[Norman Orr to Damien Mackey]
Waves hi...
In looking at your work, I agree with the alignment of the reigns of Sargon II, and Sennacherib, and that you based the start of the overlapping reigns at the fall of Samaria in 711, a date which you appear to have accepted as being correct, by looking at the notes of Mr Thiele when he discusses how he arrived at a chronological pattern in full accordance with the data of the bible, and when applying dates, determined that the fall of Samaria was in 711, and the 14th year of Hezekiah was in 702.
In my studies, I have concluded that these dates are correct. And based on those dates, have worked to create a chronological pattern for the hebrew kingdoms, using the information from Mr Thieles work to assist me.
I found that because the date of 711 for the fall of Samaria was different to that accepted as being correct in 722, I had to redate the previous Assyrian Kings. This meant the battle of Qarqar was 11 years in advance of the accepted date.
In my studies I also found grounds for dating the reign of Joash, king of Judah, from the death of his father, rather than from the 7th year of Jehu. In making this change, as well as a few minor ones to the kings of Israel ... in particular, that Pekah and Hoshea used Non Ascension reckoning; I found that these amendments brought the reigns of Ahab and Jehu back into alignment with Shalmanesser III., thus retaining the links to his 6th and 18th years.
With regard to the amalgamating of the reigns of the two Assyrian kings into one reign, I am not fully convinced at this stage... so have instead treated the overlap of Sennacherib as being a coregency, with his reign proper, starting after that of Sargon II.
My reasoning for this stance, is that the reign of the kings from Sargon II through to the close of the Assyrian Empire when they were defeated, and Babylon rose to power in 606/605.
Once this period of Assyrian history is resorted based on your starting Sargon II from 711... I will have more information upon which to make that decision.
In sending you the file of the chronological order of the Hebrew kings, I guess I was hoping for some feed back as to whether you felt I was on the right line ... or gone horribly wrong.
Regards,
Norman Orr
[Damien Mackey to Norman Orr]
Dear Norman
I am not endorsing Edwin Thiele at all. I think that he is dead wrong. See my thesis.
EASY ACCESS TO DAMIEN MACKEY'S THESIS
'A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background', by Damien Mackey. This is Mackey's University thesis, deposited by the University of Sydney. PDF version.
ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/5973
Though he was well-intentioned, Thiele absolutely ruined the biblico-historical synchronisms, 9th Hosea = 6th Hezekiah = Fall of Samaria = first of Sargon II (my Sennacherib) = 12th Merodach-baladan. All that, gone, in one fell swoop. This was about the worst part of his entire reconstruction.
In my thesis I dated the Fall of Samaria to the standard 722/21 date, just for convenience as I made clear. I actually think that Philip Mauro's 640 BC will turn out to be far closer to the true date, once the Book of Daniel has been properly worked out.
Regards,
Damien M.
