two years complete: and if he died in his second year, after the Nisan, but before the Tisri, B. C. 952, both he would die, and Baasha begin to reign, truly in the third of Asa; before the Tisri, B. C. 952. Hence 4 of Asa. 1 of Baasha. Nisan B. C. 952-951. 930-929. 929-928. Now the first of Elah f began in the twenty-sixth of Asa and this would be truly the case if Baasha died in his nominal twenty-fourth, after the Nisan, but before the Tisri, B.C. 929, in the true twenty-sixth of Asa. And hence it is an obvious inference that the numeral notes at 2 Chron. xv. 19. and xvi. 1, which speak of the thirty-fifth and the thirty-sixth of Asa, respectively, the former of peace between Israel and Judah up to that year, the latter of an invasion of Judah by Baasha, as made in that year, are corrupt, the one for the twenty-fifth, and the other for the twenty-sixth ; in which case, but in which only, they might both be consistent with the truth. Compare Josephus, Ant. viii. xi. 4. xii. 1—6. Again, 27 of Asa. 1 of Elah. ...... 928-927. Now Elah died in the twenty-seventh of Asa: and this might be the case if he died in his nominal second, after the Nisan, but before the Tisri, B. C. 928 for that might thus be in the true twenty-seventh of Asa. After the death of Elah, besides the seven days of Zimri, there was an interregnum of four years in length, perhaps taken up by the contest between Tibni and Omri; which extended from the true twenty e 1 Kings xv. 33. 15. 23. f Ibid. xvi. 8. g Ibid. xvi. 10. 15. h Ibid. xvi. seventh, to the true thirty-first of Asa. But this is included in the twelve years ascribed to Omri. Hence 28 of Asa. 1 of Omri. Nisan B. C. 928-927. 39......... 12 .... 917-916. Now it is manifestly possible that Omri might die in his twelfth year incomplete; soon after Nisan, B. C. 917. In this case the reign of Ahab would actually begin in the true thirty-eighth of Asa', which would not expire until Tisri B. C. 917. Hence 39 of Asa. 1 of Ahab. Nisan B. C. 917-916. 41 ......... .3 915-914. Now that Asa did not reign forty-one years complete may be inferred from 2 Chron. xvi. 13; which says that he died in his forty-first year. But it follows most clearly from 1 Kings xxii. 41, which makes the first of Jehoshaphat to begin in the fourth of Ahab. I infer, then, that Asa died at the end of his nominal, but the middle of his true, forty-first, Nisan B. C. 914: which might also be truly in the fourth of Ahab. Hence 1 of Jehosh. 4 of Ahab. Nisan B. C. 914-913. 896-895. 19............ 22 The twenty-second of Ahab must thus have synchronised with the nineteenth of Jehoshaphat; and if Ahab did not reign twenty-two years complete, he would die in his twenty-second year, after the Nisan, B. C. 896. The circumstances of his death, which was in battle against the Syrians, render it almost certain that it took place in the spring quarter of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle: in which case, if he began to reign, as we have seen, about Nisan, B. C. 917, either he must have reigned more than twenty-two years, or he must have died in his twentysecond year, not long after Nisan, B. C. 896. i 1 Kings xvi. 23. 29. On this principle the reign of his successor would begin in the nineteenth of Jehoshaphat: yet, 1 Kings xxii. 40. 51, it is made to begin in the seventeenth; and, 2 Kings iii. 1, the first of Jehoram his successor is supposed to bear date from the eighteenth. But if the reign of Ahab truly began in the thirty-eighth of Asa, and if the length of his reign was truly twentytwo years either current or complete, it is impossible that Ahab could have died, and Ahaziah have begun to reign, in the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat, though they might, as we have seen, in the nineteenth. That there are corruptions of numbers in the sacred text, which may occasionally be detected, is an indisputable fact; and one such has been already pointed out. Among these, none perhaps was, a priori, more likely to happen than the corruption of seventeen into nineteen. There is a case in point with regard to the first of Joash, king of Israel; which, 2 Kings xiii. 10, is supposed to bear date from the thirty-seventh of Joash, king of Judah, and yet will be shewn in its proper place to bear date in reality from his thirtyninth. In the same way it is equally possible that the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat should be in reality the nineteenth; and by parity of consequence the eighteenth should be in reality the twentieth. For, as to this second corruption, it would be a necessary effect of the former. If the reign of Ahaziah was supposed to have begun in the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat, it would be supposed to have ended, and therefore the reign of Jehoram to have begun, in his eighteenth. The method of solution, to which recourse is frequently had in cases of this description, that of supposing a son associated with his father before his death, is of no avail in the present instance. We can suppose neither that Ahab was associated with Omri two years before his death, nor Ahaziah with Ahab two years before his; because the last year of Omri is the first year of Ahab, and both bear date in the thirty-eighth of Asa; and the last year of Ahab must be the first of Ahaziah, or Ahaziah could not have survived him at all. With regard, however, to this method of solution in general, it appears to me so very questionable that, without the most demonstrative evidence of its truth, I should think it ought never for a moment to be entertained. There is no proof that any one of the children of the monarchs, either of Judah or of Israel, was ever associated with them; or, if they were, that the historical notices of their reigns are dated from the time of such association, and not from the actual deaths of their predecessors. The cases of Jehoram and of Uzziah, both kings of Judah, are cases in point; for though the former was struck with a foul and incurable disease two years before his death, and the latter, for probably a much longer time towards the end of his reign, was a leper, and excluded by his situation from any actual share in the government; there is no mention of their sons' being associated with them, nor any proof that their reigns are not supposed to extend to the very day of their death. I lay it down, then, as a fundamental principle, that no king's reign bears date except from the demise of his predecessor; and, consequently, that the specified lengths of their reigns are in every instance the time for which they reigned alone. But to proceed: I will now assume that the true beginning of the reign of Ahaziah was after the Nisan, and before the Tisri, B. C. 896. in the nineteenth of Jehoshaphat. Hence, 19 of Jehosh. 1 of Ahaziah. Nisan B. C. 896-895. 895-894. 20 ............ 2 .... Now Ahaziah died in his second year, after the Nisan, and possibly after the Tisri, B. C. 895. Hence, the first of Jehoram would truly bear date between Tisri, B. C. 895, and Nisan, B. C. 894, in the true twentieth of Jehoshaphat. When, then, it is said that Jehoram king of Israel reigned in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, it is manifest that there is some corruption of the text; for this assertion is inconsistent not only with what has just been established, but also with 2 Kings viii. 16; which tells us that Jehoram, the king of Judah, began to reign in the fifth of Jehoram, the king of Israel—and yet this Jehoram had begun to reign in the second of the other. Some commentators would explain this by supposing Jehoram associated with his father in his seventeenth year, Jehoram the king of Israel to have begun to reign in Jehoshaphat's eighteenth, and Jehoshaphat to have died in his twenty-second. But this is only to explain one difficulty by another; for Jehoshaphat's reign cannot be abridged to twenty-two years, instead of twentyfive, without abridging that of Jehoram to three years instead of eight: both which would be clearly repugnant to the direct assertions of the text. It is much more probable that 2 Kings i. 17. contains an interpolation, without which it originally stood thus: So he died, according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken; and Jehoram reigned in his stead, because he had no son. Interpolations of this kind there are, as well as corruptions of numbers; the presence of which creates inconceivable difficulty, while their removal sets every thing to rights. There is one in 2 Kings viii. 16 itself, in the words, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, the palpable absurdity of which, k 2 Kings i. 17. |