Talk:Hezekiah

Meaning of his name?

Wouldn't it better be translated as "The LORD has strengthened" or even "Yahweh has strengthened", given that the suffix is -yah[u], not -'el?

About the importance of this king not only for religious reforms but also for economics, scripture etc. with new archeological evidence you may look at Finkelstein/Silberman: David and Solomon. The Free Press, 2006. The transliteration of his name into English is wondrous for me (no native speaker of English).--charlandes 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and a reference for the translation would be good, too. Leadwind (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous statement about coregencies

From Chronic2 (talk). On 2 Apr 2009, Ewawer entered this statement:

However, the scholars who accept coregency as a resolution to the dilemma fail to recognise that that position requires an emendation to the biblical material, with the reference in one biblical dating being to a sole reign of Hezekiah and to a coregency in the other.

This is an improper usage of the word emendation, and the statement is factually incorrect. Emendation imples that the text, as received and established by textual criticism, must be changed in order to correspond to some other criterion. But no texts need to be changed in order to support the coregency of Hezekiah. It is the texts themselves that give evidence of the coregency. This is the conclusion of such respected chronologists as Kenneth Kitchen, T. C. Mitchell (in Cambridge Ancient History), and Leslie McFall, plus a host of others. Read McFall's "Translation Guide" carefully. Nowhere does he introduce an emendation in order to support his chronology.

Both sentences in the following definitely needs some better documentation:

Some commentators[who?] note that there does not appear to be any justification to that approach on the basis of the biblical material itself. Other scholars discount the biblical material as being unreliable, and date events in a manner consistent with non-biblical sources

The method of treating Biblical coregencies by McFall and other scholars is consistent with ancient Near Eastern practice. Occasionally pharaohs, for example, date their reigns from the beginning of a sole reign, and some times from the beginning of a coregency (citations can be given). If it is stated that such well-documented ancient Near Eastern practices will not be allowed for the authors of Scripture, then for consistency the same principle should be applied to Egyptian history.
Chronic2 (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making was that to synchronise with the non-biblical sources, one reference in 2 Kings must be taken to refer to a sole reign and the other to a co-regency. I believe that amounts to a emendation, and issues of consistency with principles in relation to Egyptian history is not relevant when the issue is the integrity of a source - which is to say, there is an inconsistency in the sources.Ewawer (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From Chronic2 (talk). This then can be labeled an inconsistency, if you wish. It does not fit the definition of an emendation. I would hold however that it is an inconsistency not of fact, but of method of expressions. Even then I do not think that the word "inconsistency" is appropriate. It is just two different ways of measuring. For example, in the same area that is of interest to this chronology, 2 Kings 18, the fall of Samaria is given as occurring in Hezekiah's 6th year. It is also given as Hoshea's 9th year. These are two ways of measuring the same thing; they could be called an inconsistency because they are not the same way. But both make sense, and there is no necessity of speaking of an 'emendation', either here or in the two ways of measuring the reign of Hezekiah.

In 2 Kings 1:17, Joram of Israel is said to begin to reign in year 2 of Jehoram of Judah. In 2 Kings 3:1, he is said to begin in year 18 of Jehoshaphat. This could be called an 'inconsistency', but it is only two ways of measuring the same thing. Because of the coregency of Jehoshaphat with his son Jehoram, year 18 of Jehoshaphat was identical to year 2 of his son's reign. This provides us with the useful information that Jehoram of Judah was made coregent in his father's 17th year. It is misleading just to label this an 'inconsistency' without explaining that it is due to two different methods of reckoning that are basically compatible once we accept the principle of coregencies.

I am aware that various writers do not accept coregencies. But this is contrary to a knowledge of ancient Near Eastern practices. The kings of Judah would have been much more foolish than you or I if they did not see the wisdom of establishing their son as coregent during their reign, following the example of David with Solomon. Most of them did so; some were indeed foolish, but we should expect that coregencies were the rule, which they were. The writers whom you seem to favor do not give credence to this well-documented practice. Instead, they start with their presuppositions of how things 'should have been done' rather than an investigation of how things were actually done in the ancient Near East. Thus Wellhausen ruled out coregencies altogether, refusing to give credence to the plainly stated coregency of David with Solomon. His whole approach was presuppositional rather than based on studying ancient scribal methods. Another example: Gershon Galil accepts coregencies, and says that regnal years, when a coregency is involved, are always measured from the coregency and never from the sole reign. This is again presuppositional. A proper inductive approach would be to let the data determine whether a given synchronism is being given in terms of coregency or in terms of sole reign. That has been the approach of the scholars who have produced the most lasting results in this field (Coucke, Thiele, McFall, Kitchen, Finegan, Merrill, etc.)

The parallel with Egypt is appropriate. Here reigns of pharaohs are sometimes measured from the sole reign, and sometimes from a coregency. The pharaohs or their scribes generally did not tell us which method they were using. There was also something called the "repeating of births" that was used to date events in the reigns of a few of these pharaohs along with the usual count of years since coming to the throne. Egyptologists do not reject these data because of presuppositions, labeling everything that does not agree with their presupposition as an "inconsistency" requiring emendation of the ancient texts. Probably the most quoted authority on the chronology of ancient Egypt is Kenneth Kitchen; other Egyptologists, when attempting to date their findings in absolute terms, appeal to Kitchen more than anyone else, judging by what I have read. And Kitchen comes out solidly for the principle of coregencies in the chronology of the kings of Judah and Israel. He was one of the earlier scholars that published (with T. C. Mitchell) his conclusion that Hezekiah's coregency with his father Ahaz, beginning in 729 BC, explains both the Biblical data and the Assyrian data. Many other eminent scholars also believe this, including those I cited just now. It is not appropriate to discount the solid successes of these scholars by continually arguing that coregencies were not used in Israel, or that, if they were, their usage by the ancient scribes should always conform to our preconceptions. Chronic2 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my point that even if we accept a coregency, which I do, there is the fact that on the plain face value of the biblical text, there is no change in form from one reference to the 6th year of Hezekiah's reign to the other of the 14th year. If coregency is accepted, then one reference must be read as the 6th year from the start of sole reign, and 14th year from the coregency. (or is it the other way round?) Ewawer (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

From Chronic2 (talk). Good, then I think we agree. There is a change in reference when one set of Scriptures dates Hezekiah's reign from a coregency and another set dates from his sole reign. If I read between the lines, I think you also agree now that it is misleading to call this an inconsistency, and it is also inappropriate to say that it required an 'emendation'. No emendation is required. I have therefore replaced my original statement to that effect, and also amplified it somewhat, believing that it is helpful to the general reader to know that one approach -- the one that rules out coregencies -- requires emendations of the Biblical text, while the other requires no emendations, and is also consistent with the Assyrian data. This point should not be obscured for the general reader.

I do not think that the long sections on problems with the text when coregencies are not accepted are necessary. They could all be summarized in a sentence or two, saying that any system which does not accept a coregency between Ahaz and Hezekiah beginning in 729 BC has been unable to reconcile the various Scriptural texts related to the chronology of Hezekiah, and all such non-coregency solutions require emendations or rejections, in one place or another, of the pertinent Biblical texts. However, I have not excluded these sections. I know of some unscrupulous editors who delete wholesale viewpoints, properly referenced, that do not agree with their own bias, and I appreciate that you have not done that. Chronic2 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

article needs work

The lead is thin. It should summarize the topic; see wp:lede. The article shows the results of edit wars over historical versus scriptural interpretations. It needs good scholarly references. Leadwind (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of "High Places"

Please be aware of a discussion regarding a need for disambiguation of the term "High Places", as used in the Political moves and Assyrian invasion section. 67.176.181.188 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Iconoclasm

The artcle claimed that William Dever says in this book that the narrative of iconoclasm by Hezekiah was wrong and that there was archeological evidence against it from Arad, Beersheba and Lachish. This couldn't be more wrong. He says that Arad's temple was most likely dismanteled by Hezekiah! About the altar at Beersheba he only says its destruction most likely took place under Josiah's reform. About Lachish' temple he never says Hezekiah build it or that it still functioned under his rule. This is the biggest mistake at wikipedia I've seen so far. Mismeret (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)