In Recalibrating Ancient Near East Chronology, independent Bible researcher and chronologist Dan Bruce presents a bold reappraisal of long-held assumptions in biblical and Ancient Near East (ANE) timelines. This carefully reasoned and thoroughly documented work challenges the scholarly consensus that has long centered the Assyrian Eponym Canon as the definitive chronological anchor for dating events in the ANE. Instead, Bruce argues for recalibrating this widely accepted framework by using what he calls the “New Hebrew Kings Chronology”—a system that draws from the Masoretic biblical text, ancient Jewish historical sources such as the Seder Olam, and synchronization with Egyptian records.
Bruce’s central thesis is this: before 745 BCE, the Assyrian timeline contains significant gaps, errors, and misinterpretations, and as a result, has distorted our understanding of ancient history. Rather than bending the Bible to fit the Assyrian chronology, Bruce proposes the opposite: begin with the highly detailed and internally consistent biblical record of the Hebrew kings and align the rest of the ANE around it. This reversal of methodology produces strikingly different results, particularly in the dating of Solomon’s Temple, the reigns of kings such as Tiglath-pileser III, and the timing of major events like the division of the united monarchy of Israel.
The book opens with a compelling preface, aptly titled “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It,” which critiques the academic tendency to treat the Assyrian timeline as sacrosanct. Bruce acknowledges the significant work of past scholars—such as Jean-François Champollion, Henry Rawlinson, and Edwin Thiele—but points out where their systems fall short. He contends that these systems either rely on compromised data or assume scribal error in the Bible when discrepancies arise, particularly Thiele’s method of harmonizing the Hebrew kings’ reigns with the Assyrian timeline by invoking co-regencies or textual corruption.
A standout example of Bruce’s approach is his analysis of Tiglath-pileser III’s reign. While mainstream Assyriology limits his rule to 18 years (745–727 BCE), Bruce marshals biblical evidence and historical logic to argue that Tiglath-pileser must have reigned significantly longer—perhaps as many as 42 to 48 years. He supports this claim by pointing to biblical references and Jewish historical documents that indicate overlap between Tiglath-pileser and four Israelite kings: Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, and Hoshea. The compressed 18-year reign simply cannot account for the reigns of all four, especially when cross-checked with sources like the Seder Olam that mention periods of governance without a king.
Bruce also revisits the famous Bûr-Saggilê eclipse—a solar eclipse mentioned in an Assyrian inscription and widely accepted as having occurred in 763 BCE. That date has become the lynchpin for anchoring the entire Assyrian Eponym Canon. But Bruce challenges this foundational assumption, proposing instead that the eclipse occurred in 791 BCE. He argues that this earlier date fits better with the biblical and Egyptian data and allows for proper synchronization of timelines. Furthermore, he demonstrates that the original eclipse inscription lacks the specificity needed to conclusively choose the 763 BCE date over the 791 BCE option—there is no mention of the eclipse’s magnitude, location, or precise visibility, only that it occurred during the tenure of a certain governor in the month of Siwan.
By moving the Bûr-Saggilê eclipse back 28 years, Bruce recalibrates the entire Assyrian kings list and achieves what he claims is a tighter alignment with the Hebrew and Egyptian records. For example, this adjustment makes the Battle of Qarqar (traditionally dated to 853 BCE) occur in 883 BCE—perfectly matching the final regnal year of Ahab, king of Israel, according to Bruce’s revised Hebrew chronology.
Another critical section of the book deals with the completion date of Solomon’s Temple. Traditional scholarship—again based on the Assyrian timeline—places this event around 960 BCE. But Bruce, using Jewish sources like the Babylonian Talmud and Seder Olam Rabbah, argues persuasively for a date of 996 BCE. He uses two independent cross-checks from these texts: one that counts the number of years the Temple stood (410 years until its destruction in 586 BCE), and another that counts backward from the reigns of Joash and Josiah, two kings who led temple renovations at precisely specified intervals. Both methods yield the same result—996 BCE.
Bruce’s style throughout the book is thoughtful and respectful. He is not dismissive of mainstream scholars; instead, he offers an alternative methodology rooted in a different set of first principles. His arguments are supported with tables, timelines, and citations from both ancient texts and modern scholarship. Readers are not asked to take his word for it—he provides the data and invites critical scrutiny.
However, this book is not for casual readers. It assumes a working familiarity with biblical history, ancient Near Eastern civilizations, and the methodological debates around chronology. Yet for serious students of biblical history, archaeology, or chronology, Bruce’s work offers a refreshing alternative that challenges assumptions and invites reexamination of the foundations of our historical timelines.
Critics might argue that Bruce places too much confidence in the biblical text and underestimates the weight of the Assyrian evidence. Others might question whether rejecting widely accepted synchronisms (such as Thiele’s harmonization or Champollion’s identification of Shishak with Shoshenq I) risks isolating Bruce’s chronology from broader historical consensus. But Bruce anticipates these critiques and responds with measured, evidence-based arguments.
In conclusion, Recalibrating Ancient Near East Chronology is a masterful and meticulously researched challenge to the status quo. Dan Bruce dares to re-anchor history around the Bible rather than forcing the Bible into the mold of a potentially flawed secular framework. Whether readers ultimately agree with his conclusions or not, this work demands attention and provides fertile ground for scholarly dialogue. It may well become a touchstone for future debates about biblical chronology and its place in the larger fabric of ancient history.
Highly recommended for biblical chronologists, historians of the Ancient Near East, archaeologists, and anyone interested in the interface of Scripture and history.
Complete book available for free download here.