Ancient Orient and Old Testament - BiblicalStudies.org.uk

K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966. Hbk. pp.191.
have difficulties persisted: the interpretation of certain data from the reigns of Ahaz and
Hezekiah, 68 and certain dates linked with the capture and fall of Jerusalem in the period 609-587/6
BC. 69 New data and close study may well eliminate even these quite limited problems.
[p.77]
One must remember that ancient methods of reckoning were not the same as ours. In the Ancient
Near East two main kinds of regnal year are attested. By one method, a king reckoned the interval
between his accession and the next New Year’s Day as his accession-year (in effect, attributing
that year to his deceased predecessor) and began his first regnal year with New Year’s Day. This
system was current in Mesopotamia. By the second method, a king counted the interval between
his accession and New Year’s Day as his first regnal year (in effect, attributing that whole year to
his own reign), and began his second regnal year on New Year’s Day. This was the Egyptian
method. The official years of a king on the first system are his real total reign; but on the second
system, the official regnal years of a king will always be one higher than his real total (unless he
died exactly at midnight on New Year’s Eve, an unlikely event). Thus, if two kings were exactly
contemporary but used different systems, their regnal years would always show a difference of
one year at any given time. 70 Proper understanding and application of these methods is the main
key to the detailed figures in Kings and Chronicles.
(c) Exile and Later
The main framework of chronology from 600 BC onwards is on the whole well fixed, 71 and the
only biblical question of note is the dispute over the relative order of Ezra and Nehemiah. Suffice
it to say here that the biblical order is factually no more objectionable than the often advocated
reverse order. 72
Irwin), 1956, pp. 39-52, and in AUSS 1 (1963), pp. 121-138, AUSS 2 (1964), pp. 120-136. The rival scheme of
Albright (BASOR 100 (1945), pp. 16-22; cf. BANE, pp. 208-213 and pp. 226-228, notes 20-50) is inferior in
both its methods and results (cf. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers.... 1951 ed., pp. 244-267, A Stubborn Faith..., pp.
39-41, and AUSS 1 (1963), pp. 132 ff.). The same may be said of V. Pavlovsky and E. Vogt, Biblica 45
(1964), 321-347, cf. 348-354, and Jepsen in A. Jepsen and R. Hanhart, Untersuchungen zur Israelitisch Jüdischen
Chronologie, 1964.
68 See commentary to Table II in my Hittite Hieroglyphs, Aramaeans and Hebrew Traditions (forthcoming).
Recent discussions include those of H. Tadmor, Scripta Hierosoymitana VIII (Studies in the Bible), 1961, pp.
232-271; C. Schedl, VT 12 (1962), pp. 88-119; S. H. Horn, AUSS 2 (1964), pp. 40-52; and E. R. Thiele, VT
16 (1966), 83-103, 103-7.
69 Recent discussions include: W. F. Albright, BASOR 143 (1956), pp. 28-33; E. R. Thiele, ibid., pp. 22-27; H.
Tadmor, JNES 15 (1956), pp. 226-230; J. P. Hyatt, JBL 75 (1956), pp. 277-284; D. N. Freedman, BA 19
(1956), pp. 50-60; E. Vogt, VTS IV, 1957, pp. 67-96; E. Kutsch, ZAW 71 (1959) pp. 270-274; E. Auerbach,
VT 9 (1959), pp. 113-121; VT 10 (1960), pp. 69-70; VT 11 (1961), pp. 128-136; and C. Schedl, ZAW 74
(1962) pp. 209-213.
70 When neighbouring states also begin their calendar years at different seasons (e.g., in spring or autumn),
or when civil and calendar years do not coincide (as in New Kingdom Egypt), then further complications
enter into our attempts to unravel Ancient Near Eastern chronology, biblical or otherwise.
71 For Mesopotamia, cf. R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 626 BC-AD 75, 1956,
giving tables to turn Mesopotamian dates into Julian dates; for Egyptian dates in the Twenty-sixth Dynasty,
cf. R. A. Parker, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, 15 (1957), pp. 208-212;
and E. Hornung, ZAS 92 (1965), pp. 38-39 (solar eclipse).
72 General survey (reversing order of Ezra and Nehemiah) is given by H. H. Rowley, ‘The Chronological
Order of Ezra and Nehemiah’ in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays, 1952, pp. 131-159. A modified ‘re-