eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing

services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic

research platform to scholars worldwide.
UC San Diego
Peer Reviewed
Title:
Shadow on the steps : time measurement in ancient Israel
Author:
Miano, David Ringo
Acceptance Date:
01-01-2006
Series:
UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Degree:
Ph. D., UC San Diego
Permalink:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8q86391z
Local Identifier:
b6635263
Abstract:
Many historians and biblical scholars have attempted to make sense of the data found in the
Hebrew Bible in order to reconstruct the time measuring systems that were in use in ancient Israel.
Some have been more successful than others, but all who have tackled the problem have had
difficulties in understanding the systems employed. The usual approach is to ignore the fact that
the Bible is a collection of various writings from various times and places and to gather all of
the chronological data from the entire collection and treat them homogeneously, hoping to find
consistency among them. However, we can never comprehend the biblical data unless we treat
each of the biblical sources as an independent unit. Once that is done, the picture becomes
clearer. We find that the ancient Israelites had more than one calendar, more than one method of
measuring intervals of time between events, and several different chronologies of its history




UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO




SHADOW ON THE STEPS:
Time Measurement in Ancient Israel



A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in

History


by

David Ringo Miano


Committee in charge:

Professor David Noel Freedman, Co-chair
Professor William H.C. Propp, Co-chair
Professor Richard Elliott Friedman
Professor David Goodblatt
Professor Thomas E. Levy
Professor Alden A. Mosshammer





2006













































David Ringo Miano, 2006
All rights reserved.

iii









The Dissertation of David Ringo Miano is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and
form for publication on microfilm:










Co-Chair

Co-Chair


University of California, San Diego

2006







iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Signature Page. iii

Table of Contents. iv

List of Figures and Tablesvii

Vita, Publications, and Fields of Study ix

Abstract x

Introduction.. 1
I. Calendars..7
A. Natural Units of Time... 7
B. The Day as a Unit of Measurement.. 8
1. The Hebrew Word for Day... 8
2. When Does the Day Begin and End?........................................ 8
3. Measurable Divisions of the Day.. 15
C. The Month as a Unit of Measurement.. 22
1. The Hebrew Words for Month.. 22
2. The Naming and Numbering of Months... 23
3. When Does the Month Begin and End? ... 28
4. Measurable Divisions of the Month . 32
D. The Year as a Unit of Measurement. 34
1. The Hebrew Word for Year.. 34
2. When Does the Year Begin and End?....................................... 36
a. The Agricultural Year36
b. The Civil Year... 40
c. The Liturgical Year... 45
d. The Regnal Year 46
E. Lunar, Solar, and Lunisolar Calendars. 52
II. Long-Time Reckoning. 55
A. The Counting of Time Units 55

v
B. The Egyptian Epoch and the Exodus Era. 62
C. Counting Generations... 65
III. Genealogical Chronologies.. 72
A. Dating Events by the Life of an Individual.. 72
B. Genealogical Lists Containing Chronological Information. 74
1. Description 74
2. List-Making in the Ancient World 75
3. Textual Variants of Genesis 5 and 11 and Their History.. 78
a. Genesis 5... 78
b. Genesis 11. 88
C. Sources of the Priestly Genealogical Chronology 94
1. Preliminary Considerations... 94
2. Pedigrees... 99
a. Ancient Linear Genealogies in General 99
b. The Life Spans of the Forefathers. 101
c. A Generational Pedigree in Genesis 5 and 11... 105
3. Conclusions... 110
IV. Hegemonic Chronologies.113
A. Chronological Sources of the Deuteronomistic History113
1. Time as Seen by the Deuteronomistic Historians and Their
Audiences. 113
2. Chronological Sources for the Book of Jeremiah. 114
3. Chronological Sources Relating to the Judges.. 118
4. Chronological Sources Relating to the Kings... 125
a. Preliminary Considerations... 125
b. King Lists.. 129
c. Royal Chronicles... 145
d. Textual Difficulties in Kings. 155
e. Conclusions... 173
B. Historical Reconstructions... 174
V. Conclusions.. 209


vi

Appendix A: Chronological Tables. 217
Appendix B: What Happened in the Fourteenth Year of Hezekiah?................... 223
Bibliography 251


vii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1.1: The Cairo Shadow Clock 18
Figure 1.2: A Drawing of the Cairo Shadow Clock... 19
Figure 1.3: Reconstruction of Ahazs Roof Chamber... 19
Figure 1.4: The Shadow Created on the Steps According to the Suns Position... 21
Table 1.1: Priestly Dates that Include Months... 25
Table 1.2: Agricultural Activity in Modern Israel. 36
Table 2.1: The Count of Days ... 57
Table 2.2: Time Covered by Solomons Building Activities 60
Table 3.1: Variant Readings of the Numbers in Genesis 5 78
Table 3.2: Variant Readings of the Numbers in Genesis 11.. 89
Table 3.3: Sources of the Ages in the Priestly Genealogy. 111
Table 4.1: Readings for Abijam, Asa and Jeroboam. 159
Table 4.2: Readings for Baasha and Elah.. 160
Table 4.3: Totalling the Years of Omri.. 160
Table 4.4: Counts for Omri Assumed in the Manuscripts. 163
Table 4.5: Readings for Zimri, Tibni, Omri and Ahab.. 164
Table 4.6: Readings for Ahab, Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah. 165
Table 4.7: Readings for Ahaziah, Joram and Jehoram.. 166
Table 4.8: Readings for Jehoram and Ahaziah.. 167
Table 4.9: Readings for Amaziah and Azariah.. 169
Table 4.10: Readings for Jotham, Ahaz and Hoshea. 172
Table 4.11: Comparison of Extrabiblical Dates with Judahite King List Dates 183

viii
Table 4.12: Comparison of Extrabiblical Dates with Israelite King List Dates 186
Table 4.14: Comparison of Extrabiblical Dates with Chronicle Dates
for the Kings of Judah 207
Table 4.15: Comparison of Extrabiblical Dates with Chronicle Dates
for the Kings of Israel 208
Table A.1: Chronology of Dtr
2
.. 218
Table A.2: Chronology of Dtr
1
.. 219
Table B.1: Name Patterns in 2 Kings 18-19.. 246
Figure B.1: The Reordering of 2 Kings 18-20... 249













ix
VITA
1994 A.S. in Communications, Niagara County Community College
1999 B.A. in Classics, State University of New York at Buffalo
1999-2006 Section Instructor, Revelle Humanities Program, UCSD
2003 M.A. in History, University of California, San Diego
2005-2006 Adjunct Instructor, University of San Diego
2005-2006 Adjunct Instructor, San Diego Mesa College
2006 Ph.D. in History, University of California, San Diego

PUBLICATIONS
Is the Shorter Reading Better? Haplography in the First Book of Chronicles
([co-authored with David Noel Freedman] in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible,
Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H.
Schiffman, and W. W. Fields, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 2003)

"People of the New Covenant"
([co-authored with David Noel Freedman] in The Concept of Covenant in Second Temple
Judaism. S. Porter and J. deRoo, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 2003)

"Slip of the Eye: Accidental Omission in the Masoretic Tradition"
([co-authored with David Noel Freedman] in The Challenge of Bible Translation: Essays
in Honor of Ronald F. Youngblood. G. Scorgie et al, eds.; Zondervan, 2003)

The Deuteronomic History: A Brief Introduction
(www.myjewishlearning.com, 2003)

The Twelve Sepharim of the Torah
(The Biblical Historian 1/1 [2004] 21-42)

FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: History (Ancient Israel and the Hebrew Bible)
Minor Field: Ancient Near Eastern History
Minor Field: Early Christian History



x




ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION

Shadow on the Steps:
Time Measurement in Ancient Israel

by

David Ringo Miano

Doctor of Philosophy in History

University of California, San Diego 2006

Professor David Noel Freedman, Co-Chair
Professor William H.C. Propp, Co-Chair


Many historians and biblical scholars have attempted to make sense of the data
found in the Hebrew Bible in order to reconstruct the time measuring systems that were
in use in ancient Israel. Some have been more successful than others, but all who have
tackled the problem have had difficulties in understanding the systems employed. The
usual approach is to ignore the fact that the Bible is a collection of various writings from
various times and places and to gather all of the chronological data from the entire
collection and treat them homogeneously, hoping to find consistency among them.
However, we can never comprehend the biblical data unless we treat each of the biblical
sources as an independent unit. Once that is done, the picture becomes clearer. We find
that the ancient Israelites had more than one calendar, more than one method of
measuring intervals of time between events, and several different chronologies of its
history.

1
INTRODUCTION
525,600 minutes, 525,000 moments so dear.
525,600 minutes - how do you measure, measure a year?
In daylights, in sunsets, in midnights, in cups of coffee.
In inches, in miles, in laughter, in strife.
In 525,600 minutes - how do you measure a year in the life?
How about love? How about love? How about love?
Measure in love. Seasons of love.
525,600 minutes! 525,000 journeys to plan.
525,600 minutes - how can you measure the life of a woman or man?
In truths that she learned, or in times that he cried.
In bridges he burned, or the way that she died.
Its time now to sing out, the story never ends.
Let's celebrate, remember a year in the life of friends.
Remember the love! Remember the love! Remember the love!
Measure in love. Seasons of love! Seasons of love.

Seasons of Love by Jonathan Larson (from the musical Rent)

The measurement of time often depends on the vantage of whoever is doing the
measuring. How does one measure a year? Or any other period of time? There is a certain
amount of arbitrariness to the whole process. What do the measurers think is important?
People do not measure time because time demands it but because they demand it. The
effort proves useful to them in some way. Thus we find that not all natural units of time
are measured, nor are more arbitrary units of time devised, unless for some necessity,
purpose, or convenience.
The reasons the ancients measured time were not unlike our own reasons. It was
necessary for farmers to keep track of the parts of the year, so that they knew when to
plant and when to harvest and could plan for the future accordingly. Religious
observances and holy days took place at special times, and it was necessary to set these
times according to some standard of measurement. Time was likewise often a key factor
in business transactions and appointments. Finally, ancient societies were interested in
keeping track of their histories, and time measurement helped to create chronologies by
2

which they could orient themselves in relation to historical events in the past. It is the
intention of this study to explore and analyze the methods used to do just this.
The particular society with which this work is concerned is stated in the title as
ancient Israel, specifically the northern and southern Israelite kingdoms (Israel and
Judah) in the period of their monarchies (circa 930-586 BCE), with attention also given
to the United Monarchy (circa 1020-930 BCE). Recent scholarship has tended to be
skeptical of the very possibility of recovering enough data from the ancient sources to
reconstruct the time measuring systems that were in use in ancient Israel. James C.
Vanderkam, for instance, known for his expertise in the Jewish calendar of the Second
Temple period, expresses a typical opinion about the First Temple period: One may
assume that the ancestors of Israel and the early Israelites themselves followed some sort
of calendar (or calendars), but the extant sources do not permit one to determine what its
(their) nature may have been.
1
I believe this statement is an exaggeration. The nature of
ancient Israels calendars and other time-keeping systems are recoverable, at least
partially, with a relative amount of certainty. One of the aims of this study is to
demonstrate just that, and to show how far the evidence can actually take us.
To be sure, when dealing with any ancient society, evidence is much scarcer than
for more recent societies. For ancient Israel the written evidence is indeed limited (more
limited for northern Israel than for southern Judah), the archaeological evidence, while
able to shed light on various aspects of the culture, tells us almost nothing about Israelite
time keeping, and the oral traditions are, by their nature, no longer accessible. However,

1
James C. VanderKam, "Calendars, Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed.
D.N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992) I: 814-20.
3

we do have recourse to some of the major cultural documents of the period, which have
been preserved in the pages of the Hebrew Bible. The documents to which I have paid the
closest attention are those generally considered to contain pre-exilic material: 1) the
books of the early literary prophets: Amos (9
th
cent.), Hosea (9
th
cent.), Micah (8
th
cent.),
Isaiah (8
th
cent.), Zephaniah (7
th
cent.), and Jeremiah (7
th
-6
th
cent.), and 2) the Primary
History (Genesis-2 Kings), which has proved to be the richest resource of knowledge in
this area. Care had to be taken with these works, because certain parts of them also
contain later (i.e., exilic and postexilic) material.
2

A few words should be said about the Primary History.
3
The final version of the
work has had a complex editorial pre-history that needs to be taken into consideration
when doing a historical study. It cannot be assumed that such a large work, which is
composed of many parts written by different authors, is going to have a synoptic view of
time measurement. Moreover, parts of the Primary History were written outside of the
time period to which this study is limited. We are required to approach the sources one at
a time, each on its own terms, before making any judgments in this regard. If they do
exhibit a similar view, this will come out, but if we make the assumption beforehand and
analyze the text holistically, our data could be contaminated.
While it is not always easy to separate the sources of the Primary History, and
scholars themselves are divided over the particulars, we may use the standard

2
The other lengthy historical narrative in the Bible (1-2 Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah) was not used for this
study because of its late (postexilic) date. The chronological data of clear pre-exilic origin found therein are
by and large a repetition of that found in the Primary History.
3
To the best of my knowledge, the term Primary History was coined by D.N. Freedman, "Pentateuch," in
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962) III: 711-27.
4

Documentary Theory as a point of departure. According to that model, the main sources
are as follows:
The Yahwistic History. The narrative commonly called J, although not concerned
chiefly with matters related to time measurement, is an invaluable source of information
for pre-exilic customs. The document is reputed to have originated in Judah in the period
of the Divided Monarchy (c. 930-c. 720 BCE).
4
Because of the close affinity between J
and other early Judahite sources of the Primary History, such as the so-called Court
History of David, I treat them together; indeed a good argument has been made that the
same author is responsible for these works anyway.
5

The Priestly Source. The P document is full of data related to priestly interests
and liturgical matters. Its author(s) are very interested in matters of time measurement.
Law codes make up a significant part of this source, but there is historical narrative as
well. Scholars are still divided over whether one or both of these parts derive from the
pre-exilic or postexilic period. Because of the strong evidence for a pre-exilic date for
much of the material,
6
I have chosen to include analysis of this source in the present

4
For a survey of scholarship, see A. de Pury, Yahwist (J) Source, ABD VI: 1012-1020. For recent
discussions of the date of J, see Ernest Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998), 132-95, Richard M. Wright, Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the
Yahwistic Source (New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2005).
5
See Richard Elliott Friedman, The Hidden Book in the Bible (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998)
For a list of the passages attributable to this author, see p. 12 of the above work.
6
See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1972), 179-89, Avi Hurvitz, "The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code," Revue Biblique 81
(1974): 24-56, Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew
Prose (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1976), Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), Gary A. Rendsburg, "Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of P,"
JANES 12 (1980): 65-80, Richard Elliott Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: the Formation of the
Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), Menahem Haran, "Behind the
Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source," Journal of Biblical Literature 100.3
(1981): 321-33, Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the
Book of Ezekiel (Paris: Gabalda, 1982), Ziony Zevit, "Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date
of P," ZAW 94 (1982): 502-09, Avi Hurvitz, "Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of
5

study. One needs to be careful, however, to distinguish between original P and the work
of the later priestly Redactor (R), who edited P and other documents in the postexilic
period.
7

The Deuteronomistic History.
8
This lengthy work, recounting the exploits and
excesses of the Judahite and Israelite kings, contains a large amount of chronological
data, some of it from contemporary sources and some from earlier times. One needs to be
careful, however, to distinguish between the older Josianic edition of the history, which
reflects preexilic customs, and the material added in the later exilic edition.
9


Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen," ZAW Supplement (1988): 88-100, Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus
1-16, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 3-35, Richard Elliott Friedman, "Torah," in Anchor Bible
Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992) VI: 605-22, Jacob Milgrom, "The
Antiquity of the Priestly Source," ZAW 111 (1999): 10-22.
7
See Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, 77-80, Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1987, 1997), 217-33, Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth
Century, 215-18.
8
This history is variously referred to by scholars as the "Deuteronomic History" and the "Deuteronomistic
History," with the latter being the current favorite. Although I follow convention here, I am of the opinion
that Deuteronomistic History is a misnomer. While the adjective "Deuteronomistic" ("having the
character of the Deuteronomist") is an appropriate description of the author(s) or editor(s) of this history, it
is not fitting for the history itself, since the comparison is not between the history and the Deuteronomist,
but between the history and the writing that inspired it, the Deuteronomic code. The designation
"Deuteronomic History" therefore seems more appropriate.
9
This study accepts the two-edition theory of the Deuteronomistic History. The evidence for an original
Josianic edition and an updated exilic edition is presented in the following: James A. Montgomery, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. Henry Snyder Gehman, ICC (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), 44-45, Wolfgang Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum
Richterbuch (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963), idem, Die Bearbeitung des 'Retterbuches' in der
deuteronomistischen Epoche (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1964), Frank Moore Cross, "The Structure of the
Deuteronomic History," in Perspectives in Jewish Learning 3 (Chicago: 1968): 9-24, John Gray, I and II
Kings, 2nd ed., OTL (Philadelphia: SCM Press, 1970), 6-9, Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and
Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274-89, I. Schlauri, "W. Richters Beitrag zur
Redaktionsgeschichte des Richterbuches," Bib 54 (1973): 367-403, E. Cortese, "Problemi attuali circa
lopera deuteronomistica," Rivista biblica italiana 26 (1978): 341-52, esp. 343-47, Richard Elliott
Friedman, "From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2," in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in
Biblical Faith, ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981): 167-92, Friedman,
Exile and Biblical Narrative , Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), P. Buis, "Rois," in SDB 9 (1982): cols. 695-750, especially cols. 728-31, H.
G. M. Williamson, "The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History,"
Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 242-43, Norbert Lohfink, Rckblick im Zorn auf den Staat, Vorlesungen zu
ausgewhlten Schlsseltexten der Bcher Samuel und Knige (Frankfurt: Privatdruck, 1984).
6

Northern materials in the Primary History. It is believed that Northern stories
made their way into the Primary History as well. The parts in the Torah attributed to an E
source are usually considered Northern, and there are similar narratives in Samuel and
Kings. They are believed to be from the period of the Divided Kingdom (c. 932-720
BCE).
10

The present work is divided into four chapters. The first deals with the yearly
calendar and addresses questions pertaining to how the Israelites kept track of the
astronomical cycles. The following three chapters are concerned with chronography, that
is, the method of measuring intervals of time between events in order to understand how
far removed these events were from the time of the measurers. Chapter Two examines the
manner in which long periods of time were calculated and understood. Chapter Three
deals with chronologies based on genealogies that were constructed by the priests, and
Chapter Four treats the chronologies that were based on the reigns of judges and kings.





10
See A. W. Jenks, The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph
Series (Missoula, MT: SBL, 1977), Friedman, "Torah," 605-22, A. W. Jenks, "Elohist," in Anchor Bible
Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992) II: 478-82.

7
I.
CALENDARS

A. Natural Units of Time
The natural intervals of time that commonly come into play in the construction of
calendars are 1) the day, 2) the synodic month, and 3) the tropical year. Most societies are
interested in keeping track of all three phenomena, but the three are not quite compatible
with one another, so calendars are forced either to ignore one of them (usually the second
or third) or to accommodate them all by some sort of artificial manipulation.
For purposes of measurement, the 24-hour day may be taken as a constant unit,
and so may the tropical year, but it is clear from the length of the latter (365 days, 5
hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds) that an even number of days will not fit into it. The
synodic, or lunar, month averages 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 2.78 seconds, but
varies in length (up to 13 hours) and is not often divisible by an even number of days, nor
is an even number of months able to fit into a tropical year.
The ancients, while not able to measure all of these time intervals with precision,
were nevertheless well aware of their approximate lengths and of the difficulties
associated with constructing calendars that took all of them into consideration. Length of
days was determined by observation of the sun (its rising and setting), length of months
by observation of the moon (its waxing and waning), and length of years also by
observation of the sun (the solstices and equinoxes).
8



B. The Day as a Unit of Measurement
1. The Hebrew Word for Day
The term used throughout the Hebrew Bible to refer to a 24-hour period is {wy.
This word has several other meanings as well, which may indicate more general periods
of time, some greater and some lesser than one day,
11
but when it comes to quantitative
measurement of time 2`` is used only to refer to a 24-hour span.
Occasionally in quantitative measurement 2`` is used along with the coordinate
term "`" (night) to refer to one complete day. Thus for example we are told that the
length of the period of rainfall during the Flood was forty days and forty nights (or
better, forty daytimes and forty nighttimes). In these cases, 2`` represents, not the
complete diurnal period, but only the part of the day during which the sun is up.
However, daytimes are never counted without nighttimes.

2. When Does the Day Begin and End?
Although it is obvious that a day is made up of a complete period of daylight and
a complete period of night, it is necessary, for calendrical purposes, to choose a specific
point for the change of date. Observation of the sun would have been important for this
determination in antiquity. The Egyptians began their official day at sunrise,
12
and the
Mesopotamians and Athenian Greeks at sunset.
13


11
Gershon Brin, The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. F. Garcia Martinez,
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, vol. 34 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 52-57, 142-45.
12
K. Sethe, "Die Zeitrechnung der alten gypter im Verhltnis zu der der andern Vlker," in Nachrichten
von der Kniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse aus
9


A subject of debate over the years has been when the ancient Israelites understood
the day to have begun. Two main camps exist: those who believe the Israelite day began
in the morning, and those who believe it began in the evening. When addressing this
problem it is important to keep in mind that we cannot assume that every source in the
Bible agrees in this regard, so we will consider each of the sources separately.
14
To be
sure, we should expect that any given ancient society would hold a general and prevalent
view, but these documents do not all derive from the same time period, and ideas may
have changed over the centuries. Also important to note is that none of the authors of
these texts see any need to explain when the day begins. Their audiences already know
that, and so we can only attempt to ascertain what the assumptions are regarding the
beginning of the day in these documents.
15

1) J. The evidence is fairly clear that in J (a southern source) the day begins at
sunrise. For example, in the story of Lot and his daughters, the girls intoxicate Lot and
have sex with him at night, and the next morning is said to be the next day (Gen 19:33-

dem Jahre 1920 (Berlin: 1920): 130-38, Richard A. Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, S.A.O.C. 26
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950), 9-23, Marshall Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science, vol. II
(Independence Square: American Philosophical Society, 1995), 22.
13
Richard A. and Waldo H. Dubberstein Parker, Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, 3rd ed.
(Providence: Brown University Press, 1956), 26, Elias J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968), 13-14, Alan E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology: Calendars
and Years in Classical Antiquity (Mnchen: Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1972), 13
14
Unless otherwise indicated, I follow the source divisions of Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with
Sources Revealed (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).
15
Most of the observations that follow have been made by others (though in most cases without distinction
between sources). See Julian Morganstern, "Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of Ancient Israel," in
Hebrew Union College Annual (1935) X: 1-148, Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions
(London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1961), 180-83, H. R. Stroes, "Does the Day Begin in the Evening of
Morning? Some Biblical Observations," Vetus Testamentum XVI (1966): 460-75, Shemaryahu Talmon,
"Whence the Day's Beginning in the Biblical Period and in the Beginning of the Second Temple Period?"
in The Bible as Reflected in its Commentators, ed. S. Japhet (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994): 109-29, Roger T.
Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 6-7, Brin, Concept of
Time, 153-64.
10


34).
16
Such could not have been the case if the day began at sundown, because the
following morning would have been considered the same day. The assumption is that the
day begins at sunrise. In Dtrs early monarchic sources akin to J, we find similar
evidence. In the story of the dismembered concubine, the father of the young woman
views the nighttime as the close of the day, rather than the beginning of a new one, and
the morrow begins early in the morning (Jud 19:9). Similarly, when the Israelites build an
altar to Yahweh after the decimation of Benjamin, they do it early in the morning, when
the next day begins (Jud 21:4). When Saul tries to kill David in the nighttime, Davids
wife Michal refers to the morning as the next day (1 Sam 19:10-11).
17

2) E. Not much evidence is available for the beginning of the day in E. However,
it would seem that the day also begins at sunrise. In the account about the gathering of
quail by the Israelites in the desert, the people are said to have gotten up to gather the
birds all that day and all night, and all the next day (Num 11:32). It is probable that the
first day mentioned is limited to the daytime, that is, the sunlight hours, since it is used
side-by-side with night (the usual idiom). The second use of day, however, is not
used in conjunction with night; instead we find the adjective "C (the morrow),
which is commonly used when 2`` refers to a complete calendar day (as in the J
examples cited above). The second 2`` therefore must refer to the entire diurnal period.
In other words, the next day is not the next daytime, but the next full day. If so, Es day
begins at the conclusion of the nighttime, i.e., at sunrise. Also worthy of mention is one

16
Although Heb. "C (an adjective) is often used by itself, the implied noun is 2`` (cf. Gen 30:33). See
G. Andr, "," in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. J. Botterweck et al. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) VIII: 237-41.
17
Cf. also 1 Sam 5:2-4.
11


of Dtrs sources for the story of Gideon (6:34-40; 7:2-11, 13-22a, 22c-25).
18
A fleece is
laid out overnight, and the next morning is considered the next day (6:37-38).
3) The Deuteronomistic History. Very little can be found in the DH to assist us
in ascertaining when the Historian understood the day to begin. The most significant
passage is at Joshua 5:10-12, which is a reference to the Passover and based upon
legislation in the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 16:1-9). The historian states that the
Passover was celebrated in the evening.
19
The reason given for the commemoration in the
evening is not because the day begins in the evening, but because the evening was the
time of [their] coming out of Egypt (Deut 16:6). In Joshua, reference is made to the
day after the Passover, on which the people eat from the produce of the land. The
implication is that their eating of the lands yield occurs on the following morning and
afternoon. Those who would argue for a day beginning in the evening would have to
assume that, since the following morning and afternoon are still part of the same day on
which the meal was eaten, then the gathering of the produce from the land did not occur
until at least 24 hours from the evening that the Passover was celebrated, but probably
even later, since the gathering would not have been done in the dark, but would have
been delayed until daylight. However, since the eating of unfermented cakes is

18
The tribe of Ephraim plays the heroic role, so the story may be of northern origin. For evidence that the
Gideon passages are not authored by the Deuteronomistic Historian, but are independent sources, see J.
Alberto Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), 103-05.
19
The word 2. (evening) comes from a root meaning to enter and refers to the suns retiring into its
resting place beneath the horizon, as is shown by the frequent combination of 2. with LCL N2 (e.g.,
Deut 16:6; 23:12[11]; Josh 8:29; 10:26-27). When referring to a point in time, it has the meaning sunset,
and when to a general time, the period following sunset. See H. Niehr, "," in Theological Dictionary of
the Old Testament, ed. G.J. Botterweck et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) XI: 335-41. The statement
that the Passover was celebrated on the 14
th
of the month may be an addition to bring the account into
harmony with the priestly legislation. The Deuteronomic law specifies the month, but not the day, of the
Passover. It does, however, say the sacrifice should be made in the evening (Deut 16:4). On the other hand,
12


commanded to take place over six days (Deut 16:8), the gathering of the produce to make
those cakes must be understood to occur on the morning following the Passover
celebration, when the people would have been instructed to return to their tents (Deut
16:7). The morning after the Passover sacrifice is therefore considered the next day by
the Deuteronomistic Historian.
4) P. The evidence from P is more plentiful, but sometimes appears contradictory.
Nevertheless, it would seem that the priests too understood the day normally to begin at
sunrise. When the Sabbath is instituted during the desert wanderings, Moses says,
Tomorrow is a ceasing, a holy Sabbath to Yahweh (Exod 16:23), and when the
following morning arrives, Moses says, Today is a Sabbath to Yahweh (Exod 16:24-
25). The new day clearly begins in the morning. In the Law, Yahweh commands, The
meat of [the priests] peace-offering shall be eaten on the day of his offering. He shall not
leave any of it until morning (Lev 7:15). The morning here is understood to be on the
following day (see also Lev 22:30).
20

Some have argued that Ps creation account, now in the first chapter of Genesis,
suggests that the priests counted the beginning of the day from the evening.
21
The
repeated refrain, and evening came, and morning came, on each creative day suggests
to some that the author is stating the order of the day. A few considerations should lay
this argument to rest:

perhaps the message in Joshua is that the tradition for celebrating the Passover on the 14
th
is to be traced to
this occasion; it was the day the Israelites celebrated it after entering the Promised Land.
20
One might also look at the evidence from the priestly Redactor of the Primary History, who, although
writing at a later time, includes a source document in Numbers 33, which also suggests that the day begins
at sunrise. It is stated therein that the fifteenth day of the first month was on the morning after the Passover,
which was observed on the fourteenth day of the month (Num 33:3).
21
E.g., Morganstern, "Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of Ancient Israel," 19.
13


1) The combination 2. (evening) and 2 (morning) is not equivalent to
"`" (nighttime) and 2`` (daytime), and in fact does not add up to a
complete day, but amounts only to two lesser parts of one day. We cannot,
therefore, understand the two-fold refrain as constituting some kind of summation
of two parts of an entire day of creation.
2) The appearance of the consecutive waw before the refrain suggests that the
evening and morning are part of a sequence of events. We should not therefore
understand them in isolation from the rest of the events mentioned on any given
creative day. The sequence is as follows: 1) act or acts of creation; 2) evening; 3)
morning. The evening clearly follows the creative activity that occurs during the
day.
3) If the evening follows Gods creative acts on any given day, the evening cannot
be the beginning of the day, but rather would be the concluding part of it. It is the
morning that would signal the transition from one day to the next.
22

Far from demonstrating the day to begin in the evening, Ps creation account adds further
support to the conclusion that P assumes a day that begins at sunrise.
23

Another set of evidence used to demonstrate a day beginning in the evening in the
priestly material is that related to the holy days. The Sabbath runs from evening to
evening (Lev 23:32). The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts from the evening of the
fourteenth day of the first month of the year until the evening of the twenty-first day of
the month, seven days from evening to evening (Exod 12:18-19). This evidence

22
Note especially the first day, in which the appearance of light begins the day.
23
See Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 1967-68, 2025-26
14


seemingly points to a day that begins in the evening. Suggestive also is the fact that the
paschal offering on the first of those days is to take place between the evenings (Exod
12:6; Lev 23:5; Num 9:3, 5, 11), an expression that appears to mean the time between
sunset and full night.
24
Some sacrifices are also to be made between the two evenings
(Exod 29:39, 41; 30:8).
However, the very fact that the Law has to specify that observances and special
performances take place in the evening or run from evening to evening suggests that such
was not normally the case. If the day began at sundown, then the only necessary
information would be the date of the observance (e.g., that the Sabbath is on the seventh
day of the week). It would already be understood that such days begin and end in the
evening. Yet the Law makes a point to highlight that such observances must commence
in the evening. This evidence actually implies a day that does not usually begin at such a
time.
25

As the preceding survey demonstrates, all of the main sources in the Primary
History (J, E, Dtr, and P) assume a day that begins and ends at sunrise. The broad
agreement suggests that this was a general view for a long period of time. P, however,
appears to have a different system of reckoning the day when it comes to rituals of the
cult. Indeed, it would seem that P makes an effort to impose its liturgical day onto the
existing system (cf., for example, the problem of naming the date of the Day of
Atonement, which is to take place between evenings; Lev 23:27, 32). We cannot
therefore interpret Ps regulation as evidence of a change in the reckoning of the days

24
See discussion in William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 390-91
25
See also Ibid., 390-92, Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 1967-69.
15


beginning. Its liturgical day presupposes, and therefore exists side by side with, the
secular day.
A question we might ask is: Is a day beginning in the evening an innovation of the
priests (or something borrowed from another culture), or is P incorporating or preserving
an older system? Rituals tend to have long lives, so it is certainly possible that the priests
are preserving an ancient practice, but we have no evidence for an evening-to-evening
day in any source older than P. Both Ps liturgical year (as we shall see) and Ps festival
day begin at different times than in the other biblical sources (including the P narrative),
and they both appear to imitate foreign custom. It therefore seems more probable that the
liturgical calendar was based on foreign systems than on an early Israelite one.

3. Measurable Divisions of the Day
The Bible writers do not often divide the day into measurable parts. Although
general designations exist, like rqwb (morning), {yrhc (midday), br( (evening),
and hlylh ycx (the middle of the night), these are not clock times, nor are they used in
chronological measurement. There is, however, limited evidence of quantifiable divisions
of the day from which we may draw some educated conclusions.
Several writers use the term hrm#) to designate a fixed period of time during
which a guard keeps watch, and it would seem that over time the word, which originally
came from a military context, carried over into everyday language.
26
Each watch seems
to have borne a name, but the Bible does not provide us with the names of all of the
watches. The morning watch (rqbh trm#)) is spoken of in two places (Exod 14:24; 1
16


Sam. 11:11, both J), and once we hear of a middle watch (hnwkyth trm#)h) (Judg
7:19, Dtr or one of its sources). All of the watches appear to be associated with the
nighttime, including, it would appear, the morning watch, in which daybreak seems to
have occurred (cf. Ps 63:6; Ps 90:4; Ps 119:147-148). However, Lamentations 2:19
suggests that trm#)h #)r (the start of the watches) occurred in the morning and
therefore that watches were kept all throughout the day.
27
Since one of the night watches
is referred to as the middle watch, we are justified in assuming an odd number of night
watches, most likely three. These would consist of an early evening watch, the middle
watch, and probably the morning watch. This three-fold division was also the practice of
the Babylonians,
28
and the Greeks in Homers time.
29
In a night 12 hours long, each
watch would have been approximately 4 hours in duration. We would expect a similar
division of the daytime, with three watches of about 4 hours each. As the length of
daylight changed throughout the year, the length of the watches would no doubt have
been affected, with the night watches being longer in the winter and shorter in the
summer. Time would have been measured during the day by the position of the sun, and
during the night by the position of the stars. Customs may have varied from place to
place, but it is impossible with the scanty information the Bible provides to make any
further judgments.
Apart from the trm#), the only other reference to measured divisions of the day
occurs in a narrative about Isaiah and King Hezekiah. When the king asks the prophet

26
Cf. Greek fulakai and Latin vigiliae (Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, 14).
27
Lam 2:19 is another source of evidence for a day beginning at sunrise.
28
Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, 14.
29
Iliad X: 253; Odyssey XII: 312.
17


for a sign that he will recover his health, the latter performs a miracle that suggests the
turning back of time: he causes a shadow on a flight of steps, which had been moving
forward, to recede (2 Kings 20:8-11 = Isaiah 38:22, 7-8).
The steps upon which the shadow moves is of particular interest to us, because it
would appear that they are to be understood as part of some sort of time-keeping device
that was set up at the kings palace to measure the passing of the day by the suns
shadow. They are called zx) twl(m (the steps of Ahaz) in MT, a name that suggests
that the clock was installed by Hezekiahs father. There is a good chance, however, that
the phrase has been shortened accidentally through a scribal error (haplography). In the
Isaiah text, several witnesses (LXX, 1QIsa
a
, Vulg., Targ.) carry the additional word tyl(
between the two nouns (zx) tyl( twl(m instead of zx) twl(m).
30
The similarity between
the two words twl(m and tyl( could easily have led a scribes eye astray, so that the
second word was skipped during the copying process in the Masoretic scribal tradition. A
parent reading of zx) tyl( twl(m (the steps of the roof chamber of Ahaz) is likely.
The reference to zx) tyl( (the roof chamber of Ahaz) elsewhere (2 Kings 23:12)
establishes the existence of such a place and adds further credence to the longer
reading.
31
The attribution of the roof chamber to Ahaz may be an allusion to the
alterations he had made to the palace complex earlier in the narrative (2 Kings 16:17-18),
alterations which seem to have included cultic innovations borrowed from Assyria. The
steps may have been part of the new design. Yadin draws attention to Egyptian shadow
clocks, one type of which consisted of two flights of stairs (one set facing east and one

30
LXX has your father instead of Ahaz.
18


facing west), upon which the suns shadow fell, and this may be the closest equivalent we
can find.
32
One example of this type is part of a clock now in the Cairo Museum (No.
33401) and generally dated to the later New Kingdom period.
33
A photo and drawing
appear below:
34











Figure 1.1: The Cairo Shadow Clock.






31
See Samuel Iwry, "The Qumran Isaiah and the End of the Dial of Ahaz," Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 1.147 (1957): 27-33.
32
Yigael Yadin, " ," Eretz Israel 5 (1958): 91-96.
33
Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science, 93-94.
34
Taken from Ibid., "Illustrations" (page unnumbered).
19










Figure 1.2: A Drawing of the Cairo Shadow Clock.

Based on this model, the roof chamber of Ahaz may have looked something like
figure 3.
35









Figure 1.3: Reconstruction of Ahazs Roof Chamber.

35
The drawings that follow are Yadins.
20


The Cairo model was small enough that it could be adjusted to be directly in line
with the sun, no matter the time of year.
36
A permanent fixture on Ahazs roof would not
have allowed for this. It may be that the clock was smaller than Yadin suggests and
movable.
The text of Isaiah 38:8 in LXX, which is the fullest, gives some clues as to how
the clock may have worked. It reads as follows:

[idou egv strefv]
37
thn skian tvn anabaymvn ouw katebh o hliow to
uw deka anabaymouw tou oikou tou patrow sou apostrecv ton hlion
touw deka ana-baymouw kai anebh o hliow touw deka anabaymouw ouw k
atebh h skia.

Behold! I shall bring the shadow of the steps, the ten steps of the house of
your father that the sun went down. I shall bring back the sun the ten
steps. And the sun went up the ten steps that the shadow went down.
38


The account provides us with several pieces of information. First, after Yahweh
says that he will make the sun go back, the sun goes up. In other words, the sun had been
setting, but it is made to return to a higher place in the sky. So the story takes place late in
the day, towards evening. Second, we are told that, as the sun went back, the shadow
descended the steps. This would mean that in normal time, as the sun began to set, the
shadow would ascend the steps. As it moved over them, it would create more light and
less shadow, so the shadow must have increased in size as the sun moved down the steps.
This fixes the place of the object creating the shadow. It must be at the bottom of
the stairs, and high enough to create a shadow over all of the steps as the sun sets.

36
Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science, 93.
37
The opening words are missing in the major LXX manuscripts, but are restored here from variant
manuscripts in conformity with MT.
21


Yadins reconstruction seems the most appropriate to fit the description (see Figure 1.4).
Third, we are told that there are ten steps. If the clock measured the movement of the sun
throughout the entire day, we must presume there are ten steps on the other side as well.
The stairway would have been running east-west.














Figure 1.4: The Shadow Created on the Steps
According to the Suns Position.

Each step would represent a division of time. Ten steps on one side for the first
half of the day (shadow moving down), and ten on the other for the second half of the day

38
For a discussion of the textual history of this passage, see Iwry, "The Qumran Isaiah and the End of the
Dial of Ahaz," 32-33.
22


(shadow moving up), indicate twenty units total. Keep in mind that this would be for
daylight time only. Each step would represent approximately 36 minutes, that is, at times
of the year when daytime and nighttime were equal, but would have been shorter during
the winter and longer during the summer, as in the case of Egyptian shadow clocks. A
division of the daytime into 20 units is unattested in the sources of any other ancient
culture. If so, we may have here a uniquely Judahite clock. Alternately, we might suppose
that it would take some time after sunrise for the shadow to drop the first step on the
eastern stairway. In early Egyptian flat-surfaced shadow clocks, for example, it took two
hours for the shadow to reach the first mark.
39
Since the clock seems to be based on an
Egyptian model, we might surmise that it was an hour after sunrise before the shadow
began to move (the equivalent of two steps), and likewise an hour before sunset when the
shadow reached the top of the steps on the other side, twelve units on one side and twelve
on the other, thus suggesting a daytime divided into 24 parts in harmony with the
Egyptian 12-hour system. However, the step clock appears to have been different. The
Cairo model has a number of steps equal to the number of hours in the Egyptian daytime
(12), so it is probable that the Ahaz clock, if the same type of step-clock, had a number of
steps that equaled the number of hours in the day (20).

C. The Month as a Unit of Measurement

1. The Hebrew Words for Month
There are two words in Hebrew that can mean month. One, "` , is a derivative
of the word "` (moon), which comes from a root meaning to wander, travel, and no

39
Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science, 85-86.
23


doubt is meant to evoke the thought of the moon as a wanderer or traveler.
40
It is the term
of choice in the Gezer Calendar, in Phoenician inscriptions, and in the Ugaritic texts.
41

The word is not used frequently in the Bible. It occurs 6 times in the Deuteronomistic
History, three of which are in the citation of Phoenician month names (1 Kings 6:37, 38;
8:2), once in the blessing of Moses (Deut 33:14), once in the Deuteronomic Code (Deut
21:13), and once in reference to the length of the reign of an Israelite king (2 Ki 15:13). It
occurs once in J (Exod 2:2), four times in the poetry of Job (3:6; 7:3; 29:2; 39:2), and
once in the Book of Zechariah (11:8). The second term, L", appears 44 times and is
used by all of the major sources. It comes from a root meaning new, and no doubt is
meant to evoke the thought of the rebirth of the moon at the beginning of each month.
42


2. The Naming and Numbering of Months
Months in the Bible are rarely named. Exceptions are found chiefly in the
accounts of Solomons building projects (1 Kings 6:1, 37-38; 8:1), where the months Ziv,
Bul, and Ethanim are mentioned. Two of these names, Bul and Ethanim appear in
Phoenician inscriptions.
43
Because the month names in 1 Kings are limited to this
context, it is quite possible that the accounts are based, at least partially, on Phoenician
records or on contracts with the Phoenicians (King Hiram of Tyre assisted King Solomon
in these construction projects). It is therefore not certain that the Israelites employed these

40
R. E. Clements, "," in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G.J. Botterweck et al. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) VI: 355-62.
41
Ibid., 356.
42
J. L. North, "," in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G.J. Botterweck et al. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) IV: 225-44.
43
Mark E. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1993), 384-
85.
24


names on a regular basis. On the other hand, the month name Abib (not yet established as
Canaanite) is attested in the law codes of E (Exod 13:4; 23:15), J (Exod 34:18), and Dtr
(Deut 16:1), so there is reason to believe that this was a name commonly used in Israel in
early times. Although some have argued that Abib is no month name at all, but rather a
descriptor of some agricultural or seasonal event,
44
Abib has no features that distinguish
it from other month names. Many months of the ancient Near Eastern calendars were
named after agricultural or seasonal events and sometimes carry the definite article (e.g.,
the month of the Ethanim in 1 Ki 8:2).
45
It therefore seems likely that the Israelites did
name their months at one time.
46

The custom of referring to months by number is evident in both P and Dtr. While
monthly references permeate the priestly text, the Deuteronomistic History contains
month references only in its final chapter, and in 1 Kings 6:1, 38 and 8:2. The last chapter
of the DH was written during the exile. The month references in 1 Kings 6 and 8 also
contain month names, and the numbered months are marked off by the independent
pronoun N`, an indication that they are glosses. The similar use of N` in 2 Kings 25:8

44
E.g., F.X. Kugler, Von Moses bis Paulus: Forschungen zur Geschichte Israels (Mnster: Verlag der
Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922), 12-17, Jan A. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of
the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005), 25-31. Wagenaar argues
that use of the term L" for month is a late development and that the word meant season in the pre-
exilic period. He therefore concludes that Abib is not a month name. However, he dismisses the many
instances in which pre-exilic authors clearly use the word L" to mean month (e.g., Gen 38:24; 1 Sam
27:7; 2 Sam 24:8; 1 Ki 5:7 [4:27]; 2 Ki 23:31) and instead supports his understanding of the word with a
single passage in Jeremiah (2:23-24) in which L" appears to mean something like season.
45
See Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology, ed. D.J.A. Clines
and P. R. Davies, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 66 (Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1990), 161.
46
Auerbach draws attention to an interesting passage in Exod 9:31-32, which appears to name two other
Israelite months: Gibeol and Aphilot (E Auerbach, "Die babylonische Datierung im Pentatuech und das
Alter des Priester-Kodex," Vetus Testamentum 2 [1952]: 334-35). Like Abib, these are unattested as month
names outside the Bible.
25


raises the possibility that the glosses in 1 Kings 6 and 8 were added by the reviser of the
DH during the exile.
If P is pre-exilic (and the evidence is strong that it is), it is the only text that
demonstrates a pre-exilic usage of numbered months. However, some priestly data were
contributed by the Redactor in later times. Is it possible to separate P chronological data
from R chronological data in order to determine who numbered months and who did not?
When the priestly texts provide dates with reference to months, they do so for two
purposes. One is to specify the times at which rituals are to be performed; the other is to
date events in the narrative. For the readers convenience, all 31 of these references in the
priestly texts are divided according to purpose and listed in two columns below:



Table 1.1: Priestly Dates that Include Months
Dates of Yearly Rituals Dates of Historical Events
Sheep taken for Passover: 1/10-1/14
(Exod 12:2,3,6)
Beginning of Flood: 2/17 in the 600
th

year of Noahs life (Gen 7:11)
Eating of unfermented bread: 1/14-1/21
(Exod 12:18)
Ark rests on Mt. Ararat: 7/17 in the 600
th

year of Noahs life (Gen 8:4)
Day of Atonement: 7/10 (Lev 16:29) Tops of mountains appear: 10/1 in the
600
th
year of Noahs life (Gen 8:5)
Passover: 1/14 (Lev 23:5) Water is drained from the ground: 1/1 in
the 601
st
year of Noahs life (Gen 8:13)
Festival of Unfermented Cakes begins:
1/15 (Lev 23:6)
The earth is dried and Noah leaves ark:
2/27 in the 601
st
year of Noahs life (Gen
8:14)
New Years observance: 7/1 (Lev 23:24) Israelites come to wilderness of Sin: 2/15
after leaving Egypt (Exod 16:1)
Day of Atonement: 7/9-7/10 (Lev
23:27,32)
Israelites come to Sinai: 3
rd
month after
leaving Egypt (Exod 19:1)
Festival of Booths: 7/15-7/21 (Lev
23:39,41)
Tabernacle set up: 1/1 in 2
nd
year after
leaving Egypt (Exod 40:2,17)
Sounding of horn in Jubilee year: 7/10
(Lev 25:9)
Census taken: 2/1 in 2
nd
year after
leaving Egypt (Num 1:1,18)
26


Table 1.1 continued
Dates of Yearly Rituals Dates of Historical Events
Make-up Passover: 2/14 (Num 9:3,5,11) God institutes Make-up Passover: 1
st

month in 2
nd
year after leaving Egypt
(Num 9:1)
Passover: 1/14 (Num 28:16) Israelites leave Sinai: 2/20 in 2
nd
year
after leaving Egypt (Num 10:11)
Festival of Unfermented Cakes: 1/15-
1/21 (Num 28:17)
Israelites come to Qadesh in Zin and
Miriam dies: 1
st
month [in 3
rd
year?] after
leaving Egypt (Num 20:1)
New Years observance: 7/1 (Num 29:1) Israelites leave Egypt: 1/15 (Num 33:3)
Day of Atonement: 7/10 (Num 29:7) Aaron dies: 5/1 in the 40
th
year after
leaving Egypt (Num 33:38)
Festival of Booths: 7/15-7/21 (Num
29:12)
Moses delivers law on plains of Moab:
11/1 in the 40
th
year after leaving Egypt
(Deut 1:3-4)
Israelites cross the Jordan: 1/10 [in the
41
st
year?] after leaving Egypt (Josh
4:19)

The ritual schedule is provided three times in the priestly material, once in P
proper (first part of the year in Exod 12, second part in Lev 16, and a supplement in Num
9), once in the Holiness Code (an update of P?)(Lev 23, 25), and once in R (Num 28, 29).
The contents of Exodus 12 and Lev 16 are likely to be pre-exilic, and the months are
numbered.
When it comes to the actual dating of historical events, however, we cannot be
certain of preexilic practice among the Aaronid priests. There appears to be unity of
authorship in the second column. Someone is clearly interested in laying out a
comprehensive chronology of the wilderness events, and the Flood chronology exhibits
some of the same characteristics. Textual analysis has shown that the list of the
Wilderness Stations of Israels journeys (Num 33) probably was incorporated into the
Torah by the Redactor. R used this list to organize the stories he combined, and he set
27


twelve station headings within the newly-formed narrative to coincide with the list.
47

Two important dates are included in Numbers 33, the date that the Israelites left Egypt,
and the date of Aarons death. Four of the station headings within the wilderness
narrative also contain dates, (Exod 16:1; 19:1-2; Num 10:11-12; 20:1-2), so they are
likely redactorial as well (all are in the right-hand column in the table above).
48
If six of
the nine wilderness dates in the table are Rs, it makes little sense to assign the other three
(Exod 40:2, 17; Num 1:1, 18; 9:1) to P. It appears R is responsible for the entire
chronology. Regarding the date found in Deuteronomy (1:3-4), it appears likewise to be a
part of Rs wilderness chronology, because it continues to date events by the Exodus,
follows precisely six months after the previous date (suggesting a connection between the
two), and makes an effort to include the D speeches on the plains of Moab (absent in P)
in the wilderness journey (cf. Num 33:48-49). R, not the author of P, had knowledge of
the D material. Moreover, Deuteronomy 1:3-4 is clearly an intrusion in the D text. I
would venture to say that the date at Josh 4:19 is also by R, because it is the final (and
only other) date in the wilderness trek (the crossing of the Jordan would be the natural
terminal point), and the editor wants to make it clear that the Israelites got to the other
side by the tenth of the first month, so that they could observe the ritual of Exodus 12:2-6
[P].
That the Flood chronology also derives from R makes sense, as it exhibits the
same characteristics of the rest of the chronology. The dates having to do with the flood
stand out as very specific, naming both the month and the day that an event takes place:

47
For the evidence, see Cross, CMHE, 308-17. Cross, however, while demonstrating a priestly redactor,
does not distinguish between P and R.
28



In the 600
th
year of Noahs life, in the 2
nd
month, on the 17
th
day of the
month, on this day, all the springs of the great deep were burst, and the
gates of the skies were opened (Genesis 7:11).

And the ark came to rest, in the 7
th
month, on the 17
th
day of the month, on
the mountains of Ararat. And the water lessened until the 10
th
month. In
the 10
th
, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared (Gen
8:4-5).

And it came to be, in the 601
st
year of Noahs life, in the first month, on
the first of the month, that the water dried from on the earth (Genesis 8:13-
14).

This specific form of dating can be found elsewhere in the Torah only in Rs
wilderness chronology. Note that the expression l 2``2 in Genesis 7:11 appears also
in Exodus 19:1 [R].
Although Ps month references are limited to the ritual calendar, they are a clear
indication that, at the very least, the priests began numbering months sometime in the
pre-exilic period. It may be that they were the first to find the Canaanite month names
problematic. We cannot safely assume this convention began earlier than the late eighth
century BCE (that is, prior to the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel).

3. When Does the Month Begin and End?
In the preparation of a calendar, a choice needs to be made whether to count
actual synodic months based on observation of the moon, in which case the lengths of
months will fluctuate, or whether to arbitrarily assign a certain number of days to a
month, regardless of the position of the moon (as we do in our calendar), in which case

48
It might be argued that the headings could be composite and therefore the dates might not be from R, but
29


the lengths of the month will remain constant. The question is: what did the ancient
Israelites do?
It has often been argued that the very name L" for a month makes it clear that
the month is based on the observation of the new moon.
49
However, we should be careful
not to put too much emphasis on etymology. The word month in any language is
related to the word for moon, but not all months are measured by observation of the
moon. Even if originally a month denoted the passage of the moon, we cannot assume it
always did.
50
Nevertheless, more substantial pieces of evidence indicating that it was
customary to keep track of the phases of the moon in ancient Israel exist. These are the
references to new-moon celebrations, often alongside Sabbath observances, in some of
the books of the earlier prophets, both northern and southern (Amos 8:5; Hosea 2:13[11];
Isaiah 1:13), in the Deuteronomistic History (1 Sam 20:5, 24; 2 Kings 4:23), and in the
Psalms (Ps 81:4). The association of these observances with activities of kings suggests
that the observations of the moon were connected with the civil calendar. P, too, appears
to assume that the moon was watched to keep track of time when it states that, as one of
the luminaries, the moons primary purpose is to mark time (Gen 1:14).
51
As shown
below, the priests probably had their own unique calendar. The implication of Genesis

their presence in the headings is difficult to ignore.
49
See, e.g, Sigmund Mowinckel, Zum israelitischen Neujahr und zur Deutung der
Thronbesteigungspsalmen (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1952), 22, Solomon Gandz, "The Calendar of Ancient
Israel," Homenaje a Mills Vallicrosa I (1954): 630.
50
In Egypt, for example, the hieroglyph for month was written with a crescent moon, even in the civil
calendar, which had a set length for the month, regardless of the waxing and waning of the moon (Clagett,
Ancient Egyptian Science, 7). See also Sacha Stern, Calendar and Community (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2001), 3.
51
2`.`C, often translated seasons refers more generally to appointed times.
30


1:14, then, is that the liturgical calendar, like the civil one, was based on observation of
the moon.
On the other hand, evidence could be cited to demonstrate that months may have
been assigned a set number of days, regardless of the actual phases of the moon. In the
Flood narrative of Genesis, the priestly chronology informs us that five months separated
the beginning of the Flood and the landing of the ark on Mt. Ararat, and that this period
comprised 150 days (Gen 7:11; 8:3-4). The clear inference is that each month lasted an
even 30 days. In a system in which direct observation of the moon determined the length
of months, this could never happen. This schematic representation of the months is
similar to that found in Daniel (12:7, 11), in which 3 years is equated with 1,290 days
(42 months of precisely 30 days). These figures simply may be idealized round
numbers,
52
but even if not, the Flood chronology was created by the Redactor of the
Primary History (see above) and cannot therefore be used as evidence of pre-exilic
custom.
When a calendar is intended to measure the actual length of months (i.e., the
course of the moon), rather than create an arbitrary length for convenience, the most
useful phenomena to observe are the moons phases. A month is the interval of time
between two successive observations of the same phenomenon. Since this period
fluctuates slightly with no apparent pattern, there would have been little opportunity for
prediction. Conjunction (when the sun, earth, and moon are in line) is the natural line of

52
The Babylonians, who practiced intercalation, also had this custom. See Gandz, "The Calendar of
Ancient Israel," 623-46.
31


demarcation of the synodic month.
53
A common beginning point for a month was the
evening in which the crescent first became visible. The Mesopotamians and Greeks
counted months this way, because their days began at sunset.
54
The Egyptian lunar
calendar, both the earlier and the later form, seems to have marked the months by the last
visibility of the crescent in the morning.
55
This makes sense, since the Egyptian day
began at sunrise. (In other words, we should expect the beginning of a month to coincide
with the beginning of a new day.) Because the Israelites followed the Egyptian practice
of counting their days from sunrise, it is likely that, if they did count the months by
observing the moon, they would have marked the months by morning observation rather
than evening observation.
The synodic month averages about 29 days (+/- 13 hours), so in a calendar a
lunar month can be only 29 or 30 daysnever more and never less. According to the
Egyptian system, if the crescent were not visible in the eastern sky just before sunrise on
the morning of the 30
th
day of any given month, that day would be the first of the new
month (the length of the preceding month would be determined to have been 29 days).
Sometimes poor visibility would make it impossible to tell, so the month might last
another day, but the month would end at 30 days no matter what the atmospheric
conditions were the next morning. If the observers made an error (counting a 29-day

53
See the helpful discussion in Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology, 5-10. The month can also be
measured by its position in reference to a star, but the length of time the moon takes to travel around the
earth and back to the same place (27 1/3 daysa sidereal month) is actually two days shorter than a
synodic month and not commonly used for calendar purposes.
54
F. Rochberg-Halton, "Calendars, Ancient Near East," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1992) I: 810; Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology, 14.
55
Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, 9-23, Richard A. Parker, "The Beginning of the Lunar Month in
Ancient Egypt," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29.4 (1970): 217-20, Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science,
22-28.
32


month as 30 days), it would automatically be corrected by the next clear observation of
the crescent (so sometimes a 29-day month might end up being 28 days as a result).

4. Measurable Divisions of the Month
Apart from being divided into days, months apparently were not divided into
anything else for calendar purposes in ancient Israel. The week, a convenient short period
of time greater in length than a day, and lesser in length than a month, is not a natural unit
of time. Four weeks (28 days) come close to the length of a synodic month (29 days),
but not close enough to maintain accordance between weeks and months over any
lengthy period of time. The ancient Egyptians had a 10-day week, arbitrarily created to fit
neatly into the 30-day month of its civil solar calendar.
56
The 7-day week, though attested
earliest among the Israelites, nevertheless was based on a number commonly regarded as
significant or sacred in many ancient Near Eastern cultures and probably having its origin
in the observation that seven heavenly bodies (sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter,
and Saturn) were known to move against the fixed background of the stars. The
organization of days into groups of seven, in honor of these heavenly bodies, was
convenient.
57
By the first century BCE the days of the week would be named after these
bodies.
On the other hand, it is possible that 7-day weeks were based on the phases of the
moon. In the Enuma Elish, when Marduk creates the moon to mark out the days, he
says:


56
Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science, 49-50.
57
Solomon Gandz, "The Origin of the Planetary Week or the Planetary Week in Hebrew Literature," in
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (1949) XVIII: 213-54.
33



At the month's very start, rising over the land,
You shall have luminous horns to signify six days,
On the seventh day reaching a half-crown.
So shall the fifteen-day period be like one another-two halves for each month.
When the sun overtakes you at the base of heaven,
Diminish your crown and retrogress in light.
At the time of disappearance approach the course of the sun,
And on the thirtieth you shall again stand in opposition to the sun. (V:12-22)

In this scheme, the week plays an important role. The first seven days cover the period
from the new moon to the half-moon. Another period of seven days covers the period
from the half-moon to the full moon. Day 15 is the middle of the month. Then the reverse
happens. Seven days cover the period from the full moon to the half-moon, and seven
days the half-moon to the new. Day 30 may be the last day of the month, or the first day
of the next. To be sure, this delineation of the days may simply be an attempt to
harmonize the week with a lunar month, but it is also possible that the idea of a 7-day
week came from this scheme.
The word for week in Hebrew is .`2L, which comes from the word for seven;
it appears infrequently in the Bible.
58
Most often we find it as part of the expression
Festival of Weeks, a feast that received its name because it occurred at the culmination
of a series of seven weeks commencing at harvest.
59
The earliest reference to this festival
is in Js Decalogue (Exod 34:22). We also find it in the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 16:9-
12) and in the priestly laws, but without the name (Lev 23:15-16). Interestingly, the only
time we find weeks being counted in the Bible is in conjunction with the Festival of

58
Brin, Concept of Time, 167-68, Eckart Otto, "," in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed.
G.J. Botterweck et al (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) XIV: 336-67.
59
James C. VanderKam, "Weeks, Feast of," in Anchor Bible Dictionary VI, ed. D.N. Freedman (New York:
Doubleday, 1992): 895-97.
34


Weeks. Only in J do we find the word week used in a secular sense (Gen 29:27-28).
Nevertheless, because of the Sabbath observance, the week is an important part of
Israelite society, usually called a period of seven days rather than one week. Though
not often employed this way, the word for Sabbath (2L) is sometimes used by P as a
parallel designation for a week (e.g., Lev 23:15). The days of the week are of particular
interest to P and are usually numbered. An apparent innovation of P is not only to
organize days into weeks, but years into weeks as well (Lev 25:8), although there is a
possible instance of this usage in J (Gen 29:26-27).

D. The Year as a Unit of Measurement
1. The Hebrew Word for Year
The Hebrew word for year, .L, comes from a root meaning to change or to
repeat.
60
The implication is that the year is a revolution of time. Ancient farmers were
well aware of the change in seasons, and such knowledge would have governed their idea
of what constituted a year. The annual cycle marked by seasons is assumed in many pre-
exilic texts (e.g., Gen 8:22; 17:21). More exact observation of the movement of the sun
revealed the times of the year when the period of daylight and period of night were equal
(the equinoxes on about September 22 and March 20), as well as the days when the
daylight was shortest (December 21) and longest (June 21) (the solstices).
61
The length of

60
Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 2nd ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 16.
61
The equinoxes occur when the sun crosses the equator and equally irradiates the north and south poles,
and the solstices when the sun seems to stand still as it is traveling northward and then again as it is
traveling southward. Another way of calculating the equinoxes and solstices is by measuring the suns
shadow.
35


the tropical year therefore was well known among the ancients to be approximately 365
days.
62

There is no natural beginning point of a year (i.e., a place where the sun naturally
begins its journey), so ancient societies would establish the first day of a year as they
preferred. This could be done by selecting a seasonal change, an important anniversary
date, or a natural astronomical phenomenon. Calendars that took into account the phases
of the moon tended to choose the latter (the beginning of a natural month), and calendars
that disregarded the moons phases would usually pick an arbitrary date. Agricultural
calendars tended to choose seasonal occurrences as starting points for the year. A single
society might have more than one sort of calendar in use. Assyria had at least two
calendars operating at the same time (before its adoption of the Babylonian calendar), one
solar and one lunar. The solar year began around the time of the autumnal equinox. The
lunar year began at a different point in the solar year each year.
63
Egypt had three
calendars. The civil year was 365 days long, consisting of 12 months of 30 days, plus 5
extra days. This calendar was of a day short of a solar year and so each year began
of a day earlier than it had the previous year. The agricultural year always began in the
summer at the onset of the Nile inundation and was linked through intercalation to the
rising of the Dog Star Sothis (Sirius). The religious calendar was lunar and used for
fixing festival days but was linked to the solar year, so that it began in the summer as
well.
64


62
The Egyptians were counting a 365-day year as early as the third millennium BCE. See Parker, The
Calendars of Ancient Egypt . In the Bible, the number of years in the lifespan of Enoch (Gen 5:23) may be
a symbolic figure based on the length of the tropical year.
63
Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, 237-47.
64
S.R.K. Glanville, The Legacy of Egypt (London: Oxford, 1942), 1-9.
36



2. When Does the Year Begin and End?
a. The Agricultural Year
That farmers saw the year generally as comprising two main parts, seedtime
(winter) and harvest (summer), is seen in J, which is roughly contemporaneous with the
Gezer Calendar (Gen 8:22; 45:6; Exod 34:21), and in Es Covenant Code (Exod 23:10).
Seedtime would have run from mid-November to mid-April, and harvest (almost twice as
long) from mid-April to mid-November.

Table 1.2: Agricultural Activity in Modern Israel
(Based on Borowski, pp. 70-71)
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Wheat Sow Sow Reap
Barley Sow Sow Reap
Oats Sow Sow Reap
Vetch Sow Sow Reap Reap
Flax Sow Reap
Peas Sow Sow Reap Reap
Lentils Sow Reap Reap
Vegetables Sow Sow Sow
Chickpeas Sow Reap
Millet Sow Sow Reap Reap
Sesame Sow Reap
Grapes Reap Reap Reap Reap
Figs Reap Reap
Pomegranates Reap Reap
Olives Reap Reap Reap

That the agricultural year began with the winter planting and concluded well into
the autumn is confirmed by the order of the festivals in the early codes preserved by both
E (Exod 23:16) and J (Exod 34:22), which place the Festival of Gathering .L NS2
37


(at the end of the year) and .L ` (at the turn of the year), respectively.
65
In J,
Isaac is said to have planted and harvested in the same year (Gen 26:12), an impossibility
if the year began with the harvest. Jeremiah, equating the harvest with the summer (Jer
8:20; cf. also Amos 8:1-2), implies that the second of the two seasons was over (and
therefore the year itself) when the harvest was over. Moreover, the legislation that the
land was to lie fallow every 7
th
year (Exod 23:10-11; Lev 25:1-22 [P]) can hardly be
understood to occur in anything but an agricultural year, divided between seedtime and
harvest.
66

The longer period in the agricultural year, harvest (7-8 months), is approximately
twice as long as planting time (4-5 months) and in some sources is separated into two
equal parts: threshing time and vintage (Lev 26:5 [P]; Am 9:13), so that, for the farmer,
the year would be divided into three equal seasons of four months, the first of which, the

65
That these two expressions are synonymous is confirmed by the fact that the two passages from which
they come are clearly parallel, and there is no question that .L NS2 refers to the end of the year. See E.
Kutsch, "'am Ende des Jahres': Zur Datierung des israelitischen Herbstfestes in Ex 23,16," Zeitschrift fr
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1971): 15-21; see also Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 9-11.
Wagenaar makes the valid point that .L may refer, not to the agricultural year, but to a civil year and
suggests that the reason Exodus 34 (which appears to be the later version) reads .L ` is because
the civil year no longer ended in the autumn and the earlier expression .L NS2 was no longer
appropriate (Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 11, 21-22). This is certainly possible. The civil
calendar and any changes made to it during the monarchic period will be investigated below.
66
Hughes (Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 168) argues, following Morgenstern (Morganstern,
"Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of Ancient Israel," 83-86), that the Sabbath year reflected in
Leviticus 25 begins in the spring, because, in vv 20-22, God says he will ensure that the harvest of the 6
th

year will produce enough food for three years (6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
). In an autumn-based calendar, there would
be no need to have produce from the 6
th
year feed people in the 8
th
, because the harvest of the eighth year
would provide food for the eighth year. In a spring-based calendar, however, the harvest of the 6
th
year
would commence a new year, rather than end one, and so, although there would be planting at the
conclusion of the 6
th
year, no one would be permitted to harvest the crops in the beginning of the 7
th
. So the
6
th
year harvest would provide, not only for the 6
th
year, but also the 7
th
and the 8
th
(for there would be no
harvest at the beginning of the 8
th
year). However, to assume that there would be planting in the 6
th
year
with the full knowledge that those crops would not be harvested is ludicrous. Why would the farmers go
through all that work for nothing? The autumn-based calendar presents no problem to the understanding of
these verses. The produce of the 6
th
year would provide (1) for the second half of the 6
th
year, (2) for the
entire 7
th
year, and (3) for the first half of the 8
th
year. The three years are counted inclusively.
38


planting season, would have commenced around November 15. A case has been made
that the plural form of the Hebrew word for day (2`C`) may be used at times to refer to a
four-month season.
67
In support of this position, Judges 19:2 and 1 Sam 27:7 are cited,
both of which appear to contain an explicative gloss (four months) for the word 2`C`.
This understanding makes good sense in many biblical passages (e.g., Gen 1:14; 24:55;
40:4; Lev 25:29; Num 9:22; Jud 17:10; 1 Sam 29:3; 2 Sam 14:26; Isa 32:10; 2 Chron
21:15, 19). Such a division into three seasons of four months each, based on climatic and
agricultural factors, was the custom on Egypt.
68
The Egyptian seasons were: 1) peret
(coming forth), when the planting and tilling of crops took place, 2) schemu
(deficiency), the time of harvest and the dropping of the waters of the Nile, and 3)
akhet (indundation), when the Nile rose and overflowed the fields. The Israelite
seasons would not be exactly parallel, but there is nothing equivalent to the Nile-based
agriculture in the Levant, and any system of seasons would naturally reflect the climatic
and agricultural conditions found in a given locality.
Alternately, it has been suggested that the Israelite year was divided into four
seasons of three months each.
69
Such a subdivision of the year is implied by the
description of Solomons corve system in the DH (1 Ki 5:27-28), in which three
contingents of men are called up to work for one month, after which they receive two
months off. Neat units of three months are therefore implied. This division into four
seasons also appears to be reflected in Jephthahs mourning rites, which are observed

67
F.S. North, "Four-Month Seasons of the Hebrew Bible," Vetus Testamentum 11.4 (1961): 446-48.
68
Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science, 4-5.
69
See Shemaryahu Talmon, "The Gezer Calendar and the Seasonal Cycle of Ancient Canaan," in King,
Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1963): 101.
39


four times in the year (Judges 11:40). However, these latter references do not appear to
be connected with the agricultural year at all.
Another interesting expression, possibly related to the agricultural year, is
.L 2`L (the return of the year). It is likely an agricultural designation, because it
is concerned with a change in seasons, and refers to the spring, when farmers have
completed planting and when kings go to war (2 Sam 11:1; 1 Ki 20:22, 26). Now that it
has been established that the agricultural year began in the early winter, it is clear that
.L 2`L does not refer to the time when the year ends and the next begins, but to the
time when the year has reached its furthest point and begins its journey back.
With the knowledge that the agricultural year began around November 15, we can
more readily make sense of the statement by the Deuteronomistic Historian that
Jeroboam celebrated the Feast of Gathering on the fifteenth day of the eighth month
(counting the months according to a spring-based calendar),
70
and lasting about a week (1
Kings 12:32-33). Whether this custom goes all the way back to Jeroboam cannot be
verified, but the statement does reflect the Historians knowledge that northern Israel
celebrated the end of the agricultural year precisely at the time I have argued it ended.
71



70
Parts of the Deuteronomistic History assume a spring-based calendar. See below.
71
It is sometimes asserted that crops in northern Israel matured slightly later than in Judah, and that this
alone may account for the difference of one month between Israels and Judahs harvest festival. However,
the differences between north and south are somewhat exaggerated. In fact, there is a greater difference
between Hebron and the Shephelah (both in the south) in the time of the maturation of the crops than there
is between the Shephelah and the Valley of Jezreel (in the north) (see Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron
Age Israel [Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1979], 66). It is very likely that the agricultural season in
both the north and the south were approximately the same. A harvest festival in the eighth month would
have suited both Israels and Judahs agricultural season better than one in the seventh.
40


b. The Civil Year
The earliest evidence we have discovered for a description of the ancient Israelite
year is some writing on a limestone slab that was found in 1908.
72
The inscription is
popularly known as the Gezer Calendar, although it is more accurately a list of
agricultural activities arranged by months than it is a calendar. The document was written
in the lowlands somewhere between 950 and 925 BCE and has been interpreted variously
as an administrative document drawn up for the purpose of tax collections and as some
kind of mnemonic ditty for children.
73
Whatever its purpose, the Gezer Calendar divides
the year into one-month or two-month periods and assigns an agricultural activity to each
one.

Its two months are [olive] harvest,
Its two months are planting [grain],
Its two months are late planting,
Its month is grass-cropping,
74

Its month is barley harvest,
Its month is harvest and measuring,
75

Its two months are grape harvesting,
76

Its month is summer fruit.





72
Published by Robert A.S. Macalister, The Excavation at Gezer, vol. II (London: Palestine Exploration
Fund, 1912), 24ff.
73
William Foxwell Albright, "The Gezer Calendar," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
92 (1943): 16-26, Talmon, "Gezer Calendar," 89-91.
74
On the translation of L, see Talmon, "Gezer Calendar," 92-100, Borowski, Agriculture, 60.
75
Reading the last word as "`3`; see Borowski, Agriculture, 60-61.
76
On the translation of Cl, see Ibid., 61.
41


The first thing to note is that the list does not begin at the beginning of planting
season, but at the time the olive harvest commenced (late September, around the
autumnal equinox). Had the months been arranged strictly according to the farmers
schedule, we would have found the olive harvest at the conclusion of the list, so that the
eight months of harvest would have been together, and the four months of sowing would
have headed the list.
77
Since the evidence points to an agricultural year beginning with
planting season (end of autumn/beginning of winter), an independent, non-agricultural
(i.e., civil) calendar must be influencing the order of months in the Gezer Calendar. This
is not surprising, since the agricultural year, though meaningful to farmers, would have
been far less important to scribes and administrators than the civil year. Comparable is
the Sumerian Farmers Almanac, another document describing yearly agricultural
activities, which coincides with the standard Mesopotamian year.
78

We cannot attribute this calendar to Canaanite influence. A civil calendar
beginning in the autumn seems not to have been the Canaanite custom.
79
The attestation
of Canaanite month names (Ziv, Bul, and Ethanim) in the accounts of Solomons
building projects (1 Kings 6:1, 37-38; 8:1) could be used to argue that the Israelites were
using the Canaanite calendar in the days of Solomon, but since the month names appear
in 1 Kings only, it is more likely that the accounts are based, at least partially, on
Phoenician records. On the other hand, the spring month name Abib (corresponding to
March/April), which appears in several places in the Bible, may be a Canaanite month

77
It is difficult to agree with Clines assertion that the beginning of the year for a farmer in ancient
Palestine would be, not the time of planting, but the autumn, on the ground that it was the most
conspicuous transitional point in the seasonal year (Clines, p.38). What makes it the most conspicuous
transitional point for a farmer?
78
Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, 384.
42


name, although as yet it is unattested in other sources. However, Ps statement that this
month should now become the first of the months (Exod 12:2) makes it likely that it was
not always so, and thus a calendar year beginning in the autumn would have preceded the
one beginning in spring.
80

The Book of Jeremiah contains the earliest unambiguous references to a civil year
beginning in the spring. In the account about Baruchs reading of Jeremiahs scroll to
Jehoiakim (written sometime between 605 and the exile), the ninth month is clearly set
in the wintertime, because the king is in his winter home and has a fire burning to keep
him warm (36:22). Unfortunately, because we do not know precisely when this account
was composed (it is entirely possible that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem), we
cannot say for certain that the spring year was used in pre-exilic Judah. If the account
were written prior to the fall of Jerusalem, it still would have been composed during the
period of Babylonian suzerainty, when the Babylonian spring-based calendar would have
had a great influence on Judah and therefore is not necessarily a piece of evidence
reflective of traditional Judahite custom.
It is true that the Deuteronomistic History contains month references that suggest
a spring-based year, but these occur only in three places:
1) The final chapter of the History (2 Kings 25). This, however, is an exilic
addition and therefore cannot be used as evidence of preexilic practice.

79
At least not at Ugarit, which appears to have begun its civil year in the spring (See Ibid., 377-78).
80
It is sometimes argued that expressions such as autumn rain and spring rain (note the order) are found
in the pre-exilic edition of the DH and the early sections of the Book of Jeremiah (Deut 11:12, 14; Jer.
5:24) and that these imply a year beginning in the autumn. The idea is that a year beginning in spring would
encourage the reverse expression, spring rain and autumn rain. However, since there are not two rainy
seasons in the Levant, but only one, which begins in the autumn and ends in early spring, it is highly
43


2) The account of Solomons building projects (1 Kings 6:1, 38; 8:2). This
account provides both actual month names and month numbers. The latter, which do
indicate a spring-based year, are probably added by way of explanation. For example, it
is stated that, in Solomons reign, the ark of the covenant was brought to the Temple in
the month of Ethanim, and then it is added that this was the seventh month (1 Kings 8:2).
However, it would be a mistake to conclude that in Solomons time, Ethanim was, in fact,
the seventh month according to the calendar then in use. The historian apparently needed
to add a gloss (marked off by the independent pronoun N`) explaining to his readers that
Ethanim corresponded to month seven because they were not familiar with the old month
names. All we can say for sure is that in the editors time, Ethanim corresponded to the
seventh month. He was speaking in the context of his own time, and the month-
numbering system that he used might not have corresponded to a regnal system at all.
The same procedure is used in 2 Kings 25:8, which separates the notice of the month and
day from Nebuchadnezzars regnal datum with the independent pronoun N`. The
similarity of the glosses in 1 Kings 6 and 8 to the data in 2 Kings 25 suggests that both
sets of glosses were added by the reviser of the DH in the exile. The month numbers
therefore would not reflect preexilic custom.
3) The account of Jeroboams religious reforms (1 Kings 12:32-33). In this last
case, although it is entirely possible that Dtr
1
contained the references, it would be the
only spot in the original DH that did. There is therefore a possibility that these references
too are additions. The passage reads:

unlikely that the expression spring rain and autumn rain would ever be used, even in a spring-based
calendar. Therefore, I do not see this as a valid argument for an autumnal calendar.
44



And Jeroboam made a festival in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day
of the month, like the festival that was in Judah, and he offered upon the
altar that he made in Bethel a sacrifice to the calves that he had made, and
he put in attendance in Bethel the priests of the high places that he had
made. So he offered upon the altar that he made in Bethel, on the
fifteenth day of the eighth month, in the month he invented for himself,
and he made a festival for the Israelites, and he offered upon the altar
sacrificial smoke.


As in the case of Solomons building projects, there is an original, though ambiguous,
month reference (the month he invented for himself) that may have needed further
explication for a later audience. However, a version lacking the numbered month
references would have read quite smoothly. Indeed the phrase, on the fifteenth day of
the eighth month, in the month he invented for himself, seems somewhat redundant. So
we should at least acknowledge the possibility that the numbered month references are
secondary and that Dtr
1
did not assume a spring-based civil calendar.
From this last passage we may conclude that there was a difference between Israel
and Judah in the time of their observance of the harvest festivals. At the time the
Deuteronomistic History was published (in the reign of Josiah), Judah was celebrating
both the beginning of its civil year and the end of its agricultural year in the autumn
(seventh month in a spring-based calendar). Although the text makes it seem as if
Jeroboam was the innovator, placing the festival in the following month, if the
agricultural year began in the winter, Jeroboams practice actually appears to reflect
earlier custom. It therefore seems more likely that the southerners were the innovators
than the northerners. In other words, while at one time Judahs civil and agricultural
45


calendars were separate and independent, for convenience they appear to have attempted
to make the two calendars coincide. Later on, they claimed originality.

c. The Liturgical Year
Ps assertion that the spring month of Abib (Mar/Apr) should be the first of the
months (Exod 12:2) clearly reveals when the priestly year began. The Paschal Offering
and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (spring observances) begin the priestly calendar of
holy days (Lev 23:4-8).
Yet P is clearly aware of other calendars, and even uses them on occasion. The
Sabbath and Jubilee laws are based on the agricultural calendar, which begins the year
with planting season (Lev 25). The proclamation of the Jubilee at the end of the civil
New Year festival in the seventh month is clearly an accommodation of the civil year.
81

These pieces of evidence indicate that P has knowledge of a harmonized civil and
agricultural year. The holiday calendar from the Holiness Code, in fact, doubly insists
(perhaps aware of northern custom) that the harvest Festival of Booths must be celebrated
in the seventh month (Lev 23:39-41). A concentration of festivals in the seventh month,
largely parallel to those in the first month, clearly shows a recognition of the calendric
importance of the seventh month. None of Ps festivals, however, either in the first or
seventh month, can be considered a New Years Day celebration.
82



81
The Jubilee is both an agricultural and a civil observance (see Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 167-68). On
the preexilic date of the Jubilee, see Lisbeth S. Fried and D.N. Freedman, "Was the Jubilee Year Observed
in Preexilic Judah?" in Leviticus 23-27 (New York: Doubleday, 2001): 2257-70, Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27,
2241-48.
82
Propp, Exodus 1-18, 386-87, Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2012-18.
46



d. The Regnal Year
So far it has been determined that the beginning of the civil year in Judah
commenced in the autumn (Sept 15 or so), and that, at least in the early period, the year
in northern Israel began at the same time. (We have not established, however, the
beginning of the civil year in northern Israel after the kingdoms split.) It has also been
demonstrated that the agricultural year in both kingdoms began two months later (Nov 15
or so). An agricultural year beginning late November remained the custom in Israel, but
Judah pushed back the celebration of the new agricultural year to coincide with the civil
year sometime prior to the time of Josiah. Ps liturgical year began in the spring, but P
still acknowledges the existence of a civil year beginning in the autumn. What effect do
these conclusions have upon our understanding of the regnal year? We should not take it
for granted that the regnal year and civil year coincided, but it is likely.
At Babylon and Aur, the ritual of coronation and renewal of the kings
sovereignty seems to have been associated with the New Years festival and purification
of the temple of Marduk.
83
Parallels between the Babylonian purgation of the temple in
the spring, at the beginning of its civil year, and Israels Yom Kippur in the autumn, at
the beginning of its civil year, are readily apparent (cf. Ezek 45:18).
84
In Mesopotamia
there apparently was a direct connection between the celebration of the assumption of

83
See Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 313, H. W. F.
Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon (New York: Mentor, 1968), 364, Thorkild Jacobsen,
"Mesopotamian Gods and Pantheons," in Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on
Mesopotamian History and Culture, ed. William L. Moran (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970):
16-38, esp. 36-37, Baruch Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1981), 51-61.
84
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1067-71.
47


kingship by Marduk and that of the mortal king. We might presume a connection
similarly between the liturgical psalms celebrating the enthronement of Yahweh (Psalms
47, 93, 95-100) and the enthronement of the Davidic king. Such a celebration is likely to
have occurred during the autumnal New Years festival, and late prophetic material
appears to confirm this (e.g., Zech 14:16).
85

Independent of this argument, we might examine some other evidences of the
regnal year. Of the two kingdoms, Judah leaves us with more clues. Most of the evidence
comes from the period after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel (c. 720). At first
glance we might conclude that the clues unambiguously point to a spring-based calendar.
One significant text is 2 Kings 25:8 (= Jer 52:12), which dates the destruction of
Jerusalems temple to the fifth month. Since we know from the Babylonian records that
the city fell in the month of August, there is no doubt that, according to the system used
here by the historian, the year began in the spring. Another significant text, the context of
which is in the reign of King Jehoiakim, is Jeremiah 36:22 (mentioned earlier), which
clearly places the ninth month in the wintertime. This piece of evidence also points to a
system governed by a spring Regnal New Year.
86
However, these evidences are based on
the assumption that the calendar by which the historian was dating these events was
Judahs regnal calendar. We should be reluctant to put too much weight on these data.
The historians information does not always derive from government sources, and his

85
For full discussions, see Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, vol. 1 (Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1966),
Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel, 61-109, C. L. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of
David's Dance (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), J. J. M. Roberts, "Mowinckel's Enthronement Festival: A
Review," in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, ed. Jr. P.W. Flint and PD. Miller (Leiden:
Brill, 2005): 97-115.
86
E.g., Gershon Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah, Studies in the history and culture
of the ancient Near East v. 9 (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 9-10.
48


point of view shifts frequently. He may also speak on occasion (or even often) from the
context of his own times. We thus are unable to use the datum at Jeremiah 36:22 as
evidence that the beginning of the Regnal New Year in Judah in Jehoiakims reign was in
the spring. The most we can say is that, by the calendar to which the scribe himself was
accustomed at the time of writing, the year began in the spring. That calendar may not
have been, and, as we shall see, probably was not, the regnal calendar of Judah.
Evidence for a regnal year beginning in the autumn in the latter days of Judah is
much stronger and relies on evidence deriving from pre-exilic sources. An autumnal
Regnal New Year seems to be indicated by the data in 2 Kings 22 and 23, which place
the beginning of King Josiahs temple reparations and religious reforms and the
subsequent Passover celebration all within his eighteenth regnal year. Since the Passover
would have fallen on the fourteenth day of the presumed first month, the assumption of a
spring Regnal New Year would require us to believe that the work of the repair and all
involved with it was accomplished in a two-week span. It is more reasonable to conclude
that the repairs began prior to the first day of that month, in which case that month could
not have been the first one of the year, and we would then have to posit that Josiahs
eighteenth year began in the autumn.
87

We have additional indications of an autumn-based regnal year from the reign of
Zedekiah. The historians sources place the fall of Jerusalem in Zedekiahs eleventh year
(2 Kings 25:2) and in Nebuchadnezzar of Babylons nineteenth year (2 Kings 25:8). In
the book of Jeremiah, in a description of events associated with the Babylonian siege,

87
Argument also in Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1951, 1965, 1983), 29-30 (2nd ed.).
49


Baruch connects Zedekiahs tenth year with Nebuchadnezzars eighteenth (Jeremiah
32:1). Seemingly, then, the regnal years of these two kings coincided exactly, and it is
well known that Nebuchadnezzars regnal years began in the spring, on the 1
st
day of
Nisan.
88
However, additional data do not support this presumption and suggest that their
regnal years merely overlapped in the summertime. Jeremiah 32 recounts the visit of
Hanamel, Jeremiahs cousin, to Jeremiah in the court of the guard sometime after the
defeat of Pharoah Hophras forces by the Babylonians and the resumption of
Nebuchadnezzars siege of Jerusalem. When was this? An oracle of Ezekiel, recounted in
the third month of the eleventh year (by Babylonian reckoning) of the captivity of King
Jehoiachin, mentions the defeat of the Egyptians as having happened recently, probably a
few months before (Ezekiel 31). Jehoiachins captivity began on the first day of the
Babylonian year, Nisan of 597. Therefore the eleventh year of his captivity ran from
Nisan 587 to Adar 586. Since Zedekiah was placed on the throne immediately after
Jehoaichin, if his regnal years were counted from Nisan, then the years of his reign and
the years of Jehoiachins captivity would correspond precisely. However, if Zedekiahs
eleventh year ran from Nisan 587 to Adar 586, it would coincide with Nebuchadnezzars
eighteenth year, not his nineteenth, as the data in 2 Kings 25 indicate. However, if
Zedekiah began counting his reign in the autumn after the captivity began (597), his
eleventh year would run from the autumn of 587 to the autumn of 586, and there would
be an overlap with Nebuchadnezzars eighteenth and nineteenth years. All of the
chronological pieces would fall into place. It seems best, therefore, to understand the

88
Francesca Rochberg, "Astronomy and Calendars in Ancient Mesopotamia," in Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson (Peabody: Hendricksons, 1995) III: 1931.
50


Judahite Regnal New Year as beginning in the autumn, rather than in the spring, at least
in the later monarchic period (Josiah through Zedekiah).
89
The custom of counting the
kings years from the autumn was certainly not in keeping with the Babylonian or
Assyrian systems. The implication is that the Judahite system was a preservation of a
system that had been in use for some time before Assyria and Babylon had gained
influence in the area. Without any evidence from the earlier periods either way, it is best
to assume some consistency.
There is no direct evidence in the biblical text whether the northern kingdom of
Israel counted its kings reigns from the autumn or spring. We should be inclined to think
that the northern kingdom followed past custom from the United Monarchy (as indicated
in the Gezer Calendar) and began the civil and regnal year in the autumn. However, there
is evidence that suggests that Israels regnal New Year did not coincide with that of
Judah. It has to do with the reign of King Zechariah of Israel. He began to rule in the 38
th

year of Azariah of Judah and ruled for only six months (2 Kings 15:8). Yet his reign
ended in the 39
th
year of Azariah (2 Kings 15:10). For this to be true, the regnal New
Year in Judah would have passed during that six-month period, but not the regnal New
Year in Israel. Otherwise, Zechariah would have been assigned a full regnal year by the
chronographers.
90
A different regnal calendar year in Israel, therefore, would appear
likely. To be sure, this argument assumes chronological agreement between the
synchronisms and the reign totalin other words that the data would have to derive from
the same source or from sources employing an identical method of calculation. As I will

89
See Fried and Freedman, "Was the Jubilee Year Observed in Preexilic Judah?" 2259-61.
51


argue in Chapter Four, there is strong evidence to suggest that the synchronisms and the
reign totals come from two different sources. However, other factors, discussed in
Chapter Four, indicate that the northern Israelite reign totals reflect the same system of
counting as the synchronisms (antedating). So this piece of evidence does seem to be a
clear indicator of a regnal year in Israel that did not begin in the autumn, at least in the
time of Zechariah. This leads us to believe that the civil and regnal year began in the
spring, the most common time to begin a year in the ancient Near East next to the
autumn.
A spring-based calendar might explain why northern Israel kept observing the
beginning of its agricultural year in November. Judah harmonized the civil and
agricultural year to coincide in September, as they were only two months apart to begin
with. Israels civil year, if it did indeed begin in the spring, would not have been
harmonizable with its agricultural year. I will therefore tentatively assume the Israelite
regnal year began in the spring. We do not know how long it would have been the custom
there (although it is possible that Jeroboam I tampered with the calendar [1 Kings
12:33]), but with no other compelling evidence either way, it seems best to assume
consistency and that there was always a difference between Israel and Judahs regnal
calendars.




90
Hayim Tadmor, "The Chronology of the First Temple Period: A Presentation and Evaluation of the
Sources," in Age of the Monarchies: Political History, ed. Abraham Malamat and Israel Eph'al (Jerusalem:
Massada Press, 1979): 50-51.
52


E. Lunar, Solar, and Lunisolar Calendars
Because it is much shorter than the tropical year, and because its beginning and
end were more obvious and determinable with precision than that of the tropical year, the
lunar month was often the benchmark of ancient calendars. In a strictly lunar calendar,
time is simply measured month by month, and observation of the moons phases settles
the length of each month (29 or 30 days). A whole number of synodic months does not fit
into a tropical year. The number that comes closest to 365 days is 12, but 12 lunar
months amount to only 354 days on the average (29.5 x 12), which is 11 days short of the
tropical year. Thus, if a society were to employ a strictly lunar calendar, satisfied with 12
lunar months per year, there would be little correlation between the months and the
seasons of the year. A month that at one time came in the summer would, within the
lifetime of one person, come also in the winter. This is the result of the 11-day
discrepancy between a tropical and a lunar year, building up year after year.
91
Any
religious observances connected with seasonal phenomena would be thrown off. For this
reason, most ancient calendars are not strictly lunar.
Attempts were almost always made to adjust the cycle of lunar months to coincide
with the tropical year. The most common technique for harmonizing a lunar calendar
with the solar year is intercalation, which is the insertion into the calendar of an extra
month every so often, or, perhaps to phrase it more accurately, delaying the beginning of
a new year by one month.
92
So, for example, after three lunar years, the lunar calendar

91
The Assyrian calendar from the second millennium BCE would fall into this category (Cohen, The Cultic
Calendars of the Ancient Near East, 17).
92
This was the custom in ancient Babylon before a more precise system was developed (Parker,
Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, 1, Rochberg, "Astronomy and Calendars in Ancient
Mesopotamia," 1931-32).
53


would be about 33 days short of the point in the tropical year at which it began, but
another month could be added in that third year that would bring the calendar within 3 or
4 days of its original starting point. Calendars that employ intercalation of this sort are
technically lunisolar calendars, although lunar calendar is still an appropriate term.
Solar calendars keep track only of the natural day and the tropical year. The
month may be included in a solar calendar, but if so, is merely assigned an arbitrary
number of days and has no relation to the actual phases of the moon. Nevertheless,
because a whole number of days does not fit into a tropical year, a solar calendar has
problems of its own. The incompatibility between days and years would not pose a
serious problem in the short term (365 days is only of a day short of an actual tropical
year), but over a long period of time the discrepancy would become more and more
noticeable. In 730 years, the seasons would be completely reversed.
93

It is not difficult to determine which sort of calendar was used in ancient Israel.
The agricultural year, based on the seasons, would necessarily be solar in nature. The
civil and regnal years were to have begun always with a festival associated with the
harvest. In a strictly lunar calendar, that would not be possible. The month Abib is named
for a seasonal occurrence (the new grain, the ripening of the barley) and must have
coincided with that season year after year. The Gezer Calendar assumes a year that
consistently begins with the olive harvest, thus presupposing harmonization with the solar
year. The civil calendar was either solar or lunisolar. Because of the evidence that the
phases of the moon were observed (see above), we can confidently assume that a

93
As in the Egyptian solar calendar (Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science, 28-37).
54


lunisolar civil calendar was in place.
94
We have no direct evidence from the Bible,
95
but
the Israelites probably would have used the common ancient Near Eastern system of
intercalation: each year contained 12 months (cf. 1 Kings 4:7-19), and every three years
or so, the new year would be delayed so that one more month could pass. What about the
liturgical year? Can the same be said for the priestly calendar? Since the moon appears to
have been observed (Gen 1:14) and seasonal festivals are precisely dated, there is little
doubt that the priestly calendar too, although beginning at a different time of year, also
was lunisolar in character.


94
See J.B. Segal, "Intercalation and the Hebrew Calendar," Vetus Testamentum 7 (1957): 250-307, Vaux,
Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 188-90, Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 161-65.
95
Hughes (pp. 164-65) argues that the month difference between Judahs and Israels harvest festival (1 Ki
12:32-33) was the result of an excessive intercalation of one month into Israels calendar. However, this
argument necessarily assumes that the act was an exception to custom. It thus cannot be used as evidence of
custom.

55
II.
LONG-TIME RECKONING

A. The Counting of Time Units
A once popular theory was that, whereas we moderns tend to think of time as
moving in a line, the ancient peoples thought of it as moving in a circle.
96
This rather tidy
view is unsupported by the facts. It is evident that by the first millennium BCE most
societies maintained both a cyclic and a linear understanding of time. Festivals and rituals
observed in response to predictable and repeating natural phenomena are attuned to the
cycles of time, while an interest in tying events of the past to those of more immediate
recollection depends on a linear understanding of time, in which events succeed one
another and are related through cause and effect. A system for measuring cyclic time is
the calendar. Linear time is measured in the ancient world as well. How? The answer
may seem obvious, but it bears articulating: by counting units of time in sequence. The
very act of counting is a linear function, and the counting of non-recurring time units is

96
An idea made famous in Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return, trans.
Willard K. Trask (New York: Harper & Row, 1959). Eliade rightly calls attention to the various rites in
ancient societies through which cosmic myths are relived year after year, but note his far-reaching
conclusions: What is of chief importance to us in these archaic systems is the abolition of concrete time,
and hence their antihistorical intent. This refusal to preserve the memory of the past, even of the immediate
past, seems to us to betoken a particular anthropology. We refer to archaic mans refusal to accept himself
as a historical being, his refusal to grant value to memory and hence to the unusual events (i.e., events
without an archetypal model) that in fact constitute concrete duration. In the last analysis, what we discover
in all these rites and all these attitudes is the will to devaluate time. Carried to their extreme, all the rites
and all the behavior patterns that we have so far mentioned would be comprised in the following statement:
If we pay no attention to it, time does not exist; furthermore, where it becomes perceptiblebecause of
mans sins, i.e., when man departs from the archetype and falls into durationtime can be annulled.
Basically, if viewed in its proper perspective, the life of archaic man (a life reduced to the repetition of
archetypal acts, that is, to categories and not to events, to the unceasing rehearsal of the same primordial
myths), although it takes place in time, does not bear the burden of time, does not record times
irreversibility; in other words, completely ignores what is especially characteristic and decisive in a
56


practiced in all societies.
97
In relating one event to another in linear time, the space is
measured by the number of units between one occurrence and another. This space can be
measured in small or large units: days, weeks, months, seasons, years, etc. Thus in the
Bible, for example, the ark was in the hands of the Philistines for 7 months (1 Sam 6:1)
and in Kireath-jearim for 20 years (1 Sam 7:2); Nabal dies ten days after David decides to
spare his life (1 Sam 25:38), and Menahem reigns ten years (2 Kings 15:17); the Israelites
are in the wilderness for 40 years (Num 14:34), and the census taken by David takes 9
months and 20 days (2 Sam 24:8) (cf. also Num 11:19-20; Deut 1:2; 1 Sam 30:13). Note
that these are not measurements of the length of repeated yearly observances, but of
historical eventsthey happen just once in time, and then they are over.
The system of counting used in the sources is a bit different from our own, and it
is important to have an understanding of this system whenever one is working in biblical
chronology. Their use of ordinal numbers (1
st
, 2
nd
, 3
rd
, etc.) conforms to our modern
understanding. The unit counted first was called the first, the second was called the
second, and so on. We are always situated in a particular unit of time, whether that is a
day, a month, a year, and, if we count forward or backward, we consider that unit to be
the first in the sequence. Thus if I am counting days forward (using ordinal numbers),

consciousness of time. Like the mystic, like the religious man in general, the primitive lies in a continual
present.
97
Note the difference between non-recurring and non-cyclical. Jean-Jacques Glassner asserts that
Mesopotamia did not know linear time, because even when concerned in matters of historical
chronology, the chronographers measured by units of time that were cyclicalyears, months, and days
(Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004], 7).
However, use of a cyclical unit does not make the measurement itself cyclical. Under such an assumption,
there would be no such thing as linear time in any culture. A unit of measurement, such as a year, may be
cyclical, but in linear measurement the unit is not repeated. That the Mesopotamians knew linear time is
shown in B. Albrektson, History and the Gods (Lund: Gleerup, 1967), see esp. 94-95.
57


today is the first day, tomorrow the second, and so on. The Israelites counted the same
way.
Cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.), however, are another matter entirely. The ancient
Israelites employed an inclusive system of counting, reflected in all of the sources. An
inclusive system assigns each and every unit a number; the first unit counted is called
both one and first (cf. Gen 1:5, which could be translated either way). Occasionally
we do this too: for example, when I say, I was sick for three days, I am probably
counting inclusively (e.g., Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday). However, we moderns
do not always assign the number one to the first unit in a sequence. When it comes to
measuring the distance between two points in time, we count the units exclusively. In an
exclusive count, the first unit is assigned no number.
98
For example in measuring the
distance between today and a day in the future, we do not count today at all, but start with
tomorrow. Thus tomorrow is one day from now, the day after that is two days from now,
and so on. This is not how the Israelites counted. They count inclusively, even when
measuring the distance between two points in time. Today they would call one day,
tomorrow two days, the day after tomorrow three days, etc. Exactly one week from now
would be eight days from now for them, while only seven days for us.
Table 2.1: The Count of Days
Exclusive
count
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Inclusive
count
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


98
Or a zero. The ancient Israelites had no zero.
58


Evidence for this custom is all over the Bible. So, for example, in JE we have numerous
occasions where the third day and three days are used to refer to the same period of
time (Gen 30:36 and 31:22; 40:19-20; 42:17-18; Exod 19:15-16). In Dtr, we find the
same (Josh 9:16-17; Judges 14:14-15; 1 Kings 12:5, 12). Also, third year and three
years are synonymous (Deut 14:28 and 26:12; 1 Kings 22:1, 2; 2 Kings 18:9-10), and so
are seventh year and seven years (Deut 15:1, 9; Judges 14:17). In P, seventh day
and seven days are the same (Exod 12:15; Lev 13:4-6). So are fiftieth day and fifty
days (Lev 23:16). To put this point another way, we might say that the Israelites see no
difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers.
It is not true that inclusive counting is reserved only for small numbers (less than
ten).
99
Although larger figures are scarcer in the text, we find that, when they do appear,
inclusive counting is still the rule. Thus in Genesis 14, Chedorlaomer is served by the
cities up until the twelfth year, and this is counted as twelve years (Gen 14:4). The
prophet Jeremiah counts 23 years from the 13
th
year of Josiah to the 4
th
year of Jehoiakim
(Jer 25:3). With Judah on an accession-year system (post-dating),
100
this can only be
possible if the count is inclusive. By our count it is only 22 years. Ps Jubilee Year seems
to be counted the same way as its Jubilee Day (thus the 50
th
year would be counted as 50
years). Although R is later than P, when P says that Noah was 600 years old at the Flood
(Gen 7:6), R understands that to mean Noahs 600
th
year (Gen 7:11). I have not, as yet,
been able to find a single exception to this system of counting in any pre-exilic text.

99
As implied in D.J.A. Clines, "The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-exilic Israel
Reconsidered," Journal of Biblical Literature 93.1 (1974): 30.
100
This will be demonstrated in Chapter Four.
59


Despite this form of measurement, when two or more large blocks of time are
added together, although each of them may be reckoned inclusively, their sum is
exclusive. In other words, the final unit of time in the first block does not overlap with the
first unit of time in the second block. So, for example, in Dtr, where Caleb says 45 years
have passed since Moses sent him to spy the land (Josh 14:10), because he is counting
inclusively, he means 45 different years (we would measure this as 44 years). The first 40
years of his life (14:7), also counted inclusively, refers to 40 different years (we would
measure this as 39). Yet, because there is no overlap, that is, the first year of the 45-year
block is the year after the 40
th
year of his life, he can say the total is 85 inclusive years
(84 in our own reckoning). Another case involves the 20 years that Solomon is said to
have taken to build the Temple and the kings palace. The 20 years is the sum of two
lesser periods: the 7 years it took to build the Temple (1 Kings 6:38), and the 13 years it
took to build the palace (1 Kings 7:1). An inclusively-reckoned 7 years and an inclusively
reckoned 13 years, added inclusively, should total 19 inclusive years, not 20. Thus, while
each of the two periods might be reckoned inclusively, their sum is arrived at exclusively.
Or, to be more precise, the 7
th
year in the first block of time is not the same as the 1
st
year
in the second block. This makes sense, because we should not assume that Solomons
palace project began in the final year of the Temple building. The seventh year was
occupied probably only with the Temple building, and the palace project commenced the
following year. In other words, each year was dedicated to one project only.



60


Table 2.2: Time Covered by Solomons Building Activities
Exclusive Year
Count
Inclusive Year
Count
Description of
Project
Correct
Inclusive Count
of Each Period
Incorrect
Inclusive Count of
Each Period
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Temple work
Temple work
Temple work
Temple work
Temple work
Temple work
Temple work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
palace work
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7/1 (temple & palace)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

The season of building is contained within a year. When it ends, it goes on hiatus until
the following year. The last year of Temple work is not likely also to be the first year of
palace work. What we have here is two periods reckoned inclusively, but not added
together inclusively because the second period was not counted until it actually began. A
year passed before the palace work commenced. This example illustrates the way large
time units are counted in all situations. Each year carries one number, and only one
number. My final example is from P. In the genealogy of Genesis 5, each entry consists
of two periods of time, the years from a mans birth until the birth of his son, and the
period from the birth of his son to his own death. These two periods, no doubt each
counted inclusively, are added together exclusively.
61


This being the case, how might we understand compound designations, such as
one year and four months (1 Sam 27:7)? One year would refer to the first year. The
four months, then, which cannot overlap with the first year, must occur in the second
year, but refer to a period of time between three and four months. In other words, the
expression one year and four months is equivalent to from the first year until the
fourth month of the second year, or perhaps, all the first year, and up until the fourth
month of the second year. It would depend upon whether the writer was referring to
calendar years or actual time. Since months were probably not numbered at the time of
Dtr
1
, we should probably assume this measurement is in actual time, and therefore the
second interpretation is most likely.
To review the principles of counting, we note three important points:
1) All individual units of time (day, months, years, etc.) are added inclusively, so
in translating into our own system of counting, we should consider all cardinal numbers
to be ordinal, or alternately, to subtract one unit from the total to make an Israelite
cardinal number into one of our cardinal numbers.
2) When adding together blocks of time, the Israelites did not overlap them. This
is actually convenient for us, because we can add the numbers together normally,
remembering simply to subtract one unit from the total ([X + Y + Z] 1). Alternately, to
be more precise, because the nature of the difference between their custom and ours has
to do with when the count starts, we could subtract one unit from the first figure and add
the rest normally ([X 1] + Y + Z).
3) In keeping with this understanding, when encountering compound figures (e.g.,
10 years and 6 months), we should realize that each part is inclusive, but there is no
62


overlap (in this case, 10 years and 6 months is equivalent to saying, in the 6
th
month after
the 10
th
year, i.e., 9 years and 5 months).
Fortunately, the inclusive counting practice is of importance chiefly when we are
in the realm of applied chronology, converting the dates of the sources into units of our
own reckoning. When dealing with ancient Israelite chronography on its own, we need
not get bogged down in conversions (and we wont).

B. The Exodus Era and the Egyptian Epoch
When it comes to periods of time that transcend a year, multiple years are never
organized into convenient units of set length, such as decades, centuries, or millenniums.
Blocks of time are created as it suits the calculator. Units are always counted individually
(1, 2, 3, 4) and measured from an important date (the birth of a famous person, the
accession of a ruler, or a significant event), and end at an important date. The counting of
years is a prominent feature of two of the ancient histories of Israel (P and Dtr). P
employs a system of chronology based on the births of important people (genealogical in
nature), which will be explored in the following chapter. Dtr employs a system or
systems based on the terms of judges and kings, which will be explored in Chapter Four.
Although rare, we do find in both P and Dtr events dated according to an era or epoch (a
lengthy succession of years proceeding from a fixed point in time). Eras and epochs in
any civilization were not always generated immediately when a great event occurred.
More often they were created retrospectively as aids to the study of historical chronology.
Such was the case with the era by which we count years today (AD/CE), and such
appears to be the case in both P and Dtr.
63


Dtr dates the building of the Temple by the Israelites exodus from Egypt: And it
was in the 480
th
year after the Israelites came out from the land of Egypt, in the fourth
year, in the month of Ziv, that is, the 2
nd
month, after Solomon became king over Israel,
that he built the house to Yahweh (1 Kings 6:1).
The number 480 in Dtr is a multiple of 12 and 40, the number of months in a year
(12) and the length of a Deuteronomic generation (40 years).
101
This does not necessarily
mean that the editor was saying that 12 generations passed between the Exodus and
Solomon. The two numbers may have been chosen simply because they were
symbolically meaningful. The parts of that 480 years are laid out in the DH rather
explicitly.
102

45 years for the Exodus and Conquest (Josh 14:10)
70 years for the periods of oppression (Judg 3:8,14; 4:3; 6:1; 10:8)
200 years for the periods of rest (Judg 3:3,11; 5:31; 8:28)
76 years for the minor judges (Judg 10:1-4; 12:7-15)
3 years for the reign of Abimelech (Judg 9:22)
40 years for the Philistine oppression (Judg 13:1)
103

2 years for Saul (1 Sam 13:1)
104


101
On generations, see below.
102
A similar count is made in Richter, Die Bearbeitung des 'Retterbuches' in der deuteronomistischen
Epoche, 132-41, but Richter ignores the figures in Judg 9:22, 10:8, and 13:1.
103
This would include the terms of Samson and Samuel. The note at Judges 15:20 states a term of 20 years
for Samson, which is placed in the days of the Philistines and thus assumes the period of Philistine
oppression mentioned in 13:1 and must be included in the 40 years. A term for Samuel is conspicuously
absent from the text, and this is most likely because it coincides with the final years of the Philistine
oppression. The oppression clearly ends when Samuel is judge (1 Sam 7:13). The narrative could be
interpreted to mean that his judgeship continues after the oppression is over, but the statement that the
hand of Yahweh was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel suggests that the chronographer was
counting the full term of Samuel in the oppression period.
64


40 years for David (1 Ki 2:11)
3 years for Solomon (1 Ki 6:1).
105

The symbolic significance of the 480 years makes it more likely that the periods
within the period were arranged so that they added up to 480 years than that these smaller
periods were simply added up and happened to equal 480 years. Keep in mind that the
number 480 is ordinal, and so the period measured would, by our reckoning, equal 479
years. Even without having the total figure, we could count the parts inclusively (one year
would be subtracted from the first unit of time), and the total would be 479 years.
Dtr refers to this era only once, and no other events in the work are dated by it.
Neither does any work prior to Dtr date by this era. This makes it highly likely that the
era is Dtrs own creation. Interestingly, the Redactor of the Primary History also dates the
events of the wilderness wanderings from the Exodus in his waystation notices. Perhaps
he does so simply because it is a logical date from which to count, but Rs knowledge of
Dtr makes it quite possible that he purposefully is dating according to the era created by
Dtr. R, however, does not continue dating past the 41
st
year.
P begins its own epoch at the entry of the Israelites into Egypt: And the dwelling
of the Israelites, who had dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. And it was at the end of the 430
years, and it was on this day exactly that all the armies of Yahweh went out from the land
of Egypt (Exod 12:40-41).

104
Normally thought of as a scribal mistake, the short reign of Saul seems to fit just right into the 480-year
period. Was the length of his reign shortened deliberately by the Deuteronomistic editor? Or is the figure
original? See K.A.D. Smelik, Saul, de voorstelling van Israls eerste koning in de Masoretische tekst van
het Oude Testament (Dissertation, Amsterdam: P.E.T., 1977), 69-71.
105
In an accession-year system of counting regnal years, Solomons fourth year would have marked four
actual years from his accession, but the Deuteronomistic editor seems to have not taken this into
consideration and counted normally.
65


Because no events are dated according to this period of time (i.e., nothing is
placed X years from the entry into Egypt), apart from the Exodus itself, it seems probable
that the epoch is a creation of P. The number 430 has tended to defy attempts to give it
symbolic meaning. It may simply be an educated guess but is almost certainly an
inflation of the oppression period, which if historical, was probably much shorter. The
priests may have inherited a tradition that the time of Joseph lay some 400 years into the
past. However, the precise figure of 430 years may indeed be a priestly creation. It makes
more sense when considered a part of Ps larger chronological framework. Ps
genealogical chronology puts the birth of Jacob exactly 130 years before the entry into
Egypt (Gen 47:7-9), and the Israelitesentry into the Promised Land exactly 40 years after
the Exodus (Num 14:33-34). With the oppression 430 years long, the period from the
birth of Jacob (Israel) to the entry into the Promised Land (Israel) would amount to
exactly 600 years, a multiple of the numbers 12 and 50. The significance and sacredness
of the number 12 in Israelite and Jewish literature is well known. The number 50 is also a
special number in the priestly material (cf. Lev 23:15; Lev 25:10). The choice of 430
years may have been governed by the desire to make the total time, from the appearance
of Israel as a man to the appearance of Israel as a country, equal 600 years.

C. Counting Generations
The Hebrew word ` (dr) has the basic sense of circle, with specific
reference to a circular hut, and the meaning assembly is an extension of this basic
66


sense.
106
It is unclear from which sense of the word the Bibles most common meaning of
dr (generation) derives (is it a circle of time, or an assembly of people?). A
generation in ancient Israel was, as it is today, a group of individuals constituting a single
step in the line of descent from an ancestor (cf. Exod 20:5).
107
When used as a
measurement of time, it would naturally refer to the period between a point in one mans
life and the same point in the life of his offspring, e.g., from a mans birth until the birth
of his son(s). Since the age of a man at the birth of his children can vary, so the lengths of
the generations may vary. Job was able to see his descendants to the fourth generation
and himself lived 140 years (Job 42:16). If five generations (i.e., four generations plus
Job himself)
108
encompass 140 years, the assumption is that a generation is equivalent to
28 years. Sometimes an author may use an average figure for a generation to make
approximate calculations. The Deuteronomistic Historian, for example, assumes 40 years
for a generation (Jos. 5:6-7) and uses this figure frequently (see Chapter Four).
One biblical example is sometimes provided to show that dr may, when used as
a length of measurement, also mean life span.
109
Genesis 15:16 (JE) states that the
Israelites will return from their oppression in the fourth dr (`.`2 `). This
statement appears to be supported by the Redactors genealogy of Exodus 6:16-20, which
recounts the immediate ancestors of Moses: Levi, Kohath, and Amram. Since Levis

106
Frank J. Neuberg, "An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew dr," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9.4
(1950): 215-17, Peter R. Ackroyd, "The Meaning of Hebrew dr Considered," Journal of Semitic Studies
13.1 (1968): 3-10, D.N. Freedman and Jack R. Lundbom, "," in Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) III: 169-81.
107
The word may also be used in a general sense to refer simply to a population belonging to a single
stratum of time (see Brin, Concept of Time, 58-61).
108
On the counting of generations, see below.
109
As in William Foxwell Albright, "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation," Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 1.163 (1961): 50-51.
67


generation is the one that entered Egypt, and Moses generation is one that left, we find
four generations covering the period of the Israelites residence in Egypt. However, both
Genesis 15:13 (JE) and Exodus 12:40 (P), state that the period of the Israelites residence
in Egypt amounted to at least 400 years. This seems far too long for four generations.
This has led some to conclude that that the drt mentioned in Genesis 15:16 are, in fact,
life spans rather than generations.
110
The life spans of Levi, Kohath and Amram add up to
407 years (137 + 133 + 137 = 407), approximately equal to the period of Egyptian
residence. So it might seem that whoever calculated the length of the period did so by
adding up the life spans of these men (or, alternately, by dividing the 400 odd years
roughly by three and assigning each part to a generation).
Such a conclusion, however, assumes that the data in Exodus 6 must harmonize
with Exodus 12:40 and Genesis 15:16, and that the chronographer deliberately ignored
the fact that Levi, Kohath, and Amram are grandfather, father, and son by placing the
three mens life spans back-to-back. To be sure, the fact that Genesis 15:13 and 15:16 are
in the same source and in such close proximity suggests that the 400 years equals four
drt, and therefore a dr would have to equal 100 years here. Since a generation would
never be that long, but a life span would, it must be that the word dr sometimes can refer
to a life span. It should be remembered, however, that a figure of 100 years for a life span
does not match Js fixed number for the full length of a persons life: 120 years (Gen
6:3). Propp makes a better case, noting that the number of generations is not cardinal, but
ordinal. We are therefore to count the period as three full generations, plus part of

110
See, e.g., Freedman and Lundbom, "," 174.
68


another. He speculates that the 400 years equals three of Js life spans (120 x 3 = 360)
plus 40 years (part of a fourth).
111

The case of Genesis 15:13-16 does present an interesting puzzle, and the data can
be interpreted several ways:
1) The 400 years is being equated with a number of life spans.
2) The 400 years is being equated with a number of generations.
3) The 400 years and the `.`2 ` do not refer to the same period.
4) The two data contradict one another.
Militating against the first possibility is the fact that there are no other instances in the
Bible where dr refers to a persons full life span, and there is scanty evidence outside
the Bible for the term used in that sense. An example sometimes cited as evidence is an
inscription of Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria, wherein the king claims that seven dr had
elapsed between the ulum Akkadm and his own time.
112
The word dr is cognate with
Hebrew dr and is likewise normally understood as generation. In this inscription it is
understood by some to mean life span, because seven generations before Shamshi-
Adad would be too recent to place the event to which he refers. However, it would be a
mistake to put too much stock in this reference. Even if Shamshi-Adad were measuring a
period of time by life spans in this inscription, we would expect that he would be using a
standard life span (a single fixed figure) as a yardstick by which to measure. He would
not be referring to a sequence of seven life spans assigned to specific individuals in a
linear genealogy, for the simple reason that, in reality, life spans are not sequential, but

111
Propp, Exodus 1-18, 415.
69


overlap. Moreover, the often symbolic number seven is not likely to be literal. A better
interpretation is that the king is referring to seven ideal generations (using the word dr
in its usual sense), the last and perfect of which is identified with his own.
113
In other
words, there is no correlation between the actual length of time covered and the number
of dr cited. It is simply a form of elevated speech. With no other evidence of dr being
used to mean life span, we may discount the first possible interpretation of the meaning
of Genesis 15:13-16.
The third solution, which posits that the two data are referring to different periods,
is also unlikely. The concluding points of both time periods are the same: the end of the
oppression. That much is clear. The beginning point of the 400 years is the start of the
oppression, and the beginning point of the four drt must be understood to be either the
start of the oppression or the present moment in the narrative (i.e., Abrahams time).
However, if the count of time begins immediately, then the problem is only exacerbated
(the four drt would have to cover a period longer than 400 years). It is best to take the
passage at face value and consider both data as referring to the same period of time: the
length of the oppression.
Militating against the fourth conclusion (that the data contradict one another) is
the fact that the two pieces of information are textually very close to one another. This
fact makes it likely that, even if they each are the creation of a different author or editor,

112
Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19 (Liverpool, 1931), Pl. 81, i:18. The Akkadian word ulum
can mean either the full realization of a state or its complete ruin. See Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles,
5-6.
113
Cf. tenth generation (Deut 23:2-3) and thousandth generation (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10) in the Bible,
which are not likely to be literal. Other extra-biblical examples are sometimes cited as evidence of
measuring time by life spans, but they are few and come from times far removed from the biblical period.
70


the person responsible for the most recent datum was aware of the first and would not
likely deliberately contradict it.
This leaves us with possibility #2, which, although it has its problems (a
generation normally covers less than 50 years), is the least objectionable. While long
generations are uncommon in the text, and unheard of in later times, they are still
attested.
114
The patriarchs in Genesis 5 all have sons at very old ages. After that, Noah
has his three sons at 500, Shem has Arpachshad at 100, Terah has Abram at 70, and
Abraham has Isaac at 100. The best solution to the difficulties associated with this
passage is to assume that dr is to be understood in its usual sense (always the first and
best option unless facts force a different interpretation), but nevertheless to acknowledge
a tension between verses 13 and 16 that was not intended by the original author. JE does
not assume lengthy generations; P does. The datum of Genesis 15:16 (JE), which makes
the period of Egyptian residence rather short, would have posed a problem to someone
accustomed to a longer figure (R was well aware, not only of Ps lengthy generations in
Genesis, but of Ps figure of 430 years for the oppression period in Exodus 12:40). How
could the difficulty be fixed without eliminating the reference altogether? Fortunately,
verse 16, while referring to generations, does not specify a length of time for each
generation. This allowed the Redactor some freedom to play. Although equating four
generations with 400 years is a stretch (and the Redactor no doubt knew this), the length
of a generation in the Bible is never precise; it is always estimated. Something had to be

114
Cf. Shemaryahu Talmon, "400 Jahre oder vier Generationen (Gen 15,13-15): Geschichtliche
Zeitangaben oder literarische Motive?" in Die Hebrische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte
(Neukirchener Verlag, 1990): 13-25.
71


done to rectify the contradiction with Exodus 12:40, and the 400-year figure was still
passable (rounded down from 430). So he added the gloss .L `NC .2N.
Generations seem to have been counted differently in ancient Israel than they are
today. When looking forward in time, we normally begin counting with the generation of
the parents. Thus, I would consider myself part of the first generation, and my children
the second, and so on. Bible writers use a different system.
115
The famous formula of
Exodus 34:6-7, which was included in J, reckons children as the first generation,
grandchildren as the second, etc. E counts similarly, reckoning Josephs great-
grandchildren as the third generation (Gen 50:23). Dtr places King Zechariah of Israel,
the great-great-grandson of Jehu, in the fourth generation of Jehus family (2 Ki 10:30;
cf. 15:12). Ironically, when it comes to generations, we abandon our exclusive system of
counting, and the Israelites abandon their inclusive system. Thus, when we consider
Genesis 15:16, the fourth generation must be the great-great-grandchildren of the
generation in which the Egyptian oppression begins. Although JE considers this the
fourth generation, we would call it the fifth.

115
See Freedman and Lundbom, "," 174-75.

72
III.
GENEALOGICAL CHRONOLOGIES

A. Dating Events by the Life on an Individual
In the Hebrew Bible, only the priestly writer(s) (and the Deuteronomistic editor[s]
to a limited degree) seem interested in constructing chronologies based on genealogical
information. The Aaronid priests turn it into a science, and their chronology is based
primarily on genealogies. This dating system forms a significant part of the narrative of
the Torah as it now stands, especially the book of Genesis.
The priestly chronology dates events that occur prior to the Exodus by placing
them within a specific year in the lifetime of an individual. Most of the events concern
only the activities of the individual to whose life the events are dated.
116
Not all of the
events are genealogical in nature, but the births of sons are of particular interest to the
author(s), and history is presented according to the passing of time in individuals lives,
rather than to regnal years of kings or judges or to dates of other notable events.
The priestly material occasionally refers to larger, broader events that are of
relevance to a greater community, but nevertheless dates them according to the years of a
specific persons life. In P, the universal Flood occurs in Noahs 600
th
year (Gen 7:6). In

116
And Abram was a son of 75 years when he left Haran (Gen 12:4); And Abram was a son of 86 years
when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram (Gen 16:15); And Abram came to be a son of 99 years, and Yahweh
appeared to Abram (Gen 17:1); And Abraham was a son of 100 years when his son Isaac was born to
him (Gen 21:5); And Isaac came to be a son of 40 years when he took Rebekah the daughter of Bethuel,
the Aramean from Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, for a wife (Gen 25:20); And Isaac was
a son of 60 years when she gave birth to them (Gen 25:26); And Esau came to be a son of 40 years, and
he took, as a wife, Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite
(Gen 26:34); Joseph was a son of 17 years, and he became a shepherd with his brothers among the flock
(Gen 37:2); And Joseph was a son of 30 years when he stood before Pharaoh the king of Egypt (Gen
73


Rs chronology, the Flood begins in the 600
th
year of Noahs life (Gen 7:11) and ends in
his 601
st
year (Gen 8:13-14). An additional datum concerns the time that the ark finally
lands on the mountains (Gen 8:4-5).
Sometimes the characters themselves establish dates by naming their ages at a
notable event. The date of the settlement of Jacob and his family in Egypt is presented in
such a way:
And Joseph brought in his father Jacob and stood him before Pharaoh, and
Jacob blessed Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said to Jacob, How many are the
days of the years of your life? And Jacob said to Pharaoh, The days of
the years of my residences are 130 years. Few and bad have been the days
of the years of my life, and they have not reached the days of the years of
my forefathers lives in the days of their residences (Gen 47:7-9).

The Deuteronomistic Historian also uses this method. For example, when dating the
succession of Joshua and the entry into Canaan according to the life of Moses, the
information is presented in the first person:
And [Moses] said to them, A son of 120 years I am today. I am not able
to go out and come in anymore. (Deut 31:2).

Similarly, the sending out of the spies, as well as the death of Joshua and the
apportionment of the land of Canaan, is dated according to the life of Caleb and stated in
the first person:
[Caleb said:] A son of 40 years I was when Moses the servant of Yahweh
sent me out of Qadesh-barnea to spy out the land. And now, here
Yahweh has kept me alive, just as he gave his word, these 45 years since
Yahweh gave this word to Moses when Israel walked in the desert. And
now here I am today a son of 85 years (Josh 14:7,10).
117


41:46); And Moses was a son of 80 years and Aaron was a son of 83 years when they spoke to Pharaoh
(Exod 7:7).
117
It might be argued that this is a P account, because it seems to be referring to the P passages in Numbers,
in which Caleb is sent out of Qadesh with the spies (Num 13:6; 14:6-9). However, the J version in the same
74


Though P, R, and to a lesser degree Dtr date many events by peoples ages, a
collection of these references does not constitute a chronology. All of them would be
meaningless to the ancient (or modern) reader unless the lives of the various ancestors
were associated with known dates. If I know that event X occurs in year Y of individual
Z, I still do not know when event X took place unless I knew when individual Z was
born. In other words, these dates are dependent on other information. For P, this
information takes the form of a genealogy containing chronological data. The genealogy
provides a framework for the history of the world, by which events in that history may be
dated.

B. Genealogical Lists Containing Chronological Information
1. Description
Ps chronological framework, which anchors its dates to an absolute chronology,
is found throughout Genesis, but is concentrated in chapters 5 and 11, where we can see
its basic form. In those chapters we find a list of ante- and post-diluvian ancestors
recounted, along with the age of each ancestor at the birth of a significant son, the age of
each ancestor at death, and the length of time between these two events. This scheme
forms the basis of a lengthy chronology based on a family line running from Adam,
through Seth, Noah, Shem, and then Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the latter sections of
Genesis, the data tend to be dispersed throughout the narrative, but the nature of the data
remains the same.

chapter of Numbers also features Caleb as one of the spies (Num 13:30-31), and Calebs mention of the
Anakim (giants) here in Joshua (14:12) is a clear reference to the J version (Num 13:22, 33). The
75


The basic form of the presentation of the chronology is as follows:
And PN1 came to be # years old, and he sired PN2; and PN1 lived, after his siring
PN2, # years, and he sired sons and daughters. [And all the days of PN1 came to
be # years, and he died.]
The final phrase (in brackets) is omitted in the list of Genesis 11.
118
A striking
feature of the list is the abnormally long life spans of the individuals listed. We should
note, however, that the ages of the ancestors at their deaths have no bearing whatsoever
on the chronology, which is set only by their ages at the births of their sons.

2. List-Making in the Ancient World
In order to understand the genealogical lists, it would be advantageous to consider
the importance of lists in ancient scribal tradition. From our modern perspective, we
might have trouble understanding an interest in the dry and repetitive recitation of
seemingly pointless pieces of information, but the ability to memorize and recite lists,
especially those that required counting and measuring, was, in the ancient world, an
evidence of knowledge and wisdom, a powerful medium for creating, organising, and
disseminating knowledge of the past.
119
In ancient Mesopotamia, for example, lists were
attempts to understand the universe by classifying and organizing its contents. Names

Deuteronomistic History draws from J frequently, but not from P. Anakim appears to be a Deuteronomic
equivalent to Js Nephilim.
118
The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, includes it.
119
Jeremy Graeme Taylor, Framing the Past: The Roots of Greek Chronography (Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Michigan, 2000), 107.
76


were considered substances, inseparable emanations from the object named and an
expression of divine will.
120

In Greece the practice of reciting lists to articulate segments of time and space is
evident in Homers Catalogue of Ships in Book II of the Iliad and in Hesiods Theogony
(8
th
century BCE). These lists are likely to predate the works in which they are now
found. In other words, they stand out as literary forms different from the narratives in
which they are embedded and which they serve to enhance. Homers Catalogue of Ships
is a survey of the Achaean and Trojan armed forces at the time of the Trojan War (Iliad
2:494-759, 816-877). When Homer begins to recite the ship catalogue, he makes a point
of drawing attention to the difficulty of such a task, even invoking the Muses before he
does so (2:484-493). He is able to divide up the armies into constituent parts, bringing
clarity to the list through the use of names and numbers. That he can successfully recite
the list demonstrates his skill as a cataloguer. Hesiod uses genealogies to explain the
origins of the gods and as a way of introducing separate mythical episodes. He has
memorized many lists of names, often giving the number of names in a list.
121

From time to time, when reciting these lists, the poets highlight outstanding
elements, perhaps, as in Homer, making note of the most able leader, or the most
handsome soldier, or the best or most numerous troops, or the best horses, or, in Hesiod,
the most beautiful, or the oldest, of the gods. These interjections or glosses of the poets
evidence their knowledge of the memorized list and ability to size it up.
122
Similarly, the

120
Jean Bottro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1992), 29-31, 97-102.
121
See the discussion of both Homer and Hesiod in Taylor, Framing the Past, 107-39.
122
See Ibid., 118-19.
77


priestly reciter of the biblical genealogy sometimes highlights notable figures, such as
Enoch, who walked with God (Gen 5:22).
When lists were committed to writing, the scribes not only had opportunity to sort
and classify material within each list, but also to compare and juxtapose lists with one
another. When documents covering the same subject matter were collected, lists
incorporating information from more than one document would be created.
123
This was
true of lists of a chronological nature as well. The ancient chronographers viewed time as
a constant, universal principle, and it was very important to their worldview that lists
cohered with one another. They spent much time and energy dating significant events and
individuals, and it was important for their chronologies to adhere to their
historiographies. Often contradictions between two documents were found; since it was
important for the documents to be consistent with one another, adjustments would need to
be made, either to the original lists or to the diachronic list prepared from them, to
calibrate the data. It is apparent that lists were not static in nature, but dynamic,
constantly changing and being adapted.


3. Textual Variants of Genesis 5 and 11 and Their History
a) Genesis 5
In the various versions and translations of Genesis 5 and 11, there are
discrepancies with respect to the figures. Before we can undertake a proper analysis of
the chronology, it is necessary to understand the origin of the readings of the present
78


versions and ascertain each text traditions evolution of development. We will first turn to
Genesis 5.
Table 3.1: Variant Readings of the Numbers in Genesis 5
Citation Ancestor Proposed Archetype
SP MT LXX
Gen 5:3 Adam 130 + 800 = 930
(-1177 + 800 = -377)
130 + 800 = 930
(-1177 + 800 = -377)
130 + 800 = 930
(-1526 + 800 = -726)
230 + 700 = 930
(-2012 + 700 = -1312)
Gen 5:6 Seth 105 + 807 = 912
(-1072 + 807 = -265)
105 + 807 = 912
(-1072 + 807 = -265)
105 + 807 = 912
(-1421 + 807 = -614)
205 + 707 = 912
(-1807 + 707 = 1100)
Gen 5:9 Enosh 90 + 815 = 905
(-982 + 815 = -167)
90 + 815 = 905
(-982 + 815 = -167)
90 + 815 = 905
(-1331 + 815 = -516)
190 + 715 = 905
(-1617 + 715 = -902)
Gen 5:12 Kenan 70 + 840 = 910
(-912 + 840 = -72)
70 + 840 = 910
(-912 + 840 = -72)
70 + 840 = 910
(-1261 + 840 = -421)
170 + 740 = 910
(-1447 + 740 = -707)
Gen 5:15 Mahalalel 65 + 830 = 895
(-847 + 830 = -17)
65 + 830 = 895
(-847 + 830 = -17)
65 + 830 = 895
(-1196 + 830 = -366)
165 + 730 = 895
(-1282 + 730 = -552)
Gen 5:18 Jared 62 + 800 = 962
(-785 + 800 = 15)
62 + 785 = 847
(-785 + 785 = 0)
162 + 800 = 962
(-1034 + 800 = -234)
162 + 800 = 962
(-1120 + 800 = -320)
Gen 5:21 Enoch 65 + 300 = 365
(-720 + 300 = -420)
65 + 300 = 365
(-720 + 300 = -420)
65 + 300 = 365
(-969 + 300 = -669)
165 + 200 = 365
(-955 + 200 = -755)
Gen 5:25 Methuselah 67 + 902 = 969
(-653 + 902 = 249)
67 + 653 = 720
(-653 + 653 = 0)
187 + 782 = 969
(-782 + 782 = 0)
167 + 802 = 969
(-788 + 802 = 14)
Gen 5:28 Lamech 53 + 724 = 777
(-600 + 724 = 124)
53 + 600 = 653
(-600 + 600 = 0)
182 + 595 = 777
(-600 + 595 = -5)
188 + 565 = 753
(-600 + 565 = -35)
Gen 5:32 Noah 500
(-100)
500
(-100)
500
(-100)
500
(-100)
Gen 7:6;
9:28
Noahs age
at Flood
600 + 350 = 950
(0 + 350 = 350)
600 + 350 = 950
(0 + 350 = 350)
600 + 350 = 950
(0 + 350 = 350)
600 + 350 = 950
(0 + 350 = 350)
First # = age at begetting; second # = remaining years of life; third # = total life span
Numbers in parentheses represent years before the Flood
Several recent textual studies of Genesis 5 have advanced our understanding of
the formation of the variants.
124
A general observation of the different readings reveals
that MT and SP agree on all entries except for those of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech.
LXX differs from MT and SP in that 100 years are added to the age of begetting and 100
years are subtracted from the remaining years of life in every entry, except for Jared,
Methuselah, and Lamech. The scribes seem to have found the data regarding these three

123
Ibid., 164-74.
124
R.W. Klein, "Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old Testament," Harvard
Theological Review 67 (1974): 255-63, Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 5-53, D.V. Etz, "The Numbers of
Genesis V 3-31: A Suggested Conversion and its Implications," Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993): 171-89,
79


patriarchs problematic. The aforementioned studies have made a strong case that, in the
earliest manuscripts, the date for the Flood (the 600
th
year of Noah) was in conflict with
the basic genealogical chronology found in Genesis 5. Three of the antediluvian
patriarchs (Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech) were given life spans in the genealogical
chronology that placed their deaths after the Flood (i.e., after Noahs 600
th
year).
According to the narrative, their survival of the Flood would be an impossibility (Gen
7:23). The chronological problems apparently went unnoticed by the original editor, but
scribes from different manuscript traditions attempted to alleviate the difficulties in their
own ways, and their activity explains the variations in the manuscripts.
In the Samaritan tradition, the life spans of the three problem ancestors were
shortened, so that they would not extend beyond the Flood. The artificiality of their ages
is apparent, when one notices that all three now die in the exact year of the Flood. The
scribes took off only as many years as was absolutely necessary.
In the MT tradition, an early scribe or scribes made the decision to remove the
lives of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech further from the Flood by adding years to the
ages of each of them at the birth of his son, and subtracting the same number from the
years remaining in the life of the father, thereby retaining the original reading of the
fathers age at death. To Jareds age at the birth of Enoch 100 years were added, and this
was sufficient to correct the problem. In the case of Methuselah, 100 years was not quite
enough, so an even 120 years were added to his age at the birth of Lamech. This put
Methuselahs death in the year of the Flood. There is disagreement among Klein, Hughes,

Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998), 61-80.
80


Etz, and Hendel regarding what MT did with Lamech. We should expect that a similar
adjustment would have been made, i.e., an addition to Lamechs age at the birth of Noah.
However, we will need to take a closer look at all the versions before confirming this
conclusion.
In general, the case that the previously cited studies make to explain the reason
for the revisions in SP and MT is very strong. The reasons for the adjustments in LXX,
however, need to be examined again. According to the theory advanced by Hendel, the
motivations for the changes made in the LXX tradition were the same as in the others:
three men survived the Flood. So a similar strategy was employed as in MT (adding 100
years to the age of each father at the birth of his son, and subtracting 100 years from the
years remaining in his life, thereby retaining the original reading of the fathers age at
death).
125
However, instead of merely correcting the years for Jared, Methuselah, and
Lamech, as MT did, LXX apparently decided to make the same adjustment to all the
fathers in the list. By pushing the ancestors backward in time, it was assumed that none of
the three problematic ancestors would then have survived the Flood. Unfortunately,
perhaps because of an oversight, Methuselah still survived the Flood. Indeed, in LXX
Methuselah still lives 14 years beyond the Flood date.
Considering, however, that LXXs changes to the figures for every one of the
fathers were insufficient to alleviate the problem of the Flood date, I do not think it likely
that they have anything to do with the Flood date, or with Jared, Methuselah, and
Lamech. Let us consider: is it not strange that LXXs systematic revisions, which
consisted of adding 100 years to the ages of all the fathers at the births of their sons,
81


while retaining their total ages, did not ensure that all three of the problematic characters
(Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech) died before the Flood? If the date of their deaths was
such a concern, how could Methusaleh remain uncorrected? Why go through all that
trouble only to fail to achieve the intended goal? SP only adjusted the life spans of the
three problematic characters. MT only adjusted the ages of the three problematic
characters at the births of their sons. If that is all that was necessary, there was no need
for LXX to change the ages of all the ancestors. Nevertheless, it did. Clearly, the scribes
in the LXX tradition had other reasons for making the revisions. What was the purpose?
Hendels language, namely that the increase in the figures serves to delay the onset of
the Flood, obscures the nature of the revisions. From the point of view of the editors,
none of the adjustments in any of the manuscripts delays the onset of the Flood, because
the Floods date is fixed by the chronology that comes after it. It happened a fixed
number of years before the present. (All chronographers measure time back from their
present. After all, this is the whole purpose of chronology.) What the increase in LXXs
figures actually does is push the ancestors further away from their own time, as well as
push back the date of creation. In the archetypal text, the date of creation would have
been 1,307 years before the Flood. As other chronological documents became available
and were compared with this chronology, some might have seen that the date of creation
was far too recent and needed to be pushed back. This was more likely the motivation of
the 100-year increases in LXX.
126


125
Hendel, Genesis 1-11, 64.
126
Cf. Gerhard Larsson, "The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX," Journal
of Biblical Literature 102.3 (1983): 401-09.
82


The Greek Septuagint was born in a period when Hellenistic Jews were becoming
increasingly interested in biblical chronology. Just before the translation first appeared,
Berossus History of Babylonia (c. 290 BCE) and Manethos History of Egypt (mid-third
century BCE) were published. Both of these works greatly influenced Jewish
understanding of historical chronology, and attempts were made to harmonize the
findings of these works with biblical chronology.
127
LXXs antediluvian chronology is
probably reflective of such efforts, and it is possible that the alterations adopted by the
Septuagint were a product of the system of the Jewish chronographer Demetrius, who is
the first to make a defense of LXXs chronology. We might find an explanation for the
variants by considering some of the following observations about Berossus and Manetho:
Berossus begins his history of Babylonia 432,000 years before the Flood (he was
influenced by the Sumerian King List), which is irreconcilable with biblical
chronology.
128
The Jews and early Christians, however, did not lack ingenuity. The
medieval chronographer George Syncellus (9
th
cent. CE), who names two Egyptian
monks from c. 400 CE as his sources, tells us in his Chronological Excerpts that it was
common among Jews and Christians to interpret Berossus years as days in this section of
his history.
129
The equation of years with days and vice versa was sometimes done for
chronological purposes in the Hellenistic period (cf. the book of Daniel). Since 432,000
days is equal to 1,183 solar years, the beginning of Babylonian history was understood
to have commenced about 1,184 years before the Flood. It is quite possible that such an

127
See the illuminating discussion by Ben Zion Wacholder, "Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World
Chronicles," Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 451-81.
128
Alden A. Mosshammer, ed., Georgii Syncelli: Ecloga Chronographica (Leipzig: BSB B.G. Teubner
Verlagsgesellschaft, 1984), 53.
129
Ibid., 30-33.
83


interpretation, or a similar one, was held by the Hellenistic Jews who translated the
Septuagint. In the original chronology of Genesis 5 (column 1 in the table above),
Berossus date for the beginning of Mesopotamian history would have fallen in the time
of Adam before the birth of his son Seth. A synchronism would be impossible. The
biblical chronology could be harmonized with Berossus only by extending the length of
the period from Adam to Noah, and this is precisely what LXX does.
130
As for Manetho,
he does not mention a Flood, but there is some evidence to suggest that some Jews and
Christians considered the first eight dynasties that ruled from Memphis as antediluvian.
John Malalas (6
th
cent. CE) in his Chronicle preserves a tradition that makes Sesostris of
Dynasty XII the first Egyptian king of the line of Ham (Manetho calls him the greatest
conqueror next to Osiris).
131
This suggests that the Flood was understood by some to
have occurred not long before Sesostris. Three dynasties of Herakleopolian kings
immediately precede Sesostris, and the first of these, Akhthoes, is considered the cruelest
of all the Egyptian tyrants. Manetho says he was killed by a crocodile. It would have been
natural for Jews and Christian to view this as a punishment from God, and the reign of
Akhtheos sits right at a major transition point in Egyptian historythe end of the reigns
of the original kings of Memphis and the beginning of a new set of kings.
132
This would
have been an ideal place for Jewish chronographers to have placed the Flood. Most
significantly, such a view explains quite well the changes we find in LXX. Apart from
the mythological reigns of the gods, Manethos Dynasties I-VIII cover approximately

130
For evidence of second- and first-century BCE Jewish chronographers trying to harmonize the Bible
with Berossus, see Wacholder, "Biblical Chronology," 465.
131
Ioannis Malalae, Chronographia; ex recensione Ludovici Dindorfii (Bonnae: impensis E. Weberi,
1831), 21.
84


1,600 years.
133
In the biblical chronology, 1,600 years before the Flood was well prior to
the creation of humankind. LXX, by extending the period in the chronology of Genesis 5,
makes the two chronologies appear compatible. While we may never be able to know
precisely how the LXX translators interpreted Berossus and Manetho, nor even know
what version of the manuscripts they possessed, it is probable that they knew of these
works and were interested in making the biblical chronology harmonize with them as best
as possible. The translation was being prepared for a Hellenistic audience, and the Bibles
history needed to be palatable to that audience. We should look at the LXX chronology in
this context.
134

However, there are other tamperings in LXX, unrelated to a simple lengthening of
time to push back the date of creation. Special attention needs to be given to the entry for
Lamech in order to get closer to an explanation for the anomalous readings. Hendel, in
agreement with Klein, argues that none of the three manuscript traditions retains the
archetypal reading of the age of Lamech at the birth of Noah, and that the readings of MT
and SP are the result of scribal errors.
135
Although mechanical errors are always possible,
it is somewhat suspicious that nowhere else in the list of Genesis 5 do MT and SP have
such errors, but they both happen to make mistakes in the same entry for the same person,
one of the problematic ancestors, probably the most problematic of them all. Moreover,
the scribal errors are said to be the result of the influence of readings several lines away
and on the other side of the closest figure (two verses previously in MT and three verses

132
Gerald P. Verbrugghe and John M. Wickersham, Berossus and Manetho, Introduced and Translated
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996), 137.
133
Mosshammer, ed., Georgii Syncelli: Ecloga Chronographica, 99-145.
134
Directly below, in the discussion of Gen 11, we shall encounter further evidence of SP and LXX
lengthening the chronology.
85


later in SP). Most detrimental to their theory is the fact that the Samaritan Pentateuch
clearly has no error in its reading, because, if it did and the original reading for the age of
Lamech at Noahs birth was 88 (as Klein and Hendel suggest), then Lamechs death
presently would be set 35 years after the Flood. But in fact, as was mentioned above, the
date for the Flood and for Lamechs death in SP coincide exactly. If a scribal error were
made, there would be no such correspondence between the mans death and the Flood
date. The perfect alignment demonstrates that the readings in SP are precisely as the
scribes intended them to be.
I would argue, instead, that the archetype for Lamechs age at the birth of his son
is in the Samaritan Pentateuch (53), in agreement with Hughes, and that the figures in all
three traditions are by design. We must keep in mind that nowhere else in SP is the figure
for the age of the father at the birth of his son adjusted. In all cases it is the age at death
that is altered. In MT and LXX, on the other hand, the usual recourse is to adjust the age
of the father at the birth of his son. It is therefore more likely that their figures for
Lamechs age at the birth of Noah are adjusted than that SPs are.
In regard to the age of Lamech at his death, SPs reading, in light of the above
considerations, is unlikely to be original. SP is more inclined to adjust the death age. We
had best look to MT and LXX. However, MT and LXX differ in their readings, so which
one are we to prefer? Klein argues that MTs reading is an artificial revision aimed at
mimicking the seventy-sevenfold vengeance of the other Lamech from Cains family line
(4:24). Hughes similarly suggests that, since the figure is obviously symbolic, it cannot
be original. Hendel posits a scribal error influenced by a reminiscence of 4:24. It is

135
Hendel, Genesis 1-11, 66-67.
86


unclear to me why a symbolic number necessarily must be ruled out as the archetype. Are
we to assume that the archetypal readings are actual ages, and that no symbolism is to be
expected in any of them? We need only to point to the age for Enoch at his death (365),
often remarked to be based on the number of days in a solar year, to demonstrate that
some of the archetypal numbers employed here may be symbolic. Even if the number 777
is based on the J genealogy of Genesis 4, this does not necessarily mean that it is not the
archetype of the P text or of the redacted Torah, both of which are aware of J.
There is stronger evidence that LXXs figure for the age of Lamech at his death
(753) is adjusted. One is immediately struck by its similarity to SPs figures (53 and 653).
If, as has been established, SPs reading of 53 is the archetype for the age of Lamech at
the birth of Noah, then we should expect that LXX would have adjusted this figure to
153, in keeping with its usual practice (153 + 600 = 753). If so, then it is interesting that
its reading for the age of Lamech at his death (753) would put Lamechs death exactly in
the year of the Flood. This suggests that the number 753 is a revision (and reduction), just
as SPs figure of 653 is a revision (and reduction). I think, therefore, that we should
prefer MTs higher reading of 777 for the archetype of Lamechs death age.
At this point it is possible to reconstruct an editorial history of the Lamech entry
in the genealogy. The original reading was 53 for the age of Lamech at the birth of Noah,
and 777 for the age of Lamech at his death (53 + 724 = 777). However, according to such
a reading, Lamech would have died after the Flood. To correct this problem, SP followed
its usual practice and reduced Lamechs death age to 653, putting his death date in the
year of the Flood.
87


In MT, the adjustment was to add 129 years to the age of the father at the birth of
the son, and to subtract 129 from the remaining years of his life. Technically, only 124
years needed to be added to the figure to make Lamech 177 when Noah was born, but the
scribes apparently decided to add 5 more years, so as to put a decent gap between
Lamechs death and the Flood. Why did they do this? It may have to do with Gods
statement to Noah that Noah, his wife, his sons, and his sons wives are the only
righteous people alive (Gen 7:1; cf. also 6:5-8). Lamechs prophecy in Genesis 5:29
clearly places him on the side of the righteous, so if he had lived up until the Flood, we
would expect that he too would have been singled out as one deserving of special
mention. To solve this problem, MT chose to end his life 5 years ahead of the Flood, thus
preserving the image of Lamech as an upright man.
In LXX, Lamechs entry reflects three stages of revision:
1) In order to push back the date of creation, 100 years were added to all of the
fathers ages at the birth of their sons, and Lamech was no exception. This change may
have been made during the preparation of the original translation into Greek, as
Demetrius (3
rd
century BCE) assumes this long chronology (though not exactly) and lived
during the time the translation was made.
2) However, after adding 100 years to the age of each father at the birth of his
son, both Methuselah and Lamech still survived the Flood, Methuselah by 14 years and
Lamech by 24 years. A later scribe noticed that Lamech lived beyond the Flood (he did
not notice Methuselah), so he decided to reduce the figure of 777 to 753, putting
Lamechs death in the year of the Flood.
88


3) That problem was solved, and the reading sat like this (153 + 600 = 753) for a
time, but a further adjustment was then made. The figure of 153 was increased by 35 to
188 (and the figure of 600 was reduced by 35 in order to retain the life span), which had
the effect of placing Lamechs death a full generation (35 years) before the Flood. The
intention may have been the same as for MT: to avoid any implication that Lamech was
among the wicked generation mentioned in Genesis 6:5-8 and 7:1. The scribe in the LXX
tradition felt the gap between Lamechs death and the Flood should be larger than what
the scribe who made the similar decision in the MT tradition felt.

b) Genesis 11
In the second major section of the genealogy (Gen 11:10-32), we find similar
variations in the three manuscript traditions.











89


Table 3.2: Variant Readings of the Numbers in Genesis 11
Citation Ancestor Proposed Archetype SP MT LXX
Gen
11:10
adjustment to
Flood date
+2
(-1112)
+2
(-1762)
+2
(-1112)
+2
(-1677)
Gen
11:10
Shem 100 + 500 [= 600]
(-1110 + 500 = -610)
100 + 500 = 600
(-1760 + 500 = -1260)
100 + 500 [= 600]
(-1110 + 500 = -610)
100 + 500 [= 600]
(-1675 + 500 = -1175)
Gen
11:12
Arpachshad 35 + 403 [= 438]
(-1010 + 403 = -607)
135 + 303 = 438
(-1660 + 303 = -1357)
35 + 403 [= 438]
(-1010 + 403 =- 607)
135 + 430 [= 565]
(-1575 + 430 = -1145)
Gen
11:13
Kenan 130 + 330 [= 460]
(-1440 + 330 = -1110)
Gen
11:14
Shelah 30 + 403 [= 433]
(-975 + 403 = -572)
130 + 303 = 433
(-1525 + 303 = -1222)
30 + 403 [= 433]
(-975 + 403 = -572)
130 + 330 [= 460]
(-1310 + 330 = -980)
Gen
11:16
Eber 34 + 370 [= 404]
(-945 + 430 = -515)
134 + 270 = 404
(-1395 + 270 = -1125)
34 + 430 [= 464]
(-945 + 430 = -515)
134 + 370 [= 504]
(-1180 + 370 = -810)
Gen
11:18
Peleg 30 + 209 [= 239]
(-911 + 209 = -702)
130 + 109 = 239
(-1261 + 109 = -1152)
30 + 209 [= 239]
(-911 + 209 = -702)
130 + 209 [= 339]
(-1046 + 209 = -837)
Gen
11:20
Reu 32 + 207 [= 239]
(-881 + 207 = -674)
132 + 107 = 239
(-1131 + 107 = -1024)
32 + 207 [= 239]
(-881 + 207 = -674)
132 + 207 [= 339]
(-916 + 207 = -709)
Gen
11:22
Serug 30 + 200 [= 230]
(-849 + 200 = -649)
130 + 100 = 230
(-999 + 100 = -899)
30 + 200 [= 230]
(-849 + 200 = -649)
130 + 200 [= 330]
(-784 + 200 = -584)
Gen
11:24
Nahor 29 + 119 [= 148]
(-819 + 119 = -700)
79 + 69 = 148
(-869 + 69 = -800)
29 + 119 [= 148]
(-819 + 119 = -700)
79 + 129 [= 208]
(-654 + 129 = -525)
Gen
11:26,
32
Terah 70 [+ 135] = 205
(-790 + 135 = -655)
70 [+ 75] = 145
(-790 + 75 = -715)
70 [+ 135] = 205
(-790 + 135 = -655)
70 [+ 135] = 205
(-575 + 135 = -440)
First # = age at begetting; second # = remaining years of life; third # = total life span
Numbers in brackets are implied, but not written
Numbers in parentheses represent years before the Exodus
136

We see some of the same patterns in this portion of the list as we saw in Genesis
5. In this case, however, MT, rather than SP, has the shortest chronology, and SP follows
the pattern that LXX displayed in Genesis 5. Apart from the last two entries, the ages for
the fathers at the births of their sons in SP are 100 years greater than in MT, and 100
years fewer for the remaining years in the fathers life. Thus the life spans in SP and MT
are the same (except for Eber, whom we will consider below). LXX is also 100 years
greater than MT in the ages of the fathers at the birth of their sons, but the remaining
years in the fathers life are exactly the same as in MT, and this results in total life span

136
From the birth of Abraham to the birth of Isaac we count 100 years, to the birth of Jacob 60 years, to
Jacobs entry into Egypt 130 years, to the Exodus 430 years. The LXX counts differently: from the birth of
Abraham to his entry into Canaan 75 years (Gen 12:4-5), to the Exodus 430 years (Exod 12:40). (Note that
the period from Abrahams arrival in Canaan to Jacobs arrival in Egypt, in all three manuscript traditions,
is 215 years, exactly half of 430 years. LXX, therefore, effectively cuts the oppression period in half.)
90


that are 100 years greater than they are in MT and SP (except for Arpachshad and Shelah,
whom we will discuss below).
Another interesting feature is that SP is the only text that actually records the life
spans. The life spans in the other two are present only by implication (the reader must do
the math). It would seem SP added the life span totals to make the pattern conform to the
one in Genesis 5. The reason for the absence of the life span totals in the archetype of
Genesis 11 will be discussed in section C.3. below.
From what we have considered in Genesis 5, we may reconstruct the basic textual
history of these variants with some confidence.
1) The short chronology of MT is likely to be original.
2) SP has added 100 years to the ages of the fathers at the births of their sons,
and subtracted the same number of years from the remaining time in the
fathers life, so as to retain the original life spans.
3) LXX has also added 100 years to the ages of the fathers at the births of their
sons, but apparently was not concerned about altering the total life spans of
the fathers (after all, the life spans are not provided in LXX as they are in SP),
so the remaining years in the fathers life went untouched, and the lifespans
were increased by 100 years as a result.
In regard to this list, Hendel argues, in agreement with Klein, that the adjustments
in SP and LXX were made to prevent so great an overlap of generations.
137
Apparently,
the early scribes would have seen a problem with the fact that many of the ancestors were
alive in Abrahams lifetime. I think more is being made out of this situation than need be.
91


There is nothing in the narrative to militate against such an overlap. In the case of
Genesis 5, it is understandable that adjustments would need to be made for some of the
fathers to die before the Flood. According to the narrative, their survival would be
impossible. On the other hand, no impossibilities or anachronisms are created by an
overlap of generations in Genesis 11. Would alterations really be called for? The nature
of the revisions in Genesis 11 also weaken the argument. We find that LXX has, as it did
in Genesis 5, added 100 years to the ages of the fathers at the births of their sons, but this
time no effort is made to preserve the original life spans of these fathers. This tells us that
the motivation for the changes must have nothing to do with making sure the ancestors
die by a certain time, because the changes merely increase the ages of the men at their
deaths. SP repeats what it did in Genesis 5 (reducing a life span) only in 11:32, and this
suggests that only in this single instance is the change motivated by a desire to ensure the
death of one of the fathers before a certain year. MT makes no adjustments to the
chronology whatsoever, so at least in this tradition, the overlap of generations was not of
sufficient concern to the scribes for them to make changes.
We must presume that LXXs revisions in Genesis 11 (including the addition of
another ancestor, a second Kenan beside the one in 5:12) serve the same purpose they do
in Genesis 5: to move the generations further back in time. Indeed the addition of a full
generation between Arpachshad and Shelah can serve no other function. LXXs
chronology pushes the Flood date back a further 565 years (cf. Gen 5 in LXX above). SP
probably has similar motivations. Its Flood date has been pushed back 650 years. As in
the case of Genesis 5, it seems likely that knowledge of other chronologies outside of the

137
Hendel, Genesis 1-11, 62-63.
92


Bible, which placed the Flood further back in time, prompted these revisions. Josephus
famous passage from Against Apion (I:14), which equates the Israelite oppression in
Egypt with the rule of the Hyksos, is based on Manethos History of Egypt. Josephus
version of Manetho, which scholars today generally consider highly defective, assigns
511 years to the Hyksos rule (apparently Dynasties XVI and XVII). Africanus version of
Manetho assigns 669 years to these two dynasties, while Eusebius version only gives
Dynasty XVII to the shepherd-kings and assigns it 103 years. It is difficult to say which
version (if any of these) the translators of LXX had before them. However, it is clear that
they were uncomfortable with the 430 years given for the oppression period, and their
attempt to cut it in half by a slick alteration of Exodus 12:40 (And the dwelling of the
Israelites that they dwelt in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan: 430 years) is a
way of overcoming the chronological problem that they saw. Manetho assigns a lengthy
period for Egyptian dynasties IX through XV (2,403 years according to Africanus and
1,316 according to Eusebius).
138
The original chronology of Genesis 11 (counting 1,014
years from the Flood to the Exodus) would not have been harmonizable with Manetho
(whether according to Africanus or Eusebius). However, SPs and LXXs figures are
compatible with Eusebius readings. If the scribes of SP and the translators of LXX had a
version of Manetho like Eusebius, the adjustments to the biblical text may be the result
of attempts to harmonize the two chronologies.
There are a few other anomalous readings to account for. With the knowledge that
LXX added 100 years to the ages of the fathers at the births of their sons, we should
expect that LXXs readings for Arpachshad and Shelah would be 135 + 403 and 130 +

138
Verbrugghe and Wickersham, Berossus and Manetho, 131-39.
93


403 respectively. Instead we get 135 + 430 and 130 + 330. In both cases, we have a
change for the remaining years in the fathers life. Klein is probably correct in attributing
this discrepancy to scribal error. In the first case, a scribe would have confused L"L for
2`L"L. In the second, there would be the same mistake, plus a more serious error of
writing L"L again instead of .2N.
MT also contains an error of the same sort in the entry for Eber. We should expect
a reading of 34 + 270 (the latter number preserved correctly in SP), but we get 34 + 430
instead. This error is more difficult to account for, but Hendel is probably right to
attribute it to an accidental copying of Shelahs remaining years of life, plus another
misreading of L"L for 2`L"L.
The final anomalous reading to account for is SPs total age for Terah (145
instead of 205). The life of this patriarch is shortened by 60 years. We should expect a
similar rationale as that for SPs shortened life spans in Genesis 5: a desire to make sure
the person dies by a certain time (in this case, Terah). In Genesis 11:32 Terah dies, and
the implication is that he does so before Abrams departure from Haran in 12:4-5. If
Terah lived until 205, he would have survived Abrams departure by 60 years. SP solves
this apparent contradiction by subtracting 60 years from Terahs life span, thus ensuring
that Terah dies before Abram leaves (but as late as possible and thus in the exact year of
Abrams departure). SPs method for alleviating the difficulty is the same as its method
in Genesis 5. MT also was concerned about this problem, but solved it a different way: by
removing the word |"2 (in Haran) from the phrase And the days of Terah in Haran
were 205 years in Genesis 11:32 (cf. LXX).
94


This analysis best explains the variant readings in MT, SP, and LXX. We
therefore should be confident that a source text common to all three manuscript traditions
contained the following figures:
Gen 5:3 Adam 130 + 800 = 930
Gen 5:6 Seth 105 + 807 = 912
Gen 5:9 Enosh 90 + 815 = 905
Gen 5:12 Kenan 70 + 840 = 910
Gen 5:15 Mahalalel 65 + 830 = 895
Gen 5:18 Jared 62 + 800 = 962
Gen 5:21 Enoch 65 + 300 = 365
Gen 5:25 Methuselah 67 + 902 = 969
Gen 5:28 Lamech 53 + 724 = 777
Gen 5:32 Noah 500
Gen 7:6; 9:28 Noahs age at Flood 600 + 350 = 950
Gen 11:10 Shem 100 + 500 [= 600]
Gen 11:10 adjustment +2
Gen 11:12 Arpachshad 35 + 403 [= 438]
Gen 11:14 Shelah 30 + 403 [= 433]
Gen 11:16 Eber 34 + 370 [= 404]
Gen 11:18 Peleg 30 + 209 [= 239]
Gen 11:20 Reu 32 + 207 [= 239]
Gen 11:22 Serug 30 + 200 [= 230]
Gen 11:24 Nahor 29 + 119 [= 148]
Gen 11:26, 32 Terah 70 [+ 135] = 205

This, or something close to it, was the genealogical chronology of the redacted Primary
History (pre-3
rd
century BCE).


C. Sources of the Priestly Genealogical Chronology

1. Preliminary Considerations

We may now work back from this archetypal chronology in order to determine its
provenance. It is generally held that whoever included the material now in Genesis 5 and
11, either the author of P or the Redactor, gathered his chronological information from a
written source and incorporated the data into the narrative, perhaps even reproducing the
95


source word-for-word. Many view the statement in Genesis 5:1 2N "` 7 l
(This is the scroll of the generations of Adam) as a citation of the source, or perhaps its
own heading.
139
Considering that a similar statement occurs in LXX in Genesis 2:4
(This is the scroll of the generations of the heavens and the earth) and that the phrase
these are the generations is used frequently throughout Genesis, it is best to assume a
consistent use of l and "N and see them as referring to the text that follows, rather than
as pointers to a source. Our observation that the variations in the manuscripts of Genesis
5 and 11 were caused by the conflation of two partially-conflicting chronologies (a
chronology for the Flood and a genealogical chronology) has sufficiently discredited the
assumption that the genealogy of Jacob had already been harmonized into one unified
system, chronology included, before the version we see before us was even composed.
These chronologies were not harmonized before they came into our text. While it is
probable that R composed the toledot headings, because they have knowledge of and
organize all of the main Pentateuchal sources,
140
the genealogy of Genesis 5 and 11, for
reasons I will show below, is most likely from P. If so, the heading cannot be a source
citation, because R would not likely have known Ps source(s).
My reason for attributing the genealogy to P comes from the following
considerations:
First, the date of the Flood appears twice. A precise date occurs in Genesis 7:11:
In the 600
th
year of Noahs life, in the 2
nd
month, on the 17
th
day of the month, on this
day, all the springs of the great deep were burst, and the gates of the skies were opened.

139
See, for example, Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 40.
96


This datum we have already established as redactorial (see Chapter One, Section C.2.). A
more general date occurs in Genesis 7:6: And Noah was a son of 600 years, and the
flood camewaters on the earth. Although this statement could also be from the hand
of the composer of 7:11, it seems rather unnecessary for him to have provided both a
general date and a more specific one. More likely is that the text has undergone
expansion. The logical direction of growth would be from less specific to more specific
information, so it is probable that the original datum is in Genesis 7:6, and that it was
composed (or inserted) by the author of P. The Redactor was unsatisfied with the general
time reference, and so added the specific year, month, and day to pinpoint the precise
timing of the event. However, always respectful of his sources, and not willing to cut
them, he left Genesis 7:6 in. The same can be said about the wilderness trek. P states that
the Israelites were in the wilderness for 40 years (Num 14:34). However, Rs wilderness
chronology adds precision to the general chronology of P, dating events down to the
actual month and day in a given year.
Second, at the conclusion of the Noah pericope, we find this statement:
And Noah lived, after the flood, 350 years. And all the days of Noah were 950
years, and he died (Gen 9:28-29).
Now according to R, who seems intent on making the flood endure a complete year,
Noah was 600 years old when the flood began (Gen 7:11), and 601 when it ended (Gen
8:13). This harmonizes with Ps datum, which also makes Noah 600 when the flood
occurs (Gen 7:6). However, the year-long duration of the Flood creates a conflict with the

140
See Cross, CMHE, 301-05, David Miano, "The Twelve Sepharim of the Torah," The Biblical Historian
1.1 (2004): 10-19.
97


datum in Genesis 9:28-29, which allows Noah a life of only 350 years after the flood,
making his total life span 950 years.
141
In Rs scheme, Noahs life would add up to 951
years. So R overshoots the total by a year. This was not a problem for P, who simply put
the flood in a single year (when Noah was 600).
142
Thus Genesis 9:28-29 is in harmony
with Genesis 7:6, which belongs to P, and not with Genesis 7:11 and 8:13, which belong
to R.
Third, the phrasing of Genesis 9:28-29 mimics the phrasing found repeated so
often in the genealogical list of Genesis 5:
And PN1 lived, after his siring PN2, # years, and he sired sons and daughters.
And all the days of PN1 came to be # years, and he died.
The similarity between the statement of Genesis 9:28-29 and the statements at the end of
each entry in the genealogy of Genesis 5 suggests common authorship, particularly
because we should expect a concluding rubric for Noah in the genealogy, and the one in
Genesis 9:28-29 is the only one that exists. In short, the author of P is responsible (either
as author or editor) for Genesis 5:3-32, Genesis 9:28-29, and Genesis 11:10b-26, and R is
not.

141
When counting, I am understanding the phrase after the Flood in the same sense as the phrase after
his fathering PN in Genesis 5 and 11. It could be argued that the 350 years is to be counted from the end
of the downpour, rather than the end of the period that the waters overwhelmed the earth, and this indeed
may be the way R understands the chronology (one of his sources, J, certainly does [Gen 7:17]). However,
P explicitly defines the Flood as the period that the waters were on the earth (Gen 7:6).
142
The fact that these numbers are inclusively counted makes no difference. Remember that when adding
up two blocks of time, even though each block is counted inclusively, because the second block begins the
year after the first block ends, an additional year is added to the equation (see Chapter Two, Section A).
Thus 601 (inclusive) + 350 (inclusive) + 1 = 951 (inclusive). If we restate the equation in our own temporal
terms, we come up with the following: According to R, who seems intent on making the flood endure a
complete year, Noah was 599 years old when the flood began, and 600 when it ended. This harmonizes
with Ps datum, which also makes Noah 599 when the flood occurs. However, the years duration created a
conflict with the datum in Genesis 9:28-29, which allows Noah a life of only 350 years after the flood,
making his total life span 949 years. Rs total is 600 + 350 = 950 (one year past 949).
98


What is interesting is that, while the chronological calculations in Genesis 5 are
based on the years that fathers beget sons, the chronological calculation of Genesis 9:28-
29 is based on the year of an event, namely, the Flood. We would expect that Noahs
death age would be calculated from his age at the birth of his sons Shem, Ham, and
Japheth, but such is not the case; it is based on the Flood date. Why is this fact
significant? Recall that the variants in the manuscripts have suggested to us that earlier in
the tradition the Flood date was in conflict with other data in the genealogical
chronology. We concluded that the Flood date (the 600
th
year of Noah) is not likely to
have been taken from the same source as the genealogical data. Yet the Flood date and
the genealogy are interwoven in the present text and are mathematically dependent on
one another. If the Flood date (the 600
th
year of Noah) is crucial to the phrase: And
Noah lived, after the flood, 350 years, and is not from the same source as the
genealogical chronology, then logically, the statements of the same pattern in Genesis 5
(And PN1 lived, after his siring PN2, # years) also cannot derive from the source that
provided the genealogical chronology. That being the case, while two of the three
numbers given in each entry in the genealogy (that is, the age of a father at the birth of his
son and the fathers total life span) could have come from a written source or sources that
the editor possessed, it is doubtful that the middle figure (the years between the birth of a
son and the death of his father) did. The intervening years between the event and the
death of a patriarch must be calculations of the editor. In other words, if that phrase (and
PN lived after [event] # years) incorporates numbers from two sources, it itself cannot
come from either of those sources. The inference is that the author/editor of P was
working with two chronologies and attempting to fit them together. This would mean all
99


the data in Ps genealogical chronology do not come from a single source, but probably
from two.
In regard to the two written sources from which the priestly author/editor
theoretically drew (which most likely go unnamed), although it seems clear that the editor
did not reproduce them verbatim, I believe it is possible to identify which information
derives from which, and to reconstruct most of their chronological data with relative
confidence. As we shall see, the first would have contained a generational chronology
providing the age of each father at the birth of his son, and the other, which contained a
date for the Flood (the 600
th
year of Noah), was part of a different chronology that
provided also the long life spans of the patriarchs.

2. Pedigrees
a. Ancient Linear Genealogies in General

Pedigrees are genealogies that list the male members of a family in a vertical
father/son sequence. They may move forward or backward in time. Their linear nature
distinguishes them from branching genealogies, which spread out horizontally as well
as vertically (cf. Genesis 10 [branching] with Genesis 11 [linear]).
143

Ancient Mesopotamian pedigrees of a greater depth than three or four generations
are most often found in king lists, which list dynasties of rulers, father to son, providing
their years of reign. In this group are the Sumerian King List (c. 21
st
to 17
th
century
BCE), the Royal Chronicle of Laga (c. 18
th
century BCE), the Babylonian King List (c.

143
Alternate terms are linear genealogy and segmented genealogy. See Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy
and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 9.
100


18
th
century BCE), and the Assyrian King List (copies range from the 11
th
to the 8
th

century BCE).
144
The last is the best example in that it explicitly and more consistently
refers to the genealogical relationship of a king to his predecessor. The beginning of the
Assyrian King List contains some etiological genealogies that combine Amorite oral and
Sumero-Akkadian written traditions about the ancient ancestors. They are called kings,
but this attribution is likely secondary.
Early Greek pedigrees that might be comparable to those found in the Bible
include Hecataeus Genealogies and Circuit of the Earth (late sixth/early fifth century
BCE), both of which are no longer extant, but which are commented on by others.
Herodotus recounts an incident where Hecataeus claimed he could recite his ancestry
back to the gods (16 generations).
145
On a tombstone is inscribed the pedigree of a man
named Heropythos, who counts back 14 generations. The tombstone is generally dated to
the first quarter of the fifth century.
146
The pedigree of Miltiades the Elder, consisting of
14 names, appears in Marcellinus Life of Thucydides (fifth century CE), who cites a
certain Didymus as his source (probably Didymus Chalcenterus of the first century
BCE).
147
Didymus is likely to have obtained the information from a work entitled
Genealogies, no longer extant, by the famous genealogist Pherecydes of Athens (c. 5
th

century BCE).
148
We might also include two Spartan pedigrees of 21 generations,

144
Texts and translations in Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles . Full discussion in Wilson, Genealogy
and History in the Biblical World, 72-114.
145
Histories 2:143.1-144.2.
146
E. Schwyzer, ed., Dialectorum Graecarum Exempla Epigraphica Potiora (Hildescheim: Georg Olms,
1960), 690.
147
Marcellinus, Vit. Thuc. 2-4.
148
Taylor, Framing the Past, 25.
101


reproduced in Herodotus.
149
Technically these are king lists, but like the Assyrian King
List from Mesopotamia, they are presented in pedigree form and explicitly mention the
genealogical relationship of a king to his predecessor. It would appear that persons are
included who never ruled, and Spartan kings who are not in the straight line of descent
are omitted. The noble familes of Greece are likely to have kept track of their
genealogies.
150
Pedigrees clearly show an interest in connecting the historical period of
the present with the age of gods and heroes, and all the major families would have seen
the need to provide some evidence of their connection to the past.
151
We see evidence of
this desire on the part of the postexilic Jewish community in the first several chapters of
Chronicles, in which we find examples of living persons tracing their ancestry into the
semi-mythic past. The Torahs genealogies do not extend all the way to the time of the
writers, but the lists may be preserved portions of longer genealogies.

b. The Life Spans of the Forefathers
When we gather all of the data in the Torah concerned only with the ages of
persons at their deaths,
152
we find the life spans of the patriarchs running from Adam to
Joshua, and they generally diminish the further down the list we go.




149
Histories 7:204 and 8:131.2.
150
Alden A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg,
Pa.: Bucknell University Press, 1979), 101.
151
For a discussion of early Greek pedigrees, see Taylor, Framing the Past, 20-30.
152
The data from Genesis 5 and 11 is from our presumed archetypal text.
102


Adam
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arpachshad
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham
Sarah
Isaac
Jacob
Joseph
Levi
Kohath
Amram
Aaron
Moses
Joshua
930
912
905
910
895
962
365
969
777
950
600
438
433
404
239
239
230
148
205
175
127
180
147
110
137
133
137
123
120
110

The first question to ask is whether all of these data derive from the same source.
We have established, already, the likelihood that the data in Genesis 5 were composed or
copied into the text by P. On the other end of the list of life spans, we are less certain who
included them. Let us look at the precise wording of the entries for each person:
And all the days of Adam, which he lived, were 930 years. And he died.
And all the days of Seth were 912 years. And he died.
And all the days of Enosh were 905 years. And he died.
And all the days of Kenan were 910 years. And he died.
And all the days of Mahalalel were 895 years. And he died.
And all the days of Jared were 962 years. And he died.
103


And all the days of Enoch were 365 years. And he was no more, because God
took him.
And all the days of Methuselah were 969 years. And he died.
And all the days of Lamech were 777 years. And he died.
And all the days of Noah were 950 years. And he died.
And the days of Terah were 205 years. And Terah died in Haran.
And the life of Sarah was 127 years. And Sarah died in Kiriath-arba.
These are the days of the years of the life of Abraham, which he lived: 175
years. And he expired and died, old and satisfied, and he was gathered to his
people.
And the days of Isaac were 180 years. And he expired and died, old and
satisfied with days.
And the days of Jacob, the years of his life, came to be 147 years. And he
expired and was gathered to his people.
And Joseph lived 110 years.
And Joseph died a son of 110 years.
And the years of the life of Levi were 137 years.
And the years of the life of Kohath were 133 years.
And the years of the life of Amram were 137 years.
And Aaron was a son of 123 years when he died.
And Moses was a son of 120 years when he died.
And Joshua the servant of Yahweh died a son of 110 years.

We know that the entry concerning Aaron is not from P, but from R, since it is set
directly in a document added by R (Num 33). We know also that the entries for Levi,
Kohath, and Amram are from R, since they also are set directly in a pericope added by R
(Exod 6:14-27).
153
Since the entry for Moses is worded exactly the same as the one for
Aaron is, and is unlike any other, it can also confidently be assigned to R. The entry on
Joshua stands apart, because, first of all, Joshua is not a descendant of anyone on the list,
and second, because the entry is found in the book of Joshua (outside the Pentateuch). Of
the two authors, only R had anything to do with the book of Joshua, so we should also
probably assign the entry to him. We could entertain the idea that the datum is from a
Deuteronomistic source, but, if so, it would be the only datum of this type from that

153
See Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 128-29.
104


source, an anomaly. So R is still the best suggestion. The entry on Joseph matches the
one on Joshua, and is unlike any other, so it too is most likely from R.
We can already see an interesting phenomenon. All the entries so far ascribed to
R are at the conclusion of the list, running from Joseph to the end. Moreover, none of the
entries by R contain the word `C` (the days of), which is a stock phrase of Ps
genealogy of Genesis 5, whereas all of the non-R entries do. The only exception is the
entry for Sarah. Is it possible that this entry is from R as well? Without Sarah, Ps ages
would run a straight male line from Adam to Jacob without any digressions and would
therefore form a full and tidy paternal pedigree. Significantly, in contrast to all of the P
entries, Rs contributions, including Sarah, have no anchor whatsoever to Ps
genealogical chronology. In other words, it is impossible to date the deaths of the first
five persons, and the dating of the deaths of the final three is possible only because of
their (coincidental?) connection to the exodus/conquest chronology.
My argument is that one of the lists used by the author of P was a pedigree of the
patriarchs from Adam to Jacob, which listed the life durations of each man. As I will go
on to demonstrate, it appears this list also gave Noahs age at the time of the Flood: 600.
Suffice it to say for now that the great age of Noah at this event coincides with the
extreme ages of the persons on this list.
One might wonder why a list containing the total ages of the patriarchs would
ever have been composed. Certainly the list would serve no chronological purpose, since
death ages are irrelevant to chronology (unless one wishes to date a death) and cannot be
used to create a timeline. (In other words, the years of the list cannot be added up to
measure an era, because a son did not begin to live in the year his father died.) We are
105


left with no other conclusion but that the record of life spans serves another, probably
ideological, purpose. When Hesiod recounts the cycle of ages, he draws attention to the
long life spans of those who lived in days past as an evidence of their superiority, and
notes how the life spans diminish with each successive age.
154
Similarly, a list showing
the great ages of the ancestors of Israel probably emphasize the strength and greatness of
the worlds forefathers and the degenerate state of humankind in later times. As in
Hesiod, there is a correspondence between the life durations of the patriarchs and the
time period in which they live. Thus, those who live prior to the Flood (with the
exception of Enoch, who is said to have died young) live between 700 and 1000 years,
those who live from the Flood to Abraham (with the exception of Nahor, who is said to
have died young) live between 200 and 600 years of age, and those who live from
Abraham to Moses live between 100 and 200 years of agemight we say, an age of gold,
an age of silver, and an age of bronze? The ability to recount specific numbers gives
evidence of the superior knowledge of the scribe.

c. A Generational Pedigree in Genesis 5 and 11
The second source P used for his genealogical pedigree would have been a list of
generations, with a figure indicating the length of each generation. The word dr is not
found in Ps pedigree, but is a fitting descriptor for the length of time measured in the
pedigree.
Although both the life span pedigree and the generational pedigree provided by P
run all the way to Jacob and end there, indications are that the two lists originally were of

154
Works and Days, ll. 109-201.
106


different lengths, and that the author of P had to add to the shorter one to make them
equal. For the most part, the figures for the ages of the fathers at the births of their sons in
Ps genealogy are within the parameters of biological possibility, with the notable
exception of Noah, and perhaps also Adam, Seth, Shem, and Abraham. When we
examine the ages that are given for the fathers when they sire their sons, one notices that
there is a descending pattern in the ages, with two notable exceptions in the middle, and
three at the end:
130 (Adam begot Seth)
105 (Seth begot Enosh)
90 (Enosh begot Kenan)
70 (Kenan begot Mahalalel)
65 (Mahalalel begot Jared)
62 (Jared begot Enoch)
65 (Enoch begot Methuselah)
67 (Methuselah begot Lamech)
53 (Lamech begot Noah)
500 (Noah begot Shem)
100 (Shem begot Arpachshad)
35 (Arpachshad begot Shelah)
30 (Shelah begot Eber)
34 (Eber begot Peleg)
30 (Peleg begot Reu)
32 (Reu begot Serug)
30 (Serug begot Nahor)
29 (Nahor begot Terah)
70 (Terah begot Abraham)
100 (Abraham begot Isaac)
60 (Isaac begot Jacob)

The entries for Noah and Shem in the middle, and Terah, Abraham and Isaac at
the end, containing large, round numbers, are rather conspicuous anomalies in the list.
Why might that be? For the middle entries I would suggest that other chronological data
in the text are forcing the numbers to be higher. In the cases of Noah and Shem, the
important Flood chronology is affecting the data. We have very specific information
107


elsewhere that Noah was 600 years old at the time the flood came (Gen 7:6). We also
have information that Shem was 600 years old when he died (Gen 11:10-11). As was
argued, these data probably come from the life span pedigree. If Noahs age at the birth
of Shem was only around 50, as the overall pattern in the above list suggests he would be,
and Shems age was about 45 when he gave birth to Arpachshad, then we have a
problem. Shem would have been 550 years old when the flood occurred, and Arpachshad
would have been 505. Actually, several more generations would have been alive at the
Flood, including the whole family line up to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph! None of
these persons could have been born before the flood, not even Arpachshad, because the
Flood story makes it clear that only Noah, his wife, his three sons, and his sons wives
were on the ark. There werent any grandchildren until afterward. It thus seems that the
editor/author of P had to make some adjustments. He could have increased Shems age to
551 or so at the time of his siring Arpachshad, but it would have been tougher for a
reader to swallow the idea that Shem was so old when he accompanied his father on the
ark and when he fathered a son. By making Noah (a very special man) 500 years old at
the birth of his sons, and Shem 100 at the birth of his son, the story is a bit more
believable and the difficulty is alleviated. We therefore have reason to doubt that these
readings were in Ps source text.
For the entries at the end of the list, the anomalous numbers suggest that the
original list did not stretch all the way to Isaac and had to be supplemented. In Terahs
case, a motivation for the higher age does not seem to be chronological. We have
information from the life span pedigree that he died when he was 205 (Gen 11:32). We
also have information that Abraham was 175 years old when he died (Gen 25:7). If Terah
108


were only about 30 years old, as the pattern in the present list suggests he would be, then
Terah would have lived just long enough to see the death of his son. However, this
observation would not have been sufficient motivation for the priestly editor to alter
Terahs age, as is evidenced by the fact that several of Abrahams ancestors live well into
his lifetime, and some beyond. The overlap of generations simply was not an issue. To be
sure, the text implies that Terah was already dead when Abraham left for Canaan (cf.
11:32a [Terahs death notice] and 12:4b-5 [Abrahams departure], both of which are P
texts), and this may have been cause for concern, particularly because the text originally
read that Terah lived 205 years in Haran (see above), but an increase in Terahs age at
Abrahams birth from 30 to 70 would not have resolved that problem. Thus no
motivation for an alteration in the case of Terah is apparent, and yet since the reading
does not fit the pattern of the pedigree, we are still wise to consider it alien. A reasonable
explanation is that the original pedigree concluded with the birth of Terah, and since
there was no figure for Terahs age at the birth of his son, or Abrahams at the birth of
his, or Isaacs at the birth of his, the priestly editor had to create one. Still, why did he
make the numbers so high? There certainly is a case for making Abrahams high, as he is
supposed to be an old man at the birth of Isaac (cf. Gen 17:17), and in Isaacs case his
wife is said to have been barren for some time (Gen 25:20-21). Yet there is nothing in the
narrative that would demand that Abraham be as old as 100 or Isaac as old as 60 when
their children are born. The priestly editor most likely was trying to extend the period
from the Flood to the Israelitesentry into Egypt. Increasing the ages of Terah, Abraham,
and Isaac allowed him to add another 100 years or more to the chronology.
155


155
Cf. the similar motivations of LXX in Genesis 5 and both LXX and SP in Genesis 11 (see Section B.3.
109


The normal length of a generation in Ps source can be seen in the more recent
entries, i.e., Arpachshad through Nahor, and would have fallen between 29 and 35 years.
As we go back in time through the list, the generations grow longer.
Arpachshad to Nahor = generation range 29-35
Lamech to Shem = generation range x 1.5 (44-53)
Kenan to Methuselah = generation range x 2 (58-70)
Seth to Enosh = generation range x 3 (87-105)
Adam = generation range x 4 (116-140)
While there are five divisions between each section of the generational chronology, each
with its own generational norm, the life spans are consistent between Adam and Noah
(700-1000 years) and then also between Shem and Abraham (200-600 years). In other
words, there is no consistency between the life span norm and the generational norm. We
thus have further evidence that the two lists were originally unrelated.
156

Although it is unusual to find a pedigree with a chronology built in, it is not
unusual for pedigrees to be used for chronological purposes. Greek genealogies, for
example, although they do not contain chronological data, were sometimes fitted into
chronologies. Ever since the study of Eduard Meyer, it has been argued that Greek
chronology was often based on their pedigrees.
157
Assuming a certain length of time for
one generation, the ancient historians would calculate how far back certain persons would
have lived. However, it may be more accurate to say that chronologies were created

above).
156
Another example of unresolved inconsistency is that Moses, Aaron, and Joshua are in the era of
extended life spans, but the curse of 40 years in the wilderness (Num 14:32-34) implies a realistic life span.
110


independently and then were harmonized with the genealogies. Greek historians played
with generation lengths and imposed them on preexisting genealogies in order to fit
famous persons of the past properly into an accepted timeline. No single generational
norm figure was in use across the board. In fact, even a single chronographer might use
more than one figure.
158
P appears to be doing the same thing, and its generational norm
is likewise inconsistent.
159



3. Conclusions
From what we have seen, the genealogical list that begins in Genesis 5 appears to
be a conflation of at least two different catalogues. One was a pedigree listing the ages of
the fathers at the births of their sons. The numbers tended to be low. The other was a
pedigree with the total ages of the patriarchs. The numbers tended to be high, and the
Flood date was late in the life of Noah (600 years). With their combination,
accommodations had to be made: Noahs and Shems birthdates had to be changed.
Moreover, there apparently were no birthdates for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so these

157
Eduard Meyer, "Herodots Chronologie der griechischen Sagengeschichte," in Forschungen zur alten
Geschichte (Halle: Niemeyer, 1892) I: 151-88. See also Donald Wilson Prakken, Studies in Greek
Genealogical Chronology (Lancaster, PA: Lancaster Press, 1943).
158
Thus, for example, Herodotus appears to construct chronologies based on several different generation
lengths, including 23, 26, 33, 34, 39 and 40 years. See discussion in Mosshammer, The Chronicle of
Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition, 105-12. Cf. also John Forsdyke, Greece Before Homer:
Ancient Chronology and Mythology (New York: W.W. Norton, 1964), 28-43, Samuel, Greek and Roman
Chronology, 241-45.
159
As in Greece, Israeite genealogies originally were not created for historical purposes. Only later were
they adopted to suit the needs of chronographers. See Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical
World, 199-200. That the genealogy of Genesis 5 once existed without the chronology is evident in that it
appears, without the chronology and in an alternate form, in Genesis 4. For a comparison of the two
genealogies, see ibid., 161.
111


were supplied in accordance with the P authors conception of the length of time
spanning Terahs and Josephs lives.

Table 3.3: Sources of the Ages in the Priestly Genealogy

Verse Name Catalogue 1 Catalogue 2 Editor
Gen 5:3
Gen 5:6
Gen 5:9
Gen 5:12
Gen 5:15
Gen 5:18
Gen 5:21
Gen 5:25
Gen 5:28
Gen 5:32
Gen 7:6
Gen 9:29
Gen 11:10-11
Gen 11:12-13
Gen 11:14-15
Gen 11:16-17
Gen 11:18-19
Gen 11:20-21
Gen 11:22-23
Gen 11:24-25
Gen 11:26, 32
Gen 16:16
Gen 21:5
Gen 25:7
Gen 25:26
Gen 35:28
Gen 47:28
Adam
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Noah
Noah
Shem
Arpachshad
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham
Abraham
Abraham
Isaac
Isaac
Jacob
130 (begot Seth)
105 (begot Enosh)
90 (begot Kenan)
70 (begot Mahalalel)
65 (begot Jared)
62 (begot Enoch)
65 (begot Methuselah)
67 (begot Lamech)
53 (begot Noah)
[50] (begot Shem)


[45] (begot Arpachshad)
35 (begot Shelah)
30 (begot Eber)
34 (begot Peleg)
30 (begot Reu)
32 (begot Serug)
30 (begot Nahor)
29 (begot Terah)





930 (died)
912 (died)
905 (died)
910 (died)
895 (died)
962 (died)
365 (died)
969 (died)
777 (died)

600 (Flood)
950 (died)
600 (died)
438 (died)
433 (died)
404 (died)
239 (died)
239 (died)
230 (died)
148 (died)
205 (died)


175 (died)

180 (died)
147 (died)









500 (begot 3 sons)


100 (begot Arpach.)







70 (begot 3 sons)
86 (begot Ishmael)
100 (begot Isaac)

60 (begot Jacob)



When the priestly author/editor composed the lists in Genesis 5 and 11, he took
the age of the father at the birth of his son from Source 1, calculated the interval between
that age and the age of the mans death, as recorded in Source 2, and included the figure
for the interval in the list (a number that did not appear in either source). In Genesis 11,
he appears not to even have bothered to include the total age of the individual from
112


Source 2; he merely gave the figure for the intervening years. The reason for this
difference is unclear, but may be simply because, while desiring to preserve the lengthy
life spans to emphasize the greatness of the ancestors, he was not entirely comfortable
with the chronological implications (the overlap of generations) and did not wish to make
them obvious.

113
IV.
HEGEMONIC CHRONOLOGIES
160


A. Chronological Sources of the Deuteronomistic History
1. Time as Seen by the Deuteronomistic Historians and their Audiences
The chronology used in the Deuteronomistic History is, for the most part,
concerned with the exploits of the rulers of Israel and Judah and derived from
administrative records or earlier historiographic works.
161
These sources, from which
many of the chronological data are derived, need to be distinguished, sorted and
compared. Also of interest are the artificial periods of time that the author and later
reviser of the DH created to fill in gaps left by the sources. Moreover, we would do well
to consider the Historians and his editors personal manners of reckoning time,
according to the custom of their own day, which they sometimes employ in the DH in
addition to the data derived from their sources. What will become apparent is that the
original version of the DH (Dtr
1
) contained a limited amount of chronological
information and that the second edition (Dtr
2
) added much more to the History and
systematized its chronology.
The chronological orientation of the exilic reviser of the DH is the easiest to
apprehend, a great deal more so than that of the original composer/compiler of the
History. We find an underlying assumption of a year beginning in the spring. Indeed,
Babylonian chronology pervades the closing chapter of the DH (2 Kings 25). The first

160
I use the term hegemonic chronologies to refer to those chronologies based upon the periods of time
that leaders of various kinds held sway over a community.
114


edition of the DH, no doubt written in pre-exilic times during the reign of Josiah, does not
appear to reflect a spring-based calendar (see Chapter One). A theory could be
entertained that Dtr
2
was produced among the Jewish community in Egypt (cf. 2 Ki
25:26), but then we should expect an Egyptian calendar to be reflected in the text.
Because the calendrical system to which the audience seems to be accustomed is in
keeping with that used in Babylon, it probably is best to see the second edition of the DH
as a product of the Babylonian community of Jews or of Jews elsewhere under
Babylonian dominion.
Because there is clearly a connection between the DH and many of the prose
sections of the Book of Jeremiah,
162
it would be wise to examine Jeremiah to see what
light it can shed on the method of reckoning that might have been employed in
calculations related to the rulers of Israel by both the Deuteronomistic Historian and the
later editor of the DH.

2. Chronological Sources for the Book of Jeremiah
It is important to note that all of the chronological material in Jeremiah has to do
with events from Jehoiakims reign forward. There are no data from the reign of Josiah
apart from the superscription, which mentions only the 13
th
year of that king (627 BCE),
the year of Jeremiahs call. Thus, while there may be a connection between the
authorship of the Book of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic History, there is no evidence

161
The historian cites a number of these sources (see below). Textual analysis has shown dependence on
unnamed sources as well. See Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 88-95
162
See Jack R. Lundbom, "Jeremiah, Book of," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman (Garden
City: Doubleday, 1992) III: 706-21, Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Deuteronomistic School," in Fortunate
115


in the book of Jeremiah of an interest in chronology by Jeremiah himself, or by whatever
scribe he employed, at the time the DH was first published.
In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim (605 BCE), some years after the initial
publication of the DH and many years before its exilic revision, the scribe Baruch ben
Neriah was asked to write a scroll for Jeremiah, which appears to have included both
earlier material from the reign of Josiah and new oracles pertaining to the current
situation in Judah and the then reigning king Jehoiakim (Jer 36:1-32).
163
The scroll was
destroyed, but a new one was composed shortly afterward (c. 604), and some have argued
that the contents of this rewritten scroll corresponded roughly to the first 20 chapters of
the present book.
164
Most of the material is poetry, although small sections of prose are
scattered throughout. Little of the writing bears resemblance to the prose of the
Deuteronomistic History. If Baruch wrote this section in 604, it involved little free
composition. It appears to be simply a compilation of Jeremiahs early and current
prophecies. Notable is that there are no chronological references anywhere in the poetry
or the prose.
From 605 to the end of Jeremiahs career sometime in the exile, a great deal more
material was added to the collection by Baruch, and perhaps others. There is a significant
amount of prose in these later additions, an indication that Baruch was permitted to
compose with greater freedom in relating the experiences of the prophet, and for the first

the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday, ed.
Astrid B. et al Beck (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995): 70-80.
163
Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 92-93 The date for the composition of
this scroll is arrived at by counting 23 years (Jer. 25:1-3) from the 13
th
year of Josiah (Jer. 1:2), i.e., 627
BCE.
116


time we are able to glimpse his literary talent and style. The narrative sections are similar
to the prose of the DH and reveal a greater interest in dates, although not as much as we
might suppose. There are differences between the chronological notices in Jeremiah and
the DH, some of which are governed by the subject matter, as in the case of the common
phrase the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah, which we naturally would not expect to
find in the DH, but which is a common feature of the Jeremianic chronological notices.
Another common feature of the Jeremianic notices is the phrase PN 3"CC `LN (in
the beginning of the reign of PN), which has sometimes been associated mistakenly with
the Akkadian expression re arruti. However, unlike the term `[]3"C .L (as in, e.g., 2
Ki 25:27), which is a closer semantic equivalent of re arruti, 3"CC `LN is a non-
technical term used to refer to a general time and does not mean accession year.
165
The
use of this general expression in the book of Jeremiah suggests that the phrase does not
come from a chronological source text, but is rather a creation of the scribe himself, who
may be writing from memory. The phrase most often occurs by itself (26:1; 27:1; 49:34).
It does, in one case, appear along with more precise data (28:1).
Jeremiah 28:1 makes an excellent case study of the formation of the chronological
references in the book. The superscription to the narrative reads as follows:
`L`C" L"2 `.2 .L2 `` _"C `S 3"CC `LN2 N` .L2 ```
And it happened in that year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah the king of
Judah, in the fourth year in the fifth month

164
Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1997), 42-44, Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 93-95. This grouping of chapters is held together by an inclusio,
Jeremiahs comment in 20:18 referring back to his call and commission (1:5).
117


The expression N` .L2 (in that year) refers back to the events of the
previous narrative (which is mistakenly attributed in MTs reading of 27:1 to the reign of
Jehoiakim, but is correctly stated as Zedekiah in a few manuscripts). Of interest is the
double time reference that follows. Both the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah and
the fourth year in the fifth month appear. It was hardly necessary for both references to
be included by the original writer, and although the more general reference does not
mean accession year, there still is a certain amount of tension between the two dates, so
the text has most likely undergone expansion.
166
The logical direction of growth would be
from less specific to more specific information, so it is probable that the original reading
contained only mention of the beginning of Zedekiahs reign. What this tells us is that a
later editor was unsatisfied with the original composers general time reference, and so he
added the specific year and month reference. Interestingly, the phrase in the fourth year
in the fifth month, because it dates an event both to a year and a month, resembles only
the chronological notices in the final chapter of the DH (2 Kings 25), an exilic addition.
Revisions like these suggest that the earlier authors of the book of Jeremiah and the
Deuteronomistic History had less interest in chronological specificity than those who
revised the works. We will examine this phenomenon in the Deuteronomistic History in
more detail below and see how it has a bearing on the chronology itself.




165
See Mordechai Cogan, "Chronology, Hebrew Bible," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman
(New York: Doubleday, 1992) I: 1002-11, esp. 1006.
118


3. Chronological Sources Relating to the Judges
The earliest hegemonic chronological data in the DH is found in the book of
Judges. The introduction to the book (2:6-23) provides a framework for its stories, which
contain the following elements:
1) The Israelites do what is bad in the sight of Yahweh.
2) Yahweh gives Israel into the power of an oppressor, whom they serve for a
specific term of years.
3) The Israelites cry out to Yahweh.
4) Yahweh raises up a savior.
5) The savior delivers Israel.
6) The foe is subdued.
7) The land is quiet for a specified term of years.
An analysis of the chronological presentation in the Book of Judges suggests that this
cycle began as a creation of the original composer/compiler of the Deuteronomistic
History, but was schematized further by the reviser of the History, who wrote the
introduction to the Judges narratives.
167
The elements of most interest to us are #2 and #7,
each of which provides a chronological datum. The first covers a period of time during
which Israel is understood not to have had a leader to govern it. The second apparently
represents a period of time that passed between the victory of a judge (#6) and the
beginning of the next oppression (#1).

166
See Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36 (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 329.
167
For a discussion of the evidence that suggests that the composer of Judges 2:11-19 was not the same as
the composer of the cycle of stories that follow, see Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew
Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 121-40.
119


Considering the periods of peace first (item #7), we may make some interesting
observations. The term is always given as 40 years, except in one instance, where a term
of 80 years is given (3:30). However, the higher figure in this latter instance may be
intended to cover the judgeships of both Ehud and Shamgar (3:31), in which case we
would have to conclude that the chronological notice of 3:30 presupposes the existence of
3:31. In other words, the 80-year period of peace assumes the existence of both Ehud and
Shamgar, so the brief comment concerning Shamgar is unlikely to be a late addition.
168

One might wonder why the author did not simply put a 40-year period of peace after
Ehud and then another after Shamgar (separately). The explanation most likely has to do
with the fact that the Philistine oppression does not end until the time of Saul. It would
therefore be impossible to claim a 40-year calm after the victory of Shamgar over the
Philistines. The Philistines are understood to be a thorn in Israels side for some time
afterwards. At the same time, the editor wanted to account for the judgeship of Shamgar.
The simplest way to maintain the pattern was to create a double period of peace after
Ehud.
The figures given for the periods of oppression (item #2 on the list above) may or
may not exhibit a pattern, but the scale tips slightly in favor of the former.




168
It is often argued that the note about Shamgar is a late interpolation that ruins the narrative flow from
3:30 to 4:1 (see, e.g., Soggin, Judges, 57-59). Yet verse 30 is incomplete in MT and should have ended
with the phrase And Ehud judged them until he died, as is evidenced by LXX. (The loss is attributable to
haplography due to homoeoarcton.) The note that Ehud had died in 4:1 only seems necessary if the text
120


(1) Judges 3:8 Mesopotamian oppression 8 years
(2) Judges 3:14 Moabite oppression 18 years
(3) Judges 4:3 Canaanite oppression 20 years
(4) Judges 6:1 Midianite oppression 7 years
(5) Judges 10:8 Ammonite oppression 18 years
(6) Judges 13:1 Philistine oppression 40 years

As has been noted by Hughes, there seems to be a form of schematic parallelism between
the period of the first three oppressions and the period of the second three.
169
To make the
parallel even closer, Hughes suggests that the text concerning the Mesopotamian
oppression originally read 7 years. No extant manuscript contains such a reading,
however. To support his view, Hughes points out that the figure of 300 years for the
period from the settlement to the beginning of the Ammonite oppression given at Judges
11:26 would exactly match the total of the 45 years mentioned at Joshua 14:10 and the
first four figures here, plus the 3 years of Abimelech (Judges 9:22), if it were reduced by
one year. As tempting as it would be to assume an original reading of 7 in Judges 3:8,
the evidence of Judges 11:26 is simply not enough to justify this position. Until a
manuscript shows up with this reading, it is best to retain the figure 8. On the other hand,
the figures given in this list do seem somewhat artificial. There is an ascending pattern in
each group of three numbers, the first two numbers in the sequence are almost identical in
each group, and the final number in the second group is exactly double the final number

had diverged from its context and required a resumptive repetition to bring the audience back to the main
storyline. In parallel verses (3:12; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1), we see no such repetition.
169
Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 73.
121


in the first group. This suggests that they did not come from a primary document or
inscription and are the creation of an editor, just as the figures for the periods of rest are.
I wish to discuss another set of chronological figures in the Book of Judges,
which may bear on our understanding of the other periods. These are the terms of office
for six of the judges (Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon). The chronology
associated with these judges has a very different character from the periods of rest and
periods of oppression. However, there are no instances where the History gives a specific
term length for a judge and a 40-year period of rest, and this suggests that one set of
figures is dependent on the other. These judges terms appear to derive from a source
document that was incorporated into the History at the time of its initial composition.
170

The document is in the form of a list, which recounts a succession of judges in annalistic
fashion, many of whom do not have significant narratives about them in Judges, and
includes the durations of their hegemonies over Israel. Each entry contains a picturesque
description of the judges kinsmen, which appears to be there as a memory aid. The
document is split in half, the first part appearing in 10:1-5 and the second part in 12:7-15.
Similarity in language seems to indicate that fragments also appear in 8:30, 32. The entire
extant text (with minor reconstructions) reads as follows:
[And after him Gideon son of Joash rose up to deliver Israel. And he
judged Israel ? years.] And Gideon had seventy sons that issued from his
member, for he had many wives.

Then Gideon the son of Joash died at a
good old age, and he was buried in the tomb of his father Joash at Ophrah
of the Abiezrites.
And after [him],
171
Tola the son of Puah the son of Dodo, a man of
Issachar, rose up to deliver Israel, and he was a resident in Shamir in the

170
Soggin, Judges, 195-200.
171
The text reads after Abimelech, but Abimelech does not feature in the list, and in all other instances,
the list uses the expression After him.
122


hill country of Ephraim. And he judged Israel twenty-three years. Then he
died, and he was buried in Shamir.
And after him, Jair the Gileadite rose up. And he judged Israel twenty-two
years. And he had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkeys; and they had
thirty towns,
172
which are in the land of the Gilead. Then Jair died, and he
was buried in Qamon.
[And after him, Jephthah the Gileadite rose up.]
173
And Jephthah judged
Israel six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died, and he was buried in his
town in Gilead.
174

And after him, Ibzan from Bethlehem judged Israel. And he had thirty
sons; and thirty daughters he sent to the outside, and thirty daughters he
brought in for his sons from the outside. And he judged Israel seven years.
Then Ibzan died, and was buried in Bethlehem.
And after him, Elon the Zebulunite judged Israel. And he judged Israel ten
years. Then Elon the Zebulunite died, and he was buried at Aijalon in the
land of Zebulun.
And after him, Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite judged Israel. And
he had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkeys. And
he judged Israel eight years. Then Abdon son of Hillel the Pirathonite
died, and was buried in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the hill country
of the Amalekites.

One of the first observations we can make about this document is that the
beginning is missing. In all probability, the document was incomplete when the
Deuteronomistic Historian put it into the History. If the number of years for Gideons
term were known, he would have preferred to retain that figure rather than providing a
general 40-year period to cover his time. We know this, because when he incorporated

172
Reading 2`., as in LXX, instead of MT 2``. (see Robert G. Boling, "Some Conflate Readings in
Joshua-Judges," Vetus Testamentum 16 [1966], 295-96). The following sentence, Them they call the
Villages of Jair to this day, is an addition by the Deuteronomistic Historian, as is evidenced by his typical
expression until this day (see Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, Until Whose Day? A Study of the Phrase "Until This
Day" in the Deuteronomistic History, History [Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego, 1999]).
173
These words are missing in the biblical text, because they had to be removed in order for the narrative as
it stands to make sense.
174
MT reads, in the towns of Gilead, which could only be true if Jephthahs body parts were buried in
separate places. LXXs reading (in his town in Gilead) is preferable.
123


the Jephthah traditions into the work, he retained the six-year figure from this source
document, rather than sticking in his usual 40-year figure.
The judges terms of office as given in this source document do not display any
patterns that might suggest that the numbers are artificial. In this they differ greatly from
the periods of rest and the periods of oppression. Whether we may trust them as
historically reliable is another question, but since they are incomplete and there is no way
to anchor any part of this short chronology to a known historical date, they are not likely
to be useful for any historical chronological calculations.
Closer examination of the Book of Judges seems to indicate that the numbers
associated with the periods of oppression were not created by the same editor/author as
the one who devised the figures for the 40-year periods of peace. It is usually understood
that the calm that sets over the land (the land had no disturbance) refers to a time that
extends from an Israelite victory over one oppressor until the beginning of the next
oppression (and this is certainly what the creator of the oppression chronology has in
mind). However, the original intention seems to have been to indicate that the 40-years is
a period between wars. The Deuteronomistic Historian, in a similar description of a
period of calm, explicitly says this: the land had no disturbance from war (Joshua
11:23). In other words, when the 40 years is over, a war should break out. The editor who
created the periods of oppression, on the other hand, understands only a period of
servitude to follow the 40 years, and not a war. Sometimes the oppressors make raids on
Israel, but no real battles take place until a judge rises up. In the original edition of the
History, the 40-year periods are more or less equivalent to the terms of the judges. This
appears to be confirmed by Judges 4:1, which tells us that Ehuds death, which marked
124


the end of his judgeship, also marked the end of 40 years (see also 3:11 and 8:48). Use of
the 40-year gaps was a convenient substitution for a term of office and a way for the
Deuteronomistic Historian to move the stories forward in time one generation. An
additional piece of evidence that suggests that the oppression chronology is secondary is
in Judges 10:8, where the figure for the period of Ammonite oppression interrupts the
flow of the sentence in which it is embedded:
And they shattered and oppressed the Israelites in that year18 years,
all the Israelites that were on the side of the Jordan in the land of the
Amorites that was in Gilead.

Moreover, the mention of an oppression of both Ammonites and Philistines in the
previous verse (part of the original DH narrative) sets the stage for the exploits not only
of Jephthah, who fought the Ammonites, but of Samson and Samuel, who fought the
Philistines, making the notice of a 40-year Philistine oppression in Judges 13:1
superfluous. A final piece of evidence is that, without the oppression periods, the total
time of the period from the entry into Canaan to the rise of Jephthah equals 290 years
plus the length of the reign of Abimelech (unstated in the first edition), a total that
coincides with the 300-year figure mentioned by Jephthah in Judges 11:26.
175

The purpose of the expanded chronology that included the periods of oppression
(and the note about the 3-year kingship of Abimelech in Judges 9:22) is to create a
chronological period for the time of the judges that equals 479 years, so that the

175
5 years for the Conquest (Josh 14:10), 40 years for the passing of one generation (Judg 2:10), 40 years
each for Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, and Gideon (200 years total), 23 years for Tola (Judg 10:2), and
22 years for Jair (Judg 10:3). It would seem that the Historian estimated 10 years for Abimelech, although
he never states so.
125


construction of the Temple could be placed in the 480
th
year after the Exodus.
176
Before
the additions, the History accounted for only 424 (inclusive) years of this period,
177
and
that it contained no figure for the reign of Abimelech or a figure covering the interval
between the judgeship of Samson and the reign of Saul, and thus he saw a need to fill it
out and beef it up.
178
The original editor was not as concerned about constructing such a
definitive chronology. He had source documents with chronological information that he
saw fit to include, but his inconsistent use of them and his use of round numbers to cover
periods between events, and his apparent lack of interest in accounting for every time
period, demonstrates that he was not motivated to specificity.

4. Chronological Sources Relating to the Kings
a. Preliminary Considerations
Many historians and biblical scholars have attempted to make sense of the
chronological data found in the books of the Kings. Some have been more successful
than others, but all who have tackled the problem have had significant difficulties in
understanding the systems employed. The failure of scholars to comprehend the data is

176
The figure is created by the multiplication of two significant numbers, 12 (the number of months in a
year) and 40 (the number of years in a generation).
177
45 years for the wilderness wanderings and conquest (Josh 14:10), 40 years for the passing of one
generation, 40 years each for Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, and Gideon (200 years total), 76 years
from the fragmentary Judges list, 20 years for Samson (Judg 16:31), 40 years for David (1 Ki 2:11), and 3
years for Solomon (1 Ki 6:1). Although this total is 424 years, the reviser of the DH believed it accounted
for only 384, because while the Josianic historian saw a gap between the death of Joshua and the judgeship
of Othniel, the reviser apparently saw Othniel as an immediate successor to Joshua.
178
The gap was filled simply by creating a Philistine oppression period of 40 years (Judges 13:1). The note
at Judges 15:20, which states a term of 20 years for Samson (and is based on Judges 16:31), places that
term in the days of the Philistines and thus assumes the period of Philistine oppression mentioned in 13:1
and must be included in the 40 years. The note that Samson was active during the days of the Philistines
therefore was added by the reviser of the History. The Philistine oppression continues through the
judgeship of Samuel. See Chapter Two, Section B.
126


surprising, considering that the chronological notices in the final edition of the
Deuteronomistic History are presented so systematically. For each king, the length of
reign is provided along with a synchronic note tying his accession to a specific year of a
contemporary king. For the kings of Judah, their age at accession and their mothers
name are also given. Nevertheless, the numbers do not (always) add up. The usual
recourse is to invent an elaborate and complicated theory to make the numbers conform
to one another and, if necessary to ensure the proper outcome, to make significant
emendations to the text under the assumption the data have somehow been corrupted by
miscopying.
179
It is the opinion of the present author that the usual approach is suspect.
Instead of considering the chronological systems of each of the Deuteronomistic
Historians sources separately, scholars collect all of the chronological data from all of
the sources and treat them homogeneously, hoping to find consistency among them. One
must either assume that a system exists that will harmonize all data or abandon all hope
of comprehending the data. The problem has only been exacerbated since the discovery
of chronological material from kingdoms contemporary with Israel and Judah, in
particular Assyria. These data are thrown into the pot as well, and the resulting discord
further removes us from a decent understanding of the chronology. This faulty approach

179
Almost every book that has been written on the subject assumes this posture. The most well-known is
Thiele, MNHK . In his preface, he writes, For more than two thousand years Hebrew chronology has been
a serious problem for Old Testament scholars. Every effort to weave the chronological data of the kings of
Israel and Judah into some sort of harmonious scheme seemed doomed to failure. The numbers for the one
kingdom could not, it seemed, be made to agree with the numbers in the other. The problem is one with
which I wrestled long before vague outlines of a solution began to crystallize in my mind. In a more recent
work, Christine Tetley states: On the assumption that the compiler of 1-2 Kings wrote a synchronistic
record using preexisting annals of Judah and Israel, one expects that the original regnal years and accession
synchronisms were internally consistent and coherent. If, through centuries of transmission, an error
occurred in a number, the alteration would affect the congruency of an otherwise consistent system (M.
Christine Tetley, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2005], 93).
127


to the material is no doubt motivated by a desire to determine the reality behind the
numbers in as few steps as possible. However, we can never ascertain the reliability of
the biblical data until we first understand each source as an independent unit. Only then
can we make comparisons with extrabiblical data and make a judgment.
To be sure, several or all of the Deuteronomistic Historians sources may contain
accurate chronological data that derive ultimately from the king lists of each kingdom or
from royal chronicles, and it is also possible that the synchronisms between the two
kingdoms might come originally from a document very much like the Synchronistic
Chronicle from Assyria.
180
Indeed, if the data comes from primary texts that contained
historically reliable information, some might argue that there is no need to separate
sources, since the data ultimately derive from the same source and should jibe. However,
there is no such congruity, neither can a trace to a common source be made; and the
author makes no mention of official king lists or a synchronistic chronicle. The works to
which he refers at the close of the presentation of each reign and which no doubt
provided him with his information are secondary sources, and we do not know their exact
relation to the archival data. Moreover, we do not know whether the systems used for
calculating regnal years are the same in all the documents. Therefore, unless we know
how each system works and that no historical errors have crept into the data, either by
accident or by design, we cannot assume a single system of measurement, and then, in an
effort to make the numbers conform to reality, restore a presumed original by

180
This Babylonian document provides a concise history of relations between Babylonia and Assyria from
the reign of Puzur-Ashur III (1503-1479) to Adad-nirari III (811-783). It exists in fragmentary form in 7
th

century copies found at Nineveh and. Text and translation in Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 176-83
128


correcting the figures. I, therefore, have decided to organize the data according to
source and analyze each system on its own terms.
The historian has provided us with the names of a number of his sources, and
three are the most likely to have provided him with chronological data: The Scroll of the
Affairs of the Days for the Kings of Judah, The Scroll of the Affairs of the Days for the
Kings of Israel, and The Scroll of the Affairs of Solomon. He makes reference to these
works in the formulas that close a narrative about a particular king. The first source is
cited 15 times, the second 17 times, and the third once (1 Kings 11:41). It would seem
that these scrolls had a reputation in the authors intended audience and were held to be
authoritative. Besides chronological information, it would appear they contained records
of wars, public works and other royal projects, tribute payments, conspiracies against the
crown, and cultic violations.
The manner in which the chronological data is presented aids us in identifying the
source. For example, dated events containing a month reference are rare and occur in
only two sections of the Deuteronomistic History: in the account of Solomons building
projects (1 Kings 6, 8) and in the historys denouement, which includes the accounts of
the final siege of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the brief governorship
of Gedaliah, and the fate of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25). Since the monthly data connected
with Solomons building projects are restricted to a small section of the History, they
probably derive from one of the historians less-used sources, perhaps The Scroll of the
Affairs of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), which is not referred to elsewhere in the DH. The
data for Nebuchadnezzars siege of Jerusalem come from an unnamed source, but the
month references extend from the siege of Jerusalem (588) to the 37
th
year of the exile of
129


Jehoiachin (560). All the events could easily have occurred in the lifetime of the reviser
of the Deuteronomistic History and reflect a Babylonian system of reckoning, and may
even come from a Babylonian source, or the dates could have been calculated and
recorded by the reviser himself as the events occurred. Either way, the month references
in 2 Kings 25 are from an exilic perspective, and it is unlikely that The Scroll of the
Affairs of the Days for the Kings of Judah (hereafter referred to as the Judahite Royal
Chronicle) provided any of this information. Dates containing a month reference are
conspicuously absent in the history of the period from Rehoboam to Jehoaichin. In
Jeremiah, dates containing a month occur for the reigns of two kings of Judah, Jehoiakim
and Zedekiah, and of the governorship of Gedaliah, all of which are found in the second
half of the book and for which no source is cited. As was discussed above, it is not certain
that these dates were originally in a pre-exilic edition of the book of Jeremiah. Even if
some of them were, all the dated events occurred in the lifetimes of Jeremiah and his
scribe Baruch, so they may not have been taken from a written source at all. Rather, they
simply would be dates that the author recorded personally.

b. King Lists
The framework for the presentation of the chronological data in the books of
Kings is very distinctive and easily recognizable. One formula repeated throughout the
history of the kingdoms is that of the Judahite accessions, which comes in two patterns:



130


1) (``".) (`` _"C) (PN|2) PN _"C ("NL` _"C) (PN|2) PN" (.L) # .L2
`3"C2 ` .L #|2
2"L``2 _"C 2`.L #`
(GNC) (PN2) PN `CN 2L`
In the [#] (year) of PN (the son of PN), (the king of Israel), PN (the son of PN),
(the king of Judah), became king (over Judah).
He was [#] years old at his accession,
and [#] years he reigned in Jerusalem,
and the name of his mother was PN (the daughter of PN) (from GN).
2) `3"C2 PN ` .L #
|2
2"L``2 _"C 2`.L #`
(GNC) (PN2) PN `CN 2L`
PN was [#] years old at his accession,
and [#] years he reigned in Jerusalem,
and the name of his mother was PN (the daughter of PN) (from GN).
Elements in parentheses may or may not appear, but often do. Pattern 1 appears in
the formulas from Rehoboam to Hezekiah and is notable in that it opens with a long
chronological datum tying the accession to the specific regnal year of an Israelite king.
Pattern 2 appears in the formulas from Manasseh to Zedekiah and omits the synchronism
with the kingdom of Israel (for the obvious reason that the Israelite monarchy no longer
existed).
131


It could be argued that the synchronisms do not derive from an actual source, but
are a creation of the Deuteronomistic Historian, who used the lengths of the reigns of the
kings, which were derived from an actual source, to calculate the time for the accession
of each king in relation to the reign of a king from the sister kingdom. Weighing against
this proposition is the fact that there are several synchronisms that could not have been
calculated this way (1 Kings 14:25; 2 Kings 12:7; 18:9-10, 13); these synchronisms are
placed in the midst of kings reigns, rather than at the beginning, and therefore must have
been either completely invented or derived from a source used by the Historian. It
therefore seems best to assume that the Historian, rather than inventing the synchronisms,
had access to a synchronistic source (or sources). Sources of this nature are known from
ancient Babylon and are represented by such documents as the Chronicle of the Kings
from Nabonassar to ama-uma-ukin, the Chronicle of the Kings from Nabonassar to
Esarhaddon, the Chronicle of Esarhaddon, the Chronicle of Nabopolassar Concerning the
Fall of the Assyrian Empire, the Chronicle of the Death of Nabopolassar and the First
Years of Nebuchadnezzar, and the Chronicle of Nabonidus, to name just a few. All are
from the Neo-Babylonian period (c. 6
th
century BCE).
181
A common formula begins each
unit in these chronicles: In the Xth year of PN, such and such happened. Assyrian
sources are similar, but date events according to a year name, rather than a year number
that is associated with the reign of a king. The Eponym Chronicles (one from the 18
th

century and one from the 7
th
century BCE) are the best examples. All of the

181
Texts, translations, and commentary on all of these are in Ibid.
132


Mesopotamian documents of this kind are written in prose, give priority to dates, and
provide only brief summaries of the events that occurred on those dates.
182

If the synchronisms in the Bible are derived from a similar document (or
documents) used by the author of the DH, what is the origin of the document(s)? Several
past studies of the chronology of the kings have assumed that the date for the accession of
a Judahite king, which mentions a specific regnal year of an Israelite king, came from a
Judahite source.
183
For example, the phrase, In the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam the
son of Nebat, Abijam became king over Judah (1 Kings 15:1), is said to come from the
annals of the kings of Judah because it records the accession of a Judahite king, and
because the remainder of the information in the formula (age at accession, length of
reign, and mothers name) is undoubtedly Judahite. I find this assumption odd,
considering the manner in which this dating formula is used in other places in the history.
For example, does the datum, And it was in the fifth year of Rehoboam that Shishak the
king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:25), derive from the annals of
Shishak? Surely the information about Rehoboams fifth year does not come from an
Egyptian source, but a Judahite one. Or when it is stated, And it was in the fourth year
of King Hezekiah, that is, the seventh year of Hoshea the son of Elah, the king of Israel,
that Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, came up against Samaria, is not the usual
interpretation that the datum about Hezekiah came from a Judahite source and that of

182
A fragment of a monumental inscription from 8
th
century BCE Jerusalem, suggests that Judah dated
events according to numbered years as well. The expression in the seventh occurs in the second line, and
may refer to the seventh year of Hezekiah. The fourth line carries the expression in the fourth [month].
See Frank Moore Cross, "A Fragment of a Monumental Inscription from the City of David," Israel
Exploration Journal 51.1 (2001): 44-47.
183
For example, Thiele, MNHK, 25, John H. Hayes and Paul K. Hooker, A New Chronology for the Kings
of Israel and Judah (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 14.
133


Hoshea came from an Israelite one? Appealing to an argument for consistency, I find it
unlikely that the synchronism (In the [#] year of PN, PN became king) derives from the
same source as that which lists the new kings age, length of reign, and mother. In other
words, there are two different sources behind the accession formulas. The
composer/compiler combined the information about an accession, which he gleaned from
a native source, with a synchronism he obtained from the opposite kingdom. Now it is
possible that he had access to a synchronistic chronicle of some kind, although he never
mentions such a source among those he cites. However, even if he did, the composer of
the synchronistic chronicle would have obtained this information from the same place
that the Deuteronomistic compiler would havean Israelite chronicle. In Abijams case,
the annals of the north are more likely to have mentioned Abijams accession in the
events of Jeroboams eighteenth year than that the annals of the south would have went
out of their way to mention that Abijams accession took place in Jeroboams eighteenth
year. For these reasons, we should see Pattern 2 of the accession notices displayed above
(that is, the one without the synchronism) as the one that most likely reflects the contents
of the Judahite source the author draws from. The mere existence of the second pattern
indicates that the Judahite source neither desired nor needed the synchronism with Israel
to provide a suitable chronological marker for the accession of its kings.
When the synchronistic notices in the accession formulas are put aside,
184
all
differences between Pattern 1 and Pattern 2 are gone, and the information coming from
the Judahite source is consistent for all the kings:

134


[Rehoboam] was 41 years old at his accession, and he reigned 17 years in
Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Naamah the Ammonitess (1 Kings
14:21).

[Abijam] reigned 3 years in Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Maacah the
daughter of Abishalom (1 Kings 15:1-2).

[Asa] reigned 41 years in Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Maacah the
daughter of Abishalom (1 Kings 15:9-10).

Jehoshaphat was 35 years old at his accession, and he reigned 25 years in
Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi (1 Kings
22:41-42).

[Jehoram] was 32 years old at his accession, and he reigned 8 years in Jerusalem
(2 Kings 8:16-17).

Ahaziah was 22 years old at his accession, and he reigned 1 year in Jerusalem,
and his mothers name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri the king of Israel (2
Kings 8:25-26).


184
They will be picked up again in our discussion of Royal Chronicles below.
135


Jehoash was 7 years old at his accession, and he reigned 40 years in Jerusalem,
and his mothers name was Zibiah from Beersheba (2 Kings 11:21-12:1).

[Amaziah] was 25 years old at his accession, and he reigned 29 years in
Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem (2 Kings 14:1-2).

[Azariah] was 16 years old at his accession, and he reigned 52 years in Jerusalem,
and his mothers name was Jecoliah of Jerusalem (2 Kings 15:1-2).

[Jotham] was 25 years old at his accession, and he reigned 16 years in Jerusalem,
and his mothers name was Jerusha the daughter of Zadok (2 Kings 15:32-33).

[Ahaz] was 20 years old at his accession, and he reigned 16 years in Jerusalem (2
Kings 16:1-2).

[Hezekiah] was 25 years old at his accession, and he reigned 29 years in
Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Abi, the daughter of Zechariah (2 Kings
18:1-2).

Manasseh was 12 years old at his accession, and he reigned 55 years in Jerusalem,
and his mothers name was Hephzibah (2 Kings 21:1).

136


Amon was 22 years old at his accession, and he reigned 2 years in Jerusalem, and
his mothers name was Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz from Jotbah (2
Kings 21:19).

Josiah was 8 years old at his accession, and he reigned 31 years in Jerusalem, and
his mothers name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah from Bozkath (2 Kings
22:1).

Jehoahaz was 23 years old at his accession, and he reigned 3 months in Jerusalem,
and his mothers name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah from Libnah (2
Kings 23:31).

Jehoiakim was 25 years old at his accession, and he reigned 11 years in
Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Zebidah, the daughter of Pedaiah from
Rumah (2 Kings 23:36).

Jehoiachin was 18 years old at his accession, and he reigned 3 months in
Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of
Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:8).

Zedekiah was 21 years old at his accession, and he reigned 11 years in Jerusalem,
and his mothers name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah from Libnah (2
Kings 24:18).
137



The evidence indicates that one of the historians possessed a Judahite document
containing specific information, and, it would seem, the document was in the form of a
list, rather than a chronicle containing narratives of the exploits of the kings.
185
The
information we have preserved from it may represent its entire contents. Evidence for this
conclusion is seen in an apparent textual error in the formula recounting the accession of
Asa (1 Kings 15:9-10). The clause concerning his mothers name is precisely the same as
the one appearing in the previous entry concerning Abijam (1 Kings 15:1-2). It is
doubtful that both Abijam and his son Asa had the same mother. More probable is that
the historian or a previous copyist, when he was writing down the Abijam formula,
accidentally let his eye slip down to the following entry and copied that one instead. For
this to have occurred, however, the two entries must have been in close proximity. The
most likely scenario is that the accession formulas were listed one right after another with
little or no intervening material. The mistake could have existed already in the source
document; otherwise it would have been made by whomever copied the information from
the list into the text of the DH (either the Deuteronomistic Historian or the reviser of the
DH).
The 19 Judahite accession formulas appear among the stereotypical comments the
historian makes to open and close the accounts of the kings reigns. In addition to the
accession formulas, the introductory rubrics contain a verdict about the behavior of the
said king in light of his adherence or lack of adherence to the Torah of Moses. The

185
Earlier studies that argue for the existence of a Judahite and an Israelite king list that underlie the DH
are: Shoshana R. Bin-Nun, "Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and of Judah," Vetus Testamentum 18
138


concluding rubrics contain a source citation, notice of death and burial, and the name of
the successor. In a systematic study of these regnal formulations, Richard D. Nelson has
remarked on the difference between those used for the kings up to and including Josiah,
which show evidence of free variation in composition, and those who succeed Josiah,
which show almost no variation.
186
The variation seen in the earlier formulations, Nelson
attributes not only to variations in the historians sources, but to the natural result of the
historian writing his own prose freely, using stock phrases from his everyday theological
vocabulary, and developing and modifying his structural arrangement as he went
along.
187
Nelson concludes, probably correctly, that a different author composed the
formulations for the latter kings. However, Nelsons argument relies heavily on analysis
of the DHs evaluations of the kings.
188
These evaluations are not likely to be part of the
authors source citations and for our purposes should be set aside. What is interesting is
that, taken on their own (without the synchronisms and evaluations), the accession
formulas, which include the age of the king at his accession, the number of years of his
rule, and the name of his mother, exhibit a different pattern. An examination reveals free
and random variation within the structural arrangement for the entries from Rehoboam
to Manasseh and strict uniformity from Amon to Zedekiah. The first set of entries never
lists in a single entry both the mothers hometown and her fathers name, while the last
set always does. While we could posit that the final entries are fuller simply because there
was more information available for the later kings, the absence of any variation

(1968), and William Hamilton Barnes, Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel, ed.
Frank Moore Cross (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 137-49.
186
Nelson, Double Redaction, 29-42.
187
Ibid., 35-36.
188
Ibid., 36.
139


whatsoever in the last entries is striking and suggests that they constitute an addition to
the original list by a single writer. Strangely, the cut-off point is at Manasseh, not Josiah.
The fact that the accession notices change their pattern in a different place (Manasseh)
than where the remainder of the material in the opening and closing formulas changes its
pattern (Josiah) strongly favors the supposition that the accession notices are from an
independent source.
The original version of this king list (without the final six entries) is easy to date.
Since it has knowledge of the length of the reign of Manasseh, it must be dated after his
death. However, since the list does not include an entry for Amon, it must be dated before
Amons death. Thus the list must have been composed sometime within the two-year
reign of Amon.
189
The uniformity in the final six entries suggests a single author for the
additions, one who possessed information about the final king of Judah and who therefore
would have composed all six entries after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE.

189
We might at this point recall that the author of Chronicles includes similar information in his own
history and employs similar wording. However, he probably did not use this king list as a source, but rather
the DH itself. This is evident in the entry for Rehoboam (1 Ki 14:21; 2 Chron 12:13), which is reproduced
in Chronicles verbatim from the DH, including the phrase, the city that Yahweh had chosen out of all the
tribes of Israel to put his name there, which is a Deuteronomic phrase (cf. 1 Ki 8:16; 11:32) and therefore
derives from the Deuteronomistic editor of the king list and not from the king list itself. It can also be seen
in the fact that some of the Chroniclers accession formulas include a synchronism as well (e.g., 2 Chron
13:1-2), and we know that the synchronisms were combined with the information from the king lists by the
Deuteronomistic editor. Some have argued that, because the names of the Queen Mothers disappear in
Chronicles after Hezekiah, the Chronicler must have used a Hezekian version of the Deuteronomistic
History as a source (See, e.g., Baruch Halpern and David S. Vanderhooft, "The Editions of Kings in the
7th-6th Centuries B.C.E.," Hebrew Union College Annual 62 [1991]: 197-99). However, because the
Chroniclers entry for Hezekiah includes the total number of years he reigned (2 Chron 29:1), the DH the
Chronicler used could not have been Hezekian. It must have been at least Manassean. However, we know
of no Mannassean edition of the Deuteronomistic History, and the evidence here presented suggests that the
king lists information was lacking even in the Josianic edition. Therefore we must conclude that the
Chronicler used the exilic edition of the DH and that the differences in Chronicles are not reflective of its
source. The Chronicler must have omitted (consciously or unconsciously) the names of the mothers of all
of the kings after Hezekiah, even though his source contained them. (That he omitted many synchronisms
and Asas accession formula entirely suggests that he was not averse to cutting out some of the
information.)
140


That this king list was incorporated into the first edition of the Deuteronomistic
History is unlikely. If that were the case, to be consistent the Historian would have
written entries for the last two kings, Amon and Josiah, that included their ages at
accession, their mothers names, and, for Amon, his length of reign. Both of these kings
ruled during the Historians lifetime, and the information would have been easy to obtain,
even though the king list did not have it (as the evidence indicates that the list was not
updated until after the reign of Zedekiah). However, he did not include the information
for these two kings. Alternatively, if the first edition of the DH was written in the reign of
Hezekiah, as some have suggested,
190
then this list could not have been in such an edition
either, because it had not yet been written. These factors indicate that the Josianic
Deuteronomistic Historian did not possess this Judahite king list in either its long or short
form, and that the accession formulas were not put into the DH until the second
edition.
191
Dtr
1
would have read just as smoothly without them. The typical reading for
the accession of kings in the first edition would have been something like this: In the #
year of PN, the son of PN the king of Israel, PN, the son of PN the king of Judah, became
king, and he did what was right in Yahwehs eyes, etc. With regard to the kings after
Hezekiah, the transition from king to king would have read something like this: And PN

190
E.g., H. Weippert, "Die 'deuteronomistischen' Beurteilungen der Knige von Israel und Juda und das
Problem der Redaktion der Knigsbcher," Bib 53 (1972): 301-39, M. Weippert, "Fragen des israelitischen
Geschichtsbewusstseins," Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 415-42, A Lemaire, "Vers L'histoire de la
rdaction des livres des Rois," ZAW 98 (1986): 221-36, Halpern and Vanderhooft, "The Editions of Kings
in the 7th-6th Centuries B.C.E.," 179-244.
191
On the general historical credibility of the information from this list (i.e., the kings accession age, death
age, length of reign, and age at the birth of his son), see D.N. Freedman, "Kingly Chronologies: Then and
Later," in Eretz-Israel XXIV, Avraham Malamat Volume (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993):
41*-65*.
141


lay down with his fathers, and PN his son reigned in his stead, and he did what was bad
in Yahwehs eyes, etc.
192

One question that arises in connection with these conclusions is: Were the final
six entries composed specifically for the king list, or were they composed specifically for
the Deuteronomistic History? In other words, did the reviser of the DH use a king list that
had already been updated through Zedekiah, or did he possess the original king list that
ended at Manasseh and then add in the final six entries to the DH himself? This question
is probably unanswerable and, for my purposes here, does not really matter. However, it
is reasonable to suppose that the reviser of the History sought out the information about
the final kings from whatever external sources he could find. This list (in updated form)
may have been one of them.
If we look at the three kings who preceded Rehoboam (Saul, David, and
Solomon), we find that the first two kings have accession formulas that fall into the
pattern found in the Judahite king list:
Saul was [ ] years old at his accession, and he reigned 2 years over Israel (1
Samuel 13:1).
David was 30 years old at his accession, and he reigned 40 years. He reigned over
Judah 7 years in Hebron, and he reigned over all Israel and Judah 33 years in
Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:4-5).
It seems probable therefore that the list went as far back as Saul. Problems associated
with these early entries, however, suggest that the scroll that contained the king list was
damaged at the beginning. Sauls accession age is missing in most manuscripts. Davids

192
Cf. 2 Chron 14:1-2.
142


accession formula is in good shape. It is longer than the rest, but naming the city of rule
along with the length of the rule is customary for this list. The second part of Davids
accession formula is actually related a second time in the DH in his closing formula (2
Kings 2:11). Solomons entry, however, is completely missing; no accession formula is
present in the DH. In his closing formula there is the statement that he reigned for 40
years (1 Kings 11:42). However, this statement does not conform to the pattern of the
other formulas, and an attribution of 40 years to Solomon is somewhat suspect, as the
number is the round figure usually used to signify a generation.
193
It may be that the king
list was damaged where Solomons formula was written, and the reviser of the DH had to
make an educated guess.

Turning to the Israelite accession formulas in the DH, we find far less detail than
we do in the Judahite formulas. There are two patterns, spread more or less randomly
through the History:
1) 2`.L # (|CL2/S2) "NL`". (PN|2) PN _"C (`` _"C) PN" (.L) # .L2
In the [#]( year) of [PN], (the king of Judah), [PN] (the son of PN) became king
over Israel (in [Tirzah or Samaria]) for [#] years.
2) 2`.L # ("NL`".) _"C`` `` _"C PN" (.L) # .L2 "NL`". _"C (PN|2) PN`
And PN the son of PN became king over Israel in the [#] (year) of PN the king of
Judah, and he reigned (over Israel) [#] years.


193
See above, Chapter Two, Section C and Section A.3 of the present chapter.
143


For the most part, these formulas correspond to the first phrase in the Pattern 1 Judahite
accession formula as it appears in the DH. The only notable difference between the two
Israelite patterns is the inversion of the first two clauses. Of note also is that the lengths
of reign are found at the end of the formulas in all instances. As in the case of the
Judahite accession formulas, it is best to understand the synchronisms here to come from
the chronicles of the opposite kingdom, and here it would mean those of Judah. The only
information, then, to have come from an Israelite source in these formulas is the length of
the kings reign (and perhaps the name of the capital city, although this information is not
always provided, and the capitals, Tirzah and Samaria, like Jerusalem, were no doubt
well known).
Apart from two kings (Jeroboam and Jehu), the reign length for all the kings
appears at the end of each accession synchronism. For Jeroboam and Jehu, the reign
length appears at the end of their closing formulas (1 Ki 14:19-20; 2 Ki 10:34-36). This
difference is attributable to the fact that neither of these kings has an accession
synchronism to which a reign length could be attached. The reason for the lack of an
accession synchronism for these two kings is clear: no synchronism with a Judahite
monarch was recorded in the Judahite annals for either king. For Jeroboam, this was no
doubt because he was the first king of Israel and the custom had not yet been adopted
(and his kingship may not even have been recognized in Judah at the time). For Jehu, a
synchronism could not have existed because when he began to rule, he had just slain the
king of Judah, and it was unclear who the next king would be. In fact, a legitimate
Judahite monarch would not sit on the throne for several years to come. The fact that the
reign lengths are included for Jehu and Jeroboam, even though they do not have
144


accession synchronisms, suggests that the reign lengths derive from a different source.
Since the first edition of the DH probably did not include the lengths of the reigns of the
monarchs of Judah, it would be strange if the lengths of the reigns of the monarchs of
Israel were included. More probable is that they were likewise absent in the first edition
and later added into Dtr
2
by the reviser of the history to match what he did for Judah.
As in the case of the Judahite kings, the exilic reviser of the history may have had
at his disposal a list of the names of the kings of Israel and the total years of their reigns
in a separate document. Although it is possible that he calculated the reign lengths
himself, simply by tallying the totals he worked out from the synchronisms that were
already present in the History, the synchronisms do not actually allow one to narrow
down reign totals to within a years accuracy, and there are contradictions between the
synchronisms and the reign totals.
194
Moreover, his knowledge of the precise length of
reigns less than a year long (Zechariah, Shallum) makes it improbable that the reign totals
were calculated from the synchronisms. The data had to be recorded somewhere, and the
reviser gained access to this data. Whatever the case, the supplementary information is as
follows:
Jeroboam 22 yrs (1 Kings 14:20)
Nadab 2 years (1 Kings 15:25)
Baasha 24 yrs (1 Kings 15:33)
Elah 2 yrs (1 Kings 16:8)
Zimri 7 days (1 Kings 16:15)
Omri 12 years (1 Kings 16:23)
Ahab 22 years (1 Kings 16:29)
Ahaziah 2 years (1 Kings 22:52)
Jehoram 12 years (2 Kings 3:1)
Jehu 28 years (2 Kings 10:36)
Jehoahaz 17 years (2 Kings 13:1)

194
See discussion below.
145


Joash 16 years (2 Kings 13:10)
Jeroboam 41 years (2 Kings 14:23)
Zechariah 6 mos. (2 Kings 15:8)
Shallum 1 mo. (2 Kings 15:13)
Menahem 10 years (2 Kings 15:17)
Pekahiah 2 years (2 Kings 15:23)
Pekah 20 years (2 Kings 15:27)
Hoshea 9 years (2 Kings 17:1)


c. Royal Chronicles
We have observed that the synchronistic formulations in the DH exhibit a uniform
pattern throughout: In the [#] year of PN, [a certain event happened]. The events
include invasions, wars, significant cultic innovations or reforms, and, as mentioned
above, accessions of rulers in the sister kingdom. Such a construction demonstrates that
the dates are from some sort of chronicle, and since the dates are associated with the
kings of both kingdoms, it is best to posit two such chronicles, a Judahite and an Israelite
one. These are no doubt to be equated with The Scroll of the Affairs of the Days for the
Kings of Judah and The Scroll of the Affairs of the Days for the Kings of Israel that the
historian cites. Moreover, they are clearly an integral part of the first edition of the DH.
In MT, of the 32 accession synchronisms in the DH, three set themselves apart (1
Kings 16:10; 2 Kings 1:17; 2 Kings 15:30). These formulas refer to the accessions of
Israelite kings. They could not possibly derive from the authors Judahite chronicle, as do
the others in the series, for the following reasons: 1) They do not conform to the known
patterns of the synchronistic accession formulas; 2) They are doublets of existing
synchronistic accession formulas; and, 3) in the case of the latter two, they contradict the
146


data already found in other synchronistic accession formulas. Also of note is that none of
these formulas are attested in LXX.
The customary wording we should expect in the description of an Israelite
accession is: In the [#] (year) of [PN], (the king of Judah), [PN] (the son of PN) became
king over Israel in [Tirzah or Samaria], or the inverted pattern, And PN the son of PN
became king over Israel in the [#] (year) of PN the king of Judah. Instead, in these three
verses we find the statement, And PN became king in his stead, in the [x] year of PN,
the son of PN (the king of Judah). (In the case of 1 Kings 16:10, the wording is
inverted.) It is interesting that these three verses are constructed very similarly.
The datum at 2 Kings 1:17 is a doublet of 2 Kings 3:1 and directly contradicts the
datum found there, which does exhibit the typical pattern for accession formulas.

2 Ki 3:1 2 Ki 1:17
And Jehoram the son of Ahab
became king over Israel in the
18th year of Jehoshaphat the
king of Judah, and he reigned
12 years.
And Jehoram became king in
his stead, in the 2nd year of
Jehoram the son of
Jehoshaphat the king of Judah.
Of interest is that, although 2 Kings 1:17 is absent in LXX, the chronological information
it contains is found in the Greek text in a verse not contained in MT (2 Kings 1:18a). As
147


will be argued below, the datum is an invention of the LXX editors, so it likely reached
MT through cross-fertilization.
195

The datum at 2 Kings 15:30 is a doublet of 2 Kings 17:1 and directly contradicts
the datum found there, which does exhibit the typical pattern for accession formulas.
2 Ki 17:1 2 Ki 15:30
In the 12
th
year of Ahaz the
king of Judah, Hoshea the son
of Elah became king in
Samaria over Israel for 9
years.
And he [Hoshea] became king
in his stead, in the 20
th
year of
Jotham the son of Uzziah.
2 Kings 15:30 is absent in LXX.
The datum at 1 Kings 16:10 does not contradict its doublet (1 Kings 16:15), but it
fits the pattern of the other anomalous notices and not that of the typical accession
formulas. The Old Greek version of LXX (the earliest) does not have it. I would suggest
that all three of these notices found their way into the text near the end of the fluid period
in MTs transmission history (i.e., sometime before the destruction of the Second Temple
in 70 CE), but long after Dtr
2
was published, and were put there to harmonize
contradictory figures in the History
196
or to add clarification (as in the case of 1 Kings
16:10).

195
In an attempt at harmonization, sometimes the ancient scribes assimilated readings from other
manuscript tradtions into their texts. The Greek Kaige and Hexaplaric recensions, for example, were made
to conform more closely to MT. See James Donald Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in
the Greek Text of Kings (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 11-21.
196
This will be discussed in more detail below.
148


By themselves, the synchronisms taken from either the Judahite chronicle or the
Israelite chronicle are not sufficient to construct a chronology for the kings of either
kingdom. Together, however, they may be of some use. If we can discern how the
systems of measurement used in each of the chronicles relate to one another, we can
synchronize the dates and arrive at reign lengths for many of the kings. In order to do
this, we have to know the answer to one question: Which system of reckoning (post-
dating or antedating) was employed in the calculations reflected in each source?
In an accession-year system (post-dating), the kings first year begins on the first
new years day after his accession. His reign may begin several months before that day,
but that entire period prior to his first year is counted as the final year of his predecessor.
Reign totals based on an accession-year system are equivalent to the actual years of reign,
because the first year is not counted. In a non-accession-year system (antedating), the
year of a kings accession is counted as his first year, even if he does not reign the entire
year. Both he and his predecessor receive credit for that year.
197
Reign totals based on a
non-accession-year system are one year greater than the actual years of reign, because the
first year is counted.
The Judahite chronicle itself leaves us with no clues, but it may be significant that
the Judahite king list assumes an accession-year system (post-dating). The date for the
death of Josiah may be fixed in the year 609 (see below), and if we take the reign totals of
his successors (Jehoahaz, 3 months, Jehoiakim, 11 years, Jehoiachin, 3 months, and
Zedekiah, 11 years) from the king list and add them up as they are (22 years and 6

197
See Eduard Meyer, "Principien der rechnung nach Knigsjahren," in Forschungen zur alte Geschichte
(Halle: Niemeyer, 1899) II: 440-53, Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 75.
149


months), assuming an accession-year system, we arrive at the date 587 or 586 for the end
of the monarchy (which is in keeping with extrabiblical evidence). However, if we
assume a non-accession year system, we arrive at the date 589 or 588, which years fall
short of the date we expect the city to have fallen. In another exercise, if one accepts the
argument that Isaiah 14:28 refers to the death of Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III in the
same year as (or perhaps the year before) the death of King Ahaz, we can put the
accession of Hezekiah in 727 or 726. Using the same method of calculation as above and
assuming an accession-year system, we can add up the reign totals for Hezekiah through
Zedekiah (a total of 139 years and 6 months) and arrive at a date between 588 and 586 for
the destruction of Jerusalem. However, if we assume a non-accession year system, we
come short and arrive at a date between 594 and 592 for the destruction of Jerusalem, a
date which we cannot accept. The fact that the Judahite king list assumes an accession-
year system suggests that, at least in the latter days of the monarchy in Judah, an
accession-year system was used. How early this practice was begun is unknown, but
since the Judahite royal chronicle used by the Deuteronomistic Historian would have
been a late monarchic document, we should expect that it too assumed an accession-year
system.
The Israelite royal chronicle used for the first edition of the DH points to a non-
accession year system (antedating). Jehu took the throne of Israel at the same time that
Athaliah usurped the throne of Judah (2 Kings 9:27-28; 11:1). The Historian states that
Athaliah ruled Judah for 6 years (this figure is not from the Judahite king list). The
chronicle puts the accession of Jehoash of Judah in the 7
th
year of Jehu (2 Kings 12:2).
150


Both of these figures can be correct only if Jehus 7
th
year marked 6 years of Jehus
rulership. Only in a non-accession year system would this be true.
We can corroborate these conclusions if we make a comparison between the reign
totals used in the king list from Judah with the one from Israel. Knowing that Rehoboam
and Jeroboam began their reigns at approximately the same time, we can use the year of
their accession as a point of departure for the two lists. Another date useful to yoke the
two lists at a given point would be that for the accession of Jehu, which is to be equated
with the date for the deaths of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. It is interesting
that the Judahite king list separates the accession of Rehoboam and the death of Ahaziah
by 79 years. However, the Israelite king list separates the accession of Jeroboam and the
death of Jehoram by 86 years. The two lists do not coincide if we assume accession-year
systems in both of the kingdoms. However, if we posit a non-accession year system in
Israel, the total years separating the two events would be reduced to 79 years and match
the total years given in the Judahite list.
198
This is strong evidence for both an accession-
year system in Judah and a non-accession year system in Israel. This is not to say that
Judahs use of an accession-year system throughout the entire monarchy was a historical
reality, or even that the numbers in the king list are accurate, only that, by the reckoning
used in the exilic king list, an accession-year system is assumed throughout. Similarly,
Israel may or may not have used the non-accession year system, but the king list appears
to assume it. To be sure, the synchronisms from the chronicles may not reflect the same
system as the king lists, but the king lists tell us something about late monarchic practice,
and the chronicles are from that period.
151


With the knowledge that the regnal new year is likely to have begun in the
autumn in Judah and in the spring in Israel (see Chapter One, Section D.2.d.), and that
Judah used an accession-year system and that Israel used a non-accession year system,
we can construct a chronology using only the synchronisms and derive regnal totals to
compare to those given in the king lists. I will use the data from MT. The readings in MT
may be somewhat defective, but at this stage of the study, there is no need to delve into
serious textual criticism. The purpose of this exercise is merely to provide a general
comparison between the reign lengths assumed by the two sources. The results we
achieve from this exercise will not be precise as we might like them to be. Because the
regnal years of the two kingdoms are out of sync (that is, they begin at different times of
the year), we can narrow down the reign totals only to within three years. Moreover,
since there is no synchronism for Jehu, it is not possible to calculate the length of Jorams
reign from the synchronisms alone. Neither is it possible to figure the length of the reign
of Ahaziah, the king of Judah. Moreover, no synchronisms exist after the reign of Ahaz.
We are thus left with two floating chronologies, one lasting from the accessions of
Rehoboam and Jeroboam at the beginning of the divided kingdom to the accession of
Ahaziah, and another from the accessions of Athaliah and Jehu to the fall of Samaria.
The reign of Ahaziah (however many years) would fall between these two chronologies.
A comparison between the reign lengths assumed in the pre-exilic chronicles and
those provided by the exilic Judahite king list proves interesting.



198
This is noted by Thiele, MNHK, 23-25.
152


Royal Chronicles King List
Rehoboam (16-18 years) Rehoboam (17 years)
Abijam (1-3 years) Abijam (3 years)
Asa (40-42 years) Asa (41 years)
Jehoshaphat (21-23 years) Jehoshaphat (25 years)
Jehoram (5-7 years) Jehoram (8 years)
Ahaziah (?) Ahaziah (1 year)
Jehoash (37-39 years) Jehoash (40 years)
Amaziah (26-28 years) Amaziah (29 years)
Azariah (52-54 years) Azariah (52 years)
Jotham (14-16 years) Jotham (16 years)
Ahaz (13-15 years) Ahaz (16 years)


There is some correspondence between the two sources. Although some of the
differences are slight, the chronicles numbers cannot be stretched any further. The reigns
of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jotham all fall at least one year short of
the total in the king list. Still, the reign lengths in the chronicles are so very close to the
reign lengths in the king list. It is almost as if the chronicles are trying to harmonize
themselves with the king list, but cannot quite achieve their goal.
Now it is true that the divergences between the two sources can be harmonized if
we assume co-regencies or overlaps. In other words, if, for example, Jehoshaphat is
understood to have begun ruling within the lifetime of his father Asa and did so for at
153


least 2 years before he became sole ruler, then we could accept both the figures provided.
The chronicles would indicate his kingship as sole ruler, and the king list would provide
his total years of rule including the co-regency. Some have argued for the existence of co-
regencies in Israel and Judah,
199
citing some indirect evidence that points to such a
practice. For example, the narratives indicate that Solomon was crowned king when his
father David was still alive (1 Kings 1-2); in MT, Jehoshaphat appears to have crowned
his son Jehoram in his own lifetime (2 Kings 8:16); and Azariahs son Jotham seems to
have been given executive powers during the lifetime of his father (2 Kings 15:5). We
should not place too much emphasis on these examples, however, especially since
Solomon and Davids situation is portrayed as unusual, the text mentioning Jehorams
coronation in the reign of Jehoshaphat is most likely corrupt,
200
and Azariah is not said to
be made king during the reign of his father, but is still referred to as the kings son.
201
It
would be a mistake to posit a co-regency simply to harmonize conflicting data between
two or more sources. One thing is certain: The king lists and the royal chronicles
themselves give no indication of co-regencies.
Here is a comparison of the figures for Israel:

Royal Chronicles King List
Jeroboam I (24-26 years) Jeroboam I (21 years)
Nadab (1-2 years) Nadab (1 year)
Baasha (16-18 years) Baasha (23 years)

199
E.g., Ibid., 32.
200
The phrase and Jehoshaphat was king of Judah is omitted in some mss. and many codices of LXX. It
is probably a case of dittography.
201
See Hayes and Hooker, A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah, 12, Hughes, Secrets of the
Times, 99-107.
154


Elah (5-7 years) Elah (1 year)
Zimri (less than a year) Zimri (7 days)
Omri (12-14 years) Omri (11 years)
Ahab (19-21 years) Ahab (21 years)
Ahaziah (1-2 years) Ahaziah (1 year)
Joram (?) Joram (11 years)
Jehu (28-30 years) Jehu (27 years)
Jehoahaz (13-15 years) Jehoahaz (16 years)
Joash (16-18 years) Joash (15 years)
Jeroboam II (63-65 years) Jeroboam II (41 years)
Zechariah (1-2 years) Zechariah (6 months)
Shallum (less than a year) Shallum (1 month)
Menahem (10-12 years) Menahem (9 years)
Pekahiah (1-3 years) Pekahiah (1 year)
Pekah (27-29 years) Pekah (19 years)
Hoshea (8 years) Hoshea (8 years)


In this chart, one year was subtracted from each of the reign totals provided by the king
list with the understanding that Israel used an antedating system. Although the figures
from each source tend to be close, there are many disagreements. There is a significant
discrepancy with regard to the reign of Jeroboam II, the chronicle assuming a highly
improbable reign of 63-65 years. (It is doubtful that Jeroboam served some 22-24 years
as coregent.) Another significant difference is seen in the reign of Pekah, the chronicles
figure again being much higher.
The evidence that points to the existence of a chronology associated with
documents not used in the first edition of the Deuteronomistic History best explains the
contradictory data. The historiographic works, containing the synchronisms used and
155


cited in the first edition, present a different chronology than that of the king lists. In MT
the reign lengths for the kings of Judah obtained from the synchronisms correspond so
much more closely to the king list than the reign lengths for the kings of Israel. Why is
that? All the reign lengths for the kings of both kingdoms have been calculated from the
same repository of data. I can see only two possible reasons for this: either because
Judahs king list is more reliable than Israels (which is not likely, since the Israelite king
lists figures seem more reasonable than the chronicles), or there was a deliberate effort
on the part of someone to make sure that the synchronisms of the Judahite kings
corresponded to the stated reign lengths, while Israel was not as important. It is my
contention that this was, in fact, the case, and that in an earlier version of the text, the
data from the chronicles and the king lists diverged even more greatly than they do now.

d. Textual Difficulties in Kings
Any attempt at understanding the systems employed in the royal chronicles, or
any of the chronological sources, must be based on a reliable text, that is, one containing
an accurate set of numbers. By accurate, I do not necessarily mean historically
accurate. I mean that we want the synchronisms as they would have appeared in the first
edition of the Deuteronomistic History, just as we would wish to know the numbers from
the king lists as they would have appeared in the second edition of the History. We also
are interested in knowing the data as they appeared in the sources prior to their
incorporation into the History (if different). We have in our possession two chief textual
witnesses to the royal chronicles, as we do to the king lists, one witness associated with
the texts in the Masoretic tradition, and the other with the texts in the Greek tradition. The
156


two text traditions differ very little in their representation of the data from the king lists.
With regard to the information from the royal chronicles, however, significant variants in
the figures associated with the kings of Israel and Judah occur in the various manuscripts.
The texts of Kings in the MT family are fairly consistent, and so a clear reading of
the figures in the MT tradition is possible. However, the recensions of LXX are
somewhat varied. Nevertheless, it is possible to determine the earliest forms of the Greek
text tradition. The pertinent studies are those of de Lagarde,
202
Barthlemy,
203
and
Shenkel,
204
which understand there to have been a single translation of the books of
Samuel and Kings into Greek. All the versions of the Greek text, therefore, are not new
translations, but simply variant text forms of a single Old Greek translation. This theory
has more to commend it than the opposing one, commonly associated with Kahle,
205
that
the Septuagint was formed through a process of selective canonization of several
different translations.
In this study, references to the data in LXX will be primarily to the Old Greek
translation (henceforth OG) of Samuel-Kings, which derives from an Egyptian Hebrew
text that existed sometime between the 4
th
and 3
rd
centuries B.C.E. Our best witness to
the OG is Codex Vaticanus, but only in 1 Samuel, 2 Sam 1:1-9:13, and 1 Kings 2:12-
21:43. For the sections of OG that are wanting in Codex Vaticanus, our recourse is to the
Lucianic text, which, as has been demonstrated by others, contains an ancient stratum

202
Paul de Lagarde, Ankndigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen bersetzung des alten Testaments
(Gttingen: 1882).
203
Dominique Barthlemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 10 (Leiden:
Brill, 1963).
204
Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings.
205
Paul Kahle develops his view principally in the following works: Paul Kahle, "Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes," Theologische Studien und Kritiken 1.88 (1915), Paul Kahle, "Die
157


datable to the 2
nd
or 1
st
century B.C.E. that preserves some of OG, although, as we shall
see, rather imperfectly. The manuscripts used in this study as witnesses of the Lucianic
text are the miniscules b, o, and e
2
.
206

Our conclusion that the first edition of the DH did not contain the reign lengths of
the kings assists us in ascertaining the original form of the text that gave rise to both the
MT and the OG text traditions. It would appear that the variants arose after the reign
totals were added to the History, when later editors noted the contradictions between the
chronologies inherent in the synchronisms and the king lists and tried to fix the
discrepancies.
The first example of such an adjustment can be seen in a comparison between the
figures in MT and LXX with regard to the reign of Jeroboam and his contemporaries. MT
has a synchronism for the accession of Asa in the 20
th
year of Jeroboam (1 Kings 15:9-
10). LXX places Asas accession in Jeroboams 24
th
year (1 Kings 15:8-10). The Israelite
king list gives Jeroboam a total reign of 22 years. LXXs figure is irreconcilable with the
reign total of 22 years. It therefore is more likely to be original. The variants arose this
way: the original synchronism for Asas accession was the 24
th
year of Jeroboam. The
figure of 22 years, taken from the king list, was inserted into the DH by its exilic reviser.
Later scribes notices that Jeroboam could not have had a 24
th
year if he reigned only 22
years. The problem was handled differently in each text tradition. An MT scribe reduced
the synchronism to the 20
th
year to alleviate the difficulty. An LXX scribe simply

Septuaginta: Principielle Erwgungen," in Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt (Halle: 1947), idem, The Cairo Geniza,
2 ed. (Oxford: 1959).
206
b = Rome, Chigi, R. vi. 38 (10
th
century CE) and Rome, Vat. Gr. 330 (14
th
century CE); o = Paris, Bibl.
Nat., Coislin Gr. 3 (12
th
-13
th
century CE); e
2
= London, B.M. Reg. i. D. 2 (13
th
century CE).
158


removed the reign total of Jeroboam from the text (the datum is absent in LXX). (See
Table 4.1.)
One might wonder why the editors of proto-MT reduced the synchronism by four
years (24
th
to 20
th
) when they only needed to reduce it by two (24
th
to 22
nd
). The answer
appears to lie in the number of the regnal years attributed to Asas predecessor, Abijam of
Judah, whose reign overlapped with Jeroboams. Abijam is said, in both traditions, to
have taken the throne in the 18
th
year of Jeroboam. Abijams reign length, according to
the synchronisms in LXX, would have to be 6-7 years (18
th
to 24
th
year of Jeroboam).
According to the synchronisms in MT, Abijams reign length would be 2-3 years (18
th
to
20
th
year of Jeroboam). The reign total of Abijam in LXX is 6 years, and it is 3 years in
MT. If, as argued in the previous paragraph, MTs synchronism for the accession of Asa
(20
th
year of Jeroboam) is secondary, then the reign length of Abijam indicated by the
synchronisms is shorter in MT than it once was. They originally would have suggested a
6-7 year reign for Abijam. If the proto-MT scribes tried to accommodate the king lists
reign length for Jeroboam by adjusting a synchronism, they also may have tried to
accommodate the king lists figure for Abijam (presumably 3 years, according to MT).
Indeed, the scribes could have accommodated both Jeroboams and Abijams reign
lengths by adjusting only one synchronism. If the synchronism for Asas accession were
reduced from the 24
th
year of Jeroboam only to the 22
nd
year, then Jeroboams reign
length of 22 years would be harmonized with the synchronisms, but the length of
Abijams reign indicated by the synchronisms would be 4 years, overshooting the king
lists total by 1 year. However, by reducing the synchronism for Asas accession even
further to Jeroboams 20
th
year, the proto-MT editors were able to accommodate both
159


Jeroboams reign total of 22 years and Abijams reign total of 3 years. The editors of OG
handled the discrepancy in another way. They left the synchronisms alone and increased
the length of Abijams reign from 3 years to 6 years. (They had already omitted
Jeroboams reign total.)
Table 4.1: Readings for Abijam, Asa and Jeroboam

Archetype LXX MT
Royal
Chronicles
Abijam accedes in
18
th
of Jeroboam
Asa accedes in 24
th
of
Jeroboam
Abijam accedes in 18
th

of Jeroboam
Asa accedes in 24
th
of
Jeroboam
Abijam accedes in 18
th

of Jeroboam
Asa accedes in 20
th
of
Jeroboam
King List Jeroboam rules 22
years
Abijam rules 3 years
[Jeroboams reign
length omitted]
Abijam rules 6 years
Jeroboam rules 22
years
Abijam rules 3 years


The next example of an adjustment made after the reign totals were added to the
History is seen in a discrepancy between MT and LXX with regard to the synchronism
for the accession of Elah of Israel. MT places Elahs accession in the 26
th
year of Asa.
LXX places the event in the 20
th
year of Asa. Both traditions agree that Elahs
predecessor Baasha took the throne in Asas 3
rd
year. So the reign length for Baasha in
MT is somewhere between 23 and 25 years. In LXX, a reign length of 17-19 years is
assumed. Considering that the reign length given for Baasha is 24 years, we should take
the Greek synchronism, which contradicts this figure, as original. When an editor of
proto-MT saw that the synchronism would not allow Baasha a reign of 24 years, he
pushed Elahs accession forward to the 26
th
year of Asa to accommodate the new
information.


160


Table 4.2: Readings for Baasha and Elah

Archetype LXX MT
Royal
Chronicles
Baasha accedes in 3
rd

of Asa
Elah accedes in 20
th
of
Asa
Baasha accedes in 3
rd

of Asa
Elah accedes in 20
th
of
Asa
Baasha accedes in 3
rd

of Asa
Elah accedes in 26
th

of Asa
King List Baasha rules 24 years Baasha rules 24 years Baasha rules 24 years

The 12 years given to Omri by the reviser caused some serious problems, and
both text traditions had difficulty in rectifying them (and neither is entirely successful). In
the original text (1 Kings 16:23), the Deuteronomistic Historian placed Omris succession
in the 31
st
year of Asa and mentioned that he had already reigned 6 years in Tirzah. These
6 years
207
no doubt coincided with the rule of Omris rival Tibni (1 Kings 16:21-22).
Counting back 6 years from the 31
st
of Asa we arrive at the 26
th
of Asa for the beginning
of the parallel reigns of Omri and Tibni (See Table 4.3.)
Table 4.3: Totalling the Years of Omri

Judah Israel Count of years
(inclusive)
Count of years
(exclusive)
25
th
of Asa
26
th
of Asa
27
th
of Asa
28
th
of Asa
29
th
of Asa
30
th
of Asa
31
st
of Asa
32
nd
of Asa
33
rd
of Asa
34
th
of Asa
35
th
of Asa
36
th
of Asa
37
th
of Asa
38
th
of Asa
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
1
st
of Omri
2
nd
of Omri
3
rd
of Omri
4
th
of Omri
5
th
of Omri
6
th
of Omri
7
th
of Omri
8
th
of Omri
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

207
The 6 years are counted inclusively, as they are a calculation of the Historian (actual regnal totals were
not in the original edition of the DH). Even if this were a regnal total from an Israelite source, the northern
kingdom used antedating, and therefore counted inclusively. However, keep in mind that, while in reality,
Omris first regnal year would also have been Tibnis final year, this is not so when counting. The custom,
when putting together two inclusively counted blocks of time, is not to overlap (see Chapter Two).
161




However, the reign length of 12 years makes no sense in the context of the narrative
about Omri. If the 12 years are counted from the beginning of Omris rule in Tirzah (the
25
th
of Asa), the 12 years fall short of the 38
th
year of Asa, in which Omri is supposed to
have died. If the 12 years are counted from the beginning of Omris rule in Samaria (the
31
st
year of Asa), the 12 years overextend the 38
th
year of Asa. In other words, the
archetypal reading did not accommodate the 12-year reign length.
The MT and LXX traditions handled the matter in different ways. It would appear
that none of the witnesses preserve the original date for the rise and fall of Zimri, which
was the year that Omri began his rule in contest with Tibni. If it began 6 years prior to the
31
st
year of Asa, as 1 Kings 16:23 suggests, then the assassination of Zimri would have
been placed around the 25
th
year of Asa. In the Old Greek text, the synchronism for the
rise and fall of Zimri was simply omitted (1 Kings 16:15). This did not help a great deal,
since the lengths of the reigns of Elah and Zimri were still in the text and would indicate
that Omri began ruling in Samaria in the 29
th
year of Asa.
208
Nevertheless, it made the
problem less obvious. Of greater concern was making Omris rule equal 12 years. The
archetypal text put Omris accession in the 31
st
year of Asa, and so this datum was
accepted. To make his total years 12, the editor counted forward 12 years and saw that
Omris death would have had to occur, not in the 38
th
year of Asa, but in the 2
nd
year of
Jehoshaphat. Thus he moved Omris death forward 4 years.
The proto-MT editors had to account for an additional problem they created
earlier when they moved Elahs accession from Asas 20
th
year to his 26
th
year (see
162


above), because the new synchronism would have conflicted with the original date for the
fall of Zimri (25
th
year). So first they pushed the accession of Zimri to the 27
th
year of
Asa, allowing Elah 2 inclusive years to coincide with the king list. At this point, only
some 4 years separated Omris assassination of Zimri and his ascendancy to the rule of
all Israel in Asas 31
st
year, but at least the total of Omris years now equaled 12. The
editors could have changed Omris accession date to accommodate the 6 years of co-rule
with Tibni, but they chose the path of least adjustment and decided to ignore the problem.
In the Lucianic tradition, the figure of 2 years for the reign of Elah prompted a
later editor to place Zimris accession two years after Elahs accession, that is, in the 22
nd

year of Asa. In this text, some 9 years separated Omris assassination of Zimri and his
ascendancy to the rule of all Israel (3 years more than the 6 it should have been).
However, the matter with Omri and his 6-years in Tirzah were too difficult to
accommodate, so the editor left the rest alone.


















208
OG attributes 2 years to Elah and 7 years to Zimri (1 Kings 16:8, 15).
163


Table 4.4: Counts for Omri Assumed in the Manuscripts

Years of Asa Archetype MT OG and L
25
th
of Asa
26
th
of Asa
27
th
of Asa
28
th
of Asa
29
th
of Asa
30
th
of Asa
31
st
of Asa
32
nd
of Asa
33
rd
of Asa
34
th
of Asa
35
th
of Asa
36
th
of Asa
37
th
of Asa
38
th
of Asa
39
th
of Asa
40
th
of Asa
1
st
of Jehoshaphat
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
Omri and Tibni
1
st
of Omri
2
nd
of Omri
3
rd
of Omri
4
th
of Omri
5
th
of Omri
6
th
of Omri
7
th
of Omri
1
st
of Ahab
2
nd
of Ahab
3
rd
of Ahab
4
th
of Ahab
1
st
of Elah
1
st
of Zimri/1
st
of
Omri
2
nd
of Omri
3
rd
of Omri
4
th
of Omri
5
th
of Omri
6
th
of Omri
7
th
of Omri
8
th
of Omri
9
th
of Omri
10
th
of Omri
11
th
of Omri
1
st
of Ahab
2
nd
of Ahab
3
rd
of Ahab
4
th
of Ahab






1
st
of Omri
2
nd
of Omri
3
rd
of Omri
4
th
of Omri
5
th
of Omri
6
th
of Omri
7
th
of Omri
8
th
of Omri
9
th
of Omri
10
th
of Omri
11
th
of Omri


The length of the reign of Omri caused other difficulties. Both MT and LXX
decided to forget about the 6 years in Tirzah and focus on the 12-year reign length. MT
decided that the 12 years should count from the 27
th
year of Asa, when Omri was
supposed to have assassinated Zimri, and LXX decided that the 12 years should count
from the 31
st
year of Asa, when Omri took Samaria. Both of their synchronisms for the
accession of Omris son Ahab reflect these respective understandings. MT places Ahabs
accession 12 years after the 27
th
year of Asa in the 38
th
year of Asa (1 Kings 16:29). LXX
places Ahabs accession 12 years after the 31
st
year of Asa in the 2
nd
year of Jehoshaphat
(1 Kings 16:29). Which of the synchronisms is correct? Is either? One might be quick to
discard MTs reading, since it created the artificial synchronism in the 27
th
year of Asa,
from which it counts the 12 years. On the other hand, since MT ceases its consistent
adjustments to the synchronisms at this point, it is possible that once it arrives at Asas
38
th
year, it has been able to reconcile the figures that were given it and does not need to
164


make any more alterations. The 12-year reign fits. So far the Greek text has been
reluctant to change the synchronisms, but the perfect fit of 12 years between the 31
st
year
of Asa and the 2
nd
year of Jehoshaphat arouses suspicion, and from this point the Greek
text does not prove as reliable when it comes to the synchronisms, suggesting that a
different method of accommodating the reign totals is at work. Keeping in mind that both
MT and LXX place Omris accession in the 31
st
year of Asa, and LXX is the one whose
synchronism makes Omris reign an even 12 years from that date, I opt for MTs reading
for the death of Omri. The most likely scenario is that Omris official reign in Samaria
ran from the 31
st
to the 38
th
year of Asa (7-8 years) and that, after the reviser added in the
12-year datum, an editor in the Greek tradition moved the latter synchronism forward to
the 2
nd
year of Jehoshaphat to accommodate the new figure.
Table 4.5: Readings for Zimri, Tibni, Omri and Ahab

Archetype LXX (OG) MT
Royal
Chronicles
Zimri accedes and dies
in [25
th
] of Asa
Tibni and Omri reign
6 years
Omri accedes in 31
st

of Asa
Ahab accedes in 38
th

of Asa
[Zimri synchronism
omitted]
Tibni and Omri reign 6
years
Omri accedes in 31
st
of
Asa
Ahab accedes in 2
nd
of
Jehoshaphat
Zimri accedes and
dies in 27
th
of Asa
Tibni and Omri reign
6 years
Omri accedes in 31
st

of Asa
Ahab accedes in 38
th

of Asa
King List Zimri reigns 7 days
Omri reigns 12 years
Zimri reigns 7 years
Omri reigns 12 years
Zimri reigns 7 days
Omri reigns 12 years

LXXs adjustment to the date of Ahabs death had repercussions. In MT, Ahab
rules from the 38
th
year of Asa to the 17
th
year of Jehoshaphat (20-22 years). In LXX,
Ahab rules from the 2
nd
year to the 24
th
year of Jehoshaphat (21-23 years). The datum
added by the reviser of the DH is a 22-year reign for Ahab. The synchronisms in both
LXX and MT correspond to Ahabs reign length. However, we should opt for MTs
165


reading, because we have already determined that LXXs synchronism for the beginning
of Ahabs reign (2
nd
of Jehoshaphat) is not the archetype. The Greek witness shows an
attempt to harmonize the data. The synchronism for the end of the reign of Jehoshaphat
was extended to the 24
th
year in order to give Ahab his needed 22 years, and the
synchronism for the accession of Jehoshaphat, which would contradict the new
synchronism for Ahabs accession, was omitted.
Table 4.6: Readings for Ahab, Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah
Archetype LXX
209
MT
Royal
Chronicles
Ahab accedes in 38
th

of Asa
Jehoshaphat accedes
in 4
th
of Ahab
Ahaziah accedes in
17
th
of Jehoshaphat
Ahab accedes in 2
nd

of Jehoshaphat
[Jehoshaphat
synchronism
omitted]
Ahaziah accedes in
24
th
of Jehoshaphat
Ahab accedes in 38
th

of Asa
Jehoshaphat accedes in
4
th
of Ahab
Ahaziah accedes in
17
th
of Jehoshaphat
King List Ahab reigns 22 years Ahab reigns 22 years Ahab reigns 22 years

As might be expected, this last adjustment created an additional problem for
LXX. Ahabs son Joram is said to have begun to reign in the 18
th
year of Jehoshaphat, a
synchronism that is impossible if Ahab died in Jehoshaphats 24
th
year. So this
synchronism had to be moved forward as well, and LXX put Jorams accession in the 2
nd

year of Jehoram of Judah (2 Kings 1:18a). Strangely enough, the datum that puts Jehoram
of Judahs accession in the 5
th
year of Joram of Israel (2 Ki 8:16-17) was kept as is, even
though it is quite impossible with the revised synchronisms. It no doubt was overlooked
because of its distance from 2 Kings 1:18.


209
The accession of Ahab is the last datum we have for OG. The rest of LXXs readings are from L
(Lucianic text).
166


Table 4.7: Readings for Ahaziah, Joram and Jehoram
Archetype LXX MT
Royal
Chronicles
Ahaziah accedes in
17
th
of Jehoshaphat
Joram accedes in 18
th

of Jehoshaphat
Jehoram accedes in
5
th
of Joram
Ahaziah accedes in
24
th
of Jehoshaphat
Joram accedes in
2nd of Jehoram
Jehoram accedes in
5
th
of Joram
Ahaziah accedes in
17
th
of Jehoshaphat
Joram accedes in 18
th

of Jehoshaphat
Jehoram accedes in
5
th
of Joram

A further example of an instance where the insertion of the reign totals prompted
an adjustment in the synchronisms is in the case of the reign of Jehoram of Judah. Both
MT and LXX begin his reign in the 5
th
year of Joram of Israel (2 Kings 8:16). MT
concludes his reign in Jorams 12
th
year, making his reign 7-8 years long, and LXX
concludes his reign in Jorams 11
th
year, making his reign 6-7 years long (2 Kings 8:25).
The reign length in LXX does not coincide with the reign total of 8 years provided by the
Judahite king list. That of MT does. So again it would seem that in MT the synchronism
was pushed forward from Jorams 11
th
year to his 12
th
year to accommodate the new
datum. The formula at 2 Kings 9:29 in both MT and LXX retain the original synchronism
in the 11
th
year of Joram. The contradiction between 2 Kings 9:29 and 2 Kings 8:25
seems to have gone unnoticed in MT, perhaps because it is uncustomary for a
synchronism to be repeated and the datum in 9:29 is not in the typical location for
synchronisms.





167


Table 4.8: Readings for Jehoram and Ahaziah
Archetype LXX MT
Royal
Chronicles
Jehoram accedes in
5
th
of Joram
Ahaziah accedes in
11
th
of Joram
Jehoram accedes in
5
th
of Joram
Ahaziah accedes in
11
th
of Joram
Jehoram accedes in
5
th
of Joram
Ahaziah accedes in
12
th
of Joram
King List Jehoram reigns 8
years
Jehoram reigns 8
years
210

Jehoram reigns 8
years

Despite the numerous alterations that were made, neither the Hebrew nor the
Greek textual traditions satisfyingly harmonized the variant data so that all
inconsistencies were eliminated. (This much we knew already.) In 1 Kings 14-16, the OG
reading appears to retain the original synchronisms more consistently than MT, while MT
retains the original reign lengths. However, in 1 Kings 16-2 Kings 3, where the OG is not
extant, MT appears to be more reliable than the Lucianic texts when it comes to the
synchronisms. In one final case, 2 Kings 8:25, the Lucianic texts seem to preserve a more
original reading than MT in the synchronism for Ahaziah of Judah. From this point in the
texts forward, however, both traditions agree in their figures. In regard to 2 Kings 21-25,
this is not surprising, since the section contains no synchronisms (because Israel was
destroyed), and therefore no data from the Judahite king list would contradict any
existing chronological information. However, the fact that the Greek and Hebrew text
traditions are at odds so frequently in 1 Kings 14-2 Kings 8 and suddenly agree in all
respects in 2 Kings 9-20 should make us somewhat suspicious. To be sure, the reason for
the agreement could be simply that the data for the reigns of the latter monarchs in the
king lists and chronicles were already in harmony. A strong possibility exists, however,
that the editors of MT continued to harmonize the figures they inherited (as they have
168


done consistently up to this point) and that the Lucianic texts have been adjusted to
conform to MT in this section of the text.
211
Neither of these two text traditions have been
reliable up to this point, and we have no copy of OG for this portion of the text. There is a
good chance that the original readings no longer exist in either tradition. Is there any
chance of our recovering the earlier readings? Perhaps. The text does provide us with a
couple of clues that enable reconstruction.
The existence of an anomalous datum, which appears to have escaped the editors
pen, suggests that changes were indeed made. There is reason to believe that an
adjustment to a synchronism to accommodate a reign total occurred in 2 Kings 15:1.
According to both MT and LXX, Azariah (Uzziah) acceded to the throne of Judah in the
27
th
year of Jeroboam. However, in a datum within a narrative about Azariahs father
Amaziah, it is asserted that Amaziah lived 15 years (inclusive) after the death of King
Joash of Israel, and therefore 15 years from the accession of Jeroboam, who was Joashs
son (2 Kings 14:17). If this datum were true, then Azariah would have succeeded his
father Amaziah in the 14
th
, 15
th
, or 16
th
year of Jeroboam, rather than the 27
th
(we are
unable to narrow it down further). Two traditions are in conflict. Both cannot be correct.
In one, Amaziah rules from the 2
nd
year of Joash until the 27
th
year of Jeroboam (a longer
reign). In the other, Amaziah rules from the 2
nd
year of Joash until the 14
th
, 15
th
, or 16
th

year of Jeroboam (a shorter reign). The fact that the contradictory information exists in
the same text suggests that there was an editorial alteration, but that one of the two data

210
This reading is in the b manuscript only. Mss o and e
2
read 10 years.
211
It is generally held that portions of L were made to conform to the Hexaplaric text, which is well known
for its conformity to MT. See Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of
Kings, 8, 18-21, Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Fortress, 2001), 148.
169


was overlooked. We should expect a change in a synchronism to have been made in the
usual spot (the accession notice), and the synchronism implied by the statement at 2
Kings 14:17 is found in an obscure passage and thus more likely to have been passed
over. It seems best to consider the datum placing Amaziahs death in the 14
th
, 15
th
, or 16
th

year of Jeroboam as more reflective of an original chronology than the one at 2 Kings
15:1. Josephus appears to have had a manuscript that preserved the older reading; he
states that Azariah took the throne of Judah in the 14
th
year of Jeroboam.
212
The patterns
that have been displayed in the text traditions noted above suggest that the same sort of
deliberate harmonization that occurred there occurred here. 2 Kings 15:1 originally read
the 14
th
year of Jeroboam, but was changed to the 27
th
to extend the reign of Amaziah to
make it total 29 years, in accordance with the reign total provided by Dtr
2
. If that were
the case, then the reign length of Amaziah indicated by the original synchronism would
have been about 11-13 years shorter than the 29 years from the king list and would have
equaled about 15-17 years.
Table 4.9: Readings for Amaziah and Azariah
Archetype LXX MT
Royal
Chronicles
Amaziah accedes in
2
nd
of Joash
Amaziah lives 15
years after death of
Joash
Azariah accedes in
14
th
of Jeroboam
Amaziah accedes in
2
nd
of Joash
Amaziah lives 15
years after death of
Joash
Azariah accedes in
27
th
of Jeroboam
Amaziah accedes in
2
nd
of Joash
Amaziah lives 15
years after death of
Joash
Azariah accedes in
27
th
of Jeroboam
King List Amaziah reigns 29
years
Amaziah reigns 29
years
Amaziah reigns 29
years


212
Antiquities of the Jews, 9:216, 227.
170


Another inference can be drawn from 2 Kings 14:17. If Amaziah lived 15 years
after the death of Joash until Jeroboams 14
th
year, then Joash would have died in
Amaziahs 2
nd
year,
213
and his son Jeroboam would have succeeded him then. However,
this is in contradiction with the datum provided by 2 Kings 14:23, which states that
Jeroboam took the throne in the 15
th
year of Amaziah. It would appear that another
alteration was made to accommodate the king list. The datum in 2 Kings 14:23 originally
put Jeroboams accession in Amaziahs 2
nd
year, making the length of Joashs reign 4-5
years long, but when it was noted that the king list gave Joash 16 years, about 11-12
years were added to the synchronism to accommodate the new figure.
There would have been a major repercussion to this last change that the editors
simply could not have ignored, and we cannot either. By moving the synchronism for
Jeroboams accession from the 2
nd
year of Amaziah to the 15
th
of Amaziah, the reign of
Jeroboam would have been shortened by 12-14 years. In order to restore his reign to its
proper length, no fewer than five synchronisms, all set in the reign of Azariah of Judah,
would have to have been pushed forward 12-14 years. These would be the accession
years of Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, and Pekah. If this is true, then the
current synchronisms for these Israelite kings are 12-14 years too late. Instead of their
accessions taking place in the 38
th
, 39
th
, 39
th
, 50
th
, and 52
nd
years of Azariah, respectively,
the original dates would have been about the 26
th
, 27
th
, 27
th
, 38
th
, and 40
th
years of
Azariah respectively.
214
The chronicles (synchronisms) would have given Azariah a reign
of about 40 years. The 12-year adjustment would have had the added benefit (or perhaps

213
He could not have died in Amaziahs 1
st
year, because this would fall before Jeroboams 1
st
year, and he
could not have died in Amaziahs 3
rd
year, because this would not equal 15 (inclusive) years.
171


this was the primary motivation) of bringing the length of Azariahs reign into harmony
with the king list (52 yrs) (consider that his successor Jotham acceded in the 2
nd
year of
Pekah).
The anomalous datum in 2 Kings 15:30, which is probably not original, as argued
below, nevertheless indicates there was another problem that later editors attempted to
rectify. It states that Hoshea came to the throne of Israel in the 20
th
year of Jotham of
Judah. This is in direct contradiction of 2 Kings 17:1, which states that Hoshea came to
the throne in the 12
th
year of Ahaz. We might dismiss 2 Kings 15:30 out of hand, but its
very existence should give us pause. Why was the datum invented? What contradiction
was it trying to correct? The lengthening of Jothams reign would have had the effect of
lengthening also the reign of Pekah. This is likely to have been the intention. Since
Jotham is stated as taking the throne in the 2
nd
year of Pekah (16:1), if Hoshea took the
throne in the 20
th
year of Jotham, then Pekahs reign would come out to be 20-21 years. It
would appear that this was an attempt to make the length of Pekahs reign conform to the
reign length provided by the king list (20 yrs). 2 Kings 15:30 stands apart from MTs and
LXXs other chronological data and may be set aside for the time being. Nevertheless, it
does indicate that the reign of Pekah, as suggested by the original synchronisms, had been
shorter than 20 years, and therefore that at least one of the synchronisms of 2 Kings 16:1
and 17:1, which taken together give Pekah a reign of 28 years, must be incorrect. Since
multiple pieces of evidence affirm that Hoshea was a contemporary of the young King
Hezekiah of Judah, we would expect that he would have been crowned somewhere near

214
I assume a 12-year difference on the ground that the editors would have chosen the minimum amount
necessary to correct the problem.
172


the end of the reign of Ahaz, and so the synchronism in 17:1 is more likely to be original
than the one in 16:1. No doubt an editor, in an attempt to lengthen the reign of Jotham to
the 16 years ascribed to him in the king list, advanced the accession of Ahaz to Pekahs
17
th
year. Unfortunately no existing manuscript of the DH, nor any other unnoticed
reading in the DH, gives us a clue as to what the original reading was. Nevertheless, a
datum in a Deuteronomistic section of Isaiah may be of assistance. It sets the reign of
Ahaz 65 years (inclusive) before Ephraim is shattered from being a people (Isa 7:8). If
we knew when this event took place, we might be able to sort this matter out. To do this,
we have no choice but to look to extrabiblical evidence. According to Assyrian
chronology, after his capture of Sidon in 677, the Assyrian king Esarhaddon deported the
population of Samaria (cf. Ezra 4:2), and this appears to be what Isaiah is referring to.
Counting back 64 years from 677 or 676 BCE (when this event occurred) brings us to
739 or 740 BCE. This should be sometime in Ahazs reign. If Samaria fell in Hosheas
9
th
year (2 Ki 18:9-10), and this was the year 720 (see below), then 739 or 740 would
correspond to Pekahs 2
nd
or 3
rd
year. This is about as early as we can make Ahazs
accession, so we will tentatively assume the original reading assigned his accession to
Pekahs 3
rd
year.
Table 4.10: Readings for Jotham, Ahaz and Hoshea
Archetype LXX MT
Royal
Chronicles
Jotham accedes in 2
nd

of Pekah
Ahaz accedes in [3
rd
]
of Pekah
Hoshea accedes in 12
th

of Ahaz
Jotham accedes in 2
nd

of Pekah
Ahaz accedes in 17
th

of Pekah
Hoshea accedes in
12
th
of Ahaz
Jotham accedes in 2
nd

of Pekah
Ahaz accedes in 17
th

of Pekah
Hoshea accedes in
12
th
of Ahaz
King List Jotham reigns 16 years Jotham reigns 16
years
Jotham reigns 16
years
173



To sum up, in the block of material from 2 Kings 9 to 20, the data preserved in 2
Kings 14:17 and 15:30 indicate that a total of 8 synchronisms may have been tampered
with. Fortunately, the original readings can be more-or-less reconstructed from the
textual evidence (with only the last having to appeal to extrabiblical sources). I can find
no other evidence within the biblical text to suggest that any other alterations were made
between 2 Kings 9 and 20.

d. Conclusions
Before proceeding, a review of the conclusions that have been reached so far may
be worthwhile:
1) For the time of the kings, the original version of the Deuteronomistic History
contained chronological data only from the Judahite and Israelite royal chronicles, which
placed events in specific regnal years, but did not provide totals for the length of kings
reigns. Neither of the chronicles contained dates that indicated the month and day that an
event occurred. Only years were recorded. Neither kingdom kept track of the regnal years
of the other. However, they would take note of the accession of a new king in the other
kingdom.
2) The total counts for kings reigns were added to the DH during the exile and
derive from king lists that were not directly connected with the royal chronicles.
3) The chronological notes in MT 1 Kings 16:10, 2 Kings 1:17, and 2 Kings 15:30
do not appear to derive from either the chronicles or the king lists and are probably later
additions.
174


4) The biblical evidence suggests that Judah counted its kings regnal years from
the autumn in the later monarchic period, and this is likely a holdover from earlier times.
Evidence for a civil calendar beginning in the autumn strengthens this conclusion.
5) There is sufficient evidence to indicate that Israel counted its kings regnal
years from a different time of year than Judah did, so they probably had a spring-based
regnal calendar.
6) The Judahite king list assumes an accession-year system in Judah. The Judahite
royal chronicle used by the Deuteronomistic Historian appears to agree, and this evidence
suggests that the kingdom employed this system throughout its history.
7) The difference in year totals between the Israelite and Judahite king lists
suggests that Israel employed the non-accession-year system in its early period.
8) In their chronicles, neither kingdom noted co-regencies of the other kingdom,
so they either ignored them, or there were no co-regencies.
9) Discrepancies within the Deuteronomistic History between reign lengths and
synchronisms were variously adjusted in both MT and OG.

B. Historical Reconstructions
Now that we know the chronological sources of the Deuteronomistic History and
can approximate their data, we may examine in more detail the question of historical
reliability. Such an exercise may assist in determining how far removed from the reality
each of the sources is, and perhaps a little about their independent textual history. At this
point, we will concern ourselves only with the chronology of the kings. It is very possible
that both the chronicles and the king lists will present a chronology that is at variance
175


with the historical reality, or at least with the data that comes from Assyria and Babylon,
since chronological data from earlier times may have been inadequately preserved (a
statement we could make about the foreign material as well).
The records of kingdoms neighboring Israel and Judah occasionally make
reference to interactions with those two countries and sometimes mention kings by name.
Rarely, however, is an exact date associated with one of these references. Surprisingly, in
the entire history of the Israelite and Judahite kingdoms, only two dated events in
extrabiblical sources may be matched with dated events in biblical sources:
1) Year 21 of Nabopolassar of Babylon = Year 4 of Jehoiakim of Judah. Prince
Nebuchadnezzar, in the 21
st
year of his father, defeated the Egyptians in the Battle of
Carchemish in May/June of 605 BCE (BM 21946). Jeremiah 46:2 places this battle in the
fourth year of Jehoiakim. Keep in mind that the Mesopotamian regnal year began in the
spring, and the Judahite regnal year in the autumn.
2) Year 17 of Nabopolassar of Babylon = year of the death of Josiah. The
Babylonian Chronicle (BM 21901) informs us that, in the year following Nabopolassars
16
th
year, a large army of Egypt allied with the king of Assyria invaded the Levant with
the intention of taking Haran from the Babylonians (summer of 609 BCE). This is almost
certain to be the force that King Josiah engaged in battle and by whom he was slain (2
Kings 24:29).
215

A possible third synchronism, equating Year 4 of Sennacherib of Assyria with
Year 14 of Hezekiah of Judah, cannot be maintained (see Appendix B).

215
For a discussion of these two synchronisms, see D.N. Freedman, "The Babylonian Chronicle," Biblical
Archaeologist 19 (1956): 50-60.
176


Three further synchronisms are provided by Jeremiahs scribe and by the exilic
reviser of the Deuteronomistic History in the final chapter of Kings, and are probably
reliable:
1) Year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon = Year 11 of Zedekiah of Judah and the
destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:2, 8).
2) Year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon = Year 10 of Zedekiah of Judah (Jer
32:1).
3) Year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon = the accession of Zedekiah of Judah.
The Babylonian Chronicle (BM 21946, rev., ll. 11-13) provides us with an exact date for
Nebuchadnezzars deposal of Jehoiachin, which corresponds to March 16, 597 BCE in
the Julian calendar (the tail end of Nebuchadnezzars 7
th
year). The deposal of Jehoiachin
by Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned also in the DH (2 Kings 24:10-11), but a date is not
given. Nevertheless, it also tells us that Jehoiachin (who had only reigned three months)
was taken to Babylon the following year (24:12), probably a month or two after his
deposal. We should keep in mind that Judah is not likely to have accepted the deposal of
Jehoiachin (at least not officially) while he was still present in Jerusalem, despite what
Nebuchadnezzar may have declared. The fact that the Judahites dated the end of the reign
of Jehoiachin and the accession of Zedekiah early in Nebuchadnezzars 8
th
year confirms
this. For the Judahites, Jehoiachins reign would have ended when, and only when, he
had left the country.
(Note: Considering we know for certain that Jehoiakims accession year ended in
the autumn of 609 and that Jehoiachin ended his 3-month reign sometime in or after
March 597, there is no way around the fact that Jehoiachin took the throne in Jehoiakims
177


12
th
year. Jehoiakims reign length in the Judahite king list [11 years] is therefore one
year short of the reality.)
There are three other synchronisms we can reconstruct with a reasonable amount
of certainty:
1) Year 10 of Sargon of Assyria = Year 14 of Hezekiah of Judah. The year of an
Assyrian punitive campaign against the Philistines in 712 BCE also involved the
Judahites (Nineveh Prism A, Fragment D). For a full discussion of this synchronism, see
Appendix B.
2) Year 2 of Sargon of Assyria = Year 6 of Hezekiah of Judah and Year 9 of
Hoshea of Israel. In many of his inscriptions, Sargon claims to have fought against
Samaria in his first two years of kingship and conquered it completely by his second year,
720 BCE (Lie, 4-7, II.3, ll. 10-17). The DH provides the Judahite and Israelite
synchronisms (2 Kings 18:10-11).
3) Year 5 of Shalmaneser V of Assyria = Year 4 of Hezekiah of Judah and Year 7
of Hoshea of Israel. The Babylonian Chronicle claims that Shalmaneser ravaged Samaria
(most likely referring to the country rather than the city) sometime during his short reign
(I, ll. 27-30). The DH confirms this (2 Kings 18:9). Since Sargon was king the following
year, the year of Shalmanesers campaign against Israel must have been his fifth and last
(722 BCE).
Finally, there are several historical events recorded in extrabiblical sources that
pertain to kings of Israel or Judah and which, although they cannot be placed in a precise
year, assist us generally in ascertaining approximate synchronisms.
178


1) early in the reign of Ashurbanipal of Assyria = sometime in the reign of
Manasseh of Judah. The Prism C inscription of Ashurbanipal (I, l. 25) includes Manasseh
in a list of kings bearing tribute from the coastlands. These vassals are said to have
assisted Ashurbanipal in his invasion of Egypt (664-663 BCE).
2) Year 4 or 5 of Esarhaddon of Assyria = sometime in the reign of Manasseh of
Judah. An inscription of Esarhaddon refers to Manasseh giving tribute to the Assyrian
king (Nineveh prism A, V, l. 55). The precise year of the event is unclear, but Manasseh
is listed among 22 seacoast and sea kings who gave tribute sometime after the fall of
Sidon in 677 BCE, so this is likely to have occurred either in Esarhaddons 4
th
or 5
th
year
(677 or 676 BCE).
3) Year 4 of Sennacherib of Assyria = sometime in the reign of Hezekiah of
Judah. While the synchronism of Sennacheribs 4
th
year with Hezekiahs 14
th
can no
longer be maintained (see Appendix B), it is certain that Sennacherib did attack Hezekiah
in 701 BCE, and this is likely to have occurred sometime after Hezekiahs 14
th
year.
4) sometime in the reign of Marduk-apla-iddina II of Babylon = Year 14 of
Hezekiah. The DH refers to a visit of the Babylonian king (Merodach-baladan) to
Hezekiahs court (2 Kings 20:12-19). The trip is prompted by Hezekiahs illness, which
is dated to his 14
th
year (20:6; cf. 18:13 with 20:1). Marduk-apla-iddina reigned from 722
to 710 BCE.
5) soon after the death of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria = accession of Hezekiah.
A prophecy of Isaiah (14:28-32) places the death of Ahaz shortly after the staff of the
one striking [Philistia] was broken. This no doubt refers to Tiglath-pileser, who died
in 727 BCE. The death of Ahaz probably occurred in that year or the year after.
179


6) Year 15 or 17 of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria = coronation of Hoshea of
Israel. Tiglath-pileser claims to have replaced Peqah with Hoshea on the throne of Israel
(Summary Inscription 4, ll. 15-19; Summary Inscription 9, ll.10-11). The latter text puts
Hosheas accession during Tiglath-pilesers campaign against Sarrabani in Babylonia.
Apparently, Hoshea or one of his messengers traveled quite a distance to secure the
kingship. Tiglath-pilesers presence in Sarrabani could be associated with the campaign
against southern Babylonia that included the siege of Shapiya in 731 BCE (according to
the Eponym Chronicle) or the next campaign against southern Babylonia in 729
(according to the Eponym Chronicle). The records are too fragmentary to pinpoint the
year exactly.
7) Year 11, 12 or 13 of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria = sometime in the reign of
Ahaz of Judah. Ahaz is mentioned in a list of Levantine tribute-bearing kings (Summary
Inscription 7, rev. l. 11). The date of this event is disputed, but it probably occurred
somewhere between 735 and 733 BCE.
8) 64 years before Esarhaddon of Assyria deported the population of Phoenicia-
Samaria = sometime in the reign of Ahaz. After his capture of Sidon in 677, Esarhaddon
deported the population of the area (cf. Ezra 4:2). The Deuteronomic narrative in Isaiah 7
sets the reign of Ahaz 65 years (inclusive) before this event, when Isaiah prophesies, In
yet 65 years, Ephraim will be shattered from being a people (Isa 7:8). Counting 64 years
back from 677 or 676 brings us to 739 or 740 BCE. This should be sometime in Ahazs
reign.
9) sometime in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria = sometime in the reign
of Menahem of Israel. The date of Menahems payment of tribute to Assyria has been
180


hotly debated. Some have argued that the Assyrian records (Iran Stele, IIIA, l. 5; Ann.
13*:10; Ann. 27:2) indicate two different payments. Because of the fragmentary nature of
the Assyrian materials, the matter is far from settled, and cases have been made for 743,
740, and 738 BCE.
216

10) sometime in the reign of Adad-nirari III of Assyria = sometime in the reign of
Joash of Israel. Joash is listed among tribute-bearers to Adad-nirari III (Tell al-Rimah
inscription, l. 8). The exact year is unknown. Adad-nirari reigned from 811 to 783 BCE.
11) Year 18 of Shalmaneser III of Asssyria = sometime in the reign of Jehu of
Israel. The bearing of tribute by Jehu is attested in several inscriptions of Shalmaneser
(Black Obelisk, relief B; IM 55644; annals of year 20 of the city of Ashur: III, l. 45 IV,
l. 15; Kurbail Statue, 29-30) and can be confidently dated to 841 BCE.
12) Year 6 of Shalmaneser III of Assyria = sometime in the reign of Ahab of
Israel. Ahab is mentioned in the somewhat unreliable Kurkh Monolith inscription (II: ll.
91ff.) in association with the Battle of Qarqar, which took place in 853 BCE.
13) Sometime in the reign of Shoshenq I of Egypt = Year 5 of Rehoboam of Judah.
Egyptian chronologists, using a combination of archaeological evidence, monumental
inscriptions, astronomy, and Egyptian king lists, place Shoshenqs reign c. 945-925
B.C.E.
217



216
See discussions in Thiele, MNHK, 139-62, Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King
of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 274-75.
217
For a summary of the evidence, see Kenneth A. Kitchen, "The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt,
A Current Assessment," in The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the
Second Millennium B.C., ed. Manfred Bietak (Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 2000): 39-52, A. J. Shortland, "Shishak, King of Egypt: The Challenges of Egyptian
181


Let us first compare the eight precise synchronisms and the thirteen approximate
synchronisms with the Judahite king list that fell into the hands of the reviser of the DH.
On its own it provides a chronology of the monarchy of Judah from Rehoboam to
Zedekiah. Working back from an absolute date of 586 for the end of the kingdom,
218
we
arrive at the following dates B.C.E. for the kings of the divided kingdom:
Rehoboam (973-956)
Abijam (956-953)
Asa (953-912)
Jehoshaphat (912-887)
Jehoram (887-879)
Ahaziah (879-878)
Jehoash (878-838)
Amaziah (838-809)
Azariah (809-757)
Jotham (757-741)
Ahaz (741-725)
Hezekiah (725-696)
Manasseh (696-641)
Amon (641-639)
Josiah (639-608)
Jehoahaz (608)
Jehoiakim (608-597)
Jehoiachin (597)
Zedekiah (597-586)
It is important to note that the scheme above assumes that the years attributed to
each king in the king list represent actual years. In a post-dating system (in which the
accession year of a king is not counted), the number of regnal years for each king is equal
to the number of actual years he reigned. It could be objected that the ancient Israelite
who compiled the data counted the totals inclusively. Nevertheless, as was demonstrated
above, each block of time would be added exclusively, so an inclusive count would only

Calendrical Chronology," in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, ed. Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham
(London: Equinox, 2005): 43-54.
182


affect the year of the accession of Rehoboam (making it 972). The rest of the years would
remain the same.
Considering that the core of the list was composed in the reign of Amon and was
supplemented sometime between the end of the monarchy and the revision of the DH
during the exile, there is the possibility that some of the figures, particularly the earlier
ones, are inaccurate. Extrabiblical synchronisms fit the king lists chronology in many
instances in the later reigns. For example, the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
of Babylon, in year 7 of his reign (597) and the installation of Zedekiah a few months
later matches the dates here. Also, the Assyrian king Sennacherib mentions King
Hezekiah and an invasion of Judah in the fourth year of his reign (701), which falls
within the years attributed to Hezekiah here. In Hezekiahs reign, the king list is close but
appears to have lost a year somewhere. It is prior to Ahaz that the dates seem to fall
further and further short of what they should be. The reign of Shoshenq I (c. 945-925)
covers a period of years falling well after Rehoboams reign here. The dates for the reign
of Rehoboam are thus far too early.







218
For the date 586, see Chapter One, Section D.2.d. For the evidence that Zedekiah took the throne in
Nebuchadnezzars 8
th
year, see the discussion on extrabiblical synchronisms directly above.
183



Table 4.11: Comparison of Extrabiblical Dates with Judahite King List Dates
Extrabiblical Synchronisms King List Dates
Sometime during the reign of Shoshenq I of Egypt (c. 945-925) =
Year 5 of Rehoboam. No match








64 years before Esarhaddon of Assyria deports the population of
Phoenicia-Samaria (740 or 739) = sometime in the reign of Ahaz.
Match
Year 11, 12 or 13 of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (735, 734 or
733) = sometime in the reign of Ahaz. Match
Soon after the death of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (727 or 726)
= accession of Hezekiah. No match
Year 5 of Shalmaneser V of Assyria (722) = Year 4 of Hezekiah.
No match
Year 2 of Sargon of Assyria (720) = Year 6 of Hezekiah. No
match
10 of Sargon of Assyria (712) = Year 14 of Hezekiah of Judah. No
match
sometime in the reign of Marduk-apla-iddina II of Babylon (722-
710) = Year 14 of Hezekiah. Match
Year 4 of Sennacherib of Assyria (701) = sometime in the reign of
Hezekiah of Judah. Match
Year 4 or 5 of Esarhaddon of Assyria (677 or 676) = sometime in
the reign of Manasseh of Judah. Match
early in the reign of Ashurbanipal of Assyria (664 or 663) =
sometime in the reign of Manasseh of Judah. Match




Year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (597) = the accession of
Zedekiah of Judah. Match


























Rehoboam (973-956)
Abijam (956-953)
Asa (953-912)
Jehoshaphat (912-
887)
Jehoram (887-879)
Ahaziah (879-878)
Jehoash (878-838)
Amaziah (838-809)
Azariah (809-757)
Jotham (757-741)
Ahaz (741-725)



Hezekiah (725-696)












Manasseh (696-641)



Amon (641-639)
Josiah (639-608)
Jehoahaz (608)
Jehoiakim (608-597)
Jehoiachin (597)
Zedekiah (597-586)

184


The king list, therefore, has given us reason not to accept its earlier dates at face
value. We do not know what sources the compiler of the king list used, although the
information seems ultimately to have its origin in primary documentation. Whatever the
historical value of the Judahite king list used by the reviser of the History, we must
accept that these are its dates, and that it represents the chronology of the person(s) who
composed it, whether they had access to reliable information or not. Even if it drew from
a common tradition with the other chronological sources used in the DH, it must be
understood independently from those sources, and from the historical reality as well.
When we add up the lengths of the reigns of the kings of Israel (assuming the
figures are antedated years), we arrive at a date circa 946 B.C.E. for the division of the
kingdom. This date falls short of the Judahite total by some 17 years.
Jeroboam (946-925)
Nadab (925-924)
Baasha (924-901)
Elah (901-900)
Zimri (900)
Omri (900-889)
Ahab (889-868)
Ahaziah (868-867)
Jehoram (867-856)
Jehu (856-829)
Jehoahaz (829-813)
Joash (813-798)
Jeroboam (798-758)
Zechariah (758)
Shallum (757)
Menahem (757-748)
Pekahiah (748-747)
Pekah (747-728)
Hoshea (728-720)
The two lists are incompatible with each other as they stand (further corroborating our
conclusion that they come from two different sources).
185


Because Judah used a postdating system, and Israel used an antedating system, we
should expect that the Judahite king list provides us with actual years, and that the
Israelite king list provides us with antedated years. This conclusion is justified by our
observation of the cases of two kings whose reign lengths are stated explicitly by both a
king list and a chronicle. For Israel, we have the example of Hoshea, about whom it is
said that he reigned 9 years (2 Kings 17:1) and about whom it is also said that his reign
ended in his 9
th
year (2 Kings 18:10). The first datum comes from the Israelite king list,
the second from the Israelite chronicle. We know that the chronicle uses antedating. Thus
the 9
th
year = 8 actual years. Since the king list gives 9 years, it must also be antedated.
For Judah, we have the example of Zedekiah, about whom it is said that he reigned 11
years (2 Kings 24:18) and about whom it is also said that his reign ended in his 11
th
year
(2 Kings 25:8). The first datum comes from the Judahite king list and the second from the
Judahite chronicle. We know that the chronicle uses postdating. Thus the 11
th
year = 11
actual years. Since the king list gives 11 years, it is stating actual years.
The numbers from the Israelite king list, when compared with the extrabiblical
synchronisms listed above, clearly are defective. The reigns of the kings do not coincide
with the historical reality very well at all.






186


Table 4.12: Comparison of Extrabiblical Dates with Israelite King List Dates
Extrabiblical Synchronisms King List Dates






Year 6 of Shalmaneser III of Assyria (853) = sometime in the reign
of Ahab of Israel. No match

Year 18 of Shalmaneser III of Asssyria (841) = sometime in the
reign of Jehu of Israel. Match
Sometime in the reign of Adad-nirari III of Assyria (811-783) =
sometime in the reign of Joash of Israel. Match

Sometime in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (743, 740, or
738) = sometime in the reign of Menahem of Israel. No match

Year 15 or 17 of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (731 or 729) =
coronation of Hoshea of Israel. No match
















Jeroboam (946-925)
Nadab (925-924)
Baasha (924-901)
Elah (901-900)
Zimri (900)
Omri (900-889)
Ahab (889-868)
Ahaziah (868-867)
Jehoram (867-856)
Jehu (856-829)
Jehoahaz (829-813)
Joash (813-798)
Jeroboam (798-758)
Zechariah (758)
Shallum (757)
Menahem (757-748)
Pekahiah (748-747)
Pekah (747-728)
Hoshea (728-720)

There is nothing extraordinary about the two extrabiblical synchronisms that are in
harmony with the king list. Both cover very broad ground. It may be that only a small
number of reign lengths are incorrect and are throwing the rest off, but we cannot put
great trust in the figures. Unlike the Davidic dynasty in Judah in which all kings were
from a single family, the northern kings often succeeded by usurpation. The constant
turnover of government may account for the northern king lists greater inaccuracy.
It is clear, then, that we must get the second opinion offered by the chronicles,
which, though incomplete, may nevertheless provide valuable information.
Unfortunately, there is also the chance that, for some kings, neither the figure in the king
lists nor the one in the chronicles is historically accurate. In cases where the extrabiblical
data suggest this, we may have to make some educated guesses about the historical
187


reality. In cases where there is a discrepancy between the king lists and the royal
chronicles, and there is no extrabiblical evidence to suggest one or the other or either are
correct, we will tentatively take the testimony of the chronicles as the most reliable.
Below is a list of the 24 events that are dated by a synchronism with the regnal
year of a Judahite monarch, and which therefore may be understood as coming from the
Judahite royal chronicle used as a source by the Deuteronomistic Historian:

Dates from the Judahite Royal Chronicle

Rehoboam Year 5 Shishak the king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem (1 Kings
14:25)
Asa Year 2 Nadab the son of Jeroboam became king over Israel (1 Kings 15:25)
Asa Year 3 Baasha the son of Ahijah became king over Israel in Tirzah (1 Kings 15:33)
Asa Year 20 Elah the son of Baasha became king over Israel in Tirzah (1 Kings 16:8)
219

Asa Year [25] Zimri became king over Israel in Tirzah (1 Kings 16:15)
220

Asa Year 31 Omri became king over Israel (1 Kings 16:23)
Asa Year 38 Ahab the son of Omri became king over Israel in Samaria (1 Kings
16:29)
221

Jehoshaphat Year 17 Ahaziah the son of Ahab became king over Israel in Samaria (1
Kings 22:52)
222

Jehoshaphat Year 18 Joram the son of Ahab became king over Israel in Samaria (2
Kings 3:1)
223

Jehoash Year 23 Repairs made to the Temple (2 Kings 12:7); Jehoahaz the son of Jehu
became king over Israel in Samaria (2 Kings 13:1)
Jehoash Year 37 Joash the son of Jehoahaz became king over Israel in Samaria (2
Kings 13:10)
Amaziah Year [2] Jeroboam the son of Joash became king over Israel in Samaria (2
Kings 14:23)
224


219
MT has this as Asa Year 26.
220
MT has this as Asa Year 27; L has this as Asa Year 22. Dtr
1
puts this event 6 years before Asa Year 31
(1 Kings 16:23).
221
OG has this as Jehoshaphat Year 2.
222
L has this as Jehoshaphat Year 24.
223
L has this as Jehoram Year 2.
224
The readings of MT and LXX are rejected in favor of the datum in 2 Kings 14:17, which states that
Amaziah died 15 years after Joashs death and therefore 15 years after the accession of Jeroboam. A reign
length of 16 or 17 years is suggested by the change that was made in 2 Kings 15:1, an addition of 11-12
years from the original number.
188


Azariah Year [25] Zechariah the son of Jeroboam became king over Israel for 6 months
in Samaria (2 Kings 15:8)
225

Azariah Year [26] Shallum the son of Jabesh became king over Israel for 1 month in
Samaria (2 Kings 15:13); Menahem the son of Gadi became king over
Israel in Samaria (2 Kings 15:17)
Azariah Year [37] Pekahiah the son of Menahem became king over Israel in Samaria (2
Kings 15:23)
Azariah Year [39] Pekah the son of Remaliah became king over Israel in Samaria (2
Kings 15:27)
Ahaz Year 12 Hoshea the son of Elah became king over Israel in Samaria (2 Kings
17:1)
Hezekiah Year 4 Shalmaneser the king of Assyria came up against Samaria and laid
siege to it (2 Kings 18:9)
Hezekiah Year 6 Samaria was captured (2 Kings 18:10)
Hezekiah Year 14 Sennacherib the king of Assyria came up against all the fortified
cities of Judah and laid siege to them (2 Kings 18:13)
Josiah Year 18 The king begins his religious reforms (2 Kings 22:3); Passover
celebrated (2 Kings 23:23)

It is not certain whether the final date was derived from the chronicle or not, as the event
recorded is understood to have occurred in the lifetime of the Historian.
Below is a list of the 13 events that are dated by a synchronism with the regnal
year of an Israelite monarch, and which therefore may be understood as coming from the
Israelite royal chronicle used as a source by the Deuteronomistic Historian:

Dates from the Israelite Royal Chronicle
Jeroboam Year 18 Abijam became king over Judah (1 Kings 15:1)
Jeroboam Year 24 Asa became king of Judah (1 Kings 15:9)
226

Ahab Year 4 Jehoshaphat the son of Asa became king over Judah (1 Kings 22:41)
227

Joram Year 5 Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat became king alongside Jehoshaphat (2
Kings
8:16)
Joram Year 11 Ahaziah the son of Jehoram the king of Judah became king (2 Kings
8:25; 9:29)
228


225
The restoration of Jeroboams original accession date (see previous note) requires an equal restoration of
the five dates occurring in Azariahs reign, beginning with Zechariah. See above.
226
MT has this as Jeroboam Year 20.
227
OG has this as Omri Year 11.
228
MT has this as Joram Year 12 at 2 Kings 8:25.
189


Jehu Year 7 Jehoash became king (2 Kings 12:2)
Joash Year 2 Amaziah the son of Jehoash the king of Judah became king (2 Kings 14:1)
Jeroboam Year [14] Azariah the son of Amaziah the king of Judah became king (2
Kings 15:1)
229

Pekah Year 2 Jotham the son of Uzziah the king of Judah became king (2 Kings 15:32)
Pekah Year [3] Ahaz the son of Jotham the king of Judah became king (2 Kings
16:1)
230

Hoshea Year 3 Hezekiah the son of Ahaz the king of Judah became king (2 Kings 18:1)
Hoshea Year 7 Shalmaneser the king of Assyria came up against Samaria and laid siege
to it (2 Kings 18:9)
Hoshea Year 9 Samaria was captured (2 Kings 18:10)
The table below reconstructs a tentative chronology based on the synchronisms
alone. All reign lengths should be within one or two years of the actual reign lengths
assumed by the chronicles. We can do no better than that, because the regnal years of the
two kingdoms overlapped. In cases where I had to choose between agreeing with a reign
length in a king list or not, I chose to agree whenever it was possible. In many cases it
was not.










229
The readings of MT and LXX are rejected in favor of the datum in 2 Kings 14:17, which states that
Amaziah died 15 years after Joashs death and therefore 15 years after the accession of Jeroboam.
230
The existence of the anomalous datum in 2 Kings 15:30 suggests that Pekahs reign has been artificially
lengthened and therefore that the synchronism of 2 Kings 16:1 is incorrect. See above.
190


Table 4.13: Chronology of the Hebrew Kings
Based Upon the Synchronisms







Judahite
Record
Israelite
Record

Accession-year system
in use
Nonaccession-year system
in use

Autumn Years
Years
BCE SpringYears
935


REHOBOAM 934
Ac
JEROBOAM
1 933 1

2
2 932

3
3 931

4
4 930
Shishak
attacks 5
5th of 5 929
Rehoboam
1 Ki 14:25 6
6 928

7
7 927

8
8 926

9
9 925

10
191


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
10 924

11
11 923

12
12 922

13
13 921

14
14 920

15
15 919

16
16 918

17 17
ABIJAM 917 Abijam
Ac 18th of
18 Jeroboam
1 916 1 Ki 15:1

19
2 915

20
3 914

21
4 913

22
5 912

6 23 Asa
ASA 911 24th of
Ac Jeroboam
24 1 Ki 15:9
192


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
1 910
25
Nadab NADAB
2nd of Asa 2 909 1
1 Ki 15:25 2
Baasha BAASHA
3rd of Asa 3 908 1
1 Ki 15:33
2
4 907

3
5 906

4
6 905

5
7 904

6
8 903

7
9 902

8
10 901

9
11 900

10
12 899

11
13 898

12
14 897

13
193


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
15 896

14
16 895

15
17 894

16
18 893

17
19 892
18
Elah ELAH
20th of Asa 20 891 1
1 Ki 16:8
2
21 890

3
22 889

4
23 888

5
24 887

Zimri & Omri 6
[25th] of Asa 25 886
1 Ki 16:10, 7
15, 16 ZIMRI
26 885 OMRI 1 TIBNI 1

2 2
27 884

3 3
28 883

4 4
194


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
29 882

5 5
30 881
Omri
Omri 6 6 6 yrs in Tirzah
31st of Asa 31 880 1 Ki 16:23
1 Ki 16:23
7
32 879

8
33 878

9
34 877

10
35 876

11
36 875

12
37 874
13
Ahab AHAB
38th of Asa 38 873 1
1 Ki 16:29
2
39 872

3
40 871
Jehoshaphat
41 4 4th of Ahab
JEHOSHAPHAT 870 1 Ki 22:41
Ac
5
1 869

6
195


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
2 868

7
3 867

8
4 866

9
5 865

10
6 864

11
7 863

12
8 862

13
9 861

14
10 860

15
11 859

16
12 858

17
13 857

18
14 856

19
15 855

20
196


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
16 854
Ahaziah
17th of 21
Jehoshaphat 17 853
1 Ki 22:51 22
Joram AHAZIAH
18th of 18 852 1
Jehoshaphat 2
2 Ki 3:1 JORAM
19 851 1

2
20 850

3
21 849

22 4
JEHORAM 848
Ac Jehoram
5 5th of Joram
1 847 2 Ki 8:16

6
2 846

7
3 845

8
4 844

9
5 843

7 10
AHAZIAH 842 Ahaziah
Ac 11th year
11 of Joram
ATHALIAH 1 841 2 Ki 8:25
1 12
JEHU
197


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
2 840 1

2
3 839

3
Athaliah 6 yrs 4 838
2 Ki 11:1-3
4
5 837

5
6 836

6 Jehoash
JEHOASH 835 7th of Jehu
1 2 Ki 12:2
7
2 834

8
3 833

9
4 832

10
5 831

11
6 830

12
7 829

13
8 828

14
9 827

15
198


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
10 826

16
11 825

17
12 824

18
13 823

19
14 822

20
15 821

21
16 820

22
17 819

23
18 818

24
19 817

25
20 816

26
21 815

27
22 814
28
Jehoahaz JEHOAHAZ
23rd of 23 813 1
Jehoash
2 Ki 13:1 2
199


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
24 812

3
25 811

4
26 810

5
27 809

6
28 808

7
29 807

8
30 806

9
31 805

10
32 804

11
33 803

12
34 802

13
35 801

14
36 800
15
Joash JOASH
37th of Jehoash 37 799 1 Amaziah
2 Ki 13:10 2nd of Joash
38 2 2 Ki 14:1
200


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
AMAZIAH 798
Ac
3
1 797

4
2 796
Jeroboam 5
[3rd] of JEROBOAM
Amaziah 3 795 1
2 Ki 14:17
2
4 794

3
5 793

4
6 792

5
7 791

6
8 790

7
9 789

8
10 788

9
11 787

10
12 786

11
13 785

12
201


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
14 784

13
15 783 Azariah
14th of
16 14 Jeroboam
AZARIAH 782 2 Ki 15:1
Ac
15
1 781

16
2 780

17
3 779

18
4 778

19
5 777

20
6 776

21
7 775

22
8 774

23
9 773

24
10 772

25
11 771

26
202


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
12 770

27
13 769

28
14 768

29
15 767

30
16 766

31
17 765

32
18 764

33
19 763

34
20 762

35
21 761

36
22 760

37
23 759

38
24 758

39
25 757

40
203


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
Zechariah 26 756
[26th] of 41
Azariah ZECHARIAH
2 Ki 15:8 27 755 1
Menahem SHALLUM
[27th] of MENAHEM
Azariah 28 754 1
2 Ki 15:17
2
29 753

3
30 752

4
31 751

5
32 750

6
33 749

7
34 748

8
35 747

9
36 746

10
37 745

Pekahiah 11
[38th] of 38 744
Azariah 12
2 Ki 15:23 PEKAHIAH
39 743 1 Jotham
2 2nd of Pekah
40 PEKAH 2 Ki 15:32
204


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
Pekah JOTHAM 742 1
[40th] of Ac
Azariah 2
2 Ki 15:27 1 741
Ahaz
2 3 [3rd?] of Pekah
AHAZ 740 2 Ki 16:1
Ac
4
1 739

5
2 738

6
3 737

7
4 736

8
5 735

9
6 734

10
7 733

11
8 732

12
9 731

13
10 730

14
11 729
15
HOSHEA
205


Table 4.13 continued
Judahite Record Years BCE Israelite Record
Hoshea 12 728 1
12th of Ahaz
2 Ki 17:1 2
13 727
Hezekiah
14 3 3rd of Hoshea
HEZEKIAH 726 2 Ki 18:1
Ac
4
1 725

5
2 724

6
Shalmaneser 3 723 Shalmaneser
attacks attacks
Samaria 7 Samaria
4th of 4 722 7th of Hoshea
Hezekiah 2 Ki 18:9
2 Ki 18:9 8
5 721
Samaria Samaria
conquered 9 conquered
6th of 6 720 9th of Hoshea
Hezekiah 2 Ki 18:10
2 Ki 18:10








206


To summarize the reconstruction of the table, we arrive at the following years for
each of the kings:
Judah Israel
Rehoboam (934-917)
Abijam (917-911)
Asa (911-870)
Jehoshaphat (870-848)
Jehoram (848-842)
Ahaziah (842-841)
231

Jehoash (841-798)
Amaziah (798-782)
Azariah (782-742)
Jotham (742-740)
Ahaz (740-726)
Hezekiah (726-)


Jeroboam (934-910)
Nadab (910-909)
Baasha (909-892)
Elah (892-886)
Zimri (886)
Omri (886-874)
Ahab (874-853)
Ahaziah (853-852)
Jehoram (852-841)
Jehu (841-814)
Jehoahaz (814-800)
Joash (800-796)
Jeroboam (796-756)
Zechariah (756)
Shallum (755)
Menahem (755-743)
Pekahiah (743-742)
Pekah (742-729)
Hoshea (729-720)

A comparison of these years with the extrabiblical synchronisms above reveals that there
is nothing clearly defective in the chronological material of the chronicles (as
reconstructed independently of the extrabiblical evidence). This is not to say that there
are no errors in the reconstruction or in the presumed original synchronisms, but only that
the data appears to be very close to the historical reality.




207


Table 4.14: Comparison of Extrabiblical Dates
with Chronicle Dates for the Kings of Judah

Extrabiblical Synchronisms Chronicle Dates
Sometime during the reign of Shoshenq I of Egypt (c. 945-925) =
Year 5 of Rehoboam. Match







64 years before Esarhaddon of Assyria deports the population of
Phoenicia-Samaria (740 or 739) = sometime in the reign of Ahaz.
Match
Year 11, 12 or 13 of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (735, 734 or
733) = sometime in the reign of Ahaz. Match
Soon after the death of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (727 or 726)
= accession of Hezekiah. Match
Year 5 of Shalmaneser V of Assyria (722) = Year 4 of Hezekiah.
Match
Year 2 of Sargon of Assyria (720) = Year 6 of Hezekiah. Match
10 of Sargon of Assyria (712) = Year 14 of Hezekiah of Judah.
Match
sometime in the reign of Marduk-apla-iddina II of Babylon (722-
710) = Year 14 of Hezekiah. Match
Year 4 of Sennacherib of Assyria (701) = sometime in the reign of
Hezekiah of Judah. Match

















Rehoboam (934-917)
Abijam (917-911)
Asa (911-870)
Jehoshaphat (870-
848)
Jehoram (848-842)
Ahaziah (842-841)
Jehoash (841-798)
Amaziah (798-782)
Azariah (782-742)
Jotham (742-740)
Ahaz (740-726)



Hezekiah (726-)



























231
In this one case, I was forced to rely on the reign total from the Judahite king list.
208


Table 4.15: Comparison of Extrabiblical Dates
with Chronicle Dates for the Kings of Israel


Extrabiblical Synchronisms Chronicle Dates






Year 6 of Shalmaneser III of Assyria (853) = sometime in the reign
of Ahab of Israel. Match

Year 18 of Shalmaneser III of Asssyria (841) = sometime in the
reign of Jehu of Israel. Match
Sometime in the reign of Adad-nirari III of Assyria (811-783) =
sometime in the reign of Joash of Israel. Match

Sometime in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (743, 740, or
738) = sometime in the reign of Menahem of Israel. Match

Year 15 or 17 of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (731 or 729) =
coronation of Hoshea of Israel. Match
















Jeroboam (934-910)
Nadab (910-909)
Baasha (909-892)
Elah (892-886)
Zimri (886)
Omri (886-874)
Ahab (874-853)
Ahaziah (853-852)
Jehoram (852-841)
Jehu (841-814)
Jehoahaz (814-800)
Joash (800-796)
Jeroboam (796-756)
Zechariah (756)
Shallum (755)
Menahem (755-743)
Pekahiah (743-742)
Pekah (742-729)
Hoshea (729-720)

It is clear, therefore, that the synchronisms are more reliable historically than the figures
in the king lists and should be used first and favored when attempting to put together an
accurate chronology.


209
V.
CONCLUSIONS

This study has examined ancient Israelite measurement of both circular time (the
calendar) and linear time (historical chronology). With regard to the former, a careful
reading of all of the sources has revealed the existence of more than one calendar in
ancient Israel and Judah. An agricultural calendar divided the year into two main parts,
seedtime (winter) and harvest (summer). Seedtime began in mid-November and ran to
mid-April, while the harvest (much longer) ran from mid-April to mid-November. The
Judahite civil year commenced around the time of the autumnal equinox (mid-
September), and, at least in the early period, the civil year in northern Israel began at the
same time. The liturgical calendar of the Aaronid priests began in the spring, but the
priestly texts acknowledge the existence of a civil year beginning in the autumn.
Evidence for a regnal year beginning in the autumn in the latter days of Judah suggests
that there was no separate regnal calendar, but that kings reigns were calculated
according to the civil year. Although at first the northern Israelites too began their civil
year in the autumn (as indicated by the Gezer Calendar), the evidence that the regnal
years in Samaria were most likely counted from the spring indicates that its civil year was
changed sometime after the Norths secession from the Davidic kingdom. At the time the
Deuteronomistic History was published (in the reign of Josiah), Judah was celebrating
both the beginning of its civil year and the end of its agricultural year in the autumn. This
suggests that sometime prior to Josiah, Judah made an attempt to harmonize its civil and
210


agricultural years. Israel, on the other hand, continued to maintain an agricultural
calendar separate from its civil one.
Because of the evidence that the phases of the moon were observed by both
priestly and non-priestly organizations, and that their seasonal events occurred at the
same time each year, we can confidently assume that the lunisolar calendar was standard.
Although we have no direct evidence from the Bible, the Israelites probably would have
used the common ancient Near Eastern system of intercalation: each year contained 12
months, and every three years or so, the New Year would be delayed so that one more
month could pass.
The appearance of the month name Abib in several early sources indicates that the
Israelites named their months at one time. This does not mean, however, that the names
were borrowed from a Canaanite calendar. The month names may have been unique to
Israel. An extrabiblical inscription from the 8
th
century appears to be our earliest evidence
of pre-exilic usage of numbered months.
232
The custom of referring to months by number
is evident in both P and Dtr. However, it would seem that the parts of Dtr that do this are
of exilic provenance. Ps month references are limited to the ritual calendar and may be
pre-exilic.
All of the major sources assume a day that begins and ends at sunrise. The broad
agreement suggests that this was a general view for a long period of time. P, however,
appears to have a different system of reckoning the day when it comes to rituals of the
cult. The liturgical day began at sunset.

232
See Cross, "A Fragment of a Monumental Inscription from the City of David," 44-47.
211


The only possible reference to a clock in the Hebrew Bible is found in the
narrative of 2 Kings 20:8-11 (= Isaiah 38:22, 7-8). If so, the clock described is
comparable to shadow clocks used in ancient Egypt. The device seems to have been set
up at the kings palace to measure the passing of the day by the suns shadow. Each step
represented a division of time: ten steps on one side for the first half of the day, and ten
on the other for the second half of the day. The average is approximately 36 minutes per
step, but the time would have varied depending on the time of year (shorter during the
winter and longer during the summer). A division of the daytime into 20 units is
unattested in the sources of any other ancient culture. If so, we may have here a uniquely
Judahite clock.
In the measurement of linear time, the ancient Israelites employed the following
principles of counting:
1) All individual units of time (day, months, years, etc.) were added inclusively;
in other words, they did not use a zero, so the first unit in a sequence bore the number
one.
2) Multiple years were not organized into convenient units of set length, such as
decades, centuries, or millenniums. Blocks of time were created as it suited the
calculator. The units in a block were counted individually (1, 2, 3, 4) and measured
from an important date (the birth of a famous person, the accession of a ruler, or a
significant event), and end at an important date.
3) Despite the inclusive system of counting individual time units, when adding
together two or more blocks of time, the Israelites did not overlap them. The second
block begins to be counted on its first unit, and not on the last unit of the first block.
212


4) Generations seem to have been counted differently in ancient Israel than they
are today. Instead of considering parents as the first generation, the Israelites reckoned
children as the first generation, grandchildren as the second, etc.
The counting of years is a prominent feature of two of the ancient histories of
Israel (P and Dtr). P employs a system of chronology based on the births of important
people (genealogical in nature). Dtr employs a system or systems based on the terms of
judges and kings.
The priestly chronology dates events that occur prior to the Exodus by placing
them within a specific year in the lifetime of an individual. Ps chronological framework,
which anchors its dates to an absolute chronology, is spread throughout Genesis, but is
concentrated in chapters 5 and 11, where we can see its basic form. In those chapters we
find lists of ancestors. The information provided for each ancestor is his age at the birth
of a significant son, his age at death, and the length of time between these two events.
These lists form a pedigree running from Adam to Jacob.
The variant figures found in Genesis 5 and 11 in the manuscript traditions are the
results of scribes dealing with chronological problems in the text. In the earliest
manuscripts, the date for the Flood (the 600
th
year of Noah) was in conflict with the basic
genealogical chronology found in Genesis 5 (the ages of the fathers at the births of their
sons). Three of the antediluvian patriarchs (Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech) were given
life spans in the genealogical chronology that placed their deaths after the Flood (i.e.,
after Noahs 600
th
year). According to the narrative, their survival of the Flood would be
an impossibility (Gen 7:23). The chronological problems apparently went unnoticed by
the original editor, but scribes from different manuscript traditions attempted to alleviate
213


the difficulties in their own ways, and their activity explains the variations in the
manuscripts. Thus the Flood date (the 600
th
year of Noah) is likely to have been taken
from a different source than the genealogical data. Yet in the present text the Flood date
and the genealogy are interwoven and mathematically dependent on one another. The
inference is that the author/editor of P was working with two chronologies and attempting
to fit them together. This would mean all the data in Ps genealogical chronology do not
come from a single source, but probably from two.
In regard to the two written sources from which the priestly author/editor
theoretically drew (which most likely go unnamed), the first seems to have contained a
generational chronology, running from Adam to Terah, that provided the age of each
father at the birth of his son, and the other, which contained a date for the Flood (the
600
th
year of Noah), was part of a different chronology that provided the long life spans
of the patriarchs from Adam to Jacob. With their combination, accommodations had to be
made: Noahs and Shems birthdates had to be changed. Moreover, there were no
birthdates for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so these were supplied in accordance with the P
authors conception of the length of time spanning Terahs and Josephs lives.
In regard to the historical chronology of the Deuteronomistic History, I have
presented evidence that the original version of the DH (Dtr
1
) contained a limited amount
of chronological information and that the second edition (Dtr
2
) added much more to the
History and systematized its chronology.
An examination of the Book of Judges revealed that the numbers associated with
the periods of oppression were not created by the same editor/author as the one who
devised the figures for the 40-year periods of peace. The original editor employed round
214


numbers to cover periods between events and did not seem interested in accounting for
every time period. He did possess a source document with chronological information that
he saw fit to include, but it covered the terms of only a few judges. Dtr
1
s rough
chronology was supplemented and schematized by the reviser of the History. This had the
effect of lengthening the period of the Judges.
An analysis of the regnal formulas in Kings has revealed the existence of a source
document, a list of the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Zedekiah containing specific
information about each of the kingsmost importantly their reign lengths. The final six
entries in the list appear to have been added later. The original version of this king list
would have ended with Manasseh, and because it recorded his full reign length, must be
dated after his death. However, since Manassehs son and successor Amon did not appear
in the list, it probably was composed before the death of Amon. Thus the list is datable to
the reign of Amon. The uniformity in the final six entries suggests a single author for the
additions, one who possessed information about the final king of Judah and who therefore
would have composed all six entries after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. These
factors indicate that the Josianic Deuteronomistic Historian did not possess this Judahite
king list in either its long or short form, and that the information it contained was not put
into the DH until the exile.
As in the case of the Judahite kings, the exilic reviser of the history may have had
at his disposal a list of the names of the kings of Israel and the total years of their reigns
in a separate document. He incorporated this data into the exilic edition of the DH.
The synchronistic formulations in the DH, which bear the pattern, In the [#] year
of PN, [a certain event happened], suggest that they come from a royal chronicle, and
215


since the dates are associated with the kings of both kingdoms, it is best to posit two such
chronicles, a Judahite and an Israelite one. These are no doubt to be equated with The
Scroll of the Affairs of the Days for the Kings of Judah and The Scroll of the Affairs of the
Days for the Kings of Israel that the historian cites. The synchronisms were an integral
part of the pre-exilic edition of the DH.
Thus we have found that the Josianic version of the Deuteronomistic History
contained chronological data only from the Judahite and Israelite royal chronicles, which
placed events in specific regnal years, but did not provide totals for the length of kings
reigns. The total counts for kings reigns were added to the DH during the exile and
derive from king lists that were not directly connected with the royal chronicles.
Textual analysis of the manuscripts of Kings has shown that the royal chronicles
that contained the synchronisms must have presented a different chronology than the king
lists. The contradictions between the reign lengths and the synchronisms were ignored by
the exilic reviser of the Deuteronomistic History. It would appear that the variants in MT
and LXX arose when later scribes noted the contradictions and tried to fix the
discrepancies.
The final endeavor in this study was to compare the historical credibility of the
reign lengths from the king lists and the synchronisms from the royal chronicles. To do
this, we needed to ascertain whether the chronicles were based on an accession-year or
non-accession year system. The Israelite royal chronicle used for the first edition of the
DH points to a non-accession year system (antedating). The Judahite royal chronicle
provides no direct evidence, but the Judahite king list assumes an accession-year system
in Judah, and this suggests that, at least in the latter days of the monarchy in Judah, an
216


accession-year system was used. How early this practice was begun is unknown, but
since the Judahite royal chronicle used by the Deuteronomistic Historian would have
been a late monarchic document, we should expect that it assumed an accession-year
system as well. Using this information, a chronology was reconstructed from the
synchronisms.
A comparison with extrabiblical synchronisms demonstrated that the numbers
from both the Israelite king list and the Judahite king list are defective. The reigns of the
kings do not coincide with the historical reality very well at all, particularly those of the
early kings. A similar comparison of the extrabiblical synchronisms with the information
from the royal chronicles revealed that the chronological material of the chronicles is
much closer to the historical reality.




217
Appendix A: Chronological Tables
A. The Priestly Timeline of History
The original chronology of P, prior to adjustments/corrections made by R would have
been as follows (years are Anno Mundi):

Adam (1-930)
Seth (130-1042)
Enosh (235-1140)
Kenan (325-1235)
Mahalalel (395-1290)
Jared (460-1422)
Enoch (522-887)
Methuselah (587-1556)
Lamech (654-1431)
Noah (707-1657)
Shem (1207-1807)
Flood (1307)
Arpachshad (1307-1745)
Shelah (1342-1775)
Eber (1372-1776)
Peleg (1406-1645)
Reu (1436-1675)
Serug (1468-1698)
Nahor (1498-1646)
Terah (1527-1732)
Abraham (1597-1772)
Isaac (1697-1877)
Jacob (1757-1904)
Entry into Egypt (1887)
Exodus (2317)
Wilderness Wanderings (2317-2357)

B. Two Deuteronomic Chronologies
The separation of two conflicting chronologies in the Deuteronomistic History not
only enables us to distinguish between the chronologies of the sources used by the
compilers of the History, but also helps us to understand the way Israelite and Judahite
218


history was perceived by the Josianic Deuteronomistic Historian, on the one hand, and
the exilic reviser of the DH, on the other.
The second edition of the History makes an effort to be complete and definitive in
its chronology. It incorporates figures from the first edition, but often reinterprets them
(as in the case of the terms of the Judges) or ignores them in favor of new data (as in the
reigns of the kings). A historical timeline of Israels history from the point of view of the
exilic reviser of the DH may be put together without much difficulty.

Table A.1: Chronology of Dtr
2

Period Length of Period Years BCE
Moses and Joshua (Josh 14:10)
Aramean oppression (Judg 3:8)
Rest (Judg 3:11)
Moabite oppression (Judg 3:14)
Rest (Judg 3:3)
Canaanite oppression (Judg 4:3)
Rest (Judg 5:31)
Midianite oppression (Judg 6:1)
Rest (Judg 8:28)
Abimelech (Judg 9:22)
Tola (Judg 10:2)
Jair (Judg 10:3)
Ammonite oppression (Judg 10:8)
Jephthah (Judg 12:7)
Ibzan (Judg 12:8)
Elon (Judg 12:11)
Abdon (Judg 12:14)
Philistine oppression (Judg 13:1)



Saul (1 Sam 13:1)
David (1 Ki 2:11)
Solomon until Temple (1 Ki 6:1)

Total from Exodus to Temple
(1 Kings 6:1)

44 yrs (45 minus 1)
8 yrs
40 yrs
18 yrs
80 yrs
20 yrs
40 yrs
7 yrs
40 yrs
3 yrs
23 yrs
22 yrs
18 yrs
6 yrs
7 yrs
10 yrs
8 yrs
40 yrs (20 of which Samson
was judge [Judg 15:20], 20
of which Samuel was judge
[1 Sam 7:13])
2 yrs
40 yrs
3 yrs

479 yrs


1488-1444
1444-1436
1436-1396
1396-1378
1378-1298
1298-1278
1278-1238
1238-1231
1231-1191
1191-1188
1188-1165
1165-1143
1143-1125
1125-1119
1119-1112
1112-1102
1102-1096
1096-1056



1056-1054
1052-1012
1012-1009

1488-1009


219


Solomon after Temple (1 Ki 11:42)
Rehoboam
Abijam
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Jehoram
Ahaziah
Jehoash
Amaziah
Azariah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah
Jehoahaz
Jehoiakim
Jehoiachin
Zedekiah
36 yrs
17 yrs
3 yrs
41 yrs
25 yrs
8 yrs
1 yr
40 yrs
29 yrs
52 yrs
16 yrs
16 yrs
29 yrs
55 yrs
2 yrs
31 yrs
3 mos.
11 yrs
3 mos.
11 yrs.
1009-973
973-956
956-953
953-912
912-887
887-879
879-878
878-838
838-809
809-757
757-741
741-725
725-696
696-641
641-639
639-608
608
608-597
597
597-586

The chronology of the first edition of the DH is limited, and apart from the figures
incorporated from the sources (four were used: a list of judges with term lengths, a
chronicle containing dates associated with Solomons building projects, a kingly
chronicle from Judah, and a kingly chronicle from Israel), the author provides little other
chronological data, and when he chooses to, the numbers are mere estimates, which he
offers unapologetically.
We can reconstruct the chronology of the original Deuteronomistic History as
follows:
Table A.2: Chronology of Dtr
1

Period Length of Period Years BCE
Moses and Joshua (Josh 14:10)
One generation (Judg 2:10)
Othniel (Judg 3:11)
Ehud and Shamgar (Judg 3:3)
Deborah (Judg 5:31)
Gideon (Judg 8:28)
44 years (45 minus 1)
40 yrs
40 yrs
80 yrs
40 yrs
40 yrs
1464-1420
1420-1380
1380-1340
1340-1260
1260-1220
1220-1180
Table A.1 continued
220


Abimelech
Tola (Judg 10:2)
Jair (Judg 10:3)

Total from entry into Canaan to
Jephthah (Judg 11:26)

Jephthah (Judg 12:7)
Ibzan (Judg 12:8)
Elon (Judg 12:11)
Abdon (Judg 12:14)
Samson (Judg 16:31)
Samuel
Saul
David (1 Kings 2:11)
Solomon (1 Kings 11:42)
Rehoboam
Abijam
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Jehoram
Ahaziah
Jehoash
Amaziah
Azariah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah until reform
[10] yrs
23 yrs
22 yrs

299 yrs (300 minus 1)


6 yrs
7 yrs
10 years
8 yrs
20 yrs
none stated (40 yrs?)
none stated (20 yrs?)
40 yrs
40 yrs
17 yrs
6 yrs
41 yrs
22 yrs
6 yrs
undiscernible (1 yr?)
38 yrs
18 yrs
53 yrs
15 yrs
14 yrs
29 yrs
undiscernible (55 yrs?)
undiscernible (2 yrs?)
18 yrs
1180-1170
1170-1147
1147-1125

1424-1125


1125-1119
1119-1112
1112-1102
1102-1094
1094-1074
1074-1034
1034-1014
1014-974
974-934
934-917
917-911
911-870
870-848
848-842
842-841
841-798
798-782
782-742
742-740
740-726
726-697
697-642
642-640
640-622


In a few instances, educated guesses had to be made, so it is impossible at this time to
reconstruct Dtr
1
s chronology with absolute certainty. The Deuteronomistic Historians
chronology runs slightly shorter than does that of the exilic reviser. Historically speaking,
the dates in the period of the kings are probably not far off base, but the period of the
judges is overextended by quite a bit, a consequence of the Deuteronomistic Historians
attribution of a full generation for each judge (and perhaps for Saul, David, and Solomon
too). Apart from the list of the minor judges, he had very little chronological information
to go on.
Table A.2 continued
221



C. THE JUDAHITE KING LIST: Translation

Saul was [ ] years old at his accession, and he reigned 2 years over Israel.

David was 30 years old at his accession, and he reigned 40 years. He reigned over Judah
7 years in Hebron, and he reigned over all Israel and Judah 33 years in Jerusalem.

[Solomon was years old at his accession, and he reigned years in Jerusalem.]

[Rehoboam] was 41 years old at his accession, and he reigned 17 years in Jerusalem,
and his mothers name was Naamah the Ammonitess.

[Abijam] reigned 3 years in Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Maacah the daughter
of Abishalom.
233


[Asa] reigned 41 years in Jerusalem, and his mothers name was Maacah the daughter of
Abishalom.

Jehoshaphat was 35 years old at his accession, and he reigned 25 years in Jerusalem, and
his mothers name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi.

[Jehoram] was 32 years old at his accession, and he reigned 8 years in Jerusalem.

Ahaziah was 22 years old at his accession, and he reigned 1 year in Jerusalem, and his
mothers name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri the king of Israel.

Jehoash was 7 years old at his accession, and he reigned 40 years in Jerusalem, and his
mothers name was Zibiah from Beersheba.

[Amaziah] was 25 years old at his accession, and he reigned 29 years in Jerusalem, and
his mothers name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem.

[Azariah] was 16 years old at his accession, and he reigned 52 years in Jerusalem, and his
mothers name was Jecoliah of Jerusalem.

[Jotham] was 25 years old at his accession, and he reigned 16 years in Jerusalem, and his
mothers name was Jerusha the daughter of Zadok.

[Ahaz] was 20 years old at his accession, and he reigned 16 years in Jerusalem.

[Hezekiah] was 25 years old at his accession, and he reigned 29 years in Jerusalem, and
his mothers name was Abi, the daughter of Zechariah.

233
LXX reads 6 years as the length of reign. For the argument in favor of MTs reading, see above.
222



Manasseh was 12 years old at his accession, and he reigned 55 years in Jerusalem, and
his mothers name was Hephzibah.

Amon was 22 years old at his accession, and he reigned 2 years in Jerusalem, and his
mothers name was Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz from Jotbah.

Josiah was 8 years old at his accession, and he reigned 31 years in Jerusalem, and his
mothers name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah from Bozkath.

Jehoahaz was 23 years old at his accession, and he reigned 3 months in Jerusalem, and
his mothers name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah from Libnah.

Jehoiakim was 25 years old at his accession, and he reigned 11 years in Jerusalem, and
his mothers name was Zebidah, the daughter of Pedaiah from Rumah.

Jehoiachin was 18 years old at his accession, and he reigned 3 months in Jerusalem, and
his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

Zedekiah was 21 years old at his accession, and he reigned 11 years in Jerusalem, and his
mothers name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah from Libnah.



























223
Appendix B: What Happened in the Fourteenth Year of Hezekiah?
A Historical Analysis of 2 Kings 18-20 in the Light of New Textual Considerations


A. Introduction
The Second Book of Kings explicitly states that in Hezekiahs fourteenth regnal
year the Assyrian king Sennacherib came up against Judah (18:13). Sennacheribs annals
likewise record this event, placing it in his own fourth year, for which the commonly
accepted date is 701 B.C.E.
234
Seemingly, then, we have a concrete synchronism: the
14
th
year of Hezekiah = the 4
th
year of Sennacherib. However, 2 Kings also says that
only eight years prior to Sennacheribs invasion, in the sixth year of Hezekiah, the
kingdom of Samaria fell to the Assyrians (2 Kgs 18:10). The historical records of
Assyria, through which a firm year-by-year chronology can be fixed, will not allow for
such a short span of time between the two events. Although the exact date for the fall of
Samaria has been disputed, it definitely occurred between the final year of Shalmaneser
V (722 B.C.E.) and the second year of his successor Sargon II (720 B.C.E.). Samarias
overthrow, therefore, is separated from the fourth year of Sennacherib by some 20
years.
235
It is no wonder, then, that historians have been wrangling over the discrepancy
for over a century.
236
Since there is no way to squeeze the events of twenty well-attested
years into a mere eight, most have concluded either that Samaria did not fall in
Hezekiahs sixth year or that Sennacherib did not invade Judah in Hezekiahs fourteenth

234
A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC (State Archives of Assyria Studies 2;
Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994) 12-14, 60; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (Anchor
Bible 11; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1988) 246-51.
235
Epigraphs from the time of Sargon II confirm that the length of his reign was no less than 16 years.
236
For an introduction to the problem, see Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (Studies in Biblical
Theology, Second Series No. 3; London: SCM Press, 1967) 11-12.
224


year.
237
Either way, it is assumed that one of the chronological tags in the biblical
account is inaccurate.
238

With so much written on this conundrum, it would appear that every angle has
been considered and that all possible solutions have been duly examined. Before we
resign ourselves to choosing and rationalizing one of the existing hypotheses, however,
let us return to the heart of the issue to see whether we may make any further progress in
unraveling the difficulties. Previous observations regarding the pertinent biblical
passages will need to be noted, but new textual and historical considerations may aid us
in calculating the temporal placement of the events recorded in 2 Kings 18-20 and in
shedding further light on this interesting period in Israelite and Assyrian history.

B. Two Narratives
In the text of Kings, the passage dealing with the Assyrian campaign against
Judah begins thus:
13
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib the king of Assyria
came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and seized them.
14
Hezekiah, the
king of Judah, sent a message to the king of Assyria at Lachish as follows: I have
transgressed. Withdraw from me [and] whatever you impose upon me, I shall
bear.
15
So the king of Assyria required from Hezekiah, the king of Judah, 300

237
For a survey of the opinions, see Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (Studies in the
History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996) 99.
238
An alternative argument has also been offered which attempts to reconcile the biblical data by
suggesting that a coregency existed between Hezekiah and his father Ahaz and that the statement at 2 Kgs
18:1 refers to Hezekiahs becoming coregent (e.g., Naaman, Historical and Chronological Notes on the
Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Eighth Century B.C., Vetus Testamentum 36 [January 1986] 84-5,
90). But see Galil (Chronology, 99-102), for the problems with this theory.
225


silver talents and 30 gold talents. And Hezekiah gave all the silver that was to be
found at the house of Yhwh and in the treasury of the kings palace.
16
(At that
time Hezekiah stripped the doors of the house of Yhwh and the doorposts which
Hezekiah, the king of Judah, had plated and delivered them to the king of
Assyria.)
17
The king of Assyria sent the viceroy, the chief eunuch, and the chief
attendant from Lachish to King Hezekiah with a large military force to Jerusalem
. . . .
(2 Kgs 18:13-17a)

Others have convincingly argued that the section here italicized (vv. 1416) is
derived from a source separate from the main narrative, verses 14-15 perhaps stemming
from the state annals of Judah.
239
The parenthetical statement (v. 16) may come from a
Temple chronicle.
240
Interpreters have often remarked that there are perceptible
differences in style between verses 14-16 and the material that surrounds them. The usual
observation is that the information provided in these verses is factual, concise, void of

239
See L. L. Honor, Sennacheribs Invasion of Palestine: A Critical Source Study (Contributions to
Oriental History and Philology 12; New York: Columbia University Press, 1926) 36-7. There is clear
evidence that the Books of Kings contain extracts from annals, as they frequently refer to the Book of the
Annals of the Kings of Judah as a source. (In this case, see 2 Kgs 20:20.) This source book may have been
kept in the government archives. This is not to say that all accept this view. J. H. Hull (Hezekiah, Saint
and Sinner: A Conceptual and Contextual Narrative Analysis of 2 Kings 18-20 [Ph.D. diss., Claremont
Graduate School, 1994] 91-2) for example, draws attention to the fact that these citations are usually
presented as rhetorical questions, and thus cannot be used to prove that the writer drew from the source he
mentions. However, the expression 2`2`3 2. in some of these citations (1 Kgs 14:19; 2 Kgs 15:11, 15,
26, 31) implies that the documents were readily available, and there is every reason to believe that the
writer would have made use of them.
240
The existence of a Temple chronicle is only hypothetical, but the introductory statement at that time
may indicate a second excerpt. Still, this excerpt may not necessarily be from a different source, but from a
different location in the same source (Childs, 70-1; F. J. Gonalves, L'expdition de Sennachrib en
Palestine dans la littrature hbraque ancienne [Louvain-la-Neuve: Universit catholique de Louvain,
Institut orientaliste, 1986] 361-63).
226


embellishments, and written from a political perspective, just as one might find within a
state document.
241
In other words, no attempt is made to color the episode to suit a
particular bias, as might be expected if the passage came directly from the hand of the
person who composed the main body of narrative.
242
The section that follows, in direct
contrast to this, is a theologically-driven dramatic presentation in the usual style of the
book.
243
However, making an assessment of source derivation on the basis of style is a
precarious undertaking. Of more weight and significance would be linguistic features in
verses 14-16 that distinguish these verses from the rest of the text. We see such a
difference in the manner in which Hezekiahs name is presented. In the surrounding
narrative, the king of Judahs name is regularly spelled ``l " . The portion of the text
under analysis, however, spells the name ` l" in every instance.
244
Furthermore, it uses
the appellation Hezekiah, the king of Judah (`` _"C `l"), a formal title, rather
than King Hezekiah (``l" _"C), an epithet of familiarity. The latter appellative is
the favored designation for the king of Judah in the material immediately before and after
verses 14-16.
245
I believe the presentation of the names is a key to establishing sources in
the text and that, by ascertaining these sources, a solution to the chronological problem
will begin to manifest itself.

241
Gonalves, 367-70.
242
The passage might be construed as anti-Hezekiah in view of his disfurnishment of the Temple, but no
judgments are made about Hezekiahs actions within the excerpt itself. (How the passage is used by the
Deuteronomistic historian is another matter.)
243
It may also be significant that the parallel account of Sennacheribs invasion in the book of Isaiah,
which is almost an exact duplicate of the Kings version, entirely omits the small section equivalent to 2 Kgs
18:14-16 (see Isa 36:1-2), but it is more likely that the passage is missing in Isaiah as a result of
haplography (jlvyw jlvyw).
244
The only two other occurrences of this spelling are at 2 Kgs 18:1 and 10, whose statements might also
come from the same source document.
245
Cogan and Tadmor, 228, 240-1.
227


Since the beginning of verse 13 uses the epithet King Hezekiah, it may be
attributed to a source other than that of verses 14-16 and associated instead with the main
body of narrative.
246
There has been some question over the origin of the second half of
verse 13 (Sennacherib the king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of
Judah and seized them). There are indications that it has a stronger kinship with verses
14-16 than with 13a. For instance, the epithet Sennacherib, the king of Assyria
(`LN _"C 2`".7) matches the form Hezekiah, the king of Judah
(`` _"C `l") found in verses 14 and 16. Additionally, verses 14-16 cannot stand
by themselves. They require an introductory statement, not only to provide a setting for
the report, but also to explain Hezekiahs capitulation.
247
All three-and-a-half verses
(13b-16) make a suitable parallel with the passage in Sennacheribs own annals dated to
his fourth year. Sennacherib describes the event this way:
(As for) Hezekiah the Judaean (who had not submitted to my yoke), I
surrounded and conquered 46 of his strongly fortified walled cities and
countless small towns in their vicinity by stamping down siege ramps,
bringing up battering rams, the relentless attacks of footsoldiers, bored holes,
breaches, and picks. I brought out of their midst 200,150 people, small and
big, male and females, horses, wild asses, donkeys, camels, oxen and sheep
without number and I classified (them) as spoil.
(As for) him, I enclosed him like a bird in a cage in the midst of
Jerusalem, his royal city. I erected fortresses against him and made it
unthinkable for him to go out of the gate of his city. His cities, which I had
despoiled, I cut off from his land and gave to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi,

246
It is true that Leningrad codex B 19a reads hY;qiz]jI in this location, and this form was adopted in the 3
rd

edition of BHK and in BHS. However, in all other instances within the Hezekiah narratives, WhY;qiz]jI, not
hY;qiz]jI, follows immediately after lmh, and it is significant that the parallel verse at Isa 36:1 contains the
longer form in all extant manuscripts except 4QIsa
a
. The similar phrase at 2 Kgs 18:9a, also encourages
acceptance of the longer spelling at 18:13a, which is attested in the first two editions of BHK, in Jacob ben
Hayyims Bomberg Edition (1524-5), and in all the Kennicott manuscripts prior to 1200 (See Norin, An
Important Kennicott Reading in 2 Kings XVIII 13, Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982) 337-8; also A. Laato
Hezekiah and the Assyrian Crisis in 701 B.C., Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2 [1987] 50).
247
Gonalves, 360. It is true that the person who incorporated the annals extract into the text could have
simply used a fragment of the account without the proem, but it would have been more natural for him to
have included the statement that introduced the setting for the event.
228


king of Ekron, and Sil-Bel, king of Gaza. I (thus) reduced his land. To the
earlier tax, their annual payment, I added tribute (and) gifts for my lordship
and imposed (these) upon them.
(As for) him, Hezekiah, the fear of the radiant splendor of my
lordship overwhelmed him and he sent after me to Nineveh, my capital,
ambushers and his select troops whom he had brought in to strengthen
Jerusalem, his royal city, and whom he had acquired as auxiliary troops, (as
well as) 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, choice antimony, large blocks
of carnelian, beds (inlaid) with ivory, armchairs (inlaid) with ivory, elephant
hide, ebony, boxwood, garments with multi-colored trim, linen garments,
blue-purple wool, red-purple wool, utensils of copper, iron, bronze, tin and
iron, chariots, shields, lances, coats of mail, swords on belts, bows and
arrows, tillu-equipment, instruments of war without number along with his
daughters, his palace women, and male and female singers and, in order to
deliver the tribute and to carry out his servitude, he dispatched his
messenger.
248


The correspondence between the two accounts, although not exact, is remarkable.
Particularly noteworthy is the agreement in a number of details, such as the general terms
of the tribute. Both accounts mention the 30 talents of gold; and although the silver
amount is greater in the Assyrian record, the biblical source seems to indicate that
Hezekiah gave more silver than was demanded of him. Did Sennacherib require all the
silver that was in the Temple and in the palace?
249
Some have played down the
similarities between the two sources in an attempt to cast doubt on the annalistic origin of
the biblical passage,
250
but most scholars accept that the biblical report at 2 Kgs 18:13b-
16 was drawn from a contemporary document of equal historical weight with the
Assyrian source and believe the two can be harmonized. It thus seems best to take verse

248
From the Rassam Cylinder (700 B.C.E.). The translation is William R. Gallaghers (Sennacheribs
Campaign to Judah: New Studies [Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 18; Leiden:
Brill, 1999] 129-30).
249
Cogan and Tadmor, 229.
250
For example, C. R. Seitz (Zions Final Destiny: A Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39 [Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991] 47-66, esp. 61-6), whose main purpose is to prove the priority of Isaiahs version over that of
Kings. J. B. Geyer (2 Kings XVIII 14-16 and the Annals of Sennacherib, Vetus Testamentum 21 [1971]
604-6) does also, but only in order to point out that there is not an exact correspondence between the
Assyrian and biblical sources.
229


13b as part of the pericope that includes verses 14-16
251
and to consider these three-and-
a-half verses to be accessory to the main narrative. (For convenience, we shall follow
scholarly convention and refer to verses 13b-16 as segment A throughout the remainder
of this discussion.)
Oddly, the Assyrian record agrees only with segment A, while the rest of the
narrative in chapters 18 and 19 has no parallel in the Assyrian sources. Although the
Assyrian report is a typical example of Assyrian propaganda, and it is probable that
Sennacherib deliberately omitted any information that would present him in a bad
light,
252
little of what is described in Kings would have embarrassed Sennacherib apart
from his inglorious defeat at 2 Kgs 19:35, 36. So the omission of a great number of
details on the Assyrian side makes for a noteworthy discrepancy between sources.
We are now left to ponder the significance of verse 13a. Although it appears to
be written specifically as an introduction to segment A, we might wish to consider the
possibility that it was not originally linked to segment A. As has been mentioned above,
verse 13a cannot refer to Sennacheribs campaign in his fourth year without disrupting
the chronological statement at 2 Kgs 18:1. It simply does not fit where it is currently
situated, at least from a historical standpoint. Thus verse 13a has become a notorious
crux because no one knows for sure to what the chronological statement in the
fourteenth year of King Hezekiah applies. Interestingly, there is a passage nearby which
is indeed set in that year, the account of Hezekiahs illness in Chapter 20. We know that
the events of Chapter 20 are supposed to have taken place in Hezekiahs fourteenth year,

251
For a discussion of the issue, see Honor, 37-40.
252
See the excellent article by A. Laato, Assyrian propaganda and the falsification of history in the royal
inscriptions of Sennacherib, Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995) 198.
230


because on that occasion he is granted another fifteen years of life, and the total length of
his reign is given as 29 years (14+15=29).
253

Some have suggested that verse 13a originally introduced chapter 20.
254
But
Chapter 20 possesses an opening chronological statement of its own (In those days),
and there is no textual evidence to suggest it is not original. Non-specific temporal
expressions such as hh ymyb (In those days...), ayhh t[b (At that time...), etc., do
not introduce major structural units in the narrative but are coordinating clauses that mark
a turning point within a story and refer back to a previous date formula.
255
The events of
Chapter 20 are clearly subordinate to a more momentous series of events. Therefore we
may view the account in Chapter 20 as part of a longer narrative, for which 18:13a
provides the temporal setting. We should also expect, between 18:13a and 20:1, a major
episode that would recount the principal set of circumstances in which Chapter 20 plays a
part. So the question is: How much of Chapters 18 and 19 are part of the original tale?
The invasion of Sennacherib as described in verses 13b-16 cannot be viewed as
the original setting for Hezekiahs illness. I have already pointed out the linguistic
dissimilarities between segment A and the narrative in which it is embedded, as well as
the chronological problem. But still other factors alienate the passage from its context.
The succession of events from verses 13b-16 into verse 17 is unnatural. Why would
Sennacherib send his officials to demand unconditional surrender of Jerusalem
immediately after Hezekiah made peace with him by way of a substantial tribute? Every
indication is that Sennacherib accepted this tribute and was appeased. In a similar vein,

253
2 Kgs 18:2. See Cogan and Tadmor, 228.
254
Cogan and Tadmor, 228.
231


why would Hezekiah willingly yield to Sennacherib but decide to resist forthwith? With
regard to either king, his actions after segment A are incongruous with the behavior that
has been displayed in segment A. Furthermore, the account from verse 17 forward makes
no reference whatsoever to Hezekiahs capitulation, and proceeds as if the events of
segment A were never recounted.
256
This is odd, considering the pivotal role of the
tribute and its sheer size. The abrupt and problematic transitions, therefore, on either side
of segment A probably signal redactional seams. Although it may be possible to
conclude that this passage is an addition from an entirely different hand, the source
citation at 2 Kgs 20:20 seems to indicate that this passage was incorporated into the text
from the very beginning, that is, if it is truly derived from the state annals, as many have
argued.
I contend that 2 Kgs 13b-16 was deliberately moved to its current position from
another location within Kings itself. The motivations for the repositioning of the segment
will be addressed hereafter. However, if As present position is secondary, then its
omission should reveal the original sequence of the narrative. The text would have read:
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, the king of Assyria sent the viceroy, the chief
eunuch, and the chief attendant from Lachish to King Hezekiah with a large military
force to Jerusalem, verse 13a leading directly into verse 17.
257


255
Hull, 220-3.
256
Childs, 73.
257
Gonalves remark (359) that verse 13a could not have been connected to 17ff, because prophetic
narratives never contain introductions with such precise dating, is simply not true. The account of 2 Kgs
22:3ff, which describes Josiah seeking an oracle from the prophetess Huldah after the book of the law was
found in the Temple is one example. In fact, the order of the elements in the date formula at 2 Kgs 22:3 is
the same as at 2 Kgs 18:13. (For other examples of precisely dated prophetic narratives written in the third
person, see Jer 28:1ff, 32:1ff, and 36:9ff.)
232


At first glance, it would seem that no chronological difficulties are solved by the
removal of segment A. However, difficulties remain only if we assume that the account
beginning with verse 17 refers to events having to do with Sennacheribs invasion. As
we shall see, this may not be the case.
Before I discuss the significance of my last statement, we must first determine if
any other part of Chapters 18 and 19 is not original to the Sennacherib story. The
remainder of the narrative, often called segment B (18:17-19:37), presents certain
difficulties of its own. It has been suggested, and widely accepted, that segment B
contains two separate stories. Strand B
1
recounts the appearance of three Assyrian
officials at Jerusalems gates who threaten King Hezekiah. The king turns to Isaiah, who
predicts the withdrawal of the Assyrians, and the prophecy comes true when they pull
away from Lachish (19:8). In strand B
2,
Sennacherib sends a threatening letter to
Hezekiah, who prays for assistance and receives a reassuring prophecy from Isaiah. The
story concludes with the miracle of the angel of God slaying 185,000 of the Assyrian
army. There are several convincing reasons for dividing the account in such a way:
1) It is difficult to understand how Sennacherib could have expected his letter(s)
to frighten the Judahites into surrendering Jerusalem (19:9, 14), when his personal
ambassadors had already failed to do so by means of a display of force (18:17, 18),
especially when the message of the second threat is merely a repetition of the first.
258


258
K. A. D. Smeliks argument that the letter was a logical follow-up to the visit of the Rabshakeh is weak
(Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah XXXVI and XXXVII, in Crises and
Perspectives: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology and
Intertestamental Literature [Oudtestamentische Studin 24; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986] 81). He would have
us believe that the letter was the culmination of Sennacheribs arguments and blasphemy, asserting that
a letter has to convince where spoken words have failed. Even if we were willing to accept the logic of
this statement, he simply fails to take into account that the earlier threat was backed by a show of military
233


2) Why would Hezekiah pray for Yahweh to turn his attention to the situation and
save Jerusalem (19:15-19) after Isaiah had already promised him that Yahweh would not
allow Jerusalem to be taken, and that the king of Assyria would withdraw to his own land
and die there (19:6, 7)? Similarly, Isaiahs prophecy at 19:20-34 is presented as if this
were the first time he has provided a reassuring oracle to Hezekiah concerning
Sennacherib.
3) At 19:32-33, the prophet assures Hezekiah that the king of Assyria will not lay
siege to the city, the imperfect verb forms indicating that the Assyrians had not yet done
so. This seems odd, considering that the king had sent a heavy military force to
Jerusalem immediately prior to this (18:17).
259
That the Assyrians are actually laying
siege to the city in Chapter 18 is supported by iconographic evidence that suggests that
the actions of the Rabshakeh as described in 2 Kings reflect a part of Assyrian siege
method.
260

A fourth argument used to support the division of segment B, and the most
predominant among scholars, calls attention to the similarity in the sequence of events
outlined in the two accounts. Both begin with a demand for surrender by Assyrian
messengers, and the threats are strikingly similar in both of the narratives. In each
account, Hezekiah seeks divine assistance, and Isaiah provides him with a prophecy of

strength, whereas the later, written threat was not. The approach of Kushite forces would have further
reduced the intimidating effect of the letter.
259
Laato, Hezekiah, 63.
260
In The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, Yidael Yadin calls attention to this interesting artifact: There
has been preserved a unique relief from the reign of Sargonwhich, in my opinion, depicts an Assyrian
officer taking cover behind the turret of a battering ramand apparently reading from something that looks
like a scroll. It may be, perhaps, that he is reading a surrender order to the defending inhabitants on the
walls (Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study [Trans. M.
Pearlman; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963] 320, 424-5).
234


hope, which is in turn fulfilled. This has led many to conclude that each strand is merely
a different version of the same tale.
Although there are grounds for separating the section into two accounts, the idea
of parallel narratives cannot be sustained. To my knowledge, the only time we find
parallel adjacent accounts in the Hebrew Bible is when a redactor joins two preexisting
works that he either is not at liberty to cut or that he finds impractical to do so. Usually
the stories are of two different genres (prose and poetry), such as we find at Exodus 14-
15 and Judges 4-5. Those with greater editorial freedom make an effort to blend various
accounts into a flowing narrative, as we know the Deuteronomistic Historian has
consistently done elsewhere. Both B
1
and B
2
exhibit evidence of Deuteronomistic editing.
For example, we can be fairly confident that the second account was put into the history
by the Deuteronomistic Historian, since we find typical Deuteronomic phraseology in
Hezekiahs prayer (19:15-19).
261
There are also indications that he had a hand in the first
story, not only because there are Deuteronomic themes present,
262
but because there are
elements in B
1
that anticipate elements in B
2
.
263
It does not seem reasonable to conclude
that he would add a second version of the same story immediately after the original one
without expecting readers to conclude that the latter piece described events that happened
after the first story.
264


261
For example, rah twklmm lkl dbl yhlah awh hta (You alone are the God for all the kingdoms of
the earth), cf. Deut 4:35, and baw [ da ydy hc[m (human handicraft, wood and stone), Deut 4:28. See
M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (London: Oxford University Press, 1972) 39.
262
See the article by Ehud Ben Zvi, Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When? (Journal of
Biblical Literature 109/1 [1990] 79-92) especially 85-86, 88.
263
For example, 18:27, 31 appear to anticipate 19:29, and 18:35 appears to anticipate 19:18. (See
Gallagher, 159.)
264
There is always the possibility that the Deuteronomistic Historian, drawing from two separate sources,
did not realize that both accounts described the same events, but this could only be true if one of the
sources was so damaged that its setting was unclear and if the Historian himself was a bit nave.
235


The similarities between the two accounts of Assyrian invasion are only
superficial. The Rabshakeh, the central figure of the first account, does not figure in the
second whatsoever. Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah, who participate in the dialogue in the
first section, are not even mentioned in the second. Isaiah, who is featured prominently
in B
2
, has only a minor role in B
1
. While in B
1
Egypt is said to be Judahs ally, B
2
speaks
of Kush.
265
The content of each of Isaiahs messages has some noteworthy differences as
well. Although both predict the withdrawal of Assyrian forces, the prophecy in B
2
makes
no mention of the king of Assyria returning to his homeland after hearing a report of
trouble and then being killed there. A further significant variance, which seems odd if
both stories are relating the details of the same event, is that Assyrian forces actually
come to Jerusalem in B
1
, but not in B
2
. In fact, B
2
states that a siege will not take place.
Another striking difference is that only B
2
recounts the dramatic finale of the angel
slaying 185,000 Assyrian soldiers. There is nothing even remotely parallel to this in B
1
.
The most interesting difference in the players of each drama has to do with the king of
Assyria himself. Strand B
1
mentions the Assyrian monarch 10 times, but only as
rwva lm the king of Assyria (18:17, 19, 23, 28, 30, 31, 33; 19:4, 6, 8). Not once is a
name provided.
266
Strand B
2
, on the other hand calls the king Sennacherib three out of
the four times he is mentioned (19:16, 20, 36). It is therefore possible that Sennacherib
does not feature at all in the first account. There is, admittedly, an unmistakable parallel

265
Although many historians have argued that these two place-names are almost synonymous, it must be
acknowledged that the Assyrian sources differentiate between the two (A. Spalinger, The Year 712 B.C.
and its Implications for Egyptian History, JARCE 10 [1973] 100), and so we should be careful to avoid
generalizations. Historically, it was during Hezekiahs reign that Kush gained ascendancy over Egypt (712
B.C.E.) (Spalinger, 95-101), and therefore the second story may reflect events from a later period than does
the first.
236


between the Rabshakehs speech in B
1
and Sennacheribs letter in B
2
(cf. 18:33, 34 with
19:12, 13),
267
but in all probability the reason for the correspondence between the
Assyrian speeches in each strand is not because both stories go back to a common source,
but because both were composed by the same hand. The notion that strands B
1
and B
2
are
variants of the same tradition will therefore be rejected in favor of a theory that each
strand recounts an independent and distinct series of events and that the second series of
events did not ensue immediately after the first.

C. Sargon and Hezekiah

If we accept the datum that Samaria was conquered in Hezekiahs sixth year, then
it naturally follows that his fourteenth year would fall within the reign of Assyrian king
Sargon II, rather than that of Sennacherib. As 2 Kgs 18:13a may introduce the account
recorded in segment B
1
, and as that segment allows for the participation of someone other
than Sennacherib as the king of Assyria, it requires no forced understanding of the text to
imagine Sargon as that king.
268

Extrabiblical evidence adds weight to this hypothesis. For example, Sargons
army did, in fact, campaign into the Levant in his tenth regnal year (712 B.C.E.). There
is every indication that this year coincided with the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah.

266
This was noted by A. K. Jenkins (Hezekiahs Fourteenth Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings xviii
13-xix 37, Vetus Testamentum 26 [1976] 287). Chapter 20, verse 6 also neglects to name the king.
267
For a fuller discussion of this issue, see Gallagher, 153-59.
268
This observation is not new. However, previous attempts to equate the narrative with Sargon have
proven unconvincing. For example, Jenkins, accepting the theory of parallel narratives, relates both B
1
and
B
2
to Sargon, arguing that all references to Sennacherib in B
2
are a later editors reinterpretation of the text.
C. Schedl goes one step further and associates 2 Kgs 18:13-16 with Sargons campaign to Judah following
Ashdods revolt, which fails to account for the passages similarity with Sennacheribs annals
(Textkritische Bemurkungen zu den Synchronismen der Knige von Israel und Juda, Vetus Testamentum
237


Gershon Galil has persuasively argued in favor of dating the fall of Samaria to 720
B.C.E., Sargons second year and Hezekiahs sixth.
269
He bases his argument on several
factors: 1) in the Babylonian Chronicle, the Samaria ravaged by Shalmaneser V could be
the entire Northern Kingdom of Israel rather than the city itself, 2) the biblical text,
although connecting Shalmaneser to the events associated with the conquest of Samaria,
does not explicitly state that he was the king who conquered it, and 3) the numerous
testimonies to Samarias overthrow in the time of Sargon cannot be ignored and all
assumed false. By Galils dating, Sargons military endeavor on Judahs doorstep in 712
matches Hezekiahs fourteenth year precisely.
According to Sargons annalistic and display inscriptions, it was necessary at this
time to put down a revolt in the Philistine city of Ashdod led by a certain Yamani. The
earliest is Nineveh Prism A, Fragment D.
270
The account breaks off during the
description of the Ashdod campaign, and it is impossible to tell how much farther the text
went on. In English, the text reads as follows:
[But these] accursed [Hittites] conceived [the idea] of not delivering the
tribute and [started] a rebellion against their ruler; they expelled him
Yamani, a comm[oner without claim to the throne] to be king over them,
they made sit down [on the very throne] of his (former) master and [they
prepared?] their city for the at[tack] (lacuna of 3 lines) its
neighborhood, a moat [they prepared] of a depth of 20+ cubits it even
reached the underground waters. In order to [To] the rulers of Philistia,
Judah, Ed[om], Moab, (and) those who live by the sea and bring tribute
[and] tamartu gifts to my Lord Aur [he spread] countless evil lies to
alienate (them) from me, and sent bribes to Pharaoh the king of Egypt, a
prince incapable of saving them, and asked him to be an ally. But I,
Sargon, the rightful ruler, devoted to the pronouncements of Nebo and

12 [1962] 88-119). The theory presented here does not necessitate the rejection of the name Sennacherib in
the narratives.
269
Galil, Chronology, 83-97.
270
Original publication by H. Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons I (Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1889)
186-89.
238


Marduk, who observes the orders of Aur, led my army over the Tigris
and Euphrates, at the[ir] highest water level, the spring high water, as (if it
were) dry ground. This Yamani, their king who had put his trust in his
own power and who did not bow to my rule, heard about the approach of
my expedition (yet) far away, and the terror of my Lord Aur
overwhelmed him and of the bank of the river in the depth of the
waters distant fled Ashdod I took [the road]. The city of
against in the midst as the city of Lu the city of against the
land of the city of the land of Egypt his stones over the people

271


Sargon claims that Judah received an invitation to join Yamanis anti-Assyrian coalition.
Whether or not Yamani was temporarily successful in alienating the states here
mentioned from Assyria is not stated, but the biblical text testifies that Hezekiah rebelled
against his Assyrian overlords.
272
If this was the context of Judahs rebellion, Sargon
may very well have responded with a show of military strength. The text breaks off just
as it is getting interesting. It would appear that several cities were engaged by Assyrian
forces, but only Ashdods name is preserved. Another (Lu) is partially preserved.
Parallel sources mention also Gath and Ashdod-Yam.
273


271
Translation taken eclectically from Pritchard, ANET and Luckenbill, ARAB.
272
2 Kgs 18:7. For a full discussion of the evidence, see P. K. Hooker, The Kingdom of Hezekiah: Judah in
the Geo-Political Context of the Late Eighth Century BCE (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1993) 18-32.
273
The other inscriptions describing the Ashdod campaign shed no more light on whether Judah was
involved. The Display Inscription on the walls of the Khorsabad palace (first published in Winckler, Die
Keilschrifttexte Sargons I, 115-16) reads: But the[se] Hittites, always planning evil deeds, hated his (their
former ruler Ahimitis) reign and elevated to rule over them Yamani who, without any claim to the throne,
had no respect for authority, just as they themselves (did not). In a sudden rage, I did not assemble the full
might of my army (or to) prepare the camp(ing equipment), (only) my warriors who, even in friendly areas,
never leave my side. But this Yamani heard about the approach of my expedition (yet) far away, and he
fled into the territory of Egypt that belongs to Kush; and his (hiding) place could not be detected. I besieged
(and) conquered the cities of Ashdod, Gath, Ashdod-Yam; I declared his images, his wife, his children, all
his possessions and treasure of his palace, as well as the inhabitants of his country, as booty. (Translation
taken eclectically from Pritchard, ANET and Luckenbill, ARAB). We are informed that Gath and Ashdod-
Yam, both Philistine cities, are among the conquests of Sargon, but Judah is not mentioned. The Khorsabad
Annals (II, 21 and H1, lines 249-61, originally published in A. G. Lie, The Inscriptions of Sargon II, King
of Assyria [Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Guether, 1929] 38-41) also mention the campaign, and their
description is very similar to the Display Inscription: But the[se] Hittites, always planning evil deeds,
hated his (Ahimitis) reign and elevated to rule over them Yamani who, without any claim to the throne,
had no respect for authority, just as they themselves (did not). [In a sudden rage], I marched quickly in my
state chariot and with my cavalry which, even in friendly areas, never leaves my side against Ashdod, his
239


From the pertinent inscriptions, we are able to ascertain a general order of events
relating to the campaign:
a) The Philistines of Ashdod (accursed Hittites) depose and expel Sargons
vassal king Ahimiti and elevate Yamani as king in his place.
b) The Ashdodites begin preparations for invasion, including the digging of a
moat and the sending of conspiratorial messages to neighboring kingdoms (Judah,
Edom, Moab, and other Philistine cities), and a payment to Egypt for military
assistance.
c) Sargon and his personal guard cross the Tigris and Euphrates (spring time) and
approach Ashdod.
d) Yamani goes to Kush, leaving his family behind.
e) Sargon besieges and conquers Ashdod, Gath, and Ashdod-Yam.
f) Other cities, the names of which are not preserved, are apparently conquered or
attacked.
274

Did Judah actually have a military encounter with Assyria at this time? We do
have epigraphic evidence to support this conclusion. The text commonly known as the
Azekah inscription describes the siege of the fortified city of Azekah in Judah by
Assyrian forces. It consists of two fragments (BM 82-3-23, 131 and K 6205), originally

royal residence. I besieged (and) conquered the cities of Ashdod, Gath, Ashdod-Yam; I declared the gods
residing therein, himself, as well as the inhabitants of his country, the gold, silver, and his personal
possessions as booty. (Translation taken eclectically from Pritchard, ANET and Luckenbill, ARAB). Again,
no mention is made of Judah.
274
Interestingly, a recent study offers evidence that sites destroyed in eighth century southwestern Judah,
often attributed to Sennacheribs campaign of 701, should be associated with a slightly earlier Assyrian
campaign into that area (J. A. Blakely and J. W. Hardin, Southwestern Judah in the Late Eighth Century
BCE, BASOR 326 [2002] 11-64).
240


published separately;
275
but in 1974, Nadav Naaman discovered the join and made a
preliminary analysis.
276
Naaman dated the inscription to Sennacheribs 701 campaign
against Judah; however, his position has been called into question recently by several
scholars who prefer to date the events described in the text to Sargons campaign of
712.
277
Their reasons are as follows: 1) The inscription locates Azekah between my
border and the land of Judah (line 5). Since the Assyrians turned Ashdod and its
environs into a province as a result of the 712 campaign and since Sennacheribs Annals
refer to Ashdod as a vassal kingdom as a result of the 701 campaign, the inscription must
have been composed between 712 and 701. Furthermore, there is no evidence for any
Assyrian campaign against Philistia in this period. Therefore, the events described must
refer to Assyrias last venture into the territory. 2) The literary style of the inscription is
closely akin to Sargons epic description of his campaign against Urartu, the last major
campaign Sargon undertook before the Ashdod affair. 3) The composer spells the deity
name Anar, rather than Aur, which is typical of many of Sargons early
inscriptions. For these reasons, the inscription is best dated to the time of Sargon. An
English translation of the text reads as follows:
(1) .
(2) .
(3) and to Ju[dah I approached]. In the course of my campaign, [I
received] the tribute of the ki[ng/kings of ]

275
K 6205 originally published by Rawlinson and Smith in Cuneiform Inscriptions III 9, 2; BM 82-3-23,
131 first appeared in Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen II (Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1898) pp. 570-
74.
276
N. Naaman, Sennacheribs Letter to God on his Campaign to Judah, BASOR 214 (1974) 25-39.
277
Hooker, 32-38; Gershon Galil, Judah and Assyria in the Sargonid Period, Zion 57 (1992) 111-33
(Hebrew), A New Look at the Azekah Inscription, RB 102 (1995) 327-28; J. Goldberg, Two Assyrian
Campaigns Against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Century Biblical Chronology, Biblica 80 (1999) 363, esp.
n. 10.
241


(4) [with the power and mi]ght of Anar, my lord, [I overwhelmed] the
district of [Hezek]iah of Judah. L[ike a hurricane]
(5) Azekah, his stronghold, which is located between my [la]nd and the
land of Judah
(6) [] it is located on a mountain ridge, like pointed daggers without
number reaching high to the heaven
(7) [its walls] were strong and rivaled the highest mountains, to the (mere)
sight, as if from the sky [appears its head ]
(8) [I besieged (this city) by means of beaten (earth) ra]mps, (by) great?
battering rams brought near (its walls), (and with) the attack by foot
soldiers
(9) they had seen [the of my cav]alry, and they had heard the roar of
the mighty troops of the god Anar and [their hea]rts became afraid
(10) I captured [this stronghold], I carried off its spoil, I destroyed, I
devastated, [I burned with fire]
(11) [I approached Ekron], a royal ci[ty] of the Philistines, which
[Hezek]iah had captured and strengthened for himself
(12) like a vine (planted) [on a peak of a mountain]
(13) it was surrounded with mighty towers and [its ascent] was very
sloping
(14) a palace? (huge) like a mountain was barred in front of them and
high is [its top ]
(15) [its ascent] was dark and the sun never shone on it; its waters were
situated in darkness and [its?] overflow
(16) it was cut with axes, and a moat was dug around it(s walls)
(17) (his) skillful in battle warriors he caused to enter into it; his weapon
he bound (on him)
(18) all the units of Amurru; I caused them to carry earth
(19) against them. In the seventh time, its mighty [I smashed] like a
pot [of clay ]
(20) [ shee]p I carried out from it, [and counted as] spo[il
(21) .
278


The Azekah inscription confirms that Sargon not only settled matters in Ashdod
and other Philistine cities, but also punished Judah for its support of Yamanis rebellion.
At the very least, the Assyrians besieged Azekah and (apparently) conquered it. There is
mention of the siege and conquest of another city. Though unnamed, it is identified as a

278
The translation is Galils (New Look, 323-24).
242


former Philistine city that Hezekiah had recently taken over. Galil makes a good case for
identifying the city as Eqron.
279

A passage in the Book of Isaiah clearly relates to the time of Sargons attack on
Philistia:
1
In the year that the viceroy came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of
Assyria sent him, he fought against Ashdod and captured it.
280

2
At that
time, Yahweh spoke by means of Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go,
and loosen the sackcloth from around your waist and take your sandals off
your feet. And he did so, walking around naked and barefoot.
3
Then
Yahweh said, Just as my servant Isaiah walked naked and barefoot (three
years there was a sign and an omen concerning Egypt and Kush),
281

4
so
shall the king of Assyria lead the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Kush,
young and old, naked and barefoot and with buttocks stripped, [from] the
nakedness of Egypt.
5
And they will be terrified and ashamed of Kush
their hope and of Egypt their pride.
6
And the inhabitants of this coastland
will say on that day, So this was our hope to which we fled for assistance
to be delivered from the face of the king of Assyria. Now how shall we
escape? (Isa 20:1-6)


279
Galil, Judah and Assyria, 111-33.
280
Many find the grammatical structure of verses 1-3 awkward, chiefly because verse 1 seems to be left
hanging and does not appear to continue until verse 3. The most common explanation is that verse 2 is a
later additon, or at least a parenthetical statement. To support such an interpretation, some have argued that
Gods command to Isaiah must have preceded the assault on Ashdod because the explanation of the three-
year sign had to have been given at the end of the prophetic activity and when the Philistines were still
hoping Egypt would come to their aid (cf. v. 6). Therefore the ayhh t[b (at that time) of verse 2 cannot
refer specifically to the event mentioned in verse 1 but to a time at least fourteen months prior (O. Kaiser,
Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974] 113-14; J. N. Oswalt, The Book of
Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 384; J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah the
Eighth Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987] 270-71).
However, verse 2 probably is original to the story because sign-act prophecies follow the pattern: a)
command, b) execution, c) interpretation. The command cannot constitute a later addition (H. Wildberger,
Isaiah 13-27: A Continental Commentary [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997] 286-87; cf. Jer 13:1ff).
Recognizing this, others have suggested that verse 1 is an addition and that the original context of verse 2 is
lacking (Wildberger, 287). I do not think such a view is necessary. Grammatically, we may understand
verse 1 as a complete sentence, with a preterital prefix verb introducing the apodosis. My translation
reflects this interpretation. Naturally, this would indicate that God commisions Isaiah to perform the sign
the same year that he explains it.
281
Most commentators consider the three years to be the period that Isaiah walked naked and barefoot;
however, the final part of verse 3 can be understood as a parenthetical statement and translated as a verbless
clause. The three years would indicate the period in which the prophet had been giving signs and omens
against an Egyptian alliance, but not necessarily the time he walked naked and barefoot. The three year
figure aids us in determining the time that Yamanis rebellion began. An approximate date of 714 is
indicated here.
243


This prophecy may be about the inhabitants of this coastland, i.e., the
Philistines, but it is surely directed toward a Judahite audience. Isaiahs own people
would see his signs, and they would be the ones interested in them. The implication is
that the Philistine appeal to Egypt was a topic of concern in Judah, no doubt because the
Judahites too feared reprisal from the Assyrians. Judah also entertained hopes of
Egyptian protection because they were among the rebels. That Isaiah had been speaking
out against a Judahite-Egyptian alliance is clear from prophecies in the book bearing his
name (cf. Isa 30:1ff, 31:1ff). It is therefore likely that Ashdod and Judah were united
against Assyria at this time. That Isaiah was already wearing sackcloth before he was
asked to remove it is an indication that he had been in mourning for some period of
time.
282
Such attire may have been prophetic of what he thought would result from the
alliance, namely the destruction of Judahite cities and the death of many of their
inhabitants.
An examination of the Rabshakehs taunts in a Sargonic context proves rather
interesting. He calls to Judahs attention how certain other states have fallen to the might
of Assyria (2 Kgs 18:33-35). He specifically mentions Arpad, Hamath, Sepharvaim,
Hena, Ivvah, and Samaria. It may be no coincidence that Sargon, in his annals, boasts of
putting down a rebellious coalition from Arpad, Hamath, and Samaria in the second year
of his reign. The Rabshakehs reference to this could not have been more apropos, as now
Judah is taking refuge in a similar coalition, and the fate of Samaria and her allies is still
fresh in mind.
283
Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah were probably located in eastern

282
J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39 (Anchor Bible 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 323.
283
See Chaim Cohen, Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-aq, Israel
Oriental Studies 9 (1979) 36-8.
244


Babylonia
284
and would have been conquered by Sargon when he campaigned against
Marduk-apla-iddina. However, it is especially interesting that in B
2
Sennacherib makes
similar statements (2 Kgs 19:12, 13), but remarks that Arpad, Hamath, Samaria,
Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah are among the lands that my forefathers brought to ruin.
In strand B
1
, the king of Assyria gives due credit, not to his ancestors, but to himself:
Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Have any delivered Samaria out of my
hand?
The reference to the appearance of Sargons viceroy (Hebrew tartn; Akkadian
turtanu) at Jerusalems gates at 2 Kgs 18:17 is historically possible, because we know
that he was in the Levant during the campaign in 712 (Isa 20:1). Thus the tartn
mentioned in Kings and in Isaiah may be one and the same person.
One must acknowledge, however, that in the Kings account, the king of Assyria is
said to be personally involved in the campaign, while in the eponym chronicle for that
year, Sargon is reported as staying home. This would seem to be supported by Isa 20:1,
which describes the turtanu, rather than Sargon, leading the assault on Ashdod.
However, in his annals, Sargon depicts himself as personally leading the campaign into
the Levant. Likewise, in the Azekah inscription, the king also maintains that he is
involved in the siege. Although we can easily dismiss his claims as self-aggrandizement,
we should at least consider the possibility that Sargon participated in the campaign.
Where does strand B
1
end? The account would logically conclude with the king
fighting against the Philistine city of Libnah (19:8) but would not include the reference to

284
Naaman, New Light on Hezekiahs Second Prophetic Story, Biblica 81 (2000) 394-5.
245


Tirhakah (mentioned in the next verse), as he would not have been alive at that time.
285

Although Sennacherib is credited with capturing Lachish, it is not anachronistic to find
Sargon there in 712. He too may have attempted to take the city perhaps with success,
perhaps not.
The reference to Sennacheribs death in 2 Kgs 19:37 has usually been taken as the
fulfillment of Isaiahs prophecy in 19:6-7 that the Assyrian king would fall by the sword
in his own country. However, the phrase fall by the sword (brjb lpn) in the Bible
refers to casualties of war, not to assassination (cf. Lev 26:7-8; Num 14:43; 2 Sam 1:12;
Ezek 11:9-10). As Sargon was killed in battle in 705 B.C.E. near the eastern Assyrian
border, this prophecy applies more fittingly to him.

D. Sennacherib and Hezekiah

The second tale, strand B
2,
begins with the statement, When he heard it said
about Tirhakah, the king of Kush, He is now coming out to fight against you, he sent
messengers again to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 19:9). The he referred to is no longer Sargon,
but Sennacherib. However, one must note that the pronoun he has no antecedent, and
the word byw indicates a previous correspondence between Sennacherib and Hezekiah.
B
2,
therefore, would seem to require a proper opening. As Antii Laato has pointed out, the
narrative beginning with Tirhakahs advance presupposes some kind of introduction, for
which purpose Tirhakahs planned campaign is eminently suitable.
286
However, the

285
The historicity of Tirhakahs involvement in the second account is substantiated by Kenneth Kitchen in
The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.) (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1973; 2nd ed. with
supplement, 1986) 157-61.
286
Laato, Hezekiah, 53.
246


opening need not be segment B
1
. Surely the withdrawal of the Assyrian king to Libnah
(19:8) constitutes the conclusion of an episode rather than an introduction. It is at this
point that we should again take note of segment A. We have not, as of yet, determined its
original context in Kings, and it is evident that it cannot stand on its own. Some
continuation of A must be assumed, as it does not contain a conclusion. What was
Sennacheribs reaction after Hezekiah paid the tribute? Was the attack on Judah
halted?
287
In this case, the simplest solution works best: segment A is the most suitable
prologue to B
2
. This conclusion is supported by the remarkable affinity between B
2
and
A. The usage of epithets for the kings corresponds to the suggested divisions:

Table B.1: Name Patterns in 2 Kings 18-19
A
(18:13b-16)
B
1

(18:13a; 18:17-19:8)
B
2

(19:9-37)
Sennacherib, the king of Assyria (13b)
Hezekiah, the king of Judah (14)
Hezekiah, the king of Judah (14)
Hezekiah (15)
Hezekiah (16)
King Hezekiah (13a)
King Hezekiah (17)
Hezekiah (19)
Hezekiah (22)
Hezekiah (29)
Hezekiah (30)
Hezekiah (31)
Hezekiah (32)
Hezekiah (37)
King Hezekiah (19:1)
Hezekiah (3)
King Hezekiah (5)

Tirhakah, the king of Kush (9)
Hezekiah (9)
Hezekiah, the king of Judah (10)
Hezekiah (14)
Hezekiah (14)
Hezekiah (15)
Sennacherib (16)
Hezekiah (20)
Sennacherib, the king of Assyria (20)
Sennacherib, the king of Assyria (36)

Note: All references to kings in the text that are unaccompanied by a personal name are not listed in this table.

The formula x, the king of y is common in both A and B
2,
but is not found in B
1
.
Moreover, the title King Hezekiah is used in B
1
, but not in either A or B
2
. A personal
name by itself is found in all three segments.

287
Laato, Hezekiah, 56-7.
247


I believe the manner in which the names are used is an indication that the
Deuteronomistic Historian drew from two sources, one that described Sargons campaign
of 712 and one that recounted Sennacheribs invasion of 701. This interpretation is
reinforced by the fact that segments A and B
2
both feature Sennacherib as the antagonist,
whereas B
1
does not mention him at all. Furthermore, the sequence of events from A
through B
2
flows smoothly and better fits the extrabiblical evidence for Sennacheribs
invasion of Judah in the fourth year of his reign. Likewise, as we have seen, the account
in B
1
best fits a historical context in the reign of Sargon.
If indeed segments A and B
2
were once connected as part of a separate narrative,
and if the Deuteronomistic Historian was aware that each invasion story was distinct,
then B
2
, like A, was not in its present position in an early edition of the Deuteronomistic
History. Without B
2
, the story in B
1
, set in Hezekiahs fourteenth year, leads neatly into
chapter 20, which also recounts events of that very year. Hence, the narrative sequence
may once have run as follows:
18:13a
18:17-19:8
20:1-19
These events all are set in Hezekiahs fourteenth year, and since the Babylonian king
Merodach-baladan (Marduk-apla-iddina) mentioned in chapter 20 reigned from 721-710,
there is further reason for accepting 712 B.C.E. as Hezekiahs fourteenth regnal year.
If all mentioned portions of the text were put into chronological order, segments
A and B
2
would be positioned after 2 Kgs 20:19. Such an order would account for the
apparent discrepancy of Isaiah predicting Hezekiahs deliverance (20:6) after the
248


deliverance is recounted (19:35). It would additionally explain how it happened that
Hezekiah showed off his great treasures (20:13) after he had given them all away (18:15-
16). It seems sensible to conclude that the Sennacherib story once followed upon the
heels of the narratives found in chapter 20.

E. Who Reordered the Narrative, and When?

Ascertaining the person responsible for restructuring the Hezekiah narratives and
the date of his editing is extremely difficult. First, we do not know whether Kings or
Isaiah has priority. Most scholars assume that the Kings version came first. The important
point is that both versions are out of order and agree in their disorder. There are several
possible explanations for their commonality. The Kings version could have been taken
directly from Isaiah after the text had already been rearranged, or the Isaiah version may
have been drawn from Kings after Kings was rearranged. On the other hand, it is
possible that both Kings and Isaiah were copied from a common source. However, if
Kings were copied from Isaiah or if Kings and Isaiah share the same source, the original
source would have had to have been rearranged prior to any copying. This would
necessitate a very early date for the reorganized text. I am therefore inclined to give
priority to Kings. Whatever the case, the layout of the reordering is simple and clear:





249













Figure B.1: The Reordering of 2 Kings 18-20

This sort of restructuring of a narrative sequence by ancient editors of texts is by no
means uncommon and is usually done for thematic or idealogical reasons, or simply to
correct a text that is seen to be inaccurate or problematic.
288

With all of the difficulties involved, I can only present a possible scenario: The
Deuteronomistic History had the material in the proper sequence, but the Redactor of the
Primary History (Genesis2 Kings), perhaps under the influence of the Chroniclers
version of the story, altered the sequence. An editor of the Book of Isaiah copied the later
version.

288
See D. A. Glatt, Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures (SBL Dissertation
Series 139; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).
2 Kings 18:13a
2 Kings 18:13b-16
2 Kings 18:17-19:8
2 Kings 20:1-19
2 Kings 19:9-37

250


Other scenarios could also be conjectured. What seems certain, however, is that
editorial activity in both 2 Kings 18-20 and Isaiah 36-39 has obscured an original story
about a Sargonic invasion of Judah in 712 B.C.E. and created a historical
misunderstanding that has lasted until today.







251
Bibliography

Ackroyd, Peter R. "The Meaning of Hebrew dr Considered." Journal of Semitic Studies
13.1 (1968): 3-10.

Albrektson, B. History and the Gods. Lund: Gleerup, 1967.

Albright, William Foxwell. "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation."
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 1.163 (1961): 36-54.

. "The Gezer Calendar." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 92
(1943): 16-26.

Andr, G. "." In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. J.
Botterweck et al., VIII: 237-41. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Auerbach, E. "Die babylonische Datierung im Pentatuech und das Alter des Priester-
Kodex." Vetus Testamentum 2 (1952): 334-42.

Barnes, William Hamilton. Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel.
Edited by Frank Moore Cross. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Barthlemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d'Aquila. Vol. 10, Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 1963.

Beckwith, Roger T. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian. Leiden: Brill,
1996.

Bickerman, Elias J. Chronology of the Ancient World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1968.

Bin-Nun, Shoshana R. "Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and of Judah." Vetus
Testamentum 18 (1968): 414-32.

Boling, Robert G. "Some Conflate Readings in Joshua-Judges." Vetus Testamentum 16
(1966): 293-98.

Borowski, Oded. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
1979.

Bottro, Jean. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1992.

252


Brin, Gershon. The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by F.
Garcia Martinez. Vol. 34, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Leiden:
Brill, 2001.

Buis, P. "Rois." In SDB 9: cols. 695-750, 1982.

Clagett, Marshall. Ancient Egyptian Science. 2 vols. Vol. II. Independence Square:
American Philosophical Society, 1995.

Clements, R. E. "." In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G.J.
Botterweck et al., VI: 355-62. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Clines, D.J.A. "The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-exilic Israel
Reconsidered." Journal of Biblical Literature 93.1 (1974): 22-40.

Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

. "Chronology, Hebrew Bible." In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D.N.
Freedman, I: 1002-11. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Cohen, Mark E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Md.: CDL
Press, 1993.

Cortese, E. "Problemi attuali circa lopera deuteronomistica." Rivista biblica italiana 26
(1978): 341-52.

Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1973.

. "A Fragment of a Monumental Inscription from the City of David." Israel
Exploration Journal 51.1 (2001): 44-47.

. "The Structure of the Deuteronomic History." In Perspectives in Jewish
Learning 3: 9-24. Chicago, 1968.

de Lagarde, Paul. Ankndigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen bersetzung des
alten Testaments. Gttingen, 1882.

Eliade, Mircea. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. Translated by
Willard K. Trask. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.

Etz, D.V. "The Numbers of Genesis V 3-31: A Suggested Conversion and its
Implications." Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993): 171-89.

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. 2nd ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998.
253



Forsdyke, John. Greece Before Homer: Ancient Chronology and Mythology. New York:
W.W. Norton, 1964.

Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.

Freedman, D.N. "The Babylonian Chronicle." Biblical Archaeologist 19 (1956): 50-60.

. "Kingly Chronologies: Then and Later." In Eretz-Israel XXIV, Avraham
Malamat Volume: 41*-65*. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993.

. "Pentateuch." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, III: 711-27, 1962.

Freedman, D.N., and Jack R. Lundbom. "." In Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, III: 169-81.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Fried, Lisbeth S., and D.N. Freedman. "Was the Jubilee Year Observed in Preexilic
Judah?" In Leviticus 23-27: 2257-70. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.

. "The Deuteronomistic School." In Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor
of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday, edited by
Astrid B. et al Beck: 70-80. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: the Formation of the Deuteronomistic and
Priestly Works. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981.

. "From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2." In Traditions in Transformation:
Turning Points in Biblical Faith, edited by B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson: 167-
92. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981.

. The Hidden Book in the Bible. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998.

. "Torah." In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, VI: 605-
22. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

. Who Wrote the Bible? Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1987, 1997.

Galil, Gershon. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah, Studies in the history
and culture of the ancient Near East v. 9. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.

254


Gandz, Solomon. "The Calendar of Ancient Israel." Homenaje a Mills Vallicrosa I
(1954): 623-46.

. "The Origin of the Planetary Week or the Planetary Week in Hebrew Literature."
In Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, XVIII: 213-54,
1949.

Geoghegan, Jeffrey C. Until Whose Day? A Study of the Phrase "Until This Day" in the
Deuteronomistic History, History: Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San
Diego, 1999.

Glanville, S.R.K. The Legacy of Egypt. London: Oxford, 1942.

Glassner, Jean-Jacques. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2004.

Gray, John. I and II Kings. 2nd ed, OTL. Philadelphia: SCM Press, 1970.

Halpern, Baruch. The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel. Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1981.

. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1988.

Halpern, Baruch, and David S. Vanderhooft. "The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th
Centuries B.C.E." Hebrew Union College Annual 62 (1991): 179-244.

Haran, Menahem. "Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly
Source." Journal of Biblical Literature 100.3 (1981): 321-33.

. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1978.

Hayes, John H., and Paul K. Hooker. A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and
Judah. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988.

Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Hughes, Jeremy. Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. Edited
by D.J.A. Clines and P. R. Davies. Vol. 66, Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

Hurvitz, Avi. "Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical
Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen." ZAW Supplement (1988): 88-100.
255



. "The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code." Revue Biblique 81
(1974): 24-56.

. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book
of Ezekiel. Paris: Gabalda, 1982.

Iwry, Samuel. "The Qumran Isaiah and the End of the Dial of Ahaz." Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 1.147 (1957): 27-33.

Jacobsen, Thorkild. "Mesopotamian Gods and Pantheons." In Toward the Image of
Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, edited by
William L. Moran. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.

Jenks, A. W. "Elohist." In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, II:
478-82. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

. The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions, Society of Biblical Literature
Monograph Series. Missoula, MT: SBL, 1977.

Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Geniza. 2 ed. Oxford, 1959.

. "Die Septuaginta: Principielle Erwgungen." In Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt. Halle,
1947.

. "Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes." Theologische Studien
und Kritiken.88 (1915).

Kitchen, Kenneth A. "The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, A Current
Assessment." In The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern
Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by Manfred Bietak: 39-52.
Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000.

Klein, R.W. "Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old Testament."
Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974): 255-63.

Kugler, F.X. Von Moses bis Paulus: Forschungen zur Geschichte Israels. Mnster:
Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922.

Kutsch, E. "'am Ende des Jahres': Zur Datierung des israelitischen Herbstfestes in Ex
23,16." Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1971): 15-21.

Larsson, Gerhard. "The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and
LXX." Journal of Biblical Literature 102.3 (1983): 401-09.

256


Lemaire, A. "Vers L'histoire de la rdaction des livres des Rois." ZAW 98 (1986): 221-36.

Lohfink, Norbert. Rckblick im Zorn auf den Staat, Vorlesungen zu ausgewhlten
Schlsseltexten der Bcher Samuel und Knige. Frankfurt: Privatdruck, 1984.

Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

. Jeremiah 21-36. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

. "Jeremiah, Book of." In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D.N. Freedman, III:
706-21. Garden City: Doubleday, 1992.

. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1997.

Macalister, Robert A.S. The Excavation at Gezer. 2 vols. Vol. II. London: Palestine
Exploration Fund, 1912.

Malalae, Ioannis. Chronographia; ex recensione Ludovici Dindorfii. Bonnae: impensis E.
Weberi, 1831.

Meyer, Eduard. "Herodots Chronologie der griechischen Sagengeschichte." In
Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, I: 151-88. Halle: Niemeyer, 1892.

. "Principien der rechnung nach Knigsjahren." In Forschungen zur alte
Geschichte, II: 440-53. Halle: Niemeyer, 1899.

Miano, David. "The Twelve Sepharim of the Torah." The Biblical Historian 1.1 (2004):
10-19.

Milgrom, Jacob. "The Antiquity of the Priestly Source." ZAW 111 (1999): 10-22.

. Leviticus 1-16, AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

. Leviticus 23-27. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings.
Edited by Henry Snyder Gehman, ICC. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951.

Morganstern, Julian. "Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of Ancient Israel." In
Hebrew Union College Annual, X: 1-148, 1935.

Mosshammer, Alden A. The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition.
Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press, 1979.

257


, ed. Georgii Syncelli: Ecloga Chronographica. Leipzig: BSB B.G. Teubner
Verlagsgesellschaft, 1984.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. Psalmenstudien. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1966.

. Zum israelitischen Neujahr und zur Deutung der Thronbesteigungspsalmen.
Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1952.

Nelson, Richard D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1981.

Neuberg, Frank J. "An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew dr." Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 9.4 (1950): 215-17.

Nicholson, Ernest. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1998.

Niehr, H. "." In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G.J.
Botterweck et al., XI: 335-41. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

North, F.S. "Four-Month Seasons of the Hebrew Bible." Vetus Testamentum 11.4 (1961):
446-48.

North, J. L. "." In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G.J.
Botterweck et al., IV: 225-44. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Otto, Eckart. "." In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G.J.
Botterweck et al, XIV: 336-67. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Parker, Richard A. "The Beginning of the Lunar Month in Ancient Egypt." Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 29.4 (1970): 217-20.

. The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, S.A.O.C. 26. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1950.

Parker, Richard A. and Waldo H. Dubberstein. Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D.
75. 3rd ed. Providence: Brown University Press, 1956.

Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew
Prose. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1976.

Prakken, Donald Wilson. Studies in Greek Genealogical Chronology. Lancaster, PA:
Lancaster Press, 1943.

Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1-18. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
258



Rendsburg, Gary A. "Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of P." JANES 12 (1980): 65-80.

Richter, Wolfgang. Die Bearbeitung des 'Retterbuches' in der deuteronomistischen
Epoche. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1964.

. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch. Bonn: Peter
Hanstein, 1963.

Roberts, J. J. M. "Mowinckel's Enthronement Festival: A Review." In The Book of
Psalms: Composition and Reception, edited by Jr. P.W. Flint and PD. Miller: 97-
115. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Rochberg-Halton, F. "Calendars, Ancient Near East." In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited
by D.N. Freedman, I. Garden City: Doubleday, 1992.

Rochberg, Francesca. "Astronomy and Calendars in Ancient Mesopotamia." In
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, III: 1925-40.
Peabody: Hendricksons, 1995.

Saggs, H. W. F. The Greatness that was Babylon. New York: Mentor, 1968.

Samuel, Alan E. Greek and Roman Chronology: Calendars and Years in Classical
Antiquity. Mnchen: Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1972.

Schlauri, I. "W. Richters Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Richterbuches." Bib 54
(1973): 367-403.

Schwyzer, E., ed. Dialectorum Graecarum Exempla Epigraphica Potiora. Hildescheim:
Georg Olms, 1960.

Segal, J.B. "Intercalation and the Hebrew Calendar." Vetus Testamentum 7 (1957): 250-
307.

Seow, C. L. Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David's Dance. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1989.

Sethe, K. "Die Zeitrechnung der alten gypter im Verhltnis zu der der andern Vlker."
In Nachrichten von der Kniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Gttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse aus dem Jahre 1920: 130-38. Berlin,
1920.

Shenkel, James Donald. Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of
Kings. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.

259


Shortland, A. J. "Shishak, King of Egypt: The Challenges of Egyptian Calendrical
Chronology." In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, edited by Thomas E. Levy
and Thomas Higham: 43-54. London: Equinox, 2005.

Smelik, K.A.D. Saul, de voorstelling van Israls eerste koning in de Masoretische tekst
van het Oude Testament. Dissertation, Amsterdam: P.E.T., 1977.

Soggin, J. Alberto. Judges: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981.

Stern, Sacha. Calendar and Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Stroes, H. R. "Does the Day Begin in the Evening of Morning? Some Biblical
Observations." Vetus Testamentum XVI (1966): 460-75.

Tadmor, Hayim. "The Chronology of the First Temple Period: A Presentation and
Evaluation of the Sources." In Age of the Monarchies: Political History, edited by
Abraham Malamat and Israel Eph'al: 44-60, 318-20. Jerusalem: Massada Press,
1979.

. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem: Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994.

Talmon, Shemaryahu. "400 Jahre oder vier Generationen (Gen 15,13-15):
Geschichtliche Zeitangaben oder literarische Motive?" In Die Hebrische Bibel
und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: 13-25: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990.

. "The Gezer Calendar and the Seasonal Cycle of Ancient Canaan." In King, Cult
and Calendar in Ancient Israel: 89-112. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1963.

. "Whence the Day's Beginning in the Biblical Period and in the Beginning of the
Second Temple Period?" In The Bible as Reflected in its Commentators, edited by
S. Japhet: 109-29. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994.

Taylor, Jeremy Graeme. Framing the Past: The Roots of Greek Chronography: Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Michigan, 2000.

Tetley, M. Christine. The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1951, 1965, 1983.

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg
Fortress, 2001.

260


VanderKam, James C. "Calendars, Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish." In Anchor Bible
Dictionary, edited by D.N. Freedman, I: 814-20. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

. "Weeks, Feast of." In Anchor Bible Dictionary VI, edited by D.N. Freedman:
895-97. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. London: Darton, Longman, and
Todd, 1961.

Verbrugghe, Gerald P., and John M. Wickersham. Berossus and Manetho, Introduced
and Translated. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.

Wacholder, Ben Zion. "Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles."
Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 451-81.

Wagenaar, Jan A. Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005.

Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1972.

Weippert, H. "Die 'deuteronomistischen' Beurteilungen der Knige von Israel und Juda
und das Problem der Redaktion der Knigsbcher." Bib 53 (1972): 301-39.

Weippert, M. "Fragen des israelitischen Geschichtsbewusstseins." Vetus Testamentum 23
(1973): 415-42.

Williamson, H. G. M. "The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the
Deuteronomic History." Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 242-47.

Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1977.

Wright, Richard M. Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source.
New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2005.

Yadin, Yigael. " ." Eretz Israel 5 (1958): 91-96.

Zevit, Ziony. "Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P." ZAW 94 (1982):
502-09.