Changes

</ref>]]

</ref>]]

'''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 Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|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.

'''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 Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|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.

== Life ==

== Life ==

== Thiele's chronology ==

== Thiele's chronology ==

=== Considerations when constructing a chronology for the kingdom period ===

=== 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:

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

=== The necessity of addressing these four issues ===

=== 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<ref>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).</ref> 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.

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<ref>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).</ref> 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 ===

=== 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:

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:

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

== 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."<ref>''Mysterious Numbers'', p. 18.</ref> 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."<ref>Kenneth A. Strand, "Thiele's Biblical Chronology as a Corrective for Extrabiblical Dates," ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 34 (1996) pp. 297.</ref>

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."<ref>''Mysterious Numbers'', p. 18.</ref> 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."<ref>Kenneth A. Strand, "Thiele's Biblical Chronology as a Corrective for Extrabiblical Dates," ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 34 (1996) pp. 297.</ref>