Chronology of Kings of Israel and Judah from Biblical Passages and the Historical Record - Introduction

There are might be some who will see this title and wonder what’s up with Another Joe. While I’m far from secretive about my faith, I haven’t really posted much about it either. So it may be a surprise to some that I’m actually fairly accomplished in biblical exegesis as well as ancient Near East and church history. Most of my articles will continue to be focused on libertarian thought, Austrian economics, land regeneration and internationalization, but this is a study that I really enjoyed and welcome the opportunity to share.

It would benefit the reader to understand that this study is undertaken from a Christian perspective. Obviously many who read will not be in agreement with the assessment and conclusion based on that alone. If so, perhaps this topic isn't for you. It's just a fair warning, so you don't waste your time. On the other hand, other than this introduction, the basis of the study is more historical than religious. Regardless of your position, please keep any discussion both civil and on-topic.

It's also a very academic study, so will likely be boring for any but those who are really interested in this sort of thing. For history buffs, even if you do not accept the biblical account as truth, if you love history you should appreciate the detail and insight that this study provides.

One of the challenges biblical scholars have faced over the years is the difficulty in reconciling the chronologies of the kings of Judah and Israel, specifically as they’re handed down through Kings and Chronicles. However, with the help of other biblical passages as well as extra-biblical sources, a workable conclusion is possible. But such is not possible without some understanding of the calendars of the associated nations involved, as well as their methods of counting years.

A major mistake we can make in studying any historical account is to attempt to make it fit our contemporary preconceptions, culture and context. Not only does this lead to a host of errors, but also belies our tendency toward myopia and ignorance when it comes to considering things that may be outside our pre-understanding.

Freeimages

Many Bible students have worked diligently in an attempt to figure out the timeline of the kings of Israel and Judah. They begin to undertake the daunting task of reconciling the chronology of the kings of these two nations, pouring over Scripture, taking voluminous notes and building complicated charts to help make the chronology clear. Almost invariably, in spite of their valiant effort, they find some areas where the text appears to be inconsistent.

Perhaps they are aware that some reigns overlap, but are still unable to come up with a chronology that fits all passages. Then, concluding that they perceive some inconsistencies within the Word of God, they begin to ask for explanations. Sometimes, when they are unable to reconcile these apparent discrepancies, they begin to ask the question that starts to tear at their faith, “If the chronology of the kings holds errors, then shouldn’t we question the accuracy of other biblical passages?”

Although this study’s purpose is to deal with the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah, the final question begs a response. In fact, it seems imperative that a response be given to this question before we continue.

First, the fact that this question is asked is a cause for concern and may signify a spiritual struggle being faced that cannot be ignored. Regardless of the thought process or intent in asking this question, it is apparent that this question is honestly asked by many who do not understand the significance and spiritual danger that this course of thinking represents.

To get to the point, the simple answer to whether or not there are any explanations to the differences in his chronologies is an emphatic, “Yes!” Without doing any research at all, this question can still authoritatively be answered in the same affirmative manner. For clarity, this response is based on the nature of Scripture and not necessarily on the data at hand.

It must be considered that we probably do not have all the data, especially when dealing with events from which we are so far removed. Even if we do uncover the proper data, we are not guaranteed that we will accurately discern and apply it in order to come to the proper conclusion. Again, we are simply too far removed, both chronologically and culturally. Edwin R. Thiele said it well when he wrote:

The greatest drawback in the study of Old Testament chronology has been, and still remains, a tendency to hold to certain preconceived opinions without first endeavoring to ascertain just what the Hebrews did in the matter of chronological procedure. Altogether too often we formulate our own conclusions as to what they did, or should have done. Then, without sufficient evidence, we endeavor to produce chronological schemes in accord with our own premeditated ideas, only to be led into impossible impasses and hopeless confusion. Instead of such a priori methods, we must approach the work of the ancient Hebrew chronologists with an open mind, examining fairly and objectively what they did, and, on the basis of the facts, build our interpretation of the data they have left for us. The only basis for a sound chronology of the period to be discussed is a completely unbiased use of the biblical statements in the light of all other knowledge we can bring to bear on this problem, notably the history and chronology of the Near East.[1]

In such an investigation as this we must begin with the strong conviction and confidence that Scripture is exactly what it claims to be, the very breath of God, wholly sufficient for all things pertaining to faith (that which we believe) and practice (that which we do), and is completely inerrant (in the original autographs) in every detail that it portrays, including matters of science, geography and history (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:20). So, to answer the student who might ask if we should be concerned about the verity of other passages, the answer is again emphatic, but this time negative, “No!” This should not be our concern.

If we do not rest in the knowledge that God’s Word is wholly sufficient and completely inerrant in all its claims, then our faith is equally fallible, even more so. For it is then swayed by both our false perception of the verity of Scripture and our own depravity.

For us to pursue our research from any other perspective is to have the audacity to entertain the idea that our knowledge is complete, our research exhaustively thorough, our calculations one-hundred percent accurate and that the Bible is in some way deficient. In other words, we would be claiming our own inerrancy in contrast with the perceived incompleteness and/or inaccurate information of the Bible. We would be making ourselves the authority to which the Bible must answer, rather that turning to the Bible as our rule for life.

Such judgmental prerogative on the part of the Bible must presuppose its complete inerrancy, for if error inhered in the original text of Scripture on any level, it would inevitably be the object of man’s judgment, rather than that authority which sits in judgment upon man.[2]

To make such an assertion is to make the claim of personal authority, bringing one’s soul to the slippery slope of the same critical mentality that has spawned innumerable heresies for millennia, most notably since the birth of the church. It is my earnest plea, for the sake of the souls of all whom we influence, that we turn first to Scripture as the measure of truth and recognize that any inadequacies, inconsistencies or contradictions that we ascertain to be contained in Scripture are in fact due to our limited knowledge of all the facts, our admittedly inadequate ability to properly interpret every facet of every detail available to us and the distinct possibility (even probability) that we have erred in our calculations/conclusions.[3] The question soon leads to a crisis of faith. If we can’t trust one little thing in Scripture, then how can we trust the rest? Where will such questioning end? At the Revelation? At the writings of Peter? James? Jude? Hebrews?

Then, when we've exhausted the rest of Scripture, the cross itself will have no meaning. If such a thing existed as error in the Bible, then the very work of Jesus on the cross itself would be subject to our examination. This type of examination would inevitably succumb to our own pride and depravity, the final result of which can only be our own exaltation and the denigration of Scripture itself, relegating our great Creator, our Lord and Savior and the blood shed on our behalf, as mere intellectual puzzles for men to tinker with in their grand pontification and self-aggrandizement.

Back to the main topic of our study - the challenge of the chronology of the kings of Judah and Israel has been the subject of considerable research and debate resulting in many proposals regarding how to solve this puzzle, from the unreliability of the Bible on the liberal side, to the non-succession/succession year research done by Edwin R. Thiele and others. While the student can find enough literature to study this topic for many years, only some of which is referenced in this study, the goal here is to give an overview of the challenge, discuss crucial aspects that challenge the student and provide a viable and substantiated chronology that submits to the biblical record and satisfies any supposedly contradictory findings.

At the end of this work, before the bibliography, is a chart listing the kings and giving pertinent information to our discussion. The cross reference notes will be differentiated from footnotes by the use of lower case letters, rather than numbers, in superscript. Hopefully this visual aid will make for quick reference and ease in understanding.

Having dealt with the importance of our presuppositions and the need to affirm the Bible as God-breathed, and therefore inerrant in the original autographs, the next article will proceed to look at the evidence at hand by examining the challenge. Subsequent articles will deal with the cultural differences of the times, begin constructing a plausible calendar and then continue to work through the challenges over a total of about eight or nine articles.

Steemin' on,
Another Joe

Email notifications
AJ Facebook
AJ Twitter

AAC Facebook
AAC Twitter

[1] Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregal Publications, 1977), 16-17.
[2] Gleason Leonard Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 31.
[3] Resources on the inerrancy of Scripture. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction; James White, Scripture Alone; Geisler, Inerrancy; Carson, Scripture and Truth, & Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon; Saucy, Scripture; Weeks, The Sufficiency of Scripture; Sheehan, The Word of Truth; Lloyd-Jones, Authority.