1. My chronology for the monarchs of Judah, Solomon through Athaliah, is one year earlier than that of Thiele's final position in his third edition of Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Thiele was aware he had a problem here but he was not able to resolve it.
2. My chronology for Zedekiah, last king of Judah, puts his last year of reign and the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 587 BC instead of Thiele's 586. This brings into harmony the Biblical account and Babylonian records of the time.
3. Thiele failed to recognize that Hezekiah had a coregency with his father Ahaz, even though he accepted coregencies of Ahaz with Jotham, Jotham with Uzziah, Uzziah with Amaziah, and Hezekiah with his son Manasseh. Following many other writers (Kitchen, McFall, etc.) who pointed out Thiele's inconsistency, I accept the Ahaz-Hezekiah coregency that is implied by the biblical data for these kings.
    
   

The corrections to Thiele just indicated are consistent with the data given in the Bible. They are also consistent with the inductive approach that is foundational to the scientific method, as opposed to the presupposition-based approach of critics who come to the Bible from an anti-supernatural viewpoint--i.e. that the Bible is an entirely the work of man, and any divine operation is ruled out a priori. (A priori judgments like this, although common among Bible critics, are the antithesis of the scientific method and sound philosophical thinking.) It may come as a great surprise to many, especially those of an anti-supernatural bent, that the approach of conservative scholarship has given credence to the inerrancy of the Bible in all the details that are used to construct the chronology of the Hebrew kingdom period (there are at least 126 of them), so that Egyptologists and Assyriologists have accepted the chronology worked out by Thiele in order to refine the chronologies of their own fields.

In addition to adding to the work of Thiele (despite his failure for Hezekiah) and others who have helped establish the Bible's historical accuracy in the kingdom period, there is one other consequence of my work. By making the two corrections 1) and 3) listed above, an important and surprising consequence is that the Jubilee implied in the Hebrew text of Ezekiel 40:1 is in exact agreement with the cycle of Jubilee and Sabbatical years starting in 1406 BC. This becomes even more relevant when we are willing to accept, without prejudice beforehand, the remarks in the rabbinic literature of the Seder 'Olam, the Tosefta, and the two Talmuds, that Ezekiel's Jubilee was the seventeenth. The arithmetic is then exact, producing the same years for the Exodus (1446 BC) and the entry to the land (1406 BC) that can be derived from 1 Kings 6:1. The full impact of this has not yet been realized. Since virtually all critics, conservative and anti-supernatural alike, acknowledge that the only credible source for the legislation of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years comes from chapters 25-27 of Leviticus, this means that those chapters were in effect in 1406 BC.

The earliest papers (Solomon, Jerusalem, Samaria, Tables of Reign Lengths) establish the chronology of the Hebrew kingdom period, for which I am especially indebted to the work of Thiele and Leslie McFall. In agreement with Thiele and McFall, I accept that the southern kingdom, Judah, reckoned that the regnal years of its kings began in the month Tishri (the fall), while the northern kingdom, Israel, began theirs in Nisan (the spring). I also agree that both kingdoms sometimes considered the partial year in which the king came to the throne as his "year one," and sometimes they only counted the first full year as "year one," although in a few places I disagree with Thiele and McFall on exactly which convention was used at a given time. After establishing the chronology of the kingdom period, later papers develop various aspects of the significance of the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles, plus other themes related to the chronology of the Bible. The article that has received the most attention from casual readers, judging by the number of views shown on my Academia.edu page, is the one on lunar and solar eclipses as related to the Bible.