Introduction

What triggered this article was the apparent chronological problem associated with the reign of King Baasha, thought to have been the third ruler of Israel after Jeroboam I and his son, Nadab. [8]

There is a definite problem with King Baasha of Israel, who bursts onto the biblical scene during a discussion in the First Book of Kings about Jeroboam I's wicked son, Nadab (15:27), and who, though he (Baasha) is said to have reigned for 24 years (1.Kings 15:33), is actually found as king of Israel from Asa of Judah's 3rd to 36th years (cf. 1K.15:33; 2 Chronicles 16:1), that is, for 33 years. Thus we have the headache for chronologists of their having to account for how Baasha - although he should have been dead by about the 26th year of King Asa - could have invaded Asa's territory about a decade after that, in Asa's 36th year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

While some can offer no explanation at all for this, P. Mauro, who has complete faith in the biblical record (and with good reason, of course), has ingeniously tried to get around the problem as follows:

Baasha's Invasion of Judah

"In 2 Chron. 16: 1-3 it is stated that `in the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha, king of Israel, came up against Judah.' But the 36th year of Asa would be nine years after the death of Baasha, this being what Lightfoot referred to in speaking of "Baasha fighting nine years after he was dead." The Hebrew text, however, says, not that it was the 36th year of the reign of Asa, as in our `American Version (AV)' Bible, but that it was the 36th year of the kingdom of Asa. So it is evident that the reckoning here is from the beginning of the separate kingdom of Judah. Hence the invasion of Judah by Baasha would be in the 16th year of Asa, and the 13th of his own reign, as tabulated [in Mauro's lists]." [20]

Dr. Edwin Thiele takes a practically identical approach to solving this difficulty in his much-lauded, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, rev. 1983), p. 84:

"References to the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years "of Asa" (KJV) in 2 Chronicles 15:19 and 16:1 have given rise to serious chronological misunderstandings …. The difficulty concerning the thirty-fifth year is solved by noticing that it is exactly thirty-five years from 930 B.C. [some chronologists prefer 922 B.C.], when the nations of Judah and Israel came into being, to 895 the fifteenth year of Asa when his encounter with Zerah took place." [100]

This Zerah the Ethiopian had come up against Judah "with an army of a million men and three hundred chariots" (2 Chronicles 14:9): surely the greatest army ever to have been assembled until then!

Whilst Mauro and Thiele may be correct in these their efforts to solve this aspect of the Baasha problem (for there are others as well) - and I had initially accepted their type of explanation as being the best way out of this dilemma - I now personally would favour quite a different interpretation (to be explained); one involving a fusion of Baasha with Ahab. I now consider Mauro's and Thiele's albeit well-intentioned explanations to be actually splitting hairs: the 'reign' and 'kingdom' of Asa being surely one and the same thing, and so I think that it is not really, as Mauro says, "evident that the reckoning here is from the beginning of the separate kingdom of Judah". I think that it clearly refers to king Asa himself (a sub-set of Judah) and not to the kingdom of Judah.

My explanation now would be that Baasha of Israel was in fact reigning during the 36th year of King Asa of Judah, and that Baasha and Ahab were one and the same king. I came to this conclusion based on,

1. the distinct parallels between Baasha and Ahab; and,
   
2. the parallels between their supposed two phases of the history of Israel, especially with Zimri, on the one hand, and Jehu - whom Jezebel actually calls "Zimri" (2 Kings 9:31) - on the other; and,
   
3. on the very similar words of a prophet in relation to the eventual fall of the House of Baasha and to the House of Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 16:4; 21:24).

I had previously thought, as other commentators customarily do as well [108] - and necessarily, based on the standard chronology that has Zimri reigning some 40 years before Jehu - that Queen Jezebel was just being scornful when she had called Jehu, "Zimri", likening him to a former regicide; for Jehu was indeed a regicide (2 Kings 9:23-28). But I have recently changed my mind on this and I now believe that the queen was actually calling Jehu by his name, "Zimri".

(See also section Zimri and Jehu below).

So, the basis for this article will be the following Triple Foundation:

1. the likenesses of Baasha and his house to Ahab and his house, and
   
2. the reforming work of Jehu now as Zimri. But also
   
3. the words of a prophet in relation to the eventual fall of the House of Baasha (the prophet Jehu son of Hanani), and of the House of Ahab (the prophet Elijah).

From this triple foundation, I shall arrive at a re-casted history of early northern Israel that I think will actually throw some useful light on my earlier revisions of this fascinating period. It will mean that the scriptural narrative, as we currently have it, presents us with more of a problem than merely that of aligning Baasha with the 36th year of Asa (which will now cease to be a problem). This history must be significantly re-cast.

What has happened, I now believe, is that these were originally two different accounts, presumably by different scribes using alternative names for the central characters, of the same historical era. Since then, translators and commentators have come to imagine that the narratives were about two distinctly different periods of Israel's history, and so they presented them as such, even at times adjusting the information and dates to fit their preconceived ideas. So, apparently (my interpretation), some of the narrative has become displaced, with the result that we now appear to have two historical series where there should be only the one, causing a one-sided view of things and with key characters emerging from virtually nowhere: thus Baasha, as we commented above, but also the prophet Elijah, who springs up seemingly from nowhere (in 17:1).

Admittedly, one can appreciate how such a mistake might have come about. The use of different names can be confusing, retrospectively, for those who did not live in, or near to, those early times. It will be my task here to attempt to merge the main characters with whom I now consider to be their alter egos, in order to begin to put the whole thing properly together again - at least in a basic fashion, to pave the way for a more complete synthesis in the future.

My new explanation - which I must stress is only, at this early stage, an hypothesis - will have the advantage, too, of taking the pressure off the required length of the life of Ben-hadad I (880-??), a known contemporary of Ahab's, who must also be involved in a treaty with king Asa of Judah against (the presumedly earlier than Ahab) king Baasha of Israel (1 Kings 15:18-21).[120] The same Ben-hadad I will later be forced to make a treaty with Ahab, after the latter had defeated him in war, (1K. 20:34).

Whilst my explanation will manage to do away with one apparent contradiction, Baasha still reigning in Asa's 36th year when it seems, mathematically, that he could not have been, my theory does encounter a new contradiction from 1 Kings 21:22, where the prophet Elijah tells Ahab that his house will become "like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah" (1Ki. 15:27), as if the house of Baasha and Ahab were quite distinct and separated in time. [125] My bold explanation for this is that the original text (1K 21:22) would have simply threatened the house of Ahab with the same fate as that of Jeroboam's house, but that an editor, basing himself on Jehu's denunciation of Baasha in 16:4, thought that this too needed to be included in (1K 21:22) as a separate issue, not realising that Baasha's house was Ahab's house. The way the narrative reads, with Baasha's early arrival on the scene, he is not recorded as having done sufficient evil deeds, one might think, to have warranted so severe a condemnation from the prophet Jehu son of Hanani – until, that is, Baasha is 'filled out' with the wicked deeds of his alter ego, king Ahab.

But with Baasha now (in my scheme) completely removed from roughly the first half of king Asa of Judah's long reign of 41 years (1K 15:10), what will now fill that apparent void?

This question will be considered further on.

Baasha and Ahab

As to reign length, we have almost a perfect match here in that Baasha reigned for 24 years (15:33) and Ahab for 22 (16:29). But that becomes quite a perfect match when we further realise that Baasha reigned for 2 years at Tirzah. Though, conventionally, Samaria was not yet a capital city, according to my revision it would already have been. And Ahab is said specifically to have reigned for 22 years "in Samaria". Putting it all together, we get Baasha's 2 years at Tirzah, and then a further 22 years (making his total 24 years); 22 years being the length of Ahab's reign. In other words, Baasha-Ahab reigned for 2 years at Tirzah, and then for 22 years at Samaria, a total of 24 years of reign. This must have been after Ahab's father, Omri (who would now equate to Baasha's father, "Ahijah of the house of Issachar") (1 Kings 15:27), had built Samaria (16:24). (Later I shall argue that the unusual name 'Omri' was possibly Egyptian-based, and not this king's original name, which must have been Ahijah).

So Baasha, as Ahab, can comfortably reign in the 36th year of Asa. For, when 1 Kings 16:29 says that Ahab began to reign in the 38th year of Asa, it is referring to his beginning at Samaria (perhaps at the conclusion of a co-regency with his father Omri). This means that 1 Kings 15:33:"In the 3rd year of King Asa of Judah, Baasha son of Ahijah began to reign over all Israel at Tirzah …" should (that is, according to my thesis) be amended to read: "In the 36th year of King Asa of Judah …"; this being the very year that Baasha came up against Judah. Indeed (1K 15:16): "There was war between Asa and King Baasha of Israel all their days."

But this "war" was only in the last few, more turbulent years of Asa, who had until then generally enjoyed a long, peaceful and prosperous reign (e.g. II Chronicles 14:5). Not so, if the troublesome Baasha had ruled from Asa's 3rd to 26th years, as according to the usual view. Baasha's supposed beginning in the 3rd year of Asa must have been 'edited in' to the original text (according to my opinion) to accommodate the fact that his son Elah is said to have begun to reign "in the twenty-sixth year of King Asa of Judah" (16:8).

There is a distinct parallel between the evil and idolatrous House of Baasha and that of Ahab (even though, as said, we are not given many details about Baasha's wickedness, as Baasha), and the terms of its denunciation by a prophet, with the dogs licking up the blood in 'both' cases. The prophet is Jehu son of Hanani, in the case of Baasha, and of course the mysterious Elijah, in the case of Ahab. I have long noticed this parallelism, and had wondered if it were recording the same historical incident. But I had not until now been unable to fuse the two in any satisfactory manner. That I am hoping to be able to do here, despite the difficulties and even uncertainties.

This parallelism means that Elijah, who bursts from nowhere, 'rising like fire' in Sirach (48:1), has already been previewed for us in the person of Jehu (the names are approximately interchangeable). Conversely, Baasha's sudden irruption onto the scene has its later 'justification', I would suggest, in the far more detailed biography of Ahab.

An Outline Revised History

Having laid a foundation, let us now go to the beginning, to Jeroboam I, and try to re-cast anew this period of the northern kingdom of Israel. The textbook version of the early history of the northern kingdom of Israel presents us with a succession of four strong houses, those of:

1. Jeroboam I, son of Nebat (Jeroboam and his son, Nadab (= Tab-rimmon (-)[135]
   
2. Baasha, son of Ahijah (Baasha and his son, Elah) (Zimri, Omri, Tibni)
   
3. Omri (Omri, his son, Ahab, his sons, Ahaziah and Jehoram)
   
4. Jehu (his 4 sons)

But according to the revision being presented here, 2. and 3. must be merged as one.

Now, filling out all of this with our new parallelisms as will be presented in this article, we shall arrive at this quite other sequence (to be fully explained as we go along):

1. Jeroboam I
   
2. Nadab
   
3. Ahijah = Omri
   
4. Baasha = Ahab
   
5. Elah = Ahaziah (son of Ahab)
   
6. Zimri = Jehu

As a corollary, Tibni may be Tab-rimmon, and his father Ginath (I Kings 16:21) may be the Genubath, son of Hadad of 11:19-20; Genubath being a name that Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (in Ages in Chaos, I) claimed to have found in the Annals of pharaoh Thutmose III (the biblical "Shishak") rendered there as Genubatye. Ginath, father of Tibni, is otherwise unknown. Here is the biblical account of Hadad and his son, Genubath, with whom I would suggest an identification of Ginath (1. Kings 11:14-23):

11:14 "Then the LORD raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the house of Edom.
11:15 For when David was in Edom, and Joab the commander of the army went up to bury the dead, he killed every male in Edom
11:16 (for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had eliminated every male in Edom);
11:17 but Hadad fled to Egypt with some Edomites who were servants of his father. He was a young boy at that time.
11:18 They set out from Midian and came to Paran; they took people with them from Paran and came to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt; who gave him a house, assigned him an allowance of food, and gave him land.
11:19 Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him his sister-in-law for a wife, the sister of Queen Tahpenes.
11:20 The sister of Tahpenes gave birth by him to his son Ge-nubath, whom Tah'pe-nes weaned in Pharaoh's house; Genubath was in Pharaoh's house among the children of Pharaoh.
11:21 When Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his ancestors and that Joab the commander of the army was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, `Let me depart, that I may go to my own country.
11:22 But Pharaoh said unto him, `What do you lack with me, that you now seek to go to your own country? And he said, `No, do let me go." 1.Kings 11:14-23.

Velikovsky had claimed to have identified both Queen Tahpenes and Genubath in the 18th dynasty Egyptian historical records; an identification obviously impossible in the conventional system with Egypt's 18th dynasty and the biblical Genubath separated in time by some 500 years. CIAS has explained it as follows

"…. In view of the fact that we have here a name, is it possible to find out who the Pharaoh might have been? Since the history here described is from the time of King David, the pharaoh whose queen was Tahpenes must have been Ahmose in revised view. …. Was there among the queens of Ahmose one by the name of `Tah-pen-es'? Looking through the registers of Ahmose we find the name preserved and read `Tanethap, Tenthape', or possibly, Tahpenes, the name a city in the Nile Delta would later receive. …." [400]

Edom, like Israel, was ruled by a chief appointed by the Theban king. It was 40 years before that Hadad had returned to Edom after the death of King David. Genubath, the son of Hadad, was now king in Edom. He either lived there or in Egypt. As long as he paid his tribute regularly to pharaoh everything would be fine. After Thutmose III had returned from one of his expeditions into Palestine he found in Egypt tribute brought to him by couriers from the land of `Genubatye'.

"When his majesty arrived in Egypt the messengers of the Genubatye came bearing their tribute." [420]

In a recent article, I have identified the great Asa king of Judah with pharaoh Amenhotep III of the El Amarna period. I would now like to suggest that Omri was Amenhotep's famous commander and stalwart, Merymose, the apparently foreign name, 'Omri', being therefore of Egyptian origin, not Syrian as some think, from Mery- [=Omri?].[430]

Reasons why Ahab and Akhnaton May be the Same Person

Further, and more importantly, I would like to suggest that,

1. Baasha/Ahab is Pharaoh Akhnaton and Lab'ayu of the El Amarna letters.
   
2. That Ahab is probably Akhnaton is understandibly seen by his two sons, Ahaziah and Joram/Jehoram fulfilling the role of Smenkhare and Tutankhamon as their reign indicates.

   If Akhnaton is Ahab, who is then Burnaburiash, who wrote long EA letters to this Pharaoh?

   We identified Burnaburiash before as Hazael, the successor of Benhadad.
   

3. Elah/Ahaziah is one of Lab'ayu's "two sons", probably EA's Mut-baal son of Lab'ayu, and he is also the "Hiel of Bethel" who re-built Jericho at the time of Ahab (1 Kings 16:34), and pharaoh Smenkhkhare.
   
4. King Jehoram of Israel is Tutankhamun. (See supporting evidence)

The House of Jeroboam 1 and its Syrian Connections

After the death of King Solomon, the kingdom was split, with Solomon's son, Rehoboam, ruling a greatly diminished kingdom with Jerusalem still as the capital, and Jeroboam I ruling from Shechem in the north (1 Kings 12). This Jeroboam had been an extremely competent official in the Unified Kingdom (1 Kings 11:28) – he was said to have been "an Ephraimite of Zeredah, a servant of Solomon, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow …" (1K 11:26).

Jeroboam I reigned for 22 years in Israel (1K 14:20).

At the same time as Jeroboam had been a young man at the time of king Solomon, Syria was strong. Dean Hickman had identified the Syrian foe of Solomon's father David, Hadadezer son of Rekhob (2 Samuel 8:3), with Shamsi-Adad I, son of Ilu-kabkabu. I have, following this, identified Solomon's Syrian foe, Rezon son of Eliada (1 King 11:23) with Zimri-Lim of Mari son of Iahdu[n]lim, and the great Hammurabi himself as Solomon ruling over Babylon.

"God raised up another adversary [apart from Hadad] against Solomon, Rezon son of Eliadad, who had fled from his master, King Hadadezer of Zobah. He gathered followers around him and became leader of a marauding band, after the slaughter by David; they went to Damascus, settled there, and made him king in Damascus. He was an adversary of Israel all the days of Solomon, making trouble as Hadad did; he despised Israel and reigned over Aram.
....
Jeroboam son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, a servant of Solomon, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow, rebelled against the king (Solomon) . . . " 1 Kings 11:23-26.

An explanation for Jeroboam's power was that he was, like Hadad father of Genubath, an ally of the biblical Shishak's (i.e., the great pharaoh Thutmose III of Egypt's 18th dynasty), the foe of Rehoboam (1K 14:25).

Thus Jeroboam I was able greatly to extend his power in the north.

It was probably from the dynasty of Rezon/Zimri-Lim, I suggest, whose main base was Syria, rather than Israel, from which arose Ben-hadad I himself, whom I have multi-identified in various articles. I have provided for this mighty king, who had 32 other kings following him (1 Kings 20:1), the alter egos of e.g:

1. Abdi-ashirta (of EA);
   
2. Tushratta of Mitanni (also EA);
   
3. Ashurnasirpal of Assyria;
   
4. Kadashman-enlil of Babylonia (EA); and
   
5. Yuya in Egypt.

If all this be the case, then "Ben-hadad son of Tab-rimmon son of Hezion of Aram" (1K 15:18), should probably find his ancestry in the House of Zimri-Lim/Rezon (Hezion)? (1K 15:18).

This House, consisting of the succession:

1. Rezon/Hezion;
   
2. Tab-rimmon (Tibni?); and
   
3. Ben-hadad I

... is quite distinct from the Omrides. In my thesis, however, I had attempted, in rather convoluted fashion (though tentatively, as I was also well aware that it was highly controversial) to identify Tab-rimmon with Omri, and to make Ben-hadad I and Ahab actual brothers, to satisfy (as I then thought) Ahab's statement concerning the now conquered Ben-hadad, 'He is my brother' (1 Kings 20:32). I now completely reject that fanciful theory in favour of this new scenario. The nature of their 'brotherhood' would now need to be explained, Cousins, perhaps?

With Jeroboam dying in the 2nd year of Asa, and his son Nadab replacing him, to reign seemingly for only two years (1K 15:25), then how are we - with the removal of Baasha to the reign of Ahab as I am proposing - to fill in the apparent void of almost three decades until the 31st year of Asa, when Omri, father of Ahab, began to reign over Israel (1K 16:23)?

My simple answer to that is that the Syrians temporarily ruled the region from Damascus, as attested by Ben-Hadad's reference to his father's once having taken Samaria from Omri (20:34): a situation that may be reflected in this text: "Then the people of Israel were divided into two parts; half of the people followed Tibni son of Ginath, to make him king, and half followed Omri." (1K 16:21). This was a Syrian-based faction opposed to an up-and-coming commander who I believe was then serving Asa of Judah.

So the civil war concerning Israel was between a Damascus-based dynasty on the one hand, Tibni's, and perhaps a Judah-backed one on the other, Omri's. But initially king Asa must have been in league with the Syrian one, because he claims to have once had a treaty with Ben-hadad I's father, Tab-rimmon (1K 15:18-19).

If this whole scenario is on the right track, and it is admittedly highly controversial, then biblical editors have made a complete hash of this part of Scripture, so that it has all become utterly confused. [550] Omri is supposed to have overseen the demise of Zimri who had conspired against Elah and had killed him; all in the 26th – 27th year of King Asa (16:8-20). But what Omri actually oversaw instead, was, perhaps, the death of his opponent, Tibni/Tab-rimmon. It might have been the latter who had been "drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza, who was in charge of the palace at Tirzah" (1K 16:9); just as his son "Ben-hadad was drinking himself drunk in the booths" on a later occasion (1K 20:16). Or, should Omri here read Jehu (or Zimri), and he be drinking prior to his assassination of Ahaziah (Elah) at the time he "besieged Tirzah" (1K 16:17).

Arza, the Major Domo (1K 16:9), would then be the Machiavellian Hazael (= EA's Aziru = Ay).

If so, it was not Zimri, then, as v. 18 has it, but Ahaziah/Elah who (vv. 18-19): "When [he] saw that the city was taken, he went into the citadel of the king's house; he burned down the king's house over himself with fire and died – because of the sins that he committed, doing evil in the sight of the Lord, walking in the way of Jeroboam … causing Israel to sin." And it could not have been Zimri who "reigned seven days in Tirzah" (1K 16:15), one must think. 'Seven days' is way too short for Zimri to have achieved all that is said of him!

Zimri's conspiracy will be significantly later, not now. (See section, Zimri and Jehu).

With this reconstruction of mine, the totally obscure Tibni/Tab-rimmon becomes somewhat better known, and the historically significant Omri is also expanded. The period of floruit of each is much increased.

Elah and Ahaziah

After the reign of Omri's son, Ahab, now also enlarged with the inclusion of his alter ego, Baasha, his two sons succeeded him,

1. Ahaziah, and then
   
2. Jehoram (I have elsewhere identified the former as Smenkhkare and the latter as Tutankhamun).

Now it was Ahaziah, I believe, who was the Elah who supposedly pre-dated Omri, but who, according to this reconstruction, was Omri's grandson. Elah began to reign, not: "In the twenty-sixth year of King Asa of Judah …" (1K 16:8), but in the 17th year of Asa's son, Jehoshaphat (22:51). Like Elah, Ahaziah regned for two years (cf. 16:8; 22:51). And I have already noted that it was Elah, who as Hiel (Elahi), re-built Jericho at the time of Ahab. Presumably only a prince, a co-rex, would have been allowed to have done this significant building work during Ahab's reign.

Now, Zimri was this Elah's/Ahaziah's contemporary, Jehu.

Zimri and Jehu

As we read earlier on, Queen Jezebel identifies for us Jehu as "Zimri". This was after the death of Ahaziah, and even after the reign of his successor, Jehoram, whom Zimri, as Jehu, had recently killed.

'Zimri has conspired and he has killed the king', it was announced, supposedly leading to the election of Omri (1K 16:16). This must pertain to the death of Ahaziah, for in the case of the demise of his brother, Jehoram, the location was not Gibbethon, and the enemy not the Philistines, and it was not Omri who was then elected as king. The location was Ramoth-gilead, the enemy the Aramaeans, and it was Zimri, as Jehu, who had conspired against the House of Ahab, and who had killed Jehoram (as well as yet another Ahaziah, of Judah), and it was Zimri, as Jehu, who was then elected king (perhaps this happened twice). 2 Kings 9:14: "... Jehu son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi conspired against [Jehoram of Israel]. Jehoram with all Israel had been on guard at Ramoth-gilead against King Hazael of Aram …".

Zimri could hardly have reigned for so short a period of time and yet have achieved all that is accredited to him (1 Kings 16:11-13):

"When Zimri began to reign, as soon as he had seated himself on the throne, he killed all the House of Baasha; he did not leave him a single male of his kindred or his friends. Thus Zimri destroyed all the House of Baasha, according to the word of the Lord, which He spoke against Baasha by the prophet Jehu - because of all the sins of Baasha and the sins of his son Elah that they committed, and that they caused Israel to commit, provoking the Lord God of Israel to anger with their idols." 1 Kings 16:11-13.

All this within so short a space of time? Hardly!

It should be compared to the account of king Jehu and his immediate purge of the House of Ahab (2 Kings 9:14-10:31). "So Jehu killed all who were left of the House of Ahab in Jezreel, all his leaders, close friends, and priests, until he left him no survivor." (2K 10:11).

And again: "Thus Jehu wiped out Baal from Israel." 2K 10:28.

Finally, Jehu was not the `Iaui mar Humri' ('son of Omri') as depicted in King Shalmaneser III of Assyria's famous Black Obelisk, there doing obeisance to the king of Assyria. I argued against this usual interpretation in my thesis (op. cit.), and I otherwise concluded (and this makes sense) that Jehu was not wiping out the House of his own supposed Omride relatives in exterminating the House of Ahab. I had concluded that Jehu was instead a Zimride, the grandson of the Zimri (or Nimshi?) who I had then supposed to have been a king separate from Jehu, not Jehu himself as I now believe.

[2] The name of Baasha, so far, has not been found in paleo Hebrew letters on seals and the like, neither have those of many other personas discussed in this article, however, that does not mean they did not live. We just wanted to show the proto Hebrew letters which might be part of the name `Baasha' if that name would ever be found - and remember you read Hebrew from right to left.
It might contain , ahsaaB or parts thereof. - But how could Baasha be Ahab? The answer is easy, just look at the name. All that needs to be done is put the letter `B' at the end and you get `Aashab' or `Ahab' dropping out the lisping `s'. That is possible because the orthography of these names depended often on how they were sounded rather then strict letter for letter writing in ancient, paleo-Hebrew writing. (`paleo' means antique' or `ancient'.)

[8] King Baasha is talked about by Josephus but does he present any extra-Biblical information, and if so what is it? "I now return to Baasha, the king of the multitude of the Israelites, who slew Nadab, the son of Jeroboam, and retained the government. He dwelt in the city of Tirzah, having made that his habitation, and reigned 24 years. He became more wicked and impious than Jeroboam, or his son. He did a great deal of mischief to the multitude, and was injurious to God, who sent the prophet Jehu, and told him beforehand, that his whole family should be destroyed, and that he would bring the same miseries on his house which had brought that of Jeroboam to ruin; because when he had been made king by him, he had not requited his kindness, by governing the multitude righteously; which things, in the first place, tended to their own happiness; and, in the next place, were pleasing to God; that he had imitated this very wicked king Jeroboam; and although that man's soul had perished, yet did he express to the life his wickedness; and he said that he should therefore justly experience the like calamity with him, since he had been guilty of the wickedness. But Baasha, though he hear beforehand what miseries would befall him and his whole family for their insolent behavior, yet did not he leave off his wicked practices for the time to come, nor did he care to appear to be other than worse and worse till he died; nor did he then repent of his past actions, nor endeavor to obtain pardon of God for them, but did as those do who have rewards proposed to them, when they have once in earnest set about their work, they do not leave off their labors; for thus did Baasha, when the prophet foretold to him what would come to pass, grow worse, as if what were threatened, the perdition of his family and the destruction of his house, (which are really among the greatest of evils), were good things; and, at last he took more and more pain for it; and at last he took his army, and assaulted a certain considerable city called Ramah, which was 40 furlongs distance from Jerusalem; and when he had taken it, he fortified it, having determined before hand to leave a garrison in it, that they might thence make excursions and do mischief to the kingdom of Asa." {Josephus, Antiquities, Kregel Publ. 1960, Bk. VIII, ch. xii, Sec. 3, p. 188,189. Cities locations not determined.}

[20] P. Mauro,`The Wonders of Bible Chronology, Reiner, p. 48.'

Dr. Edwin Thiele takes a practically identical approach to solving this difficulty in his much-lauded, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, rev. 1983), p. 84:

[100] Dr. Edwin Thiele, `The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings', (Grand Rapids, rev. 1983), p. 84.

[108] The interpretation of the reign of King Baasha, as compared chronologically to that of King Asa of Judah, reveals a 9 year discrepancy during which Baasha supposedly fought wars against Asa, when he was already dead. It appears the first chronologist who suggested an explanation, which seemed to be the only one possible, was James Ussher (1581-1656) who wrote, "For the rest of his life, he (Baasha) did not cease from making war against Asa. (1.Ki 15:16,32). In Asa's sixtheenth year and the thirty-sixth year since the division of the kingdom, Baasha began to fortify Ramah, to prevent more of his subjects from defecting to Asa." [James Ussher, The Annals of the World, 2005, p.69.]

[120] Edwin Thiele dates Baasha between 908-886 BC, while Asa is dated between 910-869 BC. Click link for Thiele based chart and here for our new chart above.

[125] Using Edwin Thiele's reignal years according to which Bassha reigned 908-886 and Asa 910-869 BC, Asa's 36th year would have been 874 BC. According to that Baasha would have been gone 12 years earlier. Ahab's total reign, after adding the 2 years at Tirzah, would accordingly have been from 876 - 853 BC, 23 years and some months after that.

[135] The word relationship between Genubath = Nebat, father of Jeroboam, Damien gives as follows: Ge - nubath/nebat. Thus the line went from: Hadad > Genubath/Nebat > Jeroboam > Nadab etc. Genubath/Nebat, therefor had an Edomite father and an Egyptian mother, who was the sister of Tahpenes the queen of Ahmose/Amenhotep I, the first pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt. Conventional authors give the name of the Queen of Ahmose as Aahotep (P. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, p. 100), which does not seem very unlike of Tenthape. But the sisters own name we do not know. However, we may know of a daughter of Ahmose. See also on Ahmose.

[400] H. Gauthier (1877-1950), `Le Livre des rois d'Egypte', (Cairo, 1902), Vol. II, p. 187. But see Stricker, `Acta Orientalia', Vol. XV (1937), p. 11-12. The city's name was Daphnae.

[420] JBREA, `Records', Vol. II, Sec. 474.

[430] Damien Mackey, `Amenhotep Son of Hapu,' (at this location). On Merymose/Mermose we read, `Compare the muster of Nubian troops by the viceroy Mermose (§ 852, II. 1-4). There we read, `Muster of the army: "...... ...... occurred the reaping of the harvests of the foe of Ibhet (Ybh't). Every man reported and one mustered [an army of] Pharaoh, L.P.H., which was under the command of this king's-son. He made troops, commanded by commanders, each man with his village; from the fortress of Beki (Bky) to the fortress of Taroy (T-r-y), making 52 iters (ytr-w) of sailing." (Transcriber assumes this must be `Ikheny' since I found not other name somewhat similar, unless Breasted did not run across `Ikheny.') . . ."' [Breasted, `Eighteenth Dynasty: Amenhotep III - Nubian War, Vol. II, par. 952, p. 341.]
On the name `Ikheny' from the article on Thutmose III, how can `Ibhet' be `Ikheny'? I don't know, but by chance, since the days of Breasted the name is pronounced differently today? The defeat of Ibhet is told in paragraph 853, but we can learn no more about the person of interest in it.
We also read, "In his fifth year a rebellion in Nubia had to be suppressed, as we learn from three bombastic records on rocks near the First Cataract; but if this was the same occasion as that much more soberly described on a stela in the British Museum, the Egyptian was under the command of the often-named viceroy Mermose, and when it is said that `the strong arm of Amenophis captured' the enemy, this need not mean that he was present in the flesh. The scene of the victory was the district of Ibhe whence King Merenre of Dyn VI had obtained the stone for his pyramid. . . ." [Sir Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs', 1964, p. 205.]

[550] The Bible in its original language is God's word for humanity. It is to be our guide to live by and be saved. As such we should do nothing to introduce self-willed conclusions which might draw away people from trusting His word. So what about editors? We know that scribes kept copying the Bible books over the centuries to preserve them for future generations. These men are thought of as very conscientious in their work and all we can say today is that we ought not to consider God's arm too short to have preserved His word the way He wanted it. On the other hand we know that we are to study His word so as to discover the riches it contains among all the subjects it talks about. At CIAS, therefore, we refrain from suggesting that man could do his will in God's word in such a way as if man had total control of what its substance would be, but rather that God left enough corrective information to recover what He wants us to recover. Inspiration of the Bible books was thought inspiration. The words in it were not dictated; man had to use their own power of grammar and eloquence in words, to express what God wanted them to relate to the world. As such we can read His word, as we pray for guidance in understanding the spiritual message it contains, as well as the historical message for nothing happened in a vacuum. We may want to not call things "hash" but rather less understood relationships, that were passed on, yet God left just enough substance to recover from it through diligent study. - If this topic has brought out the truth, we do not yet know, but it seems to explain some things, while other questions may come up as a result. So let us continue to review and examine as thorough as we possibly can.