Scripture needs no confirmation: we do not believe it to be true because it is confirmed by any external evidence; but it is true because it is Scripture, inspired by God. It is therefore of very little consequence whether external evidence agrees with it or not. If it does agree, well and good; but if it does not, who is to have the first place? God or man? It is surprising how many professing Christians at once conclude that Scripture is wrong. We unquestionably assert that Scripture is right.
In the chronology of early times there is very little external evidence that is worthy of being compared with Scripture.
It is well known that the ancient authorities disagree among themselves; most writers therefore pick out just what agrees with their theories, and leave the rest. Herodotus, Ctesias, and Xenophon do not agree; and volumes have been written to try and explain Manetho.
It was at one time thought that Egyptian chronology could trace back its dynasties to a far earlier period than Scripture allows, and though this is given up by many, it is still adhered to by some; and others think they see in it strong evidence that the chronology of the LXX. is preferable to the Hebrew reckoning. We therefore think it best to give a short summary of the data on which the supposed great antiquity of Egypt rests.
“The materials for historical chronology,” says Mr. R. S. Poole, of the British Museum, “are the monuments and the remains of the historical work of Manetho. Since the interpretation of hieroglyphics has been discovered, the evidence of the monuments has been brought to bear on this subject, but as yet it has not been sufficiently full and explicit to enable us to set aside other aid. We have had to look elsewhere for a general framework, the details of which the monuments might fill up. The remains of Manetho are now generally held to supply this want.... The remains of Manetho’s historical work consist of a list of the Egyptian dynasties, and two considerable fragments, one relating to the shepherds, the other to a tale of the Exodus. The list is only known to us in the epitome given by Africanus, preserved by Syncellus, and that given by Eusebius. These present such great differences that it is not reasonable to hope that we can restore a correct text. The series of dynasties is given as if they were successive, in which case the commencement of the first would be placed fully 5,000 years B.C., and the reign of the king who built the great pyramid, 4,000. The monuments do not warrant so extreme an antiquity, and the great majority of Egyptologers have therefore held that the dynasties were partly contemporary.... One great difficulty is that the character of the inscriptions makes it impossible to ascertain (without the explicit mention of two sovereigns) that any one king was not a sole ruler. For example, it has been lately discovered that the twelfth dynasty was for the greatest part of its rule a double line. Yet its numerous monuments in general give no hint of more than one king, although there was almost always a recognized colleague.
The date of the first dynasty, which we are disposed to place a little before B.C. 2700, is more doubtful; but a concurrence of astronomical evidence points to the twenty-eighth century.... Some have supposed a much greater antiquity for the commencement of Egyptian history. Lepsius places the accession of Menes B.C. 3892; and Bunsen, 200 years later. Their system is founded upon a passage in the chronological work of Syncellus, which assigns a duration of 3,555 [years] to the thirty dynasties. It is by no means certain that this number is given on the authority of Manetho; but apart from this, the whole statement is unmistakably not from the true Manetho, but from some one of the fabricators of chronology, among whom the pseudo-Manetho held a prominent place. If this number be discarded as doubtful or spurious, there is nothing definite to support the extended system so confidently put forth by those who adopt it.”
“The Egyptian monuments,” says Professor Rawlinson, “contain no continuous chronology, and no materials from which a continuous chronological scheme can be framed.” He then goes on to speak of the two conflicting lists of Manetho, as given above, and proceeds; “The monuments have proved two things with respect to these lists; they have shown, in the first place, that (speaking generally) they are historical, that the persons mentioned were real men, who actually lived and reigned in Egypt; while, secondly, they have shown that though all reigned in Egypt, all did not reign over the whole of Egypt, but while some were kings in one part of the country, others ruled in another. It is allowed on all hands — by M. Bunsen no less than by others — that no chronological scheme of any real value can be formed from Manetho’s lists, until it be first determined, either which dynasties and monarchs were contemporary, or what deduction from the sum total of the dynastic years is to be made on account of contemporaneousness.... Manetho gave his Egyptian dynasties altogether about 30,000 years. This long space he divided, however, into a natural and a supernatural period. To the supernatural period, during which Egypt was governed by gods, demigods, and spirits, he assigned 24,925 years. To the natural period, which began with Menes, he gave, at any rate, not much more than 5,000.” The writer then proceeds to relate how M. Bunsen had taken some from the supernatural part, and added it to the natural, and thus reached the date B.C. 9085, adding, “It is not obtained from the monuments, which have no chronology, or, at any rate, none earlier than B.C. 1525 ... ”.
“Even with respect to Menes, and the supposed date of B.C. 3892 (according to Lepsius), or B.C. 3623 (according to M. Bunsen), for his accession, on what does it really depend? Not on any monumental evidence, but simply on the supposition that in a certain passage (greatly disputed) of Syncellus he has correctly represented Manetho’s views, and on the further supposition that Manetho’s views were absolutely right. But is it reasonable to suppose that Manetho had data for determining with such exactitude an event so remote, even if it be a real event at all, as the accession of Menes?... Whether Menes was an historical personage at all, may reasonably be doubted. It is not pretended that he left any monuments. As a name closely resembling his is found in the earliest traditions of various nations, for example, Menu in India, Minos in Crete, Mewls in Phrygia, Manes in Lydia, and Mannus in Germany, there is at least reason to suspect that he belongs to myth rather than to history.... It is plain and palpable, and moreover universally admitted, that between the ancient monarchy (or rather monarchies) of Egypt and the later kingdom, there intervened a time of violent disturbance — the period known as the domination of the Hyksôs [or Shepherd Kings] — during which the native Egyptians suffered extreme oppression, and throughout Egypt all was disorder and confusion. The notices of this period are so vague and uncertain, that moderns dispute whether it lasted 500, 600, 900, or 2,000 years.” Sir Gardner Wilkinson inclines to place the accession of Menes about B.C. 2690.”
Mr. W. Palmer, in his “Egyptian Chronicles,” in endeavoring to interpret Manetho, has elaborately compared together the following: — 1. The Old Chronicle, preserved by Syncellus, “a writer of the ninth century, who gives it, probably from the Manetho of Africanus.” 2. The original Manetho, as given by Eusebius. 3. Eratosthenes, who became chief librarian at Alexandria, about B.C. 226. “A list of Egyptian kings, called ‘Theban,’ was made out with the assistance of the priests at Thebes, from names and notices which they supplied, and rendered from their vernacular Egyptian into Greek, by Eratosthenes at the special desire of his sovereign. And a portion of this list, consisting of thirty-eight out of the ninety-one names of the whole series, has been preserved to us by Syncellus.” 4. The Manetho of Africanus, “identifiable perhaps with Ptolemy of Mendes.” 5. Greek authors: Herodotus, Plato, Eudoxus, and so forth, and so forth
With these materials — together with existing monuments and inscriptions — Mr. Palmer has endeavored to form a true list of Egyptian dynasties. The investigation has resulted in his placing the accession of the first king, Menes, at B.C. 2224.
This is the sort of evidence presented, and in considering it, it is well to remark that none of the above writers adopt the Hebrew reckoning, and therefore they were in no way tempted to shorten the Egyptian chronology to bring it within the Hebrew. And yet one of the writers does this. Mr. Palmer places the first king at B.C. 2224. The Hebrew reckoning places the flood at 2348, which would give 124 years before the first king.
The other writers place the accession of Menes at earlier dates, which cannot be reconciled with the Hebrew. But surely the reader must see that for several reasons the results arrived at are untenable. In the first place, no two of the writers named give the same date for the commencement of the real history of Egypt, and one candidly confesses that there is reason for supposing that Menes was not a man at all, but one of their demigods or spirits. Again, Mr. Palmer shows that the monuments prove again and again Manetho to be inaccurate — in some places several kings being omitted; and in other places some are inserted where there ought to be none. And further, it is very questionable as to how far the monuments are to be trusted as giving consecutive lists. Mr. Poole says of the twelfth dynasty, that the “monuments in general give no hint of more than one king, although there was almost always a recognized colleague.” Therefore if the monuments do not mark out which kings were contemporaneous, and the lists do not — though all the writers admit that some kings did reign together instead of being consecutive — what certainty have we that all are now rightly placed? Indeed, the fact that each writer has arrived at a different conclusion must prove that there is no certainty in the results.
But there are certain astronomical points connected with Egyptian chronology that have been thought to fix certain dates to some of Manetho’s kings. We will give a specimen: “A fragmentary inscription of Takelut II., sixth king of Dynasty XXII., purports that, ‘ on the twenty-fifth Mesori of the fifteenth year of his father (Sesonk II, according to Lepsius, but Osorkon II, according to Brugsch, Dr. Hincks and V. Gumpach), the heavens were invisible, the moon struggling....’ Hence Mr. Cooper gathers that on the day named, in the given year of Sesonk IL, there was a lunar eclipse, which he considers must be that of 16th March, 851 B.C. Dr. Hincks, who also at first made the eclipse lunar, and its date 4th April, 945 B.C., now contends that it was solar, and the only possible date 1st April, 927 B.C. In making it solar, he follows M. v. Gumpach, who finds its date 11th March, 841 B.C. Unfortunately, the twenty-fifth Mesori of that year was 10th of March. This is the only monumental notice supposed to refer to an eclipse: not worth much at the best.”
The reader will notice that there are in the above not less than four different dates given — there being more than 100 years’ difference between the highest and lowest. No wonder that the writer exclaims, “not worth much at the best.” And if they could settle the date, they do not agree as to which of the kings is referred to.
The writer proceeds to name some other points, the most definite of which perhaps is the following: “An astronomical representation on the ceiling of the Rameseum (the work of Rameses II.) has been supposed to yield the year 1322 as its date (Bishop Tomlinson; Sir G. Wilkinson), while Mr. Cullimore from the same gets 1138 B.C. The truth is, these astronomical configurations, in the present state of our knowledge, are an unsolved riddle. Lepsius’s inferences from the same representations in the reigns of Rameses IV. and VI., are little more than guesses, too vague and precarious to satisfy any man who knows what evidence means.”
Then as to the light thus supposed to be thrown on the lists of Manetho, the writer says, “It appears, then, that the supposed astronomical notes of time hitherto discovered lend but little aid, and bring nothing like certainty into the inquiry. We cannot accept the lists as they stand. How are they to be rectified? Until we have the means of rectifying them, every attempt to put forth a definite scheme of Egyptian chronology is simply futile. The appeal to authority avails nothing here. Lepsius, Bunsen, Rrugsch, and many more, all claim to have settled the matter. Their very discrepancies — on the scale of which half a century is a mere trifle — sufficiently prove that to them, as to us, the evidence is defective. The profoundest scholarship, the keenest insight, cannot get more out of it than is in it: that which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.”
Now, if with this we contrast the definite way in which Scripture marks the progress of events, by which we can from any definite point — say, for instance, from the taking of Samaria in B.C. 721 — reckon backward to the flood, surely we cannot hesitate which to believe, especially when we remember that the one is inspired, and the other is not?
Thus much, then, as to the supposed great antiquity of Egyptian dynasties. As to other ancient histories, Professor Rawlinson says, “Still less can it be argued that the records of other nations, so far as they have any pretension to be considered historical, conflict with the chronology of the Bible. The Babylonians, indeed the Indians and the Chinese, in their professed histories of ancient times, carry back the antiquity of our race for several hundred thousand years. But it is admitted that in every case these large numbers are purely mythical; and, in truth, the authentic histories of all these nations begin, even later than the Egyptian.”
This must suffice, then, as to the most ancient nations. There is really nothing which is at all plain, positive, and reliable, that in any way clashes with the Hebrew reckoning. We are not surprised at it: the surprise would be if it were otherwise. Monuments have been discovered, and inscriptions have been deciphered; but they do not contradict Scripture, they again and again confirm it.
Thus it is exceedingly interesting to find the names and events of Scripture on records inscribed at the time, coming to light after more than two thousand years. Of course, allowance must be made for exaggeration by those proud monarchs who often called themselves “King of kings,” and for their suppression of all that did not redound to their glory. An Assyrian inscription of Sennacherib runs thus: “Hezekiah, king of Judah, who had not submitted to my government, forty-six of his strong fenced cities and lesser towns without number I destroyed. I carried away their women. I made [some words effaced] of his royal city Jerusalem. I cut off from his kingdom several fortified cities. The people, whom I carried off from the middle of his land, I placed in my own kingdom. Afterward I made... the cities of Ascalon, Ekron, and Gaza. I conquered the land. An increase of their former fixed tribute, and of their gift of honor, and of their presents, I imposed upon them. [A line effaced.] Hezekiah had burnt with fire [?] my royal letters. Wherefore his best workmen and a thousand men of the zanakun of Jerusalem, his royal city, I carried away captive. Thirty talents of gold, eight hundred talents of silver, his coined money [?], the treasures of his palace [his sons], his daughters, the... men of his palace, his menservants and his maidservants I carried away captive into Nineveh, and in the service of my empire I placed them.”
But interesting as such inscriptions are, they will not help us in the subject of chronology. It is, however, said that some Assyrian tablets have been discovered of great importance, as marking the chronology of the period to which they refer; but which are said to prove the Scriptures to be wrong. “The numbers in the Hebrew text of the Bible will have to be altered,” says Sir H. Rawlinson, adding that “no Christian scholar now-a-days maintains the literal inspiration of the holy text.”
Alas! alas! then are some clay tablets to prove the Bible to be in error? Thank God, that without being scholars we can be simple-minded Christians; and we can and do believe in the literal inspiration of the Scriptures.
But let us look at what is gathered from these tablets; remarking that it must be carefully weeded from the writer’s notes; which, it will be seen, are not very helpful; for the words “perhaps” and “probable,” with some queries, will be found interspersed.
ABSTRACT OF DATES IN ASSYRIAN CHRONOLOGY
B.C.
Commencement of Canon with Bil-anir II. -
909
Accession of Tiglath-i-Bar——
889
Accession of Asshur-izir-pat, builder of N.W. Palace, Nimrud———-
886
Accession of Siialmaneser II. Black, obelisk king
858
The Assyrians defeat the confederate forces of southern Syria, Egypt, Arabia, and Palestine at Aroer. Ahab, of Jezreel, associated with Benhadad, of Syria, in this fight. See 1 Kings 20:34, and 1 Kings 22:1. The Israelite contingent was 2,000 chariots and 10,000 men——
853
Death of Benhadad—-about
843
War with Hazael, king of Syria, and tribute taken from Jehu, son of Omri, of Samaria -
841
Accession of Shamsi-Bil——
823
Accession of Ril-anir HI. -.—-
810
Assyrians in Syria and the north of Palestine—-[Subjection of Mariha, of Damascus (son of Hazael?) at this time by Kim, of Assyria. Comp. 2 Kings 13:3-5: “And the Lord gave Israel a savior, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians.”]
797 to 795
Accession of Shalmaneser III.——
781
Assyrians in Damascus and Hadrasch—-[Perhaps the notice of Shalman, Hosea 10:14, refers to this period.]
773 and 772
Accession of Asshur-danan—-
771
Assyrians again in Hadrach———
765
Eclipse of the sun in month of Sivan (June)—-
763
Assyrians in land of Hadrach and Arphad
755 and 754
Accession of Asshur-anir———
753
Accession of Tiglath-Pileser II.———
745
Campaign in Syria against Arpad and its dependencies—-[At this time probably tribute was taken from Menahem, of Samaria, Rezin, of Damascus, and Hiram, of Tire.]
743 to 740
Campaign in the country of Pilista (Palestine?)—-[If this identification of Palestine be correct, to this year must be assigned the plunder of the cities of Samaria, and the carrying away of the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, 2 Kings 15:29; 1 Chron. 5:26.]
734
Assyrians in Damascus for 2 years—-[Tribute taken from Yahu-Hazi (Ahaz?) of Judea, and defeat and death (?) of Rezin, of Damascus. See 1 Kings 16:9,10]
733 and 732
Accession of Shalmaneser IV.———
727
Accession of Sargon———-
722
Capture of Samaria, and deportation of the inhabitants.—See 2 Kings 17:6 -
721
Accession of Sennacherib——
705
Expedition to Syria, and attack on Hezekiah, of Jerusalem. See 2 Kings 17:13-16——
700
Accession of Esar-Haddon——
681
The kings of Syria, among whom is Manasseh, king of Judah, and the Greek kings of Cyprus, send artificers to Nineveh——-about
670
Accession of Asshur-bani-pal (Sardanapalus of the Greeks)———about
664
A king of Judea again named as tributary to Assyria (probably Manasseh)—-
664
Recovery of Egypt from Tirhakeh, of Ethiopia, and establishment of Necho and his brother monarchs in power
663
Revolt of Egypt. Second attack by Assyrians. Death of Tirhekah; succeeded by his nephew, Ardumané (Rut-Ammon?) his defeat and flight——
662
Gyges of Lydia sends tribute to Assyria——
660
Probable accession of A sshur-ebil-ili, son of Sardanapalus—-
[No later Assyrian dates can be determined, even approximately.]
640
This, then, is the formidable list that is to prove the Bible is wrong! Let us look at it calmly, and examine it fairly.
In the first place, the writer himself candidly states, “I may here repeat the warning that I have often before given to those interested in Assyrian research, that the reading of proper names, which are rarely or ever phonetically expressed, is the most difficult branch of the entire subject, and must always be received with caution, unless verified by a corresponding orthography in Hebrew, Greek, or Persian authorities.” He then goes on to say that one name in the list is “little better than conjecture,” and another is “merely provisional.” Strange, indeed, if the Bible is to give way before such uncertainty as this!
As to the tablets from which the above is compiled, it is supposed that the earliest of them was made in the time of Sennacherib, which would be two hundred years after some of the events recorded. They must consequently have been copied from some earlier documents. Now if we suppose that each king recorded the events of his own reign only, some one or more of these — especially where a king reigned but a short time, and nothing remarkable took place in his reign — may have been lost or omitted. We have no certainty that these later tablets are correct copies of all that had been previously recorded.
But further, the whole of the dates are regulated by an eclipse that is mentioned on a tablet, and this eclipse is taken for granted to be in the year B.C. 763. If the eclipse of 763 is not the one named on the tablets, all the dates would be different.
Now it is well known that an error has comparatively lately been discovered in some of the tables by which the early eclipses had been computed, which has shown that some eclipses which were supposed to have been identified and settled, were not visible at all in the places named.
Take, for instance, the famous “eclipse of Thales, which, according to Herodotus, i. 74, 103, occurring during a pitched battle between the Medes and Lydians, was the occasion of a peace, cemented by marriages between Cyaxares and Halyattes, after which, as Herodotus seems to imply, the former turned his arms against Assyria, and, in conjunction with Labynetus (the Nabopolassar of Berosus and the Canons), took and destroyed Nineveh. The dates assigned by the ancients to that eclipse lie between Ol. 48 and 50. Kepler, Scaliger, and Sir Isaac Newton, made it B.C. 585; Baily and Oltmanns found it Sept. 30th, B.C. 610, which date was accepted by Ideler, Saint-Martin, and most subsequent writers. More recently it has been announced by Mr. Airy (1853), and Mr. Hind (1857), as the result of calculation with Hansen’s improved tables, that in the eclipse of 610 the moon’s shadow traversed no part of Asia Minor, and that the only suitable one is that of May 28th, B.C. 585, which would be total in Ionia, Lydia, Lycia, Pamphylia, and part of Cilicia. It has, indeed, been contended by Mr. Adams that the tables need a further correction, the effect of which, as Mr. Airy remarked (1859), “would be such as to render the eclipse of 585 inapplicable to the recorded circumstances.” The Astronomer-Royal has since (1861) decided for the date 585.
What certainty have we that the astronomical tables are now correct? and that the eclipse named on the tablet is the one that took place in 763? The learned are not agreed as to its date. Dr. Oppert believes that the eclipse named on the tablets is the one that took place B.C. 809. Here is at once a difference of forty-six years! and goes to show that there is really no certainty in the matter.
But supposing that the date of the eclipse is correct, what guarantee have we that every individual year is marked on the tablets, so that all other dates can be accurately counted from the eclipse? It is said that a particular person was appointed yearly, called by chronologists an Eponyme, and that these Eponymes definitely mark out each and every year. But this may not be fully carried out. Suppose a year passed without any remarkable event redounding to the honor of the king, and the appointed officer in that year disgraced himself in any way, what more probable than that the whole year and the name of its Eponyme would be passed over and altogether omitted? Thus the tablets would be records of the various kings and honorable Eponymes, with many years omitted entirely.
We can easily understand such tablets being erected, without any thought of their being used for strict chronological purposes. That some great events are omitted from the inscriptions is certain. Take, for instance, the destruction by God of the army of Sennacherib. It did not redound to the honor of the king, and is therefore not named.
It has been further suggested that the records may not have been made yearly, but every few years, and that just as a king was about to have his records made up he may have died, and thus the unrecorded years be omitted — his successor caring only to record the events of his own reign — and thus several years would be lost.
The supposition that some years are omitted is greatly strengthened by the fact that while some of the dates agree with the Hebrew chronology (such, for instance, as 721 for the capture of Samaria), others differ materially; and it should be observed that the farther we go backward from this date, the farther the dates are out. Thus, B.C. 841 for Jehu must be at least fourteen years out; while 853 for Ahab must be forty-three years out. And this would be the inevitable result if some years were here and there omitted: while, on the other hand, if this list is correct, Scripture must be wrong, not merely in some one place, but it must be wrong in several places!
But another question is, Are the events rightly placed? It should be observed that, omitting the passages of Scripture and the notes and queries, there is no one tablet that contains the whole of the foregoing “Abstract of Dates.” It is rather a compilation from the tablets that contain the Eponymes and from various inscriptions. But the events in the inscriptions were not placed chronologically. Dr. Hincks (one well versed in these matters) says it was “the custom in Assyrian inscriptions of that age to record the foreign events of the whole reign first, and the domestic events, though prior in points of time, subsequently.” Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum, says, “The inscriptions of the various kings, giving their wars, although of great historical interest, are often unreliable as to the chronology. The duplicate copies in the British Museum in several cases give the campaigns in different order, and number them differently; this is particularly the case with the annals of Tiglath Pilezer II, Esarhaddon, and Assur-bani-pal.” Surely this proves that the records then made were never intended to be used for strict chronological purposes, and it must also make the placing of the events difficult if not uncertain.
But there is still another and a graver difficulty. Dr. Oppert charged Sir H. Rawlinson with suppressing from the foregoing Abstract the name (and of course the period) of Pul, King of Assyria, who is named in Scripture. But this supposed suppression is a mistake; for, strange to say, there is no mention of this king on the tablets. “The fact is (says Mr. George Smith) that no one has yet identified the name of Pul in the inscriptions, and we have no notice of his expedition against Samaria.”
Surely this fact alone must prove that the list is not a complete one. Pul may have been a usurper, and when the rightful heir came to the throne he would, doubtless, destroy all trace of the usurper. At any rate, Pul surely was king of Assyria as recorded in Scripture, and yet he is not named in this canon, which purports, by reckoning every year, to give a full list of the kings. With this fact one might almost dismiss the Abstract without further notice. Dr. Oppert inserts 47 years before Tiglath Pilezer From all this it will surely be seen how little reliance can be placed on such tablets, particularly when they are contrasted with the definite way in which the reigns of the various kings of Judah and Israel of this same period are recorded in Scripture: in each case the year of the reign of the contemporary sovereign being given, and the duration of each king; besides the inclusive period named in Ezekiel 4:4-6, as the continuance of the kingdom. It is hoped that none of my christian readers will conclude, with no stronger evidence than these tablets, that the Scriptures must be in error.
However, let us now look through the list, remarking that the later dates are more likely to be correct than the earlier, and are more worthy of attention.
B.C. 853. Ahab. This date does not agree with Scripture.
B.C. 841. Jehu. This would not fall within the reign of Jehu.
B.C. 797 to 732. These are only queries and conjectures. The dates do not agree with Scripture.
B.C. 721. Capture of Samaria. This is most probably correct. It is the date given by Usher and others. It is generally thought that Samaria was taken by Shalmaneser; but Scripture does not say this, and it will be seen that these tablets name Sargon as having ascended the throne the year before. On referring to 2 Kings 17 it will be seen that Shalmaneser made Hoshea tributary; and in 2 Kings 18:9, he is said to have besieged Samaria, which lasted three years. But he may have died before the capture, and Sargon may have finished the siege and taken the place. It is thought that this is confirmed by Scripture. In 2 Kings 18:9, it says that Shalmaneser besieged Samaria; but in 2 Kings 18:10 it says, “and at the end of three years [not he, but] they took it.” The tablets therefore may be correct here, and thus be made to harmonize with Scripture.
B.C. 705 to 682. Sennacherib. Now in 2 Kings 18:13, we read that in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib came against Judah; and to the reign of Hezekiah we have given 727 to 698. We have just seen that Samaria was taken in 721; and this was the ninth year of Hoshea, and the sixth year of Hezekiah, as is stated in 2 Kings 18:10. So that the fourteenth of Hezekiah must have been 713.
There has been much discussion as to Sargon and Sennacherib; some contending that they are one and the same person. But this seems quite improbable now that both names are found on the same tablet. It seems far more probable that they were for a time co-regents. Indeed, the interpreter of the tablets says, that “some uncertainty prevailed as to the commencement of the king’s reign... and further, that the epithet arkú, `after,’ was appended to the king’s name, perhaps to show that he was not regarded as ‘king’ when he first ascended the throne.” Besides which it should be remarked that in 2 Chronicles 32:4, we read, “Why should the kings of Assyria come and find much water?” ‘kings,’ in the plural, implying that there were more than one then reigning.
Whether this be so or not, Scripture and the tablets may be made to agree by supposing that the attack of Sennacherib in the 14th of Hezekiah (Sennacherib being then co-regent) is not named on these tablets at all (though the longer inscription given on page 24 may refer to that event), and that the attack named on the tablets in 700 may be the second named in Scripture, and this second attack may have been a long time after the first, the illness of Hezekiah being between the two. Of course the words, “See 2 Kings 18:13 to 16,” are not on the tablets, but are merely a conjecture of the translator: 2 Kings 18:17 to 37 and 2 Kings 19, would be the second attack. And, it is submitted, it is not doing violence to Scripture to suppose that all that had to be related about Sennacherib is continued and finished, without breaking the narrative to tell of Hezekiah’s sickness. If this is correct, the chronological order would be:
1. 2 Kings 18:13-16——————————-Isa. 36:1.
2. 2 Kings 20:1-19——————————Isa. 38:1-39:8
3. 2 Kings 18:17-19:37 and 2 Chron. 32:1-21————-Isa. 36:2-37:38
And the attack on the tablets might be in 700, being the second attack, two years before Hezekiah’s death.
In support of this it must be remembered that Hezekiah’s sickness must have been in his fourteenth year, for he lived after it fifteen years, and he reigned but twenty-nine years in all. Therefore, if the narrative in the Book of Kings is strictly chronological, the two attacks and the sickness must have occurred all in one year. The above solution seems to be further strengthened by the account in 2 Chron. 32:1-21, which may be the second attack only.
And this arrangement is further confirmed by seeing that on the second attack Sennacherib reproaches Hezekiah with leaning on that bruised reed, Egypt (2 Kings 18:21), which reproach would naturally be called forth by the visit of the ambassadors from Egypt, which took place after Hezekiah’s sickness (2 Kings 20:12-13), but before the second attack.
There is, however, another mode of reconciling the tablets with Scripture. Delitzsch (on Isa. 36) says that Sennacherib on a prism speaks of his third expedition in Syria; and the attack on the tablets may have been this third expedition, but of which Scripture speaks nothing.
One more date remains on the tablets.
681-664. Esar-haddon. This would fall within Manasseh’s reign. The accession here put at 681 may be when he began to reign over both kingdoms, which differs only one year from the date given in the tables from other sources.
Thus much then for these tablets. We have been particular in going through them, because it was confidently asserted that they would prove Scripture to be wrong. But when we look at the great uncertainty that every year is recorded on these tablets; yea, almost the certainty that all are not recorded; together with the doubt as to the date of the eclipse; we have no hesitation in saying that the tablets must be wrong in some places; or that the interpreter is wrong in deciphering them. We must remember that he himself cautions us as to the uncertainty there is in reading the proper names (and they are the important part of the whole); whereas with Scripture there is no uncertainty at all. The length of each reign is given with the year of the contemporaneous king, leaving no room for doubt, except it be in the two interregnums; but which we have seen to be needed to agree with the inclusive date of Ezekiel. But if these two interregnums were omitted it would not shorten the period enough to agree with these tablets. And if the tablets are right then Scripture must be wrong, not merely in one place, but in several! We fully believe that the tablets do not prove the Scripture to be wrong; they indeed cannot be said to prove scarcely anything chronologically.
It is remarkable, too, that in the earlier part of chronology many declare that Scripture makes the time too short; that Egyptian chronology, and so forth, demands it to be longer. And in the later part, it is asserted that the time is too long, and that Assyrian chronology demands it to be shorter. We answer both by saying, Scripture is right — it is inspired.
It will be seen, by the summary on page 19, that our investigation has resulted in finding the commonly accredited period of 4004 years from the creation to the era A.D. It is perhaps right to say that this was in no way aimed at. It has simply fallen out so by going through Scripture without any desire to arrive at this or any other particular result. We naturally like new results, but it is more satisfactory to find an old result confirmed by a fresh inquiry.
It may surprise some that we have not devoted a chapter to Jubilee years, which is a prominent subject with many chronologists. But we have failed to see that the Jubilee years at all help in the subject of chronology. The Jubilee was carefully laid down in Leviticus 25, but as far as we know no Jubilee year was ever kept by Israel. It will be kept when our Lord returns — a long and joyful Jubilee in the Millennium.