54 Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
By Rodger C. Young
The Problem
From the beginning of the Davidic dynasty to the release
of Jehoiachin from prison, mentioned at the end of 2 Kings,
represents a period of about four and one-half centuries. For this
time period, the books of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel
provide over 120 dates, lengths of reign, and synchronisms
that form the raw material for constructing a chronology for
these times. For anyone who tries to assemble these data into a
chronological scheme, it soon becomes clear that is a formidable
task. Some older interpreters handled the apparent discrepancies
in the numbers by introducing interregna, that it is, periods of
time during which no king was assumed to be on the throne.
This is like using scissors to fashion ll-in pieces as needed for a
jigsaw puzzle that otherwise doesn
’t seem to fi t together. To the
credit of these interpreters, they genuinely regarded the Bible
as the Word of God, and their aim in writing was to explain the
text and to strengthen the faith of God’s people by attempting to
produce a harmonious chronology from the received text.
However, there later arose interpreters who did not share this
goal of building up others in the faith. Their goal was to discredit
any supernatural explanation of the origin of the Scriptures and
the miracles recorded therein, replacing these matters of “faith”
with what they were quick to label as a “scientifi c” approach to
religion. But the science of these writers was not the science that
brought about the scientifi c revolution of modern times, because
the method of true science starts with observation, whereas
these writers started with a theory and then used that theory to
reconstruct history. They either trampled on or ignored such
observations as were beginning to come from archaeological
ndings in the ancient Near East. Thus Wilhelm De Wette
had no archaeological ndings or any other historical facts to
support his theory that the book of Deuteronomy was invented
during the days of Josiah (1805); the theory merely supplied
an explanation to replace the supernatural alternative, namely
that it was a revelation to Moses during Israel’s wandering in
the desert. Neither did Julius Wellhausen build his theory of
the development of Israel’s religion on a study of ancient Near
Eastern inscriptions; instead an imposition of Charles Darwin’s
evolutionary ideas and Georg Hegel
s dialectic was used to
construct an imaginative scheme for the history of Israel and the
formation of the OT canon (1878).
2
Deductive Methodology as Applied
to the Problem
Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis and its later offshoots
(the socio-economic approaches,
3
Martin Noth’s deuteronomistic
history [1981], etc.) are examples of the deductive method.
Deduction is “inference in which the conclusion about particulars
follows necessarily from general or universal premises”
(Websters Ninth 1989). One universal premise of these
approaches is that the Scriptures did not come in any supernatural
God-with-man encounter or revelation, at least in the sense of
God speaking to and through Moses as stated in the Pentateuch.
Divine revelation was replaced by various explanations of how
writers from a later time fabricated stories about miracles and
revelations that they ascribed to dimly-remembered heroes from
their nation’s past. With this view of the origin of Scripture, it
would necessarily follow that the various authors who compiled
the books of Kings and Chronicles could not possibly have
handled correctly all the historical details from the time of the
Hebrew monarchs. Thus, with regard to the chronological data
in the books of Kings, scholars who followed the fashionable
ideas of higher criticism reached the following conclusions:
Rudolf Kittel: “Wellhausen has shown, by convincing reasons,
that the synchronisms within the Book of Kings cannot
possibly rest on ancient tradition, but are on the contrary
simply the products of artifi cial reckoning.”
Theodore Robinson: “Wellhausen is surely right in believing
that the synchronisms in Kings are worthless, being merely a
late compilation from the actual fi gures given.”
Samuel and Godfrey Driver: “Since, however, it is clear on
various grounds that these synchronisms are not original,
any attempt to base a chronological scheme on them may be
disregarded.”
Karl Marti: “Almost along the whole line, the discrepancy
between synchronisms and years of reign is incurable.”
Cyrus Gordon: “The numerical errors in the Books of Kings
have defi ed every attempt to ungarble them. Those errors are
largely the creation of the editors…the editors did not execute
the synchronisms skillfully.”
4
55
Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
Such conclusions about the unreliability of the chronological
data of the kingdom period follow logically once the
presuppositions of these scholars are granted and their deductive
method pursued. The advantage of the deductive approach is
that it is readily adaptable to whatever is currently fashionable
in intellectual circles. At present that seems to be the socio-
economic approach to historical interpretation, or perhaps the
“deuteronomistic history” theorizing of Noth. The disadvantage
of the deductive approach is that nothing is ever settled for
certain; the results obtained are as diverse as the presuppositions
of the scholars, since diverse presuppositions produce diverse
results. This is readily seen from the discordant opinions
regarding the origin of the text given by scholars who follow
the traditio-historic, socio-economic, and other literary-critical
methods that force a priori assumptions on the Biblical data.
The Inductive Method
There were, however, some scholars who followed an
inductive approach in Biblical and chronological studies.
Induction is “inference of a generalized conclusion from
particular instances—compare DEDUCTION (Websters Ninth
1989). Broadly speaking, deduction starts with principles,
whereas induction starts with observation, that is, with evidence.
When studying the chronology of the Hebrew monarchies, the
following areas of evidence should be considered if an inductive
course is to be pursued:
1. There is evidence from Jewish writings that the New Year
might be reckoned from the spring month of Nisan, and other
evidence that it might be measured from the fall month of
Tishri.
5
An unbiased approach would consider both these
options.
2. There is evidence from the field of Egyptology that sovereigns,
during their lifetime, occasionally invested their son with the
royal office, thus forming a coregency.
6
The years of the son’s
reign might be counted from the year he became coregent
instead of from the first year of sole reign. Some coregencies
in the Scripture are plainly stated, as in 1 Kings 1:34, 2
Kings 15:5, and 1 Chronicles 23:1. An inductive approach
should consider the possibility of coregencies, as well as the
possibility that the years of a king could be measured either
from the beginning of a coregency or from the beginning of a
sole reign.
3. There is also evidence from the field of Egyptology for the
existence of rival reigns—reigns for which the years of the
pharaohs cannot be added together because two pharaohs
were ruling simultaneously from different capitals.
7
Such a
phenomenon is reported in the Bible for the reigns of Tibni
and Omri (1 Kgs 16:21–22).
4. There is evidence that there were two ways of reckoning the
first year of a king’s reign—whether that year was reckoned as
year one of his reign, or as his “accession” or “zero” year. The
two possibilities are called the non-accession and accession
methods, respectively. Since there is evidence for both usages
in the ancient Near East,
8
a proper methodology that starts
from observations should not rule out either possibility for the
kings of Judah and Israel.
5. The final source of evidence for the inductive method would
be the texts of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel
that give chronological data for the kingdom period. These
texts (in the Hebrew original
9
) should be accepted as raw
data (observations) unless they can be shown to be self-
contradictory or contradictory to established external dates.
From this list of observations, it is clear that the inductive
approach faces a great difficulty. That difficulty is how to handle
the various possibilities inherent in a proper treatment of all
the observations just listed and their multiple combinations.
The easy way to handle this complexity is to make simplifying
assumptions. Thus the Seder Olam and the Talmud assume that
all reign lengths are measured from the start of the king
s sole
reign. Just the opposite assumption was made by Gershon Galil;
he assumed that all regnal years when a coregency is involved
were measured from the start of the coregency (1996: 10).
ABR File photo
Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) was a German
theologian who held teaching positions at various
institutions throughout his career. He was one of the most
significant figures in destroying faith in the integrity of the
Scriptures. The eminent Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has
the following to say about the “higher critical” approach of
Wellhausen and his deductive method that were used to
accomplish this: “Not only did Wellhausen (like his peers)
work in a cultural vacuum—that is how he wanted it to
be, undisturbed by inconvenient facts from the (ancient)
outside world. He resented being pointed toward high-
antiquity data from Egypt and Mesopotamia…How he
hated Egyptologists!...In due course he also lashes out at
the Assyriologists…Clearly, he resented any outside impact
that might threaten his beloved theses on the supposed
development of Israelite religion and history. And that
attitude, one can detect in his equally resistant
disciples
today” (2003: 494).
56 Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
An even greater simplification was postulated by Wellhausen,
who ruled out coregencies altogether, even the plainly-stated
coregency of David with Solomon.
10
The consequences of this
kind of procedure are obvious: the scholars who make such
simplifying assumptions will not agree with scholars who make
other, contradictory assumptions. The simplifications will also
produce chronologies that contradict Scriptural texts at some
point or another; the scholars will then, unjustifiably, claim that
the Scripture is in error because it does not fit their scheme.
Successes of the Inductive Method
In contrast, scholars who have used the inductive approach
attempt to make no such a priori assumptions. Instead, they
employ Scriptural texts to determine the method used by the
ancient authors, taking into account the different archaeological
and historical evidences listed above, and not ruling out any
possibility until there are valid reasons for so doing. In the 1920s
Professor V. Coucke in Belgium determined from a careful
analysis of the data in Kings and Chronicles that Judah began
its regnal years in Tishri, whereas Israel began its regnal years
in Nisan (1928). He also determined that the reign lengths of
the first kings of Judah and Israel were in harmony with each
other if these first kings in Judah used accession reckoning while
their counterparts in Israel were using non-accession reckoning
to measure their years of reign.
Some years later an American scholar, Edwin Thiele,
discovered these same principles, although when he began
publishing his findings he was not aware of Coucke’s earlier
work. Thiele was able to determine the chronology of the kings
of Israel and Judah in a more satisfactory way than Coucke,
and his principal work, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew
Kings (1983), went through three editions. The chronology of the
northern kingdom, Israel, remained virtually the same through
these three editions, and Leslie McFall and other conservative
writers only have offered minor modifications such as narrowing
the date for the fall of Samaria and the end of Hoshea’s reign to
the first half of the year beginning in Nisan of 723 BC, rather than
allowing for the full year as did Thiele. Thiele’s chronology of
the northern kingdom has stood the test of time, and in particular
his date for the beginning of the divided monarchies is widely
accepted by conservative and non-conservative scholars alike.
11
However, for the southern kingdom, Judah, Thiele failed
to recognize that the synchronisms of Hezekiah of Judah and
Hoshea of Israel in 2 Kings 18 imply that Hezekiah at this
time was coregent with his father Ahaz. This was a blind spot
on Thiele’s part, because he recognized that Hezekiah’s father,
grandfather, and great-grandfather had coregencies with their
fathers, and Hezekiah had a coregency with his son; why then
rule out a coregency of Hezekiah with Ahaz? But even though
many scholars pointed out this explanation for the synchronisms
in 2 Kings 18, Thiele refused to accept this solution and did not
even discuss it in the final two editions of his book.
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 McFall’s 1991 article in Bibliotheca Sacra
(1991). 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. This was the
logical outgrowth of Thiele’s work, and it attained a kind of holy
grail that had been sought for 22 centuries, namely a rational
explanation of the chronological data of the Hebrew monarchies
that was consistent with the Scriptural texts that were used to
construct that chronology, and also consistent with several fixed
dates from Assyrian and Babylonian history. These fixed dates
are the following:
1. The Battle of Qarqar in 853 BC, at which Shalmaneser III of
Assyria listed Ahab of Israel as one of his foes (see the further
discussion below).
Andrews University
Edwin R. Thiele (1895–1986). After a missionary career
in China between the World Wars, Thiele pursued studies
in archaeology at the University of Chicago, receiving
his PhD degree in 1943. His doctoral dissertation on the
chronology of the Hebrew kings was based on his extensive
knowledge of the history and languages of the ancient
Near East. Thiele’s approach was to endeavor, first of all,
to understand the historical methods and conventions of
the ancient authors whose texts provide the raw data used
to reconstruct the history of the time. He also believed that
the relevant Biblical texts should be considered trustworthy
until proven otherwise. This inductive method, coupled
with the successes of the resultant chronology, have
established Thiele’s book, The Mysterious Numbers of the
Hebrew Kings, as the definitive work on the chronology
of the kingdom period. Subsequent scholars who have
followed these sound principles have needed to modify
Thiele’s chronology in only a few places, with the best-
known correction being for the reigns of the kings of Judah
in the latter half of the eighth century BC.
57
Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
2. The tribute of Jehu of Israel to Shalmaneser in 841 BC.
3. The invasion of Sennacherib in Hezekiah’s 14th year, 701
BC.
4. The death of King Josiah when he fought against Pharaoh
Necho, who was on his way to take Carchemish from the
Babylonians, in 609 BC.
5. Nebuchadnezzars initial capture of Jerusalem in 605 BC, at
which time Daniel and other Judeans were taken to Babylon.
6. The second capture of Jerusalem and its king Jehoiachin by
Nebuchadnezzar—the exact date of which is given in the
Babylonian Chronicle as 2 Adar, i.e. March 16, 597 BC.
Signifi cance of the Successes of the
Inductive Method
The signifi cance of Thiele’s work and its logical extension in
McFall’s article can hardly be overestimated. Consider just how
improbable such an accomplishment was when starting from
the premises of the critics who were cited earlier in this article.
They, and many others who could be quoted, believed that it
was impossible to construct a coherent and rational chronology
from the data given in the received text. The primary reason
for this belief (or unbelief) must have been because they saw
little reason to pursue all the hard work that Coucke and Thiele
had to struggle with before they determined the methods of the
Biblical authors; why spend time trying to determine if there
was a reasonable explanation of the texts when they were sure
that late-date writers, such as they supposed were the authors of
Scripture, could not have produced an accurate chronology for
long-past events?
In this conclusion they were correct, if their starting assumption
is granted. If late-date authors and editors who lived long after
the events they were describing put together the Scriptures, then
such authors and editors could not have produced the complex
chronological data found in Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel that are consistent with each other and also consistent
with several dates in Assyrian and Babylonian history. The
anti-supernaturalist critics have declared implicitly or explicitly
that these presumed writers could never give us a consistent
chronology for the kingdom period. However, such a chronology
has been produced, and so the critics have established by their
own statements that their initial assumption about the late-date
origin of the textual sources used in Kings and Chronicles was
false.
Their error can be demonstrated as follows. Imagine someone
cutting a series of arbitrary shapes out of cardboard—in the
present case, more than 120 such shapes—and then hoping that
somehow these shapes would t together in a jigsaw puzzle.
Better than the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle is that of a logic
puzzle. Figure 1 shows a logic puzzle. The example given deals
with trying to match ve professors with their classes and their
eccentric ideas. The clues, given in sentences one through seven,
provide suffi cient information to solve the puzzle. An instructive
exercise would be to try to make up clues for this puzzle before
determining the answer to the puzzle. If this is attempted, it
will soon be concluded that late-date editors cannot just invent
clues and have them all t together; the answer must be known
before clues can be provided that will t together into a solution.
Furthermore a suffi cient number of clues must be given so that
Michael Luddeni
Kurkh Stela depicting Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria.
Found in 1861 at Kurkh on the Tigris River in southeastern
Turkey, the inscription on the stela records the principal
events of the king’s rst six military campaigns. The
campaign of year six, 853 BC, mentions Ahab, king of Israel,
as being part of an anti-Assyrian coalition that confronted
the Assyrians at Qarqar on the Orontes River in western
Syria. The section referring to Ahab reads, “I approached
the city of Qarqar. I razed, destroyed and burned the city
of Qarqar, his [Irhulēni, the Hamathite’s] royal city. 1,200
chariots, 1,200 cavalry, (and) 20,000 troops of Hadad-ezer
(Adad-idri) of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, (and)
10,000 troops of Irhulēni the Hamathite; 2,000 chariots,
(and) 10,000 troops of Ahab, the Israelite” (Younger 2000:
263). When Edwin Thiele constructed his chronology, the
date for the battle of Qarqar accepted by most Assyriologists
was 854 BC. This was one year too early for agreement
with the Biblical texts, but further investigations showed
that the Assyrian data had not been interpreted correctly,
so that 853 BC is now the generally accepted date. The
stela is currently housed in the “Assyrian Sculpture” room
in the British Museum.
58 Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
Figure 1. Example of a Logic Puzzle.*
Amy takes five classes (including history) at Bimbleman University, each taught by a different professor.
At first she was baffled by the fact that each instructor (including Professor Bookwerme) has a different
eccentric pet theory, but by now she has gotten used to their digressions. Can you determine each
professor’s class and theory?
1. Amy
s psychology professor is not Dr. Weissenhimer.
2. Her philosophy class meets just after that of the professor who claims that dinosaurs were really
aliens who got stuck here on a field trip.
3. Her political science class meets just before the class with the professor who insists that
Shakespeare’s plays were really written by someone named Larry.
4. Professor Smartalecq believes that gravity is a hoax perpetrated by the hot-air balloon industry;
Professor Noetalle does not teach history.
5. Amy’s psychology professor firmly believes that the lunar landing was faked on a North Dakota
prairie.
6. As one professor orated about dinosaurs, Amy slipped out to attend her next class, led by Dr.
Eguehedd.
7. The history professor, who isn’t Dr. Weissenhimer, believes that the earth is flat.
Biology
History
Philosophy
Political
Psychology
Dinosaurs
Earth is flat
Gravity
Lunar landing
Shakespeare
Bookwerme
Eguehedd
Noetalle
Smartalecq
Weissenhimer
Dinosaurs
Earth is flat
Gravity
Lunar landing
Shakespeare
*
Puzzle is from Scott McKinney, “Academia Nuts,” in Dell Logic Puzzles (Norwalk CT: Dell Magazines, Dec. 2001): 10.
Copyright © 2008, Dell Magazines. Dell Logic Puzzles, December 2001. Used with permission of the publisher. All rights
reserved. Visit www.dellmagazines.com for more of your favorite puzzles.
someone else can solve the puzzle.
This illustration is relevant to the Bible’s chronological texts
related to the divided monarchies. These texts form, in every
respect, a logic puzzle. They provide approximately 124 clues
to help determine a chronology of the time, compared to the
nine clues in the seven sentences of the logic puzzle of Figure 1.
Since a little experimentation will show that we cannot produce
arbitrary clues that will give any good chance of success for a
simple logic puzzle of nine clues unless we know the answer
beforehand, then how could someone produce 124 clues that
make up the Scriptural logic puzzle, and have all these clues
consistent with each other, unless he or she already knew the
answer and then was very careful to give a sufficient number of
clues to lead to the answer?
How do you solve a logic puzzle like that of Figure 1? One
way is to try various combinations to see if they fit the clues
given. But even a fairly simple logic puzzle like this offers so
many ways to combine things that our patience gives out. In
59
Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
frustration, then, we take a bold step: make assumptions! Surely no professor
of philosophy would believe that gravity is a hoax, and any professor of
biology would know that dinosaurs evolved from frogs and after that they
evolved into birds and ew away. After a few more such bold assumptions,
it will be possible to work out a solution. When that solution confl icts with
some of the clues originally given (and it almost inevitably will), we can
declare that the original clues are mistakes introduced by an incompetent
editor who did not know the facts of the case. This is similar to the authors
cited earlier who could not solve the chronological puzzle and who then
declared that the Scriptural texts contained numerous errors.
The other way to solve the puzzle is to use the inductive method. That
is, start with the clues given and see if they can be combined to give a
reasonable solution, without trampling on the clues or throwing out some of
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria 859
–824 BC, discovered by Englishman Henry Layard at Nimrud
(Biblical Calah), Iraq, in 1846. Each of the four sides is carved with ve registers depicting people in different types of
clothing representing various countries controlled by the Assyrians. They are bringing costly articles of tribute and exotic
animals as offerings to the king. Above and below the scenes are lines of text detailing events in Shalmaneser III’s reign
down to his 31st year. The second register from the top shows Jehu, king of Israel, bringing tribute to Shalmaneser
III, an event not recorded in the Bible. Jehu’s tribute was in Shalmaneser’s 18th year, whereas the Battle of Qarqar, at
which Ahab was present, was in Shalmaneser’s sixth year. The 12 years between these two events were just enough to
t in the two kings of Israel who reigned between Ahab and Jehu. These synchronisms allowed Thiele to give absolute
BC dates for the last year of Ahab (853 BC) and the rst year of Jehu (841 BC), thus enabling him to construct the
chronology of the northern kingdom backward from Ahab to Jeroboam I and forward from Jehu to the fall of Samaria.
The obelisk is in the “Assyrian Sculpture” room of the British Museum.
Michael Luddeni
Close-up of Jehu before Shalmaneser III on the Black Obelisk.
Jehu is seen bowing in humility before the Assyrian king, followed
by his attendants bearing tribute. The accompanying inscription
says , “I received the tribute of Jehu (Ia-ú-a) (the man) of Bît-Humrî
[House of Omri]: silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden goblet,
golden cups, golden buckets, tin, a staff of the king’s hand, (and)
javelins(?)” (Younger 2000: 270). Jehu was not literally Omri’s
son; many times the Assyrians referred to countries by the
name of the founder of the ruling dynasty at the time of their fi rst
acquaintance with it, regardless of which dynasty was currently
in power (Younger 2000: 267 n. 5). In reality, Jehu usurped the
throne of Israel by assassinating Joram, grandson of Omri (2 Kgs
9:14–26). He ruled 841–814 BC and paid tribute to Shalmaneser
in the fi rst year of his reign. Beyond its historical signifi cance, the
Black Obelisk provides the only depiction we have of an Israe
lite
king, or any other Israelite named in the Bible.
Michael Luddeni
60 Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
them, as in the deductive method. This will be
the more difficult way to proceed. But when it
comes up with a solution, one that is consistent
with all the clues given, who can doubt that it
is the right method? And who can doubt that
the Thiele/McFall chronology of the divided
kingdom that made sense of all the date-
formulas chosen in Kings and Chronicles is
to be preferred over the chronologies of those
writers who followed the deductive method
and introduced several assumptions in order to
justify their schemes? These were assumptions
that Thiele and McFall did not need to make,
since they were basically constrained to only
the observations that were necessary for the
inductive method. Would not all calm and
rational minds conclude that a solution that is
consistent with the data and which makes the
fewest assumptions is preferable to solutions
that are not consistent with the data and that
make several unjustified assumptions?
Here then is a great mystery: the Author
of the chronological puzzle in Kings and
Chronicles knew the answer, and He was
careful to provide enough clues so that the
answer could be found after suitable mental
exercise. The chronological texts of the
kingdom period are revealed as an example
of something quite awesome: purposeful
design. In other words, Intelligent Design.
There is no other explanation for how
all these texts can fit together, and how
a sufficient number have been given
so that the chronology can be solved
without having to resort to the arbitrary
assumptions of the deductive method. But
just as opponents of Intelligent Design
overlook the truth due to blind faith in their
own presuppositions, so practitioners of the
deductive method will never see the design
inherent in the chronological texts of the
kingdom period unless they are willing
to give up their wrong approach and their
wrong presuppositions regarding the origin
of the text.
Some Refinements to the
Thiele/McFall System
In speaking of the Thiele/McFall
chronological system, it was stated above
that it was consistent with all the texts
that McFall used to build his chronology.
However, McFall did not use some texts
out of the approximately 124 of an exact
nature that are the clues for this period.
My own efforts were directed toward
examining all these additional texts and
making it the first priority to determine
the methods of the authors of Scripture.
In order to manage all the data and their
possible combinations without making a
priori assumptions, it was necessary to
introduce the method of Decision Tables
that I had made use of in my work as
a systems analyst. Decision Tables
had proved invaluable in handling the
complexities of the last major system
that I designed at IBM. Fresh from
this experience, I saw that Decision
Tables could be used to explore all
the combinations of the chronological
parameters that were presented earlier
in this article. Decision Tables allow
the exploring of all possibilities that are
consistent with the investigator
s basic
assumptions, and they show which
combinations of those assumptions
are not compatible with the data. The
“data,” in this case, are the texts being
studied and fixed dates from Assyrian
and Babylonian history. The method
of Decision Tables is entirely logical,
and, if used properly, entirely impartial;
it provides the final step that is needed
in the inductive methodology for
examining these chronological texts.
The first contribution that was made
by the use of Decision Tables was a
resolution of some discrepancies in
Thiele’s figures for the regnal years of
Jehoshaphat, Ahaziah, and Athaliah
(Young 2003: 598–99; Young 2004b:
578–79). The second contribution
dealt with the end of the monarchic
period, utilizing texts in Ezekiel that
were not used by McFall in building
his chronology. Ezekiel’s texts show
that non-accession years are to be
used for Zedekiah, contrary to the
assumption of Thiele and McFall
that Zedekiah’s years are given by
accession counting. A continuation
of this analysis showed that all the
Scriptures in Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles are in
harmony for Zedekiah’s reign, and
all show that it ended at the fall of
Jerusalem in the summer of 587 BC
(Young 2004a
12
). Decision Tables
provided the only convenient way to
handle all these texts in a consistent
manner. When this method is used, all
124 items of exact chronological data
for the period of the Hebrew kingdoms
combine to produce a consistent and
harmonious chronology for a period
Collection of The Israel Museum, Jerusalem; Photo ©
The Israel Museum, by Ardon Bar Hama
Iran Stela depicting Tiglath-Pileser III.
Broken into pieces sometime in the past,
the three pieces seen here were acquired
on the antiquities market in western Iran.
Superimposed on the approximately
life-size figure of the king is a record of
events through his ninth year, 737 BC.
Fragment 1, Column IIIA, lists “Menahem
of Samaria” as having paid tribute to
Tiglath-Pileser. The publication of the
stela in 1994 demonstrated that the 738
date accepted by most Assyriologists for
Menahem’s tribute was in conflict with
this new information. Thiele’s date for the
tribute (743 or 742 BC), as derived from
the Biblical texts, was shown to be entirely
consistent with the Iran Stela.
61
Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
of over 400 years.
13
Skeptics may assert that the harmony of these Scriptures is
all an artifact of the method of Thiele and those who followed
him, even though that harmony was achieved without making
the various a priori assumptions that characterize the deductive
method. Arguing that the method of Thiele and McFall was an
artifi cial approach would be like maintaining that a logic puzzle
of 124 clues could be put together in an artifi cial and arbitrary
way that did not agree with the original design. Anyone who
doubts this should try to make up clues for the simple puzzle in
Figure 1 without knowing the answer. The clues will generally
fail to t together unless the person giving the clues knows the
answer and is very careful to make all clues consistent with that
answer. Similarly, the chronological puzzle could never have
been put together by Thiele and those who followed him if the
original data were not authentic, that is, true to history. Errors in
the original data, such as would be predicted by any theory of
limited inspiration, would have meant that neither McFall nor
anyone else could have combined all 124 exact statistics into a
coherent and rational chronology. But this is exactly what has
been accomplished by the scholarly and logical application of
the inductive method.
Why Is the Problem So
Complex?
But why is the problem
so complicated? Why has
it taken over two millennia
until the work of Coucke,
Thiele, McFall and others
has given us a solution for
the chronological texts in
Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel? And why must
a proper methodology to
handle all these data include
the use of Decision Tables
in order to eliminate wrong
assumptions and to show all
the possibilities that must
be explored before the best
solution can be determined?
The same questions
regarding methodology could
be asked of any non-trivial logic
puzzle. It would be very diffi cult to
solve the logic puzzle of Figure 1 without rst learning how to
use the grid that is included below the puzzle. All puzzle-solvers
learn to use these grids. They are really Decision Tables. In
the same way, Decision Tables, so invaluable for solving logic
puzzles, must be used for the vastly more important analysis of
the complicated chronological data of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Kings,
and Chronicles.
This does not answer the question of why the data are so
complex that it is necessary to be very careful to use a logical
methodology that includes Decision Tables in order to handle
them and to show which combinations are feasible and which
produce contradictions. One might as well ask why it is necessary
to master the methods of calculus to gain even a preliminary
understanding of the motions of the planets, and beyond that
to master both Special and General Relativity if more exact
refi nements in planetary and satellite motion are to be handled.
Does anyone say that these laws are not valid, just because it
takes effort and discipline to understand them? Perhaps we
would have liked the Scriptures, in matters of chronology, to be
easier to understand, so that there would not have been so many
interpreters declaring that the Scripture is in error simply because
these interpreters were incompetent in determining the
methods of the authors of Scripture.
In matters essential to our salvation
the Scriptures are plain enough that
a wayfaring man, though a fool, need
not err therein. But in other areas such
as the one presently under discussion,
God’s ways are not our ways, and His
thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
It was not in the Holy Spirit
s design
to make all portions of Scripture easy
to understand. It was in His design
to make all Scripture so it is without
error.
Successes of the Inductive
Method with Respect to
External Dates
The Scriptural chronological
puzzle cannot stand in isolation. For
any solution to be credible, it must
match several xed dates from the
histories of the surrounding nations. Therefore
it is important to determine which of these dates are
truly “fi xed,” and which are open to question because of
possible misinterpretations of the relevant data.
Michael Luddeni
Babylonian Chronicle for 605–595 BC, obverse. Lines 1–11 of the front of the Babylonian Chronicle tell of
Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Egypt at Carchemish in 605 BC while he was still crown prince. The same battle is alluded
to in Jeremiah 46:2. As the Egyptian army under Pharaoh Neco II was moving north to engage the Babylonians,
Josiah “marched out to meet him in battle” at Megiddo and was killed (2 Kgs 23:29
–30; 2 Chr 35:20–27). By August,
Nebuchadnezzar had advanced far enough into southern Palestine to claim treasures and hostages in Jerusalem,
Daniel and his friends being the most noteworthy (2 Kgs 24:1; 2 Chr 36:6
–7; Dn 1:1–6). Nebuchadnezzar was then
informed of his father Nabopolassar
’s death on the eighth of Ab (August 15/16, 605 BC) and immediately returned to
Babylon where he was crowned king on the rst of Elul (September 6/7, 605 BC). The translation and publication of
this Babylonian text showed that the dates accepted by William Albright and other scholars for the Battle of Carchemish
were two or more years too late and that Thiele
’s date, as derived from the Biblical data, was correct.
62 Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
After exerting considerable effort to determine the principles
of the ancient Hebrew court recorders whose records are cited in
Kings and Chronicles, Thiele produced a relative chronology for
the kings of Judah and Israel that was not tied to external dates
and which therefore was not expressed in terms of BC years. He
then made this into an “absolute” calendar by choosing two dates
in which Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria, had contact with the
kings of Israel. In his sixth year, Shalmaneser III listed Ahab of
Israel as one of his foes at the Battle of Qarqar. Twelve years
later in Shalmaneser III
s 18th year, the famous Black Obelisk
shows tribute being received from Jehu, king of Israel, with
what is apparently the figure of Jehu himself bowing at the feet
of the Assyrian monarch. The advantage of these two references
in Shalmanesers annals was that the 12 years between the
mention of Ahab and the mention of Jehu gave just enough time
for the two kings who ruled between Ahab and Jehu, assuming
non-accession reckoning for Israelite kings. This means that
Shalmanesers sixth year was Ahab’s last year and his 18th year
was Jehu’s first year.
When Thiele began his studies, most Assyriologists dated
Shalmanesers sixth year to 854 BC and his 18th year, the
year of Jehu’s tribute, to 842 BC. However, when Thiele used
these dates as the anchor points with which to assign BC years
to his chronology, he found that the 14th year of Hezekiah, in
which Sennacherib threatened Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:13; Is 36:1),
came out as one year earlier than the 701 BC date that seemed
well established for the Assyrian incursion. The Biblical data
could not be made compatible with this date without extensive
emendation of the pertinent texts. Which was wrong, the
Biblical data or the dates given by the majority of Assyriologists
for Shalmanesers reign? On further investigation, Thiele
found a minority opinion, held by some European scholars,
which placed the regnal years of Shalmaneser one year later,
an adjustment that brought agreement between Thiele’s Biblical
chronology and the Assyrian records. Thiele developed further
the correction of these European scholars, resulting in a revision
of the Assyrian Eponym Canon that he published as an appendix
in all three editions of Mysterious Numbers. Thiele’s revised
Canon is now generally accepted by Assyriologists. This was
the first of a string of successes in which the Biblical data, as
interpreted by Thiele, were able to bring clarity and resolution to
disputed areas in the chronology of Assyria and Babylonia.
As illustrated above, scholars who do not have a high
opinion of the historical credibility of Scripture invent fanciful
reconstructions of the origin of the Biblical text based on anti-
supernaturalistic presuppositions. This is in contrast with the
proper scientific approach that was described by Gary Byers
in a previous issue of Bible and Spade (1999: 9), an approach
that starts with observation, continues with the construction of
a hypothesis, and then devises means to test that hypothesis.
In the scientific method, the final step in testing a theory is to
determine whether it can predict new phenomena that were
not part of the observations used in formulating the theory. An
example of this was Einstein’s prediction, based on his Theory
of General Relativity, that light passing by a massive object
such as a star would deviate slightly from a straight-line path.
This phenomenon had not been noticed previously but it was
observed when an appropriate experiment was performed,
thereby validating the theory.
In historical studies, experiments like this cannot be performed
to verify a theory as in the physical sciences. Something closely
analogous to it occurs, however, when a historical theory is
shown to be consistent with new data that were not available
when the theory was formulated. This happened when Thiele
found that his chronology disagreed with the conventional
Assyrian chronology for the reign of Shalmaneser III, but further
study showed that the conventional chronology was wrong and
Thiele’s chronology was correct.
There have been other instances where new data, unknown
when Thiele first published his ideas, have verified the
chronology derived from the Biblical data while demonstrating
that interpretations which contradicted the Biblical data were
mistaken. An example is Thiele’s conclusion that Samaria fell to
Shalmaneser V in 723 BC and not to Sargon II in 722 or later, as
was accepted by the majority of Assyriologists when Thiele first
published his results. Thiele’s date was verified in 1958 when
Tadmor published a study of Sargon’s records showing that
Sargon had no campaigns in the west in 722 or 721 (1958: 38).
Another vindication came when Donald Wiseman published
the Babylonian Chronicle (1956: 66–75), showing that
Nebuchadnezzars first attack on Jerusalem came in 605 BC,
in agreement with Thiele’s date for that event but contrary to
William Albright and other scholars who placed the event in 603
BC or later. Finally, Thiele had predicted that when the full text
of the extant portions of the “Iran Stele” of Tiglath-Pileser III was
published, it would show that the date that most Assyriologists
gave for Menahem’s tribute to Tiglath-Pileser, 738 BC, was based
on an improper interpretation of the previously-deciphered text
dealing with the tribute. Thiele’s expectation was verified when
Hayim Tadmor published the full text of the Iran Stele in 1994,
eight years after Thiele’s death (1994: 260–64).
14
An Argument for Inerrancy
All this demonstrates that a method that starts with the
Scriptural texts and assumes they are correct until proven
otherwise is the correct method to use in historical research,
whereas the deductive method that is usually followed by
rationalist critics of the Bible is ineffective for determining an
accurate interpretation of historical events. More than that, their
methodology is basically unscientific and irrational.
Another important point should not be overlooked. It is that
the inductive approach to the chronological data of Scripture
could never have succeeded unless the data it was examining
the texts dealing with reign lengths and synchronisms in
Kings,
Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel
—were authentic. It was
mentioned previously that there are approximately 124 such exact
statistics in these six major books of the Bible. The rationalist
critics cited earlier were sure that these statistics could not all
be correct. For scholars who were predisposed toward a low
view of inspiration, the abundant and complex chronological
data of the Hebrew monarchies was the one place where they
were sure that not just one, but numerous errors of fact could
be found. But thorough and sound scholarship, based on an
inductive approach, has shown that all these data are authentic.
Theories of an errant Scripture cannot explain this accuracy. The
authenticity of approximately 124 exact statistics in six major
books of the Bible, covering more than 400 years of history, is
63
Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
exactly what would be expected if the doctrine of inerrancy is
true and all doctrines of limited inspiration that assume errors in
the historical statements of Scripture are false.
This of course does not prove that the Scripture is inerrant. A
“proof” of inerrancy would have to establish all facts external to
the Bible and then show that all Biblical texts touching on these
issues are true. This is impossible. The doctrine of inerrancy will
never be established by showing that certain Biblical statements,
previously disputed, have been shown by further scholarship
to be correct, even though, historically, this has happened in
numerous interesting instances. Instead, those of us who hold to
the doctrine of inerrancy do so because it is a major theological
truth stated in the Scripture itself (Dt 8:3, Pss 12:6, 93:5, 111:7,
8, 119:89, 140, 160, 2 Tm 3:16, Ti 1:2), because it is clearly the
position of our Savior, who knows all things (Mt 5:18, Lk 16:17,
24:25, Jn 10:35, 17:17), and because God promises blessing to
those who believe His Word (Gn 15:6, 2 Chr 20:20, Rom 4:3,
Jas 2:23).
Philosophically, we would expect that if God exists, then
He would find some way to communicate to His creatures a
revelation (such as the Bible) that was completely trustworthy.
And yet we are thinking creatures, so that we look for a way
to test the validity of any such purported revelation. The
chronological details of the Scripture offer such an opportunity
for investigation. The fact that all these texts fit into a rational and
believable chronology amounts to a mathematical demonstration
that, with a high degree of probability, the Scripture’s complex
and abundant data dealing with the chronology of the kingdom
period are correct.
There are many areas of Scripture where the nature of the
material will not allow such a mathematical demonstration. The
statements showing that the patriarchs lived longer than is now
the norm provide one such topic; currently there is no way to
either prove or disprove the Bible’s testimony in this regard. Yet
when we find that the Bible is trustworthy in the areas that can
be checked by careful scholarship using a logical (inductive)
methodology, then we can be confident that in those areas where
we cannot do such checking, or where difficulties appear that
are not yet fully explained, when the full truth is known it will
vindicate the truthfulness of the eternal and inerrant Word of
God. It was completely unexpected by the critics cited at the
beginning of this article that one day the chronological texts
that they thought contained multiple errors, thereby proving a
defective Scripture, have instead become a testimony both to the
inerrancy of God’s Word and to the folly of the critics.
Notes
1
This article is a modified version of my “Inductive and Deductive Methods”
paper (Inductive and Deductive Methods as Applied to OT Chronology,
The
Masters Seminary Journal [TMSJ ] 18.1 [Spring 2007] 99–116), and is presented
here with the kind approval of the editors of
TMSJ. The TMSJ paper was adapted
from a presentation at the annual conference of the Evangelical Theological
Society, Valley Forge PA, November 2005. The present article differs from the
TMSJ version in the last section. In the TMSJ version, this was devoted to a
discussion of the date of Menahem’s tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III. The present
version replaces this with a discussion of the relevance of the successes of the
inductive method to the question of the integrity of Scripture.
2
See also the influence of the would-be anthropologist Edward Tylor on
Wellhausen, as documented in Richardson 1981: 141–42. Richardson’s entire
chapter entitled “Scholars with Strange Theories” shows the tremendous harm
that theological and sociological theorizing that was not based on observation
had in the ideologies and wars of the 20th century.
3
An example of this approach is found in Fager 1993. Fager followed the teaching
of Karl Marx that social position determined one’s political and philosophical
outlook, and he used this idea to reconstruct how Israel’s priests fabricated the
Jubilee and Sabbatical-year legislation in order to promote their own interests.
His approach led him to divide the Jubilee legislation (Lev 25:8–55) into four
strata from different time periods, which he displays by printing the text in four
different type formats. See the criticism of Fagers work in Lefebvre 2003: 8, 17.
Lefebvre starts with an examination of the text as it is, instead of imposing an
anti-supernaturalistic theory on it, and he finds that the Jubilee and Sabbatical-
year legislation is a coherent and unified whole.
4
All quotes are from Thiele 1963: 124–25.
5
Rosh HaShanah 1a; Josephus, Ant. I.iii.3; Seder Olam 4.
6
See, for example, Redford 1965: 116; Der Manuelian 1987: 24; Ball 1977:
272–79.
7
Modern Egyptologists believe that whole dynasties of pharaohs were ruling
simultaneously, such as the 9th and 10th Dynasties with the 11th, or the 16th and
17th with the 15th, even though the overlap is not stated in Manetho’s king-lists
or in the Turin Canon of Kings (Kitchen 1986: xxxi).
8
The Seder Olam, chaps. 4, 11, and 12, assumes that all years for Israel’s
kings and judges were given by non-accession reckoning. This method is
generally assumed in the Talmud. Babylonia and Assyria usually used accession
reckoning. Tiglath-Pileser III, however, used non-accession reckoning, contrary
to the customary practice in Assyria. This example serves as a warning that the
choice of whether to use accession or non-accession reckoning was arbitrary,
and the choice was probably made by the king himself. Applying this to Judah
and Israel would suggest that whether a king used accession or non-accession
years must be addressed anew for each king; it is not sufficient to assume that
because a certain king used one method, then his successor must have used the
same method. To assume uniformity in this matter would be consistent with the
deductive method of making arbitrary assumptions, but a careful study of the
Scriptural data shows that it is an improper assumption.
9
The translators of the LXX (Greek translation of the Old Testament) attempted to
harmonize various readings of the Hebrew text that seemed to be contradictory,
and in doing so they produced various readings that cannot be assembled into a
coherent chronology without postulating multiple arbitrary emendations. For a
demonstration of the failure of attempts to produce a coherent chronology from
LXX variations from the Hebrew text, see Young 2007b.
10
Wellhausen was followed in this presupposition by two of the more recent
authors of chronological studies of the OT: Hughes 1990: 99, 103, and Tetley
2005: 117. After such rejection of well-established practices from the ancient
Near East in order to make things simpler, these scholars find it necessary to
make a plethora of secondary assumptions in order to explain the disagreements
of their systems with the data.
11
Among the many scholars who have accepted Thiele’s date for the beginning
of the divided monarchies are Mitchell 1991b: 445–46; Walvoord and Zuck
1983: 632; McFall 1991: 12; MacArthur 1997: 468; Galil 1996: 14; Finegan
1998: 246, 249; and Kitchen 2003: 83.
12
This article on the date of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians is useful
in showing the technique used to determine the chronological methods of the
various Biblical authors who dealt with the closing years of the Judean monarchy,
and then showing, once these methods are determined, that all Scriptures dealing
with dates for this period are in agreement.
13
These 124 exact statistics are summarized in four tables at the end of Young
2005: 245–48. The purpose of the tables is to show that all synchronisms and
reign lengths in the six relevant Biblical books are precise, without need of
alteration from the numbers given in the Hebrew text, and without any need
of special pleading for the reasonableness of the resultant chronology. Writers
whose schemes do not fit the Biblical data often contend that the reason for the
lack of fit in their scheme is that the Biblical numbers are only approximate.
64 Bible and Spade 21.2 (2008)
This contention flies in the face of what we know about the official court records
of the ancient Near East, particularly those from Assyria and Babylonia, and
the great concern that the priests of these nations had in keeping an accurate
calendar.
14
Despite the evidence of the Iran Stele showing that Menahem’s name was
in a “summary list” of tribute, and thus could not be used to date the tribute
to a specific year, Tadmor did not abandon his earlier position that the tribute
was in 738 BC. This contradicts Thiele’s date for the death of Menahem in the
six-month period before Nisan of 741 BC. In order to maintain the 738 date,
Tadmor gives an unsupportable translation of the relevant text in the Assyrian
Eponym Canon (1994: 268). For the details, which are somewhat technical, see
my original version of this article (2007: 113
–15). A less extensive critique of
the 738 BC date for the tribute was presented in Mitchell 1991a: 326. Although
Mitchell wrote before the full translation of the Iran Stele was published, he
nevertheless recognized that the argument placing the tribute in 738 BC was
weak, and he preferred instead 743 or 742.
Bibliography
Ball, E.
1977 The Co-Regency of David and Solomon (I Kings 1). Vetus
Testamentum 27: 268–79.
Byers, Gary A.
1999 ABR
s Search for the Lost Cities of the Bible: ABR and the Search
for Ai.
Bible and Spade 12: 5–10.
Coucke, V.
1928 Chronique biblique. In Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 1, ed.
Louis Pirot. Cited in Thiele 1983: 59 n. 17.
de Wette, Wilhelm M. L.
1805 Dissertatio critico-exegetica, qua Deuteronomium a prioribus
Pentateuchi libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris
opus esse monstratur. Jena, Germany: Leteris Etzdorfii. Reprinted in
Opuscula Theologica (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1830).
Der Manuelian, Peter
1987 Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II. Hildesheim, Germany:
Gerstenberg.
Fager, Jeffrey
1993 Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee. Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic.
Finegan, Jack
1998 Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Rev. ed. Peabody MA:
Hendrickson.
Galil, Gershon
1996 The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Leiden, The
Netherlands: Brill.
Hughes, Jeremy
1990 Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology.
Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic.
Kitchen, Kenneth E.
1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100
–650 B. C.). Warminster,
England: Aris & Phillips.
2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids MI:
Eerdmans.
Lefebvre, Jean-François
2003 Le Jubilé Biblique: Lv 25
Exégèse et Théologie. Göttingen,
Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
MacArthur, John
1997
The MacArthur Study Bible. Nashville: Word.
McFall, Leslie
1991 A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and
Chronicles. Bibliotheca Sacra 148: 3–45.
Mitchell, T. C.
1991a Israel and Judah from the Coming of Assyrian Domination until the
Fall of Samaria, and the Struggle for Independence in Judah (c. 750–
700 B.C.). Pp. 322
–70 in Cambridge Ancient History 3, Part 2, ed.
John Boardman et al. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ.
1991b Israel and Judah until the Revolt of Jehu (931–841 B.C.). Pp. 442–87
in Cambridge Ancient History 3, Part 1, ed. John Boardman et al.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ.
Noth, Martin
1981 The Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield, England: JSOT.
Redford, Donald B.
1965 The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II. Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology
51: 107–22.
Richardson, Don
1981
Eternity in Their Hearts, rev. ed. Ventura CA: Regal.
Tadmor, Hayim
1958 The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical
Study. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12: 22–42.
1994 The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Tetley, M. Christine
2005 The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom. Winona
Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.
Thiele, Edwin R.
1963 Synchronisms of the Hebrew Kings. Andrews University Seminary
Studies 1: 121–38.
1983 The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids
MI: Zondervan/Kregel.
Walvoord, John H., and Zuck, Roy B.,
eds.
1983 The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament. Wheaton IL:
Victor.
Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
1989 Springfield MA: Merriam-Webster.
Wellhausen, Julius
1878 Prolegomena zur geschichte Israels. Berlin: G. Reimer. Reprinted in
English, New York: World, 1961.
Wiseman, Donald J.
1956 Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626
–556 B.C.) in the British
Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Young, Rodger C.
2003 When Did Solomon Die? Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 46: 589–603.
2004a When Did Jerusalem Fall? Journal of the Evangelical T
heological
Society 47: 21–38.
2004b When Was Samaria Captured? The Need for Precision in Biblical
Chronologies. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47:
577–95.
2005 Tables of Reign Lengths from the Hebrew Court Recorders.
Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 48: 225–48.
2007a Inductive and Deductive Methods as Applied to OT Chronology.
The
Masters Seminary Journal 18: 99–116.
2007b Review of The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom
by M. Christine Tetley. Andrews University Seminary Studies 45:
278–83.
Younger, K. Lawson, Jr.
2000 Neo-Assyrian Inscriptions: Shalmaneser III (2.113). Pp. 261–70
in The Context of Scripture II: Monumental Inscriptions from the
Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo. Leiden, The Netherlands:
Brill.
Rodger C. Young received a BA degree in physics from
Reed College, Portland OR, and BA and MA degrees in
mathematics from Oxford University, where he was a
Rhodes Scholar. In addition, he has done graduate work in
theology and Biblical languages at Nazarene Theological
Seminary, Kansas City MO. Mr. Young has worked as
a computer application developer and
systems analyst at Monsanto and IBM.
Following his retirement in 2003 he has
devoted himself to the study of Biblical
chronology and has authored a number of
articles on that subject. Mr. Young
s articles
can be accessed at
http://home.swbell.net/
rcyoung8/papers.html.