The Chronology of First and Second Kings
Even a casual reading of First and Second Kings produces some apparent chronological questions. For example, the author lists how long the kings of Isra’el and Judah reigned and synchronized the monarchs with one another. Oddly, however, when those numbers are added up, one kingdom seems to have more years than the other. Just as strangely, Second Kings 9:29 says Ahaziah became king of Judah during Joram’s eleventh year as king of Isra’el, while Second Kings 8:25 places Ahaziah’s reign in Joram’s twelfth year. Similar statements are made about Ahab’s son Joram in Second Kings 1:17, 3:1 and 8:16. The length of Omri’s reign does not seem to coincide with the author’s synchronization of Omri with Asa (First Kings 16:28-29), nor does the biblical account of Hezekiah’s deeds match Assyrian records at first glance. These and other difficulties have led some scholars to take a dim view of the book’s accuracy, which sheds doubt on the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Fortunately, these difficulties can be explained by consulting other ancient chronologies and by examining how Judah and Isra’el counted the length of a monarch’s reign. Assyrian records set the date for the battle of Qarqar at 853 BC, which is the same year King Ahab died. This fixed date has helped scholars figure the years before and after 853 BC. In fact, other Assyrian texts preserve the names of three kings of Isra’el: Menahen, Pekah, Hoshea, and one of king of Judah: Ahaz. They also add that Assyrian inscriptions and Babylonian documents clarify events surrounding the last years of both Isra’el and Judah and help set dates for the destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem. Studies like these have the dual effect of establishing the basic veracity of the biblical texts and of identifying fixed dates that help synchronize the biblical data.
Perhaps the most significant analysis of the chronological methodology employed in First and Second Kings is E. R. Thiele’s Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983. Certainly, other studies have made significant contributions to this issue, but Thiele’s work examines the most problems, deals with the issues fairly, and presents answers with great clarity. He claimed most of the problems with synchronization can be solved when readers realize that Judah and Isra’el counted the beginning of reigns differently. Normally, Judah used the accession-year system, which began counting a king’s first year at the first of the calendar year. Isra’el, on the other hand, began counting the regnal years from when the reign began. Thus, a year’s difference could exist even when the two kings began to rule on the same day. During one period both nations used the same system. Further, the nations began their calendar year six months apart, which also would affect the counting of years. Finally, kings acted as co-regents with their fathers before the older man’s death. Again, this factor, if unknown to the reader, would seemingly make some synchronisms impossible to accept.
Because of the information offered by the Assyrian and Babylonian records and by studies like Thiele’s, it is possible to affirm the historical reliability of the chronologies of First and Second Kings. It has also become possible for scholars to present an accurate table of when kings ruled. Minor disagreements remain, but usually do not entail a significant number of years for any important date.14
Leave A Comment