2 Kings 20:1-11, Biblical Chronology

To begin our final posts on Hezekiah we should talk about something that I suppose should have been considered in the very beginning.  It is a subject that befuddles me to say the least.  It has to do with the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah.  I have limited myself to the Biblical clues on this matter as we have studied Hezekiah.  So when we said, for example, that Hezekiah in the first month of his reign began to restore the temple, that is what it means (2 Chron. 29:3).  When 2 Chron. 29:1 says he was 25 years old when he became king and reigned 29 years, that is what happened. 

There are some Biblical scholars who believe there are several coregency situations, particularly in the kings of Judah, where the reign of one king overlapped with his father or son.  I recently began to look through the “Regnal Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel” by Chris McKinny.  This led me to go back and renew my familiarity with the Biblical chronology of Edwin R. Thiele whose great work, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (pub. 1951) is considered by many to be the “final word” on the subject. 

Without going into great detail, I came across this recently: four things that must be considered in chronology of kings (according to Thiele).

1.    Which calendar was in use when the Bible says Hezekiah was 25 years old when he became king?  Was it the religious calendar (established by Moses when Passover was established, Ex. 12:1-2; first month Nisan, around April)?  Or was it the agricultural calendar where the Jewish New Year was in the fall, around October (first month Tishri)?  To me, if Scripture is not clear, the difference between the two would not be particularly significant.

2.    Usually, the new king’s reign did not start on New Year's Day, whether that day was in Nisan or in Tishri, but at some other time in the year. Was this first partial year to be considered as year one of the monarch (called non-accession reckoning), or as year zero (accession reckoning)? Again, in my view, if Scripture was not clear on this, the effect would be minimal. 

3.    Several Scriptural references indicate that the reigning king, especially in Judah, established his son as coregent during his lifetime. There is some evidence of something similar to this in Scripture.  For example, David had Solomon anointed before he died.  We don’t know exact dates but it doesn’t seem to be very long.  King Azariah of Judah became a leper (2 Ki. 15:5) and his son Jotham was over the affairs of the royal house from then until Azariah’s death.  Again, the exact number of years for this is unknown in Scripture.  Rehoboam appointed Abijah to be leader over his brothers in anticipation of being king (2 Chron. 11:22).  In my view, these do not establish a regular practice of “coregency.”  Nor are these necessarily “coregency” relationships.  In David’s case, anointing Solomon could have ended the 40 years of David’s reign and started the 40 years of Solomon’s reign.  In Rehoboam’s case, appointing Abijah was just a “grooming” of his son for the responsibilities of king. 

a.     In the case of Hezekiah, the “coregency” may have been much longer, even though there seems to be no Biblical case for it.  In the case of Thiele, Hezekiah reigned 29 years, (716-687 BC), with the last 10 years in a coregency with his son Manasseh who became king upon Hezekiah’s death. 

b.    McKinny goes further.  He sees Hezekiah as co-regent with his father Ahaz for 14 years (729-715 BC), then 29 years as king of Judah (715-686 BC), with the final 10 years being in coregency with Manasseh.   

c.     These years of Hezekiah before and after the primary record of his life in Scripture seem to me to confuse the story, and do not in my view have a valid basis.  Both Ahaz and Manasseh were extremely wicked kings.  Hezekiah has no observable effect on either of them, which would indicate he was not a “king” in either coregency situation.  It also raises questions about the concluding events of Hezekiah’s reign: his illness, the extension of his life by 15 years, and the resulting visit of the Babylonian envoys.  If Manasseh was 12 when he became king, does that not mean he was born during the time of the extension of Hezekiah’s life?  That would not be the case if Manasseh’s 55 years of rule began 10 years before Hezekiah’s ended.

4.    Another question to be considered about the years of the kings is where the Hebrew kingdoms used the same calendar or same “year of ascension” formula.  But again, it seems this is not a particularly significant issue. 

What is the point of all this?  For me it goes to both the truth of Scripture and the usefulness of Scripture.  In the issue of Creation/Evolution I always want to avoid the perceived necessity to conform Scripture to what Science says (not what Science has discovered by the true Scientific Method but just what people of science claim to know).  Likewise in archaeology and history I want to avoid the demand of some to adjust the chronology of Scripture to conform with what historians have claimed to be true.  I am willing to study these things out, but in the end, I am going to use the Bible as my ultimate and absolute guide.  The archaeologist and historian will have to continue to plug away at their skills.  As we have often seen, more digging reveals new facts.