THE PROBLEMATIC TIMELINE OF EDWIN THIELE
Thiele’s chart on page 12 of his book clearly shows that he dismisses the biblical record to uphold the Assyrian record when he feels pressure to conform one to the other. Or, better put, he makes the Bible conform to his interpretation of the Assyrian record. For example, note in particular the Bible’s statements about Hezekiah in relation to Israel’s last king, Hoshea. The Bible states (1) that Hezekiah reigned [ascended] in Hoshea’s 3rd year (II Ki. 18:1), and (2) that Hezekiah’s 4th year was Hoshea’s 7th year (II Ki. 18:9), and (3) that Hezekiah’s 6th year was Hoshea’s 9th year (II Ki. 18:10). But note in Thiele’s chart there is no intersection whatsoever between Hezekiah’s and Hoshea’s reigns, for Thiele puts Hezekiah’s reign at 715—686 BC, and Hoshea’s reign at 732—723 BC. But there is an asterisk following the “3rd of Hoshea” and “12th of Ahaz” in Thiele’s chart, which offers this footnote explanation: Says Thiele:
“These data arise when the reign of Hoshea is thrown twelve years in advance of its historical position.”
We should marvel at such diplomatic language that all but disguises to readers that he, Thiele, is stating that it is the Bible which has erroneously thrown in the 12 years, and that the “historical position” to which he refers is the Assyrian record, which he believes is true even though he knows it is at odds with the Bible.
Obviously, this approach doesn’t overly concern Thiele, which is why he makes some disparaging remarks about the “shoddy” approach of strict biblicists who apparently won’t bow to his system. Even William Irwin in his Introduction to Thiele’s book writes as though any other solution than Thiele’s is absurd. And thus enters an additional problem. For whether it is Thiele in the Prefaces and text, or Irwin in the Introduction, each seems ignorant of the historical opposition to views like Thiele’s which reach back to at least 1875, when Assyriologist George Smith published his book, The Assyrian Eponym Canon, which included various persons’ interpretations of the Assyrian eponym canon. Instead Irwin, with hero- worshipping tone, lauds Thiele’s efforts at synchronizing biblical chronology:
They take account of all the data provided by the biblical record and organize them in a system that is rational, consistent, and precise. His findings harmonize with all that is known of relevant chronology of the entire world of the Bible. Let us repeat for emphasis: the striking feature of Professor Thiele’s illumination of this once insoluble riddle is its high scholarship and appeal only to scholarly considerations.55
Apparently, this ‘high scholarship’ includes Thiele’s omission of a vital deduction from Jeremiah 28. There, events in the 5th month of the 4th year of Jehoiakim show that Hananiah falsely prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar’s power would be broken in two years, whereupon Jeremiah tells Hananiah:
Listen now, Hananiah, the Lord has not sent you, and you have made this people trust in a lie. Therefore thus says the Lord, ‘Behold I am about to remove you from the face of the earth. This year you are going to die, because you have counseled rebellion against the Lord’. So Hananiah the prophet died in the same year in the seventh month (28:15; NASB).
This chapter indisputably proves that Jeremiah reckoned events from Nisan, not Tishri, since it regards the 5th and 7th months as being in the same year. Yet Thiele claims the Southern kingdom reckoned from Tishri! Again, the Scriptural index at the back of Thiele’s book shows no mention of Jeremiah 28, which suggests Thiele isn’t even aware of this objection to his system. Or else it suggests that Thiele disdains that biblical statements on this order could be accurate. If the latter, one wonders why he would feel much concern at all about harmonizing biblical statements if he believes they are occasionally mistaken. Nevertheless, all this passes for Thiele’s ‘high scholarship’ by his supporters. Rather, the correct position recognizes that while the reigns of Judean kings were contemporaneously reckoned according to the Nisan to Nisan year, they were nevertheless recorded by later historians from the perspective of Tishri to Tishri by exilic or post-exilic (though still expatriate) writer(s), as we have seen in Chapter 3.
In another revealing statement in the introduction, Irwin writes:
What is one to do, for example, when the accession of Hezekiah is dated both in the sixth year before the fall of Samaria in 723/722 (II Kings 18:10) and in the fourteenth before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah in 701 B.C. (II Kings 18:13)?
But, again, if only Thiele and Irwin showed more awareness and respect for those scholars who preceded them, who, if like Thiele, did not believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures, were at least in the case of George Smith willing to quote another’s view if it seemed a natural explanation could be offered. Smith, while himself proposing the idea that Hezekiah’s “14th year” should read “24th year,” nevertheless felt Ernest du Bunsen’s solution had enough merit to warrant inclusion in his book. Cites Smith of du Bunsen:
The Bible states that the expedition in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah was commanded by “Sennacherib, king of Assyria,” while the Assyrian canon and the annals of Sargon show that the expedition of B.C. 711 was in the reign of Sargon; that of Sennacherib not commencing until six years later. It appears probable, however, that Sennacherib held some official rank during his father’s reign, and it is quite possible that he commanded the expedition in B.C. 711, as his father’s deputy. In the tablet k 2169 Sennacherib is called “rabsaki” (rabshakeh) or general, and “great royal son,” that is, heir to the throne; and he is said to possess his own scribe; the passage reads:
1 Tablet of Aia-suzubu-ilih the scribe
2 of the rabshakeh, of Sennacherib,
3 the great royal son of Sargon, king of Assyria.
The title, great royal son, was assumed by Assurbanipal when he was associated with his father on the throne.
We will show in Chapter 6 that Sennacherib’s campaign in 711 BC, mentioned in II Kings, was directed against Judah during Hezekiah’s 14th year. The cylinder of Sargon in the British Museum and the annals on the walls of his palace appear to differ as to the regnal year of the expedition, i.e. 711 BC. In the cylinder it is called the 9th year, but in the annals it is called the 11th year. It is the annals which are correct, since 711 BC is the 14th year of Hezekiah’s reign. (See [https://archive.org/details/assyrianeponymca00smitiala], p. 66) In fact, by co-coordinating the Isaiah 38 account with that of II Kings 18, we can deduce that Sennacherib began to invade Judah sometime from Nisan up to, but not including, Tishri.
As evident from Thiele’s subject index, no mention is made of de Bunsen’s natural explanation, which would place Hezekiah’s 14th year in the general vicinity of where the Bible puts it. And so, biblical and Assyrian records both agree that the reigns of Hezekiah and Hoshea intersect, though the Assyrian record assigns Hoshea’s ascension at least a half year before the biblical record. But, again, Thiele claims the reigns do not intersect whatsoever and are separated by 12 years. Nor does Thiele find George Smith of the Department of Oriental Antiquities of the British Museum (and translator of the Epic of Gilgamesh) worth mentioning in his book besides the barest footnote that Smith’s book shows eponym lists. Instead, Thiele claims, on the basis of the Assyrian text alone (or, rather, one should say, on the basis of Thiele’s interpretation of the Assyrian text alone), that the biblical narrative must be understood to include a co- regency of Manasseh for 12 years, even though the Bible gives no indication of any such co-regency. Thus Thiele claims Manasseh is 12 when he co-reigns, not when he solely reigns.
And then there is the matter of Ahab the Israelite. Or was he an Israelite? At any rate, Thiele thinks that the mention in the Assyrian text of one, “Ahab Zirhala,” is none other than the biblical Ahab. But for `Thiele this means Ahab must have died in 853 or 854 BC instead of in 858/7 BC (Tishri reckoning) where the Bible puts it. Here again, one looks in vain for Thiele to mention any serious objection to his view of compressing the biblical narrative, as if there were no serious opposition to his
After Jehu killed Jehoram (Israel) and Ahaziah (Judah), he had Ahab’s widow (Jezebel) thrown out a window. Ironically, while this Queen Mother of Israel died, the Queen Mother of Judah (Athaliah) executed her grandsons and enthroned herself. Only Joash survived the slaughter.
view and that the facts speak for themselves. But as George Smith demonstrates in The Assyrian Eponym Canon, Ahab “the Israelite” may not necessarily be the Ahab of the Bible nor even of the Northern kingdom of Israel. For although Smith admits that “the ordinary view of Assyriologists is that the Ahab and Jehu mentioned in the Assyrian text are the two kings of Israel “so named,” he proceeds to say:
The first one is called Ahab of Zirhala; and Professor [Julius] Oppert, who discovered the name, reads Ahab the Israelite; but some ingenious remarks have been made on the name Zirhala by Rev. D.H. Haigh, who has pointed out that Zir is not the usual reading of the first character, and that the name should be Suhala; and he suggests that the geographical name Samhala, or Savhala, a kingdom near Damascus, is intended in this place, and not the kingdom of Israel. The hypothesis of the Rev. D.H. Haigh may be correct; certainly he is right as to the usual phonetic value of the first character of this geographical name; but on the other hand, we find it certainly used sometimes for the syllable zir….
…It does not seem likely that the Biblical Ahab, who was the foe of the king of Damascus, sent any troops to his [Ben-hadad of Syria’s] aid, at least, such a circumstance is never hinted at in the Bible, and is contrary to the description of his conduct and reign.
Nevertheless, because Thiele wishes to massage the biblical record to accord with the Assyrian, he proposes an unexpected co-regency for Manasseh to compress the narrative in an attempt to prove Ahab died in 853 BC. So we must ask, Is Thiele really acting in defense of the biblical record? Or does it instead show that Thiele forces biblical statements to ‘accord’ with the Assyrian record, while in fact his proposal about Ahab was countered long ago by scholars who gave more leeway to those with differing opinions? Or else is Thiele actually unaware of such viewpoints because he never much studied views so naturally antithetical to his own?
Whatever the reason, we have enough statements from Thiele’s book to know exactly what he thinks of the biblical record. For example, on page 63 he says: “It will be shown in Chapter 6 that dual dating for Pekah was not understood at the time the final editorial work on Kings was being concluded,” and on page 136, “Thus it is only when the synchronisms of II Kings 17 and 18 are seen as late and artificial that the true picture of Hebrew history of this important time can be reconstructed.” Further, Thiele, after calling a portion of God’s word “artificial,” states on page 137: “[Regarding] the editor responsible for these synchronisms in II Kings 17 and 18, late [in date] though he may be…My attitude toward him is not one of censure but of gratefulness and praise.” I’m not sure why Thiele would
Elisha and the Son of the Shunamite Woman, by Jan Slayturs (1904). Many of God’s prophets were active during the reigns of the Hebrew Kings, including Elijah and his protégé Elisha. Here Elisha raises a boy from the dead.
think “artificial” synchronisms are worthy of gratefulness and praise, or why Thiele decided not to spare biblical writers the patronizing.
Moving on, when spot-checking a particular point further inside Thiele’s book, I found to my amazement that Thiele tries to persuade readers that Hosea 5:5 is proof that Ephraim was a separate and third kingdom in addition to Israel and Judah, despite no mention whatsoever in the Old Testament of a separate king or kingdom of Ephraim. Indeed, if one simply reads several verses past Hosea 5:5, Ephraim is actually stated to be a “tribe among Israel.” Surely, then, the point of Hosea was that Ephraim was a large tribe and the one most active in advocating an Assyrian alliance. And so the phrase “Israel and Ephraim” was merely Hosea’s way of expressing the sin of trusting in foreign alliance, from the general (Israel) to the particular (Ephraim).
However much, then, Thiele stresses it is the opposition, not he, that uses biased, a priori arguments, it is evident what biases he himself has assumed when approaching the Assyrian record and biblical chronology. Granted that the Assyrian limmu records are more clearly linearly chronological than biblical statements. But what does that prove? That Thiele’s system is the only one that can account for all the biblical data? But in fact the synchronization offered in this chapter recognizes accession year reckoning for all or nearly all the Judean rulers (except Joash, who ascended Tishri 1, and possibly Jehoram (Judah), unlike Thiele’s, and that non-accession year reckoning for the Northern kingdom was not always the case, with 5 exceptions among its 19 kings. And our model accords and/or does not conflict with Assyrian records on the following crucial points: (1) a 3-year siege of Samaria that ends in 720; (2) the beginning of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah in Hezekiah’s 14th year, in the period from Nisan up to (but not including) Tishri, 711 BC; (3) tribute paid by Jehu son of Omri (if this is the same as Jehu son of Nimshi) in 842 and 839 BC; (4) Menahem’s paying of tribute during the reign of Pul, king of Assyria; (5) activity between Pekah and Tiglath-Pileser in Pekah’s 2nd and 17th years; (6) Hoshea paying tribute to Shalmaneser.
And so, again, we must take issue not with the Assyrian record, but of Thiele’s interpretation of it. Furthermore, it seems odd that Thiele claims at the end of his text that, “It is only proper that the dates we have given here for the rulers of Israel and Judah should be subjected to every possible test.” As if Thiele himself has done so. For what of Jeremiah 28 and of George Smith, Ernest du Bunsen, and D.H. Haigh?
Now, although I have given the major reasons why I reject Thiele’s position and that of his strict disciples, there are nevertheless some difficulties in synchronizing the Hebrew kings according to the biblical record. However, explanations to these difficulties follow the 400+, year-by-year table below.
Finally (and moving past the subject of Thiele for a moment), to show how ridiculous are certain explanations that have been attempted regarding the timeline of Hebrew kings, consider the following which I found online. It notes the difficulty of Jotham “reigning” 16 years, while the Bible elsewhere mentions “the twentieth year of Jotham:”
Dr. [Joseph] Lightfoot has said that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to speak in terms of the reign of pious Jotham in his grave rather than of impious Ahaz on the throne.
This explanation is a possible one. Therefore we must conclude that there is no necessary contradiction in the two statements under consideration.
However much we might applaud the motive of Christians who feel the proper need to explain ‘contradictions’ in the Scriptures, we find here a supreme irony in that the online commentator who appeals to Dr. Lightfoot’s ‘pious Jotham’ explanation, nevertheless has no hesitancy to declare (in All Caps) on his home page:
“THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION”:
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.”
That such an explanation as Dr. Lightfoot’s ‘pious Jotham’ explanation could be considered “common sense” is illogical. For why then would it not seem good to the Holy Spirit to likewise reckon the regnal years of other evil Hebrew kings besides Ahaz? Frankly, such “pious Jotham”-type explanations show what means are sometimes substituted for the time-consuming, analytical work necessary to the task of reconstructing the chronology of the Hebrew kings.