King Hezekiah of Judah: A man with No Equal in Israel.
PROLOGUE:
Something which many people fail to realise is that the bible, in addition to being a religious text, is also an extensive historical document, which, when combined with extra-biblical Ancient Israelite documents, provides far more chronological and historical information, than is provided by any other ancient civilization. [Starr.C.G. (1991)A History of the Ancient World. Oxford University Press. UK. p.145]
Rules of Evidence: King Hezekiah of Judah: A man with No Equal in Israel
This is the second of a three part series of articles in relation to the lack of evidence offered by Academics for their chronologies of Ancient Israel. Most of what has been written here, appears in other articles.
The focus in this article is the lack of Evidence for Current Academic Opinions in relation to the matters raised.
Unlike the 4 part series: "The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology"this article does not focus on legal argument, but highlights the weaknesses in Academic Opinion (and therefore 'weaknesses in Law'), in relation to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; King Hezekiah of Judah, and the Syro-Ephraimitic War 734-732 BCE.
This article is divided into the following sections:
Introduction
1. Reviewing the data concerning Nebuchadrezzar
2. Nebuchadrezzar to Manasseh
3. The Solar Year Picture.
4. Hezekiah and Sennecherib: 701 BCE
5. When Did Hezekiah commence his reign?
6. The Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses
7. Who was Merodach Baladan?
8. Confusing different Events.
9. Article Summary
Introduction
Within the framework of Biblical History, the periods related to Nebuchadrezzar, Hezekiah and the Syro-Ephraimitic wars, span 150 years, and these articles are not meant to portray that history from a continuous chronological perspective, but rather to see the weaknesses in Academic Opinion, which is often passed off as Historical Fact.
While in Part One of this series, we primarily focused upon Nebuchadrezzar and the divergent chronological perspectives of Current Academic Opinion and the Mathematical application of Biblical Synchronisms as demonstrated by the King's Calendar, in this section, we are briefly going to focus on Hezekiah.
In doing so, we are going to see how impossible it is to rely upon Biblical Chronology, if one applies it from within the standard Solar Year perspective of history. In the process, we will understand why it is that Academics must reject the Biblical chronological data, and we will see how they do so.
Firstly however, we will stop to review some details from Part One of this Three part Series.
1. Reviewing the data concerning Nebuchadrezzar
There are several points to note concerning Nebuchadrezzar and his reign, that were discussed in Part 1 of this Series. In brief, they are:
There is no proof that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 years
There is demonstration that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 42 years.
Nebuchadrezzar ascended in 604 BCE (King's Calendar)
Nebuchadrezzar's First Regnal year was 603 BCE (King's Calendar)
Nebuchadrezzar's last year ended 562 BCE
The Identity of Kandalanu is not yet factually established
No proof exists as to when Kandalanu commenced to reign
Their is no Academic proof that Solomon's Temple was destroyed in 587 BCE
Their is mathematical demonstration that it was destroyed in 586 BCE.
Biblical Synchronisms only work within the King's Calendar Reconstruction
Academics change the Biblical records to suit their own chronologies
The King's Calendar chronology relies mathematically on the Biblical Synchronisms.
King's Calendar Placement of the Reign of Nebuchadrezzar
2.Nebuchadrezzar to Manasseh
The Biblical data for the King's of Israel from Zedekiah to Manasseh totals 110.5 years. Refer Appendix 13.
Zedekiah - 11 years
Jehoiachin - 3 months
Jehoiakim 11 years
Jehoahaz - 3 months
Josiah - 31 years
Amon - 2 years
Manasseh - 55 years
Total : 110.5 years
When you back track these Solar years from the Burning of Solomon's Temple in 587 BCE or 586 BCE, you arrive at around 697 BC as the beginning of Manasseh's reign, and more importantly, as the end of Hezekiah's reign.
(From within the Artificial Calendar however these 110.5 years equal 102 years, and commence Manasseh's reign in September of 687 BCE)
Generally speaking, during these 110 Biblical Years, nothing of any serious chronological consequence takes place. Academics do however attempt to use the Bible to equate Josiah's Death with the Fall of Ninevah and thereby to establish a solid date for the event. There is however no factual basis for this either in the Bible or the Babylonian Chronicles.)SEE: No 11: Josiah to Zedekiah
If you find an Academic who uses the Bible to justify any two events that are significantly separated by Biblical Time, you will find that no matter how they use the Bible to justify their claims, the tabulation of the Biblical chronological Data listed as having occurred between the said two events, will not usually match. How then can it be said then that an academic is justified by what the Bible says, when the intervening Time that the Bible lists, is not accepted by such Academics.
This is the real issue here.
Calculating the Biblical Data in Real Solar Years from a 587 BCE or 586 BCE destruction of Solomon's Temple, makes it Obvious that Manasseh commenced his reign within 3 to 4 years of Sennecherib's invasion of Judah in 701 BCE.
Since 701 BCE is alleged by the Bible to be the 14th of Hezekiah's 29 years, the only way to make the Biblical Data fit history, is to make Manasseh co-reign with Hezekiah. In other words, the chronological data must be compressed. A co-reign does this, and standing on its' own, seems perfectly logical. Unfortunately, when you tally up all the logical explanations for this time period, they ultimately paint a completely illogical picture.
Before going on to discuss the issues, it is fitting at this point to show what happens, when we use Bible Chronology, and give it a face value of 365.25 days per Biblical year.
3.The Solar Year Picture.
Note: The overall Biblical Chronological Data exceeds available history for the parameters it sets. The KingsCalendar however, (assigning a value of 336 days per Biblical year) reduces the Total Solar Year equivalence of the Biblical Data, and in doing so, allows the synchronisms to work, and fit within the parameters that History allows.
However: When you accept Biblical Data as it is and apply to each Biblical Year, the normal 365.25 days of a Solar Year, very strange things happen to the Biblical Synchronisms. For example, Counting from 586 BCE to 701 BCE in literal Solar Years makes:
a) 701 BCE Hezekiah's 24th year not his 14th year.
b) 702 BCE Hezekiah's 23rd year
c) 703 BCE Hezekiah's 22nd year
d) 713 BCE Hezekiah's 12th year
e) 722 BCE (Fall of Samaria) Hezekiah's 3rd year not his 6th year.
f) 724 BCE (Siege of Samaria) Hezekiah's 1st year not his 4th year.
g) 729 BCE Ahaz' 12th year
h) 730 BCE Ahaz' 11th year
i) 730 BCE Hoshea of Samaria 1st year
j) 734-732 BCE Syro-Ephraimitic War – Ahaz & Pekah.
k) 740 BCE Ahaz' 1st year.
The significance of these figures is that
701 BCE is supposed to be [according to the Bible and Historians], Hezekiah's 14th year,
It marks 740 BCE as Ahaz' 1st year
It completely messes up all Biblical chronology in relation to Uzziah, Jotham, Menehem and Pekah.
However When working in Solar years counting down from the currently accepted date for the commencement of the reigns of Jehu (Israel) and Athaliah [Judah], that is, from 841 BCE to 701 BCE, the following is the result.
a) 701 BCE = Ahaz 13 th year
b) 702 BCE Hoshea commences to rule in Samaria
c) 703 BCE Pekah's 28th year.
d) 713 BCE Ahaz' 1st year (18th of Pekah)
e) 722 BCE Jotham's 8th Year & Pekah's 9th Year
f) 724 BCE Jotham's 6th Year & Pekah's 7th Year
g) 729 BCE Jotham's 1st year & 2nd Year of Pekah
h) 730 BCE Uzziah's 52nd year
i) 730 BCE Pekah's 1st year
j) 734-732 BCE Syro-Ephraimitic War must have been fought by Uzziah.
k) 740 BCE Uzziah's 42nd Year & Menehem's 4th year.
The Significance of these figures, is that they again throw all the Biblical data out the window and contradict known history.
The Result: Using Solar Year Calculations to synchronise Biblical Data is insufficient to understand Biblical and Extra Biblical Chronology and Historical Narrative, and contradicts known history.
In order to get around this problem, Historians ultimately have to reject what the Bible plainly says in relation to length of reigns and the synchronisms between reigns. In all fairness however, I must point out here that the King's Calendar will also reject something that the Bible says, but when we get to that, you will understand why.
When each Biblical Year is given the value assigned by the King's Calendar, the Biblical Synchronisms work and align with known history.
Leaving aside the issue of whether Manasseh did or did not co-reign with Hezekiah, we now focus attention on that all important year, 701 BCE.
4. 701 BCE: Hezekiah and Sennecherib
That Sennacherib of Assyria invaded Judah in 701 BCE is perhaps the only thing in relation to the Biblical Narratives upon which academics agree. 2 Kings 18:13 informs us that it was in the 14th year of King Hezekiah that he was besieged by Sennacherib of Assyria.
According to the Prophet Isaiah Chapter 39:5-7 God informed Hezekiah that
Isaiah 39:6 Behold, the days come, that all that is in thy 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.
Isaiah 39:7 And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, whom thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be officers in the palace of the king of Babylon.
Layard (1882, p44) suggests that Hezekiah's children did in fact go into captivity in 701 BCE. [Layard (1882) Ninevah and Babylon: a narrative of a Second Expedition to Assyria during the years 1849, 1850, and 1851. London. J.Murray Publishing company.]
The picture painted by these three pieces of information, is that
1. Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 BCE
2. That this was Hezekiah's 14th year
3. That Hezekiah lost his Children.
Given as previously mentioned, that calculating back from 587 BCE or 586 BCE, the 110 years listed in the Bible for the King's of Judah from Zedekiah to Manasseh, leaves open only two possible options for historians within which to fit the Biblical Data, we are required to accept either that:-
1. 701 BCE was not Hezekiah's 14th year -or-
2. That Manasseh (born subsequent to 701 BCE) was but an infant when he ascended the throne as co-regent.
The Second Point allows us to accept that Hezekiah's 14th year was in 701 BCE and that Manasseh commenced a 55 year reign around 597 BCE.
As Neatly as this fits the puzzle, the further we go back, the more complex the matter becomes.
5. When Did Hezekiah commence his reign?
Logically, if 701 BCE is Hezekiah's 14th year, then he must have commenced his reign in 714 BCE. The trouble with this logic, is that it defies the Biblical chronologies for Hezekiah and King Hoshea of Israel, whose reign ended in 722 BCE.
2 Kings 18:1 says that it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
Hoshea's reign ended in 722 BCE.
He is accorded a 9 year reign.
His predecessor, according to secular historical records, was displaced around 732 BCE.
So Hoshea commenced around 732/731 BCE.
Hezekiah must have commenced around 728 BCE or 729 BCE.
2 Kings 18:9-10 synchronises these two kings reigns, indicating that in 722 BCE when Hoshea's reign ended, Hezekiah had been on the throne for 6 years. If 722 BCE is his 6th year, how can 701 BCE be his 14th year?
In fact when you try to follow the Biblical Synchronisms for this time period, quite a number of them are wrong. The Literal Rendering of the Biblical Data, using 701 BCE as Hezekiah's 14th year, results in many discrepancies, some of which are that:
2 Kings 15:27 synchronizing the reigns of Pekah and Uzziah is erroneous.
2 Kings 15:32 synchronizing the reigns of Pekah and Jotham is in error.
2 Kings 15:23 synchronizing the reigns of Pekahiah and Uzziah is in error.
2 Kings 15:17 synchronizing the reigns of Menehem and Uzziah is in error.
2 Kings 15:19 synchronizing the reigns of Menehem and Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria, is in error.
2 Kings 18:1 and :9-10, fails to synchronise the 7th and 9th years of Hoshea with the 4th and 6th years of any Judean King.
Whilst the Academics might convince you by logic, of what they insist is the real picture, the reality is that when they use the Bible to substantiate their arguments, they are resorting to a total deception. In an article entitled Biblical Infallibility, Divine Inspiration & Academic Deceit and Manipulation I discussed at length the deception of Academics who quote from the Bible. Let me now just quote a few points I made in that article:
If the information in the Bible is no longer correct (for whatever reason), then modern Academics demonstrate a highly unscientific approach to history, when they quote Scripture to support various archaeological and Historical propositions. When they do this, they are quite clearly 'manipulating' the public. No matter how you look at it, Modern Academics are playing a 'self interested and self promoting' game, when they try to beguile readers by quoting from the Bible to support their findings.
If the Biblical data has become so corrupt through the transcription and transmission process, that while originally correct, the data today is no longer correct, it would be pointless for academics to jump on their soapboxes and quote the scriptures as 'proof' of this or that assertion.
If the material was meant to be correct and still is, then Chronological conflict arises between the Bible and history, because the academics have failed to apply the Biblical Chronological information correctly, and we should be wary of listening to them.
Ultimately, we have to face the fact, that modern academics are involved in a deliberately deceptive manipulation of Biblical Texts, in order to get the gullible and the ignorant to accept their findings. If the Bible is a piece of 'rubbish' then academics should stop trying to manipulate people's religious beliefs, by quoting from it.
Having told us that Manasseh's 55 years included a co-regency (about which the Bible says nothing), Modern Historians inherently insist upon a co-regency for Hezekiah with his father when they accept both 2 Kings 18:1 and 2 Kings 18:9,10 and that 701 BCE is Hezekiah's 14th year. (2 Kings 18:13 Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them.)
Hezekiah cannot have commenced his reign in 714 BCE and had 722 BCE as his 6th year, unless he commenced co-reigning with his father Ahaz, in 728 BCE.
Of Course, if Hezekiah did commence in Hoshea's 3rd year, then 701 BCE is not his 14th year, and he died before Manasseh became king.
So logic Tells us that
Manasseh's 55 year reign includes his co-regency
Hezekiah's 29 years do not include his co-reign
He actually reigned 42 years
Hoshea's reign was synchronised with the co-regent Hezekiah, instead of being synchronised with the actual king (Ahaz).
All quite logical isn't it?
Unfortunately, accepting this logic, requires that we accept that the Biblical synchronisms of the reigns of the Kings in Israel and Judah, are at least misleading, if not downright wrong. The Bible, according to Academics, is not exactly a reliable witness.
Since this article is not meant to be a Legal Treatise, the following are merely brief points to note.
In dealing with the historical issues at hand, and in order to arrive at some understanding of the historical realities of those times, we primarily rely on three types of evidences or testimonies.
a. Direct Documentary Evidence (historical documents)
b. Circumstantial Evidence: Non Direct Evidence which lends weight to or support for the direct evidence
c.Expert Testimony: Which takes many forms and endeavours to validate or invalidate the evidence under examination.
a. Direct Documentary Evidence.
In relation to the Chronology of Israel and Judah for this time period, there is only the one source of Documentary Evidence - The Bible. (The Writings of Josephus and others could be included, but ultimately they derive from the Biblical Source Material). Therefore the first question we must ask is; 'Is the Bible reliable in it's presentation of Israelite Chronology?'
The Academic response to this question has always been that the Bible is not a reliable witness. So when we see that Hezekiah's 14th year is 701 BCE, and that his 6th year is 722 BCE, we can agree with the academics, that the Biblical Witness is not reliable, either by virtue of a mistaken chronological presentation, or by virtue of an attempt to deceive us.
In a court of Law, the testimony of a witness, either succeeds or fails. It is never adjusted and interpreted to mean something other than what it is. But the Bible's chronological presentation for Hezekiah (and Manasseh), despite being deemed unreliable, is 'altered' to mean something other than what is stated. Whilst arguments provided to justify this might be seen to be logical, to insist that chronological discrepancies derive from Hezekiah's alleged co-regency, is of itself illogical, for it requires the redactors to have either ignored the primary purpose of providing regnal synchronisms or to otherwise have been mathematically ignorant.
Nevertheless, since no sense can at present be made of the Biblical Synchronisms (unless you follow the King's Calendar Methodology), we just accept that there is no other explanation for the erroneous chronology provided in the Bible for this time period.
b. Circumstantial Evidence.
At present, and to the best of this writer's knowledge, there is no circumstantial evidence that supports the Biblical Synchronous Presentation of the Kings of Israel and Judah, and every writer who deigns to enter into the debate, invariably alters the Biblical Data, to suit their own schemes. But Note that: The same can be said of the King's Calendar, firstly in its' claim that the Biblical year is only 336 days long, and secondly, in its' claim that the redactors misidentified the names, Jehoahaz, Ahaziah and Hezekiah. (But that is an issue that is dealt with in full in the article entitled Assyrian, Babylonian & Israelite History 8th Century.)
c. Expert Testimony.
In the absence of anything other than the Biblical Record upon which to rely for a chronological presentation of the History of the Kings of Israel and Judah; and in the absence of circumstantial evidence, we ultimately must rely upon the experts, upon Historians and Archaeologists, to enlighten us as to the 'truth' of the chronological situation.
If all the experts in this field concurred in all their findings, we might have grounds to give them specific credence, but unfortunately, they do not so agree.
In the end, we are left with mere opinion and presumption. In the absence of real evidence, such reliance is undoubtedly warranted, but we should never forget, that opinion and presumption, is evidence of nothing.
In the final analysis, we must either decide that the Biblical information was provided by 'hacks' and is totally unreliable, or we must presume, that the data provided was meant to be factually correct.
As has previously been stated:
If the information in the Bible is no longer correct (for whatever reason), then modern Academics demonstrate a highly unscientific approach to history, when they quote Scripture to support various archaeological and Historical propositions. When they do this, they are quite clearly 'manipulating' the public. No matter how you look at it, Modern Academics are playing a 'self interested and self promoting' game, when they try to beguile readers by quoting from the Bible to support their findings.
My point here is not that the professionals are necessarily wrong at any given point, but that they are wrong to use the Bible to justify their positions.
For anyone who puts no trust in the Bible, trusting the professionals is not a problem. But if you put no trust in the Bible, why then do the professionals rely upon that untrustworthy document, to insist that Hezekiah's 14th year was 701 BCE.
It would make a whole lot more sense, to simply say that 722 BCE was in fact Hezekiah's 6th year, and that he died in time for Manasseh to commence his reign in 697BCE.
Unfortunately, as much as secular academics may not like to put any faith in the Bible, the reality is that as we keep going back in history, the chronological picture becomes even more confusing.
The problem is that there are no records apart from the bible, which give us any true picture of the political situation in Israel and Judah, for this time period. And what data that does exist confuses secular academics even more.
Faced with 'impossible impasses', they arbitrarily accept and reject whatever Biblical statements that suit their purposes. While they will quote the Bible to justify their chronological schemes, they in fact have no evidence to substantiate their claims. They resort to the only witness they have, and of that witness they repeatedly tell us, it is wrong, misleading, uninformed, and unreliable. If a lawyer relied upon such a witness in a court of law, the case would be thrown out.
Leaving aside now, the issue of Biblical Synchronisms, we are going to take a look at some other issues in relation to Hezekiah, through which we will be able to see more clearly the arbitrary and pontifical nature of Academic Opinion, which is often passed off as 'historical fact'. Of course, there are some 'historical facts', which are undeniably 'factual'. Merodach Baladan's existence and activities, is one such historical fact.
7. Who was Merodach Baladan?
As previously mentioned, the Bible informs us that in his 14th year, Hezekiah was besieged by Sennacherib, and according to the experts, this happened in 701 BCE.
The primary text reading of the Biblical Narratives in relation to this event, suggests that in the same year, that is, in 701 BCE,
Hezekiah fell seriously ill,
He was divinely healed,
and he received a fifteen year extension of life.
The difficulty with this narrative is that Quite Apart from the claim of a Divine occurrence, it additionally alleges that subsequent to his healing, Hezekiah received envoys from Merodach Baladan of Babylon.
what makes this claim impossible to believe, is that apart from a few months in 703 BCE, Merodach Baladan was a 'persona non Grata' in the political scheme of things subsequent to 710 BCE, when he was a defeated and kicked out of Babylon.
Irrespective of Whether Hezekiah was miraculously healed or not, this event involving the envoys of Merodach Baladan, could not have occurred in or after 701 BCE. For those who might wish to argue this point based on hypotheses of a post 701 BCE rebellion, it is important to note that it was precisely because Hezekiah was wealthy and reigning over a stable kingdom, that Merodach Baladan sent envoys. Subsequent to 701 BCE, this could no longer be said to be true.
Merodach-baladan [Marduk-apal-iddina] 722–702 B.C., Chaldaean prince, who usurped (721) the Babylonian throne. Sargon of Assyria put down the allies of Merodach-baladan in Syria and Palestine and eventually drove (c.710) the usurper from Babylon. After Sargon’s death, Merodach-baladan reoccupied (703–702) the throne. During his rule of Babylonia, he strengthened the Chaldaean Empire. He is also called Baladan and Berodach-baladan. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05
If we are going to give any credence to the Biblical Statements concerning the envoys of Marduk-apal-iddina, then we really need to ask; 'How can we believe that the original recorders of this material, and / or the later redactors, managed to report a valid historical event, but failed to get even the decade right?' One purpose in the recording of the event, was to demonstrate the wealth of Hezekiah's Kingdom; another, to teach a lesson about pride; and finally, to record the miracle of Hezekiah's healing and extended life. So how can the most basic event in all of this - the timing - be so totally wrong?
Now before jumping to conclusions and thinking that the King's Calendar actually finds the Biblical record untrustworthy or useless, let me point out that nothing could be further from the truth. As we will soon discuss, the King's Calendar accepts that Chapters 18 and 19 of Second Kings, contains a composite of two different historical events and since the major event mentioned there relates to 701 BCE, all chronological perceptions deriving from the Biblical Narrative are distorted.
The King's Calendar Position is that:
701 BCE is Hezekiah's 14th year
Hezekiah's illness and healing occurred c. 710 BCE
Marduk-apal-iddina's envoys arrive prior to 710 BCE
That 2 King's 18 & 19 are a composite of Sargon's Ashdod Campaign 714 BCE to 712 BCE and Sennecherib's 701 BCE campaign
The King's Calendar furthermore accepts that:
Ahaz, not Hezekiah was the contemporary of Hoshea
The Redactors confused the names of Jotham (Jehoahaz), Ahaz (Ahaziah) and Hezekiah
The Biblical Chronology is correct
The names of three King's have been confused
The following chart which is taken from Appendix 5 (left side/ top tool bar) presents Hezekiah's reign and shows the chronological placements of events.
The King's Calendar Perspective of the Biblical Data Snapshot taken from Appendix 5 (Chart)
The Purpose of this article in Challenging Biblical Assertions, has been simply to demonstrate the futility of listening to Academics quote the Bible to prove their theories.
This series of articles is not about 'proving' that the King's Calendar is right, or that Academics are wrong, but about demonstrating the lack of Academic Evidence to support the current claims made by Historians and Archaeologists in relation to their chronologies of Israel.
When Academics use the Bible to prove or justify their positions, they act in a way that defies logic, and which would in a court of law be unacceptable. The King's Calendar makes only two claims at this point in History
Biblical Years = 336 days
Redactors mixed up the names of three kings
Readers looking for King's Calendar Apologetics can commence with some of the following articles.
The point made in this article, is that while Academics have reasonable grounds to make assumptions, they should not pass these off as facts.In Law, Opinions, Assumptions and Presumptions, are evidence of Nothing.
Now one of the assumptions that historians make, is that 2 King's Chapters Eighteen and Nineteen, confuse two different events. The King's Calendar agrees.
8. Confusing different Events.
The Biblical Record of Sennacherib's Siege in 701 BCE, and the records relating to Merodach Baladan, are very difficult to understand in the light of known history. Most scholars accept that the biblical narrative between 2 Kings 18:17 and 19:37 appears to be a composite of two sieges, with Bright (1981, p 286) believing them to be indicative of a second rebellion subsequent to 701 BCE. [Bright. J. (1981) A History of Israel. 3rd Ed. Philadelphia. Westminster Press.]
Whilst the 'King's Calendar' agrees that the narratives are composites of two events, it sees Sennacherib's siege as the second of the two, with the first being the Ashdod Campaign of 714/712 BCE.
As already mentioned, because the Bible synchronises the reigns of Hezekiah and Hoshea, secular historians accept that Hezekiah was ruling from about 728 BCE. It can hardly be thought strange therefore, if the King's Calendar sees him involved in the conspiracy that lead to Sargon's Ashdod campaign. While Sargon's records cite Judah, Edom and Moab for their part in the affair, he did not take any action against them. [Herrmann, S. 1981. A History of Israel in Old Testament Times. Philadelphia. Fortress Press.page.256 citing Pritchard, J.B. 1950. Ancient near eastern texts: relating to the old testament. U.S.A. Princeton Uni. Press page.287].
An examination of these two police actions in Chapter Eleven of the King's Calendar, demonstrates that there is sufficient within the narratives to indicate a fusion of these two events, and (in brief), offers the following to demonstrate the two.
A) 2 Kings 19:20-34 : The Ashdod Campaign.
From the Archaeological/Historical Record we know that:
1 The Ashdod Campaign lasted 3 years.
2 Judah was involved
3 Jerusalem was not besieged
4 Judah was not attacked
Bearing these historical details in mind, note that the prophecy of 2 Kings 19:29-34 states that:
1. The sign of the prophecy's fulfillment is the three year harvest promise:
* in the first year : eat what grows of itself,
* in the second: what springs from the same,
* in the third: sow, reap, and plant vineyards
2. The Assyrian King would not besiege Jerusalem nor shoot an arrow there
3. The King of Assyria would return home by the way in which he came
This prophecy does not fit Sennacherib's 701 BCE campaign, but fits well with the Ashdod Campaign.
In as much as it is implicitly stated to refer to Sennacherib's invasion in 701 BCE,
it is incorrect in reference to a siege,
and it is not accurate in depicting Sennacherib's presence for three (3) years.
B) 2 Kings 18:13-16 : Summary of Sennacherib's 701 BCE Campaign.
i) Sennacherib's campaign commences.
ii) Hezekiah's request for the siege to be lifted
iii) Hezekiah's offer of tribute.
iv) Cost of tribute announced
v) The tribute is met.
This text provides us with a summary of events. As such it is not meant to be detailed. It is from verse Seventeen (:17) that the details are provided, and reference to Egypt seems more appropriate to the scenario in 701 BCE, than the Ashdod Campaign. (But note also Isaiah 20:1)
C) 2 Kings 18:17 to 2 Kings 19:20 : Details of Sennacherib's Campaign
i) The Campaign commences
ii) The Rabshakeh sent to lay siege to Jerusalem
iii) The Rabshakeh announces terms
iv) The Terms are rejected
v) The Rabshakeh goes to Libnah
vi) Tirhakah prepares to battle Sennacherib
vii) 2 Kings 19:35-36 - An unusual event causes Sennacherib to return home.
From the perspective offered above, we see that 2 Kings 19:20-34 which textually appears within the context of Sennacherib's 701 BCE campaign, is more likely to have been derived from material relating to the Ashdod Campaign.
Like the Secular Historians the King's Calendar, suggests that the redactors confused or fused two different historical events and presented them as one event in Second Kings chapters 18 & 19. What the King's Calendar suggests for this time period, and as explanation for the confusing chronologies, is that the redactors confused the identities of Hezekiah and Ahaz, and additionally, the identities of Jotham and Ahaz. These issues however, will be held over until the next article, on the Syro-Ephraimitic War.
9. Article Summary
When people, especially academics, claim that the Bible is unreliable or frequently incorrect, they ultimately put themselves into hypocritical positions when they then quote from the Bible to demonstrate the accuracy of their theories.
Likewise, people who believe that the Bible contains no errors, demonstrate a hypocritical position when they refuse to believe what the Bible says when it contradicts itself. (Oh! that's right! It never does!)
Anyone who believes that the Bible was personally dictated by God must ultimately reject every attempt to sort through the contradictory Biblical Data, because for them, everything in the Bible is totally and absolutely correct as it stands, even if it is not. On the other hand, those who place no trust in the Bible, naturally see every apparent contradiction and incompatibility with known history, as demonstrable proof that the Bible is worthless fiction.
In this article, I tried to demonstrate the inherent contradiction involved when Academics use the Bible to prove theories and opinions. We must constantly remind ourselves not to accept assumptions, opinions and theories as facts. This applies as equally to religious fundamentalists as it does to the most secular of human beings.
Presented concurrently with this reminder, is the King's Calendar assertion that the reason we have not understood Biblical Chronology and therefore the Biblical Narrative, is that we have simply failed to understand how that chronology was presented.
The King's Calendar position supports neither the idea that the Bible is the Dictated Perfect Word of God, nor the idea that it is worthless fiction. The records found in the Books of King's and Chronicles, are a self stated collection and collation of many writings including official Historical Documents and other records, and as such, are as trustworthy as any other documents from any other age or kingdom. Furthermore, they were originally written with the intention of conveying the correct chronological history of the Nation.
The reason we don't understand the Chronology and Narrative, is that we haven't used a logical scientific approach to the Scriptures. The two approaches have been bigoted faith verses bigoted science. It's time to exercise a little more faith and a little more science.
In this Article, the focus was on Hezekiah.
In Part Three, we continue further back in time, to the reigns of Ahaz and Jotham, and specifically to the Syro-Ephraimitic Wars, to take a look at the fertile grounds (grounds covered in manure), upon which current History has been constructed.
I hope that this current article has been of assistance to you!
Human testimony can seldom acquire the certainty of demonstration. Witnesses not infrequently are mistaken or wish to deceive; the most that can be expected is that moral certainty which arises from analogy. The credibility which is attached to such testimony arises from the double presumption that the witnesses have good sense and intelligence, and that they are not mistaken nor deceived; they are further presumed to have probity, and that they do not wish to deceive.
To gain credibility, we must be assured, first, that the witness has not been mistaken nor deceived. To be assured as far as possible on this subject, it is proper to consider the nature and quality of the facts proved; the quality and person of the witness; the testimony in itself; and to compare it with the depositions of other witnesses on the subject, and with known facts. Secondly, we must be satisfied that he does not wish to deceive: There are strong assurances of this when the witness under oath is a man of integrity and disinterested.
CREDIBLE WITNESS - A credible witness is one who is competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief. In deciding upon the credibility of a witness, it is always pertinent to consider whether he is capable of knowing the thing thoroughly about which he testifies. 2. Whether he was actually present at the transaction. 3. Whether he paid sufficient attention to qualify himself to be a reporter of it; and 4. Whether he honestly relates the affair fully as he knows it, without any purpose or desire to deceive or suppress or add to the truth.
LEGAL DEFINITIONS:
'Direct Evidence is evidence of the facts in issue themselves and will be constituted either by the testimony of a witness who perceived the event or the production of a legally admissible document which constitutes the fact in issue.'(Bates,1985,p.2)
'Circumstantial Evidence is evidence of facts which are not in issue, from which a fact in issue may be inferred. (Bates, 1985, p.2)
Presumption and assumption are not permitted as evidence in legal issues. (See Bates, 1985, p.46)
Opinions, Assumptions and Presumptions are not facts in relation to evidence. Ligertwood (1988, p.284) in discussing 'opinion evidence' makes it clear, that opinion is an attempt to establish a fact from other facts. [For a sociological explanation of why presumption is often accepted as fact, see Bates, 1985, p.46]
Presumption can rightly be described as an attempt to establish as a fact something for which no legal evidence or proof exists.
In law, expert witnesses are not permitted to become involved in final decision making with regard to the 'fact' of a disputed matter or issue. [Gobbo. Et.Al.(1979, p.430) Cross on Evidence 2nd Edition. Sydney. Aust. Butterworths Pty.Ltd.]
LEGAL BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Bates.F. (1985) Principles of Evidence. 3rd Edition. Sydney The Law Book Company Limited.
Freckelton. I.R. (1987) The Trial of the Expert. A Study of Expert Evidence and Forensic Experts. Melbourne.Aust.Oxford University Press.
Gobbo. J.A., Byrne. D., Heydon J.D. (1979) Cross on Evidence 2nd Edition. Sydney. Aust. Butterworths Pty.Ltd.
Ligertwood. A.L.C. ( 1988 ) Australian Evidence. First Edition. Butterworths P/l. North Ryde
Vinson.D.E. (1985) How to Persuade Jurors. American Bar Association Journal 72, 76
Academic Newsletter No 12 Josiah to the Destruction of Jerusalem
Academic Newsletter No 13 A Biblical Contradiction which is Not!
Academic Newsletter No 14 The Chronologies of Josephus
Academic Newsletter No 15 The Burning of the Temple
Academic Newsletter No 16 The Life and Death of King Ahab of Israel
Academic Newsletter No 17 The Significance of Ahab's death
Academic Newsletter No 18 The Septuagint, The Masorete and the Exodus
Kings of Assyria, Babylon and Israel 607 - 595 bce Nabopolassar & Nebuchadrezzar Kings of Babylon - and - Josiah and Jehoiakim Kings of Judah. Dates as per (Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London) Using Babylonian Chronicles B.M. 22047 (p.65) and BM 21946 (p.67) But with a one (1) year adjustment for the Reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar.
607 bce - Sep - Nabopolassar engaged at Bit-Hanunia / Urartu - 18th year - B.M. 22047 Line 1-4
607 bce - Dec - Josiah's 31st year commences
607 bce - Dec/Jan - Nabopolassar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 1-4
606 bce - May/Jun - Campaigning to the north - 19th year - B.M. 22047 Lines 5-7
606 bce - Jun/Jul - Nabopolassar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 8
606 bce - Jul/Aug - Necho heads North for Carchemish
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Nebuchadrezzar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 12
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Josiah of Judah slain
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Jehoahaz becomes king of Judah
606 bce - Sep/Oct - Nabopolassar Heads to Kimuhu - B.M. 22047 Line 12
606 bce - Nov - Nabopolassar captures Kimuhu - B.M. 22047 Line 14
606 bce - Nov - Jehoahaz deposed by Pharaoh Necho - taken to Riblah
606 bce - Nov - Jehoiakim commences - 1st Artificial year commences.
================================================ This article and/or photographs may be freely reprinted providing this box is included and all links herewith (and within the article body) are made/remain active. (c)2003-2006 R.P.BenDedek.
About the author: R.P.BenDedek (from Brisbane Australia) is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com In addition to his academic articles, in which he sets forth Apologetics for and the results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah. He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both on site, and as a contributing newspaper columnist [ http://magic-city-news.com/cat_index_33.shtml ]. He currently teaches Conversational English in China. Visit http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi for more information. ===================================================================
