The Kings of Judah and Israel (Part 2)
This continues from Part One and starts by looking at Jeroboam II.
iii. Jeroboam II
Reigned 41 years (3343 - 3384) 'In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Jo'ash, king of Judah, Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and he reigned forty-one years.' 2 Kings 14:23.'The fifteenth year of Amaziah is 3341 (3326 + 15) Δ -2'.
At the start of Jeroboam's reign delta is minus 2, and we would hope that this will be the same after his reign at the start of the reign of Zechariah the next king of Israel. This is not the case however and if the continuous dating was allowed to flow its natural course, delta at the start of Zechariah's reign would be minus 9 and decreases even lower for other proceeding kings and never approaches the more desirable zero value. This would mean that when the reign of Hoshea was reached it would be completely out of synchronisation with the reign of Hezekiah, where we have plenty of cues in the bible that these kings reign at the same time.
It is necessary to look at the comparative dates as well to see more irregularities. Zechariah who is the fourteenth king of Israel and who reigns after Jeroboam begins his reign in the thirty-eighth year of Azariah. To clarify the situation, at this point there are two kings of Judah that are important here: the ninth king of Judah, Amaziah who reigns for 29 years; and the tenth king of Judah, Azariah who reigns for 52 years. The names are very similar and can cause one to be mistaken for the other so care is needed.
So starting with Jeroboam, king of Israel, whose reign begins in the fifteenth year of Amaziah the ninth king of Judah. Jeroboam is said to have reigned for 41 years, and since we know that Amaziah reigns for only 29 years, if 15 years is taken from the 29 years of the whole of Amaziah's reign then there is a remainder of 14 years in which the two kings ruled simultaneously, Amaziah in Judah and Jeroboam in Israel. These 14 years are the initial 14 years of Jeroboam's reign, after which he will have 27 years to reign in parallel with the next king of Judah who is Azariah, the tenth king of Judah. So the next king of Israel Zechariah should then begin his reign in the twenty-eighth year of Azariah but this is not what happens and we are told that Zechariah begins to reign in the thirty-eighth year of Azariah. His reign is only 6 months long and the following king Shallum only reigns for 1 month, these are very short reigns and perhaps it is better to look at the next king of Israel called Menahem who reigns for 10 years.
Menahem's reign is said to have started in the thirty-ninth year of Azariah, and since the two kings prior to Menahem, Zechariah and Shallum, only reign for seven months between them, these could also start their reigns in the same year as that of Menahem's reign or there about. This points to an eleven year gap between the continuous dating and the comparative dating, such that the comparative dating is 11 years ahead of the continuous dating or put another way, the continuous dating has lost 11 years, and that is not including the 2 years (the delta value of minus 2) that was initially missing at the start of Jeroboam's reign.
If nothing is done about these missing years then for the rest of the timeline the reigns of the king of Israel and Judah are out of synch by at least ten years, so it was felt that it is justified to add the eleven years to the continuous timeline, and this is what has been done in the form of an interregnum. Some people would consider it better to add thirteen years to bring the delta back to a zero value however it was decided that those two years (the delta minus 2 value at the start of Jeroboam's reign) were errors elsewhere in the timeline and that the only years to be added should be those where there is some evidence to suggest that an error has arisen at this time interval. At this point the error can be clearly seen and a solution is required to address the results of the error which sends the disparity between continuous and comparative dating to an unacceptable level.
So an interregnum of eleven years has been added. Can the text in the bible justify such an addition? It doesn't say there is such a period, but neither does it discount such an addition. This interregnum brings in to consideration another issue which does have a bearing on the interregnum and the kings mentioned to justify its existence. This involves considering the kings of Judah.
iv. Azariah (Uzziah)
Reigned 52 years (3355 - 3407) 'In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel Azariah the son of Amaziah, king of Judah began to reign. He was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem.' 2 Kings 15:1-2, 2 Chr 26:1-2.The twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam is 3370 (3343 + 27) Δ -15.
Jeroboam and Azariah are two of the kings that have just been mentioned above, and here there is another issue that arises from the comparative dating. The delta here has declined inexplicably to minus fifteen. This complicates matters as it might undermine the justification for the eleven year interregnum since the two kings are the same that seem to require a need for the interregnum in the first place. The delta of minus fifteen seems to suggest that the reign of Jeroboam II is fifteen years too early and there could be an error of fifteen years prior to the reign of Jeroboam. However Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews Bk. IX Ch. 2 V216) gives the start of Azariah's reign as being in the fourteenth year of Jeroboam rather than the twenty-seventh mentioned in the bible.
The fourteenth year of Jeroboam is 3357 (3343 + 14) Δ -2.
This would reduce the delta to minus 2 which happens to agree with the delta for Jeroboam II king of Israel. This is a much better fit with the rest of the information and so it was decided that here at least the data from Josephus should be taken over that found in the bible. This doesn't mean that any actual dates on the actual chart have to be changed but just ensures that the delta is kept from such a large change for no apparent reason. With or without this change the next king of Judah Jotham, Azariah's son, begins his reign with a delta of plus 3 returning the value for delta to the same value prior to Azariah, so the delta value of minus 15 is only a momentary blip that corrects itself.
v. Pekah
Reigned 20 years (3408 - 3428) 'In the fifty-second year of Azariah king of Judah Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and he reigned twenty years.' 2 Kings 15:27.'The fifty-second year of Azariah is 3407 (3355 + 52) Δ -1'.
Pekah is the eighteenth and penultimate king of Israel. Delta is only minus 1 and so the eleven year interregnum has kept the disparity fairly low, as without it at this stage delta would be plus 11. In Pekah's reign Tiglathpileser of Assyria comes and conquers the surrounding area 2 Kings 15:29. This fact plus the fact that Hoshea the nineteenth king of Israel starts to plot against Pekah leads to some more uncertainties which destabilises the timeline and delta which up to now seems to be fairly consistent.
'The Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah and struck him down and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah' 2 Kings 15:30.
'The twentieth year of Jotham would have been 3427 (3407 + 20) Δ -1'.
The problem here is that Jotham is supposed to have reigned for only 16 years, although there is the possibility of this value of 20 here takes in to account the time when he ruled as co-regent with his father, Azariah (Uzziah) who had contacted leprosy and was deemed unfit for kingship. If there was a twentieth year of Jotham it would still fit as the delta shows us just a difference of minus 1. Although the bible does say that Jotham ruled in place of his father, there does not seem to be any apparent dates for any overlap, the time he spent as a co-regent. So it is not clear if Azariah lived until the end of his reign of 52 years and then died, or some time after and was not considered king for that following duration. It was not clear whether Jotham's 16 years were years he ruled as the sole ruler or whether part of them were as co-regent while his father still lived. However with this reference to a twentieth year of Jotham it must be assumed that the 16 years were the years when Jotham was a king in his own right. How long the co-regency lasted is not known.
This brings us to Hoshea the nineteenth king of Israel who should be king in 3428 when looking at the continuous date, but we see that according to the comparative date his reign begins in the twelfth year of Ahaz King of Judah.
vi. Hoshea
'In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah Hoshea the son of Elah began to reign in Samaria over Israel, and he reigned nine years.' 2 Kings 17:1.The twelfth year of Ahaz is 3435, so there is a seven year gap from the expected 3428. This would of course make the delta equal to plus 7. To try and find out why this error has occurred and to see if there is a possibility of 'fixing' this problem the comparative dating from both the kings of Judah and the kings of Israel should be inspected.
The error is due to some miscalculation of the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel. Starting with Pekah, the eighteenth king of Israel, who begins his reign in the fifty-second year of Azariah, king of Judah, and then reigns for 20 years, these twenty years would of course run in parallel with all of the sixteen years of Jotham's reign, the next king of Judah after Azariah, plus four years of the next king of Judah after Jotham who is Azah. So from the fourth year of Azah to the twelfth year of Azah when Hoshea becomes king of Israel, since he becomes king in the twelfth year of Azah king of Judah, there are eight years unaccounted for. This might be some indication that perhaps the length of Pekah's reign was greater than the 20 years given for his reign or it could indicate that some of the sixteen years of Jotham's reign took place while Azariah his father was still on the throne. However perhaps Jotham's reign was longer than 16 years as the statement in 2 Kings 15:30 says that Hoshea starts his reign in the twentieth year of Jotham or to be more exact that Pekah's reign ends at that time. So does Jotham reign for 16 years or for a longer period?
It might seem an ideal solution to make about seven or eight years of Jotham's run in parallel with the latter years of Azariah's reign or to extend the years that Jotham was king, but the delta values illustrate the problem with doing either of these. There has already been a mention of the delta value for Azariah of minus 15 but after the 'correction' the delta was just minus 2, it is worth stating that the previous king to Azariah was Amaziah who started his reign with a delta value of plus 3. The next king after Azariah was his son Jotham who also has a delta value of plus 3 at the start of his reign, so regardless of what errors have occurred during the reign of Azariah the delta resets itself back to its former value with the subsequent reigns.
Ahaz is the next king of Judah following Jotham and he starts his reign with a delta of plus 2. This slight reduction in the value of delta is due to the fact that Jotham starts his reign (comparatively) in the second year of the reign of Pekah, the eighteenth king of Israel, and reigns 16 years (i.e. the eighteenth year of Pekah), and is them superseded by Ahaz who begins his reign in the seventeenth year of Pekah. This odd arithmetic would explain the reduction in the delta value, and needn't concern us too much here. However if Ahaz starts his reign in the seventeenth or eighteenth year of Pekah the king of Israel, and since Pekah's reign is only twenty years long, then it would be expected that in the second or third year of Ahaz, Hoshea would begin to reign in Israel. This is not the case and it is stated that Hoshea begins his reign in the twelfth year of Ahaz so there is an approximately nine or ten year gap. It has to be remembered that there is a plus 2 year delta at the start of Ahaz's reign and a minus 1 year delta at the start of Pekah's reign and so that is a difference of three years. So taking this in to account there is at least a seven year gap.
The approximate plus value of 3 for the Judaean delta for many of the later kings of Judah ties in quite well with the approximate minus 2 values for the Israeli delta. Generally speaking it might be expected that if one set of comparative dates are generally out by plus 3 the other set of comparative dates should be out by minus three. Put simply this would imply that one error had generated the misalignment and that once found everything would slide back in to its correct place with no disparity and all the deltas being equal to zero. It doesn't work out as easy as that as there are other fluctuations, but the principle that one error in one set of kings should be mirrored but opposite in the other set of kings should hopefully be seen.
Looking at the Israeli kings prior to the reign of Hoshea there is a relatively consistent delta of minus 1 or 2, and it is only with the commencement of Hoshea's reign that there appears this irregular 7 year gap between the comparative dates and the continuous dates. Since the reign of Ahaz starts with a similar delta as other monarchs before and after him the fault must lie with the Israeli comparative dates. So it was decided that again here as before it was necessary to insert an interregnum but this time for seven years. This brings the delta at the start of Hoshea's reign to zero, this disregards the fact that the delta was minus 1 at the start of Pekah's reign, the king prior to Hoshea.
This interregnum of seven years is perhaps plausible when it is considered that Tiglathpileser and then Shalmaneser the kings of Assyria were rampaging around the country and possibly imposing their own rule. This could have caused the complication at this point. However this interregnum does not entirely resolve everything.
'In the fourth year of King Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah, king of Israel, Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria and besieged it and at the end of three years he took it. In the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. The king of Assyria carried the Israelites away to Assyria, and put them in Halah, and on Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes' 2 Kings 18:9-11.
So the delta is still at plus one even though at the start of the reign it was reset to zero by using the interregnum.
If neither of the interregnums were added at this point then Hoshea reign would have been from 3416 to 3425 and the delta value, given that the twelfth year of Ahaz is 3435, would have been plus 19 years. For the conquest of Israel it would therefore have been plus 20 years. So when considering this alternative then, it was thought better to include the interregnums until some more suitable way around the irregularities could be found.
