The Chronology of Kings
ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES in understanding the state of Israel and Judah in relation to international affairs is chronology. Historical relationships can only be understood in the framework of correlating sequences of events. Horn refers to chronology as the “skeleton of history.”1 The complicated synchronisms given in the regnal records of Kings cannot be understood apart from an absolute chronology that correlates events. The purpose of this appendix is not to provide a complete chronology of Kings; many have been attempted, with little consensus on acceptable methods of dealing with conflicting data. This appendix provides an outline of the issues and the means by which fixed dates can be obtained. With some exceptions, the commentary follows the dating system of Edwin Thiele as a useful means of dealing with the data of Kings. This appendix uses the end of the Omride dynasty as the means for correlating events in Kings with other historical records.
An absolute chronology for Assyria and Egypt can be established by correlating recorded events with astrological data.2 Mesopotamian chronology in Julian years is established on the basis of lists of officials, royal annals, and king lists that can be corroborated with astronomical information. An eclipse of the sun noted in the month of Simanu during the year of an official named Pur-Sagale in the ninth year of King Assurdan III has been astronomically calculated as being June 15, 763 B.C. This provides a chronological scheme for Assyrian history to the year 648 B.C. This is corroborated and supplemented by the Alexandrian scholar Ptolemy (A.D. 70–161), who used annals and astronomical observations to provide a chronology from 747 B.C. to the Roman imperial period. His Almagest provides over eighty solar, lunar, and planetary positions that have been verified by modern astronomers. The dates of the Neo-Babylonian kings have been established on the basis of business documents.3 This provides an absolute chronology within which known events may be put in context.
There is considerable difficulty in knowing how to relate the confusing dates of Kings to this chronology. Many historians simply abandon any attempt to understand the Kings numbers and work out an approximate scheme. Bright follows the chronology of Albright,4 Hayes and Miller adopt a similar approximate system.5 There are many problems understanding a relative chronology within Kings, as there are many inconsistencies readily observable (e.g., 1 Kings 16:23, 29). Thiele has worked out a system that seeks to correlate all the internal data of Kings, but is also compatible with known events.6 This system accounts for the data in a manner sufficient to suggest that certain basic presuppositions are correct and is probably the best way to correlate Assyrian and biblical history.7 Ahlström accepts the fundamental premises of Thiele but is much more cautious in assigning exact dates in the absence of correlating evidence.8 The system of Thiele has the advantage of taking the biblical numbers seriously as preserved from ancient sources. The complication of the system is scarcely a valid criticism, since chronology is by nature a complicated matter.
The system of Thiele involves a number of inferences about the chronological records preserved in Kings. Some historians find these unacceptable, but they make perfectly good sense in the chronological system of Kings. One of the most important is that of coregencies, in which rulership was temporarily shared between two kings. In some cases a king, because of war or illness, appointed his son to rule while he was still on the throne. Without coregencies the total lengths of reigns in Kings become much too high.
Another related inference is that of dual dating. Beginning at 1 Kings 15:1 the accession of each king of Israel or Judah is given as a synchronism with the regnal years of the other kingdom. In dual dating the date of accession is given as the beginning of the sole reign, but the total years include both the coregency and the sole kingship.
There are two further complications. The first is the month of the new year when the reign of a king officially began. This could be either in the spring (the month of Nisan) or the fall (the month of Tishri). The second complication is how to count the portion of the year in which a king came to rule before the beginning of the official year. This may be counted as a full year in the total (non-accession system), so a single year is actually counted in the total reigns of both kings. If the partial year is distinguished as an accession year, the total includes only the complete years of reign. Both systems were used at different times.
The reign of Ahab is a critical starting point for establishing the dates of the kings in Israel and Judah. The Assyrian Monolith Inscription places Ahab at the Assyrian battle against the coalition of Aramaean kings at Qarqar in 853.9 The usurper Jehu, who annihilated the Omride dynasty (2 Kings 10:11), is named on the Black Obelisk, which can be dated to 841.10 The two-year reign of Ahaziah son of Ahab (1 Kings 22:52) and the twelve-year reign of Joram son of Ahab (2 Kings 3:1) fit in this period, indicating that the twenty-two year reign of Ahab (1 Kings 16:29) must have ended in 853. Part of the twelve-year reign of Omri (v. 23) was shared with Tibni, because Israel was temporarily divided into two parts, half following Tibni and half following Omri (vv. 21–22). Following the principle of dual dating, the sole rule of Omri began in the thirty-first year of Asa (v. 23), but the total rule began in the twenty-seventh year of Asa at the revolt of Zimri (v. 15). The two-year reign of Elah (v. 8) began in the twenty-sixth year of Asa. Baasha reigned twenty-four years beginning in the third year of Asa (15:33). The two-year reign of Nadab (v. 25) began in the second year of Asa. The reign of Jeroboam lasted twenty-two years (14:20). This chronological data places the division of the kingdom in 930. This “skeleton of history” is critical to provide a correct historical context for the events narrated in Kings.
Following the principle of non-accession year dating in Israelite records, in which each king is assigned an extra year, the following chart shows the chronology of Israel calculated from the absolute dates of the Omride dynasty and going back to Jeroboam.
Joram |
852–841 |
(12 years)11 |
Ahaziah |
853–852 |
(2 years) |
Ahab |
874–853 |
(22 years) |
Omri |
885–874 |
(12 years) |
Tibni |
885–880 |
(5 years) |
Elah |
886–885 |
(2 years) |
Baasha |
908–886 |
(24 years)12 |
Nadab |
909–908 |
(2 years) |
Jeroboam |
930–908 |
(22 years) |
The synchronisms of Kings make possible an absolute dating of the kings of Judah as well. Since Judah used the accession year method of dating, the years of a reign given in Kings are the actual totals. Rehoboam reigned seventeen years after the division of the kingdom (14:21). Abijah reigned three years with his first official year beginning in the eighteenth year of Jeroboam (15:1–2). The accession year of the long reign of Asa began in the twentieth year of Jeroboam (15:9), his first official year in the twenty-first year of Jeroboam. The following is the chronology of Judah from Rehoboam to Asa.
Rehoboam |
930–913 |
(17 years) |
Abijah |
913–910 |
(3 years) |
Asa |
910–869 |
(41 years) |
The synchronisms for the end of the Omride dynasty (Ahaziah and Joram) with Jehoshaphat, king of Judah and successor to Asa, are complicated by double synchronisms for the beginning of the reign of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. According to the Masoretic text, Jehoshaphat came to reign in the fourth year of Ahab (1 Kings 22:41), so that his twenty-five year reign extended into the fifth year of Joram, son of Ahab (2 Kings 8:16).13 This chronology accounts for Jehoshaphat being present in the battle against Moab during the time of Joram son of Ahab (2 Kings 3:1–27). However, Jehoram was already in the second year of his reign when Ahaziah son of Ahab died (2 Kings 1:17). A second synchronism states that Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began to reign in the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab when Jehoshaphat was still king (2 Kings 8:16). According to the Masoretic text, Jehoshaphat appointed his son Jehoram as king during the reign of Ahab and before the battle against Moab. The sole rule of Jehoram began only in the fifth year of the reign of Joram son of Ahab. The reign of Jehoshaphat did extend into the reign of Joram son of Ahab, which explains his presence at the battle of Moab.
The Old Greek (Lucian) follows a different chronological scheme with the dating of Jehoshaphat, beginning his twenty-five year reign earlier, in the eleventh year of Omri, so his reign ends during the time of Ahaziah. The Old Greek chronology excludes Jehoshaphat from involvement with Joram in the battle against Moab (2 Kings 3). In the Old Greek account, all references to the king of Judah in the battle against Moab are rendered anonymously. In the regnal summary (3:1), the Old Greek says only that Joram son of Ahab reigned in Israel twelve years. However, the chronology of the Masoretic text with its assumption of coregency of Jehoram with Jehoshaphat is consistent.
There are several difficulties with the synchronisms between the dynasty of Jehu and the kings of Judah. The synchronisms for the reign of Jehoash are bad arithmetic; the thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah (2 Kings 13:10) does not correspond to a seventeen-year reign of Jehoahaz beginning in the twenty-third year of Joash (13:1), or to the reign of Amaziah his son beginning in the second year of Jehoash of Israel (14:1). The Greek manuscripts variously provide the accession synchronism as the fortieth, thirty-sixth, or thirty-ninth year of Joash. This shows evidence of attempts to provide corrections. Gray accepts the Masoretic text but proposes a two-year coregency of Jehoash with Jehoahaz.14 Thiele, in a more complex scheme, says that with Jehoash in Israel and with Amaziah of Judah, the records of the kings of Israel and Judah adopted an accession year system of reckoning.15 Jehoahaz had only sixteen actual years (under the non-accession year numbers), and with Israel beginning its year earlier than Judah in the month of Nisan, the beginning of the sixteenth year of Jehoahaz was in the thirty-seventh year of Joash, as the Hebrew text has it. The death of Jehoahaz according to the biblical chronology occurred in 798 B.C. This allows twenty-seven actual years for Jehu and sixteen actual years for Jehoahaz, beginning from the coup of Jehu in 841 B.C.
A twenty-nine year reign of Amaziah beginning in the second year of Jehoash of Israel (2 Kings 14:2) followed by a fifty-two year reign of his successor Azariah (14:21; 15:2) cannot be reconciled with the political events of Assyrian history. The second year of Jehoash of Israel would have been 796 B.C., if a switch to accession year reckoning is assumed.16 The accession year of Jehoash began in 798 B.C., so his second year coincided with the end of the actual thirty-nine year reign of Joash of Judah (835–796 B.C.). The advancements of Tiglath-Pileser III into Israel took place from 743–738 B.C., at the very end of the life of Azariah, when Pekah of Israel was already on the throne (15:19, 27, 29; cf. Isa. 6:1; 7:1).
Only two solutions are possible; the number of years assigned to Amaziah must be significantly reduced, or a coregency with Azariah must be allowed. Assuming the text is correct, the total of fifty-two years for Azariah includes the time of his coregency with Amaziah; his accession synchronism (2 Kings 15:1) indicates the beginning of his sole rule (an example of dual dating). It appears that Azariah was placed on the throne as regent after Amaziah’s defeat at Beth Shemesh and the raid by Jehoash on Jerusalem (14:13), with Amaziah remaining as a titular king. This would further explain the notice that Azariah lived (but did not reign) for fifteen years after the death of Jehoash (v. 17). The sixteen-year reign of Jehoash of Israel ended in 781 B.C., and the twenty-nine years of Amaziah ended in 767 B.C. Amaziah continued to live in Jerusalem until a conspiracy forced him to flee to Lachish, where he was assassinated.
The data for the northern kingdom would indicate a lengthy coregency between Jehoash and Jeroboam. The synchronisms leave a gap of twelve or thirteen years between Amaziah and Azariah of Judah if there is no coregency. Jeroboam came to reign in the fifteenth year of Amaziah (14:23), who reigned for fourteen more years (14:2). The reign of Azariah, successor to Amaziah, did not begin until the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam (15:1). Since there is no mention of such an “interregnum,” it can only be concluded that the Deuteronomistic Historians did not understand there to be one. The synchronism for Jeroboam marks the year of his accession as sole ruler. Amaziah came to rule in the second year of Jehoash of Israel (14:1), calculated above to be 796 B.C.; the fifteenth year of Amaziah was 782/781 B.C. The sole reign of Azariah began with the end of the reign of Amaziah fifteen years later (767 B.C.). That was the twenty-seventh year of the total reign of Jeroboam (15:1), so the beginning of his coregency can be calculated to be 793 B.C.17 Jeroboam was on the throne for twelve years before the death of his father (782 B.C.), and his forty-one year reign (14:23) continued for fourteen years after the sole reign of Azariah began (767 B.C.). Amos began to prophesy near the end of his reign (Amos 1:1). Jeroboam was succeeded by Zechariah in 753 B.C. (2 Kings 15:8); that was the thirty-eighth year of Azariah. Azariah reigned fifty-two years (15:2), from 792 B.C. to 740 B.C.
The synchronisms for Ahaz are not easy to reconcile. Ahaz is said to have begun to reign in the seventeenth year of Pekah (16:1), a correlation that indicates Pekah had a rival reign in the Transjordan during the twelve-year reign of Menahem.18 However, the synchronism that begins the reign of Hoshea in the twelfth year of Ahaz (2 Kings 17:1) cannot be reconciled with the statement that Hoshea assassinated Pekah and began to reign in the twentieth year of Jotham (15:30).19 The nine-year reign of Hoshea came to an end with the fall of Samaria in 723 B.C., so he must have begun in the year 732 B.C.
Various proposals have been made to resolve these conflicting data.20 One solution is to emend the text, as proposed by Gray; Hoshea came to rule in the second year of Ahaz rather than the twelfth (17:1).21 A textual error of ten years may have occurred when the number was indicated by a cipher. Alternately, Ahaz may have been adopted as coregent with Jotham during those unsettled times; Tiglath-Pileser may have accorded him some recognition of authority, which north Israelite records counted as his formal accession.22 This served as the synchronism for the reign of Hoshea; Ahaz began to reign as coregent in 743 B.C.
A second issue in the data of Ahaz is that he was twenty years old when he began to reign, that he reigned for sixteen years (16:2), and his son Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign (18:2). This would mean that Hezekiah was born when Ahaz was eleven, an unlikely age to become a father. If a coregency of Ahaz began ten years before his sixteen-year reign, then Ahaz was about thirty when his sixteen-year reign began; in that case he became a father at a more realistic age of twenty-one. While this may explain the chronological data, the statement of the text would suggest that Ahaz was twenty when his sixteen-year rule began. There appear to be several chronologies for the reign of Ahaz, a likely result of Assyrian interference and the political conflicts of the times.
Particularly difficult problems are associated with the end of Israel and the reign of Hezekiah. According to Kings, the Assyrians destroyed Samaria during the sixth year of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:10). Based on Assyrian records, the destruction of Samaria took place in 723 B.C., placing the ascension of Hezekiah in 727/726 B.C. This is in accordance with the statement that Hezekiah began to rule in the third year of Hoshea (2 Kings 18:1), the last king of Israel, who ruled for nine years (cf. 17:1). A second synchronism states that Sennacherib attacked Jerusalem in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (18:13); on the basis of specific Assyrian records, this siege must be dated to 701 B.C. According to this second synchronism, Hezekiah ascended to the throne in 715 B.C. The clarity of the data in relation to the reign of Hezekiah and the Assyrian attacks against Samaria and Jerusalem is a compelling reason to accept a coregency for Hezekiah that began during the reign of Hoshea; his sole rule began in 715 B.C., a well-established anchor point in establishing the chronology for the last kings of Judah. Other approaches to the problem are to dismiss the synchronism with the Israelite kingdom, to emend those synchronisms, or to regard the datum of the siege in the fourteenth year as an errant calculation.23 All of these proposals are more problematic than coregency.
The problems of chronology in the Hebrew Bible continue to be examined. A number of studies have appeared in the last fifteen years that may be noted for further reference:
Barnes, W. H. Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. HSM 48; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.
Becking, B. “Chronology: A Skeleton without Flesh? Sennacherib’s Campaign as a Case Study.” Pages 46–72 in ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E. Ed. L. L. Grabbe. JSOTSup 363. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press/Continuum, 2003.
Galil, G. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 9. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Goldberg, J. “Two Assyrian Campaigns against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Century Biblical Chronology.” Bib 80 (1999): 315–36.
Hayes, J. H. “The Beginning of the Regnal Year in Israel and Judah.” In The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller. Ed. J. A. Dearman and M. P. Graham. JSOTSup 343. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Hooker, P. K. “The Year of Josiah’s Death: 609 or 610 B.C.E.?” Pages 96–103 in The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller. Ed. J. A. Dearman and M. P. Graham. JSOTSup 343. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Hughes, J. R. A. Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. JSOTSup 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.
Kelle, B. E. “‘Hoshea, Sargon and the Final Destruction of Samaria: A Response to M. Christine Tetley with a View towards Method.” SJOT 17 (2003): 226–44.
McFall, L. “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles.” BSac 148 (1991): 3–45.
Naʾaman, N. “The Historical Background to the Conquest of Samaria (720 B.C.).” Bib 71 (1990): 206–25.
Tetley, M. C. The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004.