During Manasseh's 55 year reign, we are informed that he was taken Captive to Babylon by the Assyrian King. Many doubt the authenticity of this story. Today, we will look at the details.
2 Chronicles 33:11-13
Wherefore the LORD brought upon them the captains of the host of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon. And when he was in distress, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And he prayed unto Him; and He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD He was God.
There are at least five issues in relation to Manasseh that are problematical for Historians.
1. How to place his reign chronologically
2. The contradictory Biblical Descriptions of his Character
3. The description of his treatment.
4. The location of his captivity - Babylon or Ninevah
5. The chronological circumstances of his captivity and release
1. How to place his reign chronologically
Despite all arguments to the contrary (Bibliotheca Sacra [ 1978 ] Dallas Seminary Press Vol 146 Oct/Dec p.393 McFall.L. Did Thiele Overlook Hezekiah's Co-regency? p.393) Manasseh's reign commenced at the end of 687 BCE and lasted fifty-five (55) artificial years until 637 BCE.
The problem for historians is that the Bible maintains that the combined totals of the reigns of Manasseh (55 years), Amon (2 years), Josiah (31 years), Jehoiakim (11 years), and Zedekiah (11 years), amounts to one hundred and ten years (110 years), which would require Manasseh to commence his reign in 697/696 BCE, prior to Hezekiah's death. This measurement however is calculated in true solar years.
The 'King's Calendar' however, demonstrates that Manasseh commenced his first artificial year in September of 687 BCE (and therefore his first Regnal year in Nisan Mar/Apr 686 BCE), and commenced his last artificial year in July of 637 BCE (commencing his last regnal year four months earlier in March/April). He reigned 55 artificial or 49 True Solar (Regnal) years.
The 'King's Calendar' has no problem fitting the Biblical Chronology for this king into the Solar year timeframe available. Neither the Bible nor the 'King's Calendar' gives him a co-regency with his father Hezekiah.
End of Days Sale: The king's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran, which has been available to academics at an academic price for 6 years now, has run its course. Before the Merchant Banking contract expires in November 2010, this book is being made available [From August 20th] to 'lay readers' at the all time low price of US$10. This offer only lasts until November 2010. 'PURCHASE NOW'.
2. The contradictory Biblical Descriptions of his Character
The Bible provides us with two views of Manasseh's life. The first, found in 2 Kings 21:1-18 describes his abominable practices, including the burning of his son, the worship of the hosts of heaven, the building of high places, and the shedding of very much innocent blood.
The second account, in 2 Chronicles 33:1-20, gives us the same picture, but from verse ten onwards, describes the judgement of G-d on Manasseh, his repentance and subsequent reform.
Many see these Scriptures as contradictory however if you actually read 2 Kings 21:17, it says, "Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?". So the question begs asking, 'How can they be contradictory accounts?'. The Book of Kings provides a summary of his life, but by inherent admission, does not give a complete account.
The Book of Chronicles provides the same account as in Kings, and then continues further to an account of his captivity, repentance and release. This account is also problematical for historians.
3. The Description of his treatment. The Hooks and Fetters.
Based on the description of his treatment, many have doubted the Story of Manasseh's captivity. Rawlinson G. (1885 pp. 25,26) however claimed that Manasseh's barbaric humiliation described in Scripture is in keeping with an Assyrian custom from which not even royalty was exempt. Prisoners of importance were brought into the presence of a conquering monarch by means of a thong attached to a hook or ring passed through the upper lip, under lip or both. The Biblical story is therefore not fictitious but descriptive of actual practices.
4. The location of his captivity - Babylon or Ninevah
Various attempts have been made to explain why Manasseh was taken to Babylon and not the Assyrian capital Nineveh, but the problem is that no one knows exactly when or why he was taken captive.
To state today, 2,500 years after the event, that a person WOULD NOT HAVE been taken to any place other than the CAPITAL of the Kingdom, is just so much hot air. Who are we to say where a prisoner MUST BE TAKEN?
Whilst Bible Knockers see this ERRONEOUS DESTINATION as proof of the Bible's inaccuracy, it can be seen to be an indication of its very real accuracy. After all, if someone wanted to make up the story, wouldn't you think that they would have at least known the name of the Assyrian Capital?
Of course the reality is, that since no one knows 'when' the Event took place, under 'which' Assyrian King he was taken captive, or 'why' he was taken captive, nothing can be claimed one way or another about the possible or probable destination.
Whilst others may still be trying to work out if and when Manasseh was taken prisoner, the 'King's Calendar' already knows.
5. The chronological circumstances of his captivity and release
The Biblical Story of Manasseh's captivity is provided without any indicative chronological references. We can assume however that since he was only Twelve (12) at accession, it is not likely that his abominable practices, their judgement and his subsequent reform took place any earlier than his 18th birthday in 681 BCE. This birthday coincides with the rise of Esarhaddon to the throne in Assyria.
We must therefore give him some chronological opportunity to commit all these atrocious acts. As Esarhaddon king of Assyria only reigned 11 years (680-669 BCE), we are most likely looking at events that take place during the reign of Ashurbanipal, although Rawlinson (1885) and Brinkman (Cambridge Ancient History, 1991, p.40) both prefer to place it during Esarhaddon's reign.
Ashurbanipal came to the throne of Assyria in 669 BCE (reigning until 627 BCE). At this time Manasseh was about 28/29 (Solar) years old, and we do not know how long he had been reigning in his own right.
According to the Aggadah Manasseh was taken captive during his 22nd year of reign, which according to the 'King's Calendar' was in 667/666 BCE. (Nissan of 667 BCE in true solar years & November 666 BCE in artificial years). If you went to the link above, you will have discovered that the Aggadah is not authoritative, and if you have ever read any of it, you would understand why that is so. It contains many fanciful stories. Nevertheless, according to this piece of folk law, Manasseh was taken captive at an auspicious moment in history.
Ashurbanipal invaded Egypt in 667/666 BCE [ James et.al. 1991, p.208 ].
During this campaign against him, Pharaoh Taharqa managed to flee. There was a subsequent conspiracy that involved, amongst others, Necho of Sais. He was captured and sent to Nineveh (not Babylon). Although others were executed, Necho received lenient treatment, and was reinstated in Sais.
The Story of Manasseh's captivity, if the Aggadah is right, takes place at the same time as another leader was released from his captivity. While there is no suggestion here that Manasseh was involved in any way with this conspiracy, objections to Manasseh's release are without foundation, for the precedent already exists. And what of the issue of the location of his captivity - Babylon, not Nineveh like Necho? Perhaps the location is in fact erroneous, and then again, since we don't know the exact timing or circumstances, it is unreasonable to assume that the location is erroneous.
And what of the 'repentance and restoration' aspects of this story? Well, even if you don't believe the story, the fact is that after c.655 BCE. when Psamtik I expelled the Assyrians from Egypt, the Assyrians lost their influence in the region. It would be in keeping with the didactic tone of Manasseh's repentance, that his captivity occurred just prior to the waning of Assyrian power, so that while still in submission to Assyria, affairs of state became more settled, in keeping with G-d's blessing upon the penitent king, and even from this date, there did remain to Manasseh many fruitful years to practice a more righteous religious reign.
The Bottom line to the issue of Manasseh's Captivity, is that all former objections to the account fall by the wayside in the bright light of the evidence. There are no objections to any aspect of the story that can be substantiated in any way whatsoever. Evidence to substantiate the Biblical story, whilst not 'direct evidence', is sufficient to give credence to what the Bible says is 'true'.
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix Five to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
General formula for Biblical Data conversion:
The formula for constructing the artificial calendar was:
'X' times 364 equals 'Y' days
'Y' days divided by 336 equals 'Z' artificial years.
Values are:
'X' = any given number of 'real/solar' years
364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar
'Y' = number of days calculated
336 = number of days in an artificial year
'Z' = artificial years = 1.083'X' and represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.
To reverse the process by hand:
'Z' years times 336 equals 'Y' divided by 364 equals the Number of 'X' years converted.
To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5:Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE:
The Principle of Linear Causality
The King's Calendar is a very simple approach to Biblical Chronology. It substitutes a value of 336 days for every year listed in Scripture. As far as the Divided Kingdom is concerned, when you use this 336 day year value, the synchronisms actually work. To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
Because it is a mathematical system, the King's Calendar must abide by certain mathematical rules, the most important of which, is that if you change any date for any day, month, or year every other day, month, or year is effected and must also change. It's like a 'domino effect'. Chronological references cannot be 'forced' to fit, and nor can they simply be ignored or 'compressed' as is the usual case with historians and archaeologists.
If any King's Calendar chronological determination disagrees with anything in the history books, it must argue the case as to why the history books are wrong, or why the evidence for an assertion is untrustworthy. If the King's Calendar successfully defends its' position, then the history books cannot be treated as definitive, and if the King's Calendar is 'proven' wrong, then every other chronological reference it provides is also wrong.
Because of this, the King's Calendar Chronological Reconstruction of Israel's history is unique, in that its' methodology can be scientifically (mathematically) tested and demonstrated to be either true or false. Its' chronological predictions are able to be 'proved' or 'disproved'.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and 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 at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
