[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 445

Ionian dates assured, they would be usable for Biblical chronology only were definite points of chronology (synchronisms) settled. Such synchronisms are practically entirely lacking. No stringently binding connection exists with a fixed date for the contacts of Abraham or Joseph with Egypt; even for the entrance into and .exodus from Egypt the reigning Pharaoh is not known with absolute certainty-assuming the historicity of these events. 'I Similarly with Babylonia; the wandering of the patriarchs in the East, the stay of Abraham in Babylonia or Haran, his stay in Canaan-once more '~, granting the historicity of these events-none of these permit of connection with fixed early Babylonian history. Even Gen. xiv. with the kings there mentioned does not afford a relationship, since it is not certain that Amraphel is the Hammurabi (see HAMMURABI AND MS Coni:) whose date is approximately fixed. All of earlier Biblical chronology depends upon conclusions from later Biblical events so far as earlier and later events can be connected.

The first real synchronisms occur in the regal period, when certain settled events are related with Assyrian events. A supposed synchronism with the founding of Carthage and the list of Phenician

(Tyrian) kings is only apparent. z. Synchro- Josephus (Apion, i. 18) gives from

nisms is Menander a list of ten kings of Tyre, I-II Kings. and also (Ant., VIII., iii. 1) says that

Solomon began the Temple in Hiram's eleventh year. But both sets of data are inconclusive. For the founding of Carthage Timaeus assigns the year 814, but without corroboration and definite knowledge of the source this can not be accepted as basis for chronology. In the books of Kings there appears what looks like an extraordinarily exact system of reckoning, in which are two series of figures which seem to support and guarantee one another, though as a matter of fact they do not agree. The one series gives the lengths of the reigns of the rulers of both kingdoms, the other gives synchronisms, stating in what regnal years of the contemporary monarch of the other kingdom the kings of the one began their reigns. Were the system correct and the figures correctly transmitted, this would have high value. But the two systems are not by the same hand, the books having undergone a double redaction, the second at the earliest toward the end of the exile, probably after the exile. This second naturally used, at least for the later parts, traditional numbers, though it may have altered them to fit into the system. Benzinger in his commentary on Kings has sought to show that the period of 480 years (cf. I Kings vi. 1) rules for the time between Solomon and the end of the exile, that between the division of the kingdom and the fall of Samaria is half of this, 240 years (according to another reckoning 263 years). If between the fall of Samaria and of Jerusalem be reckoned 136 years, for the exile a duration of 50, and for Solomon's reign after beginning the Temple 36 years, the sum is 240 (263)-I-136-I-50-h36=462 (485) years. Simple addition of the Biblical numbers to Hoshea gives in the Judean series 260 and in the Israelitic aeries 242 years, with a total to end of exile of 464 and 482 years. This suggests that Bensinger's at-

tempt has probability behind it, though nothing more. As to the manner of reckoning the length of reigns, it is assumed that the first full year was reckoned to a king, the preceding year being given to his predecessor, though it has been otherwise assumed that the last year of a . king

3. Results should be given also to his successor, from As- this leading to a doubling and resyriaa quiring a subtraction of one year Sources. from each except the first of the series. For assured reckoning points the Assyrian chronology furnishes a means, through the Eponym Canon and the eclipse of 763 a.c. (see Assrxla, VI., 1, § 1). Synchronisms rule as follows:

8halmaneser II. ruled . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .... .. 859-825 8halmaneser fought at Karkar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854 8halmaneser fought with Damascus, Jehu's tribute 842

In addition to these data there is the Canon of Ptolemy which gives a survey of Babylonian and Persian rulers of Babylon, and from Alexander of the Ptolemies in Egypt. Usable here are the data that

From these numbers can be gained certain dates for Israel. From the last the dates of at least the latest kings can be obtained; in the battle of Karkar Ahab or Jehoram took part, while Jehu's tribute year was -842 when he must have been on the throne; 734 or 733 was Pekah's last regnal year and 722 Hoshea's last. There are several synchronisms between Israel and Judah: Jeroboam and Rehoboam, Jehu and Athaliah, respectively, entered upon their reigns in the same year. Mesha records (see MoeslmE STONE) that Israel during forty years, i.e., during Omri's reign and half of the days of his sons (Ahab, Ahaziah, Joram), oppressed Moab. But Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram reigned only 36 years, hence Omri's 12 + half of 36 = 18 are only 30 years, and the 40 of Mesha is a round number. It furnishes, however, an example of the reckoning by generations or forties. Remembering the inaptitude of modern Orientals for exactness in figures, it is easy to see how in the absence of written

¢. General records the exact numbers become Result. lost and a system of round numbers grows up, illustrated also by the number in Judges.

A general but provisional scheme as the result of the foregoing investigation results as follows.