APPENDIX TWO: Research Proposal

There are three important aspects of the research proposed herein:

i) It is Empirical (Mathematical)
ii) It is Historical (Biblical & Ancient Near East)
iii) It is Original. No previous research of this type exists.

The proposition is that the ancient chronological data contained in the books of the old testament, were tampered with and encoded into an artificial calendar, herein referred to as the 'King's Calendar'. That code/calendar has now been deciphered, and the data can now be synchronised with known history and be proved correct.

Introduction
One of the most baffling problems in the study of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern history, is that the Biblical chronological data for the divided kingdom, is neither internally synchronous (between Israel and Judah), nor externally synchronous (with known ancient near eastern history). Deductive reasoning suggests that either the biblical material is grossly erroneous, or that it has in some fashion been encoded. Refer to Appendix One   

Hypothesis
The hypothesis herein presented, is that the chronological data contained in the biblical historical books:

i) Has been encoded
ii) Is correct as it stands;
iii) Is a reliable source of historical data, and that,
iv) The encoding process was still extant as late as 104 BCE.

One example from three different Jewish chronological sources will be presented in demonstration of this code, with the Biblical Historical example being comprised of an overview of the data for the period Uzziah to Hezekiah (Menehem to Hoshea), that is, 755 BCE to 701 BCE.

Contribution to Knowledge
This research will open up a whole new field of evidence in the reconstruction of ancient near eastern history, allowing historians, archaeologists, and religious scholars to more accurately place and evaluate events, especially those mentioned in the Biblical sources.

Literature Review
Many writers have tried to reconcile the Biblical Chronological Data with currently accepted Ancient Near Eastern history, the most recent and renowned being E.R.Thiele (1) 

Thiele (1966, p197) insists that while the original records and redactorial copies were unbelievably accurate, the final redactors of the book of Kings were not as aware of various situations, particularly during the 8th century BCE (Uzziah - Hezekiah), as we are today. He therefore alters the natural rendering of the data. 

This reworking of the data is common to all researchers and writers in this field as demonstrated by the charts below, which illustrate how different writers interpret the same biblical data in the light of current academic views of ancient near eastern history.

Kingdom of Judah

Kingdom of Israel

The variety of conflicting dates and lengths of reigns is due principally to general mistrust of the biblical data, and preference for Assyrian and Babylonian records, despite the fact that they can be several hundred years younger than the events they record and are accepted to be erroneous and misrepresentative. (2)   Refer Appendix Two

Precedence is given to other ancient texts over the biblical ones, principally through poor methodology, arising out of religious prejudice. (3)

The Gap in current Knowledge and Research
No satisfactory apologetic has ever been provided for the current state and unreliability of chronological data contained in the Bible, Josephus, and the Damascus rule. (Between 5% and 13% in excess of real history)

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, four particularly pertinent facts have been acknowledged.

i) The sect was precise in its copying of material.
ii) Their copies of the Masora (written up to a thousand years prior to our earliest manuscripts) are almost identical (4)
iii) They had their own peculiar calendar (5)
iv) They had a penchant for mysteries, hidden things, and secrets. (6)

What has never been addressed, is the relationship that may exist between this mysterious and secretive sect, and the mysterious biblical chronological data.

The purpose here is to show a common link between the chronological data contained in the Damascus Rule (The Age of Wrath), Josephus' chronological data, and the Biblical chronological data; and to demonstrate that:

i) The data is encoded
ii) The data is correct as it stands,
iii) It synchronises internally and externally,
iv) That the data (being the most extant, consecutive, chronological history of any nation in antiquity) will prove to be the measuring rod by which the history of the Ancient Near East might be measured.

Methodology 
For a more specific discussion of the methodology refer to Appendix Ten in Table of Contents

This will be demonstrated by the application of a mathematical formula to the mentioned sources of data. The formula is based on and believed to arise out of the 364 day calendar of the Essenes/Dead Sea Sect. Their calendar was divided into 52 weeks of 7 days, and is equivalent to 13 months of 4 weeks of 7 days. When 'years' are recorded in terms of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days, the process effectively lengthens true history by 8%.(the Biblical data is excessive by 13%).

The formula is:

'X' solar/agricultural years, multiplied by (x) 364 days = 'Y' days
'Y' days divided by 336 = 'Z' artificial years.
By this process, 12 solar years is recorded as 13 years.

Assumption One:
The data provided in the mentioned sources is recorded in 'years' of 336 days each, and that this data can be measured against 'real' history/time and synchronised with it.

Assumption Two:
There is contained within the encoded data, an inherent error. An artificial calendar based upon a 364 day year, inherently devalues 'true' history by one and one quarter days for each solar year thus converted. This is to say that if a solar or agricultural year is given a value of 364 days, the conversion process is in error before it begins.

In order to test this hypothesis against the three sources of chronological data listed, various pre-requisite procedures are required.

Pre-Requisite Procedures

Step One:
Select a commencement date.
The first artificial calendar created was commenced on 1.7.934 BCE as an equidistant point in a randomly selected year within a range of years provided for the commencement of the divided kingdom. Encouraged by the results, a search was conducted for a possible commencement date. The only apparent clue to such was deduced by making the assumption that chronological contradictions are only 'apparent' and not ' real'. Using Jeremiah 52:12 (10th day of the 5th month) and 2 Kings 25:8 (7th day of the 5th month) as examples of 'apparent' but not 'real' contradicting dates for the burning of the Temple, the commencement date for the artificial calendar was traced back to a commencement date at 17.4.586 BCE Refer Appendix 3

Step Two:
Generate a computerised calendar.
It was necessary to create a computer program that would generate a consecutive and continuous 'calendar of days' over a two thousand year period. (This was done by two independent persons with precisely matching results).

Step Three: Divide the calendar into periods of 336 days
Step Four: Record every 337th day as the first day of an artificial year.
Step Five: Divide data into 13 year blocks (representing 12 solar years)
Step Six: Offset error - insert 15 days into each 13 year block.(1.25 days per solar year converted into 364 day years)
Step Seven: Record adjusted new year dates.
Step Eight: Compare the data with the three chronological samples

Procedure- One

Sample One: The Age of Wrath - Cairo Damascus Rule

According to the Damascus rule, the Age of Wrath extended from the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, to the formation of the Community. This is followed by a period of groping in darkness until the Teacher of Righteousness arrives. Later we are informed that subsequent to his death, a forty year period transpires until judgment arrives. 'Line' numbers are those listed in the far left column of the 'King's Calendar'.

From the Exile in 586 BCE (Line 'O') there are 390 years ascribed to the Age of Wrath. This extends to and includes (Line 389) the Artificial year 15/5/227 to 17/4/226. 

From the end of the Age of Wrath, there is a Twenty year period of 'Groping' (to Line 409), to and including the Artificial Year 31/10/209 to 2/10/208 after which time the 'Teacher of Righteousness' appears.

Historically, this appears to refer to High Priest Onias III. Although no time is quote for the length of his ministry, he died or was murdered (whilst in exile subsequent to having been deposed and imprisoned) in 172/171 BCE., which would take us to Line 449, or the artificial year 2/10/172 to 4/9/171, which, interestingly enough, is Forty artificial years. (7)  

The Damascus Document also records that from the Teachers Death until the Coming of Judgment (presumably the Messiah), there will extend a period of Forty (40) years. Forty years from Onias' death, (Line 489), is the artificial year extending from 4/7/135 to 7/8/134, during which year John Hyrcanus assumed the roles of 'High Priest' and 'King'. (Vanderkam, 1994, p.105)

In all, from the Destruction of the Temple until the Judgment, there elapse 490 years, a figure that does not escape anyone's attention. (8)

Result
Sample One provides not only a date for the commencement of the Essene Community in Palestine, but an identification of the Teacher of Righteousness, that coincides with the earliest of only three possible contenders for the role, Onias III. It chronologically identifies Onias III's
murdered (Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, Vol 12, p,1403), and the assumption of the High Priest/King John Hyrcanus. (Vanderkam, 1994, p.105).

Procedure - Two

Sample Two: Josephus: The Jewish War Book One Chapter III (1) 70 (9)

Return from Babylonian Exile to Aristobolus = 471 yrs 3 months

Aristobolus is stated to be the first king, 471 years after returning from the Babylonian exile. Although corrected to 481 years in Antiquities XIII, the artificial calendar shows that a 471 artificial year reference is appropriate to the parameters quoted, (10) and that a 481 solar year reference is appropriate to a different set of parameters relating to the Babylonian Exile. Refer to  Appendix 4 

Result
Sample Two demonstrates that a 471 artificial year lapse between the end of the Babylonian exile and Aristobolus is correct. It also demonstrates that the information that Josephus provided was encoded, and that this code was still used post 104 BCE. In Antiquities Book X, viii (5) Whiston,W. (1992) The works of Josephus. Mass. USA. Hendrickson Publishing. Josephus refers to the 'departure out of Egypt', currently believed to refer to the Exodus, but demonstrated by the 'King's Calendar' to refer to the expulsion of the Hyksos Refer Appendix 5 This indicates that Josephus was not always aware of the exact nature of his data, which may account for the alteration in Antiquities.

Procedure - Three

Sample Three: Biblical Data - Uzziah to Hezekiah

For sample three, a calendar was generated dating back from 17th April 586 BCE. Since 701 BCE is acknowledged by all as Hezekiah's 14th year, this year was pivotal in reconstructing the data for the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Since in both the Babylonian (Jewish) and Artificial calendars, 701 BCE is Hezekiah's 14th year (March/April 701 BCE Babylonian and 31st October 701 BCE - artificial calendar), 701 BCE forms the baseline of justification for the synchronism that is provided. Refer Appendix 6

There are two other independent factors (control group/historical determinants) in assessing the validity of this chronological application. They are:

i) Pekah of Israel was killed/replaced shortly after the Fall of Damascus in 732 BCE (Miller & Hayes, 1986, p.332)

ii) The Fall of Samaria in 722 BCE (Jagersma, 1983, pp159-160) This particular sample/comparison, has been provided, since this period in history has been the most problematical and baffling for all researchers. It was considered that there could be no more difficult test in the process of validation/falsification of this hypothesis.

Note: The primary purpose of these samples is to demonstrate the chronological synchronisation. Appendix Seven  does provide brief historical perspective on the results of that synchronisation 

For a comparison of the biblical data as it stands in terms of solar year application (backdating from 701 BCE) Appendix 8

CHRONOLOGICAL CHART - SAMPLE THREE

Results
Sample three demonstrates that the same encoding process found in the Damascus rule, and the chronologies of Josephus, is also concealed within the Biblical Historical books.

Sample Three results in Nine (9) major noteworthy points. They are:

i) There is a possible alternative application of the data for the period 731 - 722 BCE Refer to Appendix 9
ii) It demonstrates that the Biblical data is not overly excessive.
iii) The chronological data alone (that is without necessarily including the identity of the king to which it is appended) is internally and externally synchronous.
iv) The chronological data for Israel is correct with the exception of the duration of the reign of King Pekah (upon which no one can currently agree); and a possible Solar as opposed to artificial application of the data to Hoshea.
v) It demonstrates that whilst the chronological data for Judah is correct, misidentification of the kings with which the data is linked is obvious. This possibly arises from a transcription error between Hezekiah (HZKH) and Ahaz (HZH); and the possibility that Jotham (like his father and his son) had a variation on his own name (eg. Jehoahaz) 
vi) It demonstrates that the biblical chronological data 'as it stands', does align and synchronise with the known recorded chronological history of the ancient near east.
vii) It demonstrates that the biblical chronological data is in fact encoded
viii) It demonstrates that this code is the same as that contained within the data recorded in Josephus and the Damascus Rule.
ix) It tends to demonstrate that the code was formulated from an Essene Perspective.

Results Review
Having synchronised the artificial calendar with the various chronological data provided, it is demonstrated that there is a very definite (not merely coincidental) connection between all the forms and sources of the chronological data used, and that connection is the artificial calendar, herein termed, the 'King's Calendar'.

Conclusion
What is evident from the samples provided is that there is a commonality in the data. Josephus relied heavily upon the Essenes, and in his reference to Aristobolus, he used the same artificial code/calendar as appears in the Damascus Rule, 'Age of Wrath'.

'The King's Calendar', clearly demonstrates that the same code/calendar can be found in the Biblical chronological Data, and we can hypothesise that the source of that code was the Essene/Dead Sea Sect Community.

It has been demonstrated herein, that the encoded Biblical Chronological data does synchronise internally and externally, and that it is correct as it stands, even though some errors may be present.

To Chapter One

Appendix One

The proposition that the original chronological data was encoded into some form of artificial calendar, can quite logically be substantiated, by the process of deductive reasoning. There are two basic approaches to that argument, a simplified version of which appears below. 

Argument No. I. G-d's Inspiration vs Human Commentary

Premise 1. The Bible is a written account of a nation and its History, by the inspiration and guidance of G-d.

Premise 2. The Bible is a non-G-d inspired history of a nation and its people, written and compiled by qualified authors, commentators and redactors.

Whichever of these two premises is the preferred position, both similarly conclude that the failure to synchronise that data (as it stands) with history results from either:

a) Our Failure to correctly apply that information

-or-

b) Our Current Knowledge of History is Erroneous

Both premises similarly conclude, that if we do not wish to dispense with the academic understanding of history, then failure to synchronise the chronological information results from our failure to apply it correctly.

Argument No. 2 The Factual Content of the Books

Premise 1. The Chronological data in the Biblical historical Books was not meant to be factually representative.

Premise 2. That data was meant to be factually representative.

If Premise 1. is correct, and the Bible was not meant to be factually representative, then Academics demonstrate a highly unscientific approach to history, when using Scripture to support various archaeological and Historical propositions.

If Premise 2. is correct, and the Bible was meant to be factually representative, then we must conclude that:

a) The information was not in fact, "factual" (for various reasons) and is therefore useless in supporting any chronological argument.

b) The information "was" in fact, "factual".


If Premise b) is correct, and the chronological data was factual when originally recorded, then we must determine that:

i) Current historical perception and research is not reliable since it conflicts with Biblical Chronology; in which case archaeologists and historians are suspect in their research methods.
-or-
ii) Chronological conflict between the Bible and history, results from our failure to apply the Biblical Chronological information correctly.

If Premise ii) is correct, then we might conclude that either:-

a) In its current form, the chronological information has been tampered with and can no longer be considered reliable.
-or-
b) Its current form has been transmitted to us reliably, and ought to be able to be understood.

If Premise b) is correct, then we can conclude that either:-

i) Our failure to synchronise the chronological information results from our lack of knowledge concerning ancient Jewish Calendars and chronological recordings.
-or-
ii) The chronological information contained in the Historical Books was tampered with and coded for some particular reason.


If Premise ii) is correct, we must conclude that either:

a) Criticism and use of such information in its current form, is unscientific and demonstrates gross ignorance.
-or-
b) What has been encoded, ought to be able to be decoded.

[Return]

Appendix 2

Erroneous Records

Miller & Hayes (1986, p.332) point out that with regard to the tribute paid by Menehem, there are two differing records. One states that Menehem of Israel, Rezin of Damascus and Tubail of Tyre, paid tribute, and the other that Menehem, Rezin, and Hiram of tyre paid tribute.

The first thing to note is that this tribute paying is in reference to Tiglath-Pileser's invasion in 738/737 BCE (Miller & Hayes, 1986) or 743 BCE (Thiele, 1966, p 98.) Hiram in fact succeeded Tubail and was involved not in the above mentioned campaign, but in the 734 - 732 BCE. campaign. Whilst the Hiram inscription is considered the incorrect one, the possibility that the other may yet prove to be incorrect must also be considered.

If Thiele (1966, p98) is correct in dating the event at 743 BCE, it may that just as a 'successor's name has been recorded in the place of a 'predecessor', (Hiram in place of Tubail), it is also possible that to Menehem has been ascribed the deeds of his son Pekahiah.

It may have been Pekahiah who paid Tiglath-Pileser to assist in maintaining authority. This would explain his sudden demise, and in terms of the 'King's Calendar' chronology, is the more feasible scenario.

Return

Appendix 3

Whatever the reason for the introduction of this artificial calendar, its creators needed a point of reference from which to commence. The most logical would appear to be the fall of Jerusalem, and more significantly the burning of the Temple. For the burning of Jerusalem, two conflicting dates are provided, that is, the Tenth day of the Fifth month (Jeremiah 52:12) and the Seventh day of the Fifth month (2 Kings 25:8)

Accepting that there are no real contradictions in chronological datum, only 'apparent' ones, the conclusion reached is that both dates are correct, and in order to be so, must relate to two different systems, one of which must be the artificial one.

The artificial system (28 days per month) is always 1.5 days shorter than the lunar month (29.5 days approx), which is effectively 30 days (and therefore 2 days longer). The variation between the two calendars however is three days, leaving a one day variance for which to account. This variation may have resulted from one of two possibilities, one apparently more probable than the other.

1.    Although no record exists of its occurrence, the commencement of the new month (Babylonian Calendar), which relies upon the commencement of the new moon may have been delayed for some reason - or -

2.    More probably, redactorial calculation was incorrect, or based upon an unknown logic, which is to say that the discrepancy may derive from the way in which the artificial calendar was applied. Whilst from the viewpoint of Thetical argument, this variant undermines the foundational supposition, acceptance of the premise of the 'non contradiction' is born out by the mathematical probability of its synchronistic success.

In the final analysis, the artificial calendar moved into the 5th month more rapidly than the Babylonian System. Upon this premise it is determined that the reference to the 10th day of the 5th month refers to the artificial calendar, and the reference to the 7th day of the 5th month refers to the standard Babylonian Calendar. 

Using Thiele's (1966, p.164, Table XV) date for the burning of the Temple, 15th August 586 BCE, and calculating backwards, it was concluded that the artificial system for that year, commenced on 16/17th April 586 BCE. Using this date as the cornerstone of research, calculations were done forward and backward in time, to create an artificial calendar covering the period 2000 to 30 BCE.

Return

Appendix 4

To View the chronological chart of the 'King's Calendar' chronology for the period 586 BCE to  33 BCE.  go to Appendix Three (3) in the Table of Contents.  This Chart commences with line 'O' - the commencement year for the artificial calendar which is17th April 586 BCE. The one and one quarter day error as mentioned previously, has been adjusted.   

 Return

Appendix 5

In Antiquities Book X, viii (5) (Whiston, 1993), Josephus maintains that 'from the departure out of Egypt' to the Babylonian Exile, a period of 1062.5 years elapses. If we add this in solar years to the year 586 BCE. we arrive at 1648 BCE, at least two centuries earlier than the earliest date for the Exodus. However, when we use a short mathematical calculation to convert the data, the following result occurs.

1062.5 years x 336 days per artificial year, divided by 364 days (representative of solar years) = 980.7 solar years added to 586 BCE = 1566 BCE.

This is clearly beyond either a thirteenth or fifteenth Century exodus, but it does fall within the various dates provided by various Academics, for the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. for example, Aldred (1988)  places the event at 1540 BCE; Trigger et al (1993) and Grimal (1992)   place it at 1552 BCE, and Petrie (1906)   at 1573 BCE. What appears to be indicated here is that the Exodus referred to by Josephus is not that of the Israelites, but the Hyksos.

• [Aldred, C. 1988 Akhenaton king of Egypt. London. Thames and Hudson].

• [Trigger,B.G., Kemp, B.J., O'Connor,D., Lloyd,A.B.(1983) Ancient Egypt - A social history. Cambridge University Press.] Grimal, N. (1978) Assyrian historiography revisited. Eretz-Israel, 14, 1-7.]

• [Petrie,W.M.F (1906) Researches in Sinai. London. John Murray.]

Return

Appendix 6

From both the Babylonian and Artificial Calendar perspectives, 701 BCE is Hezekiah's 14th Year. His first year in the artificial calendar commences on November 28th, 714 BCE - and in the Babylonian calendar - Nisan (March/April) 714 BCE.

Return

Appendix 7

The contents of this appendix are designed to provide brief Historical perspectives on the synchronisation provided by the 'King's Calendar' between the Biblical Data, Known History, and the Artificial construct, and are provided in point fashion.

Point One:

Biblical references, and the 'King's Calendar' chronologically demonstrable support.
i) 2 Kings 15:8 Zechariah ascends in the 38th year of Uzziah
ii) 1 Kings 15:17 Menehem ascends in the 39th year - reigning 10 years
iii) 2 Chron 26:21 Jotham acts as governor for Uzziah (8 years)
iv) 2 Kings 15:23 Pekahiah commences in the 50th yr of Uzziah for 2 yrs.
v) 2 Kings 15:27 Pekah commences in the 52nd year of Uzziah.
vi) 2 Kings 15:32 Jotham commences in the 2nd year of Pekah.
vii) 2 Kings 15:30 Hoshea commences in the 20th year of Jotham for 9 yrs.

Point Two:  Regarding Menehem's Tribute

This tribute is generally synchronised with Tiglath-Pileser's 3rd year invasion. Currently, the earliest date assigned this event is 743 BCE (Thiele, 1966, p.98). The 'King's Calendar' however ends Menehem's reign between August 746 BCE and July of 745 BCE, the very first year of Tiglath-Pileser. 

Two points to note however are:

1.    Careful reading of 2 Kings 15:19 suggests that Menehem's tribute was voluntary (also supported by the Assyrian Texts - Miller & Hayes, 1986, p.327), and may have nothing to do with any actual invasion, and more to do with ensuring the survival of the dynasty.   It would be appropriate for him to sent tribute in the first year of a New King.

2.    The records for this period in history, in both the Eponym and Babylonian Chronicles (written c. 500 BCE), leave much to be desired, (Cambridge Ancient History, 1991, p 339/340) (Refer back Appendix three) and reference to tribute by Menehem may well have belonged to that of his son.

Point Three:   734-732 BCE

By the standard of the 'King's Calendar', the harassment of Judea by Pekah and Rezin in 734 BCE. was directed not against Ahaz, but Jotham. Reference to tribute paid by Jehoahaz to Tiglath-Pileser, cannot at this time be unequivocally dated to 734/32 BCE (Cambridge Ancient History, 1991, p.78), nor indeed be definitely said to refer to Ahaz. Jotham may, like his father, have been known by two names. Redactorial misidentification of Ahaz and Jotham may account for the discrepancies between 2 Kings 16:9 and 2 Chronicles 28:20, in which Tiglath-Pileser both accedes to Ahaz' request, and acts contrary to it.

Point Four:    Pekah's Death - 732 BCE or 731 BCE

Pekah's death in 732 BCE presents a small problem for the King's Calendar, in that the synchronistic nature of the data is slightly astray. For the synchronism to be perfect, it requires that Pekah die in 731 BCE. This is then the 20th year of Jotham (2 Kings 15:30) - the 12th year of Jotham (not Ahaz) 2 Kings 17:1 - the 13th year of Pekah (not 20th) 2 Kings 15:27, and synchronises with 2 Kings 18:9-10 relating to the siege of Samaria in the 7th and 9th years of Hoshea.

Miller and Hayes (1986, p 323) record that during or just after Tiglath- Pileser's campaign against Damascus (732 BCE) Hoshea was confirmed King of Israel. There is therefore some latitude to allow Pekah to remain King until mid-late 731 BCE, especially from a Stage Two perspective of Assyrian control.  [Herrmann,S. (1981) A history of Israel in old testament times. (2nd Ed) Philadelphia. fortress Press. pp. 244/45]

Point Five:    Ahaz commences in Pekah's 17th year  2 Kings 16:1

Ahaz commences his reign after Pekah's death. Pekah only reigned 13 years.  Had he reigned 17 years, it would have coincided with Ahaz's commencement.  The error is discernable however from a certain perspective.

Point Six:    An Excessive Artificial Year

From the last year of Uzziah to the First of Hezekiah, the Biblical chronological data is in excess of the actual number of artificial years that transpire. This undoubtedly results from the initial misidentification of kings. Ahaz' reign has been reduced by the one year indicated within the synchronisms.

Point Seven The 3rd year of Hoshea

2 Kings 18:1 indicates that Hezekiah commenced to reign in the 3rd year of Hoshea. This is clearly incorrect, and we must place Ahaz within the context of this reference.  Ahaz ascends in the 3rd regnal year of Hoshea, and commences his first regnal year in Hoshea's 4th year.

Point Eight Hoshea's Reign - Nine (9) Solar Years.

With regard to the chronological data synchronising Hezekiah and Hoshea during the siege of Samaria ( 2 Kings 18: 9-10) the' King's Calendar'  demonstrates that although the King of Judah has been misidentified by the redactors, the chronological data is correct.

For Hoshea's 9th year to be 722 BCE, his reign must be recorded in Solar Years, making 724 BCE  his 7th year. This corresponds with Ahaz' 5th artificial and 4th solar year.

It appears at this point that the relevant chronological references remain in the original solar years. There is another example of this oversight to be found in reference to Jehoram son of Ahab, and has its equivalent example in 1 Kings 6:1, in the difference between the 440 Solar Years (Septuagint) and 480 Artificial years (Masorete).

Point Nine Hezekiah Commences 714 BCE

By the standard of the 'King's Calendar', Hezekiah came to the throne at the time of Sargon's campaign against Ashdod in 714/12 BCE. which explains the impression in 2 Kings 18:13-19:37, and Isaiah 36:1 - 37:38, that there were two invasions during Hezekiah's reign.

Point Ten Hezekiah's Healing

We know from the records of Merodach Baladan, that it is not likely that he visited Hezekiah subsequent to Sennacherib's invasion in 701 BCE, and so it stands to reason that this visit occurred subsequent to the invasion of  714/713 BCE, and prior to Merodach Baladan's defeat in 710 BCE. Moreover, from 710 BCE to the end of Hezekiah's reign, 25 artificial years elapse, which may suggest that a transcription error has occurred (15 instead of 25yrs), or that a later amendment was made based upon the belief that Hezekiah was healed in 701 BCE. Second Chronicles 32:24-26 is a succinct account of the illness between the two invasions.

Return

Appendix 8 

Literal rendering of the biblical data in solar years, based upon 701 BCE. as Hezekiah's 14th year completely fails to synchronise the Data.

For Instance Menehem will commence in the 37th not 39th of Uzziah, and would be dead eight  years prior to Tiglath-Pileser's reign.

 Pekahiah and Pekah would not commence their reigns in the 50th and 52nd years of Uzziah respectively.

Jotham would not commence in the 2nd of Pekah.

Hezekiah and Hoshea's reigns would not synchronise. 

In short the data does not synchronise. When the data is transferred into the artificial calendar however, the picture is quite different.

To View A Solar Time Line Chart of the Biblical Data in Solar Years Back Dated from 586 BCE Refer to Appendix Four (4) in the Table of Contents.

Return

Appendix 9

Current Chronologies relying on Biblical and Assyrian Records,  place Pekah's death in 732 BCE, and Hoshea's captivity in 722 BCE.  Because the 'King's Calendar' does not accomplish an exact synchronisation of Both these chronological datum, it has been necessary to create two possibilities. 

One is that Pekah was succeeded by Hoshea in 731 BCE resulting in Hoshea's Ninth Solar year in 722 BCE; the Other, that Hoshea succeeded Pekah in 732 BCE, and celebrated his ninth regnal year in 723 BCE.  Within this scenario, the synchronisation between the 4th and 6th years of Ahaz (Hezekiah in the Biblical Texts) with the 7th and 9th of Hoshea, would occur in Artificial Years, in the year 724 BCE, thus resulting in his captivity during the early part of the siege.  This scenario does find some academic support.

The following chart provides this alternate view.  

Alternative - 731 - 722 BCE