THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT

By the Rev.
DAVID ROSS FOTHERINGHAM, M.A.
Queens' College, Cambridge
Curate of Holy Trinity, Haverstock Hill
Chaplain of the Byron Society

CAMBRIDGE
DEIGHTON BELL AND CO.
LONDON GEORGE BELL AND SONS
1906

Catnbrtogf:
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY FHESS.

PREFACE.
' I "HE following dissertation has been written in
-*- such moments as could be spared from the
performance of pressing parochial duties. It is hoped
however that it will shew no sign either of undue haste
or of lack of preparation. Indeed, since chronology
has been the author's study or his recreation from
his childhood, it may be said that many years have
each contributed their toll to the production of the
little volume. In one respect the chronology that is
advocated here may be regarded as a reversion to
schemes and systems of an earlier date. This is true
in that it is essentially a Biblical Chronology, and
has been deduced almost entirely from the Hebrew
records. Synchronism with Assyrian and other history
serves to test and to establish the truth of results that
have been already attained, but it is too slight to
provide a solid foundation for an alternative system,
and the attempt to make it such has led to disaster.
The hope is expressed that the present enquiry may
tend to a clearer view of historical sequence and may
to some extent replace the elaborate chronological
systems of past centuries that have failed to satisfy
the demands of recent criticism.

CONTENTS. PAGE
The Chronology of the Kings
Part I  i
Part II  28
Part III  48
The Fall of Samaria  68
The Chronology of the Judges .... 77
The Date of the Exodus  90
The Chronology of the Priestly Code . . 101
The Chronology of the Prophets . . . .111
Egyptian Chronology  115
Chronology of Assyria, etc  130
Some other Chronological Systems . . .136
Additional Note  141

THE CHRONOLOGY OF
THE KINGS.
Part I.
The Chronology of the period of the Kings has
attracted more attention than that of any other period
of Hebrew History. And naturally so : for a central
authority affords a basis for exact chronological
reckonings that are simply impossible when the
government is distributed between a number of
scattered and irresponsible judges. Hence it is that
while the chronology of other periods has always been
vague and uncertain, that of the Kings has been
regarded as tolerably well fixed ; and the dates
originally computed by Petavius and Ussher have
been generally accepted, with only the slightest modi
fications, from their first publication till almost our
own day.
Now all this is changed. The long-received
Pgtavian chronology is totally rejected, and we have
F. I

2 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
in its place a large and increasing number of chrono
logical systems, perpetually warring with one another,
and none giving any promise of permanent satis
faction. The reason for this is soon apparent. The Received
Chronology was based entirely on the Hebrew Records,
for the simple reason that no other data were then
available. Modern discoveries have revealed a dis
crepancy of at least forty years between the dates
given by Petavius and Ussher, and those derived from
Assyrian Inscriptions : and since the authority of the
Assyrian Inscriptions is unquestionable, that of the
Hebrew Records has fallen into disrepute. It should
be remembered, however, that the Hebrew Records
now in our possession are derived from older records
that in respect of age and authority are equal to the
Assyrian Monuments themselves. Whatever error
therefore may be detected in the Petavian chronology,
or in its modern rivals, it is to be supposed that the
original Hebrew chronology is as correct as that of
Assyria. The difficulty is that the Hebrew chronology has
been so long identified with the Petavian system that
it is hardly possible to dissociate them now. Scaliger
was the first of scientific chronologers. Petavius
shewed greater precision in his work ; he and Ussher
laboured with immense ingenuity and indefatigable
patience ; and as a result their chronology has been

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 3
generally received for three hundred years, and quoted
with a degree of confidence and certainty that they
would hardly have claimed for it themselves. The
tendency now is to repudiate it almost completely.
Yet for this period the Hebrew chronology is
generally clear and simple. There are of course cases
of doubt or difficulty. These cases were not unknown
to Petavius and Ussher, and their proposed solutions
have been embodied in what, on the analogy of the
Elzevirs' Textus Receptus, we may call the Received
Chronology. If it can be shewn that other solutions
are equally admissible, or even preferable, we shall
have the basis for a Revised Hebrew Chronology :
and if it should appear that this Revised Chronology
is in harmony with the contemporary records of
Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt, then it may be accepted
as probably, or tentatively, true.
It will be well to consider first the different
Hebrew Records, their respective values, and the
nature and extent of the errors to which we are liable
from our dependence upon them.
The first and most important of those authorities
is the directly historical record contained in the Books
of Kings and Chronicles. Besides these we have
incidental chronological references in the Prophets,
and we have Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. All
these authorities were at the disposal of Petavius and
Ussher ; on them alone the Received Chronology is

4 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
based ; and since all other authorities are necessarily
partial and fragmentary, they must still form the
basis of any stable Chronology of the Period.
The first source of error or difficulty in our
chronology might be expected to lie in discrepancies
between our different authorities. There appear to
be three cases of discrepancy between Kings and
Chronicles, and in each case the reading in Kings is
preferable. Thus in 2 Chron. xvi. I we read : " In the
six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha
king of Israel went up against Judah." It appears
however from i Kings xvi. 8 that Baasha had been
dead ten years by this time, and since the chronology
of Kings at this point is too exact to be questioned, it
appears that the writer of the Chronicles has given
a wrong date in this particular instance. Again, in
2 Chron. xxii. 2 we read : " Forty and two years old
was Ahaziah when he began to reign," which would
make him two years older than his father Jehoram
(2 Chron. xxi. 5). In this case the true age of
Ahaziah (" Twenty and two years ") is given in
2 Kings viii. 26. Finally in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9 we
read: "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began
to reign," which makes him an unfit object for the
stern judgement that follows: "He did that which
was evil in the sight of the LORD," and altogether
destroys the force of Jeremiah's curse (Jer. xxii. 30) :
" Write ye this man childless." In this case also it is

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 5
sufficiently clear that the true age, eighteen years, is
that given in 2 Kings xxiv. 8. The Books of Kings
are far richer in chronological material than the
Chronicles : the Chronicles contain very few or no
independent data, and are the less trustworthy in the
case of matter common to both. For all these reasons
the Books of Kings will be uniformly preferred, and
comparatively little use made of our present Books of
Chronicles. It must be borne in mind, however, that
the Books of Kings themselves are only authoritative
in so far as they are correct copies or extracts from
the original Chronicles of the Kings of Israel or
Judah. The numbers of the Septuagint frequently differ
from the Massorete Text, and different manuscripts of
the Septuagint differ from one another. But these
discrepancies will be found to be of the nature of
false readings rather than independent authorities,
and therefore have no chronological importance.
Some of these, however, will be found to deserve
attention for the instruction they afford in the rise
of error and misunderstanding. The discrepancies
found in Josephus are of more importance, for he is
writing an independent work, and he may have had
access to authorities unknown to us. For this reason it
is desirable that his numbers should always be quoted,
and due attention paid to them, but they will not be
found superior to those given in the Books of Kings.

6 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
The prophetical allusions may be discussed as they
arise. The Books of Kings provide us with five tables of
figures : The number of years in the reign of every
king of each kingdom : the year of the reign of the
contemporary king in which he ascended the throne :
the age of the king of Judah, but not Israel, at his
accession : and Josephus adds as a sixth, the age of
the king of Judah at his death.
The question of the kings' ages is one of con
siderable importance, and it is surprising that previous
chronologers should have paid so little attention to it.
The following table contains all the information we
have on the subject : — Age at

King's name

Age at
accession

Years of
reign

death
[Josephus]

Notes

Saul

O?

2b

...

a See 1 Sam. xiii. 1

Ishbaal
David

40 3°

2
40

70

and Marginal
Note, R.V.

Solomon
Rehoboam

41

40 c
17

94 57

b 20, Josephus
0 80, Josephus

AbijahAsa

...

3
41

JehoshaphatJehoram Ahaziah

35
32 22d

25 8 1

60
40 23

d 42, Chron.

Athaliah

6

JehoashAmaziah Uzziah
7
25 16
4029 52
47 54
68
Jotham
25
16
4i
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.

Notes

Age at

Age at
Years of
death
King's name
accession
reign
[Josephus]
Ahaz
20
16
36
Hezekiah
25
29
54
Manasseh
12
55
67
Amon
22
2
24
Josiah
8
31
39
Jehoahaz
23
(3 m.)
23
Jehoiakim
25
11
36
Jehoiachin
18"
(3 m-)
...
Zedekiah
21
11
• 8, Chron.
Now a glance at this table will shew that the
figures against the names of the seven kings before
Jehoshaphat are very vague and fragmentary. In
some cases the numbers given are clearly impossible,
in others they are obviously only the roughest ap
proximations, and in others again we have no hint of
the ages at all. The table is of little value or im
portance prior to the reign of Jehoshaphat.
It will also appear that the third column of figures
is simply the sum of the first and second columns,
except in the case of Rehoboam. It has therefore no
independent value of its own ; but it is worth retaining,
because it will appear in the sequel that in some cases
a king's reign might be dated from either of two
events, and this column suggests, if it does not al
together determine, from which of the two it actually
is dated. Closer examination will shew the frequency of
8 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
multiples of the number five in the first column.
Such multiples occur no less than four times in the
five consecutive reigns of Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham,
Ahaz, and Hezekiah ; and five times among the nine
reigns from Jehoshaphat to Hezekiah, and in three
of these the number is twenty-five.
The natural inference seems to be that these
multiples of five may be round numbers or approxi
mations to the true age of the king. So that while in
the case of the first seven kings the ages are not
given with any degree of certainty at all, in the case
of the next nine kings they are given sometimes
exactly and sometimes approximately, and only in
the case of the last seven are they given with exact
and complete accuracy.
This conclusion is one of considerable importance,
and supplies us at once with the true solution of a
long-standing difficulty. From the figures as they
stand in the table it will be seen that Ahaz appears
as the father of Hezekiah at the age of eleven. Now
we have several instances of paternity at an early age
among these kings, but none so low as this. On
closer examination however we see that the recorded
ages of Ahaz and Hezekiah are probably only ap
proximations, and where approximations are made to
the nearest multiple of five there is a latitude of two
years and a half on either side of the recorded age,
within which latitude the true age may be expected

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 9
to fall. Now if the age of Ahaz has been under
estimated by two years, and that of Hezekiah over
estimated by two years, both of which suppositions are
easily admissible, the true age of Ahaz at Hezekiah's
birth will come out as fifteen instead of eleven,
although no actual violence has been done to any of
the Scriptural numbers. I am tempted to dwell on
this case at some length, for the difficulty is a famous
one ; and not a few critics have endeavoured to meet
it by deliberately altering the ages assigned to one of
the kings. Such a drastic remedy is hardly ever to
be justified, and it is far more likely to immerse one
in deeper error than to guide him into truth. On the
other hand, most modern chronologers have neglected
the kings' ages altogether, and wishing for various
reasons to reduce the reign of Ahaz from sixteen
years to six, they have ended by dating the birth of
Hezekiah in the tenderest years of his father's
infancy, thus affording a striking instance of the
fatuity of attempting to correct the recorded numbers
by means of guesswork. But of this more anon.
Since the kings married young and were generally
succeeded by their eldest sons, it is hardly probable
that any of them would be past middle life at their
son's birth. The greatest ages appear to be as
follows : Jehoshaphat 28 ; Amaziah 38 ; Uzziah 43 ;
Hezekiah 42 ; Manasseh 45. It sometimes happened,
however, that a king associated his son with him on

IO THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
the throne for some time before his death. This is
known to have been the case with David, Jehoshaphat,
and Uzziah, and good reasons will subsequently
appear for supposing it to have been the case with
Amaziah and Hezekiah. In these instances therefore
the real ages of the kings at their sons' birth will be
less than the ages given above, by the length of the
dual monarchy. The case of Manasseh is somewhat
different, but it would appear that he was succeeded
by one of his younger sons. For Amon seems to
have been born at least four years after Manasseh's
Assyrian captivity (2 Kings xxi. 19; 2 Chr. xxxiii.
21), and it must certainly have been before his
captivity that Manasseh made his children pass
through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom
(2 Kings xxi. 6 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6).
So much for the ages of the Kings of Judah.
The subject is one of considerable interest, for though
the figures are insufficient to form a complete basis
for chronology in themselves, yet they are often
suggestive of the true solution of difficulties that
will arise in dealing with other figures, and they
furnish a series of valuable checks on the accuracy of
chronology derived from other sources; so that it is
greatly to be regretted that they have been so much
neglected. Passing on from the kings' ages to the years of
their reign, we find that these are doubly recorded.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KI^TGS. II
First by a simple statement of the number of years
each king occupied on the throne, and secondly by
the year of the contemporary king's reign in which
he ascended it. In each case there is a possibility of
misunderstanding that it will be well to remove before
proceeding further.
First then, what is the exact meaning of the oft-
repeated expression, " The nth year of King X " ?
Its meaning in modern phraseology is familiar to all.
Queen Victoria ascended the throne on the 20th of
June, 1837, and the first year of her reign extended
from that day till the 19th of June, 1838. Conse
quently her 60th year, for instance, extended from the
20th of June, 1896, to the 19th of June, 1897. But this
method of giving dates is found only in Parliamentary
and official documents, and is quite unsuitable for
common use. For all business purposes, as well as
for the purposes of History, Chronology, and
Astronomy, we have recourse to the reckoning Anno
Domini. The Hebrews, however, had no such con
secutive reckoning as this until Maccabean times, and
were obliged to give their dates by the year of the
king's reign. But unless the king happened to
begin his reign on the first day of the year, they
would find themselves confronted by the intolerable
anomaly of an inconsistency between the Regnal
Year and the Calendar Year. There are two ways by
which this inconvenience may be avoided, and nations

12 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
that have depended on the Regnal Year for their
dates have been obliged to adopt one of them. We
may treat the year in which a reign changes as if it
were two years, so that 1837 would be called the
eighth year of William IV from the ist of January
till the 19th of June, and the first of Victoria from
the 20th of June till the 31st of December; and
then we would begin the second year of Victoria
on the 1st of January, 1838. Or we may treat the
whole of 1837 as the last year of William IV, and
1838 as the first (not second) year of Victoria. One
or other of these methods must be adopted. The
Assyrians generally adopted the first : the Babylonians
always the second. It appears that the Israelites also
adopted the first, and that the Jews inconsistently
followed sometimes one and sometimes the other.
An even more common expression is this one : —
" X reigned n years." Now if the reigns had all been
stated exactly in years, months, and days, there would
be no difficulty here, and chronology would be
reduced to compound addition. As a matter of
fact however when the reign exceeds a year we very
rarely trouble to specify the months, weeks, or days ;
and the Hebrews in like manner stated the lengths of
their kings' reigns in terms of years only. The
question for the chronologer to determine is the
proper allowance to make for the unexpressed months
and days. As in the former case, it seems desirable

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 1 3
to refer to our modern usage first, and then see how
far ancient usage differed from it.
The usual plan in dealing with intervals of time
longer than a year is to omit the odd months
altogether. Thus, " Forty years old " may mean
" Forty years, and eleven months." In dealing with
the reigns of kings, however, we adapt the reign
to the Calendar ; so that the odd months are omitted
if they do not extend into a new year, and counted as
a whole year if they do. Thus Victoria is credited
with an additional year on the strength of twenty-two
days in January, 1901, and George III with sixty years
instead of 59, on the strength of twenty-nine days in
1820. On the other hand the unfortunate Harold,
though he reigned nine months, is credited with
nothing at all : for the nine months, extending from
January to October, 1066, did not include a New
Year's Day.
Now the Hebrews were obliged to adapt the
Regnal Years to the Calendar Year much more
closely than we are ; and if we naturally adapt our
estimate of the length of a reign to the changes of
the Calendar Year, it seems reasonable to suppose
that the same course would appear as natural to
them. The same principle however leaves room for a
divergency in practice. Notice has been taken of the
curious way in which the year in which a change
of reign took place was counted both to the old king

14 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
and to the new king, was in fact treated as two years.
Now in a country where this practice prevailed, such
as Israel, each reign would appear one year longer
than it would be described in our modern system, the
king being credited both with the broken year of his
accession and the broken year of his death, and each
of these broken years being counted as a whole one.
Thus George III would be credited with 61 years
instead of 6o, as with us ; and conversely a modern
chronologer must credit Jeroboam with 21 years
instead of 22.
Before leaving this subject it is necessary to refer
to two misapprehensions. It has been suggested that
in omitting the odd months and fractions, the historian
would credit each king with the integral number
of years that came nearest to his actual reign. Thus
52^ years would be entered as 52, while 28f would
appear as 29. This savours of the mathematician
rather than of the chronologer ; and we have already
seen that it is not so much the value of the fraction,
or the number of the months, that determines the
length of our estimate, as the accident of their con
taining a New Year's Day.
It has also been sometimes stated as though it
were a matter of importance, that fractions of a year
may be counted as a whole year. The real point,
however, is that fractions of a year may be counted
as two whole years. Thus a king who ascends the

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 1 5
throne in November and dies in the following May
has in reality reigned only six months. Yet a modern
chronologer would credit him with one year, and an
ancient Israelite with two years. The general effect
of this curious system of counting, which results in
the gain of a year every time the sceptre changes
hands, is most clearly seen in the case of the six
Israelite kings contemporary with Asa of Judah.
The system underlying Hebrew chronology is thus
tolerably clear, and if the process of clearing it has
been somewhat tedious, it must be remembered that
eminent historians and chronologers have fallen into
simple errors and misunderstandings, from which
a closer attention to detail would have saved them.
The Hebrew chronology lies under a disadvantage,
however, when compared with the Assyrian, owing to
the fact that the original records have not been
preserved, and though the authority of the originals
is unquestionable, there are many points in the long
line of transmission at which errors may have been
introduced. Our present Books of Kings and
Chronicles are not of course the original and official
records, but admittedly only extracts therefrom.
When purely modern misunderstandings have
been set aside, the chronologer may still find himself
brought into contact with three kinds of error. These
are errors of the Narrative, errors of the Words, and
errors of the Numbers.

1 6 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
Errors of the Narrative are generally due to the
fact that the majority of historians are not really
chronologers, and so they either do not describe the
events in strict chronological order, or they describe a
series of events in close connexion without any note
as to the passage of time or change of year. Thus
after a simple note to the effect that it is the fourteenth
year of Hezekiah we have an account, not in strict
chronological order, of Hezekiah's sickness, the
embassy of Merodach-Baladan, the war with
Assyria, the alliance with Egypt, the invasion of
Judah by Sennacherib, and the destruction of
Sennacherib's army, not to mention the allusion
to Sennacherib's assassination, which occurred more
than twenty years later. Now as a matter of fact this
series of events stretched over three years and
extended till the seventeenth year of Hezekiah, but
no other note of time is given than that at the
beginning of the narrative, "the fourteenth year of
Hezekiah." Errors of the narrative may also arise from
ignorance of the exact course of events in foreign
countries. Thus in 2 Kings xviii. 9 the siege of
Samaria is attributed to Shalmaneser when it should
have been attributed to his successor Sargon. It is
right to notice however that these verses are not found
here in their proper context, but as an interpolation
in Jewish history, and that in the account of the Fall

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 17
of Samaria given in due sequence in Israelite history,
in the seventeenth chapter, the conquering king's name
is not mentioned. Hoshea is there described as the
servant of Shalmaneser, and as bringing him presents
(2 Ki. xvii. 3), which is undoubtedly a true account,
but it was Shalmaneser's successor that led Hoshea
into captivity. A corresponding ignorance of Israelite
history is shewn in the Assyrian monuments, where
Jehu is described, most inappropriately, as the son of
Omri. Errors of the Words are due to misunderstandings
of the originals from which our present authorities are
taken. The Books of Kings are professedly not
originals themselves, but excerpts from official docu
ments that have long since perished. Now in making
these excerpts the author will generally give the
sense of the original, but will frequently recast it
into his own words. In this process of recasting there
lies a serious danger of error, and it would be
wonderful indeed if the books were entirely free from
it. In the present enquiry we deal only with such
errors as are likely to affect the chronology; and
though it is impossible as yet to say with certainty
where errors of the words are to be found, it is at least
possible to indicate the places in which they are
mostly to be met.
As a rule the account of each king's reign opens
with a notice of his age at accession, the year of the

1 8 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
contemporary king's reign at the time, and the total
number of years in his own reign. Probably no doubt
will be felt that these items are copied directly from
the official records and are worthy of all confidence.
It occasionally happens, however, that other chrono
logical notes are inserted at other places, and such
notes are presumably due to the compilers of the
Books of Kings or Chronicles. In this case the note
may well be viewed with suspicion, for though there
can be no doubt but that the compiler would copy
the number itself exactly as it stood before him, yet
by putting it into a context of his own he might
unwittingly mislead the chronologer. The clearest
instance of this occurs in the case of King Uzziah, or
Azariah. In 2 Kings xv. 2 we read in the official
note that he was sixteen years old when he began to
reign. But in 2 Kings xiv. 2 1 we read that after the
assassination of Amaziah, " All the people of Judah
took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made
him king in the room of his father." Now the context
of this second notice is obviously not from the official
records, but simply a statement of the historian, and
therefore liable to error. So if it should appear in
the sequel that Uzziah (or Azariah) had been king
for 23 years in the lifetime of his father, and that
though he was 16 at his first accession, he was
actually 39 at his father's death, it must be borne in
mind that our contradiction will not be with the

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 19
official records or the formal extract taken from them,
but with a casual reference in which the right
number has been preserved in the wrong verbal
context. Such incidental references are not uncommon.
In one case (2 Chr. xvi. 13) the reference results in
a not very important confusion between a Cardinal
number and its Ordinal. A second case (2 Kings
i. 17), which is possibly spurious, involves a curious
misunderstanding and will be dealt with in detail
later. A third (2 Kings ix. 29) seems to be little
more than a verse misplaced. 2 Kings xiv. 17 appears
to be unexceptionable, but from the parallel in
Josephus (9 Antiq. x. 3) may involve another case
of confusion between Cardinal and Ordinal. The
next case (2 Kings xv. 30) is more startling, for it
contains a reference to the twentieth year of Jotham,
who reigned only sixteen ! Yet even here there is
no actual error, for though the reference cannot be
regarded as official or authentic, yet as a matter of
fact the event in question actually did occur nineteen
years after Uzziah's death and Jotham's succession.
It remains for us to deal with the case of Error of
Numbers, and since chronology is a mathematical
science, these errors will be the most serious of all.
To begin with, however, it ought to be granted that
in some respects Numbers are less capable of error
than either Words or Sentences. One may suppose
2 — 2

20 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
that when John is writing to the Angels of the Seven
Churches of Asia there may be a great deal of dispute
as to who John was, and what is meant by Angels, or
by Churches, as well as vast diversity among geo
graphers as to the confines of Asia. But no one so far
as I am aware has ever doubted what is meant by
Seven. In the same way the writer of the Books of
Kings may conceivably make mistakes as to the true
sequence of events, or the names of foreign kings, or
he may be uncertain as to the reference intended, but
he can make no mistake nor feel any uncertainty in
the case of the number itself. It seems, therefore,
only natural to suppose that whatever may become
of the rest of the narrative, the numbers contained in
it will prove an almost infallible standard.
It is important to emphasize this, because almost
all critics have proceeded on precisely the opposite
supposition. They treat the numbers as the least
trustworthy part of the books, and supposing them
to be full of errors, they have no scruple in altering
them at will. Now it is perfectly true that wherever
an error exists, it is most likely to shew itself in the
Number. Words are capable of infinite gradations
of meaning. Numbers are not. Words may be
smoothed into harmony with our theories. Numbers
cannot. Again it is perfectly true that wherever an
alteration is wanted, the number is the easiest thing
to alter. To alter a word may reduce the sentence

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 21
to nonsense, or cause us to rewrite a whole verse ;
but a number may be altered by a stroke of the pen,
and in any case the new number will give as good
sense as the old one (in that particular place) even
though the sense be a false one. The temptation
therefore is great, and the sin is easy. It should be
added that the consequences are disastrous.
It was shewn on p. 6 that we are not dealing with
one series of numbers, but with five. The study of
the Received Chronology of Petavius and Ussher
shews that these five series dovetail into one another
with such exactitude as to convince us of the correct
ness of all. The emendations that have been proposed
have seldom any effect but that of reducing the whole
to confusion. In dealing with the Books of Kings it
must be borne in mind too that we are dealing with
the work of an exceedingly careful and minutely
painstaking writer. We have also to deal with a
language where numbers were written at full length
and not contracted into figures. And finally we have
to deal with a series of exceptionally accurate scribes.
If there are any errors at all in the numbers, they
must be such as would result from overcarefulness
rather than from carelessness. For this reason if we
venture to make any correction at all we shall be bound
not only to shew what is the true number, but also
how the original error arose and came to be in
corporated into such a carefully written text.

22 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
I believe there is just one such error. In 2 Kings
xvi. i, we read : "In the seventeenth year of Pekah
the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of Jotham king of
Judah began to reign." It is probable that instead
of " seventeenth " the original reading, or the official
record, was " seventh." The chronology of this parti
cular period is full of difficulties, and it is impossible
to reconcile all the numbers in the Hebrew text with
the Assyrian monuments, or even with one another.
It is quite clear that one number at least is wrong,
and indeed the majority of critics think that many
are wrong. That is a question that may be left for
the present : in the present writer's opinion all the
other numbers can be justified, but for many reasons
this particular number seems to be hopelessly in
defensible. But if " seventh " were the true reading,
we should not have " seventeenth " in our copies
unless the scribe or the editor thought he had good
reason for making the alteration. As it happens
a good reason is easily found. Only seven verses
earlier (2 Kings xv. 32) the scribe had written, " In
the second year of Pekah. ..began Jotham to reign...
and he reigned sixteen years." Now a scribe who
had just written down the fact that Jotham began to
reign in the year 2, and reigned 16 years, would
naturally expect his son to succeed him in the year
17 or 18. When then he found instead that that son
began to reign in the year 7, the temptation to alter

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 23
" seven " to " seventeen " would be very strong :
probably the correction would appear to be certain,
but in reality instead of removing a difficulty it
creates one. For we have already seen that Jotham
began his reign during his father's lifetime (2 Kings
xv. 5) and if this regency lasted eleven years, as will
appear in the sequel, we have only five years left for
Jotham's independent reign, and these five years
would extend from the second of Pekah to the
seventh. On the other hand, if Ahaz began his reign
in the 17th of Pekah, and Pekah was succeeded by
Hoshea in the 12th of Ahaz (2 Kings xvii. 1) then
Pekah's reign must have lasted at least 28 years : but
as a matter of fact it was only 20 years (2 Kings
xv. 27). The result is then that by his correction the
editor, under circumstances of great temptation, re
moved an imaginary difficulty and introduced a real
one. It will be found as we proceed that this is the
usual result of tampering with the figures given by
our authorities, and it cannot be too strongly insisted
that no chronologer has a right to alter the numbers
given in the Books of Kings unless he can not only
shew good reasons for believing his own numbers to
be better, but can also shew what good reason must
have influenced the writer in introducing the (presum
ably) false figures that need correction.
Having discussed at such length the errors to
which the Hebrew writings are liable, those to which

24 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
the Assyrian and other monuments are liable may
be dealt with more lightly. In this case we have the
advantage of possessing the originals themselves, so
that errors of words or numbers are impossible : at
the same time we may always meet with errors of
narrative, and one of these was cited on p. 17. There
are indeed reasons why these monuments should be
peculiarly liable to errors of this class. The monu
ments generally commemorate a battle, a siege, or
a campaign ; and ignorance of foreign affairs is never
greater than in time of war. The dispositions and
movements of an enemy's forces are never really well
known. The question whether a king commands in
person or is represented by his general; whether a
defeated leader actually falls in battle or makes good
his escape ; all these and many other things are
frequently unknown to the victor. Remembering
too the natural tendency of the human mind, nowhere
more clearly shewn than on monumental inscriptions,
to exaggerate successes and to minimize defeats, it
will not be thought wonderful if the Assyrian monu
ments sometimes leave a wrong impression as to the
actual course of events. Thus when on the Behistun
inscriptions Darius is found victorious in a great battle,
and somewhat later is again found victorious in an
equally great battle over the same enemies, but
several days' march nearer to his own capital, it may
be reasonably conjectured that something not of the

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 2$
nature of a victory had intervened between these two
encounters. Similarly when Sennacherib exultingly
describes his march into Palestine, the capture of the
fortified cities of Judah, the tribute demanded from
Hezekiah, the blockade of Jerusalem, and the return
to Nineveh, we may suppose that he left it to a kind
of historical second-sight to supply the reason for this
last manoeuvre. Our newspapers shew clearly the
difficulty of obtaining exact and trustworthy accounts
of all that happens at the front, especially when the
war is being carried on at a great distance from the
capital ; and 2500 years ago the difficulty was much
greater. But when once the date of an event has been
given in unmistakable terms by a contemporary
monument, there is no room left for further discussion.
The difficulty sometimes is to determine what dates
have been unmistakably given on the monuments.
Tiglath-Pileser spent six consecutive campaigns (B.C.
743 — 738) in conquering the nations on the shores
of the Mediterranean, and the names of the conquered
kings are all given in one general list. But it by no
means follows that all made their submission at the
same time. On the contrary, it is certain that they
were only gradually worn out : that some yielded
early, and others late. So that when we meet with
the names of Menahem of Israel and Uzziah of Judah
in this list, we need more precise information before

26 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
we can say exactly in which of the six campaigns
they submitted to Tiglath-Pileser. In the absence of
any formal law of evidence to guide the chronologer,
it seems desirable to insist on the flaws that may be
found in the testimony of even the best witnesses.
And as a reward it will be found that when the proper
personal equation has been applied to every witness,
whether Hebrew, Egyptian, Babylonian, or Assyrian,
the seeming contradictions between them have a
wonderful habit of disappearing altogether.
Before passing on from this Introduction it seems
well to remark that there is an ever-present possibility
of meeting with discrepancies between two authorities
even where we have no reason to suppose that either
is in error. Attention has already (page 12) been
drawn to the fact that two different ways of adapting
the Regnal Year to the Calendar Year result in
a necessary and permanent difference of one year.
For this reason dates given by the Assyrian records
appear to be a year later than those given by the
Babylonian, although there is no real contradiction
between them. In the same way the Fall of Jerusalem
took place in what the Babylonians styled the
eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar, and the Jews
the nineteenth. Here again there is no real contra
diction: indeed the preservation of both numbers
enables us to fix the date (B.C. 587) with absolute
certainty, whereas if only one number had been

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 27
preserved there would be some doubt as to whether
we should not prefer the preceding or the following
year. Another possible source of discrepancy, but not
of real contradiction, is due to ambiguities in the
Calendar. Thus Charles I was beheaded on the
29th of January in the year that the English called
1648, and the Scots 1649. The discrepancy was
simply due to the fact that the Scots began the year
on the Feast of Circumcision, and the English on that
of the Annunciation. Now if such a discrepancy as
this is possible in the case of two allied nations,
clearly it is still more so in the case of disunited, and
frequently hostile nations. The vagaries of the Lunar
Calendar, with a year irregularly containing twelve
months or thirteen, add to the chances of confusion.
So that once more we find that different nations may
differ by a year, but not more, in the date of the same
event, without in any way contradicting one another,
or lessening the weight of the other's testimony.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF
THE KINGS.
Part II.
It will be found convenient to divide the whole
period of the kings into five shorter periods. The
first of these will extend from the first establishment
of the Monarchy under Saul to the death of Solomon
and the Division of the Kingdom ; the second will
extend from that point to the Usurpations of Jehu
and Athaliah ; the third to the Deposition of the
House of Jehu ; the fourth to the Fall of Samaria ;
and the fifth will include the whole period of Judah's
Survival, ending with the Destruction of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadrezzar.
The chronology of the first of these periods
demands but little attention. Saul reigned two years
(i Sam. xiii. i). The years were eventful ones, in the
midst of stirring times, and they have been described
with unusual fulness. It is possible too that several
occurrences in this reign have been described more
than once in different forms, and that a certain
amount of legend still remains interwoven with the

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 29
history. In any case many chronologers have felt a
difficulty in confining Saul's reign to so short a
period. Josephus (6 Antiq. xiv. 9) lengthens the
reign to twenty years, eighteen years with Samuel
and two years alone. There seems to be no real
authority for this, and the conjecture of other
chronologers that the reign extended to forty years
appears to have even less in its favour. In spite
therefore of the testimony of Josephus, and possibly of
St Paul (Acts xiii. 21), it seems best to follow the
numbers given in ist Samuel, and allow Saul a reign
of two years only.
Saul's son Ishbaal also reigned two years (2 Sam.
ii. 10), but was never acknowledged by the tribe of
Judah. David reigned j\ years over Judah, and 33
years over all Israel. Solomon's reign lasted 40 years
(1 Kings xi. 42). Josephus lengthens the reign to
80 years (8 Antiq. vii. 8), but this number appears
to be a mere exaggeration, and, as we shall subse
quently see, it is contradicted by Josephus' own list of
Phoenician kings. Altogether the period covers
about 82 years, extending from B.C. 1014 to B.C. 932.
According to the Received Chronology Saul, David,
and Solomon, each reigned 40 years, and the period
extends from B.C. 1095 to B.C. 975. After the death
of Solomon and the Division of the Kingdom the
chronology becomes much more complicated and
interesting.

30

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.

The chronological material at our disposal for the
second period is succinctly stated in the annexed
tables : — KINGS OF JUDAH.

Contemporary King of Year of
King's name Years Israel his reign
Rehoboam 17 Jeroboam

Notes

Abijah

3a

»

1 8th

a 6, LXX. (or 16).

Asa

4i

»

20th b

b 24th, LXX. (or 20th).

Jehoshaphat

25

Ahab

4th0

c nth of Zimri II,

Jehoram

8d

J oram

5*

LXX.

Ahaziah

1

»

nth, 12th

d 40, LXX.

KINGS OF ISRAEL.

Contemporary

King of
Year of
King's name Years
Judah
his reign
Notes
Jeroboam
22
Rehoboam
...
Nadab
2
Asa
2nd
Baasha
24
i)
3rd
» 7 years, LXX. (Co
Elah
2
»
26th
dex Vat.).
Zimri
(7 days)
a
27th
b Zimri II., LXX.
Omrib
12
» 2
7th, 31st
0 2nd of Jehoshaphat,
Ahab
22
»
38th0
LXX.
Ahaziah
2
Jehoshaphat
17th
d 2nd of Joram (2 K.
Joram
12
»
18th*
i. 17).
In order to avoid confusion it seems advisable to
use the full name, Jehoram, for the fifth king of Judah,
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 3 1
and the contracted name Joram for the ninth king of
Israel. There can be no confusion between the two
Ahaziahs. It will also be found desirable in dealing
with this period to use the era of the Revolt in first
calculating the dates, and subsequently to translate
them into the ordinary reckoning of years B.C., when
we are enabled to do so without fear of mistake. For
our present purpose it will be well to begin the year
with the 1st of Abib (about April) rather than the ist
of January. The exact length of the period is given by the
sum of the years in the reigns of the kings of Israel,
these reigns being each diminished by one in the
manner explained in p. 14. The total so obtained is
21 + 1+23+ 1+0+ 11 +21 + 1 + 11 =90,
so that the deaths of Joram and Ahaziah, and the
usurpations of Jehu and Athaliah fall in the 91st year
of the Revolt.
The difficulties encountered by chronologers in deal
ing with this period are neither very numerous nor very
formidable. They may be considered as they arise.
First of all one is struck with the number of
strange readings found in the Septuagint. The
repetition of the name Zimri in the place of Omri is
easily accounted for. It is another instance of the
not uncommon confusion between Ain, the initial
letter of Omri, and Tzade, the initial of Zimri. The

32 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
reading in the Codex Vaticanus which attributes a
reign of seven years, instead of seven days, to Zimri I
is probably a mere scribal mistake, but one or two
of the other readings almost point to a deliberate
attempt to revise the chronology of this period.
We return now to the numbers given in the
Hebrew Text. A slight difficulty suggests itself in
dealing with the date of the accession of Omri. In
I Kings xvi. 1 5 et seq. we read that in the 27th year
of Asa Zimri conspired against Elah, slew him, and
held the capital for a week, before he was himself
dethroned by Omri. Omri reigned 12 years and died
in the 38th of Asa (1 Kings xvi. 29). This account
is perfectly clear and easily commends itself to the
chronologer. The difficulty is that in 1 Kings xvi. 23
the date of Omri's accession is given not as the 27th
of Asa, but as the 31st. The generally accepted
explanation is that the civil war between Omri and
Tibni lasted four years, and that though Zimri fell in
the 27th year of Asa it was not till the 31st that
Omri succeeded in making himself master of the
whole country. This is perfectly possible, but the
consideration of our next difficulty will suggest
another and more probable explanation.
In 2 Kings viii. 16 we read : " In the fifth year
of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat
being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of
Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign." As the

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 33
fifth year of Joram falls three years before the close
of Jehoshaphat's reign of 25 years, there seems to be
no reasonable doubt that the true explanation of the
words "Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah," is
that given in the margin of the Authorized Version :
namely, that Jehoram then began to reign as consort
with his father, and did not become sole king till his
father's death three years later. This seems simple
enough : the difficulty is that in 2 Kings i. 17 the
accession of Joram in Israel is dated the second year
of Jehoram of Judah. Elsewhere the same event is
given, quite correctly, as the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat.
The difficulty is to account for this double date.
An explanation is attempted in the margin of the
Authorized Version, where we read as a gloss, " The
second year that Jehoram was Pro-rex." If this
explanation were accepted, it would follow that
Jehoram was five or six years Pro-rex, three years
Co-rex, and finally four years Rex, but perhaps it will
be as well to allow this explanation to fall under the
weight of its own cumbrousness, and look for a better.
The present writer ventures to hope that the following
explanation will succeed in removing the difficulty.
If we look at the text of 2 Kings i. 17 we find
that the clause containing the difficult date is omitted
in the Septuagint, and therefore it comes under a
certain amount of suspicion of not being original.
Secondly, it is not the normal place for authentic
f. 3

34 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
chronological references, but has the nature of an
incidental allusion, as described on page 19. For
either of these reasons it would be impossible to
regard the date as authoritative or as necessarily free
from error. But in accordance with the critical
principles already laid down it must not be treated
as erroneous unless it is possible to shew how the
error arose. This therefore I will endeavour to do.
Attention has frequently been drawn to the
manner in which the Israelite monarchy gained a
year with every change of reign. This circumstance
was of course familiar to the Hebrews of that time,
but the fact that the Jewish monarchy adopted
a different system of reckoning, as well as the lapse
of centuries, helped to obliterate the old Israelite
chronology from the memory. By simply forgetting
to allow for this peculiarity the chronology is length
ened by as many years as there were kings. The result
is that Omri's date is moved from the 27th of Asa to
the 31st : Ahab's from the 38th to the 43rd, or 2nd of
Jehoshaphat. Ahaziah's to the 24th of Jehoshaphat,
and Joram's to the 26th, or second of Jehoram.
Traces of this artificial, and false, chronology are
found in the Septuagint, and it is not very wonderful
that in two casual instances it should have crept into
the Hebrew text itself. I am not aware that this
explanation has been offered before, but it seems to
have the merit of removing two difficulties at once.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 35
A question naturally suggests itself as to what
means we have of knowing, where we are brought
face to face with two chronologies, which is true and
which false. The chronology to which we give the
preference is found consistently throughout: the
other in two isolated instances, whereof one reference
is doubtful, and the other reading might be disputed.
The former has every appearance of being directly
excerpted from official documents : the latter has not.
But a more cogent proof than this is at hand. Joram
of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah perished at the same
time and in the same catastrophe. Whatever chrono
logy we adopt it is necessary that the dates of their
deaths should coincide. According to the one
chronology this will be found to be the case ;
according to the other there will be an interval of
three years between them. There can therefore be
no doubt which is the true chronology of the period.
Synchronistic references to other nations are few
and unimportant in this period. The first and most
important is the capture of Jerusalem by Shishak in
the fifth year of Rehoboam. Shishak is identical with
Sheshonk or Sesonchis, the first king of Manetho's
twenty-second dynasty. It happens, however, that
Egyptian chronology for the period covered by the
twenty-second and twenty-third dynasties is so
vague and uncertain, that the synchronism is likely
to be of more value to the Egyptologist as a guide to
3—2

36 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
the date of Shishak, than to the Biblical chronologer
as a guide to the date of Rehoboam.
The marriage of Ahab with Jezebel the daughter
of Ethbaal, or Ithobalus, affords a synchronism
between Israelite and Phoenician chronology. Now
according to Josephus (8 Antiq. iii. i) the Foundation
of the Temple was laid in the fourth year of Solomon,
and eleventh of Hiram. Hiram's reign therefore
began seven years before Solomon's and 47 before
the Revolt. Elsewhere (Ap. 1. 18) Josephus extracts
the Phoenician chronology from Menander of Ephesus,
from which it appears that Ethbaal was the seventh
in succession after Hiram, that he was born in the
year of the Revolt, and reigned from the year 37 to
69. From the tables on p. 30 or 39 it may be seen
that Ahab's father Omri reigned from the year 47 to
58, and Ahab himself from 58 to yg. The synchronism
therefore is perfect, but it is curious to notice that it
completely refutes the exaggerated reign Josephus
himself attributes to Solomon.
The Second Book of Kings opens with the state
ment that Moab rebelled against Israel after the death
of Ahab. The rebellion falls in the brief reign of
Ahaziah, and according to Josephus (9 Ant. ii. 1) in
the second year of the reign. The war is described
in greater fulness on the recently discovered Moabite
Stone. From this we learn that the conqueror of
Moab was Omri, and the whole period of Israelite

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 37
occupation extended to forty years. It happens,
however, that the three reigns of Omri, Ahab, and
Ahaziah only include 34 years. The synchronism is
therefore imperfect. The number "forty" however
may nearly always be viewed with a certain amount
of suspicion when it occurs in Hebrew literature, and
it is quite possible that on the Moabite Stone it is
meant for nothing more than a rough approximation.
It may be remembered however that Omri was " the
captain of the host" of Elah, and very likely of
Baasha also, so that even if the number forty is
meant to be exact, which I do not regard as very
probable, Omri may very well have been the con
queror of Moab. It is curious to notice how tardily
justice is being done to the fame of the conquering
Omri. He passes almost unnoticed in Biblical
history. But his fame is brought home to us by
Moabite and Assyrian inscriptions, so that nearly two
hundred years after his death Israel was still known
as " the land of the House of Omri."
Just before the close of this period Israel is brought
into contact for the first time with the power of
Assyria. The name of the Assyrian king at this time
was Shalmaneser. His reign lasted 35 years (B.C.
859 — 825), in the sixth year of which (B.C. 854) he
came into conflict with a powerful confederacy of
kings on his western frontier. Among these were
Hadadezer or Benhadad, of Damascus, and Ahab of

,38 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
Israel. A battle was fought at Karkar, or Aroer, in
which Shalmaneser claims to have won a decisive
victory, though he was apparently unable to follow
up his success. Twelve years later (B.C. 842) we find
him again in the west. The King of Syria was by
this time Hazael, and on him Shalmaneser inflicted
a crushing defeat on the heights of Hermon.
Damascus was besieged but not captured, and Shal
maneser continued a ravaging and marauding expedi
tion as far as Beyrout, receiving tribute from various
kings, and among others from Jehu, "son of Omri."
At this early time it is improbable that Assyria
made any great impression upon Israel, unless it were
by weakening the power of Israel's rival Syria. The
historical importance of Shalmaneser's campaigns is
so slight that they are omitted altogether from the
Books of Kings. Their chronological value however
is inestimable. The dates of the early kings can be
accurately calculated only by the era of the Revolt,
but these inscriptions enable us at once to transform
the dates so obtained into the ordinary reckoning of
years before Christ. We have seen that the name of
Ahab is given as King of Israel B.C. 854, and that of
Jehu B.C. 842. But the table on page 30 will shew
that the interval between the death of Ahab and the
usurpation of Jehu was 1 2 years. It follows therefore
at once that B.C. 854 must have been the last year of
Ahab's reign and B.C. 842 the first of Jehu's. The

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.

39

chronology of the whole period will therefore appear
as given in the annexed table.

Year of the Revolt

Years 1

B.C.

Kings of

Received

Revised

Received

Revised

Kings of

Judah

Chron.

Chron.

Chron.

Chron.

Israel

Rehoboam

I

1

975

932

Jeroboarr

Abijah

18

18

958

915

Asa

21

20

955

9'3

22
22
954
911
Nadab
23
23
953
910
Baasha
46
46
93°
887
Elah
47
47
929
886
Zimri
47
47
929
886
Omri
58
58
918
875
Ahab
Jehoshaphat
62
62
914
871
79
79
897
854
Ahaziah
8o
80
896
853
Joram
Jehoshaphat Jehoram
} 84
84
892
849
Jehoram
87
87
889
846
Ahaziah
9i
9i
885
842
Athaliah
92
9i
884
842
Jehu
We now pass on to the chronology of the third
period, during which the House of Jehu occupied the
throne of Israel. The chronological material is given
in the two following tables : —
KINGS OF JUDAH.
AthaliahJehoashAmaziah Uzziah, or )
Azariah )
Contemporary
King of
Year of
Years
Israel
his reign
Notes
6
Jehu
40
»
7th
29
Joash
2nd
a 14th, Jos. : see
also 2 Kings
52
Jeroboam II.
27th11
xiv. 17.
40 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
KINGS OF ISRAEL.
Contemporary King of Year of
Years Judah his reign Notes
Jehu 28b Athaliah ... b 27, Jos.
Jehoahaz 17 Jehoash 23rd0 ° 21st, Jos.
Joash 16 „ 37th
Jeroboam II 41* Amaziah 15th d 40, Jos.
Zechariah (6 months) Uzziah 38th
This period, like the previous one, extends over
the space of about ninety years. The number of
reigns however is considerably less, and the chronology
is a good deal more confused. The result is that the
received chronology, which had traced the succession
of kings in the former period with almost perfect
accuracy, now falls into an error of more than |:wenty
years. The Assyrian monuments afford convincing
proof of the existence of this error, and the Hebrew
records when rightly understood will be shewn to be
in agreement with the Assyrian chronology.
The usurpations of Athaliah and Jehu occurred
simultaneously in the year B.C. 842. Athalftjh held
the throne for six years, and in the seventh (B.C. 836)
the rightful heir, Jehoash, succeeded her. Jehu
reigned for 28 years and was then succeeded by his
son Jehoahaz. After a reign of 17 years Jehoahaz
was succeeded by his son Joash. To avoid confusion
the full name, Jehoash, will be used in speaking of
the Jewish king, and the shorter name, Joash, in
speaking of the Israelite one. There is, however, a

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 41
slight difficulty here. The interval from the 23rd to
the 37th year of Jehoash corresponds to a reign of
15 years, not to one of 17. If we were to accept the
figures of Josephus in preference to those of 2 Kings
the accession of Jehoahaz would fall two years earlier,
and the difficulty would disappear. The numbers
given in 2 Kings, however, deserve such confidence that
only in the very last resort can we assume that they
are mistaken. It would be better to suppose that
Jehu associated his son with him on the throne for
two years. Indeed since Jehu had been one of Ahab's
officers (2 Kings ix. 25), he must have attained a
considerable age by this time. The received chrono
logy suggests much the same explanation of the
difficulty under a slightly different form. It is there
conjectured that Joash reigned for two years in con
junction with Jehoahaz. Which of these two con
jectural partnerships is to be preferred is a matter of
doubt; and indeed in view of the extremely small
nature of the discrepancy (see p. 27), it may be
questioned whether it is necessary to accept either
conjecture. As it happens, however, the determina
tion of this question does not affect the rest of the
chronology. Different temperaments will regard this
circumstance as a cruel misfortune that robs us of
a clue to the solution of the difficulty, or as a piece of
good luck that frees us from the necessity of solving
it at all.

42 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
In any case Joash's reign began in B.C. 799,
whether his father Jehoahaz were alive or dead at the
time. Jehoash reigned for 40 years and was succeeded
by Amaziah in the second year of Joash, or B.C. 797.
Joash reigned 16 years and died in the fifteenth year
of Amaziah (B.C. 783). Amaziah was assassinated
fifteen years later (2 Kings xiv. 17) and was succeeded
by his son Uzziah or Azariah (B.C. 768). Let it be
noticed before proceeding further that from the
accession of David to the death of Amaziah is a
period of 244 years, and that for the whole of this
long period the received chronology has been
generally satisfactory: indeed, unless the reigns of
David and Solomon have been wrongly stated, so
perfect is the harmony between our five different sets
of figures, that it seems scarcely possible that there is
room for an error of more than two or three years in
the length of this period. Modern chronologers, such
as Duncker, who have departed widely from the calcu
lations of Ussher and Petavius for this period, have
generally fared much worse. From this point forward
however the chronology becomes much more confused,
and the received chronology shews a much larger
admixture of error with the truth.
Since Jeroboam II succeeded his father Joash in
the 15 th year of Amaziah, and Amaziah reigned 29
years, it was only to be expected that the death of
Amaziah should occur in the 14th or 15th year of

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 43
Jeroboam. Accordingly Josephus (9 Antiq. x. 3)
actually dates it in Jeroboam's 14th year, and an
"incidental allusion" (2 Kings xiv. 17) dates it 15
years after Joash's death. We have already seen
that allusions of this sort are not to be regarded as
direct and authoritative testimony in the same sense
as are the official chronological records with which
each reign begins. At the same time the present one
appears to be unexceptionable enough, or at the most
involves no more than a confusion of the ordinal and
cardinal. The real difficulty is that in 2 Kings xv. 1
the accession of Uzziah is officially dated the 27th
year of Jeroboam. Accordingly it has been supposed
by Hales, and perhaps some other chronologers, that
an interregnum of eleven or twelve years followed
upon the assassination of Amaziah, and that Judah
was without a king from the 15 th to the 27th year of
Jeroboam's reign. A much more probable explana
tion than this is embodied in the received chronology
and printed as a marginal note in the Authorized
Version : — " This is the 27th year of Jeroboam's
partnership in the kingdom with his father, who made
him consort at his going to the Syrian wars. It is
the 1 6th year of Jeroboam's monarchy."
So far as I am aware the statement as regards the
Syrian wars is purely conjectural, but the partnership
is sufficiently warranted by the figures. There is
a natural prejudice in our minds against assuming too

44 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
many such partnerships, for once we have adopted the
principle, there is a danger that it may become our
master, and by recklessly setting kings on the throne
in their fathers' lifetime we may succeed in rubbing
out time altogether. Fortunately in dealing with the
Hebrew kings we are amply safeguarded against this
danger. So many series of numbers have to be
satisfied that not only is a partnership at once
revealed whenever it occurs, but the accidental
assumption of a false partnership would quickly
throw the whole chronological system into confusion.
It seems certain then that Jeroboam's monarchy only
began in the fifteenth year of Amaziah, on the death
of his father Joash (B.C. 783), but that for certain
reasons, probably from the fact that he had been
consort with his father, he counted his reign from
a point of time eleven years earlier (B.C. 794).
If Jeroboam counted his reign from the year
B.C. 794, so that B.C. 768 was his 27th year, then the
41st, and last year of his reign must have been
B.C. 754. This is of course the 15 th year after
Amaziah 's assassination. But in 2 Kings xv. 8 the
accession of Zechariah the son of Jeroboam is given
as the 38th year of Azariah, or Uzziah. As before,
Hales fills the gap with an interregnum. The
interregnum of 12 years in Judah has its counterpart
in an interregnum of 23 years in Israel. But, as
before, an interregnum hardly appears to be the best

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 45
or most probable explanation. It seems more likely
that as Jeroboam reigned 12 years in consort with his
father Joash, so Uzziah should reign for 23 years
in consort with Amaziah. Our choice here rests
between an interregnum in one kingdom, and a dual
kingship in the other. Of interregna we have no
trace at any time. Dual kingships are more familiar.
David made Solomon king before his death : Jeho
shaphat was still king when Jehoram began to reign :
Jotham reigned in place of his incapacitated father
Uzziah. The argument from analogy therefore is
against the interregnum. The prophet Hosea throws
his weight into the same scale. Hosea prophesied
before the death of Jeroboam II, and after the
accession of Hezekiah. Both these events therefore
occurred not only in the space of a single lifetime, but
even in the space covered by the active manhood of
one person. The interval between them was probably
37 years, but if we were to insert the interregna it
would be at least sixty, and possibly seventy. Again
we may revert to the question of the kings' ages. On
the supposition of an interregnum in Israel, Amaziah
would be about 38 at Uzziah's birth, an unusually high
age. If instead of this we accept the theory of
conjoint reigns in Judah, the age of Amaziah is
reduced to about 15, an age that appears to have been
common enough in the Hebrew monarchy. But more
weighty proof, amounting to absolute demonstration,

46 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
is now obtainable. Israel has already been twice
brought into contact with Assyria. The contact
is soon to be renewed. The Assyrian monuments
leave no room for the insertion of the interregna:
allowing for the dual reigns the period will be found
to be of exactly the length they require.
It is certainly curious that after adopting the right
solution in the case of Uzziah, the received chrono
logy should adopt the wrong one in the case of
Zechariah. It seems as though a dual monarchy
must be allowed in Israel rather than an interregnum
in Judah, and also an interregnum in Israel rather
than a dual monarchy in Judah. The mistake is the
more curious when we recollect that after Amaziah
had been murdered, it would not be surprising if some
time elapsed before his son obtained the crown (as
indeed had been the case with Ahaziah and Jehoash)
but after the prosperous reign and peaceable end of
Jeroboam an interregnum seems most improbable ;
yet after rightly rejecting the less improbability, the
received chronology seems quite content to accept
the greater. This is the first serious error to be found
in it, and the extent of the error is of course 23 years.
By a curious device however the actual length of the
supposed interregnum is reduced to eleven years, for
after rightly seeing that the 27th year of Jeroboam
must be counted from the time of his association with
his father, it has been inconsistently supposed by nearly

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.

47

all chronologers that his 41st year would be counted
from his father's death. The following is a table
of the kings of this period with their ascertained
dates.

Year of the Revolt
1

Years

B.C.

Kings of

. 
Received

Revised

Received

Revised

l Kings of

Judah

Chron.

Chron.

Chron.

Chron.

Israel

Athaliah

92

91

884

842

Jehu

Jehoash

98

97

878

836

120
118
856
815
Jehoahaz
135
134
841
799
Joash
Amaziah
137
136
839
797
140
139
836
794
( Joash
( Jeroboam
Amaziah )
Uzziah S
—
142
"" """
791
151
150
825
783
Jeroboam
Uzziah, or )
Azariah )
166
165
810
768
192
—
784
—
Interregnum
203
179
773
754
Zechariah
THE CHRONOLOGY OF
THE KINGS.
Part III.
The fourth period deals with the fortunes of the
Kingdom of Israel from the time of the dethronement
of the House of Jehu till the fall of Samaria, and
with those of Judah till the reign of Hezekiah. The
period is shorter than any of the three already dealt
with, but the chronology is intensely interesting and
presents a whole series of the most difficult and
fascinating problems, for which no satisfactory solu
tion has yet been proposed. We are constantly in
touch with the aggressive power of Assyria : Israel
has hardly a settled monarchy at all : and the history
of the period is little more than an account of
Assyrian expeditions, and of coalitions among weaker
states to resist them.
As before, the chronological material is exhibited
in tabular form : —

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.

49

KINGS OF JUDAH.

King's name

Years

Contemporary King of
Israel

Year of
his reign

Notes

Uzziah

52

Jotham
16
Pekah
2nd
Ahaz
16
»
17th*
11 See p. 22
Hezekiah
29
Hoshea
3rd"
¦b 4th, Jos.
KINGS OF ISRAEL. .
King's name
Years
Contemporary King of
Judah
Year of
his reign
Notes
Zechariah
(6
months)
Uzziah
38th
Shallum
(>
month)
j*
39th
c Died in the
Menahem
10
?»
39th
20th (sic) year
Pekahiah
2
)>
50th
of Jotham,
Pekah
20
»
52nd0
2 Kings xv.
Hoshea
9
Ahaz
1 2th
3°
It has been already shewn that the years of
Uzziah's reign are counted from his association with
his father Amaziah in B.C. 791. Zechariah's short
reign of six months therefore falls in B.C. 754 and
apparently extends into 753. Shallum played the
part of a second Zimri, and after enjoying the sweets
of royalty for a month, gave place to Menahem.
Menahem retained the throne for ten years or longer
(B.C. 753 — 742) and, being the only one among six
who ended his life in peace, was succeeded by his son
Pekahiah. Pekahiah reigned two years, and was then
F. 4
50 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
murdered by Pekah (B.C. 740). Meanwhile in Judah
Uzziah had been smitten with leprosy, and surrendered
the government to his son Jotham. Uzziah apparently
died the year after Pekah's accession (B.C. 739) and
Jotham reigned alone.
So far all is well. Jotham reigned sixteen years,
and his death is given (2 Kings xvi. 1) as the seven
teenth year of Pekah. The difficulty is that since
Jotham had already been king for some time in his
father's lifetime, we would expect him to have died
sooner. For it was the usual practice of kings that
had been associated with their fathers to count all the
years of the joint reign as their own. Thus Jehoram
claims 8 years, and not 4 ; Jehoahaz claims 17 years,
and not 15 ; Uzziah 52, and not 29; and Jeroboam
41, and not 29. So then when Jotham claims only
16 years, we are bound to suspect that his independent
reign was considerably less. The length of Jotham's
regency is not stated, and can only be determined by
reference to other sources.
The assassination of Pekah is dated (2 Kings xv.
30) in the twentieth year of Jotham. The date is
a mere incidental allusion and therefore not authori
tative, although as a matter of fact it is absolutely
correct. Jotham however only reigned 16 years.
Hence a note by Ussher is put into the margin of
the Authorized Version to explain that the murder
occurred " In the fourth year of Ahaz, in the

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 5 1
twentieth year after Jotham had begun to reign."
The difficulty here lies in the fact that the accession of
Hoshea is dated (2 Kings xvii. 1) in the 12th year of
Ahaz. The received chronology is therefore obliged
to interpolate an impossible interregnum of nine years
between Pekah and Hoshea. The alternative to this
would be a partnership of nine years between Jotham
and Ahaz, but the recorded ages of the kings (see
pp. 6, 7) make this utterly impossible. The only hope
seems to lie in falling back on the partnership between
Uzziah and Jotham. If this lasted ten years, or
thereabouts, the chronology becomes simple again,
only then it would follow that the year of Ahaz's
accession was not the seventeenth of Pekah, but the
seventh. The numbers given in 2 Kings are so
uniformly accurate, that one is loth to attempt an
emendation except under circumstances of the greatest
urgency. It appears however that we are here brought
into such circumstances, and if the original reading
was "seventh," it has already been shewn on p. 22
how strong would be the temptation to a scribe or
an editor to alter it to " seventeenth." This is the only
number I am willing to alter, and I trust that the
alteration may be deemed to have been justified.
Like a gleam of unexpected light in the midst of
Cimmerian darkness comes a reference by the prophet
Amos. Amos prophesied immediately before the
death of Jeroboam II, "two years before the earth-
4—2

52 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
quake." This earthquake must have been one of
terrible force, for after more than two hundred years
it is recalled by Zechariah (xiv. 5) with horror. Now
from Josephus (9 Antiq. x. 4) we learn that this
earthquake was associated with Uzziah's profanation
of the Temple, and with his leprosy : so that it must
have occurred shortly before the commencement of
Jotham's regency. Now Jeroboam died towards the
close of the 38th year of Uzziah (B.C. 754), and the
earthquake may be dated in the 40th year (B.C. 752)
or possibly the 41st (B.C. 751). Now if our conjecture
that Jotham was ten years regent is correct, his
regency would begin in the 42nd or 43rd year of
Uzziah's reign (B.C. 750 or 749). There are circum
stances of some vagueness in connexion with the
calculation, but in the end the synchronism is very
close ; and coming from such a source as Amos it
must be regarded as strong confirmation of the
chronological system here proposed.
But in dealing with the history or chronology
of this period primary importance must be attributed
to the Assyrian records. It will therefore be well to
trace the history of Assyrian aggressions with some
little fulness. In B.C. 745 the Empire was usurped
by a military adventurer called Pul, who seized the
throne and reigned under the name of Tiglath-Pileser.
During the previous thirty years a decadent imperial
line had been toying with the sceptre, while allowing

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 53
Assyria's military glory to melt away. Worthless as
Tiglath-Pileser's claim was, he infused new life and
vigour into the Empire, and inaugurated a series
of brilliant campaigns, in which conquest followed
conquest with amazing rapidity.
It was in B.C. 743 that Tiglath-Pileser turned his
attention to the West, and the war lasted through six
campaigns. The most important incident was the
siege of Arpad. The city resisted for more than two
years and did not fall until B.C. 740. Its capture was
followed by the conquest of the kingdom of Hamath.
Hamath at that time was governed by a king named
Eniel, who had been in alliance with Uzziah of Judah.
Hamath was stormed in B.C. 740. The war however
continued to rage for two years longer. Finally in
B.C. 738 peace was restored, and all the Syrian
provinces lay prostrate at Tiglath-Pileser's feet.
Now it is important to notice exactly what is
recorded as regards this war, both in the Hebrew
records and in the Assyrian monuments. The war
lasted from B.C. 743 — 738, and it resulted in Tiglath-
Pileser's obtaining tribute from Menahem of Samaria,
and possibly from Uzziah of Jerusalem. From this it
has been hastily assumed that Menahem must have
been reigning at the time of the general submission in
B.C. 738, and Uzziah at the same time. But this is
assuming too much. Uzziah is only mentioned in
connexion with the conquest of Hamath, which

54 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
occurred in B.C. 740. Nor need we suppose that
Menahem was able to resist the Assyrians any longer.
Indeed it is very doubtful whether he ever attempted
to resist them at all. He certainly paid tribute to
Tiglath-Pileser: but that is a very different matter
from resisting him, as we shall see.
The exact relations that existed between Menahem
and Tiglath-Pileser (or Pul) are tersely described
in 2 Kings xv. 19. Hitherto Syria, and not Assyria,
had been the great rival of Israel. Assyrian ag
gression had so far been felt principally by Syria, and
in that respect it was rather a help than an injury to
Israel. Now when Tiglath-Pileser fell on the West in
B.C. 743 the whole force of Syria was put in the field
to oppose him. Israel may have viewed this with
perfect unconcern : Judah did not bestir itself until
Hamath was attacked. But to Menahem domestic
affairs were of more urgent importance than foreign
politics. He was a mere usurper and cannot have
been so foolish as to flatter himself with false ideas of
his security. His primary object was to strengthen
his own position in Israel and maintain himself on the
throne ; and when the all powerful King of Assyria
appeared in his land, Menahem found the means
of obtaining this security, " Menahem gave Pul
a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be
with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand" (2 Ki.
xv. 19). Henceforward Menahem reigned "under

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 55
Assyrian protection," and when he died the Assyrian
influence was sufficiently powerful to secure the peace
ful succession of his son Pekahiah. We may take it
then that Menahem's submission was easily made, and
that he remained in tributary alliance with Tiglath-
Pileser till his death.
After a brief reign of two years Pekahiah was
assassinated by Pekah. Pekah set about reversing
the traditional policy of Israel. He saw that it
was not Syria but Assyria that constituted the real
danger to Israel's future independence. For this
reason, soon after Tiglath-Pileser had returned to
Nineveh, he formed an alliance with Rezin the King of
Syria, and sought to create a confederacy of smaller
states strong enough to resist the tide of Assyrian
conquest. Israel's natural ally was Judah, where
Jotham was then king, but Judah appears to have
been either indifferent or hostile to the confederacy.
Relations between the kingdoms were at least strained,
but it is doubtful whether hostilities had actually
begun at the time of Jotham's death (B.C. 734,
2 Kings xv. 37).
The death of Jotham was seized by Pekah and
Rezin as a suitable opportunity for setting someone on
the throne of Judah who would be favourable to the
Syrian confederacy. For this purpose they set up a
pretender of the name of Ben-Tabeel (Is. vii. 6).
Ahaz, the young King of Judah, appealed to Tiglath-

56 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
Pileser for assistance ; and Tiglath-Pileser was only
too glad to embrace the opportunity for a second
Syrian war. The war ended in the total defeat of the
confederacy, and the conquest of Syria, Israel, Ammon,
Moab, Edom, Arabia, and Philistia. The city of
Damascus was strong enough to resist for two years,
but at length yielded to the Assyrian blockade.
Rezin was executed and his subjects transported into
captivity. On the whole the Assyrian account of the war is
transparently clear and is a valuable supplement to
that given in 2 Kings xvi. and by Isaiah. Tiglath-
Pileser describes the transportation of Pekah's subjects
into captivity (as described in 2 Kings xvi. 9), but he
goes on to add : —
"The land of Beth-Omri...apart of its inhabitants
...I carried away to Assyria. Pekah their king I
(kill)ed and I appointed Hoshea to reign over them1."
Now if this account of the death of Pekah is
correct Pekah's reign can only have extended to
seven years instead of twenty ; and in 2 Kings xv. 30
we read, not that Pekah was killed by the King of
Assyria, but that Hoshea slew him in a conspiracy.
Some little ingenuity will be required to reconcile the
two accounts of Pekah's death, and it will be difficult
to shake our faith in the Hebrew figures or story.
1 I have put part of the word "(kill)ed" within brackets, because
others do so.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 57
It seems more probable that Pekah should succeed in
effecting his escape ; the experience of our own wars,
and especially of our desert wars, shews us how
difficult it often is to say whether a defeated general
has actually perished or not, and as a matter of fact
it may be doubted whether Tiglath-Pileser even
claimed to have killed Pekah. The all-important
verb is marked as doubtful in translations of the
inscription, and possibly it is partly conjectural. Did
Tiglath-Pileser ever claim to have done more than
defeat or dethrone Pekah ? If not, there is no
difficulty in the matter. Hoshea in any case is shewn
as the mere puppet of Assyria both in this inscription
and in the Hebrew record (2 Kings xvii. 3), and he
had to wait twelve years longer before he actually
reigned over Israel.
Tiglath-Pileser did not reappear in Palestine. In
B.C. 727 he died, and was succeeded by another
usurper (or at least by a stranger) of the name of
Shalmaneser. Though his power had been completely
broken, Pekah still reigned in Israel, and Shalmaneser
organized another expedition against him. Hoshea
seems to have remained at the head of a party
favourable to the Assyrians. Shalmaneser, however,
was assassinated by yet another usurper of the
Assyrian crown, who assumed the name of Sargon.
The fall of Samaria followed immediately afterwards,
and is thus described by Sargon : —

58 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
"In the beginning of my reign the city of Samaria
I besieged, I captured ; 27,280 of its inhabitants I
carried away : 50 chariots in the midst of them I
collected, and the rest of their goods I seized ; I set
my governor over them and laid upon them the
tribute of the former king."
The date is B.C. 722, the twelfth year of Ahaz.
Though no name is mentioned it seems probable
that this is the account of the final overthrow of
Pekah by the Assyrians, and of the appointment of
Hoshea as the Assyrian governor of Samaria in his
place. Yet even now the twenty years of Pekah's
reign are not quite complete, and since there is no
mention here of his being put to death, it is possible
that he still maintained a precarious existence for two
years before being finally murdered by Hoshea in
B.C. 720. Three years later Ahaz died, and was suc
ceeded by his son Hezekiah (B.C. 717).
But Assyrian rapacity was soon to goad even the
unfortunate Hoshea into resistance. We have seen
him as the mere tool of Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser,
and Sargon. He had at length been made king, or
" governor," in Samaria ; but he was weighed down
with an annual tribute (2 Kings xvii. 4) that the land
was no longer able to bear. Just at that time, how
ever, a new power arose, from which help was eagerly
expected. The Egyptian monarchy had seen its
power wane and decay. Now there appeared from

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 59
the south an Ethiopian conqueror, called So in our
Bibles, Segor or Sua in the Septuagint, Sebichus
in Manetho, and Shabak on the monuments (B.C.
715). He extended his empire northward even more
rapidly and successfully than Tiglath-Pileser had
extended his westward. At length the two empires
each touched the Mediterranean, and had a short
common frontier on the narrow Isthmus of Suez. To
Hoshea the new conqueror appeared as a Heaven-sent
deliverer. The past memories of Egyptian bondage
were as nothing compared with the present horrors of
Assyrian vassalage. Other nations looked for relief
to the same quarter. Hoshea therefore stopped his
tribute to Assyria, and bade defiance to Sargon. The
challenge was eagerly accepted. The King of Assyria
marched into the land and threw Hoshea into prison
(2 Kings xvii. 4) : his forces covered the whole land :
for three years the capital maintained a hopeless
struggle : then it fell ; and the whole of Israel was
transported to Assyria. The nation of Israel existed
no more (B.C. 711).
The kingdom of Judah survived the fall of her
sister for 124 years. It has been suggested that
Jerusalem herself was captured by Sargon on the
occasion of this expedition in B.C. 711, though
Hezekiah was not deposed. It is difficult however to
find any conclusive evidence to this effect in either
the Hebrew or Assyrian records, and more probably

OO THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
the natural strength of the city enabled her to resist
the invader even when her allies were falling in rapid
succession before him.
Sargon reigned six years longer and was succeeded
by his son Sennacherib : in Egypt Shabak was
succeeded by Tehrak, called also Tirhakah or
Tearcus : at Babylon we find a man of unusual
ability and enterprise, by name Merodach-Baladan,
the most persistent enemy Assyria ever had. Im
mediately on the death of Shalmaneser Merodach-
Baladan had raised the standard of revolt in Babylon
and in spite of Sargon's strenuous attempts to crush
him, he had maintained his independence for eleven
years. In B.C. 710 Sargon felt at length that his
Syrian conquests were secure, and turning his whole
force on Babylon succeeded in capturing the city.
Merodach-Baladan retreated to Beth-Yagina, where
he was taken prisoner, and sent in chains to Nineveh.
After Sargon's death he succeeded in escaping, and in
B.C. 703 we find him again at Babylon, and again an
independent prince.
This is the famous fourteenth year of Hezekiah.
Hezekiah had just recovered from a dangerous illness
and received an embassy from Merodach-Baladan,
ostensibly for the purpose of congratulating him on
his recovery, but in reality to cement an alliance
against Assyria for the purpose of attacking Sen
nacherib on both sides. Tirhakah also joined the

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 6l
alliance. The alliance was a formidable one, but the
prompt and decisive action of the Assyrians succeeded
in crushing it in detail. Almost before the Egyptian
army was ready to take the field on the west, Sen
nacherib inflicted a defeat on Merodach-Baladan at
the battle of Kis (B.C. 703), and after a brief inde
pendence of nine months Babylon was again reduced
to subjection. Sennacherib was now free to turn his
attention to Palestine. Tirhakah was defeated at
Eltekeh ; Judah was completely overrun ; and Heze
kiah blockaded in Jerusalem. Then a terrible and
mysterious disaster befell the Assyrian army. Sen
nacherib was forced to retreat with his schemes of
conquest all unfulfilled. With the remnants of his
once irresistible army he returned to Assyria.
The irregularity of the succession in Israel makes
it difficult to tabulate the chronology of this period,
but the following table affords a fair comparison
between the received chronology and the revised
chronology here advocated :

Year of the Revolt

Years
^  ,  j~

B.C.

Judah

Received Chron.

Revised Chron.

Received Chron.

Revised Chron.

Israel

[Uzziah]

203 204204

179180180

773772 772

754 753
753

Zechariah ShallumMenahem

Uzziah 1
Jotham J

211215

183 191

765 761

750 742

Pekahiah

62

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.

Year of the Revolt

Years B.C.
1

Judah

Received Chron.

Revised Chron.

Received Chron.

Revised Chron.

Israel

217

193

759

740

Pekah

Jotham

218

194

758

739

Ahaz
234 237246
199 211
213
742 739
73°
734 722
720
Anarchy ?
Hoshea
Hezekiah
249255
216
222
727721
717 711
f Fall of
( Samaria
The chronological material at our disposal for
dealing with the Kings of Judah after the fall of
Samaria is exhibited in the following table : —
Years of his
Age at his
King's name
reign
accession
Notes
Hezekiah
29
25"
a See p. 8
Manasseh
55
12
Amon
2
22
Josiah
31
8
Jehoahaz
(3 months)
23
Jehoiakim
11
25
Jehoiachin or
Jeconiah
}
(3 months,
10 days)
i8b
b See p. 4
Zedekiah
11
21
It will be observed that we have" only one line of
kings to deal with instead of two, so that to some
extent the chronology becomes as simple as that of
the first period. On the other hand we lose an ever
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 63
present test of our accuracy, and we miss some of
those fascinating difficulties that make the chronology
of the contemporary kings so interesting. The dis
covery of the Babylonian inscriptions, however, will
enable us to determine the dates with all but infallible
certainty. It is curious to observe that as the re
ceived chronology formerly gave the true year of the
revolt for more than a century (p. 39) and fell
into a uniform error of 43 years in stating the date
B.C., so now for the last century it is only one year
wrong in the account B.C., but falls into an error of
42 years in calculating the year of the revolt.
Hezekiah's reign began in B.C. 717. His sixth
year was B.C. 711, the fourteenth B.C. 703, and his
twenty-ninth and last year B.C. 688. It will not do,
however, to employ dead reckoning from this point
onward, as there is a temptation to do in the absence
of a contemporary King of Israel, or we shall find
ourselves several years wrong before we reach the end
of the period. Besides as Hezekiah was about 54 at
his death, and Manasseh only 12 at his accession, one
is inclined to suspect the possibility of a co-regency
between them ; but we have nothing yet to guide
us as to the length of such a co-regency, if it ever
existed. Babylonian chronology, however, enables us to
calculate the date of Manasseh by reckoning back
wards from the accession of Nebuchadrezzar, which

64 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
occurred early in the year B.C. 605. This year was ac
cordingly reckoned the first of Nebuchadrezzar by the
Jews; according to the Babylonian reckoning his first
year was B.C. 604. Now the contemporary prophet
Jeremiah enables us to translate the Babylonian
chronology into the years of the Jewish kings. Thus
in Jer. xxv. 1 we read that the word of Jehovah came
to him in the fourth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah:
"the same was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar,
king of Babylon." Again we read in Jer. xlvi. 2,
" Concerning the army of Pharaoh-Neco king of
Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carche-
mish, which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon smote
in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah,
king of Judah." According to a fragment of Berosus
the battle of Carchemish was fought after the death
of Nabopolassar, but before the news of that death
had reached Nebuchadrezzar. This again would be
very early in the year (counting from Abib or Nisan)
B.C. 605, and the first year of Jehoiakim must have
been B.C. 608.
Now Jeremiah, whose chronological statements
are very precise, reckons twenty-three years, probably
counting inclusively, from the thirteenth of Josiah to
the ninth of Jehoiakim (Jer. xxv. 3). This would
make the thirteenth of Josiah B.C. 627, or possibly
628. Again as Jehoiakim's first year was B.C. 608,
it is probable that the thirty-first, and last, of Josiah

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS. 65
was B.C. 609, which would again give us B.C. 627 (or
just possibly 626) for his thirteenth year, the two
computations together definitely fixing B.C. 627 for
the thirteenth year and B.C. 639 for the first. The
second and last year of Amon would probably be the
year before this (B.C. 640), and as there is hardly room
for a co-regency here, in view of the short reign of
Amon and the tender years of Josiah, the first year
of Amon would be B.C. 641. If there were any co-
regency between Amon and Manasseh, of which there
is no evidence, it must in any case have been
extremely short, so that- we may date the first
year of Manasseh B.C. 696. He may have been
associated with his father Hezekiah some time in the
previous year, B.C. 697.
Manasseh is the only king of Judah whose age
was at all advanced at the birth of his son and
successor. But in this case, as shewn on p. 10, we
can prove that his successor was not the eldest but
a younger son. Manasseh's captivity cannot be dated
later than B.C. 668, for we read in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1 1
that the captains of the host of the King of Assyria
carried him to Babylon. Now the crowns of Assyria
and Babylon were separated on the death of Esar-
haddon in B.C. 668, so that Manasseh's captivity must
be dated earlier than this. On the other hand Amon
ascended the throne in B.C. 642 (B.C. 641 being counted
his first year) and was apparently born in B.C. 664.

66 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.
Again, as it was only before his captivity that
Manasseh worshipped strange gods, the son whom
he made to pass through the fire must have been
older than Amon. What became of this elder son
we have no means of knowing.
The chronology seems therefore to be established
as far as the reign of Jehoiakim. His eleventh and
last year was B.C. 598. The captivity of Jehoiachin,
his successor, is dated in 2 Kings xxiv. 12 the eighth
year of Nebuchadrezzar, and in Jeremiah Hi. 28 the
seventh year of Nebuchadrezzar. The year which
corresponds to the seventh or eighth year of Nebu
chadrezzar, according as we adopt the Babylonian or
Jewish reckoning, is B.C. 598. The apparent discre
pancy between them is due to the fact that the year
B.C. 605, which falls almost entirely in Nebuchad
rezzar's reign and not Nabopolassar's, was to the Jews
" the first of Nebuchadrezzar." To the Babylonians
eleven months of the year were only " The beginning
of Nebuchadrezzar's reign " : his " first year " was
B.C. 604. In any case B.C. 598 is both the last of
Jehoiakim and also includes the captivity of Jehoiachin.
Jehoiachin's reign therefore was confined to this year,
which must also be the date of Zedekiah's accession.
The first year of Zedekiah is B.C. 597, and the eleventh
B.C. 587. This was reckoned as the eighteenth of Nebu
chadrezzar by the Babylonians (Jer. Iii. 29), and as the
nineteenth by the Jews (2 Kings xxv. 8 ; Jer. Hi. 12).

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS.

67

As Jehoiachin was still alive, though in captivity,
the Jews at Babylon continued to reckon the date by
his reign, marking their dates one higher than those
of the Jews who were left at Jerusalem and reckoned
by Zedekiah's reign. Thus the twelfth year of
Jehoiachin's captivity corresponds to the eleventh
year of Zedekiah's reign (Ezekiel xxxiii. 21). Jehoia
chin was released by Evil-Merodach in the 37th year
of his captivity (B.C. 562). As Nebuchadrezzar
reigned 43 years, this would be "the beginning of
Evil-Merodach's reign." It is the last we hear of the
Hebrew monarchy.
The following table affords a comparison between
the old received chronology and the revised chrono
logy for this period : —

Year of the Revolt

Year

S B.C.

Received

Revised

Received

Revised

Chron.

Chron.

Chron.

Chron.

Hezekiah "1
Manasseh f

236
697
Manasseh
278
245
69S
688
Amon
333
291
643
642
Josiah
335
293
641
640
Jehoahaz
366
324
610
609
Jehoiakim
366
324
610
609
Jehoiachin
377
335
599
598
Zedekiah
377
335
599
598
Fall of Jerusalem
388
346
588
587
THE FALL OF SAMARIA.
THE chronology that is here proposed, and in some
cases also the interpretation of Assyrian monuments,
differs materially from that accepted by competent
scholars. In particular the date of the fall of Samaria,
which is here treated as occurring in B.C. 711, has
long been fixed for B.C. 722. Respect for the names
of historians and chronologers who have accepted this
date obliges me to discuss it at some length.
Now these chronologers and historians will pro
bably admit, and therefore I do them no wrong in
suggesting, that their dates are completely out of
harmony with the Hebrew dates presented in our
Bible. For if we thrust the date of the fall of
Samaria back to B.C. 722, not only is Pekah's reign
cut short beyond all reason, but we lose the synchro
nism between Israelite and Jewish chronology, accord
ing to which the fall of Samaria occurred in the
sixth year of Hezekiah. To remedy this the reign of
Hezekiah must also be thrust ten or eleven years
back, but then we lose the synchronism between the
fourteenth year of his reign and the war with

THE FALL OF SAMARIA. 69
Sennacherib : and not only so but we are obliged to
put his birth in the days of his father's infancy. As a
compromise between these alternatives we may put
the accession of Hezekiah in B.C. 725. Then we have
a sort of symmetry, though not a perfect one, between
his reign and Hoshea's : his birth also is somewhat
improved since it falls in his father's childhood instead
of his babyhood : finally we recover a sort of clumsy
synchronism in the matter of his fourteenth year, for
it coincides with the war with Sargon, if not with
Sennacherib, and with another of Merodach-Baladan's
many wars with Assyria. It is true that Sargon's
army was not mysteriously destroyed as Sennacherib's
was, but the advantage of the living over the dead is
that they may (and do) attribute to the Jewish writer
a confusion between the two expeditions that is really
their own. It is clear then that, on the authority of
the Hebrew records, the earlier date for the fall of
Samaria must be entirely discredited.
The Egyptian evidence on the subject is not
absolutely decisive, but such weight as it has is
entirely in favour of the date proposed here. There
can be no reasonable doubt but that So, the ally of
Hoshea, is identical with the Ethiopian conqueror
Shabak, and not with Piankhi or Bekenranf. Now
the date of Shabak cannot be fixed with certainty,
but all the evidence available points to a date of about
B.C. 718 — 714. In this case he clearly cannot have

70 THE FALL OF SAMARIA.
allied himself with Hoshea so early as B.C. 725 (the
date of Hoshea's revolt according to the usual chrono
logy), and his appearance would exactly coincide with
the date of Hoshea's revolt that is advocated here.
It is quite true that some Egyptologists have sought
to thrust the date of Shabak as far back as B.C. 725,
or even earlier, but as this has only been done out of
deference to the assumed interpretation of the As
syrian monuments, it clearly has no independent
value as evidence from Egyptian sources. Moreover
the attempt has been abandoned by Prof. Petrie in his
recently published history, and he can only suggest
that if B.C. 725 is the date, Shabak must have been
acting as regent for Kashta or Piankhi,
Hebrew evidence thus indicates that the kingdom
of Israel existed to a later date than B.C. 722 : Egyp
tian evidence indicates that the alliance between
Hoshea and So cannot have been so early as this :
but the final decision of the question does not rest
with the Hebrew or Egyptian evidence, but with that
of the Assyrian monuments. We have to deal with
two expeditions of Sargon against Palestine. Sar
gon's description of the earlier of these expeditions
may be quoted once more :
In the beginning of my reign [i.e. B.C. 722] the city of
Samaria I besieged, I captured ; 27,280 of its inhabitants I
carried away ; 50 chariots in the midst of them I collected, and
the rest of their goods I seized ; I set my governor over them
and laid upon them the tribute of the former king.

THE FALL OF SAMARIA. 7 1
It should be abundantly clear that this is not the
capture of Samaria described in 2 Kings xvii. Before
her fall Israel had nerved herself for a final and
desperate resistance : the nation was on its mettle,
and had no choice except between successful revolt
and complete annihilation. The end was complete
annihilation. For three years the King of Assyria was
held at bay, but in the end Samaria fell and the
whole land was depopulated.
Now in the case of the capture described by
Sargon the number of captives was only 27,280 : of
whom possibly six or seven thousand were capable of
bearing arms. The number of chariots was only
fifty. There was therefore insufficient force to man
the walls of Samaria, and it cannot be supposed that
with such meagre forces, so inefficiently equipped,
Hoshea would ever dare to take up arms against
Assyria : nor if he did, could Samaria by any possi
bility have resisted for three years. Nor can it be
supposed that either Israel, or even Samaria, had such
a tiny population as 27,280, when Sennacherib's cap
tives from Judah numbered 200,150; and if Sargon's
captives were not more numerous, it is clear that the
vast majority of the Israelites must have been left in
their own country. Yet when Samaria finally fell
the transportation of the Israelites was complete ;
so much so that Israel could be spoken of as " blotted
out." The fact that a single priest had to be brought

72 THE FALL OF SAMARIA.
from captivity in order to instruct the new settlers in
the worship of Jehovah shews how complete the
depopulation had been. And further, if this inscription
describes the ultimate fall of Samaria, how are we to
describe the reference to the new governor and the
tribute ? Estimates of the value of filthy lucre will
vary considerably, and Sargon evidently considered
it important enough to serve as a climax to his
military triumphs. Now when the Israelites were
carried away who was to pay this tribute ? It is true
that other nations (mostly from Babylonia, which was
conquered in B.C. 710) were subsequently settled on
the soil once occupied by Israel, but for a time the
country lay waste, and was abandoned to the wild
beasts ; so that the lions, whose growth had been
kept in check while the land was inhabited, were
allowed to multiply apace. It is clear therefore that
the identification of this capture of Samaria described
by Sargon with that described in 2 Kings xvii. breaks
down in every particular. The two captures are
quite distinct. In all probability the unnamed king
whom Sargon dethroned was Pekah. Whether the
" governor " appointed to take his place and levy the
tribute was Hoshea or an Assyrian general cannot be
said. Eleven years later (B.C. 711) we find Sargon at
the head of another expedition against Palestine.
The account of the war is not quite complete, and it

THE FALL OF SAMARIA. 73
is impossible to follow the movements with perfect
accuracy. But the account of the insurrection is
very clear:
The people of the Philistines, Judah, Edom, the Moabites,
the dwellers by the sea, who owed tribute and presents to Assur
my lord, plotted rebellion, men of insolence : to rebel against
me they carried their bribes to Pharaoh king of Egypt, a
prince who could not save them, and sent him homage.
Compare this with the account given in 2 Kings
xvii. 4 :
And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea ; for
he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt and offered no
present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year :
therefore the king of Assyria shut him up and bound him in
prison. It seems impossible that anyone should regard these
as descriptions of two distinct events. They harmonize
perfectly as the Assyrian and Hebrew accounts of the
same conspiracy and rebellion, and its suppression.
It will be noticed, however, that the Israelites are not
mentioned by name : they are probably included
under the title of "dwellers by the sea." The time
had not yet come when the Assyrian arms were to
menace Egypt herself: Sargon was content for the
present to maintain the Assyrian supremacy in lands
already subjugated, and the Hittites and Philistines
were the most dangerous of the rebel nations. In
spite of the determined resistance offered by Samaria,
the annihilation of Israel was comparatively simple.

74 THE FALL OF SAMARIA.
Indeed Hoshea's weakness becomes abundantly mani
fest when we notice that Sargon was able to seize and
imprison him first, and afterwards ravage his country
and take his capital (2 Kings xvii. 4, 5). Probably
little weight is due to the tradition that connects
the name of Shalmaneser with the fall of Samaria
(2 Kings xviii. 9; 9 Antiq. xiv. 1). Sargon was one
of the greatest of Assyrian conquerors : yet by the
irony of fate his name had almost perished : he is
unknown to the Greek historians ; the glory of his
conquests was divided between his predecessor Shal
maneser and his son Sennacherib : but for a casual
reference by Isaiah (xx. 1) he would have been
entirely forgotten ; and even in the case of Isaiah's
reference, critics disputed whether they should iden
tify Sargon with Sennacherib or Shalmaneser. Now
in the official account of the fall of Samaria (2 Kings
xvii. 4-6) the name of the Assyrian king is not
mentioned. Hoshea had been rightly described as
the servant of Shalmaneser (2 Kings xvii. 3), just as
he had previously been Tiglath-Pileser's nominee for
the crown. Hence when Sargon's name came to be
forgotten, Shalmaneser was regarded as the captor
of Samaria. But whichever date for the fall of
Samaria be accepted, it is certain that the honour
of its capture really rests with Sargon. On all
grounds therefore, whether of Jewish, Israelite, Egyp
tian, or Assyrian chronology, it is clear that the true

THE FALL OF SAMARIA.

75

date of the fall of Samaria is B.C. 711 and not
B.C. 722 as has so long been assumed. The rectifica
tion of this date is of the utmost importance as giving
us a clear and intelligible account of the sequence of
events during this period, and as re-establishing the
authority of the recorded Hebrew numbers.
The dates here proposed are now all exhibited
together.

Kings of

Year of

Years

Kings of

Judah 1

the Revolt

B.C.

Israel

Rehoboam

1

932

Jeroboam

Abijah

18

915

Asa

20

913

22

911

Nadab

23
910
Baasha
46
887
Elah
47
886
Zimri
47
886
Omri
58
875
Ahab
Jehoshaphat
62
871
79
854
Ahaziah
80
853
Joram
Jehoshaphat 1
Jehoram J
84
849
Jehoram
87
846
Ahaziah
9i
842
Athaliah
9i
842
Jehu
Jehoash
97
836
118
815
Jehoahaz
134
799
Joash
Amaziah
136
797
139
794
j Joash
\ Jeroboam
76

THE FALL OF SAMARIA.

Kings of
Judah

Year of
the Revolt

Years B.C.

Kings of
Israel

Amaziah 1
Azariah J

142

791

Azariah 1
or Uzziah J

150 165

783 768

Jeroboam

179

754

Zechariah

180

753

Shallum

Azariah )
Jotham j

180 183
191

753 750
742

MenahemPekahiah

193
740
Pekah
Jotham
194
739
Ahaz
199
734
211
722
[Sargon's Governor]
213
720
Hoshea
Hezekiah
216
717
Hezekiah 1
Manasseh J
222 236
711 697
Fall of Samaria
Manasseh
245
688
Amon
291
642
Josiah
293
640
Jehoahaz
324
609
Jehoiakim
324
609
Jehoiachin
335
598
Zedekiah
335
598
Fall of 1
T.a»-iteol«m 1
346
587
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE
JUDGES.
In the preceding pages I have endeavoured to
treat the chronology of the kings exhaustively,
because there is good reason to hope that by so
doing, and only by so doing, we may arrive in time
at a perfect solution of the problem before us. The
chronological records for the period of the Judges are
not so complete as to promise the easy attainment of
any such result. Nor are we yet permitted to feel
such confidence, as we do in the case of the kings,
that where our chronology is not absolutely correct it
is at least within a very few years of being so. At
the same time it becomes our duty as soon as the
one period is settled to our satisfaction to proceed
further and investigate the period lying immediately
before it.
In dealing with the chronology of this period it is
usual to extend it for a few years at either end, so
that our starting point becomes the Exodus from
Egypt and our terminus the foundation of Solomon's

78 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES.
Temple. In our present Hebrew Bibles the length
of this extended period is given (i Kings vi. i) as
480 years. But such a date cannot be regarded as
conclusive evidence, and that for several reasons.
The Hebrews as we know had no consecutive chrono
logical reckoning even in the time of the kings, nor
indeed until the days of the Maccabees. It is there
fore highly improbable that they had any such record
in the comparatively unsettled time of the Judges, so
that the date given must stand at the best as the com
putation of a later historian and not as an original
record. Moreover it was unknown to Josephus, who
gives 592 years (8 Antiq. iii. 1) as the length of the
period, and apparently to St Paul also, who, if the
reading be correct (Acts xiii. 20), gives 450 from the
conquest of Canaan to Samuel, or a total nearly the
same as that of Josephus. The presence of a various
reading (440th year) in the Septuagint Version of
1 Kings vi. is of less importance : for if the reading
is in no case authoritative, it is hardly necessary for
the chronologer to determine which reading is
genuine. But if the Hebrews had no consecutive chrono
logical reckoning, yet it was seen in our discussion of
the chronology of the kings, how careful and precise
their records were in dealing with shorter periods.
Exactly the same precision is found in recording
the length of short periods during the time of the

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES.

79

Judges, and by the addition of these periods we may
possibly approximate to the true chronology, though
unfortunately we cannot check our results by con
tinual reference to contemporary events in a sister
nation. The following table will afford the basis of our
chronology :

Moses 



40 years

Joshua 

...

25"

a Josephus

The Elders who survived Joshua

1 — »

b Not stated

Cushan-Rishathaim,

oppressor .

8

Othniel, deliverer...

—
The land had rest
40
Eglon, oppressor ...
18
Ehud, deliverer ...
—
The land had rest
80
The Philistines
—
Shamgar, deliverer
—
Jabin, oppressor ...
20
Barak, deliverer ...
..
—
The land had rest
40
The Midianites ...
7
Gideon, deliverer ...
—
The land had rest
40
Abimelech 
3
Tola, judge
23
Jair, judge 
..
22
The Ammonites and Philistines
18
Jephthah defeats the Ammonites
—
Jephthah, judge ...
6
Ibzan, judge
7
Elon, judge

10
Abdon, judge
..
8
80 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES.

The Philistines 

40 j

Samson, "in the days of

the

Philistines" 

20

Eli, high priest and judge
Samuel 

40
... 11, 12

Saul, king 
David, king
Solomon ... 

2"
40 3C

a vide infra
h 20, Josephus
c To the foundation
of the Temple
The total comes to 572 years, with a few intervals
whose exact length is not stated. Allowing for the
increased reign assigned to Saul this is virtually the
chronology adopted by Josephus. But an examina
tion of the various items on the list will soon convince
us that any system of dead reckoning is entirely
unsuitable. The constant repetition of the number
forty has long been recognised as an artificial item,
whose presence throws suspicion on the total. But
there are graver reasons than this for distrusting
the total of the various items, and for seeking a re
arrangement of the list more likely to lead us to the
true chronology.
It is important at this point that we should form
a clear conception of the problem that lies before us.
As it is usually presented to us, the period is filled
by an almost perfect alternation of Judges and
"servitudes." The total length of the servitudes is
in years, and their omission would seem to offer
an easy means of reconciling the Massoretic total
(480 years) with that of Josephus (592 years). This
device is actually put into practice by the Modern

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES. 8 1
Jews, but it is much to be feared that the ancient
Jews had a harder task in expelling the invader from
their country than their descendants in expunging
him from the chronology.
But the whole method of treating the judges as
though they were a line of kings and the servitudes
as interregna separating them, is thoroughly unsatis
factory, and probably it no longer commends itself
to students of Jewish history. It has to be re
membered that many of the servitudes were only
partial, and each so-called judge was, in the earlier
days at least, merely a deliverer from the oppressor.
Presumably his influence would be felt in the district
or among the tribes whom he had delivered. Other
tribes, as we see from the fifth chapter, were content
to ignore oppressor and deliverer alike, and continued
undisturbed in their ordinary occupations. And here
we notice a distinction that has to be drawn between
the earlier and the later judges. Until the time of
Gideon the normal expression after each deliverance
is, " and the land had rest for forty years." There is
clearly no mention, and apparently no suggestion, of
any established form of government. Gideon, however,
was invited to reign over the country, and though he
declined the offer himself, yet his illegitimate son
Abimelech '' was prince over Israel three years."
After Abimelech Tola "judged Israel twenty and
three years," and this is the form of expression
f. 6

82 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES.
adopted with each of Tola's successors. Coinci-
dently with this change of expression the vague
number forty disappears, and we seem to have a
fairly exact chronology, and at least some recognised
authority vesting in the persons of consecutive judges
till the establishment of Saul's kingdom.
As in the case of the kings it will be convenient
to subdivide the whole period into a number of shorter
periods, and to examine each of them in detail. The
first of these will comprise the leadership of Moses, to
whom forty years are assigned, and Joshua, to whom
Josephus allots twenty-five years, and possibly also
" the elders who survived Joshua."
It is impossible to feel sure of the chronology of
this period. The life of Moses, extending to 120
years and made up of three separate periods of forty
years each, is evidently artificial. Joshua's life extends
to no years, and it is difficult to avoid the feeling
that scientific chronology can hardly begin till the
ordinary range of human life has fallen below the
century. At the same time a period of 65 years for
Moses and Joshua is by no means unreasonable. It
would mean 47 years for Joshua's military activity, and
in the absence of further evidence it will continue to
be accepted. Of the elders who survived Joshua we
know nothing. The short period of their influence
is possibly included in the chronology either of this
or of the following period.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES. 83
The second period extends from Joshua to Gideon.
It is perhaps the most unsettled period in all Jewish
history, when there was no king in the land and every
man did that which was right in his own eyes.
However the semblance of a chronology can be
traced through it, as shewn in the table on pp. 79, 80.
It will be seen that there is here an unbroken alter
nation of servitude and judge, of oppressor and
deliverer. It will also be observed that the period
of rest is invariably given as forty years, except when
Ehud and Shamgar combine to take a double allow
ance of eighty years. The lengths of the servitudes
on the other hand are stated with precision, and there
is no reason to suppose that the numbers given are
anything but correct. Altogether we seem to have
two hundred years of supposed judicial government,
and fifty-three years of servitude. The chronologer
will do well to pay more attention to the smaller of
these numbers than to the larger.
Misconception as to the nature of a servitude is
as common as the misconception of the judge's actual
position in Israel that has already been dealt with.
Chronologers have been in the habit of treating the
servitudes very much as if they represented established
foreign governments. It need hardly be said that
such a suggestion has very little to recommend it.
An irregular series of raids or forays is all we are to
expect. The series terminates in the defeat or death
6—2

84 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES.
of the principal oppressor, and " the land has rest."
The chronological points therefore are simply a
number of battles. There is no reign of a king or
a judge to consider. The years assigned to the
servitude simply represent the lengths of time
elapsing between two consecutive deliverances. No
time at all is assigned to the judge, and except in the
case of Deborah, who is said to have judged Israel
during the Canaanite servitude, there is no sugges
tion even of the exercise of judicial or executive
authority. Recognising the real nature of the occurrences
described as well as their sequence, the true chronology
of this period is soon evolved. The death of Joshua
is probably the starting point, and our series of
deliverances carry us on from there to the re-establish
ment of something like central government under
Gideon. Years later
The Death of Joshua  ... ... —
Othniel ' prevailed against ' Cushan-Rishathaim 8
Ehud murdered Eglon and 'smote' Moab ... 18
Shamgar ' smote ' the Philistines ... ... —
Barak 'destroyed' Jabin ... ... ... ... 20
Gideon 'discomfited' the Midianites  7
53
With Gideon this period closes and we have
something approximating to a settled order and
government for many years after. How long Gideon

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES. 85
himself governed Israel we are unable to say. The
recurrence (for the last time) of the phrase "The
land had rest forty years" forbids us to speak with
too great a show of precision. In any case consider
ably more than 40 years elapsed before the next
foreign invasion. From Gideon's death, however, the
succession is traced with perfect clearness for nearly
a century. True, it is only dead reckoning and we
have no scope for the niceties of chronological adjust
ment, but the items themselves seem to leave little
room for serious error.

Abimelech 

3 years

Tola 

23

Jair

22

The Ammonite servitude ...

18

Jephthah

6

Ibzan ... 

7

Elon 

10

Abdon 

8

97
It should be noticed how greatly the language
used in writing the history of this period differs from
that used in describing the period before Gideon.
These are settled and authoritative judges, and are
so described. There is no longer any mention of
saving Israel or giving the land rest, but it is said of
each one that he judged Israel for a definite number
of years. The chronologer feels comparatively firm
ground under his feet, and as the judges appear to
have definite government assigned to them, so the

86 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES.
Ammonite servitude comes in as a definite interrup
tion of that government.
In Judges x. 7 we read that the Philistines were
associated with the Ammonites in the oppression of
Israel. Only the Ammonites were defeated by Jeph
thah the Gileadite : the Philistines continued this
oppression in the south-west for several years longer.
In Jud. xiii. 1 the total length of the Philistine servitude
is given as 40 years. If this number could be regarded
as exact it would bring us to the days of Elon or
Abdon. In point of fact Philistinian aggression
continued to a much later date than this, and the
state of subjection that is subsequently described in
1 Sam. xiii. 19-22 suggests that at times the oppres
sion must have been very severe indeed. Contempo
raneously with the Philistine servitude (Judges xv. 20),
and therefore not affecting the chronology, we have
Samson, a hero who recalls the older type of deliverer,
and apparently EH also, who judged Israel during the
term of his high-priesthood.
The government of Samuel is now all that
separates us from the establishment of the kingdom.
Its duration is not directly stated, but it may be
calculated in two ways, both of which lead to nearly
the same result. Josephus reckoned 32 years from
the death of Eli to that of Saul. As he assigned
Saul an exaggerated reign of twenty years instead of
two, this would leave twelve for Samuel. The
Biblical argument is of a different character, and in

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES. 87
the result it approaches Josephus' estimate so closely
that we can have little doubt of its correctness. In
1 Sam. vii. 2 we read, "It came to pass, from the day
that the ark abode in Kiriath-jearim, that the time
was long, for it was twenty years." Now the ark was
brought up from Kiriath-jearim by David, in the eighth
year of his reign, or soon after. Allowing two years
for Saul's reign (1 Sam. xiii. 1) the duration of
Samuel's government will come out as ten years. To
this must be added the seven months that the ark
was in the land of the Philistines (1 Sam. vi. 1) and a
short time for its stay at Beth-shemesh before being
brought to Kiriath-jearim, so that eleven years would
appear to be the nearest approximation to the length
of Samuel's government. The coincidence with
Josephus is too close and too striking for us to
have any hesitation in accepting this conclusion.
The total length of time therefore from the
Exodus to the Accession of Saul would seem from
the Hebrew records to be about
65 + 53 +^ + 97 + n = 226+^ years.
The x represents the unknown length of Gideon's rule.
The first term is probably overstated : the second
may possibly be somewhat understated. The fourth
may be either overstated or understated : the Hebrew
method of counting inclusively suggests the former,
but it is counterbalanced by the allowance that must
be made, where there is no hereditary or automatic

88 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES.
succession, for electoral intervals between the judges.
The last term is apparently precise, but it is impossible
to say whether Samuel was separated from Abdon by
any short interval, or whether they overlapped. It will
be seen therefore that there are many elements of
uncertainty in our reckoning. But to some extent,
being in opposite directions, they cancel one another,
and the total is not likely to be very far wrong. As
the date of Saul's accession may be taken as B.C. 1014,
the Exodus is clearly thrown back to the middle of
the thirteenth century. It remains to see how far such
a date is in agreement with the Egyptian records.
Before turning to these however it is to be observed
that the period allowed here for the interval between
the Exodus and the monarchy is some 200 or 300
years less than has generally been allotted to it. But
though this reduction is so large, it is no more than is
absolutely required unless we are prepared to set all
the ordinary conditions of human life at defiance.
Two important genealogies among others have been
preserved in the opening chapters of the First Book
of the Chronicles :
The Royal Descent. Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram,
Amminadab, Nahshon, Salma, Boaz, Obed, Jesse,
David. Nahshon was the brother-in-law of Aaron, so
that David belonged to the fifth generation after the
Exodus. The High-Priestly Descent. Levi, Kohath, Amram,
Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zera-

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE JUDGES. 89
hiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok. The genera
tions here are considerably shorter than in the former
case, owing to the fact that this line is virtually con
fined to the eldest sons. Zadok, the contemporary of
David and Solomon, appears as the tenth from Aaron.
The second of these genealogies is specially im
portant. As it is necessarily confined to the case of
eldest surviving sons, and must be regarded as
complete, unless it is supposed that the record of the
High-Priesthood perished, we can almost certainly
date Zadok, the tenth from Aaron (B.C. 972) some
where between 200 and 300 years after the Exodus.
In the case of the royal descent the line of eldest
sons was not maintained, so that the generations are
much longer. But at the utmost the birth of David
(B.C. circa 1042) can hardly be dated much more than
200 years after the Exodus. The reckoning by
generations is necessarily vague and deficient in
many respects. But, as we saw in the case of the
kings, it has the advantage of absolutely excluding
any chronological system that is either so short or so
long as to be at variance with the laws of nature.
The genealogies seem to declare themselves, however,
on the side of the chronology that is advocated here,
and point once more towards the middle of the
thirteenth century as the probable date of the Exodus.
That date we shall proceed to examine more closely
in the following chapter.

THE DATE OF THE EXODUS.
The Exodus is an event in Egyptian history as
well as in Jewish, and fortunately it is possible to
determine its date much more accurately from Egyp
tian sources than the unsupplemented Jewish records
would enable us to do. Egyptian chronology, when
spread over long periods, depends on the Sothic Cycle
and on the incidence of the first of Thoth or the
Egyptian new year. Since the Egyptian Calendar
had an unvarying year of 365 days, it necessarily fell
short of the true astronomical year, and lost, roughly,
a day in every four years. The consequence was that
a whole year was dropped in 1460 years, a loss that
was well known to the Egyptians themselves though
they never regarded it as worth their while to take
any steps to make it good. The relation of the
Calendar to the true astronomical year was fixed by
direct observation of the heliacal rising of Sothis or
Sirius, the Dog-star.
Since the knowledge of popular observational
astronomy is less general now than it was in ancient

THE DATE OF THE EXODUS. 9 1
or mediaeval days, it may be necessary to tender some
explanation of the nature of the observation required,
so that its chronological significance may be duly
appreciated. We are familiar with the regular rising
and of the setting of the stars every day or every night
of the year. As the result of the earth's annual
revolution round the sun as well as its daily revolution
on its own axis, the stars rise and set in each year
once more often than the sun does itself. Consequently
on each night of the year they are seen to rise or set
about four minutes earlier than on the previous night,
and there are some days, or weeks, or even months
in the year in which each star, save the circumpolar
stars, becomes lost in the sun's rays and is invisible
altogether. Now the ancients, in Greece and elsewhere
as well as in Egypt, were in the habit of taking note
not only of the daily rising and setting of the stars on
the horizon, but also of their annual emergence from
the solar radiance and of their subsequent redisap-
pearance therein. All the most important stars were
so observed, but for our present purpose it will be
sufficient to take the case of Sirius, the Dog-star,
which is the brightest of all. In June and in the early
days of July Sirius is totally invisible in Egypt. The
hours it spends above the horizon are those of daylight,
and the star is unseen. But towards the end of July
it may be glimpsed for a few minutes in the eastern
twilight immediately before sunrise. This is the

92 THE DATE OF THE EXODUS.
star's annual heliacal rising. The next morning it
may be seen four minutes earlier, and the day after
four minutes earlier still. At last it can be seen nearly
the whole night through. Then it begins to disappear.
It sets long before sunrise. It can be seen in the
evening only, and not at midnight. One night, in May,
it can be seen for a moment only in the glow of the
western twilight at sunset. The next night it cannot
be seen at all. It is the heliacal setting, and Sirius
will be unknown till it rises again in July.
Now as the Egyptian calendar year contained
365 days instead of 3651 it is clear that at the end of
the fourth year Sirius would be seen to rise heliacally
a day later than before, and that at the end of 1460
years (which would make 1461 calendar years) a late
generation would see the star in its old place again on
the same day. We need not make any allowance for
the slight discrepancy between the true sidereal year
of 365"2564 days and the Julian year of 365"25oo, for
when the observatory extended all the way from
Alexandria to Elephantine there would be no difficulty
in picking up the star at some place in Egypt on the
expected day. In the south it would be seen a few
days earlier, and in the north not till a few days later ;
but this also was known and provided for, so that
throughout the historical ages in Egypt the Sothic
cycle was maintained at exactly 1460 astronomical
or 1 46 1 calendar years. It should be observed how-

THE DATE OF THE EXODUS. 93
ever, though not affecting our present calculations,
that when the observation is climatic and not strictly
astronomical, as for instance in records of the rise
and fall of the Nile, we depend on the tropical year
of 365-2422 days, and the length of this tropical
(but not Sothic) cycle would be about 1 507 years.
We have therefore only to find the incidence of
the Sothic cycle once, and we shall have it always.
Censorinus, writing from Egypt in A.D. 239, tells us
that in that year the first of Thoth fell on June 25,
and that a century before it had fallen on July 21, the
day on which Sirius rises heliacally in Egypt. By
counting backwards therefore we get for the date of
the commencement of successive Sothic cycles, A.D.
139, B.C. 1322, 2782, 4242, 5702. The last of these is
the earliest that is supposed by any to fall within the
historical period 1-
The Sothic cycle B.C. 1322 (or 1326) began in the
reign of Menophres. This king was long identified
with Menephthah, the Amenophis of Josephus and the
Pharaoh of the Exodus. But he is now more probably
identified with Men-peh-ra, or Rameses I, the great-
1 One hesitates to suggest a correction so obvious, but it certainly
seems to me that the interval between June 25 and July 21 is 26 days,
and consequently the " century " of Censorinus would actually contain
104 years. This would make the date of the commencement of the
previous cycle B.C. 1326. I notice that the latest of Egyptian chrono
logers, though apparently accepting B.C. 1322 for the commencement
of the cycle, gives B.C. 1328— 1326 as the date of the short reign in
which it fell.

94 THE DATE OF THE EXODUS.
grandfather of Menephthah. Assuming this identifi
cation to be correct, it will be possible to determine
the date of the Exodus with almost perfect accuracy.
Rameses I, the founder of the nineteenth dynasty,
had a short reign of only sixteen months. It is dated
B.C. 1328 — 1326, and it is impossible that there can be
any serious error in this reckoning. He was succeeded
by his son Seti I. To Seti an impossibly long reign
of 50 or 60 years has been assigned by some of the
Greek historians, and by Josephus he is omitted
altogether. The monuments of his reign are very
numerous, but nothing can be traced beyond the ninth
year : the fact too that the building of his great work,
the Ramesseum, was left to his son, suggests that the
reign was a brief one. It is probable then that this
ninth year, the last of which we have any mention,
was also the last of the reign.
For the date of Rameses II there is happily no
doubt at all. It is determined by an astrological
horoscope that is shewn by the placing of the planets
to have been cast for B.C. 13 18. The question as to
whether this should be regarded as the date of
Rameses' birth or of his accession should probably be
answered in favour of the latter. As Rameses II was
married in the first year of his reign, the date of his
birth must apparently be thrown back to an epoch
prior to the accession of his grandfather Rameses I.
At that time the eighteenth dynasty occupied the

THE DATE OF THE EXODUS. 95
throne. Rameses I was indeed married to a princess,
but as yet there was no promise of the establishment
of a new dynasty. And even though there had been,
Rameses II was not the eldest grandson. The birth
therefore of the future prince and king was apparently
a matter of small importance, and the horoscope more
probably belongs to the later date of his accession, at
the end of the short but brilliant reign of Seti and the
inauguration of his own long and still more brilliant
reign. To him a reign of 66 years is assigned, and it
may be traced on the monuments step by step, and year
by year, till we come to the 67th, when it closes with
his death. He was succeeded by his thirteenth son
Menephthah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
Menephthah was already past fifty when he
reached the throne. That his reign went to 8 years
is clear from the monumental inscriptions. Manetho
indeed makes it 19^ or 20 years, but it is possible
that this dates from the time when he became heir to
the throne on the death of his brother Khaemuas in
the 55th year of his father's reign (B.C. 1264). This
will bring Manetho's reckoning into agreement with
the monuments ; and in any case it is necessary to
shorten the chronology, since we learn that one
Bakenkhonsu, the high-priest of Amen, was among
the officials of Rameses II at the age of 86, and
survived till the reign of Rameses III. It is hardly
probable that he can have lived 118 years, but if

96 THE DATE OF THE EXODUS.
twelve years be taken off the reign of Menephthah, as
is done in one version of Manetho, it is just possible
that he may have survived as a very old man till the
accession of Rameses III and the twentieth dynasty.
The dates of the earlier kings of the dynasty are
repeated here : Rameses I 1328 — 1326
Seti 1326 — 1318
Rameses II 1318 — 1252
Menephthah 1252 — 1244
The Exodus occurred in the fifth year of Meneph-
thah's reign. It is not very surprising to find that
what the Jews regarded as an escape from bitter
persecution, the Egyptians were inclined to consider
as the ejection of a body of undesirable alien settlers.
Lower Egypt had for some time been subject to a
constant pressure from the desert tribes on both her
eastern and western frontiers. Sometimes there
were mere raids designed to seize the rich Egyptian
harvest, but the large number of women and children
ultimately taken among the captives shews that
considerable settlements had been effected, and both
Libyan and Semitic tribes had made a permanent
occupation of the country. The closing years of the
reign of Rameses II had witnessed a gradual decay
of Egypt's power of resistance, and in the earlier
years of Menephthah the condition of the country
became intolerable. The roads were unsafe : it was

THE DATE OF THE EXODUS. 97
dangerous even to travel on the Nile : cattle could
not be pastured : the crops were pillaged as soon as
they were ripe. For four years Menephthah endured
this, then he determined to crush the invaders before
the harvest of the fifth year could be gathered. The
Egyptian army was collected on the 14th of Pauni
(April 8, Julian Calendar ; March 29, Gregorian
Calendar), and on the 3rd of Epiphi (April 27, J. C. ;
April 17, G. C.) the invaders were crushed, and their
irregular and undisciplined army virtually annihilated.
The battle was not only a defeat but a drive, and the
foreign settlers were forced eastward and westward
far beyond the frontier. Libyans, Hittites, Canaanites,
Philistines alike felt the force of the blow and of the
vengeful pursuit. Among other items we read,
The people of Israel is laid waste — their crops are not.
It is the one mention of Israel yet found on all
the Egyptian monuments. Their crops of course are
those planted in the land of Goshen and left behind
unharvested in their hurried flight. The chronological
coincidence is perfect, for it is the time of Passover
and the month of Abib. The historical details agree
with one another as the two opposite views of the
same event. Josephus preserves the Jewish and
Biblical account in his Antiquities: in his controversy
with Apion he gives us Manetho's Egyptian account,
and though infuriated beyond reason at Manetho's
f. 7

98 THE DATE OF THE EXODUS.
description, he cannot do other than recognise the
identify of the two stories.
It is now necessary to apply one of those de
lightful little rectifications that make the study of
chronology so fascinating. We have seen that the
great battle took place on the 3rd of Epiphi in the
fifth year of Menephthah (B.C. 1248). The new year
according to the Egyptian calendar would begin on
the ist of Thoth (July 1, J. C, June 21, G. C.)
immediately following. But according to the ordinary
Jewish and Semitic reckoning the new year had
already begun with the equinoctial new moon on
the ist of Abib, and therefore the date of the Exodus
in Biblical chronology must be corrected from B.C. 1248
to B.C. 1 247.
And now we may see the long arm of coincidence
stretching across the centuries, not indeed to give an
absolute proof of the truth of our chronology, but at
least to afford the strongest confirmation. The sab
batic year is one of the institutions of the Mosaic
Law, and though it was not at all times very scrupu
lously observed, yet the computation of the week of
years was carried on till the final fall of Jerusalem.
The year of the Exodus must necessarily have been
the first year of the first week, and we find that
seventh, or sabbatic years occurred in B.C. 163, 135,
37, and A.D. 69. Reckoning backwards it is easy to
see that B.C. 1241 would also be a sabbatic year, and

THE DATE OF THE EXODUS. 99
B.C. 1247 would consequently be, as our calculations
require, the first year of the week.
Further corroboration of the chronology is perhaps
to be found in the reputed ages of Aaron and Moses
at the time of the Exodus (ch. vii. 7). The narrative
seems to imply that Aaron must have been born
shortly before, and Moses immediately after, the
supposed edict for the extermination of the Jewish
male infants. It is impossible to speak very con
fidently of all the details of the Hebrew story, but we
may conclude that it was the intention of the writer
to fix the date of the Exodus between 80 and 83 years
after the rise of the new king, or dynasty, which
knew not Joseph. According to the chronology
advocated here the Exodus actually occurred 81 years
after the accession of Rameses I and the nineteenth
dynasty, so that the coincidence, if not quite con
vincing, is at least sufficiently remarkable to deserve
attention. Assuming therefore that the date of the Exodus
has thus been fixed, we obtain the following scheme
for the chronology of the judges and on to the
foundation of Solomon's Temple. The intermediate
dates of course can only be regarded as approxima
tions to the true chronology, and one is inclined to
conjecture that a slight shortening of the periods
before or after Gideon, with a corresponding increase

100 THE DATE OF THE EXODUS.
in the length of his own authority, would not be
without its advantages.
The Exodus  B.C. 1247
The Death of Moses  1207
Conquest of Canaan  1200
The Death of Joshua  1182
Othniel defeats Cushan-Rishathaim... 1174
Ehud defeats Moab  1156
Shamgar defeats the Philistines ... 11 56?
Barak defeats the Canaanites ... 1136
Gideon  1129
Abimelech  1122
Tola  1119
Jair  1096
The Ammonite servitude  1074
Jephthah  1056
Ibzan  ... ... 1050
Elon  1043
Abdon  1033
The Death of Samson  1034 ?
The Death of Eli  1025 ?
Samuel   ... 1025
Saul  1014
David and Ish-Baal  1012
The Death of Ish-Baal  1010
David  1005
Solomon  972
The Foundation of the Temple ... 969

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE
PRIESTLY CODE.
The chronology of the Book of Genesis was
formerly regarded as of great importance, and in
the older chronological works the discussion as to
the choice of the Septuagint or the Massoretic Text
was sometimes the principal item of the whole
treatise. Nor is this remarkable. For if the Book
of Genesis gave us not only the date of our earliest
civilization and of the Creation of mankind, but also
the beginning of all things, the determination of its
true chronology would be of supreme interest and
importance. In addition to this, elaborate schemes
of prophecy as to the date of Christ's second coming
and of the end of the world were sometimes made to
depend on the supposed date of the Creation, and thus a
fictitious additional importance was given to what
was already important enough. As the Massoretic
readings tended to date the Creation about the
fortieth century before Christ, and the Septuagint

102 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRIESTLY CODE.
records fifteen hundred years earlier, the difference
to be dealt with was a large one, and it engrossed the
attention of many generations of historians and
chronologers. The earliest authorities, such as Josephus and
Eusebius, gave their preference to the Septuagint
numbers, and the chronology of Eusebius was
apparently generally followed throughout the middle
ages. At the revival of learning, however, the
Hebrew numbers of the Massoretes came into favour,
and were adopted by Scaliger, Petavius, and Ussher.
Later researches however seemed to shew the existence
of diverse civilizations at a more remote date than
the Massorete numbers allowed for the dispersion of
mankind; and in order to obtain a higher antiquity
for the race Jackson, Hales, and others resorted to the
Septuagint, which, in spite of Clinton's belated attach
ment to the Hebrew, seemed to hold the field till the
middle of the nineteenth century. It must be admitted
now, however, that even the longest of these reckon
ings falls far short of any adequate representation
of the real antiquity of mankind, to say nothing
of the geological and astronomical ages that pre
ceded our race's first appearance. The discussion
as to the choice of the Septuagint or the Hebrew
has accordingly become a barren one : neither can
claim to give us the actual date of the Creation,
though both may continue to contest the honour

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRIESTLY CODE. 103
of being the true representative of the original text of
the Hexateuch.
This is not the place to discuss the various
documents combined to form our present Bible.
For the present purpose it will be sufficient to notice
that what is called the Priestly Code contains an
elaborate chronological framework, which dates the
successive events not only to the exact year, but
often even to the month and day. The framework is
more extended in the Greek than in our present
Hebrew epics, but it is just as elaborate and precise ;
and the Samaritan Pentateuch — which, though little
thought of, may possibly be better than either — has
the same chronological setting, and its own series of
numbers differing both from the Hebrew and the
Greek. I believe it to be the case that wherever the
length of human life is stated in the Hexateuch, from
Adam to Joshua, it invariably exceeds a century.
Where this is the case it is evidently impossible to
frame a chronology that will suit all the requirements
of history, even though we may feel ourselves treading
on historical ground. The following tables however
will give the chronology from the Creation to the
Exodus, according to each of the three versions in
which Genesis is found. The dates are simply given
Anno Mundi, and no attempt is made to translate
them into the common reckoning B.C.

104 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRIESTLY CODE.
Massorete Septuagint Samaritan

Adam

made

i

1

1

died

93i

93i

93i

Seth

born

131

231

131

died

1043

"43

io43

Enosh

born

236

436

236

died

1 141

i34i

1141

Kenan

born

326

626

326

died
1236
1536
1236
Mahalalel
born
396
796
396
died
1291
1691
1291
Jared
born
461
961
461
died
1423
1923
1308
Enoch
born
623
1123
523
"God took him'
' 988
1488
888
Methuselah
born
688
1288
588
died
1657
2257
1308
Lamech
born
875
H75
655
died
1652
2228
1308
Noah
born
1057
1663
708
Shem
born
1557
1763
1208
The Flood
1657
2263
1308
Noah
died
2007
2613
1658
Shem
died
2159
2765
1810
Arpachshad
born
1659
2265
1310
died
2097
2830
1748
Cainan
born
—
2400
**"\
died
—
2860

Shelah
born
1694
2530
1445
died
2127
2990
1878
Eber
born
1724
2660
1575
died
2188
3164
1979
Pel eg
born
1758
2794
1709
died
1997
3133
1948
Reu
born
1788
2924
1839
died
2027
3263
2078
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRIESTLY CODE. 105
Massorete Septuagint Samaritan

Serug

born

1820

3056

197 1

died

2050

3386

2201

Nahor

born
1850
3186
2IOI
died
1998
3394
2249
Terah
born
1879
3265
2l8o
died
2084
3470
2325
Abram
born
1949
3335
2250
The Call of Abram
2024
34io
2325
Jacob goes into
Egypt
2239
3625
2540
The Exodus
2454
3840
2755
(or 2669) (or 4055) (or 2970)
The Exodus has generally been reckoned as 430
years after the Call of Abraham. If instead of this
we reckon it as 430 years after Jacob's arrival in
Egypt, the date assigned to it in the above table will
have to be increased by 2 1 5 years, but the genealogies
are against this. It seems hardly worth while to go
into the question of various readings in the Septua
gint. The most important would lower all dates from
the birth of Lamech onwards by twenty years, so
that Methuselah would survive the Flood by 14 years.
It is interesting to notice that Jared, Methuselah,
and Lamech would all appear from the Samaritan
Pentateuch to have been actually drowned in the
Flood. On the authority of the Massorete numbers
such a calamity could have befallen Methuselah only.
The arbitrary addition of 60 years to Terah's age at
the birth of Abraham, by Ussher, Hales, Clinton and
others, is unjustifiable.
As the three versions are in agreement with one
106 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRIESTLY CODE.
another from the birth of Terah onwards it may be
more convenient to reckon the chronology of the last
part of this period in terms of years before the Exodus
thus :

Birth of Terah...

... ..

575 Before the Exodus

Birth of Abraham

5°5

Call of Abraham

... ..

430

Birth of Ishmael

...

419

Birth of Isaac ...

... ..

405

Birth of Esau and Jacob

345

Death of Abraham

...

33°

Death of Ishmael

282

Birth of Joseph

...

254

Captivity of Joseph

...

237

Death of Isaac

225

Jacob's journey into

Egypt ..

215

Death of Jacob

198
Death of Joseph
...
144
Birth of Aaron
83
Birth of Moses
... . .
80
To transform the dates into the ordinary reckoning
B.C., it is only necessary to add the date previously
adopted for the Exodus, and we thus obtain
Massorete
Samaritan
Septuagint
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
The Creation
3700
4001
5086
The Deluge
2044
2694
2824
The Call of Abraham
1677
1677
1677
Jacob's journey to Egypt
1462
I462
1462
The Exodus
1247
1247
1247
It is possible of course to double the length of the
period between Jacob and Moses, thus increasing the
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRIESTLY CODE. 107
total by 2 1 5 years, but even so the longest of these
systems falls many centuries short of the antiquity
required for the first appearance of our race or its
dispersion over the world.
The only incidents falling in this period that
could in any case be treated synchronistically are
the appointment of Joseph as governor over Egypt,
and the battle between Abraham and Chedorlaomer.
So far as the Egyptian monuments are concerned we
have as yet recovered no trace of Joseph. It has
generally been supposed that his administration
belongs to the period of the Hyksos or 'shepherd'
kings, though his warning to Jacob in Gen. xlvi. 34
(" Every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyp
tians ") would rather suggest that it might be after
their expulsion. Still the tradition connecting, and
partially identifying, the Israelites with the Hyksos
is an ancient one, and a parallel tradition with still
greater precision assigns the government of Joseph
to the reign of Apophis or Apepi. There are very
few remains of the Hyksos period. Like the Turks
of later days, they remained an army of invaders and
left no permanent memorial. Their occupation of
the country is said by Josephus to have lasted 511
years, and by Julius Africanus 518, and their date
according to the latest Egyptian chronology, that
of Professor Petri e, is B.C. 2098-1587. The date of
Apophis cannot really be determined with any
probability of correctness.

108 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRIESTLY CODE.
The synchronism between Abraham and Che
dorlaomer is almost as obscure as that between
Joseph and the unknown Pharaoh. The fourteenth
chapter of Genesis is no part of the Priestly Code, nor
of any of the usual documents or traditions found
underlying the Hexateuch. Coming then as it does
from extraneous sources it need not be deemed very
wonderful if it should be found not to harmonize with
the chronological framework of the Priestly Code.
It is not to be expected that the Babylonian and
Chaldean chronology of this period should exhibit
the perfect precision and accuracy that we find
from the ninth century onwards. We are able,
however, to obtain a fairly close approximation to the
true dates. So far as dependence is placed on Greek
historians with calculations of dates in " years before
the fall of Troy," some hesitancy in accepting their
conclusions is permissible1 ; but when we depend on
native Babylonian records, even though they be
eighteen centuries later, we are entitled to feel more
confidence in our results ; and indeed considering the
remoteness of the period, the reliance that can at all
times be placed on the Babylonian records is justly
regarded as remarkable.
The famous Khammurabi reigned for fifty-five
1 In some cases the Greek is only known through its Latin translation.
It is rather amusing to find that the genitive 'Tklov has sometimes been
translated according to the sound rather than the spelling, so that we
get Ante (or even Post) Vastationem Solis I

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRIESTLY CODE. 109
years, and his accession is usually dated B.C. 2285.
He has been identified with the " Amraphel King of
Shinar" of Genesis xiv. 1, but the identification is
doubtful. Others would identify Amraphel with
Khammurabi's father Sin-muballit, whose name ap
pears in ideographs as Amar-Pal. The name Che
dorlaomer corresponds to Kudur-Lagamar, a name
that has not yet been found among the kings of the
Elamite Dynasty, though it has its parallels in
Kudur-Mabug and Kudur-Nakhunta. " Arioch King
of Ellasar " may be plausibly identified with Eriaku,
the viceroy of Larsa. It is clear therefore that in this
fourteenth chapter of Genesis we are dealing with
actual historical personages, though it is impossible to
assign them their exact dates, and the dates apparently
obtainable from Babylonian remains are several
centuries distant from those obtained from the
ordinary Hebrew sources.
But the futility of attempting to frame a perfect
chronology for this period becomes manifest when we
reflect that, according to the Massoretic chronology,
at the time of the battle of the Vale of Siddim, Shem
was still living at an age approaching five hundred,
and Noah was but recently dead at the age of nine
hundred and fifty ! And even though we reject the
Massorete chronology and follow the Septuagint, as
the longest of the three, the advantage of doing so
will be apparent rather than real. For in any case

IIO THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRIESTLY CODE.
we should find both before and after the Deluge that
the patriarchs are represented as repeatedly exceeding
the age of nine hundred at a time when the contem
porary kings of countries in their immediate neighbour
hood seem to have been confined to the ordinary
limits of human life. Under such circumstances it is
vain to look for any real synchronism at all. The
chronology of the Priestly Code clearly stands by
itself; it bears no relation to that of other countries,
and it cannot be rationally translated into our modern
reckoning of years B.C. At the same time it is too
elaborate to be abandoned altogether, and the more so
as we have nothing to put in its place. For the Book
of Genesis it is, and must remain, supreme. Having
once chosen, — arbitrarily since we can do no better, —
which of the three versions we are to follow, we can
fix the date of each event recorded in the Book of
Genesis in terms of years from the Creation with almost
unfailing accuracy, though with little confidence
of any historical justification. From the Exodus
onward the reckoning in years B.C. may be applied
without risk of serious error, with some hesitation
indeed as to the intermediate dates in the time of the
judges, but with growing confidence as we proceed,
until in the days of the divided monarchy and
the restoration we attain almost perfect certitude as
to the correctness of our results.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE
PROPHETS.
In dealing with the chronology of the Prophets
I have no wish to attempt the solution of any intricate
literary problems. But since the prophets occupy so
important a place in the Old Testament it is perhaps
as well to shew how their dates are affected by the
chronology here proposed.
ISAIAH. The earliest definite date in the Book of
Isaiah is " the year that King Uzziah died " (B.C. 739).
The latest is the destruction of Sennacherib's army
(B.C. 701). The prophecies doubtless began shortly
before the earlier of these dates, and Isaiah probably
survived Hezekiah (B.C. 688).
ISAIAH II (Ch. xl.-lxvi.). These belong to the
period of the Return and may be dated B.C. 538.
Jeremiah began his prophetic ministry in the
13th year of Josiah (B.C.^27). The book concludes
with the release of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach in
the 37th year of his captivity (B.C. 562). As Nebu
chadrezzar reigned 43 years, this is also the year of
Evil-Merodach's accession.

112 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROPHETS.
EzEKIEL's chronology is very precise. The book
begins in the 5 th year of Jehoiachin's captivity
(B.C. 594). In the 12th year of the Captivity (B.C. 587)
he receives tidings, on the 5th day of the 10th month,
of the fall of Jerusalem, which had actually taken
place on the 7th day of the 5th month. The syn
chronism with the chronology of Zedekiah's reign
is therefore perfect. The latest date in the book is
the 27th year of the Captivity (B.C. 572).
Daniel. The traditional Daniel begins with the
3rd year of Jehoiakim (B.C. 606) and apparently
extends to the reign of Darius (B.C. 521-486), who
seems to be put before Cyrus. If the third year
of Cyrus is regarded as the last date, the book will
end in B.C. 536. But in its present form at least the
Book of Daniel must be referred to the end of the
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 164).
HOSEA prophesied during the reign of Uzziah,
Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah in Judah, and Jero
boam II in Israel. The date may be fixed approxi
mately as B.C. 755-711.
Joel's date cannot be determined with any
certainty. Amos gives as his date the reign of Uzziah king
of Judah and Jeroboam II king of Israel adding
significantly " two years before the earthquake." If
this is the earthquake associated with the sacrilege and
deposition of Uzziah, the date will be about B.C. 752.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROPHETS. 113
The controversy with Amaziah the priest of Bethel
before the death of Jeroboam II would be about
B.C. 755. These two dates will serve to indicate the
period very closely.
OBADIAH is usually dated soon after the fall of
Jerusalem (B.C. 587).
JONAH the son of Amittai lived in the reign of
Jeroboam II (B.C. 783-754), but the Book of Jonah
was apparently written at a much later date.
Micah prophesied in the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz,
and Hezekiah. The limits of this period are covered
by the dates B.C. 739-688.
Nahum, according to Josephus (1 Antiq. xi. 3),
lived in the reign of Jotham (B.C. 739-734). Josephus
also gives the date as 115 years before the fall of
Nineveh, possibly connecting that event with the
accession of Nabopolassar (B.C. 625). It seems
certain, however, that the real date of the book must
be associated with the fall of No-Amon (Nah. iii. 8)
or Thebes. This would give B.C. 663 as the probable
date. HABAKKUK prophesied when the hostile power of
the Babylonians was first beginning to be felt. As
Jehoiakim served Nebuchadrezzar for three years
(2 Kings xxiv. 1) this might well be B.C. 601.
ZEPHANIAH prophesied in the days of Josiah.
He was fourth in descent from a Hezekiah, who was
probably the king of that name. It is generally

114 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROPHETS.
supposed that these prophecies fall in the earlier part
of Josiah's reign (B.C. 640-622) prior to the discovery
of the Book of the Law.
Haggai's date is given precisely as the second
year of Darius B.C. 520.
Zechariah was contemporary with Haggai, and
is dated the second and fourth years of Darius
(B.C. 520-518). The last six chapters are often
supposed to be of much earlier date and prior to
the Captivity.
Malachi was associated either with Ezra (B.C. 458)
or with Nehemiah (B.C. 433), more probably the
latter. The expression in 2 Esdras i. 40 and some
other considerations leave us in doubt as to the
actual name of " My Messenger."

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.
THE study of Egyptian Chronology is a necessary
adjunct to that of Biblical Chronology. In this case
we are dependent on two principal authorities. One
is the Turin Papyrus, a list of kings compiled in the
time of the Nineteenth Dynasty, and the other is the
list of kings and dynasties preserved by Manetho, an
Egyptian priest of Sebennytus contemporary with
Ptolemy Philadelphus. Had we the fortune to possess
them in their original and perfect form, it is probable
that they would be found to agree as the Egyptian
and Greek versions of the same canon of kings.
Most unfortunately however, the Turin Papyrus is in
a terrible state of dilapidation, and Manetho is only
known to 'us at second or third hand in fragments
quoted, copied, and apparently revised, by later
scholars. The best version of Manetho is apparently
that of Julius Africanus, preserved to us by George
Syncellus. This is the only one approaching com
pleteness and it ought to be made the basis of the
chronology. In addition to Manetho and the Turin Papyrus we
have the records of the monuments themselves. These
may be regarded as giving us a fairly complete
chronological system from the accession of the Nine
teenth Dynasty, B.C. circa 1590. Prior to that date
8—2

Il6 EGVPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.
we can do little more than depend on dead reckoning
from Julius Africanus. We have, however, one most
important check belonging to a period of remote
antiquity. This depends on the date of the Fall of the
Nile in the reign of Merenra or Methusuphis, the
third king of the Sixth Dynasty. The conditions of
the problem are apparently satisfied by the commence
ment of the month Epiphi, neither earlier than
Sept. 29 nor later than Oct. 1 3. The former of these
dates would correspond to B.C. 3326, the latter to
B.C. 3382. It is necessary, however, to apply a further
correction for the error of the Julian Calendar itself,
which at that time amounted to twenty-seven days.
The exact date of the monument must therefore be
placed between B.C. 3434 and B.C. 3490. According
to the dead reckoning of Julius Africanus the date of
Methusuphis falls B.C. 3456-3449, which is in exact
agreement with the date required by the inscription.
It must be acknowledged that there are many errors
in Julius Africanus, but over the whole period the
uncertainty seems now to be one of a generation or
two at the most and not one of many centuries.
The following is the general scheme of Manetho's
Dynasties. It is necessary of course to deduct a year
from the chronology at the end of each Sothic Cycle,
thus apparently shortening the Third, Ninth, and
Eighteenth Dynasties by one year each.

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

117

GENERAL SCHEME OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES.
Chiefly according to Julius Africanus.

Dynasty

Kings

Capital

Years

B.C.

I

8

This

263

4819—4556

II

9

This

302

4556—4254

III

9

Memphis

214

4254—4041

IV

8

Memphis

284

4041—3757

V

9

Elephantine

218

3757—3539

VI

6

Memphis

203

3539—333°

VII

70

Memphis

(70 days)

333°

VIII

27

Memphis

146

3336—3i9o

IX

19

Heracleum

409

3190 — 2782

X

19

Heracleum

185

2782 — 2597

XI

17

Diospolis

59

2597—2538

XII

7

Diospolis

160

2538—2378

XIII

60

Diospolis

453

2378—1925

XIV

76

Xois

184

1925— 1741

XV

6

Hyksos

284

2108 — 1824

XVI

32

Hyksos

5.8

2108 — 1590

XVII

43

Diospolis

151

1741— 1590

XVIII

16

Diospolis

263

1590— 1328

XIX

5

Diospolis

94

1328— 1234

XX

12

Diospolis

135

1234— 1099

XXI

7

Tanis

150

1099—949

XXII

9

Bubastis

170

949—779

XXIII

4

Tanis

58

779—721

XXIV

1

Sais

6

721—715

xxv

3

Ethiopian

5o

715—665

XXVI

9

Sais

140

665—525

XXVII

8

Persian

¦" 120

525—405

XXVIII

1

Sais

6

405—399

XXIX

4

Mendes

21

399—378

XXX

3

Sebennytus

38

378—340

n8

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

MANETHO'S EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES.

Julius Africanus.

Eusebius.

Dynasty I.
Thinite.
Years
Years
I.
Menes
62
1.
Menes
30
2.
Athothis
57
2.
Athosthis
27
3-
Cencenes
3i
3-
Cencenes
39
4-
Venephes
23
4-
Venephes
42
5-
Usaphasdus
20
5-
Usaphaes
20
6.
Miebidus
26
6.
Niebes
26
7-
Semempses
18
7-
Semempses
18
8.
Bienaches
26
8.
Ubienthes
26
(Stated as 253)
263
(Stated as 252)
228
Dynasty II.
Thinite.
i.
Boethus
38
1.
Bochus
2.
Caeechos
39
2.
Choos or Cechous
3-
Binothris
47
3-
Biophis
4-
Tlas
17
4-
5-
Sethenes
4i
5-
6.
Chseres
17
6.
7-
Nephercheres
25
7-
8.
Sesochris
4S
8.
Sesochris
9-
Cheneres
3°
302
9-
297
Dynasty III.
Memphite.
i.
Necherophes
28
1.
Necherochis
2.
Tosorthrus
29
~>
Sesorthus
3-
Tyris
7
4-
Mesochris
17
5-
Soyphis
16
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.
Julius Africanus Eusebius.
Dynasty III. Memphite (continued).
Years

119

Years

6.

Tosertasis

19

7-

Aches

42

8.

Sephuris

30

9-

Cerpheres

26

214

197

Dynasty IV. Memphite.

I.

Soris 29

1.

2.

Suphis 63

2.

3-

Suphis 66

3. Suphis

4-

Mencheres 63

4-

5-

Ratceses 25

6.

Bicheris 22

7-

Sebercheres 7

16.

8.

Thamphthis 9

17-

(Also stated as 274) 284

448

Dynasty V.

Elephantinian.

1.

Usercheres 28

31 Kings. Names not

2.

Sephres 1 3

mentioned. Othoes and

3-

Nephercheres 20

Phiops of the next Dy

4-

Sisires 7

nasty are mistakenly

5-

Cheres 20

described as the ist

6.

Rathures (or 41) 44

and 4th Kings of this

7-

Mencheres 9

Dynasty.

8.
9-

Tancheres 44
Obnus 33

(Stated as 248) 218
Duration not stated
120

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

Julius Africanus. Dynasty VI. Memphite.

Eusebius.

Years
Othoes 30
Phius 53
Methusuphis 7
Phiops (qy. 94 ?) 1 00
Menthesuphis 1
Nitocris (Queen) 12
203

Years

I. Othoes

4. Phiops (qy. 94?) 100
Nitocris 203

Dynasty VII. Memphite.

70 Kings reigned 70 days

5 Kings reigned 75 days
(or 75 years)

Dynasty VIII. Memphite.

27 Kings

146

5 Kings

Dynasty IX.

Heracleopolite.

1. Achthoes

1. Achthos

2 — 19.

2—4.

19 Kings

16 Kings
Ammenemes

409
Dynasty X. Heracleopolite.
185 19 Kings
Dynasty XI. Diospolite.
43 16 Kings

16

Ammenemes

.85

43 16

End of Manetho's first Book, containing 192 Kings, who
reigned 2308 years and 70 days. The actual total, according to
the numbers in Julius Africanus, is 2283 years and 70 days.

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

121

Julius Africanus. Eusebius.
Dynasty XII. Diospolite.

Years

Years
i. Sesonchosis
46
1. Sesonchosis
46
2. Ammanemes
38
2. Ammenemes
38
3. Sesostris
48
3. Sesostris
48
4. Lachares
8
4. Labares
8
5. Ammeres
6. Ammenemes
88
$
42
7. Scemiophris,
7-
Queen
4
160
(Stated as 245)
182
Dynasty XIII.
D
ospolite.
60 Kings
453
60 Kings
453
Dynasty XIV.
Xoite.
76 Kings
184
76 Kings
484
Julius Africanus.
Josephus.
Eusebius.
Dynasty XV.
Dynasty XVII.
Phoenician Shepherds.
Shepherds.
Phoenician Shepherds
Years
Y.
M.
Years
1. Sa'ites
19
1. Salatis
19
1. Saites
19
2. Beon
44
2. Beon
44
2. Bnon (or
43) 40
3. Apachnas
36
7 3. Archies
3°
3. Pachnan
61
4. Apophis
61
4. Apophis
14
4. Staan
50
5. Janias
50
1 (Archies and Apo-
5. Archies
49
6. Assis
49
2 phis transposed
6. Aphobis
61
in other copies.)
284
259 10
103
122

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

Julius Africanus.
Dynasty XVI. Years
32 Greek Shep
herds 518
Dynasty XVII.
43 Shepherd Kings
43 Theban Diospolites .

151

Dynasty XVIII.
Diospolite.
1. Amos 25
2. Chebros 13
3. Amenophthis 24
4. Amersis 22
5. Misaphris 13
6. Misphrag- muthosis 26
7. Tuthmosis 9
8. Amenophis 31
9. Horns 37
10. Acherres 32

Josephus.

Y. M.
Shepherds 5 1 1

Y. M.
1. Tethmosis 25 4
2. Chebron 13
3. Amenophis 20 7
4. Amesses 21 9
5. Mephres 12 9
6. Mephra- muthosis 25 10
7. Thmosis 9 8
8. Amenophis 30 10
9. Orus 36 5
10. Acenchres 12 I

II.

Rathos

6

11.

Rathotis

9

12.

Chebres

12

12.

Acencheres

12

5

n-

Acherres

12

13.

Acencheres

12

3

14.

Armesses

5

14.

Armais

4

1

15-

Ramesses

1

'5-

Ramesses

I

4

16.

Amenophath

19

Eusebius.
Dynasty XV. Years
Diospolites 250
Dynasty XVI.
5 Theban Kings 190
Dynasty XVIII.
Diospolite.
1. Amosis 25
2. Chebron 13
3. Amenophis 21
4. Miphris 12
5. Misphrag- muthosis 26
6. Tuthmosis 9
7. Amenophis 31
8. Orus (or 28) 38
9. Achencherses (or 16) 12
10. Achoris (or 38) 7
11. Cencheres (or 16) 18
12. Acherres 8
13. Cherres 15
14. Armais 5
15. Ramesses 68
16. Amenophis 40
(Stated as 263) 287
247 4
Stated as 348
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY

123

Julius Africanus.

Josephus.

Eusebius.
Dynasty XIX.
Dynasty XIX.
Diospolite.
V'ears
y. m.
Diospolite. Years
i. Sethos
51
1.
Sethos 55
2. Rapsaces
61
Armesses
66 2
2.
Rampses 66
3. Ammeneph- thes
20
Amenophis
19 6
3-
Amenephthis (or 8) 40
4. Ramesses
60
Sethosis
4-
Amenemnes 26
5. Ammemnes
5
Ramesses
5-
Thuoris 7
6. Thuoris
7
(Stated as 209) 204 194
End of Manetho's second Book, containing 96 Kings
(92 Eus.) who reigned 2 12 1 years.
Julius Africanus. Eusebius.
Dynasty XX. Diospolite.
12 Kings
SmendesPsusenes Nephelcheres
Amenophthis OsochorPsinaches Psusennes
Years 135
2646 4 96
9
H
Years
12
Kings 172
or 178
Ta 1.
nite. Smendis
26
2.
Psusennes
4i
3-
Nephercheres
4
4-
Amenophthis
9
5-
Osochor
6
6.
Psinnaches
9
7-
Psusennes
35
(Stated as 130) 114
130
124

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

Julius Africanus.

Eusebius.

Dynasty XXII.
Bubastite.
Years
Years
r.
Sesonchis
21
1. Sesenchosis
21
2,
Osorthon
i5
2. Osorthon
15
3,
4, 5-
25
6.
Tacelothis
'3
3. Tacellothis
13
7,
8, 9-
42
(Stated as
120)
n6
(Stated as 44)
49
Dynasty XXIII.
Tanite.
i.
Petubates
40
1. Petubastes
25
2.
Osorcho
8
2. Osorthon
9
3-
Psammus
10
3. Psammus
10
4-
Zet
31
Bocchoris
1. Sabacon
2. Sebichos
3. Tarcus
89
Dynasty XXIV. Saite.
6 Bocchoris
Dynasty XXV. Ethiopian.
8 1. Sabbacon
14 2. Sevichus
3-
18
Taracus
40
Dynasty XXVI. Saite.
1. Ammeres
1. Stephinates 7 2. Stephanathis
2. Nechepsos 6 3. Nechepsos
3. Nechao 8 4. Nechao
5. Psammitichus
4. Psammetichus 54
44
44
1212
20
44
18 7
6 6
44
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

125

Julius Africanus. Eusebius.
Dynasty XXVI. Saite (continued).
Years Years
6 6. Nechao 6
6 7. Psammuthis 17
19 8. Vaphris 25
44 9. Amosis 42

Nechao Psammuthis Vaphris
Amosis Psammecherites

(6 m.)

•5°*

(Stated as 167) 171

Dynasty XXVII. Persian.

I.

Cambyses

6

1.

Cambyses

3

2.

Darius

36

2.

Magi

(7 m.)

3-

Xerxes

21

3-

Darius

36

4-

Artabanus

(7 m.)

4-

Xerxes

21

5-

Artaxerxes

4i

5-

Artaxerxes

40

6.

Xerxes

(2 m.)

6.

Xerxes

(2 m.)

7-

Sogdianus

(7 m.)

7-

Sogdianus

(7m.)

8.

Darius

19

8.

Darius

19

124

I2o£

Amyrtaeus

Dynasty XXVIII. Saite.
6 Amyrtaeus

NepheritesAchoris Psammuthis Nepherites

Dynasty XXIX.
6

i'

1

(4 m.)

20I

Mendesian. Nepherites
Achoris Psammuthes NepheritesMuthes

6
13

(4 m.)

2li

126 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.
Julius Africanus. Eusebius.
Dynasty XXX. Sebennytic.
Years Years
I. Nectanebes 18 Nectanebes 10
2. Teos 2 Teos 2
3. Nectanebes 18 Nectanebes 8
38 20
Dynasty XXXI. Persian. Ochus 6
Arses 4
Darius 6
9 16
End of Manetho's third Book extending over 1050 years.

I.

Ochus

2

2.

Arses

3

3-

Darius

4

KINGS OF EGYPT.
From the Expulsion of the Hyksos to the
Persian Conquest.
Dynasty XVIII.

Equivalent

name in Manetho.

Sayce

Petrie

B.C.

Aahmes

Amosis

Amosis

1590

Queen Nefertari-

Chebron

Aahmes
Amenhotep I
Amenophis
Amenophis
1565
Thothmes I
Tethmosis
1 541
Thothmes II
Chebron
I5l6
Queen Hatasu
Amersis
Amersis
1503
Thothmes III
Misaphris
Misaphris
I481
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

127

Dynasty XVIII (continued).

Equivalent

name in Manetho.

Sayce
Petrie
B.C.
Amenhotep II
Mephramu-
Mephramuthosis 1449
thosis
Thothmes IV
Tuthmosis
Tuthmosis
1423
Amenhotep III
Amenophis
Amenophis
1413
Khuenaten
Horus
Horus
1382
Saanekht
Acherres
Acherres
1363
Tutankhamen
Rathotis
Rathotis
1351
Ai
Acencheres
1345
Horemhebi
Armais
Armais
1333
Dynasty XIX.
Ramessu I
Ramesses (XVIII dyn.)
1328
Seti I
Sethos
1326
Ramessu II
Armesses
I3l8
Menephthah
Amenophis
1252
Seti II
Sethosis
1244
Amenmeses
Amenemnes
1244
Siptah
1240
Queen Tausert
Thuoris
1240
Setinekht
1234
Dynasty XX.
Ramessu III
(Rhampsinitus)
1234
Ramessu XIV
IO99
Dynasty XXI.
Legitimate
Succession.
Hierarchical Succession.
Nesibadadu
Herhor 1
099
(Smendes)
1099
Pasebkhanu I
1073
PiankhPinetem I
Amenapt
Menkhephra
Siamen
Nesi Banebdadu
993
Pinetem II
993
Pasebkhanu II
984-949
Pasebkhanu
984-949
128

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

Dynasty XXII.

= Shishak)
Zerah)

Sheshonk (
Osorkon ( =
TakelutOsorkon II
Sheshonk II
Takelut II
Sheshonk III
PamaiSheshonk IV
Ethiopian
Piankhi

B.C.
949928
892

The Chronology is difficult to trace,
owing to the gaps in Manetho and the
overlapping of the reigns. Petubastes is
said by Manetho to have been king at the
time of the First Olympiad (b.c. 776), in
which case the XXII and XXIII Dynas
ties must also overlap.

837785785-
KlNGS. 748

748

Kashta 725
Dynasty XXV.
Shabak ( = So) 715
Shabatok 707
Tehrak ( = Tirhakah) 693-665

Dynasty XXIII. B.C.

PetubastOsorkon III
PsammusZet?

779 (or 810)
739 (°r 77o)
731 (or 762)
—752?

Dynasty XXIV.
Bekenranf 721-715
Dynasty XXVI.
Ammeres 704
Stephinates 686
Nechepsos 679
Neko I 673

Dynasty XXVI.

Monuments

Manetho

Herodotus

B.C.

Psamatik I

Psammetichus

Psammetichus

665

Neko II

Nechao

Necos

6ll

( = Necoh)

Psamatik II

Psammuthis

Psammis

595

Uabhra ( = Hophra)

Vaphris

Apries

589

Aahmes

Amosis

Amasis

57o

Psamatik III

Psammecherites

Psammenitus
The Persian

526

Conquest
525
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

129

THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR.

I

Thoth 

30 days

II

Paophi

3° »

III

Athyr

3° »

IV

Choiach ...

3° »

V

Tybi

3° ,,

VI

Mechir

3° >.

VII

Phamenoth

3° »

VIII

Pharmuthi

30 „

IX

Pachons ...

3° „

X

Payni

3° >.

XI

Epiphi

30 »

XII

Mesore

3° „

Intercalary Days

5 ,,

365

CHRONOLOGY OF ASSYRIA AND
OTHER COUNTRIES.
KINGS OF TYRE.
According to Menander and Josephus.

Born

Reigned

Abibal 

—979

Hirom, son...

998

979—945

Baleazar, son

981

945—938

Abdastartus, son

958

938—929

An unknown Usurper

929—917

Astartus

959

917—905

Aserymus, brother ...

950

905 — 896

Pheles, brother

946

896

Ithobalus (Eth-Baal)

932

896—864

Badezor, son

903

864—858

Matgenus, son

881

858—849

Pygmalion, son

858

849—802

Foundation of Carthage

843

CHRONOLOGY OF ASSYRIA, ETC.

13'

KINGS OF ASSYRIA.
From the Tenth Century.

Tiglath-Pileser II ...
Assur-daan II
Rimmon-nirari II
Tiglath-Uras II
Assur-nazir-pal Shalmaneser II
Assur-daan-pal
Samsi-Rimmon II ...
Rimmon-nirari III ...
Shalmaneser III
Assur-daan III
Assur-nirari Tiglath-Pileser III (Pul)
Shalmaneser IV
SargonSennacherib
Esar-haddon I
Assur-bani-palAssur-etil-ilani-yukinni Sin-sarra-iskun
Esar-haddon II
Destruction of Nineveh

911 889883858
825
823 81078i77i
753
745
727 722
705
681
668 648

606

9—2

132

CHRONOLOGY OF ASSYRIA

PTOLEMY'S CANON.
Kings reigning less than a year are omitted from the Canon.

Kings of the Babylonians.

Total from

Years

Nabonassar

B.C.

Nabonassar

14

14

747—734

Nadius ...

2

16

733—732

Chinzirus and Porus

5

21

731—727

Jugaeus...

5

26

726—722

Mardocempadus (Merodach-

Baladan)
12
38
721 — 710
Arcianus (Sarcianus? = Sargon)
5
43
709—705
Interregnum (Revolt)
2
45
704—703
Belibus ...
3
48
702 — 700
Apronadius
6
54
699 — 694
Rigebelus
1
55
693
Mesessimordacus
4
59
692—689
Interregnum
8
67
688—681
Assaradinus (Esar-haddon)
13
80
680—668
Saosducheus
20
100
667—648
Chuniladanus
22
122
647 — 626
Nabopolassar
21
'43
625 — 605
Nabocolassar (Nebuchadrezzar)
43
186
604—562
Iluarodamus (Evil-Merodach)
2
188
561—560
Niricassolassar ...
4
192
559—556
Laborosoarchod
Nabonadius
17
209
555—539
Kings of the Persians.
Cyrus ...
9
218
538—530
Cambyses
8
226
529 — 522
Gomates
Darius I
36
262
521—486
AND OTHER COUNTRIES.

133

Kings of the Persians (continued).

Total from

Years
Nabonassar
B.C.
Xerxes I
21
283
485—465
Artaxerxes I
41
324
464—424
Xerxes II
Sogdianus
Darius II
19
343
423—405
Artaxerxes II
... 46
389
404—359
Ochus ...
21
410
358-338
Arostes ...
2
412
337—336
Darius III
4
416
335—332
Kings of the Greeks.
Total from the
death of Total from
Years Alexander Nabonassar B.C.
Alexander Philip Aridaeus
Alexander vEgus
7
12
7
19
Greek Kings in Egypt.
Ptolemy Lagus ... 20 39
Philadelphus 38 77
Evergetes I 25 102
Philopator 17 119
Epiphanes 24 143
Philometor 35 178
Evergetes II 29 207
Soter ... 36 243
Dionysus ... 29 272
Cleopatra ... ... 22 294
424
331—324
431
323—317
443
316—305
463
304—285
501
284 —247
526
246 — 222
543
221 — 205
567
204 — 181
602
180 — 146
631
145— H7
667
116— 81
696
80 — 52
718
5i— 3<>
»34

CHRONOLOGY OF ASSYRIA

SELEUCID KINGS OF SYRIA.

B.C.

Seleucus Nicator

312

Antiochus Soter

279

Antiochus Theus

26l

Seleucus Callinicus ...

246

Seleucus Ceraunus ...

226

Antiochus the Great

223

Antiochus Philopator

.. I87

Antiochus Epiphanes

I76

Antiochus Eupator ...

I64

Demetrius Soter

l62

Alexander Balas

151

Demetrius Nicator ...

I46

Antiochus Sidetes ...

I40

Demetrius Nicator (rest.)

130

Zabinas

126

Antiochus Grypus ...

122

A ntiochus Cyzicenus

114

Seleucus Epiphanes...

96

Philip 

94

Tigranes ...

83

Roman Conquest

65

AND OTHER COUNTRIES.

135

GOVERNORS OF JERUSALEM.
Tributary to the Persian Kings.
Zerubbabel... ... ... B.C. 538
Completion of the second Temple ... 516
Ezra ... ... ... ... 458
Nehemiah ... ... ... ... 445-433

THE ASMON^AN PRINCES.

Mattathias ...

B.C. 168

Judas

 166

Jonathan ...

 161

Simon

 H3

Hyrcanus I

 135

Aristobulus I

 105

Alexander Jannaeus ...

104

Queen Alexandra ...

78

Aristobulus II

 69

Hyrcanus II

 63

Antigonus ...

 40

Herod

37

Archelaus ...

4

Coponius ...

... A.D. 6

M. Ambivius

9

Annius Rufus

12

Valerius Gratus

16

Pontius Pilate

27

SOME OTHER CHRONOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS.
Josephus is the most important of the Jewish
historians, apart from the Scriptural records them
selves, and as he shews himself to have been a careful
student of chronology, it is a matter of considerable
interest and importance to determine the system
underlying his history. This may be found either
from the headings to each book of the Antiquities,
where the number of years contained in the book is
stated with every appearance of exactness, or by
reference to the most important epochs, where he
carefully calculates the length of the period since the
greatest events in past history.
The two systems are not quite consistent, as he
has treated the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah
independently of one another, thus involving an
error of about twenty years. Again, by reckoning the
Babylonian Captivity at seventy years from the fall
of Jerusalem an additional error of twenty years is
introduced. The discrepancy is made up on the
other side, though by no means atoned for, by adding

SOME OTHER CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. 1 37
forty years to the period between the first of Cyrus
and the death of Alexander.
The length of the first book is given, in Whiston
at least, as 3833 years, an obvious error for 3533 years.
Taking B.C. 323 as the unquestionable date of
Alexander's death, the chronology is as follows : —
The Creation 
The Deluge
The Birth of Abraham 
The Call of Abraham 
The Death of Isaac 
The Exodus 
The Rejection of that Generation
The Death of Moses 
The Death of Eli 
The Death of Saul 
The Death of David 
The Foundation of the Temple
The Revolt of the Ten Tribes...
The Death of Ahab 
The Captivity of the Ten Tribes
The Destruction of the Temple
The First of Cyrus 
The Death of Alexander
A somewhat similar chronology long contested
the field with the shorter system of Ussher, but neither
can now be regarded as of more than academic
interest. The following is a scheme of the cardinal
points of the most renowned ancient and modern
chronologies.

i.e. 5421

A.M. I

3165

2257

2173

3249

2098

3324

1888

3534

1668

3754

1666

3756

1628

3794

1152

4270

1 120

4302

1080

4342

1076

4346

1000

4422

917

45°5

760

4662

606

4816

{577 1537

4845

4885

323

5099

138 SOME OTHER CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.

Foundation
Destruction
The
The
The Call
The
of the
of the
Creation
Flood
of Abram
Exodus
Temple
Temple
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
Jewish
376l
2105
1739
1314
835
422
Greek
5508
3246
2IOI
1671
IO38
604
Eusebius
5200
2958
1941
1511
IO32
591
Bede
3953
2297
I930
1500
1020
590
Scaliger
395o
2294
1927
1497
IOI8
590
Petavius
3984
2328
I961
1531
IOI2
588
Ussher
4004
2348
1921
149?
IOI2
588
Jackson
5426
3170
2023
1593
1014
586
Hales
541 1
3155
2078
1648
1027
586
Clinton
4138
2482
2055
1625
IOI3
587
Kings of Judah.
Hales
Clinton
Ewald
Bunsen
Duncker
Conder
Oppert
Curtis
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
B.C.
Rehoboam
990
976
985
968
' 953
971
978
937
Abijah
973
959
968
951
932
954
960
920
Asa
970
956
965
948
929
95i
958
917
Jehoshaphat
: 929
915
917
907
873
910
917
876
Jehoram
904
891
892
882
848
885
892
851
Ahaziah
896
884
885
874
844
877
888
843
Athaliah
895
883
883
873
843
876
887
842
Jehoash
889
877
877
867
837
870
881
836
Amaziah
849
837
837
827
797
830
840
796
Uzziah
809
808
808
798
792
801
811
767
Jotham
757
756
756
746
740
749
758
737
Ahaz
74i
74i
740
73°
734
733
742
735
Hezekiah
725
726
724
714
728
717
727
7i5
Manasseh
696
697
695
6S5
697
688
698
686
Amon
641
642
64O
640
642
633
642
641
Josiah
639
640
638
638
640
631
640
639
SOME OTHER CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. 1 39

Kings of Judah (continued).
Hales Clinton Ewald Bunsen Duncker Conder Oppert Curtis
B.C. B.C. B.C. B.C. B.C. B.C. B.C. B.C.
Jehoahaz 608 609 608 607 609 600 609 608
Jehoiakim 608 609 608 607 608 600 609 608

Jehoiachin

597

598

597

596

597

589

598

597

Zedekiah

597

598

597

596

596

588

598

597

Fall of

Jerusalem
586
587
586
586
586
577
587
586
Kings of Israel.
J Jeroboam
t Nadab
990
976
985
968
953
971
977
937
968
955
9&3
946
927
950
956
9i5
f Baasha
\Elah
966
954
961
944
925
949
955
914
943
93i
937
921
901
925
932
890
Zimri
942
930
935
920
899
924
93i
889
Omri
942
930
931
920
893
924
93i
889
Ahab
93i
919
919
908
875
913
920
875
Ahaziah
909
897
897
886
853
892
900
853
Joram
907
896
895
884
851
891
899
852
Jehu
895
883
883
872
843
877
887
842
Jehoahaz
867
855
855
844
815
847
859
815
Joash
850
839
839
827
798
832
842
798
Jero
boam II
834
823
823
811
790
816
825
782
Zechariah
771
771
770
751
749
764
773
741
Shallum
771
770
770
75i
749
763
772
741
f Menahem
\ Pekahiah
770
770
769
750
748
763
772
741
760
759
759
739
738
752
761
737
Pekah
758
757
757
737
736
750
759
736
Hoshea
728
73°
728
717
734
729
730
734
Fall of
Samaria
719
721
719
709
722
721
721
722
140 SOME OTHER CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.

SUMMARY OF MANETHO'S DYNASTIES.

Lepsius

Brugsch

Petrie

Marietl

B.C.

B.C.

B.C.

B.C.

I

3892

4455

4777

5004

II

3639

4202

4514

4751

III

3338

3900

4212

4449

IV

3124

3686

3998

4235

V

2840

3402

3721

3951

VI

2744

3204

3503

3703

VII

2592

3001

3322

3500

VIII

2522

3001

3252

3500

IX

2674

3001

3106

3358

X

2565

2901

3006

3249

XI

2423

2855

2821

3064

XII

2380

2812

2778

3064

XIII

2136

2599

2565

2851

XIV

2167

2599

2112

2398

XV

2IOI

2146

2098

XVI

1842

1896

1928

2214

XVII

1684

2115

1738

XVIII
1591
1706
1587
1703
XIX
1443
1464
1327
1462
XX
I269
1288
1202
1288
XXI
I09I
mo
1 102
mo
XXII
961
980
952
980
XXIII
787
810
749
810
XXIV
729
721
721
721
xxv
7l6
7i5
715
7i5
XXVI
664
666
664
665
XXVII
525
527
525
527
XXVIII
—
—
405
406
XXIX
399
399
399
399
XXX
378
378
378
378
End of the Native
Monarchy
34°
340
342
340
ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE
FALL OF SAMARIA.
THIS period must be regarded as the most difficult
of all, and the various solutions that have been
proposed shew the greatest possible diversity from
one another, and in many cases the widest divergence
from the truth. For the sake of clearness the thirty
considerations that must be kept in mind are added
in tabular form. The true solution ought to satisfy
them all.
r. The age of Jotham at the birth of Ahaz.
2. The age of Ahaz at the birth of Hezekiah.
3. Jotham reigned 16 years, some contem
poraneously with Uzziah.
4. Ahaz reigned 16 years.
5. Jotham succeeded Uzziah in the 2nd year of
Pekah.
6. Ahaz succeeded Jotham in the 17th (7th?)
year of Pekah.
7. Hezekiah succeeded Ahaz in the 3rd (4th Jos.)
year of Hoshea.
8. Pekahiah reigned 2 years.
9. Pekah reigned 20 years.
10. Hoshea reigned 9 years.

142 ADDITIONAL NOTE ON
ii. Pekahiah succeeded Menahem in the 50th
year of Uzziah.
12. Pekah murdered Pekahiah in the 52nd year of
Uzziah.
13. Hoshea murdered Pekah in the 20th year of
Jotham (sic).
14. Hoshea began to reign in the 12th year of
Ahaz.
15. Siege of Samaria began in the 4th year of
Hezekiah.
16. Fall of Samaria occurred in the 6th year of
Hezekiah.
17. Illness of Hezekiah, Alliance with Merodach-
Baladan, and War with Sennacherib dated
the 14th year of Hezekiah.
18. Pul, or Tiglath-Pileser, began to reign B.C. 745.
19. Shalmaneser succeeded Tiglath-Pileser B.C. 727.
20. Sargon succeeded Shalmaneser B.C. 722.
21. Sennacherib succeeded Sargon B.C. 705.
22. Tiglath-Pileser's first War in the west B.C. 743 —
738. Tribute paid by Uzziah and Menahem.
23. Tiglath-Pileser's second War in the west
B.C. 734. Alliance with Ahaz against
Pekah and Rezin.
24. Tiglath-Pileser " (kill)ed Pekah " (?) B.C. 734.
25. Sargon's capture of Samaria B.C. 722.
26. Further campaign of Sargon against the Syrian
nations B.C. 711.

THE FALL OF SAMARIA. 1 43
27. Alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt against
Sargon B.C. 715 — 711.
28. Accession of Shabak B.C. circa 715.
29. Accession of Tehrak (in Lower Egypt)
B.C. circa 704.
30. Sennacherib's War with Merodach-Baladan,
Hezekiah, and Tirhakah B.C. 703 — 701.
It will be seen that the chronology advocated here
offers an adequate and simple explanation of the
sequence and dependence of events and is perfectly
consistent with each of these thirty considerations.
There are, however, two cases of apparent difficulty
or disagreement. One of these (No. 6) has been dealt
with at full length, and the other (No. 24) is exceed
ingly doubtful. The chronology may therefore be
regarded as firmly established. Perhaps it may be
added that every alternative chronological scheme with
which I am acquainted is at variance with at least
seven of these considerations, and most of them with
many more. Surely the harmony that is found
between the various Jewish, Israelite, Egyptian,
Assyrian, and Babylonian records, when once the
true date of the Fall of Samaria has been determined,
must contrast very favourably with violent distortions
of history in which Pekah is sometimes eliminated
altogether, or a second Menahem is invented, or the
whole scheme of contemporary reigns is thrown into
confusion. CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BV JOHN CLAY, M.A., AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

The Three Additions to Daniel. The Song of the
Three Holy Children— The History of Susanna— The History of
Bel and the Dragon. A Study by W. H. Daubney, B.D.
Crown 8vo., cloth. $s. net.
Studies of Arianism. Chiefly referring to the Character
and Chronology of the Reaction which followed the Council of
Nicsea. By H. M. Gwatkin, M.A., Dixie Professor of Ecclesi
astical History, Cambridge. Second Edition, demy 8vo., cloth.
Price i or. net.
Sancti Irenaei Libros V. Adversus Haereses :
Textu Graeco in Locis Nonnullis locupletato, Versione Latina cum
Codicibus Claremontano ac Arundeliano denuo collata, edidit
W. W. Harvey. Cantabrigiae, 1857. Two Vols. 8vo., cloth.
With Facsimiles. (Published at £1. 16s.) gs. net.
Codex S. Ceaddae Latinus. Evangelia SSS Matthaei,
Marci, Lucae, ad Cap. III. 9 complectens. Cum codice versionis
Vulgatae Amiatino contulit, prolegomena conscripsit, F. A. H.
Scrivener, A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. (Published at £1. is.)
¦js. 6d. net.

By the Rev. HENRY LATHAM, M.A., late Master of
Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
Twelfth Thousand.
Pastor Pastorum ; or, the Schooling of the Apostles of
our Lord. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
Fifth Thousand.
The Risen Master. A Sequel to 'Pastor Pastorum.'
Revised, with 2 Photogravure Plates. Cr. 8vo., cloth. 6s.
Fourth Thousand.
A Service of Angels. Crown 8vo. 3-r. dd.
 v\
The Psalms in Three Collections. Translated, with
Notes, by E. G. King, D.D. Cr. 4to., cloth. 12s. net.
Also in Three Parts, sewed.
First Collection, Psalms 1. — xli. 6s. Second Collection, Psalms
xlii.— lxxxix. 6s. Third Collection, Psalms xc— CL. 5^-.
CAMBRIDGE DEIGHTON BELL & CO.
LONDON GEORGE BELL & SONS.

03882 9439