For the late DK, Tetley corrects what she views as errors of transmission and proposes dates not actually attested by any textual witness for several kings.
The second half of this chapter sharpens Tetley’s critique of Thiele for his dismissal of the Greek textual evidence and frequent appeals to coregencies.
Here’s one from this week, from Teddy in Ghana: ”I want to know if Danish women will date a Ghanaian man. And one from last month, from Alex: ”Hi, I’d like to know if Danish girls would date a bi-racial Brazilian guy”. And I can tell you now, most of them will not immediately reject you because you have a different skin color.
And one from late last year: ”I’m a gay African American male who would like to date a Dane. ’ Basically, a lot of the mail I get is from men, wanting to know how they can get some action in Denmark. I know of several babies of mixed heritage here in Denmark. That’s because the process that works in much of the rest of the Western world doesn’t work in Denmark. But first, let me tell you another thing that will get you rejected.
The tax department will have your number, real fast.
Second of all, Denmark is a very non-hierarchical society, very flat structure.
Still, the possibility that she may prove right on one or more points makes Tetley’s provocative work worthy of serious consideration.
I get a lot of mail from readers of my blog, but a lot of the mail I get is on one particular topic.
This volume, a revision of the author’s 2000 dissertation at the University of Melbourne, advances a new approach to and a new reconstruction of the chronology of Israel and Judah. The first provides an overview of the major issues involved in reconstructing the divided kingdom (DK) chronology.
Here Tetley critiques “conventional approaches”—above all the work of Thiele—on four counts: (1) preference of the MT over the Greek chronology; (2) resort to various dating systems, including antedating, postdating, different calendars, and coregency; (3) reliance on the Assyrian Eponym Canon (AEC); and (4) making Menahem of Israel and Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria contemporaries.
The second chapter reviews the transmission history of and textual witnesses to the book of Kings.
Tetley’s approach is unique in its reconstruction of chronology based primarily on that of the Greek witnesses, which Miller and Shenkel found to be superior in Kings to the MT’s.
While her criticisms of Thiele are well placed, it is not clear whether her insistence on consistency has produced a better result overall.