WBC-02-Chronology in General
Chronology in General THE RECEIVED CHRONOLOGY, HOW ARRIVED AT;
THE WORK OF VARIOUS CHRONOLOGERS;
SPECIAL FEATURES OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY
We have seen that the Bible, at its very beginning, sets forth chronological information in the most definite and precise terms, and that it dates its entire scheme of chronology from the creation of the human race. In the greatest contrast with this is the fact that, in the meagre and fragmentary literary remains of ancient times, apart from the Bible, the statements respecting chronology are vague, scanty, confused, and, for practical purposes, worthless. For example, Porphyry, an opponent of Christianity, writing in the third century after Christ, quotes from an alleged history by Sanchroniathon, supposed to have been a contemporary of Gideon. Only a few fragments of the supposed writings of Sanchroniathon have been preserved; and those fragments are not parts of the originals but have been preserved only through the medium of quotations by other writers (as Eusebius), which, even if authentic, are valueless for purposes of chronology.
Fragments also remain of the writing of Berosus of Babylon (fourth century B. C.), and of Manetho, a learned Egyptian priest (third century B. C.). But the original writings have been lost; the portions quoted by later writers are, to say the least, of doubtful value; and the information they contain, even were it trustworthy, is very incomplete. This is in the greatest possible contrast with the writings of Moses, whereof we have the original books complete. These antedate Berosus and Manetho by many centuries, and the chronological statements therein are most definite and precise.
It is only when we come to Ptolemy, in the second century after Christ, that we find anything, apart from the Bible, which could serve as the basis for a system of chronology. Ptolemy (whose full name was Claudius Ptolemaeus) was an Egyptian of great learning and genius. He is famous as the author of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy, which was universally accepted by men of science until supplanted by the System of Copernicus, devised in the 16th century, and improved later on by Sir Isaac Newton.
Ptolemy has left on record a Canon or list of Persian Kings from Cyrus to Alexander the Great of Macedon. Upon this canon all modern chronologists have built their systems, and this for the simple reason that there is nothing else, apart from the Bible, for them to build on. But Ptolemy is not a contemporary historian, for he lived about seven hundred years after the reign of Cyrus; nor does he refer to any contemporary historical records as authority for his statements. All we have is a bare list of the names of supposed Persian kings, with the number of the years each is supposed to have lived. Not only does Ptolemy lack corroboration in respect to his chronological statements, but he is contradicted by the writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian, who lived a century earlier than Ptolemy; and also by the Persian traditions preserved by Fidusi; and by the Jewish National traditions preserved in the Sedar Olam. Josephus was a very learned man. He lived much closer than Ptolemy, both to the Persian era, and to the Persian territory; and he would most likely have known of any authentic records of that era and region, if any existed in that day.
But, most important of all, the canon of Ptolemy is in conflict with the chronology of the Old Testament, in the light of which it appears that Ptolemy makes the duration of the Persian Empire more than eighty years too long. This is positive and decisive proof of the erroneous and hence untrustworthy character of the canon of Ptolemy.
It is important to notice that, if the writings of Ptolemy had not existed, there would be no profane chronology worthy of any consideration at all prior to Alexander the Great; "nor would it have been possible," says Dr. Anstey, "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 instance before the dissolution of the Persian Empire in the first year of Alexander the Great. Ptolemy had no means of determining the chronology of this period, so he made the best use of the materials he had, and contrived to make a chronology. *** It is contradicted (1) by the national traditions of Persia, (2) by the national traditions of the Jews, (3) by the testimony of Josephus, (4) and by conflicting evidence of well-authenticated events, which makes 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 the Ptolemaic chronology remains to this day. There is one, and only one alternative. We have to choose between the Heathen Astronomer and the Hebrew Prophet (pp. 19, 20).
We shall have occasion to refer again to this important branch of our subject. At present our purpose is merely to show how favourably, from every point of view, the Bible compares with all other sources as the basis for a chronology of the centuries before Christ. Indeed, it is so far superior to all other sources combined, that there is no comparison between it and them. The Bible is, as we have seen, the only contemporary historical writing, and the only one that even purports to give definite and precise chronological information. For the believer, moreover, it has a far higher claim to implicit confidence, in that it is the inspired Word of God, Who has been pleased to give a complete count of the years from the time the first Adam was created, to the time the last Adam was "cut off." The Received Chronology The chronological knowledge of most Bible readers does not extend beyond the dates which appear at the top of the marginal columns of some of the more expensive editions of the Bible. How those dates were determined they do not know; and it is beyond their power to verify them. As there given they do not begin at the beginning and count forward in the ordinary way, but they begin at the Christian era and count backward, so many years before Christ ("B. C."). This is very confusing. The writer has never to this day been able to adjust his mind to the unnatural operation of counting time backward. But the most serious objection to the method lies in this: The first three thousand years and more of Bible history can be reckoned with accuracy, because the Scripture gives full and clear information as to the count of years; and inasmuch as there are no other sources of information whatever, there is, and can be, no conflict of "authorities." As to that long period, one must either accept the chronological information given in the Bible, or do without; for there is none other. If, therefore, the chronological reckoning in our Bibles began at the beginning, and proceeded forwardly, i.e. from past to future, we should be sure at least of every date down to the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. But from their days onward to the birth of Christ, confusion and uncertainty exist as a consequence of the acceptance of the unreliable chronology of Ptolemy in preference to that of Daniel; which unhappy choice of our chronologers not only invalidates the chronology of the last 500 years of the Old Testament era, but it also, through the necessary consequence of the strange device of counting the years of that era backward, invalidates the entire chronological scheme, making all the dates erroneous. The Chronological Work of Bishop Ussher The received chronology owes its existence very largely, if not mainly, to the great labours of James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, who was born in Dublin, A. D. 1581. He was a man of conspicuous ability, and a profound scholar. "He constructed," says Anstey, "a system of chronology which has held its own to this day." His system, however, has been revised and amended by others, as by Bishop Lloyd, who published in 1701 an edition of the Bible, which was the first Bible having marginal dates. No improvement over Lloyd’s chronology appears to have been made until about 1850, when the subject was taken up by Henry Fynes Clinton, who, Anstey says, "is perhaps the ablest, the soundest, and the most complete and satisfactory of all our modem chronologers." But he, like his predecessors, adopts the figures of the canon of Ptolemy, instead of those of the Book of Daniel.
Bible Chronology Compared with that of Other Ancient Literature
Chronology is, as we have seen, a prominent feature of the Book of Genesis, especially of its early chapters, concerning which Anstey says:
"The more carefully those chapters are studied, and the more carefully they are compared with the mythical and legendary accounts of the origins of the race in other literatures, the more evident will be the striking contrast between them. One cannot read those chapters aright without being struck with the unique grandeur and sublimity of their language, and filled with wonder and amazement at the marvel and glory of their message and content.
ANo one can place them side by side with the mythical accounts of other religions without being struck with the incomparable distinction, which lifts them out of the class and category of all other writings, and proclaims them as being of another origin, and of another kind. And the one palpable difference between those chapters and all other forms of religious literature is the fact of their objective historical character. The religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt and Persia, of India and the East, did not even postulate a historical basis. The mythical period of the Greeks, though similar in form, was distinct in kind from the historic. The objective reality of the scenes and events described as belonging to each period was not even conceived of as belonging to the same order, or as being of the same kind. It is quite otherwise with the religion of the Old Testament. There the doctrine is bound up with the facts; and, moreover, it is so dependent upon them that without them it is null and void. If there is no first Adam there is no second Adam. The facts are the necessary substratum of the truths or doctrines of the Old Testament, precisely as those truths or doctrines are the necessary substratum of the duties that arise out of them. The chronology of the Old Testament is in strongest contrast with that of all other nations. From the creation of Adam to the death of Joseph, the chronology is defined with the utmost precision; and it is only towards the end of the narrative of the Old Testament that doubts, difficulties and uncertainties arise. With all other chronologies the case is exactly the reverse. They have no beginning at all. They emerge from the unknown; and their earliest dates are the haziest and most uncertain, instead of being the clearest and most sure. If the trustworthiness of testimony and the canons of credibility are accepted in this case, the early chapters of Genesis will answer every legitimate test that can be applied to the determination of their genuine historical character."
Bible Chronology is Intimately Associated with One Definite Subject
It is a fact of great significance that the count of years, so carefully preserved in the Bible, is bound up closely with one definite subject, namely, with the line of descent along which the promised Redeemer was to come. The details of this peculiarity of Bible chronology, which we propose to discuss later on, are worthy of our most careful attention; for it invests the subject with special interest. It is as if the Author of the Holy Scriptures would have us take notice of the fact that, in the long process of the unfolding of years and centuries and eras of time, there is only one line of succession of persons and events which is of importance in His eyes, and that is the line which was to lead to the coming into the world of the Divine Redeemer. Let it be realized that, starting with Adam, and following the ever widening circles, from generation to generation, of his rapidly multiplying offspring, there were countless millions of directions which any selected chronological and genealogical line might have taken. It is, therefore, to be reckoned among the clearest evidences of Divine superintendence in the writing of the Scriptures that the one line, to which alone dates are unfailingly attached, is that which led finally "unto the Messiah, the Prince" (Daniel 9:25).
It is well worth while to dwell further upon this immensely significant fact, because of the proof it affords of the inspiration of the Bible. Let it be observed then that the chronological table of Genesis 5 goes no further than the flood; and that the table of Genesis 11 stops abruptly at Abraham; and that neither in Genesis, nor in any Book of Moses, nor indeed in any of the Old Testament, is there any indication of God’s reason for counting the years along this particular line only; nor was any indication given that the line of dated events was to be continued any further; nor was there any indication as to where that line was to lead. The purpose of God in all this comes not into view until the Bible is completed by the addition of the New Testament Scriptures, in the light of which (particularly of the genealogical tables of Matthew 1 and Luke 3) that purpose may be clearly seen. Here then is proof of the most convincing sort that He Who alone sees the end from the beginning is the Author of the Books of Moses, and of all the later Books of the Old Testament, through which runs this marvellous chronological line. For the Old Testament concerns itself, from beginning to end, with but one subject, namely, the ordering of the historical and other events which were to lead to the coming of the Redeemer. All other matters of an historical nature which are found recorded in it are seen to be in some way connected with the main subject. That is never lost sight of. And it is a most impressive fact that, although the inspired history of the Jewish people came to an end four hundred years before the birth of Christ, yet God saw to it that, ere the last of the inspired writers laid down his pen, a chronological line had been thrown out into the future, by means of "the sure word of prophecy," whereby to span that wide chasm of four centuries, and to reach "unto the Messiah." Moreover, the last sentences of the Old Testament leave its readers looking forward to one of whom Jehovah said: "Behold, I will send My messenger before My face, and he shall prepare My way before Me. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (Malachi 3:1; Malachi 4:5-6).
Strong as is the proof set forth above that the chronology of the Bible had from its very beginning a special purpose known only to its Author, that proof is made even stronger by the fact that, when other lines of descent are given, there is no chronology connected with them. Thus, the very first table of descent is that of Adam’s eldest son Cain (Genesis 4:17-24). It has no dates. Whereas, in the table of Seth’s line, in the very next chapter, the years are given with such regularity, and with such precautions against error, as to show that the chronology was the important thing in the mind of the Author. So, likewise, though the descendants of Japheth and of Ham are given in Genesis 10 (and given before those of Shem) yet there is not so much as one chronological fact set forth in connection with their names. When, however, in the very next chapter, the chosen line which leads eventually to Christ is taken up again (the line of Shem) we read:
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood; And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat Sons and daughters. And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah; and Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years"; and so on to Abraham, without a single omission of the chronological data, pertinent to the Divine purpose, in the connected count of years.
Even when we come to the genealogy of such important personages as Moses and Aaron (Exodus 6:16-26) there is no chronology, that is to say, the father’s age at the birth of that particular son through whom the line was to be continued is not stated. Moses was in some way given to know that the chronology of his own line (though personal pride would have prompted him to exalt it) was of no importance in the records he was writing.
Thus we arrive at the remarkable fact that, for the first two thousand years of the history of the human race, that is to say, from Adam to Abraham, there exists a record of an unbroken line of descent, and of one only, in which line the chronology is accurately preserved and safeguarded from error, by the simple expedient of giving the father’s age, in each generation, when that particular son was born, through whom the line was to be continued, the father’s age at the birth of others of his sons being never given. This striking peculiarity is the more remarkable when it is further noted that, so far as appears, it was not the oldest son that was chosen in any instance. For Seth was not the oldest son of Adam, nor Shem of Noah, nor Abram of Terah, nor Isaac of Abraham, nor Jacob of Isaac, nor Judah of Jacob, nor David of Jesse. As to the others named in the line of descent of Christ, it is not stated whether they were, or were not, the oldest of their respective generations. Evidently, however, primogeniture did not enter into the matter at all. This is very remarkable, particularly in view of the importance given by the Hebrews to the firstborn (Genesis 49:3).
During the period of the Kings of Israel and Judah the line from father to son passed through the successive Kings of Judah, from David to Jehoiachin. During this period the chronology is preserved by the given length of the reigns of the successive kings. A Connecting Link with Secular Chronology In Jeremiah 25:1 is found a statement which constitutes a perfect connecting link between sacred and profane chronology. This is the statement: "The fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar." At this point of time God was preparing to bring in the era of Gentile dominion, "the times of the Gentiles"; for Nebuchadnezzar was the first of the God-appointed rulers of the world, "the powers that be," which are "ordained of God," and who are to exercise dominion until "the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound his trumpet," at which time "the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ" (Revelation 10:7; Revelation 11:15). It is very significant therefore, that, when the throne of David, as an earthly thing, was about to be cast down to the ground (Psalms 89:39), and the sceptre of earthly dominion was about to pass to the Gentiles, God caused the chronology of the holy people to be connected by an "infallible link" with the first year of the first Gentile ruler.
Concerning this remarkable fact Anstey says:
"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."
We see then that the Bible is pre-eminently a book of chronology; but its chronology is of a very exceptional sort. For chronology in general it shows no regard whatever; but for one particular line it manifests the utmost solicitude. That single chronological line delineates the central theme of the entire Scripture. All the recorded events of the whole Bible cluster around it; for the sacred records have to do only with persons and incidents which are more or less closely associated with that line. In view of all this, and especially of the supremely important fact that the line referred to leads to Christ, and stops there, the study of Bible chronology should be of the deepest interest to all His people.