Changes

# 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.<ref>''Mysterious Numbers'' (1983 edition) pp. 51-54.</ref>

# 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.<ref>''Mysterious Numbers'' (1983 edition) pp. 51-54.</ref>

# 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. 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.<ref>Hayim Tadmor, ''The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria'' (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 232 n. 3.</ref>

# 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. 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.<ref>Hayim Tadmor, ''The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria'' (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 232 n. 3.</ref>

# 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<ref> 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.</ref> and based on the same principles that Thiele had used elsewhere in constructing his chronology.  

# 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<ref>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.</ref> and based on the same principles that Thiele had used elsewhere in constructing his chronology.  

# 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.  

# 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 Leslie McFall, whose 1991 ''Bibliotheca Sacra'' article established him as the chief living authority in developing further the Thiele tradition. However, in August 2008, McFall stated on [http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/ his Web site] that he was adopting a refinement to the regnal years of Solomon that showed that each kingdom fully used the system of the other kingdom when referring to their kings, instead of the half-measure assumed by Thiele.<ref> http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/HebrewKingsRevised.pdf</ref> 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.

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 Leslie McFall, whose 1991 ''Bibliotheca Sacra'' article established him as the chief living authority in developing further the Thiele tradition. However, in August 2008, McFall stated on [http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/ his Web site] that he was adopting a refinement to the regnal years of Solomon that showed that each kingdom fully used the system of the other kingdom when referring to their kings, instead of the half-measure assumed by Thiele.<ref>http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/HebrewKingsRevised.pdf</ref> 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 ==

== Successes of Thiele's Biblical chronology in correcting secular chronology ==

=== Major Publication ===

=== 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 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 Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel," ''Journal of Near Eastern Studies'' 3 (1944), pp.&nbsp;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.

* ''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.

*[http://www.olive-tree.net/redemptiveplan/ThieleSummary.htm A Summary of Edwin Thiele's Work] by Olive Tree Ministries

*[http://www.olive-tree.net/redemptiveplan/ThieleSummary.htm A Summary of Edwin Thiele's Work] by Olive Tree Ministries

{{DEFAULTSORT: Thiele, Edwin R.}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Thiele, Edwin R.}}

[[Category:Creationists]]

[[Category:Creationists]]