APPENDIX A Chronology The necessity for and the difficulty of revising the chronology of the Old Testament have both been so plainly apparent, that they have served to counteract each other. The scheme of Biblical chronology propounded by Archbishop Usher, in a work published in 1650-64, the Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti, whose dates were inserted by some unknown authority in the margin of reference editions of the authorized version, has until very recently been allowed to remain unimproved although its correctness has long been disproved. Sayce,* writing of the period of the Monarchy, says, "The inconsistent character of Biblical chronology of the royal houses of Judah and Israel, has been known ever since chronologists have set to work upon it. System after system has been proposed to reduce it to harmony. The systems have been unsatisfactory because the materials on which they rested were insufficient to solve the chronological problem. To-day all is changed. The Assyrian records have given us fixed points of departure for dating the reigns of the Jewish and Israelitish kings; from Ahab to Hezekiah we can check the chronological statements of the Books of Kings and determine the value to be attached to them." He gives the following tables to show how great are the discrepancies between them. The historic facts, as stated in the Scriptures, are thus fully corroborated by the Assyrian records, but the dates of their occurrence are widely at variance. In determining the true meaning of the chronological statements of the Scriptures, in distinction from their apparent meaning, we must take into consideration: According to Hebrew usage, First. The variety of methods in reckoning periods of time. a portion of time is reckoned as the whole, a fraction as the unit, e.g., the three days Christ remained in the tomb. David's reign in Hebron is the only one of all the kings of Israel or Judah whose duration is given in years and in fractions of the year. All the rest, whose reign lasted a year or more, are given in full calendar years. It is impossible for this to have been literally true. There must have been broken years in which one reign ended and another one began. In such cases, we find a variable method of reckoning. Generally it was counted * The Higher Criticism and the Monuments Page 407. 66 for the reign that ended. The following year was called "the first year" for the reign that began, and the fraction of the year was designated as the beginning of his reign." The effect of this reckoning was to make the reign that ended longer, and the one that began shorter, than they really were. This is called post-dating. Sometimes the broken year, in which a king died, was reckoned as his own last year and the first year of his successor. This was called pre-dating. The result of this variable reckoning is made apparent in the period between the beginning of the reigns of Rehoboam and Athaliah, and those of Jereboam and Jehu, which began at the same time in the Southern and Northern kingdoms respectively. The following table of the kings of this intervening period shows a difference of three years in the two kingdoms when they should be the same: This difference is the result of post-dating the reigns of three of the kings of the Southern kingdom, and so shortening each of them one year, and pre-dating the reigns of the Northern kingdom. Second. We must consider the cross-reckoning of time between the two kingdoms, giving the synchronisms of reigns that were contemporaneous. The commencement of each reign is dated by the year of the reign of the contemporaneous king, in the other kingdom. The inconsistencies of these synchronisms are plainly seen, and to explain them we are obliged to infer the overlapping of reigns in some form of a co-regency, which is not definitely stated, e.g., We read In I Kings 22:51. Ahaziah the son of Now the only way to reconcile these two elder brother Ahaziah was co-regent with his Contrast again II Kings 1:17. And Jehoram (the son of In II Kings 3: 1. Now Jehoram the son of conflicting statements is to suppose that the father Ahab one of the two years of his reign. II Kings 3: I. Here is a discrepancy of nine years, as Jehoshaphat is said to have reigned twenty-five years. With the two above inconsistent synchronisms, consider a third. II Kings 8:16. And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. These passages can be harmonized only by inferring that Jehoshaphat associated his son Jehoram with him on the throne. It is thought by some that this is intimated in II Chron. 21: 1-3. Now Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. (Margin A. V. Alone) 2. And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, 3. And their father gave them great gifts of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fenced cities in Judah, but the kingdom gave he to Jehoram, (Marg. Jehoram made partner of the kingdom with his father) because he was the first-born. The interpretation, thus put in the margin, is that the first verse describes what occurred at the death of his father. The third verse refers to an arrangement made by Jehoshaphat several years prior to his death. The fourth verse tells how he slew his six brethren and divers also of the princes of Israel in order to secure undivided power for himself. These co-regencies reduce the time between Solomon and Athaliah to 90 years, instead of either 98 or 95, as given in the table. These samples of the confusion arising from the modes of reckoning and cross-reckoning the time of the reigns of the kings of the two kingdoms are sufficient to show that the apparent meaning of the chronological statements of the Bible is not always the true meaning, and that the materials furnished us in the Scriptures are not sufficient alone to solve the chronological problem. We must look to another source for determining the chronology of this period. Such a source, in a limited degree, has been found in the Assyrian Inscriptions. The Assyrian Eponym Canon is a list of officers, one officer for every year, containing about 265 names in a series backward from about 650 B. C. If they are continuous they go back to about 900 B. C., but if not continuous to less than 800 B. C. The Canon exists in several copies, all of which substantially agree, and is in a high degree trustworthy. Light is thrown on this Canon by the Assyrian records, consisting of the Annals of Shalmanezer II, Sargon, Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, Assur-bani-pal, and other kings, giving dated accounts of their exploits year by year. Calculated eclipses, especially the great eclipse of the sun B. C. 763, in the tenth year of Assur-daan king of Assyria, help to verify the assigned dates of this period. Back to this point there is substantial agreement, and we have independent lines of evidence, one confirming the other. Professor Beecher* claims that all back of this is conjectural and in dispute. Assyriologists insist that the list of Eponyms is continuous, and if it is, it makes the interval between Jehu and Hezekiah about fifty years less than the numbers in the Bible apparently make it. The revised chronology † gives the date for the accession of Rehoboam and Jereboam at the division of the kingdom as 937 B. C. We must choose between this and Usher's 975 B. C. With our present knowledge, there is no way of harmonizing these two systems of the chronology of this period. The overlapping of reigns is used as a variable factor in lessening the difference between them. In II Chron. 26: 21 (cf. II Kings 15: 5) we are told, And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord: and Jotham his son was over the king's house, judging the people of the land. At the death of Uzziah, we are further told (26: 23), and Jotham reigned in his stead, and (27: 1) he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. It is impossible to decide how much of the sixteen years overlapped the fifty-two years of Uzziah, and how much was left for his own independent reign. The uncertainties and inconsistencies of Usher's system and the disagreement of those who attempt to correct it, make it less satisfactory than the revised chronology, which has the substantial agreement of scholars whose prepared tables vary only in details. For the sake of convenient comparison, both systems are used in this work. Butler's Bible Work, Vol. VII, pp. 41-45. Chronology by Prof. Willis Judson Beecher, D.D. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible. Art. Chronology. + Student's Chart of Biblical History by Charles F. Kent, P.H.D. Table in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible. APPENDIX B The Duplications of Incidents in I Samuel I and II Samuel counted as one book, and I and II Kings counted as one book, are found in the first section of the second division of the Hebrew canon, called the Prophets. In the LXX the two books in the Hebrew canon are divided into the four books of Kings. They form a continuous history of the Hebrew people, from Samuel the last judge to Zedekiah the last king. Beginning with the last Chapter of I Samuel (XXXI) this history is duplicated in I and II Chronicles, and in parts of Psalms, Ezra, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel. The first thirty Chapters of I Samuel are not duplicated in any other Scripture, and is thus our only source of information concerning the pivotal transition period from the Judges to the Kings, and the trio of remarkable characters, Samuel, Saul, and David, that figure so largely in that period. All that we know of the first two from their birth to their death, and all that we know of the third from his birth to his being chosen as king at Hebron, we learn from I Samuel. But while I Samuel, with the exception of the thirteen verses of the last Chapter, is not duplicated in any other Scripture, it is largely made up of duplications of incidents and events, "a redaction of a manifold historical material." (Lange.) In this it is like Kings and Chronicles; but it is very unlike them in that it does not cite any of its sources as they do. These duplications are: I. Two denunciations of Eli (2:27-36) (3:11-18). 2. Three appointments of Saul as king (10: 1-8) ̧(10:17-24) (11:14, 15). 3. Two instances of Saul's prophesying (10: 10-12) (19: 22-24). 4. Two rejections of Saul (13:13, 14) (15:16-29). 5. Two introductions of David at court (16: 14-23) (17:17-39). 6. Two attempts of Saul to smite David (18: 10, 11) (19: 9, 10). 7. Two negotiations to make David the king's son-in-law (18: 12-19) (18:20-27). 8. Two flights of David to Achish (21: 10-16) (27:1-12. 28: 1-3. 29:1-11). 9. Two betrayals of David by the Ziphites (23:19-23) (26:1-5). 10. Two instances of sparing Saul's life (24: 1-22) (26:6-25). An examination of this list of duplications shows: (1) There is only one in which there is any sequence of consecutive events that necessitates a succession of narratives to complete the biography, viz.: the three appointments of Saul as king, which stand related to each other as anointing, election and coronation. (2) In only three of these cases is there any allusion in one narrative that implies there is any other, viz.: 3: 12, 18: 11, 18: 21. (3) In only one case is there any unmistakable evidence of the interweaving of different accounts of the same incident or event, viz. (16: 14-23) (17: 17-39). (4) In no one of these duplications is there any after retrospective allusion or reference to it found in any other Scripture, compar *1 ing or contrasting their likenesses or unlikenesses, e.g., Mark 8: 19-21, where Jesus points out four contrasts between the two miracles of feeding the multitude. The above statements prepare us for the inquiry whether they are duplications of like incidents or events, or duplicate accounts of the same event. Rev. H. P. Smith says, "The simplest way to account for them is to suppose that they are real duplicates, variant accounts of the same series of events, put together by a compiler who wished to preserve for us whatever he found of interest in both (or all) his sources." Over against this, it may be said, the simplest way is not necessarily the most convincing, nor the most satisfactory, nor the most impressive and instructive way. Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, B.D.,* *2 says of one of these duplications, "If the narratives are closely examined, it will be found that the differences outweigh the resemblances, and the difficulty of reconciling the narratives, if they refer to the same occurrence, is far greater than that of supposing that somewhat similar events happened twice." His treatment of the cases separately shows that this would be his judgment of most all of the cases, as well as of this one. A brief consideration of each of the cases in their order of occurrence will help each one to decide for himself between these two extremes of interpretation about this and other kindred questions that may arise.† I. Two denunciations of Eli (2:27-36) (3:11-18). In the first (2: 27-36), there came a man of God unto Eli, who declared God's indictment and sentence, with a God-given sign. In the second (3: 1-18), God speaks for the first time through the boy Samuel, who ministered unto the Lord before Eli, knowing how the Lord had called Samuel in the night, Eli in the morning adjures him to tell what the Lord had spoken unto him. When he had told him every whit, and hid nothing from him, then Eli said, "It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good." Had there been a doubt before, as likely there was, whether the Lord would do all that he had spoken, and would not let Eli's iniquity be expiated with sacrifice nor offering forever, that doubt was now entirely removed. Eli is wholly resigned, since God's word by the man of God has been verified by his word to Samuel. Smith says, “Two denunciations of Eli's course are related, either one of which abundantly answers the author's purpose. One of the denunciations is superfluous." This statement could only be true if they were repetitions of each other by the same person, but even then the second would serve as a forcible reminder. But the two denunciations of Eli were by two different persons of very different rank and standing. The first was by a nameless unknown man of God, the second was by Samuel, the greatest of the Judges. God said to Samuel, "I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house." This is not a repetition of an announcement, but a confirmation and a verification. The two were cumulative in their effect, making assurance doubly sure, on the principle of the divine injunction, "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established." (Deut. 19: 15.) 2. Three appointments of Saul as king (10: 1-8) (10:17-24) (11:14, 15). These are narratives of separate, and closely connected, consecutive events that were climactic steps in the complete confirmation of Saul as king. The first was the private anointment by Samuel. The second was the public election, where the choice of tribe, family, and person was severally * The International Critical Commentary. Samuel. Introduction XV-XVI. ** The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Appendix Note VII. + See Bibletheca Sacra, April, 1899. "Old Testament Books Versus Their Sources," by Prof. Willis J. Beecher, D.D. |