New King James Version and Pul/Tiglathpileser
August 28, 2025
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
KJV - “And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day.” (1 Ch. 5:26).
NKJV - “So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria. He carried the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into captivity. He took them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river of Gozan to this day” (1 Ch. 5:26).
In this verse, the New King James Bible brashly rejects the divinely-appointed Hebrew text by identifying Pul as Tiglathpileser. It is a major error caused by capitulation to modern archaeological scholarship.
Popular evangelical commentaries typically perpetuate this error. This is true for Believer’s Bible Commentary, Bible Knowledge Commentary, Moody Bible Commentary, and the Zondervan King James Version Commentary. For example, the Bible Knowledge Commentary says, “Pul has been identified from Assyrian inscriptions as Tiglath-Pileser III.”
This error is based on a conjectural reading of a fragmentary tablet ascribed to Tiglathpileser III and a fragmentary monument wrongly attributed to Tiglathpileser.
Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones refutes the modern position in his masterly Chronology of the Old Testament (1993). Following is his summary of the issue:
“Most modern scholars insist that the Assyrian annals record Tiglath-pileser (III) as claiming to have received tribute from Menahem, king of Israel. This has led nearly all scholars to identify the biblical ‘Pul’ as being Tiglath-pileser (III) rather than his immediate predecessor as stated in the Authorized Bible (1 Ch. 5:26).
“In order to ‘honor’ the Assyrian data, the New King James translation alters this Scripture to read, ‘So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria...’ rather than the more correct word ‘and’ as the King James Bible faithfully records ...
“There are only two extant Assyrian texts that mention Menahem.
The following Assyrian quote is an undated fragmentary annalistic text ascribed to Tiglath-pileser (III) and is the one to which appeal is invariably made regarding this matter. ... ‘I imposed upon th[em tribute]. [As for Menahem I ov]erwhelmed him [like a snowstorm and he ... fled like a bird, alone, [and bowed to my feet?].”
“The continual assertion that the Annals of the Kings of Assyria record Tiglath-pileser (III) as claiming to have received tribute from Menahem is seen as false as the name ‘Menahem’ appears in brackets meaning that the annals is unreadable and the word has been supplied by the translator. Thus, this identification rests solely upon conjecture.
“The rationale behind this supposition is to be found in the second Assyrian annals text which refers to the tribute of a ‘Menihimmu of Samaria.’ (Menahem of Samaria?). This fragmentary text has been assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III). Based on this data, the name ‘Menahem’ was added and inserted in the bracket in the preceding text.
“However Tiglath-pileser’s annals were engraved upon the slabs of the rebuilt central palace at Calah (Nimrud) and were later removed by Esarhaddon to be used in his southwest palace of the same city. Removal and trimming of the stone have resulted in reducing the annals to a fragmentary state, and thus it is possible that these txts are actually those of a previous monarch(s). With regard to this and the uncertainty surrounding the reliability of these particular fragments, Daniel David Luckenbill has written, ‘Without the aid of the Eponym List with Notes it would have been impossible to arrange the fragments in their chronological order, and even so, future discoveries are likely to show that the arrangement now generally accepted is wrong.’
“Thus it is seen that there is no compelling Assyrian data demanding the placing of the reigns of Menahem and Tiglath-pileser (III) as parallel. On the authority of the Hebrew Text, this author positively asserts that the second ‘slab’ inscription has been wrongly assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III) whereas in truth it should be credited to an earlier Assyrian monarch whom the biblical text calls ‘Pul’ (Ashur-dan III). The testimony of the Hebrew Text unmistakably places Pul in the days of Menahem’s reign (772-761 BC) and states that he extracted tribute from that king of Israel (2 Kings 15:19-20). Hence the situation is that one Assyrian text has the name ‘Menahem’ placed in brackets by conjecture based solely upon another fragmented text which reliable external evidence shows to have been mistakenly assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III). Yet it is this identification that has been used by the Assyrian Academy to overrule the Hebrew chronology, cause anachronisms, and in so doing violate and cast biblical passages aside as erroneous” (Jones, The Chronology of the Old Testament, “The Identity of Pul,” pp. 170-173).
NKJV - “So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria. He carried the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into captivity. He took them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river of Gozan to this day” (1 Ch. 5:26).
In this verse, the New King James Bible brashly rejects the divinely-appointed Hebrew text by identifying Pul as Tiglathpileser. It is a major error caused by capitulation to modern archaeological scholarship.
Popular evangelical commentaries typically perpetuate this error. This is true for Believer’s Bible Commentary, Bible Knowledge Commentary, Moody Bible Commentary, and the Zondervan King James Version Commentary. For example, the Bible Knowledge Commentary says, “Pul has been identified from Assyrian inscriptions as Tiglath-Pileser III.”
This error is based on a conjectural reading of a fragmentary tablet ascribed to Tiglathpileser III and a fragmentary monument wrongly attributed to Tiglathpileser.
Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones refutes the modern position in his masterly Chronology of the Old Testament (1993). Following is his summary of the issue:
“Most modern scholars insist that the Assyrian annals record Tiglath-pileser (III) as claiming to have received tribute from Menahem, king of Israel. This has led nearly all scholars to identify the biblical ‘Pul’ as being Tiglath-pileser (III) rather than his immediate predecessor as stated in the Authorized Bible (1 Ch. 5:26).
“In order to ‘honor’ the Assyrian data, the New King James translation alters this Scripture to read, ‘So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria...’ rather than the more correct word ‘and’ as the King James Bible faithfully records ...
“There are only two extant Assyrian texts that mention Menahem.
The following Assyrian quote is an undated fragmentary annalistic text ascribed to Tiglath-pileser (III) and is the one to which appeal is invariably made regarding this matter. ... ‘I imposed upon th[em tribute]. [As for Menahem I ov]erwhelmed him [like a snowstorm and he ... fled like a bird, alone, [and bowed to my feet?].”
“The continual assertion that the Annals of the Kings of Assyria record Tiglath-pileser (III) as claiming to have received tribute from Menahem is seen as false as the name ‘Menahem’ appears in brackets meaning that the annals is unreadable and the word has been supplied by the translator. Thus, this identification rests solely upon conjecture.
“The rationale behind this supposition is to be found in the second Assyrian annals text which refers to the tribute of a ‘Menihimmu of Samaria.’ (Menahem of Samaria?). This fragmentary text has been assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III). Based on this data, the name ‘Menahem’ was added and inserted in the bracket in the preceding text.
“However Tiglath-pileser’s annals were engraved upon the slabs of the rebuilt central palace at Calah (Nimrud) and were later removed by Esarhaddon to be used in his southwest palace of the same city. Removal and trimming of the stone have resulted in reducing the annals to a fragmentary state, and thus it is possible that these txts are actually those of a previous monarch(s). With regard to this and the uncertainty surrounding the reliability of these particular fragments, Daniel David Luckenbill has written, ‘Without the aid of the Eponym List with Notes it would have been impossible to arrange the fragments in their chronological order, and even so, future discoveries are likely to show that the arrangement now generally accepted is wrong.’
“Thus it is seen that there is no compelling Assyrian data demanding the placing of the reigns of Menahem and Tiglath-pileser (III) as parallel. On the authority of the Hebrew Text, this author positively asserts that the second ‘slab’ inscription has been wrongly assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III) whereas in truth it should be credited to an earlier Assyrian monarch whom the biblical text calls ‘Pul’ (Ashur-dan III). The testimony of the Hebrew Text unmistakably places Pul in the days of Menahem’s reign (772-761 BC) and states that he extracted tribute from that king of Israel (2 Kings 15:19-20). Hence the situation is that one Assyrian text has the name ‘Menahem’ placed in brackets by conjecture based solely upon another fragmented text which reliable external evidence shows to have been mistakenly assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III). Yet it is this identification that has been used by the Assyrian Academy to overrule the Hebrew chronology, cause anachronisms, and in so doing violate and cast biblical passages aside as erroneous” (Jones, The Chronology of the Old Testament, “The Identity of Pul,” pp. 170-173).
