Jonathan Burke (2013) The Chronology of the Israelite Monarchy In the late 19th century, critical scholar Julius

Wellhausen claimed the Biblical chronology of the kings of Israel was a literary invention for religious purposes, which had been edited and revised several times from a variety of different sources, rather than a genuine historical record. That a process of alteration and improvement of the chronology was busily carried on in later times, we see from the added synchronisms of the kings of Israel and Judah,1 For the next 70 years, critical scholars continued to treat the chronology as historically worthless and irreconcilable.2 However, in 1951, Biblical scholar Edwin Thiele published The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, a harmonization of the Biblical record of the kings of Israel (originally as a doctoral dissertation). By the time of the second edition (slightly revised), it was recognized that Thieles work was a significant breakthrough in establishing the historical validity of the Biblical chronology. Scholarly reception and criticism Many criticisms have been made of Thieles chronology, 3 and it is still resisted by some commentators.4 5 Biblical scholar Galil Gershon has raised objections to several of Thieles suppositions, as well as to his interpretation of the annals of Tiglath-pileser III, his dating of the death of Menahem, and his understanding of the regnal counting methods of Israel and Judah. 6 Nevertheless, the value and general validity of Thieles scheme have been acknowledged throughout the scholarly community, and it is the most commonly accepted chronology. The chronology most widely accepted today is one based on the meticulous study by Thiele.7

That a process of alteration and improvement of the chronology was busily carried on in later times, we see from the added synchronisms of the kings of Israel and Judah,, J Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh : Adam & Charles Black, 1885), 278. 2 E Thiele, Synchronisms of the Hebrew Kings A Re-evaluation: I, Andrews University Seminary Studies 1 (Andrews University, 1963), 14-125. 3 'but his harmonizing approach has not gone unchallenged , especially because of the many shifts in the basis of reckoning dates that it requires (e.g., Jepsen 1968: 34 35)shifts which were unlikely in actual practice. The numerous extrabiblical synchronisms he invokes do not always reflect the latest refinements in Assyriological research (cf. E.2.f below). In many cases, he posits an undocumented event in order to save a biblical datum (e.g., the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Jeroboam II as coregent; Thiele 1983: 109)', M Cogan, Chronology (Hebrew Bible), in D Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, volume 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 1066. 4 'Despite that fact of scholarly dedication, neither Thieles carefully argued University of Chicago dissertation, nor anyone elses, has achieved as yet universal acceptance.', W Kaiser, A History of Israel: From the bronze age through the Jewish Wars (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 293. 5 'Not all scholars are convinced by this solution , and commentators on the prophetic books often accept that dates can only be approximate.', J McConville, Exploring the Old Testament, Volume 4: The Prophets (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), viii. 6 G Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (New York: Brill, 1996), 4. 7 D Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: IntervarsityPress, 1993), 27.

Jonathan Burke (2013) Increasingly his chronological scheme has come to dominate the majority of scholarly works and it is unlikely that his system can ever be overthrown without altering some wellestablished dates in Near Eastern history, for Thieles chronology is now inextricably locked into the chronology of the Near East.8 Thieles initial chronology remains the typical starting point for study of the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah. Thieles system of chronology has been well received over the past 40 years and is now accepted as the basis for Israels chronology in a growing number of s tandard scholarly works.9 The original model has been improved over time by several modifications, 10 but the core premise has resisted almost half a century of scholarly analysis and criticism. 'After 40 years Thieles chronology has not been significantly altered or proved to be false in any major area except in the matter of Hezekiahs coregency.11 Archaeological evidence Due to its strong agreement with the archaeological evidence, Thieles chronology has also been applied successfully in other fields of Ancient Near East study, such as the chronologies of Assyria and Babylon. 'In a 1996 article, Kenneth Strand wrote, What has generally not been given due notice is the effect that Thieles clarification of the Hebrew chronology of this period of history has had in furnishing a corrective for various dates in ancient Assyrian and Babylonian history .28 The purpose of Strands article was to show that Thieles methodology accomplished more than just producing a coherent chronology from scriptural data. His chronology, once produced, proved useful in settling some troublesome problems in Assyrian and Babylonian history .12

L McFall, A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles, Bibliotheca Sacra, 148/589 (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996), 42-43. 9 Ibid., p. 42; see for example: T Mitchell, Israel and Judah until the Revolt of Jehu (931-841 B.C., Cambridge Ancient History, volume 3, part 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 445; J Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, rev. ed.1998), 249; R Hess, Chronology (Old Testament), in S Porter (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation (New York: Routledge, 2007), 55. 10 'It remained then for others to complete the application of principles that Thiele used elsewhere , thereby providing a chronology for the eighth-century kings of Judah that is in complete harmony with the reign lengths and synchronisms given in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles . The most thorough work in this regard was Leslie McFalls 1991 article in Bibliotheca Sacra.22 McFall made his way through the reign lengths and synchronisms of Kings and Chronicles, and using an exact notation that indicated whether the years were being measured according to Judahs Tishri years or Israels Nisan years, he was able to produce a chronology for the divided monarchies that was consistent with all the scriptural texts chosen.', ibid., pp. 105-106. 11 L McFall, A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles , Bibliotheca Sacra, 148/589 (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996), 42. 12 R Young, Inductive And Deductive Methods As Applied To OT Chronology, Master's Seminary Journal 18/1 (Sun Valley, CA: Masters Seminary, 2007), 112-113.

Jonathan Burke (2013) The reliability of the chronologies in 1-2 Kings has also been supported by archaeological evidence; Grabbe notes that the chronology in these books agrees with what can be gleaned from extra-biblical sources, and that even if we had no external sources we could have reasonable confidence in the biblical sequence.13

13

'Grabbe suggests that the names and sequence of kings in Israel and Judah, and their approximate chronological placement, agrees with what can be gleaned from extra-biblical sources. To this extent the biblical framework (meaning primarily 1 and 2 Kings) is reliable: even if we had no external sources we could have reasonable confidence in the biblical sequence of Jeroboam I, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Omri, Ahab, Jehu, etc. in Samaria, and David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijam, Asa, Jehoshaphat, etc. in Jerusalem, along with their interrelationships. Beyond that it starts to get more and more tricky, with decreasing reliability in the biblical narrative as the detail increases (this is a general statement, and there are sometimes exceptions in specific instances).', Grabbe, Reflections on the Discussion, L Grabbe (ed.), Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 337.