258 F. GARD FLEAY, ESQ., ON THE SYNCHEONOUS 



reigned only 16 years. If Hoshea's predecessor was Pekah, 

 son of Kemaliah, we cannot evade the difficulties which I 

 have already pointed out ; but they disappear if this verse 

 be rejected, as it must be, on the ground that its writer was 

 ignorant Of the facts now disclosed in the annals of Assyria and 

 of the chronology of the neighbouring kingdom of Judah. 

 Moreover, he contradicts 2 Kings xvii, 1, which assigns the 

 accession of Hoshea to the 12th year of Ahaz, which cannot by 

 any means be identified with the impossible 20th of Jotham. 

 An exactly similar instance of insertion of an unauthentic verse 

 occurs in 2 Kings i, 17, where Joram of Israel is said to 

 accede in the 2nd year of Jehoram of Judah, in direct contra- 

 diction to 8, 16, where the true statement is given, viz., that the 

 accession of Jehoram of Judah took place in the 5 th year of 

 Joram of Israel. 



How the error in the case of Pekah may have arisen is easy 

 to explain. It is clear that " the chronicles of the Kings of 

 Israel " were arranged under the headings of the " acts " of the 

 several kings in independent documents. Let us separate them 

 thus : — 



Acts of Zechariah ... v. 8-9, , 11-12. 

 „ Pekah ... v. 25, 27-29, , 31. 



Shallum ... v. 10, 13, , 15. 



Menahem ... v. 14 16-22. 



Pekahiah ... v. 23-24, , 26. 

 „ Hoshea ... v. 30, ch. xvii, 1-41. 



When the Book of Kings was compiled, the four verses 25, 

 10, 14, 30, which I will call ''head links" were inserted in the 

 four places marked by carets (a) respectively, so as to bind the 

 narrative into a consecutive whole. Zechariah and Pekahiah 

 are fixed in position as sons of their predecessors Jeroboam and 

 Menahem, and in the head link, v. 14, " Menahem, son of Gadi, 

 . . . smote Shallum, son of Jabesh," is definite and con- 

 clusive. The succession of all the kings except Pekah is 

 therefore fixed. But the head link v. 30 has been shown not 

 to be authentic, and those in v. 25 and v. 10 are not definite. 

 We have only, " Pekah son of Eemaliah smote hivi," and 

 " Shallum son of Jabesh smote him," in place of expressly 

 stated names defining the kings smitten ; this leaves it open to 

 insert Pekah either after Zechariah or after Pekahiah, and 

 unfortunately he was inserted in the wrong place, and the 

 surreptitious verse 30 was afterwards put in to justify the 

 wrong insertion. 



