Chart: 938 to 921 BC

  Assyria II

     Now Edwin R. Thiele (1895–1986) is the culprit who ruined Biblical Chronology. After him the damage was done. His work, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, overturned the almost perfectly correct chronologies of Willis Judson Beecher (1838–1912), Martin Anstey (1856–1940), and David L. Cooper (1886–1965).  It is a pity that Thiele was a Seventh Day Adventist, because he should have been predisposed to reject critical views of Scripture.  Nevertheless, the "Introduction" to Mysterious Kings was written by Thiele's mentor William A. Irwin (1884-1967). Upon retirement in 1950, he became Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at the University of Chicago.  Irwin's Introduction tries to straddle the divide between those who admit rejecting Scripture when it suits them (Irwin) and those who claim they uphold all of it, but don't (Thiele). Irwin was an avid supporter, and contributor to the Documentary Hypothesis, as can be seen in his work, "The Problem of Ezekiel," (1943).  This is the theory that the Torah was cobbled together by J, E, D, and P sources.  For further info on the Documentary Hypothesis, see here.

     According to Thiele, the reign of Pekah was parallel to that of Menahem and Pekahiah for 12 years. See page 121 of Mysterious Kings. This is the result of trying to make Menahem contemporary with Tiglath Pileser III, so that the Assyrian kings claims to have received his tribute may be believed. Besides the fact that Pekah ruled in Samaria, supposedly at the same time Menahem did, and the fact that he was Pekahiah's army officer, and the fact that he murdered Pekahiah, and that Scripture treats Pul as a separate person from Tiglath Pileser, there is an additional refutatoin of Thiele's presumptive assumption that submits the biblical chronology to Assyriological Orthdoxy.

     The books of Kings organize every account of every king into historical summaries of their reigns. This is what the green headlines in the charts are for.  These stand over the top of the name of each king. These start way back in the charts with King Saul:  

   "No. 29: IIK 15:8-12, Zechariah" 

   "No. 30: IIK 15:13-16, Shallum"

   "No. 31: IIK 15:17-22, Menahem"

   "No. 32: IIK 15:23-26, Pekahiah"

   "No. 33: IIK 15:27-31, Pekah"

   "No. 34: IIK 15:32-38, Jotham"

   "No. 35: IIK 16:1-20, Ahaz"

   "No. 36: IIK 17:1-41, Hoshea"

   "No. 37: IIK 18:1-20:21, Hezekiah"

     These accounts are strictly in chronological order, meshing the kings of Israel and the Kings of Judah together in exact chronological order, based on when they began to reign.

     If Pekah reigned parallel to Menahem, then we would expect the order to be:

   "No. 31: IIK 15:17-22, Menahem"

   "No. 33: IIK 15:27-31, Pekah"

   "No. 32: IIK 15:23-26, Pekahiah"

     The theory goes that Pekah was a rebellious army officier of Menahem, who set up a rival reign, and then when Menahem died, he became a rebellious officer of Pekahiah, and then Pekah murdered Pekahiah.

     But this violates the order of the kings. But even in the confused times of Omri, the books of Kings keep to the order, and explain anything unusual:

   "No. 11: IK 16:8-14, Elah"

   "No. 12: IK 16:15-20, Zimri"

   "No. 13. IK 16:21-22, Tibni"

   "No. 14. IK 16:23-28, Omri"

     See chart 938 to 921 BC, linked at the top of this page.

     As we see, the correct order of kings exposes Thiele's error. I have observed, and you will also, if you study it enough, that Scripture never throws its main chronology into a black hole. That is there is no lacuna of information preventing a complete construction.  Also, I have observed, and you will also in time, that no arbitrary decision is needed to construct it either.  And also, I have observed, that Scripture never introduces an outside source as a chronological datum until the Neo-Babylonian Empire. By doing so, Scripture is vouching for the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.  And finally, I have observed, and you will also, when you get up to speed, that Scripture never means an extraordinary interpretation unless Scripture itself provides the data itself to support the extraordinary interpretation.

   These four points form a good checklist for evaluating a chronological argument. But Thiele violates every one of these points in making Pekah contemporary with Menahem and Pekahiah for twelve years. First, the number of his assumptions and coregencies without Scriptural proof effectively say that biblical chronology cannot be figured out on the basis of just Scripture. This is the black hole thesis.  Second, his decision to make Pekah Parallel to Menahem and Pekahiah is an arbitrary interpretation, because Scripture never says where the match up occurs unless it is a matter of the default sequence. Third, Thiele imports the Assyriologist thesis from outside Scripture, even though Scripture does not vouch for it, and in fact, implies by vouching for Neo-Babylonian Chronology, that previous secular chronologies are unreliable.  Fourth, having a king who murdered the son of a father, reign in the same place (Samaria) as the son and father twelve years before the murder, while being called an officer of the son is a completely extraordinary interpretation with no Scripture warrant.  That is no other data to show an extraordinary interpretation occurs in Scripture.

   Scripture intended to give a complete chronology. But it relies on defaults.  The greatest default is sequence.  When there is a sequence in the text, then one thing follows the next.