USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 1 11/12/2022

Valerius (Valère) Coucke, 1888–1951

Translation by R. C. Young of the article entitled “Biblical Chronology” by V. Coucke,

in Louis Pirot, ed., Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et

Ané, 1928, cols. 1245–1279).

the two great powers of this epoch, Assyria and Egypt. Before looking at the chronology

of the period we are concerned with, we must say a word about the system of dating that

was in force for these great nations. See in the Supplément, Vol. 1, cols. 774–782.

consisted of 354 days; the first of Nisan was the first day of the year. Occasionally a

thirteenth month was intercalated, in order to

[col. 1246]

The Assyrians and the Egyptians dated the years in accordance with the years of reign

of their monarchs.

Among the Assyrians, the first year of a monarch began only in the new year which

followed his accession: this is the method of postdating [accession reckoning].2 They

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 2 11/12/2022

called the resh sharruti (head, beginning the reign) the period of time that fell between

the accession of a king and his first year.

In this system, the total years of reign for a series of kings represents, within a fraction

of a year, the actual duration of this historical period.

If this subtraction is forgotten, the year during which one king succeeded another will be

counted two times: first as the last year of the deceased king, then as the first year of the

successor. X years must be subtracted from the sum in question if it is desired to obtain,

as a fraction of the next year, the actual duration of consecutive reigns, since it is

necessary to take into consideration the fact that the first king of the list only reigned part

of his first year and the last king a part of the last year.

II. DATE AND DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE. — In the time of

Solomon the civil year began around the time of the autumnal equinox.

According to the testimony of Flavius Josephus, (Antiq. 1.3.3), the new year originally

We cannot deduce anything from the expression “at the return of the year” (2 Sam

11:1; 1 Kgs 20:22, 26; 2 Kgs 13:20; 1 Chr 20:1; 2 Chr 36:10). It seems to designate the

spring, the return of the natural year as the expression “at the end of the year” (Ex. 23:16,

34:22) refers to autumn, the end of the natural year.

The years of reign were by the accession method at this time. The chronology of

David, Solomon’s father, provides the proof of this: Sometimes the Jews deviated, in

order to be more exact, from the official manner of computing the years (cf. Jer. 28:3; Is.

16:14; 21:16; Deut. 15:18; Job 7:1; 14:6). Thus the sacred author reports that David

reigned in Hebron 7 years and 6 months (2 Sam 5:5; 1 Chr. 3:4 5). Others give him the

official figure and say that this king

In the table for Judah, Coucke assumes non-accession reckoning for Athaliah,

Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah. He has the following coregencies:

Jehoshaphat/Jehoram, Jehoash/Amaziah. He misses these coregencies:

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 3 11/12/2022

Asa/Jehoshaphat, Uzziah/Jotham, Jotham/Ahaz, Ahaz/Hezekiah, and

Hezekiah/Manasseh. He emends the following reign lengths: Jehoshaphat, Amaziah

alt., Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah alt.

accession years given him in 2 Kgs 13:1. Joash’s 16 years are by acc. reckoning in

the table, but in col. 1256 Coucke says all of Jehu’s dynasty was by non-accession

reckoning.

[text resumes in col. 1251]

reigned 7 years in Hebron (1 Kgs. 2:11; 1 Chr. 29:27). These years are therefore

accession years; if they were non-accession years, it would be necessary to say that he

reigned there 8 years. Moreover in these same passages, it is related that David reigned 7

stated.4 The 5th year [of Solomon] began 5 months (Ethanim) after the first works.

The first year of the construction of this edifice [Solomon’s Temple] is determined as

follows: According to the marble tablet from Paros, the capture of Troy was in the month

of May 1207 BC;5 Tyre was founded a year earlier, that is, in the summer of 1208 BC6

explained it more fully. In Coucke’s chronology for this period, Solomon’s fourth year began in Tishri of

968 BC and his 11th year began in Tishri of 961 BC. The start of Temple construction was then in Ziv

had commenced in the month prior, Tishri. The elapsed time between May/June of 967 and Oct/Nov of 961

is six years and five months, which is rendered as seven years in 1 Kgs 6:38 by the principle of a partial

year being recognized as a whole year by the Hebrews. See the discussion in Edwin Thiele, Mysterious

consideration is used by Thiele as one of his two demonstrations that the Judean regnal year began in

Tishri.

the Beginning of the Divided Kingdom.”

264/263 BC. The basic source of the information in the Parian Marble was the annalistic records of Athens,

as demonstrated on pages 230–32 of Young and Steinmann, “Correlation of Select Classical Sources

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 4 11/12/2022

(cf. M. Junian Justin, Epitome Historium Philippicarum Pompeii Trogi, 18.3.5). The first

year after the foundation began in the fall of 1208 BC.7 Now according to Josephus, the

11th or 12th year of Hiram was the first year of the construction of the temple and the

240th or 241st year of Tyre (Antiq. 8.3.1; Contra Apionem 1.18), that is, the year 969 or

(18.6.9) dates this event at 72 years before the foundation of Rome, in the year (753 + 72)

= 825 or (752 + 72) = 824 BC, March 824 to March 823. It follows from these

considerations that the first works of construction of the Temple date from 969 or 968

BC. The biblical chronology shows that the work began in the year 968 (t. 968–t. 967).9

taken as a year extending from about July (Έκατομβαιών) of 264 BC to July of 263 BC. The Marble says

that Troy was taken 945 years before that date, i.e. in 264/63 + 945 = 1209/08, on the seventh day before

the end of the month Thargelion. This translates to June 10, 1208 BC, assuming that the Ashmolean’s base

date for the Marble is correct—which is a matter that needs further investigation. Coucke either thought the

Parian Marble dates to 263/62, not 264/63, or he used inclusive numbering for the 945 years. His years

date. Errington, who determined that the Parian Marble was generally accurate for the period following the

death of Alexander, nevertheless found it “inexplicable” that the Parian Marble missed the date of the

eclipse by one or two years (R. M. Errington, “Diodorus Siculus and the Chronology of the Early

Diadochoi, 320–311 B.C.,” Hermes 105 [1977], p. 504). However, if we assume, with Coucke, that the

base date of the Marble was 263/62 instead of the Ashmolean’s 264/63, and make the further assumption

that the Macedonian year was being used at this rather late time in the chronology of the Marble, then its

figure of 48 years prior to the base date (263/62) would come out to 311/10, i.e. the period from Tishri/Dios

(Sept/Oct) of 311 BC to the day before Tishri 1 of 310 BC. This would include the time of the eclipse, but

it assumes that the archivists of Athens had switched from their earlier July-based calendar to the

Macedonian calendar. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read thus far in this footnote may find these

Hiram and does not give the years since the founding of Tyre. Coucke uses the one-year disparity in order

to suggest that maybe it was 241 years from the founding of Tyre until construction of the Temple. This all

assumes Tishri-based years for everyone’s reckoning, including Tyre. If Pompeius Trogus was measuring

by the earlier Roman calendar, which began the year on March 1, then the March-based year before the fall

of Troy in May of 1208 BC would have overlapped two Tishri-based years, 1210t and 1209t, and the

resulting subtraction of 240 or 241 years from both these figures would allow the possibilities of 970t, 969t,

or 968t for the year in which the foundation of the Temple was laid, instead of just 969t or 968t calculated

by Coucke.

Rome and measuring back to the date of Carthage’s founding, to show that 968 BC for the founding of the

Temple agrees with both the measurement from above (destruction of Troy and founding of Tyre) and from

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 5 11/12/2022

III. FIRST PERIOD OF THE DIVISION, FROM THE ACCESSION OF REHOBOAM AND JEROBOAM

UNTIL THE ACCESSION OF ATHALIAH AND JEHU. — We think that during this first period of

the division the civil New Year began in Israel around the spring equinox, which was the

month. The civil year and the cycle of the months began consequently at a different time

from the solar year, but the course of the civil year depended on the cycle of the months,

be surprised at this, since in our day the cycle of the weeks is independent of the cycles of

the year and the months.

A. The means of counting the years.

year starting in March of 825 BC for the flight of Dido to found Carthage, following Pompeius Trogus, and

the founding of the Temple, 143 years earlier, in 825 + 143 = 968 BC, i.e. the year starting in March of 968

BC, assuming a consistent use of the early Roman calendar. Coucke combines this with the earlier result

when measuring down from the founding of Tyre (969t or 968t) and thereby rules out both 969t and 967t;

968t is the date that satisfies both methods.

Coucke’s method of determining the year of the founding of the Temple is an interesting—and as it

turns out, valid—way to proceed. But few scholars would have surmised that the date of the Parian

Chronicle for the destruction of Troy, or Josephus's record of what year of Tyre it was in which

construction of Solomon's Temple began, were correct. Despite the various corrections just mentioned, it is

of interest that the date of Solomon’s death that Coucke derived from this starting point, i.e., the year

beginning in Tishri of 932 BC, agrees exactly with the year that I determined when starting from the

Biblical texts and the Assyrian data. It also agrees exactly with the year that William Barnes, and his

mentor Frank Moore Cross, derived from the Tyrian King List of Menander/Josephus. None of us had read

Coucke prior to these publications. See Rodger C. Young, “When Did Solomon Die,” JETS 46 (2003) 589–

603 http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/solomon.pdf ; William H Barnes, Studies in the Chronology of the

Divided Monarchy of Israel (Atlanta GA: Scholars Press, 1991). Barnes recognized (p. 70) that the method

10 Coucke explains why he assumes Tishri-based years for Tyre in his article “Chronologie des rois de Juda

are found in Phoenician inscriptions, and so these are Phoenician month-names. He then infers that since

the two kingdoms had the same month-names, Tyre’s calendar would have the same starting month as was

used in Judah.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 6 11/12/2022

When the years of the kings are added since the secession of the tribes until the death

of Ahaziah of Israel, in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah (2 Kgs. 3:1), we

obtain:

In Judah: 17 (Rehoboam) + 3 (Abijam) + 41 (Asa) + 18 (Jehoshaphat) = 79 years.

the latter sum seven years, in keeping with the principle of non-accession reckoning (see

above, col. 1246). Once the subtraction is made, it is noticed that the two sums are in

perfect agreement, since they give, within a fraction of a year, the real length of the same

period of history.12

B. Date of the new year.

In order to explain all the synchronisms of this period, it is necessary to assume that

the civil year in the two countries began at a different time of the solar year.

We think that Judah, which remained faithful to the house of David, and which kept

C. Length of the reigns of Jehoshaphat of Judah and Joram of Israel, coregency of

Jehoram of Judah, as synchronized with the accession of Ahaziah of Judah. 1. — If

Jehoshaphat reigned 25 years after the death of his father, he would have outlived

Ahaziah of Judah, the son of Jehoram. (We will use Jehoram for the name of the king of

Judah, in order to distinguish him from Joram of Israel, his contemporary.) The biblical

narratives imply that Jehoshaphat died before Jehoram. One could assume that Asa made

In this case, the accession of the sons of Ahab would be expressed in relation to the years

of Jehoshaphat’s sole reign.14 However, this is hardly probable. We prefer to suppose that

Hebrew alphabet) and also frequent (compare the different readings of 1 Kgs 15:33 [?]

Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Kregel, 1986), p. 78.

13Thiele agrees with this; so do McFall and I.

14 This also is correct; Coucke is wrong in rejecting it.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 7 11/12/2022

a) Either the sacred author wanted to indicate that Joram was at first associated on the

throne by his brother, in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, and that he reigned alone later at

the death of his brother, in the second year of Jehoram. This first hypothesis is not

probable because Ahaziah, Joram’s brother, died in this same 18th year of Jehoshaphat.

began his sole reign in the 5th year of Joram, after the 10th of Tishri.

The Hebrew text continues, “In the fifth year of Joram, Jehoshaphat still being king,

Jehoram began to reign . . .” The italicized words are missing in many manuscripts and

ancient versions. They should be rejected as a copyist’s addition.

[col. 1253]

3. The number of years of reign for Joram is excessive. a) Joram and Jehoram reigned

close to the same number of years. Joram began to reign in the 2nd year of Jehoram (2

b) According to Assyrian documents, Jehu was already king of Israel in 842,16 and

Ahab was still king during the summer of 854 (Battle of Qarqar). Between these two

dates, there must be put, according to the Bible, the expedition of Ramoth, which cost

Ahab his life, the reigns of Ahaziah (2 years) and Joram (12 years), the sons of Ahab, and

the accession of Jehu. However, the chronology of the following period will show that

the accession of Jehu dates from Tishri of 846–Nisan 845. From this it must be concluded

that Joram of Israel reigned 7 years (instead of 12): the first year of Joram was probably

the year 852, and his seventh year began on the first of Nisan or Thoth, 846 BC.

c) The synchronisms for the accession of Joram of Israel require a reduction in the

reign of this king of exactly 5 years. This actually derives from the table above, which is

Nisan or Thoth in the 7th year of Jehoram of Judah. Since Ahaziah of Judah only reigned

his reign, as measured from the coregency, was 12 years, but as measured from the sole reign it was only 8

16 Should be 841 when the correct date for the Battle of Qarqar, 853 instead of Coucke’s 854, is given.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 8 11/12/2022

Omri, king of Israel, was the oppressor of Moab for a long time, because Chemosh

was angry with his country; and his son succeeded him and he also said “I will

oppress Moab!” It was in my time that he spoke like this. And I triumphed over him

and his house and Israel has perished forever. However, Omri had taken possession

beginning of his reign, and that his dynasty was in power for only 40 years. However,

Omri reigned 12 years, Ahab 22, Ahaziah 2, and Joram, the last king of the house of

Omri, 12 years (1 Kgs 16:23, 29; 22:52; 2 Kgs 3:1). Since the years of reign are by non-

accession reckoning, according to the Bible the dynasty of Omri would have lasted 12 +

22 + 2 + 12 – 3 = 45 years. It seems therefore that there was a lengthening of reign of 5

years for one of these kings. The biblical synchronisms show that this was the reign of

Joram.

4. It follows from these considerations that the synchronisms for the accession of

Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 8:25; 9:29) are not authentic.17 It is required to correct the early

text so as to date this accession to the 7th year of Joram of Israel.

chronological difficulties of chapters 15 and 16 of 2 Kings.

A. A new year and manner of dating in Judah. — Athaliah, the princess from Israel,

mounted the throne of Judah shortly after the accession of Jehu (2 Kgs 9:27, 11:3). She

died in the sixth year of her reign, the seventh year of Jehu (2 Kgs 11:3, 12:1). If this

princess introduced into the official acts of Judah the non-accession method of dating that

was in effect in the country of her birth, but kept the autumnal new year, we can assume

the following chronology (see table on the following page) [table is not given in this

translation].

The chronology of Athaliah’s successor requires the same hypothesis: his reign is by

time. Here is the proof:

17 There is no problem with the biblical texts. The problem is to determine how Mesha measured the 40

years.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 9 11/12/2022

years of Jehoash are by non-accession reckoning. In fact if the New Year fell on the same

date in the two countries, the 8th year of Jehu

[col. 1255]

have already begun his second year (by non-accession reckoning) during the 7th year of

Jehu and his 23rd year in Jehu's 28th year.

We maintain therefore that at the beginning of this period, the date of the New Year

differed between the two kingdoms, and that the reigns of Judah were by non-accession

reckoning.

This double affirmation is confirmed by the following. Thus, regarding non-accession

reckoning: on the death of Joash, king of Israel, Amaziah, king of Judah, began the 15th

year of his reign (2 Kgs 14:23); he reigned 29 years (2 Kgs 14:20) and lived 15 more

years (2 Kgs 14:17) after the death of Joash. Therefore, according to accession reckoning,

from the 15th to the 29th year of the reign of Amaziah, we must count 14 years, instead

reckoning. This usage was afterward kept by the succeeding kings on the throne of Judah.

As for the differing times for the New Year, we shall have occasion to establish it and

the end of this period, when we look at the chronology of Menahem and his successors.

In summary: the official usage of accession reckoning, which was in use in the time of

David and Solomon, was maintained in Judah during the first period of the division.

Athaliah, the princess from Israel, introduced the non-accession system that was in

official use in Israel, her country of birth. This convention was afterward maintained

during the reign of Jehoash. The

[col. 1256]

regnal years of Ahaz went back to accession reckoning, as we shall see because of such

19 This verse does not say that Pekah outlived Jotham, but 2 Kgs 16:1 implies that he did.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 16 11/12/2022

As for the chronology of Israel, the Bible places at the death of Jeroboam II an

interregnum that lasted precisely 12 years; Jeroboam took the throne in the 15th year of

Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:23). If he began his 2nd year in the month of Nisan of this 15th year,

he would enter into his 16th year during the 29th year of Amaziah, the first of Uzziah;

[1263]

a few weeks before Athaliah (2 Kgs 9:27; 11:1), therefore, at the most, toward the end of

846. Zechariah began to reign in 749, 11 years (2 Kgs 15:8–17) before the death of

Menahem (738).

Between the accession of Jehu and that of Zechariah, there were therefore at most

(846 – 749 =) 97 years. Between these two dates, we must place 28 years of Jehu (2 Kgs

10:36), 17 of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 12:1), of which 2 were as coregent, 16 of Joash (2 Kgs

13:10), 41 of Jeroboam and an interregnum of 12 years, making in total (and taking into

account the coregency and the method of non-accession reckoning) 28 + 16 + 16 + 41 – 4

40 years (52 – 12). We could also assume that Amaziah only reigned 17 years. In this

case it would be necessary to reject the authenticity of 2 Kgs 14:17, and to date the

accession (2 Kgs 15:1) of Uzziah to the 3rd or 4th year of Jeroboam. It cannot be a

question of a coregency (2 Kgs 14:19–21).31

Conclusion: The second period of the schism has been increased by 24 years. The date

of the destruction of Samaria is put back the same number of years. An interregnum of 12

years at the death of Jeroboam II has been introduced, and the reign of Pekah has been

prolonged by 12 years. As a result the length of the reigns of the kings of Judah have

been stretched and the synchronisms have been changed in the same ratio.

fall of Samaria until the destruction of Jerusalem, the last period of the history of the

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 17 11/12/2022

It could be objected that Jeremiah (28:1) writes: “He arrived at the beginning of the

reign of Zedekiah, the fourth year, the fifth month . . .”, which would seem to indicate

that this Hebrew expression does not have the characteristic meaning of the Assyrian

term. But the Greek version does not have this expression, which seems to have been

We have remarked that Jeremiah and the author of 2 Kings were following the same

system: the dates of the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of this city show that these

authors were dating as Ezekiel did (Ezek 24:1–2; 26:1; Jer. 39:1–2; 52:4–12; 2 Kgs 25:1–

8).

The sum of the years of reign from the fall of Samaria provides a third proof in favor

of the use of accession reckoning.

Two preliminary remarks: The reign of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31) and Jehoiachin (2 Kgs

24:8)

Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, Jeremiah addressed the people in this way: Since the 13th year

of Josiah son of Amon, king of Judah, until this day, these 23 years that the word of the

Lord came to me . . .” (Jer 25:1–3). This calculation is exact if we date a New Year from

the vacancy of the throne that precedes or that follows the reign of Jehoahaz. In this sole

my chronology of Sabbatical years, it was. See Nahum Sarna, “Zedekiah’s Emancipation of Slaves and the

Sabbatical Year,” in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His

Sixty-fifth Birthday,” ed. Harry A. Hoffner Jr. (Neukirchen: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1973) p. 149.

BC), after the destruction of the city by Nebuzaradan’s troops in the fifth month (Jer. 52:2). If the vision

was in the seventh month but still in the 11th year of captivity, then the year would be 598t – 10 = 588t; the

seventh month of 588t was Tishri (Sept/Oct) 588 BC, six months before the city fell in the summer of 587

BC. Similar reasoning eliminates all but the sixth month from consideration (the fifth month was the month

“year one” of their captivity. The 25th year would then be 24 years later in 574t. The city fell in the

summer of 587 BC, i.e. in the Judean year 588t; 14 years after (ahar) was again 574t. The year 574t is

marked in Ezek 40:1 as unusual in one respect: Ezekiel says it was New Year’s Day (Rosh HaShanah) on

the tenth of the month. Only in a Jubilee year was Rosh HaShanah observed on the tenth of Tishri (Lev.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 18 11/12/2022

hypothesis we can calculate 23 years from the 13th year of Josiah until the fourth year of

Jehoiakim.

Here now is the third argument in favor of the accession method of reckoning:

According to the Bible, the fall of Samaria is dated in the 6th Year of Hezekiah (2 Kgs

Amon, 2 years (2 Kgs 21:9): 2 years

Josiah, 31 years (2 Kgs 22:1): 31 years

Jehoahaz, 3 months 0 years

A New Year is dated to the vacancy of the throne that

preceded or followed the reign of Jehoahaz: 1 year

Jehoiakim, who reigned 11 years (2 Kgs 23:36): 11 years

Jehoiachin, who reigned three months (2 Kgs 24:8): 0 years

Total: 160 years

But, according to the Assyrian documents, only 160 years can be computed:

The destruction of Samaria dates from the resh sharruti of Sargon who began the 12th

of Tebeth, December 20th, 722 or January 18 of 721, and finished the 2nd or 3rd of April

in the next year (Kugler, op. cit., p. 181).

The captivity of Jehoiachin ended the 25th (Jer. 52:31) or the 27th of the 12th month

(2 Kgs 25:27), in the accession year of Evil-Merodach. Now the first year of Evil-

Merodach, according to Ptolemy’s Canon, is dated to the first of Nisan, 561 BC. The

liberation of Jehoiachin dates then from the 31st of March or the 2nd of April, 561 BC

(Kugler, op. cit., 189).

Therefore there are, according to the above-mentioned Assyrian documents, a little

The proper calculation starts from the fall of Samaria in 723n/723t, which was 724t for calculation

purposes. Hezekiah reigned 37 years more (724t to 687t); his 29 years are measured from the beginning of

his sole reign in 716t, not from 728t as Coucke has it. Then 44 years for the sole reign of Manasseh, 2 years

for Amon, 31 years for Josiah, one year because the reign of Jehoahaz crossed the Tishri boundary, 11

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 19 11/12/2022

years of reign of the kings of Judah after the fall of Samaria were by accession

reckoning.36

B. The autumnal New Year. — Here are some indications in favor of an autumnal

34:19). This year therefore began in the month of Tisrhi.

Baruch wrote (Jer. 36:1–4) the prophecies of Jeremiah in the 4th year of Jehoiakim.

On this occasion, he was ordered to read them before the people on a day of fasting.

Jeremiah meant to designate a known date (Jer. 36:6). Therefore Baruch read these words

in the 9th month of the 5th year of Jehoiakim. The text by no means is intended to

suggest that this pertains to a second reading. On the contrary everything seems to

indicate that the day of the fast of the ninth month was the day designated by Jeremiah

(Jer 36:9–10). How are we to assume that this special fast was fixed more than 9 months

in advance: the difficulty disappears if the year finished when the 7th month came.

community of the exiles learned of the capture of Jerusalem only 16 or 17 months after

the event? This consideration persuaded some critics to follow here the Syriac version

and the text of some Hebrew manuscripts that dated this news to the 11th year of

captivity. In fact, nothing requires us to depart from the most ancient and most

authoritative manuscript tradition: the 12th year began in the 7th month, and Ezekiel

received the news 5 months after the event.

Some authors find a confirmation of this thesis in another passage of the same book.

The prophet (Ezek 40:1) here describes the new Jerusalem at the beginning of the year,

the 10th of the month, which especially brings to mind the 10th day of the seventh month,

which in the terminology of Leviticus, is the great Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:26–32),

Geschicthe Israels, Berlin, 1899, p. 108; Eerdmans, De groote verzoendag, in the

36 Yes they were, except for Zedekiah. Also there was a coregency between Hezekiah and Manasseh.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 20 11/12/2022

2 Chron. 29–30 deals with the first year of Hezekiah. This king wrote some letters to

Ephraim and Manasseh and sent couriers throughout all Israel and Judah. According to

his command they said: “People of Israel: return to Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac,

and Israel and he will return to you who are left, who have escaped from the hand of the

remained a remnant who escaped.

Here is a second argument against the existing chronology for Hezekiah. In 701

Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem and forced Hezekiah (Ha-za-ki-a-u ja-u-da-ai) to pay

him tribute. According to the Bible (2 Kgs 18:13)

[col. 1266]

this event dates to the 14th year of Hezekiah. If this is so, the first year of this king dates

to the autumn of 715, several years after the fall of Samaria.37

of Kings as here in Isaiah, this narrative followed immediately by a piece of the

same genre and from the same source, where the sickness of Hezekiah is related (2

Kgs 20; Isaiah 36–39). It is noted here that at the time of his sickness, Hezekiah

received from the mouth of Isaiah the promise that his life would be prolonged by 15

years (2 Kgs 20:6; Isaiah 38:5). In comparing this account with that of 2 Kgs 18:2,

we see that Hezekiah at the time of his illness had come to the 14th year of his reign

. . . Consequently, however the fact of the illness was perceived [? Par voie de

consequence, comme le fait de la maladie était censé], according to the arrangement

of the texts, as being produced immediately after the Assyrian invasion, it was

doubtless assigned, by means of a modification provided to the text, to the 14th year.

chronologically before the Assyrian invasion.”

with his father Ahaz in 729t/728n, and then Ahaz died in 716t/715n. By establishing a coregency with his

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 21 11/12/2022

of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:13) would have believed, wrongly, that the illness followed 15

years of reign (2 Kgs 20:6; Isaiah 38:5), coming after the campaign of the conquering

Assyrian, and would have concluded from these considerations that the king of Judah

reigned (14 + 15 =) 29 years (1 Kgs 18:2). He would have changed 17 into 29, making an

In the year of the death of king Ahaz, this oracle was proclaimed: “Do not rejoice,

all you Philistines, that the rod that struck you is broken; from the root of that snake will

spring up a viper, its fruit will be a flying, venomous serpent . . . Wail, o gate! Howl, o

city! . . . For a cloud of smoke comes from the north, and there is not a straggler in its

ranks.” (Isaiah 14:28-29 [14:29, 31]). Some think that the rod that smote the Philistines,

and the serpent from which came the flying serpent, is Ahaz. We know that his successor

fought the Philistines as far as Gaza and ravaged their territory, from the Tower of the

Gardens to fortified cities (2 Kgs 18:8). M. Van Hoonacker, (op. cit. p. 7) maintains that

it is the death of Tiglath-Pileser that is alluded to here. We can ask why the death of Ahaz

could be such a great subject of joy for the Philistines.

campaign ana Dimashqa. It is true that the king of Judah had appealed to the conquering

Assyrian, but the Assyrian treated him with harshness and did not strengthen him (2

Chron 18:20–21 [28:20–21]). As for the flying dragon that will cause the bad future, the

prophet seems to see him already in a vision: he comes from the north with a strong

army: this is the king of Assyria.

We think that the rod that Isaiah is talking about is Tiglath-Pileser. The Philistines

had learned that the forces of this king are broken and his end is near. They rejoice in

this. Shalmaneser V succeeded Tiglath-Pileser on the 25th of Tebeth (January 726), three

months after the last year of Ahaz. This explains to us why the prophet dated the year by

the death of Ahaz [Is 14:20]. If the manifestations of joy had broken out in Philistia on

prophecy in the year of the death of Tiglath-Pileser.38

we can choose which death would be the best candidate for causing the Philistines to rejoice. However,

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 22 11/12/2022

Manasseh reigned 55 yrs (2 Kgs 21:1) 698–644

Amon “ 2 yrs (2 Kgs 21:9 [21:19]) 643–642

Josiah “ 31 yrs (2 Kgs 22:1) 641–611

Jehoahaz “ 3 months (2 Kgs 23:31) . . . . . .

If the number (29) for the years of Hezekiah is authentic, his first year is dated

from Tishri of 727. As a result, his resh sharruti could have begun after Tishri of 728 and

before Nisan of 727, during the 3rd year of Hoshea,, which finished on the first of Nisan

or Thoth 727, and the capture of Samaria, January–March 721 in the ninth year of

Hoshea, dates from his 6th year (t. 722–t. 721). We will recall that the investigation of

the chronology of Hezekiah’s predecessors produced the same result.

Finally, M. Van Hoonacker (Les douze petits prophètes, Paris, 1908, pp. 340–

341) has shown that the three first chapters of Micah were part of the same discourse that

dates from before the fall of Samaria. The city was perhaps already under siege.

However, the last words of chapter 3: “Because of you, Zion will become a plowed field,

true. Here is how we could reconstruct the chronology under this hypothesis:

The forger of whom we spoke above, having put back by 12 years the accession

of Hoshea (from the resh sharruti to the 12th year of Ahaz) increased in the same

proportion the length of the reigns of Jotham and

[col. 1268]

Pekah. The number (16) of the years of Ahaz would be authentic. The beginning of the

siege and the capture of Samaria would be dated from his 8th and 10th years, 7th and 9th

of Hoshea. In putting back by 12 years the accession of the last king of Israel, the forger

Samaria: from the 8th and 10th years of Ahaz, to the 4th and 6th years of Hezekiah.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 23 11/12/2022

not reject the coregencies of Jotham and Ahaz. In contrast, Hezekiah would only have

reigned only 17 (29 – 12) years, and the expedition of Sennacherib would be dated to the

14th year of the king of Judah. In this case, a corrector, knowing that Sennacherib’s

expedition fell in the 14th year of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:13) would have believed,

Ahaz from 732 to 716, Hezekiah from 716 to 699, Pekah from 736 to 719, and Hoshea

from 719 to 710.

D. Chronology of Zedekiah. — The chronology of Zedekiah likewise presents some

difficult questions. We saw above that Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 2nd book of Kings

follow the same calendar: the dates of the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem and of the

fall of the city are the proof of this. The years were by accession reckoning and began

around the autumnal equinox. However the 12th month of the 37th year of the captivity

of Jehoiachin is dated from the resh sharruti of Evil-Merodach (2 Kgs 25:27), the 43rd

year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 562–Nisan 561). Hence the 37th year of this captivity

589);42 this 9th year began around the time of the autumnal equinox, 590 BC. The city

was taken on the ninth day of the 4th month of the 11th year (t. 588) of Zedekiah (2 Kgs

25:1–3; Jer. 39:2; 52:6–7), in the month of June 587, the 18th year (Jer. 52:29) of

Nebuchadnezzar, after a siege of two and one-half years.

Except for the synchronisms of Jer. 52:28–29 (which are missing in the Greek and

which correspond entirely to the data of Babylonian documents), all the other

his accession year, i.e. the year he came to the throne. In the following pages he calculates, correctly, that

the fall of Jerusalem was in 588t, which means that the 11 years given to Zedekiah (2 Kgs. 24:18, 2 Chr.

36:11, Jer. Jer. 52:5–9) are measured by non-accession reckoning: it was only 10 full years from 598t to

588t. All texts in 2 Kgs., 2 Chr., Jer., and Ezek. are consistent with this non-accession reckoning for

record therefore must have come from a Babylonian source, not a Judean source. As such it would have

used Babylon’s Nisan years and accession reckoning, for which Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year was (605n – 7)

= 598n. In Adar of that year (16 March 597 BC), he captured Jerusalem and Jehoiachin.

42 This date is correct; see Andrew E. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 24 11/12/2022

synchronisms establish the first year of Nebuchadnezzar as [the year beginning] the first

of Nisan, 605 BC.

Josephus (Contra Apionem I)43 quotes the words of the historian Berossus, who

informs us that Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar’s father, unable to endure the hardships of

52:28–29 are the only ones which conform to the official chronology. These are the last

of the book of Jeremiah. They were added when the official numbers from the annals of

Nebuchadnezzar were already known.45

IV. From the Babylonian captivity until the birth of Christ (see table on following

page [table not given in this translation]). — I. THE CHRONOLOGY OF NEHEMIAH AND

solution of two problems: It is necessary to determine the relation that exists first between

Not only were Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar contemporary, but they were the same

person.46

(Ezra 3:2, 5:2, Neh. 12:1). Sheshbazzar is also a prince of Judah (Ezra 1:8).

Nabopolassar, not being able to endure the hardships any further, put his son Nebuchadnezzar over the

army and sent him against Egypt. But there is nothing in this chapter about a coregency.

realizing that Zedekiah’s reign is counted by non-accession years in 2 Kgs, 2 Chronicles, and Jeremiah. See

Rodger C. Young, “When Did Jerusalem Fall?” JETS 47 (2004), pp. 21–38. See also my notes above about

claiming that these were two names for the same person, but this view has few, if any, more recent

advocates.” Steinmann names Judah Slotki as one such advocate in the last century. To this we should now

add Coucke. Steinmann’s own view, as expressed in his article, is that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel came to

Jerusalem at the same time; Sheshbazzar was the governor at first, but he was old, and his position was

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 25 11/12/2022

pp. 40–46. On p. 46 of the commentary, Steinmann says that because of the many reasons he has

elucidated, the van Hoonacker theory “has largely fallen out of favor among scholars.”

time of Ezra.

49 Jehohanan was the son, not grandson, of Eliashib. Coucke may be confusing Jehohanan with Jonathan,

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 32 11/12/2022

C. Chronological difficulties. — 1. The reign of Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt (181–

146).72 — Ptolemy Philometor reigned 36 years. His last year began on the 29th of

September 146 BC. However, according to 2 Macc. 4:7–22, the enthronement of this

king only took place after the death of Seleucus IV Philopater, who died in the first

The historical circumstances explain this difficulty.

[cols. 1275–1278 (two pages) have the tables showing the chronology of the time of the

Maccabees. These tables are not presented in this translation. The text resumes in col.

1279.]

Ptolemy Eupator should have succeeded Philometor. Eurgetus, the uncle of Eupator,

contested the throne with him and succeeded after some difficulties in seizing power.

Ptolemy Philometor probably died in the month of March, with the 14th of May falling

during the vacancy of the throne, a vacancy prolonged by the difficulties created related

December 165 BC).

The 15th of Kislev is a copyist’s error. Second Maccabees says expressly that the

temple was profaned on the 25th of Kislev and that it was later purified on the same day

(2 Macc. 10:5).

The temple was purified four years (according to the manner of reckoning of the

Jews of this time) after its defilement; 2 Macc. 10:3 reckons an interval of only two years.

This is a copyist’s error.74

3. A simple reconciliation, established between 2 Macc. 8:30–32 and 10:24–38 on the

one hand, and 2 Macc. 12:10–31 on the other hand, shows that there were two generals

to Nisan 164 BC),75 the one in Judea — he died at Gazara — the other in the country of

a vacancy on the throne.

74 Year 145 SE was 311n – 144 (acc) = 167n. According to Parker and Dubberstein, 25 Kislev in 167 BC

was December 11, 167 BC. 148 SE was 311n – 147 (acc) = 164n. 25 Kislev in 164n was December 13, 164

BC. There were 1,098 days between the defilement of the altar and its rededication.

75 We tentatively accept Coucke’s conclusion that 2 Maccabees follows the Macedonian calendar that has

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 33 11/12/2022

[There follows a small table showing dates in the Hasmonean period, followed by the

Roman period. Rulers given are Simon, 143–136 BC, Hyrcanus I, 136–105, Aristobulus

I, 105, Alexander Janneus, 104–77, Alexandra 77–68, Aristobulus II, 68–64. Taking of

the Temple mount by Pompey, 10 Tishri = 24 September 63 BC. Then, under Roman

for the Persian period, in the article Esdras [Ezra] in this dictionary; for the period of the

kings in Herzog, F. A., Die chronologie der beiden Königsbücher, Munster, 1909. The

latest works are cited in F. X. Kugler, Von Moses bis Paulus, Munster, 1922; E. Ruffini,

Chronologia V. et N. Testamenti in aeram nostra collata, Rome, 1924; J. Lewy, Die

Chronologie der Könige von Israël und Juda, Giessen, 1927. Die Gadd’sche Chronik und

die Heilige Schrift (Biblica, 1927, pp. 385–417).

V. Coucke [end of article]

77 As demonstrated above, it was 10 Tishri 36 BC = Oct. 26, 36 BC.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 34 11/12/2022

[cols. 1247 and 1248 (one page) have the table for the reigns of the kings of Judah. Cols.

1249 and 1250 have the kings of Israel. Below is my version of the tables. I replaced

Coucke’s annotation with mine, and also omitted the various comments (links to

Assyrian records, etc.). I have also simplified the formatting.]

Jehoshaphat 25(24) [23] ** 871t/870n 848t** 871t* – 848t**

Jehoram 8 (7) 855t** 848t** 846n/846t** 855t – 847t**

Ahaziah 1 (0) 846n/846t** 846t/845n** 847t – 846t**

Athaliah 7 (6) 846t/845n** 840n/840t** 846t?– 841t**

Jehoash 40 (39) 840n/840t** 802t** 841t – 802t**

Amaziah 29 803t/802n** 802t** 775t/774n** 803t – 775t**

Amaziah, alternate [17] 803t/802n** 802t** 787t** 803t – 787t**

Hezekiah 29 728t/727n** 699t** 728t – 699t**

Hezekiah, alt. [17] 716t* 699t** 716t – 699t**

Manasseh 55 (54) 699t** 644t* 699t – 644t**

Amon 2 644t* 642t* 644t – 642t**

Josiah 31 642t* 610 BC* 642t – 611t**

Jehoahaz 3 mo. 610 BC* 610t* 610 BC*

Jehoiakim 11 610t* Dec599/Jan598* 610t – 599t*

Jehoiachin 3 mo. 10 d. Dec599/Jan598* Nisan 598* 599t*

Zedekiah 11 (10) Nisan 598* 588t 599t* – 588t

He misses these coregencies: Asa/Jehoshaphat, Uzziah/Jotham, Jotham/Ahaz, Ahaz/Hezekiah, and

Hezekiah/Manasseh.

He emends the following reign lengths: Jehoshaphat, Amaziah alt., Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah alt.

USB3:\Current Web page\articles\Coucke translation 35 11/12/2022

* means slight difference between my figures (i.e. Thiele’s, basically) and Coucke's. ** means a significant difference.