).
Manasseh King of Judah was carried away to Babylon by the King of Assyria (probably Esar-haddon), 2 Chron. 33:11.
Esar-haddon gathered all the Kings of the land of the Khatti and of the sea coast (Palestine) and settled in that district the inhabitants of the Mountains and the Eastern Sea.He summoned to his presence the 22 Kings of the land of the Khatti, amongst whom he mentions Manasseh King of Judah (Esar- haddon's Inscriptions, Rawlinson i, 45, col. 1, lines 23 and 24; i, 47;
v, 11-13 and iii, 16, c.V.)
Esar-haddon was King of Babylon B.C. 681-668."Some of the dates of Esar-haddon," says George Smith, "are uncertain, but the time of the revolt and conquest of Palestine is fairly certain.In B.C. 673 or 672 Esar-haddon carried into captivity the remnant of Israel, and sent Manasseh, King of Judah, prisoner to Babylon.In the following year, B.C. 671, Manasseh was released."
Now from B.C. 738 to 673, the year in which Esar-haddon transplanted the inhabitants of Samaria into his Eastern provinces and re-peopled Samaria with Babylonians, etc., is exactly 65 years, and this occasion, rather than the first capture of Samaria by Sargon in B.C. 722, or its final fall in B.C. 719, was the one on which Ephraim was "broken from being a people."Thus, the Assyrian cuneiform Inscriptions throw a welcome light on a difficult verse in Isaiah, and show how his prophecy was fulfilled.
VII. Ashur-bani-pal (668-626).
The Inscriptions of Ashur-bani-pal give the history of his reign down to the year 640.Then the accounts cease.In accordance with the will of his father he became King of Assyria, and his brother Shamash-shum-ukin became King of Babylon.
In 661 he captured and plundered Thebes, the No-Amon of Nahum 3:8, expelled the Ethiopians, and reinstated Psammeticus as King of Egypt under Assyrian protection and support.
In 648 his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin rebelled.He was besieged, and burnt himself in his palace, and Ashur-bani-pal ruled Babylon himself as King Kandalanu from B.C. 647 to his death in B.C. 626.
It is almost impossible to say when Nineveh and the Empire of Assyria fell.Ashur-bani-pal was the last great monarch.His accounts cease at B.C. 640.
Greek traditions say he lived in ease and indulgence, but we have no contemporary records.He was a cultured, leisurely man, interested in books and libraries.He left war to his warriors.He was a great builder.He created a great library, collecting and copying tens of thousands of clay tablets from every possible source, embodying the masterpieces of the age, together with works on astronomy, mathematics, grammar, dictionaries, deeds, letters, documents and lists of Eponyms.His library was situated first at Calah, and afterwards at Nineveh.
Ashur-bani-pal was probably succeeded by his two sons, Ashur-etil-ilani and Sin-shar-ish-kun (Saracos), who may have reigned the rest of the time, but there is no record, only traditions.
Assyria fell some time after 626.The Greek tradition is that Psammeticus held Egypt, that Nabopolassar, the King of Assyria's Viceroy at Babylon, proclaimed himself King of Babylon, and with the help of Cyaxares the Mede took Nineveh B.C. 625, whereupon the Empire of Assyria was divided between Psammeticus who took Egypt, Nabopolassar who took Babylon, and Cyaxares who took Media.
C. H. W. Johns says it is difficult to harmonise the accounts that have reached us of these times, "and even the exact date of the fall of Nineveh is not certain.It is usually set at B.C. 606."
We shall not, perhaps, be far out if we suppose that Ashur-bani-pal died in or about the year B.C. 626, that Nineveh was besieged by Nabopolassar of Babylon and Cyaxares the Mede, and fell in B.C. 625, that Ashur-bani-pal's two sons maintained a precarious existence as in some sense Kings of Assyria between B.C. 625 and 606, the elder, Ashur-etil-ilani, occupying the throne for the first six years (B.C. 625-619) and the younger Sin-shar-ish-kun (Saracos) for the remainder of the period (B.C. 619-606), at the end of which we may date the final fall and destruction of Nineveh B.C. 606.
But as George Smith says, in his Assyrian Eponym Canon, "No Assyrian date can be fixed with any certainty after the accession of Nabu-pal-uzer, or Nabopolassar, at Babylon, in B.C. 626, and this event appears to have been closely followed by the death of Ashur-bani-pal, King of Assyria."
The only Inscription of Ashur-bani-pal that bears upon the events recorded in the Old Testament is the Inscription on:-
1. Cylinder C, Ashur-bani-pal (III, Rawlinson 27), its probable date, according to George Smith, being B.C. 668.
This is in a very mutilated condition, but more recently a duplicate of the Inscription made upon it has been discovered, numbered:-
1a. Rassam 3, from which we obtain the full text (Schrader ii, 41; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 41, p. 143), probable date B.C. 668:-
"To Egypt and Ethiopia I directed the march. In the course of my expedition
1. Baal, King of Tyre.
2. Manasseh, King of Judah.
3. Kausgabri, King of Edom.
4. Musuri, King of Moab.
5. Zilbel, King of Gaza.
6. Mitinti, King of Ashkelon.
7. Ikasamsu, King of Ekron.
8. Milkiasap, King of Byblos.
9. Jakinlu, King of Arados.
10. Abibaal, King of Samsi-muruna.
11. Amminabad, King of Beth-Ammon
(and 11 others, making)
22 Kings of the side of the sea and the middle of the sea, all of them tributaries dependent on me, to my presence came and kissed my feet."
The payment of tribute by Manasseh is not mentioned in the Bible, but the Inscription of Ashur-bani-pal accords very well with what we might expect from 2 Kings 21:13,14 and 2 Chron. 33:11-19.
In Ezra 4:9,10 we read of the great and noble Asnapper who brought over and set in the cities of Samaria, the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites and the Elamites.
This Asnapper has not yet been definitely identified.He may have been (1) Esar-haddon (cp. Ezra 4:2), or (2) a General of Esar-haddon (though no General of that name has yet been met with in the Assyrian Inscriptions), or (3) most probably Ashur-bani-pal himself.In favour of this is the epithet "great and noble" or "great and mighty," and the fact that Ashur-bani-pal was the only Assyrian monarch who penetrated into the heart of Elam and gained possession of Susa (Schrader ii, p. 65).
This brings us to the close of the list of the historical Inscriptions of the Kings.
B. The Assyrian Eponym Canon.
One of the most important chronological documents ever discovered was that found by Sir Henry Rawlinson, among the inscribed terra cotta tablets which Mr. Layard and other explorers brought from Nineveh - the Assyrian Eponym Canon.This consists of a Canon or list of the annual Eponyms.
The Eponym was an Officer resembling, in some respects, our Lord Mayor.He held office for one year, and his name was appropriated to the function of denoting the year in which he held office, as one of a continuous series of years forming a chronological Era.
Sir H. Rawlinson distinguished 4 copies of the Canon, all imperfect, which he named Canons I, II, III and IV.Since then, other fragments have been found belonging to Canon I and some additional copies, also fragmentary, which have been named Canons V, VI and VII.
Canon I is the principal and standard Copy.It begins with the Eponymy of Vul-nirari or Ramman-nirari, B.C. 911 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 962, which corresponds with the 1st year of Asa, and ends in the year B.C. 659 (the 37th year of Manasseh).
Canon II extends from B.C. 893 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 944 to B.C. 691.
Canon III from B.C. 810 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 861 to B.C. 647.
Canon IV from B.C. 753 to 697, but originally it contained names now lost, bringing it down to about B.C. 637.
Canon V preserves names from B.C. 817 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 868 to B.C. 728.
Canon VI has a few names between B.C. 819 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 870 and B.C. 804 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 855, and also some further names between B.C. 708 and 700.
Canon VII has a few names between B.C. 829 and 822 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 880 to 873, and some further names between B.C. 768 and 748, and between B.C. 732 and 723.
By piecing together the various parts of the VII Canons a list of the annual Eponyms of Assyria has been made out for the period from B.C. 911 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 962 to B.C. 647.
There are several gaps of a few years in which a number of names have been lost, and it is believed by one school of Assyriologists that a whole block of 51 consecutive names from B.C. 834 to 783, has been dropped out so that the names from B.C. 783 and upwards (Assyrian dates) are really those of the Eponyms for B.C. 834 and upwards.
This view of the Canon is the one that agrees with the Chronology of the Old Testament.It is the view held in a modified form by Prof. Oppert, Rev. D. H. Haigh, Willis J. Beecher and other authorities, whilst Schrader, Sir H. Rawlinson and E. A. W. Budge (in the British Museum Guide) regard the Canon as we have it as complete, and adhere to the Assyrian dates, which throw all Old Testament and all Egyptian synchronisms above the year B.C. 783, 51 years out of joint.
George Smith cannot be claimed by either side.He says, "My own theory for the solution of the problem is founded on the principle of taking the Assyrian records to be correct as to Assyrian dates and the Hebrew Records as to Hebrew dates."And he regards the Ahab and Jehu mentioned on the Stele of Shalmaneser as two other persons, not to be identified with the Ahab and the Jehu of the Old Testament.
Of course, the Canon itself gives us no dates.On the side of the Shorter Chronology of the Assyrian dates there is simply the list of names which constitute the Canon, confirmed by certain long numbers which may be regarded as proving that the later Assyrian scribes, who compiled and copied and preserved these Eponym lists, held them to be continuous, but the authority of these scribes is that of late compilers, not that of contemporary witnesses, and it would be quite easy for a list of 51 names to be lost, or destroyed by accident (e.g. by fire), or purposely, by the founder of a new dynasty who wished to obliterate the records of his predecessors.
The records of Shalmaneser II (III) were probably destroyed by the usurper Sargon, and the records of the blank period of 51 years, B.C. 834-783, may have been similarly destroyed by Ashur-dan III when he came to the throne in B.C. 773.Syncellus says the records for this period were tampered with, and he assigns this as the reason why Ptolemy's Canon went back no further than B.C. 747.In a similar way, during the French Revolution, the country mansions were all fired in order that the title deeds contained in them might be destroyed.
A more exact parallel would be that of the Order of the Privy Council, giving the official authorization which led to the printing of the words, "Appointed to be read in Churches," by the King's printer, Robert Barker, in the original copies of the Version now universally known as the "Authorised Version."This Order was destroyed, together with other records of the Privy Council in a fire which occurred at Whitehall in January, 1618 (old style). This leaves a gap of several years in the records of the Privy Council, and it has led many to the erroneous conclusion that the Authorised Version never was officially authorised at all.
C. Fragmentary Lists of Assyrian Eponyms.
The list of Assyrian Eponyms, which has been drawn up by piecing together all the information given in the VII Canons, contains also the occasional record of the most striking event of any particular year.
Thus, we have "B.C. 722, Eponym of the Ninip-ilai, accession of Sargon, siege of Samaria.""B.C. 711, Eponym of Ninip-alik-pani, expedition to Ashdod.""B.C. 668, Eponym of Marlarmi, Esar-haddon died."
These addenda are derived from certain fragmentary lists of Eponyms which contain notes of the principal events of each year (Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. ii, plates 52, 69; Schrader, vol. ii, pp. 188-197).These lists extend from (B.C. 817 Assyrian dates=) B.C. 868 to B.C. 728.
D. The Synchronous History of Assyria and Babylon.
There is no Babylonian Eponym Canon or list of annual officials in Babylon, but there are certain documents which may be called Babylonian chronicles, written in the Persian period, which give lists of dynasties and Kings, and the number of years they reigned.
There are also fragments of writings that give a synchronous history of the two countries.
The history of Assyria was interwoven with that of Babylon from the very earliest times, and these documents describe the relations and the exploits of the various contemporary Babylonian and Assyrian Kings, sometimes dating events by the year, the month and the day, but they exist only in a mutilated condition, and do not give us a continuous Chronology.
PERIOD IV. GENTILE DOMINION - 2 Kings 24 to Esther.
CHAPTER XXIV. THE CAPTIVITY.
(AN. HOM. 3520-3589).
[It is very desirable that in reading this chapter, the Chronological Tables in Vol. II should be kept open at page 30 for constant reference.]
THE date of the captivity is the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, the year AN. HOM. 3520, B.C. 605, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father, as King of Babylon, in which year Nebuchadnezzar, being associated with his father on the throne, was also "King of Babylon," though the year he was Co- Rex with his father is not reckoned as his first year.
We learn from Daniel 1:1- 7 that "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.And the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand with part of the vessels of the house of God," and certain of the seed royal, amongst whom were Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego.This was in accordance with the prophecy of Isa. 39:7, uttered in the 14th year of Hezekiah, B.C. 711, just 106 years before.
The following year, the fourth of Jehoiakim, was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.The synchronism is given in Jer. 25:1This is one of the most important dates in the Bible.It is the link which connects together the years of sacred and profane Chronology.By it all events of Bible history from the creation of Adam onward, are brought into chronological relation with the events of our own day, so far as the record of the years has been accurately preserved from the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar onward.
The 4th year of Jehoiakim was also the 23rd year of Jeremiah's prophecies, which began in the 13th year of Josiah (Jer. 25:3).It was the year in which Jeremiah's memorable prophecy of the 70 years' captivity in Babylon was uttered.All the Kingdoms of the world were to serve the King of Babylon for 70 years (Jer. 25:8-26) Then Sheshach, or Babylon herself, was to be punished in a similar way.All nations were to serve the King of Babylon, and his son, and his son's son (Jer. 27:6,7).
In the same year, Jeremiah was charged to commit to writing all the prophecies that he had uttered during the 23 years of his prophetic ministry (Jer. 36:1,2).Baruch his scribe was told not to seek great things for himself, for the Lord was about to bring evil upon all flesh, nevertheless Baruch's life would be spared (Jer. 45:1-5).
It was the year in which Pharaoh-necho, who had gone as far East as Carchemish, on the river Euphrates, in order to obtain his share of the plunder arising from the fall of Nineveh and the Empire of Assyria, was smitten by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 46:2), so that he "came not again any more out of his land: for the King of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates, all that pertained to the King of Egypt" (2 Kings 24:7).
The following year, B.C. 603, was the 5th of Jehoiakim and the 2nd of Nebuchadnezzar.Daniel had been three years, in training (Dan. 1:5), viz. from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar when he was Co-Rex with his father (B.C. 605) to the 2nd year of his reign as sole King (B.C. 603).Nebuchadnezzar was on the eve of a great career, his mind was filled with thoughts of Empire, and he dreamed his dream of the great image of gold and silver and brass and iron which Daniel interpreted as a revelation of the purposes of God, respecting the four great World Empires of Babylon, Medo- Persia, Greece and Rome (Dan. 2:1-45).
Jehoiakim reigned altogether 11 years.He was made King by Pharaoh-necho (B.C. 608) and served him for three years, when his capital was besieged and himself bound in fetters (B.C. 605) by Nebuchadnezzar, who intended to carry him to Babylon (2 Chron. 36:6), but he was afterwards released and allowed to retain his throne as a vassal King under Nebuchadnezzar.He served Nebuchadnezzar three years, to his 5th year (2 Kings 24:1), then (B.C. 603) he turned and rebelled.Nebuchadnezzar was too busy in other parts of his Dominion to deal with him just then, but he allowed him to be harassed by bands of Chaldees, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites (2 Kings 24:2).
In this 5th year of Jehoiakim a fast was proclaimed in Jerusalem (Jer. 36:9). Jehoiakim sat in the winter-house, with a fire burning on the hearth before him.Jehudi read to him from the Roll of the prophecies of Jeremiah, and Jehoiakim took the Roll and cut it with a penknife and cast it into the fire (Jer. 36:21-23).
Five years later Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem in the 7th year of his reign (B.C. 598), and took 3,023 Jews (Jer. 52:28).
What happened to Jehoiakim, or how he met his death, is only told in the form of prophecy.He died unlamented, in the 11th year of his reign, and was buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem (Jer. 22:18,19).
He was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, who only reigned three months. There is a double statement with respect to the age of Jehoiachin at the time when he began to reign.Both statements are equally true, but the two writers who make them reckon the years from a different starting point.In 2 Kings 24:8 we read, "Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign," viz. in the 11th year of his father Jehoiakim.This same year was also the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and it was this fact which was in the mind of the writer of 2 Chron. 36:9, when he said, "Jehoiachin was" a son of 8 years "when he began to reign."The expression "son of" is used with a great deal of latitude, and is made to cover almost any genitive relation or reference to a point of origin or commencement.Here the words are used to express the number of years between the accession of Jehoiachin and the 1st year of the new Era of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.
The author of the Companion Bible thinks Jehoiachin did actually begin to reign as Co-Rex with his father ten years before, in the 1st year of Jehoiakim, which is a possible alternative interpretation of the words, "Jehoiachin was a son of eight years when he began to reign."
If we refuse to place ourselves at the point of view of the writer in order that we may understand his meaning, and instead, insist on forcing our own thought into his words, we shall have to admit a careless copyist's error, the word "eight" having been written down by the transcriber instead of the word eight(een) by the omission of the word for 10 in the Hebrew, which is also a possible alternative theory of the origin of the Text, though not an interpretation of it.
But with a knowledge of the author's method of writing the Chronology and dating the events, gained from 2 Chron. 16:1 (the 36th year of the Kingdom of Asa), and 2 Chron. 22:2 (Ahaziah was "a son of 42 years" when he began to reign), we ought to be prepared for the new method of dating which he adopts here.
In this same year, the 8th of Nebuchadnezzar, in which Jehoiachin ascended the throne, Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem and besieged it. Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin, his mother, his servants, his officers, and all the mighty men of the land, and carried them away to Babylon, together with the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the King's house, and 10,000 captives, including 7,000 mighty men of valour, 1,000 craftsmen and smiths; all that were strong and apt for war, the King of Babylon brought captive to Babylon (2 Kings 24:8-16).
Amongst the number of these captives were Ezekiel and Mordecai.In Ezek. 1:1,2, Ezekiel says he was among the captives by the river Chebar in the 5th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, B.C. 593, which was the 4th year of Zedekiah and the 12th year of Nebuchadnezzar.And in Ezek. 40:1, he speaks of the great vision which he had in the "25th year of our captivity," thus including himself amongst the number of the captives carried away with Jehoiachin.All his prophecies are dated with reference to this event (Ezek. 1:2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1,17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1,17; 33:21; 40:1).
In Esther 2:5,6 we read, "Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the Captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), King of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon had carried away."From this it is perfectly clear that Mordecai is the man whom the writer means to indicate as having been carried away with Jeconiah in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar.His name appears as one of the leaders of those who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2, Neh. 7:7), but in consequence of the misdating of the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, this verse has been misinterpreted, and made to mean that it was not Mordecai, but Kish, his grandfather, who was carried away with Jeconiah.
In 2 Chron. 36:10, we read that at the return of the year (A.V. margin), or "when the year was expired," King Nebuchadnezzar brought Jehoiachin to Babylon and made Zedekiah King over Judah and Jerusalem.This probably means that Zedekiah did not actually begin to reign till after the New Year's Day following the year in which Jehoiachin reigned.Hence we date the last year of Jehoiakim and the three months of Jehoiachin in the 8th of Nebuchadnezzar, the year B.C. 597, and the 1st year of Zedekiah, in the 9th of Nebuchadnezzar, the year B.C. 596.
In the year AN. HOM. 3532 = B.C. 593, i.e. 390 years after the disruption in AN. HOM. 3143 = B.C. 982, in the 5th day of the 4th month of the 5th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, Ezekiel began to prophesy.
This fact is referred to in the type or sign given to the Prophet in the 1st year of his prophecy and recorded in Ezek. 4:4-6.
"Lie thou also upon thy left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity.
"For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, 390 days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.
"And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah 40 days: I have appointed thee each day for a year."
The 390 years of the iniquity of Israel are the years from the disruption to the date of the prophecy.The 40 years of the iniquity of Judah are the 40 years of the prophecies of Jeremiah from their commencement in the 13th year of Josiah, B.C. 626, to the 10th year of Zedekiah, B.C. 587, in which year Zedekiah shut him up in prison (Jer. 32:1-3).
The date of Ezekiel's first prophecy is given as the 5th day of the 4th month of the 30th year of some Era which is not expressly defined, but this 30th year is identified with the 5th year of Jehoiachin's captivity (Ezek. 1:1,2).Reckoning back these 30 years, we find that the first year of this Era was the year B.C. 622, the 17th year of Josiah, the year of the discovery of the Book of the Law, and of the great religious revival which culminated in Josiah's great Passover in his 18th year, B.C. 621.It may mark the year of the fall of Nineveh and the end of the Empire of Assyria, which occurred at some time after B.C. 626, but the exact date of which cannot be definitely ascertained.
In Jer. 28:1-3 we read of another event which occurred in the 4th year of Zedekiah (B.C. 593).In the 5th month of this year, Hananiah, the false prophet, spoke to Jeremiah in the house of the Lord, and said, "Within two full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels of the Lord's House that Nebuchadnezzar took away."
In the following year, B.C. 592, in the 5th day of the 6th month of the 6th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, Ezekiel had his vision of the chambers of imagery (Ezek. 8:1).
In the year after this, B.C. 591, on the 10th day of the 5th month of the 7th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, we read of the remarkable experience of the cessation of prophecy, when the Elders come to enquire of Ezekiel, but there is no answer from God (Ezek. 20:1).
In the year B.C. 589, we reach the remarkable prophecy of the boiling cauldron, Ezek. 24:1-29.It is dated the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, and as the years of Jehoiachin's captivity are always one more than the years of Zedekiah's reign, the date of the prophecy is the 10th day of the 10th month of the 8th year of Zedekiah.This is the Epoch of the 70 years of Jehovah's indignation with Israel, another 70 years, quite distinct from the 70 years of Daniel's captivity.
The prophecy comes to Ezekiel precisely one year before the day on which Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem.Ezekiel is bidden to "write the name of the day, even of this same day, the King of Babylon set himself against Jerusalem this same day."It was a memorable day, the beginning of a prophetic period, and Ezekiel was told to note it down.It marked the commencement of the fury and the vengeance which Jehovah now began to execute upon Jerusalem.
The city was like a pot set on a fire and made to boil, a parable of the condition of the inhabitants of Jerusalem when the city was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar. The indignation lasted till the building of the Temple was recommenced in the 2nd year of Darius B.C. 589-520 (see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, pp. 30 and 34, and cp. Zech. 1:7-12).
Alternative dates have been proposed for the commencement of this period of 70 years, viz: the following year, B.C. 588, when the siege of Jerusalem began, or the year, B.C. 586, when the city was taken, but the true date is given in Ezek. 24:1The name of the day which Ezekiel was charged to write was the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, B.C. 589, on the anniversary of which day, exactly a year later, "the King of Babylon set himself against Jerusalem."
In B.C. 588 Nebuchadnezzar pitched against Jerusalem and besieged it (2 Kings 25:1; Jer. 39:1; 52:4), on the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of Zedekiah.On the 12th day of the 10th month of the 10th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, also B.C. 588, Ezekiel prophesied that Egypt should be desolate for 40 years (Ezek. 29:1,11,12).
The following year, B.C. 587, was the 10th year of Zedekiah, the 11th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of the siege of Jerusalem, and the last of the 40 years of Jeremiah's prophecies before the fall of Jerusalem (Ezek. 4:4-6).
In this year, Jeremiah bought his uncle Hananeel's field (while Nebuchadnezzar was besieging Jerusalem, Zedekiah having shut him up in prison), as witness to his faith in the future of the Land, in spite of its present desperate state (Jer. 32:1-12).
In this year also, Nebuchadnezzar took 832 souls (Jer. 52:29).
In this year, Ezekiel prophesied against Tyre, on the 1st day of the 11th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, because she rejoiced over the calamity of Jerusalem, and said, "Aha, Jerusalem is broken" (Ezek. 26:1).On the 7th day of the 1st month of the 11th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, Jeremiah prophesied against Egypt, and said, I have broken Pharaoh and will scatter Egypt (Ezek. 30:20).On the 1st day of the 3rd month of the 11th year of Jehoiachin's captivity he prophesied again against Egypt, and declared that Egypt should fall like Assyria, the Cedar of Lebanon (Ezek. 31:1-3).
The following year, B.C. 586, is the year of the fall of Jerusalem.It was the 11th of Zedekiah, the 12th of Jehoiachin's Captivity, and the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.
We learn from 2 Kings 25:1-4, Jer. 39:2 and 52:4-7, that on the 9th day of the 4th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah, the famine prevailed, and the city was broken up, and from 2 Kings 25:8 and Jer. 52:12 that on the 7th day of the 5th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah, "which was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar," Nebuzar-adan burnt the Temple and broke down the walls.
From 2 Kings 25:18-21 we learn that shortly after the 7th day of the 5th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah, the high priest, Seraiah, who was the father of Jehozadak (1 Chron. 6:1-15) and Ezra (Ez. 7:1-5) was brought before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, and there slain."So Judah was carried away out of their land" in the 5th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:21; Jer. 1:3).Six months later, in the 7th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah, Gedaliah, who had been appointed governor of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, was slain by Ishmael (2 Kings 25:25, Jer. 41:1),
We are now in a position to give the Chronology of the period from the first year of Rehoboam to the 11th year of Zedekiah, to which we append a similar Chronology of the Kings of Israel.
Kings of Judah.
AN. HOM. KING OR EVENT
3143 Rehoboam (see chapter 30).
17 Add 17 years, reign of Rehoboam (1 Kings 11:43; 14:21).
3160 Abijam.
3 Add 3 years. reign of Abijam (1 K. 15:1,2).
3163 Asa.
41 Add 41 years. reign of Asa (1 K. 15:9,10).
3204 Jehoshaphat.
25 Add 25 years. reign of Jehoshaphat (1 K. 22:41,42).
3229 Jehoram sole King.
3 Add 3 years. reign of Jehoram as sole King + 4 years Co-Rex with Jehoshaphat+ 1 yr. reckoned to Ahaziah = 8 years., (cp. 1 K. 22:50; 2 K. 1:17; 3:1; 8:16,17, and see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 24, AN. HOM. 3220-3232.)
3232 Ahaziah sole King.
1 Add 1 yr. reign of Ahaziah (cp. 2 K. 8:25,26; 9:29 and see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p.24, AN. HOM. 3231-3232).
3233 Athaliah.
6 Add 6 years. reign of Athaliah, (2 K. 11:1,3,4,16).
3239 Joash.
40 Add 40 years. reign of Joash (2 K. 12:1).
3279 Amaziah.
29 Add 29 years. reign of Amaziah (2 K. 12:21; 14:1,2,17-22),
3308 Interregnum.
11 Add 11 years. interregnum (see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 26, AN. HOM. 3308-3318).
3319 Uzziah.
52 Add 52 years. reign of Uzziah (=Azariah) (2 K. 14:21, 15:1,2).
3371 Jotham.
16 Add 16 years. reign of Jotham (2 K. 15:32.33).
3387 Ahaz.
16 Add 16 years. reign of Ahaz (2 K. 15:38; 16:1,2).
3403 Hezekiah sole King.
27 Add 27 years. reign of Hezekiah as sole King + 2 years. as Co-Rex with Ahaz = 29 years. (2 K. 16:20; 18:1,2. See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, pp. 27, 28, AN. HOM. 3400-3429).
3430 Manasseh.
55 Add 55 years. reign of Manasseh (2 K. 20:21; 21:1).
3485 Amon.
2 Add 2 years. reign of Amon (2 K. 21:18,19).
3487 Josiah.
30 Add first 30 years. reign of Josiah.
3517 Jehoahaz (3 months).
1 Add 31st year of Josiah, (2 K, 21:23-26; 22:1), which includes 3 months of Jehoahaz (2 K. 23:30,31).
3518 Jehoiakim.
10 Add first 10 years. of reign of Jehoiakim.
3528 Jehoiachin (3 months).
1 Add 11th yr. of Jehoiakim (2 K. 23:36), which includes 3 months of Jehoiachin (2 K. 24:6-8).
3529 Zedekiah.
10 Add first 10 years. of Zedekiah.
3539 11th and last year of Zedekiah (2 K. 24:17,18), in which Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and Zedekiah's Captivity began (2 K. 25:1-21).
Kings of Israel.
AN.HOM. KING OR EVENT
3143 Jeroboam (see Chapter 20).
21 Add 21 years + 1 reckoned to Nadab = 22 (1 Kings 12:20; 14:20).
3164 Nadab.
1 Add 1 yr. + 1 reckoned to Baasha = 2 (1 K. 15:25).
3165 Baasha.
23 Add 23 years. + 1 reckoned to Elah = 24 (1 K. 15:28,33).
3188 Elah.
1 Add 1 yr. + 1 reckoned to Omri = 2 (1 K. 16:8).
3189 Omri, Tibni and Zimri (see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 23, AN. HOM. 3189-3200).
11 Add 11 years. + 1 reckoned to Ahab = 12 (1 K. 16:22,23).
3200 Ahab.
20 Add 20 years. + 2 Co-Rex with Ahaziah = 22 (1 K. 16:29).
3220 Ahaziah.
1 Add 1 yr. + 1 reckoned to Jehoram = 2 (1 K. 22:51).(See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 24, AN. HOM. 3220-3221).
3221 Jehoram.
12 Add 12 years. reign of Jehoram (2 K. 1:17; 3:1).(See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 24, AN. HOM 3221-3232.)
3233 Jehu.
28 Add 28 years. reign of Jehu (2 K. 9:13,24,27,33; 10:36).
3261 Jehoahaz.
17 Add 17 years. reign of Jehoahaz (2 K. 10:35, 13:1).
3278 Jehoash sole King.
15 Add 15 years. + 1 reckoned to Jeroboam II = 16 (2 K. 13:9,10). (See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 25, AN. HOM. 3275-3293.)
3293 Jeroboam II.
41 Add 41 years. reign of Jeroboam II (2 K. 14:16,23).
3334 Interregnum.
22 Add 22 years. interregnum.(See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 26, AN. HOM. 3334-3355.)
3356 Zechariah.
1 Add 1 yr. For Zechariah (6 mos.), (2 K. 14:29; 15:8).
3357 Shallum.
1 Add 1 yr. For Shallum (1 mo.),(2 K. 15:10,13, and accession of Menahem, 2 K. 15:14,17).
3358 Menahem.
10 Add 10 years. reign of Menahem (2 K. 15:14,17).
3368 Pekahiah.
2 Add 2 years. reign of Pekahiah (2 K. 15:23,24).
3370 Pekah.
20 Add 20 years. reign of Pekah (2 K. 15:25-27).
3390 Interregnum.
8 Add 8 years. Interregnum.(See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 27, AN. HOM. 3390-3397.)
3398 Hoshea.
8 Add first 8 years. of Hoshea.
3406 9th and last year of Hoshea (2 K. 17:1).Final fall of Samaria and deportation of its inhabitants by Sargon, B.C. 719, three years after its previous capture by Sargon, B.C. 722, when he took the city, but left the inhabitants and imposed tribute upon them (2 K. 17:1-23).
News of the fall of Jerusalem travelled to the East.The city fell in the 5th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah.Five months later, on the 5th day of the 10th month of the 12th year of Jehoiachin's captivity (the same year, B.C. 586), one that had escaped from Jerusalem came to Ezekiel and said, "The city is smitten."
Harold Browne, in his excellent Ordo Saeclorum: Chronology of the Holy Scriptures, p. 167, makes the years of Zedekiah's reign coincide with the years of Jehoiachin's captivity.This he thinks he proves from 2 Kings 25:1 and Ezek. 24:1, the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of Zedekiah being equated to the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of Jehoiachin's captivity.But he is mistaken.Ezek. 24:1 is prophetic.Ezekiel sees Nebuchadnezzar pitching against Jerusalem, not in contemporary vision at the very moment at which he is doing so, but in prophetic vision, exactly one year ahead to the very day.
In consequence of Browne's error he is tripped up when he comes to Ezek. 33:21, where his reckoning makes the man who escapes from Jerusalem reach Ezekiel in Chaldea 1 year and 5 months after the city is smitten, instead of 5 months after the event.It was just a four or five months' journey (Ezra 7:9), and the news of such an event could not fail to reach Ezekiel and the Jews in captivity within about four or five months of the event.But rather than abandon his own error, he charges it upon the Hebrew Text.The Hebrew reading of Ezek. 3321 is "in the 12th year."Browne alters it to "the eleventh!"
In this same year, B.C. 586, on the 1st day of the 12th month of Jehoiachin's Captivity, Ezekiel dates his lamentation for Pharaoh, in which he declares that the Lord will make Egypt desolate (Ezek. 32:1), and also the further prophecy on the 15th day (of the same month) of the 12th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, his wail for Egypt (Ezek. 32:17) with its terrible refrain:-
All of them slain, fallen by the sword,
Gone down uncircumcised into the pit,
Into the nethermost parts of the earth,
Into the midst of hell.
Four years later there was another expedition of some kind against Jerusalem, for in that year (B.C. 582), the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzar-adan took 745 souls, making a total of 4,600, for three expeditions in the 7th, 18th and 23rd years of Nebuchadnezzar, which, however, does not include those carried away with Jehoiachin in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 52:28-30).
Our next note of time is in the year B.C. 573, on the 10th day of the beginning of the 25th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, which was the 14th year after the city was smitten.Ezekiel had a wonderful vision of the new Land, the new city, and the new Temple, the account of which forms the climax of his Book (Ezek. 40-48, especially 40:1).
Two years later, in B.C. 571, on the 1st day of the 1st month of the 27th year of Jehoiachin's Captivity,Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar should have Egypt as wages for his service against Tyre (Ezek. 29:17).
Then follows a blank of 9 years to the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, very noteworthy as the period containing the 7 years of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, after which we read in Jer. 52:31 that on the 25th day of the 12th month of the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity (B.C. 561), Evil-merodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, in the year in which he came to the throne, brought Jehoiachin out of prison, and in 2 Kings 25:27 that on the 27th day of the same month he showed him further kindness out of prison.
The Bible contains no record of the events of the succeeding 19 years, but we learn from Dan. 7:1 that in the 1st year of Belshazzar (B.C. 541), Daniel had his vision of the four beasts symbolizing Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome, and throwing further light upon the course of the future history of the world, as revealed in the previous vision of Nebuchadnezzar's great image.
Two years later (B.C. 539), in the 3rd year of Belshazzar, Daniel had his vision of the ram and the he-goat, foreshadowing the coming conflict between Persia and Greece (Dan. 8:1).
Daniel 5 gives a picture of the fall of Babylon in the year B.C. 538, and the transfer of the Empire of the world from Babylon to Medo-Persia.The accounts of this event are very divergent.One of them represents Cyrus as the nephew and son-in-law of Darius the Mede, but he was more probably his cousin and his brother-in-law, having married the sister of Darius the Mede (Astyages).See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 54.
"In that night," we read (Dan. 5:30,31), "was Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain.And Darius the Median received the Kingdom, being about 62 years old."There was no battle.Belshazzar was slain in the palace, Cyrus was the conqueror of Babylon, and he handed it over to Darius, who "received" it from him as his Co-Partner in the Empire of the world.
The length of the reign of Darius the Median is not stated in Scripture, nor is Darius himself mentioned in profane literature under that name, except in Josephus, but it is clear from Dan. 6:28 that he was succeeded by Cyrus, and from 2 Chron. 36:20-23 that the 1st year of Cyrus was the 70th and last of the 70 years' captivity which began in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, B.C. 605.Hence, whatever may be the number and the names of the monarchs between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, and whatever the number of years that each monarch reigned, we know that the 1st year of Cyrus was the year B.C. 536, and we may provisionally accept the received dates derived from secular history as given by E. A. W. Budge in the British Museum Guide:-
561. Evil-merodach.
559. Nergal-sharezer (Neriglissar).
556. Labashi-marduk.
555. Nabonidus.
538. Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus,
adding thereto the name of Belshazzar as Co-Rex with his father Nabonidus, B.C. 541-539, and the name of Darius the Mede as Rex B.C. 538 and 537, with Cyrus as Co-Rex during these two years, and making Cyrus sole King on the death of Darius the Mede, B.C. 536.
The Chronology of the first 20 years of the 70 years' servitude down to the 11th year of Zedekiah, has already been given in the present chapter.The remaining 50 years is divided into two equal parts of 25 years each.The Chronology of the period is as follows:-
The Seventy Years of Daniel's Captivity,
or
The Seventy Years of Servitude to Babylon.
AN. HOM. EVENT
3539 11th Zedekiah = 19th Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8) = 12th Jehoiachin's captivity = 20th of the 70 years' servitude.See above (present chapter), and Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 30, AN. HOM. 3539.
25 Add 25 years from 12th to 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity = 45th year of the 70 years' servitude (2 Kings 25:27).See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, pp. 30-32, AN. HOM. 3539-3564.
3564 Evil-merodach.
25 Add 25 years from 45th to 70th of the 70 years' servitude, Dan. 1:1; Jer. 25:1-26.See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 32, AN. HOM. 3564-3589.
3589 Cyrus (1st year of sole Kingship).
CHAPTER XXV.THE RETURN.
(AN. HOM. 3589-3637.)
The Persian Period.
WE now reach the most difficult period in the whole realm of Bible Chronology, the period of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.
Our sole authority for this period is the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.There are cuneiform Inscriptions by Cyrus, by Darius Hystaspes, and by each of the succeeding Persian monarchs down to the last King of Persia, who was slain by Alexander the Great, and the Behistun Inscription by Darius Hystaspes contains some very valuable information, but none of these Inscriptions give us any help in fixing the Chronology of the period.
Neither do we obtain any help in this direction from Jewish, Persian or Greek literature.The Jewish and the Persian traditions make the period of the Persian Empire a period of about 52 years.There are no contemporary chronological records whatever to fix the dates of any of the Persian Monarch after Darius Hystaspes. The clay tablets of Babylon fix the Chronology for the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis and Darius Hystaspes, but they do not determine the date of any subsequent Persian King.
The dates that have reached us, and which are now generally received as historical, are a late compilation made in the 2nd Century A.D., and found in Ptolemy's Canon.They rest upon the calculations or guesses made by Eratosthenes and certain vague, floating traditions, in accordance with which the period of the Persian Empire was mapped out as a period of 205 years.
The count of the years is now lost, but if we may assume the correctness of the Greek Chronology from the period of Alexander the Great (B.C. 331) onward, this would leave a period of 123 years for the duration of the Persian Empire according to the prophecy of Daniel.
The received Chronology is as follows:-
The Received Chronology of the Persian Empire.
Cyrus, as Co-Rex with Darius the Mede B.C. 538.
Cyrus as sole King B.C. 536.
Cambyses B.C. 529.
(Pseudo-Smerdis, 7 mos.)
Darius Hystaspes B.C. 521.
Xerxes B.C. 485.
(Artabanus, 7 mos.)
Artaxerxes Longimanus B.C. 464.
(Xerxes II, 2 mos.)
(Sogdianus, 7 months.)
Darius II, Nothus B.C. 423.
Artaxerxes II, Mnemon B.C. 404.
Artaxerxes III, Ochus B.C. 358.
Arogus or Arses B.C. 337.
Darius III, Codomannus, reigned 335-331, slain B.C. 330.
The generally received opinion is that Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis are not mentioned in Scripture, that Xerxes is the Ahasuerus of Esther, and that Artaxerxes Longimanus is the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1 and Nehemiah 2:1; 5:14 and 13:6.
As our sole authority for the dating of this period is the contemporary Hebrew Record contained in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, we shall, in this chapter, confine ourselves to an exposition of the statements made in these Books, from which we think we shall be able to prove conclusively that the identifications of the received Chronology are quite impossible.
Amended Chronology of the Persian Empire.
Cambyses is the Ahasuerus of Ez. 4:6.
Pseudo-Smerdis is the Artaxerxes of Ez. 4:7-23.
Darius Hystaspes is at once both
(1) Darius of Ezra 4:5,24; 5:5,6; 6:1,12,14,15.
(2) Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14; 7:1-26, Neh. 2:1; 5:14 and 13:6, and
(3) Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther.
The whole of the Chronology of this period depends entirely upon the correct identification of the monarchs mentioned in Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.The present condition of the Chronology of the period is one of hopeless confusion.It is easy to expose the contradictions it contains, but what is really required is the construction of a positive system which shall prove its truth by embracing and explaining all the facts contained in the above-named sources.
For the accomplishment of this end, there must be close and scrupulous attention to the sources themselves, a good deal of long and patient thinking, and a wholesome disregard for the many idle hypotheses, rash conjectures, and fanciful conclusions which have brought the true science of Chronology into undeserved disrepute.
The three rules which must be observed by every Chronologer whose investigations are to lead him into the truth are - (1) Never adopt any date which is inconsistent with any other date.(2) Never frame any hypothesis,or entertain any conjecture, which cannot be verified or supported by positive evidence.And (3) never identify different persons bearing the same name and never fail to identify the same person bearing different names.
We now turn to our sources, which we will cross-question and examine, taking each statement contained therein in chronological order.We begin with a reference to the last chapter of 2 Chronicles, which brings us down to the end of the 70 years' servitude in Babylon.
The four Books, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah are one work, on one subject, by one author, containing one connected, continuous narrative throughout, to which the Book of Esther is a picture, an illustration or an appendix, related to the Book of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah in precisely the same way as the Book of Ruth is related to Judges 1-16.
The Book of Daniel is an independent narrative of events which slightly overlap the events of the last chapter of 2 Chronicles, and the first chapter of Ezra.
In 2 Chron. 36:20,21, we read that the King of the Chaldees carried away them that escaped the sword at the destruction of Jerusalem to Babylon, where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the Kingdom of Persia, to fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the Land had enjoyed her sabbaths, for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.
The prophecy here referred to is the prophecy of Jeremiah.The only 70 years referred to by the prophet Jeremiah is the 70 years from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, B.C. 605.This prophecy of seventy years' servitude to the King of Babylon was made in the following year, the 4th of Jehoiakim, which was the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar.It was made in the most solemn and impressive manner, as described in Jer. 25:1-26, and especially in verses 11 and 12:-
"And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the King of Babylon 70 years.
"And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the King of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and will make it perpetual desolations.
This period of 70 years' servitude in Babylon is referred to again in a letter which Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon, after the captivity of Jehoiachin.In this letter (Jer. 29:1-14), Jeremiah tells them to build, to plant, to take wives and to beget children, and not to be deceived by the false prophets who prophesied a short captivity and a speedy return.
"For thus saith the Lord That after 70 years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place."
This same period, is the period of 70 years referred to by the prophet Daniel, in Daniel 9:2, when in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede, the 68th of the 70 years, he says:-
"I Daniel understood by books (i.e. from the Scriptures), the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish 70 years in the desolations of Jerusalem."
These are the only references to this period of 70 years in the Old Testament. That it begins with the 3rd year of Jehoiakim is clear from Jer. 25:1-12 with Dan. 1:1.That it ends with the 1st year of Cyrus is clear from 2 Chron. 36:22.
"Now in the first year of Cyrus King of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus King of Persia, that he made a proclamation," that whoever was willing should go up to Jerusalem and build the house of the Lord.
In issuing this proclamation, Cyrus says (Ezra 1:2):-
"The Lord God of Heaven hath charged me to build Him a House at Jerusalem."
This is a reference to the prophecy of Is. 44:28-45:13.
"(Thus saith the Lord)..... That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the Temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him..... I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel..... I have surnamed thee though thou hast not known me..... I have raised him (Cyrus) up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts."
The whole of the prophecy is not quoted in Ezra 1:2, but enough is quoted to enable us to identify it, and to learn therefrom that the will of God concerning Cyrus had reference to the building of the city as well as the building of the Temple.
Also Daniel's prayer based on the prophecy of Jeremiah respecting this period of 70 years has reference to "thy city Jerusalem," as well as to "thy sanctuary that is desolate," and ends in the plea "for thy city and thy people are called by thy name " (Dan. 9:16-19).
We may therefore identify "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25) with the commandment issued two years later by Cyrus, in which mention is made of the House as the central feature of the city, but in a way that implies the restoration of the city as well as the rebuilding of the walls.
There is another period of 70 years, referred to in the Old Testament, quite distinct from the 70 years of the servitude, in part coinciding with it and in part going beyond it.
This is the period of the 70 years' indignation (B.C. 589-520) which begins with the epoch of the boiling cauldron so graphically described by Ezekiel (Ezek. 24:1-14), dating from the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, on which day the Lord said to him,
"Son of man, write thee the name of this day, even of this same day (Ezek. 24:2).
This period of 70 years is referred to in Zech. 1:7-12, from which we learn that it came to a close in the 2nd year of Darius.
"Upon the 24th day of the 11th month...... in the 2nd year of Darius.... the angel of the Lord answered and said..... how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these 70 years?"To which enquiry the answer was (Zech. 1:16), "I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies, my house shall be built in it."
Yet another period of 70 years, the 70 years of the fasts (B.C. 586-517) is referred to two years later in Zech. 7:5.The foundation of the house of the Lord had been laid on the 24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius (Hag. 2:10,15,18,20).About two years later, on the 4th day of the 9th month of the 4th year of Darius (Zech. 7:1), Bethel sent Sharezer and Regem- melech to enquire whether they should continue to fast on certain days now that the foundation of the House had been laid. In his answer to these men, Zechariah first asks (Zech. 7:5),
"When ye fasted and mourned in the 5th and 7th month, even these 70 years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?"
He then goes on to direct (Zech. 8:19), that
"The fast of the 4th month (commemorating the city smitten on the 9th day of the 4th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah), and the fast of the 5th month (commemorating the burning of the Temple on the 7th day of the 5th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah), and the fast of the 7th month (commemorating the slaying of Gedaliah in the 7th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah), and the fast of the 10th month (commemorating the siege of the city on the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of Zedekiah), shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness and cheerful feasts."
These 70 years are not quite the same as the 70 years of the indignation referred to in Zech. 1:12They begin with the fall of the city of Jerusalem in the 11th year of Zedekiah, B.C. 586, and they end with the 5th year of Darius.The enquiry was made in the 9th, i.e. the last month of the 4th year of Darius (Zech. 7:1), and the answer, though given immediately (in the 4th year) respecting two of the fasts, was delayed into the 5th year respecting the other two (Zech. 7 and 8).
We have therefore three periods of 70 years to help us in determining the Chronology of this period:-
1. The 70 years' servitude, from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim to the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 605-536.
2. The 70 years' indignation from the 9th year of Jehoiachin's captivity to the 2nd year of Darius, B.C. 589-520, and
3. The 70 years of the fasts, from the fall of Jerusalem to the 5th year of Darius, B.C. 586-517.
The first period of the 70 years' servitude enables us to bridge the gulf between the 1st year of Evil-merodach and the 1st year of Cyrus.Here we have the names of some of the monarchs who reigned during these years, Evil- merodach, Darius the Mede and Belshazzar, but not the number of the years they reigned, and consequently no connected, continuous Chronology.The Chronology, is however, given in the Babylonian clay tablets, the true interpretation of which is in entire agreement with the Chronology of the Old Testament.
The second period of the 70 years' indignation enables us to bridge the gulf between the 3rd year of Cyrus and the 2nd year of Darius.
The third period of the 70 years of the fasts duplicates and corroborates the Chronology of the second period of 70 years.Here again we have the names of the monarchs who reigned during these years, Cyrus, Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, but not the number of the years they reigned, and consequently no continuous, connected Chronology.
In either case the gulf is bridged over and the chronological connection is maintained by means of these long numbers.
Cyrus.
We now resume the connected chronological study of the years from the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 536.
In this year, as we learn from Ezra 3:1-3, Cyrus issued his proclamation.He was now the undisputed master of "all the Kingdoms of the earth."That implies that the joint sway of the Medes and Persians, or the Co-Rexship of Cyrus with Darius the Mede, was now over.This agrees with the date B.C. 536 as that of Cyrus' sole Kingship, and B.C. 538 as that of his conquest of Babylon and the beginning of the joint rule of Cyrus the military, and Darius the civil head of the Medo-Persian Empire, from B.C. 538 to B.C. 536.
It is clear from Ez. 1:2 that Cyrus was acquainted with the prophecy of Is. 44:28-45:13 which may have been pointed out to him by Daniel, since Daniel was in a position of high authority at Shushan, in the province of Elam, in the 3rd year of Belshazzar, B.C. 539 (Dan. 8:1), where he attended to the King's business (Dan. 8:27).
Again, when Belshazzar was slain, and Darius the Mede received the Kingdom, B.C. 538, Daniel was set over the three presidents who were set over the 120 princes of the whole Kingdom (Dan. 5:30-6:2).He continued to prosper, both in the reign of Darius, B.C. 538-536, and also in the reign of Cyrus, B.C. 536 (Dan. 1:21 and 6:28).Finally, he lived on to the 3rd year of Cyrus, B.C. 534 (Dan. 10:1), in which he had his vision of the man clothed in white and the revelation of the "scripture of truth" (Dan. 10:21-12:13).
Further details respecting the proclamation or the decree of Cyrus are given in Ezra 5:13-15 and Ezra 6:3-5.From these passages we learn that when he delivered the sacred vessels to Sheshbazzar he made him Pekah or governor of Judah, and that the foundations of the House were to be strongly laid, "the height thereof 60 cubits and the breadth thereof 60 cubits; with three rows of great stones and a row of new timber:" at the King's expense.
From Ez. 5:16 we learn that this same Sheshbazzar did actually lay the foundation of the House, and since the foundation of the House was laid by the hands of Zerubbabel (Zech. 4:9), this identifies Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel whilst the date of the foundation laying - the 24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius - is given in Haggai 2:10,15,18,20.
Thus the builders were hindered, and their plans thwarted, by the opposition of the Samaritans, for a period of 15 years from the 2nd year of Cyrus to the. 2nd year of Darius.
In Ezra 2:1-70 we have a list of the families of the 42,360 captives who returned with Zerubbabel.This list afterwards fell into the hands of Nehemiah, many details therein having been meanwhile revised and corrected, or brought up to date, whilst the total, 42,360, remained unaltered and unrevised.The revised list is given in Neh. 7:5-73.
Amongst the leaders of the people who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua in the 1st year of Cyrus, we find (Ezra 2:2) the names of Nehemiah, Seraiah (alternatively called Azariah, Neh. 7:7, and possibly identical with Ezra) and Mordecai.
There is no reason why these three should not be identified with the well known Nehemiah the Tirshatha (Neh. 8:9), Ezra the priest the scribe (Neh. 8:9), and Mordecai of the Book of Esther.
These three men take first rank.They stand at the very head of the list of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and the prominence given to them in the narrative of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther is quite in accord with the position assigned to them here.
It is only the mistaken identification of the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah with Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 464-424) instead of with Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 521-485), and by consequence the mistaken date assigned to Nehemiah that has led to the distinguishing of the Nehemiah of the first year of Cyrus(Ezra 2:2; 7:7) from Nehemiah the cupbearer and the Tirshatha of Neh. 1:11 and 8:9.
And it is only the mistaken identification of the Ahasuerus of Esther with Xerxes (B.C. 485-465) instead of with Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 521-485), that has led to the distinguishing of the Mordecai of the first year of Cyrus (Ezra 2:2 and Neh. 7:7), from the Mordecai of the Book of Esther, and the torturing of the passage in Esther 2:5,6 to make it mean that Kish was carried away with Jeconiah, instead of what it really does say, which is, that Mordecai was carried away with Jeconiah (B.C. 597).
From Ezra 3:1-6 we learn that on the 1st day of the 7th month of the 1st year of Cyrus the people gathered together as one man, to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel and Joshua built an altar and offered burnt offerings, but the foundation of the House was not yet laid.
Ezra 3:7 proceeds to tell us how the materials were being prepared for the building of the Temple, in accordance with the grant of Cyrus.
From Ezra 3:8,9, we learn that in the 2nd year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, which was the 2nd year of Cyrus, Zerubbabel and Jeshua began to set forward the work of the house of the Lord.
Then follows a paragraph, Ezra 3:10-13, which needs careful scrutiny, for it is proleptic or anticipatory.The word "wHEN" at the beginning of verse 10 should be doubly underlined, and we should be careful to note that it is "WHEN" and not "THEN."It tells us that when the builders laid the foundation of the Mouse, viz. not now in the 2nd year of Cyrus, B.C. 535, but 15 years later on, in the 2nd year of Darius, B.C. 520 (see Haggai 2:10,15,18,20, some "wept with a loud voice, and many shouted aloud for joy."
Then comes the explanation and the reason for this delay of 15 years, an explanation which occupies the whole of chapter 4.
The Samaritans troubled them, and hired counsellors to frustrate them all the days of Cyrus, and until the reign of Darius King of Persia (Darius Hystaspes).
The narrative then goes on to give a detailed account of this opposition, and to specify the names of the Kings between Cyrus and Darius, during whose reigns it was maintained.But before leaving the reign of Cyrus, one other event took place which must be inserted here in proper chronological order.
In the 3rd year of Cyrus (Dan. 10:1) Daniel, after 3 weeks' mourning (Dan. 10:2), perhaps on account of this Samaritan opposition to the building of the Temple for which he had so earnestly prayed (Dan. 9:17), had a vision of a man in white from whom he received the revelation contained in "the scripture of truth" (Dan. 10:5-21)."Behold there shall yet stand up three Kings in Persia" after the present King, (1)Cyrus, viz. (2) Ahasuerus (Cambyses), (3) Darius Hystaspes and (4) Xerxes; and the fourth (Xerxes) "shall be far richer than they all; and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia" (Dan. 11:2), a prediction which refers to the mighty host of 1,800,000 men, with which, as Herodotus tells us, Xerxes crossed the Hellespont, and which he led to disastrous defeat, at Thermopylae and Salamis, in the year B.C. 480.
From this vision of Daniel in the 3rd year of Cyrus, we return to the story of the Samaritan opposition to the building of the Temple, detailed in Ezra 4:6-24.
Ahasuerus = Cambyses.
From Ezra 4:6 we learn that in the reign of Ahasuerus (Cambyses, B.C. 529-522,the son and successor of Cyrus), the Samaritans wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
Artaxerxes = Pseudo-Smerdis.
From Ezra 4:7-24 we learn that in the days of Artaxerxes (Pseudo- Smerdis), Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel wrote to Artaxerxes, King of Persia (Pseudo-Smerdis), and also that Rehum and Shimshei wrote against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the King (Pseudo-Smerdis).
This Pseudo-Smerdis was the usurper who seized upon the throne of Cambyses during his absence in Egypt, B.C. 522.He was aided by his brother Patizithes.The two brothers were called the Magi.They occupied the throne for 7 months, after which they were slain by Darius Hystaspes.
In this letter they refer to "the Kings," Ezra 4:13, not to "the King," which agrees very well with the fact that the false Smerdis was really placed on the throne by his brother Patizithes, one of the chief of the Magians, whose authority was quite equal to that of Pseudo-Smerdis, whence the two are coupled together, and this reign or usurpation is often referred to as that of the two Magi or Magians, both being regarded as in a manner sharers of the same throne.
The word "Kings" occurs in the plural again in the King's reply, "Cause these men to cease.Why should damage grow to the hurt of the Kings?" (Ezra 4:22).
On receiving the letter of King Artaxerxes(Pseudo-Smerdis), Rehum, Shimshei and their companions, went in haste to Jerusalem and made them cease by force and power (Ezra 4:23).So it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius King of Persia (Ezra 4:24).
This last verse cannot he torn from its immediate connection with the preceding verses respecting Artaxerxes.It proves, therefore, that this Artaxerxes was King of Persia before Darius Hystaspes.
The passage Ezra 4:6-23 cannot, therefore, be an episodical illustration referring to a later opposition in the days of Xerxes and Artaxerxes Longimanus, though many modern scholars advocate that interpretation of it.
Nothing can be plainer than the fact that the writer of the passage represents Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes as Kings of Persia, who reigned between the time of Cyrus and that of Darius Hystaspes, and since no other Kings but Cambyses and the false Smerdis did reign between Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes, it must follow that none but Cambyses and the false Smerdis are intended.
Darius, Artaxerxes, or Ahasuerus = Darius Hystaspes.
We have now reached the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 520.
The years of Darius are not reckoned on the Jewish and Assyrian method from the 1st of Nisan, and not on the Egyptian method of Ptolemy's Canon, from the variable New Year's Day of the vague Egyptian year, but on the Aryan or English method, from the day of his accession, which was somewhere on or about the 25th day of the 9th month of the year B.C. 521.
Hence the 10th, 11th, and 12th months of the 2nd year of Darius precede the remaining months of the year, and the true beginning of the prophecies of Zechariah is Zech. 1:7, as anyone who reads the verse will see, whilst Zech. 1:1-6 is really later, and has been placed before Zech. 1:7 by mistake, because it was wrongly supposed that the 8th month of the year preceded the 11th month.A comparison of all the dates of the reign of Darius will show this.It is also seen from a comparison of Neh. 1:1 with Neh. 2:1, where the 9th month (Chislen) precedes the 1st month (Nisan) of the same 20th year of this same Darius Hystaspes, who is there called Artaxerxes.
Following this, the true chronological order of the events, we reach next the prophecy of Zech. 1:7-12, from which we learn, that on the 24th day of the 11th month of the 2nd year of Darius, the angel enquires of Jehovah, "How long wilt thou not have mercy upon Jerusalem..... against which thou hast had INDIGNATION THESE SEVENTY YEARS," to which Jehovah replies, "I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies, my house shall be built in it', (Zech. 1:16).
From Haggai 1:1,14 and 2:21, we learn that Zerubbabel was still Pekah, or governor of Judah in this year; from Ezra 5:1 and Hag. 1:1-4, that on the 1st day of the 6th month of the 2nd year of Darius, Haggai prophesied and reproached the people for living in ceiled houses whilst the house of God lay waste; and from Ezra 5:2 and Hag. 1:15, that on the 24th day of the 6th month of the 2nd year of Darius, Zerubbabel and Jeshua bestirred themselves and did work in the house of God. But the house appeared insignificant, in comparison with the former Temple built by Solomon."Who saw this house in its first glory?" exclaims the prophet Haggai, on the 21st day of the 7th month of the 2nd year of Darius.He then declares that the glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former (Hag. 2:1-9).
Next, in order of time, comes the prophecy of Zech. 1:1-6, a prophecy of the 8th month of the 2nd year of Darius, in which Zechariah pleads with the people not to be as their fathers, who would not listen to the former Prophets, but to turn to the Lord of Hosts, Who would then turn to them.
It is at this juncture that the foundation of the Temple is laid, on the 24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius (Hag. 2:10,15,18,20), and
WHEN the foundation of the house was laid, the ancient men that had seen the first house wept or sang for joy as we read in Ezra 3:10-13That, however, was not in the 2nd year of Cyrus, but in the 2nd year of Darius.
In Zech. 4:6-10 we read how Zechariah encouraged the people to persevere with the work in spite of the tremendous difficulties which they experienced in doing it."Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit saith the Lord. Who art thou, O great mountain?Before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain, and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, Crying Grace, Grace unto it..... The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house, his hands shall also finish it."
Then comes the visit of Tatnai, the Pekah of the country west of the Euphrates, and Shetharboznai, and their enquiry, "Who commanded you to build this house and to make up this wall?" from which we see that they were building both the house and the wall at the same time (Ezra 5:3).
"But the eye of God was on the elders, that they could not cause them to cease till the matter came to Darius" (Ezra 5:5)The same language is found in Zech. 3:9 and 4:10, "Upon one stone shall be seven eyes..... they are the eyes of the Lord which run to and fro through the whole earth."
A copy of Tatnai and Shetharboznai's letter to Darius is given in Ezra 5:6-17.His reply follows in Ezra 6:1-12, Let the work of this house alone, and let the Pekah of the Jews build it.
That is all that belongs to the 2nd year of Darius.Our next note of time is found in the Book of Esther, " In the 3rd year of the reign of Ahasuerus." That the Ahasuerus of Esther is Darius Hystaspes and no other - although as Kitto says, "Almost every Medo-Persian King from Cyaxares I (B.C. 611-571) to Artaxerxes III Ochus (B.C. 358-338), has in turn been advanced as the Ahasuerus of Esther " - is abundantly clear, and would never have been doubted but for the misdating of the events of the Persian period, and the mistaken notion that the same Persian monarch could not be described by two or three different names.
"This is (that) Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia over 127 provinces" (Esther 1:1).Darius Hystaspes invaded and conquered India B.C. 506 (Herodotus, Books 3 and 4).Darius inherited the conquests of his predecessor Cambyses, in Egypt and Ethiopia; all Egypt submitted to Cambyses in the 5th year of his reign, B.C. 525, and he subdued the Ethiopians (Herodotus, Book 3).
"And King Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land and upon the Isles of the Sea" (Est. 10:1).The Fleet of Darius took Samos, Chios and Lesbos, and the rest of the Islands, in the year B.C. 496 (Herodotus, Book 6).Herodotus gives a list of the nations which paid tribute to Darius Hystaspes in his history, Book 3, Chapters 89-97.These include Egypt and India, the Island of Cyprus and the Islands of the Erythraean Sea.After adding up the total, Herodotus says, "Later on in his reign the sum was increased by the tribute of the Islands and of the nations of Europe as far as Thessaly" (Herodotus, Book 3, Chap. 96).Amongst the peoples who paid no settled tribute, but brought gifts to Darius Hystaspes, he mentions "The Ethiopians bordering upon Egypt, who were reduced by Cambyses" (Herodotus, Book 3, Chap. 97).
Susa or Shushan was built by Darius Hystaspes (Pliny vi, 27) or rather embellished with magnificent palaces by him (Elian, De Animal. xiii, 59). It was there that he resided and kept all his treasures (Herodotus, v, 49).
Thucydides (Book 1) and Plato (Menexenus) tell us that Darius Hystaspes subdued all the Islands in the AEgean Sea, and Diodorus Siculus (Book 12) tells us that they were all lost again by his son Xerxes before the 12th year of his reign, but it was after the 12th year of the reign of Ahasuerus that he imposed his tribute upon the Isles, and the successors of Xerxes held none of them except Clazomene and Cyprus (Xenophon, Hellenics, Book 5).
From all which it is clear that the Ahasuerus of Esther cannot be Xerxes, in fact that he can be none other than Darius Hystaspes, for his predecessors Cyrus and Cambyses never took tribute but only received presents.Polyenus (Stratagem, Book 7) says Darius was the first that ever imposed a tribute upon the people.For this reason Herodotus tells us (Book 3, Chap. 89) the Persians called Cyrus a father, and Cambyses a master, but Darius kapylon, a huckster, "for Darius looked to making a gain in everything."
Evidently Haman knew the weakness of his master, when he offered to pay him 10,000 talents of silver for his pogram or massacre of the Jews (Est. 3:9) Esther touches the same spring when she hints at the damage which the King's revenue would suffer if the pogram were carried into effect (Est. 7:4). And in Est. 10:1 we have the direct mention of the fact that "he laid a tribute upon the land and upon the Isles of the Sea."
In the Apocryphal Books the Ahasuerus of Esther, and the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1, are both identified with Darius Hystaspes.In 1 Esdras 3:1,2, we read, "Now when Darius reigned he made a great feast unto all his subjects and unto all his household, and unto all the princes of Media and Persia, and to all the governors and captains, and lieutenants that were under him, from India to Ethiopia, in the 127 provinces."This is word for word from Est. 1:1-3, with the name Ahasuerus replaced by the name Darius who is afterwards identified with Darius Hystaspes, in whose sixth year the Temple was completed (1 Esdras 6:5; Ez. 6:15).
In the Rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, and in the LXX. through-out, Ahasuerus is everywhere called Artaxerxes.It was Artaxerxes whom Bigthan and Teresh sought to lay hands on (Rest of Esther 12:1.2).It was the great King Artaxerxes who wrote "to the princes and governors who were under him from India unto Ethiopia, in 127 provinces (Rest of Esther 13:1).
Archbishop Ussher was a profoundly well read scholar, and he identifies Darius Hystaspes with Artaxerxes, and with Ahasuerus, and this is in entire agreement with everything contained in the Old Testament, and with all trustworthy ancient testimony.
But since Scaliger, the first modern Chronologer, introduced the new fangled notion that Ahasuerus must be Xerxes, most modern scholars have adopted his error, which rests on no more substantial ground than that of philologicalconjecture and supposed congruity of character.
Having thus cleared the ground by removing those erroneous presuppositions which make the understanding of the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther impossible, for these never can be understood until we realize that Darius Hystaspes, the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the Ahasuerus of Ester are one and the same person, we proceed with the Chronology, which we have already brought down to the 3rd year of Darius Hystaspes, the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther.
In Esther 1:1-5 we read that Ahasuerus, that is Darius Hystaspes, made a feast to all his princes, the power of Persia and Media, which lasted for six months, like the visit of the Colonial celebrities who attended Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee.
We note "Persia and Media" are coupled together in this order, now that the Persian Empire has been established.Before, in the time of Daniel, it was the "Medes and Persians."The feast of six months was followed by a feast of 7 days to the people of Shushan; on the last day of this feast Vashti refused to appear before the King, and was divorced.
Next, we have two notices of events that took place in the 4th year of Darius Hystaspes.
In Zech. 7:1 we read that on the 4th day of the 9th month of the 4th year of Darius, Zechariah replied to the deputation from Bethel, Sharezer and Regem-melech, who wished to know whether they should continue to fast in the 5th and the 7th month as they would have done for a period of 70 years from the fall of Jerusalem, B.C. 586, in the ensuing year, B.C. 517.
It is not clear whether the deputation came from Bethel (translated in the A.V. house of God) on the border of Judea, or from a place or a person named Bethel living in Babylon.
Zechariah's reply was a challenge.Were they sincere when they fasted these 70 years? (Zech. 7:5), and later on (Zech. 8:19) he declared that all their fasts should be joy and gladness and cheerful feasts.
Darius is believed to have executed the Behistun Inscription about the 5th year of his reign, though some portion of it was perhaps added a little later.In this wonderful rock Inscription he records the fact that during the first five or six years of his reign he reconquered all the revolted provinces of the Persian Empire (Elam, Susiana, Sagartia, Media, Babylonia, Parthia, Armenia, etc.), and overthrew all the nine pretenders to his throne, including (1) Gomates, the Pseudo-Smerdis, the Magian who claimed to be the brother of Cambyses, and who occupied the throne for a period of 7 months; (2) a Nidinta- Bel, who called himself Nebuchadnezzar II, the son of Nabonidus, and claimed to be the King of Babylon; (3) Phraortes, who said he was the son of Cyaxares, and claimed to be King of Media; (4) a second pretender who claimed to be Bardis or Smerdis the brother of Cambyses, and several others.
He thus became "Arta-Xerxes" (Great Shah) (Ezra 6:14, 7:1, etc.), "King of Assyria" (Ezra 6:22), "King of Kings" (Ezra 7:12), King of Babylon (Neh. 13:6), and master of the entire World-Empire of Persia.
This accounts for the change of name from Darius to Artaxerxes, which we note, when we pass from the events of his 4th to those of his 7th year in Ezra 6:12 and 7:1.
The change of name which is so puzzling to us, was perfectly well understood at the time when the Book of Ezra was written, and is thus a proof of the contemporaneity of the Record.
But in order that there might be no mistake about the matter, the writer tells us in the most distinct and explicit manner that this Darius is the King who was also called Artaxerxes.In Ezra 6:14 he says, "They builded and finished it according to the commandment of Cyrus and Darius (even Artaxerxes), King of Persia.Two persons, and two only, are named here; two decrees, and two only are specified, and the Hebrew Vav should be translated " Darius, even Artaxerxes," not "Darius and Artaxerxes," as though a reference were intended to some third decree by some third person, a reference which was not in the writer's mind at all.
The word Artaxerxes is an appellation like Pharaoh.The word Xerxes survives to this day.It is the ancient form of the modern "Shah.""Arta" signifies great or noble, and "Arta-Xerxes" is the exact equivalent of Darius the Great or Xerxes the Great.Similarly the son and successor of Darius Hystaspes, Xerxes in his Inscription at Persepolis, calls himself in one sentence "Xerxes the great King" and in the next "Darius the King."
Abraham Zacutus (15th Century A.D.), astronomer to Emanuel, King of Portugal, David Ganz of Prague (d. A.D. 1613) and the Sedar Olam Zeuta or the Lesser Chronicle of the Jews (Anonymous, A.D. 1123), all tell us that "Artaxerxes among the Persians was the common name of their Kings as that of Pharaoh was among the Egyptians."
It is one and the same Persian King throughout.In Ezra 4:24 we have his 2nd year, in Ezra 6:15 we have his sixth year, in Ezra 7:1 his 7th year, in Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 his 20th year, and in Neh. 5:14 and 13:6 his 32nd year, whilst in the story of Esther, which is an appendix to the Ezra-Nehemiah narrative, we have mention of his 3rd, his 6th, his 7th and his 12th years. Haggai prophesied in his 2nd year.Zechariah in his 2nd and in his 4th year.
We now reach the events of the 6th year of Darius Hystaspes, the year in which the Temple was finished, on the 3rd day of the 12th month, as we learn from Ezra 6:15.
In the same year Esther was brought to Shushan to the custody of Hegai (Est. 2:8,12), and a year or so later she was taken to the royal apartments.A great feast, Esther's feast, was held in honour of the occasion of her marriage, in the 10th month of the 7th year of Ahasuerus, B.C. 515 (Est. 2:16- 18).
Turning now to Ezra 7:8,9 we find that on the first day of the first month of this same 7th year of Darius, the Temple being now built, Ezra sets out from Babylon in order to be present at the ceremony of the opening, or the dedication, of the new building, taking with him the sacred vessels and a second band of 1,754 exiles.
Ezra mustered his company and kept a fast at "the river that runneth to Ahava," halting there from the 9th to the 11th day of the first month of the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ez. 8:15,21).On the following day, the 12th day of the 1st month of the 7th year of Artaxerxes, Ezra left the river Ahava and started off on his 4 months' journey to Jerusalem (Ez. 8:31).
Meanwhile, the children of the captivity kept the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread at Jerusalem, from the 14th to the 21st day of the 1st month of the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ez. 6:19-21).
About four months later, on the 1st day of the 5th month of the 7th year of Artaxerxes, Ezra arrived at Jerusalem (Ez. 7:8; 8:32).
Three days later, on the 4th day of the 5th month of the 7th year of Artaxerxes, the sacred vessels were weighed and placed in the newly built house of God (Ez. 8:33).
Ezra was grieved at the number of heathen marriages that had been contracted, but he thanked God for the House set up, the desolations repaired, and the wall given in Judah and Jerusalem.This shows that not only the Temple but also the wall had been rebuilt at this time (Ezra 9:9).
On the 20th day of the 9th month of the 7th year of Artaxerxes, all Judah and Jerusalem were gathered together at Jerusalem (Ezra 10:9).Ezra exhorted them to confess their sin and separate themselves from their heathen wives.
An Assize was held on the first day of the 10th month (Ez. 10:16), the matter was gone into, and the Assize was concluded on the 1st day of the 1st month (Ez. 10:17).In neither case is the year mentioned but if we are right in concluding that the years of the King are reckoned as commencing on his accession day, on or about the 25th day of the 9th month, these last two dates of the Assize would be in the 10th and the 1st months of the 8th year of Artaxerxes.
In the 1st month of the 12th year of Ahasuerus, Haman cast lots to find a lucky day for his massacre of the Jews (Est. 3:7).On the 13th day of the 1st month the posts went out hastened by the King's commandment, with the decree for Haman's Pogram (Est. 3:12).On the 15th day of the 1st month Esther touched the golden sceptre (Est. 5:1,2).At night the King could not sleep (Est. 6:1-14).On the following day, the 16th day of the 1st month, Esther gave her banquet.Haman was accused and hanged, and Mordecai was made Premier (Est. 5:8; 7:2-10).
About two months later, on the 23rd day of the 3rd month, the scribes were called and letters were sent by horse, mule, camel and dromedary, to overtake the posts sent out by Haman, and to give the Jews liberty to defend themselves if they were attacked (Est. 8:9-14).
Then follows an interval of about 9 months, during which the posts went forward till they reached the uttermost limits of Ahasuerus' world-wide Empire.
On the 13th day of the 12th month, Pogram Day, the Jews defended themselves and slew 500 of their adversaries, who attacked them in Shushan, and 75,000 in the provinces (Est. 9:1-12)On the following day, the 14th day of the 12th month, the Jews slew 300 more in Shushan, whilst the Jews in the provinces rested and observed this, the 14th day of Adar, as their day for keeping the feast of Purim (Est. 9:13-27) The day after this, the 15th day of the 12th month, the Jews in Shushan rested and observed this, the 15th day of Adar, as their day for keeping the feast of Purim (Est. 9:18-27).
The next recorded event is found in the opening chapters of Nehemiah, and belongs to the 20th year of Darius Hystaspes.There is no record of the events that occurred at Jerusalem between the 7th year of Artaxerxes and the early months of the following year, except that which is contained in the report which Hanani brought to Nehemiah 13 years later, in the month Chislen, the 9th month of the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1).
From this we learn that, whilst nothing is reported respecting the Temple, the wall of Jerusalem had been broken down, and the gates thereof burned with fire (Neh. 1:3).
Ezra probably remained at Jerusalem during this interval of 13 years, from the 7th to the 20th year of Artaxerxes, for we find him in active co- operation with Nehemiah later on in this same 20th year (Neh. 8:1,4,9; 12:26,36,38).
Josephus says that Jeshua the high priest died and was succeeded by his son Joiakim, about the time that Ezra came to Jerusalem, in the 7th year of the Persian monarch who is called Artaxerxes in Ezra, but whom Josephus calls Xerxes (yet another name for Darius Hystaspes).He adds, later on, that Joiakim died, and was succeeded in the high priesthood by his son Eliashib, about the time that Ezra died.
This is quite in accord with what we read in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.It is true that Eliashib is called the high priest in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 3:1,20).He may have been called "Eliashib the high priest" without having been high priest at that time, but more probably his father Joiakim was an aged man, and Eliashib was acting high priest during his lifetime, just as Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests in the time of our Lord (Luke 3:2, "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests").
This is corroborated by the fact that Joiakim had a grandson Johanan, the son of Eliashib, old enough to have a chamber in the house of God in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 515, when Ezra returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 10:6).
It is supported by the statement of Neh. 12:26, which makes the days of Joiakim either immediately anterior to, or else contemporary with the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest the scribe.
It is also supported by the list of the men who were "priests, the chief of the fathers in the days of Joiakim" (Neh. 12:12-21).
Two lists are given here.The first is identical with the list of the priests who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Neh 12:1-7) except that we have here only 21 names instead of 22, the name of Hattush, No. 6, being omitted. The second list is the list of their eldest sons who succeeded them, either on their death, or on their becoming too aged to discharge the duties of their office in the days of Joiakim, i.e. immediately before, or else during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 12:26), which of course carries us on to the 20th, or possibly to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 502-490.This list contains only 20 names, the eldest son of Miniamin, No. 13, being omitted.
The two lists are as follows:-
Fathers. Eldest sons.
Priests who returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua. Neh. 12:1-7 and 12-21 Priests in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua.Neh. 12:12-21
1. Seraiah. Meraiah.
2. Jeremiah. Hananiah.
3. Ezra. Meshullam.
4. Amariah. Jehohanan.
5. Melicu. Jonathan.
6. Hattush (omitted Neh. 12:12-27). -
7. Shebaniah. Joseph.
8. Harim. Adna.
9. Meraioth. Helkai.
10. Iddo. Zechariah.
11. Ginnethon. Meshullam.
12. Abijah. Zichri.
13. Miniamin. -
14. Moadiah. Piltai.
15. Bilgai. Shammua.
16. Shemaiah. Jehonathan.
17. Joiarib. Mattenai.
18. Jedaiah. Uzzi.
19. Sallai. Kallai.
20. Amok. Eber.
21. Hilkiah. Hashabiah.
22. Jedaiah. Nethaneel.
The 22 men in this first list returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Jeshua in the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 536 (Neh. 12:1-7).Fifteen of them sealed the covenant with Nehemiah in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 502, the remaining 7 having probably died during the intervening 34 years.The 20 men in the second list succeeded them, "in the days of Joiakim" the son of Jeshua (Neh. 12:12-21), whose days are either identical with, or else immediately anterior to, the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, B.C. 502-490 (Neh. 12:26).See Vol. II, p. 53.
Nehemiah was grieved to hear Hanani's distressing report respecting the condition of affairs at Jerusalem (Neh. 1:4)He turned to Cod in prayer and waited his opportunity.
Four months later, in the month Nisan, the 1st month in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, that opportunity came.
But here arises one of the most perplexing problems in the Chronology of this period.
The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are not two Books, but two parts of one and the same Book.They were never divided up into two, till this was done by Origen, the learned and distinguished Textual Critic, who was also unfortunately, the innovating Higher Critic, of the 3rd Century A.D.
The last note of time in Ezra is connected with the 7th year of Artaxerxes, and it is quite certain that the 20th year of the opening verse of Nehemiah refers to the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes.This was in Chisleu, the 9th month.But when we come to Neh. 2:1 we are still in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, although in the meantime we have passed over a New Year's Day.
The problem, then, is to ascertain from what point in the "sequence of the months" the years of the King's reign are reckoned, or on what day of the year the reckoning passes from the last day of one year to the New Year's Day of another.
The method of reckoning adopted is not the Hebrew method, for with them New Year's Day is always the 1st day of Nisan, and the first of Nisan following the 9th month of the 20th year of Artaxerxes would have been in the 21st year of Artaxerxes.
The method of reckoning adopted is not the Assyrian method, for with them also New Year's Day is always the 1st day of Nisan.
The method of reckoning adopted is not that of the vague Egyptian or Chaldean year of Ptolemy's Canon, the 365-day year, whose New Year's Day or 1st Thoth, or as we should say 1st January, fell back one day every 4 years, and travelled the entire circle of the four seasons in the course of the Sothic cycle of 1,460 years, for in the 20th of Artaxerxes, B.C. 502, the 1st Thoth or New Year's Day of the Egyptian or Chaldean year was on December 27th, and December was the 10th month, so that in passing from the 9th month Chisleu to the 1st month Nisan, a New Year would have been entered.
The same would hold good if this Artaxerxes were identified with Longimanus, for in his 20th year, B.C. 445, the 1st Thoth of the Egyptian or Chaldean year was December 12th.
The New Year did not begin with the summer solstice, about the 21st day of the 4th month, for the 1st day of the 1st month, and the 1st day of the 5th month of Artaxerxes, were both in the same 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7- 9).
The New Year did not begin with the autumnal Equinox, about the 21st day of the 7th month, for the 6th, 7th and 9th months are all in the same 2nd year of Darius (Hag. 1:1; 2:1,10).
The New Year did not begin at the winter solstice, about the 21st day of the 10th month, for some part of the 9th month, and the following 1st month were both in one and the same 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1; 2:1).
And it has already been shown that the New Year did not begin at the Spring Equinox or about the 1st Nisan.
The solution probably lies in the fact that the Persians, being like ourselves, members of the Aryan or Japhetic, and not members of the Semitic race, reckoned as we do, and in that case the years of the King's reign would be reckoned not by calendar years, as with the Jews and the Assyrians but from the day on which the King ascended the throne.Or, it may be that New Year's Day was immediately connected with the day on which the foundation of the Temple was laid, viz. the 24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius (Haggai 2:18).
The data supplied by the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai and Zechariah, require, and are satisfied with, a New Year's Day commencing sometime after the 24th day of the 9th month (about Nov. 24th), because the 24th day of the 9th month was in the same year as the 1st day of the sixth month (Hag. 1:1; 2:10), and sometime before the last day of the 9th month, (Nov. 30th) because some part of the 9th month was in the same 20th year
of Artaxerxes as the succeeding 1st month.
The years of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, or Artaxerxes, or Ahasuerus, then, begin somewhere between the 24th and the 30th day of the 9th month of the year.
If this be so, then the 24th day of the 11th month of the 2nd year of Darius precedes the 8th month of the 2nd year of Darius, and the prophecy of Zech. 1:7, which reads as if it were the opening verse of the Book, precedes Zech. 1:1.
It is difficult to understand why the fact that Zechariah was the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, should be repeated in Zech. 1:7, if this verse were not originally the first verse of his Book of prophecy, the present arrangement being that of some critic who thought that the 8th month must necessarily precede the 11th month of the 2nd year of Darius.
The following is a complete list of the dated events of the reign of Darius Hystaspes = Artaxerxes = Ahasuerus, as given in the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.His accession day is between the 25th and the 30th day of the 9th month.
Dated events of the Reign of Darius Hystaspes = Artaxerxes = Ahasuerus.
Day. Month. Year. King. Reference. Event.
24 11 2 Darius Zech. 1:7 70 years' indignation completed.
1 6 2 Darius Hag. 1:1 Zerubbabel. Pekah in Judah.
24 6 2 Darius Hag. 1:15 Zerubbabel bestirred himself.
21 7 2 Darius Hag. 2:1 The glory of the latter house.
- 8 2 Darius Zech. 1:1 Zechariah appeals for repentance.
24 9 2 Darius Hag. 2:10 Foundation of the House laid.
- - 3 Ahasuerus Est. 1:1-15 Ahasuerus' feast. Vashti deposed.
4 9 4 Darius Zech. 7:1 Zechariah on 70 years' fasts.
- - 6 Ahasuerus Est. 2:8-16 Esther brought to Shushan.
3 12 6 Darius Ezra 6:15 Temple finished.
14 1 - Darius Ezra 6:19 Passover observed at Jerusalem.
- 10 7 Ahasuerus Est. 2:16-18 Esther's marriage and feast.
1 1 7 Artaxerxes Ezra 7:9 Ezra left Babylon.
9 1 7 Artaxerxes Ezra 8:15-21 Ezra halted 3 days at Ahava.
12 1 7 Artaxerxes Ezra 8:31 Ezra left river of Ahava.
1 5 7 Artaxerxes Ezra 7:9 Ezra arrived at Jerusalem.
4 5 7 Artaxerxes Ezra 8:33 Vessels weighed in Temple.
20 9 - Artaxerxes Ezra 10:9 All Judah at Jerusalem.
1 10 - Artaxerxes Ezra 10:16 Assize (heathen wives) begun.
1 1 - Artaxerxes Ezra 10:17 Assize (heathen wives) ended.
- 1 12 Ahasuerus Est. 3:7 Haman casts lots for Massacre.
13 1 - Ahasuerus Est. 3:12 Haman's posts went out.
15 1 - Ahasuerus Est. 5:1-8 Esther touches golden sceptre.
16 1 - Ahasuerus Est. 5:8 Esther's banquet.
23 3 - Ahasuerus Est. 8:9-14 Mordecai's posts went out.
13 12 - Ahasuerus Est. 9:1-12 Massacre day, 500+75,000 slain.
14 12 - Ahasuerus Est. 9:15-27 300 slain, 14th Adar, 1st Purim.
15 12 - Ahasuerus Est. 9:18-27 15th Adar. 2nd Purim.
- 9 20 Artaxerxes Neh. 1:1 Hanani's report.
- 1 20 Artaxerxes Neh. 2:1 Nehemiah sent to Jerusalem.
25 6 - Artaxerxes Neh. 6:15 Wall finished in 52 days.
1 7 - Artaxerxes Neh. 8:2 Ezra reads the Law.
2 7 - Artaxerxes Neh. 8:13 They read of dwelling in booths.
15 7 - Artaxerxes Neh 8:14-18 1st day of feast of Tabernacles.
21 7 - Artaxerxes Neh. 8:18 7th day of feast of Tabernacles.
22 7 - Artaxerxes Neh. 8:18 Day of solemn assembly.
24 7 - Artaxerxes Neh. 9:1,2 Heathen wives put away.
- - 32 Artaxerxes Neh. 5:14; 13:6 Nehemiah returned to Babylon.
These are the data supplied from the Old Testament.It would be interesting to compare them with information from other sources respecting the Persian method of reckoning the years of their Kings.The Behistun Inscription contains the days and the months, but not the years of Darius reign, except in one place, and there the figure cannot be read.The other Persian Inscriptions give us no information on the subject.
There is a suggestive little touch in Neh. 2:6 which favours the identification of Artaxerxes with Ahasuerus, the husband of Esther. Nehemiah mentions in a parenthesis the fact that Artaxerxes' wife was sitting by him when he preferred his request.This agrees very well with the fact that Esther was the wife of King Ahasuerus, otherwise Artaxerxes, otherwise Darius Hystaspes.
No doubt Nehemiah had already been in communication with her on the subject, and no doubt, also, she had something to do with the favour shown by Artaxerxes to the Jews in the 7th year of his reign, when he gave Ezra the liberal commission contained in his letter of Ezra 7:12-26.
The building of the wall described so minutely in Neh. 3, was not the building of a new wall, but the repair of an old one.It is so described throughout.The wall was broken down, and the gates were burned with fire (Neh. 1:3), but parts of it were still standing, and it only needed repair. The word "repaired" occurs in almost every verse in Neh. 3.
It was a work that could be finished in 52 days (Neh. 6:15) and the Temple was still standing (Neh. 6:10,11).
Nehemiah was appointed Pekah of the land of Judah from the 20th to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes.Here we have another instance of the Aryan or English method of reckoning.On the Semitic method of inclusive reckoning this period would have been called 13 years, but Nehemiah very emphatically points out that it was a period of 12 years.
In Neh. 7:4 we read that the city was broad on both sides, and great, but the people were few and the houses were not builded.This refers not to the material dwelling places, but to the people who dwelt in them - as the word is used in the phrase "the house and lineage" of David.
The remark that the houses were not builded leads on to the reproduction of the register of the genealogy of those who returned with Zerubbabel in the 1st year of Cyrus, some 34 years before (Neh. 7:5-73).
On the 1st day of the 7th month, doubtless of this same 20th year of Artaxerxes, though the year is not specified (Neh. 8:1,2), the people assembled at Jerusalem, and sent for Ezra, who had probably been with them during the whole of the last 13 years, to bring the Book of the Law.
On the following day (Neh. 8:13) they read that they should dwell in booths in the 7th month (Neh. 8:14), which accordingly they did (Neh. 8:15).
On the 24th day of the 7th month the seed of Israel separated themselves from their heathen wives, they entered into a covenant that they would not intermarry with the heathen, nor trade on the Sabbath Day, that they would pay their tithes, "and we will not forsake the house of our God" (Neh. 10:28-39).
The last recorded event in the Old Testament is that contained in the paragraph, Neh. 13:4-31In order to understand it we must first strike out the word "had" in the A.V., and in the R.V. translation of Neh. 13:5. Then we read(Neh. 13:4), "Before this" - viz. before the revival of religion during Nehemiah's 12 years' residence in Jerusalem (B.C. 502-490), as described in the previous paragraph (Neh. 12:43-13:3) - Eliashib was allied to Tobiah (Neh. 13:4; 6:17-18).Now, during the revival of religion, i.e. during Nehemiah's 12 years' residence in Jerusalem, Eliashib was appointed to the oversight of the Temple chambers (Neh. 12:44).At this point in the narrative, Nehemiah left Jerusalem in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, and went to Babylon, where he remained during an interval of "certain days," probably one year.During this interval seven things happened:-
1. Eliashib, after Nehemiah had left Jerusalem, desecrated the Temple by preparing for Tobiah a great chamber in the courts of the Temple, "where aforetime," viz. during the revival of religion, i.e. during Nehemiah's 12 years' residence in Jerusalem, they kept the consecrated things.
2. Tithes ceased to be paid (Neh. 13:10).
3. The house of God was forsaken (Neh. 13:11).
4. The Sabbath was profaned (Neh. 13:15,16).
5. Heathen marriages were contracted (Neh. 13:23).
6. The Jewish language was corrupted by the offspring arising therefrom (Neh. 13:24).
7. A son of Joiada, the son of the high priest Eliashib, married a daughter of Sanballat (Neh. 13:28).
At the end of this interval of "certain days," probably one year, the following ten things happened:-
1. Nehemiah obtained leave of the King, and returned to Jerusalem, probably about 2 years after he left there, including the time occupied by the journey to Babylon and back, viz. in the year B.C. 488 (Neh. 13:6,7).
2. He dealt summarily with Tobiah, putting his furniture into the street (Neh. 13:6-8).
3. He restored the Temple services (Neh. 13:11, cp. Mal. 1:7-14).
4. He restored the payment of tithes (Neh. 13:12-14, cp. Mal. 3:8).
5. He restored the observance of the Sabbath (Neh. 13:17-22).
6. He put a stop to heathen marriages (Neh. 13:25-27, cp. Mal. 2:11-16).
7. He chased the son of Joiada from him (Neh. 13:28).
8. He cleansed the priesthood (Neh. 13:29, cp. Mal. 2:1-8).
9. He restored the covenant of the priests and Levites (Neh. 13:29).
10. He appointed the wards of the priests and Levites, everyone in his business, and for the offerings (Neh. 13:30).
Four of these items correspond so exactly with the tenor of the prophecy of Malachi that we may probably conclude that his prophecy also belongs to this period, viz. to the year B.C. 488, so that with the close of Old Testament history we date also the close of Old Testament prophecy, viz. in the last year of Daniel's seven sevens, B.C. 488, the time appointed for the sealing up of vision and prophecy(Dan. 9:24,25).See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, AN. HOM. 3637.
The phrase"after certain days" reads in the Hebrew "at the end of days," which probably means "at the end of a year," the word yamim, yamim = days, being frequently used to denote this period of time.Compare the following passages in which the word occurs:-
Gen. 4:3. At the end of days (i.e. at the end of the year) Cain brought of the fruit of the land.
Gen. 27:43,44. Flee thou to Laban and tarry with him one (cycle) of days (i.e. "one year," not as in A.V. and R.V. "a few days").
Gen. 29:20. Jacob served 7 years for Rachel, and they seemed unto him as one (cycle) of days (i.e. "as one year," not as in A.V. and R.V. "but a few days").
1 Sam. 2:19. The sacrifice of days (i.e. the sacrifice of the year = the yearly sacrifice).
1 Sam. 27:7. David abode in the city of the Philistines days (Heb.) and 4 months (i.e. a year and four months).
2 Sam. 14:26. Absalom polled his head from end of days to end of days (i.e. from year to year).
1 Kings 17:7. And it came to pass at the end of days (i.e. at the end of the year) that the brook dried up.
These passages show that the proper interpretation of the phrase "at the end of days" is "after one year."
If we allow 4 months for the journey each way, and a year for Nehemiah's residence in Babylon, this will bring the narrative of the paragraph, Neh. 13:7-31, with which the Old Testament Record closes, down to the year B.C. 488.
Genealogical and other Lists of Names in 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.
Some valuable chronological information is contained in the genealogical and other lists in these Books.The list of those who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 10:1-13) is almost identical with the list of those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Jeshua, given in Neh. 12:1-9.
This is the crowning argument for the identification of the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah with Darius Hystaspes.
Between the 1st of Cyrus and the 20th of Darius Hystaspes was a space of 34 years, at the end of which time most of "the priests and Levites that went up with Zerubbabel" (Neh. 121) might still be living and able to seal the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. 10:1).
But if the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was Artaxerxes Longimanus, as all modern scholars maintain, the length of the time between the 1st of Cyrus and the 20th of Artaxerxes Longimanus is 91 years, after which space of time 20 out of the 30 priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel are stillalive!
The argument is absolutely conclusive.It must convince every scholar who pays attention to it that the accepted Chronology is impossible.The Artaxerxes of Nehemiah reigned at least 32 years (Neh. 5:14; 13:6), but no other Persian monarch except Darius Hystaspes reigned so long within such a space of time that 20 out of 30 men, who were old enough to be priests and Levites in the 1st of Cyrus, could still be alive in the 20th year of such other Persian monarch's reign.
The lists are as follows:-
Priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel in the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 536. Neh. 12:1-9. Priests and Levites who sealed with Nehemiah in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 502. Neh. 10:1-10.
1. Priests.
1. Seraiah Seraiah.
2. Jeremiah Jeremiah.
3. Ezra (Azariah).
4. Amariah Amariah.
5. Malluch (Melicu) (Malchijah).
6. Hattush Hattush.
7. Shechaniah (Shebaniah) Shebaniah.
8. Rehum (Harim) Harim.
9. Meremoth Meremoth.
10. Iddo -
11. Ginnetho Ginnethon.
12. Abijah Abijah.
13. Miamin Mijamin.
14. Maadiah (Maaziah).
15. Bilgah Bilgai.
16. Shemaiah Shemaiah.
17. Joiarib -
18. Jedaiah -
9. Sallu (Sallai) -
20. Amok -
21. Hilkiah -
22. Jedaiah -
Neh. 12:7. These were the chief of the priests and of their brethren in the days of Jeshua." Neh. 10:8. "These" (with Zidkijah), Pashur, Malluch, Obadiah, Daniel, Baruch and Meshullam) "were the priests" that sealed with Nehemiah.
2.Levites.
1. Jeshua Jeshua the son of Azaniah.
2. Binnui Binnui of the sons of Henadad.
3. Kadmiel Kadmiel.
4. Sherebiah (Shebaniah).
5. Judah (Hodijah, cp. Ezra 2:40; 3:9).
6. Mattaniah (over the choirs) -
7. Bakbukiah (over the watches) -
8. Unni. (over the watches) -
(and 12 others).
From these lists it will be seen that out of the 22 men who were the chief of the priests in the days of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, 15 were still chief of the priests 34 years later, and signed the covenant with Nehemiah.
Of the 8 Levites who are mentioned as returning with Zerubbabel, 5 are mentioned again as signing the covenant with Nehemiah.
It is quite natural that 20 out of these 30 men who returned with Zerubbabel in the first year of Cyrus (B.C. 536) should be alive 34 years later, in the 20th year of Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 502).But it is quite inconceivable that 20 of them should still be alive 91 years later, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 445).
Therefore, the Artaxerxes of Neh. 2:1, 5:14 and 13:6 cannot be Artaxerxes Longimanus, nor can be be any other Persian monarch of later date, and as the only Persian monarch of earlier date who reigned as long as 32 years (Neh. 5:14; 13:6) was Darius Hystaspes, the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah 2:1; 5:14 and 13:6 can be no other than Darius Hystaspes himself.
The succession of the high priests was as follows (1 Chron. 6:3-15; Ezra 3:2; 7:1-5; Neh. 12:10,11):-
List of High Priests from Aaron to Jaddua.
1. Aaron.
2. Eleazer.
3. Phinehas.
4. Abishua.
5. Bukki.
6. Uzzi.
7. Zerahiah.
8. Meraioth.
9. Amariah I.
10. Ahitub I.
II. Zadok I.
12. Ahimaaz.
13. Azariah I.
14. Johanan.
15. Azariah II, contemporary with Solomon (1 Chron. 6:10) B.C.1023-983.
16. Amariah II.
17. Ahitub II.
18. Zadok II.
19. Shallum.
20. Hilkiah, contemporary with Josiah (2 Chron. 34:9) B.C. 639-608.
21. Azariah III.
22. Seraiah.Slain by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:18-22) B.C. 586.
23. Jehozadak, went into captivity (1 Chron. 6:15) B.C. 586.
24. Joshua, returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2) B.C. 536.
25. Joiakim, contemp. with Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh. 12:26) B.C. 515-490.
26. Eliashib, allied to Tobiah (Neh. 13:4, 6:18) younger contemporary of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:1, 13:4-5) B.C. 502-488.
27. Joiada.
28. Jonathan (Johanan).
29. Jaddua, contemporary with Darius, the last Persian King, who was slain by Alexander the Great B.C. 330.
These dates given above are the received Ptolemaic dates.All except the last (B.C. 330) are probably about 82 years higher than the truth.
Ezra B.C. (586-490), was the son of Seraiah (No. 22), and the brother of Jehozadak (No. 23).Josephus says he died an old man (Antiquities XI. 5.5.)
Johanan the son of Eliashib (Ezra 10:6) cannot be certainly identified, but he may have been the son of the high priest Eliashib, No. 26 in the above list, and a younger contemporary of Ezra.
The unnamed son of Joiada (No. 27), who married the daughter of Sanballat, and was chased by Nehemiah (Neh. 13:28), was a younger contemporary of Nehemiah.
Jaddua was, no doubt, born at the time when his uncle married the daughter of Sanballat, and was chased by Nehemiah B.C. 488. This is the last recorded event in the history of the Old Testament.
Jaddua went out from Jerusalem to Sapha to meet Alexander the Great, B.C. 330.The fact must be accepted, but not the Chronology, which makes him 488- 330 = 158 years old.If the Chronology of the period of the Persian Empire from the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 536, to the last year of the Darius who was slain by Alexander the Great, B.C. 330, is reduced from the 205 years of Ptolemy's Canon to the 123 years of Daniel's prophecy, Jaddua's age would be reduced by 205-123 = 82 years.This would make him 158-82 = 76 years of age when he went out to meet Alexander at Sapha.This is probably the true Chronology of the period between the last recorded date in the Old Testament history and the first reliable date in Greek history.
We are now in a position to give our final table of the Chronology of the Old Testament, viz. the Chronology of the period of the Return.
The Return.
AN. HOM.
3589. The return under Zerubbabel, in the 1st year of Cyrus, which was the 54th year of the 70 years' indignation (see Chapter 24 and Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 32).
16. Add 16 years to complete the 70 years' indignation (see Zech. 1:7,12,16 and Vol. II, Chronological Tables, pp. 30,32,34).
Within these years reigned the following Kings of Persia, but the length of their reigns is not given in the Old Testament:
Cyrus, Ezra 1:1.
Ahasuerus (Cambyses), Ezra 4:6
Artaxerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis), Ezra 4:7.
Darius (Darius Hystaspes), Ezra 4:5.
(See Vol. II, Chronological Tables pp. 32,34).
3605. Last of the 70 years' indignation = 2nd year of Darius.
5. Add 5 years to the return of Ezra in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes), Ezra 7:8.9.
3610. Ezra returned to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes).
13. Add 13 years to the appointment of Nehemiah as Pekah of Judah in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes), Neh. 2:1;5:14.
3623. Nehemiah comes to Jerusalem.
12. Add 12 years' administration of Nehemiah from the 20th to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes), Neh. 5:14; 13:6.
3635. Nehemiah returns to Babylon in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes).
2. Add 2 years for Nehemiah's visit to Babylon, and his return to Jerusalem, after spending "certain days" there, viz. 1 year, Neh. 13:6.
3637. Nehemiah's reforms.Close of the Old Testament Record.
CHAPTER XXVI.COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY.
The Captivity and the Return.
THE principal extra-Biblical sources for the Chronology of this period are,
for the captivity, the Babylonian cuneiform Inscriptions, especially the Egibi Tablets, and for the return, the Persian cuneiform Inscriptions, especially the great Behistun Inscription of Darius Hystaspes.Also the history of Josephus in his Antiquities, Book x, Chaps. 9-11, for the captivity, and Book xi, for the return.
Herodotus (B.C. 484-424), Ctesias (fl. B.C. 401-384), and Xenophon (B.C. 430-357) are our chief classical authorities for this period.Nicolaus of Damascus (1st Century B.C.), Diodorus Siculus (1st Century A.D.) and Arrian (2nd Century A.D.) are only late compilers.Ptolemy's Canon, to which modern scholarship attributes a species of quasi-infallibility, is also a compilation of the 2nd Century A.D.
The Egibi Tablets.
Table-case G in the Babylonian and Assyrian Room of the British Museum, contains a most important and valuable series of clay tablets, dating from the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 36th year of Darius.These are largely legal and commercial documents, many of them recording business transactions carried out by the members of the great mercantile house, founded by a wealthy merchant - a Babylonian Rothschild of the 7th Century B.C. - named Egibi or Sin-muballit.
These tablets include deeds respecting the sale of land, slaves, and houses, marriage contracts and dowries, loans of money and grain, payment of debts, divisions of property, accounts and receipts.
They are dated according to the year of the reign of the King of Babylon, and thus contribute to the fixing of the Chronology of the period.Transactions are recorded in every one of the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, from B.C. 604-562; the 2 years of Evil-merodach, B.C. 561-560 ; the 4 years of Neriglissar, B.C. 559-556; the accession year of Labashi-Marduk, B.C. 556; and the 17 years of Nabonidus, B.C. 555-539.
Transactions are recorded in each of the 9 years of Cyrus, B.C. 538-530, including the two years in which he was Co-Rex with Darius the Mede, B.C. 538- 537, and the 7 years in which he was sole King, B.C. 536-530.Cyrus being regarded as King of Babylon during the whole of these 9 years, Darius the Mede, whose residence was at Ecbatana, is not mentioned.
Transactions are recorded in every one of the 8 years of Cambyses, B.C 529-522, in the year of Smerdis, who is sometimes called Barzia (B.C. 521).
Transactions are recorded in about half the years of Darius Hystaspes, but tablets are wanting for 19 years of this reign.There is, however, a tablet dated as late as the 36th year of his reign, just two years beyond the close of the Old Testament Record and the period now under review.
The only tablets dated later than this in the Persian period are, one in the 2nd year of Xerxes, and one each in the 6th and the 13th years of Artaxerxes. Also one in the reign of Artaxerxes, but undated.
Possibly these also refer to Darius Hystaspes, for Xerxes calls himself Darius in the Persepolis Inscription, and Artaxerxes is clearly another name for Darius in the Book of Ezra.
This confirms the suspicion that, as there are no authentic records of this part of the Persian period, its duration may have been over-estimated by something like 82 years, by the late compilers Diodorus Siculus and Ptolemy.
The Nabonidus Cylinder.
There is a baked clay cylinder of Nabonidus (B.C. 555-539), No. 53, Table-case G, in the Babylonian and Assyrian Room of the British Museum.
It contains a prayer to the moon god on behalf of his eldest son Bel- shar-usur (the Belshazzar of Dan. 5; 7:1; and 8:1).It runs as follows:-
"As for me, Nabonidus the King of Babylon, protect thou me from sinning against thine exalted godhead, and grant thou me graciously a long life; and in the heart of Belshazzar my firstborn son, the offspring of my loins, set the fear of thine exalted godhead, so that he may commit no sin, and that he may be satisfied with the fulness of life."
The mention of Belshazzar in these terms is held to indicate that he was associated with his father as Co-Rex of Babylon.
This explains the curious offer of Belshazzar to Daniel, that if he could interpret the writing on the wall he should be "third ruler" in the Kingdom (Dan. 5:16,29), there being already two supreme rulers, viz. Nabonidus and Belshazzar his son.
The most important Persian cuneiform Inscriptions are those of Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes.
The Cyrus Tablet and the Cyrus Cylinder.
Of the reign of Cyrus we have two important Inscriptions, the clay tablet of Cyrus and the clay cylinder of Cyrus.They were discovered and brought to England by Mr. Rassam.
The clay tablet of Cyrus (Case E, No. 122, in the Babylonian and Assyrian Room in the British Museum) contains the Annals of Nabonidus King of Babylon (B.C. 555-539).It records the defeat of Astyages the Mede by Cyrus, the capture and spoiling of Ecbatana the capital of Media, the taking of Babylon, and the downfall and death of Nabonidus.
From this we learn that Cyrus was King of Elam.He defeated Astyages and took Ecbatana in the 6th year of his reign, B.C. 550.In the 17th year, on the 14th day of the month Tammuz (June), Sippara was taken.Nabonidus fled.On the 16th Gobryas and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting.Nabonidus was put into fetters.On the 3rd of Marcheswan (October) Cyrus entered Babylon.On the 11th Gobryas was appointed over the other governors in Babylon, and Nabonidus died.
All this is perfectly compatible with the narrative in the 5th chapter of Daniel, but we must always remember that silence is not denial.It would, however, be difficult to reconcile the account of Cyrus with that of Herodotus or that of Xenophon.
The clay cylinder of Cyrus (Case G, No. 67, in the Babylonian and Assyrian Room of the British Museum) continues the history from the point at which the clay tablet of Cyrus leaves it.In this Inscription Cyrus glorifies himself and his son Cambyses.
"Marduk proclaimed Cyrus King of Anshan or Elam, by name, for the Sovereignty of the whole world (cp. Isaiah 44:28-45:13).Without fighting or battle he caused him to enter Babylon.Nabonidus the King he gave into his hand.I am Cyrus, the King of Legions, the great King, the powerful King, the King of Babylon, the King of Sumer and Accad, the King of the four zones; the son of Cambyses the great King, the King of Elam; the grandson of Cyrus, the great King, the King of Elam; the great-grandson of Teispes, the great King, the King of Elam.Merodach the great lord graciously drew nigh unto me, Cyrus the King, his worshipper, and to Cambyses my son, theoffspring of my heart.I restored the gods to their places, all their people I assembled, and I restored their lands" (cp. Ezra 1:1-3).
Cyrus was originally King of Ansan, Anshan or Auzan.This was the native name of the country which the Assyrians, and the Hebrew Scriptures, called Elam.He became King of Persia between the 6th and the 9th years of Nabonidus, B.C. 549-546.The original capital of Cyrus was Susa or Shushan, which remained the principal city of the Persian Empire.
Cambyses has left us no Inscriptions but there are dated tablets for every year of his reign, and one dated in the fourth year of Cyrus, in which Cambyses is called the Crown Prince.Me may, therefore, have been associated in the throne with his father Cyrus as early as the 2nd year of Cyrus' sole Kingship, B.C. 535.
The Great Behistun Inscription.
Darius Hystaspes has left us six Inscriptions, of which by far the most important is the Great Behistun Inscription.The three texts of the Inscription in the (1) Persian, (2) contemporary Elamite, and (3) Babylonian languages are published, with English translations, an introduction and photographic illustrations, by the Trustees of the British Museum, under the title The Sculptures and Inscriptions of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistun, in Persia (1907).
Darius begins by giving his ancestry.This, when coupled with the information contained in the cylinder Inscription of Cyrus, yields the following table:-
(1) Achaemenes
|
(2) Teispes
|
-----------------------------------------
| |
(7) Ariaramenes.(3) Cyrus I.
| |
(8) Arsames.(4) Cambyses I.
| |
Hystaspes.(5) Cyrus the Great.
| |
(9) Darius Hystaspes. (6) Cambyses.
Darius says:-
"Eight of my family have been Kings before me.I am the 9th.In two branches have we been Kings."
Prof. E. G. Brown, in his Literary History of Persia, omits (3) Cyrus and includes Hystaspes, but Hystaspes is never called a King in any of the Inscriptions, and the addition of (3) Cyrus is necessitated by the cylinder Inscription of Cyrus.
The Behistun Inscription continues:-
"By the grace of Ormazd I became King of Persia, Elam (Susiana) Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, The Maritime Countries, Sepharad, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, etc.
"A Magian, Gomates by name, said 'I am Bardes, son of Cyrus, the brother of Cambyses,' and seized the crown.I killed this Gomates the Magian."
There is a sculptured figure of Gomates lying prostrate on the ground, a large figure of Darius Hystaspes standing with his foot upon him, and 9 other figures of men standing in a row with a rope round their necks.These are the 9 Kings who rose up against him in various parts of the Empire, and whom Darius crushed in 19 battles, during the first five years of his reign. They are as follows:-
1. Gomates the Magian, who claimed to be Bardes, son of Cyrus.
2. Assina who claimed to be King of Susiana.
3. Nidinta-Bel who claimed to be Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.
4. Phraortes who claimed to be Cyaxares, King of Media.
5. Martiya who claimed to be Immanes, King of Susiana.
6. Chitratakhma who claimed to be King of Sagartia.
7. Vahyazdates who claimed to be Bardes, son of Cyrus.
8. Arakha who claimed to be Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.
9. Frada who claimed to be King of Margiana.
10. Sakunka the Sakian.
Sir Henry Rawlinson, at the risk of his life, copied and obtained squeezes of the Inscription, mounting a ladder within a few inches of the edge of a projecting rock, with a precipice some 500 feet deep just in front.Its decipherment was the romance of the 19th Century, and the key to the interpretation of the cuneiform Inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia, which has enabled us to read so many Centuries of the past history of the race.
Later Persian Inscriptions.
There are other Inscriptions of Darius, - (1) on the walls of his magnificent palace at Persepolis, (2) round his tomb at Naksh-i-Rustam, and (3) on a granite slab on one of the rocky peaks of Mount Alwand, three miles to the south of Ecbatana, the modern Hamadan, but they throw no further light on the subject of Bible Chronology.
The Inscriptions of the succeeding monarchs of Persia do not belong to this period, but it will be convenient to complete our account of the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Persia at this point.
Xerxes has left five Inscriptions.The Inscription of Xerxes at Persepolis reads as follows:-
"A great god is Ormazd, who created this earth, who created blessings for man, who has made Xerxes King, sole King of many Kings, sole lawgiver among many lawgivers."
"I am Xerxes the great King, the King of Kings, the King of the lands where many languages are spoken; the King of this wide earth, far and near, the son of King Darius the Achaemenian.
"Says Xerxes the great King.By the grace of Ormazd, I have made this portal, which is sculptured with representations of all peoples. There are also many other beautiful buildings in Persia which I have made and which my father made.All such buildings as appear beautiful we have made by the grace of Ormazd."
"Says Darius the King.May Ormazd protect me and my Empire, and my work and my father's work.May Ormazd protect it all."
It will be noted that in the last paragraph Xerxes calls himself Darius. This proves that these Persian monarchs were sometimes called by different names.
There is another Inscription by Xerxes at Mount Alwand and also one at Van.
Of Artaxerxes Longimanus there is no Inscription except the words "Artaxerxes the great King" on a vase.This might equally well be an Inscription of Darius Hystaspes, who also bore the name Artaxerxes.
Of Darius II Nothus, there is only a short Inscription on the posts of the windows of the palace of Darius Hystaspes at Persepolis.It reads:-
"Summit of the palace of King Darius erected by a relative."
This also might equally well be an Inscription of Darius Hystaspes.
Of Artaxerxes II Mnemon, there is an Inscription at Susa (Shushan) which reads:-
"I am Artaxerxes, the great King, the King of Kings, the son of King Darius."
"Says Artaxerxes, the great King, the King of Kings, the King of the provinces, the King of this land, the son of King Darius."
"Darius was the son of King Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes was the son of King Xerxes, Xerxes was the son of King Darius, Darius was the son of Hystaspes, the Achaemenian."
"This temple my ancestor Darius built.Afterwards my grandfather Artaxerxes (restored it).I placed in it (the images of) Anahita, Tanaitis and Mithras.By the grace of Ormazd I built the temple. May Ormazd, Anahita and Mithras protect me."
Of Artaxerxes III Ochus, we have only this Inscription at Persepolis:-
"A great god is Ormazd, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, and above other animals created man, who made me Artaxerxes King, one King of many, one Ruler of many."
"Saith Artaxerxes the great King, the King of Kings, the King of the provinces, the King of this land.I am the son of King Artaxerxes.Artaxerxes was the son of King Darius, Darius was the son of King Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes was the son of King Xerxes, Xerxes was the son of King Darius, Darius was the son of Hystaspes, Hystaspes was the son of Arsames, Arsames was the son of Achaemenes."
"Saith Artaxerxes the King.This palace was built by me of stone. May Ormazd and Mithras protect me, and this region and that which I have built."
Of Arses we have only these words on the seal of Grotefend:-
"Arsaces a son of the race of Ahyabusanus."
"The Inscriptions of Xerxes and Artaxerxes," says Prof. A. V. Williams Jackson, in his excellent work on Persia Past and Present (1906), "are hardly more than reproductions of the minor tablets of Darius, formularic in their content and mechanical in their structure.The ring of the metal seems less true in these later Inscriptions, the language, like the style, shows signs of decadence."
In fact, what we have here is just what we should expect a dilettante tourist, with some knowledge of Persian, to carve on the ruins, if he had learned from Ptolemy and other late compilers the succession of the Persian monarchs and the relation between them.Standing alone, the Inscriptions of these later monarchs after Xerxes are not sufficient to authenticate the existence of the Kings whom they claim as their authors.
In any case we have here not the slightest confirmation of the Chronology of the Persian period such as we have for the Assyrian and the Babylonian periods which precede it, and the Greek period which succeeds it.The Chronology is amply authenticated down to the end of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, but further than that the Monumental evidence of the cuneiform Inscriptions does not go.
Josephus.
Josephus' history of the period of the captivity is contained in his Antiquities, Book x, Chapters 10, 11.It is derived partly from Scripture and partly from Berosus' History of Chaldea.
He agrees with the Babylonian clay tablets, with Ptolemy's Canon and with Scripture (Dan. 1:1; Jer. 25:1-3; 2 Kings 24:12; 25:27), in ascribing 43 years to Nebuchadnezzar.He gives Evil-merodach 18 years, but Syncellus says Josephus followed Abydenus and Polyhistor in assigning 2 years to this reign. Neriglissar, whom he calls Neglissar, is credited with 40 years (possibly a copyist's error for 4 years).He gives 9 months to Labashi-Marduk, whom he calls Labosordacus; and to Baltasar, called also Naboandelus, and in Contra Apion Nabonnedon, he ascribes 17 years, but he is mistaken in identifying Belshazzar, the son, with his father, Nabonidus.He says that the Queen mentioned in Dan. 5:10 was Belshazzar's grandmother.She has been identified with the famous Nitocris, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar.He says that Babylon was taken by Darius, the son of Astyages of Media, and his kinsman Cyrus, King of Persia.
Josephus' history of the period of the return is contained in his Antiquities, Book xi, which brings his narrative down to the time of Alexander the Great.It will be convenient to consider his history down to that event in this chapter.
Josephus says that in the 70th year from the day that the Jews were removed out of their own Land, Cyrus, in the first year of his reign, gave them leave to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their city and the Temple of God.This was done in consequence of his reading the passage in the Book of Isaiah (44:28-45:13) in which he is mentioned by name.
Josephus follows Herodotus in making Cyrus die in the war against the Massagetae, not Xenophon, who says he died a peaceful death in his own bed. Josephus identifies the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23 with Cambyses, after whom he says the Magi attained the government of Persia for one year.Zerubbabel came from Jerusalem and obtained from Darius, the next King, permission to rebuild the Temple, and "all that Cyrus intended to do before him, relating to the restoration of Jerusalem, Darius also ordained should be done accordingly."Amongst the number of the distinguished men who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2, Neh. 7:7), he mentions the name of the Mordecai of the Book of Esther.
It is very difficult to give an account of Josephus' view of the history of the Persian period.It is just the kind of history that would remain, if that of the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther were "emended," "corrected" and interpolated by some later copyist or editor with a view to bringing it into accord with some other version of the history.The result is just such a mixture of Scriptural events attributed to wrong persons as would follow from incorrect identifications of the persons named in the narrative.This may be due to Josephus himself, or more probably to some later hand.
Josephus tells us that on the death of Darius, "Xerxes his son" took the Kingdom.Perhaps this sentence is a late interpolation, and the name Xerxes throughout the succeeding narrative may be a "correction" by some late editor, supplanting the name Artaxerxes.For by Xerxes, Josephus always means the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah.According to Josephus, it is this "Xerxes" who gives to Ezra the letter of Ezra 7:12 beginning, "Xerxes King of Kings, unto Ezra the priest."On the 12th day of the 1st month of the 7th year of this "Xerxes" they set out to go to Jerusalem (cp. Ezra 8:31; 7:9). Then follow the rest of the events contained in Ezra 9 and 10.
Nehemiah is described as cupbearer to this "Xerxes."Nehemiah goes up to Jerusalem in the 25th year of this "Xerxes" and builds the walls in spite of the opposition of the Samaritans.The walls are completed in the 28th year of this "Xerxes," and the chapter concludes with the words "now this was done in the days of "Xerxes."
But the "Xerxes" of Ptolemy's Canon, the son of Darius, reigned only 20 years, and all the events ascribed to the reign of the "Xerxes" of Josephus, are attributed to the reign of "Artaxerxes" in Scripture.
Hence, we are compelled to say that either (1) Josephus used the word "Xerxes" as another name for the Artaxerxes whom modern scholars identify with Longimanus, in which case the words which make him the "son of Darius" are a late interpolation, or a mistake of Josephus himself; or else (2) Josephus is really referring under the name of "Xerxes" to Darius Hystaspes, and the opening sentence of the Antiquities, Book xi, Chap. v, which describes this "Xerxes" as a "son of Darius" is a late interpolation. In no case do the events which Josephus attributes to the reign of this "Xerxes" belong to Xerxes the "son of Darius," the Xerxes of Thermopylae and Salamis.
The confusion deepens as we pass into chapter 6."After the death of Xerxes the Kingdom was transferred to his son Cyrus, whom the Greeks called Artaxerxes."The relationship here indicated points to Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 464-424), but the sentence is probably either a late interpolation or an indication of Josephus' inability to understand the true meaning of the Ezra- Nehemiah-Esther narrative.For this "Artaxerxes" is immediately identified with the Ahasuerus of Esther, whom modern scholars identify with the "Xerxes" of Ptolemy's Canon.He reigns over 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia.In his 3rd year he makes a costly feast at Shushan.He divorces Vashti, and marries Esther the niece of Mordecai. Haman plots against the Jews, is accused by Esther and hanged, and his office is given to Mordecai.The massacre takes place on the appointed 13th day of Adar. but the Jews defend themselves, and the feast of Purim is instituted.
Here again we are compelled to say that either (1) Josephus used the word "Artaxerxes" as another name for Ahasuerus, whom modern scholars identify with the Xerxes of Ptolemy's Canon, in which case the words "Xerxes' son Cyrus, whom the Greeks called Artaxerxes," are a late interpolation, or a mistake of Josephus himself; or else (2) Josephus is really referring, under the name of "Artaxerxes," to Darius Hystaspes, and the opening sentence of the Antiquities, book xi, Chap. vi, which describes this "Cyrus whom the Greeks called Artaxerxes", as a "son of Xerxes," is a late interpolation.In no case do the events which Josephus attributes to the reign of this "Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes" belong to Artaxerxes Longimanus.
In chapter 7 we are introduced to Bagoses, the general of "another" Artaxerxes.This is said to indicate Artaxerxes II Mnemon (B.C. 404-359), the reign of Darius II Nothus (B.C. 424-404), being altogether omitted.But the word "another" is not in Josephus at all.The true reading is "Bagoses the general of the people of Artaxerxes" (tou laou Artaxerxou). Vossius "emends" the text by what is really a pure conjecture to "Bagoses the general of another (or the other) Artaxerxes" (tou allou Artaxerxou) in order to manufacture another Persian King.He pleads Ruffinus's Latin Version of Josephus.But (1) the translation will not bear the construction put upon it, and (2) a long received reading of an ancient author ought not to be varied from, without the authority of some good manuscript to justify the emendation, and in this case there is none alleged.
In this connection Dr. Prideaux has well observed:-
"All that Vossius saith about it can amount to no more than a conjecture, which we can build nothing certain upon: and to alter old authors upon conjectures only is never to be allowed, especially where the context will bear the one reading as well as the other: for since the various fancies of men may lead to various conjectures, if there should be such a liberty allowed, whole books may be thus altered away and utterly defaced by
