of the names in the two lists, we must be guided by the length of reign. Ahab reigned 22 years, Jehoshaphat 25. Let us suppose both terms to be complete, and see whether this, or what other, form of hypothesis, accords with the genuine data. This scheme realizes the following data of the history: 1. Ahab reigned 22' and Jehoshaphat 25' [complete]. 2. Ahaziah s. Ahab reigned 2' [complete]. 3. Joram s. Ahab reigned 12' [complete]. 5. Ahaziah s. Joram reigned 1' [complete]. and is at variance only with the data which we have already proved not to be genuine. It is true, the same result will follow on the supposition that Ahab's and Jehoshaphat's years are only current i. e. that Ahab reigned 21 years and Jehoshaphat 24 years complete in which case 1 Ahaziah s. J. 92 Rehoboam. The other forms of hypothesis are, 1. Ahab reigned 22' complete, Jehoshaphat 24' complete. 2. vice versa, with the same alternative. i. e. none of these forms is consistent with the data except the second, viz. Ahab reigned 22 years, Jehoshaphat 24 years, and Ahaziah 1 year. The result of this form is 1 Joram 85 = Reh. and 1 Ahaziah s. J. 92 Reh. So that it is doubtful, thus far, whether 1 Ahaziah be 92 or 93 Rehoboam. We must leave this point undecided for the present, for want of other distinct criteria in the contemporary narrative. § 220. As the years of Jehu are conterminous with the years of Joram, (for otherwise the reign of Joram would have been set down as 13 years,) this 1st of Jehu therefore begins during the 1st of Ahaziah = 93 (or 92) of Rehoboam, and the 1st of Joash, after Athaliah's usurpation, begins in the 7th of Jehu. Our enumeration therefore proceeds thus: In the Hebrew text, indeed, of 2 Kings xiii. 10, we read that Joash of Israel ascended the throne in the 37th year of Joash of Judah. But this is manifestly an error: for in that case, 1 Joash would = 44 Jehu. Now Jehu reigned 28 years and Jehoahaz 17 years, therefore even supposing the latter to be current, 1 Joash would 45th Jehu. Besides, the subsequent synchronisms would be deranged. Some copies of the Septuagint preserve the true reading, "thirty-ninth." Here the sequence is interrupted by another corruption of the text: 2 Kings xv. i. "Azariah (= Uzziah) began to reign in the 27th of Jeroboam." This cannot be, for 27 Jeroboam begins in the 41st of Amaziah, but Amaziah reigned only 29 years. From this difficulty, however, we are relieved by the following notice: 2 Kings xiv. 17, "Amaziah lived after the death of Joash (of Israel) 15 years:" and Joash reigned 16 years which ended, as we have seen, in the 15th Amaziah. Hence 154 15 Amaziah 16- 1 Jeroboam II. § 221. Again, in the synchronism which gives 1 Hezekiah, we find either a corruption of the numbers, or, at least, a difficulty which requires explanation. 2 Kings xviii. 1. "In the 3rd of Hoshea, Hezekiah began to reign;" but v. 9, "4th Hezekiah = 7th Hoshea," and v. 10, " 6th Hezekiah = 9th Hoshea." All these data might, indeed, be reconciled by the following scheme : but then we should contradict another datum: for this scheme gives to Ahaz but 14 years complete, whereas he reigned 16 years; 2 Kings xvi. 2. It follows that 2 Kings xviii. 1. is corrupt, and the scheme proceeds thus: Thus we have reached the last year of the parallel reigns of Judah and Israel: for the date of which we have hereafter to choose between 257 and 256 Rehoboam. § 222. From this time we have nothing to guide us but the length of reign of the several kings; and the results must of course be uncertain, so long as we are not sure whether the years of each reign are reckoned in current or complete time. The reigns are:— Hezekiah, 29 years, 2 Kings xviii. 2, certainly complete: for it was in the 14th year that " Sennacherib came up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them:" and Hezekiah sent to Lachish, with overtures of submission, and raised the tribute which was ordered, 14-16: yet, after this, Sennacherib sends his officers, Tartan, Rabsaris and Rabshakeh, to Jerusalem, as related xviii. 17.—xix. 8. Isaiah xxxvi. 2.—xxxvii. 8. Comp. 2 Chron. xxxii: Rabshakeh and the others return to Sennacherib at Libnah: and Sennacherib, hearing of Tirhakah's Here expedition, sends again to Hezekiah, 2 Kings xix. 8 ff. are three embassies, and the last is followed by the miraculous discomfiture of the Assyrian host, "that night," xix. 35. All these transactions must needs fill up a considerable part of the 14th year of Hezekiah, if not the whole of it. Then "in those days was Hezekiah sick unto death...and the Lord added to his life 15 years." Manasseh reigned 55 years, 2 Kings xxi. 1. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1. If the years were only current, 1 Amon would be 335 Rehoboam. Hence the chronology wavers between 336,335 on the first supposition, and between 335,334 on the second. $223. Amon reigned 2 years: 2 Kings xxi. 19. 2 Chron. But if the years of Amon were only current, 337, or 336, or 335 1 Josiah : = thus the Chronology wavers between 338-335 for the 1st Josiah. § 224. After this point there is, happily, no room for doubt, though the uncertainty arising from the want of express determination between complete and current time would increase at every step, had we only the length of reign to go by. For we have before proved that the 1st of Jehoiakim, 609 B. c. the 32nd of Josiah, § 163 note: whence 1 Josiah must = 640 B. C. § 225. Thus then we have obtained a synchronism between the year B. c. 640 and the year of Rehoboam 338, or 337, or 336, or 335: i. e. 1 Rehoboam is either 977, or 976, or 975, or 974 B. C. A priori the first of these is the most probable, for all the rest result from assuming that one or more of the terms of reign are reckoned in current years, without any necessity, in respect of the synchronisms, for such assumption. That it is a true principle to reckon each term by complete years, except where the synchronisms prove the enumeration to proceed by years current, will further appear when we come to cast up our results; for it will be seen, that three reigns out of four, on an average, are measured by years complete. But, if 1 Nisan B. C. 977 be the epoch of Rehoboam, it follows, on the rule which was proved above (§ 211—213), that the epoch of Jeroboam lies somewhere in B. c. 978. And this result is in complete accordance with a fact which we might even have treated as one of the elements of the enquiry now in hand, but which I preferred to reserve to the last. The prophet Ezekiel, in a vision of the impending siege and destruction of Jerusalem, was commanded to lie on one side for the space of 390 days, which days, he was made to understand, represented 390 years of the provocations of the house of Israel, and afterwards 40 days for the iniquity of the house of Judah, each day for a year. There can be no doubt that the crisis which is the subject of this vision, is the siege of Jerusalem : its limit then, and the terminus ad quem of the 390 years and of the 40 years', is the year 588 B. c. in the 4th or 5th month. The terminus a quo is therefore the very year 978 B. C., which by a strict construction proceeding upon one uniform rule, we have found to be the epoch of the reigns of the house of Israel: not, of course, the actual epoch of Jeroboam's reign, but, we must infer, the date of the commission of the ten tribes to Jeroboam by Ahijah the prophet. Having thus constructed the scheme as a whole, by means of the determinative synchronisms, we may proceed to exhibit the data of each reign, and especially to compare the other synchronisms expressed in the history with those which result from a uniform adherence to the rule above enunciated. The 40 years reckoned back from 588 lead to 628 B. C. = 13 Josiah, pre cisely the commencement of Jeremiah's prophesying. |