quote:
Originally posted by cloud_strife
Many scholars say that in the twentieth year of Asa's reign, the tribes of Benjamin and Judah separated from Israel, and the author of 1 Kings is counting from the separation, while the author of 2 Chronicles is counting from the beginning of Asa's reign.
I would also like to see more information on this, because it doesn't appear to be correct as quoted. I think that whoever originally posted this is confusing something that he has read somewhere else.
First off, the split began with the reigns of Rehoboam (Judah) and Jeroboam I (Israel) c. 931 b.c.
.....Judah..................................Israel................
Rehoboam 931-914....................Jeroboam I 931-909
Abijam 914-911.........................Nadab 909-908.....
Asa 911-870.............................Baasha 908-885....
Jehoshaphat 870-846.................Elah 885-884......
Second, your quote says that I Kings is counting from a (supposed) separation in Asa's 20th year. Counting
what from the separation? Unless, I have missed something, I Kings gives no regnal date for Baasha's attack on Judah. I Kg. 15:16 & 32 simply say that, ". . . there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days".
Now, Kings can't be counting the dates of Baasha's reign from this supposed split in Asa's 20th year. A quick crunch of the numbers shows this to be untenable. For instance, I Kg. 15:33, "In the 3rd year of Asa. . began Baasha to reign." According to your quote, this would be the 3rd year counting from Asa's 20th year, which would mean that Baasha didn't begin to reign until Asa's 23rd year; just doesn't work. And worse, I Kg. 16:8, "In the 26th year of Asa. . began Elah to reign". If Kings is counting from the 20th year of Asa, then this would mean that Elah began to reign in the 46th year of Asa. And yet, Asa only reigned for 41 years; again, just doesn't work.
And further, it can't be said that the Chronicles are counting from a split in Asa's 20th year either. Since the Chronicles state that Baasha attacked Judah in Asa's 36th year, this would mean the 56th years of Asa's reign; obviously, this is even worse.
What I suspect, then, is that the person who answered your question on the other board actually meant to indicate that Kings and/or the Chronicles are counting these regnal dates from the
actual split in 931 b.c.
Thus, Chronicles 16:1, stating that, "In the 36th year of Asa, Baasha . . came up against Judah", would be during Asa's reign but in the 36th year after the actual split in 931 b.c. Since, as shown above, Asa began his reign 20yrs after the separation (and I suspect this is where the 20 yr. figure in the quote was misunderstood), the 36th year after the split, in the reign of Asa, would be the 16th year of Asa's personal reign, or c. 895 b.c. Since the numbers can then be made to mesh using 931 b.c. as the count start, it is said that no contradiction exists.
However, there are problems with this harmonization. One problem is that later in the same chapter (16) in verse 12, the years of Asa's reign are given in a context that cannot be reconciled to a count start from 931 b.c. II Chr. 16:12, "And was diseased, Asa, in the 39th year of his reign. If a count start from 931 b.c. is intended here, it would mean that Asa was diseased in his 19th year (with 22 yrs. yet to reign) and this is untenable. Yet, even though it argues for two different methods of calculation in the same chapter, the fact that verse 12 specifies "his" reign could be taken to specify his "personal" reign in this instance.
But then, another more serious difficulty arises in the chapter immediately preceding, i.e. II Chr. 15. This chapter talks about Asa removing all the places of idol worship from Judah and, also, from the areas of Ephraim which have come under his control. He is told (in verse 8) that there would be a reward for this work. At the culmination of Asa's efforts, the people held a huge sacrifice and entered into a covenant with YHWH "with all their hearts and souls". This took place in the 3rd month of the 15th year of Asa's reign (vs. 10). Here again, this can't be counting from 931 b.c. because, obviously, Asa wouldn't have even been reigning yet at this time.
Because of these efforts by Asa, verse 15 says that "YHWH gave rest to them all around". Verse 19 makes the further statement, "And there was no war until the 35th year of the reign of Asa".
But here, this 35th year of Asa must also be counted from 931 b.c. or Baasha would already be dead (for 9 yrs.) and wouldn't, of course, to able to attack Judah. If, though, this 35th year is counted from 931 as it must be, then it would be the 15th year of Asa's personal reign. Yet it makes no sense for verse 10 to say that they made this covenant with YHWH in the 3rd month of the 15th year, then (vs. 15) "and YHWH gave rest to them all around, when verse 19 says there was war in Asa's 15th year.
Given the vagaries of counting 1st regnal years and depending on which particular month of the year Asa actually succeeded to the throne, it might be just possible to squeak Baasha's attack on Judah into a time period a few months after Asa's cleansing of Judah and the renewal of the covenant with YHWH. Even giving this benefit of the doubt, however, it would be hard to consider that a few short months would qualify as the "rest from war" that Asa was promised in return for his efforts. If Chronicles did intend the 35th year to be the 35th year of Asa's personal reign, that would allow a 20 year period in which Judah was at rest from war which would seem more rational.
Thus, on reconsideration, the two accounts could conceivably be reconciled, but it would require some contortions and rationalizations.
Namaste'
Amlodhi
[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 01-31-2004]
™ Version 4.2