This article was first published many years ago on the old website as
Math and Science No. 6 “The Reign of Jehu King of Israel”
It has been edited a little for this presentation.
This article is just a brief discussion on the mathematical principles behind the King’s Calendar determination of the reign of King Jehu of Israel. What is the King’s Calendar?
Firstly however there are provided some internet excerpts to provide background information in relation to Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram and Jehu, all Kings of Israel. Two of the sources are no longer current in 2017.
Subsequent to that effort we will look at the math and science (not the archaeology) of the King’s Calendar which provides us with chronological justification for its disagreement with historians.
The King’s Calendar computerized mathematical reconstruction of the Chronological History of the Divided Kingdom of Ancient Israel operates on the basis of Linear / lineal Causality, which, put simply, is that one cause has one effect. Change the cause, and the effect changes. The King’s Calendar gives a set value to the word YEAR in the Bible. Commencing the calendar on a certain date, every calculation is directly related to the calculation before it.
Linear: of, relating to, resembling, or having a graph that is a line and especially a straight line : characterized by an emphasis on line : having or being a response or output that is directly proportional to the input : relating to, or based or depending on sequential development. (www.m-w.com/dictionary/linear)
Archaeologists and historians arbitrarily alter data to suit their pet theories. Fortunately this is not something that the kingscalendar has the luxury of doing.
The King’s Calendar reconstruction of Israelite chronological history applies a scientific methodology to a mathematical construct to determine the results of Biblical Chronological References, and then compares the findings with current historical perspectives, to determine the accuracy of the Mathematical predictions. In this case, we are going to argue against the current historical perspectives.
The Science of the theory can easily be verified or falsified by any person who takes the time to test it.
To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false. – Uriah Kriegel
The Difficulties of History
As pointed out by Sir Alan Gardiner (1961) [James Et.Al 1991 p.222] in reference to Egyptian History, our knowledge of history is often based in a collection of rags and tatters. That there are probably many errors and circular arguments in relation to ancient history is attested to by many, including Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge University (James Et. Al. 1991 : foreword pages.xiii-xv) As pointed out by Peet. T.E. (1924. p 75): “Archaeology is not an exact science, and deals more often in probabilities and possibilities than in irrefutable demonstrations.”
Full Bibliography can be found at the bottom of The Chapter Precis page
Whilst we might not blame academics for distrusting the biblical material, what is hypocritical is that many of these same academics will quote the very Scriptures which they consider to be fictional, to support their many and various hypotheses.
With this in mind, let’s take a brief look at the historical situation leading to the reign of Jehu of Israel.
Interesting Internet References: Background Material.
Jehu killed Jehoram (son of Ahab) of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah (grandson of Ahab of Israel) and became King of Israel. The first chronologically related archaeological evidence for Jehu shows that he paid tribute to the Assyrian King Shalmaneser in 841 BC.
Israel and the Arameans Quartz Hill School of Theology.
Benhadad and Joram.
According to the available documents Ahab was the last ruler to be listed in the Assyrian records as a foe of Shalmaneser. The Israelite king met his untimely death (c. 850 BC) in his attempt to recover Ramoth in Gilead from the Syrians, when the old hostility flared up as the Assyrian menace abated after the battle of Karkar (1 Kings 22:1-51). The revolt of Moab on Ahab’s death occupied his weak and sickly son Ahaziah (c. 850-849 BC) and Joram (c. 849-842 BC).
Hazael and Jehu.
Benhadad’s long and energetic reign came to an end about 843 BC or slightly later. By 841 BC Hazael, an official of influence in the service of the court at Damascus, had already usurped the throne.
The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which Austen Layard found in 1846 in the imperial palace at Nimrud shows Jehu actually kneeling before the Assyrian emperor. Following the prostrate king come Israelites bearing gifts. The inscription reads: “Tribute of Iaua [Jehu], son of Omri.
See also: Henry Layard and the Kings of Assyria. (W.H.Boulton)
Ahab had two sons, Ahaziah who reigned 2 years, and Jehoram who reigned 12 years before being killed by Jehu.
Ahab is mentioned as being involved in the battle of Qarqar in 853 BC, and Jehu, who slew Jehoram, fought against the Assyrian King Shalmaneser, in 841 BC.
The Bible and Archaeology (The Early Kings of Israel: A Kingdom Divided by Mario Seiglie)
Quoting The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
“Ahab is mentioned in the Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser III (858-824 B.C.), which tells the story of the great battle Shalmaneser fought at Qarqar against an Aramean-Israelite coalition … Ahab alone is said to have contributed two thousand chariots and ten thousand foot soldiers. Ten lesser kings who took part made important contributions in infantry and cavalry” (ibid. p. 76).
The Records of Assyria and Egypt (nabataea.net)
Among these twelve allies of Ben-hadad II, king in Damascus, the capital city of Syria, there appears the name of one as “Akhabu” of “Sir’la-a-a” generally translated as “Ahab the Israelite.” (Rogers: Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament pp 293 – 298; and Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, p 419) There are, however, two objections to identifying this Ahabu as the Ahab of Scripture. The first is that the name “Sir’la-a-a” has been pointed out by some scholars as not the equivalent of “Israelite” the names differ somewhat. (Urquhart, The New Biblical Guide, Vol. V) Thus “Ahabu the Sir’laite” may be of some other plate in Syria.
Did King Jehu Kill His Own Family? (P.4) (Jewish History.com)
These accounts [Assyrian Monuments] had basically a propagandistic purpose: They glorified the ruler and were intended to fill all who viewed the texts with fear of Assyria and its monarch. Because they had a political function, however the information they give cannot always be trusted. Recent scholarship indicates that the function and audience of Assyrian royal inscriptions, as well as their genre and style, may determine the “information” they provide and its reliability. See, for example, F.M. Fales, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological, and Historical Analysis (Rome: Instituto per l’Oriente Centro per le Antichita e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicint Oriente, 1981). For information on the political function of Assyrian reliefs, see P. Gerardi, “The Arab Campaigns of Assurbanipal: Scribal Reconstructions of the Past,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin VI:2 (1992), pp. 67–103.
Original link (…jewishhistory.com/jh.php?id=Assyrian&content=content/did_king_jehu4) no longer works.
Did King Jehu Kill His Own Family? (Page Six) (Jewish History.com)
Scholars often use this passage to demonstrate Israel’s strength under King Ahab’s rule, but the numbers in the Kurkh text might well be grossly exaggerated. The inscription is not well-written (there are many scribal errors), so the numbers for Israel might even be the result of scribal error. Or the author may have inflated the numbers to make Shalmaneser’s feat look more glorious.
Original Link (jewishhistory.com/jh.php?id=Assyrian&content=content/did_king_jehu6) no longer works.
What can be trusted however, is the list of the members of the coalition. Shalmaneser would have derived little satisfaction from listing enemies under the wrong names, or from mistaking their countries or titles. Since the names and the places match up well with the biblical material, there is no reason to doubt them. It seems clear that King Ahab of Israel did indeed take part in that battle.
An apparent new archaeological discovery suggests that it was not Jehu who slew Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah, but Hazael king of Syria.
The Tel Dan Stele and its Importance by Gary Young
(…..scriptureinhistory.org.au/Articles/The%20Tel%20Dan%20Stele.htm – no longer works)
The stele was discovered in 1993 and 1994 in several fragments during the excavation of Tel Dan
However, almost as soon as the text was uncovered and published, a storm of controversy arose as to whether the text was authentic
In addition, the text provides more confirmation of the historical details in the Biblical account by its reference to two kings mentioned in the Bible. These were Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel (indeed it is Ahaziah who is referred to as king of the House of David, the term being used in the text as a synonym for the Kingdom of Judah). Another interesting factor is that it also provides some illumination of biblical events: in the Bible, both Ahaziah and Jehoram were killed by Jehu the son of Nimshi, who then succeeded Jehoram as king of Israel ( II Kings 9: 21-28 ). However, the Tel Dan stele claims that the author of the stele (probably Hazael, king of Damascus) killed both these kings.
One line of attack on the stele was to claim that it was in fact a forgery, and that it should accordingly be disregarded entirely.
The inscription, now on show in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem
Precautionary Warning: Paucity of information and suspect aspects regarding it, require that judgment on the Tel Dan Stele be withheld at this time.
Many people find fault with the Bible narratives. They will often say that there is no proof for what the Bible says, but if you remember the fabled city of Troy was also supposed to be a legend, until that is, it was discovered.
For years logical theories abounded that King Tutunkamon/Tutankhamun, dying as he did at a young age, was murdered in a Palace coup. Recent forensic examination of his remains however indicated that he died from infection resulting from a crushed knee.
Wow! Only a century and a half ago, European academics in the “Age of Enlightenment” declared that the Bible (especially the Old Testament) was fictional history. Their primary rationale was that empires such as the Hittites, and kings such as David, didn’t really exist. Well, now we have dramatic “archaeological support” for their existence! Moreover, in recent years, the archaeological finds have increased dramatically!
Although absence of archaeological evidence does not necessarily mean absence of the people, places or events, it may be stated emphatically that no archaeological discovery has ever refuted a Biblical reference. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:
No archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.
Whilst no archaeological discovery has ever refuted a biblical reference, and the information in many non-biblical sources are not trusted by academics because they contain both hyperbole for propagandistic purposes, and various scribal errors; and despite a lack of corroboration between different Assyrian records in identifying Ahab, or mention in the Bible of the Battle of Qarqar; and despite the fact that the Bible is the only ancient document to provide synchronous chronology; and despite the number of times academic opinion has ultimately been proven incorrect, academics continue to insist that what the Bible records is not correct, because it does not match their preferred opinions. (Biblical Infallibility, Divine Inspiration & Academic Deceit)
Although there is no evidence to demonstrate when Ahab died, academics need to kill him off immediately after the Battle of Qarqar, the Assyrian record of which in relation to Ahab’s military strength, they proclaim to be wrong, because otherwise it should have been he and not BenHadad as leader of the coalition. And they do all this despite the fact that the Bible maintains that immediately prior to his death (for 5 years) it was Ahab who was the superior in the Syria / Israel relationship.
In Short, apart from King Ahab’s dubious mention in one Assyrian document, and King Jehu’s name in another, academics have no documentary evidence for their chronologies for these two kings. It must nevertheless be pointed out that the Assyrian records indicate that BenHadad was the leader of the coalition in 848 BC and 845 BC. This issue is discussed in the articles on Ahab, and there is precedent in Assyrian records of misidentification of kings.
Chronological Data in the Bible.
Kings of Judah
Jehoshaphat reigned 25 years 2 Chronicles 20:31 – He commenced to reign in Ahab’s 4th year – 1 Kings 22:41
Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat of Judah reigned 8 years. 2 Chronicles 21:1
Ahaziah son of Jehoram of Judah, reigned 1 year 2 Chronicles 22:1,2
Kings of Israel
Ahab reigned 22 years. 1 Kings 16:29
Ahaziah son of Ahab of Israel commences to reign in Jehoshaphat’s 17th year. 1 Kings 22:51
Jehoram son of Ahab of Israel commences to reign in Jehoshaphat’s 18th year and reigns 12 years. 2 Kings 3:1
Jehu kills Jehoram of Israel (2 Kings 8:24); Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kings 8:27); and reigns 28 years(2 Kings 10:36)
What the Academics Propose:
The following chart is taken from Appendix 4 of the King’s Calendar, and demonstrates the Biblical Chronological Data in true solar years, using 742 BC as the year in which Jehu of Israel commenced to reign. This is roughly what the academics propose as the historical chronological situation.
The Difficulties with this chart.
NOTE THIS SECTION CAREFULLY
While it is possible to make Biblical Chronology fit the picture of Jehu commencing to reign in 742 BC and put Ahab on the throne in 853 BC for the Battle of Qarqar, when you follow the Biblical data down through history, totally weird results occur, the most dramatic of which is that the Syro-Ephraimitic War 734-732 BC falls in the reigns of Uzziah of Judah and Menehem of Israel.
Furthermore, if you follow Biblical chronology backwards in time from 701 BC, the 14th year of Hezekiah, then 740 BC becomes the first year of king Ahaz of Judah which is the 3rd year of Hoshea of Israel, which would leave no king on the throne of Israel to be taken captive in 722 BC when Samaria fell.
For these reasons, no one trusts the Biblical Chronology.
However, The King’s Calendar demonstrates that the value of each year recorded in Biblical Chronology, equals just 336 days – or – 12 months of 28 days of 7 weeks, and forms 12/13ths of the Essene 364 day calendar year.
The King’s Calendar position from Appendix 5 Chart
This is how the King’s Calendar synchronizes the reigns of these kings. Note the reference to Jehoram of Israel’s 12th year redactorial. This indicates what the redactors recorded, but as dealt with in The Life and Death of King Ahab of Israel – and –The Significance of Ahab’s death., they recorded 12 years based upon a calculation that included a two year independent reign for Jehoram’s brother Ahaziah, who came to power and died during Ahab’s reign.
To See the surrounding synchronization of Biblical Data go to Appendix 5 Chronological Chart
For the King’s Calendar Justification of these dates refer to the Rules of Evidence Series.
The King’s Calendar is a mathematical formula which assigns the value of 336 days per Biblical Year. Being Mathematical, it is scientifically testable. If any academic could prove that any particular day, month or year of the King’s Calendar reconstruction of the History of Ancient Israel was wrong, then every King’s Calendar Year would need to be changed.
Unlike historians, there is no possibility for the King’s Calendar to merely compress, expand or write off the biblical data upon which it relies. The King’s Calendar is either right or wrong.
Almost 100% of The King’s Calendar reconstruction of Ancient Israelite History fits into currently acceptable historical chronological perspectives. Where it does dramatically disagree with current perspectives, such as Ahab’s presence at the Battle of Qarqar, no actual evidence exists to disprove the King’s Calendar perspective.
According to the King’s Calendar reconstruction of the Synchronous Chronology of Ancient Israel, Jehu King of Israel came to the throne in 848 BC. This is much earlier than currently accepted, but currently archaeologists and historians have no actual evidence of when he commenced to reign. All that they know is that one record says Ahab was at the Battle of Qarqar in 853BC and another that Jehu was on the throne by 841BC.
They don’t know how to understand the data and prefer to play with admittedly erroneous records than focus on what the Bible records.
For further information on topics associated with this article see: