Chapter 2. Fixing the Chronology for Israel, Judah, and Egypt 19 Chapter 2 Fixing the Chronology for Israel, Judah, and Egypt While Egyptologists may not have undertaken a study of the Hebrew chronology, I hope the reader’s perusal of the following discussion will prompt doubt that Edwin Thiele produced a credible chronology for the kings of Israel and Judah. This chapter challenges the common assumption that the synchronism of Rehoboam’s 5th year with Shoshenq I’s 20th year is properly fixed at 925 BCE. No chronology of Egypt based upon that date is supportable, nor can it find agreement with the scientific, astronomical, inscriptional, and other archaeological evidence. My earlier book, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, showed that it was also inconsistent with the textual reconstruction of biblical evidence. The critical date by which the chronologies of Israel/Judah and Egypt should be fixed is 977 BCE. This chapter recapitulates the content of The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom which establishes within the chronology of Judah and Israel that Rehoboam’s fifth year was 977 BCE. It involves working with Old Testament textual origins, and the complexity of the chronology and synchronisms of the Books of 1 and 2 Kings, which were designed around a structure of kingly reigns in Judah and Israel intending originally to display their synchronicity. The subsequent discrepancies arising from copyist errors through many generations, and differences in chronological details between early and later copies or translations of the original records, leads to a highly complex analysis that is thoroughly worth the effort, and arrives at 977 BCE as the date for Rehoboam’s fifth year. The detail of that venture is documented in this chapter, and will be rewarding to those who pursue it, though it occurs in brief summary form. For other readers, the complexity of this pursuit may not be of interest, especially because this book is about the chronology of the Egyptian kings. It establishes the chronology of the Egyptian kings on completely different grounds than biblical records, though the encounter between Shoshenq I of Egypt in his 20th year and Rehoboam of Judah in his 5th year has traditionally been a confirmatory link for connecting Egyptian chronology with the history of the Ancient Near East. Yet it is not a link upon which reconstructing the chronology of the Egyptian kings relies, so that those who choose not to engage in the intricacies of the historical chronology of Israel and Judah can pass over this chapter at will. Another Chronology for Israel and Judah A doctoral thesis written in 1964 by James Donald Shenkel, entitled Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings published in 1968 under the same title, 1 urged that a new chronology for Israel and Judah be sought in the early Greek manuscripts that pre-date the earliest extant Hebrew manuscripts of the biblical Books of 1 and 2 Kings. 1 J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (Harvard Semitic Monographs Vol. 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968).
20
Embed
Fixing the Chronology for Israel, Judah, and Egypt...Chapter 2. Fixing the Chronology for Israel, Judah, and Egypt 21 Variant Text Types: Early and Later Greek Texts The early Greek
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Chapter 2. Fixing the Chronology for Israel, Judah, and Egypt 19
Chapter 2
Fixing the Chronology for Israel, Judah, and Egypt
While Egyptologists may not have undertaken a study of the Hebrew chronology,
I hope the reader’s perusal of the following discussion will prompt doubt that Edwin
Thiele produced a credible chronology for the kings of Israel and Judah. This chapter
challenges the common assumption that the synchronism of Rehoboam’s 5th year with
Shoshenq I’s 20th year is properly fixed at 925 BCE. No chronology of Egypt based
upon that date is supportable, nor can it find agreement with the scientific, astronomical,
inscriptional, and other archaeological evidence. My earlier book, The Reconstructed
Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, showed that it was also inconsistent with the
textual reconstruction of biblical evidence. The critical date by which the chronologies of
Israel/Judah and Egypt should be fixed is 977 BCE.
This chapter recapitulates the content of The Reconstructed Chronology of the
Divided Kingdom which establishes within the chronology of Judah and Israel that
Rehoboam’s fifth year was 977 BCE. It involves working with Old Testament textual
origins, and the complexity of the chronology and synchronisms of the Books of 1 and 2
Kings, which were designed around a structure of kingly reigns in Judah and Israel
intending originally to display their synchronicity. The subsequent discrepancies arising
from copyist errors through many generations, and differences in chronological details
between early and later copies or translations of the original records, leads to a highly
complex analysis that is thoroughly worth the effort, and arrives at 977 BCE as the date
for Rehoboam’s fifth year. The detail of that venture is documented in this chapter, and
will be rewarding to those who pursue it, though it occurs in brief summary form.
For other readers, the complexity of this pursuit may not be of interest, especially
because this book is about the chronology of the Egyptian kings. It establishes the
chronology of the Egyptian kings on completely different grounds than biblical records,
though the encounter between Shoshenq I of Egypt in his 20th year and Rehoboam of
Judah in his 5th year has traditionally been a confirmatory link for connecting Egyptian
chronology with the history of the Ancient Near East.
Yet it is not a link upon which reconstructing the chronology of the Egyptian
kings relies, so that those who choose not to engage in the intricacies of the historical
chronology of Israel and Judah can pass over this chapter at will.
Another Chronology for Israel and Judah
A doctoral thesis written in 1964 by James Donald Shenkel, entitled Chronology
and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings published in 1968 under the
same title,1 urged that a new chronology for Israel and Judah be sought in the early
Greek manuscripts that pre-date the earliest extant Hebrew manuscripts of the biblical
Books of 1 and 2 Kings.
1 J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (Harvard Semitic
Monographs Vol. 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968).
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley 20
Shenkel wrote, “In the history of biblical scholarship innumerable attempts have
been made to comprehend the chronological data in the Books of Kings and to
reconstruct a coherent chronology. But only those studies that have given serious
attention to the data of the Greek texts can pretend to be adequate.” 2
And further on, “It
is hoped that a better understanding of the recensional development of the Greek text
will provide a new perspective for conducting research into the chronology of the Books
of Kings.”3
Thackeray’s Advocacy of the Greek Text
Shenkel built on previous observations of other scholars, and in particular those
of the noted biblical scholar H. St. J. Thackeray, who, in 1907, called scholars’ attention
to textual evidence showing different divisions in the Greek text of 1 and 2 Samuel and
the Books of 1 and 2 Kings (known in the Greek as 1–4 Reigns) from those shown in the
Hebrew text.4 These divisions showed early and late Greek texts. In Thackeray’s
opinion, the early text went back to the second century BCE, while the later text was not
earlier than 100 CE.5 “Early” and “late” refer not to particular texts, but large families of
textual witnesses with particular characteristics. The “early” period includes the LXX
and Lucianic (L) texts, and “late” period includes the Kaige recension (KR) some three
centuries later.
In 1920, Thackeray discussed the divisions in the Books of Reigns again and
illustrated how the uniform translation of various words indicated either early or late
text—consistent with the divisions.6 Thackeray was one of three editors who compiled
The Old Testament in Greek, including the Books of 1 and 2 Kings.7 The text used was
the oldest and most complete Greek text of the Old and New Testaments—the Codex
Vaticanus—dating to the 4th century CE. Beneath its text is an extensive apparatus
giving all the variants from the different Greek manuscripts available.
Significant among these are the chronological data found in a family of
manuscripts known as Lucianic (L), which mostly exhibit the same numbers as those of
the early Greek text, but when they differ, the variants are supplied in the apparatus.8
They are known under the sigla bʹ + b = b, o, e2, and c2 and date from the 10th to 14th
centuries CE.
Shenkel’s analysis of the Greek texts’ recensional history and data led him to
state: “The aim of the present enquiry is not to reconstruct a harmonious biblical
chronology … but to demonstrate the relationship of divergent chronological data to
different stages in the development of the textual tradition.”9
2 Ibid., 3-4.
3 Ibid., 4.
4 H. St. J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JTS 8 (1907) 262-78.
5 Ibid., 277.
6 Idem, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (The Schweich Lectures; London: The
British Academy of the Oxford University Press, 1920) 16-28. See also Shenkel, Recensional
Development, 19 and n. 30. 7 The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from other
Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for
the Text of the Septuagint. Vol. 2: The Later Historical Books; Part 2: I and II Kings (eds. A.E. Brooke, N.
McLean, and H. St. J. Thackeray; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930). 8 The Lucianic manuscripts are named after their purported redactor, Lucian of Antioch who lived ca.
240-311/12 CE. However, Josephus (writing at the end of the 1st Century CE), used a “Lucianic” text
from the 1st century BCE in his history of the Jews, Antiquities, so the “Lucianic” text actually pre-dates
Lucian, and may refer to Lucian’s source texts. Lucianic textual sources are indicated by L. 9 Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development, 26.
Chapter 2. Fixing the Chronology for Israel, Judah, and Egypt 21
Variant Text Types: Early and Later Greek Texts
The early Greek Text is commonly known as the Septuagint (LXX) due to the
tradition that it was a translation of the Hebrew texts of the day by 70 (or 72) scholars in
Alexandria in the second century BCE. Stanley Porter explains its origin. Almost assuredly the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek was occasioned by the
fact that the vast majority of Jews—certainly those outside Palestine, and especially in
Egypt where there was a significant number of Jews—did not have linguistic access to
their Scriptures in Hebrew and required a Greek version.”10
The Septuagint was “the Bible” of the early Christians, quoted in the New
Testament, and the Scriptures used during the expansion of Christianity around the
Mediterranean world of both Jews and Gentiles. As Julio Trebolle Barrera says, after
surveying the multiplicity of Greek texts in the first century CE, “The fact that the
Christians made the LXX translation their own, and had used it in disputes with the Jews
led to an increasing rejection of that version by the Jews, who ended by replacing it with
new translations, more faithful to the rabbinic Hebrew.”11
The KR was produced by the
Pharisees in the first century, so named after the translational feature of the Greek word
kaige (also, moreover) used for the Hebrew particle gam. The various communities of the Jewish diaspora knew the Greek Bible in collections
which certainly differed greatly from each other. The number of books in a collection
could be greater or smaller and the text of each book could be the original of a version or
a revised form agreeing with the most up-to-date Hebrew text. The Christian
communities accepted this pluralism of books and texts of the Greek version. They even
contributed to making the Greek text increasingly different, so that it needed Origen to
try to introduce some logic into the transmission of the Greek text of the Bible.12
Clearly, the Masoretic Text (MT) should not be assumed as the prevailing text
during first century times, though this text, preserved by the Masorites, is commonly
translated into our English versions.13
The variety of texts is confirmed by the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Trebolle Barrera says, The most important information provided by the biblical manuscripts from Qumran is
that, undoubtedly, the fact that in some books of the LXX version reflects a different
Hebrew text from the one known in later masoretic tradition.”14
In line with Thackeray’s analysis of the divisions in the Books of Kings it is
important to note that the fourth century CE Codex Vaticanus—thought to be the oldest
and most complete copy of the Greek Bible in existence—does not represent the same
text type throughout 1 and 2 Kings. It appears that the Codex had been copied from
various scrolls. One scroll began at 1 Kgs 2:12 and finished at the end of what is now
chapter 20:43, but 21:43 in the MT.15
The section representing this scroll contains the
chronological data of the early Greek text (OG/LXX). A new scroll apparently started
with Chapter 22 and exhibits a later Greek text of KR, which continues through to the
10
S. Porter, “Septuagint/Greek Old Testament,” Dictionary of New Testament Background (eds. C.A.
Evans and S.E. Porter; Leicester, Eng. and Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 1099-1105 citing
M. Müller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (JSOT Supplement 206; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 38-39. 11
J. Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible (trans. W.G.E. Watson; Leiden: Brill,
1998), 312. 12
Ibid., 302. 13
Earlier manuscripts were destroyed after they had been copied. 14
Ibid., 320 (Trebolle Barrera’s emphasis). 15
In the Greek text chapter 21 precedes chapter 20, but in the Hebrew text chapter 21 follows chapter 20.
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings, M. Christine Tetley 22
end of 2 Kings.16
As a result Codex Vaticanus contains two text types with their different
chronological data, which is significant for understanding the chronology of the kings
and the order in which their reigns were recorded.
The L text is present throughout 1 and 2 Kings but some of their chronological
data, also found in the old Greek (OG), have been made to conform to that of the
kaige/MT version, especially in 2 Kings. These late alterations are attributed to Origen’s
recension known as the Hexapla (a six-columned work) completed in 245 CE.17
A few of
the revised numbers were entered into the Codex Vaticanus, and replaced original data
during the copying in the 4th century CE, and were later also entered into the L texts.
The disparity between the chronological data within the MT, let alone between
the OG/L and KR/MT appears to be so inexplicable that it has been said that there is no
problem more complicated in the Old Testament than that of its chronology.18
Construction of the Original Books of Kings
Originally 1 and 2 Kings was compiled as a historical narrative of the
post-Davidic reign of Solomon and the subsequent twin kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
The significant movements of spiritual history are woven into a record of the kings who
assumed the throne, their lengths of reign, and details of their death—in a manner that is
cross-referenced between the twin kingdoms by an intentional system of synchronisms.
The accession synchronisms imply that they were originally cogent and coherent, and
historically consecutive. Within the historical and prosaic nature of the narrative it seems
untenable that the numbers in the text were intended to be mysterious and confusing.
A king’s regnal years commence at the death of the king’s predecessor and are
all complete years except for the last year, which is a partial year. Following the textual
form, the regnal years are given as rounded numbers. The final year is counted as a full
year if the king reigned a substantial part (say at least six months), but if a lesser portion,
it is not counted. The length of the final year has to be determined by the synchronisms.
If the length is too long or too short, a later synchronism will fall out of alignment.
Synchronisms provide a check on accuracy.
Variant Numbers
Nevertheless, in the passage of time and the process of repeated copying, the
accuracy of numbers was affected to the extent that subsequent copies or versions
contained numbers that are clearly discrepant. This is not unique to 1 and 2 Kings.
Writing about a record of names and numbers in Ezra 2:2b-35, Derek Kidner observes, A comparison of this list with Nehemiah’s copy of it (Ne. 7:7bff.) reveals a startling
contrast between the transmission of names and that of numbers—for the names in the
two lists show only the slightest variations whereas half the numbers disagree, and do so
apparently at random. The fact that two kinds of material in the one document have fared
so differently lends the weight of virtually a controlled experiment to the many other
indications in the Old Testament that numbers were the bane of copyists. Here the
changes have all the marks of accident. Now one list and then the other will give the
larger figure ...”19
16
A recension refers to a revision of the text being copied, not to a new translation. In the example of the
kaige recension it was revised toward conformity with a proto-Masoretic text type (Shenkel, Chronology