Jeffro....Since you've made a study of the chronology of the Divided Kingdom, what do you think of thirdwitness' claimed parallel with Hoshea? Even if we grant the correctness of the Society's reckoning here, the Society is quite clear that it regards Hoshea's 9-year reign (2 Kings 17:1) itself as beginning with his vassalage (e.g. he was installed by the Assyrian king or was recognized as "king of Israel" only from that date), producing a chronological interregnum between the death of Pekah and the beginning of Hoshea's 9-year reign (despite the fact that he presumably "ruled" during this period, 15:30), whereas in the case of Jehoiakim, there was no interregnum and they count the start of his 11-year reign (23:36) from when he ascended the throne, not when Jehoiakim became a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover, thirdwitness regards the reference to the "twelfth year of Ahaz" in 17:1 as reckoned from when Ahaz took the throne, despite the fact that Ahaz was made a vassal as well (16:7-10).
And yet his argument takes for granted the Society's interpretation of not just 2 Kings 15:30 and 17:1 but their idiosyncratic solution to a whole mass of interconnected texts that together pose the thorniest problem in biblical chronology. Any chronology would have to intelligently explain and/or accommodate the following confusing data:
(1) 2 Kings 15:27 gives Pekah of Israel a 20-year reign. (2) Verse 33 claims that Jotham of Judah, son of Uzziah, "reigned for 16 years in Jerusalem," and yet (3) according to v. 30, Hoshea of Israel murdered and succeeded Pekah "in the 20th year of Jotham". (4) According to v. 5, Jotham actually started ruling as a co-regent during the 52-year reign of Uzziah after Uzziah was struck with leprosy (note that due to his leprosy Uzziah was "exempt from his duties confined to his house"), and (5) v. 32 dates Jotham's accession to the "2nd year of Pekah" of Israel tho (6) v. 27 dates Pekah's accession to the 52nd year of Uzziah's reign, i.e. his final year. Moreover, (7) 16:1 dates the accession of Ahaz of Judah to the "17th year of Pekah" of Israel, and (8) 17:1 dates the accession of Hoshea to the "12th year of Ahaz of Judah, as opposed to the "20th year of Jotham" in 15:30. Moreover, (9) Hezekiah of Judah became king in the "3rd year of Hoshea of Israel" in 18:1, and (10) Samaria became besieged by Shalmaneser in the 7th year of Hoshea and the 4th year of Hezekiah in 18:9, and (11) Samaria fell to Shalmaneser in the 9th year of Hoshea according to 17:6. Furthermore, (12) Ahaz at his accession was 20 years old according to 16:2, and (13) the age of Ahaz's son Hezekiah is given as 25 at his accession in 18:2.
The Society's reckoning thus starts Jotham's reign AFTER Uzziah despite the suggestion of a co-regency in 15:5, interprets the "20th year of Jotham" as really the "20th year from the accession of Jotham," and thus "the fourth year of Ahaz" (despite the actual sense of the expression and the ad hoc oddness of the expression as it is interpreted), and inserts an interregnum into the chronology that delays the start of Hoshea's reign by 8 or 9 years. The effect of this chronology is that Ahaz fathered Hezekiah at the age of 10 or 11, and the reign of Tiglath-pileser is inflated from the known 17 years (18 with the accession year) to at least 51 years if not more. The Society itself admits that "there is some uncertainty regarding the manner in which the reigns of the Israelite kings are to be fitted into a chronological framework and "the Hebrew Scriptures do not set forth all the details needed for one to state positively that the Assyrian records are in error" (Insight, Vol. 2, p. 1102). There really is no doubt about the length of Tiglath-pileser III's reign and the Society eschews the regencies that harmonize the biblical data with Assyrian data in the efforts of Thiele and others.
What sort of analysis for the period have you come up with in your studies?