To this end, recall that Nebuchadnezzar ascended in early September, 605 BC, i.e., about a month before Tishri (the 7th month) that year, and so would have been reckoned in his 8th year by the time Jehoiachin took the throne in December, 598. This solution, though a straight-forward way of cutting the Gordian knot, has never been recognized by Thiele and his followers, who run into problems because of their belief that Jeremiah must have reckoned from Tishri to Tishri as a Southern kingdom prophet. Thiele et al <\/em>are incorrect here, for they have failed to note that Jeremiah 28 places the 7th month in the same year <\/em>as the 5th month, showing Jeremiah followed a Nisan to Nisan calendar. Indeed, a quick search of Thiele\u2019s scriptura index to his landmark book, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings<\/em>, shows no mention of Jeremiah 28. And Thiele nowhere offers an alternative explanation for this passage. Instead, he appeals to the beginning date of Josiah\u2019s extensive reformation of the temple, and believes so short a period of time could not accommodate the work prior to the Passover. I found this a somewhat reasonable argument yet ultimately realized it was incorrect in light of Jeremiah 28, since Jeremiah and Josiah were contemporaries and therefore would have observed the same calendar.<\/p>\n Sentry spots Jehu on the way to kill King Jehoram of Israel. Jehu also ended up killing Ahaziah of Judah. The year was 848\/7 BC.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Thiele also believed the Southern kingdom generally used an accession year system, whereas the Northern kingdom often did not. In fact, our model shows which Northern Kingdom rulers were the exceptions who had either an ascension year or a delay in rule. They constitute 5 of the 19 kings of the Northern Kingdom. The first is Jehu, who was anointed by Elijah the prophet. We know Jehu had an ascension year because of cross-references with the Southern kingdom (see note under the year 848, following the chart below). The second is Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, who may also have had an accession year or a delay in reign until Tishri 1, or else began reigning on Tishri 1, since the beginning of his reign comes one year after the end of his father\u2019s reign. The third is Menahem (see notes under the years 761 and 760, following the chart below). The fourth is Pekahiah, Menahem\u2019s son. The reason for an accession year for Pekahiah runs thus: to suppose that the writer of II Kings would not have caught what would otherwise be a glaring mathematical mistake (were he using a consistent non-accession year reckoning for the Northern Kingdom, which some suppose) \u2014recording, as he did, the 10-year reign of Menahem as beginning from Uzziah\u2019s 39th year until his son\/successor Pekahiah reigned in Uzziah\u2019s 50th year\u2014is implausible, given the writer\u2019s attention to detail in every other respect. In fact, because Menahem\u2019s reign had to have ended by Uzziah\u2019s 49th year (and then only if we assume that Uzziah\u2019s 39th year was an ascension <\/em>year for Mehahem), Pekahiah\u2019s beginning of reign in Uzziah\u2019s 50th year demands the assumption that Menahem died before the turn of the year marking Uzziah\u2019s 50th year (i.e., before Tishri, from the exilic author\u2019s perspective). Thus Pekahiah began his ascension (or experienced a delay in rule) until on or after the turn of the year (Tishri 1) that marked Uzziah\u2019s 50th year. (Here we use the phrase, \u201cthe turn of the year\u201d as reckoned by the historians who wrote Kings and Chronicles, who seem to have used Tishri 1 to reckon regnal years rather than the beginning of the agricultural year, which began on Tishri 10 (discussion in Chapter 7, under \u201csabbath markers\u201d).<\/p>\n These five exceptions that prove the general rule that Northern kingdom rulers used non-accession reckoning does not greatly concern me, since the \u2018conflicting\u2019 years of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s reign regarding Jehoiachin\u2019s overthrow involves Southern kingdom citations only (i.e., by Jeremiah and the exilic author(s) of II Kings). As a reminder to readers, the accession year system of the Southern Kingdom is one in which the sum of sole regnal years across rulers is linearly preserved by the appearance <\/em>of monarchs\u2019 complete years of reign, when in fact the monarch usually does not complete his last year.<\/p>\n Again, the importance in all this is its application to the key assumption made earlier in this book, which, if correct, resolves the so-called biblical discrepancy of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s years regarding Jehoiachin\u2019s surrender and deportation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ahab dies in battle (859\/8 BC).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Moving on, we must show why Thiele was wrong to suppose that the \u201cAhab of Savhalla\u201d in the Assyrian limmu lists was Ahab of Samaria. This assumption led Thiele to state that the Hebrew writers were in error. (Note:<\/p>\n the Assyrian eponym canon is a linearly formatted, year-by year Assyrian timeline.) So then, we must set out to see (1) if the Bible set forth an internally consistent synchronization of the Hebrew kings; and (2) if so, whether the exilic author(s) of Kings and Chronicles used a consistent Tishri to Tishri perspective in retelling the histories of both <\/strong>the Southern and Northern kingdoms (since it would seem strange to suppose any contemporary writers would adopt two <\/em>[alleged] perspectives in these books, since two kingdoms\u2019 calendrically intersecting events on the bases of a double-dating system would confuse the reader); and (3) whether such a harmonization of the Hebrew kings, formed solely on statements in the Bible, proves the Assyrian eponym canon harmonious with the biblical timeline of Hebrew kings, including Ahab of Samaria. I believe the research will prove all three of these points.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At this point we must briefly address the meaning of \u201creign\u201d in the Kings and Chronicles. It has, in fact, a wide latitude of meaning. For example, in one case we are told that Jotham reigned 16 years, yet in another place there is reference to \u201cthe twentieth year of Jotham.\u201d How to explain? I think the best answer is that although \u201creign\u201d sometimes has the formal definition of who technically <\/em>is the king, other times it appears the definition of \u201creign\u201d has a more practical meaning in view. To this latter point, a number of father\/son co-regencies exist in the Hebrew chronology, and in some of them the father no longer appears to be wielding the practical, day-to-day rule. Generally, at least, we do not know the reasons for this. There may have been times when kings with illnesses could not practically manage the State. Or it may be that a co-regency began when a king went to war or desired a smooth succession. And so a king\u2019s \u201creign\u201d may begin or end upon a number of points: (1) most typically, the beginning of a reign commences in the same<\/p>\n The Judgment of Solomon, by Nicolas Poussin (1649). God gave Solomon wisdom and knowledge to rule His people Israel. The year was 966 BC. Solomon was the 3rd and last king of the United Kingdom of Israel, and ruled for 40 years.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n year the previous ruler died; (2) the beginning of a reign may commence with a son\u2019s elevation to co- regency; (3) the beginning of \u201cyears reigned\u201d may come after <\/em>a period of co-regency which, for some reason, the biblical author does not include as part of the number of years reigned. (Note: in such a case the year is not arbitrarily assigned in the below chart: it is deduced from at least one cross-referencing statement.); (4) \u201creigning\u201d may be said to occur both <\/em>upon the ascension year, and the year solo reign begins. This is the case with Ahaziah (Judah), who apparently co-reigned during the last two years with his father, though in the end father and son died in the same year, though the son died after his father after a brief solo reign; (5) the years of \u201creigning\u201d may be counted after <\/em>a co-regency commences, yet also end before <\/em>the king\u2019s actual death. This occurs with Jotham of Judah, son of Uzziah (Azariah), whose 16 \u201cyears reigned\u201d is sandwiched between a 20 year period, with one of the 20 coming before, and three of the 20 coming after, the 16-year period. The reason we know this, in this case, is the same reason we often know anything at all about synchronization: it is found in the cross-referencing statements between the two kingdoms. Yet sometimes it is not only this. It can also involve whatever logical deductions should be made from the text. For example, in the case of Ahaz, father of Hezekiah, there are two statements seemingly discrepant. The first is that Ahaz reigned in the 17th year of Pekah, the second is that Pekah\u2019s 20th year was Ahaz\u2019s 12th. But only the latter of these makes possible an age conceivably old enough for Ahaz to have sired Hezekiah. And so in this case the statement that Ahaz reigned in Pekah\u2019s 17th year cannot refer to the absolute beginning of Ahaz\u2019s years reigned<\/em>, since this would mean both <\/em>Ahaz and his son, Hezekiah, would be 25-years old in the 3rd year of Hoshea (when Ahaz died).\u00a0 Therefore the statement that Ahaz reigned in Pekah\u2019s 17th year must refer to the reign Ahaz began in the year Jotham\u2019s 16-year practical <\/em>reign ended, meaning (a) Ahaz had begun his co-regency (i.e. ascended) 12 years before Pekah\u2019s 20th year, and (b) Jotham technically <\/em>remained king for another 3 years past Pekah\u2019s 17th year, such that Jotham\u2019s \u201c20th year of reign\u201d ended with Pekah\u2019s 20th year of reign (see chronological table). Finally, (6) no co-regency should be assumed unless implied by another biblical statement (or statements) that makes it necessary or very likely. For example, since (a) Jeroboam reigned 41 years and was succeeded by his son, Zachariah, and since (b) Zachariah reigned in Uzziah\u2019s 38th year, and since (c) no biblical statement suggests Zachariah ever reigned previous to Jeroboam\u2019s 41st year or Uzziah\u2019s 38th year, then no co-regency should be allowed for Zachariah. Unfortunately, Edwin Thiele allows one particular co-regency on dubious grounds. He believes that Pekah, who came to power after killing Pekahiah, had previously reigned a nation called Ephraim (see Thiele, chpt. 3, fn. 1), not only during Pekahiah\u2019s 2 years of reign but also during the 10 years of Menahem (Pekahiah\u2019s father and predecessor). Again, there is no warranty for such suppositions. Thiele only assumes this because he believes a certain \u201cAhab of Zirhala\u201d in the Assyrian record was the biblical Ahab, and so he needs to compress the years of the biblical narrative to make his timeline work.5<\/strong>4 <\/strong>So I believe Thiele was incorrect here. So also was his idea that Manasseh was 12 when he co-reigned<\/em>, an assumption the Bible gives no warrant to make.<\/p>\n However, elsewhere Thiele did find a unique solution to the oft-claimed discrepancy of II Kings 15:1, in which Uzziah \u201creigned\u201d in Jeroboam II\u2019s 27th year. Thiele realized both <\/em>Uzziah and Jeroboam II\u2019s co- regencies should reach back earlier to include years not very apparent in a superficial reading of their regnal years. Although at least one of Thiele\u2019s assumptions is wrong about which years a ruler ruled (Thiele believes Jehoash (Israel) began reigning upon the year of Joash\u2019s (Judah) death [40th year] instead of in Joash\u2019s 38th year [on the assumption that Amaziah\u2019s (Judah) ascension (see II Ki. 14:1) happened upon the death of Joash rather than in Joash\u2019s 38th year), nevertheless Thiele is correct in stating that Jeroboam had a co-regency of 12 years, and that Amariah [Uzziah] had a co-regency of 24 years. Says Thiele:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n We have shown that the death of Amaziah in Judah took place 15 years after the death of Jehoash in Israel. But by that time Jeroboam had already reigned 27 years, for Azariah\u2019s accession is dated in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. That being the case, it is clear that Jeroboam must have reigned 12 years contemporaneously with his father before the latter died. It is this 12-year coregency of Jeroboam with his father Jehoash that is responsible for the excess of 12 years in the totals of Israel over Judah at this point. Once this coregency is recognized, it will be clear that the \u201cflagrant contradiction\u201d of which the Biblical writer has been here accused exists only in the mind of the critic.<\/p>\n![\"Sentry](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/Sentry-spots-Jehu-204x300.jpg\")
![\"Ahab](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/Ahab-dies-300x206.jpg\")
THE MEANING OF \u201cREIGN\u201d<\/h3>\n
![\"Solomon](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/Solomon-judging-1024x683.jpg\")
![\"King](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/King-Uzziah-242x300.jpg\")