Toby
In the 14th (not 24th) year of Hezekiah
Thu Apr 12, 2018 01:07
2600:8801:901:4610:70df:ea01:8328:172e

Joe,

You wrote:
"Now a simple back calculation of the reign dates, given in the bible, from Nabu-kudurri-uṣur’s annexation of Judah in 587 back to the Assyrian 701 campaign would require that the end of this campaign would have occurred in the 24th year of Ḥezekiah (during autumn 701, after the autumn new year)."

well, here's my simple calculation:
1. Starting point: Nebuchadnezzar Year 1 = 605bc = his first campaign against Jerusalem.

2. Here are the Kings between Sennacherib and
722bc Sargon 17? years
705bc Sennacherib 24? years
681bc Essarhaddon 12/13 years
668bc Shamash-sum-ukin 20
648bc Kandalanu 21/22
626bc Nabopolassar 21
605bc Nebuchadnezzar 43
----------------------
total: 24 + 12 + 1 + 20 + 21 + 1 + 21 = 100

3. Note, in the 'total', there are two places which are "+ 1". According to David Rice, there are 2 more years reckoned in this period. 1 year for the accession of Essarhaddon, and another for apparently, there was a bit of a rivalry going on between the death of Kandalanu and the accession of Nabopolassar which accounts for 1 more year, i.e. 76 years

4. Note that I have question marks (?) next to Sargon and Sennarcherib. The main reason for this, is that the 'main' Assyrian Kings List does NOT include these guys. There was a colophon of it by a later scribe that appended them to the list. And there are some descrepancies in the other sources. So, it starts to get not so simple.

5. Consider a snippet of the Babylonian King list.

(7) 2 Sin-akhi-erba
Marduk-zakir-shum, 1 month
Marduk-aplu-iddin, 9 months
(8) 3 Bel-ibni
(9) 6 Asshur-nadin-shum
(10) 1 Nergal-ushezib
(11) 4 Mushezib-Marduk
(12) 8 Sin-aki-erba

a. It should be noted, that the `2' in `2 Sin-akhi-erb' means that he (Sinnacherib) reigned in Babylon for 2 years.
b. Notice also, that `Sin-akhi-erb' is listed twice (the 2nd time as `8 Sin-aki-erba'.
c. 14 years, i.e. (3 + 6 +1 + 4)) separates these 2 listings.
d. The 2nd listing of `Sin-akhi-erb' has him ruling for 8 years. So, if we add up all these years between and including the 2 listings of Sennacherib, i.e. `2 Sin-akhi-erba' and `8 Sin-aki-erba', we end up 
with 24 years as follows:
2 + 3 + 6 +1 + 4 + 8 = 24years

6. THE BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE.
In appendix G of `Time and Prophecy', David Rice presents some evidence for why he thinks Sennacherib's reign lasted 24 years. Mr Rice discusses 16 `entries' from the inscription called the "Babylonian Chronicle 1'. Here is Mr Rice's comments on entries 6 to 12: 

"(6) The Chronicle is broken at this point. The last year mentioned for Sargon is year seventeen, but this is a restoration (no doubt a correct one) by the translator. Lines 9 through 18 which probably record the end of Sargon's reign and the episodes following are too broken for translation, and the narrative next speaks of Sennacherib, who was Sargon's successor as king of Assyria. However, an Assyrian eponym list fragment for the eponym year of "Upakhkhir-Bel, governor of Amedi" includes this note: "On the twelfth day of the month of Ab, Sinakhe-erba (Sennacherib) took his seat on the throne" (Rogers, 238).103 As this is the 22nd year after a notation that Shalmaneser ascended the throne, and as he reigned 5 years, this gives to Sargon a reign of 17 years over Assyria. Since he replaced Merodach-Baladan in year 12, that leaves 5 years for Sargon to be king of Babylon.
(7-12) These segments of Ptolemy's Canon all fit within the 24 year reign of Sennacherib. In the Chronicle we find this statement. "For [twenty-four] years Sennacherib ruled Assyria" (Grayson, 81). This number is a translator's restoration, but as Grayson's footnote says "It is known from the eponym lists that Sennacherib ruled for 24 years" (Grayson, 81). This is not apparent from Thiele's list (see footnote 103), but it is from the one published by Rogers. For the eponym year of Nabu-ake-eresh, 24 years after the accession of Sennacherib, is the notation "Esarhaddon took his seat on the throne"
(Rogers 225, see also Smith 39, citing Canon I)."

And please note, that in Grayson's quote of the Babylonian Chronicle, "For [twenty-four] years Sennacherib ruled Assyria", the [twenty-four] is in brackets, which means that it is, as David Rice says: `This number is a translator's restoration'. 

My point here, is that while there appears to be some good evidence for a 24year reign of Sennacherib, there still are some uncertainties due to the broken and missing parts of the tablets.

7. ASSYRIAN EPONYM LIST
Rice's Appendix H contains the Assyrian Eponym list, extracted from Dr. Thiele; and Mr Rice is correct in that I tried in vain to locate: the eponym year of "Upakhkhir-Bel". IT was not there. If Shalmaneser started reigning in 726bc, then 22 years later would bring us to 702bc. Here is a snippet from this Eponym list during this period:

705 Nashir-Bel
704 Nabu-din-epush
703 Kannunnai
702 Nabu-li
701 Hananai
700 Metunu
699 Bel-sharani
698 Shulmu-shar

However, the good news is that in 681bc, in this same list, is the following (just as David Rice asserts):

681 Nabu-ah-eresh

The question, however, is, WHO MADE THE Esarhaddon NOTATION which ROGERS and SMITH refer to? 
And why is there a discrepancy between Thiele's and Roger's version of the Eponym List?

7. "From some period early in their history -- possibly from the very beginning of the kingdom -- to the end, the Assyrians followed the practice of each year appointing to the office of eponym, or limmu, some high official of the court, the governor of a province, or the king himself. The limmu held office for a calendar year, and to that year was given the name of the individual then occupying the position of limmu." -- D.Rice

This means that if a king is listed in the eponym list, it does not correspond to the year he ascended the throne. 

The AKL (Assyrian King List) is just a list of the Assyrian Kings and the length of their reign. Scholars have listed the actual year (like 727bc etc.) of the first year of each king. Here is a pertinent snippet:

859 35 Sulmanu-asared III
824 13 Samsi-adad V
811 28 Adad-nerari III
783 10 Sulmanu-asared IV
773 18 Assur-dan III
755 10 Assur-nerari V
745 18 Tukulti-apil-Esarra III
727 5 Shalmanu-asared V

Now, compare these 8 kings, as well as Sargon (721bc) and Sennacherib (705bc), to the years of their appearance in the Eponym List. 

857 Shalmaneser
822 Shamshi-Adad (king)
809 Adad-nirari
781 Shalmaneser (king)
771 Assur-dan
753 Assur-nirari (king)
743 Tiglath-pileser (king)
725 Mahde [Sam.]
724 Assur-ishmeani [Sam.]
723 Shalmnsr (king) [Sam.]
719 Sargon (king)
687 Sennacherib (king)

Notice, the pattern in the 2 lists above. Every king,
---- except Sennacherib----
was listed in the eponym list, 2 years after they ascended the throne. Here's a summary.

Sulmanu-asared III became king in 859, and was on the eponym list 2 years later in 857
Samsi-adad V became king 824, and was on the eponym list 2 years later in 822
Adad-nerari III became king in 811, and was on the eponym list 2 years later in 809
Sulmanu-asared IV became king in 783, and was on the eponym list 2 years later in 781
Assur-dan III became king in 773, and was on the eponym list 2 years later in 771
Assur-nerari V became king in 755, and was on the eponym list 2 years later in 753
Tukulti-apil-Esarra III became king in 745, and was on the eponym list 2 years later in 743
Shalmanu-asared V became king in 727, and was on the eponym list 2 years later in 725-723
Sargon became king in 721, and was on the eponym list 2 years later 719
Sennacherib became king in 705, and was on the eponym list 18 years later 687

8. Sennacherib, was different than all the other kings for he took 18 years to make the Eponym list, when he should have taken only 2 years. That is, 18 years is 16 years too long. This is the anomaly. From the time Sargon became king in 721, until the eponym list says Sennacherib was king in 689 (2 years prior to his eponym), is 32 years. 

Did Sargon really reign 32 years? 

Or, did he reign 17 years to 705, die, and then Senacharib reigned as King of Assyria for the rest of those 32 years (i.e. 32-17 = 15) until 689, whereupon he also became king of Babylon and reigned 8 more years for about 24 total?

Or did Sargon reign 17 years, as king of Assyria, to 705, then become King of Babylon, whereupon he changed his name to Sennacherib (like Pul(Babylonian) and Tiglathpileser(Assyrian) were the same person), and ruled 2 years as as both, but then he was deposed at Babylon, then 14 years later, he conquered Babylon again bring us to 
689, whereupon he ruled 8 more years. Hence, he was reckoned as 24 years from his first year of his first reign in Babylon until the last year of his last reign in Babylon. This would mean, that he ruled 17 + 24 years as King of Assyria. The first 17 years he is called Sargon, the last 24 he is Sennacherib.

9. We might tentatively tabulate the Babylonian and Assyrian records:

Year Babylonian King List A Assyrrian King List
705 Sin-akhi-erba 1 Sennacherib 1
704 Sin-akhi-erba 2
Marduk-zakir-shum 1mo.
Marduk-aplu-iddin 9 mo. Sennacherib 2
703 Bel-ibni 1 Sennacherib 3
702 Bel-ibni 2 Sennacherib 4
701 Bel-ibni 3 Sennacherib 5
700 Asshur-nadin-shum 1 Sennacherib 6
699 Asshur-nadin-shum 2 Sennacherib 7
698 Asshur-nadin-shum 3 Sennacherib 8
697 Asshur-nadin-shum 4 Sennacherib 9
696 Asshur-nadin-shum 5 Sennacherib 10
695 Asshur-nadin-shum 6 Sennacherib 11
694 Nergal-ushezib 1 Sennacherib 12
693 Mushezib-Marduk 1 Sennacherib 13
692 Mushezib-Marduk 2 Sennacherib 14
691 Mushezib-Marduk 3 Sennacherib 15
690 Mushezib-Marduk 4 Sennacherib 16
689 Sin-akhi-erba 1 Sennacherib 17
688 Sin-akhi-erba 2 Sennacherib 18
687 Sin-akhi-erba 3 Sennacherib 19
686 Sin-akhi-erba 4 Sennacherib 20
685 Sin-akhi-erba 5 Sennacherib 21
684 Sin-akhi-erba 6 Sennacherib 22
683 Sin-akhi-erba 7 Sennacherib 23
682 Sin-akhi-erba 8 Sennacherib 24

10. There is evidence that Sargon and Sennacherib are indeed the same person. I do not claim that their reigns overlapped each other, but I believe that Sargon (the Assyrian name) came to be called Sennacherib (the Babylonian name) much as Tiglathpileser (Assyrian) came to be called PUL by the Babylonians. I have given evidence from the Eponym and Assyrian King lists; and I have given evidence from scripture. But there is more.

This part is just a few snippets from from Damien Mackey’s internet article called ‘Sargon is Sennacherib’. IT is a fairly long article, but I wanted you all to see at least a couple of his major points. The rest of this section is all from his article:

What had struck me, however, was that Sargon's 12th and 15th year campaigns were worded very similarly to Sennacherib's first two campaigns.

Sargon: "In my twelfth year of reign, Marduk-apal-iddina [Merodach-baladan] and Shuturnahundu, the Elamite ... I ... smote with the sword, and conquered ..."

Sennacherib: "In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan ... together with the army of Elam , his ally ....".

And:

Sargon: "Talta, king of the Ellipi ... reached the appointed limit of life ... Ispabara [his son] ... fled into ... the fortress of Marubishti, ... that fortress they overwhelmed as with a net. ... people ... I brought up."

Sennacherib: "... I turned and took the road to the land of the Ellipi. ... Ispabara, their king, ... fled .... The cities of Marubishti and Akkuddu, ... I destroyed .... Peoples of the lands my hands had conquered I settled therein".

Added to this was the possibility that they had built their respective 'Palace Without Rival' close in time, because the accounts of each were worded almost identically [2]. Eric Aitchison alerted me to the incredible similarity in language between these two accounts:

Sargon: "Palaces of ivory, maple, boxwood, musukkani-wood (mulberry?), cedar, cypress, juniper, pine and pistachio, the "Palace without Rival"2a), for my royal abode .... with great beams of cedar I roofed them. Door-leaves of cypress and maple I bound with ... shining bronze and set them up in their gates. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which in the tongue of Amurru they call a bit-hilanni, I built before their gates. Eight lions, in pairs, weighing 4610 talents, of shining bronze, fashioned according to the workmanship of Ninagal, and of dazzling brightness; four cedar columns, exceedingly high, each 1 GAR in thickness ... I placed on top of the lion-colossi, I set them up as posts to support their doors. Mountain-sheep (as) mighty protecting deities, I cunningly constructed out of great blocks of mountain stone, and, setting them toward the four winds ... I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, - the (enemy) towns which my hands had captured I sculptured thereon and I had them set up around their (interior) walls; I made them objects of astonishment".

Sennacherib: "Thereon I had them build a palace of ivory, maple, boxwood, mulberry (musukannu), cedar, cypress ... pistachio, the "Palace without a Rival"2a), for my royal abode. Beams of ceda .... Great door-leaves of cypress, whose odour ... I bound with shining copper and set them up in their doors. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which they call in the Amorite tongue a bit-hilani, I constructed inside them (the doors) .... Eight lions, open at the knee, advancing, constructed out of 11,400 talents of shining bronze, of the workmanship of the god Nin-a-gal, and full of splendour ... two great cedar pillars, (which) I placed upon the lions (colossi), I set up as posts to support their doors. Four mountain sheep, as protecting deities ... of great blocks of mountain stone ... I fashioned cunningly, and setting them towards the four winds (directions), I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, the enemy tribes, whom my hands had conquered, dragged through them (the doors), and I set them up around the walls, - I made them objects of astonishment".

……

Conventional Theory's Strengths

(i) Primary

I can find only two examples of a primary nature for the conventional view.

By far the strongest support for convention in my opinion is Esarhaddon's above-quoted statement from what is called Prism S - and it appears in the same form in several other documents as well - that he was 'son of Sennacherib and (grand)son of Sargon'. Prism A in the British Museum is somewhat similar, though much more heavily bracketted [6]:

[Esarhaddon, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king] of [Sumer] and Akkad, [son of Sennacherib, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria, [(grand)son of Sargon, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria ....

The first document, Prism S, would be enough to stop me dead in my tracks, were it not for other evidences in support of my proposed merger.

The other, quasi-primary evidence is in regard to Sennacherib's accession. One reads in history books of supposed documentary evidence telling that Sargon was killed and that Sennacherib sat on the throne. Carl Olaf Jonsson gives it, bracketed again, as follows [7]:

For the eponym Nashur(a)-bel (705 BC) one of the Eponym Chronicles (Cb6) adds the note that the king (= Sargon) was killed, and that Sennacherib, on Ab 12, took his seat on the throne.

What one notices in all of the above cases of what I have deemed to be primary evidence is that bracketting is always involved. Prism S, the most formidable testimony, has the word "(grand)son" in brackets. In Prism A, the entire titulary has been square bracketed, which would indicate that Assyriologists have added what they presume to have been in the original text, now missing. And, regarding Sennacherib's accession, Jonsson qualifies the un-named predecessor king with the bracketted "(= Sargon)".

It was customary for the Assyrian kings to record their titulary back through father and grandfather. There are two notable exceptions in neo-Assyrian history: interestingly, Sargon and Sennacherib, who record neither father nor grandfather. John Ru

  • In the 24th (not 14th) year of HezekiahJoe Baker, Tue Apr 10 20:36
    Hi All Further to my last post on the Treasury Chronicle. I maintain the dates in this Chronicle were accurate but one extract has had its date deliberately altered and that is the extract at 2 Kings ... more
    • In the 14th (not 24th) year of Hezekiah — Toby, Thu Apr 12 01:07
      • Assyrian Babylonian DatesJoe Baker, Sun Apr 15 18:54
        Hi Toby I have inserted a “corrected” version of your count of reigns 722bc Sargon 17? years 17 Šarru-ukin 705bc Sennacherib 24? years 24 Sin-aḫḫe-eriba 681bc Essarhaddon 12/13 years 12... more
        • What was Sargon's name?Toby Anderson, Wed Apr 25 23:29
          Hello Joe, You wrote: “Sin-aḫḫe-eriba did name his father as Šarru-ukin in one known inscription, BM 99178 - See page 194 of Eckart Frahm’s “Einleitung in die Sanherib Inschriften” “ I... more
      • In the 14th (not 24th) year of HezekiahToby, Thu Apr 12 01:16
        Apparantly, my simple calculation was too long and this website truncated off the missing part. HEre it is: It was customary for the Assyrian kings to record their titulary back through father and... more
    • Joe, In your posting, you quote the bible. Yet, you deleted the postings on Nimrod when Rich started looking at the Hebrew. Might you explain the rules? Do you have them posted somewhere? Toby
      • Re: In the 24th (not 14th) year of HezekiahJoe Baker, Thu Apr 12 07:42
        Hi Toby There are no rules other than common sense, but note that this forum is called “The Ancient Near Eastern Chronology Forum” not the The Ancient Near Eastern Mythological Forum” which later... more
Click here to receive daily updates