CHEOXOLOGY OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 257 



between 2 Kings xvi, 10, when Ahaz went to Damascus to meet 

 Tiglath after that town had been taken, B.C. 732, and 2 Kings 

 xvii, 1, when Hoshea's reign began, B.C. 731 : it does not suit 

 B.C. 734, when Ahaz paid tribute indeed, but Samaria had 

 certainly not been deported: yet, because in 734 the list of 

 governors mentions Tiglath's campaign to Philistia, and in 732 

 does not mention that to Samaria specifically, but includes it in 

 that to Damascus (which is far more consistent than including 

 it in that to Philistia), the Assyriologists put it at the earlier 

 date, thus introducing a purely unnecessary discordance with 

 the simple Scriptural narrative, and greatly confusing the 

 historic sequence in Assyria. 



Such in outline are the meagre but really sufficient data for 

 this dozen years, derivable from the Assyrian annals of Tiglath 

 Pileser and the Book of Kings. The difficult point to deter- 

 mine is the identity of Paqaha. At first sight it is natural to 

 identify him with Pekah. But the retention of Pekah as 

 the predecessor of Hoshea entails all the arbitrary mutilations 

 of four reigns which I have previously noticed. The name 

 Pekahiah seems to lend itself to the transliteration Paqaha 



just as well as Pekah ; for, although iah is represented 



by au in Hazakiau for Hezekiali and Assiyaau for 



Azariah, this latter name also appears as Asriau. If we take 

 then Paqaha to be Pekahiah and transfer Pekah to a position 

 between Zechariah and Shallum, perfect agreement with the 

 Assyrian annals will be obtained, and any alteration of regnal 

 years in the Hebrew text will be unnecessary. 



Let us then examine the text and ascertain whether any 

 violent or impracticable changes are involved in this hypothesis. 



The order of the restored text will be — 



Zechariah v. 4-9, 11-12. 



Pekah v. 27-29, 31. 



Shallum v. 10, 13-16. 



Menahem ... ... ... v. 17-22. 



Pekahiah v. 23-26. 



The change in the order is confined to the replacement of 

 5 verses : 10, 27, 28, 19, 31 : and no syllable of the text itself 

 would be interfered with; but there is one verse (30) which 

 is not enumerated above for which I can find no defence in 

 any way. That Hoshea did not obtain the throne by an 

 independent conspiracy, but was appointed by Tiglath, who 

 had smitten Pekah, we know fi^om the Assyrian annals ; and 

 the 20th year of Jotham is an impossible date ; for Jothaui 



