Changes

=== The Thiele Camp ===

=== The Thiele Camp ===

This line of research takes its name from [[Edwin R. Thiele]], a historian and Biblical scholar who was one of several investigators who attempted to determine the record-keeping methods of the Biblical writers of the kingdom period, and after that was done, to see if the resultant Biblical chronology matched established dates in [[Assyria]]n and Babylonian history. An interesting consequence of this approach was that after Thiele had developed his chronology solely based on seeing if the Biblical reign lengths for the kingdom period produced a harmonious pattern, when he tried to match this pattern to commonly accepted dates in Assyrian history, he found that it did not match Assyrian dates at certain key points. Further investigation by Thiele showed it was the commonly accepted Assyrian dates, not the dates derived from the Bible, that were in error. By doing the appropriate research, he demonstrated to Assyriologists where their basic chronological backbone, the Assyrian Eponym Canon (AEC), was in error. His correction of the AEC, based on the Biblical data, is now accepted by virtually all Assyriologists. Further examples of how Thiele’s Bible-based chronology contradicted commonly accepted Assyrian dates, and subsequent research showed it was the Bible’s figures that were exact, are shown on the [[Edwin R. Thiele]] page.  

This line of research takes its name from [[Edwin R. Thiele]], a historian and Biblical scholar who was one of several investigators who attempted to determine the record-keeping methods of the Biblical writers of the kingdom period, and after that was done, to see if the resultant Biblical chronology matched established dates in [[Assyria]]n and Babylonian history. An interesting consequence of this approach was that after Thiele had developed his chronology solely based on seeing if the Biblical reign lengths for the kingdom period produced a harmonious pattern, when he tried to match this pattern to commonly accepted dates in Assyrian history, he found that it did not match Assyrian dates at certain key points. Further investigation by Thiele showed it was the commonly accepted Assyrian dates, not the dates derived from the Bible, that were in error. By doing the appropriate research, he demonstrated to Assyriologists where their basic chronological backbone, the Assyrian Eponym Canon (AEC), was in error. His correction of the AEC, based on the Biblical data, is now accepted by virtually all Assyriologists. Further examples of how Thiele's Bible-based chronology contradicted commonly accepted Assyrian dates, and subsequent research showed it was the Bible's figures that were exact, are shown on the [[Edwin R. Thiele]] page.  

It is necessary to clarify this issue because some scholars who maintain that Ussher’s chronology, or a slight modification of it, is the only valid Biblical chronology have made very misleading statements about Thiele’s method. The charge is made that Thiele started with Assyrian data and “force fit” his Biblical chronology to the findings of the Assyrian academy. This is exactly the opposite of what was done. Occasionally statements are not only false but are also quite bitter in attacking, and misrepresenting, what Thiele and those who have followed in his footsteps accomplished. This is shown by the following statements:

It is necessary to clarify this issue because some scholars who maintain that Ussher's chronology, or a slight modification of it, is the only valid Biblical chronology have made very misleading statements about Thiele's method. The charge is made that Thiele started with Assyrian data and “force fit” his Biblical chronology to the findings of the Assyrian academy. This is exactly the opposite of what was done. Occasionally statements are not only false but are also quite bitter in attacking, and misrepresenting, what Thiele and those who have followed in his footsteps accomplished. This is shown by the following statements:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

The other three camps stand on {{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}}. Late-date theorists cannot and do not attempt to square this simple statement—that the Temple was built exactly 480 years after the Exodus—with archaeological findings that, to some, suggest that the Exodus and the Temple groundbreaking occurred closer together in time. Instead, they simply assert that the literal reading cannot be trusted, on grounds that their opponents find highly tenuous at best.<ref name=Dyer/>

The other three camps stand on {{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}}. Late-date theorists cannot and do not attempt to square this simple statement—that the Temple was built exactly 480 years after the Exodus—with archaeological findings that, to some, suggest that the Exodus and the Temple groundbreaking occurred closer together in time. Instead, they simply assert that the literal reading cannot be trusted, on grounds that their opponents find highly tenuous at best.<ref name=Dyer/>

A fairly recent line of investigation supports the 1446 date, based on Israel’s Jubilee cycles.<ref>Andrew E. Steinmann, ''From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology''  (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), pp. 48–53.</ref> This research takes as a starting point that the Hebrew text of Ezekiel 40:1, a revelation given on Tishri 10 (Day of Atonement) of 574 BC, implies that Ezekiel’s vision was at the beginning of a Jubilee year. Additionally, Jewish tradition<ref>''Seder Olam Rabbah'' 11, 24; ''Babylonian Talmud'' ‘Arakin 12b.</ref> says Ezekiel’s vision was the beginning of the 17th Jubilee.<ref>Rodger C. Young, “The Talmud’s Two Jubilees and Their Relevance to the Date of the Exodus” ''Westminster Theological Journal'' 68 (2006), pp. 71–83.</ref> Back-calculating then yields 1406 BC (exactly) as the start of counting for the Jubilee cycles. Counting for the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles began when Israel entered Canaan (Lev. 25:1–4, 8–10), so the Exodus would have occurred 40 years earlier, in 1446 BC. This calculation, with its starting point in 574 BC, is entirely independent of Thiele’s chronology, although it is consistent with Thiele’s date for the division of the kingdom in 931 BC. It thus lends credibility to Thiele’s Bible-based reasoning that arrived at his date for the division of the kingdom, as well as providing independent evidence in favor of the “early” date of the Exodus (1446 BC).

A fairly recent line of investigation supports the 1446 date, based on Israel's Jubilee cycles.<ref>Andrew E. Steinmann, ''From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology''  (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), pp. 48–53.</ref> This research takes as a starting point that the Hebrew text of Ezekiel 40:1, a revelation given on Tishri 10 (Day of Atonement) of 574 BC, implies that Ezekiel's vision was at the beginning of a Jubilee year. Additionally, Jewish tradition<ref>''Seder Olam Rabbah'' 11, 24; ''Babylonian Talmud'' ‘Arakin 12b.</ref> says Ezekiel's vision was the beginning of the 17th Jubilee.<ref>Rodger C. Young, “The Talmud’s Two Jubilees and Their Relevance to the Date of the Exodus” ''Westminster Theological Journal'' 68 (2006), pp. 71–83.</ref> Back-calculating then yields 1406 BC (exactly) as the start of counting for the Jubilee cycles. Counting for the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles began when Israel entered Canaan (Lev. 25:1–4, 8–10), so the Exodus would have occurred 40 years earlier, in 1446 BC. This calculation, with its starting point in 574 BC, is entirely independent of Thiele's chronology, although it is consistent with Thiele's date for the division of the kingdom in 931 BC. It thus lends credibility to Thiele's Bible-based reasoning that arrived at his date for the division of the kingdom, as well as providing independent evidence in favor of the “early” date of the Exodus (1446 BC).

=== The Chronology of the United and Divided Kingdoms ===

=== The Chronology of the United and Divided Kingdoms ===

# That this was also the date that Nebuchadnezzar's son [[Evil-Merodach]] began to reign.

# That this was also the date that Nebuchadnezzar's son [[Evil-Merodach]] began to reign.

There is, however, a problem with Ussher’s calculation at this starting point. It is known from Ptolemy’s ''Canon'' and from contract texts that Evil-Merodach’s accession year was the year that started in Nisan (a spring month) of 562 BC. This was also the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s captivity (2 Kings 25:27), so that he would have been taken captive in (562 BC + 36) = 598 BC. Ussher assumed Nisan years for all these dates and accession reckoning for Zedekiah, successor to Jehoiachin, which would end Zedekiah's 11-year reign in 587, in agreement with some modern detailed studies,<ref>Steinmann, ''From Abraham to Paul'', pp. 162-169.</ref> instead of Ussher’s 588.

There is, however, a problem with Ussher's calculation at this starting point. It is known from Ptolemy's ''Canon'' and from contract texts that Evil-Merodach's accession year was the year that started in Nisan (a spring month) of 562 BC. This was also the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity (2 Kings 25:27), so that he would have been taken captive in (562 BC + 36) = 598 BC. Ussher assumed Nisan years for all these dates and accession reckoning for Zedekiah, successor to Jehoiachin, which would end Zedekiah's 11-year reign in 587, in agreement with some modern detailed studies,<ref>Steinmann, ''From Abraham to Paul'', pp. 162-169.</ref> instead of Ussher's 588.

From his date of 588 BC, Ussher worked backward, using the meticulous dates that appear throughout I and II Kings and II Chronicles, each of which gives a date of a king's accession with references to a year of reign of another king—except that kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] after the conquest of the [[Northern Kingdom]] are listed only with their ages and lengths of reign, and King [[Jehoiachin]] is referenced by how many years he had been a captive when Evil-Merodach acceded to his throne. Ussher’s calculations then placed the division of the kingdoms at 975 BC, and the beginning of Solomon's reign at 1015 BC. In order to arrive at these dates, Ussher had to make several assumptions about how to interpret the Biblical data, such as whether a given reign length or synchronism was measured from a coregency or from a sole reign. He postulated three coregencies for Judah. For Israel, he assumed three coregencies, one rival reign, and two interregna. For comparison, Thiele postulated six coregencies for Judah, and one coregency and two rival reigns for Israel. This is the area where the largest divergences are between the Thiele and Ussher camps, and the source of the 45 year difference in their dates of Solomon.  

From his date of 588 BC, Ussher worked backward, using the meticulous dates that appear throughout I and II Kings and II Chronicles, each of which gives a date of a king's accession with references to a year of reign of another king—except that kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] after the conquest of the [[Northern Kingdom]] are listed only with their ages and lengths of reign, and King [[Jehoiachin]] is referenced by how many years he had been a captive when Evil-Merodach acceded to his throne. Ussher's calculations then placed the division of the kingdoms at 975 BC, and the beginning of Solomon's reign at 1015 BC. In order to arrive at these dates, Ussher had to make several assumptions about how to interpret the Biblical data, such as whether a given reign length or synchronism was measured from a coregency or from a sole reign. He postulated three coregencies for Judah. For Israel, he assumed three coregencies, one rival reign, and two interregna. For comparison, Thiele postulated six coregencies for Judah, and one coregency and two rival reigns for Israel. This is the area where the largest divergences are between the Thiele and Ussher camps, and the source of the 45 year difference in their dates of Solomon.  

In studying Ussher’s reasoning, it becomes clear that one of the major features contributing to the difference is the interregna, since both scholars used basically the same method in determining when the Biblical data called for a coregency. Ussher began an eleven-year interregnum at the death of Jeroboam II of Israel and an eight-year interregnum between Pekah and Hoshea, the last two kings of Israel. In 2 Kings 15:30, the Hebrew original says that Hoshea was actually reigning in the same year that the he killed Pekah; there was no interregnum. The Hebrew verb used cannot honestly be interpreted in any other way, and so this issue of the interregna has become problematic for Ussher’s chronology. As mentioned before, Thiele had no need of interregna; his interpretation of the Biblical texts does no violence to 2 Kings 15:8 and 2 Kings 15:30.

In studying Ussher's reasoning, it becomes clear that one of the major features contributing to the difference is the interregna, since both scholars used basically the same method in determining when the Biblical data called for a coregency. Ussher began an eleven-year interregnum at the death of Jeroboam II of Israel and an eight-year interregnum between Pekah and Hoshea, the last two kings of Israel. In 2 Kings 15:30, the Hebrew original says that Hoshea was actually reigning in the same year that the he killed Pekah; there was no interregnum. The Hebrew verb used cannot honestly be interpreted in any other way, and so this issue of the interregna has become problematic for Ussher's chronology. As mentioned before, Thiele had no need of interregna; his interpretation of the Biblical texts does no violence to 2 Kings 15:8 and 2 Kings 15:30.

{{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}} states that Solomon broke ground on the Temple in the fourth year of his reign—and that this event took place in the ''four hundred eightieth year since the [[Exodus of Israel]].'' This places the Exodus at 1491 BC when using Ussher’s dates for Solomon.

{{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}} states that Solomon broke ground on the Temple in the fourth year of his reign—and that this event took place in the ''four hundred eightieth year since the [[Exodus of Israel]].'' This places the Exodus at 1491 BC when using Ussher's dates for Solomon.

It is well known that Ussher’s dates for the kingdom period have not found verification from archaeological discoveries and the reading of inscriptions from the Ancient Near East. This information was not available in Ussher’s time. As explained on the [[Thiele|Edwin R. Thiele]] page, Thiele also initially had trouble matching his Biblically-derived dates with the Assyrian data, but further investigation showed it was the dates commonly accepted by the Assyrian academy that were in error, not the Biblical dates as derived by Thiele. Assyriologists have generally accepted the corrections that Thiele found would be necessary in order to reconcile Assyrian dates with God’s Word. This is one of the strongest affirmations of the correctness of Thiele’s way of interpreting the rich and complex chronological data of the kingdom period.

It is well known that Ussher's dates for the kingdom period have not found verification from archaeological discoveries and the reading of inscriptions from the Ancient Near East. This information was not available in Ussher's time. As explained on the [[Thiele|Edwin R. Thiele]] page, Thiele also initially had trouble matching his Biblically-derived dates with the Assyrian data, but further investigation showed it was the dates commonly accepted by the Assyrian academy that were in error, not the Biblical dates as derived by Thiele. Assyriologists have generally accepted the corrections that Thiele found would be necessary in order to reconcile Assyrian dates with God's Word. This is one of the strongest affirmations of the correctness of Thiele's way of interpreting the rich and complex chronological data of the kingdom period.

The following list shows how Thiele’s Bible-based chronology disagreed at some points with the commonly accepted Assyrian dates, but Thiele “stuck by his guns” and showed that it was the interpretation of the Assyrian texts that was in error, not the texts from the Bible. The events are:

The following list shows how Thiele's Bible-based chronology disagreed at some points with the commonly accepted Assyrian dates, but Thiele “stuck by his guns” and showed that it was the interpretation of the Assyrian texts that was in error, not the texts from the Bible. The events are:

# That a king identified as [[Jehu]] paid tribute to King [[Shalmaneser III]] of [[Assyria]] in 841 BC, as the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III attests. Previous to Thiele’s studies, the majority of Assyriologists dated the tribute one year earlier. Thiele’s study of the Biblical data led him to investigate the reasoning of the Assyrian academy in deriving this date. His one-year correction for Jehu’s tribute, and the regnal years of Shalmaneser, is now accepted by Assyriologists.  

# That a king identified as [[Jehu]] paid tribute to King [[Shalmaneser III]] of [[Assyria]] in 841 BC, as the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III attests. Previous to Thiele's studies, the majority of Assyriologists dated the tribute one year earlier. Thiele's study of the Biblical data led him to investigate the reasoning of the Assyrian academy in deriving this date. His one-year correction for Jehu's tribute, and the regnal years of Shalmaneser, is now accepted by Assyriologists.  

# That a king identified as [[Ahab]] contributed a sizeable portion to a coalition force that fought against Shalmaneser III in a major battle at [[Qarqar]] in 853 BC. Again, Thiele’s chronology as derived from the Biblical historical books required that the tribute was in 853 instead of in 854, the date held by the majority of the Assyrian academy. In all three editions of his ''Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings'', Thiele published his revision of the Assyrian Eponym Canon that allowed the Assyriologists’ dates to match those derived from the Bible. This has been a great testimony to the reliability of the Bible’s chronological data ''when interpreted correctly''.

# That a king identified as [[Ahab]] contributed a sizeable portion to a coalition force that fought against Shalmaneser III in a major battle at [[Qarqar]] in 853 BC. Again, Thiele's chronology as derived from the Biblical historical books required that the tribute was in 853 instead of in 854, the date held by the majority of the Assyrian academy. In all three editions of his ''Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings'', Thiele published his revision of the Assyrian Eponym Canon that allowed the Assyriologists’ dates to match those derived from the Bible. This has been a great testimony to the reliability of the Bible's chronological data ''when interpreted correctly''.

# That [[Sennacherib]] invaded the [[Southern Kingdom]], in the days of King [[Hezekiah]], in 701 BC. The date is well established from Assyrian records, and it is consistent with Thiele’s chronology.

# That [[Sennacherib]] invaded the [[Southern Kingdom]], in the days of King [[Hezekiah]], in 701 BC. The date is well established from Assyrian records, and it is consistent with Thiele's chronology.

#That Menahem of Israel gave tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III at some time between the Assyrian’s first year of reign, 745 BC, and the death of Menahem, which Thiele placed in 742/41 BC. Tiglath-Pileser’s original name was Pul (2 Kings 15:9), as has been established from Babylonian<ref>Edwin R. Thiele, ''The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings'' (3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), p. 141, n. 4.</ref> and Phoenician<ref>In the Phoenician Incirli Stela, Tiglath-Pileser’s name is written as פאל (Stephen A. Kaufman, “The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Trilingual: A Tentative Reconstruction and Translation,” MAARAV 14.2 [2007], pp. 7–26).</ref> records. The tribute was challenged by Floyd Nolen Jones, who wrote, “Thus, there is no Assyrian historical text which says or even infers that Tiglath-Pileser collected tribute from Menahem of Israel, although almost all scholarly sources proclaim that he so did.”<ref>Jones, ''Chronology of the OT'', p. 172a.</ref> This statement is false. The text of the Iran Stela, published in 1994, says explicitly that Tiglath-Pileser received tribute from Menahem of Samaria. Ussher’s dates for Menahem, 772 to 761 BC, would make it impossible for him to give tribute to Tiglath-Pileser, who reigned from 745 to 727 BC. This problem with Ussher’s dates has never been resolved by the “Ussher camp.” It arose in part because of Ussher’s interregnum that not only produced conflict with Assyrian dates, but, more importantly, with the Hebrew text of 2 Kings 15:30. This and Ussher’s other unwarranted interregnum have contributed to the 45-year divergence between Ussher’s dates and those of modern scholarship.

#That Menahem of Israel gave tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III at some time between the Assyrian's first year of reign, 745 BC, and the death of Menahem, which Thiele placed in 742/41 BC. Tiglath-Pileser's original name was Pul (2 Kings 15:9), as has been established from Babylonian<ref>Edwin R. Thiele, ''The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings'' (3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), p. 141, n. 4.</ref> and Phoenician<ref>In the Phoenician Incirli Stela, Tiglath-Pileser’s name is written as פאל (Stephen A. Kaufman, “The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Trilingual: A Tentative Reconstruction and Translation,” MAARAV 14.2 [2007], pp. 7–26).</ref> records. The tribute was challenged by Floyd Nolen Jones, who wrote, “Thus, there is no Assyrian historical text which says or even infers that Tiglath-Pileser collected tribute from Menahem of Israel, although almost all scholarly sources proclaim that he so did.”<ref>Jones, ''Chronology of the OT'', p. 172a.</ref> This statement is false. The text of the Iran Stela, published in 1994, says explicitly that Tiglath-Pileser received tribute from Menahem of Samaria. Ussher's dates for Menahem, 772 to 761 BC, would make it impossible for him to give tribute to Tiglath-Pileser, who reigned from 745 to 727 BC. This problem with Ussher's dates has never been resolved by the “Ussher camp.” It arose in part because of Ussher's interregnum that not only produced conflict with Assyrian dates, but, more importantly, with the Hebrew text of 2 Kings 15:30. This and Ussher's other unwarranted interregnum have contributed to the 45-year divergence between Ussher's dates and those of modern scholarship.

All these dates presented serious problems for Ussher’s interpretation of the chronological data of I and II Kings and II Chronicles—as shown by Ussher calculating King Jehu as having acceded to the throne of Israel (and also killed King [[Ahaziah]] of Judah) in 884 BC.<ref>[[James Ussher|Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]], pgh. 535</ref>  

All these dates presented serious problems for Ussher's interpretation of the chronological data of I and II Kings and II Chronicles—as shown by Ussher calculating King Jehu as having acceded to the throne of Israel (and also killed King [[Ahaziah]] of Judah) in 884 BC.<ref>[[James Ussher|Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]], pgh. 535</ref>  

Other areas contributing to the 45-year difference are as follows.

Other areas contributing to the 45-year difference are as follows.

# Thiele calculated that the 41-year reign of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:23) was measured from his appointment as coregent, while Ussher preceded these 41 years with an 11-year coregency, thus making a total of 52 years for Jeroboam in Ussher's system.

# Thiele calculated that the 41-year reign of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:23) was measured from his appointment as coregent, while Ussher preceded these 41 years with an 11-year coregency, thus making a total of 52 years for Jeroboam in Ussher's system.

# Thiele’s chronology has no need of the two interregna immediately following the deaths of Jeroboam II and [[Pekah]]. The first of Ussher's interregna is unnecessary and the second is in conflict with 2 Kings 15:30, as described above. These interregna cannot be supported by a literal and faithful reading of the two Scriptures involved, as mentioned above.

# Thiele's chronology has no need of the two interregna immediately following the deaths of Jeroboam II and [[Pekah]]. The first of Ussher's interregna is unnecessary and the second is in conflict with 2 Kings 15:30, as described above. These interregna cannot be supported by a literal and faithful reading of the two Scriptures involved, as mentioned above.

# Thiele determined, following some previous scholarship, that Pekah and [[Menahem]] began their reigns together and that Pekah simply wiped out the short-lived "House" of Menahem after building a rebel power base for twelve of the twenty years he is supposed to have reigned.

# Thiele determined, following some previous scholarship, that Pekah and [[Menahem]] began their reigns together and that Pekah simply wiped out the short-lived "House" of Menahem after building a rebel power base for twelve of the twenty years he is supposed to have reigned.

Some Ussherites contend that while Ussher assumed the primacy of Scripture, Thiele assumed the primacy of secular historical records (what Ussher called "profane history"). But anyone who has read, and understood, Thiele’s works will know that this is quite the opposite of the facts.

Some Ussherites contend that while Ussher assumed the primacy of Scripture, Thiele assumed the primacy of secular historical records (what Ussher called "profane history"). But anyone who has read, and understood, Thiele's works will know that this is quite the opposite of the facts.

== A Synoptic Table ==

== A Synoptic Table ==