01 Introduction
Introduction The writer, in the following pages, has had no intention of forming a system of chronology. It is simply the result of his own study to understand the several passages of Scripture that give dates or periods of time. In doing this he was gradually led on, step by step, until the principal links of the whole chain of events from the creation passed under review, and are here given.
God may not have intended to give the material for a complete chronology; but He has given a great many links - many more than is generally supposed by those who have but cursorily examined the subject - leaving but few places really doubtful.
Yet, strange to say, that out of the many chronologists, scarcely two agree in their results. Two things have principally caused this disagreement: first, that when difficulties have arisen, the first thought seems to have been to suppose that Scripture is wrong, and then, of course, it was no longer a question of understanding the Scripture, or reconciling apparent discrepancies, but it gave ample room for the writer’s opinion: and, secondly, that most chronologists seem to have approached the subject with some foregone conclusions; and these again think nothing of supposing the Scripture to be wrong. But the writer is desirous of understanding the Scripture, because he believes it is right - always right - inspired by God, who never makes mistakes. Mistakes there may be, of course, by copyists; but these are generally discoverable: this is not the question; but whether God so controlled the writers as to prevent them making mistakes. Assuredly He did, for nothing less would be worthy of God. It is, then, these inspired Scriptures we seek to understand.
Others have supposed that the difficulties of chronology may be overcome by some system of cycles, or recurring periods, at which great events have happened. But surely any one who has examined these systems (for there are several) must have noticed that whatever measure be taken, some event falls in at the right time, and is taken as a proof that the system is correct; while what one person thinks to be a cardinal point, another thinks to be of no importance: so that all are made to appear right, though they differ materially, and are destructive of each other.*
(* It may be well to give the reader an illustration: "The Temple," says Mr. H. Browne, in his "Ordo Saeclorum," p. 409, "we know was a type of Christ’s body. The day on which He came to it, cleansing it, and declaring the sentence of its reprobation, was the Sunday or Monday before the Crucifixion, 13th or 14th of March, A.D. 29. The Temple began to be built on the 20th April, 1013 B.C. From the one of these days to the other are 1041 Julian years minus 38 days, or 1040.89 years, which is the square of 32.262, or 32 years, 96 days, which is precisely the period from Christ’s nativity to that visitation of the Temple. In other words, the period from the foundation of the Temple to the day of its visitation is precisely the square of the period from the Nativity to that same day." "The sacerdotal cycle was completed, and had just begun afresh when the fatal firebrand was cast upon the Temple. From the Sabbath preceding the Passion to that day are 15,114 -16 days = 15,120 days; 1:e., precisely ninety complete cycles (90 X 168)." The italics are the author’s own. After a great many similar calculations, the writer sums up with the conviction that such coincidences cannot be merely fortuitous, but that they raise what otherwise was probability into moral certainty. But this is precisely what each writer thinks of his own system, though, alas, perhaps no one else can see therein much else but imagination and invention.) The great danger of anything of the sort is, that if I have a system I am nearly sure to judge of Scripture by my cycles, instead of judging my cycles by Scripture. For instance, the LXX. and the Hebrew differ; and I want to know which is right. I am nearly sure to say that that is right which agrees with my cycles. This would be judging of Scripture by my system, and is surely false in principle.
Further, we do not find any such system of regular periods even in nature. The sun and moon are for days and years (Genesis 1:14), and yet a sidereal month (the revolution of the moon) is 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11.5 seconds; and the average time from a new moon to a new moon is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2’9 seconds; and a year (the revolution of the earth round the sun) is 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, 9.6 seconds: all very irregular, as man might think, and yet we are sure that in wisdom God made all His works (Psalms 104:24). It may be that this apparent irregularity was the result of the curse for man’s sin ("for the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now," Romans 8:22); but if it was, all the rest would also be involved in the curse.
So, by picking out the births of leading men, or by taking great leading events, we have been unable to discover that they took place according to any regular succession of periods.
It is God’s Word, then, that we approach: not to call it in question, but to understand it; and "the meek will He guide in judgment" (Psalms 25:9).