The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: Perbedaan antara revisi

Rekonstruksi kronologi Thiele hastidak notseluruhnya beenditerima acceptedoleh bypara all scholarssarjana,<ref>'NotTidak allsemua scholarssarjana arediyakinkan convincedoleh bypemecahan this solutionini, anddan commentatorspara on thekomentator propheticmengenai bookskitab-kitab oftennabi-nabi acceptsering thatmenerima datesbahwa cantanggal-tanggal onlyini behanya approximateperkiraan.', McConville, G (2002). Exploring the Old Testament, Volume 4: The Prophets (viii). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.</ref><ref>'DespiteMeskipun thatada factfakta of scholarlydedikasi dedicationkesarjanaan, neitherdisertasi Thiele’sThiele carefully argueddi University of Chicago dissertationyang diajukan dengan cermat, noratau anyonepun else’s,pendapat hasorang achievedlain, asbelum yetmendapat universalpenerimaan acceptanceuniversal.', Kaiser, WC (1998). A history of Israel: From the bronze age through the Jewish Wars (293). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.</ref> nordemikian haspula anypendapat otherpara scholar’ssarjana worklain indalam thisbidang fieldkronologi ini. YetNamun, the work ofkarya Thiele anddan thosepenerus whojejaknya followedtelah inmendapatkan hispenerimaan stepslintas hasspektrum achieveddibandingkan acceptancekronologi acrossserupa ayang widerlain, spectrumsehingga thanahli thatmengenai ofAsyur any comparable chronology(Assyriologist''), so that Assyriologist [[Donald Wiseman|DJ Wiseman]], wrotemenulis “The“Kronologi chronologyyang mostpaling widelybanyak acceptedditerima todayhari isini oneadalah basedyang on theberdasarkan meticulousstudi studycermat byoleh Thiele,”<ref>Donald J Wiseman, ''1 and 2 Kings'' indalam ''[[Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries]]'' (Leicester: Intervarsity, 1993), 27.</ref> anddan, morejuga recently,menurut Leslie McFall: “Thiele’s“Kronologi chronologyThiele isdengan fastcepat becomingmenjadi thepandangan consensuskonsensus viewdi amongantara Oldsarjana Testament[[Perjanjian scholarsLama]], if it hasmalah notmungkin alreadysudah reachedmencapai thattitik pointitu.”<ref>Leslie McFall, “The Chronology of Saul and David,” ''[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]]'' 53 (2010) 215, n. 101.</ref><!-- Although criticism has been leveled at numerous specific points in his chronology,<ref>'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.', Freedman, DN (1996). Vol. 1: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1006). New York: Doubleday.</ref> his work has won considerable praise even from those who disagree with his final conclusions.<ref>'Driver described Thiele’s system as an “important work, which comes very near to, if it does not actually reach, a final solution of the problem of the dates of the kings of Israel and Judah.” Even a critic of Thiele’s system who accused him of manipulating variable factors to achieve his goal of fitting the biblical evidence into Near Eastern history and who described his work as “more a study in numerical ingenuity than in scholarly research” had to admit that “Thiele’s assumption is validated by the results achieved: inner consistency and harmony and conformity with the fixed dates of ancient Near Eastern history.”', McFall, Leslie, 'A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles', Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 148. 1991 (589) (4). Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary.</ref> Nevertheless, even scholars sharing Thiele's religious convictions have maintained that there are weaknesses in his argument such as unfounded assumptions and assumed circular reasoning.