Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Samaria and Ahaz

Expand Messages
  • frankclancy
    Clement of Alexandria claims Samaria was conquered in the 15th year of Ahaz (Strom.119 1). It does not seem that he made this calculation himself but he used
    Message 1 of 7 , May 9, 2009
      Clement of Alexandria claims Samaria was conquered in the 15th year of Ahaz (Strom.119 1). It does not seem that he made this calculation himself but he used a source. In the MT text, 2 Kings 18 clearly states Hezekiah was on the throne when Samaria fell. No where do the MT Biblical texts indicate Ahaz was on the throne. In other words, someone had to calculate the regnal year and had to use an ante-dating regnal system to do it. Evidently, there was a tradition of some sort in the Greek world, or, at least, in Alexandria, that the set of synchronisms between Hezekiah and the conquest of Samaria did not exist in the Biblical texts.

      Does anyone know of similar ideas about the 15th year of Ahaz and Samaria in earlier texts and/or where Clement may have gotten this idea?

      Thanks
      Frank Clancy
    • andrew fincke
      Dear Frank, I don t get the problem, and I don t understand why you re delving in 2 Kings 18. 2 Kings 17:1 says In the 12th year of Ahaz, Hosea reigned in
      Message 2 of 7 , May 10, 2009
        Dear Frank,

        I don't get the problem, and I don't understand why you're delving in 2 Kings 18. 2 Kings 17:1 says "In the 12th year of Ahaz, Hosea reigned in Israel". Then in verses 5-6: "The king of Assyria attacked Samaria, besieged it 3 years and captured it". The Assyrian campaign against Samaria is clearly connected with Ahaz - whether the man was dead or alive is irrelevant. It's not until 35 verses later - at 18:1 - that we hear about Hezekiah taking over.

        Andrew Fincke



        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        From: clancyfrank@...
        Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 04:51:25 +0000
        Subject: [lxx] Samaria and Ahaz







        Clement of Alexandria claims Samaria was conquered in the 15th year of Ahaz (Strom.119 1). It does not seem that he made this calculation himself but he used a source. In the MT text, 2 Kings 18 clearly states Hezekiah was on the throne when Samaria fell. No where do the MT Biblical texts indicate Ahaz was on the throne. In other words, someone had to calculate the regnal year and had to use an ante-dating regnal system to do it. Evidently, there was a tradition of some sort in the Greek world, or, at least, in Alexandria, that the set of synchronisms between Hezekiah and the conquest of Samaria did not exist in the Biblical texts.

        Does anyone know of similar ideas about the 15th year of Ahaz and Samaria in earlier texts and/or where Clement may have gotten this idea?

        Thanks
        Frank Clancy









        _________________________________________________________________
        Windows Live�: Keep your life in sync.
        http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • frankclancy
        Hello Andrew - First - Ahaz ruled for 16 years. If Hosea came to the throne in his 12th year then Ahaz died in Hosea s 5th year. The attack on Samaria
        Message 3 of 7 , May 10, 2009
          Hello Andrew - First - Ahaz ruled for 16 years. If Hosea came to the throne in his 12th year then Ahaz died in Hosea's 5th year. The attack on Samaria started in Hosea's 7th year. In 2 KIngs 18: 1-12, it is Hezekiah on the throne when Samaria was attacked. Yet Clement claimed Samaria fell in Ahaz's 15th year.

          Second - there are many reasons to believe that 2 Kings 18: 1-12 was added by a redactor in order to put Hezekiah on the throne when Samaria fell instead of the evil Ahaz. These verses are not repeated or used in Chronicles or in Isaiah, for example. However, in order to place Ahaz on the throne in 722 BCE in his 15th year - as Clement stated - you have to use an ante-dating system to count up the regnal years from the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Someone (Clement or his source) went to the trouble of working out this information instead of relying on the text that places Hezekiah on the throne. This suggests to me that 2 Kings 18:1-12 was not in his Greek texts.

          What I am hoping for is someone who may have read another ancient writer or knows an example of the LXX which suggests something along the same lines - 18:1-12 is missing. So far, I have been unable to track down any such text.

          Hope that answers your questions. If not, I shall be happy to go into more detail. For example, the synchronism of Ahaz with Pekah's 17th year probably is the work of redaction, the synchronism of Hosea with Ahaz's 12th year must be the work of redaction. And so on.

          Frank Clancy

          --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, andrew fincke <finckea@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Dear Frank,
          >
          > I don't get the problem, and I don't understand why you're delving in 2 Kings 18. 2 Kings 17:1 says "In the 12th year of Ahaz, Hosea reigned in Israel". Then in verses 5-6: "The king of Assyria attacked Samaria, besieged it 3 years and captured it". The Assyrian campaign against Samaria is clearly connected with Ahaz - whether the man was dead or alive is irrelevant. It's not until 35 verses later - at 18:1 - that we hear about Hezekiah taking over.
          >
          > Andrew Fincke
          >
          >
          >
          > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
          > From: clancyfrank@...
          > Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 04:51:25 +0000
          > Subject: [lxx] Samaria and Ahaz
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Clement of Alexandria claims Samaria was conquered in the 15th year of Ahaz (Strom.119 1). It does not seem that he made this calculation himself but he used a source. In the MT text, 2 Kings 18 clearly states Hezekiah was on the throne when Samaria fell. No where do the MT Biblical texts indicate Ahaz was on the throne. In other words, someone had to calculate the regnal year and had to use an ante-dating regnal system to do it. Evidently, there was a tradition of some sort in the Greek world, or, at least, in Alexandria, that the set of synchronisms between Hezekiah and the conquest of Samaria did not exist in the Biblical texts.
          >
          > Does anyone know of similar ideas about the 15th year of Ahaz and Samaria in earlier texts and/or where Clement may have gotten this idea?
          >
          > Thanks
          > Frank Clancy
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > _________________________________________________________________
          > Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
          > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • andrew fincke
          Dear Frank, Your own mouth damned you! You re quibbling about two years, when right there it says the siege lasted 3 years. The King of Assyria attacked
          Message 4 of 7 , May 10, 2009
            Dear Frank,

            Your own mouth damned you! You're quibbling about two years, when right there it says the siege lasted 3 years. The King of Assyria attacked Samaria, Ahaz heard about it and said to himself, "Gracious me, Samaria has fallen!" and had a heart attack. I would have, too. Then, miracle of miracles, Hosea staved off the attack for 3 years. Give us the place in Clement, and we can argue.

            Andrew Fincke



            To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
            From: clancyfrank@...
            Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 21:28:35 +0000
            Subject: [lxx] Re: Samaria and Ahaz







            Hello Andrew - First - Ahaz ruled for 16 years. If Hosea came to the throne in his 12th year then Ahaz died in Hosea's 5th year. The attack on Samaria started in Hosea's 7th year. In 2 KIngs 18: 1-12, it is Hezekiah on the throne when Samaria was attacked. Yet Clement claimed Samaria fell in Ahaz's 15th year.

            Second - there are many reasons to believe that 2 Kings 18: 1-12 was added by a redactor in order to put Hezekiah on the throne when Samaria fell instead of the evil Ahaz. These verses are not repeated or used in Chronicles or in Isaiah, for example. However, in order to place Ahaz on the throne in 722 BCE in his 15th year - as Clement stated - you have to use an ante-dating system to count up the regnal years from the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Someone (Clement or his source) went to the trouble of working out this information instead of relying on the text that places Hezekiah on the throne. This suggests to me that 2 Kings 18:1-12 was not in his Greek texts.

            What I am hoping for is someone who may have read another ancient writer or knows an example of the LXX which suggests something along the same lines - 18:1-12 is missing. So far, I have been unable to track down any such text.

            Hope that answers your questions. If not, I shall be happy to go into more detail. For example, the synchronism of Ahaz with Pekah's 17th year probably is the work of redaction, the synchronism of Hosea with Ahaz's 12th year must be the work of redaction. And so on.

            Frank Clancy

            --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, andrew fincke <finckea@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Dear Frank,
            >
            > I don't get the problem, and I don't understand why you're delving in 2 Kings 18. 2 Kings 17:1 says "In the 12th year of Ahaz, Hosea reigned in Israel". Then in verses 5-6: "The king of Assyria attacked Samaria, besieged it 3 years and captured it". The Assyrian campaign against Samaria is clearly connected with Ahaz - whether the man was dead or alive is irrelevant. It's not until 35 verses later - at 18:1 - that we hear about Hezekiah taking over.
            >
            > Andrew Fincke
            >
            >
            >
            > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
            > From: clancyfrank@...
            > Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 04:51:25 +0000
            > Subject: [lxx] Samaria and Ahaz
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Clement of Alexandria claims Samaria was conquered in the 15th year of Ahaz (Strom.119 1). It does not seem that he made this calculation himself but he used a source. In the MT text, 2 Kings 18 clearly states Hezekiah was on the throne when Samaria fell. No where do the MT Biblical texts indicate Ahaz was on the throne. In other words, someone had to calculate the regnal year and had to use an ante-dating regnal system to do it. Evidently, there was a tradition of some sort in the Greek world, or, at least, in Alexandria, that the set of synchronisms between Hezekiah and the conquest of Samaria did not exist in the Biblical texts.
            >
            > Does anyone know of similar ideas about the 15th year of Ahaz and Samaria in earlier texts and/or where Clement may have gotten this idea?
            >
            > Thanks
            > Frank Clancy
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > __________________________________________________________
            > Windows Live�: Keep your life in sync.
            > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >









            _________________________________________________________________
            Hotmail� goes with you.
            http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • frankclancy
            Dear Andrew - Clement says in Stromateis Book I 119 (1) that Samaria fell in the 15th year of Ahaz. I am not trying to argue, I simply want to know if anyone
            Message 5 of 7 , May 10, 2009
              Dear Andrew - Clement says in Stromateis Book I 119 (1) that Samaria fell in the 15th year of Ahaz. I am not trying to argue, I simply want to know if anyone is aware of similar claims in the earlier texts. 2 Kings 18:9-10 states Hezekiah was on the throne in his 4th yr when the seige started and in his 6th year when Samaria finally fell. So why would Clement claim Samaria fell in the 15th year of Ahaz? Why bother to make all the calculations necessary to make that claim and why ignore the "good" king Hezekiah and instead refer to the "evil" king Ahaz? The explanation that comes to my mind is that the MT text 2 Kings 18: 1-12 was not a part of his Biblical LXX texts.

              Frank Clancy
            • andrew fincke
              Dear Frank, 1) Hosea reigns in the 12th year of Ahaz - 2 Kings 17:1 2) The events of 17:3-4 take place. They consume 3 years. Cf. verse 3: And (Hosea) gave
              Message 6 of 7 , May 11, 2009
                Dear Frank,

                1) Hosea reigns in the 12th year of Ahaz - 2 Kings 17:1
                2) The events of 17:3-4 take place. They consume 3 years. Cf. verse 3: "And (Hosea) gave Shalmanaser tribute" with verse 4: "And he didn't pay the tribute as the two previous years".

                3) Hosea is jailed by Shalmaser - 2 Kings 17:4 end. Ahaz hears that the king of Samaria is in jail and says: "Samaria has fallen (in my fifteenth year). I'm next." and dies. Hezekiah reigns in Hosea's third year - 2 Kings 18:1.

                4) Shalmanaser returns to Assyria - 2 Kings 17:5a: "And the king of Assyria went up in all the land". With Hosea in jail and Ahaz dead "all the land" was synonymous with Assyria.

                5) With the king of Assyria out of the way, Hezekiah did his righteous acts for 3 years - 2 Kings 18:1-8.

                6) 2 Kings 17:5b = 2 Kings 18:9.

                Clement's dating of the fall of Samaria is based on the events recorded above at number 3.

                Andrew Fincke


                To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                From: clancyfrank@...
                Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 06:03:59 +0000
                Subject: [lxx] Re: Samaria and Ahaz







                Dear Andrew - Clement says in Stromateis Book I 119 (1) that Samaria fell in the 15th year of Ahaz. I am not trying to argue, I simply want to know if anyone is aware of similar claims in the earlier texts. 2 Kings 18:9-10 states Hezekiah was on the throne in his 4th yr when the seige started and in his 6th year when Samaria finally fell. So why would Clement claim Samaria fell in the 15th year of Ahaz? Why bother to make all the calculations necessary to make that claim and why ignore the "good" king Hezekiah and instead refer to the "evil" king Ahaz? The explanation that comes to my mind is that the MT text 2 Kings 18: 1-12 was not a part of his Biblical LXX texts.

                Frank Clancy









                _________________________________________________________________
                Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
                http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • frankclancy
                Dear Andrew - we are not working on the same page. You are presenting the case of how the calculations were done. I am not. My question is this - why did
                Message 7 of 7 , May 12, 2009
                  Dear Andrew - we are not working on the same page. You are presenting the case of "how" the calculations were done. I am not. My question is this - why did Clement (or his source) go to all the trouble of calculating the 15th year of Ahaz when there is no Biblical text associating Ahaz with the end of Samaria? Why bother when there were texts in the MT which state Hezekiah was on the throne? In addition, there is no mention in Clement concerning Hezekiah and Samaria - which seems very strange to me. It suggests to me that the synchronisms between Hezekiah and Samaria were not in some Greek Biblical texts.

                  On other grounds, I would argue that the MT 2 Kings 18:1-12 were added by a late redactor so the synchronisms were not part of the original story. However, my queston here is about the LXX and not about the MT.

                  I hope that explains things a bit better.

                  Frank Clancy
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.