Chart: BC 920 to 900
Chart: BC 899 to 890
Chart: BC 889 to 850
Chart: BC 849 to 808
Chart: BC 807 to 773
Chart: BC 772 to 753
Chart: BC 752 to 731
Chart: BC 730 to 721

 Assyria III: The Alternate Universe

   Tiglath Pileser III claimed to receive tribute from Menahem of Israel. However, as we have seen Menahem was not contemporary with the Assyrian king. Evidently Tiglath or his scribes laid claim to the exploits of his predecessor, Pul.

   Such expropriation by pagan kings was not uncommon in antiquity. If a king did not like or respect his predecessor, then he might take credit for earlier exploits. It was partly state propaganda for the new party in power, and partly self aggrandizement of the ruler. So this is the explanation of Tiglath's claims to collection of tribute from Menahem, whose reign fell completely before that of the Assyrian king.

   The biblical chronology reveals that Assyria is missing year names for 52 years between Shalmaneser III and Tiglath Pileser III. Forty-six year names are lacking between the reigns of Asshur-Nirari V and Tiglath Pileser III, and six more are missing at the beginning of the reign of Shamshi-Adad V.

   We know the number of missing eponym records because the Assyrian kingdom had contacts with Ahab of Israel and Jehu of Israel in the 6th and 18th years of Shalmaneser III. That is the 6th year of Shalmaneser III corresponds to the 22nd year of Ahab, and the 18th year of the same king corresponds to the 1st year of Jehu.

The biblical chronology has the complete number of years. But the Assyrian eponym canon is deficient 52 years.  These missing year names are revealed by the synchronisms between the kings of Judah and those of Israel.

    We have some additional facts that help us figure out where the missing year names are in the Assyrian kingdom. The year name for the 9th year of Ashur-Dan, "Bur-Sagle" records a solar eclipse.

If the eclipse of 763 BC is supposed, then there are no missing year names, but there must be exactly 52 to preserve the Shalmaneser III synchronisms.  By selecting the solar eclipse of 809 BC, we may place 46 of the missing year names into the period between Ashur-Nirari V and Tiglath Pileser III.

The remaining missing six years fall into the revolt at the beginning of Shamshi-Adad V's reign.  This accounting is confirmed by the Tell al-Rimah Stela.  See charts: "Jehoash pays tribute to Assyria, Tell al-Rimah Stela/ Saba'a Stela. See Adad-Nirari III and Jehoash of Israel, William H. Shea. Andrews University. Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1978, pp. 110-113."

The missing year names are not because the records have been lost, or because archaeologists have failed to recover all the existing year names. They are year names that never existed. The years that should have had year names, however, did exist. What happened?

If a revolt or invasion of Assyria was so severe then no eponymous officials could be named to give the year a name. Conditions were suitable for this at the beginning of the reign of Shamshi-Adad V when 27 cities revolted against the new king. This revolt saw six years without names, and also the intervention of the Babylonian king in Assyria's civil war. The Babylonians exacted a high price for their assistance.

Assyria was again torn apart by civil war at the end of the reign of Ashur-Nirari V. If we combine this fact with Pul, mentioned as the predecessor to Tiglath-Pileser III in 1 Chron. 5:26, then we have the logical place for the remaining 46 missing year names.

The parsimonious explanation is that Assyria faced Babylonian intervention in its internal civil war at the end of the reign of Ashur-Nirari V. This was similar to the intervention of the Babylonian king Marduk-zakir-shumi I in the civil war between Shamshi-Adad V and his brother. Only in the case of the 46 years, the intervention of the Babylonian king turned into an outright invasion of Assyria rather than support of one side or the other and the imposition of virtual vassal status.

The reason Babylonian intervention is parsimonious is that it happened before, and the Babylonians would have wanted to keep Assyria in a position of weakness. As year names were customarily derived from the positions of high court officials with lots of power beside the Assyrian king, the Babylonians would not have permitted these powerful positions.

In fact, is is probably the power of the nobles with the eponymous names that Assyria was plunged into a civil war that was exploited by the Babylonians in the first place.

The final clue is from the name Pul. This name in both Babylonia and Assyria means "heir."  This is a title that would suit both Babylon and Assyria.  It is probable then that Pul was a Babylonian who had seized the throne of Assyria amid the civil chaos. And with superior force he ravaged the country and was able conduct expeditions to even Israel, where he extorted "Dane-geld" so to speak from Menahem of Israel.

This situation would explain why Tiglath-Pileser had the state scribes suppress the disruption of the country while himself expropriating the deeds of Pul.

"From the time of Nabonassar, the Chaldeans accurately recorded the times of the motion of the stars. The polymaths among the Greeks learned from the Chaldeans that - as Alexander (Polyhistor) and Berossus, men versed in Chaldean antiquities, say - Nabonassar gathered together (the accounts of) the deeds of the kings before him and did away with them so that the reckoning of the Chaldean kings would begin with him. (FGrH III C/1 p. 395 no 16 (Pseudo-Berossos of Cos). It is clear from the biblical chronology and the nearly opaque Assyrian Eponym canon that Tiglath Pileser II must have done the same for Assyria shortly afterward" (From the charts).

I should clarify this. While the Babylonian king expunged records, and hence Babylon is in a dark age before Nabonassar, the Assyrian king directed his scribes to eliminate embarrassing episodes of Assyrian history immediately before himself.

     It may be noted that Tiglath-Pileser himself usurped the Babylonian throne, himself taking the name Pulu, again meaning "heir," and by right of conquest his Assyrian god has now favored him as the legitimate heir. This turn of affairs, no doubt, had the ring of poetic justice in the ears of Assyrians, and the taste of revenge in Babylonian ears.  Tiglath Pileser then combined this with directions to his scribes to edit out the lacuna in Assyria caused by the Babylonians, namely by closing the gaps on the eponym canon.  Tiglath's own appointments of eponyms deviate from prior practices by appointing virtual nobodies as eponyms, besides expropriating the last two eponyms of Ashur-Nirari V. Somehow, it worked out so that the eclipse of 809 BC and the collapsed chronology synchronized with the eclipse of 763 BC.  The unusual accession notice of Tiglath-Pileser suggests that he did not come to the throne by an ordinary succession to Ashur-Nirari V, but after a disruption of some sort. So again, there is evidence of something not regular.

Chart: 938 to 921 BC

  Assyria II

     Now Edwin R. Thiele (1895–1986) is the culprit who ruined Biblical Chronology. After him the damage was done. His work, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, overturned the almost perfectly correct chronologies of Willis Judson Beecher (1838–1912), Martin Anstey (1856–1940), and David L. Cooper (1886–1965).  It is a pity that Thiele was a Seventh Day Adventist, because he should have been predisposed to reject critical views of Scripture.  Nevertheless, the "Introduction" to Mysterious Kings was written by Thiele's mentor William A. Irwin (1884-1967). Upon retirement in 1950, he became Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at the University of Chicago.  Irwin's Introduction tries to straddle the divide between those who admit rejecting Scripture when it suits them (Irwin) and those who claim they uphold all of it, but don't (Thiele). Irwin was an avid supporter, and contributor to the Documentary Hypothesis, as can be seen in his work, "The Problem of Ezekiel," (1943).  This is the theory that the Torah was cobbled together by J, E, D, and P sources.  For further info on the Documentary Hypothesis, see here.

     According to Thiele, the reign of Pekah was parallel to that of Menahem and Pekahiah for 12 years. See page 121 of Mysterious Kings. This is the result of trying to make Menahem contemporary with Tiglath Pileser III, so that the Assyrian kings claims to have received his tribute may be believed. Besides the fact that Pekah ruled in Samaria, supposedly at the same time Menahem did, and the fact that he was Pekahiah's army officer, and the fact that he murdered Pekahiah, and that Scripture treats Pul as a separate person from Tiglath Pileser, there is an additional refutatoin of Thiele's presumptive assumption that submits the biblical chronology to Assyriological Orthdoxy.

     The books of Kings organize every account of every king into historical summaries of their reigns. This is what the green headlines in the charts are for.  These stand over the top of the name of each king. These start way back in the charts with King Saul:  

   "No. 29: IIK 15:8-12, Zechariah" 

   "No. 30: IIK 15:13-16, Shallum"

   "No. 31: IIK 15:17-22, Menahem"

   "No. 32: IIK 15:23-26, Pekahiah"

   "No. 33: IIK 15:27-31, Pekah"

   "No. 34: IIK 15:32-38, Jotham"

   "No. 35: IIK 16:1-20, Ahaz"

   "No. 36: IIK 17:1-41, Hoshea"

   "No. 37: IIK 18:1-20:21, Hezekiah"

     These accounts are strictly in chronological order, meshing the kings of Israel and the Kings of Judah together in exact chronological order, based on when they began to reign.

     If Pekah reigned parallel to Menahem, then we would expect the order to be:

   "No. 31: IIK 15:17-22, Menahem"

   "No. 33: IIK 15:27-31, Pekah"

   "No. 32: IIK 15:23-26, Pekahiah"

     The theory goes that Pekah was a rebellious army officier of Menahem, who set up a rival reign, and then when Menahem died, he became a rebellious officer of Pekahiah, and then Pekah murdered Pekahiah.

     But this violates the order of the kings. But even in the confused times of Omri, the books of Kings keep to the order, and explain anything unusual:

   "No. 11: IK 16:8-14, Elah"

   "No. 12: IK 16:15-20, Zimri"

   "No. 13. IK 16:21-22, Tibni"

   "No. 14. IK 16:23-28, Omri"

     See chart 938 to 921 BC, linked at the top of this page.

     As we see, the correct order of kings exposes Thiele's error. I have observed, and you will also, if you study it enough, that Scripture never throws its main chronology into a black hole. That is there is no lacuna of information preventing a complete construction.  Also, I have observed, and you will also in time, that no arbitrary decision is needed to construct it either.  And also, I have observed, that Scripture never introduces an outside source as a chronological datum until the Neo-Babylonian Empire. By doing so, Scripture is vouching for the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.  And finally, I have observed, and you will also, when you get up to speed, that Scripture never means an extraordinary interpretation unless Scripture itself provides the data itself to support the extraordinary interpretation.

   These four points form a good checklist for evaluating a chronological argument. But Thiele violates every one of these points in making Pekah contemporary with Menahem and Pekahiah for twelve years. First, the number of his assumptions and coregencies without Scriptural proof effectively say that biblical chronology cannot be figured out on the basis of just Scripture. This is the black hole thesis.  Second, his decision to make Pekah Parallel to Menahem and Pekahiah is an arbitrary interpretation, because Scripture never says where the match up occurs unless it is a matter of the default sequence. Third, Thiele imports the Assyriologist thesis from outside Scripture, even though Scripture does not vouch for it, and in fact, implies by vouching for Neo-Babylonian Chronology, that previous secular chronologies are unreliable.  Fourth, having a king who murdered the son of a father, reign in the same place (Samaria) as the son and father twelve years before the murder, while being called an officer of the son is a completely extraordinary interpretation with no Scripture warrant.  That is no other data to show an extraordinary interpretation occurs in Scripture.

   Scripture intended to give a complete chronology. But it relies on defaults.  The greatest default is sequence.  When there is a sequence in the text, then one thing follows the next.

Chart: 772 to 753 BC

Chart: 752 to 731 BC

Chart: 730 to 721 BC   

  

Assyria: Part I

     Scholarship and discussions or debates about biblical chronology and biblical archaeology are dominated by two groups of people.  One group dismisses the Scripture when it suits them to do so, and it is no secret that they do so. They arrive at the wrong result. The other group maintains that the Scripture is always correct, but they dismiss the Scripture by stealth, and keep it a secret that they do so, while maintaining that they uphold it completely.  They also arrive at the wrong result. 

     It is in the interest of the world system and the minions of Satan to keep the debate centered between these two groups, and to draw everyone's attention to one or the other. This is so that the truth will be ignored. Because Satan is only concerned with getting people to believe the wrong result, however it is arrived at.

     Invariably, anyone who is not a true and committed follower of Messiah Yeshua is vulnerable to falling into one group or the other. Or if one is not a true upholder of Scripture and Messiah's Torah, then one will be sidetracked from the truth. If this is not always true, it is certainly a statistical probability     

     Yeshua is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Without him, people inherit lies.

     We also have to be on guard against the frauds, those who claim faithfulness to Messiah and his Torah, but in fact are not true to one or the other. And to detect them, you have to know the Word.

     If you have a heart true to Messiah and true to his instructions, then you have an opportunity to hear the truth.  The reason those outside cannot hear the truth is that from a chronological point of view, not being true to Messiah Yeshua, or not holding to his Torah, they have been tripped up by traditional arguments that support their predisposition.  I'm not saying they do this willfully. I'm saying tradition has become a reinforcing mechanism of the wrong predisposition. To have the right predisposition, one has to be faithful to Messiah and his commandments.

     There is a lesson to be learned from King Ahaz.  He was so impressed by the Assyrians that he decided to compromise with their designs and customs.  This worldliness is described in 2 Kings 16:10–18

     In like manner there are those today that defer to the king of Assyria, based on what archaeologists have dug up from Assyrian Archives. But Scripture has a different point of view: 

   "Then the Almighty of Israel rouses up the spirit of Pul, king of Asshur, and the spirit of Tilgath Pilnasr, king of Asshur. Then he caused them to become captive, the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh. So, it had been he causes them to come to Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and river Gozan onward this day" (1 Chronicles 5:26).     

     Bondage to Assyria and the Assyriologist has to be unraveled. Firstly, let us note that this passage (1 Chronicles 5:1-26) is concerned only with the fate of the Transjordan Tribes.  Of course, Assyria took other tribes captive also.

     In fact, a number of Assyrian Kings were involved somehow in the defeat and exile of Israel.  Pul, Tiglath Pileser III, Shalmaneser V, Sargon, and Esarhaddon.

     If we look in 1 Chronicles 5:6, we will see Tilgath Pilnasr mentioned, and a little further on it is noted that these Transjordan tribes were registered in the days of Jotham, king of Judah (1 Chron. 5:17).

       It will be noted that they were still in the land during the days of Jotham king of Judah. And the days of Jotham continued until until he was removed from the throne in his 16th year, probably by  pro-Assyrian nobles supporting an abdication so Ahaz could rule.

       On the other hand, 2 Kings 15:29 says, "In the days of Pekah, King of Israel, Tiglath Pileser, King of Assyria, had come. Then he takes Ijon, and Abel-beth-Maachah, and Janohah, and Kedesh, and Hatsor, and Gilead, and the Galilee, all the land of Naphtali. Then he captives them to Assyria."

     So the exile of these tribes was while Pekah was still king.  But it was after the days of Jotham.  It was also after Isaiah 7:8, when the 65  year prophecy was made. This narrows it down to the 4th year of Ahaz, and the 20th year of Pekah, just before Hoshea killed Pekah.

Isaiah mentions two kings that will be removed, Pekah and Rezin of Damascus. Damascus fell in 732 BC after the exile of Galilee and Gilead in 737 BC.

The exile of Gilead and Galilee is not mentioned in the Assyrian Eponym canon.  Only some major operations are mentioned in the canon.  What happened was that Assyria traveled the coast, west of Damascus, leaving Damascus isolated. They then swept into Galilee and Gilead.  Then a few years later they laid siege to Damascus and gained victory over Rezin in 732 BC.

     The Transjordan tribes are also missing in King Hezekiah's invitation to attend his Passover reformation, and Hezekiah's messengers did not cross to the east of the Jordan into Gilead. 

     Let us now return to 1 Chronicles 5:26. The Hebrew text represents the kings Pul and Tilgath Pilnasr as two different kings. The clauses are connected by "w'et".  If they were connected by just "et" then there is the possibility that the second clause is just explaining who the king named in the first clause is.  But with "w'et" we have two persons.  "W'et" in Hebrew always separates different persons, places, or things. It is never used in an explanatory or appositional sense. So the interpretation that makes Pul the same as the later Tiglath Pileser is without precedent, and without parallel example. In fact, all the we'et's that can be adduced are not used in the sense of "that is."

     For instance, in Genesis 1:1, It says, "In the beginning of the Almighty's creating the heavens and the earth," (et ha-shamayim we'et ha-arets).  Observe that "the heavens" and "the earth" are separated by we'et.  It does not say "the heavens, that is the earth," because the heavens and the earth are two separate things.  Similarly, "et ruach PUL, king of Assyria, we-et ruach Tilgath Pilnasar, king of Assyria" have we'et between them. We have here two separate persons.  

     The reason the Assyriologist, and the biblical commentators listening to them equivocate here is that no king "Pul" has been found at a time before Tiglath Pileser. So they assume that Pul and Tiglath Pileser are the same king.

     There is, in fact, confirmation from the biblical chronology that Pul is a different king! Pul extorted a huge amount of money from Menahem of Israel to leave them alone. Menahem reigned one year in Tirzah, and ten years in Samaria.  His son reigned 2 years.  His son Pekahiah was murdered by a commander in his army, Pekah, who then reigned "in Samaria twenty years" (2 Kings 15:27).

     Tiglath Pileser III took the Transjordan tribes captive in the final year of the 20 year reign of Pekah, and  Tiglath Pileser did not reign more than 19 years. Therefore, the Pul who took money from Menahem is not the same as Tiglath Pileser. Our Chronicles passage represents Pul and Tilgath Pilnasr as two different kings.

     One may wonder why I keep spelling Tilgath Pilnasr incorrectly.  I do so because the 1 Chronicles 5:26 passage in Hebrew does this. When dealing with titles of idolatry, the Hebrew scribes had every reason to twist them around. The Assyrian name of the king is "Tukulti-apil-Ešarra", meaning "my trust [is] in the heir of Ešarra," but no Israelite wants to utter this phrase, except the rebellious like Ahaz who had the high priest copy the designs of the altar in Damascus.

     Thus by a possibly intentional Metathesis, the Lamed and gimel in Tiglath are switched to Tilgath, making it nonsense. Then we have Pilnasr, with a nun in it that isn't in the Assyrian.  "Apil" means "heir" or "son of."  The last word is supposed to be "Ešarra", meaning the main Temple of the Assyrian god, Asshur.  So essentially, the phrase is like saying the son of the god's temple, a metonymy for the son of the false god.  But Messiah Yeshua is the true son of the Almighty, the one alone being true Almighty, and he who sent him, the Father.

     But the last word is altered.  Since this temple sounds like the Hebrew asar, aleph, samech, resh, a nun would change the meaning to something like "being in bondage." So now the same means "Tilgath [nonsense], the heir of one being a prisoner." Or it could mean "son of bondage" with an evident double entendre, thus referring to the king who carried Israel into bondage.

     If we go but a step further, then Tilgath may become "tell gath" meaning "a heap (or ruin) of a winepress, heir of bondage."  Thus Israel is compared to a ruined vineyard.