Edwin R. Thiele

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public Domain[1]

Edwin R. Thiele (1895–1986) was a missionary, Biblical historian, church periodical editor, educator, and a professor of Old Testament studies. He is best known for his book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, in which he shows how he determined the basic methods of the Biblical historians of the Hebrew Northern and Southern kingdoms. Thiele's approach to chronology was based on his putting first priority on determining the historical methods and conventions of the ancient authors who gave us the texts of the Old Testament historical books. Coupled with this was his belief that these texts should be considered as primary and authentic historical records unless clear evidence pointed to the contrary. Thiele's resultant chronology has won a place in the scholarly world that has never been achieved by writers who regard the Scriptural historical texts as uninspired and prone to error.


Dr. Thiele was born in 1885 in Chicago. He received a B.A. degree from Emmanuel Missionary College in 1918, majoring in ancient languages. In 1920 he and his wife left for a twelve-year missionary tour in China, during which two of their children died. After returning to the United States, he pursued an academic career, receiving his PhD degree in Biblical archaeology in 1943. His doctoral dissertation was later modified and published as the book for which he is best known, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which went through three editions. He was Professor of Antiquity at Andrews University from 1963 to 1965. He died in St. Helena, California in 1986 and is buried in Rose Hill Cemetery in Berrien Springs, Michigan.

Curriculum Vitae

Major Publication

  • The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Chicago, IL, 1943 (his doctoral dissertation). Reprinted in 1983, 283 pages, unknown format. ISBN 0310360102.
  • "The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3 (1944), pp. 137–186.
  • The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings went through three editions: 1st ed. New York, McMillan, 1951; 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965; 3rd ed., Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Kregel, 1983.

Dr. Thiele’s major thesis

Dr. Thiele's approach to the chronological figures of the Hebrew kingdom period was to establish the methods used by the Biblical authors of the books of Kings and Chronicles. To that end, he first approached the numerous Biblical texts for this period to see if they were internally consistent. This is known from his own writing, and from that of his colleagues who knew him and those who have studied his work, in contradiction to various critics who said that he started with Assyrian and Babylonian dates and “force-fit” the Biblical data to those dates. This is established, first, in Thiele's own words:

[N]o dates were used in the early pattern that I produced. In this way I eliminated the inclination, as certain fairly well established dates in Hebrew history were being approached, to endeavor to modify the pattern one way or another to cause it to conform to preconceived ideas of what it ought to be at those points. . . . The aim was to produce a system, if possible, in which the reigns of the kings were arranged in harmony with the data on both the synchronisms and the lengths of reign. Then, on the completion of such a pattern, I meant to test the results by a comparison with the established dates of contemporary history.[2]

Unknown to Thiele when he first published his results in 1944,[3] the basic patterns that Thiele discovered in the Biblical data were found earlier by a Belgian scholar, Valerius Coucke.[4] These were

  1. At the beginning of the divided monarchy, the northern kingdom (Israel) used non-accession reckoning for their kings, while the southern kingdom (Judah) used accession reckoning.
  2. In the ninth century BC, during the rapprochement and intermarriage between the two kingdoms, Judah switched to Israel's non-accession reckoning for a time.
  3. Israel reckoned its regnal year to start in the spring month of Nisan, whereas Judah started its regnal year in the fall month of Tishri.
  4. Throughout the kingdom period, consideration must be given to the possibility that a synchronism between the two kingdoms, or a reign length, might be measured from the start of a coregency or rivalry rather than the start of the sole reign, unless such a possibility was ruled out because of assassination by a usurper.

When a colleague pointed out the previous research of Coucke to Thiele, he was pleasantly surprised.[5] Thiele, however, applied the principles in a more thoroughgoing way than Coucke, and so modern researchers generally build on the work of Thiele, not Coucke.

Having established a basic pattern in the Biblical data, Thiele then went on to attach the pattern, which as yet had no BC dates assigned, to some date fixed from ancient history so as to assign BC dates to his pattern. This is a necessary step that all chronologists must do. Ussher had used a secular date taken from Ptolemy's Canon for the Babylonian Empire; Thiele chose instead an earlier date derived from Assyrian records. Assyrian chronology anchors on the solar eclipse in the eponym of Bar-Sagale, determined by archaeoastronomy to be 763 BC.[6] From this absolute date, Assyriologists had determined the years of reigns of earlier and later Assyrian kings. Thiele took the Assyrian record of Jehu's tribute explicitly dated to Shalmaneser III's 18th year and his campaign against Ahab in his 6th year as biblical synchronisms. When Thiele first published (1944), the majority of Assyriologists dated these two events as occurring in 842 and 854 BC, respectively. When Thiele plugged in his Biblically-derived reign lengths so as to match these dates, he found that the Biblical data, when extended down to the time of Hezekiah and Sennacherib, were one year too short for Sennacherib's well-documented invasion of Judah in 701 BC. Which was wrong: Thiele's Bible-based chronology, or the commonly-accepted Assyrian dates? Thiele was so confident in the Bible's numbers that he investigated how Assyriologists had determined 854 BC and 842 BC for the sixth and 18th years of Shalmaneser III. He found some European scholars, a minority, who put these dates one year later, which was consistent with his Biblically-derived dates. Thiele investigated further, using the recently published Khorsabad King List to show that 853 and 841 were the correct dates. He found where Assyriologists had made their error, and published the revised Assyrian Eponym Canon, which is the backbone of Assyrian chronology (and of that of much of the Ancient Near East) in all three editions of Mysterious Numbers. Thiele's revision of the Assyrian Eponym Canon that he was led to from his Biblical study is now accepted by virtually all Assyriologists.

Another place that Thiele found that the Biblical data were not consistent with the chronology accepted by most Assyriologists was the date of the fall of Samaria. In the words of his colleague Kenneth Strand,

When Thiele entered into his chronological chart the date for the fall of Samaria and the dethronement of Hoshea, the Hebrew Northern Kingdom’s last monarch, he was surprised to find that in his sequential pattern of biblical dates the year turned out to be 723 B.C., not 722 or 721. Virtually every important scholar who dealt with the history of the ancient Near East believed, on the basis of Assyrian records, that Sargon II, who acceded to the Assyrian throne toward the end of December 722, was the monarch who defeated Hoshea and brought the northern Hebrew nation to its end. . . . And once more he [Thiele] turned his attention to the pertinent Assyrian data, noting also that at least one prominent Assyriologist, Albert T. Olmstead, had already adopted 723 as the correct date.[7]

Thiele's Bible-based correction of 723 BC for the date for Samaria's fall, which Assyriologists said happened under Sargon II in 722 or 721 BC, was vindicated fourteen years after Thiele's initial publication when Hayim Tadmor published a study of Sargon's annalistic records that showed that Sargon did not engage in any military activity in the west (i.e., toward Israel) until 720 BC.[8]

A third instance in which Thiele's Bible-based chronology differed with the prevailing opinions of Assyriologists was with regard to the tribute of Menahem of Israel to Tiglath-Pileser III, described in 2 Kings 15:9. Assyriologists were sure, based on their reading of one of Tiglath-Pileser's inscriptions, that this tribute was given in 738 BC, which was after Thiele's date of death for Menahem, 742/41 BC. Eight years after Thiele's death in 1986, another inscription of Tiglath-Pileser was published that vindicated Thiele's contention that Assyriologists had not understood properly the former inscription, and again Thiele's Bible-derived date corrected the Assyriologists.[9]

Thiele's Bible-based scholarship, then, has been used to correct dates that were commonly accepted by the Assyrian academy. This needs to be made clear because there have been those who, mistakenly thinking they are supporting the Bible, accuse Thiele of somehow distorting the Biblical data to match secular history. For example, Floyd Nolen Jones writes, “Thiele’s chronology tortures and contorts the Hebrew record in order to make it fit the Assyrian framework.”[10] Other writers have made similar charges against Thiele that cannot be substantiated by the facts, documented above, of Thiele's actual method. The chronology for the Biblical kingdom period, based on Thiele's research (and to some extent on that of his predecessor, Valerius Coucke) has established the Bible as a reliable source for the four-century period of Israel's divided kingdom, and stands as a testimony to the accuracy of the abundant chronological data that the Bible gives for that time.

Thiele's chronology

Considerations when constructing a chronology for the kingdom period

Any attempt to deal with the extensive chronological data in Kings and Chronicles must take into consideration the following issues:

  1. When did the regnal year begin? Jewish history allows two possible answers. The first is the spring month of Nisan, approximately April in our modern calendar. Moses was commanded to start reckoning the year then (Exodus 12:2), and when months are designated by number instead of name, Nisan is always the "first month." The other candidate is the month of Tishri, roughly October. This started the agricultural year, and the Gezer Calendar, 10th Century BC, lists the months with Tishri as the start of the year. Rosh HaShanah (the Jewish New Year) is celebrated in Tishri down to the present day.
  2. Usually the new king did not start on a New Year's Day, whether that day was in Nisan or in Tishri, but at some other time in the year. Was this first partial year to be considered as year one of the monarch (called non-accession reckoning), or as year zero (accession reckoning)? Both ways of reckoning were done in the ancient Near East, and resolving this matter correctly would eliminate many of the apparent one-year discrepancies in the Bible's numbers.
  3. Several Scriptural references[11] indicate that the reigning king, especially in Judah, established his son as co-regent during his lifetime. This was a custom practiced by various Egyptian pharaohs. It was seen as a wise policy in Judah, especially after the disaster that occurred when Solomon did not follow the wise example of his own father in this regard. The same problem that confronts Egyptologists in examining this practice confronts the Biblical chronologist: were the years of reign given for any monarch in Scripture measured from the start of his coregency, or from the start of his sole reign?
  4. An additional complication is that anyone studying carefully the Scripture's abundant chronological data will find that the two Hebrew kingdoms were using different means of reckoning the years of their kings. When a Judean chronicler gave a synchronism saying that his Judean king began in year X of an Israelite king, would this year X be measured according to the system used at that time in Israel, or would the Judean recorder have imposed his own calendar and way of measuring years onto the Israelite king? The same question applies when a record from the northern kingdom states that their king began in year Y of a Judean king.

The necessity of addressing these four issues

Any system of chronology that does not take into consideration all these questions, and provide a satisfactory answer for them, does not give the Biblical texts a chance to speak for themselves and show which system the ancient scribes were using. These principles are derived from ancient inscriptions that were, in many cases, contemporaneous with the writings of the Scriptural authors. Early interpreters and chronologists, ignorant of these facts from the ancient world, can be excused for making various assumptions, such as interregna, in order to explain what did not fit their scheme. But it is not sound scholarship when modern writers still carry on the prejudices of anti-supernaturalist writers like Wellhausen and ignore these findings. Wellhausen decided, a priori, that the involved chronological texts of Scripture could not be trustworthy, and so he imposed on them his own presuppositions, one of which was that there were no coregencies. That would seem to make the construction of a Biblical chronology much easier, but recent authors[12] who follow Wellhausen in this unwarranted assumption have found it necessary to postulate a long series of additional assumptions in order to explain the disagreement of their system with the Scriptural texts and even with secular history.

How Thiele addressed the issues

To Thiele's credit, he did not assume that he knew beforehand how the ancient authors "should have" answered the four questions of the previous section. Instead, he was willing to investigate if the Scripture itself would supply the necessary answers. Further, he assumed that the Scriptural texts should be assumed to be accurate and trustworthy unless the opposite could be clearly demonstrated. His comparison of Scripture's various chronological texts led him to these conclusions:

  1. The texts related to the building of Solomon's Temple, and also concerning Josiah's celebrating the Passover (in Nisan) in his eighteenth year, but several weeks or even months after that eighteenth year began, indicated that Judah was using Tishri years for its monarchs. Comparison of various other texts showed that Israel was not using the same system as Judah. When Nisan years were assigned to Israel, it was found possible to reconcile various texts that previously had not been reconciled.[13]
  2. For the time from the division of the kingdom until the death of Ahab, there were six kings in the northern kingdom (ignoring Zimri's seven-day rule, which has no bearing on the measurement of reign lengths). The reign lengths of these kings sum to 78 years, which is six years short of the 84 year sum for the kings of Judah down to the time of Ahab's death. The implication is that the six kings of Israel were using non-accession years while their counterparts in Judah were using accession years. This is also shown by noting that Nadab of Israel began in year two of Asa of Judah and reigned two years, ending in year three (not year four) of Asa. Nadab's successor, Baasha, began to reign in Asa's third year and ended his 24 years in Asa's 26th (not 27th) year. By similar comparisons, Thiele concluded that although Judah began by using accession years and Israel using non-accession years, during the rapprochement between the kingdoms in the mid-ninth century BC, Judah adopted Israel's non-accession method. Later both kingdoms turned to accession reckoning. That a kingdom could change its way of reckoning a king's years is demonstrated by the case of Tiglathpileser III of Assyria, who counted his years by the non-accession method, contrary to the usual Assyrian accession-year custom.[14]
  3. Many Scriptures that previous chronologists could reconcile only by assuming interregna were found to have a natural explanation once the principles of coregencies were understood. Judean kings for which the chronological data (in addition to occasional explicit references mentioned above) mandate a coregency with his son are Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. It is widely acknowledged that the single greatest mistake in Thiele's chronology was his inability to recognize a coregency between Ahaz and Hezekiah, causing him to declare that the synchronisms of 2 Kings 18 between Hoshea of Israel and Hezekiah of Judah represented an error in the Scriptural text. But it was Thiele who was in error here, not the Scripture; his mistake was corrected by later scholars[15] and based on the same principles that Thiele had used elsewhere in constructing his chronology.
  4. The last item mentioned above for consideration was whether a kingdom used its own method of counting regnal years when specifying a synchronism to a reign in the rival kingdom. Here Thiele gave a mixed answer: although each kingdom recognized that the other kingdom's regnal year started at a six-month offset from its own, he assumed that during the time they differed on the accession/non-accession question, each kingdom imposed its own (accession or non-accession) method on the years of the rival king.

Thiele's assumptions above regarding this last point has been almost universally followed by those who have accepted his scholarship as offering the best solution to the chronological puzzle of the divided monarchies. Among these were the late Leslie McFall (died November 2015), whose 1991 Bibliotheca Sacra article[16] established him as the chief authority in developing further the Thiele tradition. However, in August 2008, McFall stated on his Web site that he was accepting a refinement to Thiele’s regnal years of Solomon initially proposed in a 2003 paper by Rodger Young,[17] and he used this refinement in subsequent writing.[18][19] The refinement showed that each kingdom fully accepted the chronological system of the other kingdom when referring to the other kingdom’s kings, instead of the half-measure assumed by Thiele. The modification requires that the reigns of the monarchs of Judah, Solomon through Athaliah, must be dated one year earlier than in Thiele’s system, thereby correcting an error that Thiele recognized but never successfully resolved. A necessary consequence of this adjustment is that when Temple construction began in the spring of the fourth year of Solomon (1 Kings 6:1), the BC year was 967 instead of the 966 that is usually given by those who follow Thiele's chronology. The Exodus, 479 years earlier according to the Hebrew text of this same verse, would have been in Nisan of 1446 BC.

Successes of Thiele's Biblical chronology in correcting secular chronology

Occasionally it is stated that Thiele derived his Biblical chronology from that of the surrounding kingdoms and then imposed that chronology on the Biblical texts. This is contradicted by what Thiele himself wrote: "Let it be repeated that the pattern of reign lengths set forth in the present book is not the product of certain arbitrary adjustments to secure a series of predetermined results. Rather, it resulted from a quest to ascertain whether or not the numbers now found in Kings could be brought together into some harmonious arrangement of reigns, and whether or not such an arrangement once produced was in harmony with the established dates of Near Eastern history."[20] In order to refute the idea that Thiele just adjusted numbers until he could match Assyrian or Babylonian dates, Thiele's colleague Kenneth Strand published a whole article that was meant to dispel this misconception. Regarding Thiele, Strand wrote, "His only 'trial and error' procedure was in seeing how the variable factors used by the Hebrew scribes were involved in producing the numbers given in the MT for the lengths of reign and synchronisms of the monarchs of the two Hebrew kingdoms. No dates whatever—either biblical or extrabiblical—were placed in his charts until he had established a pattern of internal consistency based solely on the biblical data."[21]

In each instance listed below, new data came to light after Thiele published his basic chronology, and this new data verified his chronology. This could never have happened unless Thiele's chronology was basically a correct description of when the Biblical events actually happened. In each of these instances, Thiele's Biblical chronology has proved correct whereas secular historians were wrong. Among other things, this demonstrates that Thiele's first source for his chronology was the Bible, not the varying opinions of secular historians. It is also a strong argument for the integrity of the Bible's historical statements.

  1. When Thiele began his studies, most Assyriologists placed the Battle of Qarqar, at which Ahab fought, in 854 BC, the sixth year of Shalmaneser V of Assyria. They dated Jehu's tribute in the Assyrian king's 18th year to 842 BC. Thiele could not fit these dates to the Biblical data. But he found a minority opinion, held by a few European Assyriologists, that placed Shalmaneser's regnal years one year later, and that fit the Biblical texts. Thiele, by a study of Assyrian records, was able to show that the minority opinion was correct. He published his revised edition of the Assyrian Eponym Canon in all three editions of Mysterious Numbers. Thiele's revision of Assyrian chronology in this regard is now accepted by virtually all Assyriologists.
  2. Thiele's chronology based on the Biblical texts was not compatible with Samaria falling to Sargon II in 722 BC or later, as held by most Assyriologists when Thiele first published his research. Thiele maintained, based on Scriptural texts, that Samaria must have fallen in 723, and therefore to Shalmaneser V rather than to Sargon II, despite the fact that Sargon II, at a later time in his reign, boasted of conquering Samaria. That Thiele was correct was demonstrated in 1958, when Hayim Tadmor showed, from Assyrian records, that Sargon had no campaigns in the west (i.e., toward Israel) in 722 or 721 BC.[22]
  3. In 1956, Donald Wiseman[23] published the Babylonian tablets which showed that Nebuchadnezzar's first attack on Jerusalem occurred in 605 BC. This is in agreement with the date for the event that Thiele had derived from the Biblical texts. Before then, William F. Albright and other scholars placed the event in 603 BC or later.
  4. More recently, Tadmor published the full extant text of the monument that Tiglath-Pileser III had left in Iran (the "Iran Stele"). This showed that Thiele's assignment of 743 or 742 BC for Menahem's tribute to Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings 15:19, where Pul = Tiglath-Pileser) was consistent with the new text, whereas the date of 738 BC held by Assyriologists was not consistent with all the data. Once again the chronology derived from the Biblical texts provided a corrective for the erroneous conclusions of secular historians. Although Thiele predicted that his chronology would be shown to be right when the full text of the Iran Stele was published, he died in 1986 and Tadmor did not publish the full text until eight years later.
  5. A separate development has verified Thiele's date for the beginning of the divided kingdom. This was the publication of studies of the Tyrian king list. The list of these kings was recorded in the official archives of the city of Tyre, and also in the writings of Menander of Ephesus (2nd century BC). Both these sources were available in Josephus's day, and both were cited by Josephus as saying that there were 143 years from the time that Dido left Tyre to found the city of Carthage in 825 BC to the 12th year of Hiram of Tyre, and which time Hiram assisted Solomon in the construction of the Temple at Jerusalem. This would place the beginning of Temple construction in 825 + 143 = 968 BC. This date for the beginning of Temple construction is in harmony with Thiele's date of 931 BC for the beginning of the divided monarchy, and especially with the recent revision to Thiele's chronology for Solomon by Leslie McFall[24] that shows that Temple construction began in the spring of 967 BC, in Solomon's fourth year (1 Kings 6:1). Notice that this calculation of the start of Temple construction from the Tyrian king lists is not derived from Thiele's chronology, nor is it derived from Assyrian records.[25]

These various demonstrations show that Thiele did not derive his chronology from secular records, whether Assyrian or Babylonian. Instead, his chronology, based on the Scriptures, has been used to correct the errors of secular historians. In addition, his chronology of the northern kingdom has been verified by later findings that were unknown when Thiele first published his Biblical chronology. In the scientific method, this latter consideration is the final step in the verification that a theory or hypothesis is in accord with physical (or, in this case, historical) reality. Thiele's chronology of the southern kingdom, however, has needed the later corrections applied by Leslie McFall and other historians.

Thiele’s reception in the scholarly community

The noted Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman wrote “The chronology most widely accepted today is one based on the meticulous study by Thiele.”[26] Biblical chronologist Leslie McFall, who corrected Thiele's error for the reign of Hezekiah, asserted, “Thiele’s chronology is fast becoming the consensus view among Old Testament scholars, if it has not already reached that point.”[27] Among the many scholars who have accepted Thiele's date of 931 BC for the beginning of the divided monarchies are T. C. Mitchell in the Cambridge Ancient History series,[28] Walvoord and Zuck in The Bible Knowledge Commentary,[29] Leslie McFall,[30] Gershon Galil,[31] Jack Finegan in his influential handbook on ancient chronological systems and the Bible,[32] and Andrew E. Steinmann.[33]

Not only Assyriologists, but also Egyptologists, have profited from the work of Christian scholars who have followed in this line of research. Kenneth Kitchen is recognized by other Egyptologists as one of, if not the, world's main authority on ancient Egyptian chronology. Kitchen used Thiele's dates for the division of the kingdom, along with the synchronism between Rehoboam and Shishaq/Shoshenq of Egypt in 2 Chronicles 12:2, to refine the dates of Egypt's 21st and 22nd Dynasties.[34] Subsequent studies by Egyptologists have accepted Kitchen's use of Thiele's date for the invasion of Shishak/Shoshenq, differing only on which year it was in the pharaoh's reign his invasion took place. Both Assyriologists and Egyptologists have recognized the Bible gives very reliable historical data, data that they can use to advance their own studies.

It is rather difficult to post such successes in showing the historical accuracy of the Bible in places like Wikipedia, where any moderator who does not hold to the basic tenets of the outdated and thoroughly disproven Documentary Hypothesis would be stripped of his position. Since the demonstrated accuracy of the Bible's historical data contradicts their outdated presuppositions, they remain blind to the importance of what has happened in the realm of Biblical chronology. But conservative Christian scholars such as Leslie McFall and Andrew Steinmann have recognized the importance of this research to Christian apologetics, building on Thiele's work, but modifying it for the reign of Hezekiah and making some other minor adjustments. Those who hold the Bible in high esteem, and are interested in its historical aspects, should be encouraged by the success this line of research has had in strengthening our faith in the credibility of God's Word in places where its truth can be put to the test.

Rodger Young published an independent confirmation of Thiele's Hebrew Bible chronological adjustments by using chronological information from Tyre.[35]

See also


  1. The following is from an e-mail addressed to me (“Latent”) on May 20, 2009, from Patricia Spangler of Andrews University. I had asked if they had a photograph of Edwin Thiele; in spite of all the publications about him or mentioning him, there was hardly anything available. I also asked if they could declare it to be in the Public Domain. They answered both requests, as shown in the e-mail. They are the proper owners of the photograph. Here is Ms. Spangler’s response:

    You’ve probably given up on this request many moons ago! I’m finally cleaning out my Inbox and noticed that I didn’t respond immediately when I received your message and it was buried (way buried). Please accept my apologies.

    I’ve spoken with our campus historian and she says it should be fine for you to use the photos we provided for the purposes you need. You may consider those photos to be public domain images.

    If you need any further assistance please contact me and I promise to be much faster in responding.

    Sincerely, Pat

    Pat Spangler
    Focus Editor, Editorial Manager
    Office of Integrated Marketing & Communication
    Andrews University
  2. Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, rev. edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Kregel, 1983), pp. 16, 17.
  3. Edwin R. Thiele, “The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3 (1944), pp. 137–86.
  4. Valerius Coucke, “Chronologie biblique,” in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, ed. Louis Pirot, vol. 1 (Paris: Librarie Letouze et Ané. 1928), cols. 1245–79. English translation at http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/coucke.pdf.
  5. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, p. 59, n. 17. Thiele wrote, “Not until the author had worked out the details of his chronological scheme and the resultant dates for the kings of Judah and Israel, did he become aware of the earlier work of Professor Coucke. It is a matter of gratification to know that these two independent studies have produced essentially the same results on a number of important points, such as Tishri-to-Tishri regnal years in Judah and Nisan-to-Nisan years in Israel (although Professor Coucke suggests that in the latter instance this might have been 1 Thoth instead of Nisan), and accession-year reckoning in Judah except for a period except for a period when a shift was made to the nonaccession-year system, and nonaccession-year reckoning in Israel with a later shift to the accession-year system.
  6. The eponyms of the Assyrian empire 910-612 BC. by A. R. Millard, Robert M. Whiting. State Archives of Assyria, Vol. 2. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994.
  7. Kenneth A. Strand, “Thiele’s Biblical Chronology as a Corrective for Extrabiblical Dates,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 34:2 (1996), pp. 304–05.
  8. Hayim Tadmor, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12 (1958), pp. 22–42.
  9. Rodger C. Young, “Inductive and Deductive Methods as Applied to OT Chronology,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 18:1 (2007), pp. 113–15.[1]
  10. Floyd Nolen Jones, The Chronology of the Old Testament, rev. edition (Green Forest AR: Master Books, 2005, 2009), p. 147b.
  11. 1 Kings 1:34, 1 Kings 1:17 compared to 2 Kings 3:1, 2 Kings 15:5, 1 Chronicles 23:1, 2 Chronicles 11:22.
  12. Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); M. Christine Tetley, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005).
  13. Mysterious Numbers (1983 edition) pp. 51-54.
  14. Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 232 n. 3.
  15. Siegfried Horn, "The Chronology of King Hezekiah’s Reign," Andrews University Seminary Studies 2 (1964), pp. 48-49; T. C. Mitchell and Kenneth Kitchen, New Bible Dictionary (J. D. Douglas, ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 217; Leslie McFall, "A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles," Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991), p. 33-34.
  16. Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991), pp. 3-45.
  17. Rodger C. Young, “When Did Solomon Die?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46:4 (December 2003), pp. 589–603,
  18. Leslie McFall, “Do the Sixty-Nine Weeks of Daniel Date the Messianic Mission of Nehemiah or Jesus?” “Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society“ 52:4 (December 2009), p. 690, n. 43.
  19. McFall, “The Chronology of Saul and David,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53:3 (September 2010), p. 533 (chart).
  20. Mysterious Numbers, p. 18.
  21. Kenneth A. Strand, "Thiele's Biblical Chronology as a Corrective for Extrabiblical Dates," Andrews University Seminary Studies 34 (1996) pp. 297.
  22. Hayim Tadmor, "The campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study," Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12, pp. 22-42.
  23. Donald Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
  24. http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/HebrewKingsRevised.pdf
  25. For more information on the Tyrian king list, see William Barnes, Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel, (Atlanta, GA: Scholar's Press, 1991), pp. 29-55.
  26. Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings in Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Intervarsity, 1993), p. 27.
  27. Leslie McFall, “The Chronology of Saul and David,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53 (2010) 215, n. 101.
  28. “Israel and Judah until the Revolt of Jehu (931–841 B.C.),” Cambridge Ancient History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982) III, Part 1, 445–46;
  29. John H. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, editors, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1983), p. 632.
  30. Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991), p. 12.
  31. Gershon Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 14.
  32. Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, rev. ed. (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1998)pp. 246, 249;
  33. Andrew Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), pp. 39,40.
  34. Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100 – 650 B.C.) (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1973), p. 72.
  35. Rodger Young. Bible & Spade. (Summer 2017). Solomon and the Kings of Tyre.[2]

External links