Critical Dating Issues

Jump To:

Dating the Beginning of the United Monarchy

The Reigns of the First Kings (of the United Monarchy)

Major Issues in the Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah

Methodology for the Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah

Dating the Kings of Israel

The Reign of Pekah

The Fall of Samaria

Dating the Kings of Judah

The Bur-Sagalê Eclipse

Dating the End of the Neo-Assyrian Empire

Dating the Battle of Qarqar

Neo-Babylonain Chronicles and Historiography

Establishing the Chronology of the Early Neo-Babylonian Period

A Neo-Babylonian Synchronism with an Elephantine Stela

 


Dating the Beginning of the United Monarchy

The beginning of the period of the biblical united monarchy, and even its existence is debated. There are no historical records or parallels beyond the biblical text that account for the historicity of the reigns of Saul, David, or Solomon. Furthermore, the archaeological record is limited and open to a range of interpretations. A general consensus has followed Y. Aharoni and R. Amiran in placing the starting date with David at about 1000 BCE through 925 BCE (although Amihai Mazar has since changed his position to a slightly later date of 980 BCE – ca. 840/850 BCE). Scholars that follow this dating, or dates around this time, fall into the historicist (maximalist) camp with regard to viewing the biblical account as fairly reliable as to the existence of historical figures, though to varying degrees.  

In contrast, Israel Finkelstein and the minimalist camp severely calls into question the dating and even existence of a united monarchy. Finkelstein’s argument rests upon his interpretation of the dating of archaeological strata between the 11th and 10th centuries BCE. He argues for lowering the generally-accepted dating for these layers by about 100 years, pushing archaeological data from any tenth century context, thus removing any material evidence of any possible united monarchy. With this down dating, FInkelstein sees no kingdom of David and Solomon or at the very least a very small, local group (with the discovery of the Tel Dan stele, he has since conceded the latter option as possible).

This debate has continued with the development of radiocarbon dating in developing a more definite chronology of the archaeological record. However, the interpretive nature of this “hard science” only leaves both sides more sure of their arguments rather than providing any conclusion evidence (see the edited volume by Levy for more recent arguments by both Mazar and Finkelstein). 

In our timeline construction, we follow the historicist position that there are historical kernels to the biblical account though with later embellishments and anachronisms that urge caution in relying upon the text. The early kings were real historical figures, but the extent of their power and geographic reach was likely much smaller.

Bibliography

Levy, Thomas E., and Thomas Higham, eds. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating : Archaeology, Text and Science. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2005.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Eli Piasetzky. “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing.” NEA 74.1 (2011): 50–54.

Mazar, Amihai. “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint.” NEA 74.2 (2011): 105–11.

Back to top

 


The Reigns of the First Kings (the United Monarchy)

The lack of any ancient Near Eastern parallels or historical records beyond the biblical account for the existence of Saul, David, and Solomon makes it difficult to establish a definitive timeline for these kings. The very historicity of the kings (primarily Saul and David) has been called into question by Israel Finkelstein and the minimalist camp. On the other hand, many scholars look to the discovery of the Tel Dan stele which supports at the very least the existence of a political house of David that had been established prior to the events described. However, a large-scale united kingdom as expressed in the text is unlikely; the earliest kings were likely regional leaders who controlled small areas of land.

Several scholars have attempted to develop a timeline of the earlier kings by dating backwards from anchor points in the historical record (ie. Shoshenq I’s Campaign, Battle of Qarqar). But even with those anchors, there is still a great deal of variability and confusion, especially when taking into account the issues of historicity of the biblical account. The text describes the reigns of David (2 Sam 5:4) and Solomon (1 Kgs 11:42) as 40 years each, while the data on Saul (1 Sam 13:1) is either corrupted or missing (there are issues in both the MT and LXX, though the later historian Joesphus assigns his rule to be 40 years as well). The number ‘40’ in ancient texts, including the Bible, represents a long span of time with no historical value, and therefore helps little in attempting an accurate timeline. 

The dates we give for the early kings roughly follows Gershon Galil (though without taking into account Saul’s son Ish-bosheth) who leans toward the reliability of the biblical text but also relies heavily on Mesopotamian sources; however, we do so with strong reservations and the understanding that precise dating of these figures is unattainable.

 

Further Reading:

Coogan, Michael D. “Chronology.” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary A-C 1:1002–11.

Galil, Gershon. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Schipper, Bernd U. A Concise History of Ancient Israel: From the Beginnings Through the Hellenistic Era. Translated by Michael Lesley. Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 11. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2020.

Back to top

 


Major Issues in the Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah

Establishing a chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah which is both consistent within the biblical text and with the historical events going on around these two kingdoms is nigh impossible. First, the biblical text provides two different dating systems: one is focused on the total reign of a king and the second provides a synchronism between the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah (cf. 1 Kgs 15:1, 2). At some points, these synchronic dates contradict the total count of regnal years and even each other (cf. 2 Kings 1:17 and 3:1). Further complicating matters, the total years of the kings of Israel and Judah do not add up in various periods. From the revolt of Jehu until the Fall of Samaria, the dates of all the kings of Israel adds up to a period of 143 years and 7 months while the dates of kings of Judah for the same period totals 164 years, yet both Jehu of Israel and Athaliah of Judah were crowned in the same year.

Outside of the biblical text there are also chronological issues. 2 Kgs 3 describes Mesha’s Revolt taking place during the reign of Joram, but the Mesha Stele records that the war was fought against Ahab. Also, 1 Kgs 20 tells of Ahab’s numerous wars with the Arameans but Assyrian sources record Ahab as a member of a collation fighting against Assyria led by Hazel of Damascus, the king of the Arameans. Thus, the chronological and historical picture of the kings of Israel is rather complicated.

Scholars have put forth multiple attempts to establish an accurate chronology which accounts for both the biblical text and the extrabiblical sources. Each of these attempts makes various assumptions in order to the fix the issues. A few common assumptions are: 1) synchronisms are either historic remembrance or late creations; 2) the kings of Judah and Israel counted years differently and may have even switched their dating systems at some point; 3) multiple kings participated in coregencies where their son’s ‘reign’ would begin during their own.

The first assumption depends on the scholar doing the chronology. Some view the synchronisms as important for dating and thus attempt to get all the years lined up. Others view the synchronisms as the less than helpful products of a later redactor and therefore only sometimes provide useful information for a chronology.

The second assumption is more complicated than it first appears. At its simplest, there is the fact that Israel and Judah began their years in different months. Israel started theirs in Tishri and Judah in Nisan, leaving a 6-month gap in their calculations. Second, some scholars have suggested that Judah antedated the reigns of their kings while Israel postdated. Antedating is calculating the first year of the king’s reign to be the year he takes office. That is, if the king of Judah becomes king a week before the new year, the new year will mark the beginning of the king’s second year of their reign even though they have only been ruling for one week. The opposite is true for postdating. A king’s reign is not calculated until after his first new year’s festival. On top of this, it has been suggested that Judah or Israel may have changed how they calculated the reigns of kings, either by changing when they start the new year or by switching from an antedating system to a postdating system. Finally, there is also a possibility that some of the total years of a king’s reign have been rounded. Thus, it is impossible to put forth a chronology which solves all of the various problems while taking all the evidence as equally valid.

 

Bibliography:

Barnes, William Hamilton. Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs no. 48. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1991.

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.

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

Thiele, Edwin Richard. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. New rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1994.

Back to top

 


Methodology for the Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah

Many of the difficulties and assumptions involved in creating a chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah have been already discussed above. Here are the methodological assumptions involved in this chronology along with a list of the key difficulties discussed. First, this chronology assumes that for most of their history Israel and Judah both used antedating in their calculations of regnal years. Second, it assumes that coregencies were not the norm but did occur, specifically during the reign of Uzziah of Judah. Third, it views synchronisms to be less accurate than the total regnal years given and so does not attempt create equivalence between them. Fourth, while the regnal years are considered to be accurate, in a few instances they may need to be revised, specifically with Menahem and Pekah. The hard dates that this chronology uses are the campaign of Shishak in 925 BCE, the battle of Qarqar and Jehu’s tribute to Shalmaneser III in 853 BCE and 841 BCE respectively, the Fall of Samaria in 722 BCE, and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.

There are three major problems in need of explanation in this chronology. The first is related to years listed between the reign of Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah of Judah. The second is between Jehoash and Ahaz of Judah. The third is between Menahem and Pekah of Israel.

Hard Dates: From Ahab to Jehu

The period between the reigns of Ahab and Jehu is one of the strongest data points for the reconstruction of the chronology of kings of Israel and Judah. We know that Ahab fought in the battle of Qarqar in 853 and that Jehu delivered tribute to Shalmaneser III in 841. The Assyrian sources indicate that this was a twelve-year period. The biblical text records fourteen years between the rule of Ahab and the rule of Jehu, however if one factors in antedating as the method for counting regnal years in Israel, then this fourteen-year period drops to twelve as well. Therefore, Ahab died in 853 after the battle of Qarqar, possible in a dispute with Aram, and Jehu took the throne around 841, providing tribute to Assyria, changing Israel’s previous anti-Assyrian policies.

 

Bibliography:

Barnes, William Hamilton. Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs no. 48. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1991.

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.

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

Thiele, Edwin Richard. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. New rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1994.

Back to top

 


Dating the Kings of Israel

Dating the kings of Israel is a much simpler task than the kings of Judah. From the reign of Jeroboam, around 930/931 BCE, to Jehu’s revolt around 841, there are 98 regnal years for 90 actual years (see above). If one holds that the kings of Israel practiced antedating, then this drops the total reigns of the kings from 98 years to 90 years. However, from Jehu in 841 to the Fall of Samaria in 722, there are 143 regnal years for the 119 actual years. Even factoring in antedating, this only drops it to 134 years. The solution can be found in the reign of Pekah.

 

Bibliography:

Barnes, William Hamilton. Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs no. 48. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1991.

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.

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

Thiele, Edwin Richard. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. New rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1994.

Back to top

 


The Reign of Pekah

According to the biblical texts of 2 Kgs, the Kingdom of Israel somehow had 143 regnal years in time which only spanned 119 years from the revolt of Jehu to the Fall of Samaria. Most of this can be explained through the antedating, dropping the total regnal years to 134, and through the problematic reign of Pekah. Pekah is said to have ruled for twenty years. However, multiple scholars have suggested that this total number of regnal years is incorrect. Based on the years given and the hard date of the Fall of Samaria, Pekah’s rule would have been from 752-732 BCE. Assyrian documents however attest to Menahem ruling in Samaria prior to 737 BCE. Therefore, according to the biblical texts and the ancient near eastern sources, Menahem and Pekah ruled at the same time. For Menahem, he probably only ruled eight years rather than ten, following Barnes. Also, according to our chronology, Jeroboam II ruled until 743 meaning his rule overlaps supposedly with Pekah’s. Most likely, during the turmoil following the death of Jeroboam II, Pekah sought kingship as well, throwing Israel into a civil war. Pekah may have begun counting his reign either at the point of Jeroboam II’s death or, if one assumes him to have been a royal official, perhaps when he was given his post in the Transjordan by Jeroboam.  It was not until around 734 that he conquered Samaria and truly ruled Israel. Also, the length of reigns during this time may not be exact. Even Menahem’s reign may have only been for eight years instead of ten. As this was a period of civil war there may have been uncertainty in the various accounts.  By changing Pekah’s reign from twenty years down to three, there is coherency in the chronology once again.

 

Bibliography:

Barnes, William Hamilton. Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs no. 48. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1991.

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.

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

Thiele, Edwin Richard. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. New rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1994.

Back to top

 


The Fall of Samaria

The Fall of Samaria occurred in 722 BCE. The biblical text states that Shalmaneser V took the city after a three-year siege, which is supported by the Babylonian Chronicle. However, other Assyrian sources such as Nimrud Prism attributes the conquest of the city to Sargon II. Sargon did not rule until 720. It is possible that Shalmaneser V first took the city, bringing the kingdom to an end, while Sargon quashed a revolt in the city a few years later.

 

Bibliography:

Elayi, Josette. Sargon II, King of Assyria. Archaeology and Biblical Studies number 22. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017.

Grabbe, Lester L. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? Revised edition. London ; Oxford ; New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017.

Back to top


Dating the Kings of Judah

When dating the reigns of the kings of Judah, the primary problem is the extra years. If one counts the total years from the beginning Rehoboam’s reign, around 931/930 BCE, to the revolt of Jehu and the crowning of Athaliah as queen over Judah, an event which occurred in 841 (see above), there are 95 years for a 90 year period. If one holds that these kings practiced antedating, then we arrive at around 90 years. Yet even within this timeline we have some issues. The synchronic dating between the reigns of Jehoshaphat, his son Jehoram and grandson Ahaziah with that of Joram of Israel do not add up (see Problem 1, below). However, from 841 to 722, the Fall of Samaria, there are 164 years for a 119-year period. From the fourth year of Hezekiah, which coincides with the Fall of Samaria (cf. 2 Kings 18:9), to the fall of Jerusalem in 586/587, there are 135 regnal year, assuming postdating. Therefore, for Judah, the problematic period is between the reign of Athaliah and Ahaz (see Problem 2, below).

Problem 1: From Jehoshaphat to Ahaziah

After the death of Ahab, Ahaziah, his son, ruled for one year. Due to antedating, his rule was recorded as two. Following Ahaziah, Joram, his brother, became king for another eleven years, again recorded as twelve due to antedating. These twelve years mark the same time span between the Battle of Qarqar and Jehu’s tribute recorded in Assyrian documents. However, there is difficulty in correlating Joram’s rule with that of his Judahite counterparts. 2 Kgs 1:17 records that Joram of Israel began to rule in the second year of Jehoram of Judah. 2 Kgs 8:16-17 however says that it was Jehoram of Judah who was crowned in the fifth year of Joram of Israel. Then 2 Kgs 3:1 states that Joram became king over Israel during the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. 2 Kgs 3:1 and 2 Kgs 8:16-17 agree chronologically except that if Jehoram ruled from the fifth year of Joram, there would be nine regnal years (eight for Jehoram and one for Ahaziah) for the seven regnal years from this point in Joram’s reign to both Joram and Ahaziah’s death at the hands of Jehu. As both kingdoms seem to be practicing antedating at this point (see Major Issues In the Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah), that does not help fix the situation. Either way, some portion of the biblical data is incorrect.

The simplest approach would be to say that all the synchronic dates for these kings is wrong, though that is probably not accurate. Multiple other attempts have been made to make sense of this system. Hayes and Hooker proposed that Jehoram and Joram, two variant spellings of the same Hebrew name, were the same person (Hayes and Hooker). Thiele attempted to make the synchronic datings align, however, in doing so, added years to the reign of Jehoram (Thiele). Galil argues that Jehoram’s reign was mostly as a coregent for his father Jehoshaphat. Barnes’s solution for this dilemma is to not factor in the synchronic dating.  However, one solves the problem there are still holes.

This chronology holds to the total number years of regnal years being given primacy over synchronic information, with adjustments for antedating or postdating. Out of the various options, it is 2 Kgs 1:17 that seems the least likely. Jehoram of Judah reined eight years followed by one year for Ahaziah before Jehu’s revolt. But Joram of Israel ruled twelve years before Jehu’s revolt. If 2 Kgs 1:17 is accurate then Joram’s rule would be too short in order to truly accommodate the twelve years between Qarqar and Jehu’s tribute. Currently, there is no consensus as to what alchemy of coregency, dating systems, or other methods are needed in order to truly balance this time period. Therefore, for this chronology we have held an ante-dating method for both Israel and Judah. Both Ahaziah and Joram were killed in 841 when Jehu took over. This places Joram’s rule as beginning in the twenty-third year of Jehoshaphat’s rule and Jehoram taking the throne in the second year of Joram’s reign.

Problem 2: From Jehoash to Ahaz

Between Athaliah’s ascension to the throne in 841 BCE and the Fall of Samaria in the fourth year of Hezekiah in 722 BCE, the Kingdom of Judah lists 164 regnal years for this 119-year period. If one still holds to Judah practicing antedating in this period, that drops the total down to 157 years. During this period there had to have been some coregencies or inaccurate data to explain the discrepancy. In this chronology we are following the coregency route. First, Galil has argued that Jehoash’s rule was counted not from the death of Athaliah but rather from the death of Ahaziah. Such attempts to consider a usurper’s rule as invalid and thus to lengthen the reign of the rightful king is known the Ancient Near East, specifically with the rule of the Egyptian king Tuthmosis III. This drops the 157-year difference down to 151 years. However, for this theory to be accurate, the synchronic statement of 2 Kgs 14:1 would have to be consider erroneous. Another common way to understand the discrepancy is argue for an overlap between the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah. 2 Kgs 14 tells how Amaziah came to be captured by Israel and this could have caused an early reign for Uzziah still during the lifetime of his father. Galil sees Uzziah’s as having co-ruled with his father for twelve years, sole ruled for 17 years, co-ruled with his son Jotham for fifteen, and co-ruled with Ahaz for another eight years. Thiele argues for a twenty-four-year co-rule, with Amaziah only ruling for five years before his capture and Uzziah becoming coregent. In Hayes and Hooker’s view, Jehoash had to abdicate due to injury in his thirtieth year, which they place in 802 BCE. Amaziah’s capture occurred, in their dating, in his fourteenth year. Uzziah’s enthronement occurred in 785, four years after Amaziah’s capture. So, by this dating, there is an overlap between their rules of about eleven years. No matter which way one calculates it, all the data does not line up.

For this reconstruction, it is held that Jehoash did not begin his rule with the death Athaliah. This results in Amaziah’s rule beginning around the third year of Joash, not quite aligned with 2 Kgs 14:1 but within a margin of error. Uzziah most likely co-ruled with his father after his father’s capture, and with his son Jotham. Amaziah’s capture and Uzziah’s rule occurred before the death of Joash in 783. At the point of capture, Uzziah took the throne. How many years they co-ruled cannot be known for certain, but it was at least from 784 on. According to 2 Kgs 14, Amaziah had a conspiracy against him when he came back from captivity and so Uzziah most likely ruled in his stead even after his return. Therefore, the first twenty years of Uzziah’s reign occurred during his father’s. 2 Kgs 15:1-6 notes that Uzziah was struck with leprosy and that his son Jotham was often in charge of governing, therefore Jotham’s rule occurred during Uzziah rule, as suggested by Thiele. If one calculates the total length of reigns of kings from Hezekiah, Ahaz’s reign was from 742 to 726, with Jotham’s rule being from 758-742. If Uzziah’s rule began around 784 and he ruled for 52 years, then his rule ended around 733, almost ten years into the reign of Ahaz. Ahaz then ruled for another seven to eight years before Hezekiah ascended throne. Four years later Samaria fell to the Assyrians. This dating is not exact. It could be off by one or two years or could be completely wrong depending on how one judges these coregencies. What is certain is that during this time these kings of Judah shared rulership, most likely during the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah, both of whom had various hardships which would give reason to a coregency.

 

Bibliography:

Barnes, William Hamilton. Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs no. 48. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1991.

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.

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

Thiele, Edwin Richard. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. New rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1994.

Back to top

 


The Bur-Sagalê Eclipse

In the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle, during the eponymity of Bur-Sagalê, the following is recorded:

ina ITI.SIG₄ dUTU AN.MI GAR-an

“In the month of Simanu, an eclipse of the sun took place.”

There were two major eclipses that would have been visible from Assur in the middle of the 8th century, and only one would have fallen in the month of Siwan (May-June): The eclipse of June 15th, 763 BCE. Thus, we can date the eponymity of Bur-Sagalê to 763 BCE and calculate the remainder of the eponym years backwards and forwards from this date. So rendered, the Assyrian Eponym Lists provide a relatively sure dating for the neo-Assyrian chronology from 910 to 649 BCE.

 

For Further Reading:

http://caeno.org/_Eponym/pdf/Delta%20T%20and%20763%20BC%20Jun%2015.pdf

http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEprime/-0799–0700/SE-0762Jun15Tprime.html

Back to top


Dating the End of the Neo-Assyrian Empire

As mentioned above, the last recoded eponym in the Limmu Lists dates to 649 BCE, but the neo-Assyrian empire did not come to an end until at least 612 BCE. For these final decades of the empire, dating can be somewhat difficult. To begin with, the practice of selecting eponyms did not cease after 649 BCE, but the number of post-canonical eponyms known from inscriptional evidence far exceeds the number of years they represent (some 50+ eponyms to cover 37/38 years). Most likely, this surplus of eponyms reflects the regional fragmentation that took place within the neo-Assyrian empire toward the end of its existence. Many of these eponyms may have serves concurrently, each being chosen at one by by a competing center of power. In dating this period of neo-Assyrian history, inscriptional and annalistic evidence from Assyria can be cross-referenced with the Neo-Babylonain Chronicles to provide relatively sure dates (with the exception of the accession of Sîn-šar-iškun, see Establishing the Chronology of the Early Neo-Babylonian Period)

 

Bibliography:

Millard, A. R. (Alan Ralph), and Robert M. Whiting. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC. State Archives of Assyria Studies 2. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994.

Na’aman, Nadav. “Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire (631—619 B.C.).” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 81.1–2 (1991): 243–67.

Oates, Joan. “Assyrian Chronology, 631–612 B.C.” Iraq 27.2 (1965): 135–159.

Back to top

 


Dating the Battle of Qarqar

One of the most significant points of synchronization between the neo-Assyrian records and the Kingdom of Israel is the battle of Qarqar. Dated to the sixth regnal year of Shalmaneser III (COS 2.113B), the Kurkh Monolith (COS 2.113A) describes how the Assyrian forces confronted a coalition of 12 Western kings at Qarqar, including one Ahab of Israel (For the significance of this date in Israelite/Judahite Chronology, see Hard Dates: From Ahab to Jehu).

Unfortunately, determining an absolute date for this battle reveals a text-critical issue. If one were to count back from the Eclipse of Bur-Sagalê to the sixth year of Shalmaneser III in all of the Limmu List manuscripts, one would arrive at two different dates: 853 and 854 BCE. The problem occurs in the reign of Adad-Nirari III, where some manuscripts record an eponymity of Balatu in 787 BCE, but other manuscripts do not. While Shea proposed that this discrepancy demonstrates the existence of “longer” and “shorter” recensions, Brinkman persuasively argues that the added eponymity is a product of the general instability of certain manuscript witnesses. Furthermore, Thiele compared the Limmu lists at this point to the Khorsabad Assyrian Kings lists, confirming Brinkman’s conclusion that the eponymity of Balatu was a scribal error. Thus, we have maintained the date of 853 BCE for the battle of Qarqar.

 

Bibliography:

Brinkman, John A. “A Further Note on the Date of the Battle of Qarqar and Neo-Assyrian Chronology.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30.3 (1978): 173–175.

Shea, William H. “A Note on the Date of the Battle of Qarqar.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29.4 (1977): 240–242.

Thiele, Edwin Richard. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983.

Back to top

 


Neo-Babylonian Chronicles and Historiography

In his discussion of the Mesopotamian Chronicles and historiography, Glassner observes: “historiography denotes the writing of history. This being said, the word turns out to be remarkably ambiguous” (Glassner 2004: 2) On the one hand, the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles as ancient historiography offer unparalleled insight into events of the Neo-Babylonian period. These documents reflect an “activity of the mind” that is concerned to preserve remembered facts, allowing ancient memory to reverberate even to the present (Glassner 2004: 6). On the other hand, the mind—both ancient and contemporary—inevitably manipulates facts whether consciously or unconsciously. Indeed, it is tempting to assess the Neo-Babylonian chronicles as truly autonomous historical discourse due to their generic tendency to avoid tales of origins, but certain features of these texts demonstrate this would be a mistake.

For example, the very form of the chronicles entails local judgments regarding complex international political realia. As discussed elsewhere (see: Establishing the Chronology of the Early Neo-Babylonian Period) chronicles tend to organize their presentation by successive years marked with the formula MU.x.KA̒M (“year x” [of a given king]), making clear their political interests. As such it is unsurprising that especially in times of political upheaval there are competing perspectives on political happenings among extant sources. For example, as Stefan Zawadzki has pointed out: “there is no way in which the information from BM 25127 that ‘there was no king in the land for a year’ before Nabopolassar’s enthronement can be fitted in with that from the Uruk King List, according to which 21 years of Nabopolassar was preceded with ‘one year of Sin-s̆um-lisir and Sin-S̆ar-is̆kun” (Zawadzki 1988: 47). In the case of BM 25127 and the Uruk King List, the former does not recognize the claims of Sin-s̆um-lisir and Sin-S̆ar-is̆kun to the Babylonian throne, but the latter does. Thus, it is altogether possible to speak of Mesopotamian historiographies that are geographically and politically contingent. Moreover, it is the close connection between the writing of history and politics that warrants one further observation; namely, history appears to have a specific function among elites and governments in ancient Mesopotamia. For this reason, Glassner is right to refer to Mesopotamian historiography as able to provide “the outlines for a science of the exercise of power” (Glassner 2004: 22).

These observations indicate that due caution must be exercised when creating a chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period using the sources at hand, but the task is by no means hopeless. Though Glassner overstates his case when he claims the Neo-Babylonian chronicles are “objective” and “impartial,” there does seem to be a great deal of continuity between many extant primary sources reflecting different perspectives and interests (Glassner 2004: 48). As such, in the accompanying timeline and articles, effort has been made to acknowledge corroborating and competing sources that can either establish datable synchronisms or reinforce the claims of key sources from which dates are derived. This does not solve every issue (see: Establishing the Chronology of the Early Neo-Babylonian Period), but it does indicate that important events of international significance can be dated with reasonable confidence (see: The Political Success of Nebuchadnezzar II, A Neo-Babylonian Datable Synchronism with an Elephantine Stela, and The Reign of Nabonidus).

Bibliography

Gadd, C. J. “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus.” Anatolian Studies 8 (1958): 35-92.

Glassner, Jean-Jacques. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2004.

Zawadzki, Stefan. The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle. Poznan̒: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988.

Back to top

 


Establishing the Chronology of the Early Neo-Babylonian Period

Establishing the chronology of the last years of Assyrian rule in Babylon and the first years of Neo-Babylonian reign is arguably the most difficult task in reconstructing a chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Period. Namely, inasmuch as the so-called Nabopolassar Chronicle (BM 25127) represents a key source in reconstructing the chronology surrounding the beginning of Nabopolassar’s reign, it is important to acknowledge contested features of the Chronicle itself.

First, the Chronicle includes an initial fragment of 17 lines detailing events that occur before Nabopolassar’s first regnal year, but the span of time covered by these events is unclear. Wiseman, the chronicle’s initial editor, proposed that lines 1-17 depict events from one year (626 BCE). Yet some have suggested this is problematic for several reasons, including the fact that if numbers are assigned to the months mentioned in lines 1-17, the sequence of events unfolds in the following order: x, 6, 7, 2, 7, 8, 12. Thus, the events occurring in month 2 (i.e. the Assyrian army’s invasion of Babylon) appear out of place and unnecessary, since Assyrian presence in Babylon is already indicated by lines 4-9. Scholars propose two solutions. One solution is to read lines 1-9 as recounting events from 627 BCE and lines 10-17 as recounting events from 626 BCE. This interpretation makes sense of the sequence of events, and it also may reveal something of the ideological underpinnings of the Chronicle. Namely, chronicles tend to mark successive years with the formula MU.x.KA̒M (“year x” [of a given king]). The abnormal lack of this form and the typical horizontal dividing line between years in the Nabopolassar Chronicle for lines 1-17 may reflect the abnormal political situation from the perspective of the chronicler; namely, “there was no king in the land” (Zawadzki 1988: 53-54). Of course, another solution is to understand lines 1-17 as depicting one year if the Assyrians and Babylonians are presumed to have split their army and fought concurrently in different locations (Na’aman 1991: 259). Ultimately, both options are reasonable, and this illustrates the complexity of creating a defensible chronology from extant primary sources. Even though the lack of typical formal features remains surprising, the former solution makes sense of the otherwise surprising notice that “for one year there was no king in the land.”

A second issue involves synchronizing the events of Nabopolassar’s reign with the reign of the Assyrian king Sin-s̆ar-is̆kun. The events described in the Nabopolassar Chronicle can be compared with five dated tablets from Sippar describing beginning years of Sin-s̆ar-is̆kun. According to the Nabopolassar Chronicle, on the 20th of Iyyar in Nabopolassar’s first regnal year Nabopolassar controlled Sippar. It is likewise indicated by the Sippar tablets that the Assyrians controlled Sippar during the 1st– 3rd regnal years of Sin-s̆ar-is̆kun. This information would, therefore, appear to preclude a synchronism between Nabopolassar’s 1st regnal year and Sin-s̆ar-is̆kun’s 1st, 2nd, or 3rd regnal years. Perhaps a synchronism exists between Nabopolassar year 1 and Sin-s̆ar-is̆kun year 4, but Zawadzki explains why this is unlikely: “Sin-s̆ar-is̆kun would then have been in conflict with Kandalanu in Sippar in the years 629-627 (Kandalanu years 19-21 would then be Sin-s̆ar-is̆kun’s years 0-3) and with As̆s̆ur-etel-ilāni and Sin-s̆um-līs̆ir in Nippur” (Zawadzki 1989: 62). It seems altogether likely then that a defensible synchronism exists between Nabopolassar year 1 and Sin-s̆ar-is̆kun year 0 (625 BCE; cf. Zawadzki 1989). Nevertheless, it is also possible that the Nabopolassar Chronicle is itself concealing the fact that Sippar was captured by the Assyrians (Na’aman 1991). Ultimately, a decision depends in large part upon one’s assumptions about the nature and function of the Nabopolassar Chronicle. Although the chronicles are by no means impartial historical accounts (see: Neo-Babylonian Chronicles and Historiography), if an explanation exists which can explain disparate evidence, it is reasonable to take seriously with due caution the possibility that a synchronism does in fact exist.

Bibliography:

Na’aman, Nadav. “Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire (631-619 BC).” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 81 (1991): 243-67.

Reade, Julian. “The Accession of Sinsharishkun,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 23, no. 1 (1970): 1-9.

Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1956.

Zawadzki, Stefan. The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle. Poznan̒: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988.

Zawadzki, Stefan. “The First Year of Nabopolassar’s Rule according to the Babylonian Chronicle BM 25127: A Reinterpretation of the Text and Its Consequences.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 41, no. 1 (1989): 57-64.

Back to top

 


A Neo-Babylonian Synchronism with an Elephantine Stela

Following a costly defeat at the hands of the expanding Greek forces near Cyrene, surviving Egyptian forces returned home with growing distaste and distrust for their king Wahibre Haaibre. The sentiment described much later by Herodotus was that Haaibre—called Apries by Herodotus—had “knowingly sent his men to their doom that by their so perishing he might be the safer in his rule over the rest of the Egyptians” (II, 161; quoted in Forshaw 2019: 148). To quell the growing unrest, Haaibra sent one of his generals named Ahmose II (Gk: Amasis), yet Haaibra’s dispatch had unintended consequences. The troops proceeded to make Ahmose their king, forcibly sending Haaibre into exile. The secondary Greek sources differ in their accounts of the ensuing events, but the Elephantine stela of Ahmose provides an important primary source worth considering further. The Elephantine stela describes two stages in the conflict between Haaibre and Ahmose, dated to Ahmose’s Year 1 (570 BCE) and Year 4 (567 BCE) (for chronology of Ahmose’s reign, cf. Parker 1957). The first stage entailed a failed counterattack against Ahmose by Haaibre with the aid of Greek forces. The second stage entailed an “Asiatic” (Babylonian) incursion into Egypt to reinstall Haaibra upon the Egyptian throne (Edel 1979: 13-14; Ladynin 2006: 32-33; Forshaw 2019: 149). Haaibra, who apparently had allied with the Babylonians, died in the conflict. Ahmose proceeded to commemorate Haaibra with an elaborate royal burial with the goal of winning further support from a divided populace.

This event is significant for constructing a Neo-Babylonian chronology because it provides a datable synchronism between Egyptian and Babylonian sources. Specifically, the dating of the events from Ahmose’s Year 4 as recorded in the Elephantine stela coincides with an invasion into Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar II as determined by the cuneiform source Nbk 329 = BM 33041, which describes the event and is dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s Year 37 in 567 BCE (Wiseman 1956: 94-95, pls. XX-XXI; Ladynin 2006: 32-33). Thus, not only do these sources fill in gaps of time unpreserved by the Babylonian chronicles, but they also enable triangulation of chronologies to reinforce the sequence of dates presented by scholars for this period of history.

Bibliography:

Edel, E. “Amasis und Nebukadrezar II.“ GM 29 (1978): 13-20.

Forshaw, R. Egypt of the Saite Pharaohs, 664-525. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2019.

Ladysin, I. A. “The Elephantine Stela of Amasis: Some Problems and Prospects of Study.” GM 211 (2006): 31-57

Parker, R.A. ‘The Length of the Reign of Amasis and the Beginning of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty.’ MDAIK 15 (1957): 208-214.

Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.

Back to top