1

Introduction

T. R. Hobbs writes, “No problem associated with 2 Kings, and indeed the OT in its entirety,
is more complicated than that of chronology, that is, the placing of events recorded in the OT in
their proper sequence and assigning them their proper moment in the broader history of the
ANE.” 1 These chronological problems have intrigued scholars for centuries, and to the present
day they remain the subject of ongoing debate. Recent publications witness to the continuing
quest for a resolution to the chronology of the Hebrew kings.
The present uncertainty concerning the dates for the DK and its individual kings inspires my
interest in the chronology of this period. I will attempt to reconstruct the chronology in the
Books of Kings and to date the DK kings in the context of the ancient Near East using the Julian
calendar.

1.1. Significance of Divided Kingdom Chronology

The Books of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings purport to record the history of the Hebrew mon-
archy during its three recognized divisions: the united kingdom under three kings, Saul, David,
and Solomon, lasting approximately 120 years; the divided kingdom, comprising the nations of
Israel and Judah each with their own monarch and lasting to the fall of Samaria; and the remain-
ing single kingdom of Judah, lasting for over 130 years to the fall of Jerusalem.
The chronological data contained in the Books of 1–2 Kings, composed of a coordinated sys-
tem of regnal years and accession synchronisms, offer a unique opportunity to propose a time
frame for Hebrew monarchical history. 2 These data, supplemented from other sources, promote
the expectation that a reconstruction of the Hebrew kings’ chronology is possible. Yet it has prov-
en intractably difficult.
An accurately dated chronology for the monarchy is important for understanding contempo-
rary history and also for dating the preceding periods of the Hebrew and other nations in the
ancient Near East. But the paucity of corroborating evidence for the existence of Israel prior to
the monarchy and even for the united kingdom has given rise to debate concerning the historic-
ity described in the biblical record. A convincing chronological reconstruction of the DK, syn-
chronized with extrabiblical kings and events, would contribute to this debate and provide base
dates for reckoning periods particularly relevant to the reconstruction of the chronologies of
Egypt and Assyria. In addition, the establishment of the beginning date of the DK would provide
the end date for the united kingdom, suggest a date for the monarchy’s inception, and supply

1. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary 13; Waco: Word, 1985), xxxix.
2. Chronological data for Judah are also found in 2 Chronicles, with a few statements in other biblical books.

1
2 Chapter 1

more precise dates for the end of Iron Age I and the onset of Iron Age II, associated with the
commencement of the monarchy. In other words, an accurately dated DK would provide a
springboard for dating archeological levels with more confidence.

1.2. Establishing Divided Kingdom Chronology

The determination of the Hebrew kings’ reigns depends on establishing both relative and
absolute chronology. Relative chronology relates the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah to
each other by their regnal years and accession synchronisms. Absolute chronology places the
kings’ reigns within the broader perspective of the ancient Near East and dates them to a recog-
nized calendar.

1.2.1. Relative Chronology

The data for constructing relative chronology for the reigns of the Hebrew kings are con-
tained in synchronistic formulas in which the accession of a king, whether of Israel or Judah, is
synchronized with a regnal year of the contemporary king of the neighboring kingdom and fol-
lowed by the number of years the king reigned. A typical formula states, “In xth year of King A
of Judah, King B of Israel began to reign and he reigned y years.” The formula implies that a
king’s reign occurs between his own accession synchronism and the accession synchronism of his
successor. At the conclusion of the narrative of a king’s reign another formula states his death
and names his successor. The two interwoven chronologies of Israel and Judah provide a frame-
work in which each king’s reign is secured to both his predecessor and successor and is further
secured by being synchronized with contemporaries of the other kingdom. This arrangement
seems designed to establish and preserve an accurate record of the kings’ reigns. Even so, recon-
structing chronology from the data is problematic.
This basic chronology is provided by Hebrew and Greek biblical manuscripts. The earliest
extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Books of Kings preserve the Masoretic text-type (as represent-
ed in Codex Leningrad B19A, dating to 1008/1009 c.e.). These MT data are most commonly used
to reconstruct the DK chronology. Codex Vaticanus (a Greek manuscript dating to the 4th centu-
ry c.e.) contains two text-types approximating the pre-Masoretic division of 1–2 Kings. The text-
type of 1 Kings is dated to about the 2nd century b.c.e., and 2 Kings to the 1st century b.c.e.
Later Greek cursive manuscripts (minuscules known collectively as boc 2e2) date from the 10th to
14th centuries c.e. and exhibit a text-type known as Lucianic, thought to date from the 3rd cen-
tury c.e. and believed to be based on an earlier text dating back to the 2nd century b.c.e. This L
text is extant throughout 1–2 Kings and plays a significant role in textual analysis.
The important feature about these early texts is that they exhibit two variant arrangements of
the chronological data. One arrangement is found in 1 Kings in Codex Vaticanus ending with
Ahab’s reign and in the L manuscripts (except c2) to the end of the EDK (i.e., the deaths of
Ahaziah-J and Joram by Jehu). The second arrangement of chronological data is found in the MT
for all of 1–2 Kings and in Codex Vaticanus from 1 Kings 22 to the end of 2 Kings. From the begin-
ning of the LDK (commencing with Athaliah in Judah and Jehu in Israel) the Hebrew and Greek
texts (except c2) exhibit the same chronological data apart from a variant for the reign of Pekahiah.
The two systems are not completely independent. Some EDK data are identical in both
Hebrew and Greek texts and other data are different for the same kings, creating variants. But in
neither the Hebrew nor the Greek texts are the data internally consistent. The inconsistency
caused by regnal years and synchronisms in Israel and Judah not corresponding to the kings’ allo-
cated years makes reconstructing chronology from the data in either the Greek or Hebrew texts
 Introduction 3

very difficult. A proposal to reconstruct relative chronology must explain the presence of variant
chronological EDK data in Greek and Hebrew texts and resolve the problems of inconsistency
throughout the DK.

1.2.2. Absolute Chronology

The second criterion used in reconstructing chronology is the establishment of absolute chro-
nology in which the kings’ reigns are dated to a recognized calendar. The Julian calendar is used
by Western scholars to date the events of the ancient Near East. 3 The Hebrew kings derive their
absolute dates from synchronization with Assyrian kings named in the Assyrian Eponym Canon,
to which Julian years have been assigned. Any attempt to establish absolute chronology must,
however, consider the reliability of the AEC.
The AEC is a list of Assyrian officials, each one giving his name (eponym, Akkadian limmu) to
a year of a king’s reign, with the most important officials heading the list. The king held the office
of eponym in his 1st or 2nd regnal year, but commencing with Shalmaneser V (727–722) the
king’s eponym was allocated to a later year of his reign. Some lists comprise only the eponyms,
while others add the title of the official and a few words indicating an important event in that
year (frequently a military campaign against another country). The AEC is reconstructed from
fragmentary tablets, each containing parts of the list, that overlap to give an apparently continu-
ous list of names.
A solar eclipse recorded in the AEC during the month Siwan in the 9th eponym of Assyrian
king Ashur-dan III is dated by astronomers to 15/16 June 763 b.c.e. and provides a reliable fixed
point for synchronizing the AEC with the Julian calendar. Beginning with Nabu-nasir in 747
b.c.e. it is possible to correlate Assyrian kings listed in the AEC with the Canon of Ptolemy, a list
of Babylonian kings. 4 This known correlation between Assyria and Babylonia confirms the accu-
racy of the AEC from 763 onward. Various king lists (generically related to the AEC) allow schol-
ars to calculate the total years that each king reigned, and on this basis eponyms have been dated
between 910 b.c.e. and 612 b.c.e. 5
To establish absolute chronology, a synchronism has to be established between a Hebrew king
and an Assyrian king. The earliest known synchronism, for example, comes from the records of
Shalmaneser III of Assyria, which mention two kings of Israel: Ahabbu (Ahab) in a campaign
record from Shalmaneser’s 6th regnal year and Iaúa ( Jehu) in a campaign in Shalmaneser’s 18th
year. According to 1 Kgs 22:52 MT, Ahaziah-I reigned for 2 years after his father Ahab’s death,
followed by his brother Joram’s 12-year reign (2 Kgs 3:1) before Jehu usurped the throne. The 14
years required in the biblical record between the death of Ahab and the accession of Jehu seem
to conflict with the 12 years given in the AEC between Shalmaneser’s 6th and 18th years. Thus,
before the Hebrew kings can be dated to the Julian calendar, problems of synchronizing Israel’s
and Judah’s kings with the AEC must be resolved.

3. The Julian calendar was introduced in 45 b.c.e. and slightly modified in 1582, when it was replaced by the Gre-
gorian calendar. Both calendars have 365-day years, with a leap day every 4th year. See Ptolemy, The Almagest (trans.
R. C. Taliaferro; Great Books of the Western World 16; Chicago: Benton, 1952), 467; J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical
Chronology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 76–77; C. A. Ronan, “Calendar” in Encyclopaedia Britannica
(Chicago: Benton, 1968), 4:615–19.
4. Ptolemy, “Almagest,” 466; L. Depuydt, “ ‘More Valuable than All Gold’: Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and Babylonian
Chronology,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 47 (1995): 97–117.
5. A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 b.c. (State Archives of Assyria Studies 2; Helsinki: Neo-
Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994), 6–7, 13; see also J. Gray, 1 and 2 Kings (Old Testament Library; London: SCM,
1970), 58–59.
4 Chapter 1

1.3. Conventional Approaches to Divided Kingdom Chronology

Establishing both relative and absolute chronology for the DK kings involves basic problems
like those just illustrated. How then do scholars attempt to reconcile the conflicting data (both
internal and external criteria) and reconstruct DK chronology? The majority of chronologies pro-
duced in the last half century or so have at least four features in common:
1. The chronological data of the Hebrew text are preferred to the Greek data.
2. More than one dating system is proposed to reconcile disparate numbers.
3. Dates assigned to the AEC are relied upon to date the Hebrew kings.
4. Menahem of Israel is understood to be a contemporary of Tiglath-pileser III, the latter
identified as King Pul of Assyria, to whom Menahem paid tribute (2 Kgs 15:19).
These common features gave rise to what I call the conventional approach to biblical chronol-
ogy, which does, of course, exhibit some variation of methodology, particularly with regard to the
treatment of biblical sources and data and to dating systems. The leading proponent of the con-
ventional approach during the last half of the 20th century was Edwin R. Thiele, whose best
known work, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, was published in three editions. While
Thiele has been critiqued by scholars, 6 he still had followers as late as the mid-1990s. 7 In order to
contrast my chronology with the conventional approach, in the following chapters I will analyze
and assess Thiele’s chronology. 8 In the meantime, it is important to review some of the more sig-
nificant aspects of the conventional methodology and the problems raised by its main tenets.

1.3.1. Biblical Sources

Scholars differ on how the MT data should be regarded. Thiele, for example, writes:
The many seeming contradictions in the chronological data of the Hebrew kings have long been
regarded as evidence of certain error. Before, however, a final verdict can be pronounced against
those data, it must be ascertained whether the data themselves are at fault, or whether our misap-
prehensions are based on our own failure to understand the basic chronological practices followed
by the ancient Hebrew recorders. 9
Thiele goes on to describe what he thought the practices were and claims that
when these principles are applied to the chronological data of the MT, and when the coregencies
and overlapping reigns . . . are taken into consideration, the seeming discrepancies in the regnal

6. E.g., “Thiele is forced to project innumerable coregencies, to reconstruct a complex interchange of calendars,
and to fall back on unique patterns of calculation. . . . He has found few followers of his system apart from those who
are committed apologetically to a doctrine of scripture’s absolute harmony”; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testa-
ment as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 296. Cf. W. F. Albright, “Prolegomenon,” in C. F. Burney, The Books of
Judges with Introduction and Notes and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (repr. New York: Ktav, 1970), 36; G. H.
Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 19; Hobbs, 2 Kings, xliii–xliv.
7. E.g., “The chronology most widely accepted today is one based on the meticulous study by Thiele”; D. J. Wise-
man, 1 and 2 Kings (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1993), 27. Cf. K. A. Strand’s en-
dorsement in “Thiele’s Biblical Chronology as a Corrective for Extrabiblical Dates,” Andrews University Seminary Studies
34 (1996): 295–317.
8. Space does not permit further critique of other proposals, some of which can be accessed readily in W. F. Al-
bright, “The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel,” BASOR 100 (1945): 16–17; Childs, Introduction to the Old
Testament as Scripture, 295–97; J. Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology ( Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement 66; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 99–122; L. McFall, “Has the Chronology of
the Hebrew Kings Been Finally Settled?” Themelios 17/1 (1991): 6–7; Galil, CKIJ 1–11.
9. E. R. Thiele, “Coregencies and Overlapping Reigns among the Hebrew Kings,” JBL 93 (1974): 177.
 Introduction 5

data of Kings will disappear, and there will be a pattern of years for the Hebrew rulers which will
agree with the years of contemporary nations at every point where an exact contact can be made. 10
Most scholars, however, allow for some textual errors or deliberate alteration to the MT num-
bers over centuries of transmission, 11 and they compose chronology using variations of dating
systems incorporating some textual changes and/or coregencies. 12 The conventional approach,
by uncritically preferring data of the Hebrew text over that of the Greek text, displays a flawed
method of textual analysis and leaves a considerable amount of chronological data inadequately
considered. Very little textual analysis attempts to resolve the origin of alternative data for the
various kings in the Hebrew and Greek texts. Instead, the MT data alone are subjected to analysis.

1.3.2. Dating Systems

The conventional approach employs various dating systems and methodologies to reconcile
conflicting numbers in the MT:
1. Antedating (also called nonaccession-year reckoning) counts a king’s accession year as
his first year, and his second regnal year begins after the next New Year’s Day (MNHK 3
43–44, 48–50, 54–60, 231). Thiele interprets Jeroboam I’s 22-year reign (1 Kgs 14:20)
as his “official years” according to Israel’s antedating system but reckons these as 21
“actual years” (MNHK 3 81).
2. Postdating (also called accession-year reckoning) counts a king’s reign from the New
Year’s Day after his accession. In any particular year, antedating credits a king with one
year more than postdating (MNHK 3 43–44, 47–50, 54–60, 231).
3. Switching between postdating and antedating is used at times to reconcile conflicting
MT data (MNHK 3 47, 56–60, 215–16).
4. Variant calendars are used to reconcile the MT data. Some scholars propose that
Israel’s calendar began in Nisan (spring) and Judah’s calendar began in Tishri
(autumn). Israel’s year began 6 months ahead of Judah’s. 13
5. Each nation used its own calendar to record the reigns of its own kings and even the
kings in the other kingdom. Thus, Israel used antedating for Israel and Judah, even

10. Ibid., 178.

11. Discussed by Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 107–14.
12. Scholars who have produced chronology using these variations include Albright, “Chronology of the Divided
Monarchy,” 16–22; C. Schedl, “Textkritische Bemerkungen zu den Synchronismen der Könige von Israel und Juda,” VT
12 (1962): 88–119; V. Pavlovsky and E. Vogt, “Die Jahre der Könige von Juda und Israel,” Biblica 45 (1964): 321–47;
K. T. Andersen, “Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda,” Studia Theologica 23 (1969): 69–114, revised in
“Noch Einmal: Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 3 (1989): 1–
45; H. Tadmor, “The Chronology of the First Temple Period,” in The World History of the Jewish People, 1st series: Ancient
Times: The Age of the Monarchies: Political History, vol. 4/1 (ed. A. Malamat; Jerusalem: Massada, 1979), 44–60, 318–20;
M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 11; Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1988), 341; J. H. Hayes and P. K. Hooker, A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah and Its Im-
plications for Biblical History and Literature (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988); W. H. Barnes, Studies in the Chronology of the Di-
vided Monarchy of Israel (Harvard Semitic Monographs 48; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), esp. 1–27, 137–58; Galil, CKIJ;
M. Cogan, 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000),
100–103, 508.
13. Thiele, MNHK 3 44–54; McFall, “Has the Chronology,” 7; idem, “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data
in Kings and Chronicles,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991): 6–9; Galil, CKIJ 9–10. Other scholars propose an autumn calen-
dar in both Israel and Judah during the DK (see Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 15–17); Hayes and Hooker (New Chronology, 13)
assume a 1-month difference in the winter months, with Judah’s year beginning in Tishri and Israel’s in Marheshvan.
6 Chapter 1

though Judah itself used postdating (MNHK 3 49–50, 55 [diagram 7], and 82 [chart 3,
reproduced as my table 3.7]).
6. Coregency — defined by Thiele as “a period of rulership when a son sits on the throne
with his father” (MNHK 3 231) — is used especially by Thiele, Gray, and McFall to
reconcile the MT data. 14 Other scholars typically see coregencies as either without
biblical warrant or based on circular argumentation. 15
7. Finally, seemingly arbitrary changes in numbers are used to make sense of the MT
data.

Scholars usually do not use a single one of these systems, but some combination of them.
McFall, for example, uses four systems (antedating, postdating, Nisan and Tishri calendars, and
coregencies) to reconcile the MT data about Israel and Judah. 16 And, although McFall does not
allow changes to MT numbers, he changes instead the natural meaning of the regnal formulas by
overwriting them with his own dating assumptions. He does not apply his system to the Greek data.
On the other hand, for the Greek texts, Thiele hypothesizes an inconsequent accession-year
dating system in which “the year when a ruler is set forth as having begun his reign is actually the
year after his reign began” (MNHK 3 93; cf. MNHK 1 172–76, 185–87). Finding that this system
does not work, Thiele concludes (MNHK 3 210) that “in no instance is a Greek variation an
improvement over the Hebrew. The fallacies of the Greek innovations may be proved by the wide
divergence of the patterns of reigns they call for from the years of contemporary chronology.”
A different explanation for conflicting data is given by Jeremy Hughes, who rejects coregen-
cies and asserts that chronological discrepancies are neither textual corruptions nor miscalcu-
lations. 17 Instead, he proposes that the chronology was altered from an original historical
chronology to a schematic pre-priestly (Deuteronomistic) chronology and subsequently to a
priestly schematic chronology before a final revision using noninclusive antedating. Seeming dis-
crepancies, therefore, are alterations made to fit the kings’ reigns into a scheme of 430 years
from the foundation of Solomon’s temple to its destruction, with some figures representing con-
flations of schemes between MT and LXX. 18 This system seems to be no less drastic than those
to which Hughes objects. 19

14. E.g., Thiele, MNHK 3 61–65 and passim; idem, “The Question of Coregencies among the Hebrew Kings,” in A
Stubborn Faith: Papers on the Old Testament and Related Subjects Presented to Honor William Andrew Irwin (ed. E. C. Hobbs;
Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1956), 39–52; idem, “Coregencies and Overlapping Reigns,” 174–200;
Gray, 1 and 2 Kings, 65–75; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 17–19; McFall, “Has the Chronology,” 8–10; idem, “Did Thiele Over-
look Hezekiah’s Coregency?” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1989): 393–404; idem, “Translation Guide,” 3–45; idem, “Some
Missing Coregencies in Thiele’s Chronology,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 30 (1992): 35–58.
15. See J. M. Miller, “Another Look at the Chronology of the Early Divided Monarchy,” JBL 86 (1967): 276–88, esp.
278; Shenkel, CRD 75 (see Barnes’s comments in support of Thiele against Shenkel in Chronology of the Divided Monar-
chy, 26–27 n. 65); Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 18–19; Hayes and Hooker, New Chronology, 11, 12; Hughes, Secrets of the Times,
98–107, esp. 100.
16. McFall, “Translation Guide,” 3–45.
17. Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 114.
18. Ibid., 94, 96, 98, 121–54.
19. See Galil’s criticism of Hughes’s methodology in CKIJ 6–7. Hughes’s interest in “mythical” or schematic chro-
nology (Secrets of the Times, v) was aroused by James Barr, who has himself written articles that propose a legendary
chronology: “Why the World Was Created in 4004 b.c.: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology,” Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library 67 (1985): 575–608; Biblical Chronology: Legend or Science? (Ethel M. Wood Lecture 1987; London: Uni-
versity of London, 1987); and “Luther and Biblical Chronology,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 72 (1989): 51–67.
 Introduction 7

The problem with these complex dating systems is that they are at variance with the regnal
formulas, which are written in clear, stylized statements. Each formula states that a king began to
reign in the given year of the king of the other kingdom, not that the reigns were calculated from
different points according to different dating systems or that the reigns of father and son some-
times overlapped. In conventional chronology, these dating systems, especially coregency, are
posited whenever a conflict in numbers is observed in the text — not on the basis of their direct
attestation in Israel or Judah. 20 These systems are not supported by the text itself and are dubious
assumptions to make about a text that intends to display chronological detail and synchronicity.

1.3.3. Assyrian Eponym Canon

Conventional chronologists assume that the AEC is reliable before as well as after the solar
eclipse of 763 b.c.e. Hughes, for example, writes:
The primary source of external evidence relating to Israelite and Judean chronology are the his-
torical records of Assyria and Babylonia. We are therefore fortunate in having an accurate chron-
ological framework for Assyrian and Babylonian history during the first millennium bc. This
framework, which is based upon Mesopotamian chronographic texts (kinglists, eponym lists, and
chronicles), is securely related to Julian chronology through the Ptolemaic Canon, a kinglist com-
piled by Alexandrian astronomers for use in astronomical calculations. 21
In spite of this confident assertion, Hughes goes on to footnote uncertainty whether the eponym
Balatu should be included in the eponyms for the reign of Adad-nirari III. 22 This confused area
of eponyms comes before 763 b.c.e.
Kitchen and Mitchell’s confident statement also illustrates the conventional approach: “From
comparison of the Assyrian limmu or eponym lists, king-lists and historical texts, the date 853 bc
can be fixed for the battle of Qarqar, the death of Ahab and accession of Ahaziah in Israel; and
likewise Jehu’s accession at Joram’s death in 841 b.c.” 23 It is assumed that dates before 763 b.c.e.
can be relied upon, yet with no corroborating evidence 853 or 841 are used to establish the begin-
ning of the DK in the 930s or 920s b.c.e. 24 Methodology that accepts the reliability of the AEC
before 763 b.c.e. without first testing its veracity, especially when there are significant problems
involved in reconciling the Hebrew regnal years with the years assigned to the AEC, is suspect.

1.3.4. Tiglath-pileser III and Menahem

Conventional chronologists assume that Menahem, who paid tribute to King Pul of Assyria
(2 Kgs 15:19), was contemporary with Tiglath-pileser III because Tiglath-pileser was also known

20. Some scholars point to David’s appointment of Solomon as his heir before he died (1 Kgs 1:1–48) and Jotham’s
rulership over the land after his father became leprous (2 Kgs 15:5) as evidence for coregencies, while others reject
these examples; see discussion in Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 103–5.
21. Ibid., 182.
22. Ibid., 182 n. 53.
23. K. A. Kitchen and T. C. Mitchell, “Chronology of the Old Testament,” in Illustrated Bible Dictionary (ed. N. Hill-
yer; London: Inter-Varsity, 1980), 1:276.
24. The beginning of the DK is variously calculated (some of these dates are taken from J. H. Hayes and J. M.
Miller, Israelite and Judaean History [London: SCM, 1977], 682–83):

937 Hughes 931/930 Thiele, McFall, Galil 926 Begrich-Jepsen

932 Barnes 928 Cogan and Tadmor 925 Miller
932/931 Andersen 927/926 Hayes and Hooker 922 Albright
8 Chapter 1

as Pul. 25 Tiglath-pileser’s identity with Pul is confirmed by comparing the Babylonian Chronicle
and Babylonian King List A (cf. 1 Chr 5:26). Menahem has been identified on tribute lists appar-
ently from the time of Tiglath-pileser III.
The AEC and the Canon of Ptolemy confirm Tiglath-pileser III’s reign as 745–727. But view-
ing Menahem as Tiglath-pileser’s contemporary conflicts with 2 Kgs 15:29 and 16:1–18, in which
Tiglath-pileser is contemporary with Pekah in Israel and Ahaz in Judah — but not with Menahem.
For his entire reign Menahem was contemporary with Azariah (15:17–23). To locate Menahem in
Tiglath-pileser’s reign, scholars either posit Menahem and Pekah as rival rulers in Israel 26 or
reduce Pekah’s reign from 20 years to much less. 27 Methodology that makes Menahem and
Tiglath-pileser III contemporaries should be viewed with considerable caution.

1.4. Alternative Approach to Divided Kingdom Chronology

An alternative approach to resolving the chronological problems of the Books of Kings was
broached in 1964 by J. Maxwell Miller. 28 In the period following Omri’s accession, Miller finds
two different patterns of synchronisms, one dominating the MT and the other L, but both texts
contained elements of both patterns. Miller concludes: “The Lucianic pattern of synchronisms is
probably the best starting point for reconstructing the chronology of the Omride period.” 29 In
1967 Miller argued for the acceptance of “the Lucianic pattern in preference to that of the
masoretic tradition.” 30 He suggests an EDK chronology that altered reign lengths to accommo-
date synchronisms without providing support from a text-critical analysis.
In contrast to Miller, working from a text-critical perspective James D. Shenkel analyzed EDK
chronological data in his Harvard thesis, subsequently revised and published in 1968 as Chronol-
ogy and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings. Concerning the value of the Greek data,
Shenkel proposed: “Any treatment of the chronological problems in the Books of Kings would be
inadequate unless it were based upon an understanding of the Greek text as an independent
body of traditions deserving of study in its own right, and not merely as a source for occasionally
interesting variants to readings found in the Masoretic text” (CRD 5). Shenkel hopes that “better
understanding of the recensional development of the Greek text will provide a new perspective
for conducting research into the chronology of the Books of Kings” (CRD 4). But Shenkel him-
self does not attempt to construct chronology. Shenkel’s work has been viewed favorably:

25. E.g., Thiele, MNHK 3 125, 139–41; Tadmor, “Chronology of the First Temple Period,” 54; Barnes, Chronology of
the Divided Monarchy, 157; Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 198–201; Galil, CKIJ 62–65.
26. Thiele, MNHK 3 63, 120–21 (diagram 17), 124, 129; McFall, “Translation Guide,” 29–31.
27. Schedl (“Textkritische Bemerkungen,” 91, 96) and Pavlovsky and Vogt (“Jahre der Könige,” 325, 337–38) give
Pekah 10 years; J. Reade suggests that Pekahiah and Pekah were the same person and that Pekah’s 20 years are illusory
(“Mesopotamian Guidelines for Biblical Chronology,” Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4 [1981]: 5–6); Miller and Hayes give
Pekahiah 2 years and Pekah 4 years (HAIJ 229); Barnes gives 8 years to Menahem and 5 to Pekah (Chronology of the
Divided Monarchy, 153–54, 157); Andersen gives Pekah 4 years (“Noch Einmal: Die Chronologie,” 8, 11–12); Hughes
gives Pekah 4 years, claiming the 20 years to be schematic (Secrets of the Times, 205); and Galil gives Pekah a 5-year reign
as sole monarch (CKIJ 65, 82; cf. 129 n. 10).
28. J. M. Miller, The Omride Dynasty in the Light of Recent Literary and Archaeological Research (Ph.D. diss.; Emory Uni-
versity, 1964), cited in “Another Look,” 279–80 n. 21. Miller identifies the king of Israel referred to in 1 Kgs 22:1–40 as
Jehoahaz, not Ahab. His arguments are summarized in “The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars,” JBL
85 (1966): 441–54.
29. Miller, “Elisha Cycle,” 454; see similar comments concerning the chronology of the Omride period in idem,
“Another Look,” 284–86; idem, The Old Testament and the Historian (London: SPCK, 1976), 37–38; idem, HAIJ 264–65.
30. Miller, “Another Look,” 285.
 Introduction 9

The fresh perspective on the problem which has been opened up by the brilliant dissertation of
J. D. Shenkel must be seriously considered by all future research. Shenkel, who has built on the tex-
tual work of F. M. Cross, was able to demonstrate that the variant chronological data of the Old
Greek textual recension of Reigns represents an ancient and integral chronological tradition, and
is not simply to be dismissed as a late, secondary reinterpretation of the Masoretic text. Moreover,
Shenkel has dealt a severe blow to such reconstructions as those of Begrich and Thiele which have
depended solely on the MT for recovering the original tradition. In addition, he has shown the tex-
tual basis for some of the tension in the present MT and has seriously damaged Thiele’s explana-
tions of co-regencies. However, Shenkel’s own attempt to describe the historical process by which
the various chronologies were related makes use of several projections of how biblical books were
redacted which are far from obvious. 31
Shenkel . . . has argued that extremely valuable chronological data are obtained from the Greek
translations. Instead of taking the chronological data of the Greek as evidence of arbitrary tamper-
ing by a late translator, Shenkel, by investigating such data against the background of the develop-
ment of the Greek and Hebrew texts, finds in them a variant tradition which may indeed be more
ancient than the one preserved in the Hebrew. 32
Despite Miller’s and Shenkel’s publications, scholars who have proposed chronologies since
1968 have taken only incidental interest in the chronological data of the Greek text and have con-
tinued to work mainly with the MT. 33 Galil, for example, constructs his chronology based on the
MT data and only in the last chapter does he consider the variants of the Greek text (CKIJ 127–44).
The main criticism of Shenkel’s work comes from his handling of the chronological issues,
not his work on recensional development. For example, he identifies Ahaziah-J or Jehoram as the
king of Judah who went with Joram on the Moabite campaign of 2 Kings 3, identifications indi-
cated by the Greek regnal data. Shenkel explains (CRD 92–108, 111) that the naming of Jeho-
shaphat in the MT was done by a pious redactor who wanted to make good King Jehoshaphat
the contemporary of Elisha the prophet and that the MT data had been changed backward to
the reign of Omri to effect this. The weakness of this hypothesis seems to have undermined
acceptance of the Greek variants as valuable witnesses to an early chronology. 34 Nevertheless,
Shenkel’s work on chronology has been taken seriously by a number of scholars, and as the
recensional development of the Greek texts becomes more widely recognized the credibility of
the Greek chronological data is gaining further support. 35

31. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 296–97.

32. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 5–6.
33. Thiele’s response is discussed in §2.3. Note Barnes’s comments about Shenkel’s work in Chronology of the Di-
vided Monarchy, 23–27.
34. Criticism of Shenkel comes from: D. W. Gooding, review of CRD in Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1970): 118–
31; S. J. De Vries, “Chronology, OT,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (ed. K. Crim; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1976), 163; idem, 1 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary 12; Waco: Word, 1985), 181–82; idem, “The Three
Comparisons in 1 Kings XXII 4B and Its Parallel and 2 Kings III 7B,” VT 39 (1989): 305–6; P. J. Williams, “Some Re-
marks Preliminary to a Biblical Chronology,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12 (1998): 100; A. R. Green, “Regnal
Formulas in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Books of Kings,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42 (1983): 167–80; A. R.
Millard, “Texts and Archaeology: Weighing the Evidence—the Case for King Solomon,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly
123 (1991): 19–20.
35. See, e.g., Albright, “Prolegomenon,” 27–28, 33–36; R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Sep-
tuagint after Qumran (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 36–40; Julio Trebolle [Barrera], “Redaction, Recension, and Mid-
rash in the Books of Kings,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 15 (1982): 12–35;
Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 19–21; Hobbs, 2 Kings, xliv–xlv; R. B. Dillard and T. Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament
(Leicester: Apollos, 1995), 156.
10 Chapter 1

1.5. New Proposal for Divided Kingdom Chronology

Each of the methods discussed above proves to be problematic. Conventional approaches
reconstruct chronology by analyzing only the MT data and by manipulating these data in various
unconventional ways. Miller’s reconstruction of the chronology gives more credence to the Greek
data (especially the L data), but lacks supporting text-critical analysis. And Shenkel subjects the
data to text-critical analysis based on his theory of recensional development in the Greek texts,
but does not test his conclusions by reconstructing chronology. A new approach to reconstruct-
ing DK chronology is thus called for. The following features will be given fuller treatment in later
chapters:

1. It is necessary to resolve conflicting data in the Hebrew and Greek texts. While
scholars recognize two apparently alternative chronological patterns in the Greek and
Hebrew, with some of the same data appearing in both patterns, the actual relationship
between the Hebrew data and the Greek data has yet to be established. If the Greek
was originally translated from a Hebrew text and was not an independent rendition of
Hebrew history, why do we find variant and conflicting data alongside identical or
similar data in the respective texts? I will analyze the data to find the factors that
produced the textual variants and the two divergent patterns. Understanding the
process or factors that produced divergency ought to provide a pathway back to the
data first preserved in earlier Hebrew texts. It is not a matter of first trying to make
consistent chronology from the Hebrew data or, failing that, from the Greek data.
Rather it is a matter of seeing how each datum is placed in the overall picture of the
whole transmission process. When each datum is seen in its appropriate place,
indicators pointing to the earliest text (perhaps represented in late manuscripts)
should emerge. The chronological data — that is, reign lengths and accession
synchronisms — must be analyzed and evaluated within their context to elucidate their
part in the transmission process and the chronological data they contain. I will seek to
determine and isolate original data from secondary based on a text-critical analysis of
the regnal formulas.
2. Chronology must be based on a dating system (or systems). As distinct from
conventional chronologists who propose antedating, postdating, coregencies, etc., I
will seek to establish a dating system consistent with the textual terminology of the
regnal formulas, which assert that a king began to reign in the given regnal year of the
contemporary king of the other kingdom and that the king acceded to the throne
upon the death of his predecessor.
3. Using supposed synchronisms between the Assyrian kings and Hebrew kings with
dates derived from the AEC as a baseline, most chronologies assign dates to the
Hebrew kings at the same time as they construct relative chronology. I will instead first
construct relative chronology from the dual chronologies of Israel and Judah before
attempting to establish absolute chronology.
4. When relative chronology has been established, I will then correlate it to the Julian
calendar to provide absolute chronology. This may necessitate reconciling the Hebrew
and Assyrian chronologies.
From these foundational concepts I hope to propose a credible chronology for the DK. On the
basis of conclusions arrived at by gathering and examining the evidence (chapters 2–5), I will
 Introduction 11

propose a methodology (chapter 6) and reconstruct the chronology (chapters 7–9).

Chapter 2 reviews the transmission history of the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Books of
Kings in order to gain an understanding of their origin and characteristics before reconstructing
their chronology. The Greek texts — especially the L family — give valuable witness to the earliest
chronology. My examination of these texts and their transmission history is contrasted with
Thiele’s approach, which depends on the Hebrew text to supply the chronological data and on
various dating systems to make these data harmonize.
Chapter 3 surveys the chronological data in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The DK synchro-
nisms and reign lengths found in MT, OG, L, and Josephus’s Antiquities are tabulated and ana-
lyzed, and discrepancies noted. Thiele’s analysis of the same data receives comment and is
followed by a discussion of the problems attached to reconciling the data in the Greek and
Hebrew texts.
Chapter 4 surveys the chronological data found in c2, an L manuscript with its own unique
variants. c2 used a year-for-year approach to compile its coherent record, which fills in some gaps
in the LDK in the texts analyzed in chapter 3.
Chapter 5 analyzes patterns of opening and closing regnal formulas, the word order of acces-
sion synchronisms, the position of supplementary material, the sequence of kings’ reigns, and the
translation of the Hebrew verb ˚lm. The resulting patterns and discrepancies help distinguish pri-
mary from secondary text.
Chapter 6 proposes a methodology for reconstructing relative chronology and absolute chro-
nology on the basis of information analyzed in chapters 2–5. The method for constructing rela-
tive chronology relies on my understanding of several matters: the dating system used to record
the kings’ reigns, how final years were reckoned, how to account for variant numbers in the texts,
how to distinguish original numbers from secondary, how numbers were written in early Hebrew
manuscripts, and how to reckon regnal years by calendar years. The method for constructing
absolute chronology must establish a starting date, which I do by investigating the reliability of
the AEC. Since my analysis suggests that the AEC is reliable only after 763 b.c.e., we must, there-
fore, gain our starting date subsequent to this date and work backward to date the kings.
Chapter 7 reconstructs EDK relative chronology by employing the methodology outlined in
the previous chapter. Text-critical analysis of the chronological data identifies primary and sec-
ondary text, indicates where variants entered the text(s) and caused a new system of chronology
to emerge, and recognizes that both Hebrew and Greek retain some of the earliest data, showing
their common origin. Relative chronology is reconstructed from the primary data, with explana-
tions given for the appearance of the secondary.
Chapter 8 continues the discussion of relative chronology into the LDK. The data for this sec-
tion exhibit little variation between text-types but the totals for Israel and Judah differ. Explana-
tions for this anomaly and for reconciling the data are proposed. I also discuss a starting date for
absolute chronology and provide a Julian date for the fall of Samaria using biblical and Assyrian
records.
Chapter 9 proposes absolute chronology for the entire DK by relating Hebrew chronology to
the AEC. Some synchronisms between the Assyrian and Hebrew kings are irreconcilable unless
the years currently attributed to the AEC for Shamshi-Adad V and Adad-nirari III are revised
(which has implications for Egyptian chronology). The end product of my investigation — the
reconstruction of DK chronology — is presented in a continuous table for the entire period.
12 Chapter 1

Table 1.1. Divided Kingdom Rulers according to Kingdom

Judah Israel

Rehoboam Jeroboam I
Abijam Nadab
Asa Baasha
Jehoshaphat Elah
Jehoram Zimri
EDK Ahaziah-J Omri
LDK Athaliah Ahab
Joash-J Ahaziah-I
Amaziah Joram EDK
Azariah Jehu LDK

Jotham Jehoahaz
Ahaz Joash-I
Hezekiah Jeroboam II
Zechariah
Shallum
Menahem
Pekahiah
Pekah
Hoshea

1.6. Names of Kings

The DK rulers of Judah and Israel are not consistently named in the various texts, nor are
their names consistently spelled. In addition, some names are used for rulers of both kingdoms,
and interchangeable names are occasionally used for the same king. To reduce confusion in an
already complex discussion, I use standard names for the DK kings, adjusted by the following
naming conventions:

1. The first and thirteenth rulers of Israel are both named Jeroboam; I refer to these
kings as Jeroboam I and Jeroboam II.
2. The sons of Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoahaz of Israel are both named Joash (which is
frequently interchanged with Jehoash); I refer to these kings as Joash-J and Joash-I.
3. The sons of Jehoram of Judah and of Ahab of Israel are both named Ahaziah; I refer
to these kings as Ahaziah-J and Ahaziah-I.
4. The sons of Jehoshaphat of Judah and of Ahab of Israel are interchangeably named
Jehoram and Joram; I refer to the Judahite king as Jehoram and to the Israelite king as
Joram.
5. Abijam of Judah is also called Abijah (2 Chronicles 13); I refer to this king as Abijam.
 Introduction 13

Table 1.2. Divided Kingdom Rulers in Alphabetic Order

King Kingdom King Kingdom

Abijam Judah Jehu Israel

Ahab Israel Jeroboam I Israel
Ahaz Judah Jeroboam II Israel
Ahaziah-I Israel Joash-I Israel
Ahaziah-J Judah Joash-J Judah
Amaziah Judah Joram Israel
Asa Judah Jotham Judah
Athaliah Judah Menahem Israel
Azariah Judah Nadab Israel
Baasha Israel Omri Israel
Elah Israel Pekah Israel
Hezekiah Judah Pekahiah Israel
Hoshea Israel Rehoboam Judah
Jehoahaz Israel Shallum Israel
Jehoram Judah Zechariah Israel
Jehoshaphat Judah Zimri Israel

6. Jehoahaz of Israel is also called Joahaz (2 Kgs 14:1); I refer to this king as Jehoahaz.
7. Azariah of Judah is also called Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26); I refer to this king as Azariah.

Table 1.1 presents the names used in this book for the DK kings and queen. Table 1.2 presents
the DK rulers in alphabetic order so that readers can be easily reminded which kingdom any one
king ruled.