The King's Calendar' is a computer generated mathematical synchronous chronological presentation of the history of Ancient Israel, as principally recorded in the Biblical books of Kings and Chronicles, and sets forth Apologetics for and the results of R.P.BenDedek's discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Books of the Bible, Josephus,the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.Academic Newsletters: Bible chronology, Bible Dates, Bible Calendars.
Series II - Truth and Error - 2004 Academic Newsletters
Academic Newsletter No.9 Series II - Truth and Error
Archaeology and the Bible Friday 2nd April 2004
The Captivity of Manasseh King of Judah, during the reign of Ashurbanipal.
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.
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'.
Please note that you can follow all dates listed here by reading this newsletter in conjunction with Appendix Five of the King's Calendar.
In the first series of Newsletters, numerous Biblical Situations were touched upon in defense of both Biblical chronology and the 'King's Calendar' Artificial chronology. In Academic Newsletter No 3 (Academic Opinion versus Fact) and Academic Newsletter No 4 (Academic Disagreements - Jotham's governorship), we did in fact touch upon the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. In last week's newsletter Series II Truth & Error No. 9, we looked at Manasseh's captivity.
This Week, I want to revisit all of these issues and put them into a chronological order of events in preparation for issues to be discussed in the coming weeks, such as the deaths of Josiah and Jehoiakim.
Starting with Jotham, we will trace the chronological order of events, and along the way, point out what is true and false in the Biblical chronoloical record.
Jotham King of Judah Timeframe
You may remember that some people have dated Jotham's governorship to the year 750 BCE, based upon references by Josephus to an earthquake at that time. The 'King's Calendar' in fact, commences his governorship in October of 749 BCE. This is the 46th year of his Father Uzziah and the 7th year of Menehem.
In his 5th Artificial year commencing in July of 745 BCE, the son of Menehem of Israel commences to reign. Pekahiah commenced to reign in the 50th year of Uzziah, and reigned two years (2 Kings 15:23). In Uzziah's 52nd and last year (7th year of Jotham's governorship), Pekah killed Pekahiah and began to reign for twenty years.
Error&Truth
ERROR No 1
Pekah of Israel reigned 20 years.
The Bible says in 2 Kings 15:27, that Pekah reigned for 20 years. No one credits him with such a reign. The 'King's calendar' likewise finds this reference erroneous, and although granting to him a longer reign than does anyone else, it demonstrates that in fact he only reigned 12 Regnal/solar years or 14 artificial years. The most logical explanation for this error is that it is a transcription error altering twelve to twenty.
Although coming to the throne in 743 BCE, Pekah's first Regnal year commences in Nisan of 742 BCE, and he dies shortly after his 12 th year commences in 731 BCE. His reign however covers 14 artificial years.
TRUTH No 1
Jotham commences to reign in the second year of Pekah.
Because the artificial year is shorter than the true solar year, by the time that Pekah arrived at the commencement of his First Regnal Year, he was also about to commence his second artificial year of reign. According to 2 Kings 15:32, it was at this time that Jotham commenced to reign for 16 artificial years.
ERROR No 2
Ahaz appeals to Tiglath-Pileser for help against Rezin and Pekah.
According to 2 Kings 16:5 King Ahaz, Jotham's successor, sent to Tiglath-Pileser III for assistance against Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Samaria (Israel) during their campaigns from 734 to 732 BCE.
There are two different accounts of this appeal. In One, the Assyrian King comes to Ahaz' help, and in the other, he does not. Explanation for this error can be found in the fact that it was not Ahaz, but Jotham who successfully appealed to the Assyrian Monarch during the Campaigns from 734 - 732 BCE. References to Ahaz going to Damascus to meet with the King of Assyria, will in fact refer to Ahaz going to meet with Tiglath-Pileser's successor Shalmaneser, before or after the commencement of the siege of Samaria which ultimately resulted in the end of Hoshea's reign.
In August 734 BCE, Jotham commenced his 17th artificial year since becoming governor; as well as his 9th Regnal/Solar year and 10th Artificial year since becoming King. Pekah at this time was in his 9th Regnal Year and 11th artificial year.
TRUTH No 2
Pekah was slain in the 20th year of King Jotham of Judah.
2 Kings 15:30 says that Pekah was slain in the 20th year of Jotham. In May of 731 BCE Jotham commenced his 20th artificial year of reigning in Judah since taking over from his father. It was however only his 12th Regnal year and 13th Artificial year. Pekah had commenced his 12th Regnal year and 14th Artificial year.
ERROR No 3
Hoshea commences to reign in the 12th year of Ahaz.
2 King's 17:1 says that Hoshea came to the throne of Samaria in the 12th year of Ahaz. In fact at this time, Jotham was in his 20th year since he took over from Uzziah; his 13th artificial year since he became king, and his 12th Regnal/solar year, since he became king in his own right.
It was in Jotham's 12th year, not Ahaz' that Hoshea became king in Samaria.
TRUTH No 3
Jotham reigned for 16 years.
Jotham reigned for 16 years 2 Kings 15:32. By the time that Jotham died, he had been on the throne for 23 artificial years, reigning as king for 16 of these artificial years. He did in fact only celebrate 15 Regnal/solar years.
16th Year of Jotham Since he commenced co-regency 8th Solar Year of Jotham in his own right. 9th Artificial Year of Jotham in his own right 10th Artificial Year of Pekah of Israel
Hezekiah commences to reign in the 3rd year of Hoshea.
2 Kings 18:1 In the 3rd year of Hoshea, Hezekiah commences to reign. In fact it was Ahaz that commenced to reign in that year. This was Jotham's last year, and Ahaz' accession year. He does not in fact commence his first artificial year until January of 727 BCE, commencing his first Regnal year at Nisan (March/April). Since we shall soon see that 701 BCE is Hezekiah's 14th year, 727 BCE cannot be his first Regnal year.
ERROR No 5
Hoshea and Hezekiah reigned contemporaneously.
According to 2 Kings 18, The siege of Samaria commences during the fourth year of Hezekiah's reign. This is demonstrably incorrect and instead occurs during the reign of Ahaz
TRUTH No 4
The synchronisation of reigns between Israel and Judah.
2 Kings 18 indicates that the siege of Samaria occurred between the 7th and 9th years of Hoshea and the 4th and 6th years of (Hezekiah - read Ahaz) the King of Judah.
The siege in fact commences in the 7th regnal/solar year of Hoshea in 724 BCE, which is the 4th Regnal/Solar year of Ahaz, and ends in the 9th Regnal/Solar year of Hoshea, in the 7th Regnal/solar year of Ahaz.
The synchronisation is correct.
ERROR No 6
Ahaz reigned 16 years.
Although 2 Kings 16:2 says that Ahaz reigned 16 years, in fact he reigned only 13 Regnal/solar years and 15 Artificial years. The total would be 16 artificial years if one were to add the accession year, which is probably how the error occurred.
TRUTH No 5
701 BCE was the 14th year of Hezekiah.
2 Kings 18:3 indicates that Sennacherib invaded Judah during the 14th year of Hezekiah, and this has been dated by historians to 701 BCE.
Hezekiah commenced his 14th Artificial year in November of 702 BCE. This artificial year lasts until October of 701 BCE. He commenced his 14th Regnal/Solar year in Nisan (March/April) of 701 BCE. In both artificial and real years, Hezekiah's 14th "YEARS" coincide between March and October 701 BCE.
TRUTH No 6
Hezekiah reigned 29 years.
2 Kings 18:2 indicates that Hezekiah reigned 29 years. These are artificial years, the last of which commences in October of 688 BCE. In true solar years he reigned for 27 years, commencing his final year in Nisan of 688 BCE.
TRUTH No 7&ERROR No 7
Hezekiah's lifespan extended by 15 years - 2 Kings Chapter 20.
The events recorded in the Bible concerning Hezekiah's life are a 'mishmash'. The narrative was compiled from numerous records, and much of the detail is confused. The redactors make Hezekiah's healing appear as though it was around the same time as Sennacherib's invasion. From that perspective, Hezekiah did in fact live for another 15 artificial years. THIS IS TRUE.
HOWEVER, the events surrounding his illness and the envoys from Merodach Baladan clearly dictate that the story of the healing belongs to a much earlier time. It is more fitting that the healing occurred not after Sennacherib's invasion, but after Sargon's Ashdod Campaign 714-712 BCE.
Within the details listed in 2 King's Chapters 18-20, one can see that part of the story belongs to this earlier period in the reign of Hezekiah which did not result in a siege of Jerusalem.
It was after this troubled period, and before Merodach Baladan was deposed, that Hezekiah became ill and was healed. The event occurs sometime between 714 and 710 BCE. It is therefore possible to calculate that Hezekiah in fact lived another 25 artificial years. From this perspective, it may be considered that the currently recorded 15 years is either a transcription error, or a later redactorial 'erroneous' correction.
TRUTH No 8
Manesseh reigned 55 artificial years.
2 Kings 21:1 records that Manesseh was 12 years old when he commenced to reign and reigned 55 years. The Bible makes no mention of reigning with his father and nor is it necessary within the artificial chronology of the 'King's Calendar'
His first artificial year commences in September of 687 BCE and his last commences in July of 637 BCE. His true regnal years commence in Nisan of 686 BCE and extend to and include Nissan of 636 BCE.
He reigned 51 Solar years.
TRUTH No 9
The years ascribed to Manesseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah.
Scripture states that Manesseh reigned 55 years; Amon reigned 2 years, Josiah reigned 31 years, and Jehoiakim and Zedekiah each reigned 11 years, for a total of 110 years.
The academics believe this, for if you add these 110 years to the year 586 or 587 BCE (the dates used for the end of Zedekiah's reign), the result is that Manesseh commenced to reign in 696 BCE or 695 BCE. Since Scripture does not mention anything about Manesseh co-reigning with his father, we are at liberty to assume one. THE 'KING'S CALENDAR' DOES NOT.
Manesseh commences co-reigning with Hezekiah in 696 or 695 BCE and ends his reign in 642 or 641 BCE.
Amon commences in 641 or 640 BCE
Josiah commences in 639 or 638 BCE and dies in either 609 or 608 BCE
Jehoiakim commences in 608 or 607 BCE and dies in 598 or 597 BCE
Zedekiah commences in 597 or 596 BCE and dies in 587 or 586 BCE.
ACADEMIC ERROR No 8
Manesseh must as a baby, have co-reigned with Hezekiah.
The 'King's Calendar' chronology for this period demonstrates that this is not born out by the chronological data.
The Biblical Chronological Data as applied by the 'King's Calendar' indicates:
1. Manesseh reigned 55 artificial years from 687 BCE, commencing his first Regnal year in 686 BCE to reign 51 Solar years up until June 636 BCE.
2. Amon reigned 2 artificial years commencing in June of 636 BCE. He commenced his first regnal year in Nisan of 635 BCE, and his second artificial year in May of 635 BCE, and died around about the time of Nisan of 634 BCE. He reigned only one true Regnal Year (and perhaps just made it to his second. I don't have the date for Nisan of that year).
3. Josiah reigned 31 artificial years commencing in April of 634 BCE, and may or may not have commenced his first regnal year at that Time. His last artificial year commenced in December of 607 BCE and ran through to November 606 BCE. He reigned 28 Regnal Years (assuming 634 BCE was his first). Since his son Jehoahaz succeeded him for 3 months, his death occurred no later than in September of 606 BCE, for Jehoiakim to commence his first artificial year in November of that year.
4. Jehoiakim commenced in November of 606 BCE, reigning 11 artificial or 10 solar years until his death between February (11th artificial year) and April 3rd (Nisan) of 596 BCE.
5. Zedekiah commenced his first of 11 artificial years in January of 595 BCE, commencing his first Regnal year in Nisan of that year. His 11th artificial year fell close to his 10th regnal year in Nisan of 586 BCE, and he died sometime between July and August of 586 BCE.
Two important things to note:
1. In what has been presented here, there appear to be only two CHRONOLOGICAL errors within the Biblical Material, and both of them can be seen to be transcription errors.
2. The rest of the errors to be found in the Biblical Material, relate to the "name/identification" of the kings mentioned. When the chronological material "alone" is followed, these misidentifications become obvious. When the identifications "alone" are followed, the listed chronological data becomes untenable.
NEXT WEEK:
Having reviewed these Errors and Truths and put them into chronological perspective, Next week we will continue by examining some of the common errors made by historians in their quest to rewrite Biblical Chronology.
Academic Errors in understanding Biblical Chronology.
As stated in last weeks Newsletter, King Josiah reigned 31 artificial years commencing in April of 634 BCE reigning through to around September 606 BCE.
Current academic opinion however, places his death in 609 BCE. There are four (4) reasons for this.
1. As we saw last week, if you calculate the reigns for Manesseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, there are 110 years allotted them, which, if calculated back from the fall of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE, requires that Manesseh commenced to reign in 696/695 BCE and that Josiah died in 609/608 BCE.
2. That Josiah died while Necho was on his way to assist Assur-Uballit in his final attempt to capture Haran during Nabopolassar's 17th Regnal year.(Wiseman,1961,p.63.Lines 66/67)
3. That Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 Regnal years + an accession year.
4. That Jeremiah 46:2 correctly synchronises Nebuchadrezzar's (first) accession year with Jehoiakim's 4th year, and thereby justifies placing Josiah's death in 609 BCE.
The 'King's Calendar' maintains and effectively demonstrates that all four propositions are incorrect. What follows here is an abridged version of what can be found in Chapter Two of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' in refutation of current academic opinion.
The Arguments against Academic Opinion
1. Manesseh's reign commences in 696/695 BCE:
This is erroneous. While it goes without saying that the 'King's Calendar' clearly demonstrates that Biblical Chronology is provided from within the framework of an artificial construct and that Manesseh did not commence to reign at this time, this however, is not the argument here.
In relying upon Biblical Chronological details for this period, the academics do two extraordinary things.
Firstly, they uncharacteristically treat the data as though it were correct, and this, despite the fact that they blatantly and 'justifiably' deny the reliability of all the chronological data for the preceding fifty (50) years, - and - Secondly, to make the data fit, they insist that a two year old child (Manesseh) was made to co-reign with his father (Hezekiah).
If in dealing with the previous fifty year period they are going to insist that the redactors got it wrong, then upon what basis do they now insist that they have correct the details, especially when Hezekiah had apparently been informed that he would have his life extended for 15 years beyond the 701 BCE invasion.
The basis for their calculation is, by their own admission, completely untrustworthy.
2. Josiah died in Nabopolassar's 17th year - 609 BCE
Based upon the belief that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 regnal years plus One (1) accession year, backdated from 561 BCE when Amel-Marduk ascended to the throne, the Academics have calculated that "THE" Battle of Carchemish occurred in 609 BCE. Therefore, since their other calculations based upon Biblical Chronology also place Josiah's death at this time, Josiah must in fact, have died this year.
"THE" Battle of Carchemish is that referred to when speaking of Pharaoh's assistance to the Assyrian King Assur-Uballit during his final attempt to capture Haran during Nabopolassar's 17th Regnal year. (Wiseman, 1961, p.63. Lines 66 - 67).
HOWEVER, it should be noted that the Bible does not align the year of Josiah's death with the 17th year of Nabopolassar, and nor do the Babylonian Chronicles provide any information in relation to Josiah's death.
There are in fact two Biblical Accounts of Josiah's death, and given their differences, it may be justifiably assumed that they are 'interpretations' of what confusing data was left to the redactors who compiled the Books of Kings and Chronicles.
While the 2 Kings 23:29-30 account mentions that Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt 'went up' to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates and thereby implies that there was still a king of Assyria at the time of Josiah's death, it also states that he was 'killed' at Meggido and his dead body was taken back to Jerusalem.
The 2 Chronicles 35:20-24 account however, does not mention the king of Assyria, and contrary to the Kings account, states that Josiah was wounded, and taken alive back to Jerusalem where he later died.
The fact that they disagree with each other is sufficient "in law" for them not to be used in evidence of anything, and the academics are wrong if they use the Biblical Accounts to support their theories.
FUTHERMORE, the Biblical Account which has been interpreted to mean that Josiah went out to Fight against Pharaoh Necho, has since been determined to be 'incorrectly' portrayed. The meaning of the words 'went up to' do not carry an automatic hostile intent.
ADDITIONALLY, the stated location of the incident has been questioned, with some academics placing this event in another place at a different event to that in 609 BCE.
AND FINALLY, reference to Carchemish in the Chronicles account cannot be read to mean 'THE' battle of Carchemish in 609 BCE, for Pharaoh went to Carchemish to fight on Numerous occasions.
The Bottom line is that the Biblical narratives cannot be used to support the claim that Josiah died during 'THE' battle of Carchemish during the 17th year of Nabopolassar, during Assur-Uballit's final attempt to capture Haran.
That Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 Regnal years + an accession year.
As mentioned above, 609 BCE has been calculated as Nabopolassar's 17th year, during which time, Assur-Uballit attempted to recapture Haran.
The calculation for this date is achieved two ways.
The first method:
The date for the commencement of Nebuchadrezzar's successor Amel-Marduk is known. He ascended the throne during the last year of Nebuchadrezzar in 561 BCE. There is also a business contract dated to that year which records that it is the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar. Therefore since 561 BCE is the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar, by backtracking, 609 BCE becomes the 17th year of Nebuchadrezzar's father, Nabopolassar.
However there are two very important things to note about this record of the 43rd year.
1. Only a quarter of Nebuchadrezzar's reign is covered in the records that exist today, and there are no other records to confirm the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign.
2. There is precedent however, that indicates that sometimes, accession years were included with regnal years. It may yet be demonstrated that this also applies to Nebuchadrezzar, and that the business contract included his accession year.
The Second Method:
In 648 BCE, Samash-sum-ukin who ruled Babylon for his brother Ashurbanipal, died after an unsuccessful rebellion, and Kandalanu became ruler. Britannica
Kandalanu reigned 22 years, followed by Nabopolassar for 21 years, and then Nebuchadrezzar for 43 years. The total number of years they reign is 86, which when backtracked from Nebuchadrezzar's final year, arrives at 648 BCE, the year Samash-sum-ukin died. Everything is nice and neat and apparently in order.
But this only works if 648 BCE is Kandalanu's accession year, and he commences in 647 BCE. The problem with this, is that no one knows who Kandalanu really was, nor when he commenced. Some think that he is Ashurbanipal himself, ruling under a different name, and some think he is a different person. All however assume that the year Samash-sum-ukin died automatically becomes the accession year for Kandalanu.
If as many believe, Kandalanu was an appointee, there is no proof that he ascended to the throne in 648 BCE and thereby counting his regnal years from 647 BCE. If he was appointed in 647 BCE, his first year will commence in 646 BCE and reduce Nebuchadrezzar's reign by one year.
Given the doubts that remain in the minds of some academics as to the 'facts' of his reign, (not to mention the possibility of confusion over his 22nd year - which is another matter), there is no proof at this time that the chronology for Kandalanu is correct.
IN SHORT, there is no proof that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 regnal years, therefore, calculations that place 'THE' Battle of Carchemish in 609 BCE are not incontrovertible.
3. PART TWO:
That Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 Regnal years + an accession year.
As stated in Point 1, the academics, although completely rejecting the chronological details of the previous 50 years, suddenly decided that the chronological references to the kings mentioned in this article, are correct, and from these ESTABLISH the chronology for these kings.
BUT, once you begin to talk about the reign of Nebuchadrezzar, you must once again REJECT Biblical chronological references, because they don't synchronise with his reign.
In Appendix 6 Chart, you will see that if you follow Wiseman's calculations for a 43 year reign for Nebuchadrezzar, commencing with his accession in 605 BCE, then by the standard of the 'King's Calendar', he ascended the throne in Jehoiakim's 2nd year, and commenced his first year in Jehoiakim's 3rd year. This is contrary to Scripture.
But you will say of course: "Why should we trust the 'King's Calendar?"
Well, if you count Jehoiachin's captivity as 37 solar years backtracked from Wiseman's figures for Nebuchadrezzar's 43rd year, then Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah in 599 BCE which is Nebuchadrezzar's 6th year, and THIS CONTRADICTS BOTH THE BIBLE AND THE BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES record of Nebuchadrezzar's invasion. By this standard, Jehoiachin will have commenced to reign two years before the invasion, and thus gives Zedekiah a 13 year reign instead of an 11 year one.
From that same chart, you will see that Thiele APPEARS to give Nebuchadrezzar a 42 year reign plus an accession year. This places Nebuchadrezzar's accession in 604 BCE, commencing his first regnal year in 603 BCE. Just where the King's Calendar Puts it.
When Nebuchadrezzar's reign in shortened by one year, the 17th year of Nabopolassar synchronisation with Josiah's death fails.
The point here, is that the neat package that academics have put together relying on Biblical Chronology, is completely flawed. They do not rely on Biblical Chronology, They manipulate it!(Academic Manipulation of Scripture)
4. That Jeremiah 46:2 is correct and Jeremiah 25:1 is wrong.
Academics believe that Jeremiah 46:2 correctly synchronises Nebuchadnezzar's (first) accession year with Jehoiakim's 4th. year, and thereby justifies placing Josiah's death in 609 BCE.
It has been demonstrated in Chapter Two that the Babylonian Captivity at the time of the Burning of the Temple, occurred in 586 BCE. When you reject that however, the year becomes 587 BCE. When you calculate back in solar year from that point, you arrive at 605 BCE as both Jehoiakim's 4th year and Nebuchadrezzar's accession year. AND ALL IS WELL WITH THE ACADEMIC WORLD.
HOWEVER: When you do that, you are required to mark 597 BCE as the FIRST REGNAL YEAR of Zedekiah, and that is not possible, for the Scriptures clearly states that by the beginning of Nebuchadrezzar's 8th regnal year (597 BCE by this standard), Jehoiachin was already on the throne. That means that Zedekiah did not start his first regnal year till the following year, and therefore cannot reign the eleven (11) years that Scripture assigns to him. IRONICALLY enough, it would require that his 11th year fall in 586 BCE.
What the Academics do to cover this situation, is assign to him only a 10 solar year reign plus one accession year in 597 BCE.
The basis for aligning Jehoiakim's 4th year with Nebuchadrezzar's accession year lies in the book of Jeremiah Chapter 46:2 which states....concerning the army of Pharaoh-neco king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah
Firstly note that this is not the Battle of Carchemish in which Josiah died
This Scripture refers to a battle in Nabopolassar's last year, the year that Nebuchadrezzar ascended to the throne of Babylon. It clearly indicates that Jehoiakim's 4th year is Nebuchadrezzar's accession year.
However Jeremiah 25:1 states.....The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon;
In this quote, the fourth year of Jehoiakim is not the accession year but the first Regnal Year of Nebuchadrezzar. AND SO HERE WE HAVE A CONTRADICTION.
What happens here is that the academics then (for all their use of Scripture to back their opinions) then dismiss this Scripture in favour of the other.
It is not possible in this short article to address this matter, but Chapter Two of The 'King's Calendar' in section Six (6) addresses the issue at length.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS: The academics constantly pick and choose what Scriptures that suit them to provide PROOF that their chronologies are correct.
THE 'KING'S CALENDAR' does not. Furthermore, where there are Errors in Scripture, the 'King's Calendar' is able to demonstrate how they came about.
The Chronologies for the Reigns of the Kings of Judah
1. MANESSEH 686 BCE to 636 BCE
Manesseh reigned 55 artificial years from 687 BCE, commencing his first Regnal year in 686 BCE to reign 51 Solar years up until June 636 BCE.
2. AMON 636 BCE to 634 BCE
Amon reigned 2 artificial years commencing in June of 636 BCE. He commenced his first regnal year in Nisan of 635 BCE, and his second artificial year in May of 635 BCE, and died around about the time of Nisan of 634 BCE. He reigned only one true Regnal Year (and perhaps just made it to his second. I don't have the date for Nisan of that year).
3. JOSIAH 634 BCE to 606 BCE
Josiah reigned 31 artificial years commencing in April of 634 BCE, and may or may not have commenced his first regnal year at that Time. His last artificial year commenced in December of 607 BCE and ran through to November 606 BCE. He reigned 28 Regnal Years (assuming 634 BCE was his first). Since his son Jehoahaz succeeded him for 3 months, his death occurred no later than in September of 606 BCE, for Jehoiakim to commence his first artificial year in November of that year.
4. JEHOIAKIM 606 BCE to 596 BCE
Jehoiakim commenced in November of 606 BCE, reigning 11 artificial or 10 solar years until his death between February (11th artificial year) and April 3rd (Nisan) of 596 BCE.
Zedekiah commences in June 596BCE, commencing his first of 11 artificial years in January of 595 BCE, and commencing his first Regnal year in Nisan of that year. His 11th artificial year fell close to his 10th regnal year in Nisan of 586 BCE, and he died sometime between July and August of 586 BCE.
NEXT WEEK we will look at the chronologies for the Death of Jehoiakim, the accession of Jehoiachin, and the reign of Zedekiah.
As stated last week, Josiah's death occurred near to September of 606 BCE, in the 19th year of Nabopolassar; not as Academics believe, in the 17th year during the Babylonian battle with Assyrian/Egyptian troops at Carchemish.
While it was not mentioned in last week's Newsletter, the real significance of the 'King's Calendar' determination of 606 BCE for Josiah's death, is that from this chronological perspective, (with the necessary one year shift in the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar), Josiah's death and the subsequent events of the following months, can be seen to synchronise with the recorded events in the Babylonian Chronicles for Nabopolassar's 19th year.
In July/August of Nabopolassar's 19th year (606 BCE as per King's Calendar), Nebuchadrezzar was in Carchemish and returned to Babylon a month later (August/September). This then appears to be the time in which Necho was on his way to Carchemish, and Josiah was killed. Upon Josiah's death, Jehoahaz his son took the throne, but three months later was removed by Necho, who put Jehoiakim on the throne.
According to the Babylonian Chronicles, (BM 22047- Line 12 /13), in Tishri (Sept/Oct) of that year, Nabopolassar mustered his army and traveled to Kimuhu to meet the renewed threat of Egyptian attack down the Euphrates Valley. He captured Kimuhu in Kislev (Nov/Dec).
Josephus, in his account (Antiquities 10:5:2 (81) - Whiston (1993, p271 ) states that as Necho returned from battle 'he sent' for Jehoahaz to come to him to the city called Hamath, which belongs to Syria. Second Kings 23:33 maintains that Necho put Jehoahaz in bonds at Riblah in the land of Hamath.
FROM THIS YOU MIGHT PERCEIVE that the 'King's Calendar' arguments against Academic opinions concerning a 609/608 BCE death of Josiah, were not merely self justifications, but credible arguments that provide a solid foundation for an alternative Biblical Chronological placement of the event in Nabopolassar's 19th year, and this, achieved in synchronisation with the record within the Babylonian Chronicles.
Josiah in fact died in 606 BCE during the 19th year of Nabopolassar, prior to the successful recapture of Kimuhu by Nabopolassar in Kislev of that year.
Jehoiakim came to the throne of Judah in November of 606 BCE, just three months after Josiah's death. Whilst there are many issues that could be addressed in this newsletter, the specific issue of interest is the circumstance of Jehoiakim's death. CHAPTER 3: Jehoiakim 606 BCE to 596 BCE : Apologetic in relation to King Jehoiakim of Judah - 2. Jehoiakim's Death
The matter of Jehoiakim's death is problematical, for while the Babylonian Chronicles mentions only one siege of Jerusalem and one king taken captive, the Biblical book of Chronicles indicates that there were in fact two sieges and that both Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin were taken captive; and while Josephus mentions that Jehoiakim was killed, the Book of Kings story makes no mention of his murder, but merely says he died, and thus appears to indicate that it was a natural death.
The difficulty for academics is to try and marry the Biblical narratives with the Babylonian Chronicles, when in fact they don't synchronise chronologically. This results from an incorrect understanding of Biblical Chronology due to its' artificial nature, and additionally, because the Babylonian Chronicles being both a summary of events, and not being Judeocentric, OMITS mention of one of the three named Biblical kings during this period of time. Academics must therefore COMPRESS Biblical events to make it all fit together.
Although the Bible and Josephus make it quite clear that when Jehoiakim ceased to pay his tribute to Nebuchadrezzar (which he had done for 3 years), Nebuchadrezzar came up to Jerusalem and captured him (Chronicles) and killed him (Josephus), Academics insist, (because they can't synchronise events) that Jehoiakim must have died earlier, and that Jehoiachin had already taken the throne before Nebuchadrezzar arrived, and this, despite Biblical mention of his captivity.
At this point, it cannot be stressed enough, that Academics literally 'pick and choose' Biblical chronological material on the sole basis of whether or not they are useful in supporting academic opinions. From the perspective of the 'King's Calendar', this is completely unnecessary, for the Scriptures do indeed synchronise with the extrabiblical records.
According to the 'King's Calendar', in 600 BCE (currently placed at 601 BCE based on a 43 year reign for Nebuchadrezzar), King Nebuchadrezzar during his 4th year, met and battled with Pharaoh Necho on the borders of Egypt. His 4th year covers both the 6th and 7th artificial years of King Jehoiakim, and the battle itself occurs in December during the 7th artificial year (although Josephus places it during his 8th solar year based on the erroneous Jeremiah 46:2).
The Battle was a stalemate, but at that time (before or after the battle), Nebuchadrezzar placed Jehoiakim under tribute. During Nebuchadrezzar's 5th year he remained in Babylon. This constitutes the 7th and 8th artificial years of Jehoiakim.
Jehoiakim is said to have paid tribute for 3 years, after which he ceased. He commenced at the latter end of 600 BCE, and by the end of 597 BCE. he refused to pay. This brought a response from Nebuchadrezzar, who in December of that year left Babylon for Judea.
Jehoiakim's 11th artificial (Biblical) year commenced on February 20th of 596 BCE - the 7th year of Nebuchadrezzar. By April 3rd, he was dead, and Jehoiachin was on the throne.
The Babylonian chronicles whilst recording that Nebuchadrezzar besieged Jerusalem on Adar 2nd or March 5th 596 BCE. does not mention the death of the king. It does mention however that the (ONE) king was taken captive and replaced by another. Therefore Academics assume that this refers directly to Jehoiachin.
The four documentary evidences of these events provide the following information:
A) 2 Chronicles 36:5-10 makes it appear that both Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin were taken captive.
B) 2 Kings 23:36 - 24:17 says that Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, which appears to imply that he died naturally - but nevertheless he died.
C) Josephus Antiquities 10:6:3 (96) - 10:7:1 (102) records that Nebuchadrezzar slew Jehoiakim by throwing him before the walls.
D) The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. 21946 Rev Line 11-13 says that On the 2nd of Adar (March), Nebuchadrezzar seized the city and captured the king appointing a king of his own choice
The real problem for academics in working out the exact circumstances is that all four records of the events of this year, are in conflict with each other in one way or another. The 'King's Calendar' perspective is that:
1. The Second Chronicles account confuses two events.
2. The Babylonian Chronicle is a summary of events regarding three kings - not two.
3. The King's Account contains all the relevant material, except Jehoiakim's murder.
4. Josephus' account, contains all the relevant information except for erroneous chronologically synchronistic references to Nebuchadrezzar's regnal years.
The four pieces of documentary evidence available to us, contain all the necessary information to piece together the sequence of events. Whilst there is no need to believe one account more than another, it is necessary to be aware of the differences in accounts.
When one considers such things as the origins of the particular accounts, the time at which they were written, and their particular purpose, the differences become understandable. Such differences, far from discrediting the accounts, enable us to see with clarity, the solid core of information that they wish to convey.
It is apparent from these four pieces of documentary evidence, that it was against Jehoiakim that Nebuchadrezzar marched, and that he did on Adar 2nd 596 BCE, capture and kill him. In his place, Nebuchadrezzar appointed Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin. Three months later he 'sent' for Jehoiachin, took him captive to Babylon (where he remained 37 years), and installed Zedekiah on the throne.
The following is a reconstruction of the chronologies for Nebuchadrezzar, Jehoiakim,Jehoiachin and Zedekiah during 597/596/595 BCE.
The 'King's Calendar' places the captivity of Jehoiachin in 596 BCE not 597 BCE as most (not all) academics now do.
If the Biblical chronological material is provided in ordinary solar years, for him to have been taken captive in 597 or 596 BCE. requires that he remained prisoner until 561 or 560 BCE. Both of these dates are incorrect.
To have been released in 562 BCE. AFTER 37 YEARS, requires that his first regnal year was 598 BCE with an accession year in 599 BCE. But both of these dates are incorrect.
If Jehoiachin was released in his 37th ARTIFICIAL year, then given that he WAS released in 562 BCE, his first artificial year must be 595 BCE. 596 BCE will be his accession year, since he commenced DURING Jehoiakim's 11th artificial year.
Nevertheless, Jehoiachin commenced his first Regnal/solar year in Nisan OF 596 bce, which fell on April 3rd 596 BCE. You can see these details on this chart.
If the Biblical Chronological Details are considered to be correct, then they are provided in artificial years.
Zedekiah
The difficulty for students of the Bible when it comes to errors, is deciding when something is in fact an error. On some occasions however, there can be no doubt. It is hard to ignore such blatant erroneous statements as that Zedekiah was both the Uncle and Brother of Jehoiachin, for such are the claims of the Chronicles and Kings accounts.
Leaving the subject of errors aside for a moment, let us now look at some chronological details of Zedekiah's reign.
Zedekiah was appointed king when Jehoiachin was removed by Nebuchadrezzar in June of 596 BCE. Since this is the 11th year of Jehoiakim (and the Accession year of Jehoiachin), it becomes Zedekiah's accession year. His first artificial year commences in January of 595 BCE, and his first Regnal/Solar year begins in Nisan of 595 BCE.
We are informed that Zedekiah also rebelled against Nebuchadrezzar, so that on the tenth day of the tenth month of his ninth year (around March of 587 BCE), Nebuchadrezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. The siege lasted about eighteen months, until on the ninth day of the fourth month of his eleventh year (around 18/19th July 586 BCE), a breach was made in the city walls. Zedekiah fled the expected carnage, only to be caught on the plains of Jericho. He was taken to Nebuchadrezzar who was at Riblah. His sons were slain in his presence before he himself was blinded and taken prisoner to Babylon.
On the seventh day of the next month (around 15/16th August 586 BCE), the great temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. (7th day of the 5th month as per the Babylonian Calendar: the 'King's Calendar' equivalent is 10th day of the month. Jer 52:12)
With the Temple Destroyed, the nation defeated and its' king in captivity, the nation entered into what is termed the Babylonian Exile.
This is not however where we finish with Zedekiah.
The Fall of Jerusalem - A Biblical Contradiction which is not a Contradiction
We finished last week with the fall of Jerusalem in the reign of Zedekiah, in 586 BCE. Gainsayers of the Bible like to point to contradictions within it as proof of its unreliability. Right from the beginning of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' I state that the underlying premise of my research, was that 'contradictions are not real'. Today I want to demonstrate how necessary this approach was to unlocking the mystery of Biblical Chronology.
Apparent Bible Contradiction
Jeremiah 32:1 records that that Jerusalem fell in the 10th year of Zedekiah which was the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar.
2 Kings 25:8 records that Jerusalem fell in the 11th year of Zedekiah which is the 19th year of Nebuchadrezzar.
How can they both be right?
Take a look at the Divided Kingdom Chart and see for yourself, that both of these references are correct.
LEFT: 1st Col: Zedekiah's Artificial Years
LEFT: 2nd Col: Zedekiah's Solar Years
RIGHT: 1st Col: Nebuchadrezzar's Artificial Years
RIGHT: 2nd Col: Nebuchadrezzar's Solar Years
Jerusalem did in fact fall in accordance with both of these Scriptural References!
Solar Year Reference: Zedekiah's 10th SOLAR year was his last year, and Nebuchadrezzar's 18th. Solar Year
Artificial Year Reference: Zedekiah's 11th ARTIFICIAL year was his last year, and Nebuchadrezzar's 19th Artificial Year
Some may like to dispute the findings of the 'King's Calendar', and some may believe that there are no errors in the Bible. The 'King's Calendar' however, demonstrates quite effectively that the Bible is an accurate Historical document, which, while containing some errors, does, through the eyes of the 'King's Calendar', demonstrate itself to be totally reliable in understanding the History of Israel and Judah, and could, if it was only allowed, assist in provide valuable assistance to historians currently seeking to find answers to chronological puzzles both there and in other places.
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. (Continued at bottom of the page.)
'Secret of Qumran' Variance with History!
Overall, there are but a few junctures at which the King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran, is at serious variance with currently accepted history. These include:
1. The Burning of the Temple:
The year in which the Temple was burned has been fluid for many years, and while 587 BCE is the current fashion, the 'King's Calendar' offers mathematical validation for 586 BCE. Academically however, it is not a major issue.
2. Uzziah to Hezekiah:
Whilst there may be some objection to the 'King's Calendar' reconstruction of history during this period, no one to date has been able to successfully 'synchronise' the synchronous data provided in Scripture, or successfully married it with accepted history. Indeed, the 'King's Calendar' experiences its finest moment, and demonstrates Scripture's utter accuracy within an artificial construct, at this point in history. It demonstrates that apart from a one year discrepancy in the data provided for the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, only one scriptural chronological reference (to Pekah) is truly incorrect, and this has been known to all. It follows the biblical chronological data only, and from a Southern Kingdom viewpoint.
3. Hazael of Syria c. 849 BCE
While 842/841 BCE is the current date for the succession of Hazael to the Syrian Throne, this is based upon the 'first' archaeological records to mention him, and there can be no sustainable argument to oppose the 'King's Calendar' assertion of a significantly earlier starting date.
4. The Death of Ahab.
This is the only variance with history for which there is no direct evidence that the 'King's Calendar' is correct. Nevertheless, all the circumstantial evidence, based upon the legal principles of 'Evidence' and 'Testimony', would, in a court of law, favour the testimony of the 'King's Calender', over that of current academic opinion based upon the 'Kurkh Stela' of Shalmaneser. The astronomical mathematical probabilities involved in the entirety of the 'King's Calendar' in conjunction with its legal arguments, clearly override all academic insistence that the Kurkh Stela is a trustworthy document.
5. The Exodus
The current basis for placing 'The Exodus' in the thirteenth Century, rests upon very flimsy if not prejudiced grounds. The 'King's Calendar' demonstrates that the Scriptural Narrative, the Archaeological evidence, and the details provided by Josephus, do provide substantive support for the 'King's Calendar' chronological placement of this and it's associated chronological events. There is, even without the 'King's Calendar', very little unbiased evidence of a 13th Century placement for the Exodus. The Exodus occurred in the Fifteenth Century BCE.
Truth and Error Series Conclusion
While the basic assertion of the 'King's Calendar' is that the Damascus Document's Age of Wrath indicates that the artificial calendar originates in Dead Sea Sect's 364 day calendar, there is no direct or corroborative evidence, to indicate that they invented or inserted the artificial calendar into the historical books. There is circumstantial evidence however, that at least one descendant branch of the 3rd Century Palestinian 'proto-Essenes', were aware of it, and used it in reference to the 'Age of Wrath' material in the 'Damascus Document.' There is also direct evidence, that knowledge and use of the artificial calendar, still existed as late as 104 BCE.
The original reason for encrypting the historical chronological data of the historical documents, cannot be stated with any degree of certainty. There are possibilities and there are possibilities. What is certain, is that it was almost completely finished by the time the Septuagint was prepared, and that it is incomprehensible for it to have begun earlier than the collation of those documents in the fifth century BCE.
I do hope you have enjoyed this TRUTH & ERROR series. Next Month we begin Series III entitled: Extra free glimpses, wherein we shall be looking at some of the results of the 'King's Calendar' reconstruction of Israelite History, that are not currently available to viewers online.
R.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
SERIES III
EXTRA FREE GLIMPSES
King's Calendar Academic Newsletter - Archaeology and the Bible
Commencing this week I bring to you some of the results of the 'King's Calendar' that are not currently available in the online edition. We commence this week with Josephus.
In the previous series, some attention has been given to Josephus' chronological references. We have for example noted the following:
1. That his reference in The Jewish War, Book One - Chapter III [Cornfeld 1982, p.25. Ch. III (1) 70.] that from Cyrus to Aristobulus 471 years elapsed. We noted that while he changed this figure to 481 years in Antiquities 13:11:1 [Cornfeld, 1982, p.25 ], the original figure is correct in artificial years for the stated parameters, and that the latter was correct in solar years but for a different set of paramenters.
2. We noted also that in The Jewish War Book 6:10:1 (440) [ Cornfeld, 1982, p.452 ], Josephus stated that between King David and Titus 1179 years elapsed. We saw 'how' he came by this figure, and noted that his errors were based in a failure to understand that most of the figures with which he was provided were 'artificial'.
3. We noted that according to Josephus, that from the Departure from Egypt to (586 BCE.) 1062.5 years elapse [Antiquities. Book 10:8:5 ] and noted that this reference leads us to 1554 BCE, and aligns with opinions in relation to the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt.
4. We have noted other things as well, from erroneous figures (and how they occurred) in relation to King David and the Babylonian Exile; Solar References that were erroneous because he left out the reign of Queen Alexandra; to information not Biblically recorded in relation to the manner of the death of King Jehoiakim.
In this newsletter I wish to provide some more examples and specifically intend to do three things:
1. Introduce you to another erroneous chronological reference provided by Josephus and demonstrate how the error occurred.
2. Introduce references which contradict Biblical Chronological records, though not all are incorrect.
3. I'm going to provide you with three charts that list the number of years that each king of Israel and Judah reigned. One chart will give you the Biblical (Artificial) figures. The second chart will show you how the figures change when references are synchronised, and the third chart shows you what was the true SOLAR YEAR length of Reign for each King.
"...the ten tribes of the Israelites were removed out of Judea nine hundred and forty-seven years after their forefathers were come out of the land of Egypt, and possessed themselves of the country......"
The Date for this removal was 722 BCE, the Fall of Samaria under Hoshea of Israel.
This figure of 947 years elapsing between the exodus and the fall of samaria in 722 BCE is written off by everyone as a complete fantasy, for it would require that the exodus occurred in 1669 BCE.
While the reference is wrong however, it is not fanciful.
As previously mentioned Antiquities 10:8:5 states that between the Exodus and the Burning of the Temple, 1062.5 years elapse, and as also previously mentioned, these years refer not to the Mosaic Exodus but to that of the Hyksos from Egypt, and pinpoint the year 1554 BCE, which falls in the middle of current academic speculation.
The Breakdown of that ARTIFICIAL 1062.5 year figure is:
589 (ARTIFICIAL) Years from EXODUS TO DAVID + 473.5 (ARTIFICIAL) years from David to the Burning of the Temple.
Breaking Down the 1062.5 years
Since the matter at hand is the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE, we can reconfigure the breakdown of the 1062.5 years and divided it into two different parts:
Exodus to 722 BCE
Plus
722 TO 586 BCE
When we do this however the result is 914.5 years from Exodus to 722 and 148 years from 722 to 586 BCE.
This is at variance with Josephus' 947 years from Exodus to 722 BCE, and would require that we reduce the 148 years from 722 to 586 BCE., to 115.5 years. There is a variation of 32.5 years.
As has previously been stated, it is usually possible to deconstruct Josephus' chronologies.
In this case, Josephus' intention appears to have been to subtract the time difference between the Fall of Samaria (722 BCE) and (586 BCE) the Fall of Jerusalem (136 Solar Years) from 1062.5 years, to arrive at a balance of years that he presumed would apply to the period between Exodus and the fall of Samaria.
This ought to have resulted in the following equation :
1062.5 less 136 = 926 years.
Remembering that Josephus was unaware of the artificial construct, any years he personally calculates will be in solar years.
What he appears to have done is subtract the time difference between 701 BCE, when Sennacherib invaded Hezekiah in Judah, and the Exile in 586 BCE., or 115 Solar years.
From his original source quoting a time span of 1062.5 years between the Exodus and the Babylonian Exile, and which he believed to be recorded in True Solar years, Josephus erroneously deducted 115 solar years (701 - 586 BCE), instead of 136 years (722 - 586 BCE), resulting in a 947 year calculation for the period 'Exodus to Fall of Samaria', instead of 914.5 years.
These 914.5 artificial years then appear to relate not to the Mosaic Exodus, but to the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt during the 16th Century BCE. Refer to Josephus ChartAppendix 12 Precis Page.
2. Contradictions to the Biblical Record.
Within Josephus' chronological references, there are a few references to the lengths of the reigns of certain kings during the Divided Kingdom period that do not match the information provided in the Biblical records. I would like to draw your attention to them for they are not all wrong.
THE REIGN OF OMRI:
1 Kings 16:23 states that "In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, and reigned twelve years; six years reigned he in Tirzah" This Scripture appears to state that he commenced his 12 years in Asa's 31st year, but a perusal of the other related references indicates that it was in Asa's 31st year that he commenced his Six (6) year sole reign.
HOWEVER Josephus in Antiquities 8:12:5 states that Omri reigned 6 years in Tirzah commencing in the 30th year of king Asa of Judah. In Appendix Five one can see that both of these references are correct.
From Josephus perspective, Omri commenced his six years in Tirzah in the 30th SOLAR YEAR OF ASA'S REIGN, whilst 1 kings 16:23 indicates that Omri ascended to the throne (of the one Nation) in the 31st artificial year.
THE REIGN OF ATHALIAH
According to Josephus 9:7:1 Athaliah reigned 5 years. Within Appendix Five it appears to be correct, but it is not. Athaliah's 6th Artificial year commenced in October 844, and her 6th Solar Regnal year ought to have commenced in Nisan of 843 BCE. Had it not, then Joash would claim 843 BCE as his First Solar Regnal Year. The Synchronisms do not appear to support this. So we can only assume that while technically Josephus was incorrect, we might assume that she died very shortly after the New Year (Nisan) so as to not in any practical sense, be considered to have reigned her 6th year.
THE REIGN OF JEHU
2 Kings 10:36 states that Jehu reigned 28 years. Josephus in Antiquities 9:8:1 says it was for 27 years. Either we have an error in transcription in relation to the artificial calendar, or an error in Solar year reckoning, for Jehu reigned 25 solar years.
THE REIGN OF JEHOAHAZ OF ISRAEL:
According to Antiquities 9:8:5 Jehoahaz son of Jehu of Israel, reigned for 17 years commencing in the 20th year of Jehoash of Judah. The Bible however states that he reigned for 17 years commencing in the 23rd year of Jehoash of Judah - 2 Kings 13:1. Both of these references are correct, for in the one it refers to artificial reckoning and in the other to the solar year reckoning.
THE REIGNS OF JEHOASH OF JUDAH AND JEHOASH OF ISRAEL
According to Josephus Antiquities 9:8:6 and 2 Kings 13:10 Jehoash of Israel commenced to reign in the 37th year of Jehoash of Judah. From these we can assume that Jehoash of Israel commenced during his father's reign. However, it can also be demonstrated that the reference has a solar year application. Jehoash of Israel's first REgnal/SOLAR year commences in Nisan of 806 BCE which is the 37th REGNAL/SOLAR year of Amaziah. These references can be seen as both artificial and solar year references.
THE REIGN OF JEROBOAM II
In Antiquities 9:10:1 Josephus says that in 15th year of Amaziah, Jeroboam commenced to reign for 40 years - not the 41 Years of 2 Kings 14:23. In Appendix Five you can see that in all, Jeroboam reigned only 37 Solar Years, therefore Josephus reference cannot be to Solar Years. Its' variation from Scripture can be seen as a calculation commencing one year later than the presentation in Appendix five, based on the 41 years of the Biblical record. The Biblical record actually requires his to share both his first and last years. Josephus has not included both of these years.
THE REIGN OF UZZIAH
In Antiquities 9:10:3 Josephus writes: 'After the same manner did Uzziah, the son of Amaziah, begin to reign over the two tribes in Jerusalem, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Jeroboam'. THIS IS CORRECT IN SOLAR YEAR SYNCHRONISM.
3. The Three Charts of the Reigns of the Kings of Israel and Judah.
The original premise of research in 'The King's Calendar', was that contradictions are only apparent, but not real. This premise facilitated in the discovery of the reality behind apparent contradictions. As we have seen in section two, some contradictions are NOT TRULY CONTRADICTORY, they are just references based within a different chronological approach. We have previously noted this in reference to the apparently contradictory references to the Burning of the Temple and the release of Jehoiachin by Amel-Marduk.
In the following photograph you can see the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah for the period of the divided kingdom. The reigns are presented from three perspectives. The first two columns on the left represent the original data quoted in the Scriptures. In the second set, we can see the adjustment that occurs when the reigns are synchronised according to Scripture. In the third set, we see the actual length of reigns in Solar years.
For those of you who may not have quite understood why Biblical History does not fit with regular history, these charts demonstrate how inflated the Biblical figures actually are. Next week we will continue the EXTRA FREE GLIMPSES theme, but still continue with 'erroneous' Scriptural chronological references. Till Then.....
Definition: King's Calendar Chronological Research
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
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
Academic Newsletter No. 15
Friday May 14th 2004
The Burning of the Jerusalem Temple in 586 BCE by Nebuchadrezzar
While last week's newsletter primarily concerned the chronologies of Josephus, this week we will turn solely to Biblical References, and while staying with the 'Extra Free Glimpse' theme, I want once again to deal with 'Scriptural contradictions'.
At various times throughtout these Series of Newsletters, attention has been drawn to some 'apparent' Scriptural contradictions, which, under the scrutiny of the 'King's Calendar', are found not in fact to be 'contradictory'.
The most famous of these are the dates provided for the Burning of the Temple in 586 BCE.
THE BURNING OF THE TEMPLE:
Jeremiah 52:12 records that this event occurred on the 10th day of the 5th month of that year, and 2 Kings 25:8 records that it occurred on the 7th day of the 5th month. These are in fact two different chronological perspectives, the one being artificial and the other being the Babylonian.
JEHOIACHIN'S RELEASE:
Second Kings 25:27 informs us that this event occurred in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile on the 27th day of the twelfth month, while Jeremiah 52:31 informs us that it occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month. These are also two different chronological perspectives for the same event.
NEBUCHADREZZAR'S REIGN
Jeremiah 32:1 synchronises the tenth (10) year of Zedekiah with the Eighteenth (18th) year of Nebuchadrezzar. This is correct in artificial and Solar years.
Second Kings 25:8 synchronises the burning of the Temple in Zedekiah's Eleventh (11th) year, with Nebuchadrezzar's Nineteenth (19th) year which is also correct in artificial years.
Jeremiah 52:28,29 in reference to the two exiles (596 BCE and 586 BCE), records that they occured in the 7th and 18th years of Nebuchadrezzar. These are provided from the Babylonian Calendrical system of recording Nebuchadrezzar's reign in Solar Years.
None of these references are incorrect, even though they all appear to be contradictory.
THE REIGN OF AHAZIAH OF JUDAH:
2 Kings 8:25 & 9:29 give apparently contradictory dates for Ahaziah's succession to the throne. Ahaziah King of Judah was the son of Jehoram and grandson of Jehoshaphat.
2 Kings 8:25 says that in the twelfth year of Jehoram the son of Ahab, Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign, while 2 Kings 9:29 says that in the eleventh year of Jehoram the son of Ahab, Ahaziah began to reign over Judah.
Within the perspective of the redactors, both of these references are correct, one being the artificial figure whilst the other is the solar Figure. However, as a factual matter, both of these figures are incorrect, for there is a factual error in what the redactors wrote for this time period. This factual error is that to which we shall turn now.
AHAB TO JEHORAM OF ISRAEL & JEHOSHAPHAT TO AHAZIAH OF JUDAH.
The Biblical picture:
Ahab came to the throne of Israel during the 12th Artificial year of Omri, his father. This was also both the 38th (January) and 39th (December) artificial years of King Asa of Judah, and both years fell in 883 BCE. {In fact this was Asa's 36th Solar Year).
Joshaphat (Asa's son) commences his first artificial year in October of 880 BCE, which is Ahab's 4th artificial year (1 Kings 22:41). As you follow the synchronisms, you come to an unusual problem, which has remained unsolvable except by the 'King's Calendar'.
Ahab's 22nd and final year commences in May of 863 BCE and extends to April of 862 BCE. He died sometime within this period. But this period of time was also Jehoshaphat's 19th ARTIFICIAL year, AND 18th SOLAR/REGNAL year. So far no problem.
But according to 1 Kings 22:51 Ahab's son Ahaziah ascended to the throne during the 17th year of Jehoshaphat and reigned for 2 years, ie, the 17th and 18th years of Jehoshaphat. This then means that he coreigned with Ahab, while Ahab was still alive. After Ahaziah's accidental death, his brother Jehoram succeeded to the throne during the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, thereby indicating that Ahaziah did not reign two full years. Nevertheless, Ahab was not yet dead.
Furthermore, Jehoram of Israel, son of Ahab, reigns (so say the Scriptures) for only 12 years. Note This!
No matter how you work the figures at this point, the Scriptural references do not sychronise. Jehoram of Israel came to the throne during Jehoshaphat's 18th of his 25 years.
Jehoshaphat has therefore 7 artificial years of reign left.
Jehoshaphat's son Jehoram of Judah reigned for 8 years.
Jehoram's son Ahaziah reigned for 1 year.
This brings us to a total of 16 years between the death of Ahaziah of Israel (during the 18th year of Jehoshaphat) and the death of Jehoram of Israel during the one year year reign of Ahaziah of Judah (grandson of Jehoshaphat).
There are 4 unaccounted years.
THE 'KING'S CALENDAR' SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION:
I shall provide here only the simple observations of the 'King's Calendar'. {The full details of the argument are found in Chapter Six}.
Chronologically, from the Death of Ahab to the Death of his son Jehoram, 14 Solar years elapse. Since Jehoram is provided with a 12 year reign and his brother is assigned a 2 year reign, we can conclude one of two things.
1. Ahaziah had an independent reign of two years, and Jehoram had an independent 12 years, in which case the Biblical synchronisms are completely incorrect - or -
2. The synchronisms represent the historical facts (including that there were only 14 solar years left to the Dynasty after Ahab's death) But, at some point, someone, failing to note the significance of the synchronisms with Jehoshaphat's reign, they assigned Ahaziah a two year independent reign out of the 14 SOLAR years that belonged to Jehoram.
This is the picture painted by the Biblical Synchronisms
But This
is what the Synchronisms are meant to Portray
Ahab died between May of 863 BCE and April of 862 BCE. during Jehoshaphat's 19th artificial year BUT 18th Solar/REgnal year.
Jehoram (Ahab's son) commenced his first ARTIFICIAL YEAR on April 17th 862, and his first SOLAR/REGNAL year in Nisan of that year (march/april).
Jehoram reigned 14 Solar years commencing his first Solar/regnal year at the same time as Jehoshaphat commenced his 19th Solar year AND Jehoram reigned 15 artificial years commencing his first artificial year in Jehoshaphat's 20th artificial year.
Note: If the references to Jehoshaphat's 17th & 18th years are SOLAR YEAR REFERENCES, then Jehoram in fact ascended to the throne during Ahab's last year, that is, during Jehoshaphat's 18th solar year. As Jehoshaphat reigned only 23 solar years, then there were left to Jehoshaphat 5 years, which, added to the 8 year reign of his son Jehoram and the one year of his grandson Ahaziah, amounts to a total of 14 years, during which Jehoram of Israel reigned.
Regarding 2 Kings 8:25 & 2 Kings 9:29
I mentioned earlier that both these references were correct from the redactors perspectives, and they are. If one assigns Ahaziah of Israel an independent two year reign, followed by his brother's 12 independent years, these two scriptures are correct. Ahaziah of Judah would have ascended to the throne during the 11th SOLAR - and - 12th ARTIFICIAL year of Jehoram of Israel, and commenced his first solar/regnal year during Jehoram's 12th SOLAR year. Because of the error in relation of the independent reign of Ahaziah of Israel however, the TRUE SITUATION is not recorded. Ahaziah of Judah did in fact commence his first year during the 14th SOLAR / 15 th ARTIFICIAL year of Jehoram of Israel.
Of course the two above mentioned Scriptures are not the only ones that cause trouble for chronologists for this period of time. The one which proves most interesting to the above painted scenerio is found in 2 Kings 8:16 - Jehoram of Judah commenced to reign in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel.
While it does not appear to be so, it is in fact correct. Jehoshaphat died during the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel, and therefore Jehoram of Judah does indeed commence in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel. But we can't end the problem at this point, for 2 Kings 1:17 informs us that Jehoram of Israel commenced to reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah. On the surface this appears to be a contradiction, but it is not, for Jehoram of Judah co-reigned with Jehoshaphat.
The 'King's Calendar' cannot be precise is stating which year this coreign commenced, for it all depends on what the redactor had in his mind. There are 3 options.
1. 865 BCE: Jehoram of Judah commenced to co-reign with Jehoshaphat during his 17th year; NOTE THAT it was during this year that Ahaziah of Israel commenced his co-regency with Ahab. (This speaks volumes about the pact between Jehoshaphat and Ahab).
2. 864 BCE: Jehoram of Judah commenced his co-reign at the time of the death of Ahaziah of Judah (and the accession of Jehoram), during Jehoshaphat's 18th year, in which case, during both JEHORAM'S 2nd year, Jehoram of Israel commenced his true accession year upon his father's death.
3. 863 BCE: Jehoram of Judah commenced his co-reign the year before Jehoram of Israel commenced his first SOLAR REGNAL year in 862 BCE.
What was covered in this newsletter was in fact a 17 year period from 865 BCE to 849 BCE., or from Jehoshaphat's 17th year & Ahab's 20th year, to the deaths of Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel. For the Academics among you, there are two very obvious chronological points which stick out, and we will commence with the first of these next week.
For the time being, I hope that what you have read today has made for a more simplified understanding of Chapter Six of 'The King's Calendar : The Secret of Qumran'.
R.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
King's Calendar Academic Newsletter No.16
Archaeology and the Bible
Friday 21st May
The Life and Death of King Ahab of Israel.
Last week we looked at Biblical contradictions in relation to Ahab's sons Ahaziah and Jehoram. These synchronous contradictions commenced during Ahab's final years. Today I want to expand on previous mentions of Ahab, and shed some insight into the problems that his life and reign cause secular reconstruction of Ancient Near Eastern History. Before I do that however, I would draw your attention to one 'TRUE Biblical Contradiction'.
Rehoboam of Judah (Son of Solomon) and Jeroboam of Israel (who took control of the 10 tribes upon Solomon's death), commenced in the same year, and as mentioned last week, Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel, died in the same year (both being slain by Jehu)
*Side Note:*
Most academics kill off Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel around 842/841 BCE. If you count back 95 or 98 years from there, you have Solomon dying around 940 - 936 BCE. This would be considered a 'little early', but would pass as a general reference to Solomon's death. Continuing back the other 80 years of David and Solomon's reigns however would put David on the throne around 1020BCE. This would not be acceptable to Academics. Interestingly enough when you calculate the chronologies from the deaths of Ahaziah and Jehoram in 842/841 BCE to the Fall of Samaria in 722 BCE, (9th year of Hoshea and 6th year of Hezekiah) a period of only 120 years elapse whereas the Bible records 165 years for the Southern Kingdom of Judah and 143 years for Israel. There is not only a 22 year discrepancy in the Biblical figures [that only the 'King's Calendar' can resolve], but an extra excess 23 years to be accounted for.
If you calculate the chronological details provided for the lengths of the reigns of the various kings in both kingsdoms, you find that the time lapse between the stated parameters for the southern Kingdom of Judah (95 years), is different to that recorded for the Northern Kingdom (98 years). The Chart in Appendix 5 makes it obvious why.
AHAB & The Battle of QarQar
Biblical chronology is so unreliable in the eyes of secular and religious academics that were it not for the lack of other records, they would not rely on the Bible at all. From Solomon's death until 842/841 BCE, there are only Three 'Other' references to events in Israel. These are:
1. Pharaoh 'Shishak's' invasion shortly after Solomon's death; (not applicable to this discussion)
2. The battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE in Which one of two 'almost identical' archaeological records lists King Ahab as a member of the coalition against the Assyrians;
3. and thirdly, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser identifies Jehu as the King of Israel who paid tribute to him in 841 BCE.
From points 2 & 3 above, you can see how logical it is that if Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser just 12 years after the Battle of Qarqar, that Ahab must have died immediately after the battle, and the balance of FOURTEEN (14) Solar years that must pass in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel until the deaths of Ahaziah and Jehoram, take place within these TWELVE (12) years. {If you can't fit these 14 Solar years into the 12 years available, you can always count back from 841 BCE and have Ahab die in 856-855 BCE prior to the Battle of Qarqar, but that defeats the purpose, for as "EVERYONE KNOWS", Ahab was at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE because the 'Kurkh Stela' names him specifically, even though his name is the only thing missing from the identical record on 'Throne Base Inscription'.}
In 'The King's Calendar' Chapter Seven: The Battle of Qarqar: 853 BCE - a long, detailed and polemical 'LEGAL' argument is undertaken to repudiate current Academic claims. The Issue of Ahab's death is the only issue for which the 'King's Calendar' has no substantive support and so must argue 'legal principles' involved in 'evidentiary testimony'.
Whilst the 'Kurkh Stela' and 'the Throne Base Inscription' are "Direct Evidence" of the Battle of Qarqar, Academics acknowledge that they are Full of Lies (propaganda), and even then they failed to get their stories straight about Ahab's presence at the Battle.
They are not "Credible Witnesses". The content of the Bible on the other hand, whilst legally constituting Direct Documentary Evidence, has provided no record of the battle, and so cannot provide 'direct evidence of Ahab's participation or otherwise'. It can however, offer "Circumstantial Evidence" against it.
Since Academics put Ahab's death in 853/852 BCE, and Biblical Direct Evidence equates this with Ahab's 22nd year and Jehoshaphat's 19th year, there are 16 Biblical years in Judah and 14 Biblical Years in Israel, until Jehu takes power. The 'Biblical Direct documentary Evidence' provides circumstantial evidence that 853 BCE is not the year in which Ahab died. Of course in a court of law it would be argued that the Bible contradicts itself at this point and is therefore unreliable as a witness. The Court, declaring it to be an unreliable witness would 'require' that no future Biblical evidence be presented by archaeologists and historians in support of their claims. Take the Bible away from them and they quite often have Nothing to work with to substantiate their claims.
Of course, if the court accepted the overwhelming testimony of the 'King's Calendar', then the witness of the Biblical Narrative would be accepted as sufficient repudiation of the witness of the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser.
In the few years preceeding his Death, Ahab had proven himself superior to BenHadad of Syria, yet according to the Kurkh Stela, Benhadad was the leader of the coalition. The Biblical Evidence would indicate otherwise. The Bottom line is: Ahab was not at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. He had been dead for a decade. If anyone, it was Jehoram his son who joined the coalition in this Battle.
'King's Calendar' Chapter Six Review No. 1:
There is only one piece of 'direct evidence' connecting Ahab with the Battle of Qarqar.
Despite there being a second record of the battle, there is no corroboration of Ahab's participation in the battle.
The documentary direct evidence can be shown to be unreliable
Direct evidence is accepted to be susceptible of fabrication
There is no 'independent' testimony to 'corroborate' the claim of the Kurkh Stele in regard to its identification of Ahab.
There is no circumstantial evidence to indicate Ahab was a participant in the Battle
There is circumstantial evidence to indicate that details contained in the direct evidence are 'actively or passively' erroneous; i.e. they result from error or fabrication.
Ahab was not a leader of the coalition
The Last Years of Ahab
The 'King's Calendar' reconstruction of the events leading up to Ahab's death, relies upon the record of the Biblical Narrative, and the assumption that First Kings Chapter twenty-two is the chronological continuation of Chapter Twenty [ The Encyclopaedia Judaica:'Ahab' Vol 2, p.438 ]. That is to say, that the Three years of peace spoken of in 1 Kings 22:1, is the result of the pact with Ben-Hadad of Syria, in 1 Kings 20:34
The 'King's Calendar' requires that Ahab died between May 863 BCE and April 862 BCE., and given that Spring is the usual time for battles, we will assume that Ahab died in the Spring, i.e. between March/April and June/July of 863 BCE. We will also assume that the event at Ramoth Gilead, was organised between Ahab and Jehoshaphat sometime during or prior to winter (to provide sufficient time to organise the event), even up to a year in advance.
EVENTS LISTED IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:
a) Ahab slain in Battle at Ramoth Gilead 863 BCE.
Ahab's twenty-second year commences in May 863 BCE. Since battles usually take place in the spring, he probably died within a few months of this date. 2 Chronicles 18 provides details of the pact between Jehoshaphat of Judah and Ahab of Israel to retake Ramoth-Gilead. During the battle, Ahab, although disguised, was struck by an arrow, and died later that day.
b) Ahab and Jehoshaphat meet (1 Kings 22:2) during 864 BCE.
It is unlikely that the decision for Ahab and Jehoshaphat to march together to retake Ramoth Gilead, was made too hastily.
1 Kings 22:2 says that these plans were concocted during the third year of peace with Syria. We might legitimately conclude that the plans that they made were intended to be effected during the fourth spring. Therefore we conclude that the battle took place in the fourth year, and that 864 BCE is the third year of peace.
c) The Three Year Peace with Syria. 1 Kings 22:1
It is difficult to determine the extent of a three year peace.
If the spring of the year following Ben-Hadad's defeat is considered the first year of peace, then the three years of peace (1 Kings 22:1) can be counted as those from and including the Spring of 866 BCE to 864 BCE. (Since the 3rd year is 864 BCE, the second will be 865 BCE, and the first will be 866 BCE)
d) Ben-Hadad's defeat at Aphek in the Spring of 867 BCE. (1 Kings 20:26)
Ben-Hadad was defeated by Ahab at Aphek, the result of which was a three year peace. Depending upon whether the three years commences as of the following spring, or whether it includes the 'spring' in which the battle occurred, this battle will have been fought in either Spring of 867 BCE or perhaps 866 BCE.
For our purposes here, we will conclude that the battle occurred in 867 BCE.
e) Ben-Hadad's siege of and defeat in Samaria in 868 BCE (1 Kings 20:20)
If we assume that the events of 1 King's 20:1 (Ben-Hadad's siege of Samaria) and 1 Kings 20:26 (Battle at Aphek) are consecutive annual events, then it can be assumed that the siege of Samaria in 1 Kings 20:1 occurs in 868 BCE.
A reconstruction of events then for this period of time would be:
Next week this general topic of disagreement with Academic theory will be continued through discussion of two separate issues:
1. Syria during the reign of Ahab
2. The Moabite Stone (Rejected by Academics)
R.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
Series III
Academic Newsletter
Archaeology and the Bible No.17
Friday 28th May 2004
The Significance of Ahab's Death
Archaeology and the Bible No.17
Last Week's Newsletter ended with a chart [see below] demonstrating that according to the Biblical Record, for Five or Six years prior to Ahab's death, he held the superior hand in military affairs in his region.
This is at odds with the Kurkh Stele's reference to BenHadad being the leader of the coalition, if one accepts that Ahab was in fact a part of that coalition. Given that Academics put his death immediately after Qarqar in 853 BCE, Ahab must surely have been BenHadad's superior as the Bible indicates and which would in fact be indicated by the Kurkh Stele's reference to the size of Ahab's Chariot force. While the Academics deny the accuracy of this reference to the strength of his forces, they do accept as reliable that BenHadad was the leader, and continue to maintain that Ahab was a part of the Coalition.
This week we take this thought a little further and take a look at BenHadad and Syria.
The Significance of Ahab's death.
If in fact Ahab's death occurred immediately after the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE, it would be anomolous to have him as a subordinate to BenHadad, a King who was effectively his inferior.
The 'King's Calendar' indicates that the events of Chapters Twenty and Twenty-two of First Kings, demonstrate that Ben-Hadad was not yet a strong military leader at the time of Ahab's death, and that the events they describe, certainly occurred well prior to the Battle of Qarqar (approximately 14 years earlier), before he came to prominence as leader of the Syro-Palestinian coalition.
If we follow the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 22:47, which is to say 3 Kings 16:28, and have a deputy ruling not Edom but Syria during Jehoshaphat's reign, then the 'King's Calendar' suggests that by the beginning of Ahab's reign, Ben-Hadad I was deceased and that Ben-Hadad II, was a minor. From this perspective then, Ben Hadad II was only just beginning to exercise his military and political muscle in 868 BCE when he besieged Samaria (1 Kings 20). It would be sometime before he would become leader of the Syro-Palestinian Coalition which withstood Shalmaneser in 853 BCE.
Placing his death circa 850 BCE, the 'King's Calendar' would give Ben-Hadad II a reign of at least 18 years. His minority would date from around 883 BCE to around 868 BCE (at which time he was old enough to lead his troops and be drinking himself drunk 1 Kings 20:16), a period of about 15 years. With a Fifteen (15) year minority and a further reign of 18 years (868-850 BCE), Ben-Hadad II will have reigned a total of around 33 years, until his murder by Hazael.
Objection to this interpretation seems certain, but it appears to be more plausible than accepting that the leader of a strong coalition could be defeated by a vassal kingdom, and remain in that subjection right up to the stand-off against Assyria at Qarqar.
The 'King's Calendar' reconstruction of the reigns of
Ben Hadad I & II therefore would be:
Ben Hadad I Pre-893 BCE to 883 BCE (10+ years)
Regency 883 BCE to Pre-868 BCE (15 years)
Ben Hadad II Pre-868 BCE to 850 BCE (18 Years)
The 'King's Calendar' demonstrates that Ahab died 863/862 BCE, and did not participate in the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.
Whilst the 'King's Calendar' does not dispute the date for the Battle of Qarqar, it does dispute that Ahab belonged to the coalition. Ahlstrom (1993, p.578 Footnote 2) points out that a second record of this battle recorded on Shalmaneser's throne base fails to mention Ahab, indicating that he was not one of the leaders of the coalition. This assumption is made without extending the possibility to indicate that Ahab was not in fact there.
Even had Academics not argued that the factual details of the Battle are erroneous and untrustworthy, the fact that the throne base inscription fails to name Ahab indicates that there is no corroboration between the two documents, and, even if it had, such testimony must, in order to be considered 'corroborative', be independent in nature. This still would not have been the case. The Throne Base Inscription, as a piece of Direct Documentary Evidence, does not implicate Ahab in the battle of Qarqar.
So what is the basis for 'insisting' that the Kurkh Stela is correct? Only that it fits the academic chronological schemes. The Battle of Qarqar occurred in 853 BCE and Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser in 841 BCE. Since Jehoram of Israel reigned 12 years after Ahab, the data fits the academic chronology. It does so however at the expense of the data recorded for the kingdom of Judah. Furthermore, to insist that Jehoram reigned 12 years because the Bible says he did, is to indulge in blind folly, and makes academics the 'arbiters' of what is correct and incorrect in Scripture.
But no only do they pick and choose what biblical references are to be considered correct, they do the same with archaeological evidence. Firstly they choose the Kurkh Stela over the Throne Base Inscription (presumably the first record of the event), and secondly, they throw out Mesha's Stele - The Moabite Stone - which provides chronological information pertinent to Omri and Ahab.
The Witness of Mesha's Stele.
Known also as the Moabite Stone, this archaeological record claims that Omri Occupied Medeba (Moab) and together with his 'son' ruled over it 40 years, that rule ending halfway through the reign of Omri's son.
2 Kings 1:1 informs us that after the Death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel. Here we have an apparent contradiction for we must assume from the Stele that Omri's son means Ahab and that he was still alive when Moab found her freedom.
2 Kings 3:4-27 likewise informs us that when Ahab died, the King of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel, so King Jehoram marched out of Samaria at that time and mustered all Israel.
'Common sense' dictates to one and all that the record left by Mesha is sheer hyperbole. It is just so much hot air. But logic is not necessarily synonymous with common sense. Logic dictates two things:
1. Either the Moabite Stele is completely false, since it disagrees with the Biblical Narrative, and by extension the direct evidence of the Kurkh Stele - or -
2. The Biblical record and the Moabite Stone both speak of the same events, and historians have failed to see the logical and demonstrable connection ie. Omri's Son is not Ahab, but Jerhoram : His Grandson.
The 'King's Calendar' indicates that Omri commenced to reign in November of 894 BCE (effectively 893 BCE). If we apply the details from the Biblical Narrative and the Moabite Stone to this date, the following picture emerges.
i) Omri's reign commences November 894 BCE
ii) Israel has suzerainty over Moab 40 (solar) years (893 - 853 BCE)
iii) In total Omri and his son Ahab reign 31 solar years ( 893 to 862 BCE)
iv) Mesha's rebellion occurs c.854 BCE Nine (9) solar years after Ahab's death.
v) This is the year before the Battle of Qarqar if the 40 years is 'exact/literal'
vi) If the 40 years is an approximate, then the event will have occurred after the Battle of Qarqar.
vii) 2 Kings 3:4-27 implicitly involves Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, therefore Mesha's first rebellion can have occurred no earlier or later than 862 BCE and 857 BCE respectively (Jehoram's First year and Jehoshaphat's death), which is between four (4) and nine (9) years earlier than Qarqar.
viii) Omri's son referred to by Mesha actually means 'grandson'.
ix) In 849/48 BCE, four (4) years after the battle of Qarqar, the House of Omri and Ahab perished (in both Judah and Israel). With the deaths of Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel, Israel (Omri's house) perished forever.
If we assume that the 'King's Calendar' placement of Omri is correct (and who can contest it?), and admit that 'son' is an ancient acceptable way of saying descendant (See Bright, 1981, p.248, footnote 56), then the information in the Moabite Stone and the Biblical narratives synchronise and corroborate. Not only do they corroborate each other, but they demonstrate that Ahab had been dead a decade prior to the Battle of Qarqar. In this manner does the Moabite Stone act as witness against the testimony of the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser.
Biblical Chronology, Mesha's Stele, and the Throne Base Inscription of Shalmaneser, All Speak Against the Kurkh Stela of Shalmaneser in the placement of Ahab at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.
Copyright 2011/2012 is held by the nominated authors on this article page.
About the KingsCalendar Publisher
R.P.BenDedek is the owner and Editor of KingsCalendar.com which was originally set up to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran'.
Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air 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.
During the current economic downturn, this book has been dramatically reduced in price but will eventually rise as the economy improves.
Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
R.P. BenDedek writes social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News in Maine USA.
