Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/738

 EINaSTON

658

KINGSTON

taken place in about 704. While this would be his fourteenth year, 718-7 would then be his first, which calculation also agrees with other data. Cf. Winck- ler, "Alttest. Unters.", 135.

(3) If Ezechias became king in 728-7, then Achaz could not have reigned more than seven or eight years, and in this case the father would at most have been only seven years older than the son (cf. what follows). For a joint reign of Ezechias and Achaz is out of the question, and the supposition that Ezechias was not his son is, in view of IV Kings, xviii, 1, and II Par., xxviii, 27, without sufficient basis. Neither can another interpretation of the word son, accepted a number of times in the Books of Kings by Herzog, be considered a fortunate hypothesis.

By the anticipation of the twenty-nine years' reign, of Ezechias there resulted a shortage of ten years which has probably been made up by lengthening the reign of Manasses by ten years.

The year 730 as the beginning of Osee's reign is, according to Bibhcal statistics, reasonably certain. For in his sixth or seventh year, and in the twelfth year of Achaz, he rose against Salmanasar (IV ICings, xviii, 9; cf. xvii, 4), and in his ninth year Samaria was taken. The year 722-1 being the ninth, 730 is conse- quently the first. The Assyrian account of the death of Phacee and the nomination of Osee is usually placed by Assyriologists at about 734-732, since Theglath- phalasar was not in Palestine again after 732. This reason is, however, not convincing. The course of events after 735-4 is probably as follows. The anti- Assyrian party in Palestine, of which Rasin of Damas- cus was the head and moving spirit, organized an up- rising and endeavoured to draw the other nations into it. Hence the alliance between Rasin and Phacee against Juda, which decUned to participate in the up- rising, and their endeavour, on the death of Joatham, to keep his son Achaz from the throne. Achaz appealed to Theglathphalasar for assistance. The latter immediately made for his object, namely, the subjection of S.yria and the conquest of Damascus, without neglecting to occupy also the surrounding districts which belonged to Israel. Cf. IV Kings, xvi, 7-9; and xv, 29. After the fall of Damascus in the summer of 732, Tyre and Israel must have been con- quered, but, when winter approached, Theglath- phalasar turned all further operations over to his rahsak (whom he, according to his own inscriptions, dispatched against Tyre), and retired to Ninive. The territory of Israel was taken possession of, perhaps partly while the monarch was still in command; but, before Samaria could be taken, Osee, supported by the Assyrian party, had executed his stroke and caused Phacee to fall. Various circumstances assign the sub- jection of Tyre, Israel, and Ascalon to 731-30, and the appointment of Osee as Assyrian vassal king over Israel need not be placed before 730. (Cf . Winckler, op. cit., 132, sqq.)

The chronology of the kings of Juda, as approxi- mately determined above, has still to be compared with their ages at the commencement of their respec- tive reigns — given in Holy Scripture for most of them. If we assume that, in the co-regencies which we have considered, the age at the beginning of the co-adminis- tration is indicated, we arrive at about the following dates of birth : —

David

1042

Achaz, s. (753 or)

758

Roboam (grandson)

973

Ezechias, s.

742

Josaphat (great-g.s.

909

Manasses, s.

700

Joram, s.

881

Amon, s.

665

Ochozias, s.

864

Josias, s.

649

Joas, s.

843

Joachaz, s.

633

Amasias, s.

821

Joakim, b.

634

Azarias, s.

783

Joachin, s. (606 or)

616

Joatham, 8.

774

Sedecias, s. of Josia

5 619

The variants 42, 20, and 8, in connexion with Ocho-

zias, Achaz, and Joachin, must be considered as erroneous.

The year 774 in connexion with Joatham is im- possible, because his father was born in 783. In order to avoid other difficulties, we shall, in connexion with Joatham, write 15 instead of 25 (years old when he began to reign). The year of his birth thus becomes 764. By tliis Achaz, who is supposed to have been born in 758 (or 753), reaches into the same period, however. Let us here also write 15 instead of 25. Now Achaz is born in 748. But, in this case, Ezechias cannot have been born in 742. If we again change the 25 years, in the case of Ezechias, to 15, then the year of his birth becomes 732. (If we suppose the reign of Ezechias to begin in 728-7, there is no way of account- ing for Ezechias as the son of Achaz.) The confusion in the duration of the various reigns of the period was responsible for the increase in the different life-times. The change from the singular 'eser (ten) to the plural 'esrim (twenty) was but a step.

More errors need not be supposed in the enumera- tive statement of the various ages. In the above list only the following changes have to be made: Joatham 764; Achaz, 748; Ezechias, 732.

A reasonably complete bibliography is found in Herzog, Die Chronologie der beiclen Kimigsbiicher (Miinster. 1909). We mention the most noted works among a very rich liter.iture: EnsEBius, Chronieon in P. G., XI; and ed. Schoene, II (Berlin, 1875): Georgios Synkellos, Chronoffraphia (ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1829); Bede, ed. Roncalli, Vetustiora latinorum scrip- torum chronica (Padua, 1787); Menochius, Biblia Sacra, II (Vienna, 1755); Genebrard, Chronographice Libri IV (Paris, 1600); A Lapide, Commentaria in III et IV Regum (Antwerp, 1616 — ): Petavius, Opus de doctrina temporum (Paris, 1627); Idem, Rationarium temporum, ed. Haak (Leyden, 1724)- SCALl- GER, De emendatione temporum (Jena, 1629); Usher, Chronol. Sacra (Oxford, 1660) ; Des Vignoles, Chronologie de I'hisioire sainle (Berlin. 1738); Bengel, Ordo Temporum (Stuttgart, 1741); Calmet, Comment. Litter, in omnes libros vet. et nov. test., II (Venice, 1769); Maistre de Sact, Erklarung der hi, Schrift, VII (Augsburg, 1790) ; Jahn, Einl, in die Backer des A, T. (Vienna, 1802); Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie (Berlin, 1825); Haneberg, Einleitung ins A. T. (Ratisbon, 1845); Setffarth, Chronologia Sacra (Leipzig, 1846); Bosanquet, Chronology of the reigns of Tiglet- Pilesar, Sargon, Shahnanezer and Senacherib (London, 1855); Oppert, Les inscriptions As^riennes des Sargonides et les fastes de Ninive (Versailles, 1862) ; Idem, La Chronologie biblique fixee par les eclipses des inscriptions cuneiformes (Paris, 1868); Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A, T. (Giessen. 1872); Bcnsen, The Chronology of the Bible connected uith contetnpo- raneous events in the history of Babylonians, A ssyrians, and Egyp- tians (London, 1874); Brandes, Abhandlungen zur Geschickte Orients im AUertum (1874) ; Gutschmid, Beitrdge zur Geschichte de^ alien Orients (Leipzig, 1876) ; Maspero, Histoire ancienne de I'Orient; Duncker, Gesch. des AUertums (Leipzig, 1878); Raska, Chronologie der Bibel (Vienna, 1878); Schafer, Die biblische Chronologie vom Auszug aus Aegypten, etc. (Miinster, 1879); Neteler, Zusammenhang der altt, Zeitrechnung mil der Profangeschichte (Miinster, 1879); Floigl, Die Chronologie der Bibel, des Manetho und Berosus (Leipzig, 1880) ; Brunnengo, Chronologia biblico-assira (Prato, 1886); Vigouroux, La Bible et les decouvertes modernes; Lederer, Die biblische Zeitrechnung (Speyer, 1889); Alker. Die Chronologie der Bucher der Konige und Paralipomenon (Leobschiitz, 1889); Winckler, Alttesta- mentl. Unterschungen (Leipzig, 1892); Kaulen, Einleitung in die HI. Schrift (4th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1899) ; Fotheringham, The Chronology of the O. T. (London, 1900); Oettli, Geschichte Israels bis auf Alexander (Calw, 1905); Kreczmar, Chronolo- gische Untersuchungen (Prague, 1905) ; Bosse, Die chronolo- gischen Systeme im A. T, und bei Josephus in Mitt, der vorderasi- atischen Gesellschaft: Sloet, De regeeringsjaren der koningen van Juda en Israel in De Kalholiek (Leyden and Utrecht, 1893); Idem in Schets, Inleiding op het Derde en Vierde Boek der Koningen in Biblia Sacra V, T, (Bois-le-Duc).

D. A. W. H. Sloet.

Kingston, Auchdigcese of (Kingstoniensis or Regiopolitana), comprises the territory from the eastern line of l)iHi(l;ys County to the western boun- dary of Hastiii;;s Cnunty in the Province of Ontario, Canada, and includes the Counties of Addington, Dundas, Frontenac, Grcnville, Hastings, Lanark, Leeds, Lennox, and Prince Edward. The territory of the present archdiocese was a portion of the old Dioce.sc of Quebec. In 1S17 the Diocese of Quebec was erected into an archdiocese, the western portion, Upper Canada, now the Province of Ontario, being made a vicariate, and the Rev. Alexander Macdonell,