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 Thiele’s work was a significant breakthrough in establishing the historical validity of the Biblical chronology.
Scholarly reception and criticism
Many criticisms have been made of Thiele’s chronology, [3] and it is still resisted by some commentators. [4],[5] Biblical scholar Galil Gershon has raised objections to several of Thiele’s 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 Thiele’s 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]
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 well-established dates in Near Eastern history, for Thiele’s chronology is now inextricably locked into the chronology of the Near East.[8]
Thiele’s initial chronology remains the typical starting point for study of the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah.
Thiele’s system of chronology has been well received over the past 40 years and is now accepted as the basis for Israel’s chronology in a growing number of standard 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 Thiele’s chronology has not been significantly altered or proved to be false in any major area except in the matter of Hezekiah’s coregency.[11]
Archaeological evidence
Due to its strong agreement with the archaeological evidence, Thiele’s 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 Thiele’s 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.”
The purpose of Strand’s article was to show that Thiele’s 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]
The reliability of the chronologies in 1-2 Kings has also been supported by archaeological evidence; hence, L. L. 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]
[1] “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. [Emphasis in all quotes is mine.]
[2] E. Thiele, “Synchronisms of the Hebrew Kings – A Re-evaluation: I”, Andrews University Seminary Studies 1 (Andrews University, 1963): 121-138.
[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)”, ADB, 1:1066.
[4] “Despite that fact of scholarly dedication, neither Thiele’s carefully argued University of Chicago dissertation, nor anyone else’s, has achieved as yet universal acceptance”, W. Kaiser, A History of Israel: From the bronze age through the Jewish Wars (Nashville: 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: InterVarsity Press, 2002), viii.
[6] G. Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (New York: E. J. Brill, 1996), 4.
[7] D. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 27.
[8] L. McFall, “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles”, Bibliotheca Sacra 148/589 (1991): 3-45 (42-43).
[9] Ibid., p. 42; see also 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 (Rev. ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 249; R. Hess, “Chronology (Old Testament)” in Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation (ed. S. Porter; 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 McFall’s 1991 article in Bibliotheca Sacra. 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 Judah’s Tishri years or Israel’s Nisan years, he was able to produce a chronology for the divided monarchies that was consistent with all the scriptural texts chosen”, R. Young, “Inductive And Deductive Methods As Applied To OT Chronology”, Master’s Seminary Journal 18/1 (2007): 99-116 (105-106).
[11] McFall, “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles”, 42.
[12] R. Young, “Inductive And Deductive Methods As Applied To OT Chronology”, 112-113.
[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)”, L. L. Grabbe, “Reflections on the Discussion” in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (ed. L. L Grabbe; London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 331-340 (337).
A Perspective on how Archaeology can help us understand the Bible