<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.8″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Thiele\u2019s 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 <\/em>the Assyrian record. For example, note in particular the Bible\u2019s statements about Hezekiah in relation to Israel\u2019s last king, Hoshea. The Bible states (1) that Hezekiah reigned [ascended] in Hoshea\u2019s 3rd year (II Ki. 18:1), and (2) that Hezekiah\u2019s 4th year was Hoshea\u2019s 7th year (II Ki. 18:9), and (3) that Hezekiah\u2019s 6th year was Hoshea\u2019s 9th year (II Ki. 18:10). But note in Thiele\u2019s chart there is no intersection whatsoever <\/em>between Hezekiah\u2019s and Hoshea\u2019s reigns, for Thiele puts Hezekiah\u2019s reign at 715\u2014686 BC, and Hoshea\u2019s reign at 732\u2014723 BC. But there is an asterisk following the \u201c3rd of Hoshea\u201d and \u201c12th of Ahaz\u201d in Thiele\u2019s chart, which offers this footnote explanation: Says Thiele:<\/p>\n \u201cThese data arise when the reign of Hoshea is thrown twelve years in advance of its historical position.\u201d<\/p>\n We should marvel at such diplomatic language that all but disguises to readers that he, Thiele, is stating that it is the Bible <\/em>which has erroneously thrown in the 12 years, and that the \u201chistorical position\u201d to which he refers is the Assyrian record, which he believes is true even though he knows it is at odds with the Bible.<\/p>\n Obviously, this approach doesn\u2019t overly concern Thiele, which is why he makes some disparaging remarks about the \u201cshoddy\u201d approach of strict biblicists who apparently won\u2019t bow to his system. Even William Irwin in his Introduction to Thiele\u2019s book writes as though any other solution than Thiele\u2019s 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\u2019s which reach back to at least 1875, when Assyriologist George Smith published his book, The Assyrian Eponym Canon<\/em>, which included various persons\u2019 interpretations of the Assyrian eponym canon. Instead Irwin, with hero- worshipping tone, lauds Thiele\u2019s efforts at synchronizing biblical chronology:\u00a0<\/p>\n 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\u2019s illumination of this once insoluble riddle is its high scholarship and appeal only to scholarly considerations.55<\/strong><\/p>\n Apparently, this \u2018high scholarship\u2019 includes Thiele\u2019s 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\u2019s power would be broken in two years, whereupon Jeremiah tells Hananiah:<\/p>\n Listen now, Hananiah, the Lord has not sent you, and you have made this people trust in a lie. Therefore thus says the Lord, \u2018Behold I am about to remove you from the face of the earth. This <\/strong>year <\/strong>you are going to die, because you have counseled rebellion against the Lord\u2019. So Hananiah the prophet died in the same year in the seventh month <\/strong>(28:15; NASB).<\/p>\n 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\u2019s book shows no mention of Jeremiah 28, which suggests Thiele isn\u2019t 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\u2019s \u2018high scholarship\u2019 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.<\/p>\n In another revealing statement in the introduction, Irwin writes:<\/p>\n 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\u2019s invasion of Judah in 701 B.C. (II Kings 18:13)?<\/p>\n 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\u2019s view if it seemed a natural explanation could be offered. Smith, while himself proposing the idea that Hezekiah\u2019s \u201c14th year\u201d should read \u201c24th year,\u201d nevertheless felt Ernest du Bunsen\u2019s solution had enough merit to warrant inclusion in his book. Cites Smith of du Bunsen:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Bible states that the expedition in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah was commanded by \u201cSennacherib, king of Assyria,\u201d 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\u2019s 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 \u201crabsaki\u201d (rabshakeh) or general, and \u201cgreat royal son,\u201d that is, heir to the throne; and he is said to possess his own scribe; the passage reads:<\/p>\n 1 Tablet of Aia-suzubu-ilih the scribe<\/p>\n 2 of the rabshakeh, of Sennacherib,<\/p>\n 3 the great royal son of Sargon, king of Assyria.<\/p>\n The title, great royal son, was assumed by Assurbanipal when he was associated with his father on the throne.<\/p>\n We will show in Chapter 6 that Sennacherib\u2019s campaign in 711 BC, mentioned in II Kings, was directed against Judah during Hezekiah\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n As evident from Thiele\u2019s subject index, no mention is made of de Bunsen\u2019s natural explanation, which would place Hezekiah\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s <\/em>interpretation of <\/em>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<\/em>, not when he solely reigns.<\/p>\n And then there is the matter of Ahab the Israelite. Or was <\/strong>he an Israelite? At any rate, Thiele thinks that the mention in the Assyrian text of one, \u201cAhab Zirhala,\u201d 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<\/p>\n After Jehu killed Jehoram (Israel) and Ahaziah (Judah), he had Ahab\u2019s 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.<\/p><\/div>\n view and that the facts speak for themselves. But as George Smith demonstrates in The Assyrian Eponym Canon, <\/em>Ahab \u201cthe Israelite\u201d may not necessarily be the Ahab of the Bible nor even of the Northern kingdom of <\/strong><\/em>Israel<\/strong>. For although Smith admits that \u201cthe ordinary view of Assyriologists is that the Ahab and Jehu mentioned in the Assyrian text are the two kings of Israel \u201cso named,\u201d he proceeds to say:<\/p>\n 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\u2026.<\/p>\n \u2026It 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\u2019s] aid, at least, such a circumstance is never hinted at in the Bible, and is contrary to the description of his conduct and reign.<\/p>\n 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 \u2018accord\u2019 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?<\/p>\n Whatever the reason, we have enough statements from Thiele\u2019s book to know exactly what he thinks of the biblical record. For example, on page 63 he says: \u201cIt 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,\u201d and on page 136, \u201cThus 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.\u201d Further, Thiele, after calling a portion of God\u2019s word \u201cartificial,\u201d states on page 137: \u201c[Regarding] the editor responsible for these synchronisms in II Kings 17 and 18, late [in date] though he may be\u2026My attitude toward him is not one of censure but of gratefulness and praise.\u201d I\u2019m not sure why Thiele would<\/p>\n Elisha and the Son of the Shunamite Woman, by Jan Slayturs (1904). Many of God\u2019s prophets were active during the reigns of the Hebrew Kings, including Elijah and his prot\u00e9g\u00e9 Elisha. Here Elisha raises a boy from the dead.<\/p><\/div>\n think \u201cartificial\u201d synchronisms are worthy of gratefulness and praise, or why Thiele decided not to spare biblical writers the patronizing.<\/p>\n Moving on, when spot-checking a particular point further inside Thiele\u2019s 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 \u201ctribe among Israel.\u201d 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 \u201cIsrael and Ephraim\u201d was merely Hosea\u2019s way of expressing the sin of trusting in foreign alliance, from the general (Israel) to the particular (Ephraim).<\/p>\n However much, then, Thiele stresses it is the opposition, not he, that uses biased, a priori <\/em>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\u2019s 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 <\/em>the Judean rulers (except Joash, who ascended Tishri 1, and possibly Jehoram (Judah), unlike Thiele\u2019s, and that non-accession year reckoning for the Northern kingdom was not <\/em>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 <\/em>of Sennacherib\u2019s invasion of Judah in Hezekiah\u2019s 14th year, in the period from Nisan up to (but not including) Tishri, 711 BC; (3) tribute paid by Jehu son of Omri (if <\/em>this is the same as Jehu son of Nimshi) in 842 and 839 BC; (4) Menahem\u2019s paying of tribute during the reign of Pul, king of Assyria; (5) activity between Pekah and Tiglath-Pileser in Pekah\u2019s 2nd and 17th years; (6) Hoshea paying tribute to Shalmaneser.<\/p>\n And so, again, we must take issue not <\/em>with the Assyrian record, but of Thiele\u2019s interpretation of it. Furthermore, it seems odd that Thiele claims at the end of his text that, \u201cIt is only proper that the dates we have given here for the rulers of Israel and Judah should be subjected to every possible test.\u201d As if Thiele himself has done so. For what of Jeremiah 28 and of George Smith, Ernest du Bunsen, and D.H. Haigh?<\/p>\n Now, although I have given the major reasons why I reject Thiele\u2019s position and that of his strict disciples, there are <\/em>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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201creigning\u201d 16 years, while the Bible elsewhere mentions \u201cthe twentieth year of Jotham:\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This explanation is a possible one. Therefore we must conclude that there is no necessary contradiction in the two statements under consideration.<\/p>\n However much we might applaud the motive of Christians who feel the proper need to explain \u2018contradictions\u2019 in the Scriptures, we find here a supreme irony in that the online commentator who appeals to Dr. Lightfoot\u2019s \u2018pious Jotham\u2019 explanation, nevertheless has no hesitancy to declare (in All Caps) on his home page:<\/p>\n \u201cTHE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION\u201d:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cWhen the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.\u201d<\/p>\n That such an explanation as Dr. Lightfoot\u2019s \u2018pious Jotham\u2019 explanation could be considered \u201ccommon sense\u201d 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 \u201cpious Jotham\u201d-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.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" THE PROBLEMATIC TIMELINE OF EDWIN THIELE Thiele\u2019s 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"793","footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rock-paper-shivers"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=394"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":402,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394\/revisions\/402"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"Jezebel](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/Jezebel-thrown-out-a-window-300x213.jpg\")
![\"elisha\"](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/elisha-815x1024.jpg\")