An Exposition of the Meaning, and a Demonstration of the Truth, of Every Chronological Statement Contained in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament

Marshall Brothers, Ltd.,

London, Edinburgh and New York

1913.

To my dear Friend

to whose inspiring Lectures on

I trace the inception of these pages, and whose intimate knowledge and unrivalled exposition

of the Written Word makes audible in human ears the Living Voice of the Living God,

I dedicate this book.

October 3rd, 1913

BY REV. G. CAMPBELL MORGAN, D. D.

It is with pleasure, and yet with reluctance, that I have consented to preface this book with any words

of mine.

The reluctance is due to the fact that the work is so lucidly done, that any setting forth of the method

or purpose by way of introduction would be a work of supererogation.

The pleasure results from the fact that the book is the outcome of our survey of the Historic movement

in the redeeming activity of God as seen in the Old Testament, in the Westminster Bible School.

While I was giving lectures on that subject, it was my good fortune to have the co—operation of Mr. Martin

Anstey, in a series of lectures on these dates. My work was that of sweeping over large areas, and

largely ignoring dates. He gave his attention to these, and the result is the present volume, which is invaluable

to the Bible Teacher, on account of its completeness and detailed accuracy.

Bible study is the study of the Bible. There are many methods and departments; none is without

value; all of them, when done thoroughly rather than superficially, tend to the deepening of conviction as

to the accuracy of the records.

In no case is this more marked than in departments which are incidental than essential.

If, in such a matter as that of dates—which seems to be purely incidental, and is of such a general nature

that few have taken the trouble to pay particular attention to it—the method of careful study shows

that these apparently incidental references are nevertheless accurate and harmonious, then a testimony

full of value is borne to the integrity of the writings.

To this work Mr. Anstey has given himself, with great care, and much scholarship. The results are full

of fascination, and are almost startling in their revelation of the harmony of the Biblical scheme.

The method has been that of independent study of the writings themselves with an open mind, and

determination to hide nothing, and to explain nothing away.

The careful and patient student is the only person who will be able to appreciate the value of this

work; and all such will come to its study with thankfulness to the Author; and having minds equally open

and honest, will be able to verify or correct. In this process I venture to affirm that corrections will be few,

and the verification constant.

WESTMINSTER CHAPEL,

BUCKINGHAM GATE, S.W.,

October 11th, 1913.

ho tolmoon ti paralassein toon gegrammenoon ap’ argees, ouk en hodoo aleetheias

histatai.

He who attempts to alter any part of the Scriptures, from indolence or incapacity, stands not in the

path of Truth.

Epiphanius Against Heresies, Book I.

THE Studies embodied in the following pages have been undertaken with a view to ascertaining and

exhibiting the exact chronological relation of every dated event recorded in the Old Testament. The object

of the writer is the production of a Standard Chronology, which shall accurately represent the exact

date at which each event took place, so far as this can be ascertained from the statements contained in

the text itself.

No other dates are given. All merely approximate or estimated dates are omitted as inexact. All merely

probable or conjectural dates, inferred from speculative reconstructions of the historical situation, and

not guaranteed by the words of the text, are rejected as unverifiable. All dates certainly known, but derived

from other sources—such as profane history and modern discovery are excluded from the Chapters

on the Chronology of the Old Testament. They appear only in the Chapters on Comparative Chronology

and in the Chronological Tables (Vol. II). The Chronology adopted in these pages is supported by

Josephus, but does not lean upon him. It is, to some extent, confirmed by the results of modern discovery,

as tabulated in the Guides to the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian Antiquities published by the Authorities

of the British Museum, but it stands upon its own foundation, and is dependent upon none of

them.

Chronology is a branch of History. As such it is governed by the laws which determine the validity of

the results reached by the process of scientific investigation and historical enquiry. It is also a branch of

Applied Mathematics, and Mathematics is an exact Science. In a truly scientific Chronology there is no

room for any date which is not demonstrably true. This view of the limits of the subject accounts for the

absence of the note of interrogation (?) after any date in the Chronological Tables, and for the somewhat

dogmatic or Euclidian tone in which the conclusions reached by this method are expressed. Like Mathematics,

Chronology has its axioms, its postulates, and its definitions, of which the most important and

the most fundamental is the trustworthiness of the testimony of honest, capable, and contemporary witnesses,

like that of the men whose testimony is preserved in the Records of the Old Testament.

writings of the Old Testament.

In addition to the Hebrew Massoretic Text of the Old Testament, there are many other sources affording

data for the construction of a Chronology of this period, of which the principal may be classified as

follows:

1. Other Texts and Versions such as (1) the Septuagint (LXX) or Greek Version of the Old Testament,

and (2) the Samaritan Pentateuch.

2. Ancient Literary Remains, such as those fragments of Sanchoniathon of Phoenicia, Berosus of

Chaldea, and Manetho of Egypt, which have come down to us; the national traditions of Persian

History preserved in the writings of the Persian poet, Firdusi; the books of the Old Testament

Apocrypha; the works of the Jewish Historian Josephus, and the Talmudic Tract, Sedar Olam.

3. Ancient Monumental Inscriptions upon Rocks, Temples, Palaces, Cylinders, Bricks, Steles and

Tablets, and writings upon Papyrus Rolls, brought to light by modern discoveries in recent times.

4. The Classic Literature of Greece and Rome.

5. Astronomical Observations and Calculations, especially eclipses of the Sun, eclipses of the Moon

and the risings of Sirius, the dogstar, with the Sun.

6. The works of Ancient and Modern Chronologers.

The results obtained from any one of these several sources must, if true, be consistent with the results

obtained from each of the other sources.

The aim of the present work is to make an exhaustive critical examination of the data contained in the

first of these several sources only, and to develop and construct therefrom a Standard Chronology of the

events of the Old Testament, so far as this can be obtained from the chronological data which lie embedded

in the Hebrew Massoretic Text of the Old Testament, and independently of any help which may be

derived from any other source.

The results thus obtained will be compared at every stage with those obtained from the data afforded

by the other sources named above, but whilst the data afforded by the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament

are made the subject of an exhaustive critical examination, every step in the series being scientifically investigated

and rigorously established in accordance with the recognized laws of historical evidence, the

data afforded by these other sources are not thus dealt with, but are left over for investigation by other

workers in these several branches of chronological enquiry and research.

The establishment of a Standard Chronology of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament is a first requisite

for the correct interpretation of the results obtained from other departments of chronological study,

as, without this, no true and sure comparison can be made between the dates given in the Old Testament

and those obtained from other sources.

The Method adopted is that of accurate observation and scientific historical induction. Each recorded

fact is accepted on the authority of the text which contains it. Each book in the Old Testament is carefully

examined, and every chronological statement contained therein is carefully noted down. After thus collecting

all the relevant statements of the text, and making a complete induction of all the facts, a chronological

scheme is constructed, in which every dated event in the Old Testament is duly charted down in

its proper place. There is no selecting of certain facts to the exclusion of certain other facts. There is no

attempt to reconcile apparently discrepant statements by conjectural emendations of the text. The

scheme is not bent to meet the exigencies of any particular theory, but all the statements that bear upon

the subject of Chronology are brought together and interpreted in relation to each other in such a way as

to form one complete harmonious table of events in which the whole of the relevant facts contained in the

Old Testament are exhibited and explained in the light of the time relations which obtain between them.

An attempt is made to exhibit the results thus obtained to the eye, by means of Diagrams, Charts, Tables

and other forms of graphic representation, clearness of apprehension being regarded as equally important

with accuracy and precision of statement, in any adequate and satisfactory presentation of this

somewhat intricate and difficult subject. In this way an endeavour is made to secure a result which shall

be at once both Scriptural and scholarly, and at the same time easy to understand.

The present essay deals only with the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament in the form in which it has

reached us from the hands of the Massoretes. That Text has an origin and a history, and our view of its

origin may perhaps influence us in our estimate of its value and its authority. Into the question of the authorship,

the date, and the composition of the various books of the Old Testament, the integrity of the

Text, and the various sources from which it has been derived, the present author does not now enter. In

like manner, all questions relating to the preservation and transmission of the Text are left untouched,

the sole aim of the writer being to ascertain and to elicit from the Text as it stands the chronological

scheme which lies embodied therein. The authenticity of the records, and the accuracy of the Text in its

present state of preservation, is taken for granted. The results obtained from this study will be authoritative

within the limits of the authority accorded to the text itself. The materials afforded by the Text are

dealt with in accordance with the requirements of modern scientific method. Care has been taken to secure

for each step in the Chronology the value of historic proof or demonstration, so that each

subsequent induction may proceed upon an assured scientific foundation.

The authority to be accorded to the results obtained from the six other sources named above is that of

corroborating or conflicting witnesses, not that of the verdict of a jury, and not that of the pronouncement

of a Judge.

The results obtained from the testimony of these other witnesses may be compared with those obtained

from the Old Testament Record, but they must not be erected into a Standard of established

Truth, and used to correct the testimony of the principal witness.

1. The Septuagint (LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament into Hellenistic

Greek. It was made at Alexandria in Egypt, a portion at a time, the Pentateuch being the portion

translated first. The translation of the entire work occupied some 70 years (BC 250–180). It

was commenced in the reign of Ptolemy II, Philadelphus, King of Egypt (BC 284–247). It was

translated by Alexandrian, not Palestinian Jews, and was the work of a number of independent

translators, or groups of translators, separated from each other by considerable intervals of time.

It was the work of a number of men who had none of that almost superstitious veneration for the

letter of Scripture, which characterized the Jews of Palestine. A Palestinian Jew would never dare

to add to, to take from, or to alter a single letter of the Original. The translators of the LXX, on the

contrary, are notorious for their Hellenizing, or their modernizing tendencies, their desire to simplify

and to clear up difficulties, their practice of altering the text in order to remove what they regarded

as apparent contradictions, and, generally, their endeavour to adapt their version to the

prevailing notions of the age, in such a way as to commend it to the learning and the culture of the

time. Hence the centenary additions to the lives of the Patriarchs in order to bring the Chronology

into closer accord with the notions of antiquity that prevailed in Egypt at that time. Like the modern

critic, the LXX translator did not hesitate to “correct” the record, and to “emend” the Text, in

order to make it speak what he thought it ought to say.

2. The Samaritan Pentateuch is a venerable document written in the very ancient pointed Hebrew

Script, which appears to have been in use (1) in the time of the Moabite Stone which dates

from the 9th Century BC (2) in the time of the Siloam Inscription, which dates from the 7th Century

BC, and (3) in the time of the Maccabees, i.e., in the 2nd Century BC The Manuscript, which is

of great age, is preserved in the Sanctuary of the Samaritan Community at Nablous (Shechem). It

modifies the Hebrew Text in accordance with the notions prevailing amongst the descendants of

the mixed population introduced into Samaria by the Kings of Assyria, from Sargon (2 Kings

17:24) in the 8th Century BC to “the great and noble Asnapper” (Ezra 4:10) probably Ashurbanipal,

in the 7th Century BC It alters “Ebal” to “Gerizim” in Deuteronomy 27:4, bears traces of a

narrowing, rather than a broadening outlook, and represents the tendencies that prevailed

amongst the Samaritans in the 9th to the 2nd Centuries BC If it is not so old as the LXX, the constructor

of the Text may have had before him both the Hebrew Original and the Greek LXX Version,

and may have picked his own way, selecting now from the one, and now from the other, in

accordance with his own predilections and his own point of view. But it is more than probable that

the Samaritan Pentateuch is much older than the LXX, and that it was translated from Hebrew

The tendency of the modern mind, which is imbued with Greek rather than with Hebrew ideals, is

to over-estimate the authority of the LXX as compared with the Hebrew. Many scholars look upon

it as a translation of a different Hebrew Text from that Preserved in our Hebrew Bibles, but the

variations are all easily accounted for as adaptations of the Original Hebrew to meet the views of

the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria. The differences in the order of the books, the various omissions

and the many additions, show that the point of view has been changed, and though the framework

and the main substance of the LXX is the same as that of the Hebrew, the modifications are sufficient

to indicate that we are reading a translation of the same original produced in the new world

of Greek culture rather than the translation of a different original produced in the old world of He-

brew religion. The patriarchal Chronology of the LXX can be explained from the Hebrew on the

principle that the translators of the LXX desired to lengthen the Chronology and to graduate the

length of the lives of those who lived after the Flood, so as to make the shortening of human life

gradual and continuous, instead of sudden and abrupt. The Samaritan patriarchal Chronology can

be explained from the Hebrew. The constructor of the scheme lengthens the Chronology of the Patriarchs

after the Flood, and graduates the length of the lives of the patriarchs throughout the entire

list, both before and after the Flood, with this curious result, that with the exception of (1)

Enoch, (2) Cainan, whose life exceeds that of his father by only five years, and (3) Reu, whose age at

death is the same as that of his father, every one of the Patriarchs, from Adam to Abraham, is made

to die a few years younger than his father. This explains why the Chronology of the years before the

Flood is reduced by 349 years. Could anything be more manifestly artificial? The LXX and the Samaritan

Pentateuch may take their place in the witness box, but there is no room for them on the

bench.

Of ancient literary remains outside the classical literature of Greece and Rome, but little has been

preserved. A collection of these, known as Cory’s Ancient Fragments, was made and published by Isaac

Preston Cory in 1832.

1. Sanchoniathon is said to have written a History of Phoenicia, and to have flourished in the reign

of Semiramis, the Queen of Assyria, the wife of Ninus, and, with him, the mythical founder of

Nineveh. She lived BC 2000, or according to others, BC 1200. Sanchoniathon was quoted by Porphyry

(b. AD 233) the opponent of Christianity, in his attack on the writings of Moses. Porphyry

says, Sanchoniathon was a contemporary of Gideon, BC 1339. His writings were translated into

Greek by Philo Byblius in the reign of Hadrian (AD 76–130). Philo was a native of Byblos, a maritime

city on the coast of Phoenicia. He had a considerable reputation for honesty, but some scholars

believe his work to be a forgery; others believe that he was himself deceived by a forger.

According to Philo Byblius, Sanchoniathon was a native of Berytus in Phoenicia. His Phoenician

History may be regarded as one of the most authentic memorials of the events which took place before

the Flood, to be met with in heathen literature. It begins with a legendary cosmogony. It relates

how the first two mortals were begotten by theWind (Spirit) and his wife Baau (Darkness). It

refers to the Fall, the production of fire, the invention of huts and clothing, the origin of the arts of

agriculture, hunting, fishing and navigation, and the beginnings of human civilization. Sanchoniathon

gives a curious account of the descendants of the line of Cain. His history of the descendants

of the line of Seth reads like an idolatrous version of the record in Genesis. The whole system of

Sanchoniathon is a confused, unintelligible jargon, culled from (1) the mythologies of Egypt and

Greece, and (2) a corrupt tradition of the narrative in Genesis. It may well have been forged by Porphyry,

or by Philo Byblius, in order to prop the sinking cause of Paganism, and to retard the rapid

spread of Christianity in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries of the Christian Era. Sanchoniathon is said to

have written, also, a history of the Serpent, to which he attributed a Divine nature. These fragments

of Sanchoniathon, or Philo Byblius, or whoever the author was, have been preserved to us in

the writings of Eusebius.

2. Berosus was a Chaldean priest of Belus, at Babylon. He lived in the time of Alexander the Great

(BC 356–323). About BC 268, he wrote in the Greek language a history of Babylonia from the creation,

down to his own time. Only fragments of his work remain. These have been preserved to us

in the pages of Apollodorus (BC 144), Polyhistor (BC 88), Abydenus (BC 60), Josephus (AD

37–103), Africanus (AD 220), and Eusebius (AD 265–340), who give varying accounts of those

parts of Berosus’ work which they quote. Berosus obtained the materials for his history from the

archives of the temple of Belus at Babylon. His story of the creation of the world, of the ten generations

before the Flood, and the ten generations after it, correspond somewhat with the Mosaic narrative

in Genesis. The first man, Alorus, was a Babylonian. The tenth, Xisuthrus, corresponds to

Noah, in whose reign Berosus places the great Deluge. The ten Kings before the Flood occupy a period

of 120 Sari (Hebrew eser = ten, a decad) or 1,200 years, each containing 360 days, a total

therefore of 432,000 days, which the Chaldeans in after years magnified into 432,000 years in order

to enhance their antiquity. In the reign of the first King, Alorus, an intelligent animal called

Oannes came out of the Red Sea, and appeared near Babylonia in the form of a fish with a man’s

head under the fish’s head, and a man’s feet which came out of the fish’s tail. This is Berosus’ account

of Noah, who appears again under the name of Xisuthrus, whilst Alorus, the Nimrod of Genesis

and the founder of Babylon, is placed at the top of the Dynasty of ten Kings, of which

Xisuthrus, or Noah, is the tenth. Xisuthrus builds a vessel, takes into it his family, and all kinds of

animals and birds, and when the waters are abated, birds are sent out from the vessel three times,

quite after the manner of the Biblical Noah. Mankind starts from Armenia, and journeys toward

the plain of Shinar, following the course of the Euphrates. There, Nimrod, aspiring to the universal

sovereignty of the world, builds the Tower and the City of Babel. The builders are dispersed, and

the Tower is destroyed. There is a reference to Abraham, and a detailed account of the reigns of the

Kings of Babylon from Nabopollasar, who overthrew the Empire of Assyria, to Nebuchadnezzar

and his destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem. Berosus also mentions Evil Merodachus, Neriglissoorus,

Laborosoarchodus, and Nabonnedus, in the 17th year of whose reign, at the end of the Seventy

Years during which Jerusalem was in a state of desolation, Cyrus came out of Persia with a

great army and took Babylon.

3. Manetho, of Sebennytus in Egypt, was a learned Egyptian priest. At the request of Ptolemy

Philadelphus, King of Egypt (BC 284–247), he wrote, in the Greek language, about the year BC

258, a work on Egyptian Antiquities, deriving his materials from ancient records in the possession

of the Egyptian priests. The work itself is lost, but portions of it are preserved in Josephus,

Africanus, and Eusebius. It contains a list of the 31 dynasties of the Kings of Egypt, from Menes,

the first King, with whom the civilization of Egypt takes its rise, to the conquest of Egypt by

Cambyses (BC 529–521). Its value for historical and chronological purposes is problematical, for

(1) the accounts of the work handed down to us by Africanus and Eusebius contain contradictions

in almost every dynasty, (2) the lists are incomplete, and (3) we have no means of ascertaining

which of the dynasties are consecutive, or successive, and which are co-existent, or contemporary.

4. The Persian Epic Poet, Firdusi (AD 931–1020) was born at Khorassan. He wrote the history of Persia

in verse, from the earliest times down to AD 632. This is not Chronology. It is not even history.

It is a poetic rendering of the legendary national traditions of Persia. The uncritical nature of the

poet, and the unhistorical character of his work, may be gathered from the fact that the reigns of

the first four Kings of the second, or Kaianian dynasty, are reckoned as follows:

1. Kai Kobad 120 years

2. Kai Kaoos 150

3. Kai Khoosroo 60

4. Lohrasp 120

The unique value of Firdusi’s poem arises from the fact that it gathers up and preserves the national

Persian tradition of the Chronology of the period between Darius Hystaspes and Alexander

the Great (BC 485–331), just as the Talmudic Tract, Sedar Olam gathers up and preserves the national

Jewish tradition of the chronology of the same period.

The Chronology of this period has never yet been accurately determined. The received Chronology,

though universally accepted, is dependent on the list of the Kings, and the number of years assigned

to them in Ptolemy’s Canon. Ptolemy (AD 70–161) was a great constructive genius. He

was the author of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy. He was one of the founders of the Science of

Geography. But in Chronology he was only a late compiler and contriver, not an original witness,

and not a contemporary historian, for he lived in the 2nd Century after Christ. He is the only authority

for the Chronology of this period. He is not corroborated. He is contradicted, both by the

Persian National Traditions preserved in Firdusi, by the Jewish National Traditions preserved in

the Sedar Olam, and by the writings of Josephus.

the first year of Alexander the Great, thus:

Cambyses Reigned 8 years from 219 529 529

Darius I Hystaspes Reigned 36 years from 227 521 521

Xerxes Reigned 21 years from 263 485 486

Artaxerxes I Longimanus Reigned 41 years from 284 464 465

Darius II Nothus Reigned 19 years from 325 423 424

Artaxerxes III Ochus Reigned 21 years from 390 358 359

Arogus or Arses Reigned 2 years from 411 377 338

Darius III Codomannus Reigned 4 years from 413 335 336

Alexander the Great Reigned — years from 417 331 332

From these 207 years of the Medo-Persian Empire, we must deduct the first two years of the

Co-Rexship of Cyrus with Darius the Mede. This leaves seven years to Cyrus as sole King, the first

of which, BC 536, is “the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia” (2 Chron. 36:22), in which he made his

proclamation giving the Jews liberty to return to Jerusalem. That leaves 205 years for the duration

of the Persian Empire proper.

In Ptolemy’s Table of the Persian Kings, all the Julian years from Xerxes to Alexander the Great

inclusive are connumerary. Therefore each requires to be raised a unit higher to give the Julian

years in which their reigns began. Ptolemy reckons by the vague Egyptian year of 365 days. The

Julian year is exactly 365 1/4 days. Had Ptolemy never written, profane Chronology must have remained

to this day in a state of ambiguity and confusion, utterly unintelligible and useless, nor

would it have been possible to have ascertained from the writings of the Greeks or from any other

source, except from Scripture itself, the true connection between sacred Chronology and profane,

in any one single instance, before the dissolution of the Persian Empire in the 1st year of Alexander

the Great. Ptolemy had no means of accurately determining the Chronology of this period, so he

made the best use of the materials he had, and contrived to make a Chronology. He was a great astronomer,

a great astrologer, a great geographer, and a great constructor of synthetic systems. But

he did not possess sufficient data to enable him to fill the gaps, or to fix the dates of the Chronology

of this period, so he had to resort to the calculation of eclipses. In this way then, not by historical

evidence or testimony, but by the method of astronomical calculation, and the conjectural identification

of recorded with calculated eclipses, the Chronology of this period of the world’s history has

been fixed by Ptolemy, since when, through Eusebius and Jerome, it has won its way to universal

acceptance. It is contradicted (1) by the national traditions of Persia, (2) by the national traditions

of the Jews, (3) by the testimony of Josephus, and (4) by the conflicting evidence of such well-authenticated

events as the Conference of Solon with Croesus, and the flight of Themistocles to the

court of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which make the accepted Chronology impossible. But the human

mind cannot rest in a state of perpetual doubt. There was this one system elaborated by Ptolemy.

There was no other except that given in the prophecies of Daniel. Hence, whilst the Ptolemaic astronomy

was overthrown by Copernicus in the 16th Century, the reign of the Ptolemaic Chronology

remains to this day. There is one, and only one alternative. The prophecy of Daniel 9:24–27

fixes the period between the going forth of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem (in

the first year of Cyrus) to the cutting off of the Messiah (in the year AD 30) as a period of 483 years.

If this be the true Chronology of the period from the 1st year of Cyrus to the Crucifixion, it leaves

only 123 years instead of the 205 given in Ptolemy’s Canon, for the duration of the Persian Empire.

Greek Empire (Alexander the Great to AD 1) 331 years 331 years

TOTAL 454 years 536 years

AD1 to the Crucifixion, AD30 29 years 29 years

TOTAL 483 years 565 years

Consequently the received or Ptolemaic Chronology, now universally accepted, must be abridged

by these 82 years. The error of Ptolemy has probably been made through his having assigned too

many years, and perhaps too many Kings, to the latter part of the period of the Persian Empire, in

the scheme which he made out from various conflicting data.

We have to choose between the Heathen Astrologer and the Hebrew Prophet.

Other interpretations have been given of the date of “the going forth of the commandment to return

and to build Jerusalem” (Dan. 9:25).

Bishop Lloyd, the author of the Bible Dates in the margin of the Authorized Version, reckons the

483 years from the leave given to Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in the 20th year of

Artaxerxes, whom he identifies with Artaxerxes Longimanus (Neh. 2:1), and to make the fulfilment

fit the prophecy on the erroneous Ptolemaic reckoning of the Chronology he has to curtail

the interval by reckoning in years of 360 days each.

Dr. Prideaux reckons the 483 years from the date of Ezra’s return in the 7th year of Artaxerxes

(Longimanus), Ezra 7:1–28.

Scaliger reckoned the 70 weeks of Daniel as commencing in the 4th year of Darius Nothus, BC

420, and ending at the destruction of Jerusalem, AD 70.

Others have reckoned the 483 years from the going forth of the commandment in the 2nd year of

Darius Hystaspes (BC 519) to build the Temple (Ezra 4:24, 5:1–6:15).

But the true point of departure for the 70 weeks, and therefore for the 483 years also, is unquestionably

the 1st year of Cyrus (Dan. 9, 2 Chron. 36:20–23, Ezra 1:1–4, Isa. 44:28, 45:1–4, 13), and

no other epoch would ever have been suggested but for the fact that the count of the years was lost,

and wrongly restored from Ptolemy’s conjectural astronomical calculations.

It would be far better to abandon the Ptolemaic Chronology and fit the events into the 483 years of

the Hebrew prophecy.

The one great fundamental fact to be remembered is the fact that modern Chronology rests upon

the calculations of Ptolemy as published in his Canon or List of Reigns. And since the foundation of

Greek Conjectural Computation Chronology, upon which Ptolemy’s Canon rests, is unstable, the

superstructure is likewise insecure. Ptolemy may be called as a witness. He cannot be allowed to

arbitrate as a Judge. He cannot take the place of a Court of Final Appeal. He cannot be erected into

a standard by which to correct the Chronology of the text of the Old Testament.

5. The Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha are useful as showing the interpretation put upon the

books of the Old Testament in later times, but they are not authoritative. The 1st Book of Esdras is

useful as showing how the writer interpreted the narrative of Ezra. Sir Isaac Newton says “I take

the Book of Esdras to be the best interpreter of the Book of Ezra.” The view which makes the succession

of the Kings of Persia mentioned after Cyrus in Ezra 4, (1) Darius Hystaspes, (2)

Ahasuerus (= Xerxes), (3) Artaxerxes (= Longimanus) is the view now held by many modern Biblical

scholars.

In Esdras 3:1–2, 2:30, cp. Ezra 4:5, the Ahasuerus of Esther is identified with Darius Hystaspes.

This identification is adopted by Archbishop Ussher and by Bishop Lloyd (Esther 1:1 A.V. Margin),

the date there given (BC 521) being that of the accession of Darius Hystaspes. See Ussher’s Annals,

sub anno mundi 3484. Ussher identifies the Ahasuerus of Esther with the Artaxerxes of Ezra

7:1–Neh. 13:6, and also with Darius Hystaspes, Ezra 6:14 (translate Darius even Artaxerxes).

There is every reason to believe that this double identification is correct.

The 2nd Book of Esdras is of no value for chronological purposes. In the book of Tobit, Cyaxeres

the Mede, who with Nebuchadnezzar’s father (also called Nebuchodonossor) took Nineveh, is

identified with Ahasuerus. In Bel and the Dragon, Darius the Mede, the predecessor of Cyrus, is

identified with Astyages.

There is great confusion between the use of the names Cyaxeres and Astyages. As Sir Isaac Newton

says: “Herodotus hath inverted the order of the Kings Astyages and Cyaxeres, making

Cyaxeres to be the son and successor of Phraortes, and the father and predecessor of Astyages,

whereas according to Xenophon the order of succession of the Kings of Media is (1) Phraortes, (2)

Astyages, (3) Cyaxeres, (4) Darius the Mede, after which comes (5) Cyrus the Great, the founder of

the Persian Empire.” The testimony of these various authorities is perplexing and confusing. They

must all be called as witnesses, but in no case can they be looked upon as authorities to be accepted

in preference to the text of the Old Testament.

6. Flavius Josephus (AD 37–103), the famous historian of the Jews, was a cultured Jew, a Pharisee,

and a man of good family. He went to Rome, AD 63, and when the Jewish war broke out he led the

Jews of Galilee against the Romans. Eventually he surrendered. His life was spared, but he was

put in chains for three years. He gained the favour of Vespasian, and later on that of Titus, to

whom he urged his countrymen to surrender. After the fall of Jerusalem he lived as a Roman pensioner

till his death, AD 103. His three great standard works are (1) The Antiquities of the Jews

(published AD 93), a history of the Jewish people from the Creation to the time of Nero, without

exception the most valuable record of ancient history next to that of the Old Testament, on which

respecting the very great antiquity of the Jewish nation.

These three great works contain most valuable chronological materials, but the figures given are

not reliable. They are not always self-consistent, in some cases they have been carelessly copied,

and in others they have been “corrected” by his Hellenistic editors in order to bring them into accord

with those of the LXX. Apart from this it must be admitted that Chronology was not a strong

point with Josephus, and Chronology being but a secondary object with him, he was not always

over careful in his calculations. His original figure for the years from Adam to the Flood was probably

1656, the same as in the Hebrew Text, but his Hellenistic editors have (1) “corrected” his ages

of the Patriarchs, making the six centenary additions in accordance with the figures of the LXX,

and then (2) “corrected” the total by turning the one thousand of the number 1656 into a figure 2,

thus making it 2656, whereas the correct addition of the figures as altered would be 2256. For the

period from Shem to Terah’s 70th year the number given is 292 years, the same as the Hebrew

Text, but the numbers assigned to the Patriarchs have again been “corrected” by his editors by

means of the centenary additions of the LXX, and consequently when totalled up they amount to

993 instead of 292. The consequence is that the Chronology of Josephus in its present state is a

mass of confusion. Nevertheless, his history is that of a historian of the first rank, and since his account

of the closing years of the Persian Empire agrees with that of the National Persian Traditions

incorporated in the poem of Firdusi, and that of the National Jewish Traditions preserved in

the Sedar Olam, he stands as a witness against the longer Persian Chronology of Ptolemy, now universally

accepted, and for the shorter Chronology of the Prophet Daniel. Josephus’ account of the

monarchs of the Persian Empire is as follows:

1. Cyrus.

2. Cambyses = Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7–23.

3. Darius Hystaspes. 2nd year, Temple foundation laid.

9th year, Temple finished.

4. Xerxes = Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1–8:36

25th year, Nehemiah came to Jerusalem

28th year, Walls of Jerusalem finished.

5. Cyrus (son of Xerxes), called by the Greeks Artaxerxes, and identified with the Ahasuerus of

Esther.

6. Darius the last King, a contemporary of Jaddua and Alexander the Great.

Altogether Josephus gives only six monarchs instead of Ptolemy’s ten, of which six monarchs the

last is contemporary with Jaddua, the son of Johannan, the son of Joiada. So that Jaddua was contemporary

with Alexander the Great, and Jaddua’s father (or his uncle), the son of Joiada, was

contemporary with Nehemiah, who chased him (Neh. 13:28). Consequently from Nehemiah and

the son of Joiada, whom he chased, to Alexander the Great, is only one generation. But Ptolemy

makes it 100 years, or, if the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is correctly identified with Darius Hystaspes,

150 years.

We may reject the Chronology of Josephus, but his succession of the High Priests, and the Kings of

Persia is good evidence against the list given by Ptolemy, and in favour of the shorter Chronology of

the prophet Daniel, and the Book of Nehemiah.

7. The Sedar Olam Rabbah, i.e., “The Large Chronicle of the World,” commonly called the

“Larger Chronicon,” is a Jewish Talmudic Tract, containing the Chronology of the world as reckoned

by the Jews. It treats of Scripture times, and is continued down to the reign of Hadrian (AD

76–138). The author is said to have been Rabbi Jose ben Chaliptha, who flourished a little after the

beginning of the 2nd Century after Christ, and was Master to Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh, who composed

the Mishna. Others say it dates from AD 832, and that it was certainly written after the Babylonian

Talmud, as it contains many fables taken from thence.

The Sedar Olam Zeutah, i.e., “Small Chronicle of the World,” commonly called the “Lesser

Chronicle,” is said to have been written AD 1123. It is a short chronicle of the events of history

from the beginning of the world to the year AD 522.

Both contain the Jewish tradition respecting the duration of the Persian Empire. This tradition is

that in the last year of Darius Hystaspes, the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died, that

thereon the spirit of prophecy ceased from among the Children of Israel, and that this was the

obsignation or sealing up of vision and prophecy spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Dan. 9:24). The

same tradition tells us that the Kingdom of the Persians ceased also the same year, for they will

have it that this was the Darius whom Alexander the Great conquered, and that the whole continuance

of the Persian Empire was only 52 years, which they reckon thus:

Darius the Median reigned 1 year

Cyrus 3 years

Cambyses (whom they identify with the Ahasuerus who married Esther) 16 years

Darius (whom they will have to be the son of Esther) 32 years

Total 52 years

This last Darius, they say, was the Artaxerxes who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem to restore

the state of the Jews, for they tell us that Artaxerxes among the Persians was the common

name for their Kings, as that of Pharaoh was among the Egyptians."

Now we may say with Dr. Prideaux in his Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments,

published in 1858, from which the above extract is taken, that “this shows how ill they have been

acquainted with the affairs of the Persian Empire,” and that “their countryman, Josephus, in the

account which he gives of those times, seems to have been but very little better informed concerning

them,” or, we may draw the contrary conclusion, that Josephus knew the history of his own

country better than Ptolemy.

How long did the Persian Empire last?We may ask the Persians themselves, and if we do they will

tell us that they have no records of the period, these having been all swept away by the Greek and

Mohammedan Invasions. But they have certain vague, floating, national traditions, cast into an

epic poem by Firdusi, and from these we learn that the succession of the Persian Monarchs was as

follows (1) Darius Hystaspes, (2) Artaxerxes Longimanus, (3) Queen Hemai the mother of Darius

Nothus, (4) Darius Nothus the bastard son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and (5) Darius, who was

conquered by Alexander the Great. All the Kings between these two Dariuses they omit.

Or again we may ask the Jews, and if we do they will tell us that the Persian Empire lasted only 52

years, from the first of Cyrus to the first of Alexander the Great.We may go to Ptolemy, and if we do

he will determine the length of the period and make out a list of kings for us by means of astronomical

calculations and conjectural identifications of recorded with calculated eclipses, and then we

shall get a Persian Empire lasting 205 years. But if we take the account given in Nehemiah, and the

years specified by the prophet Daniel, we shall find that the Persian Empire continued for a period

of 123 years.

The Jews shortened it to 52 years. “Some of them,” says Sir Isaac Newton, “took Herod for the

Messiah, and were thence called Herodians. They seem to have grounded their opinion on the 70

weeks, which they reckoned from the first year of Cyrus. But afterwards, in applying the prophecy

to Theudas and Judas of Galilee, and at length to Bar Cochab, they seem to have shortened the

reign of the Kingdom of Persia.” This explains why the Jews underestimated the duration of the

Persian Empire, and it shows that originally they reckoned about 123 years. Now,

From 1st year Cyrus, to 1st year Alexander the Great 123 years

From 1st year Alexander the Great to Herod (BC 331–4) 327 years

From 1st year Cyrus, to the birth of Christ 450 years

If, then, the wise men from the East had heard of Daniel’s prophecy, and had kept an accurate account

of the years, and if the Jews of Palestine were also expecting the Messiah at the very time

when He was born (BC 4) on the ground that it was then within 33 years of the 483 predicted in

Daniel for His appearance, and therefore now time for Him to be born, this would indicate that

they reckoned the time between the 1st year of Cyrus and the birth of Christ as a period of 450

years. And since the 327 years (BC 331 to BC 4) from Alexander the Great to the birth of Christ

were in all probability accurately computed by the Greeks, for they began their reckoning by

Olympiads within 60 years of Alexander’s death, it leaves exactly these 123 years for the duration

of the Persian Empire, and abridges the accepted Ptolemaic Chronology by 82 years, for 205–123=

82, which is the exact year expressed for these events in the Chronology of the Old Testament, as

developed in these pages, for Cyrus’ 1st year is shown to be the year AN. HOM. 3589, whence 3589

+ 483 = 4071 (inclusive reckoning), for the Crucifixion, and as Christ was about 30 years of age

when He began His ministry, and His ministry lasted three years, He was born AN. HOM. 4038, or

exactly 450 years after the 1st year of Cyrus, Christ having been born four years before the commencement

of the Christian Era. But 450 years before the actual date of the birth of Christ is BC

454. The true date of the 1st year of Cyrus is therefore BC 454, not B C. 536, which makes the

Chronology of this period 82 years too long.

It may be objected that in the Battle of Marathon, which was fought BC 490, Darius Hystaspes was

defeated by the Greeks, and that the Greek Chronology, which was reckoned by Olympiads from

BC 776 onward, cannot be at fault to the extent of 82 years. But that is just the very point in dispute.

The Greeks did not make a single calculation in Olympiads, nor had they any accurate chronological

records till sixty years after the death of Alexander the Great. All that goes before that is

guess work, and computation by generations, and other contrivances, not the testimony of contemporary

records.

The Sedar Olam, therefore, may be called as a witness, and it is not to be ruled out of court by any

objections raised by the Greeks, but it must be called as a witness only, not as arbitrator or Judge.

Ancient Monumental Inscriptions upon rocks, temples palaces, cylinders, bricks, steles, and tablets,

and writings upon papyrus rolls, brought to light by modern discovery in recent times, constitute one of

the most valuable sources affording data, not for the correction of Biblical data, but for the construction

of a Chronology of their own, for the period covered by the writings of the Old Testament. The witnesses

are exceedingly numerous, and when they are rightly interpreted, they may be regarded as authentic,

though of course errors may be graven upon the rock, or written upon ancient papyrus rolls, quite as

readily as upon Hebrew manuscripts. In no case can it be allowed that recent discoveries either have

made, or can make good a claim to the infallibility which modern scholarship denies to Pope and Bible

alike. The Monuments themselves may, and do, sometimes err. They may, and sometimes they do, chronicle

the lying vanities of ambitious tyrants. They may be incorrectly deciphered, incorrectly interpreted,

or incorrectly construed, in relation to other events.

It is a matter of fundamental importance, and it cannot be too emphatically pointed out, that the interpretation

at present put upon the Chronology of the monuments is predetermined by the assumption

on the part of the interpreter of the validity of the accepted Ptolemaic Chronology.

Should it be proved that that Chronology is overstated by 82 years, the monuments would bear exactly

the same witness to the truth of the revised Chronology as they now bear to the truth of the Ptolemaic

dates. The Ptolemaic Chronology is assumed by the interpreter of the testimony of the Monuments

as one of his premises. It is therefore bound to come out in his conclusion, but it is not thereby proved to

be true.

An illustration will make the matter clear. The Sayce-Cowley Aramaic Papyri discovered at Assuan in

1904, and published in 1906 by Robert Mond, are dated quite confidently and quite absolutely from 471

or 470 to 411. Papyrus A bears date “the 14th (15?) year of Xerxes.” This is interpreted as meaning, and is

quite definitely declared to be, the year BC 471 or 470. Now in Ptolemy’s Canon the date of Xerxes is

given as the equivalent of BC 485. His 14th year will therefore be BC 471, and his 15th BC 470.

“the month of Marcheschwan in the 17th year of Darius.” This is interpreted as referring to Darius

Nothus, whose date is given in Ptolemy’s Canon (allowing for the fact that Ptolemy’s year is one of 365

days only) as BC 424. His 17th year will therefore be 408 or possibly 407. With this interpretation, derived

solely from Ptolemy’s Canon, the document is forthwith dated BC 408–407.

In both cases the interpreters have assumed that the Chronology of Ptolemy’s Canon is the truth, and

they are ready, without more ado, to interpret or to correct the dates given in Nehemiah in the light of

these “modern discoveries,” For Prof. Sachan proceeds at once to draw chronological inferences from the

fact that “Delajah and Schelemjah, the sons of Sanaballat, the Pekah of Samaria” are mentioned in lines

29, 30, and, in his comment on these lines, he exclaims, “Have then the Jews of Elephantine’ obtained no

knowledge whatever of Nehemiah and his great national work? Or had so much grass grown over the

contention with Sanballat since the return of Nehemiah to Babylon somewhere about the year BC 433,

that the Jewish community at Elephantine’ believed themselves able to disregard these things?”

The assumption of the truth of Ptolemy’s Canon is of course perfectly legitimate, so long as it is remembered

that it is an assumption, and not a conclusion. But if any attempt is made to fix the date of

Nehemiah from references to the sons of Sanballat in the Sachau documents, the argument is invalid. It

moves in a circle. It first assumes the truth of the Ptolemaic, Chronology, and then uses a deduction from

that assumption to prove the truth of it. It is correcting the Hebrew Text of Nehemiah by Ptolemy using

the testimony of one witness (Ptolemy) to adjudicate against the testimony of the other (the Hebrew Text

of Nehemiah), when the whole point at issue is which of these two witnesses is to be believed. It is not

therefore correct to say that the date of Nehemiah is fixed by these modern discoveries at Assuan, apart

altogether from the question raised by Prof. Margoliouth as to whether they may not be forgeries. All the

facts contained in the Assuan documents can be fitted into the revised Chronology necessitated by the

Hebrew Text, as easily as, if not indeed more easily than, they have been fitted into the received Chronology

of Ptolemy. It is of primary importance to remember that the whole point in dispute is as to the truth

of one or the other of two conflicting witnesses, the Hebrew Old Testament and Ptolemy. It is absurd to

attempt to adjudicate upon the matter by first assuming the truth of one witness, and then on the basis of

that assumption pronouncing judgement against the other.

Similarly the dates assigned by modern scholars to the Monuments of Egypt go back far beyond the

year of the creation of Adam as fixed by the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, 4038 years before the actual

birth of Christ, i.e., in the year BC 4042. These Monumental dates rest upon a basis of hypothesis

and conjecture, and involve the assumption of the truth of the testimony of the witness Manetho. But

since one witness cannot he used to correct another, Manetho and the dates derived from the assumption

of the truth of his testimony cannot be used to prove the incorrectness of the chronological statements of

the Old Testament.

All sources must be used, and all witnesses must be heard, but it must be remembered that the witness

of the Old Testament is not confuted by an interpretation of the testimony of Monumental Inscriptions

which depends for its validity on the truth of the conflicting testimony of Manetho.

Moreover the whole trend of the results of recent discovery in the realm of Biblical Archaeology has

been toward the establishment of the Text of the Old Testament as an unimpeachable witness to the

truth. The Stele of Khammurabi, the Tel-El-Amarna Tablets, the Moabite Stone, the Behistun Inscription,

Babylonian and Assyrian and Egyptian Monumental Records, The Assyrian Eponym Canon, the

discoveries of Layard, George Smith, and Sir H. Rawlinson, and all the more recent discoveries of our

own time, when rightly interpreted, point in the same direction.

The Classic Literature of Greece and Rome is the prime source of our information respecting the

Chronology of the civilized world.

Of the principal Greek and Roman Historians, who may be regarded as authentic witnesses to the

facts of contemporary history, as distinguished from mere Chronologers or Compilers of dates, whose

writings stand on an entirely different footing, the following are worthy of special mention:

1. Herodotus, the “Father of History” (BC 484–424), born at Halicarnassus, author of the world-famous

“history” of the Persian War of Invasion from the first expedition of Mardonius, son-in-law

and General of Darius Hystaspes, to the discomfiture of the vast fleet and army of Xerxes. Translated

by George Rawlinson.

2. Thucydides (BC 471–401 or 396), author of the History of the Peloponnesian War, one of the

greatest monuments of antiquity. Translated by Benjamin Jowett.

3. Xenophon (BC 430–c.357), the essayist, historian, and military leader who was appointed General

of the 10,000 Greeks, who joined the expedition of the Persian Prince Cyrus the younger

against his brother Artaxerxes Mnemon, and were defeated at Cunaxa (BC 401). Xenophon was

the author of (1) the Anabasis, an account of this expedition, (2) the Cyropaedia, a historical romance

of the education and training of Cyrus the Great, (3) the Hellenica, a history of contemporary

events in Greece, and (4) the Memorabilia or Reminiscences of Socrates.

4. Polybius (BC 204–122), one of the 1,000 hostages carried off by the Romans after the Conquest of

Macedonia, BC 168. He became acquainted with Scipio Africanus, and wrote a history of Greece

and Rome for the period (BC 220–146).

5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (BC 70–6), essayist, critic and historian. He lived at Rome for 20 years

(BC 30–10), where he amassed materials for his Romaike Archaiologia, a history of Rome from the

early times down to the first Punic War.

6. Strabo (BC 63–AD 21), the world-famous geographer, born at Amasia in Pontus, Asia Minor. He

was educated at Rome. He travelled from Armenia to Etruria, and from the shores of the Euxine to

the borders of Ethiopia. The fourth book of his celebrated Geography is devoted to Gaul, Britain

and Ireland. He also wrote Historical Memoirs and a Continuation of Polybius, but these are both

lost.

7. Diodorus Siculus (fl. AD 8), a native of Sicily. Hence his name Siculus. A historian of the time of

Julius Caesar and Augustus. He travelled widely in Asia and Europe, and devoted 30 years to the

writing of a Universal History of the World down to Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Only 15 of his 40 books,

with some fragments, have survived.

8. Plutarch (AD 50–120), the most attractive and the most widely read of all the Greek writers. He

lectured at Rome during the reign of Domitian. His famous Parallel Lives of Greek and Roman

Writers, 46 in all, are universally known and admired. His essays and his biographies breathe a

fine moral tone. They inspired some of Shakespeare’s greatest plays, and much of the noblest literature

of modern times.

9. Arrian (2nd Century AD), served in the Roman army under Hadrian, and was Prefect of

Cappadocia, AD 135. He sat at the feet of Epictetus, and composed a treatise on moral philosophy.

His most important works are (1) his History of Alexander the Great, (2) an account of India, and

(3) a description of the coasts of the Euxine. He also wrote on military subjects and on the chase.

10. Lucian (AD 120–200), a humorous writer, born at Samosata on the Euphrates, in Syria. He practised

as an advocate at Antioch, travelled through Greece, Italy and Gaul, and was appointed Procurator

of part of Greece. He ridicules the religion and the philosophy of the age, and gives a graphic

account of contemporary social life. He wrote the Dialogues of the Gods, the Sale of Philosophers,

Timon, and other works. His famous Dialogues of the Dead are intended to show the emptiness of

all that seems most precious to mankind.

11. Dion Cassius (b. AD 155), the “last of the old historians ” who knew the laws of historic writing.

He was born at Nicea, and was the son of a Roman Senator, but his mother was a Greek. Dion

Cassius himself became a Roman Senator, and was appointed Governor of Pergamos and Smyrna.

He composed a history of Rome from the time of Aeneas to his own day.

12. Appian (2nd Century AD), a Greek of Alexandria. He wrote in Greek a valuable history of Rome.

He was contemporary with Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. He deals with the history of each

of the nations that was conquered by Rome, and of the civil war which preceded the downfall of the

Republic. He preserves the statements of earlier authors whose works are now lost.

1. Cicero (BC 106–43), orator, statesman, philosopher, and man of letters. He was Consul, BC 63. He

foiled the Catiline conspiracy.He was exiled and recalled. He supported Pompey against Caesar. After

the overthrow of Pompey, Caesar received him as a friend. He then lived in literary retirement

and wrote his great works. After Caesar’s death he delivered his philippics against Antony, and was

proscribed and put to death by Antony’s soldiers. His De Amicitia, De Officiis, and De Senectute

awaken thought and form pleasant reading.

2. Julius Caesar (BC 100–44), general, triumvir, dictator, and man of letters. In nine years (BC

58–49) he proved his great military genius by subduing Gaul, Germany, Britain, and most ofWestern

Europe to the Roman yoke. In BC 55 and again in BC 52 he invaded Britain, from which he retired,

virtually discomfited. Caesar espoused the cause of Democracy, Pompey that of Aristocracy.

In January, BC 49, Caesar crossed the Rubicon. He drove Pompey out of Italy, and in BC 48 he defeated

him at Pharsalia, and was appointed dictator. Coins were struck bearing his effigy, and the

title Imperator was made a permanent addition to his name. With the assistance of the Greek Astronomer

Sosigenes, he reformed the Calendar, and introduced the Julian year, which began on

January 1st (A.U.C. 709 = BC 45), the first year of the Julian Era. The Julian year consisted of exactly

365 1/4 days; the first three years contained 365 days, and another day, making 366, was

added for every fourth year. The Julian year remained in use till December 22nd, 1582, when the

year was again reformed by Pope Gregory XIII, assisted by the mathematician Clavius, and for the

Roman World that day became January 1st, 1583. The Gregorian year was not introduced into

England till September 3rd, 1752, which day became September 14th by Act of Parliament. The

Gregorian year drops the additional leap year day every century (AD 1700, 1800, 1900, etc.), except

when it is divisible by four (AD 2000). Julius Caesar was about to embark on a great career of

statesmanlike economic and political reorganization when he was assassinated by Brutus on the

Ides of March, A.U.C. 710 = BC 44.

3. Sallust (BC 86–34), a member of the Roman Senate. Expelled for immorality. An adherent of Julius

Caesar. Appointed Governor of Numidia. He wrote the history of the Catiline Conspiracy, and

the War with Jugurtha.

4. Livy (BC 59–AD 17), lived at Rome at the Court of his patron and friend Augustus. He wrote 142

hooks of Annales, a history of Rome, of which, however, only 35 remain.

5. Cornelius Nepos (1st Century BC), a native of Verona, and a friend of Cicero. He wrote De Viris

Illustribus. Only a fragment of it remains, and the authorship of this is disputed.

6. Tacitus (AD 54–117), an eminent Roman historian. Appointed quaestor, tribune, praetor, and

consul suffectus. His De Situ Moribus et Populis Germaniae is our earliest source of information

respecting the Teutons. His Historiae, covering the period AD 68–96, and his Annales covering the

period AD 14–68, are historic works of first rate importance. They give a terrible picture of the decay

of imperial Rome.

7. Suetonius (born c. AD 70), a Roman advocate, and private secretary to the Emperor Hadrian. His

Lives of the Twelve Caesars is valuable for its anecdotes, which illustrate the character of the Emperors.

It is through the Greeks that we have received our knowledge of the history of the great Empires and

civilizations of the East. Even Sanchoniathon and Berosus and Manetho, have all come to us through the

Greeks. It was the Greeks who created the framework of the Chronology of the civilized ages of the past,

and fitted into it all the facts of history, which have reached us through them. Apart from the Bible, the

vague floating national traditions of the Persians and the later Jews, and the direct results of modern exploration,

all our chronological knowledge reaches us through Greek spectacles. Here as everywhere else

it is “thy sons O Zion against thy sons, O Greece” (Zech. 9:13). It is Nehemiah and Daniel against Ptolemy

and Eratosthenes. It is Hebraic Chronology against Hellenic Chronology. And here the Greek has

stolen a march upon the Hebrew, for he has stolen his Old Testament and forced his own Greek Chronology

into the Hebrew record, Hellenizing the ages of the Hebrew Patriarchs in the Greek LXX.

Are we then to accept the testimony of the Greek as correcting or antiquating the testimony of the Hebrew?

By no means. Let the Greek be heard as a witness, but let him not presume to pronounce sentence

as a Judge. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici is perhaps the most valuable treatise on Chronology ever produced.

But it is not infallible. Clinton’s standard is Ptolemy’s Canon; Sayce’s standard is the Monuments. But

neither of these sources is competent to correct the Hebrew Old Testament, which must be placed in the

witness-box alongside of them, not in the dock, to be sentenced by them.

To begin at the beginning, the point of departure for Greek Chronology, the 1st Olympiad, BC 776,

upon which everything else depends, rests upon no firmer foundation than that of tradition and computation

by Conjecture.

The opening sentence of Clinton’s Tables reveals the basis upon which he builds. He says: “The first

Olympiad is placed by Censorinus in the 1014th year before the Consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus, AD

238 = BC 776. Solinus attests that the 207th Olympiad fell within the Consulship of Gallus and

Verannius. These were Consuls AD 49, and if the 207th Games were celebrated in July, AD 49, 206

Olympiads, or 824 years had elapsed, and the first games were celebrated in July 776.”

But Censorinus wrote his De Die Natali, AD 238, and Solinus also belongs to the 3rd Century AD

They are not, therefore, contemporary witnesses and we do not know how far their computations were

derived from hypothesis and conjecture, or how far they rest upon a basis of objective fact. Nevertheless,

this point has been made the first link in the chain of the centuries, a chain flung out to float in the air, or

attached, not to the solid staple of fixed fact, but only to the rotten ring of computation and conjecture.

The Canon of Ptolemy rests upon this calculation. Eusebius (AD 264–349) adopted it, and set the example

of making Scripture dates fit into the years of the Greek Era. Eusebius is based upon Manetho (3rd

Century BC), Berosus (3rd Century BC), Abydenus (2nd Century BC), Polyhistor (1st Century BC),

Josephus (AD 37–103), Cephalion (1st Century AD), Africanus (3rd Century BC), and other sources now

lost. Eusebius’ Chronology was contained in his “Chronicon.” This was translated by Jerome, and has

been followed by all subsequent writers down to the present day.

The one infallible connecting link between sacred and profane Chronology is given in Jeremiah 25:1.

“The fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.” If the events of history had

been numbered forward from this point to the birth of Christ, or back from Christ to it, we should have

had a perfectly complete and satisfactory Chronology. But they were not. The distance between the 1st

year of Nebuchadnezzar and the birth of Christ was not known. It has been fixed by conjecture, with the

assistance of Ptolemy. Clinton fixes it at BC 606, Sayce at BC 604, and from this date, thus fixed,

Chronologers reckon back to Adam and on to Christ. The distance between the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar

and the birth of Christ has not been measured by the annals or chronicles of any well-attested

dated events. It was originally fixed by Ptolemy, by means of computation and conjecture, and recorded

events have been fitted into the interval by computing Chronologers as far as the fictitious framework

would allow.

The opening sentence of Sir Isaac Newton’s Introduction to his Short Chronicle from the first memory

of things in Europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great, shows how entirely fluid and

indeterminate were those first years of Grecian history.

“The Greek Antiquities,” says Newton, “are full of poetic fictions, because the Greeks wrote nothing

in prose before the conquest of Asia by Cyrus the Persian.”

The uncertainty as to the epoch of the foundation of Rome and the Era which dates from that event, is

just as great as the uncertainty as to the beginnings of the history of Greece. The following is a list of the

dates that have been sanctioned by various writers:

Varro, Tacitus, Plutarch, Dion, Aulus Gellius, Censorinus, etc. 753

Cato, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, Eusebius, etc. 752

Livy, Cicero, Pliny and Velleius Paterculus 753 or 752

Polybius 751

Fabius Pictor and Diodorus Siculus 747

L. Cincius 728

A margin of 25 years.

These uncertainties in Greek and Roman Chronology, and the late and purely conjectural character of

the foundation upon which they rest, show how impossible it is for us to erect the Chronology of the classic

literature of Greece and Rome into a standard by which to correct the Chronology of the Hebrew Old

Testament.

Nearly all the great Empires of the East seem to have thrown the origin of their dated history back

into the 8th Century.

Babylon (Nabonassarean Era) 747

Greece (1st Olympiad) 776

Rome (Foundation of the City) 753

Lydia 716

China 781

Media 711

It may be of interest to add the following remarks respecting the origin of the Vulgar Christian Era:

It was not until the year AD 532 that the Christian Era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus, a

Scythian by birth, and a Roman Abbot. He flourished in the reign of Justinian (AD 527–565). He

was unwilling to connect his cycles of dates with the era of the impious tyrant and persecutor

Diocletian, which began with the year AD 284, but chose rather to date the times of the years from

the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ “to the end that the commencement of our hope might be

better known to us and that the cause of man’s restoration, namely, our Redeemer’s passion,

might appear with clearer evidence.” The year following that in which Dionysius Exiguus wrote

these words to Bishop Petronius was the year 248 of the Diocletian Era. Hence the new Era of the

Incarnation as it was then reckoned was 284 + 248 = AD 532. Dionysius abhorred the memory of

Diocletian with good reason, for in the 1st year of his reign, from which the Diocletian Era begins,

he caused a number of Christians who were celebrating Holy Communion in a cave to be buried

alive there. The Diocletian Era was, from this fact, sometimes called the Era of the Martyrs.

Dionysius reckoned the year of our Lord’s birth to be the year A.U.C. 753, according to Varro’s

computation, i.e., the year 45 of the Julian Era. Dionysius obtained this date from Luke’s statements

that “John the Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius,” and

that “Jesus was beginning to be about 30 years of age” (Luke 3:1–23). Tiberius succeeded Augustus,

August 19th, A.U.C. 767. Therefore his 15th year was A.U.C. 782. Subtract the assumed year

of the Nativity, 753, and the remainder is 29 years complete, or 30 current.

But according to Matthew, Christ was born before the death of Herod, that is, according to the

computation of the Chronologers, before 749. Hence the year of the Incarnation, the year AD 1,

was fixed four years too late, and to remedy this we have to express the true date of our Lord’s birth

by saying that He was born BC 4. It was subsequently discovered that the source of the error lay,

not with the Evangelists, Matthew or Luke, but in the fact that Tiberius began to reign as colleague

or partner with Augustus some years before Augustus died, and that the length of his reign

after Augustus’ death was not 26 years, but 22. In this way the difficulties were cleared up. The

Era of the Incarnation was allowed to remain and the birth of Christ was set down as having occurred

in the year BC 4.

Astronomical Observations and Calculations are regarded by many Chronologers as the surest and

most unerring data for fixing the dates of various events. Eclipses can be calculated both backward and

forward. They are distinguished from each other by the time when, and the place where, they can be

seen, the duration of the eclipse, and the quantity or number of digits eclipsed. They have therefore been

regarded as a means of correcting and determining the dates of the events at which they have occurred,

and the results thus obtained have been invested with a kind of quasi-infallibility. The date of our Lord’s

birth is fixed by means of an eclipse of the moon recorded by Josephus as having occurred shortly before

Herod’s death.

Tables of eclipses have been furnished by Chronologers and Astronomers from BC 753 to AD 70, and a

list of 44 of the most remarkable of these (25 eclipses of the sun, and 19 eclipses of the moon) is given in

Hales’ New Analysis of Chronology. The most celebrated of these eclipses is that known as the “Eclipse of

Thales,” from the fact that Thales foretold the year in—which it would happen. It has been used by

Chronologers to adjust the various Eras and the Chronologies of Assyria, Babylon, Media, Lydia, Scythia

and Greece. But it has proved an apple of discord. Five several eclipses, occurring at as many different

dates, have been identified by different astronomers as the one in question. The eclipse is described by

Herodotus as occurring in the sixth year of the war between the Medes and the Lydians, on the river

Halys, when during an obstinate battle the day suddenly became night. Both armies ceased fighting, a

treaty of peace was arranged, and confirmed by a marriage compact.

This “Eclipse of Thales” thus described by Herodotus has been identified with the following five distinct

astronomically calculated eclipses of the sun

1. On July 30, BC 607 by Calvisius.

2. On May 17, BC 603 by Costard, Montucla and Kennedy.

3. On Sept 19, BC 601 by Ussher.

4. On July 9, BC 597 by Petavius, Marsham, Bouhier and Larcher.

5. On May 28, BC 585 by Pliny, Scaliger, Newton, Ferguson, Vignoles and Jackson.

It will be seen from the above that there are many sources of error which must be allowed for, before

attaching to the chronological result arrived at the infallibility which belongs to a mathematical

calculation.

There may be errors of observation on the part of the historian, errors of calculation on the part of the

astronomer, and errors of identification on the part of the Chronologer, who may wrongly conclude that

the dated eclipse calculated by the astronomer is one and the same with the eclipse described by the historian.

The mistake of investing these astronomically determined chronological dates with the infallibility

of a mathematical calculation is that of assuming that the strength of the chain is that of its strongest

link, instead of that of its weakest link. The astronomical calculations may be infallibly correct, and demonstrably

accurate to the tick of the clock, but that only fixes the infallibility of one link in the chain,

the strength and security of which cannot be transferred to the other links, or to the result as a whole. We

cannot, therefore, obtain from Astronomical Observations and Calculations the material we need to enable

us to use them as a standard by which to test the truth of the Chronological Statements of the Old

Testament. Like the testimony of the Monuments, and all the other witnesses, the testimony of Astronomy

must be heard and adjudged upon; it must not presume to adjudge upon the testimony of other

witnesses.

The works of ancient and modern Chronologers are of great help in enabling us to correlate the testimony

derived from all the various sources from which evidence can be secured.

But Chronologers are not infallible; sometimes they arrive at differing and contradictory conclusions,

sometimes they follow each other like a flock of sheep, each adopting the conclusions reached by his predecessor;

sometimes they are dominated by a scheme or plan into which they endeavour to fit the facts,

and in this endeavour the facts are sometimes distorted. The millenary schemes of Ussher (that prince of

Chronologers), and of the early Christian fathers, the septenary scheme of R. G. Faussett, developed in

his most excellent and valuable work on the Symmetry of Time, the hypothetical Chronology of modern

Assyriologists and Egyptologists, constructed in such a way that it can be made to fit in with their interpretation

of the testimony of the Monuments, the determination of dates by Ptolemy’s method of fitting

the facts into his scheme of calculated eclipses, are all instances of the danger of bending the facts in order

to make them fit the theory of the constructor. The only safe and true method of Chronology is to

take into consideration the whole of the facts, weigh them one and all as evidence is weighed in a Court of

Law, and to draw only such conclusions as may be warranted by the laws of evidence or testimony, or

historic proof.

A brief notice of the principal works of some of the more important Chronologers will serve as a fitting

introduction to our own investigations. They may be classified as follows: (1) Early Greek and Latin

Chronologers, (2) Early Christian Chronologers, (3) Byzantine Chronologers, (4) The Great Armenian

Chronologer, Abul-Faragus, (5) Modern Chronologers.

1. Hellanicus (b. BC 496), a Greek logographer. He drew up a chronological list of the priestesses of

Juno at Argos. He constructed his Chronology on the principle of allowing so many years to each

priestess, or so many priestesses to a century.

2. Ephorus (4th Century BC), was a disciple of Isocrates (BC 436–338). He was the first Greek who

attempted the composition of a universal history. He begins with the return of the Heraclidae into

Peloponnesus (BC 1103) and ends with the 20th year of Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander

the Great.

3. Timaeus Siculus (BC 260) wrote a history of Sicily, his native country. He was the first to use the

Greek Olympiads as the basis of Chronology. As he wrote in the 129th Olympiad, BC 260, the preceding

128 Olympiads are not contemporary chronicles, but chronological computations. Timaeus

instituted a comparison between the number of successive Ephors and Kings at Sparta, Archons at

Athens, and Priestesses at Argos, arranging them into his chronological scheme of Olympiads. He

brought the history down to his own time, and where he left off Polybius (BC 204–122) began.

4. Eratosthenes (b. BC 276) has been called the “Father of Chronology,” and it is worth noting that

his method was the method of conjecture, not the method of testimony. He was a native of Cyrene,

a man of letters under the Ptolemies of Egypt, and keeper of the famous library at Alexandria in

the reign of Ptolemy IV. Euergetes (BC 246–221). He discovered the obliquity of the ecliptic, and

wrote some important works on mathematical geography and on the constellations. He made the

first scientific measurement of the earth, but his result was one sixth too large. He made the parallel

of Rhodes, in ancient astronomy what the meridian of Greenwich is to us. His Chronographia is

an exact scheme of general Chronology. He wrote about 100 years after Alexander the Great, and

arrived at his chronological conclusions by reckoning about 30 or 40 years to each generation or

succession of Kings, Ephors or Priestesses, and thus greatly exaggerated the antiquity of the

events of Greek history.

5. Apollodorus (2nd Century BC) followed the lines laid down by Eratosthenes. He wrote a metrical

chronicle of events from the fall of Troy to his own day.

6. Ptolemy, the author of Ptolemy’s Canon (or Claudius Ptolemaeus to give him his full name), deserves

a more extended notice. He was the originator of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy, so

called because it was collected from his works. The main idea of this system or theory of the Universe

was that the earth was stationary, and that all the heavenly bodies rotated round it in circles

at a uniform rate. It was displaced by the Copernican system in the 16th Century.

Ptolemy flourished in Egypt in the 2nd Century AD, during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus

Pius. He was an astronomer and a geographer. His Geographia, a work in eight books, was illustrated

by a map of the world, and 26 other maps. He was the first to attempt to reduce the study of

geography to a scientific basis. He took Ferro in the Canaries as the westernmost part of the world,

placed it nearly 7 degrees too far east, and calculated his longitudes from it, whilst his latitudes

were reckoned from Rhodes.

Ptolemy was born at Pelusium in Egypt. The date of his birth is generally given as AD 70, and he

survived Antoninus Pius, who died AD 161. This would make him 91 years of age. But the Arabians

say he died at the age of 78, in which case he must have been born later than AD 70. He recorded

observations at Alexandria between AD 125 and 140. The authentic details of the circumstances

of his life are extremely few. The following particulars are gleaned from Ptolemy’s

Tebrabiblos or Quadripartite, being four books on the influence of the Stars, by J. M. Ashmand

(pubd. 1822). Ptolemy was looked upon by the Greeks as being a man most wise and most divine on

account of his great learning. He was a man of truly regal mind. He corrected Hipparchus’ Catalogue

of the fixed stars, and formed tables for the calculation and regulation of the motions of the

sun. moon and planets. He collected the scattered and detached observations of Aristotle, Hipparchus,

Posidonius and others on the economy of the world, and digested them into a system which

he set forth in his Megaly Suntaxis, the Great System, or Great Construction, a work divided into

thirteen books, and called after him the Ptolemaic system. All his astronomical works are founded

on the hypothesis that the earth is at rest in the centre of the universe. Round the earth the heavenly

bodies, stars and planets move in solid orbs, whose motions are all directed by one primum

mobile, or first mover, of which he discourses at large in the Great System. He also treats in the

same work of the motions of the sun, moon and planets, gives tables for finding their situations,

latitude, longitude, and motions. He treats of eclipses, and the method of computing them. He discourses

of the fixed stars, of which he furnishes a catalogue with their magnitudes, latitudes, and

longitudes.

Ptolemy’s Order, false as it was, enabled observers to give a plausible account of the motions of the

sun and moon, to foretell eclipses, and to improve geography. It represented the actual phenomena

of the heavens, as they really appear to a spectator on the earth.

In the year AD 827, the Great System was translated by the Arabians into their own language, and

Ptolemy was not so much an author as a practical astronomer. His Geographia is not a treatise on

Geography, but an exposition of principles and directions for the construction of a map. Ptolemy’s

Canon is simply a Canon or List of Kings, with the years of their reigns. It is not accompanied by

any explanatory treatise. It is generally regarded as the most precious Monument of ancient Chronology.

In it he uses the Egyptian Vague or Calendar year, of exactly 365 days. By this means, his

New Year’s Day works back, and occurs one day earlier every four years, and the year BC 521 (the

Julian year of 365¼ days) contained the New Year’s Day of two of the Egyptian Vague, or Calendar

years of Ptolemy’s Canon, one on January 1st, and the other on December 31st. They are the years

227 and 228 of Ptolemy’s Nabonassarean Era. Ptolemy gives to each king the whole of the year in

which his predecessor dies. This year is his first year. Cyrus died, and Cambyses began to reign in

the year BC 529. But the whole of that year is given to Cambyses and is reckoned as his first year.

In the same way Ptolemy took no account of the short reigns of less than a year. These odd months

were included in the year of the preceding or the following king.

Ptolemy terminates his Canon at the reign of Antoninus Pius, in which he lived. It was continued

by Theon, his successor in the chair of astronomy in Alexandria, and later on by other writers.

Ptolemy’s fixed point of departure is the New Moon on the 1st day of the 1st month (Thoth) of the

first year of the Era of Nabonassar.

In view of the incomparable importance of Ptolemy’s Canon as the basis upon which alone the determination

of the date of the commencement of our own universally accepted Vulgar Era, the

Common Christian Era, depends, the list is here reproduced entire. It is taken from the British

Museum Copy of the Tables Chronologiques des Regnes de C. Ptolemaeus, Theon, etc., par M.

L’Abbe’ Halma (published in Paris, 1819).

Nabonassar 14 14

Nadius 2 16

Chinzar and Poros 5 21

Iloulaius 5 26

Mardocempad 12 38

Arcean 5 43

First Interregnum 2 45

Bilib 3 48

Aparanad 6 54

Rhegebel 1 55

Mesesimordae 4 59

Second Interregnum 8 67

Asaridin 13 80

Saosdouchin 20 100

Cinilanadan 22 122

Nabopollassar 21 143

Nabocolassar 43 186

Iloaroudam 2 188

Nericasolassar 4 192

Nabonad 17 209

Cyrus 9 218

Cambyses 8 226

Darius I 36 262

Xerxes 21 283

Artaxerxes I 41 324

Darius II 19 343

Artaxerxes II 46 389

Ochus 21 410

Arogus 2 412

Darius III 4 416

Alexander of Macedon 8 424

Philip 7 7

Alexander II 12 19

Ptolemy Lagus 20 39

Ptolemy Philadelphus 38 77

Ptolemy Euergetes 25 102

Ptolemy Philopator 17 119

Ptolemy Epiphanes 24 143

Ptolemy Philometor 35 178

Ptolemy Euergetes 29 207

Ptolemy Soter 36 243

Dionysius the Younger 29 272

Cleopatra 22 294

Augustus 43 337

Tiberius 22 359

Caius 4 363

Claudius 14 377

Nero 14 391

Vespasian 10 401

Titus 3 404

Domitian 15 419

Nerva 1 420

Trajan 19 439

Adrian 21 460

Aelius Antoninus 23 483

The following is the list of Ptolemy’s works:

1. Hee Megalee Suntaxis = Magna Constructio = Almagest = The Great System of Astronomy.

This was his great masterpiece. It is a treatise on Astronomy, containing all the principles of

the Ptolemaic system.

2. Tetrabiblos = Quadripartite. A treatise in four books on the influence of the stars. A thoroughly

pagan treatise on Astrology.

3. Karpos or Centiloquy, or Book of a hundred aphorisms; a fifth book containing the fruit of the

former four, and a kind of supplement to them. As an example of the aphorisms, we may quote

the following, “Love and hatred lessen the most important, as they magnify the most trivial

things.”

4. A Treatise on the Signification of the Fixed Stars. A daily calendar of the risings and settings of

the stars, and the weather produced thereby.

5. The Geographia.

6. The Canon or Table of Reigns given above.

Ptolemy’s Canon is described in the article on “Chronology,” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica,

11th Edition, as “the only authentic source of the history of Assyria and Babylonia before the recent

discoveries at Nineveh.” This expresses the view now held by most modern scholars, but we

must not overlook the fact that the authenticity here ascribed to it belongs equally to the Biblical

Record. It is frequently said that the Assyrian List of Eponyms confirms the Assyrian part of the

Canon of Ptolemy, and that this ought to give us confidence in the rest of the Canon. True, but

wherever the Assyrian List of Eponyms confirms the Assyrian part of the Canon of Ptolemy, it confirms

also the Assyrian part of the Biblical Record of the Old Testament. It is strange that scholars

do not see this. Still more strange that since the Canon of Ptolemy agrees with the Assyrian Epo-

nym list in those parts in which the Biblical Record also agrees with it, they should regard this as

proof of the authenticity of the Canon of Ptolemy, but not as proof of the authenticity of the Biblical

Record, which they immediately proceed to correct by the Canon of Ptolemy, in those later

parts, in which there is no Assyrian Record, and by the Assyrian Eponym List, in those earlier

parts of which there is no record in the Canon of Ptolemy. If agreement with the Assyrian Records

authenticates Ptolemy’s Canon it authenticates the Biblical Record also. The three records are in

agreement wherever they all meet together. The Biblical Record does not positively disagree with

the Assyrian Record, but there is a period for which there are no Assyrian Records, for the contemporary

Assyrian records, from the 14th year of Amaziah (BC 833) to the 35th of Uzziah (BC 772),

are a blank. According toWillis J. Beecher this is a period of 61 years, during which the only Assyrian

Records are those of the 10 years’ reign of Shalmanezer III (IV), a net blank of 51 years between

the two Assyrian Kings, Ramman-nirari III and Asshur-daan III. The Assyrian Records

omit these 51 years, consequently we must either omit 51 years of the history contained in the Biblical

Record, or else add 51 years to the Assyrian Record, for the events of the Biblical and the Assyrian

Records synchronize both before and after.

As Ptolemy’s Canon does not begin till BC 747, or 25 years after the close of this period of 51 years,

it is illegitimate to say that the agreement between the Assyrian Eponym Canon and Ptolemy’s

Canon at a later period must lead us to pass sentence in favour of the Assyrian Records and against

the Biblical Records, at an earlier period, for at that later period there is the same agreement between

the Assyrian Eponym Canon and the Biblical Records that there is between the Assyrian

Eponym Canon and Ptolemy’s Canon.

The real explanation of the difference between the Assyrian Records and the Biblical Records is

probably this: Assyria was overtaken by some disaster, and the 51 names were either lost by accident,

or destroyed by design. The longer Chronology of the Biblical Records is supported (1) by the

Biblical accounts of the events which took place during these 51 years, (2) by the long numbers

given in Josephus, (3) by the synchronism of the Egyptian date of the Invasion of Shishak, in

Rehoboam’s time, with the Biblical date BC 978, and not with the Assyrian date BC 927, and (4) by

the explanation given by Georgius Syncellus (c. AD 800), in his Historia Chronographia, of the reason

why Ptolemy commenced his Canon in the year BC 747, and did not include in it the earlier period

in which the discrepancy of 51 years occurs, viz., that the Assyrian Records for that period had

been tampered with. He says: “Nabonassar, King of Babylon, having collected the acts of his predecessors,

destroyed them in order that the computation of the reigns of the Assyrian Kings might be

made from himself.” It is most probable that Assyria was overtaken by some unknown disaster just

after the time of the powerful monarch Ramman-nirari III, at the beginning of the blank period of

51 years. For in his time we find the Assyrians taking tribute from the whole region of the Mediterranean,

Judah alone excepted, whilst at the end of the blank period, in the reign of Asshur-daan

III, we find that their power over this region had been lost, and that they were now engaged in a

desperate struggle to regain it.

The fact is (1) the Biblical, the Assyrian and the Ptolemaic Records are all agreed with regard to a

certain central period; (2) the Biblical and the Assyrian Records do not agree at an earlier period

unless we admit a break of 51 years, but there the Ptolemaic Record has not begun. On the other

hand (3) the Biblical Record (as interpreted by the present writer) and the Ptolemaic Record do not

agree with regard to a later period, but there the Assyrian Record has ceased. Any conclusion

drawn from these premises to the effect that since the chronological data of Ptolemy are confirmed

by the Assyrian Chronology our verdict must be pronounced against the Scriptural System is absolutely

unwarranted. The authenticity of the Canon of Ptolemy is established, by its agreement

with the Assyrian Eponym Canon, just so far as the authenticity of the Biblical Record is established

by its agreement with the Assyrian Eponym Canon, but no further. The point in dispute between

Ptolemy’s Canon and the Biblical Record lies, not in the Assyrian but in the Persian Period.

One other fact must be borne in mind. Ptolemy is not like the Greek and Latin historians, such as

Herodotus and Tacitus, bearing witness to the truth of contemporary events. He belongs to the

2nd Century AD, and the point in dispute refers to his figures for the period of the Persian Empire

some 500 years before. He writes no history. He merely gives a list of names and figures. He is not a

historian vouching for the truth of facts of which he has personal knowledge, but the contriver of a

scheme filling up gaps in the history he has received, and dating events by means of astronomical

computations. Such testimony cannot for one moment be compared with the continuous records of

contemporary witnesses like Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel.To the list of these six early Greek authors

must be added the name of the Latin writer Censorinus.

7. Censorinus (AD 238) wrote his work De die Natali in the year AD 238. Like Ptolemy he was a

compiler of dates and a calculator of Eras. He fixed the date of the last Sothic period before his own

time, as that covered by the years BC 1321–AD 139. This calculation is used by Egyptologers in

dating the reign of Merenptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The passage is one of first rate importance.

It is therefore given in full. Censorinus says:

“The Egyptians in the formation of their great year had no regard to the moon. In Greece the

Egyptian year is called ‘cynical’ (doglike), in Latin ‘canicular’ because it commences with the rising

of the Canicular or dogstar (Sirius), to which is fixed the first day of the month which the Egyptians

call Thoth. Their civil year had but 365 days without any intercalation. Thus with the

Egyptians the space of four years is shorter by one day than the space of four natural years, and a

complete synchronism is only established at the end of 1461 years” (Chapter XVIII).

“But of these Eras the beginnings always take place on the first day of the month which is called

Thoth among the Egyptians, a day which this present year (AD 238) corresponds to the VIIth day

of the Kalends of July (June 25), whilst 100 years ago this same day corresponded to the XIIth day

of the Kalends of August (July 21) at which time the dogstar is wont to rise in Egypt” (Chapter

XXI).

This information is used by Egyptologers in translating the Egyptian Vague year of 365 days into

the Julian year of 365 1/4 days. Taking together the somewhat doubtful testimony of Manetho and

the calculations of modern Astronomers, based on the information given by Censorinus, they are

able to arrive at a date for the reign of Merenptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But the validity of

the result obtained is dependent upon the truth of a considerable number of assumptions, and cannot

be regarded as anything but hypothetical or tentative.

Another calculation by Censorinus of still more fundamental importance is his determination of

the date of the 1st Olympiad. This he places in the 1014th year before the consulship of Ulpius and

Pontianus, AD 238. Of these 1014 years, 238 belong to the present Era AD This leaves 776 for the

number of years before the Commencement of the present era, and accordingly the 1st Olympiad is

dated BC 776.

The fragment is here given in full. It is taken from Cory’s Ancient Fragments.

“I will not treat of that interval of time which Varro calls historic; for he divides the times into

three parts. The first from the beginning of mankind to the former cataclysm. The second, which

extends to the 1st Olympiad, is denominated Mythic, because in it the fabulous achievements are

said to have happened. The third, which extends from the 1st Olympiad to ourselves, is called historic,

because the actions which have been performed in it are related in authentic history.

“The first period, whether it had a beginning, or whether it always was, certainly it is impossible

to know the number of its years. Neither is the second period accurately determined, yet it is

believed to contain about 1600 years, but from the former Cataclysm, which they call that of

Ogyges, to the reign of Inarchus, about 400 years, and from thence to the 1st Olympiad, something

more than 400; of which alone, inasmuch as they are the last years of the Mythic period, and next

within memory, certain writers have attempted more accurately to determine the number. Thus

Sosibius writes that they were 395; Eratosthenes 407; Timaeus 417; Orethres 164. Many others

also have different opinions, the very discrepancy of which shows the uncertainty in which it is involved.

“Concerning the third interval, there was also some disagreement among different writers,

though it is confined within a period of only six or seven years. Varro has, however, examined the

obscurity in which it is involved, and comparing with his usual sagacity the chronicles and annals

of different states, calculating the intervals wanted, or to be added by reckoning them backwards,

has at length arrived at the truth, and brought it to light. So that not only a determinate number of

years, but even of days can be set forth.

“According to which calculations, unless I am greatly deceived, the present year, whose name

and title is that of the consulships of Ulpius and Pontianus, is from the 1st Olympiad the 1014th,

reckoning from the summer, at which time of the year the Olympic games are celebrated; but from

the foundation of Rome it is the 991st; but this is from the Palalia (April 21st), from which the

years, ab urbe condita, are reckoned. But of those years which are called the Julian years,. it is the

283rd, reckoning from the Kalends of January, from which day of the year Julius Caesar ordered

the beginning of the year to be reckoned.