R.P. BenDedek
Hazael of Damascus and Jehu of Israel
By R.P.BenDedek
Nov 12, 2010 - 12:07:08 AM

When did Hazael of Damascus and Jehu of Israel Reign?

If you check the history books, you will see that King Hazael of Syria commenced to reign circa 842/841 BCE, and furthermore, that King Ahab of Israel died circa (but after) the Battle of Qarqar (Karkar) in 853 BCE.

As you read the historical pronouncements of times, dates and places, you should pay attention to how often the academics will quote from the Bible to corroborate their historical reconstructions. But can you rely on their Bible references? Furthermore, can they rely on their 'non-Biblical' references?

Did Ahab die in 853 BCE?

The Bible Synchronisms demonstrate that King Ahab's son 'Ahaziah' had his two year rule during Ahab's last two years, and that his brother Jehoram commenced to reign during Ahab's last year. The Bible also says that Jehoram reigned 12 years. Therefore, if Ahab died around 853 BCE, then it is possible for the usurper King Jehu to have slain King Jehoram of Israel in 841 BCE.

Does this fit the picture painted by Biblical Chronology? Let's see.

If King Ahab of Israel died in 853 BCE after reigning 22 years, then he commenced in 875 BCE (in the 38th year of Asa of Judah - as per the Bible)

If Asa King of Judah reigned 37 years prior to that, then he commenced in 912 BCE

If his father Abijah reigned 3 years before, then he commenced in 915 BCE

If Rehoboam reigned for 17 years prior to that, then he commenced in 932 BCE

If King Solomon's Temple was commenced 36 years before that, then it was commenced in 968 BCE.

If the Israelites entered Canaan 440 years prior to that, then the year was 1408 BCE.

And the Exodus occurred in 1448 BCE.

All is right with the world - Apparently.

Except that:

(1) Dates provided for the Exodus and Entry into Canaan are only correct if you use the Septuagint instead of the Accepted Biblical Text (Masorete), in which case the dates will be 1448 BCE and 1488 BCE - both of which are unacceptable. (1 Kings 6:1 The 480 Years)

(2) If you add the Biblical Data from the Destruction of Solomon's Temple (586 BCE) to it's commencement during the 4th of Solomon's 40 years, 429 years transpire, meaning that the Temple was commenced in 1015 BCE. This is not acceptable to historians. It means that the Exodus occurred in either 1495 BCE or 1535 BCE, both of which are unacceptable dates.

Traveling the Other Direction in Time.

If Ahab died in 853 BCE and was followed by his son Jehoram who, after 12 years of reign was killed by Jehu in 842/841 BCE then the following picture emerges:

If Jehu commenced to reign for 28 years in 841 BCE, then he reigned until 813 BCE

If his son Jehoahaz reigned 17 years, then he reigned until 796 BCE

If his son Joash reigned 16 years then he reigned until 780 BCE

If his son Jeroboam II reigned 41 years then he reigned until 739 BCE

However:

From 739 BCE to 732 BCE when Damascus fell and King Rezin was killed [see: Syro-Ephraimitic War (Part 8) ] then there were only 7 years left to the Kingdom of Israel in which to fit the reigns of:

Zechariah & Shallum (1 year)

Menehem (10 years)

Pekahiah (2) years

Plus Pekah's reign, which, according to Scripture, commenced in the last year of King Uzziah of Judah.

Furthermore, in relation to the Kingdom of Judah, Jeroboam II's reign ends and Zechariah's Reign commences in the 38th year of Uzziah who is supposed to have reigned 52 years.

Although academics compress Uzziah's reign by making him co-reign with his father, and compress Jotham's reign by making him co-reign with Uzziah, these last 7 years must contain:

Whatever is left of King Jotham's co-rule and independent reign - and -
The first 12 years of King Ahaz' reign, - because -
Scripture tells us that King Ahaz of Judah was in his 12th year when King Hoshea of Israel replaced Pekah.

Clearly something is wrong.

To begin with, the King's Calendar demonstrates that Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel were killed by Jehu in 849 BCE, not 842-841 BCE., therefore the 7 years mentioned above between the time of Jeroboam's death and Fall of Damascus could be increased to 14 years.

What is more important however, is that Jeroboam II could not have died in 739 BCE, for this would place his death during the reign of Tiglath Pileser III, and according to the Bible and one version of ancient history, in 743 BCE, Tiglath Pileser III took tribute from King Menehem of Israel.

It is worth nothing, that just as we shall see further on in relation to other historical records, there is nothing absolutely certain in relation to the records of Tiglath Pileser III. (Part 7 - Tiglath Pileser III and King Menehem's Tribute)

What do we make of all this? The answer is simple: 'The Bible must not be trustworthy!' But we must also ask, "Just how trustworthy are opinions and the records upon which secular academics rely?"

What Evidence is there that Ahab died in 853 BCE?

There is absolutely none at all. Calculating Biblical Records and backdating from 732 BCE when it is believed that King Pekah of Samaria (Israel) died, then Ahab died 10 years prior to the Battle of Qarqar. How do we determine this? We count out all the reigns that occur between a known historical date (732 BCE) and Ahab's death.

Jehoram reigned for 12 years after Ahab (ignore Ahaziah's 2 years)

Jehu reigned for 28 years

Jehoahaz reigned 17 years

Jehoash reigned 16 years

Jeroboam II reigned 41 years

Menehem reigned 10 years (ignore Zechariah and Shallum)

Pekahiah reigned 2 years

Pekah reigned 5-8 years (according to the experts - Bible says 20 years)

Total = 131 - 134 years

Add this to 732 BCE when Pekah was overthrown (perhaps 731 BCE)

Arrive at 863 - 866 BCE for the Time of Ahab's death.

We see here that in addition to there being no mention in the Bible that Ahab was at the battle of Qarqar, that according to the chronology of the Kings of Israel, he simply could not have been there. Despite this however there is an extra-Biblical record indicating that Ahab was at the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE). His name is listed on the Kurkh Stele inscription.

The Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III in the British Museum, is the lynch pin upon which all theories concerning the reign of Ahab are hinged, and with good reason. This archaeological record specifically names the King of Israel, as being one of the Kings in coalition against Shalmaneser, in the Battle of Qarqar, in 853 BCE. This is what is referred to in law as, 'Direct Evidence'. [See: Mitchell.T.C. (1988) The Bible in the British Museum: Interpreting the Evidence. British Museum Publishing. (p.44)]

However

There are in fact two Assyrian records of this battle, and in one, no names are mentioned.

The Throne Base Inscription, as a piece of Direct Documentary Evidence, does not implicate Ahab in the battle of Qarqar. Nor in fact does it corroborate the Kurkh Stele's assertion, but if it did, it would still not be considered corroboration, since the testimony would not be independent.

The one and only piece of evidence to support Ahab's presence at the battle, is not supported or corroborated by any other records, even of those left by the same witness.

Ahlstrom does not trust the figures in the Kurkh Stele. (Ahlstrom.G.W. [1993] The History of Ancient Palestine. USA Minneapolis. Fortress Press) page 578, citing Na'aman. M. (1976) Two notes on the Monolithic Inscription of Shalmaneser III from Kurkh. Tel Aviv 3. pp89-106)

His discourse leads us not only to the conclusion that the circumstantial evidence to support the facts in the direct evidence is missing, but that the direct evidence cannot be 'trusted'. That the data cannot be trusted and is tainted with scribal errors, negates its effectiveness as either a witness, or as an 'evidence'.

(King's Calendar Chapter 7 The Battle of Qarqar 853 BCE)

Academics admit that the information in the 'Kurkh Stela' is erroneous and exaggerated, and that despite it's claim that Ahab alone (irrespective of all the other kings in Syro-Ephraimitic alliance) had more chariots than the enemy, that not only was such not possible, but had such been the case, he could hardly have been the lacky of the Syrian King. Not only this, but when the two records of this event are compared, in one, Ahab is not even mentioned. See:

Assyrian, Babylonian and Israelite History 8thCentury

Rules of Evidence: Battle of Qarqar 853 BCE (4 Parts)

Academic 'misdirection'

What of King Hazael of Damascus (Syria)?

Bright (1981, p.254) places Hazael on the throne of Syria c. 842 BCE - 806 BCE. An important to point note with reference to ancient Assyrian documents however, is that a particular king being mentioned by name does not legitimise the reference. [Refer to Miller & Hayes 1963, p.332 and the discussion on erroneous identification of Tubail of Tyre, in records of tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III.]

According to the historical records, the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE was really a standoff between Ben-Hadad and his coalition against the Assyrians, and that it would be 5 years before the Assyrian king tried once again to invade Syria.

In both 848 BCE and 845 BCE the coalition of Syro-Phoenician kings successfully withstood Shalmaneser of Assyria and the Assyrian records for both events name Ben-Hadad as leader of the coalition. In 841 BCE however, only one king withstood the Assyrians, and that was King Hazael of Damascus.

It is therefore assumed that Hazael had taken the throne sometime between 845 BCE and 841 BCE. Unfortunately, as already mentioned in relation to the Kurkh Stele, and to Tiglath-Pileser's records (and indeed to Nebuchadrezzar's and many others), one cannot put one's implicit trust in those records.

There is another record however that relates the timing of Hazael's death. Josephus in Antiquities 9:6:1 indicates that Hazael came to the throne prior to Jehoram's death, which by the standard of the 'King's Calendar' occurred in 849 BCE. (Note that in the previous rough calculation for the death of Ahab, Jehoram commenced circa 863-866 BCE and therefore died circa 851 BCE.)

From these perspectives, we could assume that Ben-Hadad died between the time of the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE, and the next Assyrian invasion in 848 BCE and that it was Hazael who led the coalition.

Given the circumstances of Shalmaneser's repeated failures to gain control of those countries to the west of the Euphrates between 853 BCE and 845 BCE, it is not at all implausible that the circumstances of Ben-Hadad's death had not reached him by 845 BCE and he therefore once again recorded Ben-Hadad's name as being leader of the coalition in that year, even though its' leader was Hazael.

[Of course, while I say 'he', one must understand that Ben-Hadad's name may not have been inserted into the record until decades after the battle; and additionally, the name itself is not a personal name that could identify a particular person. The 'name' Ben-Hadad may well have been recorded as the generic name for the specific individual - Hazael.]

When Academics Quote the Bible.

When academics quote the Bible we must realise that they do so to support their theories, but as I pointed out in When was King Solomon's Temple Built?

If one is going to state a date for any event in the history of Israel, then they can't provide that date in 'isolation'. This is to say that if someone uses the Bible to demonstrate that their date is correct for something, you have to check to see if that date is supported by the surrounding Bible Chronology.

One academic on one site produced Scripture to support his dates for King Josiah and King Solomon, but when the Biblical chronology was applied to the intervening time period, it became obvious that one of those dates had to be wrong. The intervening time did not match what the Bible said.

That academics fail to synchronise 'all' Biblical Chronological references is what happens when they fail to look 'outside of their little boxes'. Just about every academic alters the Biblical data wherever and whenever they choose. The King's Calendar however is bound by the mathematical priciple of 'linear causality' - Alter one thing and everything must be changed. ( King's Calendar Linear Causality)

The King's Calendar operates on the basis that the Biblical Chronological Data was altered up to 600 years before it became the Christian Bible. Principally between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE, the redactors concealed the true chronological history of Israel in a simple mathematical formula from which they created years of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days to total 336 days per Biblical Year.

When this value is applied to the Biblical Data, all the chronological synchronisms listed in the books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period align, and whilst providing a slightly different perspective on history, generally speaking, demonstrate that traditional historians have been reasonably on track the whole time.

Summary

There is no actual evidence that Hazael of Damascus commenced to reign in 842 / 841 BCE

There is no actual evidence that King Ahab of Israel died circa 853 BCE

What evidence is available is far too general or inconsistent to count as evidence in a court of law.

There is chronological evidence in the Bible to dispute both dates for both events.

There is an extra-Biblical evidence that supports Hazael being on the throne of Damascus prior to 849 BCE

There is an acient record 'The Moabite Stone' whose record supports the King's Calendar calculation for the reigns of Ahab and Jehoram.

Hazael of Damascus came to power between 853 BCE and 849 BCE

Jehu of Israel came to power by February of 848 BCE.

King's Calendar Divided Kingdom Chart

King's Calendar Divided Kingdom Chart

R.P.Bendedek

Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com

R.P.BenDedek is the Author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' and a guest columnist at Magic City Morning Star News.

"The King's Calendar" [ on sale - while the economic recession is on], is a chronological study of the historical books of the Bible (Kings and Chronicles), Josephus, Seder Olam Rabbah, and the (Essene) Damascus Document of The Dead Sea Scrolls. See Chapter Precis page.

Academic Articles at Magic City