1

How long was he king? Aside from being taken captive by Yehoash (king over Israel kingdom) he also stayed 15 years in Lachish. My question is how long did he actually rule - till he was taken captive.

4
  • Are you asking what year in his 29-year reign was he taken captive?
    – Harel13
    Aug 23 '21 at 15:26
  • I'm asking how long was he king. Are you saying he was king for 29 years? Does 29 years include the 15 years he was in Lachish?
    – Sarah
    Aug 23 '21 at 15:50
  • Yes, it includes the years in Lachish.
    – Harel13
    Aug 23 '21 at 15:59
  • See at length in Radak Kings 2:14:22
    – Double AA
    Aug 23 '21 at 18:12
3

Seder Olam states that Amaziah reigned for 29 years until he died in Lachish. Rashi states that the last 15 years of his life, he spent in Lachish though he was still technically king and this was included in the 29 years.

II Melachim 14:2

He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Jehoadan of Jerusalem.

SederOlam

2915 -845 2 Amaziah son of Joash reigns II Kings 14:1 Y2 Jehoahaz
2917 -843 17 Jehoahaz son of Jehu dies II Kings 13:1 reigned 17Y
2917 -843 40 Joash is murdered by 2 servants II Kings 12:22 reigned 40Y
2919 -841 Black Obelisk of Shalmanezer III Historical
2929 -831 16 Jehoash son of Jehoahaz dies II Kings 13:10 reigned 16Y
2929 -831 14 Jeroboam son of Jehoash reigns II Kings 14:23 Y15 Amaziah
2940 -820 -16 Azariah son of Amaziah born II Kings 14:21,15:2 reigned 16Y old
2944 -816 29 Amaziah flees to Lachish; killed there II Kings 14:2,17 reigned 29Y
2956 -804 27 Azariah son of Amaziah reigns II Kings 15:1-2 Y27 Jeroboam

Thus we see that Amaziah reigned from 2915 to 2944 which is 29 years. However, Rashi says that this 29 years includes the 15 years that he spent in Lachish.

II Divrei Hayamim 25:25

25 And Amaziah the son of Joash the king of Judah lived fifteen years after the death of Joash the son of Jehoahaz the king of Israel.

II Divrei Hayamim 25:27

27 And from the time that Amaziah turned away from following the Lord, they conspired against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish. And they sent after him to Lachish and assassinated him there.

RASHI

and he fled to Lachish: a fortified city against which Sennacherib waged war. He fled to Lachish, where he remained fifteen years until they followed him to Lachish and assassinated him there. And during those fifteen years that he was in Lachish, Jecoliah, Uzziah’s mother, reigned in his stead. This is how it appears to me. In the commentary of Rabbi Joseph (Kara), I saw that during those fifteen years that he was in Lachish, Uzziah his son reigned in his stead, but it is incorrect to interpret it in this manner, for it is written immediately following (26:1): “who was sixteen years old.” We find that when his father fled, he was only one year old. Moreover, if this is the case, it should say, “took Uzziah and made him king instead of his father during his lifetime.” Rather, Scripture intimated that he did not reign during his father’s lifetime.

3
  • Note that those dates are according to the conventional chronology, which at least ostensibly contradicts that of Chazal (see judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/92617 and other questions linked there). The traditional dates of Amatziah's reign would be 3101-3129 (660-632 BCE).
    – Meir
    Aug 23 '21 at 18:11
  • @Meir There are various reasons given for the 165 year difference involving the second temple. See my writeup at Rabbi Leibtag shiurim: The Hebrew Calendar and its Missing Years- Parts 1 - 3 which goes into this in detail. In any case, the number of years of Amatziah's reign remain unchanged. Aug 24 '21 at 22:07
  • That I know (some of those reasons are mentioned in the question I referenced and the other ones linked there). I just figured it ought to be pointed out.
    – Meir
    Aug 24 '21 at 22:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .