by
Damien F. Mackey
Part One:
A conventional overview of this period
My intention in this series will be to contrast the conventional king-lists for Judah; Egypt-Ethiopia; and Assyro-Babylonia for this period (c. 716 – c. 596 BC) with my recently revised version of it which will lop off almost half a century from this approximately 120–year span.
{The following dates are all conventional, and approximate only, BC dates}
Later Kings of Judah
Hezekiah 716-687
Manasseh 687-643
Amon 643-641
Josiah 641-609
[Jehoahaz]
Jehoiakim 608-596
Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) 596
Later Pharaohs of Egypt-Ethiopia
Piye 744-714
Shebitku 714-705
Shabaka 705-690
Taharqa (Tirhakah) 690-664 Necho I 672-664
Tantamani 664-653 Psamtik I 664-610 Necho II 610-595
Psamtik II 595-
Neo-Assyrian-Babylonian Kings
Sargon II 722-705
Sennacherib 705-681
Esarhaddon 681-669
Ashurbanipal 669-627
Ashur-etil-ilani 631-627
Sin-shumu-lishir 626
Sin-shar-ishkun 627-612
Nabopolassar 626-605
Nebuchednezzar II 605-562
….
Part Two (i): Sorting out later kings of Judah
Looking at the conventional version of the:
Later Kings of Judah
Hezekiah 716-687
Manasseh 687-643
Amon 643-641
Josiah 641-609
[Jehoahaz]
Jehoiakim 608-596
Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) 596
I can see some serious problems here, but also, now, I perceive the need to re-organise various things.
Hezekiah
With the Fall of Samaria conventionally dated to c. 722/21 BC, then the favoured date these days for the beginning of the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah, c. 716 BC, is blatantly contrary to the flat statement of the OT (e.g. 2 Kings 18:10): “Three years later, during the sixth year of King Hezekiah's reign and the ninth year of King Hoshea's reign in Israel, Samaria fell”. The Bible here assists us with a 3-way synchronism (Hezekiah; Hoshea; and Fall of Samaria) which scholars, though, choose completely to brush aside, they preferring to follow the confusing and erroneous (neo-Assyrian-based) chronology of Edwin R. Thiele, in The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings.
If the Fall of Samaria is to be dated c. 722 BC (a conventional date which will end up in the long run being hopelessly inaccurate – but which can serve as a ‘sighter’ for the time being), then King Hezekiah’s regnal beginning has to be set at c. 729/8 BC, and not at 716 BC.
More will be said on King Hezekiah later, as we find an important regal alter ego for him.
Manasseh
Although Manasseh would indeed continue on for 55 years, it now needs to be understood (and this is certainly radical) that more than forty of those years were spent in Babylonian (and probably also Susan) captivity.
This situation serves to explain why the prophet Jeremiah could point the finger at (the conventionally well dead) Manasseh as the cause of the Jewish deportations (Jeremiah 15:4): “And I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem”.
More will be said on Manasseh later, as we find a regal alter ego for him.
Amon
How could this young king of only two years of reign in Jerusalem have gone down in biblical history as being even worse than his long-reigning father, Manasseh?
Thus 2 Chronicles 33:21-23:
Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem two years. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his father Manasseh had done. Amon worshiped and offered sacrifices to all the idols Manasseh had made. But unlike his father Manasseh, he did not humble himself before the Lord; Amon increased his guilt.
Once again the explanation lies in the facts that (i) the king continued on for a very long time in captivity, and (ii) he acquired a very nasty alter ego.
For a full account of all of this, see my article:
King Amon's descent into Aman (Haman)
‘Alter egos’ now come into play
While I accept this standard sequence of Judaean kings so far, Hezekiah, father of Manasseh, father of Amon, I now believe that the remaining kings, Josiah, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, are simply duplicates of the first trio, so that:
Hezekiah = Josiah;
Manasseh = Jehoiakim;
Amon = Jehoiachin.
Sorting out some complications
There are complications, though, as I have discussed before, insofar as various biblical texts, including Matthew’s ‘Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah’, give Amon as the father of Josiah (Matthew 1:10), plus the fact that different names are given for the mothers of kings who I am arguing are duplicates.
Some versions of Matthew 1:10, however, give “Amos” as the father of Josiah, and Amos is a name very different from the apparently Egyptian name, Amon - probably given to Jehoiachin by his Egypt-leaning father, Jehoiakim, or by the pharaoh:
Jehoiakim, who was 25 when he ascended the throne (according to I Chron. 3:15 he was the second son of Josiah), was most likely selected because of his known support of a pro-Egyptian policy. Jehoiakim's original name Eliakim was changed by the Pharaoh in order to indicate the Judahite king's subservience to Egypt (II Kings 23:34; II Chron. 36:4). Egypt also imposed a heavy tax on Judah – 100 talents of silver and a talent of gold – which Jehoiakim exacted by levying a tax upon all people of the land (II Kings 23:33, 35).
Father’s names
I would now re-identify this “Amos” with Ahaz - whether this was another name for Ahaz, or simply a scribal error, perhaps a confusion with Amon - thus refining my above list to:
Ahaz = Amos;
Hezekiah = Josiah;
Manasseh = Jehoiakim;
Amon = Jehoiachin.
The fact that the various kings of Judah at this time had more than the one name (e.g., Jehoiakim was formerly Eliakim, 2 Kings 23:34; Zedekiah was formerly Mattaniah, 2 Kings 24:17) assists me somewhat in my case for alter egos.
Mothers’ names
The differing names of the women (mothers) can be accounted for, at least to some extent, by the fact that sometimes a woman was named “mother” who was not the biological mother. King Amon was, for instance, in his guise as the evil Haman (see above article on “Haman”) the “son of Hammedatha” (Esther 3:1); Hammedatha, a woman, being the mother of Amon’s (i.e., Jehoiachin’s) uncles (Jehoahaz and Zedekiah), as (queen) Ham[m]utal (cf. 2 Kings 23:31 and 24:18).
In the case of my Manasseh = Jehoiakim identification, Manasseh’s mother (2 Kings 21:1), Hephzibah, could perhaps be the same person as king Jehoiakim’s mother (2 Kings 23:36): “[Jehoiakim’s] mother’s name was Zebidah daughter of Pedaiah; she was from Rumah”.
Heph-zibah = Zebi-dah?
According to 2 Kings 18:2: “[Hezekiah’s] mother’s name was Abijah [or Abi], daughter of Zechariah”, whilst (his alter ego) “[Josiah’s] mother’s name was Jedidah daughter of Adaiah; she was from Bozkath”.
The latter, I find, bears some resemblance to Jehoiakim’s [= Manasseh’s] mother, “Zebidah daughter of Pedaiah” – compare with “Jedidah daughter of Adaiah”.
The location of Rumah (for Jehoiakim’s mother) “is disputed” (Nadav Na’aman, Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction, p. 355).
Previously we found that certain complications inevitably arise from my re-casting of the later kings of Judah as follows:
Ahaz = Amos;
Hezekiah = Josiah;
Manasseh = Jehoiakim;
Amon = Jehoiachin.
But I was also gratified to find that, with regard to my dependence upon alter egos for my reconstruction, some of the kings of Judah at the time were biblically known to have had more than the one name.
We also found that, whilst mother’s names may appear to be inconsistent with my revision, at least one of those designated as a “mother” of a particular king was not in fact his biological mother, but was the mother of that king’s uncles.
The complications that arise from my revision do become more severe, though, for this next category:
Regnal years, ages at accession
In the case of Amon = Jehoiachin, the differences in regnal years and ages at commencement of reign can fairly easily be accounted for by co-regency, as I have already suggested.
And, whilst the 55-years of reign attributed to Manasseh (2 Kings 21:1) far outnumber the eleven years attributed to (my alter ego for him) Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:36), the count of Manasseh’s years continued on, as I have suggested, into his long captivity in Babylon.
In the same way, Jehoiachin’s reign of only “three months” in Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:8), will be extended to his “thirty-seventh year” in captivity in 2 Kings 25:27.
However, there is a big discrepancy, much harder to account for, in the case of my:
Hezekiah = Josiah.
“[Hezekiah] was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years” (2 King 18:2).
“Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years (2 Kings 22:1)”.
At this stage, I do not have a satisfactory solution to this very large discrepancy in age at accession (25 years versus 8 years).
Added to this is the fact that Sirach praises Hezekiah (48:17-22) and Josiah (49:1-3) as if referring to two separate kings, concluding with (49:4): “Except for David and Hezekiah and Josiah, all of them were great sinners, for they abandoned the law of the Most High; the kings of Judah came to an end”.
Places of burial
Francesca Stavrakopoulou provides a useful comment on the burials of the kings in question in this article, “Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship”: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42614642.pdf
As is well known, almost every Judahite monarch up to and including Ahaz is said to have been buried "with his ancestors in the City of David" (2), whilst the burial notices for Ahaz's successors are either inconsistent or non-existent: Manasseh is buried "in the garden of his house in the Garden of Uzza" (2 Kgs 21,18); Amon's body is interred "in his tomb in the Garden of Uzza" (21 ,26); Josiah is buried "in his tomb" (23,30); the resting places of Hezekiah and Jehoiakim go unmentioned though their deaths are acknowledged (20,21; 24,6); Jehoahaz is said to die whilst in Egyptian captivity (23,34); and neither the deaths nor the burials of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah are noted. Given the important theological and narrative functions of the death and burial notices in emphasizing the continuity of the Davidic dynasty (3), these variations have proved problematic for many commentators. ….
Interestingly, here, the two kings of Judah who went into long captivity, Manasseh and Amon, were buried in the same place, in their palace garden (“the Garden of Uzza”).
Considering that Amon, as Haman, was killed in his palace, in Susa, then this unknown “Garden” must have been situated in Susa.
And that would explain why neither Manasseh, nor Amon, was buried - like their ancestors were - “in the City of David”.
‘The death and burial of king Jehoiachin is not noted’ because these details have been noted in two other instances, in the cases of Jehoiachin’s alter egos, (i) Amon:
(2 Kings 21:23-24): “Amon’s officials conspired against him and assassinated the king in his palace. Then the people of the land killed all who had plotted against King Amon, and they made Josiah his son king in his place”.
and (ii) Haman:
(Esther 7:9-10): “Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs attending the king, said, ‘A pole reaching to a height of fifty cubits stands by Haman’s house [palace]. He had it set up for Mordecai, who spoke up to help the king’. The king said, ‘Impale him on it!’ So they impaled Haman on the pole he had set up for Mordecai. Then the king’s fury subsided”.
“The people of the land” who then avenged Amon would have been the people of the land of Susa, some of whom would eventually swing over to the side of the Jews:
The Book of Esther tells that many of the peoples of the land became Jews or passed themselves off as Jews. While the obvious motive for this behavior was fear of the new Jewish power, the result was that people now saw Jews as a religious community that all could join, not just a tribe living in a certain land.
Part Two (ii):
Benefits from sorting out later kings of Judah
What are some of these benefits?
For one, with several of the later kings of Judah now identified as duplicates, namely:
Ahaz = Amos;
Hezekiah = Josiah;
Manasseh = Jehoiakim;
Amon = Jehoiachin,
then certain kings of Judah inexplicably omitted from Matthew’s Genealogy can be re-instated. I refer to kings Joash (Jehoash) and Amaziah, and possibly even their predecessor Ahaziah.
And, does king Jehoiachin (= Amon = Haman) need to figure anymore in Matthew’s Genealogy, considering that he and his sons were all slain?
This latter situation may also be the key to Daniel 9:26: “… an anointed one will be put to death and will have nothing”.
Secondly, with Hezekiah now expanded to include Josiah, this would fill out an important king of Judah who almost seems to disappear from the scene after only his 14th year.
That Hezekiah, Josiah, shared the same officials is apparent from this:
Chart 37
Comparison of Hezekiah and Josiah Narratives
which I accept in general – though not in every detail.
Hezekiah’s merging with Josiah would solve problems like this legitimate one:
Hezekiah trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him. He held fast to the LORD and did not cease to follow him; he kept the commands the LORD had given Moses.
Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the LORD as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses.
How can the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah both be the greatest, especially when it is said of both that neither before nor after him was there a king like him? Is this a contradiction?
[End of quotes]
Thirdly, with the eras of Hezekiah, of Josiah, now crunched together, the respective great prophets, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, would become contemporaneous.
This enables for Isaiah’s “Suffering Servant”, so reminiscent of the prophet Jeremiah (but culminating perfectly in Jesus Christ), to be Jeremiah, now personally known to Isaiah (Jeremiah’s older contemporary).
Fourthly, the traditionally well attested ‘Martyrdom of Isaiah’ at the hands of king Manasseh - unknown, however, from the biblical record of Manasseh, qua Manasseh - can be found in the martyrdom of the prophet Uriah (Urijah) at the hands of Manasseh’s alter ego, king Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:23).
Fifthly, Manasseh’s identification with Jehoiakim would explain why Jeremiah could attribute to Manasseh - instead of Jehoiakim - the guilt for the deportations of the Jews (Jeremiah 15:4).
Sixthly, we can now count the regnal years of Manasseh through the eleven years of Jehoiakim (the latter’s 4th corresponding with the 1st of king Nebuchednezzar, Jeremiah 25:1), through Nebuchednezzar’s 43rd (= Manasseh’s 46th); 3-4 of Evil-Merodach (= Manasseh’s 50th); and on for approximately another 5 years into the Medo-Persian era. This means that:
Seventhly, Manasseh can now likely be identified with the “Sheshbazzar the prince of Judah” (Ezra 1:8), who returns briefly to restore to Jerusalem the treasures stolen by the Babylonians, but who dies a few years later and is buried in the “Garden of Uzza”, in Susa (as I have estimated), where the executed king Amon (Haman) will later be buried.
Part Three:
Merging pharaoh Necho I and pharaoh Necho II
If king Hezekiah of Judah is to be identified with king Josiah, as according to this series, then it becomes inevitable that there can be only one pharaoh Necho, and that Necho so-called II, who killed Josiah, must be the same as Necho I of the approximate era of king Hezekiah.
Art historians find it hard to determine whether a pharaonic statue represents Necho I or II. Moreover, Necho I is poorly known – as is apparent from the following:
This sculpture [see next page] probably belonged to a group showing the king presenting an offering to a god. The inscription indicates that the royal figure was King Necho. Two [sic] Saite rulers had this name, the little-known Necho I and the more celebrated Necho II in whose reign the Egyptians circumnavigated Africa and attempted to link the Mediterranean and Red seas with a canal. Which Necho is represented is not known.
Again, we do not know at least the Horus Name, Nebty Name, or Golden Horus Name, of pharaoh Necho I: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn26/01nekau1.html
It becomes inevitable now, also, that Psamtik (Psammetichus) I, son of Necho I, be identified with Psamtik (Psammetichus) II, son of Necho II.
Part Four:
Merging neo-Assyrians and neo-Babylonians
If pharaoh Necho I is to be identified with pharaoh Necho II, as according to this series, then it becomes inevitable now that Necho I’s Mesopotamian contemporaries, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, must be the same as Necho II’s Mesopotamian contemporaries, respectively Nabopolassar and Nebuchednezzar II.
For more on this, see e.g. my article:
Ashurbanipal the Great
No comments:
Post a Comment